36 thoughts on “October 14, 2015: Posting from my Phone”
I agree - commenting via phone ain't bad, but I missed at least one game log due to my frustration with posting via smartphone.
folks, I totes <3 this joint. What started as a sad share of wounded children turned into an argument over the merits of open toed footwear, and we can have civilized debates over the things that matter most. I totes balls you guys*
*used in a gender neutral way
Sam: One by one, I seem to be losing my, uh, thrills and tingles, you know? I keep asking myself, what is the point to life?
Woody: Oooh, That's a tough question.
Cliff: Ehhhh, I got the answer.
Frasier: Somehow, I knew you would.
Cliff: Comfortable shoes.
Frasier: Shoes?
Cliff: Yeah, if you're not wearing comfortable shoes, life is just chaos. I mean, the greatest accomplishments in history have been made by men wearing accommodating shoes. Tell me, who do you think is the greatest thinker in all mankind?
Frasier: I don't know. Aristotle?
Cliff: There you go ... sandals. Perhaps the most comfortable shoe there is, you hardly even know you have them on. I mean, Confucius? Thongs. Einstein? Loose loafers. Hippocrates went barefoot, his intellectual career tragically cut short by a sharp pebble. We might have had the microwave in the Middle Ages, but for that treacherous rock.
Sorry, just heard about this today and have been reading more on it. Obviously everyone's getting a little too excited, but it's still kind of fun to think about for now. Hope we can get more data.
At the very least, I'm hoping that recent events, including this one, spark more interest in space exploration and science in general. I believe I heard there's a $7-$14 ROI for every dollar spent on NASA. That's pretty good, right?
That is so cool.
Not buying that ROI on NASA, however.
(Warning: Rampant speculation from a non-economist ahead...)
After poking around a little, that number got quoted a lot, but I don't know that it's really ROI that they are talking about. Without actually reading the study it's based on, it seems like the more specific citations say that for every $1 spent on NASA, $7-14 gets added to the U.S. economy. That number seems at least plausible to me, since the money NASA receives is then spent buying things, which require workers for facilities, construction, design, etc., and those salaries then get spent again, and so on down the line.
I phrased that wrong, I'm guessing. Yes, as you clarified, the statement should have been, "I've heard that for every $1 invested in NASA, $7-$14 is returned to the economy".
Whether that is true or not, I also cannot say.
It's not just you, that's how other places have framed it as well.
A multiplier of 7 to 14? Uh, no.
Even the $3.60 multiplier cited below is highly implausible.
Think about it. NASA builds or buys rockets that get burned up in space. Lifting shit into space is hugely expensive, so it is only economically viable for really valuable things, like communications satellites.
The claim is mostly about technological advances spurred by NASA spending, and typically ignores both opportunity costs and counter-factuals.
I like NASA just fine. It just is bogus to say that it has created net wealth.
Ok, but even with those much lower numbers, that means NASA spending puts more money into the economy than just the amount spent, since the money they spend is part of the economy too, right?
Plus, a large portion of NASA's budget goes into paying people. The reason those rockets are so expensive is because of the huge numbers of people it takes to design, build, and launch them, not just because they use inherently expensive materials. Seems to me that those dollars spent on salaries will have a bigger effect on the economy than just buying a bunch of valuable raw materials would.
(This may have come off more argumentative than I intended. I meant to phrase that more in the form of a question. Oh well, blame the booze.)
Yes. Any money spent by anyone gets turned over. That is true of any economic activity.
Two caveats. First, economies are not (exactly) perpetual motion machines. If NASA's budget goes up, that money has to come from somewhere -- it is either from tax revenue (reducing spending by those taxed), borrowing on the open market (squeezing the supply of credit) or borrowing from the Fed (because the Fed has printed money to pay for T-bills or T-Notes).
If the money comes from taxation or borrowing, it should be obvious that the money is not "free" -- you have to consider the reduction in economic activities that raising the revenue induces in order to calculate the net effect on the economy of NASA's expenditures. If the money comes from the Fed increasing the money supply, the calculations are more complex, but not conceptually all that different.
Second, the cheerleadery calculations sponsored by NASA ($7 to $14 for every dollar!!!!!111one111!!!!) completely ignore what would have happened to the economy in the absence of NASA. That is, they are trying to claim full credit for technological changes that were kinda, sorta associated with NASA spending. Sure, some of the credit goes to NASA's inducement to find solutions to the problems that space exploration faces. But that begs the question of whether the market would have solved those problems anyway, perhaps more cheaply.
for example: Would satellite communications have happened without the space race? Maybe not as quickly, Because Capital Costs. NASA probably helped make a (world) market for satellite launches. But then you also have to credit the Cold War and the development of nuke-warheaded ICBMs! Or the Nazis for the development of the V2!
shorter brianS: hard to tell the difference between NASA and Hitler.
😛
Nice.
"Archer" S02Ep09 - Placebo Effect
Cyril: Krieger's father was a Nazi scientist! Malory: And JFK's father was a bootlegger. Cyril: That's like comparing apples to... Nazi oranges! Malory: Oranges, exactly! Do you like powdered orange breakfast drink? Cyril: No, not really. Malory: How about microwave ovens, Neil Armstrong, hook-and-loop fasteners? Cyril: OK, you lost me... Malory: None of those things would have been possible without the Nazi scientists we brought back after World War II. Cyril: The Nazis invented Neil Armstrong? Malory: Rockets! Which put him on the moon. After the war ended, we were snatching up kraut scientists like hotcakes. You don't believe me? walk into NASA sometime and yell "Heil Hitler!" WOOP! They all jump straight up!
Looks like it's "Archer Reference Day" here in Mags' World.
I didn't want to have to rebut/econsplain this statement: NASA spending puts more money into the economy than just the amount spent, since the money they spend is part of the economy too, right?
But you did it for me! Thanks bS!
And you violated Godwin's Law at the same time!
I think we are all happy I prompted that Archer quote.
Also, very, very cool. Almost certainly not E.T., but it's definitely something weird and unknown. I haven't read the full paper or anything, but the snippets I've seen seem to rule out most of the semi-normal explanations for something like this. I'll be curious to see what other possible explanations people come up with.
I think the star is just winking at us. A cosmic come-on.
We are getting hotter every day...
Star Twerk (The Next Generation?)
Re-reading the Time article and a line caught my ire: "This is not quite the statistically significant sample group you need for a conclusive survey."
Jeffrey Kluger needs to talk with an actual statistician (or someone statistically literate at least) before writing such things. Because his words don't mean quite what he was trying to say.
If KIC 8462852 represents one in a billion stars, there should be 299 others just like it out there. What are the odds of observing one of those 300 in a sample of 150,000?
Pretty sure there aren't a billion stars that we can analyze with the current technology with the precision needed to make that determination. Not without launching several more Kepler-esque telescopes. "One in a billion" is an off-the-cuff comment, I'm sure, and not a solid value.
Of course. We have observed 150,000 stars via Kepler and gotten one example so far. So a reasonable inference is that we should get one of these every 150,000.
I was throwing out a "what if" number to highlight the question about what counts as a sufficient sample size. If our priors are that some results will be very rare, e.g., one in a billion, what does that tell us about the adequacy of a (presume random) sample of size 150,000?
It tells us very little, in fact, because we have not identified what questions we wanted to answer about the population with our sample.
So, what you're saying is SSS.
It's a big sample size for many purposes.
To put it in baseball terms, how big a play-by-play sample do we need to estimate the situational expected runs matrix? Alternately, how big a sample to estimate the odds of a run scoring from third on a return throw from the catcher that accidentally hits the batter's bat and does not result in a dead ball?
We have observed 150,000 stars via Kepler and gotten one example so far. So a reasonable inference is that we should get one of these every 150,000.
Bootstrapping FTW!
Lynx win title in a blowout before nearly 19,000 fans at Target Center. That's impressive and I think shows how hungry Minnesota fans are for a pro title.
Getting a steady line of thunderstorms tonight. Mostly just thunder and lightning with one quick downpour. Still, it brings me back to summer nights in Minnesota. Unfortunately, Trey and the dog are definitely not used to it. He got up once for about a half hour a couple hours ago and might get up again when this next cell passes over us. The dog got kicked out of the bedroom by my wife for the second time a little while ago.
We got those same ones. I was worried it would wake up the kids, but luckily they both slept right through. Our dogs were a little agitated, but not nearly as much as they used to get for storms and fireworks and such. It helps a lot that they're now old, and the more high strung one is pretty close to deaf.
I totally mis-read that and thought your older child was deaf and I thought "Has Mike not shared that before or am I just way out of the loop?"
what does the first thought have to do with the last?
I agree - commenting via phone ain't bad, but I missed at least one game log due to my frustration with posting via smartphone.
folks, I totes <3 this joint. What started as a sad share of wounded children turned into an argument over the merits of open toed footwear, and we can have civilized debates over the things that matter most. I totes balls you guys*
*used in a gender neutral way
Not so cool.
Cosmic mysteries are cool.
Sorry, just heard about this today and have been reading more on it. Obviously everyone's getting a little too excited, but it's still kind of fun to think about for now. Hope we can get more data.
At the very least, I'm hoping that recent events, including this one, spark more interest in space exploration and science in general. I believe I heard there's a $7-$14 ROI for every dollar spent on NASA. That's pretty good, right?
That is so cool.
Not buying that ROI on NASA, however.
(Warning: Rampant speculation from a non-economist ahead...)
After poking around a little, that number got quoted a lot, but I don't know that it's really ROI that they are talking about. Without actually reading the study it's based on, it seems like the more specific citations say that for every $1 spent on NASA, $7-14 gets added to the U.S. economy. That number seems at least plausible to me, since the money NASA receives is then spent buying things, which require workers for facilities, construction, design, etc., and those salaries then get spent again, and so on down the line.
I phrased that wrong, I'm guessing. Yes, as you clarified, the statement should have been, "I've heard that for every $1 invested in NASA, $7-$14 is returned to the economy".
Whether that is true or not, I also cannot say.
It's not just you, that's how other places have framed it as well.
A multiplier of 7 to 14? Uh, no.
Even the $3.60 multiplier cited below is highly implausible.
Think about it. NASA builds or buys rockets that get burned up in space. Lifting shit into space is hugely expensive, so it is only economically viable for really valuable things, like communications satellites.
The claim is mostly about technological advances spurred by NASA spending, and typically ignores both opportunity costs and counter-factuals.
I like NASA just fine. It just is bogus to say that it has created net wealth.
Bill Nye says $3.60.
this is much more credible
Ok, but even with those much lower numbers, that means NASA spending puts more money into the economy than just the amount spent, since the money they spend is part of the economy too, right?
Plus, a large portion of NASA's budget goes into paying people. The reason those rockets are so expensive is because of the huge numbers of people it takes to design, build, and launch them, not just because they use inherently expensive materials. Seems to me that those dollars spent on salaries will have a bigger effect on the economy than just buying a bunch of valuable raw materials would.
(This may have come off more argumentative than I intended. I meant to phrase that more in the form of a question. Oh well, blame the booze.)
Yes. Any money spent by anyone gets turned over. That is true of any economic activity.
Two caveats. First, economies are not (exactly) perpetual motion machines. If NASA's budget goes up, that money has to come from somewhere -- it is either from tax revenue (reducing spending by those taxed), borrowing on the open market (squeezing the supply of credit) or borrowing from the Fed (because the Fed has printed money to pay for T-bills or T-Notes).
If the money comes from taxation or borrowing, it should be obvious that the money is not "free" -- you have to consider the reduction in economic activities that raising the revenue induces in order to calculate the net effect on the economy of NASA's expenditures. If the money comes from the Fed increasing the money supply, the calculations are more complex, but not conceptually all that different.
Second, the cheerleadery calculations sponsored by NASA ($7 to $14 for every dollar!!!!!111one111!!!!) completely ignore what would have happened to the economy in the absence of NASA. That is, they are trying to claim full credit for technological changes that were kinda, sorta associated with NASA spending. Sure, some of the credit goes to NASA's inducement to find solutions to the problems that space exploration faces. But that begs the question of whether the market would have solved those problems anyway, perhaps more cheaply.
for example: Would satellite communications have happened without the space race? Maybe not as quickly, Because Capital Costs. NASA probably helped make a (world) market for satellite launches. But then you also have to credit the Cold War and the development of nuke-warheaded ICBMs! Or the Nazis for the development of the V2!
shorter brianS: hard to tell the difference between NASA and Hitler.
😛
Nice.
"Archer" S02Ep09 - Placebo Effect
Cyril: Krieger's father was a Nazi scientist!
Malory: And JFK's father was a bootlegger.
Cyril: That's like comparing apples to... Nazi oranges!
Malory: Oranges, exactly! Do you like powdered orange breakfast drink?
Cyril: No, not really.
Malory: How about microwave ovens, Neil Armstrong, hook-and-loop fasteners?
Cyril: OK, you lost me...
Malory: None of those things would have been possible without the Nazi scientists we brought back after World War II.
Cyril: The Nazis invented Neil Armstrong?
Malory: Rockets! Which put him on the moon. After the war ended, we were snatching up kraut scientists like hotcakes. You don't believe me? walk into NASA sometime and yell "Heil Hitler!" WOOP! They all jump straight up!
Looks like it's "Archer Reference Day" here in Mags' World.
I didn't want to have to rebut/econsplain this statement:
NASA spending puts more money into the economy than just the amount spent, since the money they spend is part of the economy too, right?
But you did it for me! Thanks bS!
And you violated Godwin's Law at the same time!
I think we are all happy I prompted that Archer quote.
Also, very, very cool. Almost certainly not E.T., but it's definitely something weird and unknown. I haven't read the full paper or anything, but the snippets I've seen seem to rule out most of the semi-normal explanations for something like this. I'll be curious to see what other possible explanations people come up with.
I think the star is just winking at us. A cosmic come-on.
We are getting hotter every day...
Star Twerk (The Next Generation?)
Re-reading the Time article and a line caught my ire: "This is not quite the statistically significant sample group you need for a conclusive survey."
Jeffrey Kluger needs to talk with an actual statistician (or someone statistically literate at least) before writing such things. Because his words don't mean quite what he was trying to say.
If KIC 8462852 represents one in a billion stars, there should be 299 others just like it out there. What are the odds of observing one of those 300 in a sample of 150,000?
Pretty sure there aren't a billion stars that we can analyze with the current technology with the precision needed to make that determination. Not without launching several more Kepler-esque telescopes. "One in a billion" is an off-the-cuff comment, I'm sure, and not a solid value.
Of course. We have observed 150,000 stars via Kepler and gotten one example so far. So a reasonable inference is that we should get one of these every 150,000.
I was throwing out a "what if" number to highlight the question about what counts as a sufficient sample size. If our priors are that some results will be very rare, e.g., one in a billion, what does that tell us about the adequacy of a (presume random) sample of size 150,000?
It tells us very little, in fact, because we have not identified what questions we wanted to answer about the population with our sample.
So, what you're saying is SSS.
It's a big sample size for many purposes.
To put it in baseball terms, how big a play-by-play sample do we need to estimate the situational expected runs matrix? Alternately, how big a sample to estimate the odds of a run scoring from third on a return throw from the catcher that accidentally hits the batter's bat and does not result in a dead ball?
We have observed 150,000 stars via Kepler and gotten one example so far. So a reasonable inference is that we should get one of these every 150,000.
Bootstrapping FTW!
Lynx win title in a blowout before nearly 19,000 fans at Target Center. That's impressive and I think shows how hungry Minnesota fans are for a pro title.
Getting a steady line of thunderstorms tonight. Mostly just thunder and lightning with one quick downpour. Still, it brings me back to summer nights in Minnesota. Unfortunately, Trey and the dog are definitely not used to it. He got up once for about a half hour a couple hours ago and might get up again when this next cell passes over us. The dog got kicked out of the bedroom by my wife for the second time a little while ago.
We got those same ones. I was worried it would wake up the kids, but luckily they both slept right through. Our dogs were a little agitated, but not nearly as much as they used to get for storms and fireworks and such. It helps a lot that they're now old, and the more high strung one is pretty close to deaf.
I totally mis-read that and thought your older child was deaf and I thought "Has Mike not shared that before or am I just way out of the loop?"
what does the first thought have to do with the last?
True, it can definitely be both.