May/June Links

Recent analysis of Magellan data suggests that Venus may have plate tectonics unlike those observed on Terra and Mars. This intermediate form may be a product of Venus' unusual atmosphere-interior combination, which makes the crust a lot more fluid than on other terrestrial planets.

After 46 years out-of-print, new copies of John D. Clark's rocketry history Ignition! are finally available. Get your copy from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or directly from Rutgers University Press.

Scott Alexander and his readers discuss basic income versus basic jobs.

Here's an interesting optical illusion: the Troxler effect. Stare at this fuzzy image long enough, and your eyes or brain will edit out the entire thing. Wikipedia says that the cause is still uncertain.

Does studying ethics increase ethical behavior? There's not enough research to tell for sure, but initial results aren't exactly promising. Depending on what future studies find, this may help open up some space in undergraduate curricula.

Speaking of opening up space, Falcon 9 fairing recovery is coming along.

NASA extends the Juno mission to 2021. The spacecraft was supposed to enter the Jovian atmosphere later this year, but that timeline was based on a 14-day orbital period. Propulsion system issues in 2016 precluded this, however, and Juno remains on its initial 53-day orbit. This extension will allow scientists to complete their observational plan.

How to talk like Mr. Rogers.

Charles Stross explains why books are the length they are. Unsurprisingly, the answer has more to do with technology and economics than literary tastes and artistic merits.

Supreme Court rules that cell phone location data requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Political Endorsements: What Gives?

I understand the overall concept of political endorsements—one states their opinion on who would make the best candidate for a particular office. This makes perfect sense.

During the 2016 Presidential primaries, however, I noticed something odd: all the discussions of the endorsement primary assumed that each endorser would endorse one, and only one, candidate. This seemed a bit weird because there were really three races going on (for the nomination of each major party¹). Once the nominations are in, it makes sense to endorse one of them, but until then it make ssense to endorse a candidate for each nomination.

Look at it this way: I would rather have the best possible candidate from each party in the final race.² Elections would be a lot less stressful if I liked all the candidates, and had to choose the best rather than the least-terrible. Party officials should like this, because tempting swing voters and moderate members of the other Parties would improve their odds of winning.

Endorsing a candidate for each nomination is a potential way of communicating this information. It's gameable, certainly, but also improves the odds of the final office-holder representing the wider values of their constituents. Letting the opposition parties know which of their candidates you prefer seems like a net-beneficial disclosure.

Maybe this is my idiosyncrasy as an independent showing, though. I'm no longer a committed partisan and vote for candidates that can be expected to reliably represent my values in office, regardless of the letters after their names. Party officials aren't generally receptive to their elected members deciding for themselves—they'd rather everyone vote with the Party line than entertain the possibility of internal dissent. This is the biggest issue with the idea, I suspect. No one in the major parties would like to give up a seat to a candidate outside their organization, even a sympathetic one.

Remind me why we tolerate whips, again?

---

¹The Green Party's primaries weren't even remotely competitive, in contrast to the other major parties.

²Where "best" indicates alignment with my values, rather than probability of winning.