To Force Use of Organic Farming, Government Banned Chemical Fertilizers; A Ban Which “Devastated” Crops and “Destroyed the Farmers”

(p. A6) GALENBINDUNUWEWA, Sri Lanka—For more than half a century, Pahatha Mellange Jayaappu has tilled the field on his modest farm in Sri Lanka’s agricultural heartland, unswayed by recurrent political and economic turmoil.

Now the 71-year-old is just trying to eke out enough of a harvest to feed his family after an abrupt ban on chemical fertilizers last year devastated his crops. He says he has given up on planting for profit.

“We have lived through armed insurrections and bad government policies,” Mr. Jayaappu said. “This is the worst year I’ve ever seen. They have destroyed the farmers.”

Many Sri Lankans aren’t getting enough to eat, and farmers and agricultural experts say the food shortages are set to worsen. The government reversed the ban in November and promised fresh supplies of chemical fertilizers, but farmers said many received only a small amount, and too late for the current growing season.

. . .

The ban on imports of agricultural chemicals took effect in May 2021, and the rice harvest the following March was down 40%, according to government data. Prices soared. Sri Lanka, which had been largely self-sufficient in rice, was forced to use some of its fast-dwindling foreign reserves to import the key staple. Other crops, like tea, an important foreign-exchange earner, have also suffered. In May, the country defaulted on its external debt.

. . .

Mr. Wickremesinghe was installed by Parliament last month after his predecessor, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, fled the country and resigned in the face of mass protests over fuel shortages and food prices.  . . .

Mr. Rajapaksa billed the ban as a nationwide shift to organic farming, but agricultural experts say that requires a yearslong transition. Opposition lawmakers said cutting off imports of fertilizer, which the government heavily subsidizes for farmers, was a shortsighted attempt to hold on to foreign reserves.

. . .

Farmers complained that the organic fertilizers that came on the market after the ban took effect were poor quality, full of material that wasn’t fully decomposed. And the haste of the ban left insufficient time to make their own compost, or learn how to farm organically.

For the full story, see:

Shan Li and Philip Wen. “Sri Lanka’s Farmers Struggle to Survive.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, August 20, 2022): A6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Aug. 19, 2022, and has the title “Sri Lanka’s Farmers Struggle to Feed the Country—and Themselves.”)

Productivity Increases from AI May Create New Valuable Tasks and Occupations

(p. A2) For centuries, new waves of automation have been greeted by predictions of widespread job loss and convulsive disruption. For centuries, the predictions have been wrong.

. . .

Predictions of technology’s labor-market impacts are notoriously flawed. Experiments like those involving AI often fail to replicate in the real world. Nearly two decades ago, the advent of international fiber-optic connections led some scholars to estimate a fifth of U.S. jobs, such as radiologist, could be offshored. Nothing even close to that happened. A decade ago, economists began warning that self-driving trucks would deprive millions of high-school graduates of good-paying jobs. Today, there are more truck drivers than ever and employers are begging for more.

Often, the technology isn’t good enough or human tasks are too complicated to be replaced. Regulation and inertia get in the way, so the impact unfolds over many years and can’t be detected amid countless other forces at work.

Joshua Gans, an economist specializing in AI at the University of Toronto, said: “Technological changes turn something that was scarce into something that is abundant,” and in the process, “reveal to us what the real value of that stuff is.” Journalists’ greatest value, he said, will be in asking good questions and judging the quality of the answers, not writing up the results.

Spreadsheets made math-intensive analysis easy and cheap, and as a result, led to the creation of countless new tasks and occupations. Large language models could similarly lead to an explosion in applications requiring the synthesis of large amounts of information into serviceable prose.

For the full commentary, see:

Greg Ip. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; The Robots Have Finally Come for My Job.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, April 6, 2023): A2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 5, 2023, and has the same title as the print version.)

Experienced Nurses Can Be Disciplined If They Use Hunches from Clinical Observations to Override AI Protocols

(p. A1) Melissa Beebe, an oncology nurse, relies on her observation skills to make life-or-death decisions. A sleepy patient with dilated pupils could have had a hemorrhagic stroke. An elderly patient with foul-smelling breath could have an abdominal obstruction.

So when an alert said her patient in the oncology unit of UC Davis Medical Center had sepsis, she was sure it was wrong. “I’ve been working with cancer patients for 15 years so I know a septic patient when I see one,” she said. “I knew this patient wasn’t septic.”

The alert correlates elevated white blood cell count with septic infection. It wouldn’t take into account that this particular patient had leukemia, which can cause similar blood counts. The algorithm, which was based on artificial intelligence, triggers the alert when it detects patterns that match previous patients with sepsis. The algorithm didn’t explain (p. A9) its decision.

Hospital rules require nurses to follow protocols when a patient is flagged for sepsis. While Beebe can override the AI model if she gets doctor approval, she said she faces disciplinary action if she’s wrong. So she followed orders and drew blood from the patient, even though that could expose him to infection and run up his bill. “When an algorithm says, ‘Your patient looks septic,’ I can’t know why. I just have to do it,” said Beebe, who is a representative of the California Nurses Association union at the hospital.

As she suspected, the algorithm was wrong. “I’m not demonizing technology,” she said. “But I feel moral distress when I know the right thing to do and I can’t do it.”

. . .

In a survey of 1,042 registered nurses published this month by National Nurses United, a union, 24% of respondents said they had been prompted by a clinical algorithm to make choices they believed “were not in the best interest of patients based on their clinical judgment and scope of practice” about issues such as patient care and staffing.” Of those, 17% said they were permitted to override the decision, while 31% weren’t allowed and 34% said they needed doctor or supervisor’s permission.

. . .

Jeff Breslin, a registered nurse at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., has been working at the Level 1 trauma center since 1995. He helps train new nurses and students on what signs to look for to assess and treat a critically ill or severely injured patient quickly.

“You get to a point in the profession where you can walk into a patient’s room, look at them and know this patient is in trouble,” he said. While their vital signs might be normal, “there are thousands of things we need to take into account,” he said. “Does he exhibit signs of confusion, difficulty breathing, a feeling of impending doom, or that something isn’t right?”

. . .

Nurses often describe their ability to sense a patient’s deterioration in emotional terms. “Nurses call it a ‘hunch,’ ” said Cato, the University of Pennsylvania professor who is also a data scientist and former nurse. “It’s something that causes them to increase surveillance of the patient.”

. . .

At UC Davis earlier this spring, Beebe, the oncology nurse, was treating a patient suffering from a bone cancer called myeloid leukemia. The condition fills the bones with cancer cells, “they’re almost swelling with cancer,” she said, causing excruciating pain. Seeing the patient wince, Beebe called his doctor to lobby for a stronger, longer-lasting pain killer. He agreed and prescribed one, which was scheduled to begin five hours later.

To bridge the gap, Beebe wanted to give the patient oxycodone. “I tell them, ‘Anytime you’re in pain, don’t keep quiet. I want to know.’ There’s a trust that builds,” she said.

When she started in oncology, nurses could give patients pain medication at their discretion, based on patient symptoms, within a doctor’s parameters. They gave up authority when the hospital changed its policies and adopted a tool that automated medication administration with bar-code scanners a few years ago.

In its statement, UC Davis said the medication tool exists as a second-check to help prevent human error. “Any nurse who doesn’t believe they are acting in the patient’s best interests…has an ethical and professional obligation to escalate those concerns immediately,” the hospital said.

Before giving the oxycodone, Beebe scanned the bar code. The system denied permission, adhering to the doctor’s earlier instructions to begin the longer-acting pain meds five hours later. “The computer doesn’t know the patient is in out-of-control pain,” she said.

Still, she didn’t act. “I know if I give the medication, I’m technically giving medication without an order and I can be disciplined,” she said. She watched her patient grimace in pain while she held the pain pill in her hand.

For the full story, see:

Lisa Bannon. “Nurses Clash With AI Over Patient Care.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, June 16, 2023): A1 & A9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 15, 2023, and has the title “When AI Overrules the Nurses Caring for You.”)

Did Theranos Fail Because It Had a Flat Structure or Because It Had a Hierarchy with Holmes at the Top (Or Simply Because They Failed at Something Very Hard)?

André Spicer and Elizabeth Holmes infer that Theranos failed due to its flat structure. But weren’t there some employees, such as George Shultz’s grandson, whose efforts to identify the problems that led to failure and fraud, were suppressed by Elizabeth Holmes? If so, then can’t you say that the failure was due to Holmes’s power at the top of the firm? Meaning due to a kind of hierarchy rather than due to flatness? (I remain unclear and conflicted on whether and when flatness or hierarchy is better.)

(p. B2) . . . do flat structures work? André Spicer, a professor of organizational behavior at the Bayes Business School in London, said that, while the “cultural zeitgeist when I was growing up was that hierarchies are bad,” there’s been an increasing recognition of both the need for them and the fact that they often reappear in businesses ‌that, at least theoretically, reject them.

. . .

Mr. Spicer is particularly critical of start-ups that have attempted, or claimed to attempt, flat structures, suggesting that failures — and at least one major scandal — have emerged from these workplaces. He pointed to Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, her health care technology start-up. In a 2015 interview, Ms. Holmes said that Theranos was “a very flat organization and if I have learned anything, we are only as good as the worst people on our team.”

“The claim that companies like Theranos had a flat structure meant the company fitted into a well-recognized type of agile tech firms,” Mr. Spicer said. In addition to attracting investors and employees, the myth “meant that these companies don’t have to do the difficult and tedious process of putting into place all the systems and controls you would normally find.”

He added that he believed those systems “would have likely stopped much of the wrongdoing.” Ms. Holmes and Ramesh Balwani, the former chief operating officer of Theranos, were each recently sentenced to prison time for defrauding investors and patients.

The notion that start-ups in particular are ill suited to a flat structure was supported in a 2021 study by Professor Lee of Wharton. A flat structure “can result in haphazard execution and commercial failure by overwhelming managers with the burden of direction and causing subordinates to drift into power struggles and aimless idea explorations,” he wrote.

For the full story, see:

Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff. “‘Flat’ Company Structures Sound Appealing. But Do They Work?” The New York Times (Wednesday, July 5, 2023): B2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the same date as the print version, and has the title “In Business, ‘Flat’ Structures Rarely Work. Is There a Solution?” Where there are minor differences in wording between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

The academic paper by Lee mentioned in the passage quoted above is:

Lee, Saerom. “The Myth of the Flat Start-Up: Reconsidering the Organizational Structure of Start-Ups.” Strategic Management Journal 43, no. 1 (Jan. 2022): 58-92.

Lister Used Data, Results, and Amiability to Convince Physicians to Sterilize Hands, Scalpels, and Wounds

(p. C6) What was the most dangerous place in the vast territories of the British Empire in the 19th century? Was it the savage savannas of Zululand? Perhaps the frozen wastes of the Northwest Passage, or the treacherous high passes of the Hindu Kush?

To judge from “The Butchering Art,” a fine and long overdue biography of the great physician Joseph Lister by Lindsey Fitzharris, the answer might be a much more domestic corner of empire: the Victorian teaching hospital.

. . .

Infection rates plummeted when Lister used carbolic acid to wash hands and scalpels, to dress wounds, and to sterilize sutures. He even sprayed it into the air of the operating room. But other physicians were skeptical and bitterly resisted the notion that their sloppy and unhygienic practices were the cause of so many deaths.

. . .

Lister won over his opponents, not with bile and rhetoric but with a relentless focus on data and results, coupled with his innate amiability. He paid particular attention to audiences of medical students, perhaps anticipating Max Planck’s observation that bitter disciples of old dogmas are never won over by new theories, they simply die off and are replaced by a new generation.

The modesty and compassion of Lister would have been remarkable in any man, let alone a surgeon. His patients and students adored him. Lister taught his residents that “every patient, even the most degraded, should be treated with the same care and regard as though he were the Prince of Wales himself.” After he drained a young girl’s knee abscess, the girl showed him her doll, which was missing a leg. As Ms. Fitzharris writes, “The girl fumbled around under her pillow and—much to Lister’s amusement—produced the severed limb.” Lister called for needle and thread and “stitched the limb back onto the doll and with quiet delight handed it back to the little girl.”

For the full review, see:

John J. Ross. “BOOKSHELF; The Butchering Art.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Oct. 14, 2017): C6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Oct. 13, 2017, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; Review: ‘The Butchering Art’ Resurrects Joseph Lister.”)

The book under review is:

Fitzharris, Lindsey. The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister’s Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017.

The reviewer repeats the plausible but debunked view of Planck that old scientists do not change their views. The debunking occurs in:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. “Age and the Acceptance of Cliometrics.” Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (Dec. 1980): 838-41.

Hull, David L. , Peter D. Tessner, and Arthur M. Diamond, Jr. “Planck’s Principle: Do Younger Scientists Accept New Scientific Ideas with Greater Alacrity Than Older Scientists?” Science 202 (Nov. 17, 1978): 717-23.

Exponential Growth Is Not Inevitable and Has Seldom Occurred Outside of Computer Chips

(p. C5) Nothing has affected, and warped, modern thinking about the pace of technological invention more than the rapid exponential advances of solid-state electronics. The conviction that we have left the age of gradual growth behind began with our ability to crowd ever more components onto a silicon wafer, a process captured by Gordon Moore’s now-famous law that initially ordained a doubling every 18 months, later adjusted to about two years.

. . .

Bestselling tech prophets like Ray Kurzweil and Yuval Noah Harari argue that exponential growth will allow us to disrupt our way into a future devoid of disease and misery and abounding in material riches.

. . .

The problem is that the post-1970 ascent of electronic architecture and performance has no counterpart in other aspects of our lives. Exponential growth has not taken place in the fundamental economic activities on which modern civilization depends for its survival—agriculture, energy production, transportation and large engineering projects. Nor do we see rapid improvements in areas that directly affect health and quality of life, such as new drug discoveries and gains in longevity.

. . .

The conclusion that progress is not accelerating in the most fundamental human activities is supported by a paper published in 2020 by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The authors, four American economists led by Bryan Kelly of the Yale School of Management, studied innovation across American industries from 1840 to 2010, using textual analysis of patent documents to construct indexes of long-term change. They found that the wave of breakthrough patents in furniture, textiles, apparel, transportation, metal, wood, paper, printing and construction all peaked before 1900. Mining, coal, petroleum, electrical equipment, rubber and plastics had their innovative peaks before 1950. The only industrial sectors with post-1970 peaks have been agriculture (dominated by genetically modified organisms), medical equipment and, of course, computers and electronics.

For the full essay, see:

Vaclav Smil. “Tech Progress Is Slowing Down.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Feb. 18, 2023): C5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the essay has the date February 16, 2023, and has the same title as the print version.)

The essay quoted above is adapted from Smil’s book:

Smil, Vaclav. Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2023.

For Musk “Hard Core” Means “Long Hours at High Intensity”

(p. A24) Have you ever gotten an email at midnight from the boss with ​an ominous subject line like “a fork in the road”? Granted, email etiquette today says we’re not supposed to get midnight emails from bosses at all. But Elon Musk is no ordinary boss, and it’s safe to assume he didn’t get the memo on empathetic leadership. So, true to form, as chief executive of Twitter, after laying off nearly half of his staff, bringing a sink to work and proclaiming he would be sleeping at the office “until the org is fixed,” Mr. Musk recently issued this late-night ultimatum to his remaining employees: From this point forward, Twitter was going to be “extremely hard core.” Were they ready to be hard core? They could select “yes” — or opt for three months of severance pay.

To Mr. Musk, “hard core” meant “long hours at high intensity,” a workplace where only the most “exceptional performance” would be accepted and a culture in which midnight emails would be just fine. I’d wager that more than a few workaholics, bosses or otherwise, weren’t entirely turned off by the philosophy behind that statement, and yet it immediately conjured images of sweaty Wall Street bankers collapsing at their desks, Silicon Valley wunderkinds sleeping under theirs and the high-intensity, bro-boss cultures of companies like Uber and WeWork, with their accompanying slogans about doing what you love and sleeping when you’re dead.

For the full commentary, see:

Jessica Bennett. “Elon, the Mosh Pit Called. It Wants ‘Hard Core’ Back.” The New York Times (Friday, November 25, 2022): A24.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Nov. 23, 2022, and has the title “The Worst Midnight Email From the Boss, Ever.”)

“Keeper” of Home Where Walt Disney Screened His Films Wants to “Inspire” the “Creative”

(p. M6) Walt Disney’s former Los Angeles home—now for rent asking $40,000 a month—looks like something out of one of his films: Largely covered in vines, the Storybook-style home has a turret, leaded-glass windows and a cobblestone motor court.

Disney built the four-bedroom Los Feliz home in 1932, and lived there with his wife and family for about 20 years before moving to Holmby Hills, according to Disney historian and blogger Todd Regan. The property is now owned by Kazakhstan-born film director Timur Bekmambetov, who bought it in 2011 for $3.7 million, according to public records.

. . .

He is now renting it out, he said, because he wants people to be able to experience staying there.

. . .

There is a screening room in the house where Disney watched his films, Regan said. In the yard sits a cottage-style playhouse, which Disney gave his daughters on Christmas Day in 1937 following the release of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” he said.

. . .

Bekmambetov, who has directed movies including 2004’s “Night Watch” and “Wanted” in 2008, said he has always been a fan of Disney’s work. When the home hit the market in 2011, he couldn’t believe it was tied to the late filmmaker. “I got a notification that there was a house for sale and it had the Walt Disney name,” he said. “I called my assistant and said to her, ‘Please call. I think it’s a mistake.’” But it wasn’t a mistake, and Bekmambetov decided to buy the home sight unseen.

Bekmambetov said he considers himself the home’s “keeper.” The house inspired a graphic novel and movie script he is working on, he said, about fictional Disney characters who never made it to the big screen. He said he hopes to rent the house to someone who is creative and will be inspired by the home, just as he has been.

For the full story, see:

Libertina Brandt. “Walt Disney’s Onetime L.A. Home for Lease.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, June 16, 2023): M6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 12, 2023, and has the title “Walt Disney’s Former L.A. Home Is Now Renting for $40,000 a Month.”)

Airbnb Listings Are “Vanishing” from NYC Due to Government Regulations

(p. A1) Thousands of New York City Airbnb listings are vanishing from the market.

Hosts are removing listings in response to a city-mandated deadline, and Airbnb is blocking future dates for booking. Starting Sept. 5 [2023], city officials say they will enforce rules on short-term rentals more aggressively.

Hosts of short-term rentals need to register with the city to continue providing stays, and can only do so if they meet several requirements. These include not renting out an entire apartment or home, even if they own it. Hosts also must be present during their guests’ short-term stays.

Airbnb has called the rules, which took effect earlier this year, “a de facto ban on short-term rentals.”

New York and companies like Airbnb have long duked it out over short-term rental regulations. Hosts say this time feels different. Many are taking their properties off the market. Some are considering whether they can afford to live in their units without the extra income. Guests are finding fewer options for short-term rental stays after Sept. 5 [2023].

For the full story, see:

Allison Pohle. “Tough New Regulations Buffet Airbnb in NYC.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023): A1 & A12.

(Note: bracketed years added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date August 21, 2023, and has the title “Airbnb Hosts, Guests Scramble as New York Cracks Down.”)

Betting on Elections Is a Form of Free Speech

(p. A17) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has moved to shut down PredictIt, an online marketplace for futures contracts on the outcomes of political events, effective Feb. 15, 2023. This is a blow to investors in these contracts, such as those on the presidential election of 2024, who are left uncertain as to how their positions will be unwound. And it’s a blow to the public at large, because political futures have proven to have better predictive power than polls.

. . .

. . . in early 2020, . . . PredictIt listed a contract on whether the World Health Organization would declare Covid-19 a pandemic. According to John Phillips, chief executive of Aristotle, the firm that operates PredictIt, the CFTC telephoned to complain about that contract, saying it was in poor taste. The contract had already expired.

. . .

If investors can express their opinions on the future prices of corn and pork bellies, surely the First Amendment also protects their ability to do the same on elections and other political matters. It’s a matter of free speech that you can put your money where your mouth is.

For the full commentary, see:

Donald Luskin. “The Feds Don’t Want You Betting on Elections.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2022): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 1, 2022, and has the same title as the print version.)

“Effective Altruism” Is Woke, Sanctimonious, Fraudulent, and Ineffective

(p. A1) Sam Bankman-Fried said he wanted to prevent nuclear war and stop future pandemics. And he publicly pledged to use his vast and growing wealth to do so.

But the collapse of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s firm, FTX, and the revelations that he mixed FTX’s money with that of its customers, have upended those declared lofty philanthropic goals.

Run by self-described idealists spending the wealth of their billionaire patron to make the world a better place, Mr. Bankman-Fried’s FTX Foundation and its flagship Future Fund touted deep pockets, ambitious goals and fast turnarounds.

Now Mr. Bankman-Fried’s fortune has disappeared, and the self-described philosopher-executives running the organizations have resigned. Grant recipients are scrambling for cash to plug the shortfall and fretting about the provenance of FTX’s largess after the company’s lawyers said this week that a “substantial amount” of assets were missing and possibly stolen.

. . .

(p. A6) Mr. Bankman-Fried often claimed philanthropy was his primary motivation for amassing a fortune. “It’s the thing that matters the most in the end,” he said in an April interview on the “80,000 Hours” podcast.

Mr. Bankman-Fried has said his law-professor parents instilled in him an interest in utilitarianism, the philosophy of trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

. . .

Will MacAskill, then a philosophy graduate student, pitched Mr. Bankman-Fried on the idea of effective altruism, a way of applying some utilitarian ideas to charitable giving.

. . .

Mr. Bankman-Fried had considered different career paths, he said in the “80,000 Hours” interview, but Mr. MacAskill suggested he could do the most good by making a lot of money and giving it away, a popular idea in the community.

. . .

Future Fund pledged hundreds of grants worth more than $160 million by September [2022], according to its website.  . . .

Its two largest public grants, of $15 million and $13.9 million, were awarded to effective altruism groups where Mr. MacAskill held roles. Mr. MacAskill, now a professor at Oxford University, wasn’t paid for his involvement in those organizations “other than expenses,” a spokeswoman for one of them said.

. . .

Mr. MacAskill distanced himself from FTX as it was crumbling. In a string of tweets, he accused Mr. Bankman-Fried of personal betrayal and abandoning the principles of effective altruism. He was also one of the Future Fund staffers who quit.

Last week, Mr. Bankman-Fried exchanged messages with a writer at Vox, a news organization that Building A Stronger Future had also pledged to fund.

“You were really good at talking about ethics,” she said.

“I had to be,” Mr. Bankman-Fried responded. He went on to explain it as “this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths [sic.] and so everyone likes us.”

For the full story, see:

Rachel Louise Ensign and Ben Cohen. “FTX’s Collapse Wiped Out Founder’s Philanthropic Aims.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Nov. 25, 2022): A1 & A6.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added. The bracketed [sic.] is in the original.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 24, 2022, and has the title “Sam Bankman-Fried Said He Would Give Away Billions. Broken Promises Are All That’s Left.”)