Why didn’t Donald Trump and Joe Rogan wear lav mics during the three-hour interview?

I don’t have the patience to watch a three-hour video, but I did glance at the Joe Rogan-Donald Trump discussion:

It looks uncomfortable to have to keep one’s head in the same position for three hours. Why aren’t both guys wearing lav mics so that they can move around, sit back comfortably, etc.?

Readers: If you watched the three-hour video what did you learn from it? (I wouldn’t trust a highlights reel due to the likelihood of either pro- or anti-Trump bias.)

Related… a 1992 appearance by Donald Trump on the David Letterman show. There seems to be a ceremonial mic on Letterman’s desk, but I’m assuming that both speakers are wearing lav mics and those are the primary sources for what we hear on the soundtrack. If the technology was good enough 32 years ago, why not today?

Here’s a Saturday Night Live broadcast in which both speakers are wearing lav mics:

Related:

Full post, including comments

Lionel Shriver imagines the next logical step in DEI

A report to friends after testifying at a trial:

Our team of 25+ included a fresh-from-law-school white guy who was suffused with progressive values. He tried to engage a Black paralegal who lives in California and is about 60 years old on the beautiful paradise that awaits when we elect Kamala Harris. The noble Black man responded, “I’m voting for Trump.” The young lawyer was incredulous. Why?!!? “Because Harris is an idiot.”

(If the government didn’t assure us that we live in an inflation-free economy it might be alarming to learn that this Big Law firm has recently raised its rates on first-year associates to $1,000 per hour.)

Lionel Shriver, the creative mind behind The Mandibles, imagines a world in which it would be career-ending to note that Kamala Harris appears to have a lower level of intelligence than some other person or group of persons. I wish that her new novel were titled Cognitive Equality, a phrase that occurs in the book, rather than Mania. But who am I to criticize the marketing folks at HarperCollins for being… “otherwise”.

Chapter 1, set in 2011, will feel familiar to anyone who lived through the rise of BLM in Maskachusetts:

Last fall, this leafy neighborhood had signs planted in nearly every yard, “Morons” welcome here!—the same sign that businesses in strip malls all taped hastily to their windows. But overt usage of such terms of opprobrium even in quotation marks rapidly morphed from declassé to crude to deadly, so the current crop of yard signs was more sedate: We support cognitive neutrality.

Yet as the drive for intellectual leveling gathered steam, it was the sharpest tacks among that elect who jumped on the fashionable bandwagon first.

How did we get to Queers for Palestine and gender-affirming surgery on teenagers?

social hysterias do not stand still. If they are not yet losing steam, they are getting worse. And this one was getting worse. Radical movements keep ratcheting up their demands, because nothing enervates a cause more than success. Crusaders resent having their purpose stolen out from under them by the fulfillment of their quest; reaching the promised land leaves seekers bereft. There’s little to do in a utopian oasis but sip coconut water. So the journey must never be completed. The goal must remain out of reach. To preserve the perfect impossibility of getting there, the desired end point becomes ever more extreme.

In Shriver’s alternative 2012, the world’s best leader is shunned:

the Democratic Party’s apparatchiks had concurred by January that Barack Obama had become a liability. The president was aloof, snooty, and supercilious. Never having gotten the memo about suppressing that silver tongue, he still deliberately rubbed the popular nose in his own articulacy. Either he was failing to track the national mood or he just didn’t like the mood. Frantic advice from his press secretary notwithstanding, he continued to convey the impression that he thought he was smarter than the average bear.

Joe Biden is considered to be “was impressively unimpressive” and is put forward as the new candidate. He wins the election and proceeds to appoint cabinet members according to the new and improved version of DEI:

It was proudly shouted from the rafters by a fawning media and Biden’s own press secretary that the president was purposefully seeking out the “historically marginalized,” i.e., stupid people.

(Biden was eventually not considered dumb enough so the Democrats turned to someone even dumber, at least in the author’s mind, for 2016… Donald Trump.)

The protagonist’s friend catches the wave and rises to prominence on CNN:

As far as I could ascertain, she was making a name for herself as the intelligent face of idiocy. The formula seemed to be not form following content but form clashing wildly with content. She was smooth, alluring, and sexy, but most of all she came across as blatantly bright. Thus she flattered her viewers, who, if everyone was as smart as everyone else, were also as smart as this silver-tongued broadcaster.

A literature professor struggles to adapt:

“The point is,” David said, “in my courses, I’m now meant to celebrate all the historical figures we’ve customarily overlooked.” “You mean the people who never achieved dick,” Felicity said. “Now, that’s much too harsh a way of putting it,” David abjured with a shut up glare at his younger daughter. “Yes,” Kelly said. “And a more rounded version of the past, one that tries to include all those people who weren’t singled out as special—it’s much more equitable.” “But there are . . . logistical problems with following this rubric,” David said. “We simply don’t have records of all these otherwise folks who were callously dismissed in their time. I can explain to students why a host of erstwhile distinguished figures have been acclaimed unjustly, but I’ve no idea how to go about digging up biographies of, you know—” “Nineteenth-century knuckleheads,” Felicity filled in. “Honey, you know we don’t talk like that in this house,” Kelly said.

Doctors are admitted to medical school without discrimination according to cognitive ability and the result is that the elite fly to India for hip replacements. Another phrase for the turbocharged DEI bureaucracy in the book is “mental parity”. A conversation between two former friends:

But landing on opposite sides of Mental Parity is too fundamental. It is about character. I’m sorry to sound sappy or preachy, but it’s about primitive right and wrong. MP is about how we treat other people, and how we think about other people, and even how we regard ourselves—about what we think makes us valuable.

Followers of Fauci will be pleased to learn that Science is drafted into confirming the political hypothesis that all human brains are equally good. MRI images are cited. Speaking of coronapanic, that also happens in Mania‘s alternative history:

Unfortunately, the spread of a novel but, it turned out, not especially lethal virus for the vast majority of the healthy, non-elderly population prevented me from reuniting any time soon with D&Z, since the morons in control of the country had panicked and shut down the entire economy for an initial pause of three weeks that evolved grindingly into two years. Deer Abby was obliged to close. Like the rest of the citizenry, we all lived on government handouts of fabricated money whose overproduction, the more economically clued-up members of the hate group assured us, would in due course perilously devalue the dollar—as if the U.S. needed any more problems.

Sinovac and Sputnik weren’t very effective against Covid in the end, but at least they were relatively harmless. You could hardly say the same about the snake oil from Pfizer, which had long since jettisoned all the company’s skilled personnel like Felicity, who knew the difference between monobasic potassium phosphate and household drain cleaner. So this mR2D2 concoction was stirred up by trick-or-treaters in mad-scientist costumes waving beakers of dry ice, like twelve-year-old Darwin on Halloween. Me, I bought a fake vaccination certificate on the black market; I assume if you’re perky enough to read this, you did the same. But far too many of our compatriots were credulous. I’ve lost track of the underreported mortality count, but at the minimum it’s in the tens of millions. By the time all the long-term side effects have taken their toll, the international death count could come to hundreds of millions. I don’t care for hyperbole, but I don’t believe this is an overstatement: the Pfizer “miscalculation” marked the start of a full-blown emergency.

The global meritocracies are the big winners from the American push to take DEI to its logical conclusion:

Having fallen hypnotically in love with its own virtue, the West has ceded South and Central America, Africa, and the Middle East to the de facto control of the Chinese (thanks to whom the oceans are nearly dead; with no other nation willing to constrain the practice, their supertrawlers have raked the ocean beds bare, and a single eighteen-ounce bass can now sell for three hundred dollars).

(Europe, Canada, and Australia follow the American lead.)

If you’re wondering how the beliefs of the Democrats could be so different from what they’d expressed twenty years ago:

the public at large bought into this improbable ideology virtually overnight and in no time forgot that they had ever believed anything else.

The satire is too broad, in my opinion, compared to in The Mandibles and when the pendulum swings back the results also seem improbable:

Still whizzing through the last of our state legislatures, the constitutional amendment requiring all registered voters and all candidates for state and federal office to have a minimum IQ of 115 will eliminate 84 percent of the population from participating in the democratic process.

(I would just like to see eight years of W-2 or 1099 income before an American is eligible to vote, more or less the situation we had when the country was young. Men started to work at age 13 and started to vote at 21. Of course, in today’s environment of 74+ gender IDs it wouldn’t make sense to restrict voting to just one gender.)

The former friend who profited from the rise of mental parity tries to cash in on the pendulum swing back:

“Hold it,” I said to Emory. “You’re defending the Fitness Proviso? And all this singeing of IQ into everybody’s forehead with a branding iron?” “A tiny, tiny number on the inside of the wrist,” Emory brushed off. “Totally discreet. And conditioning enfranchisement on high IQ beats only letting people vote who own property. Or just men, or just white people. I only draw the line at nitwits.”

Conclusion: Not a great book, but kind of a fun book if you’re interested in how language evolves with political fashion.

Full post, including comments

One-year anniversary of a Republican conspiracy theory

One year ago today… “Republicans float a quiet conspiracy theory that Biden won’t be on the ballot” (NBC):

Though no incumbent president has declined to seek a second term since Lyndon Johnson in 1969, there is an unfounded conversation among a faction on the political right that goes something like this: Democratic power brokers will intervene at the last minute to replace a weakened 80-year-old Biden with someone else as the party’s nominee.

Let’s go back four years to see what I was writing here….

Full post, including comments

New York Times: FEMA won’t help hurricane victims without documents

The New York Times reminds us that it is misinformation when Donald Trump says that our government spends money on migrants rather than on Americans who have suffered from natural disasters:

One part of the U.S. government welcomes the undocumented, e.g., with a few years of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms in New York City. (NYT, May 2024: “The average hotel room rate in the city is $301 a night, a record. A major reason: One of every five hotels is now a shelter, contributing to a shortage of tourist lodging. … Dozens of hotels, from once-grand facilities to more modest establishments, closed to tourists and began exclusively sheltering migrants, striking multimillion-dollar deals with the city.”)

According to the New York Times, a separate part of the government refuses to help native-born hurricane victims unless they can produce documents:

After the catastrophe, a FEMA official told him they could put him up in a hotel for four days if he could show them his driver’s license. But his license was in the river, along with the rest of his life. So, he moved in with a friend.

So it’s a lie when Donald Trump says that migrants get assistance ahead of native-born Americans and also it is true that native-born Americans can’t get assistance unless they jump through hurdles that migrants aren’t required to clear. Also, the native-born American gets 4 days of taxpayer-funded shelter while the migrant gets a lifetime of taxpayer-funded shelter?

The article overall is interesting. The NYT informs us that existing Americans don’t have enough money to build decent storm-resilient housing for themselves:

The answer to our problems, found elsewhere in the same newspaper, is an open border through which tens of millions of low-skill immigrants will stroll, each one of whom will need housing but won’t earn enough (or anything?) to pay for a house with a standard foundation.

From the FEMA web site, a report on FEMA’s expenditure of $641 million in taxpayer funds on migrant shelters:

Full post, including comments

Being microaggressed when someone mispronounces Kamala Harris’s first name

As part of my software expert witness slavery, I’ve been working with some young attorneys. Billing rate for first year associates is now nearly $1,000 per hour, which they admit “is a lot of money for someone who doesn’t know anything.” Those fresh out of law school generally conform to orthodox ruling party political points of view. Abortion care should be provided at taxpayer expense at any stage of a pregnant person’s pregnancy (as in Maskachusetts!). If a respiratory virus emerges, Science requires that residents of the U.S. be locked down and making it illegal for healthy Americans to assemble does not violate what those without legal training might have understood as a Constitutional right to assemble. When schools are churches are ordered shut, it makes good epidemiological sense to keep alcohol and marijuana stores open and allow people to meet up via Tinder and then share a bed.

A senior associate got into the mix and he turned out to be a self-described libertarian. He pronounced “Kamala” the way that seemingly most people did through June 2024. It’s unclear how it should be pronounced, actually. Maybe “comma-la” (from Harris herself?). An Indian friend (not Elizabeth Warren) says the initial K should be pronounced more like a G. Maybe the pronunciation actually is different depending on which accent Kamala Harris is using that day or that hour?

What I found interesting was that a non-Deplorable took personal offense at “Kamala” being pronounced, from his point of view, incorrectly. His plan to vote for Kamala Harris gave him a stake in ensuring that everyone who failed to conform with the pronunciation of the moment was disciplined.

I’ve directly observed similar exchanges a couple of other times. The Democrat explicitly says that he/she/ze/they is being “disrespected” if the Deplorable doesn’t speak Sanskrit properly.

Separately, what if one were to send the following drinking glass to a Kamala Harris supporter?

What level of disrespect would that be?

Full post, including comments

Idi Amin and Kamala Harris

A recent tweet from the person most qualified to be President of the United States:

This gives me a chance to dredge up one of my favorite stories at the intersection of African and American politics…

Idi Amin sent a letter to Richard Nixon during the Watergate crisis: “When the stability of a nation is in danger, the only solution is, unfortunately, to imprison the leaders of the opposition.”

(from the book Talk of the Devil: Encounters with Seven Dictators by Riccardo Orizio)

Still in the news, if not the New York Times authorized version, “Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff slapped me in the face so hard I spun around … I’m disgusted by his fake ‘perfect spouse’ persona” (Daily Mail):

The woman, a successful New York attorney, is remaining anonymous, but decided to speak out after Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband, denied the claims through a spokesman.

