Links: Heat, effectiveness, and how we know what we know

* “Why America Will Lose Semiconductors.” Important and hopefully untrue.

* “More than 60 million people across Southwest are under heat alerts. And summer is still 10 days away.” We’re going to see a lot more of this over the coming decades. In an ideal world, “Nuclear Is Back on the Table for a Green Future.” Relatedly, perhaps, “One Site, 95 Tons of Methane an Hour,” as measured by satellite.

* Apparent no-bid on mortgage-backed securities. Sufficiently high mortgage interest rates ought to have predictable effects on housing markets.

* There Has to Be a Better Way to Run the Government: on New York’s inability to implement congestion pricing. It’s a story of adversarial legalism preventing anything from happening.

* “Professors Need the Power to Fire Diversity Bureaucrats: Scholars should drive out overzealous administrators, not vice versa.”

* Stanford’s War on Social Life.

* “In the eyes of group leaders dealing with similar moments, staff were ignoring the mission and focusing only on themselves, using a moment of public awakening to smuggle through standard grievances cloaked in the language of social justice.” Whatever might really be going on, it will be called “virtuous.”

* Argument that Biden has been good.

* Tyler Cowen interviews Marc Andreessen. This “resonates:”

The form of humanities that resonates me is like that. It’s history, economics, philosophy, politics merged. And then, at least in my case, you’re trying to find the people who are analytical and descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, but it was a different kind of thing. You could argue that they were not rigorous. You could argue that they were storytelling and not being scientific, but I think they were being scientific in their way at that time.

They had their issues, but they didn’t have our issues. Everything today is filtered through our politics. It’s really hard to understand, in my view, how people thought, especially before the 1960s, and again, I think, even before the 1930s, through our political lens. You have to go back and reconstruct what they actually talked about at that time. It turns out to be more interesting than I would have thought.

%d bloggers like this: