| Welcome to my latest endeavor... a podcast about science and rational thought...5 most recent episodes, ways to listen appear below |
Sometimes plans change. Instead of an audio series, I am switching to a YouTube series. Daves Tech stories can be found here. https://youtube.com/channel/UCfquv-N6c7fxJRcgQbkMkgQ |
https://fortune.com/2022/10/19/black-death-bubonic-plague-study-dna-crohns-lupus-arthritis-genes/amp/ |
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62307383.amp |
https://fortune.com/2022/08/16/mit-gang-chen-china-spying-semiconductor-cubic-boron-arsenide-silicon-chip/amp/ |
Map makers have an interesting challenge. I talk about maps, how they are often wrong, and how to understand a 3 dimensional world. |
Governor dimwitty is afraid of drag shows. Maybe he's afraid he'll find them appealing? I mean who knows…
(Personally I think they're a hoot and think everyone should give them a fair shake. Heck just watch robin Williams in the 90s era movie birdcage to get a sense of it) In any case he wants to "ban them" and punish businesses that host them. But as I've opined before, it's hard to draw a line. What if someone hosts a Monty Python tribute show? The Python guys were famous for always playing women (backstory: women comediennes were hard to come by and often got snatched up by other troupes). What if the cast is true to the spirit of the Python troupe and uses men as women…effectively dressed in drag? Would that violate the law? And if you're thinking it's about the content of the show, what if risqué and raunchy content that is in standup comedy? Or straight acts (even Broadway performances) that feature "straight people" being explicit. Where do you draw the line? What if you call it a "drag show" and it's something else, entirely different. Like a car drag race? Stupid people… https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2023/02/21/drag-show-bans-florida |
Governor dipshit wants to make people who "blog" about him register with the state. And otherwise be guilty of a felony. I'm unclear on what this means. How does he define blog? What about a web page, an editorial, a series of tweets, a post to another social site ? What is fair game, for an elected official, which the constitution allows for speech against, and who the Supreme Court has ruled can be called names and made fun of without repercussions? Is it just his name? His full name? The office? The state? Is it about policies? Where he ate lunch and what he had? Where is this line he wants to draw? Is this just for Floridians? How do you define that? What if you’re out of state? Just for people? Or the host too? What if the “blog” is hosted in Timbuktu? Can one post to it then? Ah free speech. It’s sometimes hard to define what it means. But I can assure you that his definition is outside the bounds and is unconstitutional. And to the irony of it all. He is all in on allowing any and every one to carry a gun without a permit. But he wants you to have a permit to exercise free speech. The second amendment has restrictions in the constitution. The first does not. And yet he's once again playing dictator. And people just accept it. |
This story about dominion voting lawsuit is enlightening.
A quick reminder that "the big lie" posited that vote totals were changed intentionally on machines provided by dominion voting systems. The lie persisted as the basis for overturning the election. Good old Rudy and the crazy lady were the primary actors. But Fox News did most of the supposed reporting. It was very flawed, and totally played into a gop-led conspiracy about the deep state or whatever. Dominion sued, since they were singled out. Fox News was the big name in the suit. The lawsuit moved forward. Discovery happened. And what did we learn? Everyone. Every. One. At faux news knew it to be one big lie ... and that the "experts" were crazy. We know it from discovery of internal communications and from depositions. And yet they ran with it because they knew they would lose viewers - and money - if they deviated from the company line. Uhhhhh. Fair and balanced they were not. Unbelievable. And meanwhile the GOP is grilling the candidate to head the FCC because he made a statement about Fox News being state sponsored propaganda. Which is now demonstrably true. But don't bother these knuckleheads with facts. |
Respect for you, Anderson. |
|
Privacy Policy: This site does not use cookies, collect or store information, or otherwise use it. However, there is an ad displayed on the page, and it does track some cookies, in order to track user behavior, and provide approrpriate content. By using this site, you agree to its use of cookies.
