Category Archives: Uncategorized

And while most of my readers are in the Twin Cities area and so are experiencing the same colors, I can’t resist putting them online. These are all local to our domicile.

Nonce:

noun
1. the present, or immediate, occasion or purpose (usually used in the phrase for the nonce).
adjective
2. (of a word or phrase) coined and used only for a particular occasion: nonce forms such as “paintrix,” meaning “a female painter.”.

[Dictionary.com]

I recently used it and realized I wasn’t quite sure of its definition.

Andrew Sullivan believes the Democrats are in the process of throwing away the 2020 election because of how they are handling the immigration issue:

This is, to be blunt, political suicide. The Democrats’ current position seems to be that the Dreamer parents who broke the law are near heroes, indistinguishable from the children they brought with them; and their rhetoric is very hard to distinguish, certainly for most swing voters, from a belief in open borders. In fact, the Democrats increasingly seem to suggest that any kind of distinction between citizens and noncitizens is somehow racist. You could see this at the last convention, when an entire evening was dedicated to Latinos, illegal and legal, as if the rule of law were largely irrelevant. Hence the euphemism “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” So the stage was built, lit, and set for Trump.

He still tragically owns that stage. …. The most powerful thing Trump said in the campaign, I’d argue, was: “If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.” And the Democrats had no answer, something that millions of Americans immediately saw. They still formally favor enforcement of immigration laws, but rhetorically, they keep signaling the opposite. Here is Dylan Matthews, also in Vox, expressing the emerging liberal consensus: “Personally, I think any center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone … It means treating people born outside the U.S. as equals … And it means a strong presumption in favor of open immigration.” Here’s Zack Beauchamp, a liberal friend of mine: “What if I told you that immigration restrictionism is and always has been racist?” Borders themselves are racist? Seriously?

And if the left has, in fact, taken up this position, I’d argue it’s intellectually wrong, and I’d suspect it’s a matter of group-think, although the latter is only a suspicion based on the use of the word racism. No one on the left, and few on the right, want to be tarred and feathered with that word. Ever. So you pick a position, associate the opposition with racism, and begin the campaign with your strategy already set out for you.

And the right, and much of the independents, won’t buy it. Indeed, it may repulse the right-inclined independents, who fiercely believe in a United States, but can’t stomach the craven failure of the GOP. That’s the political evaluation of this strategy.

It’s intellectually fucking lazy. If nothing else, nations serve as experiments in how to run societies, and immigrants to tend to mar the experimental parameters.

BUT SET that aside. Let’s analyze this from a more systematic point of view. Let’s try some analysis that doesn’t have us crossing our eyes to stare painfully at the speck on the tip of our nose. I think Andrew missed a bet. The left missed that same bet. The far right’s too incoherent to accuse of missing a bet, it would be unfair. (The moderate right – or true conservatives – I lump with the independents for the nonce.)

The real question to ask is Why is there an immigration issue? What is going on to force people to leave their homelands and come to a foreign land where they have to start all over again, illegally?

Political repression? Asylum is a legal option, so we can toss out those immigrants, who numbered about 25000 in 2014.

How about the rest? Mostly, it’s about economic distress. So what’s causing that?

Could it possibly be … the United States?

This isn’t an attack on the United States, but rather another rendition of the law of unintended consequences.. I recall reading, maybe 25 years ago, about several analyses of the impact of American agricultural exports on the agricultural sectors of the countries receiving these exports. It was apparently quite devastating, especially when those exports received financial support in order to give them a better chance at enduring success.

I’ve done some poking around, but haven’t found much to indicate this research continued. There is this report from The New York Times in 2003:

The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.

Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.

”There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,” according to the report entitled, ”Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.”

I found it hard to find current corn crop subsidies for the current year, which surprised me. And then the export subsidies also must be part of the equation.

So our exports devastate the economies of our neighbors by destroying their agricultural sectors. Should it be a surprise that the result is a tide of economically distressed workers searching for a way to restore their economic fortunes?

Of course, this is all handwaving on my part. My information is old, possibly out of date – and the causal chain may still be up for debate. But stipulate it, and then what do you do? As an engineer, you look at stopping farm subsidies, but the political screams would send our politicians scrambling from rocks to hide under. Ban ag exports?

I think I’d be assassinated.

But I’d rather fix a problem at its source, rather than twist myself into a fatal knot, as the left may be doing.

Sometimes all it takes is a simple arrangement of facts to suggest a slightly different interpretation. I often see endorsements as the endorser actually approving the endorsee, usually for their ideological position, although sometimes simply for competency, and,  yes, I do understand that some of my readers probably consider me naive for it.

But these two notes from Steve Benen, separated in neither time nor space, sort of brought the alternative interpretation to the fore:

* As some Republican incumbents fret over possible even-further-to-the-right primary rivals, Donald Trump has reportedly assured three Republican senators — Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, Mississippi’s Roger Wicker, and Wyoming’s John Barrasso — that he’ll support their re-election bids.

* On a related note, though Deb Fischer is not seen as a vulnerable incumbent, Steve Bannon has reportedly been in contact with former state Treasurer Shane Osborn about a possible GOP primary.

It really sounds like Trump and Bannon are competing for loyalty from these various elected officials. Now, I know this isn’t anything new, but this looks like a big chess game going on out there on the extreme right.

And the question is whether or not the Democrats can find a way to take advantage of this (dare I say it?) inevitable discord on the right.

Heliophysicists (physicists who study the Sun) have coined the term hedgerow prominences, which I find charming, for what we see below. From NASA/JPL/CalTech:

At the edge of the sun, a large prominence and a small prominence began to shift, turn and fall apart in less than one day (May 8-9, 2017). Prominences are notoriously unstable. Competing magnetic forces pulled the plasma back and forth until they dissipated. The images were taken in a wavelength of extreme ultraviolet light. The 18-second video clip is comprised of almost 600 frames being shown at 30 frames per second.

The movies are at the link above. These starkly gorgeous images of that big light in the sky really can entrance me.

Professor Myles Allen of Oxford is an impatient, straightforward man, who’d like to ram the legal code right up the fossil industry’s ass. He recently talked to NewScientist (7 October 2017, paywall) about strategy when it comes to the problems of climate change:

In 2005, he called for action against “the 20 or so coal and oil companies” responsible for most carbon dioxide emissions in New Scientist. Since then, legal cases have been brought, but they have failed “because judges decided that because governments were regulating CO₂, the courts had no role”. …

… he finds an intriguing silver lining in Trump’s crusade against climate science. “The law could come to our rescue. The US withdrawal from the Paris accord may change things for American companies.” Why? If there is no government-level emissions regulation in the US, he says, then legal liability could return. “Concern over that may be why the large fossil fuel companies in the US were arguing against withdrawal,” he says.

So would EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s consistent resistance to doing his job. Indeed, if Pruitt succeeds in dismantling the EPA, if only in spirit, the fossil fuel companies could be wide open to anyone angry enough in the court system. Not to mention that Pruitt’s failure to fulfill his duties could be interpreted as illicit.

But Professor Allen has a wide range on his criticism shotgun:

“Paris was strong on aspiration, but the progress since has been minimal.” He believes more in the power of courts, economics and public pressure – and above all in being direct. For that reason, he is frustrated by the efforts of environmentalists to turn climate change into a grand debate about how the world gets its energy, or the ethics of consumption and capitalism. Just ban greenhouse gas emissions and be done with it, he says, and require those who make and burn fossil fuels to prevent emissions in whatever way they choose – with carbon capture and storage likely to play a key role.

He has no time for gesture politics. “If I had to pick out a group who I am most frustrated with, it would not be the fossil fuel industry; it would be the environment movement for their demonisation of the fossil fuel industry.” Big oil isn’t going away any time soon, he says, so environmentalists need to stop holding their noses and engage with it. When the giant US coal companies Peabody Energy and Arch Coal hit hard times last year, Allen called for one of the many cash-rich environmental NGOs in the US to buy them. “They could have taken a substantial share of coal reserves into the hands of people committed to stabilising climate. Sadly that opportunity passed.”

I couldn’t find anything on why the opportunity passed without anyone taking advantage of it. Sure would love to see the debate on that idea, and why everyone with the power – and how many would that be? – refused to do it.

Last week I managed some pictures from our garden, now in fall decline.

Or, in the case of our front yard peony, in full fall splat. Poor old peony went through the full old age experience.

The grass is far more graceful in the fall dance.

Last week the tomato plants were were nuanced in their reaction; this week, they’re just slumpin’. I’ll spare them the indignity of this week’s pictures.

The echoes from the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami continue to reverberate around the world. This surprises and fascinates me, from Science:

Abstract

A Japanese fishing boat washed away in the tsunami. Later sunk by “naval cannon fire.” Source: NOAA via BBC.

The 2011 East Japan earthquake generated a massive tsunami that launched an extraordinary transoceanic biological rafting event with no known historical precedent. We document 289 living Japanese coastal marine species from 16 phyla transported over 6 years on objects that traveled thousands of kilometers across the Pacific Ocean to the shores of North America and Hawai‘i. Most of this dispersal occurred on nonbiodegradable objects, resulting in the longest documented transoceanic survival and dispersal of coastal species by rafting. Expanding shoreline infrastructure has increased global sources of plastic materials available for biotic colonization and also interacts with climate change–induced storms of increasing severity to eject debris into the oceans. In turn, increased ocean rafting may intensify species invasions.

While in previous eons it was probably more difficult to accidentally encounter debris that could convey inadvertent immigrants across oceans, no doubt it did happen – and explains how many species spread.

If you remember the wind sculptures of Theo Jansen, someone sent me a new (to me) video of his work. The creature at 1:45 is new to me.

CNN is reporting that North Korea has been writing letters to various nations across the world:

In an open letter addressed to parliaments in a number of countries, North Korea has declared itself a “full-fledged nuclear power” and accuses US President Donald Trump of “trying to drive the world into a horrible nuclear disaster.”

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop called the message “unprecedented,” noting that North Korea usually chooses different means to communicate.

Bishop and Australian Prime Minister Turnbull think they know what it means.

Both Bishop and Turnbull said Friday they believe the letter shows that North Korea is getting desperate as the US and its allies ramp up sanctions on the rogue regime.

“I see it as evidence that the collective strategy of imposing maximum diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions on North Korea is working,” Bishop said.

If this were so, I’d expect more uproar from North Korea, though. Michael Madden on 38 North reports on the recent second plenary session of the 7th Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) Central Committee. There didn’t seem to be chaos or even a lot of concern.

After the second plenary meeting of the 7th WPK Central Committee, the DPRK leadership has subtly and gradually shifted its media messaging and programming (i.e. the propaganda) away from some of the more heated rhetoric and activity^[12] that we have seen during the last six months. Much of Kim Jong Un’s report to the Central Committee and many of the personnel changes to the central party power organizations focused on the economy. While the North will still formulate and release interesting statements, and we might see one or two more ballistic missile tests, the DPRK’s political culture is probably moving on to the KPA’s winter training cycle and preparations for the cold, resource-challenged winter. While one does not doubt what “single-hearted unity” and “Mallima speed” can accomplish, there are limits.

The results of the second plenary meeting are an unfolding event. Kim Jong Un and his image makers have met us halfway by holding a large gathering and revealing who was appointed to what power body. But Pyongyang watchers will need subsequent state media reporting to determine where some of these officials have landed and what policy areas consume their daily lives. It would be unwise, however, and possibly dangerous to read these personnel appointments as simply a matter of reshuffling deck chairs on a sinking. Several elderly officials have been effectively retired. And if the DPRK were embarking on a course of action that might result in the country’s total annihilation or even the strategic shock of a surgical strike, then such things as policy statements and personnel shuffles would be unnecessary. Individuals, and nation-states, with a death wish don’t make long-term plans.

The shift in emphasis to the economy would seem to indicate a recognition of the sanctions, but not an incipient move towards capitulation of any sort.

I think an alternate reading is far more likely than that of the optimists in Australia. Kim obviously recognizes the turmoil Trump has stirred up world-wide with his amateur hour stunts, as well as the obvious ease with which he can be manipulated – he doesn’t have the iron will of, say, Hillary Clinton, Obama, or Bush. Kim may believe this is the time to strike in order to weaken or even break old alliances that otherwise endanger his regime. This letter is written to subtly highlight these worries about Trump, making world leaders reconsider their ties with the United States.

And thus strengthening his position, as well as potentially increase his prestige. In his area of the world, prestige is more important than democracy, and that’s what he’s trying to increase with these moves.

During our recent visit to Seattle, our host impulsively changed one of our destinations from a classic car museum to the Pacific Bonsai Museum, which turned out to be fortuitous because the Pacific Bonsai Museum appears to be in danger of closing, or at least moving – I am having trouble finding information online. I thought we got this information from the information staff.

