Drone warfare developments - it's a scary future

 

Many of my readers doubtless took note of a report earlier this month about a US-Ukrainian military exercise earlier this year.

Ukrainian drone teams demolished a brigade of US Army tanks and armored vehicles during a live war game held this year—but the US soldiers were lucky enough to get “respawn” attempts while learning from the experience.

The semiannual military exercise, called Combined Resolve, gave the US military a firsthand taste of how modern drone warfare has evolved on the battlefields of Ukraine. The Ukrainian drone operators participating in the exercise were easily able to spot and destroy US armored vehicles by mimicking the actions of dropping bombs from above or moving close enough to simulate a kamikaze strike, according to US officials and a participant who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.

. . .

... by repeating the training scenario throughout the two-week exercise, US Army troops got better at figuring out how to disperse and hide from the drones while using countermeasures such as electronic warfare.

The US military is not alone in learning such lessons from battle-hardened Ukrainian drone operators.

Ukrainian drone teams also participated in a Swedish-led military exercise for NATO, called Aurora 26, that was also held in May. A mock mechanized assault by NATO tanks and infantry fighting vehicles allowed Ukrainian drones to take out dozens of the attacking armored vehicles, which eventually forced planners to reset the war game, The Kyiv Independent reported.

There's more at the link.

While trying to find out more, I came across this 45-minute video article from Deutsche Welle.  Itfeatures both a drone operator's perspective (a British soldier fighting for Ukraine) and drone casualties speaking of it from their point of view.  It also goes into how the technology is developing, and how China already has a commanding lead in the field.  As wars become more widespread, what will this mean for soldiers?  I recommend the report very highly if you aren't up to date with recent developments.

The technological advances referred to in the video report are already making headlines.  Earlier this month, we learned that US AI technology is now "enhancing" conventional Ukrainian drones.

In mid-July, the Ukrainian military began receiving Shrike drones made by the Ukrainian company SkyFall equipped with AI-powered autonomy hardware and software developed by the US company Auterion. The companies plan to deliver 50,000 drones equipped with Auterion’s Skynode S strike kits in the coming months.

That allows human operators to manually fly the Shrike first-person view (FPV) drones into a battlefield area, designate a target up to half a mile away, and then “flip the switch to turn it into fire-and-forget terminal guidance mode,” Lorenz Meier, co-founder and CEO of Auterion, told Ars.

The operator can abort a strike or choose a different target as long as they have a radio signal connection with the drone, Meier explained. But the drone can still automatically track and fly into targets without any human guidance, even if it loses its connection with the operator due to buildings or terrain blocking the signal or because of enemy jamming on the same radio frequencies.

To home in on targets, Auterion’s software relies solely on the visual information available from the Shrike drone’s main onboard camera. That means the Shrike drones can track and strike moving targets without any reliance on GPS—a crucial advantage on modern battlefields, where GPS jamming has also become common.

Again, more at the link.

When I think back on my own days in uniform, I can only be devoutly grateful that we didn't have to face such devices on African battlefields almost half a century ago.  I think my odds of surviving such combat would have been a whole lot lower if they'd been around!

The scary thing, to my mind, is that all this technology has already devolved to individual user level, in manufacturing as much as in operation.  A private person can buy just about all the drone propulsion and guidance technology used in military battlefield drones, and assemble his own versions.  A warhead isn't difficult to devise, given a little chemical knowledge and/or access to stolen military or commercial explosives.  What might happen if a well-organized terrorist outfit such as Al Qaeda or ISIS, or their various and sundry offshoots, were able to get hold of drone "swarming" technology and launch fifty or a hundred explosive drones against a major target?  I'm thinking sports stadiums, or government buildings, or even key targets such as the President when he's traveling by vehicle.  What if some of the drones could try to obstruct the takeoff or landing of the Presidential aircraft?  What if they did the same to a normal commercial flight, potentially causing hundreds of casualties and disrupting the entire air transport network for who knows how long?

I fear we haven't even begun to witness how dangerous such technology might be in the wrong hands.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #1,129

 

An "influencer" in Nebraska appears to have generated entirely the wrong kind of influence in the firearms community.

A Lincoln, Nebraska, wannabe influencer had his girlfriend film him while instructing his followers on how to properly handle a newly purchased 9mm pistol.

Then while racking the gun, and ignoring multiple rules of firearm safety (treat every gun like it's loaded, know where your gun is pointing, and keep your finger off the trigger), his pew pew went pew right through his leg.

There's more at the link.  Here's a brief video report about the incident.

Apparently the victim shot himself through the femoral artery (one of the largest blood vessels in the body) and nearly bled to death before responding officers could apply a tourniquet (a very difficult part of the anatomy in which to do that) and get him to a hospital.  He's said to be in critical condition.

Dare one say his prospective career as an influencer went with a bang?

Peter

True dat

 

Healthranger observes that most people have no idea about how the world functions - or why it's that way.

While I am blessed to be able to interview some of the smartest people in the world, I remain aghast at the utter lack of knowledge among the "ignorant masses."

• Most people don't know a thing about food ingredients.
• They don't know where energy comes from.
• They don't know where their own organs are located in their own body.
• They don't know how mechanical things work, not even at a basic level (like combustion engines).
• They don't know basic first aid or emergency medicine for self-treatment.
• They are completely clueless when it comes to geography.
• They don't know what money is. (And they certainly don't understand compounding interest.)
• They don't know how computers work, or how storage devices function.

The average person is a walking biological shell of cognitive emptiness. And their lack of fundamental curiosity prevents them from ever making the effort to learn anything that matters.

But they are total experts in fashion, sports and celebrities, of course. They know all the latest trends pushed by shallow influencers, but they have zero knowledge of what's happening in the world and why their life is becoming more difficult by the day.

There's more at the link, and in the comments that follow.  Worthwhile reading.

I've noticed the same thing (although not among most of my readers, who wouldn't waste their time on my scribblings unless they shared my interest in when, where, who, how, why, etc.).  It really is frightening to listen to some of the terminal inanities spouted by some of our politicians (on both sides of the aisle - Republicans have idiots among their number, just as Democrats do).  That applies particularly to the Kumbaya school of international relations . . . "If we just leave Iran/Russia/China/North Korea/wherever alone, they'll leave us alone!  After all, everyone wants peace!"  Yeah.  Riiiiight.

What to do about it?  There's the rub.  I have no idea how to make people understand when they're not interested in understanding.  All one can do is "preach to the converted", sharing ideas and concerns with those who are prepared to think for themselves, and then take whatever steps are possible to protect ourselves from the ignorance of others.  On the other hand, that stores up troubles of its own.  Remember Aesop's fable about the ant and the grasshopper?  Jim Quinn updated it to reflect modern times.  I suspect his is more accurate than the original!

Peter

Be careful what you pick up on or near a battlefield...

 

There's a video on X.com showing a Russian army officer opening some of the candies and chocolate that have been found in the battle zones in Ukraine.  If you're logged into X, here's the link.  If you aren't a member of X, here's an alternative link that will let you play the video.  The candy is loaded with explosives and a detonator, proving that too many sweets really are bad for you!

There are plenty of comments following the video that are worth reading.  My favorite is from user Bitcoin Wizard - mavensbot:

"I'm starting to think that these processed foods are not healthy."

You can say that again!

Peter

So much for the New York City property market...

 

This news is several days old, but it only caught my eye yesterday.

Months before New York City approved a historic two-year rent freeze, Google co-founder Sergey Brin quietly exited a struggling real estate fund at a steep loss.

In December, Brin sold his stake back to A&E Real Estate, the fund's manager, for six cents on the dollar, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg.

The fund holds 5,900 rent-stabilized apartments, with Brin's stake being valued at roughly $79 million, a drop in the bucket when viewed next to his $280 billion net worth.

"A&E bought out one of our long-term investors, who was willing to accept six cents on the dollar on their original equity investment to divest itself from the New York City multifamily sector," a company representative told Bloomberg in a statement.

"The simple and deeply troubling fact for renters is that institutional capital – both equity investors and lenders – are fleeing New York City’s rent-stabilized apartment sector," the A&E representative continued, according to Bloomberg. "They understand New York is in a doom loop."

There's more at the link.

Think about that for a moment.  Working backwards from "Brin's stake being valued at roughly $79 million" at the sale price - i.e. at six cents on the dollar of his original investment - that means he originally invested about $1.3 billion in the real estate fund.  He's lost almost all of that money, thanks to New York City's cratering real estate market, undermined as it is by the socialist communist policies of newly-elected Mayor Mamdami.

If a man as economically savvy as Mr. Brin walks away from a $1.3 billion investment, writing it off as unrecoverable, what are smaller investors to think?  Can they afford to follow his example?  For that matter, can they afford not to follow his example?  Makes you think, doesn't it?

If I were unfortunate enough to live in or near New York City, or have money invested there, after hearing that news I'd be taking steps (rapid ones) to move myself and/or my money somewhere (anywhere!) else . . . before I lost all my investments, too.

Peter

Not such apex predators

 

I had to laugh at this blog post from fellow South African expatriate Kim du Toit.  He and I see eye to eye on many issues (not surprising, given our similar backgrounds).

This morning he wrote about an article titled "One Super Predator in Africa Instills More Fear Than Lions".  The super predator, of course, turned out to be humans.  We use brains and tools to conquer our environment and the nasty things that we find there.  We've done it for millennia, and will doubtless go on doing it until the extinction of our species and/or the entropy death of the universe.

Kim doesn't mince his words.

We are, in the animal kingdom, like marshmallows.  Pork-flavored marshmallows, to be precise, just the thing to make lions sharpen their claws before putting on a dinner napkin.

So why do these dangerous animals think that we are the apex predators?

Because we don’t fight fair.  As though fighting for one’s life, or hunting down food requires us to be all Marquis-of-Queensbury types;  what foolishness.

**** that.  If a pride of lions wants to target a few humans for brekkie, well… say hello to an A-10 Warthog or an Apache attack helicopter, and let’s see who’s really the apex predator, Fluffy.

Click over there to read the whole thing.  It's giggle-worthy . . . and true, too, for the most part.

Of course, if one of those predators catches you alone and unarmed in the bush, you're toast, but that's your fault.  Being a successful apex predator requires remaining on the apex, so to speak.  Step off it, and there will be consequences.

Peter

An "angry bear" opines on the soaring stock market - and what may bring it down

 

We've met Jared Dillian before in these pages.  He's an investment adviser and analyst with a highly respected track record in the industry.  He's not a happy man these days.

You should never let your emotions get in the way of investing, but I am starting to get angry at this bull market ... You want my thoughts—I will give you my thoughts. But the one data point that you should know is that the stock market is now the most overvalued in history, more so than 2000 or even 1929.

. . .

My friend Helene Meisler tweeted recently that if you weren’t around for the dot-com bubble, now you know what it was like in the dot-com bubble. The difference being that so many more people own stocks this time around. It is estimated that 62% of Americans own stocks. If we have a 50% bear market, it’s going to be Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. We are really going to be questioning the wisdom of plowing all our savings into the stock market via 401(k)s. Let’s hope that doesn’t come to pass because the consequences would be too terrible to contemplate, but knowing markets and karma, that is probably exactly what is going to happen.

. . .

I mean, the consensus view is that all this [AI] capex is going to go to waste, so maybe the out-of-consensus view is that it is actually needed. This is one of these situations in which I am glad I am 52 years old. The internet was also the future of the human race, but capitalism being what it is, there was overinvestment and malinvestment, and eventually supply caught up with demand, and everything crashed.

It looks like a tiny blip on a log chart (which is one reason why I hate log charts), but trust me, the crash was no fun. I lived through it and barely held on to my job. This time is no different. This time is never different! Whether it’s railroads, industrials/utilities, the Nifty Fifty, Japan, or any other bubble. The difference is that this one is bigger than all of them, and it looks like it’s not stopping.

. . .

Back when I was at Lehman in 2006, I’d drive out in the country and take pictures of all the housing developments under construction that were completely vacant and then send them out in my Bloomberg messages. Maybe I should take a road trip and take some pictures of all the data centers under construction that will be Spirit Halloween stores in a few years.

I ordinarily don’t like to write rants. I like to write reasoned, thoughtful pieces. But I’m currently on a plane to Minneapolis, and S&P futures, which opened lower (because oil was up), just ripped to new highs… again. It’s truly incredible that the market goes up every day. It will be equally incredible when it goes down every day because that is what it felt like in 2002. A bear market without end.

There's more at the link.

I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Dillian.  Stock market prices have been soaring into the stratosphere year after year, without any sound economic underpinnings.  It's all been a leap of faith.  "The Fed will provide!"  Well, what happens when the Fed can no longer provide?  What happens when the economic consequences of the Iran war begin to bite?  What happens when international market turmoil makes it clear that, despite all the positive punditry from paid opinion writers, the emperor has no clothes, and nothing is or can be guaranteed?

The very real dangers confronting any and all Western economies aren't limited to the Iran war.  Ambrose Evans-Pritchard focuses on China, and points out:

Europe's leaders are waking up to the terrifying danger that China could obliterate much of their industrial base within less than a decade, shattering the old political order and the EU project itself.

The Rhodium Group says the Chinese Communist Party is digging in its heels, doubling down on a strategy of systemic over-investment and over-reliance on exports that cannot be absorbed by the rest of the world, and certainly not a Europe already in semi-slump.

The original "Made in China 2025" plan a decade ago targeted a clutch of specific technologies. Beijing is now expanding this into an "industrial policy of everything": cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma, software, AI, you name it.

China is pursuing this ruthlessly, aiming to capture a larger share of global value added with vertical control of the entire lifecycle.

It is moving towards autarky in its home market while undercutting the West in its own market and in third countries – everywhere and in every product. It devours foreign technology without releasing its own. The Rhodium Group said the foundations of G7 manufacturing are under comprehensive threat.

The "China Shock 2.0" is bigger and more sophisticated than the original China Shock in the 1990s and early 2000s, which flooded the world with cheap goods and wiped out swathes of blue-collar manufacturing in the West.

America bore the brunt of the first shock. The pauperisation of the Midwest Rust Belt set the stage for Donald Trump.

