Today in the best worst ideas ever:

Yeah, the electric meat pudding-
wait, do you not call it that?

Hey, who doesn't love some existential dread? So, couple of things. Computers will soon be able to read our minds soon be able to read our minds, and we might experience some heretofore undescribed form of consciousness just before we die. Which do you want first? Telepathic AI? Great. So just in case you thought you could shield the location of the human resistance or just pretend to serve our cruel robot overlords, along comes the technology to pluck our deepest secrets from the electric meat pudding we call our human brains. 

Good news, researchers are also working
on liquid metal robots. So we'll have
 that to look forward to as well.

Of course, this is science, so we're going to walk that back a bit. Computers aren't reading our minds so much as they are being used by researchers in conjunction with an MRI machine to analyze and interpret the electrical signals in our brains. And rather than sentient AI's using the technology to rule humanity with an iron, or more likely memetic polyalloy, the useful applications include things like diagnosing and treating mental illness and helping people who are unable to speak communicate. 

Because science is actually quite
complicated and nuanced despite what
this dumb idiot would have you believe.

But before you get too comfortable, just know that AI is involved. Decoding the signals into something intelligible is apparently super-complicated, because of course it is. It's mind-reading. But in order to parse the information into something like speech the researchers from he University of Texas, Austin, use a form of the same technology behind ChatGPT. And while I for one welcome our machine overlords and their benevolent, Asmovian rule, the scientists admit that it could be misused.

Which, I mean, sure. At the moment you need to be hooked into an MRI machine, but who knows where this will be in thirty or forty years time? Remember the first cell phones?

Above: Inventor Martin Cooper, seen here with an example of how doomed we are.

It's basically Flatliners with fewer
ethical issues and no Kevin Bacon.

Ok so file that away and turn your attention to what the brain experiences just before death. Some dying patients who were hooked up to EEG machines by researchers from the University of Michigan. Don't worry, this isn't hospice nurses just screwing around, this was all done with the families' permission, which I guess makes it better? Anyway, when the terminal patients were removed from life support, the EEG in a couple of them registers activity similar to conscious thought, begging the question: whaaa...?

Huh, all that and they could have just
read this billboard. Pfft...science...

The afterlife? Random impulses before the unknowable nothingness sets in? Who can say? It didn't happen with everyone. Of the four patients studied, only two of them registered on the machine. Jim Borjigin, who was in charge of the study, speculated that this might be the brain remembering things. Like life flashing before one's eyes? But obviously there's no way to know. Or is there? Yeah, are you thinking what I'm thinking? That the researchers from Austin and the ones from Michigan should maybe sit down and have a chat?

Or maybe that's the worst idea. Maybe the last thing we need is an instance of ChatbotGPT plugged into an EEG, hooked up to a dying person typing out "there is no God!" or worse yet, "there is a God and you're in deep trouble..." 

Of course, this shot of a naturally occurring ice dick taken by photographer Kenneth Pretty
of--I kid you not--Dildo, Newfoundland, points to at least the possibility of some cosmic
intelligence with sense of humor. Oh, and the alarming increase in the loss of arctic ice. 

Today in better ways to spend $30 million:

I mean, hurray? I don't know how I feel about this. Huh? What do you mean "about what?" About this, this kid, the youth, this zoomer who's come up with a gun with built-in fingerprint and facial recognition sensors so that it will only work for the owner. So a safer gun. Ish.

Although it still fires bullets so safer is relative.

Above: Kloepfer's science fair entry,
which, I mean, only in America, right?

First of all, gun safety is laudable and on that count, good on Kai Kloepferl. A 26 year old native Arizonan, Kloepfer was inspired/terrified by the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting to design a safer gun. And, I mean, ok, we'll come back to that point in a minute, but let's leave it there: Kloepfer was affected by a local shooting and entered a prototype finger-print gun into his school science fair. Wow, this is a dark timeline, isn't it? Anyway, he later won recognition for his engineering skill, and now his idea is the basis of his startup called Biofire and he's got thirty million dollars in venture capitalist funding.

"Who's got a brilliant idea I can exploit?"

-venture capitalists

And you know how I feel about startups. So the--oh, you don't? I'm ambivalent about them. Mostly because I don't understand them, but also because they just feel like billionaires gambling with terrifying sums of money. Like, they blink into existence, people are made temporarily rich and then the companies just disappear or get bought up by Google or whatever. I live in the land of startups, and it just seems like the people who get involved in them are always looking for a new job. Look, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but the point is Biofire.

The facial recognition sensor is in the
back, so at least the user has to point it 
away from their face. Because safety!

Alright, so Koepler, in the interview with NPR, admits that the weapon only combats a very specific unsafe gun situation: that is, unauthorized people using the gun. A kid who found their parent's gun wouldn't be able to fire it. And that's good. But I can't get away from the idea that maybe not having a gun in the first place would be better? The Aurora movie theater shooter wasn't an unauthorized gun owner. He just bought those guns legally because America has absurdly lax laws when it comes to firearms. Well-regulated militias, or something. 

Here, here are some kittens.

I appreciate that Koepler is trying to do something, anything to reduce the number of Americans who die because of this ridiculous hobby every year. But while some people might end up buying Biofire's guns, the technology probably won't be required in all guns and even if it were there are still more guns than Americans out there. We live in a country where a family asked a neighbor to stop firing off his guns because their baby was trying to sleep, and he murdered them. So I guess I just don't have a lot of faith that this is anything more than a very small step.

I looked it up and it sounds like the NRA spends something like three to five million a year on lobbying. Which is way less than I thought and I realize that there are other gun lobbyist groups out there, but five million? The Brady Campaign keeps track of how much senators take from the NRA, and thirty million would buy off a lot of them. Probably a Supreme Court Justice or two as well. I'm no venture capitalist, but better gun laws feel like a way better investment if the goal here is to prevent shootings.*

Oh don't look at me like that. You're only mad that you got caught...

*Yeah, I know it's not. Capitalism, venture or otherwise doesn't work that way. I'm just trying to make a point.

Department of Agro-culture

You know, for a culture that places such a high value on rugged individuality, toughness, and routin'-tootin'-ness, Texas seems to be full of delicate sensibilities. I realize this is a broad statement, and there's nothing wrong with being delicate, but I'm specifically calling out the Texas Department of Agriculture who handed down a new dress code for their employees that requires workers to dress "In a manner consistent with their biological gender." 

Pictured: the State of Texas fainting onto a divan because trans people.

"Excuse me! Don't worry, I'm not sick.
Someone just mentioned evolution."

-Republicans

Biological gender. Biological gender? I'm not an expert, but no, just no. Like, whoever wrote this policy should have looked it up first. It's not hard. Here's a link to wikipedia. It took me like three seconds. Gender is a social construct, but I'm going to let that go for the moment because Texas is run by Republicans and Republicans are allergic to facts that clash with their delicate worldview. Shit, there's that word again. 

"Something I don't understand and that has
 no negative impact on my life? Ban it, ban
it now! Quickly, before I have to think!"

-Also Republicans

Evidently, should employees fail to dress in a manner...blah blah blah, they can be fired. And that feels super unconstitutional, but that's probably just because it's super unconstitutional. Obviously the ACLU is all over this, but I want to know why. Why the dress code that is. I mean, we know why. They, right-wing goons that is, are terrified of things they don't understand so they attack and come up with policies and pass laws to intimidate people. And for whatever reason the idea that some people are born with a gender identity contrary to their biological sex absolutely sets their world on fire. 

Above: Texas Gov. Gregg Abbot explaining
why the state inspecting your kids' genitals
when they play sports is for their own safety.

It wasn't that there was a rash of cis-gendered people showing up to work at the Department of Agriculture in drag, although I fail to see why that would be an issue either. It's that the powers that be either don't understand, don't like, or just outright fear trans people. Probably all three. It's the same reason the Montana House has barred trans lawmaker Zooey Zephyr, and why the GOP is working itself into a rabid foam tizzy passing as many anti-trans laws as it can. They're cowards. Pickup truck driving, gun-toting, stetson hat wearing, cowards. 

I'm just saying that a doctor who saw you for four
minutes, at birth, maybe shouldn't determine
how you should dress and act your entire life.

Oh, and as for the "biological gender" thing, most anti-trans legislation Republicans pass for the children, or whatever, use something along the lines of "sex as assigned at birth." It's what they mean when they say "biological gender," but it's still dumb. Sex as assigned at birth is just that. The doctor looks at the genitals and slaps a pink or blue hat on the baby. But science, however the State of Texas feels about it, is a thing and it tells us that it's more complicated than that.

Not all heroes wear capes. Of course, 
school boards would probably loose their
minds figuring out the gender of capes.

Sometimes the sex organs can be ambiguous, chromosomes might not fall neatly into XX or XY, and, as mentioned before, a certain percentage of the population will simply not be the gender they were assigned. Or any at all. Again, I'm not an expert on these things, so I'll stop there and not innumerate the many ways and reasons Gregg Abbot, The Texas Department of Agriculture, Ron DeSantis (yeah, him too), the Montana legislature, the Republican Party, and every shitty school official who ever booted a kid from prom for their fashion choice, are dumb hateful idiots, but they are. And I realize dumb and idiot are kind of the same thing, but it bears emphasis. 

Anyway, all this to say that a dress code crafted specifically, and sloppily, to discriminate against a group of people is the act of small, mediocre people terrified of any challenge to their limited understanding of the world around them. 

Pictured: Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller,
seen here dressing in a manner consistent with a nineteenth century cowboy.
 Or a child who likes to pretend to be a cowboy. Take your pick.

Freude, but not schaden.

Did it catch on fire or something?

We all know capitalism, like as a thing, is broken, right? I'm not an economist and I'm basing that broad statement on the idea that a system in which two or three riches control more wealth than the poorest fifty percent of the country is unsustainable on a fundamental level and will come crashing down at any moment. Wait, wait, where are you going? Don't worry, this one isn't all dreary wealth disparity, I'm mostly going talk about Elon Musk and how he lost $12.6 billion dollars of money in like a twenty-four hour span. I mean, how does that even happen?

And look, I know this is going to sound like schadenfreude, but it's not. That means shameful joy, and there's no shame taking pleasure in the country's richest (and world's second richest) person loosing more money than one hundred and twenty average Americans make in a year. What I'm feeling is the reasonable joy one feels when someone who shouldn't have that much money looses a bunch of it.

Do the Germans have some clever word for that? Der richistfuked, or something?

Space is cool and all, but maybe throw
some money at cancer or climate change?

Anyway, I guess the story is that terrible first quarter earnings--which are business words I definitely understand--from Tesla, combined with the Blue Check thing with Twitter, and the fact that his SpaceX rocket exploded four minutes into its flight on Thursday all combined to drop Musk down a bit according to Bloomberg's billionaire index. Don't worry, he's still the richest United States-ian, but just slightly less so. What's that? What's Bloomberg's billionaire index? Welp, it's just what it sounds like: a list of the who's who of the who's offensively rich. 

If history is any indication, there may come
a day where you don't want to be on that list

It's updated daily and tracks the ultra-wealthy's ups and downs, you know, if you care about such things. Some French guy called Bernard Arnault is the numéro un on the list, but after him is a straight line of seven Americans including Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. which, great, U-S-A! U-S-A! except when you stop and remember how Americans have to do kickstarters to cover medical expenses. Sorry! I'm Bernie-ing out there, aren't I? And after I said I wouldn't. But I'm not wrong, right? There is such a thing as toxically wealthy.

It's wealth so great that a bad day can cost you twelve billion dollars and you don't even feel it or lose your place on the to guillotine list. If anyone else lost that much in one go, we'd say they were just bad at business and--wait, is Elon Musk bad at business? Because unless there's some secret long game he's playing that involves blowing up spaceships, loosing money on cars, and alienating Twitter users, it kind of seems like he's not so much a business genius as he is just really good at gaming a really bad system.

But what do I know? Everything I learned about business comes from Ducktales:

1. The best way to invest your money is to convert it to gold coins and then swim in it.

2. All dogs are criminals. Never trust them.

3. The real treasure is family. Or something, I mean, treasure is also treasure I suppose.

I thought kittens today...

For today's difficult subject matter,
I thought we'd go with kittens.

Sorry, we're going to talk about this again, and yes, it's a bummer and yes, preacher, choir, but goddamn another gun enthusiast opened fire on people in his yard. This time, a North Carolina man shot and injured a six year-old girl and her parents--her father seriously--because some kids let a ball roll into his yard. And get this, the father was also armed and fired back, although evidently missed. This on top of similar incidents in New York, and Missouri, and I must ask: what the actual?

He didn't, they just wish he
did and are kind of dumb.

One of the more absurd claims on the part of gun people is that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun, but Tuesday's incident seems to undermine that. The number of times a shooter has been stopped by random armed passers by is low. Vanishingly small one might even say. But the Right--and while I'm generalizing here, I don't think I'm wrong-- tends to disregard statistics and evidence when it contradicts their worldview. It's what makes America so infuriating right now.

That and the constant gun violence. Speaking of, the NRA cites a study from the Crime Prevention Research Center which says something like 34% of active shooter situations are stopped by armed civilians. Which is nonsense. 

Next time you see armed, self-deputized randos, remember to
thank them for their service. No, I'm kidding, just run. Holy shit, run.

Above: John Lott, noted dupe, learning the
hard way that you can't shoot public humiliation.

The Crime Prevention Research Center is a conservative gun-advocacy organization founded by a Stop the Steal asshat called John Lott who used to run the NRA, but whom you might remember him as the guy who was tricked into speaking in front of 3,044 empty chairs representing kids lost to gun violence at a fake graduation ceremony by parents of a Parkland victim. That he didn't collapse into a singularity of impossible guilt and shame is further evidence that he lacks whatever part of the brain is responsible for self-evaluation. Anyway, all this to day, let's not go with their numbers. 

Instead, let's use another, much more widely accepted study done by Texas State University and cited by The New York Times which says the number is 3%. Which, in a country with 393 million guns owned by 32% of the population suggests to me, and I'm no statistician, but it suggests to me that guns are the indeed the problem and that the NRA and the Crime Prevention Research Center are full of shit.

"Yup, there it is. The numbers do not lie. They are full of shit.
Luckily for them, they don't believe in numbers. Or dinosaurs."

-Some mathematician I just made up who

has more credibility than John Lott or anyone

else at the Crime Prevention Research Center

Anyone else tired of this? Oh, right, we all are.

Look, right there in the grocery store.
You don't even have to deal with giblets.

I guess what I'm saying is take all the guns? And look, I know that's kind of naive, but let's negotiate. We'll say we want to take away all the guns, and they'll counter with some nonsense about how a musket-era line about keeping a militia around in case the redcoats show up means they can have assault rifles, and then we'll say, ok, they can keep the hunting rifles because maybe nobody told them they can buy meat in stores, but fine, something something tradition. And we'll go from there.

Racism is a problem everywhere, but
some states just seem to excel at it.

Reasonable. Civilized, right? I mention this because, ok, you probably know why I mention this. Another mass shooting? Yeah, several in fact, but also because a sixteen year old kid called Ralph Yarl rang the wrong doorbell and was shot in the head. Most everybody believes that racism played a role here and it did. Andrew Lester, the man who shot him, is white and this is Missouri so that tracks. But the gun was a component too, right? Or at least the culture in which this guy felt that shoot first was a reasonable response to an unexpected doorbell ring. 

There's no world and no calculus in which that's standing one's ground or self-defense or anything other than straight up murder and a hate crime and--sorry, I know, I'm just preaching to the choir here. I'll stop.

Pictured: basically you.

Better late than never I suppose.

Look, this is awful, and I should have warned you or put up a picture of puppies or something. The good news, if there can be such a thing here, is that Yarl is alive, albeit grievously injured, and that Lester is being charged with assault. And that sounds inadequate, but I gather that assault carries a heavier sentence than attempted murder so it actually sounds like the right move. If convicted, it's a thirty year sentence as opposed to fifteen and Lester is eighty-five years old, so....

If the British came back, we wouldn't even
need to shoot, we could just throw guns at them.

So hurray, right? Justice will surely be done. Except, I mean, will it? Let's say Lester is convicted, which is not a given. It seems pretty open and shut, but how many times have we seen white dudes walk after shooting a person of color? What? It's true. Look at the puppy again if you need to. Ok, let's say he's convicted. Great. Now what? Americans still own 393.3 million guns. That's 1.2 guns per person. And only 32% of Americans own one or more guns, so that's an average of 37 guns per gun owner.

What the actual? I mean, we're shocked and horrified every time there's another mass shooting which is now several times per day, but 393 million guns? Thirty-seven per gun owner? That's insane. That's hoarding behavior, except instead of old newspapers or toilet paper it's deadly weapons. What even is that? It's not a hobby. If I didn't know better, I'd say these people who own guns are just waiting for an opportunity to use them.

Hey gun people, have you considered philately? Sure, stamp collecting is probably not as exciting as
gun ownership, and it's harder to build your entire identity around it, but at least it can't end people.
Also, maybe you shouldn't be making something like guns your whole thing, you know?

Thanks, Bill?

It's ok, I don't my blog either, as you
can probable tell bye al the typos.

You know, it's actually pronounced "I apologize to everyone I hurt through my actions and promise to educate myself on the struggles faced by the trans community. Also, effective immediately, I resign as Pittsford Town Supervisor." But that's not what Town Supervisor Bill Smith said in a statement. Who? What? Great questions. You might recall I wrote about the town of Pittsford, where I went to high school, demanded $8,500 in security fees from a group planning to hold a Drag Story Hour at the town's community center.

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but look at him and
tell me he wouldn't use a word like "ruckus."

No? Well I did, and they did, somebody put up fliers calling drag performers pedofiles, and also the Town Supervisor warned the organizers of the event, called Pittsford CommUNITY, not to cause a ruckus and then accused them of being attention seekers, who love to play the victim. Holy shit, right? Yes. Well, the event moved to a local bookstore, and CommUNITY received an outpouring of support not just for residents, but also The Human Rights Campaign and the NYCLU (the ACLU, but in New York).

The HRC called the board's move an attempt to curtail the rights of LGBTQ+ people and the NYCLU pointed out that the fees were levied because of the events content and were therefore an attempt to force Pittsford CommUNITY to cancel, so censorship. Ok, great, the fees were waved and everything's right with the world, right?

Bill Smith is still in charge, so no.

That's liberals for you, they never let you
trample their basic civil liberties without
making a federal case out of it.

Yeah, but there's still the matter of Bill Smith's egregious comments and his grudging statement regarding the waiving of the fees:

"Having to defend a controversial lawsuit easily could result in an expenditure of taxpayer funds far more burdensome than the costs involved in providing securit. It would negate the Town's good faith effort to spare the taxpayers the cost imposed by the event."

-Town Supervisor Bill "Won't somebody 

please think of the taxpayers?" Smith*

Controversial? Or they'd just lose. Badly.

So to sum up: liberals threatened to file a nonsense lawsuit that would bleed us dry in legal fees. "Controversial lawsuit"? I mean, I'm not sure what's controversial here. The Human Rights Campaign and the NYCLU weren't threatening to sue because they slipped on town property or because their neighbor put in a pool and didn't get the proper permit or whatever the board usually deals with. They're considering legal action because both are organizations whose purpose is to fight against injustices exactly like this. 

Pictured: A good faith effort.

(source: Bill Smith)

If they're coming after you for something, chances are you deserve it and should back down. Also, what good faith effort? They, the board, or Bill Smith personally, just made up fees because. Sure, a couple loons put up threatening flyers, but the shouldn't the move have been to figure out who did that? Not try to make CommUNITY cancel. Also, does Bill Smith appreciate the irony of the prospect of a massive financial disincentive forcing him to change his plans? I'm guessing no. I'm further guessing that he's not a deep thinker. 

Unsurprisingly, critics dumb fears went
un-realized and exactly zero children were
groomed. So maybe they can shut up now?

Anyway, the Drag Story Hour was held today at the bookstore and evidently went off without a hitch. Dozens (it's not a big town) showed up just to create a "wall of love," that is, they gathered to support and protect the attendees from anyone protesting or trying to disrupt the event. Even the Mayor came out to show her support. And yeah, protestors did show. Four in fact. One rando with a bullhorn, and some dude who brought his kids. Brought his kids to help protest. Because it's only grooming when liberals do it I suppose. I just can't with these people...

So after all that Drag Story hour happened, Bill Smith looks like (and is) an asshole, and the town board's ill-advised attempt to suppress Drag Story Hour only made sure it got even more attention. Which is all banning and censorship ever do. So in a way, thanks Bill? But in a much bigger way, resign. Just, resign.

What I'm saying is that if you're on the opposite side of a "wall of love," barking
out-of-context bible verses through a megaphone, it's probably time to reevaluate.  

*his name's not on the statement, but the local paper referred to this as his statement, and it does sound like the kind of