A new feature of the browser run by most of the creative content makers is "Removes support for Adobe Flash for security." I can still hear Steve Jobs explaining why Flash isn't permitted on iPhones, and laughing about it. Well, the truth remains unchanged, and Steve Jobs is still laughing.
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
Steve Jobs Laughs From The Grave at Adobe Flash Bugs
Monday, September 7, 2020
Apple Still Interesting
It's been years since I've written on Apple, and one might reasonably wonder what my position has become.The answer is short: I'm still long.
I've got a draft article underway for Seeking Alpha (my articles are listed here) and I expect to submit it one fine day. I'm in no hurry: my buy thesis isn't about timing the market and I've been busy making money in real estate, which requires analysis and relationships and about which I may write more soon.
Keep safe!
Sunday, August 16, 2020
Coronavirus Update: Somebody Lied To My Neighbor
It's been a few years since this blog has had a post, and for a couple of reasons. First, the concerns that have been expressed here about the behavior of the government have become so mainstream there's been less point in authoring posts on them here. Second, the investments that have occupied the author's interest haven't been publicly-traded assets but things like single-family homes and small retail centers, where generalized conversation isn't useful because it's not specific enough to be actionable and highly-specific conversation isn't useful because it involves assets that aren't available to parties other than those involved in the transactions.
But a neighbor of mine recently said she didn't understand why everyone should be so exercised about COVID-19 risk when H1N1 was worse. To get an idea what COVID-19 has done in this country since winter ended, one can look at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's page on the illness. As of this writing, the novel coronavirus has killed over 168,000 Americans. It's worth noting that it's currently August, and the flu season hasn't begun. By contrast, the CDC's page on the H1N1 pandemic presents full-year data from the H1N1 impact on the United States. From April of 2009 through April of 2010, the CDC's best estimate of deaths caused by the pandemic is 12,469 individuals. We're not yet one year in, and the death toll from COVID-19 is already over an order of magnitude worse than entire H1N1 pandemic.
Why's COVID-19 worse? First, it's more contagious. Contagiousness is often measured using the illness' spread in a population with no immunity, with R0 ("r-naught") representing the average number of infectees to whom one host will transmit the illness during its life cycle in the host. For H1N1, R0 is thought to lie in the range of 1.46 and 1.48. COVID-19's R0 is estimated to lie between 1.5 and 3.5. Two significant facts are worth keeping in mind. First, when R0 is less than one the infected population dwindles rather than grows: the illness dies out because infected carriers don't on average infect enough people to maintain a stable patient population. Second, R0 isn't a static figure: it can be manipulated with mitigation efforts. When Austria's government observed low spread rates in some Asian countries and mandated face masks, its infection rate dropped 90%. Apparently anyone can kill local spread by reducing the spread of airborne exhaled particles, which can be accomplished with face masks. Cheap.
The second factor differentiating the current coronavirus from the H1N1 "Swine Flu" pandemic of 2009 is severity. The published data on H1N1 are that the United States had 60.8 million cases of H1N1, 274,304 H1N1 hospitalizations, and 12,469 H1N1 fatalities. This means that an H1N1 case had a 0.45% chance of hospitalization and that 4.5% of those hospitalized died, with deaths amounting to 0.02% of total estimated cases. So far in the United States the CDC reports 5,340,232 total cases and 168,696 deaths, for a case fatality rate of 3.2%, which means a confirmed case of COVID-19 is more likely to kill a patient than a confirmed case of H1N1 was likely to put a patient in the hospital.
Naturally, these facts left me wondering what could possibly have left my neighbor thinking the current pandemic was a relative non-event, less disruptive on its own than an H1N1 season that closed no restaurants and halted no flights. The answer isn't hard to fathom: politics. Rather than base public health policy on data, quite a few elected officials have taken positions based on the positions of other politicians. Accordingly, some politicians have proclaimed that the current economic problems have been created by government restrictions rather than by the necessity of responding to an illness.
Sigh.
The article about Austria is dated in April, people. April. You can read, right? And now that you understand R0, you know how to stop the pandemic. You're better informed than officials who rushed to crowd people unmasked in bars, and can take action.
