Greggman.com » opinions

Orange County is not White

gman — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:11:52 +0000

Anytime you hear someone say Orange County is White bread or some other thing claiming it’s scared of non-whites know that you are listening to a LIAR

O.C. is less white than San Francisco. O.C. is only 27% white. Even Irvine which gets dissed all the time as being white only is 41% white.

How much longer will most unskilled jobs exist?

gman — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:58:25 +0000

This is totally off the wall but a link on Hacker News about leaving at 5pm and a response to that link got me wondering, just how much longer will most unskilled jobs continue to exist.

For example, how much longer is the job of convenience store clerk even going to exist? Already most major supermarkets have self-serve checkout lines. Could a convenience store just have self service checkout? Of course there is the issue of security. Who’s to prevent people from just walking out with the goods. But let’s go a little further.

Google’s got self driving cars. How long till all shipping is done by A.I? There have been for a long time robot run warehouses. How long until the entire supply chain for retail goods is robot assembles, robot delivers, robot stocks selves at store, self checkout. For that matter, robot delivers to my door. Why even have the convenience store in the first place where from my phone I can ask a robot car to deliver right where I am.

I realize that it’s probably a long way off but you never know. I grew up before ATM machines when I’d be with my mom every time she had to go to the bank to get some cash to go shopping. When was the last time you went to a teller? I grew up when going to a gas station meant an attendant came and filed up your tank. Unless you live in Oregon, when was the last time you even talked to an attendant at a gas station? I drive up, put in my card, fill it up, and leave. No interaction with any attendants. Video stores are mostly gone. Music stores are gone. Bookstores, at least the chains, are dying. I love them but that’s beside the point. Things are changing. People get their news from the net. They get their books either through Amazon or on their Kindle. India will have $40 tablets if they don’t already so this isn’t a rich people thing.

I grew up before printers were common when typewriters were the norm. Then came low-res dot matrix printers and laser printers in 1985 where $4000+. Now a color printer is $50 and if you stick in nice paper it will print beautiful full color photos. Looking at 3d printers it only seems a few years away until you’ll be able to print quite a few things at home. While I suspect it will be a long time before you can print an iPad it doesn’t seem that far off until you can print most kitchen utensils, most non-soft Ikea like furniture, most flatware, tableware, bottles, containers, cabinets, bookshelves, chair, phone covers, etc.. And who knows, if they can print something as complex as human organs maybe printing computers is not that far off.

I guess the point is BIG CHANGE IS COMING. It will be exciting think about all the problems and possibilities.

Open-Mindedness

gman — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 06:34:52 +0000

Mind Over Money

gman — Sat, 08 May 2010 21:45:39 +0000

I started watching the Nova episode called Mind Over Money. I generally like Nova but this episode was far below their normal standards.

The episode is supposed to be about the idea that traditional economists base their calculations on “rational people”. They claim stuff like people are supposedly perfectly rational when it comes to money and will never pay more for something than it’s actually worth. They then go on to give several massively convoluted examples. They say things like “people take their the interest rate of their retirement plan into account on every purchase” or something like that. They’re basically claiming things no economist has ever claimed.

The idea isn’t that people think of those things directly. It’s that those things, somewhere, in the back of their mind, influence their behavior so that the average behavior matches what it would as if they had made those kinds of calculations. That’s no different than me thinking I’m saving for a house and therefore maybe I shouldn’t buy that $800 bag today (not that I’d personally ever buy a $800 bag but I certainly know lots of young women that would). I may or may not have set a budget for myself but most people know their limits and those influence how much they are willing to spend for any given thing.

Nova starts by showing this experiment where people are bidding on a $20 bill. They claim the only rational thing to do is bid no more than $20 and then expect you to be shocked when the highest bid is $28.

The first thing they didn’t take into account is the fact that most people don’t want to be a loser and also that most people want to winners. So, paying more than $20 for a $20 *IN AN AUCTION* can just mean that the people bidding are putting a dollar value being the winner and not being the loser.

This is no different than deciding to take a cab home when you could take the bus or walk. It’s not un-rational to pay $7 for a cab when the bus would be $2 or walking would be free. You’re paying for the convenience and that happens to be worth the cost of the cab to you. For some people that convenience isn’t worth the price of the cab. For others it is. Just like for some people paying a few dollars more than $20 for a $20 bill is worth it to feel like winner.

The second problem is the experiment rules, which they glossed over, were that the second highest bidder also had to pay. That means if you bid $19 and someone bids $20, if you don’t raise the bid then you pay $19 for nothing while he pays $20 for $20. That means you lose $19 and he loses nothing. Obviously you’re going raise the bid at that point. The whole thing changes from trying to bid for $20 to trying pay the smallest penalty for losing. If the bid is $25 to $24 then the guy who is bidding $24 will be out $24 if he doesn’t raise. The guy at $25 is only out $5. So the guy at $24 is obviously going to raise.

How can Nova be this stupid to use this experiment and claim that it shows people being irrational when they are being perfectly rational.

A few minutes later they show another experiment where people are asked if they would take $100 in a year or $102 in a year plus 1 day. Everyone picks $102. They then change the question to $100 today to $102 tomorrow and everyone picks $100 today. Since in either case the different is just a day they try to claim this is irrational but it’s not. It’s perfectly rational.

There are 2 factors at play. In the first case, the difference between waiting 365 days vs 366 days is 1/366. If you already have to wait 365 days, adding 1 day is not much. In second case, get $100 right now or $102 tomorrow, any waiting is infinitely more than no waiting. Think of it this way. If you only have $10 and something costs $5 that’s a huge difference than if you have $1000 and something costs $5. In the first case you have to give up 1/2 your money. In the second you only give up 1/2 a percent. Even though they are both $5 purchase their’s a huge difference the situations.

The second issue is one of risk. If you’re not going to give me the $100 for 365 vs 366 days, the risk I’ll actually get the money is about the same. I have no idea if you or I will be around, alive or trustworthy so it really doesn’t matter if it’s 365 days from now or 366 days from now. But if you offer me $100 now vs $102 tomorrow, I know if you give it to me now it’s mine and I don’t know that you won’t die by tomorrow or won’t show up tomorrow or that I will be able to make it tomorrow so it’s certainly rational to take the $100 now at zero risk than $102 tomorrow at some risk.

Again, I can’t believe Nova used such a bad and false example to support their claims.

Some of the other experiments are better. The ones about anchors do make sense. A good example of that in the real world is how marketers will bracket things. If you go to a store to buy say some kitchen appliance, like say a blender. You go in and there are 3 blenders. A $50 blender, a $100 blender and a $200 blender. Often the truth is that no one ever buys the $200 blender. It’s sole purpose is to *bracket* the prices so that you’ll think, hmmm, I don’t want to be cheap and get the cheapest one and $200 is too much so I’ll get the $100 one. In reality the $50 one is probably fine but seeing the $200 one makes you comfortable buying the $100 one.

They show yet another experiment where people are asked to value a mug and then are given one for free. An hour later they are asked how much they’d sell the mug for and they average 50% more than they said it was worth earlier. The show claims this is irrational. It’s not irrational. Once they received the mug most of them will start thinking of how and when they are going to use it. To give up the mug now means not only the cost of the mug but also the cost of replacing the mug for the uses they are or were expecting to use it for. That’s what’s reflected in the higher selling price. If I have the mug and I’m thinking I’m going to use it to carry my coffee on my commute tomorrow then if I sell it I’m going to have to drive to some store to get a replacement or else change my plans. That added effort accounts for the difference and is completely rational.

The show was full of ridiculous claims about rational markets, setting up false dichotomies and making false claims similar to the false conclusions of the experiments above. They seemed to be trying to say that people were irrational and that caused the 2008 bubble and crash. But it didn’t take irrational thinking to cause those events. People were doing what’s rationally in their own best interest. If everyone rationally thought the market was going to crash they wouldn’t have invested. And once it did crash they rationally attempted to take their money out before it was lost.

The show also seems to be claiming that rational markets always keep prices at exactly the *correct* price all the time. No one, other than Nova, has ever claimed this. The claim is that rational markets correct themselves which is exactly what happened. The bubble was burst. That’s the correction. Hello? What don’t they get?

Like a Micheal Moore film, they take comments out of context. For example they show one defender of the rational markets theory saying that “the observation that people yield to emotions means nothing and if you’re going to just say that markets went up because there was a wave of emotion you’ve got nothing. That doesn’t tell us anything about what circumstances are likely to make markets go up. Now that would not be a scientific theory.” They seems to be trying to use this as evidence that rationalist are ignoring reality. Again this is false. The guy is not saying that emotions don’t enter into it. He’s saying what we need to know is what what circumstances effect the market. So for example the death of Princess Di might have effected the market. Why, because people were sad and not shopping. But it doesn’t matter that the process is because of emotion. What matters is that famous and loved people dying effect the market whether or not it’s because of emotion or something else.

It generally seemed like a big piece of propaganda instead of the usual science that Nova is known for. That’s really sad. Nova should stick to science. Let Frontline offer the propaganda.

WTF is up with the Census?

gman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:28:34 +0000

This REALLY EFFING pisses me off. The census is pretty clearly designed to further someone’s personal agenda and not to actually gather data. See below.

Questions:

Why are Latinos separated out as a race?
Why are Latinos merged with White in question 9?
Why are there only 14 races listed when there are clearly many more
What makes those 14 races special?
Why are all European and Eastern Asian races grouped into White but certain Asian races are separated? I know some Asians will say because they hate each other or at have history with each other but if that’s the argument maybe you should consider the history of white races attacking, destroying and ruling each other.

It seems to me the only *correct* way to do this would be just have 10 blank lines as in

Computers can figure out mis-spellings if they are even statistically significant. That census would actually give useful data. The real census above does not. It’s been designed purposely to get the result someone wants to further their political agenda, not to find out the true make up of the population. That really pisses me off.

I don’t know how to get this changed. Of course it’s too late for 2010 unless there is some kind of class action lawsuit but we need to get this shit fixed. Either that or drop the damn race questions altogether.

The Death of Radio

gman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:00:00 +0000

This might be obvious and maybe others have posted this but it’s clear to me radio will be struggling to stay alive within 10 years just like newspaper is today.

It’s already dead for me. Why? Because I bought an iPhone last year. Since that time, on the way to and from work I listen almost exclusively to either podcasts (This American Life, Radiolab, Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History) or streaming music (Pandora, Shoutcast). I get a good enough connection that I can stream all the way to and from work.

If you ever read this article about the death of newspapers, it points out that the only reason newspapers exist is because getting the news out was expensive. Someone with enough money needed to pay for a very expensive printing press and also organize distributing the printed newspaper (trucks and paper boys). Before the internet that was how the news got distributed because it was basically the only way. Now though, anyone can post news and everyone in the world can read it. Of course there are the issues of good news and good reporting but the main barrier, the reason the newspaper was special, the expense of printing and distributing the news, has gone away.

Well, the same thing is happening in radio. I live in San Francisco now and our local NPR radio station is KQED. Like newspapers they exist in large part because until relatively recently they were the most efficient way to get certain programs to people in this area. That has changed though. I don’t need KQED to give me This American Life, I can get it directly from the source. I don’t need KQED to give me Radiolab, I can get that from the source. I don’t need KQED to give me any program that is not locally produced which is probably over 50% of their content.

The same can be argued for music radio. It used to be the way to hear new music was to turn on the radio. Each radio station brought that new music to their local area because only they had the funding to run a broadcasting station and hire DJs. Well, I don’t need that anymore, I can get exposed to new music through thousands of internet stations on Shoutcast, Pandora, Last FM, and similar systems, anyone who chooses to can start a radio station.

I understand that this death of radio isn’t going to happen today but given that I personally was able to make the switch to internet radio even in my car 100% today, it’s only a matter of time before the average person follows suit. In 1995 when mp3s first game out no one would have guessed 10 years later CDs would be dead and the music industry struggling to stay relevant. Today, pretty much every one has an mp3 player. This year I turned off my radio and started listening though my iPhone. My guess is within 10 years, either through iPhone, iPod or other cell phones or through car stereos or car navigation systems supporting internet directly radio will be on it’s death bed.

Subtle Racism?

gman — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:00:00 +0000

I’m sure this is going to come off to many as something to do about nothing and it certainly didn’t offend me personally but….

I was at a food court the other day. Different sections of the food court had labels. There was the “Green” section which was the salad area, there was a “Drinks” section and a “Vegetarian” section for vegetarian friendly prepared foods. There was one area labeled “Home Cooking” and another labeled “International”. The “home cooking” area had various chicken and beef dishes and things like string beans, zucchini, mashed potatoes. The international section had Chinese and Indian foods.

I really didn’t think anything of it but then later this thought just wandered into my head. Isn’t labeling one “home cooking” and the other “international” a subtle way of saying that if you grew up eating the kinds of foods seen at the “home cooking” station that you’re a *real American* and if you grew up eating the kinds of foods seen at the “international” station you’re a foreigner?

It might seem like nothing but is it really? I’ve often heard white or black looking Americans talk to Asian looking Americans as though they aren’t really American. Whether they actually think that or not while they are saying it I have no idea but it crosses my mind, hey, that person IS an American, quit saying things that suggest they are not.

Who says Rice or Noodles or Fish or Curry for dinner is not “home cooking”? I grew up with rice every night, does that mean I wasn’t eating home cooking? Does it mean I’m not really American?

Anyway, I’m sure some people will get this and others will think it’s just a stupid non-issue but the more I thought about it the more I thought it’s one of those things that when you *get it* you’ll get a slightly better understanding of what people that get affected by this kind of stuff are really dealing with and how without thinking people often subtly exclude others.

IP rights discussion

gman — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:54:00 +0000

Just hoping to get some other points of view.

The Slashdot crowd and similar people like to call IP Imaginary Property to try to point out that there is no such thing and therefore it shouldn’t be treated like property. They like to point out that copying some music or a movie or software isn’t like stealing because the person who it was copied from has not lost their original

Well, playing devil’s advocate…

Money is effectively a fiction. It’s just a number in a computer database. When your employer pays you they don’t send physical money to the bank. They just tell the bank to subtract from their account number and add to your account number. It’s all virtual.

The point I’m trying to make is, we treat money exactly like the content creators wish we would treat IP. Money is virtual. I could adjust those numbers in the bank’s computer all I want. I could add more. It only works because we all agree it would be a bad thing if it didn’t work like that. We all agree (or I think we all agree) that duplicating money would be bad even though in actuality no one would lose any money if we allowed duplication.

So, why should IP be different? Why is it not okay to copy money but it IS okay to copy IP? Both money and IP represent labor…

I can think of a few differences. You can duplicate IP forever with no ill effects to anyone but possibly the creators or the people that funded them where as duplicating money forever would effect everyone. That’s a valid distinction but it doesn’t quite enough for the difference in thinking.

I guess my main point is it seems like most people approach it in the sense that IP is not like real property and copying is not stealing. It’s almost as though they see this ability to copy as something new and the push to stop the copying is something new. I think the money analogy points out that it’s not something new. We all agree copying money is bad so there is something that is effectively imaginary property that we all agree is bad to copy. I’m not sure we’d call it stealing. I guess we’d all it counterfitting although that doesn’t fit the copying IP stuff unless you try to sell it.

Basically I’m just thinking out loud. If you have some thoughts please share them.

The Parable of the Talents

gman — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:29:00 +0000

I started reading a new book, the Mind of the Market, and so far I’ve only read the first chapter but during that time the parable of the talents came up.

I’m not religious anymore but people bring up stories from the Bible all the time and this particular one has always bothered me.

Matthew 25:
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The standard interpretation of that parable is supposed to be something to the effect of use it or lose it. Use the skills/money that you have and you’ll get more. If you don’t you are wasting them and you’ll lose even what little you have.

That interpretation never made sense to me. It might make sense if each person in the story started out with equal ammounts but they didn’t. Rather I think there are plenty of the interpretations that make more sense.

One might be that you will fail of you don’t have enough skill, money, whatever. A perfect example is the countless stories of businesses or restaurants that fail because they don’t start with enough money. They have just enough money to start their business but not enough to survive on negative income until the business becomes profitable.

Other interpretation which made more sense to me than the standard one was the guy with only 1 unit only had one chance to succeed. The guy with 5 had five chances. Therefore it was EASY for the guy with 5 to risk and hard for the guy with 1 and not fair at all. Examples from the real world, investors know to diversify. They lose money on some investments and gain some on others but they have to have enough to diversity in the first place.

Another example, movie studios lose money on 19 out of 20 movies. The 1 blockbuster a year pays for the other 19. Of course you could say “well, just make the blockbuster then” but unfortunately nobody knows which movie will be good until after they are made. But, if you only had money to make one movie you’d be stupid to try at odds of 1 in 20. If you have money to make 20 movies then your odds go up that you’ll get your investment back significantly.

We talk about the Rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That’s rarely attributed to the poor not trying. Instead it’s usually attributed to the rich having more opportunities. Well, that’s exactly what the parable says to me. Those with more have more chances.

The only counter argument I’ve heard is the guy with 1 unit didn’t even try. That’s true except with so little to start it could be argued it was the reasonable course of action. He knew he’d lose it since he didn’t have enough to even get started so he kept it. In the real world we’d hope he’d do some other work until he had enough to take the risk but in this parable that option was never considered.

Western Culture Sucks

gman — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:29:00 +0000

Coming back to the USA there are some serious cultural differences between the USA and Japan. Some are arguably good. People in the USA are generally more individual. I think that’s good.

On the other hand, something I really hate about the USA (and many other western countries) is there is this attitude that I can only some up as “It’s fun to laugh at other’s expense” or maybe “It feels good to piss on other people”.

Simple examples are vandalism. Why do people key cars? Keying someones car, taking your keys and scratching the paint on their car has no point whatsoever. Most people don’t key the car of someone they know, they just pick some random car and scratch it. Why? What is it about our culture that compels people to do that?

It manifests itself in other ways. Men’s public restrooms are almost always trashed in the USA. Go to theatre, museum, bar and the men’s toilets will be broken, doors pulled off, paper towels all over the floor, coat hangers broken, doors kicked until they are bent and no longer close, seats are covered in urine or any number of other problems. We put up with it and I know I probably assumed it’s just a part of life but it’s not. Not in Japan anyway. The bathrooms in the train station might be stinky but in general I don’t remember any abused toilets in Japan.

What is it about western culture that makes so many people into assholes? Why is it I can’t keep anything in my car when it’s parked in public because someone will bust the window into the car and steal it? We take that for ~~granite~~ granted. We just know it happens and we put our stuff in the trunk. But guess what, it doesn’t happen in Japan. In fact right now in 2007 the newest hot fashion in Tokyo for men is 8 inch long wallets that stick 4-6 inches out of your pocket. In the USA or many other countries that wouldn’t work because it would get stolen but not in Japan.

Want a perfect example of just how much better Japanese culture is in this area? In a 2 or 3 story fast food restaurant here is how it works in Japan. Walk up to the 2nd or 3rd floor and find a table. Leave your purse, sweater and notebook computer on the table. Walk down to the 1st floor and order your food. Come back and your stuff is still there. Is there any other country that would work in? Certainly not any western country I know of.

I’m not saying I’m not guilty of being an asshole. When I was a teen I did my share of prank calls and other more destructive things. Why was that cool? Where did I learn that from? Do kids do that in Japan? My impression is no. Or at least maybe their parents really displine them if they find out and work that feeling out of them.

Another example, I used to be able to laugh at the Jerky Boys. Most of our culture seems to enjoy that. Now through I just find prank calls sad and mean spirited.

Another example is vending machines. You could never have outdoor vending machines in the USA. They’d get abused, robbed and destroyed. In Japan they are everywhere, clean and unabused.

What’s wrong with our culture? If there is any one thing I took away from my 6 years in Japan this is the #1 thing. That all the bullshit we take for ~~granite~~ granted in our culture is not in fact “the way things are” and that we just have to except it. People being assholes in these ways are not just “a part of life”. I know this because I lived somewhere where they didn’t exist for 6 years.