What's Ahead

Winning D.C.

Signals in the political landscape had all been pointing towards a big win for Republicans in the fall of '14, and sure enough, just that happened: a smaller and older body of voters chose the champions of obstruction.

Though the scenery is quite different from that in 2008, when voters threw out the other party, the pattern of boom and bust is a constant.  And so, the defeated in 2014 look forward with hope to the familar scenery of redemption somewhere down the road. 

What might that familiar scenery look like?  A newly victorious party is energized and emboldened by success.  Actors further out on the fringe are given greater heed and the inevitable correction then occurs at the next election (though let's skip that eight years of Bush-like misunderestimating please!).  So, expect to hear more of Senator Ted Cruz and other wingers, who look to be candidates for over-the-cliff leadership.

In the meantime, Democrats might examine their presentation for '16.  The path ahead seems likely: many low-information voters remember the Clinton years as the 'good old days'.  The Clinton presidency's appeal was broadened by addressing typically Republican concerns (Al Gore's attack on red tape in DC bureaucracies, for example).  And a woman at the top of a national ticket should generate enthusiasm and provide for a convenient narrative.

And it's never too early to engage in what works, politically.  The most effective GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, it should be noted, have been shown to move elections, if done right.  Here's a good backgrounder on what works (short version: canvassers going door-to-door, talking with voters for 10-20 minutes each).

My own input here, as an unpaid door-to-door canvasser in my youth, is that engaging the public by ringing doorbells is hard work, even when paid, say, $20 an hour.  The temptation is to linger on friendlier porches and make a run for it otherwise. 

So, the key is obviously prior training on how to present a candidate.  There are also the work parameters that a party might engineer to reward success. 

Pretend you're part of a 2-person team knocking on doors.  If you've been well trained in how to present a candidate, you're halfway to a successful GOTV effort.  Now imagine that before and after ringing a doorbell you sign in on a mobile device.  Perhaps the device buzzes at the 10 minute mark to keep you moving.  Perhaps it senses heat and can tell when a third body is on the other side of a front door.  Maybe it senses the give-and-take of conversation to encourage questions asked.  Constructing work parameters can reward solid effort, minimize the lackadaisical impulse, and, coupled with effective training, get out the vote effectively.

Can enough money be raised to pay for the best trained and equipped canvassers?  That likely won't be a concern with potentially our first female president asking for votes.

Review: Farm Heroes Saga

They Have Me Hooked

Would you believe that a strategy boardgamer like me, who's played some of the most complex games imaginable, whose computer had never hosted a video game before, is enjoying the Candy Crush sibling, Farm Heroes Saga?  

That's right, I am.  

We're talking about a game system that gradually draws you into its vortex, charming you with lovely graphics, wonderful sound effects and gradually increasing complexity, all the while tempting you to spend money.

What's it like?  The 'saga' is a series of abstract puzzles, which, when you successfully solve one, admits you to the next.  Each puzzle is a grid of 'cropsies' (apples, beets, carrots, etc.) that challenge one to find 3-of-a-kind by switching a carrot in one square for water in the next, for example.  Puzzles each identify a goal of a number of these matches that must be accomplished in a specified number of moves.  

As the saga unfolds, complexity is added in the form of strangely shaped grids, tools to make play easier (which can cost $), blockades along the way (that require help from one's on-line friends), and so on.  I just completed the 45th level, which is nothing compared to some of said friends, who're two and three times further along.

I've promised myself I won't spend money, and so far I've been successful.  Why?  I've asked myself that question many times.  I don't mind spending money on a good movie, book or other work of outstanding art.  And though the storyline is a bit abstract and barebones (a player is supposedly battling Rancid the Raccoon, who represents the urban sprawl threatening to compromise a rural eden), the characters that assist the player (a cute pig, a tweety bird and an energetic dog who wears red rubber boots), along with the fun squeals and sighs that accompany success, make for an entertaining world.  But the game is built on the 'first one's free' principle, which is meant to make addicts of us, as we inevitably confront our own level of ability and then need an extra 'oomph' to get beyond that.

The plan I have is to play Farm Heroes (the name refers to what we become when we triumph over Rancid the Raccoon) during times when I'm by myself (so far, I've only played in the 7:00 PM hour), and to give up as soon as I reach a level that's too hard to conquer--the game system allows one to retry, when unsuccessful.

