Not a Potted Plant

Let’s say a man is working with a woman in a professional capacity. Let’s further say that, without necessarily wanting to pursue a romantic, sexual or any other sort of personal relationship with her, the man finds the woman physically attractive. It’s hard, after all, not to notice when someone else is attractive.

Seems to me that the man in question really ought to keep his opinion to himself, at minimum until and unless he has established a strong level of rapport and mutual professional esteem with the woman in question. And maybe not even then. This isn’t so hard, is it?

World:

[W1] An exciting jailbreak in Canada… involving a hijacked helicopter!

[W2] China is throwing its lot in with Ubuntu Linux. Or at least their own version of it.

Culture:

[C1] Teachers are ignoring the stigma against student grouping/tracking. Barry Garelick supports it. So do I. I find the arguments against it (rather than concerns over implementation, which are legitimate) to be rather weak. Redstone starts grouping at around the second grade.

[C2] I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is no worse messenger for gun control than Bloomberg.

[C3] Since I am rather critical of Bloomberg when his nanny impulses are wrong, I suppose I should say that I think his hide-the-cigarettes idea actually isn’t half bad.

[C4] It turns out, the Creative Class was mostly about benefiting the desirables and not so much about actually improving city economies. Seems to me that somebody (okay, Kotkin, but also me!) has been saying that for a while now.

[C5] Are we making too big a deal out of fat? There are, without a doubt, reasons to be concerned about the health ramifications of the obesity epidemic. I don’t think that’s all that’s going on here.

[C6] I, for one, am pretty pissed off at Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is nothing wrong with skim milk.

Passtime:

[P1] I never thought about this, but yeah, it’d kind of suck to be a baseball player with a sucky baseball card.

[P2] Bowl games without names should not be allowed to be major bowl games. If the Chick-Fil-A Bowl wants to be one of the semifinal sites, it needs to be the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl. Maybe CFA can work this into a promotion at their restaurants? Or the Peach Bowl can find a new sponsor.

[P3] Every wonder why Superman doesn’t just destroy meteors like the one that hit Russia? Here’s why.

[P4] Girl Meets World update: Feeny is in! Some of the other rumored actors thought to be in, however (Shawn, Matthew) may not be, however.

[P5] Note to self (and any Neil Gaiman fans): Check this out.

Money:

[M1] The same policies that would help women in the workplace might keep them from advancing.

[M2] I don’t have the problem with the minimum wage as a concept, but given the enormous differentials in cost of living, does it make sense to have a national minimum wage?

[M3] Farming more with less land. So, are we looking at a farmland bubble? Sometimes rural subsidies help out the not so rural.

[M4] Nobody fears tax simplification like TurboTax fears tax simplication.

[M5] The legal challenges of ridesharing. We need a word for shipmentsharing.

[M6] Okay, that does it. The sequester has got to go. I want our shapeshifting alien reptile secret service agents.

Technology:

[T1] The anti-Google Glass people are real killjoys. I can sort of understand why we might not want people using them on the road, though.

[T2] The administration is pushing the FAA to either allow electronics during takeoff-landing or to justify the prohibition. Which is the way it should. This is really one of those quasi-populist, relatively small-time lifestyle issues that I don’t understand why it’s so hard for politicians to want to get out in front of. (Flex-time is another one.)

[T3] I am definitely keeping an eye on Motorola’s xPhone. It could be the avenue through which niche features become available again.

[T4] Tim Worstall thinks that smartphones will go the way of PC’s and that Samsung and Apple may be in danger. He should be right, but I think he’s wrong. Anyone want to guess why? Hint.

Environment:

[E1] Since I don’t expect government action to provide a solution, I am hoping that geoengineering might. There’s a lot of debate about geoengineering going on.

[E2] According to Daniel Fisher, the best thing about Shale gas is that we know where it is. Will the future of fracking skip the water? More on the American energy boom.

[E3] A teen in Colorado has created an oil-oozing algae. Another teenager designs a device that cleans plastic from the ocean.