But a neighbor of mine recently said she didn't understand why everyone should be so exercised about COVID-19 risk when H1N1 was worse. To get an idea what COVID-19 has done in this country since winter ended, one can look at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's page on the illness. As of this writing, the novel coronavirus has killed over 168,000 Americans. It's worth noting that it's currently August, and the flu season hasn't begun. By contrast, the CDC's page on the H1N1 pandemic presents full-year data from the H1N1 impact on the United States. From April of 2009 through April of 2010, the CDC's best estimate of deaths caused by the pandemic is 12,469 individuals. We're not yet one year in, and the death toll from COVID-19 is already over an order of magnitude worse than entire H1N1 pandemic.
Why's COVID-19 worse? First, it's more contagious. Contagiousness is often measured using the illness' spread in a population with no immunity, with R0 ("r-naught") representing the average number of infectees to whom one host will transmit the illness during its life cycle in the host. For H1N1, R0 is thought to lie in the range of 1.46 and 1.48. COVID-19's R0 is estimated to lie between 1.5 and 3.5. Two significant facts are worth keeping in mind. First, when R0 is less than one the infected population dwindles rather than grows: the illness dies out because infected carriers don't on average infect enough people to maintain a stable patient population. Second, R0 isn't a static figure: it can be manipulated with mitigation efforts. When Austria's government observed low spread rates in some Asian countries and mandated face masks, its infection rate dropped 90%. Apparently anyone can kill local spread by reducing the spread of airborne exhaled particles, which can be accomplished with face masks. Cheap.
The second factor differentiating the current coronavirus from the H1N1 "Swine Flu" pandemic of 2009 is severity. The published data on H1N1 are that the United States had 60.8 million cases of H1N1, 274,304 H1N1 hospitalizations, and 12,469 H1N1 fatalities. This means that an H1N1 case had a 0.45% chance of hospitalization and that 4.5% of those hospitalized died, with deaths amounting to 0.02% of total estimated cases. So far in the United States the CDC reports 5,340,232 total cases and 168,696 deaths, for a case fatality rate of 3.2%, which means a confirmed case of COVID-19 is more likely to kill a patient than a confirmed case of H1N1 was likely to put a patient in the hospital.
Naturally, these facts left me wondering what could possibly have left my neighbor thinking the current pandemic was a relative non-event, less disruptive on its own than an H1N1 season that closed no restaurants and halted no flights. The answer isn't hard to fathom: politics. Rather than base public health policy on data, quite a few elected officials have taken positions based on the positions of other politicians. Accordingly, some politicians have proclaimed that the current economic problems have been created by government restrictions rather than by the necessity of responding to an illness.
Sigh.
The article about Austria is dated in April, people. April. You can read, right? And now that you understand R0, you know how to stop the pandemic. You're better informed than officials who rushed to crowd people unmasked in bars, and can take action.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Police Militarization Undermines Mission
First, some background: the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a nonprofit society of scholars created by an Act of Congress that President Lincoln signed into law in 1863. It's not some site founded to subvert the government, or undermine the rule of law. To the contrary, its purpose is to advance the sciences. The National Academy of Medicine, for example, was founded under its charter.
NAS' publication Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America recently published "Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation," which includes graphs that suggest adding SWAT teams to police departments causes more assaults against police officers. Of interest to those who like to argue militarization serves some kind of beneficial purpose in protecting police may be the observation that "Estimates for officer deaths, both accidental and felonious, are precise and near zero, partly because they are so rare[.]" Although there was little increase in death to explain even after SWAT teams' exacerbation of conflicts elevated them, data "show[] a statistically significant 3.2% increase in noninjurious assaults" before adjustment for time trends. Although the evidence for increasing officer risk is iffy, "there is no evidence that acquiring a SWAT team lowers crime or promotes officer safety."
The article observes that aggressive policing strategies disproportionately target minority communities, but that defenders of militarization claim it's necessary to protect officers. The data disagree. The author concludes that "the routine use of militarized police tactics by local agencies threatens to increase the historic tensions between marginalized groups and the state with no detectable public safety benefit."
