Thursday, January 9, 2014

The US will soon be the number one energy producer, but is it worth it?


This is mostly driven by fracking and the growing global demand for energy keeping fracking economical. I am not insinuating causation here, but it's probably not coincidence that the top energy producing nations are all corrupt, repressive, wealth imbalanced, polluted, and economically dysfunctional outside of the energy sector. Therefore, I am not sure we should want the US to go down the same path. The notable exceptions are Canada and Norway, but they benefit from strong public institutions and more balanced economies. In our post-Citizens United, underfunded-EPA, too-big-to-fail corporate reality, I just hope we don't resemble Nigeria or Russia too much. 

We've already discussed all the potential reasons that fracking is an environmental risk, but what about the economic upside? Some in the industry would claim that the fracking boom vaulted the US out of recession. It's undeniable that more jobs, corporate profits, and taxes were generated, but enough to have a material overall GDP impact? Business Insider and W Post are not sure (see below). The boom has triggered the market price of gas and electricity to go down a lot, but energy is a small fraction of modern industrial costs (compared to labor and raw materials), so it's not like the lower prices led to much higher profits or cheaper products for consumers. Also, the oil & gas industry is fairly automated with low labor participation relative to capital investment. So there weren't that many new jobs created, and even in drill-baby-drill Texas, only 6.5% of jobs are in energy (and 1% nationally). So even if the industry doubles in size (and you believe the API's claim that for every 1 new petro-job created, 2.7 other indirect jobs are too), it's not enough to make up for the 7M-plus jobs lost during the Great R. But what about GDP growth? Well, oil & gas is only 2.5% of our economy (it's a commodity after all), and of the 7.6% GDP growth the US experienced since 2009, only 0.6% can be attributed to the "energy boom" according to Capital Economics. 

Therefore, is all the environmental risk worth these meager benefits? As we've discussed before, just because it is economically justified at present to do something doesn't mean it's the best available course of action long-term. And in many cases, once we commit down a path, we can't undo it later. We can always drill in the future after more testing is done and if national needs dictate. But if we drill now (chasing short-term bucks and jobs, however small), we can never revert to "the way it used to be" if we discover that we made a mistake. 

Monday, January 6, 2014

Zappos gets rid of managers!



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-managers/#!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zappos

I think chances are that this is just a fad/stunt, or if they are serious it will still turn out badly for them. :) I haven't read up on "holocracy" (a company organized around tasks/projects rather than depts/people), but to me it doesn't seem to be a natural fit for a mixed e-commerce firm with strong-willed people like Zappos. They have over 1,500 employees - I think it would be pretty hard to monitor and control such a diverse org without some sort of management chain. How would you resolve disputes, or make a controversial decision with ambiguous data? At some point a single leader has to make a call. I can also see performance evaluation and career development becoming a mess. Though they could theoretically save a lot of time/effort on less bureaucracy - but I thought they were an agile, lean Internet company already?

While I think the US workplace in general would benefit from more employee empowerment and democracy, we all know that such freedoms/privileges can be abused (and do not benefit productivity in all cases). While not really "fair", it probably makes more sense to empower and give more freedom to your top 20% performers (who really keep the company going), rather than everyone. More freedom could be an incentive for the other workers to strive toward too. I do like the Zappos idea of "lead links", or pseudo-managers who just assign tasks and resources, but don't have the authority to tell workers how to get stuff done. That is empowering, as few people like/need a micromanager (probably bad for performance and satisfaction anyway).

We are social animals, and have natural tendencies towards hierarchy. Of course even in a holocracy, there will be unofficial pecking orders, politics, and such. Could it degenerate into Survivor? :) But maybe Zappos could pull it off due to their "family culture." They really want their workforce to be like-minded Zappos fanatics. A lot of firms give lip service about creativity, team-first attitude, and passion, but I think they do a better job than most (especially compared to stuffy old firms like GM or Chase). Maybe it's just superficial propaganda, and deep down the workers are just going through the act and grumbling, but at least it's on their minds - even if they don't walk the talk 24/7 (who does?).  
I only know 1 person who worked at Zappos (a project manager), and she gave the place pretty bad reviews (especially top leadership). Maybe in that case, it's good to minimize their ability to do harm with a flat structure! But for the record, employee reviews on glassdoor seem generally positive. Though in a holocracy, what the heck do the former middle managers do then? Repurpose them to man the phone lines and pack boxes? I imagine they will have more time for business development and strategic analysis, but as we all know, middle managers may not be the most gifted employees in those areas, especially if they are past their prime and no longer strong with innovative thinking.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/The-Zappos-Family-Reviews-E19906.htm

Well, after AMZ bought Zappos, they do not report on division-specific financials, so we do not know how well their strategy and culture are working. But before they were acquired, I believe they were roughly a break-even business. Free shipping and unlimited returns are costly, though I guess their corporate strategy believed that reputation and customer loyalty are worth it in the long run. In general, it's an audacious assumption that enough online customers care more about service rather than low price to keep Zappos going. If that value proposition is inaccurate, then org structure is moot.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Reflecting on George Lucas and Star Wars



Taking a break from politics-business events, but unfortunately no less maddening :)

The top 10 ways Lucas messed up Episodes 4-6 in his special edition ("special" clearly denoting mentally deficient in this case): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fTuPyfvho

I have the unaltered SW Eps 4-6 in .avi format if anyone wants them (low-res only, sorry), since you can't buy the original films anymore. In this case, I am happy to bootleg and "steal" from Disney and Lucas - it's morally justified like Robin Hood. I can't believe how mad I still am at Lucas for what he did to these films, and it's been over a decade haha. Well, he keeps poking us in the eye with horrible Eps 1-3 and more recently selling out to Disney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html

This ticked me off too... Lucas is trying to "buy his way to the good side," even if the bulk of his "charity" will likely go to the education nonprofit that he runs. Well no matter how many of his superfluous billions he gives away, it doesn't change that fact that he made that loot by raping a cherished piece of Americana, sci-fi history, and cultural identity for millions. As a friend told me, Lucas is the "best and worst thing to happen to Star Wars". I know this is an unfair comparison, but if Vlad Putin uses his own money to build an orphanage, sure that is nice of him, but it doesn't absolve his other sins. I wonder if his cognitive dissonance and Death Star-sized ego permit him to realize how unhappy he has made the fans that he once filled with emotions and wonder. That betrayal will ultimately be his legacy.

We can respect Lucas for being a smart businessman/generous philanthropist, AND acknowledge that he is a total A-hole for ruining cherished Eps 4-6 and epic failing on Eps 1-3. If he was truly generous, he would have given the SW franchise to a nonprofit fan foundation, to make sure future content stays true to the mythos. His decision to sell to the likes of Disney nullified his giving ("blood money"). So it seems clear that Lucas has done nothing good for SW or humanity since 1983. He just helped himself and his investors at the expense of a major part of US film and cultural history.

----------

If you're desperate for a good version of the original, you should torrent this guy's despecialized version of Ep 4-6: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/topic/12713/
Basically, he started with the Hi-Def versions that were released later, deleted all the dumb George Lucas later additions, and cleaned up some things even George Lucas missed (such as light saber colors being wrong), and remastered the sound. 

For people that have seen it, it's basically the ultimate nerd version of Star Wars; high def but true to the original (Lando shoots first!).

For the disaster of Episodes 1-3, there is always the Phantom Edit (http://starwarsfans.wikia.com/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit) which cuts out much of the crap in Episode 1. (He also made versions for 2 and 3). There's also The Editor Strikes Back, which condenses Ep 1-3 into a very watchable 85 mins: http://www.slashfilm.com/topher-grace-edited-star-wars-prequels-85minute-movie/ (shows just how much fluff and useless shit Lucas included in the Prequels really)

Even the viewing order has been challenged by fans online: http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/ - basically, this guy argues the best viewing order is IV - V - II - III - VI. Now that the Editor Strikes Back has been released, I think you could make a good argument for IV (despecialized) - V (despecialized) - Editor Strikes Back - VI (despecialized) as more or less how Star Wars was meant to be experienced in a perfect world.

I guess in this day and age of Internet collaboration, there's just no way that George Lucas can try to keep sole creative control over something that nerds the world over cherish - fans will route around his ham-handed attempts to "improve" the originals.

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/384046-star-wars-despecialized-edition-remastered/

----------

Thx! I know I can always count on a fellow true fan for empathy and resources. Sadly I don't torrent (ignorance rather than respect for IP, LOL), but I will look into it. I found a guy on eBay who is selling unofficial DVDs of the unaltered trilogy, so I got that as a post-Xmas gift for myself. :) But mostly it's "historical record" for my daughter, so when she gets older, she will be able to experience the real SW the way we did (before Lucas and Mickey destroy all the surviving copies of the original trilogy).

---

Yes, it was eating me up inside that the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi didn't have blinking eyes. That really detracted from the realism of a battle where a galactic imperial army was soundly defeated by talking care bears. Sure, the Ewoks were by far the worst part of Eps 4-6 (an early attempt at commercialization and youth targeting), but changing them now is even dumber.

---
Supposedly Lucas (who is more of a merchandiser and effects wizard than a pure storyteller and filmmaker) was not happy with the state of the art in 1977, but had to keep Ep 4 on schedule, so the film released without all the cool effects that he wanted. The industry just wasn't ready for his vision. Fair enough, but since when has any work we've had to deliver under time pressure satisfied us 100%? I know Hollywood directors are infamous perfectionists, but at some point you just go with the best you have ready, and leave it at that. No "do overs" later (or leave it to the DVD bonus features at least, don't alter the original work!).

Say all that is true, and the special edition is Lucas' "true vision" for how he wanted the trilogy to look and feel. So he really believed that CG mini-Jabba, a rock in front of R2-D2, and Han shooting 2nd made the movie complete? If he "did it right" the first time in 1977, then SW would have become an even bigger hit? I call BS. He just used the special edition as an excuse to invest in more tech, showcase ILM effects, and sell more DVDs. Seriously, the changes are as if Lucas asked his 12-year-old child for advice. First off, you don't need to change what is fine, or in fact nearly perfect. Second, if you do decide to change what is already fine, then your change should at least be an IMPROVEMENT and not a distraction/detraction/joke. Like adding color to later releases of Hitchcock movies is more defensible (but still controversial to many). The feel of Eps 4-6 is of a raw, gritty, lived-in universe (apart from the sterile, polished, but oppressive imperial settings). The sharp and artificial CG fillers add no value and really hurt the mood of some scenes (like the stupid alien band in Return of the Jedi playing a kiddie song while the green slave girl was eaten). The low-IQ response to innovation/improvement is "let's just add more stuff." A shot with so much irrelevant and unimportant noise going on doesn't benefit the film, and is too much for the typical viewer to process/appreciate anyway (example from Ep 2). It's sad that so many artists had to work long hours to deliver such garbage that no one will remember. Whereas Sir Alec Guinness probably just needed a couple takes to deliver a 10-second line that became film immortality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hFWz145aJc.

Much worse are the "continuity changes", where the Eps 1-3 are clearly to blame. Vader has to yell "Nooooo!" the same way in 2 movies (even though it is not authentic and ruins both scenes). Hayden Christiansen has to have a cameo in a film that was made before he was born. Why? To give Eps 1-3 more legitimacy at the expense of the far better Eps 4-6? If Lucas thinks his audience is so dumb that they need to hear the same line or see the same face to make the mental connection across 2 movies, well that shows his respect for the audience.

But overall, I think it is totally OK that a film has certain aesthetic limitations and flaws, as long as the WRITING, ACTING, and PLOT are great (stuff that Lucas totally took for granted in Eps 1-3, or is just inept). You know, film school 101 stuff. But that is the problem when the creative process is dominated by a past-his-prime icon who is mentally lazy, unqualified, and doesn't encourage collaboration. I won't go into all the ways Eps 1-3 were horrible, and as some YT reviewers have said, they aren't even really SW films. Just because they have lightsabers, space ships, and a hero named Skywalker doesn't make them SW if they lack the signature dialogue, captivating characters, and imaginative adventure of the predecessors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJM5Citn3rY

