Good morning. In
Minneapolis it's a crisp autumn morning, but rain is on the way—for the entire
weekend, of course.
* * *
Back to my
occasional look at research that appears, on its face, silly—but isn't. Folks at the place I spent half a year, the
University of Edinburgh, studied the flight of dandelion seeds.
The mystery
of dandelion seed flight has been that the little "parachute" of
seeds that form after the flower has bloomed is almost all air. Nevertheless, those seeds can travel up to a
kilometer or more from the plant! That's
an amazing distance. The folks at
Edinburgh did experiments. I don't fully
understand what they found; perhaps you do:
Their study revealed that a
ring-shaped air bubble forms as air moves through the bristles, enhancing the
drag that slows each seed's descent to the ground. This newly found form of air bubble -- which
the scientists have named the separated vortex ring -- is physically detached
from the bristles and is stabilised by air flowing through it. The amount of air flowing through, which is
critical for keeping the bubble stable and directly above the seed in flight,
is precisely controlled by the spacing of the bristles. This flight mechanism of the bristly
parachute underpins the seeds' steady flight. It is four times more efficient
than what is possible with conventional parachute design, according to the
research.
So of what
value is this? "Researchers suggest
that the dandelion's porous parachute might inspire the development of
small-scale drones that require little or no power consumption. Such drones
could be useful for remote sensing or air pollution monitoring." Yeah, but those damn little drones could do a
lot of other things that I might not like as well.
* * *
And here's
a piece that doesn't seem to have much application in daily life but that's
nonetheless provocative. Research from
three different places suggests that being unselfish has its rewards—at least
in the American and European populations they studied. (Stockholm University, the Institute for
Futures Studies, and the University of South Carolina; the second organization
is an independent research institute in Sweden; the University of South
Carolina must have become involved because it has researchers in the field)
What they
found was that "unselfish people tend both to have more children and to
receive higher salaries, in comparison to more selfish people." There is a nuance to the findings: "The most
unselfish people have the most children and the moderately unselfish receive the highest salaries" (emphasis
added). They add that "the result is contrary to
theories that selfish people manage to get their hands on more money through
their selfishness, as suggested in previous research."
I did not
know, but am not surprised, that earlier "research has shown that
unselfish people are happier and have better social relationships." Of course.
No doubt
one can pick apart the findings. The
researchers drew their conclusions from four studies that examined attitudes as
well as reported behaviors. Self-report
research can be suspect. It is
comforting to know, however, that doing good may have its rewards here on
earth. (The researchers also found that
while "people generally have the correct expectation that selfish people
have fewer children," they also—incorrectly—"believe that selfish
people will make more money.")
They hypothesize that "improved
social relationships may be the key to generous peoples' success from an
economic perspective, but note that their research does not definitely answer
this question." That supposition
makes sense to me. While salary
increases are presumably based primarily on performance, when there is
discretion, surely an unselfish boss/manager will direct larger raises to employees
who are generous in character and—surely—well liked by their peers and
coworkers. A selfish boss may be a
different case. I had the good fortune
to work for unselfish people almost my entire career.
The authors
also observe that whether having more children, given population pressures, is
a good outcome is subject to debate.
* * *
Here is an
example of research that I suppose will have applications in many places. This precis also demonstrates how far from
common understanding some advanced research is.
I'm sure this is noteworthy progress that makes perfect sense to those
in the field, but I haven't a clue in what.
Optical frequency combs can enable
ultrafast processes in physics, biology, and chemistry, as well as improve
communication and navigation, medical testing, and security. Engineers have
built a Kerr frequency comb generator that, for the first time, integrates the
laser with the microresonator, significantly shrinking the system's size and
power requirements. They no longer need to connect separate devices using fiber
-- they can now integrate it all on compact and energy efficient photonic
chips.
* * *
One small
example of why, on a practical level, Libertarian/de-regulation approaches to
government are wrong-headed. As anyone
who reads the news knows, this example could be repeated endlessly.
Three (the
major three, I would guess) producers of canned tuna were found to have engaged
in price fixing for a couple of years (~2010-2013). StarKist is paying a $100 million fine as
part of a guilty plea; Bumble Bee pled guilty last year and paid $25
million. Some of the executives at the
two companies have also pled guilty to price fixing. The third company, Chicken of the Sea, isn't
being charged "because prosecutors say the company exposed the scheme and
cooperated with the investigation."
When I
think about business news over the course of my life, and how industries large
and small have misled consumers, concealed negative research results, engaged
in fraudulent business practices, and so on, and when many of those instances
have led to the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people, I cannot fathom why
letting corporate America have relief from regulatory oversight is a good
idea. No one would maintain that
government is pure while business is malignant, but having agencies like the
Food and Drug Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission—to name
but two—makes me a little more confident about the conduct of business and the
purchase of goods. (Well, they made me
more confident under earlier administrations; now I'm less sure.)
* * *
Like many
people, I suppose, I've been dumping change into a big jar for years. Maybe decades. I acquired—I have no idea where or when—one of
those large glass jars that is turned upside down and placed on water coolers (often
seen in offices). I've had the jar for
as long as I can remember, and it finally got full. I've never had any plan for the money, so I
decided I'd contribute it to Elliott's retirement funds. I told him so, which email message elicited
an amusing response: "Always
thought we were going to dump it out and take a trip to Disneyland with it. A
mutual fund is sort of anticlimactic."
I assured him that there would be nowhere near enough money for one
plane ticket, much less three—and that Disneyland was never on the travel
bucket list. (Besides, he's already been
there when he was much younger and got to ring the opening bell.)
Emptying
the large jar was a project and a half.
The jar itself is heavy, and full to brim with coins made it far heavier
than anything I could lift. So I tipped
it over and could barely raise the bottom to make the coins tumble out. It took me 45 minutes to get all the coins
out and into small plastic containers that are transportable. So I now have 17 containers full of coins to
take to the bank. Elliott will be
helping me with this task.
My guess is
that each container has no more than $10 in it.
I told Elliott that this will not be a windfall for his retirement. The vast majority of the coins are pennies. We know that pennies no longer contain
copper, but many of them in my jar are from years ago, when they did. (The U.S. Mint tells me that "the alloy
remained 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc until 1982, when the composition
was changed to 97.5 percent zinc and 2.5 percent copper.") So my dreams of building the family fortune
when the price of copper increases by 1000% have been dashed. Might as well put the money in a mutual fund.
* * *
We got
through the first anniversary of Krystin's death. The phrase "got through" is chosen
purposely. It wasn't easy. Kathy and I invited Krystin's mom (Pat),
Elliott, and Peggy, Christine, and Dan (Krystin's closest friend and her
mom/stepdad) over for dinner and drinks.
We remembered and celebrated Krystin; having a group made it far easier.
Then Krystin's
birthday was October 30. October has
become a difficult month, although her birthday did not elicit (from me) the
same sadness that the anniversary of her death did.
In the
meantime, the editor I retained is working her way through all 1700+ pages of
Krystin's writing to condense it to a reasonably-sized volume.
Vote!
Warmly,
Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment