Results for “dylan”
109 found

Saturday assorted links

1. Update on the Colorado drone swarms — it seems not the military.

2. History blog written by a sixth grader.

3. Couples meet less and less in college.

4. AI version of a CWT with Paul Graham.

5. Uzbekistan offers $3000 to visitors (from low-risk countries) who contract Covid there.

6. “Chinese writers in interviews usually reference Dickens and Tolstoy and Carver more often than they reference their peers.

7. More new T-cell results.

Sunday assorted links

1. Unpacking current Covid trends.

2. Which foreigners has New Zealand let in and not let in?

3. “I document that societies whose ancestors jointly practiced irrigation agriculture historically have stronger collectivist norms today.

4. Why contact tracing is not going well in New York City (NYT).

5. “Bill Pagel, 78, owns both of Bob Dylan’s childhood homes as well as his highchair. He explains it like this: “End-stage collecting is when you start collecting houses right before you’re committed.””  Tweet link here.

Which figures from 1968/1969 look good in retrospect?

Andrew writes to me:

I just wanted to propose a question for your blog, which I’ve read since it launched. Given how the current atmosphere seems a bit like 1968, I was curious who you think comes out of 1968 looking good (or bad) in retrospect. I’m particularly interested in people at universities (my own case), but I’d be curious in general.

A former professor of mine (George Kateb) claimed that my generation (born 1970) was embarrassed by the sixties and I guess particularly by the more radical parts. That’s my impression as well and I assumed that the more radical parts of the sixties and the intellectuals who went along with them would come out looking the worst in retrospect. Is this right? Whose position at the time looks most “correct” today?

It is tough, if only because so many people from both parties then were bad on the Vietnam War issue.  Here are a few who, in my judgment, came out of the era looking good, in no particular order:

1. Kareem-Abdul Jabbar (then Lew Alcindor), Billie Jean-King, and Curt Flood.

2. Bob Dylan: pro-civil rights and anti-war, and for all of his phases he never went in for the bad, crazy stuff.

3. Paul McCartney: universalist, anti-war, neoliberal integrationist, and the saner part of the Beatles.  Some minus points on the drugs front, however.

4. Julian Bond.  And a variety of other civil rights leaders, but MLK not living long enough to “fit” the question as stated.

5. Harry Edwards (who?).

6. Seán Lemass (who?)  Elsewhere across the waters there is Raymond Aron.

7. Marshall McLuhan

9. Lucille Ball

9. Gene Roddenberry and the rest of Star Trek, including the script writers.

10. Thomas Pynchon: So many others look bad, at least he knew not to say too much or to hang around for too long.

11. Ayn Rand.  With qualifications on a number of fronts, but yes.  She was in fact good on the major issues of those years.

12. These people from the Bay Area.  They are not public figures, but still they deserve mention.

Who else?

Notes: Marxists, Maoists, and advocates of violence are not going to win.  There were plenty of excellent economists back then, but most had a different focus than commenting on the major events of those years, and if memory serves (please correct me if I am wrong) Milton Friedman’s very meritorious anti-draft work came slightly later.  I would have to reread the major feminist book authors to pick the best one, but I do mean for at least one to be on the list, I am simply not sure at the moment which one.  Ralph Nader too?  The astronauts?  They knew to keep their mouths shut once they were finished.

New Emergent Ventures winners, ninth cohort

Mikko Packalen, with co-authors, fellow in Progress Studies, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Waterloo, to improve science, in particular to study superior methods for improving systems of science citation.  Here is some previous MR coverage of his work.

Daniel Gallardo Albarrán, post doc at Wageningen University, Netherlands, for historical research on European and other policy responses to plagues.

Anna Steingold, Barnard College, general career support and to investigate small business successes and failure in New York City.

Fasih Zulfiqar, Karachi, Pakistan, home schooled and #1 economics student on the Pakistan national exam.  For the study of economics in college and general career support.

Dylan White, living in Dubai, philosophy and tutor background, to start a podcast on travel and tourism during pandemic times.

Sarvasv Kulpati, Singapore, about to start UC Berkeley (if possible), interested in education and technology.

Bekhzod Khoshimov, Ph.d. candidate at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin School of Business, for the study of entrepreneurship and to develop his podcast matters related to political economy and also Uzbekistan and Russia.  Here is his interview with James Robinson.

Richard Davis requests

Here are some answers, I put his questions — from Request for Requests – in bold:

Melancholy among academics.

We’re a pretty sorry bunch, and many of us don’t have so much professionally to live for, at least not at the relevant margin — it is easy to lose forward momentum and never recover it, given the constraints and incentives in the profession and broader pressures toward conformity.  Rates of depression in academia, and especially in graduate school, are fairly high.  Many of the core processes are demoralizing rather than inspiring.  It is remarkable to me how much other people simply have accepted that is how things ought to be and perhaps they believe matters cannot be that different.  I view the high rates of depression in academic life as a “canary in the coal mine” that doesn’t get enough attention as an indicator of bigger, more systemic problems in the entire enterprise.  What are you doing with your lifetime sinecure?

Your favorite things Soviet.

Shostakovich.  And the Romantic pianists, most of all Richter and Gilels.  Constructivist art and ballet up through the late 1920s.  The early chess games of Tal.  Magnitogorsk.  War memorials, most of all in Leningrad.  Tarkovsky.  I admire the “great” Soviet novels, but I don’t love them, except for Solzhenitsyn, whom I would rather read then Dostoyevsky.  Probably the poetry is amazing, but my Russian is too limited to appreciate it.

The optimal number of math PhDs worldwide.

I would think fairly few.  I am happy having lots of mathematicians, with independent tests of quality.  But is the Ph.D such a great test or marker of quality?  Did Euclid have one?  Euler?  Does it show you will be a great teacher?  Maybe we should work toward abolishing the math PhD concept, but out of respect for the profession, not out of hostility toward math.

What historical works of art were anticipated to be great prior to creation, were immediately declared to be great at creation and have continued to be judged great ever since?

Overall it is striking how popular how many of the great revolutionaries have been.  Michelangelo was a major figure of renown.  Mozart was quite popular, though not fully appreciated.  Beethoven was a legend in his time, and every Wagner opera was an event.  Goethe ruled his time as a titan.  A significant percentage of the very best writers were well known and loved during their careers, though of course there was uncertainty how well they would stand up to the test of time.

The future of Northern New Jersey.

Much like the present, plus defaults on the pension obligations and over time the Indian food may get worse, due to acculturation.  The Sopranos will fade into distant memory, I am sorry to say, as will Bruce Springsteen.  So many young people already don’t know them or care.  I feel lucky to have grown up during the region’s cultural peak.

Who are the greats that still walk among us (other than McCartney)?

The major tech founders and CEOs, Stephan Wolfram, Jasper Johns and Frank Stella and Richard Serra and Gerhardt Richter and Robert Gober, a number of other classic rock stars (Dylan, Brian Wilson, Jagger, Eno, etc.), Philip Glass, Richard D. James, and note most of the greatest classical musicians who have ever lived are alive and playing today (Uchida anyone?), at least once Covid goes away.  Many of the major architects.  Ferrante and Knausgaard and Alice Munro.  Many of the figures who built up East Asia and Singapore.  Perelman.  Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David.  Magnus Carlsen and all sorts of figures in sports.  A bunch of other people whom Eric Weinstein would list.

Why

Why not?

More on economists and epidemiologists

From my email box, here are perspectives from people in the world of epidemiology, the first being from Jacob Oppenheim:

I’d note that epidemiology is the field that has most embraced novel and principles-driven approaches to causal inference (eg those of Judea Pearl etc).  Pearl’s cluster is at UCLA; there’s one at Berkeley, and another at Harvard.

The one at Harvard simultaneously developed causal methodologies in the ’70s (eg around Rubin), then a parallel approach to Pearl in the ’80s (James Robins and others), leading to a large collection of important epi people at HSPH (Miguel Hernan, etc).  Many of these methods are barely touched in economics, which is unfortunate given their power in causal inference in medicine, disease, and environmental health.

These methods and scientists are very influential not only in public health / traditional epi, but throughout the biopharma and machine learning worlds.  Certainly, in my day job running data science + ml in biotech, many of us would consider well trained epidemiologists from these top schools among the best in the world for quantitative modeling, especially where causality is involved.

From Julien SL:

I’m not an epidemiologist per se, but I think my background gives me some inputs into that discussion. I have a master in Mechatronics/Robotics Engineering, a master in Management Science, and an MBA. However, in the last ten years, epidemiology (and epidemiology forecasting) has figured heavily in my work as a consultant for the pharma industry.

[some data on most of epidemiology not being about pandemic forecasting]…

The result of the neglect of pandemics epidemiology is that there is precious little expertise in pandemics forecasting and prevention. The FIR model (and it’s variants) that we see a lot these days is a good teaching aid. Still, it’s not practically useful: you can’t fit exponentials with unstable or noisy parameters and expect good predictions. The only way to use R0 is qualitatively. When I saw the first R0 and mortality estimates back in January, I thought “this is going to be bad,” then sold my liquid assets, bought gold, and naked puts on indices. I confess that I didn’t expect it to be quite as bad as what actually happened, or I would have bought more put options.

…here are a few tentative answers about your “rude questions:”

a. As a class of scientists, how much are epidemiologists paid?  Is good or bad news better for their salaries?

Glassdoor data show that epidemiologists in the US are paid $63,911 on average. CDC and FDA both pay better ($98k and $120k), as well as pharma (Merck: $94k-$115k). As explained above, most are working on cancer, diabetes, etc. So I’m not sure what “bad news” would be for them.

image.png

b. How smart are they?  What are their average GRE scores?

I’m not sure where you could get data to answer that question. I know that in pharma, many  – maybe most – people who work on epidemiology forecasting don’t have an epidemiology degree. They can have any type of STEM degree, including engineering, economics, etc. So my base rate answer would be average of all STEM GRE scores. [TC: Here are U. Maryland stats for public health students.]

c. Are they hired into thick, liquid academic and institutional markets?  And how meritocratic are those markets?

Compared to who? Epidemiology is a smaller community than economics, so you should find less liquidity. Pharma companies are heavily clustered into few geographies (New Jersey, Basel in Switzerland, Cambridge in the UK, etc.) so private-sector jobs aren’t an option for many epidemiologists.

d. What is their overall track record on predictions, whether before or during this crisis?

CDC has been running flu forecasting challenges every year for years. From what I’ve seen, the models perform reasonably well. It should be noted that those models would seem very familiar to an econometric forecaster: the same time series tools are used in both disciplines. [TC: to be clear, I meant prediction of new pandemics and how they unfold]

e. On average, what is the political orientation of epidemiologists?  And compared to other academics?  Which social welfare function do they use when they make non-trivial recommendations?

Hard to say. Academics lean left, but medical doctors and other healthcare professionals often lean right. There is a conservative bias to medicine, maybe due to the “primo, non nocere” imperative. We see that bias at play in the hydroxychloroquine debate. Most health authorities are reluctant to push – or even allow – a treatment option before they see overwhelming positive proof, even when the emergency should encourage faster decision making.

…g. How well do they understand how to model uncertainty of forecasts, relative to say what a top econometrician would know?

As I mentioned above, forecasting is far from the main focus of epidemiology. However, epidemiologists as a whole don’t seem to be bad statisticians. Judea Pearl has been saying for years that epidemiologists are ahead of econometricians, at least when it comes to applying his own Structural Causal Model framework… (Oldish) link: http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2014/10/27/are-economists-smarter-than-epidemiologists-comments-on-imbenss-recent-paper/

I’ve seen a similar pattern with the adoption of agent-based models (common in epidemiology, marginal in economics). Maybe epidemiologists are faster to take up new tools than economists (which maybe also give a hint about point e?)

h. Are there “zombie epidemiologists” in the manner that Paul Krugman charges there are “zombie economists”?  If so, what do you have to do to earn that designation?  And are the zombies sometimes right, or right on some issues?  How meta-rational are those who allege zombie-ism?

I don’t think so. Epidemiology seems less political than economy. There are no equivalents to Smith, Karl Marx, Hayek, etc.

i. How many of them have studied Philip Tetlock’s work on forecasting?

Probably not many, given that their focus isn’t forecasting. Conversely, I don’t think that Tetlock has paid much attention to epidemiology. On the Good Judgement website, healthcare questions of any type are very rare.

And here is Ruben Conner:

Weighing in on your recent questions about epidemiologists. I did my undergraduate in Economics and then went on for my Masters in Public Health (both at University of Washington). I worked as an epidemiologist for Doctors Without Borders and now work as a consultant at the World Bank (a place mostly run by economists). I’ve had a chance to move between the worlds and I see a few key differences between economists and epidemiologists:

  1. Trust in data: Like the previous poster said, epidemiologists recognize that “data is limited and often inaccurate.” This is really drilled into the epidemiologist training – initial data collection can have various problems and surveys are not always representative of the whole population. Epidemiologists worry about genuine errors in the underlying data. Economists seem to think more about model bias.

  2. Focus on implementation: Epidemiologists expect to be part of the response and to deal with organizing data as it comes in. This isn’t a glamorous process. In addition, the government response can be well executed or poorly run and epidemiologists like to be involved in these details of planning. The knowledge here is practical and hands-on. (Epidemiologists probably could do with more training on organizational management, they’re not always great at this.)

  3. Belief in models: Epidemiologists tend to be skeptical of fancy models. This could be because they have less advanced quantitative training. But it could also be because they don’t have total faith in the underlying data (as noted above) and therefore see fancy specifications as more likely to obscure the truth than reveal it.  Economists often seem to want to fit the data to a particular theory – my impression is that they like thinking in the abstract and applying known theories to their observations.

As with most fields, I think both sides have something to learn from each other! There will be a need to work together as we weigh the economic impacts of suppression strategies. This is particularly crucial in low-income places like India, where the disease suppression strategies will be tremendously costly for people’s daily existence and ability to earn a living.

Here is a 2014 blog post on earlier spats between economists and epidemiologists.  Here is more from Joseph on that topic.

And here is from an email from epidemiologist Dylan Green:

So with that…on to the modelers! I’ll merely point out a few important details on modeling which I haven’t seen in response to you yet. First, the urgency with which policy makers are asking for information is tremendous. I’ve been asked to generate modeling results in a matter of weeks (in a disease which I/we know very little about) which I previously would have done over the course of several months, with structured input and validation from collaborators on a disease I have studied for a decade. This ultimately leads to simpler rather than more complicated efforts, as well as difficult decisions in assumptions and parameterization. We do not have the luxury of waiting for better information or improvements in design, even if it takes a matter of days.

Another complicated detail is the publicity of COVID-19 projections. In other arenas (HIV, TB, malaria) model results are generated all the time, from hundreds of research groups, and probably <1% of the population will ever see these figures. Modeling and governance of models of these diseases is advanced. There are well organized consortia who regularly meet to present and compare findings, critically appraise methods, elegantly present uncertainty, and have deep insights into policy implications. In HIV for example, models are routinely parameterized to predict policy impact, and are ex-post validated against empirical findings to determine the best performing models. None of this is currently in scope for COVID-19 (unfortunately), as policy makers often want a single number, not a range, and they want it immediately.

I hope for all of our sakes we will see the modeling coordination efforts in COVID-19 improve. And I ask my fellow epidemiologists to stay humble during this pandemic. For those with little specialty in communicable disease, it is okay to say “this isn’t my area of expertise and I don’t have the answers”. I think there has been too much hubris in the “I-told-ya-so” from people who “said this would happen”, or in knowing the obvious optimal policy. This disease continues to surprise us, and we are learning every day. We must be careful in how we communicate our certainty to policy makers and the public, lest we lose their trust when we are inevitably wrong. I suspect this is something that economists can likely teach us from experience.

One British epidemiologist wrote me and told me they are basically all socialists in the literal sense of the term. not just leaning to the left.

Another person in the area wrote me this:

Another issue that isn’t spoken about a lot is most Epidemiologists are funded by soft money. It makes them terrifyingly hard working but it also makes them worried about making enemies. Every critic now will be reviewed by someone in IHME at some point in an NIH study section, whereas IHME, funded by the Gates Foundation, has a lot of resilience. It makes for a very muted culture of criticism.
Ironically, outsiders (like economist Noah Haber) trying to push up the methods are more likely to be attacked because they are not a part of the constant funding cycle.
I wonder if economists have ever looked at the potential perverse incentives of being fully grant funded on academic criticism?

Here is an earlier email response I reproduced, here is my original blog post, here is my update from yesterday.

Tuesday assorted links

1. The penis-shaped ice rink culture that is Russia.

2. The Economist on Peter Chang and the revolution in Chinese cuisine.  Price variability is rising in the Chinese cuisine market.

3. Dylan Matthews favorite social science studies of the decade.

4. “Impact funds earn 4.7 percentage points (ppts) lower IRRs ex post than traditional VC funds.

5. Arnold Kling’s books of the year.  And Scott Sumner responds to me on national security and trade.

6. “Relative to low-income households, high-income households enjoy 40 percent higher utility per dollar expenditure in wealthy cities, relative to poor cities. Similar patterns are observed across stores in different neighborhoods. Most of this variation is explained by differences in the product assortment offered, rather than the relative prices charged, by chains that operate in different markets.”  Link here.

My Conversation with Samantha Power

Samantha Power has a new and excellent book out, The Education of an Idealist: A Memoir, which I very much enjoyed.  And so a Conversation with Tyler was in order, here is the audio and transcript, here is one bit:

COWEN: For a final closing segment, I just have some super simple questions about foreign policy again. Over the course of the last summer, Iran apparently seized two British tankers. There’ve been other incidents in the Strait of Hormuz in some way connected with Iran. From a game-theoretic point of view, why would they do this? Why does this make sense?

POWER: Well, the one thing that they would know that would give them some point of leverage is the extreme war fatigue within the United States, and really within the Western world. So, by upping the stakes, arguably — I mean, who knows why the hell they’re doing what they’re doing?

But by upping the stakes, they arguably could be sending a signal like, “You want to get in this game? It’s not as if we’re an island and you can just break the deal, penalize us gratuitously, penalize the people who are still trying to maintain the terms of the deal, and that there won’t be collateral consequences outside the nuclear space.”

Because the nuclear consequences, as they begin to enrich and violate the terms of the deal — having legitimately argued that we had violated the terms of the deal — the effects of those are not day-to-day effects in the news world. It’s a bit abstract for the public and even for policymakers. It’s an incremental abrogation.

But acts like this show that they have leverage, that they are active militarily in parts of the world where we have a vested interest in maintaining freedom of navigation. So I think they’re showing that they can hit in domains outside the nuclear domain. I think that is probably what they’re doing.

Here is another segment:

COWEN: In which ways do you feel your thought is in some manner still Irish in orientation in a way that would distinguish you from, say, American-born individuals?

POWER: It’s hard to know because I can’t run the counterfactual, so I don’t know what’s just because my mother is a physician and very empathetic toward her patients, and do I learn from that? Or am I moved by having come from a small country, at that time a poor country, that was sending —

COWEN: With a history of oppression, right?

POWER: With a history of oppression, with a history of the dignity of its people being trampled. Is that why I care so much about individual dignity? Again, I can’t run the history a different way.

And finally:

COWEN: Very simple — are baseball games too long? Why not make it 7 innings?

POWER: Why not make it 12?

COWEN: It’s boring, right?

POWER: For you and, as it turns out, for others.

COWEN: For me. So many games are over 3 hours. Shouldn’t the game be 2 hours, 17 minutes?

We also cover her first impressions of America, being a wartime correspondent, China and Iraq, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, van Morrison vs. Bob Dylan, robot empires vs. robot umpires, her favorite novel, how personal one should get in a memoir and why, and German defense spending, among other topics.

Definitely recommended.

Is this the very best book ever written?

No, I don’t mean Proust, Cervantes, or the Bible.  I mean Dave Marsh’s The Heart of Rock and Soul: The 1001 Greatest Singles Ever Made.

To be sure, it is not the greatest book qua book, or even in the top tier (though it is very good and Marsh is very smart and knowledgeable).

It is possible it has become the greatest book of all time because of YouTube.  Scroll through the pithy, one-page or sometimes even one-paragraph reviews of the various songs, and play them on YouTube while you are reading.

I had not known of Marvin Gaye’s “One More Heartache,” or Aretha Franklin’s “Think.”  Nor had I known the live version of Bob Dylan’s “Just Like Tom Thumb’s Blues” from 1966 (though is it really “Slurred and obtuse as Little Richard reading Ezra Pound”?).  I heard again many favorites as well.

Let’s be honest, amusia aside, do not humans love music more than books?  By no means does everyone read, but virtually everyone listens to music, and with some degree of passion. It therefore follows that “book + music” is better than book, right?  Whatever virtues the book may have are still contained in “book + music,” or more generally “book + YouTube.”

Have we now entered an age where all or most of the very best books are part of “books + YouTube”?

Of course I’m not trying to sell you on music or for that matter on Dave Marsh.  What about reading Abraham Pais, Niels Bohr’s Times: In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity, accompanied by these videos?  Might the possibility of YouTube combination make that the 37th best book of all time, displacing Braudel or Flaubert?

Should not at least 2/3 of your reading be books accompanied by YouTube?  And if not, why not?

Inquiring minds wish to know.  Perhaps there is a book accompanied by YouTube that gives the answer?

Is a quality book better or worse if there is no useful way to combine it with YouTube?

Addendum: You will note that the Cowen-Tabarrok Modern Principles text can be combined with our micro and macro videos on YouTube, and thus it is one of the best books, not just our favorite.

Tuesday assorted links

1. Solve for the equilibrium price of real estate.

2. Kanye + Star Wars vs. NIMBY.

3. Reputation markets in everything: “The Wall Street Journal’s Erich Schwartzel recently wrote a story revealing that none of these tough-guy actors likes it very much when the characters they play get pummeled on screen. One of them even negotiated limits on how much his character can get beat up. Another has his sister, a producer, count how many times his character gets punched, to make sure he gives as good as he gets.

Today, Erich joins us to talk about the lengths these actors have gone to preserve their ever-so-fragile reputations for macho toughness. And the incentives they have for doing so.”

4. A Straussian take on Kenyan rebellion (song, The Rivingtons, 1962).  This was the recording that prompted Dave Marsh to describe Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a Changin'” as a “dull diatribe.”

5. A new piece on Harriet Martineau.

6. Stephen Williamson on the Fed.

Compensating Kidney Donors

The Trump administration will allow greater compensation for live kidney donors.

Supporting Living Organ Donors.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall propose a regulation to remove financial barriers to living organ donation.  The regulation should expand the definition of allowable costs that can be reimbursed under the Reimbursement of Travel and Subsistence Expenses Incurred Toward Living Organ Donation program, raise the limit on the income of donors eligible for reimbursement under the program, allow reimbursement for lost-wage expenses, and provide for reimbursement of child-care and elder-care expenses.

While pure compensation is still illegal this goes a long way to recouping costs. In addition the executive order improves the rules that govern the organ procurement organizations with the goal of deceasing the number of wasted organs. Compensating kidney donors is a policy that I have long supported. Together the two changes could save thousands of lives. Even Dylan Matthew, a living organ donor who writes for Vox, is pleased.

Hat tip: Frank McCormick

Raj Chetty’s empirical restructuring of Harvard’s undergraduate economics

Here is good coverage from Dylan Matthews, here is one excerpt:

[Chetty’s] Ec 1152 is an introduction to that kind of economics. There’s little discussion of supply and demand curves, of producer or consumer surplus, or other elementary concepts introduced in classes like Ec 10. There is no textbook, only a set of empirical papers. The material is relatively cutting-edge. Of the 12 papers students are required to read, 11 were released in 2010 or after. Half of the assigned papers were released in 2017 or 2018. Chetty co-authored a third of them.

Why not excerpt the cameo of me?:

…fellow traditionalist Tyler Cowen…told me he’s excited about the class. “I am for experimentation, and more of it in academia, and for that reason I approve,” he writes. “Of course it was not what I do, which is more traditional micro, more theory, less overlap with sociology. If the instructor is great, that is really what matters.”

There is much more at the link.  And here is Daniel Simonsen, Norwegian comic.

Emergent Ventures, fourth cohort of award recipients

Kadeem and Savannah Noray, graduate students at Harvard, economics and HKS, general support and also to study how to identify undervalued, high potential K-12 students.

José Luis Ricón, for blogging and to develop further platforms for information dissemination. 

Arun Johnson, high school student in the Bay Area, to advance his work in physics, chemistry, nuclear fusion, and for general career development.

Thomas McCarthy, undergraduate at Dublin, Trinity College, travel grant to the Bay Area, and for his work on nuclear fusion and running start-up programs to cultivate young Irish entrepreneurs.

Natalya Naumenko, economist, incoming faculty at George Mason University, to study the long-term impact of nuclear explosions on health, and also more broadly to study the history of health in the Soviet Union and afterwards.  

Paul Novosad, with Sam Asher, assistant professor at Dartmouth, to enable the construction of a scalable platform for the integration and dissemination of socioeconomic data in India, ideally to cover every town and village, toward the end of informing actionable improvements.

Alexey Guzey, travel grant to the Bay Area, for blogging and internet writing, plus for working on systems for improving scientific patronage.

Dylan DelliSanti, to teach an economics class to prisoners, and also to explore how that activity might be done on a larger scale.

Neil Deshmukh, high school student in Pennsylvania, for general career support and also his work with apps to help Indian farmers identify crop disease and to help the blind interpret images.

Here is my previous post on the third cohort of winners, with links to the first and second cohorts.  Here is my post on the underlying philosophy behind Emergent Ventures.  You can apply here.

Thursday assorted links

1. Knowable Magazine.

2. Refugees in Denmark do much better in Copenhagen.

3. Carbon capture update (NYT, good piece).

4. Is Africa converting China?

5. “Royalties on 1983 Finance Classic ‘Trading Places’ Go Up for Bid.”  “If it holds until the auction closes Wednesday, the current winning bid of $74,700 would obtain a producer’s share of the residuals generated by television rebroadcasts and streaming, worth $7,988 last year(…)”

6. Dylan Matthews of Vox praises Warren G. Harding.

What I’ve been reading

1. Josh Rosenblatt, Why We Fight: One Man’s Search for Meaning Inside the Ring.  An actual conceptual phenomenology of fighting, there should be more books like this about more different topics.  Think of the model “X is actually like this.”  Recommended.

2. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States — and the Nation.  A serious and scholarly book, rather than the kind of hysterical falsehoods we’ve come to expect on such topics.

3. Peter Doggett, Are You Ready for the Country? Elvis, Dylan, Parsons and the roots of country rock.  Five hundred pages of text, and consistently interesting throughout, at least if you care about the topic.  Otherwise not.  I have pre-ordered the author’s forthcoming biography of CSNY.

4. Tony Spawforth, The Story of Greece and Rome.  Highly readable and useful, not comprehensive on say the economics side but a fresh look and what we know and do not know and how the various pieces fit together.