Fake news is all over the real news. There's fake news that's completely fabricated, and there's fake news that's opinion claiming to be news, and there's fake news that publishes the lies of others without contradicting them. These things almost certainly turned the 2016 election, and probably affected several before that.
The government can't stop people from saying whatever they want, and rightly so. But could the government put legal limits on the use of the term "news"? We do
that in all sorts of other arenas. You can sell all the partially
hydrogenated palm oil you want, but you don't get to call it "chocolate" unless it has at least some minimum cocoa content.
What would those limits look like?
News has to be accurate, at least to some reasonable degree. Outright fabrications must not be allowed, and mistakes must be corrected rapidly, preferably in the same size and context in which they were made.
Opinions are also not news. Opinion discussion should never get the label "news", or at least it should be less than some small defined fraction of the content published under "news" and clearly marked as such.
Quoting or airing the statements of others is also not "news" unless it's fact-checked. If Donald Trump is on CNN telling lies for an hour, it's little different to the public than if Wolf Blitzer was saying the same things. CNN is still putting their name on the content and calling it "news".
Or perhaps we should even include funding sources. Any organization whose funding is directly proportional to the number of subscribers or viewers it has, has a clear motivation to lie to you to keep you interested. Unfortunately that eliminates 95% of news sources. Or is that unfortunate?
Any organization or outlet violating these rules would still be able to publish. They just wouldn't be able to call themselves "news", because they wouldn't be. We would have the "Fox Political Commentary Channel". Basically, truth in advertising.
Is there some reason this is a bad idea?
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Presidential elections with proportional allocation
The electoral college is getting a lot of flack lately for being why Trump won the election. It occurred to me that the EC, as it is popularly understood, has two effects. One weights smaller states more than larger ones, which was just a pragmatic political compromise from the 1780s. But the other is winner-take-all, which is a choice the state governments make. They could give their electoral votes literally any way they want, including rolling a D20 and picking people out of the jury pool.
I decided to strip out the winner-take-all and see what would have happened if all the states used proportional allocation while retaining the constitutional weighting process. The results for the last seven elections:
Interestingly, four of the seven end up without a majority winner, and the others ('04, '08, '12) have very close margins. This shows that the winner-take-all effect is just as important as the constitutionally-mandated weighting effect.
Normally that would mean the election goes to the House, but I don't think that's what actually happens in these scenarios. The third-party electors, knowing their candidates can't possibly win, would likely throw their votes to either of the leading candidates. This would likely happen after extracting concessions of some kind, like promises of legislative priorities, or even a different VP. We could end up with a Hillary/Johnson administration, or a Kaine/Pence, or literally anything the electors could compromise on. It looks very much like a parliamentary system.
Suddenly third party votes are something besides a not-vote!
[Also, side note, Maine and Nebraska use some bizarre hybrid system. Two EVs to the state winner, and one to the winner of each congressional district. So you could imagine proportional for the entire state, or just proportional for the at-large votes.
In 2016, Maine went 3:1 Hillary, but goes 2:2 under either proportional plan. Nebraska went 5:0 Trump, but goes 4:1 under proportional at-large, and 3:2 under straight proportional. So the gerrymandering of the districts to favor Republicans in Nebraska keeps having an effect if we still go by congressional districts. Screw gerrymandering.]
I decided to strip out the winner-take-all and see what would have happened if all the states used proportional allocation while retaining the constitutional weighting process. The results for the last seven elections:
Clinton: 236
Bush: 197
Perot: 105
Clinton: 267
Dole: 224
Perot: 46
Nader: 1 (California)
Bush: 263
Gore: 262
Nader: 13
Bush: 280
Kerry: 258
Obama: 289
McCain: 248
Nader: 1 (California)
Obama: 276
Romney: 261
Johnson: 1 (California)
Trump: 262
Hillary: 260
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1 (California)
McMullin: 1 (Utah)
Hillary: 260
Johnson: 14
Stein: 1 (California)
McMullin: 1 (Utah)
Interestingly, four of the seven end up without a majority winner, and the others ('04, '08, '12) have very close margins. This shows that the winner-take-all effect is just as important as the constitutionally-mandated weighting effect.
In 2016, Trump still comes out on top due to the weighting, but with proportional allocation it's almost a tie, and nobody has a majority with 270. The numbers are strikingly close to 2000, actually, the last time there was a popular/electoral split.
Normally that would mean the election goes to the House, but I don't think that's what actually happens in these scenarios. The third-party electors, knowing their candidates can't possibly win, would likely throw their votes to either of the leading candidates. This would likely happen after extracting concessions of some kind, like promises of legislative priorities, or even a different VP. We could end up with a Hillary/Johnson administration, or a Kaine/Pence, or literally anything the electors could compromise on. It looks very much like a parliamentary system.
Suddenly third party votes are something besides a not-vote!
At a glance, I rather like the shape of this system. I've got no problem with weighting rural areas more than urban areas. I just have a problem with making votes not matter at all. And that's not the result of electoral college as a concept, it's entirely a state-level choice.
[Also, side note, Maine and Nebraska use some bizarre hybrid system. Two EVs to the state winner, and one to the winner of each congressional district. So you could imagine proportional for the entire state, or just proportional for the at-large votes.
In 2016, Maine went 3:1 Hillary, but goes 2:2 under either proportional plan. Nebraska went 5:0 Trump, but goes 4:1 under proportional at-large, and 3:2 under straight proportional. So the gerrymandering of the districts to favor Republicans in Nebraska keeps having an effect if we still go by congressional districts. Screw gerrymandering.]
In summary, the problems with the electoral college aren't with the electoral college. Your beef is with your state legislature, as it often is.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
The life of Frasier Crane
I saw it observed recently that Frasier Crane changes as a character between the end of Cheers and the beginning of Frasier. But Frasier in season one is actually pretty similar to his character on Cheers; he changes more in the second and third seasons. That's because past that point we see Frasier happy for the first time. For most of his time on Cheers he's miserable. Remember his comment to Daphne when she was lonely:
"I remember a time back in Boston, I was going through exactly what you're going through now. Just a week later I met a lovely barmaid, sophisticated if a bit loquacious. We fell madly in love and we got engaged... 'course, she left me standing at the altar. But the point is, I didn't give up. I took my poor battered heart and handed it to Lilith... who put it in her little Cuisinart and hit the purée button..."
Frasier left home at 18 for Harvard/Oxford, when Niles was 13. He never really had an adult friendship with his brother until he came back to Seattle. He never had a girlfriend and had few friends, none of which he bothered to keep up with after his return to Seattle at age 40. He never had any sort of relationship with his father either. His mother was the only good relationship he seemed to have, and while clearly loving, she wasn't exactly a warm person.
Frasier presumably spent four years in undergrad, four years in medical school, and four years in residency, making him at least 30 when he finally entered private practice in 1982. He also has a PhD, so research time may have extended that by a bit. When he was done, he decided to stay in the same town his school was in rather than go home. That alone says something.
We never got any hint he had any sort of significant social life or relationships during that twelve year period, beyond a short-lived and ill-considered marriage. Frasier had an affair with his piano teacher just before leaving for Harvard at age 18, then said there was nobody else for six and a half years. He married Nanette during medical school, so presumably she was his next relationship at age 24 or 25. There were a fair number of women in Harvard medical school in the late seventies, but clearly he had no success connecting with them.
Aside from Nanette, and his Oxford roommate showing up in Frasier season 10, this part of Frasier's life seems to be a complete blank; he never references old friends or relationships. Frasier, to this point, is defined by his academic life and accomplishments.
He was 31 when he met Diane, not long after he finally left school. Diane crushes him, and his mother dies not long after. He stays at Cheers, because he likes having human non-academic connections, of the sort he's never had before, and of the sort he might imagine he could have with his father if they could get over their baggage. Hanging out at Cheers is really the first time Frasier hasn't been buried in psychiatry in his entire life. For a couple years the bar is, from a human standpoint, almost literally all Frasier has.
Then he finds Lilith, a woman who shared a lot of traits with his mother, but who is by most metrics an awful human being. Their marriage slowly falls apart, though it does produce Frederick, who Frasier loves dearly. We also start to see that Frasier has trouble relating to women without it becoming sexual; he tries to sleep with Rebecca, a woman with whom he shares nothing. This is a man who has had almost no good and lasting relationships in his life, of any kind, besides with the barflies at Cheers.
After his second divorce, Frasier gets away from horrible abusive women. He befriends his brother, and finds that he can enjoy elevated conversation in a non-academic setting. He rediscovers their mutual love for opera and theater and fine dining, things he at first rejects, then comes to embrace. He befriends Daphne and Roz, and finds that not all women want to hurt him, and that he can have non-sexual relationships with them. And he overcomes his baggage with his father. This is literally the first time in Frasier's life that he has anything like a normal life.
Frasier changes, because Frasier becomes himself.
"I remember a time back in Boston, I was going through exactly what you're going through now. Just a week later I met a lovely barmaid, sophisticated if a bit loquacious. We fell madly in love and we got engaged... 'course, she left me standing at the altar. But the point is, I didn't give up. I took my poor battered heart and handed it to Lilith... who put it in her little Cuisinart and hit the purée button..."
Frasier left home at 18 for Harvard/Oxford, when Niles was 13. He never really had an adult friendship with his brother until he came back to Seattle. He never had a girlfriend and had few friends, none of which he bothered to keep up with after his return to Seattle at age 40. He never had any sort of relationship with his father either. His mother was the only good relationship he seemed to have, and while clearly loving, she wasn't exactly a warm person.
Frasier presumably spent four years in undergrad, four years in medical school, and four years in residency, making him at least 30 when he finally entered private practice in 1982. He also has a PhD, so research time may have extended that by a bit. When he was done, he decided to stay in the same town his school was in rather than go home. That alone says something.
We never got any hint he had any sort of significant social life or relationships during that twelve year period, beyond a short-lived and ill-considered marriage. Frasier had an affair with his piano teacher just before leaving for Harvard at age 18, then said there was nobody else for six and a half years. He married Nanette during medical school, so presumably she was his next relationship at age 24 or 25. There were a fair number of women in Harvard medical school in the late seventies, but clearly he had no success connecting with them.
Aside from Nanette, and his Oxford roommate showing up in Frasier season 10, this part of Frasier's life seems to be a complete blank; he never references old friends or relationships. Frasier, to this point, is defined by his academic life and accomplishments.
He was 31 when he met Diane, not long after he finally left school. Diane crushes him, and his mother dies not long after. He stays at Cheers, because he likes having human non-academic connections, of the sort he's never had before, and of the sort he might imagine he could have with his father if they could get over their baggage. Hanging out at Cheers is really the first time Frasier hasn't been buried in psychiatry in his entire life. For a couple years the bar is, from a human standpoint, almost literally all Frasier has.
Then he finds Lilith, a woman who shared a lot of traits with his mother, but who is by most metrics an awful human being. Their marriage slowly falls apart, though it does produce Frederick, who Frasier loves dearly. We also start to see that Frasier has trouble relating to women without it becoming sexual; he tries to sleep with Rebecca, a woman with whom he shares nothing. This is a man who has had almost no good and lasting relationships in his life, of any kind, besides with the barflies at Cheers.
After his second divorce, Frasier gets away from horrible abusive women. He befriends his brother, and finds that he can enjoy elevated conversation in a non-academic setting. He rediscovers their mutual love for opera and theater and fine dining, things he at first rejects, then comes to embrace. He befriends Daphne and Roz, and finds that not all women want to hurt him, and that he can have non-sexual relationships with them. And he overcomes his baggage with his father. This is literally the first time in Frasier's life that he has anything like a normal life.
Frasier changes, because Frasier becomes himself.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Hysteresis voting
Our founders held this as an axiom: government should reflect the will of the people. A government which does not is a tyranny, and should be torn down and replaced. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
But our founders were also right to be concerned about the tyranny of the mob; in a direct democracy, if you can convince 50.0001% of the people to do break the system, it's broken forever. There have to be limits in place to slow things down, and ways to fix mistakes when they happen. That's why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct one. If the United States had been a direct democracy, then the 9/11 attacks might have resulted in misdirected nuclear retaliation and millions of innocent deaths. It's very possible that only our representative democracy kept that from happening.
But what if there's a terrorist attack two days before an election?
That might change the outcome, right? Perhaps Nathan Petrelli or Donald Trump wins instead of losing, and the course of the country is changed for at least the next several years. Maybe we invade Iraq again. Maybe we do something much worse, something we regret for centuries. And even as the people calm down, there's no chance for years to remove the horrible people we elected.
But if the same attack happened two days after the election? Now Nathan loses, and we go on an entirely different course for the next six years.
What's different between those scenarios? The attack happens identically. The people of the country react identically. They're still being asked the same questions on election day. The only difference is timing. Ask on the wrong day, and you set the course of the country for years to come, with no chance to undo it until the next time you ask the people what they want.
A similar thing happens in cases like Brexit. The way people vote is actually dependent on how they expect the outcome to go. Once people see the outcome of the referendum, they might change their vote (or lack of vote), but now it's too late. People are convinced their votes don't matter, so on the rare occasion they do matter, they're left wanting a second chance. The will of the people suddenly changed, but it only changed after the vote, so the government is left unable to respond to the change.
Signal processing and controls engineers, do you recognize this? It's a sampling problem! The people want the government to behave in a certain way, which changes over time. That's our setpoint we're trying to hit. The setpoint is able to change rapidly (even in response to its own sampling!) but it's only being sampled once every 2-6 years. If you tried to build an actual control system like that, you'd be fired!
Nyquist says that if you're sampling once every six years, the thing you're sampling can't change any faster than every twelve years! Does that describe the will of the people? Especially after something like 9/11? Absolutely not. To avoid getting a government stuck at the extremes, we need a higher sampling rate, to respond more quickly to the will of the people changing.
But that can't be the only change, of course. Having a government that's able to calm down with the people is good, but it also means having one able to get angry with them. Instant response to the momentary will of the people after a terrorist incident would be a disaster! Like in any engineered system, no matter how fast your sample rate is, you still have to have some filtering to slow down response to a reasonable level, or it will go unstable very quickly. The simplest way to achieve this filtering is called hysteresis.
So here's what we do: vote all the time, on everything. Polling stations are open 24/7, with the same set of proposals and candidates on them. Every month the vote totals reset, and everyone can go vote again. This has some immediate effects: any popular vote resolution can be changed at any time, and every elected official is facing a recall election, all the time. That's a recipe for chaos... but here's where the hysteresis comes in!
The catch is that you need a super-majority to affect change. Before an item is put on the ballot, you define some threshold for the change to be executed. Suppose the threshold for changing the mayor is 10%. Every month, you see how many people want a new mayor. Add up the percentage by which that position wins or loses, month by month. If that sum ever gets up to 10%, you get a new mayor.
So if there's one month that the vote is 55/45 for replacing the mayor, you do so immediately, because you got a ten percent difference. But say the outcome is 54/46; you only have eight of your ten required points. You have to wait another month, but that month you only need 51/49 to get that last two percent. This means that the more angry the people are at an elected official, the easier it is to remove them quickly.
But it also means that every month, you have some idea how much closer or further away that recall might be. If the embattled mayor's supporters happened to stay home the first month, maybe they'll come out the second month once they see he's in trouble. Perhaps that second month, the vote is 48/52, four points in favor of keeping him. Now the mayor is six points from being recalled instead of two, and his total will keep changing over succeeding months as more people show up to vote. You have continuously running polling of elected officials, giving a real-time approval rating, with actual consequences!
Now, what about the end of a term? Well, under this system, there doesn't have to be any actual end of term! Instead, you just gradually lower the percentage required to remove someone from office. We design the system with a bias towards change over long periods. The first year, our mayor has to have 10% net disapproval to be replaced. The second year, he only needs 8% net to be replaced. After five years, 50/50 is enough. After ten years, he has to maintain 55% approval all the time to avoid replacement. So if you have someone who's actually consistently popular, they can stay in office for a very long time. But it gets harder and harder every time. You get all the advantages of term limits, without the problem of throwing out perfectly good elected officials arbitrarily.
So there you have hysteresis elections. There are a lot of possible details to be worked out, of course.
Advantages
The catch is that you need a super-majority to affect change. Before an item is put on the ballot, you define some threshold for the change to be executed. Suppose the threshold for changing the mayor is 10%. Every month, you see how many people want a new mayor. Add up the percentage by which that position wins or loses, month by month. If that sum ever gets up to 10%, you get a new mayor.
So if there's one month that the vote is 55/45 for replacing the mayor, you do so immediately, because you got a ten percent difference. But say the outcome is 54/46; you only have eight of your ten required points. You have to wait another month, but that month you only need 51/49 to get that last two percent. This means that the more angry the people are at an elected official, the easier it is to remove them quickly.
But it also means that every month, you have some idea how much closer or further away that recall might be. If the embattled mayor's supporters happened to stay home the first month, maybe they'll come out the second month once they see he's in trouble. Perhaps that second month, the vote is 48/52, four points in favor of keeping him. Now the mayor is six points from being recalled instead of two, and his total will keep changing over succeeding months as more people show up to vote. You have continuously running polling of elected officials, giving a real-time approval rating, with actual consequences!
Now, what about the end of a term? Well, under this system, there doesn't have to be any actual end of term! Instead, you just gradually lower the percentage required to remove someone from office. We design the system with a bias towards change over long periods. The first year, our mayor has to have 10% net disapproval to be replaced. The second year, he only needs 8% net to be replaced. After five years, 50/50 is enough. After ten years, he has to maintain 55% approval all the time to avoid replacement. So if you have someone who's actually consistently popular, they can stay in office for a very long time. But it gets harder and harder every time. You get all the advantages of term limits, without the problem of throwing out perfectly good elected officials arbitrarily.
So there you have hysteresis elections. There are a lot of possible details to be worked out, of course.
Advantages
- Poorly timed disasters and demagogues getting a temporary majority don't break everything
- A small majority of the electorate can't flip things back and forth rapidly
- Voters get warnings about changes before they happen, so more people can get out and vote for what they want
- Increase the value of votes and you increase turnout!
- Regret for voters that sit out is reduced
- It's much harder for the government to suppress voters if voting is happening all the time
- Term limits are handled much more organically
Questions
- Cost. Polling now costs at least 20x what it did previously.
- Or you do mail-in ballots or something, with all the security flaws that entails?
- Do we put less-important things on mail-in ballots, and only require in-person appearances past a certain limit?
- Who sets what's on the ballots and what the hysteresis limits are? If they mayor can set his own removal threshold, that's a problem.
- Are the proposals on the ballot and the thresholds also part of the same voting system?
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Bringing balance to the Force
EDIT 2021.06.21: This post has aged very badly. I blame Rian Johnson.
This post contains spoilers for Star Wars Episode 7.
After the destruction of his Jedi school, Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple. Why? What would he hope to find there?
About the only reference to ancient Jedi in the entire movie series so far is the prophecy about the Chosen One. We have few details about this prophecy, and it's not clear that the Jedi had any either. What does it actually mean to bring balance to the Force? To destroy the Sith? If so, does that mean Anakin was the chosen one, since he did ultimately do that? Or is perhaps Luke the chosen one, or has some added prophetic role? Is this the entirety of the prophecy, or is there more to it? George Lucas has made statements about the matter, but they're hardly canon any more.
This prophecy has had tremendous impact on the entire Skywalker line, and is clearly a tremendous motivator for people to do things they would not otherwise do. I believe Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple because he hoped to find out more about this prophecy. He found it, and his faith the accuracy of what he found may be why he was willing to stay so completely out of galactic affairs. He may have come to understand that Rey was coming. Luke may have been waiting for her all this time.
Snoke, on the other hand, may also be working the prophecy angle with Kylo Ren. Someone he called a perfect fusion of light and dark. That sounds a lot like balance in the Force. Perhaps the prophecy is multiple choice; the chosen one brings balance to the force, but which side he or she is on is yet to be determined. If the prophecy refers to Anakin's grandchild being the true Chosen One, or having some continuing role in the prophecy, and and if Rey is Luke's daughter, Rey and Ren may be competing to fulfill the same prophecies.
Which could lead to all sorts of interesting parallels, which we know the writers have tended towards in the past. Rey would be justifiably infuriated if her father left her in that desert hell with no intention to return. Rather than tell her the whole story, Luke may tell her her father was one of the Jedi, destroyed by Ren. Which is true... from a certain point of view. And while Luke may insist she should follow the prophecy and stay with him to train, she may place much greater weight on her friends' safety than on the prophecy. Ren finds her friends to draw her out. Leading to a confrontation.
"Skywalker never told you what happened to your father..."
After the destruction of his Jedi school, Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple. Why? What would he hope to find there?
About the only reference to ancient Jedi in the entire movie series so far is the prophecy about the Chosen One. We have few details about this prophecy, and it's not clear that the Jedi had any either. What does it actually mean to bring balance to the Force? To destroy the Sith? If so, does that mean Anakin was the chosen one, since he did ultimately do that? Or is perhaps Luke the chosen one, or has some added prophetic role? Is this the entirety of the prophecy, or is there more to it? George Lucas has made statements about the matter, but they're hardly canon any more.
This prophecy has had tremendous impact on the entire Skywalker line, and is clearly a tremendous motivator for people to do things they would not otherwise do. I believe Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple because he hoped to find out more about this prophecy. He found it, and his faith the accuracy of what he found may be why he was willing to stay so completely out of galactic affairs. He may have come to understand that Rey was coming. Luke may have been waiting for her all this time.
Snoke, on the other hand, may also be working the prophecy angle with Kylo Ren. Someone he called a perfect fusion of light and dark. That sounds a lot like balance in the Force. Perhaps the prophecy is multiple choice; the chosen one brings balance to the force, but which side he or she is on is yet to be determined. If the prophecy refers to Anakin's grandchild being the true Chosen One, or having some continuing role in the prophecy, and and if Rey is Luke's daughter, Rey and Ren may be competing to fulfill the same prophecies.
Which could lead to all sorts of interesting parallels, which we know the writers have tended towards in the past. Rey would be justifiably infuriated if her father left her in that desert hell with no intention to return. Rather than tell her the whole story, Luke may tell her her father was one of the Jedi, destroyed by Ren. Which is true... from a certain point of view. And while Luke may insist she should follow the prophecy and stay with him to train, she may place much greater weight on her friends' safety than on the prophecy. Ren finds her friends to draw her out. Leading to a confrontation.
"Skywalker never told you what happened to your father..."
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Orlando and Self-Radicalization
I'm the kind of guy who wants solutions. And I spend a lot of time considering them. But I don't have one here.
We're seeing a new kind of terrorist. This wasn't an attack by foreign-born people who come here with a plan. By all appearances, this was an American who decided, on his own and without direction, to kill other Americans. Chattanooga, San Bernadio, Wichita, and Garland were all very comparable. Even the Paris attacks were primarily perpetrated by citizens of France and Brussels.
How do you stop an American citizen who, on his own, decides one day that God wants him to kill as many people as possible?
You can't stop the person from being here; he's a citizen with all the rights I have. Should we strip all Muslims of their civil rights? Put them in internment camps? Burn the first amendment?
You can't eliminate other grievances; many times there are none. We're dealing with people who have lived in rich countries their entire lives. They're not angry about American involvement in the middle east, or support of Israel. They want to kill Americans because they think God wants them to. We're dealing with a small fraction of Muslims, but it's still fundamentally a religious issue.
You can't stop Muslims from being exposed to radical ideas; free speech is impossible to contain even if you're trying. Do we try anyway? Pull down radical videos as soon as we find them? Have a new department of censorship? Once again burn the first amendment?
You can't disincentivize; they expect to die and go to heaven, and bring all their loved ones with them. Paradise beats any possible carrot or stick.
You can't prevent access to deadly weapons; guns are too widespread to practically eliminate, and trying would cause a civil war. If we waved a magic wand to eliminate all guns in the US, we would get less-lethal terror attacks, but I'm not sure the big-picture result would be better. You can do just as much damage with bombs, as we've seen from Christian domestic terrorists in the past.
One of the hardest security problems imaginable is an attacker who will trade his life for the target. How do you stop that when everyone is the target?
So far I have two possible solutions, and I don't like either of them.
1) Harden every target. Hire gigantic numbers of trained armed guards. I'm not sure how much that would actually help anything, but presume it does. We're talking about a million restaurants, 350,000 churches, 50,000 bars and nightclubs, 20,000 theaters, 100,000 libraries, 130,000 schools, and an uncountable number of shopping centers. Not to mention several million businesses. Call it ten million locations, each needing on average one full-time guard. If the guard makes a living wage, that's $300 billion a year just in wages, not to mention the high cost of continuing training. That would make it one of the largest areas of government expenditure. And all that assumes that the armed guards actually accomplish anything, which is far from certain.
Alternately, change our society so that a sizable fraction of the populace starts to carry a gun, all the time. Roughly a third of the US owns guns, and there are roughly 500 accidental deaths due to firearms. Supposing we triple the number of homes with guns in the US, we could reasonably expect an additional 1000 accidental deaths per year due to firearms, plus an indeterminate number of additional homicides and suicides. Supposing we just use the round 1000 additional deaths a year, to make this proposal effective we would have to prevent at least 1000 terrorist murders every year. We are nowhere near that number.
2) Prove the jihadists wrong. Self-radicalization happens when a Muslim becomes convinced they're living in the end times. But this didn't happen until recently. What has changed? The existence of ISIS, and a credible caliphate. Destroy that caliphate, prove that this is not the end of times, and self-radicalization should drop dramatically.
Obviously I'm reluctant to push this as a solution. Our invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, as was our bombing of Libya. But those were disasters for specific reasons, chief among them that we had no plan to successfully pacify the country afterward, leading to a complete lack of order. For many Iraqis things got worse after the invasion, and that spiraled into further destabilization, leading directly to ISIS in the first place. Libya outright refused foreign intervention past the bombing, apparently preferring their hellhole to foreign soldiers. Because we acted without a full plan, things got worse.
Now consider, for those living under ISIS, is it even possible for things to get worse?
There are other concerns, of course. If we go to total war on ISIS, in the short term we make their prophecies look more accurate. (You know, before all the jihadists in Syria are dead. So the very short term.) How many new domestic terrorist events does that precipitate, vs. how many does it prevent?
What if, at the same time, we offer free travel for any would-be jihadists who wish to go fight us in Syria? These aren't exactly brilliant strategic thinkers; if we ask nicely, they might just line up politely to be incinerated...
And honestly, on some level, it just seems... right. We have the largest military the planet has ever seen. ISIS is the most evil force the world has seen in decades, and they are literally asking us to come fight them. For decades we've invaded places for business interests, or revenge, or in the name of ideologies that we don't even hold half the time. Can we use our amazing powers to do violence just because, for once, it's the right thing to do?
We're seeing a new kind of terrorist. This wasn't an attack by foreign-born people who come here with a plan. By all appearances, this was an American who decided, on his own and without direction, to kill other Americans. Chattanooga, San Bernadio, Wichita, and Garland were all very comparable. Even the Paris attacks were primarily perpetrated by citizens of France and Brussels.
How do you stop an American citizen who, on his own, decides one day that God wants him to kill as many people as possible?
You can't stop the person from being here; he's a citizen with all the rights I have. Should we strip all Muslims of their civil rights? Put them in internment camps? Burn the first amendment?
You can't eliminate other grievances; many times there are none. We're dealing with people who have lived in rich countries their entire lives. They're not angry about American involvement in the middle east, or support of Israel. They want to kill Americans because they think God wants them to. We're dealing with a small fraction of Muslims, but it's still fundamentally a religious issue.
You can't stop Muslims from being exposed to radical ideas; free speech is impossible to contain even if you're trying. Do we try anyway? Pull down radical videos as soon as we find them? Have a new department of censorship? Once again burn the first amendment?
You can't disincentivize; they expect to die and go to heaven, and bring all their loved ones with them. Paradise beats any possible carrot or stick.
You can't prevent access to deadly weapons; guns are too widespread to practically eliminate, and trying would cause a civil war. If we waved a magic wand to eliminate all guns in the US, we would get less-lethal terror attacks, but I'm not sure the big-picture result would be better. You can do just as much damage with bombs, as we've seen from Christian domestic terrorists in the past.
One of the hardest security problems imaginable is an attacker who will trade his life for the target. How do you stop that when everyone is the target?
So far I have two possible solutions, and I don't like either of them.
1) Harden every target. Hire gigantic numbers of trained armed guards. I'm not sure how much that would actually help anything, but presume it does. We're talking about a million restaurants, 350,000 churches, 50,000 bars and nightclubs, 20,000 theaters, 100,000 libraries, 130,000 schools, and an uncountable number of shopping centers. Not to mention several million businesses. Call it ten million locations, each needing on average one full-time guard. If the guard makes a living wage, that's $300 billion a year just in wages, not to mention the high cost of continuing training. That would make it one of the largest areas of government expenditure. And all that assumes that the armed guards actually accomplish anything, which is far from certain.
Alternately, change our society so that a sizable fraction of the populace starts to carry a gun, all the time. Roughly a third of the US owns guns, and there are roughly 500 accidental deaths due to firearms. Supposing we triple the number of homes with guns in the US, we could reasonably expect an additional 1000 accidental deaths per year due to firearms, plus an indeterminate number of additional homicides and suicides. Supposing we just use the round 1000 additional deaths a year, to make this proposal effective we would have to prevent at least 1000 terrorist murders every year. We are nowhere near that number.
2) Prove the jihadists wrong. Self-radicalization happens when a Muslim becomes convinced they're living in the end times. But this didn't happen until recently. What has changed? The existence of ISIS, and a credible caliphate. Destroy that caliphate, prove that this is not the end of times, and self-radicalization should drop dramatically.
Obviously I'm reluctant to push this as a solution. Our invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, as was our bombing of Libya. But those were disasters for specific reasons, chief among them that we had no plan to successfully pacify the country afterward, leading to a complete lack of order. For many Iraqis things got worse after the invasion, and that spiraled into further destabilization, leading directly to ISIS in the first place. Libya outright refused foreign intervention past the bombing, apparently preferring their hellhole to foreign soldiers. Because we acted without a full plan, things got worse.
Now consider, for those living under ISIS, is it even possible for things to get worse?
There are other concerns, of course. If we go to total war on ISIS, in the short term we make their prophecies look more accurate. (You know, before all the jihadists in Syria are dead. So the very short term.) How many new domestic terrorist events does that precipitate, vs. how many does it prevent?
What if, at the same time, we offer free travel for any would-be jihadists who wish to go fight us in Syria? These aren't exactly brilliant strategic thinkers; if we ask nicely, they might just line up politely to be incinerated...
And honestly, on some level, it just seems... right. We have the largest military the planet has ever seen. ISIS is the most evil force the world has seen in decades, and they are literally asking us to come fight them. For decades we've invaded places for business interests, or revenge, or in the name of ideologies that we don't even hold half the time. Can we use our amazing powers to do violence just because, for once, it's the right thing to do?
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Mystery Escape Room @ Salt Lake City: Mystery Impossible
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at Mystery Escape Room in Salt Lake City.
This game is located downtown in the Rio Grande mall. This is one of the nicer malls I've seen, an open air, design with (when I went) good parking. There's plenty of food and other distractions around before and after your game. That may not seem like much, but it can be a lot of fun to have somewhere to go with your group and decompress afterwards.
One thing about Mystery Escape Room that surprised me is how often they rotate games. They run something like five rooms at a time, but they've had over a dozen rooms since opening a year ago. Some rooms are only open less than six weeks! I can't say I understand how that level of regular refurb is cost-effective, but it must be! They often run beta weeks, where you can test new rooms at half price, which is a neat concept.
I decided to do their newest and hardest room, Mystery Impossible. Just out of beta, less than a dozen groups had run the room, and nobody had escaped. Fine, I said. I'd done eight other rooms, escaped from seven, and escaped two alone. They promised a free game to any group that escaped, and I was sure looking forward to that second game.
I thought I was good at these things...
This game is located downtown in the Rio Grande mall. This is one of the nicer malls I've seen, an open air, design with (when I went) good parking. There's plenty of food and other distractions around before and after your game. That may not seem like much, but it can be a lot of fun to have somewhere to go with your group and decompress afterwards.
One thing about Mystery Escape Room that surprised me is how often they rotate games. They run something like five rooms at a time, but they've had over a dozen rooms since opening a year ago. Some rooms are only open less than six weeks! I can't say I understand how that level of regular refurb is cost-effective, but it must be! They often run beta weeks, where you can test new rooms at half price, which is a neat concept.
I decided to do their newest and hardest room, Mystery Impossible. Just out of beta, less than a dozen groups had run the room, and nobody had escaped. Fine, I said. I'd done eight other rooms, escaped from seven, and escaped two alone. They promised a free game to any group that escaped, and I was sure looking forward to that second game.
I thought I was good at these things...
Mystery Impossible is well named. When they say hard, they mean it. I ran this room with five other people, one of which had done even more rooms than I had. And we still only made it through half the room before time ran out. We didn't even spend much time stuck on things, either, at least not by my usual standards!
The game masters said one previous group had gotten 70%, but that even knowing the solutions to everything, it still takes 35 minutes to execute it all. That's 25 minutes to solve all the puzzles, when there are probably twice as many as any other room I've seen, and all of them are twice as time-consuming, even once you figure out how to solve them!
I'm told there are groups that travel the country doing escape rooms. Maybe they could pull off a room like this. But I feel comfortable saying that mere mortals are never going to get out of this room. Unless you're a professional-level escaper, or just want to see a cool room and don't care about getting out, I'd recommend trying one of their easier rooms.
The difficulty level was frustrating. But I really can't complain about that, because they do label it and give the escape statistics. I knew what I was getting into, and now I have a 7/9 record. I think we could have done better if we'd been well organized. Perhaps if we'd had a leader, or something, we could have knocked a few minutes off. But I still don't think we'd have gotten out, no matter how efficient we were. We just weren't that caliber of players.
The game masters said one previous group had gotten 70%, but that even knowing the solutions to everything, it still takes 35 minutes to execute it all. That's 25 minutes to solve all the puzzles, when there are probably twice as many as any other room I've seen, and all of them are twice as time-consuming, even once you figure out how to solve them!
I'm told there are groups that travel the country doing escape rooms. Maybe they could pull off a room like this. But I feel comfortable saying that mere mortals are never going to get out of this room. Unless you're a professional-level escaper, or just want to see a cool room and don't care about getting out, I'd recommend trying one of their easier rooms.
The difficulty level was frustrating. But I really can't complain about that, because they do label it and give the escape statistics. I knew what I was getting into, and now I have a 7/9 record. I think we could have done better if we'd been well organized. Perhaps if we'd had a leader, or something, we could have knocked a few minutes off. But I still don't think we'd have gotten out, no matter how efficient we were. We just weren't that caliber of players.
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Nothing I say will help you solve anything. Shoot, I don't even know the solutions to most of this room! But I will tell you some details that are obvious to you as soon as the room starts. If you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
The plot of this game requires you to break into a bank vault. This room has some of the best production values I've seen; it feels exactly right for what they're going for. Unlike any other room I've seen, they actually give you a bag of tools to start with, which alone is perfect for this story. Some of the ideas involved are sheer brilliance. You're given an instamatic camera, lamination film, paper, and an ink pad. With this, you have to create a fake ID, in the room. Pretty sharp.
Another detail is that, like any bank, there's an alarm that can go off and summon the police. Set it off, and you have limited time to figure out how to disarm it. Don't disarm it in time? Game over, no matter how much time is left on the master clock. Great touch.
Now, the puzzles. Some puzzles just have to be explained by the game master; I have trouble imagining anyone would think to do them properly otherwise. There are some math puzzles the likes of which I've never seen, and I've seen a lot of math puzzles. There are some that, even if you've seen them and know how to do them, take some significant time to execute. And this is the first room where I've seen a really time-consuming red herring, at least one the game master doesn't tell you about. (Believe me, I asked.)
This room is extremely, extremely hard. I don't think I could escape now on a second try, even with the head start I have! But ignoring that, it's a fantastically well-done room, and a lot of fun.
Rating: 10/10 (if you don't mind losing)
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Escape the Room Boston: The Dig
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at Escape the Room Boston.
First, finding this place was a nightmare, as was finding parking. Downtown locations are always a bit of a pain, but this was worse than most. I've heard many bad things about Boston traffic flow, and now I think they're all true! I'd highly recommend parking elsewhere and taking an Uber to the location. The building wasn't well marked when I was there in Fall '15, either. Be sure you read their directions on how to get in.
I was originally expecting to do this room with just myself an engineer coworker. Then eight local music students showed up! It certainly made for an interesting mix, but everything worked really well. We made it out with about ten minutes left on the clock. The staff at this location were perhaps less enthusiastic than some I've seen, but I had no complaints, by any means.
Really, there's almost nothing I can say that isn't good. At one point we found an unlocked box, only for the game master to come into the room and tell us to ignore it until we found the key. Apparently they failed to reset the room properly! That's not fantastic, but things happen. I'm surprised I don't see incomplete resets more often, honestly, given the details involved. Other than that I have no suggestions for improvement or feedback. This is just an excellent room, and I recommend it to anyone.
First, finding this place was a nightmare, as was finding parking. Downtown locations are always a bit of a pain, but this was worse than most. I've heard many bad things about Boston traffic flow, and now I think they're all true! I'd highly recommend parking elsewhere and taking an Uber to the location. The building wasn't well marked when I was there in Fall '15, either. Be sure you read their directions on how to get in.
I was originally expecting to do this room with just myself an engineer coworker. Then eight local music students showed up! It certainly made for an interesting mix, but everything worked really well. We made it out with about ten minutes left on the clock. The staff at this location were perhaps less enthusiastic than some I've seen, but I had no complaints, by any means.
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Nothing I say will help you solve anything, but it will tell you some vague details that aren't obvious when you first walk in. If you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
This game has the plot of an archaeological dig, but you start in a church setting. It's pretty obvious from the start that there's more to the room than you see, but the depths may surprise you. The lights are dim, and the room has several battery-operated candles in it. This is an excellent touch, really adds to the feel of the place; you have to actually pick up the candles and hold them to things to be able to see them!
As I write this I have done nine rooms with six companies across the country. Almost everything in this room is unique in my experience; nothing about it feels overdone or repetitive. The production quality is as good as any room I've seen, and the attention to detail is excellent. Additionally, this is one of the few rooms I've seen where running it with the maximum number of people isn't likely to be a nightmare. I often feel like running with a smaller group works better, just because of space constraints, but I didn't this time.
This game has the plot of an archaeological dig, but you start in a church setting. It's pretty obvious from the start that there's more to the room than you see, but the depths may surprise you. The lights are dim, and the room has several battery-operated candles in it. This is an excellent touch, really adds to the feel of the place; you have to actually pick up the candles and hold them to things to be able to see them!
As I write this I have done nine rooms with six companies across the country. Almost everything in this room is unique in my experience; nothing about it feels overdone or repetitive. The production quality is as good as any room I've seen, and the attention to detail is excellent. Additionally, this is one of the few rooms I've seen where running it with the maximum number of people isn't likely to be a nightmare. I often feel like running with a smaller group works better, just because of space constraints, but I didn't this time.
Really, there's almost nothing I can say that isn't good. At one point we found an unlocked box, only for the game master to come into the room and tell us to ignore it until we found the key. Apparently they failed to reset the room properly! That's not fantastic, but things happen. I'm surprised I don't see incomplete resets more often, honestly, given the details involved. Other than that I have no suggestions for improvement or feedback. This is just an excellent room, and I recommend it to anyone.
Rating: 10/10
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Breakout Nashville: Kidnapped
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at Breakout Nashville.
Breakout Nashville is actually in Franklin, miles away from Nashville proper. Details, details. (Also not a problem for Beat the Clock Nashville, less than two minutes away.) There's on-site parking, even if it is a little tight. The game master (Brian in my case) was a little more enthusiastic than some; most I've seen really enjoy their work, but in this case, I felt like we were dealing with someone who really loved the concept and all its variations. That really enhanced the experience.
I played Kidnapped with my wife and dad. We made it out with thirteen minutes to spare.
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Everything I say is either something you're told before starting, or something common to many escape rooms. But if you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
From even before the room starts, you may be a little freaked out; before you go in, you're blindfolded, then led into a dark room, handcuffed, and left there! They warn you about this before booking, and a lot of people won't even consider doing a room like that. But let me emphasize, it's okay. You have one arm handcuffed to the scenery by a chain, and the other arm is free. The chain is attached to the scenery by a magnet, so you can still get out at any time just by pulling loose. You are no more "trapped" than you are in any other room.
And let me say, this is a brilliant design choice! Not even seeing the room during the intro makes this room work twice as well as it would otherwise. The blindfolds and handcuffs are really an integral part of the fun. If that part scares you, don't let it.
The plot is pretty standard: you have an hour to get away from the psycho, or you never get out. A previous victim left clues. (Don't think to hard about that part.) The game master plays the part of the kidnapper, giving occasional clues in a creepy voice. Also a great atmospheric choice. The room is very well designed, and could believably be in someone creep's basement.
Overall, I very much enjoyed this game at Breakout Nashville, and I look forward to my next trip!
Rating: 10/10
Breakout Nashville is actually in Franklin, miles away from Nashville proper. Details, details. (Also not a problem for Beat the Clock Nashville, less than two minutes away.) There's on-site parking, even if it is a little tight. The game master (Brian in my case) was a little more enthusiastic than some; most I've seen really enjoy their work, but in this case, I felt like we were dealing with someone who really loved the concept and all its variations. That really enhanced the experience.
I played Kidnapped with my wife and dad. We made it out with thirteen minutes to spare.
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Everything I say is either something you're told before starting, or something common to many escape rooms. But if you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
From even before the room starts, you may be a little freaked out; before you go in, you're blindfolded, then led into a dark room, handcuffed, and left there! They warn you about this before booking, and a lot of people won't even consider doing a room like that. But let me emphasize, it's okay. You have one arm handcuffed to the scenery by a chain, and the other arm is free. The chain is attached to the scenery by a magnet, so you can still get out at any time just by pulling loose. You are no more "trapped" than you are in any other room.
And let me say, this is a brilliant design choice! Not even seeing the room during the intro makes this room work twice as well as it would otherwise. The blindfolds and handcuffs are really an integral part of the fun. If that part scares you, don't let it.
The plot is pretty standard: you have an hour to get away from the psycho, or you never get out. A previous victim left clues. (Don't think to hard about that part.) The game master plays the part of the kidnapper, giving occasional clues in a creepy voice. Also a great atmospheric choice. The room is very well designed, and could believably be in someone creep's basement.
Most of the elements seemed fresh and unique. Involving the staff in the games always improves the atmosphere. I have very few suggestions for improvement. The only thing that really broke the flow was one safe that had a lock-out time on it; enter three wrong codes, and you have to wait five minutes to try again. To avoid you locking yourself out and wasting time, the game master will tell you when you have the right code before you enter it. If that wasn't necessary, it would improve the immersion.
Overall, I very much enjoyed this game at Breakout Nashville, and I look forward to my next trip!
Rating: 10/10
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Nashville Escape Game: Gold Rush
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at Nashville Escape Game playing Gold Rush.
This was my fourth room at Nashville Escape Game, and my first at the Third Avenue location. The location is very well marked. I really like the big lock sign! You either know what it is and that it's awesome, or you don't know and you say "What's that?" Parking is a pain downtown, no matter where you are, but there's a garage not far away. Honestly, with the price of parking, I think I'd just park somewhere further out and take an Uber next time!
I did this room with my wife, my dad, and three tourists from LA. I don't often end up doing rooms with strangers, so I was a little apprehensive, but this one worked out nicely. We ended up making it out, with several minutes left on the clock.
This was my fourth room at Nashville Escape Game, and my first at the Third Avenue location. The location is very well marked. I really like the big lock sign! You either know what it is and that it's awesome, or you don't know and you say "What's that?" Parking is a pain downtown, no matter where you are, but there's a garage not far away. Honestly, with the price of parking, I think I'd just park somewhere further out and take an Uber next time!
I did this room with my wife, my dad, and three tourists from LA. I don't often end up doing rooms with strangers, so I was a little apprehensive, but this one worked out nicely. We ended up making it out, with several minutes left on the clock.
At this point I've done four rooms with Nashville Escape Game, and four with other companies around the country. Invariably, NEG does by far the best job with scenery, depth, and immersion. I suspect they spent more money on their rooms than other places, and it shows in the quality of the gameplay. Not that the other game rooms are bad! You can do a perfectly good room on a lower budget. Money's not everything, but in some areas, it really helps!
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Nothing I say will help you solve anything, but it will tell you some vague details that aren't obvious when you first walk in. If you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
NEG does their usual job of setting up the backstory in a well-made, concise video. The gamemaster tells you immediately that a couple things in the room are not to be touched or are irrelevant, but from that point, almost everything else matters.
From minute one, I have no complaints about this room. Zero. The atmosphere is perfect, the decor is extremely well done, the reveals are unexpected, and the puzzles are both unique and fit perfectly with the theme. At best, I have some minor observations.
There is one puzzle near the end that I'm not sure most groups would solve. We had an engineer and an actuary, both of whom do math puzzles for fun. It still took us a couple minutes to solve, even once we were told how to do it, which itself was completely not obvious. Perhaps I underestimate the average Joe, but I genuinely wonder how often people get stuck on that one...
Also, do not nail the nails in! You'll know what I mean when you get there. The game master had to stop the clock and come in to help us, which is never what you want.
Oh, and at one point something went off prematurely... I think it may have been manually triggered from outside the room, and designed that way. But I really wanted to push that detonator, consarnit!
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Nothing I say will help you solve anything, but it will tell you some vague details that aren't obvious when you first walk in. If you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
NEG does their usual job of setting up the backstory in a well-made, concise video. The gamemaster tells you immediately that a couple things in the room are not to be touched or are irrelevant, but from that point, almost everything else matters.
From minute one, I have no complaints about this room. Zero. The atmosphere is perfect, the decor is extremely well done, the reveals are unexpected, and the puzzles are both unique and fit perfectly with the theme. At best, I have some minor observations.
There is one puzzle near the end that I'm not sure most groups would solve. We had an engineer and an actuary, both of whom do math puzzles for fun. It still took us a couple minutes to solve, even once we were told how to do it, which itself was completely not obvious. Perhaps I underestimate the average Joe, but I genuinely wonder how often people get stuck on that one...
Also, do not nail the nails in! You'll know what I mean when you get there. The game master had to stop the clock and come in to help us, which is never what you want.
Oh, and at one point something went off prematurely... I think it may have been manually triggered from outside the room, and designed that way. But I really wanted to push that detonator, consarnit!
Ultimately, I loved this room. It had a great mix of puzzles, and didn't use any of the usual tropes. Whoever did this room did it right.
Rating: 10/10
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Escape Chambers @ Milwaukee: Containment
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at Escape Chambers in Milwaukee.
First, Escape Chambers. This is the only escape room I've seen that's actually in a mall. If you're walking down the street and don't realize a mall's there, it can be a little surprising. But it works! Like most downtown locations, parking is a pain, but at least the mall has dedicated garages. It's not the nicest mall I've ever seen, but it's not the worst. (I'd stay out of the bathrooms if possible, though.) And having a food court immediately available before and after is pretty cool.
Like everywhere I've been, the people here are professional and fun. They seem to really enjoy what they do, and hearing about other rooms. The overall escape rate for the facility is about 20%, but they didn't have it broken down by room. I did their Containment room, and ended up being the only one in my booking. They said that in the year they'd been open, nobody had ever tried a room alone; I escaped the room with about five minutes left, which is apparently a better time than many groups!
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Everything I say is either something you're told before starting, or something common to many escape rooms. But if you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
Like everywhere I've been, the people here are professional and fun. They seem to really enjoy what they do, and hearing about other rooms. The overall escape rate for the facility is about 20%, but they didn't have it broken down by room. I did their Containment room, and ended up being the only one in my booking. They said that in the year they'd been open, nobody had ever tried a room alone; I escaped the room with about five minutes left, which is apparently a better time than many groups!
While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Everything I say is either something you're told before starting, or something common to many escape rooms. But if you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
The backstory is straightforward: you have an hour to find 40 vials of blood and three other widgets, or civilization is destroyed by a virus. Good luck, we're all counting on you! No really, all of us.
This game was more primitive than most I've seen. There is no clue screen, almost all the locks are mechanical, and the audio feed is a baby monitor! Those weren't really a problem for me, though there were areas that the baby monitor didn't pick up well enough to be heard by the game master. It's nice to see that a good escape room can be done without the gadgets if you want to.
This game had the best system of hints I've seen in any room so far. You're playing the part of a scientist in a locked-down lab. The game master is actually playing the part of a lab assistant trapped in another room! You can chat back and forth constantly, and she gives hints about whatever you need, including if she thinks you missed something earlier. It's a great system, and really added to the fun.
There were some glitches in the puzzles here and there, which I might not have been able to solve without hints. Two puzzles depended on matching photographs to items in the room. But the photographs didn't look at all like the items they were supposed to represent! One had faded badly and made the colors indistinguishable, and another simply had never been right. It was a little frustrating to have to basically ask for the solution because the needed information just wasn't there. Hopefully they'll fix that with some new photographs! I like things that are easy to fix! Also, one puzzle towards the very end was just kind of silly; I arranged some items properly, but I don't think anyone would reasonably think to get a combination from them the way I was finally instructed to.
Another issue I had was with the construction: the walls didn't go all the way to the ceiling, and I could hear other groups clearly discussing their rooms! That didn't cause me any problems, but it could have been a significant distraction. Having a ceiling on your escape room would improve the immersive feel.
Other unique aspects: this room was really full of things to go through, which I liked. It actually contained lots of irrelevant data and gear, just like a lab should. The assistant often told you when you were on the wrong track, which makes that kind of thing perfectly fine. I can't say enough how great that assistant is! If you and the world survive, give her a raise.
This game was more primitive than most I've seen. There is no clue screen, almost all the locks are mechanical, and the audio feed is a baby monitor! Those weren't really a problem for me, though there were areas that the baby monitor didn't pick up well enough to be heard by the game master. It's nice to see that a good escape room can be done without the gadgets if you want to.
This game had the best system of hints I've seen in any room so far. You're playing the part of a scientist in a locked-down lab. The game master is actually playing the part of a lab assistant trapped in another room! You can chat back and forth constantly, and she gives hints about whatever you need, including if she thinks you missed something earlier. It's a great system, and really added to the fun.
There were some glitches in the puzzles here and there, which I might not have been able to solve without hints. Two puzzles depended on matching photographs to items in the room. But the photographs didn't look at all like the items they were supposed to represent! One had faded badly and made the colors indistinguishable, and another simply had never been right. It was a little frustrating to have to basically ask for the solution because the needed information just wasn't there. Hopefully they'll fix that with some new photographs! I like things that are easy to fix! Also, one puzzle towards the very end was just kind of silly; I arranged some items properly, but I don't think anyone would reasonably think to get a combination from them the way I was finally instructed to.
Another issue I had was with the construction: the walls didn't go all the way to the ceiling, and I could hear other groups clearly discussing their rooms! That didn't cause me any problems, but it could have been a significant distraction. Having a ceiling on your escape room would improve the immersive feel.
Other unique aspects: this room was really full of things to go through, which I liked. It actually contained lots of irrelevant data and gear, just like a lab should. The assistant often told you when you were on the wrong track, which makes that kind of thing perfectly fine. I can't say enough how great that assistant is! If you and the world survive, give her a raise.
Ultimately, I had a very good time. The staff was helpful, the room had some unique puzzles, and the little details helped make the atmosphere more immersive. The minor glitches were really very small in the overall picture. I sometimes think that rooms are better with minimal groups, but I think this is one room that would actually benefit from more people. I would definitely recommend this room, and I would go back to Escape Chambers for another.
Rating: 8/10
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
The Escape Key @ Salt Lake City: CSI:SLC
This is my spoiler-free review of my experience at The Escape Key in Salt Lake City.
First, The Escape Key. The location is relatively easy to find, and parking is good. Like all the escape rooms I've been to, the people here are professional and fun. My dinner beforehand was slow getting to me, and I rushed to eat it, so I arrived at Escape Key with shawarma all over my pants, and possibly not in the best of moods, but they quickly put me at ease.
One great thing to note about Escape Key is that their prices are about $20 per person, instead of the usual $30. That makes me much more likely to make it a casual outing. They're also unique in having a wall for people to write on after the game. Apparently the place is popular, because the walls were completely full. ("Stephen is a beast" is now somewhere on the ceiling.) And there's a house Chihuahua, which is just funny. They have three rooms presently, with Lair of Lunacy having a 50-60% escape rate, CSI:SLC at around 20%, and Impossible at around 15%.
I did their CSI:SLC room. I ended up being the only one in my booking, and I escaped the room with 23 seconds left. This was my eighth escape room, making my record 7/8. While I will not give any hints to solving puzzles, I will be describing some minor details about the room. Everything I say is either something you're told before starting, or something common to many escape rooms. But if you wish to remain utterly surprised by everything, stop here.
The backstory video is extensive. In short, you have to solve the murder of an undercover officer by finding clues left in the room where he was playing poker with five underworld figures. One of the five is the mysterious Vendetta. (And all I can think of is Sideshow Bob...) Your briefing is interrupted by a message from Vendetta, telling you that he's trapped you in the room. You have an hour to find the six-digit code to the panel next to the door, or the room explodes.
One unique aspect of this room that I really enjoyed: you get one shot at the code. Once you unlock the panel, you have sixty seconds to enter a code. If you don't, or if you get the code wrong, game over, you lose. I've seen locks that only let you enter limited codes in a set time, but I've not seen another room that you can lose prematurely. A very nice touch.
Another unique aspect of the room is that it's a crime scene. They tell you going in, don't move things around too much, and they mean it. You could easily make the room impossible to solve if you don't take that seriously. And unlike most rooms, there are meaningless details in this one! Almost every room I've done subscribes to Chekov's Gun. This one doesn't. And that's okay! It's arguably more fun this way, having to figure out what matters and what doesn't.
There were a few minor glitches. At one point I accidentally unplugged the clue TV! Oops! I'm not sure how you'd make that more difficult, but it did seem surprisingly easy. Apparently it happens once a day! They fixed it, of course, and knocking it out is as much my fault as theirs. There were a couple chains hanging down from the TV mount that seemed relevant at one point but turned out not to be; most irrelevancies were marked, but those weren't.
The room had some of the standard tropes, including a UV light. Unlike any other room I've seen, though, this room had a window to the outside, which was completely unrelated to the puzzles. You're told to just pretend it's not there. But the UV lights work best in almost complete darkness. I think the room might have been a bit more fun if the sunlight around the edges (and the red flashing light) hadn't interfered with the UV so much.
Another trope is the audio recorder. Unfortunately, most of the message was completely unintelligible. You're able to get what you need, if you know what to look for, but don't waste time trying to understand the rest.