But going back to Eps 4-6... you don't love your partner because they're perfect or in spite of their flaws, you love that their flaws make them who they are. Most fans never lamented about a certain SW mistake, or wished a new effect was included in the films (partly because the existing effects were already so dazzling). It's fine that the stormtrooper hits his head on the door, or that the Death Star has a totally illogical vulnerability. They are barely relevant to the larger story arc, feelings, and themes, which is what stays with you years after you've seen the film. I wish modern Hollywood would stop fixating on getting everything so perfectly stunning visually, and instead invest that much effort on the truly critical parts of a good film (the mental-emotional parts!). Otherwise we will keep getting more Eps 1-3. Lucas was lucky that he leveraged the SW brand to make those crap films into huge financial successes, but not everyone can be so fortunate. Disney of all studios should know this, after John Carter and Lone Ranger. Also, what happened to "know the customer"? Aren't filmmakers in the business of pleasing audiences? It seems that too many egomaniac directors and producers just hijack films/franchises and warp them into their selfish, narrow vision. If they have a good vision, then maybe it's fine. But so many of them don't. Some films are too important to society/history to let one rich and powerful A-hole mess them up for future generations. In that sense, it's ironic that Lucas has really become the dark side emperor of the Star Wars franchise.   

----------

Agreed, it's inspirational. Totally funny that the poor, underground fans acting as the true custodians of the SW material are like the Rebels, and GL and his mighty LucasFilm are the empire. Life imitates art. It's even more impressive that many of them were born after the original trilogy, yet still came to love it (shows how timeless the movies are, and they live on because of the human elements, not the effects which are clearly dated by now). And as you said, their heroic efforts would be totally unnecessary if Lucas and his henchmen acted with a shred of heart. As we all know, if Lucas had full control on Eps 4-6, they would have been pretty terrible (Han with green skin, Luke and Leia as midgets, etc.). I give GL credit for the creative spark and taking chances, but he is terrible at execution (apart from some effects). 
The guy is just an out of touch, egocentric douche, so this is what we get. If you watch behind the scenes clips of him directing Eps 1-3, it's really like a senile person or child at work (or worse, a smug prick who just doesn't give a shit), but all the yes-men around him just go along with it. And can you imagine - the BTS shots that they released are the GOOD moments of his direction - I wonder how bad the bad moments were! Lucas must really hire hacks at ILM as you said. In their defense, maybe those workers are just uber fanboys who are so desperate to work on any new SW material (like a crack addict), so they will go along with any of GL's horrible ideas. In their gut they know it's wrong and bad for the franchise, but I guess they'd rather toil on a shitty project than no project at all. This is the problem when GL finances the movies himself too, there's no one else to hold him to account. At least the suits at Fox probably shot down all of GL's zany ideas during the first trilogy.

I just can't believe anyone at ILM didn't have the sack to speak out about all the superfluous scenes, shit dialogue, Jar-Jar, Noooooo!, etc. I know they must have felt it in their guts, but self-censored. You'd think some cocky kid would have spoken out, and then got canned by a miffed GL. Then he tells all to the media about how bad it is to work at ILM and how stupid GL is. But I haven't heard anything like that, have you? Or at least Portman, Neeson, or MacGregor have the clout to speak out (or are they in denial too, wanting to believe that they worked on something of value?). Maybe ILM has a strict NDA or Lucas will sue the shit out of you?
When I was younger, I longed for more SW movies too. Now with more years under my belt, I appreciate the first 3 movies even more. And I think the franchise deserved to rest in peace. No remastering, no alterations... it's not like degraded Chaplin reels from the old days. It is REALLY hard to make a blockbuster series and sustain quality throughout (look at Star Trek after #4, or Bond after Connery). Eps 4-6 were a phenomenal accomplishment - why can't they just quit while they're ahead? Same with LOTR and Hobbit. The fact that the Hobbit films are clearly worse than LOTR (and just reusing LOTR material), and Jackson chose to deviate from the spirit of the book so much, reflects the same problem as GL. Eps 1-3 did not need to be made, and in fact shouldn't have. I agree with that Sam kid on YT that it really doesn't matter how the Republic became the Empire, and how Anakin became Vader. That is the setup to Eps 4-6, nothing more. The back story is that way for a reason, it's not as interesting as the main story! That's why I think we've never really seen a superior prequel or origin story in Hollywood (maybe Batman Begins, but that was a different approach and team altogether). Actually I think it's better for all to have made Eps 7-9 instead, because then the team has free reign to craft a new storyline. I really hope the original characters don't show up at all. No one wants to see old Han. They accomplished their purpose in the story already - it doesn't matter what they do later. Unless it's like Mask of Zorro where they just pass the torch and train the next gen (minor roles only). What do you think?