Thoughts on the Current State of Sync

There’s a problem with sync and its name is offline.

Sync on iOS is built on the false assumption that the Internet is everywhere. But the world of humans, airplanes and trains and subways and backroads and basements demonstrate otherwise. Holes of offlineness lurk everywhere and sync on iOS (both with iCloud and DropBox) really falls down hard if you step into one.

Offline Perils

On iOS, your data often isn’t on the phone until you try to access it. Doubtless there have been many a sad businessman who once in the air over the Pacific Ocean discovered that all his music didn’t get on the plane with him.

But that’s not all: did you rent a cabin far out in the woods to work on your book? If you didn’t download it to your iPad ahead of time, it’s going to be an unproductive retreat.

And the problem works the other way, too.

If you live in a city with a metro system you’ll be out of Internet range multiple times a day: and the data you generate on your iPhone might not make it back into the cloud.

For example: I use an app called Notesy to store ideas for future projects. And ideas flow freely while I’m slightly bored on the Underground.

Later, when I go to use the notes on the iPad version of Notesy – its empty. Why? Apps only sync when they are open. The solution isn’t a big deal: open Notsey on the iPhone then manually tell the iPad version to sync – but it’s an irritation that shouldn’t exist.

But the way iOS handles sync can lead to much bigger, serious problems: it’s possible to overwrite new versions of your data with old versions without warning.

Again, as example Byword is my text editor of choice and it uses Apple’s iCloud to sync documents. But because of the sync-only-when-open-rule this can happen:

Monday: Start writing a new script on my iPad.

Tuesday: Continue working on it on my Mac. No problems.

Wednesday: Go back to working on the iPad. But this time I’m offline for some reason. Because Byword can’t sync, I’m working on Monday’s version of the script and, the next time Byword on my iPad connects to the Internet it will replace Tuesday’s work.

While it’s possible to remember over the course of three days where the latest version of a document really is: 1) the user shouldn’t have to & 2) as the time between edits and the number of documents increases, errors are inevitable. Versioning is only useful when you know you've overridden something.

This kind of problem can destroy days or months of work[1]. The result is that I’m never 100% sure that what I’m working on is the current version.

And to be clear: this isn’t Byword’s, or any other app’s, fault. It’s a structural problem with the way iOS limits what apps can do.

That's not even getting started on the horror that can be unnoticed conflicts. For example, take a look at my TextExpander folder:

Thanks a lot, Dropbox.

As most of my work migrates to iOS, sync problems have moved from a nuisance to a business problem. Here’s a list of just my work-related iPad apps that depend on sync:

• OmniFocus (Task management)
• Agenda (Scheduling)
• Byword (Long-form writing)
• Notesy (Project notes)
• Notes (Very brief ideas)
• Downcast & Instapaper[2] (Speculative research)
• Evernote (Non-text research Notes)
• 1Password (Secure website access)
• TextExpander (Faster writing)
• Dropbox (Document storage)
• PDF Pen (Document storage)
• Numbers (Finances)
• Drafts (Rapid input)

There’s not a one where sync hasn’t messed up: sometimes with disastrous consequences.

Suggestions

Enough complaining, here are two suggestions for how Apple could fix the current problem with iOS sync.

1) Sync Requests

Just as OS X allows applications to specify their power requirements iOS would benefit from letting apps tell it what their sync needs are.

If the user adds data to an app on their iPhone while offline, the app should be able to tell iOS “please wake me up to sync as soon as the Internet is available.”[3]

Going back to my Notesy example from earlier, this would mean that notes created while underground would have a chance of making it to other devices without me having to manually update the app on my iPhone.

2) Midnight Syncs

Sync requests work when an app knows it has data to send to the cloud, but sometimes there’s data in the cloud that the app doesn’t know it needs.

To solve this, iOS should wake up apps to sync if the following three rules are true:

1. The device isn’t being used.
2. The device is plugged in and at 100% battery.
3. The device is connected to WiFi.

Then after spending a day writing in Byword on my Mac, the updates can spread to all my devices automatically.

3) Pin Data

Lastly, iOS should have a clearer way to pin data down to the device. That way specific documents or entire Apps could be given clearer priority for always keeping data locally.

Even with pinning data, sync requests and midnight syncs there would still be problems – sync is incredibly troublesome – but these three should go a long way toward getting rid of the kind of problems that temporarily being offline currently cause.

---

1. While it is possible to rollback to previous versions of files, often working on older versions of scripts creates structural conflicts that a simple diff can’t solve. This can lead to massive delays which in turn costs money.  ↩

2. Downcast and Instapaper both have a feature that allows them to sync when you enter or leave a given location (such as your home). While this eliminates most of the problems mentioned above, it’s not a widely practical solution for several reasons: 1) Proper sync should not rely on the user running frequent errands. 2) Having every app on your phone wake up to sync every time you leave your house is a battery killer. 3) iOS devices are currently too RAM constrained to open every app at once anyway. ↩

3. Of course, this suggestion would decrease battery life. So perhaps the user would need to explicitly grant permission to some apps to be able to request this sync.  ↩

Countries Inside Countries (Bizarre Borders Part 1)

Notes & Corrections:

• If I didn't make it clear enough in the video, this is about land borders and thus doesn't include bridges. (Which is why Singapore isn't listed)
• Lesotho is 70,000 times larger than Vatican City, not 70 times.

Script:

When it comes to neighbors, most countries have several options: like North to Canada or South to Mexico.

But there are countries that don't have this freedom of choice, not because they're islands but because they're trapped in another country. For example: tiny Vatican City, which fits inside of not just Italy, but also just Rome.

How Vatican City got surrounded is complicated, but not unique for there is also the Republic of San Marino, home to 30,000 citizens which Italy also completely surrounds. Italy, apparently, is a country that likes countries in its country.

But trapping nations is not just Italy's thing for there's also Lesotho, in South Africa which is both the largest encircled country at 70 times Vatican City's size and the most populated with over 2,000,000 citizens.

The thing that makes these three countries' borders bizarre is that any path in or out must go through the one and only neighbor they have.

But now take a look at The Gambia, which excluding that tiny ocean border, is as surrounded as any nation can get.

If we amend the previous rule to every land route, now we've made a category of single-neighbored nations. Which includes all four of these and countries like Portugal, where the only way in or out is through Spain. Who else is on this list?

Well, there's Monaco which must go through France, Qatar through Saudi Arabia Denmark through Germany, South Korea through North Korea (though South Korea might as well be an island nation for most practical travel purposes)

East Timor and Papua New Guinea both through Indonesia, Brunei through Malaysia

And there are two sets of twins: there is The Dominican Republic whose only neighbor is Haiti and Haiti, whose only neighbor is The Dominican Republic.

And the second set is: Ireland through the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom through Ireland.

A side note here:

While there are tons of 'British' places around the world, some of which border other nations -- these are not part of the United Kingdom. It's complicated.

Though if you wanted to, you could argue that the United Kingdom technically dug a land border under the channel to the continent, presumably to be closer to France, her best friend ever.

Finally, there's one more country in this category: Canada: the largest single-neighbored, nation in the world.

Credits:

Images: jamiejohn, Alaskan Dude, yeowatzup, little_frank, Di.Malealea

Music: Kevin MacLeod

Vatican City Explained

Script

Vatican City: capitol of the Catholic Church, home to the pope, owner of impressive collections of art and history all contained within the borders of the world's smallest country: conveniently circumnavigateable on foot in only 40 minutes.

Just how did the world end up with this tiny nation?

The short answer is: because Mussolini and the long answer is fiendishly complicated so here's a simplified medium version:

The popes used to rule a country called the Papal States that covered much of modern day Italy. It was during this 1,000+ year reign that the Popes constructed St. Peter's Basilica the largest church in the world -- and also built a wall around the base of a hill known as Vatican upon which St. Peter's Stood.

But the Kingdom of Italy next door thought Rome would be an awesome capital for their country and so conquered the Papal States.

