lcraymer.bsky.social
Geneticist by training; parallel supercomputing by profession. ex-JPL, ex "Productivity Maven" for DoD Center for Exceptional Computing. Currently semi-retired, working on compiler startup.
31 posts
15 followers
131 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Damn! The Lincoln Project won't need to do much editing to take this one viral. This clip makes Noem the image of evil.
comment in response to
post
The question seems to be "will he generate a big enough break with GOP members of Congress to be convicted?" The cracks are starting to show, and I rather suspect that most GOP MOCs are going to find themselves between rocks and hard places in the near future.
comment in response to
post
Document, document, document! Make sure that you have a record of what damage is done (and how to recover) for either you to use or to provide to a successor at some later date (given job uncertainty, you may not be there to fix things). Besides, documents _are_ work products.
comment in response to
post
Yes: after Tuesday, he's running scared. Replacing Musk with Loomer looks like a desperate move to reconnect with the MAGA base, and the last minute tariff decisions reek of desperation rather than planning. And that's before Saturday's protests.
comment in response to
post
It's not just the near-term effects. This effectively removes the US from the coming biotech revolution--even a quick reversal won't halt the brain drain--and the corresponding economic boom. If you don't do the science, you don't train the technologists, and you don't start new businesses.
comment in response to
post
There's a historical precedent for similar negotiations. Neville Chamberlain negotiated one hell of a deal to ensure "Peace in our time".
comment in response to
post
Congress is still very malleable and could play a part in taking down the administration. There is still a very live possibility of a peaceful or near-peaceful resolution, but I expect the situation to evolve faster than is typical.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but he's on an accelerated timeline and has skipped an important step--consolidation of military or paramilitary support. He did have paramilitary support, but the Jan 6 convictions dismantled them and they haven't been rebuilt.
comment in response to
post
Where's Waldo? The bigger story may be that the hit Musk took Tuesday was enough to bring Loomer back into the inner circle. That reeks of desperation--as do the tariffs.
comment in response to
post
Actually it's more like reading a library book and later remembering the text--AI's don't actually store the text used to train them. Still: "fair use" is problematic.
comment in response to
post
Don't focus too closely on reason--the point of Goebbels-style propaganda is to trigger the emotions so that people forget their "better angels" and act on their fears. Consider them instead to be victims who may be a danger to themselves and others.
comment in response to
post
I think that they just misspoke. It's too easy to say "reciprocal saw" when you really mean "reciprocating saw".
comment in response to
post
You know, I seem to recall that Oct 28th of that year is remembered for some reason.
comment in response to
post
Attitudes, I think, rather than values, although the rise of libertarianism also had effects. An all-volunteer military kept us in Afghanistan a lot longer than we were in VietNam--civilian awareness matters.
comment in response to
post
Thanks--it's never been a comfortable life, and I have never been happy with the Nixonian shift from draft to all-volunteer: the draft made sure that every citizen was aware of the role that the military played in American society, and made sure of benefits for those that served.
comment in response to
post
Traditionally, the military was a path from poverty/low income to the middle class, and the GI bill helped jumpstart careers. Has that changed?
comment in response to
post
I hate to say it, but this pic screams "Big brother is watching you".
comment in response to
post
No need--what potential client wants to be represented by a firm that will not even represent their own legal interests? Category 1 ("fascist appeasement lawyers") firms are going to have trouble staying in business.
comment in response to
post
I think I see a disconnect with the administration's actions.
comment in response to
post
Let's see. Based on history and research this involves
1.) Academic freedom (speech, thought, and the capability to investigate any problem of interest)
2.) An environment where honesty is valued
3.) DEI--an environment tolerant of divergent opinions (research finding)
4.) Research funding
comment in response to
post
That's a Lab experiment gone wrong.
comment in response to
post
Joe Walsh; Paul Weiss is the law firm that caved on issues of principle. Walsh was a Tea Party Republican who failed to pay child support, then "saw the light" and turned liberal. I have my doubts about Walsh, but then again--the man that wrote "Amazing Grace" was a retired slaver.
comment in response to
post
Actually, scientists change terminology to improve clarity of messaging; the right went from anarchist substitute for liberalism to more-or-less monarchist and only recently to fascism. Stopped clocks are right twice a day.
comment in response to
post
It's not just the Democrats--or if it is, failure is inevitable since Democrats are not in the majority. If it's under single person leadership (as in the cited post), then democracy has failed.
comment in response to
post
I have to admit that your use of procrastination support tools provides a lot of entertainment for those of us who follow your posts.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't matter if that matches reality or not, just that it looks like it does.
comment in response to
post
This, like the massive Venezuelan deportation, is likely intended to reinforce the message that he frightened Schumer and his colleagues into voting for the CR, so that Congress is now in his pocket and only the judiciary is holding out.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, they should have voted to shutdown and passed the baton to "the resistance" (Indivisible, 5050.1, and the rest of us). I am quite sure that "We, the people" would have howled loudly enough to shut down DOGE and force an honest negotiation.
comment in response to
post
The most terrifying feature of nuclear weapons is that they are not quite dangerous enough--deterrence is mostly a matter of psychology.
comment in response to
post
Tactical nukes are low-yield, with limited fallout, comparable to 2-4 very large conventional bombs, but ones that poison a small area for 10-14 days. Nasty, but the Russians have plans for battlefield use.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, but the real question is "How do we keep the Russians from using tactical nukes in Europe?". Up until this year, the answer was that America has nukes and keeps the peace. I suspect that someone in the EU will have to have nukes to find a realistic answer, and that makes me uncomfortable.