You should be concerned about the quality of the polls, but it's likely voter models that should worry you the most.

I've been meaning to do a good, substantial, well reasoned piece on fundamental misunderstandings about political polling. This is not that post. Things have been, let us say, busy of late and I don't have time to get this right, but I do need to get it written. I really want to get this one out in the first five days of November.

So here's the short version.

When the vast majority of journalists (even most data journalists) talk about polls being wrong, they tend to screw up the discussion on at least two levels. First because they do not grasp the distinction between data and model and second because they don't understand how either is likely to go kerplooie (okay, how would you spell it?).

The term "polls of registered voters" describes more or less raw data. A complete and detailed discussion would at this point mention weighting, stratification, and other topics but – – as previously mentioned – – this is not one of those discussions. For now, we will treat those numbers you see in the paper as summary statistics of the data.

Of course, lots of things can go wrong in the collecting. Sadly, most journalists are only aware of the least worrisome issue, sampling error. Far more troubling are inaccurate/dishonest responses and, even more importantly, nonrepresentative samples (a topic we have looked into at some depth earlier). For most reporters, "inside the margin of error" translates to "revealed word of God" and when this misunderstanding leads to disaster, they conclude that "the polls were wrong."

The term "likely voter" brings in an entirely different concept, one which is generally even less well understood by the people covering it because now we are talking not just about data, but about models. [Quick caveat: all of my experience with survey data and response models has been on the corporate side. I'm working under the assumption that the same basic approaches are being used here, but you should always consult your physician or political scientist before embarking on prognostications of your own.]

First off, it's worth noting that the very designation of "likely" is arbitrary. A model has been produced that attempts to predict the likelihood that a given individual will vote in an upcoming election, but the cut off between likely and unlikely is simply a number that the people in the field decided was reasonable. There's nothing scientific, let alone magical about it.

Far more important, particularly in the upcoming election, is the idea of range of data. Certain concepts somehow managed to be both painfully obvious and frequently forgotten. Perhaps the best example in statistics is that a model only describes the relationships found in the sample. When we try to extrapolate beyond the range of data, we can only hope that the relationships will continue to hold.

By their very nature, this is always a problem with predictive modeling, but it becomes a reason for skepticism bordering on panic when the variables you included in or perhaps more to the point, left out of your model start taking on values far in excess of anything you saw on the sample. 2018 appears to be a perfect example.

Will the relationships we've seen in the past hold? If not, will the shift favor the Democrats? The  Republicans? Or will the relationships break down in such a way that they cancel each other out? I have no intention of speculating. What I am saying is that we are currently so far out of the range of data on so many factors that I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about likely voters at all.

Our regular repost on drinking from the wrong pipe

From Josh Marshall:

I managed to involve myself this weekend in a tiny eddy in the storm around the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. As you can see below, early yesterday evening I happened upon this interview on Lou Dobbs’ Fox Business News show in which a guest, Chris Farrell, claimed the migrant caravan in southern Mexico was being funded and directed by the “Soros-occupied State Department.” This is, as I explained, straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the foundational anti-Semitic tract, first circulated and perhaps authored by the Czarist secret police in the first years of the 20th century.

If you’re not familiar with this world, “ZOG” is a staple of white supremacist and neo-Nazi literature and websites. It stands for “Zionist Occupied Government” and is a shorthand for the belief that Jews secretly control the US government. Chris Farrell’s phrasing was no accident. All of this is straight out of the most rancid anti-Semitic propaganda. Rob Bowers, the shooter in the Pittsburgh massacre, appears to have been specifically inspired by this conspiracy theory. Indeed, Bowers had also reposted references to “ZOG” on his social media accounts.

All of the conspiracy theories around the caravan, particularly those involving George Soros and voter fraud, have a weird underwear gnomes quality to them. They make emotional sense for those deep in the conservative media bubble, but there's no way to make any kind of plausible argument for any of them.

It can be useful for the Republican Party if certain segments of the population believe these fantasies, even disseminate them as long as the discussion remains far enough on the recognized fringe to allow party leaders plausible deniability. It is not useful to have ranking politicians and influential conservative voices saying these things out loud on what are supposed to be respectable outlets.

Or as we said exactly two years ago...

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

In retrospect, it's surprising we don't use more sewage metaphors

A few stray thoughts on the proper flow of information (and misinformation) and a functional organization.

I know we've been through all of this stuff about Leo Strauss and the conservative movement before so I'm not going to drag this out into great detail except to reiterate that if you want to have a functional  institution that makes extensive use of internal misinformation, you have to make sure things move in the right direction.

With misinformation systems as with plumbing, when the flow starts going the wrong way, the results are seldom pretty. This has been a problem for the GOP for at least a few years now. A number of people in positions of authority, (particularly in the tea party wing) have bought into notions that were probably intended simply to keep the cannon-fodder happy. This may also partly explain the internal polling fiasco at the Romney campaign.

As always, though, it is Trump who takes things to a new level. We now have a Republican nominee who uses the fringier parts of the Twitter verse as briefings.

From Josh Marshall:

Here's what he said ...

Wikileaks also shows how John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling democrats, a voter suppression technique. That's happening to me all the time. When the polls are even, when they leave them alone and do them properly, I'm leading. But you see these polls where they're polling democrats. How is Trump doing? Oh, he's down. They're polling democrats. The system is corrupt, rigged and broken. And we're going to change it. [ Cheers and applause ]
Thank you, thank you. In an e-mail podesta says he wants oversamples for our polling in order to maximize what we get out of our media polling. It's called voter suppression because people will say, oh, gee, Trump's down. Folks, we're winning. We're winning. We're winning. These thieves and crook, the immediate, yeah not all of it, not all of it, but much of it -- they're the most crooked -- they're almost as crooked as Hillary. They may even be more crooked than Hillary because without the media, she would be nothing.

Now this immediately this grabbed my attention because over the weekend I was flabbergasted to see this tweet being shared around the Trumposphere on Twitter.

Todays Wikileaks dump revealed the DNC works w/ pollsters to skew polls in their favor by over-polling Democrats & under-polling Republicans pic.twitter.com/tVA8K6n79T

— Taylor Egly (@TaylorEgly) October 24, 2016

I don't know who Taylor Egly is. But he has 250,000 followers - so he has a big megaphone on Twitter. This tweet and this new meme is a bracing example of just how many of the "scoops" from the Podesta emails are based on people simply not knowing what words mean.
Trump had already mentioned 'over-sampling' earlier. But here he's tying it specifically to the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks. This tweet above is unquestionably what he's referring to.
There are several levels of nonsense here. Let me try to run through them.
...

 More importantly, what Tom Matzzie is talking about is the campaign/DNC's own polls. Campaigns do extensive, very high quality polling to understand the state of the race and devise strategies for winning. These are not public polls. So they can't affect media polls and they can't have anything to do with voter suppression.

Now you may be asking, why would the Democrats skew their own internal polls? Well, they're not.
The biggest thing here is what the word 'oversampling' means. Both public and private pollsters will often over-sample a particular demographic group to get statistically significant data on that group.
...  You need to get an 'over-sample' to get solid numbers.

Whether it's public or private pollsters, the 'over-sample' is never included in the 'topline' number. So if you get 4 times the number of African-American voters as you got in a regular sample, those numbers don't all go into the mix for the total poll. They're segmented out. The whole thing basically amounts to zooming in on one group to find out more about them. To do so, to zoom in, you need to 'over-sample' their group as what amounts to a break-out portion of the poll.

What it all comes down to is that you're talking about a polling concept the Trumpers don't seem to understand (or are relying on supporters not understanding), about polls that are by definition secret (campaign polls aren't shared) and about an election eight years ago.

Halloween Greetings form College Humor

"The Internet Goes Trick-or-Treating"

We can't finish October without playing this at least once

The Danse Macabre (from the French language), also called the Dance of Death, is an artistic genre of allegory of the Late Middle Ages on the universality of death: no matter one's station in life, the Dance Macabre unites all.

The Danse Macabre consists of the dead or a personification of death summoning representatives from all walks of life to dance along to the grave, typically with a pope, emperor, king, child, and laborer. They were produced as mementos mori, to remind people of the fragility of their lives and how vain were the glories of earthly life. Its origins are postulated from illustrated sermon texts; the earliest recorded visual scheme was a now-lost mural at Holy Innocents' Cemetery in Paris dating from 1424 to 1425.

I think it's important to define subsidized journalism more broadly than just native advertising.

[This started out as a reply to Andrew Gelman's post "The Axios Turing test and the heat death of the journalistic universe," but when you break 500 words...]

First, there is the age-old problem of advertisers rewarding/punishing publications. If memory serves, Politico back in the Mike Allen days was notorious for questionable ethics along these lines.

Far more subtle and dangerous is the quid pro quo associated with access. While most news organizations have rules in place to prevent editorial influence from advertisers and generally avoid even the appearance of impropriety, giving favorable coverage to sources (often even to the extent of letting them set the narrative and distort the facts) is so widespread that many journalists don't even see the ethical problem. Politico and Axios both have bad reputations in this regard, but the worst offender may well be the New York Times.

This is both a carrot and a stick process. When Disney found itself the target of an LA Times exposé about its dealings with the city of Anaheim, they responded by publicly cutting off the paper's access to the studio's talent, even though that was an entirely different department of the paper dealing with entirely different Disney business lines. The good news is that, now that Disney has become by far the biggest and most powerful entertainment company in the world with the acquisition of Fox, I'm sure they will be much less inclined to abuse their position.

Particularly in fields such as entertainment, companies often go beyond merely providing journalists with the raw material and actually provide the stories themselves. Sometimes this is done by sending out press releases that can be repackaged as features with a minimum of work. Other times you have what can only be described as ghostwriting. Someone with the studio or one of the PR firms it employs will send a reporter an email about an upcoming project. The next day it will appear almost verbatim under the reporter's byline.

In addition to supplying money and content, companies can also provide an even more valuable service as promotion partners. That exclusive you just published about a new movie will get far more traffic because of the hundred million dollars the studio has spent on marketing the project, not to mention the effects of the SEO push and the social media blitz. If you write a story that the studios want to promote, you can literally see millions of PR dollars spent on getting you eyeballs.

While none of this is by any means new, Netflix and to a lesser extent the other streaming services have pushed things to a new level, spending billions on marketing and PR, even green lighting hundred million dollar documentaries and art-house projects for no other apparent reason than that they will generate lots of coverage and might snag a few awards. This unprecedented amount of money has distorted the narrative to such an extent that it is impossible to gauge the cultural impact or commercial viability of Netflix, but most of the journalists covering this story (virtually all of those on the East Coast) remain oblivious to this aspect, perhaps because ignorance of this particular detail makes their lives much easier.

More spooky stuff (In no way chosen as filler because I had a busy week)

Who better than Goldsmith and Hermann to send us off.

A Mercury Theatre Halloween

[repost]

The debut production of the Mercury Theatre of the Air, Dracula.




And, of course, the Mercury production of War of the Worlds.



While we're at it, here's a tour de force from Welles' favorite, Agnes Moorehead (don't let the corny intro turn you off) Sorry, Wrong Number.

We'll largely skip over the author's fixation on casual nudity.

When trying to understand attitudes toward and expectations for technology in previous eras, one needs to be especially cautious about relying on science fiction writers. Though they initially appear to be the richest source on the subject, numerous factors combine to make them unreliable. Most were attracted to the field by a fascination with the more dramatic aspects of the future and these tendencies are greatly heightened by working in a genre where the object was often to out geewhiz the next guy.

That said, it's a mistake to ignore them entirely, both because of the close relationship between the scientific and the science-fiction community, and because of the influence SF has played on the way we think about technology today either directly through books, film, television and indirectly through writers who alternated between science fact and science fiction (Asimov, Clarke, and to a degree, Willy Ley and Carl Sagan).

This mid century essay by Robert Heinlein on his predictions for the year 2000 is worth a look for a number of reasons. First, people did tend to take the man seriously in the postwar era. Though his standing has arguably declined somewhat at least relative to contemporaries like Asimov, at his peak, he was the best known and best respected hard science fiction writer among mainstream audiences. (Bradberry also had significant mainstream following, but even when writing about spaceships and aliens, his work tended to fall more in the category of fantasy).

Second, this essay is of particular value because the author not only makes a great number of detailed predictions (including a notable amount of time spent on the appeal of socially acceptable nudity), he also explicitly spells out the assumptions that underlie much of the period's attitudes toward the future. He even states his axioms and provides a handy graph of human advancement.

As a serious attempt at describing the rate of progress, this picture is fatally flawed. The year 1900 came at the end of a huge technological and scientific spike. Extending it back a couple of decades would have completely thrown off the curve. (Interestingly, you actually can justify an exponential curve describing progress in the 19th century.) Furthermore, it is difficult to argue a steady acceleration from the naughts to the teens, the teens to the 20s, and the 20s to the 30s.

This graph, however, is tremendously revealing when it comes to the ways people in the 1950s thought about progress. Like the end of the 19th century, the postwar era was a period when conditions lined up to cause a number of very steep S curves to cluster together. The result was a time of explosive, ubiquitous change. There was also, as mentioned before, a tendency to look at the two world wars and the interval between (particularly the Great Depression) as anomalous. It was natural for people in the postwar era to see themselves as living on an exponential slope that was on the verge of shooting past the comprehensible.

Cult of the CEO

This is Joseph

This is a revealing symptom of the cult of the CEO:

If you have a CEO this dead to rights on securities fraud, why let him continue as CEO? According to the SEC, Musk was indispensable. In a statement, SEC Chair Jay Clayton said “holding individuals accountable is important and an effective means of deterrence,” but that he must take the interests of investors into account, and “the skills and support of certain individuals may be important to the future success of a company.”

One of the most pernicious myths is that of the irreplaceable man.  We know that nobody is really irreplaceable, because in the end we are all replaced by the natural force of mortality.  But it is a terrible sign of a society when it sees the importance of a person to a business enterprise as an excuse for leniency for poor conduct.  The pressure to cheat to reach the top has to be high because the stakes are so incredibly meaningful in terms of wealth and status.  That suggests more scrutiny, not less. 

Irreplaceable men often beget disasters.  Great leaders, like Napoleon, often get cocky and make grave mistakes that end up costing a great deal despite the attributes that made them successful for a long time. 

I think that this line of thinking isn't ideal. 

It is always useful to go back and read the contemporary accounts.

One of the nails I've pounded flush to the board recently (apologies to long-suffering regular readers) is that much of the standard 21st-century narrative of technology consists of things that were at best sometimes true in the past and are almost entirely false now. The best example is probably the idea that the advances of old invariably came as a thief in the night with almost no one imagining the magnitude of their impact and what now seem obvious applications going undiscovered for years.

There are, of course, technological developments that caught people off guard or that moved in unexpected directions, but in most cases, if you go back and read early speculations about the potential of breakthrough technologies in the late 19th/early 20th centuries or the postwar era, you'll generally find that people had a pretty good sense of what was likely to come.

The same can be said for the dawn of the personal computing era

.

In case the aerospace allusions are getting a bit obscure, here's a week in video recommendation.

The Mouse on the Moon is an easy film to overlook. Between Peter Sellers' spectacular turn in the Mouse that Roared and the general tendency of the time to look at sequels as second-class cinematic citizens, particularly when none of the original stars made a return appearance), it is easy to think of the 1963 film as "the other one."

That's too bad, because the second film can easily hold its own. It's sharp and funny and like its predecessor. Both get 3 1/2 stars in the Leonard Maltin guide. What's more, it features the direction of a young Richard Lester just before he broke through with Hard Days Night.

From Wikipedia:

The Mouse on the Moon is a 1963 British comedy film, the sequel to The Mouse That Roared. It is an adaptation of the 1962 novel The Mouse on the Moon by Irish author Leonard Wibberley, and was directed by Richard Lester. In it, the people of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a microstate in Europe, attempt space flight using wine as a propellant. It satirises the space race, Cold War and politics.

Continuing the visionary aerospace thread, there's almost a "mouse on the moon" quality to India's avatar.

No disrespect meant for India here. Quite the opposite. I think there's long been a tendency to underestimate the country and its extraordinary intellectual capital. Here's one of the projects I would definitely keep an eye on.

From Wikipedia:
:

The idea is to develop a spaceplane vehicle that can take off from conventional airfields. Its liquid air cycle engine would collect air in the atmosphere on the way up, liquefy it, separate oxygen and store it on board for subsequent flight beyond the atmosphere. The Avatar, a reusable launch vehicle, was first announced in May 1998 at the Aero India 98 exhibition held at Bangalore. 

Avatar seems to have, if you'll pardon the metaphor, stalled out (recent tests don't seem to involve any of the really cutting-edge stuff). It could be that the technology actually has hit a wall. That would hardly be surprising for something this ambitious. There's another possibility, however, that is both more encouraging and depressing at the same time, namely that it simply hasn't gotten the funding it needs. Depressing because that would mean we have unnecessarily delayed important advances. Encouraging because it suggests that we still might get this plane flying.

There's a lot of money floating around out there in the vanity aerospace industry and it would be nice to see it go to something ambitious and important. With all due respect to the recently departed, if Paul Allen had taken the money spent on 60 year old visions of space travel and poured it into something forward thinking, his greater legacy might've been what he did after Microsoft.

It also suggests that I chose the wrong major in college.

This long but well worth your time article approaches some familiar problems from a new and disturbing direction. We've talked a great deal about manipulation of data and research, the corrupting influence of big money on supposedly objective processes, and the tendency to equate overly complicated math with insight and profundity, but probably not nearly enough about how these things can undermine public policy decision-making.

Here are a few excerpts, but you should really read the whole thing.

These Professors Make More Than a Thousand Bucks an Hour… — ProPublica
Jesse Eisinger,Justin Elliott

If the government ends up approving the $85 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, credit won’t necessarily belong to the executives, bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists pushing for the deal. More likely, it will be due to the professors.

A serial acquirer, AT&T must persuade the government to allow every major deal. Again and again, the company has relied on economists from America’s top universities to make its case before the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission. Moonlighting for a consulting firm named Compass Lexecon, they represented AT&T when it bought Centennial, DirecTV, and Leap Wireless; and when it tried unsuccessfully to absorb T-Mobile. And now AT&T and Time Warner have hired three top Compass Lexecon economists to counter criticism that the giant deal would harm consumers and concentrate too much media power in one company.

Today, “in front of the government, in many cases the most important advocate is the economist and lawyers come second,” said James Denvir, an antitrust lawyer at Boies, Schiller.

Economists who specialize in antitrust — affiliated with Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, the University of California, Berkeley, and other prestigious universities — reshaped their field through scholarly work showing that mergers create efficiencies of scale that benefit consumers. But they reap their most lucrative paydays by lending their academic authority to mergers their corporate clients propose. Corporate lawyers hire them from Compass Lexecon and half a dozen other firms to sway the government by documenting that a merger won’t be “anti-competitive”: in other words, that it won’t raise retail prices, stifle innovation, or restrict product offerings. Their optimistic forecasts, though, often turn out to be wrong, and the mergers they champion may be hurting the economy.

Some of the professors earn more than top partners at major law firms. Dennis Carlton, a self-effacing economist at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and one of Compass Lexecon’s experts on the AT&T-Time Warner merger, charges at least $1,350 an hour. In his career, he has made about $100 million, including equity stakes and non-compete payments, ProPublica estimates. Carlton has written reports or testified in favor of dozens of mergers, including those between AT&T-SBC Communications and Comcast-Time Warner, and three airline deals: United-Continental, Southwest-Airtran, and American-US Airways.

American industry is more highly concentrated than at any time since the gilded age. Need a pharmacy? Americans have two main choices. A plane ticket? Four major airlines. They have four choices to buy cell phone service. Soon one company will sell more than a quarter of the quaffs of beer around the world.

Mergers peaked last year at $2 trillion in the U.S. The top 50 companies in a majority of American industries gained share between 1997 and 2012, and “competition may be decreasing in many economic sectors,” President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers warned in April.

While the impact of this wave of mergers is much debated, prominent economists such as Lawrence Summers and Joseph Stiglitz suggest that it is one important reason why, even as corporate profits hit records, economic growth is slow, wages are stagnant, business formation is halting, and productivity is lagging. “Only the monopoly-power story can convincingly account” for high business profits and low corporate investment, Summers wrote earlier this year.

...

These complex mathematical formulations carry weight with the government because they purport to be objective. But a ProPublica examination of several marquee deals found that economists sometimes salt away inconvenient data in footnotes and suppress negative findings, stretching the standards of intellectual honesty to promote their clients’ interests.


 …

Recent research supports the classic view that large mergers, by reducing competition, hurt consumers. The 2008 merger between Miller and Coors spurred “an abrupt increase” in beer prices, an academic analysis found this year. In the most comprehensive review of the academic literature, Northeastern economist John Kwoka studied the effects of thousands of mergers. Prices on average increased by more than 4 percent. Prices rose on more than 60 percent of the products and those increases averaged almost 9 percent. “Enforcers clear too many harmful mergers,” American University’s Jonathan Baker, a Compass economist who has consulted for both corporations and the government, wrote in 2015.

Once a merger is approved, nobody studies whether the consultants’ predictions were on the mark. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission do not make available the reports that justify mergers, and those documents cannot be obtained through public records requests. Sometimes the companies file the expert reports with the courts, but judges usually agree to companies’ requests to seal the documents. After a merger is cleared, the government no longer has access to the companies’ proprietary data on their pricing.

The expert reports “are not public so only the government can check,” said Ashenfelter, the Princeton economist who has consulted for both government and private industry. “And the government no longer has the data so they can’t check.” How accurate are the experts? “The answer is no one knows and no one wants to find out.”

There's a lot of bold, visionary thinking coming out of aerospace, just not from the people who are supposed to be the bold visionaries.

Recently, we've been making the point that most of the "futuristic" and "revolutionary" proposals coming from the billionaire Messiah class (dominated by but not limited to the Silicon Valley variety) are usually postwar vintage and, even when you put aside those that probably won't work at all (see the Hyperloop), represent at best incremental advances. This is especially true in the vanity aerospace industry.

In making that point, I may have given the wrong impression about the aerospace industry as a whole. I'll try to post a couple more examples later. For now though, here is one technology that, if it proves viable and it is looking very promising, holds tremendous potential to revolutionize spaceflight.

From Wikipedia:

Like the RB545, the SABRE design is neither a conventional rocket engine nor jet engine, but a hybrid that uses air from the environment at low speeds/altitudes, and stored liquid oxygen (LOX) at higher altitude. The SABRE engine "relies on a heat exchanger capable of cooling incoming air to −150 °C (−238 °F), to provide oxygen for mixing with hydrogen and provide jet thrust during atmospheric flight before switching to tanked liquid oxygen when in space." 

And from the Guardian:

Spaceplanes are what engineers call single-stage-to-orbit (if you really want to geek out, just use the abbreviation: SSTO). They have long been a dream because they would be fully reusable, taking off and landing from a traditional runway.

By building reusable spaceplanes, the cost of reaching orbit could be reduced to a twentieth current levels. That makes spaceplanes a game changer both for taking astronauts into space and for deploying satellites and space probes.

If all goes to plan, the first test flights could happen in 2019, and Skylon – Reaction Engines' spaceplane – could be visiting the International Space Station by 2022. It will carry 15 tonnes of cargo on each trip. That's almost twice the amount of cargo that the European Space Agency's ATV vehicle can carry.
...

Rockets are cumbersome because not only must they carry fuel, they also need an oxidising agent to make it burn. This is usually oxygen, which is stored as a liquid in separate tanks. Spaceplanes do away with the need for carrying most of the oxidiser by using air from the atmosphere during the initial stages of their flight.

This is how a traditional jet engine works, and making a super-efficient version has been engineer Alan Bond's goal for decades. In 1989, he founded Reaction Engines and has painstakingly developed the Sabre engine, which stands for Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engines.

In late 2012, tests managed by the European Space Agency showed that the key pieces of technology needed for Sabre worked. No one else has managed to successfully develop such a technology.
...

Spaceplanes should not to be confused with space tourism vehicles such as Virgin Galactic's Space Ship Two. The highest altitude this vehicle will reach is about 110km, giving passengers about six minutes of weightlessness as the craft plummets back to Earth before the controlled landing.

Although there is no fully agreed definition, space starts at around 100km in altitude. To have any hope of staying in orbit, you would have to reach twice that altitude. The International Space Station orbits at 340 kilometres, whereas the Hubble Space Telescope sits at 595 kilometres.

The technology does not exist. The viability of the market is questionable. Obviously it's the regulators' fault.

I haven't decided if I'm going to discuss this Wired magazine article (Inside the Secret Conference Plotting to Launch Flying Cars by Eric Adams) in greater depth (frankly, probably not worth our time), but I did want to take a moment to hit this one point.

The next morning, the group, which featured more than 100 leaders from well-known high-tech companies, research entities, and investment firms, went to work on a single, seemingly impossible challenge: bringing the nascent air taxi industry to life.

That vision—most prominently laid out by Uber—requires an entirely new class of vehicle powered by batteries far better than the ones we have now. It will depend on approvals from sluggish regulators and safe integration into crowded airspace. Autonomous flight systems that are nowhere near ready for human passengers will be essential. The field will need seemingly unlimited funding and a strategy for convincing the public to put their lives in the hands of this new tech. Oh, and the whole effort already risks being upstaged by well-financed Chinese innovators who are plowing forward absent many of these constraints.

First off, the air taxi industry is not nascent; it is moribund. We've had helicopter-based shuttle services for decades. They just never, if you'll pardon the expression, took off the way a lot of people had expected. To be fair, no one was predicting the kind of door to door service you can get from an automobile, but in a high density area they did provide a fast and flexible way of getting reasonably close to your destination.

Of course, it is entirely possible that we will see some aeronautics innovation that will make this model not only viable but popular. Unfortunately, there are huge engineering challenges involved in developing what we're talking about here, an incredibly compact, autonomous, electric VTOL aircraft that can operate reliably, safely and quietly in dense urban areas with crowded air spaces (that last one alone is enough to make one skeptical about the prospects of the industry. Reducing aircraft noise is a problem that has stumped the world's best engineering minds for longer than any of us have been alive). And we can't begin to talk about the implications for urban planning, infrastructure, and regulation until we see what these things are going to look like.

Given the stunning difficulties on the development side, the questionable business models, and over a century of highly touted proposals for personal aircraft that never made it past the prototype stage, why the hell is the author talking about sluggish regulators?

One of the most cherished tenets of the standard tech narrative is that we would all be living in a wondrous futuristic land – – half sci-fi movie, half amusement park – – if not for those darned regulations. It's a perfect, multipurpose excuse. It teases us with the promise of great things just around the corner. It creates a handy set of villains to boo and hiss. It neatly explains away the failures of tech messiahs to come up with appealing and functional technology or viable business plans.

It is also bullshit. There are certainly cases where onerous regulations hold up big infrastructure projects and you can make the case that the IRB process is delaying certain medical advances, but in the vast majority of cases where a new technology fails to catch on, it is because of incompetent execution, bad engineering or non-feasible business models, but those explanations are difficult to write up, run counter to the standard narrative, and tend to make the journalists look like idiots for having bought the hype in the first place.