tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-238702932024-03-18T12:53:19.638-04:00Antipasto*Random thoughts, speculations, ideas and experiences to share and stimulate conversation by Stephen Quatrano.stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-2304130530991287232019-11-26T10:23:00.000-05:002019-11-28T09:13:46.987-05:00Storytelling about Public Health, Immigration and Power<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Here is a headline for you to consider:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CDC Recommended that Migrants Receive Flu Vaccine, but CBP Rejected the Idea</blockquote>
<div>
With a different headline and presented in a different order, the same facts and even the same text would tell a different story.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is how the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/cdc-recommended-that-migrants-receive-flu-vaccine-but-cbp-rejected-the-idea/2019/11/25/8aba198e-0fb8-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html" target="_blank">story in the Washington Post</a> by Robert Moore starts out:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As influenza spread through migrant detention facilities last winter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that U.S. Customs and Border Protection vaccinate detained migrants against the virus, a push that CBP rejected, according to a newly released letter to Congress.</blockquote>
<div>
In Washington, I guess that's what this story is about: a battle between agencies, political conflict, and, with any luck, a cover-up and a scandal. It's about power. And who will be blamed when the outbreak inevitably occurs.</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I noticed a couple of other stories embedded in this same article; it made me wonder about the editorial choice to put the political story first. First of all there is the story of the individual immigrants and their families who suffer. Terrible:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
An 8-year-old Guatemalan boy died of the flu while being detained near El Paso in December, a month before the CDC’s vaccination recommendation. In the months after CBP rejected the recommendation, at least two children — one in El Paso and one in Weslaco, Tex. — died after being diagnosed with the flu in Border Patrol custody, autopsy reports showed. </blockquote>
<div>
So now Moore has established a frame for the reason we cannot immunize immigrants at the border. We should immunize them because it's "unconscionable" not to. It is a moral argument: two deaths are two too many and it doesn't matter that they are not citizens. And then, against that moral argument, we get the pushback:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“CBP has significantly expanded medical support efforts, and now has more than 250 medical personnel engaged along the Southwest border. To try and layer a comprehensive vaccinations system on to that would be logistically very challenging for a number of reasons,” she said.</blockquote>
In a super-partisan climate polarized by immigration, public services, taxes and ethnic nationalism, this is a losing battle. It seems to be a zero-sum game, costing American citizens millions to provide high-cost services for a few unwanted immigrants. But that's not the end of the story. In fact, there's a completely different narrative built into the same article. It's just not easy to spot because it doesn't make sense in that initial frame.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The system and process for implementing vaccines — for supply chains, for quality control, for documentation, for informed consent, for adverse reactions — is complex, and those programs are already in place at other steps in the immigration process as appropriate.”</blockquote>
<div>
In other words, it may be possible to reuse a lot of infrastructure that is already there to dramatically reduce the cost. We're not really told anything about the scale of these systems and the relative costs. If you read it carefully, it undermines the political story Moore starts with. But many readers will miss it entirely because it does't fit in the narrative.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
But we're missing an even larger story here: the benefits to American citizens of the proposed vaccination program. This is the last paragraph in the story:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A new report from the Brookings Institution warns that risk factors such as lackluster sanitation, overcrowding and poor nutrition are creating a “perfect storm” of conditions in CBP detention facilities that could lead to severe outbreaks of the flu and other communicable diseases. The report recommends vaccinating detained migrants as a way of limiting outbreaks.</blockquote>
<div>
Unexplored is the connection between outbreaks in these detention facilities and one that threatens every American. Perhaps it is in our interests to vaccinate immigrants at the border.<br />
<br />
With a different headline and presented in a different order, the same facts and even the same text would tell a different story. Here is a different headline for the story that would begin with that paragraph instead of ending with it:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Threat of Influenza Outbreak from Inadequate Healthcare and Crowded Conditions at Border</blockquote>
<div>
Compare that to the original:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
CDC Recommended that Migrants Receive Flu Vaccine, but CBP Rejected the Idea</blockquote>
<div>
Interesting, no? </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we were to name that bias, what would we call it? A liberal bias? I think not. We have an attention problem. It's easy to tell a compelling story about the suffering of individuals, an unenlightened Administration and conflict between powerful interests. It's a lot harder to connect the dots and show how costs can be managed and, even more importantly, how EVERYONE would benefit from improvements to the vaccination program at the border we already apparently have.</div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-89014105115639614712019-05-01T13:28:00.001-04:002019-05-03T13:43:57.221-04:00Epitaph by Merrit Mallow at Frank Fisher's Funeral<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'd like to thank Frank Fisher for this poem.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=franklin-m-fisher&pid=192737767" target="_blank">Frank died on April 29th, 2019.</a> We went to his funeral today and the Rabbi read this poem by Merrit Mallow called "Epitaph." It was beautiful.<br />
<br />
I'd kind of like to know if Frank knew of this poem and appreciated it himself or not. No matter, though -- I appreciated it either way. Frank's funeral provided more than an opportunity to learn of this poem, however. It also made it a lot more meaningful. When the Rabbi read the poem, I had been thinking about Frank's life, his family and colleagues he left behind. By living the life he did and drawing people to his funeral as he did -- people who spoke about their memories of Frank and his legacy -- Frank "framed" the poem for me. Thank you, Frank.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But before I share the poem with you, I'd also like to thank my mother, Barbi, for teaching me these principles to live by so that, one day, I could attend Frank's funeral, hear this poem, and feel it deeply. Mom did not preach or lecture on these subjects; she just lived them, often embarrassing us in the process. We were acutely aware that nobody ELSE lived that way. (It seemed that Frank sometimes embarrassed his children as well). Mom tried to explain herself but despite the sheer number of words she shared with us, I'm not sure she ever really succeeded in explaining these principles she lived by. She felt them, for sure. And she modeled them. When she hugged you she was hugging everyone she was ever attached to. I mean everyone. It didn't matter if she had known them for a lifetime or a 5 minute, random encounter on the street. It didn't even matter if they were living or dead. She literally "loved" and "remembered" them all. And that was a LOT of people.<br />
<br />
And then she INSISTED on giving that love away.<br />
<br />
And so, I guess it rubbed off.<br />
<br />
And so, we pass it on. Here it is.<br />
<br />
Epitaph<br />
By Merrit Malloy<br />
<br />
When I die<br />
Give what’s left of me away<br />
To children<br />
And old men that wait to die.<br />
<br />
And if you need to cry,<br />
Cry for your brother<br />
Walking the street beside you.<br />
And when you need me,<br />
Put your arms<br />
Around anyone<br />
And give them<br />
What you need to give to me.<br />
<br />
I want to leave you something,<br />
Something better<br />
Than words<br />
Or sounds.<br />
<br />
Look for me<br />
In the people I’ve known<br />
Or loved,<br />
And if you cannot give me away,<br />
At least let me live on in your eyes<br />
And not your mind.<br />
<br />
You can love me most<br />
By letting<br />
Hands touch hands,<br />
By letting bodies touch bodies,<br />
And by letting go<br />
Of children<br />
That need to be free.<br />
<br />
Love doesn’t die,<br />
People do.<br />
So, when all that’s left of me<br />
Is love,<br />
Give me away.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-78334979330978815532018-11-27T14:31:00.000-05:002018-12-01T10:07:43.980-05:00Complex System Underlies Simple Story about GM Layoffs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I found this <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/business/general-motors-cutbacks.html" target="_blank">article in the Times</a> yesterday about layoffs at GM. It seemed pretty straightforward.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
General Motors announced Monday that it planned to idle five factories in North America and cut roughly 14,000 jobs in a bid to trim costs. It was a jarring reflection of the auto industry’s adjustment to changing consumer tastes and sluggish sales.</blockquote>
It’s pretty remarkable because, as short as it is, it is directly or indirectly related to many dimensions of public policy I've devoted time and attention to in this blog, including inequality, taxes, interest rates, growth, trade, energy policy, climate change, globalization, immigration, and even automation and the future of work.<br />
<br />
But then I thought about it and concluded I would have appreciated the article even more if Boudette, the author, had bothered to connect the elements in his article into a system. As is, the story leaves the reader with a pretty clear victim (organized labor) and villain (GM management). In this frame, the article appears to be a list of factors that help the reader understand why GM has decided to permanently close these plants. It is, in effect, an <i>apologia</i> for GM management. And relationships between public policy and poor socio-economic outcomes remain implicit if they are mentioned at all.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
However, if the story were framed instead as a dynamic model, a network of causes and effects, the reader would be more likely to see how many of us -- including many of the laid off workers -- support policies that, at least in part, produce outcomes nobody likes. When we paint this picture of a dynamic system we can see how all of us are affected by those outcomes as well, and also why it is so hard to change.<br />
<br />
Here's my analysis. Without changing any of the basic facts reported in the original story, see how linking the causes and effects might affect your own relationship with the news.<br />
<br />
The biggest item in the story that deeply affects everything else is this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Closing auto plants outright — rather than idling them, as G.M. says it plans — has been rare since the industry emerged from the recession. The last permanent shutdown of a plant in the United States came in 2016 when Mitsubishi Motors shuttered one in Normal, Ill. Before that, Ford closed a truck plant in St. Paul in 2011. </blockquote>
This is a new pattern in globalization: companies are moving to seek growth markets, not just low-cost production. To me this indicates a belief at the highest level in the company, the board, and public capital markets as well that these conditions, every one that follows in this essay, are <b>structural</b> and <b>permanent</b>.<br />
<br />
First lets take a look at <b>demand</b>, the first cause. Ultimately, soft demand is a consequence of inequality: not enough middle and working class workers earn enough to own newer cars. Period. It make sense that car companies are seeking markets where workers are earning higher wages and consuming more by moving operations abroad.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Until last month, G.M. had been offering severance packages to entice salaried employees in North America to leave the company. In January, the company plans to cut additional white-collar jobs on an involuntary basis. Between the two actions, it aims to eliminate about 15 percent of its salaried jobs in North America.</blockquote>
Neither immigrants to the US nor foreign workers are taking our jobs; it's the lack of demand and <b>surplus capacity</b>.<br />
<br />
But according to Boudette, it’s not just demand in general here but <b>demand for these kinds of smaller and more energy efficient cars specifically</b>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations and shed jobs. And earlier bets on smaller cars have had to be unwound as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles as a result of low gasoline prices.</blockquote>
And this is not limited to GM. This news is part of a larger pattern:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Earlier this year, Ford said it would stop making sedans for the North American market and announced cuts in its work force. Fiat Chrysler stopped making small and midsize cars in 2016.</blockquote>
Low gas prices are a result of our <b>energy policies</b>. They closed the small car plants permanently. Yet they invest in their truck and SUV businesses which continue to grow in North America. As they commit to this strategy they become even more opposed to policies that might reduce the impact of transportation on climate change but would also increase the cost of energy: such policies would threaten their SUV business. Re-entering the smaller and more fuel efficient car market would then require building new plants, an expensive proposition. This reinforces the alignment of car manufacturers with the fossil fuel industry and against virtually anything we might consider to reduce the harmful effects of of carbon released into our atmosphere: <b>climate change</b>. <br />
<br />
See the feedback loop? This is a system.<br />
<br />
But Boudette adds two other reasons for the closing, <b>tariffs</b> and <b>interest rates</b>, both of them policy driven and structural as well:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In addition, automakers have paid a price for the trade battle that Mr. Trump set in motion. In June G.M. slashed its profit outlook for the year because tariffs were driving up production costs, raising prices even on domestic steel. Rising interest rates are also generating headwinds.</blockquote>
Interest rates are going up because, again no surprise here, GM continues to report profits. So based on financial performance, the Fed sees apparent growth too, becomes worried about inflation and raises interest rates.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nobody should be surprised to learn that short-term investors agree:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Investors welcomed the news, sending G.M.’s shares up 4.8 percent</b> to their highest closing price in about three months.</blockquote>
<div>
