Twitter is awful now (continued)

This morning, the "For You" side of my Twitter featured tweets of the photo of the extended Walz family* wearing "vote Trump" T shirts about every 15 or so tweets, I reckon; yet I would have scrolled about 60 tweets before I even saw mention of the Georgia school shooting.   And it continues to be barely mentioned.   But now that I check - I just got an Alex Jones tweet about vaccinations in my "For You" column!! 

As so many now lament, Twitter used to be good for quick comments and links to stories about breaking news, even at the local level.  If you were sitting in a big storm and wondered how other parts of the city were going, you could search and expect to get a dozen or two recent tweets from fellow residents commenting on it.  Now, that hardly works.  

And no competitor has taken its place in that role.  Sad....

*   By the way, I discovered later in the day that this was a gigantic nothingburger - the family were "distant cousins" - descendants of Tim Walz's grandfather's brother - and Walz's sister said they didn't know them at all when growing up.   

A pretty rare Wordle

I don't play it every day, and have never before posted about any particular game, but the steps on the way to the solution today seem pretty unusual to me: 

Wordle 1,173 3/6

⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Encouraging news

The Guardian:

Mobile phones are not linked to brain and head cancers, a comprehensive review of the highest quality evidence available commissioned by the World Health Organization has found.

Led by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa), the systematic review examined more than 5,000 studies from which the most scientifically rigorous were identified and weak studies were excluded.

The final analysis included 63 observational studies in humans published between 1994 and 2022, making it “the most comprehensive review to date”, the review lead author, associate prof Ken Karipidis, said.

“We concluded the evidence does not show a link between mobile phones and brain cancer or other head and neck cancers.”

Published on Wednesday, the review focused on cancers of the central nervous system (including brain, meninges, pituitary gland and ear), salivary gland tumours and brain tumours.

The review found no overall association between mobile phone use and cancer, no association with prolonged use (if people use their mobile phones for 10 years or more), and no association with the amount of mobile phone use (the number of calls made or the time spent on the phone).

“I’m quite confident with our conclusion. And what makes us quite confident is … even though mobile phone use has skyrocketed, brain tumour rates have remained stable,” said Karipidis, Arpansa’s health impact assessment assistant director.

 

Seriously, what is up with white American men?

I really find this hard to comprehend:

While the overall numbers are essentially unchanged from before the convention, the gender gap has widened. Harris leads by 13 points among women, 54-41 percent, while it’s Trump +5 points among men, 51-46 percent, for an 18-point gap. (The Trump-Harris difference among men is not statistically significant.) Pre-convention, Harris had been a slight +6 points among women and a non-significant +3 among men, a 3-point gap. The gender gap now is more in line with recent elections, an average of 19 points in exit polls since 1996.

Much of the moves among women and men have occurred among white people. White women have gone from +13 points for Trump pre-convention to a virtual dead heat (Trump +2) now;  white men, from +13 points for Trump before the convention to +21 points now.

I mean, I think this would freak me out a bit if travelling in the USA - knowing that if I ever get into a conversation with a white male, the odds are extremely high that they will be intending to vote for Trump!

You could make out the case that the problem is pretty much white people generally, to be honest.  This is from exit polling at the last election:

But I just don't see how it is possible to interpret the massive jump in polling support amongst white males since Harris was the candidate as anything other than residual sexism.   (Come on, if she was an appalling candidate in all respects, she wouldn't have jumped significantly with white women.)   

Here's a good article from the New York Times in 2020 that seeks to explain the massive gender difference.  Some extracts:

When Ronald Reagan defeated the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, in the 1980 presidential election, exit polls showed that women favored him by a slim 2-percentage-point margin but that he won the male vote 55 to 36 percent. The last time the gender gap was that big was the 1950s, but at that point — and traditionally — it was women who were the more conservative voters, which was largely attributed to their greater religiosity.

Polling is consistent that women are more likely to favor government spending on social issues, and that is likely one reason the gender gap emerged in 1980....

Some argued that the gender gap emerged because women were voting in their self-interest. But the sociologist Martin Gilens, now the chairman of the public policy department at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, took issue with that idea.

In a paper published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology late in Mr. Reagan’s first term, he wrote, “I do not believe that ‘women’s issues’ such as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) or abortion, nor economic conditions such as the growing number of impoverished women, are primarily responsible for the gender gap, though they may play a part.” Instead, he continued, “I think the gender gap reflects traditional differences in male and female values and personalities, differences such as men’s greater competitiveness and concerns with issues of power and control, and women’s greater compassion and nurturance, rejection of force and violence, and concern with interpersonal relations.”

The language is a bit dated, but much of the research since has come to similar conclusions. A 2012 report from what is now the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University reviewed polling results and summed up the issues dividing male and female voters.

Women, it found, were more likely to favor an “activist role for government” and were more supportive of guaranteed health care, same-sex marriage and restrictions on firearms. They were more likely to favor legal abortion without restrictions, though polls sometimes show fairly equal support among men and women on abortion.

Men’s political views were shaped by a more individualistic attitude, the report found — a feeling that government should not help so much.

The piece also then notes that the parties have "branded" themselves in (what I suppose you could call) gendered ways too:

You can make an argument that, rather than men and women having changed their ways of thinking over the past several decades, the two major parties have basically branded themselves by gender, as well as by race. The hundreds of million of dollars spent each election cycle to “energize the base” serve to herd voters into their respective tents. Once inside, they hear messages that reaffirm and cement their party identity.

The Republican Party is for white men and people who think like white men. “We see it in poll questions that ask, “Is America getting too soft and feminine?” Dr. Deckman said. “Those who answer ‘yes’ lean strongly Republican.”

The Democratic Party is the party for women and for people of color, who are even more dependable Democrats than women. It is also, increasingly, the party of the college educated: In a late September Washington Post-ABC News poll, Mr. Trump led Mr. Biden by a modest 8 points among white men with a college degree, but by a whopping 39 points among white men without a college degree. In other words, white college-educated men are beginning to vote more like women and people of color.

Towards the end, some straight talking:

The gender gap cannot be completely differentiated from rank misogyny. Some would argue that it is misogyny. At the very least, it is a sign of our nation’s broken culture that men and women cannot agree on fundamental moral questions: The importance of integrity and common decency. The humane treatment of society’s most vulnerable. The worthiness of a man to lead our nation who apparently paid hush money to a porn star.

Anyway, while MAGA types always go on about how it could take a civil war to sort out America, I might be starting to agree; except it shouldn't be one between Democrats and Republicans - it just needs to be one that's pretty much a race war - Blacks, Hispanics and Asian against white - particularly white males - and especially if they never went to college!  

Unfortunately, that's probably also the category most likely to have an arsenal at home ready for such a war.  But they aren't so smart - some nerdy Asian American military leadership can probably put together a pretty good home made drone war against them.   But then again, Musk would naturally want a leadership role in the incel Army.  I don't know that he would be much of a military leader though - he might flame out on ketamine or something.

Apart from that, I don't know how this terrible situation in the US is going to change.  No doubt, some aerial bombing of Fox News and Newsmax would surely help.  Especially if it is by female pilots...

Update:   Further to the discussion in comments about how much it might be a "culture war" related issue of how masculinity is perceived, the thing that I don't get is why it seems to be primarily a white male thing.   Why would white men be so disproportionately insecure in that way?   I mean, Black and Latino men as a group generally have a reputation for macho type masculinity, yet the exit polls indicate it doesn't affect their voting in the way it does white men:

So, if I am reading these correctly, about 80% plus of Black men voted for Biden, 60% of "Latinex" men and 68% of Asian Americans.   Compared to 40% of white male voters!

One partial explanation might be that the macho-est of macho Black and Latino men might not vote at the same rate as white men?  This article does indicate that Black men vote at lower rates, but doesn't explain by how much, and it wouldn't seem likely to account for it   

So, as the title of the post says....why white men in particular??

Update 2:   A few related jokes from the late night shows:

“Forty-eight percent,” Stephen Colbert said, referring to a recent USA Today survey in which Harris led Donald Trump, 48 percent to 43 percent. “That really restores my faith in almost half of humanity.”

“Harris is particularly popular with women, while Trump is ahead among men, leading some to call this ‘the boys versus girls election.’ And, remember, many Trump voters are not vaccinated against cooties.” — STEPHEN COLBERT

“A new poll found that Harris has widened her lead among women to 13 points. Thirteen. Trump heard the news and was like, ‘Was it everything I said?’” — JIMMY FALLON

 

Some tweets and observations

This was a week or so ago....

 

....and it has clearly come to pass.  The "For You" column in Twitter is chock full of not only Musk tweeting (seemingly) every five minutes, but Right Wing accounts of all varieties are definitely flooding the place and getting pushed into the feed.

Musk is very, very upset with Brazil, too, for blocking X.  I've also seen people saying he was asked to block 7 accounts, refused to do so and was country banned.  But this:

"Interesting", as Musk would say.

He's also being as childish as usual, but I liked the response:

He does make a good Nazi.

Any other tweet I have forgotten to post?  This one:

Such sophisticated politics from Tucker.

And there's this:

Always fantasising about a civil war if they don't get their way. 

Back to pebble bed

Sabine Hossenfelder has posted another video about something I used to post about in the early days of this blog:  pebble bed nuclear reactors.

I used to follow a now defunct website by an enthusiast who wrote about progress in the development of this type of reactor, particularly with a group that wanted to build one in South Africa. (The link is still in the sidebar.)   The idea of the reactor sounded very encouraging - the design of the fuel meant it really couldn't melt down - a passive safety system that should work regardless of power outages or other problems.

However, the South African project never got going, and although China went ahead and developed one (which is what Sabine's video is about), I did read back in the day about a German research reactor of this type that had a lot of problems - particularly with the fuel pellets breaking up and causing a real radioactive mess inside the core that was difficult to deal with.   (I'm pretty sure I also read someone claiming if the pellets at high temperature were exposed to air, they could burn, which is not ideal!  But I could be wrong about that.)

Anyway, Sabine's video is about the Chinese doing an actual "will it meltdown" test of their reactor, and it passed.

However, she doesn't mention the German reactor experience at all - but many people in comments have.   

Some claim that the fuel pellet design has changed and improved since the German attempt - but given the huge number of pellets needed in these reactors, I wonder how hard it is to guarantee that you won't have some break apart (and how hard they will be to remove) during the life of the reactor.   (I think - but could be wrong! - that the pellets, which are re-circulated through the reactor - move down through it via gravity - and hence having some pellets split could well represent a major problem if the pieces somehow jam the flow of the pellets.)  This really seems the major problem, as far as I can tell.

Anyhow, here's her video:

Arlington context

Oh, the New York Times does a useful bit of context setting for Trump's disgraceful use of Arlington video in a campaign video:

In November 1999, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and former prisoner of war in Vietnam who was widely considered a military hero, said that his newly launched presidential campaign had made “a very bad mistake.”

Mr. McCain, who at the time was trailing far behind George W. Bush in the race for their party’s nomination, had produced a campaign ad highlighting his career as a Navy pilot and his reverence for his fellow service members. At one moment, the ad showed Mr. McCain walking solemnly through Arlington National Cemetery.

The Army soon said that Mr. McCain’s campaign had never requested permission to film in the cemetery. Even if it had, an Army spokesman said at the time, the request would have been denied because partisan activity is banned at Army installations. A campaign spokesman said that the clip had come from one of the senator’s periodic visits to the graves of his father and his grandfather.

It was an incident in campaign politics that closely mirrored, before it sharply diverged from, another that took place last week. An Army spokesman said on Thursday that former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign had similarly not been given permission to film in a restricted area of Arlington National Cemetery during Mr. Trump’s visit on Monday — and that it could not have received such permission because it would violate federal law.....

In Mr. McCain’s case, by contrast, the senator quickly moved to cut the cemetery footage — a two-second clip in which no particular grave is visible — from his campaign ad just days after the Army issued its statement. Mr. McCain said it was “stupidity” that his campaign had not acted even sooner to respond to the criticism.

Other candidates involved in similar incidents often quickly removed the images. In late 2015, John Bel Edwards, a Democrat running for governor in Louisiana, cut an image of Arlington National Cemetery from a campaign ad after its presence prompted a backlash. “When my husband and I see your commercial,” the mother of a man buried at the cemetery had written to Mr. Edwards, “we are both uncomfortable and disappointed to see the Arlington National Cemetery used for politics.”...

“It is not uncommon that a politician drags the military into a partisan moment — that happens all too often, and both parties do it,” Mr. Feaver said. “What is unusual in this instance is how the Trump team reacted when they were called out for it. Instead of apologizing or claiming it was all a misunderstanding, they doubled down.”

Which all goes to show that it's irrelevant what the Trump supporting families think about it.  It was wrong of Trump to use the video in campaign video, full stop.

 

Amusing

 From the Onion, of course...

The bad news continent

That would be Africa, which seems to rarely be the source of positive news lately.

Today, in the New York Times, for example:

The resurgence of mpox has reminded the world of how dangerous this disease is for personal and community health. But less focus has been placed on the profound crises that exacerbate outbreaks like these, particularly in Africa. They are made exponentially worse because of the broader sociopolitical and economic challenges that many African countries face, exposing vulnerabilities that extend far beyond the realm of public health. Mpox is simply the latest crisis, and this cycle will not abate without meaningful action to alleviate the larger plights affecting the continent.

The Democratic Republic of Congo stands as a stark example of how a health crisis can intertwine with ongoing emergencies. The country experienced outbreaks like cholera, Ebola and Covid-19. Now it is at the center of the mpox outbreak in Africa. This year Congo has reported over 17,000 cases and over 500 deaths — the most cases and deaths in the continent — particularly in provinces like Équateur and South Kivu. These regions, already burdened by conflict, displacement and health infrastructural collapse, are grappling with the additional strain of a widespread and deadly mpox outbreak.

The emergence of a new mpox strain has added a layer of complexity to a challenging situation. Although the disease has spread predominantly because of sexual contact between adults, any physical contact can cause transmission of the virus. This means the overcrowded camps housing hundreds of thousands of people displaced by armed conflict are potential breeding grounds for a large-scale outbreak of the disease. These displaced families are grappling with the trauma of conflict, and now they must navigate the additional burden of disease.

And they're about to start eating a lot of elephants down south:

The Southern African nation of Namibia is planning to butcher hundreds of its most majestic animals to feed some of the 1.4 million people — nearly half the country — who are in a hunger crisis amid the worst drought in a century.

The plan, under which the country will kill 723 wild animals, including 83 elephants, to feed people, is “necessary” and “in line with our constitutional mandate where our natural resources are used for the benefit of Namibian citizens,” the country’s ministry of environment, forestry and tourism said in a news release.

 Meanwhile, over in Ethiopia, a story from last month:

A humanitarian crisis is unfolding in the north of Ethiopia, driven by drought, crop failure and continued insecurity in the aftermath of a brutal war.

With local officials warning that more than two million people are now at risk of starvation, the BBC has gained exclusive access to some of the worst affected areas in Tigray province, and analysed satellite imagery to reveal the full scale of the emergency the region now faces.

The month of July is a critical period for food security, when farmers need to plant crops to take advantage of the seasonal rains.

As for local genocides, this was happening a couple of years ago, to little notice in the rest of the world (if I may extrapolate from my low knowledge!):

In a report released last week, issued by the United States-Based New Lines Institute, significant evidence that Ethiopian forces, alongside Amhara Special Forces (ASF), Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF), and Ethiopia’s National Defence Force (ENDF), committed genocidal acts against Tigrayans during the Tigray War (2020-2022) has been documented....

The conflict in Tigray erupted in November of 2020 as a bid by regional authorities for greater autonomy. Tensions erupted when the Tigrayan leadership, represented by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front who had dominated the political and security apparatus for over two decades, defied regional authority and held elections in September of 2020. The outcome was full-out war when forces attacked a federal military command base.

This led to the Ethiopian military moving into the northern region of the country. According to the report, measured by the number of deaths, the Tigray War is the deadliest armed conflict of the 21st century and one of bloodiest since the end of the Cold War, which claimed the lives of over 400,000 soldiers and 300,000 civilians. All parties to the conflict have been alleged to have committed systematic abuses against civilian populations, including widespread sexual violence, mass killings, and torture, among other war crimes. The humanitarian situation remains bleak and has been exacerbated by climate change. The worst drought in 40 years has decimated food production, resulting in 4.5 million people requiring food aid. Meanwhile, one million still remain displaced.

Move up a bit, and we get to Sudan and its seeming state of never-ending crisis.  The Economist writes:

IT IS HARD to see past the human tragedy of the war in Sudan. Perhaps 150,000 people have died since fighting began last year and more than 10m have fled their homes. Millions could perish in the world’s worst famine for at least 40 years. These are reasons enough to care about the conflict. But the collapse of Sudan, at the intersection of Africa and the Middle East, with seven fragile neighbours and some 800km of coast on the turbulent Red Sea, has alarming geopolitical consequences, too.

Sudan is a chaos machine. The war sucks in malign forces from the surrounding region, then spews out instability—which unless the conflict is halted will only get worse. As the country disintegrates, it could upend regimes in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. It could become a haven for terrorists. It could send an exodus of refugees to Europe. And it could exacerbate the crisis in the Red Sea, where attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthis have already contorted global shipping. “This is a war that is impacting severely on three continents,” says Endre Stiansen, Norway’s ambassador to Sudan.

All a tad depressing...

 

This is so sleazy

I'm assuming the "@realdonaldtrump" tic tok account is his?  (Yes, I just checked and it surely is.)

This is such an appalling use of military deaths and the veterans cemetery.

 

 

The Moon as lifeboat

I've been muttering about lunar colonisation having a potential "lifeboat" function for Earth if ever it faces global catastrophe (all out nuclear war, asteroid, stray black hole?) for years.  Much more sensible than worrying about colonising Mars.

Now, I see via Sabine Hossenfelder, that some scientists are proposing it - although specifically as a biorepository: 

Update:  I am curious about the scenario as to whether or not Wikipedia contains enough information for the rapid re-creation of technological civilisation if you had to start from scratch.

I mean, you can download the entire thing (including photos) for around 100 GB, apparently.   (Different articles give different figures, though.  On Wikipedia itself, it says that text only, compressed, would take up 22 GB.  In any case, even if it's 150GB, I have enough spare memory on my current phone for that.)

But here's the thing - to print it out would take 61 million pages, apparently.   So being able to access it from electronic memory is going to be important.   If a huge burst of radiation from the Sun or an exploding star can fry most electronics on Earth, that might be a problem.

I assume there is going to be an adequately shielded copy of it somewhere on Earth - but how many, I don't know.   I like the idea of some survivalist who stores his Wikipedia loaded phone in a radiation proof box (and who can recharge it via a camping solar panel) being the key knowledge holder in some ram shackle post apocalyptic village.    

Finally, Wikipedia itself points me to a book from 2014 called The Knowledge: How to Rebuild the World From Scratch.   It got good reviews too, it seems.  Maybe I should get a certain "free" library to see if it's there. (It is!)  Maybe I should download it...

The youth crime issue

The lefty Australian twitter accounts I see have been going off about the new conservative Northern Territory government saying that they decrease the age of criminal responsibility to 10.   [Although, I now see that the previous Labor government had raised it to 12, and that was only a year ago!   The reaction on the lefty side had given me the impression it had been 12 for some time, but in fact it is just a reversion to something from a year ago?]

No doubt, most of those caught by that will be indigenous offenders.

I agree that it does sound pretty extreme [ahem, but note, I hadn't realised it had been this until recently], but thinking more about it, perhaps the following points make it potentially useful:

*    it doesn't necessarily mean that the kids will be given a custodial sentence, but that is how all lefty advocates are treating it.   Given the difficulty that all States in Australia have with running "successful" youth detention facilities (from what I can gather, no one wants to work in them, and the behavioural issues with the offenders is often ultimately down to poor parenting - including fetal alcohol syndrome, which has permanent developmental effects), I can't see that the Northern Territory is going to easily create decent custodial facilities for 10 year olds.  I'm not sure what other sentencing options there may be - but it may that the legislation change needs to add new ideas to sentencing too.

*  If the sentencing options are going to include an ability to take the kids from parents, is one benefit that parents might be encouraged to take greater responsibility for their kids?   I mean, whenever we see stories on remote aboriginal communities, we are shown kids out on the streets at night, often with services that offer to pick them up and take them home (at least if it is safe to do so.)   It's clear that the problem is often that there is no parental culture of kids staying at home at night to do homework or entertain themselves indoors.   Would parents in those communities react to the threat that if your (say) 12 year old does something criminally wrong, he will be instantly taken away for it, create any incentive for them to keep the kid at home?   Sounds pretty optimistic to think so, but seems to me we are running out of ideas.

I will add to this later...

Update:   Hmmm.  According to The Guardian:

Finocchiaro wants to introduce “boot camps” among mandatory diversionary programs for young offenders.

I wonder if these have ever worked all that well anywhere?   Again, I can well imagine the difficulty in getting them staffed.   

Other ideas:

Finocchiaro’s campaign platform also promised to reintroduce truancy officers to police school absences and vowed to hold parents accountable for their children’s criminal behaviour by threatening to have government benefits restricted.

“If parents are not caring for their children’s basic needs they will be referred to commonwealth income management like the basics card,” the CLP platform said.

 Update 2:  Well, this shows how little I know about what's been tried in the past with the youth criminal justice system.   Here's a report from 2017 on the success of "boot camps" that were tried before in the Queensland system (under a previous Liberal National Party government).   It talks about their success or failure in other jurisdictions too.    And here's a more recent paper (2021) about them in Queensland, as well a 2006 paper by the Australian Institute of Criminology called Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps - Are They Effective?  (A quick look indicates the answer is "not very".)  Here's the synopsis:

Wilderness programs that include adventure activities and 'boot camps' involving military-like discipline are often promoted as effective crime prevention measures for young people in contact with the justice system or those at risk of criminal involvement. However, research reviews show mixed results for such programs.

One recent systematic review of boot camps showed no overall positive effect from the military type and physical activity aspects of these programs when recidivism was used as the measure of success (Wilson & MacKenzie 2006). This review found that camps might be more effective if the primary emphasis is therapeutic rather than militaristic and physical. Other reviews agree that it is the therapeutic elements of such programs that are crucial to success (AIC 2003; Wilson & Lipsey 2000). In a review of the crime prevention effect of wilderness challenge programs with delinquent youth, Wilson and Lipsey (2000) found the recidivism rate was eight percent lower for program participants (29%) than for control subjects (37%). In particular they found that established programs were more effective, indicating the need for ongoing core funding to assist programs to be more effective.

The following components are likely to increase successful outcomes for programs:

• thorough assessment and ongoing monitoring of participants
• a risk management assessment of activities and screening of program staff
• multi-modal treatments with a cognitive-behavioural orientation, e.g. behaviour modification techniques, drug and alcohol programs (Lipsey & Wilson 1998; Singh & White 2000)
• addressing specific criminogenic needs, e.g. attitudes supporting offending, peer groups, family problems, drug and alcohol use, anger and violence problems (Singh & White 2000)
• meaningful and substantial contact between participants and treatment personnel, and
• inclusion of an aftercare component (AIC 2003).

Programs for Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse youth should engage significant others, be culturally appropriate, and have staff who can relate to the clients (Singh & White 2000).

 Oh, and here's an article from late last year about a Queensland politician who wanted to reintroduce boot camps, which explains what happened with the last attempt:

Bolton raised the possibility of reintroducing the Newman-era youth boot camps – scrapped by Labor in 2015 – as one solution to what is being portrayed as a youth crime crisis.

Created by the then attorney general, Jarrod Bleijie, in February 2013, the boot camp trial allowed for convicted children to be sentenced by a court to spend a month in a remote location. Targeted at children already in the youth justice system, it was designed to offer an alternative to jail.

The program immediately ran into problems, with far fewer children sentenced to the orders than initially anticipated, until the government made them mandatory for some children repeatedly convicted of stealing a car.

Bleijie’s trial was closed by the Palaszczuk government in 2015 after a cost blowout. An independent report by KPMG found the program was more than twice as expensive as traditional youth detention while reoffending rates were the same. The auditor general also found the Newman government’s choice of tender was flawed. The camps were criticised by some academics as being “mean spirited”, for taking a military approach to discipline, and being too punitive.

 

 

New York Times introduces comedy section

Spotted in today's NYT:

 I liked this comment in response:

 

Yet more scepticism on psychedelics for mental health

A lengthy article appeared in the New York Times a couple of days ago about the growing scepticism of many of the studies about the use of psychedelics for various mental health issues.  The title:

How Psychedelic Research Got High on Its Own Supply

is pretty amusing, because the article argues that this is literally what has happened with some researchers.

Some extracts:

If you had asked me some years ago whether the F.D.A. would and should approve this much-anticipated new drug, I would have given an enthusiastic yes. I was for a long time a psychedelic proponent, bullish on the idea that a once-illicit treatment could have widespread benefits for the many who are suffering. But through my own experience in the psychedelic community and proximity to the science of psychedelic therapy, I’ve come to realize that the field is plagued with poor clinical trial design and questionable practices that have led researchers and clinicians to premature confidence in what psychedelics can do. The recent F.D.A. decision has added to my concern that Western medicine’s promotion of psychedelics might have oversold hope to the most vulnerable among us, while fueling an industry that was once projected to be worth over $7 billion by 2029.

My personal Summer of Love kicked off in 2018, when I first dropped acid and slipped into a community of medical professionals and researchers who both promoted and used psychedelics. The excitement for these drugs seemed to be in the very air of Cambridge, Mass., where I had moved for a science journalism fellowship, auditing classes at M.I.T. and Harvard. I attended a seminar taught by Michael Pollan before he released his 2018 book on the resurgent popularity and potential of psychedelics, “How to Change Your Mind.” Society seemed to be slowly opening up to these drugs, and it felt like we were at the center of things. Taking MDMA also felt like a doorway to the purest form of love and truth I had ever experienced; it seemed obvious to me that MDMA had benefits.

In hindsight, the confidence we had in these substances before the clinical trials were finished should have been a warning sign that hype was outstripping the science.....

 ...the potential for researchers to bias the outcomes of these trials has become a common critique of the psychedelic research field. It is unusual for a drug under F.D.A. consideration to also be used personally and recreationally by the researchers studying it, or even for clinical trial researchers and clinicians to be encouraged to test the drug themselves. But that’s exactly what Lykos has done with MDMA. In a phone conversation after the F.D.A. decision, Dr. Doblin told me that therapists should be “strongly encouraged” to have their own psychedelic experiences, as it “really helps therapists to better understand their patients.” He says almost all of the researchers in the Lykos phase 3 clinical trials underwent MDMA experiences themselves, and many studying the drug are open about their own recreational use.

It’s difficult to disentangle the personal enthusiasm for psychedelics with the study of these drugs as therapeutic interventions.

The article notes that this has been an issue with research on the potential benefits of psychedelics from the start:

As part of a postwar pharmacological boom, psychiatrists in the 1950s explored psychedelics enthusiastically. About a thousand research papers were produced; tens of thousands of patients were prescribed LSD. But as the lines between scientific, clinical and recreational drug experimentation among researchers blurred, experts who once saw potential in psychedelics warned against their potential dangers.

“The trouble is, LSD attracts unstable therapists as much as it does the neurotic patient,” said Sidney Cohen, a leading psychedelic researcher and psychiatrist, in 1963. “It gives them an intoxicating sense of power to bestow such a fabulous experience on others.”

As you may expect with this controversial topic, the comments are very split between those who think the article is a "hit piece" (and who often cite their own positive experiences with psychedelics as reason to not believe the scepticism), and those who say "I always suspected this."

Guess which category I fall into!  :)

Matt Berry, vampire

I recently mentioned how funny I find What We Do in the Shadows (the series made out of the movie), and how it seems under-recognised in Australia.  (And elsewhere?   I rarely see it mentioned in media.)

But here's a New York Times interview with Matt Berry, who has been nominated for an Emmy, talking about what it's been like working on the show.  He surely is the funniest character actor from England working at the moment.  

For the conspiracy mongers out there

Here's an article from the Washington Post about what remains to be released about the John F Kennedy assassination, noting how Trump had previously promised to release everything, and then was talked out of it when he was president.  

By the way, the fact that the CIA was keeping at least some track of what Oswald was up to seems no surprise, given his sucking up to Russia at the time.

As with UFOs, I think it's fair to say that belief in conspiracy about the assassination used to be more a Left wing thing, but then Right wingers (and especially MAGA) started to believe an increasing number of conspiracies and finally got a dumb leader who actually promoted them (climate change, Obama birtherism, "the Deep State is a'gin us" generally, election rigging, etc etc) and they've become the main ones interested in old conspiracy theories too.

 

What a turnaround

I'm talking about the Democratic Convention, where it seems absolutely everything went spectacularly right.  (Well, save for the mystery of who started the rumour of Beyonce or Swift turning up at the end to sing the crowd out.)   

They talked about it in glowing terms on Planet America's Fireside Chat last night, and to be honest, I haven't personally watched any of the highlight speeches in full length yet. (I'll probably watch Harris and maybe the Obamas later.)  But from all of the clips I've seen on news shows or elsewhere, I got the impression it went better than anyone expected:  no disruptive riots on the street outside, a picture of optimism and racial inclusiveness inside, and (perhaps?) a swing to the culture war centre where the party often mentioned respect for "diversity", but didn't seem to heavily emphasise the more controversial and polarising side of it (no bald non binary person in a dress who is a secret kleptomaniac featured on stage, for example.)  

And it drew out the embarrassing and shameful poison on the MAGA side - I thought it was clear as soon as I saw Walz's son's emotional reaction to his Dad on stage that it looked like he had developmental issues (and I quickly read that he did.)   I actually said to my son "I don't think even MAGA idiots would be game to mock this".  My son disagreed, and he was right!   (My God, there are many tweets by mouthbreathing idiots who now troll on Musk's cesspit that he's probably been sexually abused - or given brain damage by being beaten - by his pedo dad as a child.)    The most high profile person who "went there" (although not to that extreme) was Ann Coulter, who then deleted the "weird" tweet when she read about his health issues.  (To its ever so slight credit, the Hot Air conservative blog also criticised the attacks, and pointed out that even Ben Shapiro tweeted positively about it.)   

Anyhow, I guess I should still say that I'm not the biggest fan of Kamala's intonation when she speaks (but then again, Bill Clinton's accent has always grated a bit too), but this is just a trivial parochialism on my part.  Before Obama was elected, I really wasn't confident that he had the experience and qualities to be a good President, but I was happily proved very wrong.   

As lots of people are saying everywhere, the amazing thing is how well those in the Kamala campaign team have recognized that under Trump, the Republicans have reached the pinnacle of where decades  of bad faith catastrophising about Democrats in power* could take them - to be the party of such insane and overblown pessimism that they are now actually the anti-patriotic party.   Patriotism implies optimism, and Republicans have overplayed the "we are on the edge of catastrophe" card so many times, their version of optimism (only We can Make American Great Again) is now playing amongst independents as fake and insincere and anti-American.

Which is great! 

One other thing:  the success of the convention has given a real boost to the arm of the late night talk shows too - or at least, Colbert's show, which went to Chicago and has been held in a massive theatre to wildly enthusiastic audiences.   Have a look at this clip of his talking to very smart and very attractive AOC, to see what I mean:

  

Of course, there is still time for things to go wrong for a Harris/Walz win:  in America, you're always only one bullet away from drama with unpredictable consequences.

But I am feeling pretty confident that, in their heart of hearts, most conservative commentators can tell their side is definitely on a losing path, and might even secretly feel that Harris is performing well. But it's hard to tell - the Right has become expert at self-gaslighting for so long, you never can tell how many are beyond returning to reality and anything approaching a generosity of spirit. 

*  it will be the end of America - and they're literally evil!

 

  

Late to view

I'm a decade late to getting around to watching Season 1 of True Detective, the show about which I continually read suffered a big decline in quality after the highly praised first season.

As every reader probably knows, season one stars the actor to whom I'm unreasonably allergic - Matthew McConaughey - and Woody Harrelson (who I also have never warmed to.)   

Two episodes in and my early verdict - it's pretty pretentious and a case of "trying too hard".  Still don't understand the framing device (why the two detectives are being questioned at length about the old case, and why they are spending so much time on their autobiographical details.)  I'm finding Woody Harrelson's acting a bit arch and unconvincing.  I'm ranking him as worse in the show than McConaughey - although he's still somewhat irritating me.  

Sure, the Louisiana setting is interesting if you like watching depictions of the seedy, poor South.

I'll keep watching it for  now, but as I said to my son it's got Deep South Twin Peaks vibes but without any of the quirky fun (or a likeable character anywhere to be seen.)   So yeah, I really have the feeling it was overrated at the time.    

Nuttiest candidate no more?

Disappointing to read that RFK Jnr is almost certain to pull out of the Presidential race, since it seemed well confirmed that staying in would only hurt Trump.    I don't think his endorsing Trump (as rumoured) will make much difference beyond his withdrawal.   

The funniest explanation of his weirdest story (the dead bear in Central Park) was on this Daily Show episode (starting at the 7 min 11 sec mark).  I laughed a lot.

Green balls of fire

I've always been skeptical of Luis Elizondo's claims about the significance of his role in the Pentagon's seemingly on again/off again interest in UFO's (or now, "UAPs").   Now he's put out a book, with a lot of big, dubious claims, and I get the impression the mainstream media is like me - pretty much ignoring him because it all sounds too much - too "good" to be true. 

But, here's a pretty non-critical article (not exactly a review) of the book at the New York Times.   It notes:

In the book he asserted that a decades-long U.F.O. crash retrieval program has been operating as a supersecret umbrella group made up of government officials working with defense and aerospace contractors. Over the years, he wrote, technology and biological remains of nonhuman origin have been retrieved from these crashes.

“Humanity is, in fact, not the only intelligent life in the universe, and not the alpha species,” Elizondo wrote.

More evidence for the big claim, please.

I am interested in this claim, though:

In “Imminent,” Elizondo described his struggle within the program to investigate the phenomena, and his effort, since his resignation in 2017, to push for greater transparency on what is officially known about U.A.P. He also wrote about personal encounters with U.A.P. — green orbs that he said visited his home while he worked for the Department of Defense....

Elizondo also wrote in the memoir of personal encounters with U.A.P., describing green-glowing orbs about the size of a basketball that invaded his home on and off for over seven years. The objects were able to pass through walls, and behaved as if they were under intelligent control, he wrote.

The orbs were also witnessed by his wife, two daughters and their neighbors, he wrote.

As for “our friends from out of town,” they do not appear to be benevolent, he wrote; perhaps they are neutral. Or they could be a threat to humanity.

Curious that, in this day of camera being in the hand of most people for much of the time they are at home, he hasn't shared any video of said orbs.

It's not that these are a novel thing associated with UFOs, though.   Stop me if you have heard this before, but there was a bit of a panic about green fireballs in the late 1940's being seen around remote military nuclear sites in the desert in the US.   The Wikipedia article about this is not very convincing, though - it gives the impression that it was likely all a case of panic over green meteors, which are not unknown.   But when you read the reports of the sightings, the trajectories of many sure don't sound like meteors.

I think I have read somewhere that some sightings were of orbs very close to the ground and looking as if they were centred on nuclear research buildings.   But Googling around isn't turning up a good example - I might have to go looking in my collection of UFO books on the shelf at home!

Certainly, it would not be surprising if some of these cases were ball lightning, or the equivalent of the "ground lights" like the Min Min from outback Australia and similar lights in other parts of the world, which turn up so often they do seem a natural electrical phenomena.

I suspect that Luis thought this was a good UFO-ish mystery story to pretend has affected his life - no one outside the house need corroborate.   Sure, if his family turn up on interviews appearing genuine and confirming more than one encounter with a green orb with seeming intentional movement, I might be intrigued and start believing him.   But I'm not taking it too seriously before then. 

So that's what sane politics looks like

Surely the overwhelming reaction that anyone reasonable should get from watching the Democrat Convention is "So, this is what a sane and normal looking bunch of American politicians and supporters looks like.  The Republican convention had me thinking American politics was essentially a carny sideshow, complete with ageing freaks and politicians wanting to get into the boxing ring with each other, all with a cosplaying audience."   

Relativism and Asian philosophy, revisited

Many, many years ago, I read online an essay by someone (no one famous, I'm pretty sure) about Eastern philosophy, and (I think) Buddhism, that argued that they were essentially relativistic about morality.   I didn't keep a link to it, and in fact I think I may have been reading it on a library computer - it was the very early days of the internet - and even if I am wrong and was reading it at home, I have been through umpteen different computers and laptops since then, and who really keeps bookmarks that consistently?   (That's a good reason to blog, actually - it does help me find links to things I read years ago.)   

Anyway, it was the type of online content that I am never likely to find again, but Googling around I see that a philosopher David B Wong has been prominent in arguing for (a kind of?) moral relativism as being legitimate, and his work has prompted a book Moral Relativism and Chinese Philosophy.  

Why am I thinking about this?   Probably because of the Daoism content on Religion for Breakfast, and some anti-China Tweet I saw the other that ran the argument (usually promoted by American Christians, I think) that the mainland Chinese have become irreligious and purely materialistic and hence ruthlessly immoral (using the terrible example of drivers who make sure the people they run over really are dead, as that way there is little to be claimed in compensation.)   (Lots of people tweeted in response that this is ridiculous oversimplification of the state of Chinese society.)  

So, this post is just a reminder of things I ought to get around to looking into more deeply one day.  I still haven't read more about Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, even though I posted about him 18 months ago.  He does sound very "middle way", which seems an appealing approach to everything as I get older.    

And speaking of which, Googling turns up this - the Middle Way Society, which seems to have been recently created by people with a secular Buddhist approach:  

The Middle Way is the idea that we make better judgements by avoiding fixed beliefs and being open to practical experience. We challenge unhelpful distinctions between facts and values, reason and emotion, religion and secularism or arts and sciences. Though our name is inspired by some of the insights of the Buddha, we are independent of Buddhism or any other religion. We seek to promote and support integrative practice, overcoming conflict of all kinds.

Another page says this:

Moral judgement is an everyday part of our experience, not a remote or ‘queer’ thing requiring extraordinary proof to be justified. There are a variety of types of moral principle that people draw on – for example, religious authority, utilitarianism, Kantian principle, or virtue ethics – and any and all of these can reflect our experience of moral demands. Yet none of these types of moral principle offers the whole story, and our judgements can always gain in objectivity by addressing conditions better, whichever type of principle may be drawn on to help us do this.

Middle Way Philosophy can offer a sceptical perspective on the claims of many ethical systems that are based on metaphysics. It can also offer the grounds of confidence that there is incremental objectivity in ethical judgements. If we keep trying to extend our awareness, and draw on a variety of approaches to ethics rather than only one, we can make moral progress in the judgements we make. This perspective can be asserted with confidence because it takes into account the uncertainty of ethics, not despite it. If we avoid false certainty either of a positive or of a negative type, we have much better grounds of confidence than we had either when we appealed to false certainty or when we merely lamented its loss.

I should read more about it...  

Update:   Oh, this, a paper from Singapore, sounds interesting too:

 

Power for the taking

This is what I like to see - a specific proposal for the expansion of clean energy.  From the Conversation:

Our calculations show Australia has enough unused commercial and industrial rooftop space to supply at least 25% of our annual electricity use – five times as much as currently supplied by gas-fired generators.

Australia is already the world’s top rooftop solar nation, per capita. But our solar is largely on our houses. We have four times as much residential solar as we do on commercial buildings. In Europe, it’s the opposite – there’s 1.5 times as much solar on businesses as on houses. The EU’s new Solar Energy Standard is expected to double rooftop solar capacity in four years.

In our new discussion paper, we make the case for a massive expansion of battery-backed solar photovoltaic power on Australian business premises. Call it “business power”.

There are excellent reasons for policymakers and building owners to look at this. It offers a potentially large new source of cheap, reliable, clean electricity with little downside risk.

 

Some positive things

*  By and large, I think the ABC still does radio pretty well.   I would mark out for particular praise the overall likeability and competence of Marc Fennell (he's pretty good on TV too, although he does draw some boring shows, like host of Mastermind), Richard Fielder as an interviewer (gosh he's been doing it for a long time now), and I still think Norman Swan is also good to listen to.  Sure, there is a lot of content I won't listen to, and some hosts who are well past their "use by" date (I have complained that the Science Show has been pretty dull for many years now), but I always get the feeling that, for a small country, our government funded radio really punches above its weight.    The best way to get "the best" of it now is to use the ABC Listen app - I find it works well.

*  ABC TV is struggling a bit by comparison.   It seems pretty lazy when quite a lot of bland British light drama/light crime content is still relied upon to fill up empty space.   (Really, who watches shows like Sister Boniface Mysteries and Call the Midwife?  I mean, when I was younger I could say "it's not for me but it's probably popular with the oldies", but now that I am over 60, I can't imagine any of my contemporaries watching it!)    But then again, Australia drama is often completely unappealing too.  It has always been that way, though.  I'm not sure it is getting any worse, so that's a positive.

As for comedy content - yes I think it's main problem is in the innovation department.  But maybe its because I don't like many comedians under 30 any more?   

You still can't beat it for current affairs:  watch the ABC news, 7.30, Planet America, Foreign Correspondent, and sometimes Four Corners, and you'll be pretty well informed on all major topics.  Compared to the absolutely scandalous nature of current affairs programs on Channel 7 in the last couple of years, there is no comparison.

*   I continue to love all videos put out on Religion for Breakfast.   It doesn't matter what the topic (the massive scale of the Daoist "scriptures"), or whether I had an interest in it before (the origins of the Pope's pointy hat), there is a 95% chance I will enjoy it.    

*   This is hard to explain without sounding weird, but I un-ironically like watching the Singaporean National Day Parade.   (This was on last week.)   It starts with military parade stuff, then a demonstration, complete with corny narration, of all their defence and civil services in action (sort of like a souped up Edinburgh Military Tattoo, I guess?), and the last hour or so is a large concert full of songs old and new about the country which always - always! - emphasise the importance of unity of the mixed ethnicities.   The only way to put it is that it is 100% pure propaganda - but when it's for sentiments that are purely positive - well, it's actually praiseworthy, isn't it?  And it's flawlessly produced, with the participants from such a diversity of ages and backgrounds, it indicates that it's propanganda that is taken to heart by the citizens.  Again - it's good propaganda!

So it's not a simple kind of "just the State engendering patriotism for self interested reasons"  (although, of course, the cynical could say it is just that): it's a State that is continuously encouraging its people to get along together, and to be proud of the fact that they do, pretty much, get along.  

Here, you can watch the (pretty decent) National Day theme song for this year, and get an idea of what I mean.

 

  

Twitter madhouse

Musk's play thing formally known as Twitter is absolutely awash at the moment with Right Wing panic and attempts to invent and make slurs against Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as a response to their rapid gains in the polls.

Some are gross, many based on typical RW reactions (such as "Tim Walz acts gay and weird"), others are based on "rumours" which are never, ever sourced ("Kamala's got a serious drinking problem - you can tell by the way she laughs").

It's transparently desperate. 

Good news for aurora hopefuls

I had assumed that the recent very extensive aurora, which I would quite like to see but live too far north, would not likely be repeated any time soon.   However, as explained by the Washington Post this weekend, it is likely we are going to have a repeat in the next couple of years:

The displays so far have been quite the warm-up. On May 10, when Pegram saw her first aurora, Earth was hit by the biggest geomagnetic storm in about two decades, with the most widespread aurora in probably 500 years. The storm was rated a severity level of 5 on a scale of 5, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But at least seven other storms have reached a 4 since 2019....

Scientists won’t confirm when the peak month of solar activity is until a few months after it’s passed — like waiting for all contestants of a race to compete before declaring a winner. But they know we’re getting close.

About every decade or so, the sun’s north and south magnetic poles flip, which affects the solar activity seen at the surface. This “solar cycle” means some years are more active on the sun’s surface than others, usually measured by the number of dark blotches called sunspots. More visible sunspots mean more active, magnetically complex regions on the sun that can spawn flares and explosions. Not all of these sun’s eruptions hit Earth, but it’s like adding more darts to a dart board game — there are more chances one will land....

When the cycle does reach the other side of the maximum, it will be good sign for aurora chasers. The biggest geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the year or two after reaching the maximum, a phenomenon known as the Gnevyshev gap, said McIntosh, vice president of space operations at Lynker and formerly the deputy director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“The real fun of the solar cycle is not now. It’s what comes in the next few years,” he said. “The storms get more complex, more frequent, and that makes them a bit more impactful for Earth.”

Coming off its solar maximum, the sun becomes a complex, muddy mess. As tendrils of the next solar cycle move in, it can merge with the old solar cycle. McIntosh said the two systems have different polarities and can get tangled with each other. When the systems merge, the pluses and minuses start to realign to make the simplest configuration. But as it goes through this intricate spaghetti rearrangement, enormous amounts of energy are released.

 

 

Biden blows apart an attempted Trump narrative

The one about how incredibly bitter he is over giving up his candidacy, and he might try to take it back at the convention.  He was talking here with Kamala Harris on the same stage.

Update:  meanwhile, in Trump world -  

Also, I find it hard to disagree with this, even though I don't use that language:

 I actually suspect that even the most diehard of pro-Trump types in the couple of Australian Right Wing blogs I look at are finding it extremely difficult to keep crediting Trump as being smart.   He's just providing too much evidence against himself. 

Sabine gives a good explanation about AI

I liked Sabine Hossenfelder's take on Large Language Models and their limitations with respect to advancing AI.  It's a very clear explanation for this topic, I think: 

 

The comments are worth reading too - some saying that the issue is already being addressed.

Astronauts stuck in space - and Jerry Lewis

The story of the two astronauts stuck in the International Space Station for (possibly) an 8 month visit instead of the original planned 8 days reminded me of a Jerry Lewis film from the 1960's.    I really didn't remember much about it, except that it didn't seem very funny when I was a kid, and that it made me a bit uncomfortable  because it was essentially a sex comedy before I was anywhere near understanding sex.

Googling the topic, I see that it called Way...Way Out (a title with an unusual emphasis on punctuation), and the Wikipedia entry about it confirmed the one aspect I could recall - that near the start there were  male astronauts on the Moon who were going crazy because they had been away from women for too long.  Not having access to women drives men nuts, obviously [sarc!].   This did not really compute to my boyhood brain.   It's a curious thing, I think, that as a kid you can understand that something significant happens between men and women, but not really have any comprehension of the physical urge behind it.  But still, I always felt that it seemed in bad taste to spend all your time obsessing over the matter.  (I'm not exactly sure what made me naturally conservative in that respect.)

It is a pretty odd conceit for a film, given that 1966 was not all that long from World War 2 and the lived experience of a lot of men who had to have gone a long time without sex who didn't go nuts (for that reason, anyway).   And now, we have lots of men on long, long stays in the ISS without any reports of insanity breaking out.  I'm presuming that no sex with visiting females has ever happened there - although I guess any astronauts who did so engage wouldn't be telling anyone any time soon.   But the place has barely enough water for decent normal hygiene, let alone additional washing required due to sexual activities.  

Anyway - I've never been a fan of the "male sexual desperation" genre of comedy.  Although, now that I think of it, should I count Spielberg's 1941 as an exception?   I really like that film for a lot of different reasons, and there is one key sex element that is important to the plot.   But it's more about a fetish that is amusingly odd, and it's driven by a female character's desire, so I think that makes it more politically correct than the comedies based all on males doing desperate things to get sex that featured a lot in movies in the 1980's that I had no interest in seeing.  (1941 came out in 1979, in case you were wondering.)  

But back to Jerry Lewis's bad movie - Wikipedia says it make no money and neither critics nor the public liked it.  But someone has put the whole thing on Youtube (surprisingly, it was a Cinemascope film, apparently), so I guess I can go watch the whole thing and cringe again, if I want.  Lots of people in comments say that they still thought it a great film as a kid, so it takes all kinds, obviously.

Can you imagine what he was like as a child?

 

An interview with a very high disaster potential

It may have just started, but this was my feeling too:

Update:  Ha!  I did just try to watch it, but seems the streaming is not working on Twitter.   Good one, Elon.

Update 2:   I've started listening to a recording - so far, been about 30 minutes of Trump talking excitedly about the assassination attempt (which he claimed at the convention, with fake solemnity, he would never talk about again because it was too traumatic.)   

Continuing:   Wow, Trump's really motor-mouthing this "conversation".   Are we sure he doesn't do coke, or some other stimulant?   Elon is pathetically agreeing with everything, for the sake of not being "confrontational".   

 

More:   Elon is really pathetic, opining that the international community "respected" Trump as leader, and so ridiculously excited by Trump's post shooting theatre performance that he thinks world leaders will think it proves Trump's "don't mess with me" machismo. 

Now - Trump doing his "they're bad, Putin, Xi and Kim, but I really admire their toughness and success and I got along fine with them" dance.

And more:   Such childish attacks on Biden as "low IQ", "low IQ 30 years ago, no IQ now, can't even measure it", said "stupid things from his stupid face".   

What the heck?:   Musk opines that he thinks we have plenty of time to deal with reducing CO2, which he doesn't want to see get to 1,000 ppm because you start to get headaches at that level.   (In other words, seems to completely dismiss the IPCC work to estimate maximum "safe" temperature we should aim for.)  

And now:  Talking about high speed tunnels as an alternative to high speed trains???  Because Musk dug a couple of pretty useless, small tunnels in Vegas??

Oh thank God, it's finished....