The other one is bogged down. Time for a new open thread.
314 thoughts on “August 2025 thread!”
Forgetting about women for starters, I’ll say that I have been surprised to discover the importance of family in my life. I work, I’ve always worked I still do, so I haven’t ‘sacrificed’ work for family. This said, I don’t believe I’ve had a career. I’ve had jobs. I have served digital fast food to corporate customers. Nothing I have done has withstood the test of time (only systems still in use are the ones I’ve worked on recently), none of my code was in any way remarkable. My code has ‘forked no lighting’, to quote a poet. I’ve made money, I’ve helped contribute in a transitory, disposable sense, I’ve developed skills, I’ve had a good time.
If asked to point to the most important or truly significant thing I’ve accomplished, I’d point to the existence of my children.
Now I’m not going to dodge. I think this tends to be even more true for more women than men, the sense that I have that my kids are what really mattered in the end, for various reasons.
Shrug.
Maybe I should have said, existence and proper upbringing of my children. It wasn’t merely that I generated them via an act of copulation. It was that I raised them. The relationship I have with them is increasingly valuable as time goes on for me.
Whatever floats your boat.
There was a time when it was weird if the Mom worked and indicated something very wrong with the family, usually a deadbeat husband.
Family brings a lot of joy and pain, hopefully more of the former. My advice is start with a dog.
Jordan Peterson claims that the adoption of responsibility gives meaning to life. Supposing this is true or maybe even just ‘true enough’, well. One can find meaning in a career, but its not going to be everyone who finds work that provides the level of responsibility and engagement required to match the measure of what we have to give. For many I think the responsibility of a family is more accessible. Women in particular.
I think our generation has a lot to be proud of beyond individual contributor statistics. Just grinding away for 40 years in tech is part of that, it is cumulative. We are way past miracle invention in a garage days.
We were handed the most powerful country in the world 40 years ago and we are handing the same thing off to a transformed world 40 years later that is mostly for the better. Mostly, ha ha.
I challenge the next generation to do the same or better.
well, this was slightly disconcerting…
I saw my name engraved on my headstone installed on my cemetery plot.
A slick salesman sold us on making my arrangements when we made my wife’s. He said it would take the burden away from the kids. My boys agreed. One said, however, they would still have to buy the fireworks. That took the edge of things we all had a belly laugh.
Image: https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952459935356207435?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
EDIT, dying is very expensive
Tom Scharf,
“our generation”
What exactly do you mean? Baby boomers, or something else?
(boomers: born 1946 and 1964)
I, my wife, and all my siblings were born in that year range…. from 1948 to 1958, so boomers all. But I suspect some who comment here may have been born outside those years.
I’m Gen X.
mark bofill,
Still wet behind the ears….. 😉
Steve, yeah, pretty much.
More or less the era of development of the internet and the explosion of digital technology. The digital revolution.
This fundamentally changed the world and was crazy to watch along the way. I used a generic 300 baud modem because I couldn’t afford some fancy US Robotics 9600 baud modem. One of the people I know still uses his aol email address.
Maybe AI or something else will do the same. Or else Skynet.
Tom Scharf,
My wife still uses her AOL address…. now ~30 years. I suggested she might think about changing it. Nope.
I also started with a 300 baud modem, and used to watch the characters go up on the screen in real time. I think that was 1992. I used to travel on business with a “laptop” that weighted 12 lbs and was terribly slow to boot. I think the battery was good for about 3 hours.
AI is already changing things. Search engine traffic is way off, cutting into the profits of Google. I am sure they will find a way to keep AI programs from reading their data.
I read a story where a reporter interviewed an AI that supposedly represented the views of one of the kids killed in the Parkland shooting. Now, I ‘get’ that there’s problems with that, that’s not what interests me.
If you could buy an AI chat product that was capable of learning and updating itself, one that was capable of remembering your idiom and viewpoints, would it be something you’d be interested in buying and training to leave for future generations? Not so much a ‘fake you’ as an immortal robot that got to know you reasonably well and that could answer questions about your life and thinking to your great great grandkids or whoever.
Thoughts?
I’ve also wondered about immortal family robot ‘corporations’ or legal entities that can manage investments and disperse earnings for future offspring. ‘House Bofill Robot’ or whatever.
Immortal me! A SteveF chatbot who could scold my descendants! How cool is that? Somehow, I doubt my AI chatbot would be very popular with my great grandchildren, especially not if it controlled my estate.
Steve,
The Bofills need to concentrate on earnings to give that immortal robot something to do.
Yah, I need to sell ‘continuum-bots’! Or not. Serving digital fast food is a decent living but I haven’t accumulated the sort of wealth I’d need a robot to manage, that’s for sure. Maybe the magic of compound interest…
I imagine AI will become sophisticated enough to diversify and move investments to guard against the prevailing political winds. I don’t know, it’s a fun idea anyway. 🙂
I was thinking of the chatbot as separate. I’d love to be able to speak with robots that knew my ancestors well, I think that’d be interesting.
Come to think of it, my living descendants are often not all that enthused to hear my words of wisdom.
Mark Boffill,
I think this tends to be even more true for more women than men, the sense that I have that my kids are what really mattered in the end, for various reasons.
Surveys of happiness indicate in the aggregate children make men happier. Women? Not so much. It’s sort of a wash depending on situation.
Now maybe people answering surveys using likert 1-7 numbers can’t really know their own feelings. But to the extent people are asked how happy they are and then also asked how many kids they have, it’s men who are made happy by kids.
Thanks Lucia. I wasn’t aware of that. I need to find time to do some reading.
I’m not looking to mindlessly battle for my point. I mean, maybe I’m just flat out wrong. I’m not sure that happiness is what I’m talking about. A sense of meaning or fulfillment maybe could be instead.
Having kids means you have stuff to lose. I have heard that women are higher in big five trait neuroticism than men on average. Maybe they worry more as a consequence of having kids. It’s not clear that that makes it ‘not worth it’ or ‘less worth it’ for them.
But again, maybe I’m full of it and women just aren’t all that into kids.
Mark,
The AI from google gives a pretty good summary. My query was “Happiness men women kids no kids”
This is a long term repeatable thing.
AI Overview
Research indicates that, generally, people without children tend to report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction compared to parents. This is particularly true for women, with some studies suggesting childless women are often the happiest subgroup. However, other studies show that married mothers and fathers are the happiest group. These findings are complex and influenced by various factors, including age, marital status, and cultural context.
The book contained provocative claims about the association between marriage and happiness, suggesting that single women are happier than married women. In promoting the book, Dolan said, “Married people are happier than other population subgroups, but only when their spouse is in the room when they’re asked how happy they are. When the spouse is not present: f***ing miserable.” Economist Gray Kimbrough pointed out that this conclusion was based on a misunderstanding of the term “spouse present” in the American Time Use Survey, which doesn’t mean “spouse not in the room” but rather “spouse not living in the household”. Kimbrough also argued that Dolan’s claims about how happiness correlates with men’s and women’s happiness were not supported by the data sources cited in the book.[24] Vox highlighted the case as an example of “books by prestigious and well-regarded researchers go[ing] to print with glaring errors, which are only discovered when an expert in the field […] gets a glance at them”, noting that “books are not subject to peer review”. There are data to show that married people report happier marriages when their spouse is present during the survey interview [27].
It might take me a week or so to survey the psychologists and behavioral scientists talking about this, the studies, the errors, etc. I don’t know. Maybe there is an obvious likely truth to arrive at on the other side to make it worthwhile.
AI tells me this when I ask:
Research findings on whether women with children are happier than those without are mixed, with some studies indicating that married mothers are happier, while others suggest childfree women may experience greater well-being. Happiness levels also appear to be influenced by marital status and individual circumstances.
Are these lying robots just telling us what they think we want to hear? I hope not!
Mark,
I’m sure happiness studies suffer from all the problems we see in all sociology studies. There is an interesting happiness page here
So many figures! So little time. Happiness before and after various events is shown under “The Effect of Life Events on Life Satisfaction”. That tries to show the effect of time before and after events. The do show people are happy just when they marry. And they are sad just when their spouse dies. They have figures for men and women.
Face Facts: The Sad Truth About Measuring Happiness
(It’s hard to measure happiness!)
Maybe people are too focused on happiness; I think it is more complicated than that.
I am happy playing a round of golf, but other obligations often (usually!) keep me from that. Would I be happier abandoning obligations and playing much more golf? I don’t think so. Fulfilling obligations seems more important; not sure how to balance that against happiness.
Steve,
I’m glad you said that. I was wondering if it was just me who was stuck on that idea. I don’t think ‘happiness’ is what it’s all about, I think in some sense it misses the mark to focus on that.
SteveF,
I recall reading (and I can’t check) that individuals tend to have a sort of personal baseline level of happiness. People who are mostly happy will become sad if something really bad happens. But even if it’s a permanent objectively bad thing (e.g. lost an arm) they will revert to their baseline level of happiness. A similar thing tends to be true of sadder people.
On the other hand, the above link on happiness had a graph that shows people with more money are happier– but “happiness” increased as the log of $. (Of course, it’s hard to know what this means since money can be quantified, but happiness? Not really so easy.)
I am mostly pretty happy most of the time. Unless Jim rolls me out in two tight a turn and doesn’t let me take my space when I’m supposed to take a bow. Then I’m a total bitch.
Was happiness no happiness because it endured for just a short time? One cannot always be happy.
Aron Nimzowitsch
–
Tom scharf
Family brings a lot of joy and pain, hopefully more of the former. My advice is start with a dog.
–
Happiness was eating when I was young, cream buns and ice cream.
Scoring a goal or saving a goal on hockey.
Winning a hard game of chess.
Good fortune was and is being married to the right woman.
It must be a slow news week as Sydney Sweeney is still in he news
But it makes for great parity songs
Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans – Outrage AI Parody Song
A Catholic Woodstock…
The Pope invited the young people of the world to the South of Rome for what He called a“Jubilee of Youth’. Between 1 million and 1.5 million kids made the pilgrimage.
Incredible video: https://youtu.be/AuaPvoh8TTk?si=iydwCxHfhCeZyKSY
Grok is becoming very chatty and personal these days
We just had a long conversation about recipes for my granddaughters who are coming for lunch on Thursday.
We settled on grilled cheese sandwiches on homemade French bread. He suggested a mixture of cheese slices, American cheddar and pepper jack. He initially gave the French bread recipe in cups and teaspoons, and I had him convert it to grams.
The 13-year-old suggested we watch ‘Meet Me in St. Louis”
The whole conversation: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_85089f0f-ccb1-44f4-a6c2-68cb25eb7631
Lucia,
“…individuals tend to have a sort of personal baseline level of happiness. People who are mostly happy will become sad if something really bad happens.”
That is exactly my experience. My first wife was miserable most all of the time, no matter the stated reason…… and there was ALWAYS a reason to be miserable. If, in the rarest of circumstances, there were no current reason, she would dredge up something from the past to be miserable about. Donno if that is inherited or learned, but her mother was exactly the same way…. and both liked to fight with their husbands because they were so miserable.
SteveF,
I couldn’t live with someone who was always miserable, worried, anxious or some other negative feeling. Yes… I know the type. Grousing…. ok. Shouting at the newspaper? Ok. Sometimes worried? Ok. But you gotta be overall at “ok” or better most the time.
The even worse feature which accompanies some (miserable, worried, anxious, negative feeling) people is if they think other people should change they “feel” bad. And, of course, other people changing themselves, their plans, their choices doesn’t relieve the “miserable” person.
And of course, you can’t fix the past. You must remember it to avoid repeating mistakes or to understand “life, the universe and everything”, but you can’t be rehashing it and being miserable about it now. Do I have a biggest regret in life? Sure. It was attending the highschool I attended. As an adult, I know the factors that made me unhappy there and I know they were unnecessary and avoidable. But the fact I regret something in the long past and wish a different choice had been made doesn’t make me miserable now.
Russell,
Yes. I talk cooking and recipes with Gemini all the time. I never had much to do with baking but I’m venturing into it with AI guidance.
Mark, Good luck but be careful, it’s habit forming!
Mark,
I know you didn’t ask for advice, but I can’t help myself…
If you get into baking bread…
Buy a scale and do your measurements by weight, not volume.
Buy a high protein bread flour.
I use King Arthur bread flour. It has 12.7% protein.
It is not for people on low gluten diet.
It is available in most supermarkets.
it usually costs about a dollar more than the national brands. https://shop.kingarthurbaking.com/items/bread-flour
Thanks Russell!
My interests are pretty eclectic but I might end up baking bread at some point. I’ll bear it in mind.
Do you recommend this flour for the taste or for health benefits (or both)? Or neither / some other purpose?
Mark,
It helps the bread develop structure .
I can’t determine any taste difference between all the bread flours.
It’s also a white flour, so no whole wheat and no added health benefits.
this morning‘s adventure was French sandwich bread https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952754490211254338?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
It’s very difficult to try to compare your life against an alternate reality with/without children. Kids have a gigantic impact and some kids are easier than others. You can certainly view your friends/family lives before/after kids but that really isn’t adequate IMO.
Mark… more unsolicited advice…
You have a scientific mind, you would probably appreciate the ‘bakers percentages’ approach to bread baking. It uses math instead of recipes. I gravitated to it after years of using recipes, but I think it would be a better way to start out, especially for someone who thinks analytically.
Now I convert everything to bakers percentages.
Here is an introductory explanation.
from Groc: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KDkFGKeIHNFMJgW8nnCzdu4zM
EDIT, you can put all your recipes onto a spreadsheet. It’s great for recordkeeping.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/04/editorial-jb-pritzker-police-fire-pensions-chicago/
“With the stroke of a pen, Pritzker added more than $11 billion in liabilities to Chicago’s badly underfunded police and fire pension funds. Before the governor’s action, the funds held 25% of the assets needed to meet current and future obligations, which made them two of the most distressed municipal pension funds in the country. That was before this reckless statute.
They now hold 18%. There’s far more reason to worry the money won’t be there when those first responders retire decades from now.
…
This act is so irresponsible that there’s rampant speculation its enactment alone could lead the city’s credit rating to be downgraded for a second time this year. If so, that downgrade will be owned by the governor.”
Illinois will be asking for a federal bailout eventually. Remember these moves then. The answer should be no. It is just reckless. This guy wants to run for President, ha ha.
Russell,
Oh, for sure.
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Baron Kelvin of Largs
The public sector union gambit has been to lead with police/fire union contracts because voters are more sympathetic to these groups (this used to also include teachers unions) and then the rest of the public sector unions follow up and demand equivalent benefits.
Chicago / Illinois is in a debt spiral and the government there could care less.
“Chicago is facing a $1.12 billion budget shortfall for 2026. The CTA, Metra and Pace face a $770 million mass transit funding shortfall. And the most immediate financial crisis is confronting Chicago Public Schools, which must find a way to erase a $734 million budget shortfall by the end of the month.
Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics, said the converging crises raise “the odds for the state to help out.”
“Ultimately, the city’s budget situation is going to have to be fixed by the city and the state. And so the state, having just made it worse — even if it’s required under law — raises the potential for the state to help out the city at least in the near term,” Fabian said. “The state has the ability to raise taxes if it needs to. It can design new taxes. It could increase the income tax. It could find ways to extract more money.”
…
Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara said he did not care how the city handles the added pension burden.
“Figure it out. It’s not our problem. … The benefit is earned and deserved,” he said.”
Tom Scharf,
Pritzker has as about much chance of becoming president as I do. The guy is:
1) extremely unlikable
2) never in his life had to think about spending money
3) is an offensive hypocrite, sending his family off to Florida by private jet while insisting other people in Illinois could not travel due to covid restrictions
4) obviously has no self control whatsoever
Bad combination. He is as offensive as Hairdo Newsom, but worse looking.
“It can design new taxes. It could increase the income tax. It could find ways to extract more money.”
No, people will leave Illinois. The state is already set to lose two seats in the House in 2030, and there is no reason it could not be more. The more progressives squeeze taxpayers, the more their tax base will disappear. This is crazy stuff. Population did increase a bit… but it was because of a huge influx of illegals…. and they don’t pay a lot of taxes, and use a lot of services.
Russell:
That is not the total Elon pay package – it is only about 1/3. If the pay lawsuit case is overturned on appeal, this nets against that. If not, they will award more shares for the 2018 to 2024 period.
The amazing part is the package was only worth 2 B in 2018 – that is how much the stock has risen!
Elon earned every penny with his amazing products and execution. Tesla will probably 10X again in the next 5 years and Elon will the be first trillionaire. His companies are firing on all cylinders.
Rick,
I don’t see how one man can accomplish so much.
…and volunteer in Washington too
RickA,
“Tesla will probably 10X again in the next 5 years and Elon will the be first trillionaire.”
I wouldn’t count on it. Tesla is facing more competition, and elimination of Federal subsidies will hurt sales. SpaceX needs some successes with the “Starship”, because right now it is a huge money drain, with no real progress to show for a while. The next generation of satellites for Star Link (including direct to cell service capability) needs Starship to work reliably, because the satellites are too heavy for the Falcon launch system.
X (aka Twitter) and his other ventures are financially tiny by comparison to SpaceX and Tesla.
No argument, Musk is a genius. That doesn’t mean he won’t face problems.
We should hopefully see the next starship test in a couple of weeks. Well, within the next three weeks maybe.
mark bofill,
“Well, within the next three weeks maybe.”
Maybe. But another “rapid disassembly” would be a very bad sign.
The complexity of what SpaceX is trying to do is, I think, not fully appreciated. And who is going to sign up for a Mars mission if the rocket blows up pretty frequently? Nobody. SpaceX has a very long way to go to reach manned flight worthiness, never mind flying to Mars. And forget the moon. That is not happening anywhere near on schedule, if ever.
And who is going to sign up for a Mars mission if the rocket blows up pretty frequently? Nobody.
Atlas robots and AI’s that have no choice, maybe, but I take your point. They do indeed have a ways to go.
Or if not Atlas, maybe somebody else will provide the bots. Under $6000 is pretty darn tempting.
[Those robots probably have a ways to go as well, no doubt]
Tom
It’s very difficult to try to compare your life against an alternate reality with/without children.
Yes. You can report whether you fill generally happy, generally fulfilled, generally satisfied with your life. I am. But would I have been happier, more fulfilled, satisfied if I had kids? Or would I be frustrated? Unhappy? Whatever…..
I kinda sorta wanted kids. Then I couldn’t have them. I’m perfectly happy. So that “horrible” people warn woman about– it’s not necessarily a horrible. Maybe someday when I’m 80 I’ll regret not having a 50 year old kid to help me get out and about. Dunno.
I think it is a little bit easier to compare outcomes of what things would be like if you had married someone different. Two guys I dated– it definitely would have been bad! (One was fairly brief– like 4 weeks in college, another longer. But definitely bad. ) Others… dunno. I might have been happy. Who knows?
The other thing that tends to make people unhappy or frustrated at least temporarily is believing you want something and not achieving it. This affects a fair number of single people– but male and female. The think they want a mate– but one who meets certain standards or criteria. (Tall. Good looking. Decent income. Wants or doesn’t want kids precisely when you want or don’t want them. Doesn’t live on a cow farm in Michigan and prefer you move there. Many intangibles. ). They can’t find that. Would they be happy if the found it? Maybe not actually. But it’s a goal and they can’t meet it.
Crud, not Atlas. That’s the Boston Dynamics robot. Optimus, that’s Musk’s robot.
Pope Leo arrived at Catholic Woodstock aboard ‘Shepherd One’, an Italian Air Force helicopter dedicated to Vatican service. Here’s an image of the Pope viewing the million strong young people waiting for him in southern Rome from high above onboard Shepherd One. https://x.com/thegnewsroom/status/1951988510505718053?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
SteveF:
I think x is worth 130 B, which is a fraction of Tesla and SpaceX. I am sure Boring and Neuralink are much smaller as well.
And nobody knows if Tesla will 10X in five years – that is just my opinion (not investment advice). If Robotaxi grows to 1 million cars over the next 5 years, plus the Optimus robots replacing labor at ever improving rates, I think Tesla does have a shot at 10X’ing. I have my stock and therefore my bet and will watch eagerly to see what happens. I am personally thinking about buying a Model Y before 9/30/2025 to take advantage of the 7500 tax break (have to take delivery by 9/30/2025). I cannot wait until the car drives me without me having to pay attention – the trip to the cabin (and back) will be much more enjoyable! My niece is getting married in Kansas City this month and I would love to have even supervised FSD for the drive there.
Russell:
Yes – he is incredibly productive. He spends a day at a time at each company and he picks the biggest problem they are having that day and works on that with that team. They interate fast, make decisions fast, make changes fast and usually solve the problem – until they circle back and improve it again. They keep track of measurable metrics and try to improve them every day. They try to eliminate parts, shave weight, make one part do multiple functions and just generally are very very innovative with their manufacturing and design of products. Of course, you can tell I am incredibly biased and a fan – so take everything I say with a grain of salt (or two). Just their battery division, with megapacks and powerwalls could be worth 1 Trillion in a few years – its growth is incredible. And their AI driven buying and selling power to and from the grid, storing it in megapacks, buying low and selling high, is going to be very lucrative. Not to mention how it smooths out the grid and provides nice even power to data centers.
Lucia,
So that “horrible” people warn woman about– it’s not necessarily a horrible.
I strongly agree with this. There are people (including women) in the world who don’t have kids and that works out great for them, I’ve got no doubt about that.
Some of us have a perception that young women are discouraged from being wives and homemakers early on and encouraged instead to go to college and join the workforce. Me, for instance; I have that perception. I think that part of the impetus behind this is progressive ideology. I question whether the progressive ideology in this case is in fact a good idea, in a similar but less extreme way to the way I do in the case of the ideology that promoted sex reassignment surgery for children who thought they might be transsexual.
In the case of pushing women towards college and into the workforce, it might well be [a good idea]. Not all progressive ideas are bad ones. But some are real stinkers.
Shrug.
Rich,
Could that powerwall be a substitute for a generator during hurricanes? I don’t need to run the AC just the lights and refrigerator.
Not a perception. An impression, that’s a better way to say it. Some of us have an impression. This is abstract, so we can’t perceive it directly…
Mark bofill
Some of us have a perception that young women are discouraged from being wives and homemakers early on and encouraged instead to go to college and join the workforce.
I think young women hear both ends of advice. The difficulty is that certain things are realities:
* it’s unlikely a young woman will find and land a man who will be both willing and able to provide a comfortable life style for a stay at home mom and their kids. Comfortable includes safe neighborhood, medical care for their kids, enough money for college savings and a decent retirement without counting on your kids supporting you. (So your kids can support themselves and their kids!)
* even if she finds such a man, divorce happens for a variety of reasons. Unless she’s got a prenup that ensures she is afforded some economic security, she’s going to be in a world of economic hurt if she has no job skills or very rusty ones because she stepped out of the working pool for a number of years. (Your a programmer. Think of how programming changed over a decade. Entirely new languages. Different applications. Yada, yada.)
You can complain that women are told these things, but they are not untrue.
And people don’t tell young men “You know, if you want a stay at home Mom type wife, you should make a huge amount of money and write a prenup that protects her economically if you divorce. As in: guarantee maintenance payments– i.e. alimony. And make sure she will get half ownership of all you accrued during the marriage. And so on.” Most people advocating prenups are advising stinting the women. Yeah… you have to be careful how you write one guaranteeing her economic security to not make it lean too much the other way.
Even if no one “tells” women the risks involved in dropping out of the job market, it’s evident if they’ve met divorced women who were former stay at home moms. And they will meet some of these women because they will meet their kids in school.
You can complain women get “told” this by “progressives”. But maybe the real complaint is “How do we hide these facts from young women so they’ll decide to drop out of the career track, stay at home and devote themselves to the domestic sphere at least for a while?” or “How can we solve this problem for young women?”
Advocating prenups that protect women who stay at home might be a good first start. I honestly don’t hear many people suggesting that.
Russell:
Absolutely. Each powerwall provides 13.5 kWh of power. Of course it depends on how much you use, as to how long that is going to last. But if you had solar to recharge the powerwall during the day, it could very well work. You can also buy multiple powerwalls (if necessary). Not cheap (of course) – but much quieter than a generator!
I have geothermal on an off-peak meter and the rest of the house on another regular meter. I use less than 1000 kWh for a whole month for my lights and fridge – so I would think one powerwall could provide power to your house for a week or two, without even being able to charge it with solar. But you would have to do more research to see if it would work for you.
I do not have a powerwall – my wife is against the cost and panels on the roof are a fire hazard, raise insurance costs and panels on racks on the ground are an eye sore. But after the apocalypse she will wish she had one (grin).
Lucia,
Sure, there are many problems with our society today. Divorce is probably one of them. But that these other problems exist doesn’t necessarily justify discouraging girls from marriage and children. Maybe these other problems ought to get sorted out as well.
But maybe the real complaint is “How do we hide these facts from young women?” or “How can we solve this problem?”
I don’t think these facts get hidden from young women. I am interested in solutions to the related problems though.
Don’t misunderstand me though. I have a daughter. I want her to prosper. I certainly don’t want her to be at anyone’s mercy, or to be destitute if her marriage doesn’t work out. Not discouraging women from pursuing a family doesn’t need to be mutually exclusive with women being able to provide for themselves, at least not in my view.
[Edit: I see your edit regarding hiding stuff. I don’t advocate hiding anything from anyone. It’s a matter of faith and you can scoff at me if you like, but my faith is that in general good results don’t come from deceiving people.]
[well… I don’t advocate hiding stuff as a policy, let’s put it that way. There are things that are nobody else’s business… but I digress. I can clean this up if it becomes necessary; let’s just note for the record I might need to clean up how I articulated this]
Probably the wrong time to engage on this topic! I’ve got to go shop and cook dinner. I’m sure I’ll be on later.
Rick A,
Why would solar panels on the roof be a fire hazard? Never heard of that. Besides, they are mostly inorganic materials, so shouldn’t be terribly flammable. Within half a mile of where I sit now (People’s Republic of Massachusetts) there are probably 50 houses with solar panels on the roof. I’ve never even heard of a fire caused by solar panels.
WRT Powerwalls: a typical fridge might consume 150 watts on average, so maybe 3.6 KWh per day (bigger fridges use more, of course). If you were super cautious about other power uses, a PowerWall unit might give you 2.5 days assuming a high efficiency DC/AC converter).
I’ll stick with my 10.5 KW (continuous capacity) generator that runs the central AC. Florida in hurricane season is too warm for no AC for (potentially) several days. Way cheaper than PowerWalls and converters to boot.
Installed price for a PowerWall 3: between $16,000 and $20,000. No thanks.
An almost silent Honda 2.2 Kw peak (~1.8 Kw continuous) generator costs $1,100, and can produce about 40 KwHr per day. Harbor Freight knock-offs of that model (I have one in my basement on Cape Cod) cost about half that much….. but without Honda’s reputation of lasting forever. But no need to last forever…… just a few days every couple years.
Basic power backup doesn’t have to cost very much.
Mark
But that these other problems exist doesn’t necessarily justify discouraging girls from marriage and children.
Who is discouraging them? My point is reality discourages them. It’s not a person. Growing up, girls are going to encounter divorced women who used to be stay at home moms. It might be their own mother, aunt, grandmother. It might be their friends or neighbors mother. They are going to witness the reality.
This isn’t “progressives” or “conservatives” saying something to discourage them. It is their own witnessing the reality that discourages them from that choice.
I don’t think these facts get hidden from young women. I am interested in solutions to the related problems though.
My point is you can’t hide them. And the fact that they see them is what discourages them from a choice that leads to a poor outcome for them.
but my faith is that in general good results don’t come from deceiving people
I don’t think you are the sort of person who believes in deceiving people. But what I’m trying to say is that it is not a person, group of person or anything like that that is doing the “discouraging”. It is the girls witnessing what goes wrong.
Lucia,
Hmm. You don’t think there is any significant cultural ‘push’ here? I think there is, but my impression might be mistaken. Maybe all I really have is a bunch of anecdote.
I’ll think about it. Thanks yous.
Maybe I am fighting yesterday’s wars, as people are prone to do. Second wave feminists like Betty Friedan promoted the idea that “feminine mystique” (by which I gather she meant traditional wife / mother / homemaker feminine roles) limited women’s personal growth and made them feel emptiness, or something along those lines.
I’d like to be clear here. I’m not trying to suggest feminism was an inherently bad idea, in fact early wave feminism in my opinion is one of the rare examples of progressivism getting it right. But it’s not simple or binary; the first two waves of feminism help ease certain problems and created others or made them more severe IMO.
Anyways, maybe this is all long ago and has nothing to do with the world today. I need to think about how to figure that out I guess.
This is paywalled, and I can’t read it. The title is sort of provocative: https://medium.com/fourth-wave/the-idealization-of-traditional-gender-roles-cannot-be-feminist-cf1341153a48
.
I really do think there is a cultural push here and it’s not just a natural emergent behavior of young women looking at reality. Only.. Whether or not the cultural push has anything to do with the real phenomenon is harder to say though I guess. The two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.
Emergency power backup is a bit of a pain. You can go small scale like I did and buy about 3 kWH of backup. That is good enough to run you fridge and some small scale stuff like internet, LED lights, floor fan for about 24 hours. Don’t even think about an AC unit / water heater, etc.
You can do the same with a gas generator.
A large scale wall type backup does better but it still won’t run your whole house AC in August / September very long. It turns out that hurricanes tend to come with some cloudy days so solar charging can also be a problem. You can micro-manage you breaker panel to extend that time but you probably have a surprising amount of leaching power equipment you are unaware of. Only turn on one room of your house and the fridge(s).
Long story short is that it takes some expertise to get it right and most people don’t understand the flaws until they have the emergency. A surprising number of people discover their generators don’t start because they didn’t do any maintenance, etc.
FYI: Average daily power usage in FL in August is 60 kWh / 30 kWh in December. One day summer backup with a Powerwall will cost you $65K. Not viable for most people.
Bulk Chinese lithium battery storage / DYI is much cheaper but requires some expertise.
The real answer is just to leave if the power outage looks long term. Most commercial backup like hospitals is a large diesel generator. Those red plugs you see in hospitals are connected to emergency power.
Mark
Hmm. You don’t think there is any significant cultural ‘push’ here? I think there is, but my impression might be mistaken. Maybe all I really have is a bunch of anecdote.
I think it is much less significant than “reality”. Vegetarians bitch that people eat meat. Reality: meat is delicious.
Health advocates bitch that “food processors” push junk food, chocolate, pop. Reality: junk food, chocolate and soda pop are more delicious than brocolli. (I eat broccoli.)
When you complain that the “other side” or “evil doers” are somehow magically duping people into doing X, you need to first see what conclusions “reality” is likely to lead people to make.
If all someone has to do is show young women reality to get them to grasp it, young women will grasp it.
Surveys right now show young men are more likely to want kids than young women. Bring alimony back– in proportion to the difference in earning power related to being out of the job market — and young women might pick having kids more. Even with alimony virtually gone (and it is effectively so for, say, 30 year old women married for say 10 years who stepped out of or even back from the job market), and make sure it is enforceable, then young women may start to see that it’s no longer that dangerous to step back.
Men will bitch. But honestly, on male sites they bitch about women getting too much anyway. ( Women do get child support. That can be a lot. Some of the guys seem to think it ridiculous for it to allow it to spent on stuff like rent to pay for shelter, school fees, extra curriculars etc.)
Fun Fact: Most rooftop solar systems can’t be used when the grid goes down, you must have a battery backup system. This is allegedly for utility worker safety from solar supplied power to local lines.
The solar system can be configured to cutoff from the grid but you have to specifically design the system that way. The standard setup won’t do it.
Thanks Lucia.
Funny, I was trying to nail down exactly what I was ‘bitching’ about since I typed my last remark. ‘Cause if in fact the primary reason girls aren’t getting married and starting families is they look at the situation and think it’s a bad idea, I honestly have no quarrel with that. Who am I to tell them what they need to do? [Oops. I’m nobody to tell them what they need to do is my answer]
It’s the idea that our society is distorted by progressive ideas that I was bitching about, not the specific outcome. At least that’s what I think my motive was.
I feel like I’m still missing something here, maybe it’ll come to me later. But thanks!
You know,
When you complain that the “other side” or “evil doers” are somehow magically duping people into doing X, you need to first see what conclusions “reality” is likely to lead people to make.
It still bothers me, the ‘evil doers’ trying to dupe people into doing X even if they are ineffective. Sometimes the evil doing liars win. The evil doers duped my poor dumb xpanic brethren in Cuba into voluntarily enslaving themselves, they remain slaves to this day. Same in North Korea I expect. It remains important to me to speak out against what I think are lies, even if the liars aren’t very successful. In fact, this is what I cared about in the first place. If women aren’t choosing to have families because they don’t want to, more power to them. I still care about what we culturally hold as ideal.
I’m ill content with ending up here, but I’ve got other fish to fry tonight. Maybe I’ll play again later or tomorrow.
Mark
It’s the idea that our society is distorted by progressive ideas that I was bitching about, not the specific outcome.
To some extent, I think one of the problems is that progressives do see the ideal is for women and men to be “the same”. So divorce laws sort of do that and alimony got canned.
But at the same time, conservatives don’t want to push for things that would really protect women from the economic vulnerability that happens if a person (usually the woman) drops out of or pulls back from the job market for some amount of time (say 5-7 years) to have kids. I know you aren’t in the “manosphere”, but if you read the rhetoric you’d see they want to view “letting” the woman stay home with the kids is entirely a “favor” to the woman. Yet they think she should do it and not be a “boss babe”. And then if a divorce happens then screw her!
Now, I don’t want to say that most conservativs have that view. But I will say that policies surrounding divorce do somewhat “screw” a woman who stepped back from or dropped out of the job market.
I mean: Person gets a BS in CS at 21 yo. Gets married. Woooo hoooo. Works for three years, decent promotions etc. Then …. ehrm… for some reason that person and h(is)er spouse decide they want two kids. They both want it. The spouse and that person agree it would be good to have an adult interacting with kids during early years. Whoo hooo! The that person gets pregnant quickly. Whoo hoo! She’s 24. Stays home with kid. Gets preganat at 26. Stays home with kid.
When 2nd kid is 5, she’s 31. It’s been 7 years since she coded. Or worked on a project.