How much of this financial performance is real and enduring, though? At least some of that performance is a result of tax policy and the layoffs themselves, not the production and sale of automobiles.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The] <b>corporate tax cuts</b> enacted last year [...] saved G.M. $157 million in federal taxes in the first nine months of the year, according to the company’s most recent quarterly earnings report.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[... And] Ms. Barra said G.M. would set aside up to $2 billion in cash to pay for the job reductions announced Monday, and take noncash charges against its pretax earnings of about $1.8 billion. The charges will affect earnings in the fourth quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019. </blockquote>
So it seems that although part of GM's growth may be real based on reduced costs and increased profits abroad, another part of it is likely to be short-lived if not entirely phony. Notice that <b>the cost of the restructuring</b> will be reported next year while the benefits of the layoffs and tax bonanza hit the books right now. Based on conventional accounting techniques, the company is growing even as its workforce is shrinking overall and its business is shrinking in North America. Investors know this and may unload the stock sooner rather than later, illustrating how wages and employment can be depressed and the business actually shrink while the stock price goes up over the short run.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this nuance is missing in most business journalism. GM executives are neither simple villains nor are they sage and devoted protectors of long-term customer, investor and employee equity: they are simply weak but "reasonable" actors, shackled by short-term investors, fearful of the media and inflated stock prices of their competitors, motivated by reducing costs and equipped with conventional accounting techniques to take full advantage of both layoffs and tax policies.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So specific tax policies and tariffs constructed ostensibly to protect jobs are having the opposite effect, as predicted by more thoughtful analysts and reported widely in conventional media which fewer and fewer of us bother to read. Did anyone notice how Trump reacted to the GM news? He’s “very disappointed in GM management,” he says, although his policies reinforce the very behavior he disapproves of. As usual, he seems to believe his own rhetoric and fails to see any connections with policy. And so do all the middle age, white workers who love Trump's inflated rhetoric almost as much as he does, accept it at face value, and continue to support the President and his party, despite the fact that they are now out of a job. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As long as this story is not reported as a system, the deep connections we're showing between the layoffs and GOP policies will not affect working class voters and our decline in real wages reaching back to the 1980's will continue.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At some level I can understand the bitterness of the <b>workers</b> affected and the appeal of the simple solutions proffered by the GOP. But market-oriented <b>Republican leaders</b> know better and should be ashamed of themselves for their tacit if not active support of a business culture, accounting practices, tax policies, energy policies and tariffs that all contribute to negative growth, inequality and layoffs. And <b>investors</b> seem equally short-sighted: they are investing in GM despite structural cutbacks due to soft demand, especially for small and mid-size efficient cars and quarterly earnings. The fact that the GM business is shrinking in North America because of tax policies, energy policies, tariffs and inequality may be offset by growth in China. And even if it isn't, it's not going to affect financial performance metrics adversely, at least not yet. </div>
<br />
Now we can see how short-term investor interests align with current GM management, oil companies, and GOP policies on taxes, energy and trade, and, at the same time, their lack of concern for the long-term effect of layoffs, job growth, inequality, unemployment and low wages. Together their lobbies produce plenty of media with simple messages and, in many cases, misleading information and outright lies. This can only be packaged and sold as "America First" when we disregard feedback and relationships between distinct policies. Republicans get elected promising to create jobs and <b>restrict immigration </b>while supporting policies that actually deliver negative growth, under-employment and short term profits instead. It's no wonder that many of the same laborers who have just lost their jobs will continue to support the President and the new populist GOP: the messaging unfortunately works.<br />
<br />
So we’ve covered inequality, taxes, interest rates, growth, trade, energy policy, climate change and globalization. But what about automation?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Over all, the American auto industry has added nearly 350,000 jobs since the industry bottomed out in the wake of the recession. But the industry still employs tens of thousands fewer people than before the crisis, and hundreds of thousands fewer than in 2000.</blockquote>
How growth without jobs be possible? <b>Automation</b>. Automation is relentless. It is absolutely a factor in the loss of jobs and the increase in inequality. And because of AI it's beginning to affect white collar workers as well. Only owners benefit from automation because income is not pumped through the company to a workforce earning wages. But who will buy the output from these new factories when so many workers have been replaced by machines? What will become of the investments in this capacity when what appears to be limiting growth is demand?<br />
<br />
One piece of bizarre, somewhat contradictory news:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even though they are facing a potential slump, carmakers continue to spend heavily to develop electric vehicles and self-driving technology, both to meet regulatory mandates and to anticipate the future of driving. That shift is expected to remake the global industry and enable companies to enter new and potentially lucrative businesses, such as driverless taxi and delivery services.</blockquote>
Good. The loss of jobs in one sector will be replaced by jobs in another, at least theoretically. But the article does not say where these new vehicles will be manufactured. Well, given the rest of the arguments in this article, it appears GM will be well positioned to enter these businesses at scale to meet future demand, at least in China, anyway.<br />
<br />
So I found a lot to think about in this article. But it bothers me that NONE of the points it makes are explicitly linked to each other and to policies as a dynamic system so readers can see how the effects it describes are interrelated. Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to the journalist: I've diluted the simple narrative of the victim and the villain, making it a lot longer, harder to read, and a lot less memorable. What editor could possibly go along with that?</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-47319549296035752572017-08-19T10:43:00.001-04:002017-10-05T11:20:04.179-04:00Trump, White Anger and the Paranoid Political Tradition<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Just because you’re paranoid does not mean they’re not out to get you.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Maybe it's true: immigration does exert a downward pressure on wages. But maybe it's NOT TRUE. Plenty of economists find that the incremental demand for goods and services created by immigrants -- and therefore economic growth -- more than offset the competition for wages. These economists base their argument in evidence, not reason. In fact, there is no correlation between cities with larger immigrant populations and lower wages. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/08/do-low-skilled-immigrants-negatively-impact-wages-/">And there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.</a></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/08/do-low-skilled-immigrants-negatively-impact-wages-/"><br /></a></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">But it's certainly true that the argument is an authentic expression of fear and anger of working class whites. They BELIEVE that immigrants are taking their jobs for lower pay, thereby driving wages down. And they BELIEVE that the system is rigged against them because to them it's self-evident: low wages are good for employers, good for business, good for the establishment. And whether they're true or not, these beliefs have an effect on our politics, our government and our history.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/upshot/the-political-payoff-of-making-whites-feel-like-a-minority.html"><span class="s1">This essay by </span>Lynn Vavreck in the New York Times</a> is a classic summary of this dilemma and it's impact not only on electoral politics and public policy but also how we think of ourselves.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Some Trump critics find his focus on whites as a group outrageous or counterproductive. But survey data suggest that many white Americans do feel threatened, and that they think there are policies that discriminate against them and should be changed.</blockquote>
<div class="p1">
Apparently, groups that feel threatened create a real political force to be reckoned with, wether or not their feelings are based on evidence. It's also true that these beliefs can be influenced by charismatic leaders. Vavreck concludes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr. Trump’s continued efforts to remind white Americans of their group status may increase the number of white people who think of themselves through a racial lens. It is one of the ways that his campaign and presidency may reshape public opinion and politics. He is capitalizing both on an existing sense of threat among white voters and the opportunity to shape the way whites — because of their group membership — think of themselves.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span>My cousin, Gavino, brought this essay to my attention and, in the process, also reminded me of this brilliant and classic <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/">essay by Richard Hofstadter on the "Paranoid Style in American Politics."</a> It's very relevant and I'd highly recommend reading it. The tradition of majority and privileged populations feeling like a persecuted minority has been with us a long time.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Hofstadter is great. I have always loved his writing and point of view. He’s fair, open, astoundingly clear, and obsessed with HISTORICAL evidence. He is, after all, a historian. H</span>e makes a case that the cultural “style” is real, true and deeply rooted in the American tradition. It's existence is a historical fact. And whether their deeply held beliefs of persecution are real or not, they have been a force in electoral politics, policy and American history.<br />
<br />
Hofstadter is critical of the "paranoid style", however. What does he make of the subjective experiences of those “suffering” the “paranoid" tradition, as if they were a beleaguered and persecuted minority. Are they? Should we believe them?</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">I think he’s right on when he writes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">“Nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed and advocated than with the truth or falsity of their content.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Brilliant. Which means that the answer to my question — should we believe them — is that IT DEPENDS. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Let’s consider their claims practically, on a case-by-case basis, considering the evidence, not theoretically. Let us NOT be swayed by the style of the argument, the underlying philosophy of paranoia.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Although he’s open and fair, in my opinion, willing to consider the veracity of their arguments on a case by case basis, he is no fan of the “paranoid style.” And in general, he’s taken examples of the style from dangerous populist movements based on serious delusions (many of them racist) and depending on uncritical or ignorant followers. He wrote, </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">"Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. […] I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Hofstadter concludes by asking the reader to empathize with the paranoid: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">"We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">I am a huge fan of this essay. </span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Just because the white working class feels persecuted doesn't mean that they are. On the other hand, just because we don't share their beliefs in their disadvantaged status, we should respect them as a viable political force. And furthermore, because of the tradition of the "paranoid style" and the very real force it continues to exert on our politics, we ought to fear charismatic leaders who take advantages of these tendencies and use them for their own political or egotistical ends.</span></div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-28892464355287261772017-08-12T13:40:00.000-04:002017-10-05T11:20:20.942-04:00Artificial Intelligence is Out of Control at Facebook<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p3" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-align: left;">
Has anyone else been following this thread of alarmist articles in the media? Facebook deployed some "virtual assistant" technology or "bots" that apparently developed their own "language" to communicate between themselves more effectively. Oh no! Next they'll be conspiring against us!<br />
<br />
From Dave Gershgorn at <a href="https://qz.com/1043365/facebook-didnt-kill-its-language-building-ai-because-it-was-too-smart-it-was-actually-too-dumb/?mc_cid=8ea07c4332&mc_eid=dc61da5ad0">Quartz</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Recent headlines and news articles have depicted research from Facebook’s artificial intelligence lab as the sci-fi beginnings of killer AI: one bot is learning to talk to another bot in a secret language so complex that it had to shut down. A BGR headline reads “Facebook engineers panic, pull plug on AI after bots develop their own language,” and Digital Journal claims in its article that “There’s not yet enough evidence to determine whether they present a threat that could enable machines to overrule their operators.” </blockquote>
Most of the coverage has been ridiculous: not just a waste of time or useless but actually misleading. These writers and publishers are using words to amuse, alarm and provoke but not to explain. Classic mystification. <br />
<br />
But Dave does a decent job here, explaining that, in fact, there is nothing nefarious going on:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The bots did exactly what they were programmed to do: haggle over fake objects. They developed a new way of communicating with each other, because computers don’t speak English—just like we use x to stand in for a number in math, the bots were using other letters to stand in for longer words and ideas, like “iii” for “want” or “orange.”</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Exactly. But why does he conclude with another attention-grabbing and misleading hook:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Perhaps the more concerning piece of news should be not that Facebook’s bots invented a machine-readable language, but rather that its successful English-speaking bot eventually learned to lie.</blockquote>
