Author: [email protected]

(Airbus hydrogen-powered aircraft rendering. Photo: Airbus/Zuma Press)

About five years ago, Airbus made a bold bet: The plane maker would launch a zero-emissions, hydrogen-powered aircraft within 15 years that, if successful, would mark the biggest revolution in aviation technology since the jet engine, the WSJ’s Benjamin Katz reports.

The plan raised eyebrows because the technical challenges of the way they were going to do this were huge. Engines would need to be reconfigured to run on hydrogen which would need to be stored in liquid form at minus 423 degrees F. The heavier fuel load and equipment would reduce both seat capacity and range. And then there were the safety concerns exemplified by the 1937 Hindenburg disaster.

The company settled on hydrogen-fuel cells to generate energy for electric motors. But fuel cells are extremely heavy, and the plan required a radical redesign of the airframe and propulsion system which would carry only 100 passengers about 1,000 nautical miles. Plus, as the picture here shows, it is a propeller driven design, so it is certainly not going to fly as fast meaning passengers are going to find their flights longer. This is all just wrong.

The company has spent more than $1.7 billion on the project, according to people familiar with the matter, and over the past year they concluded that technical challenges and a slow uptake of hydrogen in the wider economy meant the jet wouldn’t be ready by 2035. Notice they also failed to admit that hydrogen was going to cost them more than conventional aviation fuel. This was greenwashing at its best, and a complete lack of fiduciary responsibility on the part of senior leadership.

But I blame the scientific and engineering community who knew better. The whole idea was just wrong-headed. That is, until you look at their motivation as the article points out:

“Airbus also had a commitment to a major shareholder—the French state. The company had been a major beneficiary of a Covid-era government support package for the aviation and aerospace sector of 15 billion euros, equivalent to roughly $16.6 billion. The deal required Airbus to spend a portion of the money on bringing green aircraft to market by the 2030s.”

That’s all you need to know. $1.7 billion looks like a small fee to get back $16 billion!  Greenwashing at its best … always follow the money!

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted the future of AI can be shaped to produce maximum societal benefit, rather than replace humans in society. Technology has already begun to reshape workforces in industries ranging from coding development to apple farming, but there’s still uncertainty about what exact role AI will play in the economy. Mathematicians call this the objective function used in optimization.

Very simply, the purpose of the objective function is to define the net benefits of all independent variables under our control and seek the best portfolio of decisions that will lead us there. Objective functions can be developed to predict economics, environmental, and societal goals to mention just a few. The electric utility industry used this approach for decades to decide and justify the elements in both the supply and demand side portfolio.

Well, according to one Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, we’re doing it all wrong. Sendhil Mullainathan says humans can choose what kind of technology it becomes but by contrast, it is now uncoordinated and self-centered on the developer perspectives. AI tools are being evaluated, developed and deployed based on their capability for automation, not their capability for augmentation, Mullainathan says.

The MIT professor says companies like OpenAI and Google could evaluate their newest models based on their ability to help people, not their ability to automate processes. That framework, he argues, could help ensure that AI becomes what Steve Jobs called a “bicycle for the mind”—a technology that amplifies humans’ inherent abilities and streamlines their efficiency.

Nice try Professor Mullainathan … our free markets defy such ideologies.

Worse yet, bad people are defining the objective functions, which are largely to deceive, rob and steal from innocent citizens. The evils of this world have been the drivers to innovation right behind space and defense. Don’t you remember that porn drove the video cassette and DVR business and will drive the deep fakes to virtually eliminate the actors and actresses in that business.

Meanwhile we argue about digital rights and NFTs as if the market was listening to us. We are lambs being led to slaughter, by those who have jumped on the technology already.

Remember this simple adage: if something is free to us, the ones “giving it to us” are likely taking advantage of something we did not understand had value and/or as individuals could not acquire as value. They are indeed giving it to us …

An article in the New York Times offers a wonderful, if not chilling, review of the war in Ukraine using drones.  Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/NY-Times-Drone-Warfare

The military approach to conflict and outright war has changed irrevocably, and much faster than the underlying questions in ethics and moral hazards have been asked and answered.  Plus, we have been naive to assume our adversaries will play by the same rules we use.  It is ironic that we Americans think this way given it was our renegade ragtag army using “jungle warfare” that defeated the British.

We used to think of drone warfare as high altitude unmanned vehicles dropping hellfire missiles.  The movie I suggest you watch is Eye in the Sky.  At first, it would appear to be just another movie about our battle with terrorists … but I see it is a much bigger set of questions it raises. Take a look for yourself and decide: Click here to view the trailer.

As in all of life today, things are complicated. Are we OK with targeted assassinations as a standard part of a mission?  Are we ready to use autonomous drones with facial recognition to do that?  Perhaps more importantly, will our enemies do this?  And, if so, can we detect and block those attempts?

We all think of secret service agents protecting key people in dark glasses with earbuds communicating with surveillance and control centers.  Why do we think this is enough today?  Haven’t we learned anything from the Chinese viruses … we are all in the cross hairs of nefarious agents.  It wouldn’t take much to poison us all using our water supplies.

Modern movies about existential threats focus on alien invasions, while we assume our aliens here on this planet are seeking asylum.  Take a fresh look at the Middle East and tell me how we are going to bring about peace on earth.  Do we really think hostage releases of 30 Hamas combatants for each Israeli citizen sends the message that either side should seek peace?  Is this going to heal the wounds and millennia of hate?

Can we just stop and work through some basic questions?  Are we the savior of the world or are we mostly interested in the wellbeing of our country?   I hear Trump wants an “Iron Dome” like that of Israel.  That assumes we are at risk with the ICBM weapon.  The movie Top Gun Maverick seems to be prescient: Are we going to fund conventional warfare when drones may be better.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU

If we are not ready to face these questions and act it will be too late since our adversaries are eagerly seeking this type of capability … and may soon have it.

It is nice to see some sanity finally emerging in the rhetoric and public posturing of major players in the energy industry, away from alarmism and grandstanding.  Pundits in the energy business are now pointing out that companies are shifting to “playing the long game” in their energy strategies.  They have been stung by greenwashing, where they tried to pretend they were doing more than they actually were. They have shifted their focus to long-term goals and strategies rather than immediate or short-term gains, prioritizing sustainable success over quick wins. 

Here’s a more detailed explanation of shifting to the long game: It involves thinking ahead and making decisions that will benefit you in the future, even if it means sacrificing short-term gains.  It’s about building a strong foundation for future success through consistent effort and strategic planning. It requires patience and persistence because the rewards of playing the long game may not be immediate. 

If you study the literature on the long game, you will see a repeated emphasis on education and building relationships.  The implication is that perhaps we really don’t know all we should or even must know to reflect on a balanced perspective … humbly admitting we don’t know what we don’t know.

Ah … humility … an essential ingredient in the long game … and perhaps the key attribute that must be present to execute the long game well.  And relationships … especially with those who possibly even hate you right now and are out to get you.  So, instead of doubling down and thinking that destroying them is the ultimate win, perhaps there is room for what all major religions of the world point to as the answer: to love one another.

Our egos, the opposite of humility, point to power and revenge as rightful answers to what we perceive is wrong with the world.  We want to control the uncontrollable rather than learn to live with natural constraints and sustainability in the world.  We are on an extractive mad dash to rape the planet thinking the long game is solar and wind plus an EV in every garage.  What lunacy!

Let’s all move to the middle where we once again question everything and rethink everything that truly matters.  Our politicians and media are not doing us any favors when they incite anything contrary to humility in and love for one another.

Micah 6:8 sums it up nicely: What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.

What happens when a “deal term” is non-negotiable?  Most will naturally insist that is a deal killer. Negotiation requires give and take … seeking some middle ground.  Therefore, Ukraine’s insistence on being part of NATO should have been recognized long ago as a deal killer.  Plus, insisting on terms like these sours even the beginnings of any potential negotiation.  

This whole fiasco was brought to us by Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO.  If they had not committed that sin, this would have never escalated into the war it is today.  Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place, implying that NATO must accept Ukraine.

If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all.

In 1962, the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba to counter the US’s missile lead and to protect Cuba from the US. This led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense confrontation between the US and the USSR that some feared would start World War III.  Ukraine joining NATO is the equivalent of placing that kind of weaponry on the Russian border, and they reacted like the US did under the Kennedy Administration where negotiations with Nikita Khrushchev achieved compromise and peace.  Which is precisely what the Trump Administration is trying to do through diplomacy. 

Most citizens of Ukraine despise Russia but, most of the eastern cities of Ukraine would rather be part of Russia. If these facts were faced early on, there might have been a chance to negotiate … but that opportunity was lost.

So, what you witnessed was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO.

Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democratic support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him.

Zelensky has no cards to play, and Trump called his bluff.  He must give up this war while he has a chance of negotiating a good agreement.

Normally, these card games are played behind closed doors, and the results are cosmetically presented to the public.  It is rare indeed to have the game played in plain sight on national TV.  A tribute to the current administration’s commitment to transparency and truth.

We’d be a stronger country if we came together in support of what the President is trying to do and not try to tear him down at his every move.  He usually knows more than his opponent and he is the best negotiator we will get to serve as our president.   

You may not like the game, but the winner of this hand was clearly Trump and Vance.  I hope you can see that.  Trump just avoided World War III.

Sadly, all too many are blinded by their hate for his personality and party affiliation.  He wasn’t voted in for his decorum.  The majority of Americans, and the vast majority of those who are not party loyalists, voted him in for change.  It is too early to know if he will deliver.  Time will tell.