tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:/posts Ben's posthaven 2019-10-28T02:51:47Z tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/1431231 2019-09-15T14:47:26Z 2019-10-28T02:51:47Z Surveying the Pending Rise of the Megalopoli

I saw this map on reddit:

And noticed that most of these Combined Statistical Areas are richly connected with infrastructure / high-capacity transportation links, or soon will be - most notably: Acela in the northeast, Brightline / Virgin Trains USA in Florida, Texas Central in Texas, and California High Speed Rail in California.

As a lover of cities, and a believer in agglomeration effects, I set out to analyze the CSAs on a connected, aggregated basis, as meta-cities. For reference, because I extend beyond the top 15, here's a more complete but less clear map of the top 30:

As you'll see, there are limited and vastly different prospects for each region, and I expect this to inform an indication of future development.

Note I refer to each CSA by its population rank, in an intentional attempt to separate these narratives from your existing ideas about these cities. I address each aggregate roughly by combined population, and the population numbers below are necessarily imprecise as they engage at the level of the CSA, so do not consider other populations not captured by the CSAs. Finally, when I list a combined population together with a rank, ala #1, the rank refers to the rank of that aggregation relative to the existing CSAs. That is, if two cities combined, how would they compare to the largest existing US cities.

Northeast

#1, 4, 6, and 8 (combined population 48 million) are connected by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, at an average speed of 70 mph (6.5 hours), which generates ~$500B in operational profit per year, while the combined area accounts for ~20% of the US's economic output.

Unfortunately very little improvement has occurred in the Northeast corridor since electrification was completed in the year 2000, but they have an ongoing plan for improved service up to an average speed of 91 mph by 2040.[1] The government has arguably seriously under-invested in this corridor, given its import, returns, and potential for growth in speed and passengers, but there are promising signs that Amtrak may be taking this route more seriously going forward.

California

#2 and 5 (combined population 28 million) are currently connected with Amtrak's Coast Starlight, at an average speed of a sad 40 mph (7 hours), while also hosting the 2nd busiest air route in the country.

If/when the California High-Speed Rail project is completed, it would connect #2, 5 and 45 (combined population 30 million, #1) with rail speeds averaging ~143 mph (2 hours 40 minutes). The project is currently in question, with no certain completion date for the crucial LA - Bay Area connection, which will drive the vast majority of the ridership.

-LA + Vegas

#2 and 29 (combined population 21 million) are planned to be connected by Virgin Train USA's XpressWest link, at an average speed of 130 mph (1 hour 24 minutes).

The 2018 acquisition announcement indicated construction would begin in 2019 with initial service in 2022. The progress since then is unclear, and according to Wikipedia: "Although Los Angeles County finished an environmental assessment for the project in 2016, the exact date the project will start is unclear; however, San Bernardino County is still moving through the process."

-Capitol Corridor

#5 and 22 (combined population 12 million) are currently connected with Amtrak's Capital Corridor, at an average speed of 52 mph[2] (3 hours 15 minutes).

No speed improvements are planned, rather the focus seems to be on reliability and frequency.

In total, looking ahead, California could incorporate #2, 5, 22, 29 and 45, for a population of 35 million. But it seems to be suffering greatly due to its political climate not prioritizing or effectively completing high-impact, high-potential projects, instead allowing these projects to go sideways under narrow political influence.

Great Lakes

The midwest, centered around Chicago has a strange arrangement relative to the other possibilities. Chicago's population dwarfs the others, which perhaps explains why they have not seen cause to invest in high-speed rail improvements to connect the others.

#3 and 33 (combined population 12 million) are linked by Amtrak's Hiawatha at an average of 57 mph (90 minutes).

#3, 16, and 33 (combined population 16 million) are linked by Amtrak's Empire builder at an average speed of 50 mph (8 hours).

There's a proposal to increase frequency but not speed on this route, but for this to qualify as a practical megalopolis, you'd have to run the trains much faster.

#3 and 12 (combined population 15 million) are linked by Amtrak's Wolverine at an average of 48 mph (5 hours 20 minutes)

#3 and 20 (combined population 13 million) are linked by Amtrak's Lincoln Service at an average of 52 mph (5 hours 25 minutes)

Speed improvements seem to be in the works, if stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. Local leaders would like the Governor to take the lead on this.

Virgin's Hyperloop One has identified #3, 24 and 26 (combined population 15 million) as a winning route for Hyperloop development.

Texas

#7 and 9 (combined population 15 million) are currently connected only by car/bus/air.

Texas Central is an effort to build a world-class high-speed rail link at 186 mph (1 hour 30 minutes). Construction is planned to be completed by 2024. Future expansion to cover the so-called Texas Triangle is also planned.

-The Triangle

Virgin's Hyperloop One has identified #7, 9, and 25 (combined population 18 million) as winning route for Hyperloop development. They are engaged in a feasibility study of the route and have initial engagement with the Texas government.

I think it's remarkable that as a combined megalopolis, Texas would compete directly with Los Angeles and New York City on the level of economic network effects.

Florida

#10 and 15 (combined population 11 million) will soon be connected by fast frequent service from Virgin Trains (under construction now, completion expected 2022), at an average speed of 80 mph (3 hours). As these cities are more equal in size, vs the Capitol Corridor, I expect them to mutually benefit more from agglomeration.

Virgin's Hyperloop One has identified this pair as a winning route for Hyperloop development.

Cascadia

#14 and 19 (combined population 8 million) are served by the Amtrak Cascades route, at an average speed of 50 mph (3 hours 30 minutes)

These also naturally associate with nearby Vancouver, Canada (combined population to 10.5 million, or #3). But the Amtrak Cascades route that serves all 3 does it at an average speed of 40 mph.

Improvement has been incremental and slow, in part due to set-backs like the 2017 derailment due to "gross complacency" that significantly delayed adoption of an improved route pending positive train control.

Advocates have been pushing for truly high speed rail for the corridor, most recently manifested in the "Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation Business Case Analysis", published this month.

Deep South

#11 and 21 (combined population 9.5 million). They are linked by Amtrak's Crescent at 46 mph (5 hours 17 minutes)

Apparently Virgin Trains has identified this route as interesting, but it is not expected to be acted on in the near term.

The most substantial opportunity after direct connection, would be a higher-speed connection to the Northeast corridor, to integrate them into the Northeast region.

Edit (10/27): Georgia DOT announced that they are studying connecting this city-pair at up to 220 mph. This would certainly be transformative and put them on competitive footing with the Northwest, etc., provided it is efficiently executed and operated.

Missouri

#20 and 27 (combined population 5 million). They are linked by Amtrak's Missouri River Runner at 50 mph (5 hours, 40 minutes).

Virgin's Hyperloop One has identified has completed a feasibility study (video) of the route.

The most substantial opportunity after direct connection, would be a high-speed connection to Chicago, to integrate them into the Midwest region.

At this point the agglomeration returns are diminishing, as the combined population does not rise to the level of the top 10 CSAs.

Analysis

A few things jump out at me here:

Few Potential Megalopoli

Many urban areas are relatively isolated which means travel time and/or infrastructure cost would weigh against their incorporation with nearby neighbors. Examples: Salt Lake City, Denver, Phoenix. After Cascadia, the benefits of aggregation drop of substantially, and according to my own intuition, tend toward depending on broader integration to justify themselves. Similarly, many urban areas are relatively low-population which weighs against their incorporation with nearby neighbors.

That leaves us with only 6 potential near-term megalopoli, which in my mind elevates the significance and urgency of each.

Unbalanced pairs may not support strong connections

Take Chicago, for example. It has many nearby neighbors, but because it's the largest by far, it has relatively little to gain from enhancing rail, presumably because a relatively small satellite primarily draws from the smaller to the larger city. In contrast, Dallas / Houston, Cascadia, have mutually obvious benefit due to relatively balanced travel interest between the pair. I suspect in unbalanced cases, the pride of the larger city may weigh against investing in integration.

Wildly Different Prospects for and Rates of Progress

I think it's quite remarkable that Texas, California, Florida, and the Great Lakes have such dramatically different prospects for progress. California's bold efforts are mired in a failure of management, Chicago is not setting its sights so high, and having difficulty at that, while Texas and Florida are having substantial new high speed rail development thanks to functional, incentives-aligned approaches to this development.

Leaves me glad we have so many different experiments running in this country, as it seems there are many ways to get this grossly wrong.

Conclusions

These assume the expected successful timely completion of the Texas Central and Virgin Trains USA Orlando link.

Short California, Long Texas & Florida

The long-term prospects for connectivity and relative commercial significance of these areas is substantially connected to their ability to create an arrangement of infrastructure and services conducive to supporting business and quality of life in their areas, which leads to a virtuous cycle of population growth and further agglomeration benefits, such as ability to justify and accrue benefits from large infrastructure projects.

The difficulties apparently experienced most clearly by California, but also by New York and Chicago, augur a future in which other regions gain relative prominence over them, by way of successful infrastructure projects and increased connectivity / agglomeration. Consistent with these signs, population growth in the top CSA of each region is significantly higher in Texas (17%) and Florida (14%) than California (6%), the Northeast (3.7%), or the Great Lakes (1.6%).

Design your Infrastructure incentives well

Texas and Florida are taking substantially different approaches to their high-speed rail than those which have foundered or are otherwise improving quite slowly in other regions, and I expect them to benefit from these differences. In particular, they are following the examples of private rail transit in Asia, and using a combination of fares and real estate development around the station to fund the rail service. This is a variant of land-value capture that aligns incentives, because it creates a material monetary reward for those for fast and efficient construction efforts, accruing to those with the ability to manage construction costs. In the Northeast and California, lacking such incentives alignment has meant that construction projects are seen as a windfall to be exploited by those doling out and receiving construction funds, which then leads to project cost blow-up. This is devastating because there is no upper limit to the cost of construction inefficiency - that is the cost inefficiencies can dwarf the project construction costs.

An alternative to fully-private infrastructure ownership, is to choose a project delivery method which creates a natural incentive to control construction costs, such as through Design-Build-Operate-Maintain contracts.

Expect new technology to further change the game

Nascent technologies such as Hyperloop could significantly improve prospects for agglomeration by making private construction feasible in more cases - smaller city pairs, longer distances.


