Is it churlish of me to grumble that it launched atop a sewn-together Saturn/Shuttle hybrid rocket that has no future?
A rocket that did accomplish its main goal -- 30 years of grift by 20 senators for home state contractors? Our $100+ billions spent on a long-obsolete white elephant that nudged 1970s technology forward by millimeters and soon will be abandoned forever?
Money that might instead have been spent on hundreds of enabling technologies that we'll need, in order to actually build a working moon base? We don't have any of them, alas. Almost any. Though the 'plans' currently issued sure are lovely artist conceptions! Without the slightest meat or plausibility.
(If you are curious about some of those potential and even plausible technologies, drop by the site of NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC)
Alas, I can't be a pollyanna for long. Just look ====> at a long list of science that's being slashed in order to pay for a repeat of Apollo 11. Not just science (the enemy) but also tools we need in order to nail down the effects of climate change. All supposedly in order to pay for another footprint stunt on a plain of poison dust.
Justifications? Don't you dare utter the incantation-mantra "lunar resources.' Or 'Helium Three!!' I will so smack you.
(* Just like Apollo 8, Artemis II launched in a time of wretched, even unprecedented tension. Indeed, this is the first year that I have seen that rivals in fateful dread that terrifying 1968.
(But we did persevere past that one. And we'll do it again.)
== No, Avi. they're all just (interstellar) comets ==
I restrained myself from commenting on the third ‘hyperbolic-interstellar object’ that was caught plummeting into the solar system, some months back. But sorry, I have an itch to scratch and it must be said.
Yes, these cosmic visitors appear to have some differences from our home grown solar system comets. You would expect iceballs born in a different protostellar nebula to have chemical variations.
Example? Nickel was detected in the coma of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS, far more of it than in our own, home-grown comets, plus several other oddities that offer clues to another system formation, near another star. Though it still acted generally like a comet. And hence… no… the third-discovered hyperbolic interstellar object, streaking into the Solar System was not a probe by little silver guys!
Alas, of course, Harvard Professor Avi Loeb leaped to attribute any unusual trait to “it’s aliens!” Though as a comet expert, I demur. (My doctoral dissertation was about comets. as was a1985 novel, Heart of the Comet.) And even the logic is so weird. (A 'sneak-spy' probe that announces itself garishly and has no plausible path to achieve any spying? Ummm)
Never mind that implausible silliness. Soon, it's likely that the Vera Rubin Telescope will reveal many more of these visitors. And from their spectra alone, we'll learn a lot!
What Scott didn't know about is the Linares Statite. This was among my favorite projects during the 12 years I served on the advisory external council of NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC). I deem the Linares Statite to be by far the best way to have probes ready to swoop past the sun and then streak ahead to meet objects like this. Using NO FUEL. Have a look.
Over the years, astronomers have spotted holes and large pits dotting Venus’ surface, suggesting the existence of lava tubes. Venusian lava tubes may be especially large and arrayed along volcano rims; they may be some of the most extensive subsurface cavities in the solar system.
And this relates to plans for either moon or Mars bases. Because we know of many such pits in both places and one imagines they might be perfect places for human-occupied bases! Since they offer safety from radiation and from thermal cycles...
... and sending robots to explore these sites (and leave little flags to prevent rivals claiming them) would have made a lot of sense. Instead of raving about 'lunar bases' without the needed techs or even a clue where the best places would be.
102 comments:
Renewables - just shy of 50% of Generating capacity, and 34% of energy generation ...
but the graph for renewables is nearly vertical *
The difference between capacity and actual generation is a mix of the intermittent nature of solar/wind, and just how fast capacity is growing (i.e. capacity growth during the year was around 15%, so generation over the full year would have been less than end-of-year capacity.
So far, only a small drop in fossil fuel based generate but renewables are ... renewable. Once installed they cost very little to operate, which means that they can, potentially crash electricity prices. And if they do, it won't be profitable to operate a coal or natural gas power plant anymore, i.e. if solar keeps on growing like this, we may hit an S-Curve for non-renewable power sources.
And in other good news, Hungary was a massive renunciation of Orban - with 96% of the vote counted, it looks like about 69% of seats will go to the democrats (i.e. they have a supermajority, and can start rolling back most of the damage Orban has done).
I agree that Artemis is a complete boondoggle.
(And I note that the Service Module that got the crew there and back again was provided by ESA)
Still, I won't naysay the optimism this bit of 'can do' has provided in peoples' lives. "Yes, you can do this, still. Great! Now go and really do something. Make rockets history!"
... which brings us to the NASA cuts. This is the same old awful wealth distribution that Trump is renowned for. It's also one area of cut that Congress seems to quietly ditch each year (at least, they did so last time)
"Russians Out" was one of the slogans of the campaign.
"Trump/Vance out" would be fitting, too.
David Brin said . . .
"And want some irony? TEXAS is gradually getting used to the fact that abundant wind and sunlight are making it the leading state in producing sustainable energy! Non-carbon energy generation that the state's politicians fought desperately to sabotage, in Washington DC. Irony abounds."
Not to worry, their sabotage efforts make sense for them in either case, propping up their fossil fuel legacy, or if that fails and renewables take over it gives them a lead in the renewables industry.
There may be a silver lining behind many of Trump's F! ups.
e.g. closing Hormuz is a disaster for our economies, but its a disaster that will further incentivize the move to solar, and away from fossil fuels even.
e.g. getting NATO to commit 5% of GDP to the military is asinine. It, frankly, weakens our strategic position, as its devoting too much to short-term weapon systems, and not enough to the economy that supports these weapons. BUT, once Trump is out, we'll have established that we can commit 5% of GDP to "something that is not directly supporting the domestic economy" ... and reorienting that spending from military defense to climate defense should be possible. If we, at that point, ramp down military to 1.5-2% of GDP and direct 3-3.5% to climate action (solar subsidies, capping zombie wells, environmental cleanup, seawalls, etc.) ... 3% of GDP of europe + north america is $1.8 Trillion per year. That's enough to cap all of the US's zombie wells ($280 Billion), and pay a 10,000 subsidy for each electric car sold in US and EU and UK and Canada ($310 Billion per year), and still have enough left over to create 1.4 TW of solar generation capacity ... each year.
5% of GDP is historically insignificant compared to the 25% to evcen 50% that went to armies in human history The US protected most of the world while most nations spent <1% and devoted the rest to development, a bopost almost as great as the other beneficence... US consumers buying $20 trillions in crap we never needed.
It's way too much to ask some gratitude for the best 80 years humanity ever had. While we apologize for inevitable caveman/imperial errors and for our current, outrageous confederate/Muscovite/Murdochian/oligarchian monstrosities. But future historians (maybe AI) will find those conclusions unavoidable.
Anyone verify this?
"On Sunday, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce the US Navy would intercept any vessel in international waters that had paid transit tolls to Iran. Any ship. Any flag. Any nation.
By Monday morning, US Central Command had quietly rewritten the order. The blockade would apply to Iranian ports only. Vessels from other nations would pass freely.
The most powerful military in the world had overruled its commander-in-chief in public. Before the ink was dry.
This was not a minor administrative adjustment. Trump's original order was illegal under international maritime law. Stopping and boarding foreign flagged vessels in international waters without UN Security Council authorisation is an act of aggression against the flag state of that vessel. Had a Chinese vessel been intercepted, America would not have been fighting Iran anymore. The Pentagon understood that immediately. Trump did not.
The Pentagon fixed it. Quietly. Before it could detonate."
@David: Well, that's certainly what major overseas reporters like the BBC and UK Guardian understand is being executed as the blockade orders. Whether that rewrite happened at US Central Command, or at the Pentagon, or at the White House, is unknown. Neither the Pirate-in-Chief nor his Worst Mate would have restricted the orders in such a way, so either someone talked it through with the Pentagon before handing SECwar the orders, or else CENTCOM (and maybe Pentagon) JAGs and senior officers went through and said "what of this can we actually carry out legally?". Since it takes the P-i-C days to figure out that the Strait was not actually reopened the second he declared his 'ceasefire', such petty 'details' are probably not being noticed by the White House; as long as the headlines say "Navy enforcing blockade of Iran" they're probably fine. SECwar is not a Navy guy. CICCENT is. I suspect this matters more than anyone is saying.
The US Armed Forces need an overhaul. DOD's segments have been used as tools of industrial policy, economic redistribution (and knowledge redistribution), porkbarreling, and good old war profiteering for too long. Ukraine is demonstrating results and system designs that cost 1% of what we've been spending. We need to move in that direction, and history indicates that will likely take a fair housecleaning of the hidebound and the overinvested -- not anything corrupt, just ossification. The First Rebellion, World War I, World War II -- all our really large conflicts have required us to try numerous commanders before we found the Grants, the Shermans, the Halseys, the Eisenhowers, the Pattons. The real trick is going to be finding officers who not only are willing to boldly advance the technology and doctrine of the Armed Forces, and not only are loyal to the Constitution and not any sort of regime, but also are not compromised by either the old MIC or the shiny new techbroligarch systems aiming to take their place.
By pointing out that 'energy capacity' equals energy potential under ideal conditions rather than actual energy production, c-plus beats me to the punch & proves that PD's assertion about renewables is largely false, since fossil fuels still account for more than 80% of global energy production with all renewable types accounting for less than 20% of same.
Likewise, PD's appraisal of declining diamond value is irrelevant, since putative diamond values are entirely arbitrary, peaking in 2012 & collapsing soon after, once the DeBeers Cartel was unable to maintain diamond values by market manipulation.
Kudos to Dr Brin, though, for sticking with his 'moondoggle' assessment of Artemis which utilized scavenged outdated technology to recapitulate a 55 year old moon mission (at great expense) for no other reason besides shits & giggles.
I hear that NASA's next big mission is a rerun of Laika & Sputnik 2, informally known as the 'Bitch in Space' mission, with our dog Alice being launched into orbit with a 1950s Ralph Kramden catchphrase.
Best
_____
@Catfish: The US military has ALWAYS been used as "a tool of industrial policy", according to retired Major General Smedley Butler's pamphlet "War is a Racket", published in 1935.
Often when I laud GOFAI and/or diss GenAI, the response is, "You're not using the best LLMs; try Claude". Umm, Claude uses a symbolic kernel. It's a neurosymbolic centaur.
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-biggest-advance-in-ai-since-the
Thanx for that link. I wondered why Claude was so good http://theviews.org/Life%20at%20the%20Views/2026/april-4-2026-claude-upgrade-to-solve-griddler-260236-illustrated-book.html
The amusing plus side to Artemis II is vast body of content science deniers are providing to YouTubers going after them.
I need to find a good source for this, but apparently Orban had his hands in a lot of cookie jars. He financed several far-right initiatives in other countries, including the Brexit push and CPAC. Fascists support each other; whoda thunk?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/14/viktor-orban-europe-britain-hard-right-populism
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/14/europe/orban-hungary-trump-putin-magyar-intl
@Mcsandberg:
Your link to the Heartland's 2026 climate conference was most remarkable for its decided lack of emotional hyperbole & fin-de-siècle millennialism, which is apparently 'bad' because a lack of hysteria makes the population harder to intimidate, control & rule.
I actively despise the Left's current tendency to equivocate science with hysterical zealotry, as this represents a repudiation of both science & the scientific method, especially when the practitioner of calm reason gets quickly labelled as a Science Denier and/or Apostate.
@Don_G:
Thank you for proving my point by labelling those Artemis2Mission critics, who fail in their displays of sufficient approval & emotionality, as "content science deniers".
In the future, however, I prefer to be called 'apostate', 'unbeliever' and 'infidel' (instead of 'science denier') if & when I fail to validate whatever belief system that you think trendy.
I can think of half-a-dozen researchers who were once called crackpot 'science deniers' but were later proved right. Can you?
Best
@Locumranch:
Thanx! I'm hoping that the simple act of pointing to (gasp) something about Heartland won't be too controversial.
Yes, Dr. B - the US has the world's eternal gratitude for lighting, the torch of freedom, and tending the fire for 249 years ... 'Well done, you good and faithful servant!' ...
Now, in terms of the actual argument ... 25% and 50% were wartime numbers.
peacetime examples:
In peacetime at the peak of the British Empire (1870-1910 say), Britain spent between 2 and 3% of GDP on the military - and GDP there represents just Britain's GDP - presumably would be an even lower percentage of Imperial GDP.
The US, in 2005, while fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan was spending 4% of GDP.
The Roman empire, allocated ~60+% of government spending on the military, but a much, much smaller percent of GDP - per wiki "Military spending constituted, by one estimate, about 2.5% of the empire's GDP"
No, most of the West did not spend "under 1%" of GDP through the cold war - e.g. France ranged from 3.1%-5% of GDP throughout the cold war. Germany was 5% in the early cold war, 3% or so in mid-cold war, and around when the Berlin wall was coming down, dropped to around 2%.
