Did the U.S. boost Iran’s military power by killing Saddam Hussein?

Iran has been displaying its military power recently and its indifference to directives from the U.S. The country attacks the west in general and Israel in particular via support for the Houthis, Palestinian militant groups (Hamas, UNRWA, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, et al.), and Hezbollah. Iran has also been supplying Russia with drones, thus taking the opposite side of the conflict with Ukraine from the US and Europe.

I’m wondering if the U.S. is ultimately responsible for Iran’s freedom to flex its military muscles. The biggest thorn in Iran’s side was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (eight years of war, for example). By killing Saddam Hussein and trying to run Iraq as our puppet state, the U.S. essentially functioned as Iran’s military ally. More recently, the U.S. has been helping Iran more directly:

Separately, in May 2024 Joe Biden criticized Israel for killing Hamas soldiers in ways that put non-soldiers (“Hamas voters”?) at risk (AP). This month, Joe Biden criticized Israel for killing a Hamas leader in a way that resulted in zero civilian deaths (Reuters). Maybe there is some ideal ratio of Hamas/non-Hamas deaths that Joe Biden thinks Israel should be required to achieve?

From state-sponsored NPR:

There isn’t a price tag on the above, but I have to believe that Saddam Hussein was able to keep the Iranian military busy at less than 1/50th the dollar cost of what the U.S. military will spend.

Full post, including comments

Science denier wins Olympic gold by identifying as a woman

“Novak Djokovic defeats Carlos Alcaraz for first Olympic gold medal” (NBC):

He had tried five times to win the gold, failing each time. … The two sets played had to go into a tiebreaker, which was neck and neck the entire way. During the first set, there were 13 unsuccessful break points. The match lasted nearly three hours, an eternity for earning the best two sets out of three.

A three-set match? That’s typically for tennis players who identify as “women”. Thus, it seems fair to say that Djokovic, who has repeatedly denied Science by refusing to be injected with a Scientifically-proven vaccine against COVID-19, won gold due to switching gender IDs. (It would have been easier if Spanish prodigy Carlos Alcaraz hadn’t also changed gender IDs.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why doesn’t anyone want to buy Intel’s Gaudi AI processors, supposedly cheaper than Nvidia’s H100?

Intel claims to have a faster and more cost-effective AI system than Nvidia’s H100. It is called “Gaudi”. First, does the name make sense? Antoni Gaudí was famous for doing idiosyncratic creative organic designs. The whole point of Gaudí was that he was the only designer of Gaudí-like buildings. Why would you ever name something that will be mass-produced after this individual outlier? Maybe the name comes from the Israelis from whom Intel acquired the product line (an acquisition that should have been an incredible slam-dunk considering that it was done just before coronapanic set in and a few years before the LLM revolution)?

Intel claims that their Gaudi 3-based systems are faster and more efficient per dollar and per watt than Nvidia’s H100. Yet the sales are insignificant (nextplatform):

Intel said last October that it has a $2 billion pipeline for Gaudi accelerator sales, and added in April this year that it expected to do $500 million in sales of Gaudi accelerators in 2024. That’s nothing compared to the $4 billion in GPU sales AMD is expecting this year (which we think is a low-ball number and $5 billion is more likely) or to the $100 billion or more that Nvidia could take down in datacenter compute – just datacenter GPUs, no networking, no DPUs – this year.

Nvidia’s tools are great, no doubt, but if Intel is truly delivering 2x the performance per dollar, shouldn’t that yield a market share of more than 0.5 percent?

Here’s an article from April 2024 (IEEE Spectrum)… “Intel’s Gaudi 3 Goes After Nvidia The company predicts victory over H100 in LLMs”:

One more point of comparison is that Gaudi 3 is made using TSMC’s N5 (sometimes called 5-nanometer) process technology. Intel has basically been a process node behind Nvidia for generations of Gaudi, so it’s been stuck comparing its latest chip to one that was at least one rung higher on the Moore’s Law ladder. With Gaudi 3, that part of the race is narrowing slightly. The new chip uses the same process as H100 and H200.

If the Gaudi chips work as claimed, how is Intel getting beaten so badly in the marketplace? I feel as though I turned around for five minutes and a whole forest of oak trees had been toppled by a wind that nobody remarked on. Intel is now the General Motors circa 2009 of the chip world? Or is the better comparison to a zombie movie where someone returns from a two-week vacation to find that his/her/zir/their home town has been taken over? Speaking of zombies, what happens if zombies take over Taiwan? Humanity will have to make do with existing devices because nobody else can make acceptable chips?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Climate Change: the Science is settled and also was “completely overturned” in mid-2024

We’ve been informed that, when it comes to climate change, “the Science [was] settled” as of no later than 2007 when Professor Dr. Al Gore, Ph.D. talked to fellow Scientists in the U.S. Congress (state-sponsored NPR). Science’s climate models generate accurate predictions of Earth’s future temperatures, storm patterns, hurricane frequency and track, etc. These models depend critically on submodels of ocean behavior. According to Scientists at the World Bank in 2022:

Oceans are the largest heat sink on the planet. They absorb 90% of the excess heat caused by climate change. Oceans are also a very efficient carbon sink, absorbing 23% of human-caused CO2 emissions.

Here’s some July 2024 news from MIT:

“By isolating the impact of this feedback, we see a fundamentally different relationship between ocean circulation and atmospheric carbon levels, with implications for the climate,” says study author Jonathan Lauderdale, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. “What we thought is going on in the ocean is completely overturned.”

As it happens, “complete overturning” of what had been settled Science requires a higher level of panic:

Lauderdale says the findings show that “we can’t count on the ocean to store carbon in the deep ocean in response to future changes in circulation. We must be proactive in cutting emissions now, rather than relying on these natural processes to buy us time to mitigate climate change.”

“My work shows that we need to look more carefully at how ocean biology can affect the climate,” Lauderdale points out. “Some climate models predict a 30 percent slowdown in the ocean circulation due to melting ice sheets, particularly around Antarctica. This huge slowdown in overturning circulation could actually be a big problem: In addition to a host of other climate issues, not only would the ocean take up less anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, but that could be amplified by a net outgassing of deep ocean carbon, leading to an unanticipated increase in atmospheric CO2 and unexpected further climate warming.”

Expected the unexpected, in other words, even when Science is settled. (Separately, with the Science having been settled prior to this “complete overturning”, why does the overturner refer to “some climate models” making a prediction and not others? With settled Science, shouldn’t all climate models agree on the major points, just as all models of orbital mechanics agree on when Halley’s Comet will return to our charred planet?)

From Nature Magazine:

Full post, including comments

Accountability in Iran versus in the U.S.

“Iran Arrests Dozens in Search for Suspects in Killing of Hamas Leader” (NYT):

Iran has arrested more than two dozen people, including senior intelligence officers, military officials and staff workers at a military-run guesthouse in Tehran, in response to a huge and humiliating security breach that enabled the assassination of a top leader of Hamas, according to two Iranians familiar with the investigation.

The high-level arrests came after the killing in an explosion early Wednesday of Ismail Haniyeh, who had led Hamas’s political office in Qatar and was visiting Tehran for the inauguration of Iran’s new president and staying at the guesthouse in northern Tehran, Iran’s capital.

The fervor of the response to the killing of Mr. Haniyeh underscores what a devastating security failure this was for Iran’s leadership, with the assassination occurring at a heavily guarded compound in the country’s capital within hours of the swearing-in ceremony of the country’s new president.

Can anyone recall a similar failure to achieve security here in the U.S.? If so, how many arrests were made of people who failed to achieve what they were paid to achieve?

Separately, the article says that Israel was responsible, but what is the evidence for this?

The deadly blast, which also killed Mr. Haniyeh’s Palestinian bodyguard, wasn’t only an earth-shattering collapse of intelligence and security; nor only a failure to protect a key ally; nor evidence of the inability to curb the infiltration of Mossad; nor a humiliating reputational blow. It was all of those, and more.

Perhaps most important, it delivered a jarring realization that if Israel could target such an important guest, on a day when the capital was under heightened security, and carry out the attack at a highly secure compound equipped with bulletproof windows, air defense and radar, then no one was really safe.

If being a senior Hamas leader can yield personal wealth, e.g., via skimming US and EU taxpayer dollars off the UNRWA budget, wouldn’t the most likely suspect in hastening the martyrdom of a senior leader be a junior leader?

Finally, we are informed by corporate media that Palestinians do not support Hamas. Aj Jazeera, on the other hand, shows us “Palestinians in the occupied West Bank protest against Haniyeh’s killing”:

If these folks viewed Hamas rule as oppressive or illegitimate why would they be out in the street upset that a senior Hamas leader is gone?

The Deplorable New York Post covers similar events here… “Hamas flag-wielding anti-Israel protesters show off portrait of killed terrorist leader Ismail Haniyeh in shocking Times Square rally”.

What about the 0.6 percent of (88+ million) Iranians who don’t identify as Muslim? It would be interesting to know if they are upset about their Hamas-affiliated guest ascending to Islamic Heaven.

Full post, including comments

Why aren’t there front load washing machines with the same depth as top load washing machines?

A lot of houses have closets and hallways architected to fit a standard top loading washing machine, which seems to have been roughly 27x27x44″ high. Here’s a 3.9 cu. ft. Whirlpool:

By cheating just a little, e.g., stretching the depth to 27 and 7/8″, Whirlpool can deliver a machine with a 5.2 cu. ft. drum.

It would seem obvious to build a front load washing machine with the same 27×27″ footprint, but nobody seems to do that. One of Whirlpool’s smaller front loaders is advertised as “closet-depth” and, in fact, is about 31.5″ deep. Their bigger front loaders are over 33 inches deep with the door closed. If you scale down to a “compact” front loader, as seen in Europe, the footprint is 24×24″ and capacity drops to just 1.9 cu. ft.

What’s the engineering challenge to making a front loading washer that exactly fits the footprint of a legacy washing machine and, thus, fits into an older American house as it was originally designed?

(Our house is an example of one in which 27-inch depth is the limit. The laundry room connects the family room/kitchen to the garage. A machine deeper than 27 inches will stick out beyond the door frame (top of the figure below) and obstruct access into the garage:

In fact, the only way to have 27-inch deep machines not poke into the hallway is to dig into the 4-inch drywall behind the machines, e.g., to make water and gas connections. Everything must be perfectly positioned for the machines to sit flush on the baseboard.

In other fun appliance news, an architect who redesigned our Harvard Square apartment’s kitchen notched out cabinets to precisely fit a particular LG fridge that we bought back in 2013. The fridge has French doors, which introduces another point of failure beyond a conventional side-by-side fridge or bottom-freezer fridge. The “mullion door” or “flapper door” in the middle of the French doors had a failed spring. I thought about buying a replacement, but was concerned that the notches wouldn’t work for the new fridge and also I couldn’t find any current fridges that had stainless steel sides as the old one did. Thus, it was time to think about repairing the minor problem with the 11-year-old fridge.

I was renting it out on AirBnB, couldn’t get up to Cambridge to fix it myself, and didn’t want to hassle my friend from MIT who is a mechanical genius but has his own 130-year-old 3-story wooden house to maintain. I called LG service and they offered a fixed $399 flat-rate repair fee. I gave them the model and serial number in advance and told them exactly what the problem was and what part was needed. The technician came out to the apartment, diagnosed the problem as the flapper door, and then said that no replacement part was available (the LG Parts web site showed a compatible replacement and eBay had the exact part number available from an appliance store that apparently had a lot of old stock). While monkeying with the fridge, he managed to short out the control board so the fridge went from “tough to close” to “completely dead.” The flapper door actually has an electrical connection to the control system in order to run a heater that prevents condensation from forming on the door. I then asked a series of people who answered LG’s 800 number with thick Indian accents whether I could perhaps get a refund of the $399 repair fee since they themselves acknowledged that they hadn’t repaired anything. They never simply refused to refund the money, but always said that it would be considered by some other group and that someone would get back to me. Of course, nobody ever did get back to me and LG never did issue any refund.

Full post, including comments

Hanna Reitsch after Germany was defeated (including her work with Amnesty International)

A fourth post based on The Women Who Flew for Hitler, a book about Hanna Reitsch and Melitta von Stauffenberg.

Although both of these women were awarded Iron Crosses by Adolf Hitler, only Hanna was an enthusiastic supporter of National Socialism. The aeronautical engineer and disciplined test pilot Melitta survived until just three weeks before the end of the war so we’ll never know what she would have accomplished in the world of civilian aviation. Much of her work was on instruments and systems for flying at night and in bad weather, so she likely would have done valuable work in the Jet Age.

During the war, Hanna had lost her nerve only once. This was during a morale-boosting visit to the Russian Front:

No sooner had she reached the first German ack-ack position than the Russians started a heavy bombardment. ‘Automatically everyone vanished into the ground, while all around us the air whistled and shuddered and crashed,’ she wrote. After their own guns had pounded out their reply, a formation of enemy planes began to bomb the Wehrmacht position. ‘I felt, in my terror, as though I wanted to creep right in on myself,’ Hanna continued. ‘When finally to this inferno were added the most horrible sounds of all, the yells of the wounded, I felt certain that not one of us would emerge alive. Cowering in a hole in the ground, it was in vain that I tried to stop the persistent knocking of my knees.’

