Overly Optimistic

Posted on by
Reply

Meghan Cox Gordon likes the idea of typos in finished products.

If there’s a goof, you know the author is human. Writers who compose using their own eyes and brains (and fingers) are going to err. Machines that collate and disgorge synthetic blocks of text, or that comb through human-generated text for usage mistakes, are not.

Not so. AI will learn to introduce typos and mistaken phrases entirely separately from its “ordinary” hallucinations. Dishonest writers and plagiarists will inject typos and mistaken phrases in attempts to disguise their own dishonesty.

Chilling Effects

Posted on by
Reply

Who’s doing the chilling, though?

The FCC has opened an early review of the broadcast licenses of eight of ABC‘s broadcast stations, and ABC has sued to put a stop to it. The FCC says the review is over ABC‘s—in particular, Disney’s—use of DEI initiatives to determine whether they violated the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination. ABC‘s executives claim the review is based on President Donald Trump’s (R) dislike of two program’s anti-Trump coverage.

There’s this, though, that exposes the underlying problem regardless of those competing motives.

In its filing, ABC said the FCC’s actions are already influencing editorial decisions and having a chilling effect on its news operations.

If the executives think the government’s move really is about suppressing ABC speech, any supposed speech chilling is not from anything the government is doing. These executives are preemptively chilling their own speech. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would press ahead with their editorial decisions unchanged. By chilling—altering—their decision making, they could be seen to be tacitly admitting that the FCC’s review is justified—especially since the review is only just getting started and no evidence has yet been collected.

SNAP Reforms

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate’s Progressive-Democrats object to States having even minimal fiscal responsibility for managing Federal outlays to them for welfare programs. Their latest objections concern reforms to SNAP payments. Currently, the Federal government forks over 100% of the funding for a State’s SNAP program, and the State is solely responsible for disbursing those funds to eligible recipients. The current reforms, enacted last year, require those States with error rates—paying out to fraudulent recipients, for instance—above a low level (10%) to begin picking up a small part of the SNAP tab, with effect in 2028.

Progressive-Democrat Senators, en masse, object, and they’re blocking a farm bill unless they get that deadline extended. Their real goal is to functionally eliminate the deadline.

There is an alternative that would render this sort of Progressive-Democrat…foolishness…moot, and it’s one I’ve proposed before. Maybe its time has come, in response to Party’s studied intransigence to any reform that would reduce dependency on Party government.

Designate a nearby year as Year0, and add up all the Federal funds transfers for any purpose to each State in that year. Lump that sum into a single payment for the year. In each subsequent year, reduce that lump sum payment by 10% of the Year0 transfer, until the transfer is reduced, in about 10 years, to $0.00.

Federal transfers—taxpayer dollars—in general should not be getting made to any State except in exigent circumstances. The good citizens of Texas should not see their tax remittances pushed on over to New York or California. The good citizens of New York and California should not see their remittances relayed to Illinois or Iowa. Each State and territory in our union should keep its citizens’ tax remittances solely for the benefit of that State’s/territory’s citizens.

Exigent circumstances: when a State-wide or region-wide emergency arises that’s beyond the resources of that State or region, then Federal transfers (a going in allocation, to start the discussion, would be 50% grant and 50% loan at market interest rates) would be an appropriate means of assisting the State or region in dealing with the emergency.

The Evils of Dynamic Pricing

Posted on by
Reply

At least according to Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren.

To hear Senator Elizabeth Warren tell it, dynamic pricing is the biggest scam since Madoff. She has her war bonnet in a twist at the idea that brick-and-mortar retailers could do what e-commerce sellers have been doing for decades.

The trouble with her position is that all pricing in a free market economy is dynamic, as Hennessey pointed out in his article. Warren is pretending that she’s only talking about prices being changed in “real time,” but she carefully declines to specify what time frame constitutes “real time.”

The only time frame within which it would be wrong to change pricing, though, is between price agreement and delivery of the product to the specific purchaser, as illustrated in a couple of dumba** TV ads involving pizza delivery and hamburger joint ordering (even though the latter’s price changes occur before the customer makes his order).

Canceling dynamic pricing, though, is strongly consistent with the Senator’s socialist goal of government controlling production, which would give, also, control over pricing to government.

Next up: Warren comes out against dynamic pricing in the stock and bond markets. That’s the epitome of prices changing across traders, where one trader gets one price, and another trader gets another for the same product. That’s a fast-moving environment, though, where traders acting at different times, even measured in seconds, will get differing prices, and an environment (now slightly different from dynamic pricing per se) where traders offer different prices within the same bid-ask spread. Even in the stock and bond market, though, the agreed prices don’t change in the time between acceptance and fulfillment. But a freely operating stock or bond market (much less both) is anathema to a socialist.

Hate Speech According to Leftists

Posted on by
Reply

The latest example is provided by the Portland, Oregon, Portland Public Schools school district. The district has banned a mother

from her children’s school for a year because she engaged in sidewalk advocacy against its secret gender curriculum and social transitions of gender-confused students, claiming her “hate speech” violated its harassment policy….

That ban included preventing her from witnessing her son’s graduation from Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. Her daughter remains at risk of the school’s indoctrination program, a program of which the school district is so embarrassed, I surmise, that it felt constrained to keep it hidden away from concerned parents.

Regardless of the district’s apparent embarrassment over its program, or its dishonest desire to keep its treatment of the parents’ children from them, it has made its attitude toward speech very clear with the ban and its claimed reason for it.

Hate speech, according to the district, is any speech that disagrees with its Leftist ideology. Contra the Just the News characterization of the school district’s position, though, this attitude—toward free speech and toward transgender abuse of children—isn’t far-left; it’s increasingly becoming mainstream Left.