Wednesday, May 9, 2018

The Action Bias

It's long been known that bad investment decisions can be caused by our susceptibility to emotions and cognitive errors. But to really understand these behavioural risks and how to avoid them, it helps to see how they work in different ways. The analyst James Montier once used some research about goalkeepers to do just this, and this is how he put it...

Imagine you're a goalkeeper facing a penalty kick. As the striker hits the ball, is it best to dive left, right or stay in the centre? In research, goalkeepers have been found to dive one way or the other a massive 94 percent of the time. Yet the optimal strategy is to remain unmoved in the middle of the goal.

So why do goalkeepers tend to dive one way or the other? The answer is that faced with a likelihood of conceding a goal, their instinct is to be seen to be doing something to stop it. If the ball flies into the top left or right corner, they'd surely be berated for remaining unmoved. But if they dive the wrong way… well, at least their intentions were good.

This is called action bias, and it manifests itself in different ways. It could be changing queues at a supermarket checkout, taking an alternative route on a congested road or trading shares absent-mindedly. This instinctive desire to take action gives us a sense of control, yet the outcome is likely to be the same or very possibly worse.

by Stockopedia, Seeking Alpha | Read more:
Image: via
[ed. See also: The Mother of All Biases: The Action Bias and the Power of Restraint.]

PF Bently
via:

Varieties of Argumentative Experience

In 2008, Paul Graham wrote How To Disagree Better, ranking arguments on a scale from name-calling to explicitly refuting the other person’s central point.


And that’s why, ever since 2008, Internet arguments have generally been civil and productive.

Graham’s hierarchy is useful for its intended purpose, but it isn’t really a hierarchy of disagreements. It’s a hierarchy of types of response, within a disagreement. Sometimes things are refutations of other people’s points, but the points should never have been made at all, and refuting them doesn’t help. Sometimes it’s unclear how the argument even connects to the sorts of things that in principle could be proven or refuted.

If we were to classify disagreements themselves – talk about what people are doing when they’re even having an argument – I think it would look something like this:


Most people are either meta-debating – debating whether some parties in the debate are violating norms – or they’re just shaming, trying to push one side of the debate outside the bounds of respectability.

If you can get past that level, you end up discussing facts (blue column on the left) and/or philosophizing about how the argument has to fit together before one side is “right” or “wrong” (red column on the right). Either of these can be anywhere from throwing out a one-line claim and adding “Checkmate, atheists” at the end of it, to cooperating with the other person to try to figure out exactly what considerations are relevant and which sources best resolve them.

If you can get past that level, you run into really high-level disagreements about overall moral systems, or which goods are more valuable than others, or what “freedom” means, or stuff like that. These are basically unresolvable with anything less than a lifetime of philosophical work, but they usually allow mutual understanding and respect.

I’m not saying everything fits into this model, or even that most things do. It’s just a way of thinking that I’ve found helpful. More detail on what I mean by each level:

Meta-debate is discussion of the debate itself rather than the ideas being debated. Is one side being hypocritical? Are some of the arguments involved offensive? Is someone being silenced? What biases motivate either side? Is someone ignorant? Is someone a “fanatic”? Are their beliefs a “religion”? Is someone defying a consensus? Who is the underdog? I’ve placed it in a sphinx outside the pyramid to emphasize that it’s not a bad argument for the thing, it’s just an argument about something completely different.

“Gun control proponents are just terrified of guns, and if they had more experience with them their fear would go away.”

“It was wrong for gun control opponents to prevent the CDC from researching gun statistics more thoroughly.”

“Senators who oppose gun control are in the pocket of the NRA.”

“It’s insensitive to start bringing up gun control hours after a mass shooting.”

Sometimes meta-debate can be good, productive, or necessary. For example, I think discussing “the origins of the Trump phenomenon” is interesting and important, and not just an attempt to bulverizing the question of whether Trump is a good president or not. And if you want to maintain discussion norms, sometimes you do have to have discussions about who’s violating them. I even think it can sometimes be helpful to argue about which side is the underdog.

But it’s not the debate, and also it’s much more fun than the debate. It’s an inherently social question, the sort of who’s-high-status and who’s-defecting-against-group-norms questions that we like a little too much. If people have to choose between this and some sort of boring scientific question about when fetuses gain brain function, they’ll choose this every time; given the chance, meta-debate will crowd out everything else.

The other reason it’s in the sphinx is because its proper function is to guard the debate. Sure, you could spend your time writing a long essay about why creationists’ objections to radiocarbon dating are wrong. But the meta-debate is what tells you creationists generally aren’t good debate partners and you shouldn’t get involved.

Social shaming also isn’t an argument. It’s a demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of people who deserve to be heard; to classify them as so repugnant that arguing with them is only dignifying them. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default.

“I can’t believe it’s 2018 and we’re still letting transphobes on this forum.”

“Just another purple-haired SJW snowflake who thinks all disagreement is oppression.”

“Really, do conservatives have any consistent beliefs other than hating black people and wanting the poor to starve?”

“I see we’ve got a Silicon Valley techbro STEMlord autist here.”

Nobody expects this to convince anyone. That’s why I don’t like the term “ad hominem”, which implies that shamers are idiots who are too stupid to realize that calling someone names doesn’t refute their point. That’s not the problem. People who use this strategy know exactly what they’re doing and are often quite successful. The goal is not to convince their opponents, or even to hurt their opponent’s feelings, but to demonstrate social norms to bystanders. If you condescendingly advise people that ad hominem isn’t logically valid, you’re missing the point.

Sometimes the shaming works on a society-wide level. More often, it’s an attempt to claim a certain space, kind of like the intellectual equivalent of a gang sign. If the Jets can graffiti “FUCK THE SHARKS” on a certain bridge, but the Sharks can’t get away with graffiting “NO ACTUALLY FUCK THE JETS” on the same bridge, then almost by definition that bridge is in the Jets’ territory. This is part of the process that creates polarization and echo chambers. If you see an attempt at social shaming and feel triggered, that’s the second-best result from the perspective of the person who put it up. The best result is that you never went into that space at all. This isn’t just about keeping conservatives out of socialist spaces. It’s also about defining what kind of socialist the socialist space is for, and what kind of ideas good socialists are or aren’t allowed to hold.

I think easily 90% of online discussion is of this form right now, including some long and carefully-written thinkpieces with lots of citations. The point isn’t that it literally uses the word “fuck”, the point is that the active ingredient isn’t persuasiveness, it’s the ability to make some people feel like they’re suffering social costs for their opinion. Even really good arguments that are persuasive can be used this way if someone links them on Facebook with “This is why I keep saying Democrats are dumb” underneath it.

This is similar to meta-debate, except that meta-debate can sometimes be cooperative and productive – both Trump supporters and Trump opponents could in theory work together trying to figure out the origins of the “Trump phenomenon” – and that shaming is at least sort of an attempt to resolve the argument, in a sense.

by Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex |  Read more:
Images: SSC

Baldness Cure Could Be Found in an Osteoporosis Drug

A drug originally designed as a treatment for the bone-thinning disease, osteoporosis, is being considered as a possible breakthrough treatment for bald people.

Currently only two drugs — minoxidil and finasteride — are available for treatment of male-pattern balding (androgenetic alopecia). A project by The University of Manchester's Centre for Dermatology Research in England began work by examining an immunosuppressive drug that had long been known to cause hair growth as a side effect.

This drug, Cyclosporine A (CsA), has been commonly used since the 1980s to suppress transplant rejection and autoimmune diseases. The project team discovered that CsA restricts a protein that when otherwise left alone, slows the growth of hair follicles. Hair growth, however, is the least problematic side-effect of CsA, leading project leader, Nathan Hawkshaw, to look for another solution.

After some research, he discovered that a separate compound developed to tackle osteoporosis also suppressed the bald-causing protein in the same manner. Better yet, scientists believe this drug, titled "WAY-316606," can be administered without dramatic side-effects.

The study was published Tuesday in the open access journal PLOS Biology. On release of the report, Hawkshaw said successful experiments were carried out using scalp hair follicles that had been donated by over 40 patients.

"This makes our research clinically very relevant, as many hair research studies only use cell culture," he said.

by David Reid, CNBC |  Read more:
Image:Huseyin Turgut Erkisi | Getty Images
[ed. PLOS Study here.]

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

America Loses Big as Trump Jettisons the Nuclear Deal

“We’re out of the deal. We’re out of the deal.” That was national security advisor John Bolton’s summary of President Donald Trump’s decision over the nuclear agreement with Iran. Over the next six months, the sanctions that the deal waived and revoked will roll back into place. Iran’s response remains to be seen. President Hassan Rouhani stated that Tehran would hold discussions with the remaining parties to the deal on paths forward; if Iran’s national interests are secured, they’ll remain, “but if the nuclear deal turns into a mere document under which Iran’s national interests are not taken into account, then our decision will be clear.” Rouhani also directed Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to be ready to resume “industrial [uranium] enrichment without restriction.” Trump, for his part, said he was “ready, willing, and able” to negotiate “a new and lasting deal.”

Such a deal will be a long time coming, if it comes at all. The restored sanctions will only be fully in place by the midterm elections, and may take longer to bite. The original nuclear deal took years to realize even after the strongest sanctions were put in place. The original sanctions had support from key Iranian trading partners in Europe, and were helped along by then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s severe economic bungling. The broader deal Trump seeks, if talking points circulated by the White House reflect the president’s convictions, will require Iran to make the sorts of steep concessions usually only offered by states defeated in war. The odds are long.

We are giving up a fine bird in the hand for those two in the bush. The deal itself was fairly solid—serious restrictions on Iranian enrichment capacity, uranium stockpiles, enrichment levels, pathways to plutonium, and enrichment methods, coupled with implementation (though not guaranteed ratification) of an Additional Protocol monitoring agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. No state of the 129 with an Additional Protocol has ever acquired nuclear weapons.

The Trump administration had inadvertently made the deal better still with its many months of ambiguity. Iran’s desire to keep America in the deal and the Europeans off America’s side must have had something to do with the sudden and sustained end to Iranian harassment of U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf. American troops have largely been safe from Iranian militia violence in Syria and Iraq, and Iran hasn’t made a serious attempt to retaliate against Israel for repeated strikes on Iranian assets in Syria.

The benefits of Trump’s ambiguity stood to grow. There are many points of friction between America and Iran these days, and many are getting worse. Iran-friendly militias in Iraq have been warning for months that they might take action against America’s presence there now that ISIS is on the ropes. It’s a similar story for U.S. troops in Syria. Iran’s puppet Hezbollah had a strong showing in Lebanon’s elections last weekend; Iran’s friends in Iraq have their turn at the polls this weekend. Israel’s northeastern frontier is poised to explode—shortly before Trump’s speech, residents of the Golan were warned to prepare bomb shelters due to unusual Iranian movements. The loss of ambiguity may make war there more likely.

Trump’s decision makes a direct U.S.-Iranian war more likely, too. Iran now has less to lose in its relations with America, and less incentive to avoid negative and inflammatory actions that could contribute to crises. If the deal continues to fall apart and Iran resumes significant uranium enrichment, the pressure will grow on the United States and Israel to attempt to destroy the nuclear program. In the tense days before the last round of negotiations began in earnest, U.S. Central Command analysts were reportedly even watching moon phases in an attempt to anticipate the night of an imminent Israeli strike. Improvements in Iran’s defenses and options against Israel since then have made it more likely that the task would instead fall to America. And a strike, mind you, might only delay the Iranian nuclear program, meaning later strikes could follow—a process Israeli analysts describe as “mowing the lawn.” The strongest criticism of the nuclear deal had been that it only delayed an Iranian bomb. But unlike strikes, the deal didn’t kill anyone, cost anything, or risk a wider war.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal wasn’t his only option for taking action against it. He could have stayed in without sitting on his hands. A deep report by Washington Institute Iran policy wizard Patrick Clawson highlighted the many points of presidential discretion in the array of sanctions laws that apply to Iran. (...)

Where will things go from here? Watch Brussels. Henry Kissinger in his Arab-Israeli diplomacy days used to say that there could be “no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria.” In nuclear talks with Iran, there can be no decisive impact without Europe, and no settlement without America. Europe is the pivot player. Iran wants to do business with Europe; even with the nuclear deal, much U.S. business with Iran was illegal. Trump will either need to get Europe on board with new sanctions that hurt European businesses, or he will need to target European companies himself, creating a serious diplomatic crisis. (The middle path, sanctioning Iran unilaterally while letting Europe slide, would significantly reduce pressure on Tehran.) Europe so far has shown no appetite for putting fresh pressure on Iran. And all this, again, is for the chance of creating enough leverage to begin broader negotiations, and comes at real technical and strategic cost. One thing alone is sure: Iran’s main strategic goal on the nuclear issue has been achieved. America and Europe are split, and the UN sanctions are off. Now Tehran can choose whether it would like an enriched cherry on top.

by John Allen Gay, The American Conservative | Read more:
Image: via:
[ed. I'm sure N. Korea is viewing this with interest. See also: The Stupidity of Reneging on the Nuclear Deal]

The Drug Revolution That No One Can Stop

Three Red Sweaters


Grainy 8mm and 16mm film now tends to evoke nostalgia but, in the decades before digital cameras, home movies were the only immediate way to visually document the present. The US filmmaker Martha Gregory makes wonderful use of her family’s trove of home movies, shot by her grandfather Charles from the 1950s to the 1970s, to craft her short documentary Three Red Sweaters and ask what happens to memories when we document our lives. Charles’s amateur filmmaking was mostly for his own enjoyment – and occasionally a means of social avoidance – but his sharp eye yielded lovely images of daily life, family vacations and children growing up.

[ed. This was my childhood.]

Chris Thile & Brad Mehldau

Monday, May 7, 2018

RealSelf: The TripAdvisor of Boob Jobs and Botox

Very few people these days will buy beauty products, go to a restaurant, or travel without checking online forums like Makeup Alley, Yelp, or TripAdvisor. So why would you think about getting Botox or a boob job without doing a little research first? That’s the premise behind RealSelf, an online community for cosmetic procedures that launched in 2006.

The company just landed $40 million in funding. Following an investment of $2 million in the first two years, this round is one sign that noninvasive cosmetic procedures and plastic surgery are having a moment. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 17.5 million surgical and minimally invasive (meaning things like injections and lasers) procedures were performed in the US, a 2 percent increase compared to 2016. More than 7.2 million of these were Botox injections. But prices and individual experiences can vary wildly, so consumers get real talk, and pictures, at RealSelf.

The TripAdvisor of cosmetic procedures

RealSelf is free for users and features reviews of every procedure you can imagine — and some you probably can’t — written by real people. While there are reviews of specific doctors, RealSelf is more focused on procedures in general. The Yelp equivalent would be like reviewing how much you liked your spaghetti rather than how great you thought Carmine’s was.

It also provides a “worth it” rating analogous to Amazon’s star ratings. Many procedures score in the high 80s and 90s. For example, a “mommy makeover” (usually a breast lift plus a tummy tuck) has been deemed 97 percent worth it; Fraxel, a popular facial laser treatment, is only 69 percent worth it, per users.

The company says the five most researched surgical procedures on the site are breast enhancement, tummy tuck, butt enhancement, nose jobs, and liposuction. The most researched noninvasive procedures are nonsurgical fat reduction, fillers, orthodontics, Botox-like treatments, and facial lasers.

When searching for a procedure, users have the option of reading reviews, scrolling through pictures, reading through a Q&A section, watching videos, chatting in a Reddit-like forum, reading information articles, and searching for doctors and pricing. It’s part shopping guide, part therapy session. (...)

Pricing and doctor listings on the site are also a big deal. Each procedure lists an average price, as well as price ranges based on geography. Conversations and advice from users on how they financed procedures also abound, since they can run into the tens of thousands of dollars and are rarely covered by insurance.

While there is a stripped-down free listing available for doctors and practices, RealSelf charges anywhere from $200 a month to about $5,000 a month for doctors to advertise on the site. (The higher range applies to “really competitive markets where there’s a lot of audience,” like New York or Los Angeles.)

The site makes sure that potential consumers see doctors who provide services they’re shopping for, but RealSelf also requires that the doctors maintain a positive consumer rating on the site and actively engage with the community. Doctors aren’t always happy about the transparency of procedure pricing on the site, though.

“[Doctors] think that it’s not information that should be shared,” Seery says. “We just politely disagree and believe that it’s important, as a purchase out of your own pocket, that you have greater insight into pricing information. And also: Why does it cost what it does?” 

by Cheryl Wischhover, Racked | Read more:
Image: Paul Hakimata/Getty Images/EyeEm

The Social Network Employers Love to Raid

Piazza Technologies Inc. is a stealth company—largely unknown by the general public but familiar to almost anyone who’s studied computer science in the past few years. Some 2.5 million students use its free website to ask and answer one another’s questions about computers, engineering, math, and science, all under the supervision of their professors. Seven years in, Piazza says 98 percent of computer science students at the top 50 universities access its site; students report using it on average for at least three hours a day. (Or, more likely, per night.) Piazza fans abound in Silicon Valley: “I have used Piazza extensively throughout my education,” Vickram Gidwani, a Stanford grad student in electrical engineering, writes in an email. “It provides a great forum for any topic in the course.”

Now the Palo Alto company is doing the obvious thing—monetizing all those eyeballs. Founder and Chief Executive Officer Pooja Nath Sankar says it gradually dawned on her that Piazza was an ideal space for tech employers and students to meet. In late 2016 the company launched Piazza Careers. Companies pay for access to students who opt in; they can see professors’ evaluations of the students’ participation on the site, and they can narrow searches to, say, teaching assistants for artificial intelligence classes who are graduating in 2018. In April, Piazza lured Apple Inc.’s director of global recruiting projects, Sean Celli, to head client partnerships.

Piazza says 90 percent of the messages companies send to students get opened. The career feature is particularly appealing to companies that need tech talent but aren’t necessarily on students’ radar. So far, 80 are on board, including Whirlpool, Airbnb, Nvidia, Quicken Loans, Barclays, and Roche.

On the strength of its networking potential, Piazza (the Italian word for plaza, a meeting place) has attracted $32 million in venture capital from Bessemer Venture Partners, Felicis Ventures, Kapor Capital, Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, and SV Angel. “Piazza has a unique relationship to up-and-coming technical talent,” says Keith Rabois, a managing director at Khosla Ventures. “I sensed a real sort of affection for Piazza among the students. They would, like, smile.”

Sankar, 37, didn’t envision the site as a career platform. The original idea—and still her priority—was to help the kind of student she herself once was: a young woman who struggled to learn programming on her own because she was left out of all-male campus study groups. “I would be alone on the sidelines, too shy to ask for help,” she recalls. The online question-and-answer boards break down the barriers of gender and shyness. Students can choose to ask and answer questions anonymously. “I obsessed about the product based on my own experience,” Sankar says. (...)

Now Sankar is using her homework site to help others overcome disadvantages. Piazza provides an alternative to the discussion tools in education management systems such as Blackboard Learning and Moodle, “which are sometimes found to be frustrating,” Lydia Kavanagh, a professor at Australia’s University of Queensland who researched learning tools, wrote in an email. The only disadvantage about Piazza her study identified: “not suitable for conversation.” (Nonetheless, Sankar says some nerds have managed to set up dates on the site.)

by Peter Coy, Bloomberg |  Read more:
Image: Illustration 731

Public Service Announcement for Programmers

Triplebyte is a company that helps programmers find jobs. You sign up, take some coding assessments, and if you pass they do everything from sending your name out to appropriate companies, to fast-tracking you to the final interview stage, to representing you in salary negotiations, to even paying for your flights and hotels while you interview. It is free for you; if you get hired; your company pays them for finding you. FAQ here. Aside from the fact that I am getting paid to shill them, I really do think they’re great; they represent exactly the kind of resume-blind, credential-blind, demographics-blind hiring I think everyone should be aiming for, and they’re helpful for the sort of low-executive-function people who couldn’t handle a job search well on their own.

via: 
[ed. Read the FAQ. Interesting service.]

Waste Management

For thousands of years, Homo sapiens flocked across continents in pursuit of bird, beast, and fresh water, leaving behind him a trail of gnawed bones and steaming waste. The moment we stopped removing ourselves from that waste, it had to be removed from us. Thus the origins of civilization, thus the glories of Rome, Paris, and Philadelphia. A civilization that cannot escape its own fecal matter is a civilization in trouble—unless, of course, the uneasy relationship between man and his effluents can evolve.

“The first regulations with respect to waste go back to the code of Hammurabi,” said Steve Askew, superintendent of New York’s North River Wastewater Treatment Plant, one of the world’s largest. “You have to bury your waste far from where you sleep.” And he gave me the look. Steve Askew never finished college, but that look had seen to the bottom of things. It was both spooky and intimidating, that particular look of pity and loathing the wise bestow upon the ignorant. He knew something I wanted to know: the ultimate fate of our waste.

“People wake up in the morning, they brush their teeth, flush the toilet,” said Askew. “They think it goes to the center of the earth.”

If you happen to live within one particular 5,100-acre patch of the West Side of Manhattan, instead of going to the center of the earth, your waste flows to Askew’s extraordinary concrete cesspit: twenty-eight concrete acres suspended above more than two thousand concrete caissons sunk into the shallows between the West Side Highway and the Hudson River. Constructed in the 1970s, topped by three swimming pools, a skating rink, and a carousel, North River cost the city a billion dollars, 100 million of which went straight into odor control.

North River is just one of New York City’s fourteen wastewater treatment plants, the first of which opened in 1886, along with the Statue of Liberty. These plants handle every conceivable kind of sewerable waste from the city’s eight million permanent residents, not to mention anything a commuter or a tourist might care to add. They separate the material that comes their way into solid, liquid, and gaseous parts, which they further subdivide into that which must be discarded, that which may be consumed, and that which someone, somewhere, might eventually be able to sell.

The substance that enters North River is mostly water, and the vast majority of that water leaves the plant after not much more than six hours, disinfected to the extent that it can merge inoffensively with the Hudson River. One flush on the Upper West Side at seven in the morning, and by three in the afternoon the water is back on the street, so to speak. What’s left over is a half-million gallons of concentrated daily waste, now known as sludge. (...)

The greatest increase occurs between eight and nine in the morning, when the city’s output swells from 70 million to 150 million gallons per day. This is known as the big flush. Now it was eleven a.m., and in a few hours the circadian flow of biology en masse would begin to diminish, eventually bottoming out around four in the morning, at 68 million gallons per day. The rhythm is as steady as the tides. “The Super Bowl halftime surge is a myth,” said Askew.

He led me across the concrete floor, through a concrete warehouse, and to the concrete screening room, where he began to extol the virtue and beauty of his eleven-mile-long sewage interceptor. By the time the morning flush finally rolls into North River, it has joined the downstream flow of all the other morning flushes from all the other sewage lines from Bank Street to the Upper West Side, and sunk fifty-four feet below sea level. It is here, at the extreme low point of this immense underground current, that North River gets to work. In the Stygian depths, its mighty diameter swollen to sixteen feet, the dark torrent branches into six channels, each of which must be pumped to the top floor of the plant, where gravity can once again take hold and set the outcast on a new journey.

Askew gazed into the inky pool of untreated wastewater and began to describe some of the marvels the interceptor had disclosed. Aside from the daily take of leaves, sticks, cans, and paper, the great rake had brought up quite a few vials of cocaine. When cops bang on the door, the toilet is a drug dealer’s best friend. Ditto for the professional forger: a good deal of counterfeit money has floated into Steve Askew’s hands. Twenty years ago a dog showed up, a living dog that became the mascot of a Brooklyn plant.

As we walked away from the pool, I asked about the wind. No matter what the weather is outside, no matter where we traveled inside, the thick concrete walls of North River generated bracing gusts. Askew explained that every minute, titanic blowing machines inhaled 600,000 cubic feet of fresh air and exhaled 750,000 cubic feet of carbon-filtered, bleach-scrubbed exhaust—six to twelve complete air changes per hour.

But the scouring of North River’s halitosis, while essential to community relations, has nothing to do with the plant’s core mission. The alchemy of purgative transformation starts in the warmth and humidity of the next chamber we visited, where submerged chemical mixers combine the waste with custom-made bacteria. “It’s volatizing off!” Askew yelled above the din of engines and bubbling brown water. Undeterred by the general uproar, Askew detailed the technical intricacies of fecal breakdown and development, but I’m afraid the cacophony blunted the nuances. So Askew dumbed down the lecture. “This looks really good!” he hollered. “Tan water! Light brown froth! Small bubbles! Musty smell! If the foam looks like chocolate mousse, that’s an indication of a bacteriological process!”

We headed to a low-ceilinged room so huge it did not appear to have walls. Here were the settling tanks, the final stop before the water returned to the world. Peace held sway among these last lagoons, and indistinct reservoirs misted into a concrete vanishing point hundreds of yards away. “On a cold morning, you will see the water vaporing off,” Askew said. “And it will rain inside the plant.”

He gave me the look. “When it is really cold, it snows inside the plant.” (...)

When the froth finally settled back into silence, Steve Askew backtracked through the concrete dungeons until we arrived at a perfectly normal conference room and a nice surprise—someone had ordered pizza!

Despite the skating rink and swimming pool, despite the bleach, the carbon filters, the white hard hats and the spotless lab coats of the technicians, despite the banks of UNIX computers and the sober talk of asymptotes and oxygen demand, despite the boardroom-size wood-veneer table and the well-upholstered ergonomic chairs and the rush of twenty thousand cubic feet of air per second, and despite, to put it bluntly, one of the most extraordinary concealments in all of human history, North River still managed to evoke unappetizing associations. But as I gazed at the cheese and red sauce and blackened crust, I recalled the words of one of the many wastewater professionals I had met that morning. “One of the things about the job—you still have to eat.”

So I sat down to lunch and learned about the glorious future of waste. Now that biochemists could scour the particles on the atomic level, the plant could recover ibuprofen, acetaminophen, endocrine disrupters, DEET, Prozac, and Chanel No. 5. Even caffeine could be extracted from the mix, and I had a hunch the citizens of New York excreted boatloads of stimulant. Perhaps Starbucks would be interested. The technology was there.

“Twenty years from now we will be removing things we have no idea about,” said Askew. “Penicillin, mercury, heroin. Will this be a pharm business? An energy business? An agribusiness?”

by Frederick Kaufman, Lapham's Quarterly | Read more:
Image: The Ideal City, attributed to Fra Carnevale, c. 1482

via: Tumblr

James D. Morgan, Hillary Clinton with Maori performing arts group Te Kapa Haka o Whāngārā Mai Tawhiti
via:
[ed. Same reaction, wherever she goes.]

Sunday, May 6, 2018


Dan Perfect (British, b. 1965), Uproar, 2007.
via:

Hot Seats

In a studio apartment in downtown Philadelphia, off Rittenhouse Square, I stood awaiting a product demonstration. Stephen Kuhl, a founder of the start-up Burrow, apologized that he had only a beta version to show me — the actual production model would feature some minor aesthetic tweaks. The other founder, Kabeer Chopra, motioned for me to give it a try. I sat down. It was definitely a couch.

Burrow is on an enviable trajectory right now. The company is a graduate of the prestigious Bay Area tech accelerator Y Combinator; it also has a healthy list of pre-orders for its product’s planned debut in January. But given that pedigree, the product is an unusual one: couches. Not cloud-connected couches or remote-controlled couches — just couches. Technically, the company makes a couch, singular, available in a few different colors and configurations. The one I was sitting on belonged to Jess Goodman, a friend of the founders and an early supporter. Its design was midcentury modern unexceptional, and it was perfectly nice. But the couch is not Burrow’s main attraction. Burrow is selling a couch experience.

When customers order a Burrow couch online, the standard model will ship to their apartments in three or four boxes. A human of average size should be able to take those boxes up the stairs (if they have stairs) and build the couch alone, without tools and within minutes.

Chopra and Kuhl tell me that for urban professionals between 25 and 35, the physical process of buying a sofa and moving it into an apartment is a series of “pain points.” Some of these points are literally painful, like carrying a large sofa up a flight of stairs. But the term is business speak for any kind of friction, however abstract, between a customer and a new couch. Burrow doesn’t claim to have improved upon the couch itself: It’s a pain-management company. (...)

If a company can get to market first and establish itself as the singular way to buy a particular necessity online, it can clean up — even if it’s appealing to a relatively small millennial luxury market. Most of the founders I spoke with mentioned Casper as an inspiration, and it’s easy to see why. The venture-funded company was an overnight success in 2014 selling foam mattresses online and delivering them compressed into manageable boxes. Last year the company was valued at over half a billion dollars. It stands out even among Silicon Valley fairy tales, which makes “Casper for couches” a self-explanatory business pitch.

The best thing about this whole product category is that it might represent a step away from Ikea’s disposability without going all the way back to Grandma’s antique sofa. If consumers are already thinking about moving, portability is at least as big an obstacle to maintaining furniture as mediocre craftsmanship and cheap materials. These companies want to make a couch that will last for 10 or 20 years, even if the buyers have no idea where they’ll be or what they’ll be doing that far down the line. Buying a piece of furniture that you will realistically hold onto longer is a kind of forward-thinking thrift.

But this new approach also hints at something more sinister, more bad-future. Different furniture suggests different ways of being in the world: A heavy table says one thing, and a mattress on the floor beside a folding chair says another. Campaign takes its name from the furnishings that British colonial functionaries would take on assignments, ready to pack up if recalled by the Crown. It’s an apt fit with one version of upwardly mobile millennial living, which involves reducing all “personal” needs to an efficient minimum. It’s a style beloved by Silicon Valley — which finances accessories like the liquid food replacement Soylent — and exemplified by the Google engineer who blogged about the time he spent living in a small truck near the office.

This Silicon Valley lifestyle and the Silicon Valley business model are caught in a chicken-and-egg dialectic. Each holds that whatever work can be automated, eliminated or subcontracted to others should be, thus leaving all our valuable code ninjas and management rock stars free to do more work, pursue expensive enriching experiences and watch Netflix. This is the luxury that some of the valley’s most successful products are offering; there are now niche online services for doing your laundry, chopping your food, driving you around and delivering your toilet paper. The entire app-services economy can serve as a dispersed and techno-mystified mother, a caretaker who dotes on the implied bachelor user.

