HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bernardo de La Paz » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »

Bernardo de La Paz

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 43,507

About Me

Canadian who lived for many years in Northern California and left a bit of my heart there.

Journal Archives

In 60s they went to New Math. Later they went back, then in 2000s, new new math. Now backlash again


The backlash is the same old nonsense.

You can't create the STEM students of universities with all the modern viewpoint on mathematics that they need to make their way in the world of reality, without a solid BROAD foundation of mathematics from Grade 1.

Further, business people and psychologists and early childhood educators all benefit from the CONCEPTS that come from a broad introduction to math from early grades. Mathematics is not as much about calculation as the masses think. Math is about processes and descriptions and reasoning and extrapolation and planning.

All toddlers are scientists exploring the world until they get the shit beaten out of them by the math-o-phobes who can't stand the competition.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sun Nov 27, 2022, 07:54 AM (0 replies)

The number of dyslectic people is much smaller than the socially-supported mathophobes


Children are taught from a young age by parents and friends that math-illiteracy is okay. "Oh, that's okay dear. I never was good at math either". But they don't say, "Oh, that's okay dear. I never was good at reading either."

Kids pick up on this. They know what they can get away with. Social acceptance of math-illiteracy needs to change to be the same low as social acceptance of reading and writing illiteracy.

There needs to be sympathy and support for those truly having difficulties akin to or caused by dyslexia. But there equally needs to be social disapproval for those shunning math for no good reason.

Note on terminology: it's not "innumeracy" because numbers are a small part of mathematics.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sun Nov 27, 2022, 07:40 AM (1 replies)

Exactly. He's been hurt for a long time; meth & religion is latest phase (years long phase)


But I don't really know, do I? Especially at this point. And I'm unlikely to have much further interest in the manly man.

I don't know how he was hurt, perhaps by his parents, the point being that it is passed down through generations. He passed it on down to his son, who last year terrorized his mother. So I suspect he was hurt before his son was born.

The meth is deeply symptomatic of self-medication and impulse joy-seeking (unable to postpone gratification). Hence him saying "I said to him 'Violence works. It gets immediate results'". People with injuries more or less along the psychopathic or narcissistic (unempathic) spectrum/axis are like that.

When violence is passed down psychologically to children it is a form of injury. As if a parent broke a kid's ankle and forced them to walk on it until it healed mangled and pointing to the side.

Whether it is an injury inflicted on a person, or congenital (in the brain), the person needs help coping, at least, and maybe remissive treatment if applicable. Whoever they are. So that these psychological injuries are not passed on down to progeny.

But Republicans, and the meth-addled dad is proudly claiming place in the Republiconned, the Republiconners are 100% opposed to taxpaid healing.

IANAP. I am not a psychologist. But I think the perspective is consistent.
Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Thu Nov 24, 2022, 11:57 AM (0 replies)

Means to me DoJ is protecting ONGOING investigation of tRump


If there are sources and evidence of crimes by tRump or tRumpkissers, it will NOT be released while there is an ongoing investigation.

We know that there is an ongoing investigation of tRump for several reasons, not the least of which is the appointment of the Special Counsel and Garland actively suing in court to lift restriction on his ongoing investigation of the tRump document crimes.



If there are not sources and evidence in the redacted portions, then releasing/unredacting would greatly benefit Garland, the Department of Justice, and Mueller.

In that situation, it would enhance the Department of Justice's reputation for being fair and honest and clean because it would make Barr look either stupid or malevolent. Barr is tRump's appointment. It's on tRump, not on the Department that they had Barr catapulted in to flatten the whole thing. Garland has no motive to protect Barr. Protecting Barr sullies the Department because, as a thinking man with experience, Garland knows that truth comes out.

If they were going to release/unredact, they would have done much more much earlier in Garland's tenure. They would have simply said, "the former AG made a determination about the legality of indictment of a sitting president. Regardless, Mr. Trump is no longer president and that determination is no longer applicable. Thus we are releasing today ...." whatever it is.

But they haven't.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Nov 19, 2022, 01:48 PM (1 replies)

Garland undoubtedly has determined, but would not say if he has. He has not said tRump is cleared


Garland has not said that tRump is not being investigated any more. That is very significant.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence with regard to the link you request. Absence of link does not make its existence impossible. Garland's DoJ is one of the most tight-lipped DoJs ever.

Especially when Mueller's report remains redacted (mostly likely due to ongoing investigation).

Especially when Garland has actually appointed a Special Counsel.

Especially when the statements clearly alluded to the fake elector scheme tRump is entangled in.

Especially when Garland is currently actively suing in court to lift the restrictions on investigation of the tRump document crimes.

Especially when Garland explicitly refused to rule out tRump:

Merrick Garland does not rule out charging Trump and others in January 6 probe
By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Published 4:40 PM EDT, Tue July 26, 2022

Attorney General Merrick Garland has declined to rule out prosecuting former President Donald Trump and others for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol or attempting to interfere with the presidential election.

“We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone – anyone – who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable,” Garland told NBC News’ Lester Holt in a taped interview that ran in part Tuesday on MSNBC. “That is what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”

[...]

Pressed by Holt on whether a 2024 White House bid from Trump would change that, Garland maintained: “I will say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”


All of this points to intent to indict, one way or another.

I am confident Jack Smith will indict tRump for more than one crime.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Nov 19, 2022, 01:30 PM (0 replies)

Sure. Emphasis on "seems". But I think it is other than "shielding from Fox and hysterics"


I say time will tell, but a hypothesis (and that is all that Pierce and you and I have -- hypotheses) is that considering what is left after the passage of time is important to Garland. And I'm not referring to reputation.

I think that Garland and Biden are such honorable persons that they are taking the time to do the right thing and taking the slings and arrows while being patient. I think they may have (my hypothesis) the long view that I try to find and retain.

Now, and before, a powerful case can be made for moving indictments forward at breakneck speed, given that democracy remains in peril, even if Pelosi's leadership has reduced that level of peril on multiple occasions.

But while not quite being burn the village to save it there would leave too much smoke in the air.

I think the slow but RELENTLESS approach is what is needed. Tightening the vise crushing the authoritarians without letup and no escape.

Democracy is best defended by very deliberate and carefully considered systems, techniques and approaches, like the US Constitution was and is. It has lasted because the writers and signers spent a lot of time and effort leading up to and during the process. They were very deliberate about what they did. They "deliberated" a lot, literally. They did not write it before the Declaration or even a year or two after. And yes there were an attempt or two at prior documents.

The counter to the case for haste in indictments is that success rates count.

The more convictions there are the better. And the greater the ratio of convictions to indictments the better. Ultimately indictments don't matter once they begin to be processed. It's the outcome that is the true measure.

Democracy will endure longer the stronger it is built and that includes the hard work of maintaining it by convicting plotters, insurrectionists, corrupt politicians, careless idiots, and fascists alike.

The Special Counsel and especially THIS Special Counsel insulate the process to a great degree from the falsification by Republicans about the motives, facts, and law. It is further evidence that Biden and Garland want to rivet shut an airtight case so that the corrosive effects of the tRump era and the runup to it are fully reversed and thereby prevented for a very long time.

When future civics and history teachers explain to classes, it will be crystal clear if all the facts and law have been tested multiple times in court and found true and correct, without smoke in the air.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Nov 19, 2022, 10:06 AM (2 replies)

Fitzmas avoidance does not require multiple wet blanket cannons


Those of us who don't let our hopes shoot up in a frenzy also don't try to infect others with depression.

Let things play out.

Unless you are involved or have inside info. But if that were the case, you wouldn't be looking for sparks of hope to step on. You wouldn't be talking. Not with Garland's DoJ.

We get that you are cynical. So are we. We've been around this block more than once. We get that you are realists. So are we. Which is why we avoid the depths of cynical lows along with the unstable pinnacles of aspiration and desire.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Nov 19, 2022, 09:15 AM (72 replies)

The tech stack won't blow up or implode. The social stack at Twitter is crumbling


Musk knows tech. He can keep that going.

The Mollusk does not know social engineering or mores or enough about morality and democracy. He has authoritarian tendencies ("Give me ten screen shots of hardcore coding and I'll let you work 12 hour days", suggesting Ukraine should cede territory for peace, etc.).

He has broken the social contract that allowed ALL kinds of people to interact with at least a modicum of civility in the "town square".

He won't be able to repair the social stack at Twitter because he doesn't realize how badly he has broken it. It was his objective to break it and remake it. He can remake it in the image of a cruel goon filled anarchy, but that won't bring back the masses or the advertisers. He won't be able to remake the old Twitter social contract.

Good thing he paid top dollar and will lose billions on it. His other companies are losing value as he wastes time at Twitter and reveals just how unstable he is. He could get forced out of Tesla, for example, which has lost half its value since Egoloon made a play for Twitter.



Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Nov 19, 2022, 06:26 AM (3 replies)

Unlike Twitter, Tesla and SpaceX are tech. Twitter is social. It's tech platform is no big deal


Yes, it would take a lot of money to replicate Twitter's software, hardware and network from scratch, say a billion. But not $44 billion.

What gives Twitter value is the social environment that it created that nurtures Engagement with a capital E.

Twitter sells eyeballs to advertisers. That's why the product (you) doesn't have to pay for the privilege of giving them data that their customers (advertisers) rely on.

The mangling mollusk missed that point because he is a nerd (of finance and tech). He can actually be productive for tech companies.

Productive for eyeball vendors? Not so much.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Fri Nov 18, 2022, 01:29 PM (0 replies)

Re Twitter: Ancient wisdom (1975) about human side from a software manager


I remembered this, thinking about Musk's demand for Herculean efforts from abused workers.

What is happening is he is slashing his workforce to a half or a quarter of what it was, while driving his primary customers away (advertisers).

How to get his customers back? Keep eyeballs engaged reading/watching tweets.

Problem: Egoloon can only keep his high traffic numbers while he is the center of attention.

Solution: Create fascinating engaging interactivity.

Problem: Many have tried with great resources. (Is Meta a success yet?)

Solution: Create many attempts and throw them against the wall like ketchup at merd-a-loco and see what sticks. Since he has broken the social trust on Twitter, it is all he has left to do and it's a nerdy thing to do.

Problem: Musk will soon find he has to suddenly hire more workers, more engineers or hire back at enormous cost.



Result? It won't work, even if he is able to hire/rehire masses of engineers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's_law

Brooks' law is an observation about software project management according to which adding manpower to software project that is behind schedule delays it even longer.[1][2] It was coined by Fred Brooks in his 1975 book The Mythical Man-Month. According to Brooks, under certain conditions, an incremental person when added to a project makes it take more, not less time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

Brooks wrote the book, in 1975.
I bought it and read it decades ago.
It has wisdom.

I memorize the law as "To make a late project later, add people."

1. People take time to get up to speed on a project they haven't seen before or on their own project after it has been mangled by a mollusk.

2. Inter-communication and meetings and decision making multiplies at a greater rate than the rate of adding people.

3. Adding more people to a highly divisible task, such as cleaning rooms in a hotel, decreases the overall task duration (up to the point where additional workers get in each other's way). However, other tasks including many specialties in software projects are less divisible; Brooks points out this limited divisibility with another example: while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".


Musk broke Twitter's social contract so that he could forge a new one. But he has limited time and there are, before, now, and later, many funded and eager competitors, some of them open systems.

I think he will fail.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Fri Nov 18, 2022, 12:49 PM (5 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »