I can think of any number of "vultures" ready to swoop in to "save" PDVSA. China is near the head of the list.
PDVSA is the Venezuela state-owned oil and natural gas company.
Today it is being reported that China is interested in Venezuela oil interests. Link here:
Venezuela’s Vice President for Planning and Knowledge, Ricardo
Menendez announced Thursday that Chinese companies showed great interest
in participating in the development of the petrochemical, mining and
oil sectors of Venezuela.
As a result, mechanisms were agreed to provide, in the
short-term, food and medicines that will arrive in Venezuela as part of
the supply agreements that also include industrial inputs so required at
this time of plunging oil prices and economic war.
March 9, 2016: see the original post below and the "eleven signs a city will succeed." When I saw the article and posted the "eleven signs" you have no idea how much I wanted to add a twelve sign: city residents have kept city leadership away from the Democrats. But I didn't want to be "catty" nor did I want to wander into the political arena. But I didn't have to wait long for a reader to send me the "twelve sign." Investor's Business Daily is reporting:
But let’s backtrack to Moore’s tweet. Flint is indeed a Democratic
Party bastion. Don’t its decades of Democratic dominance deserve some of
the blame? It’s the city’s “Democratic rulers,” Reason magazine’s Robby
Soave reminds us, who have “robbed city residents blind to pad the
pockets of public sector unions.” They’ve also been in charge as Flint
has become one the country’s poorest cities (the second poorest, says
the Census Bureau, for a city of its size), and a haven for criminals —
it’s the most dangerous city in America, according to Business Insider.
Flint is not alone, though. America is awash with troubled,
dysfunctional cities that have been electing Democratic mayors for
decades.
Detroit last elected a Republican mayor in 1957.
Chicago’s last GOP mayor was elected in 1927.
St. Louis has been electing Democratic mayors since 1949.
The last GOP mayor of Philadelphia left office in 1952.
Both Baltimore and Oakland had Republican mayors as late as the 1960s.
Newark, N.J., hasn’t had a GOP mayor in more than a century. It was ranked as the fifth-worst city to live in in 2015. Detroit, of course, was first.
It's generally been my experience I like anything James Fallows writes. There have been exceptions. Rarely.
I haven't read the entire article yet, but the crawler at the bottom of the pages is very, very interesting. Apply the parameters (below the break) to your own city or town. I'm applying them to Williston (but not blogging my thoughts) as I write the summary:
*******************************
Eleven Signs A City Will Succeed
1. Divisive national politics seem a distant concern.
2. You can pick out the local "patriots." Patriots: "Who makes this town go?"
March 6, 2016: the article mentions Newton, MA, where a couple of Russian mothers with expertise in math started "Russian School." When our granddaughters lived in Belmont, they were about 5 minutes driving time from Newton, just across the river, if I recall correctly. The middle granddaughter was lucky enough to be a charter member of one of these Russian school start-ups. It was quite amazing how they were taught. I regret that she couldn't have continued after she moved to DFW.
Original Post
2:30 p.m. Central Time: Earlier today, at a stand-alone post I had a note on math, which I will re-post below as the "original post" here.
Less than four hours later when I went to get the mail, I see this article in this month's issue of The Atlantic: The Math Revolution. The number of American teens who excel at advanced math has surged. Why? The article begins:
On a sultry evening last July, a tall, soft-spoken 17-year-old named David Stoner and nearly 600 other math whizzes from all over the world sat huddled in small groups around wicker bistro tables, talking in low voices and obsessively refreshing the browsers on their laptops. The air in the cavernous lobby of the Lotus Hotel Pang Suan Kaew in Chiang Mai, Thailand, was humid, recalls Stoner, whose light South Carolina accent warms his carefully chosen words. The tension in the room made it seem especially heavy, like the atmosphere at a high-stakes poker tournament.
Stoner and five teammates were representing the United States in the 56th International Mathematical Olympiad. They figured they’d done pretty well over the two days of competition. God knows, they’d trained hard. Stoner, like his teammates, had endured a grueling regime for more than a year—practicing tricky problems over breakfast before school and taking on more problems late into the evening after he completed the homework for his college-level math classes. Sometimes, he sketched out proofs on the large dry-erase board his dad had installed in his bedroom. Most nights, he put himself to sleep reading books like New Problems in Euclidean Geometry and An Introduction to Diophantine Equations.
Still, it was hard to know how his team had stacked up against those
from the perennial powers China, Russia, and South Korea. “I mean, the
gold? Did we do well enough to get the gold?” he said. “At that moment,
it was hard to say.” Suddenly, there was a shout from a team across the
lobby, then a collective intake of breath as the Olympians surged closer
to their laptops. As Stoner tried to absorb what he saw on his own
computer screen, the noise level in the lobby grew from a buzz to a
cheer. Then one of his team members gave a whoop that ended in the chant
“U.S.A.! U.S.A.!,” and the smattering of applause from the other
Olympians grew more robust, and finally thunderous. Beaming, one of
Stoner’s teammates pulled a small American flag out of his backpack and
began waving it. Stoner was grinning. For the first time in 21 years,
the United States team had won first place. Speaking last fall from his
dorm at Harvard, where he is now a freshman, Stoner recalled his team’s
triumph with quiet satisfaction. “It was a really great moment. Really
great. Especially if you love math.”
This is a great article. A must-read.
Original Post
There were two somewhat related articles -- they both had to do with math and that was about it -- in the WSJ
today that caught my eye. Calculus has always fascinated me, mostly
because I never understood it while taking the subject in my freshman
year in college. The subject has always bothered me and every few years I
get back into my calculus phase and read books about it, and re-study
Calculus 101.
I've come to the conclusion that calculus is a tool like trigonometry,
and that in today's world one needs to know how / why trigonometry /
calculus work and what they are good for, but in general, not more than
one semester is needed to provide students the basics, except for those
planning to devote their lives to theoretical math. I don't know how a
refrigerator works and I don't know how my MacBook Air works, but as tools
they are incredibly nice to have and easy to use.
I finally "get" calculus -- the epiphany occurred some years ago. I
can't do much calculus but I "get" it. I understand why it was invented,
what it is good for, and why it's indispensable. I never took trig in
high school or college; I learned it on my own -- although I learned
very little. But I learned enough to get me through calculus 101 in
college.
Today, in the WSJ, in the op-ed pages of all things, there is this: calculus is so last century. Training in statistics, linear algebra and algorithmic thinking is more relevant for today’s educated workforce.
Can you remember the last time you did calculus? Unless you are a
researcher or engineer, chances are good it was in a high-school or
college class you’d rather forget.
For most Americans, solving a calculus problem is not a skill they need to perform well at work.
This is not to say that America’s workforce doesn’t need advanced
mathematics—quite the opposite. An extensive 2011 McKinsey Global
Institute study found that by 2018 the U.S will face a 1.5 million
worker shortfall in analysts and managers who have the mathematical
training necessary to deal with analysis of “large data sets,” the bread
and butter of the big-data revolution ("quants").
The question is not whether advanced mathematics is needed but rather what kind of advanced mathematics.
Calculus is the handmaiden of physics; it was invented by Newton to
explain planetary and projectile motion. While its place at the core of
math education may have made sense for Cold War adversaries engaged in a
missile and space race, Minute-Man and Apollo no longer occupy the same
prominent role in national security and continued prosperity that they
once did.
The WSJ: posted five (5) questions from the recent MoMath Masters
Contest.
The 2016 MoMath Masters competition included questions about
quadrilaterals, supermodels and Fermat's Sandwich Theorem. Here's one
question:
Let "m" be the smallest integer such that m^2 +7M +89 is divisible by 77. What is M?
a) 8 b) 18 c) 52 d) 73 e) 74.
That gives you an idea of the type of math questions the contest asked.
But this is what caught me eye, this question: who among the following received a scholarship to study Chemical Engineering with Mathematics at Northwestern University:
a) Heidi Klum
b) Kate Moss
c) Brooke Shields
d) Naomi Campbell
e) Cindy Crawford
And with that, I will move on to the Bakken, the top stories of the past week.
This is cool. I keep a list of words that I run across that might be helpful for Arianna as she prepares for college entrance exams. Yes, I know there are books out there with these same lists but it's more fun to come across them through everyday reading. It also tells me that those words are actually being used. The other day I came across banlieues in the biography of the Impressionist painters written by Sue Ross. She used the word banlieues but I did not include it on my list of words because I thought it was too far off the English radar scope. Wrong.
Today, while thumbing through this month's issue The Atlantic, this headline: Tying Paris Back Together: can expanding the Metro unite the city and its trouble banlieues.
