Thursday, December 22, 2016
Zombie Narratives
Republicans in power balloon the deficit with tax cuts to the rich every time they're in power. The great inventor of fiscal responsibility, Ronald Reagan, began this and it will never end. It's impossible to convince the press that the Republicans are full of shit about deficits, and it's only slightly less impossible to convince most Democrats of it.
The Republicans claim to be the austerians, and the Democrats actually are. The rich get nice things, nobody else does, and then we wonder why voters aren't happy. And, no, that voters don't necessarily vote logically about this stuff doesn't refute that fact. What they hear is one side saying that true austerity is the path, and the other side saying that austerity light is. Not enough nice things come with either, so better to go with the true austerity than the fake austerity.
The Republicans claim to be the austerians, and the Democrats actually are. The rich get nice things, nobody else does, and then we wonder why voters aren't happy. And, no, that voters don't necessarily vote logically about this stuff doesn't refute that fact. What they hear is one side saying that true austerity is the path, and the other side saying that austerity light is. Not enough nice things come with either, so better to go with the true austerity than the fake austerity.
The Last 40+ Years In America
Or more, depending on how you think about it. Welcome to our world, UK.
And when there are no more migrants and immigrants left to blame...
This is, I’m afraid, terribly naive. These individuals are transforming political culture in Britain. Consider how much more venomous, poisonous and intolerant politics has become in just the course of the year. Left unchecked, it will get much, much worse.
There is a deliberate attempt to delegitimise all shades of progressive opinion. This is the approach of the rightwing authoritarian populism sweeping the western world: to treat all left-of-centre opinion as illegitimate, extremist and even treasonous. The British press – dominated as it is by rightwing oligarchs – is instrumental in forging this intolerant new culture.
And when there are no more migrants and immigrants left to blame...
Who Would Want To Drive Like That
As I've said, I think the direct focus on safety issues with autonomous vehicles is misplaced. If they work, they'll be safe enough. They aren't really distinct, they're part of the same concept. Sure in our robot car overlord future there will still probably be accidents, but there are accidents now. The public might not react to those accidents in quite the same way, but if the robot cars work they won't really be any less safe than human drivers (I do think a distinction needs to be drawn between cars the accidents themselves get into and the possibility that their driving patterns cause other accidents around them). Still if they work enough to be practical and useful, they'll be safe enough.
But this type of thing isn't "working."
People always say "oh, well, if it works 98% of the time and then every now and then the cars needs the driver to step in then that's good enough." No, that isn't good enough. There isn't time for me to switch from taking a nap or texting my pals to taking over when a bike lane appears suddenly, unless I'm paying 100% attention. And no one is going to pay 100% attention in a "self-driving car" because what's the point.
Also, too, impound the damn things. They'd impound my car if I kept driving it illegally.
...and Uber is going to take their ball and kill cyclists elsewhere.
But this type of thing isn't "working."
Uber told Wiedenmeier that it is requiring drivers to disengage from self-driving mode when approaching a right turn on a street with bike lanes. Meanwhile, the DMV told Uber to stop testing its vehicles on the streets.
People always say "oh, well, if it works 98% of the time and then every now and then the cars needs the driver to step in then that's good enough." No, that isn't good enough. There isn't time for me to switch from taking a nap or texting my pals to taking over when a bike lane appears suddenly, unless I'm paying 100% attention. And no one is going to pay 100% attention in a "self-driving car" because what's the point.
Also, too, impound the damn things. They'd impound my car if I kept driving it illegally.
...and Uber is going to take their ball and kill cyclists elsewhere.
How Many?
In an article about how Italy is "swamped" with migrants, I'd like to have some sense of how many there are.
The BBC tells me. It is actually a lot.
I'm not precisely sure how one goes from Sicily to "Italy's borders" though...
The BBC tells me. It is actually a lot.
I'm not precisely sure how one goes from Sicily to "Italy's borders" though...
Who Runs Things
People in the area always hear about the various reasons that the Philadelphia school district is horrible, including corruption. What most people usually forget (or don't know) is that the state has run the district for over 15 years. That doesn't mean that if it was purely a locally controlled entity that all of the corruption would magically go away, but it is important to remind people that there is no local democratic accountability. It's long been fashionable for even good "liberals" to remark how certain cities just can't "govern themselves" (cities with lots of black people in them, of course, nobody seems to mind when rich white municipalities go bankrupt or similar). This kind of thinking leads to state takeovers, which leads to completely unaccountable disasters of governance.
The state took over the school district over 15 years ago. This was cheered on by basically every elite local institution (most of which have their power centers in the suburbs, of course, where such "experiments" never seem to be necessary), along with the worst charter law which declared the place open for business for grifters of all kinds.
But people always hear about bad things in the "Philadelphia School District." State control, and everyone still gets to blame "those people" in the city.
The state took over the school district over 15 years ago. This was cheered on by basically every elite local institution (most of which have their power centers in the suburbs, of course, where such "experiments" never seem to be necessary), along with the worst charter law which declared the place open for business for grifters of all kinds.
But people always hear about bad things in the "Philadelphia School District." State control, and everyone still gets to blame "those people" in the city.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Convert Stories
Whether true or false, stupid or less stupid, I don't know why people are so into conversion tales. Liberals are total suckers for them, also, too, probably even more than conservatives are.
On a related note, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Beck, and I are going to start a SuperPAC to stop Trump and promote liberalism. Give us all your moneys. And sign the petition:
X________________
On a related note, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Beck, and I are going to start a SuperPAC to stop Trump and promote liberalism. Give us all your moneys. And sign the petition:
X________________
The War On Even More People Who Use Some Drugs
Go after the hillbilly heroin, and you start going after the hillbillies.
Taste
But what happens when guest #16 arrives?
3 spaces per bedroom! People is weird.
For years, Hunt has been beset by legal and financial problems. He founded RS Information Systems in 2003 and built it into one of the country’s most prominent black-owned government contracting firms. By 2006, he finished building his Mediterranean-style home, which boasts a basketball court, a 15-space underground parking garage and five bedrooms. It was once featured on “MTV Cribs” and was known on social media as #RHPmansion.
3 spaces per bedroom! People is weird.
Morning Thread
Digby is having her annual holiday fundraiser. If possible, do consider a donation. We are going to need her voice more than ever in the coming four years.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Design Flaw
Highways through dense urban areas (and LA is one) have a major conceptual design flaw. On-ramps and off-ramps are choke points, and tiny points of congestion can cause the whole system to seize up. Smart designs can improve things around the edges, but even leaving aside an increase in the number of cars due to induced demand, there's really not much you can do to prevent a crowded urban highway from being a parking lot regularly. It sounds nice to spend lots of money on "improvements," but that doesn't mean they actually improve anything.
This is precisely what a very standard transportation economics model would predict. Eerily precise, so score one for economists! Capacity improvements to a congested highway (even holding the total number of cars constant) will shift driving patterns so that there's a higher share of cars at peak time - making congestion worse then but the high congestion period shorter.
I even made a quick ugly graph, because that's how much I love you, dear readers.
The basic model says ideally everyone would like to get to work at 9AM, but that's unpossible because of congestion. Some people shift their travel times to arrive before and after 9 AM in exchange for lower overall travel times because there's less congestion then. The highway improvements do improve things somewhat if there is no induced demand, as more people show up to work closer to the ideal (9AM) time, but these people actually face more congestion and higher travel times. All this is because congestion is an externality. When you get on the road you make things just a bit worse for everybody else, but you don't take into account to the cost to others when you do so.
tl;dr most of the overall benefits of highway improvements at peak time are eaten up by people choosing to travel closer to peak time, and congestion is actually worse right at peak times. You aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.
The cost of the Sepulveda Pass project was supposed to be $1 billion. It has now reached $1.6 billion, after transit officials approved $300 million in new expenses last week.
Peak afternoon traffic time has indeed decreased to five hours from seven hours’ duration (yes, you read that right) and overall traffic capacity has increased. But congestion is as bad — even worse — during the busiest rush hours of 4:30 to 6:30 p.m., according to a study by the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
This is precisely what a very standard transportation economics model would predict. Eerily precise, so score one for economists! Capacity improvements to a congested highway (even holding the total number of cars constant) will shift driving patterns so that there's a higher share of cars at peak time - making congestion worse then but the high congestion period shorter.
I even made a quick ugly graph, because that's how much I love you, dear readers.
