On the Folly of Brexit, and the Undesirability of Referendums

I'm not a big fan of referendums. There are lots of reasons, but even in an ideal situation, most issues are too complicated and contingent to be reasonably turned into a ballot measure. Only really simple, clear-cut and most crucially, revocable topics seem remotely suitable. Examples:

Should we pass a bond to fund the new high school?

Should the drinking age be lowered to 19?

So Brexit was a poor proposition for a referendum. Certainly because it is complicated, but most of all because it is highly contingent, and not readily revocable, if conditions or sentiments change in the future.

Once a referendum is held, there is a general feeling that the people have spoken, so there is no opportunity to reconsider. That is the case with Brexit. However, given the inability of the ruling party to pass its proposal, I think there is a solid case for a do-over.

Promises were made by the Brexit supporters that there would be little harm, and many benefits, to leaving. They are utterly unable to deliver on that. The current agreement is hated most by the pro-Brexit crowd, because for various complicated reasons, many of the constraints (real or symbolic) of EU membership remain, while major benefits are lost. So it can't pass Parliament. But if the UK "crashes out" with no treaty, then all but the most denialist agree that major harm will occur. So given the current impasse, the promises underlying the Brexit referendum have been broken, and the referendum should be considered null and void.

Adding to the case is the fact that the pro-Brexit crowd didn't have the fortitude to put forth one of their own to lead the government in executing Brexit. That task fell to Theresa May, who was anti-Brexit. (You wouldn't know it by her rhetoric since then, and I think that is a failing, but that's another story.)

And if there is a new referendum, be smarter about the wording. The original question was phrased "Remain a member of the European Union / Leave the European Union". As this article points out, wording matters a lot. In hindsight, better wording for the original would have been: "Remain a member of the European Union / Negotiate and ratify a treaty for leaving the European Union". 

Design Flaw: Clogs in Dishwasher Spray Arms

The job of a dishwasher is to wash one's dishes. Extensive Any pre-rinsing should not be required. The dishwasher manuals even state this.

And it's mostly true--modern dishwashers do a great job of getting the dishes clean, even if there is layer of spaghetti sauce or whatever on them. The spray arms have these teeny little holes, to produce a high-pressure spray. Combine that low-volume but high-pressure spray with extended time and high humidity, and it works wonders.

Problem is those tiny holes. They are prone to clogging. I can't think of any good way to prevent that. So my complaint is not the clogging itself. My complain is how difficult it is to un-clog them.

Sure, you can ream them, as this video explains. But all too often, that just drops the clogging particle back into the body of the spray arm, where it will lurk, waiting to be pushed back into the orifice the next time a cycle is run. This typically lasts ~10 cycles, until the particle has been sufficiently eroded as to no longer block the orifice.

The MVP solution, IMO, is for the arm to be disassemble-able. I want to be able to open up the arm, to access the interior, so I can flush out the offending particle. Ironically, my very first, builder's-grade dishwasher had this feature. None of the 4 higher-end ones since then, including a very highly rated Bosch model, has.

Fat-Burning Heart-Rate Zone

Nice to see this article explain how the "fat-burning zone" is utterly misconstrued and generally bs. When it comes to diet or exercise, I've always been a believer in calories-in, calories-out.

And as a lifelong, daily exerciser, I've always thought the heart rate obsessions was a silly, fiddly distraction, unless you are a semi-pro or better. If the time spent measuring and logging heart rate were just spent exercising more, you would be way ahead. 

Nonprofit or Government-Sponsored Social Graph?

Social networks are likely central to many forms of future business innovation. Innovations such as experimenting with business models other than advertising and marketing. The problem: it is now all-but-impossible to get a critical mass of people to sign up for yet another network. This creates a huge barrier to entry, entrenching the established networks (Facebook foremost among them). App.net is one relatively well-known example of how even a high-profile, technically outstanding entrant, with something truly innovative to offer, quickly fails.

Is it possible to create a durable, viable, public social graph as a service? I am thinking of something either sponsored by a quasi-governmental entity (like Fannie Mae, or ICANN), or funded as a stand-alone organization (like Mozilla).

In particular, with the looming expectation that Facebook and the rest are going to be subject to coming government regulation, could the requirement to allow users to export their social network be part of such regulation?