Some bloggers wonder what would happen in a post-sleep world. Garrett Jones thinks that work ours would go down because, as work-hours become less valuable, people would work less (as a percentage of awake-time). Matthew Yglesias argues that those at the top and bottom will simply have more hours of work expected of them. Megan McArdle points out how the winds of change would be so great that we can’t just look at it as a work-hours issues.

On the work-hours part, I believe it is primarily dependent on who captures the benefits of extra time. I mean, we might still be working for eight hours a day, five days a week. So it’s not like automation in the requirement for less work. Joshua Green explores the post-work future, which is a similar question because it comes down (moreso) on the question of leverage and the captured benefits of an increase in productivity (or in the case of no-sleep, a potential one).

The modern economy suggests to me that, absent government intervention, the accumulation of benefit would start and mostly end at the top. Instead of just the top and bottom being expected to work more, we all would because the wealthy would be able to play us off against one another. “We’re looking for someone willing to put in 100 hours. Bob over there is. Are you?”

Here in the US, of course, we do have the 40-hour workweek for non-salaried individuals. If that held, then we might successfully get a lot more leisure time. It might not, though, and not just because of the rich. This is what McArdle touches on. Leisure activity costs money. Even leaving aside cappuccinos and theaters, more time at home on the Internet means more used bandwidth. The increased possibility of boredom means that cable TV can start charging more. So we would want more money, and with more hours in the day, there is a really strong likelihood that we would want to be able to work more so that we can make the most of our leisure time. If it isn’t lifted, I’d expect people to start working around the 40-hour limit with second jobs. And since the second jobs are inefficient, I would expect the 40-hour workweek to be re-evaluated.

With any luck, all of our newfound time wouldn’t be soaked up. But it comes back to the question of our future with automation and increased productivity. If more and more of it is kept in the hands of those with the power to purchase the capital that devalues the need for human labor, then it’s a bleak future indeed as we all scramble to find ways to make ourselves useful. Likewise, I can easily imagine employers capture the benefits of the increased potential of man-hours.

The Journal-Gazette of Fort Wayne has a good write-up on The Cancellation Bear.

The website TV By the Numbers is making sport out of predicting which television series will survive or disappear, and the first weeks of a new TV season are particularly busy. The Renew/Cancel Index is a popular feature, where all the broadcast networks’ shows are given ratings from one (certain to be cancelled) to five (certain to be renewed).

Less than four weeks into the new season, two shows – CBS’ “Made in Jersey” and NBC’s “Animal Practice” – are already swimming with the fishes. The site gives six other shows the dreaded single frowning face. Site co-founder Bill Gorman, asked to go out on a limb, predicted “The Mob Doctor” on Fox will be next to disappear.

Gorman and partner Robert Seidman regularly tweet about their predictions as “The Cancellation Bear.” The name refers to the old joke about two men being chased by a bear; you don’t have to be faster than the bear, just outrun the other guy. Most TV shows just need better ratings than other programs on their network to survive.

(Before I get to the content of the post, I’d never heard that joke about the bear. I’d heard it about gators. Maybe because Gulf Coast?)

I consider the Bear to be an invaluable source. It’s more than entertainment, it’s a guide to entertainment. If a TV show isn’t going to last, then it’s not worth my time to invest in it. This is less true of comedies than dramas and science fiction. In the case of the latter, it most likely means that storylines will go very unresolved. Of course, some shows have demonstrated that you can have seasons and seasons to tell a story and the end result is the introduction of storylines that go unresolved, but it’s still a better arrangement. In the case of comedies, it’s less a matter of unresolved storylines and more a matter of getting excited about shows right when they go away. That’s precisely what happened last year with Man Up and, believe it or not, several years ago Cavemen (though in the latter case, I was at least very prepared for it). This year, I managed to avoid getting invested in Red Widow and Deception.

