Category Archives: Blogs' Archive

I was just reading an article in the Independent about a paper that was published on NASA’s website called ‘Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor.’
To be journalistically responsible, I must point out that the paper was later removed from NASA’s website. There are a few reasons why it might have been. Maybe the science was sketchy, and they just hadn’t caught it pre-publication. Maybe the powers that be saw it and were afraid that the masses would go into panic mode and start rioting in the streets. Or maybe the powers that be just wanted to kill the story because they are dicks. I’m going with hypotheses #3, because it is my natural suspicion and default position that those in authority are dicks.
Anyway, according to the story, Google has the super quantum computer that can solve a problem in a bit over three minutes that it would take an old-fashioned, garden variety supercomputer 10,000 years to solve.
That does sound quite impressive, indeed, but…..
They never say in the article what the question was. Probably a bunch of numbers, because that’s the way scientists think.

I will be impressed when we can ask a computer questions like “What combination of low cost and abundant substances would cure cancer?” or “How can we terraform Mars for less than $10 billion” or “What is the formula for fusion energy?” and actually get an answer.

I suspect it’s coming soon.

The headline was “Bernie Raises 25.3 Million in 3rd Quarter” which is kind of awesome because it means he’s raised more money than any other Democratic candidate, and he did it without any support from billionaires, which is something Warren and Biden could never say.
The comment that raised my ire was just “Why is it always about the money?” I had composed several scathing responses in my head, and typed a couple of them out, before thinking “Wait a minute. The guy has a real point. Why is it always about the money?”
It’s a dangerous game for us to play because, even though Bernie has millions of people who will give him money, our resources are limited. Even one of Biden’s or Warren’s supporters could match and top that number, all by themselves, and no doubt will as we get closer. Corporations spend millions to support candidates who will help them to make huge profits while they rape the environment or screw sick people out of their live savings, but that’s chump change to them. They will spend billions to defeat Bernie, if they have to.
That money gets spent on TV ads, which dull the mind, and on yard signs and bumper stickers, which raise animosity in America’s neighborhoods and increase road rage, but doesn’t do much to solve the problem.
How can we solve this problem? Here’s my suggestion:
Starting in about May of any election year, because this permanent election cycle is ridiculous, start having auditions. Start like the talent shows, take all comers. Vernon Supreme gets an interview. Your crazy racist neighbor gets an interview, if they want.
The initial interview asks them a few questions, like “What is the Bill of Rights?” and “How do you spell hamburger?”, and make them read the questions off cue cards or a teleprompter. This is just to make sure they can read.
In the second round, a week later, when we’re down to a few thousand candidates, they start getting questions about ‘Have you ever committed a felony?’ and ‘How important is oxygen?’
After about 4 or 5 weeks in, when you’re down to a few hundred candidates, you can get down to some serious debate, and each week could be a different topic. The environment, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, abortion, gun control, gay rights, marijuana, Israel, the police, corruption, etc…
This could be a totally non-partisan format. If the networks don’t want to host it, it could be done on-line.
Then, in about September or October, a winner is announced. That person would be on the ballot in November, against whatever corporate shills the Democrats and the Republicans want to nominate.
And the people would have a choice.

I have a few right wingers on my Facebook page, some I know in real life and some I don’t, and when I say right wingers I mean (for the purposes of today’s blog) men who are seriously bent out of shape that Greta Thunberg is advocating for pro-active environmental action.
They are climate change deniers, pointing out that no entire nations have disappeared yet (which is true, it’s just a few islands here and there so far) and we’re all still alive and breathing, so how bad can it be? Probe them a little further, ask them why they are against a cleaner environment, and they start pointing out the limitations of wind and solar energy, such as limitations on storage, inefficiency, etc…
Which is partially true, but battery technology is improving all the time, and if solar panels and wind turbines don’t provide enough energy to power our huge cities and world encircling roads, the solution is to install still more wind turbines until they do. If we have covered all of the world’s rooftops and parking lots with solar panels, and covered all of the world’s vast prairies with wind turbines, there is lots of room in space for more solar panels. Lots and lots.
Then they start in on nuclear energy, which is sort of changing the subject. Andrew Yang is big on nuclear energy, and I think there might be a Venn overlap here, between the Yang Gang and Grown Men Who Are Threatened by Greta Thunberg.
To be sure, I’m much more in favor of nuclear than coal or oil. It has taken fewer lives and, unlike coal and oil, it’s not likely to run out in the foreseeable future. If those were our only two choices, I would vote for nuclear.

