Argh, so tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s email “scandal” from either side of the aisle.

A politician doing shady-ass things? Say it ain’t so! And even if she wasn’t doing them then, she was doing some other unknown ones elsewhere. You simply don’t get as much power as she has in the modern world and not be fairly scummy.

Just as true of male politicians as it is of female ones, by the way. There really is no difference that matters.

In the end, it also matters little who becomes president. Again, little to nothing will be done about climate change and in the lifetime of children alive now that will disorder the world so much that there might not even be a president in 2070+.

Usually I think Richard Dawkins is a buffoon, and wrong. But here I agree with him 100%.

When Islamic (or lest it go unsaid, Christian) culture oppresses women, to hell with that culture. I don’t give a fuck why it does so or the fact that other liberals think I should respect how Islam treats women because that’s “just how they do things.”

Cultural relativism can be good, neutral or evil — and in this case, it’s pure evil.

Again, that doesn’t mean I think we should be bombing people to freedom or that Dawkins is right about many other things, such as his belief that women in Western countries shouldn’t fight for equal rights because Muslim women have it worse.

But there does have to be some absolute standard for human rights (as a Twitter commenter pointed out), and I don’t give a damn who that offends in the liberal or the conservative camp.

But that’s me — if I ain’t making enemies, it’s not a day of the week.

To those who think the earth is not overpopulated with humans, the planet is going to disagree strongly with you, and soon.

And who are you to argue with an entire planet?

The max long-term carrying capacity of the planet with any kind of decent standard of living is probably around 500 million, I’d guess.

With this and the lack of affordable, decent housing everywhere in America, perhaps private home ownership should just be banned altogether?

Ok, ok, I’m joking. Well, half-joking.

Probably the largest factor contributing to the lack affordable housing is not government. Not the rich. Not inequality. And not developers — no, it is NIMBY-infected dumbass existing homeowners.

Why are so many people convinced they are the last “good” one to move into the neighborhood, and then want to shut and lock the gate behind them?

Maybe banning private home ownership isn’t the answer, but it sure would piss off a lot of idiots I hate and that is fun in and of itself.

Why the fat acceptance movement can go fuck itself.

You know what, I’ve been very fit. Extremely fit. For about five years in the army, I worked out 2-4 hours every weekday. Everyone around me was equally or even more fit.

And you know how often we thought about fat people, or shaming fat people, or spent even one single second contemplating fat people?

Not one second. Not one.

These people are so self-obsessed that not for one moment do they consider that almost nothing others do — and certainly not going to the gym and/or posting selfies of progress — has anything at all to do with them or with fat shaming. It literally has nothing at all to do with them, and I can guarantee that none (or nearly none) of the fit people they inveigh against has a single thought nor care for how fat others are.

No one goes to the gym to fat shame. No one posts selfies to shame others. Don’t like the posts about people doing healthy things, don’t read the goddamn things. Simple as that.

The fat acceptance movement had a possibility once of being something useful and meaningful, but is a joke and harmful to both itself and to society, and I will oppose it at every turn.

It is easy to imagine a culture much like our own except where altering or “photoshopping” images had become a celebrated and expected ideal, for the purpose of portraying more of what it felt like to truly be there.

Cameras do not capture well the feel of a place or an event. It’s the rare photo that does this, and even then it’s usually incompletely so.

In a different world, photographers would be more like painters where the images are expected or demanded by the public to be altered to better tell the truth of an event.

We’re accustomed to the way it is now, so to some the thought will seem monstrous; but the other culture is just as plausible, and they’d be just as appalled at our claim that an unaltered photo represents any truth of the world.

As user-hostile interfaces become increasingly pervasive, I wonder how the tech morons can justify throwing out nearly eight decades of user interface and design guidelines and findings? Some of this stuff pre-dates computers, even, and yet I bet most of the “designers” out there have never read nor even heard of any of it.

Was thinking about this as I’m probably going to read next James J. Gibson’s The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. If you haven’t figured it out, I do like to know what I’m talking about.

So I’ve been attempting to give myself a better education on human perception, the evolution of user-friendly design, methodological design studies and testing, and successful as well as unsuccessful applications of design in the real world.

I not only want to be smarter than the people I’m battling against, I want to know that I know that I am smarter and more well-educated.

No fancy degree required, but you still have to do the fucking work.

So this is me doing the fucking work.

Could Rogue Software Engineers Be Behind VW Emissions Cheating?

Hahahahahahahahaha, no. Just no.

Check out this latest bullshit from Mozilla.

If something is being displayed on my computer — that I paid for in full — over my internet connection that I paid for, in my house that I’m paying rent for, then I will block whatever the fuck I want to whenever the fuck I want to.

If you make it illegal, I will still do it.

Where this is going is that Mozilla will eventually ban/remove/eliminate all ad-blocking software and add-ons, etc. from the ecosystem.

This was in part why the requirement for add-on signing was recently instated, to please corporate entities in the lead-up to this.

Next will be not signing any ad-blocking add-ons so they won’t run on the browser.

Think that won’t happen? Oh, but it will. Their moves have been obvious and telegraphed for years now. As easy to predict as the sun rising.

Also, realize that what Denelle Dixon-Thayer is paid a lot of money to produce finely-honed corporate legalese. One must read between the lines, behind the lines, and through the lines. What she appears to be saying isn’t actually what she’s saying. The BS about centering the user is a distraction.

Summed up, the post is actually saying, “Blocking ads is harming corporate entities and we must do something about that to ‘protect’ the user from not seeing ads that companies who pay us very want the user to see. We will ‘center the user’ by allowing corporate entities to center ads on the web page her or she is viewing — ads that cannot be blocked (if they pay us).”