tingilinde

on the state of the war

A report by Yale historian Timothy Snyder

snip

...

Ukraine did want to press forward last year, before the fortifications were built. It lacked the necessary weapons, and Elon Musk chose to cut Ukraine off from communications. That move likely extended the war. Because Musk’s decision was based on his internalization of Russian propaganda about nuclear war, and was accompanied by his repetition of that propaganda, he made a nuclear war more likely. If powerful men convey the message that just talking about nuclear war is enough to win conventional wars, then we will have more countries with nuclear weapons and more conventional wars that can escalate into nuclear ones. Ukraine has been resistant to this line of Russian fearmongering, fortunately for us all.

Ukraine did not have the arms it needed last year in part for the same reason: Americans allowed Russian propaganda to displace strategic calculation. By now, though, the American side has generally understood that Russia’s nuclear threat was a psychological operation meant to slow weapons deliveries. The United States and European partners have delivered arms to Ukraine, which has been absolutely indispensable. Hhistorically speaking, though, the pace is slow. Fighter planes are coming, but a year late for the current offensive. So Ukrainians are now trying an offensive in conditions that American staff officers would find challenging. Americans take for granted economic superiority, prior destruction of logistics, and air supremacy, none of which describe the Ukrainian position. Ukrainians do not even have numerical superiority, let alone of the 3-1 or 5-1 variety that would be standard advice for an offensive.

...

 

unauthorized use of power

On Musk and Starlink. And why did the US giving him so many contracts and financial bialouts?

And think about what is could mean that he has his thumb on all the Teslas out there.  Imagine if most of the ones owned by likely Democrat voters didn't operate on election day...  I don't think it's possible to be too paranoid about him at this point.

 

 

sleeping dogs

Their brains are still tuned in. No surprise, but it's deeper than just an alert.

snip

...

Now, a new study suggests that they can also process vocalizations during sleep. The work, titled "Event-related potentials indicate differential neural reactivity to species and valence information in vocal stimuli in sleeping dogs," was published in Scientific Reports.

...

 

 

prageru example

PragerU isn't a university, but rather a content creator and political force pushing right-wing content (perhaps more correctly anti-science content) into schools  They're common in private schools on the right and now states like Florida are using their content.  Here's a takedown of one of their climate videos.

 

They also preach creationism and the young earth.

 

yet another right-wing attack on current culture

The war on divorce.

snip

...

The push for no-fault divorce began in California in the 1960s ostensibly to alter a system that required public discussion of wronged parties, infidelity, and other private matters for a legal separation. Couples fought bitterly in public; some fabricated fights to get divorce papers. No-fault divorce helped simplify the process. “Now all they have to say is: We tried but the marriage failed, so let’s give it a decent burial,” explained a lawyer of the new provisions. In 1969, Ronald Reagan signed a bill creating the first such divorce law. In the following decades, states across the country altered their rules—it was a cascade of reform that changed what it meant to seek legal separation.

But it would go on to become a bitter subject. Reagan would later say, according to his son, his “greatest regret” was signing the law. These laws now face a renewed vocal backlash from those on the right. Marriage is losing its potency, conservative commentators say, and is no longer seen as the iron-clad social structure it used to be. There goes the good wife, the nuclear family, and ‘til death do us part.

...

 

 

the price of happiness

Sort of a fluffy number, but perhaps there's a bit of  signal. 

 

things are fine here, but terrible in the country

Paul Krugman on the perception of the economy.

snip

...

First, there was the argument that there were real economic problems that justified public negativity. People really hate inflation, even if their incomes are keeping up, and a year ago real wages were still somewhat depressed. But at this point inflation is way down and real wages are up.

Second, there was the argument that, in effect, the customer is always right: If people feel that they’re doing badly, you should figure out why, not lecture them that they should be feeling better.

But here’s the funny thing: There’s substantial evidence that people don’t feel that they personally are doing badly. Both surveys and consumer behavior suggest, on the contrary, that while most Americans feel that they’re doing OK, they believe that the economy is doing badly, where “the economy” presumably means other people.

...

 

 

fixing farm emissions

Very difficult and the current approach may not be good enough.

anip

...

So far, so good. But once you dive down into the details of Joshi’s study, things get more complicated. The research found that the amount of carbon stored varied widely, depending on location, cover crop type, plowing, and the amount of plant growth. A different review, this time examining cover cropping on US farms, found that, in lots of cases, fields with cover crops didn’t gain extra soil carbon when compared to fields that hadn’t been cover cropped. “In terms of climate benefit, it isn’t all that great,” says West.

One of the big limitations to cover cropping is that carbon added to the soil might eventually make its way back into the atmosphere. “What we find is that even where there is a build-up of carbon, once you plow those areas again you lose a lot—or all—of the carbon that has been stored up over time,” says West. If money for cover crops runs out, farmers may start leaving fields bare during off-seasons and plowing them more, which would mean a lot of that sequestered carbon would end up back in the atmosphere. And if the cover crops reduce the overall productivity of fields, there’s also the danger that the practice might encourage more land to be converted to agriculture, which is bad news for overall emissions.

...

 

 

the velshi banned book club

A series of podcasts with interviews of authors of noted banned books.  I've only listened to the Margret Atwood interview and recommend it if you're a fan. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

 

life and death in the heat of phoenix

Terrible heat in the Summer - imagine what a one or two day power failure would do.

snip

...

In the hot sun, or a very hot dwelling, the body must work to maintain its normal internal temperature, generally about ninety-eight degrees. The heart starts pumping more blood to the skin, where it can cool down. You will start sweating profusely, and might experience cramps or nausea. If you cannot find a way to cool off, your core temperature will quickly increase, forcing your heart to beat faster, which increases your metabolism, and generates more heat. As blood is diverted away from your internal organs, including your brain, they become starved of oxygen. You will feel dizzy, or faint. Once your body temperature rises above a hundred and three, heatstroke can begin. Sweating stops, and the skin will turn red, hot, and dry. Your head will throb. As the blood pressure falls in your brain, you will probably pass out. Sprawled, unconscious, in the hot sun, you will continue to overheat. Once your body reaches a hundred and five or a hundred and six degrees, your limbs might convulse, and, at a hundred and seven, your cell membranes melt, and proteins inside the cells unfold. Organ function starts to shut down; muscle tissues begin to disintegrate. It becomes increasingly difficult to cool you off fast enough to save your life. The heart just stops.

...