The basic model says ideally everyone would like to get to work at 9AM, but that's unpossible because of congestion. Some people shift their travel times to arrive before and after 9 AM in exchange for lower overall travel times because there's less congestion then. The highway improvements do improve things somewhat if there is no induced demand, as more people show up to work closer to the ideal (9AM) time, but these people actually face more congestion and higher travel times. All this is because congestion is an externality. When you get on the road you make things just a bit worse for everybody else, but you don't take into account to the cost to others when you do so.
tl;dr most of the overall benefits of highway improvements at peak time are eaten up by people choosing to travel closer to peak time, and congestion is actually worse right at peak times. You aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.
We All Buy Stuff
The annual holiday exhortations about not adding too much to the piles of stuff which we consume make me want to go roll some coal. It's not as if I'm a big doodad and tchotchke purchaser, but I buy want I need and want (subject to affordability) like most people, and give gifts because that's what one does.
More than that, while there is nothing wrong with personal virtue and conservation, it isn't really going to save the world. I'm one who thinks whole "think globally, act locally" movement from decades ago was a big mistake, suggesting to people that if they just recycle a bit more that everything was going to be ok. And, you know, you should recycle a bit more! But it isn't going to change the world, and neither is buying 10% less stuff for the holidays. What will change the world (using this example) is implementing systems that ensure that everybody recycles more, whether of the carrot or stick variety, passing laws of various kinds to encourage/discourage certain kinds of packaging, outlawing the use of truly toxic substances, etc. I mean, yes, doing our part helps, but not enough.
And as the title says, we all buy stuff, and most of us buy what we need and to a lesser extent want. Sometimes people think my not owning a car is some grand environmental statement. It isn't. I don't need a car and I much prefer to not have one. It isn't a sacrifice or even really a financial decision (a bit that, but not really). If I had a lot more money I still wouldn't want to own a car. But if I need one I rent one, and I also take cabs. I also like to travel so I fly. If I had a job I needed to commute to which didn't have good transit access I'd buy a car.
We all live in the system. The way to fix the world is to fix the system.
More than that, while there is nothing wrong with personal virtue and conservation, it isn't really going to save the world. I'm one who thinks whole "think globally, act locally" movement from decades ago was a big mistake, suggesting to people that if they just recycle a bit more that everything was going to be ok. And, you know, you should recycle a bit more! But it isn't going to change the world, and neither is buying 10% less stuff for the holidays. What will change the world (using this example) is implementing systems that ensure that everybody recycles more, whether of the carrot or stick variety, passing laws of various kinds to encourage/discourage certain kinds of packaging, outlawing the use of truly toxic substances, etc. I mean, yes, doing our part helps, but not enough.
And as the title says, we all buy stuff, and most of us buy what we need and to a lesser extent want. Sometimes people think my not owning a car is some grand environmental statement. It isn't. I don't need a car and I much prefer to not have one. It isn't a sacrifice or even really a financial decision (a bit that, but not really). If I had a lot more money I still wouldn't want to own a car. But if I need one I rent one, and I also take cabs. I also like to travel so I fly. If I had a job I needed to commute to which didn't have good transit access I'd buy a car.
We all live in the system. The way to fix the world is to fix the system.
Or Not
I "like" how we all just accept that rules and laws are now optional for corporations and newspapers resort to pleading with them to consider obeying them.
Doesn't take long to get booted or towed here in Philly for an expired registration sticker. Impound any of these vehicles if they're on the road.
No I don't hate the concept of autonomous cars, even though I don't think they'll really work and will be bad for cities even if they did work perfectly, but the whole "we don't care about your stinking laws" thing is getting out of control.
Uber may not like the DMV’s rules, but it should obey them
Doesn't take long to get booted or towed here in Philly for an expired registration sticker. Impound any of these vehicles if they're on the road.
No I don't hate the concept of autonomous cars, even though I don't think they'll really work and will be bad for cities even if they did work perfectly, but the whole "we don't care about your stinking laws" thing is getting out of control.
Glad That's Over With
The electors were never going to vote against Trump, and then short, medium, and long term consequences of them doing so would have been challenging, to put it mildly.
I get that President Trump will be, also, too, but..
I get that President Trump will be, also, too, but..
Monday, December 19, 2016
Impound
Uber has deeply held religious principles.
Uber began piloting its self-driving vehicles in its home town of San Francisco last week, despite state officials’ declaration that the ride-share company needed special permits to test its technology. On day one, numerous autonomous vehicles – which have a driver in the front seat who can take control – were caught running red lights and committing a range of traffic violations.
Despite threats of legal action from the department of motor vehicles (DMV) and California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, Uber refused to back down on Friday, claiming its rejection of government authority was “an important issue of principle”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)