A description of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine and how it works.
Source code for a vaccine? Well, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say, this is the 21st century.
Tech
Reopening — III (Theory ∧ Practice)
“We should act incrementally as prudent risk minimizers and pursue any effective no-regrets options. We do not have to wait for the formulation and acceptance of grand strategies, for the emergence of global consensual understanding, or for the universal adoption of more rational approaches.”
— Vaclav Smil (Global Catastrophes and Trends: the Next Fifty Years)
This post is an attempt at synthesis; those just grazing in (Midwesterners don’t surf) are directed to Reopening — I (Practice) and Reopening — II (Theory) for accounts of my earlier action and contemplation, respectively. For my third installment, I can do no better than lead off with a quadrant diagram of my own devising:
Worthwhile Reading and Viewing
It’s been a while since I posted a link collection, so here are quite a few…
The highest-resolution snowflake photos ever captured.
The real kind of snowflakes, not the metaphorical kind.
Stella’s best leaf jumps of all time.
A lot of enthusiasm
Spot, the Robot Dog, goes to work on an oil rig.
Bet Spot can’t do what Stella can do.
The recent discussion of port congestion reminded me of this very interesting website, which shows the world’s maritime traffic in real time or very close to same.
And on a more somber note: November 10 marked the 45th anniversary of the Great Lakes ore carrier Edmund Fitzgerald, an event memorialized in song by Gordon Lightfoot.
Still on the subject of transportation: the implementation of Positive Traffic Control for US railroads, which has been a huge and complex project, is almost complete.
I’m not sure that this mandate really represented the best possible safety-return-on-investment for the money expended.
Turkish trash collectors built a library for abandoned books.
Visiting cards and actual visits, as a Facebook equivalent in 1800s Russia.
Reminds me of a passage in one of Fielding’s novels, in which a woman takes great pleasure in going through the visiting cards of people who called on her, which made me immediately think of like-collecting of Facebook.
Networks Calling Elections: How it Began
Surely the most famous case of morning-after newspaper reporting of an election was the Chicago Tribune’s Dewey Defeats Truman headline of November 3, 1948. But the era of television was just beginning, and the tradition of televised and near-real-time election calls began with a corporate PR stunt.
In 1952, the Eckert-Mauchly computer corporation, which had recently been acquired by Remington Rand, suggested to CBS News that their Univac computer might be used for election-night projections. Univac, the first computer to be ‘mass-produced’ (46 were eventually sold and installed) was already becoming famous. It was an awesome machine, weighing 8 tons and incorporating 5000 vacuum tubes. Its internal memory capacity was a then-impressive 1000 words, or about 12 KB. Price was about $1 million, in 1952 money.
Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was considered the favorite to win, although the election was expected to be close. But at 8:30 PM, with only 5% of the votes counted, Univac issued its initial prediction: 100-to-1 odds for Eisenhower, with 438 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 93. The CBS news director thought the prediction was ridiculous, and it was not aired.
Meanwhile, Eckert-Mauchly’s statistician (Max Woodbury) was entering data to reflect new returns as they came in….he may have also tuned the algorithm to give less-extreme results, though this is not clear. At 9PM, Univac issued another prediction: 8-7 odds for Eisenhower…and this prediction was announced.
But then, Woodbury discovered that he had added an extra zero to the Stevenson numbers for New York state. After this entry was corrected, the machine gave the same answer as before: 100-to-1 odds for Eisenhower, with 438 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 93. I can’t determine whether or not this revised forecast was televised or not, but the final result was an Eisenhower victory, 442-89 electoral votes.
Late at night, CBS correspondent Charles Collingwood made an embarrassing confession to millions of viewers: Univac had made an accurate prediction hours before, but CBS hadn’t aired it.
This election-night affair certainly helped solidify the idea that Univac was the name in computers…a nice PR win, though it didn’t seem to help the company very much in the end…and made computers and algorithmic predictions a regular feature of election-night reporting. Today, of course, such predictions are a commonplace from media of all types. And some of these media organizations seem to have developed a rather…exalted…opinion of their role. In a tweet sent out on election day, 2020…and soon withdrawn..the New York Times asserted that:
The role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the US falls to the news media.
Such ‘declarations’, of course, have no legal standing: they are merely estimates, as much as the varying 1952 CBS estimates were, and the NYT’s tweet was an assertion of arrogance and privilege, surprising only in that it was so out in the open.
Some links:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/78x79z/the-election-night-debut-of-commercial-computing-almost-wasnt
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/1104cbs-tv-univac-election/
http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/bitbybit/bit-by-bit-contents/chapter-five/5-10-univac-part-ii-commercialization/
The Multi-Front Attack on Free Speech (rerun)
(I don’t usually rerun posts that are less than a year old, but in this case…)
Free speech–free expression generally–is under attack in America and throughout the Western world to a degree not seen in a long time. I think there are some specific phenomena and (partially-overlapping) categories of people which are largely driving this attack. I’ve written about this subject previously, here, but the situation has gotten even more serious since that post, and some of the important factors were underemphasized. Here are the current fronts, as I see it, in the war (not too strong a word, I’m afraid) on free speech.
The Thugs. As I pointed out in my post The United States of Weimar?, illegal actions against political opponents, ranging from theft of newspapers to direct assault and battery, have in recent decades become increasingly common on university campuses, and now are well on track to being normalized as aspects of American politics. Incidents of political thuggery are reported almost daily: just the other day, pro-Trump women at an upscale DC hotel were verbally attacked and apparently physically assaulted by members of a wedding party that was heavy on Democrat attendees; including, reportedly, some top officials from the DNC. A pro-free-speech film was reportedly interrupted by two men wearing masks. Interruption of movies they didn’t like was a tactic used by the Nazis prior to their obtaining official censorship powers. The film All Quiet on the Western Front was plagued by Nazi disruptions when released in Germany in 1930. And attempts to shut down dissident speakers on college campuses, such as this, have become so common as to now be almost the default expectation.
The Assassins. These individuals go beyond the level of violence practiced by the Thugs, and make credible death threats they attempt to carry out against those whose actions or believe they view as unacceptable. The majority of threats and attacks falling in this category have certainly been the doing of radical Muslims; however, some of the more extreme ˜environmentalist and animal rights groups have also demonstrated Assassin tendencies. At present, however, it is those Assassins who are radical Muslims who have been most successful in inhibiting free expression. Four years in hiding for an American cartoonist. But see also Ecofascism: The Climate Debate Turns Violent,
How long until this justification and practice of violence reaches the level of justifying and carrying out actual murders?
The Enclosure of the Speech Commons. Whereas the Internet and especially the blogosphere offered the prospect of political expression and discussion unfiltered by the traditional media, the primary social-media providers have taken various levels of controlling attitudes toward free speech; Twitter, in my opinion, is especially bad. Partly this is ideological; partly, it probably reflects their ideas about protecting their brands. Yes, there are plenty of ways to communicate online outside of the social media platforms, but their growth has been so rapid that a large proportion of the potential audience is not easily reached outside their domains. Note also that conversations that one would have been private friends talking at home, or over the telephone are now semi-public and sometimes made fully public. Plus, they become part of an individual’s Permanent Record, to use the phrase with which school officials once threatened students.
The Online Mobs. The concerns of the social media providers about providing online ‘safe spaces’does not seem to have in the least inhibited the formation of online mobs which can quickly make life unpleasant for their targeted individuals, and even destroy the careers of those individuals. Decades ago, Marshall McLuhan referred to the technology-enabled Global Village; unfortunately, it turns out that this virtual village, especially as mediated through the social media platforms, has some of the most toxic characteristics of the real, traditional village. See my post Freedom, the Village, and the Internet.
And the mobs do not limit themselves to attacks on the target individual: they frequently attack other individuals who fail to participate in the shunning of that target person. As an example:
A few weeks ago, shortly after I left my magazine gig, I had breakfast with a well-known Toronto man of letters. He told me his week had been rough, in part because it had been discovered that he was still connected on social media with a colleague who’d fallen into disfavour with Stupid Twitter-Land. You know that we all can see that you are still friends with him,” read one of the emails my friend had received. “So. What are you going to do about that?
So I folded,he told me with a sad, defeated air. I know I’, supposed to stick to my principles. That’s what we tell ourselves. Free association and all that. It’s part of the romance of our profession. But I can’t afford to actually do that. These people control who gets jobs. I’m broke. So now I just go numb and say whatever they need me to say.”
Increasingly, it’s not just a matter of limiting what a person can say, it’s also a matter of edicting what they must say.