But, the point is, Greta Thunberg is absolutely right, the governments of the world need to start doing a hell of a lot more to save the environment, and her critics are actively standing in the way. They may not agree, but in my eyes they are actively working to make the world a worse place.

There are words like Socialism, Love, and God that it is very hard to argue about because everybody has their own definition and it’s always going to be a bit different from everybody else’s. So, if someone asks me if I believe in God, the first thing I say is ‘What do you mean by that?’ That is, if I feel like talking about it. If not (which is more frequent) I just say no, and they generally get the drift.
Then there are concepts and ideologies, like Nuclear Energy, Social Media, and Capitalism, which you have to admit can be used for good or evil, and how we feel about them definitely depends on how they are used. Plenty of people are using nuclear power every day without realizing it, but let one nuclear plant fuck up and pollute the whole Pacific Ocean, you hear about it incessantly for months, years even.
The Venn diagram between these two groups is so fat it’s almost a circle in its own right, and one thing that fits right in there is the concept of PC.
Lots of people love to say they hate PC, but I suspect that it’s in the same way everybody says they hate Nickelback, and most of them have no idea who Nickelback was.
I suspect it’s largely in how you define PC. The way I see it, it means you shouldn’t say stupid shit that’s obviously racist or sexist. That’s a good thing, by and large, but Mel Brooks thinks it’s killing humor. Some people might see it as not being allowed to talk about certain subjects, or present certain points of view. So, they’re against it. So, before you get into an argument about PC, find out what it is the other person is actually talking about – and then you can tell them they’re full of shit.
It is true, also, that PC can be used for good or evil. It’s O.K. (and it’s PC) to point out when people are being shitheads due to racism or sexism. It’s a bit over the top to be accusing people of racism or sexism just because they are talking about race or sex and they don’t agree with you or the majority opinion.
So, PC is like nuclear energy. It’s a good thing, generally, but you sure as hell don’t want to be there when a meltdown occurs.

I’m glad that congress is finally getting around to inching a wee bit closer to the possibility of impeachment, and I’m glad that Tulsi Gabbard is on board. It was never a litmus test for me as Medicare for All and a refusal to take corporate money are, but nice to know she’s finally for it, and it finally seems to be happening.
However, in her ‘I’m finally all for it’ statement, she said ‘it should be tightly focused’ on the latest scandal, the Ukrainian phone call. Or, as I believe it was Jimmy Kimmel who asked “Will Volodomyr Zelenskyj be Trump’s Monica Lewinski?” (see, it’s funny because it rhymes)
I disagree with Tulsi again, quite heartily in this case. If you’re going to impeach, impeach hard. Hard, and wide, and low. Shotgun approach. Cast a wide net. Full court press. Attack on all fronts, straight up the center and on the flanks.
We should impeach him for this, for sure, it’s pretty juicy. He applied pressure (in terms of withholding military aid) on the president of Ukraine to dig up some dirt on Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Which was completely unnecessary, because everybody knows Hunter only got that cush job by being the vice President’s son. In fact, there is tape of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainian Attorney General fired, because he was coming after Hunter. So, Trump didn’t even need to make that very compromising phone call. He could have just spent a couple of hours googling.
But we should also not forget all those times he used his office to line his own pockets, which is highly illegal (emoluments), his neglect, both after hurricanes and during the on-going self-inflicted border crisis, which has resulted in unnecessary deaths, his general incompetence and cluelessness, his lying (after all, that’s what they impeached Clinton over), and his mental state, which precludes him being president of a bowling league much less of a country.
The more charges, the more wide reaching the investigation which will lead to more charges, which increases the odds of conviction tremendously. That’s math.