A hobbyist coder who enjoys writing numerical programs in C++ and JavaScript; for samples of work, see Numerical Math Utilities page: https://teapaw.org/t.co/LUOzdVF3MQ
Coquitlam, B.C. Canada
Joined June 2014
- Tweets875
- Following281
- Followers81
- Likes121
"The Machine That Rewards Boys Before They Become Men"
by Mollie Engelhart, @talktomollie
This column covers a topic that is not usually in Mollie's wheelhouse: the disintegrating relationship between men and women. (Although other columns in the paper have brought up a similar problem being experienced by young people today: nobody knows how to properly date.)
She briefly mentioned a comment made to her by a friend, "I’m not sure I even want to date women anymore. Pornography is so much easier.”
Her observation of the mindset behind this comment really struck me, not specifically in the context of pornography, but how applicable it is to many more things in life.
This is a warning "... about something that has become difficult to ignore. A substitute does not have to equal the real thing. It only has to quiet the hunger enough for a person to stop pursuing the real thing."
That is deep. It makes me wonder in how many other ways--in life in general--are people satisfied with a substitute instead of the real thing? Are forty-somethings content to play video games to get life satisfaction from high scores instead of pursuing achievements in the real world? It seems like a complete waste of human potential.
(F.Y.I. - Mollie usually writes about regenerative farming and ranching.)
theepochtimes.com/opinion/th… via @epochtimes
4
David Binner retweeted
Elon Musk's favorite economist joke
Two economists are walking through a forest. They come across a pile of shit.
One says: I'll pay you $100 to eat it.
The other takes the $100 and eats it.
They keep walking. They find another pile.
Now the second one offers the first $100 to eat it.
He eats it and gets his $100 back.
Then it hits them. They have the exact same money they started with.
And they've both eaten a pile of shit.
Elon: "We increased the economy by two hundred dollars."
This is the kind of nonsense, he says, you get in economics.
David Binner retweeted
What if differentiation never had to stop at whole numbers?
The fractional derivative of 𝑥²⁄₂ is 𝑥^{2−𝛼}⁄Γ(3−𝛼), continuously interpolating between the function and its ordinary derivatives. Unlike classical derivatives, these operators are nonlocal: they remember the entire history of the function.
This memory makes them the natural language of anomalous diffusion, viscoelastic materials, and long-range dependence in complex systems: from porous media to financial time series.
Sometimes the most useful rate of change is the one that never quite finishes.
David Binner retweeted
A high-trust society cannot survive when the rules apply to some people and not to others.
Canada was known and loved as a place where you could trust your neighbours, expect fair treatment and build a life with confidence that the rules meant something. That trust was part of what made this country feel like home. It is worth protecting.
The rule of law is foundational to that trust. Everyone is subject to the law, including the people who write it, enforce it and exercise power in our name.
You cannot expect citizens to respect the law while allowing those in power to disregard its limits. You cannot demand honesty while rewarding corruption. And you cannot keep asking people to trust institutions that refuse to hold themselves accountable.
People see the double standard. They see who gets investigated, who gets protected, whose conduct is excused and whose life is turned upside down.
A high-trust society depends on people knowing that the same legal standards apply to everyone. That their rights will be respected. That public power has limits. That wrongdoing will have consequences, regardless of who is responsible.
A low-trust society takes hold when people conclude that the rules are merely tools used by those with power against those without it.
Those two systems cannot coexist. Either we uphold equal accountability, or we normalize selective enforcement and watch trust disappear.
And no, demanding accountability is not what undermines public confidence. The misconduct does that. The cover-ups do that. The refusal to apply the law equally does that.
Institutions are not entitled to our trust because of the power they hold. They earn it through how they exercise that power—and whether they hold their own accountable when it is abused.
Apply the law equally. Respect its limits. Hold people accountable, regardless of their title, position or political allegiance.
The rule of law means nothing if the people entrusted to uphold it are protected when they violate it.
The question for Canadians is: What kind of country do you want? One where you can trust your neighbours, rely on your institutions and know the law applies equally to everyone? Or one where who you know and how much power you hold determine which rules apply to you?
David Binner retweeted
Mark Carney keeps telling us we live in a “dangerous and divided world” without acknowledging how we got here. Because if he did, fingers would be pointing right back at him.