The various furniture founders — Burrow’s, Greycork’s, Campaign’s, Floyd’s — experienced the same series of pain points when it came to couch ownership. All are city-dwelling men with at least some postgraduate education; four of them are 29, the fifth is 28. It’s not surprising that they should encounter similar hassles or, because most attended business school, think of comparable entrepreneurial solutions. But given that investors and customers have encouraged them, it’s worth asking exactly what kind of pain they plan to remove from our world.

We want our customers to spend their time on things that are meaningful to them,” Brad Sewell, of Campaign, tells me, “not sweating a couch up flights of stairs.” But his company’s target market actually pays for experiences like Tough Mudder, an extreme obstacle course where participants shell out over $100 to race miles through the mud, scale walls slicked with grease and be otherwise abused with their friends. It’s most likely not physical hurt that’s the problem with real-world couch-buying: It’s the forced interaction with others, the loss of control. The most appealing part of buying furniture online is that it saves customers from a series of questions to which there are no answers in advance: What if there’s nothing that looks right? What if you can’t get a cab or can’t find one with a trunk big enough for your purchase? What if you get it home and can’t lift it up the stairs or fit it through the doorway? Unlike many issues in our lives, these things can’t really be looked up ahead of time. There are risks you can’t plan your way out of, and the process is virtually impossible for one person to manage without help, whether paid or cajoled.

Maxwell Ryan, of Apartment Therapy, is not optimistic about the prospects of companies like Burrow. “There’s this Silicon Valley mind-set where they solve a problem and so they think they’re going to make a million dollars,” he says. “But just because it’s a problem for them doesn’t mean it’s a problem for everyone.

by Malcolm Harris, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Craig Cutler for The New York Times

God Bless ContraPoints


One thing the left needs to do, I argued recently, is a better job of both engaging conservative arguments and using all forms of media effectively. I specifically mentioned YouTube, a dark realm that we have essentially ceded to the other side. YouTube is overflowing with videos from people like Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager (plus about a zillion miscellaneous reactionary ranters) but who is doing well-produced left-wing explanations of why all of these people are full of crap?

Well, I can tell you who is doing them. ContraPoints is doing them. And she’s doing them very well indeed. She’s on a one-woman blitzkrieg against the YouTube right. She knows how to use the medium as well as anybody, and she’s found a brilliantly inventive and totally unique way to convey left political ideas.

ContraPoints produces YouTube videos. They are often quite long, and they are frequently strange. When I was first showed them several months ago, I had absolutely no idea what to make of them. Each is about a political topic, and is usually anchored by a monologue from Contra explaining the issue at hand. But they are unlike anything else I’ve seen. Contra argues with multiple versions of herself (a Stalinist alter ego, a fascist alter ego, an anarchist alter ego, a liberal professor) in a dozen different costumes. An explanation of how capitalism artificially manufactures desires might suddenly turn into a parody advertisement for suppositories. A video critiquing Jordan Peterson does not begin, as one might assume, with his dreary books and lectures, but with Contra as a bewigged French aristocrat called Lady Foppington discoursing on the sovereign faculty of reason. To my utter delight, Contra’s explanation of what’s wrong with capitalism does not end with the usual call for proletarians to take up arms but with Contra at the piano, serenading herself with a rendition of Sam Cooke’s “Bring It On Home To Me” (one of my favorite songs).

But the bizarre and unpredictable aspects of Contra’s videos in no way compromise her analytical rigor. She understands right-wing arguments from front to back, and presents them far more articulately than most of those who espouse them sincerely. She concedes points where they’re valid, and is not shy about criticizing the left. (In fact, she has an entire video examining why some left-wing rhetorical tactics may be, shall we say, sub-optimal in building broad public support). On topics ranging from gender identity to free speech to Nazi-punching to trans-exclusionary feminism to Peterson’s stupid lobster thing and his concept of “postmodern neo-Marxism,” she painstakingly sorts through fallacies and flays bad arguments. She’ll tell the alt-right why their fears of “white genocide” are morally disgusting and statistically illiterate, or she’ll use the history of redlining and housing discrimination to show exactly how historic injustices created today’s racial disparities. And it’s fun all the way. She’ll explain the concept of race with an impersonation of an early 19th century phrenologist, or expose the cruelty of fat-shaming while recreating a 1980s home exercise video. And sometimes she’ll do these things in German or Japanese, or from the bathtub, or through a parody of Dave Rubin’s slobbering sycophantic interview show.

by Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs |  Read more:
Video: YouTube
[ed. 10:27 - 12:30. Ice Cold MFs!]