I live in MA, where we definitely have winter, but I live pretty near the ocean, which has a mind of it's own as far as seasonal cycles of warm and cold go.
Net/net, we get less snow than places even as close as 10 miles away.
And that's the way I like it.
To me, snow means I have to drag my sorry behind out there in the wet and cold with a shovel before I can go anywhere. It means half the parking spaces are not available again until April or May.
In short, it's a PITA.
Basically, I'm over the romance of snow.
My wife tells me it's good for the plants - helps insulate them from a hard freeze while they are dormant. So i'll put up with it.
A discussion of early Christianity needs to consider the practices and institutions of Second Temple Judaism in addition to those of Rome. And those include the tzedekah, which was a mandatory tithe for helping the poor as well as travelers.
It was administered through religious institutions - the temple, and then synagogues during the early Rabbinic period - but there was no clear line between those religious institutions and civic or municipal government. To the degree that the Jewish community was self-governing during Roman occupation, the religious institutions *were* the government.
"“heritage American” refers to the offspring of the Anglo-Protestant and Scotch-Irish settlers — in other words, the white people — who populated the original colonies before heading west to settle the American frontier."
That's not going to be a very large slice of the US population. It's not even a very large slice of the white population.
Notably, it excludes Trump, whose family history here starts around 1885.
"Elon Musk approached the problem of reducing government spending as a kind of coding error, a problem of computer engineering. You didn’t need any subject-matter expertise."
As something of an aside, this assumption - that an understanding of subject matter is irrelevant to building software systems - explains why so much software sucks.
I will confess that I got about three paragraphs into the thesis and my eyes glazed over.
What I take away from the various snippets of statements by Karp is that he is kind of an odd guy. I'm not sure why it is - there seems to be some kind of self-selecting dynamic in play - but all of the techbro leadership seem to be... unique individuals.
To speak plainly, they seem like a bunch of weirdos. Listening to them speak publicly is like listening to bong-fueled late night dorm room conversations. They seem pretty detached from, for lack of a better word, normal real life, as lived by normal real people.
Maybe you have to have a kind of obsessive monomaniacal personality to rise to the positions they hold. But the absurd levels of wealth these guys - almost all guys - have accumulated gives them a truly outsize influence on public life.
So we end up being ruled by people with strange, anti-social, yet deeply held beliefs about the world.
I always thought the whole "sea steading" thing was a great idea. Go build your giant rafts out in the middle of the ocean, declare yourselves to be sovereign lords beholden to no-one, and leave the rest of us alone. Enjoy the fish!
If anyone has plowed through Karp's oeuvre and can boil it down for a layman like myself, I'd be interested to know more about what makes him tick.
"Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin"
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
"My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars."
If you will pardon my language, my take on Trump is that he has no f****ing idea what he's doing, other than finding ways to make money for himself, his family, and a close circle of already obscenely wealthy people.
In terms of actual governance, I think he's basically making it up as he goes along.
He wants to make a lot of money, he wants to be adored, and he wants to punish people who aren't nice to him (as he sees it). If there's more to him than that, I'm not seeing it.
sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all
TBH, at this point I'm holding out for "not utterly shitty".
i'd be fine if Manchin was still there, and I'm fine if he's not.
Maybe someday folks in WV will figure out that coal is not their future and voting for people who are all about coal because $$$ is not in their best interest. I'm not holding my breath.
in the meantime i'm just tryna get through it all. And i have it damned easy. house paid off, Enough money to satisfy my pretty modest needs, Medicare.
if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I'd be seriously pissed right about now.
A mixed bag, but definitely not a consistent (D) vote on some important stuff.
Probably not a big deal when the overall mix of Senators includes middle of the road (R)'s as well. Also probably not a big deal when there is a clear majority for one party or another.
When the majority margins are really slim and your opposite party includes a caucus leader who vows that nothing presented by a (D) POTUS - including SCOTUS nominees - will get a single (R) vote, it's a bigger deal.
The days of Tip 'n Ronnie are long dead. It's a hyperpartisan time, and that is not a world the (D)'s have created. It's just the world they have to work in.
So Manchin was not a helpful guy, net/net. I understand that he was representing one of the most hard-core red areas of the country, but he nonetheless did not do the (D) caucus many favors.
I'm not sure his being replaced by a hard core conservative makes that much difference.
What I find infuriating is less (much less) the cave in, and more the absolute refusal of the (R)'s to entertain an extension of the ACA subsidies.
Health care in this country is FUBAR beyond what I think folks living in any other developed country can fathom. The ACA, which was actually not original to Obama but was, in its fundamentals, a plan pioneered by Romney when he was governor of MA, was an attempt to get people insured. It is a half-assed program in many ways, because it tries to address the wishes of too many different constituencies, most definitely not to exclude private insurers. The requirements for what would be considered an acceptable plan were definitely ambitious for the US context, but would be mediocre pretty much anywhere else.
It's a weird convoluted complicated mess, but it's better than what we had. Believe it or not. And it cut the number of uninsured people in half.
We pay twice as much on average than any similar nation. We do not have twice the level of coverage, or twice the quality of outcomes. On the contrary.
People literally die here, literally go bankrupt here, as a result of the general shittiness of how we go about things.
Trump has an extreme personal animus toward Obama, so anything Obama did must be destroyed. Whether Obama actually did it or not, just the association of his name with the program is enough to make Trump determined to destroy it.
And Trump has nothing to replace it with. The stupid $2000 cash benefit he is talking about is (a) not gonna happen in anything like a form that will actually result in a $2000 check being cut to anybody, see also Bessent's comments about "no taxes on tips", and (b) would be laughably inadequate even if it were to materialize. $2000 is basically one ambulance ride and a couple of lab tests. For people in the private insurance market, it's something like one month of premiums.
We're extending the tax cuts, but ending the premium subsidies. And if anyone thinks the (R)'s are going to suddenly decide to extend them in December, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Yes to tax cuts, no to ACA subsidies, tells you everything you need to know about the state of this country right now.
While I appreciate the analysis of the possible / likely tactical scenarios leading up to the "deal", the bottom line (to me) is that a lot of people are basically fucked.
The cost of private health insurance is probably going to double, or worse, for most folks that have it.
What I personally take away from all of this - and by "all of this" I mean the last decade if not longer - is that the (R) party and the conservative movement in general no longer serves the interests of the people of this country. What I see from them is cruelty and greed.
I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that professional politicians need to do what they can in the particular circumstances they operate in.
And I'm glad that federal employees are gonna get paid.
But in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, one way or another this darkness has got to give.
To say that people being outraged at the prospect of millions of their neighbors facing the choice of extreme financial distress or going without health insurance is "wailing and rending of garments" is dismissive and, frankly, kind of rude. People *should* be outraged.
To address GFTNC's cite of Marshall's piece, the thrust of what he was saying as far as I can tell is that yes, this totally sucks, but it's nice to see the (D)'s at least try to use the limited levers of power available to them.
And I don't disagree with that.
And like him, I'd like to see them do even more.
The (R)'s seriously deserve to be driven from the public space. They've become a dysfunctional, toxic cancer on the body public.
I suggest you moderate conservatives being the process of building an alternative. That, or go down with the sinking ship that is the (R) party.
My point was, that extension wasn’t going to come out regardless.
You are most likely right.
The wailing and rending of garments is not going to be "on the left". It's going to be coming from all the people who are being immiserated by this catastrophe of an administration.
Wjca's point about whether Johnson will bring the House back or not is an interesting one. He's kind of between a rock and a hard place.
But overall I'm with wonkie.
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies. Trump hates the ACA because people call it Obamacare and he hates hates hates hates hates Obama because that uppity black man made fun of him.
The "deal" is for a vote in the Senate. Which may or may not happen. There is no deal with the House. Trump has Johnson on some kind of weird short leash, which means there will not be a deal in the House.
And yes, what most people are going to take away from all of this is (a) the Dems caved and (b) my health insurance costs are going to be utterly unsustainable.
I'll also say that I find the "wailing and rending of garments on the left" line a bit offensive. This isn't some political inside baseball thing. People are going to have to choose between health insurance and other really essential things. They're gonna have to work another job, or sell their house, or not go to college. Stuff like that.
Or, just not have health insurance, cross their fingers, and hope they get lucky. Which some of them will not be, and some of those folks will die.
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Shorter me - show me the AI music generator that will come up with a line like "Looks a lot like Che Guevara / he drove a diesel van".
It's simultaneously tongue-in-cheek hip and hilarious and ironic and allusive in about 10 different directions. Totally obvious and common place chord changes, but the snarkiest lyric ever.
I don't think AI is capable of that. In fact, I'm curious to know if AI can make a good joke, at all.
the Monkees were a made-for-TV group but the songs were written by some of the best pop song writers of the day, and the music was performed by real live A list studio cats.
plus, at least one of the guys (Mike Nesmith) was actually a competent musician and songwriter.
net/net, not at all like AI generated music.
A lot of musical styles, especially commercial pop styles, are highly formulaic, so it wouldn't be that hard to have AI crank it out.
And what you would get would be highly formulaic pop music. Which a lot of people really like, and would be a perfectly fine commodity and lifestyle accessory. It may sound like I'm being dismissive when I say that, but I'm not - that is what a lot of music is made for, and how a lot of music is used.
It's like the art prints at your doctor's office waiting room. They aren't Rembrandt, or even Andy Warhol. But they are pleasant to look at, and don't clash with the color scheme.
Again, not being dismissive. It's nice to have pleasant, undemanding stuff to look at (and even ignore) when you're waiting for an appointment.
What you will not get from AI is a Leonard Cohen, or a Tom Waits, or a David Bowie, or a Paul Simon. To cite some better-known examples. You might get a Beatles of the quality of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", but not an "Eleanor Rigby".
If you fed an AI music generator a diet of any or all of those guys, you might get a simulacrum of their work. But it will be missing the special ingredient that actually makes you sit up and take notice when you hear their stuff - the human insight, the unusual chord change, the frisson that comes from the unexpected use of language in the lyric.
AI is inherently derivative. Derivative work can be useful, and has its place, but it isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
What makes the folks I named here artists, rather than simply entertainers, is the way in which they subvert the stylistic formulas they work in to discover meaning beneath the surface of the style.
Maybe someday some kind of AGI gizmo will be capable of that. If so, it probably will not be in a direction that resonates with humans.
But I am skeptical that AGI will ever actually be a thing.
The thing is, Trump is an asshole and he's making a lot of people's lives more difficult than they need to be. And (R)'s are basically in thrall to the guy.
Last November, enough people were pissed at Biden for any of a variety of reasons, some of them legitimate, and so were willing to give Trump another shot at it.
And now they see Trump without the moderating influences of the people who more or less kept him in the ballpark of legitimate governance.
And they think it sucks.
All of that, plus it's not uncommon for off year and mid-term elections to favor the party not in power, with exceptions for wartime and cases where the party in power is actually nailing it.
That's my analysis, anyway.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Thread”
Open thread -
I live in MA, where we definitely have winter, but I live pretty near the ocean, which has a mind of it's own as far as seasonal cycles of warm and cold go.
Net/net, we get less snow than places even as close as 10 miles away.
And that's the way I like it.
To me, snow means I have to drag my sorry behind out there in the wet and cold with a shovel before I can go anywhere. It means half the parking spaces are not available again until April or May.
In short, it's a PITA.
Basically, I'm over the romance of snow.
My wife tells me it's good for the plants - helps insulate them from a hard freeze while they are dormant. So i'll put up with it.
But not gracefully.
On “Am I missing something?”
A discussion of early Christianity needs to consider the practices and institutions of Second Temple Judaism in addition to those of Rome. And those include the tzedekah, which was a mandatory tithe for helping the poor as well as travelers.
It was administered through religious institutions - the temple, and then synagogues during the early Rabbinic period - but there was no clear line between those religious institutions and civic or municipal government. To the degree that the Jewish community was self-governing during Roman occupation, the religious institutions *were* the government.
"
Gary Oldman as Lamb is worth the price of admission.
Ho is perfectly cast as well FTM.
"
"Have you read all of them"
I've only seen the series on Apple TV. The books are in my queue.
And yes, Roddie Ho is non-self-aware perfection.
"
Roddy Ho is my fave
Team Lamb here. The man is my shadow self. Or maybe not so shadow.
In early Christian times, there was no state or welfare, so I think that you can argue that, actually.
Followed by:
The Christian tradition is about communities and families and charity, not about compulsory taxation in order to pay welfare.
Somebody needs a theological / historical clean-up on aisle three.
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
"“heritage American” refers to the offspring of the Anglo-Protestant and Scotch-Irish settlers — in other words, the white people — who populated the original colonies before heading west to settle the American frontier."
That's not going to be a very large slice of the US population. It's not even a very large slice of the white population.
Notably, it excludes Trump, whose family history here starts around 1885.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
"Elon Musk approached the problem of reducing government spending as a kind of coding error, a problem of computer engineering. You didn’t need any subject-matter expertise."
As something of an aside, this assumption - that an understanding of subject matter is irrelevant to building software systems - explains why so much software sucks.
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
I will confess that I got about three paragraphs into the thesis and my eyes glazed over.
What I take away from the various snippets of statements by Karp is that he is kind of an odd guy. I'm not sure why it is - there seems to be some kind of self-selecting dynamic in play - but all of the techbro leadership seem to be... unique individuals.
To speak plainly, they seem like a bunch of weirdos. Listening to them speak publicly is like listening to bong-fueled late night dorm room conversations. They seem pretty detached from, for lack of a better word, normal real life, as lived by normal real people.
Maybe you have to have a kind of obsessive monomaniacal personality to rise to the positions they hold. But the absurd levels of wealth these guys - almost all guys - have accumulated gives them a truly outsize influence on public life.
So we end up being ruled by people with strange, anti-social, yet deeply held beliefs about the world.
I always thought the whole "sea steading" thing was a great idea. Go build your giant rafts out in the middle of the ocean, declare yourselves to be sovereign lords beholden to no-one, and leave the rest of us alone. Enjoy the fish!
If anyone has plowed through Karp's oeuvre and can boil it down for a layman like myself, I'd be interested to know more about what makes him tick.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
bc and GFTNC, thank you for your explanations.
TBH, I can't make sense of any of this mess. It's utterly unclear who exactly is driving the bus on our end. Or what their motivations are.
Putin wants Ukraine absorbed into Russia. Ukraine doesn't want to be absorbed into Russia. The UK and EU very much do not want the conflict to expand.
What do we want? Who is the "we" that is deciding?
"
"Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin"
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
"My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars."
If you will pardon my language, my take on Trump is that he has no f****ing idea what he's doing, other than finding ways to make money for himself, his family, and a close circle of already obscenely wealthy people.
In terms of actual governance, I think he's basically making it up as he goes along.
He wants to make a lot of money, he wants to be adored, and he wants to punish people who aren't nice to him (as he sees it). If there's more to him than that, I'm not seeing it.
"
"There could be many explanations"
My best guess at this point is that he just likes Putin, in a kind of fanboi crush way.
Putin is doing it the way Trump wishes he could do it.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all
TBH, at this point I'm holding out for "not utterly shitty".
i'd be fine if Manchin was still there, and I'm fine if he's not.
Maybe someday folks in WV will figure out that coal is not their future and voting for people who are all about coal because $$$ is not in their best interest. I'm not holding my breath.
in the meantime i'm just tryna get through it all. And i have it damned easy. house paid off, Enough money to satisfy my pretty modest needs, Medicare.
if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I'd be seriously pissed right about now.
"
Manchin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin
A mixed bag, but definitely not a consistent (D) vote on some important stuff.
Probably not a big deal when the overall mix of Senators includes middle of the road (R)'s as well. Also probably not a big deal when there is a clear majority for one party or another.
