Tagged: Blogging

The Special Psychosis Behind AI Fear Mongering

The “threat” of AI is no more and no less than the threat within the act of “texting while driving”.

I mean to apply this analogy in both the case of you texting while you’re driving—a risky endeavor which can end in tragedy for you and a few others if you cause a wreck—and also in the case of you (not texting and driving) being struck by someone else who was texting and driving.

That’s the “threat”—no more, no less.

Everyone calling for concern at the level of atom bombs and armageddon is suffering from a special psychosis.

In other words, ignore them.

Better yet, put down the phone. Focus on the road.

Two Random, Intriguing Thoughts on Friday

I realized this morning while sitting at the hotel breakfast that all the wonky Dr. Seuss characters (the Zeds, Noothgrushs, Tweetle-Beetles etx.) are actually not wonky but exact replications—in 2D—of people.

Secondly, and more importantly if you’re on a quest for meaning like me, I realized an important fact. Those of us with “guardian” personalities—I’m talking military, police, first responders etc—are frustrated and angered as a rule, almost necessarily so, because we see (from our perches as “guardians”) folks wasting our efforts. As in, “In post-armageddon dystopias, where rule-of-law is only foreign scribbles on the pages of unread books, you’d be able to dye your hair blue, but you choose to do that while I’m on shift? And in response to having to eat oatmeal instead of a smoothie for breakfast as a kid? Ahh. What am I even doing here?!”

On NASCAR Drivers Getting Suspended for Social Meeja Activities

A NASCAR driver was suspended the other day for “liking” a post which changed the word “sea” to “knee” in the Little Mermaid song “Under the Sea” and overlayed these lyrics to the infamous picture of the one and only, and murdered, Mr. George Floyd.

Here’s the apology as recorded by the young man.

“I am disappointed in myself for my lack of attention and actions on social media,” Gragson posted Saturday. “I understand the severity of this situation. I love and appreciate everyone. I try to treat everyone equally no matter who they are. I messed up plain and simple.”

I enjoy a challenge. So I’m challenging myself to apologize/react better. Not just to coach him as he was clearly coached here, (despite the tone sounding kinda genuine), but to actually step into his shoes and tell the truth. (I say his reaction was clearly coached as it contains the self-flagellation bit: “disappointed in myself”, the particular sin: socially unacceptably unaware of “severity”, and irrefutable defense of general character: “I love everyone”, and restatement of remorse: “messed up”. In short, authentic talking doesn’t sound like that. Nor does that “apology” actually mean anything. So I want to see if I can walk in his shoes and react to his suspension in a way that both gets his job back and is bounded by the truth.)

Here goes.

****

“I am not going to change the way I live because of this suspension. You want me to explain? Here it is.

“If you took a moment to look at my life, you’d have to conclude I am living my dream. There are hard days, sure. But mostly, I just go by instinct and it has proven successful. To be clear, you all would be gravely mistaken if you took me for a thinker. Hell, I barely ever read. I just ‘do’. And this happens to make me good at racing cars.

“In any case, I don’t want to be a thinker. So I’m not going to change. Someone will pay me to race.

“Oh, and, if you think my having thoughtlessly ‘liked’ a post on Insta reveals some sort of character flaw, that it is evidence of some deep, dark, shameful belief system that is bad for me and is yet another black cloud for NASCAR on the topic of Dee-Eee-Ayye, then you should know that, again, I think you are the one in error.

“That’s the end of my thoughts on the suspension. All this thinking is starting to make my head hurt.”

****

Whaddya tink? Scale of 1-10, ten being tops, how’s my effort hit ya?

My Review of Oppenheimer, by Christopher Nolan

I’ve always heard that the newspaper USA Today was written at a third grade reading level. A reading level is an interesting concept. Try this sentence from USA Today’s The Weather Book by Jack Williams, “A fusion reaction fuses atoms together, creating other kinds of atoms and giving off energy.”

No third grader on earth could understand whatever that means. A few savants may sound smart trying, but keep in mind that they would never actually be explaining that sentence to us.

I also remember that in the 1950s children encyclopedia, so-called The Book of Knowledge, the author of the chapter on “atoms” began by having a child imagine cutting up a candle into smaller parts. And then smaller parts. And then smaller parts. Even then, you could still reform the candle parts back into shape. But, the author went on, there are even smaller parts, which when the candle is cut down to these teeny sizes, it wouldn’t matter what happened, they could not reassemble to build a candle.

Can anyone explain that concept? I feel like I get it. But it’s basically saying that there is something besides the obvious ingredients comprising the obvious objects. And that fact is something I can repeat, but I do not understand it.

The problem, so far as I can tell, is essentially one of “barrier to entry”. Atoms and Fusion Reactions require knowledge of such things as very few of us will ever think it worthwhile to learn and master.

Therefore, allow me to state the obvious: if you leave the theater believing that you now know something about atom bombs, you’re fooling yourself.

Mr. Nolan doesn’t abstain from attempting a layman’s explanation, but he also doesn’t belabor the point. Perhaps he doesn’t get it either.

The reason I open the review with this lengthy aside is because I, as I suspect you, had nursed the idea that maybe Nolan could succeed where others failed when I first heard he was making this movie. But he didn’t really even try. And I was a fool for thinking he might. The film is called, “Oppenheimer,” not, “Atom Bomb.”

Moving to my next hope for the movie.

Does Mr. Nolan satisfy my curiosity about the man Oppenheimer, which is bracketed by the following two questions:

1. What exactly was his role in the “invention”?

2. How would some nerdy academic handle being responsible for such death then and forevermore?

Yes. And no.

The way he accomplishes this paradox is by sticking to purely emotional storytelling where paradox is not forbidden. While there are many moments which caused me to wonder, “Did that really happen?,” there were many more which unexpectedly evoked near tears and kept me deep in contemplation about implications of what Nolan seemed to be trying to say rather than poised to fact check every seeming “they must have a record of this” moment.

On the whole, everything about the movie works. The chosen vessel for storytelling works. The casting works. The psycho-sapio sex scene works. The conveyance of palpable stress works. And, most importantly, the a-bomb test works.

Can You Tell the Difference Between the Ideal Government and Ideal Christianity?

This should be a simple test, no? Here goes.

Is the following an ideal of government or of Christianity?

A. You will never die.

B. You can live forever after you die.

A. No consequences to decisions.

B. Consequences to decisions.

A. End of crime.

B. Justice in the afterlife metered out by the perfect judge.

A. At-will termination of unwanted pregnancy.

B. Care for orphans.

A. End of bodily suffering.

B. Learn from those who suffer.

A. Free food for all.

B. Thankfulness for food.

A. Free housing.

B. Thankfulness for shelter.

A. Student debt cancellation.

B. Definition of morality including “self-control”.

A. Harmony of all people groups everywhere.

B. Hope for the coming Kingdom of God to usher in new Heavens and new Earth.

****

Don’t be a sucker, folks.

The point of this little exercise, which we could continue, is to highlight the truly ridiculous claims of government (and those who want more government) against the backdrop of the supposedly ridiculous claims of the Bible writers.

The exercise should also serve to clarify to any parties actually interested to know what is meant when their Christian neighbors are “anti-government”. It’s not actually “government” that we see as the problem. Lies are the problem. Christians are anti-lie.

Two more examples.

You want me to stop believing that there is life after death? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someone-not-named-me can solve “death”.

Want me to stop believing that abortion is wrong? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someday soon children will only come from perfectly demographic’d couples and thoroughly thoughtful (yet passionate) sexcapades.

And on and on.

Government could be okay. But the lies would have to stop.

PS – All “A” are government. All “B” are Christianity.

Today’s My Birthday

My mother-in-law is currently living with us. Five days in. Hasn’t been terrible. I have chosen the strategy of pointing out every time I do something that husbands/men/fathers typically don’t do. (She doesn’t speak English, so my wife has to translate. It’s fun.)

Just now I started to wash my favorite La Creuset pan, their 11×13 attempt. I told my wife to tell her mom that on my birthday I still do the dishes. My wife responded that she had already told her mom that this was my favorite dish and that’s why she used it to make breakfast.

I said, “Ha. Probably shouldn’t tell her the real truth. The truth that I trust no one with my stuff. The truth that I have been hurt before, and so I wash my own dishes.”

I have been hurt before, and so I wash my own dishes.

