2025-06-21 21:00:00
I recently flew through CLT and spent more time delayed than in the air. There were summer thunderstorms, and with the lightning it wasn't safe for workers to be out. This meant no loading, unloading, docking, refueling, anything. On the way in we sat on the tarmac for 3hr waiting for lightning to let up; on the way back we sat in the terminal (much better) while the incoming flight suffered through our prior fate.
Ground delays due to electrical storms are common, and each minute of closure is extremely expensive for the airlines in addition to being painful for the passengers. We don't stop inside work when there's lightning, why can't we get the same protection for ground workers? This is something we know how to do: give the electricity a better path to ground.
We could build grounded towers, about 100ft high, and run a grid of cables between them. Cover the area adjacent to the terminal, which is the only area you need people working outside. While this wouldn't be worth it all airports, the ROI at a high-closure airport like Orlando, Dallas, or Miami would be only 3-4 years. In 2008, Heitkemper et al. (Lightning-Warning Systems for Use by Airports) estimated that reducing ramp closure duration by 10min after an area strike would have saved $6.2M summer 2006 at ORD and $2.8M MCO. Let's try to get an annual estimate in 2025 dollars:
Annual savings would be moderately higher (perhaps 20%), since this number is just Jun-Aug and there's some lightning in the off season.
We're also talking about reducing the delay from 30min all the way down to 0min, which should give roughly 3x the savings.
Planes are scheduled and filled more tightly than they were in 2006, increasing the cost of cascading delays. Guessing this is an increase of 30%.
Traffic is up 70% at MCO between 2006 and 2024, and 25% at ORD.
There's been 60% inflation since 2006.
Taken together, the annual cost savings of eliminating lightning closures would be ~$36M at MCO and ~$58M at ORD.
The cost of installing a system is hard to say, but it's a matter of building grounded towers about 100ft tall (above the tails of the tallest planes) and running cables between them. Everything is much more expensive due to being at an airport, but if you're doing hundreds of gates perhaps figure $300k/gate. Then MCO with its 129 gates would be $40M and ORD with its 215 gates would be $65M.
With annual savings in the same ballpark as installation costs, this would be excellent ROI. And even if it costs five times what I'm estimating here it's still well worth it.
Am I missing something? None of this is new technology, ground delays due lighting have been an issue as long as we've had planes, this seems like the obvious solution, and it could have been done anytime in the past ~75 years. Is it more expensive than I'm guessing? Not protective enough? Hard to fit the towers in without getting in the way of moving the planes? Impractical to dissipate this much electricity into the ground without generating hazardous step potentials? Demonstrating safety to the satisfaction of OSHA and unions impractical? Airports have to pay but airlines get the benefit? Only recently became worth it as increased loading an precision has increased the cost of ground delays?
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2025-06-10 21:00:00
About twice as many Americans think AI is likely to have a negative effect as a positive one. At a high level I agree: we're talking about computers that are smart in ways similar to people, and quickly getting smarter. They're also faster and cheaper than people, and again getting more so.
There are a lot of ways this could go, and many of them are seriously bad. I'm personally most worried about AI removing the technical barriers that keep regular people from creating pandemics, removing human inefficiencies and moral objections that have historically made totalitarian surveillance and control difficult to maintain, and gradually being put in control of critical systems without effective safeguards that keep them aligned with our interests. I think these are some of the most important problems in the world today, and quit my job to work on one of them.
Despite these concerns, I'm temperamentally and culturally on the side of better technology, building things, and being confident in humanity's ability to adapt and to put new capabilities to beneficial use. When I see people pushing back against rapid deployment of AI, it's often with objections I think are minor compared to the potential benefits. Common objections I find unconvincing include:
Energy and water: the impact is commonly massively overstated, and we can build solar and desalination.
Reliability: people compare typical-case AI judgement to best-case human judgement, ignoring that humans often operate well below best-case performance.
Art: technological progress brought us to a world with more artists than ever before, and I'd predict an increase in human-hours devoted to art as barriers continue to lower.
Tasks: it's overall great when we're able to automate something, freeing up humans to work elsewhere. In my own field, a large fraction of what programmers were spending their time on in 1970 has been automated. Now, at companies that draw heavily on AI it's the majority of what programmers were doing just 3-5 years ago. The role is shifting quickly to look a lot more like management.
I'm quite torn on how to respond when I see people making these objections. On one hand we agree on how we'd like to move a big "AI: faster or slower" lever, which puts us on the same side. Successful political movements generally require accepting compatriots with very different values. On the other hand, reflexively emphasizing negative aspects of changes in ways that keep people from building has been really harmful (housing, nuclear power, GMO deployment). This isn't an approach I feel good about supporting.
Other criticisms, however, are very reasonable. A few examples:
Employment: it's expensive to have employees, and companies are always looking to cut costs. Initially I expect AI to increase employment, the same way the development of the railroad and trucking increased demand for horses. In some areas humans (or horses) excel; in others AI (or mechanized transport) does. Over time, however, and possibly pretty quickly, just as horses became economically marginal as their competition became cheaper and more capable, I expect the same to happen to humans.