Through reading Virginia Woolf I was very familiar with purlieus, the area near of surrounding a place, but I do not recall seeing banlieues before. In French, banlieues are suburbs of a large city, often Paris, and are administratively separate from the large city. Grapevine, TX, for example, where we live, would be a banlieue of Ft Worth or Dallas.
"Yes, we live in Grapevine, a banlieue of Ft Worth."
Like our "potato" that final "e" is problematic. In the singular, banlieue has a final "e"; purlieu does not.
The suffix in both banlieue and purlieu should not be confused with lues, an American word. Lues comes from the Latin word meaning plague.
March 15, 2016: I was wrong below regarding delegates in Missouri. Trump won with 40.8% of the vote; Cruz had 40.6% of the vote, but Trump will get all 15 delegates. I would have to say Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich really mismanaged Missouri.
March 15, 2016, around midnight: one only has to win by one vote to be the winner in an election, but a contest this close would normally result in a recount. In this case, there won't be a recount since each of the two will get equal number of delegates, eleven (11) each. With 99% of precincts tallied in Missouri, Trump has 375,473 votes; Cruz has 373,006. They will both declare victory. It looks like the Kasich folks should have voted for Cruz in Missouri, just as the Cruz/Rubio folks voted for Kasich in Ohio if they wanted to stop Trump.
March 15, 2016: the only question was Ohio, and Kasich will take that, the only state he will take in the primaries. Trump squashed Rubio in his (Rubio's) home state of Florida, 46% to 27%. It looks like Trump will sail through every other state. The entire roster of GOP contenders told their supporters to vote for Kasich in Ohio. But everywhere else, Trump cleaned the board. Rubio suspends his campaign; can't even take a closed primary in his home state. All's fair in love, war, and politics, but the GOP taking on Trump the way they are violates the spirit of all presidential candidates pledging to support the eventual winner. If Trump comes close but does not take it on the first vote at the convention, one can be assured his supporters won't change their vote no matter how many times the GOP delegates have to vote. It's very likely the brokered convention will go on an extra day, well through the night when voting starts. Gingrich says the GOP cannot stop Trump. I assume Gingrich imagines the convention hall with more than 50% of the folks there supporting Trump; those supporters are not going to go anywhere.
March 8, 2016: high stakes gamble ... countdown ... one week to go. Florida with a closed primary. If Marco Rubio loses his own state to Donald Trump -- in a closed primary -- it suggests Rubio's political career is over -- not just as presidential contender but also as a Federal senator. His flip-flopping on immigration; his poor debating skills; his call for an end crude oil exports (already in effect -- he missed the memo); and, to lose to Trump in his own state....
March 7, 2016: both the Michigan primary (March8) and the Ohio primary (March 15) are open primaries. This should knock Kasich out. The real "test" for an outsider will be the closed primary in Florida on March 15. If Rubio can't take Florida, he's out. However, having won Puerto Rico is a great win for Rubio going into his home state. March 7, 2016: Hillary will ban fracking. This is how the war on coal began: one stupid comment by a community organizer and we were off to the races to destroy US coal.
March 7, 2016: flip-flop or lost in translation? I hear on the radio that Romney has now said he won't accept draft under any circumstances. That wasn't quite true. Back on March 4, he shut the door on any talk of a Romney draft. It appears that the media might be catching up with what he has said; and he is a bit unclear himself. When I read the totality of what's being reported, it appears that Romney is still willing to be drafted.
March 6, 2016: Romney throws his hat in the ring (sort of -- won't say "no" if asked); not one Trump supporter will vote for him; unlike Cruz supporters would vote for him. From Washington Times:
Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, refused
Sunday to rule out becoming the nominee again this year at a brokered
convention, though he insisted he couldn’t imagine that happening.
“I
don’t think anyone in our party should say, ‘Oh no, even if the people
of the party wanted me to be president, I would say no to it.’ No one
is going to say that,” Mr. Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Original Post
Without question, the most "instructive" primary today will be the Kansas primary, a closed primary, and it's going to be very, very close [later: wow, I was wrong on that; see below; Trump crushed by Cruz]. Trump did the right thing by skipping the CPAC convention and getting on down to Kansas. It's going to be a tight race and it will speak volumes if Trump can win Kansas.
Earlier today I sent this note to a reader:
I'm
not going to blog about it but I think the most recent debate: Trump
really hurt himself by his comments on torture, going so far as to say
he would break international law (though he didn't use those words) and
Cruz did very, very well.
One could see it on the Drudge poll. Even
before the debate was half over Trump was ahead 75% to Cruz 10% or
something like (I'm exaggerating because I can't remember exact numbers)
-- those were all the far right Drudge followers like me who voted for
Trump and not even listening to the debate; by the time the debate was
over, Trump came way down and Cruz way up: the thoughtful folks who
actually listened to the debate were now voting.
Rubio way at the
bottom, 4% I think. Rush Limbaugh who had been really pushing Trump this
past week, praised Cruz's performance, and taking Texas in the
primaries did not hurt.
I think their strategy to deny Trump's win on
the first vote will work, but I can't see GOP going for Cruz -- it's
hard to believe the polls are correct, that he could beat Hillary. But I
could be wrong. It's possible that the media has made Cruz out worse
than he is and once he starts debating Hillary one-on-one things will
change -- Cruz easily out-debating Hillary. Hillary knows her stuff;
Cruz knows his stuff.
If
Trump starts to tumble, he will tumble fast. In politics it's all about
momentum and when one peaks. I wonder if Trump might have peaked on
Super Tuesday. And started to fall after his comments at the last debate (not to mention his flip-flopping?) on the immigration issue.
3:34 p.m. Central Time: As noted above, I had not planned on blogging about the primaries today, but this is quite startling, if the early results in Kansas hold. Prior to today, Trump had held a small lead.
I just checked Drudge: the headline story: Cruz: 50%; Trump 25%. Only 11% of precincts reporting, but if that holds, I think Cruz has succeeded in taking this to a brokered convention.
7:13 p.m. Central Time: in two closed primaries Cruz crushes Trump. Granted, Kansas is ultra-conservative but up until recently, the polls suggested Trump could win by a small margin. Maine is not so much conservative as simply "different." Sort of like Iowa but even more "different." Maine is more like Missouri, the "show-me" stage. Mainers see through bullshit. Maine is not the kind of state that one would think Cruz could take, but Maine saw through Trump, and voted overwhelmingly for Cruz as the alternate. Although the win was not as big as his win in Kansas, by election standards it was a blowout. My comments earlier to a reader:
Most of the early states were open primaries which gave the edge to Trump.
In
closed primaries, Cruz may have the advantage. Kansas is very, very
conservative, but the interesting thing is that Cruz is even competitive
in Kentucky, also very conservative, but Trump had a commanding lead
early on in Kentucky.
One
wonders if Ben Carson had dropped out earlier whether that would have
helped Cruz earlier. Also, Rubio is fading and his support is probably
going to Cruz.
I've
been wrong so much of this primary season, I'm probably wrong again,
but it looks like Trump has peaked, Cruz has the momentum, and will at
least get to a brokered convention. At a GOP convention, Trump has no
chance if he doesn't get it on the first vote.
If this all plays out like it appears to be playing out, on Monday Rush Limbaugh will a) be eating a lot of crow; b) be trying to walk back his support of Trump; and, c) come as close as ever to endorsing a candidate in the primaries, something he says he's never done. And, of course, he will tell us he knew it was Cruz's nomination from the beginning.
9:45 p.m. Central Time: more bad news for Trump. CPAC coalesces around Cruz.
A reader asked if there was any evidence of a halo effect among these wells. It was a great question. The original well in this drilling unit was drilled in 2011. Then a singleton followed in 2013, running in the opposite direction. Finally, a 3-well pad was completed in 2015. This was a perfect opportunity to see if there was any evidence of a halo effect. If there was, it was minimal. Things are complicated with the huge slump in prices; wells are being taken off line and/or choked way back. This makes "understanding" the Bakken very challenging. (I'm done with this page; if the reader has additional questions, please feel free to ask. In a long note like this, done quickly, there will be typographical and factual errors, so if something looks wrong, let me know and I will double-check).
