Monthly Archives: August 2017

Peeper looked out the window and I grabbed her pics. Fun, until the wind picked up and blew the curtains about.

Found in the Bio of Zeshan B, the musician:

His parents’ nostalgic yearning for the sounds of their native land gave him a profound exposure to Indo-Pakistani music. However, his father, having been one of the few journalists in India to cover Black literature and music in the 1960s and 70s, was immensely fond of Black artistic expression. As such, Zeshan grew up with the sounds of his father’s blues, soul, and R&B collection as well. Additionally, his mother–a retired social worker at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital–imbibed Zeshan with a sensitivity and awareness of the plight of disenfranchised minorities.Those two worlds collide on his debut album ‘Vetted’. Produced by Lester Snell (the legendary arranger for Isaac Hayes, Al Green, Mavis Staples), ‘Vetted’ is a mixtape of Zeshan’s originals and lesser known 1960s and ‘70s deep soul gems. The album was recorded in Memphis at the famed Ardent Studios with a wrecking crew of Stax Records’ sidemen.

Must be one of those special Surly brands.

The Hollyhocks are not doing so well this year, but here’s a couple of pictures of them, just so you can see their tonsils.

Image source: Turquoise Tiger

I’ve been ignoring the controversy over (now former) Google engineer James Damore’s memo in the workplace, mostly due to time considerations, although I did notice the NPR morning report covering it seemed a trifle confused. Apparently this has become something into which a lot of things can be read. Andrew Sullivan did a close reading (see the second and third sections of the post at the link) of the memo and came out of it outraged – at everyone on the left:

He used no slurs; he backed up his arguments with evidence; his tone is measured, even scholarly; in subsequent media appearances, he comes off as an affable fellow, far from angry or bitter, just refusing to buckle to ideas he believes are worth questioning. More to the point, he is not wrong. You’ll notice that almost none of the media criticisms of the manifesto present data that contradicts Damore, which is the obvious way to debunk someone. They don’t do this because the overwhelming data on gender difference supports Damore’s careful argument. In many rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, scholars — many of them women — have presented evidence that the genders do indeed differ on major personality traits, that men in general tend to prefer dealing with things and women in general prefer dealing with people, and that these differing traits may well lead to different distributions of men and women in certain professions. This does not mean that sexism isn’t also a big factor in these differentials. It posits merely that sexism is not the only factor. …

The New York Times described the memo in a news article as “positing that biological differences explained the tech industry’s gender gap.” Explained? That’s a caricature. How about “play a role in” the gender gap? Here’s Owen Jones in The Guardian: “Damore’s assertions about gender are, frankly, guff dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon.” What is “pseudo-scientific” about the peer-reviewed studies I’ve cited? Jones doesn’t explain. Google’s diversity chief responded to the memo by telling Google employees that the memo advanced “incorrect assumptions” about gender, but never explained what in the memo was “incorrect.” She also refused even to link to the memo — because it propagated ideas that violated Google’s corporate policies. Whatever else this is, it isn’t rational. There is no ethical or empirical difference, it seems to me, between Jones’s or Google’s statements about gender and any statement that simply asserts that all climate science is a hoax. None. And yet the left forgives itself for the exact same know-nothingism it rightly excoriates on the right.

The mark of a serious person is an adherence to the facts of a matter, and that appears to be Andrew’s fetish. It’s evident here in two way, the first being the obvious citation of facts, but the second is his ripostes to those responses he feel are unworthy of the subject – by pointing out their lack of factual support. It’s one reason I like Andrew a lot, whether or not I like his positions.

Lefty Kevin Drum takes a different approach:

I finally got around to reading the memo this afternoon. What surprised me wasn’t that Damore wrote what he did. I imagine there are plenty of Silicon Valley engineer-bros who are tired of all the SJW diversity lectures and have managed to convince themselves that it’s nonsense on the basis of what they think is rigorously impartial scientific analysis. Throw in a bit of conservative victimology and you have a pretty good taste of Damore’s memo. You can read the whole thing here if you want.

Like I said, that much didn’t surprise me. But there was something that struck me as a bit off-kilter about Damore’s memo. Maybe I’m over-reading things, but it seemed like Damore very calculatedly went further over the line than he needed to. …

So why did he write what he did? Maybe I’m overestimating Damore’s sophistication, but something about his writing style made me think he had deliberately chosen not to take this tack. There was something about the amateurishness of his analysis that seemed strained, as if he was playing a role. And that role was simple: not to write about why he thought Google’s diversity programs were misguided, but to write something as offensive as possible in a way that allowed him plausible deniability. In other words, he was trying to get fired so he could portray himself as a lonely martyr to Silicon Valley’s intolerance for conservative views. Maybe he could even go to court, funded by some nice right-wing think tank.

It’s interesting to see the contrast between Andrew taking Damore’s research seriously, while Kevin thinks it’s amateurish. But on that subject, Debra Soh, a PhD in sexual neuroscience, writes in the Toronto Globe & Mail:

Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.

So Dr. Soh seems to be confirming Damore’s interpretations of the studies. Her conclusions?

This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.

Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them.

This is exactly what the mob of outrage should be mobilizing for, instead of denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job. At this point, as foreshadowed in Mr. Damore’s manifesto, we should be more concerned about viewpoint diversity than diversity revolving around gender.

Google’s been a target for the conservatives since it often follows its own path, such as exiting ALEC. So this is not a surprise from National Review’s Michael Barone:

Similarly, Google’s CEO said Tuesday: “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves.” “However” — key word — “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

George Orwell would recognize this doublespeak: We totally support free speech except when we call it heresy. Tolerance requires repression.

Ironically, for a company that makes money by transmitting information, Google’s position is intellectually incoherent. What its CEO dismisses as “harmful gender stereotypes” are the conclusions, after years of painstaking research, of serious neuroscientists.

Michael Dougherty, also at National Review, communicates in conservaspeak, that special slang for those who will nod with you in unison.

Then a left-leaning person in Google leaked it to a left-leaning media outlet, knowing it would kick over the hornet’s nest of left-leaning social media, scaring lawyers inside Google, who would then advise executives that continuing to employ Damore risked Title VII litigation, which is shaped by left-leaning legal activists in such a way that employing anyone with known non-progressive views on politics or religion becomes a potential legal liability, since even having them around starts to create a hostile environment. Left-leaning activist employees then set the media up for the day-two story, going public to explain that they can’t work with someone who donated to the wrong political cause, or wrote the wrong thing on a message board; they feel unsafe. Or they call in sick. Left-leaning executives and managers start sharing that they are making internal blacklists. The Left has a word for this phenomenon where people pretend to be threatened and hurt so that they may lash out and threaten others. They call it gaslighting.

He might even be right, but the conversational manner is not meant to convince the skeptic, but to invoke a riot in the converted. Nice work, if you can get paid for it – a lot easier than writing pieces that actually convince and change the world. Not that I’m bitter, to quote a friend about an ex-husband …

I’ve glanced the memo over, but the unavoidable tilt towards unknown Google cultural biases and concerns make interpretation a bit too chancy for my tastes. So I’ll just leave my reader with the observations of the above folks, some with more credentials than mine, and I’ll just note that sometimes the left can get a little shrill and defensive of their positions.

And sometimes people read what they want into a controversy. It’s weird, but I suppose for the ideologically driven it’s understandable.

A sidebar to “The new shape of reality,” by Anil Ananthaswamy in NewScientist (29 July 2017, paywall) describes a different approach to classical physics – and its implications:

History shows that radical new ways of thinking about reality are well worth grappling with. Take Newton’s laws of motion. Given the position of a particle and all the forces acting on it, you can show deterministically – by describing cause and effect – how it goes from point A to point B. But there is another way to think about the particle’s path. It’s called the principle of least action. It says that a particle will take the path that minimises a quantity called classical action, which is the average value of the particle’s kinetic energy minus its potential energy along the path.

This principle felt weird to minds trained in classical physics. “[No one] thought that particles smelled around all possible paths and took the one that minimised this silly number,” says Jacob Bourjaily of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. “It’s a very weird starting point for classical physics.” What’s more, the theory appears non-deterministic because a particle’s trajectory isn’t obvious at the onset. Nonetheless, the principle of least action makes the same predictions as Newton’s laws, suggesting that determinism is emergent, and the calculations involved are easier.

So what does it mean to say that determinism is emergent? Does this imply the substrate from which it emerges is, itself, non-deterministic?

I got a feeling I’d need about ten years of training before this would even start to make any sense. But if it makes that math easier, it’s worth exploring.

A reader comments on the subject of awe:

Very interesting research. One could almost say “civilization causes incivility.” Nature-inspired awe would certainly be evolutionarily advantageous. Humans being social animals, awe would tend to inspire behaviors, such as group cohesiveness, that would benefit the group and hence the individual members.

So, let’s give all the intolerant a tour: Grand Canyon floor and back up, Bryce Canyon, Yosemite, one of the Redwoods parks, maybe Niagara Falls, etc.

Love the word play – is there a word for that particular variety?

I see the awe melting that insidious enemy of the group, the individual’s will towards, well, individualism. It’s a reminder that there are entities greater than the individual out there, and that the group serves to enhance the survival of the individual in the face of those entities that are so much more powerful, beautiful, or greater than a mere human individual. Even those entities of no particular hostile bearing towards the individual should invoke that response.

It’s a reminder that groups are multiplicative, not additive, when properly led.

Bellicose:

Demonstrating aggression and willingness to fight.
‘a mood of bellicose jingoism’ [Oxford Dictionaries]

While it’s not a rare word, if perhaps a trifle uncommon in casual discourse, the source reference appears to be pulling in its horns. My first reference was in  in “‘Fire and fury’ not to be taken seriously, say aides: Trump was just in ‘a bellicose mood’,” by Hunter on The Daily Kos, where he quotes The New York Times: 

No worries, then: Trump’s vow that North Korea would see “fire and fury like the world has never seen” was, according to aides, merely an unsupervised utterance of the presidential word-hole.

Among those taken by surprise, they said, was John F. Kelly, the retired four-star Marine general who has just taken over as White House chief of staff and has been with the president at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., for his working vacation.The president had been told about a Washington Post story on North Korea’s progress in miniaturizing nuclear warheads so that they could fit on top of a ballistic missile, and was in a bellicose mood, according to a person who spoke with him before he made the statement.

That’s a good word. “Bellicose.”

But the linked NYT story does not contain the word. A bad link? A little searching then yielded this WaPo story by Gary Sargent, “Happy Hour Roundup,” in the Plum Line column:

The president had been told about a Washington Post story on North Korea’s progress in miniaturizing nuclear warheads so that they could fit on top of a ballistic missile, and was in a bellicose mood, according to a person who spoke with him before he made the statement. His team assumed that he would be asked about North Korea during a scheduled media appearance tied to his opioid meeting, but Mr. Trump had not mentioned his comment during a conference call beforehand that focused on North Korea.

A bellicose mood? Sounds like a good basis for an American president to decide whether it’s sound strategy to threaten a rival country with nuclear annihilation.

This column linked to this NYT story, “Trump’s Threat to North Korea Was Improvised,” but, again, the word bellicose is not present.

Apparently bellicose is on the outs at The New York Times.

Ah! A breath of fresh air!

Unlike the previously reviewed Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), the classic Nosferatu (1922) is a classic for its novelty and shock value – it has not aged well. This tale has the elements for a good horror movie, as a supernatural entity, housed in an obscure corner of the world and masquerading as a human, a certain Count Orlok, has negatively influenced the mind of Knock, a real estate agent in the German city of Wisborg (or Wismar), who had visited him on previous occasions. Knock sends his newly married subordinate, Thomas, to assist Orlok in selecting a new abode to inhabit in Wisborg.

Leaving his wife, Ellen, in Wisborg, Thomas’ trip to Orlok’s castle has grim omens of the nature of Orlok: Knock’s remark about fresh blood, villagers going silent upon learning the nature of Thomas’ journey, and an exceedingly creepy carriage with horses covered in black. Once at a castle empty of servants, Thomas must fight a polite, unacknowledged battle with Orlok for control of himself, as Orlok uses him to gain his knowledge; during this time, Ellen somehow is aware of Thomas’ travails, but can do little to help.

Orlok leaves the castle for Wisborg, leaving Thomas, injured in the traditional manner, a prisoner in the castle, to wander in the castle and in his mind. But Thomas discovers a secret and breaks out of the castle, also heading for home.

Orlok must travel with his coffins, his lifeline, and so he takes them down a river and on to a schooner, which finishes the last leg of the journey, a creepy affair as Orlok slings the coffins about like toys or moves them with his mind. The crew of the schooner begin dying from ‘the plague’, and by the time the Demeter has arrived as Wisborg, no one is left. Demeter docks herself and is unloaded, the coffins transported to the Wisborgian residence of Orlok.

And now the plague has come to Wisborg. But Thomas is on his way, flying, exhausted, to the aid of his beleaguered city.

Skipping some final plot twists and turns, including the ending of Knock, Ellen uses the secret Thomas found to destroy Orlok, but must sacrifice herself to do so.

The story elements are there, but the story characters, outside of Count Orlok, are, I fear, a bit cartoonish. Perhaps it was the sensibility of German movie making at the time. The captions last for entirely too long. And, at least in this copy of Nosferatu, the music is annoyingly oppressive and fairly inappropriate to the scene. The first half is organ music which finally prompted us to turn this ‘silent’ movie’s volume down to a dull roar; the change to stringed instrument of some sort was a relief, but not much of an improvement.

On the plus side, the work of Max Shreck as Orlok, famous even today, holds up very well – his preoccupation with blood comes across nicely. The creepiness which surrounds him, even when not physically present, adds to the ambiance of the movie. And the special effects, while perhaps dated, are still effective in that they intimate something out of the ordinary is present.

On the whole, it’s a wash. It’s worth a watching just to say you’ve watched it; the serious student of horror and film making will find it interesting in how the various elements are handled.

And it is fun.

And the debacle (a word I love because of its onomatopoeia potential) of Wells Fargo appears to be continuing. CNN/Money is now reporting they stand accused of victimizing vulnerable small businesses:

For several years, Wells Fargo’s merchant services division overcharged small businesses for processing credit card transactions, a lawsuit alleges. Business owners who tried to leave Wells Fargo were charged “massive early termination fees,” according to the lawsuit filed in US District Court.

The “overbilling scheme” targeted less sophisticated businesses by using “deceptive language” in a 63-page contract designed to confuse them, the lawsuit filed on August 4 claims. The lawyer filed court documents to seek class action status.

The latest controversy centers on Wells Fargo Merchant Services, a joint venture that is 60% owned by Wells Fargo and 40% controlled by First Data (FDC).

A former employee of the Wells Fargo (WFC) business told CNNMoney that he was instructed to target these small businesses.

“We used to be told to go out and club the baby seals: mom-pop-shops that had no legal support,” he said in an interview. The former Wells Fargo employee spoke on the condition of anonymity, but CNNMoney verified that he worked for Wells Fargo Merchant Services.

Keeping in mind Wells Fargo is vigorously denying these accusations, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Sad to say, Wells Fargo appears to have Trumpetized those small businesses. Much like Trump, in his businessman role, refusing to pay his contractors and banking on their inability to engage in a running legal battle, WF appears to have decided to use their superior position to rip off the small businesses.

Some purists may wish to blame the small businesses, but truth to tell is that the small businesses often cannot afford the legal expertise to assess these contracts, they cannot assess these offers themselves as the legal field is extremely specialized and what may appear to be clear language to the non-specialist is a minefield to the experienced eye of the lawyer, and yet they cannot afford to not avail themselves of these services – otherwise, they will operate at a lethal disadvantage to the competition.

Assuming WF really engaged in this behavior, it’s rather remarkable that a bank, an institution which should have a long-term view, is engaging in a behavior which, while profitable over the short-term, is so damaging over the long-term. If word of this really penetrates deeply into American culture, it’s quite possible that the customers for these services will dry up, moving on to US Bank and other competitors – who are operating at an ethical advantage. But I can see how this happened, based on Deb’s post initiating this thread:

Here’s the thing: I worked for Wells Fargo for 19 years, In that time I witnessed the bank, first as Norwest, later as Wells Fargo (and then as Wachovia in all but name) evolve from a bank that was…well… a bank, offering checking, savings and loan accounts to private citizens and businesses, into a retail store, selling financial products. By the end of my tenure at Wells, if you were a banker, teller, broker, financial advisor, loan officer or manager for the bank , your yearly bonus (if any), performance rating, opportunity for advancement, and salary were directly tied to how many financial products you sold each quarter.

This is not an atmosphere conducive to building relationships. When you sell a product, you often do not have a continuing relationship with your customer. It’s a thing, it goes out the door, and if you’re lucky you won’t see the red-faced customer at the Customer Service counter, demanding his money back.

But building relationships is where the real money lies. Having a happy customer who is achieving their goals, with your help, is how you get them to come back and spend more of their money.

But what WF may be doing is akin to stripping a mountain slope of all its trees. You may have a big initial profit, but thereafter your ground is barren, slumping into the river, and basically ruining the landscape. And no profit for you.

Wells Fargo is leaving money on the table through Instant Greed. Are these guys even professionals anymore?

And, yes, as I discussed in the last post on this thread, we did sell our WF investment this week, before this report broke. Not in fear that we’d lose money on the investment – I have no idea if these scandals will impair their stock over the long term.

But in disgust at their behavior.

Yes, I know there’s only two days left of the 2017 Fringe – but I can’t resist mentioning our Friday Fringing, this time at Theatre In The Round. Perhaps one of these will get your attention and you’ll find they still have a show left.

We started with the Mercury Ninety Productions showing of Hello, I Must Be Going …, a play which purports to throw some light on the final chapter of Groucho Marx’s life, his secretary/manager/girlfriend, Erin Fleming, and his allegedly ungrateful children. Along the way I suppose it could have raised questions concerning the family dynamics which left Groucho with a secretary and no loving family, but this play didn’t really go there. In fact, it was more of a showcase for the actors than anything else, and left me wondering about the motivations of producing such a show. The actors were more than competent, and it was well composed and played, but I was nonplussed at the end.

The second show of the night was Lettres et Café, by Bad Mime Productions. A slice of life about a community of small business people in post-war Paris, and their fight for survival in the face of a rebuilding committee’s decision about their sector of their beloved city, it follows in particular the lives of two coffee shop workers and how their lives are intertwined far more than they might guess. This show is an atypical Fringe show for two reasons: first, it’s far more polished than your typical effort. Clearly well-rehearsed, with a good focus on how it should appear in the space provided by Theatre In The Round. Second, the story is really quite conventional, with no supernatural entities, fourth wall breakage, or any of that sort. Not that it’s entirely predictable, but in the end we did feel it was not as surprising as many shows. This is not bad; I appreciate a well done show. The Fringe is about being different. Difference is all about context, and in that respect, Lettres et Café achieves difference from the rest of the Fringe. Recommended.

