A 29-year-old Queensland P-plater was pulled over in Newtown, Sydney after police allegedly saw him steering his Honda HR-V with his knees while buttering a bagel in four lanes of afternoon traffic. His explanation was: “I was hungry.” Police then discovered his rego had expired three days earlier. Result: $1,104 in fines and three demerit points.

True story mate.

In the 1880s former civil war general William T Sherman said the US should “declare war on Mexico and make it take back New Mexico”. Now Donald wants to go to war with his own country and change the state’s name to New America.

Yesterday, the Instagram boss said users will be ‘overwhelmed’ with brand content in an algorithm-free world. This because the Australian government plans to give users the right to opt out of algorithm-driven ads on social media.

The common denominator here is the goddam US of A. Does the world really need them?

The truth is we need them like a donut needs a hole.

“John Ternus, Apple’s new CEO, helmed the company’s annual showcase of new iPhones and other products on Wednesday.”

They’ve surfaced another denominal verb, “helmed”, being used transitively, figuratively and fatuously.

He led, was at the wheel thingy that steers the ship, did the Jobs caricature, corporate pirate in a black turtleneck, on the corporate Titanic, TJS (Their Jobs Ship) Apple, above mere corporate leadership, on another plane, or ship. That’s what it means. So much more than mere piloting.

I’m all in. I’m just wondering how Apple got the media to surface helmed. That effort deserves its own new denominal verb.

Apple jobsed helmed. That’s if they forced the issue using access as currency.

Otherwise Apple seeded helmed, using free products as currency.

Either way, congenial job siri.

Yep I noticed that – use “goona” which is Yaggerra for shit hole.

I want to see venture football.

Take a small Premier League club, preferably one near the bottom of the table or at the top of the championship, and recruit six genuinely elite players at the peak of their careers that are off contract/free agents.

They can be from anywhere, but they have to be global elite.

They take relatively low wages.

In return, they get long-dated options over shares in the club at an independently determined strike price. Say 4% of the fully diluted equity each.

The options might only be worth less than £1 million each when granted. The value of options reflects the club’s value today, discounted substantially for risk.

Option valuation is a well-established practice in venture capital and most sophisticated tax authorities have recognised methodologies for valuing startup options.

I also find it difficult to see UEFA or the Premier League successfully arguing that an independently determined option value, calculated using a methodology accepted by His Majesty’s bloodsuckers for tax purposes, should somehow have a completely different value when calculating player remuneration.

Then the players would back themselves to get that club up to the pointy end of the table and into champions league football.

If six top players turn a £200 million club into a £1 billion plus club, the upside on those options could be enormous.

The players would effectively be venture investors contributing human capital rather than capital.

It also creates a much more interesting test of footballing greatness.

Winning another title after joining Manchester City, Real Madrid or Bayern, surrounded by superstars, proves something, but not much.

Turning Coventry, Ipswich or Hull from a yoyo club into a Champions League club while owning part of the upside would prove rather more.

There would obviously be regulatory issues around squad-cost rules, related-party transactions, remuneration and fair value. But the core structure is not exotic. Options are routinely valued. Investors routinely take equity exposure to businesses they expect to improve.

The unusual bit is that the investors here would also be the principal operating assets.

Six players. Low wages. Long-dated options. One shitty football club.

Venture football.

Every day you learn something new.

Forecasting is estimating what is likely to happen under uncertainty.

As a discipline, forecasting used to inform decision making. 

That is, the only point of forecasting is to inform action.

And now there a new discipline – decision making under uncertainty – which adds one step: deciding what to do given that forecast.

Seems like they’ve just wrapped a degree around the bleeding obvious. But, hey, what do I know?

I don’t think Donald Trump is an anomaly. I think he’s a logical consequence of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

It’s a perfect storm. Climate change suggests we simply can’t keep consuming all the shit that we’ve become accustomed to consuming.

However at the same time we’re up against resources limitations on many fronts. Some of that is just because we’ve overdone it (eg helium, phosphate) and then there are other factors like competitive access to key resources such as water and oil, which are unevenly distributed around the globe.

The US is buggered in many ways. It finds itself at the centre of a global economy that it helped build, and needs to use that centrality as a source of power while it exists. Because as sure as night follows day, its competitors would prefer it if the US didn’t exist.

So the US has decided to go it alone and fuck everyone else. Why the government there needs to act on behalf of its citizens’ rights to consume remains a mystery. It’s not as though they like their own citizens. They show serious contempt for most of their people.

But even so, they are wedded to project America. Which is effectively anti-European in its vibe.  They are carrying historical cultural hostility to the source of their original banishment to the Americas.

It’s very different to Australia where we laugh at the English for banishing us to Australia, where it turns out we are so much better off than the poor fuckers and their descendants that stayed behind.

Back to America.

They can’t compete with China in making shit. No one can.

But the US has accidentally cornered the useful combination of risk capital and technology. Which has led them to be the tech giants.

It’s not their armed forces that makes them central. It’s their tech leadership.

So they are treading a very fine line, pissing off every trading partner whilst assuming their tech will still be acquired. Their trading partners only need said tech while they are competing in an international environment. If the US destroys that environment, well.

I suspect that quite accidentally Donald is doing his level best to destroy global trade which will drive everyone else to different types of domestic production and consumption. And fuck US tech.

The winner will be climate change and resources.

The losers will be small economies that fall prey to the local mafia.

Overall my impression is that we are seeing the end of the good times, unlimited resources and eternal innovation leading to ever increasing consumption. That’s done because it can’t be sustained and the end was always going to be messy.

As we say, party while you can, fuckers. When the tab comes, that will be someone else’s problem.

Because of a conversation I had today I want to record the best way to use AI in significant projects where AI is being used to replace expensive advice that you might have previously got from a lawyer, accountant, financial advisor or similar blood-sucking self-serving leech.

Problem type: complex and obscure situation with substantial information asymmetry. Typically the counter party is a large corporation, a court, government agency or similar where the people you are dealing with aren’t playing with their own money, and are used to getting their own way because the supplicant (you) has limited resources and limited interest in becoming a subject matter expert. And possibly also a little fear of potential negative consequences.

The solution…

Discuss the situation with GPT using the Socratic method.

The Socratic method is a way of reaching clearer understanding through disciplined questioning rather than direct instruction. A claim is examined by asking what its terms mean, what assumptions it depends on, what evidence supports it, whether counterexamples exist and what consequences follow if it is true. The aim is to expose contradictions, weak reasoning and hidden assumptions so that the original claim can be refined, defended or rejected.

If you’re unsure how to do this just ask chatty to guide you, just so.

Then ask her (GPT) for a game plan to deal with the situation, inclusive of whatifs.

Take said game plan to Claude and ask him for critique.

Then get Claude to reformulate the plan accordingly.

Then take that into Gemini and ask it to critique.

Then get Gemini to reformulate the game plan accordingly.

Run that back through GPT and keep going around the loop until no further changes are required by any of the LLMs.

And then, a few hours later, you have made every expert mostly redundant.

And by then you will have become a subject matter expert against your will.

And, yes, GPT is a she. Claude is a he. And Gemini is an it. GPT has the best all round human wisdom, Claude had the best logical mind and Gemini has by far the best search capability.

Which is why you have to use all of them to protect yourself against the forces of evil.

Why do I need a special permit to trim my mother’s tree? It’s leaning over her house, filling up her gutters with leaves and generally just worrying her.

The council letter says the property has “Significant Urban Vegetation” protected under Brisbane’s Natural Assets Local Law.

It says this protects trees considered rare, culturally, historically or environmentally significant, or contributing to Brisbane’s landscape character.

FFS, it’s a 10 year old scribbly bark piece of rubbish, on a block which is filthy with inappropriately placed huge gums surrounding all these houses.

This is a concrete example of the broader point about cumulative regulation: individually, protecting significant vegetation can have a rational policy justification. But who defines significant?

Collectively, these restrictions create the experience that increasingly feels like authoritarian government control.

For a one-off trim, use Brisbane City Council’s “Application to carry out works on protected vegetation” online form. You provide the property address, identify the tree, describe exactly what you want trimmed and why, explain how the work will be done and attach photos and usually a simple site sketch. If the Council regards it as a Significant Landscape Tree, it may require an AQF Level 5 arborist report. The application is free and Council says it will contact applicants within 20 business days.

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/online-services/environment-and-water/protected-vegetation-application?utm_source=chatgpt.com

If they say no, you’re shit out of luck. Of course there is an appeals process…

If Council refuses the permit, you can apply in writing for an internal review within 21 days of receiving the refusal. You must state the grounds of challenge and the facts supporting them. The permitted grounds include failure to follow required procedure, lack of evidence or material supporting the decision or improper exercise of power, including failing to consider relevant matters or acting unreasonably.

If that review still goes against you, you get a second, further review, again by written application within 21 days. At that stage you explain why the reconsidered decision is not the “correct or preferable decision”. That review must be handled by someone other than the original decision-maker or first reviewer and not by someone less senior.

Lol. It’s easier just to vote for Pauline. Not that she would change anything.

Every atom of every person that ever died is still on this planet

Except for those few that escaped into space (mostly hydrogen), or those that were unlucky enough to get caught up in a nuclear reaction, or just underwent natural radioactive decay.

The corollary is that 100% of the atoms in our bodies have previously belonged to other organisms.

GPT helpfully adds this:

The first part is essentially right, with these qualifications.

The corollary is too strong. Nearly all atoms in our bodies have almost certainly previously participated in other organisms, but “100%” cannot be established and is probably literally false. Some atoms will have entered the biosphere relatively recently from rocks, the atmosphere or other reservoirs without previously being incorporated into life.

The stronger observation is:

> We are not materially distinct from previous life. The atoms are continuously recycled; what distinguishes an organism is their temporary organisation.


Estimated correctness: 0.98

AI-plained – getting a 6 page word soup essay that says nothing at all when a simple yes or no would suffice.

Here’s a worked example…

[on the subject of those weird arse American women and their dysfunctional relationships, controlling behaviour, and their permanent and externalised dissatisfaction with their partners]

Me: Back to the USA. Is it possible the stereotype has become the norm through the media?

GPT: Yes, it is possible, but the strongest claim is that media can help normalise a behavioural script rather than simply manufacture an entire population type.

The mechanism would be social learning and repeated exposure. If films, television and later social media repeatedly present the same relationship pattern, people can come to treat it as normal: the dissatisfied woman, the incompetent or emotionally deficient man, constant negotiation over needs and boundaries, criticism framed as relationship work and conflict treated as evidence that the relationship requires more management.

That can become self-reinforcing. Writers depict what audiences recognise, audiences absorb the script, people reproduce parts of it in real relationships, then writers observe those behaviours and depict them again. After enough iterations, separating representation from reality becomes difficult.

There is also a selection effect. Media disproportionately rewards conspicuous, conflict-heavy behaviour. Calm, low-maintenance relationships generate less dramatic material. Social media strengthens this further because grievance, validation-seeking and relationship complaint are highly shareable.

So the plausible model is not “media invented high-maintenance American women”. It is that American media may have amplified, legitimised and standardised a particular relationship style until it became more common than it otherwise would have been.

Estimated correctness: 0.91

Me: I was after a yes or no

Voters drawn to One Nation are not fundamentally extremists. They are simply reacting to the cumulative intrusion of bureaucracy and cultural overreach into their lives.

A moderate government could win many of them back without doing anything much.

All they woukd need is a national inquiry into unnecessary red tape, government overreach and administrative BS. The point would be the vibe of the thing: ordinary life has become too complicated and the government has noticed.

This would give disaffected voters a reason to return to a mainstream party without said parties abandoning progressive principles or losing progressive voters, who have limited electoral alternatives anyway.

This strategy would be all marketing. The government would only need to demonstrate that it is no longer reflexively on the side of every additional rule, process or symbolic requirement.

The underlying issue is that an intrusive regulatory state can become effectively coercive. The coercion comes from asymmetric access to enforcement and appeal.

That unfortunately makes an actual authoritarian state look far less scary.

I’m wondering when and how ‘surface’ became a general purpose verb?

Nowadays, surface means “bring to attention”, “make visible” or “prominently present”.

English has a history of nouns becoming verbs. We already table proposals, chair meetings, host events and google questions. Now we surface new verbs too.

Linguists call these “denominal verbs”.

The increasing use of surface as a verb is clearly AI driven.

GPT tells me that’s because it is semantically broad, grammatically flexible and low-risk. An LLM can use it when it does not want to commit to a more precise verb.

That is, it’s cheap and cheerful.

Apparently it derives from the LLM learning data – web-derived, mostly illiterate content, especially from software, product, UX, consulting and corporate writing.

“Dad, why do they have red bellies”

“Well I know they evolved from black snakes. They probably didn’t want to have sex with black snakes anymore.”

Everything that’s good about this place has nothing to do with the people that run it.

Me: Viv, do you remember the door code?

Viv: What are you, a fourtard now?

Me: Maybe.

Viv: What’s next? Onetard?

Me: That’s called dementia

You can say anything you want, apparently.

Headline “Is the AI backlash actually a Chinese psy-op?”

Fuel-only: 48.2%

Electric: 24.9%

Hybrid: 26.9%

We’re behind an old bird in a Tesla that’s shadow boxing with imaginary dogs and rats.

Viv is outraged at this display of driving uselessness. He says …

“Even I’m conpuzzled”

This is the top science prize in the land.

Is psychology even a science?

Is pop psychology even psychology?

Does it matter if AI does your research?

Domestic violence, women, dementia: are we virtue signalling?

How do you rate this so highly?

What did they use as their golden standard to measure accuracy?

Has Australia completely lost the plot?  That’s rhetorical.

The startling result? People can remember what happened but get mixed up about exactly when particular things happened.

Especially the victims of ongoing domestic abuse. But somehow this makes them more reliable as witnesses in court, not less.

That sounds weird I know: it’s basically saying if a victim is on the stand and gets the details all muddled up, that is natural and we can happily ignore it.

Eureka, the researchers have invented a two tier legal system!

That’s on track for a Nobel I reckon.

Odd that our rich mining fat fuckers hate renewable energy so much, even if they aren’t into coal mining.

I think it’s more about their sense of identity which clashes with that of the soft and caring types that support renewables.

Strange that they promote and externalise their own identity though. You’d think privacy would be more important.

My machine mate tells me someone can be intensely privacy-conscious while also loudly externalising their identity. Those behaviours are not opposites if the common objective is control over how the self is represented.

Like I said, no one cares mate.

An institution may respond to historical inequality by treating an individual less favourably because he belongs to a historically advantaged demographic category.

That individual then bears the cost for something he personally may neither have caused nor benefited from.

It’s like a person who recently migrates to Australia benefitting from living in a society based on earlier dispossession and then being held responsible for what happened to the aborigines at the hands of the English.

Apparently the recent immigrants object, for obvious reasons. It’s like taking on a liability you didn’t agree to ahead of time.

New term for the day – Asymmetrical retrospective discrimination: negative treatment of individuals based on their presumed membership of an historically advantaged group, where this is justified as corrective.

My view is that individuals should not be assigned rights or obligations based on the characteristics of groups to which they presumably belong. Either we have gender (and the rest) or we don’t: you can’t just cherry pick when it suits you.

In any case, if you reduce my rights then I’ll naturally reduce my sense of obligations accordingly.