We're dealing with idiots (or at least, fools), part whatever

The increased role of roof top solar

There was an article at Forbes recently that summarised a study which argued that the world could make significant inroads in clean energy by vastly expanding the amount of roof top solar panels - particularly in the densely populated parts of India and China, they argue.

I still say it should be a compulsory part of the building code in most of Australia, along with a minimum amount of home battery storage.   An extra $20,000 or so on your average build (which is around $300,000) isn't going to kill anyone, especially when you get the savings on electricity and gas costs.

Japan and zoning laws

Here's the video you always knew you wanted to see - explaining the loose Japanese zoning laws that allow for a very highly mixed use of land in very small spaces:

 

This guy's videos are always good and interesting.   He does make the interesting point at the end that the Japanese system seems both very capitalistic (allowing lots of freedom within a certain moderate set of restraints) but also sort of socialistic in the living spaces it develops (cars are not king; shops and facilities within walking distance - and neighbours living very close by - giving a sense of community).  

I think the key thing he perhaps misses here is that Japanese communitarian cultural values came first; its not as if the zoning laws created them.   And the Japanese are perhaps also inclined to just put up with certain inconveniences because of those values - such as people in apartments and houses living with loud talking drunks coming out of the pub or restaurant downstairs at 11.30pm every night to catch the last train. 

So, it's probably a mistake to think that such zoning would work as well in Western countries.

Well, duh

Today's life advice: wet your pods first

I like using laundry detergent in pod form.   They are convenient and not at all messy to use (well, subject to what I am about to say); it's easy to take a couple if you are going away for a few days and might need to wash clothes during the break; and they don't run any risk of gunking up pipes in the way the usual method of getting the detergent into a front load washing machine apparently can.    They're also very clear in terms of working out value, as there is a simple and direct cost per wash on the price ticket on the supermarket, given they have to show unit price.   (And by the way, they are a product on which supermarkets do this rotating specials thing continually - there always seems to be one brand which is on special for about 32 cent per pod, whereas the full price of the more expensive brands is close to $1.  I only buy them on the cheaper pricing.)

But, I have found with the new front loading washer in my house that they can sometimes get squished against the window/door and fall into the rubber seal crease at the bottom, and take too long to get properly dissolved.  This is because the way to use them in a front loader is said to be to put them in the drum and then load clothes on top of them.  But, front loaders add water slowly, so they can be stuck spinning around for a while before everything gets wet enough for it to burst, and in the meantime can they move into the worst location for water contact.

My life hint, after trying worse methods (such as cutting them with scissors, or squeezing them with a cloth in the machine 'til they burst) is to briefly rinse the pod you are about to use under cold water and then put it in the machine.  This seems to give the dissolving process a head start, and I have noticed that the detergent seems to be released quite quickly this way.  

I do actually like watching the start of the cycle in our front loading machine to tell when the detergent seems to be released.   Family members do think it rather odd when I do this, but we all have our special interests.  :)

You can thank me for this important life advice, and I look forward to being the new Jordan Peterson.

Update:  it didn't work this morning. :(

Further investigation required.

A very odd commentator

I only noticed this commentator because someone I more or less trust (I forget who now!) linked to one of his tweets, which sounded sensible. But man, I don't think I follow anyone else who swings so wildly between sounding more or less sensible, to just ridiculous. 

He is, I gather, a small government libertarian type, and as such takes a "a pox upon both your houses" attitude towards the political parties in the US. But (I am reminded very much of Jason Soon) the thing that really seems to agitate him the most is Left wing identity politics. Which, as I have been saying for years, is a bit nuts in terms of how to prioritise serious problems. 

Anyway, to illustrate my point of how wildly he swings, have a look at these examples. Is he always serious? I think so, but it's hard to tell. I would pretty much bet a $1,000 that he is single, though!

A self explanatory link

https://digg.com/2021/this-reddit-thread-of-the-most-useful-websites-that-you-might-not-know-about-will-enhance-your-internet-browsing-experience

Update:  ok, here's a click-able link.  

Very naughty

Remember the early, quite funny, "Uncle Roger" video in which he took orders at a well regarded Singaporean food takeaway cafe at a market in London run by a young, blond, part Asian woman?   I didn't remember her name, but it's Elizabeth Haigh, and her reputation has just taken a serious nosedive after a cookbook she published has some pretty extensive plagiarism from another Asian woman's cookbook from 2012.

A long post giving examples is here.

It really does appear very blatant - and I would guess that the only way she could retain some credibility would be if it turns out it was largely ghost written, and the ghost writer is the one who did the copying.  I mean, that's not good, when you claim to telling personal anecdote;  but it's still a bit better than being the person doing the cutting and pasting with full knowledge.

Dog detective problem

I hadn't heard about this before:  the important role cadaver smell detecting dogs (and one dog in particular) have played in some American murder convictions - yet based on some very dubious science.

Modern parents and violence

A Sydney primary school has asked parents to make sure their children do not watch the popular Netflix series Squid Game, which depicts “extreme violence and gore”, because students are mimicking the games in the playground.

On what should I blame the modern parental de-sensitisation to violence being viewed by kids?   The parents themselves being de-sensitised by ever increasing violence in movies, TV and video games, I expect.

As someone who remembers as a child in the 1960's seeing some relatively B grade movie in the cinema (I forget what it was now) which featured a guy getting shot with a harpoon in his stomach, and feeling that was really kind of disturbingly violent, it is completely surprising to me that parents do not think that kids can imagine the effect of violence to a more visceral degree than adults.      

I haven't watched Squid Games.   I saw some of the violent first game while my daughter was watching it and thought it didn't look like my sort of thing.   I have seen commentary saying that it is worth watching even if it makes you uncomfortable, but I am not so sure.  I have never been one for the dystopia "games played to the death" scenarios.  Always seemed a bit silly to me.   Unless we're talking gladiator era stories, I guess.  

Billionaire has worries

 I do hope Gina is feeling isolated though.  I would expect she's been on the phone to Barnaby a lot lately.  He is giving the impression of feeling under pressure - and as I said in my last post, is this just because the government is being told bluntly by its top public servants that it just has to start being credible on the issue?   

Sounds plausible

I also assume, though, that part of the government's problem may be that there are absolutely no public servant heads prepared to advise them there is any plausible way to deny climate change is real and that Australia can go it alone in ignoring it.   Mind you, that has probably been the gist of the advice for years, but are they at the point of saying "Look, pretending to do something effective has become untenable"?
 

Some good guys winning news

Clive Palmer has lost his High Court battle with Western Australia in a challenge to a law which prevents him suing the state for up to $30 billion.

...

It was a colourful and unusual High Court hearing involving the mining magnate, running over several days instead of the usual one.

Mr Palmer's companies were represented by senior barristers but he represented himself, breaking down as he told the court he'd been personally targeted as a Queenslander.

The case harks back to decisions made by an earlier Liberal government about Mr Palmers's Pilbara Balmoral South iron ore project.

The project has never gained the necessary approvals, despite mediation.

And in news sure to cause claims of woe at the IPA and the assorted, sordid Catallaxy blogs, "contrarian" reef scientist remains sacked and uncompensated for his sacking:

Controversial Queensland academic Peter Ridd has lost a High Court battle over his sacking for disparaging remarks about colleagues working on the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. 

Apart from anything else...

...why isn't anyone commenting on how the comic book artwork in that panel looks...bad:

I mean, what's with that jawline and cheek on the left?  Looks like it's made of metal instead of flesh.  

Anyway, Allahpundit explains that Josh Mandel, who sees the End of America because of a comic book only a handful of adult fanboys will read, is a Republican Ohio Senate primary candidate.  

Allahpundit goes onto explain that the conservative performative uproar is due to Superman being the ideal American (or alien identifying as American), and:

He’s great because he’s good, the personification of our idealized past. It’s no wonder then that Mandel and other nationalists would take special offense to the character now displaying a trait that was forbidden in the era when Superman became an icon. It’s a cultural affront insofar as it signals that the America of today is fundamentally different from the America of the “glory days” of the mid-20th century. That core grievance is the whole reason Trump and Trumpism became a thing, notwithstanding Trump’s own tolerant views of gays.

True, except its overlooking somewhat that the character is Superman's son, not Superman himself.  

Having a normal one in Aussie wingnut land (climate change and energy edition)

This comment appears at one of the offspring blogs of dead Catallaxy after a fairly ordinary (that is, by Rafe standards) post whinging about renewable energy:

Meanwhile, the rest of us are agog at how the Murdoch press has turned on a dime, no doubt confusing/dismaying its rusted on readers:

 

I haven't seen much on Twitter about how Sky News is covering this, only this, also from Kevin:

So, Murdoch is trying the tactic of populist anti-climate change advocacy on Sky News, while trying to convince readers in the most populist titles of print that its real and the government just has to act.  

How's that meant to make sense?   When can we expect the Sky News hosts to start attacking the editorial line taken by their companies print editors?    

And as for the government line, Katherine Murphy was nice and scathing on the weekend:

Keith Pitt, the resources minister, made headlines this week when he opened the boondoggle bidding on net zero. Pitt told Phil Coorey at the Australian Financial Review if Scott Morrison wanted agreement from the Nationals on a net zero target ahead of the Glasgow climate conference, he should put $250bn on the table.

Yes, that’s “b” for billion.

According to Pitt, if this transition was actually on, Australians taxpayers should bear the risks. Pitt floated a cartoonishly bad idea where taxpayers would underwrite the financing and insurance of fossil fuels – including for overseas-owned companies – all because naughty Australian banks weren’t inclined to make bad bets.

If you’ve missed Pitt’s parable of the bad banks, let’s recap that quickly: bad banks are now more interested in virtue signalling to their obnoxiously woke inner-city clientele than backing salt-of-the-earth fossil fuel projects in the regions.....

But before anyone could say Venezuela, Pitt’s Queensland Nationals colleague Matt Canavan – a former Productivity Commission economist now apparently estranged from capitalism – was out and about with a different parable.

Canavan told a mildly startled Kieran Gilbert on Sky News that Australians should be prepared to pay higher interest rates in order to stare down international financiers managing carbon risk in global markets. Canavan’s Big Idea™ was actually wilder than Pitt’s, but it attracted significantly less attention.

A political observation

I don't know how people find the time to consider themselves thoroughly expert in their opinions on matters of interstate politics.  I find I can barely know enough about the politics of my own state, let alone others. 

Having said that, and speaking with only fleeing glimpses of his performance on the news:  that Dominic Perrottet strikes me as physically and vocally uncharismatic.  He keeps reminding me a bit of an aged version of how David Byrne looked in his old Once in a Lifetime video, and with a similar awkwardness.

Weekend update - curry edition

I tried making lamb rogan josh (a recipe name that keeps making me wonder if I mixing it up with Rogan the broadcaster), and it was considered successful.

Given the variation in recipes on line, I will note that it was this one I followed, although in somewhat simplified form (I couldn't find the cloves in the cupboard for example).  I also didn't bother blitzing the onion to a paste, and just used jar ginger and garlic, which makes for a much quicker prep.   Also - some passata instead of tomato paste plus a tomato.   And just a bit of sunflower oil instead of ghee - that's probably much healthier, too.  [Oh, wait a minute: it was some other recipe that insisted on it being ghee, not this one.]

But - this spice mix worked well for 600 g of lamb:

• 1tsp fennel seeds
• 1tsp cumin seeds
• 3 tsp ground coriander
• 1/2 tsp ground turmeric
• 1/2 tsp garam masala
• 2 tsp paprika
• 1/2 tsp red chili powder 

(The seeds were toasted and ground.)   It's not a hot curry, just one with lots of flavour.  Cardamom is important - I like the burst of flavour when you bite into a cardamom pod.   Use more than 4...

Update:  I'll just add the rest here too, because link cancer may mean I lose it:

Onion Paste:

• 1 large red or brown onion, roughly chopped
• Water

Ginger Garlic Paste:

• 4cm piece ginger, peeled and chopped
• 5 garlic cloves, peeled and chopped
• Water
  

• 4 tbsp oil
• 4 green cardamom pods
• 5 cloves
• 2 dried bay leaves
• 1 tbsp tomato paste
• 2 tbsp canned diced tomatoes or 1 tomato, diced
• 600g lamb, cut into small bite sized pieces
• 1 1/2 tbsp natural yogurt
• Salt to taste
  

To cook:  

1. Heat oil in a large casserole over medium-high heat. Stir fry cardamom, cloves and bay leaves for 1-2 minutes.
2. Add onion paste. Cook, stirring, for 1-2 minutes or until the raw smell disappears. Add ginger garlic paste. Cook, stirring, for 2 minutes or until fragrant.
3. Stir in spice mix. Cook for 1 minute or until aromatic. Add tomato paste and canned tomatoes. Cook, stirring often, for 1-2 minutes.
4. Add lamb. Season with salt. Cook, stirring occasionally, for 10 minutes. Stir yogurt into the curry. Cover lamb with 250 ml hot water. Bring to the boil.
5. Reduce heat to medium-low, and simmer, covered and stirring occasionally, for 30-40 minutes or until lamb is cooked through.
   

Odd doctor

One of the few advantages of the anonymous chat room participation on the net is that it can alert you to the fact there are people in certain fields who you would not want to be dealing with.   Given this comment at one of the new Catallaxies...:

 ...if I were a patient in the SA hospital system, I would take it as a warning to ask for reassurance that the anaesthetist or surgeon is COVID vaccinated. 

An old question considered

I missed watching this video put out by Sabine Hossenfelder some months ago:

It deals with, although too briefly, the question of whether it is possible to consider the 4 dimensional spacetime universe as being embedded in a higher dimensional universe.   I mean, the idea of extra dimensional objects (or beings) being able to pass through our lowly 3 (spatial dimension) universe was very popular for a while in 20th century science fiction, but I don't think it ever got a mention much in real physics, and I never understood why.   (And yes, I know that string theory was about compacted extra dimensions, but that's different.)

She said (with no further explanation, and starting at about the 6 min 30 second mark) that yes, you could consider our universe to be embedded in higher dimensions and to be expanding into them, but it (generally) takes 10 dimensions to make this work, and as they are understood (or "constructed"?) to be non observable, it is not scientific to think they are real.

Well, now I need to know why it takes 10 dimensions... 

Update:   OK, so according to this explanation in AEON, the 10 dimensions that Sabine mentions is about the extra compacted dimensions that are relevant to string theory - but as I said before, I didn't think compacted dimensions were relevant to the idea of our universe being embedded in extra dimensions that it can expand into.    Anyhow, here is the explanation:

If moving into four dimensions helps to explain gravity, then might thinking in five dimensions have any scientific advantage? Why not give it a go? a young Polish mathematician named Theodor Kaluza asked in 1919, thinking that if Einstein had absorbed gravity into spacetime, then perhaps a further dimension might similarly account for the force of electromagnetism as an artifact of spacetime’s geometry. So Kaluza added another dimension to Einstein’s equations, and to his delight found that in five dimensions both forces fell out nicely as artifacts of the geometric model.

The mathematics fit like magic, but the problem in this case was that the additional dimension didn’t seem to correlate with any particular physical quality. In general relativity, the fourth dimension was time; in Kaluza’s theory, it wasn’t anything you could point to, see, or feel: it was just there in the mathematics. Even Einstein balked at such an ethereal innovation. What is it? he asked. Where is it?

In 1926, the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein answered this question in a way that reads like something straight out of Wonderland. Imagine, he said, you are an ant living on a long, very thin length of hose. You could run along the hose backward and forward without ever being aware of the tiny circle-dimension under your feet. Only your ant-physicists with their powerful ant-microscopes can see this tiny dimension. According to Klein, every point in our four-dimensional spacetime has a little extra circle of space like this that’s too tiny for us to see. Since it is many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, it’s no wonder we’ve missed it so far. Only physicists with super-powerful particle accelerators can hope to see down to such a minuscule scale.

Once physicists got over their initial shock, they became enchanted by Klein’s idea, and during the 1940s the theory was elaborated in great mathematical detail and set into a quantum context. Unfortunately, the infinitesimal scale of the new dimension made it impossible to imagine how it could be experimentally verified...

It goes on to explain that the idea got revived in the 1960's to help explain the weak and strong nuclear forces:

Kaluza’s and Klein’s ideas bubbled back into awareness, and theorists gradually began to wonder if the two subatomic forces could also be described in terms of spacetime geometry.

It turns out that in order to encompass both of these two forces, we have to add another five dimensions to our mathematical description. There’s no a priori reason it should be five; and, again, none of these additional dimensions relates directly to our sensory experience. They are just there in the mathematics. So this gets us to the 10 dimensions of string theory. Here there are the four large-scale dimensions of spacetime (described by general relativity), plus an extra six ‘compact’ dimensions (one for electromagnetism and five for the nuclear forces), all curled up in some fiendishly complex, scrunched-up, geometric structure.

And there's more explanation that Witten came up with 11 dimensions:

There are many versions of string-theory equations describing 10-dimensional space, but in the 1990s the mathematician Edward Witten, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (Einstein’s old haunt), showed that things could be somewhat simplified if we took an 11-dimensional perspective. He called his new theory M-Theory, and enigmatically declined to say what the ‘M’ stood for. Usually it is said to be ‘membrane’, but ‘matrix’, ‘master’, ‘mystery’ and ‘monster’ have also been proposed.

So, what about the type of extra "large" dimensions that was the subject of Flatland and science fiction?   Well, it might be there, as AEON explains:

In 1999, Lisa Randall (the first woman to get tenure at Harvard as a theoretical physicist) and Raman Sundrum (an Indian-American particle theorist) proposed that there might be an additional dimension on the cosmological scale, the scale described by general relativity. According to their ‘brane’ theory – ‘brane’ being short for ‘membrane’ – what we normally call our Universe might be embedded in a vastly bigger five-dimensional space, a kind of super-universe. Within this super-space, ours might be just one of a whole array of co-existing universes, each a separate 4D bubble within a wider arena of 5D space.

OK, that's more like it.

Update:   I realised on the weekend (because Youtube pointed it out to me) that Sabine Hossenfelder had done earlier videos on the extra dimensions idea, explaining the stuff that appeared in the AEON article above.   I didn't previously realise that the idea of compacted extra dimension had been around for so long, with string theory really just reviving it.

A funny comment on DH Lawrence

I really have little interest in DH Lawrence, but that doesn't stop me from reading a short review of a new biography about him.   I found this bit amusing:

Wilson points out that having rejected traditional religion, Lawrence more or less designed his own, though his understanding of just what this meant never seemed entirely clear. “For all his claims to prophetic vision,” Wilson writes, “Lawrence had little idea what was going on in the room let alone in the world,” she observes.