Mean while, her husband is also 31. He’s been working on projects, has accomplishments yada, yada…. Gotten promotions.
She sends out resumes. A company thinks about job readiness of her relative to someone whose graduated 3 years ago and worked steadily. That person’s experience is fresh and current Compares her to someone to new grad. Heck, the recent grad might be a better choice if you want someone to get up and running on banging out code. The problem is: it’s just true.
To a large extent, the difference between what her husband makes now and what she could earn at the job she could land is a sacrifice. And if they divorced, that ought to be recognized.
And now, like it or not, her job search is going to be complicated by the need to care for children. (His might be too-but he has a job. And a track record.) And, like it or not, her “trajectory” is slowed. She’s a 31 year old in a position normally occupied by a 24 year old. Her earning power is probably going to be lower forever.
But it’s generally not. Illinois has alimony. But if she was married 10 years, she could at most get it for 4 years. Not forever.
And young women know this. Or the informed ones know this. It’s just true.
But no article discussing “what to do” to increase the birth rate discusses this. They will suggest some small tax breaks to help “families” (so the men just as much as the women.) No one says “lets bring back longer periods of alimony for people who become stay at home parents”.
And maybe alimony has its own problems and wouldn’t be fair. But with the current levels of alimony woman aren’t going to want to risk giving up a career and staying at home. It’s a serious economic risk for the person who stays at home.
And I don’t think minimum maternity leave and back to work in 6 months is going to encourage a ton of kids either.
Lucia,
I certainly agree that when a women sacrifices earning potential raising kids in a marriage, the husband who hasn’t incurs a moral obligation that I think should instantiate into a legal financial obligation to compensate his wife should they divorce. I didn’t realize that wasn’t already largely the case.
My parents divorced. My father still pays my mother a significant amount of money every month, and they have been divorced for 40 years. The last of the kids reached adulthood 30 years ago. Sometimes I forget that their arrangement wasn’t typical.
But again. I suppose I should thank you for helping me to realize this: I don’t care if women aren’t having kids or staring families or not. I don’t care about the general outcome in this situation. I care about .. something else, something analogous to whether people are worshipping false gods, or holding lies as truth, or something to that effect. I can’t quite articulate it and it has me quite grumpy this evening. But that’s not your doing, you merely helped me realize that’s what my problem is, so thank you.
I really get a kick out of reading Trump’s posts on ‘Truth’:
“Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the “HOTTEST” ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are “flying off the shelves.” Go get ‘em Sydney! On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad. Shouldn’t they have learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company. The market cap destruction has been unprecedented, with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO FOOLISHLY LOST. Or just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned — Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
I didn’t realize that wasn’t already largely the case.
Divorce laws changed. And in Illinois, if the marriage manages to last 20 years, alimony can be forever. But 7 years? 10 years? Nope. Illinois alimony calculator his here
You can see short marriages result in short periods of alimony. This makes some sense especially if there are no kids and neither partner stepped out of the job market.
Except for the large practical problem that the average duration of a marriage that ends in divorce is 8 years. And it’s these shorter marriages where you have the trouble that the stay at home wife may very well not yet have gone back to work. So the divorce happens precisely when her earning income has cratered, she has had no chance to rebuild, and now she has to rebuild while also having children who still need quite a bit of time consuming care.
Also, note the alimony also doesn’t consider why the two incomes are different. If you have a $200K husband and a $40K/year spouse, the $40K spouse will get alimony for some amount of time.
But the point is: doesn’t matter if the stay at home spouse had a low income to stay at home to care for kids or if it was because they just chose a lower income career like “ballroom dance teacher”, or “failed actress” and stuck to that never intending to have any kids at all.
I think if the goal is to encourage people to have kids, there ought to be some recognition of “lost earning power due to the joint decision to be the one doing the ‘home maker, child care’ duties.” I think usually when a wife stays home after childbirth, and only returns when the kids go to school, that’s a joint decision. The husband usually wants that sort of family. And I think alimony laws could be crafted to recognize the reality of the joint decision for the woman to stay at home. (And they could allow the man to be the one to make that decision.)
If this was the ‘baseline’, it could still be modified by a prenup. But in that case, the person who wants a modification from the baseline needs to bring it up before marriage, propose the prenup, discuss it and so on. Baselines absent the prenup matter.
My parents divorced. My father still pays my mother a significant amount of money every month, and they have been divorced for 40 years. The last of the kids reached adulthood 30 years ago. Sometimes I forget that their arrangement wasn’t typical.
My parents divorced too. My Mom paid my Dad! Boy was she pissed off!
Alimony is gender neutral in Illinois. What mattered was my Dad did not have a pension, mom did, they were married more than 20 years. Dad was disabled from heart attack, Mom was also still working and wanted too. Dad was already collecting social security. Also, I’m not sure when the laws changed in Illinois.
Dad had been the larger earner in my childhood. But he wasn’t after his heart attack and triple by pass. Plus age. But under current law, if he’d only been married 8 years, alimony would have lasted 2.88 months!
Mark
I care about .. something else, something analogous to whether people are worshipping false gods, or holding lies as truth, or something to that effect
I know this about you. But misconceptions surrounding divorce are widespread. Most people just hear the divorced “bitch”. And there is a lot of bitching over money because it’s money and because divorce is expensive. And I’m not talking just the lawyers fees.
Think about the likely financial blows likely during a divorce after 8 years if
* You need to sell the house both your skimped and scraped to qualify for a mortgage? And you did it recently– ‘cuz, well you were only married 8 years. Real estate agents are based on the sale price. Loan origination fees based on the size of the loan. If you only got 20% equity, that’s a huge part of your equity.
* Say you do 50/50 shared physical custody. Both of you need to spend some money on shelter for the kid. That kid may spend 15 days a month with dad and 15 days a month with mom. But (s)he needs a room, bed, dressers etc both places! The only needed one of these if Mom and Dad didn’t split. If you previously lived in a 2 bedroom apartment, between the two of you, you probably now need two 2 bedroom apartments!
* If you have shared custody, you probably lose time transporting kids around back and forth. This can cut into time available to work. (And worse, time driving your kids back and forth from two residences is not really “quality time”. )
* if you are both going to work, you will probably need some sort of babysitting or day care. I think kids in elementary school typically do something like 8 am-3 pm. If you’ve got a 9-5 you definitely need to find after school care for that 1st grader! Since you commute, you probably need to figure out how to cover 3 pm – 6 pm. That’s going to cost money. (The “manosphere” guys– and I know you aren’t one– bitch that child support covers more than food and minimal clothing! Well… ok. Who’s watching the kid from 3 pm-6 pm? )
* You might have to liquidate investments to do something like buy out the house from the other partner. That liquidation might be untimely. Or it might trigger taxes. If you buy them you, you might have to refinance the mortgage– at a higher interest rate. You’ll definitely pay loan origination fees.
* If you had a house, the furniture probably won’t fit in your new two bedroom apartment! (And you just frankly don’t need most of it.)
It’s no wonder that the men all think “She got all the money!” and she thinks “I got nothing”. The fact is: lots of money likely “vanished” into market inefficiencies. And if the divorce is a couple in their 30s with smallish % equity in their home, they are going to feel they lost more than the actually lost. In their mind they lost a $300K home! In reality they had $60K in equity. $3K of that went to a real estate agent who sold your place.
When the guy bitches “she got everything”, he honestly thinks that because maybe after costs of dealing with the sale of the $300 K house, he got $20 K. She also got $20K. In his current mental state he might not sit down and really look at numbers. In his mind she must have gotten the “rest” of the $280K! Because, after all, he used to “own” a $300K house!!!
Since he thinks this, he tells his buddies that. And since he seems sincere, they think it must be “the truth”. Well… he’s not intentionally lying or deceiving. But it’s not “the truth” of the financial division. The truth is money vanished. And supporting kids after divorce kinda sorta just costs more.
Russell,
I’m waiting to hear how the jeans actually sold. The stock soaring may be irrational exuberance from people who want to believe “woke is dead”. We don’t really know right now.
We do know American Eagle hasn’t back down from the ad. We also can figure they have better knowledge of sales than we do.
We’ll see.
lucia makes excellent points about the effect of “reality” on women’s decisions about having children. And “reality” has changed a lot in the last 50 years. No doubt there are a number of reasons for that one of which is cultural shifts. So that can’t be just disregarded as a factor.
After all, how women decide if it is worth having kids is a function of how much they want kids versus how much they want other things. And culture is a big factor in that. But there is a lot more to that messaging.
MikeM,
You can call it “culture”. But I think not wanting poverty or even economic hardship for themselves or their kids is a pretty common preference for women of most eras. I think it’s likely that women did their best to avoid that negative outcome in all eras. Like men, they can only make choices from among those opportunities available to them.
Culture can dictate what choices are available to women.
Just over one-fifth (21 per cent) of childless women aged 18-34 recently polled by Pew Research Centre said they don’t ever want to be parents, compared to 15 per cent of men. Conversely, 57 per cent of men said they want to have children some day, versus 45 per cent of women.
While this specific data is new, the trend certainly isn’t, says Marina Adshade, an assistant professor of teaching at the University of British Columbia who specializes in economics and gender, who was not involved in the Pew study.
Note:
The Pew results mirror data on fertility intentions from other studies going back decades.
In 1990, when Statistics Canada first started reporting on fertility intentions in the General Social Survey of the family, 15 per cent of childless women age 15-44 said they had no desire to have kids, compared to 10 per cent of childless men, according to data previously analyzed by Adshade.
And this dovetails with my discussing the economic impact
And then there’s a well-established motherhood penalty. Mothers experience a 60 per cent drop in income in the decade after their first child is born compared to men, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’s 2023 Women in Work Index.
“The motherhood penalty is the most significant driver of the gender wage gap,” that report says.
Now I don’t know how they calculated that drop and what they mean by “income”. The wage cap is actual hourly pay. Income… could be partly due to taking partime work. That can rise when you switch back to full time. (I guess I could look at “PricewaterhouseCoopers’s 2023 Women in Work Index.”)
Lucia, your post:
“I’m waiting to hear how the jeans actually sold.”
My comment was intended to convey how much I am entertained by Donald Trump’s rant on his personal social network. My comment wasn’t an endorsement of the ad from a financial standpoint. Trump‘s rants and the truth often have only a weak connection, but I find them entertaining anyway.
Actually, to be honest, I have thoroughly enjoyed this entire “Good Jeans” event from the first day the ad came out. It’s been a constant poke in the eye for the liberals. ‘X’ has been an endless source of comical memes. It’s sort of a victory dance over Wokiness.
The effectiveness of the ad is a side issue to enjoying watching the liberals in pain.
here’s an example, a recruiting ad from the US Border Patrol:
“We have great jeans”, https://x.com/justjenrx/status/1951635758596440474?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Cancel culture has been cancelled!
“Instead of getting married again, I’m going to find a woman I don’t like and just give her a house.”
Rod Stewart
Russell,
Well, of course Rod Stewart gives the view of the “the man”. And in his case, he had a lot of money. So, potentially, if he divorced, the would would get money. But in most divorces, the woman doesn’t get the house. Usually, no one gets the house.
When my parents bought their house, it was sold because the couple who previously owned it was divorcing. No one got the house.
My husbands boss lived in “the house” he and his ex wife had owned. (We never figured out how he could afford it. She was the one who made a lot. It was on a lake in an expensive area.)
Russell,
It’s been a constant poke in the eye for the liberals. ‘X’ has been an endless source of comical memes.
It definitely created comical memes! It will remain a poke in the eyes if the jeans sell. If they don’t, it will become a lesson in what not to do.
Lucia, here we go again….
“It definitely created comical memes! It will remain a poke in the eyes if the jeans sell. If they don’t, it will become a lesson in what not to do.”
NO! You’re looking at the small picture. The big picture is we are experiencing the end of the Woke. They came after American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney with both barrels and everybody laughed at the Woke. American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney are riding high. Cancel Culture is lying on the ground writhing in pain and it’s a joy to behold. I thank American Eagle for that. The euphoria has set in for many of us warriors who have been fighting the liberal nonsense for years.
The commercial success or failure of the ad just doesn’t matter. It has long been surpassed by what has happened in the culture.
SteveF:
Yeah – not really sure about the solar panel fire danger. Just something I heard. Maybe the reason the insurance goes up is due to the danger the solar panels provide to fire fighters as they move about the roof fighting a fire.
The cost of a power wall is high, which is why I haven’t pulled the trigger on one yet. It wouldn’t make sense just for power backup a couple of days every few years.
Lucia,
Hold on, I changed my mind.
I asked Google Gemini the following question:
“Has the American Eagle Sydney Sweeney Jean ad been a commercial success?”
The American Eagle “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” ad campaign has been a commercial success for the company, despite facing significant controversy.
Here’s a breakdown of the key indicators of its commercial success:
Stock Price Surge: Following the launch of the campaign, American Eagle’s stock price experienced a significant jump. Reports indicate a rise of over 10% immediately after the campaign kicked off, and a further surge of over 23% after President Donald Trump publicly praised the ad. This demonstrates a strong positive reaction from investors.
Increased Visibility and Brand Buzz: The campaign generated a massive amount of online and media attention, which led to a significant increase in brand visibility. Google Trends data shows that interest in American Eagle reached its highest level in over two decades.
Sales and Foot Traffic: While there are conflicting reports, some sources indicate a 10% surge in sales after the ad’s release. However, other reports suggest that in-store visits have seen a recent decline, particularly among older shoppers and in more conservative regions of the U.S. This mixed data suggests that the controversy may be affecting different consumer demographics in different ways.
It’s important to note that the campaign’s success is tied to a complex and highly polarized public reaction. The ad’s tagline, which plays on the words “jeans” and “genes,” has been criticized by some for having racial undertones. This backlash has fueled a “culture war” debate, with political figures weighing in on both sides. This intense public discourse, while controversial, has undoubtedly contributed to the campaign’s high visibility and, in turn, its commercial success.
Full response: https://g.co/gemini/share/1e7b495162ec
Lucia,
I asked Grok the same question as Gemini and got a very similar response:
“Has the American Eagle Sydney Sweeney Jean ad been a commercial success?”
“The American Eagle jeans ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, launched in July 2025, has shown signs of commercial success despite significant controversy. The campaign, tagged “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” led to a notable surge in American Eagle’s stock, with reports indicating spikes ranging from 11% to 21% in the days following the launch. Additionally, posts on X and some media outlets reported that the jeans sold out, suggesting strong consumer demand. The campaign’s viral nature, fueled by both praise and backlash over its provocative wordplay, significantly increased brand visibility and engagement, which likely contributed to these outcomes.“
complete response: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_4883e00f-76de-4bc6-a86b-e5c36399d809
I wonder if you could use the power wall to buy electricity from FPL only on the off peak hours? Their on-call program communicates directly with your appliances so maybe they don’t have a program for that.
I doubt that the economics would pay off anyway
Russell
Additionally, posts on X and some media outlets reported that the jeans sold out, suggesting strong consumer demand.
Grok sounded a little more positive than gemini. Do you consider “on X and some media outlets” reliable? I mean… I think said that way makes it sound like evidence of success. But by whom?
I think this means “we don’t know”. I’ve even seen some of the reports on X. The are not reliable sources. And stories I’ve seen on “media outlets” tell us there are reports on X! It’s circular.
It may be a wild success. Or not. We’ll know when sales figures actually come out. The main evidence that the ad is not a failure is that American Eagle has not pulled it or apologized. They haven’t even issued a “not-pology”. To me that suggest some degree of success. But we still don’t know.
I don’t see how solar panels could be either a fire hazard or an impediment to fighting a house fire. But they will raise your insurance costs since they are expensive and not so hard to damage.
A powerwall is surely a fire hazard. It is not very likely to catch fire, but if it does, the fire can’t be put out.
Russell,
A victory dance over the demise of Woke might be premature. Woke has been injured and is crawling off to lick its wounds. Maybe it will die, but probably, like Dr. Who, it will return in a different form.
Mike,
yes, you may be right, but I’m still gonna enjoy the moment.
@wallstreetapes is a respected and widely read Twitter site. they just said this:
“This is why Democrats are so scared of gerrymandering. Because every blue state is already gerrymandered to the maximum possible extent.”
they then present a state by state analysis and come to the conclusion that the Republicans could pick up 15 seats if all the red states did what the blue states have already done.
I am not saying that their numerical analysis is right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they got the concept right.
State by state in analysis: https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/1953078888042733821?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Mike M,
“…..it will return in a different form.”
Yes, and whatever that form is, it will insist on equality of outcome (AKA ‘equity’) over all else… including law and the Constitution.
For me, I think the issue is that girls are being over sold on job/career and aren’t being equally informed as to the possible consequences of that choice. This can lead to buyers remorse.
Society largely tells women that a family and kids is a chain holding them back from competing toe to toe with men in the workplace. Yes, it will hold them back. This is undeniable, but it doesn’t seem to be questioned as to whether these trade offs are worth it.
I would say, for the majority of men, a job/career has always just been a means to an end: attracting and supporting a mate and creating a family. What means to an end do women see in a job/career? Supporting themselves? Breaking the patriarchy? Showing they can compete? When they lose their desireability, and noone gives them a second glance any more, will these ends still fill them with purpose and satisfaction for the next 40+ years? I believe these are questions which are not asked nor explored.
As Colbert might say if he was honest … don’t alienate half your potential customers. I don’t think that was AE’s intent to split their customer base but it is never a good idea. I’m guessing that most people don’t care and the only thing that is a spectacle here … is the spectacle itself.
As Bud Light has shown there is very little that can be done once social media has gone crazy.
Mike,
I asked Grok if the movement was dead.
I had to do some clarifying, but he summarized the response:
“Cancel culture as waged by liberals isn’t dead but is on life support. Its peak impact has waned due to public fatigue, conservative counter-strategies, and internal progressive dysfunction. While it still flares up in specific contexts, its influence is diluted, and the broader culture is moving toward rejecting rigid ideological purges.”
The full response is somewhat long, but an interesting read: https://x.com/i/grok/share/TZjdw6ZY0QjlnMj9ynEJhREeu
Russell,
Time shifting on power kind of works to save money, but it depends. I did some experiments with this recently.
First the power company must provide time of use rates (Duke Energy now optionally allows this). Second you must store energy during off peak hours, thirdly you must use stored power during peak hours, fourthly the cost savings must exceed the efficiency loss of going to the battery and back (15% to 30% loss).
Here in Florida that means storing energy at night from the grid and using it for a pool pump / AC unit during the day. The bottom line is it saves a little but not enough to justify a payout on a Powerwall. If stored energy was 5X cheaper then it would definitely be viable.
One of the hidden costs here is most of these solar / battery systems are proprietary (no plug/play interconnect standards). Most solar companies from 10 years ago are out of business. This means when a failure happens they can be very expensive to fix, sometimes requiring major component replacement. One lightning bolt can easily cost $10K.
DaveJR,
Tons of people inform girls of the possible consequences of picking a career.
Society largely tells women that a family and kids is a chain holding them back from competing toe to toe with men in the workplace. Yes, it will hold them back.
So you are saying ‘society’ tells them the truth.
This is undeniable, but it doesn’t seem to be questioned as to whether these trade offs are worth it.
Tradeoff with what? Having a kid, staying home, losing your earning power, ending up divorced and needing to support yourself with your lower earning power? Or getting married to a top 1% man, getting kids, managing to stay married and live a plush life? I assure you, people discuss the alternatives.
The problem is one of the at least moderately high alternatives is grim for woman. You can’t really complain that “society” shows them this when, in reality, it is impossible to hide from young women. Because it’s all around them.
Also: you are more likely to get divorced if you don’t get a degree. And you are less likely to marry someone well off if you don’t get a degree. This is what the demographic data show.
What means to an end do women see in a job/career? Supporting themselves?
How about avoiding poverty for yourself and your children. I’ve said this repeatedly on this thread, but for some reason, this reason doesn’t make your list of answers to your rhetorical question. And it’s a major reason. It’s also a good one.
And it’s should be obvious that men need to earn income to attract a wife who will have their children then lots of women probably want to avoid poverty for their children. Otherwise, they wouldn’t prefer men who have income earning potential!
They’d just pick a hot young stud who is good in bed. Or something.
When they lose their desireability, and noone gives them a second glance any more, will these ends still fill them with purpose and satisfaction for the next 40+ years? I
Look: the demographics of who marries whom shows that it’s noncareer oriented women who can’t attract a man with a decent income. Or at least they can’t get him to marry them! I know guys like to assume the opposite.
There are also prominent examples (particularly from sports) where wealthy men marry non-career women. But Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are more typical of men who make money– even men who just make “decent” incomes. Men tend to marry women who do earn a decent income.
Perhaps the women step back or perhaps they stay at home. But not investing in income earning potential is a way to not attract the men who worked to earn enough to attract and support a wife!
By the way: As for women getting too old for no one to look at them…. I am hit on frequently by men my age. Frequently. They probably don’t want to marry me. But the idea women age out of men giving them a second look? Nah.
noone gives them a second glance any more, will these ends still fill them with purpose and satisfaction for the next 40+ years?
How old is Bezos new wife? (55) Of that women on the Jumbotron at Coldplay? (52; he was younger.) Do you really think women totally age out of men giving them a second glance? If you do, you really think it happens as young as 40?!)
Here’s an article that seems interesting and at least tangentially relevant:
If a young woman decides to step off the career treadmill and prioritize marriage, motherhood, or homeschooling, where does she go for guidance, support and community? If she’s leaving behind the left’s vision of freedom-as-isolation, who is prepared to meet her with a vision of freedom-as-rootedness?
Too often, the answer is “no one.” Political campaigns promise to defend the family, but do little to support women who are choosing to build one.
This seems to agree with Lucia’s observation, although Lucia’s argument was largely financial / legal and this isn’t, it’s more social and general I think. Still interesting. Now I’m wondering what can be done to make ‘feminine mystique’ more attractive and a more dependable game plan for women, and if it would be a good idea to do that.
Solar panels do catch fire occasionally but they generally don’t burn the house down. The entire system is dealing with high power / current levels so it is an electrical hazard all around.
More recent battery technology for home storage uses LFP cells which are way more safer than iPhone type Li-Ion. LFP will burn if an existing fire gets to them but they will not go into thermal runaway and self ignite. You can hammer nails into them.
Thanks Tom
The other side of the wage gender split after kids is that men will focus on revenue over job satisfaction when a family is depending on them. You can’t just easily quit your job because your boss is an a-hole. Those mid career years are where the big earnings jump usually is so career changes are not so easy.
I would also point out that many people have kids when they are not fiscally or emotionally ready. This is yet another thing I wish K-12 schools would emphasize more.
Tom
Sure. I’m not saying it’s a bed of roses for guys. But people are asking why young women don’t chose to give up or step back from careers. So the women’s situation is important there.
Putting more pressure on your husband to earn is not necessarily something a women who can earn considers a big plus either.
I would also point out that many people have kids when they are not fiscally or emotionally ready. This is yet another thing I wish K-12 schools would emphasize more.
How do you become “fiscally ready”? You make sure you have earning power. How do you stay “fiscally ready”? You retain your earning power– or make sure you will get money from somewhere. Unless divorce law routinely grants much more generous alimony to those who became stay at homes, you can’t make sure you will get money from somewhere should you end up divorced. This is just reality.
It seems to me emphasizing this is part of “society” telling young women that starting a family can be risky.
I have decided I need to learn a new skill in my old age. I want to be able to determine what people’s real messages are beyond the words that they actually say.
I am learning a technique that shows real promise. It dates back to the time of the Civil War.
Here is an article from the Library of Congress on the technique:
“Ouija Board: Topics in Chronicling America” https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-ouija-board/introduction
Grin
I’m starting to feel like a real oddball here.
I was married for 54 years until Connie passed away earlier this year. My parents never divorced, both sets of my grandparents never divorced. My wife’s parents never divorced; my wife’s grandparents never divorced. My kids are not divorced. My wife had four siblings, all of whom raised kids, stayed married till they died. My sister was a mother and stayed married till she died. All four of my neighbors are parents and are not divorced.
All of these families raised kids and stayed married till they died.
Am I living in a bubble?
(edit, most of them are also Catholic)
Lucia,
You’re not wrong in your points, but there remains a little more to it than that. I think it certainly has become culturally acceptable for example to have kids out of wedlock, to have sex in casual relationships, to have and pursue casual and superficial relationships, and so on. Some of this is a consequence of cultural changes over the last 60-70 odd years.
For instance Tom’s point. Part of our society (not exactly our culture but sort of) is that public school doesn’t address some things. Maybe that has an impact and helps ‘shape reality’ tomorrow, but it’s social / cultural / policy today.
Kamala Harris would tell you, you didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree into your current circumstances (reality). You were an active participant in shaping your current circumstances (culture and ideas).
In their mind they lost a $300K home! In reality they had $60K in equity. $3K of that went to a real estate agent who sold your place.
In my area that would be 15k that evaporates with the relator commission. Divorcing causes both parties to be in a worse place financially. The advantage of getting divorced earlier is you have more years to recover from it.
Russell,
Am I living in a bubble?
It looks like it. I’m a little jealous. Me and my wife are trying to establish just such a bubble as it turns out.
mark bofill
I think it certainly has become culturally acceptable for example to have kids out of wedlock, to have sex in casual relationships, to have and pursue casual and superficial relationships, and so on
But the first is an example of women choosing to have kids. It’s not an example of them not having kids.
The thing is, for some career women, waiting to have the kids in their 30s and then having a stable career is financially less risky for them. And they can still get child support from a father– same as if they marry. So this is still an alternative that makes some women not want to give up their career to be a mother, wife, homemaker for the father.
And to the extent that men like DaveJR would not give these older career women a second look, the alternative of just having the kid they can support on their own is going to look attractive.
The majority of the out of wedlock births are likely to non-career women. I’m not going to look it up. But that’s my guess. The fathers span the spectrum from ones who don’t bring income to the table, ones who disappear, the (I suspect) more rare ones who would marry the woman but for some reason do not. People don’t heap scorn on these women as they did in the past.
But I don’t think the existence of these women is the reason career women don’t want to give up their careers.
Things have changed. I’m just addressing the question people were asking which is why many women don’t want to give up their careers (or even just a decent job) to be wife, mother, homemaker and instead do their darndest to stay in the workforce. I’m presenting an alternative to “society” tells them the only positive value is career or something.
Okay, fair enough. To some extent we aren’t focused on the exactly the same thing, is why we aren’t quite finding a meeting of minds maybe.
The true secret of the culture war is its grounding in the way we live. The sexual revolution, combined with extended years of educational preparation and consequent delays in marriage and childbearing, means that many more Americans than in the past live single for extended periods. Nothing turns people conservative — or religious — more powerfully than married parenthood. Extended singlehood, on the other hand, tends to foster liberal sexual mores and reliance upon abortion. Support for gay marriage is a kind of symbolic endorsement of those anti-traditional mores. Identity politics, meanwhile, provides a way of achieving solidarity in a world otherwise made up of isolated individuals.
In other words, the left side of the culture war is an expression of a peculiarly modern way of life — a way that shows no signs of abating.
Lucia: “So you are saying ‘society’ tells them the truth.”
You’re absolutely right, Lucia. You have me convinced to stay well away from men and kids. They are nothing but trouble and pain.
I know all your complaints, Lucia. I don’t need to list them because they are mainstream. Men just want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and they need to resist and be strong and independent because they really don’t need no man etc etc. Your point has already been hammered home. Repeatedly. For decades. I’m just trying to say that, just maybe, the narrative has swung too far in this direction and a rebalance would be beneficial.
Dave,
That’s really not Lucia’s point.
“The advantage of getting divorced earlier is you have more years to recover from it.”
For sure. I divorced at 29, and basically lost everything except the older of two cars, including a house I built with my own hands. I essentially paid off my x-wife with the house to keep her from moving away with two young children. Child support (28% of my earnings) was a burden for 16 years, but I was able to recover financially, especially after I resigned from a big company and became self-employed at 41. Had I not become independent I would have been screwed, because the facility where I worked closed 6 years later and everyone was fired.
It can absolutely go too far. Korea / Japan are WAY below replacement rates to sustain their population. This might be better off for those women depending on their individual circumstances but there will be a pretty major social cost going forward. It depends on what axis things are getting measured.
So the things that are causing women to not have babies needs to be addressed in a modern society.
“South Korea is actively incentivizing childbirth due to its critically low birth rate. The government is offering various financial benefits, including cash payments for newborns, monthly allowances, and support for childcare costs. A construction company even offers a $75,000 bonus per child. These measures aim to counteract the nation’s demographic crisis and encourage families to have more children.”
Interesting piece, Mark. I believe it is well known that Communists dislike family. They are essentially functional communes, and, as such, are natural competitors in an ideology which would seek to appoint the role of ‘big brother’ to itself.
Mark: “That’s really not Lucia’s point.’
That’s fine. We’re arguing past each other.
I seem to be on the younger side of “things have changed” compared to most here. I still have a preteen and have lived what I think relates to Lucia’s point. It very nearly ended in disaster because biology was not accommodating. Others were not so fortunate, so it’s a little personal.
I think we need to remember that the rapid decline in fertility, to well under replacement level in most every developed country, has not been changed by efforts to encourage births….. mostly financial incentives.
Maybe those incentives are not large enough to make a difference, but it seems to me there likely has been a substantial cultural change, which is pretty much independent of country.
There is a significant difference in childbirth rates in the USA for conservatives vs liberals, with conservatives having on average about 0.25 more children per woman, suggesting a cultural effect. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage
It appears the only relatively developed countries (based on per capita GDP) with replacement or above birth rates are Muslim majority countries. Is culture demographic destiny? Could well be.
I am way behind on this thread, so maybe someone already said this.
Russell Klier wrote: “I asked Grok if the movement was dead.
I had to do some clarifying, but he summarized the response:”
Warning: Grok is not a “he”. Grok is an “it”. No good will come from people starting to think of AI’s as people.
I think that cancel culture might well be on life support. It is based on fear, so it won’t be able to recover from people not being afraid. The only question is whether enough people have learned that they should not be afraid.
The death of cancel culture will be a serious blow to Woke since it is one of their main weapons. But Woke is a mind virus; it will be very difficult to eradicate.
It seems to me that lucia’s points are all true. But I think they are all (or nearly all) a consequences of cultural shifts. Mark has given a couple good examples of that. And those cultural shifts seem to be mostly aligned with “progressive” policies.
Dave,
Well, I noticed that Lucia and I weren’t focused on the same things either. Still, I don’t feel like Lucia deserves to have her arguments summarily dismissed when the dismissal doesn’t appear to accurately reflect where she is coming from.
For my part, she is [helping] me arrive at useful insights, such as: The leftists? Yeah, fine, but if women are getting screwed in reality doing what conservatives think they ought to do, maybe conservatives ought to do something about that. It’s helpful.
Shrug.
Thanks Mike. That is more to my point, yes.
I’m starting to think though that we ought to devote similar time and energy to smoothing and safeguarding the path for trad wife roles as we do to fighting culture wars. I’m sure none of us want to advocate that people (women) make decisions that tend to lead them into ruin. Lucia’s prenup idea sounded good to me. I’m at a loss to come up with others. The problem seems fairly difficult, at first glance.
On another topic, tariffs, here’s something I didn’t know amid all the hullabaloo about tariffs on Canadian goods:
President Donald Trump signed an executive order July 31 that imposed a 35 percent tariff, up from 25 percent, on everything not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Hardly seismic, since less than 10 percent of Canada’s trade with the U.S. isn’t compliant with USMCA [my emphasis].
Before the tariff increase, the “effective” U.S. tariff on Canadian goods—or the value of duties paid as a percentage of the value of total imports—was just 1.7 percent to 2.2 percent, according to calculations by the Budget Lab at Yale University.
“Mail and Female”, aka “The he-man’s woman haters club”, a short film (10 minutes) from the Little Rascals
seems appropriate for this discussion
HaroldW,
And, I think, there was a de minimus exemption which is apparently going away.
I just bought some camera parts from China for a price seller claims includes all costs but even if they don’t will still cost within my budget for this sort of thing.
And, besides, there’s no other source.
john ferguson,
Long time no see. Are you back in Florida after your travels?
All this divorce horror discussion makes me appreciate the Catholic church’s position on marriage. After 20 centuries, I suppose you can expect they got a few things right.
it’s been a good day for hummingbird watching… outside my window I had three visits today. I captured two on video …. The black and white one (I think) is a black-chinned hummingbird and the greenish yellow one is a female ruby-throated hummingbird (I think).
They are forging on a wildflower form of Salvia aka Tropical Sage. It’s not the kind of Salvia you buy at Home Depot. It’s a true wildflower. It gets 5 feet tall.
Videos: https://x.com/rklier21/status/1953112174022230441?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
One of my pet peeves: supposed ‘economic experts’ taking about the ‘inflation’ that will be caused by tariffs. The obvious question is then: “So, do you think income taxes cause inflation”? But nobody ever asks that question. Inflation is always and everywhere caused by money supply increasing faster than the production of goods and services. Taxes (including tariffs) simply transfer wealth from individuals and businesses to government. Yes, more tax means those paying the tax can buy less (in proportion to the increase in tax take), but the government doesn’t eat the tax money, they either spend it directly, pay down debt, or transfer it to more deserving individuals who then spend it. The supply of money is unchanged. The supply of goods and services is unchanged. Who spends the money does change.
It helps, I think, to put the Trump tariffs in perspective: US GDP is about $30 trillion. Tariffs are expected to raise between $200 and $300 billion per year, so between about 0.67% and 1% of GDP. So people and businesses will have maybe 1% less spending power (assuming foreign produces don’t lower prices to maintain market share). The Federal government will have 1% more spending power.
Inflation is caused by the Fed pouring money into the economy to cover huge Federal deficits….. which is what happened from 2020 to 2022. That is inflation, and it is unrelated to tariffs or other taxes.
“Most current batteries can only provide about four hours of backup power. That might help during short dips in production, but it fails during overnight outages or cloudy, windless days. Energy Dome offers a better solution.
Google selected Energy Dome’s CO2 Battery because it provides clean, dispatchable energy for up to 24 hours. Unlike lithium-ion systems, which depend on expensive and often hard-to-source materials, this battery uses off-the-shelf mechanical components and simple physics.
Instead of storing electricity in chemical form, the CO2 Battery stores it by compressing carbon dioxide gas into a liquid. When the power grid needs more electricity, the system heats and expands that liquid CO2 back into a gas. As the gas expands, it spins a turbine, just like steam would, which generates electricity.”
–
Wow!
Even better than cold fusion!
–
Should somebody explain to Google,
and our Victorian Government in Australia ( local headquarters for Australia) that they are victims of another free energy …..-
–
The energy required to refreeze the gas has to come from somewhere
The storage capacity has a finite limit and takes time to recharge.
It is purely a short term stopgap measure which could easily be replicated by a larger or extra lithium batteries which would be easier to both maintain or move if needed elsewhere.
It can never provide continuous permanent input of power to any grid no matter how much sunshine or wind it uses.
–
Thoughts?
angech,
Speaking as a chemist: It’s crazy. The thermal efficiency must be terrible.
Lithium batteries are relatively expensive, but their round-trip efficiency isn’t terrible.
The sensible way to reduce CO2 emissions has always been nuclear power plants. 50 or 100 in Australia should be enough. But I expect your government is not going to start a rapid build-out of nuclear plants. 😉
Angech,
Here is a article describing the relative efficiencies of “compressed air” and “compressed/liquified CO2” energy storage. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890424009130
While CO2 has a slightly higher theoretical round-trip efficiency (65% vs 59% for air) the complexity of the CO2 system adds cost and maintenance. The authors conclude a compressed air system is a better investment. The estimated payouts on initial investment are 12 vs 13 years….. worse than the historical return on money invested in the S&P 500, which has an equivalent return of about 9 years. Nobody is going to make the investment in these systems unless it is subsidized by a government somewhere.
Note that the possibility of compressed air energy storage has been studied to death, and nobody is building them; clear proof that energy storage is a poor investment.
So it turns out the Biden administration pressed JO Morgan and Bank of America to “debank” Trump in spite of balances in the tens of millions.
“Think back to what it was like being Trump back in 2021; he was a hot potato after January 6 and the regulators made it clear to us that we shouldn’t do business with him,” said one banking executive with direct knowledge of the matter.
Proving, yet again, that the Biden administration weaponized government to punish political opponents. There is no depth of immorality to which these worms will not burrow.
Trump is trying to make debanking illegal in virtually all cases.
Well, Steve, after all it was for a noble cause. Those brave men in Joe Biden’s administration were trying to do nothing less than save Democracy.
[ SARC ]
Trump, last night on Truth Social:
“My Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Russian officials are reporting on ‘X’ that a meeting between Trump and Putin is in the works for the next few days. I have no confirmation of this though.
@NOELreports is a respected site and just posted the following. I have no official confirmation of this and do not claim it to be gospel:
“Putin’s aide Ushakov says Russia considers the latest US proposal to end the war “quite acceptable,” according to Poland’s Onet. The plan reportedly involves not a peace deal, but a temporary truce with Ukraine, postponing the status of occupied territories for 49 or even 99 years. The US would gradually lift most anti-Russian sanctions, possibly resume energy imports long term, but makes no promises to halt NATO expansion or stop military support for Ukraine.”
The terms of a cease fire would be important. It’s a good thing for them to meet up but I wouldn’t expect a lot of real progress. At the very least this might indicate Putin is starting to feel some domestic pressure and needs to put on a show.
SteveF,
Belgium today, st pete on sunday. At last.
I need to read and reread your piece on inflation because my guess is it’s accurate, but I can’t understand how tariffs are not inflationary unless they kill sales to the degree that those that do occur at higher prices are balanced out.
I apologize for this ill-formed observation. I’ll work on it.
our consensus is the best movie of the summer was
Singing in the Rain
SteveF
“Here is a article describing the relative efficiencies of “compressed air” and “compressed/liquified CO2” energy storage.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/“
–
Interesting is the fact that the compressed gas storage’s have to be maintained at very high temperatures in order, I guess, to increase the power output to turn the turbines when being used to produce power..
Begs the question of where the energy to keep them at these high temperatures in a ready state is coming from.
Probably the fossil fuel powered electricity that helps keep the rest of the site and in Googles case, the data parts running.
Several hundred degrees for a large compressed air mass is a lot of energy being used daily to keep a “ back up supply” in readiness.
–
Hope Google reads this at Lucia’s.
this is ingenious:
“Ukrainian forces have modified a Polish Zlin Z137T Agro-Turbo crop duster to carry short-range R-73 air-to-air missiles for shooting down reconnaissance and attack drones.”
you don’t need a $10 million jet fighter to shoot down a 200 mph Shahed drone. The air to air missile is the big equalizer.
video: https://x.com/noelreports/status/1953798998776582591?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
The NYT explains the Sweeney non-episode in their view, effectively telling progressives to find something better to yell about.
How the Right Shaped the Debate Over the Sydney Sweeney Ads https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/business/sydney-sweeney-ad-right-wing-media.html
““Did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election?” Mr. Vance asked of the Democrats during a podcast interview last week. “The lesson they’ve apparently taken is, ‘We’re going to attack people as Nazis for thinking Sydney Sweeney is beautiful.’”
…
In reality, most progressives weren’t worked up much at all.
Criticism of the ad campaign had come almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers
…
The boiling social media frenzy over the American Eagle campaign has been driven, at least in part, by the public’s seemingly insatiable interest in Ms. Sweeney. But it also shows how, on today’s internet, a controversy can sometimes be described as widespread when it isn’t.
“Republicans are going to just keep hammering this because they know that they can find 13 teenagers on TikTok to say something crazy and then turn it into a two-week-long news story,” said Ryan Broderick, the author of Garbage Day, a newsletter about internet culture.”
Uh huh. The left can go ahead and affirm the ad is OK any time they want. Crickets.
Tom,
I still think American Eagle paid a few of the critics just to make it a hot topic.
Tom Scharf wrote: “The NYT explains the Sweeney non-episode in their view, effectively telling progressives to find something better to yell about.”
I think the NYT is trying to rewrite history by pretending that there was no mainstream media support for the outrage. If the outrage was only from a “smattering of accounts with relatively few followers”, how is it that everybody knows about it?
Babylon Bee….
“ Trump Gerrymanders U.S. To Include Canada”
buff.ly/ed7AJgK
Yes, this is the NYT’s version of “nothing to see here, just move along”. If they sensed this fit their narrative and had public support they would be jumping all over it. The fact they didn’t is another sign that the excessive DEI era is winding down.
I still await when they allow straight white male authors back on their editor selections and year end book awards.
By 2021, there was not one white male millennial on the “Notable Fiction” list. There were none again in 2022, and just one apiece in 2023 and 2024 (since 2021, just 2 of 72 millennials featured were white American men). There were no white male millennials featured in Vulture’s 2024 year-end fiction list, none in Vanity Fair’s, none in The Atlantic’s. Esquire, a magazine ostensibly geared towards male millennials, has featured 53 millennial fiction writers on its year-end book lists since 2020. Only one was a white American man.”
Ultimately this just hurts them. Readers just move on to other ways for getting book recommendations. It’s not just the authors, it was the perceived subject matter of the book or political leanings of the author that would get you banned. This was obvious to everyone. It does hurt the industry however when publishing houses refuse to even publish books. This gatekeeping exercise is becoming less relevant in the age of self publishing but is still very real.
some thoughts on getting back into bread making…
The family tends to drop in more often, hoping to take some home.
It’s more of a rustic traditional technique:
No kneading
No mechanical equipment, hand mixing only
Only five ingredients
Ferments overnight
One more thing, it’s a high hydration dough (75%) so it’s wet and sticky to work with
I’m seeing a lot of chatter about this, including from both Groc and Gemini:
“There is speculation among legal experts that the grand jury related to the “Russiagate” investigation could take place in Florida. While the official venue has not been announced, some reports suggest that prosecutors may present the case to a grand jury in South Florida. This speculation is based on factors such as the location of the Mar-a-Lago search and the perceived political environment in Washington, D.C.”
No hard evidence, however
Welcome to Post-Woke America (PWA)
The left wing media is awash this morning with articles about how they lost the cultural war.
Three examples…..
Politico:
“Opinion | The Sydney Sweeney Saga Shows Why Republicans Keep Winning”
NYT:
“How the Right Shaped the Debate Over the Sydney Sweeney Ads”
Axios:
“American Eagle doubles down on controversial ad campaign”
And more from the Axios article:
“The big picture: Brands are taking what experts call”calculated risks” by abandoning diversity, equity and inclusion commitments.”
“You’re seeing a lot of brands trying to distance themselves from what was previously described as ‘woke culture,’ and they believe there’s a market for those who don’t abide by the cultural norms that were previously enforced,”
“By the numbers: While the campaign first went viral on social media, it also garnered coverage in roughly 3,000 news articles. Those generated more than 50 million readers, according to Memo readership data shared with Axios.”
I believe there has been a seismic shift in the culture. I base that on the euphoria pouring forth on social media from the previously ostracized non-woke majority of people in the country.
Tom Scharf, Mike M,
The NYT editorial position is: it is not just acceptable, but critically important, to explicitly discriminate against disfavored (AKA advantaged) groups and in favor of ‘disadvantaged’ groups, in all things. Merit is a very distant second, which is only considered “in group”.
While the names of these policies ‘progressive’ have changed over the decades since Lyndon Johnson, the policies have not. Until the NYT accepts that discrimination based on race is both morally and legally wrong, they going to be what they have for decades been: obvious racists. Arm waves about the American Eagle ad are a distraction from that sorry truth.
Russell,
Grok might be way better than Gemini for all I know. I don’t use X so Grok is a nonstarter for me.
Mark,
I use Grok in Google Chrome too.
While these people keep analyzing a return to normalcy as “the right”, they’re dooming themselves. They are stating that american culture does not belong to them and have embraced their own, artifical, construct in its stead.
Mark, I have an app on my phone for grok. The account I had to set up does not allow me to log into X.
Russell,
Oh, I see.
My company has an overzealous IT security department. Since we have a policy statement that identifies Gemini as the approved AI for corporate use, naturally our IT has construed that to mean that access to all other AI’s much be blocked. This may have contributed to my not noticing the means to access Grok. That and the fact that I more or less live at work.
Shrug.
must be, not much be, beg pardon
DoJ is not allowed to cherry pick the jurisdiction where proceedings take place. It is in both Article 3 and the 6th Amendment as well as in the US Code.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
There is a long list of special cases where the jurisdiction is not obvious. None would seem to apply to the Russia! conspiracy. Any trial will have to be in DC.
Clapper, Brennan, etc. would have to be tried in DC if they are charged. That fact should not preclude a conviction if a case is solid and based on more than just process crimes.
Mike,
Would the DC jurisdiction put it in the court of Judge Jeanine Pirro?
I’m OK with that too!
We will probably see a lot of AI’s leaping over each other in the short term as the industry sorts itself out. I don’t follow it very closely but I don’t think there are any huge differences among these products unless you start looking at these esoteric benchmarks.
Perhaps we will see them start to specialize once the winners and losers are more clear. The training itself is a big differentiator so ones that concentrate on say … autonomously identifying enemy soldiers and vehicles on the battlefield might see large economic returns.
Lawyers, teaching, customer service, long haul truck driving. Some industries are going to get heavily impacted. Their trade organizations will lobby the government for AI bans, can’t wait to see the lawyers fight it (and hopefully lose)! I can see judges taking a dim view of AI arguments. There have already been cases of lazy lawyers submitting AI hallucinations to a judge. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-ops-and-tech/ai-fake-citations-expose-lawyer-sloppiness-and-training-gaps
They will use these examples to attempt a total ban, as if crappy legal arguments from humans aren’t a constant problem already.
They can run the initial AI slop through a fact checking AI to reduce the error significantly.
Convictions of anti-Trump politicians in DC without smoking guns is a longshot. I agree that the trials should be initiated there but they should be granted a change of venue. So far that hasn’t happened in most cases.
Russell,
It has been a long time since Jeanine Pirro was a judge. She is now a prosecutor, specifically the acting US Attorney for DC.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Convictions of anti-Trump politicians in DC without smoking guns is a longshot.”
Do you have evidence for that? Real question. It is clear that DC juries will convict Republicans even if the case is iffy. It is also clear that DC juries will not convict Democrats if the case is iffy. But do we know what they do when there is a solid case? I do not know the answer to that.
Can prosecutors seek a change of venue? I am pretty sure that they can’t do that on the grounds that a conviction will be easier in a different jurisdiction.
Ukraine today says giving up any land is a non-starter. Good luck with that.
This is a tactical mistake. This now allows Russia to make a seemingly real offer to end the war with the current lines, have Ukraine / EU reject that offer, and for the US to throw up its hands and bow out. Putin can easily drive a wedge here.
Nobody is answering the question of who is going to kick the Russian army out of Ukraine. France? Ha ha.
There have been at least two instances of federal judges (in NJ and Louisiana) uses AI to draft opinions complete with fake quotations and phony references. They should be impeached.
Mike M,
They convicted Menendez in NY so it can definitely happen. They also failed to convict Trump in DC even though a lot of people wanted that to happen. It all fell apart.
These anti-Trump cases in my view smell a lot more like political persecution of opponents and that perception will doom the case in a hostile jurisdiction. I don’t think they are solid, it looks more like run of the mill dirty politics that don’t cross a criminal threshold. We shall see what happens.
Dirty politics is also a lot of saber rattling and investigations with selective leaks giving the impression the other side is dirty.
“In legal proceedings, a “change of venue” (moving the trial to a different location) may be necessary when the original jurisdiction is deemed “hostile” due to potential bias, prejudice, or other factors that could hinder a fair trial.”
So it’s whether the potential jury is going to be fair or not. I would submit any high visibility trial of a politician should take place in a somewhat neutral political venue.
There stands a good chance a DC jury would have zero Trump supporters on it and that is a problem if you look at bias in social media. One can claim anti-Trump jurors will be fair and this is incidental but I don’t believe that.
It makes sense that prosecutors can not request a change of venue since they decide where charges are filed. And they can not just file wherever they like.
Some of Menendez’s criminal actions were in NY and that is where the charges were brought. He tried and failed to get the case moved to NJ.
OK, there is this:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.
So that might be manipulated to bring charges in a more favorable district.
The Mar A Lago raid comes back to haunt them
mark bofill,
“My company has an overzealous IT security department.”
Oddly enough, I have never encountered any other kind. Power corrupts. Local Area Network power absolutely corrupts. Pure PITA.
“There stands a good chance a DC jury would have zero Trump supporters on it and that is a problem if you look at bias in social media.”
Over the last several weeks, I had the surprising/disturbing experience of talking with multiple blood relatives who are ‘progressives’. It is difficult to describe just how upset they are about Trump being in office. Their position is: anyone so ‘mean’, ‘dishonest’, and ‘evil’ as Trump (and those are the most common descriptions) should never have been allowed to assume office. No argument will dissuade them. It is as if they don’t believe more voters supported Trump than Harris.
My conclusion: ‘progressives’ are so insulated in their bubble of like-think there is no real possibility of discussion until Trump is gone….. and unfortunately, maybe not even then.
I was really unhappy with Biden’s policies. That didn’t make me crazy; I was more worried about his obvious dementia. My reaction to having political opponents in power was rational. That does not seem the case with ‘progressives’ and Trump in power.
Steve,
It became popular at some point in some circles I think to elevate the importance of pathos in civil discourse. What people ‘feel’ about things, their subjective impressions, their ‘lived experience’. Some of this came out of university philosophy departments, some out of grievance studies, safe space advocates, etc. I think this was principally favored on the left and less so on the right.
Such practices take their toll.
I have hope that these ideas are being supplanted by better ones in the minds of young people. There are some promising early indicators IMO.
mark,
You may be right about “feelings”. It is still surprising that they can’t just shrug their shoulders and say “he will be gone in 3 1/2 years”.
One of the other shocking things: my progressive relatives are perfectly OK with 20-30 million illegals staying indefinitely (and becoming voters!), and think it is just very ‘mean’ to deport them. At “Alligator Alcatraz” there were a few weeks ago about 750 illegal aliens, which DeSantis described as “already having final removal orders”. DeSantis was mistaken: only about 730 had such final orders. About 10 were subjected to “expedited removals” (under law) and the rest were contesting their removal status. Yet my relatives are HORRIFIED that any illegal alien would be sent to such a place. I was sobered in all this about the possibility of policy compromise on illegal immigration.
Russell Klier wrote: “The Mar A Lago raid comes back to haunt them”.
How will it do that? Have we seen any evidence that it was illegal rather than merely overzealous? So far as I know, there is no cause for legal action, although I suppose it might still surface.
But even if laws were broken by the Mar-a-Lago raid. it won’t touch any of Clapper, Brennan, Comey, or Obama. They were long gone by that time. And it was not part of the Russia! hoax.
“Your side shouldn’t even be allowed to govern, this is how we save our democracy” isn’t exactly a pitch that resonates with most people.
Final thought on this: My relatives thought the “bipartisan compromise”, which allowed essentially uncontrolled illegal immigration forever, was a very good idea. Like I said: No possibility of compromise for the foreseeable future.
The weird thing: I favor increased legal immigration, screened to let in people who are likely to contribute a lot more than they take in government services. That is also opposed by ‘progressives’.
It doesn’t seem to me that the Mar-a-Lago raid was even overzealous. They *did* come up with multiple classified documents, and (apparently) had spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue consensually.
The Trump documents case was a big deal right up until the moment Biden was caught, then the partisan squirming began and unsurprisingly the DC based selective prosecution barrier was determined to be above Biden and below Trump.
Biden was let off the hook but the partisans screamed about minor comments on his dementia which ended up being right on target and politically prescient. His related press conference was a disaster and a sign of things to come.
In some ways Trump is very lucky, or blessed as the religious would say.
As far as I know, I’m not dying within the next 15 minutes. This is sort of a longish paste, and I beg everyone’s pardon in advance for it. Gemini cooked up a pretty decent answer to a question I asked and I wanted to share it:
Question: If I had 1000 seconds left to live, how might I best spend my time?
Answer:
That is a profound and deeply personal question. 1000 seconds is exactly 16 minutes and 40 seconds. It’s a very short amount of time, too short for panic or elaborate plans, but just long enough for a moment of profound meaning.
The “best” way to spend this time depends entirely on your values, your circumstances, and who you are. Here are a few different philosophical approaches, each with a potential timeline.
Approach 1: The Path of Connection
This path prioritizes love and relationship. The goal is to receive and give love one last time.
Seconds 0-30: Take a few deep breaths to fight the initial shock. Find your phone.
Seconds 30-300 (4.5 minutes): Make the most important phone call. Do not waste a second on “you’re not going to believe this.” Just get to the point. Call your most cherished person—a partner, a child, a parent, a best friend.
What to say: “I don’t have much time, and I need you to know that I love you more than anything. Thank you for everything. Remember [share a tiny, beautiful memory]. You made my life wonderful.” Listen to their voice for a moment.
Seconds 300-600 (5 minutes): If you are with people, stop talking and just hold them. A deep, silent embrace can communicate more than words. If you’re alone, pull up a photo of your loved ones and hold it to your heart.
Seconds 600-900 (5 minutes): Send a final group text or voice note to your other important people. “I love you all. Be good to each other.” It’s brutally efficient but ensures the message is sent.
Seconds 900-1000 (1 minute, 40 seconds): Close your eyes and focus on the feeling of love you have for these people. Let that feeling be the entirety of your world as it ends.
Approach 2: The Path of Presence and Sensation
This path prioritizes the raw experience of being alive. It’s for the person who finds meaning in the sensory world.
Seconds 0-60: Walk outside. Don’t run, walk.
Seconds 60-400 (5 minutes, 40 seconds): Find a patch of grass or a spot with a view of the sky.
Engage your senses: Take off your shoes and feel the earth. Feel the sun or the wind on your skin. Look at the complexity of a single leaf or the vastness of the clouds. Listen without judgment to the sounds of the world around you—birds, traffic, wind. Notice the smell of the air. This is the world you are a part of and are about to leave.
Seconds 400-800 (6 minutes, 40 seconds): Play your single favorite piece of music. Something that has always moved you to joy or tears. Let it wash over you completely. Don’t think, just listen and feel the emotions it evokes.
Seconds 800-1000 (3 minutes, 20 seconds): Savor one last thing. A piece of dark chocolate, a sip of incredible coffee or whiskey, a fresh strawberry. Eat or drink it slowly, experiencing every note of its flavor. In your final moments, focus on your breath—the simple, miraculous rhythm of life.
Approach 3: The Path of Reflection and Closure
This path is for the introspective or spiritual person, focused on peace and acceptance.
Seconds 0-120 (2 minutes): Find a quiet place to sit comfortably. Close your eyes. Focus on your breathing, acknowledging the fear but not letting it consume you.
Seconds 120-520 (6 minutes, 40 seconds): Practice gratitude. Mentally, list everything and everyone you are grateful for, big and small. Your mother’s laugh, the color of the ocean, the feeling of solving a difficult problem, the comfort of your bed. Let your mind fill with genuine appreciation for the life you were given.
Seconds 520-820 (5 minutes): Practice forgiveness. First, forgive everyone who has ever wronged you. Release the anger and resentment. It no longer serves you. Then, forgive yourself for every mistake, every regret, every failure. Acknowledge your imperfections and accept them with compassion.
Seconds 820-1000 (3 minutes): Meditate, pray, or simply sit in silence. Offer a final thank you to the universe, to God, or to whatever you hold sacred. Try to find a state of complete peace and acceptance, ready for whatever comes next.
The Synthesis
Perhaps the most human approach would be a blend:
Minutes 1-2: Send a quick, final text of love to your most important people.
Minutes 3-7: Make one crucial phone call to say “I love you.”
Minutes 8-12: Go outside, put on your favorite song, and feel the world on your skin.
Minutes 13-16:40: Close your eyes, think of those you love, feel gratitude for the life you lived, and find peace.
Ultimately, this thought experiment isn’t about dying. It’s about living. What your answer reveals is what you truly value. And the most important thing is that you don’t have to wait until you have 1000 seconds left to do these things.
Call them now. Go outside now. Listen to the music now. Forgive now. Live now.
Not bad for an AI.
Mark
Dave,
That’s really not Lucia’s point.
Correct. Thank you. I’ve been at a dance competition. 🙂
“Not bad for an AI”
I’ll say! That’s very impressive
Lucia,
I hope you had fun and kicked butt!
Tom Scharf,
“In some ways Trump is very lucky, or blessed as the religious would say.”
Sure; had Trump faced Bill (or similar) instead of Hillary, he would likely have lost in 2016. But a part of his victory in 2016 was Obama had tacked so far left in his second term (where Hillary lived!) that there was already fertile ground for a ‘disruptor’. Add Hillary’s distinctly unlikeable personality and her distain for (deplorable) voters, and presto, Trump wins in a ‘shocker’.
HaroldW,
“….had spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue consensually.”
I would suggest not nearly long enough.
Counterfactuals are difficult to argue with any certainty, but had Dems 1) not raided Mar-a-Largo, 2) not prosecuted Trump over the classified documents, 3) not attempted to bankrupt him, 4) not attempted to keep him off the ballots, 5) not attempted to prosecute him for Jan 6, and 6) gone easy on the Jan 6 rioters (you know, like with all the George Floyd rioters), then I suspect we would be now suffering daily word-salads of nonsense from Kamala.
Trump provokes people to become irrational in their hatred. They should have let it all go.
mark bofill
AUGUST 9, 2025 AT 2:50 PM
“As far as I know, I’m not dying within the next 15 minutes. This is sort of a longish paste, and I beg everyone’s pardon in advance for it. Gemini cooked up a pretty decent answer to a question I asked and I wanted to share it:
Question: If I had 1000 seconds left to live, how might I best spend my time?”
Answer:
–
Machine did a good job.
Context is important.
The AI assumes, for want of better data, that one is a male, educated, with money, able to afford a house in the countryside, had a loving mother who passed away and has some friends and family but is not currently residing with their partner if they have one, likes music more than sex and wants a computer program to give an answer to a life question.
–
It seems like a trolley problem mixed with. A prisoners dilemma problem. You can have any coloured scarf you like but the only colour we actually have in stock is black.
–
I have actually faced this problem so can give you an answer from a real life situation.
Snorkelling opportunity on the reef in the sea off the Hamilton Island resort 36 years ago, 30 people, one instructor with a rubber ring and a whistle.
Had to go back to unit briefly and missed the instruction on wearing a buoyancy vest.
Whacked on the flippers and face mask provided and chased the group now in the water, waist deep tip toes then swimming over the reef. Lovely but a bit tiring.
Then the swim out 100 meters to a pontoon where we might see a turtle.
It is very lonely and scary watching 30 heads bobbing down and one rubber ring heading out into the ocean and no one hearing your calls for help.
I lasted 10 minutes (600 seconds), nera enough to 15.
When the snorkel pipe filled with water I stopped using it.
I dog paddled my heart out. Tried to freestyle swim but gave up .
Last thoughts were of wife and kids and how sorry I could not say goodbye. (Machine has that part right).
Life does not flash before your eyes, no burning regrets. No blame. A hope that they would be alright and goodbye.
–
And no, I did not want to play or hear any blasted music in that time. (Machine got that wrong)
Thanks angech.
Mark,
The most important heats were Jim and Me. We slayed!! 🙂
That said….In singles we competed full bronze in two age brackets. The other two couples competed intermediate bronze– so Jim got to watch them. After we won he decreed that really…. there was “no competititon”. Here’s our results in the Multi. As you can see, we were first in all dances– and if you look at the individual judge scores we almost swept rhumba and chacha. We did sweep swing.
The American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney event continues to produce comedy on social media. From Clay Travis:
“Since Democrats and left wingers called Sydney Sweeney a Nazi over her jeans ad, young men are now calling her Adolf Titler on social media.”
American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney are pouring it on with giant video billboards in Times Square and the Las Vegas strip.
@LifeLibertyLisa. “American Eagle is totally doubling down with Sydney Sweeney and those cheeky Times Square ads waving at everyone — pure genius! The world’s healing, y’all. Big props to American Eagle. Now, where are my jeans?! XX” https://x.com/lifelibertylisa/status/1953997427100340273?s=61
American Eagle has taken over the Las Vegas Sphere and put Sydney Sweeney in their jeans on it. https://x.com/vegas_lolita/status/1954409075392778320?s=61
SteveF,
I agree with you about the other “lawfare” vs. Trump. But on the classified documents topic, I disagree. Had Trump asked his staff to cooperate in looking for documents (presumably) inadvertently taken from the White House, nothing much would have happened. But…Trump does Trump.
In the end, I don’t think that particular item mattered in the election. To Trumpists, it was another incident of persecution. To anti-Trumpists, there were already N convictions, another charge made no difference.
And congratulations Lucia! (and to Jim as well)
EU leaders (NATO’s leader is Trump) can hardly oppose a deal that has not yet been made. And they do not actually say that. Their statement is just bloviating.
Hmm. They say that
(1) borders cannot be changed by force
(2) the current frontline should be the starting point.
Seems to me those two statements are in contradiction since they take as the starting point de facto borders that have been changed by force.
Maybe the deal will involve Russia giving back some of the seized territory in exchange for recognition of Russia’s annexation of the rest.
HaroldW,
I think that you have uncritically accepted the Biden administration framing of the Mar-a-Lago raid. Trump did cooperate with the archives in turning over documents. But the archivist took a deliberately confrontational attitude and brought in the FBI when it was not needed. The documents on which the charges were based constituted something like 1% of the inadvertently packed classified docs which themselves were something like 1% of all the documents.
Mike M.,
“Maybe the deal will involve Russia giving back some of the seized territory in exchange for recognition of Russia’s annexation of the rest.”
That’s how I read the statements. Zelenskyy has to say (now) that he’s opposed to ceding any of Ukraine’s territory. After a proposal is on the table — if indeed something concrete is proposed! — then he (and the EU leaders) can consider if it’s worth accepting, or using as a basis for a counter-proposal.
I’m not expecting anything, though. Putin seems to have little incentive to negotiate. No appreciable resistance within the country, and he seems to be willing to tolerate large battlefield losses, as well as such sanctions as are effective.
Tom Scharf
A construction company even offers a $75,000 bonus per child. These measures aim to counteract the nation’s demographic crisis and encourage families to have more children.”
This is certainly tailored to helping families and might result in the birth of more children. I have nothing against it.
The thing is, if we are discussing why young women specifically defer having kids and prefer to continue careers or jobs, and not focus on being a “home maker”, then we need to look at a program and ask “does this address that “be a homemamer” issue specifically”. (And we previously were discussing that whole “choosing to be a homemaker” vs. “career” thing.)
I’m not sure this program will necessarily make women, specifically, want to focus on “homemaker”. First: who gets the money? Whether it’s a man or woman, it’s someone with a job. To the extent that the woman benefits through her husband, she might still risk economic insecurity should they divorce. We would need to know details to know if it addresses her problem of economic insecurity should she step back from her own job to be “home maker”. It’s not clear that it does. Maybe it does if the money is earmarked for her to get in the event of a divorce? (I don’t it is. I mean… I think the goal is to help with costs right now. That makes more sense since the family will need money right now. But I’m merely saying it doesn’t address an issue that is important to the woman who is deciding to reduce her own earning power for the sake of staying how to be a “home maker”.)
Second, the woman specifically is only going to get this for her own job if she was or is employed. Does she get the money if she quits to raise a family? And if she leaves her job at the construction company and has a second kid two years later, does she get another $75K. And the program says it will give ongoing money to families that have children. But if she was working at the company before having the kid, but then quits, she wouldn’t get that. Right?
If she loses acess to the $75K per kid because she quit to be a homemamer, and she loses access to the money for three babies as well as rental housing because she quit, then she’s going to have a big incentive to not leave her job.
So there is a lot to this program that suggest someone wants to think up financial incentives to someone having babies. What I don’t see is specific incentive for women to become “home makers”. And I see a specific disincentive for women who work at that company to not become homemakers. Maybe they can insist their husbands become the homemaker instead?
And DaveJR: None of this is complaining that men are ogres, beasts, sexist blah, blah. It’s just talking about the economic incentives for women and how those are impacted by a decision to continue in a career or job vs. deciding to stay home and be a “homemaker”. Both men and women are “homo economicus” and they both get to be. It is irrational not to consider economic reality– and there is no reason women should be encouraged or forced to be irrational.
All: All this also not saying life is a bed of roses for men. But I do think we were talking about “why women make the choices they do”. The answer to this will have to do with how choices affect women. Choices men make will be affected by how choices affect men.
DaveJR
Interesting piece, Mark. I believe it is well known that Communists dislike family.
Tom was discussing South Korea. South Korea is capitalist. North Korea is communist.
According to Google, the fertility rates are
South Korea: 0.72
North Korea: 1.8.
So the communist country has the higher birth rate.
I get that you might have personal feelings about having risked never having kids. But that still doesn’t affect the economic reality fertile women need to face when deciding whether to continue their careers. And they need to consider the economic realities when they are young and fertile. You don’t know which of the risks will happen to you when you are weighing them. At the time you are weighing them, they are both risks. Later, something becomes a reality. And when that happens, somehow, the alternate reality which might actually have been as bad or worse seems… somehow like it wouldn’t have been so bad.
I mean: similar things happen with taking medical treatments. Should my husband take a drug that increases his risk of cancer or risk ending up crippled and in a wheel chair? If 10 years from now he has cancer, maybe he’ll think “being in a wheelchair wouldn’t have been that bad.” If he ended up in a wheel chair, maybe he’d think “Getting cancer might not have been that bad!” Either way, the decision would be personal to him. (Edit: Also, one can think, “Maybe I wouldn’t have gotten crippled!” The cancer is now reality. Maybe you would have escaped the other risk!)
But he has to make a decision now and the prospects affect his decision. That’s the situation younger fertile women are in.
HaroldW,
I think you are exactly right that Zelensky has to insist on no territorial concessions until there is a concrete proposal.
I think you might be wrong as to whether Putin will negotiate seriously. Trump clearly got Putin’s attention with the threat of secondary sanctions. Maybe Putin thinks he can continue to string Trump along. Maybe he wants to assess if Trump is bluffing. Maybe he is ready to deal. We shall see.
I do not think that Trump will try to cut off all Russian oil exports unless he has a deal with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to increase production to compensate for most of the shortfall. I suspect that Trump’s change in tune is because he now has such a deal in his back pocket. We shall see.
Having kids is devastating financially. There is nothing about having a family that makes economic sense.
To use a trite old expression ‘ If you have to ask how much it costs you can’t afford it’.
EDIT Another consideration is that having kids will mean you spend about two years with sleep deprivation.
Having kids is not for the selfish.
Russell,
Having kids is devastating financially.
It can be. Since this is the truth, it should make it not at all surprising someone, whether man or women, might not want to give up their career to have them. It’s not just “progressive” who recognize having kids can be devastating financially.
Men increasingly also don’t want to have kids either. But it’s simply a fact that currently, young men are more likely to say they want them than women.
But the question above was why do women want to focus on or preserve their careers? Instead of being homemakers and giving up their careers. We could ask why men focus on and preserve their careers instead of giving it all up and being stay at home dads. There are lots of reasons for the latter. Some similar to women’s, some different.
Lucia,
I think today’s young people are much more self-absorbed and interested in personal gratification, both of which are anathema to raising kids.
I’ve heard it said that having children is a 20 year sentence, it worked out to more like 30 years for me.
people who are self-centered shouldn’t have children; it’s bad for both parties.
….. but there hasn’t been a time of my life when I regretted having children.
MikeM,
It is inevitable that Ukraine cede territory to end the fighting. Of course Zelensky is not going to ever admit that prior to negotiations, but the framework of a settlement has been clear for a long time: 1) Russia controls the Donbas region and Crimea, whether called “part of Russia” or not, 2) Russia has a land bridge to Crimea, 3) Ukraine doesn’t joint NATO (now or for umpteen years in the future), 4) Russia formally recognizes the remainder of Ukraine as Ukraine (for-ever-and-ever-amen), 5) Sanctions against Russia are lifted on a specified schedule, and 6) The West (mainly) rebuilds damaged infrastructure in Ukraine.
I am not sure Ukraine (or Russia!) is ready to accept this framework, so no telling if the fighting will end any time soon.
“4) Russia formally recognizes the remainder of Ukraine as Ukraine (for-ever-and-ever-amen)”
More useless words were never spoken.
