The Imitation Game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5CjKEFb-sM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

I would recommend it (of course it was an indep. film), and it was a new angle on the WWII unsung hero story (how nerds/misfits helped win the war in a big way, and struggled with skeptics/haters and big moral decisions).

Reflecting on WWI-WWII, I think it was one of the greatest tragedies in modern history that the Western powers allowed GER to fall into extremism and aggression. Like Russia's revolutions and purges were of course a terrible waste of human capital, but Russia was pretty much a 3rd world country until recently.

For GER, they were world leaders in various scientific and cultural disciplines, and of course had a robust military and industries. Sure they did some bad things during WWI, but they weren't clear "villains", and the punishment imposed on them was unjust - I guess fueled by victor's hubris and other irrationality.

As far as UK-FRA were concerned, they wanted to kick GER down a few notches so they wouldn't ever again be a rival for preeminence in W Eur? But I suppose no one ever considered trying to make GER an ally in order to gain strength and plan for a potential face off with Russia/Bolshevism. Well, WWI and postwar leaders in UK-FRA were not exactly impressive.

Clearly the EU learned that lesson the hard way, but I wonder what history would have been like if the Allies approached post-WWI GER with a Marshall-plan/NATO mentality rather than the typical European to-the-victor-go-the-spoils approach. I know we can't expect those leaders to have implemented ideas ahead of their time, but I'm fairly sure there were some intellectuals who were proposing similar things but getting dismissed. Heck they idealistically made the League of Nations, even though it was terribly flawed.

So you wonder how much better the world would be today if Western powers harnessed GER's potential to advance humanity and modern values, vs. all the resources allocated for WWII activities (and WWII just led to another wasteful military buildup that fortunately didn't escalate). Maybe the same can be said about post-Napoleonic France, but that was still the monarchic period, and leaders were understandably scared of Fr. Revolutionary thinking.   

But all that shows how even advanced nations can so quickly devolve into xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and barbaric aggression with the proper external/internal pressures and extremist messages from leaders. Trump and white-working-class anger are milder manifestations, and I don't think the US is at risk in the forseable future, but it is a shame any time a world power with so much potential for good strays off the higher path and instead becomes a negative force in the world.

---

And re: Alan Turing and Project Ultra, it's very sad but typical that the gov't he worked hard to preserved ended up screwing him and literally killing him (he was outed as gay, and the backward laws/medicine at the time prescribed hormonal therapy with bad side effects - he committed suicide a year after treatment began). And if you're gay and smart, of course you're a commie spy, so life must not have been pleasant for him during the postwar years (esp. since he couldn't tell the world his wartime actions, so no one knew he was a hero).

Imagine all the other great contributions he could have made to society had he not been persecuted to an early death. And in the context of WWII, the conflict is depicted as good vs evil, and tyranny vs freedom. But if you were a woman, black, gay, Jew, or another minority, neither the Axis nor Allies treated you very well. of course the Axis treated those groups worse, but if you were a member of one of those groups, you had to wonder WTF you were fighting for. I guess it's like US blacks during the Civil War too - it's not like they had it so great if the Union won, and Abe Lincoln was probably the most pro-equality president (it took him a while, but he really became a champion) until LBJ and Obama. But they were in a tough position to support the least evil side (but not nec. a good side for them, which unfortunately did not exist).

So a woman who was brilliant at maths but couldn't get a professional job in the UK because of her gender, and a math genius who had to hide his sexuality in the UK, significantly contributed to the Allies defeating the Nazis faster, with potentially millions of lives saved on both sides. That should be a big lesson about what social values we should fight and die to protect, and what harm we cause when we marginalize, exclude, and block our neighbors from reaching their potential (yes I'm looking at you, 2016 GOP).

---

Lastly, we know of the WWII folks as the Greatest Generation, and despite their prejudices and ignorance, I really do think they were great in terms of prudence and discipline. As depicted in The Imitation Game, the UK gov't first had to identify a path to victory (partly by cracking the Enigma settings puzzle), then recruit, fund, and trust a team who could deliver in time (a group of "rejects" with unorthodox methods). They had to let them do it their way, and not stifle their creativity with bureaucracy/meddling. Then once the puzzle was solved, they had to keep it a secret and strategically select interventions that had the highest statistical probability to (a) win the war fastest, and (b) not tip off the Nazis that Enigma was cracked. The same can be said of the Manhattan Project, but Ultra was more complicated from a game theory perspective, because there was the element of the German's actions/reactions that they couldn't control but had to predict.

I really don't think Western leaders and armed forces of today could have executed a project so well, and made the tough but correct decisions. You see how our "best and brightest" messed up the War on Terror and the War on Drugs - and that is when we enjoy huge resource advantages. But maybe that is the problem, advantage leads to overconfidence. We drank our own Kool Aid too much re: American exceptionalism. For the UK (and WWII Allies overall), the prospect of losing was very real (and they were losing until 1942), and it forced them to rise to the occasion.

Today, the sad truth is our best and brightest do not go into gov't and public leadership. Both the gov't and the individuals are at fault for this, but the gov't more so (reasons? just watch a session of Congress or a GOP debate). Obama and Bill Clinton are exceptions, but the majority of politicians these days do not have the "right stuff" to even make it as a mediocre middle manager or professional in the private sector. They are seriously worthy of ridicule, not admiration.

I would hope that if/when the next WWII-scale crisis arises, our best minds and leaders will participate (and be allowed to participate in the right roles). But the problem is that many of our modern problems are not acute, but slow bleeds, like climate change, injustice, and terrorism. There isn't a sense of urgency for the Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world to enter public service (not that those guys are natural leaders with great moral compasses, but they are very smart/capable, even if their EQs were borderline autistic in their earlier years as CEO). Or they cling to the unproven libertarian belief that the private sector corporate model is in the best position to solve humanity's biggest problems. I disagree; Zuck couldn't even get India to accept his free internet, so there are obvious limits as to how much good one firm (and its army of lawyers, PR, and marketers) can do.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-criticized-in-india-over-free-limited-internet-1453398493

Where do fines levied on the big banks go?

In honor of the bank-bashing Dem debate (I didn't watch it but I can imagine the content). And why is O'Malley still in the race (even though he doesn't seem to be a half-bad politician)?

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/15/headlines/goldman_sachs_reaches_5_billion_settlement_over_financial_crisis

http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-fines-and-crime

• To be clear, these penalties are barely felt by the banks, but it's better than nothing
• Goldman settled for $5B recently (on top of the $550MM they previous paid for related financial crisis fraud)
• Their Q3 2015 sales were $6.9B and net income $1.4B (quite the profit margin!)
• And banks are often able to pass along the penalties to their customers, which seems messed up to me (the laws should require that the $ comes out of dividends and/or exec/board comp - to incentivize better corp. governance)
• But unlike the S&L scandal of the '80s (1K convictions) and how some European nations handled the 2008 financial crisis, no one from the major US banks will go to jail
• So the deterrence effect is minor, as limitations in the evidence/laws make it hard to build a case for individual willful conspiracy to defraud
• Some of the money goes to victims/customers/investors depending on the nature of the charges, but it's rare
• And the rest goes to various gov't agencies: SEC, CFPB, Fed, etc., and they generally route the proceeds to their general funds or the Treasury
• The intention is to use that money to fund future investigations
• But if that is true, shouldn't the # of investigations and settlements go up over time?
• I'm not sure if that has been the case since 2008
• To me, it seems like a waste for the $ to go to Treasury, since it's a drop in the bucket vs. our debt/deficit
• And as agencies are under more funding pressure (and at the mercy of a GOP Congress), at least the $ could help them continue to execute their missions

Fox News mocks Obama's tears over gunned down kids

http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-hosts-absurd-claim-about-obamas-tears-during-gun-speech

Maybe you saw Obama's powerful (and both emotional and logical) speech about exec. action for gun control. Even Trump called it sincere and that Obama's meant well (but of course disagrees with his proposal). But the shock-and-awe attention-whore pseudo-anchors at Fox insinuated that Obama faked the tears to be more convincing, and that he should cry about other problems like ISIS terrorism as much as he cries for gun victims.

