I'm a bit nervous about posting this at the teaching blog

As previously mentioned, I've been putting together short STEM videos for this weekly feature at You Do the Math. I've also been wasting quite a bit of time at the decidedly not-safe-for-work College Humor site. You might not expect much of an overlap between those two but this clip proved to be the exception.

I'd love to post this on the math education site, but I can't help worrying about the teacher who plays this for his or her class then after it finishes accidentally clicks on the link for... well, pretty much anything else from the site.

Crowdfunding research and the threshold of reportability

Marketplace recently ran this story

"As funding drops, scientists turn to the crowd"

Here's an excerpt:

Susan Nagel from the University of Missouri studies the health impacts of chemicals used in fracking. Last year, Nagel found remnants of fracking chemicals in Colorado streams near locations of previous fracking spills.

“This was an initial study, and we found this kind of strong association,” Nagel says. But she wanted to go farther and confirm her results with more testing.

Her grant application with the National Institutes of Health, however, sat in limbo for months, so she turned to crowdfunding. Nagel set up a project page on the site experiment.com.

“We spent a lot of time on the actual site, developing a video, developing the content to be short but explicit, to be understandable to a broad audience,” Nagel says.

It worked.

Nagel raised $25,000 for a follow-up study. Research like hers is the latest destination for online donors looking to back projects they like. Brian Meece of the crowdfunder RocketHub says science that strikes an emotional chord does better on his site. “Research for animals, research for the environment ... things that are curious, things that are quirky, things that are fun” all do well, Meece says.

There is nothing howlingly bad about this story -- no mangled explanations, no obvious factual errors -- but it's troubling nonetheless because, simply by virtue of occupying a chunk of prime journalistic real estate, it leaves readers with the impression that crowdfunding is playing a substantial part in driving research.

We are talking about a tiny number of people and, in the grand scheme, a trivial amount of money. If you are looking for a philanthropic outlet, experiment.com might be a worthwhile place to send a few dollars, but it doesn't have a place in a serious discussion of how we fund science.

There's a certain natural tension between the desire to cover the unusual and unexpected versus the desire to talk about things that are important and have a large impact (the very fact that something doesn't happen that often tends to limit the number of people it affects ). We therefore cannot expect most stories to be unusual and important, but all too often we see stories that are neither.

Crowdfunding is one of these topics that should often fall in the uninteresting middle. It has been around for years and people use it to raise money for all sorts of things. The fact that someone is using something like Kickstarter to fund a project is no longer, in and of itself, newsworthy.

Crowdfunding also fails the newsworthiness test when we approach it from the other side and look at its impact on society and the economy. With a few niche exceptions (independent filmmaking for example), the role of these sites is almost invariably minor, if not vanishingly small.

We see stories like this partially because they involve what are seen by reporters and, more to the point, editors and publishers as sexy topics that fit nicely with standard narratives. This one involves the internet, the "new economy," and it uses 'crowd' as a prefix. More importantly, it falls squarely in the ever-popular easy-solution genre. No one wants to talk about the tough choice between the nasty political fights and higher taxes needed to fund research adequately on one hand and on the other, the technological and economic stagnation that comes with neglecting the investment. Crowdfunding is a comically inadequate solution but it allows us to put off unpleasant conversations.

Why I am rooting for Netflix (no, really)

Over the past few years, Netflix has become one of this blog's go-to examples for bad business writing. This is partially because there has been a tremendous amount of coverage focused on the company and partially because so much of that coverage has been either logically or factually flawed. After cutting through all of the hype, I find it difficult to be optimistic about Netflix, but I would very much like to be.

Right now, there are three major unlimited streaming services (four if you choose to include Google's YouTube). In addition to Netflix, we have Amazon and Hulu . Amazon has what strikes me as the best business model; unfortunately they also already have a dangerous level of economic power and a history of abusing it (if we include YouTube, the same comments apply to Google). Hulu is a walking antitrust violation in an industry that is already plagued by media consolidation. With competition like this, it is difficult not to root for Netflix.

My suspicion is that CEO Reed Hastings is playing a short-term game, trying to keep all of the balls in the air until he can either find a buyer or make a sufficient killing on the stock. A number of the company's policies feed this impression: the big one is the decision not to build a content library; then there is the tremendously expensive marketing that often seems more focused on building the company's brand among journalists and investors than among  potential consumers; there is the apparent disinterest in controlling costs, something that a company without a deep-pocketed parent cannot manage for long; and there are the disturbingly opaque metrics and bookkeeping practices. These things, along with the general conditions of the market, make me fear that we will not have an independent Netflix for that many years to come.

I do hope I'm wrong though.

Patent Law and Progress

This is Joseph.

This post on Google+ got me thinking about the relation between patent law and technological progress.  Consider:

But 3D printing is an extremely simple concept. Why was 2014 the year it rose to prominence? 

The short answer is that patents are expiring. Many major patents on 3D printing, especially laser-sintering, an inexpensive yet accurate method, expired last year, leaving the concept open to development by any willful person. 

So I can't necessarily vouch for the full accuracy of the statement, but it creates an intriguing explanation for why this technology languished for so long.  Ironically, instead of spurring innovation, patents seemed to completely stymie it in this case.

Episodes like this definitely weaken the "public good" argument behind patent law.  

There's a flying pig joke here somewhere

One of the many annoying things that tech journalist are prone to do is to start out with a somewhat overexcited but generally reasonable account the new innovation then suddenly jump to a speculation that is technically impractical and in some cases theoretically almost impossible.

Case in point (from the Daily Mail but I've seen similar quotes elsewhere):

Greg Henderson, the creator of the Hendo Hoverboard, has created a working prototype of the device which works by using electromagnets to glide an inch off the floor.

The boards will currently only work over metal surfaces, so Mr Henderson is also designing the world's first hover park - similar to a conventional skate park but with an aluminium floor.

However he has also vowed to develop the technology so that it works over every surface, including water, allowing people to recreate the opening sequence of Back To The Future II where Marty uses a hoverboard to escape his pursuers by skating over a lake.

This is so bad I have to wonder if it's a misquote.

Hopefully I will get the physics right on this one (if this gets confusing Wikipedia has good write-ups of Diamagnetism and Eddy Currents), but the hoverboard demonstrated here represents a clever application of very well-established physics and engineering principles. Specifically, if you pass magnets over a conductor like copper they produce currents which in turn produces magnetic fields. The interaction between these fields can be used, among other things, to levitate the magnets over the conducting surface. This is one of the technologies that is used for maglev trains.

Historically, one of the problems with this technology is that the magnets have to be in motion relative to the conductor. Henderson appears to have gotten around this problem by having the magnets rotate in the hover board so that the board can levitate while stationary. That is a clever piece of engineering and it has certainly produced a cool piece of technology. Furthermore, it is easy to imagine lots of potential applications ranging from recreation (skate parks) to manufacturing (moving loads across a factory floor).

What is difficult to imagine is how this could work "over every surface." It is true that all materials have diamagnetic properties which means that a magnetic field can repel substances that we normally think of as non-magnetic, but the magnitudes are tiny compared to the effects you can get with the conductor and moving magnets arrangement mentioned above. It takes incredibly powerful magnetic fields to do this...

...far more powerful than anyone will manage with a skateboard in the near future.

All of which raises the question, why exaggerate? We see this all the time in the tech world. Developers come up with a fun, exciting, potentially useful innovation, then for no apparent reason, they feel compelled to make outlandish claims about cost and functionality. If I were building actual, honest-to-god levitating skateboards, I don't think I would feel the need to embellish the cool factor.

The real challenge of infrastructure

This is Joseph

Scott Lemieux points out that the city of Seattle is now planning another major tunnel project.  What makes this unfortunate is that Seattle is currently home to a fairly unsuccessful tunnel project at the moment.  But it was not inevitable that the current project would work out so poorly, nor is it unclear that things could not be further improved upon in the current project.  Boston's big dig project had a lot of problems, was way over budget, but ended up providing what look like quite good infrastructure results.

What worries me more is that these sorts of ineffective infrastructure projects undermine public support for doing more of them.  To be a rich and successful country, it seems that infrastructure is a requirement.  Or at least I cannot think of any examples of countries with crumbling and defective infrastructure that are doing especially well.  The Eastern bloc, for example, has these issues and doesn't seem to be a powerhouse of economic dynamism at the moment (I happily solicit  contrary opinions from readers).

What has changed to make infrastructure projects slow, expensive, and subject to a lot of problems in execution?  I could see any two of the three if we had major pay-offs on the third axis (e.g. slow and problem-ridden but cheap could make a lot of sense).

And how do we change this?

Innovative business models

Mark Evanier has an interesting observation about an extended warranty for an external hard disk he bought at Amazon.

