We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, November 14. 2022
I May Be Older, but I’m Not Necessarily Wiser. It has dawned on me recently that as much as I like to give people advice, the wisdom I offer may not be worth very much
I campaigned against nuclear energy in the 2000s. Now I’ve changed my mind
An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science. What scientists are able to teach and what research we can pursue are under attack. I know because I’m living it, writes biologist Luana Maroja.
What It's Like to Be a Free Man. The conclusion to my serialized Georgetown soap opera.
A sex war is coming. American politics is being shaped by the AWFLs
By every account, this was a strange election.
Don’t believe Trump — this midterm miss is all because of him
Why Ron DeSantis looks just like Bill Clinton in 1992
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"By every account, this was a strange election. " Does anyone actually believe that many people voted to keep living under such stress and fear that they actually voted in mass to keep up with the same overlords. I understand the IQ of the general population is diminishing in the country, but come on, even total lower IQ people need food to eat and heat to live. Oh yes, and still know the fear about having a nuclear war and what follows,
If you're depending on the government to provide your paycheck, there's no stress or fear. The government can just borrow and spend infinitely. When 50% of the population is dependent upon government for their paychecks, it's all over. Mitt Romney was excoriated for writing off 47% of the electorate but I think he was off by a few percentage points.
This was a strange election is the new phrase because you can't say the Democrats cheated because the their lap dogs in the media slur by calling you a election denier. This election was stolen. Slicker than the massive and obvious steal in 2020 but stolen never the less. In 2020 the Republicans were content to not investigate because it hurt Trump. But this election didn't hurt Trump it hurt all Republicans. Will they investigate the steal? I doubt it because most of them are useless.
By every account, this was a strange election. . . Who intended it? The Republican establishment.
Many Republicans did resist the nomination of what they saw as extremist and unelectable candidates. The results are evident.
How large a majority you have is secondary and, in the long view, not that meaningful.
That's not accurate. In the House, for instance, a slim majority will empower the more radical members of the majority. They can force concessions by withholding their votes for Speaker.
OneGuy: you can't say the Democrats cheated because the their lap dogs in the media slur by calling you a election denier.
You can say whatever you want, and others can point out the nonsense of claiming fraud without evidence.
In battleground states, the Bluer the district, the slower the counting, until the right numbers arrive. And they will be arriving. But you shouldn't talk about that. And while the Legacy Main Stream Media is well-recognized as a highl-biased, well-scripted mouthpiece for the Progressive Left, you shouldn't notice the enthusiasm and wall-to-wall coverage that they've been providing to....... a Republican..... ever since the results started coming in. Back in your lane, Deplorable.
Interesting comment, agree with you but who are "they", thanks for the reminder that I need to ask my newly elected Florida Congresswoman about what she is or will be doing about election fraud elsewhere in the country.
It is the voter vs the balloteer.
Something very strange happened in the NY Governors race. In many/most of the counties each of the two candidates got the exact same vote count. I mean Zeldin got 34,311 votes in the counties he won. Hochul got 113,228 in most of the counties she won except in a handful in which she got 73,693. Now what are the odds of that? I suspect that by now this has been fixed and they have fabricated some kind of excuse as to what happened; a computer glitch or some put data in the wrong place, etc. But it seems unlikely that anything could explain this other than that someone cheated.
Aggie: In battleground states, the Bluer the district, the slower the counting, until the right numbers arrive.
This betrays a misunderstanding of the process. For instance, Utah has only counted 84% of their ballots, even though they are a very red state. States which use extensive mail-in balloting take longer due to security measures, such as signature matching. States which don't allow processing before election day also take longer.
Anon: I mean Zeldin got 34,311 votes in the counties he won. Hochul got 113,228 in most of the counties she won except in a handful in which she got 73,693.
That is not accurate. NYS Board of Elections Unofficial Results (search for County breakdown). Nor does it make any sense, as counties have widely disparate populations.
This betrays a fundamental lack of reading comprehension. Utah is not a battleground state.
Aggie: Utah is not a battleground state.
No, but it contradicts your claim that there is something untoward. There is nothing unusual about taking a few days to count the vote. By definition, battleground states tend to be close, so the outcome can be uncertain until nearly all the votes are tallied. In a state with a strong partisan bent, it may take days to count the vote, but the outcome is usually known almost immediately.
Oh good! they fixed it. Pretty sloppy to cheat in a way that is so obvious. So they just added some random numbers to each district to make it less obvious? Back in the day that kind of blatant cheating in a Las Vegas casino would get you a permanent piece of land out in the desert or in a barrel dumped into Lake Mead. Too bad they don't still do that to cheaters. But it may come back...
"Two years ago there was a Bolshevik coup in the United States. There will never be a true election again, and we are living in an evolving Communist dictatorship. The proof was the Dark Biden speech. It was the crowning event of a dictator, demanding that all follow the state or be destroyed." The frosting on the left wing Communist Democrat's cake is the 2022 election.
OneGuy: Pretty sloppy to cheat in a way that is so obvious.
There is no evidence to support the claim.
You've Been Gaslighted: It's Clear Democrats Just Stole Another Election
It's not about the vote... it is all about the ballot.
And get your state out of ERIC.
If there is no cheating going on, Zach, why are the dems dead set against any kind of voter ID laws and requiring people to show up to vote?
DEROY MURDOCK: America’s Fourth World Election System Is A Global Embarrassment
Money, sex, football, corruption, and war.....
feeblemind: why are the dems dead set against any kind of voter ID laws
All states have voter ID requirements. There's also a recent history of making ID laws with "almost surgical precision" to discourage voting by Black voters (e.g. Holmes v. Moore).
feeblemind: and requiring people to show up to vote?
Because not everyone can easily show up at the polls, while poor and minority communities often have very long waits.
Aggie: Look ! A Squirrel!
Our comment was directly relevant. Your claim is that in battleground states the bluer the state the slower the counting, and that this is therefore indicative of fraud. Battleground states are purple, by definition. You provided no data to support your claim, nor did you respond to how the balloting process delays decisions in states that have small margins between the candidates, or how this is supposed to suggest fraud. In other words, you want it to be true, but have no evidence to support your claim.
Here's the problem I'm having with nuclear power. If something really nasty was to happen and the nuclear power plants were unable to be supplied with diesel to run their cooling system apparently they will melt down. Unimaginable things happen. It's possible to have situation where many nuclear plants do not have the personnel to safely shut them down. The results are not worth any conceivable benefit . However if you develop a design that they just shut down if they lose power then sign me up. I think liquid thorium was supposed to be like that but people of and talking about liquid thorium for decades and liquid thorium reactors are always close to being built somewhere.
Re: I campaigned against nuclear energy in the 2000s. Now I’ve changed my mind...
When I got to:
"As the climate emergency spirals out of control..."
I stopped reading. Anybody that clueless doesn't have anything worth considering to offer.
Ukraine invested into FTX as the Biden administration funneled funds to the invaded nation, and FTX then made massive donations to Democrats in the US.
Funny that this money laundering scheme has been overlooked.
Son, you are the buck-toothed poster child for Bad Faith Arguments. No sale, here.
Where did you hear about a nuclear power plant that requires a continuous supply of diesel power for cooling? The only application I could think of for that is as a backup for utility power.
There are a number of designs for nuclear plants that are passively stable, i.e., do not require a continuous supply of electric power for cooling. The biggest problems, as usual these days, are regulatory inertia, opposition from environmental groups, and uncertainty in the utility industry and investors about the costs and timeframes to get new plants built. In short, we have solutions available but what is lacking is the will and vision to implement them. "Decline is a choice" is the operative principle here.
Agreed. There is an excellent article on "Watts Up With That" that fully debunks the farce that is climate modeling: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/10/the-dirty-secrets-inside-the-black-box-climate-models/
The way those models diverge from one another--depending on the chosen "parameters" at initialization--are all you need to see to realize that when you average garbage, the result is still garbage.
Modeling chaotic systems and expecting to get dependable predictions from them is a fair definition of an exercise in futility, yet here we are. And where, on either side of the aisle, is the politician who will take a stand to end the madness? (Trump was a guilty as anyone in letting it slide during his Administration, but obviously the Biden junta is actively pushing it, with prompt and disastrous results.)
Hairless Joe: There is an excellent article on "Watts Up With That" that fully debunks the farce that is climate modeling
Well, the article starts by citing Lindzen and Choi, 2009. Lindzen says about the paper: "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing." Also, the units are wrong, and the area of the graph doesn't equal warming due to the greenhouse effect.
It doesn't get any better.
Hairless Joe: Modeling chaotic systems and expecting to get dependable predictions from them is a fair definition of an exercise in futility, yet here we are.
Chaos does not mean random. And modeling is the correct tool for working with chaotic systems. Nor does a basic understanding of greenhouse warming require knowledge of chaotic systems, as Svante Arrhenius showed a century ago. If the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases increases, the Earth will tend to warm. How this increased heat will be distributed through the climate system is chaotic and still obscure, but the warming itself is well-established.
Consider the track of a hurricane weaving weaving and wobbling erratically in the Atlantic, certainly one of the most complex systems in human experience. Nowadays, the five-day forecast is as good as the two-day forecast was just thirty years ago. The result is measured in lives saved.
Nonsense, on stilts. Have you ever seen a "spaghetti model" of the path of a tropical storm? Hint: It diverges monotonically with time, just as the climate models do, and for the same reasons.
Consider, my mathematically-inclined friend, that a very simple system comprising three gravitationally-bound bodies of comparable mass, cannot be successfully modeled past a few time steps: The future trajectory of the system is chaotic, as that term is used in physics, yet at every instant of time, the only force acting on the system is the bodies' mutual gravitation... which is (at velocities
much less than c) precisely known to extreme precision since the time of Newton.
Before you opine further on this I would suggest, as an exercise, that you program such a three-body orbital system and watch it run for a while on your system from a variety of initial states. It would be even more educational for you if you took the same code and compiled it for another computer that has a different runtime library. See if you get the same trajectory with the same initial conditions. You will not, because of the finite resolution of digital computation.
Talk to me about the climate when you can predict the motion of three gravitationally-coupled rigid bodies. That should be much simpler, let's hear how it goes.
Hairless Joe: Nonsense, on stilts.
Huh? Nowadays, the five-day forecast is as good as the two-day forecast was just thirty years ago. The result is measured in lives saved. Why are you arguing with facts?
Hairless Joe: Consider, my mathematically-inclined friend, that a very simple system comprising three gravitationally-bound bodies of comparable mass, cannot be successfully modeled past a few time steps
Whatever a few time steps means. While the multibody problem is, indeed, chaotic (meaning the system is sensitive to initial conditions), the evolution of the Earth's orbit can be projected out for millions of years. Here's a 'simple' practical example, albeit over a few years. Did you think scientists can't predict solar eclipses (Sun, Moon, Earth) because of there is no analytic solution to the three-body problem? It's done by numerical integration. Just ask Edmond Halley.
Hairless Joe: Before you opine further on this I would suggest, as an exercise, that you program such a three-body orbital system and watch it run for a while on your system from a variety of initial states.
Why recreate the wheel?
Hairless Joe: Talk to me about the climate when you can predict the motion of three gravitationally-coupled rigid bodies.
But they sure got in line for their clot shots, eh filthy vermin?
Michael Myers, PA rep just convicted of voter fraud. Paid hundreds of thousands in bribes to election officials to sway races with fraudulently filled in ballots.
HE ADMITTED IT IN COURT AS PART OF HIS RECITATION.
But, go F yourself you commie vermin.
Publius Americanus: Michael Myers, PA rep just convicted of voter fraud.
Yes, voter fraud occurs.
Even Svante Arrhenius admitted later his calculations were wrong.
Quibble-DickZ seem to convenietly overlook that little fact.
Look, if I were you, I'd quit arguing and get busy with your assignment. Remember, the purpose of doing your homework isn't to invent something new, but to help you make sure that you know what you think you do, of which many of us here have our doubts in your case. So get to it: It's 50% of your grade.
Hairless Joe: So get to it
Examples of predicting the trajectory of chaotic systems, including the multi-body problem, were provided. Let us know when you can defend your remarks or make a substantive reply.