Not ironic, just good planning
Another viewpoint flip.

I've been making the usual sardonic schadenfreudisch comments about the Eastasia/Eurasia switch from the "Plastics" Crisis to the "Virus" Crisis.

In 2019 we were supposed to avoid all plastics to Save The Ocean.

In 2020 we were supposed to buy new plastic ballgags every day, then throw them in the ocean.

Just now I stood back and looked at the situation from the opposite angle.

If you were planning to make and discard trillions of plastic ballgags, you'd want to slow down other uses of plastics for several years in advance, so you could STOCKPILE plastics.

= = = = =

Incidentally, I never bought or accepted any of the official ballgags. I rigged up a muzzle from an old T-shirt, rather cleverly fastened with zipties. It has minimally complied with the demonic "rules" for 14 fucking months, needing no purchased or new materials at all.

Labels: Answered and unasked, Answered better than asked, NOW I SEE, SES

  ¶ 1:27 PM

  Something doesn't ring true...
Michael Lewis, who wrote a tell-all on the 2008 economic panic, has done the same for the 2020 holocaust. Tucker of AIER, who revealed the ONLY publicly known fact so far, doesn't like Lewis's book.

Why? Because Lewis treats the monsters as heroes.

Okay... but he did get some facts into the record, regardless of viewpoint. Mein Kampf is a valuable book regardless of viewpoint because it tells us what Hitler was thinking.

Here's the part that smells wrong: Tucker seems to have KNOWN everything that Lewis wrote. He's not surprised by any of it. The story apparently pivots on the monster named Carter Mecher, the Bioterror fuhrer who pulled the trigger on March 12. Tucker gave us this one piece of info, and now it sounds like he knew the rest of the story.

Why didn't he TELL it from the correct viewpoint? Why did he wait for Lewis to tell it from the wrong viewpoint?

I haven't read the book, so I'm undoubtedly missing a big part of the picture. The part I can see is unattractive. Maybe Tucker is really complaining about stolen thunder? Was he getting ready to publish?

= = = = =

Later and semi-separate: The fact-gatherers are getting excited about a batch of emails from Demon Fauci. As usual they're insufficiently paranoid, insufficiently realistic.

FOIA never reveals NEW info. Deepstate never reveals any data that isn't already out in public. A quick skim of the material shows the standard pattern. Demon Fauci, like Demon Trump, plays all sides of an issue at once. He has publicly stated everything that appears in the emails. The emails show the same Room 101 as his public spewings.

One of the fact-gatherers is using a more productive code-breaking technique, focusing on the names that were redacted in the published emails. If he can figure those out, he will generate new info.

We still don't know anything about the lengthy WORLDWIDE PREPARATIONS AND REHEARSALS AND BLACKMAIL that were needed to line up a million bureaucrats and officials into a single precise attack on all humans.

When every leader in the world pulls the same trigger on the same weapon on the same day, it's not groupthink or random, and it takes a lot more than one reply-all email. Especially when the weapon is precisely opposite to EVERYTHING the "medical" "profession" has been saying and doing for 200 years.

Unfortunately the fact-gatherers are all obediently focused on the China lableak crap, which always struck me as a false flag. Plain fact: Since 1946, all evil originates from US and UK. We always frame someone else for our crimes, sometimes China, sometimes RadicalIslamicTerror, usually Russia.

= = = = =

This separate FOIA may be more productive since it shows how the CDC was molding policy to suit Randi Weingarten, head of the teachers union. The fact itself has been circumstantially clear for a while, but the detailed emails firm up the connection with less redaction of names.

Labels: Answered and unasked

  ¶ 10:16 AM

  Wrong question
Atlas, one of Trump's puppets, is getting razzed for saying something like "Time for the people to rise up! You get what you accept!"

This sounds like recommending rebellion. No doubt about it. And it's a terrible idea for a Federal employee to recommend rebellion.

Ordinary people CAN'T rise up. If we do, the demonic governors will clamp down harder. RESISTANCE EXCITES PSYCHOPATHS INTO A KILLING FRENZY. We understand this, and Atlas probably does as well. Trump certainly does.

The proper question: Why isn't Atlas talking to HIS BOSS? Why isn't he telling TRUMP to stop accepting the holocaust?

Trump has accepted and welcomed the holocaust from the start. Fauci also works for Trump, and Trump has never fired or silenced him. Presidents fire and silence bureaucrats every day. It's part of the daily routine for any president. Get up, shower, shave, blackmail some bureaucrats, break for lunch, blackmail more bureaucrats.

