Video tour of a stamp collector's home

Those of us in the hobby (and in some other pastimes involving collectables) often joke that "there is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness."  Some would consider this man to be a deranged hoarder; others will be envious of his massive accumulation of material.  Most of this material is probably philatelic "junk," but I would love to spend a weekend browsing through his holdings looking for hidden and unappreciated minor treasures.

Body cameras are for whose benefit ?

Officers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be equipped with much-delayed body cameras by the end of next month, it was reported on Friday. But experts have questioned the transparency of a policy that allows the ICE director to restrict the public release of footage unless “it is in the best interests of the agency”...

Christopher Schneider, a sociology professor at Canada’s Brandon University, and co-author of Police Body-Worn Cameras: Media and the New Discourse of Police Reform, said the ICE director would have discretion to release recordings that reflect well on the agency’s image while working to keep others secret.

“In some ways, ICE is saying the quiet part out loud,” he said. “Body-worn cameras are being used as contemporary image-work tools to present the police to the public in the most favorable way possible.”

The policy says ICE will promptly release video of shootings and other encounters in which its agents cause death or serious injury only after determining “it is in the best interests of the agency” to do so.

Perhaps the recorded images would still be available to judges and courtroom use?  More information at The Guardian.

I am lucky I'm not someone else

“It’s a troublesome world.  All the people who are in it

Are troubled with troubles almost every minute.

You ought to be thankful, a whole heaping lot,

For the places and people you’re lucky you’re not.”

Recently found this quotation about the "genetic lottery," so I've requested the book from the library.

Is this true ?

I screencapped the above claim months ago, intending to research the matter, but have not found time to do so, and have now decided it's easier to ask readers here.  

I have an Echo that reminds me to take out the garbage, but I assumed that any "listening" would be stored on servers in humming datacenters and admixed with others, not stored on some "app" in my home in retrievable fulltext.

So is this typical internet bullshit from Luddites?

Blogcation

Reposted from 2017 because I've been distracted from blogging for the past couple weeks.

Cartoon from the archives of The New Yorker.

The woodlouse as a "detritovore"

As an old English major, I've enjoyed accumulating a vocabulary of words ending in "vore."  Most people know carnivore, herbivore, and omnivore; my hobbies and side interests introduced me to granivore, piscivore, insectivore, and frugivore (plus tangentially-related "locavore") (and hypercarnivore).  Yesterday was my first encounter with "detritovore", which I encountered in The Guardian, where they presented the woodlouse as an entry in their annual "Invertebrate of the Year" competition.

Chucky pig. Slater. Monkey pea. Roly-poly. Boat-builder. Butchy boy. Cheeselog. Hobbling Andrew. Wood pig. If there were a prize for the range and joyfulness of a creature’s English-language names, the humble woodlouse would undoubtedly triumph over its million-plus invertebrate rivals.

Over centuries of easy cohabitation with humans, it has acquired more than 300 regional names in Britain alone, and many more in other languages (such as Gwrach y Coed, “witch of the wood”, in Welsh).

There are lovely words for woodlouse actions too: an animal rolling its body into a neat ball is known as conglobation, or volvation in zoology.

You can read more about the woodlouse at the link.  For now I'm just enjoying the new "vore" word [there are lots of others...], and now also "conglobation" and "volvation."

This is what is keeping crude oil and gas/diesel prices from skyrocketing - Updated

When Trump and Netanyahu started this war, much of the attention in the business world was focused on the price of crude oil (Brent, WTI) and the derivative products (gasoline, diesel, fertilizer, plastics).  When the Strait was closed and then reopened via the MOU, prices fluctuated accordingly, but what has been of most interest to me is that the market prices of those materials have not continued to rise as much as might be expected.

Everyone who tracks the news knows that the U.S. and other countries are tapping their "strategic petroleum reserves" stored underground (some small countries don't have such and are suffering disproportionately).  

The second group of factors that mitigated price rises was increased use of alternative energy, restrictions on energy usage, increased production in non-Gulf nations etc.

But from near the beginning, I heard analysts on Bloomberg say that China was modifying its policy on oil.  China apparently has immense reserves of stored oil, but were still net oil importers (see chart above for 2016-2026).  After the war started, they have markedly decreased their importation of oil, apparently using some of their reserves and altering domestic policies toward conservation.

Why?  In part, it's basic economic good sense when the Brent price goes from 50 to 90 to cut purchases.  But this is a super-smart country with well-thought-out international policies.  They also have a sort of alliance with Iran, which I believe was one of their sources for imported oil in recent years.   By cutting their daily imports from 12 million to 7 million they buffer the world's loss of I think 5 million a day that was passing Hormuz.

Is it in their best interest (remembering that they think years/decades in advance, not election cycles) to keep the oil price rise modest so as not to harm the economies of the world they export to?  Or do they want to keep the price down because a huge price rise might cause the U.S. to stop the war and they would rather the war go on longer so the U.S. depletes its own reserves and the continuation of the war leads to more and more destruction of the U.S. military capabilities?  I suspect the latter, because I think there is way more erosion of U.S. capabilites in the Gulf than Washington has (or will) admit.

Also note that Iran wants to charge fees for transit of Hormuz and that those fees would be paid in Chinese yuan, not U.S. dollars.  (a relevant WSJ article is behind a paywall)  This was is weakening the U.S. military capabilities, depleting strategic petroleum reserves, ruining the U.S. diplomatic status around the world, and causing unhappiness and political dissent within the U.S.  China has a lot of control over how this will unfold.  Stay tuned.

Image via Axios.

Addendum August 8: The Atlantic (online) has posted a detailed discussion of this topic, basically confirming what I speculated above.  Herewith some brief excerpts:

Before the war, China, by far the world’s largest oil importer, was buying more barrels than the entire European continent and almost twice as much as the second-largest importer, the United States. Then, weeks after the conflict broke out, the country abruptly slashed its oil purchases, eventually cutting them by half compared with prewar levels. That appears to be why global prices have risen so much less than experts predicted. The shift also poses mysteries of its own. No one outside China knows how exactly the country has managed to meet its energy needs while forgoing imports, nor why its leaders chose this course. And no one knows how long the situation can last...

The amount of oil that China stopped buying, about 5 million barrels a day, represented about a quarter of what was lost when the strait closed and is equivalent to the entirety of imports to India, the world’s third-largest importer. This significant and unexpected drop in Chinese demand freed up those barrels to go elsewhere, preventing the kind of shortage that might have led to truly catastrophic prices...

A more realistic possibility is that China has been tapping into its immense oil reserves, which it has spent years accumulating in the case of a crisis. But the giant outdoor tanks where China keeps much of its known oil reserves have remained full since the war began. This fact has given rise to yet another theory: On top of its known reserves, perhaps China has been stashing oil, as well as refined diesel and gasoline, in secret facilities, which it is now using to keep its economy running. “I sometimes feel like I should put on a tinfoil hat when I start talking about this,” Johnston said. “We have almost no evidence of it. And yet, it’s really the only explanation that makes any sense.”...

Whatever China’s exact motivations, the country has demonstrated yet another source of power it can wield on the global stage. As long as the Iran war continues, China’s leverage over oil prices gives it the ability to inflict immense pain on American consumers, and really the entire world, at a moment’s notice. Even if China doesn’t choose to do so, the fact that it can might be enough to give the country even more sway over international affairs. “For the last 50-plus years, whenever there was an oil shock, the first thing the U.S. president did was call Riyadh to try to persuade the Saudis to help out,” Jason Bordoff, the founding director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told me. “Maybe the place everyone needs to call now is Beijing. That’s a very powerful position to be in.”

I have said (or implied) in my writings for TYWKIWDBI that if the last century was an "American century" of global power, the next one will be a Chinese one, based both on "soft power" (exemplified above) and now I believe also in terms of military power.  

Hormuz update Thursday

Most of the conventional media I monitor echo Trump's declarations.  The updates I respect the most come from Al Jazeera.  Here is this morning's detailed analysis.  I won't excerpt here, because those interested can go to the link, which is nicely segmented into these sections:

When will the agreement be announced?

Will the Strait of Hormuz reopen immediately once an agreement is announced?

Will an agreement on the Strait of Hormuz mean peace between the US and Iran? 

What do we know about each side’s positions?

What Iran wants

What the US wants

What Oman wants

Have Iran and the US made concessions?

What might each side get out of the deal?

Al Jazeera doesn't "know" what's going to happen any more than you or I do, because the outcome is in part dependent on the whims of unreliable people.  But this article is better than anything else I have found.

At 93°F, permafrost is no longer permanent

Latvian manhole cover

No useful comments in the Facebook discussion thread.  I could't find evidence that this image is from Hieronymus Bosch.  I've joined the group to see what else might be posted there.  There is also a subreddit of manholeporn where years ago I found this very "metal" manhole cover.

Brilliant

Found in The Babylon Bee ("Fake News You Can Trust"), where there is tongue-in-cheek discussion of the topic.

Update on the war

As reported by the Institute for the Study of War yesterday (July 28).  I was so glad to see an informed discussion of the various competing groups within the Iranian regime.

Note this was written just before the latest acceleration of hostilities.

For those unfamiliar with the source: "The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve US strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization."

Gilding bronze statues in Washington

I might comment later.  Got chores to do first.  

link to be added -

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-unveils-bright-gold-sculptures-washington-dc-overhaul-arts-of-war-12252480

"Colossal" - recommended (with a reservation)

This movie has been categorized as "black comedy sci-fi", which seems reasonably appropriate.  It's not a new movie (2017) but was new to me last night, and this morning I decided to share some thoughts.

Most science fiction requires some "suspension of disbelief" in order for the viewer or reader to "enter" and enjoy the story.  Conventional storylines may require your rational hemisphere to accept time travel, faster-than-light vehicles, aliens who speak English, or hybrid humanoid synths; once you do that, you're "good to go."

For this movie the required suspension of disbelief is evident in the trailer embedded above.   Anne Hathaway is excellent in her lead role as a young woman who is simultaneously a Seoul-crushing monster.

My one reservation regarding enjoying the movie is in regard to Jason Sudeikis' character.  "Colossal" was released in 2016, four years before Sudeikis emerged as "Ted Lasso" in the recurring TV series.   If you start the movie (as I did) with a mindset that Ted Lasso is flirting with Anne Hathaway in a rom-com, then you will need to make major readjustments, because his character has a major (and dominating) dark side evident in the closing scenes.  There is also implied commentary on the potentially detrimental effects of alcohol consumption.

But if you like Anne Hathaway, you might give this one a try.  The Rotten Tomatoes score is 82%, with professional reviewers bouncing all over the place from "unmissable" to "incomprehensible."  Your thoughts/memories are welcome in the Comments.

Comprehensive longread on war negotiations

An "explainer" column today in Al Jazeera provides detailed insight into the ongoing negotiations.  I won't excerpt here; those interested can browse the various sections at the link.