tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23855437518784067132024-03-18T11:05:43.176-04:00The Wrong Monkeymee r munkee. mee luv yuSteven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.comBlogger2120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-84783202771914570372024-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:002024-02-12T15:44:20.491-05:00EV Drivers<p>One thing that reactionary yahoos have long said about EV drivers is that they are smug. Well, I've been driving an EV for a while now, and, strangely, I AM smug about it. I DO feel superior to the drivers of the noisy, smelly dinosaur-burners all around me, as I dart nearly silently among them. Intellectually superior, morally superior, and definitely sexier! Superior every which way. I am the dog's biscuits. </p><p>I can't open the rear doors yet, but I've googled it, and it's just a matter of settings and interior buttons. It'll come. I'll figure it out. I don't know why that overhead light comes on all the time, even in the brightest parts of the sunniest days, but I'll figure that out too! Just the same that I figured out where the radio's volume knob was! My brother helped with the volume knob. He's literally a rocket scientist and is wicked smart. With his help I'll get the charging situation sorted out. </p><p>And you would not BELIEVE how smug I feel about it all. And I'm a person who's rarely felt smug about anything. Apparently I occasionally appear to be smug. People have sometimes accused me of smugness, but they've been wrong. Now they're right.<br /></p><p>As the old saying goes: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The yahoos were bound to be right about something eventually. </p><p>I'm not saying that these feelings of superiority are accurate, just that I'm feeling them. For several months before the EV, I was without any sort of personal-transportation vehicle. I walked or I took the bus. and I definitely THINK that those who do so are better than all of us who drive, no matter what we drive. </p><p>But I didn't have this smirking, smug FEELING when I was on foot.</p><p>Can anyone else out there relate? Are we right to feel this way? Are we being manipulated by Big Something? Are are we the Vanguard of the Future? Are we silly? Maybe a little from Column A and a little from Column B?<br /></p>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-61839522815961115802024-02-04T15:40:00.000-05:002024-02-04T15:40:08.491-05:00Continuing Education on YouTube<p>Stefan Milo is a British archaeologist who lives with his family in Murrka and has a great YouTube channel called, wittily enough, Stefan Milo: </p><p>Well. There was supposed to be a link to Stefan's YouTube channel here. But we seem to be having even more technical difficulties. I repeat: it's on YouTube, it's called Stefan Milo and it's great.</p><p>I don't know what sort of archaeologist Milo is. He's very self-deprecating about his intellect and his academic accomplishments -- too much so, I would guess. He regularly talks to world-leading archaeologists on his channel, and he seems to keep up them pretty well. He has a degree in Archaeology from the University of Sheffield, but I don't know whether it's a Doctorate or some lesser degree.</p><p>I don't know whether he's published a lot of peer-reviewed papers. He's published a children's book about archaeology; he talks about that book a lot on his channel. </p><p>I do feel that I've learned a lot about archaeology from Milo's channel after a few weeks of binge-watching his videos. That is in large part because I find his videos pleasant to watch: he has an engaging personality and his videos have good production values. </p><p>For just a little while I said to myself: since Milo didn't make a career in academia, now he has to be an academic and a performer as well. And then suddenly it struck me: all teachers are performers. Some are good performers, some aren't. Milo is one of the ones who are more effective because they're more engaging and likeable.</p><p>I don't know why it took me until I was 62 years old to grasp this, but it's been grasped. Of course teachers who fascinate their students are more effective than those who repel them. And some teachers started showing slides decades ago, if not centuries, and some of them have been very good with the visual aids, and that doesn't hurt a bit when it comes to actual task of education. <br /></p><p>Milo makes a great contrast here to Bart Ehrman, probably the world's most famous living academic authority on the subject of Jesus and early Christianity. Ehrman can be seen as having at least three separate careers: as an author of academic books, which contain footnotes and multilingual bibliographies and are peer-reviewed; an author of popular books, which eschew the footnotes and bibliographies, are aimed at the "general public," and sell several times as much as the academic books, routinely making bestseller lists; and also as a teacher who stands in front of students and talks.</p><p>Nowadays, of course, teaching is done not only in classrooms, but also in front of cameras, in the making of various kinds of videos. I've watched quite a few of Ehrman's videos lately, and... and I like his academic books very much. So do many academics. And his popular books must have hundreds of thousands of ardent fans among the "general public" by now. If not actually millions.</p><p>Ehrman also appears on many YouTube channels, some seem to be run in part by him, and he's a guest on many others, and the videos get millions and millions and millions of views.</p><p>Would they get so many views without the books? I really have to wonder. There are probably some people who find Ehrman to be the epitome of charisma, because when there are millions and millions and millions of views, there will be every conceivable opinion. </p><p>I watch the videos for Ehrman's knowledge. I have to put up with a lot of teeth-grittingly annoying behavior in order to get to that knowledge. One channel which Ehrman seems to at least partly control, is actually hosted by a British woman, and every video starts with her asking "Bart" about the latest in his private life, and why?! "Bart" never says anything edifying or remotely interesting and these intros, and I've taken to skipping ahead to where they're actually talking about Jeebus.</p><p>What a huge contrast to Stefan Milo's video, where the occasional glimpses of his wife and baby girl are actually charming, and sometimes even tied in relevantly to to the archaeological content.</p><p>Ehrman has said many times that his students in North Carolina are from North Carolina, and therefore are often fundamentalists, and therefore are often quite astonished by what he has to teach them. He's said this many times just that I've seen. How many times has he insulted his students in pretty much the identical way in his entire life?! It boggles the boggles. Why not try some new material for a change, and tell the world about the most surprisingly clever things he's heard from his students lately? <br /></p><p>And his laugh. Ehrman's laugh just sets my teeth on edge. it literally sounds like "Hyuck hyuck hyuck!"</p><p>Anyhow. Stefan Milo's videos on YouTube, and Bart Ehrman's academic books, the ones with the footnotes and bibliographies, are what I recommend. </p><p>Also, since I'm sure some of you are wondering now that I've mentioned Ehrman: no, I am still not convinced that Jesus existed. I agree with Ehrman that most of the most prominent living mythicists, Price and Carrier and Freke and Gandy and Fitzgerald et al, are bozos as well as unpleasant people, I agree with him that Atlantis was not real and that the Egyptians and Mayas built all of those amazing buildings all by themselves, with no extra-terrestrial help whatsoever. I will almost always side with the academic consensus in the sciences and humanities. "Academic cover-up" strikes me as an oxymoron. I agree with Ehrman that there is no reason to doubt that Socrates and Caesar and Alexander the Great and Pilate and Herod Antipater and John the Baptist and Saul/Paul of Taurus were real people, and I trust Ehrman's opinion about which of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul and which of the Platonic dialogues were written by Plato, and about many, many other things. </p><p>But I still haven't had that "AHA!"-moment where it suddenly makes sense what Ehrman and almost all other academics say about Jesus: that he certainly existed. I'm also not certain that he never existed, the way I am with, for example, King Arthur. When it comes to Jesus' existence, I'm on the fence, where I've been for at least 30 years.<br /></p>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-9129554020260373242023-12-29T14:31:00.007-05:002024-01-17T12:00:06.436-05:00Generalizations<p>If someone said, "All engineers are
the same. They're just working to further enrich themselves and to screw
over the rest of us," you would respond that this is entirely
incorrect, and that the speaker seems to know very little about
engineers. And, of course, you'd be right.</p><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">The
thing is, the statement is just as wrong if you substitute any other
group for engineers. "All billionaires are the same," "all Jews are the
same," "all Belgians are the same," "all Republicans are the same" --
all of those statements are making the same mistake: they are assigning
characteristics to people based on their perceived membership in a
group, rather than regarding them as individuals. <br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">It's an over-generalization, an over-simplification, and it's mistaken, about 100% of the time.</div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">Now, maybe you would respond, "What about Nazis? Weren't they all the same in some very important ways?"</div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">I'm
glad you asked! No, they weren't. You know Oskar Schindler, the guy
played by Liam Neeson in that movie, the guy who saved all of those
people's lives and sabotaged the German war effort in WWII? <br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">He
was a Nazi. A member of the Nazi Party. He joined the party for
business reasons, and he started to work against it when he could no
longer ignore the death camps and stuff.</div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><p>Individual human beings will constantly surprise you, if you go to the trouble of paying attention to them. </p><p> </p>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-29371299196922468602023-12-11T16:54:00.001-05:002023-12-11T16:54:59.156-05:00HEGEL!!<p>After decades of trying and utterly failing to see what could possibly be worthwhile in Hegel's philosophy, I believe I've had a breakthrough.</p><p>I'm not bragging. On the contrary: I'm saying that I'm starting to grasp certain ideas which have occupied a great number of people over the past 200 years. Probably millions of people. And almost all of them began to grasp these same ideas decades quicker than I did. Well, better very, very late than never, and who knows what you might achieve if you simply don't give up, etc. </p><p>I am not now going to explain Hegel to you. Of course not. Many others can do that far better, and there's always the drastic step of actually reading a philosopher's work, itself. It's still only been about 2 days since I moved from Schopenhauer's position on Hegel: that he was a simpleton, a charlatan, a pseudo-philosopher passing off the most awful nonsense as genius. I'm not now convinced that Hegel is a genius. I'm being cautious here. For a while I thought Sloterdijk was a genius. What has changed is that I think that now I've gotten a glimpse of why so many others think Hegel is a genius. I'm a take it from there.<br /></p><p>If almost everyone thinks that you and Schopenhauer are wrong -- you and Schopenhauer may be wrong. Don't worry, Schopenhauer was still right about many things. </p><p>It's so wonderful to suddenly see that you were wrong about something, and that it actually is as good as all those people have been saying, whether it's someone's music or someone' paintings or someone's philosophy. Suddenly, there's this wonderful thing. Well, it was there all along, right under your nose. But suddenly, you understand that it really is wonderful. </p><p>Perhaps a great deal of the difficulty, for me and and also for Schopenhauer, was very simply that we are solitary natures, and Hegel's emphasis is on interaction, from the interaction of the smallest insect with its environment, to the interaction of entire civilizations, and the interaction of individual humans with each other in between. You and I interact, and we change each other. Previously, philosophers had investigated the way that people and things are. Hegel asks what people and things are becoming, and how this happens. That is the beginning, or one of the beginning premises of Hegel's philosophy, or one of its significant points of departure from Kant's. You and I change each other, and it goes on endlessly from there, and the mind races at the immensity of the possibilities.</p><p>I repeat, I'm not the one to explain any of this to you, as it's been just a couple of days since anything Hegel said began to make the slightest bit of sense to me. But don't worry, as one of the handful of most popular philosophers of all time, he's had plenty of people write entire books just about him. And, I repeat, you could, actually. Read. One. Of. His. Books.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0521281458&asins=0521281458&linkId=4d4a9c44d1409aeeafbfaf6e92042e35&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-19563921344579049892023-11-29T12:18:00.000-05:002023-11-29T12:18:29.114-05:00A Reply to Someone Who's Fascinated by Mathematical Questions<p>Another question about math is
whether it is something intrinsic to nature which people have
discovered, or a very useful tool which we have invented, and which we
impose upon nature. I've always seen it as the latter, which diminishes,
at least for me, the intrinsic interest of those other questions you
mention.</p><p class="_1qeIAgB0cPwnLhDF9XSiJM">Of course, I may have
been entirely wrong this entire time. I have the impression that most
contemporary mathematicians and physicians and zoologists and botanists
would say that I'm wrong.</p>Nietzsche believed we invented math. See <em class="_7s4syPYtk5hfUIjySXcRE">Menschliches Allzumenschliches</em>,
vol 1, section 1, "Von den ersten und letzten Dingen," paragraph 19,
"Die Zahl." Mathematicians and physicists might find this passage
interesting, among other reasons for the grasp of atomic theory which Nietzsche demonstrates in something he published in the late 1870's.<p class="_1qeIAgB0cPwnLhDF9XSiJM">But
many years after I first read that, it suddenly struck me, like a
hammer striking a gong, that everyone knows exactly what a circle is,
although none of us has ever seen a perfect circle. This very simple
fact, available to anyone who thinks about it for as long as a moment,
seems to me to be a very strong argument in favor of Plato's forms, and
in favor in math being something we discover as opposed to something we
invent.</p><p class="_1qeIAgB0cPwnLhDF9XSiJM">Nietzsche despised Plato
more intensely than he did any other single human being. I went through a
period of very intense admiration for Nietzsche (except for his sexism
and enthusiasm for war, which I always rejected), and I adopted his
contempt of Plato. But my gong-moment, my insight about circles, has
forced me to reconsider Plato. And when you reconsider something as
influential as Platonic philosophy, you necessarily re-consider many
other things.</p><iframe sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=0803283687&asins=0803283687&linkId=43887071d7c3e3e3d7347eb2ecb84b61&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-35191761240146342822023-11-20T13:44:00.001-05:002023-11-29T12:48:47.262-05:00EV Sales are Booming, Worldwide. So Why Do Many People Believe That They're Dropping?<p>Worldwide, 2.1 million electric vehicles were sold in 2019, 3 million in 2020, 6.76 million in 2021, 10 million in 2022, and sales in 2023 are expected to top 14 million, which will be well over 20 percent of total motor vehicles sales. Overall sales of motorized vehicles have actually declined over the past several years.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKxczWDcyjiFcsmyzZHs2mhJLumBk75Ks0dbwAQBC7Xwd26YByr2qiyH6uQxO3J2vD3eLKhUgPBoswAoeME-1KscACDPcHMqtn-4wvHYvG1KTD8RfAwUI-Gp-NKeK6oQFU7CJhrKx9d4nkqcLuO8wkKTMS_VvawnZ_qyulIpjXp5TBXabcNKkZuGdfg0g/s800/242.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKxczWDcyjiFcsmyzZHs2mhJLumBk75Ks0dbwAQBC7Xwd26YByr2qiyH6uQxO3J2vD3eLKhUgPBoswAoeME-1KscACDPcHMqtn-4wvHYvG1KTD8RfAwUI-Gp-NKeK6oQFU7CJhrKx9d4nkqcLuO8wkKTMS_VvawnZ_qyulIpjXp5TBXabcNKkZuGdfg0g/s320/242.png" width="320" /></a></div><p>So why are there so many stories about an alleged decline in the sales of EV's? I can only think of bad reasons, such as: people really are that bad at math. So bad that they would look at numbers as simple and clears as those I just gave you, and think it means that "the EV craze" is over. It's hard for me to believe that there are people smart enough to be able to read, but still that bad at math. But not as hard as it would have been before the 2016 Democratic US Presidential primaries.</p><p>Could it be because people think only of Teslas when they think of EV's? It seems a lot of people do. And Tesla's share of the EV market is shrinking in the US. And a lot of people, especially in the US, think only of the US when they think about how things are going in the world. </p><p>Could it be because some bad people are flat-out lying to broad segments of the public who trust them and look to them for vital information about the world? It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that some influential bad people are doing exactly that, and trying their utmost to convince the public that "the EV craze" is over. </p><p>I would guess that a combination of all of the above -- people's inability to do math, their tendency to do math, their tendency equate Tesla in the US with EV's globally, and lying big shots -- have led to the perception that the EV sector is doing poorly. </p><p>This would be an example of the importance of investing in education, for instance, education in math and in critical thinking. Investments staunchly opposed by a lot of of those very same bad liars.<br /></p><iframe sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=1119887356&asins=1119887356&linkId=ee465b635e3540e55a2c315f9736f0c7&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-41907266121324070292023-11-05T21:02:00.000-05:002023-11-05T21:02:42.229-05:00Logistics Again<p>I have discussed Amazon logistics with people who have some insights into how businesses actually function, with me
suspecting that Amazon, and/or some other shipping company, had messed something up, and them arguing that there are things involved which I
didn't grasp, things which meant that the quickest route was NOT a
straight line.</p><div dir="ltr"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLyaH-EoiyLv3ZlCWiBXyrAmCuUpIJrO8tybY4LLNUjvXNEHqn10fggfLqIW32ma32IDUcEOGeCyMzmEBYhJGYt7ZysKygNJ60iwve4nS8PPuSAlBC6XX3vrGH3zEsF9SQKx3M7biz0fecRX426H4JTiOEOqbhHOiGd8Ii50umN5e9aUD77GMjslHxplf7/s900/241.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLyaH-EoiyLv3ZlCWiBXyrAmCuUpIJrO8tybY4LLNUjvXNEHqn10fggfLqIW32ma32IDUcEOGeCyMzmEBYhJGYt7ZysKygNJ60iwve4nS8PPuSAlBC6XX3vrGH3zEsF9SQKx3M7biz0fecRX426H4JTiOEOqbhHOiGd8Ii50umN5e9aUD77GMjslHxplf7/s320/241.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> </div><div dir="ltr">And I've been listening, and I've learned some things. That's how it often works if you talk with smart people, and listen: you learn things. It's great. I recommend it.<br /></div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">I've
got another case for the intelligent insiders: USPS says that a package I ordered from
Amazon was in a small town in Michigan, about 50 miles away from me, two days. <br /></div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">According to Google Maps, from that small town to my place is about a 4-hour trip. By bicycle. Somewhat quicker by car.<br /></div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">USPS says that the package is now in Irvine, Texas.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">Oh btw, I ordered the item 12 days ago.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">Your witness, smart guys. Explain to me how Amazon and USPS have been handling this as well as anyone has a right to reasonably expect.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">Or admit the possibility that something has gone wrong.</div><div dir="ltr"><br /></div><div dir="ltr">Oh,
I just thought of an explanation: Amazon expected to get the item in that small Michigan town. But they didn't. Eventually they gave up on getting it there -- or maybe they had it there for a while, and then lost it -- and they said, lessee, where else is there one of these things?
Aha: Irving. <br /></div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">If that's
what happened, somehow, it would be much more reassuring to me than if
they actually are shipping the package Michigan-to-Texas-to-Michigan.
Although I'll be receiving the package the same time either way.</div><p> <iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0749486317&asins=0749486317&linkId=2fb804a97a0127d9755e83f0646084b4&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe></p>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-9503525973396492432023-10-21T16:41:00.002-04:002023-10-21T17:13:16.743-04:00Andy Warhol and Campbell's Soup<p>Campbell soup is really, really bad! It's disgusting!<br /></p><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">Good
soup, the first spoonful is amazing, and it carries you away with
pleasure, and after a while the clouds part and you gently, luxuriously
return to Earth, and you realize that THAT WAS JUST THE FIRST SPOONFUL.
Dozens more await you in the bowl. And I don't just mean fancy expensive soup. Soup in a can or a box from Pacific Foods -- or, for that matter, some of the more upscale options from Campbell's itself, such as some of the varieties of their Slow Kettle Style -- can sometimes be that good. Real gourmet soup in a fancy restaurant can be even better.<br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">Andy
Warhol was weird. Not only did he make many many large and small pictures of
Campbell's soup cans --</div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"> </div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNQwPSILj_Y_XsylaaraNzhA9PUiEWmBQXFZXPAiSIWDUMDlAnEsZP4LNtWtHnQ7jdvOHr0VV23vTE1nNBWZBEisBQc40ZDKc4fp64TfR_Ngu_rb9JMPnuLYwO4kjTHkjAGiqZT3-qcgX1LaBVS8TP8SrYNRkgFUKodvkf20DlYtp_Heuu6oDvrVy8upHS/s1992/238.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1068" data-original-width="1992" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNQwPSILj_Y_XsylaaraNzhA9PUiEWmBQXFZXPAiSIWDUMDlAnEsZP4LNtWtHnQ7jdvOHr0VV23vTE1nNBWZBEisBQc40ZDKc4fp64TfR_Ngu_rb9JMPnuLYwO4kjTHkjAGiqZT3-qcgX1LaBVS8TP8SrYNRkgFUKodvkf20DlYtp_Heuu6oDvrVy8upHS/s320/238.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"> </div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">pictures which long been considered artistic
masterpieces, and I still don't understand why --- not only did he make
picture of Campbell's soup cans, he continued to eat absolute crap like
Campbell's chicken noodle soup with Nabisco soda crackers for lunch
several times a week after he had become very rich. In the evenings he
would go to the fanciest restaurants in NYC, and I have no idea what his
breakfasts were like.</div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">Maybe those lunches had something to do with keeping a connection to his childhood. Or reminding himself to stay humble. He
grew up in a blue-collar family in Pittsburgh. His dad died in 1942,
when Andy was 14. His mom didn't remarry. In the 1950's he brought his
mom to live with him in NYC, and she would make his lunch of Campbell's
chicken noodle soup and Nabisco crackers, just like when he was a a kid
-- just like my family ate when I was a kid. <br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"><br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">Also, every week, he would go and work in a soup kitchen. Where the soup was, possibly, some weeks, much better than Campbell's. <br /></div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr"> </div><div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">All the evidence seems to indicate that he was a good guy. But he was weird.</div><p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=3836543893&asins=3836543893&linkId=00e98b79a69ab317f86a51e25d24f871&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe></p>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-70753580150256533182023-10-14T14:34:00.001-04:002023-10-14T14:34:44.405-04:00Is Toyota Getting Serious About the BEV Game?<p>Toyota finally released a mass-produced BEV, a Battery-Electric Vehicle, in May 2022, and now they actually seem to be advertising it. You say BEV if you want to make it perfectly clear that you're not talking about a hybrid, but a vehicle which is 100% electric. As opposed to a Prius. Yes, there certainly are other hybrids besides the Toyota Prius, but Toyota has sold about 20 million hybrids. I think that's most of the hybrids. </p><p>Toyota has made all-electric vehicles before this, but it's been a while. The latest BEV version of the RAV4 was discontinued in 2014, and, as in the case of General motors' EV1, it would be a stretch tpo call the RAV4 BEV mass-produced. In the past several years, not only has Toyota concentrated on making millions of hybrids, they're also made a lot of positively hostile remarks about BEV's. A few months ago there came a high point in this anti-BEV messaging, which is to say a low point: an advertising campaign which showed a Toyota hybrid going on and on and on through an animated desert while ICE vehicles and BEV's stopped, stranded.</p><p>They had another ad campaign where they referred to their hybrids as "self-charging hybrids." Please allow me to be the last person on Earth to inform you that there is no such thing as a self-charging hybrid. <br /></p><p>So now, finally, a decade and a half behind Nissan, GM, and Tesla, years behind VW and BMW and Jaguar and Audi and Porsche and Ford and Volvo and Honda and Rivian and Lucid and Nikola, Toyota has a mass-produced BEV, the bZ4X, yes, that's small b, capital Z, 4, Capital X. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizyHjpYOf-3BSPXBp9UeWnttETTizYVxcgLTMjUlqaOtP4sC-OC1Q1cWXMAqaWe8TIxHmSnj6pMfawCztxxyn57XOuzM1OdDrLOKiXkrF2UMBNVykZ0aaA2iRosofnjJ1Dx49spa1Uo9i_D8S-4Il9NqTF7VGgv5jegUOgGq1y2QL85D72Ze7rcusKJWQY/s1200/236.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="1200" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizyHjpYOf-3BSPXBp9UeWnttETTizYVxcgLTMjUlqaOtP4sC-OC1Q1cWXMAqaWe8TIxHmSnj6pMfawCztxxyn57XOuzM1OdDrLOKiXkrF2UMBNVykZ0aaA2iRosofnjJ1Dx49spa1Uo9i_D8S-4Il9NqTF7VGgv5jegUOgGq1y2QL85D72Ze7rcusKJWQY/s320/236.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>But even more bizarre that the name of the BEV is Toyota's new advertising campaign for the vehicle, with the slogan: "Beyond Zero."</p><p>I checked several times, and, no, that's not "Behind Zero," as in an honest admission that Toyota is way, way behind most of the rest of the world getting started on this. It's Beyond Zero. Because, as Toyota proudly says in their new ad campaigns, they want to go even farther than zero emissions, and have a positive effect on the planet, and that they have plans for many more BEV's.<br /></p><p>Again: years and years behind everyone else.</p><p>But better years late, and with yet another ridiculous ad campaign, than never. Welcome to the present day, Toyota. </p><p>Yes, the bZ4X has actually been available for a year and a half. But the new advertising campaign makes me think that Toyota may actually be getting serious about BEV's. If they've fooled me again, then shame on me.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0760378304&asins=0760378304&linkId=c3d7355414c11c263898cff27f64beec&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-12621435813609781892023-09-14T13:16:00.001-04:002023-09-14T17:00:17.104-04:00Exclusivity<p>There are some writers who have hated Shakespeare, including some writers I admire such as Tolstoy and George Bernard Shaw. Voltaire was another of the Shakespeare haters, and I used to be a great admirer of Voltaire. However, the more Leibniz I read, the model for Voltaire's ridiculous and useless Dr Pangloss, the more difficult it becomes for me to summon any enthusiasm for Voltaire.</p><p>I do not share this loathing, but I think I understand it, or at least a major component of it: the attention given to Shakespeare's work is so extraordinarily great that it robs attention from other, worthy authors. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoQeRgE7imEdDF3axs7ht_Rz4LgiV1NulEXCbaxFhHXep9Jdkt2xve3zezRWZQ1KYX5poU3lCY_gOz0NOIZ3E0VsP_9TnCZb7T1e1l--8yHCJ03JzysvWVqDMeqXcWgNdnvoiXTA4zPzS8-H0GTRMa9KMeRmtOnVN0vIrdvlF84FSudxWUeQsJYSuf0dFf/s437/234.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="437" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoQeRgE7imEdDF3axs7ht_Rz4LgiV1NulEXCbaxFhHXep9Jdkt2xve3zezRWZQ1KYX5poU3lCY_gOz0NOIZ3E0VsP_9TnCZb7T1e1l--8yHCJ03JzysvWVqDMeqXcWgNdnvoiXTA4zPzS8-H0GTRMa9KMeRmtOnVN0vIrdvlF84FSudxWUeQsJYSuf0dFf/s320/234.jpg" width="244" /></a></div> <p></p><p>In an episode of "Boardwalk Empire," there is a flashback showing Jimmy Darmody, played by Michael Pitt, in his time at Princeton, reading aloud from -- what?! What was that?! Immediately the viewer could hear that it was a play in English written around the time of Shakespeare, but not Shakespeare, and even if the language of the passage were not so beautiful in its own right, the fact of it not being Shakespeare would've made it interesting, because most of us never hear anything written in English near Shakespeare's time except Shakespeare. To be sure, we hear anecdotes about Ben Johnson and Christopher Marlowe, but only in connection with Shakespeare, and we never hear a passage read from one of their plays, let alone actually seeing one of their plays from start to finish.</p><p>Just that snippet of Webster in "Boardwalk Empire" made me extraordinarily curious. I am no expert on English literature -- I'm more of a dilettante: I have a very weak grasp of a very great many languages -- but I can very easily imagine how someone with a great and detailed knowledge of literature in English, someone like George Bernard Shaw, could have been driven quite deeply and regularly batty by the way that Shakespeare has blinded us to so many interesting writers in or near his time, like the sun hiding many interesting stars from view: Ah, so we're going to discuss an English masterpiece written around 1600? Let me guess: Shakespeare, for the 10,000th time in a row? </p><p>The knowledge that it was going to be Shakespeare for the next 10,000 times as well, at least as far as any broad public was concerned -- yes, I can easily see how that would drive an expert crazy, quite apart from any appraisal of Shakespeare's own merits. </p><p>I know a bit more about Latin literature, where Cicero is not only widely -- very widely -- considered to be the finest writer ever to have written it, often enough by readers who have read little enough Latin written by anyone else. Not only that, and not only that many people consider him the best Latin author to emulate. No, over and above that, for a number of centuries now, a not inconsiderable faction has insisted, with the unbending assurance of the blind art critic, that the ONLY correct way to write Latin is to imitate Cicero.</p><p>Even before I ever suspected that anyone had ever insisted such a strange thing, I was tired of Cicero. By volume, about one-fifth of all surviving Classical Latin literature is that written by Cicero. From its beginnings in the 3rd century BC to the end of the Classical era in the 5th century AD when it gave way to the Christian Medieval era, about one-fifth of all that people thought well enough of to hold on to, has been Cicero's rhetorical and philosophical works and his speeches and letters. From the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD many fine Latin authors survive only in paltry scraps. Hundreds more we know only from the admiring comments contained in the surviving scraps of their contemporaries and colleagues, and who knows how many thoroughly deserving ancient Latin poets, historians, philosophers and others have disappeared so thoroughly that no one even knows their names, all to make more shelf space for, ugh, Cicero? </p><p>I've come to grips with the possibility that I may have always drastically under-estimated Cicero. I'm not here to insult him, nor to insist that he's the last Latin author you should read. I've gained a little more humility than that, at last, and acknowledge that I may have been, and may remain, pretty much blinded in my assessment of Cicero's writings, because of all of those other, relatively neglected authors. </p><p>I AM here to insist, gently but firmly, that Cicero is not the only Classical Latin author worth reading, nor even the only one worth emulating. Latin, just like English and French and other languages, offers a variety of ways to skin a cat.</p><p>The attention which Erasmus holds at the expense of his contemporaries may be even more extreme than Shakespeare versus other Renaissance authors in English and Cicero vs other Classical Latin authors. Just as wide swaths of the public, when asked to name as many luxury watch brands as they can, will say, "Rolex... Uhhhmmmm..." so many Latinists, when asked to name some of the finest Latin authors who lived after the Classical period, will reply, "Erasmus... Uhhhmmmm..."</p><p>I recall shaking with rage in the stacks of a major US university library, upon seeing that the several very large editions of Erasmus, plus the books about Erasmus, covered several times as much shelf space as the rest of ALL Latin literature past the Classical period: Medieval, Renaissance Latin except Erasmus, more recent Latin... I stood there with my dilettante's weak grasp of those other categories of Latin which I felt worthy of attention, and shook with the outsider's powerless rage. </p><p>I'm less enraged now. Those other categories of Latin, as far as I can tell, have begun to rebound in the amount of attention paid to them. Or maybe not. Maybe it's just that I'm beginning to find the nooks and crannies where they're appreciated. And as far as Erasmus himself is concerned, I've found it impossible to dislike him nearly as much as before I stumbled across his dialogue "Ciceronianus," which pokes fun quite mercilessly at people convinced that the only proper way to speak Latin is to imitate Cicero.</p><p>I laughed until I fell off of my chair, and then I lay on the floor shaking with laughter. Laughter may be the best cure for rage over things like this, which aren't actually matters of life and death. </p><p>There are circles in which Lingua Latina per se Illustrata (LLPSI), a Latin-language course by <span>Hans Ørberg, is the favorite course for beginners, and the one most often recommended. </span></p><p><span>There are circles in which it is the ONLY Latin course recommended to beginners, and in which those who mention other routes are angrily shouted down. What has been seen cannot be unseen, and just recently I suddenly saw the resemblance between this level of exclusive support for LLPSI, and those who insist that one must imitate Cicero, or who have never read anything written in English between Shakespeare and Swift, or in Latin between Gellius and Erasmus...</span></p><p><span>"Be angry at the sun for setting," Robinson Jeffers advised those of us who get all worked up over the way things are. "Yours is not theirs," he added. Like many others, I first read that poem because Hunter S Thompson reprinted it in one of his books. I am not required to feel superior to the others who read it there and did not, like me, go on to read many more of Jeffers' poems. </span></p><p><span>There are various forms of exclusivity, and if I am going to be consistent and regret that John Webster and Ausonius and the ENTIRE Carmina Burana and Jeffers' long poem Dear Judas and Leibniz are not more widely read, I must be consistent, and not resent Cicero and Erasmus and Shakespeare and Dr Thompson simply because they are more popular. For one thing, snobs are singularly unpleasant and make very bad advertisers. </span></p><p><span>But more importantly, although Shaw may have been right to be exasperated at all the fine authors who go unread, he may have been wrong about Shakespeare. I may have been wrong about Cicero, and, as I have hinted, I'm already beginning to see that I was wrong about Erasmus. Let's not stop trashing Dan Brown. He deserves it. But not everyone who's extremely popular is a bad writer.<br /></span></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0198146043&asins=0198146043&linkId=6b56c5c0beb1e613c530350c4cc8c82e&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-40891305185971429472023-08-18T12:28:00.001-04:002023-08-22T10:53:29.126-04:00Why Latin Should Revive<p>I am rather excited by various developments which seem to show that Latin may be making a comeback: the Living Latin movement, for example, and some recent publications of Medieval and Neo-Latin texts. It seems possible to me that some momentum may be accumulating.<br /></p><p>"Latin is a language without a country. It is not the native language of any country. That is why it is doomed." </p><p>It was a language without a country when the Western Roman Empire fell in AD 476, and for well over a thousand years after that it remained the international language of western Europe. It was not a global language as English is today, and I don't happen to know whether or not the reach of Latin was greater than that of Arabic or Chinese, but within western Europe, it was universal. <br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBlgrfoHMiF4064UqHg_hsoas5jg8mQIseLDp3Z2BuDGUbVk1znFAF10hYByw5K6yaaajmwkWRgpH6AmwcsZtoBO0qBzxmGYy5OHPvMEqOMvrVZne1fBs2lKkK27FvWqhwkwPAqT5ZSuojWZcG5e3KdVLVce00O_2fAh-o6KdK6OYOfjNjiY3SC22Hbtrp/s2000/229.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="1578" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBlgrfoHMiF4064UqHg_hsoas5jg8mQIseLDp3Z2BuDGUbVk1znFAF10hYByw5K6yaaajmwkWRgpH6AmwcsZtoBO0qBzxmGYy5OHPvMEqOMvrVZne1fBs2lKkK27FvWqhwkwPAqT5ZSuojWZcG5e3KdVLVce00O_2fAh-o6KdK6OYOfjNjiY3SC22Hbtrp/s320/229.jpg" width="252" /></a></div> <p></p><p>In European universities, from Finland to Portugal, to Lima, Peru, where St Mark's University was officially established in 1551, lectures were given, discussions were held, and examinations, oral and written, in Latin. Latin was the language of mathematics and physics, of botany, chemistry, geography, medicine. Newton published his Principia, in 1728, in Latin. Spinoza published a few minor early works in Dutch, and then all of his major works were in Latin. </p><p>Descartes and Leibniz each published about half in Latin and half in French. Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes wrote mostly in Latin. Milton wrote in English, Italian, Latin and Greek, the show-off! But these were all 17th- and 18th-century figures, coming at the end of the period of Latin's dominance in Europe. Before the year 1600, although there certainly was a large amount of vernacular literature, exactly none of it could have been considered academic. Latin had no country of its own, that's true, but it did have communities, including the academic community. Students and professors traveled all over Europe and employed the same language wherever they went. It was expected that a professor would teach in several countries over the course of his career, in part to ensure that ideas circulated internationally. </p><p>Latin was the language of royalty and high aristocracy, and of international diplomacy. It was not always expected that every single king and queen could speak brilliantly and spontaneously in Latin, but the advantages of being able to do so were large and obvious.</p><p>In the 16th and 17th centuries, military generals, colonels and majors came from the aristocracy, and they traveled internationally, working sometimes for this country, sometimes for another. Although in this case it had less to do with the spread of ideas than with the mercenary officers seeking the most advantageous positions. And all over Europe, battlefield commands were shouted out in Latin.</p><p>Latin was the international European language of shipping and commerce. Christopher Columbus did not attend a university, but he did learn Latin, in order to be a ship's captain traveling internationally, and also in order to read works about the Earth's geography which were all either originally written in Latin or translated into Latin from Greek.</p><p>So you see, although Latin did not have a country, for over a thousand years it still had some very important uses. And I didn't even mention the Middle Ages, or theology! It may have been no-one's first language -- or very few people's first language -- but it was very many people's second language. The time in which Latin has declined is still a very short time compared to the time when it flourished.</p><p>Anyway, when I said yesterday that I was very excited because I thought Latin might be about to make a very big comeback, I was not thinking about it replacing English as the world language numero uno (see what I did there? never mind). I was merely expressing the hope, shared by some others, that Latin may be reviving somewhat from the low point in popularity it has recently reached. At the very least, perhaps more people will resume studying several thousand years' worth of the history of hundreds of millions of people in the language in which it was written.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1350197394&asins=1350197394&linkId=de9891d2f1d5617fd04656394dbfacb2&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-18065245362406600662023-08-17T15:55:00.001-04:002023-08-17T16:07:25.887-04:00Neo-Latin Texts from Bloomsbury<p>The British publisher Bloomsbury has published at least 3 volumes of Neo-Latin literature: 1 volume each of European and British texts, and 1 of texts in British Universities. 1 more volume, dealing with Latin plays written by Jesuits in Japan, may have already appeared. However, I have had only the first 3 volumes before my eyes, and so this post will concentrate mostly on those. Bloomsbury's website shows 6 further volumes scheduled for publication later in 2023 and 2024, with texts by Ermolao Barbaro, Roger Ascham, Robert Persons, SJ, Classical scholars, and Popes Urban VIII, Alexander VII and Leo XIII. <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/series/bloomsbury-neolatin-series-early-modern-texts-and-anthologies/">Here is the page on this Neo-Latin series on Bloomsbury's website</a>. </p><p>The first 3 volumes in this series, <i>An Anthology of European Neo-Latin Literature, An Anthology of British Neo-Latin Literature</i> and <i>An Anthology of Neo-Latin Literature in British Universities</i>, present a selection of excerpts of items published between AD 1500 and 1800 in the first two volumes, and between AD 1500 and 1700 in the volume concerning British universities. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKBfQ4w4IMi7dshfRG4L3sT_-deBCp4V3oxxHW5_VbF9AxkuEh6QZHC8rcnGhi00YzS2IMJysDPUxE-TO-is5Gw61bhwKu17j-kyLRn618s2pjp_GVnCLkx5MFOl0CMLfIRAn31EoV3QJyOLUt-KyC76OWLWSuDAqd1O31yf60khXEs-5kr3ojN_aHFXNa/s800/228.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="800" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKBfQ4w4IMi7dshfRG4L3sT_-deBCp4V3oxxHW5_VbF9AxkuEh6QZHC8rcnGhi00YzS2IMJysDPUxE-TO-is5Gw61bhwKu17j-kyLRn618s2pjp_GVnCLkx5MFOl0CMLfIRAn31EoV3QJyOLUt-KyC76OWLWSuDAqd1O31yf60khXEs-5kr3ojN_aHFXNa/s320/228.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>Each Neo-Latin text -- 19 of them in the volume on European Latin, 18 in the volume on British Latin and 11 in the volume concerning Latin in British universities -- is preceded by an introduction and followed by a commentary, and furnished with a facing-page English translation, each text's apparatus provided by a different luminary from today's world of academic Latin and related fields. The introductions provide information about the authors and situations in which the texts were written, the commentaries help to explain passages which might otherwise be mysterious. They are simply splendid, with much useful information for both the layperson and the specialist. I'm sorry, but I have nothing to carp about here.<br /></p><p>The selection of authors in the volumes on European and British Neo-Latin will cause no great surprise to those already familiar with the field: Erasmus, More, Elizabeth I, Buchanan, Milton, Barclay and the other stars of the period are all there. There is Bembo on Columbus' first voyage, Fracastoro on syphilis, an excerpt from John Barclay's novel <i>Argenis</i> -- the usual suspects.<br /></p><p>The volume on Latin in British Universities stays true to its title, offering treatises on the correct teaching of Greek, on various power struggles between universities and politicians as well as panegyrics on statesmen with whom the universities happened to have more harmonious relations, and some student compositions which are more art for art's sake.</p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1350157295&asins=1350157295&linkId=5c5637cf28da2293a911eeefd6a36d1f&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1350098892&asins=1350098892&linkId=11fbee8366701d4315cba563d08c5651&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1350160253&asins=1350160253&linkId=7c18e11a4c7cde37454e9de0d6d7aec6&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-53099717004112569922023-08-04T11:41:00.001-04:002023-08-04T11:41:57.055-04:00Carlsen and Fischer: Two Different Kinds of the Best<p>Magnus Carlsen has been the highest-rated chess player in the world since 2011. His highest rating was 2882 in 2014, currently his rating is 2835. He became world champion in 2013 at age 21, successfully defended his title several times, and earlier this year, he declined to defend his title, which is to say: he's retiring as an undefeated champ. Going out on a high note. And good for him. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy-NuORC1xgCu_UgLXgOoTtHiUZZl4EnkBkbxpX2HY72ilRnTPpXt8eCE_8hcb1-KK7Xs8xKyaEJGoQxBZKG8PB6sPrVmo0sUwV3xTb532AahZ7M4rsg59Ud2rac0v6MuVRjm5ysyj-pKDjD6oIN-BsOHU5jgPfNfVi2a5Vbb-QCdKf7ZWel49UP5DL-Ot/s767/225.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="767" data-original-width="767" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy-NuORC1xgCu_UgLXgOoTtHiUZZl4EnkBkbxpX2HY72ilRnTPpXt8eCE_8hcb1-KK7Xs8xKyaEJGoQxBZKG8PB6sPrVmo0sUwV3xTb532AahZ7M4rsg59Ud2rac0v6MuVRjm5ysyj-pKDjD6oIN-BsOHU5jgPfNfVi2a5Vbb-QCdKf7ZWel49UP5DL-Ot/s320/225.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Among many other world's-best achievements, Carlsen has the longest unbeaten streak in the history of elite chess, going unbeaten for 125 consecutive games from 2018 to 2020. For my readers who are not chess aficionados, let me clarify: Carlsen did not win 125 games. The majority of elite-level chess games end in draws. Over the course of 125 games, Carlsen had 42 wins, 83 draws and no losses. His longest winning streak during the unbeaten streak was 5 games. And winning 5 games in a row against the best chess players in the world is quite an achievement. </p><p>As a wise man once told me, "Chess is a game of mistakes." If your opponent makes a bad enough mistake, and you know how to take advantage of it, you win. If you're aggressive and do something unexpected, maybe you'll shake up your opponent and win, or maybe it'll come back and bite you, maybe you'll over-extend yourself, and your opponent will keep their head, weather the storm, take advantage of your carelessness and beat you. Or maybe neither of you will make any noteworthy mistakes and the game will end in a draw.</p><p>A long time ago, before I realized that most Grandmaster games end in draws, I read somewhere that Bobby Fischer's playing style was to try to win every game. This confused me. I thought: why wouldn't you try to win every game? But most top-level players play a little differently: they try very hard not to lose, not to make any mistakes. If they catch a bad mistake by their opponent and win, so much the better. <br /></p><p>Carlsen is an extremely precise sort of player. Very few mistakes. Very little rolling of the dice, compared to Fischer. Fewer Queen sacrifices. Less drama.<br /></p><p>One of the few top Grandmasters who may have been even more aggressive than Fischer was Mikhail Tal, World Champion from 1960 to 1961. Someone, I wish I could remember who, once wrote that Tal "tried to win every game with every move."<br /></p><p>That 125-game unbeaten streak by Carlsen is an amazing achievement, arguably the pinnacle of one of the best careers in the history of chess. But there is another streak in chess history which, in the opinion of many, is much more astounding still: in 1970 and 1971, in the process of beating all the other candidates and thus qualifying to take on Boris Spassky for the world chess championship in 1972, Bobby Fischer won 20 consecutive games. <br /></p><p>Some will tell you that he actually won only 19 in a row, since one of his opponents, Oscar Panno, sat out the game in protest of his game against Fischer being rescheduled. I don't think Panno had a chance anyway and that people are giving him way too much credit. His major claim to fame today is this silly protest. </p><p>But, po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to, 20 wins in a row or only 19, either way, no one else has come close to what Fischer did there. He won his last 7 games (or "only" 6, if you insist on seeing it that way) in a tournament determining who would be the final 8 players to fight it out for the chance to play Spassky for the world championship. </p><p>With the chess world's minds already blown by this winning streak, Fischer went on to beat Taimanov 6-0, six wins, no draws, in the quarter-final match. And commentators, quite accurately, said that nothing like this had ever been seen. </p><p>And then Fischer beat Larson 6-0 in the semi-final round. 19 wins in a row.</p><p>Then, in the final round, against Tigran Petrosian, who had been world champion from 1963 to 1969, Fischer won the first game. 20 in a row. Then Petrosian, very much the opposite sort of player from Fischer, all caution, sypremely solid, waiting to pounce on the opponent's mistakes, won the second game, and he managed several draws, but Fischer won the match 6 1/2 games to 2 1/2.</p><p>And then, in the famous world championship match in Iceland, in what was perhaps a severe case of nerves, or perhaps a bit of understandable burn-out after having played at an unheard-of level for a year and a half, Fischer lost the first 2 games. Many said at the time, well, that's it, that remarkable run is over. Being down 2-0 in a match where he needed 12 1/2 points to win and Spassky needed 12 to keep the title, looked to many like an insurmountable obstacle.</p><p>But Fischer won the match 12 1/2 games to 8 1/2. </p><p>And that was the end of Fischer's chess career. He made demands for his next match which FIDE, the world chess governing body, were never going to accept. Fischer retired, without officially retiring. In 1992 there was a return match against Spassky which made both players lots of money, and made most of the spectators sad. And that was it, as far as Fischer professional chess career was concerned. </p><p>But that run, from the 20-game winning streak to the lopsided end of the world championship match, is just so very far beyond unequaled. </p><p>It was like the 1977 Sears Point AMA motorcycle road race. Kenny Roberts was so much better than everyone else in US road racing at that point, that no-one knew HOW much better he was: he would go out to a comfortable lead in each race, and then slow down to a comfortable pace, and as long as his bike didn't break, he won, no drama, easy-peasy. </p><p>In 1977 at Sears Point, just as the race was about to start, officials noticed that Roberts' Yamaha was spraying oil from a busted gasket, and so, safety first, they moved him from pole position at the start to the last row, and we got to see some drama. <br /></p><p>Roberts started last and four laps later, he was in first place. DiMaggio got base hits in 56 straight games. Mike Tyson laid out the next-best heavyweights in the world in one or two minutes. That's the sort of head-and-shoulders-above-everybody dominance Bobby Fischer displayed at the end of his career. <br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553263153&asins=0553263153&linkId=4f995dc6d16518bbe9106468a85ca141&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-1478393311941331072023-08-02T12:30:00.001-04:002023-08-03T10:02:50.662-04:00Nobody Killed the Electric Car!<p>I first saw Chris Paine's documentary <i>Who Killed the Electric Car?</i> over 15 years ago. I've seen it several times, watching very carefully, because I'm very much interested in electric cars. But only in the past few days has it occurred to me what a melodramatic, overstated and misleading title and outlook and approach the movie has. </p><p>The movie has to do with the General Motors EV1, an electric car made from 1996 to 1999 in order to comply with California regulations. A total of 1,117 were made. They were leased, not sold, to customers in California. And then in 2002, when Republican took over the California legislature and rescinded the electric vehicle requirements, they were all recalled, and all but a few dozen were destroyed. Most of the remaining EV1's are now in museums. I think a few may actually be on the roads, but I'm not sure about that.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXW6MnwVvszYDdt_jCHBWPf7n_rqDGF4TO8qMr-89n-UJmFtntHZkt9DvFM7dns0TBFa2nY3aBewSnY3NMVSXW7cRd3IBNuN9er1zG86o5pZAK7Q7CRaDbTsiKSw-a2xPu-QsTTLN3WCeMc56fbztN0nBsxhaEEtJ0fnaXLDuWVlFHD1QRLHDa_mjt_h_9/s420/224.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="420" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXW6MnwVvszYDdt_jCHBWPf7n_rqDGF4TO8qMr-89n-UJmFtntHZkt9DvFM7dns0TBFa2nY3aBewSnY3NMVSXW7cRd3IBNuN9er1zG86o5pZAK7Q7CRaDbTsiKSw-a2xPu-QsTTLN3WCeMc56fbztN0nBsxhaEEtJ0fnaXLDuWVlFHD1QRLHDa_mjt_h_9/s320/224.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>I still find GM's behavior with the EV1 to have been deplorable: refusing to sell this breakthrough electric vehicle, only leasing it, although there were customers begging to be allowed to buy them, and then taking them all back and scrapping them. I am in no way defending GM's scrapping of the EV1.</p><p>But Chris Paine's movie is, I repeat, a bit melodramatic. It consists for the most part of interviews with GM employees, some of whom worked on the EV1 project and were passionately in favor of the development of the electric vehicle, and some who seemed rather sleazy; and with some of those people to whom GM leased the EV1. </p><p>As far as the viewer can tell by the movie, GM leased the EV1 only to movie stars. I'm guessing that GM leased some of them to people who weren't movie stars. But Paine didn't interview any of them. </p><p>And one thing about actors is that we can get pretty dramatic at times. I say "we," although I haven't acted in a while, because I know I have the drama-queen gene. </p><p>GM didn't kill the electric car, they discontinued the EV1 leases and recalled and scrapped the EV1's. That was not nice, and in my opinion it wasn't smart at all either, but there were still other EV's on the roads. You can see some of them in <i>Who Killed the Electric Car?</i> For example, the Toyota Rav4 EV. In the movie, in a melodramatically tense highway scene, one of the movie stars sees a truckload of these electric Rav4's and exclaims, OMG they're going to destroy all of THOSE too! (Nope. Toyota kept making the electric Rav4 until 2014.) </p><p>Paine's camera shakes during that scene, as if he was getting caught up in the drama. I don't think he intentionally mislead anyone. I think he was caught up. Maybe most people who interviewed that many movie stars in that short a time would get caught up. Movie stars are very riveting, persuasive people. That's why they're stars.<br /></p><p>But all this drama had to do with around 1,000 EV's. General Motors has sold about 200,000 Chevy Bolts. Recently, they announced they were going to discontinue the Bolt, and then they quickly reversed that decision. Maybe they've learned from the negative reaction of their handling of the EV1. Before the Bolt, they sold almost as many Volts. The electric Silverado, Sierra, Celestiq, Equinox and Blazer from GM are all already on the roads and showrooms, or coming very, very soon. The recall of the EV1 represents barely a hiccup in the overall scheme of EV production from General Motors. In his follow-up documentary, <i>Revenge of the Electric Car</i>, Paine represents the development of the Bolt as a change of heart for General Motors, but there's no real proof that GM wasn't committed to the most effective technology all along, and in case you didn't know it, EV's are the most technologically effective vehicles, and are rapidly pulling away from internal combustion in terms of their superior function.</p><p>And that's only GM. It's a very similar story at Ford, Hyundai/Kia, VW, Sellantis, BMW, Mercedes and almost every single other major automotive manufacturer. The transition to EV's is real, and Elon Musk didn't make it happen. He just jumped out in front of this parade and has pretended to lead it. And maybe, just possibly, he watched <i>Who Killed the Electric Car?</i> and saw how much fuss movie stars could stir up over a thousand EV's, and so decided to make them his first marketing niche and unwitting advertising department.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B000I5Y8FU&asins=B000I5Y8FU&linkId=497b8de3f554b2ab875f7ce74a093895&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-70293456416505552642023-07-09T14:58:00.002-04:002023-07-17T10:28:08.725-04:00Miscellaneous<p>A BETTER NAME FOR AI: Rapid stupidity, because it does things no intelligent human would ever do, but much faster.</p><p>Around 1980, in a book which I had checked out of a public library, which had been written by Caroline Coon and published in 1977, entitled <i>1988: The New Wave Punk Rock Explosion</i>, I read, apparently from the author's personal impressions of John Lydon, that at age 20, his favorite insult of anyone over age 16 was, "You're too old," and -- from memory! and probably, therefore, inaccurate! -- that although married, he said, "Love is something that you feel for a kitten. If you feel it for another human being, it just shows that your brain isn't working properly." And I said to myself, "AAAAAAAAGGGHHHH!!! I knew it! I knew Johnny Rotten was alright! HE LOVES KITTIES!!!! squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" *thud*</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJBsw0_n_4XeV3DdTX4BBFVGjcx2Amop1Gvc3txh7fptZBGdVAyXugz1Ym5_3lZovETp_IikHFs9yphi7S9fWf4skpVdm9ZeZTFSkk777Qg4Q9ygc1wVomj2AWTF0-fekNvFwIfLTiJAoZqRI1ju6_xM5hVGahMlw06ASTyl2K6krfACTPAbLIvU6ncuKZ/s1000/222.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="752" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJBsw0_n_4XeV3DdTX4BBFVGjcx2Amop1Gvc3txh7fptZBGdVAyXugz1Ym5_3lZovETp_IikHFs9yphi7S9fWf4skpVdm9ZeZTFSkk777Qg4Q9ygc1wVomj2AWTF0-fekNvFwIfLTiJAoZqRI1ju6_xM5hVGahMlw06ASTyl2K6krfACTPAbLIvU6ncuKZ/s320/222.jpg" width="241" /></a></div> <p></p><p>I've already said it more than once on this blog, but it bears repeating: I'm not going along with this blanket condemnation of billionaires. Maybe most of them are poisonous reptiles, but we won't know unless we examine each of them as individuals, just the same as we do with any other group, unless we're prejudiced, because that is the definition of prejudice. Furthermore, more and more I have the impression that most of these yahoos spouting blanket condemnations of all billionaires -- are millionaires. They tend not to have the look of the vagabond, as that hair stylist in <i>Down and Out in Beverly Hills</i> said of the homeless. I don't see thrift-store clothes or homemade haircuts on these denouncers of billionaires, and I get a definite sense of private colleges and homes in stylish neighborhoods and $10 coffees and so forth. In short, they profess to be critical of capitalism while having themselves greatly benefited from it, but they focus on the size of a person's stack -- while possessing large stacks. ENORMOUS stacks from the perspective of the great majority of people on Earth.<br /></p><p>It's NOT the size of your stack, it's what you're DOING with it! And if you're dissing all billionaires instead of focusing on specific acts by specific billionaires -- you're not doing much with your stack! I'm unimpressed! Also, if you succeed in stirring up enmity based on the size of a person's stack, and your own stack looks huge to most people on Earth -- that could really come back and bite you on the ass, you tedious and yet also horrible moron!<br /></p><p>A month ago I got a shot of cortisone in my right shoulder, which had been very painful, and from that time until now, my right shoulder has been COMPLETELY pain-free! I'm 62 years old! This is the first time in years ANY of my joints has been pain-free! Steroids are amazing (cortisone is a steroid. I had one dose of it a month ago, administered by an MD. I favor the medically-responsible use of steroids, not the daily massive abuse which kills and maims for the sake of more frequent wight training)!<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0711900515&asins=0711900515&linkId=55b9efb0bb07d9c9faae66b47221edc2&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-74001888693962706322023-07-05T11:08:00.000-04:002023-07-05T11:08:37.270-04:00Correcting History<p>Rudolph II, Holy Roman Emperor,
and Philip II, King of Spain, cousins in the Habsburg family, were educated together as children in
Spain. Same tutors, same library. When they grew up, Rudolph II was
extremely tolerant religiously. He said, "I am not a Catholic or a
Lutheran, I am a Christian." But Muslims and Jews were also welcome in
his court, if they had talent and/or brains. </p><p>Philip,
on the other hand, is thought of, at least in the English-speaking
world, as representing the most intolerant form of Catholicism.
Elizabeth and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, striking a huge
blow for freedom.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2UItDhBVmgmlPZ5Ktj4F1o1lApjP87m_vZxURnP9rR4xf0dgDUjbjpWC7LCXg1ck4SrN0X7ZK39UO9EF1-15tgXGX0y5iUF8h3ta1u7j16TqwuUTUKgXIv03zcu9xA6HEqGq-j27x1HYe3xKVOelwkOz1AhlVe8n6yi_nue5CF6eoJfLkiLi2GJC37SL4/s976/220.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="976" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2UItDhBVmgmlPZ5Ktj4F1o1lApjP87m_vZxURnP9rR4xf0dgDUjbjpWC7LCXg1ck4SrN0X7ZK39UO9EF1-15tgXGX0y5iUF8h3ta1u7j16TqwuUTUKgXIv03zcu9xA6HEqGq-j27x1HYe3xKVOelwkOz1AhlVe8n6yi_nue5CF6eoJfLkiLi2GJC37SL4/s320/220.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>That's the way we hear about it in English-speaking parts of the world. </p><p>We
learn that the only time in his life Philip smiled was when heard of
the St Batholomew's Day Massacre in France, when 70,000 Protestants were
killed in France, and most of the rest fled the country.</p><p>Except
that it was probably less than 5,000. Many Protestants had to flee
France. But by no means all of them. Still very bad, but not what we
learn. And the part about Philip smiling for the only time in his life
when he heard about it -- I'm thinking that might be bullshit too. I'm
thinking it's entirely possible that he felt very BAD about a huge
massacre, even if it was a huge massacre of Protestants. </p><p>And
the part about the defeat of the Spanish Armada being a great victory
for freedom -- Catholics didn't get civil rights in England for another
200 years. And they didn't get FULL civil rights until even later than
that. Spain, horrible repression, vs England, glorious freedom -- that's
just one example of the huge whoppers we are taught about the Tudor
dynasty and the world around it. <br /></p><p>Just
the same way that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or
threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. We know now that Parson Weems
made that up, and a lot of other things which were considered true for a
very long time.</p><p>History is imperfect. We keep working on improving its accuracy and insight. <br /></p><div class="jb_0 X_6MGW N_6Fd5"></div><span class="em_N en_N"></span><iframe sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=0195000307&asins=0195000307&linkId=d14a4c1f933782feb442b2f01b86ecfe&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-8405960518244694002023-06-24T12:28:00.000-04:002023-06-24T12:28:05.032-04:00How to Fix Basketball<p><a href="https://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2012/05/chess-with-soul.html" target="_blank">Anyone who compares basketball to chess is an idiot</a> , but especially if they're talking about the last few minutes -- on the clock -- of a close game, when everything slows down and becomes excruciatingly boring, completely unlike chess. </p><p>We can all agree that it's getting worse: the first 46 of the game clock's 48 minutes might be over in an hour and a half, but those last 2 minutes could take another half hour. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQTW_n84bW6AJai92eT595L4H6doCoZk4h4WCuwVqbAr-QQgnvtclBHsh4NrwGld-XFeuZ5IXmlQPGHJybA8BBX7zgu7LEm5rOGy1ewW3cTFGbf7zIhoWZ5EKjzOc3KidBIjh_2raqWYhGMhWAdFXTOF8S62xmNHubOs4JJl0xUIwzN1h7ZMu1elxWYTKp/s400/219.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="400" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQTW_n84bW6AJai92eT595L4H6doCoZk4h4WCuwVqbAr-QQgnvtclBHsh4NrwGld-XFeuZ5IXmlQPGHJybA8BBX7zgu7LEm5rOGy1ewW3cTFGbf7zIhoWZ5EKjzOc3KidBIjh_2raqWYhGMhWAdFXTOF8S62xmNHubOs4JJl0xUIwzN1h7ZMu1elxWYTKp/s320/219.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />And if we don't stand up and cry, "Enough!" it could soon be an hour, or longer. <br /><p></p><p>And unlike those prima-dona egocentric head coaches who think they're like chess players, and are making this last part of the game longer and longer -- unlike them, most of us actually have stuff to do after the game. Other than those coaches and a few particularly silly fans, nobody finds these long, slow exchanges of time outs and fouls left to give, and wasting as much time as possible at every turn, exciting! Time outs are allowed to go on for much longer than they're supposed to. and when was the last time you saw a so-called "thirty second timeout' which was over in 30 seconds? </p><p>But it's not just that: every time the clock stops, late in a close game, these bonehead coaches who have never cared about anything or anyone other than themselves, abuse the opportunity and stretch it into a non-timeout timeout: when there's a possession change. Between free throws. During a substitution. Any and every time they can, they abuse the situation to inflict a little bit more of their time-wasting supposed wisdom on their long-suffering players and fans and the officials. </p><p>I say, during the last part of any basketball game -- maybe the last 2 minutes on the clock, maybe the last 5 minutes -- there should be no more time-outs. and no more non-timeout timeouts. Let the game clock roll after a basket is scored, just like early in the game. Also, don't stop the clock during substitutions. If a player takes too long to get on or off of the court during a substution, that's a technical. <br /></p><p>And, the final brilliant nail in the coffin of this "game of chess" which is boring us all to death: every foul is a 2-shot technical foul, and the fouled team gets or retains possession of the ball. The only time the clock would stop would be for a foul. The coaches could still have their short non-timeout timeouts during these technical fouls, but not too long: put a 5-second limit on each shot. Exceed that limit and you forfeit all remaining free throws and the other team gets 2.<br /></p><p>If a coach is ejected from the game, give him 5 seconds to get his precious prima-donna ass off of the court. Not 5 seconds to start moving off the court, but 5 seconds to get out of our sight, or it's an additional 2-shot technical. 10 seconds and we can still see or hear him? 2 2-shot technicals, 3 fouls for a 15-second delay, etc, etc. One more technical for coaching after being ejected. One delicious aspect of this rule would be that some of them still wouldn't be able to stop themselves from staying on the court and ranting and screaming like the spoiled little tittybabies they are.<br /></p><p>An extra 2 shots for flagrant fouls. Etc, etc.<br /></p><p>Why, the players would actually have to decide close games by actually playing basketball, with a strong incentive to play it clean and foul-free. </p><p>You know what's already exciting because there already are no timeouts? CHESS!!<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=8672971310&asins=8672971310&linkId=2b360c6c166ab0c08689b8d29d62528d&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-78499222114497358632023-06-18T14:00:00.001-04:002023-06-18T17:15:52.837-04:00Dress Codes<p> I admit, I'm an artsy type, so I know much of this only second-hand, but my impression is:</p><p>In the 1990's, many offices started the practice of Casual Friday, when things such as chinos and polo shirts were accepted in the office on Fridays, in places where everyone had previously had to wear suits. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-H97OPK6uafsGuECDq00wBXb3qpLdhdoxdNvEGuOQ0CGHHKcnjKAwy9fiN1NwpN_btbwPjPi8G36pUtXY1FRe0hhxc3BMEMb_XaTEcubIimDentUf8Ci3CrvzN-IvPAmNzGXFUMyXORpU_b7a0ua-N8Gxmx7BYiMFby-XYlcyvppBSe5Z36-0Y46DJw/s845/218.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="845" data-original-width="564" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-H97OPK6uafsGuECDq00wBXb3qpLdhdoxdNvEGuOQ0CGHHKcnjKAwy9fiN1NwpN_btbwPjPi8G36pUtXY1FRe0hhxc3BMEMb_XaTEcubIimDentUf8Ci3CrvzN-IvPAmNzGXFUMyXORpU_b7a0ua-N8Gxmx7BYiMFby-XYlcyvppBSe5Z36-0Y46DJw/s320/218.jpg" width="214" /></a></div>Different places had different policies concerning socks. Massive honkin' triceps were optional. <br /><p></p><p>Whether it was acceptable not to tuck the polo shirt into the chinos before casual wear was okay any day of the week, or the other way around, I don't know, but I do know that things have become more and more casual in many offices, to the point where in many cases there are no longer any dress codes, and it would seem strange to waste any time enforcing dress codes or objecting to what someone chose to wear to work.</p><p>In many offices, none of the above-described changes have happened yet. Some workplaces have progressed only to the point of Casual Friday with the Lacoste tucked in and the belt matching the shoes and by God you better wear socks, and some have no Casual Fridays.</p><p>And, of course, this is all a white-collar phenomenon. It doesn't apply to blue-collar work. </p><p>A completely different essay describing the time when white-collar workers actually wore white collars and blue-collar workers actually wore blue collars, could be very interesting.</p><p>Is the line between white-collar and blue-collar actually beginning to blur? Are there now jobs which are neither 100% the one or the other? I don't know. If there are such jobs, that would sound like progress to me. It would sound as if some parts of the world were finally beginning to be allowed to see what some other parts were up to.<br /></p><p>I was about to write that many places do not have official dress codes, but that conformity is fairly rigidly enforced by peer pressure alone, and I was about to mention the US Congress as an example. But I googled it first. Turns out they do have a dress code, and that Senator John Fetterman, wearing a hoodie and shorts these days, votes from a cloakroom adjacent to the Senate floor, not from the floor of the Senate. Also, you remember all that nonsensical outrage about Michelle Obama going sleeveless? The Congressional dress code calls for sleeves.</p><p>What is Congress actually able to do if someone violates the dress code? Is the more important question not what they can do about, but what they are likely to do about it? I mean, Fox News and the New York Post are certainly doing their upmost to stir up outrage about Senator Fetterman's hoodie and shorts, but I'd be surprised if the Senate actually took even symbolic official action against him. The guy's just out of the hospital fachrissakes. <br /></p><p>At this point, at the very latest, some extremely progressive, but simultaneously traditionally-minded fashion-focused readers are going into tirades about the beauties of traditional business attire.</p><p>And they're right. They're right exactly as far as they own wardrobes, and no further. See, the thing is, about Casual Friday, and about abandoning dress codes altogether and officially giving your blessing to anyone dressing however they Damn well please, is, that you can still wear immaculately fabulous business suits every day, even on Fridays, because that is the whole point: you don't tell anyone that they're not dressed correctly, and they return that courtesy. You can try to keep those beautiful habits of dress alive, but you're going to have to do it on the strength of the actual beauty of the clothes. You can persuade with beauty, when dress codes are no longer there. You can no longer coerce. </p><p>I don't hang out much in places on social media -- or for that matter, in the meat world -- where people love suits, and suits are the main topic of discussion. But they still come up every now and then. For example, when people debate whether or not it is "correct" to wear a G-Shock in the office. I myself am so far from being table to take that question seriously, that I can't even write it without quote around the word "correct."</p><p>But there are people, they still do exist, who take such things very seriously. People who are actually horrified when some wears a G-Shock with a suit. In my opinion, anyone who is horrified by that is INCAPABLE of serious thought. Well. People disagree about such things. Hopefully we can still discuss them, with respect and goodwill for all<br /></p><p>In my opinion, there are only bad reasons for insisting that everyone in the office wear a suit (or for example, insisting that every student in the school wear a uniform). If you can get them all to dress alike, more than a century before Thorstein Veblen first pointed out how conformity of dress helps to enforce conformity in other things, it will be much easier to keep them from objecting if the firm lies, or steals, or dumps poison into the air or water, or promotes a culture of predation or hatred against its female employees or its employees of color, etc.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0199552584&asins=0199552584&linkId=a9e1fe49094c0c76cabd18770c78e5bb&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-43753171291515249692023-05-24T15:53:00.001-04:002023-05-24T16:40:23.199-04:00Neo-Latin Anthologies<p>Mark Riley first published his <i>Neo-Latin Reader</i> in 2016. The copy before me is from 2018, and on the copyright page it is noted that corrections were made in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Milena Minkova's <i>Florilegium Recentioris Latinitatis</i> was published in 2018.</p><p>Neither volume includes facing-pages translations of the Latin texts, indicating that they are intended for readers who actually intend to read them in Latin. </p><p>Riley divides his book by genres, which range from poetry to fiction to history to science. There is even a section of jokes in Latin. I must confess that I cannot completely explain the division of the texts in Riley: it is not strictly chronological, and texts by one author sometimes appear in more than one section. But in the introductions to the texts, in English, Riley offers much of interest about the cultural backgrounds from which they arose. He also gives a lot of information about editions of the various authors, which I find good, as, presumably, readers intrigued by the
selections in the anthology might want to read more by these Neo-Latin
writers.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiI3Maoz6ZAXsHehtvXQ1eEXg8kIzzuMms-1SUj29nr8S220TFPaRWBJIxMNP_Q2RYurhDFJSrENkabnxWw805qwzjBCjQzHUvG8loln6crOIcTMwFw8X07V0CQYL5Z9sOGrUGOCqNUufMGJnHY0yUi52-aJRf5QvgVGvKtkbm8-cUvmE_Lxp8TGIn6A/s1698/214.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1698" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiI3Maoz6ZAXsHehtvXQ1eEXg8kIzzuMms-1SUj29nr8S220TFPaRWBJIxMNP_Q2RYurhDFJSrENkabnxWw805qwzjBCjQzHUvG8loln6crOIcTMwFw8X07V0CQYL5Z9sOGrUGOCqNUufMGJnHY0yUi52-aJRf5QvgVGvKtkbm8-cUvmE_Lxp8TGIn6A/s320/214.jpg" width="226" /></a></div> <p></p><p>Petrarch is mentioned by name on the front cover of this paperback edition, where there is also a picture of his face. However, I couldn't find any works by Petrarch in the table of contents. This left me quite confused, until I saw a letter from Petrarch to Cicero in Riley's introduction to the book. </p><p>Minkova's <i>Florilegium</i>, as you might already have guessed from its title, is written entirely in Latin, from the preface to the entire volume, to to the introductory remarks to each work, to the footnotes. The authors, representing a diversity of genres and subjects comparable to Riley, are presented in chronological order, from Petrarch (14th century) to Pascoli (19th-20th century). The only non-Latin material to be found between these covers, aside from the excerpted Neo-Latin authors' occasional use of phrases in Greek, is to be found in Minkova's lists of recent scholarly work pertaining to each and every author. These lists are most welcome. However, I was not able to find within them any reference to editions of the Neo-Latin authors. That's one point for Riley, imho. Like Riley's prefatory material in English, Minkova's prefaces in Latin contain a wealth of interesting and edifying information, historical, cultural and linguistic. <br /></p><p>Reading these two fine volumes, I kept thinking of other Neo-Latin authors who deserve to be anthologized. Riley and Minkova both include much that one would expect in volumes intended to introduce recent Latin: works by Petrarch, More, Erasmus, Landival and others are in both volumes. It is no real reproach to either of these editors that I missed, for example, Ficino, Poliziano, Luther, Calvin, Francis Bacon, Spinoza, Milton, Kant, Marx and Nietzsche, to name a few. Rather, it indicates that this is a very wide field, with a very great deal of material suitable for introductory anthologies. <br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0989783685&asins=0989783685&linkId=f658f38e5f29e2a064ee6c108e13d694&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe> <iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=9462701253&asins=9462701253&linkId=42d93ed493eff26447f509718d0cc689&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe> Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-55507988801825467662023-05-22T11:52:00.002-04:002023-05-22T12:17:31.115-04:00People Can't Do Math, Green Energy Edition<p><span data-offset-key="e72840_initial-0-0"><span data-text="true">Yes, some rooftop solar installers are sketchy. But some aren't. It's like many other things, you need to do some research.<br /></span></span></p><div data-reddit-rtjson="{"entityMap":{},"blocks":[{"key":"5e9mj","text":"Yes, some rooftop solar installers are sketchy. But some aren't. ","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"d2aad","text":"Yes, some regions get less sunlight than others, which means you'll get less financial benefit from solar, all other things being equal. ","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"bct5u","text":"But if you get a loan to pay for the installation, and your savings are more than the loan payments -- sorry to break it to you Bucko, but you just got free solar. Free as in, not only is it costing you money, it's making you some money.","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"age36","text":"I'm posting this in frustration after reading a thread in another sub in which few of the participants were able to grasp that, yes indeed, solar can be free. ","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"b8vd9","text":"I'm autistic, and one of the aspects of my neurological condition is that I'm above average at math, so I can understand how rooftop solar can be free, or how an EV can cost the owner less than ICE over 5 years, let alone 10, despite having a higher purchase price, because lower operating and maintenance costs more than make up for the higher initial price.","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"cck0p","text":"Unfortunately, another aspect of my neurological condition is that I'm not good at explaining math to morons.","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}},{"key":"e6crv","text":"It's extremely frustrating. People who are too dumb to grasp the importance of polluting less, would pollute less anyway, if they were smart enough to see how much money it would save them. ","type":"unstyled","depth":0,"inlineStyleRanges":[],"entityRanges":[],"data":{}}]}"><div data-block="true" data-editor="e72840" data-offset-key="b0d9t-0-0"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="b0d9t-0-0"><span data-offset-key="b0d9t-0-0"><span data-text="true">Yes, some regions get less sunlight than others, which means you'll get less financial benefit from solar, all other things being equal. </span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="e72840" data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-text="true">But, if you own the house you live in, and if your financial situation allows you to get loans, and if you get a loan to pay for the installation of rooftop solar, and your savings on your electrical bill are more than the loan payments -- sorry to break it to you Bucko, but you just got free solar. Free as in, not only is it not costing you money, it's making you some money.</span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-offset-key="a189b-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-text="true"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvUXIKMcVKTq3baSNblnM0E17JqxwrN1kXlznu37Pvkq_cE_lU8G2AIXtCZLKqewJF5w3nRtYd-mQH7HUCEoI4IRIY5FK1tkTJDjF-r0sq32r7yHWOStggbNyU7scdY2BsGNiHOZngtEUOWBiBVWJ-tMnM1O5dRjS-pwSKogGcx-qZGeRqPJtXs8_MuA/s820/213.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="820" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvUXIKMcVKTq3baSNblnM0E17JqxwrN1kXlznu37Pvkq_cE_lU8G2AIXtCZLKqewJF5w3nRtYd-mQH7HUCEoI4IRIY5FK1tkTJDjF-r0sq32r7yHWOStggbNyU7scdY2BsGNiHOZngtEUOWBiBVWJ-tMnM1O5dRjS-pwSKogGcx-qZGeRqPJtXs8_MuA/s320/213.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-text="true">I'm posting this in frustration after reading a thread on asocial media in which a few of the participants were unable to grasp that, yes indeed, in some cases, for some people, solar power can be free.</span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-offset-key="4bbv1-0-0"><span data-text="true">Actually much better than free, but one mental weakness at a time.<br /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="e72840" data-offset-key="8knu2-0-0"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="8knu2-0-0"><span data-offset-key="8knu2-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="8knu2-0-0"><span data-offset-key="8knu2-0-0"><span data-text="true">I'm autistic, and one of the aspects of my neurological condition is that I'm above average at math, so I can understand how rooftop solar can be free, or how an EV can cost the owner less than ICE over 5 years, let alone 10, despite having a higher purchase price, because lower operating and maintenance costs more than make up for the higher initial price.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="e72840" data-offset-key="en76s-0-0"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="en76s-0-0"><span data-offset-key="en76s-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="en76s-0-0"><span data-offset-key="en76s-0-0"><span data-text="true">Unfortunately, another aspect of my neurological condition is that I'm not good at explaining math to morons.</span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="e72840" data-offset-key="dq746-0-0"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="dq746-0-0"><span data-offset-key="dq746-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="dq746-0-0"><span data-offset-key="dq746-0-0"><span data-text="true">It's extremely frustrating. People who are too dumb to grasp the importance of polluting less, would pollute less anyway, if they were smart enough to see how much money it would save them.</span></span></div></div></div><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1632865688&asins=1632865688&linkId=750566d00762cc2637fc72384069c4d8&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-34111191819745459312023-05-21T12:51:00.000-04:002023-05-21T12:51:33.727-04:00Our Betters<p>How do rulers rule? Usually with the unquestioning obedience of many followers. They don't need to be worshiped by every single one of their subjects, but they do require that a substantial portion regard them as their betters. This struck me once again during the recent public discussion of the reign of Elizabeth II of England, Etc. Yes, there were British critics of her reign, but there were enough thoroughly loyal subjects that the end of the monarchy was seldom discussed, and never, more recently than Cromwell, seemed like an impending possibility. </p><p>Obedient followers tend to be in denial about those they follow. Take, again, the case of the British royals, and their immense wealth. You'll find a lot of people who will deny that the royal family is wealthy. </p><p>"Well what about all those palaces, maintained at public expense?"</p><p>"Those palaces belong to the public."</p><p>"Does the public live there?"</p><p>"No."</p><p>"Can the public see the insides of those palaces?"</p><p>"Aha, yes! Sometimes we can!"</p><p>"Often?"</p><p>"Well..."</p><p>"And who decides who can actually enter one of the palaces, and how often?"</p><p>"Well..."</p><p>This tendency for people to worship rulers who take advantage, and to make excuses for them, seems fairly widespread. And not just in monarchies. In supposed democracies where everyone is supposedly equal, a handful of people at the tip of pyramid are revered, and excuses made for them. Just look at Elon Musk, and the way he is still defended by many of his fans. </p><p>I had thought of myself as relatively free of such tendencies to meekly obey people I thought of as my "betters," until yesterday, when, in the immortal words of Tom Wolfe, "I noticed something!" I'm not talking about Thomas Wolfe, the Murrkin novelist of whose work I've read but very little, but Tom Wolfe, investigative journalist and legendary reactionary douchebag. Those three mighty words appear near the beginning of Wolfe's book <i>The Painted Word</i>, whose title, you may have noticed, rhymes with that of an earlier and somewhat better book, <i>The Painted Bird</i> by Jerzy Kosinski.</p><p>What I noticed yesterday was that, while watching a video about Plenitude, a 3-star restaurant in a 5-star Paris hotel near the Louvre, I was thinking that the tableware looked too nice for the likes of me. I was reminded of things I was not allowed to touch because they were too nice. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifiybfPbUmEUrbA8bOgqu4CAR_wjzqwmNpArO4vlmicsGl6OQjzs6gQC-0hjiZo_1c_WNF_1-xzWo5MbnHTMIuIVUCzYVvpOtmhestus5YXEhtG_Ubh6hxUA0Qp_NVLc_HBzpIOUyjER2QKlTWuJ1NaHR7RBwEl8F1q0Z3L5rQPSsCFqcp24iIMO6qbg/s2880/212.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2880" data-original-width="2160" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifiybfPbUmEUrbA8bOgqu4CAR_wjzqwmNpArO4vlmicsGl6OQjzs6gQC-0hjiZo_1c_WNF_1-xzWo5MbnHTMIuIVUCzYVvpOtmhestus5YXEhtG_Ubh6hxUA0Qp_NVLc_HBzpIOUyjER2QKlTWuJ1NaHR7RBwEl8F1q0Z3L5rQPSsCFqcp24iIMO6qbg/s320/212.jpeg" width="240" /></a></div> <p></p><p>Then I caught myself thinking that, and I had to pause the video and hold my head in both hands. Yes, as a small child I had been told not to touch certain things because they were nice. But I'm 61 years old now. I've been to the Louvre. I felt quite comfortable there. I thought that I thought of myself as as good as anyone else, and distinctly better than many who, like Tom Wolfe, thought themselves better than me. But here I was, thinking that some particularly swanky tableware was too nice for the scruffy likes of me. </p><p>I don't think I've ever set foot inside a 3-star restaurant, and I'm quite sure I've never been served anything to eat or drink in one. I don't know whether or not the whole experience would even appeal to me, or whether I would find it profoundly silly, like the tires on a Bugatti which cost $100,000 a set, and have to be replaced every 2000 miles. If you drive slowly. But now I'm wondering whether I've never found out in part because the mentality of a subject, a servant, an inferior dwells within me.</p><p>Know yourself. Free your mind and your ass will follow. Don't help tyrants tyrannize you. Don't let them tell you they're better than you. Easier said than done, sometimes. This sort of thing takes work.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=2067257412&asins=2067257412&linkId=a634f78c25f99cdadccf75e5df770d9f&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-84161964189802500102023-05-03T14:19:00.001-04:002023-05-03T15:29:48.861-04:00To-Do List<div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfX2fgttWcMzeSh9TTUqj6qkjmhRRAnzM9kCd6IQWduNu14kelwLKVk5djxeE27grFgrESxlbYcrKZswjV2QsvKaO2k-I5ZE_TMaja18G124tEsV1SI9LPBQ03ZCB2tbl7EI9sJtb2SNOg15KvL7RSex4ETofeF0ccj1jC3FO-EJmR5f1Zb_yHCxUCA/s3002/209.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3002" data-original-width="3000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSfX2fgttWcMzeSh9TTUqj6qkjmhRRAnzM9kCd6IQWduNu14kelwLKVk5djxeE27grFgrESxlbYcrKZswjV2QsvKaO2k-I5ZE_TMaja18G124tEsV1SI9LPBQ03ZCB2tbl7EI9sJtb2SNOg15KvL7RSex4ETofeF0ccj1jC3FO-EJmR5f1Zb_yHCxUCA/s320/209.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />This is by no means a complete list. It mentions a few things which can be done right away, a few things which can be ramped way, way up. <br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">1 electric vehicles </div><div style="text-align: left;">1a electric unicycles 1b electric skateboards 1c electric scooters 1d electric bicycles 1e electric motorcycles 1f electric cars 1g electric trucks 1h electric trains 1i electric ships 1j electric aircraft </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">2 green electricity</div><div style="text-align: left;">2a solar power 2b wind power</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">3 efficiency</div><div style="text-align: left;">3a smart grids 3b efficient HVAC of buildings</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">4 materials</div><div style="text-align: left;">4a cleaner steel 4b cleaner concrete 4c cleaner asphalt 4d recycling 4e less harmful mining 4f less plastic<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">5 plants</div><div style="text-align: left;">5a afforestation 5b reforestation 5c restoration of wetlands 5d renewable logging 5e climate-friendly agriculture</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">6 animals</div><div style="text-align: left;">6a responsible pet ownership 6b increased levels of vegetarian and vegan diets</div> <iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=098990671X&asins=098990671X&linkId=1bb65a2e55fb5359cd7a498b36ba5aa4&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-57765098303027387822023-04-21T13:52:00.001-04:002023-04-21T14:05:16.439-04:00"manic pixie dream girl"<p>Just now, for the first time I can remember, I came across the phrase "manic pixie dream girl." I wasn't sure whether the writer had extemporaneously come up with that striking sequence of words, but I googled it, and sure enough, it had already been a negative comment on a genre of fictional characters who are presented less as authentic portrayals of real human beings than as objects used to to inspire and/or gratify male protagonists.</p><p>I'm not sure whether I had already thought of Zooey Deschanel, </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5fY6vSGO8xYaWidspjqJepzNyNenBBUJ7N4hLMA4ty2pMfzPIALXFRx0IkevaMRBGlbeaJJNTGBEdeaHx4YBmDLqtLSFHxOKIkAe0KOUwUl2InDNOswNyTea5qTPqu480j3XgQpkNR2lnx59jL8mNc_wzJWsKAcMq_qeN4D77Ggg0VKwxq9L2bp6UVQ/s500/zooey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="330" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5fY6vSGO8xYaWidspjqJepzNyNenBBUJ7N4hLMA4ty2pMfzPIALXFRx0IkevaMRBGlbeaJJNTGBEdeaHx4YBmDLqtLSFHxOKIkAe0KOUwUl2InDNOswNyTea5qTPqu480j3XgQpkNR2lnx59jL8mNc_wzJWsKAcMq_qeN4D77Ggg0VKwxq9L2bp6UVQ/s320/zooey.jpg" width="211" /></a></div> <p></p><p>an actress whose characters tend to be cuter than a basket full of puppies, before I read that definition of "manic pixie dream girl," but as soon as I read it, I googled manic pixie dream girl zooey deschanel, and sure enough, I found an interview in which Ms Deschanel rejected the label of manic pixie dream girl, with the exception of the character she played in <i>500 Days of Summer</i>, who, she admitted was a manic pixie dream girl. </p><p>Apart from that one performance, Ms Deschanel argued that the characters she had portrayed had been 3-dimensional and authentic, adding that she was a woman, not a girl.</p><p>As soon as I read those excerpts from that interview, I thought, "Yeah! That's entirely right! You tell 'em, Ms Deschanel!"</p><p>But to be completely honest, I'm not sure whether I'm completely convinced by what Ms Deschanel said, or whether I'm agreeing with her in part because I want her to like me.</p><p>I also have to wonder whether, and to what extent, I have been a manic pixie dream boy in the imaginations of others, and whether I may still be such now, as an old man who may be suffering from the onset of arthritis (don't worry, I have excellent medical care, and we're looking into just what exactly these new joint pains are). So perhaps I feel protective toward women who are magic pixie dream girls in the imaginations of others, in part, because I don't want people to treat me as a person without agency simply because I may have inspired thoughts which have little or nothing to do with who I actually am.</p><p>Fantasies are okay. Fantasies are a normal, healthy part of life. But it's also good to acknowledge the depth and seriousness which other actual, real people possess. </p><p>Even really, really, really cute people. <br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B01GWC710G&asins=B01GWC710G&linkId=a33944de85331a3752e99c608f30fd70&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-10599268321512255912023-04-16T11:53:00.000-04:002023-04-16T11:53:26.439-04:00Solar Power and the Environment<p>The environment -- you know: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the birds in the skies, the fish in the seas, the plants we eat, the cute furry animals some of us eat -- the environment. Or to put it another way: our home. Or to put it in a much more precise way: the stuff we need in order to live. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3OcSTgMXii0-8gUeKGZp-dl2KaYiwBbw1sDRaZ3BMSB60_lw1Qm2sc2-PnV8e-rBz1i-nXmEM9xh5OmH-m8T-x_Hnq14ohJuvSS6q119F_T-4tn0xyA3BVT46bsGVEtgrAzja4uEyJ-i13Y6TtQHpTqctP2U7-pl2kWy20Y1kwZT05aHwkEs36MTTdw/s3000/207.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2400" data-original-width="3000" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3OcSTgMXii0-8gUeKGZp-dl2KaYiwBbw1sDRaZ3BMSB60_lw1Qm2sc2-PnV8e-rBz1i-nXmEM9xh5OmH-m8T-x_Hnq14ohJuvSS6q119F_T-4tn0xyA3BVT46bsGVEtgrAzja4uEyJ-i13Y6TtQHpTqctP2U7-pl2kWy20Y1kwZT05aHwkEs36MTTdw/s320/207.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>Just now, in an online group devoted to discussing solar power, a lively discussion had broken out when someone appeared and claimed that rooftop solar was not as good an investment as the S&P 500. Vigorous advocates of rooftop solar responded, saying that the stock market did not always go up, so that you'd have to find an investment with a guaranteed return in order to make a sensible comparison. Someone pointed out that the price of electricity had been going up, and that this had been left out of the comparison to the S&P. </p><p>I didn't carefully read every single word of every comment in that discussion. I stopped reading after a while, after having seen not a single word about the environment. Not one single comment to the effect of: I put a value of X on spewing less poison into the air and water. Not one single comment to the effect of: if we all kill ourselves, money will be worthless. </p><p>An entire conversation about solar power, entirely missing the actual point of it. Or what used to be the point, before greedy human pigs figured they could save a lot of money with solar. They've figured out that solar power is actually not a Chinese hoax, but they still haven't figured out that life does not entirely boil down to how much money they have.</p><p>And this means that there will be a lot of people who favor solar power because the economic advantages of it have become obvious enough that they can see the payoff for themselves personally, but who still are not quite bright enough -- despite all of the terrifying weather, despite all of the scientists and government agencies screaming their heads off about it full-time -- to have grasped that if we do not implement a bit of togetherness, and make changes including solar and many other things, we are all going to die. But they think they are smarter than anyone else if they have a lot of money. And a lot of us who should know better also believe that anyone who has more money than we do is smarter than we are, because that's the sort of simple-minded thinking which has become so pervasive since the days of that grotesquely overrated simpleton, Adam Smith, who assured each of us that if we just concentrate on the amount of currency we personally own, the Invisible Hand will take care of everything else.<br /></p><p>If you're making economic calculations, and you assign no worth to the environment, you're not merely calculating inaccurately. You're entirely missing the point of any human calculation.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262529289&asins=0262529289&linkId=656e49d65249866f06fed9bb3233cafb&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2385543751878406713.post-50198407166361328702023-04-14T12:17:00.000-04:002023-04-14T12:17:19.074-04:00Solar In My Neighborhood<p>I live in an extremely progressive, environmentally-concscious neighborhood, full of Teslas and Bolts and many other EV's, and yet, they still have us screwed pretty bad when it comes to energy. It does not look like this around here:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQsQDGybvGxEX9sPPBKY4Qt28-ae423YtzxsEJ2GmJ9E4asrnCUQbgSjIL4FN1OrTumcNTnNJGHp3wOTVvpD4M57HifmgkFJ_E4JzkM967MGQRj8wvCXgw-nVTv18QcvTYG9GtlR1YIffG2D8kdkdEEKGf6xqoIxMFkeGeTmAKcYQkHQH5pnIsaC-K0Q/s1600/205.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1201" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQsQDGybvGxEX9sPPBKY4Qt28-ae423YtzxsEJ2GmJ9E4asrnCUQbgSjIL4FN1OrTumcNTnNJGHp3wOTVvpD4M57HifmgkFJ_E4JzkM967MGQRj8wvCXgw-nVTv18QcvTYG9GtlR1YIffG2D8kdkdEEKGf6xqoIxMFkeGeTmAKcYQkHQH5pnIsaC-K0Q/s320/205.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div> <p></p><p>My next-door neighbor has a solar roof, but I can walk east for more than a half-mile before I see one more house with solar panels. I can walk almost as far to the west before I see more solar panels: the branch of Chase bank next to a strip mall there has solar panels covering its entire roof, north, south, east and west. </p><p>I keep meaning to go in there and ask someone about the solar panels. Because we live in one of those areas where there are all sorts of restrictions about what sort of solar set-up you can have, and I had assumed that literally covering your roof with solar panels was illegal in this city.</p><p>Maybe this is just an example of businesses tending not to put up with some of the crap that utilities succeed in shoving down homeowners' throats. Or maybe the fact that most of the roofs around here are not yet covered with solar panels, south, north, east and west, is an illustration of people not knowing their rights. I myself don't actually know whether what Chase is doing there is different than what any of us could be doing. And I know more about solar power than most people do.</p><p>There's a local group which wants to take our fair city away from the utility and run our power ourselves. I keep meaning to go to one of their meetings. If all of the neighborhoods in this town had roofs like those in the picture above, we could export a lot of electricity, undercut the prices of that utility, get others to join us, and put that utility and their coal-fired plants out of business. </p><p>I'm good at daydreaming. Top-notch.<br /></p><p>I keep meaning to look into these Biden-administration solar incentives, to see whether I could actually go solar myself right now, despite my low income. </p><p>I keep meaning to actually do something.</p><p>Well, I write one of these posts on green energy now and then. Maybe I've actually encouraged someone somewhere else to actually do something.<br /></p><iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" sandbox="allow-popups allow-scripts allow-modals allow-forms allow-same-origin" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=thewromon-20&language=en_US&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B091Y65ZS5&asins=B091Y65ZS5&linkId=25a2409d604d2c209e05fc2bc0955015&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe>Steven Bollingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.com0