Sigh. Here's the <a href="https://qz.com/1004070/facebook-fb-built-an-ai-system-that-learned-to-lie-to-get-what-it-wants/">link</a> if you want to look for yourself. <br />
<br />
The biggest problem with all this coverage, IMO, is that even when they DO explain the technology in terms that make sense, they don't really talk about what matters in my opinion: utility and history. They deliberately blur the boundary between the present and the future and ignore the past. History of the technology can help us understand context and trends; it's essential to sorting out the signal from all the noise. History can show us how advanced research today -- which seems like science-fiction -- relates to to applications we rely on every day.<br />
<br />
The thing about AI is that it continually applies to a set of technologies AND APPLICATIONS that are not quite feasible but, and here is the key, over time those same set of technologies find appropriate applications that have become quite commonplace. The first category remains mysterious while the second is so basic that it appears ho-hum. And as we use it and take it for granted, we forget that just a few years ago it was still mysterious "AI" in the lab. In other words, when we adopt technology we also adopt a set of metaphors and stories that explain it, at least well enough to make it useful. And when we do, it no longer seems “intelligent” or “artificially intelligent” at all, just useful.<br />
<br />
This is an example of TRYING to explain how a virtual assistant can be trained to negotiate with a human user: "Instead of outright saying what it wanted, sometimes the AI would feign interest in a worthless object, only to later concede it for something that it really wanted.” And here is an example of how it learned this strategy: "Facebook isn’t sure whether it learned from the human hagglers or whether it stumbled upon the trick accidentally, but either way when the tactic worked, it was rewarded.” Dave is at his best here.<br />
<br />
But he could do better still by being more transparent about anthropomorphizing the computer. Notice how these are stories that explain how HUMANS see what the FB service is doing. What it is ACTUALLY doing is following some pretty simple patterns, including “learning” or the acquisition of new patterns. I’m not sure I think this is “learning” or “lying” or even “feigning interest in something” but simply manipulating symbols in a conversation in a predictable and repeatable way to achieve desired outcomes. <br />
<br />
What the author SHOULD be pointing out is how this same technology is already being used at Amazon, Google and Facebook for example, to predict what you might want and to show you just the right things at the right time. We love it. After all, it's useful. We adopt it because it serves us, and the more useful it is the more we use it. And although we are less aware of this, it's also incredibly useful to the eCommerce merchants. These predictive algorithms are really expert negotiators, getting you to buy what you don't really need and to pay more than you want to... all the while making you feel like you're getting a great deal. Seriously. <br />
<br />
It's a "virtuous" cycle. Or is it? Think about it.<br />
<br />
Why don't we read about THAT in the press? One problem is that it's kind of boring. An eCommerce web app is way less interesting than a sexy new conversational agent which can produce and process human speech or text. In fact, it's so boring that the technology is virtually invisible. The mobile or web experiences where these algorithms are being applied are not newsworthy because there isn't anything new here. No novelty. <br />
<br />
But apart from novelty, what about impact? What about scale? What about the money? These are alternative frames we could use to educate and stimulate conversations about these services which only grow. Behind the basic shopping experience are predictive algorithms which are essentially "negotiating" with a few billion users a day and learning more and more in the process. Unfortunately, the right thing to do is to demystify it: make it a LOT less dramatic. And focus on impact, scale, and the money. What's hard is to make that compelling and interesting copy.<br />
<br />
But if you DO want to think about the myriad ways things can go wrong, there is plenty to write about. Instead of worrying about whether or not an AI will take over and control us in some scary future, we ought to be concerned that it has ALREADY been baked in to our everyday experiences and is affecting us ALREADY. We ought to worry about bias, for example. Criteria and accountability for decision-making, decisions that affect us. We ought to worry about who owns the data that is used to train the system… and who benefits from it’s use.</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #5756d6; -webkit-text-stroke: #5756d6}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #5756d6; -webkit-text-stroke: #5756d6; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #5756d6; -webkit-text-stroke: #5756d6}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #888888; -webkit-text-stroke: #888888; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #888888; -webkit-text-stroke: #888888}
p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #4787ff; -webkit-text-stroke: #4787ff}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #4787ff; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #4787ff}
span.s3 {font: 12.0px Helvetica; font-kerning: none}
span.s4 {font-kerning: none; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
span.s5 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #4787ff; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #4787ff; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
span.s6 {font-kerning: none; color: #5756d6; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #5756d6}
</style></div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-69742102965103730522016-12-31T10:14:00.000-05:002016-12-31T10:15:58.996-05:00Media, Corporations and Democracy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Robert Reich has posted another excellent video, this one entitled "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_anu-feuKE">Trump and the Media</a>." In it he outlines how Trump is using power, the law and public opinion to undermine the media and consolidate his own power. Many of my friends and colleagues have responded to this thoughtful analysis with a big "So what?!" They point out that the media has always been biased, that it's never been truly independent, that it's all owned by a couple of corporations and none of them can be trusted. So what's the big deal?<br />
<br />
This is fallacious reasoning for three reasons. First, no matter how bad the media gets, it doesn't make it any more or less important for our communities, our society and our Republic. And second, just because they are biased, not independent and privately owned, does not mean that they MUST be undeserving of our trust. And finally, by generalizing and giving up, we may actually be making matters worse for the few remaining journalists, editors and publishers out there who are still fulfilling their public mission. Cynicism about the media is not the same as skepticism.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>First, watch the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_anu-feuKE">video</a>. Reich is masterful. The man is not just intelligent and articulate but consistently demonstrates integrity and courage. It's very well done. Chilling, in fact.<br />
<br />
To summarize he outlines the four techniques Trump is using very effectively to undermine independent media and consolidate his own power:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Berate the media</li>
<li>Limit media access</li>
<li>Threaten the media</li>
<li>Bypass the media</li>
</ol>
Note his use of evidence to support these claims. This is not biased criticism. It IS critical, however.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now why should we care about this? Well, we SHOULD care because we rely on the media to know what's actually happening in our world, to know what our representative leaders are doing about it and to hold them accountable. This is a fact: we rely on them -- we need them to perform these vital functions -- whether or not they deserve our trust and whether or not they are fulfilling these needs. And that is why some of us DO care about what Trump is doing to the media. Without them, we'll know less about what's actually happening, less about what he's actually doing and less about the effect he's having. In other words he'll have even more power and even less accountability.<br />
<br />
Notice how carefully I used the relative terms 'more' and 'less' knowledge. Perfect knowledge is obviously not possible. Perfect transparency is neither workable nor desirable. But more or less knowledge can make a difference. Consider how many people voted for Trump, for example, who will be surprised by his Cabinet appointments, his policies or the effects of his Administration when, in fact, the consequences of his electoral success have been predicted and published repeatedly. If we pay attention we'll soon see...<br />
<br />
But what about the fact of media consolidation and commercialization? How is media independence even possible when <a href="http://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/">6 massive, public corporations own and control 90% of the media in our country</a>? Is "independence" the same thing as unbiased? <br />
<br />
Let's be careful here: media independence just means "independent of government" and it certainly does not mean unbiased. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate">Fourth Estate</a> is no more capable of discerning Truth than Congress, the Executive or our courts. (Or individual voters, for that matter). Of course publishers have an editorial POV. But it's been the independence of these institutions, not their lack of bias, that has facilitated a public conversation "independent of Government" that has come to define us. Consider how <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic">The Atlantic</a>, for example, played a fundamental role in the abolition of slavery and the Union victory in our own Civil War. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker">New Yorker</a>, Rolling Stone and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Magazine">Harpers</a> have had a huge impact on everything from Viet Nam to the Cold War, but also on music, art and literature. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review">National Review</a> has played a formidable role in the Conservative Movements over the past 5 decades. All of these institutions are "biased". But that does not mean they aren't based on responsible, legitimate journalism and, dare I say it, evidence? Historically, that conversation has had a huge impact on public opinion, our government and our history. <br />
<br />
Does it matter that these publishers are for-profit, money-making enterprises? Of course not. When they rely on advertising more than subscription revenue, it has arguably created a huge commercial bias. Contrary to the claims of "liberal bias" in the conservative press, media conglomerates actually have a conservative bias because they avoid REAL controversy (which might displease their sponsors invested in the status-quo) while they seek advertising dollars and attention with BOGUS controversy (which delights them). Consider the climate change "debate" on the major networks, for example. But then again, commercial advertising need not bias investigative reporting in every case; it actually differs from publisher to publisher, depending on their boards, missions and subscribers. Historically, publishing has generated substantial cash and also produced high-quality, useful journalism. It's also true that for-profit publishers can be very influential, successful enterprises and NOT produce profits. In 2005 Buckley estimated that his National Review had <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review">lost $25M over 50 years</a>, for example. Most of the "opinion" media is completely privately held and has been for more than a century; they can do whatever their boards want, including lose money.<br />
<br />
What we're forgetting is that corporations make money in different ways, depending on their mission. And in some cases, the mission clearly includes a focus on independent journalism with a civic purpose. Over the years these institutions have published THOUSANDS of extraordinarily influential stories based on evidence, clear thinking, and a public or civic discourse even though they are a) biased, b) private and c) profitable. Just take a look at this <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/206">list of Pulizer Prize winners</a>, for example. How many of these were produced by public or private for-profit companies? <br />
<br />
Pay more attention to mission and governance of individual publishers, not just the fact that they sometimes generate profits.<br />
<br />
What this video is about, however, is none of this. It's about how Donald Trump is using power and the law AND PUBLIC OPINION to undermine these remaining institutions. Reich's very first point is based on how Trump "berates" the media, how the media dutifully reports on his outrageous, mendacious claims, and the public begins to believe that all media is the same and equally untrustworthy. It's a serious mistake, a false equivalence, to lump Foreign Affairs or NPR, both not-for-profit organizations, in with the likes of Fox News, for example. It leads to cynicism and apathy, disengagement, and ultimately ignorance.<br />
<br />
In fact, we have plenty of news outlets we can still be proud of. When we over-generalize about the media we make it worse. When we support quality, investigative journalism and READ IT, we make it better.<br />
<br />
Make it better.</div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-39725010073267764102016-12-28T12:02:00.002-05:002018-12-18T05:19:26.638-05:00Automation and the Future of Work<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">My mother sent me this <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/david_autor_why_are_there_still_so_many_jobs">TedX video</a> of David Autor, an MIT Professor of Economics. It's great. I highly recommend it. Here is his <a href="http://economics.mit.edu/files/10865">paper on the subject</a> offering even more detail. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The impact of technology is all around us and just seems to accelerate leaving entire generations in lower-paid, less skilled jobs than they had only 30 years ago. This chart clearly shows waves of losses and gains in US employment by sector between 1940 and 2010.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cl.ly/ib0h/Image%202016-12-28%20at%209.45.45%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://cl.ly/ib0h/Image%202016-12-28%20at%209.45.45%20AM.png" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>So technology has utterly transformed how we work in the past century. Although you can see the drama in these numbers and imagine the disruption to our society, is this really a problem? Or is this a good thing? <span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">In fact, this is an older, global process, arguably going back to the industrial revolution of the 19th Century and financial, commercial and trade revolutions reaching back to the end of the Middle Ages. But what's the matter with this? </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"> </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">Aren't the rewards clear enough to see? </span><br />
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cl.ly/iaUH/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.23.45%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="443" src="https://cl.ly/iaUH/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.23.45%20AM.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">In fact, this is a paradox: an APPARENT (but not real) contradiction. Development overall shown in <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/">the chart above</a> has not been bad for most of us. In fact, there is no real controversy here: although there have been real costs to some, most of us would recognize that we all have a higher standard of living and would agree that the benefits to all of us far outweigh the costs. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">How does this actually work? Why hasn't it been a zero sum game where the machines take over, at least not until now? </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">Autor, a professional economist, does an excellent job explaining how this is possible. He begins by recognizing the virtuous cycle of technological development and labor in a market economy. First, the more we invest in technology the more productive we are as an economy. He's looking at labor in the aggregate. Greater wealth stimulates demand. Displaced labor finds even more valuable employment opportunities, acquires new skills, earns more and then demands even more goods and services. Growth spawns more automation. It's all good.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
But Autor also concedes there is a challenge: unless we apply the wealth generated by automation to our institutions, to our society, and to ourselves, the virtuous cycle will end. Although he does not even mention inequality in his TED talk, his written work does acknowledge that it might be severe enough to limit broad-based consumer demand, breaking the cycle. Again, there is no controversy here. Our academic, political and business leaders agree that these risks are real, even if we disagree on how likely they are or how severe they might become.</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">I would break his argument down into four basic parts:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Automation makes human labor MORE valuable: the 'O-ring' effect</li>
<li>Productivity creates wealth that spawns new demand: we can't get enough</li>
<li>Human ingenuity has always saved us in the past: this time is NOT different</li>
<li>He's telling us something new, something we have not heard elsewhere</li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="p1">
Let's critically examine each of these in turn.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
First, overall, automation HELPS human workers be more productive, it does not replace them. The 'O-ring' is a metaphor for the value of even the least expensive critical part in a complex system: the more reliable the rest of the system becomes, the more value there is in every critical component. Of course he's right: SOME of the remaining jobs are indeed even more critical to the system as a whole and become more valuable. For example, there are more bank tellers now than there were before the advent of ATM's and, overall, they are paid more and offer more complicated, more valuable kinds of customer service than their robotic 'assistants'.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary that suggests that MOST of the remaining jobs are, in fact, less critical to the overall systems performance and productivity and are therefore generating less value. Sure, there are some good jobs at Amazon, but they aren't nearly as numerous as the retail jobs they have displaced. Even though Walmart has grown, retail sales in that context no longer require or pay for the skills it once did. So these effects reducing the value of human labor are also real, offsetting the gains in other jobs. I would love to see these kind of labor statistics across the entire planet, the only way to study the effects of automation in a global economy where immigration and globalization negatively impact earnings in addition to automation. But I've not seen those studies. Even without the hard data, I think we can agree that both automation and globalization play a role and that reality is more complex than Autor would have us believe with his 'O-ring' argument.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
And so far, there is no news here. These are old, old stories that are not as controversial as Autor suggests.</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Let's consider the argument that productivity creates wealth that raises our standard of living and in turn spawns demand. Does it? Well, of course there are no limits to what humans want. However, if we need money from our labor to fulfill those desires and we're limited by how much our labor is worth, there ARE LIMITS to how much demand can be expressed in consumer markets.<br />
<br />
As Autor says, "It depends on what we DO with the wealth." If most of that is captured by the the top 1% and saved, well, it simply does not stimulate demand and growth. Even if we invest in institutions like education as we have in the past, what jobs would we be training our displaced workers for precisely? It's not clear. There is plenty of evidence that that wealth is indeed being invested. It must go somewhere. But without demand, all that capital is being applied to stock buybacks and acquisitions, not growth and not new jobs. It seems to me that we have a surplus of capital and capacity which is consistent with disappointing growth in high quality jobs.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Look at the reduction in what we would consider "middle income" jobs:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cl.ly/iaj1/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.00.08%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://cl.ly/iaj1/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.00.08%20AM.png" /></a></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">He looks at this data and sees the glass half full. I look at it and worry, not just about the jobs themselves but about how this affects the distribution of income and the engine that drives demand and growth.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">What we have instead of broad-based participation in the automation economy is what Autor calls "income polarization," another name </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">for inequality:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cl.ly/iaUg/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.03.11%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://cl.ly/iaUg/Image%202016-12-28%20at%2011.03.11%20AM.png" /></a></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Again, no real news. In his TED talk, Autor makes an oversimplified argument which is true... but incomplete. Why not concede that there are also mitigating factors that diminish the effect of productivity gains, specifically increased inequality? </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
Finally, what about human ingenuity? Perhaps I am unimaginative and perhaps we WILL be saved. I just don't think so because t<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">his time IS different. Of course, every time this has happened in the past it HAS ALSO been different. But we need to pay attention to WHY SPECIFICALLY this time is different and look for differences that might affect the balance of displaced jobs and income inequality I describe above.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Consider:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Until now, the vast reservoir of new work that has absorbed displaced labor has been COGNITIVE work.</li>
<li>Until now, the growth in COGNITIVE labor has increased the wealth of the middle classes which has also increased DEMAND.</li>
<li>This time the machines are COGNITIVE machines.</li>
<li>This time the machines are NETWORKED, creating essentially a singular, global machine.</li>
<li>Digital communications are essentially free, connecting everyone on the planet to the global machine. This time there are fewer essential human ‘O’ rings. This time there are even fewer owners reaping the rewards of automation.</li>
<li>This time, more displaced workers will make LESS income, not more, REDUCING DEMAND. </li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="p2">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">Ultimately, it’s true that we “can’t get enough.” Unfortunately, that unlimited demand is only expressed in markets when those people have money. And increasingly, it’s only the people who are making the machines and ultimately OWN shares in the machines who are collecting all the money. Everyone else is UNDEREMPLOYED but working harder than ever. That means they are earning and consuming less. This leads to a crisis in DEMAND. Which leads to slow or negative growth. See <a href="http://inequalityforall.com/">Robert Reich's "Inequality for All"</a> if you haven't already; it's fabulous.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">But as Autor says, this is not PREDETERMINED. We can choose to redistribute wealth in new ways to prevent the worst inequality, to share more widely the benefits of automation, to enable more people to work less. By sharing more, by allowing more people to participate in the automation economy, we might even stimulate demand while we elevate our standard of living. </span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">But will we?</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style></div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-41603406715138020572016-12-24T14:14:00.003-05:002016-12-24T14:15:49.635-05:00More on the Facebook Fake News Story<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Finally we have John Herrman's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/magazine/facebooks-problem-isnt-fake-news-its-the-rest-of-the-internet.html">post</a> from the Times that gets to the root of the "Fake News" story. He gets it right and summarizes it better than I did in <a href="http://stefano.quatrano.us/2016/11/the-role-of-facebook-and-social-media.html">this previous post</a>. There are really three problems, the first of which is simply the nature of the World Wide Web and the Internet, which, like any truly global market, is practically unregulated in important ways. Not much we can do about fake news here. The second problem is user-generated content published on Facebook which are and will remain un-curated, the responsibility of Facebook users, much of it populated with ridiculous and unsubstantiated opinion and outright lies. It'll be impossible for Facebook to be the arbiter of truth in this domain either.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The THIRD problem, on the other hand, a much simpler and more narrow problem, is something that Facebook can do something about. It's about links on Facebook that tempt more than <a href="http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2014/01/29/facebook-passes-1-23-billion-monthly-active-users-945-million-mobile-users-757-million-daily-users/">757 Million daily average users</a> away from a Facebook controlled (and monetized) experience out into the World WILD Web. And naturally, when Facebook addresses this third problem, they are going to do it in a way that strengthens their core advertising business, wether or not it has any impact at all on the quality of news.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Consider this characterization of what makes a “fake news” site a bad platform citizen: It uses Facebook to capture receptive audiences by spreading lies and then converts those audiences into money by borrowing them from Facebook, luring them to an outside site larded with obnoxious ads. The site’s sin of fabrication is made worse by its profit motive, which is cast here as a sort of arbitrage scheme. But an acceptable news site does more or less the same thing: It uses Facebook to capture receptive audiences by spreading not-lies and then converts those audiences into money by luring them to an outside site not-quite larded with not-as-obnoxious ads. In either case, Facebook users are being taken out of the safe confines of the platform into areas that Facebook does not and cannot control.</blockquote>
Watch this space. Facebook will fix this by making it harder to link to ANY outside content... including this blog post.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Facebook’s plan for “fake news” is no doubt intended to curb certain types of misinformation. But it’s also a continuation of the company’s bigger and more consequential project — to capture the experiences of the web it wants and from which it can profit, but to insulate itself from the parts that it doesn’t and can’t. This may help solve a problem within the ecosystem of outside publishers — an ecosystem that, in the distribution machinery of Facebook, is becoming redundant, and perhaps even obsolete.</blockquote>
And it's not just about news. It's about EVERYTHING in the world.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the run-up to Facebook’s initial public offering, Mark Zuckerberg told investors that the company makes decisions “not optimizing for what’s going to happen in the next year, but to set us up to really be in this world where every product experience you have is social, and that’s all powered by Facebook.” </blockquote>
Like Google, Facebook aims to be your platform for EVERYTHING. While this will have a huge impact on Facebook's bottom line and probably their stock price as well, it's unlikely to curb most of the fake news content that is shared between users.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A verified user telling a lie, be it a friend from high school or the president elect, isn’t breaking the rules; he is, as his checkmark suggests, who he represents himself to be. A post making false claims about a product is Facebook’s problem only if that post is labeled an ad. A user video promoting a conspiracy theory becomes a problem only when it leads to the violation of community guidelines against, for example, user harassment. Facebook contains a lot more than just news, including a great deal of content that is newslike, partisan, widely shared and often misleading. Content that has been, and will be, immune from current “fake news” critiques and crackdowns, because it never had the opportunity to declare itself news in the first place. To publish lies as “news” is to break a promise; to publish lies as “content” is not.</blockquote>
And so the bubble effect of social media and the powerful voice it gives to community leaders (for good or for ill) are unlikely to fade. </div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-59235490343353143282016-11-13T14:51:00.000-05:002016-11-18T08:20:42.423-05:00The Role of Facebook and Social Media in the Election of 2016 (edited)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<span class="s1">This much is true: "The post falsely claiming that the Pope endorsed Trump has more than 868,000 Facebook shares, while the story debunking it has 33,000.” And it may have had a significant effect in Trump's triumph, claims Cliff Kuang in <a href="https://www.fastcodesign.com/3065565/what-responsibility-does-design-bear-for-the-trump-era">this FastCoDesign post</a>. He's mistaken, however, when he asserts that this problem is a design flaw in Facebook specifically or social media in general. Blaming Facebook for the impact of fake news on society is like blaming the effect of gossip transmitted via post or ATT on the post office or the phone company. Unless, of course, we consider the scale of "sharing" afforded by social media...</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
Modern web and mobile experiences make it easier than ever to create and consume social content... but it makes it harder and harder to understand relationships between sources of information and virtually impossible to easily confirm the source and integrity of more and more content on the Internet. While this is true in general, he's got it wrong in this case: this is not really a Facebook or a Facebook design problem. He's not thinking clearly about who actually creates social media and why. If we understand more about what the web is, what Facebook is, who owns what and who pays for it all, it's pretty clear that everything functions rather well at least with respect to its design intent. It's just that neither the web nor social media is actually DESIGNED to deliver reliable and verifiable content. This is a publishing problem which happens to include design, not a design problem <i>per se</i> and certainly not a technology problem. (1)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>First of all, let's distinguish between phony content on a website and a web "hyperlink" connecting content between sites. <b>Within a website</b>, publishers, editors and writers are responsible for content. Theoretically at least they develop a reputation with readers based on experience which can be linked to a recognized brand, a font or layout. But beyond individualized reputation and visual branding, there is not even a way for the Times or Wired or the Huffington Post or The New York Post to communicate editorial policies in a consistent, verifiable way. There is no such thing as an “Underwriters Laboratory” or “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval for journalism in print or in digital formats. And there's certainly no way at all for a random site such as my own <a href="http://www.howdoweknow.info/p/home.html">science blog</a> to quickly and effortlessly communicate some kind of editorial standard vis-a-vis fake news or unsubstantiated claims.<br />
<br />
<div class="p2">
Second, <b>hyperlinks</b> present another level of challenge, a distinct problem. What can be done about links to bad data? The "anchor" end of the links in this post, for example, are created by me, the author of this post. However, the "target" of the links, are beyond my control. It's my responsibility to create context for the link on the anchor end that establishes an expectation on the part of the reader, a kind of promise from me to you. But what's on the other end of the link is the responsibility of the authors, editors, administrators and ultimately owners of the other website. They will ultimately meet the expectations I create and deliver on my promise. Or not. Again, beyond what you get with a brand reputation, there are no standards that add reliable, standard, qualitative and editorial context to a link any more than there are mechanisms with conventional citations in print media.<br />
<br />
And third, when we discuss either content or links the context of Facebook and social media, we really need to differentiate between <b>social media PLATFORMS </b>(which contains no content at all) and the content hosted on that platform whether it's user-generated or paid-for advertisements. At first glance, anyway, it might seem pretty easy prohibit <b>ads that present themselves as news</b>. Consider for example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw">the story of this author</a> who has admitted to creating enticing fake news to generate ad traffic from Facebook but outside Facebook where he could generate ad revenue. His name is Paul Horner and apparently he has generated about $10k a month by placing fake news as Facebook ads for several years! But what about "legitimate" sources of news without serious editorial constraints and processes that include fact checking? Would Facebook block "entrepreneurs" like Horner while they allow the Huffington Post or Breitbart or FOX news to advertise their content, much of it being deceptive if not blatantly false? Seems discriminatory to me...<br />
<br />
And then there is the problem of <b>user-generated content</b>. Even if the most celebrated examples of abuse were introduced by ads, there is no doubt that the damage of these news stories are created in the social network itself by sharing. The purveyors of "fake" news operating on a truly global scale on social media are USERS of social media, not the social media platforms themselves. They are guilty of posting user-generated links to the fake news sites, not authoring the phony content themselves. By design, social media platforms cannot easily regulate or even provide values-based editorial filters on user-generated content without interfering with their user-centric, consumer mission.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the real issue is the magnitude of the effect rather than the nature of the "fake" news. In other words, maybe some lies are simply too egregious to allow on such a powerful platform? Academics, for example, are among those concerned by the power, scale and impact of social media. This <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/technology/facebook-is-said-to-question-its-influence-in-election.html?emc=edit_tnt_20161113&nlid=2798784&tntemail0=y">New York Times article </a>begins with the same, false Pope Francis endorsement of Donald Trump. "A fake story ... was shared almost a million times, likely visible to tens of millions [yet] its correction was barely heard. Of course Facebook had significant influence in this last election’s outcome,” said Zeynep Tufekci, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina who studies social media and it's impact.</div>
<br />
In this same article, it's apparent that even Facebook employees and executives seem vexed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Some employees are worried about the spread of racist and so-called alt-right memes across the network, according to interviews with 10 current and former Facebook employees. Others are asking whether they contributed to a “filter bubble” among users who largely interact with people who share the same beliefs.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even more are reassessing Facebook’s role as a media company and wondering how to stop the distribution of false information. Some employees have been galvanized to send suggestions to product managers on how to improve Facebook’s powerful news feed: the streams of status updates, articles, photos and videos that users typically spend the most time interacting with.</blockquote>
Zuckerberg and stockholders who are clear on the Facebook mission as an advertising-funded communication platform see it differently, however.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Chris Cox, a senior vice president of product and one of Mr. Zuckerberg’s top lieutenants, has long described Facebook as an unbiased and blank canvas to give people a voice....</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In May, the company grappled with accusations that politically biased employees were censoring some conservative stories and websites in Facebook’s Trending Topics section, a part of the site that shows the most talked-about stories and issues on Facebook. Facebook later laid off the Trending Topics team. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In September, Facebook came under fire for removing a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of a naked 9-year-old girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, as she fled napalm bombs during the Vietnam War. The social network took down the photo for violating its nudity standards, even though the picture was an illustration of the horrors of war rather than child pornography. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Both those incidents seemed to worsen a problem of fake news circulating on Facebook. The Trending Topics episode paralyzed Facebook’s willingness to make any serious changes to its products that might compromise the perception of its objectivity, employees said. The “napalm girl” incident reminded many insiders at Facebook of the company’s often tone-deaf approach to nuanced situations. </blockquote>
In this article entitled "<a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html">Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook</a>", Max Read argues that "Facebook enabled a Trump victory" specifically because of "its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news." Max does an excellent job framing this:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To some extent I’m using “Facebook” here as a stand-in for the half-dozen large and influential message boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics, but Facebook’s size, reach, wealth, and power make it effectively the only one that matters. ... [Besides scale, the] most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news. Fake news is not a problem unique to Facebook, but Facebook’s enormous audience, and the mechanisms of distribution on which the site relies — i.e., the emotionally charged activity of sharing, and the show-me-more-like-this feedback loop of the news feed algorithm — makes it the only site to support a genuinely lucrative market in which shady publishers arbitrage traffic by enticing people off of Facebook and onto ad-festooned websites, using stories that are alternately made up, incorrect, exaggerated beyond all relationship to truth, or all three.</blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<div class="p2">
It's ironic that a substantial fraction of this fake news that is widely shared on social media is there by design. And in addition to deceiving a lot of voters (or reinforcing false beliefs), the creators of this fake news are siphoning off potentially significant amounts of advertising revenue from Facebook for themselves. Why do they allow this at all? <br />
<br />
It seems to me that this question gets to the heart of the matter. Facebook wants to make it both OPEN and EASY to post links to 3rd party links content because that is actually EASIER for their users than creating content of their own. Meanwhile, 3rd party content providers from The Huffington Post to Breitbart make it really, really easy to create compelling Facebook links. And user-followers find it really compelling to click on them and re-share, the shorter and more superficial they are the better. These fake stories are designed to attract attention, "likes" and re-sharing among friends. And the more attention they garner, the more they will be propagated by Facebook's feed algorithm because, in fact, they encourage users pass hours on the site. Despite the ad revenue than they loose to 3rd party sites, they apparently generate even more for themselves. <br />
<br />
This feedback loop operates by design: it's great for Facebook AND the completely independent ad networks that attract our attention with fake news. These are precisely the design goals behind the system that make it easy to share a lot of compelling but ultimately low-quality content. And that's the real reason a LOT of the 3rd party content that will be most compelling to read and share will turn out to be misleading exaggerations at best, and completely erroneous or bogus at worst.<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
So what's the answer?</div>
<br />
We know that Facebook an important source of news for a lot of people. But although Facebook hosts the content and links, in fact Facebook is NOT the publisher of this phony news. Instead, it serves as a platform for user-generated and ad-generated social media which include user- and ad-generated links to bogus 3rd party content. These links take readers beyond Facebook to other websites where neither Facebook or the users who have created the links have a voice in editorial policies or control over the content.<br />
<br />
I'd like to see Facebook make a bonafide attempt to prevent the most blatant ads pretending to be news which are, in fact, pure ad networks siphoning off traffic from Facebook. And like anti-spam measures in email, perhaps Facebook could warn users who share links to "suspicious" sites but allow them to do so, along with a clear statement explaining their policy.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, however, I'm afraid there is no substitute for eduction, diligence and skepticism on the part of social media users.<br />
<br />
(1) Print and digital content are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution as a form of speech. Publishers, editors, and authors are responsible for the veracity of their words, not the manufacturing and distribution technology that connect them to readers.</div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-88314039830913866522016-09-24T12:17:00.001-04:002016-09-24T12:28:22.494-04:00Reflections on the Passing of John Rassias<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
I got the email from Professor Nancy Vickers:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John was gone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Deep breath…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what was I to make of that, I wondered?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All that motion, but to what end? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Boundless passion, for sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So much heart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But was there progress?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or just a
lot of heat?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The older I get the more I want
to know: what was that all about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
have we learned?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For one thing, there’s my own experience:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a deep connection with Italy, lifelong
friends, and literature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I remember the sense
of accomplishment I got when I first began to speak Italian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And then there was becoming a TA:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was ecstatic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve always been thankful to John Rassias for these
experiences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It wasn’t totally rational,
I know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although he was the public face
of languages at Dartmouth, he wasn’t personally responsible. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were scores of individuals who made his
vision real:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>brilliant faculty, staff,
TA’s, students and so many others who contributed to “the method.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But somehow I believed that the spirit of the
man, his considerable promotional skills, his energy and vision were essential
to the community which motivated, inspired and supported me at Dartmouth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Towards the end of my time in Hanover, I began to wonder,
however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Working for him closely was like
seeing the great Oz behind the curtain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
remember my first really big disappointments as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was not perfect. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It was foolish, I knew, but it didn’t seem to matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
was so damn charismatic. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Charming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An authentic romantic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I couldn’t help myself. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I could see the response he inspired, the
institutional change he was driving, despite his foibles. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He called me out of the blue in the mid 90’s, asking if he
could use my “snap” design for his Institute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Naturally,” I said. As I hung up the phone I remember marveling how even
then I would have done anything to help. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And then in 2008 I remember visiting John with my daughter.
