Between the daily calling of jobs, the disaster of 11/08/2016, its aftermath and analysis, and (surprising last straw) the probably-most-awesome-and-least-appropriate episode of South Park, I feel like I need to commit to paper an idea which has floated around my head for a long time: Down with blue collar jobs. Seriously. Enough of those. Enough for the defense for blue collar jobs. Enough of the begging for factories. Enough of the condemnation of world trade.
Seriously. As far as economics and technological progress go, blue collar jobs must decline. They won't disappear, obviously. But they must, and should, become at best a very minor part of the labor force. There is no escape, only delay. And the delay will only prolong the pain. So let it go, people.
Blue collar jobs (low-skill works, such as factory workers and farm hands) simply cannot compete on an international and inter-species scale. The latter is more serious, of course. Humans simply are not competitors of machines, plain and simple. A machine needs a few days of rest per year along with a very simple diet of energy. A machine can be discarded after a few years of depreciation. A machine does not feel pain and won't ever have family issues to impact work performances. A human simply cannot compete. A human, male or female, needs at least 5 hours of sleep along with a complex and expensive diet. A human also has social and mental needs and their fulfillment (e.g. entertainment and family) runs high risk of spilling over. These are merely raw physical prowess. Machines, generally speaking, require less training to attain better precision; and whatever they repeat, they repeat exactly. Humans can't compete, period.
But even before the machines take over, blue collar workers in an advanced economy can barely compete with their fellow workers in developing countries. Look, we are not talking about artisans or skilled workers. We are talking about low skill works. If a job requires nothing more than capacity to follow orders, how is a worker in middle USA (i.e. "Rush Belt") better suited than a random person (or, for that matter, a child) from the poorest region of Asia or Africa? The latter person also happens to accept about 1/20 of the former's wage.
Of course, workers of advanced economies hold a distinctive advantages: they have close proximity to the highly-skilled workforce that give them the orders. Capacities to quickly and accurately transfer procedures knowledge and give commands hold strategic importance for a firm to compete in the marketplace. Thus, workers with access to that strategic importance are paid premium.
But, seriously, without their highly skilled coworkers, what differentiate these workers from any random person on the street? Probably only the authority on the birth certificates (and many a time, skin color). Yes, in other words, blue collar workers are mere leeches of highly-skilled workers. And it's high time they should accept it.
Finally, let's face it, what's so hot about such jobs? Sure, they are hard work. But any ox and its father can work hard. We are humans! We are supposed to actualize ourselves. We are supposed to leave legacies behind. We are supposed to be creative, be personal, be special. How, may I ask, can a blue collar job be anything of these? It's almost always a dead-end of a career (one needs to switch to management for advancement; or engineering; or creative; or anything that requires an edge). Why do we keep begging for such work?
A highly skilled human is a wonder of the world. They can achieve accuracy that robots can only dream of. And while operating under impossible tolerance, they maintain excellent flexibility and creativity. They can make art that moves the soul. They can assemble machines that move the earth.
A professional humans, on the other hand, form the foundation of modern economies. They ensure that necessary things happen and disasters at bay. They build models of how the world works, plan for the future, and execute wonders. They do all this while keeping an eye out for black swans and unexpected issues.
We have jobs to make humans humans. Jobs that demand creativity. Jobs that demand self-driving and disciplines. Jobs that make a difference. Why, may I ask, do we keep begging for the demeaning, the dead-end, the robotic jobs?
Monday, September 25, 2017
Friday, March 10, 2017
The Disposability of Modern Products
Patek Phillipe advertisement asserts thus: You never actually own a Patek Phillipe; you merely look after it for the next generation. A beautiful line, no? And a beautiful promise.
The line promises an enduring desirability and value. It's not just that Patek Phillipe watches last forever. Many things last forever, like plastic bags. It's that these watches are desired and valued forever. I can't speak for the future, obviously, but if you bought a watch in 1950s, it would be roughly as desirable in 2010s. In fact, it might as well break, but your next generation will want to fix it.
Fact is, you don't really need to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for something enduring. A good Seiko watch costs about $500, and has roughly the same property. If you bought one in 2000, that watch value would stay roughly the same in 2010 or 2014. Obviously, it starts out $500, so it won't look like a $50,000 in 10 years; but it won't look like a piece of junk either.
Contrast this with, says, an Apple Watch. Middle of the line Apple Watch costs also about $500. And how long will it look and feel desirable? Similarly, an iPhone costs roughly $600 - $800. How long will that iPhone keep its value?
By the way, it's not just about the new software. A 2-year old iPhone looks dated. A 20-year old Patek looks just as nice as a brand new one. Rolex famously sell more or less the same Oyster watch for about 90 years now.
---------------------------------------------------
Modern world offers a lot. It's cool in the summer, warm in the winter; its water is clean, drinkable, and fights against cavity; its food is abundant; its transportation is fast and cheap; its entertainment is endless. We probably are living in the best time in history. Lots of things to appreciate.
However, there is one thing that modern world does not seem to offer: durability. Just about every new invention and product seems to rush through its life cycle and heads toward the trash. Producers, for all their affordability and creativity, force products down into consumers' throats. Meanwhile, consumers are so addicted to the act of acquiring that they must throw away their own possession. Why fix things anymore? Buying new is faster, easier, more fun, and sometimes cheaper.
This goes beyond mere electronics. I once took business classes. Modern management and business practices emphasize on the disposability of products. A product must die, in a timely manner. Manufacturers these days can estimate down to the day that their goods die; generally speaking, that's the warrantee period. Products must die, so that consumers can go back and buy more. Without this, how can business grow? Well, more correctly, how can business grow fast enough to satisfy the investors?
And thus, everything for stickers to cars to washer to cellphones have ticking time bombs in them. They must die. They must die so their younger siblings can shine.
---------------------------------------------------
Many a time, I wonder if mechanical watches are worth their price tags. I mean, you can get the precise time with your phone or your laptop. Yet, people shell out thousands (occasionally tens of thousands) of dollars for these toys. And the watches don't even keep time that well!
However, all of them offer something else. A romance. A feel of permanence. A timelessness. An escape from the never ending cycles of acquiring and disposing. An expensive romance, sure. But, how can one price romance and love?
Sometimes, I also wonder: how can we modern engineers put the same romance in our own products? How can we make goods that endure? Goods that we merely look after for the next generation.
The line promises an enduring desirability and value. It's not just that Patek Phillipe watches last forever. Many things last forever, like plastic bags. It's that these watches are desired and valued forever. I can't speak for the future, obviously, but if you bought a watch in 1950s, it would be roughly as desirable in 2010s. In fact, it might as well break, but your next generation will want to fix it.
Fact is, you don't really need to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for something enduring. A good Seiko watch costs about $500, and has roughly the same property. If you bought one in 2000, that watch value would stay roughly the same in 2010 or 2014. Obviously, it starts out $500, so it won't look like a $50,000 in 10 years; but it won't look like a piece of junk either.
Contrast this with, says, an Apple Watch. Middle of the line Apple Watch costs also about $500. And how long will it look and feel desirable? Similarly, an iPhone costs roughly $600 - $800. How long will that iPhone keep its value?
By the way, it's not just about the new software. A 2-year old iPhone looks dated. A 20-year old Patek looks just as nice as a brand new one. Rolex famously sell more or less the same Oyster watch for about 90 years now.
---------------------------------------------------
Modern world offers a lot. It's cool in the summer, warm in the winter; its water is clean, drinkable, and fights against cavity; its food is abundant; its transportation is fast and cheap; its entertainment is endless. We probably are living in the best time in history. Lots of things to appreciate.
However, there is one thing that modern world does not seem to offer: durability. Just about every new invention and product seems to rush through its life cycle and heads toward the trash. Producers, for all their affordability and creativity, force products down into consumers' throats. Meanwhile, consumers are so addicted to the act of acquiring that they must throw away their own possession. Why fix things anymore? Buying new is faster, easier, more fun, and sometimes cheaper.
This goes beyond mere electronics. I once took business classes. Modern management and business practices emphasize on the disposability of products. A product must die, in a timely manner. Manufacturers these days can estimate down to the day that their goods die; generally speaking, that's the warrantee period. Products must die, so that consumers can go back and buy more. Without this, how can business grow? Well, more correctly, how can business grow fast enough to satisfy the investors?
And thus, everything for stickers to cars to washer to cellphones have ticking time bombs in them. They must die. They must die so their younger siblings can shine.
---------------------------------------------------
Many a time, I wonder if mechanical watches are worth their price tags. I mean, you can get the precise time with your phone or your laptop. Yet, people shell out thousands (occasionally tens of thousands) of dollars for these toys. And the watches don't even keep time that well!
However, all of them offer something else. A romance. A feel of permanence. A timelessness. An escape from the never ending cycles of acquiring and disposing. An expensive romance, sure. But, how can one price romance and love?
Sometimes, I also wonder: how can we modern engineers put the same romance in our own products? How can we make goods that endure? Goods that we merely look after for the next generation.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Hoping for a November Surprise
So, unless you have been under a rock for the last 15 months, you should know this: the richest and most powerful nation will elect her next administration tomorrow. Ah, such gruesome 15 months.
And the last 2 weeks been, well, tensed. Apparently, the FBI decided to fire-drill leaking information regarding a presidential candidate. And, apparently, for all of their talks of courage and principles, GOP leaders decide that winning is everything. As such, the republican experiment of the new world teases with shutting itself down. It still does, obviously, but not as likely.
There were some rays of hope. Apparently, early voting shows great enthusiasm among groups that make up future of this nation: the brown, the educated, the young (hopefully?). And that enthusiasm may save the day, after all.
After done probably most that I can do as citizen, contribution and voting, I am left with hope. And I hope for a November surprise. Or, maybe, a November miracle.
