I have updated my stimulus map to give projected effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 (AKA “the stimulus bill”), now that the bill is final. Here’s a snapshot of the per-capita jobs map:
There isn’t anything too surprising in this map. Note that the differences are actually rather small in reality: full white corresponds to 10.5 jobs created/saved per 1000 people, while full red corresponds to 15 jobs. One might also note that ~12 jobs per thousand sure doesn’t sound like a lot.
I only have data job creation forecasts, not tax cuts, education benefits, or extended unemployment benefits, as were in the map that showed proposed legislation.
I would like to also show the number of jobs that have been lost in the district over the past year, or the “GNP” (what’s the term for states or congressional districts?), but I don’t have that information.
In order to make this map, I needed to load up the geometries for the US congressional House districts, and I found that interesting. I had expected to see really strangely-shaped districts, but by and large they looked pretty reasonable. It might be that the districts with most extreme gerrymandering are in urban areas, and hence too small to see easily. Rural areas have much more uniform demographics, so there is less incentive to draw bizarre shapes.
Here’s a map where each of the congressional districts is a random colour:
And, because it was easy, here’s a map of the party affiliations of members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
Update: the data that I’d gotten with the US congressional representatives was incorrect, so the picture I had at first in this post was wrong. I’ve updated the data file and the picture.
Wow, Nate Silver just nailed it today. His posting on the two different meanings of the word “progressive” seemed very clear and resonated completely with me. I am, based on his definitions, absolutely a rational progressive.
Am I the only person who is concerned that justice is moving too hastily on Blagojevich? He stands accused of some pretty appalling stuff, but the key word is accused. I realize that many civil liberties have been badly compromised in the past eight years, but I thought that the US still (mostly) believed in “innocent until proven guilty” for its citizens. To throw him out of office before a trial would be unfair.
There is also some speculation that he didn’t do anything illegal. He sure looks like a stupid, arrogant slimebucket, but that isn’t illegal. He wanted to use the appointment to his advantage, sure, but there is lots of influence-trading that doesn’t get prosecuted, e.g. people donating to a candidate being rewarded with ambassadorships. (It is always less shocking to discover how much illegal activity goes on, than how much is perfectly legal.)
It is important for civil liberties to ensure that the government not be allowed to deny anyone — even people we don’t like — fair, equitable process under the law, including the presumption of legal innocence.
I nominate fivethirtyeight.com for a Pulitzer Prize for their absolutely outstanding electoral poll coverage.
Twenty-five years ago, I was 19 and working in Delft, Netherlands for a summer. I don’t remember exactly how it happened, but I ran low on cash a week before it was time to go home. This was before ATMs, so it was tricky to get more. There were no places in the Netherlands that would advance me cash on my Visa, but I heard that there was in Brussels.
I took some of my dwindling supply of cash, bought a ticket to Brussels, and discovered that the place I needed to go wasn’t open. (Maybe I had been foolish enough to try on a Sunday? I don’t remember.) Worse, I was about USD$0.50 short of the fare I needed to get back to Delft. I asked a stranger for 50c, he handed me a buck and I immediately took off to the ticket counter and got a ticket.
When I got my ~50c change, I realized I should have given it back to the stranger. Ooops. But he was lost in the crowd, so I instead got myself an ice cream cone — the only food I’d had all day.
I think he spotted me a bit later, eating the ice cream cone. I was embarrassed to have him see me eating the cone, so I hid my face. He probably figured that he’d just been had.
So Mr. Stranger? Whoever you are? If that was you 25 years ago in August in the main train station in Brussels, I wasn’t a runaway or drug addict or anything — I was exactly who I said I was. To this day, I remain very grateful for your generosity on that day. The buck might not have meant a huge amount to you, but it made all the difference in the world to me. Thank you.
I don’t think I’m the only one who thought it was odd that dogs like to roll in stinky stuff, even feces. This seemed like a bad idea — it would let their prey smell them from afar, right?
I just came up with a hypothesis for why dogs roll in stinky stuff: as defense against other biting animals (including other dogs). If dog A is covered in feces, and dog B bites dog A, then dog B might get sick from the feces. This might discourage dog B from biting dog A.
Yes, it is true that if dog B bites dog A, then dog A could get fecal material in the bloodstream from the bit, but if dog B punctures dog A’s skin, dog A is already in a heap of trouble. We forget, since modern antibiotics are so good at eliminating infections, that infections are A Big Deal. (For example, Calvin Coolidge, Jr. died of an infection from a blister!) So it might be that its use as a deterrent is worth the extra risk of greater infection.
So why don’t cats roll around in stinky stuff? Perhaps because cats fight with their claws, while dogs fight with their mouths. If cat A rolls in feces, and cat B scratches cat A, then cat A is at higher risk for complications, while the feces pose no risk for cat B.
There’s a cool paper on a tool to do semi-automatic debugging: Triage: diagnosing production run failures at the user’s site. While Triage was designed to diagnose bugs at a customer site (where the software developers don’t have access to either the configuration or the data), I think a similar tool would be very valuable even for debugging in-house.
They use a number of different techniques to debug C++ code.
- Checkpoint the code at a number of steps.
- Attempt to reproduce the bug. This tells whether it is deterministic or not.
- Analyzes the memory by walking the heap and stack to find possible corruptions.
- Roll back to previous checkpoints and rerun, looking for buffer overflows, dangling pointers, double frees, data races, semantic bugs, etc.
- Fuzz the inputs: intentionally vary the inputs, thread scheduling, memory layouts, signal delivery, and even control flows and memory states to narrow the conditions that trigger the failure for easy reproduction
- Compare the code paths from failing replays and non-failing replays to determine what code was involved in that failure.
- Generate a report. This gives information on the failure and a suggestion of which lines to look at to fix it.
They did a user study and found that programmers took 45% less time to debug when they used Triage than when they didn’t for “real” bugs, and 18% for “toy” bugs. (“…although Triage still helped, the effect was not as large since the toy bugs are very simple and straightforward to diagnose even without Triage.”)
It looks like the subjects were given the Triage bug reports before they started work, so the time that it takes to run Triage wasn’t factored into the time it took. The time it took Triage to run was significant (up to 64 min for one of the bugs), but presumably the Triage run would be done in background. I could set up Triage to run while I went to lunch, for example.
This looks cool.