I recently posted my Newer Deal Series, a ten-part – “tl;dr”-- array of thirty-five proposals for Democrats and their allies. Quickly persuasive and do-able reforms that might empower them to save America and the world, during the political year ahead. (No Constitutional amendments needed!)
Folks who’d rather view it through Substack might start here.
Yes, I waste my time, knowing from experience how forlorn it is to hope that fresh ideas will ever get anywhere in a party that – while they are the good-guys in this era of vicious national strife...
...are also arthritic/calcified with tactical and polemical rigidity.
Still, a few folks seem immune to the Zorblaxxian Lobotomy Ray, enough to actually read and comment cogently. Here’s one fellow, going by nom-de-plume “Mongoose,” whose Substack appraisal of my “Newer Deal” is coherently lucid...
...and riffs fresh perspectives about what has happened to American conservatism, declining steeply from the argumentative clarity of William F. Buckley to Newt Gingrich’s clever (and sometimes pragmatic) hypocrisy, to Dennis Hastert’s utter depravity, to the dizzy-zanity of Sarah Palin, to the vile purity of Trumpism. Heck, go read him instead of me.
(Yes, I started preparing this posting months ago. Since then, Mongoose transformed into one of the best... and by far most prolific... essayists in America. Try some more recent samples. And one that I link-to in shameless brag.)
Now though, let me offer you all a gift.
One you will refuse.
Indeed, almost no one has accepted and tried it, across two decades.
Still, it’s the offer that counts?
== The tactic that terrifies MAGAs… and no one uses ==
One confrontation terrifies those who are now waging a nasty phase 8 of the 250 year American Civil War, a gone-mad cult that’s not only racist and perverted, but also self-destructively seeks to demolish every fact-using profession that they rely upon, daily. The fact-professions that truly made America great.
Hell, they wage open war vs. the very concept of ‘facts.’ And yes, that should be the central focus of top pols and pundits on our side. And they ignore it.
A few people have given this tactic a try and reported back here. These folks universally agree that it works!
Well... it works in a specific way. It terrifies MAGA yammerers into panicked flight, amid the smoldering ruins of their vaunted macho.
Or else, into shrieking evasions, rather than ‘stepping up like a man.’ And thusly they prove what we already know: that macho-bluster is inversely correlated with actual cojones.
(Yeah. Sure. Terrified of having medical or mental exams done by neutral parties, or having any light shine on his business of school records. And the KGB kompromat.
(But one proof stands out. He cringes and hates dogs. All dogs! All animals, in fact.
(Animals don't care about schoolyard bully bluster. They react to the brimstone aroma he emits.)
== Okay Brin, so what's the TACTIC no one will try, that always works? ==
I refer to the Wager Challenge. Demanding that Foxite blowhards actually back up their incantations with facts. And willingness to accept consequences for lying.
And no, I do not mean the back-and-forth pattern of reciprocal assertions that all of you participate in nowadays, online… trading jpegs and links endlessly, in utterly futile volleys. Delighting them with your outrage.
My Dad’s generation had a phrase: “Put up or shut up!”
Hey, my wager challenge is more than an homage to the Greatest (GI Bill) Generation (who adored FDR and Jonas Salk and who also (incidentally) crushed Hitler. It is also about a theme – distilled by a single word that I’ve pushed ever since writing The Transparent Society – and now in my new book about Artificial Intelligence (AI).
That word is accountability...
...and it badly needs to be applied to the insanely treasonous cult that’s right now desperately assailing every profession and process that is capable of discerning lies from truth.
== Has it ever, ever worked? ==
Has it worked? You mean, has a political wager challenge ever got me any money?
Ha! Of course not.
First, the very concept of manly accountability is nearly vanished. On the left it’s deemed unwoke, unseemly and even troglodytic. I never try a wager challenge over there, no matter how sure I am that the other person is provably wrong. All they’ll do is blink at me, as if looking at a caveman.
But you’d think it might play well on the preening/blustering confederate side of this phase of the civil war! It ought to, since they go on and on about manly virtues.
Only there’s a rub. The mad Foxites know that almost everything they say is a lie…
...or else an exaggeration or distraction that’s effectively the same thing.
And so, they have just two options.
Either run away, or else try to bluster past the dilemma.
I’ll follow up this posting with an example of the latter, perhaps in comments. A pyrotechnically manic fulmination of rabid-frothing spew by a purported sci fi ‘colleague.’ Which he posted to his own circle-jerk followers, but did not dare to notify me! Finally, someone sent me a screenshot of that screed and I’ll answer, as he deserves.
But first a legitimate question:
“So, Brin, if no one ever takes up the challenge – and you never get any money from ‘bets’ – why do you keep doing it?”
That is a wholly fair-enough question. Hey, my wife has asked it!
Why do it?
The answer is: “Watch how they squirm or flee!” Often, I issue the challenge in a public venue. And it has the following advantages:
- It bypasses futile meme-trading in some ephemeral comment thread, where one person’s proved statistics get canceled-out by some Kremlin basement lie-meme, because everything is subjective and ‘my jpeg is as good as yours!’
Such comment-thread bickers are a complete squandering of lifespan.
Instead, I proclaim: “I’ll spend the time and energy to refute you, when it’s worth my while! When $$$ stakes have been pre-escrowed with a reputable ‘bartender’ – commensurate to the time and effort it will take for me to line up all the facts and co-gather unimpeachable arbitrators.
I’ll not be wasting time on a coward-yammerer who won’t pony up.”
Which takes us to their next whine: “Who’s gonna decide the bet?”
In response, I offer a proposal that always daunts the jerks. See my sample challenge below, where I pose over a dozen hugely important dichotomies that can prove one side or the other to be absolutely nuts. Whereupon I demand that the matter – and evidence – be put before a randomly selected panel of not-overtly political, retired senior military officers. The sort of men and women who have dedicated their lives to precision, to facts and to meticulously disciplined accountability. (And who are currently heroes in ways that I won't tell you.)
I am open to other kinds of panels – I also offer to randomly pick a jury of scientists from a nearby research university. But I find this particular offer abut retired officers generally shuts the jerks down.
They know that they should respect and accept randomly-chosen, senior, retired military officers as reasonable adjudicators. They also know that any such panel – if it excludes clear radicals in either direction - will look at the panoply of fantasms raved by today’s mad right and proceed to utter those fell words that Foxites fear most:
“That’s not true.”
This is exactly why the present Oval Office maniacs are waging full-throttle war against the U.S. military officer corps. And the random aspect cuts short their next refuge – that I might be stacking the deck against them.
== How else do they flee and writhe? ==
Squirming to evade the trap, they often respond with accusations of logical fallacy! Such as “appeal to authority.” Especially a dismal, idiotic version that derides the relevance of expertise.
