Author Archives: eehines

Education Parity

Posted on by
Reply

There are two paths for achieving some sort of “parity” in education. One path is through pushing for equality of opportunity. This path is exemplified by New York City’s gifted and talented programs that identify gifted children before they reach school age and try to funnel them into educational programs that are tailored to enhance their giftedness and encourage them to learn more and faster—to excel. This is a reflection of Theodore Roosevelt’s each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. Roosevelt was speaking economically, but the guarantee applies just as surely to education systems. That equality of opportunity makes each person—each student—equally capable of reaching his full potential, however large or small that might be from student to student.

The other path for education parity—it really is binary—is to push for—parity—in educational outcomes. This is the path Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani espouses. Mamdani promises to eliminate the city’s gifted and talented program under the fiction that children will benefit more from experiencing the breadth of ability in their peers than they will be harmed from being held back to the pace of their peers. Mamdani’s claim extends to insisting that the gifted children will, in the end, be unharmed from being restrained.

Oh, sure, Mamdani gussies up his move:

Mr Mamdani argues that New York City’s gifted programs have produced racially inequitable outcomes, and therefore all students should remain in the same classrooms, regardless of ability.

This is a Mamdani paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson: [removing gifted and talented programs] is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you [parents]. This is deeply insulting to those parents and to their children. This is Mamdani saying in so many words that black children and brown children are intrinsically inferior to white children and Asian children, they cannot hope to compete in school, and so they must get the protections of holding back the white and Asian children.

It’s inconceivable to Mamdani and his fellow Progressive-Democrats that blacks and browns could easily compete did they have the same access to opportunity as their white and Asian fellow children.

New Sanctions and some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has implemented new sanctions on Russia in response to the barbarian’s continued intransigence in its invasion of Ukraine—blacklisting Russia’s two biggest oil producers and a plethora of their subsidiaries. As The Wall Street Journal notes, how much the sanctions will impact Russia depends on three major factors:

  • how well they are enforced
  • the reaction of major markets in India and China
  • whether Moscow can circumvent the measures

Regarding the first, that depends on Europe, India, and the People’s Republic of China. In the short term, Europe will give a strong indication of how serious those nations are in supporting Ukraine and how serious they are in beefing up their defense establishments and industries so as to be able to face down the confrontation with Russia that will follow as the night does the day if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine. Carrots can be offered those nations, and a primary one would be tariff relief in exchange for strictly enforcing the sanctions. There even are ready to hand alternative sources for oil and natural gas to supply their current and buildup energy needs.

Tariff relief and improved mutual investment agreements, along with those readily available alternative oil and gas sources, would go a long way to weaning India off Russian oil.

Another carrot is essentially self-referential. By taking themselves completely off Russian energy, they would be proofing themselves against Russian economic blackmail.

The Indian markets can be drawn off Russian energy with tariff relief and mutual investment agreements centered on other matters important to India, Europe, and the US.

The PRC, though, is going to buy Russian oil and gas regardless. The two nations already have an economic arrangement in place that allows the PRC to develop Siberian hydrocarbon resources in return for first pick on the output of that development. When those distributing pipelines are built from Siberia into the PRC, the latter will get the former’s oil and gas functionally at no cost.

There’s more to this, though than just the blacklists. What’s also needed is better enforcement and strengthening of the existing bars against technology transfers and against equipment and maintenance supply transfers that are needed to develop wells and to maintain delivery pipelines to refineries, to (re)build and maintain refineries, and to build and maintain refined output pipelines delivering to end users.

The third factor centers on the black market, the Russian shadow fleet of oil tankers serving that black market, and the buyers’ shadow fleet of tankers as ships meeting the Russian ships for at-sea transfers. This is, perhaps, the most straightforward factor to handle, if the most difficult for the politically timid national managers. The shadow fleet ships could be—have been in the main—easily identified and seized, their cargo transferred to the seizing nation for its use (not resale) and the ships sent to the breakers for recouping the scrap metal and such other items as might be useful. Those shadow fleet ships whose captains resist seizure should simply have their ships sunk on the spot, without wasting much time arguing the matter: “Prepare to be boarded.” “No.” Sink the ship.

All of that is straightforward, only that first factor of widespread enforcement will take some political maneuverings among the relevant nations.

“Stable Climate”

Posted on by
Reply

Alex Flint and Kalee Kreider, posing as pro-climate adapters rather than as climate mitigators, want us to move toward adapting to our changing climate rather than attempting to mitigate our climate’s changes. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

However.

Around the world, people are giving priority to higher living standards, economic security, and access to affordable energy above a stable climate.

This is a false dichotomy, leading to their false premise. In truth, we do have a stable climate—stable over human-level time frames—and we have it in conjunction with the potential for higher living standards, economic security, and access to affordable energy. These are not mutually exclusive.

For one thing, the plain fact is that our climate is stable over generations of humans, and that flows from the equally plain geologic fact that our climate is warming predictably, if noisily over thousands- to multi-million year cycles.

Since the end of the last glaciation, some 11,000 years ago, our climate has varied over narrow temperature ranges from the warming period that roughly coincides with the rise of human civilization and persisted into the period of the Roman empire to the Little Ice Age that ran from the early 14th century into the early 19th century. That variability, too, leaves us today still a couple degrees cooler than the geologic warming rate of our planet.

The other thing is that geologic warming rate. Our climate has been warming since the earth formed and stabilized as a solid body because our sun has been warming since it coalesced gravitationally and lit off its core fusion furnace. That warming is governed cyclically by our planet’s not quite circular orbit around the sun, which moves us closer and farther from the sun—not by much but by measurable temperature effects—on a cycle that harmonizes with our planet’s rotational axis precession, a cycle that points our norther hemisphere toward our sun in some seasons and away from our sun in the six months later seasons, a precession that points our northern hemisphere toward the sun in summer, roughly 6,500 years later has our northern hemisphere pointing away from the sun in summer, then after another 6,500 years points it back toward the sun in summer again for a complete cycle of about 13,000 years. That precessional cycle harmonizes with our orbit’s behavior over some hundreds of thousands of years.

Around that lockstep cycling, our climate varies noisily from the presence of an atmosphere that maintains a more stable temperature across days and months—and centuries—while being intermittently impacted by volcanism and meteor strikes. The outcome of those orbital and rotational mechanics and the interactions of volcanism and meteor strikes has produced the geological record of epochs much warmer and colder than today with life being lush in the warm periods, along with epochs of atmospheric CO2 being much higher and much lower than today, with life being lush in both higher and lower CO2 epochs—life has been lush when it was warmer independently of CO2 concentrations with no correlation between the CO2 epochs and the warmer and cooler epochs.

Mitigation always has been a scam to draw Federal funding for pet research projects.

Even though this op-ed’s excuse for shifting to adaptation comes from that false premise, it’s still a welcome step toward economic prosperity and sanity.

Why I’ll Never Do Anything in the Cloud

Posted on by
Reply

For as long as I can, nothing of my interactions on the Internet, nothing of my computer storage or backups, will be done in the cloud. The same stricture should, frankly, apply to businesses. Businesses should construct their own cloud—there’s no doubt clouds are deucedly convenient and, when working properly are highly efficient—and isolate that cloud from the Internet.

Here’s an example of why, brought to us by Amazon.

A glitch with an obscure Amazon database disrupted life for millions of people across the US as core internet services failed to function for an array of companies.
Alexa devices couldn’t hear. Corporate Slack messages wouldn’t post. Students couldn’t turn in assignments or access materials from courses. Financial trades were impossible on certain platforms. Users of Zoom, Venmo, Instacart, and a host of other services faced prolonged outages that rippled through homes and businesses.

Some of that is poor design. Alexa needs connectivity with the Internet? To execute an order to buy this, or to give the weather forecast, sure. But to set a timer for cooking? To set a reminder? An alarm clock? Really?

Back to the main subject. That minor database? It got a minor update that scotched the whole affair.

A minor update to what is called the Domain Name System, or DNS—the kind of software tweak that happens millions of times a day on the internet—sent the well-oiled machine that underpins the modern web careening toward a crash.
DNS acts as a kind of telephone directory for the internet, instructing machines on how to find each other. The faulty update gave the wrong information for DynamoDB, an Amazon Web Services, or AWS, product that has become one of the world’s most important databases.
Suddenly, machines on the East Coast that tried to process trillions of requests were getting the internet’s equivalent of a wrong number.

Think about the effects of time-sensitive moves being blocked from execution for hours and hours, often long enough to prevent the move from happening until it’s far too late and by delay, far more costly. That happens in the financial world—think in extremis overnight repos needing to be unwound….

That kind of foul-up could have been worse: computers not knowing how to contact each other could have prevented the computers hosting the DynamoDB database from being contactable by humans working from other computers in their attempts to correct the glitch in that database. That didn’t happen this time, but next time? Or it might have this time, but Amazon had backup systems it could switch into while they took the offender systems off line to correct.

Regardless, it took the better part of a day for Amazon to get their minor update of a minor database corrected and the effects of the repair to ripple across the Internet.

The article’s subheadline summarizes the situation and is why I avoid the cloud as much as possible:

Outage offers reminder of fragility of global internet connectivity

Personal Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

This is a core tenet of our federal republican democracy—the concept that us American citizens are the ones primarily—and most often solely—responsible for the outcomes of our decisions and our actions. This is a tenet that applies just as firmly in our fundamentally capitalist economy to our businesses. In particular, for this post, it applies to our banks, large, small, and in between.

Or, it should apply. Dangerously, our banks, particularly our small and mid-sized banks, would be relieved of that responsibility under legislation that Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, who should know better, and Maryland’s Progressive-Democrat Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who is merely acting on her party’s big and bigger government bent, are proposing. That legislation would raise the FDIC’s deposit guarantee from $250,000 per depositor’s account to $10 million.

The editors of The Wall Street Journal have the right of it on this one.

The truth is that a higher insurance limit will increase moral hazard and make the banking system less sound, which will hurt all Americans.

Because

It would also encourage more risk-taking since banks will have to worry less about runs.

Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren as recently as 2023:

We have to do this because these banks are under-regulated, and if we lift the cap, we are requiring—or relying even more heavily on the regulators to do their jobs.

Here is the monarchist Party’s purpose revealed and now pushed by Alsobrooks: an ever more intrusive and controlling central government.

The proposed legislation is an idea whose time never will be, and the proposed legislation needs to be scotched in committee, if not before.