“So Sarah,” he growled, completely ignoring me, “Who ARE you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What are you going to DO when you go to
college?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
“Art,” she told him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Beautiful!” he exclaimed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And he meant it, totally present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Two years later he barked at Alex, my son, “Awright!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you going to study Italian like papa?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And then he listened intently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He lit them up. And with a little distance I was beginning,
ever so slightly, to see how he ticked.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And now he’s gone and I’m thinking about him and his example
again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At work I’m surrounded by competence,
organization, and resources you can’t imagine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But I wonder: where we are GOING as an institution? What shall we
BECOME?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And how can I make a difference?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp0awszMkxeP1k1snFEGJC-hOl3YJiAknIL5EybcRRTRnJBY_bYLBccw6kl-zjRzzkIlSKiFVY1MBbEVgPcRmB1t5YQzAfLtkJTPEoKWLxVVKmxSHk6vsl8qcti7f-JCtZaFvA/s1600/rassias+cropped.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp0awszMkxeP1k1snFEGJC-hOl3YJiAknIL5EybcRRTRnJBY_bYLBccw6kl-zjRzzkIlSKiFVY1MBbEVgPcRmB1t5YQzAfLtkJTPEoKWLxVVKmxSHk6vsl8qcti7f-JCtZaFvA/s320/rassias+cropped.JPG" width="233" /></a></div>
When I offered my "snap" illustration for his institute he told me he would create a scholarship in my name. It did not matter to me much at the time and, frankly, I'm not sure I expected him to follow through. When I Googled my name and his, however, there it was: a scholarship. It was only a few thousand dollars, but nevertheless, it was <a href="http://rassias.dartmouth.edu/programs/scholarships.html" target="_blank">a scholarship created by John honoring me</a>. I had to admit it, it did make me proud to have participated, even if my actual contribution was tiny.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, 35 years after the fact, I can see more clearly than
ever what John Rassias was really teaching us about leadership:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>stay focused on the vision, tell the story
again and again, affiliate with the best, let others help you with execution
and, above all, be authentic.<br />
<br />
Although I’ll miss him, it feels like he’s still here, still teaching.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-73569312803952906642016-08-21T17:38:00.000-04:002016-08-21T19:11:20.618-04:00Race, Segregation, and Stories About Faceless Institutions, Families with Faces AND Evidence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I just finished reading <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html" target="_blank">this article</a> in the Times today about a "broad yet little explored fact of American segregation. I like that: the FACT of segregation. And the story of how even "affluent black families, freed from the restrictions of low income, often end up living in poor and segregated communities anyway." I liked it a lot. I learned something new about how laws and courts and the best of intentions of lots of people are simply not enough to change behaviors -- complex behaviors of almost ALL of us -- that perpetuate decades of segregation that disproportionately disadvantage another generation of Black Americans. Sadly it IS still about race: not class, not culture, not resources, but RACE. The evidence is pretty clear.<br />
<br />
I reflected for a minute and learned something else: it is possible to tell a good story about complex systems and evidence that is also about individuals. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Framing communications using individual stories can make complex social problems more compelling; however, if you're not careful, the systems -- social, cultural and political institutions -- can just disappear. A disadvantaged individual who triumphs over adversity proves only that success against all odds is possible while it frames individuals who fail as individual failures. So many stories drawn from individual narratives are true, of course, they just don't tell the WHOLE story: in fact, the emotional frame drawn around the individual actually hides the many ways that structural disadvantages "stack the deck" against them.<br />
<br />
But this story works. In the same way that <a href="http://www.hbo.com/the-wire" target="_blank">The Wire by David Simon</a> succeeds so brilliantly, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html" target="_blank">Affluent and Black by Eligon and Gebeloff</a> manages to draw compelling individual portraits of individuals and their families and also link personal decisions to broad patterns of behavior substantiated by just a few pieces of evidence and some really great graphics.<br />
<br />
But how do they do it?<br />
<br />
The title is awesome, first of all: "Affluent and Black, and Still Trapped by Segregation" is a challenge to the reader. <br />
<br />
"How exactly are they trapped?" I wanted to know. The answer came in the very first paragraphs with a real-life example. I read it, looked at the picture of an interesting looking, vital, and happy family. They are not trapped by laws or courts or resources. They have choices. They CHOOSE to live in predominantly Black neighborhoods for reasons we can all understand. They are 'trapped' because, in fact, it's still better for them to live where they do despite the poor schools, the violence, and other disadvantages, even when they DO have choices.<br />
<br />
Then I noticed the rest of the title: "Why well-off black families end up living in poorer areas<br />
than white families with similar or even lower incomes." They are 'trapped' by institutions that continue to make it less attractive to integrate and more attractive to remain in largely segregated neighborhoods.<br />
<br />
My questions were, "How common is this, exactly?" And, "Is this part of a trend?" Or perhaps it's not news at all. I skipped to the graphic. Check it out:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Woia1H0kFn4vaazwQJtdd9G6gT6_qifLWsQRqbuweHJT8Oqe_9kMKzYvttd3fM1OM2GxPSGMxj7CISbV-5ANjmIGbNenXrqKkXv28SSWM3lQU6fwD7dOdJJmXdWqEEimax_K/s1600/Image+2016-08-21+at+1.48.38+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6Woia1H0kFn4vaazwQJtdd9G6gT6_qifLWsQRqbuweHJT8Oqe_9kMKzYvttd3fM1OM2GxPSGMxj7CISbV-5ANjmIGbNenXrqKkXv28SSWM3lQU6fwD7dOdJJmXdWqEEimax_K/s400/Image+2016-08-21+at+1.48.38+PM.png" width="400" /></a></div>
OK. Then I was hooked. There were other examples, other families who tried living in affluent areas and, for a host of reasons, moved back to old neighborhoods. I read it carefully. It's all about how social, cultural and institutional forces continue to encourage segregation and discourage integration even though it's been decades since overt discrimination has been illegal. <br />
<br />
It's also a complicated story. While it's hard to find villains, it's easy to see how even affluent Blacks with real choices continue to be disadvantaged by their race. <br />
<br />
Here's a map of Milwaukee from the US Census, 2010 I presume, not 1950.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEherPWX-f8mMxEN8567lUTlCW9X_KKL_yy-OH-NCrUUGUVtVI5F_olLKHcKDRsBsebhqqi6embb7jV8AeFyYakiS4Nw01M6BggN4LEyeleiVxnXn4Fe-oXNHiJngh8PHmyI87qX/s1600/Image+2016-08-21+at+1.48.14+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="584" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEherPWX-f8mMxEN8567lUTlCW9X_KKL_yy-OH-NCrUUGUVtVI5F_olLKHcKDRsBsebhqqi6embb7jV8AeFyYakiS4Nw01M6BggN4LEyeleiVxnXn4Fe-oXNHiJngh8PHmyI87qX/s640/Image+2016-08-21+at+1.48.14+PM.png" width="640" /></a></div>
And I'll bet that Boston looks pretty much the same way...<br />
<br />
It turns out that it's common, pervasive and persistent. In fact, it's NOT EVEN NEWS. And that's just another thing that extraordinary about this piece. How do you tell a story that's NOT new in a way that gives us pause and makes us challenge our beliefs and consider new ways of looking at reality? Well, you can tell a story that describes individual people, specific events in their lives, as long as you also tie the difficult choices they make to broader patterns in our society, revealing real and deep forces that perpetuate segregation, discourage integration and impoverish us all.<br />
<br />
Note: I admire of how they deliberately did NOT also try to measure the effects of continuing segregation OR discuss strategies to resist or even reverse these trends. The reader may ask themselves whether or not this is a bad thing or what can be done about it and not find the answer in this piece. It's a perfectly valid and productive editorial choice in my view. They did a super job framing the questions. Look elsewhere for these and many more answers.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-29544036353021148712016-03-19T18:09:00.000-04:002016-04-02T09:06:46.581-04:00On Generalizing and Stereotyping Illiberal Liberals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Of course the main point of this <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/How-Safe-Spaces-Stifle-Ideas/235634" target="_blank">article in the Chronicle of Higher Education</a> is really about the illiberal intellectual climate in higher ed. It's probably a pretty legitimate critique of the academy which, like everywhere else in our society, has been politicized and has become rather polarized. In talking with our academic friends, it seems horribly stifling, actually, in dire need of reform. </span>It is really difficult to criticize many of the taboos, especially those which are racially charged, without being perceived as a bigot yourself, which is another legitimate point of the article. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
On the other hand, taking a broader view of history, we should probably admit that, while it might be hard to bring into question such taboos in academia at the moment, it is not impossible. The cult of "political correctness" is not operating with equal force all disciplines and all schools. But what really bothers me is that Boyers projects his complaints of American higher education to American society as a whole. It seems to me a bit exaggerated to claim that "life of ideas is also increasingly compromised in precincts beyond the academy." On the contrary, at the moment we're witnessing a very public moment where it's not only permissible to reject these taboos of political correctness, but it's also popular to deliberately single out and offend entire groups of people, even to the point of inciting violence, all in the name of being against "political correctness." Isn't that evidence that the power of the so-called "liberal elite" -- which presumably controls American universities from coast to coast -- is not quite as absolute as Boyers claims?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span class="s1">This is tricky, however, because to some extent the critique of illiberalism of the "progressive left" is at least partially true. It’s just exaggerated and incomplete. First of all it's based on a rather biased stereotype of a monolithic, homogeneous and “organized” Left that in fact does not exist. And then there are exceptions, like Boyer himself, who have been critical of the so-called taboo subjects regularly without repercussions. Ironically, the fact that Boyer is able to express his social criticism undermines his argument.</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Boyers carefully buries this subtext, however, in two ways. First, he casts "illiberal liberals" as an aggressive organized majority, on the one hand, and his </span>beleaguered conservative minority as persecuted victims on the other. And second, using this straw-man argument, he creates a new kind of "political correctness" of his own on the right, a narrative script that has largely been followed and seldom contradicted since the mid 1970's and the rise of the new Right. They stereotype and vilify their liberal “enemies” and then demolish them rhetorically, rarely talking about real policy disagreements. Although it seems like an argument, it’s really just name-calling. <br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Bullshit is another word for it.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
</div>
<br />
Whether Boyers intends it or not, his essay and so many like it are being used to legitimize the attacks of Tea Party candidates like Palin, Rubio, Cruz and now Trump. They all use the posture of exaggerated political incorrectness to demonstrate that they are strong and independent but, in the process, unnecessarily incite hate, intolerance and violence. And by connecting the "illiberal liberal" argument with government elites, first of all, and then government itself, they divide the electorate, harvest electoral support, and diminish political institutions that have typically been fiercely defended by conservatives. Although this narrative pretends to be conservatism, it is actually political activism. I fear how this kind of authoritarian "leadership" is actually creating a kind of government-hating mob with considerable electoral clout. I'm concerned that what was in fact a serious and free debate in Academic circles going back to the 70's has turned into a license for some of our political leaders to say whatever they want in public no matter what the consequences may be, intended or not, domestic or international. </div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">By the way, it bothers me when liberals similarly characterize conservatism as being intellectually stifling, as well, even though it is PARTIALLY true. Could one of the 12 Republicans running for President actually say that climate change was real, let alone caused by humans? Nope. They are allowed to <i><b>think </b></i>that of course, <b><i>if they were the thinking and reasoning sorts, open to examining the data</i></b>. But they cannot actually <b><i>say</i></b> that publicly. Could one of the 12 (3 of whom were actually MD’s) even say that mandatory vaccination programs is a legitimate function of a centralized government? It was a simple question at the 1st debate, one that could have been answered with a simple ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. But not one of them could manage to say anything positive about government at all, even the CDC. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br />