A few last thoughts: there are playing hints that one can find posted on-line (google).  I ran into them after I'd discovered through trial-and-error how best to play, which is how I'd want it if I were to do it again--discovery is an underrated high.  What I'd add to this advice is that the game system seems to sense when one is overly eager and also when one is just barely interested.  If you're hoping for a little luck, try waiting a few days before returning to King corporation's admittedly fun pastime.

Also, I think they'd have a bigger hit on their hands if they allowed players to leave the 'saga' and set up a farm complete with crops, animals and wondrous, old-time machinery.  This'd be something like Farmville (a game I've admittedly never played), but acquiring each additional component would be done by completing a puzzle.  Players would pay for a half-dozen or so puzzles and could earn 'free' puzzles, in addition to those they pay for.  Players would 'see' their farm for a brief twenty seconds or so at the beginning of each puzzle.  I might pay for something like that.

Update: I've now been trying to succeed at level 78 for about a week.  Is this where I get off the merry-go-round?  My supply of 'magic beans', which one earns by doing well--either a 75, 150 or 250 gain for success in a given puzzle, now stands at about 4,000.  But it had been 6,000.  The decline is due to my buying 'shovels' to assist with the puzzle.  All other tools cost 'gold', which can only be purchased with a credit card.  But not to fear, even though my Facebook friends who also play in this game (3 out of my 31 friends!) are ahead of me in the saga (#88, #124 and #136), I shall not waiver.

Update II: Have advanced up to level 88 and had a peek ahead (when one hits the special bonus level within each grouping--a grouping is a dozen or so puzzles organized around an alpine, desert, underwater, etc., theme--one can look ahead to future special bonuses or prizes that can be won) to see that there are so many more levels that I could play the game for many more years--if I don't run out of magic beans, though I'm now over 7,000, since my special bonus was 3,000 extra--yay!

Update III: Now at level 141 and have found that puzzles plateau in complexity after a certain point and there is therefore nothing to stop me from playing, for free, for years, at about one puzzle a day.

Update IV: I'm now at level 506, and have to say the secret to my success (still no $ spent in all my playing) is enjoying just one puzzle a day.  That's because one receives special tools which replenish every 24 hours.  Also, a 'cheat': I'm able to buy shovels (using magic beans, which are generated when one solves a puzzle) twice before the screen registers the first purchase, meaning I usually have extra of these tools when tackling a particularly difficult puzzle experience.  And I'm only halfway to what I imagine is the endgame 1,000th puzzle.

The Hive Mind

A New Social Media Angle?

I like this story from NPR:

So You Think You're Smarter Than A CIA Agent

Basically, a test was run on everyday Americans to see if they could predict world events as well as your average CIA specialist.  Surprisingly, a small elite, comprising 1% of all those tested, was 30% more accurate.

The immediate reaction most people will have to this apparent comeuppance is to think, "Yeah, we don't need eggheads in Langley throwing darts at the wall to decide what's going to happen in Chad.  But is predicting the future what the CIA does?  Or is it knowing who to contact, where, and what to say or not say?

A good case could be made for both understanding the world and dialing back our 'experts'.  Reading through 'comments' in the story linked to above gives one a taste for both sides.

What I find intriguing, though, is that ordinary people, with a little googling, find they're actually quite good at knowing where fate is headed.  For example, will Scotland vote to leave Great Britain?

What if a website offered anyone who wanted it a chance to predict, opine and advise?  Participants would also look at others' opinions and advice and rate them.  Rankings within various subject areas would advance those who showed a natural talent.

For example, if you were asked to predict which TV shows were likely to endure.  Or which rookie ballplayer was bound for stardom.  Or how many tickets would be sold for a given play, you would eventually find a subject that you did well in.  Or if you were giving advice to people, you might find that you excelled in a certain specialty like relationships or pet problems.

Ideally, the website would pay their 'experts'.  The further you advanced, the more you'd be paid.

This would have the effect of bringing together the best minds on a given subject and focusing them on problem-solving.  We'd be one step closer to the hive mind.

Update: This site comes fairly close.