Sounds like a pretty great opening line to a novel, if you ask me.

Commentary on the SCOTUS Affirmative Action dissent by Sotomayor

“The result of today’s decision is that a person’s skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection,” dissents Justice Sotomayor (italics mine).

To what is she dissenting?

“In the wake of the Civil War, Congress proposed and the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that no State shall ‘deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws.’ Amdt. 14, §1,” as opined by Justice Roberts (the Court).

Can you see the disagreement?

To help, let’s consider another document’s claim regarding race.

St. Paul wrote, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Forget, if you must, that the claim comes from an exclusive Christian teaching. No proselytizing here. But I want you to ask yourself if you can understand how Paul can list sets of two very real groups and then suggest that the very distinctions are abolished/overcome. Can you understand this concept of Paul’s/Christianity’s?

Good.

Justice Sotomayor cannot.

Justice Roberts can. But Justice Sotomayor cannot.

Justice Sotomayor writes over and over that because the constitution and its amendments and other SCOTUS opinions use words like “white” and “Mexican” that the law of the land is “race conscious”. This belief of hers is over and against the concept that the law is colorblind.

But I return again to the question I have posed. Is the simple use of words which delineate some people from others enough to transcend the otherwise transcendent belief that under some higher perspective, the delineations do not exist? Put another way, can the forest be lost for the leaves? Can the bigger point be missed? Or even, should the country have federal laws at all? Or should each dispute be brought before some local judge and the judge decide whatever they please?

The point Justice Sotomayor is pressing isn’t semantic.

When the border patrol is allowed to observe that some man around the border between the US and Mexico is Mexican-looking and subsequently act with suspicion towards him that they wouldn’t use with a “white” man, real people are involved. And when Harvard admissions folks are not allowed to ask, “Brown?”, real people are likewise involved.

The question, then, is are the two situations meaningfully the same situation when viewed from the perspective of “the Law”?

The answer is, “No.”

The reason for “no”, the reason they are distinct (despite both being similar in “gaining entrance” theme) is the constitution applies to US Citizens, not to any person, which is the very question the Border Patrol is tasked with helping to sort out in the first place.

Finally, as probably all of you know, the only question on my mind when I read Justice Sotomayor is, “Is she serious?”

If she were serious (and honest), then her sentences would read, “The result of today’s decision is that [all persons-of-earth-regardless-of-national-citizenship’s] skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion by the US Border Patrol, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection” (italics mine).

For that is her argument. And it is a serious argument, despite being flatly wrong as the 14th Amendment does not apply to every swinging dick which finds itself within the borders of this great country.

In Brief: The Similarity Between the Bible and the US Constitution

Released a couple days ago, Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion says, “Though I do not doubt the sincerity of my dissenting colleagues’ beliefs, experts and elites have been wrong before and they may prove to be wrong again. In part for this reason, the Fourteenth Amendment outlaws government-sanctioned racial discrimination of all types.”

Released a couple thousand years ago, St. Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia says, “I marvel that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed!”

For my dad: the similarity is that Justice Thomas and St. Paul defend received wisdom. That, and the fact that both passages breathe life and manifest hope.

Great Comebacks, Too Late

I sometimes come up with amazing comebacks, too late to use. Oh well.

The first that comes to mind was once a scammer left a voicemail about legal action blah blah blah. Since I was divorced and always fearing some new bullshit from my ex, I called the number back. The dude proceeded to deliver the scam flawlessly but something just wasn’t right. Again, since I was divorced, I knew legal things didn’t happen quickly, or need to. So I finally just told him that I didn’t believe him. He seemed to have enjoyed being called out, just concluding, “Okay, Mr. Smart Guy, take your chances,” or some such thing.

Only later did I wish I said, “You sound black.” (He did. And I’m certain he was. But even if I’m wrong, it would’ve been hilarious.)

Tonight, another zinger came to mind only too late.

I have been sharing with folks at work (healthcare) that I am enjoying, if three years after the trend, cold showers. Well, this elicits all sorts of responses, mostly enjoyable to engage. One such response was, “I bet it opens your pores.”

My too little, too late response is, “‘Pores open?’ I was only aware of five senses.”

So funny. Or would’ve been.