The limits of gloating

AARRRGH, blather, Crazy, dumbassery, Forward!, Gah., Hmm..., news, politics, wisdom, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Sep 152025

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, a LOT of people found themselves with exciting opportunities to explore new career options after posting gleeful nonsense online that their employers didn’t like or were downright horrified by. And while I’ve long been opposed to “cancel culture,” this simply doesn’t bother me. If you found that your co-worker was thrilled to ecstasy over the murder of someone whose politics you agreed with, would that not make for an uncomfortable to downright impossible work environment? If they supported not just that murder, but advocated publicly for *more,* wouldn’t you wonder where *you* sat on their kill list? Even if you opposed the politics of the killed and agreed with politics of the killer, wouldn’t you see that level of glee as kinda psychopathic and liable to spread kinda wide?

But it got me thinking.When Osama Bin Laden got got, when this or that serial killer sat on Ol’ Sparky, when some random street thug got run down and smooshed by the cops, a *lot* or people turned out to celebrate. If Hitler or Stalin or Jack the Ripper get put down, people celebrate, and for the most part society views this somewhere between “slight distaste for the excessive emotionalism” to “downright supportive.” So what makes celebrating Bin Ladins death good and Kirk’s bad? Obviously, one was a bad guy, the other was a good guy. But equally obviously, those celebrating Kirk’s murder saw him as a bad guy. From what I’ve seen a lot of that is based on misinterpretations to outright lies, but the fact that their views are based on falsehoods doesn’t mean their views are any less heartfelt.

So, let’s try to draw a comparison. Let’s stay away from extreme examples like Stalin or Saddam Hussein. Let’s look at someone I’ve seen raised several times related to Kirk: Kyle Rittenhouse. In 2020, he shot three people in Kenosha, WI, killing two, and subsequently was viewed as a hero by many and even ended up at several Charlie Kirk-related events. The three he shot were mocked by many, including myself. Why is mocking their deaths/injuries acceptable while mocking Kirk’s is not?

Well, there’s the motive for the shootings. There’s the kind of people the shooting victims were in general; there’s what they were generally doing that day, and there’s what they were doing at that very moment. Compare:

Motive, Kirk assassination: Political terrorism

Motive, Rittenhouse shootings: self defense

General type of person: Charley Kirk – law abiding, engaged in peaceful political debate

General type of person, Rittenhouse shootings:

1: Joseph Rosenbaum, dead: spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual assault of minors, beat he girlfriend

2: Anthony Huber, dead: spent time in prison for attacking both his brother and sister

3: Gaige Grosskreutz, lost 90% of his bicep: Seems like kind of a nobody.

What were they doing that day:

Kirk: Debating publicly, giving time to people who disagreed with him

Kenosha Three: All three shooting victims were “attending” a protest on the side of looters, rioters and arsonists. Rosenbaum and Huber seemed to be there as agents of chaos; Grosskreutz seemed to play a medical support role to keep said agents in the fight to tear down society.

What were they doing at that moment:

Kirk: speaking with someone on the other side of politics.

Kenosha three: all three were trying to kill Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz pulled out a Glock with the seeming goal of shooting him in the head, but got shot first.

In the case of Kirk, even if you disagreed with his politics, you can’t rationally argue that he was engaged in criminality at that moment or generally, while the Kenosha three *all* seemed to be bent on extreme criminality. That’s the difference: mocking a criminal seems fair game.

Many companies, from random employers to social media platforms, say that they don’t tolerate advocacy of violence. But that’s clearly not true. And I don’t even mean it’s politically slanted… it’s *really* not true. Feel free to say “I support the military forces of Ukraine against Russia.” Nobody will much complain except supporters of Russia, who will say “I support the military forces of Russia.” And what is that support if not the support of people armed with weapons trying to kill other people? It’s perfectly acceptable. “I support Israel” means you support the bombardment of Hamas. “I support Palestine” means you support rubbing out all the Israelies. “I support Patton/Zhukov/Sherman/Julius Caesar/Muhammad/fill-in-the-military-leader” means you support them killing their enemies, and more or less nobody will much bat an eye at that. If you mock the death of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Saddam or Jim Jones, again not too many people will care because those were not only awful people because “I don’t agree with their politics,” but “they were engaged in murderous activities at the time.” If you mock the death of some dimwad who climbs the side of a building to vandalize it and falls off and goes splat, again, not too many people will really complain because that death was based on that person doing an objectively wrong sort of thing. Disagree with his politics or theology all you like, what Kirk was doing when he got shot was peaceably talking to people. “Having a debate” is NOT the sort of thing that should rationally end in a gunshot.

