Search This Blog

Friday, September 15, 2017

What The Heck Is That?

Consider the gizmo in my hand below. It's called a vortex tube and is around 4 inches long and weighs maybe half a pound. I had never heard of these until recently. Had you?

There are no moving parts. You connect the inlet near my thumb to an ambient (room) temperature air supply. Really, really hot air comes out the end near my forefinger. Really, really cold air comes out the other end near the base of my palm. That little orange label says "CAUTION: Hot and cold surfaces" and it's not kidding. If the air supply is 8 cubic feet per minute at 100 psi, the hot end is over 100F hotter than the input air temperature and the cold end is over 100F colder than the input air temperature and can provide over 500 BTUs of cooling.

That's a pretty neat trick for something with no moving parts. Another neat trick is that until recently folks were still debating the physics behind how it works:
...for a long time the empirical studies made the vortex tube effect appear enigmatic and its explanation – a matter of debate.
In fact, the science wasn't totally settled until 2012:
This equation was published in 2012; it explains the fundamental operating principle of vortex tubes. The search for this explanation began in 1933 when the vortex tube was discovered and continued for more than 80 years.
So I don't feel bad that I'd never heard of it and had no idea how it worked. And I'll admit when I read the explanation that I still only have a vague notion of how it works.

Why did I discover it now? We have robotic machines that work in agricultural environments. Those machines have computers. We use computers and systems that can withstand up to about 105 (Fahrenheit). 99.8% of the time, the ambient temperature is below that. Unfortunately, 0.2% of the time, it gets hotter than that but the crops still need to be tended to and the machines fail and even die if they're run at a temperature hotter than 105. Yet for 0.2% of the time, it's expensive, bulky, and makes the system less robust due to complexity to add cooling via air conditioning to every single computer cabinet.

On the other hand, putting a vortex tube in each system isn't expensive, bulky, or complex. On those days when it's really hot, the grower can just attach an air supply from a compressor to the vortex tube and voila!, they can run our systems even when it's ridiculously hot. Most growers have compressors available, but even if they don't, it's straightforward to rent one on short notice. Problem solved!

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Ho-hum San Diego Sunset

Now that Irma (and Harvey before her) have dissipated, we're back to what I lovingly and jokingly call "ho-hum sun in a clear blue sky sinking into the ocean sort of sunsets."


They're beautiful, for sure, but not the knock-your-socks-off jaw-dropping sunsets that we had during the hurricanes.

Don't worry, soon I'll stop spending so much time watching sunsets and I'll write a real post for this blog.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Hurricanes and San Diego Sunsets

Hurricanes are natural disasters and I certainly don't wish there are more of them. But my experience is that every time there are big powerful hurricanes, especially in the Gulf, we have the best sunsets in San Diego:


Usually our sunsets, especially in fall, are just ho-hum sun in a clear blue sky sinking into the ocean sort of sunsets. It's not bad, of course, but nothing like the sunsets above (taken from my upper deck) with fast moving low violet-grey clouds zipping past a brilliant yellow, orange and red high cloud 180-degree background panorama (my phone camera just doesn't come close to doing it justice).

So I guess this is the silver (or yellow/orange/red) lining to the hurricane cloud.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Insurance

If you were a tiny secretive country, with a wrecked economy run by semi-slaves, and no influence whatsoever beyond your disputed south borders with your far richer nemesis, how would you keep up with the mighty pressure of the most powerful country (and military) the world has ever seen?

Well, you buy insurance, and a nuclear one at that. Kim Jon-un, though relatively young, witnessed in his lifetime what happened to Iraq, Libya and Syria after they gave up their nuclear ambitions. So, contrary to the assumptions in part of the media (‘crazy fat boy’) covering the North Korea imbroglio, Mr. Kim is acting, up to now, as a very rational player.

China, confronted by Mr. Trump to provide a solution on North Korea (NK) - i.e. going against a State it sees as a buffer and ally - while at the same time being challenged over its South China Sea expansionism by the USA, is also acting as a rational player, and doing not much beyond theatrical concessions. 

The USA, apparently, is the only country ignoring basic game theory and asking for denuclearization of North Korea as a pre-condition to any further talks, which the chance of happening is the same as hell freezing over. 

From the point of view of Mr. Kim, the most pressing objective is to maximize its insurance policy. Not only against the USA and South Korea (SK), but also from any possible betray by China.

In this context, I offer the speculative idea that Kim’s ballistic display of force is not only a theater for foreign and internal observers, but also a ruse. 

Kim knows that, when push comes to shove, his atomic arsenal means the chances of a powerful nuclear attack wiping NK out of the map is, now, much higher. The fact that his conventional force is also a great threat to South Korea, given the proximity of Seoul to the border, only adds to the chance of an overwhelming attack, of Fire and Fury, being mandatory if any escalation ever happens. 

What’s a small dog going to do in such a big league fight? 

Kim knows that every surveillance satellite, stealth wing (drone or airplane) and spy is mapping out the main sites to be nullified in the event of war. I don’t think he hopes to ever deliver any ICBM he may have, as well as a good deal of his conventional arsenal. 

So Mr. Kim, if a rational player, can only expect his insurance to hold if he can assuredly deliver a blow even if he is killed by bombs or a China backed coup, and if his weapons and territory are neutered. And that asks for more cunning strategies. 

I place at a high probability that, by now, Kim may have smuggled, by land or sea, a few of his former weaker bombs (in the range of 5-10 kilotons) to hideouts in South Korea, a task far easier than building reliable ICBMs. That, and a few elite agents with trucks, is all he needs to make the threat of nuclear retaliation credible, even after his complete defeat.

A surface detonation of a couple of 10kt bombs, in the middle of Seoul, may instantly claim 100.000 lives, possibly 2 or 3 times that after a few days, and economic devastation of a very rich metropolis. 

There is nothing new in such strategy, as the nuclear-armed B-52 continual flights the US kept up in the 60’s (in order to assure mutual destruction to the USSR before better ICBMs were in place) tell us. The difference being that, in the Koren case with contiguous borders, it makes all the sense NK should have nukes implanted inside SK.

Maybe a few of those showy missile tests were aimed at covering for a submarine/ship landing in a far away and lonely shore of SK, with a precious load to deliver to a small truck driving out of the shadows.

Friday, September 01, 2017

Martyr in the Making

Joey Gibson is the founder of Patriot Prayer:
Patriot Prayer is an American right-wing advocacy group, whose stated aim is to support free speech and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The group is known for organizing rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, though the group's founder Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American, has disavowed them and denounced racism. [...]
The Southern Poverty Law Center does not list Patriot Prayer as a hate group, nor does it regard Gibson as an extremist;

He also seems to want to be a martyr. Via the Weekly Standard, his story is told, including a recent beating. The following is a video of that beating where he and two associates are peacefully standing, unarmed, with arms in the air in gestures of submission and surrender. They say nothing at all (or at least nothing that could possibly be heard). They are nonetheless mercilessly attacked by the crowd and Joey is hospitalized from the resulting injuries.

 

His primary motivation seems to be to make Antifa look bad. Watching this video, he certainly succeeded in my eyes. While we don't see what happened directly before the video started, it certainly looks like a mob attacked three peaceful men without any sort of provocation other than their mere existence.

I find the video sickening to watch. To me, the attacking crowd makes humanity look really bad. Those not actually physically attacking the three men are egging the attackers on. Nobody seems to even entertain the thought that attacking peaceful unarmed people in a public park is wrong. Nobody even thinks to intervene in any way.

Even police allow criminals to surrender by holding their hands over their heads. Even armies in war allow the surrender of the enemy. The behavior on the video is pre-civilizational, the behavior of barbarians. Oh sure, I get that mob violence happens and this is just one instance. But what makes it different to me is that there was no incitement: no weapons, no violence, no speech, no nothing.

Joey is never violent and that fact is well known. His colleague "says Joey never, ever fights back." What non-violent person would repeatedly put himself in a position where he'll be beaten and probably eventually killed? One who wishes to be a martyr. When asked what the objective at the park was, Joey responded.

"Not dying."

If so, I think he needs to run his life a little differently.

Monday, August 28, 2017

New Place

After nearly 29 years in the same home, I've moved. In order to make the transition a more positive experienced, I've splurged and rented a nice place for a year, after which I'll find something more permanent.

The following picture was taken yesterday at sunset from the deck off of my new living room.


As a bonus, and one of the reasons I rented this place is it's less than a mile from my younger daughter's high school. She's a senior and it'll make her commute really short - she can even walk in a pinch.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Homophobia

"Homophobia" is an interesting word and in my opinion has evolved in a way that muddies the relationship in society between gays and non-gays. Let's start with phobia:

phobia
noun
1.a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.
"Phobia" is derived from Phobos, the Greek god of fear, and virtually every phobia definition defines some fear. For example, acrophobia is "a pathological fear of heights," nothing more, nothing less.