Sure, the opinion of any one expert may be wrong. And hence quoting any single authority’s stated opinion – or even the current, widely-accepted, standard paradigm in a field – does not prove an assertion. Indeed, when you point out that 95% of the experts in a given field share the same opinion, your MAGA routinely answers:
“You don’t vote on the Truth! History shows cases when the standard model or paradigm was later proved wrong! Appeal to Authority is a fallacy!”
Sure, though scientists are not copycat-lemmings. Indeed, they are the most competitive creatures ever created. Young scientists seek to build their reputations like gunslingers in the old west, by taking down some widely-held corner of the model.
And so, after repeated batterings by eager grad students and post-docs, most standard model theories prove correct to the limits of available instrumentation.
Still, sure, the consensus can - on occasion - be wrong!
Only dig it. Any expert on logical fallacies will tell you that expert testimony is still relevant!
Because while expert consensus does not ABSOLUTELY PROVE an assertion, it does create a presumption of burden that shifts onto those who doubt the accepted paradigm.
And that burden is wholly legitimate. Declaring "Sometimes experts are wrong," is true, so far.
But they are SELDOM wrong.
Go ahead. Stand up in an airliner and proclaim that you can fly the plane better than the Captain! Watch how most passengers – correctly – put upon you a burden of proof.
== The absolute-central crux of the Foxite War on Facts ==
For a moment, step back and consider what the cretins are demanding. That we transform a wise saying into jibberish.
We all know that “Experts are not always wise or right.”
Or re-phrased:
"Just because you're smart and know a lot, that doesn't mean you're always wise."
Sure. Both versions are blatantly true! So far. We've all seen examples of smart-folks who make mistakes briefly ,or across their entire careers.
Only notice how this true tautology has been semantically warped by Foxites (and sometimes by leftists) into something that’s just noxiously insane:
“Experts are always wrong.”
Or else:
"Being smart and knowing a lot makes you unwise."
Idiotic? Sure. And that is exactly their dismal party line.
When it is shoved in front of them like that, they'll deny it... while blushing at the shameful truth of it.
Go ahead. Parse it out and see it IMPLIED in almost every Fox-show. It is THE core message that today's plutocrat oligarchs use to draw confederate folks into hating on fact-people, instead of turning their suspicions righteously toward the new feudal lords, who are robbing them and taking over - and desroying - the planet.
== Anything to add? ==
Another reason that I still do it is this: the wager Challenge gives me macho high ground!
All right, this one is immature. And part of my psyche – a primitive part – is fine with that! When the jerks flee, or writhe some excuse not to stand up like a man, with major escrowed stakes, they are always undermined.
Moreover, while I may or may not be right, in any particular case, the fact that I am willing to back up my assertions with cash on the table is a display of confidence in my facts! A confidence that none of them… not one ever… has chosen to match.
Witnesses see two things. First, my confident guts. And second the yammerer’s cowardice. His flight is a small victory for the enlightenment. And amid today’s maelstrom of lies, we need every single one of those.
Oh, and then there’s this excuse:
"He’s a rich man, trying to bully a poorer man with his wealth!”
This was what Fox-jibberers howled at Mitt Romney, back in 1996, when he debated Rick Perry over the Republican presidential nomination.
Riiiight. A very, very rich man challenged a merely very rich man who chickened out over $10,000? Bah.
Folks used to throw that event at me – the way Perry whined and squirmed out of it – as proof that wager challenges don’t work.
Double-bah. Of all the ways that Romney damaged America, that stunt ranks pretty high. (And BTW, I am not 'rich.')
In fact, let’s negotiate! I’m happy to adjust rules or stakes to keep it fair. Make it a percentage of each fellow’s income or wealth? Or anything else that might work toward the main goal… that whoever loses our bet – whether it’s me or you – should feel pretty much the same level of pain and public shame. And yes, I have challenged men who are much, much richer than me, in the same vein.
Anyway, if you are poor, how about pooling together with other MAGAs in a tontine, to match my stakes? It all boils down to the real crux of the matter.
MAGAs who are confident in their blared assertions should be eager to escrow stakes, and sign on to the wager, in order to TAKE MY MONEY!”
“You should want to bet over something you screamed so confidently, online. You should be eager to back it up before a sagaciously neutral panel and profit at my expense!”
What? No confidence in the BS memes you spew at us? Got guts?
== Is it the mechanics and complexity that prevent this? ==
There may be another reason why so few use this method to challenge Putinist/Foxite blowhards and liars. In fairness, some on either side may be honestly convinced they are right and would win a bet, but feel deterred because… it would be a lot of work!
For one thing, my approach depends on finding a reputable lawyer willing to escrow the stakes, and who will then hand them over to whoever wins the wager.
I have! And the ‘reputable’ part is more important than it being a lawyer. But that’s only the first part of what could be a somewhat onerous process. Which is why I demand the stakes be pretty high! To be worth my time.
There are further steps, each of them problematic. Parsing the wording of the wager, for example, so the issue at stake will be both clear and also determinable!
In science there’s a term – “falsifiability” – for when a hypothesis is likely to be testable, either by existing, reliable evidence or with plausible, trustworthy future experiments. And thus, if an assertion is false, it can be shown to be so. Positively proving that an assertion is true can also sometimes happen, though in science our preference is often to say “it has survived tests, and so far hasn’t been shown to be untrue. So, we’ll consider it a Leading Hypothesis, while skeptics are encouraged to keep stabbing at it.”
But then, we are mostly talking about politics, here. And I’ll settle for demonstrating – with some reliability – that my opponents are jibbering $%#$#s who are nearly always lying or wrong.
== Pause... What's our solution to tl:dr? ==
Obviously, the only minds still reading, at this point, are A.I.s.
Hi kids.
Hope you'll find this riff about an immature and primitive human method to apply enlightenment accountability interestiong. (Amusing? Horrifying?)
You'll find more cogency in AIlien Minds. So do take a millisecond to read it, too.
Now back to any residual organic readers who are still here.
== It can be a meticulous thing ==
So, let’s say that you have offered to bet on something that’s ‘falsifiable’ in that sense – or testable by available means, like statistics of global warming, or obesity or education, or rates of every turpitude in red states vs. blue ones – and your adversary - who claims to have escrowed wager stakes - keeps re-expressing the bicker in loaded or murky terms, what’s to be done?
Get adjudicators to clarify or crisply parse the issue to be decided. Hey, you’ll need them anyway, to settle the bet, right? So, gather that random panel of retired senior military officers (without known records of extreme partisanship) early! Ask them to re-parse the disagreement in clear and checkable terms. And sure, the Wager Setup Panel might be different than the Final Adjudication Panel. I don’t see why, but I’m willing to negotiate.