This time China cannot dump its excess capacity on the US market so easily because of trade barriers. The tsunami is instead being displaced into the softer target of Europe. It is hitting with even greater intensity. China's trade surplus hit a record 1pc of global GDP last year. No country has ever reached such an imbalanced position in modern economic history.

Again, more at the link.

My wife and I aren't rich.  Right now, our savings - and some extra debt through a second mortgage - are funding medical care.  Assuming all ends up that ends well, we'll have to rebuild our savings, but I tell you right now, with the stock market as it is, we won't be putting one red cent into it.  I want a store of value that will retain its value in a stock market slump, and for me that means precious metals.  Even before that, I want to make sure we have enough of the essentials to survive a severe, prolonged economic downturn.  If you want a useful list that most of us can use, click over to Lawrence Person's Battleswarm Blog and see his helpful list from last November.  It makes a good start to review our preparations.

Want to invest in something that is likely to offer a reasonable return on investment in the short to medium term?  Look at domestic essentials that may be in short supply during a prolonged downturn, and lay in a supply of them as trading material.  Baby diapers.  Feminine hygiene essentials.  Soap.  Toothpaste.  Basic, essential canned food.  Flashlights and battery powered domestic and camping lanterns.  Think of what your family can't live without, and you've got the start of a useful investment list, right there.

Am I a pessimist?  I don't think so.  I'd rather call myself a realist.  Regular readers will know that I, and many others, have been uneasy about our economy for years, if not decades.  The numbers have been getting worse all that time, and now they're getting worse a lot faster.  Forewarned is forearmed.

I'll leave the last word to an astute observer.  Click the image to be taken to the original post on X.com, and read the more than 600 replies (so far).

Word.

Peter

Tab clearing

 

Over the past few days I've come across several very useful and informative articles.  I haven't got time to make each one into a detailed blog post, so I'll link to them here.  I'm sure some of them will interest you.

1.  What is the British military actually for?

This is about the British military, not the USA's, but nevertheless there are many common factors in the problems confronting each of them.  I daresay we on this side of the Atlantic should pay equal attention to the reasons for the existence of our armed forces, and whether (and how well) they are structured to implement those reasons.

2.  What happens if the State decides you're too expensive to keep alive?

A very thought-provoking academic study of Canada's Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) program, and the pro's and con's of expanding it to provide involuntary euthanasia - in other words, a doctor or medical panel will decide whether your life is worth saving.  If you're a net expense to the government or medical insurance, here comes the lethal injection.  The abstract opens with this chilling statement:

"This study explores the potential economic savings from expanding medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada, where it is currently a leading cause of death, to include vulnerable groups that cost the government more than they contribute in taxes. These groups include individuals with severe mental health issues, the homeless, drug users, retired elderly, and indigenous communities. Both voluntary and non-voluntary scenarios were analyzed, projecting total savings of up to CAD $1.273 trillion by 2047."

So, if the Canadian government thinks you're worth less to them alive than what it would cost them to treat your medical issue(s) . . . enjoy the euthanasia polka!

3.  The Declaration of Dependence

We are amid a significant shift in the cultural messaging around parenthood, and we can’t throw shame or money at the problem if we hope to solve it. A growing number of people in younger generations have decided that having children simply isn’t worth it. Why? ... The biggest shift ... is the acceptance of the idea that having children is merely one among many viable choices available if one is to live a flourishing adult life; indeed, it might lead to greater personal growth if one doesn’t have children at all. In very short order, the social pressure that used to insist that people who did not have children were selfish has shifted to its opposite—the idea that having children is selfish, given the world’s unsolvable problems and the need to pursue one’s own goals. From here, it is a short leap to viewing children as a burden, a cost to personal autonomy that is not worth paying. 

4.  The Loophole That Put Drunk Truckers Back On The Road

"A federal database built to flag and remove drunk and drugged truckers from U.S. highways used the equivalent of an "honor system" as its last line of defense between a family in a minivan and a substance addict steering an 80,000-pound mass of steel ... But what if a current alcoholic or drug addict could immediately get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to simply check off a box inside the database, rather than complete and pass follow-up drug or alcohol testing?"  Looks like thousands of truckers have been doing precisely that - posing a grave danger to other American drivers.

5.  Stop Nick Shirley!

Instrumental in exposing sufficient fraud so it could no longer be ignored by local or state officials is independent journalist Nick Shirley, who exposed the infamous “Quality Learing Center” day care fraud in Minneapolis, as well as many less well-known fraudulent day cares. So effective was Shirley, and so quickly did his work anger local fraudsters and state officials, Shirley received so many death threats he apparently decided to give California a try ... In Minnesota and California, honest public employees tried for years to expose fraud, but their superiors and the state Attorney General’s Office ignored them. But with Shirley’s discovery of incredible levels of fraud, the California Legislature was prodded into action: they’re criminalizing exposing fraud ... why would legislators, people sworn to protect the public, presumably at least in part by catching criminals defrauding taxpayers of billions, want to protect those criminals? It’s a puzzler, unless, perhaps, those NGOs and nonprofits are primary funding sources of the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians?

6.  Things don’t happen to me.  They happen for me

Rita is a personal friend of long standing, and shares a Substack with Lawdog, whom most of us know.  I was touched by her recent essay, and thought it worth sharing.

I want to share something that has been much on my mind of late, but I want to preface this with the caveat that there’s a sea of pretty ideas out there that appeal instantly but that don’t stand up to intensive scrutiny ... The story I share with you below is about making a choice to perceive things from a more objective standpoint, rather than seeing every curveball as the ultimate disruptor that could have occurred, and making life a misery ... I’ve always tried to embrace the joy of living, but I’ve not always understood how to go about it. I think now I understand that this joy is not having the right things or the stylish possessions that the world dictates are the measure of a life well-lived. I think one can have a joyous life in the most humble of circumstances, if one chooses.

There you go, friends.  I hope you found at least one or two of those articles worth your time.

Peter

The lower the cost, the easier the proliferation

 

I was struck today by the title of an article:

10,000 Low-Cost Cruise Missiles In Three Years

Procurement Plan Laid Out By Pentagon

You can read the details for yourself at the link.  Of particular food for thought to me was this:  if "low-cost cruise missiles" are now a mainstream item, how long can it be before they become cheap enough - and easy enough - to be manufactured almost anywhere?  And, if and when that happens, how long will it take renegade religious or tribal groups (e.g. the Houthis in Yemen), or terrorist organizations (e.g. Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.) to start manufacturing their own equivalents?

It's not as hard as it sounds.  Remember Bruce Simpson?  More than two decades ago, he designed and built a low-cost cruise missile (LCCM) in his home garage, using off-the-shelf components bought from Internet retailers.  He wrote an article about how easy it was to do it, including the following excerpt:

... during the past decade, huge strides have been made in commercializing much of the technology on which the cruise missile is based and it is my firm belief that building a low-cost, autonomous, self-guided, air-breathing missile with a significant payload capability is now well within the reach of almost any person or small group of persons with the necessary knowledge and skills.

Targeting/Guidance

As mentioned above, one of the key components of a cruise missile's guidance system is a mil-spec satellite-based GPS system.

Today, compact, high quality, high accuracy GPS receivers are readily available for just a few hundred dollars. The inclusion of an easily used computer interface in many of these units makes them well suited for use in a low-cost cruise missile (LCCM).

