Category Archives: Technology

Hamburger for the Price of Steak! By Eric Peters

The huge price differentials between high end and more economical cars is not at all justified by the difference in quality. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

The luxury car no longer exists – except as a badge and a price. And a memory. There being increasingly little, if any, meaningful difference between luxury-badged (and priced) vehicles and those that aren’t.

What is the difference, for instance, between a loaded Toyota Camry and a Lexus ES350? Or a VW Atlas and an Audi Q5? It is nothing like the difference between A Chevy Chevette and a Cadillac Sedan de Ville. That latter comparison is helpful in understanding the differences that no longer exist.

The Chevette was an economy car made by GM’s Chevrolet division made for about ten years, between 1976 and 1987. It was a car almost as basic a Model T Ford, except that it was available in more than just one color. That’s a stretch – but not much. A Chevette did not come standard with air conditioning or even a radio. The latter two were available as options, but most of the equipment that is today taken for granted – that is standard – in literally every new car, irrespective of price, such as climate control AC, power windows and locks, intermittent wipers, a stereo, electric rear defroster, cruise control and full instrumentation – was either optional or unavailable.

You could not buy a Chevette with power-adjustable leather seats and so on because why would you? If you wanted such luxury features, you were willing to pay extra for them. The whole point of a car like the Chevette was to avoid paying for such things.

And things such as heated seats, LED headlights and interior mood lighting weren’t available in Cadillacs when Chevettes were available. Today, such things are standard in Sedan deVille equivalents – and they are usually available (often standard) in today’s Chevette-equivalents.

Continue reading

Financial Harakiri, by Joel Bowman and Bill Bonnor

Joel Bowman and Bill Bonnor take on the world’s idiots and their idiocies. Unfortunately they can’t address them all, but they do a pretty good of shredding the ones they confront. From Bowman and Bonnor at bonnorprivateresearch.substack.com:

Plus money caves, egg donors, peak humanity, mass suicide and assorted other bunk and baloney…

Bill Bonner, reckoning today from Buenos Aires, Argentina…

Our first stop in Buenos Aires was a “cave.” We needed the local money.

You can change your money in a bank and get 190 pesos per dollar.  Or, you go into a shop that pretends to be a real estate agent…or an electronics store…and you get 372 pesos per dollar

You go up to the shop. The door is locked. You ring the buzzer…and the door opens. A handsome young man, tattooed and swarthy, sits behind a glass divider.  You tell him how much money you want to change. He quotes a rate. You accept.  And then, come the piles of cash.

The largest note he has is a 1,000 peso bill. So, if you are changing 500 US dollars, you end up with 186 pieces of paper. The whole transaction is so fast and easy, you have a hard time keeping up with the math. But you are soon walking out of the shop with your pockets stuffed with cash, trying to look inconspicuous.  

Meanwhile, we turn back to the news…

Continue reading

It’s 2030, and robots have more rights than you do…, by Mark E. Jeftovic

It will be a long time, if ever, before robots are turned into anything remotely resembling humans. From Mark E. Jeftovic at bombthrower.com:

Ruminating over our robot overlords and the missing scenario

Now that ChatGPT has exploded onto the stage, there is renewed hype around Artificial Intelligence (AI). Whenever AI captures the public imagination, we are subjected to unrestrained conjectures around how it will inevitably take over the future and change our lives.

We’re led to believe that AI will usher an era of hyper-intelligent overlords, so far advanced beyond our own coarse and analog cognitive skills that the existential question of the future will center around:

  • how much power or rights do we confer on these beings?
  • will they act benevolently or malevolently toward us?


But these questions presuppose a core assumption around AI that everybody agrees isn’t true now but will inevitably become true in the future – after a few more iterations of Moore’s Law…

That’s the idea that AI will achieve general artificial intelligence, and with that is implied some degree sentience (otherwise there is nothing to give any rights to).

The Newsweek piece on the right in the images above is by the transhumanist futurist Zoltan Istvan. He describes how AI ethicists are divided on the matter of whether future hyper-intelligent robots should be granted rights.

On one hand, by not affording human rights to robots possessing AGI (general intelligence on par with humans), we are committing a “civil rights error” that we will regret in the future.

This is opposed by those who assert that robots are machines and will never require rights, because they aren’t sentient (this is where I land on it, and I’ll tell you why below).

Continue reading→

For Whom the Lithium Tolls, by Eric Peters

As EV’s market share increases, so too will their freakish fires. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Much of what ails us has been abstract for a long time. A new law is passed that we don’t like but the effects are .  .  . abstract and so easier to ignore. This is changing – has changed. We increasingly feel the effect of what’s being to us, even if it hasn’t actually directly affected us, yet.

But the closer it gets, the more we feel it coming for us.

Many of us, for instance, know someone who has been “adversely affected” by the drugs lately forced upon them. And yes, it is force when one is under duress. People were told they’d lose their jobs – which for many meant they stood to lose almost everything – if they refused to take the drugs. They were not “free to choose,” as some moral imbeciles have suggested.

I now know of someone who has been “adversely affected” by lithium-ion batteries, the power storage devices forced on all of us, including those of us who do not want and do not own an EV. And yes, all of us. Because all of us are paying for it in one way or another. Whether via fewer alternatives to EVs being available or via higher electricity costs as well as a number of other ways.

Such as the new risk of being burned to death in your sleep by a lithium-ion battery that spontaneously combusted while you were asleep.

This happened to a guy I know from my old neighborhood earlier this week. A friend – from the same neighborhood – called to let me know his house, which was very close to my old house, caught fire after a lithium-ion battery started a fire. The house was destroyed and the guy who was asleep inside never woke up. Rescued by paramedics, he died yesterday of burns and smoke inhalation.

This sort of thing is going to become more common as electric vehicles with fire-prone lithium-ion battery packs become more common. Some will say the risk is “slight.” I refer them to the fact that – already – more EVs have caught fire than Ford Pintos, of which millions were produced. Proportionately far fewer Pintos ever caught fire than EVs so far – yet Pintos were recalled.

And Pintos were not fundamentally defective.

They had a design defect.

The difference is really important – if you would rather not go up in smoke.

Early Pintos might catch fire if rear-ended because the impact could shear off the fuel filler neck (attached to the tank) and that might result in a fire, if there was a spark to ignite the gasoline – which generally won’t burn in the absence of one.

Note all the italics.

Continue reading→

ChatGPT: Who Will Guard AI From the Woke Guardians? By Robert Bridge

Who knew that artificial intelligence has the same biases as people with little intelligence? From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:

It is only when humans get their hands on technology that it has the ability to become a threat to society.

The latest chatbot technology, which generates responses to questions, has shown a clear bias in favor of specific ethnic groups and political ideologies. Is it possible to free artificial intelligence from human prejudices?

ChatGPT made headlines earlier this year after a university student from Northern Michigan University confessed to submitting an essay paper on burqa bans that was written, according to the professor, “in clean paragraphs, fitting examples and rigorous arguments.”

Students getting computers to do their dirty work, however, was only the beginning of the problems to beset the latest AI technology. There was also the question as to who was moderating the responses. It would probably surprise nobody that those individuals hail from the far left of the political spectrum.

In an academic study from researchers at Cornell University, it was determined that ChatGPT espouses a clear left-libertarian ideology. For example, the state-of-the-art machine-learning tool would “impose taxes on flights, restrict rent increases, and legalize abortion. In the 2021 elections, it would have voted most likely for the Greens both in Germany and in the Netherlands.” In other words, this is a technology designed with the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg in mind, not the coal-burning capitalist Donald Trump. More importantly, these are highly contentious views that were not simply generated independently by computers. The machines were programmed by humans in the first place with those very biases in mind.

Continue reading→

How NOSTR Will Change the World of Privacy, by Fabbian Ommar

NOSTR is a decentralized social media protocol whose architecture creates a higher level of privacy. From Fabbian Ommar at theorganicprepper.com:

Bitcoin users have already flocked to it en masse. It has been the subject of constant raving from Edward Snowden. The former CEO and founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, is participating. It’s being heralded as the replacement for Twitter and Instagram, but some industry insiders predict it’ll destroy both.  

Although it’s too early to tell if NOSTR can achieve all of that, one thing it won’t be is another social networking platform (if only because it’s not even a platform). Read on to learn more and find out what NOSTR is and why has the potential to transform interpersonal relationships and communication.  

What’s NOSTR? 

It’s short for “Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays.” It’s officially described as “a decentralized network built on cryptographic keypairs that is not peer-to-peer.” None of that soup of words does much to describe NOSTR, and the concept may take some time to sink in for those used to traditional social media. 

However, once you do, NOSTR’s potential is obvious. 

It is not a platform. It doesn’t have a server, a fancy glass office building full of nerds playing ping-pong and bingeing on free chai lattes, slick marketers, or even a CEO. You don’t really sign up for a NOSTR account and don’t look for a NOSTR app because there isn’t one available in the stores. 

NOSTR is a protocol, or more precisely, a decentralized base-level protocol, that allows anyone to build nearly whatever they like, including a chat room, a social media platform, an interactive game, and a news site. 

Continue reading→

A Weighty Question, by Eric Peters

Electric car batteries are heavy, which makes them more dangerous in a collision. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Here’s an interesting – a weighty – question:

If “safety” is so important to the government – i.e., to the busybodies in Washington who force us to buy what they think is important – then why don’t they think it’s important to protect us from the consequences of what they’re forcing us to buy?

Such as two-ton-plus electric cars that are a physical threat to other cars – and the people inside them?

A subcompact-sized electric car like the Chevy Bolt – which is only 163.2 inches long – weighs 3,589 pounds. A compact-sized car like the Hyundai Accent – which is 172.6 inches long and so a substantially larger car – weighs 2,679 pounds.

The difference between the two is 910 pounds.

It’s a big difference when a 3,589 pound car pile-drives into a 2,679 pound car. F=ma and all that.

It’s an even bigger difference when an electric half-ton truck like the Ford Lightning – which weighs in at more than three tons – 6,500 pounds – which is  a ton (2,000 pounds) heavier than a non-electric F-150 pick-up – pile-drives into a 2,679 pound compact like the Accent.

Or even another F-150.

Heck, even another Lightning. See that business about F=ma again.

Whatever happened to saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety first?

The more weight rolling around out there, the greater the risk to people who aren’t driving one of these massively heavy potential pile-drivers. Perhaps this is intentional; another way to get rid of cars that aren’t electric – and perhaps some of the people who don’t want them along the way. But the risk is also greater, for everyone.

Continue reading→

Information Is Broken, by Paul Rosenberg

Once upon a time, information purveyors had an economic incentive to make sure the information they purveyed was correct. From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:

Humanity is informed as never before; nothing in the historical record compares. This, unfortunately, is not a particularly good thing.

The provision of information, if it is to bless mankind, must have quality control built into it… it must have a feedback mechanism with teeth. Barring that, it can spiral out of control, as, indeed, it has.

Consider that almost everyone in the modern world is flooded with information. Even the poorest people walk around with phones beeping at them a dozen times per day, delivering little packets of it. And for active people the info-delivery is far greater. Even the delivery devices themselves, smart phones, have become status symbols.

But who is providing all that information, and what price do they pay for delivering bad information?

The previous era of information delivery was dominated by newspapers; they provided most of the information for daily living. And that system, problematic though it could be, had effective feedback mechanisms. Newspaper readers paid for the information they received. And so, if they made bad decisions because of bad information, the newspaper would have a problem on their hands.

Continue reading→

Hardly Able, by Eric Peters

They’re trying to kill love of internal combustion autos. They’ll never kill love of IC motorcycles. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

People who ride motorcycles still care about motorcycles – as opposed to all-too-many-drivers, who view cars as appliances. Who have been conditioned to view them as such.

Evidence of this disparity in attitude comes in the form of what sells – and what doesn’t.

Like electric “motorcycles” – the latter being an absurdity on par with a meatless vegan double “cheeseburger.” Those don’t sell, either. And neither has the Harley LiveWire, which is the electric scooter Harley hilariously thought people who like motorcycles would buy.

To be fair, Harley has sold a few LiveWires. As in 69 of them in the last quarter of 2022. Probably comparable to the number of “plant-based” (i.e., meatless) Impossible Whoppers sold by Burger King. Does anyone bother to wonder why a person who doesn’t want a burger would go to Burger King?

Harley apparently hasn’t thought about essentially the same question. An electric scooter being essentially the same thing (on wheels) as an Impossible Whopper on your plate; i.e., something ersatz. And even that isn’t quite accurate since “ersatz” simply means substitute, as in margarine rather than butter. An electric “motorcycle” – like a meatless “burger” – is a kind of fraud. A thing that wants to be taken for the real thing. 

Motorcycle people won’t abide it. 

Continue reading→

Truth About Tanks: How NATO Lied Its Way to Disaster in Ukraine, by Scott Ritter

Tanks are certainly not the be-all and end-all of modern industrial warfare. From Scott Ritter at unz.com:

Tank warfare has evolved. The large force-on-force armored battles that were the hallmark of much of WWII, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, which served as the foundation of operational doctrine for both NATO and the Soviet Union (and which was implemented in full by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in 1991), has run its course.

Like most military technological innovations, the ability to make a modern main battle tank survivable has been outstripped by the fielding of defensive systems designed to overcome such defenses. If a modern military force attempted to launch a large-scale tank-dominated attack against a well-equipped peer-level opponent armed with modern anti-tank missiles, the result would be a decisive defeat for the attacking party marked by the smoking hulks of burned-out tanks.

Don’t get me wrong: tanks still have a vital role to play on the modern battlefield. Their status as a mobile bunker is invaluable in the kind of meat-grinder conflicts of attrition that have come to define the current stage of large-scale ground combat. Speed and armor still contribute to survivability, and the main gun of a tank remains one of the deadliest weapons on the modern battlefield.

But the modern tank performs best as part of a combined arms team, supported by infantry (mounted and unmounted) and copious amounts of supporting arms (artillery and close air support.) As part of such a team, especially one that is well-trained in the art of close combat, the tank remains an essential weapon of war. However, if operated in isolation, a tank is simply an expensive mobile coffin.

Continue reading→