The Three Bins

When I have something that I want to talk out, I try to place the topic into one of three bins.

1. The default bin is: talk it out, and forget it. Let it go! Luckily, a lot of stuff goes here.
2. The middle bin is my least favorite, because it's filled with what I couldn't let go of from the first bin. There's a reason why some topics continue to gnaw at me, but figuring out what is actually bothering me isn't always easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't be in this bin in the first place!
3. The smallest bin is my favorite: figure out what is actionable to improve that situation, and do it. I consider this bin the smallest because I'm always emptying it by doing what needs to be done. Woo-hoo!

So I guess that's: forget about it, chew on it, or do it. Let it go, let it stew, or take action.

And so goes the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bins.

Against Bottled Water

I don't drink bottled water, because

1. making plastic bottles uses a lot of fuel and water: it takes several times more water to make the bottle than to fill it!, and
2. most bottled water is municipal water, but with less regulation for safety.

There are a few times when bottled water is appropriate (such as when local water is known to be unsafe), but generally it can be avoided for a more ecological choice. Consider a reusable water bottle and a water filter instead.

References:

• Ban the Bottle
• infographic
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Rational Wiki

Antibiotic Overuse

This article, Antibiotic overuse: Stop the killing of beneficial bacteria, by Martin Blaser [doi:10.1038/476393a] kicked up opinions on antibiotic overuse. That article is a collection of observations, not a scientific study, but it is compelling. The CDC is also worried about antibiotic resistance, and this concern runs beyond the US with the Transatlantic Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance formed in 2009.

One problem is that antibiotics could be killing off beneficial bacteria for good, not temporarily as used to be believed. Furthermore, the reduction in H. pylori matches a rise in reflux and cancer. Ouch!

Some bacteria are good, and antibiotics are not selective. I've said it before ...

Intent and Impact

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I call Baloney on that childhood rhyme.

I want to use a simplified model of communication in this post: two people talking to each other. When Alice speaks, she has intent. When Bob listens to her, her words have an impact on him. Good communication happens when [good] intent has a matching impact. When the two don't align (as can be a problem for relationships, religious beliefs, and more), those words can get offensive. (Seriously, read It's not about The Onion.)

If the intent is good, but the impact is bad (sorry, I'm still simplifying), I need more information. Does Alice know her impact is bad? Has Alice actually been told this? Has Alice apologized, sympathized, or empathized? Has Alice thought about how to do better in the future? If the pattern of behavior is all bad impact with no visible effort to improve, it's just toxic waste [see #6].

Intent and impact are two sides of the same coin of communication.

I think intent does matter, but it's not the only thing. In a conversation with two equal participants, Alice's intent should have an equal weight compared to the impact on Bob. If Alice exhibits a pattern of undesirable impact that she hasn't improved (even if bungled), I personally care a whole lot less about her intent.

Impact matters.

UPDATE: Scientific American has a thoughtful blog post on intent versus impact titled "But I didn’t mean it!" Why it’s so hard to prioritize impacts over intents.

Cognitive Bias, continued

Another interesting case of cognitive bias (I encounter bias blind spot and introspection illusion often; this thought continued from earlier post) is mind projection fallacy. Oh, to see the world as it really is (link just for the synopsis of Heart of Darkness) ... or not!

Not Racist

I had a short but uncomfortable conversation with a former neighbor recently about the George Zimmerman verdict. His position was that Trayvon Martin would have been an immediate danger to me, so we are better off without him. The very next words out of his mouth were, "But I'm not a racist because I have black friends."

I need to find a word or phrase to describe what he said there. Logical fallacy? Syllogist fallacy? Ah, fallacy of the undistributed middle and fallacy of composition (with its compatriots hasty generalization and false analogy) are getting closer. Or some other fallacy? Inductive reasoning gives evidence, not proof, of the conclusion, and gets weaker when you add cognitive bias (like bias blind spot and introspection illusion). Just because you like specific example of category doesn't mean that you don't discriminate against general category, knowingly or unknowingly. Given our lame national culture, you really should assume otherwise.

I have many more examples of this behavior, so it's prevalent. If we're discussing broad topic (like racism), how does something else (like the race of a few of your friends) prove that you're free of the typical cultural bias of normative behavior (like discrimination)?

It's very frustrating. But I'd feel a little less frustrated if I could just shoot back, "Bah! Logical fallacy! False analogy!" or similar. Don't try that nonsense on me because I see the large holes making your argument look weak and tattered. And I don't think that's just naïve cynicism on my part.

UPDATE: LinkedIn apologizes for assuming beautiful women can't also be engineers. Does this mean LinkedIn would not have to apologize if the woman in the picture weren't an engineer? If so, they missed the point. How she looks in a photo does not influence how she does her job or what her job is!

Google Drops XMPP

This article (Google’s New Unified Messaging Drops Open XMPP/Jabber Interoperability) makes me sad. I like XMPP for IM and presence. This article at H-online articulates my concerns, and this one my fears.

Facebook. Icky.

I always knew Facebook made my don't-do-it sensor itch. I thought it was the lack of import and export (two of my most favorite things for good software). But it sounds like Facebook has more shady doings than that. Glad I never fell in love with it.

SUVs

I have this rant fairly often so I thought I'd post my reasons that I will never buy an SUV. (Note that this doesn't apply to mini-vans, but personally I'm quite happy with my station wagon ... at least once it comes back from the body shop.)

1. Safety: an SUV only has to pass truck safety standards. Those safety standards were designed for farm trucks that didn't drive on the interstate. IIRC, you don't have to survive a crash over 35 mph to pass SUV and farm truck safety standards. So those folks who think they are safer in an SUV, probably the ones who fly past me on the interstate, I bet they don't know that. A false sense of safety is very dangerous.
3. Comfort: most SUVs use leaf springs. That's 1970's technology! Suspension has improved a lot since then. (But hey, leaf springs are cheap, and farm trucks still use them.) I consider a comfortable ride to be very important. I bought my first Mercedes (old even then, a 1983 300D) when I was 25, and after one week, the back pain I had had since I was 17 went away. I used to wake up at 7 am every morning with excruciating back pain. One night before exams in college, we all had a lot to drink, and I think I crawled on the couch about 4 am. When I woke up at 7 am in pain, the room was still spinning and everyone else was still asleep. I walked around patting the cat until my back eased up and I could go back to sleep. And wake up at noon with everyone else. So when I say that I always woke up in pain at 7 am, I really mean it. It was rotten. But after one week in a comfortable car, I've rarely had that level of back pain again. I've never even had a long commute, maybe 20 minutes each way tops, but I never thought I did enough driving for my car to be related to my back pain. But the timing sure was suspicious ... and my back hurts again if I drive a rental for more than a week ... Perhaps comfort is more important to me than to most people.
5. Fuel Economy: there's just no technical reason that SUVs have to have such terrible fuel economy. Have you seen the bumper sticker, Osama loves your SUV? My 1987 diesel station wagon got 36 mpg on the interstate when I drove it home. My 2002 gas station wagon got 32 mpg on the interstate driving back from my grandmother's house while fully loaded (roof carrier even! worst case!). Both wagons are considered "full sized" and have a large amount of cargo capacity. I sure don't need an SUV for hauling stuff when I have all that open area in the back and a roof carrier. And I don't need an SUV to carry lots of people when my station wagon has seat belts for 7. So I can haul lots of stuff, seat many people, and have good fuel economy. Makes more sense than an SUV for me!
7. Cost: even though SUV prices have dropped, they still have a healthier profit margin for the auto manufacturers than I feel like paying for something that is less safe, less comfortable, and terribly inefficient. I sure wouldn't pay premium prices for an SUV with poor safety, cheap old leaf springs, and bad fuel economy. SUVs have a huge profit margin, and I just don't see what's in it for me.

When I was in graduate school, one of the foreign grad students told me that he wanted to buy an SUV so that he would be safer. I don't know what he bought, but I did set him straight on safety. My Mercedes station wagon is heavier than smaller SUVs, and more survivable too.

Old cars have personality, and one time my 1983 300D showed that by not starting at the gas station. (It had a bad alternator that hadn't been charging the battery. I learned that the hard way at this gas station!) So I went inside and asked someone to give me a jump start. A good old boy (those guys are great when you have car trouble!) said "I'll help you little lady," and walked out to his SUV. Well, diesels have a very high compression ratio by virtue of being diesels, and he couldn't jump start me without revving his engine to get his alternator to kick out a lot more current. So that big tough SUV ... was really pretty wimpy and just barely sufficient for what I needed. (A car would have been the same, but without the attitude that the big SUV can take care of this little old sedan.)

I'm just not tempted.

The Case Against DRM

Scott Bradner is one of those Internet people I respect. I don't even know where to start on why ... I'll let his Postel Award speak for itself, and just say that's why. I was catching up on Scott Bradner's column in Network World because I enjoy his succinct opinions. This one on DRM’s future on the Internet got off to a good start, and turning to an Andrew Odlyzko paper [Digital rights management: Desirable, inevitable, and almost irrelevant] just sealed the deal since I respect Andrew Odlyzko's ability to counter popular positions with strong arguments backed up with solid data and analysis. Put the two of those in the same article against DRM, and I suffer a terrible case of the Me too opinion!

The only point I would add is one made by Professor Gary Bishop: the whole recording industry (music and movies) wouldn't exist without the very technology that they're fighting with DRM. How's that for biting the hand that feeds and created you? Probably not too smart.

Supporting No DRM

Symbolic gesture, done.

Hurrah for EMI!

I'm really surprised that a major label dropped DRM, but good for EMI! I'm ready to go out and buy something (like The Verve or The Vines) just to help make the point. At full price too!

When the RIAA shut down Napster, I quit buying music that wasn't from an independent artist (like Cyril Lance at CD Baby) or used (from Phil at Back Door CDs). So there! I don't believe that the recording industry, built on electronics, was significantly harmed by electronic downloads. In fact, Janis Ian can back that up: she hasn't recorded since the 60s, she owns the copyright on her songs (rare!), and her sales go up every time she releases a song as a free MP3. There's no reason other than a song's free release for her sales to go up since she hasn't recorded in years! So the RIAA is just afraid of change. Well, change happens!

Today's Observation

You know you're driving too slow when ... a diesel passes you on the right and never makes it up to the speed limit. And I was driving an old diesel with power issues until the turbo waste gate hose gets replaced! At least it doesn't smoke.

Prius Irony

I read an entry by a Prius owner explaining the seductive game of getting the highest fuel economy possible, competing with other Prius owners. At the time I thought, Yeah, regenerative braking is pretty cool. I remembered that recently with a sardonic twist.

I do care about efficiency (I compost! I recycle!), and I carpool to work when possible even though I sometimes have to shuffle my schedule. My own version of the Prius game is to try to beat the published EPA ratings. Our newest car, which is actually his and not mine, but I drive it often, can display the instantaneous fuel economy on the electronic dashboard display. I usually leave it on that setting because it makes bursts of acceleration less tempting (unless traffic conditions warrant it, and then I'm glad I'm not driving my diesel).

I was driving to work behind a Prius last week, and I noticed the driver used the brakes for half a mile before one turn. Seriously, it's only 45 mph through there, it's slightly uphill, and you don't have to stop for this turn, so it seemed premature ... unless you're trying to up the economy of your hybrid. You can coast to this turn, no brake and no accelerator, and get it about right. However, we were crawling to the turn, so of course I had time to watch my dashboard. I drive to work pretty often, and I always glance at the fuel economy as I straighten out from this turn. Braking, braking, braking, and I'm watching my fuel economy drop, drop, drop because we're going uphill and I needed to give the car a little gas to make it up at that speed. I lost badly at my fuel economy game that morning.

Which brings me to The Prius Irony: what the Prius driver does to increase Prius fuel economy just shoots my fuel economy all the way down. Yeah, that helps!

(When I notice another diesel on the road, I try to accommodate that too. Diesels are most efficient maintaining speed, so you avoid braking to improve economy. The Ford Reflex concept car, an electric-diesel hybrid, could be very cool by removing that penalty. And a well-tuned diesel isn't a terrible polluter. However, a gas engine needs a tune-up to keep the timing within 4 degrees, while a diesel can run albeit poorly and smokily with the timing off 20 degrees. So well tuned is critical, but then the efficiency is good. Plus bio-diesel is coming to my neck of the corn field.)

Anti on Anti-Bacterial

Antibacterial soap sounds great, right? Oh, where do I start on that one? For one, there's no indication that it does a better job killing bacteria than regular soap, so it's just scare-tactic advertising. (See WebMD.)

1. Children raised in homes with high use of antibacterial products have a higher rate of asthma and allergies. Trust me, both of those are miserable: I have exercise-induced asthma, and my allergy to cigarette smoke makes me break out in hives at the worst times. (See Henry Ford Health System.)
2. Beneficial bacteria are killed with the nasty bacteria. For instance, oral antibiotics can kill beneficial intestinal flora. (See Drs. Oz and Roizen.) What does that mean? Well, let's just say I would stay within a dash of the bathroom, and start eating yogurt with live cultures to get your intestines back in shape. Also, without the beneficial bacteria in residence, there's more room at the inn for the nasty ones. Bottom line: not all bacteria are bad! The ones that belong are less susceptible to basic cleanliness like scrubbing with soap and water.
3. Increased antibiotic use leads to resistant bacteria strains! So when you really need that antibiotic to work, perhaps to save your life, the chances aren't as good as they could and should be. (See WebMD.) It's not yet known if antibacterial soap contributes to this like antibiotic drugs, but the antibacterials aren't great for your general health either.
4. Antibacterial products are very bad for sewage treatment. (I know this is a re-statement of #2, but it's an important view of The Big Picture beyond your own hands and your own kitchen counter.) You can kill your septic tank this way, if you're not on a sewer line. If you are, increased antibacterial use has increased city sewage costs (passed on to you!) at the treatment plant! In both case, the antibacterial products kill the beneficial bacteria in the system to break down the sewage.

So what should you do instead? Rub your hands with regular soap and warm water for 30 seconds. (See University Health Network.) Then rub your hands dry to continue the mechanical removal of bacteria. If you're on the road, use a hand-sanitizing gel instead. (See WebMD.) Be prudent: this is a public health issue that affects everyone.

Moral: There is no quick fix! In this case, plain old soap and water with regular old-fashioned scrubbing is how to get clean.