World orders, the last 400 years: 1620-2020

This is the blog version of a series of posts I had done in a WhatsApp group, to answer a simple question someone asked: "What does China want?" after the latest round of India-China skirmishes in the Himalayas. To answer this, I used the concepts of "world order" and "regime change". A world order is a setup where one or a few nations or empires determine how the rest of the world will work (and play) with each other; be it trade or monetary relationships, social or cultural interactions, how wars and treaties will be conducted. A regime change is what happens when an old world order gives way to a new world order. The forces that trigger a regime change are set in motion many decades in advance; through philosophical (thinking) changes, that trigger science and technology changes, that in turn trigger military and social changes, and those in turn trigger political changes.  

1648-1770: The Peace of Westphalia in Europe, Age of Empires in Asia. This was when Europe decided that it needed to stop fighting over religious causes, and create mechanisms for co-existence. This ended the bloodshed of the thirty years war (that started in 1618) and guaranteed state sovereignty and minority rights (to a large extent). Asia, on the other hand, was ruled by a set of centralized empires: Ottoman Turks, Safavid (Iran), Mughals (India), and Qing (China). India and China had the two largest economies in the world. The trade routes that Europe coveted were in the possession of the Ottomans. Vienna was almost lost to the Ottomans in 1683, if it wasn't for Jan Sobieski, the grand-duke of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. 

1770-1815: Regime change: The Revolutions. This was a period of the three major revolutions: the Industrial revolution, American revolution, and the French revolution. In Africa and Asia, the Western powers were slowly carving up the land and started sucking wealth out of the decaying, unindustrialized regimes to serve the needs of the industrializing west. The combination of colonization and industrialization created new trade networks, primarily centered around London and Paris. It slowly started creating the European middle class that wanted more participation in national politics. In the British American colonies, demands for "no taxation without representation" eventually led to a full blown revolution, their independence, and the creation of a new republic based on the "self-evident truth that all men are created equal". A combination of factors resulted in the overthrow of the French monarchy, abolishing the feudal system, and the subsequent reign of terror; but not without the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen. The French First republic eventually gave way to the First French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte. Although short-lived (1804-1815), the empire ruled over large parts of western and central Europe, and introduced Napoleonic code throughout the continent, one of the earliest widely adopted civil code in Europe. All three revolutions were triggered by a combination of scientific and technological changes, as well as changes inspired by the philosopher's thinking about individual rights and freedom.

1815-1914: Congress of Vienna, a new European world order: After the defeat of Napoleon and the fall of First French Empire; the four great powers (Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia) and (the restored) Bourbon France met at the Congress of Vienna to create a new order. The aim of the victorious powers was to preserve the imperial status-quo and the balance of power, and prevent the spread of radical liberal ideas that could threaten the foundation of the monarchies. The first part of this phase (1815-1848) is called the "Age of Metternich", after the Austrian foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich. In the Americas, almost all of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies had become independent, and the Monroe Doctrine was the defining order, although the US didn't develop an army or navy to actually enforce the doctrine. This order got its first shock in the revolutions of 1848 in Italy, France, Austria-Hungary, German states, and Denmark. The revolutions didn't succeed anywhere other than France: which brought Napoleon III to power. But they exposed enough cracks in the system.

The second shock was the German unification in 1871, following Prussia’s victory over France. This sowed the seeds for the building two parallel alliances that eventually led Europe into the madness of the First World War. The crumbling Turkish Empire was making the Balkans unstable, with the newly independent states (Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro) fighting for territory, and the great powers picking sides. And, during this period, the European powers and Japan had carved up all of Asia for itself.

1914-1918: Regime change, the first world war. The unraveling of the previous world order started soon after 1871 when, instead of striving for a "balance of power", the European powers renewed jostling for more power both in the continent and in the colonies in Asia and Africa. This resulted in two very unstable blocks (the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente) where a spark in one corner lit the flames of war across the entire continent and brought down four imperial systems. The world in 1914 was more interconnected than before, and yet that interconnectedness and dependence on trade couldn't prevent a global war.

1918-1939: The third European World order: Empires fall, but the republics fail. This was a failed world order. The new world order was created through the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations, but resulted in a very unstable system. The new republics created out of the fallen empires were internally weak and unstable, the economic shocks (German and Austrian hyperinflation, Great Depression) generated enough impetus for fascism and communism. And soon enough, Japan had an empire big enough to threaten Britain and the US in the east, and Germany was rearmed enough to become the strongest military in Europe again. The new order to keep Germany down and to "end wars" crumbled in twenty years. 

1939-1945: Regime change: the second world war. The attempts of the western powers (Britain and France) to keep Nazi Germany focused on the east (Munich pact) and that of the Soviets to keep them away from Russia (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) failed as all of Europe, Asia, and North Africa erupted in another world war. In the east, Imperial Japan's "co-prosperity sphere" was their attempt in securing the raw materials and labor needed for their continued industrialization. That push involved the taking of French Indo-China, (US) Philippines, British Malaysia and knocking on the doors of British India at one end, and Hawaii at the other end. The Nazi empire stretched from the Atlantic to the gates of Moscow. But eventually, the allies fought back. The highest casualties (military and civilian combined) from the second world war were in the Soviet Union and China.

One could argue that the whole period from 1912 (beginning of the first Balkan War) to 1945 (end of the second war) was an extended regime-change from an Imperial order run by the European Great Powers to a new world order run by the US and USSR.

1945-1991: The American-Soviet World Order. At the end of the second World War, Western Europe found itself occupied and divided. So, the victors took another shot at creating a new world order, through the United Nations. The UN now became the accepted forum to express international hatred (according to Yes, Prime Minister). As the Iron Curtain was falling, the Americans brought everyone they thought would be on their side together in the Bretton Woods system and NATO. Global trade and security, paid for by the US taxpayers, in return for being "on our side", united against communism. Everyone had to pick a side, and although there was this thing called the non-aligned movement, it was mostly a joke. In spite of miscalculations like the Cuban missile crisis, and misadventures in Vietnam and Afghanistan, both the superpowers acted relatively responsibly. 

1991-now: American order, on auto-pilot. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states made the US the sole superpower. The one highlight of this post-Soviet regime change has been the (relatively) low loss of blood, compared to the previous regime changes. The second highlight has been the ideological triumph of free market capitalism and its role in bringing over a billion people out of poverty in Asia. The first 15 years saw the expansion of democracy, creation of new countries, and the hope that democracy and liberalism will prevail all over the world. The institutions of the old world order expanded to include the former Soviet states (that were once part of the former Czarist Russian empire) to a point where many of them now have US troops protecting them from Russia. The post 9/11 War on Terror dragged on, with many forgetting why the US was there in the first place. And, after the economic crisis of 2008-2009 the voters in the western countries are expressing their dissatisfaction with the current system: through Brexit, Trumpism, the popularity of right-wing and left-wing populist movements in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Voters in many countries are opting for an "illiberal democracy" and trending towards authoritarianism. The triumphant march towards global liberal democracy and a free-trade system running under the benevolent and watchful eyes of the US security umbrella seems to have stalled. It is unclear if the current period will go down in history as another extended regime change, and if a new order will emerge peacefully. Or, if the old order has the capability of bouncing back?

Wait, what does this long history lesson have to do with what does China want? 

Well, what a nation wants has to be evaluated in the context of who is in charge. Right now, like it or not, the United States is still in charge. And China is acutely aware that there maybe a window of opportunity for it to shape a new world order, with a diminished role for the United States and an enhanced role for itself, at least in the Asia-Pacific.

I believe China wants to go back to its historical position of being at the "center of the world", the Middle Kingdom, at least as far as East Asia and the Pacific is concerned, but using the framework of the current order. The state driven capitalism of the last 40 years have given China a surplus that it is using to rebuild their country: economically, militarily, and diplomatically; to get back to a position so that the "century of humiliation" is never repeated again. But, first and foremost, China wants stability, continuity, and territorial integrity before it can project its power as the Middle Kingdom. Next, it wants its masses to stay employed, mainly by manufacturing goods that get easy access to markets in the Western World, and keep delivering the hard cash it needs to keep repeating the cycle. It wants guaranteed access to the Middle East oil, and to raw materials all over the globe to maintain its position. And therefore, it needs One Belt, One Road (or BRI: Belt Road Initiative). And yes, China does not want the West telling them how to run their shop, at least not publicly.

China's growth and success in the current world order will ensure that it has no incentive to bring the current globalized economic system down. But, it is also clear that it is a bit uncomfortable to keep playing (and maybe winning) the game when the rules have been written by someone else. Because, the one who wrote the rules (the United States) may start changing it in response to domestic political pressures. 

But China's regional situation isn't yet conducive to Middle Kingdom status. China has the largest number of neighbors of any country in the world: 20 (14 on land, 6 on the sea). There is a history of enmity, suspicion, and centuries of war with many of them. China's navy still has a long way to go before it can project the kind of power that the US projects now, or what Great Britain or Imperial Japan projected in the past. Again, China's one belt one road and its dual-use ports are examples of baby steps towards this power projection strategy. China's border skirmishes are also a way to project power externally and keep the masses nationalistic internally.

Whether China will be ready with an alternative order before the time runs out on the current order, only time will tell.

Post-script: The two books that helped me crystallize my thoughts on this topic are Henry Kissinger's World Order, and Peter Zeihan's Disunited Nations.

A brief history of close US presidential elections

Based on the opinion polls, it looks like the 2020 US presidential elections is going to be close. Let's look back and see previous elections that were close, contentious, and controversial. 

1796: This was the third presidential election and the first contested one. George Washington won the previous two uncontested. The rules of the electoral college (138 votes from 16 states) were different then. Every elector had two votes and they could cast one for the president, and one for the vice-president. The candidate with the most votes became the president, and the second highest vote winner became the vice-president. Also, in some states, the general voting public voted for electors in their ballots, not directly for the president. And, the commitment of the electors weren't that solid as they are now. John Adams, the sitting vice-president won 71 electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson won 68 electoral votes. So, Adams was declared the President and Jefferson was the Vice-President, even though they were contesting against each other. The 12th amendment changed the rules to make electors vote for a party ticket in 1804, but not before another close, confusing, and contentious election in 1800.

1800: In this election, the Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr Democratic-Republican ticket ran against the John Adams/Charles Pickney Federalist ticket. The electors had planned strategies to avoid getting their opponent the second highest vote, to prevent what happened in 1796. But then, both Jefferson and Burr got 73 votes, and the election went to the (outgoing) House of Representatives. According to the rules, each state cast one vote, and the winner needed to win 9 votes out of 16. For 35 rounds of voting (and Aaron Burr refusing to stand down), Jefferson could manage only 8. On the 36th ballot, after a lot of behind the scenes frenzy orchestrated to prevent a Burr presidency by Alexander Hamilton (who would later be fatally shot by Aaron Burr in a duel in 1804), Thomas Jefferson eventually won 10 states out of 16. Jefferson was elected president in February 1801, more than two months after the election. 

1824: There were four presidential candidates in this election: John Quincy Adams (John Adams' son, and secretary of state), Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, and Henry Clay. The winner would have needed 131 out of the 261 electoral college votes. Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes (99) and also the most popular votes (41.4%), but the election went to the House of Representatives to elect the President from the top three candidates (Jackson, Adams, Crawford). The winner needed a majority of 13 votes from 24 states. John Quincy Adams did just that, winning 13 states, but not after some behind the scenes lobbying by Henry Clay in favor of Adams. Andrew Jackson and his follower's accused the Adams and Clay of colluding and driving a "corrupt bargain". Jackson would run again in 1828 and win in a landslide.

1860: This is the election that triggered southern secession, and the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln won a majority in the Electoral College (180 out of 330), the most popular votes (40%), but he wasn't even on the ballot in 10 southern states, and won no support there. He had three opponents: Stephen Douglas (30% popular votes, 1 state with 12 electoral votes), John Breckenridge, a pro-slavery southern Democrat (18% popular vote, 11 states with 72 electoral votes) and John Bell (12% popular vote, 3 states with 39 electoral votes). Immediately after Lincoln's election, between December 20, 1860 and February 1, 1861, even before he was inaugurated, seven southern states declared secession and formed the Confederate States of America.

1876: This is considered the most controversial election in the US history. The candidates were Rutherford Hayes (Republican) and Samuel Tilden (Democratic). The election had the highest turnout in US history, at 81.8%, with at least one state reporting 101% turnout. The winner needed 185 out of 369 electoral votes. Although Tilden won the popular vote, he had 184 electoral votes, just one short. Hayes, on the other hand, had 165, with 20 electoral votes from Florida (4), Louisiana (8), South Carolina (7), and Oregon (1 out of 3) were in dispute.  The Congress appointed an Electoral commission to settle the disputed votes. The electoral commission eventually did settle it in favor of Hayes, but not before a hard bargain driven by the Democrats to stop reconstruction and move the federal troops out of the south. Remember, the Republican Party (Lincoln's party) was anti-slavery, and the Democratic party represented the interests of the whites in the South. This "Compromise of 1877" determined how the post-reconstruction society and electoral politics developed in the south.

2000: This was the Bush-Gore election that many of us remember. The election was decided when the US Supreme court overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme court to recount around 70,000 rejected ballots. This upheld the previously certified results declaring George W. Bush the winner in Florida by 537 votes, and awarding Florida's 25 electoral votes to him. This gave George W. Bush 271 electoral votes out of 538, and the presidency. 

Apart from these six very controversial and contentious elections, there were a few other close elections:

Winner losing the popular vote: Apart from 1824, 1876, and 2000; where the winner lost the popular vote, there were two more instances, one in 1888 (Benjamin Harrison) and in 2016 (Donald J. Trump) where the winner lost the popular votes to their opponents.

Other elections where the winner got less than 50% popular votes: 1844 (James K. Polk), 1848 (Zachary Taylor), 1856 (James Buchanan), 1860 (Abraham Lincoln), 1880 (James Garfield), 1892 (Grover Cleveland),  1912 (Woodrow Wilson), 1916 (Woodrow Wilson), 1948 (Harry Truman), 1960 (John F. Kennedy), 1968 (Richard Nixon), 1992 (Bill Clinton), 1996 (Bill Clinton). In all of these elections, there were third (or fourth party) candidates that polled anything between 0.4% to 20% votes. The last election when a third party candidate won a state (and therefore electoral votes) was in 1968 when pro-segregation George Wallace won in five southern states.

The history of the electoral college is a fascinating one, and is fundamental to the federal structure. It ensures that the smaller states can maintain their rights against the larger and the more populous ones. But a detailed discussion is a much larger topic.

My 2019 book list

This is the list of books I read in 2019:

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes. I started the new year with this book, because my boss recommended it as part of discussing "how a nuclear reaction goes critical". Don't ask how the discussion started. This book turned out to be much more than just that, it is also a brief summary of how the western scientific system, as we know it today, was built brick by brick, idea by idea. I highly recommend it.

The French Revolution and What Went Wrong, by Stephen Clarke. This is a humorous and well-researched take on what triggered the French revolution, and how it all spiraled into senseless violence. It is a grim reminder of how something that starts with legitimate grievances can eventually lead to mob rule, even if it is inspired by idealism. 

The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America, by Marc Levinson. Before reading this book, I had not even heard of the Great A&P, or the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company. It was the largest US retail company between 1915 and 1965. But by the time I came to the US, there was almost nothing left of it. The company had very modest beginnings in the 1850s, but through a series of innovations that took advantage of new technology, it pioneered chain stores, and later, super-markets. A&P's success caused backlash against it from the 1920s, that grew strong in the 1930s. A&P was pursued by state governments and also the federal government under Franklin Roosevelt with a combination of taxation, legislation, an anti-trust lawsuit, which A&P eventually lost. But what killed the company was its inability to innovate further, and becoming insular with ideas and leadership. 

Fear: Trump in the White House, by Bob Woodward. This was good primer to understand how the Trump White House functions. I kept reading the book expecting a subtle insight, but didn't get any. 

When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management, by Roger Lowenstein. LTCM is the example I jokingly give to friends that Nobel winners of Economics end up bringing the world economy to its knees when they try to apply their theories in the real world. The reality, like always, is more nuanced, but this is an entertaining read.

Meditations: A New Translation, Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius is regarded as one of the most ablest Roman Emperor, a philosopher king, who ruled from CE 161-180. Meditations is a set of private notes to himself, based on his interpretation and ideas of Stoic philosophy. Yes, it does feel like his stream of consciousness, and they have nuggets of insight on personal behavior of rulers and leaders. But for someone who has been exposed to Vedantic philosophy that starts with a framework and then builds on that framework, I found it to be a bit scattered. I would still recommend it as a primer on self-control and duty.

1000 Years of Annoying the French, by Stephen Clarke. I liked Stephen Clarke's earlier book so much that I decided to read his other book as well. I was not disappointed. This one too, is a hilarious account of the 1000 year history of the Anglo-French relations. 

Winners take all: the elite charade of changing the world, Anand Giridharadas. One of my principles of expanding the breadth of what I read is to read books (or articles) by people whose public pronouncements irritate or annoy me, and Anand Giridharadas is one such person. However, I was really surprised at how I ended up agreeing with many of the problem statements of the book, even if I disagree with him on the approach, and the solution. Critiquing the book point by point is probably a blog post of its own. But I would honestly recommend the book. He is definitely on to something, that if left unaddressed, can lead to a collapse of our current system. Mr. Giridharadas may actually be advocating for that, in a way.

The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire, by William Dalrymple. This turned out to be a year of reading about large corporations, and about revolutions. I wonder why. This well-researched book details the rise of the second publicly traded corporation of the world (The Dutch East India Company was the first) and how it gradually turned into a state itself. It does detail the injustices and atrocities of the company, but also serves as a warning to states and nations on how not to relinquish their power. I highly recommend the book. 

Principles: Life and Work, by Ray Dalio. This book was popping up in almost all my social media feeds as a sponsored post, along with Bill Gates' recommendation. This is a good read, and one that can be used as a reference by leaders on how to build and run an organization. He has based it on his life and work, and his experience in running Bridgewater. Many of his principles align with my own management philosophy and ended up strengthening my own ideas. The most valuable part of the book, in my opinion, is Part III (Work Principles), but it is fascinating how he built up the framework to present the principles. I like the way he stresses on the importance of getting the culture right. Some of his work principles are right-on: "Don't worry about looking good - worry about achieving your goals", or "Be loyal to the common mission",  or "When you have alignment, cherish it", or "Build the organization around goals rather than tasks". The hardest part of his principles to apply right is the part about people. I highly recommend the book.

Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a daring escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill, by Candice Millard. This was my ritualistic reading of one book about Winston Churchill a year. 

This was a short list (but longer books), compared to the previous years. I realized that I started a few books that I didn't end up finishing, so they will show up the next year's list. 

Eastern Europe 1901-2001, in the shadow of empires

My interest in the first world war got rekindled in the last few weeks. I had read the Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914 (which I highly recommend) a few years ago. Recently, I started watching BBC's 10 part documentary on the first world war. I was thinking about this contagious stretch of territory from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic, Aegean and Black Sea, sandwiched between the larger (and stronger) Germany and Russia, that houses around 180 million people today. Except for a brief period under the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (16th to 18th century), the fate of this land and its people seems to be to stay under the shadow of one or more empires or major powers. The 20th century seems to have been particularly brutal for each of these countries. Because of their fractured political history, many of these countries have been a tinderbox of ethnicities that have erupted from time to time. They have also, in some form or another been victims of the two biggest catastrophes of the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Many of these countries, actively or passively, participated in the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing of Jews during the second world war. 

This post briefly examines the 100 year history of each of these countries, from 1901 to 2001. 

Poland (2020: population 38 million,  per capita GDP (PPP) $35,651). In 1901, Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. Its territories were divided between Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. During the first world war, Poland was a major theater, when Russia attacked Germany, and later when Russia was beaten back after the battle of Tannenberg. After the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the new Bolshevik government signed with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, and Bulgaria), Russia ceded the land it controlled in Poland, including Warsaw, to the Central powers. And, after the defeat of the Central powers, an independent republic of Poland was created. That lasted 20 years, until Nazi Germany started the second world war by attacking and occupying western Poland, and Soviet Union, as part of the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop plan, occupied eastern Poland. In the second world war, Poland lost 6 million people, almost one-sixth of its pre-war population; including 3 million Polish Jews.

After the Soviet victory and occupation, a new Poland, with a communist government was installed, with its borders moved westwards. The East Prussian city of Koenigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad and still remains under Russian control. The Free City of Danzig became part of Poland again as Gdansk. The Gdansk shipyard was the birthplace of the Solidarity movement that played a role in the demise of communism. Today, Poland is part of NATO (joined in 1999) as well as the European Union (joined in 2004). 

Czechia (2020: population 11 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $40,428) In 1901, what is today's Czechia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the defeat and break-up of Austria-Hungary, an independent Czechoslovakia, comprised of Bohemia (where Prague is),  Moravia-Silesia (Brno),  parts of older Hungarian kingdom (Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia) was formed. It was a multi-ethnic unitary state with Czech, Slovak, Polish, German, Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Romanian speaking people. So, ethnic tensions were a feature of the republic. In 1938, as part of the Munich agreement, without involving Czechoslovakia, Britain and France allowed the German speaking Sudetenland region of Bohemia to be merged with Nazi Germany. After that, a part of the Slovak territory was ceded to Hungary. In 1939, Nazi Germany occupied what remained of Bohemia. A Slovak state declared independence, and Hungary occupied Carpathia. The Red Army occupied Czechoslovakia in 1945, and the German residents were expelled. A communist government was put in power 1948. Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviets in 1968 during the Prague Spring reforms and protests. The communist party rule collapsed in 1989, and Vaclav Havel became president. In 1992, Slovakia broke up to become an independent republic. Today, Czechia is part of NATO (joined in 1999) as well as the European Union (joined in 2004). 

Slovakia (2020: population 5.5 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $32,616) Slovakia too, started the 20th century as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The common Czechoslovak history is covered in the earlier section. The main difference between the Czech portion and the Slovak portion is that the Slovak portion was under Hungary, in the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy; and got less autonomy. Slovakia had been part of the kingdom of Hungary for almost 1000 years, even through the Ottoman domination of Hungary. After the first World War, Slovakia was incorporated in the independent Czechoslovakia. Between 1939-1945 a Nazi puppet Slovak state was established, which collapsed as the Red Army invaded. Soon after the communist rule in Czechoslovakia collapsed in 1989, the Slovak republic declared its independence in 1992. Today, Slovakia is part of NATO (joined in 1999) as well as the European Union (joined in 2004). It adopted the Euro as its currency in 2009.

Hungary (2020: population 10 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $31,578) In 1901, Hungary was part of the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Austria-Hungary was established as part of a compromise signed in 1867 that restored the sovereignty of the former kingdom of Hungary. The kingdom contained Transylvania which is now part of Romania. This union was dissolved in 1918 after Austria-Hungary lost the war. Between 1918-20, as part of the post-war peace treaty and subsequent wars in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Serbia, the kingdom of Hungary lost 72% of its territory. After that, Hungary gradually drifted towards Germany and Italy internationally, and towards anti-semitism domestically. During the second world war, Hungary was part of the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), and temporarily regained some of its lost territories by invading Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. German troops occupied Hungary in 1944, but they were driven out by the advancing Soviet troops in 1945. After that, Hungary became a communist state. In 1990, as communism was collapsing in Eastern Europe, Hungary transitioned to a democratic form of government. Today, Hungary is part of NATO (joined in 1999) as well as the European Union (joined in 2004).

