Friday, January 3, 2025

Fascinating!

 

It's a big momma!


Scientists from the Schmidt Ocean Institute studying deep-sea habitats off Chile recently came across a rare and mesmerising sight: A giant squid mother carrying its eggs.

Usually, squid species lay their eggs on the seafloor and leave them alone after they despatched them, but this species of squid – the black-eyed squid (Gonatus onyx) – carries and broods its eggs for several months and therefore is one of only two so far confirmed species that are known to take care off their offspring after spawning.

While releasing the video via social media, the Schmidt Ocean Institute said: “A female Gonatus onyx will carry her large egg mass for months, keeping it suspended from hooks on the squid’s arms. It is a dangerous time… brooding squid cannot move very quickly, and may be easy prey for deep-diving marine mammals.” 

“After laying the eggs she will go without feeding, and by the time they hatch, she will be close to death,” the Institute added.


There's more at the link.



Nature never ceases to amaze me with its infinite variety.  How many of those 3,000-odd eggs will grow to maturity?  Not many, I'd guess, otherwise we'd be overrun with giant squid.

Peter


About those underwater pipelines and cables in the Baltic...

 

I'm sure readers have been following the repetitive saga of ships' anchors dragging (accidentally, of course - yeah, right!) along the bottom of the Baltic Sea and cutting communications cables, fuel pipelines, etc.  In each case over the past couple of months, Russian and/or Chinese involvement has been alleged.

The governments in the region have been vehement in their condemnation of such "accidents", and casting suspicion upon Russia as the impetus behind them.

Remind me, please, o governments . . . whose gas pipelines under the Baltic were destroyed by sabotage just a couple of years ago, after the start of the Ukraine invasion?  They weren't in the war zone, but their destruction undoubtedly harmed Russia's economy (and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to repair, if they are ever repaired).  Nobody has claimed responsibility, but it seems clear that the sabotage could not have been carried out without a lot of official eyes looking the other way (including in the USA, which might even have carried out the attack - nobody knows for sure).

As far as Russia is concerned, its pipelines were attacked first.  I reckon their perspective is "If you do it to us, why shouldn't we do it to you?"  Goose, gander, meet sauce.  That's a very hard perspective to counter, isn't it?  It's nothing more than the Golden Rule in operation.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Peter


Bureaucrats and insurance - a marriage made in hell

 

California has published its new regulations governing property insurance in that state.  The devil is, as always, in the details.


The new rules, released Monday by the California Department of Insurance, allow providers to pass the cost of reinsurance on to policyholders. 

Reinsurance is effectively the insurance taken out by insurers. It transfers some of the risk so that no company has too much exposure to a potential catastrophe. 

The cost of reinsurance has boomed in recent years, due to the increased risk of natural disasters in the state. 

This, in part, is why insurers have been pulling out of the state, and regulators hope the reform will make the market more attractive to home insurers.

Earlier this year, State Farm gave the state an ultimatum - threatening to ax cover if it did not allow the insurer to raise home insurance rates for millions.

. . .

Doug Heller, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, speculated that consumers could see price increases of 30 percent to 40 percent, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

. . .

To make up for the price rises imposed on customers, regulators have attached a condition to the reform. 

This is that insurance companies that pass on their reinsurance costs must also commit to writing more policies in wildfire-prone parts of the state, or pledge to maintain their presence there. 

. . .

Insurers will have to start increasing their coverage by 5 percent every two years until they hit the equivalent of 85 percent of their market share. 

That means if an insurer writes 20 out of every 100 state policies, they would need to write 17 in a high-risk area, Lara's office said.


There's more at the link.

How many people can afford premium increases of that magnitude?  And how much will premiums go up in future years?  This is just the start.  How many people will end up not being able to afford to insure their homes?  How many will be forced to sell them?  And, if existing owners can't afford to insure them, how will buyers - at California real estate prices, mind you - be able to afford to insure their new homes?

This might lead to a large-scale collapse of the entire housing market in many high-risk areas of California, because the combination of high prices and high insurance rates will make almost everything unaffordable.

Also, put those conditions together:

  • People in high-risk areas face the greatest premium increases, due to the risk factor.  They may pay 30-40% more this year than they did last year, with more increases to come.
  • Insurance companies must adjust their coverage until they issue 85% of their policies to people living in high-risk areas.
  • Those 85% of policies, given such drastic premium increases, are going to bring in billions upon billions of dollars to the insurance companies.
  • How much will they have to kick back to California's politicians and bureaucrats for the privilege of doing business there?

If you think there won't be kickbacks involved, there's this bridge in Brooklyn, NYC that I'd like to sell you.  Cheap at half the price!  Cash only, please, and in small bills.

From where I sit, this has corruption, cronyism and political correctness written all over it.  Am I too cynical?  Or am I a realist?  What say you, readers?  Please let us know in Comments.



Peter


Thursday, January 2, 2025

Africa strikes again...

 

One has to laugh at reports like this.


A drunken police officer in Zambia freed 13 suspects from custody so that they could go and celebrate the new year, officials say.

Detective inspector Titus Phiri was arrested after releasing the suspects from Leonard Cheelo police station in the capital, Lusaka, before running away himself.

The 13 detainees were accused of crimes such as assault, robbery and burglary.

They are all currently on the run and a manhunt has been launched to find them.


There's more at the link.

Officer Friendly really was friendly to them . . . and probably Officer Hungover within a few hours, particularly once his superiors noticed what he'd done.  I suspect those he released are a long way from Lusaka by now, and have no intention of going back!

Peter


Some very disturbing facts about the H1B program

 

Robert Sterling has done a deep dive into the facts and figures behind the H1B visa program.  He's compiled them into a detailed thread.  Here are a few excerpts.


Before I start, one note: All charts in this thread are for applications that were “certified” (in other words, approved for entry into the H-1B lottery). I filtered out applications the gov rejected.

All numbers here are therefore for visas employers actually and realistically attempted to obtain.

. . .

To start with, this program is MASSIVELY popular with employers. The program has a statutory limit of 85,000 visas per year, but employers routinely receive approval for more than 800k applications per year (868k, or 10x the limit, in 2024).

. . .

Contrary to what I expected, the average salary for an H-1B is relatively low—slightly under $120k this year.

. . .

Almost all the prominent job categories are tech-related. The two top categories, for software developer roles, are 1.1M over five years by themselves.

. . .

15 companies alone received approval for 20k+ applications each.

. . .

... these are ALL Indian companies that import H-1B tech workers en masse:

Cognizant (93k)
Infosys (61k)
Tata Consultancy Services (60k)
Wipro
Capgemini
HCL
Compunnel
Tech Mahindra
Mphasis

These aren’t American companies that needed international talent to fill critical roles. They’re foreign companies that appear to have been founded to place overseas tech workers into US companies as contractors.


There's much more at the link.  It lays bare the reality behind the brouhaha and argument currently going on.  Highly recommended reading.

It seems to me that President Trump can "solve" the H1B crisis by two very simple moves, almost as soon as he takes office:

  1. Limit the issuing of H1B visas to the statutorily authorized 85,000 per year.  That would cut off 90% of the problem, right there.
  2. Refuse to issue H1B visas to third-party or intermediary companies (i.e. agencies who hire those people, then farm them out to other corporations for a fee).  This would force such companies out of business in short order, and also end the exploitation whereby they hold deportation over the heads of "their" staff like a club.  "Be a good boy, and accept your lower salary while we take the rest as our fee - and if you don't, we'll cancel your visa and you'll be gone."  That's how such companies appear to work.

I look forward to seeing what he actually does about it.

Peter


Life imitates art (well, advertisements, anyway)

 

How many of you remember this German advertisement for Volkswagen's Polo?




Well, the terrorist who detonated an explosion in a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump Tower in Las Vegas yesterday clearly hadn't seen it - or, if he had, he didn't learn anything from it.




You'll note the comment from law enforcement in that last video clip.  The Cybertruck was strongly enough built to contain most of the blast, and vent it upward rather than outward, with the result that (as far as I know) not a single window in the building was broken and no bystanders were hurt.  That can't be said of the wannabe terrorist driver of the rented Cybertruck, who was apparently very comprehensively broken indeed - a consummation (or should that be conflagration?) devoutly to be wished.

Elon Musk should think about using that video clip in an advertisement for the Cybertruck.  It speaks very well of the vehicle's toughness.

Peter


Wednesday, January 1, 2025

Our job for 2025...

 

... is to start reversing all this.



It'll be a big job, but if we don't get stuck in it'll just get worse and worse, until it's impossible to get rid of the burden.  Here's hoping President Trump and his crew can at least make a start.

Armor up!

Peter


A New Year conundrum

 

Courtesy of XKCD (click the image for a larger view at the cartoon's Web page):



The mouseover text reads:

"Inside is a third box, labeled DO NOT OPEN UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE TIME ZONE WHERE YOU OPENED BOTH PREVIOUS BOXES".



Be that as it may, I wish a happy, holy and blessed New Year to all my readers.  Thank you for your support during the past year.  May all the peoples of our divided country learn to come together again, to work for a united and better future for us all.  (Hey - I can dream, can't I?)

Peter


Tuesday, December 31, 2024

Visas, immigrants, and adversarial politics in the USA

 

The fuss over H1B and other worker visas is ongoing, and doesn't look like being resolved anytime soon.  That's a pity for our country, because there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.  Certainly, we have too many immigrants at present (and I say that as an immigrant myself!);  but at the same time, our education system is churning out a truly vast proportion of our young people who can't read, can't write, and can't handle basic numeracy.  Even worse, when the best of our youngsters get to university or college, they're wasting time (in some cases, years) on "remedial education" to fix those earlier problems, then studying a lot of courses that have nothing whatsoever to do with the specialization they've chosen.  As noted in our earlier article today:


The rot at the heart of universities in the West goes beyond expecting very little of students. It also shows up in the politicised nature of what they are asked to do. Engineering students ... complained after they were set the task of creating ‘a product for LGBTQ+ people focussed on providing education or safe spaces’. Students, not unreasonably, questioned what relevance this task had to engineering, and why it was worth 70 per cent of their module grade. Previous cohorts of engineering students apparently got to build a Mars rover.


The "woke" establishment is basically treating education as a tool to indoctrinate students in a particular political and philosophical perspective, a world view that's based almost entirely on dubious, flimsy theories that collapse in the face of the reality in which we live.

This is directly affecting the debate over work visas to the USA.  For decades I've watched the quality of graduates from US universities, both from the perspective of a businessman who had to select applicants for jobs in the information technology industry, and as a pastor looking at how such applicants were coping with life, the universe and everything.  In so many words, you could say (and I do) that US universities are failing to produce graduates who understand reality.  Everything is theoretical to them;  and if the issue of reality raises its ugly head, they prefer to try to ignore or change that reality rather than adjust their views.  It's astonishing to see, but I daresay many of my readers have encountered it, and understand what I'm talking about.

Foreign graduates seldom exhibit the same cocooned approach to reality.  Many of them have had to struggle and sacrifice to graduate, after competing against vast numbers of applicants to get into university in the first place.  They want to come to America because it offers an environment in which success brings worldly reward and upward mobility - something often conspicuous by its absence in their home countries.  If you're a good engineer in, say, Mumbai in India, or Jakarta in Indonesia, you'll earn more than those around you, to be sure;  but that income will still be circumscribed by the fact that there are a dozen graduates eager to take your place.  They have nowhere else to go, because the doors of emigration to the West are all too often closed and locked against them.  Therefore, they'll compete with you and each other, thus driving down income and upward mobility in society.  Under those circumstances, why wouldn't they strive with might and main to get a work visa to come to a society that offers them so much more?

Compare and contrast the average US tertiary education graduate, as described above, with the average Third World tertiary graduate.  Who's hungrier for success?  Who's going to work harder to achieve it?  Who's going to accept that in order to succeed, they have to start with low expectations and look to rise by proving their ability, their worth, to the satisfaction of those who pay them?  The answer to those questions reveals the impetus from corporations to keep the H1B and work visa stream flowing.  If it wasn't profitable to employers, they wouldn't support it.  They certainly don't want the administrative and financial overhead of bringing such employees over here:  it's costly, inconvenient and carries with it a bureaucratic tangle that makes compliance difficult.  Nevertheless, despite those obstacles, it's still cheaper for them than hiring local graduates who want a lot more money to produce a lot less work, and who are less driven to succeed.  That's the blunt reality of the situation.

I agree with many critics that foreign graduates are often of lower intelligence (as measured by IQ) than local graduates.  That's not nearly as important as many people think.  A worker with an IQ of 120 may be bored silly by more repetitive tasks, or try to "coast" by using his intelligence instead of working harder.  A foreign worker with the same qualification and an IQ of, say, 100, may produce more and better work than his local, "more intelligent" rival simply because he's used to working harder, with greater application, than those around him.  He's had to do so in order to get where he is.  Nobody checked his IQ score, and did more for him on the basis that "he's smart".  Instead, they checked whether he was working harder, and producing more and better results, than his competitors in the university and/or workplace.  That's how he got where he is:  and he isn't going to sit back and relax because he's now in a job, a company, an environment, that doesn't drive him as hard - not if he wants to stay there.

There are all sorts of arguments that such foreign "imports" produce a lower quality of work, or abuse the system by "gaming" it, or try to hire more like themselves in order to drive Americans out of the workplace.  All those complaints are probably true, as far as I can judge from my limited knowledge of the field.  Yet, despite all that, corporations continue to hire them.  Why would they do that if it wasn't to their advantage to do so?

That's the question none of the opponents of workplace immigration will answer.  If you locally supply the demand, that will automatically shut down most of the inflow of foreign skilled workers . . . but if you don't shut down the demand, that won't happen.  Corporations won't shut down the demand, because it's to their advantage to continue with the present system.  You won't be able to reform the system unless you first reform the conditions that gave rise to its growth - and that means tackling the US education system, just as much as business and immigration law.  Do you hear H1B opponents saying anything about that?  No, you don't.

Visa reform is only one element - and probably not the most important element - in a structural reform that will impact many areas of US society.  Unless and until we recognize that, and begin to address it, the abuse of work visas at the expense of US employees will continue.

That's the bottom line.

Peter


"The death throes of the university are upon us"

 

That's the headline of an article by Joanna Williams.  She writes from a British perspective, but precisely the same issues are visible in American tertiary education, with a trans-Atlantic flavor.


Perhaps most significantly, the financial crisis in England’s higher-education sector is coming to a head ... The thorough-going marketisation of higher education has also affected the quality of the education on offer. Many popular institutions have expanded by lowering standards. Indeed, entry requirements for international students, whose fees are uncapped, have virtually disappeared at some universities. Even the lecturers’ union has noted that the ability to speak English is being discarded in the dash for cash cows. One professor told the BBC that 70 per cent of his recent master’s students had inadequate English, making it difficult to teach anything but the basics. Now, after decades of growth, international recruitment has fallen this year, adding to the sector’s financial woes.

Universities’ response to the cash crisis reveals their deeper crisis of purpose. Up to 10,000 university jobs are reported to have been cut this year. Yet diversity, equity and inclusion teams seem to have been largely spared the axe. Instead, universities are cutting core academic disciplines ... Once, it would have been unthinkable for a university not to offer degrees in major branches of learning, such as literature or philosophy. These subjects were taught not because ‘the market’ made them ‘viable’, but because they contributed to our understanding of the word and what it means to be human. That they can now be so readily discarded speaks to an impoverished intellectual climate that universities themselves have helped to create.

. . .

The rot at the heart of universities in the West goes beyond expecting very little of students. It also shows up in the politicised nature of what they are asked to do. Engineering students at King’s College London complained after they were set the task of creating ‘a product for LGBTQ+ people focussed on providing education or safe spaces’. Students, not unreasonably, questioned what relevance this task had to engineering, and why it was worth 70 per cent of their module grade. Previous cohorts of engineering students apparently got to build a Mars rover.

Another insight into the politicised nature of higher education came when the thesis topic of an unfortunate PhD student at Cambridge went viral on social media. Ally Louks’s research into ‘Olfactory Ethics’ – essentially, linking descriptions of bad smells to prejudice and oppression – prompted a ferocious backlash. But, as one shrewd observer noted, on many undergraduate courses ‘the study of structural oppression in its various forms is the degree, and primary texts and historical context and linguistic and subject knowledge become “nice-to-haves”’.


There's more at the link.

I suppose a large part of the problem can be ascribed to defining the purpose of higher education.  It used to be the case that education was at the service of society, teaching us where we came from and giving us the aspiration - and the tools - to progress further.  Now, it's become yet another tool of indoctrination, discarding (even vilifying) the past when it's no longer politically correct, and trying to actually change the course of society by making us feel guilty about the way we live and the attitudes we hold.  The message of "woke" is, at its heart, a message of hatred for the human condition that exists, and a drive to remake that condition into something entirely foreign to human nature.

There's also the question of whether education is to equip us to work in our society, or to live in our society, or to impose different models (e.g. business, or technology, or world view) on our society.  Education is no longer seen as valuable for its own sake, but as a tool to help us accomplish things.  This is in stark contrast to earlier generations, who saw education - serious, challenging education, not frivolous, valueless courses - as something to create a well-rounded person.  My parents encouraged me to get a generalist Bachelor of Arts degree as my first tertiary qualification for precisely that reason.  After that, they assured me, I could "specialize" in whatever took my fancy.  I followed their advice, and I've never regretted it.  After my B.A. (English, History and Philosophy) I did a post-graduate diploma, and then a Masters degree, in Management;  and, after the good Lord changed my career calling, I studied Theology and related subjects.  My generalist education and business experience, plus some military background, all came in very useful as a pastor and chaplain, and I think made me more approachable to my parishioners.

As part of this conundrum, I think the concept of a residential University education has come to be little more than a self-indulgent, hedonistic existence.  Every one of my four University qualifications was earned through part-time and distance education, because I couldn't afford to attend full-time and live in a residence with other students.  Frankly, I think that's proved to have been an asset.  I had to learn right from the start that I was responsible for my own expenses, my own needs.  If I didn't do what had to be done, nobody else was going to do it for me!  I wish more tertiary students today could learn that lesson the hard way.  I suspect it would make them better human beings, cutting through self-indulgence and forcing them to confront reality.

Finally, I find myself wishing that more of our leaders, in politics, business and academia, had enjoyed a generalist education, to broaden their horizons before they'd climbed the ladder of success.  Too many of our leaders have a blinkered approach to their work.  They see it from one perspective only, through a single set of lenses, ignoring the fact that there are many other aspects to which they're giving no weight at all.  It's a bit like the "Fair Witness" approach described by the late, great Robert A. Heinlein in his novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".  We need more "Fair Witnesses" in our midst, IMHO, but also more "Fair Leaders" who can be similarly accurate in their assessments.

Oh, well.  My university days are far behind me, so perhaps I'm no longer qualified to judge contemporary institutions.  Is there a post-graduate qualification in Curmudgeonhood?

Peter


I did not know that...

 

I was intrigued to read that moose are preyed upon by killer whales in northern climes.


In coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, moose face terror on another level — possibly getting devoured by killer whales.

“The possibility for killer whales to kills moose is rare, but it does happen, and it’s been documented,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game spokesman Riley Woodford told Cowboy State Daily.

Killer whales, or orcas, are extremely intelligent and at the top of the marine food chain.

They live and hunt in groups called pods, which are much like wolf packs. In areas with coastal moose populations, orca pods will take advantage of moose swimming in deep water across coves or between islands.

. . .

... recent research suggests that at least in some areas, orcas gobble moose more often than previously thought, Forbes Magazine reported this year.

Moose apparently crave the sodium in aquatic vegetation, and they’re willing to swim to get to it, according to researchers.

It’s when moose are crossing big water, like Alaska’s coves, that they might be at risk of being hunted down by killer whales, Woodford said.


There's more at the link.

I mentioned to my wife - who lived for years in Alaska, as regular readers will know - that I was surprised to hear that.  I'd never have thought of moose as prey for sharks or orcas.  She told me that moose can actually walk for short distances underwater, across the bottom of ponds, streams, rivers and inlets - they don't just move through water by swimming.  Apparently some divers have been known to come across moose casually walking past them underwater, to their considerable surprise!  She says that when moose move through shallow coastal waters (for example, from the coast to an island, or island to island), it's relatively easy for killer whales to get to them.  It doesn't happen regularly, but often enough that it's a known thing.  You can read more about it here.

That must be a heck of a sight . . . half to three-quarters of a ton of moose against several tons of killer whale.  I imagine that while swimming, the whale has most of the advantages;  but if the moose is in shallower water and can stand on the bottom, dig in its feet and kick, it might inflict some pretty nasty injuries on a whale, too.  If a full-grown moose can injure a brown bear severely enough to cripple it, it might do something similar to an orca.

Peter


Monday, December 30, 2024

Compare and contrast. What do you think?

 

Friend, author and blogger Michael Z. Williamson recently posted this comparative image on social media.



I can instantly see what he's driving at.  Frankly, I prefer no tattoos at all on people, but I've seen many examples, on men and women, that are relatively tastefully designed, well executed, and attractive.  On the other hand, I've seen too many where the person wearing them has obviously given no thought at all to an overall design.  They've simply added a bit here, a bit there, obviously executed by a person with little or no talent.  They look a mess - and they make the person wearing them look like a mess, too, in personality as much as skin art.  (That's particularly the case with prison tats.  Some of them . . . hoo, boy!)

I guess I have to agree with Mike.  Tats like that resemble nothing so much as graffiti, disfiguring scars on buildings (and on people) that lower the tone of the entire neighborhood (or person).  To me, they're flashing red warning lights that any involvement with that person, no matter how innocuous it may seem, is unlikely to bear good fruit.

What do you think, readers?  Are such tattoos worth anything - an expression of personhood, of individuality, of a "free spirit" - or are they just so much graffiti, demonstrating an approach to life and the person themselves that's depressingly low and dispirited, showing a lack of value and values?  I'll be interested to hear your views.

Peter


Given the H1B visa brouhaha...

 

... here's how many workers have experienced it, courtesy of Stephan Pastis.  Click the image to be taken to a larger view at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.



There's an awful lot of hot air being wasted on the subject right now.  For a reasonably well-balanced and well-informed article, see John Wilder's comments.

Peter


Memes that made me laugh 242

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.