But homophobia is doesn't fit the pattern:

homophobia
noun
1.unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Suddenly "antipathy" is added to "fear" and the British definition from the same page pushes it further: "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" with "intense hatred" coming before "fear." It's probably not uncommon to hate that which one has a "pathological fear" of, but it's far from inherent and that brings me to today's story.

Once upon a time, long ago (summer of 1980) and far away (in Boston, Massachusetts), when I was still in college, I was invited to a party with free beer, and being a young college party animal, free beer was a huge draw. The party was thrown by the friend of a girl friend of one of my friends. That's pretty indirect, but there was free beer. The party thrower was one of five housemates. Two of the housemates were gay males, the other three were not and it was planned as a party mixing gays and non-gays with free beer. So, enticed by free beer, a group of seven of us decided to attend.

At the last minute, the three non-gay housemates pulled out of the party, making it a gay party. Or more accurately, a party with 80 gay guys and the seven of us non-gay, intrepid, free-beer seekers. Since we had absolutely nothing against gay guys, we decided to go anyway. Did I mention free beer?

We went to the party and we talked to various gay party goers for a while and we eventually retreated to hanging about the keg. The keg was at the edge of a dance area. As the party progressed, the gay guys started dancing and it was no big deal. Then they started slow dancing. Then, while slow dancing, they started kissing and grinding and fondling. And two guys at a time would head into a bathroom at the edge of the dance floor for a minute or two before emerging with smiles on their faces.

Suddenly, I had a overwhelming panic attack and found myself literally running out of that house. I couldn't stop to tell any of my friends I was leaving nor could I stop to say goodbye to the hosts and thank them for the free beer. There was no hate involved. There was simply overwhelming fear - in other words, a phobia.

I found what happened next quite interesting. There I was, quite surprised at my reaction. After all, I had intentionally gone to gay party because as far as I knew, I had no problem with any aspect of homosexuality. "All sex is good sex" had been one of my frequent (and apparently naive) sayings up until that point.

So there I was, miles from home, in the days before cell phones so I couldn't let anybody know that I left, my ride was still at the party and as a poor student I couldn't afford a taxi, so I was readying myself for a long walk home.

I looked up as I was getting ready to walk, and there were two of my friends on the sidewalk who had left the party before me. The same thing had happened to them - they had also completely freaked out and exited the party at a rapid pace without telling anyone else. We were trying to decide what to do when out of the door came two more of our friends with panicked expressions on their faces (it was comical) and fortunately one of them was our ride. We exchanged our embarrassing stories with lots of nervous laughter (ok, I'll admit it, we were giggling like junior high girls) and decided to do "rock, paper, scissors" to determine which two of us would somehow find our courage to go back inside to the "scary gay party" (yes, we knew how unbelievably ridiculous that sounds) to let the last two of our friends know that we were leaving and if they wanted a ride, now was the time to say goodbye to the free beer and the rest of the party. Fortunately, before we even finished "rock, paper, scissors" the last two friends exited the party. They weren't particularly panicked but admitted to "significant discomfort."

Seven out of seven.

Seven out of seven guys who intentionally went to a gay party because they were completely confident that homosexuality didn't bother them at all had negative reactions ranging from "significant discomfort" to complete panic. Maybe the two with merely "discomfort" wouldn't qualify as homophobic, but at least five of us were clearly homophobic. And this was a self-selected group that was willing to go to a gay party. Seven out of seven in this self-selected group indicates to me that our reaction isn't terribly unusual or abnormal. I believe that the majority of homophobia is simply like that which happened here.

There was no hate. None of us hated gays. I don't hate gays now. I just panic or feel fear when seeing gay physical intimacy. At this point, I've been sensitized, so I feel mild panic when I see a couple of guys with arms around each other or even holding hands. I realize that's totally my problem just like my fear of heights (which isn't quite a phobia - I go rock climbing for example) is my problem.

It's moderately popular among some groups to hate homophobics. They think that they're hating haters, an attitude which I think has some problems anyway because it legitimizes hate. But I'm not a hater and I have no more control over my reaction to homosexual physical intimacy than gays have control over being gay. Yet I'm supposed to support them, but they and their supporters are supposed to revile me. And when I tell this story to those that revile me and those like me, they simply call me a liar and continue their hate.

Ah well, nobody said life was fair.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Individual Versus Collective

When I was 16, I was a communist, or at least very impressed by communism (I never signed on to a communist party or organization). I still consider "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to be the single most powerful non-religious idea of all time and it's very simple and easy to understand as well. Over time, as I observed the world, read more about economics and politics, and interacted with others who had communist leanings, I started to become disillusioned with it. In 1983, I visited Czechoslovakia and Hungary (while still communist), and my disillusionment became complete (the folks in those countries were clearly very, very miserable). Talking to socialists and seeing communism in action were great cures for any affinity I might have maintained for that ideology. It was both the utter lack of opportunity and the completely lack of freedom that I found overwhelmingly problematic. Marxist communism is a very powerful idea, but it turned out to be a powerfully bad idea.

Since then, I've been "libertarian leaning" as libertarianism directly addresses both the opportunity and freedom issues of communism. Over time, interacting with libertarians, for example at Cafe Hayek, my enthusiasm for the libertarian ideology has lessened. I've concluded that I'd probably like all of these ideologies a lot better if they didn't involve people - people just always ruin everything! :-)

Communism is a form of collectivism, where collectivism identifies the collective as the entity of primary importance and the individual having less importance and perhaps way, way, waaaaay less importance.

On the other hand, the libertarian holds the individual sacrosanct and the collective as non-existent other than a simple, but utterly unimportant, grouping of the individuals. Because of this, the State/government are considered to be necessary evils at best and more often as unnecessary evils foist upon the unsuspecting masses by corrupt and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. From this perspective, most actions of the collective and State are held to be morally wrong. Since the individual is sacrosanct, anything he produces is his so taxation is theft or taxation is slavery. Almost all restrictions on individual behavior, for example trade, are considered abhorrent, leading to slogans like protectionism is robbery.

My flippant response to the libertarian slogans above is that if taxation is theft or slavery and protectionism is robbery, then theft, slavery and robbery must not be inherently immoral so I ought to start engaging in such practices more often. Slightly less flippant is that there's a reason we have separate words like "taxation"; trying to equate them with words whose definitions they possibly have something in common is, to me, an attempt at a sort of Orwellian double-plus-good libertarian Newspeak. I mean, okay, but just trying to redefine words isn't particularly convincing to me.

But it is partly a matter of perspective. If the individual is sacrosanct, then it does seem to lead to slogans like taxation is slavery.  Since such slogans seem absurd to me, I've concluded that the principle of the sacrosanct individual is also absurd.

My 17-year-old daughter is extremely tenderhearted - scarily so some days. For example, if she sees an ant walking across the counter, she'll catch it, bring it outside, and release it. I haven't had the heart to break it to her that an individual ant cannot survive (and certainly has no purpose) without access to its colony and by removing the ant from the ant trail it's on, it has been effectively removed from its colony and is a dead ant walking. I'm afraid if I tell her that, she'll stress out every time she sees an ant inside the house; she doesn't like bugs so she won't want to just let it be and she won't want to cause its death by removing it from its ant trail. Yup, life has many tough dilemmas.

An individual ant can't survive without its colony. Can an individual human survive without a collective? If you were dropped off in a random wilderness area with nothing (perhaps not even clothes) and you weren't allowed to interact with any other people or utilize anything made by anybody else, how long would you survive? Even if you had extensive survival training? How long until you cut yourself and the infection killed you? How long until something you drank or ate made you so sick that you died? How long until a series of storms caused hypothermia? Etc.?

Personally, I'd be dead in short order. I've done enough wilderness camping to know that even with modern gear, it's not trivial surviving for moderate to long periods of time. My guess is that maybe 1% of people could survive a year with training, maybe 1 in 1,000 could survive 10 years. Eventually, one of the many things that could go wrong would catch up to almost everybody. There's safety in numbers and there's support in numbers.

But now let's add the last wrinkle. Not only do you have to survive, but you have to have a mate and have at least two children and have the children survive until adulthood. Without any help from anybody else. Ever. All I can say is "good luck with that!"

In other words, just like an individual ant isn't really something independent, neither is an individual human. Humans evolved while being part of collectives (tribes in primitive times). Humans' ancestors evolved while being part of collectives (tribes and packs). A few humans might be able to survive as completely independent entities but it is, at best, not optimal.

Humans are more complicated than ants, and, as a result, our collectives can be much more flexible and varied than an ant colony. We can have tribes and nations and states and empires and commonwealths and subcultures and all kinds of political and economic structures and structures within structures and each individual can be part of numerous collectives and those collective can be overlapping. The possibilities are endless and dizzying. And fortunately, unlike the ant that can only belong to one specific collective, humans can, to some degree, pick and choose which collectives they wish to belong to.

We're all part of collectives. Within each of our collectives we are bound by loyalty, contract, agreement or something like that to others in the collective to some degree. By definition, we are "bound" by "bonds" and "bondage" is composed of a set of "bonds." Furthermore, "bondage" and "slavery" are very closely associated.

It's not taxation that's slavery, but rather the circumstances of human existence that requires us to be bound to others in what might actually be slavery (slavery/serfdom has been one of the most common forms of human existence for all of history and prehistory) or what in a free(ish) society might be termed co-slavery where we're bound to each other, where I own you (you have obligations to me) and you own me (I have obligations to you) though indirectly through the collective.

To me, this makes the collective primary and the individual secondary. My starting point is that the largest and most powerful collective of which we are part actually does completely own us and has the right to all of our output and the right to control each and every aspect of our behavior and lives. I'll get to why this isn't nearly as abhorrent as it sounds in a bit so please don't freak out quite yet. Well, you can freak out a little, but please keep reading. :-)

With the collective owning us, taxation is neither slavery (we're already owned by the collective) nor is it theft. In fact, what isn't taxed is basically given to us by the beneficence of the collective. Protectionism isn't robbery at all but rather some non-protected trade is allowed due to the kindness and lenience of the collective.

While I'm serious about taxation not being slavery using the logic above, I am kidding about the collective having "kindness" or other positive human attributes. A 300,000,000+ person collective cannot have human attributes such as kindness - at least not in any way that an individual human can understand.

But a collective does have one attribute that is understandable by humans - Will to Power.
Each form of life has a particular constitution, with its instincts having different strengths, such that certain conditions will favour its form of life. This brings different types of life into conflict with each other, as each wants different conditions to prevail: ‘life itself in its essence means appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker’ ... though this language suggests that such activity is immoral, when it is simply a function of being alive.
A collective is a life form, though not one comprehensible to the individuals who make up the collective (similar to a brain being incomprehensible to a neuron). Its "instincts" will push it to evolve in order to adapt so that "certain conditions will favour its form" enabling it to succeed at "overpowering those [collectives] who are ... weaker." There are some subtleties, but this is very similar to survival of the fittest applied to collectives instead of lifeforms as described by Nietzsche. In other words, collectives compete and evolve. This has certainly happened throughout history and isn't much of a surprise.

How does a collective succeed in surviving and exerting its Will to Power? How does it manage to fend off and even "overpower" competing collectives? Well, that's the rub. It depends on the collective and the environment within which the collective exists. Evolution doesn't have a direction but is really always co-evolution, with each entity evolving relative to the current state of all other entities. Even worse, except for some very small and very well defined collectives (for example, a company that operates a restaurant), the collective and the environment within which it operates has complexity far, far, far beyond the capability of human understanding.

The collective that we call the United States of America is one result of billions of years of biological evolution and tens of thousands of years of cultural and political evolution of homo sapiens in the context of uncountable events around the world and the context of its North American location. It could not have been designed by people and people could not have and can not, from a blank start, design anything better.

Given that I believe that the collective that is the United States owns us and has absolute power over us, why do we have any freedom at all? One answer is that while the collective owns us, we also own the collective and can therefore influence it. However, I don't think that's the main answer.

The main answer is simply that collectives with free(ish) individuals in today's global environment end up being the most powerful collectives. Across the globe, freedom and power per capita are closely related. Within limits, freeing individuals to do what they think best seems to allow for innovation and productivity and those two things are an important part of the basis of increasing power.

Our prosperity and our rights have evolved to this point primarily for that reason, in my opinion. Not because of some intangible moral arguments about peace and love and non-aggression and what's right and what's good. Not because the individual is sacrosanct or because of god given human rights. While there is feedback (the ideas had to come from interacting individuals) and it is a bit of a virtuous cycle, ultimately we have our rights and freedoms because they brought us power and those opposing collectives who didn't give those rights and freedoms to their members lost in the battle of Will to Power. Are there other factors? Of course, but I think this is a very important one.

For additional power and sustainability, should the collective allow more freedom or less freedom? More regulation or less regulation? More rights or fewer rights? I have my guesses but I don't really know and I think I'll leave those guesses for other posts.

Monday, August 07, 2017

Free Market Morality

In a column for The Stone ("[An NYT] forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless), philosophy professor Amia Srinivasan posed a set of questions for free-market moralists.

She prefaces them by juxtaposing John Rawls A Theory of Justice" against Robert Novick's subsequent Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

At the risk of doing unintentional violence to both arguments, here they are in summary:

Theory of Justice: Hypothesize an original position which requires devising principles of justice from behind a "veil of ignorance". That is, no foreknowledge of one's place in society. Because of that ignorance, subsequent principles anyone derives will be inherently fair, because the veil of ignorance prevent privileging any class of people.

Because there is no way of knowing a priori one's position in society, such principles of justice will recognize the risk of ending up badly on the other side of the veil: each member has an equal claim on societies goods; natural attributes, because they are down to luck, do not change this claim; therefore, the only allowable inequalities are those benefitting the worst-off members of society.

In reaction to Rawls, Novick argued for a minimal state (minarchist libertarianism) limited to protection of private property and mutual individual liberty. Such a state, by definition, could not extend to the sort of redistributionist policies inherent in Rawl's theory. According to Nozick, "[any distribution of wealth] is just if it arises from a prior just distribution by legitimate means". For our purposes, all voluntary exchanges, are, by definition, legitimate.

Consequently there is no a priori pattern (e.g., Marx's "from each according to ability, to each according to need") to which a just distribution will conform; whatever distribution results is just to the extent that it results from voluntary exchanges. Yes, there will be people who inherit wealth they didn't themselves earn, just as there will be those born into penury through no fault of their own, just as some will be born with more talent than others — which is really inheritance in a different form.

Moreover, because talents and motivations vary so much between people, no Rawlsian patterned principle of justice will persist without the state continually interfering in individual decisions.

Now, having walked the tightrope, probably falling off both sides, between tl;dr and summarizing Rawls and Nozick beyond recognition, here is the gist of Srinivasan's article: refuting Nozick through four questions:

1. Is any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) necessarily free?

2. Is any free (not physically compelled) exchange morally permissible?

3. Do people deserve all they are able, and only what they are able, to get through free exchange?

4. Are people under no obligation to do anything they don’t freely want to do or freely commit themselves to doing?

I'm going with yes, yes, yes and yes, her ill-considered hypotheticals — which would be an insult to any serious forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless, although The Stone has never shown any sign of being such — notwithstanding.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Blinded by The Narrative

The NYT recently lamented the plight of Chinese women looking for marriage:

BEIJING — Every evening, Liang Xuemeng goes online to read the latest postings from Ayawawa, one of China’s most popular advice columnists.



Ayawawa is the online name of Yang Bingyang, one of several online advice dispensers who have won celebrity in China by tapping into urban women’s anxieties about finding a man to marry.



Those who do not have a husband by the age of 27 are routinely branded as “leftover women,” with diminishing value in the dating market.

Which is an odd state of affairs, considering the unnatural gender imbalance in China: 12 women for every 10 men.

Here is where the narrative rears its ugly feminist head:

Many of these “leftover women” are well-educated urban professionals in a society where men prefer women who are younger and less successful than themselves.

While also failing to see the inherent contradiction: Wymyns, spirited, fierce and independent, are helpless in the face of men's preferences. Besides, there is the rather glaring spectre of the author flinging herself upon a conclusion. How do she know that it isn't the other way around? China is a society where women prefer men who are older and more successful than themselves. 

You know, like pretty much every society ever anywhere.

Then, within the paragraph, without noticing, she rubbishes her own article:

The surplus of bachelors shows up mostly on the other end of the spectrum, poor rural men, prompting the state-run All-China Women’s Federation to urge women to lower their standards, lest they, too, end up as “leftovers.”

These advice columnists are far more cognizant of evolution than the NYT:

The columnists have their critics, who accuse them of reinforcing gender stereotypes, but the columnists counter that they are simply acknowledging reality.

“Our world has been hijacked by political correctness,” Ms. Yang said. “I’m criticized for telling the truth about the differences between men and women.”

“A man’s [Mate Value]. is determined by his age, height, looks, wealth, I.Q., emotional quotient, sexual capacity and willingness to make a long-term commitment.” The eight elements in a woman’s M.V. are her “age, looks, height, bra cup size, weight, academic degrees, personality and family background.”

It's almost as if evolution didn't stop at the neckline, and that maybe, just maybe, gender isn't a social construct.

Naaahh. Can't be. That isn't The Party Line.




Thursday, June 29, 2017

Simple Solution to a Thorny Problem?

First Rule of Dismantling a Nuclear Power Plant brought to mind the problem of nuclear waste:

Waste that is too radioactive for treatment gets sealed for safekeeping, and the containers redefine strength. They must last at least 50 years and be able to survive a drop-test from three stories up. The canisters, made from cast metal or heavy concrete, can cost more than $1 million apiece.

No problem, right? All that stuff will go to Yucca Mountain, which we US taxpayers have spent billions developing.

Right?

Darn.

Perhaps the problem isn't as hard as it is made to be.

Per the quote above, the dismantled radioactive debris is already confined. We could do the same for exhausted fuel rods and the like: vitrification to contain the waste.