[1] Dividing the distance (457 miles) by the expected future journey time (5 hours).
[2] Dividing the distance (168 miles) by the average journey time (3.25 hours) listed on Wikipedia

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/1414822 2019-07-05T00:22:49Z 2019-07-07T00:35:41Z Some advice on aging well

Disclaimer: this article is NOT personalized medical advice and I hold no responsibility for what you do to your body. I give no individual medical advice. Schedule a visit with your physician for that.

I realized at a relatively young age that the medical industry has little interest in keeping me well, but rather focuses on identifying and treating malady after it occurs, whereas I've set out (as I think all people should) to avoid malady wherever possible. As I studied and practice engineering, I study and apply that view to my own body as a system. I've personally successfully treated a few symptoms in my own life, and as far as they report, at this point people perceive me to be younger than I am. I offer below a few tips on not growing any older than you must, based on about 10 years of thought and study of the subject.

Arrange your life to include ambient exercise as a daily practice

For example, take more than one stair step at a time. Most are capable of taking at least 2 steps at a time,[1] it may be difficult at first, you may have to strain against your body's limitations, you may even have to do some lunges or squats to develop the strength necessary to do it, but doing so will pay many dividends, as most people will face many more staircases than treadmills in their lives, and climbing more than one step at a time exercises a greater range of motion at less mechanical advantage than a single step. Among other benefits, this will help you maintain more strength than strictly necessary to make it through your daily life, so as to maintain greater mobility for longer when your muscles naturally decline with age. In addition, incidental exercise like this will benefit your cardiovascular system, and your metabolism. Quite a lot of benefit from such a simple change.

This is an example of what I call ambient exercise, and IMO there is no better exercise - it gets you where you are going anyway, but often faster, and with more benefit, at the same time it gets you exercise without dedicated time. Other examples include cycling for transport, and favoring stairs even when escalators or elevators are available. Even walking quickly has significant health benefits over walking slowly.

Pay attention to habits that have cumulative health effects

In risk, it's the things you do daily that will someday go sideways and kill you, and in aging, it's the damage that you accumulate daily that will wear you out. Wear protection from the sun, particularly to protect your face and neck, wear sunglasses to protect your eyes. Being aware of the UV Index can guide when these interventions are most important. Personally I recently switched from a ball-cap to what I call my "adventure hat" for daily life.

If you drink alcohol regularly or enthusiastically, consider cutting down and taking NAC when drinking as a countermeasure. Consider wearing earplugs in loud environments and plugging your ears in the presence of sirens.

For the same reason start your health practices early, before problems manifest, and you’ll reduce the aggregate damage your body sustains over time, thus keeping yourself safer, healthier, and living longer for it. Far better to protect your hearing before it’s noticeably lost. Far easier to avoid injury than recover from it.

But you don't have to take my word for it:

“when it comes to age-related diseases, the medical technologies of the past few decades are just not all that good. Treatments have failed to address the causes of aging, and instead took on the impossible task of trying patch over the consequences in a failing system. The result, with very few exceptions, such as treatments to control blood pressure and blood cholesterol, is therapies offering only marginal, unreliable benefits and little impact to mortality. It remains the case that in the matter of aging, maintaining fitness and slimness is more reliable or even more effective than most of what has been offered by medical science over recent decades.”
— source

Pay attention to the signs of age and do what you can to address their causes

As where there is smoke, there is fire, and to whatever extent possible, it’s important to identify the cause and put that fire out. For example, research has uncovered that gray hair is a consequence of buildup of Hydrogen Peroxide, which bleaches the hair follicle. Hydrogen Peroxide is an example of a harmful Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) that is produced continuously by your metabolic processes, and should be naturally dispatched by your body before building up, if your body is functioning as well as it should. While dyeing your hair will conceal the evidence, treating the cause will prevent those same ROS from wreaking other havoc: DNA damage, etc.

But can you help your body dispatch with it? Chemically, there are at least two important antioxidants which reduce it, which are Catalase and Glutathione Peroxidase. Catalase is abundant in wheatgrass, so I take wheatgrass powder in a shake from time to time. Another important element is Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) - if Hydrogen Peroxide is Water + Oxygen, Superoxide is Hydrogen Peroxide + Oxygen, and Superoxide Dismutase reduces it to Hydrogen Peroxide. This combo, of Catalase and Superoxide Dismutase, if it could be applied simultaneously throughout your body, would reduce these two ROS to just water and oxygen.

Support your body’s own restoration and maintenance pathways

A big shift in my understanding of health came with the awareness that your body generates cancerous cells all the time - it’s just that for almost everyone, almost all of the time, inbuilt protections cause the cell to shut down, or the immune system effectively dispatches them. So cancer can be viewed not so much as a specific dysfunction in the cell cycle, but rather a systemic immune failure. This indicates it may be much more helpful to support your own body’s intricate, long-evolved system for protecting itself than to try to do its job for it after it has failed.[2]

For example, not directly related to cancer, your body has its own inborn mechanisms for maintaining and repairing itself on the cellular level. One such category of these is called the Sirtuin pathways. The 7 Sirtuin pathways have been shown to play important roles in aging, metabolic function, and more. For example, just one of these, SIRT3, has been shown to:

  • Support energy production
  • Prevent cardiac hypertrophy
  • Prevent Parkinson’s disease
  • Support insulin sensitivity
  • Support cell survival
  • Suppress tumors
  • Prevent DNA damage
  • Prevent noise-induced hearing loss

Much of the above is a consequence of SIRT3's effects in producing countermeasures to the ROS mentioned above, as illustrated here:

The trick with the Sirtuins is that they are powered by an energetic molecule call NAD+, and NAD+ declines with age. So, as with avoiding cancer by boosting your immune system, you reduce the acceleration of aging that occurs over time by boosting your own body's ability to restore and maintain itself. Personally I take NMN, the direct precursor to NAD+, sublingually. As with all anti-aging mechanisms, it's difficult to assign direct effect to any given intervention, but this one has given me the most significant subjective benefit, both in terms of energy level, and notably in terms of skin quality (I saw a significant subjecting improvement within the first month or two of use).

Conclusion

There's certainly much more to be said and considered, given that the body is enormously complex and complicated, but the high-level points cover much of what I judge to matter. Will be happy to hear questions, critiques, theories, or queries on any of the above.

Take care, and be well.

[1] For reference, I have a ~32-inch inseam and regularly take 3 stairs at a time, and occasionally 4 at a time.
[2] Wrt cancer in particular there are other important influences, including the metabolic environment, as indicated by the effect of Metformin and the ketogenic diet on cancer incidence.
]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/611912 2018-08-07T18:19:56Z 2019-07-08T19:54:09Z Optimists & Pessimists

"An optimist invents the airplane, a pessimist invents the parachute"

— Gladys Beryl

My lesson for the month of June is how different these perspectives are, and how unlikely they are to be intertwined. The assumption that you can balance both is likely to be some combination of arrogance and ignorance - a partnership between wide-eyed dreamer and cold calculator is far more likely than a single clear-eyed brilliant one who can simultaneously communicate with light and darkness.

Given that, it seems the challenge is to find counterpart(s) one can appreciate through difference.

note: I wrote this in 2013, and rediscovered the draft on revisiting this blog for revival

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/611914 2018-08-07T18:18:34Z 2018-08-07T18:20:09Z Orthodoxy

Interesting fact: the two prominent areas of study in which there is an explicit internal divide between "Orthodox" and "Heterodox" perspectives are religion and economics.

Orthodox Christianity is a collective term for the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. These two branches of Christianity use the term "orthdoxy" (from Greek: orthos + doxa, meaning correct belief) to express their belief to have an unbroken connection to the faith, doctrine and practices of the ancient Christian church. The adjectives "Eastern" and "Oriental" are used by outsiders to differentiate the two groups; their adherents call themselves simply "Orthodox Christians". The two groups have been divided by their disagreements over the nature of Christ since the 5th century, and they are currently not in communion with each other,[1] but they maintain many identical doctrines, similar Church structures, and similar worship practices. There have been a number of recent talks aimed at reunification, and a great deal of agreement has been reached, but no concrete steps have been taken towards formal unity as yet.

Orthodox Churches in Slavic-language countries (Bulgaria, Russia, Serbia, Macedonia, etc.) use a word derived from Old Church Slavonic, Правосла́виѥ (pravosláviye) to mean orthodoxy. The word derives from the Slavonic roots "право" (právo, true, right) and "славить" (slávit, to praise, to glorify), in effect meaning "the right way to praise God".

Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy use (with a small difference in plural/singular form of the verbs "we believe", "we confess", "we await") the original form of the Nicene Creed developed at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, referred to as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.[2][3] In contrast, the Latin branch of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches of western Christianity add the phrases "God from God" and "and the Son" (see Filioque clause), and the Armenian Apostolic Church has many more additions.[4] The addition of "and the Son" was (along with the Papal supremacy and some other questions) one of the causes for the East–West Schism formalized in 1054 by simultaneous proclamations of "Anathema" by the Bishop of Rome (Pope) in the West and the leadership of the Orthodox Churches (Patriarch) in the East.

Heterodoxy in a religious sense means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] Under this definition, heterodoxy is similar to unorthodoxy, while the adjective "heterodox" could be applied to a dissident.

Heterodoxy is also an ecclesiastical term of art, defined in various ways by different religions and churches. For example, in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches heterodoxy may describe beliefs that differ from strictly orthodox views but that fall short of heresy.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the term is used to refer to Christian churches not belonging to the Eastern Orthodox communion and holding doctrines different from those of Orthodox Christianity.[2] Also, it is used for any idea, thought, dogma, principle or lifestyle that is in conflict with the Orthodox Faith. In general, this term is used in two distinct cases: 1. Whenever Eastern Orthodoxy wants to classify something different, but not as different or thought to be as erroneous as heresy; and yet not something un-clarified and therefore left opinion (a theologoumenon). 2. Whenever Eastern Orthodoxy wants, for any reason, to abstain from the use of the word heresy.


Mainstream economics is a term used to refer to widely accepted economics as taught across prominent universities, and in contrast to heterodox economics. It has been associated with neoclassical economics[1] and with the neoclassical synthesis, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian approach macroeconomics.[2]

Mainstream economists are not generally separated into schools, but two major contemporary economic schools of thought have been the "saltwater and freshwater schools." In the early 1970s, so-called "fresh-water economists" challenged the prevailing consensus in macroeconomics research. Key elements of their approach was that macroeconomics had to be dynamic, quantitative, and based on how individuals and institutions make decisions under uncertainty. Many of the proponents of this radically new approach to macroeconomics were associated with Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, the University of Rochester and the University of Minnesota. They were referred to as the "freshwater school" since Pittsburgh, Chicago, Rochester, and Minneapolis are located nearer to the Great Lakes. The established consensus was primarily defended by economists at the universities and other institutions located near the east and west coast of the United States, such as Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, and Yale. They were therefore often referred to as "the saltwater schools". Today, mainstream economists do not, in general, identify themselves as members of a particular school.

