this article seems to back up the idea, but i await the data:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-immune-system-evolves-to-fight-coronavirus-variants/

so, i went googling for the answer to something and it doesn't seem like there's a good answer, yet.

i understand that your body won't necessarily recognize these new variants, if you've already caught and defeated a previous variant. i was possibly even the person that told you that months ago, as i was pointing out that you can't get sick from the same virus twice - unless it mutates, first. and, now it has.

but, many have speculated that a previous infection may increase the chances of survival if it is caught in mutated form at some point in the future, and i was wondering if we had data for that yet - and apparently do not.

but, i suspect, in the end, that we will learn this is true: while a previous infection is not immunity against a new variant, it certainly tilts the playing field. and, as these variants potentially become more concerning than the common cold, which was about the danger level of the first variant, this fact should strike you as enraging.

for, i suspect i already caught this a long time ago, and, if i didn't, it wasn't due to lack of trying. what should you tell the wife of a man who avoided the initial variants like the plague, only to catch a more deadly variant, with no prior immunity from the less deadly strains? that man might have functionally vaccinated himself by catching the less deadly variant, while he could, had the government not prevented him from doing so. but, now it is too late.

these things are never simple, and one-approach-for-all rarely works. if the intent was to eradicate this virus, you should have given up on that months ago - and should be called out as a laughingstock should you bring it up, now. and, once that was clear, these different approaches should have been considered, based on different risk factors.

are these new variants deadly enough that i should be concerned about them? the preliminary data still suggests "no", but the certainty level is a lot lower. and, while i wish i had access to an antibody test so i knew for sure, i do hope i have the benefit of previous exposure, in spite of the state's behaviour, rather than because of it.

you can win a battle, but it doesn't mean you've won the war. 

for that reason, teutoburg forest is actually the most substantive battle in this list, as it established a boundary between the roman and german realms, and if you want a real turning point, i'd actually point to it rather than adrianople. i know this is very early for a turning point, but it was a turning point towards stagnation, which is the precursor to decline. at teutoburg, the romans lost the war - whereas at cannae and adrianople, they merely lost battles in wars that would continue on.

the goths caused a lot of problems, but they could not hold land in the east; this was a lost battle, and not a lost war.

so, when did the romans substantively lose ground in the northern balkan areas? it wasn't really until the slavs started pouring in, and the various turkic groups followed them. unlike the goths, the slavs made the land their own and pushed the roman boundaries south.

that said, it was perhaps a turning point for the germans who could now take the field with a higher degree of confidence, and less fear that they were fighting a superior foe. and, that goes back to the stagnation i previously referenced - it's not like the germans were technological juggernauts, all of a sudden, but their slow rate of development outstripped the stagnation that beset rome the day that caesar took power and declared a dictatorship.

yeah, i happen to have a leveler around so i crammed some cardboard under the fridge and i've at least got it leveled out. we'll see if that helps.

i also got my new scale in today, and i hope it's better on batteries; it's aaa, so i can use dead rechargables, thereby converting the scale from a battery waste producer to a battery recycler. great.

i am legitimately feeling more awake and am curious as to how much i can measure the difference in terms of ferritin stores - like, is this working really well or just barely? and, is taking an iron pill once a week something i should work into my diet plan?

as i can't get access to a hepcidin test, i've decided that the next thing i should ask for is a total vitamin and mineral count, and as much via urine as is possible. well, it'll actually help me understand if i have a general absorption issue or a broad one, as it lets me point to any other weak points in the diet.

unfortunately, i'll have to assume it's genetic until or unless i can get the test done, but if i do this test and come back with a dozen other deficiencies, i'll know there's something deeper than an iron absorption problem going on; conversely, if iron is literally the only thing wrong, then it must be just absorption. or a serious internal wound somewhere, i suppose.

so, i'll do vitamins on trip 1, minerals on trip 2 and potentially proteins on trip 3.

there is, however, a possibility that the fridge might be crooked, as these basement floors are not perfectly level. this isn't the first time i've notice leakage, and it tends to be worst in the summer - which makes sense. but, i took the fridge out to clean behind it the other day, as well. it's certainly possible that i might have left the fridge tilted, exacerbating the existing problem.

i'm going to watch how he takes it apart...

like i say - i don't own this device, and replacing a fridge really isn't in my budget.

once he comes down here and does that, i can finish cleaning on that side.

i'm going to guess that the fridge has a blocked condenser unit in the freezer, and that water is building up under the freezer and falling into the fridge.

it started acting up when we had that humid snap last week, and has mostly cleared up, for now.

i have it blocked with some paper towel, but that's not going to work - i need to get it fixed, and i don't want to open the fridge (which i do not own.) up myself.

ok, i'm done with the cleaning i wanted to do, at least for now.

my landlord needs to look at the fridge, which has been leaking, so i'm going to hold off on a few things to ensure he can get in and out.

i'm just going to get something to eat, and i'll be able to get to organizing data on the recording pc, next - and ready to start on finalizing  the journal for august very soon.

the united states will never leave afghanistan, until the day they are driven out.

nice try, though, gi joe.

this is my isp, and i want lower rates, but i don't think that creating more competition is going to reduce rates, and i'd suggest this person needs to take a course in actual economics (rather than relying on pop culture colloquialisms) if they do.

rather, i'd suggest that the reduction in competition will probably help stabilize rates, if it's accompanied by relevant regulatory measures, the lack of which are the actual problem here, not a lack of competition.

internet lines are a natural monopoly, like roads and healthcare, and we need less competition if we want to reduce prices, not more. i'd repeat my longstanding call for the state to nationalize the lines, and remove the ceos and other executives from the process altogether.

the internet should belong to the people, not to the corporations. and, we should make decisions about it democratically, not leave it up to the market.

i consequently support the merger as a step towards the end of the marketization of internet services in canada, and call on the government to increase the pace of consolidation on the path to nationalization.

https://blogs.teksavvy.com/rogers-shaw-merger-3-steps-to-protect-consumers-and-boost-competition

everybody knows that you can't kill kenney, he'll just keep coming back over and over again.

it would be nice to get rid of him for a little while, though.

i wouldn't get particularly excited, given that the far right is most likely to take advantage of the situation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-ndp-majority-poll-1.5986052

it turns out that the last step of cleaning was the most time-consuming - sorting through a giant pile of paper. it's almost done.

today's post is inri026, which was split off as a single from the second record because i didn't have the source material required to remove the vocals.

=======

so, i went through a string of extremely cold basements in the late 90s.... 

it was half heating costs; on that level, i could even agree for environmental reasons. but it was half because my step-mother legitimately prefers absolutely frigid, air-conditioner-level temperatures and didn't want hot air rising from the basement to ruin the chilly temperature upstairs. you can understand how that might get frustrating sometimes. 

i was offered a room upstairs, but then i'd have to go to bed at 10:00 pm rather than stay up until 4:00 am recording music and chatting on the internet. clearly an unacceptable proposal.... 

the song is more than a silly story, it was legitimately a sort of morbid fantasy i was having. there wasn't any real chance that i was going to light the basement on fire, or anything; if i were to do that, i might ruin my guitar, and then i'd be worse off. the story runs a little off the rails, but that is it's charm. 

this track was initially constructed as the last track for inclusion on my second record, inriched (inri021), and sequenced as the penultimate track (as the viewless/suicide sequence had already been decided upon as the ending track). the track was finished on the evening of the 5th; i finished the cover art on the evening of the 6th. so, it was completed to fill the record, sort of thing - although i don't want to call it filler, because i've never created anything for that reason. it remained in that position, as the 14th track, from february, 1999 until jan, 2016 when it was split off for the technical reason that i wasn't able to remove the vocals because i didn't retain source material. 

however, i've always viewed the track as transitional; i realized, even at the time, that i was starting something new rather than ending something, with this. in hindsight, the wandering electro-prog in the track is certainly more in the spirit of what would follow. further, it is actually fitting that the track was removed due to a lack of source material, as that defines what i created over 1999 (which i'm retroactively labelling period 1.3). 

as the track was still on inriched through 2013, it was remastered along with the rest of the record. a version was also produced for the deleted inricycled b compilation, which included some extra mastering and the removal of the opening sample. these versions were both mastered to fit into their respective sequences; while they're both improvements, neither really captured the essence of the track as it's own thing. so, a final standalone mix was constructed in sept, 2017 to permanently close the ep. 

initially written in the fall of 1997. recorded in the winter of 1999. remixed in late 2013 and again in early 2014. this track was separated from my second record in january, 2016 but the single was not completed until it was remixed one last time in sept, 2017. released & finalized on sept 10, 2017. as always, please use headphones. 

this track was removed from my second record, inriched (inri021): jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched 

the lead version is now on the outtakes compilation, inrimoved (inri042): jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inrimoved 

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1999, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017). 

released february 5, 1999 

j - guitars, effects, bass, sequencing, drum programming, synths, vocals, loops, samples, digital wave editing

see, it's interesting to contrast the roman description of the huns - who they saw as utter barbarians, void of any redeeming qualities - with the roman description of the celts, who they saw as ignorant, noble savages. william  wallace aside,  their depiction of the celts in art and literature is of this brave and noble, if primitive, race. nor had that much time passed, either. so, there must be something to this vicious description, which i should point out is mirrored by the chinese sources, who, if anything, were even harder on them, and held them in even greater contempt, and with even greater derision. so, is this really so hard to take seriously, this idea that there could be a people so vicious, and so without redeeming value? and, you have to let evolution take over - and realize they thought the same thing about these effeminate, weak civilized tribes, with their magic and their learned knowledge, who hoarded all the food for themselves, but who couldn't survive for a week on the land. in writing the huns off as without redeeming value in the context of settled civilization, it's important to put the goalposts in perspective.

but, i'm going to agree with the analysis. as an anarchist of the left, i have a soft spot for german barbarism and realize my biases come from engels, in doing so - i like this idea of the egalitarian barbarian, who is loyal to their tribe and rejects empire and taxation. but, the huns had none of these qualities. they were an empire on wheels - they took in the most brutal aspects of imperialism, without bothering with the refinements of civilization, and designed their culture to ensure they'd never get drawn in.

for all my anti-imperialist rhetoric, there are no heroes in the ranks of the huns.

if you follow the hsiong-nu derivation, the story is that the han took control over the pass that we now call the silk road, which the huns previously raided, and the huns lost their source of income and had to flee west. the time frames add up reasonably well.