The room was also impossible to solve by one person, just because of some distances involved. The game masters realized this when I got to that point and helped me out, but be aware that you'll need them if you plan on doing this room alone. The max for this room was specified as six people, though, which I think might be a nightmare of stepping on each other. You'll also need some help from the staff if you don't bring a smartphone, which is another thing I've never seen before in a room.
One thing that could really be improved is the specificity of the clues. I was often given clues to things I'd already solved, even when I said I'd solved them and was specifically asking for help with another part of the game. That was moderately frustrating. Not to be overly critical; I wouldn't have made it out without those clues, and I really appreciate the help!
One thing that could really be improved is the specificity of the clues. I was often given clues to things I'd already solved, even when I said I'd solved them and was specifically asking for help with another part of the game. That was moderately frustrating. Not to be overly critical; I wouldn't have made it out without those clues, and I really appreciate the help!
Ultimately, I had a good time. The staff was nice, the room had some unique puzzles, and the little details helped make the atmosphere more immersive. If they fixed some of the small glitches, it would be even better. Even then, though, this will never be a great room. Even if it's executed perfectly, the fundamental room structure and concept is always going to be just okay.
Now, an okay escape room is still one of the most fun things around! If you want a good time, it can definitely be had here! But for me, I'm trying to have the most and best room escape experiences possible. The next night I decided to do another room, and rather than come back here, I took a chance on curtain number two. Escape Key isn't bad, by any means, but it's not fantastic enough to keep my from trying anywhere else.
Now, an okay escape room is still one of the most fun things around! If you want a good time, it can definitely be had here! But for me, I'm trying to have the most and best room escape experiences possible. The next night I decided to do another room, and rather than come back here, I took a chance on curtain number two. Escape Key isn't bad, by any means, but it's not fantastic enough to keep my from trying anywhere else.
Rating: 7/10
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Properties of God
God is not directly observable, in the scientific sense. Therefore, one of the following is true. In no particular order:
When we ask the questions "Why did God create?" or "Why does God allow suffering?" we are implicitly assuming that God's motives are not inscrutable. But by elimination, that implies that God has a desired end, and that that desired end is not not consistent with the states of reality we are supposing. In short, the kind of God we can ask such questions about can't have everything He wants at once. God allows you to continue existing because that's better for his ends, whatever they may be.
So then it is reasonable to ask, what is God's end goal? Again, we can narrow this down. If God is not constrained by physics, His goal must be unrelated to the physical state of the universe. His goals must, therefore, be spiritual, where we define spiritual to mean "unconstrained by time and observed physical reality". We are positing the existence of a spiritual reality separate from the realm we occupy, and that both God and his goals are part of this spiritual realm.
If God's goals are spiritual, either God is the exclusive target of his own goals, or there are other aspects to spiritual reality besides God. Either way, we conclude that our physical existence must have some capacity to affect a spiritual realm. The very question "why does God allow suffering" implies that our actions and experiences have eternal impact, and that God is manipulating that eternal impact in some desired fashion. You're suffering because God needs you to.
Now, supposing God's goals are spiritual, we can divide their possibilities. Either God's goals involve us, or they do not. If they involve us, there is a spiritual us to be involved, a soul. What goals could God have concerning a soul? What states could an eternal soul have, that God might wish to alter? Existence or nonexistence, communion or separation? Those are concepts we can somewhat grasp, but there are doubtless concepts that we cannot. Here we are unable to even properly speculate.
- God does not exist locally.
- God never existed. Athiesm.
- God existed at some unobservable point in time, but not at this point. Mortal god.
- God exists at some unobservable point in space, but not at this point. Spatially-constrained god.
- God exists and cannot choose to be observable. Limited power over physical reality.
- God exists and does not choose to be observable.
- God is not aware of the possibility of becoming observable. Limited imagination or knowledge.
- God actively chooses to not be observable
- God desires to be unobservable with no further end. Inscrutable God.
- God desires to be unobservable to achieve some other end. Limited in means achieve desired ends.
- The reader is, in some sense, God. Pantheism.
- The reader is not in any way God.
- God can not prevent the reader from existing. Limited power over physical reality.
- God does not choose to prevent the reader from existing.
- God is not aware of the possibility of destroying the reader. Limited imagination or knowledge.
- God actively chooses to allow the reader to exist.
- God desires the reader to exist with no further end. Inscrutable God.
- God desires the reader to exist to achieve some other end. Limited in means achieve desired ends.
When we ask the questions "Why did God create?" or "Why does God allow suffering?" we are implicitly assuming that God's motives are not inscrutable. But by elimination, that implies that God has a desired end, and that that desired end is not not consistent with the states of reality we are supposing. In short, the kind of God we can ask such questions about can't have everything He wants at once. God allows you to continue existing because that's better for his ends, whatever they may be.
So then it is reasonable to ask, what is God's end goal? Again, we can narrow this down. If God is not constrained by physics, His goal must be unrelated to the physical state of the universe. His goals must, therefore, be spiritual, where we define spiritual to mean "unconstrained by time and observed physical reality". We are positing the existence of a spiritual reality separate from the realm we occupy, and that both God and his goals are part of this spiritual realm.
If God's goals are spiritual, either God is the exclusive target of his own goals, or there are other aspects to spiritual reality besides God. Either way, we conclude that our physical existence must have some capacity to affect a spiritual realm. The very question "why does God allow suffering" implies that our actions and experiences have eternal impact, and that God is manipulating that eternal impact in some desired fashion. You're suffering because God needs you to.
Now, supposing God's goals are spiritual, we can divide their possibilities. Either God's goals involve us, or they do not. If they involve us, there is a spiritual us to be involved, a soul. What goals could God have concerning a soul? What states could an eternal soul have, that God might wish to alter? Existence or nonexistence, communion or separation? Those are concepts we can somewhat grasp, but there are doubtless concepts that we cannot. Here we are unable to even properly speculate.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Preventing primary disasters
Forget who the candidates are for a moment. Everything that can be said about them has been said. (Some things bear repeating, but I'll leave that to others.) I'd like to focus on how we got to where we are, and how we can avoid such messes in the future.
Right now the leading Republican candidate has 48% of the delegates and 37% of the votes. At this point, no matter who wins, the party nominee will be someone that two thirds of Republicans voted against.
This is bad policy from every possible perspective. On the level of principles, it's just undemocratic. On a strategic level, it depresses voter turnout in the general, because most Republican voters will feel robbed. Justifiably so!
This has nothing to do with who the candidates are; we could see the same outcome with an entirely different set of candidates. It has everything to do with the systems the state parties have put in place.
There are two problems that need to be addressed. First, how delegates are allocated.
Ohio and Florida are absolutely crucial in the general election. The Republican party winning the White House is largely contingent on voter turnout in these two states. But both primaries are winner-take-all, and in both, the state was won by someone with less than half the votes. Over half of Republican voters in Ohio and Florida have been stripped of any voice in selecting their nominee. In South Carolina, that number is closer to two thirds.
Pretend you're one of the voters whose vote was thrown out by this system. Are you more likely to show up in November? Or less?
States using semi-proportional systems also contribute to the problem. In Alabama, a candidate with 21% of the vote got 13 delegates; a candidate with 19% of the vote got one delegate. In what universe is this giving each voter anything like equal weight? Winner-take-all is a huge problem, but winner-take-more isn't the solution.
The state parties should all adopt straight proportional allocation of delegates. This would at least minimize the disparity between popular vote and delegate count, and give all Republican voters an equal voice.
But this doesn't solve the more fundamental problem: a candidate with a third of the vote would still be winning. The reason for this comes down to two words every candidacy dreads: vote splitting.
The way we cast votes in this country breaks if there are more than two candidates. We all know how this works: where one candidate running alone might win easily, if there's a similar candidate on the ballot, they split votes between them, and the least popular candidate ends up winning. That's why we have exactly two major parties, both of whom dread a strong third-party run. That's how HW Bush lost to Clinton, and how W Bush won over Gore. And that's why there have been constant calls during this primary season for candidates to drop out early.
If there are more than two candidates, everything goes to hell.
This is directly caused by the way we cast votes. There are two or three or ten candidates on the ballot; you vote for one, and by extension, against all the others. This system is sometimes called plurality voting, or first-past-the-post voting. I like to call it by a more direct name: pick-one voting. Sure, there are other methods of voting. But this is America, and that's just how we do things here, right?
Well, no.
Pick-one voting is nowhere in the US Constitution. It's nowhere in any state constitution or law I've ever seen. None of our founders ever sat down and wrote, "Out of all the possible voting systems, pick-one is best, and here's why." Nobody decided to use pick-one voting. We vote this way because we always have. Because of it, we end up selecting a standard-bearer who commands a solid minority base, but who the majority can not support.
This is no way to run any organization. But the state parties can fix it.
There are many other voting systems out there. A few cities use instant-runoff. Others will extol the virtues of the Condorcet methods, or range voting, and they have valid points. But for real-world elections, the best system by a mile is approval voting, because it's simplest to understand, and trivial to implement. No money need be spent; it requires no new voting machines, because all machines already support it. Votes can be counted exactly as they are now. It's even simpler than pick-one, hard as that may be to imagine!
The only difference with approval voting is that the voter now marks every candidate they approve of. Your vote is now a "yes" or a "no" to every candidate, instead of being forced to vote "no" on all but one. Want to cast a vote for "anybody but him/her"? You can do that! Want to vote for a non-establishment candidate, but you don't care which one? Not a problem! And since every voter gets to vote "yes" or "no" on every candidate, every voter still gets an equal voice.
This primary season has been a disaster for the Republican party. No matter who wins, the party is more divided than at any time in living memory. Think how this primary election would have gone under approval voting. We could have started with the same candidates, but instead of ending up with three that represent three disparate wings of the party, we would have ended up with one who the whole party could support.
I have no idea at all who that would have been. But this I know with all certainty: the Republican party would have come out stronger and more unified.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Working for a living
Let us assume most people have a goal of not dying. People will take whatever steps they deem necessary to accomplish this goal.
People need certain things to survive: food, water, shelter, clothing, energy, medical care. They also need secondary things that help us get their primary needs: education, transport, communication. Lots of thing-needing going on.
We live in at a pretty nice point in history. The things people need to survive exist in the world! This is much better than the alternative, where we have to actually create what we need. (Admittedly some people still do that, but they're outside the scope of this article.) Since our survival needs are owned by someone, survival is simply a question of effecting the transfer of these things. There are three basic ways of doing this:
1) Steal. Someone gives you what you need involuntarily. This could be burglary, fraud, looting, war, or other forms of theft.
2) Trade. Someone gives you what you need voluntarily, in exchange for something else they want. This includes shopping, barter, and labor.
3) Gift. Someone gives you what you need voluntarily, with nothing in exchange. This includes charity and government welfare, though government welfare includes some involuntary aspects.
All people do some combination of these three things to achieve continued survival.
First, we want to avoid theft, if nothing else because it's destabilizing to society. If theft is endemic, it forces everyone who isn't stealing to spend additional resources on security, which are resources spent not making the world better. We try to dis-incentivize theft through punishment. But no matter what punishment scheme you put in place, people will steal if they can't get what they need to survive, either through trade or gift. Thus, to prevent theft and maximize overall efficiency, we must make sure that survival is otherwise achievable through trade or gifts.
First, we consider trade. The overwhelming majority of humans have exactly one thing to trade: labor. We work, and in exchange we obtain things we need. Our labor has a value, and our survival needs have a value. The ratio of these determines how many hours one must work to survive. This number will vary from person to person, year to year, and place to place.
But what if that ratio gets out of whack? What if the typical person needs to work fifty hours to survive? Seventy? Ninety? If the number of labor-hours required to survive is more than a typical person can supply, if the cost of living goes up or the value of labor goes down too far, it becomes literally impossible to work for a living.
(Now, I am not presently arguing that this has occurred today, here, or at any other time or place. I am simply pointing out the boundary conditions of our present system.)
(Now, I am not presently arguing that this has occurred today, here, or at any other time or place. I am simply pointing out the boundary conditions of our present system.)
Supposing this occurs, and that we still want people to not turn to theft, we have a few options:
1) Make labor worth more than its market value. This can be done with minimum wage laws, or with the artificial creation of new jobs.
2) Make cost of living less than its market value. This can be done with price controls, or with subsidization of survival needs.
3) Decouple cost of living from labor. Give people their survival needs whether they've earned them or not.
3) Decouple cost of living from labor. Give people their survival needs whether they've earned them or not.
None of these are free-market solutions; all are some form of government intervention. From this, we have an inescapable conclusion: the free market only leads to a stable society as long as people can earn a living. Once the cost of living exceeds the labor available to an individual, for whatever reason, government intervention is required to preserve stability.
Of course, that leaves trivial details like when and how...
Of course, that leaves trivial details like when and how...
Saturday, March 12, 2016
The name of God
Read the Old Testament, and you see God doing a lot of things that, to us, may make little sense. But God had an intended audience, and it wasn't us. You have to ask, who is He doing these things to and for? He's doing them for people in a world full of gods. And he's doing them to distinguish himself from those gods. What lessons would a people in that context learn?
Noah. Noah and his family are the only survivors of the flood. They learn that there is behavior God will not tolerate forever. But they also learn that God saves those who obey him.
Job. What does Job believe about God when the story starts? Read chapter 9; Job believes God is treating him unfairly, and wishes for a mediator, but there is not one. Yet in chapter 19 Job says he believes that his redeemer lives, and will come, and that he will have his day in court. Job serves his god, but he also believes in some power beyond that god. At the end, YHWH comes, and tells Job he has it wrong: the god he serves is the god of all creation, and that there is no appeal.
Abraham is told by YHWH, "do what I say and you will be blessed." Abraham lives in a world full of gods demanding human sacrifice. So when Abraham has a child in his old age, and YHWH tells him to sacrifice that child, Abraham is willing. But then YHWH stops him. Now Abraham knows that this god is not like the others; He wants obedience, but human sacrifice is off the table. And when He makes a promise, that promise is kept.
Moses is told "I do these things to make a name for myself. Tell them I AM sent you." God's name is his reputation. He wants to be known throughout the region as "I AM", the god that exists, as opposed to the ones that don't. And through the remainder of the Old Testament, we see God identifying himself in terms of his existing reputation: I am YHWH, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who led you out of Egypt.
Story by story, generation by generation, God built a reputation as a god who exists, who is powerful, who is merciful, who keeps promises, and who punishes evil. And that reputation is referenced again and again throughout the prophets and the New Testament.
Noah. Noah and his family are the only survivors of the flood. They learn that there is behavior God will not tolerate forever. But they also learn that God saves those who obey him.
Job. What does Job believe about God when the story starts? Read chapter 9; Job believes God is treating him unfairly, and wishes for a mediator, but there is not one. Yet in chapter 19 Job says he believes that his redeemer lives, and will come, and that he will have his day in court. Job serves his god, but he also believes in some power beyond that god. At the end, YHWH comes, and tells Job he has it wrong: the god he serves is the god of all creation, and that there is no appeal.
Abraham is told by YHWH, "do what I say and you will be blessed." Abraham lives in a world full of gods demanding human sacrifice. So when Abraham has a child in his old age, and YHWH tells him to sacrifice that child, Abraham is willing. But then YHWH stops him. Now Abraham knows that this god is not like the others; He wants obedience, but human sacrifice is off the table. And when He makes a promise, that promise is kept.
Moses is told "I do these things to make a name for myself. Tell them I AM sent you." God's name is his reputation. He wants to be known throughout the region as "I AM", the god that exists, as opposed to the ones that don't. And through the remainder of the Old Testament, we see God identifying himself in terms of his existing reputation: I am YHWH, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who led you out of Egypt.
Story by story, generation by generation, God built a reputation as a god who exists, who is powerful, who is merciful, who keeps promises, and who punishes evil. And that reputation is referenced again and again throughout the prophets and the New Testament.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Open letter to the Tennessee Republican Party
Put aside the details of the candidates for a moment; the primary elections have a serious structural problem that needs to be fixed before 2020. If the Republican convention were held today, the leading candidate would have received only 34% of the votes. Put another way, two thirds of Republican voters would have voted for someone other than the winner. How can this result possibly unite any party?
This comes from a basic flaw in the most common voting
system we use: there are three or five or ten candidates, and the voter picks exactly
one. Essentially, the voter says “yes” to one candidate, and “no” to every
other. This system only works if there are exactly two candidates. Otherwise
you get vote splitting and division, exactly like the Republican party is
seeing now. This is fundamentally why we have two parties and primaries to
start with. But now the primaries themselves are seeing vote splitting.
It would be vastly better for the party to use approval
voting: there are three or five or ten candidates, and the voter marks as many
as they find acceptable. Put another way, your vote is a “yes” or a “no” on each
candidate. It’s easy to understand, all voting machines already support this process,
and few if any laws need to be changed. The party could have had a much more
unifying and successful primary season with this approach. I hope that by 2020
the Tennessee Republican Party will adopt approval voting.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Dollars per life and the TSA
I've written previously about how much money we spent in Iraq, and what other things we could have done with that sum of money. I've also suggested that taxes should be seen as transactional; are you getting what you pay for? I'd like to focus that discussion. Let's look at causes of death in the United States, and what we spend preventing them. In particular, let's look at terrorism, and the TSA.
TSA was created in response to 9/11, to prevent other similar attacks. Since then, TSA has been budgeted something like $7 billion per year. Assume they've prevented one 9/11 per year, which is terribly unlikely. So that's a little over $2 million per life saved, as an extreme low-end estimate. It's probably more like $200 million per life saved.
Now, how does that compare to other means of saving lives? Are we getting a good deal?
First, the number of lives involved. Less than five thousand Americans have been killed by terrorists in the last thirty years. Compare that to annual death rates of tobacco use, which is something like 400,000. Or 43,000 for traffic collisions. 85,000 for alcohol. 17,000 for drug abuse. Or 41,000 suicides. Looking at the leading causes of death in the United States, it's clear that terrorism shouldn't even enter your mind as possibly leading to your death.
So we have our numbers of deaths. Let's start with those who die of alcohol and drug abuse. Presumably at least some of those lives would be saved if the drug abusers got into rehab. So say we're extremely generous, and pay for six months of rehab for every drug and alcohol abuser. How much would that cost? Roughly $28,000 per month gives us $168,000 per life saved. Even supposing only a tenth of those given treatment actually come out the other side more likely to survive, that's still $1.7 million per life saved. Better deal than the TSA. Suicides could probably benefit from similar treatments being available.
Or how about motor vehicle accidents? Something like 16,000 people die each year from drunk driving alone. I could come up with all sorts of complex solutions, but suppose we just gave out free taxi rides to drunk people? That's about as dumb and expensive as it gets, right? Say it's $100 a ride, a million rides a week, so five billion dollars a year. Even if we only prevent 20% of drunk driving deaths, that's $1.6 million per life saved. Still a better deal than the TSA on it's best imaginable day.
And how about tobacco-related deaths? Let's again throw money at the problem: free vape for everyone! According to one very biased source, a vaper might spend $600/year. Say it's $1,000. Suppose everyone who smokes took advantage of that, and that we actually created even more users since it's now free. Call it $70 billion a year. And suppose we prevent just 10% of smoking deaths in a year, or 40,000. The inefficient, expensive, barely effective plan I've just described is still more cost-effective at saving lives than the TSA!
Let's have some fun and look at colorectal cancer! 41,000 lives a year could be saved by appropriate screening. Like everything in the American medical system, pricing is completely opaque. Uninsured cash price for a colonoscopy is, at the high end, $5,400. It'll probably be less. Suppose we pay out $6,500 per procedure, and let the patient keep the difference as a cash incentive. Say that everyone over the age of 50 has a colonoscopy every five years, twice as often as recommended. So that's twelve million colonoscopies a year. We spend $78 billion dollars a year to save 41,000 lives. That's still cheaper than the TSA!
On a dollars-per-life basis, we could do much more good with the TSA's budget, even with incredibly stupid ideas like these.
TSA was created in response to 9/11, to prevent other similar attacks. Since then, TSA has been budgeted something like $7 billion per year. Assume they've prevented one 9/11 per year, which is terribly unlikely. So that's a little over $2 million per life saved, as an extreme low-end estimate. It's probably more like $200 million per life saved.
Now, how does that compare to other means of saving lives? Are we getting a good deal?
First, the number of lives involved. Less than five thousand Americans have been killed by terrorists in the last thirty years. Compare that to annual death rates of tobacco use, which is something like 400,000. Or 43,000 for traffic collisions. 85,000 for alcohol. 17,000 for drug abuse. Or 41,000 suicides. Looking at the leading causes of death in the United States, it's clear that terrorism shouldn't even enter your mind as possibly leading to your death.
So we have our numbers of deaths. Let's start with those who die of alcohol and drug abuse. Presumably at least some of those lives would be saved if the drug abusers got into rehab. So say we're extremely generous, and pay for six months of rehab for every drug and alcohol abuser. How much would that cost? Roughly $28,000 per month gives us $168,000 per life saved. Even supposing only a tenth of those given treatment actually come out the other side more likely to survive, that's still $1.7 million per life saved. Better deal than the TSA. Suicides could probably benefit from similar treatments being available.
Or how about motor vehicle accidents? Something like 16,000 people die each year from drunk driving alone. I could come up with all sorts of complex solutions, but suppose we just gave out free taxi rides to drunk people? That's about as dumb and expensive as it gets, right? Say it's $100 a ride, a million rides a week, so five billion dollars a year. Even if we only prevent 20% of drunk driving deaths, that's $1.6 million per life saved. Still a better deal than the TSA on it's best imaginable day.
And how about tobacco-related deaths? Let's again throw money at the problem: free vape for everyone! According to one very biased source, a vaper might spend $600/year. Say it's $1,000. Suppose everyone who smokes took advantage of that, and that we actually created even more users since it's now free. Call it $70 billion a year. And suppose we prevent just 10% of smoking deaths in a year, or 40,000. The inefficient, expensive, barely effective plan I've just described is still more cost-effective at saving lives than the TSA!
