Yes, I know the Ides are March 15, but there’s a baseball game to watch tomorrow.
As noted on the blog 14 February, the District of Columbia suffered a major sewage pipe collapse on 19 January. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser got around to declaring a ‘state of emergency’ on 18 February, a full month after the failure, and well after 250M gallons (946M L) of raw sewage had entered the Potomac River. EPA was named as lead investigation authority, but no word on whether the District will face court sanctions, and the hefty fines a commercial operator would face. Breath, be not held.
I will say that two months to repair a 72-inch (1.8m) sewage pipe, which are located at the very bottom of the below-ground infrastructure stack, especially after the Winter the East Coast endured, isn’t too shabby. Gotta have sanitation.
A lawsuit has been filed, because no disaster is complete until the legal paperwork has been filed. A class-action is seeking unspecified damages for people ” . . . whose property interests in and use and enjoyment of the Potomac River … have been impaired by Defendant’s conduct.” Like, you’re going to be using and enjoying the Potomac in the middle of Winter. There are also the usual rent-seekers.
Betsy Nicholas, president of the Potomac Riverkeeper Network, said the situation “could have been so much worse given the vulnerability of our drinking water system” in the district, Montgomery County and Virginia’s Arlington County.
Nicholas said the incident highlights the need for ecological assessments and remediation efforts, including natural solutions such as freshwater mussels and native aquatic plants.
“We need assurances that this isn’t going to happen again, that there’s going to be full inspection of the entire remaining system,”
DC Water announced early on that potable water supplies were never in danger. Too bad Ms. Nicholas doesn’t recognize the ‘resiliency’ of the water system. I am unsure how freshwater mussels and native aquatic plants are going to deal with hundreds of millions of tons of raw sewage. There are full inspections of the entire system on a regular basis, and one may be confident that ‘this won’t happen again’: in the same place.
There are people who would prefer not to be US citizens, mostly those who are citizens by the Grace of God; although they view it as ‘accident of birth’. It’s understandable: if your parents happened to pop you out in a country in which you did not grow up, and have no cultural affiliation, citizenship can be an inconvenience, and in some places, a burden. It’s fair enough.
Formal renunciation of citizenship has always been an option in America, but there is a process, and that process costs money. And, the country won’t be getting any more out of you. The fee prior to 2015 was $450, and was raised to $2350 that year, to cover the costs of a surge in renunciations following tax law changes for American expatriates. There it has stayed, until the State Department rolled it back to $450 this month. The reduction was a result of lawsuits filed arguing against the fee increase. At least one group wants the fee to be $0; arguing that there should be no cost to renounce citizenship. And, there isn’t. You can go outside and announce to the world that you are no longer an American citizen. Doesn’t cost a penny. But, if you want to make real the intent; that takes effort. Effort on the part of others. Effort that some would like to see uncompensated. Does that seem fair to you? These folks seem to have confused Rights, and Responsibilities.
Trump Urges Allies to Help Open Straits of Hormuz
Now that Iran’s regular military has effectively ceased to exist, the Iran War is devolving into the low-level, asymmetric warfare that Fleets don’t handle well. The US Navy has struggled with small-ship combat since the Vietnam War. While the Vietcong didn’t have missile-armed speedboats, a lot of other folks do, and the Navy’s efforts to deal with that threat may be described as ‘mixed’. After the heavies deal with the opposing fleet, smaller ships like frigates and destroyers are needed to take care of the tedious mopping up of mines, small boats, and other point threats.
To this end, President Trump would like people who need Gulf oil, to help secure the supply of Gulf oil. Specifically; Britain, China, France, Japan and South Korea. It is fairly well known that Asia and Europe are far more dependent on Gulf oil than North America. North America, specifically the United States, is the World’s largest oil producer. How much do those called out depend upon an open Strait of Hormuz?
Britain: Fractional dependence on Middle East oil. The majority of oil imports come from the US.
China: 45% dependent.
France: Fractional dependence on Middle East oil. The majority of oil imports come from the US.
Japan: 70% dependent.
South Korea: 99% dependent.
Man, you’d think the South Koreans and Japanese would be all over this, with China not far behind. The US military has done the heavy lifting; it’s not out-of-line to ask those most affected to help out.
In the endless stream of content to generate clicks, some have called out the US Mint for not including an olive branch in the Eagle’s claw on the reverse side of the 250th anniversary commemorative dimes. Apparently, some folks do give a dime. The controversy centers on the empty claw, previously filled by an olive branch. Some see the Invisible Trump Hand in this: a warmonger wouldn’t want a peace symbol on the national coinage.
As it turns out, the design was approved by Trump in 2021, at the end of his first term. Medallic artist Eric David Custer designed the reverse, and states that the empty claw represents the Colonists during the Revolution: looking for peace; but still waiting for it. I can’t say that I disagree.
Say What?
Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Many Countries” will send “War Ships” to the Strait of Hormuz to keep it “open and safe,” though he did not name any specific nations. He urged Britain, China, France, Japan and South Korea to join such an effort. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more specifics.
How do you get from ‘not name specific nations’, to naming specific nations?
Word Watch
Legit.
I was on the fence for a long time about this word; I generally dislike vulgarization of perfectly serviceable words. I’m in the ‘legit’ camp. A reasonable, and inevitable form of the word; and conveys the idea more efficiently, with greater impact.
Related Reading










Artificial Intelligence (AI) hs been a Sci-Fi trope since the 1947 invention of the transistor, and solid state electronics. Although the programmable ‘difference engine’ was invented in the 1850’s, nobody was concerned about machines that could be disabled by withholding punch cards. Electronics allowed programming resident in the machine, and not visible. Things that work without apparent Human intervention are unsettling. People fear that which they do not understand.
‘Artificial Intelligence’ is the term given to computer programs, or algorithms, that mimic Human decision-making. These constructions are designed to produce non-linear output, emulating ‘creativity’. Not so long ago, applied ‘AI’ referred to the native programmed opposition in computer games. Games would be said to have ‘good’ AI, or ‘bad’ AI. Depending on the developer’s enterprise, some game AI could be quite good. However well-designed it might be, the algorithm is not going to operate outside the optimum curves for the conditions, as Humans might. Serendipity and chance discovery are not in the AI repertoire.
The latest development is Large Language Model (LLM) learning, in which the program trolls the Internet to learn people’s behavioural patterns and means of expression. This model is dependent on open-ended programming, allowing the machine to produce specific output from generalized data. While AI can emulate the result of thinking, it cannot know how, or why, people generate the results they do. Folks involved in the field know this, resulting in the move to ‘Abundant Computing’: integrating AI with indigenous knowledge to create a fancy data analysis tool. And, this is a problem.
The problem isn’t the tool itself, but what the capabilities of the tool represents: the ability to research, organize, and present data much more thoroughly and quickly than a person. James Van Geelen recently wrote in The Consequences of Abundant Intelligence about the possible effects on the job market as a result of AI agents becoming commonplace. The article is written in business-speak, so be aware. He argues that the first casualties will be
Examples include travel and insurance agents. He opines:
Cited jobs are financial advice, tax preparation, and routine legal services. The premise is that agents will make small groups of people more productive, to the point where labor costs will shrink significantly, allowing profits to increase proportionally. This is expected to drive valuations higher. The problems come when the money earned by organizations isn’t redistributed in the form of wages. Unemployment rises as a result of the productivity layoffs, and no one is hiring. It’s a bleak picture.
And, one that is flawed. The author writes from a top-level business perspective, and deals with macrotrends in regards to commodities and financial markets. And he is a product of his world, in that he only looks at the professional trades involved in some form of data processing. Even there, the mark is somewhat missed.
It has become apparent that the writing industry and coding industries have been the first casualties of the AI infiltration. Pro forma written pieces, like short descriptions, a good chunk of copywriting, and most news stories, can be done perfectly well with a minimum of creative effort. The same is true of most programming. If ‘vibe’ coding can be a thing and produce legitimate results, why do you need to hire a CS major? Those jobs have already gone. It looked like travel agents were on the way out, but the industry has made something of a comeback, and the reasons for that illustrate why AI agents are going to be limited in their influence on the job market. Even though the essay says that traditionally interactive jobs are in danger, the fact is, that people don’t just pay for specialized knowledge, they pay for not having to do the work. They are trading opportunity costs. AI agents may be able to process data like nobody’s business, but they can’t tailor the experience to the individual. Travel agents may have personal experience about a place that would be of interest to a client; insurance agents can tweak policies to individual circumstances. An AI isn’t likely to give a long-term customer a rate break, or overlook some minor discrepancy. And, the Human can make a judgement call: things that are relevant and important to the situation, and things that are not.
The same circumstances are in play in the real-estate industry. People just aren’t paying commissions for insider knowledge; they are paying for a tailored experience designed to maximize the value of the buyer’s time. AI won’t pick you up after work to show you property that you will most likely find of interest. AI will not ‘sell’ the house: pointing out features that would work with and enhance the client’s lifestyle. AI organizes and presents; it does not ‘know’.
The essay also completely ignores the trade sector. No algorithm on the planet is going to show up at your door to fix a plumbing problem at 2 AM. Yes, there are companies that do that. AI is not going to fix your car, wire a building, or maintain an aircraft. If a job involves brain directing hand, it’s safe from the pernicious presence. The concern addressed in the essay is that the tech enables small numbers of people to be equivalently productive to large numbers of people. This is not new, although the author seems to think it is, or chooses to do so. I have more productivity capability sitting on my desk than an entire room full of people half a century ago. It appears that AI agency is an existential threat to livelihoods, but like all technology, individual prosperity depends on individual adjustment to the reality. Change isn’t bad per se; it just drives choices.
Leave a Comment
Posted in Commentary, Computer, Economics, History, Society, writing | Tags: Commentary, economics, History, Society, writing