While the GPS provides information necessary for tracking waypoints and identifying the final destination, smaller course corrections (for stability) can be provided by the solid-state gyro systems now readily available for use in model helicopters and aircraft.

Instantaneous measurement of altitude and groundspeed can be provided by a semi-forward looking radar and doppler radar units (possibly built around components such as these and these. This allows the LCCM to fly lower than would be possible if relying solely on GPS and offers a degree of contour-hugging even when the exact nature of the terrain is not available.

The gyroscopic and radar-based systems could also provide an inertial backup guidance facility in the event that the GPS system was lost, blocked or simply turned off when an attack by such LCCMs was imminent or underway.

Onboard Computing

As Moore's law continues to produce a rapid rise in the speed and fall in the cost of computer chips, we've already reached the point where obtaining sufficient number crunching capability is no longer difficult or expensive.

Single-board computer systems are another readily available off the shelf component that can be recruited for use in an LCCM. Even the sophisticated realitime operating systems necessary for supporting the type of software needed to interface the guidance/targeting systems to the control servos are just a download away.

. . .

The total component costs for an LCCM (less payload) could be as little as $6,000 for the smallest, simplest version, with a larger, more sophisticated design still requiring little more than $10,000 worth of parts and materials.

There's more at the link.

That technical data, and those prices, date back to May 2002 - twenty-four years ago this month.  In those intervening years, components have become much, much smaller and lighter, much more capable, and much cheaper.  They're still freely available as elements of radio-controlled models (aircraft, boats, vehicles, whatever).  Plastic sheeting, 3D printed components, and ultra-light structural elements are easy to buy and often just as easy to make yourself.  Heck, people have built and flown in ultralight aircraft made out of packaging cardboard!  I'd say it's likely the cost to home-build a LCCM today might well be less than $2,000, and at most $3,000.  Cargo delivery drones can be even cheaper:  for example, a drone capable of delivering 20-odd pounds at a range of 6+ miles costs only a little over $500 in quantity.  Longer range?  Heavier cargo capacity?  No problem.  A warhead would be extra, of course, but with the advent of powerful "home-brewed" explosives, a warhead strong enough to demolish the average house - but still small and light enough to be carried by a LCCM or light delivery drone - could probably be assembled in a domestic bathroom or kitchen.

So, if our armed forces are talking about buying thousands of low-cost cruise missiles, what are the odds that terrorist and/or extremist groups aren't planning on doing exactly the same thing?  How would we defend against such simple, terrifying weapons if a wave of them were launched into the average American city?  It could be done by driving a rented truck or trucks to a suitable launch site, a few miles from the target zone (e.g. a park or golf course, particularly at night, or putting them onto a boat a couple of miles offshore);  erecting a wire or wood frame to hold the missiles at an appropriate angle for launch, and aimed in the right direction;  and setting them off at the chosen time.  Unless the perpetrators were seen during the preparation phase, it's doubtful they'd be detected in time to stop them;  and once the missiles had been fired, they'd simply abandon the trucks and drive away in other inconspicuous vehicles.  For that matter, they may not care about getting away.  They may have a martyrdom mentality that would welcome a final shootout with the cops (on television, of course, for the whole world to see).

That scenario is entirely feasible and practical.  I think we've got a whole new threat to our security to consider.  What we can do about it (if anything) remains to be seen.

Peter

Shocking news - except to Africans

 

I note the following news report.

A South African hotelier is believed to have been eaten by a 15ft crocodile after human remains were found inside the swollen reptile.

The animal was shot from a helicopter and airlifted from the crocodile-infested Komati River in a daring police operation before a post-mortem examination was carried out.

A ring was found inside the belly of the 500kg apex predator and is thought to have belonged to Gabriel Batista, 59.

The businessman was swept away in floodwaters while trying to drive across the Komati River in the north-east of the country a week ago.

Investigators will carry out DNA tests on the bones and flesh found inside the crocodile.

. . .

 As well as the body parts, six different types of shoes were found, according to Capt Potgieter.

There's more at the link, including images.

The comments from friends and acquaintances in the USA have been amusing.  A surprising number are absolutely horrified that a man who'd just escaped drowning had promptly been eaten by a wild animal.  It's almost as if it was unfair, somehow.  They weren't comforted by my assurance that in large parts of Africa, that sort of thing happens on an almost daily basis.  As for the "six different types of shoes" . . . yeah, I'd say Mr. Batista was far from the only human meal that croc had enjoyed.  Local tribespeople were doubtless greatly relieved by the news that it had been caught.

Rural Africa remains a very dark continent, filled with very deadly animals.  Actual examples:

• A man visits a neighboring village, gets drunk, and decides to walk back to his village along a deserted path at night.  Halfway there, a passing leopard finds him and decides that he'll make a satisfactory supper.
• A man goes looking for a lost cow along a river bank.  A hippo, grazing on long grass a short distance away, decides that she doesn't want him (or anyone else) getting between her and the water, which is her security blanket.  She bites him in half.
• A hunter gets too close to an elephant, which promptly tramples him into pink slush in the mud.  He isn't able to shoot her in time to save himself, and in the stress of the moment, only wounds her.  While she's recovering from the bullet wound, she kills several local villagers who get too close to her, on the general principle that if a man did this to her, she's going to presume that any man she sees is going to try to do likewise.
• An armored personnel carrier is driving through thick brush and trees.  The vehicle commander is standing with his head and shoulders outside the turret, trying to see through the thick growth to plot his course.  A boomslang (tree snake) is jarred off its branch by the APC as it brushes against the tree.  It falls onto the vehicle commander, bites him (injecting a full dose of poison, which proves fatal) and then falls through the turret hatch into the interior of the vehicle, biting two other soldiers before it's killed by a rain of rifle butts.  The two survive, but only because it had already injected much of its venom into the vehicle commander.  They're sick for several weeks.

All those incidents were personally known to me.  I was nearby when they all happened.  That's the norm in wild rural Africa.  The cities can be a lot tamer, but not always.  A few decades ago, I remember two leopards who set up house in the concrete basement and utility spaces of the biggest soccer stadium in Soweto, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people.  They lived off local cats and dogs.  When their presence was deduced (due to the rapid decline in other local pets and wildlife, and the presence of their tracks after rain) the local police were asked to hunt them down and shoot them.  Freely translated and interpreted, the local cops' reply was along the lines of, "You want us to go into a concrete labyrinth, with no light at all, to hunt two big cats that can see in the dark?  Oh, hell, no!  Here, take our rifles and show us how it's done.  We'll watch.  In fact, we'll sell tickets on pay-per-view!"

I'm very sorry for Mr. Batista, and for his family, of course . . . but that's Africa:  and in Africa, the good guys don't always win.  It goes with the territory.

Peter

"Pie in the sky" prepping - or, getting real about our chances

 

I'm a relative lightweight in the "prepping" world.  I have emergency food, water and other supplies to keep my wife and myself alive for a few months in a disaster situation, and (hopefully) enough to share with friends for at least the short term;  but that's based on "bugging in", staying in our home and not venturing far unless and until it's safe to do so.  We don't have a "bug out" location, or remotely stored supplies, or anything like that - it's simply unaffordable for us.

Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to hear from people who are very much in our situation that they have these grand plans to "bug out" to the sticks, establish a survival homestead from scratch, grow their own food, herd a few cows, steal a travel trailer from somewhere as a place to live, and so on.  Frankly, I think they have no idea at all of just how much effort will be involved in making that plan work.

Eaton Rapids Joe has put up a couple of recent blog posts in which he lays out precisely what skills and resources are needed (and vitally important) if one is to homestead successfully.  In the first article, "A man has to know his limitations", he looks at all the skills needed to successfully homestead (some required all the time, others for specific situations).  In the second, "Why 'Russian' Dachas all look alike", he examines what successful country farms have in the way of facilities and equipment, and also what they don't have (because it's either way too expensive, or too resource-heavy, or unnecessary).  Both articles, and both of the lists he provides, are well worth reading.  If, after reading them, anyone still thinks it'll be easy to set up an emergency homestead . . . well, you're probably going to learn the hard way how wrong you are!

Another aspect of the problem is that too many people stock up on "second-best" gear, food and equipment for emergency use, because it's cheaper and they can afford more of it.  Commander Zero discusses this approach with respect to firearms:

... if you need to resort to your hideaway stash becase you can’t get to your primary gear, then its safe to assume that your life has just taken a turn for the spectacularly ungood, agreed? So, in that time of (literally) existential crisis doesn’t it seem to make sense that you would want the best gear you can have?

It does, indeed, make sense.  That's a lesson I learned the hard way in Africa over many years.  If you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch who's out to kill you, wouldn't you want the best gear you can get in your emergency stash, to help you withstand her advances?  Quality can save your life.  Economy can kill you.  That applies to all our emergency preps, not just firearms.

(On a related subject, Commander Zero recently bought some land in the back country of Montana, and is beginning to set it up as a private retreat.  He recently blogged about his first weekend excursion to begin preparing it for use.  So many things went wrong that one can almost feel his pain, but he's not afraid to discuss all the mistakes he made, and what he's learned from the experience that he'll apply in future visits.  A very useful discussion, and a very useful reality check for the rest of us.)

Preparation isn't just physical.  One's outlook on everyday living - and what it costs - is a foundational element.  SNAFU links to a social media comment from a teacher who's complaining that she can't come out on $7,500 net income per month - while spending over $1,500 on a vehicle payment, and over $3,000 on rent!  Some commenters at his site question whether the original post is truthful, because the payments seem extraordinarily high, but he makes the very valid point that "Financial Education needs to be a REQUIRED course in school (along with NOT chasing luxury items to impress people that don't give a damn)".

On that subject, here's some brutally frank (and very truthful) advice from the TV series House Of Cards.  Kevin Spacey plays Frank Underwood, a highly immoral yet realistic politician.

Yes, that is brutal advice:  but in this world of easy-fulfilment dreams, hire purchase, leasing, and all the other debt instruments out there, it remains true.  If you're in debt, you're a financial slave to those who own your debt, and most of them will be utterly ruthless in coming after you to get what they're owed.  Being prepared for emergencies is as much about financial preparation as any other type of preparedness:  and one of the first and most fundamental steps in financial preparation is to get out of debt as far as possible.  As Spacey's character says, "The moment you get in debt, you're enslaving yourself until you buy back your freedom with interest."  Believe it.  It's true.

(Sometimes, of course, we can't afford not to go into debt.  We had to replace my wife's car in early 2022, because her old one had been driven into the ground until it was no longer viable.  The impact of COVID-19 had led to a drastic shortage of all types of vehicles, partly due to the reduction in dealer inventory, partly due to the shortage of used vehicles thanks to President Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" scheme, which scrapped tens of thousands of otherwise worthwhile cars.  We ended up buying a new car, and paying above the manufacturer's MSRP, because nothing else worthwhile was available to us:  and, to finance that very expensive purchase, we took out a loan.  It was a loan neither of us wanted, but under the circumstances, it was necessary.  Under such circumstances, one does what one must.  We bought an entry-level model without all the luxury features, and that helped lower the price and keep payments down.)

All of the above articles are food for thought.

Peter

Points to ponder about small handguns

 

With the seeming increase of random criminal violence in society, to say nothing of politically inspired unrest, I've been dealing with more than a few queries about the pro's and con's of carrying small handguns.  It's a complicated issue, and I thought I'd address some of the key points in this article.

First, as a general rule small handguns are harder to shoot well than larger handguns.  There are several reasons:

• The smaller grip is less easy to grasp firmly, draw smoothly, and get a strong firing grip, particularly for shooters with larger hands.
• Smaller handguns are typically carried in what's called "deep concealment", such as in a pocket or handbag.  That's logical, of course, since larger handguns would be hard to conceal in such places.  However, it's usually harder to get to such guns in a hurry, and then withdraw them and bring them to a ready position.  It's "fiddly".  To draw a larger handgun from a more accessible holster and bring it into a ready position is usually rather easier.  I strongly recommend using a holster even for pocket or handbag carry, to keep the firearm in a predictable position, ready to draw, and to prevent anything getting into the trigger guard and risking an accidental discharge.  (More on this later.)
• Smaller, lighter handguns transmit more recoil energy to the shooter than larger, heavier weapons.  As an example, try firing a .38 Special cartridge through a medium-size K-frame or L-frame Smith & Wesson revolver (or equivalent), then firing the same cartridge through a smaller J-frame snubnose revolver.  Do the same with a 9mm cartridge from a Glock 17 (full-size) or 19 (compact) pistol (or equivalent), and then through a Glock 43 sub-compact pistol (or equivalent).  The smaller, lighter firearm will always deliver heavier perceived recoil than the bigger weapon.  In some cases (for example, firing a full-power .357 Magnum cartridge from a Smith & Wesson 340 snubnose revolver, made with ultra-light-weight Scandium) you'll regret doing so after even one shot.  Hel-loooo, carpal tunnel syndrome!
• Because of their abbreviated sights and shorter sight radius (i.e. the distance between front and rear sights), smaller handguns are harder to aim accurately (unless you add better sights, which may render them bulkier and/or less easily concealed).  Furthermore, their light weight makes it more difficult to shoot them accurately, rapidly and repeatedly during a defensive encounter.  It's not impossible, but it's definitely more difficult than with a larger weapon.  If anyone doubts that, try the comparison for yourself at your favorite shooting range.  There's a reason early short-barreled firearms were known as "belly guns" - because that was the sort of range at which they were used.  One didn't need long-range sights to aim at a target across a card table or desk, or literally stick it into someone's belly, and let fly!
• Snubnose revolvers are typically slower to reload than small pistols, and both are more "finicky" than larger handguns, where the firearm and its replacement rounds (in a speedloader or a magazine) are easier to handle.

Another point is that smaller handguns are easier to lose.  That may sound silly, but I've seen it happen to three people I know.  One chose a small handgun to fit in her handbag.  She hung the bag on the back of her chair at a restaurant.  When she finished her conversation with friends and turned to pick it up, it was gone.  Another friend left a small handgun in a jacket pocket when he hung it up at a social gathering;  it was so light he didn't remember it being there.  When he reclaimed his jacket, the gun was gone.  There have also been cases where people have left firearms in a public toilet.  Larger weapons are more likely to be retained on one's person in a holster, and thus are less likely to be lost.