Then load the various containers and vitrified waste onto ships, and haul it all to the subduction zone off the Aleutian islands. Once there, lower the waste blocks by cable until they are some distance above the bottom so that when released, they embed themselves in the sea floor sediment.

Already contained, the sediment will provide even more containment. And since the stuff was dropped into a subduction zone, it will ultimately return to the Earth's mantle, it will get recycled.

Over to you, Clovis. Why is that a dumb idea?

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Tribute to a Fallen Blogger

Howard was a father, a husband, and a friend to Bret and others who met him in life. But to me Howard was, above all, a blogger.

Not knowing him in flesh and bones, nor knowing anything about his life other than what he disclosed in this blog, I get that odd feeling of mourning for someone I did not actually know.

Yet, by the many posts and comments I've read from him, as a regular in this blog for the last 4 years or so, I can't help but feel an empty virtual space.

Other than our shared spacetime interval in this pale blue dot we live in, we also shared this strange habit of spending time in a blog, arguing with people we may never see, exchanging bits and thoughts for the sake of God knows what.

Blogs themselves are dying away, soon to be a relic in the ever changing and growing network of things.

In a few years, all our posts, comments, fights and profound insights in display here will be reduced to a particular state of electrons and molecules, stored in the basements of the NSA and other few memory holes designed to keep track of the activity way back then.

It will be less than tears in rain.




Interesting Quote

It's hard for me to believe anyone could write the following sentence for any reason, but it does indeed exist in a published and apparently much discussed book:
In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics"? 
Source:
[1] Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell University Press, 1987), p. 113.

I would find it hysterically funny if it didn't point to what I think is a severe sickness in western culture.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Howard

I've been informed that my good friend and co-blogger Howard committed suicide today. I talked to him last month and while I knew he wasn't in a particularly happy place, I had no idea of just how unhappy a place he must've been in. I regret that I didn't call him more often - maybe it would've made a difference.

I will sorely miss him and I'm sure the rest of his friends and family will as well. He was truly a Great Guy in all senses of those two words.

Monday, June 19, 2017

My Perspective on Misstatements

In the comment section of another post, Hey Skipper asked:
...what is the appropriate thing to do with regard to a serial liar like Harry?
Personally, I'm not all that concerned with people making misstatements and lies, intentional or unintentional. I usually either ignore them or point out that the statements seem to be untrue and then move on. I don't know anybody who has never stated something false for whatever reason in their entire life. And if anyone states something that's false, I still appreciate it being pointed out, since I can't possibly keep track of all the statements that could be made about all subjects.

But my strong preference is to leave the record intact. That's worth far more to me than having some "lies" eliminated (which, in fact, has no value at all to me).

One of the reasons I really like this group of commentators is because of your diverse set of opinions which gives me the opportunity to understand why people think what they do. I like everybody's participation, and perhaps especially Harry's. Why? Because his viewpoint is by far the most different than mine and I've learned a lot by studying what he's written - including, and perhaps especially, the false statements. He clearly believes what he writes and if you believe something, you may be mistaken, but you're not really lying, or it's a class of lie I can easily forgive.

I understand his perspective and those like him far better than if he was not a participant. That's one of the main reasons this blog was started and why I've maintained it all of these years. It's certainly NOT because I expect readers to suddenly see things my way.

I realize I've been a bit distracted (by divorce) over the last few months and the debates here have gotten a bit out of hand lately. I wish I could promise to do better in the near future, but unfortunately I can't make that promise (I don't want to lie! :-) and I have to hope than y'all can continue to participate and learn from each other. I will keep writing no matter what and my posting and commenting pace will probably pick up eventually.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Trump Opens Americans' Eyes

As has been noted incessantly, Trump has a number of serious character flaws. Like the vast majority of politicians, he has a narcissistic personality. Like the vast majority of politicians, he's a lying conman. He intensely erratic. And so forth.

Everybody knew all that before the election, yet he still got lots of votes.

And I'm (mostly) glad he did - Trump has wildly exceeded my expectations.

Why?

Because Trump has instigated events that have brought crystalline clarity to the fact that the vast majority of the elite, including politicians, bureaucrats, news media, academia, entertainment, athletes, etc. are self-serving, lying, narcissistic, nasty people who'd go to any length to destroy anyone who gets in their way (including Trump).

And vast swaths of American citizens, especially independents and the moderate right and a bit of the moderate left, have had their eyes opened to this corruption for the first time ever and they are astounded, dismayed, and mostly still in shock. But they will recover, and then the political debates, while unfortunately ever more vitriolic and even violent, will also, I think, be more realistic, if not about the topics of debate, but at least about the elite.

And that's a good thing.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The NYT Repeats Itself: First as Silly, Second as Fabulist

Back in 2011, Congresswoman Giffords was shot, along with many others, the NYT and Krugman, to name just a few prominent examples, pinned this on GOP eliminationist rhetoric.

No need for facts when there is a narrative to service, apparently.

That was bad enough the first time around.

From todays NYT, America's Lethal Politics:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

Seriously? Are you kidding me? Was it not within the last week that Kathy Griffin held an effigy of Trump's severed head? And that is just the most recent of examples practically beyond numbering.

The source of the NYT's ignorance/difficulties with the truth has a name: David Leonhardt, the NYT's opinion section editor. From today's NYT email summary:

In our highly polarized country, political empathy is too scarce. Whether we’re on the left or the right, we tend to have a hard time seeing the world as the other side sees it.

So on the day of a senseless, politically motivated attempt at mass murder, I went back in time to read a column about an equally senseless, politically motivated attempt at mass murder — but one that evidently came from the other side of the political spectrum.

It was written by my colleague Ross Douthat, whom I consider a friend but with whom (you probably won’t be surprised to hear) I disagree on many issues. The column appeared in 2011, soon after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress from Arizona. She was attacked by Jared Lee Loughner, who had expressed conspiratorial right-wing views.

Odds of the NYT acknowledging their intellectual decrepitude, nil; of printing my comment objecting to their decrepitude, not much better.

No wonder the NYT has been called Pravda On the Hudson.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Trump Accidentally Coins a New Word

Covfefe: ('Co-VEH-Feh') adj. The state one finds oneself as the Ambien you took 20 minutes ago when you got into bed interacts with the two glasses of wine you had for dinner, resulting in late night half-finished or nonsensical social media postings.

Example: "he was completely covfefe when he wrote that tweet"

========================

Also, an excellent name for a dog.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Horrifically Dogmatic?

Someone asked Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek if he would oppose any sort of free trade by giving the following example:

Don — I wonder about “unconditionally.” Would you make an exception for trade in goods produced by slavery? For example, would you object even to a law barring the import of products manufactured in Soviet- or Nazi-era slave labor camps? 
Best,Jeff

Don's response?
Jeff, 
I would not make that exception. [...] 
Don
Oh sure, I cut the explanation out of why Don wouldn't make an exception, but is there any explanation that could really justify that response?

Not for me (but perhaps I'm the one being dogmatic?).

Perhaps I should seek out some somewhat less dogmatic libertarians to read...

Who wants to live forever?

At my Live at Wembley CD, Freddie Mercury asks the public, right before singing the music of our title above:

Also, I suppose we’re not... We're not bad for four aging queens, are we?

Freddie was to die five years later, by a HIV induced pneumonia.

There are far too many sci-fi books, not to mention more serious literature, reflecting upon what would be a future without death. We look intent on making sci-fi real, as our attempts to cheat death get ever more serious and profitable, as witnessed by those sprawling biotech companies near Bret's home.

De Grey, our bearded main character in this last linked article, looks to believe that the first person who will live to be 1,000 years old has already been born:


"Oh absolutely, yeah,” de Grey assures me. “It’s highly likely.”

Or rather, he does not, as the other people working with him assure us:

"I have to tell you Aubrey has two hats,” she says, smiling. “One he wears for the public when he’s raising funds. The other hat is when he talks to a scientist like me, where he doesn’t really believe that anyone will live to 1,000 years old. No.”

Actually, Aubrey had in past raised the eyebrows of significant researchers in the field, who once wrote an article acusing him of selling pseudoscience:

In 2006, the magazine MIT Technology Review published a paper called “Life Extension Pseudoscience and the SENS Plan.” The nine co-authors, all senior gerontologists, took stern issue with de Grey’s position.

But happily we learn they worked it out, for the greater good of science. Or better yet, for the greater good of funding for science:

More than a decade later, Tissenbaum now sees SENS in a more positive light. “Kudos to Aubrey,” she says diplomatically. “The more people talking about aging research, the better. I give him a lot of credit for bringing attention and money to the field. When we wrote that paper, it was just him and his ideas, no research, nothing. But now they are doing a lot of basic, fundamental research, like any other lab.”

It may be that Aubrey was getting skepticism from an older generation of researchers who saw his popular proeminence with a bit of envy.

Or it may be that, as evidenced by Aubrey's alledged two hats, science these days is a lot more about funding than it is about truth. Has Aubrey's lab turned more "like any other lab", or has any other lab turned more like Aubrey's?

That's a good question for that one-thousand year friend of ours to ponder, in his centuries of boredom.