Either because the censorship goons block things or because Netflix severely restricts content by region I don’t have access to most of my queue out here. As a result I’ve watched a lot of random stuff lately.
If I get around to it (hopefully tomorrow) I’ll review all of Sacred Games and the first few episodes of Mr Sunshine.
In the meantime, help me, please help me with this huge crisis.
From Mr Sunshine, Lee Byung-hun is how old? See him below here in his US Marine Corps regalia and snazzy early 20th Century bespoke suits? How old?
Wrong. Dude is 48.
Now here’s Kim Tae-ri. She’s how old?
Wrong. She’s 28.
At first I couldn’t get around the fact that to me, Kim looks like she’s 16. So it got weird where Lee is involved in this relationship with an underage girl and all.
But she’s not, she’s 28. But I still think she looks under 20.
Then there’s Lee. Dude looks like he’s 28 but is in fact 48.
1) I’m an idiot.
2) There is nothing that makeup or costumes can’t cure to make actors look two decades younger than they really are. Think science will conquer death? Wrong, immortality lies in a makeup drawer. I guess.
3) Should it be considered a little weird that these two folks have two decades age between them in what is at least half a love story’s worth on content? Maybe. But this happens all the time in the entertainment industry. And probably is accurate to the period as well.
4) In real life, the situation would be reversed. They’d each look two decades older than they really were. Korea was a complete mess of tears, conquest, unforgiving weather, and brutality during that time. In many ways, it still is.
5) Is Lee supposed to be 48 in the Series despite his looks? If so, it makes sense that he’s only just a captain because it shows flashback scenes where he’s fighting as an enlisted man.
6) Is Kim supposed to be 28 in the Series despite her looks? If so, it makes sense as she’s essentially referred to as an old maid for not being married yet many times in the Series.
7) In conclusion, I”m still and idiot. See you soon.
“It’s perfectly normal for an employee who makes $9 an hour to be able to steal a 20 ton commercial aircraft,” says representative of government agency that fails at its mission over 90% of the time.
Yesterday a judge blocked the online publication of blueprints for a 3D printed gun. The States who filed the complaint called it, “a bell that cannot be un-rung”. The judge said, “There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm,”.
So apparently all these folks don’t understand how the Internets works, haven’t heard or understood the word Torrent, and don’t understand the reality of how the planet currently works.
To borrow their term, I can guarantee you that 3D printing of firearms is going to be rung. And it’s going to be rung very, very soon. Soon it’ll be possible for anybody with access to cash to print any kind of gun they want, handgun, shotgun, assault rifle, whatever. It’s going to happen. That’s one of the fearful miracle implications of 3D printing, fueled by an Internets that enables the distribution of any knowledge whatsoever.
For over 15 years terrorists have been capable of teaching 19 year old disgruntled street urchins from Paris and Brussels how to make nail bombs. All of this knowledge is easily accessible online. It’s never going away. If the establishment thinks 3D printed handgun designs will be any different because some judge says so, they’re hopelessly naive.
As another example please kindly gaze upon the disaster that is killing more Americans than cars in oxy and fentanyl. The cops, judges, and legislators went after oxy because it was stacking five figures of dead Americans each year. But then fentanyl materialized out of thin air.
If you haven’t heard, there’s a new villain in town called carfentanil. It’s even more powerful than fentanyl. The number of American overdosing each year is higher than ever. Would you care to take a bet on if the number of dead is going to fall, or if you think carfentanil will be the last drug created out of thin air and pushed on the streets?
The establishment hasn’t caught up with the reality of our new distributed planet. This is the reason Trump was elected, not Russia. But understanding that our planet has changed irreversibly is really fucking hard to grasp. It’s a lot easier for folks to demonize Putin (a cardboard cutout well deserving of the asshole appellation) and move on.
But the opioid epidemic is an example of a massive problem that the establishment cannot solve. Folks want results and government can’t or won’t deliver. Because government hasn’t adapted to a changed world.
What to do? Well, for the drug problem this belligerent degenerate blog has always been about legalizing absolutely everything. Because the government is never going to be able stop drugs. Especially in an age where you can factory manufacture lethal opioids in a lab like it’s aspirin.
Let folks get high, who gives a damn? Treat addiction like the disease it is. Let folks shoot up or drop pills in clinics where they can get help when they inevitably OD and can get advice and support on how to quit. Treat the problem, don’t criminalize it when criminalization hasn’t worked for over 100 years of drug crime fighting.
For 3D printed guns, I don’t know, I haven’t gotten that far yet. But my guess is the answer is probably in the ammunition. I have no idea, but I’m guessing it’s probably a lot harder to make ammo from nothing than to 3D print a gun. Put since the establishment isn’t thinking things through (again) all they’ve got is the order of some judge to try and stop it. It will fail.
Behold that which cannot be stopped.
So you’re at the grocery and you turn over some of your hard earned international gold reserves and in exchange are provided various food products. You can then consume those various food products in order to sustain life.
And you stare down at the box containing (an ultimately mediocre) breakfast bars and they have this little nugget on the box:
“New Look – Same Great Taste”
What exactly is the point of this? Who on the planet could possibly care about the look of the box? Even the text of this graphic is all squiggly and happy. Like I’m supposed to assume the emotional core of a blissful meth elf because they updated the design of this box?
Does this sort of thing actually, really work on people? It must, because it happens a lot. Advertising goons do this all the time. They throw out words in some desperate attempt to engage your brain. For example, when they change the names of companies for no reason at all.
When The Onion isn’t busy shaming itself by getting in on the already overly tedious and incessant bash Trump wagon they put out some pretty darn hilarious stuff. Years ago they put out something similar to this nonsense post when they wrote about “Under New Management” with this one.
The only solution to this problem is to eliminate most words. In order to put a word on a box of cereal bars, the advertising goons have to submit themselves to a trial by ordeal with a drunk thug from Valhalla. The price goes up by each word used.
For example, if the ad executive uses the term “Great Taste” it’s 30 seconds in the ring with the thug. Why is the thug drunk first thing in the morning? It’s what he does.
Thus, “New Look – Same Great Taste” equals about one minute and 15 seconds of action with the thug. Given that these folks are all losers (they work in advertising) I’m guessing they’d defer the thug battle.
And the rest of us would have less words to deal with in the daily course of our lives. It’s win / win!
Please hold your applause at the display of brilliance contained within this post. [claps hands in an empty room]
Sometimes technology seems to go backwards. For example, the US used to operate the shuttle which was a relatively advanced reusable spaceplane. Now NASA has nothing, and the replacement vehicle in development has more in common with the Apollo or Soyuz space capsules than it does with the shuttle.
Likewise, Concorde first flew in 1976. Here we are over 40 years later and every single commercially viable passenger plane of any size is exclusively subsonic. I’ll save my thoughts pf NASA’s failures for another day. Today I want to focus on supersonic. More and more in the news you see that several companies are trying to dive back into supersonic.
But first, what happened after 1976? In short, supersonic failed for a number of reasons:
– It was never cost effective: Concorde burned a lot of fuel, had a large maintenance footprint, and could never get the cost per seat / seat vacancy ratios correctly to turn a consistent profit.
– Development: Because of the cost considerations, nobody saw a reason to develop a successor to Concorde. By the end of the 20th Century, Concorde was a 20 year old design and the airframes were reaching the end of usable service.
– 2000: The Air France crash was the end of the road. Adding up the cost and service life against the reality of a full crash was the end of the program.
And there we’ve sat for decades. But now folks are willing to try again. Why:
a) Air travel and airline technology has become so advanced as to be scary in terms of safety. Western airlines have a safety record that’s downright miraculous. Lawnmowers kill more people each year.
b) Modern super fuel efficient engines combined with advanced computing might be close to cracking the code on the cost problem. When you add in the composites that make the newer airframes strong and lighter I think they might cross the threshold on turning a profit per flight.
c) Humanity is more obsessed with time. In the business world, seconds matter whereas when Concorde last flew perhaps only minutes mattered. Think of it, in 2000 smartphones didn’t even exist. The world has gotten faster, and so I think folks will be far more inclined to put down the cash when they’re staring at the reality of a flight time that gets cut in half.
But will it work? Well, let’s examine the most realistic commercial supersonic venture.
Boom Supersonic has already booked aircraft orders, 10 from Virgin, and 20 from JAL. The expectation is they’re flying commercially by 2025. Its jets will seat 55 passengers, go across the Atlantic in half the current time, and cost approximately $5K per ticket. Boom claims to have cracked the code on fuel efficiency and subduing the impact of the dreaded sonic boom.
1) I searched online, trying to book over two months in advance, Heathrow to JFK with a one week dwell. The cost for an Economy seat is $400. Boom’s jet is single aisle, single seat each side. To me, this is an exclusively Business / First Class jet. Economy does not apply. For a Business flight it’s all over the place. You can go on TAP Portugal for $2.1K. Air France is $6K. United is $7K To fly BA is $7.5K.
So let’s get something straight. If Boom states that it’s $5K per seat they either mean the cost to them and/or they’re fibbing on future prices. When all the major carriers are already charging Atlantic rides for well over $5K for subsonic, then my back of the napkin math says a Boom supersonic seat costs closer to $10K.
So right off the bat you’re looking at a ticket that’s 20 times more expensive between Economy and supersonic. Thus, to declare that the supersonic ticket is already in the realm of the super-rich is an understatement. Already it’s the same high-risk niche market Concorde had to struggle with.
2) I don’t care what Boom or others claim, the sonic boom problem is a major problem. Even if Boom can produce a severely muffled boom, they still can’t break physics, there will still be a boom. And if there’s a sonic boom, it’s going to be regulated. If it’s regulated, it’s not going to be easy.
All supersonic has to do is lightly tap one skyscraper apartment window in Manhattan and there will be people up in arms about how the boom is giving them phantom headaches. Then the lawyers come out of the bushes and it’s a gigantic mess. Can Boom and other companies get around this by only going supersonic over water, sure. But in the end as with Concorde, the sonic boom problem is not going to be a rounding error. It’s a big problem.
3) Think about the turnover rate of a standard subsonic jet. Take a 737 flying inside the US. On any given day, one jet is expected to fly over half-a-dozen flights. They have to turnover at the gate in less than an hour and get back in the air. They have to not seriously break over hundreds of hours of constant flight. They have to do it at the safety rate of zero crashes. Can Boom or other companies crack the code on this, keep the aircraft available enough to fly again and again to generate profit, and do it safely every single fight? I think they can definitely do it. But I’m not sure they can do it and consistently make money. New technology is hard to master. And going supersonic on a completely new airframe isn’t going to be an easy thing to do.
You need only look at the development hell Airbus and Boeing have gone through with their latest subsonic jets to realize how hard building airplanes is. Going supersonic is going to generate a whole new level of difficulty. Plus, Boom is a company that doesn’t have a sustained record of success with previous aircraft models. Look at what happened with the Bombardier CSeries. That jet crashed out in development hell because Bombardier made too many mistakes. They had to sell out the airframe to Airbus for like $1 to avoid bankruptcy. And the CSeries is a pretty basic modern subsonic jet, and it still was impossible for Bombardier to succeed. I’m not sure I think companies like Boom truly understand how hard their task will be to develop and build supersonic without going bankrupt in the process.
In closing, I think we’ll see supersonic return and soon. But given that the passenger market is still only the exclusive rich, the remaining associated problem of profit risk, and my concerns about technology development, I think the end result is supersonic is going to be a very, very small footprint by say 2030. Only a handful of jets will fly and the companies that run them will be scraping by paycheck to paycheck on cost. In the end, I don’t think supersonic is going to be viable for major airlines on anything but a small scale. It’ll be a niche market, or perhaps become a major chunk of the private jet market. But large scale from major airlines? I just don’t see it.
But who knows, maybe I’m wrong?
There’s a neat little statement as Edward Gibbon compares the doomed Romans to their future steppe tribe conquerors. Gibbon makes the point that the tribes are composed of folks who had likely never tasted bread.
Granted, this is a pretty blatant stereotype. Not every Hun or Vandal spent their lives drinking only goat milk and eating fire roasted meat right off the bone. Gibbon is only using the idea to make a point about how a hard living martial culture can destroy a weak culture, even one as old as the Romans.
I think this is roughly what the paleo goons are going for. It’s more a hardcore thing than a nutrition thing. It’s a fad, a selling point to display generally how folks choose to live their lives. The concept of living one’s life and food intake in the hard living martial culture category. Rather than reaching for a box in the cereal aisle.
But I’d always found it weird when the paleo goons adopted the Gibbon model and shut down bread or grains or glucose in their diets. Now the news reports that bread has been in the human diet for over 10K years and the headlines question whether the paleo folks can now eat bread again?
Well, sure, why not. I guess? But really, whatever, who cares? Because honestly, please keep in mind the key thing the paleo folks should remember is that cars are only about a 100 years old. So since humans weren’t using cars in 3746 BC, the paleo crowd should probably stop driving cars.
I’ve also begun seeing more and more ‘advice’ from ‘experts’ that humans beings have no business drinking straight juice. The summary of this wisdom is that take an orange. You can eat an orange or two and that’s a pretty decent sized snack. But a glass of orange juice comes from like seven oranges. The idea is that no human would ever be able to eat the natural sugars of seven oranges in one sitting. So a person has no business drinking juice, at least in any large quantity whatsoever.
This is all well and good except that like bread, humans have been drinking juice for thousands of years and somehow we all haven’t burst into flames. Hey I’m all for progress in culture and our diets, after all, life saving surgery is a pretty cool thing.
But I guess all this paleo or anti-juice stuff just kind of rubs me the wrong way. Our lives and modern culture is pretty cool, but to think that all of a sudden we’ve got all the answers is pretty darn arrogant. That somehow after say 5K years of food and drink, that we’re the first generation to be wise enough to forgo bread and juice.
If folks want to eat, drink, or not bread and juice then whatever. That’s a personal choice. I just can’t stand the self righteousness of it. Or the need to redefine arbitrary standards when they’re confronted with reality.
Eat what they want. Drink what they want. Or not. It’s all good. Just don’t wear it on the sleeve, shove it in other folks faces, and think they’re better than others (and all of human history).