Kimmel and the paranoid former crackhead

I think the Jimmy Kimmel/Mike Lindell interview is well worth watching for a few reasons:

*  I had no idea about Lindell's terrible history of addiction;

*  Kimmel continues to be the surprise "who would have thought someone involved in the cringe sexism of the Man Show was actually an intelligent quasi-liberal the whole time"?   Or perhaps his politics are libertarian lite - liberal, like Will Wilkinson?   I dunno, but he certainly recognises the appalling state of the Right in the form of Trump and the Republican Party.

*  Lots of comments following the video on Youtube are praising Lindell and saying he was brave and  has largely redeemed himself as sincere.  Depends on your perspective, I suppose, because I thought it showed him as a jittery character whose belief in election fraud is, as Kimmel said, entirely explicable by residual paranoia from long time (former) use of cocaine and crack.

Youth these days

This article in The Atlantic:

The Real Reason Young Adults Seem Slow to ‘Grow Up’

It’s not a new developmental stage; it’s the economy.

is a good read, and makes an interesting case that the age at which young people move out of home and start living independently is very much determined by a nation's economic situation at the time, and that the boom times of the 1950's made it unusually easy for American youth to start marrying earlier and living away from their parents.   So kids now taking a much longer time to leave home is more a return to previous historical norms.  

Seems valid enough, although by concentrating on economics, it doesn't take into account other factors that help account for young adults staying longer with the parents.  I'm thinking of the change in attitudes to sexual relationships, whereby in the West it is now considered completely unexceptional for a single, young adult child to have their girlfriend/boyfriend either live with them in the parents house, or at least stay over.   I'd be pretty sure that before that change, moving out of home, at least to a independent single life, was often motivated by wanting an active sex life that was hidden from the parents.   (I guess it would still be a motivating factor in many cases, because even if parents shrug shoulders about their adult kids sex lives now, it's not as if all adult children want their parents around their partner, or vice versa.  But still, it certainly happens in a not insubstantial number of households, and it is perhaps hard for younger folk to appreciate how scandalous this would have been in the average, even non-religious, household before, say, the 1970's?)

 

Forensics note

Science magazine has a short article that starts:

U.S. B-movie actress Lana Clarkson was found dead on 3 February 2003. She had been shot in the mouth at close range in the California mansion of record producer Phil Spector, who was later found guilty of her murder.

In his trial, the defense alleged that because Spector’s white jacket was stained with only 18 tiny drops of blood, he could not have been the perpetrator. Clarkson had to have taken her own life, they argued, for had Spector been the shooter, he would have been covered in blood. Now, a new study showing how muzzle exhaust moves drops of flying blood may explain why they were wrong.

When a person is shot, tiny blood droplets typically spray back in the direction of the shooter, a phenomenon known as “back spatter.” Traditionally, analysts assume blood travels along straight trajectories—but the reality is more complicated, with factors like gravity and aerodynamic drag also in play.

Inspired by the mystery of the Clarkson case, Alexander Yarin, an engineer at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues set out to pin down the exact physics involved. In an indoor firing range, they shot a foam cavity filled with pig’s blood with a 0.223-caliber long rifle—and filmed the resulting spray, which resembles that released by a person when shot....

Turns out that it's complicated by the gun's own muzzle gases:

As blood droplets coming from the victim encounter a vortex going in the opposite direction, they can get swept aside or along by the gas flow. They may even end up completely reversing direction, Yarin and colleagues report today in Physics of Fluids.  ....

This means such droplets can land behind the victim, along with the forward splatter from the bullet, Yarin explains. Depending on the position of the shooter, it’s even possible for their clothing to remain almost free of bloodstains. The team also found that muzzle gases can cause flying blood droplets to break up, changing the resulting spatter patterns that forensic experts have to interpret at crime scenes.

The findings are “world class,” says Daniel Attinger, a mechanical engineer from Iowa State University and a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts. Based on the work, he argues, “It would make sense to revisit criminal cases involving gunshots where the assumption of straight trajectories has been made.”

To be honest, it sounds a bit surprising that it has taken them that long to realise this.  Or maybe they  knew it was inconclusive evidence, and hence Spector was convicted despite that relative lack of blood on his clothes?

Speaking of forensics - was it a TV or movie I saw recently which made passing reference to bite pattern forensics being considered widely discredited now?   I think so, but I can't remember what it was.  I know it has been a controversial field - as the case of the terrible murder of Diedre Kennedy showed us back in the 1980's.