Scams: these have historically been limited by labor, both in terms of costs and in terms of how many people would take the job. AI loosens both of these constraints dramatically.
Education: cheating in school is another thing that has historically been limited by cost and ethics. But when the AI can do your homework better than you can, cheating is nearly inevitable. You'll be graded on a curve against classmates who are using the AI, your self-control is still developing, and teachers are mostly not adapting to the new reality. Learning suffers massively.
I'd love it if people thought hard about potential futures and where we should go with AI, and took both existential (pandemic generation) and everyday (unemployment) risks seriously. I'm very conflicted, though, on how much to push back on arguments where I agree with the bottom line while disagreeing with the specifics. For now I'm continuing to object when I see arguments that seem wrong, but I'm going to try to put more thought into emphasizing the ways we do agree and not being too adversarial.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, the EA Forum, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2025-06-09 21:00:00
I often want to include an image in my posts to give a sense of a situation. A photo communicates the most, but sometimes that's too much: some participants would rather remain anonymous. A friend suggested running pictures through an AI model to convert them into a Studio Ghibli-style cartoon, as was briefly a fad a few months ago:
The model is making quite large changes, aside from just converting to a cartoon, including:
For my purposes, however, this is helpful, since I'm trying to illustrate the general feeling of the situation and an overly faithful cartoon could communicate identity too well.
I know that many of my friends are strongly opposed to AI-generated art, primarily for its effect on human artists. While I have mixed thoughts that I may try to write up at some point, I think this sort of usage isn't much of a grey area: I would previously have just left off the image. There isn't really a situation where I would have commissioned art for one of these posts.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2025-06-08 21:00:00
Our older two, ages 11 and 9, have been learning fiddle, and are getting pretty good at it. When the weather's nice we'll occasionally go play somewhere public for tips ("busking"). It's better than practicing, builds performance skills, and the money is a good motivation!
We'll usually walk over to Davis Sq, tune the fiddles, set out the case, and play. We'll do a series of fiddle tunes from Lily's list, playing for 20-30min. Today I remember playing Sandy Boys, Angeline the Baker, Marie's Wedding, Cluck Old Hen, Coleman's March, Oh Susanna, Kittycat Jig, Hundred Pipers, and Trip to Moscow.
Since this is a performance we play one tune after another, with only short breaks to decide what to do next. If one of the kids doesn't remember how it goes or gets lost in the form, it's on them to figure it out and get back on, which is a skill I'm very glad for them to be learning. I'll play fiddle with them, switching between melody and rhythm to support where it's needed while still letting them show what they can do.
People often stop and watch for a bit, sometimes dance a little. Some people put in a little money, most don't, which is all fine. Today the kids made $28 in 25min, split evenly since they both played the whole time; given the diminishing marginal utility of money and my wanting them to be incentivized to play, I don't take a share.
One thing I didn't anticipate, however, has been the effect on household economy: they have much more buying power than either of us did at their age, or than they did even a couple years ago. Sometimes this means spending their money in ways that are thoughtful and seem well worth it (when our oldest wanted to save up $80 to get her ears pierced we went out busking a lot) while other times they're more free with their money than I think is prudent (a drink from a vending machine because they didn't want to use a water fountain). It's their money, though, and I think it's good for them to get a sense of how to spend it. Still, I'm thinking some about how to build more of a sense of fiscal responsibility.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2025-06-07 21:00:00
When our kids were 7 and 5 they started walking home from school alone. We wrote explaining they were ready and giving permission, the school had a few reasonable questions, and that was it. Just kids walking home from the local public school like they have in this neighborhood for generations.
Online, however, it's common for people to write as if this sort of thing is long gone. Zvi captures a common view:
You want to tell your kids, go out and play, be home by dinner, like your father and his father before him. But if you do, or even if you tell your kids to walk the two blocks to school, eventually a policeman will show up at your house and warn you not to do it again, or worse. And yes, you'll be the right legally, but what are you going to do, risk a long and expensive legal fight? So here we are, and either you supervise your kids all the time or say hello to a lot of screens.
His post also references ~eight news stories where a family had trouble with authorities because they let their kid do things that should be ordinary, like walking to a store at age nine.
It's not just Zvi: parents who would like kids to have more freedom often focus on the risk, with the potential for police or Child Protective Services to get involved. While it's important to understand and mitigate the risks, amplifying the rare stories that go poorly magnifies their chilling effect and undermines the overall effort.
I showed the quote to our oldest, now 11 and comfortable on her own: "I sincerely doubt that a police officer would get mad at me for walking to school or to the corner store by myself."
She got to this level of comfort by spending a lot of time out in our walkable kid-friendly neighborhood. Sometimes with us, and increasingly on her own. For example it's raining today and she just came back to the house to tell me that she was grabbing rain gear and then she was going puddle jumping with two younger neighborhood kids. In a bit I'll stop writing and take her younger sister (age 3) out to join in.
Some other examples of being out alone:
Heading to a school concert the 8yo was running late and the 10yo was getting impatient. I asked her: "you know the way, do you want to go on ahead by yourself?" She walked the half mile without issue, with her watch as backup.
Both older kids will go to the corner store to spend their allowance (or busking money). They both started going alone around age 8.
At age 10 our oldest worked up to taking the bus to her grandfather's in the next town over.
Also at age 10 our oldest wanted some guacamole and we didn't have any avocados in the house. I suggested she could walk to the grocery store, about a mile away, which she did without issue.
Yesterday our youngest, nearly four, wanted to go on her own to the park. She's not ready to do this fully on her own, but I helped her through a version where from the perspective of most other parents at the park she probably looked like she was there alone.
There have been difficult times. For example, one got lost walking to swim lessons and called me, before being helped by a parent friend walking by who happened to be going to the same class. Or, one of the first times one went to the corner store alone a patron was acting kind of crazy. And at 5yo one decided to go around the block by herself without telling us. None of these have been cases where the police or CPS were involved, however, or where that even seems likely.
It's also not just our family:
I often see 8-10yo kids by themselves at the playground or along the community path. Our kids were out solo at slightly younger than is common in the neighborhood, but not by much.
Another parent told me about how their 7yo (2nd grade) was walking to school on their own but kept being late despite leaving with plenty of time. The parent decided to follow at a distance and discovered they'd been stopping to play at a swingset along their route. This was all recounted as a funny "kids being kids" story.
I asked one of my kids' friends, and they said in 4th grade (9yo) they started walking to and from school alone, about a mile.
A neighborhood parent who describes themself as "on the cautious end" has recently started letting their 8yo go to the park alone (which doesn't require crossing any streets) but are still building up to the corner store.
In other contexts people understand that it's important to be realistic about risks, and not give undue weight to sufficiently unlikely risks. For example, here's the same writer I quoted above on the risks of misjudging a romantic situation:
That is vastly harder if you have gotten it into your head that one move too far could ruin your life. Which in theory it could, but the chances of that happening (especially if no one involved is in college) if you act at all reasonably are very low.
The chance of conflict with authorities varies based on who you are and where you live, but most of this risk-amplification is happening among demographics who are least likely to have their parenting decisions second-guessed. Still, it's worth thinking about how to reduce risk:
Talk with the kids about how they'd respond to an adult checking in: "my dad knows I'm here and is checking on me"; "I'm going to my grandfather's house"; "if I have a problem I'll use my walkie-talkie".
Similarly, discuss how they'd handle other scenarios. What if they get hurt? Lost? Hungry? Stuck in a tree? Feel like other kids are playing too dangerously? Invited to a friend's house? In general, a kid shouldn't be alone in a situation until they're prepared to handle the kinds of things that might go wrong there.
Make sure they know your phone number (I taught mine as a jingle) and/or have some other way to reach you. This reduces the risk that they need help and can't get it, and I suspect being able to talk with an adult who was checking in on them would offer a good opportunity to defuse the situation.
Talk with other parents. We spend a good amount of time at the local playground, and we know a lot of the other families there. In casual conversation I'll bring up attitudes towards kids being around solo, enough that if someone started asking around ("hey, is anyone watching that kid in the yellow shirt; I don't see a parent") there's a good chance someone would say something ("that's <kid>, she lives over there and her parents know she's here").
Be in a place where this sort of thing is reasonably common. In Somerville I see a lot of kids around by themselves; places where walking is a typical mode are probably good for this.
Think carefully about whether your specific kid is ready for the specific situation. Are they the kind of kid who can explain what's going on to an authority figure? If an adult asks if they're ok and they respond clearly the risk is much lower than if they won't engage.
These aren't just ways to avoid trouble with authorities, they're good proactive parenting. Work with your kid to understand what they're ready for, and help them take on challenges at the edge of their ability.
Overall, like most of parenting, it's a matter of finding a good balance. There are large benefits to kids of being able to spend time outside, visit their friends, choose how to spend their time, and generally become more independent, and while we shouldn't neglect unlikely-but-serious risks we also shouldn't fall into thinking these outcomes are common.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2025-06-06 21:00:00
Our three year old is about to turn four, and is bursting with a desire for independence. She's becoming more capable in all sorts of ways, and wants me to back off and let her do things. Today she wanted to go to the park by herself.
Now, we live close to the park, she could probably get there and back on her own, and I'm on the "kids can generally do things pretty young" end of the spectrum, but still, she's not even four yet. And while age is useful guide, she also can't safely cross streets, doesn't know my phone number, can't reliably use a walkie-talkie or watch phone, or handle enough of the range of unusual situations she might encounter at the park.
Still, this didn't mean saying no. Instead, I started by asking what she would do about the street. She asked if I'd help her cross, and I said that sounded good. We crossed the street, and started walking towards the park. When we passed a bench along the community path, ~75ft from the park and within earshot if she shouted, I told her I'd be sitting and reading, and if she had any issues she could come find me here. She looked both ways for bikes, crossed the path, and eagerly headed off into the park.
When I came over to get her 45min later she was having a great time, and sad that we needed to go. She was very proud of herself, and wanted to tell me all about her games.
Yesterday at the park, showing me how she's now strong enough to turn on the splash pad by herself.
I was glad she got the practice, and that I didn't end up needing to squash this spark of independence.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