Leading the Bank of Canada under Harper. Leading the Bank of England. Advising Trudeau. Working in the very circles that helped shape the world he is now warning us about.
You would think there would be a little humility. Perhaps even some embarrassment before asking citizens to trust him with more power.
If these “leaders” are so capable, why do their warnings keep getting darker while our lives get harder? Where are the results of all this supposed expertise? We are told to trust their leadership, yet somehow never to question where it has brought us.
I have come to the harsh conclusion that we keep expecting better outcomes from people whose priority is protecting their own positions and interests. Helping citizens become strong, free and prosperous is clearly not the priority. Instead, we are left paying more for public services that fail to serve the public, while those responsible expect our trust and treat us as the problem when we question their failures.
So what can you do in this “dangerous and divided world”? Stop assuming the government will take care of you. Judge its competence by its record, not its promises.
Take care of yourself, your family and your community. Ask questions. Think independently. Do not hand over your judgment simply because someone in power tells you to be afraid.
Look around and ask yourself. Are our streets safer? Are hospital waits shorter? Are classrooms less crowded? Is housing more affordable? Are groceries cheaper? Are you keeping more of what you earn? Are repeat violent offenders being kept off our streets? Is public money being spent responsibly? Are those in power answering your questions or dismissing you for asking?
Then ask yourself whether you want more of the same and why those failing us every day should be trusted with even more power.
David Binner retweeted
While everyone is focused on the separation referendum, Albertans are also voting on NINE OTHER QUESTIONS regarding immigration and the constitution.
Danielle Smith is encouraging Albertans to vote YES to all nine. Mark Carney is telling people to vote NO.
The first five questions are all about immigration:
1. Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?
2. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?
3. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs?
4. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the healthcare and education systems?
5. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?
While the next four are only centred on constitutional questions:
6. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts?
7. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?
8. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?
9. Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province’s laws and federal laws conflict?
Where do you stand on these questions? 🤔
Well said.
Voting is a way to send a message. That's the whole point.
It's true in a free market transaction between buyer and seller. Buyers are sending a message to the marketplace what products they like at what price.
Same applies in a democracy. Voters send a message that they don't like what Politician A has done so they vote for Politician B.
When politicians make it more complicated, they are just trying to confuse the issues.
"Don't be fooled by the idea you can send a message with your vote."
Read that again. A prime minister, in a democracy, telling you your vote isn't a message.
Your vote is the ONLY message you get. That's the whole deal. That's democracy.
What he means is: your vote counts when it's the one he wants. Vote his way and it's "vote like Canada depends on it." Vote your conscience and it's "a dangerous bluff."
He doesn't want your voice. He wants your obedience.
21
A few derivatives (for my own reference).
Given r = a * (1 - e * cos(E)).
To simplify work, assign a = w = 1, so
r = (1 - e * cos(E))
1
26
The second derivative
d^2r/dt^2 = [e * (cos(E) - e)] / [1 - e * cos(E)]^3
d^2r/dt^2 is 0 when cos(E) = e
This confirms the maximum of the first derivative.
Also confirmed graphically.
1
11
The third derivative
d^3r/dt^3 = [e * sin(E) * (3 * e^2 - 2 * e * cos(E) - 1)]/ [1 - e * cos(E)]^5
The roots of this derivative depend upon the range of e.
For e < (1/3) SQRT(3), roots exist when sin(E) = 0 (i.e., periapsis and apoapsis).
If e GE (1/3) SQRT(3), roots exist when cos(E) = (3 * e^2 - 1) / (2 * e)
Confirms the maximum of the second derivative, and the change of concavity of the first derivative. Also confirmed graphically.
10
The latest book I finished reading: "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
The book, itself, is just under 1000 pages. Including references (the author was clearly well-read), it's just over 1000 pages.
It was recommended to me many times over the years by several sources. It had a few points at which it made some interesting comments about human nature, but no overall theme or revelation jumped out at me. If I hadn't done some online searches and read some reviews, I would not have realized how deep this book is meant to be.
- - -
One example, from grok:
The well-known formula associated with the book—“If God does not exist, everything is permitted”—is a popular paraphrase rather than a direct quotation.
What Ivan actually claims is that without immortality there is no virtue, and that “everything is lawful.”
- - -
@Dostoevskyquot, @TwBookClub
26
David Binner retweeted
David Eby is a shrewd, confident competitor.
He will challenge anyone currently suffering from a stomach virus to a hot-dog-eating contest. He will dare any chess champion to a tournament when they are sleeping.
theglobeandmail.com/opinion/…
David Binner retweeted
“Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.”
— Thomas Sowell
People differ in intelligence, skills, preferences, ambition, upbringing, and many other ways. Treating people as though they were identical or interchangeable ignores the enormous variation that exists among individuals.
Unequal outcomes, by themselves, are not proof of discrimination. As Sowell points out, even the same person performs differently on different days. Inequality is neither an anomaly nor a mystery, but a basic fact of life.
David Binner retweeted
My absolute favorite Roger Scruton quote:
"A conservative is someone who has found something to love and wants to retain it, and to protect it from all the sources of decay. It is a philosophy of love."
David Binner retweeted
Senator Ron Johnson’s full opening statement at the Allison Inquiry is a masterclass in exposing the "COVID Cartel."
He details how early treatment was sabotaged, natural immunity was ignored, and a "miserable failure" of a response cost us $17 trillion.
Key points from his testimony:
1. The Data Was Ignored: By March 2020, Stanford's John Ioannidis projected an Infection Fatality Rate of ~0.125% (similar to a bad flu). Fauci privately admitted 0.2-0.3% in his diary, but publicly pushed 2-3% to stoke fear.
2. The Great Reset: While small businesses were destroyed, billionaires gained $3.9 trillion. Blue-collar workers kept the country running while white-collar workers stayed home.
3. Vaccine Safety Signals: VAERS data shows over 39,000 deaths reported. In April 2021 alone, 40% of reported deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within 1-2 days. NIH’s Francis Collins dismissed this with "Senator, people die."
4. Censorship: True information was labeled "malinformation." Doctors were vilified for prescribing Ivermectin (a Nobel Prize-winning drug) while Remdesivir ("Run, death is near") was pushed.
5. The Result: A miserable failure. 16% of global deaths in a country (The US) with 4% of the population.
Watch the full video. The truth is coming out.
Johnson’s charge is not a slogan war. It is that the slogans outran the safety desk on the COVID shots.
He lists the lines used to close the argument. Follow the science. Safe and effective. No one is safe until everyone is safe. A pandemic of the unvaccinated. Get the shot and you will not die. Then he asks the obvious one. If it stopped infection cold, why did your neighbor’s arm become your problem?
By the time EUA landed, he says, the story was already locked. A few months in, his claim is uglier: FDA and CDC were not doing sincere surveillance of those mRNA vaccines. When a tool blinked, they buried the tool. The emails, in his telling, give the reason. A signal would mean hesitancy. Hesitancy would mean fewer arms.
He calls the product experimental gene therapy pushed on billions. That is his language. Deaths and injuries from the COVID shots, he says, are still being denied in public while the objective stays the same: keep the narrative standing.
If “vaccine hesitancy” was treated as a worse outcome than a blinking alarm, what exactly was the surveillance for?
David Binner retweeted
Mark Carney, during one of the most troubling times in Canadians history, didn’t address Canadians.
He broadcast to them.
Why?
Because a controlled YouTube video means:
❌no journalists
❌no tough questions
❌no follow up
❌no accountability
When you’re confident in your abilities and your plan, you face the questions.
When you’re afraid of the questions and have a weak plan, you control the room.
Carney is asking Canadians to “trust him”.
Why would anyone trust a COWARD?
CARNEY’S NEW SALES PITCH: “TRUST ME, THE DEAL WAS TERRIBLE.” 🇨🇦
Okay.
Then show us the deal.
Because right now Canada’s entire economic future is being justified with:
Believe me, it was bad.
No documents.
No full terms.
No public comparison.
Just government messaging after the fact.
If Carney was right to walk away, release it and prove it.
Yes. It's only a matter of time before some of them voice their concerns. I'm surprised nobody has done so already.
Canada's closeness to this threat nation does not go unnoticed by our allies. Imagine what Jpn, S Korea, Aus and Taiwan are thinking about Cdns.
Harbouring Hamas, IRGC, QUDS, Hezbollah, cartels, MSS, PLA, UFWD and any plethora of other bad actors. Canada has picked its side...
1
54
