UFOs are now UAPs and They're Real!

 ...well, duh.  Of course they're real, but color me a skeptic: just because something isn't identified doesn't make it extraterrestrial.  Just means that whoever spotted it didn't know what it was.

Lots of fun being had about the US military UFO release, and mostly just amusing but not really important or meaningful, but it's weird to me when people try to parse meaning into the whole search for extraterrestrial life/intelligence.  And then we hit my triggers...

This Dylan Matthews article is very myopic about things.  Also, it isn't even wrong. He posits there are exactly 3 possibilities and 2 of them are "alarming" and the only one that isn't is that some UFOs (pardon: UAPs) are actually some visit by a probe or something from an extraterrestrial based intelligence.  [eye-roll emoji]

Of course, that's just BS.  If you really want to align your variables correctly there are more possibilities than just those 3 and there's a pretty damned good chance that at least one of those is more likely than the 3 mentioned.  One issue is our ability to detect intelligent life.  We think we know what we're looking for but we don't actually.  We're looking for us (carbon based life requiring liquid water), but that may not be the only path.  

Next, we're looking at the past.  Even in our own galaxy, when we look across the disk, we can be looking 10s to 100s of thousands of years in the past: 100,000 years ago we weren't disturbing the EM spectrum either.  When we look to galaxies outside of our own we are looking even further into the past and whenever you look backwards in time you are less likely to find advanced intelligence than if you could look forward.

We also aren't seeing everything: there's a lot of obscuring dust in the Milky Way so when we look across our galaxy there is a lot that is hidden from us and it's hard to know exactly what that is--we know about how much mass there is and rough distribution but planets with intelligent life? nah.  On a larger scale dark matter (and dark energy) make up (much) more of the universe than things we can see, and there is no way for us to know what is hiding in that dark (probably not intelligent life).  

Even the things we can see we don't really see all that well.  Stars are big and bright, and yet even those can be barely a pixel wide in a telescopic field of view. Planets we "see" through gravitational wobble or dimming of the star they orbit...but small mass planets (like Earth) that orbit at an angle relative to our observation are going to be all but invisible, and even if some lifeform is pumping em-radiation out into space, it is going to pale in comparison to the star, and will mostly disappear into the background.  ...and all that is for observations in our own galaxy!  

I'll grant that the "calculations" that people do to try and figure out the probability of intelligent life pretend to factor at least some of that in, but the fact is that all of those "equations"--going back to the Drake equation that started it all--are overloaded with wild ass guesses.  They really aren't even educated guesses (hypothesis) as we don't have any other data from which to make an educated guess.  We have a single data point for intelligent life in the universe: us.  The probability that we are alone in the universe is between 0 and 100% (actual between, not inclusive).  

The vastness of space-time and the brevity of our stint as "intelligent" life on this planet should be a stronger indicator to someone who writes about science that we don't really know all that much, but no, there are only 3 options, 2 are bad, and the last is unlikely at best.  Whatever, dude.

Ha Ha...Oh, Wait, You're Serious?

I'm glad others find the whole red baiting thing with Sanders monumentally stupid, and I don't expect better from the actual red scare in this country (GOPers), but that stupidity coming up in Democratic debates, and from the moderators isn't just stupid, it is actively harmful to honest debate.  I'd like to hope they'll stop it, but I'm fairly certain the media organization is approximately 90% made up of children who just happen to be 50+ years old.

A Step Back

It can be so easy to get lost in the bad.  Horrible things are always happening; we are near powerless to stop most of them, and it can so easily make us feel hopeless.  Sometimes it is just good to take a step back to look around us with fresh perspective.  The pale blue dot image was taken on Valentine's Day 1990.  In the 30 years that have followed we have learned more.  Loved more.  Laughed more.  Cried more.  Still, that pale blue dot spinning around a medium yellow sun would look the same today as then.  It would look the same if we all gave up hatred, and violence and lived our best selves.  It would look the same if we went extinct. 

