The Sullivan Doctrine.

"Harbour Scene"
Dutch marine painter Abraham Storck (1644-1708).
Image source: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

This week's briefing from The Economist concerns the ongoing US-China trade war, focusing on the US ban on certain semiconductor sales, that severely impacted Chinese chipmakers like Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (YMTC), causing delays in business plans and construction of new facilities. The resulting shortage has disrupted supply chains and forced Chinese firms to become more reliant on domestic production, lowering the forecast of Chinese companies producing over half of the country's needed chips by 2030 to just 33%. The US government's "Sullivan doctrine," named after National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, aims to maintain an American edge in foundational technologies like AI, biotech, and clean energy by restricting China's access to advanced chips involved in these areas through export controls using "foreign direct product rules" (FDPRs).

This escalating tech war has the potential to reorganize global supply chains and spill into other industries like clean technology, biotech, and agriculture. The conflict may create two mutually exclusive blocs for many products, undoing gains from globalization and harming companies and countries caught between the two rivals. The US may target additional industries with FDPRs, further intensifying the situation and prompting China to retaliate.

Despite the adverse consequences of the tech war, the international rules-based order aims to establish a free world by promoting free trade as a public good. By fostering a cooperative environment for innovation and ensuring access to resources, this encourages global economic growth and benefits all nations involved. In the long run, the rules-based order is designed to promote stability, prevent conflicts, and create a more prosperous and interconnected world. I cannot see how that system can continue without a US willingness to defend it, as today's international trade is a legacy of America's position at the conclusion of the Second World War, and its continuing and enduring commitment to the same.

Disruption versus Destruction.

Today's edition of the New York Times caught my eye with an article by Cade Metz regarding Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and their chatbot, ChatGPT. The article weaves between Altman's biography, the product, and the nature of the firm. The article references Altman's belief in "effective altruism," a rational approach to maximizing global impact through evidence-based decision-making. The article's almost treats the life story of a CEO as a political biography, as a source to establish the legitimacy of the company and the technology.

A tech firm CEO, much like a head of state, serves as a unifying force that seeks to transcend divisions and foster a sense of identity and shared values around the company. Sam Altman's "effective altruism" is here like the "dignified" aspect of a monarchy, providing reassurance to the public and calming concerns about the impact of AI. Meanwhile, the "efficient" aspect of a tech firm, responsible for developing and implementing technology, operates on business principles necessarily different from the legitimizing elements of the firm's leadership.

While the New York Times article illustrates the role of a technology CEO in shaping public perception, it is crucial to remember that the efficient aspect of OpenAI is far different than the personality of Sam Altman. Effective altruism has little to do with the actual impact of the technology. It is vital to focus on the potential risks of disruptive new technologies, as their misuse in authoritarian hands has been destructive. "Effective altruism" could very well be serving as a distraction here, rather than a guarantee of responsible AI development.

@TheEconomist and @duncanrobinson on #RoaldDahl.

Puffin, the publisher of Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, etc.), recently edited some of Dahl’s works for sensitivity, removing words such as "fat," "flabby," "ugly," and "Kipling." This act, which sparked a backlash, it is argued by Bagehot, the Economist’s British politics columnist (Economist articles are traditionally unsigned, but this one is by Duncan Robinson) is part of a broader trend in British publishing, where books are being censored or dropped, and sensitivity readers are employed to ensure adherence to modern morals.

Roald Dahl, 1954. 

While the right to prepare derivative works is at the core of copyright, the editing of Dahl's work by Puffin, a Penguin imprint, is argued to be just one symptom of a deeper issue in the publishing world. Making an impressive leap, Bagehot contends the argument that suppression of speech is only a problem in totalitarian states fails to recognize the "veiled censorship" in British publishing. There is an orthodoxy that right-thinking people are expected to accept without question, and resistance to the same leads (at least in the mind of the columnist) to being silenced with surprising effectiveness.

Publishers, in an attempt to look likable, often panic and preempt offense, leading to the removal or editing of content. However, this nervousness and desire to look nice can have nasty results, as it stifles creativity and prevents important discussions from taking place. The observation that the publishing industry is susceptible to peer pressure sounds in truth, as any observer of media generally is keenly aware of herd effects and the power of groupthink in the industry.

Where the columnist goes awry (and this is perhaps to be expected for a print journalist) is that there are a variety of means where unorthodox ideas can reach a broader audience. If anything, the rise of misinformation through alternative channels presents far broader problems for democracy than were ever perceived twenty to thirty years ago. Editors and publishers are not all wrong, and sometimes, they are even right as a group. I feel I can understand both the germ of the argument and the (veiled?) frustration of the writer given the unique power of publishing in certain professional and cultural circles. Sending ideas out into the world in book form is a form of professional and social recognition oftentimes far exceeding the economic import of such an activity.

Given the foregoing, I think the argument advanced, and particularly the vignette of how the suppressive mechanism works, is powerful. “What is striking is how apparently mild the sanctions are for speaking out … what really terrifies you is that your colleagues will think a little less of you. Most people do not require the threat of being burned at the stake to shut them up; being flamed by their peers … is more than enough.” Nudges in favor of conformity are often powerful precisely due to their superficial innocuousness – a timeless observation if there ever was one.

Questions from the Press, March 27, 2023.

 As has come up here from time to time, I serve as a trustee of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District, in the northern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. My practice is to post answers I am asked by the press in that capacity, because the amount of information that can be conveyed by a newspaper is necessarily limited. On Monday March 27, I received the following questions from Dan Johnson, a reporter for the Sonoma Index-Tribune (Sonoma County has three "major" newspapers, the I-T, the Petaluma Argus-Courier and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, all of which are owned and controlled by the same company). I have printed his questions and my written answers to them below. The questions concerned the realignment of our District, which is often reduced down in practical terms to which schools sites will continue to operate, and which will not, given declining attendance. 

---

 1. During the portion about School district reconfiguration, did the board decide to end student enrollment at Dunbar and enroll its students at other districts beginning in the 2023-24 school year? Was a vote taken, and if so who supported and did not support this?

 No. The agenda was changed at the start of the meeting, and that item was struck on a 3-2 vote. Trustees Knox, Winders and I voted to strike the item.

 2. Were any other decisions made regarding reconfiguration of the district in 2023-24 or any subsequent years?

 No.

 3. What did you feel were the main points made during the Perkins-Eastman presentation?

 The trustees, after extensive discussion, focused on Scenario 1A provided by the Perkins Eastman consultants, which would see the Dunbar campus made available to Woodland Star Charter, with middle schoolers at Altimira, and Prestwood remaining open. This would be the 3-1-1 alignment discussed previously, where the three District elementary schools would be Flowery, El Verano and Prestwood, the middle school would be at the Altimira campus, and the Broadway site for SVHS and Creekside. I have attached the "skittle" graphic illustrating this alignment below.

 The board gave direction to staff to answer two questions at the April 20th meeting, first, what are the costs to retrofit Altimira as estimated by the engineers versus the costs to expand Adele Harrison, and second, what are the pros and cons, and costs, of moving to a 7-8 middle school model, with 6th graders remaining at elementary sites. The board gave direction to staff bring a motion for the trustees to act on April 20th to realign the District in this fashion, with discretionary language included regarding choosing Altimira or Adele as the District's middle school, and with discretionary language included regarding shifting to a 7-8 middle school model. The Board also gave direction to staff to implement the timeline over two academic years, with the Dunbar campus being addressed in academic year 23-24, and the remaining realignment in academic year 24-25.

 4. During the school safety discussion, did the board discuss whether or not to bring the SRO program back? Was this topic agendized for the April board meeting?

 In the proposed scenario, what would happen to Sassarini, Adele Harrison and Sonoma Charter School? No, the board did not discuss whether to bring the SRO program back. No, the topic was not agendized by the board for April 20th. Staff informed the trustees that there is a trustee request that the SRO be agendized for April 20, and I believe the request is from Trustee Landry.

 5. What did you feel were the main points made during the school safety discussion?

 The materials for that agenda item were not provided in advance to the trustees. This violated our norm of "no surprises." Further, there was no description of the item in any way, including the minimal description required by the Brown Act. The materials were also not provided to the public in advance. These procedural failures necessarily limited discussion. There was no explanation offered by the Board President for why the item was added to the agenda without this routine and ordinary requirements being met. 

 In the room, Director of Educational Services Jillian Beall gave a presentation on statistics regarding incidents of student discipline, which are down by 58% this academic year versus last. However, suspensions are up by 11%, and there have been five (5) expulsions, versus just one (1) in the previous academic year. 

 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) Lieutenant Brandon Cutting (who also serves as Sonoma's Chief of Police) gave a report on handling emergencies at SVUSD campuses, including discussing the general aspects of the prepared responses of the SCSO to school sites located in the County portion of SVUSD, and then in the City. The specifics were not included for operational reasons. Because the meeting ran quite long the agenda item was concluded at approximately 2:45 without discussion of the SRO and without any listening circles being conducted regarding school safety. 

 6. Would you like to say anything else?

 On March 9, and again yesterday, members of the public showed up and treated the school board meeting as a "sporting event," cheering and booing positions with which they supported or disagreed. This is unacceptable behavior from members of the public. The Board President must instruct members of the public to either maintain decorum or excuse themselves from the room, especially when she agrees with their position. Individual school board members should never have to use points of order to ensure effective uninterrupted conduct of the meeting, which indeed did happen on Saturday.

---

 Shortly thereafter, Dan Johnson asked the following additional question, which I answered as well.

 7. In the proposed scenario, what would happen to Sassarini, Adele Harrison and Sonoma Charter School?

 The trustees requested a motion be prepared that is specifically focused on what facilities will be used by SVUSD for its existing instructional program, with an emphasis on cutting waste. The board gave no direction for a motion to be drafted to repurpose any of the sites you referenced and I do not expect such a motion on April 20.

Questions from the Press.

At the Niners-Saints Game, Nov 27, 2022. 

 I serve as a trustee of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District, in the northern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. In that capacity, sometimes the press asks me questions about a given subject. I generally prefer when they do that in writing, because I can answer the questions and post them, so that constituents and stakeholders can see not just what was put in the newspaper, but the context of the conversations. 

 I think that making sure the press gets answers is important. I don't know of anyone who has figured out how to make a democracy work without newspapers. Press freedom is properly the fourth protection guaranteed in the First Amendment for a reason.

 On Tuesday December 6, I received the following questions from Dan Johnson, a reporter for the Sonoma Index-Tribune (Sonoma County has three "major" newspapers, the I-T, the Petaluma Argus-Courier and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, all of which are owned and controlled by the same company). I have printed his questions and my written answers to them below. The questions concerned the settlement of a dispute between the school district and the local construction trades council (a group of construction unions, such as electricians, plumbers, and carpenters, amongst others).   

So, without further ado:

1. Why did you vote in favor of the settlement?

It seemed to me that the general sense of the board was that the agreement was in the interests of the District, and I agreed with that evaluation. 

2. What is your reaction to the passing of it? Were you surprised? 

The PSA that was approved had been discussed for some months by the attorney representing the District and the attorney representing the building trades, and the final document reflected careful work by both lawyers. Given that the District and the building trades had told their attorneys to try to come to an agreement, I think that the success of the negotiation, and ultimate approval of the proposed PSA resulting therefrom, is not a surprise.

3. How will the settlement help the district?

 

I think that the agreement will provide jobs that prioritize a locally based skilled and trained workforce, and joint apprenticeship opportunities for Sonoma Valley students. These joint apprenticeship opportunities will afford students access to career pathway options that will provide family supporting wages, healthcare and retirement benefits, and the ability to live and work in their own community. 

4. Do you think that critics of the settlement made some valid points, and if so, what were they?

I thank the members of our community who took the time to share their thoughts with the board, both those who were in favor and those who were against. The democratic process depends upon constituents and stakeholders taking the time to express their beliefs. I don't have any other comment in response to this question. 

5. It seems to me that the two main changes in the ultimate agreement are shortening the agreement to five years and covering all work costing more than $212,500, rather than $50,000. Were there other significant changes in the agreement?

Regarding the specific changes from the agreement passed on 11-17-20, the issue was briefed by our attorney, Glenn Gould, for the board, and I would point you to that presentation. 

6. How could this process have been handled better by the board?

The settlement was handled in the fashion that one would expect. The board received legal advice that was of high quality, and acted accordingly. 

7. Several trustees said that they felt it was time to move on and focus on the needs of the students? Do you share this feeling?

I am always focused on the needs of our students. As far as my fellow trustees are concerned, I believe their words speak for themselves. 

8. How will the board be able to deal better with such matters in the future?

This was the final act of this board, and it will have no other matters to deal with in the future. 

9. Would you like to say anything else?

No.

10. I’m wondering how the changes I mentioned in question No. 5 came about. It seemed that The North Bay Building Construction and Trades Council opposed negotiating with SVUSD about the agreement, and yet two main concessions were made. Did the council end up negotiating with SVUSD attorneys?

After Sonoma Valley Unified lost twice in court hearings, Michael Allen, a former state assemblyman and representative of the building trades, reached out to the District to see if a compromise could be reached, which was what led to the settlement. 

11. Initially, the document was referred to as a project labor agreement, but at some point, it began being referred to as a project stabilization agreement. Why the change and what did it mean?

It has always been referred to as a project stabilization agreement. 

The Holographic Universe.

Juan Maldacena

Discoverer of the 

AdS/CFT correspondence.

The New York Times wrote recently on the Holographic Universe, something that the truly great PBS Space Time has visited as a topic repeatedly. The interesting point is always, for me, that the information content of any three-dimensional space is limited to the number of bits that can be encoded on an imaginary surface surrounding it, and that limit is defined by the Planck length. The consequences of this are mind-bending.  

"'It's completely crazy,' [says Leonard Susskind], in reference to the holographic universe. 'You could imagine in a laboratory, in a sufficiently advanced laboratory, a large sphere — let’s say, a hollow sphere of a specially tailored material — to be made of silicon and other things, with some kind of appropriate quantum fields inscribed on it.' Then you could conduct experiments, he said: 'Tap on the sphere, interact with it, then wait for answers from the entities inside ... [o]n the other hand, you could open up that shell and you would find nothing in it,' he added. As for us entities inside: 'We don’t read the hologram, we are the hologram.'"

Wikipedia has a dense, but good article on the same subject. This also leads to the AdS/CFT correspondence, which really makes a lot more sense after watching this video from Matt O'Dowd.

Trust in the Supreme Court.

"Confidence in Institutions"
Gallup, June 1-4, 2013, 
available at http://tinyurl.com/m8dl5vg

 From Gallup this morning:

"Trust in many U.S. institutions has declined in recent years, but the loss of faith in the Supreme Court is especially notable, given the high levels of trust it has enjoyed historically."

As I wrote back in 2013, and as I have done pretty often over time, trust in government is the sine qua non of democracy. The "great deal/quite a lot" level of trust for the Supreme Court is down to 25%; this is less than banks used to be in 2013, and is within the margin of error for big business at that time. Most institutions in American life (with the exception of organized labor) have lost trust recently, but none from so high a starting place, and so precipitously. As the article's lede notes:

"This represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago, including seven points since last year, and is now the lowest in Gallup's trend by six points. The judicial branch's current tarnished image contrasts with trust levels exceeding two-thirds in most years in Gallup's trend that began in 1972."

Prior posts re the United States Supreme Court:

1. Turnout, Serrano, and the Outlier.
2. 34 Cents of Your Property Tax Dollar Goes To Our Schools. 
3. Brown, Budgets, Prisons, and Contempt.
4. A Society Can Be Judged By Entering Its Prisons.
5. Standing, Blogging, and Prop 8.