Let's have some fun and look at colorectal cancer! 41,000 lives a year could be saved by appropriate screening. Like everything in the American medical system, pricing is completely opaque. Uninsured cash price for a colonoscopy is, at the high end, $5,400. It'll probably be less. Suppose we pay out $6,500 per procedure, and let the patient keep the difference as a cash incentive. Say that everyone over the age of 50 has a colonoscopy every five years, twice as often as recommended. So that's twelve million colonoscopies a year. We spend $78 billion dollars a year to save 41,000 lives. That's still cheaper than the TSA!
On a dollars-per-life basis, we could do much more good with the TSA's budget, even with incredibly stupid ideas like these.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Just what is free market health care, anyway?
Health care consumes resources. In a free market system, health care would be contract-based like every other free-market system. Resources would be supplied by the patient, or the patient would not receive treatment.
But wait. A contract is invalid if the parties involved don't consent, or is incompetent to contract. That means that an unconscious individual requiring treatment would never receive it, because they couldn't consent to pay beforehand. The same applies to children, or the mentally challenged. So what do we do in those situations?
Well, we either treat, or we don't. If we don't treat, people die. Lots of people. If we treat, we run the risk of the doctor not getting paid, especially in cases where the patient literally can't pay. But someone's got to pay the doctor, or health care ceases to exist. We have to have some capacity for a doctor to be paid by someone other than the patient.
In other words, we have to have socialized medicine. The only remaining question is, who pays?
My vote is for the people who are hurt the least. Why on earth would we cause more harm than necessary? Seems rather un-medical...
But wait. A contract is invalid if the parties involved don't consent, or is incompetent to contract. That means that an unconscious individual requiring treatment would never receive it, because they couldn't consent to pay beforehand. The same applies to children, or the mentally challenged. So what do we do in those situations?
Well, we either treat, or we don't. If we don't treat, people die. Lots of people. If we treat, we run the risk of the doctor not getting paid, especially in cases where the patient literally can't pay. But someone's got to pay the doctor, or health care ceases to exist. We have to have some capacity for a doctor to be paid by someone other than the patient.
In other words, we have to have socialized medicine. The only remaining question is, who pays?
My vote is for the people who are hurt the least. Why on earth would we cause more harm than necessary? Seems rather un-medical...
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Mosquito-Borne Illness: Save the Doggies
I've talked before about mosquito-borne illnesses. Mosquitoes kill over a million people every year. We could kill all the mosquitoes everywhere with minimal environmental impact, and save all those lives. But we don't. After all, those diseases don't happen here. I mean, sure, West Nile Virus has killed nearly 2,000 Americans since 1999, but that's a rounding error, right?
Well, the Zika virus has peoples' attention now. I'd rather kill all the mosquitoes before this virus starts to spread further. But that kind of forward-thinking argument doesn't get very far sometimes, so let me make a more immediate one: mosquitoes are directly costing you money every year.
Heartworm is mosquito-borne, and infects dogs and cats across the United States. I'm having trouble finding the number of reported cases in the US, but there are an estimated 160 million cats and dogs in the country. Part of good pet-care is giving your cat or dog a heartworm preventative each month, like HeartGard. Supposing you get a good deal, that's $50/year. Supposing only 10% of pets actually get that medication, that's $8 billion dollars a year we collectively spend on heartworm prevention. And I bet that 10% number is way low.
We could kill all the mosquitoes for far less than that. Why don't we?
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Bet you don't understand socialism
I've seen a large number of posts about Bernie Sanders, most of which show a distressing lack of understanding. I'm not some hardcore Bernie fan, I just hate misinformation. I'm writing this to respond to all of these mistaken posts at once, in order to help mitigate the damage being caused. Unknowingly repeating a lie does just as much damage as lying on purpose. If you spread misinformation, you have a moral obligation to stop. So please, if you see any of the same lies I have, don't share them. Shut them down. Now, on to the corrections:
Socialism is not communism. Communism advocates the elimination of money, property, and government. Socialism was originally conceived as an intermediate step towards communism, but it's never actually been practiced as that. There are a huge number of variants of socialism, and treating them all as if they're the same as each other and the same as theoretical communism is lazy and dishonest.
Socialism is not inherently totalitarian. The Soviet Union was a socialist dictatorship. Europe is a socialist democracy. This is why Bernie Sanders is called a democratic socialist. This is completely distinct from being a Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other unpleasant-ist.
Democratic socialism, by definition, does not eliminate individual freedom. By every measure taken by every group, Europe is at least as free as the United States, if not more so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project#WJP_Rule_of_Law_Index_2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Socialism is not a fundamental rewriting of the structure of the United States. Everything we do is socialist. Don't believe me? Suppose I told you you were required to pay taxes to fund your protection against calamity. You don't get to opt out and trust to your youth or wealth to save you; everyone is required to pay, and everyone is protected. Does this description of socialized medicine make you angry? Sound un-American? Well, I'm not talking about medicine; I'm describing fire departments. And police forces. And jails, and courts, and elections, and schools, and emergency relief, and the military... where's the difference? What some call socialized medicine is just an extension of the fundamental concept of every government, including ours: taxes suck, but they're often better than the alternative. That transactional balance is where the discussion has to be. Are you getting what you're paying for? If the discussion is about having taxes at all, you're really contemplating whether you want to have a civilization in the first place. That's not a discussion I care to have. If you think having no government would be great, move to Somalia. You'll find it more to your liking.
We have had socialized health care for decades, just an extremely bad version of it. Federal law requires hospital emergency rooms to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Who do you think pays the ER bills of those who can't pay for themselves? All the patients who can pay, obviously. We're already not free-market by shifting costs away from point of consumption. Wouldn't it make more sense to shift the costs to some place consciously chosen to do the least damage, instead of forcing them onto those barely able to pay, ruining additional lives and creating more medical bankruptcies? What outcome can there possibly be from that, except the creation of more poor who can't pay? If you want free-market health care, you have to be in favor of letting ERs throw out people who can't pay. Horrified by that? Good, you're a decent human being. But you're also one flavor of socialist. Get over it. Personally, I think that if we're going to have socialized medicine, we should have a variety that doesn't suck.
Some forms of socialism work better than our present systems. Europe has been more socialist than we are, and getting better results. Anybody who tells you we have the best health care on earth is lying to you. Look at the survival rates of serious medical conditions; many European countries are comparable to the US, and for some diseases we're way behind. Our infant mortality rate is triple what it could be. That's 17,000 babies per year dying unnecessarily. We're 40th in life expectancy. And we're paying vastly more for this substandard system.
This country was not founded in opposition to socialism. We were founded in response to a failure of representative democracy. It would be no less of a failure to tell the people of this country that they can't have socialized medicine, if that's what they choose to have.
If I see any more lies I need to respond to, I'll update this post.
Socialism is not communism. Communism advocates the elimination of money, property, and government. Socialism was originally conceived as an intermediate step towards communism, but it's never actually been practiced as that. There are a huge number of variants of socialism, and treating them all as if they're the same as each other and the same as theoretical communism is lazy and dishonest.
Socialism is not inherently totalitarian. The Soviet Union was a socialist dictatorship. Europe is a socialist democracy. This is why Bernie Sanders is called a democratic socialist. This is completely distinct from being a Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or any other unpleasant-ist.
Democratic socialism, by definition, does not eliminate individual freedom. By every measure taken by every group, Europe is at least as free as the United States, if not more so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project#WJP_Rule_of_Law_Index_2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Socialism is not a fundamental rewriting of the structure of the United States. Everything we do is socialist. Don't believe me? Suppose I told you you were required to pay taxes to fund your protection against calamity. You don't get to opt out and trust to your youth or wealth to save you; everyone is required to pay, and everyone is protected. Does this description of socialized medicine make you angry? Sound un-American? Well, I'm not talking about medicine; I'm describing fire departments. And police forces. And jails, and courts, and elections, and schools, and emergency relief, and the military... where's the difference? What some call socialized medicine is just an extension of the fundamental concept of every government, including ours: taxes suck, but they're often better than the alternative. That transactional balance is where the discussion has to be. Are you getting what you're paying for? If the discussion is about having taxes at all, you're really contemplating whether you want to have a civilization in the first place. That's not a discussion I care to have. If you think having no government would be great, move to Somalia. You'll find it more to your liking.
We have had socialized health care for decades, just an extremely bad version of it. Federal law requires hospital emergency rooms to treat people regardless of ability to pay. Who do you think pays the ER bills of those who can't pay for themselves? All the patients who can pay, obviously. We're already not free-market by shifting costs away from point of consumption. Wouldn't it make more sense to shift the costs to some place consciously chosen to do the least damage, instead of forcing them onto those barely able to pay, ruining additional lives and creating more medical bankruptcies? What outcome can there possibly be from that, except the creation of more poor who can't pay? If you want free-market health care, you have to be in favor of letting ERs throw out people who can't pay. Horrified by that? Good, you're a decent human being. But you're also one flavor of socialist. Get over it. Personally, I think that if we're going to have socialized medicine, we should have a variety that doesn't suck.
Some forms of socialism work better than our present systems. Europe has been more socialist than we are, and getting better results. Anybody who tells you we have the best health care on earth is lying to you. Look at the survival rates of serious medical conditions; many European countries are comparable to the US, and for some diseases we're way behind. Our infant mortality rate is triple what it could be. That's 17,000 babies per year dying unnecessarily. We're 40th in life expectancy. And we're paying vastly more for this substandard system.
This country was not founded in opposition to socialism. We were founded in response to a failure of representative democracy. It would be no less of a failure to tell the people of this country that they can't have socialized medicine, if that's what they choose to have.
If I see any more lies I need to respond to, I'll update this post.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Sanders vs. Tocqueville, Round One: FIGHT!
This is an expansion of my response to this article in a discussion with a friend.
Looking through Sanders’ speech, one can’t help but think he believes that the vast majority of America’s economic problems will disappear if more people have more stuff.
Uh... yeah. That's kind of a tautology. If your problem is lots of poor people, then those people having more stuff gets rid of that problem. Redefining the problem to be a spiritual one, wherein we just ignore the fact that we are starving, is a delaying tactic. It by no means prevents the inevitable social instability that comes from millions of people being unable to feed their children.
This article is just so much noise, ignoring the fundamental reality: the programs Sanders proposes have a decades long track record of providing better measurable outcomes in every way. Ignoring the measurable well being of actual people in the name of abstract philosophical goals is just another from of despotism.
The
American experiment is that people rule themselves, by a government of
their choosing. It has nothing at all to do with a rejection of
socialism. If the people want socialized medicine, it would be
unamerican to tell them they can't have it because a man two centuries
dead said so.
Every
law trades the freedom of some people for the security of some people. This is the fundamental concept of government. Laws creating police and courts and jails to protect us from robbers require us all to pay taxes; we don't get to opt out and just take our chances getting robbed.
Laws creating militaries to protect us from invasion are identical. There is no conceptual difference between those scenarios and laws protecting us from catastrophic medical expenditure, or environmental destruction, or joblessness.
The only question is which trades are good. How much freedom (typically in taxation) do we sacrifice, and how much do we gain by doing so? Each trade should be analyzed for its own merits. To claim that the trades
that were good 200 years ago will remain the only good trades for the
rest of time is not an position that can be rationally derived from any set of premises. It is an axiom in itself, a religious belief, and its implementation leads, as I say, to despotism.
As Jefferson said, the Earth belongs to the living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)