I hope that The United States of America, the richest, most powerful, most enduring democracy of the globe will, finally, wake up and show the world how democracy is done. I hope that she would shove aside he who dares threatening her freedom of press, of speech, of personal liberty. I hope that she would enshrine her professed principles: liberty and justice for all.
I hope that Americans will finally wake up and cast aside their cowardice leaders: those who endorse racism, sexism; those who tolerance abandonment of their friends and allies; those who value their careers over their professed principles. Wouldn't it be nice if all endorsers of he-who-shall-not-be-named get voted out of office? Wouldn't it be nice if the people cast down their shackles and trample over their oppressors?
Finally, I hope that progressivism will return with vigor. 8 years ago (sound like a life time away, doesn't it?), Americans made epic history. And the country surged ahead: racism was cast aside; health care was reformed; Wall Street was regulated; the environment got some attention. Tomorrow, I hope that the US will progress again.
Hope is sometimes vain. But, what else do we have but hope? (btw, if you have not voted, there is something else; get your butt in line and vote).
And the last 2 weeks been, well, tensed. Apparently, the FBI decided to fire-drill leaking information regarding a presidential candidate. And, apparently, for all of their talks of courage and principles, GOP leaders decide that winning is everything. As such, the republican experiment of the new world teases with shutting itself down. It still does, obviously, but not as likely.
There were some rays of hope. Apparently, early voting shows great enthusiasm among groups that make up future of this nation: the brown, the educated, the young (hopefully?). And that enthusiasm may save the day, after all.
After done probably most that I can do as citizen, contribution and voting, I am left with hope. And I hope for a November surprise. Or, maybe, a November miracle.
I hope that The United States of America, the richest, most powerful, most enduring democracy of the globe will, finally, wake up and show the world how democracy is done. I hope that she would shove aside he who dares threatening her freedom of press, of speech, of personal liberty. I hope that she would enshrine her professed principles: liberty and justice for all.
I hope that Americans will finally wake up and cast aside their cowardice leaders: those who endorse racism, sexism; those who tolerance abandonment of their friends and allies; those who value their careers over their professed principles. Wouldn't it be nice if all endorsers of he-who-shall-not-be-named get voted out of office? Wouldn't it be nice if the people cast down their shackles and trample over their oppressors?
Finally, I hope that progressivism will return with vigor. 8 years ago (sound like a life time away, doesn't it?), Americans made epic history. And the country surged ahead: racism was cast aside; health care was reformed; Wall Street was regulated; the environment got some attention. Tomorrow, I hope that the US will progress again.
Hope is sometimes vain. But, what else do we have but hope? (btw, if you have not voted, there is something else; get your butt in line and vote).
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Stop Demanding "Real-world" Application in Teaching Programming
Once more, a programmer calls for teaching "computer science" through doing "working piece of software that real people use." Hacker News discussion
has been a bit critical, but people still seem to think that software
engineering education somehow calls for such ideas. This has sicken me
so many times that I have to say it here:
For the love of all that is elegant and maintainable, stop demanding real-world application in teaching programming. And I meant all programming teaching, regardless of theory or engineering.
Let's take a step back and think about insane demand for "real-world-ness." In sports, this would be equivalent of telling a kids to compete in Wimbledon to learn tennis; or join NFL to learn football (or FIFA for the other football); or join a gang to learn martial arts. How insane are those proposals! Or, it's like learning physics by building bridges across real rivers. Or learning biology through working in the farms. Or learning chemistry through building bombs. How stupid are these? (well, beside the farm thing; tipping cows actually sounds fun).
The only good analogy for this kind of obsession would be servicing jobs, such as mechanic or electricians. However, this analogy is also extremely flawed. For one, these tasks are physical, so the same exact situation has value for students to repeat over and over; programming, once it's done once, copy-n-paste will solve all subsequent instances (and that's how most real-world work is done). Furthermore, natures of these tasks are completely different from programming; a better analogy would involve engineering a car or electricity grid; oh, so we should train engineers by making them build cars, on day one. Good luck! Lastly, even training for servicing involves "scaled-down versions of real-world projects." After all, each exercise needs one true solutions. Real-world situations rarely offer such niceties.
Therefore, please please stop obsessing over "real-world" and "real people." It's a stupid ideas, a recipe for disasters!
How, you ask?
First, because it will surely lead the students to mistake the trees for the forest. Sure, there is a lot of drudgery in real-world programming, bug fixes and all that. However, those are not, and should never be, the crux of a programmers' tasks. Instead, a programmer's true calling, and the focus of her work and attention, lies in designing and engineering, in the creation of a beautiful object that has not existed. Sure, Zeus has to arrange for Athena to be bathed and dressed and armed, but he must first will her into existence. The willing is programmers' pleasure; the bathing, dressing, and arming are its costs. Why, for the love of all goodness, do we want to torture students with drudgery?
Second, the point of education is to clarify concepts and techniques. This is precisely why school projects are not real. They are engineered to illustrate the concepts. This is why every single physics book contains phrases like "assume that there is no friction." By removing hairy details, the instructors demonstrate the concepts to their students. Once the students have understood the concepts and techniques, their applications are but trivial matters. Thus, it makes no sense to start out with hairy details. At best, it delays learning unnecessarily. At worst, it actively distracts the students and misleads them into a soul-crushing view of programming.
Lastly, starting with something so applicable runs the risk of locking students into a specific set of technologies. All projects need a few things: a programming language, a revision management system, an issue tracking system, and probably a build/test system. Each has at least several choices. Although these choices differ mostly at cosmetics level (think LISP vs Java), many of the differences have sparked religious wars over technologies. Thus, educators would do well to sidestep these thorny issues and focus on (as said above) concepts and techniques. If the students are instead thrown into the middle of a complicated situation (and all real world projects are complicated), they may over-invest in the particulars of that project. This easily leads to lock-in and closemindedness. Just look at the .NET-only or Java-only crowds. Their schools probably strive to equip them with a practical tools. These schools ends up scaring them off from other technologies.
Thus, let me repeat my plea again: please stop this stupid obsession over "real-world" in teaching programming. Please teaching programming as the wonderful, creative, and elegant art and science that it is. I committed to programming because of its beauty, because of the god-like feeling of conjuring up something out of nothing, because of the freedom and personality that it offers. I did not become a programmer to write a stupid "great bug report." I became one to avoid them. So, please, stop torturing people you are supposed to help.
For the love of all that is elegant and maintainable, stop demanding real-world application in teaching programming. And I meant all programming teaching, regardless of theory or engineering.
Let's take a step back and think about insane demand for "real-world-ness." In sports, this would be equivalent of telling a kids to compete in Wimbledon to learn tennis; or join NFL to learn football (or FIFA for the other football); or join a gang to learn martial arts. How insane are those proposals! Or, it's like learning physics by building bridges across real rivers. Or learning biology through working in the farms. Or learning chemistry through building bombs. How stupid are these? (well, beside the farm thing; tipping cows actually sounds fun).
The only good analogy for this kind of obsession would be servicing jobs, such as mechanic or electricians. However, this analogy is also extremely flawed. For one, these tasks are physical, so the same exact situation has value for students to repeat over and over; programming, once it's done once, copy-n-paste will solve all subsequent instances (and that's how most real-world work is done). Furthermore, natures of these tasks are completely different from programming; a better analogy would involve engineering a car or electricity grid; oh, so we should train engineers by making them build cars, on day one. Good luck! Lastly, even training for servicing involves "scaled-down versions of real-world projects." After all, each exercise needs one true solutions. Real-world situations rarely offer such niceties.
Therefore, please please stop obsessing over "real-world" and "real people." It's a stupid ideas, a recipe for disasters!
How, you ask?
First, because it will surely lead the students to mistake the trees for the forest. Sure, there is a lot of drudgery in real-world programming, bug fixes and all that. However, those are not, and should never be, the crux of a programmers' tasks. Instead, a programmer's true calling, and the focus of her work and attention, lies in designing and engineering, in the creation of a beautiful object that has not existed. Sure, Zeus has to arrange for Athena to be bathed and dressed and armed, but he must first will her into existence. The willing is programmers' pleasure; the bathing, dressing, and arming are its costs. Why, for the love of all goodness, do we want to torture students with drudgery?
Second, the point of education is to clarify concepts and techniques. This is precisely why school projects are not real. They are engineered to illustrate the concepts. This is why every single physics book contains phrases like "assume that there is no friction." By removing hairy details, the instructors demonstrate the concepts to their students. Once the students have understood the concepts and techniques, their applications are but trivial matters. Thus, it makes no sense to start out with hairy details. At best, it delays learning unnecessarily. At worst, it actively distracts the students and misleads them into a soul-crushing view of programming.
Lastly, starting with something so applicable runs the risk of locking students into a specific set of technologies. All projects need a few things: a programming language, a revision management system, an issue tracking system, and probably a build/test system. Each has at least several choices. Although these choices differ mostly at cosmetics level (think LISP vs Java), many of the differences have sparked religious wars over technologies. Thus, educators would do well to sidestep these thorny issues and focus on (as said above) concepts and techniques. If the students are instead thrown into the middle of a complicated situation (and all real world projects are complicated), they may over-invest in the particulars of that project. This easily leads to lock-in and closemindedness. Just look at the .NET-only or Java-only crowds. Their schools probably strive to equip them with a practical tools. These schools ends up scaring them off from other technologies.
Thus, let me repeat my plea again: please stop this stupid obsession over "real-world" in teaching programming. Please teaching programming as the wonderful, creative, and elegant art and science that it is. I committed to programming because of its beauty, because of the god-like feeling of conjuring up something out of nothing, because of the freedom and personality that it offers. I did not become a programmer to write a stupid "great bug report." I became one to avoid them. So, please, stop torturing people you are supposed to help.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Bluntness and Abuse
Supporters of Trump and like-minded say that they like "blunt talk about Islam." For example, "Islam hate [America]" or "thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11." Blunt talk, eh? Let's talk blunt for a bit.
Islam carried on the Greco-Roman cultures and traditions. Without them, classics of antiquity would burn in the Christian fire. Without them, we have only kings, emperors, popes, and cardinals, and Democracy (of Athenian fame) or Republicanism (of Roman fame) would die in the Inquisition.
Islam is the largest religion on the face of the planet. While a tiny minority of them are quite deadly, most of them seem to like USA just fine. Wait, here is a blunt twist, USA has better favorable rating among Middle Eastern Muslims than Trump does among his own countrymen and women.
While I always condemn violence against bystander in Paris, let's be reminded that France did pass laws that hinder Muslim culture expression. Such laws can be (actually, they may very well be intended to be) viewed as provocation against Islam of all stripes and forms.
USA, for all of its crying and condemnations, ruined 2 countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), killed millions of bystanders, failed to support Muslim democracy (i.e. Arab Spring). Together with Russia, she turned Syria into full-fledge civil war. American army, navy, and airforce killed more innocent bystanders in Iraq alone than whatever ISIS have done in the whole Europe.
How about those "blunt talks"?
I am sorry, but Trump and his kinks ain't about "blunt." Blunt means frankness even when truth hurts. That does not mean the truth always hurts. More importantly, it does not always demean other people. Finally, if it does hurt, it probably hurt all sides more or less equally.
When a "truth" seems to hurt only one side, i.e. Trump style "bluntness" about Islam, it's usually not "truth." It's simply abuse hurled at other people.
Dear Americans: please stop abusing other people.
Islam carried on the Greco-Roman cultures and traditions. Without them, classics of antiquity would burn in the Christian fire. Without them, we have only kings, emperors, popes, and cardinals, and Democracy (of Athenian fame) or Republicanism (of Roman fame) would die in the Inquisition.
Islam is the largest religion on the face of the planet. While a tiny minority of them are quite deadly, most of them seem to like USA just fine. Wait, here is a blunt twist, USA has better favorable rating among Middle Eastern Muslims than Trump does among his own countrymen and women.
While I always condemn violence against bystander in Paris, let's be reminded that France did pass laws that hinder Muslim culture expression. Such laws can be (actually, they may very well be intended to be) viewed as provocation against Islam of all stripes and forms.
USA, for all of its crying and condemnations, ruined 2 countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), killed millions of bystanders, failed to support Muslim democracy (i.e. Arab Spring). Together with Russia, she turned Syria into full-fledge civil war. American army, navy, and airforce killed more innocent bystanders in Iraq alone than whatever ISIS have done in the whole Europe.
How about those "blunt talks"?
I am sorry, but Trump and his kinks ain't about "blunt." Blunt means frankness even when truth hurts. That does not mean the truth always hurts. More importantly, it does not always demean other people. Finally, if it does hurt, it probably hurt all sides more or less equally.
When a "truth" seems to hurt only one side, i.e. Trump style "bluntness" about Islam, it's usually not "truth." It's simply abuse hurled at other people.
Dear Americans: please stop abusing other people.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Please Stop Trying to Be Silicon Valley
Everyone wants to be Silicon Valley these days. From cities to countries, people keep claiming this or that is either going to be "the next Silicon Valley" or "the Silicon Valley of such and such region". In fact, some economic powerhouses (Taiwan and Japan have been mentioned) are willing to sacrifice their current industries to jump on the software bandwagon. The allure of pretty screenshots and massive market caps of Google and Apple and the likes prove quite irresistible.
Frankly, this saddens me from time to time. I am really really ticked off when people from developing countries (India is often mentioned, but some other countries too) assert that software and Silicon Valley model will somehow lift them off poverty. I mean, it's their countries and cities, so I don't want to be rude. But, really?
Development of a powerful software industry has quite a few drawbacks. Those are:
So, what should a city drive for?
First, finance. You know, 2008 really gave banks and financial services bad names. However, finance underlines an economy. As Niall Furguson argued in The Ascent of Money, every economic revolution is preceded by a financial revolution; every super power is preceded by a financial center. In fact, Silicon Valley's real miracle is its financial prowess. These days, people talk about venture capitalists and investments and such, but they forgot how revolutionary these things are. The investors essentially take strangers' money, then give it to other strangers, some of whom are twenty-something with nothing more than a good presentation. Humans, by nature, distrust strangers. And yet, just look at modern American financial arrangement.
Thus, more cities should aim to be New York, London, and Frankfurt. Such move would lay down the foundation for all other industries. It also fosters better, more connected, more trusting societies. After all, when one can trust the whole life saving to others, one learns how to judge people by more than bloodlines.
Second, agriculture. Food is the foundation of human progress. Cheap, abundant, and nutritious food fuels people to grow, to work, to innovate, also to learn, to love, to explore, and to make better lives. Improvement in agriculture not only nurtures the consumers, but also the producers: they can aspire to compete on a global scale. It also brings food and economic independence to developing and crowded countries. Agriculture is also likely to encourage development of other industries. For example, farmers require financing (eg. loans and mortgages), machines, stocks, refrigeration, transportation, etc. Each of these has its own requirements (eg. making machines need metallurgy, casting, steel, etc.).
By the way, agriculture does not need to be low tech. Biology engineering, breeding, environmental research, chemical engineering, and gene engineering are vital players in production of agriculture. Storage, planning, and transportation of the products require further modern technologies and innovations. Marketing, consumer education, brand building involves modern media and communication channels. Agriculture has been with humans for a long time, and will continue to do so for imaginable future. As such, it can scale up and down the technological scale without any issue.
Third, hardware and robotics. Now, software is a silo industry, which does not drive the development of other industries. On the other, hardware and robotics demand much more. To produce chips takes a lot of precision. To produce them at scale require massive investment in infrastructure, building, and technologies. Also, different from software, hardware needs serious financial investment. And, finally, hardware and robotics enable much more than software. Well targeted, they (with the virtue of being physical) can be employed in different fields with minimum extra technology investments.
Finally, I think more places should pick up the lead in energy innovation. Our modern world survives on electricity. However, we have yet to find anyway to produce it without ruining our environments. Plus, transportation of electricity is quite inefficient and requires intensive maintenance.
Energy production will probably encourages financial investments (did I mention that finance underlines economy?), chemical engineering, physics, probably precision engineering, metallurgy, etc. It also provides the foundation for modern lifestyle and the foundation for modern industries. It also provides energy security and independence for its host countries. An excellent choice.
All in all, there a choices. Interesting choices, compared code and software. And I for one sincerely hope that people will look beside the latest trend for their hometown development.
Frankly, this saddens me from time to time. I am really really ticked off when people from developing countries (India is often mentioned, but some other countries too) assert that software and Silicon Valley model will somehow lift them off poverty. I mean, it's their countries and cities, so I don't want to be rude. But, really?
Development of a powerful software industry has quite a few drawbacks. Those are:
- Software is a non-essential product. In other words, you can't feed people with software; you can't shelter people in software; you can't warm people with software. This means that even if a region gets rich doing the web, it may still have food, clothing, and shelter shortage. In fact, Silicon Valley has quite a shelter shortage right now!
- Software requires high level of technologies to boost productivity. This is less obvious than above, but holds just as much importance. Let's say that if India wants to improve its food production capacity with software. Well, that requires farmers to use systems that can run these fancy software. But if the farmers have those systems, India would not be a developing countries.
- Software does not require much. This sounds like a good thing, but it's not. Because it is so easy, infrastructure are not properly built. India, again, stands as example. For all of those booms in software and service outsource, Indian infrastructure, including essentials for software system like internet, is still patchy. Driving toward Silicon Valley, thus, will not raise the bar for the whole economy; it will only create a few newly-rich.
- Software increases economic dependency on outsiders. It, after all, needs hardware to run, and hardware industry is something totally separate from software. More subtly, its output also depends on outsiders. See 2nd point above: for developing countries, other industries can't readily take advantage of the new software, so the industry would be stuck doing dirty works for foreign corporations.
- Software has low barrier of entry. This low barrier entices cities to be Silicon Valley. However, it also invites massive competitors. This means that hard-fought economic edges can vanish overnight. Furthermore, this also means that there is a strong drive toward lower prices, which reduces the economic gains for the successful cities.
So, what should a city drive for?
First, finance. You know, 2008 really gave banks and financial services bad names. However, finance underlines an economy. As Niall Furguson argued in The Ascent of Money, every economic revolution is preceded by a financial revolution; every super power is preceded by a financial center. In fact, Silicon Valley's real miracle is its financial prowess. These days, people talk about venture capitalists and investments and such, but they forgot how revolutionary these things are. The investors essentially take strangers' money, then give it to other strangers, some of whom are twenty-something with nothing more than a good presentation. Humans, by nature, distrust strangers. And yet, just look at modern American financial arrangement.
Thus, more cities should aim to be New York, London, and Frankfurt. Such move would lay down the foundation for all other industries. It also fosters better, more connected, more trusting societies. After all, when one can trust the whole life saving to others, one learns how to judge people by more than bloodlines.
Second, agriculture. Food is the foundation of human progress. Cheap, abundant, and nutritious food fuels people to grow, to work, to innovate, also to learn, to love, to explore, and to make better lives. Improvement in agriculture not only nurtures the consumers, but also the producers: they can aspire to compete on a global scale. It also brings food and economic independence to developing and crowded countries. Agriculture is also likely to encourage development of other industries. For example, farmers require financing (eg. loans and mortgages), machines, stocks, refrigeration, transportation, etc. Each of these has its own requirements (eg. making machines need metallurgy, casting, steel, etc.).
By the way, agriculture does not need to be low tech. Biology engineering, breeding, environmental research, chemical engineering, and gene engineering are vital players in production of agriculture. Storage, planning, and transportation of the products require further modern technologies and innovations. Marketing, consumer education, brand building involves modern media and communication channels. Agriculture has been with humans for a long time, and will continue to do so for imaginable future. As such, it can scale up and down the technological scale without any issue.
Third, hardware and robotics. Now, software is a silo industry, which does not drive the development of other industries. On the other, hardware and robotics demand much more. To produce chips takes a lot of precision. To produce them at scale require massive investment in infrastructure, building, and technologies. Also, different from software, hardware needs serious financial investment. And, finally, hardware and robotics enable much more than software. Well targeted, they (with the virtue of being physical) can be employed in different fields with minimum extra technology investments.
Finally, I think more places should pick up the lead in energy innovation. Our modern world survives on electricity. However, we have yet to find anyway to produce it without ruining our environments. Plus, transportation of electricity is quite inefficient and requires intensive maintenance.
Energy production will probably encourages financial investments (did I mention that finance underlines economy?), chemical engineering, physics, probably precision engineering, metallurgy, etc. It also provides the foundation for modern lifestyle and the foundation for modern industries. It also provides energy security and independence for its host countries. An excellent choice.
All in all, there a choices. Interesting choices, compared code and software. And I for one sincerely hope that people will look beside the latest trend for their hometown development.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Is GOP still a Serious Political Party?
Once upon a time (as in, when I first arrived on this shore), I had these images about Democratic and Republican parties: the former as young, hippy, and dreamy group, while the latter as a band of suited, serious people dealing with the real world. Lots of cues reinforced such images. GOP, after all, stands for "Grand Old Party," which is quite odd given that it's the younger of the 2. GOP, on average, consists of older, more educated, more "traditional", more religious, and wealthier (thus more likely to be in leadership and professional positions) than its competitor. There are proverbs that celebrate the supposed seriousness of GOP and caring of Democratic party, such as "if you are not Democrat before 30, you have no heart; if you are not Republican after 30, you have no brain."
The last few years, though, my impression has changed quite radically.
Let's start the with the presence, as in, the last "big issues" of the 2 parties. As of today (02/27/2016, if anyone keeps count), the last big events of GOP have been Gov. Christie's declaration of support for Mr. Trump, the debate in Texas, and the show down over (potential) Supreme Court appointment. The last big events of Democratic party (not counting the running primary) were Senator Bernie's economic plan and constitutional duty of the president in Supreme Court appointment. Alright, the last of entries of both are 2 sides of the same coin: Democrats want to at least a pretense of regular constitutional process, while Republicans want to shut out the other side. Let's analyze these events, shall we?
If one reads on Republican events (except maybe the discussion over Supreme Court appointment), one can be forgiven to think that this is a teenager dispute. Let's see, Senator Rubio ridiculed Mr. Trump of sweating, and Mr. Trump shot back that the Senator was low life and used quite a bit of make up. Huh? I mean, huh? It's understandable that there was a show going on. However, is this how serious people do civic discussion? I mean, how old are those men? 16? Wait, sorry, my school discussion at 16 was more serious that that. This resembles 12 year olds trading verbal abuses. It makes me feel ashamed to host such joke in my supreme legislative body.
Talking about legislative body, i.e. the Senate, it's not doing so hot right now. You know, I heard of something called "saving face." It means that you don't burn bridges: even if you disagree from the beginning, you still give your opponents the courtesy of polite listening and consideration. I mean, those Republicans keep bring up Vice President Biden's quote from 1992. However, that very quote shows the difference between grace and bridge burning. Then Sen. Biden said, "I highly recommend." There was a shed of grace left for his opponents, that they did have option to ignore a recommendation. Sen. McConnell leaves no such consideration. He simply refused his constitutional duty and refused the president his constitutional power. Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow colleagues? Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow citizens?
On the Democratic side, the discussions were radically different. The arguments over Sen. Bernie's plan focus on actual policies, not sweat and make-up. The arguments are almost put forward as "well, we do want that, but this plan is..." In other words, the attackers showed respect for the attacked, even conceded good ideas. The arguments are laid out in thoughtful opinion and academic papers. It feels like a discussion, not a school brawl.
These events are just proxy to the whole election cycle as a whole. News on GOP side seemed to be generally about characters and their blusters, such as debate performance and unrealistic plan to bomb far away areas. News on Democratic side has been around policies, trust worthiness, and party loyalty, which are generally more civic than their competitor. It seems that GOP is not having a civic and political debates. No, they seem to instead having a reality show about who can make the most outrageous utters and who has more testosterone.
But, then, again, what would one expect? After all, at least a third of Republican party at this point support a candidate who condemned a whole country (Mexico) as criminal, regarded the largest religion in the world (Islam) as terrorist, insulted the Pope (I mean, seriously!), praised torture (I kid you not, he said that torture worked and therefore is acceptable), and generally made mockery out of his country. If this was not bad enough, his biggest opponent tried to out-do his immaturity rather than to remind the fellow citizens what American Exceptionalism is about. The uneducated, misinformed, and recession-stricken citizens can be pardoned for their ignorance, but it's just impossible to pardon the representative whose job it was to ensure national prosperity, liberty, and dignity. What do people think of U.S.A. when a serious contender of her highest leadership insulted her neighbor and insulted the Pope. I mean, come on, He was the Pope. Can we not pay a bit of respect to that?
