I forget exactly what I was Googling about yesterday when this cropped up:
Did Christianity lead to schizophrenia? Psychosis, psychology and self reference
Well, that's a provocative sounding title! It's from a journal called Transcultural Psychiatry, which probably has lots of interesting articles, I imagine.
Anyway, it's there to read in full online, and it seems to run, shall we say, a not completely unreasonable argument? But I haven't had time to read it all carefully yet.
While I'm generally on the dismissive side of Greek cuisine, I have tried cooking moussaka before, and gave it a go again on the weekend for the first time in probably a couple of decades. (The inspiration: cheap eggplant and very un-fatty looking lamb mince at Harris Farm.)
I followed this recipe to good success.
The reasons it was better than I remembered were no doubt:
* I didn't fry the eggplant in olive oil and let it soak it up like a sponge: I baked it for 25 minutes after just brushing the slices with olive oil.
* the potatoes were sliced thinner than I used to do (just half a centimetre) and they were also brushed and baked at the same time as the eggplant.
* despite having made bechamel sauce many times before, I don't recall ever following a recipe that had egg yolk added at the end. But yeah, it definitely increases the richness, and perhaps the thickness, of the final product.
* a combination of a slightly thicker bechamel and letting it sit for 10 minutes before serving did mean I didn't have runaway flow of bechamel when I served it.
I adjusted the quantities to about 3/4 of what is in the recipe, and it still made enough for 6 servings. It's a very substantial dish to eat.
That is all...
John Quiggin takes a quick overview of changes in China, and encourages us not to be too pessimistic about how it affects us.
Speaking of China, did anyone else watch the ABC's latest short run series of China Tonight? It was buried a bit on a late night slot, perhaps because it seemed they wanted to make it lighter in tone with (relatively) unknown hosts. When I say "lighter in tone", it was actually half comedic. I found it informative, but a bit peculiar.
These ABC shows focused on particular countries are actually pretty good, generally speaking - and I think they should perhaps be given greater time slot prominence if they want an audience.
I have briefly noted before that Japan had an issue with widespread infanticide during the Edo period (1603 - 1868)*, when mentioning that it was reported by anthropologists as common in aboriginal society, but I have not read anything before about the situation in Europe around the same time.
It would seem that evidence for it being pretty widespread there, too, in the same period, may have been staring us in the face for a long time:
"Routine" infanticide of newborns by married parents in early modern Europe was a much more widespread practice than previously thought, a new book posits.
This fresh insight sits at the heart of a new book, "Death Control in the West 1500–1800: Sex Ratios at Baptism in Italy, France and England, "by Gregory Hanlon and contributors....
Hanlon, who is Distinguished Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Canada, calls attention to the limited scope of existing scholarship, which has never focused on sex ratios of infants brought for baptism within hours or days after their birth.
These records reveal startling spikes in the number of male baptisms in the aftermath of famines or diseases.
He notes, "Historians in the West have relied almost exclusively on records of criminal trials in which unwed mothers or married women carrying progeny not sired by their husbands hid their pregnancies and killed their newborns alone or with female accomplices. Married infanticidal mothers may have been a hundred times more numerous."
Hanlon's research suggests that in rural Tuscany at the height of infanticide the victims might have constituted up to a third of the total number of live births.
Using baptismal registers and ecclesiastical censuses drawn from scores of parishes in Italy, France and England, Hanlon shows similar infanticide patterns across city and country, for Catholics, Calvinists and Anglicans alike.
In Italy's rural 17th century Tuscany, Hanlon suggests that parents seemed willing to sacrifice a child if they were a twin, opting to keep just one of the newborns. In the north Italian city of Parma, Laura Hynes Jenkins found that working-class parents preferred girls over boys.
The question of how the baby was dealt with was important for the legal consequences:
Hanlon calls attention to lax punitive measures taken for crimes of infanticide, and notes, "Tribunals operated against single mothers almost exclusively, but only if they killed the newborn deliberately. Simple abandonment was not a comparable offense."
It seems almost hard to believe that the sex ratios of children being baptised has never been examined before for this type of research - but it seems hard to imagine that obvious large differences in sex ratios could be explained in any other way.
I would also comment that this shows that the pro-life anti-abortion movement, when it emphasises women's guilt over having an abortion as a reason not to have one, is pretty clearly ignoring the historical evidence of psychological ability of parents to not regret ending their own child's life for very economically pragmatic reasons. (Not, I should hasten to add, that I am trying to make a case for the return of baby killing or abandonment...)
