This and that

*  I can see from my emails (where comments also appear) that for some reason, some comments seem to be being made but are not appearing on the blog.  I have no idea why this is happening intermittently, sorry.

*  I agree with some comments on Twitter, that the devastating floods in parts of the USA at the moment are not attracting quite the attention in the US mainstream press as one might expect.   (I don't know if it's true, but one Youtube video this morning suggested that 1,000 people are still unaccounted for, which likely means the death toll is going to keep climbing.)   Someone else on Twitter said that it seems that as more flash floods are happening everywhere, they seem to be getting less media coverage, and someone else commented it's a bit like school shootings in the US - they don't attract the same length of attention that they used to.  It's the "new normal".  Which is a worry...

* I had no idea until last week's Foreign Correspondent that stealing copper (for sale on an international copper recycling black market) was a gigantic problem in South African cities.  

*  Not that I have ever paid much attention to him, but Gordon Ramsay's "easy" version of how to do chicken cacciatore gives good results.  (I usually add capsicum too.)  He doesn't even swear in the video.

*  Listening to an hour of William Dalrymple talking about the successful trading millennium or so of India was quite interesting.    

*  Speaking of ancient history, this fiction author (Robert Harris) seems well known and popular, but I hadn't noticed him before.   Sounds like his Roman trilogy is well regarded, as someone in comments says Mary Beard recommended them.

*  Everyone is expecting another of those wild swings that Queensland is well known for in its elections.  To an extraordinarily high degree, I reckon, youth crime is an important issue, and to an extent, the matter of indigenous policy.   It will be interesting to see if a "tough on crime" response can be made to work quickly.

Maybe they should just stop trying to make AR glasses a thing?

Did you see some of the videos in the last couple of days showing Zuckerberg trying on the new AR glasses prototype, and showing it being used for some really pathetic uses.  Check out this video:  the game of virtual ping pong looks as lame as lame can be:

 

 

The other use mentioned here - the glasses taking you to a recipe using ingredients that it sees on a counter - this is a case of expensive and somewhat clumsy technology saving all of - what? 20 seconds? - to type in "give me a recipe for a main meal using X, Y & Z"

Apart from some highly specialised industrial uses (say, using AR to help an engine mechanic apprentice find their way around a complicated task), I just see no compelling reason why AR is ever going to be more than a novelty for the home user that quickly wears off.     

Why can't Zuckerberg and his pals see that too?   

Youtube's fiddling with the "recommended" again

I'm guessing that other people may have noticed this:   in the last couple of weeks I have noticed that when I watch a video from a channel I haven't watched before from Youtube's "recommended" list, and then go back to the recommended list, there will immediately be another 3, 4 or 5 videos from the same channel near the start of the list.  Well, perhaps in the first half of the list, anyway.

I find this annoying, because if I find a video particularly engaging, my normal practice is to go to the channel to check out what its usual content is like, and decide whether I should subscribe.   I don't need Youtube recommending that I should watch another video from there immediately - I'm big enough to work out if I should check out the channel's content myself.

First world problem, sure.   And maybe content creators actually like this tactic?   But I find it irritating.

 

 

A certain country's reputation for a mature and relaxed attitude to sex takes a hit

I've been meaning to post about the extraordinary rape case in France, in which a husband of mature age set up a scheme in which his wife would be heavily sedated, and then men invited online to have sex with her.

What seems particularly unbelievable is the number of men willing to participate (83 potential participants, of whom 50 are being tried for rape.)   I mean, France is supposed to be the country where people fall in love and have sex at the drop of a hat, and affairs are (more-or-less) common, with mature couples and friends being prepared to "look the other way" as long as it is discreet and doesn't interfere with family life.   A reputation for what might be called a relaxed, or mature (well, that's debatable, I know), attitude towards sex - and hence a country where happy consensual sex is easy to find.

Not the country of scores of desperate and hard up men online looking for invitations to have sex with a sleeping wife!   I mean, what's the appeal of sex with an inactive partner anyway?  

I had wondered whether some of the accused would claim that they thought she was just acting and part of the "game" when she was sleepy or groggy during sex, and it would seem from the report I have linked to, some are trying it on.    Yet it seems the husband himself has pleaded guilty, so I don't know that his take on what happened is going to help anyone.

Meanwhile, in Queensland we've just had the law changed to put a positive obligation to know there is consent to sex.   The government website gives these illustrations of when there will be a problem:

The new consent laws outline some of the circumstances where there will be no consent. These include where someone…

• did not say or do anything to communicate consent;
• does not have the cognitive capacity to consent;
• is so affected by alcohol or another drug they are incapable of consenting or withdrawing consent;
• is unconscious or asleep;
• participates in the act because of force, a fear of force, harm of any type or a fear of harm of any type, whether to the person or another person, animal or property, and regardless of whether it was a single incident or part of a pattern of behaviour;
• participates in the act because of coercion, blackmail or intimidation, regardless of when it occurs or whether it is a single incident or part of an ongoing pattern;
• participates in the act because the person or another person is unlawfully confined, detained or otherwise deprived or their personal liberty;
• participates in the act because the person is overborne by the abuse of a relationship of authority, trust or dependence;
• participates in the act because of a false or fraudulent representation about the nature or purpose of the act, including about whether the act is for health, hygienic or cosmetic purposes;
• participates in the act with another person because the person is mistaken about the identity of the other person  or participates in the act with another person because the person is mistaken they are married to the other person;
• is a sex worker and participates in the act because of a false or fraudulent representation that the person will be paid or receive some reward for the act;
• participates in the act with another person on the basis that a condom is used for the act and the other person does any of the following things before or during the act: does not use a condom; tampers with the condom; removes the condom; or becomes aware that the condom is no longer effective but continues with the sexual act (‘stealthing’).

I can imagine that this will cause some difficult cases in future, if the law survives a change of government. 

A very, very comedy career

Apropos of nothing, have a look at this obituary in The Guardian about a British comedy writer, director and occasional performer who worked on an extraordinary number of shows since the 1960's with an extraordinary range of comedians.   

I think it must be fairly rare to find someone who can work with so many different types of comedian?

Given the current state of British comedy, which I think has been pretty dire for quite a long time (with only rare exception), we need more like him. 

Musing about the American election

It seems to me that this is surely one of the most difficult Presidential election to predict with any great certainty because of so many factors pulling in different directions:

*   national polling and enthusiastic rallies indicate high motivation for Democrat supporters to get out and vote - particularly for women, for whom the gap between support for Trump and Harris is so wide;

*  on the other hand, the US papers are full of stories of different Republican states cutting out large numbers of registered voters off the voter enrolments,  and it seems very hard to know how many of those were "legitimate" (deceased people, for example), and how many are real acts of disenfranchisement that might have a disproportionate effect on Democrats;

*  on the third hand, it's hard to see a Trump/Vance campaign tactic that is working for them - I think we can safely say that the attack on Haitians has not gone well, given the amount of mocking on line it has generated, not to mention the Republican Governor of Ohio saying he's "saddened" by it in a column in the New York Times!   It's clear they don't want Trump coming to town to stir up more trouble unnecessarily, and I expect it won't happen;

*  there are also very odd things like Georgia saying every vote has to be counted by hand, with likely delays in declaring the winner and that providing time for dubious legal challenges, and other states reducing dramatically the number of voting places.   Again, you would have to suspect that these work against Democrat voters, who are more likely to be younger workers who need the most convenient time and place to voter due to their working hours.   Older Americans, who are more likely to vote for Trump, can more easily waste time getting to a voting booth.   But how big an effect can this have?

I think everyone can agree - this American system of leaving voting arrangements up to each individual state is just a crazy mess.   If they can't bring themselves to have a national electoral commission to run elections uniformly across the nation, can they at least do something that seems so obvious to Australians watching:   mandate nationally that voting day is a Saturday, where working hours and time to access a polling station is much less likely to be a problem for most people?  

Update:  One other thing I forgot to mention - the Democrats apparently have a heap more money to spend on advertising, and we've been reading for months about the Republicans being poorly organised in many states.  But as I just don't understand the complicated system there (the parties seem to have to do so much work just to get people registered to vote and then to vote) I don't know how important these factors are.

Should I go to the Ninth?

I see that the Queensland Symphony Orchestra is putting on Beethoven's 9th Symphony in November.  It seems to me that it is pretty rarely performed these days, and I suspect the orchestra knows that putting on the infrequently played big classics attracts an audience, as they have 3 performances for sale - on two evenings and a Saturday afternoon.   Actually, I see now that they are not doing a Christmas performance of The Messiah this year (they did it at Easter instead), so they are probably seeing if the semi-religious reputation of this piece is a successful replacement.   Still, they would only do The Messiah once at Christmas, so running the 9th for 3 performances is still pretty surprising to me.

Should I go?   I'm not at all familiar with it, apart from having heard the orchestral version of the "Ode to Joy" final movement a couple of times.   (Even then it was probably only on TV.  I remember watching it with my late father, probably as a teenager, and both of us being a bit disappointed that it's not really much like the sped up 3 minute pop versions that have been popular over the years.)

The question is therefore what are the other three movements like, and should I listen to them before the concert, as I did when I had years - due to Covid - to get ready for the Ring Cycle.  

I see from Googling the topic that not everyone enjoys it - there is a Medium essay about a person who complained about 100 years ago that its popularity is undeserved (although by the end, it sounds like it was a bit of a troll too):

On July 21st, 1927, an anonymous person going under the name “J.M.C.” sent a scathing review of a recent performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony by the New York Philharmonic into the newspaper The World. In this review, JMC begins by describing how bored the audience looked while the piece was being performed, with many members supposedly whispering, looking around, and reading through the programs. JMC’s claims don’t end here, as they then assert that the piece is simply one that “everybody praises and nobody likes” and that it is only famous because people see it as profound because of its religious themes, especially given that he did not believe that Beethoven was not particularly religious otherwise. They maintain that people only go to concerts because of a feeling of religious obligation and the idea that they must conform to those around them. They end, quite exaggeratedly and obviously satirically, with the statement “I move you that a law be passed making performances of the Ninth Symphony illegal. It is an affront to the memory of Beethoven to keep playing it over year after year”.

On the other hand, someone on Reddit writes:

The Ninth embodies the best of Beethoven's work. It's a musical journey that enraptures you. I first listened to it when I was 12 and just beginning to explore "classical" music. At the time, I thought the Ninth Symphony was just the Ode to Joy melody. To my surprise, when I popped the CD in and started listening to the first movement, I heard something altogether different. It was one of those pieces that forced me to sit down and listen intently, partly because I was looking for the melody I had originally wanted to hear, and partly because I was so intrigued by the music and its twists and turns as it developed and recapitulated themes throughout in ways that still surprise me when I listen now.

 I think I should probably go see it....

The blogger then wrote this

There's a somewhat interesting article at the Washington Post about intellectual humility, and how it's generally a good thing.

But this paragraph is what prompted the post title:

Step outside yourself. In a 2021 study, Grossmann and his colleagues assessed 149 adults who wrote diary entries about the most significant thing that happened that day for a month. But some participants wrote in the third person, from a less egocentric perspective, while the control group subjects wrote in the first person.

After the month-long experiment, those who wrote in the third person had more growth in wise reasoning, including intellectual humility and open-mindedness, compared with pre-diary assessments.

And they were later less likely to report negative feelings about the people who they felt transgressed against them, Grossmann said.

 

 

 

Slow to learn

Without going into the question of the morality/legality of this type of operation....:

Second wave of Lebanon device explosions kills 20 and wounds 450

.... I find it a bit hard to credit that any male in Hezbollah thinks it's a good career move to work for them.  They are outsmarted and successfully targeted by Israel no matter where they are.   

It's probably also the first time the equivalent of a supply officer - usually the last person in a military organisation you would expect to be in major trouble - to be fearing for his life.  (From the boss, I mean.)

Floods everywhere

 The New York Times notes something I had been meaning to post about:

Chad. Vietnam. Austria. The American South.

In very disparate regions of the world, extreme rainfall in recent weeks has killed thousands of people, submerged entire towns, set off landslides and left millions without power. It’s a harbinger of the wild weather events that are a hallmark of climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, and it is highlighting the need to urgently adapt, in rich and poor countries alike.

Bursts of extreme rainfall are making both coastal and riverine flooding more dangerous and unpredictable.

“Extreme events are getting stronger everywhere, so we should expect floods to be bigger regardless of where we are,” said Michael Wehner, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “There is no question that these kinds of floods all over the world are getting worse.”

Sorry to mention again, but I started saying years ago that increased flooding was likely going to be the first effect of climate change as a really bad thing (economically and socially) that really caught people's attention.  

Today I learned -- WD-40 was for rockets

I can thank a random-ish recommendation from Youtube for this - a short explanation that WD-40 was created for a specific need for the Atlas missile/rocket.  The video also features an explanation of the very odd design of the Atlas rocket which I hadn't realised before.  (I always thought it was a cool looking thing, though, with the side guidance thruster/rockets.  It looks very inspiration for Thunderbirds designs, I reckon.)  Enjoy:

The ridiculous Trump supporters

Chait explains it pretty well in a column that's free to read for a limited time.  [Oh, I just checked, it seemed behind a paywall again (at New York Magazine).  Sorry.  Lucky I grabbed these bits when I did]:

Numerous conservatives have responded to the Sunday incidents by reminding their audience of Trump’s remarks from the debate, which they treat as prophetic. What Trump said was, “I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about democracy. I’m a threat to democracy. They’re the threat to democracy.”
The very remarks they are citing include Trump calling his opponents a threat to democracy gives the game away. The fact that they’re proud of this line, rather than embarrassed by it, reveals the utter lack of principle behind it. “What will it take for these demented partisans to lower the temperature?” demands Devine with a comical lack of self-awareness.....

The Trumpist notion that any political or journalistic activity disadvantageous to Trump is a form of subversion is itself evidence of his authoritarianism. Trump has advocated for this idea consistently since his appearance on the political scene, describing all of his opponents as criminals, denouncing peaceful protesters as mobs, and calling any reporting he dislikes “election interference.” He does this so routinely it barely even attracts notice anymore. In recent weeks he bizarrely claimed Harris was using artificial intelligence to fake the appearance of a crowd at her rally and demanding her disqualification (“She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is ELECTION INTERFERENCE”). He has said criticizing judges who issue favorable rulings for him ought to be a crime (“Playing the ref with our judges and justices should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that”). Needless to say, Trump does not believe it should be a crime for him to denounce judges who make rulings of which he disapproves.....

Supporting liberal democracy requires simultaneously affirming the right to engage in legal, peaceful activity while opposing violent and criminal actions. Trump upholds neither side of the equation. He considers all speech or political activity against him to be criminal and any activity on his behalf, whether or not it is illegal or violent, to be legitimate. He believes all these things because he is an authoritarian at heart. The impulse to stop his critics from accurately describing his political project is not a defense of democratic norms but the precise opposite.

 I think it could be put more succinctly, though:   it's rank self serving hypocrisy by people with zero self awareness.

Some decent Twitter humour

The "every legal scholar" bit

An explanation of the Trumpian exaggeration lie regarding liberal scholars who wanted Roe overturned.

On psychics

This documentary, described in the article as a sympathetic take on why people see psychics (and why psychics do what they do), sounds pretty interesting to me.   I assume it will turn up on one of the streaming services pretty soon.