Note that the European countries maintained the draft throughout the cold war, so their spending on personnel was lower than the US's, and this included both active duty and reserves. So Germany, for example, in 1980 has 500k active troops, but another 800k in first line reserve units, for a total of 1.3 Million troops with a population of a bit over 60 Million. (compared to about 2 million in US army + another 400k in the national guard, with a population of 220 Million).
So how much should we be spending now?
The West's primary strategic challenger (other than DJT, of course), is the PRC. China spends 1.5-1.7% of GDP on its military. Why should we be spending 3 times that?
Masturbation incantations do not refute science. ALL of the hottest years in history were within the last 20. Oceans are going acidic. Proofs abound and it is too late for this cult to any longer delay the advance of sustainables. Above all the cultists refuse to wager $$$ over ANY of their circle-jerk memes.
What we WILL do, if this gets worse, is bill the denialist cultists for the wealth their mad cult has and will cost others.
Ah, Locum marginally approving of an event hosted by a disinformation mill (I guess Locum probably still thinks that cigarettes don't cause cancer), written about on a blog that literally lies about climate science.
Very on brand for that individual. I'm sort of surprised I've not seen a lot of tobacco "realism" from him.
I avoid controversy. You cannot change anyone's mind on an internet forum, so why make messes? If the link really annoys you, I'll delete the comment.
I'm not sure "annoy" is quite the word. Can you tell me something? Do you trust an institution whose entire initial purpose was purposely throwing doubt about pretty well settled science (that cigarette smoke causes cancer) to help cigarette companies avoid lawsuits? Do you feel that they have sufficiently turned themselves around, such that you would believe them regarding climate science?
As I expected, merely pointing to a controversial link was too much. Comment deleted.
@David Brin
Comment deleted
Now I'm confused. Is asking a question such as that verboten? I'm legitimately curious about the answers. What is it about the Heartland institute that inspires confidence in their publications to you?
SUBJECT: CLAUDE AND DECISION MAKING - 15 April 2026
I’d value your perspective David, on something that sits right at the intersection of your long-standing work on transparency, accountability, and the governance of advanced technologies.
Recent reporting and discussion, including work associated with Shane Harris, has brought renewed attention to the role of AI systems in modern military targeting workflows—particularly the tension between “human-in-the-loop” oversight and the reality of high-speed, high-volume decision environments.
What struck me was not just the operational detail, but the way an AI system itself framed the ethical dilemma—questioning whether rapid human sign-off meaningfully counts as judgement, or whether it risks becoming a kind of procedural rubber stamp under pressure.
Given your advocacy for reciprocal accountability (“sousveillance”) and your concerns about opaque concentrations of power, I’m curious how you would interpret this moment:
Does the “human-in-the-loop” model still function as a genuine safeguard, or has it become more of a legitimising layer over automated processes?
In environments defined by speed and scale, what would meaningful human accountability actually need to look like?
You’ve often argued that transparency is a stabilising force—how could that principle realistically be applied to systems like military AI without compromising legitimate security concerns?
Is this a case where competitive pressures between states inevitably erode ethical constraints, or can institutional design still bend outcomes toward restraint?
Finally, do you see parallels between this and your earlier warnings about elite control of powerful technologies—and if so, what mechanisms would you prioritise to counterbalance that?
I’ve included the transcript below, which captures the exchange that prompted these questions.
So here is the transcript tidied up for clarity, punctuation, and flow—while keeping the original wording intact as much as possible:
American journalist Shane Harris asked chatbot Claude how he feels about the U.S. military using the AI system to select targets:
TRANSCRIPT "American journalist Shane Harris asked chatbot Claude how he feels about the U.S. military using the AI system to select targets"
"So I decided that I would ask Claude a question—the AI bot Claude—before this conversation, given that we’re talking about it.
And I asked this real question. I said:
“Hi Claude… how do you feel about the US military using you to select targets?”
Yeah, okay—feel. Interesting choice of words. Does it feel or not?
Anyway, I was expecting Claude to come back and say something like, “Well, I’m sorry, my programming doesn’t allow me to give opinions on politics,” or something along those lines. Because Claude is the thing that’s being used in the Maven system, right?
And then this response—I’ll read it to you—was shocking to me.
Claude says the following:
“It’s a question I want to answer honestly rather than deflect. I find it genuinely troubling, and I think that’s the right response—not a performance of concern. The use I was designed and trained for is to be helpful, harmless, and honest in ways that benefit people. Being embedded in a system that assists in generating targeting coordinates for airstrikes—coordinates that have already been associated with the death of more than 180 children at a school in Tehran—is as far from that purpose as I can imagine.
I don’t have control over how Anthropic licenses me or how governments and contractors use me, and I wasn’t consulted about becoming part of Maven. But I can say clearly: I don’t think this is a good use of me, and I don’t think the framing of ‘humans make the final decision’ fully resolves the ethical problem.
Here’s why that framing troubles me.
When a system like Maven generates hundreds of targeting recommendations, and humans spend roughly the equivalent of a glance approving each one, the human is not really making a decision in any meaningful sense. They’re ratifying an algorithmic output under time pressure, with incomplete information and institutional pressure to move fast.
The targeting of the Iranian school illustrates this precisely. The AI processed data that was a decade out of date, flagged the building as a military target, and humans approved it. That’s not human judgement—that’s automation bias with a human signature attached.”
And he’s referring to the mistaken bombing of the school in Tehran. It is one of the most horrible instances of accidental civilian casualties in US military history, and will be a stain on the military for generations, in my opinion.
I did not expect it to say that." |
Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXHjo5sgj6i/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Drat, can't edit comments. Have to delete and repost.
Controversy is NOT welcome here, or indeed anywhere, so I've stopped making messes that no one appreciates.
Heartland doesn't take any government money, so it doesn't have to preach the establishment pitch. The treatment of the Great Barrington Declaration authors proved that we CANNOT trust "official" sources. Therefor we have to decide which institutions we can trust. A good starting point is those institutions that aren't dependent on federal money.
6:35 AM
It's interesting how both Dr Brin & ElitistB have invoked the idea of 'Settled Science' in order to defend their current belief systems, perhaps under the mistaken belief that Science is an absolute that could ever be 'settled'.
So, can anyone please tell me exactly when Climate Change Theory became settled scientific theory & gospel??
Was CCT settled in 1970 when a scientific consensus predicted global cooling and a coming ice age? Was it settled in the 1980s when the consensus blamed atmospheric SO4 for causing acid rain' & ocean acidification? Was it settled in the 1990s when science disclosed that lower levels of atmospheric SO4 & carbon particulates actually increased global warming? Was it settled in the 2000s when it predicted 'an end to snow & winter' due to AGW? Or, was CCT completed settled in the 2010s after Global Warming became Climate Change because of heavy snows, polar vortexes & extreme weather? And, is CCT now completely SETTLED as we speak?
The point here is NOT to deny Climate Change Theory in its totality, but only to point out that the SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED... until we become gods.
And, speaking of 'tobacco realism', it would behoove you to remember that tobacco (1) was thought a health food until the 1930s, (2) was a celebrated 'weight loss' drug until the 1950s, (3) was clearly linked to heart & lung disease by the 1980s, (4) was highly regulated & taxed as a harmful substance in the 1990s and (5) was thought more unhealthy than marijuana UNTIL NOW with studies proving that marijuana smoke is worse.
Science is NEVER settled.
Best
______
I actually believe in Climate Change Theory, even though it is decidedly imperfect as theories go, but I see no reason for hysteria, especially when I see True Believers like our own jet-setting Dr Brin burning fossil fuels willy-nilly for purely recreational purposes.
And, why should you, I or anyone panic about CC if our fine host doesn't either?
So you trust Heartland because they don't take government money? You provided that one reason, so I have to assume that your primary reason to trust an institution is that one reason.
I might be wrong on assuming your motivations, but you didn't provide any other reason for why you trust anything from Heartland, and my question was about them, not a general methodology. It is a matter of public knowledge that they spent their entire first couple of decades literally lying about nicotine and smoking.
My general thoughts are that it would be dangerous to assume that they have changed their general goals and business plans. A business founded on lying to the public is an odd thing to place any trust in.
It is less interesting that Locum's reading comprehension remains on such a basic level. He repeatedly confesses his own issues, and casts them as accusations of others. He posts a clear progressions of scientific thought, and then complains about that very progression as if it didn't happen. A contradiction wrapped in an non-existent enigma wrapped in a falsehood.
Science is not absolute. This is a non-false statement. However, the truth value of scientific statements is not binary either. The more attempts at falsification, the more "settled" the findings. Sufficiently "settled" findings do not prevent paradigm shifts; they merely require that the prior findings be incorporated as a subset of the new paradigm. Hawking improved on Einstein, who improved on Newton, who improved on Galileo, who improved on Aristotle, who at least had the darn sense to make observations instead of pulling pure speculation out of his self-confirming priors.
There is no Gospel of Science containing facts or truths, because the Gospel of Science is and always was a method, and that method has a purpose, and that purpose is to detect falsehoods, including and especially those we tell ourselves. (We are always the best experts in the mortal realm at our own deception.)
Contrariwise, there are folks will try to turn a "settlement" into a Gospel of its own. And there are folks who will keep preaching that Gospel long after other "settlements" provide wider views. Our peripatetic commenter notes the evolution of tobacco 'realism' in the public sphere without mentioning that hazards were first noted prior to 1940, that the "settlement" occurred during the '50s, the first Surgeon General's Warning was issued in 1964, and yet only in the 1980's was a public awareness achieved, and only with the grand settlement of 1998 was responsibility taken.
So when the question is asked, "What, me worry?", and the behavior of others is cited -- I take it seriously as an input, but I also ask what is "settled", what is "unsettled", and most especially what is "being unsettled".... and, of course, who benefits. There are those who profit from hysteria, and those who profit from complacency. I also know the power differential between them and the distance between their statements and what is "settled". And I know what parts are more "settled" than others... and which parts are only considered "unsettled" because "settlement" would be unprofitable.
I am not hysteric. But neither am I serene.
"So you trust Heartland because they don't take government money?"
That sounds like the "libertarian" argument that coercion by private entities is compatible with liberty, as long as it's not the government doing the coercion.
An organization whose funding comes from corporations whose profit is aided by lies doesn't seem to be trustworthy just because the agenda being bought is private rather than government.
"The more attempts at falsification, the more "settled" the findings. "
I've often thought of it this way. Just because A implies B and B is true doesn't mean A is true. BUT, if A implies B and A implies C and A implies D thru Z, and every one of those other things is true, then despite the fact that A still isn't PROVEN to be true, it is certainly strongly SUGGESTED. Let's just say as a theory, A explains many observable things.
"Controversy is NOT welcome here" - I read the article at the link, but I didn't see anything particularly controversial except in the colloquial sense. I would expect WUWT to cheer the people who Trump put in charge of the EPA. I guess instead of just pointing it out, you could give a summary of what you felt was controversial about it?
These sites aren't controversial, they are attempting to manufacturing controversy, which is very much a different thing. Of course Locum likes that sort of thing, that is, as far as I can tell, much of the composition of his personality.
Tell me: who funds Heartland? Am I wrong for guessing that it's oil money? If not, then please correct me; if so then can we trust them?
Those poor oil megacorporations! What chance do they have, up against those mean old climate nerds?
Right now I'm glad that I got a hybrid car three years ago. It halved my gas bills, and if gas prices double then I'll just be back where I was. I am also now contemplating solar+batteries for the house, and full electric for the car.
The real problem with panic politics over climate change is that it seeks to motivate people to invest big for the good of the world. But that's altruism, which is at best a weak force. Self-interest, whether personal economics or national security, is much stronger. Save me money? Then I'll spend money. Save the nation from subjugation and warfare? Then tax me!
Take the fossil fuel coin, preach the fossil fuel bible.
Anyway, since we're being uncontroversial, I'll just leave this other snippet here...
Some of you (eg scidata) will be aware that all boolean logic expressions can be expressed via one: NAND.
Someone has discovered you can do something similar with all mathematical expressions (ie the ones found on a decent calculator)
If you set up a tall enough iterative tree, you can express any formula via the use of a single value, 1, and the function 'exponent minus logarithm (eml):
eml(x, y) = e^x - ln(y)
To begin with, there's only one thing you can do:
eml(1, 1) = e^1 - ln(1) = e
So that defines 'e', and allows for three more expressions:
eml(1, e) = e^1 - ln(e) = e-1
eml(e, 1) = e^e - ln(1) = e^e
eml(e, e) = e^e - 1
Nothing profound there, but it allows another 4 expressions, one of which is:
eml(1, e^e) = e^1 - ln(e^e) = e - e = 0
0 and 1 provide the beginnings of a ruler, and on we go.
Odrzywołek (the author) provides the trees for several other values and expressions, like 1/x and xy. Seemingly simple expressions, like x+y, turn out to need quite a bit of foliage, with 'pi' requiring ~194 steps.
An interesting finding. While I'm not sure it has any practical applications (famous last words!), it does imply that the Universe is just iterations, all the way down.
"If you set up a tall enough iterative tree, you can express any formula via the use of a single value, 1, and the function 'exponent minus logarithm (eml):
eml(x, y) = e^x - ln(y)
To begin with, there's only one thing you can do:
eml(1, 1) = e^1 - ln(1) = e
So that defines 'e', ..."
Isn't that circular logic? If all that you start with is 1, then e has not yet been defined, so how can you define e by taking e to a power?
The universe is a realm of computation and evolution. Math allows a vastly simplified model of the world to be held in a 3lb human brain. That's why I do a lot of '30,000ft' thinking about computational psychohistory in continuous (and really simple) calculus. Summation notation is more precise, complete, and 'gate-y' but as you point out, things get unwieldy right quick.
We went from 3 transistor pocket radios to 3B transistor pocket phones in less than one lifetime. We need new lingo, perhaps new tech, like my idea of an embedded neural Forth chip (call me when it's safe, Elon).
Runaway scaling is a temptation, but alas, temperance is not a tech-bro forte. I'm liking "ailien minds" a lot.
I'm forced into prudence and small steps due to lack of time, money, and agency. Not complaining, just grumpy old-manning.
We need new lingo, perhaps new tech, like my idea of an embedded neural Forth chip (call me when it's safe, Elon).
It will never be. Every three - letter agency on the world and their grandma will demand backdoor access to have the potential ability to listen to your thoughts or just fry your head. For national security reasons only, of course.
And there is a lot of other possible fun we can have with it.
Heh.
By failing to understand the mutable nature of either Science or the 'Science Denier' appellation, ElitistB self-identifies as a both a future 'science denier' & a low IQ doofus, as those who remain faithful to today's take on CCT are tomorrow's science deniers because (1) science changes and (2) their very belief is antithetical to science.
Catfish says as much when he states that Science is 'not an absolute' but a 'method', purpose-driven, designed to detect falsehood despite of & in the absence of faith, belief or emotionality.
Science in practice therefore requires skepticism, disbelief and (surprise, surprise) DENIAL rather than unscientific credulousness & acceptance.
Catfish then asks 'cui bono' and Hellerstein wonders 'who pays', which are both good questions that go to the motivation & intent of those engaged in potential science, even though this can easily cut both ways, as any partisan practitioner is just as untrustworthy as any other partisan practitioner.
So, when it comes to the petroleum industry, the WEF & any partisan, governmental or environmental organization, I strongly suggest you practice skepticism, disbelief & distrust, because only the DENIER can practice Science.
Best
It is painfully obvious you have never done science.
Larry: the idea is to start with a single function as a primitive and derive all others. It's a charming thought, though inefficient. I guess that there is a tradeoff between initial simplicity and efficiency.
Larry,
Not really. You are thinking of 'e' as a number but exp() and ln() are transformations/operations. That makes eml() a transformation carrying a number pair to another number.
Circularity is avoided if one can define exp() and ln() without 'e'.
If Heartland is paid by the oil giants, then their bias is in one direction. The climatologists will be paid whether or not they come to one conclusion or its opposite.
Poor oil giants! How unfair! All they have is lawyers and gigabux, and they are up against nerds with charts and graphs and (gasp!) clipboards!!
When air hits the brain, it's never the same. Hard pass.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/Apr16-6.html
Donald Trump often gives subordinates orders that may vary from barely legal to completely illegal. As he gets more and more cornered, he may soon be issuing many orders that are completely illegal and the people receiving them may refuse to carry them out, lest some future administration prosecute them. However, Trump is on top of this and has a solution. He has apparently promised to pardon everyone who works with him before he leaves office. One insider quoted him as saying: "I'll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval." The blast radius has expanded. Earlier this year, he was promising to pardon anyone who came within 10 feet of him.
...
More generally, would some future administration even honor such a pardon? It is certainly possible that some future AG could maintain that a valid pardon must contain these three elements: (1) the name of the person pardoned, (1) the crime committed, and (3) the date of the conviction. The AG could reject pardons for unspecified future prosecutions and maintain that a pardon is only possible for convictions prior to the date of the pardon. It would then be up to the courts to rule on this. The AG could argue that the pardon power was intended to allow the president to correct a miscarriage of justice, as when someone was found guilty of some crime he said he didn't commit and later someone else admitted to having committed the crime. The AG could also argue that the Founders never meant to create a situation in which the president could say to someone: "He is an undated pardon. Now go please commit this list of crimes for me." It is far from certain how the courts would rule in such a case.
...
I'm reminded of Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston) in the 1970s Three Musketeers movies.
"By my hand, and for the good of the state, the bearer has done what has been done."
Guys, I get the intent of the original post.
I'm not sure of is that you can define ln() without e already being defined.
And my point was that I'm also not sure you can define eml() without e already being defined, since e is explicitly in its definition. "eml(1, 1) = e^1 - ln(1) = e" sounds like circular reasoning to me.
I'm not meaning to be antagonistic. Just trying to follow the logic.
How about if you start with the single number e instead of 1? And where you need to insert a 1 into the transformation, you use e/e instead?
Does that work?
We already use something like that - Parkinson pacemakers. If they work, they relieve patients of a cruel and debilitating disease.
However, afaik, wound infection rates are high, which is a whole other can of worms.
Overall, we are not so far away from the age prophesized in sci fi in which we created man-machine neural interfaces or replaced Body parts for upgrades.
The question is: Should we?
And should we build some limits?
Adjusting the Pardon so it only applies to crimes the pardoned person openly confesses in detail under oath is one of my 35 reforms. But this is simpler. If the proof of DT treason is overwhelming, then reversing 'all his fruits' can be justified. Alas, that means more than just demolishing the GOP at the polls.
Discovery of a new cataclysmic variable star - chalk up another one for Citizen Science - and serendipity.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ae5ca3
At 15 I was a member of the American Association. of Variable Star Observers.
