RIP: Tech Advocate and Obama Advisor Jake Brewer

SpaceGhost writes: The BBC reports that Jake Brewer, a 34-year-old senior policy advisor in the White House Chief Technology Office, has died while participating in a charity bike race on Saturday. Some of his work included global policy and external affairs at change.org, the White Houses TechHire initiative, and the administration's efforts to expand broadband connectivity. Brewer's death has triggered emotional tributes from many in the worlds of politics and technology. Brewer was well known for his work on Change.org, and in his role at the White House as an advocate for education, access to technology, and intelligent use of data to make government more effective.

Comments

Cause of death

[phantomfive]

According to the article, he lost control and got hit by a car.

Re:Nerd + Exercise = Bad Ending

[quantaman]

We are meant to bask in the glow of fluorescent lighting in cubicles or basements. The sunlight weakens us and makes us vulnerable. Add exercise to the mix and you are flirting with disaster.

Of course in this case you're completely inaccurate, FTA:

He was described by the New York Times as "a competitive triathlete who rode on Saturday in honour of a friend who had been stricken with cancer".

The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of coming off as hopelessly pedantic: The event that this gentleman tragically died while engaging in was not a 'race', it was a non-competitive charity bicycle riding event. It was not a sanctioned, ranked USA Cycling event requiring a valid racing license, it was open to anyone, which includes purely recreational riders that very often have not have done any specific training of their bike-handling skills. This is in contrast to competitive riders, who, even at the amateur level, typically train all through the year, and their training includes specific work intended to give them a superior level of skill in handling the bike safely and competently in a variety of circumstances and at high speeds.

It is extremely tragic, and I am always deeply saddened when I hear of a fellow cyclist losing his life while riding. However I don't want people erroneously demonizing road cycle racing as 'too dangerous' when they don't know to differentiate between an actual 'race' and 'just a ride'.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

But it raises an important point. Per mile travelled, cyclists are far more likely to be injured or die where cars are present than car drivers/passengers, and even where you only look at bike accidents classified as cars not being involved, cyclists are still more likely to die or be injured per mile. People who do "training of their bike handling skills" may be better off than the average cyclist, but - on a per-mile basis - bike travel is more dangerous than car travel.

I live in a place where the city keeps trying all sorts of ridiculous ways to force people out of cars and onto bikes, such as spending small fortunes to shrink down roads and doing nothing particular with the space on the sides, putting up all sorts of obstacles in the road (such as constant turn lanes, alternating between left and right) to turn 3-4 lane roads into effective 2-lane roads, building new buildings without any parking, tearing down existing parking, etc. And among their reasons for trying to force people off of cars is "safety for cyclists". But even if they succeed at making their goal of forcing a dozen or two percent of the population to switch from cars to bikes, they're only going to increase the total number of transport deaths.

They also give environmental reasons as an excuse, which is also ridiculous. Cycling burns calories. Calories don't come from thin air - they come from food production. Which is very inefficient in terms of energy in (oil, natural gas, etc) per unit energy of muscle power released from burning said food. Now, there's a big difference between types of foods - for example, locally-grown grains and starchy plant-based foods can render a cyclist's net environmental picture better than a single driver in a Prius (although not better than people carpooling in a Prius). But few cyclists eat a diet of locally grown grains and starchy plants (especially where I live!). Meat has a huge environmental footprint per calorie, as do vegetables. A person who gets half their calories from a meat like beef increases their caloric load by biking wherever they go instead of driving; they'd be better for the environment driving a large SUV without any passengers. And of course, that's only the energy picture - that doesn't even consider the habitat consumed for agriculture, the water consumption, the effects of pesticides and herbicides, etc.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[PvtVoid]

A person who gets half their calories from a meat like beef increases their caloric load by biking wherever they go instead of driving; they'd be better for the environment driving a large SUV without any passengers.

So much fail here.

Let's see. A 190 lb. person riding a bicycle at 15 mph uses about 58 calories per mile.. Gasoline contains about 31,000 calories per gallon.. Suppose the large SUV gets 20 mpg. That's 1550 calories per mile, or more than 26 times as much.

See also here.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

could have left a small force there, like the Iraqis wanted

The main Iraqi gov't officials did not want it. For good or bad, the ultimate decision was theirs.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

The main Iraqi gov't officials did not want it. For good or bad, the ultimate decision was theirs.

That is how the Obama administration spun it. You fell for their propaganda, which isn't surprising since you've been defending them this whole thread. You are clearly a fanboy, and that is affecting your thinking, and your information gathering process.

The Obama administration claimed that "the Iraqis wouldn't allow forces to stay without immunity." That is the story that made it through the news, but later investigation revealed it wasn't the case. At one point, the Iraqi administration and the US administration were discussing how to keep the military there. The Iraqis offered one solution, "If you get rid of immunity, the representatives will approve it immediately." The US administration grabbed that phrase, and warped it to mean, "if we don't get rid of immunity, they won't approve it." Twisting their words. Lying. Getting what they wanted in the first place.

But it was enough to trick people like you, who don't do deeper research into topics.