Some say, “think different.”
Others — like Firefox — only allow thoughts that are the same as everyone else.
I remember driving to the mall with my dad, to buy a copy of Netscape Navigator 1.2 on floppy disks. Since that time I’ve had a soft spot for Netscape and its successors, including Firebird and the increasingly irrelevant Firefox.
Life’s too short to waste time on a third place browser. I am writing this on Google Chrome, and regularly use Internet Explorer. But I’ve uninstalled Firefox.
This post may seem familiar because I wrote a similar in in January, because reality is similar: if you’re not doing something you’re great at, that you love doing, that you get paid for doing, you may be doing the wrong thing. You may be living in the ghetto.
There are four types of people in the academic ghetto: pimps who are full professors, disaster tourists from rich families who are just having fun, hos who are exploited by pimps, and escapees who gtfo.
The pimp is a pretty fun place for pimps, sufficiently amusing for disaster tourists.
Patrick Iber’s post was especially moving because it so closely tracks my experience in academia (though he also dragged his children thru it). This part of his piece brought tears to my eyes:
[My mother] was released from the hospital on Jan. 1 to recover at her brother’s house. I flew to Washington, D.C., the next day. When the plane landed, I had multiple messages waiting for me, telling me to call home. My mother, age 64, had died in her sleep. Her youngest grandson was 7 weeks old.
The [academic conference] was a daze. I walked the streets between conference hotels in tears. I told friends. I told strangers. To others, with no logic to it, I said nothing. I might have gone home, but the severe weather in the Northeast scrambled routes and made it nearly impossible to rebook my flight. As a lecturer with no research support, I had spent half a month’s salary to travel there anyhow. My mom had wanted me to give my paper, so I did: to an audience of three. I shook hands at mixers. I had no interviews.
I also lost a parent while in academia. I also gave presentations to audiences of three.
Academia was fun for me. It’s a great place to be a pimp. But if you’re not a tourist and you’re not a pimp, become an escapee.
If Barack Obama and others had read my blog on October 29, 2008, they would have known that Russia will invade Crimea to turn it into a frozen conflict.
Russia is not a European country. it is a Central Asian oil exporter that has invaded Europe — again. A variety of moves, from pushing renewable energy to helping Ukraine sign the Association agreement with the European Union, should now be made. Ukraine must join Europe.
Too bad I was ignored.
In business strategy, it is common to subsidize a money losing business that in order to make a primary business profitable. This is called “free parking.”
For instance, McDonalds is one of the largest parking lot operations in the world. The scale of their investment in an international network of places to park your car is staggering, involving professional and operational employees and contractors all of the world.
But McDonalds is not in the parking business. They are in the hamburger business. But absent providing “free parking,” McDonalds would find the cost of customer acquisition painfully high and the economics of scale from its operations too small.
Likewise, the United States runs one of the largest carbon-economy rollback operations in the world. The scale of US investment in preventing the success of the carbon economies (from “King Cotton” in the late 19th century to “King Oil” in the late 20th century to King Natural Gas today) is staggering. This anti-carbon-intervention — from a massive climate science masquerade to military actions in the American South and the Middle East.
In most of the world most of the time, carbon-based economies are naturally despotic and authoritarian. These “hydraulic empires” exist because of the government monopoly over the infrastructure needed to extract wealth from the earth. This form of social organization can be internally stable but maintain considerable freedom of movement in international relations because rules do not need worry about complicated economic links that limit non-carbon economies. That is, they are warlike.
(Whether refers to carbon-economy rollback by that name, or says something about sustainable political-economic growth, or “shrinking the gap” or whatever, the meaning and the concept is the same: minimizing the political and military importance of carbon extraction throughout the world.)
Rolling back the carbon-based economy is to the US what free parking is to McDonlads. For McDonalds, free parking is the side business and selling hamburgers is the main business. For the US, carbon-economy rollback is the side business and selling security is the main business. McDonalds could not afford the customer acquisition cost, and could not enjoy the economies of scale, without subsidizing free parking for its customers and potential customers. Likewise, the US could not afford the country-acquisition cost of its military alliances nor enjoy economies of scale, without subsidizing carbon-economy rollback for its customers and potential customers.
My friend Dr. Samuel Liles thinks that free parking is a distraction, whether for McDonalds in a shopping mall or the US in the world political system. He’s wrong on both points.
McDonalds cannot provide hamburgers (in exchange for cash) without providing parking, for free.
The US cannot provide security (in exchange for power) without rolling back the carbon-based economy, for free.
May good friends Dr. Samuel Liles (who I had the pleasure of meeting in person the other day) has taken to twitter to advocate to an isolation response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea.
Sam has written a tweeted a number of times, but this tweet is probably the most concise description of a pro-Putin line you’re likely to see in the non-lunatic West:
If you say “POTUS should do something” I’ll ask you why. Ukraine wasn’t in NATO or EU so NATO & EU shouldn’t do anything absent specifics.
I like Sam, he has a lot of cool stories and is a serious guy, but his comment is an exact analog to
If you say “McDonalds should provide parking” I’ll ask you why. Customers aren’t yet in the building so McDonalds shouldn’t spend money on them absent specifics.
The common thread in my friend’s Sam’s comments on Ukraine, and that crazy comment about McDonalds, is called “free parking.” Most successful enterprises, whether business or governments, provide subsidized or free secondary services in order to acquire customers for their primary services.
McDonalds runs one of the largest parking lot operations in the world, not because they are in the business of running profitable parking lots, but because the parking “business” is actually critical infrastructure to being successful in the restaurant business.
Similarly, the US has traditionally supported the expansion of the European Union, not because the US is in the EU, but because the Eu is critical infrastructure to being successful in the security business.
The European Union, like the United States, has a political-military system that focuses on extracting taxes from producer surplus of the non-carbon sectors of the economy. An interesting result of this is that the EU and US focus on peaceful relationships with each other, as economic integration allows the economies of scale in multiple sectors necessary to increase the tax base thru increasing the producer surplus of the non-carbon sectors of the economy. Besides the first-order economic gains of this “capitalist peace,” this also provides second-order gains as the costs of the US of providing security are lowered.
Supporting the EU’s provisioning of that political-economic infrastructure throughout Europe is in America’s interests, in the same way that paying parking lot pavers is in McDonald’s interests. The US is not the EU. McDonalds is not a paving company. But McDonalds is in the paving business in order to provide free parking to its customers. And the US is in the business of supporting the expansion of the EU to provide free parking — access to the legal, technical, and economic infrastructure the EU provides — to its customers.
If you want to read an example of the generally worthless state of international relations scholarship, it’s hard to do worse than North Korea in Transition.
It’s not that it’s put out by a bunch of cranks. It’s featured by the Council on Foreign Relations. And it’s not that it is not interesting. I highlighted several passages, many of which were thought provoking.
But… International Relations scholars, famously, can’t predict anything. The beginnings of wars, the outbreaks of peace, the collapse or emergence of empires — I’m aware of no solid model that can predict these as well as, say, the weather two days from now.
Some authors, like Bruce Cummings, appear to just be intellectual jokes
“American television rounded up all the usual images of North Korea: frightening soldiers goose-stepping through Pyongyang, a madman at the help who starves his people, missiles fired “over Japan” ( all missile launches are to the east, to take advantage of the Earth’s rotation)”
But generally, over and over, authors told us only what we already knew, and missed titanic changes under the surface.
It is noteworthy that the chair of the North Korean side in the DPRK-China Joint Guidance Committee for Economic Zones is Jang Song Taek, Kim Jong I’ls’ brother-in-law and vice chairman of the National Defense Commission
(yes, it is a noteworthy indeed that Jong Song Taek was arrested during a committee meeting, and tried as a traitor.)
Kim Jong Un is known to have focused on taking control of the military and the intelligence apparatuses with teh full support of the two key
power holders, Jang Song Taek and Ri Yong Ho, under the tight supervision of Kim Jung Il.
(Well, we know something – perhaps what is not something we’re sure of. Currently the only question is to what fraction of Jang’s family tree is annihilated.)
This isn’t to say the entire book is trash. Chapter 8, “Low-Profile Capitalism: The Emergence of the New Merchant / Entrepreneurial Class in Post-Famine North Korea” by Andrei Lankov is very solid. In fact, it’s probably worth the price of the book.
Proteus is the sixth piece of interactive fiction I’ve played.
Interactive fiction can be thought of as on two dimensions, the extent to which the game focuses on the “player” (who he is, why he is there, and so on) and the extent to which the game focuses on the environment (the emotions it evokes, the thoughts it provokes, and so on).
This allows us to create a simple 2×2 matrix
|Not Player Centered||Player Centered|
|Not Environment Centered||N/A||The Novelist,
|Environment Centered||The Stanley Parable, Proteus||Dear Esther,
Like The Stanley Parable, Proteus focuses exclusively on the environment. But while The Stanley Parable is cognitive, subverting the expectations of players, Proteus is emotive, building up a perfect child-like world with no rules, no enemies, and no protagonists — only delight.
Most reviewers of Proteus, whether their impressions are positive and negative, play Proteus for less than an hour. Whimsy without people or danger may be a hollow emotion indeed.
The game is not as beautiful as Esther, not as subversive as Stanley, not as political as Home, and not as spartan as Depression. Rather, it strives for realism and universality. In The Novelist you play a disembodied spirit capable of reading the minds, and impacting the choices of three characters: a novelist, his wife, and their child.
The entire game takes place within a house. Additionally, information is limited. For instance, is the novelist’s goal of writing the novel simply self-actualization nonsense (which implies one set of choices) or the only hope of a family for income (which implies a dramatically different set). How accurate is your ability t read minds, and how much veracity do the thoughts of the family have? These questions are unanswered and, largely, unaddressed.
Many reviewers noted they cried during the game (See Rock, Paper, Shotgun‘s review). Perhaps I’ve listened to many hours of Dave Ramsey, but I interpreted the opening scenario as a looming economic and relationship disaster, and proceeded accordingly. Without spoiling the ending, if you consider the advise of Penelope Trunk, I achieved a happy outcome for all involved.
McArdle is referring to an emotional debate about job searches in the academic ghetto. Here are some titles of the posts:
The entire controversy boils down to three points:
As Megan McArdle notes, the solution is to get a real job. Leave the ghetto.