Who'd have thought?

Yes, this is remarkable.  The Wall Street Journal notes, with no criticism to speak of, that a Governor who I'm pretty sure wingnuts have longed derided as about as Left wing as Castro has brought California into a very healthy budget position without killing the economy.   How?  By taxing the rich:

Buoyed by tax increases passed under his administration and a strong economy, Mr. Brown said Wednesday that the state is projecting a $6.1 billion surplus for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

The governor proposed socking most of the money away in a rainy-day fund whose creation he pushed for in 2014. Nearly 70% of the state’s projected revenue of about $135 billion next fiscal year is derived from personal income taxes, according to the governor’s office.

As the tweet says:

Update:  I thought "should I be skeptical of the claim that the taxes really were on the rich?  Did the whole population suffer?   So, Googling the topic, I see it was pretty well targetted to the rich:

The measure creates three new personal income tax brackets for rich residents and adds a quarter-cent to the sales tax. The higher tax rates, which hit single filers making $250,000 and up and married taxpayers earning at least $500,000, last for seven years, and push the top tax rate to 12.3% for filers earning $500,000 and above, or $1 million per couple. It is effective starting with the 2012 tax year.
The sales tax hike, which brings that levy to 7.5%, starts Jan. 1 and lasts for four years.

The wealthiest 1% of Californians -- those with annual incomes of $533,000 or more -- will shoulder nearly 79% of the tax increase, according to the California Budget Project, a research group that endorsed the proposition. They will see their taxes rise by 1.1% of their income, while the bottom four-fifths of the state's residents will see an increase of between 0.1% and 0.2% of their incomes.

Conspiracy minded idiots

I see the wingnutty right continues with its pathetic "kill the messenger, who cares about the message" reality avoidance technique (just as they do with climate change), with the latest nut meme being that Downer was an untrustworthy Clinton agent because when he was foreign minister, the Australian government donated to the Clinton Foundation's anti-HIV initiative.

This is ridiculous - Downer passed on that Papadopoulos had told him that the Russians were shopping dirt on Clinton.  Normal people might think that normal Americans would have an interest in blatant but underhanded attempts to interfere in the election coming from Russia.   But no - for wingnuts it's all grand conspiracy thinking that no one should ever have acted on this because - you know - Clinton and anyone who ever had anything to do with her was in every and any way always corrupt and it's a case of conspiring against the Right.

Steve Kates (of course) passes on the meme today, and such influential wingnut bloggers like the high functioning but gormless idiot Ace of Spades thinks it's really big too.

Monty - again, I say to you - the wingnutty Right is just too stupid to argue with these days.   Just too stupid...

Bad news

If Bolton has any influence, everyone seems to think there'll be a much, much higher chance of American nukes flying off during a Trump presidency:

And I see that anti-tariff economics adviser Gary Cohn is said to be resigning.

Things getting much grimmer in the White House...

Update:   speaking of ranting men, you'd think Nassim Taleb might find time to occasionally make a critical comment on Trump's economics, but on his Twitter feed, he very, very rarely makes any comment on him at all.

A worthy Krugman

Been a while since I recommended a Krugman column, but this one "A Ranting Old Guy With Nukes" is pretty good.   (And Mother Jones notes an attempt to nitpick it by Kevin Williamson, which fails.)

Forgotten subway

In an article that explains that American governments are getting too carried away with the unproved technology of hyperloop, I found this bit:

There is reason to think high-speed vacuum-tube transportation can work, at least on paper. (A pneumatic subway briefly opened beneath Manhattan in 1870.) 

 Wikipedia has an entry about that short lived, short length, pneumatic subway, and it also notes that a similar novelty subway was built before that at the Crystal Palace in London.

The things you learn...

Prophetting in Africa

Seems I have missed the rise of "Prophet" Shepherd Bushiri in Africa:

On a regular Sunday, about 40,000 people will gather to hear the Prophet preach, and potentially pick up some of the specially designed merchandise on sale at stalls dotted around the large church complex - anything from "miracle oil", calendars and wrist bands, to branded towels, T-shirts and caps, all emblazoned with his face. 

Now I have to go look at the video which shows him walking on air.   [Done - and I don't think I will bother sharing it.  I see he has been a thing for a few years now, and been the subject of skepticism within Africa too.  Good.]

Blockchain skepticism in detail

When it comes to reading the stuff being put out by Berg, Davidson and Potts (key line - don't get too distracted by Bitcoin, the real revolution coming is glorious blockchain) I've never got over the feeling that it was pretty vacuous waffle that didn't make much sense.

Hence it gives me pleasure to read this great piece of blockchain skepticism by Roubini and Byrne in The Guardian today.   They make clear much of what I always thought was obvious, yet seems to never be addressed (or at least, in a way I can understand) in the RMIT conference machine material.