This Valentine's Day, instead of flowers and chocolates, wouldn't it be nice if we could just feel love for all the other people with whom we share this tiny speck of dust in a vast universe.

NaGaHappen

This is a frustrating article for a lot of reasons, but the three that bug me the most are:

1. After outlining some of the reasons that self-driving cars is a very difficult problem, the article makes it seem like they'll still be here any day now.

2. The idea that self driving cars are going to save lives is almost tautological and so really quite stupid.

3. The insistence that this will be a huge financial boon for [Uber...among others] comes from...?

As for the first point, just no.  People who drive think driving is "easy" and so we should be able to have a computer do it even better, but driving isn't like doing algebra.  When we drive we are taking advantage of two things that humans do much, much better than computers: visual processing and pattern recognition (and extrapolation).  Computers have gotten much better at both of those things, but we do them so easily that we don't even recognize that we are doing them, and computers are still nowhere close to us.

The second point is one of those annoying points that isn't really a point.  Yes, if self driving works it will be safer as the definition of it working will be that it is safe (as computers don't drink, fall asleep...if it is safe it will be safer than human drivers) but this comes back to point 1: we aren't actually close.

The 3rd point is the underwear gnomes "profit" point.  It glosses over the middle point of how, exactly this will be profitable.  I'm sure it will, for companies that license the tech and maybe for auto manufactures who sell it, but for Uber?  Their current capital expenses are minimum, they're a middleman who skims off the top, and that is (potentially, generally) a very profitable position to be in.  If they plan on owning a fleet of cars, that they will have to maintain and replace, that changes the equation.  That will also mean a lot more [actual] employees to deal with these vehicles, plus probably land to park them and charge them up when not in use.  Now they do get to keep 100% of the fare in this case, but I don't think that equation will balance out well for them without magical hand-waving.

Behind all of this, and not actually stated in the article (other than a couple benefits) is a notion that self driving cars are actually going to be good for society, and I don't know how that is true either.  Yes, there are discreet cases where individuals would benefit from a self-driving vehicle in some way that they wouldn't from improved mass transit or existing taxi services, but for most people they'll be just another neat gadget...and in the case of broad implementation, they are likely to make traffic worse, not better.

OMG Someone Created a Word For This Feeling

Clueyness

Good Dem Candidate Rundowns

Not sure how far Vox is going to go with these, but they have three up now, one each for Sanders, Warren, and Biden.  They are trying to make the "best" case for each candidate.  Reading them all, I think the one for Warren makes the best case for president (i.e. that she would be the most effective president of the bunch), the one for Sanders makes the best case for ability to win [the 2020 general election] and the one for Biden is just, well, weak--it may be right, but it's a weak argument.

At some level, it probably doesn't matter too much who wins, but of the candidates left I like Warren and Sanders both--I had hoped one would drop out to support the other by now but they're both too high up in the polls for that.  I think Biden is a bad choice, I don't really care for Buttigieg either, Klobuchar is fine but there are better options no matter what your big issue is, and I've no idea why Steyer or Bloomberg are even in the race or, for that matter, if they still are (also not sure if Gabbard is still in, though she does/did at least have a different perspective on some things even if I disagree with her on those differences).

The Joe Rogan & Bernie Sanders Thing

First, read this.

I don't think he should have so publicly accepted/commented on the "endorsement" but I don't think he should [have] reject[ed] it either.  What I'm really seeing here is that anti-trans sentiments are far more toxic today than just a few years ago.  The LGBTQ community has, in the past 6 years become much more broadly accepted--yes, particularly on the left, but even somewhat on the right--to the point that expressing anti-[any of those] sentiments makes you the bad guy among a sizable portion of the population. 

That is, IMO, a good thing. 

Still, a lot of the rage directed at Sanders does feel off.  How many of the haters were Clinton supporters--the Clinton-Kissinger thing was far worse? How about Obama supporters--among his foibles, he was anti-gay marriage (until he wasn't), his actual actions as president on the war front were less than stellar and his team's reaction to the financial crisis was to bail out banks and screw over homeowners? 

I get that Joe Rogan has regressive views that shouldn't be championed, but between Clinton, Sanders and Obama, I'd put Sanders on the highest moral ground (that does not mean I think he would be the best president, I'm not really sure the most morally good person can be a good president).  If the backlash seemed like people disappointed that Sanders would do something bad--and some of it may be--that would be more appropriate, but it really seems like people who don't like Sanders seeing an opportunity to pounce. 

...it doesn't help that so many Sanders supporters are assholes, but the man himself doesn't seem to be.

Wait, That's Real?

I thought this Politicon post was a joke [image].  It seems to be a real thing.  And it looks horrible.  Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

GoT Final Season

So Game of Thrones series finale was this past Sunday.  Even though I'm "satisfied" with the general conclusion I really didn't like this season at all (Vox has lots of articles on this season, I'm kinda partial to this one).  It was a mess, and I think largely because they cut these past two seasons down to 7 & 6 episodes meaning they had to rush through everything.  Last season could be boiled down to: kill everyone on the periphery off, and this one was: the conclusion needs to happen so it will, even though it won't make sense because we didn't put in the time and effort to bring viewers along.

I felt like we were watching the cliffs notes version of a series (which, at some level, we probably were).  Daenerys's arc seems arbitrary, but more time (last season and this one) may have allowed her sense of isolation from these new allies and would-be subjects to make more sense.  Ser Brienne gets her due then turns into a bad trope.  Jon is, as he has been for most of the series, pretty much like a puppy: loyal and cute but not all that bright.  Sansa is the best handled character but her very sensible statement that the North would be independent, was met with shrugs?  No one else there thought "Hey, wait, I'd like to be independent too," or "I think having the North split off will be problematic so we shouldn't let that happen."? and so much more...

I really hope GRRM finishes the books because that will have to be a better version of this ending, but I can see how this ending could work.  It just didn't because the whole last two seasons have been lacking in the character development necessary to make it work.

Shout Out to a Good Read

This is all correct.  Also, very frustrating.

Present Day As Seen from THE FUTURE!

This is an interesting thought project, and there are several things on there that are probably right, but, like all prediction things, mostly probably wrong or, at best, not right. 

I haven't gotten through all of them.  The eating meat one seemed perfunctory, and there is a solid argument to be made there, but that article itself was just bad (for me it was much more eye-roll inducing than thoughtful, for reasons that should be obvious).  The abortion one I have not read yet, but it is another that there is a solid argument for yet I'm suspicious that the article will be any good.  Some are already being looked at as bad (tackle football for kids, the drug war...), others seem to require a very specific idea about something to view it as bad (401k's, no bosses).  Still others seem more like fantasy notions from Star Trek fans (conspicuous consumption, Facebook and Google)--not that they're wrong about the bad, but the future isn't likely to bend that way.

Probably more interesting than useful, but it is more of a fun read than most news these days.

Pelosi Wants the Republicans to Contol the House

At least that's what it seems like from her stupid "no impeachment unless it's bipartisan" comment.  I can think of some good reasons for her to be publicly hesitant to endorse impeachment right now, but I can't think of any good reason for her to say that it must be bipartisan to proceed.  That's just a complete abdication of responsibility. If she's serious, then she's worse than the all the bad things people say about here are not bad enough.  If she's not, she's just handed Republicans something to hit back with if impeachment does happen.  Either way it was a monumentally stupid thing to say, and I generally think she's a pretty damn good politician and a very good Speaker of the House. 

Cashless and Cash Only Stores

Neither of these makes a lot of sense to me and the Philadelphia area has both, though the cashless stores are now illegal in Philly proper.

I get that cash is a source of loss (via employee theft) for businesses and that credit card service fees can be crippling, but to completely shut out potential customers by requiring only one or the other just doesn't make sense.  I try to leave tips in cash (since some restaurants take the fees out of the tip otherwise), and when I'm dealing with smaller businesses (like my local deli) I try to use cash to save them the fees. When I'm going out to a nicer restaurant, on the other hand, and the bill is going to be in the $50 per person, I want to use my card--in large part because I don't generally have or want to have that much cash on me. 

Please Don't Run Joe

I don't really have a particular favorite among the declared Democratic candidates for president, but I really do not want Biden.  I'm not as sure as everyone else seems to be that he'd win the nomination if he ran, but I really do not want him, and I really hope he doesn't run.  He's basically all the bad aspects of Clinton and Obama without either of their upside (oversimplified: he's a pro business Dem who is also a white dude). 

Shorter Klobuchar...

Vote for me because...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I know very little about Amy Klobuchar, but what I have read/heard in the past was that she was a very competent legislator and that people in MN like her.  (For this I'll ignore the possible mistreatment of staff issue...I suspect it's true, but not sure it's actually any worse than how many people--men--in power mistreat their staffs). 

If you want to run for president you should probably, you know, stand for something...have some vision of what America could do or be.  She just seems to want to knock down others' visions, and that's ok if you've got your own but she just doesn't.  This is actually a gripe of mine from Obama in some ways (he was really good at laying out better-nature-of-ourselves type aspirational cases, but when it came to policy aspirations he was not so aspirational at all).  Also pretty sure I complained about this with Clinton last election. 

Yea, maybe a single payer health care plan for the US (e.g.) isn't going to happen in the next 4-10 years, but that isn't a good reason to say it shouldn't.  Also, we're the biggest, wealthiest country on the planet...to the extent that something like that "isn't possible" it's because politicians won't fucking try, not that it isn't actually, you know, impossible. 

Pretty Much Proves Progressives Right

I suppose it's unsurprising that Wall Street would prefer Trump to Warren, but it's hard to read this article about it without coming to a couple pretty simple conclusions:

1. The people who are "Wall Street" are stupid and greedy.
2. We really need someone like Elizabeth Warren to crack down on them.

There's really a lot to unpack in the first one, but an oversimplification is that a stable economy that helps everyone, even one with higher taxes on rich people is better than an unstable economy that primarily benefits rich people and this is true EVEN FOR RICH PEOPLE.  Yes, rich people may not make quite as much in said stable economy but on the other hand, they don't need to worry about torches and pitchforks, which is where we're headed. 

There were lots of stupid things there too: Warren is not a socialist and is actually more of a capitalist than many of the other Democratic contenders.  Pro-Wall Street isn't actually capitalist.  The economy we have with Wall Street as some form of center is pretty severely distorted from capitalism.  If it were actually capitalist there probably wouldn't be a single surviving [major] Wall Street institution following the financial crisis.  Gains going private and losses being eaten by the public is not capitalism. 

The fact that those people belive the crap they're spewing and the fact that they would prefer Trump speaks pretty strongly for how corrupt and vile they are.  They need far more regulation than they have been subject to. 

Creekside Co-op Fails

My local cooperative grocery just closed its doors.  There have been issues from the start, and it's hard to say what exactly was the nail in the coffin, but in my opinion it was a combination of the meat/seafood and the organic emphasis.  The former is easy enough to outline but hard to fix: the meat, poultry and seafood were very limited and too expensive, and some of that is tough to manage at a smaller store, but there's a small butcher near me that has excellent selection and prices, so I suspect that it had a lot to do with the other issue: there was an insistence by the founding members that this store be heavy on the organic, local, smaller farm sourced...everything. 

In some areas this was nice: they always had a better selection of apples than any big chain grocery store around here (including Wegmans), and the ones that were not organic labeled were priced well.  In fact, I greatly preferred getting produce there, and consequently that was one of the main things we would get.  They also had excellent milk (including raw and goat) and other dairy products (though not really cheeses) from nearby dairies, and now I'm going to need to go out of my way to get something decent.  There was a really good local ice cream that I've never seen anywhere else (will need to check other co-ops maybe), and some of the bread/bakery goods were great, though I don't think specific to them and kinda pricey but we don't eat too much bread.  Their prepared foods were good, and the store cooked meats in the deli were some of the best I've ever had (roast beef and roast pork in particular). 

Then there was the antibiotic free, humanely raised or something chicken.  One [small] rotisserie chicken: $12 (maybe $15). A--likely significantly bigger--one from Costco: $5 (and ~$7 at most big groceries).  Sure there are people who can afford and are willing to shell out more for less because it is [ostensibly] better (for the chicken, maybe the planet), but most people don't care enough and maybe can't really afford to care that much. 

I'm perfectly willing to admit that meat products are generally too cheap and we consequently eat too much meat, but if you're 2x the price of the other grocers then you're not going to lure people away.  A 10% price premium can probably work, maybe 20% on select items, but those chickens were effectively 3-5x the price at Costco, and that's a big ask.  The other meat/seafood options were not as extreme, but still too high priced, and too poor of a selection for us to get anything there.  Even if meat was the only thing we didn't get there that still probably accounts for nearly 50% of our grocery spending, but that wasn't all.  We use a lot of dried beans, and the selection at the coop was just way too limited (and, again, often organic).  We also use canned/frozen veggies that were either not available or only available from some small producer at 2-3x the price. 

It's a nice idea to feature smaller producers and locally sourced items but if it's difficult for people to get a standard set of groceries for a comparable price to the bigger stores, it's not going to work. 

Is This Satire?

I read this piece by Matt Yglesias at Vox and I really can't tell if it's supposed to be read seriously or not.  No commentary on it, just a question to the void...

For Me? Because "Vegan" Isn't a Real Thing.

I wouldn't say that I "hate" vegans, but I do find the notion of being a vegan (as opposed to vegetarian) monumentally stupid.  The issue is that there is no such thing as vegan in the real world.  I suppose that if you got your 5 acres properly planted and maintained the ecosystem in some ideal fashion you could avoid eating any product of animal labors or whatever they're calling it, but even then, probably not!

First note: a vegitarian diet generally kills lots of animals.  Not for eating, but just because farming of many plant products kills lots of small animals.  Sure, they aren't deliberately killed, and they weren't kept in captivity, but the act of producing a loaf of bread will also produce dead animals.

The specific issue with veganism is that you aren't supposed to even use animals as a labor input to your food (e.g. no honey), but there is approaching zero farming that does not use animal input.  Specifically pollination.  Much pollination in this country is from honey bees that are kept (farmed) and moved around to polinate fields.  Without pollination, no food (well, a lot less). 

The fact is that being humane to animals does not require even a vegetarian diet, but if you don't want to eat the flesh of animals, I get that (and you're probably healthier than me), but to extend that to full veganism is, from a logical perspective, stupid.  If you don't like cheese and eggs (or honey or dairy more generally, or wear leather or...) that's fine, but calling that a separate diet from "vegetarian" is a level of smug that is both unnecessary and inappropriate.  You are certainly profiting from the work of animals, and your diet does result in the death of animals.  So vegetarian is a diet choice.  Vegan is really just a smug "lifestyle" choice. 

Future Failure

Not sure what's going to happen, either with the supreme court [monster] nominee nor with elections this fall, but I do know that, if Democrats gain power in the house and senate, and they don't impeach Kavanaugh (assuming he'll still be confirmed), then they will have failed miserably.  They won't likely have the votes to remove him, but if they allow that horrible human to get a free pass (again, assuming he's confirmed) then it is going to further erode what trust Americans (particularly women) still have that there is anyone in Washington that actually gives a damn about them.