We don't have the power to rise up. The president HAS THE POWER to rise up against bad governors. This action isn't a daily routine, but presidents have controlled bad governors several times in the past. Sometimes by force, more often by controlling budgets. Trump NEVER controls evil. He didn't defund sanctuary cities, didn't defund the states and cities that encouraged riots, didn't halt the "bailouts" for states that are killing their own citizens with holocaustal shutdowns and muzzles.

Trump's sole purpose is to create chaos and war.

Labels: Answered and unasked

  ¶ 5:16 AM

  Major gap, sort of halfway excusable
Interesting article on color perception by birds.

Birds have four color cone types in their eyes, compared to three in humans. In theory, this enables birds to discriminate a broad range of colors, including many nonspectral colors. Nonspectral colors are perceived when nonadjacent cone types (sensitive to widely separated parts of the light spectrum) are predominantly stimulated. For humans, purple (stimulation of blue- and red-sensitive cones) is a nonspectral color; birds’ fourth color cone type creates many more possibilities.

Nonspectral? Never heard the term before, and it turns out to reveal a MONSTROUS GAP in my basic knowledge. This gap is bothersome because it's right next to my main area of real expertise. Other gaps aren't bothersome. I know that I'm incurably stupid about politics, human strategies, and military matters, so I'm not surprised when a politician fools me for the 1000000th time.

Oddly, this gap is hard to fill from modern sources. I searched long and hard for a simple statement that "non-spectral colors are mixtures of frequencies". Most websites talk all around the basic question, saying that it's not really a matter of mixed frequencies, it's a matter of the perception by RGB cones.

Well, no. Finally found an old pre-1920 book saying clearly that non-spectral colors are chords. The knowledge has been around for hundreds of years, but not part of the usual presentation of the knowledge.

What we "learned" in high-school physics was unclear. We "learned" that every color was present in the spectrum as seen in a prism or rainbow, and we also "learned" that white is a mixture of all the frequencies. The first statement is obviously false, but I never stopped to think about the contradiction.

We DIDN'T learn that all real colors are chords, but that's the plain and simple fact.

Oil painters and house painters understand this simple fact BY EXPERIENCE. They constantly mix the frequencies from different dabs on the palette, or from different cans of flat latex, just as a pianist mixes frequencies by hitting several keys on the keyboard.

There's even a sort of keyboard in most graphics programs, the standard 'color picker'. You mix different numbers of RGB to get the desired color. I use this all the time, but again never stopped to think that these are chords or superpositions of frequencies. I just stuck with the original stupid "learning" that the results are single frequencies as found in the prism. Perfectly contradictory WHEN YOU THINK, but I didn't THINK.

Why does this bother me? Because it's directly parallel to sound, and I've been working with sound and thinking about sound for 50 years. The common descriptions of sound are much more complete. Chords are intrinsic and unavoidable in all discussions of music and speech. White noise is known as a superposition of 'most' frequencies, just as white light is a superposition of all frequencies. All real sounds are mixtures of formants and harmonics, just as all real colors are chords. We can approach a pure sine wave with tuning forks or electronic oscillators, but we can't really get there. No physics book ever conveyed the idea that a major third is one key on the keyboard.

Why is the usual explanation so clear in sound but unclear in light? Quantum crap. The academic understanding of light has been infected by quantum crap since 1926. Quantum has never infected the descriptions of sound.

Later thought: Maybe the convenience and visual simplicity of a prism overwhelmed the complexity of real nature in the usual presentation. There isn't an equally convenient acoustic prism. Acoustic diffraction gratings perform the same function, but they are necessarily large and unfamiliar. You can't keep an acoustic diffraction grating on a lab workbench. Harps and pianos are acoustic prisms, but again they're large and bulky, and they don't separate the notes for visual display. You have to use your fingers to locate the active resonators.

Labels: Answered and unasked, Experiential education

  ¶ 3:10 AM

  Irrelevant connection
In previous item I compared the 1855 Silicon Valley settlers of Kansas with the modern hi-tech corridor. Same corridor, same people.

Running through the navigation from the East Coast to Manhattan reminded me of a distant connection to the Ancestral Clocks set that I just released today.

Colonel George Park had already founded Parkville, Mo, and Park College, before he tried to found Polistra. He failed because NYC Isaac Goodnow had already cornered the market. Park returned to Missouri, and the site of Polistra became a brewery. Now it's just an abandoned rail embankment.

Around 1900, Park College built a serious observatory and used it for instruction and research. Highly unusual for a small Christian college. As I was reading publications from that era, trying to understand the sidereal Equation of Time, I kept bumping into Park's observatory. Many journals had articles about Park or articles written by Park's faculty. The equipment and functions were broader than the Elgin observatory, including a general purpose telescope; but students spent time practicing the same sidereal transits that were Elgin's specialty.

From the 1910 Park College catalog:

The Charles Smith Scott Observatory building is located on an elevation above Mackay building. It is equipped with an eight-inch Warner and Swasey equatorial telescope, having ten eye pieces, magnifying four hundred eight diameters, a filar micrometer, with electrical lighted wires, and a helioscope. It is mounted equatorially and provided with a driving clock.

The sidereal transit room is equipped with a three inch sidereal Warner and Swasey transit, properly mounted; a Riefler, break circuit, astronomical clock, and a Warner and Swasey chronograph. The lecture room is ample for the needs of small class computation work.

Same equipment as Elgin.

Labels: Answered and unasked, Metrology

  ¶ 3:04 PM

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Wonder why.
Via ScienceAlert:

With opposition to vaccines on the rise and the usual communication measures failing, governments are increasingly turning to fines or other punitive measures to push vaccination rates back up.

A choice between a jab and a fine is enough to motivate many parents into visiting their nearest medical clinic. That might nudge up the vaccination rates, but it might not be enough to hit the golden 95 percent mark across all demographics that keeps pathogens at bay. And for some community sectors, perceptions of autonomy and equity make all the difference when it comes to acting. Vaccination is an emotional topic that polarises populations – but when the consequences are a matter of life and death, sometimes we need to ditch the stick and hold out a hand instead.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. That's funny. When antivaxxers were Fundies and Birchers, you didn't worry about autonomy and equity and holding out a hand. You shot first and asked no questions.

Now that most antivaxxers are SJW Gaians, you're spinning the old Beatles hits.

Wonder what the difference is? Can't possibly imagine.

What makes this even Hmmmmmier and funnier and wonder-why-er: We're dealing with three symptoms of one consistent personality type, one genotype. SJW is triggered by symbols and words. Gaian is worried about apocalyptic end-times. Antivax is worried about bodily purity. Before 1974 this genotype was associated with the R brand, so it needed to be exterminated, Since 1974 this genotype is associated with the D brand, so it needs to be obeyed.

Labels: Answered and unasked

  ¶ 6:52 AM

  Unanswered assertion
WHEN YOU KNOW HOW THINGS WORK, YOU DON'T NEED DETAILS.

There's an unexamined bad assumption on the techmonster side of the current pointless argument about censorship.

Google and FB claim that their censorship is unbiased because it's done by computer.

Sheer nonsense.

This assertion is unexamined because most people think of computers as arithmetic machines.

Arithmetic by itself is unbiased. After you bring the data in, the operations of adding and subtracting and sines and cosines are strictly mechanical. So an arithmetic machine can't favor one side. This is true and unarguable.

Unfortunately, computers are NOT arithmetic machines. Computers are SORTING MACHINES that do a little bit of arithmetic. This has been true from the start. Hollerith's 1880 Census machine was strictly a sorter, and the latest CPU is still a sorter. Every useful program spends most of its time sorting and deciding.

Sorting is inherently biased. Deciding is BY DEFINITION an act of bias. This is common knowledge and common sense. When you decide where to put a dish, or decide what to wear today, or decide which candidate to mark on a ballot, you are applying bias BY DEFINITION. You start with a set of preconceptions built from your experience and status and desires. Everyone knows this, nobody doubts it.

The same thing happens in an algorithm, whether it's dealing with numbers or words.

An income tax algorithm decides which expenses are deductible and then deducts them. The subtraction is unbiased, but the decision depends on highly subjective standards.

A censorship algorithm decides which words and messages are deletable and then deletes them. The act of deleting words is unbiased, but the decision depends on highly subjective standards.

Subjectivity is obviously stronger for words than numbers. Even at the basic level of removing the Seven Bad Words, the programmer has to decide which bad words are on the list, and how to deal with peculiarities like the Scunthorpe syndrome. Is Dick an abbreviation for Richard or a word for penis? Is pussy a cat or a front-hole? All of these choices are based on an intentional choice of cultural standards.

Each of these sorting standards must be written into the constants of the program at some level, and the inclusion or exclusion is a purely human decision.

Labels: Answered and unasked

  ¶ 12:01 AM