You'll need to practice more often to master (and retain mastery of) a smaller handgun than you will with a larger one.  That's why it's generally a bad idea to start your shooting education using a smaller weapon and/or a heavier-recoiling cartridge.  I've seen many novice shooters get frustrated and disillusioned because they can't master it, and give up.  If only they'd started with a larger, easier-to-handle firearm, they could have got the basics down pat and been given a thorough grasp of the fundamentals before trying a more difficult firearm.  That's what I usually do when teaching other shooters.

That leads to my first recommendation for a small (indeed, for any) handgun.  Make sure the gun fits your hand as well as possible before you buy it.  Handle different models, go to gun ranges that rent out firearms and use as many different models as possible, ask your friends to let you try their guns.  In particular, ladies, do not allow some idiotic male (yes, they're out there, as I'm sure you know all too well) to try to insist that this, or that, or the other firearm is right for you.  Make sure it feels comfortable in your hands, and that the sights come readily to your eye when you lift it to aim at a target.  Shoot several rounds through it to see how the recoil feels.  (Revolvers are easier to fit to your hand than pistols, because there are different grips available for them, and you can choose those that best suit you.  Revolvers also have Crimson Trace Lasergrips and similar products available for many models, which are an absolutely outstanding accessory for emergency, close-range shooting when you may not have space or time to line up the sights conventionally.  More about that later.)

As well as the gun fitting your hand well, see how the recoil feels to you.  If the grip is too small or too large for you to grasp it comfortably, the gun will move in your hand under recoil, forcing you to readjust your grip before the next shot.  This will slow you down and make it more difficult to hit your target, because you have to concentrate on something else.  The selection procedure outlined in the previous paragraph will apply also to choosing a caliber you can handle.  A heavy-recoiling round is probably not optimum in a small handgun unless you're a trained, experienced shooter and know what you're doing.  Choosing a less powerful, lower-recoiling cartridge (for example, a .38 Special instead of a .357 Magnum) is recommended for novice shooters, who can also choose a much lighter caliber if they wish (e.g. .22LR instead of .38).  Lighter calibers are less likely to stop a hopped-up attacker, but if they're what you can handle, you can learn to use them well enough to compensate for that handicap.  I promise you, a few .22's in and around the eyes will deter even the most aggressive assailant!

It's also useful to know that certain ammunition manufacturers make both heavier-recoil and lower-recoil rounds in a given cartridge or caliber.  A few examples:

• Hornady makes its 9mm 115gr. FTX Critical Defense round for standard use, but for those who can't tolerate heavy recoil, it also offers its 9mm 100gr. FTX Critical Defense Lite load.  The latter may not be as effective as the former, but it's still a viable option - and it has rather less "kick" than the former round.
• Black Hills Ammunition offers the Honeybadger "scalloped" bullet in two 9mm loads;  a 100gr projectile, faster and more energetic, and a 125gr. bullet, slower and less energetic (and offering lower recoil).  I prefer the latter load in small 9mm pistols, as it remains very effective despite being more controllable than its faster brother.
• Federal offers its 9mm HST defensive load in a 124gr. +P (i.e. high-pressure) round, and a 147gr. standard-pressure cartridge.  Again, the latter load recoils less energetically than the former.  Both are widely used by law enforcement agencies, which speaks highly of the HST range.

There are other manufacturers offering similar choices.  Do your own research, and choose the round that best fits your level of knowledge and experience.  I've been shooting for many decades, and I feel no shame in admitting that as I grow older and slower, I prefer a lower-recoil round in a smaller, lighter weapon.  Arthritis and heavy recoil are not very compatible!

One's choice of weapon should be directed by the threats one is likely to face.  If a potential attacker is likely to be alone (e.g. a nutcase on public transport), or one or two men hanging around outside a shop or bank or cinema, a smaller handgun may well be enough to deal with the problem.  If you're more likely to face an angry riot, with violence being offered indiscriminately by groups of feral protesters to everyone they meet, no handgun is likely to be sufficient, no matter how large it may be or how many rounds it may hold!

A small handgun is designed to be carried to deal with occasional threats that are not very likely to occur.  A more dangerous threat requires a tool more suited to deal with it - which is why police officers usually carry full-size service pistols holding anywhere from fifteen to twenty rounds, sometimes even more.  We, as civilians, can do the same, but we'd better know how to conceal them (to prevent others hitting us over the head to steal them) and use them (to protect ourselves and our loved ones).  If we look like a threat to others, they're likely to respond as if we are a threat.  Therefore, discreet carry and low-key behavior are more likely to protect us than a macho, manly swagger while displaying our supersized Felon-Stopper Magnum-Blaster Mark XVIII handgun!

If I leave the house, I'm armed as a matter of course.  I'll usually be carrying a small handgun that I can shoot well enough at short range to defend myself and/or my wife.  It won't be suitable for long-range use or to handle more than one or two opponents, because the odds of my facing such a threat are minuscule.  If I lived in a big city (particularly a so-called "blue" city where left-wing sympathies predominate, making the authorities "soft" on crime), that would not apply.  I'd be carrying something larger and more powerful, and have spare ammo available for rapid reloads as well.  If mob violence is a possibility, I'll always try to not be anywhere near there;  but if I absolutely have to be there, I'll be carrying more than a handgun.  When I travel, I take into account the environments through/in which I'm likely to pass and/or stay, and equip myself accordingly.  In other words, I arm myself to meet the threat(s) I'm most likely to encounter in a given place at a given time.

Another factor to consider is aiming a handgun under the pressure of an attack, or in a more widespread, confused situation such as a riot.  In a high-stress situation, with one's adrenaline pumping, it's very hard to aim accurately at a moving target while other people are obscuring the range and perhaps also threatening you.  For that reason, I highly recommend a laser sight such as a Crimson Trace Lasergrip for most revolvers.  Sight it in to cover the most likely ranges at which you may need it (I suggest 10 yards for a small gun), then train with it until you can bring up the weapon, put the dot on target, and fire an accurate round as fast as possible.  That'll generally be faster than trying to line up front and rear sights on a moving target.  Similar laser sights are available for some small pistols as well.  Shop around and see what you can find.

I usually don't recommend a red dot sight for a small handgun if deep concealment is going to be necessary.  They are very useful indeed, to be sure, but they stick up above the weapon and make it harder to draw it in a hurry from a pocket or inside a handbag.  You'll be surprised at how easily the sight can catch against clothing or nearby objects, slowing your draw quite drastically.  Its sight advantage may be less worthwhile than its other disadvantages;  you'll have to make that call for yourself.  My preference is usually to carry a handgun with a red dot sight in a holster on my belt, to minimize that problem.

While on the subject of deep concealment, I strongly recommend the use of either a double-action handgun (such as a snubnose revolver) that has a relatively heavy, long trigger pull, or a firearm with a safety catch that must be released in order to pull the trigger.  Both cases are to prevent something in a pocket or a handbag snagging on the trigger and accidentally discharging the gun.  This isn't an idle fear, either:  I can recall reading of several incidents where it's happened.  That's also a very good reason to use a pocket or handbag holster that covers the trigger guard, and prevents anything getting inside before the firearm is drawn.  Safety is a critical aspect of firearms handling that's too often honored more in the breach than in the observance.  Don't become an accidental discharge statistic!

