Wordle 953

 

A Possible Google Interview question

•  Are you familiar with vinyl LP records?
• Do you happen to know what "LP" stands for?  If you don't know, please guess. (Long Playing)
• What speed, in RPM do these records play at?  If they don't know, tell them 33 1/3
• How much music is held on an LP?  Bear in mind, they have two sides and you can have content on both sides.  Tell them about 25 minutes per side but some is lost in gaps between songs.
• How many grooves are there in an album?  The true, but mathematically trivial answer is 2, one on each side, but for this exercise; how many grooves would you have to cross if you went from the rim to the center in a straight line?  They must do this in their head:

In 3 minutes, the record will have made exactly 100 revolutions, there are (for ease of math), 21 minutes per side and 3 goes evenly into 21 7 times.  So, 700 grooves per side or 1,400 grooves total.

Wordle 952

 

Wordle 951

 

York at Zenith

So, to summarize: Walz and his wife used a technique, IUI, that nobody opposes. But Walz saw political benefit in falsely alleging that Vance opposes a different treatment, IVF, which Vance does not, in fact, oppose. Then Walz embellished the accusation by giving a seemingly emotional personal account of his own use of IVF, which was false. Walz’s untruths left Vance mystified. “It’s just such a bizarre thing to lie about, right?” Vance said Tuesday. “There’s nothing wrong with having a baby through IVF or not having a baby through IVF. Like, why lie about it? I just don’t understand that.”

LINK 

Wordle 950

 

Greg Mankiw's Two Hypotheses

In the first part of his post he rightly skewers the awful Harris "price gouging" plan and then offers two hypotheses.

One is that the Harris campaign believes that the remaining persuadable swing voters are economically ignorant, so the campaign is offering them economically ignorant economic policies. Bryan Caplan's wonderful book The Myth of the Rational Voter documents a lot of mistaken beliefs among the general public, including an anti-market bias. Ms. Harris's political advisers may be steering her to pander to these mistaken beliefs,

A second hypothesis involves campaign personnel. The people I see mentioned as Harris economic advisers are Brian Deese, Gene Sperling, Mike Pyle, Deanne Millison, and Brian Nelson. All smart people, no doubt. But as far as I know, none of these people is trained as a PhD economist. They all seem to be lawyers. Maybe lawyers are more inclined to see a problem and think, "I know what new law will fix that." True economists are more respectful of the invisible hand and more worried about the unintended consequences of heavy-handed regulation.

Allow me to offer a third hypothesis:  Harris is herself, economically ignorant.  She either never took a basic econ course or took a course and didn't understand it or dismissed it as BS.  In her mind, the law of supply and demand might as well not exist.  

Surely she has some people who have a rudimentary grasp of economics, that they can't get through to her says either a lot about who she surrounds herself with or about her ability to be open to new (to her) ideas.  Neither of these options are acceptable in an executive of any kind, let alone the US President.

Wordle 949

 

Wordle 948

 

Wordle 947

 

Wordle 946

 

"Wolfe’s goal was to be like Balzac, not JD Vance...."

 NYT

An offhand comment by David Brooks in an article on Tom Wolfe.

The comment is more than a little weird.  Wolfe probably heard of Vance, since Vance came out with his bestseller, Hillbilly Elegy a couple of years before Wolfe died.  Why would a renowned writer of Wolfe's stature want to be like a random guy with his first book?

In any case, it was more likely that Vance was trying to be something like Wolfe, not the other way around.  I haven't read Vance's memoir, but given its genre, it would be something like what Wolfe did:  He would entertainingly describe people and events.  He may have wanted his readers to come to certain conclusions, but he didn't directly tell the reader what he personally thought about any of it.

This is in contrast to Brooks.  He tells you as much as you need to know, so that he can tell you what he thinks about it.

Vance is sort of bifurcated, he wrote about his life experiences, but now he is a man of action:  He made money in venture capital, was elected Senator from Ohio and is on the ticket to be vice president.  He's now the sort of person Wolfe might write about, if Wolfe was still alive and working.

Brooks probably feels superior to Vance and yet Brooks doesn't DO anything and Vance is DOING things.  Meanwhile Brooks stands to the side with commentary.  Why can't Vance know his place and be a poor-man's Wolfe?  What gall to aspire to be somebody off the pages of a Wolfe book!

Wordle 945

 

Wordle 944

 

One Of These is a Big Problem

People like to dunk on the US over the 19,592 died by firearm homicide in 2022 (the latest figures I could find.  They are also fond of including Over 26,993 people died by firearm suicide, as if these have any moral connection to each other.

Did you know that Canada, often compared very favorably compared to the US has a lot of assisted suicide?

In 2022 there were 13, 241 medically assisted suicides in Canada.  The country has about 1/9 that of the US, so that would be about 120,000 per year.

Which is more horrifying?  Well, our 46,585 were all considered crimes.  So, they're bad and we have the decency to call them bad.  Their, equivalent of, 120,000 are legal and officially something to be proud of.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the latter to be much, much more horrifying.   

Our Founding Document and the Right to Bear Arms

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We have the right to overthrow any government that is not securing our rights.  A government that makes clear it wants to disarm citizens is a problem for two reasons:

 1. Without arms, the people will not have the power to overthrow the government.

2.  A government taking active measures to avoid being overthrown is telegraphing that they no longer intend to serve the public interest of protecting the liberty of it's citizens.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We can and should put up with a lot but disarming is a bright red line.  Once disarmed, you've lost the ability to meaningfully resist further tyranny. 

Wordle 943

 

Wordle 932

 

Wordle 941

 

Wordle 940