Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic wonders if we are now living through the climate change worst case scenario.
In the United States, carbon emissions leapt back up, making their largest year-over-year increase since the end of the Great Recession. This matched the trend across the globe. According to two majorstudies, greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide shot up in 2018—accelerating like a “speeding freight train,” as one scientist put it.
U.S. emissions do remain 11 percent below their 2007 peak, but that is one of the few bright spots in the data. Global emissions are now higher than ever. And the 2018 statistics are all the more dismal because greenhouse-gas emissions had previously seemed to be slowing or even declining, both in the United States and around the world.
What does a worst case scenario look like? I looked around and these might be the highlights:
all the coral reefs die; species extinctions continue to accelerate
weather becomes much less predictable and affects global food supply and other logistics (i.e. things become a lot more expensive)
sea levels rise, accelerate, and continue to rise; perhaps 200 foot increase over the next thousand years; massive human displacement
In other words, productivity growth slows and perhaps reverses. GDP declines or goes negative. Your children will have a worse life than you. Their childrens’ lives may be even worse than that. The bottom line is it will be very expensive.
Is it time to start planning for the worst case scenario?
Reorganized to follow the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, finally joining the other 49 states that already do so;
Requires all law firm lawyers to “advocate corrective action to address known harassing or discriminatory conduct by the firm or any of its attorneys or non-attorney personnel” (see Rule 8.4 which defines “knowingly permit”);
Bans sex with clients, even if consensual, unless the sexual relationship predated the attorney-client relationship (see Rule 1.8.10).
This update is a complete reorganization of the rules, and there is a chart that maps the old rules to the new rules.
Actually New Rules. The following is a (linked!) list of all the actually new rules that do not have an old counterpart.
Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Rule 1.8.2: Use of Current Client’s Information3 Rule 1.8.11: Imputation of Prohibitions Under Rules 1.8.1 to 1.8.9 Rule 1.10: Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule Rule 1.11: Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officials and Employees Rule 1.12: Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator or Other Third-Party Neutral Rule 2.1: Advisor Rule 2.4: Lawyer as Third-Party Neutral Rule 3.2: Delay of Litigation Rule 3.9: Advocate in Non-adjudicative Proceedings Rule 4.1: Truthfulness in Statements to Others Rule 4.3: Communicating with an Unrepresented Person Rule 4.4: Duties Concerning Inadvertently Transmitted Writings Rule 6.3: Membership in Legal Services Organizations
These are still mostly common sense, but there are now more explicit rules governing a lot of behavior we already consider to be best practice. See especially Rules 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4.
And you’re welcome. If life was fair this would have earned me an hour of legal ethics credit.
Software is wildly insecure. Basically all software can be hacked with varying degrees of sophistication. The cheaper the software / device, the easier it is to hack. Some devices ship without any real attention to security at all. C’est la vie.
Here’s the thing: do we care? Sort of. But mostly not. And that’s because, as Danniel Miesller recently pointed out, the benefits of software (insecure or not) far outweigh the costs. Here’s his helpful graphic summary:
Everyone would like, in theory, to have more secure software. But security costs talent, time, and therefore money. We don’t get secure software because we mostly don’t want to pay for it.
Will that change? Should that change? There’s a lot of talk around regulating cybersecurity, but if we’ve collectively decided we don’t need it then perhaps we don’t. We may see cybersecurity regulation focus on preventing black swan events like entire sections of the internet going down or people dying or elections being hacked. But perhaps that’s where the regulation should end. Software is amazing and cheap and, so far, no one dies. Success!
Transaction costs seem to be poorly understood by the general public. For example, it costs money to buy a house. It costs money to sell a house. People often don’t take these costs into consideration when they imagine their house investment. If you buy/sell a house every few years, that’s a major hit to your bottom line. It might even destroy your investment. (Houses should not be investments, but that’s a rant for another time.)
The common 1% financial advisor fee is another example. It is deceptively large and in general you should avoid it.
Big, sophisticated companies should know all about transaction fees. Maybe?
The Japanese tech conglomerate, run by billionaire Masayoshi Son, spent a staggering $894 million on investment-banking fees in 2018, according to financial-data company Refinitiv, securing financial advice on deals and procuring an array of bonds, loans, and equity investments.
That’s not the highest total for any company just last year but the highest in at least the past decade.
The next highest fee payer in 2018, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, is leagues behind at $384 million — 57% less than SoftBank
You have to make a lot of money on your investments to make up for a one-year $894M investment fee. That’s not just $894M now. That’s more than $1B in three years at 3% returns. That’s well over $2B in 10 years at 10% returns. Take whatever you were going to make on those investments and lop off a few billion immediately.
This will be a central tension for China and – as a result – for most of the rest of us heading into the middle of the 21st century.
Worth quoting at length:
Mr Xi talks of science and technology as a national project. However, in most scientific research, chauvinism is a handicap. Expertise, good ideas and creativity do not respect national frontiers. Research takes place in teams, which may involve dozens of scientists. Published papers get you only so far: conferences and face-to-face encounters are essential to grasp the subtleties of what everyone else is up to. There is competition, to be sure; military and commercial research must remain secret. But pure science thrives on collaboration and exchange.
. . . . .
Although many researchers will be satisfied with just their academic freedom, only a small number need seek broader self-expression to cause problems for the Communist Party. Think of Andrei Sakharov, who developed the Russian hydrogen bomb, and later became a chief Soviet dissident; or Fang Lizhi, an astrophysicist who inspired the students leading the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. When the official version of reality was tired and stilted, both stood out as seekers of the truth. That gave them immense moral authority.
Some in the West may feel threatened by China’s advances in science, and therefore aim to keep its researchers at arm’s length. That would be wise for weapons science and commercial research, where elaborate mechanisms to preserve secrecy already exist and could be strengthened. But to extend an arm’s-length approach to ordinary research would be self-defeating. Collaboration is the best way of ensuring that Chinese science is responsible and transparent. It might even foster the next Fang.
Hard as it is to imagine, Mr Xi could end up facing a much tougher choice: to be content with lagging behind, or to give his scientists the freedom they need and risk the consequences. In that sense, he is running the biggest experiment of all.
It’s amazing we’re all still alive given the risks today.
A German court ruled on Thursday that Amazon’s thumb-sized ordering devices known as “Dash” buttons do not give sufficient information about the product ordered or its price, breaking consumer protection legislation.
. . . . .
“We are always open to innovation. But if innovation means that the consumer is put at a disadvantage and price comparisons are made difficult then we fight that,” Wolfgang Schuldzinski, head of the consumer body, said in a statement.
It seems like there is an uptick in terrible environmental news.
For roughly a decade, the land snail species Achatinella apexfulva, which used to be plentiful on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, was believed to be down to a single survivor. His name was George, and he lived his last days alone in a terrarium in Kailua, Hawaii, alongside an ample supply of fungi (a food his ancestors liked to scrape off leaves in the wild).
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, a nonprofit group that conducts a yearly census of the western monarch, said the population reached historic lows in 2018, an estimated 86 percent decline from the previous year.
That in itself would be troubling news. But, combined with a 97 percent decline in the total population since the 1980s, this year’s count is “potentially catastrophic,” according to the biologist Emma Pelton.
Scientists say the world’s oceans are warming far more quickly than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for climate change because almost all the excess heat absorbed by the planet ends up stored in their waters.
I’m a CA licensed attorney and had to go through a Live Scan fingerprint process today. It took about two hours of my time including understanding the requirements, filling out the form, and actually doing the fingerprinting. It cost money and seemed fragile. The attorney who went before me couldn’t get good prints and now has to do some other process. I was fingerprinted when I applied for admission to the CA bar. Why did I have to do this again?
Basically this is about fixing a broken process with the CA Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ is supposed to notify the State Bar of attorney arrests or convictions. But that hasn’t been happening for, it seems, 30 years?
Sigh. Part of my job is to fix broken processes so I can imagine how this went:
State Bar: Hey you were supposed to be notifying us of all attorney arrests and convictions for the last 30 years. DOJ: Ummmmmmmmmm… sorry. Do you just want a list of literally everyone? State Bar: Just tell us when an attorney gets nailed. DOJ: How do we know who the attorneys are? We’re going to need all their fingerprints. State Bar: But we threw them all away.
Anyway, the State Bar says it’s sorry but we all have to get fingerprinted again.
I’m all for catching bad lawyers. But I’m also for basic table-stakes competency. So I can’t say I was super happy to be doing this.
We’ll see what happens when the DOJ starts reporting arrests and convictions. Some estimates are that up to 10% of California’s licensed attorneys may have unreported criminal activity. As a lawyer, you are supposed to self-report this kind of event to the State Bar, but that rarely happens. And, I don’t know, maybe you can understand that. I’m a very good rule follower but god-forbid if my life got upended by some arrest and conviction I’m not sure reporting the already-pretty-public event to the State Bar would be the first thing on my mind.
House Democrats have reason on their side. Even knowledgeable immigration hawks think spending $5.7bn on a wall would be a waste of money. The number of people crossing the southern border illegally is at a 45-year low. Vastly more people fly into the country legally and then overstay their visas. If illegal immigration is the problem, Mr Trump should be focusing on that.
Yet it is also true that $5.7bn is peanuts in budgetary terms. The federal government spends that every 12 hours. And, despite what Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker says, there is nothing inherently “immoral” about a wall. A lot of wall and fencing was built on the southern border long before Mr Trump became president, and with plenty of Democratic support.
If this were just a fight about policy, it is clear what a deal would look like. Congress would pass a bill giving citizenship to those who arrived in the country illegally as children, amounting to about 700,000 people, and fund the wall in exchange. The president gets something he wants; Democrats get something they want; America gets back its government.
Oakland’s Highland Hospital lists its price for a single chest X-ray at $131, while over the Bay at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, they say it’ll set you back $2,618.
An aspirin tablet? Highland wants $7 for that, but it’s $1.02 at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and just 30 cents at Walnut Creek’s John Muir Medical Center. If that seems like a bargain, consider that Rite Aid sells a bottle with 100 of those same pills for $5.49, less than 5 and a half cents each. UCSF suggests they don’t charge for an aspirin pill at all.
Hoping to empower consumers who are shouldering more and more of their health care costs each year, the federal government this year is requiring hospitals across the country to post their standard price lists on their websites.
You can explain away these deltas, but you cannot rationally defend them. Our health care system is a knot of confusion and the lowest hanging fruit is transparency. We don’t need to walk away from the market economy for health care; we need to embrace it.