“modern culture gives us the right to criminal stupidity,” claim parents of poor unvaccinated kiddies

You know the thing about the hierarchy of needs is once you take away the hardest ones of rent, food budget, Netflix, running water, booze, etc the list becomes pretty short.  Do you really need a doggy or a kitty?  No, but a lot of people do it because it feels good.

But also, the absence of any hierarchy gaps can get pretty destructive.  Do people really, really need to bathe in national politics as much as they do?  No, your local mayor is way, way more important to your daily life, but folks will swim all in the Mueller report today because they can afford to.  After all, it’s not like they’re worried about sleeping tonight without HVAC available.

And when the hierarchy is almost entirely addressed, I do believe modern culture also allows people to go down the path of the criminal insanity.  Circa 1437 you could die from just about anything.  The idea of a measles vaccine would have been the equivalent of planting a rocketship in your sheep pasture.

Yet because one goon scientist published a report that said MMR is bad for you (a report that’s now been completely and utterly disgraced) it’s spawned one of the most bizarre movements in modern human history.  It’s like these people want to take their hierarchy backwards.  Once, you could be vaccinated against an untimely death.  But who wants that?  You can just do without it!

So, I guess, you can also do without:

– Cleaning drinking water: There are chemicals in their tap water, they probably cause cancer, or autism.  Sure, billions of other folks on the planet have to drink filth water and they don’t.  But still, better safe than sorry.  Their best bet is to only drink water straight from a mountain stream.  Don’t filter it in advance either, those filters probably also cause cancer.

– Shelter: Death from exposure is underappreciated.

– Science: The anti-vaccine crowd seems to be an amalgamation of both wacko ends of the political spectrum.  And so: To the anti-vaccine left, what do you think science says about global warming?  And so: To the anti-vaccine right, what do you think science says about the ability for certain chemical reactions to induce explosions that kill ISIS terrorists?

– Polio vaccine: FDR didn’t get it.  And he’s considered one of the greatest people in human history.  What’s not to like?

– Cars, trains, buses, bikes, etc: Technology, progress, etc are things to be rejected, apparently.  So just to be safe everybody can/should only walk anywhere they need to go.  But this will be difficult to accomplish as since nobody has any vaccines their bones will be dust by age 27 ala Circa 341 BC.  But it’ll be worth it!

– Electricity: There was once a time in human history (say 4800 of the last 5000 years) where nighttime was so dark, so dangerous, so unproductive that humans had to live with the concept of “second sleep“.  Since electricity has been tied to any number of dangers, such as cancer, autism, mind control, appendicitis, night elves, high cholesterol, etc, we should break all our light bulbs and live by candlelight only.  But, so you know, candles also cause cancer.  Sorry.

– Clothing (of any kind): Cancer.

– Agriculture: Have they tried to live the life of a true hunter-gatherer?  If they haven’t, they’re missing out on all the fun of a grinding, unspeakable struggle where if they fail at even one day’s hunting and gathering, they’re finished.

– Blogging: Someone, please, help me!

7KW3T2DBJII6TPZE3NFZ7NRKUI_wdp.jpg

Sheltered enough to permit raw stupidity (poor, poor kiddies)

Advertisements

Notre-Dame matters and it doesn’t

Notre-Dame de Paris has stood for over eight hundred years.  During that time, Paris has been sacked, occupied, or bombed four times.  During the Hundred Years War, The Revolution, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Nazis.  Notre-Dame had rough moments, but essentially stood firm.  Now’s it’s gutted by flame.  What society and culture could accomplish and protect over eight centuries, we cannot.

In separate but unrelated news, the Washington Monument’s reopening was delayed until this August.  It was damaged in an earthquake in 2011 and has been mostly closed since.  It took America less than four years to win the Second World War.  It will take over twice that length of time to repair a single monument.

Here are two clear shining examples of the failures of modern society and government.  We have fancy little smartphones in our pockets, we can access all the knowledge of humanity, but we can’t seem to do anything right anymore.  This is more than just failed government, it’s society’s failure in general.