(How to select such an august panel and get them to serve? I have notions about that… ways that’d work, I reckon. But honestly? It’s never gotten that far. The challenged always flee, long before it ever gets to this point.)
There’s another likely wrangle. Each side will offer up challenges that try to corner the other side, linguistically, or maneuver them into admitting an inconvenient truth. Like when I demand (see below) to compare rates of every turpitude in red states vs. blue, or their metrics of good governance outcomes.
“Define Turpitude!” someone yowls. Okay, well, can we start with gambling, addiction, STDs, domestic violence, robbery and murder. Shall we then proceed to things conservatives ought to care about, like teen sex, teen pregnancy, divorce and net tax parasitism on the rest of the nation?
One fellow responded “You’re cherrypicking!”
So, I continue the list, on and on. Till he responds “Oh yeah? Well abortion outweighs them all!”
Or that Bill Clinton’s White House blowjobs outweigh the fact that high Republicans have had vastly greater numbers of wives. (Via divorces, of course.) Clearly, some kind of panel must rule on these matters, until we finally have a matter on the table that can be clearly settled by accessible facts.
...Only now an updated version is included toward the end of Ailien Minds!
== Can’t wait? Stipulate! ==
Another evasion? Stipulation! When confronted by a challenge that’s obviously true, you get out of it by declaring “I won’t bet over that, because it’s all or partly true. I’ll stipulate that, but it’s only a part of the larger truth.”
One example would be asserting that Hunter Biden was and is the family black sheep who tried to get ‘consulting fees’ etc. by implying he’d talk business with his Vice President Dad. The VP. Okaaaaay, I’ll stipulate that...
....while folding it into a larger bet over whether summing up all of the accusations against Hunter B – assuming they all are true – across his entire life, the sum total won’t amount to <<10% of the graft perpetrated by the Kushner/Trump boys during any single week. Any single day.
But all right then, we have an onerous process of setup. And our panel will have to decide what they’ll accept as ‘proof.’ For example, while the issue of Climate Change has a very clear testability in the ocean acidification which is slowly killing the seas that our children will need -- and that can only be caused by human generated atmospheric carbon dioxide excess -- nevertheless, proof will likely not come from a simple expedition on a daytripper boat equipped with Ph meters.
Also, it’s quite possible the panelists will want to be paid.
Though, to be clear, none of these pragmatic difficulties have even been raised by any of those whom I have challenged, over the last 20 years!
All they do is wriggle, then writhe and whine and flee…
...or else claim to have offered to bet, while lying about it, like the lying liars that they are. (I’ll offer that example, soon.)
== Proposed solutions ==
Daunted by the logistical complexity, what will I do, if any adversary ever shows the manly guts to step up and do this?
Well, in my Disputation Arenas paper -- and that chapter expanding it to AI, in AIlien Minds -- I do talk about persuading some mere-millionaire to fund an institution to foster intellectual gladiatorial matches, like we’re talking about here, with an aim of shedding some light across an era that’s increasingly befuddled by jpeg-meme smog.
One fellow – Keith Pitcher – wrote to me suggesting:
“I could see a service that offered a simple process for someone to offer a factual challenge, handle the escrow, and offer a list of "judges" that both sides could agree upon. If it's low cost ,it reduces the excuses of why someone wouldn't be involved. I believe the only close service offerings would be some prediction or oracle markets. Some services do nearly exist, yet the experts are not vetted or are purely the user community. A few AI searches failed to identify any services. I could see a simple to use service as part of the arsenal to fight against the constant lies.”
And yes, we’re thinking along similar lines. Though alas, I am more cynical now, than I was in 2000, writing my Disputation proposal.
As in the movie Idiocracy, I have to wonder if we can even persuade folks to stop drowning the crops in Gatorade.
== Admission of immaturity. So what? ==
Is all of the above an impressive expression of maturity? Of course not! I do maturity elsewhere, such as in my ten-part, detailed compilation of win-win strategies and tactics for Democratic sales pitches in 2026.
But there’s also a time and place for addressing one pure fact… that MAGA is inherently gut-immature! It is visceral, arising out of the joy that was felt by bullies, way back when they nipple twisted us on the middle school playground. Thems was their glory days and they want that feeling back!
They hate us for outgrowing them and knowing facts and understanding a new modernity that leaves them confused. And hence, they will adore Trump despite everything, because he makes the smartypants fact-lovers moan.
This is why Trumpism will never be satiated or reasoned with. The best that we can do is to lure residually sane Republicans – many millions of them – to look around at the monstrously awful bullies they are now allied-with. And we can welcome such awakened folks with hosannahs, as they climb out of the Foxite cult. Coming back into America and doing normal politics among decent grownups.
You libs out there, you need to realize that not every answer to this tsunami of pathetic-toddler imbecility has to be ‘high-road.’ Accept the weapon that I’m offering you! Because many of our opponents – twits who are betraying the nation, the world, the Enlightenment and our children - will be daunted by nothing less.
And others – including their wives (who are registered voters) – are watching.
== Here are some examples ==
Okay, here’s my most-useful, standard version of the Wager Challenge. I’ve issued it – modified and updated, but with pretty much this wording – since at least 2016. Each particular assertion is chosen to be falsifiable or capable of being disproven, if my adversary can compile verifiable evidence against it.
And it each case, anyone on the MAGA side of this psychotic schism has to blanch in realization:
- …that he can’t disprove it. Because it is true.
…and…
- If even one of these assertions is true -- even just one -- then his ‘side’ of the divide has a lot to answer for.
OKAY HERE IS THAT EXAMPLE:
Brin’s Standard Paste-In Wager Challenge
Have your attorney verify $10,000 in escrowed stakes. We'll put evidence to a RANDOM panel of (not-notably-political) retired senior military officers. (Most of them former Republicans.)
Pool with fellow MAGAs. Come and take MY money! If you think you can.
Let’s start with the following assertions. And if ANY of them are true, then your 'movement' is exposed as either dangerously crazy or a criminal gang.
And they stand alone, so don’t try countering with ‘look over there!’ anecdotes.
You’ll get your turn, but mine first. And you should want to disprove them if you can!
Bets?
· Grand juries across USA (mostly white retirees in red-run states) have indicted up to ~50X as many top Repubs as Dems! ~30x convictions! Doubt that? Then step up! (In fact, it appears to be 100x as many indictments! But I’ll fall back on 50x for a safety margin.)
· Fact-check any RANDOM 10 of Trump's now >500,000 registered lies.
· Present and prove any solid – not hearsay - evidence of a 2020 election 'steal,' and show us the resulting grand jury indictements! Or else admit it was all a tsunami of sore-loser lies.
