Things Noticeable this week

[jomama]

Minnesota state senator arrested on suspicion of burglary

A state senator and former broadcast meteorologist was arrested on suspicion of burglary early Monday in the northwestern Minnesota city of Detroit Lakes, police said.

Democratic Sen. Nicole Mitchell, 49, of Woodbury, was being held in the Becker County Jail on suspicion of first-degree burglary. Formal charges were still pending Monday afternoon, Detroit Lakes Police Chief Steve Todd said.

Mitchell did not immediately return a call left on the jail’s voicemail system for inmates. It’s not clear if she has an attorney who could comment on her behalf. The police chief said he didn’t know of one.

Mitchell was arrested while the Senate is on its Passover break. Her arrest comes at an awkward time for Senate Democrats, who hold just a one-seat majority with four weeks left in the legislative session. Her absence would make it difficult to pass any legislation that lacks bipartisan support.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mi...D=ansmsnnews11

[Rogerbh]

Another instance where members of the MSM seem to blame school districts for not protecting students off campus.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/l-student...202615228.html

Do they really expect unarmed school safety employees to provide home to school to home protection for students? Some of these "kids" are murderers just waiting for their lead injections to end their stay in this plan of existence. Absent armed police protecting every kid, this type of shit is going to happen and there is no way any society can afford individual bodyguards.

Expecting unarmed school safety employees to be lead shields off campus - is way beyond their job requirements. You would need a hellava lot of more police to even have a chance to stop this and that is never going to happen.

[Rogerbh]

I have been watching gas rise from 4.50 a gallon this past month to almost six and now I read this article.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/g...193213432.html

Gas hits above $7 mark at one Bay Area station, among the highest in California

The oil companies using Middle East unrest to rob us.

[DTravel]

Can we defend against the online anti-science movement?
Salon

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...26068c2e&ei=57

Where would we be without science — living short brutish lives in caves? I exaggerate, but not much, and only to make the point that science and scientists have enriched our lives beyond measure. We travel near or far in cars that are heated or cooled as needed while we are entertained by music or podcasts. We stay awake well past dark in our well-lit homes, reading books, watching television, playing computer games and communicating with friends and family via our smartphones and the Internet.

We have comfortable furniture, indoor plumbing and appliances that clean our dishes, clothes and homes. We keep food fresh in refrigerators and cook food with convenient stoves and ovens. When we are sick or injured, we can receive medical treatments that are safe and effective.

Yet Americans have had an enduring love-hate relationship with science, making heroes out of Thomas Edison while enjoying the public pillorying of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

It is ironic that tools created by scientists have amplified the current attack on science. The Internet, for example, began as an academic project that would allow interconnected computers to share data and computing power. As the Internet opened up to everyone, optimists hoped that the easy access to information would liberate people — after all, information is power.

The Internet offered the possibility and hope of genuinely free speech with people worldwide able to hear the truth uncensored by government officials. Those who are oppressed by totalitarian governments would be able to see how others live and be inspired to demand more. Those who were lied to by their governments would see the truth. Those who didn't go to elite colleges would be able to learn online. Those who don't know how to build a table or fix a leaky faucet could be guided by online instructions.

It hasn't quite worked out that way.

Instead, the Internet facilitates the rapid and widespread disseminations of disinformation, both by pranksters and by the malevolent. Instead of good information winning out over bad information in the court of public opinion, it now appears that the opposite is true — that we live in a post-truth world where falsehoods are believed and facts are dismissed.

The easy access and wide reach of the Internet in general and social media in particular allows pretty much anyone to say pretty much anything and find a receptive audience, including anti-science claims that the earth is flat; the moon landings were faked; and Bill Gates orchestrated the COVID-19 crisis so that he can use vaccines to insert microchips in our bodies. Like a Frankenstein monster that has gotten out of control, the Internet powers the anti-science movement.

Vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, chickenpox and other diseases have been lifesavers for millions, yet some people believe that vaccines are part of a nefarious government plot to harm us or spy on us. Briton Andrew Wakefield is the source of the now thoroughly debunked claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Journals have retracted his research and he has been barred him from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom, yet celebrities continue to spread his wildly irresponsible fabrications throughout the Internet.

So, too, with dangerous falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines. Too many people have reacted to the heroic successes of scientists in developing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines with distrust, disinformation and refusals to take the vaccine. It is sad enough that people who believe these untruths risk their lives, but they also endanger others.

A distrust of elites in general and scientists in particular is spread and magnified by the Internet swamp of fake stories, misleading videos and manipulated social media. We see clickbait that is interesting and supports our beliefs. We click, read, are happy to have our beliefs confirmed, and share the link with like-minded people. Those with different beliefs are led to different links, which they share with people who agree with them. Social media is tribalizing in that the world becomes increasingly divided into warring groups convinced that they are right and others are wrong.

Social media and Internet platforms value engagement above all else — stories people will read, videos they will watch, tweets they will share. The longer a user is engaged, the more data companies can collect and sell. Unfortunately, one of the most reliable ways to keep people engaged is to feed them sensational falsehoods. Provocative links are promoted — and things that are provocative are often exaggerated, misleading or downright lies.

In addition to promoting links that titillate, algorithms select content that confirms biases and fuels hyper-partisanship by luring people into filter bubbles in which they mostly read and watch things that support their worldview. Users seldom leave their bubbles — indeed, they often don't know they are inside a bubble — because the algorithms keep feeding them more of the same. If users are aware of people with other viewpoints, the other people are deemed enemies — uninformed and clueless.

Firehoses of falsehood have been loosely constrained by the number of people needed to do the dirty work. Now, ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) can generate an essentially infinite supply of disinformation. Even if they were specific and enforceable, agreements among tech giants to behave better will do little to reign them in. LLMs are cheap and bad actors are not easily deterred. The Internet is about to be drowned by a tsunami of deceit, much of it intended to further undermine the credibility of governments, evidence-based policies and the scientists that provide the evidence.

A first step for combating this coming tsunami of deceit is to block bot access to social media by requiring people creating internet accounts to be verified through clear evidence of identity. Savvy tech companies that use our internet activities to identify what we like and dislike can surely do a better job of identifying fake accounts and shuttering them.

Social media companies can also do more to identify phony news stories and videos, tag stories and videos that are clearly false and shut down repeat-offender accounts that initiate multiple false news stories.

Another weapon in the war against lies, lies and more lies would be for schools to teach required courses in media literacy, including the ways in which we are manipulated by the media and the tricks that advertisers and others use to mislead and misinform.

It will be hard to fend off the assault on science, but it is a battle worth fighting — the costs of rejecting science are enormous, not just for anti-scientists, but for society as a whole.

[DTravel]

'Thermonator' proves Americans' idea of self-defence is increasingly unhinged
Metro

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...fffc3375&ei=73

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...=768&h=432&m=6

Americans are big on the right to defend property as per their beloved constitution, but is a flame-throwing robot dog taking it a step too far?

Well, it could be the future now the ‘Thermonator’ is here.

Built by Throwflame and a bargain at just $9,420 (£7,610), this nightmare-inducing robot is capable of blasting jets of fire up to ten metres, possibly after honing in on a target using its laser sight.

Of course, the Ohio-based fire isn’t advertising the Thermonator as a means of warding off burglars – even if it is the perfect apocalypse pet for a billionaire with a nuclear bunker surrounded by a ‘ring of fire’ moat.

No, obviously anyone who spends thousands on a flame-throwing robot needs it to clear snow from their driveway in the winter months.

Throwflame also suggests it can be used for entertainment or special effects, so handy if you were planning on starting up a rival to Cirque du Soleil in the back garden.

It also recommends using the Thermonator for wildfire control and prevention or ecological conservation, but watching the creepy grey robot stalk through a before torching its surroundings, it’s hard to imagine this robot will be used only for such mundane jobs.

