Sep
25
2024

Mindspace is a Scarce Resource

And it's good to know that some people find too much of it is occupied by…

You don't want to read my comments about this. Especially when James Lileks devotes some of his mindspace (and blogspace) to responding to @ratlimit in today's Bleat.

The advantages of having many kinds of peanut butter are numerous. Price point, nut-fragment studded or not, honey flavored, or the natural stuff you have to stir to disperse the oils. It takes a person who does not care for peanut butter to put on his best John Lennon dreamy squint and imagine a world in which there is but one.

Pasta sauce is different. Again, one can infer the author is not a fan of pasta sauce, or perhaps has a palate with the sophistication of a leather stop. There are many types of pasta sauce, each appealing to difference preferences, and each within a range of prices. Which one would we end up with? Marinara? Peppers and Onions with chunky tomatoes? Arrabiatta?

Who gets to choose?

Why the people, I suppose. Not based on sales - those are the results of mind-control commercial algorithms - but probably based on a decree from the People’s State Sauce Selection Committee, or PSSSC, which, since it embodies the will of the people by virtue of being a manifestation of a collectivist state, cannot make incorrect decisions.

Some of the people on the Committee will be earnest and true, and seek the best Sole Sauce for the masses, but will be stymied by a splitter, some wrecker who deserves to end up in Cuba with an ice axe in his stupid brain. This one insists there should be two sauces, a red, and a white. This does not imply the potential for an anti-social brain-taxing Choice Struggle, but recognizes the reality of two coexisting sauce paradigms.

Thus the Alfredo Question arises, and splits the committee until it is agreed that Alfredo will be allowed to be made, but it will not be called Pasta Sauce, but Pasta Thick Liquid. (By this time the matter is irrelevant, since the Alfredo division of all factories had been shut down in anticipation of making the one permitted red variety.)

And don't get him started on pesto. Oh, wait, he got started on pesto in the next paragraphs.

You really want to read the whole thing. In addition to the text, Mr. Lileks has also mastered the craft of AI image generation, and there's a great example at the link.

Also of note:

  • And by "are worse than ineffective", he means "actually kill people". Jacob Sullum's column has the usual way-too-long headline: Recent Overdose Trends Underline the Folly of the War on Drugs: Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris Support Supply-Side Tactics That Are Worse Than Ineffective.

    The annual U.S. death toll from illegal drugs, which has risen nearly every year since the turn of the century, is expected to fall substantially this year. The timing of that turnaround poses a problem for politicians who aim to prevent substance abuse by disrupting the drug supply.

    Those politicians include Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who promises to deploy the military against drug traffickers, and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose platform is also heavy on supply-side tactics. Neither candidate seems to have absorbed the lessons of the "opioid epidemic," which showed that drug law enforcement is not just ineffective but counterproductive, magnifying the harms it is supposed to alleviate.

    Not to be repetitive, but just a few days ago I tried to make a similar point about my local pols, who also fervently support "supply-side tactics". Sometimes I get pretty snarky about it:

  • I still think we should nuke the moon. But Frank J. Fleming has moved on from that provocative blog post. Nowdays he has a substack, where he reveals things like Kamala Harris's Speech Clarifying How Much of a Threat Trump Is. A sample:

    I want to say once again that Trump is a threat to democracy and our way of life… but I also need to clarify that’s he’s not like a super big threat. Like we’ll be okay. You don’t need to hurt him to stop him. He’s a threat, so like vote against him, but not so dangerous you have to do anything other than that. He’s a somewhat threat to democracy… but it’s not that bad.

    I also need to mention Project 2025. This is something Trump supports and will destroy our freedom and our way of life… but like not in a really extreme way. Like if you’re saying to yourself, “I better do something outside the law to stop Project 2025,” then you’re taking it way too seriously. It’s not that bad. I mean, it’s terrible, but you’ll be fine if it’s implemented. So don’t think you need to hurt Trump to stop it.

    Frank's subscription goes for the low, low, price of $5/month.

  • Wax off. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is ablaze about the latest news out of UPenn: Amy Wax is academic freedom's canary in the coal mine.

    Yesterday, the University of Pennsylvania completed its years-long end run around academic freedom to punish law professor Amy Wax. FIRE’s working hard to ensure Penn’s dubious tactics won’t become the new playbook for private universities, which, unlike public universities, are not bound by the First Amendment.

    Long under pressure to “do something” about the controversial Wax — who’s been widely criticized for her views on race and gender — Penn finally got its woman yesterday.

    After conducting a nearly two-year investigation of Wax, which extended more than a year since the last real hearing in her case, Penn announced the professor would indeed be sanctioned for “unprofessionalism.” She’ll keep her tenured faculty role and serve a one-year suspension at half-pay. She’ll also keep her benefits, an important fact given that Wax has been fighting cancer while battling Penn administrators.

    Penn is a private school that nonetheless makes First Amendment-like promises to respect its students’ and faculty members’ right to free expression. Whether on a contractual or moral basis, Penn should have kept those promises. Instead, it abandoned principle for the sake of expediency.

    Here in the Live Free or Die state, we had a couple of State Senators demand the firing of a Hamas cheerleader on the faculty of the University Near Here. I sent an email to one of them. Never heard back. But apparently cooler heads prevailed. That didn't happen at UPenn.

  • It's funny how things change in forty years. Last month's print Reason excerpted a 1984 article in its Archives section at the rear of the issue. Given the wonders of modern tech, we can Read the Whole Thing: Telecommuting: Will the Plug be Pulled? (And you have to keep telling yourself: written in 1984.)

    In at least one instance, local authorities have shut down a computer home worker because telecommuting violates local zoning laws. There is ample precedent for outlawing computer home work under federal labor regulations. And unions are sounding alarms about the prospect of expanding home work.

    Meanwhile, publications such as the left-liberal Nation magazine are carrying the rhetorical banner against home work. A 1983 Nation article bearing the title "Home Computer Sweatshops" keyed into people's revulsion at the exploitation of workers attributed to 19th-century low-wage factories. "A wide expansion of electronic home work," warned the article, "will have serious social consequences."

    Now, I would imagine (without actually checking) that there's at least one Nation writer bemoaning companies that are (um) strongly encouraging their workers to return to their offices. And I bet the word "sweatshops" appears.

Recently on the book blog: