If my grandma had balls...

Okay, cheap title to try to get you to click on the post. Guilty, as charged.

So, my old company, InPhase Technologies, kinda-sorta folded. Not quite officially, insofar as the corporate entity still exists. But it lost all its funding, then its assets were sold, and now the IP (intellectual property) has been bundled up and sold to a new company, Akonia Holographics.

Akonia is founded by several old InPhase folks, and I wish them all the best. I really do. But there were a series of really poorly-considered papers and articles posted on the bulletin board when I first worked there. My favorite, by far, was the first paper suggesting holographic storage as the next generation of data storage, displacing the current, unreliable technologies. It was from 1999, arguing we'd displace CDs.

No, wait, that's not right. It was from 1963. Nineteen-sixty-fucking-three!!! Then, there was also a paper from 2001 (this was in 2003, when I started), claiming that InPhase was 3-6 months away from their first product coming to market. Suffice to say, that one probably shouldn't have been in public, since we were saying 18 months to public product when I started, two years after that paper came out.

Then it was 18 months, then it was 2 years, then it was 18 months, then it was 6 months, then a year passed, and then I quit. Or something like that. 3 months later, the paychecks didn't show up. Then they did, then they didn't, blah blah blah.

So, one of my former coworkers at InPhase has stayed in contact with those guys. They're having a grand opening party this Friday, which I am truly regretful that I can't go to, for humor's sake, as well as to see a bunch of my former coworkers.

But he wants to go for business purposes, because, hey: they're going to build a laser, it'll need a bunch of optics, we make optics, blah blah blah. Suffice to say, I'm not banking on their product coming to market such that they have to buy enough optics to keep us in business! His response was "hey, if they get it working, it could be huge." To which the only proper response is the classic Yiddish answer to any hypothetical: and if my grandma had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Note to self: have to find the Yiddish translation of this (transliteration: "Az der bubbe volt gehat baytzim, volt zi geven mein zayde) and memorize it. This is the year.

Anyway, this is just empty rhetoric (but really, what that I say isn't?) to get to the point of this post, which is that I love the Yiddish language, or, in particular, its influence on English. Call it Yinglish, if you must. From this post comes a great reminder of the influence of Yiddish on English, and the way that, in particular, Yiddish's heavy focus on accent (as in, which syllable is stressed, rather 'Boston accent' kind of accent) allows the exact same set of words to have completely different meanings.

For instance, take the difference between (stealing openly from the post):

• I should buy two tickets for her concert? and
• I should buy two tickets for her concert?

Both of these express doubt about the conclusion that I should buy tickets, but the reason behind why I should buy the two tickets is completely different. 

In the first case, I shouldn't buy them because someone else should be buying them. Maybe the person I'm speaking to, maybe the person giving the concert, but somehow I have been wronged by the mere implication that I should be purchasing the tickets.

In the second case, it's doubtful that I should even buy one ticket to this concert; clearly, this artist is terrible, and it's offensive to imply that I'd even consider buying one ticket to this cruddy show, let alone two!

This emphasis on, well, emphasis opens up worlds of expressiveness, and makes both the speaking of language and, I'd imagine, the study of language much more entertaining, as well as useful. It's one of the reasons I enjoy writing, as well as talking.

When the Left Lets Us Down

So, I'm a lefty. Like, really a lefty. I believe in Medicare-for-all, I'm okay with confiscatory tax rates on incomes exceeding some benchmark (probably in the tens-of-millions range, but whatever), and I've been saying since the mid-90's that, someday, I'll have to explain to my kids that, when I was their age, two dudes couldn't get married, and they'll give me the same quizzical look I gave my parents when they explained the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights movement of the 60's to me.

But here's the thing - although I agree with the ends of the left basically universally, I also nearly as universally disagree with their means, and no part of the left demonstrates this better, to me, than the modern environmental movement.

I have a hot-and-cold set of feelings towards the environmental movement, but when it comes to the single dominating issue, greenhouse gases and climate change, I am 100% in favor of the ends, and 0% in favor of the means.

So, let's review. The ends are: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to slow and hopefully eventually reverse the effects of climate change. Also, make sure that the effects are well-understood, so that we can adapt accordingly (some significant warming is already in the cards, so adaptation will have to be part of the long-term strategy).

So far, so good. And if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are two ways of going about it, both of which are quite time-tested and proven to work in previous environmental situations:

1. Outlaw emissions. Straightforward, and simple. Probably not very useful today, given that we are a very energy-dependent society, and the only way to get the amount of energy we are quite 100% reliant on right now will result in emitting quite a bit of carbon dioxide.
2. Cap-and-trade. Very effective in the 80's with the acid rain scare (remember when America was going to be deforested due to sulphur emissions from coal power plants?), and other circumstances where some emission is necessary, but it might be possible, given sufficient economic motivation, to find alternatives.

A 'carbon tax' is a slight modification of the cap-and-trade, where the product is taxed at each economic transaction, rather than just at the emission point, and without the more easily-measured trade market for the emissions, but the effect is pretty similar.

You know what doesn't work, and has been proven not to in a nearly infinite number of previous examples? Determining ahead of time what the winner will be, and subsidizing it heavily. The examples here are nearly endless, and not worth going into. I'm not even talking about Solyndra; investment in up-and-coming companies is a totally defensible use of government funds. I'm talking about all the completely unjustifiable love we scatter on electric cars. I'm not up on the current subsidy, but as Bjorn Lomborg (definitely not an unbiased observer, but his facts are pretty solid) notes in Slate, it's not at all obvious that electric cars, at the moment, are actually an environmental win. Between the fact that a huge amount of energy goes into making the batteries, and the fact that a lot (although ever-shrinking) amount of our electricity is made by burning coal, the additional cost associated with these cars is rarely worth it, and I believe our government certainly should not be giving them preferential treatment.

If someone is willing to pay the extra price associated with buying a hybrid or electric car, whether because it makes them feel better, or because of the status it affords them, that's awesome; they should totally do so. And when Teslas are available for under $40K, I'll definitely consider it, because that car looks like a shit-ton of fun to drive. Until then, this is just a huge expenditure, which wildly favors those rich enough to afford the cars in the first place, for negligible environmental benefit. Which means that the left, with the best ends in mind, is embracing the worst means, which is not a compromise I'm willing to sign onto.

On the difference between doing and being

Another subject that I expect we'll return to frequently in this space is the difference between doing something and being someone.

I am, by my nature, not much of a belong-er. I don't tend to define myself as 'a blank-er', where 'blank' can be running, or engineering, or riding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. This last one is almost certainly the one most salient to the conversation at hand, because there is a huge difference between owning and riding a Harley-Davidson, and being a Harley-Davidson owner. I own a Harley. I ride it. I like it, although I'm looking to sell it right now (anyone need a motorcycle?) But I'm not a Harley guy. I don't own any Harley gear other than one of my motorcycle jackets. All my other motorcycling gear is not Harley-branded. I don't own a single Harley t-shirt. I would never go to the Sturgis Rally. I give the little 'hey, you're riding a motorcycle too!' wave to non-Harley riders when we pass on the road.


This tendency definitely bleeds off into other areas of my life as well. I don't tend to socialize with my coworkers after hours, because I don't want to be one of those people who spends their entire life with the same tiny set of people. I like many nerdy things, like science fiction movies/TV shows and board games, but I've never been to a Con, and the one time I went to a meeting of the Boulder Board Game Meetup group, I felt like I had to take a shower afterwards. You know all those stereotypes you have in your head of creepy, socially inept nerds with bad personal hygiene, who laugh inappropriately loudly at the most unusual moments? Yeah. I feel like my experience of a Con would be much worse (maybe some newish readers can weigh in here - James, Eli, AJ, Josh, Lindsay?)

There was definitely a period where I was an Ultimate Player, but those days are long gone, and it was definitely the single glaring exception.

So, that's me. But the one thing I'm not actually sure of is: is it a good thing? I used to think that being a blank-er was kinda lame - why define yourself as one thing, whether it's your job, one activity, whatever? I can still run, and ride my Harley, and take beautiful photos, without being defined by any of those things. But I've been doing a lot of reading lately, from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to Drive by Daniel Pink (I recommend the latter, in particular; Gladwell is great as always, but Pink really opened my eyes about some unusual ideas about satisfaction in the workplace), and I'm no longer at all convinced that it's a bad thing to be consumed by a single or small number of habits and hobbies.

Much more to come on this later, but for now, a question: are you a do-er or a be-er? If you could change, would you? Why?

Things we do wrong, but also stupidly, Part 2

Ugh. I guess it's a good thing that the Supreme Court is hearing a case about the validity of patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, thought to have a significant role to play in whether a woman is susceptible to developing breast cancer, since it means that the awarded patents might be overturned, but the mere fact that we had to get to this point means that the system is inherently and perhaps irretrievably fucked, like the idea of shareholder capitalism described in the previous post.

If you haven't already, please listen to perhaps the most-important-ever episode of the always-important This American Life, When Patents Attack. It's an hour that will thoroughly fuck your shit up, when you consider the idea that, technically, nearly every idea that underlies our current mobile-and-connected economy is probably being illegally produced, since nearly every idea contained therein is patented, most of them several times over, by competing, inconsistent, and incoherent patents.

Then, think about how much worse it is to patent a gene. Not one that some nifty scientist threw together in a lab, but one that exists in you, or your mom, or your sister, or a coworker of yours (unless you work in high tech, in which case it exists in one those species known as "women" that you have probably read about online. You know, the green ones in Star Trek?)

For reference, let's go back to the place patents are defined, Title 35 of the United States Code. Section 101 reads:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Emphasis mine. Think about that: "new and useful". How, for the love of all that means anything in the English language, can a gene, which already exists in people, be defined as new? This cannot possibly be accurate, in any possible interpretation of the English language as it currently or ever existed.

Now, if Myriad wants to invent a particular way of testing for this gene, which is new and novel, then by all means, patent away! But patenting the very idea of a gene, which they did not invent, nor did they discover the idea of? BS.

Usually, I'd put something here like 'I'm as pro-patent as the next guy, but...', but I'm not actually sure I'd mean it if I put it here. Do we really think that patents actually work? They certainly inspire innovation, which is good - it's good that a pharmaceutical company gets to make hundreds of millions of dollars if they invent a really kick-ass drug. But is giving that company the right to charge whatever the heck they want for 20 years actually the best way to realize these gains?

We all benefit when really important new drugs are created. Shouldn't we, as a country, just pony up and pay for it? There are lots of ideas for a prize system for drug discovery/invention, many basically proposing something like the X-Prize, given for revolutionary ideas like cheap spaceflight, self-guiding automobiles, and overcoming other important technical challenges.

This is, of course, completely independent of the question of the wisdom of patenting a gene. That's just batshit crazy. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree that the actual wording of the US Code prevents the patenting of things that you didn't have a hand in inventing. Hopefully.

Things we do wrong, but also stupidly

So, one of the themes that we're going to undoubtedly return to a lot (and, I mean, a lot) in the new-ish incarnation of this blog is the idea that we do some stuff really, incredibly stupidly. And that until we fix that basic idea, any of the work we do on the topic is going to be fundamentally flawed and prone to fall over, like a million-dollar-mansion built right over a swamp.

Undoubtedly, we'll end up in politics eventually, but let's start tonight with economics. In a fairly simple post about the joys of Amazon as an unusual-and-successful (and unusually successful) corporate entity, old friend and frequent link-subject Matt Yglesias has a small throwaway line at the end:

But this really is an idea that cuts against the basic logic of modern shareholder capitalism.

The short version of the argument preceding this line is that Amazon, in focusing on customer satisfaction to the point of actually cutting pretty deeply into profits, is completely unusual in modern American corporate culture.

But, look - Amazon pays its employees very well. I bet Bezos makes plenty of money. And its share price does fine; as Yglesias notes, it's P/E ratio is astoundingly high. Plus, they offer completely insanely satisfying customer service; when I have to pay to ship back something defective, Amazon gives me a shipping credit. Sometimes, when I want to return something, they just say 'keep it', and credit me the money back.

I bet that Amazon makes a ton of money off of me in a year. And I'm happy to spend it there! Why is this not the goal of every American company?

If, as Yglesias notes, this cuts against the basic logic of modern shareholder capitalism, then modern shareholder capitalism sucks. It's bad for customers, it's bad for employees, which means it's bad for the majority of people of whom the American economy is made up, which means that it can't win in the long run against other, competing systems that work better for the people in them.

If we don't recognize that this insane focus on quarterly profits is inherently unsustainable, in the long run, any changes we try to make to the American economy will eventually sink into the bog, along with the rest of the economy.

I'll be back

Well, according to the statistics, it's been about 5 years since I last posted here. Which, I figure, makes it about time to start again.

Why? Well, it's hard to explain exactly. But, in short, I found myself Googling myself a couple weeks ago, and ended up reading some of my old posts, and remembering that 'damn, I was a good writer' and that I really enjoyed it.

So, I'm going to put a couple posts up before I announce publicly, but you probably already know about it since you're here, so, well, let's see where this goes!

Enjoy the ride...