But, then, again, what would one expect? GOP greatest aim has been to illegitimize their country first citizen by any mean necessary for the last 8 years. What kind of citizens who prefer their country's bankrupt to losing election? What kind of citizens who prefer purity of ideology to functioning government? What kind of citizens who prefer the downgrade of their country worthiness to changing their ways? What kind of citizen who prefer wasting time on a law that has been approved by all 3 branches of government to functioning civic government.
What kind of citizens are those?
I used to think that GOP had a few bad apples. But look at their primaries and caucuses. Bad apples are not the problem. Bad apples have dominated the norms, and good apples fought desperately to save the soul of their party.
At this point, I must ask: is GOP still a serious political party? Or is it simply a dangerous game show that bored Americans play?
The last few years, though, my impression has changed quite radically.
Let's start the with the presence, as in, the last "big issues" of the 2 parties. As of today (02/27/2016, if anyone keeps count), the last big events of GOP have been Gov. Christie's declaration of support for Mr. Trump, the debate in Texas, and the show down over (potential) Supreme Court appointment. The last big events of Democratic party (not counting the running primary) were Senator Bernie's economic plan and constitutional duty of the president in Supreme Court appointment. Alright, the last of entries of both are 2 sides of the same coin: Democrats want to at least a pretense of regular constitutional process, while Republicans want to shut out the other side. Let's analyze these events, shall we?
If one reads on Republican events (except maybe the discussion over Supreme Court appointment), one can be forgiven to think that this is a teenager dispute. Let's see, Senator Rubio ridiculed Mr. Trump of sweating, and Mr. Trump shot back that the Senator was low life and used quite a bit of make up. Huh? I mean, huh? It's understandable that there was a show going on. However, is this how serious people do civic discussion? I mean, how old are those men? 16? Wait, sorry, my school discussion at 16 was more serious that that. This resembles 12 year olds trading verbal abuses. It makes me feel ashamed to host such joke in my supreme legislative body.
Talking about legislative body, i.e. the Senate, it's not doing so hot right now. You know, I heard of something called "saving face." It means that you don't burn bridges: even if you disagree from the beginning, you still give your opponents the courtesy of polite listening and consideration. I mean, those Republicans keep bring up Vice President Biden's quote from 1992. However, that very quote shows the difference between grace and bridge burning. Then Sen. Biden said, "I highly recommend." There was a shed of grace left for his opponents, that they did have option to ignore a recommendation. Sen. McConnell leaves no such consideration. He simply refused his constitutional duty and refused the president his constitutional power. Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow colleagues? Is take-no-prisoner the way we should treat our fellow citizens?
On the Democratic side, the discussions were radically different. The arguments over Sen. Bernie's plan focus on actual policies, not sweat and make-up. The arguments are almost put forward as "well, we do want that, but this plan is..." In other words, the attackers showed respect for the attacked, even conceded good ideas. The arguments are laid out in thoughtful opinion and academic papers. It feels like a discussion, not a school brawl.
These events are just proxy to the whole election cycle as a whole. News on GOP side seemed to be generally about characters and their blusters, such as debate performance and unrealistic plan to bomb far away areas. News on Democratic side has been around policies, trust worthiness, and party loyalty, which are generally more civic than their competitor. It seems that GOP is not having a civic and political debates. No, they seem to instead having a reality show about who can make the most outrageous utters and who has more testosterone.
But, then, again, what would one expect? After all, at least a third of Republican party at this point support a candidate who condemned a whole country (Mexico) as criminal, regarded the largest religion in the world (Islam) as terrorist, insulted the Pope (I mean, seriously!), praised torture (I kid you not, he said that torture worked and therefore is acceptable), and generally made mockery out of his country. If this was not bad enough, his biggest opponent tried to out-do his immaturity rather than to remind the fellow citizens what American Exceptionalism is about. The uneducated, misinformed, and recession-stricken citizens can be pardoned for their ignorance, but it's just impossible to pardon the representative whose job it was to ensure national prosperity, liberty, and dignity. What do people think of U.S.A. when a serious contender of her highest leadership insulted her neighbor and insulted the Pope. I mean, come on, He was the Pope. Can we not pay a bit of respect to that?
But, then, again, what would one expect? GOP greatest aim has been to illegitimize their country first citizen by any mean necessary for the last 8 years. What kind of citizens who prefer their country's bankrupt to losing election? What kind of citizens who prefer purity of ideology to functioning government? What kind of citizens who prefer the downgrade of their country worthiness to changing their ways? What kind of citizen who prefer wasting time on a law that has been approved by all 3 branches of government to functioning civic government.
What kind of citizens are those?
I used to think that GOP had a few bad apples. But look at their primaries and caucuses. Bad apples are not the problem. Bad apples have dominated the norms, and good apples fought desperately to save the soul of their party.
At this point, I must ask: is GOP still a serious political party? Or is it simply a dangerous game show that bored Americans play?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)