A 2-Year Data Recovery Plan for $9.95. This proposition gives me more information. It says, "If your drive stops working, the Rescue data recovery plan will recover the data from the failed drive and return it to you on a new piece of external storage." That sounds interesting until you get to this line: "If your data isn't recovered, you get your money back."
...

Okay, so follow me on this. Let's imagine that I have no technical capability to recover data from a damaged drive. None whatsoever.

I offer this deal. When you buy a new hard disk, you send me ten bucks. If the drive never fails you, I keep the ten bucks.

If the drive does fail, you send it to me and I send it back to you with your ten bucks and say, "Sorry, I couldn't recover your data." I don't even have to send you that new piece of external storage I send you if I do recover your data, which I don't even try to do.

What is my potential loss here? Well, I haven't investigated far enough to know but I suspect when you send me your drive for possible data rescue, you have to pay a postage and handling fee for its return. If you do, I'm out nothing. I might even make a few more bucks off that postage and handling fee. If you don't, then I'm out the cost of sending you your refund and returning your drive.

Charles Pierce shows how journalists should acknowledge a mistake

No excuses. No "if anyone was offended." Just take responsibility and apologize to everybody.










Then compare yourself to a character in a Monty Python sketch.

Push, push, push...

BP: great company or the greatest company?

A example of corporate push polling for your files.

Happy New Year's -- Little Nemo grows up

Season's greetings from Windsor McCay.

For best results, open in another tab and expand.

Some things to keep in mind if you see Annie on New Year's Day

There's a lot of history here.

Most of the regulars probably know, I've got a great fondness for comics and their history, whether we're talking panel, strip, book or animated. The adventure strips of the Thirties are are particular favorites. In an age when graphic novels win Pulitzers and superhero movies break a billion at the box office, it can be difficult to remember that in the Golden Age, newspapers were where the action was. With the qualified exception of Will Eisner (whose groundbreaking title the Spirit was a newspaper supplement), the comic book artists of the late Thirties and Forties were mainly imitating people like Alex Raymond, Roy Crane and Milton Caniff.

At their best, these men created bodies of work that stand up remarkably well to this day both in terms of art and narrative. I have no trouble killing lots of hours with Terry and thePirates or captain easy. Little orphan Annie is more problematic. Annie was a beautifully drawn and inventively written strip, butit is difficult to read more than a few strips without being reminded that politically Gray was a Proto-Randian and personally was something of a creep.

Here's an example from Brian Cronin.

[Harold] Gray felt that this travel was integral to the strip (in fact, speaking of the first legend, years after the fact, Gray tried to give his own origin of how he came up with Little Orphan Annie, and it involved him talking to a young orphan girl – it is a dubious story at best [Cronin pointed out earlier that the original title was little Orphan Otto and that the gender change was suggested by his publisher -- MP]). Well, during World War II, gas was rationed. Gray was already no fan of the federal government (as he viewed Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the enemy to basically all of his ideals of self-reliance for the American people), but when he requested and was denied extra gas ration coupons to effect his travel, he was furious. It was an Office of Price Administration clerk named Flack who turned Gray down, determining that Gray’s cartoons were not vital to the war effort.

Gray, a great supporter of the war (Annie formed a group called the Junior Commandos to help the rationing effort in the United States and it soon grew from the strip into a reality) and he was outraged that what he felt were his great patriotic efforts were being unrecognized. Gray asked for a hearing and he received one, but Flack’s decision stood.

Gray then took to his strip by starting a series of strips where he would berate a “fictional” character named “Fred Flask.”

Editorials piled in denouncing Gray and a couple of papers even dropped the strip. Flack threatened to sue over libel. Gray never apologized, but he did drop the series of strips.

Just to put things in context, unnecessary travel was considered a big deal at the time.

But the Flask strips are far from being Annie's low point.

In a series of strips in 1944, upon Roosevelt receiving the nomination for his historic FOURTH term as President, Gray began a series of strips where Warbucks was slowly dying of a mysterious disease. The disease, clearly, was that of the country itself. The current generation was killing the hero of capitalism, Warbucks…

Gray dragged the death out for some time, with many strips similar to the above.

However, as you all know, Roosevelt died early in 1945. Well, what do you know, Warbucks turned out to have faked his death!!

And then, Gray went even further by explaining how happy Warbucks was about a certain change in the “climate.”

I first came across these strips when I picked up a large collection of Annie strips at a library sale. I knew Gray was conservative (start with the lovable war profiteer...), but I had no idea how intense the feelings were or how open he was about them. I remember reading these and thinking "he didn't just say that, did he?"

In retrospect, it shouldn't have been that surprising. Gray hated a lot of people, particularly those he considered "do-gooders" and that hatred was never far from the surface of the strip. Given the changes the films made to his creation (included an appearance by FDR in the 1982 version, I'm pretty sure that Gray would have added the people behind those movies to his enemies list.

I'll explain why later...

but in the meantime, go download the Wake Up Now segment from This American Life. At least a half dozen threads converge on this one.

Robots, Railguns and Rube Goldberg

I'm starting a weekly video feature over at the teaching blog (part of a bigger educational media project, but more on that later). For now I'm collecting fun little STEM videos that teachers can start off the week with or use as filler or as writing prompts.

The purpose is generally more inspirational than instructional. Unless it fits in with the day's lesson plan, it is difficult to get across a complex scientific concept in a five minute YouTube clip. You can, however, get across quite a bit of cool, particularly with a young audience.

I'm looking for short videos with big visual impact (visual enough that most can be played with or without sound). They should appeal to a broad age range (ideally K through 12) though probably for different reasons -- we'd like a high school physics student to watch at the first video and think about majoring in engineering; we'd like first graders to watch at the video and think "wow, a robot cheetah!" (because the second reaction has a way of leading to the first).

Right now, the candidates are mostly from engineering but I'd like to broaden that later. I've been mainly looking at MIT and IEEE. There is also a TED, which somewhat violates my principles but when you see it, you'll understand. I'm also looking for off-beat Rube Goldberg devices and pre-industrial tech. I'm not crazy about the two historic examples here. I love the tech but the videos leave something to be desired.

Does anyone have any suggestions for filling out this list?





Robotic Cheetah








Magnetic Hair












Squishy Robots








Three Strokes of Upward Lightning







Small cubes that self-assemble




Soft autonomous earthworm robot at MIT







A Swarm of One Thousand Robots





Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter - AHS Sikorsky Prize Flight






Levitating Superconductor on a Möbius strip





















Soft Robot Uses Explosions to Jump







1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second Photography - Ramesh Raskar







OK GO








Hero's steam engine






World record trebuchet at Warwick Castle

The perils of bell curving

This is Joseph.

As people probably know, I tend to be a bit of a Marissa Mayer fan.  However, this one item from a recent piece is definitely something that I would prefer not to see in a company that I worked for:

Mayer also favored a system of quarterly performance reviews, or Q.P.R.s, that required every Yahoo employee, on every team, be ranked from 1 to 5. The system was meant to encourage hard work and weed out underperformers, but it soon produced the exact opposite. Because only so many 4s and 5s could be allotted, talented people no longer wanted to work together; strategic goals were sacrificed, as employees did not want to change projects and leave themselves open to a lower score.

The problem with this sort of approach is twofold.  One, it makes people reluctant to join elite teams and groups (where they get to be rated as sub-average) instead of letting these teams mentor and nurture up and coming talent.   Two, since any ranking is partially a political process (only so much of the data can be objective, especially since the manager presents the evidence), it encourages political infighting among the managers of closely related teams.

Neither process is ideal.  Furthermore, you have to pay extra to compensate for the fear and uncertainty around a low ranking (base salary gets more important when bonuses can be variable). 

Now I am not saying that this process cannot work effectively under some circumstances, but it has notable downsides that need to be thought carefully about. 

Modern War

This is Joseph.

Paul Krugman:

Angell’s case was simple: Plunder isn’t what it used to be. You can’t treat a modern society the way ancient Rome treated a conquered province without destroying the very wealth you’re trying to seize. And meanwhile, war or the threat of war, by disrupting trade and financial connections, inflicts large costs over and above the direct expense of maintaining and deploying armies. War makes you poorer and weaker, even if you win.

I think that this insight is something we should think about a lot more.  In the modern and interconnected economy, even the peaceful absorption of a state (think East and West Germany) can be fraught with difficulty.

Once imperialism looks cost ineffective, it really does change the best ways to deal with opponents.  It's no longer the case that Alsace-Lorraine is really what we want to be fighting for -- instead it is the human capital where a lot of the value lies and it is hard to loot that.  This is not to say that resources are not a good thing (the resource curse can be over-rated) but that they are no longer the sole thing that drives a states economic power. 

This is likely to be a good development, in the long run.