NAS' publication Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America recently published "Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation," which includes graphs that suggest adding SWAT teams to police departments causes more assaults against police officers. Of interest to those who like to argue militarization serves some kind of beneficial purpose in protecting police may be the observation that "Estimates for officer deaths, both accidental and felonious, are precise and near zero, partly because they are so rare[.]" Although there was little increase in death to explain even after SWAT teams' exacerbation of conflicts elevated them, data "show[] a statistically significant 3.2% increase in noninjurious assaults" before adjustment for time trends. Although the evidence for increasing officer risk is iffy, "there is no evidence that acquiring a SWAT team lowers crime or promotes officer safety."
The article observes that aggressive policing strategies disproportionately target minority communities, but that defenders of militarization claim it's necessary to protect officers. The data disagree. The author concludes that "the routine use of militarized police tactics by local agencies threatens to increase the historic tensions between marginalized groups and the state with no detectable public safety benefit."
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Wheeler's Dryad-Born: More Of The Same, And Still Not Finished
The Jaded Consumer apologizes for the delay in this review, but it's not pleasant to say terrible things about a book that required so much time and effort to craft. Jeff Wheeler's novel Dryad-Born contains all the same good worldbuilding described in The Jaded Consumer's review of Fireblood, but doubles down on its use of an evil group the author calls "Romani" that bear too much similarity to real-world Romani – and the prejudices against them – not to get irritated every time the author attempts to use their villainy to engage the reader's emotions. We see more of the Big Bad Villain in this installment, but it's not clear why he doesn't polish off the protagonists whom he clearly outclasses. We're left with the impression it amuses the evil dictator to double as his own hit man, and enjoys dragging out conflicts so he can spend more time twirling his moustaches before horrified victims. It becomes hard to believe. Yet, it gets worse: it's not even a story yet. While reviewing the first book in this series, The Jaded Consumer remarked on the experience reading Connie Willis' outstanding time-travel adventure (not the use of the singular) Blackout and All Clear: the editors didn't lift a finger to cushion the blow of taking this great story and sawing it into two volumes, and let readers walk un-warned into one of them. Without access to All Clear, I would have writhed in fury, interested to see the characters reach some kind of decision about their predicament, but helpless to get more than a hint the author had an actual story in mind, instead of a colorful extended vignette depicting a weird world full of people afraid for their lives. It's the climactic decision that makes or breaks a story, and the first half of a book hasn't even got a climax to judge. Thank goodness I happened to have both volumes with me when I finished the first.
Which returns us to Dryad-Born. The second volume still doesn't bring us a conclusion. Mind you, it's not necessary to show an ultimate conclusion in a second volume – Jim Butcher ably shows in The Codex Alera that you can hold your ultimate conclusion until the sixth volume but still give each volume its own complete story arc and an answer to the volume's story problem even while leaving larger problems overhanging the characters. The problem is, Wheeler doesn't bother to create a story problem for any of these installments: you need them all to see even one story arc. It's frustrating.
Or at least it would be, if you still believed in the villain or cared about the world. There's a lot of secondary-world fantasy to read out there without having to experience the problems presented in Dryad-Born or its companion volumes.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Brust's Vallista Reminds Us Why We Love Vlad
Vallista presents a Vlad Taltos adventure set on Steven Brust’s fantasy world of Dragaera, is reviewed at Fantasy Book Review.
Links to Brust’s swashbuckling parody-homage to Alexandre Dumas, The Phoenix Guards were removed, as was a link about Brust's his narrator from The Phoenix Guards – the Dragaeran historian Paarfi – and the Paarfirotica written in his voice.
Read Vallista, and be happy there’s seventeen more volumes to read in its world.
Links to Brust’s swashbuckling parody-homage to Alexandre Dumas, The Phoenix Guards were removed, as was a link about Brust's his narrator from The Phoenix Guards – the Dragaeran historian Paarfi – and the Paarfirotica written in his voice.
Read Vallista, and be happy there’s seventeen more volumes to read in its world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