Emhoff’s accuser, who DailyMail.com is naming only as ‘Jane’, initially declined to comment on the record. But Emhoff’s denial, and his alleged hypocrisy by claiming to be a feminist in media interviews, finally became too much for her.

‘What’s frightening for a woman that’s been on the other end of it, is watching this completely fabricated persona being portrayed,’ Jane said.

‘He’s being held out to be the antithesis of who he actually is. And that is utterly shocking.’

But the second gentleman has since continued to brag about his long-held feminist values in softball media interviews arranged by the Harris presidential campaign.

‘Every time I see Doug on TV portraying the persona of a perfect spouse and non-toxic man, I wonder if Najen is watching too and feeling as disgusted as I am,’ Jane said.

(“Najen” is a reference to the Emhoff nanny who was apparently happy to do a lot of stuff that the wife wasn’t)

Full post, including comments

Intel Arrow Lake CPUs released; Samsung dual 4K monitor?

What do readers think about the Intel Arrow Lake CPUs, which are officially released as of today?

It’s time for me to build a new PC. What’s a good parts list? The current desktop was about $2700 in pre-Biden dollars (without a monitor). Adjusted for official CPI, that’s roughly 3,650 Bidies today. So maybe I should spend $3,650 today? On the third hand, official CPI seems to be a fraud and we have a new need to train AI models all day every day. So maybe the budget should be $4,500 of which $1,000 should be spent on a graphics card?

I’m not a gamer, so the plan is to try to get by with motherboard/CPU graphics until the Nvidia RTX 5000 series is available (I could use my old GTX 980 graphics card if need be). What’s a good parts list, without monitor or graphics card, for a PC built with the Arrow Lake CPU? My dream would be to have mostly USB-C ports, room for a few hard drives in addition to sizable M.2 C: drive (do I need a heatsink? 8 TB? 4 TB seems to be the cost-efficient choice (per-TB), but I’m sick of having to figure out what to move off my pathetic 1 TB C: drive to one of the big mechanical drives), maybe 64 GB of RAM (current box has 32 GB and it is almost always enough). Or is the answer that everyone with taste uses AMD and that $6,000 is a more reasonable budget in our inflation-free economy? (I want to be buried with this Windows desktop so it should last at least the 10 years that the previous one did.) If I configure an Adobe Premiere Pro non-RAW editing machine over at Puget Systems with some of the above hardware it is quoted at $7,200 with an RTX 4080 graphics card.

How about this monster Samsung Neo G9 monitor? An attorney who mostly works from home sang its praises. It’s a big monitor with high resolution (the typical curved gaming monitor is a feeble 5,120 x 1,440 while this one is 7,680 x 2,160):

A 43″ 8K monitor might be nicer if one were available, but the predicted 8K revolution seems never to have occurred. The IP litigator who uses the above Samsung said that he sets it up to show four documents in portrait mode side by side. He’s programmed some Windows keyboard shortcuts using a free Microsoft add-on (PowerToys?) to zap windows to the left or right side. To avoid neck strain I think it would make more sense to use this with the document into which one was typing smack in the middle and supporting documents on the sides (i.e., 3-across instead of 4-across). The lack of a built-in camera seems bad. The inevitable result is a webcam perched on top blocking part of the screen with the bracket and trailing a USB cable? In the post-coronapanic all-Zoom-all-the-time-age why don’t monitors come with some sort of standard mount for a webcam if they aren’t going to include the webcam? Even a gamer needs a webcam for Twitch streaming or whatever, right?

Full post, including comments

How do Asian Americans process the elites’ selection of Kamala Harris?

Here’s Kamala Harris using the word “hypothesis” in a sentence:

I’m wondering how Asian Americans with IQs of 150 and long track records of achievement process the phenomenon of Kamala Harris having been selected by Democrat elites. If Harris had been elected via primaries, the intelligent Asian American could understand Harris’s victory by reflecting that “non-Asian American voters are, on average, stupid.” But after their coup against Joe Biden, the Democrats could have selected anyone as their candidate.

Let’s consider Lisa Su, for example. She’s 54 years old, has a Ph.D. in engineering, and has successfully managed a 26,000-employee company in a competitive environment (Intel on one side and Nvidia on the other). When she was elevated to CEO in 2014, revenue at AMD was about $6 billion/year. Today it is 23 billion Bidies per year (i.e., roughly double if we adjust for inflation in the cost of stuff that investors in AMD might want to buy). How does Lisa Su watch the above video, and similar, and make sense of the selection of Kamala Harris, out of pool of more than 200 million, by what we are told is the Party of Science?