Strange choices

Have the Oscars become unimportant because the Academy has become more and more peculiar in its choices?   It would seem that the big winner (so far, I was just watching some of it during my lunch) is The Shape of Water, the "adult fairy tale" featuring a sexy love story between a woman and what looks like a slightly more human Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Being underwhelmed by the director's Pan's Labyrinth, and given the nature of the story, I am in no hurry to watch this movie at all.   As, I suspect, is most of the public.  I see now that it had a December release in the USA, and has made a relatively paltry $57 million.   (I'm surprised it made that much.)

I am particularly miffed that Shape took the award for best score, when I had predicted that Dunkirk should definitely get it.

Update: yes, it won best picture.   Ugh.

At some point, hopefully if it is free on a streaming service, I will watch it hoping to confirm my anticipatory dislike.

Update 2:  I hadn't really bothered to read reviews of it before, but I see that Rex Reed wrote one  with the pleasing title ‘The Shape of Water’ Is a Loopy, Lunkheaded Load of Drivel.'

Hero revisionism

Reading this story gives a good picture of how terrifying being involved in a US school shoot up must be for both students and teachers.

In brief - at least a couple of Florida students are saying that a teacher formerly called a hero in the media didn't seem very heroic to them when they were caught in the corridor and he (perhaps following procedure technically correctly?)  refused to let them back in the classroom.

I'm not sure who's right or wrong, to be honest, but you can imagine that causing some disruption in the school for some time afterwards.

Opioids can cause extra pain - huh

I didn't know this.  From the start of an article at NPR:

When patients arrive in the emergency room, nearly all but those with the most minor complaints get an IV.

To draw blood, give medications or administer fluids, the IV is the way doctors and nurses gain access to the body. Putting one in is quick and simple, and it's no more painful than a mild bee sting.

Yet for some patients, this routine procedure becomes excruciating. On my shifts as an emergency physician, I began to notice a strange pattern. These hypersensitive patients often had a history of using opioids.

Shouldn't these patients be less susceptible to pain, instead of more so?

As I looked into it, I found that I was far from the first to notice the paradox of heightened pain sensitivity with opioid use. An English physician in 1870 reported on morphine's tendency to "encourage the very pain it pretends to relieve." In 1880, a German doctor named Rossbach described a similar hypersensitivity to pain with opioid dependence.

A century passed before the phenomenon received serious scientific attention. 

Turns out it is still not well understood.  Read the whole thing.

Disliking Stephen King

My son wanted to watch the recent movie version of Stephen King's It. 

Now, as I may have mentioned before, I have found one - just one - adaptation of Stephen King material which I liked:  The Shining.   And I like that a lot.  But from what I have read, it's almost in spite of the novel that it turned out to be a great movie.  (King himself doesn't like it!)   But every other King inspired mini series or movie I've seen has not impressed.  I didn't even care for Stand by Me, his (only?) non horror work, when I saw it at the cinema decades ago.  (Too much overwrought acting, and characters that I don't recall being all that sympathetic.)

So, would this reasonably well received movie change my mind - especially since I had not watched the earlier adaptation of it, and was therefore coming to it without preconceptions.  

No.   A hundred times no.  

Look, I know you have to make allowances for certain conventions in ghost or horror stories - the most obvious being nervous people walking into darkened rooms/haunted houses/sewer systems that look more appropriate for New York than a country town, when every normal person would run away or at least go in prepared - but it can be pushed so far that it just becomes ridiculous, and so it is, repeatedly, in this movie.

Apart from that, was King himself bullied at school and dislike his parents, because now that I think of it, meanness of kids to other kids, and incompetent or nasty parents, seems to be a feature of a lot of his stories.  The kid on kid meanness is a very big component in this movie, but it doesn't seem to have any context.  It's just there.

The movie reminded me at times of the two other King movies mentioned above - but the use of gushing blood in this one was (sorry to use the word again) ridiculous, as to opposed to malevolent, as it was in The Shining.

Overall, I found it an unpleasant, silly and non-scary story - so very conventional in the way the scary music would start, and even managing jump scares which didn't scare.   

And it convinces more than ever that King is a puzzlingly over-rated creative force.

In nerdy construction news...

Hey, look what I saw yesterday:

Why's this interesting?  Because it's the start of the 10 level office building being built in Brisbane using engineered wood.   (OK, well there's concrete involved at the bottom, obviously, but most of it is meant to be wood.)

I wrote about it in previous posts here and here.   Interesting, no?  (It just is, shut up.)

In more Trump tariff news...

*   Yes, another network confirms what Jonathan Swan told us the other day - that Trump was going off his nut on the night he decided to start a trade war.   (Maybe Kelly made sure the nuclear codes were kept out of the room for a few hours.):

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.
On Wednesday evening, the president became "unglued," in the words of one official familiar with the president's state of mind.

*  I am waiting for the Steve Kates, Trump sycophant extraordinaire,  to explain to the world why it's actually not a bad idea idea at all.   Or is that a challenge too far even for him?   (I'm suspecting he'll go with a "but every single other decision Trump has made has been so good, this one won't undo his tremendous legacy.") 

*  If you look up Scott Adams on twitter, you will see  that not only is he claiming that Trump making decisions irrationally is actually a good "negotiating" tactic (left unsaid is who he is actually "negotiating" with when it comes to tariff wars); he's now on board with the Seth Rich conspiracy.  Funny how Adams doesn't seem to realise that chatting into his webcam every day makes him look like a loser talking to himself.  (Yes, I know, he does have live viewers during these pieces, but it still makes him look like what he almost certainly is - an eccentric lonely looser with no real friends, even if he does have squillions.)      

That got old quick

Andrew Bolt, who thinks Gina "if only Australians would work for $2 a day" Rinehart is an economics genius, quotes her praising Trump to the high heavens:

The United States, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, is showing everyone they are open for business and investment, and truly on the way to making the USA great again.

Whereas Marketwatch notes, post the Trump tariff decision:

The broad-based nature of the tariffs—and the broad-based market reaction—indicate that “investors are not only concerned about this particular action, but also how that’s going to affect the economy in the U.S.,” said James Norman, president of QS Investors, in a phone interview....

Domestic U.S. steel prices were already up 20% since the beginning of the year in anticipation of possible tariffs, said Andrew Hunter, U.S. economist at Capital Economics, in a note. That’s a big potential drag on steel consumers in the machinery, motor vehicle and construction industries, he said, observing that the tariffs could, ironically, raise the incentive for those manufacturers to move production offshore to avoid the tariffs.

Giving thanks

A few things to be grateful for:

*  Mussels (they featured in a very nice pasta meal last night, thanks to wife)
*  Taylors wine (one of those wineries that I don't buy all that often, but when I do, they just never seem to put a foot wrong - and yes, I drank a glass last night with the mussels.)
*  Yeast.   Too many reasons to mention, apart from its role in last night's glass of wine, but here's one I didn't know til yesterday:

Both cocoa and coffee beans undergo a fermentation step after their harvest, where yeasts munch on sugars surrounding the beans. Bacteria also play a role in this process, and the yeast leaves behind flavor compounds that make it into the final coffee and chocolate. Researchers have found that cocoa beans in yeast-free fermentation are left with an acidic, off flavor, and that certain yeasts can lend coffee caramel notes.

A bit like a Philip K Dick story, with fewer androids

Some people have the strangest lives.   This story at BBC is about a woman who was the victim of what might be called a high functioning but delusional parent is pretty remarkable.

Not very surprising

When nuclear power goes wrong, it really goes wrong.   Local contamination around Fukushima is probably worse than first thought:

The team says that, for the first time, the fallout of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor fuel debris into the surrounding environment has been "explicitly revealed" by the study.

The scientists have been looking at extremely small pieces of debris, known as micro-particles, which were released into the environment during the initial disaster in 2011. The researchers discovered uranium from nuclear fuel embedded in or associated with caesium-rich micro particles that were emitted from the plant's reactors during the meltdowns. The particles found measure just five micrometres or less; approximately 20 times smaller than the width of a human hair. The size of the particles means humans could inhale them.

The reactor debris fragments were found inside the nuclear exclusion zone, in paddy soils and at an abandoned aquaculture centre, located several kilometres from the nuclear plant.

It was previously thought that only volatile, gaseous radionuclides such as caesium and iodine were released from the damaged reactors. Now it is becoming clear that small, solid particles were also emitted, and that some of these particles contain very long-lived radionuclides; for example, uranium has a half-life of billions of years.

Update:  more news along similar lines, from The Japan Times:

In the wake of the 2011 nuclear crisis, radiation levels at homes and areas nearby in a Fukushima village remain around three times higher than the government target despite cleanup work having been performed, an environmental group has said.

In some areas of the village of Iitate and the town of Namie, levels of radioactivity detected at some points among tens of thousands checked in surveys last September and October were higher than they had been the previous year, Greenpeace Japan said in a report released Thursday.

Most of the six houses surveyed in Iitate, located around 40 kilometers northwest of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 complex, logged radiation levels higher than the government-set target of 0.23 microsieverts per hour, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 microsieverts per hour.

Some areas in the village had seen radiation levels rise from 2016, Greenpeace said. “There is a possibility (the environment) was contaminated again as radioactive materials that had accumulated in nearby forests may have moved around,” it said.

Is it just me, or...?

