so, we're done up until the 25th, and it's time to stop to eat.
after i finish eating, i will have one more segment to complete before i can start posting this and moving on to the next thing, which is filing a complaint against the divisional court judge in federal court, and just generally checking up on the court stuff.
after that, i will need to work through the various liner notes for all of those records that i released or re-released over january, 2014. and, then, i can finally pivot to period three.
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
there will inevitably be some people that will be unable to define any meaningful reason to exist when given the freedom to do so, and will choose perpetual drunkenness in the face of objective meaninglessness as a rational conclusion of their own futility.
and, that's really ok.
we should stop pretending that it isn't, or that there's any better way around it - that's a choice, and it should be respected for what it is.
and, that's really ok.
we should stop pretending that it isn't, or that there's any better way around it - that's a choice, and it should be respected for what it is.
i think there's little question that drinking can form a bad habit, or that psychiatric intervention may be useful in helping people break that bad habit, as it may be in any other habitual or compulsive behaviour.
and, i don't really doubt that physical addiction to alcohol is theoretically possible in the most extreme scenarios, even if i think it's over-diagnosed as a bad excuse for smelly drunks.
what i think is flatly absurd is the idea that it's genetic, or an inherited condition, and that "alcoholics" are essentially powerless because their dna renders them helpless. that's just fucking ridiculous, and any organization pushing that idea is a dangerous cult that should be driven into the sea with pitchforks.
what "alcoholics" need is some kind of drive, some kind of purpose. they need something they'd rather do than get fucked up. and, i do think it's that simple - they really just need some focus in life where they're able to say "i'd rather do this than get drunk".
you might ask "are the kids not enough?" or "is their partner not enough?" or "is (insert whatever) not enough?", and you might even get defensive about it or question a person's morals if they give you the "wrong" answer. but the answer is rather clearly that, no, it isn't enough, and that's why the person is resorting to the bottle. an empirical analysis is that the kids and the partner and the (insert whatever) are actually the source of the problem for this person, who rather obviously doesn't want kids or isn't happy with their partner or wants out of (insert whatever). and, they need to be helped to realize that - that kids aren't for everybody, and sometimes relationships cause more problems than they solve, and that society doesn't provide one-size-fits-all solutions.
i'm just approaching this from a basic existentialist position: it's really just a question of defining some reason to exist and following through with it. objective purpose may be a delusion, and realizing it may make drunkeness rational, to a certain extent. but, transcending that means making up your own purpose, defining your own reasons, setting your own goals and then following through with them.
for a lot of people, the hard part is going to be in telling society to fuck off - and the help they really need is in building the self-confidence to actually do it.
don't let your loved ones get eaten by these cults. help them to see that they're alone in this universe, and need to define their own purpose all by themselves.
https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/is-alcoholism-a-disease-heres-the-evidence-and-logic/
and, i don't really doubt that physical addiction to alcohol is theoretically possible in the most extreme scenarios, even if i think it's over-diagnosed as a bad excuse for smelly drunks.
what i think is flatly absurd is the idea that it's genetic, or an inherited condition, and that "alcoholics" are essentially powerless because their dna renders them helpless. that's just fucking ridiculous, and any organization pushing that idea is a dangerous cult that should be driven into the sea with pitchforks.
what "alcoholics" need is some kind of drive, some kind of purpose. they need something they'd rather do than get fucked up. and, i do think it's that simple - they really just need some focus in life where they're able to say "i'd rather do this than get drunk".
you might ask "are the kids not enough?" or "is their partner not enough?" or "is (insert whatever) not enough?", and you might even get defensive about it or question a person's morals if they give you the "wrong" answer. but the answer is rather clearly that, no, it isn't enough, and that's why the person is resorting to the bottle. an empirical analysis is that the kids and the partner and the (insert whatever) are actually the source of the problem for this person, who rather obviously doesn't want kids or isn't happy with their partner or wants out of (insert whatever). and, they need to be helped to realize that - that kids aren't for everybody, and sometimes relationships cause more problems than they solve, and that society doesn't provide one-size-fits-all solutions.
i'm just approaching this from a basic existentialist position: it's really just a question of defining some reason to exist and following through with it. objective purpose may be a delusion, and realizing it may make drunkeness rational, to a certain extent. but, transcending that means making up your own purpose, defining your own reasons, setting your own goals and then following through with them.
for a lot of people, the hard part is going to be in telling society to fuck off - and the help they really need is in building the self-confidence to actually do it.
don't let your loved ones get eaten by these cults. help them to see that they're alone in this universe, and need to define their own purpose all by themselves.
https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/is-alcoholism-a-disease-heres-the-evidence-and-logic/
i'm just updating some posts, and i want to resummarize something that i've posted about a few times, because i think it's one of the more substantive ideas i've posted in this space over the years.
natural selection should always be treated as a hypothesis to be demonstrated, and should never be treated as an assumption to be uncovered.
i'm not actually arguing with the modern evolutionary synthesis, although i might be reproportioning it - all biologists agree that randomness and selection don't just work at cross-purposes, but are necessary for each other. what i'm actually trying to do is formalize this, because so much of what happens in evolutionary biology really isn't actually science, for the reason that they're so hardwired into their assumptions.
so, let's say you have a species of spider that eats it's mate before it breeds, and this behaviour is observed to decrease reproductive rates. oops. i've read papers where serious biologists try to argue that this is natural selection at work, which is retarded, but why are they doing that? because the synthesis has it drilled into them - everything is selection.
but, everything is not selection, and a spider that eats it's mate before it fucks it is obviously malfunctioning at a pretty brutal level. pointing out that this is obvious, while obvious, is not actually science either, though. so, what is science?
well, you need to throw a statement down and try and disprove it! that's how you do science, and the exact opposite of what evolutionary biologists do on a day-to-day basis.
science, in context, means doing this - you assume drift, and try to prove it wrong. it's only once you've ruled out drift that you can deduce selection.
in fact, this is obvious, and no biologist would disagree with me, when presented in such flamboyant terms as this. so, why don't biologists just fucking do it right, then? why do they need a logician, of all things, to yell at them to use the scientific method?
it's cultural. no, really, that's the right answer; biology is less removed from religion than the other sciences are. that's the actual correct answer, here. but, this excuse is fading, and even reversing.
nowadays, biologists are far more data driven than, say, physicists are. it's the physicists that are stuck with unfalsifiable theories nowadays, and the biologists that are basically doing applied chemistry.
so, this is a call to the field of evolutionary biology to clean itself up and start being more rigorous. you can't just assume any old trait is selection - you have to actually prove it.
natural selection should always be treated as a hypothesis to be demonstrated, and should never be treated as an assumption to be uncovered.
i'm not actually arguing with the modern evolutionary synthesis, although i might be reproportioning it - all biologists agree that randomness and selection don't just work at cross-purposes, but are necessary for each other. what i'm actually trying to do is formalize this, because so much of what happens in evolutionary biology really isn't actually science, for the reason that they're so hardwired into their assumptions.
so, let's say you have a species of spider that eats it's mate before it breeds, and this behaviour is observed to decrease reproductive rates. oops. i've read papers where serious biologists try to argue that this is natural selection at work, which is retarded, but why are they doing that? because the synthesis has it drilled into them - everything is selection.
but, everything is not selection, and a spider that eats it's mate before it fucks it is obviously malfunctioning at a pretty brutal level. pointing out that this is obvious, while obvious, is not actually science either, though. so, what is science?
well, you need to throw a statement down and try and disprove it! that's how you do science, and the exact opposite of what evolutionary biologists do on a day-to-day basis.
science, in context, means doing this - you assume drift, and try to prove it wrong. it's only once you've ruled out drift that you can deduce selection.
in fact, this is obvious, and no biologist would disagree with me, when presented in such flamboyant terms as this. so, why don't biologists just fucking do it right, then? why do they need a logician, of all things, to yell at them to use the scientific method?
it's cultural. no, really, that's the right answer; biology is less removed from religion than the other sciences are. that's the actual correct answer, here. but, this excuse is fading, and even reversing.
nowadays, biologists are far more data driven than, say, physicists are. it's the physicists that are stuck with unfalsifiable theories nowadays, and the biologists that are basically doing applied chemistry.
so, this is a call to the field of evolutionary biology to clean itself up and start being more rigorous. you can't just assume any old trait is selection - you have to actually prove it.
Monday, May 18, 2020
i was almost feeling normal yesterday for a bit, before the heater turned back on.
i'm not depressed. i'm just dehydrated. the chemical i'm not getting enough of is water. and, i've done enough of an experiment to convince myself of it.
we could still get some downpours, but the scary system coming in seems to have broken up just south of the border and looked something more like this when it get here:
i succeeded in getting the humidity in here up on saturday to a point where i felt healthy, but what i had to do in order to do it was pretty insane - i had to run the shower nonstop for hours, while continually washing my face. i'd have to essentially sit in a sauna for six hours a day. i can't do that on a daily basis.
the forecast was a tease last week, but it looks like we should finally get some more humid weather soon, and i can only hope it clicks into place for a nice, long humid summer so i don't have to constantly run the shower to offset the desiccation...
but, i mean, if i'm inside all summer, and the air kicks in, that's the reality of what's going to happen. i'm not going to sit in here and shiver in dry, cold air, with shit all over my face. the shower is going to be running nonstop so i can clean myself...
for now, i'm going to finish a few things up this morning before i get back to running the hot water for a few hours to try and undo the heaters, and hope it works.
i'm not depressed. i'm just dehydrated. the chemical i'm not getting enough of is water. and, i've done enough of an experiment to convince myself of it.
we could still get some downpours, but the scary system coming in seems to have broken up just south of the border and looked something more like this when it get here:
i succeeded in getting the humidity in here up on saturday to a point where i felt healthy, but what i had to do in order to do it was pretty insane - i had to run the shower nonstop for hours, while continually washing my face. i'd have to essentially sit in a sauna for six hours a day. i can't do that on a daily basis.
the forecast was a tease last week, but it looks like we should finally get some more humid weather soon, and i can only hope it clicks into place for a nice, long humid summer so i don't have to constantly run the shower to offset the desiccation...
but, i mean, if i'm inside all summer, and the air kicks in, that's the reality of what's going to happen. i'm not going to sit in here and shiver in dry, cold air, with shit all over my face. the shower is going to be running nonstop so i can clean myself...
for now, i'm going to finish a few things up this morning before i get back to running the hot water for a few hours to try and undo the heaters, and hope it works.
hey, listen - i don't think i'd like to live under chinese hegemony, and, thankfully, i don't think it's likely to happen any time soon. i can, have before and will again intellectually react to the idea, and i don't have a lot of patience for the useful idiots, but i don't fear it; it's not imminent.
do not fool yourselves - they would invade, conquer and colonize us if they could, just like we tried to do to them not so long ago. see, that's the thing about the chinese - they're our mirror reflection. they're exactly the same as us, in all the worst ways. and, they're an alien culture in a very real sense, in a way that the russians and even the arabs really aren't. china doesn't come from greece, or rome or egypt - it's a different planet, altogether.
but, at least they'd stamp out this festering, lingering problem that canada is developing around religion.
hey, there's an upside to everything, right?
do not fool yourselves - they would invade, conquer and colonize us if they could, just like we tried to do to them not so long ago. see, that's the thing about the chinese - they're our mirror reflection. they're exactly the same as us, in all the worst ways. and, they're an alien culture in a very real sense, in a way that the russians and even the arabs really aren't. china doesn't come from greece, or rome or egypt - it's a different planet, altogether.
but, at least they'd stamp out this festering, lingering problem that canada is developing around religion.
hey, there's an upside to everything, right?
pynchon's ellipsis use is legendary.
https://pynchonnotes.openlibhums.org/article/id/2850/
wherever she got it from, that's were i got it from, not my mother.
https://pynchonnotes.openlibhums.org/article/id/2850/
wherever she got it from, that's were i got it from, not my mother.
i want to say a little about my mother's writing style, because i'm noticing how strangely it is actually like mine, and it may lead random readers to a false conclusion. in fact, as far as i can tell, the influence flows in the other direction, and it's actually a little bit creepy.
the primary overlap is in the use of the ellipsis (...), which is something that goes very far back in my writing style, and that i mostly picked up from pynchon. i will admit that there was a period in the late 90s where i was very purposefully attempting to emulate his writing style, and i ended up overusing it, even falling into it as a bit of a crutch. it's come in and out of prominence since then, but it's never really gone away; i'd say it's largely become something i use when i'm being lazy nowadays, but i do still use it fairly frequently.
i was online about 1997 or so and it's been at the centre of my life ever since. however, my mother did not get a computer until the early 00s, and while there were some random emails sent, i don't recall reading much of anything she'd written in any detail until she added me on facebook around 2010.
i do, however, believe that she spent a very large amount of time reading my old web site at https://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2. in the few emails that she sent me between 2003 and 2008, she was using the tagline - those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - as her email signature. i think it meant something different to her than me, though; i was using it to suggest that we were spiralling back into fascism, whereas she seems to have been using it as reference to her alcoholism.
regardless, i get the impression that she spent hours and hours sorting through that page. maybe she felt it was the only way to really understand who i was as a person, given that i'd been so distant from her for so long. i think i may have spent something on the order of ten hours with her between 1996 and 2003; i was living with my father, and she was struggling with a severe heroin addiction.
i guess i first sent her the link around 2002 or so. the emulation, since then, is noticeable enough to conclude it isn't a coincidence. but, does she just write that way when she's typing to me? is it more of a reflection of the fact that it coincided with her first serious computer use? she's nearing but not yet at retirement age, but she's never had a meaningful job in her life, and she wouldn't have done much typing in the 70s, when she was in high school. i don't know the answers to these questions...
but, i know i've noticed the similarity, meaning you might have noticed it as well, and i do think the influence flows from me to her, that she was heavily influenced by my writing.
i honestly don't think i'd seen a phrase she'd typed for upwards of ten years after i started writing...
the primary overlap is in the use of the ellipsis (...), which is something that goes very far back in my writing style, and that i mostly picked up from pynchon. i will admit that there was a period in the late 90s where i was very purposefully attempting to emulate his writing style, and i ended up overusing it, even falling into it as a bit of a crutch. it's come in and out of prominence since then, but it's never really gone away; i'd say it's largely become something i use when i'm being lazy nowadays, but i do still use it fairly frequently.
i was online about 1997 or so and it's been at the centre of my life ever since. however, my mother did not get a computer until the early 00s, and while there were some random emails sent, i don't recall reading much of anything she'd written in any detail until she added me on facebook around 2010.
i do, however, believe that she spent a very large amount of time reading my old web site at https://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2. in the few emails that she sent me between 2003 and 2008, she was using the tagline - those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - as her email signature. i think it meant something different to her than me, though; i was using it to suggest that we were spiralling back into fascism, whereas she seems to have been using it as reference to her alcoholism.
regardless, i get the impression that she spent hours and hours sorting through that page. maybe she felt it was the only way to really understand who i was as a person, given that i'd been so distant from her for so long. i think i may have spent something on the order of ten hours with her between 1996 and 2003; i was living with my father, and she was struggling with a severe heroin addiction.
i guess i first sent her the link around 2002 or so. the emulation, since then, is noticeable enough to conclude it isn't a coincidence. but, does she just write that way when she's typing to me? is it more of a reflection of the fact that it coincided with her first serious computer use? she's nearing but not yet at retirement age, but she's never had a meaningful job in her life, and she wouldn't have done much typing in the 70s, when she was in high school. i don't know the answers to these questions...
but, i know i've noticed the similarity, meaning you might have noticed it as well, and i do think the influence flows from me to her, that she was heavily influenced by my writing.
i honestly don't think i'd seen a phrase she'd typed for upwards of ten years after i started writing...
Sunday, May 17, 2020
the idea of the government giving money to charity - any charity - is a complete collapse of the system, a total failure at the most fundamental level.
that should never happen.
that money should be directed towards state-funded resources.
we're going to wake up in america if this keeps up. this has to stop.
that should never, ever, ever happen under any circumstance.
that should never happen.
that money should be directed towards state-funded resources.
we're going to wake up in america if this keeps up. this has to stop.
that should never, ever, ever happen under any circumstance.
why is the current government of canada donating money to the red cross?
this is a discredited and defunded organization, in this country.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/have-we-forgotten-the-lessons-of-the-tainted-blood-scandal/article37097051/
this is a discredited and defunded organization, in this country.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/have-we-forgotten-the-lessons-of-the-tainted-blood-scandal/article37097051/
pow! pow!
nanananananana
zam! bang! boom!
what a fucking idiot.
https://www.cp24.com/world/priest-uses-squirt-gun-to-shoot-holy-water-in-fight-against-coronavirus-1.4943416
nanananananana
zam! bang! boom!
what a fucking idiot.
https://www.cp24.com/world/priest-uses-squirt-gun-to-shoot-holy-water-in-fight-against-coronavirus-1.4943416
so, as was obvious, biden thinks he can win georgia and is going to campaign on flipping the south, which is exactly the same error that sanders made in the primaries, and exactly the same error that clinton made in 2016.
biden cannot win georgia. in fact, he's less popular amongst blacks than clinton was.
he can't win arizona, either - he's not popular amongst hispanics, at all.
this is why i went through this deconstruction in the primaries - i saw this coming, and wanted to argue against it.
if biden carries through with this strategy, he is going to lose very badly - worse than clinton did. why am i so sure of this? because it's the same strategy that clinton carried out, and he's a less popular candidate than clinton was with the demographics that he needs to carry over that strategy.
while he is less popular amongst blacks than clinton was, biden does seems to be more popular amongst older white voters than clinton was, so he may have a strategy to win states like ohio and pennsylvania, if he does this right. but, while he's more popular with white voters than clinton, and this is the actually reason he beat sanders in actual swing states, it's not clear if it's enough to beat trump in these states.
it's still the better strategy. and, if he sinks his resources into trying to win in the south, he's just going to have the same outcome as the last time somebody tried that, and the time before that, and...
if the democrats want to get 99% of black voters again, if they think that's their best approach, then they're going to have to run an actual black candidate.
and, i don't understand why they're having such a hard time with this, when it's so fucking obvious.
biden cannot win georgia. in fact, he's less popular amongst blacks than clinton was.
he can't win arizona, either - he's not popular amongst hispanics, at all.
this is why i went through this deconstruction in the primaries - i saw this coming, and wanted to argue against it.
if biden carries through with this strategy, he is going to lose very badly - worse than clinton did. why am i so sure of this? because it's the same strategy that clinton carried out, and he's a less popular candidate than clinton was with the demographics that he needs to carry over that strategy.
while he is less popular amongst blacks than clinton was, biden does seems to be more popular amongst older white voters than clinton was, so he may have a strategy to win states like ohio and pennsylvania, if he does this right. but, while he's more popular with white voters than clinton, and this is the actually reason he beat sanders in actual swing states, it's not clear if it's enough to beat trump in these states.
it's still the better strategy. and, if he sinks his resources into trying to win in the south, he's just going to have the same outcome as the last time somebody tried that, and the time before that, and...
if the democrats want to get 99% of black voters again, if they think that's their best approach, then they're going to have to run an actual black candidate.
and, i don't understand why they're having such a hard time with this, when it's so fucking obvious.
your body is just a computer; there's no magic, no mystery, no woo, nothing out there to try to grasp on to.
if it's malfunctioning, it's missing some chemical, and can be fixed by taking some drug. fine.
but, you need to prove to me what's wrong, first. i'm not interested in just randomly guessing. i don't want to experiment around my consciousness.
i want to be pragmatic about this: do the test, tell me the answer and give me the fix.
if it's malfunctioning, it's missing some chemical, and can be fixed by taking some drug. fine.
but, you need to prove to me what's wrong, first. i'm not interested in just randomly guessing. i don't want to experiment around my consciousness.
i want to be pragmatic about this: do the test, tell me the answer and give me the fix.
and, just to clarify the point regarding what it is that i'm ingesting, and how it might affect my alertness.
- i don't drink at home, and never have. as promised, i haven't touched that 26er of vodka since i left on mar 12th, and don't expect to touch it again until i get to another show. i have no interest, whatsoever, in drinking by myself.
- it was april 13th when i finished the quarter of marijuana i bought about a week earlier. i will generally smoke at home at most twice a year, meaning i might buy some more in july. i have no interest, whatsoever, in being stoned right now.
- my coffee intake has increased, but it appears to be diminishing returns.
- i bummed a few smokes when i was last out on may 5th. it was like two or three, all day. before that, i bummed a few smokes when i was last out on april 15th. i may bum a few more when i go out to get my pills next week. i have no intention of buying a pack of smokes any time soon.
- i'm taking 8 mg of estrogen, 5 mg of medroxyprogesterone and 100 mg of cyproterone acetate, daily. i would not expect these drugs to make me tired, and they never have in the past.
- i don't drink at home, and never have. as promised, i haven't touched that 26er of vodka since i left on mar 12th, and don't expect to touch it again until i get to another show. i have no interest, whatsoever, in drinking by myself.
- it was april 13th when i finished the quarter of marijuana i bought about a week earlier. i will generally smoke at home at most twice a year, meaning i might buy some more in july. i have no interest, whatsoever, in being stoned right now.
- my coffee intake has increased, but it appears to be diminishing returns.
- i bummed a few smokes when i was last out on may 5th. it was like two or three, all day. before that, i bummed a few smokes when i was last out on april 15th. i may bum a few more when i go out to get my pills next week. i have no intention of buying a pack of smokes any time soon.
- i'm taking 8 mg of estrogen, 5 mg of medroxyprogesterone and 100 mg of cyproterone acetate, daily. i would not expect these drugs to make me tired, and they never have in the past.
maybe i'm misunderstanding the concept of depression...
i always thought that depression was a mental outlook, essentially a decision to adopt a negative mindframe. now, understand that i reject the negative v positive dichotomy; i label myself a realist, and don't have a lot of patience for positivity. a proper dialectic erects realism as a synthesis, and that's how i've always thought, even if i haven't always been able to articulate it that way. i want to measure the amount of water in the glass, and present an objectively true statement about it - i don't care about your opinion of how much water is in the glass, and will tell you to fuck off for trying to push it down on me.
but, i've always understood depression as the physical consequence of making a decision to be negative. i've generally rejected that as inconsequential, by rejecting the idea that the subjectivity of existence is important.
but, what if depression instead arises from hormonal conditions that you can't control, and the condition is a consequence of being tired all of the time?
what i'm trying to get across is that i am, uncharacteristically, actually feeling pretty bummed out right now, but the causality is reversed - i'm depressed because i'm tired and unproductive, not the other way around.
i don't want to be depressed and unproductive, i want to be alert and focused. the root cause is that i'm so fucking tired. so, how do i eliminate the physical tiredness? that will make me more alert & more productive, and therefore less depressed about being tired.
i've wondered repeatedly if i'm being drugged, somehow. did they put me on anti-depressants against my will? i wonder if i'm reacting to something they prescribed me, without telling me. all i can do is point out that i feel like i'm being drugged, and that, if i am, it's the cause of the problem.
i've never felt like this in years past, i've always been an unflappable person. i've usually been an insomniac, not somebody that's unable to stay awake. so, something has clearly changed in my body chemistry, and i wish i understood what it was so that i could reverse it and go back to being alert, awake and productive, rather than tired and sluggish and depressed all of the time.
if i'm the victim of some kind of experiment, please stop. it's making things infinitely worse...
i just want coffee and free time. that's all i need to be happy. really.
how much does cocaine even cost, anyways? i don't actually even know.
i'm only half joking...
i keep arguing that i'm not depressed, and i don't feel that i'm depressed on an intellectual level. i'm not sad, i don't hate my life, i don't want drugs to numb the pain, etc. but, if the argument is that depression is something physical, maybe i'm deluding myself.
is it possible to be a relatively happy person with a positive outlook on life, but be crippled by the physicality of depression?
i want to drink a gallon of coffee, but it's not working. it's just giving me acid reflux.
i dunno.
maybe i should start smoking again. it seems like my productivity has completely collapsed, since i quit.
*sigh*.
how do i wake up?
i'm only half joking...
i keep arguing that i'm not depressed, and i don't feel that i'm depressed on an intellectual level. i'm not sad, i don't hate my life, i don't want drugs to numb the pain, etc. but, if the argument is that depression is something physical, maybe i'm deluding myself.
is it possible to be a relatively happy person with a positive outlook on life, but be crippled by the physicality of depression?
i want to drink a gallon of coffee, but it's not working. it's just giving me acid reflux.
i dunno.
maybe i should start smoking again. it seems like my productivity has completely collapsed, since i quit.
*sigh*.
how do i wake up?
it seems persistent - every time i sit down to try to get some work done, i end up so tired that i can't even move, and unable to do anything besides sleep.
there's a large rain storm moving through here. i am well aware of the reality that i'm hypersensitive to the weather.
this is the third weekend in a row that i wanted to be productive, but that it seems like is going to be wasted. but, i don't think i'll be able to do anything but sleep it off, and hope things get better mid-week.
i still need to file a formal complaint against this judge in federal court. hopefully, the situation will clarify itself over the next few days. but, that's the first thing i'll need to do, once i get this rebuild finished with.
for now, it looks like i'm going to sleep. and sleep. and sleep....
and i hate it :(.
i never want to sleep ever again.
there's a large rain storm moving through here. i am well aware of the reality that i'm hypersensitive to the weather.
this is the third weekend in a row that i wanted to be productive, but that it seems like is going to be wasted. but, i don't think i'll be able to do anything but sleep it off, and hope things get better mid-week.
i still need to file a formal complaint against this judge in federal court. hopefully, the situation will clarify itself over the next few days. but, that's the first thing i'll need to do, once i get this rebuild finished with.
for now, it looks like i'm going to sleep. and sleep. and sleep....
and i hate it :(.
i never want to sleep ever again.
gimbutas argued (i think convincingly.) that patriarchy came not from agriculture but from nomadism, and i think it's easy to see the conclusions of it in modern society, with the differences in morality that assert themselves depending on how we order our food sources. but, i don't think she presented an opinion on what came before agriculture.
it's an interesting topic, beyond the question of what is driving the evolution of our decrease in body hair.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
it's an interesting topic, beyond the question of what is driving the evolution of our decrease in body hair.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
Saturday, May 16, 2020
the hourly forecast looks less scary than the news reports, but i don't expect to leave the house until after the storm lifts, so we'll have to see how bad it gets from inside. they're calling for 50-100 mm in the region, but it looks like i'm going to be on the lower end of that, and it looks like it's going to take a long time to pass through. so, let's hope it's not that bad.
yesterday was unfocused. but, i think i'm ready to be super productive tonight. i want this done by monday...
yesterday was unfocused. but, i think i'm ready to be super productive tonight. i want this done by monday...
the parasite theory does make some sense in explaining the sexual dimorphism that currently exists, however much of a blip it ends up being in the long run.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/
A researcher studying the plantar region of rabbits noticed that an inhibitor protein, called Dickkopf 2 or Dkk2, was not present in high levels, giving the team the fist clue that Dkk2 may be fundamental to hair growth.
so, the hormone responsible for hairy palms in mammals is called "dickkopf".
don't look at me, i just read the articles.
so, the hormone responsible for hairy palms in mammals is called "dickkopf".
don't look at me, i just read the articles.
here's some more accepted science about humans, not sheepskin.
go tell those idiots to go back to using their sheepskin for condoms.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-did-humans-evolve-lose-fur-180970980/
go tell those idiots to go back to using their sheepskin for condoms.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-did-humans-evolve-lose-fur-180970980/
so, stop asking "why did we evolve to grow hair?". that is the wrong question, in every possible context.
the right question is always "why do we have less hair than our recent ancestors?".
and, in the context of sexual dimorphism, what we need to understand is why men are losing their hair at a slower rate than women are.
the right question is always "why do we have less hair than our recent ancestors?".
and, in the context of sexual dimorphism, what we need to understand is why men are losing their hair at a slower rate than women are.
humans are a species with remarkably low levels of sexual dimorphism. this difference in body hair is not shared in other primates, either, who have much more similar levels of body hair across the sexes.
it could take a while for men to catch up to women in their loss of body hair, but we can be reasonably confident that men will eventually lose their beards, over time.
it could take a while for men to catch up to women in their loss of body hair, but we can be reasonably confident that men will eventually lose their beards, over time.
this is absolutely retarded, and i take it that it's intended to be.
body hair is actually largely a vestigial trait, meaning we're evolving to have less hair and not more hair. look at a chimp and look at a human and take notes on the direction that facial hair is evolving. so, we don't need to ask why men evolved hair, we need to ask why they haven't gotten rid of it yet, or, more specifically, why men have been slower to lose their facial hair than women have been.
that means that a better question to ask is whether the fact that men still grow facial hair makes them less evolved than women, who have largely evolved past it. and, that is a question that likely has to do with sexual selection, rather than any sort of competition. the answer is basically "yes".
but, any question that starts with "why did men evolve beards?" is completely backwards. men did not evolve to have facial hair, they are in the process of losing it - and are clearly behind the curve in doing so.
https://www.newsweek.com/beards-may-have-evolved-protect-men-punches-face-1504294
body hair is actually largely a vestigial trait, meaning we're evolving to have less hair and not more hair. look at a chimp and look at a human and take notes on the direction that facial hair is evolving. so, we don't need to ask why men evolved hair, we need to ask why they haven't gotten rid of it yet, or, more specifically, why men have been slower to lose their facial hair than women have been.
that means that a better question to ask is whether the fact that men still grow facial hair makes them less evolved than women, who have largely evolved past it. and, that is a question that likely has to do with sexual selection, rather than any sort of competition. the answer is basically "yes".
but, any question that starts with "why did men evolve beards?" is completely backwards. men did not evolve to have facial hair, they are in the process of losing it - and are clearly behind the curve in doing so.
https://www.newsweek.com/beards-may-have-evolved-protect-men-punches-face-1504294
i know that a lot of people are very confused.
but, christianity is a religion that originated in the middle east - in israel, in egypt - and was spread by greeks and romans, generally by force.
it is not a religion that comes from the north of europe, which fought back against it with everything it had, for centuries.
but, christianity is a religion that originated in the middle east - in israel, in egypt - and was spread by greeks and romans, generally by force.
it is not a religion that comes from the north of europe, which fought back against it with everything it had, for centuries.
stop.
the baltic regions were firmly in the varangian sphere of influence, before the northern crusades. they were then conquered, converted and colonized by force, before succeeding in overthrowing the crusaders. but, they never truly found their way back into the slavic confederacy.
the baltic regions were firmly in the varangian sphere of influence, before the northern crusades. they were then conquered, converted and colonized by force, before succeeding in overthrowing the crusaders. but, they never truly found their way back into the slavic confederacy.
so, are they greco-rus, or are they holdover vikings? i dunno.
i know they're not romans.
i know they're not romans.
which western european countries got skipped?
my "western empire" statistical area included:
portugal - 10
spain - 47
france - 67
italy - 60
germany - 83
switzerland- 9
belgium- 11
netherlands- 17
luxembourg- 1
austria- 9
czechia- 11
slovenia - 2
i did not consider the british isles or scandinavia to be a part of western europe, but rather split them off together into a separate statistical region due to historical discontinuities with roman culture. there would then be an eastern europe, centered on moscow (but historically on constaninople) that would include the slavic and baltic speaking countries, as well as historical greece, which is where the culture of eastern europe ultimately originates from. that means that i'm splitting europe into three regions - the western empire (rome/paris), the eastern empire (constantinople/moscow) and the untamed viking wilderness (british isles & scandinavia).
(edit: i might let you consider the baltic and finnic countries, together, along with the north of poland, to be a part of scandinavia, but i would not let you consider them to be a part of the western empire. concerns about muscovite hegemony aside, the teutonic knights were hardly much better. the fact is that these regions were christianized by force in a series of crusades that happened well into the modern era, so citing russian chauvinism is hardly much of an argument against catholic barbarity. the balts and slavs are culturally almost indistinguishable, but if you don't like that then the right answer is to split them off as untamed pagans on the periphery of vikingdom, not fold them into the west.)
to complete the thought, portugal is an interesting test case as they did much better than spain without a harsh lockdown, putting them in the same category as sweden. the countries directly in the german sphere of control (including denmark) seem to have done a little better, which is perhaps not surprising. the low countries did not do so well, and may belong in the same tier as the uk. lastly, ireland performed more like france than a part of the united kingdom - as it generally does.
you can work those numbers out if you want to compare your favourite european country to the big seven, but i don't think it really clarifies anything to do so. you can get all of the important idea out just by looking at the countries that kevin drum cherry-picked.
my "western empire" statistical area included:
portugal - 10
belgium- 11
netherlands- 17
luxembourg- 1
austria- 9
czechia- 11
slovenia - 2
i did not consider the british isles or scandinavia to be a part of western europe, but rather split them off together into a separate statistical region due to historical discontinuities with roman culture. there would then be an eastern europe, centered on moscow (but historically on constaninople) that would include the slavic and baltic speaking countries, as well as historical greece, which is where the culture of eastern europe ultimately originates from. that means that i'm splitting europe into three regions - the western empire (rome/paris), the eastern empire (constantinople/moscow) and the untamed viking wilderness (british isles & scandinavia).
(edit: i might let you consider the baltic and finnic countries, together, along with the north of poland, to be a part of scandinavia, but i would not let you consider them to be a part of the western empire. concerns about muscovite hegemony aside, the teutonic knights were hardly much better. the fact is that these regions were christianized by force in a series of crusades that happened well into the modern era, so citing russian chauvinism is hardly much of an argument against catholic barbarity. the balts and slavs are culturally almost indistinguishable, but if you don't like that then the right answer is to split them off as untamed pagans on the periphery of vikingdom, not fold them into the west.)
to complete the thought, portugal is an interesting test case as they did much better than spain without a harsh lockdown, putting them in the same category as sweden. the countries directly in the german sphere of control (including denmark) seem to have done a little better, which is perhaps not surprising. the low countries did not do so well, and may belong in the same tier as the uk. lastly, ireland performed more like france than a part of the united kingdom - as it generally does.
you can work those numbers out if you want to compare your favourite european country to the big seven, but i don't think it really clarifies anything to do so. you can get all of the important idea out just by looking at the countries that kevin drum cherry-picked.
what can you say about the european countries, though?
well, italy and spain and france have a lot of old people - something that's actually not true in the uk, who cannot use that excuse. the swedes are more like the former, and have drastically outperformed them. the swiss are also a very old country that, no doubt aided by the geography, have done even better.
you would actually expect lower death rates in the united states because the life expectancy is lower, and that's actually working out. it's just that there's 330 million people in the united states, which is the size of all of western europe combined. i went over this once before....
the germans have done exceedingly well on first glance, but they are not as old as the other countries in europe, either. they're well ahead of china or the united states, but a little behind the uk, actually.
and, in canada, we're going to hand our homework in after the due date.
so, putting those countries into tiers,
1) the countries that have done very, very well relative to their demographics would be the swiss & germans.
2) the swedes have outperformed other countries with very old populations, but have not done quite as well as the swiss. the french also did noticeably better than the spaniards or italians.
3) italy & spain were hit hard, but are very old.
4) the uk is not as old as these countries, but performed as bad or worse. the americans are doing a little better, but are even younger, and are also a little behind in the pandemic curve. we'll have to see if the americans can beat the british or not in the end, but they may not, and this poor performance may in the end be a legacy of thatcher-reaganism.
and we need to wait for canada to finish, but it looks like we'll be more comparable to the swedes or french, and not as good as the germans or swiss.
well, italy and spain and france have a lot of old people - something that's actually not true in the uk, who cannot use that excuse. the swedes are more like the former, and have drastically outperformed them. the swiss are also a very old country that, no doubt aided by the geography, have done even better.
you would actually expect lower death rates in the united states because the life expectancy is lower, and that's actually working out. it's just that there's 330 million people in the united states, which is the size of all of western europe combined. i went over this once before....
the germans have done exceedingly well on first glance, but they are not as old as the other countries in europe, either. they're well ahead of china or the united states, but a little behind the uk, actually.
and, in canada, we're going to hand our homework in after the due date.
so, putting those countries into tiers,
1) the countries that have done very, very well relative to their demographics would be the swiss & germans.
2) the swedes have outperformed other countries with very old populations, but have not done quite as well as the swiss. the french also did noticeably better than the spaniards or italians.
3) italy & spain were hit hard, but are very old.
4) the uk is not as old as these countries, but performed as bad or worse. the americans are doing a little better, but are even younger, and are also a little behind in the pandemic curve. we'll have to see if the americans can beat the british or not in the end, but they may not, and this poor performance may in the end be a legacy of thatcher-reaganism.
and we need to wait for canada to finish, but it looks like we'll be more comparable to the swedes or french, and not as good as the germans or swiss.
Friday, May 15, 2020
we appear to be reopening slowly in ontario, but i don't think we're even closing to peaking here yet.
so, i will expect the numbers to climb rather dramatically, even if they end up distorted by bad reporting. it's not clear how it's going to get reported, and i think i've decided to largely just ignore the government rather than pretend i can analyze fraudulent data.
but, it's not going to climb because of reopening, even if the government tries to argue the point. we just haven't come close to peaking yet.
so, i will expect the numbers to climb rather dramatically, even if they end up distorted by bad reporting. it's not clear how it's going to get reported, and i think i've decided to largely just ignore the government rather than pretend i can analyze fraudulent data.
but, it's not going to climb because of reopening, even if the government tries to argue the point. we just haven't come close to peaking yet.
what that means is that if you were to decompose the canadian curve into different provinces, you'd see something more like the peaks and decays in the european countries.
and, likewise, if you were to decompose the american curve into different states, you'd see something more like the peaks and decays in the european countries, too.
if you want to test this question of the efficacy of social distancing, you need to look more locally. so, what's happening in georgia, specifically? but, be careful - did georgia peak before it reopened?
and, likewise, if you were to decompose the american curve into different states, you'd see something more like the peaks and decays in the european countries, too.
if you want to test this question of the efficacy of social distancing, you need to look more locally. so, what's happening in georgia, specifically? but, be careful - did georgia peak before it reopened?
i got that picture from here:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/05/coronavirus-growth-in-western-countries-may-14-update/
kevin drum is arguing there that he expects that the united states should see a peak and a rise due to the loosening of social distancing, and that if we don't see such a thing then the epidemiologists will have hell to answer to.
i've been arguing that social distancing is pseudo-science from the start. but, i actually don't expect the curve in the united states to fall off quickly - and don't expect the curve in canada to, either. the reason is that canada and the united states are both very big countries with several epidemics, whereas a country like sweden is really just one big city. you'd be better off being as specific as possible, but you could fudge a comparison of all of italy to new york city; comparing individual countries in europe to the entire united states is pointless.
rather, you'd want to compare canada or the united states to the european union, and it's easy to see intuitively that if you superimpose these graphs on top of each other then they will intersect to form a plateau.
so, i expect that the united states will, indeed, plateau, but it was has less to do with social distancing restrictions being lifted and more to do with the fact that you're dealing with 50 different curves pasted on top of each other, rather than just one.
for that reason, the flattening curve in canada is also probably predictive. it's not going to fall like it did in italy, it's going to take a while...
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/05/coronavirus-growth-in-western-countries-may-14-update/
kevin drum is arguing there that he expects that the united states should see a peak and a rise due to the loosening of social distancing, and that if we don't see such a thing then the epidemiologists will have hell to answer to.
i've been arguing that social distancing is pseudo-science from the start. but, i actually don't expect the curve in the united states to fall off quickly - and don't expect the curve in canada to, either. the reason is that canada and the united states are both very big countries with several epidemics, whereas a country like sweden is really just one big city. you'd be better off being as specific as possible, but you could fudge a comparison of all of italy to new york city; comparing individual countries in europe to the entire united states is pointless.
rather, you'd want to compare canada or the united states to the european union, and it's easy to see intuitively that if you superimpose these graphs on top of each other then they will intersect to form a plateau.
so, i expect that the united states will, indeed, plateau, but it was has less to do with social distancing restrictions being lifted and more to do with the fact that you're dealing with 50 different curves pasted on top of each other, rather than just one.
for that reason, the flattening curve in canada is also probably predictive. it's not going to fall like it did in italy, it's going to take a while...
this graph kind of enforces what i've been saying about canada just being last to get hit....and i don't do this very often because i kind of don't need to. graphs are just tools, remember - they help you understand, but they're only as useful as they are necessary.
"do i need to draw you a picture?"
most of the time, i don't need to draw myself pictures, so i don't bother - i can get the point by looking at the information in the chart, and i'll just tell you about it. you can draw your own fucking picture, if you have to.
but, somebody drew this graph for me, and what does it say?
it says canada is peaking last - which has been obvious for a while.
and, why is it peaking last?
because it's furthest away.
that is all.
really.
"do i need to draw you a picture?"
most of the time, i don't need to draw myself pictures, so i don't bother - i can get the point by looking at the information in the chart, and i'll just tell you about it. you can draw your own fucking picture, if you have to.
but, somebody drew this graph for me, and what does it say?
it says canada is peaking last - which has been obvious for a while.
and, why is it peaking last?
because it's furthest away.
that is all.
really.
is montreal peaking?
well, they're at a little below 2200 deaths, and there is some suggestion that it's a little undercounted.
this was my projection:
3) montreal: (2800, 8399, 13999) [projection: low end]
the first number is a low estimate, the second is a middle estimate and the third is a high estimate. these are dependent not on the efficacy of social distancing but on different estimates of the mortality rate.
if they're actually at 2500 or so, they should cross the minimum barrier within a few days, meaning the numbers should start to slow down quite a bit.
remember: i don't think that total excess mortality much of anywhere is going to have much to do with what the government has or hasn't ordered people to do. so, i don't think that the end results are very dependent on government policy.
my low numbers have been a little too low in most places, but almost nowhere has actually reached the middle number yet. the only exception is new york city, where the population density is so dramatic, and i appear to have underestimated the effects of diabetes.
so, a reasonable expectation in montreal in the end is somewhere around 4000, regardless of what the government does.
well, they're at a little below 2200 deaths, and there is some suggestion that it's a little undercounted.
this was my projection:
3) montreal: (2800, 8399, 13999) [projection: low end]
the first number is a low estimate, the second is a middle estimate and the third is a high estimate. these are dependent not on the efficacy of social distancing but on different estimates of the mortality rate.
if they're actually at 2500 or so, they should cross the minimum barrier within a few days, meaning the numbers should start to slow down quite a bit.
remember: i don't think that total excess mortality much of anywhere is going to have much to do with what the government has or hasn't ordered people to do. so, i don't think that the end results are very dependent on government policy.
my low numbers have been a little too low in most places, but almost nowhere has actually reached the middle number yet. the only exception is new york city, where the population density is so dramatic, and i appear to have underestimated the effects of diabetes.
so, a reasonable expectation in montreal in the end is somewhere around 4000, regardless of what the government does.
so, i got a first pass finished this morning, but it's so dry in here that i'm literally bleeding. i'm hoping the temperature outside has stabilized from that freak cold snap, so that i can begin the process of bringing the humidity levels inside up to something more normal. and, i think i'm feeling better already, but let's hope it's not fleeting.
so, i guess i blew the whole week, but let's hope that things renormalize themselves a bit better from here on in.
i'm going to stop to do some cleaning and just generally run the hot water for the next several hours.
i still need to rebuild the appspot portion of the site into the blogger front-end, because all of the files that i built up at the beginning of the month seem to have strangely disappeared. there's also going to be a cross-referencing phase.
but, the bulk of it is done, and i would expect to be able to publish it by monday.
i think there's a cop upstairs, but the property owner is technically not home and hasn't been for months. so, let's hope we can avoid the air conditioner for most of the year...
so, i guess i blew the whole week, but let's hope that things renormalize themselves a bit better from here on in.
i'm going to stop to do some cleaning and just generally run the hot water for the next several hours.
i still need to rebuild the appspot portion of the site into the blogger front-end, because all of the files that i built up at the beginning of the month seem to have strangely disappeared. there's also going to be a cross-referencing phase.
but, the bulk of it is done, and i would expect to be able to publish it by monday.
i think there's a cop upstairs, but the property owner is technically not home and hasn't been for months. so, let's hope we can avoid the air conditioner for most of the year...
Thursday, May 14, 2020
dark green snot, huh?
is that good or bad, in context?
i'm just tired, really. and, i'm honestly not particularly concerned about this; i shouldn't have much of a problem with it. i just want to be sure i'm not taking it too lightly.
i do want to beat this thing on my own; i won't accept a vaccine for a weak virus. so, if i finally picked it up last week, that's a good thing. i just want to be sure i'm being fully evidence-based.
is that good or bad, in context?
i'm just tired, really. and, i'm honestly not particularly concerned about this; i shouldn't have much of a problem with it. i just want to be sure i'm not taking it too lightly.
i do want to beat this thing on my own; i won't accept a vaccine for a weak virus. so, if i finally picked it up last week, that's a good thing. i just want to be sure i'm being fully evidence-based.
i was only coughing for a few hours last week, and i'm sure i was reacting to pollution. i have had no vascular issues since.
i don't have any other symptoms; i'm just extraordinarily tired, and my head feels like it's going to explode, and has since the start of the month.
it feels more like an environmentally-induced migraine than a virus. but, if i start coughing again, i'll call somebody. promise.
i'm really hoping this lifts with the cold front.
i don't have any other symptoms; i'm just extraordinarily tired, and my head feels like it's going to explode, and has since the start of the month.
it feels more like an environmentally-induced migraine than a virus. but, if i start coughing again, i'll call somebody. promise.
i'm really hoping this lifts with the cold front.
i'm really, really hoping that these short days and blurry realities are over after today.
i smelled something burning last night that...it smelled like chinese food, actually. egg rolls. is there a drug that smells like egg rolls? or did somebody just get chinese?
whatever it was, it gave me a headache, and i just can't stay awake. this sucks....
i smelled something burning last night that...it smelled like chinese food, actually. egg rolls. is there a drug that smells like egg rolls? or did somebody just get chinese?
whatever it was, it gave me a headache, and i just can't stay awake. this sucks....
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
i'm very slowly moving through that introduction to quantum physics lecture series (which is really a course in applied linear algebra, as i learned it in first year), and it keeps reminding me of this old demo i did with sean - which was the one & only rabit is wolf track that i did not remaster, remix or otherwise play with. it's the one and only track i was actually happy with...
i've tended to resist commenting on sean's vocals, because i think i'm sort of out of line doing so. there really was a total division of labour; he may have asked for an extra bar or two to work out a lyrical idea here and there, but he really had absolutely no musical training whatsoever, and i really had no interest in interfering with his expression. but, i keep thinking about this...
the way this track worked was that sean came in with a vocal idea for a song he wanted to call "released with your sigh", and i built the song up after he left, sending him a demo over...i can't remember if it was icq or msn. but, he came back about a week later and did the vocals for it in one take, and that was really the extent of it.
after listening to it, though, i insisted on naming the track "psi" - as the howl at the end was essentially a wavefunction collapse. in fact, i initially stylized it with the greek letter itself, ψ, but that didn't survive in a pre-mathml browser reality; what i just did to get that psi was very simple, but would have actually been very frustrating back in 2002. so, i just started calling it psi and it stuck....
he asked a few times, and i just told him it was a greek letter. i'd known him since we were kids, and was aware that his scientific literacy was very low. i think he tended to think i was naming it after something jungian, perhaps from a tool influence. but, it was more of a bowie-esque play on words.
so, this tune keeps coming up in my head, when i'm eating.
i'm working through this slowly because......the concepts are not new to me, but i have never taken a formal course in quantum physics like this before, and some of these concepts are things i've barely looked at in 20 years. the math is...it's weird. it really is. i think the weirdness has more to do with the geometry being wrong, but i will have more to say in due course. for now, i'm making sure i'm going over it well enough to really properly grasp it.
i would expect that future lecture series will be a little faster.
i've tended to resist commenting on sean's vocals, because i think i'm sort of out of line doing so. there really was a total division of labour; he may have asked for an extra bar or two to work out a lyrical idea here and there, but he really had absolutely no musical training whatsoever, and i really had no interest in interfering with his expression. but, i keep thinking about this...
the way this track worked was that sean came in with a vocal idea for a song he wanted to call "released with your sigh", and i built the song up after he left, sending him a demo over...i can't remember if it was icq or msn. but, he came back about a week later and did the vocals for it in one take, and that was really the extent of it.
after listening to it, though, i insisted on naming the track "psi" - as the howl at the end was essentially a wavefunction collapse. in fact, i initially stylized it with the greek letter itself, ψ, but that didn't survive in a pre-mathml browser reality; what i just did to get that psi was very simple, but would have actually been very frustrating back in 2002. so, i just started calling it psi and it stuck....
he asked a few times, and i just told him it was a greek letter. i'd known him since we were kids, and was aware that his scientific literacy was very low. i think he tended to think i was naming it after something jungian, perhaps from a tool influence. but, it was more of a bowie-esque play on words.
so, this tune keeps coming up in my head, when i'm eating.
i'm working through this slowly because......the concepts are not new to me, but i have never taken a formal course in quantum physics like this before, and some of these concepts are things i've barely looked at in 20 years. the math is...it's weird. it really is. i think the weirdness has more to do with the geometry being wrong, but i will have more to say in due course. for now, i'm making sure i'm going over it well enough to really properly grasp it.
i would expect that future lecture series will be a little faster.
this actually sounds like they're getting this right.
the reality is that you need to figure out jurisdiction before you can go signing contracts.
https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/chiefs-governments-to-sign-rights-understanding-after-b-c-pipeline-protests-1.24134823
the reality is that you need to figure out jurisdiction before you can go signing contracts.
https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/chiefs-governments-to-sign-rights-understanding-after-b-c-pipeline-protests-1.24134823
do i think that these republican byelection wins are reflective of growing outrage over the lockdowns in the united states?
i think that democrats should think very carefully about whether they want to hand this to the republicans as an issue, or not.
and, i think that the only thing separating us right now is the weather.
what the government is doing here, in fanning the flames of xenophobia and anti-americanism, is actually extremely dangerous; when trudeau blames the issue on americans, that's exactly the same thing as when trump blames it on mexicans - he's distracting from his own failure, his own mismanagement, and his own anti-science policies.
it's just a mirror reflection - the same backwardsness, the same racism, the same ignorance.
"but, the science says..."
no. stop. the science says that closing borders does nothing. at all.
this is just another racist policy, from the same guy that brought you aladdin-in-blackface and absolutely disgusting ironic facial hair.
it's just a mirror reflection - the same backwardsness, the same racism, the same ignorance.
"but, the science says..."
no. stop. the science says that closing borders does nothing. at all.
this is just another racist policy, from the same guy that brought you aladdin-in-blackface and absolutely disgusting ironic facial hair.
you can't open the border a little bit - it is either open or it is closed, and right now it is actually open. despite attempts by the media to suggest otherwise, there is absolutely no science underlying these closures at all. and, this idea that canada is a more conservative country than the united states is both ridiculous and absolutely wrong; an article like this may not be reflective of reality, but it really reflects very strongly on the government, and it's existing delusions about popular opinion.
if the border remains closed, it will be due to a political calculation by the government, and not due to any actual science. but, this is a miscalculation.
once the weather turns away from this record cold, which is happening in the next few days, people here will begin to ignore the government, as well.
i hope that, in the end, the government falls over this.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6937528/coronavirus-canada-us-reopening-plans/
if the border remains closed, it will be due to a political calculation by the government, and not due to any actual science. but, this is a miscalculation.
once the weather turns away from this record cold, which is happening in the next few days, people here will begin to ignore the government, as well.
i hope that, in the end, the government falls over this.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6937528/coronavirus-canada-us-reopening-plans/
i was just about to get started and had to nap again...
i can't handle these shifts in pressure. i know that. and, this one was intense, and bizarre. the dry air in here isn't helping, but i'm going to blame everything on the polar vortex as the root cause - which means i have to go through it lifting, now. hopefully, it's not as bad as it was coming in...
if i can get through the next 12 hours or so, hopefully things start to normalize themselves tomorrow.
let's try to get most of this done overnight.
i can't handle these shifts in pressure. i know that. and, this one was intense, and bizarre. the dry air in here isn't helping, but i'm going to blame everything on the polar vortex as the root cause - which means i have to go through it lifting, now. hopefully, it's not as bad as it was coming in...
if i can get through the next 12 hours or so, hopefully things start to normalize themselves tomorrow.
let's try to get most of this done overnight.
if we repeat, we're going to skip the farce and go right to tragedy.
but, this article is based on a fundamental misunderstanding; we know now that what actually happened in 1918 was not a "second wave" but a mutated virus. in fact, there was a third wave, with a third mutation, as well.
it is true that there are valuable lessons to learn, but this article is unfortunately somewhat farcical in it's refusal to do so; no amount of prudence or careful planning will help us with a mutated virus, which will be like starting all over again. and, if the virus does not mutate, extending the lockdown will be pointless.
i'll remind you that i don't think the lockdown is working, anyways.
the technology we have today is incomparable to what they had then. we can collect samples in real time and track how the virus is spreading; if there is a lesson, it is in the technological determinism of being able to react to a mutation before it explodes, and that lies in the importance of testing, not in conservative planning.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/1918-pandemic-flu-coronavirus-1.5566524
but, this article is based on a fundamental misunderstanding; we know now that what actually happened in 1918 was not a "second wave" but a mutated virus. in fact, there was a third wave, with a third mutation, as well.
it is true that there are valuable lessons to learn, but this article is unfortunately somewhat farcical in it's refusal to do so; no amount of prudence or careful planning will help us with a mutated virus, which will be like starting all over again. and, if the virus does not mutate, extending the lockdown will be pointless.
i'll remind you that i don't think the lockdown is working, anyways.
the technology we have today is incomparable to what they had then. we can collect samples in real time and track how the virus is spreading; if there is a lesson, it is in the technological determinism of being able to react to a mutation before it explodes, and that lies in the importance of testing, not in conservative planning.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/1918-pandemic-flu-coronavirus-1.5566524
Strong Leadership was the last guy.
are we going to get an economic action plan next, or what? and will you finally answer this question for me - is it a four year plan or a five year plan?
the consensus at the end of the day is that he was usually the dumbest guy in the room. we don't need more of that....
this government was elected because we wanted a party that would do better than that. following the science was a key part of the mandate, after too many years of on time trains and Strong Men.
are we going to get an economic action plan next, or what? and will you finally answer this question for me - is it a four year plan or a five year plan?
the consensus at the end of the day is that he was usually the dumbest guy in the room. we don't need more of that....
this government was elected because we wanted a party that would do better than that. following the science was a key part of the mandate, after too many years of on time trains and Strong Men.
what they did was moronic and almost certainly made things worse.
what does the science actually say, here? the answer is threefold:
1) you need to be very careful that you're not too authoritarian, because authoritarianism always backfires. that's the key, central point that the science has always said, and that we completely ignored, because of evan "dumbass" solomon.
2) screening people is a good idea, but only to the extent that you don't scare them too much.
3) the focus at the border should be on monitoring the spread of the disease, not on preventing it from spreading. so, what you really want is to treat the border as a checkpoint.
there's still a lot of evan solomons out there, and they don't understand or care about science. they just want the trains to run on time. but, we need to move on...
https://globalnews.ca/news/6935268/coronavirus-us-canada-border-screening/
what does the science actually say, here? the answer is threefold:
1) you need to be very careful that you're not too authoritarian, because authoritarianism always backfires. that's the key, central point that the science has always said, and that we completely ignored, because of evan "dumbass" solomon.
2) screening people is a good idea, but only to the extent that you don't scare them too much.
3) the focus at the border should be on monitoring the spread of the disease, not on preventing it from spreading. so, what you really want is to treat the border as a checkpoint.
there's still a lot of evan solomons out there, and they don't understand or care about science. they just want the trains to run on time. but, we need to move on...
https://globalnews.ca/news/6935268/coronavirus-us-canada-border-screening/
while i did get a little bit done yesterday, i actually got sort of distracted by the location entry, and the need to go back and ensure everything was properly lined up. it was also a fairly short day, in the end - barely 15 hours. and, i got a fair amount of sleep this morning. i guess i was tired....
let's hope i can get through a good chunk of this this afternoon. i'm feeling good about it.
let's hope i can get through a good chunk of this this afternoon. i'm feeling good about it.
"but, isn't democracy that idea that the majority rules? then, aren't markets literally democracy?"
no.
there are very limited scenarios where democracy reduces to majority rule, but this is the exception, and people trying to reduce democracy to plurality are really perverting the concept.
a better way to understand the term democracy is as freedom of association and freedom of expression, and when you approach it from that direction, markets are often the literal negation of democracy, as they upend freedom of association.
anarchists tend to envision a future of small, decentralized groups defined by common interests. we consider peaceful coexistence to be a necessary corollary of decentralization, but we don't generally see much value in romanticizing some kind of concept of multiculturalism or tolerance - these are bourgeois, liberal concepts that are historically actually rather alien to the left.
so, for example, i would choose to completely disassociate myself from anybody practicing any kind of abrahamic religion, if i could - and that would be seen as an ideal, in an anarchist framework.
sometimes, we'll need to deal with issues of collective security, and we'll need to take straight-up votes and enforce a concept of collective will. anarchists would hope this would be very rare...
no.
there are very limited scenarios where democracy reduces to majority rule, but this is the exception, and people trying to reduce democracy to plurality are really perverting the concept.
a better way to understand the term democracy is as freedom of association and freedom of expression, and when you approach it from that direction, markets are often the literal negation of democracy, as they upend freedom of association.
anarchists tend to envision a future of small, decentralized groups defined by common interests. we consider peaceful coexistence to be a necessary corollary of decentralization, but we don't generally see much value in romanticizing some kind of concept of multiculturalism or tolerance - these are bourgeois, liberal concepts that are historically actually rather alien to the left.
so, for example, i would choose to completely disassociate myself from anybody practicing any kind of abrahamic religion, if i could - and that would be seen as an ideal, in an anarchist framework.
sometimes, we'll need to deal with issues of collective security, and we'll need to take straight-up votes and enforce a concept of collective will. anarchists would hope this would be very rare...
how should smoking be regulated in residential areas?
well, ideally, it would reduce to democracy, and you'd essentially see self-segregation. people that don't want to live amongst smokers would come together and ban smoking in their buildings, thereby evicting people that don't want to quit. and, people that don't want to be told they can't smoke in their homes would come together, to live in buildings that non-smokers would not want to go in.
this would also work at the community or neighbourhood level, with certain areas banning residential smoking and certain areas allowing it.
that is the ideal; it is how things would work in a utopia. in reality, two things rear themselves to interfere with utopian democracy: market theory and class relations, which both act to make it harder for a lot of people to get into the environment they want to get into. unfortunately, a non-smoking environment is currently a privilege for the upper middle class and the elite, not something people have a democratic right to choose to create; the less educated and the poor seem to see restrictions on their "right to smoke" as draconian, and the majority rules in working class neighbourhoods.
ideally, what we'd do is get rid of class and let democracy work, but the society is built around property and that would require a deep revolution. so, unfortunately, a more practical solution is that we need some kind of government to come in and distort the market, in order to undo the class relation and let democracy approximate itself.
frustratingly, the legal system seems intent on undoing this, as it interprets smoking & non-smoking residential buildings to be discriminatory, based on the division by class. the legal system is essentially trained to see the world from the top down. so, it is concerned about abolishing rules that keep rich smokers out of the wealthy apartments, rather than abolishing rules that lock poor people into environments where they are exposed to second-hand smoke. the non-smoking poor ends up locked in place, collaterally, due to rules designed to prevent discrimination in class mobility. this entire paradigm needs to be revisited, and to an extent already has, but the system is strongly lagging behind the shift.
so, we should just be able to leave it up to democracy and let the people decide, but we can't because of the prevalence of class - instead, we need some kind of special government program to help the poor avoid the smoke, if they want to.
i hope that's clear.
(sorry for the multiple attempts, i'm pre-coffee this morning)
well, ideally, it would reduce to democracy, and you'd essentially see self-segregation. people that don't want to live amongst smokers would come together and ban smoking in their buildings, thereby evicting people that don't want to quit. and, people that don't want to be told they can't smoke in their homes would come together, to live in buildings that non-smokers would not want to go in.
this would also work at the community or neighbourhood level, with certain areas banning residential smoking and certain areas allowing it.
that is the ideal; it is how things would work in a utopia. in reality, two things rear themselves to interfere with utopian democracy: market theory and class relations, which both act to make it harder for a lot of people to get into the environment they want to get into. unfortunately, a non-smoking environment is currently a privilege for the upper middle class and the elite, not something people have a democratic right to choose to create; the less educated and the poor seem to see restrictions on their "right to smoke" as draconian, and the majority rules in working class neighbourhoods.
ideally, what we'd do is get rid of class and let democracy work, but the society is built around property and that would require a deep revolution. so, unfortunately, a more practical solution is that we need some kind of government to come in and distort the market, in order to undo the class relation and let democracy approximate itself.
frustratingly, the legal system seems intent on undoing this, as it interprets smoking & non-smoking residential buildings to be discriminatory, based on the division by class. the legal system is essentially trained to see the world from the top down. so, it is concerned about abolishing rules that keep rich smokers out of the wealthy apartments, rather than abolishing rules that lock poor people into environments where they are exposed to second-hand smoke. the non-smoking poor ends up locked in place, collaterally, due to rules designed to prevent discrimination in class mobility. this entire paradigm needs to be revisited, and to an extent already has, but the system is strongly lagging behind the shift.
so, we should just be able to leave it up to democracy and let the people decide, but we can't because of the prevalence of class - instead, we need some kind of special government program to help the poor avoid the smoke, if they want to.
i hope that's clear.
(sorry for the multiple attempts, i'm pre-coffee this morning)
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
after looking into this housing benefit a little bit more closely...
it seems like it's only going to a handful of applicants. so, i may have misunderstood the breadth of it's application.
there's thousands of people on the wait list; it's only going to take a few hundred off.
it seems more like a political stunt than anything else, really. that money would be better spent on actual housing.
it seems like it's only going to a handful of applicants. so, i may have misunderstood the breadth of it's application.
there's thousands of people on the wait list; it's only going to take a few hundred off.
it seems more like a political stunt than anything else, really. that money would be better spent on actual housing.
looks like this is the last cold night here, and the heat should finally largely turn off in the next couple of days.
i'm feeling better, but i'm still wavy, and while it does still seem like somebody is smoking upstairs, my bigger concern is the dry air from the heaters.
once the heaters turn off, i should be able to fight the desiccation and smoke more effectively with steam and humidity.
if they don't get this horrible pig out of here, it's going to be a long summer for everybody.
i'm feeling better, but i'm still wavy, and while it does still seem like somebody is smoking upstairs, my bigger concern is the dry air from the heaters.
once the heaters turn off, i should be able to fight the desiccation and smoke more effectively with steam and humidity.
if they don't get this horrible pig out of here, it's going to be a long summer for everybody.
i'm not going to be gloating about my predictions in ontario and quebec actually happening.
most of the rest of canada is in truth very sparsely populated and very isolated, so you wouldn't expect a lot of through traffic, and you wouldn't expect a lot of spread. that is, in fact, what is happening. cities like halifax and winnipeg are unlikely to get hit hard until the waning stages of this, when the big cities have already reopened and there's basically nothing they can do to stop it further.
there is also vancouver, which has a lucky geography and which seems to be fluking out, somehow. but, the actual major counter-example to this in canada is alberta, who probably thinks they're getting off easy on this.
rather, i would expect calgary to peak some time after toronto - july, maybe august. and, they'll probably find a way to blame it on quebec, when it happens, but it's just the nature of how this thing seems to want to move in less densely populated regions, which is fairly slowly.
that doesn't mean i think they should stay locked down for the next year, it just means this thing is just getting started, here.
most of the rest of canada is in truth very sparsely populated and very isolated, so you wouldn't expect a lot of through traffic, and you wouldn't expect a lot of spread. that is, in fact, what is happening. cities like halifax and winnipeg are unlikely to get hit hard until the waning stages of this, when the big cities have already reopened and there's basically nothing they can do to stop it further.
there is also vancouver, which has a lucky geography and which seems to be fluking out, somehow. but, the actual major counter-example to this in canada is alberta, who probably thinks they're getting off easy on this.
rather, i would expect calgary to peak some time after toronto - july, maybe august. and, they'll probably find a way to blame it on quebec, when it happens, but it's just the nature of how this thing seems to want to move in less densely populated regions, which is fairly slowly.
that doesn't mean i think they should stay locked down for the next year, it just means this thing is just getting started, here.
that's one way to do it.
let's hope they do antibody testing while they're at it, and actually publish it. that's what i want to know...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/china-s-wuhan-sees-first-new-virus-cases-since-lockdown-lifted
let's hope they do antibody testing while they're at it, and actually publish it. that's what i want to know...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/china-s-wuhan-sees-first-new-virus-cases-since-lockdown-lifted
obviously, i'd rather sign up and take the cash and stay where i am while i wait for access to subsidized housing. but, that's not an option, unfortunately - i have to pick.
and, if i have to choose between taking the cash and losing access to smoke-free housing and kind of waiting it out with less cash for a while, the latter makes more sense to me - even if it costs me $3000/yr, which is 20% of my existing income.
that's not an easy choice; that's a lot of money for me! but, if i just end up spending it to move sideways, while eliminating my ability to get into a long-term housing solution, i'm not accomplishing anything. it's tempting, but it looks like it would be foolish.
the thing is, though....what if it takes 10 years? what if they pull the plug altogether next year, and i've just blown time? that's the gamble i'm making - i'm hoping that this clears the backlog a little, and makes it easier to get into subsidized housing. if i'm wrong, i'm screwed regardless, and am going to find myself back in conflict with welfare case drug addicts, either way.
i sent an email to the subsidized housing people already; maybe they can give me more information. they don't answer the phone. and, let's see what i can get from the landlord...
and, if i have to choose between taking the cash and losing access to smoke-free housing and kind of waiting it out with less cash for a while, the latter makes more sense to me - even if it costs me $3000/yr, which is 20% of my existing income.
that's not an easy choice; that's a lot of money for me! but, if i just end up spending it to move sideways, while eliminating my ability to get into a long-term housing solution, i'm not accomplishing anything. it's tempting, but it looks like it would be foolish.
the thing is, though....what if it takes 10 years? what if they pull the plug altogether next year, and i've just blown time? that's the gamble i'm making - i'm hoping that this clears the backlog a little, and makes it easier to get into subsidized housing. if i'm wrong, i'm screwed regardless, and am going to find myself back in conflict with welfare case drug addicts, either way.
i sent an email to the subsidized housing people already; maybe they can give me more information. they don't answer the phone. and, let's see what i can get from the landlord...
so, what i want is a way out of the market, but the government wants to force us all into market relations, whether we like it or not. i'm worried that the new policy is a signal that they're shutting things down regarding subsidized housing, and then what?
frankly, despite my complaining, where i am is probably better than almost anywhere. i have to be crystal clear: i'm not going to find an apartment building in this city that enforces any kind of non-smoking rule, outside of the city-owned buildings. it's really the only answer...
but, how much cash do i actually have to play with, and maintain something roughly the same?
the language is a little blurry, but i'm good at math, and if i understand correctly then i can tap the system out at about $800. however, it would be very useful if they would publish "average rent" and it would be equally foolish for me to make any kind of choice until i see it.
but, if i have the data right, i can claim up to $800, which would give me $680 a month left after rent. i currently have $419 left after rent. so, that's an extra $261.
in fact, if i could spend the money on anything, i'd spend it on rent! so, that would have the functional effect of boosting my maximum rent amount from $750 to $1000.
i know, you're thinking - this is supposed to put more money in my pocket, to buy more things. but, what i want to buy, first and foremost, is smoke-free housing, and i can't do that with $750 on the free market. i would need a government to come in and set the rules. sorry.
and, what are people most likely to spend that $250 on? the reality is that they're going to spend it on cigarettes and marijuana, thereby making the second-hand smoke problem in market housing even worse.
with an extra $250, though, i could potentially put myself in a better situation to find something that's.....well, something that's very similar to what i have right now. except maybe better?
i'm going to send something to my landlord.
frankly, despite my complaining, where i am is probably better than almost anywhere. i have to be crystal clear: i'm not going to find an apartment building in this city that enforces any kind of non-smoking rule, outside of the city-owned buildings. it's really the only answer...
but, how much cash do i actually have to play with, and maintain something roughly the same?
the language is a little blurry, but i'm good at math, and if i understand correctly then i can tap the system out at about $800. however, it would be very useful if they would publish "average rent" and it would be equally foolish for me to make any kind of choice until i see it.
but, if i have the data right, i can claim up to $800, which would give me $680 a month left after rent. i currently have $419 left after rent. so, that's an extra $261.
in fact, if i could spend the money on anything, i'd spend it on rent! so, that would have the functional effect of boosting my maximum rent amount from $750 to $1000.
i know, you're thinking - this is supposed to put more money in my pocket, to buy more things. but, what i want to buy, first and foremost, is smoke-free housing, and i can't do that with $750 on the free market. i would need a government to come in and set the rules. sorry.
and, what are people most likely to spend that $250 on? the reality is that they're going to spend it on cigarettes and marijuana, thereby making the second-hand smoke problem in market housing even worse.
with an extra $250, though, i could potentially put myself in a better situation to find something that's.....well, something that's very similar to what i have right now. except maybe better?
i'm going to send something to my landlord.
Monday, May 11, 2020
i wish they weren't going to force me off the list for subsidized housing...
i've already learned that there is no market for smoke-free housing in this city, that the only way to find a smoke-free unit is to move into housing where non-smoking is enforced by bylaw. i've moved twice, now, to avoid second-hand smoke. there's no real solution besides moving somewhere where there's a bylaw, and repeatedly complaining.
so, i'd certainly take the extra $260/month (which is what it works out to for me) and say thank you, but it's not worth it to me if it means i have to take my name off the wait for smoke-free housing.
do i need the cash? i kind of don't....
i'm going to keep an eye on this, maybe they'll change it.
but, it's more important to me to get into smoke-free housing than it is to get the extra $260/month.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/housing-benefit-to-help-low-income-households-in-windsor-essex-1.4934323
i've already learned that there is no market for smoke-free housing in this city, that the only way to find a smoke-free unit is to move into housing where non-smoking is enforced by bylaw. i've moved twice, now, to avoid second-hand smoke. there's no real solution besides moving somewhere where there's a bylaw, and repeatedly complaining.
so, i'd certainly take the extra $260/month (which is what it works out to for me) and say thank you, but it's not worth it to me if it means i have to take my name off the wait for smoke-free housing.
do i need the cash? i kind of don't....
i'm going to keep an eye on this, maybe they'll change it.
but, it's more important to me to get into smoke-free housing than it is to get the extra $260/month.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/housing-benefit-to-help-low-income-households-in-windsor-essex-1.4934323
it's another subplot, here - it initially looked like this was going to be brutal in iran, and then sweep through the middle east. concerns about the reliability of the data out of iran aside (and that's not an accusation, exactly), we haven't really seen that happen.
well...
i know that there's some reasons that syria, yemen and iraq are a little lower.
but, the point is what it is.
in order to see substantive mortality for a disease that mostly affects old people, you have to have high enough life expectancy for people to get old, first.
well...
i know that there's some reasons that syria, yemen and iraq are a little lower.
but, the point is what it is.
in order to see substantive mortality for a disease that mostly affects old people, you have to have high enough life expectancy for people to get old, first.
13% is actually higher than i thought. but, that number has been rising very quickly, too. it was 9% five years ago, which can give you a rough bound for the population over 70. and it was barely 5% fifteen years ago, which gives you a rough bound for the population over 80.
i know that movies like the old asian ku fung guy as a stereotype, but the reality is that there would be almost nobody in china over the age of 90. life expectancy was under fifty a mere few decades ago.
so, i keep saying this - china has made a lot of progress, but it's still china. and, you have to understand what that means, just how far they had to come to get to where they are.
apparently, only 6% of the population in india today is over 65, meaning the number of very old people is very, very small. again - i know that hollywood likes the old yogi stereotype. it's not real.....life there is nasty, brutish and short, still. and, it'll be quite a while before that changes.
these are numbers for european countries:
i've made my point, i think.
i don't want you to misunderstand what i'm going to say, here.
some of the countries in this list have had some of the smallest outbreaks, so pointing to life expectancy doesn't reflect on mitigation efficacy, or lack thereof. further, it's worth noting that neither the united states (which has had a lot of dead people) nor china (which hasn't, or at least hasn't officially) are in this list because they both have relatively low life expectancy; china's is under 77, and the united states' is under 78, and apparently declining. i've pointed out a few times that the united states also has a very serious problem with diabetes and obesity.
however, it is to be expected that the size of an outbreak should be proportional to the size of the very elderly population, something that was sort of hinted at when the numbers started coming out of italy, and is kind of being confirmed as they come out of other places.
it's just one factor. but, realize this: there simply aren't as many very old people in china as there are elsewhere, and there are a lot of old people in most of europe. it's not the only thing, but it's probably going to turn out to actually be a pretty big thing.
ideally, a country would be able to keep it out of the geriatric facilities.
but, if they can't, it causes havoc....and the more old people there are to start, the more dead people there are in the end.
so, when you see numbers like this from sweden:
....you shouldn't be that surprised.
sweden is much larger but otherwise not very different from norway. however, it has substantively higher life expectancy than denmark (which is 31 in the list) and is even a good distance from finland, statistically. iceland is an island, and should be treated as an outlier.
certainly, sweden is doing very well, in comparison to italy, spain and france.
and, has it peaked? the update is that it's looking more and more like it has, yes.
some of the countries in this list have had some of the smallest outbreaks, so pointing to life expectancy doesn't reflect on mitigation efficacy, or lack thereof. further, it's worth noting that neither the united states (which has had a lot of dead people) nor china (which hasn't, or at least hasn't officially) are in this list because they both have relatively low life expectancy; china's is under 77, and the united states' is under 78, and apparently declining. i've pointed out a few times that the united states also has a very serious problem with diabetes and obesity.
however, it is to be expected that the size of an outbreak should be proportional to the size of the very elderly population, something that was sort of hinted at when the numbers started coming out of italy, and is kind of being confirmed as they come out of other places.
it's just one factor. but, realize this: there simply aren't as many very old people in china as there are elsewhere, and there are a lot of old people in most of europe. it's not the only thing, but it's probably going to turn out to actually be a pretty big thing.
ideally, a country would be able to keep it out of the geriatric facilities.
but, if they can't, it causes havoc....and the more old people there are to start, the more dead people there are in the end.
so, when you see numbers like this from sweden:
....you shouldn't be that surprised.
sweden is much larger but otherwise not very different from norway. however, it has substantively higher life expectancy than denmark (which is 31 in the list) and is even a good distance from finland, statistically. iceland is an island, and should be treated as an outlier.
certainly, sweden is doing very well, in comparison to italy, spain and france.
and, has it peaked? the update is that it's looking more and more like it has, yes.
it's a little surreal to notice how similar his speaking expressions and mannerisms are to my nana's.
i understand that a lot of people are likely to react rather negatively to his general approach, but that's a cultural thing, and i'm really on the other side of that - i'm identifying more strongly with his mindframe and finding it refreshing.
again - he's coming to the same deductions that i did through other means.
i understand that a lot of people are likely to react rather negatively to his general approach, but that's a cultural thing, and i'm really on the other side of that - i'm identifying more strongly with his mindframe and finding it refreshing.
again - he's coming to the same deductions that i did through other means.
so, i seem to have finally gotten some sleep, at least. that was more than i usually get at one time, including an unheard of unbroken six hours.
i don't understand what's going on with me, right now....
i wanted to be productive this weekend, but the fucking pig upstairs was smoking all weekend, which just made me unfocused and unproductive. i was neither able to work, nor to sleep - i just found myself staring at the wall.
the migraine never triggered fully, but it's still there, ready to kick back in.
and, i still don't know if i actually got the virus or i'm just suffering through the second-hand smoke.
what next, then? i wanted to get done most of the rebuild over the weekend, and then do some court stuff early this week. i only got through six days of january, 2014.
i'm going to push through for another day or two, but i may have to stop mid-week.
i moved here to avoid this. it's very frustrating and very depressing :(.
i'm in the category of people that would find constant inebriation to be a cause of depression, rather than a solution to it, and i don't have any ambiguity or confusion around the point - i am fully cognizant of the fact that i don't like it, and don't want to be around it on a habitual basis. i don't need to experiment. i know...
i don't understand what's going on with me, right now....
i wanted to be productive this weekend, but the fucking pig upstairs was smoking all weekend, which just made me unfocused and unproductive. i was neither able to work, nor to sleep - i just found myself staring at the wall.
the migraine never triggered fully, but it's still there, ready to kick back in.
and, i still don't know if i actually got the virus or i'm just suffering through the second-hand smoke.
what next, then? i wanted to get done most of the rebuild over the weekend, and then do some court stuff early this week. i only got through six days of january, 2014.
i'm going to push through for another day or two, but i may have to stop mid-week.
i moved here to avoid this. it's very frustrating and very depressing :(.
i'm in the category of people that would find constant inebriation to be a cause of depression, rather than a solution to it, and i don't have any ambiguity or confusion around the point - i am fully cognizant of the fact that i don't like it, and don't want to be around it on a habitual basis. i don't need to experiment. i know...
Sunday, May 10, 2020
i've generally been a city person for the amenities, but it relies on a certain level of autonomy being attainable within the city, and a certain lifestyle being accessible within it.
if that is about to evaporate, i'd rather try to find some kind of vacant land to squat...
i'm not there yet. to begin with, i have a discography to finish, first. but, i'm really not a tolerant person, and don't want to be - i want to be left to myself, and if that means seeking isolation somehow then so be it.
if that is about to evaporate, i'd rather try to find some kind of vacant land to squat...
i'm not there yet. to begin with, i have a discography to finish, first. but, i'm really not a tolerant person, and don't want to be - i want to be left to myself, and if that means seeking isolation somehow then so be it.
this country's future is very bleak...
it's not entirely the fault of the political leadership, but the absolute failure of the political system over the course of my life time (something that seemingly gets worse, year over year) is certainly compounding it.
the environment. the economy. the social fabric. and, now, an apparent move towards authoritarianism...
it's just not where i want to exist, not who i want to exist with and not what i want to exist within.
i dunno yet. but, i think i've made a choice to leave, when it becomes feasible, whatever that means.
it took years from the time i decided to leave ottawa until i actually did. it's not imminent. but, i don't tend to change my mind very often, once i've made it up.
i want to move to a more secularly driven society with a less invasive government and if i can't find one then maybe i just need to get out to rural quebec.
it's not entirely the fault of the political leadership, but the absolute failure of the political system over the course of my life time (something that seemingly gets worse, year over year) is certainly compounding it.
the environment. the economy. the social fabric. and, now, an apparent move towards authoritarianism...
it's just not where i want to exist, not who i want to exist with and not what i want to exist within.
i dunno yet. but, i think i've made a choice to leave, when it becomes feasible, whatever that means.
it took years from the time i decided to leave ottawa until i actually did. it's not imminent. but, i don't tend to change my mind very often, once i've made it up.
i want to move to a more secularly driven society with a less invasive government and if i can't find one then maybe i just need to get out to rural quebec.
we're aligning with the inevitable losers in this upcoming conflict.
and, it might not be reversible; we might not have the numbers to reverse it.
the smart choice is probably to seek a means of escape.
but, you can't flee without some sort of reserve of some sort of currency. i'm chained to the wall...
i think the upcoming question is this: is it better to try and retreat to the canadian wilderness, or to try to get out of here altogether?
and, it might not be reversible; we might not have the numbers to reverse it.
the smart choice is probably to seek a means of escape.
but, you can't flee without some sort of reserve of some sort of currency. i'm chained to the wall...
i think the upcoming question is this: is it better to try and retreat to the canadian wilderness, or to try to get out of here altogether?
this is kind of brutal.
i'm neither asleep nor awake.
i can't figure out if i'm sick or reacting badly to air pollution.
and i want to get this done, but keep sputtering out; i keep getting overwhelmingly tired, but merely for minutes, until i'm back at it, without actually sleeping. ugh.
let's try this again.
i'm neither asleep nor awake.
i can't figure out if i'm sick or reacting badly to air pollution.
and i want to get this done, but keep sputtering out; i keep getting overwhelmingly tired, but merely for minutes, until i'm back at it, without actually sleeping. ugh.
let's try this again.
he's saying a lot of the same things that i am re:immunity and the question of what success is, in context. but, he's not being given the opportunity to formalize it.
i know it's going to sound harsh to a religious person, but this is homo mathematicus - it's numbers, it's data, and it's how it is.
so, we're often presented with the illusion that protective immunity is a choice. of course, it is not - not with the time frames in front of us. rather, the choice in front of us is whether we are to get to protective immunity quickly or whether we are to get to protective immunity slowly. we will not be able to withstand our innocence for the next two-three years, while a vaccine is readied.
the formalization of this realization occurs in the vector of an optimization problem, and when you work it out you realize the true futility of an abstinence-first approach, because you're running up against the mutation rate. any coherent analysis of this is going to put us a few months behind it, just like we are with the flu. i see little reason to think we won't get a vaccine, but we'll probably never stay on top of it.
so, if you let it loose too fast, you're not just overwhelming the system, but also maximizing the likelihood of mutation; if you slow it down too much, you're putting selective pressure on it to evolve, while maximizing the damage. what's the right middle point?
it's a calculus problem.
this man won a nobel prize, recently. so, i'm in good company in my analysis, apparently.
i know it's going to sound harsh to a religious person, but this is homo mathematicus - it's numbers, it's data, and it's how it is.
so, we're often presented with the illusion that protective immunity is a choice. of course, it is not - not with the time frames in front of us. rather, the choice in front of us is whether we are to get to protective immunity quickly or whether we are to get to protective immunity slowly. we will not be able to withstand our innocence for the next two-three years, while a vaccine is readied.
the formalization of this realization occurs in the vector of an optimization problem, and when you work it out you realize the true futility of an abstinence-first approach, because you're running up against the mutation rate. any coherent analysis of this is going to put us a few months behind it, just like we are with the flu. i see little reason to think we won't get a vaccine, but we'll probably never stay on top of it.
so, if you let it loose too fast, you're not just overwhelming the system, but also maximizing the likelihood of mutation; if you slow it down too much, you're putting selective pressure on it to evolve, while maximizing the damage. what's the right middle point?
it's a calculus problem.
this man won a nobel prize, recently. so, i'm in good company in my analysis, apparently.
awww.
when are we going to finally be allowed to tax them like the businesses that they are?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-shutdown-an-added-burden-for-quebec-s-struggling-catholic-churches-1.4932855
when are we going to finally be allowed to tax them like the businesses that they are?
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-shutdown-an-added-burden-for-quebec-s-struggling-catholic-churches-1.4932855
75 years on, we're unable to celebrate the end of fascism because our governments have ordered us to stay inside.
was the second world war caused by the same factors as the first? absolutely, yes. but, where the first world war was an aimless slaughter for the capitalist elite, and revolution was justified across the board, nazism presented itself as an evil that was greater than capitalism.
it's legitimately hard to read some of the leftist writing from the period, from people that weren't able to see nazism for the singular threat that it was.
decades later, we have a similar problem on the left, with it's inability to see the nature of the threat posed by radical islam. and, it's just a matter of time before we need to repeat history.
for now, i guess we're all stuck inside, celebrating the world's greatest triumph, in the greatest of irony.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/08/pers-m08.html
was the second world war caused by the same factors as the first? absolutely, yes. but, where the first world war was an aimless slaughter for the capitalist elite, and revolution was justified across the board, nazism presented itself as an evil that was greater than capitalism.
it's legitimately hard to read some of the leftist writing from the period, from people that weren't able to see nazism for the singular threat that it was.
decades later, we have a similar problem on the left, with it's inability to see the nature of the threat posed by radical islam. and, it's just a matter of time before we need to repeat history.
for now, i guess we're all stuck inside, celebrating the world's greatest triumph, in the greatest of irony.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/08/pers-m08.html
so, that was more sleeping....
i don't feel sick. but, i'm still extremely dehydrated.
i think it's lingering effects of the migraine, and i think the root cause is the dry air.
at least the smoke seems to be gone for the night. hopefully.
still no shower. but, i'm going to try to get some work done and go from there.
i don't feel sick. but, i'm still extremely dehydrated.
i think it's lingering effects of the migraine, and i think the root cause is the dry air.
at least the smoke seems to be gone for the night. hopefully.
still no shower. but, i'm going to try to get some work done and go from there.
Saturday, May 9, 2020
we're used to swings in temperature at this time of the year in this part of the world, but this is a little much, even for here:
the dashes are average highs and lows.
that might be a record low for that date on the 11th if it happens.
but, let's hope that's the end of not just this season but the ass end of this cycle.
the dashes are average highs and lows.
that might be a record low for that date on the 11th if it happens.
but, let's hope that's the end of not just this season but the ass end of this cycle.
i just slept some more....
do i think i finally picked this thing up?
well, i get tired when i have migraines, so it's not clear which is the culprit. some other signs...
- i don't have a thermometer i can use for a fever, but i am feeling a little warm. i've checked the thermometer i bought last year, though, and guess what? it's actually unusually warm in here.
- i started coughing last night and it's lingering, but i was reacting to second hand smoke (since passed, apparently) and it feels like a smokers' cough.
- the headache is getting better, but it is also triggered by dry air and smoke.
there's a very weird cold snap going through here right now that should lift in a day or two.
in the meantime, i didn't get that shower yet and am looking forward to it.
i dunno. i know i feel dehydrated...
do i think i finally picked this thing up?
well, i get tired when i have migraines, so it's not clear which is the culprit. some other signs...
- i don't have a thermometer i can use for a fever, but i am feeling a little warm. i've checked the thermometer i bought last year, though, and guess what? it's actually unusually warm in here.
- i started coughing last night and it's lingering, but i was reacting to second hand smoke (since passed, apparently) and it feels like a smokers' cough.
- the headache is getting better, but it is also triggered by dry air and smoke.
there's a very weird cold snap going through here right now that should lift in a day or two.
in the meantime, i didn't get that shower yet and am looking forward to it.
i dunno. i know i feel dehydrated...
another way to look at montreal is like this: staying closed may not save many or even any lives, but, at this point, you almost want to question whether it is better to stay closed to respect the dead.
if they're going to peak in a week or two, is it worth reopening now?
there's maybe a place for business owners to make that choice. it's not so clear from a distance.
if they're going to peak in a week or two, is it worth reopening now?
there's maybe a place for business owners to make that choice. it's not so clear from a distance.
there is of course a caveat to apocalyptic scenarios in any city - eventually, you run out of vulnerable people to kill.
these were my projections at the beginning of april, and these numbers are simply based on protective immunity:
what are my number of projected deaths in....
1) new york city: (5799, 17398, 28997) [projection: low end]
2) gta: (4133, 12399, 20665) [projection: low end]
3) montreal: (2800, 8399, 13999) [projection: low end]
4) detroit (metro area): (2866, 8599, 14332) [projection: expect something more like the middle number, due to higher comorbidity]
new york city and the detroit metro area have both passed the lower numbers, but neither have hit the middle numbers. i think i may have underestimated the effects of diabetes in new york city.
montreal is at about half the lower number and starting to ramp up. and, this hasn't even started in the gta, yet.
the point i'm making is that there are upper bounds, here, and while they may look gruesome, you have to continually remember that this is really very much an old person and already-very-sick person thing - which isn't to trivialize it, so much as to reinforce the point that the vulnerable need to stay inside.
we've all known old people. they don't fucking listen. and, at some point, we just have to accept the reality - it doesn't matter what rules we pass, and it doesn't matter how much we all "sacrifice", if they're just going to waltz around like it's their day of reckoning, anyways.
it doesn't matter what else we do if they don't stay inside - and if they do stay inside, it doesn't matter what else we do, either. we're focusing on the wrong concern....
these were my projections at the beginning of april, and these numbers are simply based on protective immunity:
what are my number of projected deaths in....
1) new york city: (5799, 17398, 28997) [projection: low end]
2) gta: (4133, 12399, 20665) [projection: low end]
3) montreal: (2800, 8399, 13999) [projection: low end]
4) detroit (metro area): (2866, 8599, 14332) [projection: expect something more like the middle number, due to higher comorbidity]
new york city and the detroit metro area have both passed the lower numbers, but neither have hit the middle numbers. i think i may have underestimated the effects of diabetes in new york city.
montreal is at about half the lower number and starting to ramp up. and, this hasn't even started in the gta, yet.
the point i'm making is that there are upper bounds, here, and while they may look gruesome, you have to continually remember that this is really very much an old person and already-very-sick person thing - which isn't to trivialize it, so much as to reinforce the point that the vulnerable need to stay inside.
we've all known old people. they don't fucking listen. and, at some point, we just have to accept the reality - it doesn't matter what rules we pass, and it doesn't matter how much we all "sacrifice", if they're just going to waltz around like it's their day of reckoning, anyways.
it doesn't matter what else we do if they don't stay inside - and if they do stay inside, it doesn't matter what else we do, either. we're focusing on the wrong concern....
i would take this with a grain of salt, and the reason is that there really isn't any convincing evidence that the reproduction number is decreasing or is likely to decrease any time soon.
the argument is essentially "if you loosen restrictions, the reproduction number will go back over 1".
but, it seems to me that it's already over 1, that it's been over 1 for a long time and that it doesn't seem likely that much of anything besides literal martial law is going to take it under it. they're going to have to let it run it's course.
my position has been consistent from the start: if i thought these hare-brained schemes were likely to work, i'd be likely to support them. like everybody else, i want to minimize unnecessary death. but, i don't think they're going to work, so what's the point?
it's probably too late to even have this discussion, in montreal. you should be having this discussion in toronto, where you might still be able to salvage it if you overreact in the most extreme way imaginable.
i think this took longer than anybody expected, but montreal needs to brace for impact.
and, it's not the last city in line, either.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/loosening-restrictions-could-mean-huge-increase-in-montreal-covid-19-deaths-report-1.4932199
the argument is essentially "if you loosen restrictions, the reproduction number will go back over 1".
but, it seems to me that it's already over 1, that it's been over 1 for a long time and that it doesn't seem likely that much of anything besides literal martial law is going to take it under it. they're going to have to let it run it's course.
my position has been consistent from the start: if i thought these hare-brained schemes were likely to work, i'd be likely to support them. like everybody else, i want to minimize unnecessary death. but, i don't think they're going to work, so what's the point?
it's probably too late to even have this discussion, in montreal. you should be having this discussion in toronto, where you might still be able to salvage it if you overreact in the most extreme way imaginable.
i think this took longer than anybody expected, but montreal needs to brace for impact.
and, it's not the last city in line, either.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/loosening-restrictions-could-mean-huge-increase-in-montreal-covid-19-deaths-report-1.4932199
i don't write folk music or hip-hop or techno. i make very technical, complicated progressive rock.
that means that i need to be able to think clearly - to work out time signatures, to do math on the fly.
being stoned just doesn't work for me.
i'm sorry - i'm not that person, i never was and i never will be. i don't want to be.
that means that i need to be able to think clearly - to work out time signatures, to do math on the fly.
being stoned just doesn't work for me.
i'm sorry - i'm not that person, i never was and i never will be. i don't want to be.
again -
can you get this disgusting pig upstairs out of here, please? there's a respiratory virus going around, i don't want to be breathing in second-hand smoke.
it tends to be ok in here until i go for groceries, at which point the fucking idiots seem to think that observing me bum a cigarette at the grocery store means i must not care if they smoke in the house, which is wrong in every way.
as has been the case now for nearly five years, i do not smoke habitually. the fact that i might bum a smoke when i'm out does not mean it's ok to smoke in the house. and, while this is not hypocrisy, it wouldn't matter if it is - what matters is that i've signed a non-smoking lease, and i expect it to be upheld.
so, if you're going to put a fucking pig upstairs to do what, i don't know, can you get one that doesn't smoke, please?
thank you.
can you get this disgusting pig upstairs out of here, please? there's a respiratory virus going around, i don't want to be breathing in second-hand smoke.
it tends to be ok in here until i go for groceries, at which point the fucking idiots seem to think that observing me bum a cigarette at the grocery store means i must not care if they smoke in the house, which is wrong in every way.
as has been the case now for nearly five years, i do not smoke habitually. the fact that i might bum a smoke when i'm out does not mean it's ok to smoke in the house. and, while this is not hypocrisy, it wouldn't matter if it is - what matters is that i've signed a non-smoking lease, and i expect it to be upheld.
so, if you're going to put a fucking pig upstairs to do what, i don't know, can you get one that doesn't smoke, please?
thank you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)