Starship SN5 150m Hop
Other people have talked about this. I don't have anything to add. I just think it's really great.
If the type is too small, Ctrl+ is your friend
|Logan & Kanawha Coal Co. Inc. Promotional Tape Measure|
|Ben Johnson rides Alla Romana|
(like the Romans)
Ben Johnson riding ‘alla Romana’ . Rio Grande, 1950 ' Ford called Ben Johnson and me and said :' You boys know Roman riding?' Ben said :' That's standing on two horses ? No, we've never done that.' ' Well you've got to learn in three weeks.' Harry Carey jr.Ben Johnson was a stunt rider and actor. He worked with director John Ford in a number of movies. Harry Carey Jr. was another stunt rider. 'Harry Carey'. What a name to have during WW2.
|The Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Albrecht Dürer circa 1498|
Angels are guardian spirits.
Better to live well than long.
Criticise your own writing.
Doing nothing is doing ill.
Exercise strengthens the body.
Freedom is a precious boon.
Gaming has ruined many.
Hold truth in great esteem.
Industry increases wealth.
Kind words can never die.
Let your promises be sincere.
Modesty always charms.
Nature is imitated by art.
Opinion misleads many.
Quit not certainty for hope.
Reputation is not character.
Time present is our only lot.
Virtue commands respect.
Wisdom is better than riches.
Youth should listen to age.
|The fair, pale maiden “U.S. Credit” has been murdered by the swarthy Democrat William J. Bryan, depicted here with the visual stereotype used in those days to signify Italian immigrants. Judge, August 15, 1896|
|Small, $2 retaining wall concrete block|
|1991 BMW 850i|
|HC&S Puʻunēnē Mill. Photo 2015 by Wendy Osher.|
Photo taken back when the mill was still in operation.
|Current Google Streetview of the same mill.|
There has been a lot of talk about privilege lately. Although the concept is overused, there is something to it, and in particular to the idea that privilege makes you blind — that you can't see things that are visible to someone whose life is very different from yours.
But one of the most pervasive examples of this kind of blindness is one that I haven't seen mentioned explicitly. I'm going to call it orthodox privilege: The more conventional-minded someone is, the more it seems to them that it's safe for everyone to express their opinions.
It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone. They literally can't imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble.
And yet at every point in history, there were true things that would get you in terrible trouble to say. Is ours the first where this isn't so? What an amazing coincidence that would be.
Surely it should at least be the default assumption that our time is not unique, and that there are true things you can't say now, just as there have always been. You would think. But even in the face of such overwhelming historical evidence, most people will go with their gut on this one.
The spectral signature of orthodox privilege is "Why don't you just say it?" If you think there's something true that people can't say, why don't you be brave, and own it? The more extreme will even accuse you of specific heresies they imagine you must have in mind, though if there's more than one heresy current in your time, these accusations will tend to be nondeterministic: you must either be an xist or a yist.
Frustrating as it is to deal with these people, it's important to realize that they're in earnest. They're not pretending they think it's impossible for an idea to be both unorthodox and true. The world really looks that way to them.
How do you respond to orthodox privilege? Merely giving it a name may help somewhat, because it will remind you, when you encounter it, why the people you're talking to seem so strangely unreasonable. Because this is a uniquely tenacious form of privilege. People can overcome the blindness induced by most forms of privilege by learning more about whatever they're not. But they can't overcome orthodox privilege just by learning more. They'd have to become more independent-minded. If that happens at all, it doesn't happen on the time scale of one conversation.
It may be possible to convince some people that orthodox privilege must exist even though they can't sense it, just as one can with, say, dark matter. There may be some who could be convinced, for example, that it's very unlikely that this is the first point in history at which there's nothing true you can't say, even if they can't imagine specific examples.
But except with these people, I don't think it will work to say "check your privilege" about this type of privilege, because those in its demographic don't realize they're in it. It doesn't seem to conventional-minded people that they're conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they're right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.
Perhaps the solution is to appeal to politeness. If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't, it's only polite to take them at their word, instead of demanding evidence that's impossible to produce, or simply denying that they hear anything. Imagine how rude that would seem. Similarly, if someone says they can think of things that are true but that cannot be said, it's only polite to take them at their word, even if you can't think of any yourself.
Once you realize that orthodox privilege exists, a lot of other things become clearer. For example, how can it be that a large number of reasonable, intelligent people worry about something they call "cancel culture," while other reasonable, intelligent people deny that it's a problem? Once you understand the concept of orthodox privilege, it's easy to see the source of this disagreement. If you believe there's nothing true that you can't say, then anyone who gets in trouble for something they say must deserve it.
|Roman Empire in 100 AD|
is a history map application with over 50 million data points which every registered user can curate and contribute to (just like Wikipedia).Next time I am wondering about what was going on somewhere, somewhen, I'll to remember to give it a try.
|The athletic circle of Montmartre Paris - Maurice-Louis Branger - 1913|
|Aral Sea in 1984|
The sleepy guy is a deckhand on Nick's boat. The guy in the water with the chain around his neck and a knife is Nick.
Nick called today to say "hi". He was on the boat, sitting in port waiting for the DNR [Alaska Department of Natural Resources] announcement tomorrow on which fisheries would/or-not be open. Fishing has been spotty, but other than not making money he is happy.
Asking him what he does with his day, "not much". Then he tells me the boat had a "net in the wheel" ??? The boat got its net tangled in a prop. Nick having his NZ wetsuit with him grabs a "vicky" and dives under the boat no mask, no tank, but with a chain thrown over his shoulder as a dive belt. It takes many surfacings for air and a lot of slashing with the Vicky to clear the prop. Salt water doesn't bother his unmasked eyes. Estimates vary but it is said this bold action saved the Captain a couple thousand bucks, motoring, time, fuel, hiring a pro diver.
A Vicky is a cheap knife made by Victornix, they are ubiquitous on the boats, used for everything from clearing props to slicing up ones meal. No more caring your personal blade, "there is typically a vicky in reach"
Speaking of meals and diving, Nick says if he doesn't go be a Gaucho in Argentina, or canoe the Mississippi, he may give a go at diving to harvest Sea cucumber for the Asian seafood trade. A new industry to me, cuke-divers are said to be paid well for their efforts, but google says it is fraught with risk. Nick knows of a local captain who is legend in the area. He runs his boat down the coast all the way to Mexico, fishing for whatever is paying: ablaone, shrimp, sea cukes, salmon, crab. Nick hopes to find out more about the cukes from him.
Impartiality takes three forms. The first is an accidental impartiality that occurs when it just so happens that I am uninvolved in the contest, dispute or conflict. I call this form accidental because it does not require any special gift of disinterested judgment on my part. If circumstances had been otherwise and I had been involved, I would likely be cheering, aiding and abetting one side. It must be added that accidental impartiality necessarily entails profound ignorance of the contest, dispute or conflict, and thus pronouncements from the position of accidental impartiality are usually beside the point and irrelevant.
I am, it so happens, accidentally impartial when it comes to contests between figure skaters, disputes between physicists, and conflicts between militant factions in the African jungle. I do not care who wins because I do not understand the competition, the debate, or the conflict. It would not trouble me to see either side win, or both, or neither. And not only do I not, as we Texans say, have a dog in the fight—I also know nothing whatsoever about dog fights.
This is why accidental impartiality does not qualify a man to act as an “impartial judge,” and why he should in fact hold his tongue and keep his irrelevant opinions to himself. If I were called upon to act as the impartial judge of a figure skating contest, for instance, my profound ignorance of figure skating would require me to award the trophy on the basis of my irrelevant opinion of the skaters’ costume or choice of musical accompaniment. And the same goes if I were called upon to act as the impartial judge in a dispute between physicists or a conflict between militant African factions.
* * * * *
Counterfeit impartiality is the second form, and this obviously occurs when a mask of cool detachment conceals a face that is creased with anxiety and aglow with concern. This is naturally the form of impartiality that is most often advanced as a qualification by men and women who are panting to be selected as an “impartial judge,” and an ability to convincingly counterfeit impartiality is, in truth, a prime qualification for those who wish to join a conspiracy of cronies. There are few skills that serve men and women better than than the ability to appear judicious while handing their friend the biscuit, and kicking their foe out the door. I advise all ambitious young people to practice it assiduously, before a full-length mirror.
If young people are looking to model themselves on the great masters of counterfeit impartiality, I advise them to study just about anyone who is promoted (or self-promoted) as an expert. I hasten to add that I am not implying that there are no genuine experts, or that that impartial expertise is on all fours with accidental impartiality, but only that the impartiality of many experts is entirely counterfeit. To revert to that vivid Texas colloquialism, you cannot become an expert and not grow partial to one dog. In fact, it is almost impossible to become an expert without placing a substantial wager on the outcome of the dogfight.
Expertise means experience, and experience means involvement. If I have sufficient expertise to understand what a figure skater does in a quadruple jump, I will certainly be sufficiently involved in figure skating to have taken on all sorts of biases and partialities. I will have friends and be part of a faction, and I will have to demonstrate some loyalty if I wish to keep those friends and remain part of that faction. The same is true of the physicists who sit in judgment of disputes between physicists, and of critics who lead public opinion to root for one of the armed factions in a conflict in some faraway African jungle.
* * * * *
This leaves us with what I call anguished impartiality, by which I mean an impartiality that causes acute mental suffering in a genuine expert because it requires him to briefly suspend his loyalties and betray his friends. He is not an ignoramus who is accidentally impartial because he can see no difference between the two sides. He has a dog in the fight, and a very large wager riding on that dog. He also has cronies to whom he is indebted for favors, and a fit of impartiality will very possibly oblige him to welsh on this debt.
He knows what cronies do to welshers, and that is why he feels anguish.
The anguish of true impartiality is well known to practitioners of counterfeit impartiality, and they they are therefore capable of writhing like Hamlet when they cannot maintain the pretense of detachment. So you must not take an appearance of mental anguish as proof that you are in the presence of an impartial judge.
But you should take the presence of mental anguish in yourself as pretty strong evidence that you are in fact acting as an impartial judge. You feel that mental anguish because you are welshing on the debts you owe to your cronies and risking the large wager you have placed on your dog.
* * * * *
What this comes down to is that impartiality is very hard. It may be too hard for many people, and is certainly too hard for anyone to exercise at all times. Indeed, when we consider that true impartiality must be either stupid or disloyal, a man who claims to be impartial at all times must be either a fool, a fink or a fraud.
Thus we should aspire to an inconsistent impartiality in the matters that interest us most. We should hold our tongues on questions we do not understand; and we should, more often than not, declare our loyalties and do our duty to our side when this is not the case.
But above all else, we should never forget that no one enjoys being an impartial judge, unless, of course, they are just pretending to be impartial. In that case they enjoy it more than you can possibly imagine.
|Craftsman Job Site Table Saw|
|3D Printed Bushing|
|Liza Destiny oil processing ship|
For a country of less than a million people, the find (the Liza oil field) changes everything. Within a decade Guyana could be completely transformed by the find going from unpaved roads and sporadic power to being a developed nation.
|Noble Don Tailor drillship|
|767 stuck in the mud|