Economics has, in modern times, always featured multiple schools of economic thought, with different schools having different prominence across countries and over time; the current use of the term "mainstream economics" is specific to the post–World War II era, particularly in the Anglosphere, and to a lesser extent globally.

Heterodox economics refers to methodologies or schools of economic thought that are considered outside of "mainstream economics", often represented by expositors as contrasting with or going beyond neoclassical economics.[1][2] "Heterodox economics" is an umbrella term used to cover various approaches, schools, or traditions. These include socialist, Marxian, institutional, evolutionary, Georgist, Austrian, feminist,[3]social, post-Keynesian,[2] and ecological economics among others.[4] In the JEL classification codes developed by the Journal of Economic Literature, heterodox economics is in the second of the 19 primary categories at:

Mainstream economics may be called orthodox or conventional economics by its critics.[5] Alternatively, mainstream economics deals with the "rationality-individualism-equilibrium nexus" and heterodox economics is more "radical" in dealing with the "institutions-history-social structure nexus".[6] Mainstream economists sometimes assert that it has little or no influence on the vast majority of academic economists in the English speaking world.[7]

A recent review documents several prominent groups of heterodox economists since at least the 1990s as working together with a resulting increase in coherence across different constituents.[2] Along these lines, the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE) does not define "heterodox economics" and has avoided defining its scope. ICAPE defines its mission as "promoting pluralism in economics."



note: I wrote this in 2013, and rediscovered the draft on revisiting this blog for revival

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/611906 2018-08-07T18:14:58Z 2018-09-26T22:26:54Z art and collective

Sometimes when looking up artists I like, I spot a certain theme in their parentage:

Bjork: Electrician father, Mother who left him to join a hippy community

Lorde: Civil Engineer father, Poet Mother

Here's to chaos and order, art and collective. Here's to fostering them in ourselves, and in the groups we form.

note: I wrote this in 2013, and rediscovered the draft on revisiting this blog for revival

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271366 2013-01-17T08:45:00Z 2018-09-26T22:28:57Z Running Olark under Turbolinks

I ran into this problem with Olark and Turbolinks tonight, and it seems I’m not the only one, so I wrote out how to fix it:

In the current olark configuration code, there’s a script tag, some javascript, then a noscript tag. The javascript is the important part. It starts with “window.olark||”, then a big minified function, and ends with a call to olark.identity.

The window.olark|| is just there to prevent the script from being re-run on the same page, the rest is the initialization. You can extract the initialization function, and give it a name, e.g. init_olark. Then you can rewritethe initialization as:

function init_olark(c) {/*big initialization function*/}           
window.olark||init_olark({/*your initialization hash*/});
olark.identify(/*your identity*/);

You’ll need your identity string to call olark.identity, it’s right there in your js snippet, and you’ll need your initialization hash, which is the argument passed to init_olark, also included in the snippet. My initialization hash should include a loader, name and methods key, so I guess yours should too. Once you’ve done this, all that’s left is to call the init_olark() function with your initialization vars and call olark.identity on every turbolinks page load. With jquery that looks like:

$(document).on('page:load', function(){
  init_olark({
    /*your initialization hash*/
  });
  olark.identify(/*your identity*/);
});

It’s not perfect – there are some js errors in the depths of the olark code, but it doesn’t seem to interfere with the operation of the chat widget or any other JS on the page, so I judge it a success.

Hope that helps!

Note: updated to call "identify"

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271369 2012-05-04T23:45:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Get your .bash_profile in order

Some time ago I picked up a simple system for keeping my bash configuration files organized and sane. It's served me well and doesn't seem widely-known so I suppose it's worth sharing.

What's the problem with bash config? Well it gets to be a mess. Once you start configuring many bits of software, and many projects, it can be rather difficult to parse through the mess of environment variables and other interventions.

Comments can help, but they're easy to overlook. A better solution is a system of organization which is self-enforcing. So what I do is banish all my config from the .bash_profile, and load it from project-specific files in the ~/.bash/ directory.

That is, my .bash_profile looks like this:

function load {
        [ -f $1 ] && . $1
}

function load_dir {
        for path in $( ls $1 ); do
                load "$1$path"
        done
}

load_dir ~/.bash/

And my ~/.bash folder looks like this:

$ ls ~/.bash/
amazon_keys.bash        git.bash                node.bash                r.bash                        rvm.bash                vote_smart.bash
bundler.bash                google.bash                mail_chimp.bash                open_congress.bash        rbenv.bash                sunlight_labs.bash        votereports.bash
campaign_monitor.bash        history.bash                mate.bash                paperlex.bash                recaptch.bash                terminal.bash                yahoo.bash
fixmta.bash                homebrew.bash                meetup.bash                postgres.bash                rpx.bash                twitter.bash

Here's a few examples from that batch:

$ cat ~/.bash/node.bash 
export NODE_PATH="/usr/local/lib/node_modules:$NODE_PATH"
$ cat ~/.bash/rbenv.bash 
export PATH="$HOME/.rbenv/bin:$PATH"
eval "$(rbenv init -)"
$ cat ~/.bash/postgres.bash 
export PGOPTIONS='-c client_min_messages=WARNING'
$ cat ~/.bash/git.bash 
# load completion installed by homebrew
load "/usr/local/etc/bash_completion.d/git-completion.bash"

All clean and tidy. And if you want to view the entirety of your config settings, you can just use:

$ cat ~/.bash/* 

Files are loaded in the order that they're returned by 'ls', so if you want to override the alphabetical default ordering, you can simply prefix an order number to the files you want to load early.

In any case, I hope this helps. I'd be happy to hear any tips you have.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271370 2012-05-03T09:38:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Subtle States

I've noticed that my emotional states are often much more subtle than the abstract notion that they follow. For example, when I'm depressed I'm not sad, I'm as calm and relaxed as ever, just unmotivated. When I'm anxious, I'm not shifty or shaky or stammering, I just calmly hesitate and reflect a bit more.

Unfortunately, because I didn't identify these states for what they were, I didn't treat them as problems to be solved, but as "just how I feel right now." Only later, when my motivation and agency returned did I diagnose and treat my own light deprivation (SAD), or test an anxiolytic.

If there's a lesson here, perhaps its to always trust that improvement is possible, and to make efforts regardless what we think is "just us".

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271376 2012-04-09T05:57:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Merry Pranksters, You're our Only Hope

Is an ideal society entirely filled with rule-abiding characters? It would seem so, but what if every set of rules has necessary, unavoidable breakdowns, which when unattended accumulate back-ups, detritus, or misallocations within the system?

It may be then, that some occaisional creative rule-breaking helps to break-up these back-ups and to disrupt an ossified order to replace it with the more natural and functional after-effects of small episodes of chaos. It may sound dubious, but it's been modeled in traffic studies and argued via simplified versions of society.

If social rules are somehow subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem as well, then pranksters, jokers, comedians, and creative rule-breakers may be all that's there to save us from an accumulated absurdity.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271380 2012-04-09T05:30:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Geek PSA: Set a Firmware Password

Setting a firmware password on your Mac laptop makes it much less useful to a thief and much more likely to be recoverable, as they won't be able to easily circumvent "Find my Mac" or Prey. It's also super easy.

On Lion, just restart your computer while holding "comand-R" - you'll boot into the recovery partition and have the Firmware Password utility available from the utility menu dropdown. Enter your password twice, restart, and you're done!

For earlier versions, check this.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271387 2012-01-27T01:33:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Cash Medical Lab Lessons

This week I indulged my on-going health geekery by getting some routine medical testing done, and because I've been supporting cash-based medicine, I learned a few things:

First, between established lab companies, prices vary significantly. Of the three I checked, LabCorp, Quest Diagnostics, and Hunter Labs, the prices were roughly 1x, 1.5x, and 2x, respectively. That is, for my tests LabCorp was the cheapest by far. It seems it's well worth checking a few locations, as you could save hundreds of dollars in the process.

But you can potentially do even better by going online. There are a number of new direct online lab order systems, such as  http://www.ineedlabs.com/, and http://directlabs.com/, which deal in cash only and thus freely publish their prices. This is a refreshing change from the established companies above, which have to play games of hiding their real cash prices in order to make more money from the insurance companies. And because all their customers are paying cash, they're all cost-conscious, so the prices end up generally being lower.

From the cheapest regular lab, I saved 25% by billing my tests with an online direct labs agency. But, bear in mind that some tests might be more expensive online vs. your lowest-cost local lab, so it may be worth splitting your order to get the best prices all around.

Another great perk for online lab tests is that you can run tests without a doctor's order, so you can avoid that hassle for routine tests whose results you understand. That is, except in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, which have all passed anti-consumer laws requiring you to consult with doctors for every medical test, regardless its simplicity.

All in all, a really interesting experience. I hope it helps you get a better deal and keep down your medical costs!

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271393 2011-12-22T19:30:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Speculative Honorifics

I'm nearing the end of my reading of Anathem, a work of speculative fiction which includes many invented words and concepts, I find 2 particularly relevant to our own society. As language influences culture, perhaps through adopting these we can over time become a society which better-appreciates our great thinkers while maintaining more horizontal governance:

Saunt: honorary title bestowed posthumously on great thinkers - a contraction of "savant".

In my opinion we could do much more to honor our truly great thinkers - current institutions include the "Dr." title and the Nobel prize, but both pale in comparison even to political titles like President or Senator. Saunt evokes Saint, and is IMO an appropriate and meaningful title for those who push us forward intellectually. Saunt Jobs, anyone? 

First Among Equals, FAE: title identifying the principle representative of a non-hierarchical group

In institutions which have representatives ostensibly equal to those they represent, there is a danger over time of the representatives becoming entrenched in their representation and attendant power, and eventually taking on de facto nobility, which is only assisted by the honorific titles they hold. By explicitly including an assertion of equality in the title, one can perhaps undermine this tendency.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271425 2009-01-08T14:39:06Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Why We Don't Need a Parking Maximum Cross-posted to the Seattle Transit Blog.
A few months back, Erica C. Barnett of Slog and our own Andrew called for parking maximum mandates for new construction in Seattle. Now, I can understand the appeal of parking maximums. After all, parking-induced sprawl ranks with pollution, gridlock and a more lethargic society as the worst effects of cars. However I'm more than skeptical of such maximums - not only does the evidence show we're making good progress without them, I suspect they're downright counterproductive to the mass transit cause. Surprised? Read on...

Big Bad Brix?

Erica gives the example of Brix condos' 1.2 parking spaces per residential unit as an example of development gone awry, being inconsistent with the supposed will of Seattle's people, who removed minimums downtown in 2006, and the lifestyle the surrounding urban landscape supports. But it's unfair and misleading to single out Brix's parking ratio when it's significantly lower than, for instance, Belltown's average of 1.5; and Brix was already under development in 2006, when the minimums were dropped downtown. Do we really expect them to redesign their building on short notice to serve an unknown market? Developers and their creditors are understandably somewhat conservative when putting millions of dollars on the line, but this naturally changes with time, as developers experiment and discover parking-free housing to be viable. And sure enough, if we look at more recent developments, we're seeing evidence of that change, with planned parking ratios as low as 0.9 in high-rise housing, and as low as 0.67 at "medium-rise" fare such as Moda.

Selling to Whom?

Erica goes on to say:

The problem with simply eliminating minimum parking requirements is that developers can still build as much parking as they want—”and that extra $20,000-$30,000 gives them a strong incentive to do just that.

The idea that the extra expense of a parking space is somehow an incentive to build it only makes sense if people are willing to pay for that substantial extra expense. If not it's just dead weight, and the extra expense will make those units less marketable and reduce the demand for that unit. It all hinges on how many buyers are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a cement box to put their car in. It's not hard to find evidence of developers looking to earn the housing dollars of car-free urban buyers such as myself: Moda here and The Civic in Portland, for example, build units with the express purpose of offering them at lower cost, without parking attached. Other developers, wondering where this sort of development can fly, are putting the question to the public. So again, added expense is not some irrepressible incentive. It's an incentive only to the extent that people are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have a place to store their cars. This willingness is dependent on the real needs and desires of people, including ourselves. The corollary being: the better car-free parking sells, the more examples of it we'll see in the future, and the lower parking ratios will go. As such, it's incumbent upon us to consider our own options when we make a move. Might you be able to find a better deal by also taking care to support your ideals?

Unintended Consequences

But Andrew here focuses on the areas around light rail stations. Isn't it reasonable that we should have less parking there? The answer, of course, is a resounding yes, and it's easy to predict that they will typically have lower parking ratios than buildings elsewhere, even without intervention, because transit serves them better so the buyers see less value in a parking space and aren't as likely to be willing to pay a premium for one. But even in this situation we should hesitate from putting maximums in place, because maximums can absolutely do more harm than good. If a maximum actually reduces the number of spaces that are built, it must also reduce the value of the properties that could be built there. If not, entrepreneurial builders themselves would build at those rates, once they understood the demand was there. But push maximums below their natural equilibrium and the value of development in the restricted area will be less because many people aren't willing to live the transit & car sharing lifestyle just yet, so those units will have more supply than demand. When you reduce the demand to live in a certain area by imposing restrictions on the ways those people can live there, you naturally reduce the builder's incentive to build housing in that region. So while you're "saving" space by not building parking, at the same time you're taking potential housing space away, because the builders won't build as high, or as quickly. When you reduce the amount of housing around these stations, you reduce the most obvious, frequent source of ridership. When you reduce ridership, you reduce the real value of the entire transit network. Fewer people ride, so fewer business pop up to serve the ridership. Fewer employees can easily use transit to commute to these businesses, and fewer employers settle along the line, because it connects them to fewer employees and customers. At the same time, it makes areas with unrestricted parking relatively more attractive, encouraging development there. It's a policy which encourages the city to migrate away from transit, not towards it. All because fewer housing units were built, because we were too eager to realize a future which will come on its own, in time.[1]

The Real Problems

So I'd say the problem is not that we need to force the evil developers to do what "the people" want them to. Nor do we need to discourage people from living around transit with inflexible limits. Parking maximums are unnecessary and counter-productive. But there are other great ways to help push the ball in the right direction. We can start by fighting to get Seattle to drop it's remaining minimum parking requirements. There's no good reason people should be forced to buy a cement car-box along with their house just because they don't live downtown. That's the ridiculous part, that's the part against the will of the people. It also happens to be the cause of a number of other problems, such as a higher cost of housing and the unimpressive architecture of townhomes.[2] Likewise, Erica mentions so-called "unbundling" regulations which require parking to be sold separately from housing. I think these are a great way to help transit users opt out of parking, while ensuring buyers are explicitly confronted with this car expense. Finally, we can keep fighting and voting for better, more responsive transit system. Rather than attempt to drag drivers out of their cars, why not entice them with a fast, frequent, reliable system which they want to use? IMO it's a much friendlier way to build a city, and the challenge forces us to create better answers.
[1] Another fundamental problem is that these maximums are inflexible, and reality often calls for flexible limits. For example, not all light rail stations are created equal. Some, more urban sections of the line will be more likely to be able to fulfill the needs of the residents, while a person living on a more suburban section of the line might have a life which does not fit so neatly around the station. Many of these people, faced with living a "complete" car-only life, or a new and different transit-only life, will choose the former. So residences at the end of the line should rightly have higher parking ratios, but how much higher? And how should those ratios change over time, as the city matures and grows? I don't know; does anyone, really? And that the problem. A city has to mature into a certain rate of parking. This takes time, and is contingent on having a useful, comprehensive transit system. Imposing inflexible limits retards growth in just those areas which are in transition, and slows their progress. [2] But let's say you really hate parking, so much so that you want to actively discourage people from having it. Let's say you have a good reason, like the costs cars impose on society, through the cost of infrastructure (which doesn't come close to being covered by the gas tax), or various negative externalities. If that's the case, the good way to combat these effects is not to institute parking Maximums. Economists have been studying externalities for a long time, and the answer they've come up with is the Pigovian tax. When something has social costs unborn by the buyer, a tax on the product itself can make the buyers act as though they would if they did have to bear that cost. Placing a Pigovian tax on the building of parking spaces would not only decrease the parking ratios of new residential buildings, but the local government collects money along the way. This money can be used to, say, finance transit, or pay for the roads which aren't nearly covered by the gas tax, or lower regressive sales taxes! Not only do you discourage parking, and collect funds which would otherwise have to be collected some more harmful way, but you do so in a flexible way. For people who didn't quite really need a car, $10,000 in taxes can tip the balance toward a life of transit and car sharing. People on the end of the line will still need parking space, and they can have it, it's just somewhat more expensive. But it's more expensive across the city, not just around the terminal, so there's no incentive to live outside of some small regulatory zone. A Pigovian parking space tax discourages car ownership across the city, rather than discouraging development where we want it most.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271428 2008-10-13T15:27:42Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Diamonds aren't Forever For all you people looking to wed eventually, a great article on the future of man-made diamonds, which makes some interesting points worth repeating:
  1. Diamonds are not actually that rare, except that most diamond production is owned by a single cartel (De Beers) which constrains the output to prop up prices and create the appearance of scarcity:

    Natural diamonds aren't particularly rare. In 2006, more than 75,000 pounds were produced worldwide. A diamond is a precious commodity because everyone thinks it's a precious commodity, the geological equivalent of a bouquet of red roses, elegant and alluring, a symbol of romance, but ultimately pretty ordinary.

    Credit for the modern cult of the diamond goes primarily to South Africa-based De Beers, the world's largest diamond producer. Before the 1940s, diamond rings were rarely given as engagement gifts. But De Beers' marketing campaigns established the idea that the gems are the supreme token of love and affection. Their "A Diamond Is Forever" slogan, first deployed in 1948, is considered one of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time. Through a near total control of supply, De Beers held almost complete power over the diamond market for decades, carefully hoarding the gemstones to keep prices—”and profits—”high. While the company has lost some of its power to competitors in Canada and Australia over the past few years, it still controls almost two-thirds of the world's rough diamonds.

  2. Diamonds will soon be easily producible in a lab, which will be excellent for industry

    With a cheap, ready supply of diamonds, engineers hope to make everything from higher-powered lasers to more durable power grids. They foresee razor-thin computers, wristwatch-size cellphones and digital recording devices that would let you hold thousands of movies in the palm of your hand. "People associate the word diamond with something singular, a stone or a gem," says Jim Davidson, an electrical engineering professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "But the real utility is going to be the fact that you can deposit diamond as a layer, making possible mass production and having implications for every technology in electronics.
  3. Unlike diamonds that come from the dirt, man-made diamonds aren't socially nor environmentally destructive

    Like most open-pit mines, diamond mines cause erosion, water pollution and habitat loss for wildlife. Even more troubling, African warlords have used diamond caches to buy arms and fund rebel movements, as dramatized in the 2006 movie Blood Diamond. Actor Terrence Howard wears a diamond lapel pin with Apollo stones. He told reporters, "Nobody was harmed in the process of making it."
The ultimate point is, when real diamonds are cheaply producible in a lab, they won't likely have the luster which comes with scarcity. So ladies, please don't expect your man to spend thousands on a ring because it has a shiny rock on it. Or at least, don't expect that rock to be quite as shiny for much longer.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271430 2008-10-09T16:13:38Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Some things "Bad" are quite Good Cross-posted from Seattle Transit Blog.

Ben W. here, back from a long summer, now under the name Empact, which is a handle I use elsewhere online, and which is hopefully less confusing in light of the esteemed Ben Schiendelman.