When the majority margins are really slim and your opposite party includes a caucus leader who vows that nothing presented by a (D) POTUS - including SCOTUS nominees - will get a single (R) vote, it's a bigger deal.
The days of Tip 'n Ronnie are long dead. It's a hyperpartisan time, and that is not a world the (D)'s have created. It's just the world they have to work in.
So Manchin was not a helpful guy, net/net. I understand that he was representing one of the most hard-core red areas of the country, but he nonetheless did not do the (D) caucus many favors.
I'm not sure his being replaced by a hard core conservative makes that much difference.
On “When virtues become vices”
the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting
What I find infuriating is less (much less) the cave in, and more the absolute refusal of the (R)'s to entertain an extension of the ACA subsidies.
Health care in this country is FUBAR beyond what I think folks living in any other developed country can fathom. The ACA, which was actually not original to Obama but was, in its fundamentals, a plan pioneered by Romney when he was governor of MA, was an attempt to get people insured. It is a half-assed program in many ways, because it tries to address the wishes of too many different constituencies, most definitely not to exclude private insurers. The requirements for what would be considered an acceptable plan were definitely ambitious for the US context, but would be mediocre pretty much anywhere else.
It's a weird convoluted complicated mess, but it's better than what we had. Believe it or not. And it cut the number of uninsured people in half.
We pay twice as much on average than any similar nation. We do not have twice the level of coverage, or twice the quality of outcomes. On the contrary.
People literally die here, literally go bankrupt here, as a result of the general shittiness of how we go about things.
Trump has an extreme personal animus toward Obama, so anything Obama did must be destroyed. Whether Obama actually did it or not, just the association of his name with the program is enough to make Trump determined to destroy it.
And Trump has nothing to replace it with. The stupid $2000 cash benefit he is talking about is (a) not gonna happen in anything like a form that will actually result in a $2000 check being cut to anybody, see also Bessent's comments about "no taxes on tips", and (b) would be laughably inadequate even if it were to materialize. $2000 is basically one ambulance ride and a couple of lab tests. For people in the private insurance market, it's something like one month of premiums.
We're extending the tax cuts, but ending the premium subsidies. And if anyone thinks the (R)'s are going to suddenly decide to extend them in December, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Yes to tax cuts, no to ACA subsidies, tells you everything you need to know about the state of this country right now.
Choices reveal character.
"
that was the plan put forward from the beginning.
Trump tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, too. At least, that was the plan from the beginning.
But, they did not. And that will add ~$4.6T to the national debt over the next 10 years.
Choices reveal character.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Hey, look at the bright side. At least the Senators who were investigated for their possible involvement in J6 can sue the DOJ for up to $500K.
Silver linings, everyone.
On “When virtues become vices”
While I appreciate the analysis of the possible / likely tactical scenarios leading up to the "deal", the bottom line (to me) is that a lot of people are basically fucked.
The cost of private health insurance is probably going to double, or worse, for most folks that have it.
What I personally take away from all of this - and by "all of this" I mean the last decade if not longer - is that the (R) party and the conservative movement in general no longer serves the interests of the people of this country. What I see from them is cruelty and greed.
I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that professional politicians need to do what they can in the particular circumstances they operate in.
And I'm glad that federal employees are gonna get paid.
But in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, one way or another this darkness has got to give.
To say that people being outraged at the prospect of millions of their neighbors facing the choice of extreme financial distress or going without health insurance is "wailing and rending of garments" is dismissive and, frankly, kind of rude. People *should* be outraged.
To address GFTNC's cite of Marshall's piece, the thrust of what he was saying as far as I can tell is that yes, this totally sucks, but it's nice to see the (D)'s at least try to use the limited levers of power available to them.
And I don't disagree with that.
And like him, I'd like to see them do even more.
The (R)'s seriously deserve to be driven from the public space. They've become a dysfunctional, toxic cancer on the body public.
I suggest you moderate conservatives being the process of building an alternative. That, or go down with the sinking ship that is the (R) party.
It deserves to sink.
"
My point was, that extension wasn’t going to come out regardless.
You are most likely right.
The wailing and rending of garments is not going to be "on the left". It's going to be coming from all the people who are being immiserated by this catastrophe of an administration.
"
Wjca's point about whether Johnson will bring the House back or not is an interesting one. He's kind of between a rock and a hard place.
But overall I'm with wonkie.
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies. Trump hates the ACA because people call it Obamacare and he hates hates hates hates hates Obama because that uppity black man made fun of him.
The "deal" is for a vote in the Senate. Which may or may not happen. There is no deal with the House. Trump has Johnson on some kind of weird short leash, which means there will not be a deal in the House.
And yes, what most people are going to take away from all of this is (a) the Dems caved and (b) my health insurance costs are going to be utterly unsustainable.
I'll also say that I find the "wailing and rending of garments on the left" line a bit offensive. This isn't some political inside baseball thing. People are going to have to choose between health insurance and other really essential things. They're gonna have to work another job, or sell their house, or not go to college. Stuff like that.
Or, just not have health insurance, cross their fingers, and hope they get lucky. Which some of them will not be, and some of those folks will die.
It's a fucking disaster.
On “People and poliltics”
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
That's all I got. Make of it what you will.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
Beyond that, I don't think so.
"
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
"
Shorter me - show me the AI music generator that will come up with a line like "Looks a lot like Che Guevara / he drove a diesel van".
It's simultaneously tongue-in-cheek hip and hilarious and ironic and allusive in about 10 different directions. Totally obvious and common place chord changes, but the snarkiest lyric ever.
I don't think AI is capable of that. In fact, I'm curious to know if AI can make a good joke, at all.
"
the Monkeys
the Monkees were a made-for-TV group but the songs were written by some of the best pop song writers of the day, and the music was performed by real live A list studio cats.
plus, at least one of the guys (Mike Nesmith) was actually a competent musician and songwriter.
net/net, not at all like AI generated music.
A lot of musical styles, especially commercial pop styles, are highly formulaic, so it wouldn't be that hard to have AI crank it out.
And what you would get would be highly formulaic pop music. Which a lot of people really like, and would be a perfectly fine commodity and lifestyle accessory. It may sound like I'm being dismissive when I say that, but I'm not - that is what a lot of music is made for, and how a lot of music is used.
It's like the art prints at your doctor's office waiting room. They aren't Rembrandt, or even Andy Warhol. But they are pleasant to look at, and don't clash with the color scheme.
Again, not being dismissive. It's nice to have pleasant, undemanding stuff to look at (and even ignore) when you're waiting for an appointment.
What you will not get from AI is a Leonard Cohen, or a Tom Waits, or a David Bowie, or a Paul Simon. To cite some better-known examples. You might get a Beatles of the quality of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", but not an "Eleanor Rigby".
If you fed an AI music generator a diet of any or all of those guys, you might get a simulacrum of their work. But it will be missing the special ingredient that actually makes you sit up and take notice when you hear their stuff - the human insight, the unusual chord change, the frisson that comes from the unexpected use of language in the lyric.
AI is inherently derivative. Derivative work can be useful, and has its place, but it isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
What makes the folks I named here artists, rather than simply entertainers, is the way in which they subvert the stylistic formulas they work in to discover meaning beneath the surface of the style.
Maybe someday some kind of AGI gizmo will be capable of that. If so, it probably will not be in a direction that resonates with humans.
But I am skeptical that AGI will ever actually be a thing.
On “Still I Rise”
The thing is, Trump is an asshole and he's making a lot of people's lives more difficult than they need to be. And (R)'s are basically in thrall to the guy.
Last November, enough people were pissed at Biden for any of a variety of reasons, some of them legitimate, and so were willing to give Trump another shot at it.
And now they see Trump without the moderating influences of the people who more or less kept him in the ballpark of legitimate governance.
And they think it sucks.
All of that, plus it's not uncommon for off year and mid-term elections to favor the party not in power, with exceptions for wartime and cases where the party in power is actually nailing it.
That's my analysis, anyway.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.