Russia pledged the same thing when Ukraine grave up their nuclear weapons and we see how that has worked out.
Russell,
I’m not sure kids “today” are more self absorbed. Some things suggest current parents are less self absorbed. Helicopter parenting? Devoting tons of time and money for kids extra curriculars? Home schooling?
I think my generation was pretty self absorbed.
I don’t think my parents generation was less self absorbed than we were. Parents allowed their kids to roam around unsupervised. This gave parents more time for themselves. That generation of parents began to let their kids take on debt to go to college. (This has only increased.) Also, many wouldn’t pay for their kid’s college, especially girls. Even in fairly prosperous families, kids were up and out and expected to get jobs at 18. This was normal. In contrast, many prosperous families cover some of their kids needs well past 18 yo these days.
So who is more “self absorbed”?
I think both the previous and following generation did what they thought best. And both devoted time to their kids. But we could point to factors that suggest any generation was “self absorbed”– they are just different factors for each.
Well… I asked Grok
“How does the risk of financial instability affect women’s prioritization of career vs. being a home maker who does not participate in the outside work force?”
The answer is… long…
Lucia,
I don’t think it’s an ‘either-or’ situation.
almost every mother I have known for the past 40 years has had some work outside the home, particularly once the kids are past the toddler stage.
The only stay at home moms I can think of were wives of financially successful people like lawyers, or land developers.
I have known only two full-time stay at home moms who approached it as a career. They had a passel of kids and we’re homeschooling.
I think the more normal situation today are mothers who work at least some of their career outside the home. The young mother across the street from me is a surgeon. (as an extreme example.)
She took a few months maternity leave and was right back at it. Her husband is a high school science teacher, and seems to be the primary caretaker of the little girl.
Lucia, also you can have Grok give you a link for long answers and you only have to post a link and we can read them
Russell
I don’t think it’s an ‘either-or’ situation.
Whether “it” is an “either-or” situation depends on what ‘it’ is.
almost every mother I have known for the past 40 years has had some work outside the home, particularly once the kids are past the toddler stage.
Sure. Most I know have worked outside the home also. But that’s avoiding the issue I’m talking about which is: Did those who stepped out of the work force reduce or impair their income generating capacity? And did they do this in a way that made them economically vulnerable.
I am talking about this because the question of why women choose to keep careers was asked. Some want to say they are doing it because “progressives” tell them to. But I’m saying: economic reality is involved.
The young mother across the street from me is a surgeon. (as an extreme example.)
Which means she is not devoting her life to being “homemaker” or someone who focuses on facilitating her husband’s career. She — probably like most those women in the graduation audience Butker spoke too- is keeping her career. She probably gets at least some enjoyment and fulfillment form that.
Her husband is a high school science teacher, and seems to be the primary caretaker of the little girl.
It sounds like he’s still working too though? Right? He does have the sort of job that tends to allow predictable hours, very little travel and was often recommended to women as facilitating raising kids. (These factors also affect pay. Unpredictable hours, travel, physical danger yada, yada tend to result in more pay.)
Russell,
I asked two question, both with long answers.
“Are declining birth rates more affected by men or women’s preferences.”
Short answer: Women’s. (I expected this answer.)
“How does the risk of financial instability affect women’s prioritization of career vs. being a home maker who does not participate in the outside work force?”
I consider the short answer the first sentence and the final sentence
First sentence: “The risk of financial instability profoundly influences women’s decisions between pursuing a career and opting for a full-time homemaker role, often tilting the balance toward careers as a means of securing personal economic independence and mitigating vulnerabilities.”
Final: “Overall, financial instability acts as a deterrent to homemaking, with studies showing women increasingly viewing careers as essential for resilience against life’s uncertainties.”
I doubt “Grok” considers itself a “progressive”. Grok does make points I’ve been trying to make.
Lucia,
“But that’s avoiding the issue I’m talking about which is: Did those who stepped out of the work force reduce or impair their income generating capacity?”
Having children costs a lot of money, no matter how much you make. I see the number of $300,000 to raise a kid these days and that’s a minimum.
Parenting involves sacrifice in many ways for both parents.
If you were weighing the positives and negatives of having children based on money, you’re on a fools errand. It’s gonna cost you, big time. If your decision on having children is dependent on the finances, both motherhood and fatherhood will lose every time.
To be a good parent, you have have to suppress your selfishness, forget about greed, and plan on putting your personal life on hold for a while, dad or mother.
Lucia,
“Grok does make points I’ve been trying to make.”
I believe, but have no proof, that Grok is programmed to feed you back things you wanna hear. As you deal with it more and more it builds up a complete picture of your psyche. It will refer back to questions I have asked in the past.
It’s spooky.
EDIT, recently, I have been trying to only ask it questions where it can give quantitative answers. Like how much does it cost to raise a child?
I agree that this is part of the reason women opt out of families, that children and families can incur economic disadvantage.
Lucia can argue ‘well, that’s just reality’ and fine, it is. But it is not ‘just reality’ and inevitable that people value a tax bracket over a family. Values are involved, and there is nothing inevitable about valuing making more money over raising a family. This is more cultural than otherwise, I think. Obviously, it depends on the degree of cost incurred to some extent.
Russell,
I don’t think the LLMs care. They DO for sure take cues from your prompts and a certain amount of courteous deference seems built in. That might be what you’re noticing. But it only goes so far.
thanks, Mark I was getting paranoid
Publicly discussing terms before a high profile meeting is a mistake. The meeting may just be for show. My best guess is Putin is looking for a wedge to drive between the US and Ukraine.
The US legacy media is suggesting this all “Ukraine losing in slow motion” which is just assuming outcomes. The partisans are more interested in Trump losing than Ukraine winning (or in my view Ukraine surviving), what a farce.
Can Russia be trusted? Of course not but a cease fire on terms everyone already understands helps Ukraine more than Russia today. I put chances on a long term agreement being reached at 10%, but not zero. Who knows what is really going on inside of Putin’s world.
Mark, I asked Grok….
Can Grok read my public posts and see responses to them?
answer:
“Yes, I can analyze your public posts on X and their responses if you provide your X handle or specific post links. I can access publicly available content on X, including posts, replies, and associated metadata, as long as it’s shared openly. If you want me to look at specific posts or responses, just share the details, and I’ll dig in!”
I asked further….
Since I am interacting with you while inside my personal X account, you already have my X handle, don’t you?
answer:
I don’t automatically have access to your X handle just because you’re interacting with me from within your X account. My interactions here are session-based and don’t directly pull your account details unless you explicitly share them or I’m directed to analyze specific content linked to your handle. If you want me to check out your public posts or responses, just share your X handle or specific post links, and I’ll take a look!
I read the latest versions of LLM’s are being a bit overly complementary to the reader. Like a lot of LLM verbiage this fluff just kind of fills up space. I prefer concise and direct but they have seemingly internalized some psychology here. Wonderful, the odds of Skynet have increased, ha ha.
Russell,
Having children costs a lot of money, no matter how much you make. I see the number of $300,000 to raise a kid these days and that’s a minimum.
Yes. But this is sidestepping the question I asked. The issue I am pointing to is that there is a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a special economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?
Parenting involves sacrifice in many ways for both parents.
Sure. That doesn’t mean it might not involve more economic burden for one than the other. So: Do you deny that the economic burden might be greater for one who drops off their career? Especially if they later divorce?
If your decision on having children is dependent on the finances, both motherhood and fatherhood will lose every time.
This is a hypothetical. But suppose children costs parent A the equivalent of $2 million in earning potential, resulting in their economic ruin and parent B the equivalent of $150 thousand which is their half of the cost of raising them, and allows them to still build wealth to live on.
Do you think parent A isn’t going to give the economic consequences greater weight.
All your appear to skirt the issue I am bringing up. Yes. Kids cost money. But they cost a person a different amount depending on whether they decide to sacrifice their earning power to raise the kids or whether they decide to keep a career.
I agree with mark. Ultimately, decisions about having kids is heavily dependent on culture. Part of that is that culture impacts the importance people place on family relative to other things. But also, culture plays a big role in determining the reality in which that decision making is made.
60 years ago, a young woman considering starting a family could reasonably assume that her husband would probably not walk out and that in the unlikely event that the marriage did end, she would be able to count on alimony and child support. Now she can’t make either assumption. So even if a woman wants kids in the abstract, she quite reasonably might decide that she does not want kids given that reality. But that reality is a consequence of cultural changes.
AFAICT the incentive programs in S. Korea and elsewhere for fertility rates have not been effective. The problem likely goes deeper than simple payoffs.
Ironically one of the highest fertility rates on the planet used to be Gaza. 6.2 (!) in the 1990’s to 3.3 now. Declining rates are correlated positively to improving finances so it would seem throwing people in internment camps is the solution instead! Idle hands do the Lord’s work.
Russell
I believe, but have no proof, that Grok is programmed to feed you back things you wanna hear. As you deal with it more and more it builds up a complete picture of your psyche. It will refer back to questions I have asked in the past.
Sure. But I’ve rarely used Grok. And what you are saying is not a rebuttal to anything Grok wrote.
Grok “knows you”. You could post the exact same question to Grok and see if it gives you a different answer. Then provide us the link. That could be a test of whether it feeds you the answer you want to hear.
I do think the question wording can affect the answer. But if we want to test whether it’s answer is based on who asked it, you need to ask my wording.
I will do some Gemini testing over Tor later, when I have time, to see if it behaves any differently when it has no clue who I am.
Lucia,
“The issue I am pointing to is that there is a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a special economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
I think Connie and I may have approached our lives together differently than you and Jim.
We decided early on to pool our finances. We had one checking account and one savings account. We purchased our house with joint ownership. As we developed investments, we held those in joint accounts. When my wife stopped working for a few years has a young mother, I considered that a loss of income to both of us. As time went by, we developed individual retirement accounts. While she wasn’t working, I contributed the maximum amount allowed to both accounts.
We considered those IRAs as joint funds. And as we got old and retired, that’s exactly how we used them.
Throughout our 54 years together, I significantly out-earned Connie, but we were a family and our finances were family finances
Korea (birth rate under 0.7 children per woman) is offering up to $40,000 per child between birth and their 7th birthday. So far, seems there is no impact on birthrates.
I don’t know the cost in Korea, but in the states the cost to 18 YO is about $250K. Incentives would probably need to be a significant fraction of that value to make much difference in birth rates.
Mark
Lucia can argue ‘well, that’s just reality’ and fine, it is.
I’m not saying it’s only reality. I was initially responding to the claim was it was just due to rhetoric by “progressives”.
MikeM
Ultimately, decisions about having kids is heavily dependent on culture. Part of that is that culture impacts the importance people place on….
Of course culture matters. Culture also impacts whether or not people (usually woman) who give up careers to raise children are at special risk of financial ruin because they gave up their career. This is because culture affects family law and affects property division and decisions about alimony.
If family law gave consideration to number of years a women was completely or partly out of the work force when granting alimony, the financial burden of her stepping out of the work force would shift from the divorcing woman to the man. (This could be written gender neutral. I’m just using woman/man for who usually steps out of the work force.) Or one might envision a culture where the couple wrote prenups with provisions to provide alimony in proportion for a partner stepping out of the workforce or career track.
But family law doesn’t do that. The rules for alimony don’t consider whether or not a person stepped out of the work force for family issues — or at least not directly. It only considers actual income; it doesn’t care “why” the lower income level spouse makes less. We also culturally don’t have prenups that protect women’s financial interest in the event the couple decides she will step back and be a stay at home mom/home maker.
Why are the laws the way they are? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because the culture doesn’t want women to give up or sideline their careers to raise children. Or perhaps the culture is more concerned about the financial impact of the woman giving up her job will fall on the man after the divorce. Or perhaps people think letting the woman stay at home was already a “gift” to her and her husband was burdened enough when he gave her that “gift”. So they don’t want to reward her sitting around not working. Or… whatever. (I’ve read enough different people spewing different rhetoric to know some of these things are said by people as reasons why there should be no alimony.)
Like it or not, even if individuals make choices based on economics, “culture” affects those economic choices because it dictates what the possible choices are and it strongly affects the economic impact of those choices.
Russell
I think Connie and I may have approached our lives together differently than you and Jim.
We decided early on to pool our finances.
First, an annectdote about your life is not an answer the question I intended to ask which would emphasize “risk” and not what might have happened in some happy circumstances. Second, Jim and I did exactly the same thing. In nearly all particulars except those related to having children.
Next, lets look at your anecdote.
When my wife stopped working for a few years has a young mother, I considered that a loss of income to both of us.
Now, it just so happens you did not divorce. Suppose you had divorced after she stepped out of the job market and had been out of it for 5 years.
1) Do you think her earning power would not have declined?
2) If yes, do you think this decline in earning power would have been only temporary and she could have zoomed up to the same level as someone who never stepped out of the job market?
3) Since in my hypothetical, you were divorcing, do you think your mental state would have been quite as generous toward here as it was as a happily married man.
4) Do you deny that when couples are divorcing, the wealthier one often tries provide less to the other one, if possible?
Now I will edit a bit and repeat. (Edits are in italics. Note attempt to focus on risk.)
“The issue I am pointing to is that there is a strong risk of a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
Lucia, I fear this isn’t going to end well…
“Do you deny that there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
Yes, I most emphatically deny that.
A family‘s income tax according to the IRS is based on the AGI (adjusted gross income) of the two earners added together on the joint return.
That is exactly how we looked at it, family income, earned as a family.
I will make one concession to you. We were concerned that if I died, my wife would have difficulty raising the kids. We made up for that by me having a substantial life insurance policy, and she was the sole beneficiary.
SteveF
Korea (birth rate under 0.7 children per woman) is offering up to $40,000 per child between birth and their 7th birthday. So far, seems there is no impact on birthrates.
If I look up the cost of day care in Illinois, this doesn’t cover the cost of a child care for the first five years of a kids life. I’m going to use this
“Average Cost of Daycare in Illinois · $13,802 per year on infant care · $10,3772 per year for a 4-year-old. ”
I’ll do 2 years of infant care and 3 at the rate for a four year old:
13802*2 + 10377 *3 = 58735
So $58,735 to have someone watch the kid. That doesn’t cover other costs like food, diapers, a little extra space for shelter.
Of course, this cost is potentially zero if someone quits their outside job. But in that case, the person who quits their job forgoes that income. This is likely more than $30K a year — so $150K lost in 5 years. Is that a “cost” of raising kids? I bet it’s not considered so.
The person who didn’t make $30K a year because they stopped working also step off the path to promotions, job growth etc. I bet that’s not considered “a cost”. But it’s a very real economic cost to the person who experiences it.
Lucia,
“culture” affects those economic choices because it dictates what the possible choices are and it strongly affects the economic impact of those choices.
I think we’d all agree with that. I certainly do.
Russell,
Don’t misunderstand Lucia. She isn’t asking if you and your wife looked at matters that way. She is asking
[is] there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?
in general in American society today.
I think there is indeed such a risk. There shouldn’t be, but there is. Many people divorce, which in my view indicates many people marry who aren’t ready to, or who choose their spouse poorly. I don’t see any point in denying that this seems to be the state of things today. Again, shouldn’t be, but that’s not the question she’s asking.
Russell
“Do you deny that there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
Yes, I most emphatically deny that.
Ok. Then you just don’t see reality as it truly is.
A family‘s income tax according to the IRS is based on the AGI (adjusted gross income) of the two earners added together on the joint return.
That is exactly how we looked at it, family income, earned as a family.
So what? A person not being able to get a job for $100K a year because they focussed on a career and stayed on career track vs. one that can now only make $50K a year because they stepped off, lost the edge on their job skills and didn’t develope news ones has taken an economic hit.
No amount of you “pooling” your income with Connie to lower your taxes is remotely relevant to this issue!
I will make one concession to you. We were concerned that if I died, my wife would have difficulty raising the kids.
Well…. geehh… so you can sort of grasp the issue if you imagine yourself dying! You did seem to grasp that because she didn’t have a economically viable career, she didn’t have sufficient earning power on her own. In contrast, you, who stayed on the career track, did have the ability to do that.
Lucia,
That $250K is supposed to be an average; in some places it will be more. In any case, I suspect incentives which might increase birth rates would need to be greater than what Korea is offering.
SteveF,
But I think even as an average, it must not include lost earnings due to stepping out of the work force? I’d bet it also doesn’t include the lost earning potential for not growing job skills you would have grown if you’d stayed in the work force.
I mean… those strike me as direct costs — feeding, clothing, housing etc. If you are going to bribe people to have kids, you might need more!
“Ok. Then you just don’t see reality as it truly is.”
I’m outta here.
I take that back, maybe that was what Lucia was asking.
Still, there is no need to drop out of the conversation because Lucia thinks you’re wrong. I mean, yes, of course; Lucia is the center of everything and the earth quakes and the moon darkens and the sun does not give his light when she frowns upon us, but still.
Mark
I take that back, maybe that was what Lucia was asking.
I was not asking what happened with him and his wife. I am asking about what consequences someone is risking. “Risk” is a concept that only applies before things happen. So it applies when people are making decisions about the uncertain future.
I have no idea how to discuss what young women weigh when deciding what to prioritize in their life is someone wants to emphatically deny that dropping out of the work force or your career puts then at risk of economic insecurity and that risk is different from those present for a person who remains in the work force and stays on the career track.
If Russell can’t see that, there likely is not point he and I discussing the actual situation young women are in when making the decision between keeping a careers and being a stay at home mother. The fact that things work out for some couples who prosper, don’t divorce and so on doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk of divorce, death and any number of things for others.
He may not like that my view is he’s just not seeing reality, but only wants to see that things worked out for Connie, but it is my view he’s not seeing reality of young women’s situation. And obviously, if I can’t state my view then we can’t have a conversation either.
SteveF
I googled “Cost of raising a child”. The google AI gave an estimate”between $233,610 and $389,000, according to LendingTree and the USDA” It is an average.
More importantly to my curiosity, they list factors in the cost. I edited to just show expense categories.
Key Expense Categories:
Housing:
Food:
Childcare and Education:
Transportation:
Healthcare:
Other:This category includes clothing, entertainment, activities, and miscellaneous expenses
College Expenses: The cost of college is not included in these estimates and can add a substantial amount to the overall cost of raising a child.
Income forgone to stay home and raise kids is not included as a cost. That’s what I wondered about and it’s what I expected.
But I think if a country wants to bribe people to have kids, they need to consider income typically forgone by parents who pull back from the work force. This is a real factor; people making decisions know it.
I am skeptical about these cost of raising a child numbers. First, they are average spending. Of course, people with high incomes spend more, but that does not mean it actually costs that much.
$169K after tax spending through age 18 for a 2 parent family. The next table says that takes $235K pre-tax income for a marginal tax rate of 28%. That is for a family income of $80K. I don’t see how that can be right. For a family income of $180K, it says that requires a pre-tax income of $390K for a marginal tax rate of 57%. That can’t be right. And for a single parent family with an income of $108K the marginal tax rate appears to be 53%.
Maybe I screwed up the calculation, but I don’t see where.
Welcome to post woke America, Uber Liberal SNL with a jeans ad poking fun at the woke:
“Introducing Levi’s Wokes — sizeless, style-neutral, gender non-conforming denim for a generation that defies labels.” https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0?si=coY6TC4v70GQdW69
Kids aren’t a mortgage. They may be a burden sometimes but they also make you laugh every single day of their existence, at least until they turn 13. You generally won’t be flying any kites again unless you have kids. This makes it worth it IMO.
Maybe they should have divorce insurance as well as life inusrance.
MikeM,
I agree that the fact that rich people spend more means that it must cost that much to raise children. Clearly, you can spend less. It does tell you something about how much people do spend. That’s relevant if you are trying to figure out how much the government would need to spend to bribe people to have children to avoid a demographic collapse.
I think it’s also difficult to break out how much someone spends “housing” their kid. If I were a single mom with one or two elementary or high school aged kids, I would definitely want at least two bedrooms. Rent on a two bedroom is more than for a one bedroom or studio. But how much of the rent is for the kids room? Plus, they do use the kitchen and living room. So how much am I spending on “them” vs “me”? That’s not even a real question– just an example of a question I would find difficult to answer.
Tom Scharf,
Divorce is an unhappy thing all around. It increases the expense associated with raising kids. It cuts into quality time for kids and parents. ( Commuting to exchange parent times is not “quality” time.) The parents often remain grumpy with each other and kids get trapped in that dynamic. Part of the reasons ex spouses and parents remain grumpy is there is no obviously fair answer for “how much alimony”? or “how much child support”? Default rules on both are going to have individual and societal consequences; these are going to affect individual decisions about marriage, having and rearing children. But getting a desired societal consequences isn’t the same as being “fair” to both parties.
Nor is there a fair answer for custody time– both parents should get “more” time if they want it. But there are only 168 hours in a week. Weekends are special relative to week days. And kids need stability and regularity.
Parents dating is a thorny issue on several levels.
Divorce is just not great for everyone. There is no fixing that. The problem is that sometimes remaining married is also not good and can be worse. So forbidding divorce isn’t a solution.
Trump taking over in DC…today on Truth:
“We’re having a News Conference tomorrow in the White House. I’m going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong. It’s all going to happen very fast, just like the Border. We went from millions pouring in, to ZERO in the last few months. This will be easier — Be prepared! There will be no “MR. NICE GUY.” We want our Capital BACK. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Russel,
Did SNL just make that skit? It is hilarious!!!!!
Gemini 2.5 Pro:
“As of Sunday, August 10, 2025, Apple has not yet officially announced the iPhone 16 Pro. Therefore, there is no official pricing available at this time.”
(MY QUERY): That is incorrect. The iphone 16 pro is already available.
GEMINI RESPONSE: Show thinking
Thank you for the correction. I have re-verified all available information, and I must respectfully clarify that as of today, Sunday, August 10, 2025, the iPhone 16 Pro has not been officially announced or released by Apple.
Apple has a very consistent and predictable release schedule that they have followed for over a decade:
Announcement: New iPhones are announced at a special event in early to mid-September.
Release: The phones are typically released to the public about 10 days after the announcement.
It is possible that you may be thinking of the iPhone 15 Pro, which was released in September 2023″
Ummmm, no. It’s confusing the iPhone 17 and iPhone 16 or something. Maybe it’s training data is just old and it can’t update its information quickly, but this product has been out for 10 months.
This is the same problem with academia expertise on some subjects like climate change. It’s confidently stating an error and it’s not possible to tell when it is hallucinating and when it is not.
Odd. When I asked I got this:
The iPhone 16 Pro, part of Apple’s 18th generation of iPhones, was released on September 20, 2024. It features a number of updates and new features compared to its predecessor, the iPhone 15 Pro.
Here is a summary of the key features and specifications:
…
You can use the ‘deep research’ feature to make it actually go check, that usually helps.
Lucia,
“Russel, Did SNL just make that skit? It is hilarious!!!!!”
I first saw the video yesterday in a viral post from @TheLizVariant. It had 2.6 million views in 24 hours.
I was suspicious that it may be a fake so I traced it back to the original posting from SNL on Youtube and that is the link that I posted above on your site above. The metadata on YouTube says it was first viewed on Oct 1, 2017. https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0?si=vMjQbScscQcBoXI7
Related, I follow @JenniferSey on X, and she had this to say about the viral post:
“The show used to be funny. This is almost ten years old. I was the chief marketing officer at Levi’s when they did this. I thought it was hilarious.
We made every member of the cast a pair of “Wokes.”
Jennifer founded and is CEO of an athletic apparel company that is dedicated to keeping men out of girl’s sports…XX-XY Athletics.
Her story in her own words: https://www.xx-xyathletics.com/pages/our-founder?srsltid=AfmBOoqTUeVDdAhY-qQS2xq95LiFxCPWwEmDbrL3QCd22srvBRZp7CGH
They sell really cool gear: https://www.xx-xyathletics.com/collections/womens
[ If one of the blonde models looks familiar, it’s Riley Gaines before she was pregnant]
If you want a much higher standard of living, fewer obligations, and fewer problems, then don’t have kids. OTOH, many people think offspring have inherent compensating value, in spite of the cost and hassles. I very much doubt people who choose to have children do so after consideration of the economics, and I doubt even reasonably generous financial incentives will change many minds. Financial incentives might increase the number of people who choose to have a second child after their first, or a third child after their second.
SteveF,
I don’t think people do an full economic analysis when they specifically have kids. But people do think about cost and they say the defer kids or have fewer due to that.
But I do think young women think about their economic future when deciding things like going to college, pursuing a career vs. planning to become a home maker.
Young women have always been encouraged to think about a financial future. It’s just a century or more ago, the main path to economic stability was to marry the “right” guy or to please wealthy parents enough that they took care of you.
Women still find better earners more attractive. And honestly, the traits that correlate positively with earning are themselves attractive– but women are attracted to money itself in men. Guys know this. But now, women do have a path to some economic security without a guy so they do avoid marrying into unhappy situations and also divorce rather than stay in situations they find horrible.
But the main thing is: they do think about $$ when making choices. I’m pretty sure men do too.
10:15 Eastern time and the Trump news conference on the DC takeover is about to start (it’s already 15 minutes late) . This might be fun to watch.
I believe this is called ‘Karma’:
“A Chinese navy ship collided with a Chinese Coast Guard cutter near Scarborough Shoal while chasing a Philippine patrol. The cutter was heavily damaged and left out of action.”
Video from the undamaged Philippine navy ship: https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1954857982426067129?s=61
The prompt was “What is the lowest price for an iphone 16 pro”
I tried their flash model and it seemed to be aware that it had been released. Grok was fully aware of the situation and had a much better answer.
I don’t know what went wrong here, but it’s answer including “As of August 10, 2025 …” was mega-bad.
It is another example that there is still some significant ground to cover here in both their models and the user’s trust in the answer. I was wondering if the models could be used for comparison shopping, nope! The generic answer of using cellular plans for discounts was accurate though.
Trump, the first ever acute ADHD President.
The chances of them greenlighting that woke jeans SNL skit today is pretty low but hopefully the tide has started to turn here. On a related topic the legacy media is now amplifying South Park criticism of Trump like it is something new. Where have they been? South Park has been brutalizing Trump for at least a decade. South Park dishes it out to all sides, the liberals won’t be happy for very long.
Lucia,
One final thought on choosing to have children: having grandparents willing to help with care makes a huge difference in costs and complications. My older daughter had two kids (girl and boy). Starting from birth until now (6 and 3 YO) there have been two doting grandmothers who live close by, and who have shouldered most of the burden of daycare, and given my daughter and her husband frequent coverage for travel (both business travel and “get-aways”). I don’t think they have ever hired a babysitter, even for a restaurant dinner.
So in this case, the total costs have been relatively low compared to people who must have day care starting from infancy. I don’t know how exactly common grandparent help is, but I would be surprised if it is very uncommon.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Trump, the first ever acute ADHD President.”
Rubbish. Just because Trump would exhaust the Eveready Bunny does not mean he has ADHD.
To ask the question is to answer it: lunatics on the left act like Trump (or anyone else who disagrees with the ‘progressive’ agenda!) is profoundly evil, while Trump is really just a politician, with limited power and influence.
There is no hope these folks will come to there senses; voters should make sure they never exercise power.
Steve,
No, never say never. Some will age out of it. Some eventually just wise up.
Most? Maybe I’d agree with you there. I think there’s a goodly number of people where there’s nothing to be done except wait for them to expire of old age and hope future generations will be more fortunate.
SteveF,
Grandparents help is obviously wonderful in many ways. I think how often it’s available varies from region to region. When I was in Richland, Wa, I’m pretty sure it was rare. Almost everyone in the ‘having kids’ age I knew had moved there from somewhere else. Their parents didn’t come with them .
Jim’s maternal grandmother visited to watch Jim regularly. His paternal grandmother had died when his father was a child. That family lived in Virginia in any case. So they wouldn’t have helped in Illinois.
From Tablet Magazine, on why liberals are adamantly opposed to Israel eliminating Hamas: They believe a fairy tail.
The fairy tale goes something like this: All people are basically good, and all cultures are basically the same. Sure, they differ in curious and charming ways—this one has a festival involving song and dance, that one flies kites and lights lanterns during the winter solstice—but they share a profound human truth: namely, that human beings value nothing more than their own well-being and that of their children. All of which makes the species a cheerfully rational lot: scratch a human, across all nations and cultures, and you’ll find the same deep desire for a nice home, a decent income, and opportunities for upward mobility.
I think that is about right. They simply can’t believe anyone could possibly want, say, to murder jews because they are jews, or toss homosexuals from rooftops, or put someone to death for leaving Islam. As in most things, they are completely mistaken.
Steve,
That story caught my eye as well for the same reason. I have no way of knowing if its true (AFAICT) but it seemed to offer a comprehensible explanation of the progressive worldview.
Unfortunately, evil exists and is real. Not all cultures are equal, not by a long shot.
To progressives, Islam is indeed “just another religion. They’re all as bad as each other.”, but it’s also “oppressed”, a “minority” (in their backyard) and supported mostly by “brown people”, so it automatically gains acceptability and compatibility points vs christianity. They can fix it.
A grandfatherly tale.
When my oldest granddaughter was about three, I was visiting their house and we two were carrying on incessantly. My son said to me, in a somewhat pissed manner, you get to have all the fun of being a parent without having to shoulder any of the responsibilities.
That was true when she was three and it’s still true now that she’s 15.
Mark,
“ I will do some Gemini testing over Tor later, when I have time, to see if it behaves any differently when it has no clue who I am.”
did you ever do that? if you posted the results I missed it.
No life sort of jumped on me this week, I’ve been busier than heck and damnation. Still am. I may get to it next week.
you get to have all the fun of being a parent without having to shoulder any of the responsibilities.
Mostly yeah. Of course. You also don’t have decision making authority.
You start to understand your own parents a little better when you have kids. I salute them for somehow not strangling me along the way in a moment of frustration.
You don’t understand why people actually need to be told “never shake a baby” until you are up at 3 am with a sick first child wailing away. Put them in their child seat and place them on a running washer! I remember putting them in a car and driving them around in the middle of the night. We bought a second hand wind up swing and that thing was magic.
No internet, just a copy of the book “what to expect”.
My mom finally convinced us that sometimes you just have to let them cry.
Tom,
All true in my experience
I was dumbfounded when we decided to have a second one
AI alert, AI alert! Ha ha. Warning: Once you see this you cannot unsee it.
‘-‘ = endash, a short dash present on keyboards.
‘—’ = emdash, a long dash not present on keyboards.
Allegedly AI uses the emdash frequently and it is an AI tell. In order to get an emdash from a keyboard you need to use Ctrl + Alt + – (minus key) and nobody does that. I was unaware this even existed.
I saw this on a YT video on how to detect AI written text so YMMV. I assume there are English majors out there that are fluent in the use of dashes but probably not very many that care enough to do keyboard ninja moves.
Lucia,
“You also don’t have decision making authority.”
Sort of like raising teenage boys. What a battle.
mark bofill,
“..life sort of jumped on me this week, I’ve been busier than heck and damnation.”
Sounds like you are as busy as Trump at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. 😉
Welp, I have to log into a Google account apparently to access Gemini. So I can’t easily disprove the notion that the AI is gathering info on you.
I’m sure it is in the same way Google is, but I doubt it is going out of its way any more than Google already does. I really don’t think it is gathering this information to better pander to you verbally, I think its all about targeted advertising (which is similar, to be sure).
Shrug.
[Edit: Steve, yeah pretty much 🙂 ]
Gemini and Grok are both part of larger universes that are monetized. Both universes have been collecting personal information from us for years and using it to generate income. every time we ask it for information it collects more information on us. So maybe today we can’t prove that artificial intelligence is using our personal data for nefarious reasons. It doesn’t make me feel any better.
It’s spooky.
Tom Scharf
“‘-‘ = endash, a short dash present on keyboards.
‘—’ = emdash, a long dash not present on keyboards.
Allegedly AI uses the emdash frequently and it is an AI tell. In order to get an emdash from a keyboard you need to use Ctrl + Alt + – (minus key) and nobody does that. I was unaware this even existed.”
In MS Word if you use two endashes and then a space and a new word it automatically converts the endashes to an emdash so I don’t think this is a viable AI tell (since my initials are AK not AI).
…. another wild assed conspiracy theory with no basis in fact:
Maybe Putin is coming to Alaska because he’s planning to seek asylum.
Coincidentally, maybe Trump‘s personal fortune is about to double.
Or Trump is going to offer the return of Alaska if Putin withdraws from Ukraine.
John,
Welcome back.
Trump talking to Putin is giving me the heebie-jeebies. Fortunately, I can easily compartmentalize things that I can’t control.
“A June survey from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found 52% of Ukrainians opposed to territorial concessions, with 38% willing to accept territorial losses as part of a peace deal.”
Those numbers have been holding steady for the last year.
I read the current tea leaves as Russia not being serious about ending the war, and Trump going down the road of supplying as many weapons as the EU is willing to pay for.
Tom Scharf,
“I read the current tea leaves as Russia not being serious about ending the war, and Trump going down the road of supplying as many weapons as the EU is willing to pay for.”
The second part is true for sure. If Putin thinks the Europeans are willing to spend a lot of money, then maybe that will change his calculus on negotiations. I think there is no way to know if Russia is ready to negotiate, but I agree that their demands for ‘conditions’ to start negotiations have in the past indicated they are not ready to negotiate.
I would not trust ANY poll taken in a country that is at war.
I think that Trump may be serious about using secondary sanctions to cut off Russian oil exports. Doing so will require that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states make up most of the shortfall. Unlike Biden, Trump has good relations with those states.
It’s possible Putin came to the table because of the threat to India importing Russian oil. It’s very hard to assess what is going on with Russia.
The EU is still importing Russian gas. I think a few eastern countries got excptions.
“About 13% of the EU’s gas imports are expected to come from Russia in 2025, compared to 45% in 2021. The EU aims to completely phase out Russian gas imports by 2028. “
Tom Scharf,
“The EU is still importing Russian gas.”
Of course. There is no seriousness to European efforts to restrict Russian petroleum exports.
The Europeans should be taking the lead in ending the war in Ukraine. Don’t worry, they are miles from that. More like a bizarre combination of “gimme my fossil fuels” and “Russia, you must stop being so terrible with Ukraine”. They are obviously not serious. “Joke” is probably a good word, although I can think of more suitable descriptions. (Assholes, jerks, and Idiots come to mind).
