“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

― Benjamin Franklin,

The Trigger

The other day I headed into work for a face to face meeting. The meeting was an hour long. It was interesting and thought provoking. It also showed the utter disregard for the cost of actions in two ways. This meeting would cost me far more than an hour due to outright stupidity and lack of proper consideration. This sort of stupidity is rampant accross society today. It is destroying productivity, research and threatening our Nation’s security..

After the meeting I immediately got caught in a traffic jam trying to leave the Air Force base where my Lab is. This happens all too frequently and is maddening. The traffic was jammed up for more than an hour. It was also lunch hour, so more people than usual were on the road. It was a Friday, which mitigated some of the hassle since so many people work from home or don’t work Friday.

Why did this happen?

I heard from a friend that a motorcycle had run the security checks at the gates. This prompted the guards to institute a complete lockdown. This is the safest and most secure thing to do. Can’t take a risk, right? This is done without a thought about the costs. The thousands of people working on the base are frozen in place. As I’ve learned the costs of my time at work are rather extreme, about $350/hour. So if a 1000 people like me are put out for an hour this comes to $350,000. If it is 2000 people this is $700,000.

Is this worth the expense? No.

A rational response would be for the guards to chase the interloper down and arrest them. There is no reason to close the gates down. Surely they do so out of caution, extreme caution, that permiates society today. This caution always operates on the view that no cost be considered if safety or security is at risk. This attitude is absolutely irrational. It exacts costs from society at large that actually harm safety and security in the long run. It gets to the core of why we can’t accomplish great things today.

We choose the short term appearance of safety and security. This choice is destroying our long term safety and security as I will describe next.

“You tell them – you tell them there’s a cost…..Every decision we make in life, there’s always a cost.”

― Brad Meltzer,

It is everywhere one looks

If one looks around we see a lack of progress everywhere. We can’t build anything. Public works projects take forever (the big dig in Boston, or high speed rail). Government projects are all over cost and over time. Examples abound such as the F-35. Almost across the board our essential weapon’s systems are over cost and behind schedule. Under the covers the problem is prioritization of safety and security without thought to benefit compared with cost. For me the example of what my time costs is exhibit A. That cost is driven by out of control safety and security culture.

In my own life I am confronted with lots of deep security concerns that revolve around outlandish scenarios. The scenarios are plausible, but unlikely. The security people are granted carte blanche to take mitigations for the possible impacts. The cost on time and productivity are never considered. The programs funding research and useful work simply eat the costs. Worse yet, it would seem that safety and security professionals are actually rewarded for suggesting concerns. Their recommended mitigations are never put to the test of considering the cost for the benefit gained.

We might take the recent guidance federally regarding medical devices as an archetypical example. Medical devices are becoming increasingly complex and integrating new technology. A good example is a pacemaker that has bluetooth built in. The bluetooth increases the safety and benefit for the patient (my dad has one). The device can be checked often and remotely to monitor the patient and the health of the device. Yet the paranoia about bluetooth makes this a security concern. Another great example are bluetooth enabled hearing aids, which improve life for the hard of hearing.

What person in their right mind would accept a worse pacemaker simply to satisfy outlandish security concerns? Moreover, why would an employer ask someone to do this? This is the height of absurdity. You are either demanding someone risk their health or removing them from the workforce. Frankly I’m disgusted by this choice being imposed on someone. This is an absurdly low risk threat inducing a profoundly high consequence effect. Yes, something could happen possibly, but it is fantastically unlikely. It is not worth the cost of losing the efforts of the professionals removed from the workforce.

Much of this insanity calls back to the issues of trust discussed in the last post.

“As we care about more of humanity, we’re apt to mistake the harms around us for signs of how low the world has sunk rather than how high our standards have risen.”

― Steven Pinker

The TSA is exhibit 1

The lack of cost benefit considerations is perhaps most clear with the TSA’s practices. We have a situation where some asshole tries to light his shoes on fire 20 years ago on a plane and we still waste time over it. Richard Reid, who was an idiot, tried to blow up a plane by creating a shoe bomb. A fantastically stupid plot that got him imprisoned for life. In reaction people have to take off their shoes at security as well as limiting our fluid containers to 100 ml. We keep on doing this more than 20 years later with no end in sight. The cost of these measures on society is huge while the benefit is fleeting and highly questionable.

Let’s look at the cost more closely. For me, if I take 10 trips a year the extra time for these measures is perhaps 10 minutes each way. This tallies up to 3 extra hours a year. Now multiply this by 100 million people, and my $350 per hour rate and you get to $100 billion. This is undoubtably an over estimate, but it is still a huge cost nonetheless.

The time penalty is unambiguous. 300 million hours a year comes easily to 420 human life times. We habe been doing this for 20 years, so we are rapidly coming up on wasting 10,000 human lifetimes on this moronic safety measure. This along with what is likely more than a trillion dollars in lost productivity. All of this is because we can’t manage to examine the cost versus the benefit of this measure. It is also a perfect over-reaction to the act of one complete idiot by more idiots who weaponize safety and security.

We constantly hear this din of the bullshit that safety and security can be perfect with zero incidents. What a load of shit! Merely seeking out this outcome means exacting huge costs for fleeting benefits. I’m not talking about taking wild risks, but rather operating with common sense and reducing risks. Zero risk means zero progress and infinite cost. In many ways the desire for perfect safety and security is a power grab by those employed to do this sort of work. This desire is a disservice. They should be tasked with delivering good results with reasonable costs. Today we just write them a blank check. It is no wonder we can’t get work done and projects all come in late and over budget. This attitude exacts even greater costs on our long term safety and security.

As an example of the impact of this sort of lunacy consider an example. On any given day and for that day the safest thing to do is stay home and stay inside all day. You will shield yourself from driving, traffic, getting hit by a car, getting exposed to a virus and all sorts of other dangers. You will maximize your safety for that given day. If you run your life like this every single day, you will ruin your life. You will destroy your health, be lonely and fail to live. To live requires danger and risk. It requires putting yourself out there. Why do we think this safe at all costs attitude is right for society as a whole? It is not and the costs on all of us are piling up. We are not living like we should be.

Let’s get to the root of it

I’m not naive enough to believe this attitude comes out of the blue. A big reason is the loss of trust pervading society. We have had a huge regulatory response over the last 40-50 years that is the response to the lack of trust. Corporate behavior is a major reason for this. Under the mantra of maximizing shareholder value corporations will do all sorts of horrible things. Look at facebook for an example. They will commit all manners of harm to society to maximize clicks and ad revenue. Nothing except regulation stands in the way of doing harm to make money.

A proviso in the mantra of maximizing shareholder value is doing this within the confines of the law. The problem that has arisen over the past several decades is the capture of politics by money and by money from corporations. Increasingly we see corporations or those enriched by them as defining what the laws are. They are increasingly outside the reach of the law. The judiciary is aligned with this end. Most acutely through numerous Supreme Court decisions this process is accelerating. The most infamous of these decisions is Citizen’s United, which led to vast sums of corporate money distorting our politics. The only end of this process is an acceleration of loss of trust. Without a change this will end in violence or the end of democracy, or both. The same forces are dismantling regulation which was this bulwark and response to these forces to start with.

Puts the whole onus on prevention and none of the focus on improvement and progress. Progress is the main path to both security and safety. We are rapidly devolving into a society without enough trust to allow progress. Progress under the condition of trust is the way forward. Progress in science and culture has led to a better life for all. Medicine has eased suffering and extended lives. Science has given us a myriad of wonders like air travel and the internet. We have gained equality in culture for women and the LBGTQ community. Racial discrimination has faded from centrality culturally. More progress is needed, but crucially the progress made is at risk. All of this is threatened by the forces destroying the essential trust human society depends upon.

“What is progress? You might think that the question is so subjective and culturally relative as to be forever unanswerable. In fact, it’s one of the easier questions to answer. Most people agree that life is better than death. Health is better than sickness. Sustenance is better than hunger. Abundance is better than poverty. Peace is better than war. Safety is better than danger. Freedom is better than tyranny. Equal rights are better than bigotry and discrimination. Literacy is better than illiteracy. Knowledge is better than ignorance. Intelligence is better than dull-wittedness. Happiness is better than misery. Opportunities to enjoy family, friends, culture, and nature are better than drudgery and monotony. All these things can be measured. If they have increased over time, that is progress.”

― Steven Pinker

The costs are bigger than one can imagine

If I look closely at my life I can see the real cost of all this in the decay of the American research institutions. Over the past 40 years the great government laboratories have been destroyed by this dynamic. The lack of trust and inability to understand the benefits of research is crushing our science and technology edge. The Labs of the department of defense and NASA are shadows of their former glory. Remember that the internet came out of defense research. NASA started down the road to ruin after the moon landing then took final blows by the end of Reagan’s disasterous presidency. Now NASA is being brought further down by relying on Boeing for transport. Boeing is in the middle of riding maximizing shareholder value to the ruin of the company.

The DOE-NNSA Labs are a last bastion of American research. They are close to ruin. Over the course of my career, the Labs have been destroyed by the same attitudes. I distinctly remember the first ten years at Los Alamos being magical. The Lab was a wonderful crucible of knowledge, research and learning. Staff were generous with their time and expertise. I grew as a professional and flourished. Then it all ended. Like other institutions, fear and lack of trust entered. Actually it was already declining. Friends tell me that the Lab was even better in the years before I arrived. The generous spirit dried up and was replaced by suspicion and control. In the process research started to lose quality.

Breakthroughs no longer happened regularly with budget-money becoming the focus. No safety or security measure is too extreme. Cost be damned. Management became like business as private companies were the model of governance. The same attitudes revolving around maximizing shareholder value replace curiosity, inquiry and duty to the nation. Maximizing shareholder value has no meaning for the Labs, and yet it is the philosophy of governance. It has become toxic for companies (e.g., Boeing). It is idiotic for the Labs and a vehicle for catastrophe. Now the great

Labs of the USA are mere shadows of their former selves. We are all poorer for this. Recent studies have shown that the USA has completely lost its advantages in most science and technology. It has ceded its edge to China, India and Europe. We are to blame. The model of governance holds the murder weapon. Underneath this is the lack of trust infusing society. The pursuit of safety and security without regard for cost accelerates the process.

Let’s look at a couple of ways our fear and lack of trust play into this. Computer technology is the lifeblood of recent progress. We can see four distinct advances that shaped this period of time: Google search (its a verb now), the iPhone (smartphone), social media and large language models (i.e., ChatGPT). None of these came from the government labs. If you work at a government lab these advances are treated with fear and as risks. Their power is blunted by the fearful trust lacking management. Rather than harness the power of these breakthroughs, they are banned. They are castrated by rules. We see fear of technology and the inability to enable their power. Frankly we are a bunch of fucking morons and cowards. We have no leadership pushing back.

Let’s take this a step further. We see rules that seek to protect our work from prying eyes. Increasingly everything we do is classified in some way (lots of official use only that is now controlled unclassified information). This is just a way to hide things and not interact with the world. If we had a huge advantage this might make sense, but we don’t. We are not in the lead and these rules simply hold us back. They kill progress. Progress is what we need most of all now. The best thing all this hiding of information does is hide how incredibly incompetent we are. Increasingly we are hiding the embarrassingly backwards state of our technology. I am closing my career shaking my head on the collapse of our scientific supremacy.

“As people age, they confuse changes in themselves with changes in the world, and changes in the world with moral decline—the illusion of the good old days.” ― Steven Pinker

If we do not trust one another, we are already defeated.

– Allison Croggon

Most mornings I walk our dog, Duke, at a park near my house. The park is next to an elementary school. Here, I see direct evidence of how little trust Americans have in each other. I see the kids walking to school and if they are walking it is with parents. You even see parents with kids at bustops within eye shot of the house. You never see a kid walking alone to school. In fact this seems to be unthinkable today. If I think about myself all I remember is walking myself to school or later walking with my brother. Usually I would walk with friends the small distance to school.

The significant change is in social and societal trust. We no longer believe that children walking to school are safe. We fear all sorts of terrible things happening to them, many of which are figments of people’s imaginations and highly unlikely dangers. It’s instructive to compare the period from 1968 to 1976, when I walked to school, to the present day,when no one allows their child to walk to school. Regardless, this is a concerning sign for the health of our nation.Ultimately, we can’t avoid the fact that bad things happen and are inevitable (shit happens!). They aren’t blameworthy, but without trust,blame is readily assigned. Without trust people play it safe to avoid the blame.

“We are all mistaken sometimes; sometimes we do wrong things, things that have bad consequences. But it does not mean we are evil, or that we cannot be trusted ever afterward.”

― Alison Croggon

If you look at the United States today you see a nation where no one trusts each other. The impacts from this lack of trust are broad. It is important to look at what trust allows and its lack prohibits. Not trusting is expensive and it limits success. Those costs and impacts are hurting Americans left and right. I see it play out in my life. If we look around this damage is everywhere. It is evident in the politics today. It is evident in our personal lives too.

Fear is driving this change in behavior. Parents are terrified of sexual predators and random violence harming their children, despite the incredibly low probability of such events occurring. This reflects a common aspect of our low-trust society: we manage low-probability events at great cost. This phenomenon is widespread throughout society, as we incur enormous expenses to mitigate minuscule risks. In the case of children, this is ruining childhood. Socially, we see loneliness and isolation. For society as a whole, building or creating anything new becomes difficult and expensive.Everything costs more and takes longer due to the lack of trust.

I thoroughly enjoyed writing about a technical topic. It was both enjoyable and fulfilling, like cooking a delicious meal that you enjoy eating and even better when someone else appreciates it. However, there’s an underlying issue that’s been playing out behind the scenes. While there’s a clear benefit to conducting risky research, something is hindering progress.Ultimately, the reason for not realizing the benefits of risky research is a lack of trust. Risky research requires failure, and lots of it. Without trust, failure becomes unacceptable and suspicious. Without trust, people become cautious, and caution hinders progress. Caution leads to stagnation and decline, which is precisely what we observe across the country

“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”

― Stephen R. Covey

Trust is best understood within our most intimate and important personal relationships. Whether it’s a romantic partner or friend, trust is foundational. When trust is lost in these relationships, they are at risk. If trust is not repaired, it can lead to the end of the relationship. Studies have shown that trust is built through several essential behaviors.

The first is authenticity, which involves presenting yourself as your true self. Faking your personality has the opposite effect and fosters suspicion. The second aspect is competence in areas relevant to the relationship. This could be athletic ability or intellectual prowess. Finally, trust requires demonstrated empathy, a deep care and concern for the well-being of others. The person you trust will understand your feelings and care about your welfare.

“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”

― Stephen R. Covey

Stephen Covey’s The Speed of Trust provides valuable insights into the benefits of trust. The book demonstrates how trust can enhance efficiency and productivity. When trust exists, remarkable achievements are possible. Trust is contagious; when we are trusted, we trust others. Trust enables individuals to perform at their best, and organizations to achieve their highest potential. Conversely, a lack of trust is slow and costly. It is destructive. When we don’t trust, we tend to make mistakes and hinder progress. Lack of trust is the root of many fuck-ups.

The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I.’ And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I.’ They don’t think ‘I.’ They think ‘we’; they think ‘team.’ …. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.

– Peter Drucker

The decline in American trust can be traced back to the 1970s. Several events shattered the spell of trust that had held the United States since the end of World War II. The upheavals of the 1960s had begun to erode trust with a generational divide, the civil rights movement, and a misguided war. The Nixon administration’s criminal actions exposed corruption at the highest levels of government. Nixon prioritized his own interests and power, seeking revenge against the culture he disliked. While Nixon’s religiosity may have distinguished him from Trump, it nonetheless reflects a decline in trust.

Other factors contributed to the unraveling of trust in the United States. The mid-1970s marked a peak in economic equality. Americans could comfortably achieve middle-class status with a single blue-collar income. People across the nation enjoyed a more level playing field, fostering empathy and trust. This shared experience and common culture allowed for authenticity to flourish. The nation was thriving and a global economic powerhouse, demonstrating competence. However, the energy crisis of the mid-1970s challenged these elements. The economy suffered, and blue-collar industries took a hit, further eroding trust.

“Never trust anyone, Daniel, especially the people you admire. Those are the ones who will make you suffer the worst blows.”

― Carlos Ruiz Zafón

The 1980s introduced new factors that undermined these trust drivers. The Reagan Revolution, characterized by a focus on business success through tax cuts and legal changes, significantly increased corporate wealth and power. The simultaneous assault on labor further weakened the ability of blue-collar jobs to provide a comfortable living. This marked the beginning of a widening economic inequality in the United States, which continues to grow today. This inequality erodes all aspects of societal and social trust, as people now live vastly different lives and hold radically different views of success. Consequently, people struggle to understand one another. This lack of understanding undermines empathy and destroys trust.

Other societal developments have accelerated the loss of trust. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 led to a decline in trust and a rise in fear. The fear-based responses and societal changes that followed have persisted. Instead of progress toward a more inclusive society, division and bigotry are on the rise. The internet and the attention-driven economy have further exacerbated these trends. The cumulative effect of these factors is a massive political and cultural divide. The lack of trust now extends to the political system, threatening democracy itself and potentially spiraling further into an abyss.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Trust is cultivated through countless small acts. It was top of mind this past week and repeatedly demonstrated to me. I clearly distinguished between what was said privately and publicly. This inconsistency was painful to experience and significantly damaged trust in an important relationship. At work, I observe technical accuracy and competence being overshadowed by expediency. People hesitate to engage openly on topics due to fear of retaliation. All of this stems from and exacerbates a lack of trust

Building and fostering trust is paramount in all these situations. Trust in our relationships, with our coworkers, and among our fellow citizens is essential. With trust, things will improve, but it requires courage and effort. Trust is a product of strong character. It unleashes competence and grows alongside it. Trust is efficient and the foundation of success. We need leadership that guides us toward trust and away from fear and suspicion. This involves identifying the factors that have eroded trust and changing course. Many people benefit from these trust-destroying elements. To achieve trust, society needs to become more equitable with a deeper shared culture. We need a spirit that recognizes a future where trust prevails. Living, relating, and working in a place of trust is a more positive experience

Trust is the highest form of human motivation. It brings out the very best in people.

– Stephen Covey

A return to what I do best

For the first time in six years, I’m returning to writing about a topic within my professional field. This is where my true expertise lies, and frankly, it’s what I should be focusing on. If I were being cynical, I’d say this subject is entirely unrelated to work since it lacks any organizational support. It is clearly not our chosen strategy. Given that it’s neither a funded nor managed strategy, it’s essentially a hobby. Yet, it represents a significant missed opportunity for advancing several critical fields. Moreover, it highlights broader issues with our leadership and aversion to risk even when the rewards are large.

“Never was anything great achieved without danger.”

― Niccolo Machiavelli

Years ago when I blogged regularly, I often wrote one or two posts about upcoming talks. Some of my best work emerged from this process, which also enhanced the quality of my presentations. Writing is thinking; it forces deep reflection on a talk’s narrative and allows for refinement. By outlining ideas and considering supporting evidence, I could strengthen my arguments. Without this preparatory writing, my talks undoubtedly suffered. With this post, I hope to rectify this shortsighted but logical detour.

So, here goes!

“Don’t explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Algorithmic Impact and Moore’s Law

In recent years, the significance of algorithms in scientific computing has diminished considerably. Algorithms have historically been a substantial component of improving computing. They provide a performance boost beyond hardware acceleration. Unfortunately this decline in algorithmic impact coincides with the slowing of Moore’s Law. Moore’s law is the empirical observation that computing power doubles approximately every eighteen months leading to exponential increases. This rapid growth was fueled by a confluence of technological advancements integrated into hardware. However, this era of exponential growth ended about a decade ago. Instead of acknowledging this shift and adapting, it was met with an increased focus on hardware development. I’ve written extensively on this topic and won’t reiterate those points here.

“People who don’t take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year. People who do take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year.”

― Peter F. Drucker

Simultaneously, we’ve neglected advancements in algorithms. Improving algorithms is inherently unpredictable.Breakthroughs are sporadic, defying schedules and plans. They emerge from ingenious solutions to previously insurmountable challenges and necessitate risk-taking. Such endeavors offer no guaranteed returns, a requirement often demanded by project managers. Instead, progress occurs in significant leaps after extended periods of apparent stagnation. Rather than a steady upward trajectory, advancements arrive in unpredictable bursts. This aversion to risk and the pursuit of guaranteed outcomes hinders the realization of algorithmic breakthroughs.

What is an algorithm?

An algorithm can be thought of as a recipe that instructs a computer to complete a task. Sorting a list is a classic algorithmic problem. Once a correct method is established, efficiency becomes the primary concern.

Algorithm efficiency is measured in terms of degrees of freedom, such as the length of a list. It is often expressed as a constant multiplied by the list length raised to a power (or its logarithm). This power significantly impacts efficiency,especially as the list grows. Consider the difference in effort for sorting a list of 100 items using linear, log-linear, and quadratic algorithms: 100, 460, and 10,000 operations, respectively. For a list of 1000 items, these numbers become 1000, 6900, and 1,000,000. We see differences in performance grow larger. As the list size increases, the impact of the constant factor before the scaling term diminishes. Note that generally, a linear algorithm has a larger constant than a quadratic one.

“An algorithm must be seen to be believed.”

— Donald Ervin Knuth

As this example illustrates, algorithms are fundamentally powerful tools. Their efficiency scaling can dramatically reduce computational costs and accelerate calculations. This is just one of the many remarkable capabilities of algorithms. A large impact is they can significantly contributes to overall computing speed. Historically, the speedup achieved through algorithmic improvements has either matched or exceeded Moore’s Law. Even in the worst case, algorithms enhance and amplify the power of computer advancements. Our leaders seem to have ignored this. Certain incremental gains prime for project management with low risk are prioritized.

Algorithms for Scientific Computing

In the realm of scientific computing, the success of algorithms is most evident in linear algebra. For a long time during the early days of computing, algorithms kept pace with increasing computing speeds. This demonstrates that algorithms amplify the speed of computers. They complement each other, resulting in equally improved performance over a 40-year span.

Originally, linear algebra relied on dense algorithms with cubic work scaling (Gaussian elimination). These were replaced by relaxation and sparse-banded methods with quadratic scaling. Subsequently, Krylov methods, scaling to the three-halves or logarithmically with spectral methods, took over. Finally, in the mid-1980s, multigrid achieved linear scaling. Since then,there have been no further breakthroughs. Still from the 1940s to the mid-1980s, algorithms kept pace with hardware advancements. In this era the advances in hardware, which were massive was complimented by equal advances. In today’s words algorithms are a force multiplier.

“… model solved using linear programming would have taken 82 years to solve in 1988… Fifteen years later… this same model could be solved in roughly 1 minute, an improvement by a factor of roughly 43 million… a factor of roughly 1,000 was due to increased processor speed, … a factor of roughly 43,000 was due to improvements in algorithms!”

– Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded R&D in Networking and Information Technology

Examples of algorithmic impact are prevalent throughout scientific computing. In optimization, interior point methods dramatically accelerated calculations, outpacing hardware advancements for a period. More recently, the influence of algorithms has become apparent in private sector research. A prime example is Google’s PageRank algorithm. This revolutionized internet search. Once you used Google to search you never went back to Altavista or Yahoo. In the process it also laid the foundation for one of the world’s most influential and prosperous companies. Today Google has a market cap in excess of 2 trillion dollars.

“When people design web pages, they often cater to the taste of the Google search algorithm rather than to the taste of any human being.”

— Yuval Noah Harari

More recently, another algorithm has revolutionized the tech world: the transformer. This breakthrough was instrumental in the recent developments of large language models (LLMs). These have reshaped the technology landscape in the past couple years. The transformer’s impact is multifaceted. Most superficially, it excels at consuming and processing data in vector form, aligning perfectly with modern GPU hardware. This synergy has propelled NVIDIA to unprecedented heights of corporate success (lifting it to trillion dollar market cap).

Less obvious, but equally significant, is the transformer’s influence on LLM behavior. Unlike previous models that processed data sequentially, the transformer operates on vector data chunks, enabling the network to consider larger contexts. This represents a quantum leap in LLM capabilities and behavior.

A cautionary tale emerges from the transformer’s history. Google pioneered the algorithm, but others reaped the primary benefits. This highlights a common challenge with algorithmic advancements: those making the initial breakthrough may not see the principal benefits. Moreover, the vision to develop an algorithm often differs from the vision to optimize its use. This presents a persistent hurdle for project managers. Project manager are relentlessly myopic.

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”

― Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

It is well known that the power of algorithms is on par with the impact of hardware improvements. However, a key distinction lies in the predictability of progress. Algorithmic advancements stem from discovery and inspiration. These are elements that defy the quarterly planning cycles prevalent in contemporary research. An intolerance for failure hinders algorithmic progress. As exemplified by the transformer, algorithms often benefit organizations beyond their originators. Success lies in adapting to the capabilities of these innovative tools.

Algorithms I really care about

My professional focus lies in developing methods to solve hyperbolic conservation laws. The nature of these equations offers significant potential for algorithmic improvements, a fact often overlooked in current research directions. This oversight stems from a lack of clarity about the true measures of success in numerical simulations. The fundamental objective is to produce highly accurate solutions while minimizing computational effort. This is to be achieved while maintaining robustness, flexibility, and physical correctness.

“The scientific method’s central motivation is the ubiquity of error – the awareness that mistakes and self-delusion can creep in absolutely anywhere and that the scientist’s effort is primarily expended in recognizing and rooting out error.”

– David Donoho et al. (2009)

Achieving an unambiguous measure of solution accuracy uses a process known as code verification. A common misconceptions about code verification is its focus on bug finding rather than precise error quantification. It is equally important to understand how computational effort reduces error. Mesh refinement is a standard approach adding more degrees of freedom. This increases the cost in a well defined way that depends on the dimensionality of the problem. For a one-dimensional explicit calculation, computational cost scales quadratically with decreasing mesh size due to the linear relationship between time step and mesh size. In two and three dimensions, this scaling becomes cubic and quartic, respectively.

Code verification reveals both precise error (given an exact solution) and convergence rate. For problems with discontinuities like shock waves, the convergence rate is inherently limited to first order, regardless of the method used. This rate often falls below one due to numerical behavior near linear discontinuities. For simplicity, we will focus on the implications of first-order convergence. Given a fixed convergence rate, error accuracy becomes paramount. Furthermore as the convergence rate diminishes the base algorithmic accuracy grows in impact.

While testing is standard practice in hyperbolic conservation law research, it is often inconsistent. Accuracy is typically reported for smooth problems where high-order accuracy can be achieved. However, once smoothness is lost and accuracy drops to first order or less, reporting error ceases. Notably the problems with shock waves are the reason we study these equations. The Sod shock tube is a common test case, but results are presented graphically without quantitative comparison. This reflects a common misconception that qualitative assessments suffice after shock formation, disregarding the significance of accuracy differences.

“What’s measured improves”

– Peter Drucker

Because the order of accuracy is limited to first order, even small differences in accuracy become more significant. For standard methods, these base accuracy differences can easily range from two to four times, dramatically impacting computational cost to achieve an error level. Minimizing the effort required to achieve a desired accuracy level is crucial. The reason is simple: accuracy matters more as the convergence rate decreases. The lower the convergence rate, the greater the impact of accuracy on overall performance.

The algorithmic payoff

Consider a method that halves the error for double the cost at a given mesh resolution. We break even with second-order accuracy, a mesh half the size of the original is required in one dimension. For third and fourth-order accuracy, the break-even points shift to two and three dimensions, respectively. These dynamics change entirely when considering the fixed first-order accuracy imposed by mathematical theory.

“The fundamental law of computer science: As machines become more powerful, the efficiency of algorithms grows more important, not less.“

– Nick Trefethen

In one dimension, the less accurate method is twice as costly for the same error. This factor escalates to four times in two dimensions and eight times in three dimensions. As accuracy disparities grow, the advantage of higher accuracy expands exponentially. A sixteen-fold error difference can lead to a staggering 65,000-fold cost advantage in 3D. Consequently, even significantly more expensive methods can offer substantial benefits. Essentially the error difference amortizes the algorithmic cost. Despite this potential, the field remains entrenched in decades-old,low-accuracy approaches. This stagnation is rooted in a fear of failure and short-term thinking, with long-term consequences.

If failure is not an option, then neither is success.

― Seth Godin

This entire dynamic is inextricably linked to a shift toward short-term focus and risk aversion. Long-term objectives are essential for algorithmic advancement, demanding vision and persistence. The capacity to withstand repeated failures while maintaining faith in eventual success is equally critical. Unfortunately, today’s obsession with short-term project management stifles progress at its inception. This myopic approach is profoundly detrimental to long-term advancement.

References

Lax, Peter D., and Robert D. Richtmyer. “Survey of the stability of linear finite difference equations.” Communications on pure and applied mathematics 9, no. 2 (1956): 267-293.

Majda, Andrew, and Stanley Osher. “Propagation of error into regions of smoothness for accurate difference approximations to hyperbolic equations.” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 30, no. 6 (1977): 671-705.

Banks, Jeffrey W., T. Aslam, and William J. Rider. “On sub-linear convergence for linearly degenerate waves in capturing schemes.” Journal of Computational Physics 227, no. 14 (2008): 6985-7002.

Lax, Peter D. “Accuracy and resolution in the computation of solutions of linear and nonlinear equations.” In Recent advances in numerical analysis, pp. 107-117. Academic Press, 1978.

Page, Lawrence, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bring order to the web. Technical report, Stanford University, 1998.

Vaswani, Ashish, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. “Attention is all you need.” Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).

Sod, Gary A. “A survey of several finite difference methods for systems of nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws.” Journal of computational physics 27, no. 1 (1978): 1-31.

Greenough, J. A., and W. J. Rider. “A quantitative comparison of numerical methods for the compressible Euler equations: fifth-order WENO and piecewise-linear Godunov.” Journal of Computational Physics 196, no. 1 (2004): 259-281.

Rider, William J., Jeffrey A. Greenough, and James R. Kamm. “Accurate monotonicity-and extrema-preserving methods through adaptive nonlinear hybridizations.” Journal of Computational Physics 225, no. 2 (2007): 1827-1848.

We don’t have leaders

“Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.”

– Colin Powell.

Over the past few years, I’ve made a broad observation of “leaders” I encounter: they don’t lead. Instead, they seem to market the success of their role through positive messaging. This leadership style feels highly performative, offering little actual leadership. It’s like a reality TV show – they’re pretending to be leaders. Their communication is tinged with an almost uniformly positive message. If things were always going great, such positivity would be appropriate. However, the problem is that things are not going well. Therefore, the constant positivity in their messaging becomes toxic and inhibits any focus or attention on solving the numerous problems we face. Right now, the USA seems to be careening towards catastrophe.

The Elephant and Donkey in the Room

Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve been seeing this play out at the highest stakes possible: the US Presidential race. It’s replete with examples of deeply concerning leadership. Both political parties appear irresponsible. We have the recent example of Joe Biden’s continued candidacy. He’s clearly showing the effects of aging. In response, we see widespread gaslighting, with people telling us to ignore the obvious. Leaders are saying one thing in public and the opposite in private. Meanwhile, this allows Biden to maintain the status quo, protecting his ego. He’s acting just as selfishly as his opponent. He’s not doing what’s best for the nation and is failing to show leadership.

On the other side, we have an even greater demonstration of cowardice and failure. The entire Republican party has surrendered to Donald Trump. Their candidate can be most charitably described as a grifter. More accurately, he’s a habitual liar and convicted criminal. He’s engaged in numerous acts that would disqualify him from any position of authority. His first term as President was demonstrably incompetent. Were he not the President, he could never obtain a security clearance. Yet, the entire leadership of the GOP caved in the face of him. Everyone remaining in the GOP was too cowardly to stand up to Trump. They all prioritized their personal success and power over the good of the nation. They all essentially said, “Let’s support the crazy guy.”

“Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.”

― Colin Powell,

In both cases, all the leaders have chosen their own success over the good of the nation. We see a systematic failure to confront objective reality because it is too difficult and risky. Obvious problems are ignored and minimized. The personal goals of the individuals in power overwhelm any sense of duty. Those in power turn out to be selfish narcissists. None of them are fit for leadership as a result. This behavior is not limited to the top of the power chain.

The Connection to the Covid-19 Pandemic

“One of the tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”

—Arnold Glasow

All of this started to come to a head with Covid-19. However, to be honest, the trend had been building for a long time, even before that. President Trump’s constant dismissal of reality, claiming the virus would just disappear, exemplified this behavior. This pattern repeated itself down the chain of command and across organizations. While Covid-19 was the peak of this toxic positivity, many smaller issues are communicated in the same way.

This cognitive dissonance, the disconnect between what leaders say and reality, resulted in deaths during the pandemic. A national crisis was exacerbated by inaction. Even worse, the pattern of ignoring problems and inaction seems to be escalating. The success of leaders who practice this approach almost guarantees we’ll see more of it, until it ultimately leads to their downfall.

While the pandemic was the most high-profile example of abysmal leadership, it’s hardly unique. The inability to speak truth and focus on problems appears to be an epidemic itself. I see this constantly within the institutions I interact with. Another prominent example is Boeing, where deadly consequences arose from two crashes and recent near misses. We’re witnessing a once-great company in freefall, destroying its reputation with each calamity.

If we delve deeper into the reasons for this lack of focus on reality in leadership, money emerges as a central issue. In the case of the pandemic, there was a fear of spooking the economy. With Boeing, the focus was on protecting shareholder value by keeping stock prices from dropping. Time and again, the threat of bad news impacting finances seems to be a top priority for leaders. It would be naive to believe that Boeing is an isolated case. Boeing is a canary in the coal mine, a warning sign of danger ahead.

One key takeaway is that leadership positions often lead to wealth. Even lower-level managers are well-compensated compared to those they manage. Furthermore, the potential for promotion is highly attractive. Preserving these personal benefits by avoiding waves and keeping the status quo intact allows this entire dysfunctional system to persist. In essence, our leaders are incentivized not to lead and expose the incompetence that surrounds and surpasses them.

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

– Abraham Lincoln.

Money is the Only Thing We Care About

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” ― Peter Drucker

A key element is the rise of money as power. In today’s world, money is the heart of personal power. Leaders hold significantly more wealth and power than those they lead. This can lead many to cling to these positions far longer than is beneficial, neglecting important concerns. We’ve become a society where money is the sole measure of worth, overshadowing other values like quality, ethics, and humanity (e.g., Boeing). Financial gain is seen as the only measure of success and grants immense power. In the corporate world, shareholder value becomes the excuse for prioritizing profits over all else. This trend is a product of the neoliberal era.

This, in turn, fuels vast societal inequality, creating a leadership class with an existence entirely divorced from those they claim to lead. Leaders, naturally, are unwilling to relinquish their privilege. We also see the corrosive and dangerous aspects of concentrated wealth and power. Those in power view losing their leadership roles as a personal threat, and they actively work to maintain the status quo for their own benefit. Falling out of the leadership class translates to a significant decline in both economic standing and societal influence.

Preserving the status quo is paramount. One way to enact change is to begin addressing problems. Ignoring and perpetuating problems simply affirms the status quo. This, in many ways, explains the rightward shift. Conservatives generally favor the status quo and upholding tradition, which benefits those in power. Since power in the US is heavily tied to money, we see an alliance emerge: moneyed interests and conservatives working together to preserve the existing order.

Leading the charge for the GOP is the Supreme Court. They have transformed from a legal oracle into a partisan entity. The recent immunity ruling is arguably one of the worst decisions in history, destined to stand alongside Dred Scott in infamy. The outcome could very well lead to the dismantling of the Court and the nation itself. It’s a recipe for dictatorship. The Court relies on the Executive Branch to enforce its rulings. If the executive branch disagrees, they can now break the law with impunity. Essentially, power now resides with the President, not the law. While the Court seized significant power over the executive branch, they ultimately relinquished it all back to the President. The nation’s future hangs in the balance. We could very well descend into a de facto dictatorship, effectively losing any semblance of a functioning democracy.

Toxic Positivity

“The supreme quality of leadership is integrity.”

–Dwight Eisenhower

A significant portion of the problem stems from the overuse of toxic positivity in communication. Effective leadership hinges on clear communication and directing human effort towards shared goals. Leaders who filter out problems to create a narrative of perfect circumstances erode trust. When a leader assures you everything is great while you know it’s not, it raises a red flag. This destroys trust not only in that specific situation but also makes you question their honesty in general. This continuous erosion of trust contributes to the decline in societal trust as a whole. Each selective edit of reality feels like another betrayal, leading us to view leaders as habitual liars and fostering cynicism. While acknowledging problems can be difficult, it’s a crucial aspect of leadership. Bullshitting people with positivity is cowardly and destroys trust.

The issue of toxic positivity has profoundly impacted my life. In 2020, I had a close friend who demanded nothing but positivity during interactions. As a therapist, she dealt with people’s problems all day, so it’s understandable that she craved positivity outside of work. However, 2020 was a year of significant challenges, and the inability to share these burdens within our friendship caused me distress. Despite being part of my social circle, I eventually distanced myself due to the one-sided nature of the relationship. Her insistence on positivity came at the expense of balance, ultimately undermining the friendship.

Toxic positivity is a telltale sign of a leadership problem. Instead of honesty, we’re offered the soothing but meaningless platitudes of positivity. Problems are denied, and everything is portrayed as being under perfect control. When reality contradicts this narrative, problems fester or become hidden secrets that divide people. Leaders who resort to toxic positivity simply aren’t leading. They have no intention of tackling complex or time-consuming issues. Their strategy is to manipulate communication to maintain their leadership position and hope that problems remain hidden. This approach is infectious, and upper leaders often establish a “shoot the messenger” culture that discourages reporting bad news. This, in turn, perpetuates the cycle of toxic positivity throughout the organization.

One cannot simply dictate positivity. Life is inherently complex. The same principle applies to leaders; they cannot be effective without balance. True leadership requires a blend of acknowledging the good and the bad. Leaders who lack the ability to admit problems or recognize failures cannot lead effectively. They should celebrate successes and use them as springboards for growth. Identifying problems allows them to rally their followers to address them. It is through solving problems that leaders achieve greatness. Ultimately, the greatest success comes from transforming problems into opportunities. Unfortunately, this virtuous cycle seems to have been lost. Today, some leaders believe they can manipulate their way to success through messaging and pronounce problems solved simply by declaration.

“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.”

—Max DePree

Given the high stakes involved, what can be done? The philosophy of Victor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, offers an answer. His concept of “tragic optimism” acknowledges that problems are inevitable. Death, for example, is a universal experience. We will all face tragedy repeatedly. However, tragic optimism encourages us to approach these inevitable challenges with the belief that they can be overcome. We can not only survive but also thrive in the face of tragedy. This requires acknowledging problems head-on. This is the foundation of great leadership. This philosophy can guide us towards a brighter future. However, we can only achieve this by rejecting the current generation of “leaders.” We should demand honest problem-solvers who act in the best interests of the institutions they lead. Only when we stop rewarding cowardice with power and riches can we truly turn the corner.

“My own definition of leadership is this: The capacity and the will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence.”

—General Montgomery

Next week, I will discuss the societal reckoning we are approaching in relation to social justice movements. While the causes may be just, I believe the current methods employed to achieve social justice are counterproductive. We need to re-evaluate our strategic approach to building a better society.

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”– Abraham Lincoln

If I’d still been writing the blog in 2020, it would have been a banner year. I’d likely written 30-40 posts about the events that year. At my normal rate of writing, this would have been 60-80,000 words. How am I going to condense that into a single (approximately 2000 word) post? Hindsight and perspective will allow for a lot of compression. If I’m right about the perspective, this won’t be the last time I touch on what 2020 can teach us. More importantly, we didn’t learn much from the year.

It is not much of a leap to say 2020 was the worst year of our lives, although 2024 still has time! The centerpiece for this disaster was the Covid-19 pandemic’s effects. We had a horrible election too. A brutal murder and reaction generated more racism in response. All of this was amplified by incompetent leadership. The USA performed horribly during the pandemic by any objective measure. The reasons for this are both specific and structural. The broad response to the pandemic has also had lasting influences on our lives today. Whether we like it or not, today’s world was shaped in 2020.

We sit here in 2024 with a monumental decision in front of the American public. We have the worst choice of Presidents in history. Either decision is bad. On the one hand, you have a declining feeble elderly man whose best days are well behind him. He’s not terribly likable or charismatic. He is decent, but absolutely uninspiring. On the other hand, we have a complete and total asshole. We have a crisis of leadership and either man will deepen it.

As I will discuss, Trump has demonstrated incompetence and horrible judgment. He constantly lies and seems to have no comprehension of truth. He botched the response to a crisis and actively made things worse. He is racist, sexist, misogynist, incurious, and ignorant. He is a convicted felon and legally judged to have committed rape. He is impulsively and habitually criminally minded. It is an awful choice and we are likely to make the worst of it. What it really confirms is that we didn’t learn a fucking thing from the mistakes of 2020. That is unforgivable.

The central drama of the year was the Covid-19 pandemic. Starting off in China, it spread across the globe and the United States. It wreaked havoc everywhere in the world, bringing death, fear, and chaos. Initially, the worst of the pandemic attacked Western Europe, with Italy getting the worst of it. Soon the massive death toll came to the USA, centering on New York City. As the virus was new, uncertainty reigned. Public health and medical officials knew little, and mistakes from caution abounded. The vulnerable died at a dizzying rate without any immunity to the illness. The medical systems strained and broke under the weight of the severely ill.

A couple of themes can already be seen at the outset of the pandemic. The controversy of the origin of the crisis shows a lack of trust and faith in institutions. We saw the chaos our federal decentralized system of government produced. Rather than local and better adaptation, the response was almost uniformly worse. Everything was made political. Liberal leaders tended to overreact and chose safety and caution. Conservative leaders chose business and minimized human life. Both sides were wrong and went too far. Liberals ended up hurting the future of children and their education. Conservatives took actions that led to more death, especially the poor, minorities, and the vulnerable.

Under this stress, we got to see the mettle of our leaders. In the USA, our leaders did horrendously. The most awful was our President. He seemed to first wish the pandemic away and then provided divisive and unvetted advice. He undermined those trying to provide expertise and guidance. As a result of inaction, Trump made the pandemic worse. The actions he took made it worse. The vaccine was the only saving grace. More true to form, Trump sowed dissent and chaos politically. This included attacking the vaccine when it became available. A crisis that should have brought people together divided them. Instead of making the country stronger, he made the country weaker and less united.

“In a time of domestic crisis, men of goodwill and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics.”– John F. Kennedy

Personally, the year was a mixed bag. As the pandemic broke in the USA and the country closed down, I was with my family with my mother in hospice. It was from entirely different issues than Covid that she died. The backdrop to her passing was the world closing down. When I looked up from this, I found the nation closed down. Suddenly my wife and I were working from home. We adapted, as did everyone.

Working from home was rocky at first, but improved with better software and better habits. The whole arrangement had distinct advantages, removing the commute. Meals could be prepared during the day and dinner was served early. Exercise was a challenge, but equipment was purchased and walking became central too. I went 4-7 miles a day. In spite of the health challenges and the viral threat, I felt like the whole experience improved my physical health. This wasn’t my only benefit.

All in all, we did well personally. We both appreciated working from home and put ourselves to work on major home projects. We formed our own pod of friends to retain a social life. We and our friends made conscious choices based on our risk profiles. It was greatly enabled by working from home. We balanced our safety with our sanity. I fully recognize that all this good is firmly grounded in a lot of privilege and luck. For many people, the situation was terrible. One of these was my son. He was at the end of his Bachelor’s degree and working from home didn’t work for him. It was a microcosm of the damage done to millions of young people’s lives.

I also need to acknowledge that many people could not work from home. With schools out and day cares closed this was an exceptionally difficult time. Our children are grown and we didn’t have to try to work while managing day care and school. Anyone with children had a difficult time.

We also saw an online community spring up for Zoom-based cocktail parties. These mixers were amazing, well run, and satisfying. Not as good as doing this in person, but set the standard for online meetings. Frankly, my work meetings have never equaled the quality and intent of these Zoom meetings. Granted, the online meeting software and basic approach have improved leaps and bounds. It shows what motivated people and good leadership can do for meetings, even remote. Of course, all this was true with in-person meetings too. Work meetings have had problems forever.

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”― J.R.R. Tolkien

In the midst of the pandemic, as the first stage of it drew to a close, something else terrible happened. A black man (George Floyd) was brutally and callously murdered by a police officer. This happened while other officers looked on without stopping it. Essentially, the murder was filmed, and the film went viral. It went out into a nation that was relentlessly online. People were properly outraged. People went to the streets to protest in massive numbers. This became the Black Lives Matter movement. It spawned some of the largest public protests in recent history.

It was born out of the over-militarized American police and a virtual acceptance of police abuse and violence by many. Police and their thin blue line attitude allow abuse to persist. Rather than demand legal and proper behavior in their ranks, police protect lawbreaking in their ranks. The left also overreacted with some well-intentioned and genuinely stupid ideas. Key was the defund the police stance. It was still incredibly counter-productive and just the start. It appeared to be a genuine racial reckoning. The overreach on the left was the undoing of something needed.

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”― Martin Luther King Jr.

It also produced a huge backlash from the right. With the defund movement as cover, the right attacked the reaction to police abuse and murder. Much of this was supported and encouraged by the President. He is horribly racist after all. It also drove more insidious efforts like the label of “critical race theory” for racially sensitive education. CRT is absolute bullshit as actual CRT is a graduate-level legal theory (learned about Chris Rufo a brilliant, but horrible person). Nonetheless, it energized the right to remove any material that encouraged racial sensitivity. The right also engaged in violence at the protests. Most prominently, the coward Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people at a protest. In the end, it is arguable that the right won the day. Rather than a reckoning, we ended with a setback.

This gets to why we need to look back at 2020. There were numerous lessons we should have learned. We have not. We fucked up our response to things over and over. We made non-political things controversial. We attacked and undermined institutions and expertise. The result was objectively bad performance and lots of unnecessary dead people. We harmed the future of our children unnecessarily. We had painfully incompetent leadership. Rather than punish this incompetence and division, we may reward it. We are inviting disaster. An important question is why aren’t we learning? Why are we about to make some of the same mistakes again?

A big aspect of the pandemic year was how it affected one’s personal life in virtually every respect. One’s social life is an obvious thing, which takes a major hit removing the usual locales for getting together with people. We managed this by forming a small risk-informed pod of friends we continued to see. Our choices had a big impact on preserving our sanity. All things considered, we remained happy throughout the year.

Health is another obvious impact. For me, Covid-19 got in the way of health care. Covid-19 itself did not pose a problem personally. On the other hand, it got in the way of treating several problems. I have glaucoma and during the first half of 2020 I had a permanent minor loss of vision. I was also suffering from AFib during 2020. The pandemic modestly slowed my treatment. I ultimately had two ablation surgeries that appear to have fixed the problem (in 2022). Still, these medical issues were impacted by the overburdened medical system. Compared to many, I got off easy, but not unscathed.

A big part of improving my happiness and sanity was working from home. For both my wife and me, this was a welcome change. Firstly, I had a manager who I could not stand. He couldn’t stand me either. I welcomed not having to see him regularly. In addition, it was a welcome relief from having to put on “a mask” and walk on eggshells around coworkers. I don’t mean a physical mask, but the masking of my authentic self in order to be acceptable. It led to the realization of how little I wanted to spend time with most of these people. Now I could choose who I graced with my physical presence explicitly. I’ve come to realize that authenticity in the workplace is a joke. At least if you are me. The real me is not fit for the modern workplace. I’m too outspoken, profane, and sharp-tongued. I suppose people who are quiet, reserved, and dull as dirt can be authentic. The pandemic gave me time to realize all this from living differently.

While all this positivity surrounded my personal situation, the same can’t be said for the USA. The USA has a rather extreme problem with leadership. This is not all about Trump either. Trump is a real indicator of the problem. We don’t demand competence from our leaders. It is all image and bullshit. The result is our institutions failing at every level. We are incredibly low on trust. No one trusts anyone else.

“Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”― Stephen R. Covey

Public health and medicine took the brunt of this, and this lack of trust made the pandemic worse. It cost many lives. Worse yet, the pandemic made it all even worse. Conspiracy theories abounded. The vaccines that should have been a triumph drove division. A national crisis that should have brought people together did the opposite. By the end of the year, we were more divided and cynical.

I cannot pass through 2020 without talking about the election. In many ways, it was the shitty icing on the shit sandwich of a year. On the one hand, it was a repudiation of the incompetence of the Trump administration. Yet about half the populace accepted the lie that the election was a fraud. There was no peaceful transition of power for the first time in nearly 250 years. The beaten and bruised reputation of the USA took another hit. The former beacon of democracy is a basket case. We left the year with dramatically less trust than we started; we started the year with very little trust.

“The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.”― Plato

Here we stand four years on with decisions in front of us. The hard lessons of 2020 have been forgotten. We never learned from them. We could very well reward the worst President in the history of the nation with that office again. It would be a self-inflicted wound of unparalleled magnitude. We would be taking a risk on a leader that we know is incompetent. We would be choosing a habitual liar to lead a nation without trust. We would be choosing a leader who will destroy our institutions rather than repair and fix them. We will be courting disaster when we need healing. It may be national suicide.

It is all because we want to forget what happened in 2020.

Next week, we need to talk about people who are assholes and why they are awful.

This will be the final post on this blog.

There is no real ending. It’s just the place where you stop the story.

― Frank Herbert

It is time to move on. The choice is entirely mine although I’ve been influenced by the events of the last month. I have enjoyed writing this blog immensely. The topics and posts reflected the passion I had for my work. Sometimes that passion was directed toward technical matters and sometimes the passion was directed toward how technical matters are managed. I’m fairly sure that my views about how science is managed today led to the events that resulted in terminating the blog.

This blog was solely a vehicle for writing as a habit. This habit of writing was serious because I published the writing regularly and could expect others to read it. It was an aggressive and innovative form of professional development. It has been enriching and educational. I am grateful for the support I had during the period of time that I wrote regularly. Now that the support has been withdrawn, it’s time to stop. I will continue to write, but in another venue and probably focused on life’s other passions. I am passionate about many things in life and now it’s time to write about other things. I may drift back to things scientific, but not like I did here.

To bring things to a close I’m going to list my favorite blog posts from the past four and half years:

• Lessons from the History of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/lessons-from-the-history-of-cfd-computational-fluid-dynamics/
• Weak and Strong Forms for Boundary Conditions https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/weak-and-strong-forms-for-boundary-conditions/
• We have already lost to the Chinese in Supercomputing; Good thing it doesn’t matter https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/we-have-already-lost-to-the-chinese-in-supercomputing-good-thing-it-doesnt-matter/
• 11 Things in Computational Science that Sound Awesome, but are Actually Terrible https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2017/11/24/11-things-in-computational-science-that-sound-awesome-but-are-actually-terrible/
• The benefits of using “primitive variables”The benefits of using “primitive variables” https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/08/08/the-benefits-of-using-primitive-variables/
• Hyperviscosity is a Useful and Important Computational Tool https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/hyperviscosity-is-a-useful-and-important-computational-tool/
• Play is essential to happiness, creativity and productivity https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/play-is-essential-to-happiness-creativity-and-productivity/
• The Unfortunate Myth of the Hero Calculation https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/the-unfortunate-myth-of-the-hero-calculation/
• The Clay Prize and The Reality of the Navier-Stokes Equations https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/the-clay-prize-and-the-reality-of-the-navier-stokes-equations/
• Verification and Numerical Analysis are Inseparable https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/verification-and-numerical-analysis-are-inseparable/
• What we still don’t get about numerical error https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/hat-we-still-dont-get-about-numerical-error/
• The Marvelous Magical Median https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/the-marvelous-magical-median/
• HPC is just a tool; Modeling & Simulation is what is Important https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/hpc-is-just-a-tool-modeling-simulation-is-what-is-important/
• A Single Massive Calculation Isn’t Science; it is a tech demo https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/a-single-massive-calculation-isnt-science-its-a-tech-demo/
• Verification and Validation with Uncertainty Quantification is the Scientific Method https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/verification-and-validation-with-uncertainty-quantification-is-the-scientific-method/
• I’m Better When I Don’t Care https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/im-better-when-i-dont-care/
• Why algorithms and modeling Beat Moore’s Law https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/why-algorithms-and-modeling-beat-moores-law/
• Colorful Fluid Dynamics https://williamjrider.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/colorful-fluid-dynamics/

I’m sad to see the Regularized Singularity end; it’s been a magnificent chapter in my life, but it’s time to start writing a new one.

Adios Friends, I hope you find me elsewhere.

 

Ends are not bad things, they just mean that something else is about to begin. And there are many things that don’t really end, anyway, they just begin again in a new way. Ends are not bad and many ends aren’t really an ending; some things are never-ending.

― C. JoyBell C.