(The above suggests that Israel could have brought the Gaza fighting to a swift conclusion if it had used 155mm artillery to attack Hamas-held positions rather than high-tech drones and other precision munitions that have convinced Palestinians that war with the IDF is a manageable lifestyle (in a June 2024 poll, the majority of Palestinians wanted to continue fighting against Israel (Reuters)). The initial death toll among civilians would have been higher, but the long-term death toll might have been lower if the IDF fought intensively enough to motivate Gazans to surrender, release their hostages, and rat out Hamas members.)

Hanna had friends with direct knowledge of the German death camp system and had seen photographs, taken by Russians, of the Majdanek extermination camp (captured in July 1944). The reports and the photos, however, did not change her views regarding the overall merits of the Nazi system. Regarding the concentration camps, the book covers another “breaking the glass ceiling” angle:

Buchenwald covered an immense site, but its hundreds of barracks were overflowing with thousands of starving prisoners. The camp was ‘indescribably filthy’, one Stauffenberg cousin noted, and ‘there was always an air of abject misery and cruelty’. Female SS guards carried sticks and whips with which they frequently beat prisoners, especially if orders – given solely in German – were not obeyed immediately.

While the concentration and extermination camps were being overrun, Hanna was one of the last Germans to spend time with Hitler, flying into Berlin in April 1945 and landing a Fieseler Storch right next to the bunker.

In that instant Hanna decided that, if Greim stayed, she would also ask Hitler for the ultimate privilege of remaining with him. Some accounts even have her grasping Hitler’s hands and begging to be allowed to stay so that her sacrifice might help redeem the honour of the Luftwaffe, tarnished by Göring’s betrayal, and even ‘guarantee’ the honour of her country in the eyes of the world.49 But Hanna may have been motivated by more than blind honour. She had worked hard to support the Nazi regime through propaganda as well as her test work for the Luftwaffe, and there is no doubt that both she and Greim identified with Hitler’s anti-Semitic world view and supported his aggressive, expansionist policies. Hanna ‘adored Hitler unconditionally, without reservations’, Traudl Junge, one of the female secretaries in the bunker, later wrote. ‘She sparkled with her fanatical, obsessive readiness to die for the Führer and his ideals.’

In another example of how the Israelis might have defeated Hamas, the author notes that even a German-built underground bunker isn’t a practical refuge against sustained shelling.

Over the next few days, the Soviet army pushed through Berlin until they were within artillery range of the Chancellery. Hanna spent much of her time in Greim’s sickroom. Sometimes she dozed on the stretcher that had carried him in, but essentially she was a full-time nurse, washing and disinfecting his wound every hour, and shifting his weight to help reduce the pain. Any sustained sleep was now impossible as the bunker shook, lights flickered and even on the lower floor, fifty feet below ground, mortar fell from the eighteen-inch-thick walls.

Hanna escaped at the end of April 1945, flying as a passenger with Robert Ritter von Greim and his personal pilot. Hanna was captured by the Allies and interrogated by Eric Brown, a British pilot, and Americans interested in Germany’s advanced weapons.

‘Although she was reluctant to admit this,’ [Eric Brown] later wrote, it soon became evident that Hanna had never flown the plane under power, but only ‘to make production test flights from towed glides’.

To Eric it was clear that Hanna’s ‘devotion for Hitler was total devotion’. ‘He represented the Germany that I love,’ she told him. Hanna also denied the Holocaust. When Eric told her that he had been at the liberation of Belsen, and had seen the starving inmates and piles of the dead for himself, ‘she pooh-poohed all this. She didn’t believe it … She didn’t want to believe any of it.’ Such denial was painful for them both, but Eric found that ‘nothing could convince her that the Holocaust took place’. Hanna was, he concluded, a ‘fanatical aviator, fervent German nationalist and ardent Nazi’. Above all, he later wrote, ‘the fanaticism she displayed in her attitude to Hitler, made my blood run cold’.

When the Americans organized a press conference for her to publicly repeat her denunciation of Hitler’s military and strategic leadership, she instead defiantly asserted that she had willingly supported him, and claimed she would do the same again.

The only woman among the leaders awaiting trial, she was soon particularly close to Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk, the regime’s former finance minister. Having enjoyed long conversations ‘about everything’, she told him she could ‘feel your thoughts steadily in me, stronger than any words’. When she learnt that her brother Kurt had survived the war, she proudly wrote to him that for many months she had been ‘sitting behind barbed wire, surrounded by the most worthy German men, leaders in so many fields. The enemy have no idea what riches they are giving me.’

The Americans seemed unsure how to classify Hanna. In December 1945 they had recorded that she was ‘not an ardent Nazi, nor even a Party member’. Other memos listed her optimistically as a potential goodwill ambassador or even ‘possible espionage worker’. Hanna’s celebrity, and close connections with former Luftwaffe staff and others once high up in Nazi circles, made her a potentially valuable asset ‘with the power to influence thousands’. But her stated desire to promote ‘the truth’ was never translated into action. Eventually they decided to keep her under surveillance in an intelligence operation code-named ‘Skylark’. The hope was that she might inadvertently lead them to former members of the Luftwaffe still wanted for trial. Hanna started receiving her ‘highly nationalistic and idealistic’ friends as soon as she was released. To pre-empt criticism, she cast herself as a victim. She ‘had a worse time [in US captivity] than the people in concentration camps!’ the pilot Rudi Storck wrote in a letter that was intercepted.

Hanna knew about this surveillance and even asked US intelligence to give her a new car when her Fiat sports car broke down (we did give her the car!). It’s a little unfair to blame Hanna for thinking that the main thing that the Nazis did wrong was to lose the war:

Among the national surveys that followed in West Germany, one from 1951 found that only 5 per cent of respondents admitted any feeling of guilt concerning the Jews, and only one in three was positive about the assassination plot.

How effective are trained psychologists?

Although acquitted in 1947, [SS officer] Skorzeny had been kept at Darmstadt internment camp to go through what he called ‘the denazification mill’.52 Hanna had been the first person he visited while on parole. Skorzeny escaped the following summer, eventually arriving in Madrid where he founded a Spanish neo-Nazi group.

Hanna’s two-month visit to India in 1959:

She loved the warmth of her reception, gave frequent talks on the spiritual experience of silent flight, and developed proposals for glider training with the Indian air force. She was also thrilled with what she called ‘the lively interest in Hitler and his achievements’ that she claimed to receive ‘all over India’.68 The cherry on the cake came when the ‘wise Indian Prime Minister’, Jawaharlal Nehru, requested she take him soaring. Hanna and Nehru stayed airborne for over two hours, Nehru at times taking the controls. It was a huge PR coup, widely reported across the Indian press. The next morning Hanna received an invitation to lunch with Nehru and his daughter, Indira Gandhi.

She was also warmly received in the U.S.:

In 1961 Hanna returned to the USA at the suggestion of her old friend, the aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, who was now working at NASA. She often claimed to have refused post-war work with the American aeronautics programme on the basis that it would have been the ultimate betrayal of her country.† Braun felt differently, and occasionally tried to persuade Hanna to change her mind. ‘We live in times of worldwide problems,’ he had written to her in 1947. ‘If one does not wish to remain on the outside, looking in, one has to take a stand – even if sentimental reasons may stand in the way of coming clean. Do give it some thought!’

While in the States, Hanna also took the opportunity to join glider pilots soaring over the Sierra Nevada, and to meet the ‘Whirly Girls’, an international association of female helicopter pilots. As the first woman to fly such a machine, she found she had the honour of being ‘Whirly Girl Number One’. It was with the Whirly Girls that Hanna was invited to the White House, meeting President Kennedy in the Oval Office. A group photo on the lawn shows her in an enveloping cream coat with matching hat and clutch, standing slightly in front of her taller peers. Her smile is once again dazzling; she felt validated. In interviews she revealed that Kennedy had told her she was a ‘paradigm’, and should ‘never give up on bringing flying closer to people’.

She came back to the U.S. in the 1970s:

She tactfully did not attend the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and does not seem to have commented on the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes. The highlight of that year for her was a return to America, where she was honoured in Arizona, and installed as the first female member of the prestigious international Society of Experimental Test Pilots. She could hardly have been happier, sitting in a hall of 2,000 people, discussing a possible new ‘Hanna Reitsch Cup’ with Baron Hilton. Back in Germany, she was now receiving hundreds of letters and parcels from schoolchildren as well as veterans, and even became an ambassador for the German section of Amnesty International. ‘There are millions in Germany who love me,’ she claimed, before adding, ‘it is only the German press which has been told to hate me. It is propaganda helped by the government … They are afraid I might say something good about Adolf Hitler. But why not?