As a field, I do tend to worry about its reliability.

My astronaut connection - a final mention

So, Michael Collins has died:

American astronaut Michael Collins, who was part of the Apollo 11 original moon landing crew and kept the command module flying while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the moon, has died at the age of 90, his family said on Wednesday.

Collins had cancer. He was sometimes known as the “forgotten astronaut” because he didn’t get to land on the moon, while Armstrong and Aldrin became household names.

Time for me to mention again, for probably the third and last time, that I was once briefly in the same room as him.

I'm sure I read his book too.  He was a very modest man.  

And the Right have gaslite themselves into thinking they're following the smart one

Trump yesterday:

 Biden today:

Can't get enough Kant, too

Spotted in Kinokuniya, Sydney:

Notice the book "Kant's Humorous Writings"?   Yeah, I didn't know he told jokes or anecdotes in his lectures, but apparently he did.   I doubt they were actually hilarious, but wasn't about to spend a lot of money to find out. 

Can never get enough free will

Well, yeah, it might be going over old ground that you and I have read before, but this "long read" in The Guardian about the philosophical and scientific argument about the existence of free will is very good.   

Buddhism gets a mention too, and as it happens, I decided to start reading Karen Armstrong's 2000 biography (of sorts, given the lack of clearly authentic source material) on its founder while I was in Sydney last weekend.  (I read her book on Muhammad too, many years ago.)   Stylistically, I think she's a very good writer.   I'm not always sure that some of her points are valid, but she's a pleasure to read at all times.

Anyway, the free will article mentions Buddhism in this context:

This is what Harris means when he declares that, on close inspection, it’s not merely that free will is an illusion, but that the illusion of free will is itself an illusion: watch yourself closely, and you don’t even seem to be free. “If one pays sufficient attention,” he told me by email, “one can notice that there’s no subject in the middle of experience – there is only experience. And everything we experience simply arises on its own.” This is an idea with roots in Buddhism, and echoed by others, including the philosopher David Hume: when you look within, there’s no trace of an internal commanding officer, autonomously issuing decisions. There’s only mental activity, flowing on. Or as Arthur Rimbaud wrote, in a letter to a friend in 1871: “I am a spectator at the unfolding of my thought; I watch it, I listen to it.”

There are reasons to agree with Saul Smilansky that it might be personally and societally detrimental for too many people to start thinking in this way, even if it turns out it’s the truth. (Dennett, although he thinks we do have free will, takes a similar position, arguing that it’s morally irresponsible to promote free-will denial.)

Not sure that I have thought about this much before, but I guess you would have to say that Buddhism is the religion most consistent with the free will sceptics, or disbelievers, or whatever they like to be called.   But then again, if you go to Mahayana Buddhism, with its bodhisattvas taking the similar role of the  Catholic equivalent of the Communion of Saints, you could hardly say that it's very consistent with a lack of free will.   

Mahayana Buddhism seems more fun to me, anyway.  That's how people choose religion, no?

 

A complete and utter jerk (not to mention, danger to civil society)

Following up from last week's media attention to the fact that rich college boy Tucker made a "joke" about supporting a murderer of gay politicians,  we get this today:

 

He is just an obnoxious jerk of the highest order.
 

Still talking about Sydney

Things I still like about Sydney after all these years:

*   The antique feeling about some of the old underground subway stations in the city - like St James - with the iron rails and such like.  It reminds me of the London Underground, except not built for hobbits.  (I was surprised when I went to London that I had not known beforehand their tube trains and tunnels - or some of them, at least - seemed so narrow and small, like they were not really built for modern sized humans at all.)

*   David Jones Elizabeth Street:  not sure when it was last refurbished, but it's looking very spectacular now - it's the most perfect example of what a classic, upmarket department store should look like, if you ask me, putting even many overseas examples to shame.  Yet, you can still buy a danish in their food court for less than $5, while thinking about how you would not buy the French cheese at $170 a kg, but it's nice to know its there, for when I win Lotto. 

*  A youthful feel about its East Asian-centric multiculturalism.  No doubt this comes partly from always staying in the inner city, and Chinatown being pretty close to Town Hall and Central; but the city always feels to me not just multicultural, but to enjoy a particularly energetic, youthful sort of multiculturalism.  Melbourne feels more like old people from other countries, and any of their young are all absorbed from the age of 3 into that mind meld that makes them think AFL is the only important thing in the universe, instead of the reality that it's an eccentric local religion. 

Sydney looking pretty good

I was last in Sydney when the George Street light rail was still under its lengthy and expensive construction. But now that it's finished, George Street is looking pretty nice, and the light rail is very convenient to use:

Mind you, they're still doing something to a section of George Street down near Chinatown.  Don't know what.

I also liked the newish looking precinct near the convention centre:

That new Ribbon building will look good when finished:

And what's this public depravity happening at Circular Quay:

Adam Creighton would be ecstatic with the number of people at The Rocks yesterday:

Not where we were staying:

But a nice view of cables outside where we did stay:

Anyway, a very pleasant trip, as Sydney in good weather always is.

An Australian Colbert

So, I'm in a hotel and watching BBC World news, and this guy Aaron Heslehurst turns up with  30 business Talking Business show.

He's Australian; I've never heard of him before; and both his appearance and his, shall we say, excitable and somewhat mannered delivery reminds me very much of Stephen Colbert in his Colbert Report incarnation.

It's very odd.  Has Colbert ever noticed him?  

The technology works

I still strongly suspect that its not worth the amount of orbital space that it's taking up, but I have to admit, even with it being far from complete, the download speeds people get from Musk's Starlink satellites is pretty impressive:

 

If you can be bothered watching - he easily gets 123Mbps without fussing too much about setting up the antenna.

In Australia, it apparently costs $139 per month.  And the equipment, about $800.

Blows out our NBN satellite service out of the water, it seems. 

I still don't like Musk personally, though...

More than a touch of "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Look, it's not that I expect indigenous people to say they are grateful for European colonisation.   Of course, their experience is considered negatively.  But does it really help the cause of modern indigenous descendants to refuse to acknowledge that some things out of  a more technologically advanced Western culture were beneficial to them (at least, once they started being treated as people)?

Dumb, unhealthy, angry.... and happy?

Some stuff on Twitter has got me thinking about that favourite topic:  How the Right Got Consumed by the Culture Wars and Went Nuts.

This, for example:

And this:

That article by Richard Hanania (who I don't know) briefly makes the point that lots of research has shown that people who say they are on the Right are happier than those on the Left.   And I used to think that made sense when I was younger - the motivation to social change that is typical of the Left seemed to me to come mainly from people from unhappy family backgrounds.  

But the typical anger profile has, in large part, flipped now.   Sure, on the Left, there's lot of angry emotion over identity politics, but not all of it is ill founded.   And comedy has moved to be completely liberal dominated.  Happy people laugh more, don't they?

I wonder - is social research into happiness (which I suspect is actually quite a slippery thing to measure accurately) lagging behind the current state of the Right?   Because you sure as hell don't get the impression from social and Right wing media that the current Trumpy/Murdoch led American Right (and those Australians who align with it) has been happy for years.   A boiling pot of resentment that their ideas are not overwhelmingly accepted (by and large) by media, academia, big business and the public - yes.   A vast echo chamber of resentment and conspiracy mongering to explain why they find they find themselves in a minority - yeah.  

I note that some on the Right who were eulogising Rush Limbaugh recently said how much humour was a part of his early career - but I suspect that in the last decade, as with Right wing media generally, the attempts at humour became less important and got pushed out by anger, resentment and conspiracy.  

So, does it come down to the question - to what degree can you be angry all the time, and still count yourself as "happy"?      

Things to ponder over...

It does look like how science fiction imagined it

It is kind of surprising that the SpaceX Starship lunar lander could, apparently, be this big, going by this NASA illustration:

It does make the future look very much like it has the size imagined by science fiction writers and illustrators of the 50's and 60's.

Mind you, the Starship does not go from Earth to lunar landing.  I don't quite understand, really:

The agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will launch four astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft for their multi-day journey to lunar orbit. There, two crew members will transfer to the SpaceX human landing system (HLS) for the final leg of their journey to the surface of the Moon. After approximately a week exploring the surface, they will board the lander for their short trip back to orbit where they will return to Orion and their colleagues before heading back to Earth.

The firm-fixed price, milestone-based contract total award value is $2.89 billion.

 So is the gigantic lander going to be re-fuelled - how?