There's a twitter thread that's worth a read, even if it is still a little unclear on what it might mean for climate on land around the world:
It all makes a mockery of having any confidence about the economic effect of climate change in the long term.
Update: here's the easier to follow summary by Prof England at The Conversation.
In fact, the optics of all of her meetings have been extremely impressive, with nary a leader frowning and saying "but you're a lesbian!"
Perhaps CL needs to re-evaluate his political judgement? Ha ha ha. As if. It's yearning for a DLP style government and 1950's social mores forever, as far as he's concerned.
This is interesting. The headline sums it up:
Neutrons In The Double-Slit Experiment Really Do Individually Take Both Paths
Here's another article explaining it, at Science Daily.
And this is from the "discussion" section of the paper itself:
It should be emphasized that all results are completely
consistent with standard quantum theory. The conclusion that
particles can be physically delocalized between paths in which
no strong interactions occur and that the localization or delo-
calization is decided by a measurement that takes place after
the particles have propagated along the paths is a possibility
inherent in the paradoxical aspects of quantum superpositions.
In the present paper, we demonstrated that standard quantum
theory predicts precise and specific effects of the presence of
a particle in a path, even when the particle only undergoes a
very weak interaction on its way though the interferometer.
Now, this reminds me: back in 2017 I spotted on arXiv a Chinese paper that I thought sounded significant, regarding the paths of photons in a double slit experiment. (It was pretty memorable for the inclusion of a very Chinese dragon illustration!) Yet, I don't think anyone - like, no pop science site or Youtubing physicist - ever commented on it.
But now that I re-read it - I think it was basically arguing the same thing as this neutron experiment.
Maybe I should drop a line to Sabine Hossenfelder and ask her to discuss both experiments!
I missed this from last week:
Sky News host James Morrow has blamed the poor police response during the Texas school shooting on the left’s demonisation of “masculine virtues”.
“I don’t want to make it political, but it is coming from the left to de-mythologise heroes, to take heroes down a peg and say: ‘don’t be heroic’,” Mr Morrow said.
“And also, let’s be really frank about it, to take down masculine virtues.
“These masculine virtues of manliness and protection have also been taken down by the left.
“It’s the same sickness that produces the shooting.”
I strongly agree with the argument set out by Ezra Klein in the New York Times: climate change is a very serious and urgent issue, but it is nonetheless lacking perspective to think that it is such a dire problem that adults who would otherwise like to have kids should decide not to have any.
I saw that Tim Wilson was trending on Twitter, and found out that this is why (from The Age yesterday):
Wilson, who before parliament was a policy director at the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and a human rights commissioner, plans to go hiking in Yosemite National Park with his husband Ryan. He also plans to set up his own climate and energy advisory business, utilising his experience as a junior minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction.
“I’m very open about the journey that I’ve gone through, from foetal position crying on Sunday morning through to seeing a psychologist yesterday,” Wilson told an energy efficiency conference in the week after his electoral defeat.
There is, shall we say, not an awful lot of sympathy for Ego Boy being shown on Twitter.
Jeez, how absolutely loopy is Bettina Arndt, not to mention ungrateful to a government which thought they were on her side of the culture wars and gave her an AM.
The crazy old Cassie, at the blog for ageing Australian wingnuts and Putin admirers, has extracted a part from an email Bettina sent out to her subscribers after the election:
It wasn’t that the Morrison government didn’t listen to women. This pussy-whipped crew sniveled, and groveled, like a cuckolded man clutching desperately at the ankles of his departing wife. Remember the appalling apology to Brittany Higgins? Or Morrison’s forced smile when Grace Tame insulted him with her infantile side-eye. Or the cowardly act of allowing Christian Porter and Alan Tudge to be pushed out of their ministerial roles over unproven sexual assault allegations. Or the cringing over the parliamentary harassment report, denying the very low incidence of actual harassment and high rates of female bullying.
Beautifully put Bettina.
Ha! Yes, if only the Morrison government had talked tougher to the women appalled at an apparent cover up of an alleged rape at Parliament House. If only Morrison had refused to have any type of enquiry into a historical rape allegation against the nation's top law officer. Wait - he did!
You have to be extraordinarily stupid to think that Morrison (or, of course, Porter, who folded his defamation action) handled it appropriately or well.
I like the way she uses the sexist term "pussy whipped" too - and when I Google that, I see she used it against the Shorten government - but she still got her AM from Morrison - what an embarrassment.