If you mock the death of Kirk, you suggest a threat to people who agree with his politics. If you mock the death of some idiot who plays chicken with a train and loses, not too many people are going to go “hey, that could be me, and maybe this guy will run me over with a train.” If you mock the death of Stalin, the only people likely to get upset are those who plan on becoming democidal tyrants.

Where’s the line? It’s vague, but “actively murdered” is kind of a clear line… usually. Jeffrey Dahmer was actively murdered in prison, and again, nobody will much complain if you dance on his grave. Just… use some common sense. Would it be bad to mock the assassination of Person X? Well, assume that Person X was their political opposite. Would it be bad for a leftist to mock the assassination of, say, JD Vance? Ask said leftist if it would be acceptable for a rightwinger to mock the assassination of Kamala Harris. Some some damn sense, people.

Great great great grandfather

blather, history, Hmm... No Responses »

Aug 082025

So a very distant relation in Sweden is working on fleshing out his family history and managed to get in touch with my mother regarding my mothers fathers fathers father, who left Sweden in 1852 and came to Illinois. Included in what we have so far is a translation of a letter the guy sent back home to Sweden describing the ocean voyage and the trip from Boston to Chicago in “steam wagons.” Kinda interesting to read, but there was one sentence that jumped out at me as kind of a WTF moment. I don’t know if there were anomalies in the translation from Swedish to English, but given how well the rest of the letter seems written, I’m thinking not. I think my Great great great grandfather got some bad info while in Boston regarding a local landmark:

“We went to see the tree under which Samuel Columbus rested the first night after discovering America.”

Ummm.

GGGGrandfather makes note of tricksters trying to scam immigrants, so it would surprise me none at all if some random tree was declared an important historical landmark. Doubtless someone tried to sell souvenir branches or something.

He lived to the ripe old age of 99, having fought in the Civil War on the Union side.

Forgotten dead, remembered again

AARRRGH, blather, Crazy, Hmm..., religion, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jul 172025

A Tweet about the Pixar movie “Coco,” which I have not seen, got me thinking (and I think re-iterating an idea I blathered about on this blog years ago but can’t be bothered to look up again).

https://x.com/cirsova/status/1945885686768230903

An interesting theology: you continue to exist in some form so long as someone remembers you, then once nobody alive remembers you, *poof* you’re gone.This is apparently the plot of “Coco,” where some kid visits Mexican Afterlife, which is a party for those whose living relatives still venerate them. While this does not seem to jibe with my understanding of Christianity, set that aside for the moment and just ponder the basic idea, that your existence in the afterlife is contingent upon people remembering you. (A lot of theologies around the world include some ancestor-veneration, seemingly implying that Great Granny’s afterlife is depending on you dropping off a banana on her shrine now and then.)

For most people throughout history, that meant that within probably 40 years of your death, you’re off to oblivion. Some people last in some form of memory for centuries, of course… Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great will last a good long while. But some people are remembered, then utterly forgotten… then remembered again. Consider Gilgamesh or any number of Pharaohs or minor functionaries mentioned on clay tablets or tomb walls or hidden texts. They were forgotten and lost for millennia, with not a single soul living on Earth knowing their name. But then their name is found and read again by archeologists. Some become world famous, known to millions: King Tut, for example. Others, like Ea-nāṣir, are known ta relative few. Are these dead souls left in some sort of limbo or stasis during the years they’re forgotten, then come back, or do they just pop back into existence?

And of course, how much does the condition of the afterlife depend on the condition of your memory? Is the afterlife a party only if people who actually knew you still remember you? Does it fade into hollowness and boredom as your memory fades? Are you left sitting motionless in an empty space if your memory consists solely of your name written on some unread wall? Imagine the grim fate awaiting us all as we wait for proton decay to erase the last memory crystals that contain our tax records, a googol years or more from now.

Norspiel

history, Hmm..., Monthly Historical Documents Program, Patreon No Responses »

Feb 222025

Now scanning: “Norspiel,” rules book for a wargame created at Northrop Aircraft in 1957. Not the usual sort of thing I go after, but it seems interesting. I wasn’t able to find anything online about it other than the ebay listing, so it may be new to the wargaming world. I’m not a wargamer (not since about 1987), so I’m no expert, but it seems a lot simpler than, say, Dungeons and Dragons or Warhammer 40K.

This will be added to the next APR Patreon/subscriber catalog to be voted on for a monthly reward. If this sort of thing is of interest, please check out:

aerospaceprojectsreview.com/monthly.htm

The 80’s reign supreme

AARRRGH, awesomeness, blather, history, Hmm..., wisdom, youtube No Responses »

Feb 222025

Everyone is nostalgic for the days of their youth and think that “those years were the best.” But I really believe a good case can be made that the 80’s and well into the 90’s were in many ways the pinnacle of our culture. Pop culture was almost undeniably at it’s zenith. We still had optimism; our culture hadn’t been tainted with the post-9/11 malaise and the recognition that a demographic tsunami and cultural collapse were inevitable. Hollywood still made entertainment that entertained and wasn’t loaded to the gills with deviant insanity. Everything *wasn’t* a struggle session forced on us by people who hated us and our civilization. And pop culture was really in a sweet spot. TV, movies and music had learned how to make just exactly awesome stuff that people loved. Things were *fun.* And I suspect that entertainment tech was perfect, in a way. If you wanted “Star Wars,” you could get “Star Wars” on a VHS tape. It wasn’t especially easy and it certainly was nowhere near as good as on a movie screen, but it was okay. And that “available, good but not great” accessibility scratched the itch but made you want to go to the movies & get the Good Stuff. To chat about it you talked face to face with friends, as social media didn’t really exist. Now it’s too easy and we’re too separated. We didn’t know how good we had it.

Today if you want to watch something, chances are you just pull it up and stream it. Any episode, the whole series, available in 4K resolution on an 85-inch high-def screen the moment you want it. And that’s great and all… but there really is something special about things being a bit more challenging than that. When a show took 22 weeks to tell a seasons worth of stories, rather than dumping 8 hours on you all at once and not to be seen again for another year or two, it spread out the joy over time. You could absorb it and process it. And, in the case of shows like Star Trek, Babylon 5, X Files and the like, argue and debate it with your friends, one episode a week.

When things are too easy, they become cheap.

Einstein Ring

awesomeness, Hmm..., news, photography, science No Responses »

Feb 122025

This is worth noting:

Einstein Was Right – Euclid Just Captured Space-Time Warping in a Perfect Cosmic Ring

Which references:

Euclid: A complete Einstein ring in NGC 6505

1/18 Project Pluto #2

aircraft, art, awesomeness, history, Hmm..., models, nukes, projects, weapons No Responses »

Jan 272025

I haven’t finished the first Pluto, but I decided to go ahead with an improved version anyway. Pluto ver 2 now has a full weapons bay interior, shadow shield and air conditioning equipment. I am also going to completely revise the reactor and add booster rockets.

The first one will still be completed, to serve as a proof of concept and as a painting test to get that 24K gold look. Then I’ll probably see about selling it on ebay or something.