His nation destroyed the Pope hid behind the walls of Vatican and conflictingly refused to acknowledge that the Kingdom of Italy existed, while simultaneously complaining about being a prisoner of the Kingdom of Italy -- which according to him didn't exist.

Rather than risk religious civil war by getting rid of the pope the Kingdom of Italy decided to wait him out assuming he'd eventually give up -- but religion is nothing if not obstinate -- and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 popes and sixty years later nothing had changed.

Which brings us to Benito Mussolini the then prime minister of Italy who was tired of listing to the Pope complain to Italian Catholics about his self-imposed imprisonment so Mussolini thought he could score some political points by striking a deal which looked like this:

1) Italy gave the land of Vatican to the Pope.

and…

2) Italy gave the Pope a bunch of apology money

In return

1) The Pope acknowledged that Italy existed and

and…

2) The Pope promised to remain neutral in politics and wars.

On the off chance that, you know, Mussolini thought this might be a thing.

The deal was signed and a new country, Vatican City was born.

And today the tiny nation on a hill has all the things you'd expect of a country: its own government that makes its own laws that are enforced by its own police, who put people who break them in its own jail.

It also has its own bank and prints its own stamps and issues its own license plates, though only its citizens can drive within its borders presumably because of terrible, terrible parking -- and as the true mark of any self-respecting nation: it has its own top-level domain: .VA

But, despite all these national trappings Vatican City is not really like any other country. Hold on to your fancy hat, because it's about to get weird:

To understand the Vatican: there are two people and two things that you need to know about: the famous pope, the incredibly confusing Holy See, The Country of Vatican City and along with that the almost completely unknown King of Vatican City.

But first the Pope: who gets a throne to sit upon and from which he acts as the Bishop for all the Catholics in Rome.

Actually all Bishops in the Catholic Church get their own thrones but because the Bishop of Rome is also the Pope his throne is special and has it's own special name: The Holy See.

Every time a Pope dies or retires there is a sort of game of thrones to see which of the bishops will next get to occupy the Holy See.

So while Popes come and go the throne is eternal. As such the name The Holy See not only refers to the throne but also all the rules that make the Catholic Church the Catholic Church.

When Mussolini crafted that aforementioned deal, technically he gave the land of Vatican City to The Holy See -- which, believe it or not, is a legal corporate person in international law. Basically every time you hear the words The Holy See think Catholic Church, Inc of which the Pope is the CEO.

Now back to the King. The King of Vatican City has absolute, unchecked power within the country's borders and his presence makes Vatican City one of only six remanning absolute monarchies in the world, including Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland. The King's absolute power is why Vatican City can't join the European Union because only democracies are allowed.

Through Vatican City does, strictly speaking, have a legislative brach of government -- staffed by cardinals, appointed by the pope -- the King of Vatican City can overrule their decisions and at any time for any reason.

So why do you never hear about the King of Vatican City? Because though King and Pope are two different roles, they just happen to be occupied by the same person at the same time -- which has the funny consequence that, because the Pope is elected and the King is all-powerful but they're the same guy it makes Vatican City the world's only elected, non-hereditary absolute monarchy.

It's this dual-role that makes untangling Vatican City so difficult because the Pope, depending on the situation either acts as The King of the country of Vatican City or the Pope of the Holy See.

Got it? No? OK, here's an analogy:

Imagine if a powerful international company, say Grey Industries, had a CEO who convinced the United States to give one of its islands to the Company which then made the island into a new country -- Greytropolis -- with an absolute monarchy as its government and the law that the King of Greytropolis is, by definition, the CEO of Grey Industries.

It's pretty obvious at that point that the CEO should move his corporate headquarters to the new nation -- so that the laws of the country can benefit the company and the company's global reach can benefit the country. As for the man in the middle sometimes it's good to the the CEO and sometimes it's good to be the king.

That is essentially Vatican City.

But if you're still confused, don't worry even other countries can't keep it straight. For example the United Nations has The Holy See the corporation as a member but not Vatican City the actual country. And The Holy See gives passports to Vatican City citizens that other countries accept even though those passports come from a company, not a country.

And speaking of Vatican City citizens, they are perhaps the strangest consequence of the Pope's dual role as religious leader and monarch.

While other countries mint new citizens with the ever popular process of human reproduction Vatican City does not. No one in Vatican City is born a citizen -- and that's not just because, within a rounding error, there are no female Vaticans.

The only way to become a citizen is for the King of Vatican City to appoint you as one. And the King only appoints you a citizen if you work for the Pope -- who is also the King.

And because the King is all-powerful your citizenship is at his whim. If you quit your job for the Pope, the King -- who is also the pope -- will revoke your citizenship.

These rules mean that Vatican City doesn't have a real permanent population to speak of: there are only about 500 full citizens -- which is fewer people that live in single skyscrapers in many countries -- and all these citizens work for The Holy See as either Cardinals or Diplomats or the Pope's bodyguards or other Catholic-related jobs.

So it's best to think of Vatican City as a kind of Sovereign Corporate Headquarters that grants temporary citizenship to its managers rather than a real city-state like Singapore: which has a self-reproducing population of citizens engaged in a variety of economic activities both of which Vatican City lacks.

But in the end, the reason the world cares about Vatican City is not because of the citizens within its walls but because of the billion members of its church outside those walls.

Credits

Images: Tony Perrottet, Marc Simonetti, chongeileen, Chris Wary, buzzwax, proimos (2), edwardlangley, duncanh1, sonofgroucho, phxdailyphotolady, antmoose, jetheriot, isa lias, kengz, joseag, erwin soo, jamiejohn, iamagenious, Toshio Kishiyama, Perrimoon, jeffd, gaspa, alecea, dgodin, & Mike Murphy

Music: Kevin MacLeod

How to Become Pope

Script:

Let's say you want to become pope, head of the Catholic Church and shepherd to over 1 billion faithful.

What requirements must you have for this lofty position:

1) Be a catholic and

2) Be a man.

Which seems a little thin… and, while it's technically possible for a regular Sunday Catholic to become pope, the last time this happened was essentially never because becoming pope isn't like becoming president, you can't just run for office. Selecting the pope is an inside job and the men who do it are the cardinals, and while in theory they can select any catholic man to become pope, in practice they prefer to elevate one of their own.

The last time a non-cardinal become pope was more than 600 years ago. So, while it isn't an official requirement, it's an unofficial, official requirement.

Thus in order to be pope you'll first need to be a cardinal and to do that you'll need to start climbing the catholic corporate ladder.*

Step 1: Become a Priest.

Unlike some churches where you can fill out a form online and -- poof -- ordained. The Catholic Church treats becoming a priest as a real, you-need-training profession. So you're going to require a lot of education: usually a college degree in Catholic Philosophy and then a masters in divinity.

In addition to your educational qualifications, you must also be:

• A man

• Unmarried,

• Willing to remain celibate forever.†

If you meet these requirements, and have been working with the church, then you can be officially ordained as a priest. Which basically means you get to run a Catholic Church, or work with another priest who does.

But, you want onward and to do that you need to take the job of the man who just made you a priest.

Step 2: Become a Bishop

Bishops are a much more select group: while there are about 400,000 catholic priests world wide, there are only about 5,000 bishops.

While priests get churches, bishops get cathedrals, from which they oversee a number of local churches.

To advance your career you must wait for a bishop in your area to be forced into retirement at age 75 or die sooner than that -- freeing up space for you.

But you can't just apply, because there's already a secret list of potential bishops that's updated every three years based on who the current bishops in your area think would make a good replacement for one of their own.

To be on that list, in addition to the obvious requirement of being a pious person, you should also:

• Be least 35 years old

• Have been priest for at least five years

• Have a doctorate in theology (or equivalent)

Assuming you're all these things, your name may, or may not be on the secret list. The local bishops then give that list to the pope's ambassador for your country, known as the Apostolic Nuncio.

The Nuncio picks three priests from the list, does in-depth research on them, conducts interviews and selects the one he thinks is best.

But it's not over, because the Nuncio sends his report to Vatican City and the congress of bishops who work there reviewing potential appointments from around the world.

If the congress of bishops doesn't like any of the three candidates, they can tell the Nuncio to start over: returning to the list, picking another three candidates -- doing more research, more interviews and sending off the results.

When the congress of bishops is happy with one of the Nuncio's candidates that name is given to the pope, who can reject the candidate and start the whole process over.

It shouldn't be a surprise that from a vacancy to a bishop's replacement can take months and, on occasion, years.

But assuming that a bishop in your area retired (or died) at the right time and you were on the secret list of good priests and the Nuncio picked you and you made it through his interview and the congress of bishops approved you and the pope didn't veto you -- poof now you're now a bishop.

But you're still not on top. The penultimate promotion is...

Step 3: Become a Cardinal.

Despite the fancy name and snazzy red outfits to match cardinals are not the bosses of bishops, they are bishops, just with an additional title and additional responsibilities -- the most notable of which is electing the new pope.‡

The only way to become a cardinal is to get to current pope to appoint you as one -- and of the 5,000 bishops, only about 200 are ever cardinals.

But let's say your ambition doesn't go unnoticed by the pope and he makes you a cardinal -- now it's time to play the waiting game for his death or retirement -- and with popes death is vastly more likely.

When either happens the cardinals under the age of 80 are brought to Vatican City where they are isolated from the outside world -- presumably by taking away their cell phones and tablets and carrier pigeons. Once sequestered, the election of a new pope can begin.

These elections are never exactly the same because the ex-pope leaves instructions on how he wants his replacement to be picked, but in general it works like this: four times a day the cardinals go to the Sistine Chapel to vote -- to become pope one of them must get a 2/3rds majority.

There's a big dose of mustn't-be-too-hasty here as the cardinals don't just raise their hands, or use a modern preferential voting system, but instead write down one name on a piece of paper stand before the alter and say a long latin phrase, before officially casting the ballot.

Once all the cardinals have done this, the votes are counted and then burned.

This why TV news stations covering the election of the pope use super-modern-hd-livestreaming cameras to look at a chimney. If the smoke is black, no new pope.

The high victory threshold, and tediously slow voting process, is why it takes so long to elect a new pope. It's usually at least two weeks of voting four times a day six days a week (with one day a week for prayer) but the record length is three years.

Assuming you, eventually, win the support of your fellow cardinals, you have one final thing to do before becoming pope: pick yourself a new name.

There is no formal rule, you can name yourself anything you like but it's tradition to take the name of a previous pope.

Upon your acceptance of the job, the final ballots are burned clean to make the smoke white and announce to the world that a new pope has been selected.

So that's the career path: be born into the right half of the population, become one of a billion catholics, then one of 400,000 priests, then one of 5,000 bishops, then one of 200 cardinals, wait for the current pope to die or retire, and convince 2/3rds of your fellow cardinals to select you as the one, the only pope.

Notes & Corrections

• Recent papal elections have been shorter than two weeks.

Credits

Images: Carolus, pchidell, scotbot, prayitno (2), francisco_osorio, jamesbradley, imagesbywestfall, the-o, jamiejohn, bren, playingwithpsp

Music: Kevin MacLeod

Special Thanks: Joseph Heschmeyer & Aldean Hendrickson

Why TV News is a Waste of Human Effort: One Example Worth a Trillion Dollars

I almost never watch TV news, but on the rare occasions it crosses my path, I’m left both depressed and enraged. The most recent example I came upon while researching my next video is this clip on the trillion dollar coin.

The clip isn’t special, it’s just like all the others from every news channel, but it caught me at exactly the wrong time and irritated me enough to write the nearly 2,000 words that now lay before you, dear reader.

So, if you like, go watch that clip and then come back here and let me talk about it as an example of everything that’s wrong with TV news in vastly more detail than it deserves.

Fear Leads to Hate, Hate Leads to Ratings

The segment starts by telling you that the previous news story you were supposed to fear is over, but fear not, there is more fear to fear:

“So we survived the fiscal cliff after all. The next dire circumstance you’re gunna hear us talking about around here is the debt ceiling which, make no mistake, has the capacity to crash the US economy.”

(Emphasis added)

‘Wow. Sounds pretty serious,’ you might think to yourself. ‘I better watch the rest of this segment’.

Onward:

“So wouldn’t it be just like the current thinking in Washington, and the cast of characters there, if they could mint a coin they could spend that could solve the problem.”

(Emphasis added)

The anchorman has already conveyed, by implication:

1. Washington is doing things wrong because
2. The people working there are fools who
3. Want a magic coin to fix all their problems

Now, I have no opinion on the trillion dollar coin – and perhaps all three points are true. But these points are not facts, they’re just assertions with nothing to back them up that color the rest of the report.

Twenty seconds in and the viewer is already primed for two emotions: fear the debt ceiling, hate the guys with a (possible) solution.

Vacuous Words in a Silly Voice

At 33 seconds in, we get the weird reporter voice. Why do TV people talk like that? If you go months without hearing a TV report, your first reaction to ‘the news voice’ is ‘what’s wrong with that guy?’

(Hypocrite deflection: this is not my normal speaking voice either but I try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to modulate my voice to add emphasis to a story.)

Now come news clips from other news shows talking about the same topic – or at least we must assume so, given their brevity and lack of context.

My favorite is this guy:

It’s worse than WWII, WWI and the Mongol Invasion combined

"Take all the fights we’ve had and put ’em all in one fight."

That sounds pretty serious. Perhaps if a trillion dollar coin can solve a fight that’s the size of every fight ever combined, we should look into it.

Cue the ridiculous and embarrassing revelation music and the reveal of an animated trillion dollar coin. This must be the solution to our problem! Can’t wait to learn about it.

Dear Princess Celestia, I Didn’t Learn Anything!

Now it’s time to, you know, explain something. Right?

Nope.

Simpsons did it.

It’s Simpsons time and Homer’s insightful remark that a trillion dollars is, quote: “a spicy meatball!”

In case you didn’t notice, that Simpsons show was about a trillion dollar bill and we are discussing a trillion dollar coin. Picky yes, but the two forms of cash have different laws regarding how they are created. Which isn’t a big deal, it’s just the whole reason the trillion dollar coin story exists in the first place.

Now, perhaps, you think I’m complaining too much. But take this into account: The Simpsons clip is exactly half way through the video, and so far you don’t know more than what the headline already told you: that a trillion dollar coin may be a thing.

Also, there is apparently a law that requires puns in all published TV news segments and at 1:17 we get it:

"...an idea getting a lot of currency online"

(Emphasis not added, the reporter really leans into that word. All that’s missing is a laugh track.)

We’re told that the trillion dollar coin is supported by a petition with over 6,000 signatures on Whitehouse.gov – which sounds impressive unless you’ve ever been to Whitehouse.gov where you’ll find 23,000 signatures for a Joe Biden reality TV show (which might not be a bad idea), 34,000 to build a Death Star as a jobs program (my personal favorite) and, of course, the 125,000 who wanted Texas to secede from The Union.

But still: 6,000 probably sounds like a lot to people who get their news from TV and have never been on the Internet.

Finally, at 1:20, just 60% of the way into the video, we get a reference to someone who might know what he’s talking about: a nobel-prize winning economist who thinks the trillion dollar coin is a good idea.

Thankfully, the story doesn’t burden us with why this economist thinks it’s a good idea. We’re just told the headline of his article: “Be ready to mint that coin” with no further comment.

At 1:28 is the closest we get to an explanation of anything:

"In theory the treasury would mint the trillion dollar coin and then walk it over to the Federal Reserve for deposit so the government can pay its bills."

That sounds like an explanation, but take a moment: close your eyes and think about that sentence.

Has it informed you about anything? Unless you’re already deeply involved in government fiscal policy – and thus would have no need to watch this video in the first place – that simple little sentence answers nothing and, on reflection, raises a ton of questions:

• Who or what is the Federal Reserve?
• Why do they get the trillion dollar coin?
• How does the government pay its bills if it just gave the coin to the Federal Reserve?
• Why doesn’t the government just use the coin to pay its bills directly?
• If the treasury can print as many coins as it wants, why do we even have a national debt?
• Wait a second, just what the heck is money anyway‽

Hopefully, all will be told in the next breath of the reporter:

Whoops!  

I guess not: just a joke about dropping the coin into the sewer using a shot that makes me think of every dropped-lightsaber reaction in the Star Wars prequels.

Is it Secret? Is it Safe?

I don’t know about you, but the questions just raised in my mind about the existential nature of money make me want to know if the treasury can really do such a thing as print infinite cash. So here is the answer:

"Is it legal? Technically the treasury doesn’t need the permission of congress to mint platinum coins."

If you read those two sentences carefully (or if you’ve researched this story already) you’ll notice that the statement sidesteps the question.

Let’s rephrase that:

“Is it legal to murder? Technically, you don’t need the permission of congress to gun down a man in cold blood.”

So… not really an answer.

The legality of minting the trillion dollar coin is an interesting, and unresolved question. (Warning, actual constitutional analysis by constitutional lawyers.)

It’s by no means clear that it is legal. For the executive branch to be able to mint endless money on a technicality is almost certainly something that would end up in the Supreme Court.

Thankfully, the TV news segment doesn’t bring up the complicated reality of the situation.

Oooo… Shiny!

Next up is how big a platinum coin worth a trillion dollars would need to be… if you melted it down for the value of the platinum.

Again, this has nothing to do with the treasury minting a trillion dollar coin. Fiat coins don’t contain metal worth their face value – that’s the whole point of modern currency.

But, nonetheless, this segment leaves a casual viewer with the impression that idiots in Washington want to make a coin the size of an airplane – reinforcing the sentiment in the opening of the piece.

And then there’s the statement:

"Some suggest it’s [the trillion dollar coin] a political ploy"

Followed by a clip of The Colbert Report – a television show that actually uses humor well to inform – saying nothing about a political ploy at all.

A Final, Non-informative But Memorable Point

At last we come to the thing that really matters: whose face will go on the coin. The choices are three living people, two American politicians and – in a curve ball so curvy it would hit its pitcher in the face – one Canadian teen pop idol.

lol wut?  We all know it needs to be Ed Meeses on that coin. 

I understand this is supposed to be some sort of joke, but it irritates me on so many levels, not least of which is that federal law prohibits depicting living people on US coins. I don’t know if anyone in government really thought it necessary to pass a law requiring Americans on American money as well.

The report also says it will be a ‘political battle’ about the face on the coin. It won’t. The law in question gives full authority to the Treasury to pick the design.

So, we’ve made it to the end. And, all told, you’ve learned nothing of any substance that wasn’t mentioned in the title of the story. Thanks, TV news. You’re really doing your civic duty on this one.

The end.

P.S. It’s Not My Fault!

To be clear: I’m not laying this terrible segment on the shoulders of its reporter, Kevin Tibbles. I looked him up and his bio is pretty serious. He has won four Emmys, worked around the world in Iceland, Thailand, Panama, Dubai and my adopted city of London. The guy interviewed Tony Blair, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Petraeus, and Nelson Mandela.

He’s a real reporter.

The blame is not his – or any reporters’.

The best reporters of today find themselves as Lando Calrissian in Cloud City: victims of circumstances beyond their control. TV news has huge fixed costs and decreasing revenues. That math results in a desperate ratings grab and terrible conditions.

The news station probably told Mr. Tibbles: “Give us something on the trillion dollar coin, make it less than two minutes long, don’t go into detail and make it funny. Oh, and we need it in two hours.”

Were I in his situation and given the same requirements, I could do no better. And, from most of what TV news has to offer, its clear no other reporters do much better either.

But, that’s no reason to watch the news. Ever.