As good as was Lettres et Café, I fear it was outdone by the next show, Fruit Flies Like a Banana: WORLD TOUR, by the Massachusetts-based ensemble The Fourth Wall. Composed of comedic improv, classic musicianship, and some mild gymnastics, this group of three (with a single appearance by a fourth, who might have been a guest artist) is made up of a flutist, a bass trombonist, and a percussionist, all of whom, my Arts Editor tells me, are consummate musicians. We saw them last year; this time around they had taped the names of locations on a beach ball of a world globe, and the piece consisted of them throwing the ball into the audience, where the member who caught it could pick one of those locations, and then the ensemble would perform a piece of music with some connection to the location. Along with the music, they also performed various … I shan’t say gymnastics, but sometimes their musicality was amazingly mixed with their physical movements. Add in some off-the-cuff and exquisitely timed humor between the pieces, and this was a memorable show. Several of their pieces impressed me, including the music of Antarctica. Recommended.

Equaling Fruit Flies in sheer enthusiasm was Swords & Sorcery: The Improvised Fantasy Campaign by Bearded Men Improv. Never did Dungeons & Dragons? Neither did I. Apparently this is how it’s done – and if the players are not polished performers, at least they sure love their subject. The dice may control their fates, but they control their own ‘tude on the stage of the game. It kept us in stitches.

We finished the evening with To The Quick: A trio of short plays that cut deep, by Diva G Productions. The three plays ask questions, but you must provide the answers. The first is a bit of a fluff piece concerning those jumpy, lurking questions about teenage sexuality, and whether or not her lips are more alluring – or the red-hair badger’s. The second dives deeper into how the death of a loved one will affect someone too tightly clinging to that existence. The third asks whether the paraplegic woman is really badly injured – or just pissed off at the world. The stories were, I believe, composed for the Fringe, and they are wise in that they withhold information, giving it out slowly, and keeping the audience interested along the way. All interesting, possibly more hesitant and less self-assured about the answers to the questions. And that’s what art can be about – asking questions without providing answers. It’s a thin, jagged line, in that sense. Art should illustrate the potential results of choices – but dictation of choice ruins art. As ever, we need to be aware of choices we make, and think of consequences when making them.

I hope you have the time to go Fringing, if not this year, then perhaps next year.

Katherine Martinko on Treehugger.com brings up a mundane but important point – doctors are beginning to realize that many health problems begin with our diet, and food is what makes or breaks us:

Doctors and hospitals are well-positioned to guide patients toward better eating habits; but, ideally, such education would start much earlier in life, before chronic diseases manifest themselves. Children should be learning how to cook from their parents, and schools should implement cooking classes as a standard part of the curriculum. It’s an excellent connection point for various subjects, such as science, math, health, even history and social studies.

Most importantly, the societal mentality toward cooking deserves a makeover. It should not be viewed as drudgery (a normal reaction when one struggles with a skill), but as a respected domestic art, something to celebrate, admire, and constantly strive to improve. After all, our survival depends on it.

The war in the political trenches can be so discouraging, based on this report from the IndyStar:

State and local Republicans have expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas, an IndyStar investigation has found, prompting a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns.

From 2008 to 2016, GOP officials expanded early voting stations in Republican dominated Hamilton County, IndyStar’s analysis found, and decreased them in the state’s biggest Democratic hotbed, Marion County.

That made voting more convenient in GOP areas for people with transportation issues or busy schedules. And the results were immediate.

Most telling, Hamilton County saw a 63 percent increase in absentee voting from 2008 to 2016, while Marion County saw a 26 percent decline. Absentee ballots are used at early voting stations.

The dishonesty inherent in this sort of activity, regardless of Party affiliation, reminds me of how the more abstract & diffuse the entity, the more difficult it is to put the loyalty to that entity first.

This is a somewhat incomplete report in that it’s not clear if the position responsible for this activity is a partisan or non-partisan position; the latter sounds far more appropriate. But one would hope that party affiliation would play no role in the fulfilling of the responsibilities.

So what’s happening?

Democrats are challenging the state’s early voting system in a lawsuit alleging the secretary of state and legislative supermajority have launched a concerted effort to suppress the Democratic vote, a debate that is also playing out on the national front.

Addendum: I suppose the GOP will whine about naturalized immigrants and how they always vote Democrat. Try supporting better policies, boys.

Next door in Wisconsin lawmakers have been talking to Chinese manufacturer Foxconn about setting up a factory, using tax incentives to lure them over. Reuters reports on an analysis of the deal:

Foxconn hopes to open a $10 billion plant in 2020 at a 1,000-acre site in southeastern Wisconsin and state leaders, including Republican Governor Scott Walker, have touted the incentives as a boon because of the jobs that will be created.

Critics have attacked the plan as too expensive and potentially harmful to the environment.

Officials have said Foxconn, formally known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, will employ about 1,000 people in the second half of 2017 and employment will grow to 13,000 by 2021.

Based on estimates from the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin will not receive a return on its investment in the project until about 2042. The bureau provides fiscal analysis for the state legislature.

Walker’s spokesman Tom Evenson said in a statement that the Foxconn factory is a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” that includes the large company investment and $10.5 billion in new payroll.

Wisconsin Representative Peter Barca, the state Democratic minority leader from Kenosha, said the report proves legislators need more time to examine the deal.

“The fiscal analysis released today creates new questions on the state’s cash flow and on the state’s ability to ensure a good return on the investment for taxpayers,” Barca said in a statement.

Regarding that last statement, I think that since the State isn’t expected to turn a profit, there’s some wiggle room. Given the straits manufacturing has been in, it makes a lot of sense to pursue a manufacturing plant. Whether or not this is the proper project is a topic for experts in the matter.

But what really makes me scratch my head is the statement that there won’t be return on the investment until 2042.

Guys, the product, these LCD screens, will be dead technology by then.

MAYBE, the plant will be converted to something else.

More likely, either sold off or even abandoned.

It just seems silly to project technology out that far.

Metastable:

In physics, metastability is a stable state of a dynamical system other than the system’s state of least energy. A ball resting in a hollow on a slope is a simple example of metastability. If the ball is only slightly pushed, it will settle back into its hollow, but a stronger push may start the ball rolling down the slope. Bowling pins show similar metastability by either merely wobbling for a moment or tipping over completely. A common example of metastability in science is isomerisation. Higher energy isomers are long lived as they are prevented from rearranging to their preferred ground state by (possibly large) barriers in the potential energy. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “Bigger bang theory: teach atoms new tricks to beef up explosives,” David Hambling, NewScientist (29 July 2017, paywall):

A good way to change a game is to change its rules. One line of research to do just that builds on a curiosity that was exercising the Royal Society back in the 1660s just when gunpowder was: Prince Rupert’s drops. These tadpole-shaped trinkets are formed by molten glass cooling rapidly, and are named after Prince Rupert of the Rhine, a cousin of King Charles II who first brought them to England. The way the drops form leaves them under tremendous internal strain. A hammer will bounce off the drop’s body and not break it, but if you snap the tail the strain is suddenly released, sending a wave through the drop, shattering it into powder.

This explosivity is based on the release of not chemical energy, but mechanical strain. At the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in Maryland, Jennifer Ciezak-Jenkins and her colleagues have been experimenting with the same principle using nanoscopic diamonds. Diamond forms only at high temperatures and pressures, such as those found deep in Earth’s mantle, and is a “metastable” form of carbon. It is stable in ambient conditions, only crumbling over cosmic timescales back to graphite.

Source: NASDAQ.com, of course.

The markets have been somewhat tentative over the last few business days, with a bit of a thud today as the Nasdaq took a 2.13% tumble. What does it definitely mean? Beats me. But it’s worth speculating that an awareness that the Administration is basically, well, kooky, may be spreading through the investment community. Mutual funds and other large entities may be a large part of the community, but individual investors, moving unconsciously en masse, can also move the markets. While many have applauded deregulation, I think that, regardless of its merits, it will be overshadowed by threats of war and a deconstruction of a Federal government which until now has provided a certain stability to the markets and the country – and, when it hasn’t the market has tumbled in response. I refer to the termination of the Glass-Steagall Act as well as other modifications to the law which resulted in the Great Recession.

Despite Kevin Drum’s best efforts to give Trump no credit for the continued progress most of the stock market indices have been making, Trump has grabbed credit with both hands. But if the markets fall, will he similarly accept blame? That’s the thing about the markets – if they go up, the government can only accept credit for smoothing the waters, stopping the wars, and basically providing a stable, predictable environment for the anxiety-ridden investment community. A good market crash is often encouraged by bad government policies, but a bull market, once out of the pothole inflicted by the market, may depend on factors outside of government influence.

This is not fertile soil for Donald Trump, in reality. But will investors notice? Precisely, will small investors who voted for Trump connect any fall in the markets with the chaos at the Federal level, the spear-waving, mendacity, and general destruction wrought by those with dubious ideologies?