While I’m on the subject, I want to congratulate ABC for something. Two of their shows quickly turned out to be duds, Last Resort and 666 Park Avenue. Instead of just pulling them off, as usually happens, they’re giving them an opportunity to wrap up storylines. In addition to being good for the fans, I think this is good for the network (or at least, I hope it proves to be). If networks want us to invest in a series that may or may not be around, they need to give us a consolation prize if it doesn’t make it. If not a full half-season, then a movie. If not a movie, then a comic book or traditional book. Something. I am not more likely to invest in ABC shows than ones from other networks.

Honestly, it’s reaching the point where I almost don’t want to invest in any new programs until I know they’re going to stick around. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people who are being gauged by Nielsen take this attitude en masse. I’ve been chosen for Nielsen twice now in the past three years! So at least one Nielsen pick is influenced by such things.

Everyone, even Astros fans, was probably deflated after Yu Darvish gave up his only hit in the bottom of the ninth with two outs already in the bag. Fourteen strikeouts, no bases on balls. And just a split second’s reaction time, as the ball bounced between his legs, separating Darvish from perfection.

It’s not really my intention to write about baseball every night. But the season is opening with some really great games. If you were ever going to pick a year to get into baseball, this is looking like the year to do it.

Megan McArdle wonders:

These days, a nearly-perfect GPA is the barest requisite for an elite institution. You’re also supposed to be a top notch athlete and/or musician, the master of multiple extracurriculars. Summers should preferably be spent doing charitable work, hopefully in a foreign country, or failing that, at least attending some sort of advanced academic or athletic program.

Naturally, this selects for kids who are extremely affluent, with extremely motivated parents who will steer them through the process of “founding a charity” and other artificial activities. Kids who have to spend their summer doing some boring menial labor in order to buy clothes have a hard time amassing that kind of enrichment experience. […]

This entire thing is absurd. I understand why kids engage in this ridiculous arms race. What I don’t understand is why admissions officers, who have presumably met some teenagers, and used to be one, actually reward it. Why not give kids a bonus for showing up to a routine job during high school, like real people, instead of for having wealthy parents who can help you tap their affluent social network for charitable donations? Why have we conflated “excellence” with affluence, driven parents, and a relentless will to conform on the part of the kids?

Errr, that seems pretty self-explanatory to me. That the advantage goes to the affluent is not a biproduct. It’s the point. Who is more likely to be in a future position to do good by the university? Someone who comes from an affluent background or someone who works a routine job? In a world where students are penalized for the wrong extracurriculars, like the FFA or 4H Club, why in the world would we expect them to value someone who takes a job anybody could have?

You have to be special. It takes money to be special. That’s not totally fair. Private schools have been taking admirable steps to allow those whose parents make less money to get into these schools on grants instead of loans. So, while money does play a role, I would expect that it’s culture that plays a larger one. Some kid whose father is the Used Car King of Northern Idaho may have money, but it’s not necessarily the right kind of money. I mean, you can picture it, right? His father’s dealership with some huge, gaudy American flag. And hokey commercials. Fortunately, that guy is going to have very little clue how to get his kid into the Ivies. He probably thinks membership in the 4H club might help. He might think it’s a good idea for his son to actually work at the dealership to learn responsibility and work ethic. Such pedestrian values mean little compared to the enrichment of well-placed charity work.

Of course, coming from the background that I do, the entire notion of aspiring to go to a private school is a little bit weird. I was told from pretty early on that private school was an unlikely option. I got to see my brother admitted into a very exclusive school on the west coast only to be told “You can’t go. There is nothing that they have to offer that the flagship state can’t.” So in one sense I am sympathetic to the son of the car king, though on the other, there are more important things to life. Unless, of course, you want to actually run things. People from certain colleges get to do that, and they are particular about who they let in. Not just any smart kid, or rich kid, will do. So I do at times wonder about the cost of society.

Some of my parents’ values rubbed off on me. I, too, will be reluctant to bankroll my kid going to private school. Clancy feels even more strongly about this. I might actually make an exception for a school like Harvard. Fortunately for the top Ivies, I don’t have much idea of the hoops they would need to jump through and I am not sure how on-board I would be with doing what would be required for them to get in anyway. So they probably needn’t worry about the likes of the Trumans showing up.