So, I was reviewing the new Sound Transit site Andrew alluded to, and it reminded me of a thought I had earlier, which is loosely, and with tongue in cheek, that "everything bad is good." Specifically, the transit life includes a few attendant concerns, which some would scoff at, but which I revel in. For example, rarely, I'm on a schedule or on the edge of a knife, and it's necessary for me to run to catch the bus. Some would say, "what trouble," but I know I don't run nearly enough, and every bit helps. Then, and at the vast majority of times when I don't have to run, I, like Sumit, very much appreciate my walks. Likewise, someone with limited interests might be frustrated with 30 minutes or an hour of transit time, which would otherwise be consumed with focus on the bumper ahead of you, but I, like Pat and her "golden hours," revel in it. I haven't come close to exhausting the different concerns I'd like to investigate. For example, aside from reading I've been know to watch feature films in 20-30 minute increments, and to me this is a treat, something which calls back to the days of the serial radio broadcasts, where instead of hearing "listen next week to find out...," I get to wonder throughout the day what's in store, until I return. I definitely detected this seemingly optimistic attitude, in the videos I saw, in Sumit's walk, and in Pat's "me time." Does this mean that transit is particularly fit for the optimists? Or rather that, as Esther says, "We can make our lives as easy or as difficult as we want," with us on the easy side (given our circumstances)? For what it's worth, the other Pat's initial, temporary reticence, his concern before he knew enough to be won over, seems to support the latter.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271439 2008-09-22T10:46:08Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z ROXML 2.0: An open-source takeover (now with defaults, blocks, hash mapping & better syntax) I've remarked privately from time to time how I couldn't possibly achieve the things I've been working on without a million bits of work put forth by others. The list is massive, everything from the OS I live in to the web framework I build on and the language it's written in, to my source-control management program & IDE, my browser, and a million smaller pieces. Not to mention the many web services, both commercial and not-for-profit, and various tools disguised as websites. Most important of these, lately, seems to have been the git & github team. I'd never done much open-source development in my days, before picking up git. Even if I made changes to an existing project, it was too much a fuss to publish changes, and I was busy with other things. Busy enough that what changes I made, I kept for myself. But now it seems that git(hub) has changed that. Over the past few months I've made a number of contributions, of minor significance, but am graduating into more interesting territory, which is this, ROXML 2.0. ROXML is short for "Ruby Object to XML Mapping Library." XML goes in, Ruby objects come out. In these days, with web-services flying so freely across the web, and XML being one of the common languages thereof, it seems useful that one might be able to declare a mapping in the form of a collection of objects, then extend those objects with functionality, and interact with them cleanly, as objects, not as structured text. I had just this need, and came across ROXML and a number of other similar options. I picked ROXML because it was relatively clean, simple and to the point. I've been hacking away at in in the spare parts of my nights and weekends and by now there's very little recognizable from the original library, so I figure it's time to release :-). For an initial look at ROXML, you can see John Nunnemaker's recent post, or the old site & the docs therein. I'll be using those as a baseline.

A syntax makeover

Now, I can be a stickler for syntax. As I've said before, syntax matters. It changes the way we interact with the system, it changes what is done, how it is done, and what can be done. Take, for example, the old syntax: [sourcecode language='ruby'] class Posts include ROXML xml_attribute :user xml_attribute :tag xml_object :post, Post, ROXML::TAG_ARRAY end [/sourcecode]

Read-only-ability

There's something important missing in those definitions above. Quick, is :user modifiable, or no? What about :tag and :post? Surely it's one or the other, but which? It turns out that the attributes above are writable, which is the default. To override this you'd have to write the following: [sourcecode language='ruby'] xml_attribute :user, ROXML::TAG_READONLY [/sourcecode] As syntaxes go, this is a pretty obtuse barrier to const-correctness, and will likely lead to most developers simply leaving their attributes writable, even when more restrictive setting would be correct. The Ruby community may have cast aside strict typing, but const-correctness is still a very important part of object-oriented programming, what with factoring being all about minimum exposure and minimum coupling, and it ought to be treated as such. The solution is to treat writability the same way the standard attr methods do, by making it a key part of the declaration name. The type name is relegated to a parameter, which gives us flexibility we'll exploit later. In short, you end up with this: [sourcecode language='ruby'] # read-only: xml_reader :user, :attr # writable: xml_accessor :user, :attr [/sourcecode]

Object-tivity

Now you may notice above that :attr declares the referenced type as the second argument. This is consistent throughout and there are several more types. They are:
  • :attr: an xml attribute on the current node, returned as text
  • :text: the contents of a named sub-node, returned as text
  • :content: the contents of the current node, returned as text
  • Object: Any ROXML object can be provided to declare sub-types, including recursive types (provided recursion terminates)
  • [Object], [:text]: Put the type in an Array to declare that there are multiple instances of this type which should be provided in a collection
  • {}: A hash type can be populated with sub-nodes and attributes, in various ways
:text is the default, if no type is declared,

Named args & TAG_what?

The old ROXML uses only positional arguments and these TAG_ constants to declare aspects of the declaration. But the ROXML::TAG_ stuff is unnecessarily heavyweight, so the new ROXML uses symbols instead, e.g. :cdata rather than ROXML::TAG_CDATA. Likewise, many optional arguments are now named, rather than positional. So rather than have to put in the default values for these parameters, or nil, you can simply omit them. So these: [sourcecode language='ruby'] xml_text :name, 'NAME', ROXML::TAG_CDATA & ROXML::TAG_READONLY, 'USER' xml_text :name, nil, ROXML::TAG_READONLY, 'USER' [/sourcecode] Become: [sourcecode language='ruby'] xml_reader :name, :from => 'NAME', :in => 'USER', :as => :cdata xml_reader :name, :in => 'USER' [/sourcecode] The options map as follows:
  • :in: Previously 'wrapper'
  • :from: Previously 'name'
  • :else: Used to declare a default value in case the entity is missing; previously unavailable
  • :as: Previously 'options'. Can be passed as a singly symbol, or multiple in an array

Hash attack!

One of the more important additions is the Hash base type mapping. Hash declarations have a syntax of their own which enable you to pull from attributes, contents, names and sub-nodes of a series of entries. This can be super-useful for web-services which provide collections of named attributes, which fit naturally in this type. The ROXML documentation covers these cases well. Here's a few example of the syntax: [sourcecode language='ruby'] xml_reader :definitions, {:attrs => ['dt', 'dd']} xml_reader :definitions, {:key => {:attr => 'word'}, :value => :content}, :in => 'definitions' [/sourcecode]

Blocks, yo

As xml is by its very nature textual, it may be necessary to coerce it into a certain type or otherwise modify the data before it makes proper sense in the context of an object. As such you can supply a block which enables you to modify the incoming text, for example: [sourcecode language='ruby'] xml_reader :count, :attr do |val| Integer(val) end [/sourcecode]

Under the hood

Finally, an invisible improvement is that I've moved it over to libxml-ruby rather than REXML, for the sake of performance. So it should be significantly zippier on large sets of data, though to be honest I've done no profiling to confirm this.

Wrapping up...

So there you have it. You can get the gem from my github. You can see the docs here. I'll see if I can get this onto the official rubyforge site as well. The code is fresh, and while I've increased testing on it significantly (up to 131 assertions from the initial 25), there's plenty of possibility for bugs therein. Please just send me a message or pull request on github if you run into anything. Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Anders Engstrom, Zak Mandhro and Russ Olsen for their prior work on ROXML, which made this all a lot easier to get going. Thanks guys.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271444 2008-09-09T07:05:00Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z [saturdayhouse] Sacred Books - SAT 12:00-2:00

Lion Kimbro wrote:

Saturday House!,Brian Rice, John Lynch, and I came up with an informal event lastweek for this Saturday, from 12:00 noon - 2:00 PM, and you areinvited.  Brian Rice had the basic idea, ("let's share ourfavorite books,") and I fleshed out this email.The purpose is to develop a stream of conversation around whathas heart and has meaning for us, with the underlying hypothesis being that it can point us towards the Divine.  But you don't have to see it that way at all, and can substitute in your own purpose.  (Just as long as the intent is basically positive.)

I love this idea.

2 questions:
  1. Shall we optionally pre-announce our books to the list?
  2. Are you opposed to publicizing this event via non-saturday-house-mailing-list methods?  I was thinking about using your description for a facebook event.
]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271446 2008-06-21T17:58:08Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z What would a sane healthcare system look like? I received notice earlier today that a photo I'd taken was to be used in an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I'm glad to see my work (loosely speaking) get out there, but I had some issues with the editorial itself, and posted the following response:
As the taker of the photo (seriously), I have other thoughts on the subject. I don't agree that governmental health care reform is the way to go, without knowing more about the specific legislation. I looked up the one you mention, and found not a lot to like. Specifically, this is a big problem:
In exchange for all of this consumer support, the Wyden-Bennett plan would require individuals to have health insurance (an individual mandate), which must be purchased from a state-run purchasing pool that would require health policies to have substantial benefits (rich benefit mandates) and offer a choice of private policies. - source
This is a problem because health insurance itself is largely the culprit in our broken system. To make a Massachusetts-style health insurance mandate would only reward those who screwed things up in the first place, while perpetuating an inefficient system. My point in taking the picture was that insurance itself has got way out of hand, because it complicates the whole process. The key problem here is that health insurance isn't used as "insurance" per se. Proper insurance (fire, flood, car, &c) covers unlikely but potentially devastating expenses. But regular health insurance covers far more, and inserts itself into almost every health transaction, to our detriment:
"Insuring primary care is like insuring lunch. You know you're going to need it. You know you can afford it. Why on earth would you pay a third party to pay the restaurant on your behalf, adding overhead and taking a big chunk out of the money you pay—”and because of the process, have to wait a week to get a table and then have only 10 minutes to eat?" - source
As it is, some 40-50 cents on the dollar goes to wrangling with insurers about payment, this is wasted value which the consumer never sees, and which drives up medical costs. The alternative I favor is the system put forth by Dr. Garrison Bliss, which has 3 parts:
  1. A High-deductible health plan, i.e., insurance which only kicks in for catastrophic problems, such as cancer or a bad car accident. The premiums are much lower because the deductible is much higher (on the order of $1.5k).
  2. A Health Savings Account, which you and your employer contribute to tax-exempt, and from which you pay most of your medical expenses. You can afford to have money here because your premiums are so much lower.
  3. An enrollment with a Direct Primary Care provider, such as Dr. Garrison's Qliance, where you pay a fixed rate (in this case ~$50/month, though it could go lower), and in return get real relationship with, and 24hr access to, a primary care physician, and other services (x-rays, labwork, at-cost pharmacy) which makes your primary care physician much more than just someone who refers you to a specialist after 10 minutes.
In this system, your Direct Primary Care provider (DPCp) can work unencumbered by insurance paperwork, and has a strong financial incentive both to keep you happy (and thus enrolled), and healthy (and thus safe at home, rather than in their office). In those cases where you need to go to a specialist (much less often than the status quo), your DPCp would act as an independent, knowledgeable advocate on your behalf, advising you on the necessity of procedures, and the reasonable costs of them. Here again, the DPCp does so because they want your continued business, not because they're hoping to wring out another unnecessary procedure. Meanwhile, different DPC providers can directly compete, on costs and amenities, for the business of available patients. Such a system would dramatically shift the balance of power back to the consumer and their doctor, rather than putting it in the hands of insurer overlords who get to decide your every medical transaction. People would have a real relationship with their primary care provider, who has a strong incentive to support them with ongoing preventative care. While competition and consumer choice work to push inefficiency out of the system, from top to bottom. To me, this sounds a good deal better than the status quo, and other options I've heard.
Just to be clear, in the above system, the cost-savings and added benefits work out as follows:
  • By removing multiple rounds of insurer paperwork from each transaction you save a large portion of the 40-50% currently spent on administrative costs.
  • By maintaining a close relationship with a primary care doctor, on an enrollment basis, you greatly reinforce incentives to engage in preventative care, thus in many cases avoiding major health expenses by nipping them in the bud.
  • Many lower-level emergencies which might otherwise send you to the (expensive) emergency room can instead be handled by your DPCp.
  • As your DPCp is paid on a monthly basis, rather than per-procedure, they have no incentive to cajole you into unnecessary tests or procedures. This cuts down on medical expenses in general, by reducing unnecessary ones.
The net effect is the patient and primary care provider at the center of health care decisions, while potentially providing a significantly higher level of care for the same cost.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271447 2008-05-26T18:53:01Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Amtrak Cascades: Families & Discounts For completeness, this is a post of mine to Seattle Transit Blog from a few weeks back:

A few follow-ups to points raised in the comments to the previous post:

said...

You've heard of these groups of more than 2 people called "families", yes?

Yes of course! I was one of 7 myself. First of all, as you might expect, Amtrak maintains discounts for children 15 and younger, fully 1/2 off:

Child 2 - 15 50% Up to two children per paying adult. Children must travel with adult. 1, 2 Infant Under 2 Free One infant per paying adult. Infants must ride on adult's lap.

Also, as Steve points out in the comments, Amtrak maintains an off-season discount program from November to May which offers free companion travel (2 for the price of one) for trips from Seattle to Portland. Fully half the year! This ends on the May 23rd, but is something to keep in mind for your spring travel next year.

But my point extends to any number of people, discounts or no. It all comes down to how much your time, the environment, &c., are worth to you. Some are better off driving and some not, but in order to know who is which, it's necessary to look at the numbers, to help overcome our natural biases.

I've extended the calculator to take these options into account here. Simply adjust the size of your party, the cost of tickets, or the MPG of your car, to get personalized information of what the costs are.

bellevue said...
I wish they would offer a multi person ticket rate, I like taking public transit but I'm never alone so the cost just does not work out.

See the above points about discounts and such. Again, I'm not saying rail makes sense for everyone everywhere. I do think that people (even transit-savvy people) underestimate their options when it comes to Amtrak, though.

So even if you're skeptical, please do check out the updated calculator and fill in your info, to get a real sense of the costs and how it compares to driving.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271452 2008-05-26T18:46:52Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Amtrak Cascades: A Better Value Than You Might Think For completeness, this is a post of mine to Seattle Transit Blog from a few weeks back: Your local ex-motorist (Ben W.) finally had his first rail trip last weekend, down to Portland and back, and I've some thoughts on the process, which I'll be sharing over my next few posts. The first question, for the many who have never taken regional rail or thought much about it, is why take rail? What does Amtrak have to offer, compared to the other options: the road-trip or the short distance flight? I'll skip over flights here because they're easy to dismiss, particularly if you're paying for them. They're almost 3x the cost ($159 vs. $56), and while they're faster in flight, when you count travel to and from the airport and security clearance time, the advantage wears down. Cars on the other hand, you may see as your old, trusted companion for these trips, when perhaps they shouldn't be. It may seem obvious to you that the $60 round trip cost of a train ticket is more expensive than driving yourself, but it's as often false as true. One of our natural human biases is that we often ignore costs which accrue over time, if we're not confronted with them directly. For example, as I mentioned in an earlier post, depreciation costs thousands a year, but you think more about this cost if you're confronted with it each year than if you buy the car outright. This is despite the fact that the salable price for your car continually declines, so the economic cost is the same. Likewise, a roadtrip may feel like a liberating, low-cost experience, while the cost of the Amtrak ticket may seem high, when in fact the out-of-pocket costs are the same (for a single traveller, with the fuel efficiency below). You might think differently because paying the cost of fuel isn't a precondition to starting your voyage, the costs come up after you've committed to the trip, and are thus easier to dismiss. I put together this calculator to quantify this point. Note that you can edit the calculator values to put in your own car's fuel efficiency, for example. Now, this shows Amtrak and driving costs (for the single traveler) are essentially equal, on average, but there are qualifiers on both sides of this comparison. First of all, fuel costs are by no means the full cost of the car trip. Other costs include depreciation from the mileage you're putting on your car, the potential cost of an accident, and the cost of your time in the car. Just like busing it to work, in the train you can work, read, or watch a film, while you can't do the same in a car, and this has real value, as we'll see. Finally, the train is much more fuel-efficient than your car. While it's difficult to say exactly how much more, wikipedia puts the figure somewhere between 1.25x and a whopping 20x the efficiency in the train. Note too, that the unimpressive lower figure is dubious, and more likely to be in-line with other rails systems, at 6x or better. Naturally, a train which uses less fuel also emits less pollution, to a similar extent. Adding to this effect is that rail, as point to point transport, encourages walkable, dense cities, rather than the highway system's sprawl, so your use has long-term effects even beyond the benefits of the ride. On the other hand, to be fair, cars do offer you greater flexibility, in timing, destination and route, and, importantly, the fuel and depreciation costs are fixed, while the rail costs are per-person. So you can pile 5 people into a car and travel at a fraction of the cost of the multiple rail tickets you'd need to buy. So there are legitimate reasons that it may be reasonable or necessary to take a car. But even these points may not be as clear as they seem. While 5 people splitting the costs may be a clear win, 2 people is much more common scenario, and isn't necessarily clear-cut. Even though the rail costs are now twice as much, this extra $60 over the cost of fuel has to then be weighed against the value of your free time. That $60 works out to just $5/hr of time ($60/(2 people * 6hrs round trip)), and as I mentioned, rail time is computer/book/movie time, while car time is often just that. Now, I'm not saying one is always and everywhere a clear win over the other, but along with the environmental and city benefits, one might think that paying $5/hr to be free to work or to write may be well worth it. Put another way, even at minimum wage, it takes fewer hours of work to earn those costs than the time over which you enjoy the benefits. At a standard wage (WA median household income / (52 wks * 40hrs) = roughly $30/hr), you're each working for an hour to liberate yourself for 6. So there you have it, for 1 person it's a clear win, and for 2 or more, or for last-minute, higher-cost purchases, you should weigh the time and environment you save against the costs you pay. The point here is not to say that we should never need or use a car, but to give these things their appropriate measure, and have them coexist. So for your next trip to Portland or Vancouver, consider leaving the car at home and checking out Amtrak. Update: I've got a follow-up post on Families and Discounts, in response to some questions in the comments.]]> tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271458 2008-04-07T16:25:39Z 2013-10-08T16:19:08Z Making the Transition Cross-posted to the Seattle Transit Blog. Regarding my previous post, nickb asks:
My question is how did the transition happen. Was it more just a matter of you stopped using the car and started using just public transportation?
In a sense, yes, it was as simple as using transit instead of a car. However, it takes some actual effort to discover that it is possible to get where you want without that car you're used to. For me, it was a process of migration and discovery, each step intentional, encouraged by the reasons I described earlier, but also testing the waters to ensure that I wasn't choosing the path of martyrs. Happily, I can attest I was not. The important benchmarks in my transition, which may be helpful in making yours, were: 1) Using Transit as a Commuter As I wrote, busing it to work was a given, and it served the important role of introducing me to transit here. This was a significant step for someone whose transit use was previously non-existent as a child of the suburbs, and in Austin limited to my weekend use of the E-Bus (aka Drunk Bus) which runs between the University of Texas Campus and 6th Street (infamous for its numerous bars & venues). 2) The arrival of Google Transit Don't get me wrong, the King County Trip Planner is pretty good. But Google Transit (previously mentioned) does it much better, because it allows you to interact visually with your options on Google's draggable, zoomable maps. This is a matter of night and day for anyone as visually-driven or memory-challenged (where was that street again?) as I. Better still, it recognizes and accepts far more place names and address formats, so you need not hunt around for the address or answer questions about whether you really meant PL instead of Place. It's free and highly recommended. To use it, you can either use the link above, or from any Google Maps directions page, click the "Take Public Transit" link in the upper left, once you have your destination plotted. 3) Taking the One-Less-Car challenge The one-less-car challenge (also mentioned previously) offers incentives for those who commit to not using their vehicle for a set amount of time. The program isn't active yet for 2008 (we'll update you when it is), but you don't need the program to get its most powerful benefit, which is the commitment itself. Like others who have used this program, it was taking this challenge that pushed me to go out and try the other ways of getting around which I wasn't used to; to rent a Flexcar even though I had my own car out on the street, or to take a bus to a seemingly out-of-the-way place. Only to find that the experiences where painless. So look for the return of the challenge, or, if you're able and willing, simply challenge yourself to go without your own car for a while. You may find it easier and more liberating than expected. 4) Renting my first Flexcar (now ZipCar) For the foreseeable future, there will be parts of Seattle that aren't well-traveled by transit, where either there is no route when you need it, or there is no direct route. Sometimes, those place happen also to be your destination for the night. My first Flexcar rental was also my first trip out to the (AFAIK) sleepy and suburban Mercer Island. It was a pleasant trip, and easy to manage, in the time of computers (to find & reserve the car) and cell-phones (to extend the reservation if necessary). I've since taken out a ZipCar, and the experience was the same, but a bit friendlier. For example, I find their web experience more intuitive, and there's never a need to carry around the car's key, because your card always does the locking. 5) Taking a bus out into the Unknown Or in this case, Greenlake. All my time here, I'd traveled to and from my friends' place in Greenlake via auto. But finally the aforementioned commitment pushed me to check out the other options (found via Google Transit), and I found them quite pleasant. The point being, just because you've never taken a bus over that way, doesn't mean it's inconvenient to do so. I've since traveled as far as Everett without incident. A Step Not Yet Taken: Put the Internet in my pocket The next big enabler I see in my future, which I'll suggest to you all as an option, is the extra ease which will come once I have the internet in my pocket, via a web-enabled phone. Both for transit and ZipCar, a certain small amount of planning is necessary, to minimize waiting time and to know the route, or to find and reserve the car. Having the internet available from the street means that no matter where I am, or what I've been doing that day, if it comes up that I need to get somewhere unexpected, I can pull up these sites and find my way. Thus I'm a little more free, which of course is the goal. Conclusion So after all of these, I've made a successful transition. Everyone's needs are different of course, or as they say, your mileage may vary, but I've found these steps are a sensible way to try things out.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271368 2008-03-14T03:28:49Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z The Ex-motorist Cross-posted to the Seattle Transit Blog. Thoreau said that freedom was not only a situation apart from ourselves, from which a person could be plucked or into which one could be thrust, but also could be a consequence of our choices, the things we volunteer ourselves into, for our own reasons or on behalf of society. In particular, he contrasts the lifestyles of the native peoples, whose simple habitations were easily constructed, with the farmers who would spend decades of work to pay off the mortgages on their homes. The farmers may have seemed better off, but at the same time they were bound to this heavy burden, which drove them to work the land rather than write, as Thoreau did, or simply live more simply. I don't mean to romanticize the state of the natives, but there's a legitimate question to be asked here: how free were the farmers, really? Had they unknowingly chosen to punish themselves because that was "the right thing to do" in the society they lived? This concept of the unacknowledged burden became quite real to me recently when I unloaded myself of a burden which had once been, and remains to many, a symbol of freedom: my car. I've been living in Capitol hill for the past year and a half. My drift away from the car started immediately; first it was obvious that the bus was an easier commute than my car, because on the bus I had my time to myself, and it spread from there. I've since read books, watched films, learned a fair amount of French and even done a bit of work on the bus. In fact, I largely wrote this post on the bus. Over time, I built up a pretty clear case for giving up the car, which I share here because some of the arguments can be subtle, and may have been missed. I'll try not to cover the obvious reasons, (i.e., the inconvenience of parking and the cost of gas and insurance), just 3 oft-ignored costs. The Inconvenience of Maintenance One cold night, a friend and I went to take my car out. It'd been a few weeks since I'd used it, but it had always been dependable, so imagine my surprised when the engine refused to turn over. No problem, it had just been out for a while and the battery had discharged. A jump from a helpful friend later, and I'm on the road. Perhaps I only need to drive a little while and the batter will be charged back up and good to go. Wrong. Only after a month and a hand-full of attempted jumps, including one from a re-neg-er who said "um, this is taking longer than I expected, I'm gonna go back to my house" (5 minutes in and half a block away from her house) did we make it back to be fixed. The battery had gone bad. All told, this event required hours of time, $200 in the cost of jumper cables and a battery, and the priceless aid of friends and passers-by, to be fixed. Time, money, inconvenience. But beyond that, upon checking the car for the battery problem, the mechanics came back with a laundry list of concerns, adding up to thousands of dollars in potential maintenance, of questionable necessity. Driving home the point that I didn't have time for maintenance, one of their suggestions was that I replace my wiper blades, which were in fact bad. Apparently, they had failed to notice that I had a fresh pair in the backseat, which had been there for months but I'd never had the time to put in place. The Cost of Depreciation Yes, depreciation: the difference between what you could sell your car for last month and this; the value that your car loses over time. In my case, I drove a distinguished but not flashy two-door coupe, bought it for $9000 and two years later could sell it for around $6000. $3000 dollars over 2 years, and this for a 10 year old car! This is not the cost you see flowing out of your wallet, but it's the true economic cost. It exists, it's substantial, and it's an amount you should account for when comparing alternatives. The Goal of Density I've an appreciation for density for one important reason: cultural diversity. A major part of what determines whether a certain obscure genre can be represented in an art gallery, music venue or bar is the quantity of patrons willing to make the trip out to support that establishment. Greater density means more people within a given radius and thus a greater likelihood that enough people will be willing and able to travel to and support this establishment, keeping it alive. This is one reason rural and suburban areas are so often cultural wastelands. Institutions can't muster the support they need when their potential patrons are so spread out. You can't have a gay bar and a metal bar and a indie bar and so on when you have a handful of each. And spread out why? For the sake of lawns and parking. If there's one thing which prevents a place from effectively becoming more dense, it is the roads and parking lots needed to support the car-only lifestyle. A one-car-per-person society has a hard limit on how dense it can become, and thus typically a practical limit on how culturally diverse it may be. But if we make the choice to minimize our own footprint, we open the door to greater density and all the attendant benefits. Conclusion So, when I finally relieve myself of my car, I not only save money (by relying on public transit and zipcar), lessen my impact on the environment, clear my mind & schedule by offloading the concerns of maintenance to those I rely on, and give myself time to read and to write, but I also help support a society in which it is possible for minority ideas & establishments to flourish in the support of their nearby constituents. This is the liberation I'm finding as an ex-motorist.]]> tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271372 2007-12-03T12:56:20Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Can Money be Speech? I was reading up online and I came across this statement in an argument about the public finance of campaigns (which I happen to think is a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't cover here):
Money is not free speech.
My response: This is a troubling statement. I'll try to explain why... Speech is not just speech. It is a million little steps which translate one person's thoughts into corresponding thoughts in another person's head. Money is one path through which a person's ideas and intentions travel. For example, if I want to communicate in another language, I must have a translator. If one isn't available for free (i.e., doesn't volunteer), then I must hire one in order to express my message in that language. If the government limits my ability to give a translator money in order to speak for me, then they have limited my right and ability to speak. The same is true of other forms of expression which require a purchase, such as advertising. So ultimately, when I give my money to a group which I support, they are acting for me, and by proxy expressing my speech. I support Ron Paul, and he, quite literally, speaks for me in the Republican debates, and in his ads. If you legislate my right to act through him, you limit my very ability to express myself. IMO, liberals are taking the wrong approach by going for public financing. Other people, such as Lawrence Lessig, are doing a much better job of approaching the problem without potentially destroying our speech rights. The problem here is quid-pro-quo (whether it be votes or access), and as he cites, interesting work is being done to break that (quid-pro-quo) link, without limiting the speech that occurs through dollar-voting on the part of citizens.]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271377 2007-08-31T11:56:38Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Electioneering In a moment of zest, I took a few minutes aside to write my local legislators about an issue which concerns me, which is our voting method. Few people are aware of the effects that our voting method have on politics, or even that there are alternatives. But there's a growing grass-roots movement of people who recognize the benefits of better voting systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting and Condorcet Voting Methods (such as the Schulze Method). Why should you care about the voting method? Well, one of the many good reasons I didn't discuss in my letter is that our voting method makes us stuck with choices we don't like, and it picks a winner who is often not the best candidate in the eyes of the electorate. For example, look at the federal landscape today. Not one branch of government has an approval rating above 30%. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have only the good Democrats and only the good Republicans, or how about someone in the middle? But you can't do that, you're stuck with just 2 choices, and there's a reason. At the core of it, is the Spoiler effect. This is what comes into play when a third candidate 'spoils' the election toward the least-preferred candidate, as Nader and Perot in these past few elections. Basically, a rising star builds up their momentum up until the moment when they split the vote enough to spoil the election, and at that moment, their very constituency turns against them. I witnessed this first-hand in Austin, where the liberals vilified and actively opposed Nader's efforts in 2004, even though they agreed with him, because they believed he had spoiled the election to Bush the Younger. This whole process is known as Duverger's Law, and this is the reason people speak of our system as a "two party system." This is, as they say, a bug, not a feature, that is, it's a flaw in our system, not something we've taken on by choice. Another way of looking at this is through the academics' eyes, who call this the voting criterion of Clone Independence. Basically, 'clone independence' is the question of what happens if you taking an existing race, clone one of the candidates, and carry on the race with the clone included. Different systems react differently. In our system, plurality voting, the clones together are less likely to win than the original on their own. For example, 2 qualified liberals or 2 qualified conservative are actually less likely to win than a single qualified liberal or conservative. In others, they may be more likely to win. The proper answer though, is that they should collectively have the same chance of winning as the original did on their own, and their are several systems like that. Including both Instant Runoff Voting, and my personal favorite, the Schulze Method, for which I prefer the name 'Full-Runoff voting.' In any case, for those of you frustrated with what's going on, I recommend you pick a subject which has local significance, because your voice is 100x louder when you speak to your local legislators, who have far fewer constituents. Go to your legislators, show your interest, and speak to them on the specifics which actually affect their constituents, which they recognize could affect their chances of re-election. As a politician once said, whether they agree with you or not, "when I feel the heat, I see the light."
Dear [Mr./Mrs. Legislator], I hope you'll consider supporting Instant Runoff Voting, aka Ranked Choice voting, ala [HB 2202/ SB 6000], which I'll refer to as IRV. If you're unfamiliar with IRV, it's a form of voting which allows the voter to rank each of the candidates according to their preference. At the time of tabulating the votes, if no candidate has a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and their votes are re-alloted to the second-choice candidates of those voters. Candidates are successively eliminated until one of the remaining candidates has a majority of votes. It may not be obvious from my telling, but IRV presents the opportunity to solve several of our problems in Washington at once. First of all it removes the need to limit choice through the restrictions of the pick-a-party primary. This is a problem which has been generating frustration on the local level across Washington, as evidenced by Pierce County's adoption of IRV to solve just this problem. Second, it ensures that all our elected officials must win the support of at least 50% + 1 of the electorate in order to be elected. Not the out-right support mind you, but enough to put them out ahead of their other major opponents. In many local races this makes a significant difference, for example at the Port of Seattle Commissioner election just a few days ago, Place 2 was won with just 33% of the vote! Only a third of voters supported that candidate (Gael Tarleton) and yet she won. Likewise, Redmond's mayor was elected with 39% of the vote, and had strong opponents with 36% and 24% of the vote. It's very possible that more of the electorate actually preferred the candidate who received 36%, but were unable to have there preference heard, because of our limited voting system. The principles of representative democracy suggest we can do a better job of forming a consensus for who to choose as representatives, and IRV can help us do that. I've spoken with a number of people about this, and just about everyone I've spoken to thinks its a great idea once they know about it. It's encouraging that Pierce county has voted to adopt this method, and it shows that there is a grass-roots movement growing up around the issue. I hope you'll be there to work with that movement. I'm looking forward to working with you on this issue, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Regards, Ben Woosley P.S. Another alternative to IRV, rather than eliminating the least popular candidate each round, uses the voters' ballots to run a "virtual" runoff between each and every pair of candidates, simultaneously. The candidate who beats each of the other candidates in this "virtual" runoff is the winner. In the rare case there is not a single candidate who wins all run-offs, IRV-style elimination rounds are used. This is known as Condorcet's voting method, and is technically better than IRV. Both are much better than our current system.
]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271378 2007-07-03T11:49:37Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z A tale of music discovery in the Information Age
  1. Load up boingboing, one of the more interesting blogs on the internet, to see what they've scared up recently.
  2. Notice an article on the holographic projection of sea-life on a recent Diesel fashion show. Sounds interesting...
  3. Follow the link over to youtube, to get a look at the effects
  4. You're a sucker for distorted vocals and dirty beats (see Vitalic, Battles), so you immediately notice the first song on play in the video, and suddenly you must know the answer to the question: who are these people?
  5. Search for some of the lyrics. Nope not good enough. Try again. And again.
  6. Bingo
  7. You ask yourself, who the heck is this "Walter Meego" guy?
  8. Look up "his" wikipedia page.
  9. Oh it's actually a them (who thought up that band name?). And they're from Chicago. Independent until recently, only E.P.s so far. The person who wrote the "style" section is laughably amateur, not at all in wikipedia style. This means the page doesn't get much traffic. Not surprising considering the other facts.
  10. Hop over to their myspace page, looking for more music to sample. They say they are working on a full-length album, good for them. You're much more impressed with "Romantic," the song from the video, than their other stuff, but that's life. Hopefully the eventual album is more in that style. Not touring much at the moment, unfortunately. You've discovered them just a bit too late to reasonably tip-off your NY-habiting friend about their show there that very night.
  11. Check if youtube has any videos of theirs, to get more a feel for their style
  12. First up, a video which appears to have been made in a dorm room, and includes a synchronized dance scene ala the macarena. The whole thing is kind of flippant and uninteresting. Okay okay they're independent, you get it. You just have such high expectations after seeing such great stuff from other bands.
  13. Second up, for the song which tipped you off, is a video involving ninjas playing in a theme park, playground, rollerskating, and getting rejected by the girls they make advances on. This is, put simply, an abomination. It runs totally counter to the song, trivializing the depth and sorrow of it in again, a flippant way. A commenter captures this in more than one language:
    I don't like this video. I love the song. I'm just so frustrated I'm gonna say this in swedish because I'm way too frustrated to think right now. Videon gör inte låten någon som helst rättvisa! What were you thinking? You've made light of the song and yourself with this video! C'mon u guys got some serious potential! Silly video and so's the other one.
  14. Disappointing, yes, but not a deal-breaker, after all, it's just the music you're there for. Still, someone needs to give these guys a talking to. Competition in the music industry is fierce, and videos are one of the best ways to spread the word. If your talent doesn't translate into the visual realm, find someone whose does.
  15. Head over to Amazon to pick up an E.P. Think twice and go to the band's website. They probably keep more of the money that way.
  16. Hmm... Romantic was the song you liked, but the Romantic EP is stuck together with "Wanna be a star" which is a bit more straightforward in just about every way... beats, lyrics. Definitely a B-side. But the sample remix isn't terrible. Ah well. If you were playing the iTunes game you may wait and purchase by the track, but you're not, so platters it is.
  17. Reflect on how awesome it is that you just used a fashion show soundtrack together with a host of internet tools as a music recommendation system to find a promising, yet (deeply?) flawed, relatively unknown band.
  18. Write a blog post about it.
]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271385 2007-06-01T11:24:50Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z ideas travel through us A quote, relating to this column by (none other than) Fidel Castro titled "Ideas can not be Killed". Some could claim that ideas can't be killed because they are spread quickly through society. Of course the truth, I suspect, is more beautiful:
One could go further and say that ideas are inherent to reality. That what we do is just pick up the pieces of a story folded all around us. So one can tell you not to think, blow out the brains of the one who does, but they can not destroy the reality which we fight to carry out, to honor, to realize.
]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271390 2007-03-10T16:57:39Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Creationist Revisionism Well, it has been a long while, but after weeks of travel and work and films and art and some business, I've been refocusing my attention on the need for creation, for creative action. In that spirit, I'm reclaiming this blog for what I'd always intended it to be, a place for me to record my thoughts, and perhaps contribute something meaningful to the conversation at work on the web these days. So be warned, the future is now; or very soon at least.]]> tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271398 2006-08-09T13:34:52Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Urban Shenanigans

I've recently moved to Seattle, and while the trip itself is something I should take the time to write about, since then I've had a really excellent time of getting to know a new place, finding and settling in a house, and meeting new people. Aside from all that, I love the city, but have had trouble explaining why. Today I had an experience which I think conveys the beauty of Urban life.

I've rented a place in a neighborhood called Capitol Hill, an interesting area across the freeway from downtown proper. I've all my things, save any furniture, which didn't make it into the car for the roadtrip up here. Anyhow, no furniture means no bed. It didn't take long to learn that the tile floor would be inhospitable, so after a brief stint sleeping on a mat of some of my clothes, and a longer one on a cot borrowed from a co-worker, as of today, I returned home to find the bed I had ordered over the weekend. Seeing as how I'd never owned a bed larger than a twin, I didn't have the sheets for the new one, so I set off, at 8:20, to get some sheets downtown from a certain store, knowing full well they were closing at 9:00.

Simply enough, I walk to the bus stop, hoping my timing will be right, but when I check, the schedule says that a bus had just past 5 minutes ago and another wouldn't come by for 30 more, too late to make it. Undeterred, I walked down the street towards another stop, where I know I can catch other routes downtown. Two blocks later, at an intersection, my bus zooms by, late. The light changes before I have time to cross and, flustered, I cross the other way, thinking the bus would be gone before I made it over to the bus stop.

I'm wrong, so when the light changes again, I'm on the wrong side of the street from where the bus still sits. In a moment, I'm running down the street, hoping to cross and catch it at the next intersection. Then, tradgedy strikes; As I'm running, I suddenly realize my phone is no longer in my pocket! How could this be?!? I'm forced to turn around the find it, as it's quite dear to me. I use it to take my pictures.

It turns out that my shorts, which I'd had for a while but were fine, except for having holey pockets, had gone from bad to worse and my phone could now fall out! Luckily it was an inexpensive lesson, as I found my phone, relatively unharmed a few feet away.

Knowing I'm pressed for time, I run to the next bus stop, where I'm glad to see that I have just a few minutes before the next bus arrives. So I sit and wait, and pretty soon four soccer players walk past. Then, there's a guy posting flyers on utility poles and trying to chat up women. The first one doesn't respond and he lurks behind her angrily for a short while, saying "You could at least smile, I'm never gonna see you again," but a few minutes later he's talking to another girl about cell phones and how mothers are sometimes wrong.

Late again, the bus eventually arrives, but now I'm pressed as ever for time. Less than 10 minutes later, I'm at my intersection, so I exit the bus and run through a crowd of sedentry folks waiting for the bus, over to the store which is due to close in 5 minutes. I make it, and after spending a few minutes comparing the merits of egyptian cotton to regular cotton, and 200 thread count to 350, I pick a few things and head to the counter, where the checkers are surprised to see a customer (and not just any customer, mind you ;-)) is in the store. One of them unlocks the door, and after regaining my bearings, I'm off to catch the bus back to Capitol Hill, carrying a rather large bag of bedding.

Pretty soon I see my bus down the street and, once again, this time with loot in hand, run toward it. I'm too late to catch it, and once again something falls out of my pocket. Luckily I've learned my lesson so it's just 2 dimes. While I pause to collect them, I realize that the bus I've just missed has another stop a block away, where a whole crowd of people are waiting for it.

I line up behind one of the people and notice that I'm not the only one carrying a big bag. Most everyone there had a large bag or suitcase or something. So, with nothing better to do in line, I ask one someone with a bag, "What's with all the suitcases and stuff?," to which she replies, "We're homeless, and we're heading down to a Church." Huh. Homeless people in Seattle seem much more "normal" than homeless people in Austin, which mostly are kooky or lazy (Seriously, ask another Austinite). Anyway, I finally get in the bus thinking that I blend in pretty well with these normal-looking, bag-carrying homeless folks, and I'm wondering if anyone thinks I'm homeless. I have time to reflect on that because one of the homeless ladies, who has a cast on her foot, is using the lift to get in, while another homeless lady yells at her (hollers, really), saying "What're you doing?! You don't need that, why I oughta woop your ass! You're holding up the bus!".

After other sights and sounds on the way back, I finally make it back home, and am glad to have sat by some rather polite people, who may or may not have thought me homeless.

So there you have it. It may not sound glorious, but I promise, it was.

PS. I don't want it to be thought that I'm disrespecting the homeless folks. Personally I think it's rather sad that so many people cloak their disdain by "feeling sorry". I give them the respect of treating them just as I treat everyone else.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271406 2006-07-13T12:40:23Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z Thriving Optimism

After reflecting on my previous post, I now plan to make an effort to write more often when I'm excited than when I'm frustrated.

]]>
tag:empact.posthaven.com,2013:Post/271410 2006-07-13T10:34:36Z 2013-10-08T16:19:07Z No Justice, No Peace

I've never taken a side in the Middle East conflict, except to say that I codemn the violence perpetrated by both sides. Today we enter a sad new stage of the crisis. Just months ago, with the transfer of the Gaza Strip and the signing of the prisoner's agreement, I had hopes that the Palestineans and Israelis were finally taking the steps necessary to work for peace. Sadly, as evidenced by the Israeli invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, it seems I was mistaken. As before, I don't defend the kidnappings and killings perpetrated by Hezbollah and Palestinean militants, but when the reponse to 5 deaths is the invasion of Lebanon & Palestine, as well as the deaths of more than 80 Palestineans, including women and children, the response clearly excedes the boudaries of justice. Israel will never have the peace it claims to desire until it learns to love justice more than the gun.

My message to the Israelis, Palestineans and Lebanese is the same as it's alway been. Let's not be eager for retribution, let's be eager for peace.

]]>