This is an outdoor museum, hosted on the grounds of a former Weyerhauser campus, and was a very peaceful visit for us, as we were virtually the only guests (a weekday afternoon). I know nothing about bonsai, so I took a lot of pictures, as did our host, and my Arts Editor picked out the best of mine. We were somewhat hampered by suboptimal lighting conditions – it was too bright, the shadows too abrupt.

This first set are classic pictures – the subject centered and presented, almost informationally.

Perhaps to portray a bit of a wind?

Lovely fall foliage.

A lovely image of life and death.

Some of the bonsai had painted backgrounds. My Arts Editor didn’t seem to approve.

I find I prefer more dramatic shots, and here’s what I managed to get by my Editor in that category.

Some OK use of shading.

Then there’s this, just sitting there under the tree. I have no idea as to its nature.

We did run across another visitor, and I’m amazed at how well this shot came out.

All in all, a relaxing and fun time.

I would not have thought the super-powers of evaporation would save us from ourselves, but here we are. From Nature Communications and Ahmet-Hamdi Cavusoglu, Xi Chen, Pierre Gentine & Ozgur Sahin:

Has anyone seen my cat? It was this big! No one? Gah, you’re all guilty, then!

Albert Finney leaves toothmarks all over the train in Murder On The Orient Express (1974), the classic Agatha Christie cautionary tale of karmic revenge, hosted by the legendary European train. This is a luxuriant retelling of the tale of murder and counter-murder, as the friends and relatives of a family destroyed by a kidnapping-killing gather to exterminate the man responsible for the death of a child, all because of his lust for wealth. This group functions as a proxy for society as a whole, metaphorically thrusting the malefactor, who placed his own position ahead of the good of society, on the edge of a precipice – and then delivering a hearty push. But with detective Hercule Poirot unexpectedly present, their must be adjustments to their plan, and it all makes for a delightful hidden dance as each distortion is delivered with a straight face.

I don’t quite recommend it, as it falls slightly short of compelling, but for a rainy weekend morning, like today, it was comforting to lie on the couch, listen to the rain beat the windows, watch a classic murder mystery unfold – and be reminded that someone who may be beyond the reach of the law may still be within the reach of the determined.

Vacatur:

A vacated judgment [or vacatur] makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Judge denies Arpaio’s motion to erase his criminal contempt conviction,” Megan Cassidy, AZ Central:

“The President’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge,” Arpaio’s attorneys said in their Aug. 28 motion.

What appears to be the final chapter of the Sheriff Joe Arpaio melodrama is finishing up. From AZCentral:

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Thursday denied former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request to vacate his criminal contempt conviction after he was pardoned by President Donald Trump.

In her ruling, Bolton said while Trump’s pardon “undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case.” …

Though Arpaio will not be penalized for this case, Wilenchik said the conviction could hypothetically be used against him in future legal proceedings.

“At this point what the court has to do is undo it all,” [Jack Wilenchik, one of Arpaio’s attorneys] [sic]. “It’s not saying he’s innocent, not saying he’s guilty, it’s really just a procedural right he’s entitled to.”

Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union and plaintiffs’ attorney in the underlying racial-profiling case, said Bolton’s order “gets it exactly right.”

“The court made detailed findings after a bench trial about Joe Arpaio’s criminal conduct,” Wang said. “The court’s findings and documents in the record of the case should stand and now will stand.”

It’s interesting that Arpaio’s attorney’s worry that the conviction could be a problem for Arpaio in the future. It brings into focus the limitations of the pardon power.

I can see the point of an appeal of the judge’s decision, which would be that the conviction is not final, but I think the counter-argument is that the pardon is an acknowledgement of of the guilt of the party involved. Vacatur is inappropriate, as it directly contradicts the will of the Executive.

Abeyance:

1.  :a state of temporary inactivity :suspension —used chiefly in the phrase in abeyance
   • … new contracts on all but one existing mine … are in abeyance pending the outcome of a government inquiry to be carried out into Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle. —Vimala Sarma
   a plan that is currently being held in abeyance
2.  :a lapse in succession during which there is no person in whom a title is vested • an estate in abeyance
   [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “The nation’s ‘top lawyer’ has no idea how executive privilege works,” Kerry Eleveld, The Daily Kos:

The [Reagan] memo does allow for a period of “abeyance” in which a president can weigh whether she or he wants to actually invoke the privilege. In Sessions world, that apparently means he can suspend congressional inquiry in perpetuity until such time as Trump manages to wrap his mind around the legal questions at hand—which, let’s face it, could take a very long while.

