Procedure looks simple enough. Bought the part yesterday. Just need to get outside while the sun is still shining. Once it's done, I can relax. Back to work tomorrow, after all.
Work: yet another new supervisor. We'll see how this goes.
* * *
But first, FAKE NEWS!
It's the left's latest bugaboo; they claim "fake news" cost Hillary the election.
No; what cost Hillary the election can be summed up fairly succintly with a few alliterative bullet points:
* Utterly unlikableNot to mention the fact that the Democrat party rigged the primary so Hillary would win it, thus pissing off a lot of Bernie voters (who either voted Green or not at all), and their overweening reliance on breathing their own flatus rather than looking at the hard facts and changing campaign strategy to align with reality.
* Completely crooked
* Possible Parkinson's
* Dismissing "deplorables"
* Terrible temperament
No one at the Hillary campaign stopped to consider this point, something the right-wing media pointed out repeatedly throughout the campaign cycle: the polls could be wrong. They've been wrong before; and in the runup to the election a lot of people hesitated to say they voted for Trump because the press--supporting Hillary to the hilt!--continued to portray him as a racist, sexist nazi.
In a way, I suppose you can say that "fake news" did cost Hillary the election; but it's the same way you can say that global warming is man-made. Global warming is man-made because humans are changing the historical data to match their prejudices; the climate is changing but it's not changing the "right" way, so climatologists are fixing it by altering the data.
So it went with the campaign coverage. Polls showed Hillary winning, for two reasons: a) because it was politically incorrect to support Trump, and b) because the polls themselves were biased in favor of Hillary.
That latter point doesn't make sense to me. I understand that the theory is that if all the polls show candidate "A" is going to win it can cause a preference cascade as people want to back a winner; at least it should help to suppress the vote for candidate "B". But if you then believe your own faked numbers and build your strategy on them you're shooting yourself in the foot.
I can only conclude that the pollsters themselves were convinced that Hillary had to be leading (because!) and that therefore their results showing Trump to be in contention were obviously incorrect (because!!) and so their own biases led them to "normalize" the data...exactly the way climate change data is being "normalized" to fit a specific narrative.
And for the same reason: reality is wrong. Change it! Change it so it's right!
And so the trend continues as Google polices search results of crime reports to remove racism.
...[V]irtually every metric proves that criminality is more prevalent in black communities compared to white and Hispanic communities in America. It's an uncomfortable fact that black people commit more crimes than any other race in America, but it's a fact nonetheless. Claiming that reality is actually "fake news" because it suits your political stance doesn’t change the nature of reality.It doesn't. Claiming that the historical temperature data is wrong because it doesn't show man-made global warming works the same way.
This kind of idiocy is what cost Hillary the election: the insistence on narrative and political correctness over facing reality. That's why she had the epic meltdown when she lost: she thought she would win, and no one in her camp was capable of telling her otherwise because none of them was looking at real numbers.
(Not to mention, of course, the whole "shoot the messenger" thing, which is common to tyrants.)
...but this is not what is meant when the left talks about "fake news". To the left, "fake news" is anything which does not conform to their preferred narrative.
Southern Poverty Law Center "Buries 2,000 Reports of White Kids Getting Harassed Over Trump Victory". Because that doesn't fit the narrative about Trump being a neonazi racist sexist rethuglican.
But the drumbeat about "fake news" is encouraging, because it means that the lefty press is losing power. They wouldn't be complaining about it like this if it wasn't having an effect, and that effect is that they are losing control of "the narrative". They can't get into a room and decide what the news will be when there are a couple thousand web sites out there bringing up the inconvenient facts they refuse to cover.
No one on television would talk about the possibility that Hillary Clinton has advanced Parkinson's, but the news is fairly widespread regardless. The polls all said Hillary would win, but a myriad of web sites explained what was wrong with those polls and discussed how they had been rigged for that result.
And Donald Trump used the alternative media to his advantage.
That's got to be infurating to the left. "We're the party of hip and high-tech! We're the masters of social media! How dare he use Twitter better than us?"
* * *
A quick and easy guide for translating lefty catchphrases.
* * *
I just have to shake my head. A witch hunt is not so nice when it happens to you, is it?
* * *
I am thinking about this myself. I want to play WoW as it was in 2008, myself; when I first logged on, shortly after Wrath of the Lich King went live, I liked how the game played. Blizzard has dumbed down the game considerably since then. It's still fun, and the new content has been entertaining (to one extent or another) but I do miss the old way.
I bet vanilla WoW would be fun. I also bet it would be a little frustrating: no flying mounts, you can't even ride until level 40; having to train your weapons skills so you can use that new polearm as effectively as you used your two-handed sword; hunters having to keep a supply of ammunition (that was the case until Cataclysm as I recall); 12-slot bags being the biggest you can have. Having to find groups to do dungeons with.
...but I want to play it.
* * *
It's beginning to look a lot like a prison camp. Dang, dude...know when to say "when".