Disenchanted with Dominions 6

I’ve posted a lot about Dominions 6 on this blog, but I’ve become disenchanted with it since I last posted. Some of this may be because I’ve been busier, other stuff however I’d like to blog about. I don’t have much time (like I said, I’ve been busy), but here’s a quick overview of why I fell out of favor with it. Note, I do hope to rejoin Dominions 6 some time soon, but for the first time this year I’m not playing any games of it.

First, the community is a mess. I think Discord is the worst place possible to have a video game community, but I haven’t been able to find games anywhere but Discord. Regardless, all the worst parts of a community are here. In particular, long-time players get “know-everything” syndrome, somewhat like the infamous Stack Overflow community.

Now, Dominions is a complicated game. I’d go so far as to say that no one understands the game well enough to be an expert in every situation. But long-time players will act like they know everything, and that their tactics are always the best and should never be questioned. So when you, as a new player, come for advice, the conversation goes like this:

  • Newbie: “I want to do X, what’s the best way to do it?”
  • Veteran: “No one does X, why would you ever do that? Do Y instead.”
  • Newbie: “I can’t do Y, and anyway I don’t want to. What about X”
  • Other Vet: “It isn’t even possible to do X lol, why are you trying, just do Z”
  • Newbie: “I actually just did X, but I want to do it better next time, that’s why I’m coming here for advice”
  • Vet: “So to do Y, first you gotta do A, then you gotta do B, here I posted a video about it with terrible audio on my channel”

Veterans don’t want to actually help new players, they want to hear themselves talk, so they just ignore questions and give the answers they always wanted to give. Many veterans are also less knowledgeable than they think they are, and will confidently give incorrect information because they think they already know everything and have no reason to check. Meanwhile a newbie who *is* checking their information (because they don’t think they know everything yet) will be harangued and insulted if they dare question a veteran, because a veteran is a long-time community member and thus the community will declare them “right” by default.

Another problem is that the community has a bad habit of just not answering questions at all. Dominions has a LOT of spells and units and abilities. Many of those are useless, some are quite useful. Which are which?

Well if someone asked me, “is foul vapors useful?” I’d point them to my blog post where I discussed just that in many paragraphs. My post wasn’t fully comprehensive, but I feel I gave a broad overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the spell, and noted when it could be used and when maybe it shouldn’t be.

If a newbie asks “is foul vapors useful?” in Discord, the number 1 answer will be “it depends,” followed by a veteran shutting down the conversation and saying the newbie is asking dumb questions. In truth, it DOES depend, because there are some situations (as I outlined in my post!) where it isn’t as useful. But “it depends” is a conversation-ending answer to LITERALLY ANY QUESTION, and gives no useful information whatsoever.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? Honestly, *IT DEPENDS*, because there’s a non-zero chance for a micro-black hole to zip through the solar system kicking out planet out and into deep space. But that isn’t a useful answer to someone who is honestly trying to get information, in 99.999999999% of cases, the useful answer is “yes,” not “it depends.”

Same with “is foul vapors useful?” A useful answer is to give an overview of its strengths and weaknesses, and summarize with “in most cases, given these tactics, yes it is.” Shutting down the conversation with a non-answer only happens (I think) because discord is an instant-message-based form of communication, instead of thread-based like a normal forum. People see a question in their feed and treat it like a text message, they HAVE to answer it. But they don’t have a real answer and they don’t care about this person, so they shut down the conversation with “it depends” instead of giving an actual answer or just ignoring it and letting someone who actually cares answer the question.

Finally, Discord is a terrible way to form a community because it isn’t searchable for answers. The Discord search function is basically useless and Discord isn’t indexed on google. This means that a newbie looking for advice can’t go through the decades worth of accumulated knowledge from the community, they have no choice but to brave the discord wastes and have all the terrible conversations I outlined above. There’s a Dominions wiki, but it’s largely abandoned and mostly consists of information from Dominions 5 (which despite being very well documented has largely been abandoned by the community now that Dominions 6 is out).

What all this means is this:
I’m OK at Dominions, but I wanted to get better. However every attempt to learn more was an exercise in frustration. Stack-overflow-esque veterans telling you that you shouldn’t do what you want to do, giving correct advice, and shutting down the conversation when genuine questions were asked. Additionally the community is too small and fragmented to find any information *except* on Discord. For all these reasons, I sort of peaked in my abilities in the game and decided to stop trying. I don’t have the time to test everything I want to know myself, and I don’t have the patience to deep with the exceptionally unhelpful community. So I stopped.

I hope I’ll get the patience to start again.

The social side of science

To be blunt, I don’t know how to get better at the social side of science. There are many facets:

Starting a collaboration: getting people to realize you’re very interested in their work and they should be interested in yours, then making the logical leap that you should work together. OR recognizing that you have a strength paired with a deficiency that matches someone else, and seeing if you can work together on it.

Maintaining scientific connections. Collaborations don’t come from nothing, they are usually born from social connections, which need social maintenance like any other. I’m ok at introducing myself, but not good at maintaining connections.

Mentor/mentee. I want to be a good mentor, but don’t know how to put myself out there. I know I need to be a good mentee, but I don’t know how to find people to help me with what I don’t know.

Often times I realize I’m not living up to my own expectations and so I slink further and further into ignoring all social obligations because I don’t want to do them since I know I’ll do them badly. I need to break out of this if I’m going to succeed at science.

More Arabic

كل يوم انا اشعر بالتعب جداً. هذا السبب الذي انا عم لا اكتب في هنا كل الاسبوع. لان اذهب الى الشغل بالدراجة، في هذا الوقت في السنة، اعود الى بيتي بعد الساعة الصباح.واركب في الظلام ايداً.

انا اتمنى عنضي الطاقة. اتمنى ان عندما اعود الى بيتي، في ذلك الوقت اراد ان افعل شي مثل اكتب في بلوغي واكتب برنامج كمبيوتر. لكن في هذا الايام، ليس عندي اي طاقة لاي شئ الا اشاهد شي في يوتوب.

اراد ان امارس اللغات ايضاً، هذا لان انا عم اكتب هذا بوست.

انا اشعر بااغضب ايضاً. الطريق في هذا المدينة خطيرة جداً. لكن المدينة تهتم.

ارادت ان اكتب اكثر من هذا لكن اراد ان بوست الان.

Still can’t finish a game of Dyson Sphere Program

I blogged a while ago about losing interest in Dyson Sphere Program before I finished it. Well, I tried again and I still couldn’t finish. My reasons are many, some I think I talked about back then and some I think I didn’t. But they bear repeating because as much as this game is trying to claim the mantle of Factorio, it still comes up short in some important aspects.

First, I still don’t enjoy actually “building” things is DSP. In Factorio you start the game buildings things manually, which means you have to be physically next to whatever you want to build, but at least you can build everything as fast as you can run. Eventually you get little robots who will build things for you anywhere on the map, the only downside is that they’re a bit slower and use energy. DSP unfortunately has the worst of both worlds: you still have to stand next to whatever you’re building, but you *also* have to wait on slow little robots to build the stuff for you. You map out plans, and they *slowly* get to work.

This may seem a petty complaint, but it’s hard to overstate just how much this dampens my enjoyment. I never have the feeling of “let me throw down some massive blueprint that my robots will build, and then go do something else” because I know I’ll have to stand next to them while they build it. I can’t run off and let them do their thing, I have to *stand there*, not doing anything, or nothing gets done. And if the blueprint is big enough, I have to slowly shuffle along it so I can expand the robot’s radius, otherwise the outermost edges of the blueprint never get built either.

I also can’t just quickly build something like a massive transport belt stretching for miles, because I can’t build it at running speed, I have to *wait for the robots*.

OK, that’s a complaint I think I already covered in the previous post, but it bears repeating. What else? Oh yeah, flying in space is boring because again, there’s nothing to do but wait until you reach your destination. Oh, I already said that too?

Well there’s one complaint I’m pretty sure I *didn’t* cover last time but it’s a bit complicated. It has to do with multiple outputs.

In both Factorio and DSP, there are certain things you can build where you can’t build *just* item A, in order to build A you must *also* build an equivalent amount of B. And both A and B must have space to be built or neither can be, if you’re full up on A you can’t build B and vice versa. It’s a bit of a tough balancing act in a game where everything else is build on its own.

But I actually don’t think DSP handles this concept well, even though it has a lot more examples of it than Factorio.

In Factorio, the only time you have multiple outputs is in oil processing. When you start the game the only oil processing you can do is basic oil processing, which takes in crude oil and gives you petroleum gas (think methane and ethane). Basic is the right word for this, because it’s simple and easy with a 1-in-1-out setup. And it’s perfect for making the simple plastics (which you’ll need a lot of) because they require just petroleum gas and coal.

But you quickly research advanced oil processing, and that’s where you get multiple outputs. Advanced processing gives you petroleum gas plus light oil plus heavy oil. And if you don’t find some way to use up the light and heavy oil, you can’t get any more petroleum gas (so you can’t get more plastics). So why would you ever use advanced oil processing, when it complicates your life so much?

Well there are a few items (rocket fuel and lubricant) which *require* light and heavy oil. But also, if you crack all that light and heavy oil down to petroleum gas, you’ll end up with 50% more petroleum gas than what you’d get from basic oil processing.

So this recipe presents you with a trade-off: do you take the simple setup which gets you less total output, or the complicated setup which can get you more? Cracking heavy and light oil isn’t easy, it requires many more refineries and a lot of water, but when oil is scarce and plastic is in high demand, you need as much petroleum gas as you can get. On the other hand when oil is plentiful, maybe you don’t care about efficiency and just want the easier recipe.