Especially watching it jump while shooting flames from its Ghostbuster-style backpack.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...=768&h=768&m=6

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...=768&h=768&m=6

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...=768&h=432&m=6

However, there’s no indication (yet) of how fast it can move, and its battery only lasts an hour, so humans might still have some defence against these fiery horros.

Speaking of defence, Throwflame is also offering them for sale to the US military, which has famously snowy drives and loves maintaining forests.

Let’s forget its aims to have more autonomous war robots than human soldiers in the next few years…

[DTravel]

Jerry Seinfeld Says the ‘Movie Business Is Over' and ‘Film Doesn't Occupy the Pinnacle in the Cultural Hierarchy' Anymore: ‘Disorientation Replaced' It
Variety

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/je...ffc3375&ei=103

Jerry Seinfeld is finally a movie director with the upcoming premiere of his feature directorial debut "Unfrosted." Backed by Netflix, the star-studded comedy is a fictional account of the creation of Pop-Tarts toaster pastries. In a new interview with GQ magazine, Seinfeld reflected on his experience of jumping into moviemaking for the first time so late in his career.

"It was totally new to me. I thought I had done some cool stuff, but it was nothing like the way these people work," Seinfeld said. "They're so dead serious! They don't have any idea that the movie business is over. They have no idea."

Asked to elaborate on a more serious note, Seinfeld continued: "Film doesn't occupy the pinnacle in the social, cultural hierarchy that it did for most of our lives. When a movie came out, if it was good, we all went to see it. We all discussed it. We quoted lines and scenes we liked. Now we're walking through a fire hose of water, just trying to see."

So what, if anything, has replaced film? "Depression? Malaise? I would say confusion. Disorientation replaced the movie business," he answered. "Everyone I know in show business, every day, is going, ‘What's going on? How do you do this? What are we supposed to do now?'"

"I've done enough stuff that I have my own thing, which is more valuable than it's ever been," Seinfeld noted about his career outside the more-confused film industry. "Stand-up is like you're a cabinetmaker, and everybody needs a guy who's good with wood…There's trees everywhere, but to make a nice table, it's not so easy. So, the metaphor is that if you have good craft and craftsmanship, you're kind of impervious to the whims of the industry."

"Audiences are now flocking to stand-up because it's something you can't fake," he added. "It's like platform diving. You could say you're a platform diver, but in two seconds we can see if you are or you aren't. That's what people like about stand-up. They can trust it. Everything else is fake."

Seinfeld recently popped up in the series finale of Larry David's HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm." The two men co-created the iconic sitcom "Seinfeld," and they reunited in the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" finale to riff on the controversial ending of "Seinfeld" that saw its main characters in jail. A lot of people have given Seinfeld flak over the years for the end of "Seinfeld," and he admitted to GQ the finale had bothered him "a little bit" all these years.

"I don't believe in regret," Seinfeld said. "I think it's arrogant to think you could have done something different. You couldn't. That's why you did what you did. But me and Jeff Schaffer and Larry were standing around, talking about TV finales and which we thought were great. I feel ‘Mad Men' was the greatest. A lot of people like the Bob Newhart one. Mary Tyler Moore was okay. I think ‘Mad Men' was the greatest final moment of a series I've ever seen. So satisfying. So funny. And they said that they had sat and watched the ‘Seinfeld' finale, trying to figure out what went wrong. And it was obviously about the final scene, leaving them in the jail cell."

"Unfrosted" streams on Netflix beginning May 3. Head over to GQ's website to read Seinfeld's interview in its entirety.

[DTravel]

The most anti-science belief you can hold is that science is a religion
Salon

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...24268dcb&ei=97

“Fringe”, “weird” and “unthinkable” are perfectly acceptable descriptors any science writer might use when rightfully denouncing some hare-brained professor’s paper that suggests, for instance, the North American sasquatch is the leading driver of climate change, or that Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur are responsible for kidnapping Shelly Miscavige. Science journalism has a job to do — and that includes verbally smacking the pseudoscience out of academic hustlers to defend the dignity of both the reader and the science. We stan a scientific diss track in this shop, and I’d gladly lend my pen to such a cause.

But when science writers dismiss robustly-debated philosophical theories this way — like panpsychism, one well-known theory about the possible nature of subjective consciousness even in inanimate objects — they look less like erudite champions of empirical truth, and more like a Victorian drawing room full of phrenologists scoffing at William James’ notions of psychology while proclaiming that “there isn't a single head-bump of evidence to support this theory.”

At least, that’s what they looked like this past week when Popular Mechanics science writer Stav Dimitropoulos offered a fresh bit of nuanced reporting on the renewed popular interest around the philosophical theory of panpsychism. To grossly oversimplify, the theory posits that consciousness isn’t just the currently scientifically-inexplicable emergent property of a human brain as many consider it now, but a property of pretty much any self-organizing system of material things. Panpsychism’s principles stretch back to human’s earliest notions of classical philosophy but have also evolved right alongside the sciences (like, you know, theories within humanities disciplines do).

Its core concepts have been advocated for by the likes of Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose, as well as physicists like Author Eddington and David Bohm, and even William James himself. As a theory, panpsychism challenges us to consider whether we featherless bipeds might be thinking a bit too primitively when we assume objectively extant concepts we have no real way to quantify — like consciousness — can only be produced by neuronal sparks of the electrified hamburger meat between our ears.

Panpsychism winks at us from our species’ inquisitive past and seems to ask, “Aren’t you the same hairless apes that once laughed at a guy for suggesting all matter was ultimately made of vibration? Do you think your primitive little frontal cortex is equivalent to the skull of Zeus, and that the totality of all possible wisdom springs from it fully armored as Athena?”

When fuzzy terms like “artificial superintelligence” are getting tossed around to describe black-box processes of a computer network you can pay to be your girlfriend, I’d say panpsychism’s questions are worth more than an embarrassingly tone-deaf snicker from science writers. Similarly well-timed amid all the recent heady research into quantum mechanics, Dimitropoulos’ rather eloquent piece invites readers to examine the current limits of material physics’ theories and see what the brainiacs in humanities departments have to say about self-awareness and the mind’s role in the wider universe.

But judging by the frantic oinking of science writers who quickly piggybacked off her click-traffic, you’d have thought the article was a crayon-scrawled defense of flat-earthers. Seemingly affronted by the possibility that a philosophical theory might offer a uniquely interdisciplinary approach to a problem that physics was never asked nor meant to solve alone, a gaggle of presumably muttonchopped science writers eagerly charged into the latest skirmish of a decades-old fray between philosophers and physicists.

In overindulgent headlines and ill-advised body-copy, would be defenders of the faith of Scientism gleefully celebrated missing the entire point of panpsychism across some widely circulating and uninformed articles that I’d rather not further promote.

It’s disappointing to see but not a surprise. A lack of curiosity about the possibilities of consciousness is the hallmark of anti-science attitudes, even among those appointed to herald the sober inquiry of an awe-striking world of which the human race is but one fleeting member. And to do this job right — hell, to even get beyond our own trembling ontological frailty long enough to learn something about this existence — we have to fight anti-science attitudes in every quarter, even our own.

We should start with our own beliefs. To that end, the most anti-science belief you can hold isn’t that the earth is flat, that consciousness may be more than human thought, or that existence may be more than we can quantify at the moment — it’s that science is a religion. And when you treat science like a religion, like a framework for limiting the interpretation of the world’s possibilities, rather than like a framework for discovering those possibilities — you stop writing science journalism and you start writing Scientism apologia.

When your congregation zealously overestimates the epistemological functionality of empiricism in the work of logical positivism, you trap the conversation of science and consciousness in your lethally boring Vienna wagon-Circling. And in this way, yes, you insult the dignity of both the reader and the science.