...does it seem that Nassim Taleb might have some decent ideas, but I can't be bothered working out what they are because: 

a. he seems incapable of putting anything succinctly, and
b. if twitter is any guide, he spends such a large part of every day angrily denouncing and ridiculing other people (in any field) as being idiots that he genuinely seems to have psychological problems.

Just luck

I haven't read the paper, which is on arXiv, but here's the abstract:

The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, efforts or risk taking. Sometimes, we are willing to admit that a certain degree of luck could also play a role in achieving significant material success. But, as a matter of fact, it is rather common to underestimate the importance of external forces in individual successful stories. It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes. In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals. As to our knowledge, this counterintuitive result - although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature - is quantified here for the first time. It sheds new light on the effectiveness of assessing merit on the basis of the reached level of success and underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others. With the help of this model, several policy hypotheses are also addressed and compared to show the most efficient strategies for public funding of research in order to improve meritocracy, diversity and innovation.

 A sort of comforting thought, for people of modest means.  (Also likely to be disliked by the Ayn Rand/libertarian branch of politics.)

The very peculiar Newton

Yes, we all know Newton was a strange dude, with interests in alchemy and esoteric religion, but this review in TLS gives some further insights:

Newton tends to come across in popular biographies as a prickly and profoundly ornery recluse whose mind was more at home in the heavens than in conversation with his fellow men, let alone women. Some of this is not exactly wrong. Newton prickled all right. Even as a child, growing up at Woolsthorpe Manor in rural Lincolnshire during the English Civil War and the early years of the Commonwealth, he threatened to set his mother and stepfather on fire and “burn the house over them”.

He was not what you would call a science communicator. The Principia Mathematica, for all its importance as the foundational text of modern mechanics, is written in a fabulously dense and sprawling thicket of Latin that makes the Greek of Euclid’s Elements look positively vulgar. His lecturing style at Cambridge was so wilfully obscure that “ofttimes”, in the words of his early biographer David Brewster, “he did in a manner, for want of hearers, read to the walls”. For a man who professed to despise controversy, Newton feuded like a Homeric hero, dismantling the reputation of Robert Hooke and perhaps even having Hooke’s portrait at the Royal Society destroyed in a final damnatio memoriae....

The jottings in Newton’s copy of a Latin and Greek thesaurus give some impression of his fixations. Under the letter S, he added: Sluggard, Swearer, Sabbath-breaker, Shuhite, Sadducie, Sophister, Schismatick and Sodomite. Under P, he wrote: Pagan, Papist, Pharisie, Philistine, Pelagian and Priscillianist. He policed his own diet for signs of gluttony like a desert father. Another Trinity notebook lists under the heading Otiosa et frustra expensa (“vain and frivolous spending”): cherries, milk, butter, cheese, China ale, tarts and custards.

As for his specific religious theories:

It is not clear exactly how or at what point Newton slipped from the Presbyterianism of his Lincolnshire childhood into an idiosyncratic species of Arianism, an ancient school of thought that held Christ had been created by God and was therefore inferior to him. The transformation was certainly complete by the end of the 1670s, though, and there is no good reason to think that Newton had anyone other than himself to blame.

By the middle of the following decade, when he gave much of his energies over to alchemy and the decoding of apocalyptic prophecy, he had an even more remarkable idea. When mankind was still young, “before the first memory of things”, Newton surmised, Noah and his sons had come up with a pure and pristine form of worship that subsequent prophets – Christ among them – had contrived only to debase.

The original religion had found its expression in holy flames surrounded by vestal temples such as Stonehenge and St Bridget’s fire, a Christianized pagan observance that persists today in the grounds of Kildare Cathedral in Ireland. These shrines, Newton wrote, stood allegorically for the place of the Sun at the centre of God’s cosmos. Over time, the metaphors had gradually come to obscure the truths they depicted, and as the sacred learning was passed down by Moses and the ancient Egyptians, the prisca sapientia had degenerated into idolatry.

This sort of claim was unusual but not exceptional in Newton’s time. What was extraordinary was his belief that the Noachian faith had embodied a better and truer conception of the universe than anything that came after it. Modern philosophers could only hope to unravel its insights from the tangle of esoteric riddles in which they were preserved....

This conviction led Newton down some strange byways. At one point he defended the account of Egyptian theology in Aristophanes’ The Birds, where Night is said to have spread her black wings over the chaotic void and laid an egg containing Love, which eventually hatched and created all the gods and living things. Night, Newton explained, was the unseen deity, and Love the spirit that had moved over the face of the waters in Genesis 2. He also thought that Plato had ultimately inherited an understanding of universal gravitation from the same source, and that before him Pythagoras had hit on the inverse-square law by hanging hammers of different weights from taut sheep intestines.

I'm pretty sure that's the first time "taut sheep intestines" has appeared in this blog....

 Anyway, there is still more to read at the review.