Constitutional Forks Revisited

Around this time last year, we discussed the idea of a constitutional “fork” that occurred with the founding of the Confederate States of America. That post briefly explains how forks work in open source software and how the Confederates used the US Constitution as the basis for their own, with deliberate and meaningful differences. Putting the two documents on Github allowed us to compare their differences visually and confirm our suspicions that many of them were related to issues of states’ rights and slavery.

Caleb McDaniel, a historian at Rice who undoubtedly has a much deeper and more thorough knowledge of the period, conducted a similar exercise and also posted his results on Github. He was faced with similar decisions of where to obtain the source text and which differences to retain as meaningful (for example, he left in section numbers where I did not). My method identifies 130 additions and 119 deletions when transitioning between the USA and CSA constitutions, whereas the stats for Caleb’s repo show 382 additions and 370 deletions.

What should we draw from these projects? In Caleb’s words:

My decisions make this project an interpretive act. You are welcome to inspect the changes more closely by looking at the commit histories for the individual Constitution files, which show the initial text as I got it from Avalon as well as the changes that I made.

You can take a look at both projects and conduct a difference-in-differences exploration of your own. More generally, these projects show the need for tools to visualize textual analyses, as well as the power of technology to enhance understanding of historical and political acts. Caleb’s readme file has great resources for learning more about this topic including the conversation that led him to this project, a New York Times interactive feature on the topic, and more.

Playing Chicken with Your Calendar

The ever-interesting Brendan Nelson on meeting chicken:

You have a regular meeting in your calendar. It’s with just one other person. Sometimes you have things to talk to them about and sometimes you don’t. But as long as your calendar says you both have to go, you will both go.

The day of the meeting comes round. There are lots of things that need to be done that day. You look at that meeting sitting obstinately in your calendar and think how useful it would be to get that time back.

Inspiration strikes: why not cancel the meeting? A couple of mouse clicks, an automatic notification sent out, a joyously blank calendar. It seems so easy.

But you can’t bring yourself to do it, to cancel a meeting at such short notice. It would make you look disorganised, unprepared. And what about the other person?

More at the link.

Don’t Forget Your Forever Stamps

The price of a first-class US stamp is set to increase from 46 to 49 cents on January 26. Like Cosmo Kramer’s Michigan bottle redemption plan (see below), Allison Schrager and Ritchie King ran the numbers on whether it would be possible to provide from Forever Stamp arbitrage.

Could the scheme make money? Maybe–if you get the timing right and pay low interest on capital:

Assuming we sell all 10 million stamps for the bulk discount price of $0.475 each, our profit will be $150,000. Subtract out the $399 for the distributor database. Let’s also assume we spent the $3,500 for Check Stand Program plus, say, $300 to make the 100 displays for advertising in stores. That gives us $145,801.

If we do manage to shift the stamps in a month, the interest on our debt will be $29,000. That brings our profits to $116,801. Then we’ll return the equity to our shareholders, along with 50% of the profits.

That leaves us with the other 50%: $58,400.50. If you look at that as a profit on the $4.6 million initial outlay, it’s not very much: less than 1.3%. But remember, all that outlay was leveraged. So if you look at it as a return on our investment—$33.25 for shipping—it’s 175,541%.

Github for Government

What happens when you combine open source software, open data, and open government? For the city of Munich, the switch to open source software has been a big success:

In one of the premier open source software deployments in Europe, the city migrated from Windows NT to LiMux, its own Linux distribution. LiMux incorporates a fully open source desktop infrastructure. The city also decided to use the Open Document Format (ODF) as a standard, instead of proprietary options.

As of November last year, the city saved more than €11.7 million because of the switch. More recent figures were not immediately available, but cost savings were not the only goal of the operation. It was also done to be less dependent on manufacturers, product cycles and proprietary OSes, the council said.

We’ve talked before about how more city governments could follow the open data, open government initiatives of NYC, using tech to benefit citizens rather than (only) creating initiatives to attract tech companies to the area. This shift in emphasis, toward harnessing the power of technology for widespread gains in happiness, is likely to become even more important following recent protests against tech employees in the Bay Area.

Open data and open government will take the principles of open source and use them to make an even bigger social and political impact. One tool from open source that can be adapted for use by these newer movements is Github. We will continue to follow these trends here, and if you are interested in this trend you can also check out Github and Government for more success stories.

What Can We Learn from Games?

ImageThis holiday season I enjoyed giving, receiving, and playing several new card and board games with friends and family. These included classics such as cribbage, strategy games like Dominion and Power Grid, and the whimsical Munchkin.

Can video and board games teach us more than just strategy? What if games could teach us not to be better thinkers, but just to be… better? A while ago we discussed how monopoly was originally designed as a learning experience to promote cooperation. Lately I have learned of two other such games in a growing genre and wanted to share them here.

The first is Depression Quest by Zoe Quinn (via Jeff Atwood):

Depression Quest is an interactive fiction game where you play as someone living with depression. You are given a series of everyday life events and have to attempt to manage your illness, relationships, job, and possible treatment. This game aims to show other sufferers of depression that they are not alone in their feelings, and to illustrate to people who may not understand the illness the depths of what it can do to people.

The second is Train by Brenda Romero (via Marcus Montano) described here with spoilers:

In the game, the players read typewritten instructions. The game board is a set of train tracks with box cars, sitting on top of a window pane with broken glass. There are little yellow pegs that represent people, and the player’s job is to efficiently load those people onto the trains. A typewriter sits on one side of the board.

The game takes anywhere from a minute to two hours to play, depending on when the players make a very important discovery. At some point, they turn over a card that has a destination for the train. It says Auschwitz. At that point, for anyone who knows their history, it dawns on the player that they have been loading Jews onto box cars so they can be shipped to a World War II concentration camp and be killed in the gas showers or burned in the ovens.

The key emotion that Romero said she wanted the player to feel was “complicity.”

“People blindly follow rules,” she said. “Will they blindly follow rules that come out of a Nazi typewriter?”

I have tried creating my own board games in the past, and this gives me renewed interest and a higher standard. What is the most thought-provoking moment you have experienced playing games?