atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6888: THAT is better

Woke up just a bit ago, about 12:50. Could have slept more; thought I might...but then thought, Eh, if I sleep more I might get a headache, and got up.

I didn't have to drag myself out of bed, nor am I thinking I'll go right back after having some food and liquid; and in fact as I lay there I caught myself mulling tasks which I've been putting off--due to lack of energy--that I might see to.

But no: this weekend is strictly R&R. Like I said, the only thing I'm doing is to bake cookies. I might wash some dishes while the cookies are baking. Maybe.

It's a major improvement over the past few weeks. How fortunate we are to live in an era with antibiotics!

* * *

The climate models are junk. Not going into detail; the link has it all.

* * *

Aaaand that's it for Tulsi Gabbard. She's thrown down the gauntlet and directly challenged Hillary Clinton. As inevitable as it is--Hillary is a baby boomer, and their time is slowly drawing to a close--the Clintons still command a great deal of clout. (Eg, Pace Jeffery Epstein.)

The simple fact is, though, that Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate in the current crop of hopefuls than has a chance of successfully challenging Trump next year. I don't know what effect standing up to the "Clinton caucus" will have on her candidacy but I do know that it will win her a lot of votes from post-boomer generations who are utterly fed up with their preceding cohort. The real question is, how will they vote?

I have been studiously avoiding learning any details about the various candidates because A) I already know how I'm voting in next year's election, and B) listening to these fools talk infuriates me because they're all so full of shit. I have no patience for politians of any stripe, and even the people who claim to be on my side of the aisle frequently piss me off with their mealy-mouthed platitudes.

Because of that, I have no concrete idea of what Gabbard's platform looks like, other than extracting us from foreign wars and entanglements. I note that the discussions of the Democrat debates that I've read have mentioned that "all the candidates" are socialist to one extent or another, and I don't expect that Gabbard is standing up there talking about being fiscally conservative at the same time Bernie fucking Sanders is talking about giving away the candy store. I am fairly confident that a Gabbard presidency would be disastrous for this country--but that would be true if any of those jokers got the nod and actually won the election. This I know.

I think that there is still enough reverence for Hillary in the Democrat party that a direct challenge like this may be not-good for her chances. Gabbard's not going to mysteriously die in a tragic stapler incident, but in 2016 the Democrat-media complex just made her the nominee despite a very credible showing from Bernie Sanders.

But that reverence may not be there. This challenge might spell the end of the Clinton caucus as a credible power center. And in fact, it's about time.

* * *

One of the lovely things about autumn is the clear blue sky and the cool, dry air.

On my way to work, I drive past a bit of forest preserve with a middling-size pond in it. I expect that, later this month, the trees will be a riot of color. There will probably be 1-2 days where the trees are at peak color and the morning sun will fall on them to make a scene that would be fit for a jigsaw puzzle. I'm hoping to stop on my way to work, on one of those days, and take a picture of it. We'll see.

* * *

One of the hazards of blogging is that sometimes you'll start writing something, and warm to your topic, and then--after several paragraphs--pause to check something; and when you do, you find an inconvenient fact that makes moot everything you've just written.

I had written a good screed about the audio quality of the iPhone, with regards to using common analog headphones etc. Complaining that the audio quality wasn't as good as I'd expected, etc. Had occasion to check the pinout for the Lightning connector, wanting to confirm that analog audio was present there...and rapidly learned that no analog signals are present in the Lightning port. The Lightning-to-3.5mm headphone jack dongles have digital-to-analog convertors (DACs) in them.

Essentially, the dongle is a USB device and the iPhone sends audio data to it. This also means that the hideously uncomfortable Apple earbuds are digital devices with DACs built into them.

...and so my beef ends up not being with Apple--as satisfying as that would have been--but with the anonymous Chinese company that made the dongle. Which, after all, was $10 shipped.

Apparently the official Apple dongle costs $9 plus tax and shipping.

Okay, okay, already! I admit defeat on this one.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments