During the first part of the pandemic I watched the lectures for the Introductory Biology course [1] from MIT OpenCourseWare. I cannot recommend those highly enough!
Almost every lecture brought up and highlighted something really cool and fascinating. Like how RNA sequencing over the last couple of years has gone from expensive to almost free, and what its uses are. Or time-lapse of bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Or just the first lecture showing a video of someone sticking a syringe into a cell. There were even some labs that could be done via a normal web browser.
For me this was so much more engaging than the biology I was thought in high school, where we mostly learned things from outdated books.
Background on the deal. TIBCO was acquired by Vista Equity Partners 8 years ago and has been a disaster investment. Growth never picked up despite their investments in product, technology, sales and marketing. As a result, TIBCO was stuck selling better software from acquisitions to their existing customer base. Large cap private equity investors like Thoma Bravo, Silver Lake and Blackstone noticed TIBCO's failures making it difficult for Vista to exit their investment. TIBCO has been perpetually on the market for sale since 2017.
Vista's "solution"? Vista managed to push a portion of the equity to Evergreen (Elliott Management's PE arm), and are building a Broadcom or CA Technologies style mammoth of legacy software by calcifying their technology in F500 and low-technology end markets. Their next merger to further feed the beast is Citrix.
Today's problem? The merger requires billions in debt to pay Citrix's public shareholders, which is put on the merged company's new balance sheet. The market was great when the deal was signed almost a year ago and when the large banks signed up to syndicate (sell to smaller investors) the entire debt balance. Unfortunately, as the debt syndication process was underway, the market turned and the typical investors in these huge tranches of LBO debt were no longer interested. That means the big banks were left to fill the balance of what they couldn't syndicate (contractual requirement) by taking on that bad paper themselves. It's bad paper because the banks commit to the LBO investors they'll get the investors to sign up at a 4% interest rate when any investor would probably ask for 7.5-9% now. Believe 8-10 banks are stuck holding something like $2-3 billion.
The Resolution. Deal got done and the LBO investors forced the banks to eat the losses. Now this black hole of a company will continue to grow until it gets foisted on a company like Broadcom or IBM that would be happy to churn out billions in cash from it. PE firms win. Merged company wins. Banks lose. Employees will lose as massive waves of layoffs are done to "eliminate redundancies" because they won't need two complete HR, finance, IT, legal, etc. teams. And billions in cash flow will be generated as a result.
For kids over 1 year, some sanity saving notes (I have more than 4 kids, was about to go crazy when I got my second and then learned the things below):
- everyone wakes halfway up multiple times each night to see if everything is OK. Make sure they don't fall asleep with anything that can't stay with them during the night: music, tv, light, food, drink or another person (you or others).
- to teach kids to sleep, make them feel safe about it. What I did was walking in at a fixed schedule, starting at exact 3 minutes between the first night (I used a digital kitchen timer back then, a smartphone later) and increasing by two minutes every night. Surprisingly fast, my kids learn that I didn't disappear, and he'll be around even if they don't cry. Once they realized this they started playing with the toy the were allowed to keep in the bed. But, keep in mind: don't stop coming back if they are silent. A major part of the idea is that they realize that they don't have to do anything to make sure we don't forget them. Oh: and keep a very close ear with them in the beginning so they don't wake up and think they are alone.
I never really could get myself to accept the idea that "they need to cry themselves to sleep" and every thing I tried before this didn't work on my oldest.
This worked on my oldest kid, she started sleeping through the night within a week and also became calmer and I got my sleep back. With the rest of them it took 2-3 days only since I started earlier (shortly after they was a year old).
Maybe other methods work too, but this was easy for us and we didn't have to let the kids cry to sleep or anything else I have seen recommended online that I didn't like.
All of these books are extraordinary in their sheer ability to organize thousands of small details into thematic narratives of how life operates.
They also reveal how hard we humans try to narrate life into tidy, comprehensible themes.
These books are all of an era (2005-2015), and there are probably newer ones. That said, they are a great guide for non biologists into how experts think things work.
Very nice, though with a 200lb ceramic bbq like the BGE — and with the caveat that your lid gasket isn’t shot — you can leave it ticking over at 300F for hours, unattended. Big poultry in particular is dead simple because the giant breasts mean they cook as slowly as the legs, unlike a chicken where the breast will overcook by the time the thighs are done. Take it off when it’s at 140F and let it sit for an hour. My food coma today is testament to my partners ability to pull this off.
With a kamado, always fill the firebox up with lots of fuel and get the whole thing hot before use. This is the key to a long, controlled burn.
Control system integration is much more useful if you have a cheap steel drum with crappy sealing and a sub optimally designed firebox. You cheap out on the grill and compensate for it with active control systems.
Kind of like a trebuchet vs a sniper rifle. Upgrade your throwing rocks with ESP32 terminal guidance and you’ll be able to knock a guy off his horse just as good as the latter. Or something.
As a systems guy, I find this situation quite interesting in the way in which it exposed interlocks in the car rental pipeline that were previously not visible.
What I hadn't appreciated was that Car Rental companies had constructed a model where they bought new cars, rented them for a couple of years, and then resold them. The car would depreciate of course but as a bulk car buyer they got the cars at a discount on dealer cost because, well they bought more than the average dealer did. So when they depreciated they didn't lose as much value as you and I might experience if we bought a car, held it for two years, and resold it to a dealer (worst case) or another buyer (best case).
So the rental agency simply tracked how much the car would "lose" in value over its working lifetime, plus the cost of needed maintenance (generally relatively low), and offset that with income of renting it out. So the math was something like (making up numbers here) $5,000 of depreciation loss against say 400 rental days at $50/day or $20,000 of rental income. Say $1000 for maintenance during those 2 years and you've got $14,000 of "gross income" into the company, per car to pay employees and operating costs etc.
Now this makes sense and it is a fine business model, but an interesting quirk is that revenue is directly proportional to the number of 'working' cars you have out there bringing in the bucks. More cars, more income. And if you buy the car on credit there is an interest expense sure but you don't use up working capital to bulk up your fleet and boost your income.
As a result, car rental companies were carrying a HUGE amount of debt pre-pandemic which was all in car investments.
Then BOOM, the black swan of a pandemic hit and air travel stopped for all intents and purposes and now rental car companies are sitting on fleets of cars where they have to make the monthly payment on the debt but those cars aren't earning any income. This burns money in a hurry! So they did the only thing they could do, and sold off their fleets for the most part so that they could retire all that debt. Some, like Hertz, were already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy when they did that. Late 2020 was an excellent time to buy a car from one of the rental companies because they were really motivated to get them off their balance sheets.
And this then is the fun part. So the pandemic also put a huge blip in the supply chain. And since every single car company had switched to "just in time" manufacturing where they don't stock parts to make cars, they expect a smooth flow of those parts from the supply chain to feed their assembly lines, had to stop making cars. They had no parts. What is more, the humans in the pipeline like truck drivers, container crane operators, container ship crews, freight forwarding staff, Etc. were quarantining or not working because of the pandemic risk and those are jobs you cannot do "remotely" no matter how much you might want to. So the supply of new cars dried up, and won't untwist until the entire chain is back up and running at capacity again.
So now the pandemic is "less scary" because smart people have vaccinated themselves and they start traveling again. And those people want to rent cars. Which is great for rental car companies, except they cannot rebuild their fleets because there aren't any cars to buy.
And this adds the second fun twist, if you bought a car new in 2019 (as I did), and it is the kind of car rental companies might rent (which mine is), you get letters from the dealer in 2021 offering to buy it back from you for more than you paid for it!
What is more, when you see all those cars that are going to be 'totalled' by the insurance company because they were under water in the southern part of the US or on the east coast, those cars used to be sold for pennies on the dollar in "salvage sales" in which salvage dealers would recover parts and/or do enough repairs to resell them with a salvage title. The bidding for those cars is much more intense given the demand by rental car companies for stock, any stock, to boost their fleets.
It is a remarkable example of a system where the parts are interconnected in non-obvious ways that has a non-intuitive response to shocks to the system. As with most "emergent" systems like this one though, sending a shock through it does two things; it illuminates these previously unseen inter dependencies, and it tends to kill off weak players.
It's because it's a huge can of worms that leads to really grandiose claims that aren't supported by Godel's statements, of the sort the article is already beginning to make.
It also shifts the conversation into becoming fundamentally a philosophical question rather than a logical or mathematical one, which is okay, but considerably changes the table stakes of what background knowledge we need.
> If there are unprovable statements in any consistent set of axioms, might we also conclude there also be an unprovable but true statements?
That is one potential philosophical position. Another philosophical position is that there are no "true" axioms schemes, but rather that axiom schemes are always indefinitely extendable. Truth lies instead in how we choose to apply the axiom schema to the external world, which is outside the purview of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Both positions are supported by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
For example, do you believe that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is true? That is, although it is independent of ZFC, do you believe that objectively we are only allowed to use CH as an axiom or Not(CH) as an axiom. One of those must be objectively wrong. Some people do some people don't.
Likewise, do you believe that the imaginary numbers are "true?" That is the axioms that make them up are not artificial statements that somebody can up in pursuit of an abstract theory, but are immutable truths of the universe and that in fact you cannot choose an alternative axiomatization because it would be "wrong?" Some people some people don't.
What about the natural numbers?
There are many philosophical positions you can take on the notion of mathematical truth and the crucial thing is describing Godel's theorems with reference to truth suggests that Godel's theorems help decide among these notions of mathematical truth, when in fact what happens is that Godel's theorems stretch and shrink to accommodate different philosophical frameworks. The former is why I think a lot of people accord Godel's theorems a mystical status that makes it very difficult to have coherent discussions about them.
To pedagogically illustrate why the notion of truth can be confusing, I'll repeat two questions I've listed elsewhere which I think are good things to meditate on for first-time readers of Godel's Incompleteness theorems and explore why the often grandiose philosophical proclamations arising from Godel's theorems require very careful footing.
I answer them in my post history, but I would recommend you don't look at those before you've come up with answers yourself.
------Repost-----
First, Conway's Game of Life:
Conway's Game of Life seem like they should be subject to Godel's incompleteness theorems. It is after all powerful enough to be Turing-complete.
Yet its rules seem clearly complete (they unambiguously specify how to implement the Game of Life enough that different implementation of the Game of Life agree with each other).
So what part of Game of Life is incomplete? What new rule (i.e. axiom) can you add to Conway's Game of Life that is independent of its current rules? Given that, what does it mean when I say that "its rules seem clearly complete?" Is there a way of capturing that notion? And if there isn't, why haven't different implementations of the game diverged? If you don't think that the Game of Life should be subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems why? Given that it's Turing complete it seems obviously as powerful as any other system.
Second, again, in most logical systems, another way of stating that consistency is unproveable is that consistency of a system S is independent of the axioms of that system. However, that means that the addition of a new axiom asserting that S is either consistent or inconsistent are both consistent with S. In particular, the new system S' that consists of the axioms of S with the new axiom "S is inconsistent" is consistent if S is consistent.
What gives? Do we have some weird "superposition" of consistency and inconsistency?
Hints (don't read them until you've given these questions some thought!):
1. Consider questions of the form "eventually" or "never." Can those be turned into axioms? If you decide instead to tackle the question of applicability of the incompleteness theorems, what is the domain of discourse when I say "clearly complete?" What exactly is under consideration?
2. Consider carefully what Godel's arithmetization of proofs gives you. What does Godel's scheme actually give you when it says it's "found" a contradiction? Does this comport with what you would normally agree with? An equivalent way of phrasing this hint, is what is the actual statement in Godel's arithmetization scheme created when we informally say "S is inconsistent?"
At the end of the day, the philosophical implications of Godel's incompleteness theorems hinge on whether you believe that it is possible to unambiguously specify what the entirety of the natural numbers are and whether they exist as a separate entity (i.e. does "infinity" exist in a real sense? Is there a truly absolute standard model of the natural numbers?).
For me it has to be the right kind of junk. There's junk, like in a junkyard, and then there's a toxic waste dump. Stick with the junkyard. The stronger a show's resemblance to your current reality, the more likely you'll find someone in it with whom to compare yourself. So right off the bat, so-called "reality" TV is off the table. Anything where you're able to forget about "you" and be transported into someone else's world, is good. That takes good writing, i.e. yes, an actual script. Old stuff works too - anything so old that you can't possibly imagine yourself in that milieu, that helps. We watch old Columbo episodes from the 70s on network TV on Sunday nights. Granted we are then bombarded with ads for Sono Bello, Consumer Cellular, and every drug on the market (and then ads for the lawyers suing the makers of last year's drugs), and anything else an advertiser has deemed likely to appeal to the demographic that cares about Columbo or the 70s... and all those ads in themselves are an assault on your self-esteem, so just mute that shit or do chores.
Mostly though it just takes time to build a life, and a you, that you love enough that you win most of those comparisons to celebrities. Think about how most celebs are basically slaves in various ways: slaves to public opinion, to the Hollywood social hierarchy, to the crappy contracts under which most of them are laboring, and especially to the fear of not being famous/loved/accepted tomorrow, of being replaced by one of the thousands of others who (maybe just as tragically) would jump at the chance to have that person's shitty contract and precarious perch on the ladder of fame. Slaves to the empty holes in their souls that they have been filling with the quest for fame probably their whole lives. Ah, but to the extent that you spend time on social media, seeking approval from strangers, you are (or your avatar is) kind of a micro-celebrity and would tend to be plagued by all those same problems! So yeah, that ruins it. All the more reason to get the hell off of there, ideally permanently!
Almost every lecture brought up and highlighted something really cool and fascinating. Like how RNA sequencing over the last couple of years has gone from expensive to almost free, and what its uses are. Or time-lapse of bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Or just the first lecture showing a video of someone sticking a syringe into a cell. There were even some labs that could be done via a normal web browser.
For me this was so much more engaging than the biology I was thought in high school, where we mostly learned things from outdated books.
[1]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/7-016-introductory-biology-fall-...