Does Notre-Dame even still matter?  I think like probably 13% of French attend church each week.  I wonder how many Americans beneath the age of 25 could write say one page about George Washington and why he’s important?

We’ve lost the big picture, we’re without purpose.  Notre-Dame defined a civilization.  The smartphone is ours: and it’s shallow, baseless, and ultimately nothing more than future environmentally damaging landfill.

In this sense, Notre-Dame matters because it reminds us of what we lost, and what we can no longer even protect.  But in another more dark sense, Notre-Dame doesn’t even matter.  Let it burn to the ground, and in the end sadly nothing about us is going to change.

_106469308_hi053453863

NASA loses keys

Imagine you’re taking two dogs to the mountains for the weekend.  It might snow, and you want your dogs to have a jacket in case they duel a grizzly bear and need to keep warm.  Both your dogs need medium sized jackets.  Do you:

a) Make sure you have two medium jackets, and if not, buy one or two

b) Not bother to check at all and hope it somehow all works out

c) Panic

d) Ask your dogs for money

e) Skip your mountain trip and sit on your floor playing with your dogs as you drink beer

Most normal people would choose option (a).  But apparently not NASA, you know, those people who are geniuses and make things go into space.  Last week NASA announced that it would have it’s first all female spacewalk.  Because apparently these diversity things matter to NASA when it currently doesn’t have a functional space vehicle with which to get it’s astronauts into orbit so we rely on the Russians.

But as it turns out they cannot conduct this two female spacewalk because, wait for it, they don’t have two medium sized spacesuits.  This is not a joke.  This is legitimately happening.  Apparently NASA planned a complex dangerous spacewalk but didn’t bother to make sure they had two appropriate spacesuits.  I mean how hard is this?  One of the flight engineers could have asked her five year old to look at an inventory list and see the word ‘medium’ next to ‘spacesuit’ and make sure the number said at least two.

In related news, Boeing (that company that has problems lately), has now burned through north of $5B, yes billion, to produce a rocket that hasn’t flown once (and will probably never fly) and will take longer to produce than it took NASA to get to the Moon.

Man, this organization used to be the pinnacle of technology and awesome.  But that was five decades ago.  Now these folks probably lose their keys on their way to the parking lot.

Just disestablish NASA and give its entire budget to help fund STEM scholarships for poor kids.  Let the commercial sector have a go at space awesomeness.  They’ll do a cheaper, probably safer, and at least remember to look at an inventory list before planning a mission.

_106179677_capture

Have fun!  Make sure you remember your airlock keys to get back into the station!

Boeing has a lot to answer for

Everybody should withhold final judgement until the Ethiopians and the American investigators have gotten a crack at the boxes.  But eyewitness reports indicating that the aircraft was breaking up in flight are troubling.

I flew yesterday on a 737-800 which looks mostly like a 737 Max and I was glad when I got aboard and realized it was an 800.  I mean I’m not trying to be too dramatic, my rental car drive to the airport was 700 times more dangerous, but I did sleep better on the flight.

It used to be that Airbus built planes that killed people with wacky failures in the electronics and systems.  Airbus hasn’t done that since Air France 447 in 2009.  Has Boeing now assumed that tragic role?  And if so, why and how?

What we do know is that the Lion Air crash in Indonesia was partly a maintenance failure, but also Boeing’s fault.  The pilots had the correct input on the controls, the airplane ignored them.  The plane killed those people.  Again, we’ll see what Ethiopia says on this latest crash.

_105965801_53241096_2204408466310518_5741434009808797696_o.jpg

the establishment hasn’t caught up with the reality of our new distributed planet

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.

future pain.jpg

Behold that which cannot be stopped.

supersonic will soon be back, but it won’t be big

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.

My conclusions:

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.

_98736611_0db1c45f-7827-4b22-b7b7-937595432c24.jpg

But who knows, maybe I’m wrong?