1/18 Project Pluto

aircraft, art, awesomeness, blather, Hmm..., models, nukes, projects, weapons No Responses »

Jan 182025

So it has been a little bit of a while. Been busy, and lately I’ve been ill (influenza B). But the illness is finally fading and the busyness may be tapering a bit. So here’s a recent product of slow progress: the 3D printed bits of a 1/18 Project Pluto nuclear ramjet missile. Much of it is fiber-printed, with smaller parts resin printed. Why does it exist? Because I want one. But also because I hope other people may want one (or more). As shown here it’s fairly basic; nose cone and midsection are printed as single pieces, tail section left & right halves. A basic TORY nuclear reactor is included; it’s visible through the nozzle but not so much through the serpentine inlet. But if displayed as a cutaway, it should be pretty effective. If I go ahead with a production version, the midsection will be split left and right, with visible equipment including weapons bays. Who might be interested in this as a kit? Printed and ready for sanding (LOTS of sanding) and assembly, I’m guessing something like $200 plus shipping. A fully completed display piece would be rather more. Going to experiment some with getting a good golden surface. If interested in joining a list, send an email to:

Not shown are the 1/144 “Big Onion” SPS launching SSTO and the 1/1 M388 “Davy Crockett” warhead. Both of those are done and being painted.

Destruction of nuclear weapons with a neutrino beam

blather, Hmm..., nukes, projects, science, science fiction, weapons, youtube No Responses »

Aug 262024

A scientific paper published more than 20 years ago was recently rediscovered by the internet:

Sugawara et al. 2003, “Destruction of Nuclear Bombs Using Ultra-High Energy Neutrino Beam”

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305062

A lot of this goes over my little post-Covid head, but the summary seems to be that, theoretically, an advanced high energy collider, similar to but larger and more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider could slam muons into each other and create a laser–like beam of neutrinos. OK, cool. But where I get fuzzy is the discussion of the “mean free path” of the neutrinos. By tinkering with the exact energy of the neutrinos, you can set the MFP to the exact distance from the collider to the target. The beam of neutrinos pass virtually unhindered through the Earth, then, at a fairly specific spot, they create a shower of hadrons. That’s where I’m lost: do the neutrinos suddenly decide “ok, let’s interact with the atoms in dirt right here,” or what, exactly? I’m puzzled.

But in any event, that shower of hadrons *is* perfectly capable of interacting with normal matter, such as the fissile material in a nuclear bomb. In a matter of seconds or minutes, the uranium or plutonium will heat up enough to cause the surrounding high explosives to catch fire or detonate, while messing with the nuclear properties of the warhead itself. They estimate that the bomb will “fizzle” with about 3% the yield it was designed for.

The anti-weapon weapon is hilariously impractical: even with advanced superconducting electromagnets the collider will be on the scale of kilometer in size, costing hundreds of billions. Each shot will require the power output of a nation, and will only target a single nuclear weapon, whose position must be known to just a few feet. And it kinda seems like this vast ring-like structure must be aimed physically. Good luck with *that.*

It seems like “physically possible, engineeringly impractical, financially impossible” project. Something nobody could pull off on Earth. On the other hand, the sci-fi possibilities are clear. Aliens, say, show up. Their scouts check out Earth, realize we’re loaded with troublesome nukes, so their von Neuman bots start carving up the moon. They dig a trench around the moons equator and fill that trench with a vast accelerator… with the reaction chamber pointed right at Earth. A relatively small jiggering of the chamber can aim the resulting neutrino beam to any desired spot on Earth; slight adjustments to the colliders power sets the precise range. Nukes in solos start melting down. Nukes on planes kept in constant motion, however, would likely be safe. Nukes on subs? If they can precisely track submerged boomers, they can probably target them.

The end of video evidence: and so it begins

AARRRGH, Crazy, Forward!, Hmm..., news, politics, science, science fiction, youtube, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jun 172024

Videos have come out showing President Biden doing bad things (specifically, acting like what he is: an elderly man who is well into cognitive and physical decline), and his PR machine is spooling up the defense that the videos are “cheap fakes” and “deep fakes.” The videos are clearly *not* fakes, neither “cheap” nor “deep,” but have in most cases been shot by reputable media sources and broadcast on national news. However, we’re now at the point where people are coming to know and understand deep fakes, and as I’ve been saying for a long time, bad actors will start claiming that valid videos of them behaving poorly are actually deep fakes.

The era of video as useful evidence is coming to an end. They’ll be good for a while longer, but not much longer. In maybe five years, the courts will be in complete chaos as every defendant on trial who was seen by cell phones or security cameras will be able to rightly claim that deep faking is now so easy that it would be simplicity itself for the prosecution to slap it together over lunch.

Older Entries