Well, if you have that degree of bias and hate, there's nothing more to say really. We've had way too many threads about gun violence, but I'll offer this position:

• In a society, you implicitly or explicitly give up some personal freedoms/liberty/resources/happiness for the greater good (according to our values, but of course "good" can be subjective)
• Seat belt laws, hunting licenses, child abuse laws, etc.
• No society manages this sacrifice/balance perfectly, but the US is relatively low corruption, fairly transparent, and at least maintains some public channels for change/redress
• The US is already one of the most libertarian nations on earth due to our laws, Constitution, and culture
• We are accustomed to bitching about "the gov't", but really we don't know how spoiled we are vs. places like France or god forbid, Iran
• And so we have our 2nd Amendment and the modern warped interpretation of it... but no right is absolute
• The gov't can take away your right to vote, or your right to life if you are convicted of a certain crime
• We can debate the prudence of such policies, but some gun control is sound and lawful
• I don't know why pro-gun folks are so defensive; gun laws have generally relaxed more than strengthened since Sandy Hook
• Therefore, the pro-gun arguments about standing up to gov't tyranny and upholding freedom & the Constitution are pretty much invalid
• That crap is mostly NRA propaganda; a majority of gun owners do want the things Obama proposed (universal bkgd. checks, closing of the gun show loophole - and plenty of other loopholes still remain)
• But I suppose the NRA's position is that they can't give an inch, or the US will start to accept/see the benefits of gun control and want more (similar to how the GOP feels about Obamacare)
• Some minority groups get the "short end of the stick" for socially-beneficial decisions:
• Alcoholics might lament that some bars must close at 2AM
• Speed freaks could be disappointed that the limit is 65 mph
• So gun sellers (either businesses or hobbyists) should accept more paperwork/oversight due to the social threat of their wares
• And some gun nuts should compromise that while they might prefer 50-round magazines on their assault rifles, people really shouldn't have those things
• And there are still plenty of lethal and less controversial alternatives like semi-auto shotguns and .44 magnums they can own instead
• The "rights and freedoms" of the pro-gun camp need to be subordinate to the right to life of gun victims, within reason
• But some people are selfish pricks and they want the status quo to persist, even if it contributes to innocents getting killed (i.e. someone else's problem)
• In other words, they don't mind if others suffer as they benefit (externalities)
• Now to the next issue: most of us agree that innocents should not get murdered, but will more or fewer guns (or less mass-murder-capable guns) reduce that problem?
• The gun lobby has prevented public research and data collection on the issue, but there is literally zero credible evidence that more/deadlier guns makes us safer, and a decent amount of trustworthy evidence to the contrary
• So even if the research is partly flawed/wrong, how much social harm is there to limit magazines to 10 rounds, with the potential upside of preventing dozens (or hundreds, or more) of murders a year?
• Same goes for better background checks/tracking, assault weapons bans, more oversight of online/private sales, etc.
• It is way harder to get a student loan than to get an assault rifle - is that the type of society we want?
• In some cases, the atmosphere of regulation can deter crime, even if the actual laws and enforcement are flawed
• E.g. how much tax fraud is avoided just by the mere specter of the IRS, even though they may not audit and catch much of the fraud?
• In other words, what do we have to lose, apart from pissing off a privileged minority group of gun nuts, gun makers/sellers, the NRA, and the politicians who enable/benefit from them (and remember, they will still have the right to buy and sell plenty of other types of weapons)?
• Since the gun violence problem is so large (~30K killed per year in the US), it's possible that these new regs won't make much of a dent. But as Obama said, isn't it worth it to save even a few kids (some of whom might grow up to be the next Einstein or Obama)?
• So gun control is legal and responsible (see points above), economically justified (limiting guns might reduce some revenue/taxes, but will likely pay for itself through social cost savings), and morally good (in many people's minds)
• Anyone who opposes gun control on these grounds does not have their arguments based in facts and logic (likely emotional/ideological instead)
• But that's the problem, in Polarized America, you can't persuade anyone with facts and logic; you just have to ram your agenda through and not care about your opponents' wishes
• So that is what we should do re: gun control, stop letting the minority terrorize the majority