If you’re a star watcher, Idaho may go on your list of places to visit for another reason:

Tourists heading to central Idaho will be in the dark if local officials get their way.

The first International Dark Sky Reserve in the United States would fill a chunk of the state’s sparsely populated region that contains night skies so pristine that interstellar dust clouds are visible in the Milky Way. …

Leaders in the cities of Ketchum and Sun Valley, the tiny mountain town of Stanley, other local and federal officials, and a conservation group have been working for several years to apply this fall to designate 1,400 square miles (3,600 square kilometers) as a reserve. A final decision by the association would come about 10 weeks after the application is submitted.

The association also designates International Dark Sky Parks, with nearly 40 in the U.S. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve in central Idaho, known as a prime destination among avid stargazers, became one earlier this year.

“There is some astro tourism,” said Ketchum Mayor Nina Jonas, a point driven home last month when thousands descended on the town in the path of the total solar eclipse.

Ketchum officials have applied to become an International Dark Sky Community and join Flagstaff, Arizona, Dripping Springs, Texas, and Beverly Shores, Indiana.

The Idaho city approved a dark sky ordinance requiring residents to install shields on exterior light fixtures to block light from going upward and mandating holiday lighting by businesses and residents be turned off at night. [Phys.org]

Goodness. I wonder how close that is to the Amtrak train line? Courtesy my Arts Editor.

Looks like a bit of a walk, as those towns are down in the south of the state, in the southern section of the Sawtooth National Forest.

Being part of Western culture can mean an eternal comparison to other denizens of the culture in terms of achievement, a savage drive to achieve in terms of novelty: the discovery of the new mammal, the creation of a new technology, etc. Thus we have the Patent Office and scientific journals innumerable. This can induce the feeling of redundancy, if one has completely accepted this culture.

But it’s also possible to explore simply with the intention of the joy of bending one’s mind over and around something. This can be as concrete as the retired guy doing woodworking in the garage, or something more abstract. A lot of my programming has gone down this path – sure, someone has solved what I’m trying to solve, maybe better than I can possibly hope to achieve – and possibly that solution is sitting in that Design Patterns book I can see from chair here at home. I found Design Patterns to be quite the sleeper, which I suppose is a commentary on my professional attitudes^[1]. However, my point is that the pleasure of pursuing a solution is more important to me than knowing the solution itself. And if I come up with a better solution, so much the better.

So in the latter spirit, and because I write this blog to vent all sorts of pressures, I write the following.

Due to a recent article in NewScientist (7 October 2017, paywall) I’ve been musing on the topic of prime numbers. These are critical to encryption, but they’re interesting in and of themselves. First, some terminology.

P is the set of prime numbers, where P_n is the nth member of P. P₀ is 2, P₁ is 3, etc.

_n is the nth member of P.

N is the set of natural numbers > 1.

_m is the mth member of N.

₊ (sub +) means one or more.

One of the mysteries of prime numbers is how to efficiently calculate them. There are formulas for calculation of primes, but they are not efficient – by which I mean they have an algorithmic complexity of O(n²) or worse, where n = the prime desired.

At this juncture I’ll note that my mathematical training is fairly minimal, and my grasp of the technical language, wobbly at best, has degraded markedly over the years.

So I wonder what would happen if we thought of N, of which P‘s contents are members, as, well, a secondary set, and P as a foundational set, a set upon which N depends. How, then, would they be related?

I think it’d be a projection. Think of N as an ordered series of P_n-derivatives, by which I mean that each N_m is ultimately related to P₊. The projection, which I suspect is a set of equations, calculates the value N_m. For N_m which are prime, the selected equation is trivially

P_n * 1

The balance of N will be built from P₊. But what is the relationship between _n and _m? That’s the worldly goal. The next step is understanding the equations involved, and as importantly – no, more so – the proper way to select which equation to use to calculate N_m. Once that is understood, then perhaps a more efficient worldly goal can be realized.

Or not. I’m just bumbling along here without reference to the weighty literature on the subject, nor any particular mathematical skills. Just havin’ fun.

¹Sitting right next to it is Functional Programming: Practice And Theory, Bruce MacLennan, which I think should be on every programmer’s shelf, and yes I’ve read darn near the whole thing. Couldn’t quite stand the highly theoretical material. But for what the future of programming should be, this is part of it.

And the cats don’t want to have a thing to do with them.

Can’t say I blame them.

The Nature Conservancy covers research on how much impact better land management could have on the climate change problem:

The peer-reviewed study, led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions, and published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, expanded and refined the scope of land-based climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The findings are expected to bolster efforts to ensure that large-scale protection, restoration, and improved land management practices needed to stabilize climate change are achieved while meeting the demand for food and fiber from global lands.

Accounting for cost constraints, the researchers calculated that natural climate solutions could reduce emissions by 11.3 billion tonnes per year by 2030—equivalent to halting the burning of oil, and offering 37% of the emissions reductions needed to hold global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2030. Without cost constraints, natural climate solutions could deliver emissions reductions of 23.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, close to a third (30%) more than previous estimates.

“Today our impacts on the land cause a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Mark Tercek, CEO of The Nature Conservancy. “The way we manage the lands in the future could deliver 37% of the solution to climate change. That is huge potential, so if we are serious about climate change, then we are going to have to get serious about investing in nature, as well as in clean energy and clean transport. We are going to have to increase food and timber production to meet the demand of a growing population, but we know we must do so in a way that addresses climate change.”

A lot of it consists of planting trees. I wonder how much of a battle that’ll turn into. I hope they figure out a way forward, but there’ll be a lot of people who’ll stubbornly say NO!

Montane:

Of or inhabiting mountainous country.
‘montane grasslands’ [Oxford Dictionaries]

Noted in “Dry Montane Forests,” FOREST FIRE IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES:

Tree species that thrive on sites that are relatively warm and dry (less than 20 inches of rain per year) tend to dominate the dry montane forests. These species include ponderosa pine,Douglas-fir, and western larch.

Both the mildest and coldest of these dry montane forests can support pure stands of Douglas-fir. On the warmest sites, with annual rainfall a meager 11-17 inches, ponderosa pine tends to grow in pure stands. These stands become increasingly open with decreasing elevation or increasingly dry soils, until they are so sparse that they are no longer considered forests. Ponderosa pine “woodlands,” in which trees are so few and widely spaced that none of their crowns touch, are common at lower timberline and typically mark the transition from forest to grassland or shrubland. This transition generally occurs within 1,000 ft of the valley base elevation, or between about 3200-5500 ft in western Montana (Arno 1979).

This report from Oliver Roeder of FiveThirtyEight, a site that lives on Big Data analysis, is disturbing:

For decades, the court has struggled with quantitative evidence of all kinds in a wide variety of cases. Sometimes justices ignore this evidence. Sometimes they misinterpret it. And sometimes they cast it aside in order to hold on to more traditional legal arguments. (And, yes, sometimes they also listen to the numbers.) Yet the world itself is becoming more computationally driven, and some of those computations will need to be adjudicated before long. Some major artificial intelligence case will likely come across the court’s desk in the next decade, for example. By voicing an unwillingness to engage with data-driven empiricism, justices — and thus the court — are at risk of making decisions without fully grappling with the evidence.

This problem was on full display earlier this month, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case that will determine the future of partisan gerrymandering — and the contours of American democracy along with it. As my colleague Galen Druke has reported, the case hinges on math: Is there a way to measure a map’s partisan bias and to create a standard for when a gerrymandered map infringes on voters’ rights? …

Four of the eight justices who regularly speak during oral arguments¹ voiced anxiety about using calculations to answer questions about bias and partisanship. Some said the math was unwieldy, complicated, and newfangled. One justice called it “baloney” and argued that the difficulty the public would have in understanding the test would ultimately erode the legitimacy of the court.

Justice Neil Gorsuch balked at the multifaceted empirical approach that the Democratic team bringing the suit is proposing be used to calculate when partisan gerrymandering has gone too far, comparing the metric to a secret recipe: “It reminds me a little bit of my steak rub. I like some turmeric, I like a few other little ingredients, but I’m not going to tell you how much of each. And so what’s this court supposed to do? A pinch of this, a pinch of that?”

Justice Stephen Breyer said, “I think the hard issue in this case is are there standards manageable by a court, not by some group of social science political ex … you know, computer experts? I understand that, and I am quite sympathetic to that.”

I have to wonder if this has to do with the simplicity of the application of principle vs. the messiness of empirical analysis. A principle is a rule applied to situations which, if a valid principle, should ensure a positive outcome. On the other side, empirical analysis, which is the analysis of the information concerning the specific situation, should be used to affirm or invalidate the principle applied to the situation. The law often consists of discovering and applying the proper principle to the given allegedly illicit activity.