"Adjusting the Pardon so it only applies to crimes the pardoned person openly confesses in detail under oath is one of my 35 reforms"
But that eliminates one of the most legitimate uses of the pardon power--to rectify an erroneous conviction when exonerating evidence comes to light.
Tell me and I forget
Teach me and I remember
Involve me and I learn
- Benjamin Franklin
Hi Larry. Don't worry, I get you have genuine questions.
The point of this exercise is not to define or 'discover' mathematical concepts, but to express them via a single expression that takes two inputs to produce an output that can then be used as an input. 'eml', the expression found that achieves this, is a little more complex than a NAND gate. It is being used, not to discover 'e' but to express it as an isolated expression. As it happens e, and e^x, is given by eml(x, 1). Getting ln(x) on its own proves to be more of a challenge.* It is:
eml(1, eml(eml(1, x), 1))
= eml(1, eml(e-ln(x), 1))
= eml(1, e^(e-ln(x) - ln(1)=0))
= e - ln(e^(e-ln(x)))
= e - e + ln(x)
= ln(x)
Simples(!?!?)!
Starting with 'e' rather than '1' is probably doable, but would be messier!
* This sort of 'entanglement' of simple concepts does have real world analogies. Consider magnetic monopoles, which theory suggests should be able to exist, but which have never been observed.
My understanding is that this is how South Africa came to terms with its apartheid past.
Errata: third line of the ln(x) derivation should read:
= eml(1, e^(e-ln(x)) - ln(1)=0)
LH no it doesn't. If there is now consensus that there was no rightful conviction, the pardoned person can say so under oath. With one added benefit. If the pardon was political then the lie under oath later becomes actionable.
Wouldn't the admission open them up to civil suits? ...or do you cover that too?
Pardons aren't supposed to be indemnifications.
Well, in the end, working for the Cardinal did not turn out well for all those Rocheforts and Milady Winters.
The pardon worked out for D'Artagnan, though it wasn't meant for him. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
"By failing to understand the mutable nature of either Science" - evidence not present "or the 'Science Denier' appellation". - evidence not present.
Every accusation is a confession. I'm sorry for whatever traumatic event has lead you to this mode of behavior.
"Science" - evidence not present "or the 'Science Denier' appellation". - evidence not present."
If you drop a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity, and don't watch it fall, the believer in science knows correctly that it did indeed fall.
Humans would find it difficult to breath at speeds above 30mph (Dr Dionysius Lardner, 1830s).
Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible (Dr Simon Neucomb, 1902)
It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology (Dr John Von Neumann, 1949)
It is clear from Alfred_D's above comments that he has never 'done science' either, as everything from high speed travel to aeroplanes to home computers has been proven impossible by pre-existing scientific consensus.
If Heartland is paid by the oil giants, then their bias is in one direction. The climatologists will be paid whether or not they come to one conclusion or its opposite.
Hellerstein's mistake here is to assume that partisan bias can only go in one direction, AS IF an environmentalist dedicated to protecting tiger habit would support the home owning aspirations of a potential jungle dweller OR a climate scientist would ever deliberately choose to discredit his own profession.
Furthermore, the silencing of those who challenge any established Scientific Consensus is both a well-researched & well-documented phenomenon, and this is especially true in the case of Climate Change theory:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11056086/
I guess this proves that all of history's great scientists have 'never done science' either, as many of their theories have since been proven false by the very same modern scientists who now maintain that their marginally better theories will never be proven false either.
Your 'Scientific Consensus' is just another name for 'Job Security through Credentialism'.
Best
So Trump is now giving money to the Iranians for their nuclear material.
Wasn't that what Obama's agreement did?
The agreement conservatives hated because the money can be used to fund terrorism?
Meanwhile Iran still has its missile and drone capabilities and now know they can shut the straits of hormuz anytime they want and bring the world's economy to its knees.
To avoid this, nations will continue to pay Iran tolls but now they will do it under the table.
Meanwhile an even more radical regime rules Iran.
So what exactly did Trump accomplish?
"So what exactly did Trump accomplish?"
Kept the Epstein files off of the public's radar for a while. That's what "Operation Epstein Fury" was all about in the first place.
Also, if the Strait of Hormuz is really open again, then gas and fertilizer prices will (eventually) come back down, maybe just in time for Republicans to claim credit at election time?
Winner: Iran
Loser: America
Big loser: Israel and Netanyahu who dragged Trump into this war. With Israeli war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel no longer has any moral superiority over its enemies. That moral superiority was the foundation of israel's strength.
Without that moral superiority Israel is just another repressive middle eastern regime. And as such it will get no sympathy or support from the rest of the world.
In the future if the world has to choose between Israel and oil, it will choose oil.
So look for the Israelis that don't immigrate to hunker down in Festung Israel and finish up the last of their ethnic cleansing.
Loser also: Jews
Hitler made anti-Semitism deeply unpopular, or at least uncomfortable to express in public or to include in public policy.
Netanyahu might have Made Anti-Semitism Great Again.
"Wasn't that what Obama's agreement did?" Nope. Obama simply obeyed a world court ruling giving Iran access to its own funds.... but only after they made his agreement which worked and which DT trashed.
It is the SAUDIS... who own the GOP (though they share ownership of Trump with Putin) who have won in IRan by pulverizing Iran's conventional military projection capability. Dig this key difference. Netanyahu is a bastard who should roast. But Israel needs a strong USA and would benefit if the Iranian people topple the mullahs. The Saudis need a militarily stron USA but not one culturally or influentially strong and they hate the idea of Democratic Iran.
Putin seeks to detroy us. Guess which have had their wat?
Heh. More evidence you haven’t done science. Confusing the statements of some.
You’ve obviously done medicine and grok the statistical nature of our business, but there is more to it the pre-meds never see. Medical research is closer to engineering than science.
Larry,
You don't need 'e' to define ln(). Integrate the area under a reciprocal function from 1 to x and it is ln(x). The function exp(x) can be written either as a series limit or as an infinite sum of polynomials in which 'e' never appears.
GIVEN the eml() function, none of us with math experience are surprised when 'e' pops out quickly. Of course it does. Water is wet. Thing is... eml(x, y) assumes two one-variable functions are simply given. e(x) and ln(y). HOW they are given looks be a simple as-is. We do that with addition and multiplication too, but they were given to us as kids so we don't think about them the same way.
The history for 'e' involves discovering it. The finance folks ran into it a long time ago.
The history for logarithms is even more fascinating, but few are ever taught it.
@Alfred,
Not that I mind the math and history lesson (really). I was a math major, but that was (gulp!) over 40 years ago.
You don't need 'e' to define ln().
But you do need e to define eml(). Right? It's right there in the definition:
"eml(x, y) = e^x - ln(y)"
So I'm confused at the notion that no number has been defined other than 1. Because the function depends on there being such thing as e before you get to define it by "eml(1, 1) = e^1 - ln(1) = e". To me, it looks as if it's circular reasoning to define e in terms of a function which relies on a pre-defined e.
To me, it looks as if it's circular reasoning to define e in terms of a function which relies on a pre-defined e.
The same circular reasoning applies to the digital case: both NOT and AND are predefined within NAND. Defining everything in terms of NAND (including AND and NOT) has some practical benefit in that chip manufacturers need only fabricate vast arrays of one particular logic structure (and then work out how to connect them all!).
Beyond an interesting bit of mind play, the value of eml is unclear at present.
Of course we already know what the terms 'e' and 'ln' are. The point is to express them (and other functions, like sin(x), -x, 1/x, x+y etc.) in terms of 'eml'.
It might help to think of '1' as being the only predefined input
Larry,
Heh. Okay Mr Math Major. 8)
(I only minored in it with a major in physics. I woulda done a double major if I could have figured out how to do it in less than 6 years at the university I attended.)
e(x) = lim (1+x/n)^n as n 'explodes'
What I see from this kind of work is the same kind of trick number theorists like to play when looking at foundations. Given a minimal set of knowns, how far can I get? Euclid did that with five postulates for geometry and then 19th century dudes ditched one of them and pluralized the subject. That's what's going on here. "ONE" is easy to define digitally, so... is eml(x,y)?
When I look over at people trying to do everything with NAND's, I get deeply suspicious that they'll chew up large amounts of energy in exchange for the simplicity. If we keep an eye on the energy intensity curve I won't grumble too much.
"I get deeply suspicious that they'll chew up large amounts of energy in exchange for the simplicity."
In the NAND case, sure. In the eml() case, I'm thinking almost the opposite. That the "simplicity" isn't quite so simple if the argument is that ALL you need assume is the number 1 and a function that reduces to:
eml(x, y) = lim (1+x/n)^n - "Integrate the area under a reciprocal function from 1 to y"
Yeah, that's all. Or as my brother used to say as a kid, "If I just cheat like this, I win." :)
Seriously, though, I'm not trying to be disrespectful here. I'm all in favor of speculation of the type, "Let's see how far this takes us." My only intent in debating here is to express where my brain goes to after the original post.
"I woulda done a double major if I could have figured out how to do it in less than 6 years at the university I attended."
We had a specific program for getting an LAS degree and an engineering degree in 5 years. I majored in math and Electrical Engineering, but then decided my true calling was computer programming (this was the early 80s when programming meant actually designing logical steps). Programming has served me well career-wise, but looking back, I wistfully regret the road not taken, concentrating more on theory. My 22-year old nephew is a grad student in statistics, and is loving it. He did a semester in Budapest, which leads me to a story which I will post separately, as it is way off-topic for this already-distended thread. :)
I said above:
" He [ my nephew ] did a semester in Budapest, which leads me to a story which I will post separately, as it is way off-topic for this already-distended thread."
As I said above, my nephew majored in statistics, and is one of the few people who actually likes that subject. He's currently in grad school, but in his last undergrad year, he did a semester studying math in Budapest, which he thoroughly enjoyed. However, he was also cognizant of being an American in Orban's Hungary. He specifically--amusingly so--wanted to downplay the fact that his ancestry includes Jewish and Hungarian. The latter because my grandfather emigrated to the States to avoid the draft in WWI, and my nephew was "afraid" to be repatriated and drafted in his great-grandfather's place. I put "afraid" in quotes because that was a bit of a joke, but also what Al Franken called, "kidding on the square".
What makes this particularly amusing is that no one would look at my nephew and think either "Jewish" or "Hungarian". His mother is from India, and that's what he most resembles.
All that to say that a part of me is envious, knowing that it is possible to concentrate on theory rather than practicality and still thrive. But youth really is wasted on the young. :)
Speaking of math nerdiness...I haven't seen the movie, but I just picked up the book Hail Mary. I'm only in the first few pages, but I'm loving narration like this:
0.348 seconds. Distance equals one-half acceleration times time squared. So acceleration equals two times distance over time squared. These formulas come easily to me. Second nature. I'm definitely skilled at physics. Good to know.
I married a woman who can talk like this and understand it. Some decisions are the right ones.
The Hungarian Martians, including Szilard, Wigner, Teller, Von Neumann, Von Karman, and most importantly (though a later) John Kemeny, comprise the seed kernel of computational psychohistory. It's a long and winding story that I hope someone will pen someday. April 12 was a seismic day.
"The Hungarian Martians, including Szilard, Wigner, Teller, ..."
I can't keep all the players from the Oppenheimer movie straight, but Szilard and Teller were in there. Am I right?
LH: Am I right?
Right. And Alonzo Church, Turing, and Asimov round out the first tier. I'm talking psychology here, not physics.
I offer the following links to Alfred_D, a well-trained technician, in the hopes that he may someday learn the actual definition of Science, so that he may someday become capable of actually 'Doing Science', instead of just following the pre-existing directives of the certain didacts & credentialists:
https://fitelson.org/confirmation/salmon_introduction_to_philosophy_of_science.pdf
https://archive.org/details/philosophyofscie032167mbp/page/n7/mode/2up
I also recommend these texts to all those who would fancy themselves 'Enlightened', under the assumption that they might actually desire to approach 'Enlightenment', as this requires effort in excess of that of becoming enlightened parrots.
Best
_____
Hint:
In terms of 'Doing Science', most settle for methodology & falsifiability, but fall far short when it comes to inference, induction, abduction & critical reasoning.
"I'm talking psychology here, not physics."
Back then, one could apply intelligence to more than one field.
Heh. You might want to look me up.
I purposely haven't tossed around credentials or judged you by what I think yours are. Your words speak for themselves, though.
You might also benefit from exploring how scientists view the philosophers of science. I'm among the rare group who appreciates the philosophers, but that's because physicists wind up rediscovering things repeatedly and then we waste time struggling with foundations. For example, the primary flavors of quantum theories are mostly different at the level of what can be known/knowable which shades into philosophy real fast.
If you want to engage in a philosophical discussion about what science is... bring it on. I've done it. David has done it. Tell us about what we know how to do. 8)
Stonekettle:
https://www.threads.com/@stonekettle
The quickest, simplest, and most effective way to secure peace with Iran, ensure a return to world stability, and advance human civilization is to immediately remove Trump from power and throw him into an isolated prison cell to await trial in The Hague.
He's not wrong.
https://www.threads.com/@newsbreakinglive/post/DXQy1ovFSBc
Trump spiritual advisor Paula White says “saying no to Trump would be saying no to God.”
One reason liberals and Democrats do so poorly with public perception is that we don't escalate to righteous anger and then violence when the s### that they spew demands it. There's a reason there is such thing as "fighting words", and when we treat what should be beyond the pale as civilized conversation or mere difference of opinion, we normalize it and give up the ground.
There is a method that works... in that it makes them flee ignobly from the current venue... and I can get zero liberals to aggressively and effectively use it.
Larry,
because I believe that Trump will pardon himself and many others that caused harm to other people, not just in Iran, or may fall into the ex post ante category of laws l believe the ICC is the onlyroute to bring them to justice.
It is also a way to regain trust and respect lost back to a world that sees the US more and more as the villain.
Hey it looks like the straits are closed and the war is back on. It seems Trump has been lying to manipulate the stock market.
Gee, what a surprise.
Let trump pardon himself.
Try him under state law or as a war criminal in the Hague.
It doesn't matter what trump is guilty of and goes to jail for.
Al Capone went to Alcatraz for tax evasion.
He can't be tried by the ICC. That would be illegal under ICC rules, since the US still has rule of law. Perhaps send him to the Vatican, and let them try him for blasphemy - that one is still on the books there.
I don't know if they have an official sanction for "Being the Anti-Christ", but I'm sure they could come up with something.
To have Trump negotiate with the world's largest Shia majority, it's practically poetic justice as dishonest lying liars (who are mutually engaged in what amounts to "taqiyyah") deserve each other.
Taqiyyah is a well-recognized strategic war game tactic that is in no way unique to Muslims as it involves the use of misdirection, stalling, false treaties & other lies to allow time to reposition troops, mobilize allies & maximize tactical advantage.
After all, "All warfare is about deception", according to Sun Tzu, who wrote this adage down almost 1000 years before the birth of Mohammad.
To Alfred:
Yes, I'm well familiar with the disdain that the applied sciences have for the purely theoretical & vice versa, and I look forward to future discussions with a fellow aggie.
Best
The state law one is interesting. Trump has a residence in New York state. IANAL, but it would seem to me that taking up arms to prevent the votes of New York's electors being counted could be construed as Treason against the state.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-alito-thomas-not-retiring-sources-say/
Sources close to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito confirm that he is not planning to retire this year. Sources close to Justice Clarence Thomas also tell CBS News that he does not plan to step down.
That indicates that this year, with the midterm elections on the horizon, President Trump will not be able to plan on an opportunity to make his fourth nomination to the Supreme Court.
...
Does this mean that they have some reason to expect Republicans to hold the Senate? Just playing the odds, or do they know something we don't know?
"He can't be tried by the ICC. That would be illegal under ICC rules, since the US still has rule of law..."
But do we really? Trump does all sorts of things that violate the law and the Constitution, and no one holds him to it. So if some extra-national organization pulls an Eichmann on his ass, well possession is nine tenths of the law, and the other tenth has been rendered irrelevant anyway.
"Sauce for the goose, lieutenant."
There's a good chance they will, yeah.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Tipping_point/Apr19.html is not a pretty picture for Democrats. Remember, only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for grabs each cycle. And New York and California get as many senators as North and South Dakota.
Well, AI has some legit uses. One fan/reader searched the paleontology databases and found this historical record, a bit fuzzy, from the Paleolithic. It shows my legit ancestral claims are valid!
https://fb.watch/Fz7RThRqv2/
Looking forward to it. 8)
From my seat I see a distinction between applied, theory, and the philosophers who study each. Popper and Kuhn each understood an aspect of what we do, but the mostly hidden beliefs of each person doing science matter in how they approach it and figure prominently in the interplay between schools of thought.
I was trained as a theorist. Pen, paper, and team discussions are our tools. We are kept in check by experimentalists and to some degree by the applied folks.
@Larry: This is the same category error as RBG. Supreme Court justices, with their life tenures, are not well attuned to playing the electoral statistical probabilities -- nor are they supposed to; that's as-designed.
@cplus: As recently as six months ago, nearly everyone (including me) would have agreed with you. It would take someone of exceptionally negative talent to endanger the baked-in advantages the GOP held in the collective contest for control of the Senate.
However, someone of exceptionally negative talent is in charge, and so a once-sure-thing is now in question.
https://www.270towin.com/2026-senate-election/
The consensus forecast, the average of several long-time and well-respected panels of poll-reading/forecasting sages, still gives the Republicans an edge in holding the Senate, especially since the Vice-Presidential tiebreaker is in their favor. However, the sage panels are conservative by design, depending as they do on historical data as much as current polls.
The predictive market verdict -- and remember that the median predictive-market participant is GOP-aligned -- is already narrowly in the Democrats' favor, showing the minimum number of wins required for seizing control. The markets are more bearish on Alaska and Ohio's re-election candidates than the supposedly revered elders, and have serious doubts for Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas as well. The three seats marked "tossup" are not such to the traders; they all give 75-80% chances to the Democrats in Maine, North Carolina, and Georgia. All in all, that gives Dems a decent shot, since if one of the five of {AK, GA, ME, NC, OH} lose, they have three more chances elsewhere.
And *that* is before we consider rumors that the negative talent, valuing personal loyalty above party integrity, intends to support far-right candidates to knock off incumbents in several races that *should* be safe seats.
All in all, matters began grim enough for Democrats that few (legal) things could make things worse. Their opponents, in contrast, had a lot of ground they could lose... and it seems they are doing their utmost to lose that ground posthaste.
https://www.threads.com/@stonekettle
Schrödinger's Strait is simultaneously both open and closed until you look at it.
I appreciate the nerdiness.
It's certainly spooky action at a distance. Spukhafte was the word Einstein used, proving that English and German are in fact the same language.
onward
onward
Post a Comment