Glorious giants of the Appalachians are being killed off by insignificant-looking Asian females. And this has nothing to do with outsourcing, job losses, small towns, bitterness, guns or religion.
The Eastern Hemlock, a glorious native American tree that grows to a stature of 100m, the Sequoia of the Appalachians, is being wiped out by a tiny parasite, an aphid called the Woolly Adelgid. This has been observed and mourned in the New Yorker (I found the story thumbing through a back issue), the New York Times (way back in 1991) and in various pamphlets accessible with a Google search. However, what doesn't seem to have attracted comment is that the attacker is fatally flawed.
The aphids first came to America on decorative Japanese trees which were planted at Maymont, a public park in Richmond, VA. All the male aphids died. They feed exclusively on spruce sap and the males could not digest American spruce. A few females survived. Sans males, they had to reproduce by cloning. So, the threat to the Eastern Hemlock comes from clones of a very small number of individual female aphids. The clones were fantastically successful because they could colonize the Eastern Hemlock. As a predator gets established in America, or worst-case, as the Hemlock populations in the wild die out, the clones will also die. Clones are evolutionary dead-ends.
Should conservationists freeze Hemlock gene-plasm to re-populate the Applachians once the Woolly Adenids clones inevitably die? Makes sense. Just be sure to freeze a diverse pool of Hemlock gene-plasm. And establish an Eastern Hemlock worshipping cult whose rituals will remind initiates to perform this sacred task when evolution plays out and the clones finally die.
Friday, 13 June 2008
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Test cricket. Live at the ground
Five thoughts after a day watching test cricket at Trent Bridge:
1. The thonchk sound of bat hitting ball. That sound just doesn't come through on TV
2. The new TV screen at Trent Bridge is fantastic. Watching from a stand 150 meters from the screen, the picture quality is as good as on TV at home. They do show the key moments on screen. Makes the classic (expensive) seats over the top of the bowler's arm less relevant, really
3. They market special radios on the ground that pick up Sky Sports' TV commentary. They ought to also market special internet devices that pick up The Guardian's OBO coverage
4. The English start drinking at 11:00 am and drink continuously till stumps at 6:30. Men and women, white haired gentlemen in blazers and yobs in tattoos...they all sustain this rate of consumption. It is an amazing physical achievement. Even more amazing, Britain is ranked only 15th in European league tables for alcohol consumption per capita
5. Monty Panesar does a cool wave to the crowd. His back is towards the crowd, but he acknowledges the "Monty, give us a wave" calls by transferring his weight on to one leg, pivoting his hands at about waist height, shrugging a shoulder and just glancing back for a split second
1. The thonchk sound of bat hitting ball. That sound just doesn't come through on TV
2. The new TV screen at Trent Bridge is fantastic. Watching from a stand 150 meters from the screen, the picture quality is as good as on TV at home. They do show the key moments on screen. Makes the classic (expensive) seats over the top of the bowler's arm less relevant, really
3. They market special radios on the ground that pick up Sky Sports' TV commentary. They ought to also market special internet devices that pick up The Guardian's OBO coverage
4. The English start drinking at 11:00 am and drink continuously till stumps at 6:30. Men and women, white haired gentlemen in blazers and yobs in tattoos...they all sustain this rate of consumption. It is an amazing physical achievement. Even more amazing, Britain is ranked only 15th in European league tables for alcohol consumption per capita
5. Monty Panesar does a cool wave to the crowd. His back is towards the crowd, but he acknowledges the "Monty, give us a wave" calls by transferring his weight on to one leg, pivoting his hands at about waist height, shrugging a shoulder and just glancing back for a split second
Saturday, 24 May 2008
IPL payments and CEOs
The winners of the IPL will earn $1.5MM. Works out to $75K for each player if there are 20 in the squad.
Sure, $75k is nothing to sneeze at. Unless you’ve been paid $500K to just show up and take part. The incentives aren’t sloped steeply enough. It is creditable that the stars are playing hard despite the relatively small prize.
For the true geeks reading this post…the formula that describes optimal effort in a tournament is (w1 – w2) = g(0)*c’(e). (w1 – w2) represents the increase in wealth due to winning. g(0) is a measure of how much randomness effects winning. c'(e) is a measure of effort. This formula is lifted from a seminal 1981 paper by Sherwin Rosen and Edward Lazear. If you really want to get under the skin of the formula, you can download the paper from jstor for $14.
The intuitive part of the result is that people work harder to win if the rewards of winning are greater. The fascinating part of this result is that the rewards for winning need to be greater in games with more randomness to extract the same effort. If you can win through pure luck, you’re less likely to work hard to win. So the reward needs to be bigger to get the same hard work.
This Sherwin Rosen paper - and the vast body of secondary research that his paper spawned - is often used to understand why CEOs get paid so much. Everybody in an organization works hard to become the CEO because the reward is so big. That hard work is what creates value for the organization, or for society, which is good. The reward goes to one CEO, one individual who basically got lucky, which feels unfair. Horrible dilemma. The only way to square this circle seems to be to design games with less randomness.
Sure, $75k is nothing to sneeze at. Unless you’ve been paid $500K to just show up and take part. The incentives aren’t sloped steeply enough. It is creditable that the stars are playing hard despite the relatively small prize.
For the true geeks reading this post…the formula that describes optimal effort in a tournament is (w1 – w2) = g(0)*c’(e). (w1 – w2) represents the increase in wealth due to winning. g(0) is a measure of how much randomness effects winning. c'(e) is a measure of effort. This formula is lifted from a seminal 1981 paper by Sherwin Rosen and Edward Lazear. If you really want to get under the skin of the formula, you can download the paper from jstor for $14.
The intuitive part of the result is that people work harder to win if the rewards of winning are greater. The fascinating part of this result is that the rewards for winning need to be greater in games with more randomness to extract the same effort. If you can win through pure luck, you’re less likely to work hard to win. So the reward needs to be bigger to get the same hard work.
This Sherwin Rosen paper - and the vast body of secondary research that his paper spawned - is often used to understand why CEOs get paid so much. Everybody in an organization works hard to become the CEO because the reward is so big. That hard work is what creates value for the organization, or for society, which is good. The reward goes to one CEO, one individual who basically got lucky, which feels unfair. Horrible dilemma. The only way to square this circle seems to be to design games with less randomness.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Micro Nations
Some Scots want to secede from the UK to create an independent nation of 5 MM people. Some Walloons want to secede from Belgium to create an independent nation of 3MM people. In this news item about Belgium's possible break up, Czechoslovakia’s split in 1993 into the Czech Republic and Slovakia is admiringly described as a “velvet” partition.
Yet ever more countries want to join the European Union. Big nations like Poland and Hungary are in. Giants like Turkey and Ukraine seem likely to become European within my lifetime (the next 50 years?).
So is Europe splintering or coalescing? What’s going on? The dynamic that feels under-observed, that Scotland beautifully illustrates, is that the two processes reinforce each other.
Chest-thumping micro-nationalism is great fun. It derives from the same emotions that cause people to support the home team at football games; these are powerful emotions. What limits the political potency of micro-nationalism is that micro-nations simply don’t have the scale to build the institutions that, ultimately, make people better off.
As European institutions become stronger micro-nationalism gradually becomes costless. People will gradually figure out that the institutions that make people better off are located in Europe. Might as well thump the micro-national chest and have a bit of fun.
The Scottish parliament voluntarily dissolved itself and threw its lot in with Westminster in 1707, at the cusp of the British Empire. Their reasoning was coldly economic (or so says the Lonely Planet guide). Scotland wanted to be on the winning side of the greatest opportunity-to-plunder/ economic engine that history had ever seen. Three hundred years later, the pro-union rhetoric coming out of Scotland is still economic.
Over time, the Euro-zone market will get bigger and deeper, European courts and parliaments and regulators will figure themselves out, the Trans European Motorway will get built. Maybe a European lingua franca will emerge (will it be English?). Union with England will just matter less to a Scotland that is part of a functioning Europe.
What are the odds that Scotland will be an independent European nation 50 years from now? I’ll offer you 50-50. Much longer odds though, on the European lingua franca becoming English.
Yet ever more countries want to join the European Union. Big nations like Poland and Hungary are in. Giants like Turkey and Ukraine seem likely to become European within my lifetime (the next 50 years?).
So is Europe splintering or coalescing? What’s going on? The dynamic that feels under-observed, that Scotland beautifully illustrates, is that the two processes reinforce each other.
Chest-thumping micro-nationalism is great fun. It derives from the same emotions that cause people to support the home team at football games; these are powerful emotions. What limits the political potency of micro-nationalism is that micro-nations simply don’t have the scale to build the institutions that, ultimately, make people better off.
As European institutions become stronger micro-nationalism gradually becomes costless. People will gradually figure out that the institutions that make people better off are located in Europe. Might as well thump the micro-national chest and have a bit of fun.
The Scottish parliament voluntarily dissolved itself and threw its lot in with Westminster in 1707, at the cusp of the British Empire. Their reasoning was coldly economic (or so says the Lonely Planet guide). Scotland wanted to be on the winning side of the greatest opportunity-to-plunder/ economic engine that history had ever seen. Three hundred years later, the pro-union rhetoric coming out of Scotland is still economic.
Over time, the Euro-zone market will get bigger and deeper, European courts and parliaments and regulators will figure themselves out, the Trans European Motorway will get built. Maybe a European lingua franca will emerge (will it be English?). Union with England will just matter less to a Scotland that is part of a functioning Europe.
What are the odds that Scotland will be an independent European nation 50 years from now? I’ll offer you 50-50. Much longer odds though, on the European lingua franca becoming English.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Sandlot Wars
I’m really stretched at work nowadays (hence the relatively low frequency of blog posts). Too much work. Not quite enough people to get through the work. I’m not alone. Most of my peers are in the same situation.
One unexpectedly good consequence is that my peers and I are playing as a team more than we used to. We clearly need help from each other, and are generally quite happy to punt the ball over to each other.
This is in stark contrast to another time, within this same company, when we were overstaffed. We had too many ambitious and talented people, with plenty of time on their hands, looking to carve out bigger roles to match their ambitions and talents. This lead to the Sandlot wars. Almost all conversations were political rather than truth-seeking, and came with an undercurrent of “this is my sandlot and you’re not going to play here.”
Based on that contrast, my top management tip: keep your team slightly short-staffed. Your people will be under pressure. That’s OK. They will learn to take the pressure. An environment where people have a lot of room to play and grow, and have a credible prospect of advancement, creates a much healthier culture.
My inner sceptic just asked a question. Organizations riven by turf wars are clearly less pleasant work-places than those where people co-operate. But are they less successful? Great research topic for a Ph.D. student. But, for sure, you will have more fun working for a light, stretched organization.
One unexpectedly good consequence is that my peers and I are playing as a team more than we used to. We clearly need help from each other, and are generally quite happy to punt the ball over to each other.
This is in stark contrast to another time, within this same company, when we were overstaffed. We had too many ambitious and talented people, with plenty of time on their hands, looking to carve out bigger roles to match their ambitions and talents. This lead to the Sandlot wars. Almost all conversations were political rather than truth-seeking, and came with an undercurrent of “this is my sandlot and you’re not going to play here.”
Based on that contrast, my top management tip: keep your team slightly short-staffed. Your people will be under pressure. That’s OK. They will learn to take the pressure. An environment where people have a lot of room to play and grow, and have a credible prospect of advancement, creates a much healthier culture.
My inner sceptic just asked a question. Organizations riven by turf wars are clearly less pleasant work-places than those where people co-operate. But are they less successful? Great research topic for a Ph.D. student. But, for sure, you will have more fun working for a light, stretched organization.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
The hardest people to manage
It's people who are on their way out of your organization.
My top management tip: don't prolong the agony. If one of your people wants to leave, tell her to just go right now. You may not know exactly how you will cope with the loss, but you will cope.
Just go right now sometimes feels hard. Having a familiar face who knows the ropes running her show for a few more months often feels safer. That is false security. Having an player who is not fully checked-in on your team for a few months is toxic. Best case, safe players start making amateurish errors. Worst case, open-minded, constructive scepticism degenerates into corrosive, contagious cynicism. I've seen it happen too many times. It's not worth it.
The shadow of the future is everybody's best friend.
My top management tip: don't prolong the agony. If one of your people wants to leave, tell her to just go right now. You may not know exactly how you will cope with the loss, but you will cope.
Just go right now sometimes feels hard. Having a familiar face who knows the ropes running her show for a few more months often feels safer. That is false security. Having an player who is not fully checked-in on your team for a few months is toxic. Best case, safe players start making amateurish errors. Worst case, open-minded, constructive scepticism degenerates into corrosive, contagious cynicism. I've seen it happen too many times. It's not worth it.
The shadow of the future is everybody's best friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)