Given a choice, should you take the 80% solution you can do now or the 100% solution you have to wait for?
The bottom line here is, clearly, available time and effort. Assuming you have the resources to make either happen, it comes down to which one can you get done prior to any relevant deadlines and whether or not the difference in time and effort will impact negatively other projects (recall the 80/20 Rule).
The awful truth is we don't always get to do the best thing every time nor can we always put out our best effort on what we do. A simple example is this: you have two projects to get done, A and B. Project A is due in a week, Project B is due in 10 days (calendar days and weeks, not business days and weeks). Project A needs a week's worth to do really well, but three days to be a satisfactory result. Project B has the same setup. Late is very bad (like you don't get paid, lose a contract, or fail a class). What do you do?
I'd plan for eight days days of work (four days in on each) and have an extra "emergency" day for each and live with a better than minimal but less than optimal result on both. Should I get more done than I thought, that's great (but not likely). On the other hand, I have two days to help get all the requirements met to at least a satisfactory level.
How does this relate? 80% now versus 100% later is all about priorities and bottom lines. In the above case the point is get the job done, not get it done perfectly. It says, in short, take what you can get and move on to the next priority item. It is, in short, slash and burn project planning.
Sometimes its more important to get the job done than getting it done well.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bang Per Buck in Carbon Emission Reduction
In economics, there's a principle colloquially known as the "Bang Per Buck" principle. In short, at the equilibrium (also the maximum profit/utility), the cost per additional unit of every output is equal.
It turns out there is nothing special about this fact. The mathematics indicates it's true for any local maximum or minimum. So, if we want to get maximal carbon reduction, we need to adjust the mix of measures until the cost per unit of additional reductions is equal across all methods. In this way we can be confident we're getting the most reduction for our money.
In practice, the way to do it is to start with those approaches which cost least per unit of reduction until it's equal to the next cheapest and then use whichever one of those is cheapest and so on. If you're buying sponges on a budget, all the sponges are equally good, and you need more than any one store has, then you start at the cheapest store (ideally taking transportation and time costs into account), buy them all, and then move on to the next cheapest store. What works for sponges works for carbon.
So before you go out and buy yourself a $4 lightbulb, at least do this math:
It turns out there is nothing special about this fact. The mathematics indicates it's true for any local maximum or minimum. So, if we want to get maximal carbon reduction, we need to adjust the mix of measures until the cost per unit of additional reductions is equal across all methods. In this way we can be confident we're getting the most reduction for our money.
In practice, the way to do it is to start with those approaches which cost least per unit of reduction until it's equal to the next cheapest and then use whichever one of those is cheapest and so on. If you're buying sponges on a budget, all the sponges are equally good, and you need more than any one store has, then you start at the cheapest store (ideally taking transportation and time costs into account), buy them all, and then move on to the next cheapest store. What works for sponges works for carbon.
So before you go out and buy yourself a $4 lightbulb, at least do this math:
- Add up how much the old fashioned kind would cost over the expected life of the $4 bulb.
- Add up the energy cost of using those old bulbs.
- Add up the energy cost of the $4 bulb.
- Add lines one and two. Call this "A".
- Add $4 to line 3. Call this "B".
Constant Temperatures Means no Warming? A Question of Type-2 Error
I just heard on the radio today global temperatures have been statistically stable since 2001. As someone who said he's become a believer, what am I to make of this?
I'll admit I'd like to know what the margins of error are. I'll also admit those errors are type-1 errors (they measure the probability that we falsely reject the null hypothesis of no change) and are not reflective of the error that we incorrectly reject the alternative, that warming is happening.
Do I like that we don't know the type-2 error probabilities? No. On the other hand, I know mathematically it has been minimized though the use of valid statistical testing. But remember--"minimized" could mean a 95% of incorrectly saying there is no warming.
It's time we remember R A Fisher established 95% Type-1 errors as significant without any hard statistical reasons. Of course, the above link also notes there is a case to be made for a line in the sand (although 95% is merely one line amongst many we could chose), I would argue it is not as important to stick dogmatically to one line in the sand as to simply be clear about the significance level of the results and let the user draw their own conclusion. Perhaps I am, given my ambivalence about Type-2 errors, ready to accept global warming at the 90% or even 85% levels.
I'll admit I'd like to know what the margins of error are. I'll also admit those errors are type-1 errors (they measure the probability that we falsely reject the null hypothesis of no change) and are not reflective of the error that we incorrectly reject the alternative, that warming is happening.
Do I like that we don't know the type-2 error probabilities? No. On the other hand, I know mathematically it has been minimized though the use of valid statistical testing. But remember--"minimized" could mean a 95% of incorrectly saying there is no warming.
It's time we remember R A Fisher established 95% Type-1 errors as significant without any hard statistical reasons. Of course, the above link also notes there is a case to be made for a line in the sand (although 95% is merely one line amongst many we could chose), I would argue it is not as important to stick dogmatically to one line in the sand as to simply be clear about the significance level of the results and let the user draw their own conclusion. Perhaps I am, given my ambivalence about Type-2 errors, ready to accept global warming at the 90% or even 85% levels.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
How Much Would You Pay Per Song?
The longer the debate about file sharing and music pricing goes on, the more and more I am sensitive to price per song. It's to the point where I won't even buy music in stores anymore. Instead I just turn on the radio (can't wait till I can afford an HD radio) or go to Pandora and listen to hundreds of great songs.
The best part about the long-song list broadcast radio stations is they tend to play the same stuff over and over again so it's easy to tune out when I'm trying to work (plus it doesn't take any resources on my machine whose built-in laptop speakers are a little weak for the job anyway).
The best part about the long-song list broadcast radio stations is they tend to play the same stuff over and over again so it's easy to tune out when I'm trying to work (plus it doesn't take any resources on my machine whose built-in laptop speakers are a little weak for the job anyway).
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Philosophy No Less A Game
I wrote a bit ago about Hilbert's comment on mathematics as a game. While I'm admittedly critical of the implication that because mathematics is a game it is without merit. However, one natural follow on question asks which other disciplines are equally game like.
Candidate number one is philosophy. I'll pick on ethics for my example as it it closer to home for most of us, but the argument generalizes well.
To recap, any consistent system of thought is built on three things:
Candidate number one is philosophy. I'll pick on ethics for my example as it it closer to home for most of us, but the argument generalizes well.
To recap, any consistent system of thought is built on three things:
- axioms
- definitions
- a system of logic
One thing that needs to get defined in any ethical system is the nature of good and a mechanism by which to classify things as good or bad. Yet this mechanism must come from either an axiom or a definition. But what makes our axiom or definition appropriate (or, if you like, good)? Suppose we argue for our choice of definition, then for that argument to be logically valid it too must follow from some set of axioms and definitions. Repeat this argument a few times and it quickly becomes apparent asking for a rigorous basis for something like the definition of good or a mechanism for making the decision quickly mires down.
So if we can't ever get to a fundamental set of principles which underly everything (assuming for the moment God is not interjected into the conversation), then this leaves ethics--or any other branch of philosophy--as based on an arbitrary choice of first principles, or at least cannot be rigorously shown as better than any other. When I took an ethics class last semester this usually came out whenever the instructor said the words "You could make an argument for . . . " and then filled in the blank.
The point here is this: whatever ethical system you chose to follow on any basis, so long as it is consistent it is just as objectively valid as any other consistent ethical system as there is no objective mechanism for assigning one as better than any other.
In short, ethics is no less a game than mathematics.
So if we can't ever get to a fundamental set of principles which underly everything (assuming for the moment God is not interjected into the conversation), then this leaves ethics--or any other branch of philosophy--as based on an arbitrary choice of first principles, or at least cannot be rigorously shown as better than any other. When I took an ethics class last semester this usually came out whenever the instructor said the words "You could make an argument for . . . " and then filled in the blank.
The point here is this: whatever ethical system you chose to follow on any basis, so long as it is consistent it is just as objectively valid as any other consistent ethical system as there is no objective mechanism for assigning one as better than any other.
In short, ethics is no less a game than mathematics.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Interconnectivity, Interstate Commerice, and the US Constitution
In the US Constitution, Congress is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. Everyone, even those who follow the strictest versions of the enumerated powers and similar doctrines acknowledges this. Hard not to, as it's right there written on hemp paper (the irony of which should disturb all intelligent persons).
The question is this: what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce?
The "interstate" part is relatively easy: something which crosses state lines. It's the "commerce" part which is usually harder. But even accepting any relatively strict definition, it stands to reason that to regulate interstate commerce, one must regulate those who participate in it (as cows, grain, and iron ingots don't really care about statutes). So regulation of interstate commerce really amounts to regulating the action of people insofar as they participate in the system of interstate commerce.
So what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce? This is hard to answer, but what it means to NOT participate in interstate commerce should be pretty easy. From an economic point of view, not participating would mean the impact of some person's economic activity is localized, e.g. that they do not impact markets in any other state. The negate of this is that a person who does participate in interstate commerce engages in economic activity is one whose economic activity impacts other states.
This implies that the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate economic activity would grow (and the states' would shrink) with the rise of the interconnectivity of the economic activity of different localities. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to imagine Upstate New York having a major impact on the South Carolina countryside and even that adjacent counties might suffer independent economic fates. This has, thanks largely to the increase in speed and efficacy of both communications and transportation largely ended. While some parts of the nation may seem like they are not even in the same national economy, if you went looking you would doubtless find that almost everyone has a product with a component from almost any state (and most nations).
In reality, though, a simple reading of the Constitution reveals an interesting fact: the Founding Fathers were well aware of the high levels of interconnectedness and interdependence. Take, for instance, the clause regulating the power to issue money. If the thirteen colonies were only incidentally connected, this would hardly be a major or even necessary provision. But it is there. Likewise in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there was acute awareness of the interconnectedness of the colonies if for no other reason than by way of the acknowledgment of the efficacy of a strong central government if allowed to act. This leads me to believe that even in the time of the Founding Fathers the idea of a man who does not engage in some way with markets which have interstate impacts was a pleasant myth perpetuated to argue for limitation of Federal powers. If it was a myth then, it is even more of a myth now.
So it looks like the answer is simple. When in the 1940's the US Supreme Court reasoned it was well neigh impossible for one to avoid engaging in commerce lacking an impact across state lines, it wasn't so much judicial activism as a simple recognition of the fact we are all economically interconnected both within and across state lines.
The question is this: what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce?
The "interstate" part is relatively easy: something which crosses state lines. It's the "commerce" part which is usually harder. But even accepting any relatively strict definition, it stands to reason that to regulate interstate commerce, one must regulate those who participate in it (as cows, grain, and iron ingots don't really care about statutes). So regulation of interstate commerce really amounts to regulating the action of people insofar as they participate in the system of interstate commerce.
So what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce? This is hard to answer, but what it means to NOT participate in interstate commerce should be pretty easy. From an economic point of view, not participating would mean the impact of some person's economic activity is localized, e.g. that they do not impact markets in any other state. The negate of this is that a person who does participate in interstate commerce engages in economic activity is one whose economic activity impacts other states.
This implies that the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate economic activity would grow (and the states' would shrink) with the rise of the interconnectivity of the economic activity of different localities. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to imagine Upstate New York having a major impact on the South Carolina countryside and even that adjacent counties might suffer independent economic fates. This has, thanks largely to the increase in speed and efficacy of both communications and transportation largely ended. While some parts of the nation may seem like they are not even in the same national economy, if you went looking you would doubtless find that almost everyone has a product with a component from almost any state (and most nations).
In reality, though, a simple reading of the Constitution reveals an interesting fact: the Founding Fathers were well aware of the high levels of interconnectedness and interdependence. Take, for instance, the clause regulating the power to issue money. If the thirteen colonies were only incidentally connected, this would hardly be a major or even necessary provision. But it is there. Likewise in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there was acute awareness of the interconnectedness of the colonies if for no other reason than by way of the acknowledgment of the efficacy of a strong central government if allowed to act. This leads me to believe that even in the time of the Founding Fathers the idea of a man who does not engage in some way with markets which have interstate impacts was a pleasant myth perpetuated to argue for limitation of Federal powers. If it was a myth then, it is even more of a myth now.
So it looks like the answer is simple. When in the 1940's the US Supreme Court reasoned it was well neigh impossible for one to avoid engaging in commerce lacking an impact across state lines, it wasn't so much judicial activism as a simple recognition of the fact we are all economically interconnected both within and across state lines.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Digital Copyright Protection
I've been reading a very fascinating debate at the New York Times site about the topic between--go figure--two lawyers. You can infer the joke about how the first commentators on an economic/business question are the ones with arguably the least direct training and experience therein.
First, let's start the debate over again. Why do people create content in any form? Two reasons. First, because they want to. Second, for some form of renumeration. In the case of corporations, this means monetary payment. In the case of open source coders (such as GNU contributors) I would say this is in the form of more usable software that does what they want it to do.
Then there's the US Constitution's granting of copyrights (I use this as an example only because I live in the States). Let's all remember they lived in an analog age where to infringe on a copyrighted work you had to either (a) hand copy it over and over again or (b) pay someone with a printing press to print copies. Either way you had to put in some serious time and money in hopes of making enough on sales to offset the costs. Let's face it, barriers to successful mass infringement were huge when those words were written and have been dropping steadily ever since. Computers and the Internet might be as low as barriers will go, but only time will tell.
What does this say about the debate of copyright protection on digital media? Very simply, it says that the only time such protection makes sense from an economic point of view is when it generates more revenue than it costs to implement. Does it? I don't know, but I know no protection system which allows the media to be played is going to ever stay unbroken forever. Moreover, it's likely that as time goes on it's going to get harder, not easier, to protect content.
I think any casual visit to doom9 or recalling the publication to the Internet of the key to hundreds of DVD titles a few months ago (not to mention the ongoing success of dvdlibcss2, which lets DVD's be played on Linux boxes or my history example above) will convince most reasonable people that in the arms race between "hackers" and "protectors", given time the hackers will win every time. It's not just software either. At some point the material has to be played, and a clever person with a Linux box could physically hack the monitor to record the imagery--unencrypted--as it gets displayed. This is not hyperbole, merely a more sophisticated version of sneaking a camcorder into a movie theater.
So what does this make copy protection schemes? I'd say "futile" sums it up nicely. Any system, not matter how strong, which enables playback will eventually get cracked. Period.
Then there's the argument that if we can't protect media we can keep it from being transfered. I refer back to my previous point about any system being able to be worked around. Maybe with enough draconian restrictions such a system could stop more transfers than it misses, but are we really willing to (a) pay the money or (b) the cost in civil liberties?
There's one last point that seems to get missed: some people pirate on principle, most because it's cheaper than getting an official copy (in terms of total expense of time, money, and effort). One key question is therefore this: of the people any copyright protection system prevents from pirating/having access to pirated materials, how many would buy a legal copy to have access?
I'll be honest, there are lots of songs and movies that if they were free to download I'd download and keep but that I would never buy nor rent. My favorite example is the annual James Bond marathons on cable TV. Yes, I like James Bond, but I'd not rent them, much less buy them. So if someone suddenly said to me "Goldeneye will never again be played on cable TV" this isn't a big loss and I'm not going to turn around and buy a new copy at prevailing store prices (even the Amazon ones I link to), but I might buy one used for half as much or better yet, for $1 to download. Radiohead's experiment in name your own prices would make for an interesting case study. One question I have is how many downloaded the album because they had never heard much of Radiohead's music and thought they'd try it out. Even more interesting, how many of those people then paid for a second download of the album? How many of those then recommended the album to others who then did the same thing? How many sales have happened since the cited articles? There are many interesting questions here that would inform the debate with hard evidence which, as far as I have seen, no one has bothered talking about to the public.
Whether we (or anyone else) likes it or not, Internet file sharing and downloading are here to stay. Is it legal? Not in most places. Is it ethical? I don't happen to think so and I think everyone who paid for Radiohead's album agrees. On the other hand, business is about the bottom line: profits. Is it profitable to fight the copy protection arms race? With several of the biggest music labels dropping DRM, I'd say the answer is probably "no", but the question is still open.
Never forget: in any market it's not the law that matters, but the bottom line. The world's lawyers need to sit up and take notice.
First, let's start the debate over again. Why do people create content in any form? Two reasons. First, because they want to. Second, for some form of renumeration. In the case of corporations, this means monetary payment. In the case of open source coders (such as GNU contributors) I would say this is in the form of more usable software that does what they want it to do.
Then there's the US Constitution's granting of copyrights (I use this as an example only because I live in the States). Let's all remember they lived in an analog age where to infringe on a copyrighted work you had to either (a) hand copy it over and over again or (b) pay someone with a printing press to print copies. Either way you had to put in some serious time and money in hopes of making enough on sales to offset the costs. Let's face it, barriers to successful mass infringement were huge when those words were written and have been dropping steadily ever since. Computers and the Internet might be as low as barriers will go, but only time will tell.
What does this say about the debate of copyright protection on digital media? Very simply, it says that the only time such protection makes sense from an economic point of view is when it generates more revenue than it costs to implement. Does it? I don't know, but I know no protection system which allows the media to be played is going to ever stay unbroken forever. Moreover, it's likely that as time goes on it's going to get harder, not easier, to protect content.
I think any casual visit to doom9 or recalling the publication to the Internet of the key to hundreds of DVD titles a few months ago (not to mention the ongoing success of dvdlibcss2, which lets DVD's be played on Linux boxes or my history example above) will convince most reasonable people that in the arms race between "hackers" and "protectors", given time the hackers will win every time. It's not just software either. At some point the material has to be played, and a clever person with a Linux box could physically hack the monitor to record the imagery--unencrypted--as it gets displayed. This is not hyperbole, merely a more sophisticated version of sneaking a camcorder into a movie theater.
So what does this make copy protection schemes? I'd say "futile" sums it up nicely. Any system, not matter how strong, which enables playback will eventually get cracked. Period.
Then there's the argument that if we can't protect media we can keep it from being transfered. I refer back to my previous point about any system being able to be worked around. Maybe with enough draconian restrictions such a system could stop more transfers than it misses, but are we really willing to (a) pay the money or (b) the cost in civil liberties?
There's one last point that seems to get missed: some people pirate on principle, most because it's cheaper than getting an official copy (in terms of total expense of time, money, and effort). One key question is therefore this: of the people any copyright protection system prevents from pirating/having access to pirated materials, how many would buy a legal copy to have access?
I'll be honest, there are lots of songs and movies that if they were free to download I'd download and keep but that I would never buy nor rent. My favorite example is the annual James Bond marathons on cable TV. Yes, I like James Bond, but I'd not rent them, much less buy them. So if someone suddenly said to me "Goldeneye will never again be played on cable TV" this isn't a big loss and I'm not going to turn around and buy a new copy at prevailing store prices (even the Amazon ones I link to), but I might buy one used for half as much or better yet, for $1 to download. Radiohead's experiment in name your own prices would make for an interesting case study. One question I have is how many downloaded the album because they had never heard much of Radiohead's music and thought they'd try it out. Even more interesting, how many of those people then paid for a second download of the album? How many of those then recommended the album to others who then did the same thing? How many sales have happened since the cited articles? There are many interesting questions here that would inform the debate with hard evidence which, as far as I have seen, no one has bothered talking about to the public.
Whether we (or anyone else) likes it or not, Internet file sharing and downloading are here to stay. Is it legal? Not in most places. Is it ethical? I don't happen to think so and I think everyone who paid for Radiohead's album agrees. On the other hand, business is about the bottom line: profits. Is it profitable to fight the copy protection arms race? With several of the biggest music labels dropping DRM, I'd say the answer is probably "no", but the question is still open.
Never forget: in any market it's not the law that matters, but the bottom line. The world's lawyers need to sit up and take notice.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Minnesota's Special Prosecutor
A while back here in Minnesota we had a major bridge collapse. Recently the local Legislature decided the wise move was to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate what happened.
I'll start with the facts.
At the end of the day, the bridge collapsed as all old structures do and for the same reason: insufficient upkeep. I had hoped some elected officials would, in the aftermath of the collapse, learn about total cost of ownership and maintenance. I probably hope for too much.
I'll start with the facts.
- A bridge collapsed.
- It collapsed in summer.
- Through the grace of God the casualties were light (and far lighter than they would have been in winter in this state).
- Everything fails eventually.
- People have been screaming about the decay of American infrastructure for decades.
- Honestly, does anyone honestly expect politicians to invest in needed preventative maintenance over pork when forced to chose?
At the end of the day, the bridge collapsed as all old structures do and for the same reason: insufficient upkeep. I had hoped some elected officials would, in the aftermath of the collapse, learn about total cost of ownership and maintenance. I probably hope for too much.
Monday, November 12, 2007
New Grading Scale Proposal
What are two seeming constants in the debates about education? Assessment and grade/gpa inflation. As a student I find the whole debate very deeply interesting for personal reasons. Intersting enough to put together the following rough sketch of what I would impliment if I got to pick how grades where assigned.
As a student, I want my grades to measure how capable I am with the material. Sadly, that's pretty hard to condense into one of five letters.
Thinking like an admissions officer, I would want grades to transparently reflect performance and provide a common measure across applicants from different backgrounds.
So what's wrong with the tried and true A-B-C-D-F system? For one, it condenses everything about performance into a single value thus hiding HUGE amounts of potentially useful information like class size, class difficulty, etc. Secondly, it's easy to inflate even in the face of all but the most draconian standards.
It is my belief we can alleviate the second by addressing the first.
Rather than a simple letter grade (or any other single number) the final report for a class should look like this:
As a student, I want my grades to measure how capable I am with the material. Sadly, that's pretty hard to condense into one of five letters.
Thinking like an admissions officer, I would want grades to transparently reflect performance and provide a common measure across applicants from different backgrounds.
So what's wrong with the tried and true A-B-C-D-F system? For one, it condenses everything about performance into a single value thus hiding HUGE amounts of potentially useful information like class size, class difficulty, etc. Secondly, it's easy to inflate even in the face of all but the most draconian standards.
It is my belief we can alleviate the second by addressing the first.
Rather than a simple letter grade (or any other single number) the final report for a class should look like this:
- Raw Percentage
- Five number summary (min, Q4, Median, Q2, max) for the class
- Five number summary across all classes
- Class Size
- Some form of objective letter grade
- Subjective letter grade/Overall letter grade
- Prof's comments (?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
