Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Over a year ago, I started a project where I gave a ranked countdown of all the albums of the 4000+ I’ve spent the last decade scrupulously evaluating. 186–102 are complete, but at that point a took along break. Basically, what happened was that the market for oil and gas work was getting inconsistent and I was finding myself with a lot more free time on my hands than I would have preferred, so I quit being self-employed and joined a litigation firm that requires me to actually show up to an office and bill hours. The engagement on my weekly updates was getting progressively lower, which discouraged me from spending my much-reduced free time on the project. Now that I’ve settled in, it’s time to finish the damn thing. So here’s the next installment.
101. Steely Dan — Gaucho (1980) The final Steely Dan album from their initial run doesn’t get as much critical acclaim as the others. The recording sessions were plagued by misfortune: Walter Backer had developed a heroin addiction, and then was hospitalized in a car accident that left him bedridden in the hospital. Becker’s girlfriend tragically died. A recording assistant managed to erase the tapes of what would have been the best song on the album. The duo’s notorious perfectionism was getting out of hand; Babylon Sisters, for example went through over 200 mixes before they were satisfied. They spent $150,000 for their engineer, Roger Nichols, to develop a primitive drum machine that would let them move samples around on tape. Critics said the album sounded tired, defeated, soulless, sterile, perfectionist to the point where the life was drained out.
The critics have somewhat of a point, but I think the perfectionism was worth it. I’m not too keen on the quantized drums, but the album has a silky, seductive feel. Bernard Purdie’s shuffling drums on the aforementioned Babylon Sisters are only one reason why it’s the best song ever written about a past-his-prime loser having a three-way with a couple of whores. And from there cue the usual Steely Dan parade of losers, outcasts, and addicts. It’s a dark album for sure, but the title cut (about a gay catfight) provides a bit of levity, as does the bluesy film noir of My Rival.
100. The Decemberists — Castaways and Cutouts (2002) The rock music scene in 2002 was rather grim. It was the age of nu-metal. Garage Rock was making a comeback, but there were limitations to how far one could take the genre. The lighter side was dominated by John Mayer-style wuss rock. Even the indie scene was largely dominated by 90s holdovers who established the genre under the presumption that grunge wasn’t, well “grungey” enough. I exaggerate of course, but this album was a breath of fresh air at the time. The production evoked a warmth that hadn’t been heard since the 70s, with acoustic guitars, organs, Rhodes piano, and drums that weren’t compressed to hell and back. The structures were complex. The melodies actually went somewhere. And the lyrics were “literary” in the truest sense of the word, evoking past times and distant lands, with no shortage of whimsy. Future albums would explore these concepts further, with mixed results, but the band never really beat their debut.
99. Joe Walsh — Barnstorm (1972) Joe Walsh spent the early part of his career rocking out in the James Gang, and he would later go on to provide the Eagles with a modicum of rock credibility. But his best work was in his solo albums. He had matured since his days with the James Gang and lent into the Progressive Rock that was popular in Britain at the time without totally betraying his Hard Rock roots. The Eagles ultimately made him more money, but there he was a mere hired hand who would contribute a song here and there but would never have the clout to realize a total artistic vision. If you want that, then this album is the best example. The songs are distinct, yet they flow together in a suite-like manner that completes the effect. The whole is grater than the sum of the parts, but the parts are pretty damn good by themselves.
98. Aphex Twin — Selected Ambient Works 85–92 (1992) In the Classical era, the third movement of a symphony was in a dance form, usually a minuet. But while the form was there, the music itself was not intended for dancing, and it certainly wasn’t expected that the audience would get up from their seats and begin dancing in the middle of the performance. As time went along, the “dances” became so stylized that they were virtually undanceable, there for listening only. Electronica took a similar path. Born in the 1980s underground rave scene, it emerged primarily as music for dancing. With this album, however, IDM, or Intelligent Dance Music, almost emerges fully formed. Its roots are obvious, but it’s music clearly intended for listening, not dancing. The idea of electronic music that wasn’t intended for dancing wasn’t a new one, but older material in that vein was either clearly outside the scope of the club scene (Milton Babbitt, Brian Eno, Jean Michel Jarre, Vangelis, Wendy Carlos, etc.) or was Ambient music meant for chilling out. The title notwithstanding, this album wasn’t intended as mere background music or accompaniment to a drug experience, but as something worth listening to on its own. Over the course of a tranquil hour and fifteen minutes, MR. Richard D. James presents us with a series of subtly changing electronic pieces that retain the rhythms of what would be considered dance music but also contain a complexity that rewards close listening. This album took Electronica out of the dance club and into the living room, making it something for ravers and nerds alike.
97. Black Sabbath — Paranoid (1970) There’s some discussion among music junkies whether Metal is a subgenre of Rock or its own thing, the way Rock is distinct from Blues. While I’m inclined towards the former argument, the existence of Black Sabbath is the best evidence in support of the latter. When discussing the origins of metal, a number of bands — Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, The Jeff Beck Group, Iron Butterfly, etc. — come up in the discussion. But Black Sabbath stands out above the pack. The Hard Rock scene in the early 1970s was just that, Rock with more distortion. It was loud, for sure, but if there’s one differentiating factor between the Hard Rock of the 1970s and the metal of the 1980s and beyond, it’s the latter’s disposal with most of the traditional Rock and Roll elements, particularly the reliance on blues structures and any tendency to swing the rhythm. As much as Led Zeppelin was revered, they were always a Blues band at heart, and the others on the list even more so. I am of the opinion that one of the distinguishing factors between good Rock music and bad Rock music is that good rock music always retains at least some blues feel; it can move into the background but should never been absent entirely. While later generations of Metal musicians would strip as much of the Blues out of the music as they could without rendering it unrecognizable as metal, Black Sabbath understood this clearly, and while they were able to avoid the obvious Blues inflections of their Hard Rock contemporaries, they never succumbed to outright abolition. Instead, they gave the spotlight to the other structural elements that make Metal what it is and let the Blues simmer in the background. They first achieved this on their self-titled debut, but this is where the style would reach its apotheosis. Three of the cuts (“War Pigs”, “Iron Man”, and the title track) are radio classics, and the rest is on the same level, particularly the closing “Jack the Stripper/Fairies Wear Boots”. On future albums Black Sabbath would reach similar heights, but by wisely varying the formula rather than simply reiterating it. This was the height of the original style, and I don’t think Metal got any better after this.
96. Tangerine Dream — Phaedra (1974) This album is the inverse of the Aphex Twin album. While Aphex Twin took electronic club music and turned it into something that was worth listening closely to, Tangerine Dream made electronic music expressly for the purpose of close listening and almost inadvertently made it something worth dancing to. It’s IDM BC, provided you keep in mind that not only is it totally undanceable but also that it was never intended to have the effect that it did. Tangerine Dream were a trio who came out of the German Avant Garde scene who had been making experimental electronic music since 1969. While early synthesizer promotors such as Wendy Carlos were trying to adapt the instrument to existing forms, and plenty of Rock bands were treating the instruments like pianos and other keyboards, Tangerine Dream was more interested in exploring the full potential of the instrument. You can play Bach on a synthesizer, sure, but you can also play him on a harpsichord. What can you do with a synthesizer that can’t be done with anything else? A lot of groups would spend the next several decades trying to answer this question, but the development of the sequencer would change the game for Tangerine Dream. Put simply, a sequencer is a kind of synthesizer computer; it allows you to program a sequence of notes that will repeat. It’s the foundation of EDM today. Had Tangerine Dream simply made the first sequenced album, that would be a fine accomplishment but not necessarily make a five star album. They understood that a repeating sequence of notes was just that, and while it would later prove good enough for dancing, the intention was listening. So the sequences are integrated into a greater whole that stands on its own. They change — sometimes subtly, sometimes wholesale — in a way that moves the music forward as if one were going on a trip. It’s a dark, textured, and haunting album, and one that pairs well with psychedelics, or so I’m told. The ability of this album to repeat a consistent pattern and build on it would be influential in the development of Electronica, but his album is so much more than that.
95. The Who — Live at Leeds (1970) One of my pet peeves with the modern concert scene is that it usually involves people paying hundreds of dollars to see some well-known mega act and then evaluating the performances based on how close they sound to the record. Well, I can listen to the records at home, and for a lot less money. I want my live performances to offer something that I can’t get from a studio recording. Not all bands are able to consistently reinvent themselves like this, so most live albums end up being superfluous. The Who always had more of an edge than other British Invasion groups, but as the 70s dawned and Hard Rock took center stage heaviness became mandatory; what they had been playing only 5 years before now seemed a tad quaint. The performance of “Substitue” on here rocks harder than anyone could have predicted in 1965. “Magic Bus” had by this point become an extended performance piece. And “My Generation”, perhaps the definitive rock anthem, is extended to fifteen minutes, seemingly integrating every spare riff the band was playing with in that period. But that’s only part of the story. “Shakin’ All Over” and “Summertime Blues” are Hard Rock updates of Rock and Roll classics, bringing to the fore the raw aggression these songs always had buried somewhere in them. And then there’s the centerpiece, a cover of Mose Allison’s jazz tune “Young Man Blues”, which is the aural equivalent of being charged by a rhino with its incessant riffage. This album is a sonic assault in the best sense of the expression, being aggressive but not for its own sake. When I see a band — even a band that I love — has released a 3-CD boxed set of live performances, I often wonder if any 6 songs of the 52 or whatever they included can match the 6 presented here, and I shake my head knowing that the best 6 probably won’t come anywhere close.
94. Led Zeppelin — Led Zeppelin (1969) This is where the legend begins, kids. It’s not Led Zeppelin’s best album (spoiler alert!), but it does answer the question of how far one can push the Blues and still have it be the Blues. Pretty damn far. I don’t really have much to say about this one other than that it set the stage for pretty much the entire hard rock style. It isn’t as diverse as their later work, being mostly a Blues Rock album in the style of the Jeff Beck Group, but the 1-2 punch of “You’re Time Is Gonna Come / Black Mountain Side” preview their more sophisticated Rock songwriting and folk tendencies, respectively.
93. Bob Dylan — Blood on the Tracks (1975) Bob Dylan is at least partly responsible for three revolutions in Rock music. First was the expansion of lyrical themes from typical teenage concerns first to political and social commentary and then to oblique, symbolic poetry. Second was the expansion of song structures from verse-chorus arrangements to something more malleable and expansive. Third, he helped impart the idea that a serious musician writes his own material rather than relying on that of outside songwriters. By the 1970s, this revolution had spawned the Singer-Songwriter, an ostensible mini-Dylan who wrote and performed his own Folk-influenced songs about adult concerns. Dylan himself, however, never really fit into this mold, as the Singer-Songwriters sang mostly about personal matters while Dylan was anything but personal. That changed in 1975. Fresh off a divorce, Dylan finally embraced the style he helped developed and wore his heart on his sleeve for one album, letting out the anger, frustration, and other emotions out into the open.
92. The Allman Brothers Band — Brothers and Sisters (1973) Just as the Allman Brothers seemed to reach their height, everything came crashing down. Duane Allman, the band’s heart and soul, was killed in a motorcycle accident in October 1971. Only a year later, bassist Berry Oakley was himself killed in a motorcycle accident only three blocks from where Duane met his demise. Given the circumstances, it wouldn’t have been surprising if the band simply packed it in. Instead, they replaced Oakley with Lamar Williams and added Chuck Leavell as a second keyboardist and went on to record the best album of their career. While the track lengths aren’t any shorter than their previous work, the songs as a whole seem tighter, with less of the jam tendencies of the early material. It seems almost unfathomable that three of the band’s best-known songs, “Wasted Words”, “Ramblin’ Man”, and “Jessica”, would come from an album without Duane. Much of the credit goes to guitarist Dickey Betts, who took over much of the songwriting duties and direction in a band that was ostensible democratic. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t last. The band’s next album was widely regarded as a disappointment and would lead to their breakup. They’d reunite several times over the years, and while they put on good live shows, they’d never add anything to their repertoire that was even close to being on par with this album.
91. Lynyrd Skynyrd — Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd (1973) The Allman Brothers may have invented Southern Rock, but it was Lynyrd Skynyrd who consolidated it into a distinct genre. While the Allmans were essentially a Blues band that owed more debt than usual to Soul, Country, and Rock music, Skynyrd was essentially a Hard Rock band that owed more debt than usual to the same “Southern” genres the Allmans were into. The result was a baseline that other bands could take as inspiration and vary from; if the Allman Brothers were the progenitors, Lynyrd Skynyrd were the definers. Take the Skynyrd base with more of an emphasis toward Country and you have The Marshall Tucker Band. Emphasize Soul and you have Wet Willie. Emphasize Hard Rock and you have Molly Hatchet. Emphasize pop and you have Atlanta Rhythm Section. Etc. If someone wants to know what Southern Rock sounds like and you only have 45 minutes, playing this album will give them as good of an idea as any playlist you could come up with.
90. Fleetwood Mac — Rumours (1977) Evaluating the mega albums is always problematic. On the one hand are normies who say it’s one of the best albums ever because, we suspect, that’s what they think they’re supposed to do (Thriller being the most egregious example of this, though I think A Night at the Opera may eventually overtake it). On the other hand, there are the contrarians saying that this album sucks because popularity does not equal quality, blah blah blah. One thing I’ve learned about evaluating art is that in order to give it a fair shake you have to forget about every prejudice you have about it and listen with fresh ears. I don’t want to get into a whole essay about how cultural expectations influence our perception of cultural artifacts themselves, but I don’t think its controversial to suggest that the rubric by which we evaluate art is defined by how we perceive ourselves. Something as simple as being young may bias us against music for “happy hour at the old folks home”, whereas the serious, sophisticated listener may be instinctively put off by music he perceives as being marketed towards teenage girls.
Much has been made about the personal tensions that were underway when this album was being recorded, but less has been said about the creative tension that was inherent to this edition of Fleetwood Mac. They started as a Blues band in the 1969s, led by Peter Green, but Green went nuts and they spent the first half of the 1970s rebranding as an average to above-average Pop/Rock band. Constantly adrift, they recruited Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks solely on the basis of the album the duo made together, and Buckingham agreed only on the condition that he be given an inordinate amount of creative influence for a new member. This actually turned out to be a good idea, as he was easily the most creative member of the new lineup. Creativity is, of course, a double-edged sword, as there’s also an inherent weirdness baked into most creative people. Luckily, these tendencies were balanced out by Nicks, who was much more conventional, if less daring, and Christine McVie. Buckingham was always in charge of the arrangements though, so nothing escaped Buckingham’s influence. The results speak for themselves. It wasn’t a massive hit because it appealed to the lowest common denominator, but because it knew how to appeal to the lowest common denominator while still being sophisticated enough to stand on its own two legs. Fleetwood Mac’s future albums would be beset by various problems to which there was no obvious solution (I also give Tusk 5 stars, but I admit that Buckingham kind of went off the rails here and he lost influence because of it), but this is the one place where it all clicked.
89. The Eagles — Hotel California (1976) Sticking with the mega albums, here’s another doozy. When Rock documentaries get to the punk years, this album is almost always cited as the reason Punk had to happen. It’s emblematic of the general decline the second generation of Rock artists foisted upon the genre. The initial youthful drive of Chuck Berry, the Stones, and the Who had been replaced with sanded schlock meant to appeal to California housewives, not pissed off teenagers. Rock stars weren’t outcasts from society, but multi-millionaires with comfortable lives, making music for young professionals with comfortable lives. The idealism of the 60s had been replaced with the materialism of the 70s; the hippies were well on their way to becoming yuppies (not that the Punks had any love for hippies or idealism, but I digress). I’m not going to argue that any of this isn’t true. I am going to argue that art isn’t subservient to ethos. This is especially true for music, which is, by its nature, and abstract form. Dylan went through the same thing in the 60s, when the Folk community cast him out as a Judas figure, first for refusing to commit himself to validating their politics, then for daring to go electric, thereby completing the betrayal by abandoning folk altogether for the siren song of the dreaded “Pop music”. While I can’t say that these days people have forgotten about that, as it’s an essential part of Rock mythology, I’m unaware of anyone today who seriously thinks the world would have been better off if Dylan had kept making solo acoustic albums about politics, Folk fans included.
The upshot is that the Eagles aren’t cool, a sentiment that’s best exemplified by the scene in the Big Lebowski where The Dude is kicked out of the cab for daring to say that he hates the fucking Eagles. The Dude, original author of the Port Huron Statement, member of the Seattle 7, consummate 60s radical and aging hippie don’t give a fuck extraordinaire — of course he hates the Eagles. I feel like the context of the joke is largely lost on the generation who embraced that film (that is to say, my generation), but the point is well taken. The question is whether there’s anything about the music itself that’s lacking, and there isn’t. Some things are popular for a reason.