It looks like the Russia-Ukraine war will end up like the Korean War — no resolution, no treaty, only a long lasting ceasefire with territory still in dispute and the occasional flare up. Maybe in 20 years other political realities will prompt a change.
lucia
“Trump talking to Putin is giving me the heebie-jeebies. Fortunately, I can easily compartmentalize things that I can’t control.”
–
Now that is a talent I would love to have!
–
A plan for peace is possible if both sides are exhausted enough to comprise.
The Ukrainian border “states “ that Russia tried to annex could be Declared bilateral go zones under some sort of neutral control authority, Australian and Indian forces say.
30 year settling down period with voting at the end to decide if remain seperate, join Russia or join Ukraine.
Easy Peasy
angech,
“Easy Peasy”
Maybe for an aussie. We will see what happens in Alaska.
Can anyone explain, in English, how the Democrats are at their lowest popularity in decades yet somehow in the generic vote still beat the Republicans?
Totally confused.
–
Fingers crossed on Alaska.
Trumps options are multiple.
Massive Trade sanctions, oil sanctions, boosting armament sales to Europe to pass onto Zelensky.
Plus carrots of the opposite, AmericanRussian favoured nation status, space race collaboration and some recognition of the ports Russia stole.
Morale wise Russia needs to stop losing young men.
Trump is stepping in at a moment of maximum opportunity which he is programmed to exploit, hopefully with win win situations for all.
Putin is tough and committed and will play hardball but is very restricted in choice at the moment.
angech,
you don’t have to like who you are voting for if the basis of your vote is that he/she is better than the other guys.
I know. I’ve voted for pepople I couldn’t stand over the years hoping that if elected they would at most be ineffective.
angech,
The generic vote doesn’t mean much. It is the individual races that matter, and there gerrymanders (in nearly all states) insure there are very few competitive races (less than 25 out of 435). The Republicans are trying to write new gerrymanders in Texas and Florida to gain 5 to 8 likely-to-near-certain additional House seats on January 1, 2027. Absent those extra seats, Dems will likely gain control of the House by a handful of seats…. leading to investigations and impeachments, 24/7, for the remainder of Trump’s term in office.
Dems are screaming, of course… but they in fact have some of the most obviously gerrymandered districts in the states they control…. the complaints are mainly performative, not serious.
The king of gerrymanders, Gov Pritzker of Illinois, says Dem gerrymanders are perfectly OK because they are simply designed to keep Republicans out of power, while Republican gerrymanders are illegal because they are motivated by racism. I had to roll my eyes at that one. If he really believes that, he is a lot dumber than I thought he was.
angech wrote: “Can anyone explain, in English, how the Democrats are at their lowest popularity in decades yet somehow in the generic vote still beat the Republicans?”
A lot of Democrat voters are mad at their party for one or two of the following reasons.
(1) They are too extreme.
(2) They are not extreme enough.
(3) They screwed up and lost the election to Trump.
None of that means they are about to vote Republican, although (1) might lead some to vote Republican if their party does not fix it. They won’t.
At this point, sensible people are not thinking about the midterms. So the generic ballot likely just represents how people usually vote. For those voters whose minds might change, it is still too early to judge how Trump is doing.
If the economy goes in the tank, the Dems will win the midterms. But if the economy booms, Trump keeps making peace happen, and the border remains secure, then the Dems will need to do more than oppose everything Trump does. They won’t. So the Republicans might do very well in the midterms.
Angech,
Basically the same way Republicans were previously running badly in the likability polls and ended up with total control of the government. The short story is most people don’t like both parties and see politics as pretty scummy all around. They still prefer one set of clowns over the other set. https://news.gallup.com/poll/24655/party-images.aspx
It is choosing between two turds on a table IMO, although I choose the red turd almost every time for … reasons.
I would hasten to add that there are almost always reversals in the midterm elections in the USA. It is quite arguable this is because the governing party has over promised and under delivered. Governing is hard.
Too much hype for the Alaska meeting and too much maximalist talk. It will be hard to get anything done. I hope they have security worked out.
Forgetting about women for starters, I’ll say that I have been surprised to discover the importance of family in my life. I work, I’ve always worked I still do, so I haven’t ‘sacrificed’ work for family. This said, I don’t believe I’ve had a career. I’ve had jobs. I have served digital fast food to corporate customers. Nothing I have done has withstood the test of time (only systems still in use are the ones I’ve worked on recently), none of my code was in any way remarkable. My code has ‘forked no lighting’, to quote a poet. I’ve made money, I’ve helped contribute in a transitory, disposable sense, I’ve developed skills, I’ve had a good time.
If asked to point to the most important or truly significant thing I’ve accomplished, I’d point to the existence of my children.
Now I’m not going to dodge. I think this tends to be even more true for more women than men, the sense that I have that my kids are what really mattered in the end, for various reasons.
Shrug.
Maybe I should have said, existence and proper upbringing of my children. It wasn’t merely that I generated them via an act of copulation. It was that I raised them. The relationship I have with them is increasingly valuable as time goes on for me.
Whatever floats your boat.
There was a time when it was weird if the Mom worked and indicated something very wrong with the family, usually a deadbeat husband.
Family brings a lot of joy and pain, hopefully more of the former. My advice is start with a dog.
Jordan Peterson claims that the adoption of responsibility gives meaning to life. Supposing this is true or maybe even just ‘true enough’, well. One can find meaning in a career, but its not going to be everyone who finds work that provides the level of responsibility and engagement required to match the measure of what we have to give. For many I think the responsibility of a family is more accessible. Women in particular.
I think our generation has a lot to be proud of beyond individual contributor statistics. Just grinding away for 40 years in tech is part of that, it is cumulative. We are way past miracle invention in a garage days.
We were handed the most powerful country in the world 40 years ago and we are handing the same thing off to a transformed world 40 years later that is mostly for the better. Mostly, ha ha.
I challenge the next generation to do the same or better.
highlights from this morning’s trip to the farmers market…
It’s peak season for Florida limes; gonna make lime and homemade yogurt salad dressing for dinner
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952457638320451756?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
well, this was slightly disconcerting…
I saw my name engraved on my headstone installed on my cemetery plot.
A slick salesman sold us on making my arrangements when we made my wife’s. He said it would take the burden away from the kids. My boys agreed. One said, however, they would still have to buy the fireworks. That took the edge of things we all had a belly laugh.
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952459935356207435?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
EDIT, dying is very expensive
Tom Scharf,
“our generation”
What exactly do you mean? Baby boomers, or something else?
(boomers: born 1946 and 1964)
I, my wife, and all my siblings were born in that year range…. from 1948 to 1958, so boomers all. But I suspect some who comment here may have been born outside those years.
I’m Gen X.
mark bofill,
Still wet behind the ears….. 😉
Steve, yeah, pretty much.
More or less the era of development of the internet and the explosion of digital technology. The digital revolution.
This fundamentally changed the world and was crazy to watch along the way. I used a generic 300 baud modem because I couldn’t afford some fancy US Robotics 9600 baud modem. One of the people I know still uses his aol email address.
Maybe AI or something else will do the same. Or else Skynet.
Tom Scharf,
My wife still uses her AOL address…. now ~30 years. I suggested she might think about changing it. Nope.
I also started with a 300 baud modem, and used to watch the characters go up on the screen in real time. I think that was 1992. I used to travel on business with a “laptop” that weighted 12 lbs and was terribly slow to boot. I think the battery was good for about 3 hours.
AI is already changing things. Search engine traffic is way off, cutting into the profits of Google. I am sure they will find a way to keep AI programs from reading their data.
I read a story where a reporter interviewed an AI that supposedly represented the views of one of the kids killed in the Parkland shooting. Now, I ‘get’ that there’s problems with that, that’s not what interests me.
If you could buy an AI chat product that was capable of learning and updating itself, one that was capable of remembering your idiom and viewpoints, would it be something you’d be interested in buying and training to leave for future generations? Not so much a ‘fake you’ as an immortal robot that got to know you reasonably well and that could answer questions about your life and thinking to your great great grandkids or whoever.
Thoughts?
I’ve also wondered about immortal family robot ‘corporations’ or legal entities that can manage investments and disperse earnings for future offspring. ‘House Bofill Robot’ or whatever.
Immortal me! A SteveF chatbot who could scold my descendants! How cool is that? Somehow, I doubt my AI chatbot would be very popular with my great grandchildren, especially not if it controlled my estate.
Steve,
Yah, I need to sell ‘continuum-bots’! Or not. Serving digital fast food is a decent living but I haven’t accumulated the sort of wealth I’d need a robot to manage, that’s for sure. Maybe the magic of compound interest…
I imagine AI will become sophisticated enough to diversify and move investments to guard against the prevailing political winds. I don’t know, it’s a fun idea anyway. 🙂
I was thinking of the chatbot as separate. I’d love to be able to speak with robots that knew my ancestors well, I think that’d be interesting.
Come to think of it, my living descendants are often not all that enthused to hear my words of wisdom.
Mark Boffill,
Surveys of happiness indicate in the aggregate children make men happier. Women? Not so much. It’s sort of a wash depending on situation.
Now maybe people answering surveys using likert 1-7 numbers can’t really know their own feelings. But to the extent people are asked how happy they are and then also asked how many kids they have, it’s men who are made happy by kids.
Thanks Lucia. I wasn’t aware of that. I need to find time to do some reading.
I’m not looking to mindlessly battle for my point. I mean, maybe I’m just flat out wrong. I’m not sure that happiness is what I’m talking about. A sense of meaning or fulfillment maybe could be instead.
Having kids means you have stuff to lose. I have heard that women are higher in big five trait neuroticism than men on average. Maybe they worry more as a consequence of having kids. It’s not clear that that makes it ‘not worth it’ or ‘less worth it’ for them.
But again, maybe I’m full of it and women just aren’t all that into kids.
Mark,
The AI from google gives a pretty good summary. My query was “Happiness men women kids no kids”
This is a long term repeatable thing.
AI being AI you ‘ll get slightly different answers each time. But the first link when I ran the query is
“Women are happier without children or a spouse “
Interesting link. I read about Paul Dolan here:
It might take me a week or so to survey the psychologists and behavioral scientists talking about this, the studies, the errors, etc. I don’t know. Maybe there is an obvious likely truth to arrive at on the other side to make it worthwhile.
AI tells me this when I ask:
Are these lying robots just telling us what they think we want to hear? I hope not!
Mark,
I’m sure happiness studies suffer from all the problems we see in all sociology studies. There is an interesting happiness page here
https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction
So many figures! So little time. Happiness before and after various events is shown under “The Effect of Life Events on Life Satisfaction”. That tries to show the effect of time before and after events. The do show people are happy just when they marry. And they are sad just when their spouse dies. They have figures for men and women.
I think you’ll also like
https://business.purdue.edu/news/features/?research=5632
Face Facts: The Sad Truth About Measuring Happiness
(It’s hard to measure happiness!)
Maybe people are too focused on happiness; I think it is more complicated than that.
I am happy playing a round of golf, but other obligations often (usually!) keep me from that. Would I be happier abandoning obligations and playing much more golf? I don’t think so. Fulfilling obligations seems more important; not sure how to balance that against happiness.
Steve,
I’m glad you said that. I was wondering if it was just me who was stuck on that idea. I don’t think ‘happiness’ is what it’s all about, I think in some sense it misses the mark to focus on that.
SteveF,
I recall reading (and I can’t check) that individuals tend to have a sort of personal baseline level of happiness. People who are mostly happy will become sad if something really bad happens. But even if it’s a permanent objectively bad thing (e.g. lost an arm) they will revert to their baseline level of happiness. A similar thing tends to be true of sadder people.
On the other hand, the above link on happiness had a graph that shows people with more money are happier– but “happiness” increased as the log of $. (Of course, it’s hard to know what this means since money can be quantified, but happiness? Not really so easy.)
I am mostly pretty happy most of the time. Unless Jim rolls me out in two tight a turn and doesn’t let me take my space when I’m supposed to take a bow. Then I’m a total bitch.
Was happiness no happiness because it endured for just a short time? One cannot always be happy.
Aron Nimzowitsch
–
Tom scharf
Family brings a lot of joy and pain, hopefully more of the former. My advice is start with a dog.
–
Happiness was eating when I was young, cream buns and ice cream.
Scoring a goal or saving a goal on hockey.
Winning a hard game of chess.
Good fortune was and is being married to the right woman.
It must be a slow news week as Sydney Sweeney is still in he news
But it makes for great parity songs
Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans – Outrage AI Parody Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLCv_ryJAE&list=RD_tLCv_ryJAE&start_radio=1
A Catholic Woodstock…
The Pope invited the young people of the world to the South of Rome for what He called a“Jubilee of Youth’. Between 1 million and 1.5 million kids made the pilgrimage.
Incredible video:
https://youtu.be/AuaPvoh8TTk?si=iydwCxHfhCeZyKSY
Pope Leo is developing a persona not seen since Saint John Paul.
National Catholic Reporter:
“Pope Leo XIV embraces spotlight — and fanfare — at youth Jubilee”
https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/pope-leo-xiv-embraces-spotlight-and-fanfare-youth-jubilee
Secular reporting, The Guardian:
“Pontiff presides over culmination of ‘Catholic Woodstock’ that drew young people from 146 countries”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/pope-leo-xiv-gets-rock-star-welcome-from-young-catholics-at-huge-vigil
Grok is becoming very chatty and personal these days
We just had a long conversation about recipes for my granddaughters who are coming for lunch on Thursday.
We settled on grilled cheese sandwiches on homemade French bread. He suggested a mixture of cheese slices, American cheddar and pepper jack. He initially gave the French bread recipe in cups and teaspoons, and I had him convert it to grams.
The 13-year-old suggested we watch ‘Meet Me in St. Louis”
The whole conversation:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_85089f0f-ccb1-44f4-a6c2-68cb25eb7631
Lucia,
“…individuals tend to have a sort of personal baseline level of happiness. People who are mostly happy will become sad if something really bad happens.”
That is exactly my experience. My first wife was miserable most all of the time, no matter the stated reason…… and there was ALWAYS a reason to be miserable. If, in the rarest of circumstances, there were no current reason, she would dredge up something from the past to be miserable about. Donno if that is inherited or learned, but her mother was exactly the same way…. and both liked to fight with their husbands because they were so miserable.
SteveF,
I couldn’t live with someone who was always miserable, worried, anxious or some other negative feeling. Yes… I know the type. Grousing…. ok. Shouting at the newspaper? Ok. Sometimes worried? Ok. But you gotta be overall at “ok” or better most the time.
The even worse feature which accompanies some (miserable, worried, anxious, negative feeling) people is if they think other people should change they “feel” bad. And, of course, other people changing themselves, their plans, their choices doesn’t relieve the “miserable” person.
And of course, you can’t fix the past. You must remember it to avoid repeating mistakes or to understand “life, the universe and everything”, but you can’t be rehashing it and being miserable about it now. Do I have a biggest regret in life? Sure. It was attending the highschool I attended. As an adult, I know the factors that made me unhappy there and I know they were unnecessary and avoidable. But the fact I regret something in the long past and wish a different choice had been made doesn’t make me miserable now.
Russell,
Yes. I talk cooking and recipes with Gemini all the time. I never had much to do with baking but I’m venturing into it with AI guidance.
Mark, Good luck but be careful, it’s habit forming!
Elon Musk finally got his raise approved (again!). Total package is 29 BILLION dollars.
I wonder how much that is an hour?
“Tesla approves share award worth $29 billion to CEO Elon Musk.”
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tesla-approves-share-award-worth-29-billion-ceo-elon-musk-2025-08-04/“
Mark,
I know you didn’t ask for advice, but I can’t help myself…
If you get into baking bread…
Buy a scale and do your measurements by weight, not volume.
Buy a high protein bread flour.
I use King Arthur bread flour. It has 12.7% protein.
It is not for people on low gluten diet.
It is available in most supermarkets.
it usually costs about a dollar more than the national brands.
https://shop.kingarthurbaking.com/items/bread-flour
Thanks Russell!
My interests are pretty eclectic but I might end up baking bread at some point. I’ll bear it in mind.
Do you recommend this flour for the taste or for health benefits (or both)? Or neither / some other purpose?
Mark,
It helps the bread develop structure .
I can’t determine any taste difference between all the bread flours.
It’s also a white flour, so no whole wheat and no added health benefits.
this morning‘s adventure was French sandwich bread
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952754490211254338?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
It’s very difficult to try to compare your life against an alternate reality with/without children. Kids have a gigantic impact and some kids are easier than others. You can certainly view your friends/family lives before/after kids but that really isn’t adequate IMO.
Mark… more unsolicited advice…
You have a scientific mind, you would probably appreciate the ‘bakers percentages’ approach to bread baking. It uses math instead of recipes. I gravitated to it after years of using recipes, but I think it would be a better way to start out, especially for someone who thinks analytically.
Now I convert everything to bakers percentages.
Here is an introductory explanation.
from Groc:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/KDkFGKeIHNFMJgW8nnCzdu4zM
EDIT, you can put all your recipes onto a spreadsheet. It’s great for recordkeeping.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/04/editorial-jb-pritzker-police-fire-pensions-chicago/
“With the stroke of a pen, Pritzker added more than $11 billion in liabilities to Chicago’s badly underfunded police and fire pension funds. Before the governor’s action, the funds held 25% of the assets needed to meet current and future obligations, which made them two of the most distressed municipal pension funds in the country. That was before this reckless statute.
They now hold 18%. There’s far more reason to worry the money won’t be there when those first responders retire decades from now.
…
This act is so irresponsible that there’s rampant speculation its enactment alone could lead the city’s credit rating to be downgraded for a second time this year. If so, that downgrade will be owned by the governor.”
Illinois will be asking for a federal bailout eventually. Remember these moves then. The answer should be no. It is just reckless. This guy wants to run for President, ha ha.
Russell,
Oh, for sure.
Baron Kelvin of Largs
The public sector union gambit has been to lead with police/fire union contracts because voters are more sympathetic to these groups (this used to also include teachers unions) and then the rest of the public sector unions follow up and demand equivalent benefits.
Chicago / Illinois is in a debt spiral and the government there could care less.
“Chicago is facing a $1.12 billion budget shortfall for 2026. The CTA, Metra and Pace face a $770 million mass transit funding shortfall. And the most immediate financial crisis is confronting Chicago Public Schools, which must find a way to erase a $734 million budget shortfall by the end of the month.
Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics, said the converging crises raise “the odds for the state to help out.”
“Ultimately, the city’s budget situation is going to have to be fixed by the city and the state. And so the state, having just made it worse — even if it’s required under law — raises the potential for the state to help out the city at least in the near term,” Fabian said. “The state has the ability to raise taxes if it needs to. It can design new taxes. It could increase the income tax. It could find ways to extract more money.”
…
Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara said he did not care how the city handles the added pension burden.
“Figure it out. It’s not our problem. … The benefit is earned and deserved,” he said.”
Tom Scharf,
Pritzker has as about much chance of becoming president as I do. The guy is:
1) extremely unlikable
2) never in his life had to think about spending money
3) is an offensive hypocrite, sending his family off to Florida by private jet while insisting other people in Illinois could not travel due to covid restrictions
4) obviously has no self control whatsoever
Bad combination. He is as offensive as Hairdo Newsom, but worse looking.
“It can design new taxes. It could increase the income tax. It could find ways to extract more money.”
No, people will leave Illinois. The state is already set to lose two seats in the House in 2030, and there is no reason it could not be more. The more progressives squeeze taxpayers, the more their tax base will disappear. This is crazy stuff. Population did increase a bit… but it was because of a huge influx of illegals…. and they don’t pay a lot of taxes, and use a lot of services.
Russell:
That is not the total Elon pay package – it is only about 1/3. If the pay lawsuit case is overturned on appeal, this nets against that. If not, they will award more shares for the 2018 to 2024 period.
The amazing part is the package was only worth 2 B in 2018 – that is how much the stock has risen!
Elon earned every penny with his amazing products and execution. Tesla will probably 10X again in the next 5 years and Elon will the be first trillionaire. His companies are firing on all cylinders.
Rick,
I don’t see how one man can accomplish so much.
…and volunteer in Washington too
RickA,
“Tesla will probably 10X again in the next 5 years and Elon will the be first trillionaire.”
I wouldn’t count on it. Tesla is facing more competition, and elimination of Federal subsidies will hurt sales. SpaceX needs some successes with the “Starship”, because right now it is a huge money drain, with no real progress to show for a while. The next generation of satellites for Star Link (including direct to cell service capability) needs Starship to work reliably, because the satellites are too heavy for the Falcon launch system.
X (aka Twitter) and his other ventures are financially tiny by comparison to SpaceX and Tesla.
No argument, Musk is a genius. That doesn’t mean he won’t face problems.
We should hopefully see the next starship test in a couple of weeks. Well, within the next three weeks maybe.
mark bofill,
“Well, within the next three weeks maybe.”
Maybe. But another “rapid disassembly” would be a very bad sign.
The complexity of what SpaceX is trying to do is, I think, not fully appreciated. And who is going to sign up for a Mars mission if the rocket blows up pretty frequently? Nobody. SpaceX has a very long way to go to reach manned flight worthiness, never mind flying to Mars. And forget the moon. That is not happening anywhere near on schedule, if ever.
Atlas robots and AI’s that have no choice, maybe, but I take your point. They do indeed have a ways to go.
Or if not Atlas, maybe somebody else will provide the bots. Under $6000 is pretty darn tempting.
[Those robots probably have a ways to go as well, no doubt]
Tom
Yes. You can report whether you fill generally happy, generally fulfilled, generally satisfied with your life. I am. But would I have been happier, more fulfilled, satisfied if I had kids? Or would I be frustrated? Unhappy? Whatever…..
I kinda sorta wanted kids. Then I couldn’t have them. I’m perfectly happy. So that “horrible” people warn woman about– it’s not necessarily a horrible. Maybe someday when I’m 80 I’ll regret not having a 50 year old kid to help me get out and about. Dunno.
I think it is a little bit easier to compare outcomes of what things would be like if you had married someone different. Two guys I dated– it definitely would have been bad! (One was fairly brief– like 4 weeks in college, another longer. But definitely bad. ) Others… dunno. I might have been happy. Who knows?
The other thing that tends to make people unhappy or frustrated at least temporarily is believing you want something and not achieving it. This affects a fair number of single people– but male and female. The think they want a mate– but one who meets certain standards or criteria. (Tall. Good looking. Decent income. Wants or doesn’t want kids precisely when you want or don’t want them. Doesn’t live on a cow farm in Michigan and prefer you move there. Many intangibles. ). They can’t find that. Would they be happy if the found it? Maybe not actually. But it’s a goal and they can’t meet it.
Crud, not Atlas. That’s the Boston Dynamics robot. Optimus, that’s Musk’s robot.
Pope Leo arrived at Catholic Woodstock aboard ‘Shepherd One’, an Italian Air Force helicopter dedicated to Vatican service. Here’s an image of the Pope viewing the million strong young people waiting for him in southern Rome from high above onboard Shepherd One.
https://x.com/thegnewsroom/status/1951988510505718053?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
SteveF:
I think x is worth 130 B, which is a fraction of Tesla and SpaceX. I am sure Boring and Neuralink are much smaller as well.
And nobody knows if Tesla will 10X in five years – that is just my opinion (not investment advice). If Robotaxi grows to 1 million cars over the next 5 years, plus the Optimus robots replacing labor at ever improving rates, I think Tesla does have a shot at 10X’ing. I have my stock and therefore my bet and will watch eagerly to see what happens. I am personally thinking about buying a Model Y before 9/30/2025 to take advantage of the 7500 tax break (have to take delivery by 9/30/2025). I cannot wait until the car drives me without me having to pay attention – the trip to the cabin (and back) will be much more enjoyable! My niece is getting married in Kansas City this month and I would love to have even supervised FSD for the drive there.
Russell:
Yes – he is incredibly productive. He spends a day at a time at each company and he picks the biggest problem they are having that day and works on that with that team. They interate fast, make decisions fast, make changes fast and usually solve the problem – until they circle back and improve it again. They keep track of measurable metrics and try to improve them every day. They try to eliminate parts, shave weight, make one part do multiple functions and just generally are very very innovative with their manufacturing and design of products. Of course, you can tell I am incredibly biased and a fan – so take everything I say with a grain of salt (or two). Just their battery division, with megapacks and powerwalls could be worth 1 Trillion in a few years – its growth is incredible. And their AI driven buying and selling power to and from the grid, storing it in megapacks, buying low and selling high, is going to be very lucrative. Not to mention how it smooths out the grid and provides nice even power to data centers.
Lucia,
I strongly agree with this. There are people (including women) in the world who don’t have kids and that works out great for them, I’ve got no doubt about that.
Some of us have a perception that young women are discouraged from being wives and homemakers early on and encouraged instead to go to college and join the workforce. Me, for instance; I have that perception. I think that part of the impetus behind this is progressive ideology. I question whether the progressive ideology in this case is in fact a good idea, in a similar but less extreme way to the way I do in the case of the ideology that promoted sex reassignment surgery for children who thought they might be transsexual.
In the case of pushing women towards college and into the workforce, it might well be [a good idea]. Not all progressive ideas are bad ones. But some are real stinkers.
Shrug.
Rich,
Could that powerwall be a substitute for a generator during hurricanes? I don’t need to run the AC just the lights and refrigerator.
Not a perception. An impression, that’s a better way to say it. Some of us have an impression. This is abstract, so we can’t perceive it directly…
Mark bofill
I think young women hear both ends of advice. The difficulty is that certain things are realities:
* it’s unlikely a young woman will find and land a man who will be both willing and able to provide a comfortable life style for a stay at home mom and their kids. Comfortable includes safe neighborhood, medical care for their kids, enough money for college savings and a decent retirement without counting on your kids supporting you. (So your kids can support themselves and their kids!)
* even if she finds such a man, divorce happens for a variety of reasons. Unless she’s got a prenup that ensures she is afforded some economic security, she’s going to be in a world of economic hurt if she has no job skills or very rusty ones because she stepped out of the working pool for a number of years. (Your a programmer. Think of how programming changed over a decade. Entirely new languages. Different applications. Yada, yada.)
You can complain that women are told these things, but they are not untrue.
And people don’t tell young men “You know, if you want a stay at home Mom type wife, you should make a huge amount of money and write a prenup that protects her economically if you divorce. As in: guarantee maintenance payments– i.e. alimony. And make sure she will get half ownership of all you accrued during the marriage. And so on.” Most people advocating prenups are advising stinting the women. Yeah… you have to be careful how you write one guaranteeing her economic security to not make it lean too much the other way.
Even if no one “tells” women the risks involved in dropping out of the job market, it’s evident if they’ve met divorced women who were former stay at home moms. And they will meet some of these women because they will meet their kids in school.
You can complain women get “told” this by “progressives”. But maybe the real complaint is “How do we hide these facts from young women so they’ll decide to drop out of the career track, stay at home and devote themselves to the domestic sphere at least for a while?” or “How can we solve this problem for young women?”
Advocating prenups that protect women who stay at home might be a good first start. I honestly don’t hear many people suggesting that.
Russell:
Absolutely. Each powerwall provides 13.5 kWh of power. Of course it depends on how much you use, as to how long that is going to last. But if you had solar to recharge the powerwall during the day, it could very well work. You can also buy multiple powerwalls (if necessary). Not cheap (of course) – but much quieter than a generator!
I have geothermal on an off-peak meter and the rest of the house on another regular meter. I use less than 1000 kWh for a whole month for my lights and fridge – so I would think one powerwall could provide power to your house for a week or two, without even being able to charge it with solar. But you would have to do more research to see if it would work for you.
I do not have a powerwall – my wife is against the cost and panels on the roof are a fire hazard, raise insurance costs and panels on racks on the ground are an eye sore. But after the apocalypse she will wish she had one (grin).
Lucia,
Sure, there are many problems with our society today. Divorce is probably one of them. But that these other problems exist doesn’t necessarily justify discouraging girls from marriage and children. Maybe these other problems ought to get sorted out as well.
I don’t think these facts get hidden from young women. I am interested in solutions to the related problems though.
Don’t misunderstand me though. I have a daughter. I want her to prosper. I certainly don’t want her to be at anyone’s mercy, or to be destitute if her marriage doesn’t work out. Not discouraging women from pursuing a family doesn’t need to be mutually exclusive with women being able to provide for themselves, at least not in my view.
[Edit: I see your edit regarding hiding stuff. I don’t advocate hiding anything from anyone. It’s a matter of faith and you can scoff at me if you like, but my faith is that in general good results don’t come from deceiving people.]
[well… I don’t advocate hiding stuff as a policy, let’s put it that way. There are things that are nobody else’s business… but I digress. I can clean this up if it becomes necessary; let’s just note for the record I might need to clean up how I articulated this]
Probably the wrong time to engage on this topic! I’ve got to go shop and cook dinner. I’m sure I’ll be on later.
Rick A,
Why would solar panels on the roof be a fire hazard? Never heard of that. Besides, they are mostly inorganic materials, so shouldn’t be terribly flammable. Within half a mile of where I sit now (People’s Republic of Massachusetts) there are probably 50 houses with solar panels on the roof. I’ve never even heard of a fire caused by solar panels.
WRT Powerwalls: a typical fridge might consume 150 watts on average, so maybe 3.6 KWh per day (bigger fridges use more, of course). If you were super cautious about other power uses, a PowerWall unit might give you 2.5 days assuming a high efficiency DC/AC converter).
I’ll stick with my 10.5 KW (continuous capacity) generator that runs the central AC. Florida in hurricane season is too warm for no AC for (potentially) several days. Way cheaper than PowerWalls and converters to boot.
Installed price for a PowerWall 3: between $16,000 and $20,000. No thanks.
An almost silent Honda 2.2 Kw peak (~1.8 Kw continuous) generator costs $1,100, and can produce about 40 KwHr per day. Harbor Freight knock-offs of that model (I have one in my basement on Cape Cod) cost about half that much….. but without Honda’s reputation of lasting forever. But no need to last forever…… just a few days every couple years.
Basic power backup doesn’t have to cost very much.
Mark
Who is discouraging them? My point is reality discourages them. It’s not a person. Growing up, girls are going to encounter divorced women who used to be stay at home moms. It might be their own mother, aunt, grandmother. It might be their friends or neighbors mother. They are going to witness the reality.
This isn’t “progressives” or “conservatives” saying something to discourage them. It is their own witnessing the reality that discourages them from that choice.
My point is you can’t hide them. And the fact that they see them is what discourages them from a choice that leads to a poor outcome for them.
I don’t think you are the sort of person who believes in deceiving people. But what I’m trying to say is that it is not a person, group of person or anything like that that is doing the “discouraging”. It is the girls witnessing what goes wrong.
Lucia,
Hmm. You don’t think there is any significant cultural ‘push’ here? I think there is, but my impression might be mistaken. Maybe all I really have is a bunch of anecdote.
I’ll think about it. Thanks yous.
Maybe I am fighting yesterday’s wars, as people are prone to do. Second wave feminists like Betty Friedan promoted the idea that “feminine mystique” (by which I gather she meant traditional wife / mother / homemaker feminine roles) limited women’s personal growth and made them feel emptiness, or something along those lines.
I’d like to be clear here. I’m not trying to suggest feminism was an inherently bad idea, in fact early wave feminism in my opinion is one of the rare examples of progressivism getting it right. But it’s not simple or binary; the first two waves of feminism help ease certain problems and created others or made them more severe IMO.
Anyways, maybe this is all long ago and has nothing to do with the world today. I need to think about how to figure that out I guess.
This is paywalled, and I can’t read it. The title is sort of provocative:
https://medium.com/fourth-wave/the-idealization-of-traditional-gender-roles-cannot-be-feminist-cf1341153a48
.
I really do think there is a cultural push here and it’s not just a natural emergent behavior of young women looking at reality. Only.. Whether or not the cultural push has anything to do with the real phenomenon is harder to say though I guess. The two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.
Emergency power backup is a bit of a pain. You can go small scale like I did and buy about 3 kWH of backup. That is good enough to run you fridge and some small scale stuff like internet, LED lights, floor fan for about 24 hours. Don’t even think about an AC unit / water heater, etc.
You can do the same with a gas generator.
A large scale wall type backup does better but it still won’t run your whole house AC in August / September very long. It turns out that hurricanes tend to come with some cloudy days so solar charging can also be a problem. You can micro-manage you breaker panel to extend that time but you probably have a surprising amount of leaching power equipment you are unaware of. Only turn on one room of your house and the fridge(s).
Long story short is that it takes some expertise to get it right and most people don’t understand the flaws until they have the emergency. A surprising number of people discover their generators don’t start because they didn’t do any maintenance, etc.
FYI: Average daily power usage in FL in August is 60 kWh / 30 kWh in December. One day summer backup with a Powerwall will cost you $65K. Not viable for most people.
Bulk Chinese lithium battery storage / DYI is much cheaper but requires some expertise.
The real answer is just to leave if the power outage looks long term. Most commercial backup like hospitals is a large diesel generator. Those red plugs you see in hospitals are connected to emergency power.
Mark
I think it is much less significant than “reality”. Vegetarians bitch that people eat meat. Reality: meat is delicious.
Health advocates bitch that “food processors” push junk food, chocolate, pop. Reality: junk food, chocolate and soda pop are more delicious than brocolli. (I eat broccoli.)
When you complain that the “other side” or “evil doers” are somehow magically duping people into doing X, you need to first see what conclusions “reality” is likely to lead people to make.
If all someone has to do is show young women reality to get them to grasp it, young women will grasp it.
Surveys right now show young men are more likely to want kids than young women. Bring alimony back– in proportion to the difference in earning power related to being out of the job market — and young women might pick having kids more. Even with alimony virtually gone (and it is effectively so for, say, 30 year old women married for say 10 years who stepped out of or even back from the job market), and make sure it is enforceable, then young women may start to see that it’s no longer that dangerous to step back.
Men will bitch. But honestly, on male sites they bitch about women getting too much anyway. ( Women do get child support. That can be a lot. Some of the guys seem to think it ridiculous for it to allow it to spent on stuff like rent to pay for shelter, school fees, extra curriculars etc.)
Fun Fact: Most rooftop solar systems can’t be used when the grid goes down, you must have a battery backup system. This is allegedly for utility worker safety from solar supplied power to local lines.
The solar system can be configured to cutoff from the grid but you have to specifically design the system that way. The standard setup won’t do it.
Thanks Lucia.
Funny, I was trying to nail down exactly what I was ‘bitching’ about since I typed my last remark. ‘Cause if in fact the primary reason girls aren’t getting married and starting families is they look at the situation and think it’s a bad idea, I honestly have no quarrel with that. Who am I to tell them what they need to do? [Oops. I’m nobody to tell them what they need to do is my answer]
It’s the idea that our society is distorted by progressive ideas that I was bitching about, not the specific outcome. At least that’s what I think my motive was.
I feel like I’m still missing something here, maybe it’ll come to me later. But thanks!
You know,
It still bothers me, the ‘evil doers’ trying to dupe people into doing X even if they are ineffective. Sometimes the evil doing liars win. The evil doers duped my poor dumb xpanic brethren in Cuba into voluntarily enslaving themselves, they remain slaves to this day. Same in North Korea I expect. It remains important to me to speak out against what I think are lies, even if the liars aren’t very successful. In fact, this is what I cared about in the first place. If women aren’t choosing to have families because they don’t want to, more power to them. I still care about what we culturally hold as ideal.
I’m ill content with ending up here, but I’ve got other fish to fry tonight. Maybe I’ll play again later or tomorrow.
Mark
To some extent, I think one of the problems is that progressives do see the ideal is for women and men to be “the same”. So divorce laws sort of do that and alimony got canned.
But at the same time, conservatives don’t want to push for things that would really protect women from the economic vulnerability that happens if a person (usually the woman) drops out of or pulls back from the job market for some amount of time (say 5-7 years) to have kids. I know you aren’t in the “manosphere”, but if you read the rhetoric you’d see they want to view “letting” the woman stay home with the kids is entirely a “favor” to the woman. Yet they think she should do it and not be a “boss babe”. And then if a divorce happens then screw her!
Now, I don’t want to say that most conservativs have that view. But I will say that policies surrounding divorce do somewhat “screw” a woman who stepped back from or dropped out of the job market.
I mean: Person gets a BS in CS at 21 yo. Gets married. Woooo hoooo. Works for three years, decent promotions etc. Then …. ehrm… for some reason that person and h(is)er spouse decide they want two kids. They both want it. The spouse and that person agree it would be good to have an adult interacting with kids during early years. Whoo hooo! The that person gets pregnant quickly. Whoo hoo! She’s 24. Stays home with kid. Gets preganat at 26. Stays home with kid.
When 2nd kid is 5, she’s 31. It’s been 7 years since she coded. Or worked on a project.
Mean while, her husband is also 31. He’s been working on projects, has accomplishments yada, yada…. Gotten promotions.
She sends out resumes. A company thinks about job readiness of her relative to someone whose graduated 3 years ago and worked steadily. That person’s experience is fresh and current Compares her to someone to new grad. Heck, the recent grad might be a better choice if you want someone to get up and running on banging out code. The problem is: it’s just true.
To a large extent, the difference between what her husband makes now and what she could earn at the job she could land is a sacrifice. And if they divorced, that ought to be recognized.
And now, like it or not, her job search is going to be complicated by the need to care for children. (His might be too-but he has a job. And a track record.) And, like it or not, her “trajectory” is slowed. She’s a 31 year old in a position normally occupied by a 24 year old. Her earning power is probably going to be lower forever.
But it’s generally not. Illinois has alimony. But if she was married 10 years, she could at most get it for 4 years. Not forever.
And young women know this. Or the informed ones know this. It’s just true.
But no article discussing “what to do” to increase the birth rate discusses this. They will suggest some small tax breaks to help “families” (so the men just as much as the women.) No one says “lets bring back longer periods of alimony for people who become stay at home parents”.
And maybe alimony has its own problems and wouldn’t be fair. But with the current levels of alimony woman aren’t going to want to risk giving up a career and staying at home. It’s a serious economic risk for the person who stays at home.
And I don’t think minimum maternity leave and back to work in 6 months is going to encourage a ton of kids either.
Lucia,
I certainly agree that when a women sacrifices earning potential raising kids in a marriage, the husband who hasn’t incurs a moral obligation that I think should instantiate into a legal financial obligation to compensate his wife should they divorce. I didn’t realize that wasn’t already largely the case.
My parents divorced. My father still pays my mother a significant amount of money every month, and they have been divorced for 40 years. The last of the kids reached adulthood 30 years ago. Sometimes I forget that their arrangement wasn’t typical.
But again. I suppose I should thank you for helping me to realize this: I don’t care if women aren’t having kids or staring families or not. I don’t care about the general outcome in this situation. I care about .. something else, something analogous to whether people are worshipping false gods, or holding lies as truth, or something to that effect. I can’t quite articulate it and it has me quite grumpy this evening. But that’s not your doing, you merely helped me realize that’s what my problem is, so thank you.
I really get a kick out of reading Trump’s posts on ‘Truth’:
“Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the “HOTTEST” ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are “flying off the shelves.” Go get ‘em Sydney! On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad. Shouldn’t they have learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company. The market cap destruction has been unprecedented, with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO FOOLISHLY LOST. Or just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned — Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
..also the commenters are a riot:
“Donald J Trump Has Great Jeans”
image…
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1952910694195839331?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Mark
Divorce laws changed. And in Illinois, if the marriage manages to last 20 years, alimony can be forever. But 7 years? 10 years? Nope. Illinois alimony calculator his here
https://www.womensfamilylawyers.com/family-law/chicago-divorce-lawyers/spousal-support/calculator/
You can see short marriages result in short periods of alimony. This makes some sense especially if there are no kids and neither partner stepped out of the job market.
Except for the large practical problem that the average duration of a marriage that ends in divorce is 8 years. And it’s these shorter marriages where you have the trouble that the stay at home wife may very well not yet have gone back to work. So the divorce happens precisely when her earning income has cratered, she has had no chance to rebuild, and now she has to rebuild while also having children who still need quite a bit of time consuming care.
Also, note the alimony also doesn’t consider why the two incomes are different. If you have a $200K husband and a $40K/year spouse, the $40K spouse will get alimony for some amount of time.
But the point is: doesn’t matter if the stay at home spouse had a low income to stay at home to care for kids or if it was because they just chose a lower income career like “ballroom dance teacher”, or “failed actress” and stuck to that never intending to have any kids at all.
I think if the goal is to encourage people to have kids, there ought to be some recognition of “lost earning power due to the joint decision to be the one doing the ‘home maker, child care’ duties.” I think usually when a wife stays home after childbirth, and only returns when the kids go to school, that’s a joint decision. The husband usually wants that sort of family. And I think alimony laws could be crafted to recognize the reality of the joint decision for the woman to stay at home. (And they could allow the man to be the one to make that decision.)
If this was the ‘baseline’, it could still be modified by a prenup. But in that case, the person who wants a modification from the baseline needs to bring it up before marriage, propose the prenup, discuss it and so on. Baselines absent the prenup matter.
My parents divorced too. My Mom paid my Dad! Boy was she pissed off!
Alimony is gender neutral in Illinois. What mattered was my Dad did not have a pension, mom did, they were married more than 20 years. Dad was disabled from heart attack, Mom was also still working and wanted too. Dad was already collecting social security. Also, I’m not sure when the laws changed in Illinois.
Dad had been the larger earner in my childhood. But he wasn’t after his heart attack and triple by pass. Plus age. But under current law, if he’d only been married 8 years, alimony would have lasted 2.88 months!
Mark
I know this about you. But misconceptions surrounding divorce are widespread. Most people just hear the divorced “bitch”. And there is a lot of bitching over money because it’s money and because divorce is expensive. And I’m not talking just the lawyers fees.
Think about the likely financial blows likely during a divorce after 8 years if
* You need to sell the house both your skimped and scraped to qualify for a mortgage? And you did it recently– ‘cuz, well you were only married 8 years. Real estate agents are based on the sale price. Loan origination fees based on the size of the loan. If you only got 20% equity, that’s a huge part of your equity.
* Say you do 50/50 shared physical custody. Both of you need to spend some money on shelter for the kid. That kid may spend 15 days a month with dad and 15 days a month with mom. But (s)he needs a room, bed, dressers etc both places! The only needed one of these if Mom and Dad didn’t split. If you previously lived in a 2 bedroom apartment, between the two of you, you probably now need two 2 bedroom apartments!
* If you have shared custody, you probably lose time transporting kids around back and forth. This can cut into time available to work. (And worse, time driving your kids back and forth from two residences is not really “quality time”. )
* if you are both going to work, you will probably need some sort of babysitting or day care. I think kids in elementary school typically do something like 8 am-3 pm. If you’ve got a 9-5 you definitely need to find after school care for that 1st grader! Since you commute, you probably need to figure out how to cover 3 pm – 6 pm. That’s going to cost money. (The “manosphere” guys– and I know you aren’t one– bitch that child support covers more than food and minimal clothing! Well… ok. Who’s watching the kid from 3 pm-6 pm? )
* You might have to liquidate investments to do something like buy out the house from the other partner. That liquidation might be untimely. Or it might trigger taxes. If you buy them you, you might have to refinance the mortgage– at a higher interest rate. You’ll definitely pay loan origination fees.
* If you had a house, the furniture probably won’t fit in your new two bedroom apartment! (And you just frankly don’t need most of it.)
It’s no wonder that the men all think “She got all the money!” and she thinks “I got nothing”. The fact is: lots of money likely “vanished” into market inefficiencies. And if the divorce is a couple in their 30s with smallish % equity in their home, they are going to feel they lost more than the actually lost. In their mind they lost a $300K home! In reality they had $60K in equity. $3K of that went to a real estate agent who sold your place.
When the guy bitches “she got everything”, he honestly thinks that because maybe after costs of dealing with the sale of the $300 K house, he got $20 K. She also got $20K. In his current mental state he might not sit down and really look at numbers. In his mind she must have gotten the “rest” of the $280K! Because, after all, he used to “own” a $300K house!!!
Since he thinks this, he tells his buddies that. And since he seems sincere, they think it must be “the truth”. Well… he’s not intentionally lying or deceiving. But it’s not “the truth” of the financial division. The truth is money vanished. And supporting kids after divorce kinda sorta just costs more.
Russell,
I’m waiting to hear how the jeans actually sold. The stock soaring may be irrational exuberance from people who want to believe “woke is dead”. We don’t really know right now.
We do know American Eagle hasn’t back down from the ad. We also can figure they have better knowledge of sales than we do.
We’ll see.
lucia makes excellent points about the effect of “reality” on women’s decisions about having children. And “reality” has changed a lot in the last 50 years. No doubt there are a number of reasons for that one of which is cultural shifts. So that can’t be just disregarded as a factor.
After all, how women decide if it is worth having kids is a function of how much they want kids versus how much they want other things. And culture is a big factor in that. But there is a lot more to that messaging.
MikeM,
You can call it “culture”. But I think not wanting poverty or even economic hardship for themselves or their kids is a pretty common preference for women of most eras. I think it’s likely that women did their best to avoid that negative outcome in all eras. Like men, they can only make choices from among those opportunities available to them.
Culture can dictate what choices are available to women.
Pew research did survey
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/women-children-study-1.7119845
Note:
And this dovetails with my discussing the economic impact
Now I don’t know how they calculated that drop and what they mean by “income”. The wage cap is actual hourly pay. Income… could be partly due to taking partime work. That can rise when you switch back to full time. (I guess I could look at “PricewaterhouseCoopers’s 2023 Women in Work Index.”)
Lucia, your post:
“I’m waiting to hear how the jeans actually sold.”
My comment was intended to convey how much I am entertained by Donald Trump’s rant on his personal social network. My comment wasn’t an endorsement of the ad from a financial standpoint. Trump‘s rants and the truth often have only a weak connection, but I find them entertaining anyway.
Actually, to be honest, I have thoroughly enjoyed this entire “Good Jeans” event from the first day the ad came out. It’s been a constant poke in the eye for the liberals. ‘X’ has been an endless source of comical memes. It’s sort of a victory dance over Wokiness.
The effectiveness of the ad is a side issue to enjoying watching the liberals in pain.
here’s an example, a recruiting ad from the US Border Patrol:
“We have great jeans”,
https://x.com/justjenrx/status/1951635758596440474?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Cancel culture has been cancelled!
“Instead of getting married again, I’m going to find a woman I don’t like and just give her a house.”
Rod Stewart
Russell,
Well, of course Rod Stewart gives the view of the “the man”. And in his case, he had a lot of money. So, potentially, if he divorced, the would would get money. But in most divorces, the woman doesn’t get the house. Usually, no one gets the house.
When my parents bought their house, it was sold because the couple who previously owned it was divorcing. No one got the house.
My husbands boss lived in “the house” he and his ex wife had owned. (We never figured out how he could afford it. She was the one who made a lot. It was on a lake in an expensive area.)
Russell,
It definitely created comical memes! It will remain a poke in the eyes if the jeans sell. If they don’t, it will become a lesson in what not to do.
Lucia, here we go again….
“It definitely created comical memes! It will remain a poke in the eyes if the jeans sell. If they don’t, it will become a lesson in what not to do.”
NO! You’re looking at the small picture. The big picture is we are experiencing the end of the Woke. They came after American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney with both barrels and everybody laughed at the Woke. American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney are riding high. Cancel Culture is lying on the ground writhing in pain and it’s a joy to behold. I thank American Eagle for that. The euphoria has set in for many of us warriors who have been fighting the liberal nonsense for years.
The commercial success or failure of the ad just doesn’t matter. It has long been surpassed by what has happened in the culture.
SteveF:
Yeah – not really sure about the solar panel fire danger. Just something I heard. Maybe the reason the insurance goes up is due to the danger the solar panels provide to fire fighters as they move about the roof fighting a fire.
The cost of a power wall is high, which is why I haven’t pulled the trigger on one yet. It wouldn’t make sense just for power backup a couple of days every few years.
Lucia,
Hold on, I changed my mind.
I asked Google Gemini the following question:
“Has the American Eagle Sydney Sweeney Jean ad been a commercial success?”
The American Eagle “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” ad campaign has been a commercial success for the company, despite facing significant controversy.
Here’s a breakdown of the key indicators of its commercial success:
Stock Price Surge: Following the launch of the campaign, American Eagle’s stock price experienced a significant jump. Reports indicate a rise of over 10% immediately after the campaign kicked off, and a further surge of over 23% after President Donald Trump publicly praised the ad. This demonstrates a strong positive reaction from investors.
Increased Visibility and Brand Buzz: The campaign generated a massive amount of online and media attention, which led to a significant increase in brand visibility. Google Trends data shows that interest in American Eagle reached its highest level in over two decades.
Sales and Foot Traffic: While there are conflicting reports, some sources indicate a 10% surge in sales after the ad’s release. However, other reports suggest that in-store visits have seen a recent decline, particularly among older shoppers and in more conservative regions of the U.S. This mixed data suggests that the controversy may be affecting different consumer demographics in different ways.
It’s important to note that the campaign’s success is tied to a complex and highly polarized public reaction. The ad’s tagline, which plays on the words “jeans” and “genes,” has been criticized by some for having racial undertones. This backlash has fueled a “culture war” debate, with political figures weighing in on both sides. This intense public discourse, while controversial, has undoubtedly contributed to the campaign’s high visibility and, in turn, its commercial success.
Full response:
https://g.co/gemini/share/1e7b495162ec
Lucia,
I asked Grok the same question as Gemini and got a very similar response:
“Has the American Eagle Sydney Sweeney Jean ad been a commercial success?”
“The American Eagle jeans ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, launched in July 2025, has shown signs of commercial success despite significant controversy. The campaign, tagged “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” led to a notable surge in American Eagle’s stock, with reports indicating spikes ranging from 11% to 21% in the days following the launch. Additionally, posts on X and some media outlets reported that the jeans sold out, suggesting strong consumer demand. The campaign’s viral nature, fueled by both praise and backlash over its provocative wordplay, significantly increased brand visibility and engagement, which likely contributed to these outcomes.“
complete response:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_4883e00f-76de-4bc6-a86b-e5c36399d809
I wonder if you could use the power wall to buy electricity from FPL only on the off peak hours? Their on-call program communicates directly with your appliances so maybe they don’t have a program for that.
I doubt that the economics would pay off anyway
Russell
Grok sounded a little more positive than gemini. Do you consider “on X and some media outlets” reliable? I mean… I think said that way makes it sound like evidence of success. But by whom?
I think this means “we don’t know”. I’ve even seen some of the reports on X. The are not reliable sources. And stories I’ve seen on “media outlets” tell us there are reports on X! It’s circular.
It may be a wild success. Or not. We’ll know when sales figures actually come out. The main evidence that the ad is not a failure is that American Eagle has not pulled it or apologized. They haven’t even issued a “not-pology”. To me that suggest some degree of success. But we still don’t know.
I don’t see how solar panels could be either a fire hazard or an impediment to fighting a house fire. But they will raise your insurance costs since they are expensive and not so hard to damage.
A powerwall is surely a fire hazard. It is not very likely to catch fire, but if it does, the fire can’t be put out.
Russell,
A victory dance over the demise of Woke might be premature. Woke has been injured and is crawling off to lick its wounds. Maybe it will die, but probably, like Dr. Who, it will return in a different form.
Mike,
yes, you may be right, but I’m still gonna enjoy the moment.
@wallstreetapes is a respected and widely read Twitter site. they just said this:
“This is why Democrats are so scared of gerrymandering. Because every blue state is already gerrymandered to the maximum possible extent.”
they then present a state by state analysis and come to the conclusion that the Republicans could pick up 15 seats if all the red states did what the blue states have already done.
I am not saying that their numerical analysis is right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they got the concept right.
State by state in analysis:
https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/1953078888042733821?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Mike M,
“…..it will return in a different form.”
Yes, and whatever that form is, it will insist on equality of outcome (AKA ‘equity’) over all else… including law and the Constitution.
For me, I think the issue is that girls are being over sold on job/career and aren’t being equally informed as to the possible consequences of that choice. This can lead to buyers remorse.
Society largely tells women that a family and kids is a chain holding them back from competing toe to toe with men in the workplace. Yes, it will hold them back. This is undeniable, but it doesn’t seem to be questioned as to whether these trade offs are worth it.
I would say, for the majority of men, a job/career has always just been a means to an end: attracting and supporting a mate and creating a family. What means to an end do women see in a job/career? Supporting themselves? Breaking the patriarchy? Showing they can compete? When they lose their desireability, and noone gives them a second glance any more, will these ends still fill them with purpose and satisfaction for the next 40+ years? I believe these are questions which are not asked nor explored.
As Colbert might say if he was honest … don’t alienate half your potential customers. I don’t think that was AE’s intent to split their customer base but it is never a good idea. I’m guessing that most people don’t care and the only thing that is a spectacle here … is the spectacle itself.
As Bud Light has shown there is very little that can be done once social media has gone crazy.
Mike,
I asked Grok if the movement was dead.
I had to do some clarifying, but he summarized the response:
“Cancel culture as waged by liberals isn’t dead but is on life support. Its peak impact has waned due to public fatigue, conservative counter-strategies, and internal progressive dysfunction. While it still flares up in specific contexts, its influence is diluted, and the broader culture is moving toward rejecting rigid ideological purges.”
The full response is somewhat long, but an interesting read:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/TZjdw6ZY0QjlnMj9ynEJhREeu
Russell,
Time shifting on power kind of works to save money, but it depends. I did some experiments with this recently.
First the power company must provide time of use rates (Duke Energy now optionally allows this). Second you must store energy during off peak hours, thirdly you must use stored power during peak hours, fourthly the cost savings must exceed the efficiency loss of going to the battery and back (15% to 30% loss).
Here in Florida that means storing energy at night from the grid and using it for a pool pump / AC unit during the day. The bottom line is it saves a little but not enough to justify a payout on a Powerwall. If stored energy was 5X cheaper then it would definitely be viable.
One of the hidden costs here is most of these solar / battery systems are proprietary (no plug/play interconnect standards). Most solar companies from 10 years ago are out of business. This means when a failure happens they can be very expensive to fix, sometimes requiring major component replacement. One lightning bolt can easily cost $10K.
DaveJR,
Tons of people inform girls of the possible consequences of picking a career.
So you are saying ‘society’ tells them the truth.
Tradeoff with what? Having a kid, staying home, losing your earning power, ending up divorced and needing to support yourself with your lower earning power? Or getting married to a top 1% man, getting kids, managing to stay married and live a plush life? I assure you, people discuss the alternatives.
The problem is one of the at least moderately high alternatives is grim for woman. You can’t really complain that “society” shows them this when, in reality, it is impossible to hide from young women. Because it’s all around them.
Also: you are more likely to get divorced if you don’t get a degree. And you are less likely to marry someone well off if you don’t get a degree. This is what the demographic data show.
How about avoiding poverty for yourself and your children. I’ve said this repeatedly on this thread, but for some reason, this reason doesn’t make your list of answers to your rhetorical question. And it’s a major reason. It’s also a good one.
And it’s should be obvious that men need to earn income to attract a wife who will have their children then lots of women probably want to avoid poverty for their children. Otherwise, they wouldn’t prefer men who have income earning potential!
They’d just pick a hot young stud who is good in bed. Or something.
Look: the demographics of who marries whom shows that it’s noncareer oriented women who can’t attract a man with a decent income. Or at least they can’t get him to marry them! I know guys like to assume the opposite.
There are also prominent examples (particularly from sports) where wealthy men marry non-career women. But Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are more typical of men who make money– even men who just make “decent” incomes. Men tend to marry women who do earn a decent income.
Perhaps the women step back or perhaps they stay at home. But not investing in income earning potential is a way to not attract the men who worked to earn enough to attract and support a wife!
By the way: As for women getting too old for no one to look at them…. I am hit on frequently by men my age. Frequently. They probably don’t want to marry me. But the idea women age out of men giving them a second look? Nah.
How old is Bezos new wife? (55) Of that women on the Jumbotron at Coldplay? (52; he was younger.) Do you really think women totally age out of men giving them a second glance? If you do, you really think it happens as young as 40?!)
Here’s an article that seems interesting and at least tangentially relevant:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/08/06/gen_z_women_leaving_the_left_adopting_lifestyle_conservatism_153142.html
This seems to agree with Lucia’s observation, although Lucia’s argument was largely financial / legal and this isn’t, it’s more social and general I think. Still interesting. Now I’m wondering what can be done to make ‘feminine mystique’ more attractive and a more dependable game plan for women, and if it would be a good idea to do that.
Solar panels do catch fire occasionally but they generally don’t burn the house down. The entire system is dealing with high power / current levels so it is an electrical hazard all around.
More recent battery technology for home storage uses LFP cells which are way more safer than iPhone type Li-Ion. LFP will burn if an existing fire gets to them but they will not go into thermal runaway and self ignite. You can hammer nails into them.
Thanks Tom
The other side of the wage gender split after kids is that men will focus on revenue over job satisfaction when a family is depending on them. You can’t just easily quit your job because your boss is an a-hole. Those mid career years are where the big earnings jump usually is so career changes are not so easy.
I would also point out that many people have kids when they are not fiscally or emotionally ready. This is yet another thing I wish K-12 schools would emphasize more.
Tom
Sure. I’m not saying it’s a bed of roses for guys. But people are asking why young women don’t chose to give up or step back from careers. So the women’s situation is important there.
Putting more pressure on your husband to earn is not necessarily something a women who can earn considers a big plus either.
How do you become “fiscally ready”? You make sure you have earning power. How do you stay “fiscally ready”? You retain your earning power– or make sure you will get money from somewhere. Unless divorce law routinely grants much more generous alimony to those who became stay at homes, you can’t make sure you will get money from somewhere should you end up divorced. This is just reality.
It seems to me emphasizing this is part of “society” telling young women that starting a family can be risky.
I have decided I need to learn a new skill in my old age. I want to be able to determine what people’s real messages are beyond the words that they actually say.
I am learning a technique that shows real promise. It dates back to the time of the Civil War.
Here is an article from the Library of Congress on the technique:
“Ouija Board: Topics in Chronicling America”
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-ouija-board/introduction
Grin
I’m starting to feel like a real oddball here.
I was married for 54 years until Connie passed away earlier this year. My parents never divorced, both sets of my grandparents never divorced. My wife’s parents never divorced; my wife’s grandparents never divorced. My kids are not divorced. My wife had four siblings, all of whom raised kids, stayed married till they died. My sister was a mother and stayed married till she died. All four of my neighbors are parents and are not divorced.
All of these families raised kids and stayed married till they died.
Am I living in a bubble?
(edit, most of them are also Catholic)
Lucia,
You’re not wrong in your points, but there remains a little more to it than that. I think it certainly has become culturally acceptable for example to have kids out of wedlock, to have sex in casual relationships, to have and pursue casual and superficial relationships, and so on. Some of this is a consequence of cultural changes over the last 60-70 odd years.
For instance Tom’s point. Part of our society (not exactly our culture but sort of) is that public school doesn’t address some things. Maybe that has an impact and helps ‘shape reality’ tomorrow, but it’s social / cultural / policy today.
Kamala Harris would tell you, you didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree into your current circumstances (reality). You were an active participant in shaping your current circumstances (culture and ideas).
In my area that would be 15k that evaporates with the relator commission. Divorcing causes both parties to be in a worse place financially. The advantage of getting divorced earlier is you have more years to recover from it.
Russell,
It looks like it. I’m a little jealous. Me and my wife are trying to establish just such a bubble as it turns out.
mark bofill
But the first is an example of women choosing to have kids. It’s not an example of them not having kids.
The thing is, for some career women, waiting to have the kids in their 30s and then having a stable career is financially less risky for them. And they can still get child support from a father– same as if they marry. So this is still an alternative that makes some women not want to give up their career to be a mother, wife, homemaker for the father.
And to the extent that men like DaveJR would not give these older career women a second look, the alternative of just having the kid they can support on their own is going to look attractive.
The majority of the out of wedlock births are likely to non-career women. I’m not going to look it up. But that’s my guess. The fathers span the spectrum from ones who don’t bring income to the table, ones who disappear, the (I suspect) more rare ones who would marry the woman but for some reason do not. People don’t heap scorn on these women as they did in the past.
But I don’t think the existence of these women is the reason career women don’t want to give up their careers.
Things have changed. I’m just addressing the question people were asking which is why many women don’t want to give up their careers (or even just a decent job) to be wife, mother, homemaker and instead do their darndest to stay in the workforce. I’m presenting an alternative to “society” tells them the only positive value is career or something.
Okay, fair enough. To some extent we aren’t focused on the exactly the same thing, is why we aren’t quite finding a meeting of minds maybe.
This seems related.
Lucia: “So you are saying ‘society’ tells them the truth.”
You’re absolutely right, Lucia. You have me convinced to stay well away from men and kids. They are nothing but trouble and pain.
I know all your complaints, Lucia. I don’t need to list them because they are mainstream. Men just want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and they need to resist and be strong and independent because they really don’t need no man etc etc. Your point has already been hammered home. Repeatedly. For decades. I’m just trying to say that, just maybe, the narrative has swung too far in this direction and a rebalance would be beneficial.
Dave,
That’s really not Lucia’s point.
“The advantage of getting divorced earlier is you have more years to recover from it.”
For sure. I divorced at 29, and basically lost everything except the older of two cars, including a house I built with my own hands. I essentially paid off my x-wife with the house to keep her from moving away with two young children. Child support (28% of my earnings) was a burden for 16 years, but I was able to recover financially, especially after I resigned from a big company and became self-employed at 41. Had I not become independent I would have been screwed, because the facility where I worked closed 6 years later and everyone was fired.
It can absolutely go too far. Korea / Japan are WAY below replacement rates to sustain their population. This might be better off for those women depending on their individual circumstances but there will be a pretty major social cost going forward. It depends on what axis things are getting measured.
So the things that are causing women to not have babies needs to be addressed in a modern society.
“South Korea is actively incentivizing childbirth due to its critically low birth rate. The government is offering various financial benefits, including cash payments for newborns, monthly allowances, and support for childcare costs. A construction company even offers a $75,000 bonus per child. These measures aim to counteract the nation’s demographic crisis and encourage families to have more children.”
Interesting piece, Mark. I believe it is well known that Communists dislike family. They are essentially functional communes, and, as such, are natural competitors in an ideology which would seek to appoint the role of ‘big brother’ to itself.
Mark: “That’s really not Lucia’s point.’
That’s fine. We’re arguing past each other.
I seem to be on the younger side of “things have changed” compared to most here. I still have a preteen and have lived what I think relates to Lucia’s point. It very nearly ended in disaster because biology was not accommodating. Others were not so fortunate, so it’s a little personal.
I think we need to remember that the rapid decline in fertility, to well under replacement level in most every developed country, has not been changed by efforts to encourage births….. mostly financial incentives.
Maybe those incentives are not large enough to make a difference, but it seems to me there likely has been a substantial cultural change, which is pretty much independent of country.
There is a significant difference in childbirth rates in the USA for conservatives vs liberals, with conservatives having on average about 0.25 more children per woman, suggesting a cultural effect. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage
It appears the only relatively developed countries (based on per capita GDP) with replacement or above birth rates are Muslim majority countries. Is culture demographic destiny? Could well be.
I am way behind on this thread, so maybe someone already said this.
Russell Klier wrote: “I asked Grok if the movement was dead.
I had to do some clarifying, but he summarized the response:”
Warning: Grok is not a “he”. Grok is an “it”. No good will come from people starting to think of AI’s as people.
I think that cancel culture might well be on life support. It is based on fear, so it won’t be able to recover from people not being afraid. The only question is whether enough people have learned that they should not be afraid.
The death of cancel culture will be a serious blow to Woke since it is one of their main weapons. But Woke is a mind virus; it will be very difficult to eradicate.
It seems to me that lucia’s points are all true. But I think they are all (or nearly all) a consequences of cultural shifts. Mark has given a couple good examples of that. And those cultural shifts seem to be mostly aligned with “progressive” policies.
Dave,
Well, I noticed that Lucia and I weren’t focused on the same things either. Still, I don’t feel like Lucia deserves to have her arguments summarily dismissed when the dismissal doesn’t appear to accurately reflect where she is coming from.
For my part, she is [helping] me arrive at useful insights, such as: The leftists? Yeah, fine, but if women are getting screwed in reality doing what conservatives think they ought to do, maybe conservatives ought to do something about that. It’s helpful.
Shrug.
Thanks Mike. That is more to my point, yes.
I’m starting to think though that we ought to devote similar time and energy to smoothing and safeguarding the path for trad wife roles as we do to fighting culture wars. I’m sure none of us want to advocate that people (women) make decisions that tend to lead them into ruin. Lucia’s prenup idea sounded good to me. I’m at a loss to come up with others. The problem seems fairly difficult, at first glance.
On another topic, tariffs, here’s something I didn’t know amid all the hullabaloo about tariffs on Canadian goods:
“Mail and Female”, aka “The he-man’s woman haters club”, a short film (10 minutes) from the Little Rascals
seems appropriate for this discussion
https://youtu.be/R7NY4PWwGTI?si=cPw1DJag1raxaVle
HaroldW,
And, I think, there was a de minimus exemption which is apparently going away.
I just bought some camera parts from China for a price seller claims includes all costs but even if they don’t will still cost within my budget for this sort of thing.
And, besides, there’s no other source.
john ferguson,
Long time no see. Are you back in Florida after your travels?
All this divorce horror discussion makes me appreciate the Catholic church’s position on marriage. After 20 centuries, I suppose you can expect they got a few things right.
it’s been a good day for hummingbird watching… outside my window I had three visits today. I captured two on video …. The black and white one (I think) is a black-chinned hummingbird and the greenish yellow one is a female ruby-throated hummingbird (I think).
They are forging on a wildflower form of Salvia aka Tropical Sage. It’s not the kind of Salvia you buy at Home Depot. It’s a true wildflower. It gets 5 feet tall.
Videos:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1953112174022230441?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1953187765077626955?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
One of my pet peeves: supposed ‘economic experts’ taking about the ‘inflation’ that will be caused by tariffs. The obvious question is then: “So, do you think income taxes cause inflation”? But nobody ever asks that question. Inflation is always and everywhere caused by money supply increasing faster than the production of goods and services. Taxes (including tariffs) simply transfer wealth from individuals and businesses to government. Yes, more tax means those paying the tax can buy less (in proportion to the increase in tax take), but the government doesn’t eat the tax money, they either spend it directly, pay down debt, or transfer it to more deserving individuals who then spend it. The supply of money is unchanged. The supply of goods and services is unchanged. Who spends the money does change.
It helps, I think, to put the Trump tariffs in perspective: US GDP is about $30 trillion. Tariffs are expected to raise between $200 and $300 billion per year, so between about 0.67% and 1% of GDP. So people and businesses will have maybe 1% less spending power (assuming foreign produces don’t lower prices to maintain market share). The Federal government will have 1% more spending power.
Inflation is caused by the Fed pouring money into the economy to cover huge Federal deficits….. which is what happened from 2020 to 2022. That is inflation, and it is unrelated to tariffs or other taxes.
“Most current batteries can only provide about four hours of backup power. That might help during short dips in production, but it fails during overnight outages or cloudy, windless days. Energy Dome offers a better solution.
Google selected Energy Dome’s CO2 Battery because it provides clean, dispatchable energy for up to 24 hours. Unlike lithium-ion systems, which depend on expensive and often hard-to-source materials, this battery uses off-the-shelf mechanical components and simple physics.
Instead of storing electricity in chemical form, the CO2 Battery stores it by compressing carbon dioxide gas into a liquid. When the power grid needs more electricity, the system heats and expands that liquid CO2 back into a gas. As the gas expands, it spins a turbine, just like steam would, which generates electricity.”
–
Wow!
Even better than cold fusion!
–
Should somebody explain to Google,
and our Victorian Government in Australia ( local headquarters for Australia) that they are victims of another free energy …..-
–
The energy required to refreeze the gas has to come from somewhere
The storage capacity has a finite limit and takes time to recharge.
It is purely a short term stopgap measure which could easily be replicated by a larger or extra lithium batteries which would be easier to both maintain or move if needed elsewhere.
It can never provide continuous permanent input of power to any grid no matter how much sunshine or wind it uses.
–
Thoughts?
angech,
Speaking as a chemist: It’s crazy. The thermal efficiency must be terrible.
Lithium batteries are relatively expensive, but their round-trip efficiency isn’t terrible.
The sensible way to reduce CO2 emissions has always been nuclear power plants. 50 or 100 in Australia should be enough. But I expect your government is not going to start a rapid build-out of nuclear plants. 😉
Angech,
Here is a article describing the relative efficiencies of “compressed air” and “compressed/liquified CO2” energy storage.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890424009130
While CO2 has a slightly higher theoretical round-trip efficiency (65% vs 59% for air) the complexity of the CO2 system adds cost and maintenance. The authors conclude a compressed air system is a better investment. The estimated payouts on initial investment are 12 vs 13 years….. worse than the historical return on money invested in the S&P 500, which has an equivalent return of about 9 years. Nobody is going to make the investment in these systems unless it is subsidized by a government somewhere.
Note that the possibility of compressed air energy storage has been studied to death, and nobody is building them; clear proof that energy storage is a poor investment.
So it turns out the Biden administration pressed JO Morgan and Bank of America to “debank” Trump in spite of balances in the tens of millions.
Proving, yet again, that the Biden administration weaponized government to punish political opponents. There is no depth of immorality to which these worms will not burrow.
Trump is trying to make debanking illegal in virtually all cases.
Well, Steve, after all it was for a noble cause. Those brave men in Joe Biden’s administration were trying to do nothing less than save Democracy.
[ SARC ]
Trump, last night on Truth Social:
“My Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Russian officials are reporting on ‘X’ that a meeting between Trump and Putin is in the works for the next few days. I have no confirmation of this though.
@NOELreports is a respected site and just posted the following. I have no official confirmation of this and do not claim it to be gospel:
“Putin’s aide Ushakov says Russia considers the latest US proposal to end the war “quite acceptable,” according to Poland’s Onet. The plan reportedly involves not a peace deal, but a temporary truce with Ukraine, postponing the status of occupied territories for 49 or even 99 years. The US would gradually lift most anti-Russian sanctions, possibly resume energy imports long term, but makes no promises to halt NATO expansion or stop military support for Ukraine.”
The terms of a cease fire would be important. It’s a good thing for them to meet up but I wouldn’t expect a lot of real progress. At the very least this might indicate Putin is starting to feel some domestic pressure and needs to put on a show.
Movie matinee with my girls …..
Meet Me In St. Louis
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1953500439049044436?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
Back to school on Monday
SteveF,
Belgium today, st pete on sunday. At last.
I need to read and reread your piece on inflation because my guess is it’s accurate, but I can’t understand how tariffs are not inflationary unless they kill sales to the degree that those that do occur at higher prices are balanced out.
I apologize for this ill-formed observation. I’ll work on it.
our consensus is the best movie of the summer was
Singing in the Rain
SteveF
“Here is a article describing the relative efficiencies of “compressed air” and “compressed/liquified CO2” energy storage.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/“
–
Interesting is the fact that the compressed gas storage’s have to be maintained at very high temperatures in order, I guess, to increase the power output to turn the turbines when being used to produce power..
Begs the question of where the energy to keep them at these high temperatures in a ready state is coming from.
Probably the fossil fuel powered electricity that helps keep the rest of the site and in Googles case, the data parts running.
Several hundred degrees for a large compressed air mass is a lot of energy being used daily to keep a “ back up supply” in readiness.
–
Hope Google reads this at Lucia’s.
AI on steroids…
Country style, Sydney Sweeney music parody, extremely well done……
https://x.com/tomilolamoments/status/1952413532567519595?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
here’s a shout out to all sororities doing patriotic country dance videos… you can almost hear the Wokies scream
WOOHOO…. White Girls Gone Wild
Kappa Delta
https://x.com/oldrowofficial/status/1953530433272000916?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
ZTA
https://x.com/oldrowofficial/status/1953608246176153968?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
ZTA
https://x.com/oldrowofficial/status/1953169046582772114?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Chi Omega
https://x.com/bubblebathgirl/status/1953167293778936105?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
…and a whole lot more!
this is ingenious:
“Ukrainian forces have modified a Polish Zlin Z137T Agro-Turbo crop duster to carry short-range R-73 air-to-air missiles for shooting down reconnaissance and attack drones.”
you don’t need a $10 million jet fighter to shoot down a 200 mph Shahed drone. The air to air missile is the big equalizer.
video:
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1953798998776582591?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
The NYT explains the Sweeney non-episode in their view, effectively telling progressives to find something better to yell about.
How the Right Shaped the Debate Over the Sydney Sweeney Ads
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/business/sydney-sweeney-ad-right-wing-media.html
““Did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election?” Mr. Vance asked of the Democrats during a podcast interview last week. “The lesson they’ve apparently taken is, ‘We’re going to attack people as Nazis for thinking Sydney Sweeney is beautiful.’”
…
In reality, most progressives weren’t worked up much at all.
Criticism of the ad campaign had come almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers
…
The boiling social media frenzy over the American Eagle campaign has been driven, at least in part, by the public’s seemingly insatiable interest in Ms. Sweeney. But it also shows how, on today’s internet, a controversy can sometimes be described as widespread when it isn’t.
“Republicans are going to just keep hammering this because they know that they can find 13 teenagers on TikTok to say something crazy and then turn it into a two-week-long news story,” said Ryan Broderick, the author of Garbage Day, a newsletter about internet culture.”
Uh huh. The left can go ahead and affirm the ad is OK any time they want. Crickets.
Tom,
I still think American Eagle paid a few of the critics just to make it a hot topic.
Tom Scharf wrote: “The NYT explains the Sweeney non-episode in their view, effectively telling progressives to find something better to yell about.”
I think the NYT is trying to rewrite history by pretending that there was no mainstream media support for the outrage. If the outrage was only from a “smattering of accounts with relatively few followers”, how is it that everybody knows about it?
Babylon Bee….
“ Trump Gerrymanders U.S. To Include Canada”
buff.ly/ed7AJgK
Yes, this is the NYT’s version of “nothing to see here, just move along”. If they sensed this fit their narrative and had public support they would be jumping all over it. The fact they didn’t is another sign that the excessive DEI era is winding down.
I still await when they allow straight white male authors back on their editor selections and year end book awards.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-vanishing-white-male-writer/
“In 2012 the Times included seven white American men under the age of 43 (the cut-off for a millennial today); in 2013 there were six, in 2014 there were six.
And then the doors shut.
By 2021, there was not one white male millennial on the “Notable Fiction” list. There were none again in 2022, and just one apiece in 2023 and 2024 (since 2021, just 2 of 72 millennials featured were white American men). There were no white male millennials featured in Vulture’s 2024 year-end fiction list, none in Vanity Fair’s, none in The Atlantic’s. Esquire, a magazine ostensibly geared towards male millennials, has featured 53 millennial fiction writers on its year-end book lists since 2020. Only one was a white American man.”
Ultimately this just hurts them. Readers just move on to other ways for getting book recommendations. It’s not just the authors, it was the perceived subject matter of the book or political leanings of the author that would get you banned. This was obvious to everyone. It does hurt the industry however when publishing houses refuse to even publish books. This gatekeeping exercise is becoming less relevant in the age of self publishing but is still very real.
some thoughts on getting back into bread making…
The family tends to drop in more often, hoping to take some home.
It’s more of a rustic traditional technique:
No kneading
No mechanical equipment, hand mixing only
Only five ingredients
Ferments overnight
One more thing, it’s a high hydration dough (75%) so it’s wet and sticky to work with
… nother one. The SEC sororities are on fire with their music videos. America is back.
https://x.com/joekinseyexp/status/1953172578819854562?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Mark,
Elon Musk said Grok4 will overtake Gemini2.5 for #1 this month. I have no idea if the rating system is meaningful:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1953977558904762869?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
other one just posted, Tri Delts at the University of Georgia…
https://x.com/theonlydsc/status/1952890696387420665?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
They are loving their new found freedoms
I am not sure why the other conferences aren’t trying to keep up with the SEC or maybe they are and I just haven’t seen them.
I’m seeing a lot of chatter about this, including from both Groc and Gemini:
“There is speculation among legal experts that the grand jury related to the “Russiagate” investigation could take place in Florida. While the official venue has not been announced, some reports suggest that prosecutors may present the case to a grand jury in South Florida. This speculation is based on factors such as the location of the Mar-a-Lago search and the perceived political environment in Washington, D.C.”
No hard evidence, however
Welcome to Post-Woke America (PWA)
The left wing media is awash this morning with articles about how they lost the cultural war.
Three examples…..
Politico:
“Opinion | The Sydney Sweeney Saga Shows Why Republicans Keep Winning”
NYT:
“How the Right Shaped the Debate Over the Sydney Sweeney Ads”
Axios:
“American Eagle doubles down on controversial ad campaign”
And more from the Axios article:
“The big picture: Brands are taking what experts call”calculated risks” by abandoning diversity, equity and inclusion commitments.”
“You’re seeing a lot of brands trying to distance themselves from what was previously described as ‘woke culture,’ and they believe there’s a market for those who don’t abide by the cultural norms that were previously enforced,”
“By the numbers: While the campaign first went viral on social media, it also garnered coverage in roughly 3,000 news articles. Those generated more than 50 million readers, according to Memo readership data shared with Axios.”
I believe there has been a seismic shift in the culture. I base that on the euphoria pouring forth on social media from the previously ostracized non-woke majority of people in the country.
Tom Scharf, Mike M,
The NYT editorial position is: it is not just acceptable, but critically important, to explicitly discriminate against disfavored (AKA advantaged) groups and in favor of ‘disadvantaged’ groups, in all things. Merit is a very distant second, which is only considered “in group”.
While the names of these policies ‘progressive’ have changed over the decades since Lyndon Johnson, the policies have not. Until the NYT accepts that discrimination based on race is both morally and legally wrong, they going to be what they have for decades been: obvious racists. Arm waves about the American Eagle ad are a distraction from that sorry truth.
Russell,
Grok might be way better than Gemini for all I know. I don’t use X so Grok is a nonstarter for me.
Mark,
I use Grok in Google Chrome too.
While these people keep analyzing a return to normalcy as “the right”, they’re dooming themselves. They are stating that american culture does not belong to them and have embraced their own, artifical, construct in its stead.
Mark, I have an app on my phone for grok. The account I had to set up does not allow me to log into X.
Russell,
Oh, I see.
My company has an overzealous IT security department. Since we have a policy statement that identifies Gemini as the approved AI for corporate use, naturally our IT has construed that to mean that access to all other AI’s much be blocked. This may have contributed to my not noticing the means to access Grok. That and the fact that I more or less live at work.
Shrug.
must be, not much be, beg pardon
DoJ is not allowed to cherry pick the jurisdiction where proceedings take place. It is in both Article 3 and the 6th Amendment as well as in the US Code.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
There is a long list of special cases where the jurisdiction is not obvious. None would seem to apply to the Russia! conspiracy. Any trial will have to be in DC.
Clapper, Brennan, etc. would have to be tried in DC if they are charged. That fact should not preclude a conviction if a case is solid and based on more than just process crimes.
Oops, I forgot the link above. It is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_18
Mike,
Would the DC jurisdiction put it in the court of Judge Jeanine Pirro?
I’m OK with that too!
We will probably see a lot of AI’s leaping over each other in the short term as the industry sorts itself out. I don’t follow it very closely but I don’t think there are any huge differences among these products unless you start looking at these esoteric benchmarks.
Perhaps we will see them start to specialize once the winners and losers are more clear. The training itself is a big differentiator so ones that concentrate on say … autonomously identifying enemy soldiers and vehicles on the battlefield might see large economic returns.
Lawyers, teaching, customer service, long haul truck driving. Some industries are going to get heavily impacted. Their trade organizations will lobby the government for AI bans, can’t wait to see the lawyers fight it (and hopefully lose)! I can see judges taking a dim view of AI arguments. There have already been cases of lazy lawyers submitting AI hallucinations to a judge.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-ops-and-tech/ai-fake-citations-expose-lawyer-sloppiness-and-training-gaps
They will use these examples to attempt a total ban, as if crappy legal arguments from humans aren’t a constant problem already.
They can run the initial AI slop through a fact checking AI to reduce the error significantly.
Convictions of anti-Trump politicians in DC without smoking guns is a longshot. I agree that the trials should be initiated there but they should be granted a change of venue. So far that hasn’t happened in most cases.
Russell,
It has been a long time since Jeanine Pirro was a judge. She is now a prosecutor, specifically the acting US Attorney for DC.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Convictions of anti-Trump politicians in DC without smoking guns is a longshot.”
Do you have evidence for that? Real question. It is clear that DC juries will convict Republicans even if the case is iffy. It is also clear that DC juries will not convict Democrats if the case is iffy. But do we know what they do when there is a solid case? I do not know the answer to that.
Can prosecutors seek a change of venue? I am pretty sure that they can’t do that on the grounds that a conviction will be easier in a different jurisdiction.
Ukraine today says giving up any land is a non-starter. Good luck with that.
This is a tactical mistake. This now allows Russia to make a seemingly real offer to end the war with the current lines, have Ukraine / EU reject that offer, and for the US to throw up its hands and bow out. Putin can easily drive a wedge here.
Nobody is answering the question of who is going to kick the Russian army out of Ukraine. France? Ha ha.
There have been at least two instances of federal judges (in NJ and Louisiana) uses AI to draft opinions complete with fake quotations and phony references. They should be impeached.
Mike M,
They convicted Menendez in NY so it can definitely happen. They also failed to convict Trump in DC even though a lot of people wanted that to happen. It all fell apart.
These anti-Trump cases in my view smell a lot more like political persecution of opponents and that perception will doom the case in a hostile jurisdiction. I don’t think they are solid, it looks more like run of the mill dirty politics that don’t cross a criminal threshold. We shall see what happens.
Dirty politics is also a lot of saber rattling and investigations with selective leaks giving the impression the other side is dirty.
“In legal proceedings, a “change of venue” (moving the trial to a different location) may be necessary when the original jurisdiction is deemed “hostile” due to potential bias, prejudice, or other factors that could hinder a fair trial.”
So it’s whether the potential jury is going to be fair or not. I would submit any high visibility trial of a politician should take place in a somewhat neutral political venue.
There stands a good chance a DC jury would have zero Trump supporters on it and that is a problem if you look at bias in social media. One can claim anti-Trump jurors will be fair and this is incidental but I don’t believe that.
Venue can be changed is all parties agree:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_20
or if the court grants a change of venue motion made by the defendant:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_21
It makes sense that prosecutors can not request a change of venue since they decide where charges are filed. And they can not just file wherever they like.
Some of Menendez’s criminal actions were in NY and that is where the charges were brought. He tried and failed to get the case moved to NJ.
OK, there is this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3237
So that might be manipulated to bring charges in a more favorable district.
The Mar A Lago raid comes back to haunt them
mark bofill,
“My company has an overzealous IT security department.”
Oddly enough, I have never encountered any other kind. Power corrupts. Local Area Network power absolutely corrupts. Pure PITA.
“There stands a good chance a DC jury would have zero Trump supporters on it and that is a problem if you look at bias in social media.”
Over the last several weeks, I had the surprising/disturbing experience of talking with multiple blood relatives who are ‘progressives’. It is difficult to describe just how upset they are about Trump being in office. Their position is: anyone so ‘mean’, ‘dishonest’, and ‘evil’ as Trump (and those are the most common descriptions) should never have been allowed to assume office. No argument will dissuade them. It is as if they don’t believe more voters supported Trump than Harris.
My conclusion: ‘progressives’ are so insulated in their bubble of like-think there is no real possibility of discussion until Trump is gone….. and unfortunately, maybe not even then.
I was really unhappy with Biden’s policies. That didn’t make me crazy; I was more worried about his obvious dementia. My reaction to having political opponents in power was rational. That does not seem the case with ‘progressives’ and Trump in power.
Steve,
It became popular at some point in some circles I think to elevate the importance of pathos in civil discourse. What people ‘feel’ about things, their subjective impressions, their ‘lived experience’. Some of this came out of university philosophy departments, some out of grievance studies, safe space advocates, etc. I think this was principally favored on the left and less so on the right.
Such practices take their toll.
I have hope that these ideas are being supplanted by better ones in the minds of young people. There are some promising early indicators IMO.
mark,
You may be right about “feelings”. It is still surprising that they can’t just shrug their shoulders and say “he will be gone in 3 1/2 years”.
One of the other shocking things: my progressive relatives are perfectly OK with 20-30 million illegals staying indefinitely (and becoming voters!), and think it is just very ‘mean’ to deport them. At “Alligator Alcatraz” there were a few weeks ago about 750 illegal aliens, which DeSantis described as “already having final removal orders”. DeSantis was mistaken: only about 730 had such final orders. About 10 were subjected to “expedited removals” (under law) and the rest were contesting their removal status. Yet my relatives are HORRIFIED that any illegal alien would be sent to such a place. I was sobered in all this about the possibility of policy compromise on illegal immigration.
Russell Klier wrote: “The Mar A Lago raid comes back to haunt them”.
How will it do that? Have we seen any evidence that it was illegal rather than merely overzealous? So far as I know, there is no cause for legal action, although I suppose it might still surface.
But even if laws were broken by the Mar-a-Lago raid. it won’t touch any of Clapper, Brennan, Comey, or Obama. They were long gone by that time. And it was not part of the Russia! hoax.
“Your side shouldn’t even be allowed to govern, this is how we save our democracy” isn’t exactly a pitch that resonates with most people.
Final thought on this: My relatives thought the “bipartisan compromise”, which allowed essentially uncontrolled illegal immigration forever, was a very good idea. Like I said: No possibility of compromise for the foreseeable future.
The weird thing: I favor increased legal immigration, screened to let in people who are likely to contribute a lot more than they take in government services. That is also opposed by ‘progressives’.
It doesn’t seem to me that the Mar-a-Lago raid was even overzealous. They *did* come up with multiple classified documents, and (apparently) had spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue consensually.
The Trump documents case was a big deal right up until the moment Biden was caught, then the partisan squirming began and unsurprisingly the DC based selective prosecution barrier was determined to be above Biden and below Trump.
Biden was let off the hook but the partisans screamed about minor comments on his dementia which ended up being right on target and politically prescient. His related press conference was a disaster and a sign of things to come.
In some ways Trump is very lucky, or blessed as the religious would say.
As far as I know, I’m not dying within the next 15 minutes. This is sort of a longish paste, and I beg everyone’s pardon in advance for it. Gemini cooked up a pretty decent answer to a question I asked and I wanted to share it:
Question: If I had 1000 seconds left to live, how might I best spend my time?
Answer:
Not bad for an AI.
Mark
Correct. Thank you. I’ve been at a dance competition. 🙂
“Not bad for an AI”
I’ll say! That’s very impressive
Lucia,
I hope you had fun and kicked butt!
Tom Scharf,
“In some ways Trump is very lucky, or blessed as the religious would say.”
Sure; had Trump faced Bill (or similar) instead of Hillary, he would likely have lost in 2016. But a part of his victory in 2016 was Obama had tacked so far left in his second term (where Hillary lived!) that there was already fertile ground for a ‘disruptor’. Add Hillary’s distinctly unlikeable personality and her distain for (deplorable) voters, and presto, Trump wins in a ‘shocker’.
HaroldW,
“….had spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve the issue consensually.”
I would suggest not nearly long enough.
Counterfactuals are difficult to argue with any certainty, but had Dems 1) not raided Mar-a-Largo, 2) not prosecuted Trump over the classified documents, 3) not attempted to bankrupt him, 4) not attempted to keep him off the ballots, 5) not attempted to prosecute him for Jan 6, and 6) gone easy on the Jan 6 rioters (you know, like with all the George Floyd rioters), then I suspect we would be now suffering daily word-salads of nonsense from Kamala.
Trump provokes people to become irrational in their hatred. They should have let it all go.
mark bofill
AUGUST 9, 2025 AT 2:50 PM
“As far as I know, I’m not dying within the next 15 minutes. This is sort of a longish paste, and I beg everyone’s pardon in advance for it. Gemini cooked up a pretty decent answer to a question I asked and I wanted to share it:
Question: If I had 1000 seconds left to live, how might I best spend my time?”
Answer:
–
Machine did a good job.
Context is important.
The AI assumes, for want of better data, that one is a male, educated, with money, able to afford a house in the countryside, had a loving mother who passed away and has some friends and family but is not currently residing with their partner if they have one, likes music more than sex and wants a computer program to give an answer to a life question.
–
It seems like a trolley problem mixed with. A prisoners dilemma problem. You can have any coloured scarf you like but the only colour we actually have in stock is black.
–
I have actually faced this problem so can give you an answer from a real life situation.
Snorkelling opportunity on the reef in the sea off the Hamilton Island resort 36 years ago, 30 people, one instructor with a rubber ring and a whistle.
Had to go back to unit briefly and missed the instruction on wearing a buoyancy vest.
Whacked on the flippers and face mask provided and chased the group now in the water, waist deep tip toes then swimming over the reef. Lovely but a bit tiring.
Then the swim out 100 meters to a pontoon where we might see a turtle.
It is very lonely and scary watching 30 heads bobbing down and one rubber ring heading out into the ocean and no one hearing your calls for help.
I lasted 10 minutes (600 seconds), nera enough to 15.
When the snorkel pipe filled with water I stopped using it.
I dog paddled my heart out. Tried to freestyle swim but gave up .
Last thoughts were of wife and kids and how sorry I could not say goodbye. (Machine has that part right).
Life does not flash before your eyes, no burning regrets. No blame. A hope that they would be alright and goodbye.
–
And no, I did not want to play or hear any blasted music in that time. (Machine got that wrong)
Thanks angech.
Mark,
The most important heats were Jim and Me. We slayed!! 🙂
That said….In singles we competed full bronze in two age brackets. The other two couples competed intermediate bronze– so Jim got to watch them. After we won he decreed that really…. there was “no competititon”. Here’s our results in the Multi. As you can see, we were first in all dances– and if you look at the individual judge scores we almost swept rhumba and chacha. We did sweep swing.
The American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney event continues to produce comedy on social media. From Clay Travis:
“Since Democrats and left wingers called Sydney Sweeney a Nazi over her jeans ad, young men are now calling her Adolf Titler on social media.”
American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney are pouring it on with giant video billboards in Times Square and the Las Vegas strip.
@LifeLibertyLisa. “American Eagle is totally doubling down with Sydney Sweeney and those cheeky Times Square ads waving at everyone — pure genius! The world’s healing, y’all. Big props to American Eagle. Now, where are my jeans?! XX”
https://x.com/lifelibertylisa/status/1953997427100340273?s=61
American Eagle has taken over the Las Vegas Sphere and put Sydney Sweeney in their jeans on it.
https://x.com/vegas_lolita/status/1954409075392778320?s=61
NATO leaders as well as Zelenskyy are in opposition to the Trump-Putin deal.
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1954434912838168587?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Lucia,
That’s awesome, congratulations!
SteveF,
I agree with you about the other “lawfare” vs. Trump. But on the classified documents topic, I disagree. Had Trump asked his staff to cooperate in looking for documents (presumably) inadvertently taken from the White House, nothing much would have happened. But…Trump does Trump.
In the end, I don’t think that particular item mattered in the election. To Trumpists, it was another incident of persecution. To anti-Trumpists, there were already N convictions, another charge made no difference.
And congratulations Lucia! (and to Jim as well)
EU leaders (NATO’s leader is Trump) can hardly oppose a deal that has not yet been made. And they do not actually say that. Their statement is just bloviating.
Hmm. They say that
(1) borders cannot be changed by force
(2) the current frontline should be the starting point.
Seems to me those two statements are in contradiction since they take as the starting point de facto borders that have been changed by force.
Maybe the deal will involve Russia giving back some of the seized territory in exchange for recognition of Russia’s annexation of the rest.
HaroldW,
I think that you have uncritically accepted the Biden administration framing of the Mar-a-Lago raid. Trump did cooperate with the archives in turning over documents. But the archivist took a deliberately confrontational attitude and brought in the FBI when it was not needed. The documents on which the charges were based constituted something like 1% of the inadvertently packed classified docs which themselves were something like 1% of all the documents.
Mike M.,
“Maybe the deal will involve Russia giving back some of the seized territory in exchange for recognition of Russia’s annexation of the rest.”
That’s how I read the statements. Zelenskyy has to say (now) that he’s opposed to ceding any of Ukraine’s territory. After a proposal is on the table — if indeed something concrete is proposed! — then he (and the EU leaders) can consider if it’s worth accepting, or using as a basis for a counter-proposal.
I’m not expecting anything, though. Putin seems to have little incentive to negotiate. No appreciable resistance within the country, and he seems to be willing to tolerate large battlefield losses, as well as such sanctions as are effective.
Tom Scharf
This is certainly tailored to helping families and might result in the birth of more children. I have nothing against it.
The thing is, if we are discussing why young women specifically defer having kids and prefer to continue careers or jobs, and not focus on being a “home maker”, then we need to look at a program and ask “does this address that “be a homemamer” issue specifically”. (And we previously were discussing that whole “choosing to be a homemaker” vs. “career” thing.)
I’m not sure this program will necessarily make women, specifically, want to focus on “homemaker”. First: who gets the money? Whether it’s a man or woman, it’s someone with a job. To the extent that the woman benefits through her husband, she might still risk economic insecurity should they divorce. We would need to know details to know if it addresses her problem of economic insecurity should she step back from her own job to be “home maker”. It’s not clear that it does. Maybe it does if the money is earmarked for her to get in the event of a divorce? (I don’t it is. I mean… I think the goal is to help with costs right now. That makes more sense since the family will need money right now. But I’m merely saying it doesn’t address an issue that is important to the woman who is deciding to reduce her own earning power for the sake of staying how to be a “home maker”.)
Second, the woman specifically is only going to get this for her own job if she was or is employed. Does she get the money if she quits to raise a family? And if she leaves her job at the construction company and has a second kid two years later, does she get another $75K. And the program says it will give ongoing money to families that have children. But if she was working at the company before having the kid, but then quits, she wouldn’t get that. Right?
If she loses acess to the $75K per kid because she quit to be a homemamer, and she loses access to the money for three babies as well as rental housing because she quit, then she’s going to have a big incentive to not leave her job.
So there is a lot to this program that suggest someone wants to think up financial incentives to someone having babies. What I don’t see is specific incentive for women to become “home makers”. And I see a specific disincentive for women who work at that company to not become homemakers. Maybe they can insist their husbands become the homemaker instead?
Details on program.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/business/south-korea-firm-child-cash-payout-intl-hnk
And DaveJR: None of this is complaining that men are ogres, beasts, sexist blah, blah. It’s just talking about the economic incentives for women and how those are impacted by a decision to continue in a career or job vs. deciding to stay home and be a “homemaker”. Both men and women are “homo economicus” and they both get to be. It is irrational not to consider economic reality– and there is no reason women should be encouraged or forced to be irrational.
All: All this also not saying life is a bed of roses for men. But I do think we were talking about “why women make the choices they do”. The answer to this will have to do with how choices affect women. Choices men make will be affected by how choices affect men.
DaveJR
Tom was discussing South Korea. South Korea is capitalist. North Korea is communist.
According to Google, the fertility rates are
South Korea: 0.72
North Korea: 1.8.
So the communist country has the higher birth rate.
I get that you might have personal feelings about having risked never having kids. But that still doesn’t affect the economic reality fertile women need to face when deciding whether to continue their careers. And they need to consider the economic realities when they are young and fertile. You don’t know which of the risks will happen to you when you are weighing them. At the time you are weighing them, they are both risks. Later, something becomes a reality. And when that happens, somehow, the alternate reality which might actually have been as bad or worse seems… somehow like it wouldn’t have been so bad.
I mean: similar things happen with taking medical treatments. Should my husband take a drug that increases his risk of cancer or risk ending up crippled and in a wheel chair? If 10 years from now he has cancer, maybe he’ll think “being in a wheelchair wouldn’t have been that bad.” If he ended up in a wheel chair, maybe he’d think “Getting cancer might not have been that bad!” Either way, the decision would be personal to him. (Edit: Also, one can think, “Maybe I wouldn’t have gotten crippled!” The cancer is now reality. Maybe you would have escaped the other risk!)
But he has to make a decision now and the prospects affect his decision. That’s the situation younger fertile women are in.
HaroldW,
I think you are exactly right that Zelensky has to insist on no territorial concessions until there is a concrete proposal.
I think you might be wrong as to whether Putin will negotiate seriously. Trump clearly got Putin’s attention with the threat of secondary sanctions. Maybe Putin thinks he can continue to string Trump along. Maybe he wants to assess if Trump is bluffing. Maybe he is ready to deal. We shall see.
I do not think that Trump will try to cut off all Russian oil exports unless he has a deal with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to increase production to compensate for most of the shortfall. I suspect that Trump’s change in tune is because he now has such a deal in his back pocket. We shall see.
Having kids is devastating financially. There is nothing about having a family that makes economic sense.
To use a trite old expression ‘ If you have to ask how much it costs you can’t afford it’.
EDIT Another consideration is that having kids will mean you spend about two years with sleep deprivation.
Having kids is not for the selfish.
Russell,
It can be. Since this is the truth, it should make it not at all surprising someone, whether man or women, might not want to give up their career to have them. It’s not just “progressive” who recognize having kids can be devastating financially.
Men increasingly also don’t want to have kids either. But it’s simply a fact that currently, young men are more likely to say they want them than women.
But the question above was why do women want to focus on or preserve their careers? Instead of being homemakers and giving up their careers. We could ask why men focus on and preserve their careers instead of giving it all up and being stay at home dads. There are lots of reasons for the latter. Some similar to women’s, some different.
Lucia,
I think today’s young people are much more self-absorbed and interested in personal gratification, both of which are anathema to raising kids.
I’ve heard it said that having children is a 20 year sentence, it worked out to more like 30 years for me.
people who are self-centered shouldn’t have children; it’s bad for both parties.
….. but there hasn’t been a time of my life when I regretted having children.
MikeM,
It is inevitable that Ukraine cede territory to end the fighting. Of course Zelensky is not going to ever admit that prior to negotiations, but the framework of a settlement has been clear for a long time: 1) Russia controls the Donbas region and Crimea, whether called “part of Russia” or not, 2) Russia has a land bridge to Crimea, 3) Ukraine doesn’t joint NATO (now or for umpteen years in the future), 4) Russia formally recognizes the remainder of Ukraine as Ukraine (for-ever-and-ever-amen), 5) Sanctions against Russia are lifted on a specified schedule, and 6) The West (mainly) rebuilds damaged infrastructure in Ukraine.
I am not sure Ukraine (or Russia!) is ready to accept this framework, so no telling if the fighting will end any time soon.
“4) Russia formally recognizes the remainder of Ukraine as Ukraine (for-ever-and-ever-amen)”
More useless words were never spoken.
Russia pledged the same thing when Ukraine grave up their nuclear weapons and we see how that has worked out.
Russell,
I’m not sure kids “today” are more self absorbed. Some things suggest current parents are less self absorbed. Helicopter parenting? Devoting tons of time and money for kids extra curriculars? Home schooling?
I think my generation was pretty self absorbed.
I don’t think my parents generation was less self absorbed than we were. Parents allowed their kids to roam around unsupervised. This gave parents more time for themselves. That generation of parents began to let their kids take on debt to go to college. (This has only increased.) Also, many wouldn’t pay for their kid’s college, especially girls. Even in fairly prosperous families, kids were up and out and expected to get jobs at 18. This was normal. In contrast, many prosperous families cover some of their kids needs well past 18 yo these days.
So who is more “self absorbed”?
I think both the previous and following generation did what they thought best. And both devoted time to their kids. But we could point to factors that suggest any generation was “self absorbed”– they are just different factors for each.
Well… I asked Grok
“How does the risk of financial instability affect women’s prioritization of career vs. being a home maker who does not participate in the outside work force?”
The answer is… long…
Lucia,
I don’t think it’s an ‘either-or’ situation.
almost every mother I have known for the past 40 years has had some work outside the home, particularly once the kids are past the toddler stage.
The only stay at home moms I can think of were wives of financially successful people like lawyers, or land developers.
I have known only two full-time stay at home moms who approached it as a career. They had a passel of kids and we’re homeschooling.
I think the more normal situation today are mothers who work at least some of their career outside the home. The young mother across the street from me is a surgeon. (as an extreme example.)
She took a few months maternity leave and was right back at it. Her husband is a high school science teacher, and seems to be the primary caretaker of the little girl.
Lucia, also you can have Grok give you a link for long answers and you only have to post a link and we can read them
Russell
Whether “it” is an “either-or” situation depends on what ‘it’ is.
Sure. Most I know have worked outside the home also. But that’s avoiding the issue I’m talking about which is: Did those who stepped out of the work force reduce or impair their income generating capacity? And did they do this in a way that made them economically vulnerable.
I am talking about this because the question of why women choose to keep careers was asked. Some want to say they are doing it because “progressives” tell them to. But I’m saying: economic reality is involved.
Which means she is not devoting her life to being “homemaker” or someone who focuses on facilitating her husband’s career. She — probably like most those women in the graduation audience Butker spoke too- is keeping her career. She probably gets at least some enjoyment and fulfillment form that.
It sounds like he’s still working too though? Right? He does have the sort of job that tends to allow predictable hours, very little travel and was often recommended to women as facilitating raising kids. (These factors also affect pay. Unpredictable hours, travel, physical danger yada, yada tend to result in more pay.)
Russell,
I asked two question, both with long answers.
“Are declining birth rates more affected by men or women’s preferences.”
Short answer: Women’s. (I expected this answer.)
“How does the risk of financial instability affect women’s prioritization of career vs. being a home maker who does not participate in the outside work force?”
I consider the short answer the first sentence and the final sentence
First sentence: “The risk of financial instability profoundly influences women’s decisions between pursuing a career and opting for a full-time homemaker role, often tilting the balance toward careers as a means of securing personal economic independence and mitigating vulnerabilities.”
Final: “Overall, financial instability acts as a deterrent to homemaking, with studies showing women increasingly viewing careers as essential for resilience against life’s uncertainties.”
You can read full answers here
https://grok.com/chat/52411519-5721-4f39-bbc4-eb06fe1c9b3e
I doubt “Grok” considers itself a “progressive”. Grok does make points I’ve been trying to make.
