Angus

🚨 Appel à Marine Le Pen. 🚨 Si tu te retrouves un jour en face-à-face avec Christine Lagarde, voici comment la corneriser. Et je ne suis pas le seul : plein de gens compétents seraient prêts à t'aider. La règle d'or : ne jamais accepter son terrain. Si tu débats de taux directeurs, de spreads et de balance commerciale avec elle, tu perds. Elle a passé quarante ans là-dedans. Le coup gagnant, ce n'est pas d'être plus technique qu'elle. C'est de dire que sa technique est fausse. La macroéconomie telle qu'elle la pratique ne devrait pas exister. Hayek appelait ça la « prétention de la connaissance » : l'idée qu'une poignée de technocrates à Francfort peut fixer le prix de l'argent pour 350 millions de personnes mieux que des millions d'individus libres qui échangent entre eux. Le taux d'intérêt est le prix le plus important de toute l'économie. Le fixer d'en haut, c'est du Gosplan avec des costumes mieux coupés. Mises, Hayek et Friedman l'ont expliqué il y a des décennies, et un siècle de crises leur a donné raison. Simulation. Lagarde : « Madame Le Pen, votre programme est économiquement irréaliste. » Toi : « Parlons de réalisme. Fin 2021, votre institution prévoyait environ 3 % d'inflation pour 2022. On a eu plus de 8 %. Vous disiez qu'elle serait transitoire. Les Français, eux, l'ont payée au supermarché. Vos modèles n'ont vu venir ni 2008, ni l'inflation. Ce n'est pas une science, c'est de l'astrologie avec des tableaux Excel. » Lagarde : « La BCE a protégé l'économie européenne pendant le Covid. » Toi : « Vous avez créé des milliers de milliards d'euros et maintenu des taux négatifs pendant huit ans. Qui en a profité ? Ceux qui sont le plus près du robinet : les banques, les États, les détenteurs d'actifs. C'est l'effet Cantillon. L'immobilier et la bourse ont explosé, et le jeune qui voulait acheter son appartement s'est retrouvé exclu. Votre politique monétaire est la machine à inégalités la plus puissante d'Europe. Et elle n'est jamais passée devant un seul électeur. » Lagarde : « Sans banque centrale active, on aurait revécu 1929. » Toi : « 1929, parlons-en. Dans les années 20, la Fed inonde l'économie de crédit bon marché et gonfle la bulle. Puis entre 1929 et 1933, elle laisse la masse monétaire s'effondrer d'un tiers. Ce n'est pas moi qui le dis : en 2002, Ben Bernanke, futur président de la Fed, a reconnu devant Milton Friedman que la Fed avait causé la Grande Dépression. Il s'est excusé. Une banque centrale qui gonfle, puis qui étrangle : le problème, ce n'est pas le marché, c'est le pilote. » Lagarde : « 2008, c'était la faute d'un marché dérégulé. » Toi : « 2008 : Greenspan descend les taux à 1 %, l'État américain pousse le crédit immobilier via Fannie Mae et Freddie Mac, garantis par le contribuable. On fabrique une bulle avec de l'argent public et des garanties publiques, puis on accuse le marché quand elle éclate. Les années 70 : fin de l'étalon-or, planche à billets, inflation à deux chiffres. La crise de la zone euro : un taux unique pour des économies qui n'ont rien à voir, des États surendettés. À chaque fois, au départ, le même acteur : celui qui contrôle la monnaie et la dette. Jamais l'entrepreneur. » Lagarde : « Vous êtes irresponsable sur la dette. » Toi : « Vous étiez ministre de l'Économie de 2007 à 2011. La dette publique est passée d'environ 64 % à 85 % du PIB. Et vous quittez la BCE après des pertes historiques. Une banque centrale qui perd de l'argent en fabriquant de l'argent, il fallait le faire. » Lagarde : « Que proposez-vous, alors ? » Toi : « Moins. Une monnaie qu'on arrête de manipuler. Des taux fixés par l'épargne réelle, pas par un comité. Un État qui arrête de vivre à crédit. Et la confiance dans ce que des millions de gens libres construisent quand on les laisse faire. L'ordre spontané fonctionne mieux que votre planification. Il a juste un défaut : il n'a pas besoin de vous. » Voilà. Pas besoin d'être plus technique qu'elle. Il suffit de refuser son postulat.

I actually understand the science. And apparently, you need another curb stomp. And that's fine by me because I love to abuse my critics. First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850. Nobody really does. And you are putting words in my mouth I never said. What does that make you, son? A liar. A fraud. A con artist. That's what you are. Second, I have no doubt that some of that warming might be due to mankind's carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Again, this is trivial. Most people agree on that part. So do I. And so what? That says nothing about the level of danger, if any, it poses. And even if we do have an effect, that's not enough justification to demand for rapid economic decarbonization. Third, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers like your dumbass has been misled to believe, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” that distinguish human-caused global warming from natural. Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found such “fingerprints,” but the only evidence they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is consistent with anthropogenic warming. But these scientists, if you can even call them that, fail to mention that said anomaly is also consistent with natural warming. For instance, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases the rate of evaporation, which raises the troposphere's vapor pressure (humidity) and contributes to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008). 🔗psl.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.… All global warming, natural or man-made, results in: 1⃣ Higher latitude regions warming faster than mid-latitudes and tropics. 2⃣ Land heating up faster than oceans. That's just basic physics. An increase in, say, solar forcing would also have the same material effect. And although climastrologists in academia only look at sunspot count and total solar irradiance (TSI), the sun affects our climate in many different ways (e.g., solar wind and solar energetic particles that alter the Earth's magnetic field) that are not actively researched at most universities because little funding has been apportioned to study it. In any case, the best empirical evidence I have seen to suggest that there's probably some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on the recent global average surface air temperature rise is stratospheric cooling. Before I go further, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/m². According to Stephens et al. (2012), the annual global-mean absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is approximately 239 ± 3.3 W/m² (specifically, incoming solar of 340.2 ± 0.1 W/m² minus reflected solar of 100.0 ± 2 W/m²). For the Earth system to remain in approximate energy balance (aside from the small observed planetary energy imbalance of ~0.6 W/m²), it must emit a nearly equal amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to space at the top of the atmosphere. 🔗researchgate.net/publication… Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (often noted as RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude). 🔗ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/… (p. 357) In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964). 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the 1970s, although there has been little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm. 🔗nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/… That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, which is an artifact of the particulate aerosol pollution regulations implemented in recent years, especially in Europe. But yes, I agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of CO₂. SO WHAT? What happens down here in the lower atmosphere (where we live) in response to CO₂ input is a lot more complicated because there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than CO₂ does. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled. What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2×CO₂ is very small. More specifically, it's on the order of ~1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020). 🔗arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098 However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world value—that is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the 1°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations. So, three critical pieces information are unknown: 1⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this question because the coefficients used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements. 2⃣ The exact value of ECS. 3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net negative to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem even in the slightest? To break it down: • If ECS is <3°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated. • If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3°C with a range of 2-5°C. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (pp. 44-45) In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°C / decade (lower than observations of the actual global mean temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. 🔗nature.com/articles/367325a0 They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K. 🔗sealevel.info/christymcnider… Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's “best estimate.” 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… 🔗mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11/161 🔗link.springer.com/article/10… 🔗acp.copernicus.org/articles/… What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021). 🔗nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/51… 🔗annualreviews.org/content/jo… However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) paper estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in more recent EEI estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates it to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m². 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… This means most global warming since 1950 could be natural and we would never know for certain. But it could just as easily be mostly anthropogenic. And as I have said before, SO WHAT? That does not mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem. The big unknown are CLOUDS. Why? Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to CO₂ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise from CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, concluded that, 🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.” 🔗nature.com/articles/srep3331… I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny that there has been some anthropogenic influence either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is the fear mongering about it because, as far as I can tell, it is not an urgent issue that requires drastic changes to energy policies. Again, I'll ask for a legitimate counter argument to my posts point-by-point in detail. Use my exact words if you are going to challenge me. If you cannot avoid the use of logical fallacies and have nothing substantive to contribute, you'll be blocked permanently from my page. I'm done entertaining your BS.

California voters are mostly Democrats whose personal life has been going fine. They're dominated by loathing of Trump. They see things really really bad under Trump. Although, again, their personal lives are going fine. What they experience are two things: 1. Trump mistreats OTHER people. People we don't know. And it's just arrogant invocation of privilege to even consider one's personal experience to understand if things are going well. 2. In the future, Trump will do horrible things to our country. Anything bad you can imagine, Trump will likely do THAT. Thus, they continue to vote D.

In a race decided by under 0.5%, it would take only 0.6% of voters to swing the election. Observe that it's not at all random. Zero of those voters would have otherwise voted for Peralta. All of them would have voted for the real Sullivan. It seems to show an unintended side effect of Alaska allowing more than two candidates to survive a jungle primary.

Everyone said "Hey Grok" was impossible on iPhone. Even Grok said Apple keeps wake words for Siri only. So I kept digging, and I found a way. Now I just say "Hey Grok" and Grok Bot voice chat opens. No extra apps, no cost, all built into iOS. How to set it up: 1. Make sure your Grok Bot app is up to date 2. Shortcuts app → + → Add Action → search "Grok Bot" → pick "Start Voice Chat with Bot" 3. Settings → Accessibility → Vocal Shortcuts → Set Up → pick that shortcut → type "Hey Grok" and say it 3 times 4. In the shortcut's details, turn on "Allow Running When Locked" If your phone is locked, iOS asks for one tap first. If Face ID already unlocked it, it's fully hands-free.

Letting Leftist aggressors know that if they start a civil war that we'll be ready to finish it is not "calling for a civil war." It's warning bad people not to start one. I wish everyone could understand the difference.

Correct. Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be. Starshield, a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them. Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week. Starlink remains critical to the defense of Ukraine, as it is the only system that cannot be jammed or blown up, at least for now. Were Starlink to be turned off, the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately. This is NOT a threat, it is simply a statement of fact. Starlink was also crucial to preventing Russia from overrunning Ukraine in the early days of the war, as all other means of communication were destroyed or jammed by Russia. SpaceX has done more to defend Ukraine than any private company on Earth BY FAR. That said, I have nothing but UTTER CONTEMPT for the virtue-signaling evil warmongers who push for endless slaughter and offer no realistic solution to the conflict. May you burn in hell. End of story.

The insight is not that the action moves away from the heat. Rather, the insight is that the heat does not move to the action.

The concept of hypocrisy is totally lost on the left. They don't do that. They know the answer now, and it has nothing to to with any other question, past, present, or future.

I found my current mate 10 years ago on a dating app. I think I tried to contact around 14 women. Half of whom didn't reply at all. Of those seven who replied, three were, apparently, concerned that I was not likely to like them. Dunno. Just odd stuff, I just backed away. The reality was I was willing to pursue all three of them, given encouragement. One I went on one date with. Not bad, but she let me know what she wanted, which was not me at all, some kind of European aristocrat. I feel thankful to her for doing just that. If we had worked on it, it likely would not have worked out. Another I really loved. One date. She was fun to talk to. She was open, answered any question I asked about her. But it seems she was disappointed by my choice of where to first meet, a suburban burger joint. Sadly, and for real, I accepted that we were not well matched. Expensive dinners are just not me. But I really liked her. She never called back, and I left it be. Another, we "associated", and we tried, but sadly, neither one of us really were that thrilled with the other. The last one, who actually overlapped most of the others in time, was horrified that I was planning to vote for Trump. But she wanted to kiss me as we left the first meeting on very uneasy terms. That one I married. We're still married.

Anybody who's being honest about the Cornell rape accusations needs to confront a basic fact about the way many young women in American society behave. We are constantly exhorted to believe that intoxicated women are incapable of giving consent, and booze-lubricated sex should be considered rape. But young women not uncommonly get drunk in public to disinhibit themselves and signal sexual availability. This gives them the get-out-of-guilt card that they're nice girls, but the booze - or some guy - did it. I'm not writing today to either approve or disapprove of that particular mating behavior. What I'm here to point out is that the no-drunken-consent scolds are being deeply dishonest. This bullshit needs to stop. The pretense that intoxicated women don't routinely put themselves in that state to collect sexual rewards is - hypocritical is just not as strong enough word. It's corrosive. It's corrosive of trust. Corrosive of good morals. How can we expect young men to have any respect for what older adults tell them about sexual right conduct when we start by laying this whopper of a lie on them? It used to be we could sort of tolerate this nonsense. But the corruption of the term "rape", the removal of the assumption that physical coercion is involved, makes it much worse. A guy at a party has to deal with the possibility that the chick with booze on her breath who has obviously decided he's her stud for the night might turn around and hit him with a "rape" accusation that will ruin his life a week later. Even if he was objectively as kind and loving and willing to take no for an answer as anyone could ask for. Is this fair to anybody? It's cruel to men, likely to make them angry and uncaring. It infantilizes women. I don't have to render any judgment about the morality of the situation to to notice that it's explosively unstable. We actually hear serious calls to repeal the 19th Amendment these days... Because I'm not actually here to moralize about sexual choices or norms, I'm not going to try to offer a prescriptive solution to this problem. Except to say this: We really really really need to stop lying to ourselves.