Romania (2020: population 20 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $24,000 est.) In 1901, the kingdom of Romania was a newly independent kingdom formed through the personal union of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Romania's world war history is a story of swinging loyalties. Although Romania was secretly allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, it stayed neutral in the first world war until the Entente (France and Britain) promised them territory. During and after the first world war, Romania gained territories from Austria-Hungary (Transylvania, that already had ethnic Romanians,  and Bukovina) and Russia (Bessarabia: part of modern day Moldova and Ukraine). The new territories had German, Russian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Ukrainian minorities, which led to flare-ups in the 1920s as well as the loss of northern Transylvania to Hungary. By the late 1930s, King Carol II declared a royal dictatorship. During the second world war, Romania wanted to stay on the winning side. It started neutral, but then lost Bessarabia to the Soviet Union in 1940. When Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Romanians joined the Nazis and went as far as Stalingrad with the invading Nazis. But when the Soviets attacked in 1944, King Michael I led a successful coup and aligned with the Soviets. The Romanians then marched with the Soviets and recovered the part of Transylvania that they had lost to Hungary. But it lost its Moldovan territories to the Soviet Union. Romania became a communist country following the Soviet occupation, and it stayed that way until Nicolae Ceaușescu was overthrown and executed in 1989. Today, Romania is part of NATO (joined in 2004) as well as the European Union (joined in 2007).

Moldova (2020: population 3.5 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $5,700) In 1901, the current territory of Moldova was divided between the Kingdom of Romania and Russia. After the first world war, some of the Russian parts went to Romania that the Soviet Union later regained and incorporated into the Moldovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, inside Ukraine SSR. After 1940, it incorporated Bessarabia into Moldavia and created the Moldovian SSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moldova declared independence in 1991. A separatist movement in Transnistria controls a tiny strip of land, and is an unrecognized but a defacto independent republic inside Moldova. Moldova is not a member of NATO or the European Union.

Ukraine (2020: population 42 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $10,130) In 1901, today's Ukriane was divided between Austria-Hungary (Galicia, administered by Austria) and the Russian Empire. Kiev, the capital was of Ukraine had been a part of Russia since 1667. Ukrainians fought on both sides in the first world war. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the end of the first world war, between the end of 1918 and August 1920, Kiev, the capital, changed hands sixteen times. From 1921 to 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union as Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, except for a period of two years between 1941-1943 when it was under Nazi occupation. In 1954, as a sign of goodwill, the former Khanate of Crimea (that was part of Russia since 1783) was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became independent. Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014, and since then, the eastern part of Ukraine has been held by pro-Russian separatists. Ukraine, as a country, is emotionally split between the pro-EU west and the pro-Russia east. As of 2020, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe, along with Moldova.

Bulgaria (2020: population 7 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $22,304) In 1901, Bulgaria was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire. In 1908, Bulgaria declared full independence from the Ottoman Turks. It was part of the Balkan League (along with Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro) that defeated the Ottoman empire in the first Balkan war of 1912-13. However, dissatisfied with its share of its spoils, it declared war on Greece and Serbia again in 1913, starting the second Balkan War, which resulted in loss of territory. In the first World War, Bulgaria started neutral, but later sided with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey) and had initial victories over Serbia and Macedonia. However, by the end of the war, it was not able to hold on to any of the territories, and suffered a national catastrophe for the second time in five years, including paying war reparations. Between 1919 and 1941, Bulgaria was politically unstable, with coups, successful and unsuccessful assassinations of its leaders. In the Second World War, Bulgaria started out neutral, but later joined the Axis powers in 1941. As the war progressed, Bulgaria occupied parts of Greece, Serbia, and Macedonia. But when Nazi Germany declared war on the Soviet Union in June 1941, Bulgaria didn't, and tried to stay away from active conflict with the Soviet Union. By 1944, when it was clear that the Nazis were losing, Bulgaria first declared neutrality, and then under Soviet pressure, declared war on Germany. This created a situation where Bulgaria was simultaneously at war with all four major belligerents: Germany, UK, US, and USSR. At the end of the second world war, Bulgaria was occupied by the Soviets and a communist regime was installed. In 1990, Bulgaria transitioned to parliamentary democracy. Today, Bulgaria is part of NATO (joined in 2004) as well as the European Union (joined in 2007).

Serbia (2020: population 7 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $17,617) In 1901, the newly independent Kingdom of Serbia was looking at ways to get ethnic Serbians under both the Ottoman Turk and the Austro-Hungarian empire in its fold. In the treaty the recognized Serbia's formal independence from Ottoman rule, in 1878, Serbia was explicitly prohibit from doing so, when Bosnia-Herzegovina was put under Austria-Hungary. This would eventually lead to the spark that would start the first world war. In the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, Serbia gained additional Ottoman territory, and also became a larger threat to Austria-Hungary, because it became an anchor for the unification of the Serbs and other southern Slavs in Austria-Hungary. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist led Austria to declare war on Serbia, and the inter-dependent alliances flared up into the first world war. Serbia suffered major losses in the war, including losing more than half its Army. But as Austria-Hungary collapsed by the end of the war, a new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed in 1918 by merging Serbia with the Austro-Hungarian states of Croatia and Slovenia. This was officially named the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929, under the personal dictatorship of King Alexander I. The alliance of the Serbs and the Croats were always uneasy, with Serbia vying for an upper hand and centralization, and the Croats seeking more autonomy. In the second world war, Yugoslavia was invaded by the Axis powers, and a rump Serbian territory was placed under the military occupation of the German Wehrmacht. Communist partisans led by Josip Broz Tito regained Yugoslavia by 1945, and a one-party communist state was established. Tito ruled until 1980, but after his death and the collapse of communism, Yugoslavia broke up descended into civil war along the old ethnic lines. In 2008, the ethnic Albanian majority area of Kosovo declared its independence, although Serbia (and Russia) have not recognized it. Serbia is not yet a member of NATO or the European Union.

Croatia (2020: population 4 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $24,100 est) In 1901, Croatia was part of Austria-Hungary, governed by the Kingdom of Hungary, as part of the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement of 1868. Croats and Serbs speak a mutually understandable language, but Croatian is written in the Latin script while Serbian is written in the Cyrillic script. This is very similar to the story of Hindi and Urdu: the (almost) same language written with two different scripts. Also, Croatians are Catholic and Serbians are Orthodox Christians. After the breakup of Austria-Hungary in 1918, Croatia joined with Slovenia and Serbia to build what would become Yugoslavia. In the second world war, when Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis powers, a Nazi backed independent Croatia was setup that collapsed before the end of the war. It then became part of the communist ruled Yugoslavia, which lasted until 1991. Croatia declared independence in 1991 as Yugoslavia broke up into a civil war that lasted until 1995 for Croatia. Today, Croatia is a member of NATO (since 2009) and the European Union (since 2013).

Bosnia and Herzegovina (2020: population 3.3 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $11,400 est). In 1901, Bosnia-Herzegovina was ruled by Austria-Hungary, as part of the 1878 peace treaty following the Russo-Turkish War. It was officially considered part of the Ottoman-Turk Empire, although it was de-facto governed by Austria-Hungary. The people were Bosnian Muslims (still loyal to the Ottomans), Orthodox Serbs (sympathetic to Serbia), and Catholic Croats. In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was recognized by Serbia, Russia, and the Ottomans. On 28 June 1914, the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo (the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina), by a member of a secret Serbian-supported movement, Young Bosnia sparked the first world war. After the war, Bosnia joined the union that would eventually become the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In the second world war, when Yugoslavia was occupied by the Nazis, Bosnia was ceded to the independent state of Croatia. After the second world war, it became part of communist Yugoslavia. After Yugoslavia collapsed, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared independence in 1992, which was opposed by the Bosnia Serbs, and that started the Bosnian war (1992-1995) between the Bosniak Muslims, Croats, and ethnic Serbs. The conflict ended in December 1995 when the parties signed the Dayton Agreement and they agreed to have the peace treaty enforced by a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Bosnia is not a member of NATO or the EU, although it has applied for membership of both. 

Slovenia (2020: population 2 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $40,344). In 1901, today's Slovenia was part of Austria-Hungary. After the first world war, it became part of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes that eventually became the kingdom of Yugoslavia. During the second world war, Slovenia was divided between  Fascist Italy, Hungary, and the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. It got re-incorporated into Yugoslavia in 1945. After the fall of communism, Slovenia declared independence in 1991 and it succeeded in breaking out of Yugoslavia following a Ten-Day War. Today, Slovenia is a member of NATO (since 2004) and the European Union (since 2004). It adopted the Euro in 2007.

North Macedonia (2020: population 2 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $17,378) In 1901, today's North Macedonia was part of the Ottoman-Turk empire. After the Balkan Wars it was annexed into Serbia, and during the first world war, it was occupied by Bulgaria. After the end of the first world war, it became part of Yugoslavia. During the second world war, it was divided between Bulgaria and Fascist Italian occupied Albania. After the war, it was re-incorporated in Yugoslavia. Following the break-up of Yugoslavia, it declared independence in 1991, and it stayed relatively peaceful through the Yugoslav civil war, compared to neighboring Serbia, Kosovo, and Bosnia, in-spite of tensions between ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians. North Macedonia is a member of NATO (joined in 2020) and has begun talks to join the European Union.

Montenegro (2020: population 600,000, per capita GDP (PPP) $1,977) In 1901, Montenegro was an independent principality that became a Kingdom in 1910. During the first world war, Montenegro was occupied by Austria-Hungary between 1916-18. After the war, it joined the union that would become Yugoslavia. During the second world war, Fascist Italy occupied it. After the second world war, it joined Yugoslavia again. During the Yugoslavian civil war, it stayed aligned with Serbia. In 2006, following a referendum, it declared independence. Montenegro is part of NATO (joined in 2017) but not a member of the European Union. 

Albania (2020: population 3 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $14,866) In 1901, Albania was part of the Ottoman-Turk empire. In 1912, Albania declared independence that eventually established the Principality of Albania in 1914. The first world war kept Albania under political confusion, with neighboring Italy, Greece, and Serbia claiming and occupying territory. Even after the first world war, Yugoslavia and Italy had claims on Albanian territory. In 1925, it became a protectorate of Italy. During the second world war, it was occupied by Fascist Italy, and later by Nazi Germany. After 1944, it become a communist dictatorship that eventually transitioned into a democratic republic in 1992. Albania is a member of NATO (since 2009), but not a member of the European Union.

Greece (2020: population 11 million, per capita GDP (PPP) $30,357). Greece is considered a southern European nation, and not part of Eastern Europe. But its history is tied to the Balkans. In 1901, the Kingdom of Greece was a constitutional monarchy under the Danish George I, the grandfather of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and the brother-in-law of Edward VII. Greece had been involved with wars against Ottoman Turkey that continued until 1922. The monarchy was abolished in 1924, and restored in 1936. During the second world war, Greece fought against Italian invasion, but fell in 1941 when Nazi Germany dispatched troops. Greece was liberated by the Allies in 1944. It was ruled by a military junta between 1967–1974. Greece is a member of NATO (since 1952) and of the EU (since 1981). It adopted the Euro in 2001. 

Baltic states: Latvia (2020 pop: 2 million, GDP per capita: $27,300 est),  Lithuania (2020 pop: 3 million, GDP per capita $38,751), Estonia (2020 pop: 1.3 million, GDP per capita $37,606). In 1901, all the Baltic states were part of the Russian Empire. They declared independence from Russia after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, but by 1940, the Soviets had reconquered the Baltic states. They declared their independence again after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. All three countries are members of the EU and NATO since 2004. Estonia adopted the Euro in 2011, Latvia in 2014, and Lithuania in 2015. 

This was a very short summary of the hundred years of the "land between the greater powers". It is very hard to predict what the next hundred years will mean for the region. Russia would definitely want its empire back, in some form or another. Given Russia's long memory of attacks by the French (1812) and the Germans (1914, 1941), there is very little chance of having long-term peace with the eastward expanding European Union and NATO. As the Yugoslav civil war has shown, long-term peace still needs the involvement the United States, (through NATO) but it is unclear if the US has the appetite to serve as the peacekeeper forever. The European Union can serve as a unifying common market and a monetary union, but a political, fiscal, or military union is a distant dream, and perhaps undesirable. The whole region is so fractured, with memories of ethnic and religious conflicts going back to thousands of years, it is inconceivable that there will be any thing other than dozens of nationalities and ethnicities trying to coexist. The closest stable model is that of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, but it is very hard to build a stable multi-ethic state in this region.

I have written this more as my notes to help me understand the 20th century history of Eastern Europe and not as an academic paper. If there are errors in the narrative, or my understanding, please leave a comment and I will correct it.

Ten Documents (treaties, bills, acts, theses, manifestos) that changed World History

A few years ago, I wrote a post on the seven battles that changed the world. Recently, while reading that post again, I was wondering if world history is determined by kings, generals and soldiers; or by diplomats, scientists, preachers, and legislators. So this post tries to investigate the major documents that changed world history. Some of them are International Treaties and some of them were local laws that had a tremendous impact. One of them is even a letter from a scientist to a president.

1. Magna Carta (15 June 1215), or the "Great Charter" was the first documented agreement in the medieval world between a monarch and the nobility to limit the powers of the monarch. This forms the foundation of not only the constitutional monarchy of England (later, Great Britain), but also the foundation of various democratic republics all over the world, including the United States and India. This is the first document that challenged the "divine right of kings", and subjected the king to the common law of the land.

2. Martin Luther's 95 Theses (31 October 1517), or the "disputation on the power and efficacy of indulgences", started as an academic condemnation of indulgences (papal forgiveness of "sins" in return for money) tha over time, turned into a larger revolt against the Roman Catholic Church. This marks the beginning of the  (Protestant) Reformation, and also the beginning of a series of wars, political and theological re-alignment in Europe. I consider this reformation distinct from the English reformation, which started when Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic on the issue of the annulment of his first marriage. But that's another story.

3. Peace of Westphalia (May-October 1648) is a series of treaties (Treaty of Münster, Peace of Münster, Treaty of Osnabrück) that ended the European wars of religion that were triggered by the protestant reformation. The wars of religion weren't strictly a Catholic vs. Protestant game, as Catholic France were fighting against Habsburg Austria and Spain. It ended the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648), one of the most brutal conflicts of history, until the two world wars in in the 20th century upstaged it. It also ended the Eighty Year's War (1566-1648, technically 82 years) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It marked the beginning of a new world order, referred to as the Westphalian system which established the principle of international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty of its territory. It also established the principle of letting states (their princes) determine the religion of the state, as well as the protection of the rights of the minority religion.

4. English Bill of Rights (1689) defines the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain, guarantees the subjects their civil rights (including freedom of speech), limits the powers of the monarch, and defines the powers of the Parliament.  Principles of the English Bill of Rights, like "no taxation without representation" were used by the English colonists to challenge the British rule a hundred years later. Many parts of the English Bill of rights found its way into the US Bill of Rights, including "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law", which, reworded and re-edited, became the second amendment (see below).

5. United States Declaration of Independence (1776), United States Constitution (1787) and the US Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 to the US constitution).
They are three different documents, written and adopted at slightly different times by different people. But together, they not only define the United States, they define a universal vision.
In my conversation with friends, I frequently mention that there is something universal about them: they embody the hopes and aspiration of a group of people against oppression and state terror. They aren't perfect, nor have they been perfectly applied, but they define the birth and maturity of a nation built from scratch.  It is this vision that the US used to fight Nazi tyranny, it is this vision that differentiated the western world from the Soviet led world order during the Cold War.  One interesting thing I found while reading the the declaration of independence is that the US Declaration of Independence lists the misdeeds of George III the same way the English Bill of Rights lists the misdeeds of James II.

6. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (August 1789), or Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, defined individual and collective rights at the time of the French Revolution,  passed by the French National Assembly. The French and American revolutions were inspired by each others' principles of universal right of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of powers, and  safeguards against arbitrary state power. The idea of limiting the monarch's power that was set in motion starting 1215, culminated in a republican form of government with the American and French revolutions. The French revolution itself turned messy, and the reign of terror that followed it didn't live up to the promises of the universal declarations. Nevertheless, this document is recognized as the "credo of the new age". 

7. The Communist Manifesto (1848). The previous documents slowly built up the rights of the nobility, states, and the citizens against the arbitrary power of the monarch or the church. With the advent of the industrial revolution, the question of the rights of the workers against the arbitrary power of the owners of capital also came up. This document, written by two German philosophers questioned the then social and political order (in the middle of the revolutions of 1848), and presented the situation as a class struggle between the workers and the capitalists over the control of the means of industrial production, and envisioned an international socialist utopian state. This eventually sparked another kind of revolution (from 1917), one which on paper established a state based on equality, but in practice required the power of the gun, and the restrictions on individual freedom to maintain. Although the systems eventually collapsed in 1991, the allure of such a society and system of government still remains.

8. Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) defined the modern Middle East. I find it ironic that the principal victorious powers of the First World War: Britain and France would deny the nations of the erstwhile sick man of Europe (Ottoman Empire) the same right of self-determination that they have been fighting for centuries. It was a secret treaty between Britain and France to divide up the Arabic speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire; while encouraging the Arabs to rebel against the Turkish rule and promising them an independent state. The mistakes of the other disastrous treaty of the first world war, the treaty of Versailles, got settled by 1945. But Sykes-Picot agreement has left this region in flames and chaos for more than a century. It did define a new order, but one that is inherently unstable and violent.

9. Einstein–Szilárd letter (August 2, 1939) is the document that officially launched the atomic age. It was a "call to action" to President Franklin Roosevelt, to develop the weapons of mass destruction, before the enemy can. Roosevelt acted on it, set up an advisory committee on uranium, which was the beginning of the US effort to develop the atomic bomb. The rest, as they say, is history. But it is unclear if the destructive power unleashed through this will eventually save humanity, or terminate it.

10. RFC 791: Internet Protocol (IP): (1981). This document created the internet age! This isn't a legal document, nor is it an agreement or a treaty, but a technical specification of how packets of data should travel between computers to enable electronic communication. Almost everything we call the internet today, and the trillion dollar economy that it created, started with the IP specification.

I have left the holy books out of the list, even though I acknowledge that they have had an outsized human impact. I did keep Martin Luther's 95 Thesis, because I think it had an even more outsized impact, especially in European political history.  I am still a bit ambivalent about leaving out Sir Isaac Netwon's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica from the 17th century, and al-Khwarizmi's al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-jabr wal-muqābala (The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing) from the 9th century. These two books, along with the 20th century research on relativity and quantum mechanics redefined science and technology for all of us.

This is still work-in-progress, this post was in the draft state for years until I decided that I should publish it first and then continue editing it.

Do let me know what you think of this post.

What makes a great engineering manager?

This post tries to explain what engineering managers do, and what makes an engineering manager “great”. In my opinion, engineering managers have four roles. Great engineering managers excel at two of them, at least. 

People manager and coach: This involves hiring, developing, coaching, and managing the team's performance. This also involves setting the vision for the team, setting goals and then creating a culture of accountability, including holding themselves accountable. The best people managers bring out the best in their employees, and take a personal stake in the career development, growth, and learning of their employees. The teams of the best people managers are characterized by high retention, high productivity (their teams get a lot done) and high work satisfaction. To borrow a sports analogy: a great people manager operates as a team captain, coach, cheerleader, and talent scout at the same time.

Architect (or Technical Lead): Engineering managers have to operate with a very good understanding of the architecture of what their team is building, and what their team owns. They have to participate in, influence, and drive their own team’s as well as partner team’s architecture. In many cases, they are expected to work across company boundaries. Internally, they are accountable for making their team’s code corpus reasonably future-proof. They are also accountable for the quality of code their team produces. The best in the role not only understand how their pieces work, but also how everything else is connected to each other. The teams of the best software architects are characterized by low product defects, low maintenance costs, and a high-availability service.

Project Manager: Engineering managers are accountable for their team’s delivery and the timeliness. As part of this, they are involved in their team’s planning sessions, they have ways to track their team’s progress, and they are also involved in retrospective sessions on making their team’s execution better. They also have ways to keep track on partner and dependent team’s work. 

Product Manager: Engineering Managers should have the vision of not only the “what” and the “how”, but also of the “why” of what their team is building. As part of that, they need to understand the customer, how their product or service will get used, and how their product or service is being used. The best engineering managers happen to be an equal peer to their product manager counterpart, and provide inputs at the requirements and specification phase.

I have found these pillars to be true for an engineering manager of a team of six to VP of Engineering of a multi-site organization. As engineering managers grow in responsibility and scale, their “coach” and “product manager” roles become more important. They end up delegating many of the details of the project management and software architecture roles to their network; but focus more on the “systemic and risk-management” aspect of software architecture and project management. Most of my favorite engineering managers are excellent people managers and coaches, and then excel in at least one of the other three.

So, where does strategy and strategic thinking fit in? I belong to the school of management that believes that great execution is the best strategy. A great manager focuses on fine tuning their execution, and as part of that, they think about structure. For example, a software developer thinks about the structure of their code. At the design level, they think about the structure of their classes, or modules. At a much higher level, they think about the structure of multiple processes and components. Similarly, at a team manager level the structure is at the individual interaction level. At an organization level, the structure is about how teams interact with each other. At the company level, it is not only how organizations interact with each other, but how the external environment and the business environment interact with the company. 

Great managers operate at the right structural level, and they not only think about the static structure but also the dynamic structure. That means, just having an organizational chart with roles and responsibilities (static structure) is not enough; what is equally important is how the components of the chart (the various individuals in the team, the teams in the organization, the organizations in the company) interact with each other as part of executing towards the common goal.

Interesting articles of 2019

Here are the top 10 articles that I read, liked, and shared in 2019.

Feedback Fallacy (HBR): An insightful article explaining why conventional feedback rarely does what it is designed to.

How to demonstrate strategic thinking skills (HBR): I believe that the best way to demonstrate "strategic thinking" is by doing; this article gives some advice on how to make others believe that one has the ability.

The care and feeding of software engineers: or, why software engineers are grumpy. It reads like a "user manual for managing engineers", but it goes beyond that and I found it funny too.

CNET's Echo Flex review: "This might be Amazon's smartest device in years". It isn't often do you find the tech press highlighting the small but important things that were thought through during product definition and development.

Long hours are a sign of a bad leader, and other leadership insights, from Microsoft's research. This is a summary of a longer New York Times article explaining how Microsoft is using data to get insights on leadership and employee satisfaction.

Why people really quit their jobs: Facebook's version of employee satisfaction data crunching. Interesting (and some already known) findings.

The catch-22 that broke the internet (Wired): an analysis of Google Cloud Platform's outage and the perils on depending on tools that need to connect to the network when the network is down. Google's analysis is at: https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/cloud-networking/19009

Notes on AI Bias: Ben Evans.“There’s a joke in Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme about a man who is taught that literature is divided into ‘poetry’ and ‘prose’, and is delighted to discover that he’s been speaking prose his whole life without realising. Statisticians might feel the same way today - they’ve been working on ‘artificial intelligence’ and ‘sample bias’ for their whole careers without realising.”

Is Alexa working? Ben Evans: It is a good analysis, with the main point at the very end. 

CES show report: Steve Sinovsky.