August 2012


A hat tip to Legion at the ZBB, who pointed out this lovely French animation feature, Le Roi et l’Oiseau, by Paul Grimault, working with Jacques Prévert.  The video has English captions for those who neglected to learn French.

I love full animation, and there’s a lot of good stuff going on here. It’s the sort of animation John K. would approve of: the storytelling is visual, not based on the written word and a bunch of celebrity cameos.  The movement is fluid, the characters are well designed (the king is a great creation– funny and yet completely villainous), and there are some very clever bits: the paintings coming to life; the machines used by the king (I especially liked his elevator, his trapdoors, and the fish-hovercraft used by the police).

There’s an interesting story behind the film as well.  Grimault went over budget and was removed from the project; it was hastily finished and released in 1952, under the title La bergère et le ramoneur (The Shepherdess and the Chimney Sweep).  Grimault was never satisfied with this, and in 1967 he managed to buy the rights to the film.  He then found financing and remade the film as he wanted it– keeping about 2/3 of the original film, but adding 45 minutes of new animation.  He also replaced the original music with a new score by Wojciech Kilar, and had all the voices redone.

Advertisements

You may remember my prediction that by 2100 corporations would be run as democracies rather than monarchies, an idea I also put into the Incatena.  This was partly based on conviction and observation, as well as the experience of a few collectively owned and/or run companies.

But there’s a new poster child for democratic governance of corporation– Valve, as explained and put in context here by its resident economist, Yanis Varoufakis.

Some companies famously allow employees to put a fraction of their time– 10% or 20%– into projects of their own choice.  At Valve, that percentage is 100%.  All employees choose which projects to work on.  And Valve is famously successful.

The immediate advantages are obvious: you’re not stuck in a job or project you hate, so motivation and retention are high. Plus dumb ideas, even if they come from the CEO, are likely to be suppressed.

Now, Valve makes creative stuff, so intuitively this model fits their business.  Still, it’s worth pointing out that most creative-stuff companies, from EA to book publishers to Hollywood, are as hierarchical as any tsardom.  If anything, creative types are more capricious and unresponsive than (say) manufacturers.  Physical things usually come with their own metrics, but who’s going to tell George Lucas that he’s doing storytelling wrong?

The obvious objection is that if your company performs a service, like banking or insurance or flying planes, there’s a lot of scutwork and it wouldn’t get done with the Valve model.  (This is my pet theory, in fact, on why Episode 3 and/or Half-Life 3 hasn’t come out.)  But this isn’t so much of a showstopper as a problem to be solved.  If it even exists: we won’t know if the model fails for banking till someone actually runs a bank this way.

As Varoufakis puts it, the genius of the market is that incentives take care of this problem society-wide.  If not enough people are making veeblefetzers, then there’s an incentive for entrepreneurs to get into that market.  In the Valve model the incentive internally is really employee interest, and fortunately people are interested in different things.  If that alone isn’t enough, there’s always more traditional incentives, like raising pay in the scutwork department.  Or maybe it turns out that you outsource the scutwork to a company that specializes in it (and which itself could be run democratically).

Why haven’t more companies tried this approach?  It can’t be because it doesn’t work or scale, because it hasn’t been tried enough for us to know that.  So I think it’s inertia.  People are just too used to the tycoon, despite a couple hundred years’ experience showing that most tycoons aren’t that smart after all.  (There were brilliant kings, too, but that doesn’t make monarchy a real success.)

Charlie Stross recommended this article on myths of female sexuality (by Susan Krauss Whitbourne, reporting on a study by Terri Conley).  It’s quite interesting, and I’d really like to believe its conclusions, but as mythbusting it’s a bust.  Let’s go over the list.

1. “Women value men with powerful status, and men value women who are both youthful and attractive.”  Against this, Conley cites one speed dating scenario. One experiment.  Probably less than 30 participants; certainly less than a hundred.  Contrary evidence: pretty much all of human behavior.  Or if you want something more quantified, check out these awesome stats from OKCupid, based on a sample of 200,000 people.

2. “Women want and actually have fewer sexual partners. Conley and team reviewing relevant studies found that yes, some men do want a large number of sexual partners.”  That is, the first part of the ‘myth’ (about wanting) wasn’t busted, but confirmed.  The twist is that at least one study found that men exaggerate how many conquests they’ve had.  Surely this shouldn’t be a big surprise.  Mathematically, if men report n het encounters, women should report n as well.  But even this finding reinforces that men and women don’t think the same.

3. “Men think about sex more often than women do.” The busting consists of confirming the finding, but adding that men think about food and sleep more, too.

4. Women orgasm less.  The busting: “When in committed relationships, women and men experience orgasm with equal frequency.”  In other words, the ‘myth’ is true!  If you have a generalization that applies to a whole group, it’s not disproved by showing that the generalization doesn’t hold for a fraction of the group.

5. “Women don’t like casual sex as much as men do.”  The classic demonstration was a rather silly experiment where college students were approached with offers of sex— 70% of men were interested, 0% of women.  I call this silly because it’s a completely unnatural setup— this isn’t how people find partners!  Conley did a variation which found that the women were much more interested “if they believe that they can avoid being stigmatized”.  Again, that’s a pretty important nuance!

6. “Women are choosier than men.”  Conley apparently found that whichever sex initiates contact, the other will be choosier— that is, if men approach women, the women seem pickier; if women approach men, the men seem pickier.  This one is hard to evaluate without knowing the exact methodology; it seems like a no-brainer that any offer has a chance of being rejected, so I don’t see how this is a test of choosiness at all.

Whitbourne frames the story in the context of people showing surprise that women are interested in sex and male bodies.  Surely that hasn’t been hot news since about 1925?  (She mentions that e.g. Hollywood loves to show female but not male bodies, but I don’t think this is due to filmmakers calculating that women aren’t interested; it’s more that they think men will be turned off.)

The takeaway here, I think, is to be careful about evidence— especially for findings that confirm what you already believe.  When you read “Studies show…”, be at least as wary as when you read “with this weird old tip”.  Look at how the study was done, how many people it involved, and whether the methodology really tests the hypothesis.

(Also, yeah, I know, it’s Psychology Today.  That’s why I mention that Stross plugged the link— he’s a smart guy, so it seemed worth checking out.)

So, here’s the Internet:

It’s purty!

This map contains 350,000 sites, including zompist.com, which is a tiny dot northeast of that big cyan blob in the center, which is Facebook.  (The bigger blob to its southwest is Google; Youtube is to the right.)  The circles are sized according to traffic, and coded by country– cyan is US, yellow is China, dark blue is Germany, a purpler blue is France, purple is Japan, and so on.  The two-dimensional location roughly represents connectivity: more links between sites move them closer together.

Metafilter is barely visible if you click on the map to enlarge.  Go straight north from Google till you reach a blue-purple circle; that’s google.ca.  Metafilter is a cyan dot at about 1:00 from there.

« Previous Page