In the specific case concerning alleged gerrymandering, the efficiency gap is the measure of how many votes are wasted. This measurement correlates, according to the complaint, to the theoretical amount of gerrymandering. So, as Oliver writes, the role of the Court should be to determine what value of efficiency gap constitutes an illegal gerrymander.

To my mind, beyond the fact that this simple mathematical measurement is baffling some of the justices, they should be doing what the courts have done for centuries – employ experts to explain the evidence. The possibility “… that the difficulty the public would have in understanding the test would ultimately erode the legitimacy of the court …” is merely a hypothetical concern which could certainly be allayed through public education.

And the important fact on the ground is this: the public perception that gerrymandering is taking place in States such as Wisconsin and North Carolina is already damaging the perception that this is a fairly constituted democracy. If the democracy capsizes and goes down, SCOTUS goes down with it. Both wings of the court need to drop their ideological blinders and their allergies to math and really work on this case and try to understand how to measure gerrymandering – and how to stop it.

I have to wonder if Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, didn’t get the memo that the Russian investigation should be terminated, or if she’s deliberately ignoring it. First, the proxy for the termination memo, from Politico:

Loyalists of President Donald Trump are losing patience with Republican leaders over the wide-ranging Russia probes creeping into his inner circle, saying House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have allowed the investigations to hobble the White House for months.

Congressional investigators, say some lawmakers and state GOP leaders who back Trump, have let the probes — and the media coverage they generate — sidetrack the president as his allies, family members and aides are hauled in for questioning about whether Russians had American help in their quest to tip the 2016 election against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

But Haley, appointed by President Trump, had this to say at a recent panel at the George W. Bush Institute:

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Thursday that Russian cyberinterference in American elections is “warfare.”

Haley was discussing Russian online interference in the 2016 election in the form of the use of fake social media accounts and the spread of misinformation while speaking alongside former secretaries of state Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice at a panel hosted by the George W. Bush Institute in New York City.

“When a country can come interfere in another country’s elections, that is warfare,” she said. “It really is because you’re making sure the democracy shifts from what the people want to giving out that misinformation. And we didn’t just see it here. … They are doing this everywhere and this is their new weapon of choice.” [CNN]

It’s quite interesting, because during the campaign Ambassador Haley was Governor Haley of South Carolina, and not a Trump supporter.

Her relationship with Trump has been contentious: In January, Haley delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s final State of the Union address, and, without mentioning Trump by name, appeared to criticize him and his candidacy: “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices.”

In response, Trump said Haley was “weak” on immigration.

A month later, during the South Carolina primary (which Trump won), Haley described Trump as “everything a governor doesn’t want in a president.” [WaPo]

Rumor had it that Haley’s Lt. Governor, Henry McMaster, an early supporter of Trump, was getting his reward when Haley was appointed UN Ambassador – he moves up and becomes the incumbent Governor at the next election.

So now Haley’s speaking at cross-purposes to the Administration’s desires. Is she seeking to distinguish herself as a true patriot if Trump’s star falls? Or is she really simply doing her duty and pointing out the dangers of outside interference in our elections? She was known to be a shooting star in GOP politics prior to the appointment – she may be looking to salvage something from the current mess.

Speaking of now-Governor McMaster of South Carolina, here’s a Daily Kos post on how he appears to be burning up in an atmosphere of corruption.

Are you a little foggy on the government needs vs private sector (and, implicitly, the mathematical restrictions thereof) encryption debate? So is the government, apparently – it’s not one big topic, but several topics. Matt Tait on Lawfare elucidates:

For example, “device encryption,” used to prevent access to a device without the user’s PIN code, does not operate in a similar way to end-to-end communications encryption applications which prevent active wiretapping of communications. Neither  is similar to the specialist anonymizing software used by criminals to access hidden child pornography and drugs markets on the web. And HTTPS, the encryption used to keep communications with ordinary websites secure, is fundamentally different again.

To be sure, each of these use “encryption,” at some superficial level, and all cause different headaches for law enforcement. Yet each category poses very different challenges to investigations, provides dissimilar security benefits to users, and has surprisingly unrelated options, alternatives and trade-offs for any proposed path forward for law enforcement or technology companies to adapt to their respective challenges.

It’s a good, high level primer on how the government’s lack of technical knowledge results in ineffective legislation.