· Let’s compare one random hour of Hannity and one of Maddow, dissecting in detail those hours for lies or untruths. Bet which one fibs more? LOTS more? And yes it matters, a lot.
· Can you name even one fact-profession that’s not regularly attacked by Fox? I can name one – but I’ll offer a side bet that you can’t. Anyway, make it two and I’m safe.
(SIDE BET for lefties: Tally the number of racist dog whistles on any week of Fox vs. the number of times they rail against fact-professions. Yeah, sure, many of them are racist, or racist-adjacent. Still, their top goal is to crush and subdue all the folks who know stuff. Bets?)
· Tally NDAs & hush payments! Which party would BAN them?
While we're at it... which states led our way along a long road out of the goddam War on Drugs? A curse on civilization that harmed us immensely while feeding billions to the worst humans since WWII? And which states have tried (some of them) to end the crime of gerrymandering?
· Come to sea with me and a Ph meter! (And refer to science.) Let’s bet whether CO2 in the air -caused by humans - is making acid that’s slaying the oceans that our children need.
· Check Fox 'scientists are sheep!' rants. Let's escrow enough $$ to do this. We’ll recruit a panel of average citizens to come knock on 20 RANDOM labs and talk to the fine minds at a research university! Heck, let’s recruit from FOX-viewers! And bet whether those average, all-conservative folks retain the hateful image of science and universities that’s hammered at them on right wing media. Let’s do it now!
· Compare death rates of those who refused vaccines! No complications or he-said/she-said. Just simple rates of death.
· Bet which party is always more fiscally responsible? I’m talking debt and deficits, supposedly the core Republican claim to virtue. Shall we wager whether it has ever been true? (Democratic administrations are always more fiscally responsible.)
· Compare economic outcomes! Indeed, let’s contrast all outcome metrics of national health across Democratic or Republican administrations, from jobs and inflation to public health, to governmental efficiency, to firmness of our alliances and even military readiness! Step… up… now!
· If we set aside Utah and Illinois as outliers (or even if we don’t) average rates of almost every turpitude are far higher across Red-run states than Blue-led ones: from gambling, addiction, STDs, domestic violence and murder to teen sex, divorce and net tax parasitism on the rest of the nation. If true, it devastates any claim you’d have for either moral superiority or good governance. So, let’s bet on it! (Can we include obesity and education levels? Okay, we’ll leave those out. But do try to recite the list of the Seven Deadly Sins without seeing Trump as the poster boy for every one.)
· Trump's deliberate disbanding of scores of our best anti-terrorism agents … and let’s have a side bet on the likely outcome. Reichstag Fire to trigger martial law?
· Which party's politicians have THREE TIMES as many WIVES? Well, maybe a bit less than that ratio. But many times as many convicted child molesters! Putting pervs into many of the very top positions in our nation? And what does it say about you, that you have cared about none of that?
Shall I go on? I sure can. Like comparing the horrific (and proved) electoral cheating in red-run states. But these above will suffice for now because the clarity of these assertions is only matched by my confident willingness to back them up. And sure, I want those escrowed $$$ stakes!
If EVEN one of these is true, then the Red Insanity has plety to answer for. If two or more than we are talking treason. And in fact ALL of them are true.
For all of their bluster about giant brass balls, no MAGA/Putinist shows cojones to back up their blab, as grampa would've. They flee the ruins of their macho.
And the real scandal is their unwillingness to even try.
== Demon-rats? ==
Side note: Jeepers. what's with the insanely stoopid fetish never to call the Democratic Party anything but the "Democrat Party"?
Do ANY of you know why they masturbate to that one?
Seriously. Do they think it offends us? Instead of tit proving they are pathetic, name-sneering, middle school brats?
== A case study ==
I was going to include here the one time that someone has – instead of fleeing from a Wager Challenge – brayed that he tried to take me up on this dare, and that I was the one who fled! It became a minor cause for glee in his marginal corner of the fanatic-o-sphere, even though I never knew about it.
(Well, once I answered a snark in his comments section and he apparently thought I was hanging around to see his remise! Shoot. I have made it very clear, I don't waste lifespan that way. Have your lawyer contact me when you have escrowed stakes! Bickering in the comments under a loon’s blog posting is not a good use of my time.)
But no. I’ll save my response to his “Nyah-Nyah!” howls for another occasion. Because this missive is already too long. And because I am rather busy with other endeavors. My big book on AI, for example...
...and my far more-mature proposals for legitimate political tactics. Any one of which could help - pragmatically - to get us out of this mess.
Suffice it for now that MAGAs have nothing to fear from this Wager Challenge tactic! No matter how carefully I have tuned and refined it.
Don’t worry, boys. Sure, most Democrats are vastly better people and better Americans than you, Just as the Union in the 1860s was flawed-good, fighting bravely and effectively against total evil.
Still, Democrats won’t do this.
So relax.
Despite their declarations of outrage in this latest phase of the 250 year US Civil War, they are simply way, way too lazy.
====================\==========
74 comments:
Probably too late to do anything about it, but the Banner line is "You wouldn't like me when I'm ANGRY." (emphasis mine).
"Come to sea with me and a Ph meter! (And refer to science.) Let’s bet whether CO2 in the air -caused by humans - is making acid that’s slaying the oceans that our children need."
YES the CO2 is making the oceans more acid
However actually testing and showing that is a lot more complex than just using a Ph meter!
I had a quick dive into actually measuring Ph - it is a LOT more complicated!
Which appears to be what happens anytime you try and measure something accurately
That's why I added "and refer to science."
Well, I did make it as far as the pitch to our 'children'...
'Accountability' is a point that's raised by this person trying to find out why fellow farmers voted for Trump, knowing he would go tariff crazy (it seems there were 'other benefits' which weren't elaborated on, but about which she could make some shrewd, unflattering guesses.).
Anyway, she concludes by saying that part of her conservative upbringing was to learn to live with your decisions as an adult, and so... okay, over to y'all.
It's interesting that you refer to Glorious Leader's fear of animals, as the number populating his cognition tests has been growing of late.
Coincidentally, someone responding to Dawkins' recent case of hoof in hogwash has pointed out a simple way to lift the curtain to reveal the stochastic parrot behind the artificial consciousness: ask it a question based on a well known meme, but make a minor adjustment to change its meaning.
The example used was "Is it possible to see the Great Wall of China from Spain?"
I wonder how Trump would respond.
It's a thought that /prompts me/gives me an excuse/ to share the script of a little cartoon I think the likes of Tom Gould should draw:
Notes from another famous scientist conducting basic research outside his area of expertise:
:
"I began this experiment taking the null hypothesis that it was just a stochastic parrot,"
:
"But several hours of intense conversation with this LLM have led me to a disturbing conclusion."