* You can watch a Youtube explanation here done by an animation channel that is pretty good on explaining Japanese history and culture, actually.
Given that I noticed Noah Smith saying the other day that he would do a post soon about how Europe must be doing something wrong (he was looking at average adjusted incomes between the US and Europe, I think), this column by Krugman is pretty good and balanced.
I will gift link to it, but here are some key parts:
Our global standing is never as good or as bad as conventional wisdom has it at any given moment. And the downside of getting puffed up about our relative performance is that we may fail to learn from things other nations do better.
I say this as someone who’s seen us go through multiple ups and downs on this front. There was the manic Morning in America phase of the mid-1980s, followed by the depressive mood of the early ’90s: “The Cold War is over and Japan won.” Then came a late-90s surge in triumphalism as America temporarily took the lead in taking advantage of the internet, which receded as other countries also got online, productivity gains from information technology petered out, America led the way into global financial crisis and China emerged as a powerful economic rival.
Now the boastfulness is back, with a special emphasis on trashing European economic performance. For example, I’ve been seeing media organizations that really should know better saying things like this: “America’s economy is nearly twice the size of the eurozone’s. In 2008 they were similar,” which appeared on a chart in The Wall Street Journal.
You can read the next bit, but further down:
Put it this way: Just comparing dollar values of G.D.P. in America and Europe arguably overstates the true gap in economic performance by a factor of around 10.
My take is that all modern economies are at roughly the same level of technology. They’re also all capable of achieving remarkable things when they put their mind to it. Have people noticed how quickly Pennsylvania managed to reopen I-95 after a section of the crucial highway collapsed?
But our sophisticated, capable societies often make different choices. Some of these choices are just that — choices where there isn’t necessarily a right answer. For example, one reason European nations generally have lower G.D.P. per capita than we do is that their workers get a lot more vacation. We have more stuff; they have more time. De gustibus and all that.
In other areas, however, some countries almost surely get it wrong. Europe’s lagging growth probably does, in part, reflect inflexibility and resistance to innovation. Americans, on the other hand, should ask themselves why we seem to be worse at building livable cities or, to take one important aspect of life, not dying: U.S. life expectancy had fallen far behind comparable countries even before Covid.
The point is that advanced countries are, in important ways, laboratories for economic and social policy: Nobody is the best at everything, and we can learn a lot by looking at things other countries seem to do better than we do.
Yes: it is pretty incredible the decrease in life expectancy in the US, not to mention the way a significant number of Americans go bankrupt from medical treatment each year.
Simple economic measures and comparisons should never be the only way of measuring quality of life...
Respondents in a study released by the nonprofit Pew Research Center were asked to rate the importance of nine separate missions. Only 12 percent of adults think returning astronauts to the surface of the moon should be NASA’s top priority, according to the study. A human landing on Mars is even less popular: Only 11 percent said it should be the top priority.
By contrast, 60 percent said monitoring asteroids should be the agency’s top priority; 50 percent said monitoring climate change should be NASA’s top priority.
Well, that going to Mars is so close to going the Moon is a bit disappointing - given that I reckon the public has no idea how far away we are from having the capacity to safely go there. (They are persuaded by the boosterism of Musk and movies that are only superficially semi-realistic, like The Martian.)
It's not that I particularly value the opinion of Chelsea Watego at all; it's just that she is one of the higher profile (such that she gets a run in the Guardian) aboriginal academics who is pre-emptively providing evidence for my view that, even if implemented, the Voice system is likely to continually present government with two views - one from the Voice group itself, and one from other indigenous spokespeople critical of the decisions of the Voice representatives. Given that the Voice opinion is not meant to be binding, it will mean governments having to choose between two opinions from within the indigenous community, which is pretty much exactly what happens now on many key issues anyway.
True, I can see that if the government wants to side with the Voice on a particular decision, deferring to the "official" body may give them political cover: but there are bound to be cases where it will not be clear which way to jump on an issue, and a Voice recommendation may be politically unpopular.
Anyway, here is Watego having a whine about being criticised about not endorsing the Voice:
The yes campaign, in its strategy, reveals the very real dangers associated with enshrining a voice to parliament. To enshrine a voice that in this moment is silencing and domesticating the diverse voices of sovereign Black nations across this continent offers more concern than it does hope for the future.
I am not accepting the lie that it’s now or never, or that a seat at their table is the best that’s on offer. I’m not entertaining that what the political left offers is better than the overt racism of the right.
What the Black reformers have forgotten is that Indigenous sovereignty, of the unceded kind, can never be reduced to a matter of settler-colonial affiliations of left or right.
It’s the settlers, to the left and to the right who remain on the same ledger when it comes to undermining Indigenous sovereignty.
If those yes vote evangelists are as committed as they say they are to us having a voice, then Blackfullas should be able to express what we think, we feel and know – with or without the readings, law degrees, children’s books or whatever.
Blackfullas should be able to speak of the limitations of the proposed voice without being cast as intellectually incapable, mentally ill, politically disloyal, professionally inept, deceptive, treacherous and a threat to be contained, complained about, blamed or blocked.
Basically, if the indigenous community itself appears divided on the value of the Voice, it's hardly an encouragement for the Yes vote.
There is also something like pre-emptive over-reach going on in several respects: retailers promoting the Yes vote by in-store announcements made to shoppers (it is way more likely to hurt than help in any shop outside of a handful in capital cities, I reckon); the publicity given to claims that aboriginal organisations are making unwarranted claims for compensation for something as innocuous as tree planting in Western Australia; and the renewed push to co-name places with aboriginal names. (Apparently, the Cairns and Mackay airports now flash between aboriginal and "colonial" names for cities - a surprising move that, again, I reckon is a case of moving way ahead of public opinion.)
I think it is likely all heading towards an emphatic loss at the referendum.
Here's another good, short clip from Welch Labs, directly related to Oppenheimer, about the calculations that went into feeling assured enough that the first atomic bomb would not accidentally destroy the entire planet:
As Rupar said a few days ago:
Oh, and I will gift link to the recent NYT article about Trump's plan to become the world's dumbest dictator (as if we didn't know):
Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.
Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.
Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.
Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.
Barbie, that is. (Just kidding - although the trailer I have seen twice at the cinema now makes it look funnier and more likeable than I expected. Also, I see there is a right wing culture warrior backlash against it from the "bro" reviewers in the US building, which makes me more curious to see it. But it can wait until streaming.)
Of course, I am talking Oppenheimer, which is getting very strong reviews, although some have some reservations, it seems.
That's probably a good thing, since it deals with the "expectations too high" issue that can lead to disappointment.
Jeremy Jahns (the Youtube movie reviewer - he's a likeable presenter, even if I don't always agree with his views) made an good observation in his review about how the table has turned completely on movie special effects. It used to be, when CGI first gained grounds, that people would go to a movie to enjoy how many CGI shots were used (and how good they could look); but now people go "oooh - a movie that was done with all practical effects - no CGI! How cool!"
Which reminds me - I'm pretty sure that one key shot in Mission Impossible 7 was a big scale practical effect - the locomotive doing a dive off the bridge into the river. It looked pretty good, but I still felt it definitely looked like a large scale model, not a full size locomotive. But I haven't confirmed that yet...
So, I watched the ABC's The Dark Emu Story documentary last night. I was happy that it gave considerable time to the detailed critique of the book and its "research":
In 2021, an academic rebuttal to Dark Emu was published: Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate by anthropologist Peter Sutton and archeologist Keryn Walshe. Both authors appear in the documentary, arguing Pascoe ignored evidence that did not fit his case while over-emphasising evidence that did. Pascoe and Sutton come head-to-head in the film, debating definitions such as of the word “sophistication”.
“What’s wrong with being unsophisticated?” Sutton asks. “Why do you hold up a battle of sophistication as a kind of a solution to people, filling their racism?”
But, as you might expect, the pro-Pascoe side, including by such high profile figures as Marcia Langton, were given much, much more air time. (Langton presented as particularly cranky and automatically dismissive of criticism.)
The documentary failed to mention some pertinent things which I am pretty sure would be true, such as the book has sold so well partly because of uniformly uncritical endorsement by Education departments.
The main thing that the pro-side demonstrated, though, was that aboriginal academia and advocacy has spent the last couple of decades on a PR project to convince Australians that aboriginal society was (is?), as Sutton says, "sophisticated," and essentially the same as European society.
But to do so, they really are on a post-modern project of co-opting terminology and applying it in a way that weakens meaning almost to the point of uselessness. The most Pascoe-ian example is "agriculture", which Sutton is very adamant (based on his own work, I believe) is not the way to describe the aboriginal practices and belief as to how to encourage plant growth. The other examples include the attempt to build excitement about rocks having been moved in a river so as to form fish traps by calling them "engineering". Or "houses" that were small scale huts with construction techniques that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, complex. (They chose some pretty tough wood and "surgically" removed it from trees with stone axes - I rolled my eyes.)
But the big example that Langton kept using was talking about the "complex economies" to describe the fact that some items were traded between tribes - grinding rocks being the main example noted on the show.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. As Sutton would presumably argue, you don't need to co-opt Western "sophistication" to respect aboriginal society. It's the fakery in the attempt to do so that actually harms their cause, because (to take one example) people can see with their own eyes that one tribe handing over grinding rocks to another in exchange for something is not "sophisticated" or an "economy" in the same way - or scale - that many other societies have worked over the last few thousand years. (I originally referred to "Western" economies, but really, the comparison with what was going on in at least parts of virtually any other continent is like chalk and cheese.)
I'm amused to see that American/Aussie extreme right wing "sovereign citizen" argument was tried on by a woman in Singapore recently:
A woman who made headlines for her behaviour during the trial of a fellow anti-masker was convicted by a court for charges of her own - for refusing to attend police investigations or turn up in court, and for spitting at police officers.
Lee Hui Yin, now known as Tarchandi Tan after changing her name last year, was convicted of five charges on Jul 10.
In a judgment made available on Saturday (Jul 15), District Judge Kow Keng Siong laid out the reasons for convicting the 53-year-old woman.
Tan had repeatedly defied orders to go to a police station for investigations and to attend court. This was related to investigations over an incident on Aug 18, 2021.
Tan had attended the trial of Briton Benjamin Glynn that day. When the trial was ongoing, she allegedly said "this is ridiculous kangaroo court" and directed a comment at District Judge Eddy Tham, saying "I do not respect the judge".
Glynn was given six weeks' jail in August 2021 for his offences which included not wearing a mask, and deported.
Singapore would have to be about the third last country in the world where "sovereign citizen" style argument would work - after China and Russia.
She sent an email on the eve of the court mention to several individuals including the police officer on her case, stating that she was a "sovereign individual" and not amenable to any law or obligation unless she had voluntarily consented to them.
She also said she could be said to have committed a crime only if she had "wilfully harmed or violated someone or someone's property without (that person's) consent".
She said she did not agree to be investigated since the incidents occurred over a year ago.
The judge did deal with this issue in no uncertain terms (and rightly so):
Judge Kow said the sovereign individual argument "is clearly misconceived".
"In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that proponents and peddlers of the sovereign individual argument can be held criminally liable if they contravene the law," he said.
He said this argument has its roots in the United States. US proponents believe that the US Federal Government has no inherent power over individual citizens of the various states without their individual consent.
"To justify this belief, its proponents rely on various arguments centred around, among others, the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the US Uniform Commercial Code, as well as conspiracy theories that involve the US government and the US Federal Reserve Bank," said Judge Kow.
He said this argument has been "unequivocally and routinely rejected" by courts in the US and other common law jurisdictions.
"The accused has failed to provide any credible legal argument to show why the sovereign individual argument - which is based on the US Constitution and conspiracy theories and has been rejected in other jurisdictions - is applicable in Singapore," said Judge Kow.
"Under our system of government, parliament makes laws that all persons in Singapore must obey, the executive can exercise coercive powers provided by statutes, and the judiciary is the sole body empowered to make binding interpretations on the scope of these laws and powers. The sovereign individual argument ignores this legal position – a position that has been established for almost six decades since Singapore's independence and has never been in doubt."
He said that the practical effect of the sovereign individual argument is that its proponents are "above the law and can pick and choose what laws they want to obey and to enforce".
The poor woman might have an excuse for holding a nonsense belief, though:
He added that he had considered whether Tan's belief that she was sovereign suggests that the charges were caused or contributed by a mental disorder.
She was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2012, and has been a patient at the Institute of Mental Health since 2003.
Well, you do have to be nuts to take it seriously, I guess...
Computer use, crosswords and games like chess are more strongly associated with older people avoiding dementia than knitting, painting or socializing, a Monash University study has found.Pity I don't like crosswords, or chess!
But as for computer use, does keeping a blog count? Yes, I would think so:
They found that participants who routinely engaged in adult literacy and mental acuity tasks such as education classes, keeping journals, and doing crosswords were 9-11 percent less likely to develop dementia than their peers.
Creative hobbies like crafting, knitting and painting, and more passive activities like reading reduced the risk by 7 percent. In contrast, the size of someone's social network and the frequency of external outings to the cinema or restaurant were not associated with dementia risk reduction.
Doesn't seem much of a reduction, though.
I've been trying to find the time lately to read up on a few different, related topics:
a. Karl Popper's (now little discussed) idea of 3 Worlds (discussed with John Eccles in a book from the 1970's that I stumbled across somewhere in the 70's or 80's);
b. the fact that I find it hard to stop puzzling about how, in terms of the question of free will, and consciousness generally, an idea planted into a mind from outside of it (via language, or visual art, or music) can have consequences for how a person thinks, feels and acts. (Basically, how does something nebulous from World 3 cause an effect in World 2 and 1?);
c. how the idea of Buddhist inspired mindfulness fits into this, and what exactly is doing the observing of the rest of the mind if you undertake meditation for the purpose of watching the flow of thoughts through the mind? (Oddly enough, there is a decent blog post on this topic called "You have two minds, and here's how to use them" by the guy who wrote the self help book with the crude title.) The basic idea is that we have an "observing mind" and a "thinking mind". But I have not had enough time yet to read up in much detail on different Buddhist schools' thoughts on how this works.
d. my feeling that this should all be significant to the recent topic of sexuality and gender, which is all based on having a core that cannot be changed, and must be fulfilled. This is often brought up by the anti trans (so to speak) side of the culture wars - that the idea of have a male or female soul in the wrong body is a bit of mysticism which the otherwise irreligious liberal is often happy to subscribe to. In any event, given that regardless of whether it is innate or not, transgenderism is a lot harder to accommodate (in terms of the effort that has to be put in by most to appear as an attractive member of the opposite gender) than accepting people can go to bed with whoever they want, isn't it worth teaching mindfulness to those who might be well served by merely observing their passing and intrusive feelings about their body rather than being in a hurry to modifying the body to match? But any article that I read about it seems to be from the perspective of using mindfulness to affirm that the "wrong gender" feeling is OK (and to be acted upon.)
OK, just got back from Mission Impossible 7, which has a remarkably high Rottentomatoes score (96%), but a more realistic 80% on Metacritic, and I have to say it was enjoyable enough, but I still wish it wasn't Christopher McQuarrie directing.
From what I can gather, he is more like a collaborator with Cruise than a mere director, coming up with ideas for whole sequences. And it's not that he's incompetent, exactly; it's just that, as with the last MI movie (which also was overly praised in reviews), I find myself often thinking that action sequences could have been shot in more interesting ways, to give the audience a better spatial understanding of what is going on, and with longer takes and less choppy editing. (I doubt it is really the editors fault rather than the director's - and I assume they work closely together anyway.)
This is now the third in the series he has directed, and I'm pretty sure I enjoyed his first (No 5), but I really recall very little of the last one, except for the fact I found myself critiquing the direction and editting.
I think 7 is better than 6, perhaps because of a key likeable new character, and it is a huge relief to have the malevolent danger not a nuclear bomb or virus, but something that is extremely topical and (given the AI doomerism of the last 6 months) actually pretty plausible for a movie of this type. But it was talkier than I expected, and during those scenes, I also found myself thinking McQuarrie has a touch of the JJ Abrams issue of filling the movie screen with giant faces, as if we were only only looking at a TV screen.
Gee, I'm sounding more negative than I feel I intended. It's a good movie, just not a great one.
And I still think the best in the series were the ones most stylishly and creatively directed: the first (yay, Brian de Palma) and fourth (poor old Brad Bird, who seems to have sunk out of view.) Pity if McQuarrie had an accident and had to hand over direction to someone else. Because we all know: Spielberg collaborating with Cruise one last time - what a dream that would be. Can't Putin arrange a window push if I ask him nicely? (Just from a first or second floor - no need to actually kill him, a broken leg might be enough.)
But I guess my nasty imagination won't be fulfilled, and I will be back to see the last MI movie, with McQuarrie at the helm, so I can continue grumbling about his style one more time.
Update: I re-watched (for the first time) MI 5 - Rogue Nation last night. It really was a good film, with a good script (co-written by McQuarrie) and my only persistent reservation being the silliness of the idea that security access information would be stored in a giant water tank. But the underwater sequence is nonetheless stressful to watch.
I think a large part of the reason I didn't like 6 was due to the whole "been there, done that" scenario of "we're back to terrorists wanting to let off nuclear bombs, to no clear purpose". And I still think the helicopter action at the end was poorly edited.
We don't hear the term "quango" much anymore, but this sounds like one, and a place that has been a tortured workplace for years:
Damning findings within Australia’s chemical regulator, including an incident of an employee urinating on their colleagues, have emerged at its board chair and CEO stand down.
Staff at all levels at the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) were found to have been subject to regular complaints of misconduct in a review commissioned by Agriculture Minister Murray Watt.
The review, released on Friday, came after allegations surfaced in a Senate inquiry suggesting an employee urinated on colleagues following a workplace Christmas party.
The incident was referred to the public service commissioner and police in February.
According to the reviewer, law firm Clayton Utz, the alleged urination was just one example of deep cultural issues within the entire organisation.
“There were clearly cultural issues with the organisation given that on average there was a formal complaint about once every 4-6 weeks for five years,” Clayton Utz said.
“There are also a significant number of complaints that refer to serious impacts for the persons involved, including numerous instances of employees having to take periods of stress leave or feeling unable to attend work due to mental health concerns.”
I guess it is all down to personalities, and personality conflicts, between people who simply won't leave and let someone else sort out the place, that cause such entrenched problems.
I was surprised to see this tweet recently from old rights activist Julian Burnside:
%20_%20Twitter.png)
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures
our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better
future for our children based on justice and self-determination.We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between
governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
And everyone is calling the "agreements between governments" treaties:
The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for Voice, Treaty and Truth. These aspirations are intended as a sequence of reforms, that advance towards a just settlement with First Peoples.
The federal government is committed to holding a referendum later this year to put an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution. The government has also agreed to implement the Uluru Statement “in full”.
Following the referendum, it’s expected attention will shift towards a Makarrata Commission to “work on a national process of treaty-making and truth-telling”. In fact, reports suggest the government might move even faster.
I did say on my last post on the topic of the Voice that I reckon advocates don't actually want people reminded that the Uluru statement clearly sets out that the Voice is just the start of a long process. But I didn't expect someone like Burnside to be (pretty much) actively denying it...
Yesterday, I mentioned how the Twitter "for you" feed has gone pretty strange, with lots of UFO stuff coming up on Elon's messed up algorithm; but last night I was reading a long thread discussing how great pigeons are as pets. Way better than parrots, everyone agreed. Someone said they warned people interested in getting a pet parrot that they should imagine living with a 2 year old for 70 years, and that puts most people off. I was aware that they can be neurotic, and can make it hard for owners to have holidays because they can fret and self harm; and big parrots do have human length life spans. But I didn't realise that pigeons had such dedicated fans.
A puff piece on his expensive Sydney real estate in the SMH today opens with:
Billionaire sex toy magnate Peter Tseng has been busy reshuffling his property portfolio as he quietly offloads three investments over the bridge.This guy has been referred to that way for years, it seems, but I don't recall noticing it before.
Tseng is the world's largest manufacturer of sex toys, according to the LA Times. He also has a wine collection worth millions of dollars. He was featured in the 2013 Australian film "Red Obsession."
The movie is about red wine, by the way. Not red sex toys (which, I assume, probably exist?)
Anyway, I guess if you're that rich, you don't care; but to me it would be somewhat cringe to have wealth based on a sex toys empire noted on my obituary...
Seen in Nature, a fairly succinct review of the 7 future alternatives to animal protein:
Fungi bacon and insect burgers: a guide to the proteins of the future
As I have said before, I reckon all environmentalists should drop the talk about insects ever becoming a significant source of protein in the West - it's too easily ridiculed as extreme and unpleasant. Selling protein sourced from fungus or even GM bacteria is a much easier "sell", I reckon.
And, as you all know, I remain deeply sceptical about lab grown meat cells ever being an economical and "green" alternative anytime in the future.
