The Wrong Question: Are Algorithms Racist?

Frequently I see posts/articles which say that computer algorithms are racist.  When I bother to read them, the logic is fairly simply--garbage in, garbage out.  The algorithms are being developed using the conventional wisdom of whatever the subject is, and the conventional wisdom is racist.

I don't challenge any of that, but I'd insist the question is: so what?

Usually I take the message of the pieces to be--toss the algorithm out, it's biased, racist, undesirable.

But the true question is one of comparison: will using this algorithm instead of the existing process mean less racist results?  My guess is usually the algorithm is likely to produce more consistent results, and usually less racist results.  I see that happening because the algorithm would replace a more haphazard, variable process which evolved over time, and because the algorithm is being developed by people who are generally younger and more "woke" than those involved previously.

The second key question is: if we start to use the algorithm how likely is it that the algorithm can be improved?

Five People to Write a Times Article? (And the Past)

NYTimes has an article on how the Trump administration turned away from the coronavirus, deciding to push responsibility to the states and localities.  In part it reads to me as a hit piece on Dr. Birx, possibly with Kushner as one of the sources (he's barely mentioned, while she gets portrayed as unduly optimistic and trying to please her bosses).

But that's not really what struck me.  It's the question: how do the logistics of five people writing one article work?  Does one person do the draft and the others add comments and paragraphs?  Is it more collaborative or individualistic? 

And how did the Times (and other papers) get here?  Back when I started reading the paper (usually the Sunday version) in the 1950's there were very few bylines on articles.  Over the years they started to appear on a greater proportion of the articles until now there's hardly an article without at least one named author.

I think that's representative of a more general evolution in society: diminishing the importance and voice of institutions and raising the importance and voice of individuals.

How Soon We Forget--the White Freedom Riders

There was a good bit of commentary, some here, on the protests after George Floyd's death about the number of white faces in the crowds. 

So I was struck today by the photo in this piece on the Freedom Riders. It's easy to forget that the civil rights movement was diverse. Including whites was strategic--whites had the money, better connections to political leaders, and, when assaulted, got more publicity.

Undoing Trump's Work II

The Times has an article today on how the Democrats are planning to use the Congressional Review Act to undo Trump regulatory actions.  According to the article the Republicans are now within the period to which the Act applies so a new Congress controlled by the Democrats would be able to reverse any final rules published from here on to Jan. 19.

The piece quotes Sally Katzen as raising the issue of whether it's possible to reinstate the Obama regs which the Trump administration nullified using the CRA, but it doesn't explore it. I haven't looked at the actual wording of the act recently, but I wonder if the courts would uphold the ability of one Congress to bind a future Congress.

Trump's Expansion of Farm Payments

Here's a piece on how the Trump administration has expanded federal payments to farmers.

Undoing Trump's Work

Trump has made many changes in federal policy, issuing a lot of executive orders. Most recently, he's proposing to change the way the government does environmental policy.  There's already a lawsuit saying he's not following the Administrative Procedure Act. IMHO it's likely the policy won't be final by Jan 20, so a new Biden administration could withdraw it easily. My point here is actions like this are basically political campaign fodder, not realistic.  It's okay; the Obama administration did  much the same.  You spend 3.5 years hoping to do something,and you wake up and find you're out of time, but you might as well do it anyway--it will look good to your supporters and there's always the chance the new administration will carry on the work.

Other changes Trump has made are permanent, meaning a new administration will have to go through the rulemaking process to consider whether they want just to reverse the changes, or whether they want to take the occasion to make some modifications of their own.  I'm not sure whether a straight revocation of a final rule has a lower legal hurdle for justification or not--it's possible a new cost-benefit analysis would still be required.  Since Trump's people have changed the parameters for such analyses  the situation gets a bit more complicated.

Assuming Biden wins in November, watching the new administration navigate these hurdles will be rewarding.

Pet Peeve: Academics/Media and Naval Terms

Early on I got heavily into 20th century naval technology and history, such as the development of the torpedo, of torpedo boats, of torpedo boat destroyers (now just destroyers), etc.

So it aggravates me when, as in "A Very Stable Genius" I see a writer loosely use the term "battleship" for a significant ship of some size, whose precise description I can't be bothered with.  (Otherwise the book is very good, recommended.)

I find this in academic works as well as popular nonfiction and media writing.  There are no battleships on active duty in today's Navy.

MFP and CFAP and ?

Politico has a piece on Trump's payment programs for farmers, which have set new records, arguing it will be difficult to cut back.

It's not Trump's fault, entirely. Yes, he bears responsibility for the trade war with China, which then justified $23 billion in MFP payments, and seems not to have accomplished much. But the payments under CFAP to cushion the blows of the pandemic are as big, or will be bigger.  And farm state Democrats are as eager as Republicans to fund the payments. 

I'm waiting for the WTO evaluation of the programs, but Trump is likely to pull us out of that as well.

I Was a Redskin Fan

In my youth I followed the NY Giants, which was the team being carried on local TV. After college and Army I lost most contact with the Giants, although for a couple years they had an ex-Cornell quarterback, Gary Wood., who may have been a better athlete than Tiger Woods BTW.

Living in DC and following sports in the Washington Post I gradually became a Redskins fan, especially during the glory days of the Hogs. As I grew older and the Redskins started losing more often my involvement started to falter some.

I can't claim to have ever been particularly bothered by the team's name.  I know that gives me a bad mark, if it doesn't actually make me a bad name. But I'm not going to rewrite my history.

I anticipate I'll still be interested and root for the Washington NFL team this fall, if they actually play games. 

So be it.

Today's Kids Are Needy?

The Post has a piece by a two-profession couple with 8 and 12 year old daughters, on their struggles to handle home schooling while still doing their professions.  In order to minimize interruptions they designate one parent as the duty parent for the morning and the other one in the afternoon.  The kids are supposed to go to the duty parent for their questions and needs. 

One day (not a big sample) they did a spreadsheet showing how many times the daughters interrupted the duty parent's work. I found the graph of the results to be incredible.

I know when I was young, maybe 8, I'd get bored and nag at mom.  But that wouldn't last long--it wasn't tolerated and I'd find something to do or play with.  Now I wasn't being home schooled; I'd understand that makes a difference.  But still...

I suppose it's just an example of how child rearing has changed over 70 years--parents and children are much closer now.  I know that.  But it still strikes me in my gut as being needy.