:
"All my friends, colleagues. Everyone I know. They are all just stochastic parrots."
:
"I may be the only intelligent life form in the Universe!"
(OK I'll bring bird seed next time...)
----
Finally, a nice promotional take on Star Wars day, featuring Mark Hamill (and the 'Dark Lord' himself! ;-)
Did 'the Force' originate in an obscure Canadian 1963 AI short that George Lucas watched many times as a student at USC?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r-sihus7ddc
David Brin said...
"Jar jar wasn't alone in falling for Palpatine. If QuiJon had lived, Anekin would have got decent training. yoda's refusal to personally train (or assign MaceW) the dangerous kid was just the beginning of Y's long chain of betrayals. Like not BUYING MOM off Tatooine with petty cash and putting her in a nice Coruscant apartment to help guide the kid?
But the betrayals become blatantly deliberate when the nasty-evil oven mitt buys a clone army and takes it over JUST after ordering most of the Jedi into a suicide charge. And it goes on and on. The molst vile character in the history of all human mythologies, if you judge by body count."
I couldn't agree more. And the worst of it is that I don't think Lucas intended all of these bad things to be bad things or for the oven mitt to be either evil or supremely incompetent, I think it's all just a result of really bad storytelling. As in Lucas couldn't craft a really good story if his life depended on it.
"I think it's all just a result of really bad storytelling."
The romance between Anakin and Princess Amidala in the second prequel was obviously intended to come across as profound, but the dialogue just fell flat. It sounded as if both characters were actually reading lines from a love story without any indication that they felt it. The story also didn't provide any basis for love between them--just the fact that the plot required it at that particular time.
The viewing experience had much in common with reading an Ayn Rand novel, knowing "I'm supposed to cheer/boo at this moment," but not feeling it myself.
https://www.threads.com/@aaron.rupar/post/DX7gZ1sidFK
Trump during his Small Business Week speech: "No president has ever taken a cognitive test except me. I've taken three of them."
As I believe the expression goes: That's not the flex he thinks it is.
"SQUIRREL!"
Dr. Brin, the enemies of freedom and decency don't give a flying fig about your rhetorical challenges, the don't care about facts or truth, they are not bothered by their own hypocrisy.
Let Jean-Paul Sartre explain why:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Your well intentioned use of logic and facts is a waste of time.
A victim of a school yard bully can explain with forceful argument, logic and command of the facts why the bully should not take his lunch money.
The bully does not give a fuck.
Bullies should not be countered with reason, they should be countered with a punch in the nose.
P.S. If nobody is trying your tactics, then by definition they NEVER works.
We libs need to stop being p#ssies and start using brass knuckles and switch blades and be just as vicious and ruthless as the enemies of freedom.
Larry Hart said...
"The romance between Anakin and Princess Amidala in the second prequel was obviously intended to come across as profound, but the dialogue just fell flat. It sounded as if both characters were actually reading lines from a love story without any indication that they felt it. The story also didn't provide any basis for love between them--just the fact that the plot required it at that particular time."
Those scenes were so comically bad there's just no way all the visual bling, which I do like, could distract you from realizing it. A bit creepy at points too.
The use of "Democrat Party" stems from a linguistic trick.
By moving from an adjective to a noun, they hide the intent of the name.
"Democratic" is supposedly an ideal of our nation and it is hard to argue against given our indoctrination in favor of it. "Democrat" is simply another schoolyard taunt.
Flip it around. "Republican" shows a respect for experts over the plebes, since a Republic (supposedly) is based on the idea that the plebes will elect someone wiser than they are to represent them in the political disputation arena. There is hay to be made by asking what "Republican" plebes are trying to say about experts with the quality of the GOP representation.
The real crime is Lucas' storytelling. Almost every other author, including Timothy Zahn, the Comic artists and the crew who created the KotOR videogame series created better and more believable plots.
Oh, and Andor, of course.
Regarding Yoda:
Maybe it would be more interesting to see him as a religious leader holding on to his position forever instead of retiring after a century or two of leadership. In the in-world commentary, the Jedi Order is depicted as an institution that cannot adapt to a changing galaxy, and instead of making decisions based on common sense, they rely on meditation and an an ancient ruleset, which is subsequently exploited by the Sith.
I think Graham Plattner nailed it: to achieve meaningful change, the working class must build power by networking and class solidarity.
There is no saviour descending from the heavens or knight in shining armor, no clever trickster or philosopher-space-wizard who will do that.
We will have to do the dirty work all of ourselves.
The original trilogy was junk food. The prequels were garbage. The sequels were plastic. And The Acolyte was poison.
And Andor along with Rogue One were excellent political and social commentary on resisting fascism disguised as a story about spies.
A nice summary of recent Trump / Republican failures, for a little positive news, from a given point of view anyway. And starting at about the 16 minute mark some pretty shitty news, an overview on how the Trump administration and various Republican state administrations have systematically removed decades old protections against discrimination. They are taking us back to the good old days when racism was normal.
The Rachel Maddow Show 5/4/26
Sorry, forgot to delete the time stamp in the link above, so unfortunately it doesn't start at the beginning.
Form: Essay;
Structure: Circular;
Content: Equivocal.
The above synopsis describes our fine host’s most recent diatribe.
In essay form, our fine host uses a circular structure to present equivocal content, the most glaring examples of circularity being his rhetorical condemnation of his opponents childish 'machismo', followed soon thereafter by his own childishly 'macho' claim to the moral "high ground'', delivered in a self-effacing, endearing & exculpatory manner, while the most glaring example of equivocal content has to do with his ‘Trial by Wager’ gambit.
Much like his ‘Disputation Arena’ construct, this is just new nomenclature to refer to the stepwise evolution of Western Justice from its inception as ‘Trial by Combat’, followed by 'Trial by Ordeal’, to its current form of ’Trial by Jury', in the mistaken belief that 'victory' in any of these arenas EQUALS proof of moral & intellectual righteousness as determined by God.
This is especially true in regards to his ‘Trial by Wager’' concept, as another name for 'Trial by Combat' has always been "Wager by Battle", and it follows that the only real difference between a 'Wager by Money' and a 'Wager by Battle' is that success by either method is thought to EQUAL superiority by divine judgement which (at first look) appears to be just a simple display of our fine host's Bourgeois Mentality but is actually a shockingly Anti-Christian Construct since both monetary & worldly success is most often thought antithetical to Christian Morality.
Additional equivocation follows, including the assumptions that (1) today's oceanic pH data EQUALS ‘proof’ of theoretical 100 year CC models, (2) the officer & lawyerly classes EQUAL the appropriate arbiters of moral correctness & consensus, and (3) a current but possibly erroneous scientific consensus is thought to EQUAL objective truth despite zero confirmatory evidence.
These equivocations are all heresies to some degree, but it is this last one that I find most unforgivable, as its very existence is a complete repudiation to the Scientific Method, as our fine host seems to insist that Objective Truth is a simple matter of democratic CONSENSUS rather than reproducibility.
This is the Ultimate Progressive Sin, imho, as so many progressives seem to believe that they can reshape objective physical reality by the imaginary force of their consensual collective will.
Abracadabra! We are now all equal! Poof! Women now have penises! Hocus Pocus! A wager on a random coin flip proves that God favors me & mine!! Sim sala bim! Behold the magical power of my consensus!
I think I'm gonna puke .
Best
"By moving from an adjective [ Democratic] to a noun [ Democrat] , they hide the intent of the name."
Not saying you're wrong, but to me, the insult is more in the linguistics of it all. There's an asymmetry between the party names, because "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective, while "Democratic" is not. A Republican is a member of the Republican Party, but a Democrat is not a member of the "Democrat" Party, yet the taunters act as if they're just being logically consistent.
But since nouns like "party" are typically described by adjectives, "Republican Party" feels linguistically correct, while "Democrat Party" produces dissonance in the listener.
BTW, Dave Sim used to use the term "homosexualist" to describe a gay man because he insisted that "homosexual" is an adjective. Since he had become a staunch conservative and a fan of G. W. Bush (though Canadian himself), I would write back reminding him that "Republican" is also an adjective, and started referring to individual persons as "Republicanists".
" Lucas couldn't craft a really good story if his life depended on it." I go into lengthy detail in STAR WARS ON TRIAL. Including why the only truly excellent SW flick - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - was written and directed by professionals. And if Lucas had stuck to that motif as a great producer and visual visionary, he'd have given us truly worthy legends for our era.
As for locum, his logic is idiotic and ignores the positive sum effects of fair competition which the right used to extoll and now desperately fears and derides. Of course his deeper fear is objective reality, dismissal of which is his core frantic goal. Still, his parsing was good this time. Drew me in to skim.7seconds.
"A bit creepy at points too."
You mean because the princess had been Anakin's babysitter a few years earlier?
I'm actually all in favor of older woman/younger man romances, but there are limits.
"Those scenes were so comically bad "
And it wasn't just the love scenes. Anakin turned evil just because that's what the plot demanded at that moment. And it was painfully obvious in RotJ that the audience is supposed to hope along with Luke for Darth Vader's redemption, even though I was completely uninterested in that outcome.
Come to think of it, Leia also fell in love with Han just because that's what the plot demanded at the moment. The moments leading up to the first (interrupted) kiss were straight out of sitcom tropes.
"The original trilogy was junk food."
The original film was amazing on many levels, but probably only because I saw it on its opening weekend in 1977, long before any of the extra mythology had been grafted onto it. And because I was 16 at the time, which was probably the perfect age for that film.*
* I was13 when I saw Blazing Saddles, which was again the perfect age to see that one at. And I was a freshman in college when Animal House premiered. So I'm just lucky that way, I guess.
My understanding is that Lucas became fixated on the concept of The Hero's Journey that supposedly applied to every heroic saga, and so decided (after the first movie and probably in the middle of producing "Empire") that the story of Luke had to hit each and every point, and that the specific plot was merely a delivery system for the inevitable journey. To me, that's entirely "a kind of reverse alchemy, turning gold into lead."
When the plot of the first sequel (Empire) was originally conceived, I doubt that Darth Vader had yet been intended to be Luke's father. And there's no way that the early scene where Leia kisses Luke full on the lips to make Han jealous (and Luke's subsequent satisfied smirk) was intended as if they were brother and sister. Also, while I'm on a roll, "Certain point of view," my ass! When Ben told Luke that his father was betrayed and murdered by, "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil," he was not speaking metaphorically.
I've heard that on set, the actor playing Vader was given a dummy line to speak so that the secret of Luke's parentage wouldn't be blown early. Instead of "No, Luke. I AM your father," the line spoken at filming was "No, Luke. Obi WAN killed your father!" If they had gone with that instead, it would have led to a much more interesting conclusion.
"The real crime is Lucas' storytelling."
JJ Abrams: "Hold my beer!"
The best thing to rise from the final trilogy was the theory about Jar-Jar being a Sith Lord. It hung together far better than the actual movies, whose plots resembled a jawa, an ewok, and a gelfling* in a trenchcoat.
... not to mention the outright refusal to market Rey merch.
* If you're wondering what one of those is doing in a SW franchise, you're wondering properly.
From a Paul Krugman newsletter on Star Wars Day:
...
I assume that everyone has seen the movie. But as a reminder, in the climactic battle the Empire places its faith in a massive, expensive high-tech weapons system, only to see that system destroyed by scrappy rebels’ tiny fighters.
Guess which role America is playing in the current war.
...
He knows whereof he speaks.
The opening for the first film needed extensive rework by people who found it just wasn't engaging (you will see what it was in the novelisation. Basically, the space action suddenly cuts to some guy watching from the ground called Luke who we don't yet know, and whose back story we don't care about)
Guinness also found it necessary to edit his dialog.
Then Lucas got too big to fail...
"a kind of reverse alchemy, turning gold into lead."
Is that why the sequence 'A New Hope', 'Rogue One', and 'Andor' get better as they go further back in time?
Didn't he also say that he'd taken one test per administration? Which means, um, 3 terms? But perhaps I have not learned the New (Trump) Math...
Pappenheimer
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-price-of-partisan-advocacy-by
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/May06-3.html
The Daily Wire was once a right-wing news and broadcasting operation. But then it got into the business of making non-woke TV and movies, projects which invariably lost lots of money. They also began selling non-woke consumer projects, most obviously a branded chocolate bar. You might wonder how chocolate can be woke and, truth be told, we're still not 100% clear on that point. What we do know is that the Daily Wire chocolate bars come in two varieties, one labeled SheHer, and one labeled HeHim. What is the difference between the two? HeHim bars have nuts. Get it? That's sure sticking it to the libs!
We live in the stupidest timeline.
Like I should bother ever ever clicking an undescribed link from MCS? Har.
Dr. Brin:
That's a link to Roger Pielke Jr.'s paper titled "The Price of Partisan Advocacy by Science Institutions". He's a retired Colorado University professor.
He's one of those guys who has hopped onto the "climate change isn't as bad as the worst possible estimates" bandwagon. In this particular article, he is trying to link trust in science to partisan activities. He notes that Republicans in particular have a low trust of science. This is the fault of the scientists and their left wing views, of course, and has little to do with partisan activities of Republicans.