What’s Amnesty International up to lately? Since October 7, 2023, at least, tweeting out a continuous stream of support for one side in the Gaza fighting. Example:

Full post, including comments

Why wasn’t diversity Intel’s strength?

On the cusp of the release of Intel’s Arrow Lake CPUs, which contain some sort of feeble “AI processor” that might boost performance by 1 percent for anyone who has a graphics card plugged into his/her/zir/their desktop PC, the company will have to fire 15 percent of its workers due to a failure to make as much money as a receptionist in an NVIDIA branch office. Even a $20 billion gift from Joe Biden (March 2024) didn’t help.

How could this have happened to a company with diverse employees and diverse suppliers? Exhibit A:

They promise to discriminate against Asian male and white male suppliers for $1 billion. Intel spent “$300M to support a goal of reaching full workforce representation of women and underrepresented minorities in our U.S. workforce by 2020” (that’s $300 million that shareholders won’t now see, apparently).

Exhibit B:

(The person wearing the Pride shirt is next to the person in Islamic attire. Is this a Queers for Palestine situation?)

Intel says “Diversity, equity, and inclusion have long been Intel’s core values and are instrumental to driving innovation and delivering strong business growth.”

If diversity drives innovation and “strong business growth,” why is Intel being left in the dust by NVIDIA, TSMC, AMD, et al.? Does TSMC have more diversity in Hsinchu than Intel can find here in the U.S.? Is diversity not a strength for Intel or not a strength for a tech company or not a strength for any company?

If Intel’s diverse employees don’t concern themselves with making money every day for the shareholders, what have the employees been focused on? The official state religion:

A long-term perspective:

(Can this be correctly adjusted for splits? Yahoo! Finance says that it is.)

Update: Intel lost 26 percent of its value by the end of the day, falling to $21.48 per share. That results in a price/earnings ratio of 22.5, a bit lower than the average for the S&P 500. Intel is a huge bargain compared to AMD, which has a P/E ratio of 160! Maybe it is time to buy Intel?

Full post, including comments

Six months with the Apple Vision Pro augmented reality headset

A friend was one of the first to order and receive an Apple Vision Pro headset. He’s had it for about six months. He’s a great programmer and a sophisticated user of technology. I asked him what he’s done with the $3500 device. “I use it to watch streaming movies,” he responded. Does it have a full two hours of battery life? “I don’t know,” he said, “because I always use it plugged in.”

AR is the technology of the future and always will be? Apple claims to be the company that makes everything useful. (They’re bringing us AI next, which is upsetting when you reflect on the fact that the iPhone isn’t smart enough to correctly oriented a picture of an English-language museum sign nor can it fill out an online shopping form with the owner’s name and address, despite having seen hundreds of similar forms that all get filled in with the same info.)

Readers: Have you figured out what to do with one of these?

One possibility: ForeFlight Voyager, a free “playground for aviation enthusiasts” from the flight planning nerds who were acquired by Boeing. It includes real-time traffic. This was purportedly being demoed in the Boeing pavilion at Oshkosh, but I didn’t see anyone with the headset on. The ForeFlight folks were happy to talk about it, but didn’t offer to demonstrate it. I wonder if it is too cumbersome to get a new user into and out of a Vision Pro. Or maybe people throw up as soon as they are in the VR world?

Full post, including comments

Inflation in our inflation-free economy

We are informed that the Biden-Harris team has whipped inflation, e.g., from state-sponsored PBS, February 2024: “Inflation is nearly back to 2 percent.” (“inflation nearly conquered”)

What’s happened to prices since February?

Here’s the menu at the Orange County airport McDonald’s, March 13, 2024:

The same menu on July 31, 2024:

The pictures were taken 140 days apart, which is 0.38 years. In other words, to get an approximation of the annual price change we have to multiply the price change rate between the two photos by 365/140.

The Big Mac meal is $14.18, up from $13.08. That’s a rise of 8.4 percent, adjusted to an annual rate = 21.9 percent.

How about the Royale with Cheese (Deluxe, of course)? That’s up from $13.41 to $14.84, a lift of 10.6 percent. If we didn’t live in an inflation-free society, that would be an annual inflation rate of 27.8 percent.

Also on July 31, 2024, a friend who does some software consulting work decided to raise his hourly rate from $350 to $425 (a 21.4 percent increase).

Full post, including comments