Weird that I keep writing here for 3 years after I joined Twitter. Instead it was the death of Google Reader that killed this off. Farewell, -M

Tarmoh - Felix

Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden has another excellent story as he follows up on the Jeneba Tarmoh - Allyson Felix "dead heat" run-off

The story of the photo-finish judge

Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden journals the interesting story of Roger Jennings, the man behind the photo finish review of the Allyson Felix-Jeneba Tarmoh dead heat. Although he played no role in USATF's decision on how to decide the dead heat, he is the man responsible for protesting his own decision (read the story for more).

Dead Heat

The 2012 USATF Olympic Trials are underway and although these events are always exciting to me, something happened this weekend which is quite unusual. Two women in the 100m race tied for third. [see here] There was some confusion about what to do with the race. Initially, Jeneba Tarmoh was declared the winner over Allyson Felix by 0.001s, a small margin by any account. The race was soon declared a "dead heat," and then not long thereafter Felix was declared the winner. But all evidence was inconclusive and the race was again ruled a "dead heat." USATF has now ruled that the 3rd place position (and final berth on the 2012 Olympic Team for this event) will be decided in a run-off later during the Olympic Trials (unless both racers prefer a coin-flip instead). The decision by these ladies, who are training partners, and the run-off (presumably they will select this option) should be exciting to watch, even if you aren't a Trackhead. For now, however, you'll have to be satisfied watching the 100m final again (linked below). NBC Olympics coverage of the USATF Olympic Trials 100m Final

Jonah Lehrer discusses creativity with Russ Roberts. Very interesting; Lehrer may be an author to add to my reading list (which is really a sitting on the shelf to be read later list).

Innovation

..., or Creativity (I'm not sure which is which sometimes), can't be forced. We don't always know which ideas will stick, but if we take the shotgun approach (or the brute force approach) and try to make innovative or creative products we will fail (at least most of the time).

That's what I think Google's problem has been. Do you understand Google+ ? I certainly don't. It's not as intuitive as Facebook or Twitter and it doesn't seem to be working. Add it to the list of many failed Google ideas. I actually liked Wave--at least I thought the idea had merit even if the production was a loss--but not all "good ideas" pan out.

Apple has been successful for 10 years as a tremendously innovative producer. This was certainly attributable to Jobs but I think that the Apple culture is different too. Google's culture is more like Microsoft's and although Google will continue to be a large and successful company for many years, I'm pessimistic that we'll see much more innovation from them. Not that they won't try (nor and I suggesting that they should not try), but we may find their innovative products to be more surprise and less expectation.

Mark Cuban, however, is one who always seems to have simple, good, and creative ideas

It's been a long time

Since I've written anything here. Maybe I will start again. Writing is a skill that needs to be practiced and is (for most, probably) a useful therapy. For some, writing is a requirement for sanity. But those that must write, usually, are writers proper. I've once been a runner, which has its own obsessions, but the outlet provided by running can be substituted with other good things (for me: kids, reading). So, I'm not a writer (as in a must-writer), but I will try to write more.

My last post was on the NCAA T&F championships two years ago. Next year Texas A&M, a school for which I have a natural affection, joins the SEC (along with Missouri). This will be adventuresome in many regards, but excellent for Track & Field. Texas A&M and LSU are two of the best T&F programs in the nation and the rivalry should be well worth watching.

Back to writing: Twitter gets a bad rap, but I like it a lot. I think it has many implications in the news and reporting field (good, hopefully) but for the rest of us it's like a permanent writing assignment. Can I take my thoughts and publish them in useful, succinct, and (hopefully) beautiful presentations of 140 characters (or less)? And using standard grammar, of course. Twitter, when used appropriately, can be like jogging for the brain.

NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Championships

Were on the television this weekend. The championships are actually 4 days of preliminary and final events, but Saturday's showing was a condensed bit of highlights the final day's events. It was exciting from start to finish. There were three dropped exchanges in the mens 4x100m relay (including favorite Texas A&M), the Oregon men finished a surprising 1-2-3 in the 1500m (it was a great pack and stretch run), and the Texas A&M 4x400m relay held off three attempts by Mississippi State to pass on the final curve to beat Florida by 2 to win the championship. If I find good videos of these events I will post them.

Conficker

A wonderful piece by The Atlantic's Mark Bowden on the Conficker worm and the current nature of personal computer security threats.

Yes, but does it attract cougars?

WSJ reports that many large cats at the New York City Zoo are attracted by Calvin Klein's Obsession for Men

Are Hybrids Good for the Environment?

In a post of the same name a writer asks whether hybrids are good for the environment.

More specifically, the writer wonders whether purchasing a new, highly fuel efficient car (such as a hybrid) has any benefit over purchasing a used, moderately fuel efficient car. The writer's argument is that the production cost of a new car (in ecological terms) is so large that it reduce any ecologic benefit gained by the reduced fuel economy.

It's a valid question, but the solution is probably not as simple as the writer suggests. There are a few reasonable objections or follow-up questions to the initial proposition, but what gets me thinking is this: if all ecologically conscious consumers purchase used cars, are they really hurting themselves?

Let's not omit an obvious fact: the used car market is predicted by the new car market. This is so obvious it sounds dumb, but if the ecologically conscious consumers consume the larger portion of used cars, it will be the ecologically unconscious who consume the larger portion of new cars.

Carmarkers, who respond primarily to market demand, will produce more new cars that are likewise ecologically unconscious (since nobody wanted the fuel efficient cars) and the ecologically conscious consumers will find that when their fuel friendly used cars expire, all cars, both used and new, will be less fuel friendly than ever before.

Or so it seems to me.

Texas Rangers

Have started the 2010 season well--off to a 20-15 start and currently in first place in the division.

One interesting statistic is that through 35 games the Rangers are 2nd in the American League in saves (12) and 2nd in blown saves (7), and in each category are 1 behind the AL leader. I'll take this as a sign that the starting pitching has been very good so far this season.

If you're finding you have nothing better to do

Then join the Pigou Club.

But first, you may wish to know what is the Pigou Club? Here is the original charter, err, manifesto.

VMWare's Paul Maritz on finding humility

Here, from Forbes.

Malcolm Gladwell

in his own words

Certainly not all statements he makes here are true, but maybe a close-to-the-mark provocative statement is frequently more useful than a simple, true fact?

Deion Sanders, face and football

Seth Wickersham of ESPN writes about Deion Sanders' influence as a mentor on multiple levels of football, asking whether Deion has anything to gain (especially anything of illicit interest), which has always been a relevant question where Sanders is involved, but I am left wondering whether those he influences have anything to gain. I don't think I want him coaching my boys in football:

A boy fumbles. It's the fourth quarter of a game that Sanders' youth team leads 38-12. So far, it's been a good afternoon, with Deion cajoling his players, hugging them after big plays, giving them hope. But then Shedeur, Sanders' youngest son, coughs it up on a sweep. As the boy walks to the sideline, Sanders gets in his face. "I give you the ball, and you fumble?" he says. He crouches to make eye contact, then explodes backward in disgust. "Are you crying? You're crying!"

Sanders doesn't coach criers. Cry on the field, you cry in life, he believes. Shedeur tries to walk away, but his father grabs him and pulls off his helmet. Face the crowd, he insists, so everyone sees those wet cheeks. The boy is humiliated, his teammates are scared, and other parents nervously watch. Is this discipline and structure, in the form of tough love? Or is this a well-intentioned coach with poor methods?

Sanders looks at his son and shakes his head. "Go back to your mama."

The boy walks off, leaving everyone to wonder.

The marginal utility of sin

Garett Jones, macroeconomist at George Mason University, has an interesting Twitter feed (follow him @GarettJones) where he poses macroeconomic questions, which are frankly often difficult enough, within the 140-character limits of Twitter. This usually results in a sort of riddle and, like most riddles, thinking through his riddle is often more important than simply knowing the answer.

Yesterday he posted an interesting remark:

Some pundits are like preachers, telling the faithful to avoid all sin. Good advice as long as benefits of sin equal zero.

I don't know too much about pundits, but I know a few things about preachers and sin and I think this statement is fascinating. Indeed, I think it captures well what is so hard to grasp about religion and the religious faithful (or unfaithful), but to understand this it may be useful to step into economic theory.

I think Mr Jones' comments regarding sin are a matter of marginal utility. Marginal utility is simply the benefit (or loss) resulting from a change in production, but that definition may not make much sense on the surface. It's more important to understand what marginal utility tells us--whether we should produce more or less of a product.

To put this in concrete terms, if you are buying an LCD TV (a purchase of $1,000 to $2,000 for most people) then you will do some research. You may spend 5 or 6 hours online or in showrooms or watching friends' TVs to get an idea what you need or want to purchase. Then you may spend another 1 or 2 hours driving to different shops to find the best price. Then you may spend another 1 or 2 hours online trying to save another $10 or $20 off the price. But at some point you will quit researching because even if you save another $1, you've decided it just isn't worth your time.

That's marginal utility. You're making a decision regarding production (TV research) based on the marginal utility (+$20/hour decreasing to +$1/hour in my example.) When marginal utility = $0, you know to stop production (or stop wasting your time); that's how it works, more or less.

So what has this got to do with religion and sin?

Some pundits are like preachers, telling the faithful to avoid all sin. Good advice as long as benefits of sin equal zero.

What are the benefits of sin? Well, to the consumer (or the faithful, in this case), there is a calculation of marginal utility (marginal cost of being faithful?) whereby the faithful consumer decides whether the production of abstinence or the production of indulgence produces more utility. If abstinence results in +$0 utility and sin results in +$5 utility, choose sin (you've had your fair share of avoiding sin, since utility is $0, so go ahead and grab some more sin, which seems to still profit you.)

I think that's a fair model for the way most of the faithful (or unfaithful) consumers of religion think. Certainly, if any of the faithful consider avoidance of sin to always produce a benefit of +$0, these may think of the production of sin as their primary concern until it has +$0 utility. At that point should they consider avoidance of sin to be worthwhile.

Of course, thinking this way seems to neglect the benefits (utility) of avoiding sin and I think any good preacher should tell you there are many. But I guess that's a difference between the role of the economist and preacher. The economist tweets to describe what the model is (positive economics, what's actually happening) while the preacher tweets to tell you what the model should be (normative economics, what should be happening.)

As I get older, for some reason I find news reporting more fascinating

It's not the news I like, however, as the news bores me as much as ever. It's the reporting that fascinates me. For example, take this recent story: Chile quake may have tipped Earth's axis.

Below the header is that this change in the Earth's Axis may have shortened the length of the day. Interest, to say the least, this seems. This is how the story starts:

(CNN) -- The massive earthquake that struck Chile on Saturday may have shifted Earth's axis and created shorter days, scientists at NASA say.

and this is the second sentence (which I've abruptly ended, for your sake):

The change is negligible, but permanent

Roughly 275 words follow, but why? If this change is truly negligible, which is to say so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering or insignificant then can't we just stop at that sentence? Or not write the story at all?

Are some losses gains?

Probably so, but probably not when Mississippi votes to take a bath and sell the State-owned executive jet used to transport Governor Haley Barbour. I'm not necessarily in favor of state executives having executive jet transport, but does it seem a little short-sighted to take a $800,000 loss selling a jet when you only owe $400,000 on it?

With the current jet market, I'm not convinced this would sell for even $2.5m. Consider this: if Mississippi can sell now to gain $2m or keep it five more years and sell for $4m, which is a better choice? (Obviously this is a conjecture and neither alternative is guaranteed; also, I'm not necessarily against private transport for state executives either, and it seems to make sense for Mississippi recently.)

On the eBook industry, Kindle and iPad

An interesting review by Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post, with much of the focus appropriately on the Kindle's initiation and adaptation in this industry, but at least one comment makes me scratch my head:

Although Bezos & Co. were not pleased by the weekend's developments, they were hardly surprised. Amazon had already anticipated Apple's entry into the market by inviting software companies to begin developing applications for the Kindle that would allow it to compete directly with the more multifunctional iPad, particularly in the area of video games.

I'm no Kindle expert, but I've used one or two and wonder how, exactly, does Jeff Bezos expect Kindle users to play video games on the Kindle and which games exactly are we talking about?