This seems a little more consequential to me, anyway, than the culture war gone "cold" on campus today. But I digress...<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Of course this is all evidence supporting the position that there are taboos on the Right as well, it’s just intellectually dishonest to make that point and stop there, as Boyers does, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. We know how partisan politics in any group can affect the open exchange of ideas, the assessment of what we know and how we know it. So what? It’s politics. But even if it IS a problem in the GOP now, it hardly makes sense to identify this as being an inherent problem of conservatism. It is, in fact, a problem in the GOP today. But it has not always been so in the past, it need not be so in the future, and it is surely NOT the essence of conservatism.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">In other words, it’s legitimate to characterize Republican Jim Inhoffe as a close-minded idiot: he reads scripture literally, believes in a 6,000-year-old-earth and cannot except the overwhelming evidence of evolution. And it’s legitimate to criticize the public arguments of Lamar Smith, a Christian Scientist who also reads the bible literally, takes more money from the fossil fuel industry than anyone else in Congress, and who considers climate change a hoax. He's either an idiot, a liar, or both. These are legitimate claims because there is ample evidence. But just because Republicans have chosen Inhoffe to be the Chairman of the House Committee on the Environment and Smith to chair the House Committee on Science and Space (which includes NASA) doesn’t mean that all Republicans are idiots or close-minded either. After all, it’s politics. And it’s hard to generalize.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br />
So I think it's a mistake to reject all of the intellectual positions of the Right simply because there are a few that are so patently false.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Boyers wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our educated classes regard the university chiefly as an instrument of our collective purpose and an efficient engine for transmitting anxiety about ideas felt to be dangerous or out of bounds. Bizarre that a culture officially committed to diversity and openness should be essentially conformist, and that the hostility to the clash of incommensurable ideas and even to elementary difference should be promoted with the sort of clear conscience that can belong only to people who don’t know what they’re doing.</blockquote>
<div class="p2">
</div>
Really? Who are these "educated classes?" Are they really so monolithic and so all-powerful? Has it always been so? Is it an inherent characteristic of liberalism? <br />
<br />
And can we generalize beyond the halls of the academy? Do such illiberal liberals actually control our entire society through their control of academic institutions? Really? With regard to partisan politics, is it legitimate to paint with such broad brushstrokes about a few people and a point in time without recognizing any exceptions? Is it right to use such a simple characterization as it may have described SOME activists on the Left in the 1930’s, 1970’s and 1980’s as a substitute for meaningful engagement on completely unrelated issues in 2016?</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">It may not be intellectually legitimate but it certainly seems to be working for Donald Trump.</span></div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-86191987705415573802014-06-30T08:45:00.002-04:002014-06-30T09:04:35.967-04:00Automation, Labor and Capital<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Here is a new thesis on the old relationship between Labor and Capital: technology is causing them to fuse. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Do you buy it?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #231f20; line-height: 22.100000381469727px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #231f20; line-height: 22.100000381469727px; text-align: justify;">Erik Brynjolfsson et. al. have written in Foreign Affairs:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #231f20; line-height: 22.100000381469727px; text-align: justify;">Machines are substituting for more types of human labor than ever before. As they replicate themselves, they are also creating more capital. This means that the real winners of the future will not be the providers of cheap labor or the owners of ordinary capital, both of whom will be increasingly squeezed by automation. Fortune will instead favor a third group: those who can innovate and create new products, services, and business models.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141531/erik-brynjolfsson-andrew-mcafee-and-michael-spence/new-world-order"><a name='more'></a>http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141531/erik-brynjolfsson-andrew-mcafee-and-michael-spence/new-world-order</a></span></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">The crux of it seems to be that automation may turn out to be as fungible as money.</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #231f20; line-height: 22.100000381469727px; text-align: justify;">If digital technologies create cheap substitutes for a growing set of jobs, then it is not a good time to be a laborer. But if digital technologies also increasingly substitute for capital, then all owners of capital should not expect to earn outsized returns, either.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">He concludes that people with ideas who are motivated to create, solve problems and innovate will become the key to creating wealth.</span><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #231f20; line-height: 22.100000381469727px; text-align: justify;">Digital technologies increasingly make both ordinary labor and ordinary capital commodities, and so a greater share of the rewards from ideas will go to the creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs. People with ideas, not workers or investors, will be the scarcest resource.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">I'm not sure I'm convinced yet... but it's an interesting idea.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">What do you think?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">By the way, the social and political implications of his work does not escape him. In fact, from my conversations with him they appear to be his primary motivation to understand, describe, measure, and then predict what is actually happening in the global economy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Should the digital revolution continue to be as powerful in the future as it has been in recent years, the structure of the modern economy and the role of work itself may need to be rethought. As a group, our descendants may work fewer hours and live better -- but both the work and the rewards could be spread even more unequally, with a variety of unpleasant consequences. Creating sustainable, equitable, and inclusive growth will require more than business as usual. The place to start is with a proper understanding of just how fast and far things are evolving.</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
</h4>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-15795683814300523832014-03-02T08:07:00.003-05:002014-03-02T08:07:31.912-05:00A Journalist Asks "How Do We Know?"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I just <a href="http://www.howdoweknow.info/2014/03/a-journalist-asks-how-do-we-know.html">posted another essay</a> on journalism, bias, evidence and the problems confronting readers, editors, journalists and publishers alike. How do we actually know what happens?</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-22159413372371317562014-01-03T08:46:00.001-05:002014-01-03T14:33:55.862-05:00Respect for Journalists and Historians: Knowing What Happened is Hard<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="p1">
So I kind of want to post this on my science site because this is really about evidence again and "how do we know." On the other hand, in this case it's about Benghazi, and if I write about it at all, it's probably a good idea to keep it separate from my views on science and society, even if some of the philosophical elements are the same...</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Yes, Benghazi. I have already spent an hour on this article from the Sunday Times called <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0">A Deadly Mix in Benghazi</a> by David Kirkpatrick. It's hard. I'm still reading it. I recommend it, though. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I decided to read it because right off the bat it's focused on what actually happened rather than the spin in Washington.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.</blockquote>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But as soon as I waded into the unfamiliar waters, I started to object. That's weird. They spent months talking to people who were actually there, people who were actually involved, and they concluded that:</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>The attackers were not Al Qaeda or international terrorists but they did attack and kill our ambassador.</li>
<li>We actually supported them in and then they benefited from the ouster of Qaddafi.</li>
<li>It was, in fact, fueled by the video "denigrating Islam."</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
"This is hard," I thought to myself. "What does that even mean?" I asked. "Was it planned or not? Are they with us or against us?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It just made my head hurt and I tried to read another, easier article instead. But an hour later I was back. Then again another day later I returned to reread it once again. I'm still trying. What do you do when evidence simply can't be processed according to familiar frames?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One [frame] has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Oh, there it is. I recognize that narrative...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The other [frame], favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
And there we go: the other one! So who is right? But not so fast...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Huh? It was NEITHER planned NOR spontaneous? I hate when reality requires more nuance, time and effort to understand. Why can't our friends and enemies keep it simple?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
See what I mean? What is a global super power to do? Dang it anyway: it's complicated. Sigh... But the one thing we should NOT do is let a simple story get out ahead of the more nuanced facts.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...] The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Read it again: our never-ending "war on terror" is shaping the way we perceive the world and makes it harder to even think about the world. And so do our internal ideological battles between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. In fact, understanding the ACTUAL situation before you is harder if you begin with an ideology based on war OR peace....<br />
<br />
The problem I am still having reading this article is the same problems our leaders and journalists struggle with: confirmation bias. In fact, it's sooooo much easier to read stories and gather facts that reinforce what we already believe. And looking at evidence with fresh eyes that challenge our beliefs is hard. <br />
<br />
OK, I'm exaggerating. Simply reading the article is not as hard as researching and writing the article in the first place. With of 1,000's of words occupying more than a full page in the Times, THAT is a commitment. But furthermore, actually MAKING the decisions that our leaders made is even harder than researching and writing about them. Thinking about this challenge in Libya and extrapolating to embassies all over the world is a sobering thought: who ARE these individuals we ask to set and implement our foreign policy? And who ARE the elected officials we send to Washington to oversee them? And to what extent do they actually believe the simple stories they use to get elected? Are they as concerned with confirmation bias as I am?<br />
<br />
These are my questions. I'm reading the rest of the article now to find out the answers.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-15186251433846901402013-12-30T08:38:00.000-05:002014-01-02T21:20:17.712-05:00Rehosting Posts from our Italy 04 Experience Here<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm in the process of moving all of the content from our Italy 04 website here at Blogger. <br />
<br />
It's interesting to reexamine old posts. Here is a great one by Sarah on her impressions of '<a href="http://sqnet.blogspot.com/2004/03/social-life-in-siena-by-sarah.html">Social Life in Siena</a>.' Pretty amazing insights, especially considering that it was TEN YEARS AGO!</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-56710849014181701202013-12-29T21:35:00.001-05:002014-01-03T09:54:09.788-05:00Maela's Blog<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
My niece Maela is blogging <a href="http://idareyoutolook.weebly.com/1/post/2013/12/just-because-no-one-liked-it-doesnt-mean-it-didnt-exist.html">here</a>. Check it out. I think she's doing a great job thinking really hard and sharing her views about being 17, female, and growing up in an age which is unprecedented in so many ways, but especially because we are so connected, so inundated with information, so starved for attention. I appreciate it because I think that despite the 'over sharing' that we take for granted, there is far too little reflection going on in our society, not enough depth in our analysis, and a real dearth of sincerity. We live in a sea of impressions and spin, but precious little integrity. <br />
<br />
Well, this is what Maela is blogging about, with depth, sincerity AND integrity.<br />
<br />
And sharing THAT is unusual. I like it.<br />
<br />
I'm sharing that because you might like it too.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-56135478006889271322010-12-01T10:48:00.000-05:002014-01-03T09:54:22.476-05:00Emerging Standards for Behavior in Social Media<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Every time technology changes the way we communicate, society is impacted and cultures change. What would you call someone who is paid to be a facebook friend, for example?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-12-01/" title="Dilbert.com"><img alt="Dilbert.com" border="0" src="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/00000/7000/100/107165/107165.strip.gif" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Is accumulating social capital the same as a credit to the "saving face[book]" account?</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-62259188951102897012010-11-28T09:18:00.000-05:002014-01-04T00:23:27.019-05:00Thinking Clearly about Budget Reforms<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm thinking about this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28sun1.html">editorial in the Times</a>.<br />
<br />
Specific questions to ask on a case-by-case basis about each proposal to reform the budget and reduce the deficit at this time: Will this specific reform be large? Will it be temporary or structural? Will it create jobs and growth? And will it be fair?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Let's consider tax cuts for the richest among us. It will be large, adding to the deficit. It is structural, not temporary. It is unlikely to create jobs and growth in the short run. And it's not fair. Extending unemployment benefits, on the other hand, also adds to the deficit but is relatively small. It's temporary. It is likely to create jobs and growth in the short run. And it's fair.<br />
<br />
