It was a lab leak, of course. But wasn’t it just wild in Feb-Mar 2020? I had people that are now mask-crazy insisting masks don’t work and were racist (??), and that not shaking hands was also racist, and that buying extra food was absurd because “nothing is going to happen.” All of that has been memory-holed and is “conspiracy theory” now. But it all happened.
What a time!
Scary new world. Remember, these drones are improvised and not even a 1.0 release. This tech is only going to get better: more autonomous, longer range, more lethal, more everything deadly.
And it’s gonna suck.
A $5 shake in 1994 is $10.73 now. The place down the road I order shakes from charges $6.50 I believe.
I had a dream with Gemma Arterton in it, but as I’m not all that visual I couldn’t remember what she actually looked like. When I was searching for an image of her, I found this look with makeup that I really like. Isn’t that cool? I read it was for Halloween but I ain’t care. She should wear it every day.
Did some warcrimes this morning. Threw a spider out into the cold. Definitely war crimes. Twitter and Reddit said so.
Trump’s or Harris’s chance of winning the presidency is 100% or 0%. The percentage that you’re actually measuring in a one-off contest that is not repeatable is the confidence in your model. So if you say, “Trump has a 55% chance of winning,” you’re really making a claim that you think your model has a 55% chance of being correct in that direction. These are two different things!
Yes, I know it’s pedantic, but in a single unique event what you’re confident about and what your actual claim is matters.
That does seem to be the case. The clueless dialoging with the ignorant and propaganda-infused shills…forever.
Silver’s model is clearly bunk even if Harris ends up losing. It has no resemblance to reality, but only to itself. It is a model of that models only its own parameters infinitely.
This says a lot about the American psyche and is, alas, correct.
Take that business of balanced employment of forces. Admiral Doenitz, as you know, has, since becoming a captive of the Allies, written an essay on “The War at Sea” from the German point of view of World War II. He points out that the German submarines in the first year of the war were ten times as effective per day at sea as they were in the second year of the war. One therefore gathers (though he doesn’t make this point) that if Germany had started the war with some 300 submarines instead of 60, they would have stood a very good chance of winning the war at sea, and therefore the whole war-and relatively early. Now, why didn’t they have those 300 submarines? Well, one reason is that they were enamored of the idea of a balanced force and devoted a good deal of their naval resources (which had to be limited in view of their ground and air force needs) to surface vessels, including battleships. That gave them what according to a static conception was a balanced force. The trouble was that it was highly unbalanced for a war with Great Britain. This is only one example of where the word “balance” denotes no ready answer. The balance must always be thought of in terms of strategic needs against the particular prospective enemy.
Bernard Brodie, “Characteristics of a Sound Strategy” (1952)
This is true. And very bad. There is the threat of war in the air and we are not even close to ready.
Voting for Harris while living in California is gonna feel pretty pointless, but I’ll do it anyway.
NASA will proceed with final preps to launch Europa Clipper next month.
How ‘Analog Privilege’ Spares Elites From The Downsides Of Flawed AI Decision-Making Systems.
Polaris Dawn takes to the skies, setting the stage for a daring private spacewalk.
Indian migrants drive surge in northern U.S. illegal border crossings.
Datacenters to emit 3x more carbon dioxide because of generative AI.
China’s Deflationary Spiral Is Now Entering Dangerous New Stage.
Seeing plants anew. The stunningly complex behaviour of plants has led to a new way of thinking about our world. Many plants are smarter than many people.
Climate Catastrophism Leads to Illiberalism but Doesn’t Solve the Problem.