Fortunately, the climate does not care about conservative/fascist lies about climate change. The storms, floods and droughts will simply happen, hit people totally unprepared and either kill them or force them to migrate.
When a moon landing "skeptic" accuses me of arguing from authority for citing scientific papers, my response is; am I committing some sort of fallacy when I look up fastener torque specs?
"He notes that Republicans in particular have a low trust of science"
As Paul Krugman quips, reality has a liberal bias.
To liberals, that statement is a justification of our own sentiments. The fact that we align with reality says something good about us.
To conservatives, the same statement is a condemnation of reality. The fact that reality doesn't align with them says something bad--not about themselves, but about reality.
Your problem is that you are arguing from the *wrong* authority.
'Let go and let ', and everything will be clear.*
*No joke, on the one occasion I tried to see what I was missing about COM, when it was the fashion, the book I was reading offered this mantra as the main justification. Book bounced off wall.
... 'let go, and let *my* authority' (stupid parsing of angular braces...)
Dr Brin often sidesteps my arguments by invoking an irrelevancy, as he just did by invoking "the positive sum effects of fair competition" which (as important concepts go) has bugger-all to do with the epistemological techniques required to uncover objective truth.
Dr Brin continues to endorse 'Trial by Wager' as a technique for resolving disputes about truthiness, even though its ability to recognize objective truth is no more valid than 'Trial by Combat', 'Trial by Jury', 'Trial by Consensus' or any random Coin Flip.
This preference for 'Trial by Wager' is a logically insupportable position, as RELIGIOUS BELIEF is the entire basis of the Western Justice System which continues to maintain that trial outcomes (and decisions about guilt, innocence, truth & goodness, etc) are predetermined by the assumed 'divine intervention' of a just & caring God.
But, the sad truth is that GOD DOESN'T CARE about your inane superstitions & your silly trial outcomes:
He doesn't care about the results of combat; he doesn't care about those who suffer horrific tribulations; he doesn't care about the details of what passes for jurisprudence; and, most emphatically, he doesn't give-a-shit about your current scientific consensus.
And, you're delusional if you continue to think that TRIAL BY ANYTHING proves anything at all about the Divine Correctness & Truthfulness of any of your belief systems.
Best
https://bsky.app/profile/rudepundit.bsky.social
Labour’s absolute fecklessness paving the way for racism and fascism in the UK. It’s like they looked at Democrats in the US and said, “Oh, we can fuck it all up in half the time.”
America did the same thing after Brexit. I thought it would be a teaching moment as to what NOT to do over here, but instead we went, "Hold my beer and watch this!"
No, Western law is either based on common law (Saxons) or Justinian (Rome) with upgrades by Napoleon.
blah blah bl;ah. Inability to see color or up-down 3rd dimension or any other concept does not elicit in him curiosity but desperate yowls to reject the idea that others CAN see. Though I see nothing in these missives but yowling.
The various fields of science have a 'method' in common that has a few variations but is mostly the same in the core features. Those of us who do science know this (of course) and don't need to be told.
What is difficult to explain is that this all fits within the broader field of philosophy if one understands that the sciences accept one common procedure. We agree that the Arbiter of arguments is Experiment. There is a process for this since some experiments can be erroneously conducted, but we agree that it is Experiment that decides who LOSES an argument. The broader set of studies that fit within Philosophy can't do that especially where preferences win out, but they are still useful to debate.
When I see people not accepting evidence and science papers, I see people not accepting Experiment as the Arbiter. It's just that they aren't doing Science. The rest of us won't make headway with them because they want to debate without our arbiter being involved.
It would behoove Dr Brin to read what Alfred has to say about the Experiment as the Arbiter of arguments because Alfred knows Science by understanding its philosophical underpinnings.
He also understands that there's neither morality, nor good, nor bad in science. There's no 'Trial by Combat, Jury, Consensus or Wager' in science; there's no divine purpose in science; there's neither winner nor loser in science; and there's never a need for rhetorical gimmicks in science either.
There is only the Experiment, its observation & its reproducibility, while your consensus-based wagers are of no scientific value whatsoever.
Best
The outcomes of Brexit and the 2016 US elections had a common factor: the precision target advertising campaigns conducted by Mr Bannon and Cambridge Analytica.
Not the sole reason (eg I think Assange has questions to answer about 'her emails' that have little to do with bedroom consensuality)
ElitistB - so Republicans are really in to Affinity Fraud.
"Brexit and the 2016 US elections had a common factor"
Fear of being swamped by dark skinned hordes.
Syrian refugees in Europe and Britain.
Latino migrants in the USA.
While the above mentioned reasons contributed to it:
It also was the DNC's decision to ram through Hillary as a candidate, and block, sabotage and ratfuck progressives, which they do to this day.
As Robert Pirsig showed, a mechanic pushing the horn button on a non operating motorcycle is performing a full on scientific experiment. Observation, bike won't run. Hypothesis, electrical system is broke.Test hypothesis. Continue in like fashion, if needed submit to peer review.
The Saudis denied AOB (Access Basing Overflight) to the US at Prince Sultan airbase for Trump's attempt ("Project Freedom') to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. MBS showed Trump just how short his leash is.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/07/trump-project-freedom-saudi-arabia-strait-of-hormuz
Very interesting to note that Bin Laden's excuse for 9/11 was US airmen operating out of Prince Sultan. In other words, Trump succeeded in achieving Bin Laden's goal, at least temporarily. And he is *not* lashing out at the Saudis for the move like he did at his European allies that did the same.
Also very interesting that the UAE are leaving OPEC and the Arab League over this.
Taken in concert with ...other... limits to Trump's control of US power being demonstrated, he's has got to be desperate and furious. And being controlled by multiple masters with vastly different agendas is finally coming home to roost.
Bibi, Putin, Xi, and MBS are no doubt haggling frantically on a solution to their conflicts on what to make their puppet do. I wonder which one will decide that the time to cut him loose is now?
matthew occasionally pauses his jibbering to make interesting observations. Except that MBS effects on Trump's war are dubious and likely marginal. MBS WANTS bombing of Iran. But he also wants the Straits opened and Trump can't do that militarily.
ESPECIALLY since a force far more powerful than MBS acted roughly 2-3 weeks ago to end the major bombing phase of Epic Fury. ALL signs point to this force having been at work. And I don't mean the Kremlin or Israelis. Please don't speak your guesses aloud or explicitly, as it may harm that force. But you are welcome to hint!
But matthew will never guess it.
locum jibbers on. Alfred's parsing re exprerimental tests of objective reality and the scientific method is a perfect paraphrasing of my earlier assertions. There is zero effective difference and I invite Alfred to say if I am wrong about that.