But what about that timeless and perfect idea, often repeated, that tax cuts in a time of recession creates jobs? I'm under the impression from the news that the wealthiest individuals and corporations among us are sitting on lots of cash. I have personal, anecdotal experience confirming this impression. What exactly are they (we) waiting for? Tax cuts? Please! They (we) are waiting for demand to return... and growth, not more cash.<br />
<br />
They (we) will take the money and bank it if offered, however.<br />
<br />
Extending benefits on the other hand has the opposite effect: because the benefits are spent immediately, they produce demand, growth and jobs. Such benefits also bolster the confidence of those who fear loosing their jobs, contributing to demand, growth, and jobs.<br />
<br />
Hmmm.... So why would anyone support tax cuts and oppose jobless benefits at this time? It might be good politics (although for the life of me I can't understand why) but it's crummy policy.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-18484696315450503482004-08-22T14:11:00.000-04:002014-01-12T23:57:56.483-05:00Dartmouth Alumni in Siena (by Steve)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>LEXINGTON (#71)</b><br />
<br />
I understand that someone -- some "friend" -- leaked our story to the Alumni Mag. For you readers energetic and thorough enough to bother checking us out, welcome! (Energetic and thorough are "code" for "type A" and "obsessive" you know....)<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-1934024199870045552004-07-14T13:31:00.000-04:002014-01-12T23:47:44.524-05:00Reentry (by Steve)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>LEXINGTON (#69)</b><br />
<br />
Well, we're back. And I must admit that there are a number of things that are really attractive about these United States and that six months away is enough to appreciate them again. But having a few more weeks off and entertaining Italian guests has made coming back a real pleasure. Everything is just so, well, transparent. <a name='more'></a>And customer centric. It is a little odd adjusting. You hang up the phone after talking to someone in customer service and you actually feel confident how and when your needs will be satisfied. Strange. And driving feels funny too. I can't exactly say what is different but it seems hard to predict what other drivers will do. It seems odd that they just stay in their lanes and don't vary their speed by more than, say 5 miles per hour. Imagine that! The distances and lanes are just so large and laid out such that it you can actually think about other things while you drive! And yesterday I bought a quarter of a pound of turkey breast. I couldn't believe it when I got home. A quarter of a pound! Although that's enough salami to feed the family in Italy and a find amount to buy if you shop every day, it is pretty silly when you put it on a single sandwich here.<br />
<br />
Laura, Angelo and Giulia arrived yesterday. I can't quite describe how wonderful it is to see them here even though we've been together a lot in the past 5 months. In a few days, their friends, Alexandra, Paolo and their son, Niccolo' will also arrive. They will be touring Maine, Cape Cod and the Islands, and Rhode Island on their own and with us sometimes. Perhaps the coolest thing about rediscovering all the great things about the United States and having Italian guests at the same time is that we can share the experience. I am expecting to have a blast.<br />
<br /></div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-78325751078054172342004-07-14T05:41:00.000-04:002014-01-12T23:52:15.114-05:00What is Going to Happen to the Website? (by Steve)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>TOUISSET, RI (#70)</b><br />
<br />
Some of you may be wondering what will happen to the site now that we are back. Well, I would like this site to remain in a sort of suspended state as a memory of our trip. I will be investigating ways of doing just that. However, in the mean time, I'm not sure we're ready to close it just yet. I think it's important to keep it open for a few months for a few reasons....For example, I know that I still have a story on the history of the Contrade and the Palio and another one on the Palio itself. And there are still two or three hundred photos to publish. At a rate of 20 - 30 per week (in current photos album) that will take till September. And finally, I also think that there are some comments still out there waiting to be recorded.<br />
<br />
Get those comments in NOW for posterity.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
COMMENTS from the original blog<br />
<br />
<b>2006-10-21 14:09:54 stefano</b><br />
after two years...<br />
I have rehosted the site at a different hosting service in a different CMS called Drupal. The photos are still in an open source application called Gallery. Enjoy.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-40335619970658736632004-07-03T21:52:00.000-04:002014-01-12T23:41:40.199-05:00And the winner is.... (by Doreen)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>SIENA (#68)</b><br />
<br />
To the delight of Onda and the despair of Bruco...Jockey-less Giraffa (the contrada Onda sold their rider to in order to help keep their arch enemy, Torre, from winning).<br />
<br />
Bruco led the race until passing the deadly curve of San Martino. Giraffa was trying to pull ahead when all of the sudden its rider fell off. Bruco's jockey pulled ahead again but then he, too, fell.<br />
<br />
Then Bruco continued to lead (with its unknown horse and young inexperienced jockey) to its contrada's joy and amazement --not something they even thought could happen). Then, calamity stuck. The 2 front runners caught up and started to lap Oca (the goose)'s horse (who had lost its rider in the second lap). Bruco got boxed in. Oca (finishing its second lap) started to run faster and was a nose ahead of Giraffa at the finish line. I (and probably 1/3rd of the others), thought this was Bruco's horse. Instead, Giraffa's flag was hung outside the Palazzo Publico, as the winner.<br />
<br /></div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-7729777443019891462004-06-30T03:40:00.000-04:002014-01-12T18:17:13.701-05:00Palio Marches and Trials (by Sarah)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>SIENA (#67)</b><br />
<br />
We thought we could have a little rest for a while after our trip and all our guests, but NO WAY! We are all busy seeing friends all the time. The Palio is on Friday, and this whole week is going to be busier than ever.<br />
<br />
First, there have been the marches or giri of the contrade. Each of the contrade have their turn to march or girare through the streets of Siena and pay respects to friendly contrade, the Commune, and the Bishop. The marches started about a month ago. Mom and Dad went on the Onda giro on Sunday.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj2s12q0a6dLCsh5nhCXfy3VtmAkK7v8qUp-xshw6IX5HaPaDDpmCBMm1QRmp9NgXs-ms2C5fQ-fSwGojS_AyF7jUl3BaWfswSiG9C17AMilDUUMlxvxtcyG18F5c6qD9Ldo42/s1600/a5+onda+kids.JPG"
imageanchor="1" important="" inline="" margin-left:="" margin-right:="" style="clear: style=;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj2s12q0a6dLCsh5nhCXfy3VtmAkK7v8qUp-xshw6IX5HaPaDDpmCBMm1QRmp9NgXs-ms2C5fQ-fSwGojS_AyF7jUl3BaWfswSiG9C17AMilDUUMlxvxtcyG18F5c6qD9Ldo42/s1600/a5+onda+kids.JPG"
height="150" width="200" />
</a>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaPVDn4-fQLBOROt5sC9xp5TxA5X3-o6URHesvVFSj3ihE31mX1mna8iu-5fKMWm2Jy9zOZAvrgqrUl0d4oZjpbmga6uczNQX8BciD_yT-zMCbyMZg2nFDqXi4-XascOL1axb/s1600/a8+nuovi+mamme+e+bambini+di+onda.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpaPVDn4-fQLBOROt5sC9xp5TxA5X3-o6URHesvVFSj3ihE31mX1mna8iu-5fKMWm2Jy9zOZAvrgqrUl0d4oZjpbmga6uczNQX8BciD_yT-zMCbyMZg2nFDqXi4-XascOL1axb/s1600/a8+nuovi+mamme+e+bambini+di+onda.JPG" height="150" width="200" />
</a>
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GzGYQAqMdh4/UtLpJq_pRdI/AAAAAAAAELg/hx3a2tG6DmY/s1600/a9+la+lizza+to+the+piazza+2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="display: inline !important; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GzGYQAqMdh4/UtLpJq_pRdI/AAAAAAAAELg/hx3a2tG6DmY/s1600/a9+la+lizza+to+the+piazza+2.JPG" height="300" width="400" />
</a>
<a name='more'></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBeCODg9Cjx0CnOxqWqERmFLTe1keEfriz5Th2x0tiRiBpZMiVe5hn2eAFqitFlLFRSna5EawPIe8uj_zEbIgitG2R_8moK5drSbtBfW0fea-Ox1v_6HYyrGbUipcTAolVmVLC/s1600/IM003952.JPG"
imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBeCODg9Cjx0CnOxqWqERmFLTe1keEfriz5Th2x0tiRiBpZMiVe5hn2eAFqitFlLFRSna5EawPIe8uj_zEbIgitG2R_8moK5drSbtBfW0fea-Ox1v_6HYyrGbUipcTAolVmVLC/s1600/IM003952.JPG" height="150" width="200" />
</a>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BZBuxGSouBc/UtLpKsL9yJI/AAAAAAAAELk/UP_2xYw27HA/s1600/a9+onda+in+piazza+5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BZBuxGSouBc/UtLpKsL9yJI/AAAAAAAAELk/UP_2xYw27HA/s1600/a9+onda+in+piazza+5.JPG" height="240" width="320" />
</a>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zvw_LxIQlSg/UtLrr2mVlkI/AAAAAAAAEMM/Pj5XJhGINW0/s1600/me+and+dad+bruco.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zvw_LxIQlSg/UtLrr2mVlkI/AAAAAAAAEMM/Pj5XJhGINW0/s1600/me+and+dad+bruco.JPG" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
Then, on Monday, there was the unofficial trial of horses running around the piazza for the first time. Dad woke up at 5 am to watch them and took some pictures. We went to dinner in the contrada of Bruco (the caterpillar) along with the Duccis.<br />
<br />
The next day, Tuesday, was the choosing of which horses would run in the Palio. The captains of the contrade selected 10 out of the 22 horses. After, the horses were randomly given to the different contrade and then were taken to the stalls in each of the neighborhoods. Soon after the Capitani of each contrada started making phone calls to see which jockies would ride for them.<br />
<br />
Later that day I went with my friends Benedetta and Mattia at around 5 pm and marched with their contrada – chiocciola (the snail) on their giro.<br />
<br />
At around 8 pm, we made it back into the Piazza del Campo for the first prova (test run). This was an important run because it was the first time that the horses and jockeys would be running for their specific contrade. Some jockeys and horses try to go easy on the prova so that they won’t get injured and save the energy for when it really matters – the Palio. But, the good horses were still obvious.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gKHQ_8BR2yY/UtLrkDUSHwI/AAAAAAAAEL8/zUZm9xWv3ag/s1600/horses4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gKHQ_8BR2yY/UtLrkDUSHwI/AAAAAAAAEL8/zUZm9xWv3ag/s1600/horses4.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Today, I woke up at around 7 to meet my friends to see the second prova. It went well; no one is injured yet! Tonight there is another prova, but for now I am just having a little rest!!<br />
<br />
Ed note: The trials or prove serve several functions. First of all, they allow new horses to and new jockies to learn the track and experience some of the Palio tension. In addition, they allow these horses and jockies to be seen by the contrade. And finally, the three-day period of trials is used to negotiate with jockies and allied contrade. -- SQ<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
COMMENTS from the original blog<br />
<br />
<b>2004-06-30 19:20:38 Barbara</b><br />
Re: Palio Marches and Trials (by Sarah)<br />
This is so fascinating, but I have a question. I thought each contrada selected its horse months in advance and worked with its jockey. But you mention that the top ten horses are randomly assigned to the contrade. Does that mean that the first time the horse and jockey get to work with each other is at the beginning of the three-day period? <br />
<br />
<b>2004-07-01 08:51:27 doreen</b><br />
Re: Palio Marches and Trials (by Sarah)<br />
Absolutely. The horse is randomly assigned on June 29th, mid-day. The Contrada Capitano and consultants spend until 7:45pm that day contracting a jockey (even if they've pre-arranged a jockey, some won't ride a bad horse, no matter how much they are paid). There are then 5 trials (prove) --morning (9:30am) and evening (7:45pm) for the next 2 1/2 days. During these, the jockeys don't necessarily ride to win but instead will work on specific aspects of the course --the start, the deadly San Martino turn etc. There can still be change of jockey up until the time of the race. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23870293.post-9840941813627138822004-06-30T01:47:00.000-04:002014-01-12T14:18:06.595-05:00Some Guests and Packing for Home (by Sarah)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>SIENA (#66)</b><br />
<br />
The 14th of June, the same day we returned from our vacation to the South, we started seeing a number of families and friends from the US.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIEJL5uEiB-L-Kl5UaWfzgUtMWhGjM5he0DZDhFXImoflMxdllZQ9LWalnjTM7xsNTKNIH6RGDVjWc1AzBt0KaMAL8CIcmpUYn-1-zQB99bSux_LZc_K-5GdJMPspBWXYfOyS/s1600/porto+venere.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIEJL5uEiB-L-Kl5UaWfzgUtMWhGjM5he0DZDhFXImoflMxdllZQ9LWalnjTM7xsNTKNIH6RGDVjWc1AzBt0KaMAL8CIcmpUYn-1-zQB99bSux_LZc_K-5GdJMPspBWXYfOyS/s1600/porto+venere.JPG" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
First, the Zimble family arrived. We showed them around Siena and had a great time. The next day, we met with Rick, a friend from Lexington. On Wednesday, we went to mercato and then met with the Zimbles again for a wine tour in Castellina. After, we went back to their agri-tourism hotel and swam in their pool. We all helped to prepare a fabulous dinner, and then came back to Siena. The next day, we had a dinner with the Ducci family and with Rick. On Friday, Dad drove Rick to the airport in Florence. Saturday we went to Lucca and to the beach with the Gherardi family and with the Zimble family. We stayed in Lucca for the night at a hotel called Corte Degli Angeli. The next day, we went to Cinque Terre (the second time for us) with the Gherardis and the Zimbles. We had a great time and then headed back for Siena.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hpAQdVRVsM0/UtLmK1F1E0I/AAAAAAAAEKM/MxgILVqv9p8/s1600/famedel.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hpAQdVRVsM0/UtLmK1F1E0I/AAAAAAAAEKM/MxgILVqv9p8/s1600/famedel.JPG" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
On Monday, Edward and Ellen – friends from New York – arrived. We did lots of stuff around Siena with them, and then on Friday they left. On the following Sunday, we were surprised by the Keverians from Lexington. Alex and I showed them around Siena for the day. Then Penny Prather, a friend of Mom's, and her sister, brother and sister-in-law came for a day.<br />
<br />
We thought we could have a little rest for a while after that, but NO WAY! The Palio is on Friday, and this whole week is going to be busier than ever because we are meeting our friends all the time and we have to pack too.<br />
<br />
Actually, we are pretty much packed. Our stuff is all in boxes some of which we are taking down to the post office today. Our clothes are also all packed into suitcases. Sunday, we leave at around 10 am to drive to Milan. We stay there for the night and then get on a plane to come home the next morning. Our adventure is almost over. We've had so much fun and such great experiences, but I think I am ready to come home.</div>
stefanoqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03957519878567929614noreply@blogger.com0