He has a point, but still has priorities wrong

Latest Bill Maher kerfuffle:

Bill Maher is calling out Hollywood studios for being super woke on every issue except the most obvious one -- its own culture of gun violence and vengeance, and the role those images play in real-life mass shootings.

Bill got after the issue on Friday night's episode of his HBO show, "Real Time" ... pointing out Hollywood bends over backward to be politically correct, yet "when it comes to the unbridled romanticization of gun violence? Crickets."

Reacting to the recent mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, and the growing cry for Congress to "do something" ... Maher said movie and TV studios also need to acknowledge some cold hard stats.

Such as the fact the average American kid views about 200,000 acts of violence on big and little screens before they turn 18 -- and the FBI says a "fascination with violence-filled entertainment" is a huge warning sign for potential school shooters.

I've been complaining about this for a long, long time too:  I didn't like how the original Matrix showed a world where everyone "not with us is against us" and gave permission for hundreds of normies to be shot up by characters dressed to look cool.    I've complained in recent years about the  "shot to the head, brains sprayed out the back" has become completely normalised in entertainment, such that it contains no shock value at all.    I even quit Squid Games over the violent silliness and am very disappointed that more people did not have a problem with it.  (It's been renewed for a Season 2, I see.  How stupider can the plot get?)

That said:   obviously, the entire world has been watching the same movies and shows and has not been suffering mass shootings in the same repetitive fashion as the US.   Obviously, you can in practice take action on the negative effects of glamorised media violence by stopping the population having such easy access to guns.

It's OK to complain about fictional depiction of violence, but it's not the immediate answer to an immediate problem.

 

Rupert making his feelings better known

So both the New York Post and The Australian have editorialised against a Trump return, and criticised him over the Jan 6 insurrection.  

I'm sure I've posted before that it had been reported that Rupert Murdoch never believed the election was "stolen".   So has he figured he has made enough money from gullible Trump supporters now, and can tell them they're wrong after all?

And he must know that Trumpists will not feel isolated until Fox News evening line up abandons them. 

How is he going to bring that Frankenstein monster to heal?   (Or does he have any desire to - money, money, money, after all.)

 

I wouldn't disagree

From Vox:

The January 6 hearings showed why it’s reasonable to call Trump a fascist

Another weekend update

*  Yes, this has been a remarkably cold stretch for Brisbane - fortunately, from last night, I thought the cold was starting to get less intense.  We just rely on turning split system air con to "warm" if it's cold, and most winters we really don't use them often.   But the last - what? 4 days? - the living room one has been on most of the day.

*  Saw Dr Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.  I rank it a solid "OK".  I don't know why, but I find the world of Dr Strange charmingly silly.  (I liked the way, for example, the guests at a wedding just stand on a high rise balcony watching while said doctor goes to deal with a giant, one eyed octo-monster from another dimension destroying a city street only a block or two from them, and don't run away in mad panic.)   Certainly, in this movie, the reminders Strange gives me of the covers to the Lobsang Rampa books, which I would see in bookshops as a child (but never read) became even clearer.    I guess without Marvel movies, there would be battalions of special effects artists out of work, and who knows what trouble they could get up to if not meaningfully occupied?

*  Oh, it might be something like this:

Google engineer put on leave after saying AI chatbot has become sentient

Yeah, yeah:  this story is wildly popular.   But so it should be, seeing it's like reading a science fiction story come to life:  a company has to seriously explain to one of its engineers why he is mistaken about his having helped create a sentient AI .  Mind you, I, and probably many others, had already begun to suspect broader sentience from Google just from Youtube recommendations.  (I don't really believe this, but I would like to be able to.)    

It's reminding me a little of David Brin's Earth. (Well, the bit about an AI being created - how it came to inhabit the Earth was a bit silly.)

David Roberts wrong for once

Yeah, I trust Noah Smith's take on this a lot more than I trust the (usually) reliable David Roberts's take:

Jonathan Chait's article at New York Magazine on this is also well worth a read (clear your cookies! - or use a browser that doesn't save them.)

 

Australian Fox News drone (insert Jack Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth")

Hey, look at old Tom, who seems to spend his days watching either Tucker Carlson or the horse races:

Tom says:

June 10, 2022 at 11:49 am

What we are seeing play out in Washington DC as we speak is unprecedented: a choreographed witchhunt by the Democratic Party against its political enemies, broadcast live from Washington DC by all three major free-to-air US TV networks and all cable news networks, except Fox News, which has refused to co-operate.

It is astonishing because this is happening in the “land of the free” which notionally has a free press.

It is not possible in a free country that the media could collude with a political party to smear (and eventually prosecute) party enemies.

Unless this is arrested, the USA will become a fascist one-party state indistinguishable from communist China or Soviet Russia.

It's truly a Goebbelsian level of brainwashing that the Murdoch family has achieved with their committed audience (of mostly cranky old white men, whose families can barely tolerate having over for dinner anymore).

Update:  from what I can make out from Twitter comments, the hearing has produced a lot of new clips of a lot of people close to Trump (including his daughter!) saying they know the election was not stolen.  It seems to have impressed a lot of people as being much more damaging and compelling than  than they had expected.

 

Energy and politics are a terrible mix

I've felt this way for years, but it's pretty appalling that energy production and sale, and government policy that affects it, is at just the right level of complexity that it becomes incredibly easy for self serving (and sometimes ridiculous) ideas about it to spread because of the mere veneer of plausibility.    For example:

 

And look, I don't understand it at all well either - I just get by on reading a range of material and getting a sense of who is talking more sense about it.

What we need is someone who is seen as a good communicator who can explain the complexities and what is possible and reasonable.   This is part of my "it's time for specifics" arguments too - as far as the plan ahead for replacing coal and gas with alternatives.   Rather than just waiting for the way it pans out now - with intermittent, ad hoc-ish, announcements like this:

Rio Tinto has called for proposals to develop large-scale wind and solar power in Central and Southern Queensland to power its aluminium assets, help meet its climate change ambitions and further encourage renewable development and industry in the region.

The approach, which is through a formal market Request for Proposals (RFP), is intended to support the development of multiple new wind and solar power projects that can, in parallel with firming solutions, start supplying power to Rio Tinto’s Gladstone assets through the Queensland grid by 2030.

Or this:

While on the topic of future energy, John Quiggin's article on nuclear in Australia seemed clear and comprehensible.   But his political allegiances (now, basically "Green") mean he's not going to be seen as a trusted national communicator more broadly on the future of electricity generation and markets, either.   I'm not sure whether he agrees with my concern about the lack of specifics, too.  I should go over to his blog and ask him, I guess!

I didn't even watch the show, but find this funny

On Twitter, David Roberts is talking about looking at episodes from the early seasons of Game of Thrones, and noting how good they were compared to the (apparently) shockingly terrible later seasons - especially the last.

Someone helpfully added this graphic illustration, which I find amusing:

 

 

When technology pushes physics

Here's a lengthy review of a book that concentrates on the development of the telegraph cable in the 19th century, and how these were up and operating before the science of electromagnetism was understood.

I hadn't really thought of this before, but the fact that 19th century technology was preceding the scientific theory behind it has been the theme of the author over several books:

 Hunt’s first book, The Maxwellians, shows how Maxwell’s disciples altered the form of his theory of electromagnetism so significantly after his death that the Maxwell’s equations taught today were unknown to Maxwell himself.¹ In his second book, Pursuing Power and Light: Technology and Physics from James Watt to Albert Einstein, Hunt examines nineteenth-century physics in the glow of nineteenth-century technology.² He shows that, just as Maxwell—and, later, his disciples—pioneered electromagnetic field theory only after telegraph wires already lined the countryside, the science of thermodynamics was developed only after steam engines were already widespread.

Hunt has now published a third volume, Imperial Science: Cable Telegraphy and Electrical Physics in the Victorian British Empire.³ It marries the electrical history of The Maxwellians to the underlying thesis of Pursuing Power—that science is pushed along by technology just as often as it pulls technology ahead.

Interesting!

When progressives go too far

I've read two articles inspired, mainly, by the recall election of the San Francisco District Attorney who seems to be the key one to blame for the rise in crime in the city.

The first appeared in the Atlantic, and seems to be written by a lesbian SF native, who certainly grew up with tolerance to the city's long standing quirks (such as public nudity in parts of it).   Here it is:  How San Francisco Became a Failed City.

The second one is by Noah Smith, who also lives there now.  His essay is broader and covers other aspects where he thinks progressives are facing some well deserved pushback:  The year we all became reactionaries.   

He doesn't cover the trans wars, and seems reluctant to dip his toe into that issue:  but as I keep saying, I reckon the progressive attitude that "there's nothing to see here" in the matter of trans in sports is not going to win in the culture wars.   

Economies of scale, and Mars

Paul Krugman talks about how even a million people living on Mars (as Elon Musk has envisaged) would not really make for an economy of the type we have come to enjoy on Earth.  He explains, with an example I hadn't heard of:

...in the modern world there are often huge economies of scale in production. These economies of scale make it efficient to supply the entire world market for some goods from only a handful of locations — sometimes just a single location — with international trade delivering those goods to customers in other countries.For example, a recent shortage of semiconductor chips — which seems, finally, to be easing — has drawn attention to the role of photolithography machines, which use light to etch microscopic circuits on silicon wafers. (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.) The world market for these it turns out, is dominated by a single firm in the Netherlands, ASML, which has a complete monopoly on the latest generation of machines, which use extreme ultraviolet light to make circuits even more microscopic.

So how many factories does ASML have assembling these cutting-edge machines? One. (It has other factories producing subsystems.)

These economies of scale mean that no one country can reasonably produce the full range of goods required to operate a modern, high-technology economy. International trade is essential, and more essential the smaller the economy — which is why Canada is far more dependent on imports than the United States, Belgium far more dependent than Germany, and so on....

Now, given access to world markets, even small countries can have full access to the benefits of modern technology; life in Luxembourg is pretty good. But unless we actually invent the Epstein Drive or something, the realities of transportation costs mean that Musk’s hypothetical Mars colony would have to be largely self-sufficient, cut off from the rest of the solar system economy. And it wouldn’t have enough people to pull that off with anything like a modern standard of living.

As I said, I see Musk on Mars as a teachable moment, an unintended thought experiment that helps remind us of the positive aspects of international trade. Yes, there are downsides to globalization, especially to rapid change that can disrupt whole communities. But you really wouldn’t want to live in a world without extensive international trade. And you really, really wouldn’t want to live on another planet, cut off from the globalization we’ve created on this one.

 

 

Culture war trumps children's lives

I have said many times, I really do not like Matthew McConaughey as an actor, but I respect him for taking steps to try to get some modest gun law changes through Congress.  But look how pathetic Fox News responds:

 Never let the culture wars go to waste, hey.   (And anyway, it's not as if McConaughey appears in trashy, violent movies.  Just dramas and the occasional comedies that I don't like because he is in them.)  

Another thing - look at this handy chart by Pew in 2021 that give the details of how much the American public values certain gun law proposals:

If only the public would get out and aggressively vote Democrat, the country would get laws that a substantial majority actually want....

Keeping things in perspective

For all of the talk of increasing electricity bills in Australia, I note that this month's bill for me (household of 3 adults) is $147 - a bit higher than last month, probably due to the number of times wet weather has necessitated the use of the clothes dryer.

According to websites I just looked at, this is a pretty average household price.  

But what about energy rich (and often Republican controlled) American states?   According to this website, they range from $80 a month to $150, with an average of around $111 a month.  But convert that to AUD, and you get - $153 average.  (The more expensive American states - and some seem to be Republican too - of $150 a month works out to $207 AUD.)  

Now, to make a fair comparison, we cook on a stove top with bottled gas (one 9 lt bottle seems to last 2 to 3 months), but a replacement gas bottle is still are costing under $30.   So I probably have another $150 or so in gas expenses, per year, or about $12 a month extra in non-electric "utility" costs.   

My point is:   for all of the talk of "soaring" gas and electricity costs coming our way, if you want to compare our cost of electricity with the "land of the free" (which has multiple power sources, including nuclear)  - we're not doing too bad.   Pretty comparable, really, but you wouldn't get that impression when reading the media.

Next up:  don't get me started on people who don't like to switch what they eat when there's a temporary price rise due to floods and other factors.   Yes, a $5.50 iceberg lettuce is expensive - but a butter leaf one in the same supermarket is still selling for $3.    (I just checked!)  Seriously, iceberg lettuce is a bit crap anyway, save for a very small number of dishes.   But if they are expensive for a time, just avoid them, it's not going to hurt to eat another type of lettuce.

There is nearly always something that is still good, seasonal, value in the shops.  I've noticed that potatoes and apples (and eggplants) are still cheap and plentiful.  Sure, it's a pity if you want to use tomatoes at the moment, but they'll come down in price again soon enough.   If you normally use them in a casserole, a can of crushed tomatoes from Italy is still ridiculously cheap and serves the same purpose.

More fantastic American administration

Another story of terrible American administration, this time at their airport.  

An Australian traveller was denied entry to the US, cavity searched, sent to prison alongside criminals and subsequently deported 30 hours after arriving, due to a little-known entry requirement for the US.

This part is the key problem: 

Dunn said he had since suffered panic attacks over his detention and called on Dfat to clearly advertise the entry rule on its Smartraveller website so others can avoid his experience.

US government websites explaining eligiblity for the visa waiver program, which Smartraveller advises Australians to consult, do not mention the specific entry rule that resulted in Dunn being deported.

 

An accurate take

 

The American criminal law system seems kind of 3rd world

This reminds me of the recent publicity given to people in the US wrongly arrested for "stealing" hire cars that they actually returned.    I posted briefly about it here.

This guy's story seems incredible - and again, a large part of the problem seems to be the way people can be arrested in one state and held for many days not knowing what the charge (from another state) is really about.

I just don't imagine that happening to anything like the same extend in Australia.   Fewer states is a good thing, I think.

Warped priorities

As for this related news:

 Elon Musk has a "right not to consummate" his acquisition of Twitter and a "right to terminate the merger agreement," according to a letter from his lawyers to the Twitter general counsel Vijaya Gadde sent Monday morning.

he should just pay the billion dollar termination fee and walk away.   It's very clear he didn't think it through, and/or didn't read the contract (with its apparent waiver of due diligence) carefully enough.

 

A complicated aspect of climate change

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:

 

Someone in comments asks this:

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.

I wouldn't even bother with nuclear submarines, actually

 

How to look competent

 Hilariously, Currency Lad posted after the election that Penny Wong's sexuality and serious demeanour would mean she would go over like a lead balloon with socially conservative nations in the region (Fiji, etc.)

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.