Johnson’s johnson

I’m sorry, but I was up at 5 putting the finishing touches on two exams I’m giving this afternoon, and which I have to get graded by tomorrow morning, because I’m giving a third exam tomorrow, which also has to be graded quickly. I’m in a bit of a haze right now, but I feel a need to comment on this:

Ultra-creepy millionaire Bryan Johnson has increased his creepiness score ten-fold by hooking up a machine to his penis every night to record its unconscious activity, and worst of all, is bragging about it on the internet. He’s spending $2 million per year to try and game aging, getting scores on arbitrary metrics that he can point to and brag that his body parts have different ages.

Now he wants to have the penis of an 18 year old.

He claims he now has the heart of a 37-year-old, the skin of a 28-year-old, and the fitness of an 18-year-old.

I know it’s an old joke, but where does he keep them? In jars on his mantelpiece?

I apologize again. My only excuse is that I’m addled with exhaustion and will be getting no respite until next week.

Hey, I’d look younger than my age if I could spend a few million dollars to hire people to write and grade these exams.

Plagiarism, the scandal du jour

After pointing out the excessive length of that otherwise praiseworthy hbomberguy video, I see that it is prompting some useful followups. For instance, here’s an academic explaining the academic perspective on plagiarism, in a mere 27 minutes.

That’s useful! I say a lot of similar things in my writing class, and I’ll probably assign this video for them to watch as homework. Plagiarism is an important problem that we try to hammer against with frequent reinforcing messages.

By the way, hbomberguy has put out a 20 minute video focused on just the Illuminaughtii plagiarism scandal. It’s amazing how this topic has caught fire on YouTube this week — some of those people who have been profiting mightily from ripping off other people’s writing had better watch out.

The Supreme Court believes in magic

You wouldn’t believe how popular this sentiment is on the right-wing/New Age side of the internet. It’s bullshit.

Regulation isn’t free. It costs money to compel for-profit companies to comply with the rules that benefit them in the long run, but cost in the short run. Conservatives don’t like that, and want to be free to ignore, for instance, conservation regulations (I know, it’s sad that conservatives don’t like conservation). Now the Supreme Court is getting into the act.

On New England fishing boats, cramming another person into a space that barely fits a half-dozen employees already is a big ask. But the National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Commerce, requires that herring fisheries notify it before embarking on fishing trips, and on half of such trips, a federal inspector rides along. The inspector checks the crew’s compliance with federal rules about where they can fish, how many of which types of fish they can catch, and what kind of gear they can use in the process. The rule also requires that companies help foot the bill for its inspectors’ salaries—about $710 a day. Fishery owners say this reduces their annual returns by about 20 percent.

Last year, four fisheries challenging the rule asked the Supreme Court to put a stop to this practice. And last week, the Court granted certiorari in the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The justices will hear oral argument sometime next fall.

You can trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing, right? Ha ha, no. The Supreme Court doesn’t believe in science.

The Supreme Court is one of the most scientifically illiterate bodies in government, but why don’t we let it take over federal regulation? That is the basic question behind Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, scheduled for argument next month at the Supreme Court, and it should scare you. To those only recently paying attention, the court’s disdain for the scientific consensus, as evidenced in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, may seem surprising. However, even before the installation of its conservative supermajority, the court had long viewed scientific evidence that runs contrary to its policy preferences with contempt.

Skepticism of an inconvenient scientific consensus is nothing new for the Supreme Court, particularly for the conservatives. In Stanford v. Kentucky, the 1989 case on the constitutionality of capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds, Justice William Brennan pointed out the conservative majority’s “evident but misplaced disdain” for scientific evidence, particularly that of the social sciences. In Lockhart v. McCree, Justice William Rehnquist took it upon himself to disregard 14 of 15 submitted peer-reviewed studies, stating that the only reliable study happened to be the one that supported his position, contrary to the scientific consensus. Chief Justice John Roberts has gone so far as to call certain fields “sociological gobbledygook.”

Conservatives’ dislike of science does not stop at social sciences, though. In recent years, conservative justices have made statements completely at odds with the scientific consensus, including saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and taking the position that a surface connection between navigable waters is necessary for pollution of wetlands to matter. There is a strong scientific consensus contrary to each of these contentions, but the conservative justices chose to disregard it in favor of their prior opinions.

This is what happens when you let theocrats pack the courts. The only laws they’ll accept are the ones they’ve invented for themselves. You may recall this notorious quote.

The aide said that guys like me [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” [The New York Times Magazine]

That’s the law of the land now.

UIs matter

Well, this is a horror story about coding incompetence. There is this nice gadget that can be controlled from your phone to automagically dispense insulin, a real boon to diabetics. You just type how big a dose you need into your phone, and it signals and discreet little device to deliver it. No manual injections!

Except their software drops the initial decimal point. If you type “0.5”, it’s fine, it delivers 0.5 units of insulin. If you type “.5”, it ignores the decimal point, and delivers 5 units. You better not type “.50”, or oh boy, here comes 50 units.

This must have been a fun letter for Omnipod to send out.

Dear Valued Customer,

You are receiving this letter as our records indicate that you are a user of the Omnipod® 5 App from Google Play on your compatible Android smartphone. The app is part of the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System. This notice is a voluntary Medical Device Correction related to an issue with the Omnipod 5 App bolus calculator. Insulet has received 2 reports of adverse events related to this issue.
…
We have received reports from Omnipod 5 smartphone app users where the bolus calculator is not recording the decimal point if it is the first value entered when changing a bolus dose. If the user does not recognize the issue, this may lead to delivery of more insulin than intended, which can lead to severe hypoglycemia.

I’m imagining corporate lawyers having heart attacks when this bug was discovered.

Hey, computer science instructors, this’ll be a good example to use if your students complain about mundane data entry tasks!

Finally, a football game I might care about

You know I’m no fan of college football and think the whole institution is a perversion of the academic life, but there is an event coming up that makes me want to scream “GO DUCKS!”

The No. 8 Oregon Ducks (11-2) will play in the Fiesta Bowl against the No. 23 Liberty University Flames (13-0) on Jan. 1, the Bowl Season Committee announced on Sunday morning.

After a heartbreaking 34-31 loss to the No. 2 Washington Huskies (13-0) on Friday night in the Pac-12 Championship Game, the Ducks knew their playoff chances were gone, but still had a shot at making a New Year’s Six Bowl game.

As an alumnus of the University of Oregon, and as someone who utterly despises that bogus Christian sham of a “university”, Falwell’s Folly, I’d be tempted to watch the game so I could snarl my contempt of the jumped-up Bible college for a few hours. If it’s actually broadcast I might even put it on (but no, I don’t care enough to cough up cash for pay-per-view).

I didn’t even know about the playoff between my undergrad university, UW, and my grad school, UO, so I can’t get worked up about that game, either way. But hell yeah, stomp all over Liberty “University”. Make a Falwell cry. Although they probably don’t care either, Jerry (their ex-president) would probably be too busy having a ménage à trois with a poolboy.

Last week of the semester!

It’s the worst time of the year. I have to review everything I’ve taught this semester, I have to give final exams and papers, I have to grade everything that comes pouring in, and I have to do it with a hard deadline — everyone disappears after Friday. I also have to do this damned debate on Friday. And then I fly away to Seattle this weekend.

Oh well. One last surge of effort, and then I’m off until mid-January.

Science contest at the Ark Park!

It sounds contradictory to combine science and their fake, unscientific ark, but that’s what Answers in Genesis plans to do. They are hosting something called the Answers STEM Challenge, a contest where people stand a chance to make some big money. Here are the prizes:

First place prize—$5,000
Second place prize—$2,000
Third place prize—$1,000

That’s pretty good money for what is basically a sort of science fair. I say “sort of” because unlike most science fairs, the students are told exactly what they have to do, so it’s fairly strongly constrained. Participants must build a wind turbine, which must have:

• Generator (provided)
• Housing (Nacelle)
• Blades
• Tower
• Base

It also must fit on a 1.2m x 1.2m base, so it’s basically a small model that will be propped up in front of fans and the power output measured.

OK, so it’s more of an engineering challenge. It’s also somehow tangled up in their version of Biblical literalism. So far, it sounds like something even I could do: assemble some basic stuff with cardboard and duct tape — or if I wanted to be fancy, build it with acrylic or 3D printing, buy some large propellor blades on Amazon, and show up. The only difficult part would be the electronics…but they provide that for everyone? There doesn’t seem to be a lot of scientific/engineering work involved. There is one obstacle for me, though.

This event will equip and encourage participants to hold to the authority of God’s Word while learning about STEM from a biblical worldview! Form your team, register, and get designing today!

One of the requirements in the official rulebook is : Application of biblical worldview to the design task. Participants are required to explain how their design is Biblical.

Team showed the importance of standing on the authority of God’s Word when faced with complex environmental issues.

Uh, where in the Bible does it talk about wind turbines and electricity and wind power? Or about “complex environmental issues”? The Biblical perspective on environmentalism is that humans must subdue and rule the natural world, and AiG has some rather regressive views on that.

While some, like Dr. Michael Nortcott, think — as he expresses it repeatedly in his recent book A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming — that we must choose between people’s rising out of poverty and protecting the environment, as if either prevented the other (a bifurcation fallacy), we believe the two are not exclusive alternatives but mutually interdependent. A clean, healthful, beautiful environment being a costly good, and wealthier people being able to afford more of a costly good than poor people, it follows that growing wealth — accompanied by ethics and values informed by Scripture, and in the context of a just civil social order — can protect and improve our surroundings (the real meaning, by the way, of the word environment) rather than degrade them.

I don’t know whether that’s derived from the prosperity gospel or effective altruism, they can be hard to tell apart. I do know that they’re reading an awful lot into the Bible, and I wouldn’t want to contribute to that.

I will be interested to see what ludicrous lump of propaganda wins the contest — it’ll be held in November 2024.

Pounding plagiarism into a thin vile slime

Last night, I saw that hbomberguy had put out a new video, and I started to watch it. Couldn’t finish it. So I resumed this morning. Still haven’t finished it. It’s almost 4 hours long! This is like some epic fantasy movie!

But it’s really good, so I’ll link to it here, in case anyone has more stamina than I do. It’s all about plagiarism on the internet.

It’s incredibly thorough, giving multiple examples, going through the details, and explaining why they are plagiarized. I teach some writing classes here at UMM — one of them in the coming spring semester — and I hammer on plagiarism as one week’s topic. This video is so comprehensive that I wish I could assign it to the class, but I can hear the groans if I tried to do that (although I’m sure they’d find it entertaining). Maybe I should rip out 20 minutes of the video and present the words in my class as my own? Wait, no, that would be bad.

I’ll probably tell them that it’s an optional video they could watch if really interested, and use hbomberguy as a boogey man and let the students know that if they plagiarize, a guy with 1.3 million subscribers might feature them in a massive youtube video that gets over a million views and comprehensively drag them over the coals.