DSP has a similar idea, except there’s no trade-off. DSP starts you off with their version of advanced oil processing, which has multiple outputs that you have to find a use for. Later on there are two recipes which can turn one output into the other or vice-versa. This has the same effect as the “cracking” I explained earlier, where it complicates your setup but allows you to have as much of one output as you can get. But in Factorio it’s a trade-off, and in DSP it’s mandatory.

DSP also have multiple outputs in some *exotic* recipes. DSP has all the “normal” raw materials (iron, copper, stone etc), but then it has fantasy ones like “Fire-Ice.” These fantasy materials can usually be processed to yield multiple outputs, at least one of which is a high-level output that normally requires an extremely complicated setup to create. This would be really cool, except on most maps these materials won’t be found in your starting star system, so you can’t even use them until you finish the tech tree anyway. And as I said about multiple outputs, you have to make sure you use up one of the outputs or it will back up your production of the other, and that’s kind of a pain.

I never got out of my starting star system in DSP. I did start launching a little Dyson Swarm and getting power from it. I even appreciated the swarm more this time than last time, as it fixed some of my power issues on my starting planet.

But I really did not enjoy shuffling back and forth between planets to build stuff. In Factorio you can get a bird’s-eye-view of your entire factory and slowly scroll around looking for issues. Or you can just look around for some bare area where you can stamp out more assembly lines. *Or* if you’re busy building that new assembly line, you can glance back at your factory to see how much extra material it can send your way or if you’ll have to make everything this line needs on-site.

I can’t do that in DSP. If there’s an issue on one planet such that it isn’t producing any science, I can’t diagnose that issue without flying all the way there (which takes a few minutes), then looking around for the cause. And perhaps the cause is that I need a few more items which are only produced on my *other* planet. So I have to fly back to the first planet, pick up those items, fly back to the planet with the issues, fix the issues, then fly back to wherever I started when I first noticed the issues so I can get back to what I was doing.

And I can’t build things at a distance, as I said in the first few paragraphs. When I finally got to the last kind of science, what I really wanted was to find somewhere fresh and empty to build so I could get away from the spaghetti I’d already created. There was a planet a few minutes away that I could have gone to. But it didn’t have all the raw materials I needed.

In Factorio that would be fine, I’d zoom to some empty part of the map in my bird’s-eye-view and start carefully planning out whatever assembly line I need to create that final type of science. I can then use a tool to count up how many and what kinds of machines I’ll need to build everything I’ve planned, and figure out what items I’ll need to import to other parts of the factory. Then I load up on machines and send the robots to build. While the robots are building, I can run to other areas and start sending the items needed over to that new area. By the time the robots are finished, everything has arrived and the assembly line can start producing science.

But in DSP this is a time-consuming and *boring* back and forth game of flying to the empty planet, planning out what I’ll build, flying back for machines, bringing them to the empty planet and *slowly* waiting for my robots to build everything while I stand around. Then I fly to whatever planets need to send materials this way and tell them to do so. Then I fly back to that planet where I built everything to make sure everything is working properly.

It’s a mess, it’s boring, and I just couldn’t be bothered to finish the game because of it.

I think if they give a Factorio-style map screen, along with robots who will build stuff when you aren’t standing next to them, the game would be improved just enough for me to finish it. But as long as everything takes so damn long, I don’t think I’ll ever finish it.

I unfortunately just went back to Factorio.

Long time no post

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while. I keep having topics I do want to write about but don’t feel like I actually know enough to just sit down and start writing.

I wonder if that’s something I should just break past. This blog is anonymous, how much does it matter if I get things wrong? I don’t know, but it just doesn’t *feel* right to go shooting from the hip when I’m trying to talk about things I actually think are important.

I hope to have another post on Dyson Sphere Project up soon. Spoilers, I couldn’t finish a game again.

Thomas Friedman’s the-world-is-flatitude

Flatitude is supposed to be a play on attitude

I remember reading about Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat” thesis years ago. Put simply: he proposed that globalization meant the USA no longer enjoyed a by-default pre-eminance in the world economy. American companies and workers now had to compete with the entire world, and that inevitably would lead to worldwide wages equalizing and other companies rising up to meet American dominance. Gone are the days when an American can work for the world’s biggest company, headquartered in their hometown, and then go on vacation to places where “everything is so cheap!” The world’s biggest companies will be more likely to be headquartered in China and India than America, and wages worldwide will rise to the point that every country is as expensive to visit as America.

20 years on, none of that has happened.

At times and at places, global wages have risen relative to America. At times and at places, global companies have risen into industries once dominated by America. But in 2005, when Friedman published his book, the top 10 global companies by market cap were 80% American. In 2024, they’re 90% American. And in certain years (like 2016 and 2017), they’ve been 100% American. American companies still rule the global roost, and American wages are still the highest on earth. International workers still prefer to immigrate to America, despite the massive costs and uncertainties, rather than find a job with a global company in their home country.

I don’t know how Friedman himself portrayed his thesis in 2005, but in my part of the world (liberal and anti-American-by-default because the sitting president was a Republican), there was a lot of “take that America! You won’t stay on top for long and you’d better get used to it!” I think Friedman had a misread of history, and the readers had an even greater misread of the present.

There is a default mindset that I feel many people fall into when talking about economics. The idea goes: America used to be on top of the world because of unfair, random advantages. Those could be colonialism, those could be early industrialization. But now that the world is more fair (or once we *make it* more fair), America can’t coast on inertia, it will have to compete on a level playing field, and *of course* the rest of the world, which has 95% of the population to America’s 5%, will eventually out-compete it in *many* areas.

I think this belies a misunderstanding of the unfair advantages that America has *right now*. India, Nigeria, and China all have large populations, lots of natural resources, and growing middle classes. But it’s difficult to do business there because of import/export and currency restrictions, and often-times everything can be taken from you by government fiat, so it’s harder to create success and you’re more likely to leave the country if you do manage it. And when you leave the country, you can always go to Europe, but if you want to keep growing your business or your personal finances you go to America where the wages are higher and the business climate friendlier.

Friedman said that globalization, the technology that connects us and the legal/social willingness to offshore jobs and production will inevitably lead to a flattening of global economies and global wages. Why would Microsoft pay $100,000 to a programmer in America, when a programmer just as good in India will cost $10,000? They won’t. And so there will be more demand for Indian programmers and less and less demand for American ones. Law of supply and demand means American wages will fall and Indian wages will rise until the two equalize.

But alternatively, why would Microsoft put its money into India (as it must do in order to have the bank accounts, rental agreements, and so on which allow it to employ Indian workers), when capital controls will restrict its ability to get its money back out again? Companies don’t exist for a country’s good, they exist for their own good, and Microsoft wants to be able to move its money anywhere and everywhere at a moment’s notice. Capital controls, like what the developing world still employs, make it harder to do so, and make companies like Microsoft and others far more leery about investing in those countries.

An employee in America costs 10x as much, but at least your money will never get stuck in America with no way out.

And this is just the one example that leapt off the page at me. There are plenty more reasons why the world is not flat and probably won’t ever be. There are network affects to the USA that may take centuries to undo, such as the preeminence of the US stock markets at the expense of all others. India investors throw their money into the S&P more than the Indian stock markets, so an Indian company looking to grow fast with public money also needs to list on the S&P. That draws it further and further into connecting with the American economy, until it starts making more and more sense to just do its business in America as well. Oh it would never think of uprooting from India (and the government won’t allow it anyway), but it will invest more in American operations and less in Indian operations than it would if it didn’t get drawn to America by all the money that’s there.

Then there’s security. For all the internet memes, America is a safer place with a generally lower death rate than developing nations like India and Nigeria. There’s a whole lot of reasons for this, but it isn’t something that can be fixed quickly and easily with a bit more money. So an Indian worker would still prefer to make their money in America if it means they get to live in America as well, even if they could make the same amount of money in India.

I think there is a general under-estimating of what makes the American economy so strong. A lot of people assume it’s just inertia: America industrialized early, got to coast on colonialism, and then wasn’t destroyed in World War 1 and 2. That meant that it emerged in the 50s as the strongest economy on earth, but without those lucky breaks it has no reason to stay the strongest. So people assume America has just been coasting and the rest of the world will quickly catch up. I don’t think that’s the truth. A lot less attention is paid to just how much America’s laws and economic setup make doing business here easier than anywhere else.

There’s a separate meme about how “lucky” America is that it keeps finding natural resources everywhere. Coal, oil recently Helium, America just seems “lucky.” But while hydrocarbons certainly aren’t found everywhere, America isn’t *really* just lucky. The recent American oil boom is driven by fracking, and Europe could have joined in the boom except that they banned fracking entirely. There is plenty of frack-able (is that a word?) oil underneath Europe, even if there aren’t any Saudi-style oil fields there, but Europe can’t join the oil boom because its laws don’t allow it.

And American finds of lithium, helium and so on aren’t just luck either. In America, if you own a piece of land you generally own the mineral rights beneath it. That makes it economically viable to just start searching the land for any big piles of lithium/helium and so on, because if you find any its yours by default and you win a lot of money.

But in Australia, many mineral rights are held by the states. So why would I ever go hunting for lithium/helium on my land if I may not be able to get money out of it? If I have to pay the state a portion of my winnings? There’s probably just as much ultra-precious metals in Australia as there are in America, but less of it gets found because there’s less incentive. Not to say *nothing* gets found, Australia does have a mining-intensive economy, but less than if individuals had an incentive to go looking.

I just wanted to post this to say that the world is not flat, and America is not just lucky. Luck may play a role, but writers and commentators often don’t understand how America’s current laws and economic setup give it a *current* competitive advantage relative to all the other countries on earth. It isn’t just coasting on its *past* competitive advantage from the 1950s, and there’s no guarantee that the rest of the world *must* catch up to America unless they loosen their economic laws in turn.

If I were president of Nigeria

You may have read in the news that Nigeria is going through an economic crisis. I feel most news agencies haven’t done a lot of due diligence, they have poured plenty of ink over the human interest stories of people unable to buy petrol, of the mass protests, and of the government’s response. But they haven’t done anything to explain the economic underpinnings of the crisis.

At best they may have given you a few basic facts. The president cut fuel subsidies and currency controls; the price of everything skyrocketed; the president says some pain is necessary. But they aren’t doing anything more than blaming the president’s actions for the crisis while also blandly repeating his assertions of “no pain, no gain.”

WHY did the president do what he did? Why does he think it’s necessary? What has it achieved? What has it *not* achieved? And what could he be doing differently?

Nigerian President Tinubu came into power only last year, amid an already languid economy. He comes from the same party as his predecessor, but was not content to be “Continuity Buhari,” he wanted to shake things up. At his inauguration, he announced the end of the fuel subsidy “with immediate effect.” People of course rushed out to buy the last of the subsidized fuel before prices skyrocketed. Not long after, he began loosening currency controls. The central bank had been artificially inflating the value of the Naira, and so without these controls it’s value came crashing down.

But I don’t think Tinubu did this because he hates poor people and doesn’t want to spend money on them. I think there were dire financial circumstances that demanded these actions, but not only do they demand *more* actions that Tinubu seems unwilling to entertain, but he himself has not been a great spokesman for why he did this.

To start with, the fuel subsidy was costing Nigeria an incredible amount each day. Nigeria maintains a relatively low tax environment thanks to a state monopoly on oil which is the government’s main source of revenue. The fuel subsidy hoovered up between 15 and 25 percent of this government revenue, a huge outflow that badly constrained government finances while also inhibiting a transition to renewable, perhaps even cheaper energy like wind and solar.

Meanwhile, the currency controls also costed Nigeria greatly. There are two ways to maintain an artificially powerful currency: buying currency on the local market and restricting the movement of currency into and out of the country.

The Nigerian central bank spent loads of dollars and euros from its vault buying up naira (Nigeria’s currency) on the global market, to raise the price of naira relative to these other currencies. But this was never enough to keep the value of the naira up, the central bank’s “official” exchange rate was always around 100 to 1000 times more expensive than what the naira was *actually* worth. The black market exchange rate pegged the naira as being worth way way less than what the central bank said.

In normal circumstances, this black market rate would quickly take over, obliterating the value of the naira as people trade naira for dollars at fair market prices, rather than the bank’s artificially set price. So currency controls were implemented to prevent this.

There were (and still somewhat are) huge restrictions on bringing dollars or foreign currency into Nigeria. It’s hard to bring cash on an airplane, and if you send money digitally through a bank, the Nigerian central bank will forcibly convert your dollars into naira at their set price, turning your 100 dollars into say 10,000 naira instead of the 1,000,000 naira they’re actually worth. This loses you a lot of money. And then there are crackdowns on any unofficial money changers, all this means that it’s very restrictive to move money into and out of the country.

But what if you’re a tourist, or a business that wants to invest in Nigeria? Then the central bank’s currency scheme is a certain way to fleece you for your dollars. Nigeria (like most countries) demands all transactions be in its local currency, the naira. So if you want to buy Nigerian yams, either because you’re a tourist who wants to eat yams or because you’re an exporter wanting to export them on the global market, you need to change your dollars into naira to do so. This either means losing 90% of your dollar’s value through the official exchange rate, or risking jail time by smuggling dollars into the country and using a black market money changer.

Either way, this makes investment *and* tourism a lot more precarious, and does even more to scare foreign money *out* of the country, at a time when Nigeria desperately needs money coming *in* to save its beleaguered industries.

To get back to Tinubu, he saw that Nigeria’s government finances were not good. The government deficit ran 5% of GDP, and was growing. It was difficult, and VERY expensive for Nigeria to borrow money on the world market because of this, so continuing the deficit-spending path was merely robbing future generations to pay for the present generation.

So he wanted to cut spending and boost investment. He cut the fuel subsidy, since it costed so much of the government’s revenue, and he loosened currency controls so that it’s easier to invest in Nigeria. In this way he hope to grow the economy and raise tax revenue. In the long run, this should provide *more* money to support the people.

Loosening currency controls however, led to triple digit inflation, as the naira’s official value finally caught up to its black market value. And combined with the end of the fuel subsidy this made everyone a lot poorer and made food and basic necessities a lot more expensive.

There’s a glimmer of hope that Tinubu’s plans are working, foreign investment is surging and perhaps after so much pain, Nigeria can come out the other side with a stronger economy that can actually spend more on its people, more on education, safety, and medical welfare instead of just subsidizing petrol. But it may also be far to little to save Tinubu’s presidency, and his successor can just undo it all to appease the populace.

I think the gains would come a lot faster for Tinubu if he were willing to be a truly radical reformer, and not just cut spending on the poor.

In addition to the fuel subsidy and currency restrictions which make investing in Nigeria difficult, the country also has a highly restrictive trade policy which isn’t making things any easier. Nigeria prohibits the import of a wide variety of products, from staple crops like cassava (related to the yam or sweet potato) to cement to eggs and meat. The only justification for this is to “protect domestic industry and farmers,” but let me rebut that:

First of all, people cannot afford food! The end of the fuel subsidy, the floating of the currency, these have put the price of food out of reach of many Nigerians. There are thousands of foreign companies, in West Africa and the rest of the world who can step in to provide more food if import restrictions are lifted. More food means a drop in the cost of food, through the laws of supply and demand, and so this increase in supply would go at least some way towards alleviating the hardships brought on by Tinubu’s other reforms.

And furthermore, importing food would create just as many jobs, if not more, than it “destroyed.” Markets need workers to staff them, trucks need drivers, loaders, unloaders and ports need all the same. Importing eggs so that people can afford to eat might make it harder to a poultry farmer to compete, but it would also create a number of jobs in logistics, supply, and customer-facing roles to get those eggs into people’s hands.

Furthermore, the unemployed farmer need not remain so. The high price of eggs makes it hard not only for customers to afford eggs, but also for any industry that uses eggs to afford them. Ice cream is very popular in Nigeria, but locally made ice cream is more expensive than it should be because the price of eggs remains high. But importing eggs would lower the price of eggs by driving up supply, and would allow ice cream manufacturers to buy more eggs, make more ice cream, and thus they’d need to hire more loaders and unloaders, more line workers, more mechanics for their ice cream machines, and so on. The loss of jobs in the poultry industry would easily be replaced by the gain of jobs in every manufacturing industry which uses eggs as an input.

And new industries could also be created. The thing about the government controlling the economy (as it does when it restricts the import and export of goods) is that the government doesn’t know as well as the market what a country’s competitive advantage is. And by stifling the import of so many goods, the Nigerian government makes it difficult for the economy to *find* those competitive advantages.

The USA eats far more pineapples than it produces, but imported pineapples are often packaged and canned in the USA, and that packaging and canning industry employs far more people than pineapple-growing alone ever could. And it’s not as if the USA *couldn’t* grow pineapples. California, and Florida all grow pineapples, but they have found competitive advantages in other products (like oranges or computer software) and the pineapple-growing jobs are instead pineapple-canning jobs, which are higher paid as well.

So if Nigeria ended its import restrictions, not only would individuals be able to afford groceries, but industries would be created and expanded, growing the economy. Nigeria would be able to find its competitive advantages, the things it does better than every country on earth, and would better exploit those advantages for growth and profit.

I will throw a bone to the populists who say that the fuel subsidies and currency controls may have been lifted *too fast*. I haven’t looked into it, but perhaps the pain would have been minimized, and the disruptions smoothed out, if these reforms were phased in such a way that the economy could better adjust. But if I were advising president Tinubu, my primary advice would be that he isn’t going far enough. End the trade restrictions, help the people afford basic goods, and help the industries grow through competitive advantage. The end result will be a much better economy than when you cut all the subsidies but still try to “protect” entrenched industries.

Perception and Reality

Well it’s been one of the most tumultuous 3 and a half weeks in politics, ever since the June debate between Biden and Trump. Since that debate:

  • The media perception of Biden has degraded from “frail but sharp old man” to “doesn’t always know what’s happening around him”
  • The Democratic Party line has gone from “Biden is the nominee, we can’t change him or it will cause chaos” to “Harris is the nominee”
  • Every Democrat in congress seemed to be calling for Biden to step down, and
  • Biden has stepped down as candidate, endorsing Harris

Some Democrats have (as they have all year) said that this was nothing more than an overblown media circus, that would have never caught fire if the lyin’ press hadn’t been so desperate for clicks that they cooked up a scandal. There’s a strong current among the Stancilite wing of the party to claim that every voter is an automaton who believes nothing except what the media says. So if the media says Biden is old, that’s what they believe. But the media *should* have said Biden was sharp as a tack and steering the ship of state, because then everyone would have believed that.

The idea that “The Media” (capital T capital M) is always against the Democrats is part and parcel of liberal mythmaking. Nevermind that it’s also part and parcel of *conservative* mythmaking, I encountered this liberal mythmaking first-hand in the aftermath of the Howard Dean campaign.

The liberal myth goes something like this: Howard Dean was a threat to the Establishment with powerful grassroots organization and nationwide appeal. But one night when trying to give a triumphant yell, he instead gave a weird-sounding scream. The Media repeated the “Dean Scream” endlessly, making a mockery of him to the voters and torching his campaign. In his stead, the underwelming, flip-flopping John Kerry was sent to lose against George W Bush. If *only* we’d stuck with Dean!

The problem with the “Dean Scream” myth is that it reverses cause and effect: it says that The Media used the Dean Scream to discredit him in the eyes of the voters. Yet looking at the record, the Dean Scream happened as he was trying to gin up his supporters after a dismal showing in the Iowa caucus, in which he vastly underperformed expectations and got just 18% of the vote, less than half of front-runner John Kerry and a very distant third behind the ascendant John Edwards.

Taken in context, The Media didn’t discredit Dean, the voters had already turned their backs on him. Dean was supposed to be a front-runner going into the caucus but his very poor showing put paid to that idea hours before his historic scream.

Kerry and Edwards would go on to be presidential and vice presidential nominees for that year.

Yet the idea that the Media creates perception (and therefore reality) still has power among the twitterati. When Biden was dealing with the fallout of the debate, many liberal commentators tore into The Media, claiming that if anyone was suffering from dementia it was rambly, half-awake Donald Trump. And since Biden has now dropped out, liberal commentators are trying to will a “Trump has dementia” angle into existence.

This seems like an insane take to me because *we all saw the debate*. No matter how much Trump lied and deflected, he said real words and you could understand them, Biden sounded like he was barely awake! The line of the night was Trump’s terrifyingly accurate quip of “I don’t know what he just said, and I don’t think he does either.”

And we can all see that Trump has done rally after rally after rally while Biden really *hasn’t*, and team Biden did everything in their power to prevent even a single off-script moment from ever being seen. All the while reports are coming in from allies all across congress and *across the Atlantic* that Biden hasn’t been all there for a really long time, and is confusing people and places left and right.

Meanwhile the curious voter can tune into any one of the many rallies that Trump holds, or just watch Fox News and see a man doing twice as many rallies, interviews and the like than Biden. As well as doing infinitely many more unscipted spots since Biden didn’t seem to do any.

Saying Trump is too old will certainly resonate, half the country already thought he was while 80% of the country thought Biden was. But trying to tar Trump with the same brush Biden got will not work I think because the reality doesn’t look like what the Democrats want out of a narrative. Like the Dean Scream myth, Democrats have taken away the idea that The Media creates reality, and if they can just *will* a narrative into existence, they can say anything about their opponents that their opponents say about them. I don’t think that works any more than Republicans trying to call Democrats election deniers works, because people have eyes.

At the end of the day The Media can certainly amplify stories and let narratives run away with things, but the idea that they can create something out of nothing is a myth. And Democrats trying to say *the media needs to be saying this” ie “Trump has dementia, Trump can’t speak straight,” trying to demand The Media simply reverse the story and put all of Biden’s flaws on Trump, well that isn’t going to work. They’d do a lot better hammering on things which are real instead of trying to create something out of nothing.

That may have been part of the problem for Democrats these past 3 weeks. While they were doing damage control for Biden, the most common rejoinder I saw was “Trump is just as old and just as senile!” The first is false, but at least close to true, Trump is very old. The second is an outright lie, 50 million people saw the debate, and you can’t lie to their face like that.

If Democrats lose, I think The Debate will enter the hall of myths alongside the Dean Scream, as a moment when The Media sharpened their knives and took out the strongest Democratic candidate available because (laughably) they were in the tank for Republican. And I think myths like that will make the party far weaker than it would otherwise be.

Why is State Farm leaving California?

note: I had intended to publish this months ago. But I never finished it, and now I’m struggling to get a post out in time, so I’ve tried to make this one acceptable.

There was recently news that State Farm insurance is leaving California, and will no longer accept new customers. Perhaps they may even kick old customers off their plans and refuse to do any business in California at all. This caused a wave of reactions, from consternation that a company could be so mean to California, to demands that State Farm “reimburse” customers who have paid for years with no claims, to calls to nationalize the insurance companies because “clearly” they’re just stealing from the little guy.

All these reactions will be addressed in turn, but first, let’s talk about how insurance works. If you recall my post from way back about Ric Flair and his gym, insurance is just a way to reduce your downside risk in exchange for a small lose of your upside gain. You pay a little every month and in exchange if your house or business is destroyed, you get some money back.

What’s important is that insurance is structured like a bet: the insurance company is betting that nothing bad will happen to your property during the period of your insurance, if they win the bet they keep your money and you get nothing in return (except maybe peace of mind). While they only pay out if they lose the bet and your property *is* damaged. Because of this, many people see insurance as a scam. Why would I ever pay if I don’t expect my property to be damaged? Well you’re mitigating risk, maybe there’s only a 1% chance your home is destroyed, but that’s a 1% chance that you lose *everything* and are left utterly homeless unless you have insurance to cover the cost of rebuilding your home. Isn’t it worth it to pay a little to ensure you aren’t homeless from an act of God?

Now first, I want to quickly call out a very dumb line of reasoning I’ve seen floating around regarding insurance. I’m not quoting any one tweet or post, but synthesizing what I’ve seen in many places at many times:

Why isn’t there a refund check for insurance like taxes? I’ve paid so much without using the policy, and even if I make a claim, they find ways to avoid paying. Total scam!

This sentiment belies a complete failure to understand insurance on even the most *basic* level. To start with, if you want a refund because you’ve paid in without using the policy, should the insurance company be able to demand more money if you paid in and then *did* use the policy? Of course not, you’d call them insane and selfish. But realize that it’s the identical situation, in reverse.

An insurance policy is simple: you pay regularly and they pay if certain conditions are met. Of course “certain conditions” can be interpreted differently by different people. And insurance companies are profit-maximizing (like all companies) they’ll try to avoid paying when they can. But this is a necessary evil, better the company try to limit payouts than it go bankrupt overpaying it’s customers. Because then every *other* customer would suddenly lose their insurance.

So finally, why is State Farm leaving California? Because they can’t make a profit. Most states regulate insurance incredibly heavily, to the extent that they put price caps on insurance premiums. That way the company cannot raise prices without the state’s say so. And if the state won’t let a company raise prices to cover rising costs (and costs ARE rising because of inflation and climate change), then the insurance company is not obligated to subsidize a state with coverage cheaper than costs.

As is so common, people blame the free market for a government-run system.

More about primes

Last time I blogged, we were dividing 1 by prime numbers using long division on a hand-written piece of paper. We saw that while 1/5 in base 10 is the simple, easy-to-remember 0.2, 1/5 in base 12 is 0.2497… with infinitely repeating digits. Why is that?

The answer I think has to do with prime factors. 10 has prime factors of 2 and 5, so in base 10 every prime number *except 2 and 5* will have infinitely repeating digits when you take its reciprocal (again, reciprocal just means “divide 1 by that number” ie the reciprocal of 5 is 1/5). When I used base 12, the reciprocal of the prime number 5 now had infinitely repeating digits, because 5 is *not* a prime factor of 12. The reciprocal of 2 in base 12 was still well-behaved, but that’s because 2 *is* a prime factor of 12.

I can generalize the above point as this: “the reciprocal of any prime number will have infinitely repeating digits, *unless* that number is a prime factor of the base you are using.”

So in base 10, the reciprocals of 2 and 5 do *not* infinitely repeat, while the reciprocal of any other prime does. In base 12, the reciprocals of 2 and *3* do not repeat, while the reciprocal of any other prime does. In base 210, the reciprocals of 2, 3, 5, and 7 do not repeat, and I can prove that because 2, 3, 5, and 7 are the prime factors of 210.

But that got me thinking, what about non-prime numbers? (For the record, mathematicians call non-primes “composite” numbers but there’s already enough jargon here so I’ll go with “non-primes”)

Do the reciprocals of non-primes repeat infinitely or do they not? Well a few examples show mixed results, 1/20 is 0.05, but 1/21 is 0.047619… with infinitely repeating 047619s. Then there are cases like 1/24, where the reciprocal starts with some non-repeating digits and then later digits repeat infinitely, 1/24 is 0.04166… with only the 6s repeating, not the 041.

It makes sense why these reciprocals all have a leading zero, when you do the long division you need to bring down more zeros before you get a number you can divide into. So the reciprocal of any number between 10 and 100 will have 1 leading zero, and between 100 and 1000 will have 2 leading zeros, etc.

See above, the reciprocal of 30 and 300 is the same except for how many zeros you need in the front before you get to something you can divide into. (EDIT: just imaging I put the line over the 3s in 1/300, I just realized in editing that I forgot to do that, -2 points on the test for me).

But aside from leading zeros, why do some reciprocals have *only* infinitely repeating numbers and some have a set of numbers that repeat and a set of numbers that do not? I surmise again that it has to do with prime factors.

If *all* the prime factors of a non-prime number are *also* prime factors of the base you’re using (so in base 10, 2 and 5 are its factors), then the reciprocal of the non-prime number will be finite and well behaved like 1/20. On the other hand, if *all* the prime factors of a non-prime are not shared with the base (such as 21), then the reciprocal will only have repeating digits (baring leading zeros if the number is bigger than 10, 100, 1000 etc). Finally, the prime factors of a non-prime are mixed between those shared with the base and those not shared, then the reciprocal will have a bit at the beginning that does *not* repeat and will then go into repeating digits.

This should all hold true in other bases as well. In base 28, the reciprocal of 25 should be infinitely repeating (since they share no prime factors) while the reciprocal of 224 should be some non-repeating number (as 28 and 224 have the exact same prime factors, 2 and 7). I won’t show you the calculations as they’re quite messy but I think 1/224 in base 28 is 0.035 (I don’t dare do the reciprocal of 25, I’m sure to mess it up).

I’m sure mathematicians have known all this for year, but I enjoyed finding it out myself, and just wanted to share.