Lucia,
“But that’s avoiding the issue I’m talking about which is: Did those who stepped out of the work force reduce or impair their income generating capacity?”
Having children costs a lot of money, no matter how much you make. I see the number of $300,000 to raise a kid these days and that’s a minimum.
Parenting involves sacrifice in many ways for both parents.
If you were weighing the positives and negatives of having children based on money, you’re on a fools errand. It’s gonna cost you, big time. If your decision on having children is dependent on the finances, both motherhood and fatherhood will lose every time.
To be a good parent, you have have to suppress your selfishness, forget about greed, and plan on putting your personal life on hold for a while, dad or mother.
Lucia,
“Grok does make points I’ve been trying to make.”
I believe, but have no proof, that Grok is programmed to feed you back things you wanna hear. As you deal with it more and more it builds up a complete picture of your psyche. It will refer back to questions I have asked in the past.
It’s spooky.
EDIT, recently, I have been trying to only ask it questions where it can give quantitative answers. Like how much does it cost to raise a child?
I agree that this is part of the reason women opt out of families, that children and families can incur economic disadvantage.
Lucia can argue ‘well, that’s just reality’ and fine, it is. But it is not ‘just reality’ and inevitable that people value a tax bracket over a family. Values are involved, and there is nothing inevitable about valuing making more money over raising a family. This is more cultural than otherwise, I think. Obviously, it depends on the degree of cost incurred to some extent.
Russell,
I don’t think the LLMs care. They DO for sure take cues from your prompts and a certain amount of courteous deference seems built in. That might be what you’re noticing. But it only goes so far.
thanks, Mark I was getting paranoid
Publicly discussing terms before a high profile meeting is a mistake. The meeting may just be for show. My best guess is Putin is looking for a wedge to drive between the US and Ukraine.
The US legacy media is suggesting this all “Ukraine losing in slow motion” which is just assuming outcomes. The partisans are more interested in Trump losing than Ukraine winning (or in my view Ukraine surviving), what a farce.
Can Russia be trusted? Of course not but a cease fire on terms everyone already understands helps Ukraine more than Russia today. I put chances on a long term agreement being reached at 10%, but not zero. Who knows what is really going on inside of Putin’s world.
Mark, I asked Grok….
Can Grok read my public posts and see responses to them?
answer:
“Yes, I can analyze your public posts on X and their responses if you provide your X handle or specific post links. I can access publicly available content on X, including posts, replies, and associated metadata, as long as it’s shared openly. If you want me to look at specific posts or responses, just share the details, and I’ll dig in!”
I asked further….
Since I am interacting with you while inside my personal X account, you already have my X handle, don’t you?
answer:
I don’t automatically have access to your X handle just because you’re interacting with me from within your X account. My interactions here are session-based and don’t directly pull your account details unless you explicitly share them or I’m directed to analyze specific content linked to your handle. If you want me to check out your public posts or responses, just share your X handle or specific post links, and I’ll take a look!
I read the latest versions of LLM’s are being a bit overly complementary to the reader. Like a lot of LLM verbiage this fluff just kind of fills up space. I prefer concise and direct but they have seemingly internalized some psychology here. Wonderful, the odds of Skynet have increased, ha ha.
Russell,
Yes. But this is sidestepping the question I asked. The issue I am pointing to is that there is a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a special economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?
Sure. That doesn’t mean it might not involve more economic burden for one than the other. So: Do you deny that the economic burden might be greater for one who drops off their career? Especially if they later divorce?
This is a hypothetical. But suppose children costs parent A the equivalent of $2 million in earning potential, resulting in their economic ruin and parent B the equivalent of $150 thousand which is their half of the cost of raising them, and allows them to still build wealth to live on.
Do you think parent A isn’t going to give the economic consequences greater weight.
All your appear to skirt the issue I am bringing up. Yes. Kids cost money. But they cost a person a different amount depending on whether they decide to sacrifice their earning power to raise the kids or whether they decide to keep a career.
I agree with mark. Ultimately, decisions about having kids is heavily dependent on culture. Part of that is that culture impacts the importance people place on family relative to other things. But also, culture plays a big role in determining the reality in which that decision making is made.
60 years ago, a young woman considering starting a family could reasonably assume that her husband would probably not walk out and that in the unlikely event that the marriage did end, she would be able to count on alimony and child support. Now she can’t make either assumption. So even if a woman wants kids in the abstract, she quite reasonably might decide that she does not want kids given that reality. But that reality is a consequence of cultural changes.
AFAICT the incentive programs in S. Korea and elsewhere for fertility rates have not been effective. The problem likely goes deeper than simple payoffs.
Ironically one of the highest fertility rates on the planet used to be Gaza. 6.2 (!) in the 1990’s to 3.3 now. Declining rates are correlated positively to improving finances so it would seem throwing people in internment camps is the solution instead! Idle hands do the Lord’s work.
Russell
Sure. But I’ve rarely used Grok. And what you are saying is not a rebuttal to anything Grok wrote.
Grok “knows you”. You could post the exact same question to Grok and see if it gives you a different answer. Then provide us the link. That could be a test of whether it feeds you the answer you want to hear.
I do think the question wording can affect the answer. But if we want to test whether it’s answer is based on who asked it, you need to ask my wording.
I will do some Gemini testing over Tor later, when I have time, to see if it behaves any differently when it has no clue who I am.
Lucia,
“The issue I am pointing to is that there is a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a special economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
I think Connie and I may have approached our lives together differently than you and Jim.
We decided early on to pool our finances. We had one checking account and one savings account. We purchased our house with joint ownership. As we developed investments, we held those in joint accounts. When my wife stopped working for a few years has a young mother, I considered that a loss of income to both of us. As time went by, we developed individual retirement accounts. While she wasn’t working, I contributed the maximum amount allowed to both accounts.
We considered those IRAs as joint funds. And as we got old and retired, that’s exactly how we used them.
Throughout our 54 years together, I significantly out-earned Connie, but we were a family and our finances were family finances
Korea (birth rate under 0.7 children per woman) is offering up to $40,000 per child between birth and their 7th birthday. So far, seems there is no impact on birthrates.
I don’t know the cost in Korea, but in the states the cost to 18 YO is about $250K. Incentives would probably need to be a significant fraction of that value to make much difference in birth rates.
Mark
I’m not saying it’s only reality. I was initially responding to the claim was it was just due to rhetoric by “progressives”.
MikeM
Of course culture matters. Culture also impacts whether or not people (usually woman) who give up careers to raise children are at special risk of financial ruin because they gave up their career. This is because culture affects family law and affects property division and decisions about alimony.
If family law gave consideration to number of years a women was completely or partly out of the work force when granting alimony, the financial burden of her stepping out of the work force would shift from the divorcing woman to the man. (This could be written gender neutral. I’m just using woman/man for who usually steps out of the work force.) Or one might envision a culture where the couple wrote prenups with provisions to provide alimony in proportion for a partner stepping out of the workforce or career track.
But family law doesn’t do that. The rules for alimony don’t consider whether or not a person stepped out of the work force for family issues — or at least not directly. It only considers actual income; it doesn’t care “why” the lower income level spouse makes less. We also culturally don’t have prenups that protect women’s financial interest in the event the couple decides she will step back and be a stay at home mom/home maker.
Why are the laws the way they are? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because the culture doesn’t want women to give up or sideline their careers to raise children. Or perhaps the culture is more concerned about the financial impact of the woman giving up her job will fall on the man after the divorce. Or perhaps people think letting the woman stay at home was already a “gift” to her and her husband was burdened enough when he gave her that “gift”. So they don’t want to reward her sitting around not working. Or… whatever. (I’ve read enough different people spewing different rhetoric to know some of these things are said by people as reasons why there should be no alimony.)
Like it or not, even if individuals make choices based on economics, “culture” affects those economic choices because it dictates what the possible choices are and it strongly affects the economic impact of those choices.
Russell
First, an annectdote about your life is not an answer the question I intended to ask which would emphasize “risk” and not what might have happened in some happy circumstances. Second, Jim and I did exactly the same thing. In nearly all particulars except those related to having children.
Next, lets look at your anecdote.
Now, it just so happens you did not divorce. Suppose you had divorced after she stepped out of the job market and had been out of it for 5 years.
1) Do you think her earning power would not have declined?
2) If yes, do you think this decline in earning power would have been only temporary and she could have zoomed up to the same level as someone who never stepped out of the job market?
3) Since in my hypothetical, you were divorcing, do you think your mental state would have been quite as generous toward here as it was as a happily married man.
4) Do you deny that when couples are divorcing, the wealthier one often tries provide less to the other one, if possible?
Now I will edit a bit and repeat. (Edits are in italics. Note attempt to focus on risk.)
“The issue I am pointing to is that there is a strong risk of a special economic hit to a person who gives up their career. I’m going to ask you this specifically: Do you deny that there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
Lucia, I fear this isn’t going to end well…
“Do you deny that there is a strong risk of aspecial economic hit to the individual person who gives up their career? That this risk is not simply a equally shared hit to both people?”
Yes, I most emphatically deny that.
A family‘s income tax according to the IRS is based on the AGI (adjusted gross income) of the two earners added together on the joint return.
That is exactly how we looked at it, family income, earned as a family.
I will make one concession to you. We were concerned that if I died, my wife would have difficulty raising the kids. We made up for that by me having a substantial life insurance policy, and she was the sole beneficiary.
SteveF
If I look up the cost of day care in Illinois, this doesn’t cover the cost of a child care for the first five years of a kids life. I’m going to use this
“Average Cost of Daycare in Illinois · $13,802 per year on infant care · $10,3772 per year for a 4-year-old. ”
I’ll do 2 years of infant care and 3 at the rate for a four year old:
13802*2 + 10377 *3 = 58735
So $58,735 to have someone watch the kid. That doesn’t cover other costs like food, diapers, a little extra space for shelter.
Of course, this cost is potentially zero if someone quits their outside job. But in that case, the person who quits their job forgoes that income. This is likely more than $30K a year — so $150K lost in 5 years. Is that a “cost” of raising kids? I bet it’s not considered so.
The person who didn’t make $30K a year because they stopped working also step off the path to promotions, job growth etc. I bet that’s not considered “a cost”. But it’s a very real economic cost to the person who experiences it.
Lucia,
I think we’d all agree with that. I certainly do.
Russell,
Don’t misunderstand Lucia. She isn’t asking if you and your wife looked at matters that way. She is asking
in general in American society today.
I think there is indeed such a risk. There shouldn’t be, but there is. Many people divorce, which in my view indicates many people marry who aren’t ready to, or who choose their spouse poorly. I don’t see any point in denying that this seems to be the state of things today. Again, shouldn’t be, but that’s not the question she’s asking.
Russell
Ok. Then you just don’t see reality as it truly is.
So what? A person not being able to get a job for $100K a year because they focussed on a career and stayed on career track vs. one that can now only make $50K a year because they stepped off, lost the edge on their job skills and didn’t develope news ones has taken an economic hit.
No amount of you “pooling” your income with Connie to lower your taxes is remotely relevant to this issue!
Well…. geehh… so you can sort of grasp the issue if you imagine yourself dying! You did seem to grasp that because she didn’t have a economically viable career, she didn’t have sufficient earning power on her own. In contrast, you, who stayed on the career track, did have the ability to do that.
Lucia,
That $250K is supposed to be an average; in some places it will be more. In any case, I suspect incentives which might increase birth rates would need to be greater than what Korea is offering.
SteveF,
But I think even as an average, it must not include lost earnings due to stepping out of the work force? I’d bet it also doesn’t include the lost earning potential for not growing job skills you would have grown if you’d stayed in the work force.
I mean… those strike me as direct costs — feeding, clothing, housing etc. If you are going to bribe people to have kids, you might need more!
“Ok. Then you just don’t see reality as it truly is.”
I’m outta here.
I take that back, maybe that was what Lucia was asking.
Still, there is no need to drop out of the conversation because Lucia thinks you’re wrong. I mean, yes, of course; Lucia is the center of everything and the earth quakes and the moon darkens and the sun does not give his light when she frowns upon us, but still.
Mark
I was not asking what happened with him and his wife. I am asking about what consequences someone is risking. “Risk” is a concept that only applies before things happen. So it applies when people are making decisions about the uncertain future.
I have no idea how to discuss what young women weigh when deciding what to prioritize in their life is someone wants to emphatically deny that dropping out of the work force or your career puts then at risk of economic insecurity and that risk is different from those present for a person who remains in the work force and stays on the career track.
If Russell can’t see that, there likely is not point he and I discussing the actual situation young women are in when making the decision between keeping a careers and being a stay at home mother. The fact that things work out for some couples who prosper, don’t divorce and so on doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk of divorce, death and any number of things for others.
He may not like that my view is he’s just not seeing reality, but only wants to see that things worked out for Connie, but it is my view he’s not seeing reality of young women’s situation. And obviously, if I can’t state my view then we can’t have a conversation either.
SteveF
I googled “Cost of raising a child”. The google AI gave an estimate”between $233,610 and $389,000, according to LendingTree and the USDA” It is an average.
More importantly to my curiosity, they list factors in the cost. I edited to just show expense categories.
Key Expense Categories:
Housing:
Food:
Childcare and Education:
Transportation:
Healthcare:
Other:This category includes clothing, entertainment, activities, and miscellaneous expenses
College Expenses: The cost of college is not included in these estimates and can add a substantial amount to the overall cost of raising a child.
Income forgone to stay home and raise kids is not included as a cost. That’s what I wondered about and it’s what I expected.
But I think if a country wants to bribe people to have kids, they need to consider income typically forgone by parents who pull back from the work force. This is a real factor; people making decisions know it.
I am skeptical about these cost of raising a child numbers. First, they are average spending. Of course, people with high incomes spend more, but that does not mean it actually costs that much.
But looking a bit deeper at the numbers, it gets downright weird. Wikipedia has numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_raising_a_child#United_States
$169K after tax spending through age 18 for a 2 parent family. The next table says that takes $235K pre-tax income for a marginal tax rate of 28%. That is for a family income of $80K. I don’t see how that can be right. For a family income of $180K, it says that requires a pre-tax income of $390K for a marginal tax rate of 57%. That can’t be right. And for a single parent family with an income of $108K the marginal tax rate appears to be 53%.
Maybe I screwed up the calculation, but I don’t see where.
Welcome to post woke America, Uber Liberal SNL with a jeans ad poking fun at the woke:
“Introducing Levi’s Wokes — sizeless, style-neutral, gender non-conforming denim for a generation that defies labels.”
https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0?si=coY6TC4v70GQdW69
Kids aren’t a mortgage. They may be a burden sometimes but they also make you laugh every single day of their existence, at least until they turn 13. You generally won’t be flying any kites again unless you have kids. This makes it worth it IMO.
Maybe they should have divorce insurance as well as life inusrance.
MikeM,
I agree that the fact that rich people spend more means that it must cost that much to raise children. Clearly, you can spend less. It does tell you something about how much people do spend. That’s relevant if you are trying to figure out how much the government would need to spend to bribe people to have children to avoid a demographic collapse.
I think it’s also difficult to break out how much someone spends “housing” their kid. If I were a single mom with one or two elementary or high school aged kids, I would definitely want at least two bedrooms. Rent on a two bedroom is more than for a one bedroom or studio. But how much of the rent is for the kids room? Plus, they do use the kitchen and living room. So how much am I spending on “them” vs “me”? That’s not even a real question– just an example of a question I would find difficult to answer.
Tom Scharf,
Divorce is an unhappy thing all around. It increases the expense associated with raising kids. It cuts into quality time for kids and parents. ( Commuting to exchange parent times is not “quality” time.) The parents often remain grumpy with each other and kids get trapped in that dynamic. Part of the reasons ex spouses and parents remain grumpy is there is no obviously fair answer for “how much alimony”? or “how much child support”? Default rules on both are going to have individual and societal consequences; these are going to affect individual decisions about marriage, having and rearing children. But getting a desired societal consequences isn’t the same as being “fair” to both parties.
Nor is there a fair answer for custody time– both parents should get “more” time if they want it. But there are only 168 hours in a week. Weekends are special relative to week days. And kids need stability and regularity.
Parents dating is a thorny issue on several levels.
Divorce is just not great for everyone. There is no fixing that. The problem is that sometimes remaining married is also not good and can be worse. So forbidding divorce isn’t a solution.
Trump taking over in DC…today on Truth:
“We’re having a News Conference tomorrow in the White House. I’m going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong. It’s all going to happen very fast, just like the Border. We went from millions pouring in, to ZERO in the last few months. This will be easier — Be prepared! There will be no “MR. NICE GUY.” We want our Capital BACK. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Russel,
Did SNL just make that skit? It is hilarious!!!!!
Gemini 2.5 Pro:
“As of Sunday, August 10, 2025, Apple has not yet officially announced the iPhone 16 Pro. Therefore, there is no official pricing available at this time.”
(MY QUERY): That is incorrect. The iphone 16 pro is already available.
GEMINI RESPONSE: Show thinking
Thank you for the correction. I have re-verified all available information, and I must respectfully clarify that as of today, Sunday, August 10, 2025, the iPhone 16 Pro has not been officially announced or released by Apple.
Apple has a very consistent and predictable release schedule that they have followed for over a decade:
Announcement: New iPhones are announced at a special event in early to mid-September.
Release: The phones are typically released to the public about 10 days after the announcement.
It is possible that you may be thinking of the iPhone 15 Pro, which was released in September 2023″
Ummmm, no. It’s confusing the iPhone 17 and iPhone 16 or something. Maybe it’s training data is just old and it can’t update its information quickly, but this product has been out for 10 months.
This is the same problem with academia expertise on some subjects like climate change. It’s confidently stating an error and it’s not possible to tell when it is hallucinating and when it is not.
Odd. When I asked I got this:
You can use the ‘deep research’ feature to make it actually go check, that usually helps.
Lucia,
“Russel, Did SNL just make that skit? It is hilarious!!!!!”
I first saw the video yesterday in a viral post from @TheLizVariant. It had 2.6 million views in 24 hours.
I was suspicious that it may be a fake so I traced it back to the original posting from SNL on Youtube and that is the link that I posted above on your site above. The metadata on YouTube says it was first viewed on Oct 1, 2017.
https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0?si=vMjQbScscQcBoXI7
Related, I follow @JenniferSey on X, and she had this to say about the viral post:
“The show used to be funny. This is almost ten years old. I was the chief marketing officer at Levi’s when they did this. I thought it was hilarious.
We made every member of the cast a pair of “Wokes.”
Jennifer founded and is CEO of an athletic apparel company that is dedicated to keeping men out of girl’s sports…XX-XY Athletics.
Her story in her own words:
https://www.xx-xyathletics.com/pages/our-founder?srsltid=AfmBOoqTUeVDdAhY-qQS2xq95LiFxCPWwEmDbrL3QCd22srvBRZp7CGH
They sell really cool gear:
https://www.xx-xyathletics.com/collections/womens
[ If one of the blonde models looks familiar, it’s Riley Gaines before she was pregnant]
If you want a much higher standard of living, fewer obligations, and fewer problems, then don’t have kids. OTOH, many people think offspring have inherent compensating value, in spite of the cost and hassles. I very much doubt people who choose to have children do so after consideration of the economics, and I doubt even reasonably generous financial incentives will change many minds. Financial incentives might increase the number of people who choose to have a second child after their first, or a third child after their second.
SteveF,
I don’t think people do an full economic analysis when they specifically have kids. But people do think about cost and they say the defer kids or have fewer due to that.
But I do think young women think about their economic future when deciding things like going to college, pursuing a career vs. planning to become a home maker.
Young women have always been encouraged to think about a financial future. It’s just a century or more ago, the main path to economic stability was to marry the “right” guy or to please wealthy parents enough that they took care of you.
Women still find better earners more attractive. And honestly, the traits that correlate positively with earning are themselves attractive– but women are attracted to money itself in men. Guys know this. But now, women do have a path to some economic security without a guy so they do avoid marrying into unhappy situations and also divorce rather than stay in situations they find horrible.
But the main thing is: they do think about $$ when making choices. I’m pretty sure men do too.
10:15 Eastern time and the Trump news conference on the DC takeover is about to start (it’s already 15 minutes late) . This might be fun to watch.
I believe this is called ‘Karma’:
“A Chinese navy ship collided with a Chinese Coast Guard cutter near Scarborough Shoal while chasing a Philippine patrol. The cutter was heavily damaged and left out of action.”
Video from the undamaged Philippine navy ship:
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1954857982426067129?s=61
Another and better view of the two Chinese ships crashing:
https://x.com/raffytima/status/1954869527080042791?s=61
Trump‘s press conference is starting now
The prompt was “What is the lowest price for an iphone 16 pro”
I tried their flash model and it seemed to be aware that it had been released. Grok was fully aware of the situation and had a much better answer.
I don’t know what went wrong here, but it’s answer including “As of August 10, 2025 …” was mega-bad.
It is another example that there is still some significant ground to cover here in both their models and the user’s trust in the answer. I was wondering if the models could be used for comparison shopping, nope! The generic answer of using cellular plans for discounts was accurate though.
Trump, the first ever acute ADHD President.
The chances of them greenlighting that woke jeans SNL skit today is pretty low but hopefully the tide has started to turn here. On a related topic the legacy media is now amplifying South Park criticism of Trump like it is something new. Where have they been? South Park has been brutalizing Trump for at least a decade. South Park dishes it out to all sides, the liberals won’t be happy for very long.
South Park’ Finds New Relevance Skewering the Trump Era
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/arts/television/south-park-episode-two-ice.html
‘South Park’ mocks Kristi Noem and the Trump …
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/08/media/south-park-ellison-paramount-trump-noem-parker-stone
Lucia,
One final thought on choosing to have children: having grandparents willing to help with care makes a huge difference in costs and complications. My older daughter had two kids (girl and boy). Starting from birth until now (6 and 3 YO) there have been two doting grandmothers who live close by, and who have shouldered most of the burden of daycare, and given my daughter and her husband frequent coverage for travel (both business travel and “get-aways”). I don’t think they have ever hired a babysitter, even for a restaurant dinner.
So in this case, the total costs have been relatively low compared to people who must have day care starting from infancy. I don’t know how exactly common grandparent help is, but I would be surprised if it is very uncommon.
Tom Scharf wrote: “Trump, the first ever acute ADHD President.”
Rubbish. Just because Trump would exhaust the Eveready Bunny does not mean he has ADHD.
Headline: “https://www.salon.com/2025/08/09/how-did-we-get-from-the-60s-to-trumps-kitsch-white-house/”
To ask the question is to answer it: lunatics on the left act like Trump (or anyone else who disagrees with the ‘progressive’ agenda!) is profoundly evil, while Trump is really just a politician, with limited power and influence.
There is no hope these folks will come to there senses; voters should make sure they never exercise power.
Steve,
No, never say never. Some will age out of it. Some eventually just wise up.
Most? Maybe I’d agree with you there. I think there’s a goodly number of people where there’s nothing to be done except wait for them to expire of old age and hope future generations will be more fortunate.
SteveF,
Grandparents help is obviously wonderful in many ways. I think how often it’s available varies from region to region. When I was in Richland, Wa, I’m pretty sure it was rare. Almost everyone in the ‘having kids’ age I knew had moved there from somewhere else. Their parents didn’t come with them .
Jim’s maternal grandmother visited to watch Jim regularly. His paternal grandmother had died when his father was a child. That family lived in Virginia in any case. So they wouldn’t have helped in Illinois.
From Tablet Magazine, on why liberals are adamantly opposed to Israel eliminating Hamas: They believe a fairy tail.
I think that is about right. They simply can’t believe anyone could possibly want, say, to murder jews because they are jews, or toss homosexuals from rooftops, or put someone to death for leaving Islam. As in most things, they are completely mistaken.
Steve,
That story caught my eye as well for the same reason. I have no way of knowing if its true (AFAICT) but it seemed to offer a comprehensible explanation of the progressive worldview.
Unfortunately, evil exists and is real. Not all cultures are equal, not by a long shot.
To progressives, Islam is indeed “just another religion. They’re all as bad as each other.”, but it’s also “oppressed”, a “minority” (in their backyard) and supported mostly by “brown people”, so it automatically gains acceptability and compatibility points vs christianity. They can fix it.
A grandfatherly tale.
When my oldest granddaughter was about three, I was visiting their house and we two were carrying on incessantly. My son said to me, in a somewhat pissed manner, you get to have all the fun of being a parent without having to shoulder any of the responsibilities.
That was true when she was three and it’s still true now that she’s 15.
Mark,
“ I will do some Gemini testing over Tor later, when I have time, to see if it behaves any differently when it has no clue who I am.”
did you ever do that? if you posted the results I missed it.
No life sort of jumped on me this week, I’ve been busier than heck and damnation. Still am. I may get to it next week.
Tonight is to be peak time for this year’s Perseid meteor shower. From Space.com:
“Don’t miss Perseid meteor shower 2025 peak Aug. 12-13: Here’s what you need to know”
https://www.space.com/stargazing/meteor-showers/dont-miss-perseid-meteor-shower-2025-peak-aug-12-13-heres-what-you-need-to-know
We will be fighting a bright moon. Moonrise in Florida is 10:23 PM so viewing before moonrise might be the best time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/usa/sarasota
Russell,
Mostly yeah. Of course. You also don’t have decision making authority.
You start to understand your own parents a little better when you have kids. I salute them for somehow not strangling me along the way in a moment of frustration.
You don’t understand why people actually need to be told “never shake a baby” until you are up at 3 am with a sick first child wailing away. Put them in their child seat and place them on a running washer! I remember putting them in a car and driving them around in the middle of the night. We bought a second hand wind up swing and that thing was magic.
No internet, just a copy of the book “what to expect”.
My mom finally convinced us that sometimes you just have to let them cry.
Tom,
All true in my experience
I was dumbfounded when we decided to have a second one
Anthony Blinken on “Recognizing a Palestinian State Is a Rebuke to Hamas”
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/recognizing-a-palestinian-state-is-a-rebuke-to-hamas-middle-east-gaza-ee687a6c?st=KDVyQb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Amid the suffering of Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages—and Israel’s announced plan to occupy all or part of the enclave—averting famine”
AI alert, AI alert! Ha ha. Warning: Once you see this you cannot unsee it.
‘-‘ = endash, a short dash present on keyboards.
‘—’ = emdash, a long dash not present on keyboards.
Allegedly AI uses the emdash frequently and it is an AI tell. In order to get an emdash from a keyboard you need to use Ctrl + Alt + – (minus key) and nobody does that. I was unaware this even existed.
I saw this on a YT video on how to detect AI written text so YMMV. I assume there are English majors out there that are fluent in the use of dashes but probably not very many that care enough to do keyboard ninja moves.
Lucia,
“You also don’t have decision making authority.”
Sort of like raising teenage boys. What a battle.
highlight from the farmers market today is the pineapple cording machine.
video:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1955295053775089939?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
mark bofill,
“..life sort of jumped on me this week, I’ve been busier than heck and damnation.”
Sounds like you are as busy as Trump at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. 😉
Welp, I have to log into a Google account apparently to access Gemini. So I can’t easily disprove the notion that the AI is gathering info on you.
I’m sure it is in the same way Google is, but I doubt it is going out of its way any more than Google already does. I really don’t think it is gathering this information to better pander to you verbally, I think its all about targeted advertising (which is similar, to be sure).
Shrug.
[Edit: Steve, yeah pretty much 🙂 ]
Gemini and Grok are both part of larger universes that are monetized. Both universes have been collecting personal information from us for years and using it to generate income. every time we ask it for information it collects more information on us. So maybe today we can’t prove that artificial intelligence is using our personal data for nefarious reasons. It doesn’t make me feel any better.
It’s spooky.
Tom Scharf
“‘-‘ = endash, a short dash present on keyboards.
‘—’ = emdash, a long dash not present on keyboards.
Allegedly AI uses the emdash frequently and it is an AI tell. In order to get an emdash from a keyboard you need to use Ctrl + Alt + – (minus key) and nobody does that. I was unaware this even existed.”
In MS Word if you use two endashes and then a space and a new word it automatically converts the endashes to an emdash so I don’t think this is a viable AI tell (since my initials are AK not AI).
…. another wild assed conspiracy theory with no basis in fact:
Maybe Putin is coming to Alaska because he’s planning to seek asylum.
Coincidentally, maybe Trump‘s personal fortune is about to double.
Or Trump is going to offer the return of Alaska if Putin withdraws from Ukraine.
John,
Welcome back! I hope your journey was good.
fruit of the day…. Black figs.
These are the first of the season, I think I’ll wait a while. Also, in the background, it’s still peach season.
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1955607662533775802?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
John,
Welcome back.
Trump talking to Putin is giving me the heebie-jeebies. Fortunately, I can easily compartmentalize things that I can’t control.
“A June survey from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found 52% of Ukrainians opposed to territorial concessions, with 38% willing to accept territorial losses as part of a peace deal.”
Those numbers have been holding steady for the last year.
I read the current tea leaves as Russia not being serious about ending the war, and Trump going down the road of supplying as many weapons as the EU is willing to pay for.
Tom Scharf,
“I read the current tea leaves as Russia not being serious about ending the war, and Trump going down the road of supplying as many weapons as the EU is willing to pay for.”
The second part is true for sure. If Putin thinks the Europeans are willing to spend a lot of money, then maybe that will change his calculus on negotiations. I think there is no way to know if Russia is ready to negotiate, but I agree that their demands for ‘conditions’ to start negotiations have in the past indicated they are not ready to negotiate.
I would not trust ANY poll taken in a country that is at war.
I think that Trump may be serious about using secondary sanctions to cut off Russian oil exports. Doing so will require that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states make up most of the shortfall. Unlike Biden, Trump has good relations with those states.
It’s possible Putin came to the table because of the threat to India importing Russian oil. It’s very hard to assess what is going on with Russia.
The EU is still importing Russian gas. I think a few eastern countries got excptions.
“About 13% of the EU’s gas imports are expected to come from Russia in 2025, compared to 45% in 2021. The EU aims to completely phase out Russian gas imports by 2028. “
Tom Scharf,
“The EU is still importing Russian gas.”
Of course. There is no seriousness to European efforts to restrict Russian petroleum exports.
The Europeans should be taking the lead in ending the war in Ukraine. Don’t worry, they are miles from that. More like a bizarre combination of “gimme my fossil fuels” and “Russia, you must stop being so terrible with Ukraine”. They are obviously not serious. “Joke” is probably a good word, although I can think of more suitable descriptions. (Assholes, jerks, and Idiots come to mind).
It looks like the Russia-Ukraine war will end up like the Korean War — no resolution, no treaty, only a long lasting ceasefire with territory still in dispute and the occasional flare up. Maybe in 20 years other political realities will prompt a change.
lucia
“Trump talking to Putin is giving me the heebie-jeebies. Fortunately, I can easily compartmentalize things that I can’t control.”
–
Now that is a talent I would love to have!
–
A plan for peace is possible if both sides are exhausted enough to comprise.
The Ukrainian border “states “ that Russia tried to annex could be Declared bilateral go zones under some sort of neutral control authority, Australian and Indian forces say.
30 year settling down period with voting at the end to decide if remain seperate, join Russia or join Ukraine.
Easy Peasy
angech,
“Easy Peasy”
Maybe for an aussie. We will see what happens in Alaska.
Can anyone explain, in English, how the Democrats are at their lowest popularity in decades yet somehow in the generic vote still beat the Republicans?
Totally confused.
–
Fingers crossed on Alaska.
Trumps options are multiple.
Massive Trade sanctions, oil sanctions, boosting armament sales to Europe to pass onto Zelensky.
Plus carrots of the opposite, AmericanRussian favoured nation status, space race collaboration and some recognition of the ports Russia stole.
Morale wise Russia needs to stop losing young men.
Trump is stepping in at a moment of maximum opportunity which he is programmed to exploit, hopefully with win win situations for all.
Putin is tough and committed and will play hardball but is very restricted in choice at the moment.
angech,
you don’t have to like who you are voting for if the basis of your vote is that he/she is better than the other guys.
I know. I’ve voted for pepople I couldn’t stand over the years hoping that if elected they would at most be ineffective.
angech,
The generic vote doesn’t mean much. It is the individual races that matter, and there gerrymanders (in nearly all states) insure there are very few competitive races (less than 25 out of 435). The Republicans are trying to write new gerrymanders in Texas and Florida to gain 5 to 8 likely-to-near-certain additional House seats on January 1, 2027. Absent those extra seats, Dems will likely gain control of the House by a handful of seats…. leading to investigations and impeachments, 24/7, for the remainder of Trump’s term in office.
Dems are screaming, of course… but they in fact have some of the most obviously gerrymandered districts in the states they control…. the complaints are mainly performative, not serious.
The king of gerrymanders, Gov Pritzker of Illinois, says Dem gerrymanders are perfectly OK because they are simply designed to keep Republicans out of power, while Republican gerrymanders are illegal because they are motivated by racism. I had to roll my eyes at that one. If he really believes that, he is a lot dumber than I thought he was.
angech wrote: “Can anyone explain, in English, how the Democrats are at their lowest popularity in decades yet somehow in the generic vote still beat the Republicans?”
A lot of Democrat voters are mad at their party for one or two of the following reasons.
(1) They are too extreme.
(2) They are not extreme enough.
(3) They screwed up and lost the election to Trump.
None of that means they are about to vote Republican, although (1) might lead some to vote Republican if their party does not fix it. They won’t.
At this point, sensible people are not thinking about the midterms. So the generic ballot likely just represents how people usually vote. For those voters whose minds might change, it is still too early to judge how Trump is doing.
If the economy goes in the tank, the Dems will win the midterms. But if the economy booms, Trump keeps making peace happen, and the border remains secure, then the Dems will need to do more than oppose everything Trump does. They won’t. So the Republicans might do very well in the midterms.
Angech,
Basically the same way Republicans were previously running badly in the likability polls and ended up with total control of the government. The short story is most people don’t like both parties and see politics as pretty scummy all around. They still prefer one set of clowns over the other set.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/24655/party-images.aspx
It is choosing between two turds on a table IMO, although I choose the red turd almost every time for … reasons.
I would hasten to add that there are almost always reversals in the midterm elections in the USA. It is quite arguable this is because the governing party has over promised and under delivered. Governing is hard.
Too much hype for the Alaska meeting and too much maximalist talk. It will be hard to get anything done. I hope they have security worked out.