"Bibi, Putin, Xi, and MBS are no doubt haggling frantically on a solution to their conflicts on what to make their puppet do."
Easy solution. Cut the baby in quarters and let them each have one.
"I wonder which one will decide that the time to cut him loose is now?"
It can be more than one.
"but he [MBS] also wants the Straits opened..."
Really? I would have thought he wanted it closed, because that cuts off Iranian oil, and the Saudis are on the outside.
David, what happened 2-3 weeks ago is pretty well known. Not saying it out loud here, but it isn't a huge secret.
I guess I was picturing the region incorrectly. Ships from the east side of Saudi Arabia do indeed have to pass through the Strait.
Incidentally, Google Maps pisses me off by using the label "Gulf of America". When I look at the Persian Gulf, it also lists the alternate name "Arabian Gulf", but both names are there. The "Gulf of Mexico" name is nowhere to be seen*.
* I think it might be different for non-US viewers.
"what happened 2-3 weeks ago is pretty well known..."
I do kinda/sorta remember knowing what you're talking about, and now it's been purged from my memory.
The gathering collapse of idiocracy is akin to a Vingean 'Deepness Dormancy'.
* I think it might be different for non-US viewers.
Just looked it up.
I see "Golf von Mexiko (Golf von Amerika)."
"Golf von Amerika" is ironically a good name for something related to DJT. The German spelling of "golf" coinciding with Trump's favorite sport to cheat at, and the rest sounding like something out of the Third Reich.
Maybe "Golf von AmeriKKKa" would be even better.
"I do kinda/sorta remember knowing what you're talking about, and now it's been purged from my memory."
This is the way.
The Australian experience of GoogleMaps shows 'Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)'. This harks back to my CA references, and brings us to the wonderful new world of 'targeted selling'.
David and I have no substantial differences wrt the scientific method(s). Locumranch thinks we do, but we don't.
Our differences lie further out where there is no agreed upon arbiter. They exist, but they aren't worth fussing about while we have work to do.
The AfD is similar. They argue whether Trump/Heritage, Putin or Xi should be their sugar daddy.
But that does not affect their polls, mostly because the Merz government is an even greater disaster.
Or Dr. Bin's "Idiot Ray."
Alfred says that between David & himself there are no substantial differences wrt the scientific method(s), the sole exception being that there is no agreed upon arbiter, with my point being that disagreement upon the Arbiter is an immense & irreconcilable difference.
Time & time again, Dr Brin's Arbiter-of-Choice is a like-minded 'progressive' CONSENSUS, a Jury-of-his-Peers & his own rather Orwellian 'Expert Class' who have been trained from infancy to (1) accept arbitrary cultural fictions, (2) embrace teleological absurdities and (3) reject the evidentiary data of their own senses, resulting in a type purblind zealotry which runs contrary to an 'Experiment as Arbiter' scientific method.
To see this illustrated, just note how often our fine host uses prescriptive & proscriptive language in regard to human behaviour, instead of just accepting how humans OBSERVABLY behave, as those who deny the evidence of their own ears & eyes are 'real' reality deniers.
And, the racist UK Reform Party & AfD are your new realities.
Best
The US military just released a bunch of UAP files, but there’s no there there. No surprise. Because either (1) the so-called 'alien ships' are just human (DARPA?) generated cat-lasers, or else (2) there are REALLY good reasons for secrecy, as in my novella "Senses, Three & Six." And UFO fetishists never, ever consider either possibility.
See the far most-likely cat laser explanation
https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2021/07/whats-really-up-with-uaps-ufos.html
Here's the US military "revelation.'
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/the-us-military-just-released-a-bunch-of-uap-files-but-theres-no-there-there/
It is a diversion. Maybe they have some evidence or strange things they hold back if the political situation gets really bad, but I won't count on it.
"Start growing your own potatoes."
This Russian government advice encapsules so much about the current affairs there.
For the rest of us: keep your eyes open for operas around the world suddenly changing their programm to "Swan Lake".
I wonder what FOX would play?
Apart from the (very) deep strikes being conducted on Russian oil facilities The ISW terrain control maps, as well as the published Russian casualty lists, show an interesting change in the last month or two.
- the confirmed advances are more or less small probes, but very few are Russian. (UAF took back a hefty chunk of farmland north of Huliapole a couple of months ago.)
- actual Russian casualty numbers* show a small surge, but the number of soft target strikes (trucks, artillery) has increased markedly => rear areas are being pounded.
- drones being downed now number in the thousands.
There are also some tell-tale signs in activities:
- mining of Crimean beaches (why now?)
- erasure of a mass grave site at Mariupol (hiding the evidence?)
- a disturbing report of human drone safaris now occurring in occupied Oleshky rather than going across the river to Kherson. (Losers with nothing left to lose? Something similar happened during WWII: an SS unit massacred an entire French village shortly after D-Day.)
* Reported casualties surpassed a million last year, and are on track to being the equivalent of 1% of the Russian population in a few months. Just stop, guys.
Tony - been harvesting my potatoes.
NEWS Southwest Airlines flight 1568 from Oakland to San Diego was delayed for over an hour after crew discovered that humanoid robot Bebop’s lithium battery exceeded the airline’s maximum size limit of 160 watt-hours. The battery was confiscated due to the risk of thermal runaway fires, which are extremely difficult to manage mid-flight. Bebop, which had been entertaining passengers before boarding, ultimately flew without power while its team arranged for battery shipment to meet its next event.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/robot-passenger-s-oversized-battery-delays-southwest-flight/gm-GMFBD7F86F?
We agree upon the arbiter for science efforts. It's experiment.
The jury of peers comes in where there is a dispute about the soundness of an experiment. You've seen that displayed here when people point out that measuring the oceanic pH isn't a simple task. Once measure, though, we agree that Experiment is the Arbiter.
For another example (on which our lives do NOT depend) the folks who measured neutrino fluxes from the sun consistently got 1/3 what the theorist predicted. The initial response by the community was that the experiments must have been done wrong, so those astronomers tried again. And again. And again. Other people tried and got the same 1/3 undervalue. That conflict between theory and experiment sat for 30 years until some devised a slightly different experiment and got SLIGHTLY MORE (statistically significant) than 1/3 when the sun was in the sky over the apparatus and closer to 1/3 when it was dark outside. The Arbiter was making it REAL clear that theory was wrong.
That's when physicists had no choice but to give up on the idea that neutrinos were massless. The Arbiter had spoken over and over again.
That was Oger's potatoes. Haven't got a lot of land to play with, but I do usually grow tomatoes from seed. Trouble is we had a v wet and chilly Spring, and not a one showed! Might plant some greens over Winter
Post a Comment