[video]
April 1943. “Chicago & North Western R.R. — Mrs. Dorothy Lucke, employed as a wiper at the roundhouse in Clinton, Iowa.” (4x5 Kodachrome transparency by Jack Delano for the Office of War Information; via Shorpy)
[video]
by Fotoopa (via Dark Roasted Blend)
[video]
[video]
“Dragon spaceship opens the navigation pod bay door without hesitation. So much nicer than HAL9000.” — Elon Musk, SpaceX
[video]
Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System || Universe Today -
For years, scientists have thought a bow “shock” formed ahead of our solar system’s heliosphere as it moved through interstellar space – similar to the sonic boom made by a jet breaking the sound barrier. But new data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) shows that our system and its heliosphere move through space too slowly to form a bow shock, and therefore does not exist. Instead there is a more gentle ‘wave.’
“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”
Indo-Pak Update: A Future of Nudges and Hopes || via Meadia -
Few bilateral relationships matter more for the long-term stability of Asia than that between New Delhi and Islamabad. But few, too, are as seemingly intractable….
[A recent report by the International Crisis Group on Indo-Pakistani relations] provides some room for the one resource scarcer in the Indus Basin than water, optimism. The legacy media’s coverage of Indo-Pakistani relations usually takes place through the lens of Kashmir, militaries, and terrorism, but, the Crisis Group report emphasizes, there has actually been significant improvement in trade relations between the two countries. The ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government agreed to grant most favored nation (MFN) status to India in November 2011, to be implemented by the end of 2012, a decision that the largest opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) also supported. This decision ‘is not merely an economic concession but also a significant political gesture. Departing from Pakistan’s traditional position, the current government no longer insists on linking normalization of relations with resolution of the Kashmir dispute. India no longer insists on making such normalization conditional on demonstrable Pakistani efforts to rein in India-oriented jihadi groups, particularly the Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and hence suspension of the composite dialogue.’
This matters. Decoupling trade from other contentious issues could have significant consequences. Pakistan’s current trade with India represents only one percent of its total balance, while Indian exports to Pakistan accounted for only 0.93 percent of its total exports. ‘India-Pakistan trade is a win-win situation’, says former Pakistan State Bank Governor Ishrat Hussain. Says a Pakistan economist, Asad Sayeed, ‘Economic growth can take place either through major structural transformation or through trade. Since Pakistan’s economic structure has remained the same for at least the last 40 years, the only way to ensure growth is regional trade and investment.’ Pakistan’s two largest industries, textiles and food processing, are sophisticated enough to compete well in Indian markets, while energy-hungry India would benefit from access to the world’s second-largest coal mines in the Thar Desert in Sindh Province.
[video]
Can Hydras Eat Unknown-Unknowns for Lunch? || ribbonfarm -
There is a fascinating set of ideas that has been swirling around in the global zeitgeist for the past decade, around the quote that will keep Donald Rumsfeld in the history books long after his political career is forgotten. I am referring, of course, to the famous unknown-unknowns quote from 2002. Here it is:
[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.
Rumsfeld put his finger on a major itch that set off widespread scratching. This scratching, which is about the collective human condition in the face of fundamental uncertainties, shows no sign of slowing down a decade later. But the conversation has taken an interesting turn that I want to call out….
Out of all this scratching, four broad narratives have emerged that can be arranged on a 2×2 with analytic/synthetic on one axis and optimistic/pessimistic on the other. Three are rehashes of older narratives. But the fourth — the Hydra narrative — is new. I have labeled it the Hydra narrative after Taleb’s metaphor in his explanation of anti-fragility: you cut one head off, two emerge in its place (his book on the subject is due out in October). The general idea behind the Hydra narrative in a broad sense (not just what Taleb has said/will say in October) is that hydras eat all unknown unknowns (not just Taleb’s famous black swans) for lunch. I have heard at least three different versions of this proposition in the last year. The narrative inspires social system designs that feed on uncertainty rather than being destroyed by it.
