Politicians shouldn't be capatilists

We live in a society built around the basic capitalistic ideas, that self interest acting in a free economy will bring the services we need. Also the law of supply and demand works to set a fair price.

However can the idea that self-interest is a completely acceptable behavior be reconciled with the life of a politician? We elect a politician to work for us, not so that they can express their self-interest. Surely what any rational politician will do is to try to amass the maximum of personal benefit in their short time in power!

Perhaps a politician always wants to get re-elected? So therefore its in their self-interest to keep  the needs of their electorate before their own? Its unlightly! There is a saying, "better a bird in the hand than 2 in the bush". In any case, they are supposed to represent all the people in your community, not only the ones who voted for them. So they can take any decision they want and justify it by saying that it was important to a part of the electorate.

Re-election is a competition with a large part of chance. Past actions are part of the mix, but perception is the key. That's why professional politicians have a team to polish their image. Many politicians say that their actions speak for themselves, but its never true.

So, the only good politician is an anti-capitalist? I'd like to see that one on a campaign poster ;)

Career Management

I saw an ad on the side of a bus for a "Career Management" service. That sparked my imagination, what could a private company do to manage my career ?

I suppose that it could work like the way a Chinese Medicine doctor used to be paid to keep their patients healthy, you only pay when you're in work and you're insured when you're out of work. The company could set you skills to acquire so that you always be employed. If your salary increases you pay more, so the company has an incentive to get you a pay rise.

However, I do seem to already have an incentive arrangement with the government! I mean, I pay my taxes and if I loose my job the government pays me - for a while anyway. So why isn't the gouvernment coaching me on my career options ?

This is the future: the government has an agency called Jobs For Ever. They know the salaries in all domains and the variations in all regions. They work to maximize my pay, because that maximizes their revenue. Every 5 years they give me 3 months training on everything I've missed from working in the trenches, and then recommend 5 career steps with probable outcomes. I move to the region where the best jobs with the best lifestyle. Workers feel respected and satisfied, employers know they can ramp production or skill-set up or down. When work is scarce the 3 months training can be extended, combined with holidays, a gentle transition to long term unemployment in the worst cases. But young people always have the same access to jobs as the oldies.

Success despite flawed logic

In our civilization there is a fundamental rule - no-one can claim ignorance of the law as an defense.

However, I've never heard of a school giving lessons of law. Civics classes may try to explain the way the legal system works and your basic civil rights, but no more than that - because of course if they give incorrect information they could be sued. And the law is so complicated no normal person can possibly hope to know it!

Wait a second, does that mean that a fundamental principle of our civilization is flawed ? Yes, I think it is, but I can see that it works anyway. For that matter, there are many things around us that appear to be built on insubstantial foundations. Our money system for one. We could probably add all the social networks. Globalization? The invisible hand of the market?

So what are the lessons ? Well generally I nitpick, sorry I "analyze the system and look for inconsistencies". I guess I should encourage the dream a bit more. Things succeed if they're useful, even if the logic is flawed, its very weird.

Maybe the lesson is to believe in the trend? Or that a revolution is inevitable?

Astroid Deflection using Anti-matter

Its science fiction, except that its true. Sooner or later a big asteroid is going to come and we have no idea what to to.

Even worse, there is no political consensus over who would pay. We have an international treaty saying "no weapons in space", so exactly how are we going to deflect or disintegrate an asteroid ?

If only there was a weapon that we could use only in space! It would have to be something that basically could never get past the earth's atmosphere, but that would pack lots of punch against an asteroid. It would have to  never come back to bite us, either.

It occurred to me recently that anti-matter would be interesting. Assuming for a second that it was possible to create lots of antimatter on a moon colony or something, say anti-protons or anti-helium, we could use an accelerator to guide it into an asteroid's path. Every particle to impact the asteroid would give it a push, either backwards or sideways. A bit like using gamma rays for a cancer treatment, any misses would become dispersed in the solar system and would probably have negligible impact on anything else.

This type of antimatter stream could never be used to threaten a country. It would probably be used to draw advertisements in the sky, eventually.

Added benefit, it might be able to de-orbit space junk. It would be a great justification for a moon base, and an incredible jolt to world economy.

Extended Urban Twilight with Space Mirrors

I'm sitting in the office, on a winter evening, and its dark outside. The streetlights are on, but its still quite dark.
Has anybody ever studied using mirrors in space to provide a sort of extended twilight to dense urban centers?

Sure, it might not be a good idea to have 24-hour lighting, for animals or for humans. But if satellites reflected sunlight onto Paris up to 22h30, for example, that would certainly reduce the electricity bills and improve safety. It would also bring the space age into everyone's life. And there are lots of dense urban centers that could sign contracts for something like that.

Has this been discussed somewhere on the web? I've never looked.

The Mystery of the Unloved but Sucessful software products

I've worked in a few software houses, small and big, that sell software products. I regularly see successful products being ignored by the development teams, while they work on exotic and unlightly new ideas. Customer suggestions are ignored unless required to win a sale, and even then the the effects are underwhelming.

Why are all software products ignored once they're delivered?

The answer is that all software companies share a dream, of spending a fixed cost to develop a product that can then be sold to the entire planet. I call this the "Mushroom effect". Or maybe its an hallucination and not an effect?

During development phase the dream of future profits keeps the management committed. However once the product is out and the sales team start trying to place it, the dream of world domination gets replaced by a reality of less than exponential sales. Then the cost/benefit analysis kicks in - why improve this product with such limited sales opportunities, when we could work on the Next Big Thing? However the product is never killed, otherwise someone would have to take responsibility.

Please comment if you've seen a similar effect. How long does it take for the dream to evaporate?