Earlier this year, Arndt wrote a bizarre piece at online Quadrant about the inquest about the Hannah Clarke murder case - the one where the husband burned alive his wife and 3 young children - in which she claims to condemn his actions (well, duh) - but then criticises the attitude of the police officer that the murderer's nightly demand for sex was a domestic violence warning sign. Yes, it's all feminism gone mad, pushing a man beyond his limits. [Sarc]. Ridiculously, Bettina lists a string of other appalling and extremely controlling behaviour by the father that came out of the inquest, including threats to kill a previous partner - but she still concluded "I will now write an article about how this man was not given enough help." You know someone has pushed the line when a reader of Quadrant responds in comments:
It’s not often I disagree with anything Ms Arndt writes, but she’s lost me on this one.
But that's Bettina for you. She's absolutely nuts. (As is Cassie - whose hyperventilating climate change post I might copy one day too.)
Whoops, I originally copied a tweet that Sky News Australia was going to no longer on the WIN regional network, but it from last year and came into effect July 2021 by the looks. Have to pay closer attention.
By the way, I wouldn't mind betting that, despite being as Trumpist as all hell, the Sky News at Night right wing blatherers do not like touching the guns rights issue in the USA, given that everyone in Australia would think them idiots if they promoted the Wingnut pro-gun views...
This video is a fantastically clear and concise explanation of the search for dark matter, and pleasingly, has an Australian connection. (I think I had heard about a new dark matter detector being set up in Victoria before, but here we get to see what stage it is at, and a super clear explanation of how dark matter detectors work.)
Tulsa police confirmed that a shooter killed four people at Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Okla., on Wednesday.
"Four innocents and one shooter" are dead, Jonathan Brooks of the Tulsa police department said at a news conference on Wednesday.
Update: So now we know. A guy upset with his back surgeon goes out and buys a rifle and shoots up the doctors, a receptionist and an innocent by-stander. No discussion of security in the building, although I would suspect most large medical centres in the US would have an armed security guard.
Anyway, I thought this Trevor Noah piece, made before this latest shooting, effectively satirised the "it's anything but guns" pathetic Republican arguments.
I wrote this in November 2021, and in light of the change of government, I think it has become even more relevant:
The transition to clean energy - time for specifics, isn't it??
I mean, there is a strong tendency for the media to jump to catastrophic predictions about what may be (relatively) short term energy problems:
Australia is on the "precipice" of a UK-style energy crisis that could send many of its power retailers broke and fuel a surge of households unable to pay their bills, a leading expert has warned.
And:
I also do not doubt stories that the easily scared - like old pensioners - will take such headlines as a sign that they need to risk ill health by not turning on any heat in their homes out of fear of the cost.
But part of the reason for such stories having legs is the impression (well justified I think) that while governments are busy committing to reduce emissions, there is scant detailed explanation of how we are going to get there.
But with the timelines being talked about, that's just not good enough now, surely?
I don't think that everything can be worked out right now, but my post made suggestions as to what I think government could do to help, but seemingly isn't.
This was written back in September, when the indictment was first brought:
While lying to the FBI is a serious crime, deserving of attention and in many cases prosecution, this charge looks dicey. The entire case comes down to Baker’s recollection. But Baker himself testified to Congress in October 2018 that he did not recall whether or not Sussman had represented himself as representing Clinton or the Democratic Party. The entire case turns on the allegation that Sussman lied to Baker. Yet Baker — essentially the only direct witness to the purported lie — testified three years ago that he could not remember what Sussman said about the key issue in the case.
As troubling as that is, it’s not even the biggest problem for the prosecution. The indictment discloses that, when Baker spoke to an FBI assistant director about the meeting with Sussman, the assistant director’s notes state that Sussman “Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.” So the crux of the indictment is that Sussman didn’t disclose to the FBI that he represented Clinton — but the FBI knew he represented Clinton anyway. That, folks, is what we prosecutors call a problem.
You should read the whole article.
Oh, and Bill Barr calling the Russiagate investigation "seditious" - he is going down in history as the worst Attorney General the nation has ever had, no doubt about it.
Update:
%20_%20Twitter.png)
Here's Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent talking about AR-15s in the Washington Post (and I'll gift link again, so you should be able to read it all):
Indeed, among some Republicans, the rationale for doing little to restrict access to AR-15-style weapons seems untethered from any real-world considerations. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) recently opined that people need AR-15s to prepare for a future doomsday in which law and order breaks down entirely and police protection essentially vanishes.
Meanwhile, as The Post’s Colby Itkowitz reports, AR-15 variants have appeared in numerous GOP ads of late, and they are often brandished as little more than cultural signifiers. Assault-style weapons have taken on a kind of “own the libs” cultural life of their own: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) website recently enthused that such weaponry “TRIGGERS the Fake News Media and Democrats all across the country.”
Federal law seems decades behind this cultural shift. “The concept of what a long gun is in American culture has changed a lot in recent decades,” Mark Follman, the author of “Trigger Points,” a new book on mass shootings, told us.
Follman noted that the long gun was once understood as being primarily about hunting. But now, he said, rifles are increasingly marketed as a weapon of aggression and an “object of masculinity,” with a deliberate eye toward encouraging the “militarization” of gun culture.
In this sense, federal law is trapped in something of an anachronism. “The law may need to catch up with the way these weapons are perceived by 18-year-olds,” Follman said, citing massacres in Texas and Upstate New York.
There’s still another layer of perversity here. As Follman notes, mass shootings were historically carried out by semiautomatic handguns. “But that’s begun to shift in recent years,” he said. “More and more of these attacks are being carried out with AR-15s.”....
Ryan Busse, a former gun company executive who has emerged as a fierce critic of the industry, notes another absurdity: The age was set at 21 for handguns, Busse says, in part precisely because they were deemed more likely to be used by criminals against human victims than rifles would be.
“Now we have the AR-15,” Busse told us, which is the “most lethal, offensive thing out there.” Yet it isn’t treated as on a par with handguns, Busse notes, adding: “This demonstrates how behind-the-times our gun laws really are.”
The article is too softly worded, really: I would prefer if it more directly said that Right wing political paranoia and culture warring, encouraged by money grubbing Right wing pundits and the gun industry itself, is what stops reasonable gun control measures in the USA.
Ross Douthat had an interesting column recently about the Claremont Institute, the conservative think tank which (I had forgotten) published the absurd Flight 95 Election essay in 2016, that tried to argue the country was on a catastrophic course unless loon Trump took over.
Today, I see that one of its publications has an article by Jim Troupis in which he makes mad claims that the 400 2000 Mules movie shows that the courts failed in not taking the election fraud cases seriously. Jim Troupis is discussed in this article.
The problem is, of course, that the internet so easily spreads such material into a Right wing disinformation echo chamber audience that finds it convincing. I mean, these guys sound serious: they are "influencers" who the gullible see no reason to question. (And when other Right wing influencers think they are wrong - Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro have refused to endorse the 400 2000 Mules theory - they don't want to actually spend time telling their audience that one of their Tribe is wrong and misleading them.)
PS: don't know 400 got stuck in my mind as the number of Mules. Just like how I keep thinking "Coorey" is spelt "Cooroy" I guess! I do write most posts pretty quickly these days, so sue me...:)
Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine has a clear, concise take on the failed Sussman prosecution, well worth clearing cookies to read:
John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.
Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.
From a conservative site point of view, even Ed Morrissey seems to acknowledge there was always reason to suspect the prosecution would fail.
Update: Here, I will gift link to Greg Sargent in the Washington Post: John Durham's flop is only the latest of many Trump cover-up failures. Let's extract some of it too:
To appreciate the significance of this moment, you have to remember that Trump and Republicans have spent years working to show that there was never any serious cause for concern about the idea that Russia went to extraordinary lengths to try to swing the 2016 election to Trump.
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find evidence that Trump criminally colluded with Russia. But he found that Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion” and that Trump’s campaign expected to “benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Mueller also refrained from explicitly exonerating Trump of criminal obstruction of justice....
“The Durham probe has turned into what conservatives always accused the Mueller probe of being: a politically premised fishing expedition that has failed to discredit its original target, namely the Russia investigation,” prominent national security lawyer Bradley Moss told us.
None of these efforts have been able to disappear a fundamental truth: The stubborn facts show that Russiagate actually was an extraordinarily grave and disturbing scandal.
Among them: the well-documented Kremlin effort to gin up support for Trump and opposition to Clinton on American social media. Their hacking of Democratic Party systems, resulting in data dumps by WikiLeaks to aid the Trump campaign. The copious contacts between Trump, his family and his advisers with Russian officials. The fact that his own campaign chairman was secretly sharing confidential campaign information with a Russian intelligence officer. And so much more.
Sargent then lists the other ways in which the Trump team has tried to undermine "Russiagate" as a scandal. But go read the whole thing.
%20Home%20_%20Twitter.png)