A Big Little Idea Called Legibility || ribbonfarm -
James C. Scott’s fascinating and seminal book, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, examines how, across dozens of domains, ranging from agriculture and forestry, to urban planning and census-taking, a very predictable failure pattern keeps recurring. [He uses pictures to] graphically and literally illustrate the central concept in this failure pattern, an idea called “legibility.”
…
Scott calls the thinking style behind the failure mode “authoritarian high modernism,” but as we’ll see, the failure mode is not limited to the brief intellectual reign of high modernism (roughly, the first half of the twentieth century).
Here is the recipe:
The big mistake in this pattern of failure is projecting your subjective lack of comprehension onto the object you are looking at, as “irrationality.” We make this mistake because we are tempted by a desire for legibility….
The deep failure in thinking lies is the mistaken assumption that thriving, successful and functional realities must necessarily be legible.
Why We’re Losing: How free market ideas suffer from being counterintuitive || Reason -
People don’t understand the private sector. They don’t like it. Intuitively, it seems selfish. Most people are busy trying to run their own lives. They’re grateful to politicians who want to take charge. It seems intuitive to think that a smart group of planners concerned about the collective good can accomplish more than free people pursing their own interests individually in the private sector. But history is filled with examples of how the solutions politicians propose create new problems without solving the old. Urban renewal wiped out entire neighborhoods without improving cities, mortgage subsidies created a damaging financial bubble, the war on drugs created a prison-industrial complex while barely taking a dent out of drug abuse. The list goes on and on.
The few politicians who manage, often against overwhelming odds, to successfully expand the sphere of private action rarely get rewarded for their trouble. Margaret Thatcher saved Britain—and got thrown out. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) may get recalled for trying to cut the budget and push back against public sector unions. Hong Kong went from Third World to First World in just 50 years because it had economic freedom. But when I went to Hong Kong and interviewed people, they didn’t know why they were prosperous. They just talked about their problems and how government should solve them….
Liberty is counterintuitive. It takes hard work to overcome the brain’s attraction to simple-sounding solutions. It’s not easy to convince people that sometimes the best way for governments to address a problem is to do less, not more. It’s easier to admire the activist or politician who talks about helping the less fortunate than it is to cheer on a hustler who wants to get rich by selling you stuff. Those of us who see expanding the private sphere as the best way to help the most people have an uphill battle in making our case…. Most people see a world full of problems that can best be tackled via wisely applied laws. They assume it’s just the laziness, stupidity, or indifference of politicians that prevents the problems from being fixed. But government is force, and government is inefficient. The inefficient use of force creates more problems than it solves….
Economics is complicated. That’s one more reason to be grateful for the Constitution: With its relatively simple rules, it helps keep government within bounds. Some Tea Party activists understand that, and it’s one reason they call for a return to constitutional, limited government.
But getting the majority of America to sign on to these ideas might require an impending crisis. Looking around the world, the next flashpoint after Greece will probably come elsewhere on the periphery of Europe or in Japan. The populations of those countries are graying—young workers are shrinking relative to the retirees they’ll need to support—faster than America’s. Watching their problems, we will get an advance look at the financial poison we are foisting on America’s young people.
But I’m not sure voters will pay attention. If Americans didn’t learn the folly of central planning from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the stagnation of socialist economies around the world, they may not learn about the danger of unsustainable budgets from the catastrophes in Greece, Spain, and Japan….
There is nothing that government can do that we cannot do better as free individuals—as groups of individuals, working together voluntarily, not at the point of a gun or under threat of a fine. Without big government, our possibilities are limitless.
But it’s a hard sell. Things continue to get better in a free society, but nobody is out in front of the camera saying, “Yay for the marginal improvements that come with free markets!” It’s not as compelling or newsworthy as a report on someone who goes bankrupt because he got sick. If we are to foster prosperity, we must find better ways to promote the virtues of liberty.