Asking The Right Questions

Surveys That Don't

As you may have read, recent surveys seem to indicate that the ACA, or ObamaCare, is not popular, with roughly 45% approval and 55% disapproval.  However, when one asks those being surveyed why they disapprove, there's something like a 15% segment of the population that thinks the ACA doesn't go far enough, and that 'Medicare-for-all' or 'single-payer' insurance is the only way to go.  When re-examined in this light, the ACA is mildly popular, 45, 40, 15.  Furthermore, this accounts for why surveys find there's no appetite for repealing ObamaCare; basically, the 45 and 15 are of one mind on that account.

This pattern sheds a light on American politics in general.  When asked if they're Conservative, Moderate or Liberal in their politics, Americans split something like 30, 50, 20.  But that's the wrong question.  For one thing, Conservatives adhere to labels, and to regimentation, as a rule, so there probably are about 30% of Americans who are Conservatives.

On the other hand, the opposite of conservative is actually progressive.  If you like the way things were in the past and try to hang on to that, you're likely a conservative.  If you see history moving towards justice, inclusiveness and expanding horizons, you're likely a progressive.  The trouble with asking where progressives place themselves on a conservative --> liberal continuum is that most progressives want to be where the 'sweet spot' is; where the most progress can be made.  Sometimes this means being moderate; other times it means pushing hard for what's right.

Here's an example.  The Obama presidency has been criticized for being too harsh when it comes to the War on Drugs.  Some liberals would have the president move much faster to lighten penalties, allow for treatment instead of prison, etc.  What this critique ignores is the danger in moving too fast.  A political party can be rolled up and tossed out of the White House like an old, holey rug, once a majority of the public settles on a narrative that views presidential policy as unwise.  In this regard there are no second chances and a swing to a Republican presidency risks a major relapse (no CO and WA recreational marijuana, most likely).

In other matters, progress can be sudden.  ObamaCare is a good example.  If one examines the play-by-play, the ACA was the sweet spot.  A 'public option' that would have competed with private insurers was just out of reach (Senator Joe Lieberman of CT was the needed vote that got away).  But to have solid medical insurance is something quite wonderful if you're one of the tens of millions who've already benefitted and will likely sign up in coming years.  

Perhaps only a plurality of voters support ObamaCare, but that's because they were asked the wrong question.  The right question would instead be: Was it possible for ObamaCare to have been more to your liking, given the Congress we had in 2010?

The Worst Kind of Conservatism

What's 'Conservative'?

This past year the good people of Quincy, where I live, elected a new, Republican mayor after many years of Democrats at the helm.  

Mayor Moore, a young, energetic man, first came to my attention by going door-to-door to all the homes in his city ward, drumming up support, first for his aldermanic election, and then for his mayoral race.  

This enthusiasm followed him into office, where he advocated transparency and accountability, promising that residents would get a report card on the workings of their government.  This admirable politics was accompanied by a privatizer's zeal, economically speaking, notably the scuttling of a stalled investment in hydro-electric power on the Mississippi river.  A developer had offered to pay the city a large annual sum in exchange for a 40-year lease on two hydro-electric dams.  Moore thought this wasn't government's role and let a $5 million investment, that had hit repeated snags, go.  

I soon thereafter read in the local paper that he had focused his privatizer's attention on the city's trash/recycling budget, and applying the same political philosophy, suggested that private contractors be asked to bid on what had traditionally been done by city workers.

With bids revealed, town hall meetings were held in order to gauge public opinion.  The citizens of Quincy were not happy.  The shock of seeing the flat rate that everybody would be asked to pay, compared to the progressive rate that had effectively been payed (the richer pay more taxes and so, in effect, pay more for pickup) was too much.  There was also the key issue of recycling.  Since Quincy sells garbage bag stickers that must be placed on each trash bag set out for collection (the .50¢ per bag helps defray costs), the tradition had been that those who recycled more paid less than those who threw their aluminum cans out with their broken dishes.  Moore's privatizing would remove this incentive to recycle.

The matter remains unresolved as of this writing, but does expose the difference between real and phony conservatism.  

A true conservative, whether Democrat or Republican, immediately sees that recycling should be encouraged and progressive taxation is preferable to a flat rate.  It's only the 'conservative', more interested in toeing the party line (privatization is always the better answer), that would question the conserving of resources, not to mention asking everyone to pay their fair share in affordable taxes.

The most likely resolution to the issue, among those proposed so far, is to raise the price of trash stickers to either $1.00 or $1.50 a piece to encourage even more recycling (the price has not been raised in over 20 years).  This would make the trash/recycling process solvent.  It would, however, diminish tax progressivity, as pickup would be funded partially or wholly with stickers instead of predominantly with tax revenue.  So, perhaps the $1.00 price for stickers is the answer.

What Is Brain Power?

Am I Already Losing It?

You may have recently read about a scientific paper arguing that older brains are slower than younger because they've had so much more material to sift through, not that they're necessarily losing brain power in nosedive fashion as they age.  

And if you did hear of such a paper, and you're older, you, like me, probably let out a sigh of relief.  The original paper and a summary by National Geographic.

What precipitated the paper were studies that showed how older brains lose the speed at which younger brains can retrieve random words or numbers.  But what Michael Ramscar, a linguistics researcher at the University of Tubingen, in Germany, did to come up with his finding was to create computer simulations of relatively full and empty brains, then compare the difference in processing speed.

Not surprisingly, the fuller brain simulation took longer, and Ramscar then had his finding.

But what all that ignores is context.  Here's an example: I open the garage door, fish for the car keys in my pocket, then realize I've 'forgotten' them in the kitchen.  The first thing most people do is feel beaten down by old age and let out an anguished 'argh'.  The first thing I do is examine my reasons for being on my current path.  Why am I getting in the car?  Almost invariably I'll take my 'forgetfulness' as an omen, or sign that, to again use this example, I didn't really want or need to go anywhere.  Maybe I was asked to get groceries and hadn't had time to remember that I planned to cook something from the garden.

So, imagine a test of brain power that doesn't focus on retrieval speed, but instead asks for contextual awareness.  Let's say 20-year-olds and 60-year-olds are given a day of the year, a time of day, a relationship, and asked what would make a good gift from among a list of a dozen possibilities.  I bet such a test would find older brains more adept at picking out the likelier gift.  That's because they've had more practice.

Possibly, what we'd be measuring is not just 'practice', but the migration of brain activity from one lobe (focused on strength and speed of processing) to the integration of lobes (both the former, strength/speed and the other, contextual timeliness) as an individual ages.  

If this is the case, 'forgetfulness' is what we do to attempt to force one lobe to integrate with the other.  And sometimes the result can be jarring--especially if we pay no heed to the little hints we provide for ourselves--in the above example, we might think of watering our garden when fishing for our car keys.  Or, we have an 'accident' on the way to the grocery store, as our 'forgetfulness' provokes all out mutiny.

There's also real mental decline in some middle aged and older brains.  We all probably know or have heard of people who really are losing it.  In these cases medical science is hot on the trail of drugs to stave off the worst.  I predict, however, that most mental loss, up to a certain age, is simply the loss of purpose in life.  And if I'm right, I wouldn't be surprised if 'purpose' is another name for the way we integrate our two brain lobes into a fruitful singularity.   

Anonymous Safety

Why Not Accountable Anonymity?

1 recently read Pacific Standard's cover article, by Amanda Hess, on a woman's experience being harassed online (warning, very troubling).  This got me wondering about internet anonymity and whether an "I'm anonymous, sure, but I'm legit" email service might be possible.

Let's say you want to hide your real identity for legitimate reasons.  What if there were an 'anonymous' address site charging $50 a year, that had a reputation for kicking out those who abused their anonymity.  The site would do this using your annual fee to respond to complaints sent in regarding unacceptable behavior.  

Perhaps there could be a software function built into the site that legitimizes or rejects complaints merely by matching a flagged message with a data set of actual sent messages and then looking for telltale words.  There would be no privacy in this, of course.   Once you sign up, you're inherently allowing the site to read your emails. but it's voluntary and results in...privacy...with a pedigree.

There'd have to be a group acting as judges who'd read complaints, once they were confirmed, and then decide on whether to issue a warning, or suspend an account, if a line had in their opinion been crossed (site policy would of course have to be spelled out in detail).  

As the site acquired a name and reputation for itself, potential trouble-makers would be dissuaded from using the site (since they'd risk losing their entry fee, or perhaps a deposit, once expelled), and the site's fee would likely then prove self-sustaining. 

Long-term, the site's reputation might encourage other e-mail services to follow suit, and effective on-line policing might be had, all on a voluntary basis.