On most days, a small, easily concealed handgun is all I need.  However, I take care to make sure I keep up my practice with it, so that if I should have to use it, I can be reasonably sure of solving my problem.

Peter

So much for "unbreakable" codes...

 

Elon Musk dropped a bomb on the cryptocurrency market when he highlighted the impact of Google's recent announcement about the impact of quantum computing.

Elon Musk has added his voice to fears sparked by Google dramatically bringing forward its quantum computing timeline, putting almost $500 billion worth of bitcoin at risk.

"On the plus side, if you forgot the password to your wallet, it will be accessible in the future," Musk posted to X alongside a “conversation” with Musk’s Grok chatbot that said post-quantum migration for cryptocurrencies “is urgent now.”

Musk was responding to venture capitalist Max Reiff who summarized Google’s research as, “basically saying: ‘We’ve cut the quantum resources needed to break bitcoin’s encryption by 20x. We can now break it. We can prove it. We’re just not going to tell you how. We’ve slowed down research to give crypto a chance. You have until 2029 to figure out a solution. Good luck.’”

. . .

Earlier this week, Google’s Quantum AI team warned in a paper that the number of qubits required to break the cryptography protecting bitcoin and ethereum wallets is potentially as much as 20-fold lower than previous estimates.

“We’re setting a timeline for post-quantum cryptography migration to 2029,” Google’s vice president of security engineering Heather Adkins wrote in a blog post. "Quantum computers will pose a significant threat to current cryptographic standards, and specifically to encryption and digital signatures."

Venture capitalist Nic Carter, who has been sounding the alarm on quantum computing’s threat to crypto since last year, compared the quantum threat to the Manhattan Project, the top-secret U.S. government program that led to the development of nuclear weapons.

There's more at the link.

This is serious enough when it comes to cryptocurrency - any cryptocurrency.  There are no pieces of paper changing hands in cryptocurrency transactions.  It's all done electronically, with one's cryptocurrency holdings being held in an electronic "wallet" with a passcode to access them.  Until now, that passcode has been considered very secure in the face of current decoding/decryption technology.  However, quantum computers can tackle the decryption problem many orders of magnitude faster than present computers.  Once they're on the market, much that is cryptologically "secure" today will no longer be so.

Now, apply that to any other codes, cyphers, etc.  Literally any secret message at all will be subject to cryptological analysis and attack.  Top secret military signals, inter-bank communications about economic activity, diplomatic messages - any and all of them that use current encryption technology will be vulnerable.  Many believe that major actors in the field are already storing every encrypted message they can intercept, even if they can't read them, because when they can read them (with the aid of quantum computers) in a few years' time, they'll be a gold mine of historical information that can be used to analyze current events and predict future decisions.  Even so-called "one-time pad" or OTP encryption - seen until now as the only truly unbreakable code, provided that all requirements for their creation and use are strictly observed - won't be as secure if quantum computers can identify any failure to meet one or more requirements, and use that weakness to break into the code.  (However, quantum key distribution and other new technologies may step up to make the OTP even more secure.)

If Google's prediction is correct, a great deal that is now secret won't be for much longer.  That might be catastrophic in many ways.  On the other hand, James Howells might be happy at last!  He's the man who threw away a computer hard drive containing the key to a cryptocurrency wallet containing (he claims) about US $700 million in Bitcoin.  If he can recall the address of the wallet, the new quantum decryption technology might let him reclaim its contents . . . but only if someone else doesn't remember his story and get there ahead of him, locating the wallet, decrypting its key, and making off with the Bitcoin first!

Peter

About those "donut" spare tires and wheels...

 

It seems that a lot of motorists never think much about the space-saver spare tires fitted to many modern vehicles, and abuse them far beyond their design limits when they use them.  I learned that when I went to a local tire dealer to replace my twelve-year-old donut tire, which was showing signs of oxidization as the rubber perished.

According to the dealer, any tire is supposed to be replaced after nine to ten years on the wheel, including donut spare tires.  The problem is that so many spare tires are mounted underneath the vehicle, where they're hard to see, that they don't even get their pressure topped up, much less inspected for wear.  People seem to forget they exist.  The assistant dealing with my car said that he's had several incidents where vehicle owners had a flat and tried to put on their spare, only to find it was as flat as a pancake.  To make matters worse, some of them then tried to repair their spare tires using cans of tire sealant refill, sold at many auto dealers and supermarkets.  Trouble is, those cans are designed to pressurize full-size tires, not a donut spare with its much smaller internal volume;  so they inflate the latter too much, which - given perished rubber or weak spots - can rupture again almost immediately.

Another problem is that regular car wheels are manufactured, reinforced and stressed to handle forces such as acceleration, cornering, minor bumps and potholes, etc.  On the other hand, donut spare wheels are produced by simply stamping the wheel out of sheet metal.  They're not designed for extreme use.  The vehicle manufacturers warn buyers about that, recommending a maximum speed of 50 mph and maximum distance of not more than 50 miles.  In other words, the donut spare is designed to get the vehicle to a place where it can be repaired, and no further.  However, many drivers seem to regard them as interchangeable with the "main" wheels and tires, using them for days and weeks on end, and running at normal highway speeds.  Inevitably, many donut spares that are abused in that fashion will fail on the wheel, and perhaps cause a serious accident in the process.  Apparently some drivers have even tried to sue the donut spare manufacturer, on the grounds that the wheel and/or tire "failed" or "was defective".  When the facts emerge, and it becomes clear that the spare was abused far beyond its recommended limits, the lawsuit inevitably fails, leaving the luckless motorist to pay the defendant's legal fees.

The final problem I learned about from the dealer was that some (not all) manufacturers may make a given model of vehicle for ten years or more.  They'll order spare wheels and tires in bulk from a supplier, hundreds or thousands at a time, but donut spares are not ordered to a specific wheel and/or tire measurement.  Instead, the overall dimensions of the spare will be specified.  That means a larger wheel diameter with a smaller tire may fit those dimension, or a smaller wheel diameter with a larger tire.  The only common factor will be the spacing and size of the holes for the lug nuts.  It's up to the supplier to send an order that meets the overall dimensions.  The next order, or one from a different supplier, may meet the same overall dimensions, but with different wheel and tire diameters, widths, etc.  Therefore, when ordering a replacement donut spare tire, it's essential to note the measurement of one's existing tire and order an exact size match.  Otherwise, a tire that may be used by some vehicles of that model might be supplied - but it may not fit your specific vehicle's spare wheel.  Tricky!

As you can tell, I learned a lot.  The dealer has ordered my new spare tire, and it'll be here within a couple of days.  I'm looking forward to being a bit better equipped, for safety's sake.

Peter

The danger of unrealized tax gain

 

Fellow blogger Mr. Garabaldi, writing at My Daily Kona, warns of the real dangers of so-called "unrealized tax gains".  We're seeing this pop up in almost every progressive, left-wing-oriented government and political party.  They want to tax you on any gain in value of any property you own, whether or not you've cashed in that value by selling it.