Should be interesting to find out. The latest Gallup daily poll shows Trump at 36% approval, which is his lowest in this particular poll – he keeps falling to 36% and then bouncing off it. The question in my mind is whether or not we’ll see a jump as citizens rally to a President facing down the North Korean threat – or if enough people, watching his blustering performance, will give up in disgust and force it lower. It’s a three day rolling average, so it may take a couple of days to find out.

In case you were wanting a graphic illustration of a hostile drone, go no further.

Although I must admit that I was waiting for the guy to accidentally do himself in.

Lloyd Alter on Treehugger.com notes the realization that our solar power arrays are vulnerable to hackers:

If it was a movie, these would be about to stand up and chase after you.
Source: Wikipedia

When new solar panels are installed, users should change any default passwords. The other really hack proof solution is to disconnect the inverters from the internet, which would remove the weakness completely.

“Solar producers should seek to isolate the products from the internet ASAP,” said Dave Palmer, director of technology at cyber-security company Darktrace to the BBC. “And [they should] also review their physical access security to reduce the risk of a local attack from someone physically breaking into their facilities.”

This is yet another example of how having everything connected to the internet, while really convenient, also introduces a host of new problems. For a clean energy smart grid to really take off, we’ll need protections in place, even down to the lowly power inverter.

Indeed. When I worked at a large industrial concern supplying software to the energy industry, I was amazed to find that we could directly access the energy systems of other states, even entire countries, via the Internet, diagnosing bugs in our software and fixing them.

It was certainly better than flying to Eastern Europe and sitting in a loud server room for hours on end.

But the security arrangements often bothered me. I wonder if the various energy management entities took those systems offline or not.

I was breezing along through this NewScientist (29 July 2017, paywall) article on how the experience of awe affects us:

Credit: Parks.ca.gov

… [University of California – Berkeley Professor Dacher] Keltner and others have found that even mild awe can change our attitudes and behaviour. For example, people who watched a nature video that elicited awe – rather than other positive emotions such as happiness or pride – were subsequently more ethical, more generous and described themselves as feeling more connected to people in general. Gazing up at tall eucalyptus trees left others more likely to help someone who stumbled in front of them. And after standing in front of a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton, people were more likely to describe themselves as part of a group. It might seem counterintuitive that an emotion we often experience alone increases our focus on others. But Keltner thinks it’s because awe expands our attention to encompass a bigger picture, so reducing our sense of self.

Sounds awfully neat, doesn’t it? But I wasn’t really thinking about it that much, so this was quite a jar to the noggin:

In the modern world, though, we’re more likely to be gazing at our smartphones than at giant redwoods or a starry sky. And Keltner is concerned about the impact of our increasing disconnection from nature, one of the most potent sources of awe. “I’m struck by how awe makes us humble and charitable,” he says. “Is that why we have so much incivility and hatred right now in the US? I think we should be asking these questions.”

The suggestion is certainly interesting, although honestly I don’t think the incivility comes from those hooked on smartphones. But it’s still a fascinating thought – just what are we losing when we lose touch with Nature? When we retreat into a world constructed exclusively by humans?

Addendum: I published this piece and turned around to check my mail and there’s something from a friend about the largest dinosaur ever found. At possibly as much as 80 tons and based on nearly complete skeletons, that would fall into the category of awesome, were it met in flesh and blood. But a question does arise – from MSN & The Atlantic:

I’d never heard of Prince Rupert’s drops.

Some folks are exploring using the principle involved to propel spaceships.

amplituhedron:

An amplituhedron is a geometric structure introduced in 2013 by Nima Arkani-Hamed and Jaroslav Trnka. It enables simplified calculation of particle interactions in some quantum field theories. In planar N = 4 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory, also equivalent to the perturbative topological B model string theory in twistor space, an amplituhedron is defined as a mathematical space known as the positive Grassmannian. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “The geometry that could reveal the true nature of space-time,” Anil Ananthaswamy, NewScientist (29 July 2017, paywall):

Source: Theory Of Everything

It took Nima Arkani-Hamed and his team at the Institute of Advanced Studies (IAS) in New Jersey, including his then students Jaroslav Trnka and Bourjaily, to join the dots. Building on the seemingly esoteric work of pure mathematicians, the team arrived at a mind-boggling conclusion: the scattering amplitude calculated with the BCFW technique corresponds beautifully to the volume of a new mathematical object. They gave a name to this multi-dimensional concatenation of polyhedrons: the amplituhedron.

Now go out and drop this in casual conversation.

And the shocking transformation of puddinhead me into …

… Roy Orbison.

Frightening, really.

In an unsigned Editorial on 38 North, the message from the North Koreans is re-translated so that it makes more sense than that presented by the mass media:

The answer though could be found in the Korean language version, in which the formula was presented as one sentence, not two:

미국의 적대시 정책과 핵위협이 근원적으로 청산되지 않는 한 우리는 그 어떤 경우에도 핵과 탄도로케트를 협상탁에 올려놓지 않을 것이며 우리가 선택한 핵무력 강화의 길에서 단 한치도 물러서지 않을 것입니다.

“Unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S. against the D.P.R.K. are fundamentally eliminated, we, under no circumstances, will put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table and will not flinch even an inch away from our path of strengthening of the nuclear forces, which is chosen by ourselves.”

Indeed, this formulation just repeats earlier statement by Kim Jong Un himself (on July 4) as well as an official North Korean government statement on August 7, which is an authoritative policy pronouncement. But no one in the media mentioned either of these statements in their coverage.

The writer accuses the media of sensationalism, and I agree. The necessary intrusion of the private sector into the news sector, not to mention the natural requirement to compete, will lead to muckups like this – assuming this translation is correct. So the media stirs up its customers – I wonder how many customers’ health has been damaged by raising their blood pressure?

There’s something to be said for a dedication to truth.

CNN reports that the GOP-led Congress is still trying to avoid doing the right thing:

In the wake of Trump’s “fire and fury” comment on Tuesday, lawmakers began calling for Congress to authorize any preemptive military action against Pyongyang.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, told CNN’s Erin Burnett a preemptive strike would require congressional approval.

“The administration has done a good job up until now working closely with the Congress on their broader strategy. But we’re going to play an important role here,” Sullivan said Tuesday night.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee told CNN’s Poppy Harlow on Wednesday Congress should weigh in, especially with Trump in the Oval Office.

“This is a conversation that needs to take place. The authority of congress should be asserted, particularly in the case of this president where he seems to be somewhat erratic when it comes to what he suggests is American foreign policy,” Kildee said.
But the White House takes a different view about the role of Congress and the Trump administration did not go to Capitol Hill for approval of its military strikes against the Syrian regime.

In April, then-press secretary Sean Spicer was asked if the President was prepared to act alone on North Korea or if Congress should be involved.

Which is to say, we don’t dare actually try to get rid of this incompetent boob. So instead they’ll try to usurp what is arguably an executive prerogative, when really they should just usurp the current holder of the office.

This is all really a bit puzzling, given the growing disregard GOP members of Congress, as well as even Cabinet secretaries, have reportedly exhibited towards their supposed Party leader. I suppose it has something to do with the base, and something to do with respect for the Party and for those who voted for him. Which all makes me tired.

Perhaps they know something about Pence that we hoi-polloi don’t? They’d like less to see Pence than Trump in the office? That puts shivers down my spine.

And here’s the thing – rallying to the President in a time of national distress all sounds wonderful, but in reality the country is donig just fine, on the whole. Will North Korea make good on their nuclear threat? In my opinion, no – the return volley from the United States would leave them, to borrow a phrase, glassed over. The North Koreans should be well aware that taking the first shot in a nuclear war is not in their best interests.

But emotionally torturing the American President? This has to be doing wonders for the prestige of Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leadership, both internally and externally. They apply the poker, Trump hops up and down. Makes them look tough and powerful, two qualities which lead to respect in the minds of the North Koreans – and respect is very important to the Koreans.

In point of fact, I worry more about the rationality of Trump than I do of Kim. Kim is young and, in all likelihood, fully functional. More importantly, he’s a trained leader. Their government may not be our government, but he knows how to make it run, he has priorities and understanding of how his country works, and, no matter how much I dislike Kim, that makes him somewhat predictable.

Trump, on the other hand, is old, untrained, uninterested in being trained, and I think at this juncture we can assume the only interests he has at heart is his own – involving money and his family. How that plays out in this little game of chicken is harder to predict than Kim’s.

So when Kim plays these games with him, he’s torturing an old, erratic man. The rest of the nation in distress? Only those who buy into propaganda. But Trump could lash out in an unwise manner in response to this needling, this act of making him look weak. Hell, if Kim were to just belly-laugh at him on a video, Trump might order a nuclear strike just to cosset his pride.

And that’s why we need him out.

Lately, there’s been some Facebook posts with pictures of President Obama, asking if we missed him now. These are based on a similar billboard ad erected early in Obama’s term asking the same question concerning President Bush. I always figured those concerning Bush were a joke, as the alternative hinted at a demented state of mind, given Bush’s incompetence. But with President Obama – yep, I do miss him. A lot. Or FDR. Or Ike. Someone with demonstrated competence, intelligence, and backbone.

Hydrolaccolith:

A pingo, also called a hydrolaccolith,^[1] is a mound of earth-covered ice found in the Arctic and subarctic that can reach up to 70 metres (230 ft) in height and up to 600 m (2,000 ft) in diameter. The term originated as the Inuvialuktun word for a small hill. The plural form is “pingos”. [Wikipedia]