I've now read a summary of what the Jane Doe in the Cornell alleged gang rape told police immediately after the incident. I must say that I'm struck by how well everyone conducted themselves, and I'm including the men. The woman asked for and got what she wanted. The men she said "no" to took no for an answer. Afterwards, she was up for having sex with male #1 again at a future time, which suggests that he gave the satisfaction he should have. If we're going to have a society of sexual liberty, this is what right conduct looks like. Maybe you think that it was disgraceful for a woman to request a drunken threesome, and for the men to fulfill the request. I won't argue that. When I've been offered sex by an intoxicated woman I found attractive, my policy has been to thank her with an appreciative kiss and then say "Ask me again when you're sober." But whatever this was, it wasn't rape. If women have the right to be treated as adults and make sexual choices for themselves, they have the right to make questionable, drunken choices too. The real villain of these piece is whoever talked Jane Doe into believing she was a rape victim.

The left is never concerned about the consequences. They know what they want, now. And they do whatever it takes to get there.

The NGO loop. Problem appears. Government gives money to NGOs. NGOs like that, but understand that if the problem gets fixed, the money goes away. On the other hand, if the problem gets worse, there will be even more money. So the problem gets worse. Repeat.

Experience gives perspective. Programming is not dead, and never will be. It's late September 2026. Sometime in September 1976, just after I entered college, I wrote and ran my first serious program. I have now been a programmer for literally 50 years. And man, I have seen it *all*. Punched cards to glass ttys on minicomputers to workstations to the earliest micros. I've written business software, communication programs, development tools, games, language implementations, kernel device drivers, graphics libraries, a few critical pieces of infrastructure, and all manner of odd programs for which there is no taxonomy. Coded in a score of languages some of which are now forgotten. I've run over 70 open-source projects and contributed to at least as many more. Along the way I noticed a few things, and wrote about them, and that made me famous. But I'm not here to write about that today. I'm here to write about what it means to be a programmer and a technologist with the Singularity upon us. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told "programming is over". You kids may think this is a new claim that came into the world with LLMs. Hah! There's been that kind of talk at every step function in the quality of our programming tools. I first heard it when compilers were replacing hand-hacked assembler in the early 1980s, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if somebody said it earlier when in-memory code replaced plugboards. One constant amidst all this change is that the intentions in a user's head do not magically turn into executable instructions that a computer can run. Another constant is the mindset of the people who specialize in bridging the gap between wish and algorithm. A programmer is a programmer is a programmer - the tools are secondary. "But it's different this time!" some people will say, "AIs are superhuman now!" So? What did you think the optimization stage of a compiler was, chopped liver? We've been relying on tools that exceeded human capabilities all along - we built them precisely because our meatbrains could not otherwise keep up with the demands of the job. It's been a hell of a ride, that 50 years. I've succeeded and failed and succeeded again. Done a lot of work I'm proud of. Built at least a few things that look like they're going to last. None of that goes away because, hypothetically, an AI might have made me faster. The work is never done, even if the tools can talk to us now. Because intentions still have to be communicated; people who specialize in that and develop right mindset to do it still have a major advantage over people who don't. If you're feeling depressed because you spent years or decades developing hand-coding skills that are obsolete now? Buck up. You still have the most important asset - a mind that knows how to think that way. I'm facing the winds of the Singularity with a smile. Because 50 years and I'm still standing - still shipping code that people can use, still learning, still refusing to be paralyzed by the pace of change. The best therapy for your uncertainty? Get to work on something.

Some parts of life are just ugly real. I found a dead rat on my driveway. Major trauma, the tail had been bitten off mid tail, and pulled out of the rat proper. You just see such stuff, and move on.

Peter Thiel on Germany: In the U.S., nine out of 12 of the youngest wealthy people made their own money. In Germany, all 20 inherited it. Not a single person built a large new scalable company.

The west loses to surrender to Islam. Russia loses to internal collapse of headcount and loses, but who wins? It's hard to understate the importance of an armed citizenry in such dynamics.

Just imagine...a combination of Israeli competence and Russian brutality.