Things that were not immediately obvious to me

Let’s indulge in a little geek time. In “Star Wars” the planet Alderaan is (spoiler alert!) blown up by the Death Star. It’s a commonplace to notice that this represents a remarkable technological feat, given the size and mass of planets and the nature of gravity. Today, I want to address the following question:

Everyone knows that it would take a lot of energy to blow up a planet. If Alderaan were entirely composed of explosives, would the detonation of those explosives be sufficient to destroy the planet?

Yes, it’s a silly question, and we’re not going to address it rigorously. I just want to see how far we can get.

Continue reading →

On the one hand, there was soot on the back of the car, a strong whiff of gasoline, and what looked to be a big intercooler stuffed into the front grill, all indicative of a wild (or badly done) aftermarket turbo job. On the other, 600 to the wheels is an awful lot of power.

There’s a line I read somewhere or other; it went something like this:

You can’t see anything if you see through everything.

I was reminded of it when I ran across this piece, which argues that an excessive emphasis on the avoidance of error can inhibit understanding:

We can worry about getting on the wrong train in the foreign train station whose signs we can’t read. But we should also worry about dithering in the station too long and thus failing to get on the right train. We could starve to death in that station if we never leave. This, it seems to me, is the essence of Newman and Pascal’s insight. Sometimes, the dangers of failing to affirm the truth are far greater than the dangers of wrongly affirming falsehood.

If we see this danger — the danger of truths lost, insights missed, convictions never formed — then the complexion of intellectual inquiry changes, and the burdens of proof shift. We begin to cherish books and teachers and friends who push us and romance us with the possibilities of truth.

As someone who holds that “it’s not what you don’t know that gets you, it’s what you do know that just ain’t so” I think this idea could easily be — and often is — taken too far. It still seems a noteworthy point of view.

It’s about 3 months to the midterms, which means one thing: free entertainment for political junkies. The economy is going to be a big issue in these elections, and the wisdom and efficacy of the $787 billion stimulus passed in 2009 is going to be a big economic policy question. To quote a prescient observer from early last year:

If the 2010 economy is strong, for whatever reason, Democrats are likely to do well, and Republicans poorly, irrespective of the outcome of the “stimulus” debate. On the other hand, a weak economy will profit the Republicans, but only to the extent they can offer a coherent critique of the Democrat handling of the economy.

…

If the “stimulus” passes over Republican objections, Republicans in 2010 can blame the … weak economy on Democrat policies; this message will be consistent with their earlier opposition to the “stimulus” plan. This is the “we told you so” scenario.

…

If the “stimulus” is defeated because of Republican opposition (i.e. a filibuster) then Democrats will be able to blame Republican obstructionism for the weak state of the economy.

I see that Democrats are now bravely attempting to spin the first scenario into the second; VP Biden is claiming that “the Recovery Act was undersized because the White House shrunk the economic stimulus package to win Republican votes in Congress to pass it.” (That’s a quote from the Politico story, not Biden himself.) That’s … well, I guess you have to do the best you can with a bad situation. I don’t think the “$787 billion just wasn’t enough dammit!” line is going to fly, though.