You buy a Pokémon card for $50.

Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. You're keeping it.

The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 in taxes."

You: "…I didn't sell it."

Government: "Don't care. Pay up."

You don't have $100 lying around. So you're forced to sell the card you love just to pay a tax on money you never received.

Next month? That card drops back to $50.

Your card is gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.

That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax...

There's more at the link, including more examples.  Recommended reading.

What this is, of course, is an all-out drive to reduce or even eliminate private property, by forcing us to rent what we use, or rely on government to provide it, because it's no longer affordable to buy it.  It's a growing movement, particularly in Europe, but also in progressive-left states in the USA like California.  Essentially, it embodies the World Economic Forum's oft-repeated mantra that "You'll own nothing and be happy".  Personally, I can't think of many things that would make me more unhappy than that!

Peter

The algorithm is manipulating you

 

We've all read warnings and horror stories about how algorithms are analyzing our online behavior and trying to steer us to their products, their channels, their platforms.  Thing is, it's a very real danger, and it's getting worse.  EKO provides this perspective.  I highly recommend reading the whole of the excerpt below, and watching both video clips.

let’s start here with something seemingly innocent, the budweiser ad from the superbowl.

in the primary signalling sphere of “positioning and product” this represents a profound volte face from the recent bud light echo chamber brand self-immolation fiascos, a return to images of growth and aspiration and rippling pride.

it’s a great ad. if you have not encountered it, see for yourself. experience it.

ok. got that?

it’s practically cinema, right? a story of friendship and coming of age and of becoming.

it’s got it all.

it’s moving stuff.

but it also has something you probably did not see, a meta game beneath the game where the real magic trick is taking place at a deeper neurological level, a firmware level cheat code to which the human mind has very little access.

let’s explore:

now watch this video.  [The critical bit comes from about 1m. 40sec. onward;  skip ahead to that point if you wish.]

now watch the budweiser ad again. see how they took this exact fractionation strategy and amplified and optimized it took you up, down, up, down, rain, protect, strive, fail, leap, fly, power chords, free bird, aaaaaaaand beer ad.

they boiled this whole concatenation down to its most bare bones, essential elements and ran a whole suggestability enhancement procession in a one minute experience.

i would wager they knew that.

i will also bet you that it has sold absolute truckloads of beer.

but this is not the scary part.

we, as humans, are used to ads. we know what they are for and embed a certain skepticism. OK, so maybe we buy a few more brewskis, but whatever, this is hardly the stuff of civilizational threat.

but you have to start stepping back to see the rest of the picture.

social media has become a barrage of short form information, increasingly video driven and increasingly exposed to savagely intense evolutionary stressors. the currency of online is attention. it’s time. twitter speaks of "maximizing unregretted user-seconds." this is what that means. it means “how can i get you to watch more of this and to want to watch more of this?”

keep in mind that algorithms are psychopaths. they have no theory of your well being that factors into this sort of optimization. it’s just “keep the typewriter monkey happy and online.” and every outlet is locked in the same arms race so no one gets to opt out. those who do not play this way get left behind and the user seconds go somewhere else.

there’s a worrying parallel to what happened with US food companies. they did not set out to create travesties of sugar and salt and over-amped artificiality, but as they experimented with it, they saw that people bought more. the feedback loop of “people will eat more froot loops than fruit” was obvious on revenue lines and if you do that for too long, pretty soon customers basically cannot even taste wholesome food anymore. it’s not enough of a dopamine hit.

media is the same.

what started as an inevitable game to maximize user time and click through rates has becomes somehting altogether other, a monster in the depths that cannot be seen, only felt as its machinations twist minds and demolish perspective.

There's more at the link.

It's almost diabolically clever, isn't it?  The thing is, it works.  It works so well that every single major player in the news media, social media, advertising and the entertainment industry is using it against us every single day.  So are politicians, from both sides of the aisle and everywhere else in the public sector.  We aren't being respected as individuals.  We're sheep to be shorn, votes to be manipulated, suckers to be fed pablum in exchange for our dollars and unthinking loyalty.

Remember that.  We're all being manipulated daily.  It takes sustained effort and really hard work to break free from that cycle and recognize it for what it is.

Peter

"The bottom line is simple: we’re already divided in everything but name."

 

That's the punch line to a recent article by Restricted Daily on X.  I think it makes good sense, although it doesn't offer solutions.  I think it's important enough that I'm going to re-publish it here in full, hoping that the author of Restricted Daily will permit that.

We keep pretending this is just another rough chapter in American politics, but deep down everyone knows that’s a lie. This isn’t disagreement anymore. This is disillusion. This is two completely different nations trapped inside the same borders, pretending we share values when we don’t. The Declaration of Independence was written when people finally admitted they could no longer coexist under a system that no longer represented them. That same feeling is back, whether people want to admit it or not.

We don’t argue over tax rates or road funding anymore. We argue over reality itself. Over biology. Over speech. Over history. Over whether borders matter. Over whether personal responsibility even exists. One side believes the country should be preserved, protected, and handed down stronger to the next generation. The other believes it should be dismantled, reprogrammed, and endlessly apologized for. You cannot reconcile those worldviews. You can only delay the inevitable by pretending compromise still exists.

Every election now feels like an existential threat, not a policy debate. Every law feels like an act of force instead of representation. People don’t feel governed anymore, they feel ruled. And when a large portion of the population feels that way for long enough, the social contract is already broken. You can wave flags and sing songs all you want, but unity doesn’t come from slogans. It comes from shared beliefs, and those are gone.

The truth nobody wants to say out loud is this: forcing people who fundamentally despise each other to live under one federal system is not unity. It’s pressure. And pressure always finds a release. History doesn’t care about feelings. Empires don’t fall because people stop loving them, they fall because they stop believing in them. When laws feel illegitimate and elections feel meaningless, separation stops sounding radical and starts sounding logical.

Maybe it’s not about hate. Maybe it’s about honesty. About admitting that the experiment has split into incompatible outcomes. About recognizing that peaceful separation is better than perpetual cultural warfare, political revenge cycles, and a federal government that half the country views as hostile. Coexistence requires mutual respect, and that left the room a long time ago.

You can call it the Declaration of Disillusion. You can call it dissolution. You can call it whatever you want. But pretending we can duct tape this together forever is the real fantasy. The bottom line is simple: we’re already divided in everything but name. The only question left is whether we keep lying to ourselves, or finally have the courage to admit it.

I fear the author is correct.  I don't see how we can restore unity to a nation so far divided as ours has become.  It's a lot more difficult than during the American Civil War of the 19th century, because there are many issues dividing us, not just one central debate.  Furthermore, we don't have neatly divided states:  we have representatives from multiple perspectives in every state.  Big cities tend to be "blue", smaller towns and rural areas tend more towards "red", but overall the states are "purple" - and I don't see any practical way of satisfying all the blended colors in our present political melange.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."  Jesus Christ said that.  Abraham Lincoln made it the focus of his famous "house divided" speech almost two millennia later.  It's as true today as it's ever been.  Unless we find a way to bridge the gaps between us - and I have no idea what that way might be - our house, our nation, is probably going to fall.

Peter