Deflation is bad, mkay, even if you can't afford anything right now you just have to suck it up.

Who wrote this piece?  Good question -- all we have is who contributed to it from AP's Auto Desk (in Detroit, of course) home of the place where they have tarted up pickup trucks to the point that they likely have $40,000 gross margins on that $90,000 truck.

Of course there is no option to buy the $30,000 version anymore without all the gizmos because "nobody wants it" they say.  The truth is that plenty of people would want it if you didn't have inexpensive financing.  Oh wait, that seems to be gone now due to the lack of uneconomic interest rates that were all the rage for 10 years in the post-crash era after 2008.

Hmmm..... what was the problem again?

Actually, it wasn't The Fed.  It was Congress and the "mavens" in the markets who all thought they should (and did) roll over debt that was at higher rates for much lower ones but, of course, never paid any of it off.  And note this nonsense:

The bank’s researchers said the biggest economic risk came not from falling prices for goods and services but rather from a freefall in the price of assets — stocks, bonds and real estate. Those collapsing assets, in turn, can topple banks that hold crumbling investments or that made loans to struggling real estate developers and homebuyers.

The damaged banks may then cut off credit — the lifeblood of the broader economy.

Lifeblood?

Don't think so.

In fact, I'd argue all that is the "lifeblood" of is bubbles which are inherently destructive.  Oh sure, they feel great when you start, but facts are facts and no, they're not good.  A bubble house is of no good to you if you own one before it starts.  If you think otherwise explain to me what happens when you want to move from said house to a newer or larger one.  The newer and/or larger one also got bubbled so you make nothing; you get more for the existing one but you pay more for the other one and your net value improvement is zero.

The person who wants one and doesn't have one now gets hosed because affordability gets damaged.

The banks, title companies and real estate brokers all win because most of these firms make a percentage either on the price or they get paid for volume (e.g. title companies) so the more transactions the more they make.

The other argument often raised is that if there is deflation you'll put off purchases in the hope they're cheaper tomorrow.  That's certainly true if the only motivation to buy in the first place was a fear of the price going up!  Its definitely not true if your refrigerator or car is broken and you need a new one because you would like a place to store your refrigerated foods, a vehicle to get around in or an HVAC system for your house.  None of those are things you will avoid buying "because they might be cheaper tomorrow" if you actually have a reasonable need for them, which by the way can include something being materially better.

On that point: Are the newer vehicles materially better?  How about the refer or HVAC system?

In some cases, absolutely.  I replaced my working HVAC system last year because the older one was old enough that a failure was increasingly probable and the newer one is more efficient.  Had the newer one not been more-efficient I would have waited until the old one broke down at an unreasonable price to fix.  How about my refer?  The one I own now I will certainly not change out for a "newer model" because they have reached pretty-much the endpoint of efficiency improvements (and its not small either; it draws a fraction of the power of the one I had in Florida, all because its new and inverter-driven.)

On cars why would I buy a newer car when my other ones work perfectly well and the price ramps include forced purchases of things I don't want?  I just ordered up a few hundred dollars of suspension parts for my 2015 Mazda (250,000 miles on it by the way) and will install them myself.  Do I need to do that maintenance?  No, but it will improve the ride somewhat since deterioration over time is reality and the price is reasonable.  How would you get me to buy more of that sort of thing more-often?  If it was cheaper (deflation) I would!

A huge percentage of Americans live on ever-expanding credit today.  The premise of "economists" that this can continue literally forever is false; nothing exponential expands forever -- it can't.  This is a finite rock hurtling through space with finite size and mass. You can certainly pull forward demand for things that would be bought tomorrow into today with credit and some of that is mostly ok, such as single-family homeownership in that stability in the home is good for both kids and communities.  But don't kid yourself about such situations in the general sense; they are not good when it extends to people putting their groceries on credit they cannot pay off at the end of the month.

Expanding credit always forces prices higher.  If you think not look at "insurance" in the health industry and the most-egregious example, college.  Before "student loans" were handed out to anyone who fog a mirror and bankruptcy discharge was prohibited college cost went up at a reasonable price along with everything else because if you borrowed it was at a ridiculous interest rate since everyone understood that there was no way to "repossess" what you were taught, unlike a car or house.  Thus lenders were quite-careful and demanded to be well-paid for their risk.

Today?  All of that has been progressively destroyed.  Now college is essentially impossible to fund spinning pizzas and through summer jobs (it wasn't hard to do it in the 1980s at all when Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, both heavily capped and tested were basically it) but they'll hand you any amount of money for a degree that has close to zero marketable value in the workplace.  Why?  Because if you don't pay it back or get the President to try to force the taxpayers to eat it they will hound you literally to death, garnishing your Social Security in old age, if you don't pay.  As a result colleges have felt perfectly free to add all manner of non-instruction fluff and bill you for it.

AP says that cutting off credit would be bad.

What would happen to the price of college if there were no loans?  It would fall by about 80% and all the fluff would disappear.

Explain to me why the fluff adds to he value of learning Calculus, Physics or Medicine and we can certainly debate whether we should cut it all off other than on strict merit and at a very high interest rate, or whether we should allow what is now a cancer on our educational system to continue to metastasize until it eats the economy exactly as has health care.

The author of this piece is the owner of this site and is a former CEO who never borrowed a nickel from a bank or other financial institution to operate his business (MCSNet), and did just fine without any of that nonsense.  Of course the banks didn't make much of anything off me, other than the discount rate on credit cards, which I'm sure annoyed them greatly as I refused their "financing" offers.  Go figure.

This may well be one of the most-complex, well-thought-out and insidious "hack attempts" in the computer age's history -- so far.

The person or persons involved (while the code has been traced to a "person" there is no evidence, at this point, that said "person" is one person -- more on that in a bit) were essentially a "single committer" maintaining a commonly-used compression tool had an intentional compromise included into it.

It would at first blush seem to be a rather odd place to try to put a security compromise, in that compressing or decompressing files is more-or-less a utility function and rarely, if ever, implicates security directly (you might destroy data, but actually using it to break into something sounds like quite a stretch.)

You'd be right except for a practice that has gotten disturbingly common: The building of such utility functions into libraries, and then the linking of said libraries into all manner of other things including those running with privilege.

In this case that "thing" is called systemd on Linux machines and the target of it is sshd, which is the system utility that accepts secure, encrypted connections at a character terminal level -- and enables encrypted file copies as well.  It appears the intent of the code is to steal the private key on the server side which would enable someone to break into the machine quite possibly, depending on how it is configured, with "root" (administrative) access giving them full, unfettered access to everyone and everything on that system.

It really doesn't get any worse than that when it comes to security problems, by the way.

This points out the folly of privileged tools that perform administrative tasks (in this case supervising executables that must have privilege in order to do their job) being linked with all manner of "convenience" functions aggregated into libraries.  Some of this is unavoidable -- "libc", for example, contains all the common and bog-standard routines to, for example, do basic file I/O to textual streams.  Why is file compression considered important enough to link against such tools?  That seems rather stupid to me, but here we are.

But this incident also points out that one of the big improvements in open source software is that it was caught before getting into wide distribution through enterprises, that is, during the "beta" phase where people are cautioned against using same in production, specifically because said software is in open use and someone noted that the code produced anomalous behavior, specifically that after the upgrade logins were a bit slower without a reasonable explanation as to why.

The "why" was the code "hooking" the routines in question and altering them to perform its nefarious acts.

Another point that should be noted is that the reason this was able to get into the code in the first place was including of a binary blob.  Obviously if said code had been included in source what it did would have been observed prior to the commit and pull request being approved. There are, in some cases, good reasons to include a binary blob but this certainly wasn't one of them and those doing said approval ought to demand the source and a traceable and reproduceable build process before accepting them, especially when said code is going to wind up in a sharable library and thus be linkable against almost-literally anything.

Another problem is the identity of the committer.  Who was it and why haven't they been run down and jailed? Open source projects by definition can have people from anywhere submit improvements and bug fixes but that doesn't mean the maintaining party has to accept them and when it comes to things that are going to be included in system libraries some sort of chain of identity as pertains those who have the ability to approve said changes needs to be examined.  Obviously that was not the case here in that the person who did so hasn't been identified and may not exist -- that is, from the information we have publicly at this point it may well have been a "pseudo person" that was in fact a state-level organization actor.  This risk becomes very severe when only one or two people are "maintaining" something and it winds up in a published library that is then linked against system code that runs with privilege, which is exactly what occurred in this case.  In other words as of right now we don't even know who did it despite there being no evidence that the commit and merge process itself was compromised.

And finally, while this probably won't stop the insanity of "include everything by container" in modern languages that are increasingly used for elevated privilege functions it should slam the door on it conclusively, including retroactively, right here and now.  I'm staring you straight in the face, Rust, although by no means only there.  The "container" and "oh someone did this and its on Stack Overflow so we'll just grab that blob" problem has "powered" much of so-called "modern software" and its fundamentally a cheat code to evade not just the time of implementation but even the understanding of exactly how something works and its potential attack surface.  This incident is an object lesson in why that's stupid and it had the very real potential to get into literally millions of Linux-powered things all over the world including those handling various financial and operational things with real impact on real people.  It didn't, this time, but that was more by luck that discovery occurred before it could get out into the wild on that basis than anything else.

This deserves a bit more because frankly, I'm getting tired of the nuts.

Indeed this might get added to my FAQ here (go see the section on "Troofers" for what happens if you run that garbage on my forum, whether in the comment section or otherwise) because it is getting about that stupid.

Let's talk a bit about boat handling, especially single-screw vessels.  Most props (unless you have twins) are what are called "right hand" screws.  When going ahead the torque effect and the rotation of the water column coming off the screw tend to move the stern of the ship to starboard, and since the vessel only has applied moment (force) at the stern this means if the stern goes starboard the bow goes to port.  Each vessel has an "effective" pivot center; exactly where it is varies, but it is not in the center of the vessel length-wise.  With an outboard it is often at or right near the transom, which can make close-quarter handling quite a mess in snotty conditions at low speed.  Gigabite, which was a Hatteras 45' Sportfish, pivoted at around her engine locations, which was roughly 10-15' or so from the transom (she had twin Detroit diesels.)

A twin engine vessel has one RH and one LH screw, and with both engaged she will track more or less straight because the two torque and rotation of the water columns cancel each other out.  But a single-screw vessel does not.  The other factor is that as way increases the water flow over the keel tends to keep her going in a straight line.

Further, the rudder gets most of its authority -- that is, the ability to steer -- from the blast of the prop which is directly in front of it, and at lower speeds through the water it has almost zero authority without the screw turning.  Note that the speed over ground does not account for current and the current is almost-never exactly aligned with your direction of travel, so it always, when it is present, attempts to destabilize the path of your vessel.  In harbors and similar tidal flow is the primary cause of said currents and of course they shift depending on whether you have a rising or falling tide and exactly where you are.  In some cases this can be quite-treacherous, especially if you get other than straight on with or against it; someone who was a dockmate of mine with a sailboat attempted to abort running Destin Pass with friends on board (that was stupid, by the way), got sideways and the boat was knocked down and dismasted.  That was a 40 footer too -- not a little rowboat.  Fortunately nobody was killed and the boat did not sink but two were ejected and had to swim to the jetties.

It is clear that the power went off on the vessel.  Why it went off remains to be determined but that it did, and that the emergency generator started when it did, is known because you can see the power go off and then come back on.  It then trips a second time, presumably due to an extreme demand (e.g. the skipper attempting a last-ditch use of the bow thruster at full power to keep off the piling.)  Note that the black smoke is not dispositive as to which engine was involved but that may have been the main being restarted and, if the main is direct-drive, and it frequently is on larger vessels, then you have to stop the prop entirely before you go astern because there's no transmission; the engine literally rotates the other way to go astern.

Until the power went down the ship was in the channel and on a stable heading.  It would have had some starboard rudder dialed in -- in other words, it was not set dead straight forward -- because the normal "walk" of the screw ahead would be to induce a port turn if it was dead straight.  When the power goes down that torque and rotational effect disappears and the rudder is now going to try to turn the ship slightly to starboard, and it is locked there with power off.  Add to this any current impact if the flow is in any way other than head-on (and as noted it almost never is straight on) and the impact of wind and that the ship began to yaw is not surprising, nor is it surprising it went to starboard.

Without power you now are riding on 100,000 tons of metal (and cargo) traveling at whatever velocity you were at underway which is subject to external forces you cannot counteract.  By the time the power comes back up it is likely there was nothing that could be done to prevent the collision but you can bet they tried -- the second power failure made those attempts irrelevant.  As you can see from the video when the power comes back again they're within seconds of impact.

Older machinery was not reliant on electrical power to work.  My boat had two mechanical diesels operated with cables from the bridge to the engines and transmissions; the transmissions (large ships are typically straight-shaft with no gearbox) were hydraulically operated by a pump driven from the engine.  Once started so long as they had fuel, air and lubricating oil they run.  The steering gear on my boat was hydraulic but with no booster so again, as long as the hoses and lines were intact and it had fluid in it you could steer but without the screws turning you had very little rudder authority.  I also had twin screws so at low speed I could steer without the rudder at all, and frequently did, since I could put one screw in forward and one in reverse, along with varying their speed.  I did have, during my time owning Gigabite, an electrical failure.  It was not a big deal as it occurred during daytime (at night you obviously have no running lights which is serious); we made port without incident and I fixed it.

Modern emissions requirements make no-electric-required operation impossible.  On a modern vessel without electrical power its engine shuts down because it is electronically controlled and the fuel pumps, conditioning equipment for the fuel, any after-treatment of the exhaust and various other required elements all require it, along with mechanical control being insufficiently precise to meet modern emissions standards.  While I could operate with no electrical power at all provided the engines were running before the failure occurred this is not true for modern vessels and engines.

Finally, contemplate that it would be close to impossible to actually know that causing a power loss of this sort, assuming you could, would result in this sort of calamitous outcome.  Exactly where that ship goes when the power goes off is determined by facts you cannot know with sufficient precision in advance; if the tide or wind had been different it might have gone right under the span and, if it had, there would have been no calamity at all (however, it might have gone aground on the other side somewhere once it got out of the channel.)

This does not mean that there should not be liability.  Admiralty Law is very different than what you think of as "legal liability code" in this regard and it is both older than the US and time-tested.  A ship can literally be arrested under Admiralty Law, for openers and in addition the owners of the cargo on board can be assessed as well in a major casualty incident such as this.  Obviously the physical damage is in the billions, never mind the (small, but real) loss of life, all of which is chargeable on a liability basis.  That will take time to sort out but it absolutely does exist and can be sorted out -- for an example see Ever Given in the Suez which was impounded by Egypt when the owners and insurers refused the original demand to pay a billion in economic damages.  The harm here is obviously much-greater although it certainly includes the disruption of port business which was the primary harm (disruption of transit) from the Suez incident.

Finally, as with the Suez incident there were local harbor pilots on board and in command, as is the case for vessels of this sort and size (yes, including cruise ships) coming into and leaving ports -- although in virtually all cases the vessel's master is still ultimately responsible (and will get tagged if something goes wrong.)  That's done because those local individuals have very extensive experience with that specific passage where a ship's captain does not -- he or she may have only been through there once or twice where these officers run this particular passage, in many cases, every day or every few days.

Large commercial ships also have data recorders similar to an airliner's "black boxes" and I'm sure by now the USCG and other US authorities have them in-hand and will be going through them.  They include both very detailed machinery logging as well as voice records.  From that the precise sequence of events, including the orders given (and by whom) will be able to be determined.

But from what is known now -- and in fact what was known at the time the event occurred I see nothing to suggest that this is anything other than an extremely serious industrial accident.  Are there lessons to be learned and mitigations that can be taken on a forward basis?  Of course -- but whether they'd have been successful if put in place in advance (e.g. "dolphins" around the pylon) in preventing the collapse are, at this point, speculative.  Frankly, with 100,000 tons of ship moving at 8kts even if said bollards had been present it is not at all clear thy would have actually prevented the contact and destruction of the bridge.

The Key Bridge in Maryland was struck overnight by a container ship and has collapsed.

There are plenty of people raising various arguments like "deliberate" or similar.  Observing the video in that link its pretty clear that's BS.

The ship visibly loses electrical power (all the lights go out) just after the video starts, regains it briefly, you can see them attempt to go "full power" and then they lose electrical power again -- although by that point they're doomed.

Rudder authority on ships is to a huge degree generated by the prop wash -- which is in front of the rudder.  The wind was coming across the bay last night and you can see the boat yaw as soon as power is lost.  With a huge amount of windage due to the containers up above the deck the rudder authority under power is what's keeping you pointing the right way and when you lose the screw nearly all of that rudder authority disappears.

You're not stopping a ship like that in a short distance no matter what you do.  I don't know what the harbor pilot(s) (who I presume were on board as that is required in such locations) commanded when the power came back up on the main (which you can clearly see as the stack blasts black smoke; they went to full power) but I doubt there was anything that could be done to prevent the impact given the close quarter situation when they lost electrical and, in all probability, both propulsion and rudder.