Here’s the politician whom Republican primary voters rejected delivering, without notes, a 150-year history of Florida weather, complete with the barometric pressure of various major hurricanes. (This is not to say that I endorse any particular point of view about climate change, though “Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century” (Nature 2021) suggests that DeSantis is correct that recent hurricanes aren’t evidence of significant climate change.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Will Tesla turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Harley-Davidson? (self-driving cars and motorcycle safety)

A lot of motorcycle accidents are caused by human automobile drivers failing to see the motorcycle and, e.g., initiating a left turn. (It’s tough to find statistics on this, actually, except from trial lawyers who say that nearly all motorcycle accidents are caused by someone other than the rider.)

What if the typical car has a Tesla-style superhuman robot at the controls? The robot won’t fail to see a motorcycle, right? Could self-driving cars usher in a new era of motorcycle safety?

Also, while we wait for this glorious era perhaps cars could use their existing cameras and computers to highlight motorcyclists to the slow-minded humans behind the (legacy?) steering wheels. If a car already has a front-facing camera, a computer vision system, and a heads-up display why not project an “M” on the windshield when a motorcycle is noticed? (do this more aggressively when the car is stopped and the driver has activated the left turn signal or if the camera has noticed a left turn lane arrow painted in the lane via the camera)

On the third hand, maybe motorcycling will simply become illegal once most vehicles are self-driving. The residual injury and death will still be high enough that public health bureaucrats will be able to say, truthfully, “Banning motorcycles will save way more lives than we saved via closing schools and forcing people to wear cloth masks.”

Related:

see also… the hunting cap that Tim Walz wore in one of the videos featuring him engaging in manly activities…

… and a rare photo of Doug Emhoff leaving an A-lister event:

Full post, including comments

UNRWA school superintendent killed by a tank

Even before the vulnerability of tanks to drones was exposed in the Russia-Ukraine war, I couldn’t figure out why militaries were still paying for these dinosaurs.

A tale of two tanks… (2019):

… why do we have human-occupied tanks as part of our military? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have robotic/remote-controlled vehicles? Also, what chance do tanks stand against far more nimble anti-tank helicopters and airplanes (e.g., the Mi-24 or the A-10 Warthog)? Is the idea that we use tanks against lightly armed opponents, such as ISIS?

The war in Ukraine proves Isoroku Yamamoto right? (2022):

One feature of the war, as I understand it, is that the Russian military has had a lot of armored vehicles, e.g., tanks and ships, and these have proven vulnerable to inexpensive weapons on the Ukrainian side.

Who could have predicted this? Isoroku Yamamoto, one of the greatest thinkers and strategists of World War II (had Japan followed his advice, it would not have chosen to fight the U.S. to begin with). Admiral Yamamoto was an enthusiast for naval aviation starting in 1924 and correctly predicted that heavy expensive battleships would be almost useless going forward, vulnerable to submarines but especially to swarms of comparatively light and cheap airplanes. (And, of course, the great admiral was ultimately killed by U.S. fighter planes in 1943.)

I’m wondering why the U.S. Army wants to pay to keep 5,000 tanks in its inventory. If we’re fighting a peasant army equipped only with rifles, these tanks are obviously useful, but then we don’t need 5,000 of them. If we’re fighting a big battle in Europe, doesn’t the Russian experience in Ukraine show that the last place anyone would want to be is inside a tank and its illusory protection?

We’ve recently learned that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was killed by a tank (see, for example, “IDF releases footage of tank firing shell that killed Sinwar, pictures of weapons found in home”; there seem to be some alternative versions out of the fog of war in which this Palestinian leader (also UNRWA school employee?) was instead killed by a rifle bullet (“gun violence”)). Does this success rehabilitate the tank’s value in battle? Or does my question about why we need 5,000 of them still apply?

Separately, where on the Mall will President Kamala Harris put the Yahya Sinwar Memorial? Will Minneapolis put a Yahya Sinwar Boulevard next to George Perry Floyd Square? Will Dearborn, Michigan or Hamtramck, Michigan be renamed “Sinwar, Michigan” to honor the fallen fighter?

From “Israel unveils new Barak tank with AI, sensors and cameras” (Defense News, Sep 20, 2023):

(Maybe there could be a “Barack Hussein” variant of this tank and it would spread peace at the Nobel level?)

Full post, including comments