SoylentNews

I apologize for being relatively inactive on SoylentNews since at least Oct 2018. I wrote a few scripts which allow me to inhale huge amounts of text via the wonders of text to speech. I've steadily increased the rate of speech and I currently have my computer read text to me at the rate of 440 words per minute; sometimes for 10 hours per day. I've peaked 0.5 million words per week. While text to speech is a terrible medium for absorbing numerical information, I have grazed quite broadly and followed many of the hyperlinks given on SoylentNews. Unfortunately, these are often collected via another script when I connect to the Internet at a local Internet café. Sometimes, this occurs weekly or less frequently. On occasion, I have fetched more than 3000 URLs. Unfortunately, my awareness of topical events often lags by two or more weeks. Delay plus thorough examination of references are major contributors to apparent lurking.

During this period, I have also followed fringe news websites, including some capitalists and the un-reconstructed Trotskyists. While I do not claim that sources are free from bias, it is curious to observe massive economic downturn described from opposing sides of a global economic system.

I do not have time to explain problems in detail or give citations. Regardless, the most optimistic economic predictions found among mainstream experts is that severe economic recession will occur by Dec 2021. Pessimists and people without an economic buffer are more likely to say that severe economic recession started at least three months ago. We only have to wait for the official figures to be collated, published and re-stated until we get an accurate assessment. Economic experts are also comparing the current economic charts to every economic downturn over the past century, including the 1929 stock market peak, the 1930s depression, the Second World War, 1970s stagflation, the Oct 1987 crash, the Dot Com boom, the Dot Com bust and the 2008 stock market crash.

The big stock market crashes usually occur in October but some think that it could be days away in September. The final straw could be a fourth round of Quantitive Easing [QE4]. With globally inter-connected supply chains and multiple central banks trying to keep floating fiat currencies in proportionate ratios, we may see every major currency become virtually worthless. I hope that I'm wrong but cash may decrease in value by 1/3 by Dec 2019. Ignoring this scenario, the global economy is completely screwed.

Vehicle sales in the US, India and China are all down. Almost every major US company is in trouble. That includes Apple, Boeing, FedEx, Ford, Netflix, Tesla and Uber who are collectively losing more than US$50 million per day. Elon Musk's ventures have received more than US$7 billion of direct and indirect subsidies from the US Government. US shale and fracking is an economic mirage which has skewed global data. Retail sales are down. Trucking is down. Shipping is down. Recycling is down. Smartphone sales peaked in 2016. Cinema tickets are down. Disney and Warner are defying industry trends. The Disney mega-mergers account for much of this success. However, Disney is also rushing through live-action re-makes of (almost) every musical cartoon rather than pacing themselves. Why? Musicals are very successful in a economic depression.

The average US farm is US$1.3 million in debt and food shortages have begun. Due to flooding in the US, 19 million acres of farmland didn't get planted. In China, more than 20% of pigs have been slaughtered to combat swine fever. The loss of animal protein from the global supply chain would feed the US for a year.

Homelessness in California exceeds 0.3 million people and is likely to accelerate. Opioid deaths have peaked but could be overtaken by deaths from measles, tuberculosis, typhus and bubonic plague. The world's second worst incident of Ebola hasn't been contained. Earthquakes around the "Ring Of Fire" are also unusually high.

National protests in France have been ongoing for more than 40 weeks. Protests in Hong Kong have been ongoing for more than 10 weeks. Expect these to become more widespread. Also expect telecommunications to be filtered, cut or filled with dis-information to hinder mass gatherings.

Decreased wealth, decreased purchasing and decreased shipping is causing a glut of oil. This is causing proxy battles involving the US, Russia, Europe (except Germany), Turkey, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran and Israel. Asia, which has become the workshop of the world is also squabbling. As sales decline, divisions are being drawn between South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China (with its honorary province, North Korea). India and Pakistan are also on the verge of war. Eight or more of these countries are declared nuclear powers and a treaty banning medium range missiles just expired.

Resource allocation (glut of oil, glut of metal, shortage of water, shortage of food) plus religious tension could lead to a world war with a starting position of China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan versus the world with Italy switching sides, France surrendering and Russia selling weapons to all sides. Minimum casualties from physical injury, mental trauma, disease and famine will be 3% of the global population. (250 million people.)

Global war could be deferred for up to two decades. Unfortunately, we'll only have a steep depression until war begins. Arguably, the global economy has been under-performing since the Dot Com bust and we may only be midway through the trend towards the historic mean. We've definitely been askew since the market wobble on Wed 28 Feb 2007, bank bail-outs and Quantitative Easing. Many of the worst financial practices of the past 20 years have been restarted. This includes flipping unprofitable tech companies and 100% mortgages with no proof of income.

National debt cannot be repaid. When one nation's debt reaches 85% of GDP, it is considered to be distressed. However, the sum of national debts is 320% of GDP and that excludes state debt, city debt and private debt. US$15 trillion of bonds have negative yield. Investors are guaranteed to lose money if they are redeemed in full. We also have negative yield junk bonds and Denmark is pioneering the negative rate mortgage. Yes, the debt owed decreases even if you miss a payment. Why would anyone lend on such terms? It is safer than stock market investment. As an example, the P/E ratio of the S&P 500 is 16.7 but, by 2026, the average duration of company listing is expected to be 14 years. 18 out of 20 criteria show similar poor value. On this basis, funding a negative rate mortgage in Denmark is a better investment. If debt is reset through hyper-inflation, a physical asset is a *much* better investment.

We're in a hole deeper than the 1930s depression - with much of the economic and political turmoil ahead. The global economy is completely primed to collapse. This time, it won't be Germans with wheelbarrows of worthless cash. It'll be Zimbabwe, Greece and Venezuela for everyone.

We're also living in a post-truth era where Jeffrey Epstein died in suspicious circumstances. With no obvious source of wealth or financial success, he spent decades collecting incriminating video of many rich and famous people; possibly on behalf of a nation state. As soon as DeepFakes made the archive worthless, he becomes a British establishment pedophile Arkancide. Unfortunately, this is only one example where authority is distrusted and justice is not served. Disputed facts leave us with fragmented politics, no easy answers and no uniting cause. Without the political consent of the population, national interests don't get defended and the chaos continues until it becomes untenable. Then we get a despot with a unifying message. Any message will do.

Predictions

• US stock market crash by Dec 2019.
• Global currency devaluation by Dec 2021.
• Netflix, Tesla and Uber cease trading by Dec 2021.
• Homelessness in California to exceed 0.5 million people.
• Two mass shootings in Switzerland by Dec 2021. In the US, 40 mass shootings in seven consecutive days by Dec 2021.
• James Howard Kunstler's Long Emergency scenario. Emergency services don't respond. Infrastructure degrades. Oil rigs explode, chemical refineries explode, oil pipelines explode, gas pipelines explode, power cuts, fatal aircraft crashes, bridges collapse, tower block fires. Pot holes don't get repaired.
• Citizen protests spread to another five countries. Police kill protesters in all of them. Protests continue.
• Multiple political assassinations. Not metaphorical. Mark Zuckerberg, Greta Thunberg and Andrew Windsor dead by Dec 2029.
• China invades Taiwan.
• Ebola in Europe.

THE ONLINE SILENCER MARKET IS BOOMING — JUST DON’T CALL IT A SILENCER

SD Tactical Arms calls them barrel shrouds. Hawk Innovative Tech says they’re solvent filters. Prepper’s Discount sells flashlight tubes. But with a few hours and a little elbow grease, all of these products become the same thing: gun silencers.

Silencers, otherwise known as suppressors, are among the most highly regulated gun accessories in the US. Under federal law, consumers must apply for a license to purchase them. The process involves paying a fee to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and submitting to extensive screening. It can take more than a year to get an answer. Americans eager to skip the wait, though, have a shortcut: tap one of the dozens of online retailers selling de facto suppressor parts and build their own.

Even a search for “solvent traps” on Amazon returns a page of unrelated items useful in silencer construction, such as automobile fuel filters. A spokesperson from Amazon refused to comment for this story, but emphasized that all the products sold on the site were legal.

[...] Bob Folkestad, the founder of a leading solvent trap retailer called Quiet Bore, told The Trace the ATF forced manufacturers like him into business. “It’s 450 dollars and a yearlong wait [to purchase a suppressor],” he said. “Buy a solvent trap, and you can be approved in two to four weeks.” Solvent traps are designed to collect cleaning fluid from the barrel of a gun, and amateur gunsmiths can easily convert them into suppressors.

Mod Virge Informatif. Much moreso than their PC builds.

30 Years Ago: Voyager 2's Historic Neptune Flyby

Thirty years ago, on August 25, 1989, NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft made a close flyby of Neptune, giving humanity its first close-up of our solar system’s eighth planet. Marking the end of the Voyager mission’s Grand Tour of the solar system’s four giant planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – that first was also a last: No other spacecraft has visited Neptune since.

The Solar System’s Loneliest Planets, Revisited

NASA’s nuclear rejuvenation could not arrive at a better time. To begin, there is no question that such a mission would revolutionize our understanding of the outer solar system, simply by virtue of voyaging there after three decades of further technological development and scientific discovery. What is more, in the late 2020s, the planets will be positioned so that a Neptune-bound spacecraft can get a gravity assist from Jupiter, picking up tremendous speed from swinging by the giant planet and shaving years off the travel time. Finally, a mission to Uranus needs to reach the world before 2050 in order to see its northern hemisphere for the first time. (When Voyager 2 flew past Uranus, only the planet’s southern hemisphere was illuminated.) “I’m hopeful because that puts a little bit more pressure on NASA,” says Mark Hofstadter, a planetary scientist at JPL. “But in the back of my mind, there’s a fear that if we miss it, I’m going to miss the boat.” Hofstadter is 56 years old and would therefore be in his mid-70s when—if—a mission reaches the ice giants in the late 2030s. To him and many other planetary scientists on the verge of retirement, an accepted mission would be bittersweet. “I like to joke that they’ll have to reserve a rocking chair and a drooling rag for me by the time we get there,” Hansen says.

This will be my final interaction with this site, which I have supported for several years. I even tried to lead a capital campaign to help support it barely a week ago, contributing a significant sum of my own money. It was a good attempt at an experiment.

Unfortunately, the past few days have reminded me that several of the admins and editors of this site have agendas that I disagree with. As I noted in previous journal entries, I strongly value civil discourse. I will admit that having perhaps a half dozen outbursts in my time here (usually when I was also under some personal stress), but none of us are infallible. Other than that, in my thousands of comments here, 99% of them have been trying to be productive, insightful, informative, and occasionally funny. I have never posted insincerely. I have never argued in bad faith. Once in a while, I will also admit to going a bit overboard in responding to a post that was acting like a jerk by acting a bit like a jerk in return, though I probably only went overboard to that extent a dozen times or so at most. Again, 99% of the time, I was trying to maintain a cool head and help promote better discussion on this site. My post history is there for all to see.

Several editors and admins here over time have questioned their commitment to civil discourse. Note that I have never advocated for getting rid of ACs or deleting comments or anything on that level. I believe in the idea of free speech, but I also believe that a community has a right to choose to listen to said speech or not. I believe moderation is intended to be a way to highlight to the community types of posts that are more likely to be valuable to the community, along with noting those that are disruptive as well as of low value to the community. As a recent thread has shown, there's a lot of disagreement in the community about the appropriate use of downmods, particularly (but not exclusively) the use of "troll" mods.

One takeaway I had from reading through the hundreds of comments on that thread is that there were several members of the community who used "troll" mods for things that aren't strictly trolling (according to some standard definitions), but they felt they had no other choices among the moderation options that fit the problematic quality of said posts. Quite a few of those posts were upmodded, many to +5, indicating that many in the community approved of these non-standard uses of certain downmods to address problematic posts. MartyB took a pragmatic and reasonable outlook in his first editorial commentary too -- calling some individual moderation decisions "small potatoes." I agree with him that no moderation will ever be perfect, and some people will always moderate in a way that other disapprove of. I've also argued in the past that individual moderation of individual comments should have less impact on community consensus of reputation (i.e., "karma"), particularly from one user directed repeated at another user. We seem to have solved that problem through occasional intervention with modbombs, but I think it's a larger problem that karma should truly be a reflection of community consensus from many users over time, while individual posts should be downmodded (or upmodded) at will for their quality, without a strong judgment that effectively is an "award" or "punishment" for behavior.

Janrinok was a notable dissenter in some of this early discussion, arguing that inappropriate use of moderation is a severe problem here and effectively viewing it as a sort of free speech issue. I sincerely disagree that it is anything like a free speech issue. Moderation reflects community consensus around posts. If we feel that a single mod is giving too much power in foregrounding or hiding some posts, then maybe we should consider expanding the range of post scores a bit. Janrinok seemingly doesn't get (or is willfully blind to) the fact that bad actors can overall lower our discourse here significantly, regardless of whether they meet some strict definition of "trolling" or whatever.

Janrinok the other day said:

If we cannot strive to meet the standards that we set ourselves 4 or 5 years ago then many will leave our community. One of the ways that we maintain standards is by having a moderation system that allows comments to be identified as being of good, or bad, quality.

We do NOT have moderations that allow comments to be identified as "bad." We have moderations that allow comments to be identified as "good," as well as punishment moderations that identify things that aren't really comments -- just games that trolls and such play. Actual comments that are "bad" -- like displaying factually incorrect information, or comments that are basically "non-responsive," or comments that clearly don't even understand an issue that's being discussed -- we have no way of downmodding those without using a questionably appropriate "punishment" mod. I'm not saying we should necessarily have such moderations as downmods. Maybe they should be neutral (like "disagree"). I don't have the answers. But we don't actually have effective ways of identifying bad comments, only disruptive interactions like spam and trolling that don't really even count as comments.

To be clear, I agree with Janrinok in that I don't want people to moderate solely based on difference of opinion. I do think it's right to downmod for several reasons I will outline below. Quoth Janrinok again:

If, however, that is what the community wants then we must be prepared to say goodbye to many of those who make valuable contributions to the discussions and, more importantly, are probably responsible for a significant part of the donations that we rely on to keep running.

Well, I'm leaving, because we aren't calling out the trolls ENOUGH. So take that as you will.

I know I'm not the only one because I spent much of the past week arguing with ACs and registered users on this site who feel that their voices are suppressed or that this site has been taken over politically. I defended this site, as I always had in the past, because I believed in the moral integrity at least of our site managers. However, I no longer believe that to be the case; hence my departure.

The Mighty Buzzard -- the other admin who was very active and vocal in the above-linked thread -- explicitly came out in favor of promoting hate-speech on this site. I know that "hate-speech" is a trigger word for some of you conservative folks, but (again) as I said above, I'm not arguing for any speech to be banned on this site. And I know that the term "hate-speech" is frequently used very broadly. But it is wrong to say, as TMB says, that "offense can only be taken, not given." There are things that civilized society understands are problematic within civil discourse. In the U.S., it is illegal to incite a riot. It does not fall under First Amendment speech protection to do so. One similar act in an internet forum is the type of speech that incites flamewars or otherwise disrupts discussion. I brought up the example of Jmorris (although I didn't name him), who commonly posts here both in insightful and trollish manners. But one thing he frequently does is to throw in some random anti-Semitic comment. This is not something one does in civil discourse. It's not intended to be funny. I'm not sure whether it's always serious or sometimes trolling, but it's just not productive to discussion here. It should be downmodded, regardless of any other contributions the comment makes. To not do so is like accepting a student in the class who volunteers to come up and work a problem on the board for everyone's benefit, but then urinates on the wall. You don't celebrate (or upmod) such behavior, regardless of how good his solution to the problem was.

And yet, TMB says it's not a problem. Maybe if such a comment gets to +5, we might consider modding it down as overrated, but otherwise an admin of our site is fine with high-scoring anti-Semitic comments here. In other comments, TMB made clear that he is also fine with high-scoring false information on this site. Yes, he argues that one way to combat false information is to provide correct information in reply. But he sees nothing wrong with that false information post continuing to have a high score.

Janrinok -- pay specific attention to that, because it is precisely what Azuma was trying to explain to you. That attitude is a "post-truth" attitude. It is an attitude where "all opinions should be heard," even when they are objectively and factually wrong. But it is a way that civil discourse is disrupted and ultimately destroyed as one cannot tell what is true and false anymore. We are living in a society where that breakdown is occurring -- whatever scores high in social media is what gets passed around as "truth." TMB wants that here as well. Furthermore, if such posts carry along a little extra negativity about the "Jews" or some other racial/ethnic/whatever slurs, no problem! As long as it a post says something of value, it deserves a high score in our community. We're supporting a bunch of jerks who just want to say something clever and then piss on the wall. Yes, that's what this site is.

You combine these things with an argumentation strategy that consists mostly of bluster -- just ignore any useful points or clarifications your opponents make, and steamroll through as if you are right, frequently acting calm while gradually pushing the edge to get people to accept more and more of your bullshit -- this is the strategy of self-identified trolls like Milo, who TMB supported in the past. Whether or not we want to use some sort of strict definition of "troll" that includes this stuff, it's a term that encompasses the behavior of people use self-consciously have used the word, like Milo. It's about a campaign of disinformation, of insincere argumentation, of getting people to accept bad actors as the norm, of pissing on the wall while objecting that you are a "good guy" for solving the problem on the board if anyone complains.

TMB has admittedly behaved himself a bit more in the past year or so, a trend which I have noted in the past. But when he comes out and says such things -- advocating pissing on the wall in this community as behavior that should be scored highly and not downmodded -- there needs to be swift and decisive action from the admins here. TMB is a liability to this site, specifically. In recent days, I've come to also question the behavior and opinions of other admins here too. I'd like to believe that the majority of editors and admins here are still acting with good faith, but with a known troll in your midst who is so prominent on this site, it is impossible to maintain integrity. I have come to realize that the ACs I fought this week to convince them of the values of this site, and even unhinged folks like Aristarchus, have a serious and legitimate point about the integrity of this site. As Azuma and others argued, the admins can't just ignore bad behavior from TMB and others in their midst, as well as the various occasional trolls here who are not admins -- they must call it out consistently and swiftly. And those who are granted privileges as admins, editors, etc. who cannot promote the integrity of this site need to be publicly called out and have privileges revoked, unless you want any user here to assume that their behavior is to be imitated and normalized on this site. (And it is not enough for TMB to say, "I don't have any say in what's posted" or whatever. He's one of the most prominent posters on this site and also everyone knows he's an admin of some sort -- his behavior needs to reflect the propriety of this site, if it retains any integrity anymore.)

I really did not intend this post to begin as a complaint primarily about TMB. Because he's only a small part of the problem. The problem here is the attitude that agrees with him, that doesn't value truth but instead is only about "winning" arguments, that encourages trolling and bad-faith posting on a whim, that says "meh" when disruptive and hateful speech is normalized. Once again, I am not arguing for censorship or deletion of posts. You have a right to say what you want. You do not, however, have the right to demand that others listen to you. As Acid Andy remarked insightfully on the "troll" mod thread linked above, I've seen very few troll mods on posts here that make legitimate arguments or state opinions in a respectful manner. (Perhaps the most insightful post among the hundreds there.) It's not about Emily Post fake etiquette, but it is about a culture of respect. This can be a place that enjoys an "off-color" joke occasionally without also promoting random anti-Semitic screeds. It can be a place that people can have sincere politicized disagreement without modding up false information. It can be a place that people assume good faith and try to respond with good faith, but also one that downmods those who act in bad faith or disrupt.

And sometimes those latter moderations can be wrong -- but listen to MartyB's original point above, as well as consider other ways to solve that moderation problem. Moderation should not be about reward or punishment: it should raise up the comments that are good for the community and lower those which are not useful to the community. That should be the intent, even if imperfect.

Lastly, I have severe concerns about the integrity of this site's governance. For years, as reflected in my posts, I have defended the integrity of process on this site. I do believe most admins and editors are likely acting in good faith. But my experience two days ago when I announced I was leaving created a rather disturbing situation. I do not feel it fair to leave this site without pointing out the potential danger to this community.

TMB posted one of his typical "ignore your points and just act like I'm correct and responded to you" posts, and admittedly I responded with a shouty and angry post. (That was also in response to some of his other posts referenced above.) I'm not proud of my reply, but I simply do not otherwise know how to react when an admin and prominent member of this community makes statements that so clearly go against what I believe about civil discourse. So, I wrote a journal post (not as long as this one) calling the other admins to action against TMB, to stand up to him. I also called out some of the stuff Janrinok said for criticism. I then declared I was leaving, and submitted my journal.

The next morning (yesterday), I woke up and just was curious to see the fallout, if any. I came to this site as an AC at first and tried to find the journal entry. It was gone. I logged in, and I still could not find it. I posted about it, because it was incredibly disturbing to me and a true affront to free-speech on this site. But I could see how after my attempt to run a sort of "pledge drive" last week, my financial and comment contributions, and my repeated defense of the integrity of this site... after all of that, a journal entry publicly announcing my departure due to severe problems with the admins of this site could be a public-relations problem. I never believed TMB or his allies would go so far, but there was the evidence in front of me.

I know that those reading this have to take my words on faith that I actually posted this journal, and it has been deleted. I know it's not TMB's usual modus operandi. I don't even know it was him. I just know that previously when I "took a break" from this site, I left for quite a while (and didn't even read comments), so maybe someone expected that I would do so this time and just wanted to get rid of the evidence. Now there's too many admins paying attention to this issue for something like that to transpire with this journal entry. (I hope.)

There are reasons why I specifically remember how I made this post and why I'm sure it was rightly submitted, which I've explained here. I don't have a screenshot or anything as corroborating evidence, but several things about this whole situation are weird (as I noted).

Some will brand me as a liar or conspiracy theorist or whatever for saying this. I know this. I'm just telling you, honestly, what I believe -- and that is that the integrity of this site is seriously breached and that I now believe it's possible many of the ACs (and even Aristarchus) who tried to tell me of the serious flaws in the management of this site are actually correct.

I leave this as a warning to the community. I encourage you all to seek out other forums and to leave this place, if you value integrity. Again, I can only offer my years of good comments and good behavior on this site as proof that I do NOT make such accusations lightly. Absent a serious audit and purge of some of the managers of this site, I see no other remedy.

I personally have also realized that my individual efforts are better directed at something productive online, rather than arguing about and rehashing divisive and polarized bullshit over and over. For years before I became active here, I contributed much more actively to a question-and-answer site online (which, notably, has much more successful moderation than here, though it's a bit more draconian, if entirely community-enforced). Yesterday, after alerting the community here of the breach of ethics, I spent a few hours there answering questions to help people who needed help. For the first time in a while, I actually felt good about my online activity. There are a lot of bright people here: I encourage you to consider devoting your energy to projects that will advance knowledge, value facts, try to understand others' positions rather than "win" arguments, and promote civil discourse in the world. The only way to save the world from the trolls is to adopt positive values such as these (which may not be an exhaustive list, but it's a good start).

I hope you all have nice lives. Farewell.

Speculation: No operating system can have a version number higher than 10.

It started with Apple Mac OS X.

Next Microsoft Windows 10. Version 10 seems perpetual. It seems there will be no Windows 11. So why not just rename it: Microsoft Windows OS X ?

Next . . . Google deserts desserts: Android 10 is the official name for Android Q

Google has officially named the next version of Android, which is due to be released this fall: Android 10. Breaking the 10-year history of naming releases after desserts, the company is bailing on providing a codename beginning with a subsequent letter of the alphabet (in this case, Q), which is the way we’ve been referring to Android up to now. This year is Android 10, next year will be Android 11, and so on.

So maybe there will be an Android 11 ?

But then, there is Linux. To complicate things, Android is built on top of Linux.

The kernel isn't past version 10. Yet. Some distributions are well past version ten.

What about other OSes? MS-DOS didn't make it past six? What about the mainframe or minicomputer era?

Maybe older systems don't count. Maybe the trend toward X is a recent 21st century thing since Apple's Mac OS X and the need to identify with it.

(now back to the study of incandescent transistors!)

Intel goes on the defensive against AMD at Gamescom

Intel has been talking up its processors at Gamescom 2019, hosting an event where it admits that AMD, its chief rival, has “done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs.”

If that sounds a little defensive to you, we agree. We were at the event in Cologne, Germany, and there was a bit of a feeling that Intel wanted to remind everyone that while AMD has been getting a lot of positive news lately thanks to its new Ryzen 3000 series of processors, when it comes to gaming, Intel still has the best processors.

At the event, Intel’s Troy Severson said that “when we introduced the i9 9900K… it was dubbed the fastest gaming CPU in the world. And I can honestly say nothing’s changed. It’s still the fastest gaming CPU in the world.”

And the finisher:

Holding an event to essentially say that ‘nothing’s changed’ and ‘we’re still the best’ felt a little odd, and we (and many others) left feeling that Intel was a bit rattled by AMD’s recent success. At one point, it even talked about how it was sending anthropologists to live with gamers to study their habits – which doesn't sound like a job we'd fancy doing.

America’s federal deficit will expand by about $800 billion more than previously expected over 10 years, primarily because of two legislative packages approved this year, pushing the nation further into levels of debt unseen since the end of World War II, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The CBO also said that the impact of higher trade barriers, primarily President Trump’s trade war, could hurt economic growth amid widespread fears of a recession.

The United States was already expected to hit about $1 trillion in annual deficits next year, an unusually high number, particularly given that deficits normally contract during sustained periods of economic growth.

U.S. deficit to expand by about $800 billion more than previously expected over 10 years, CBO says

Aug. 13: SpaceX settles on Friday for Starhopper’s next flight test milestone, FAA permitting

Aug. 15: SpaceX’s next Starhopper flight needs more analysis for FAA go-ahead, says Elon Musk

Aug. 20: SpaceX’s next major Starhopper flight test still awaiting FAA approval, says Elon Musk

News of the next hop test’s additional delays comes some four days before Elon Musk had planned to present an updated overview of Starship and Super Heavy in Boca Chica, Texas, and it seems that both events may have to wait.

[...] According to Musk, either or both of those orbital-class prototypes could be ready for their inaugural flight tests as early as mid-September, perhaps just 1-2 months from now. Given that Starships Mk1 and Mk2 are significantly higher fidelity than Starhopper, the ungainly testbed will likely become redundant the moment that its successors are ready for flight. In other words, Starhopper is fast approaching the end of its useful life, and SpaceX’s fight for a 200m hop-test permit could ultimately be a waste of time, effort, and money if said permit doesn’t also cover Starship Mk1.

Very annoying, but hopefully the presentation on the 24th goes ahead anyway. That will be more interesting than a second hop.

There are a lot of topics that could be addressed, such as the current plan for heat shield(s), amount of engines that will be used (at least initially) on the spaceship and the booster, the type of engines (sea level, vacuum), and updated figures for tons of cargo to LEO, as well as other destinations without an in-orbit refuel. How many tons can it get to geostationary orbit without a refuel (cheaper, less complicated)?

I've seen so many stories posted here and elsewhere in the past couple years about the new beef alternatives like the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger. I've heard the Beyond Burger is less meat-like, so I've waited to hear of an easy way to try the Impossible Burger. With Burger King making a big launch of it earlier this month, I finally decided to give it a shot today.

I ordered the Impossible Whopper, and (because I don't really know that I could remember what a regular Whopper tasted like) I ordered a regular Whopper beside it for comparison. I've read a lot of reviews, and I was interested in trying the Impossible Burger as many reviews claim it's enough like real meat that you might eat one unknowingly and not realize it wasn't meat.

Let me also clarify that I don't eat a lot of burgers (maybe once or twice per month), but when I do, I like real beefy burgers. I almost never order them out, because I'm almost always disappointed. I'm the guy who has experimented with grinding his own meat and blending different cuts together to make a better burger. I usually don't go to that trouble, but I do like grinding fresh to my liking and cooking real beef. I prepare burgers generally with a minimum of spices and filler to let the meat flavor come through. I know what real beef tastes like in a burger.

And the Impossible Whopper tastes nothing like real meat. It wouldn't fool me for a second. Now, I'll grant you that the actual "regular" Whopper also barely tastes like real meat to me, but it's still quite recognizable as a variant on those awful frozen burgers that family member you don't like buys a giant box of and feeds you on the Fourth of July or whatever. (Everybody knows those cheap frozen burgers, right?)

What does the Impossible Whopper taste like? I don't know, but it definitely has a sort of "essence of veggie burger" quality about it. Don't get me wrong: I actually like veggie burgers sometimes and occasionally order black bean burgers too. I have nothing against the veggie burger. Nor do I have anything against vegetarians -- I don't eat meat a lot of days and occasionally go for weeks or longer without eating significant meat (sometimes only used in small quantities for flavor or something). But the Impossible Whopper tastes like a veggie burger. Texture is more meat-like, I suppose, and it had a nice char (which is difficult on some kinds of veggie burgers), but the flavor was unmistakably "not meat."

Here's the weirdest thing I noticed, though -- I expected the loads of toppings on a Whopper to hide the taste of the burger. (Some reviews I've read said this explicitly.) But I found the best "meat-like" bites I had from the burger were when I tasted the patty by itself. Some of it was the char on some bits, but somehow the burger by itself -- while still not quite "meat" -- tasted much more "neutral" and less "veggie" when I tasted it by itself. When combined with all the rest of the toppings though, for some reason the flavor immediately screamed out to me as "does NOT taste like beef!"

There's no way I'd mistake this for beef, and there's no way if someone handed me a burger that tasted like this, I'd just assume it was beef. Maybe, just maybe, I could buy the idea that this was someone's strange excessive spice/additive concoction that transformed a beef patty into something that tasted less meaty, but there is something unmistakably "off" about the Impossible Burger.

I'm not saying I didn't like it, mind you. I'm saying it didn't taste like meat. The actual "regular" Whopper patty was relatively flavorless, so I wouldn't rate that high either. And if you asked me to choose which one had the better flavor, I'd have to say it was pretty close to a toss-up (with the "real" one barely winning out) -- but that's because I actually don't mind eating the occasional veggie burger and don't mind the "off" flavor.

What I'm struggling to understand is the market for this stuff. I've had other types of veggie burgers I've liked at least as much as this burger -- they're less meat-like in texture and flavor, but they have good flavor too. But most people I know who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons likely won't step foot into a Burger King, because of its huge connection to factory farms and meat/beef (which is environmentally costly), even if Burger King could grill the burger separately. And the other people I know who eat veggie burgers and such on occasion usually do so for health reasons to avoid so much red meat, but the Impossible Burger has nutritional facts that basically make it as "bad for you" as a typical fast food burger, along with some questionable new additives that are barely FDA approved.

Who is eating this thing? Why? For those people who may have had an Impossible Burger experience better than I am likely to have had at Burger King, would you suggest that I try it elsewhere? Or do you agree with this assessment?