Anyway, a look at these five wells. First the graphic and then the production profiles below the graphic:
#19048, drilled back in 2011, in the southeast corner of the drilling unit under discussion:
19048,705, HRC, Borrud 156-101-11D-2-1H, Tyrone, t8/11; cum 170K 1/16;
the well was taken off line in early 2014, and again in early 2015; the halo effect if anything was marginal; production for selected period of time:
BAKKEN
10-2015
31
2579
2595
7019
1568
1329
22
BAKKEN
9-2015
30
3267
3187
6997
2106
1808
88
BAKKEN
8-2015
31
2080
1946
6778
1332
788
327
BAKKEN
7-2015
1
1671
1774
8060
815
706
102
BAKKEN
6-2015
1
45
35
163
7
0
0
BAKKEN
5-2015
6
59
0
424
42
0
0
BAKKEN
4-2015
2
11
0
0
14
0
0
BAKKEN
3-2015
13
2065
2120
6727
1546
1244
211
BAKKEN
2-2015
28
1878
2070
2019
1589
1347
46
BAKKEN
1-2015
31
1971
1841
2528
2041
1746
78
BAKKEN
12-2014
31
2502
2861
2445
2565
2082
266
BAKKEN
11-2014
30
2584
2313
2201
2473
2263
0
BAKKEN
10-2014
31
2766
2733
2573
2465
2248
0
BAKKEN
9-2014
29
2543
2571
2293
2011
1216
592
BAKKEN
8-2014
31
2925
2940
2565
2222
566
1439
BAKKEN
7-2014
31
3158
3225
2925
1485
1043
225
BAKKEN
6-2014
30
3073
3102
3630
2569
138
2221
BAKKEN
5-2014
13
980
672
1950
466
4
371
BAKKEN
4-2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BAKKEN
3-2014
16
815
1144
1120
323
136
75
BAKKEN
2-2014
28
2332
2145
3320
1526
1257
73
BAKKEN
1-2014
24
1520
1480
3226
1250
1001
81
BAKKEN
12-2013
31
2657
3046
2266
2602
1968
417
Then, #25562, drilled back in 2013:
25562, 1,208, HRC, Borrud 156-101-2A-11-2H, Tyrone, t8/13; cum 187K 1/16;
the well was taken off-line in early 2015, but I don't see much of any halo effect; selected monthly production:
Pool
Date
Days
BBLS Oil
Runs
BBLS Water
MCF Prod
MCF Sold
Vent/Flare
BAKKEN
1-2016
31
3536
3534
4102
3193
2205
771
BAKKEN
12-2015
31
3428
3514
4398
3046
2685
144
BAKKEN
11-2015
30
4368
4484
5870
3640
3319
111
BAKKEN
10-2015
31
4457
4387
7449
3549
3332
0
BAKKEN
9-2015
29
3836
3631
6170
3202
2783
216
BAKKEN
8-2015
17
1526
1662
2851
1583
366
1098
BAKKEN
7-2015
30
4083
4100
6396
3925
590
3125
BAKKEN
6-2015
30
3512
3393
7348
2376
1891
275
BAKKEN
5-2015
31
3782
3739
6227
3004
839
1948
BAKKEN
4-2015
14
994
1049
1719
961
415
448
BAKKEN
3-2015
7
1292
1438
1492
549
0
500
BAKKEN
2-2015
22
2644
3080
4373
1868
1713
1
BAKKEN
1-2015
30
4271
3927
6209
2039
1703
126
BAKKEN
12-2014
31
4170
4362
5970
2017
1643
157
BAKKEN
11-2014
21
3178
3223
4437
4846
4699
0
BAKKEN
10-2014
30
6197
6217
8575
7185
6854
121
BAKKEN
9-2014
30
7223
7133
9168
7822
7573
39
BAKKEN
8-2014
28
6997
6942
8975
8020
7352
472
Finally, a 3-well pad drilled back in early 2015:
29238, 1,209, HRC, Borrud 156-101-2B-11-3H, Tyrone, t4/14; cum 82K 1/16;
29239, 1,803, HRC, Borrud 156-101-2B-11-4H, Tyrone, t3/15; cum 107K 1/16;
29240, 1,827, HRC, Borrud 156-101-2B-11-5H, Tyrone, t4/15; cum 102K 1/16;
Selected production profile for #29238, fairly typical of all three wells. Note the number of days on line and the amount of production each month. I generally see a drop-off in the second-fourth months of production (I assume there is work being done on the well to get it in tip-top shape), and then a typical Bakken decline. It's hard to say if the production in 1/16 is due to Bakken decline or due to operator cutting back due to low oil prices, but note that in 12/15, the well was off-line 7 days:
Every week I post the Thursday jobs data, first-time unemployment benefits. I am always very, very negative with regard to the numbers, but even more so, I am very, very negative to the consistent spin on these numbers by Reuters, Bloomberg, and even the AP whenever I happened to find an AP report on jobs.
I think the whole story of jobs in this country is still being pushed by bureaucratic Washington still mired in the 1950's and 1960's. I don't think the bureaucrats have caught up to the 1990's much less, the 21st century.
The percent of Americans working, apparently, is about 60%.
The unemployment rate is about 5%.
Jo Craven McGinty's article in today's WSJ is not particularly helpful explaining why workforce participation rate is so low (mostly the same old, old) but there's a nice graph of the various ways the US measures unemployment.
I keep coming back to this explanation why a low workforce participation rate is not as "bad" as some may paint it: the social safety net is incredible in this country, at least compared to what it was before 1930.
But there's something else which has been talked about for years: increased productivity per worker. It simply takes fewer people to do many of the things we do. Tracking the unemployment rate is very much like tracking the number of active rigs in the Bakken: it gives me an idea of the amount of energy expended but it doesn't tell me much about production.
I will continue to post the weekly jobs numbers, and I assume I will continue to report the same spin others have on the subject, but for me, it looks like the weekly jobs data and the unemployment rate are data points that are becoming less and less important.
For people who want to work, there are jobs. For able-bodied who do not want to work and are happy with the safety net provided by the federal and state governments, by their families, and by "getting by" that's fine with me. If taxpayers feel they are paying too much for the safety net, they need to get active in politics.
My greatest sympathy is with the hard-working folks, both blue-collar and white-collar, who are unemployed or under-employed because of the government's anti-growth regulations, an uncontrolled EPA, and bad science (AGW). I am conflicted on the immigration issue.
Speaking of U1 through U6, the "U" that I really dislike is "U2." But I can't let this pass, so the best I can do is associate U2 with one of my favorites: Leonard Cohen.
The price to ride MBTA buses with a CharlieCard will go up a dime to
$1.70, and monthly passes will cost riders $114 more a year after the
transit agency’s board on Monday unanimously approved a package that
will increases fares systemwide by 9.3 percent.
Board members
unanimously approved the changes as transit activists loudly protested
the move, calling the board corrupt and urging the public to “fight the
hikes.”
The price increases, scheduled to go into effect in July, come
despite a flood of opposition from dissatisfied riders and several
elected officials who said lawmakers had intended to cap fare increases
to 5 percent every two years under a 2013 law.
The change will also increase subway fares paid with a CharlieCard by 7.1 percent, to $2.25 per ride.
One word: regressive.
Original Post
This is a huge story, just breaking in the WSJ a few minutes ago: Boston braces for last call late-night transit service. Transportation authority cuts back weekend service from 2:00 a.m. which could dampen late nightlife.
One of the things I enjoyed most while living in Boston for four years was public transportation that was "always" available. Not having to worry about the last train was incredible luxury. But now this:
Boston’s weekend nightlife could end early after the cash-strapped
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority cuts back on its train and
bus service during the wee hours.
Starting March 20, the last
MBTA train and bus will roll by roughly 12:50 a.m. on Saturdays and
Sundays. Over the past two years, the transit agency, known locally as
the T, has allowed its subways, trolleys, plus several bus routes to run
to as late as 2:30 a.m., though it dialed back to 2 a.m. last June.
An
average of 13,000 people used the extended service in December, down
from 16,000 people who used it when the service began in March 2014.
A new agency oversight board voted on Feb. 29 to cut the late-night
hours.
I suppose there are two stories here: the declining number of people who actually use the service in the first place, and do they really need/want to be out drinking past 12:00 midnight. The second story, of course, is the overall financial situation for the MBTA.
Compare this to other major east coast cities:
Among other big-city systems, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia all
run trains 24 hours on at least some lines and nights, while Washington,
D.C. keeps trains rolling until 3 a.m. on weekends. Earlier shutdowns
are common in big international cities, although London is planning to
start running some lines on its subway, known as the Tube, 24 hours.
The financial situation:
The service cuts in
Boston—which may precede a fare increase later this year—counter the
city’s push to retire a stodgy image that “stems all the way back to the
Puritans” and can deter young talent, said Thomas Whalen, an associate
professor of social science at Boston University.
A task force
commissioned by Mayor Marty Walsh recently recommended several
pro-nightlife steps, including extending liquor-license hours. Mr. Walsh
said in a statement that he was disappointed in the late-night transit
cuts. So is the local restaurant industry, which pushed for later
transit to support customers and workers.
The service cut comes
as the nation’s fifth-largest transit system tries to plug chronic
budget holes and catch up on a $7 billion shortfall on system upgrades.
The late-night service “was costing the T millions of dollars and the
ridership was low and declining,” said Brian Shortsleeve, the MBTA’s
chief administrator. Mr. Shortsleeve said Bostonians, including the
city’s bounty of college students, may have grown accustomed to using
ride-sharing services in the late-night hours.
There is a trend in all these stories: taxes, fees, and fares that are now being implemented and/or proposed are becoming more and more regressive all the time. Fifty-five percent of Americans may not be paying taxes, but for many of them, a 10% increase in fares in Boston is just another form of taxes:
The T has managed to shrink its budget deficits, but its board is
expected to vote Monday on whether to increase fares—currently $2.10 for
trains, less for buses—by as much as 10%. Transit advocates are pushing
for a smaller fare increase. Higher fares could take effect this
summer.
I doubt the declining number of late-night/early morning riders on the Boston MBTA has anything to do with the low price of gasoline -- parking is the problem in Boston, not the price of gasoline -- but one wonders.
It would be interesting to see if late night/early morning ridership is declining in those other cities mentioned.
There were two somewhat related articles -- they both had to do with math and that was about it -- in the WSJ today that caught my eye. Calculus has always fascinated me, mostly because I never understood it while taking the subject in my freshman year in college. The subject has always bothered me and every few years I get back into my calculus phase and read books about it, and re-study Calculus 101.
I've come to the conclusion that calculus is a tool like trigonometry, and that in today's world one needs to know how / why trigonometry / calculus work and what they are good for, but in general, not more than one semester is needed to provide students the basics, except for those planning to devote their lives to theoretical math. I don't know how a refrigerator works and I don't now my MacBook Air works, but as tools they are incredibly nice to have and easy to use.
I finally "get" calculus -- the epiphany occurred some years ago. I can't do much calculus but I "get" it. I understand why it was invented, what it is good for, and why it's indispensable. I never took trig in high school or college; I learned it on my own -- although I learned very little. But I learned enough to get me through calculus 101 in college.
Today, in the WSJ, in the op-ed pages of all things, there is this: calculus is so last century. Training in statistics, linear algebra and algorithmic thinking is more relevant for today’s educated workforce.
Can you remember the last time you did calculus? Unless you are a researcher or engineer, chances are good it was in a high-school or college class you’d rather forget.
For most Americans, solving a calculus problem is not a skill they need to perform well at work.
This is not to say that America’s workforce doesn’t need advanced mathematics—quite the opposite. An extensive 2011 McKinsey Global Institute study found that by 2018 the U.S will face a 1.5 million worker shortfall in analysts and managers who have the mathematical training necessary to deal with analysis of “large data sets,” the bread and butter of the big-data revolution ("quants").
The question is not whether advanced mathematics is needed but rather what kind of advanced mathematics. Calculus is the handmaiden of physics; it was invented by Newton to explain planetary and projectile motion. While its place at the core of math education may have made sense for Cold War adversaries engaged in a missile and space race, Minute-Man and Apollo no longer occupy the same prominent role in national security and continued prosperity that they once did.
The WSJ: posted five (5) questions from the recent MoMath Masters Contest.
The 2016 MoMath Masters competition included questions about quadrilaterals, supermodels and Fermat's Sandwich Theorem. Here's one question:
Let "m" be the smallest integer such that m^2 +7M +89 is divisible by 77. What is M?
a) 8 b) 18 c) 52 d) 73 e) 74.
That gives you an idea of the type of math questions the contest asked.
But this is what caught me eye, this question: who among the following received a scholarship to study Chemical Engineering with Mathematics at Northwestern University:
a) Heidi Klum
b) Kate Moss
c) Brooke Shields
d) Naomi Campbell
e) Cindy Crawford
And with that, I will move on to the Bakken, the top stories of the past week.
Top non-Bakken stories:
I think the top story of the past week was reported Friday with regard to the national jobs numbers/employment numbers, but if I comment on that it will be in a stand-alone post.
It will be interesting to look at murder statistics ten years from now with reports that under the current administration, gun sales are "going through the roof."
