Apr 09

Droning On

A Russian T-90M with a new 8 antenna anti-drone complex and outfitted with extra anti drone screens is knocked out by a Ukrainian FPV drone. Crew plus a friend evacuate safely.

I don’t think that’s a T-90M. It looks like it’d already been attacked before the engine drone strike and they were retreating. Whether it’s a T-90 or T-80, it has a crew of three and it’s not large on the inside — I have no idea how they fit four dudes in there.

Apr 08

Deg Fail

It’s great to see that the degrowth “we must take away anything good from everyone” philosophy seems to be thoroughly failing. Good damn riddance, too.

Apr 08

Rentals

Boomers, especially if they were white, got to buy houses, and then they zoned everyone else out.

Yep. 90% of the homelessness crisis results from NIMBYism. It’s a lot easier to not be homeless when rent is $400 a month rather than $2,000 a month. I also blame economists who consistently lie about the cost of housing and the drivers behind the inflation there. The truth, though, is this.

In 1981, at 24, I bought my first house. At a price of $70,000, it cost less than three times my annual salary of $25,000, which was roughly the median income in Sacramento County. If adjusted for inflation alone, the home’s value would be $218,000 four decades later, and my salary $78,000.

The median household income in the county today is about $84,000, not far from what inflation would predict. But Zillow estimates that my former home is now worth $578,000, more than double what can be attributed to inflation. My annual wages would need to be more than $190,000 to afford the house as easily as I did then. This is what the children and grandchildren of boomers face.

Notice that this is the same house. So the economists’ usual excuse of “houses just got bigger, the cost per square foot is the same!” cannot be used here. Also, the Case-Shiller method uses the same houses (which economists don’t like you to know) for its calculations. Our so-called experts are just about worthless for anything that matters.

Apr 08

Bound Up

A lot of women are convinced only women have double binds such as the Madonna vs. slut one that women commonly experience.

However, a very common one that men run into is that we are assumed to be constantly ready to have sex with any woman at any instant, always aroused and ready for action. But then are criticized extremely vociferously both when that is true — and when it’s not the case. For instance, woe betide you if some woman is attracted to you and you don’t immediately drop everything to get down with her, or are just not in the mood. Then you are “gay” or “not a real man” and such. All her friends will hear about it too.

Most people are solipsistic, so cannot see beyond their own noses. Men, though, experience very many double standards as to their expected behaviors. Perhaps not as many as women, but pretty damn close.

Apr 08

Big Chat

I think some of that Annie Jacobsen Nuclear War book was written by ChatGPT. It just has that feel to it.

Apr 07

Nukeded

The book Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen is good in parts, but be wary of it. There are many facts that are wrong or dubious. For instance, this.

Three of the six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi sustained severe core damage and released radioactive materials, but they did not melt down.

That is completely incorrect. In fact, all three experienced partial meltdown. It just was not a completely catastrophic meltdown, à la Chernobyl in 1986.

In the Fukushima incident, however, this design failed. Despite the efforts of the operators at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to maintain control, the reactor cores in units 1–3 overheated, the nuclear fuel melted and the three containment vessels were breached.

That above is the definition of a meltdown.

I’d recommend this book to anyone who already knows more than is in the book. Which, then, maybe you don’t need to read it. I still enjoyed it because it was such an easy read and refreshed my memory on a few things (at least partially by being woefully incorrect).