A Guide to Econometrics: Fifth Edition is a textbook, sorta, by Peter Kennedy. I was reading the final chapter today and it said something very funny that I had to quote:#

This is one of the "Ten Commandments" of applied econometrics.

Rule 6: Use the interocular trauma test.

Output from modern empirical work typically fills many pages, as researchers try a variety of functional forms and sets of explanatory varaibles. This rule cautions researchers to look long and hard at this plethora of results: Look at the results until the answer hits you between the eyes! Part of this rule is to check that the results make sense. Are the signs of coefficients as expected? Are important variables statistically significant? Are coefficient magnitudes reasonable? Are the implications of the results consistent with theory? Are there any anomalies? Are any obvious restrictions evident? Apply the "laugh" test -- if the findings were explained to a layperson, could that person avoid laughing? [p. 393]

I recommend this book to someone who is interested at a "big picture" view of econometrics to go along with a textbook on the mechanics of the techniques.#

Mujhse Dosti Karoge! was my second Bollywood experience. Much better than the first one. Hardly any sour points.#

Rani Mukherjee is much cuter and better at acting that Kareena Kapoor and Hrithik Roshan is actually very sweet and intense.#

Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (Official Site) was my first Bollywood experience. I thought it was very cute, although a few parts were a bit crazy and annoying.#

Kareena Kapoor is very attractive in this movie. But Hrithik Roshan is a bit too annoying and plastic.#

Ole reveals the secret text.#

Will Wilkinson interprets Tyler Cowen's argument for the inevitability of a welfare safety net.#

Nova Spivack writes, "If the universe is a simulation, then what?"#

Now an interesting follow-on idea that stems from this concept is that perhaps there is a way to detect whether or not our universe is a simulation. We simply need to look for some phenomena that no formal system can fully describe -- something that cannot be simulated perfectly, even on a suitably complex computer. If we can find such a phenomena then our universe cannot be a simulation or formal system, at least not one based on our concept of what a formal system is. I propose that consciousness is an example of such a unsimulatable-thing. If we find that consciousness cannot be simulated by a computer, then I would conclude that our universe (which contains consciousness, seemingly) cannot be a computer simulation. It might still be a simulation however -- but not a simulation running on anything equivalent to a Turing Machine. For example, perhaps in really advanced civilizations there is another way of simulating things that does not rely on Turing Machines -- for example, a simulation technology that relies instead on the application of dreaming as a means to generate and test various possible worlds. But that is an extreme fringe-speculation that I would be the first to admit is even farther out in the realm of science-fiction than the rest of this article.

Arnold Kling links a quip about the pharmaceutical industry.#

Tyler Cowen links to Robin Hanson on "Charity Angels."#

Programming considered harmful.#

Best Strong Bad Email Ever!#

Alex Tabarrok links David Zetland's article (PDF) on a market for journal articles.#

Cluck cluck cluck#

Richard posts a cute observation.#

The Movie Blog: "Santa Clause is actually the son of Satan (said with my best Church Lady voice). Yes, that's right, the Lord of Darkness. Anyway, Santa Clause isn't the sweet loving jolly old elf that we think he is. Oh no. The only thing that has kept him behaved for the last thousand years is a pact made with an angle... but that pact is about to run out this Christmas eve, and Santa will be free to begin his merderous rampage! I LOVE IT!"#

Grant the anthropologist on the Pixar generation:#

Anthony Lane makes this observation about The Incredibles: "[Digital filmmaking of this kind] is, by definition, unable to cope with spontaneity. The camera no longer catches a feature, or a play of expression, on the wing; someone has to create a program for it and patch it into place."

The problem with machine based animation is that you can't get out what you don't put in. Live actors in real time on actual sets are inclined to work by accident and inspiration. Things slip into the performance that are not anticipated by the script writer or called for by the director. It is often these little grace notes that make the scene and the movie live.

But these graces notes don't happen in machine based animation. The film maker must think to put things in. And we don't add accidents on purpose. (Otherwise, they wouldn't be accidents.) So machine based animation often feels wooden and not very, um, animated. An effort is made to show "wind" ruffling "hair," but the real stuff, the grace notes, the simple gifts, of spontaneity are hard to come by

A comment: The individual artists may have clever ideas and put them in. Thus they are an 'accident' from the vantage point of the director and planners.

Paul Graham writes about things that are made in the USA.#

He claims that people in the states are not obsessed with doing things "right", they are obsessed with getting things done. He seems to suggest that this is a bad thing.

Although I won't really develop the idea unless someone asks me to. I think he's a bit off. I think the main difference between Americans and Europeans or Asians is the former have never had kings and emperors who could build whatever they wanted without regard to purpose. (Excluding maybe FDR's public works projects.)

I doubt that the people of Egypt would have struggled to build the Pyramids were they not forced to, and the same for other great monuments.

As America gets wealthier however, maybe more consumers will value "right design" and they'll buy it, but we are free to choose.

Gene Expression quotes Prince Charles:#

People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.

Gina Smith posts something from the Woz.#