Month: August 2018

How Precision Metalwork Was Required for Industrial Revolution

(p. 16) In “The Perfectionists,” Simon Winchester celebrates the unsung breed of engineers who through the ages have designed ever more creative and intricate machines. He takes us on a journey through the evolution of “precision,” which in his view is the major driver of what we experience as modern life.
. . .
This expert working of metal is traced back to James Watt and his development of the steam engine. The first prototypes leaked copious amounts of steam and weren’t very efficient. The problem was that the piston didn’t fit exactly in its cylinder — small imperfections in the surfaces of both allowed pockets of air to escape. Watt enlisted the help of John “Iron Mad” Wilkinson, so called because of his expertise (even obsession) with metal. Wilkinson had previously patented a way to bore out precise cylinders for more accurate cannons, and he suggested the same method be applied to Watt’s ill-fitting system. It worked, and the improved engine allowed the conversion of energy to movement on an unprecedented scale. The Industrial Revolution, Winchester declares, could now begin.

For the full review, see:
Roma Agrawal. “Perfect Fit.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, June 17, 2018): 16.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May [sic] 14, 2018, and has the title “Under Modernity’s Hood: Precision Engineering.”)

The book under review, is:
Winchester, Simon. The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2018.

Widely-Used HireVue Algorithm Can Lock-In Hiring Biases

(p. A23) The products of a company called HireVue, which are used by over 600 companies including Nike, Unilever and even Atlanta Public Schools, allow employers to interview job applicants on camera, using A.I. to rate videos of each candidate according to verbal and nonverbal cues. The company’s aim is to reduce bias in hiring.
But there’s a catch: The system’s ratings, according to a Business Insider reporter who tested the software and discussed the results with HireVue’s chief technology officer, reflect the previous preferences of hiring managers. So if more white males with generally homogeneous mannerisms have been hired in the past, it’s possible that algorithms will be trained to favorably rate predominantly fair-skinned, male candidates while penalizing women and people of color who do not exhibit the same verbal and nonverbal cues.

For the full story, see:

Joy Buolamwini. “The Hidden Dangers Of Facial Analysis.” The New York Times (Friday, June 22, 2018): A23.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 21, 2018, and has the title “When the Robot Doesn’t See Dark Skin.”)

“It’s Time for the FDA to Get with the Program”

(p. A14) Are eggs good for you or not?
It’s never been more confusing for consumers to answer that seemingly simple question. Vilified for years for their high cholesterol content, eggs more recently have broken back into dietary fashion. Nutrition experts today are touting eggs’ high levels of protein, essential vitamins and nutrients like brain-booster choline.
Government guidelines sometimes contradict nutrition experts’ advice as they play catch up with the latest scientific findings. Dietary advice from the U.S. departments of agriculture and health and human services includes eggs as part of a healthy diet, but also says cholesterol intake should be as low as possible. And the Food and Drug Administration says that eggs are too high in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to be labeled “healthy” by food marketers.
It’s such a scrambled issue that one egg brand is petitioning for an official government reassessment of eggs. “There’s so much new science out there about eggs, it’s time for the FDA to get with the program,” says Jesse Laflamme, chief executive of Pete and Gerry’s Organics, who filed a citizen’s petition urging the agency to rethink its ban on calling eggs “healthy.”

For the full commentary, see:
Ellen Byron. “The Great Egg Conundrum.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 13, 2018): A14.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 12, 2018, and has the title “The Great Egg Debate: Are They Healthy or Not?”)

NYC Government Hid Public Housing Lead Paint Violations

(p. A1) The federal government on Monday [June 11, 2018] delivered a withering rebuke of New York City’s housing authority, accusing officials of systematic misconduct, indifference and outright lies in the management of the nation’s oldest and largest stock of public housing.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan said the authority, which houses at least 400,000 poor and working-class residents, covered up its actions, training its staff on how to mislead federal inspectors and presenting false reports to the government and to the public about its compliance with lead-paint regulations. The failures endangered tenants and workers for years, the prosecutors said, and potentially left more children than previously known poisoned by lead paint in their apartments.
The accusations were contained in an 80-page civil complaint filed against the authority on Monday in federal court by the office of Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney in Manhattan, after a lengthy investigation.
The problems at the authority “reflect management dysfunction and organizational failure,” the prosecutors said, “including a culture where spin is often rewarded and accountability often does not exist.”

For the full story, see:
Benjamin Weiser and J. David Goodman. “Rot, Deception and Danger in Public Housing.” The New York Times (Tuesday, June 12, 2018): A1 & A21.
(Note: bracketed date added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 11, 2018, and has the title “New York City Housing Authority, Accused of Endangering Residents, Agrees to Oversight.”)

Rupert Murdoch’s Journalism Praised in New York Times

HolmesElizabethTheranosCEO2018-07-17.jpgElizabeth Holmes, former CEO of Theranos. (Apparently it takes more than a black turtleneck to be Steve Jobs.) Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 13) In 2015, Vice President Joe Biden visited the Newark, Calif., laboratory of a hot new start-up making medical devices: Theranos. Biden saw rows of impressive-looking equipment — the company’s supposedly game-changing device for testing blood — and offered glowing praise for “the laboratory of the future.”

The lab was a fake. The devices Biden saw weren’t close to being workable; they had been staged for the visit.
Biden was not the only one conned. In Theranos’s brief, Icarus-like existence as a Silicon Valley darling, marquee investors including Robert Kraft, Betsy DeVos and Carlos Slim shelled out $900 million. The company was the subject of adoring media profiles; it attracted a who’s who of retired politicos to its board, among them George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. It wowed an associate dean at Stanford; it persuaded Safeway and Walgreens to spend millions of dollars to set up clinics to showcase Theranos’s vaunted revolutionary technology.
. . .
Even for a private company like Theranos, disclosure is the bedrock of American capitalism — the “disinfectant” that allows investors to gauge a company’s prospects. Based on Carreyrou’s dogged reporting, not even Enron lied so freely.
. . .
Holmes . . . pleaded with Rupert Murdoch — the power behind The Wall Street Journal and, as it happened, her biggest investor — to kill the story. It’s a good moment in American journalism when Murdoch says he’ll leave it to the editors.
. . .
Some of the directors displayed a fawning devotion to Holmes — in effect becoming cheerleaders rather than overseers. Shultz helped his grandson land a job; when the kid reported back that the place was rotten, Grandpa didn’t believe him. There is a larger moral here: The people in the trenches know best. The V.I.P. directors were nectar for investor bees, but they had no relevant expertise.

For the full review, see:
Roger Lowenstein. “This Will Only Hurt a Little.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, June 17, 2018): 13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May [sic] 21, 2018, and has the title “How One Company Scammed Silicon Valley. And How It Got Caught.”)

The book under review, is:
Carreyrou, John. Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.

Even the Mighty Fall: Dow Drops GE

(p. B1) General Electric Co. will drop out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average next week, a milestone in the decline of a firm that once ranked among the mightiest of blue-chips and was a pillar of the U.S. economy.
. . .
The decision to drop GE, an original member of the Dow that has been a part of the 30-stock index continuously since 1907, marks the latest setback for a company that once was the most valuable U.S. firm but has been hit hard in recent years by the unraveling of its finance business and competitive problems.

For the full story, see:
Michael Wursthorn and Thomas Gryta. “GE Drops Out of the Dow After A Century.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 20, 2018): B1 & B12.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 19, 2018, and has the title “GE Drops Out of the Dow After More Than a Century.” The passages quoted above follow the slightly longer wording in the online version.)

Drones “Stifled” by Stringent Regulations

(p. B5) The commercial drone industry is being stifled by unnecessarily stringent federal safety rules enforced by regulators who frequently pay only lip service to easing restrictions or streamlining decision-making, according to a report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
The unusually strongly worded report released Monday [June 11, 2018] urges “top-to-bottom” changes in how the Federal Aviation Administration assesses and manages risks from drones.
. . .
. . . minimal but persistent levels of risk already are accepted by the public,according to the report. A fundamental issue is “what are we going to compare [drone] safety to?” said consultant George Ligler, who served as chairman of the committee that drafted the document.
“We do not ground airplanes because birds fly in the airspace, although we know birds can and do bring down aircraft,” the report said.

For the full story, see:
Andy Pasztor. “FAA’s Safety Rules for Commercial Drones Are Overly Strict, Report Says.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, June 12, 2018): B5.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 11, 2018, and has the title “FAA’s Safety Rules for Commercial Drones Are Overly Strict, Report Says.”)

Obits for Gig Economy Are Premature

(p. A21) Data confirm the “gig economy” is taking off–or do they? A 2017 Upwork study found that 36% of the labor force engaged in some form of contract or freelance work in 2017. In 2015 the Mercatus Center counted 1099-MISC and W-2 tax forms, which report contractor and employee income, respectively. The number of W-2s declined 3.5% between 2000 and 2014, while the 1099-MISC count grew 22% (albeit from a much smaller base).
But then the Bureau of Labor Statistics weighed in. Its Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements survey, released last week, caused a flurry of clickbait headlines like “Everything we thought we knew about the gig economy is wrong” and “Gig economy jobs aren’t really taking over America’s workforce.”
. . .
A notable study by economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger used the same questions as the BLS survey, but worked with a different sample population (the RAND American Life Panel) and used an internet survey. It found that alternative employment arrangements as a worker’s primary form of employment grew more than 50% between 2005 to 2015, when they collected their data.
It would at least be hasty to conclude that alternative employment arrangements declined between 2005 to 2017. And more important, the BLS data are not an accurate description or measure of gig-economy work, since they exclude most workers engaged in this type of work through supplementary income.

For the full commentary, see:
Liya Palagashvili. “Don’t Be So Sure the Gig Is Up; Contract work has fallen as a share of employment, a BLS study finds. But there are reasons to doubt it..” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 13, 2018): A21.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 12, 2018.)

They study by Katz and Krueger, mentioned above, is:
Katz, Lawrence F., and Alan B. Krueger. “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: 22667, 2016.
Also relevant is their:
Katz, Lawrence F., and Alan B. Krueger. “The Role of Unemployment in the Rise in Alternative Work Arrangements.” American Economic Review 107, no. 5 (May 2017): 388-92.

History of Energy Shows Power of Human Ingenuity to Solve Problems

(p. 16) In this meticulously researched work, Rhodes brings his fascination with engineers, scientists and inventors along as he presents an often underappreciated history: four centuries through the evolution of energy and how we use it. He focuses on the introduction of each new energy source, and the discovery and gradual refinement of technologies that eventually made them dominant. The result is a book that is as much about innovation and ingenuity as it is about wood, coal, kerosene or oil.
. . .
Moreover, there is a familiar pattern when one energy source supplants another: As each obstacle is cleared, a new one appears. The distillation of Pennsylvania “rock oil,” for instance, established that itt offered a superior mode of lighting, a discovery that immediately presented the challenge of producing such oil — then collected from places where it bubbled to the surface — in sufficient quantities. Similarly, the invention of the petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine required Charles F. Kettering and Thomas Midgely Jr. to resolve the pressing problem of “engine knock” that resulted from small, damaging explosions in the cylinders.
. . .
. . . , by the end one gets a sense of boosted confidence about the ability of technology and human ingenuity to solve even those problems that at first seem insurmountable.

For the full review, see:
Meghan L. O’sullivan. “Power On.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, June 24, 2018): 16.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date June 18, 2018, and has the title “A History of the Energy We Have Consumed.”)

The book under review, is:
Rhodes, Richard. Energy: A Human History. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.

Regulations Support Car Incumbents and Undermine Tesla Profitability

(p. A13) . . . governments everywhere have decided, perversely, that electric cars will not be profitable. In every major market–the U.S., Europe, China–the same political dispensation now applies: Established auto makers effectively will be required to make and sell electric cars at a loss in order to continue profiting from gas-powered vehicles.
This has rapidly become the institutional structure of the electric-car industry world-wide, for the benefit of the incumbents, whether GM in the U.S. or Daimler in Germany. Let’s face it, the political class always had a bigger investment in these incumbents than it ever did in Tesla.
Tesla has a great brand, great technology and great vehicles. To survive, it also needs to mate itself to a nonelectric pickup truck business. . . .
We’ll save for another day the relating of this phenomenon to Mr. Musk’s recently erratic behavior and pronouncements. . . . Keep your eye on the bigger picture–the bigger picture is the global regulatory capture of the electric car moment by the status quo. And note the irony that Tesla’s home state of California was the original pioneer of this insiders’ regulatory bargain with its so-called zero-emissions-vehicle mandate.
Electric cars were going to remain a niche in any case, but public policy is quickly ruling out the possibility (which Tesla needed) of them at least being a profitable niche.

For the full commentary, see:
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “BUSINESS WORLD; A Tesla Crackup Foretold; The real problem is that governments everywhere have ordained that electric cars will be sold at a loss.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, June 23, 2018): A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 22, 2018.)