88. Cream — Disraeli Gears (1967) It never really occurred to me until now how closely cream parallels The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Power trios that include guitar gods, fundamentally based in the blues but who added psychedelic touches and would set the stage for hard rock and jam bands. The most prominent difference is that Cream was more directly rooted in the British blues scene and would never embrace the all-out freakery that Hendrix would, though they did more closely presage jam bands. Other than that, I don’t have much to say. I’ve listened to this album so many times its become embedded in my DNA at this point, and asking for my opinion on it is like asking for my opinion on breathing. I’ll be happy to field any questions or address any criticisms on the off chance that someone else is as familiar with this as I am.
87. Grateful Dead — Workingman’s Dead (1970) Speaking of jam bands, the Dead is probably the jam band par excellence. But that has nothing to do with this record. Speaking of psychedelic music, the Dead is probably one of the most oft-cited examples of a San Francisco psychedelic band. But that has nothing to do with this album. The secret is, that, at their best, the Dead were a roots-rock band, and their best work was when they kept this in mind. I don’t want to say too much at this point because the Dead have a complicated legacy and can be difficult to talk about like one talks about other bands. That’s the minefield I’m entering that I didn’t much have to worry about earlier — when you’re discussing obscure bands no one has any preconceptions about them, and it’s not a hot take to list one at number 139. Hell, at a certain point I’ll probably have to start posting this in the Culture War thread. But the point is that, for all the bullshit that’s wrapped up with the Grateful Dead, there is nothing on this album that should turn off anyone who is already predisposed to like roots-rock in general. Most of the songs are acoustic-driven, if not entirely acoustic, and evoke a nice, laid-back atmosphere. Perfect for listening to on a quiet Saturday afternoon.
86. Deep Purple — Machine Head (1972) No, It’s not metal, but it’s hard rock at its finest. It’s got “Highway Star”. It’s got “Space Truckin’” It’s got a bunch of lesser-known songs that are just as good. And it’s also got that other song, the one I need not mention. The one that’s right up there with “Pinball Wizard” and “Stairway to Heaven” as one of the most recognizable songs of all time, the band’s business card, their definitive symbol, the riff that become synonymous with the entire concept of the electric guitar. Yup, that song.
Rov_Scam
5mo ago
ACX10 is just dull at this point. SSC was headed in that direction before the switch to Substack. Scott was at his best when he was discussing Culture War stuff or at least stuff somewhat related to the culture war. When he gave that up (presumably to avoid causing any friction with the judgmental Bay-Area types he hangs out with) he gave up most of what made his writing interesting. I still check it from time to time but I don't read every article and certainly wouldn't pay for the content. The best part of the current site is the book reviews, and most of those are guest reviews.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
Just for some clarification: The media reports seem to be acting like this is a lawsuit, or at least that's the impression they're giving most readers. It's not; it's a petition to terminate the conservatorship and order an accounting from the conservators. There's some language in it about him possibly being screwed out of some money, but without an accounting we don't know. I'm about the same age as Oher and God knows if I found out I had inadvertently made someone my conservator when I was 18 and they accepted money on my behalf I'd be damn sure that they account for every dime.
That being said, the whole thing stinks. Conservatives (i.e. the Fox News comment section) seem to be sure that this is a shakedown from a guy who blew all his NFL money, but there's no evidence of that. I find it highly unlikely as well, because the revelation of the conservatiorship was part of an investigation into his financial affairs he hired an attorney to conduct around the time he retired in 2016; hiring an attorney to investigate one's financial affairs isn't normally something a spendthrift would do, at least not until he he burned through it all. Anyway, the giveaway that he didn't know about the nature of the conservatorship and that the Touheys didn't want him to know the full ramifications of what happened is that they apparently stopped using it when he went to the NFL. Had he known about it at the time he wouldn't have been able to get his own agent and would have either petitioned to end it then or worked with the conservator. If the Touheys had sought to enforce it, it would have been a dead giveaway of what they did and would have caused some controversy right around the time the movie was released. Signing a movie deal on someone's behalf behind their back is one thing, but the public nature of NFL contracts means that this wasn't something that would have gone unnoticed. And there's no evidence that they tried to handle his affairs for him since. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope it never comes up again.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
Well, it finally happened. Last Saturday San Jose Sharks goaltender James Reimer, citing religious beliefs, refused to wear the Pride-themed warmup jersey in honor of Pride night, and accordingly sat out warmups. Reimer has started most of San Jose's games this season but has mostly been splitting time with Kaapo Kahkonen, but he did not start Saturday and instead was Kahkonen's backup. This isn't the first time this season that the Pride jerseys have led to controversy—Ivan Provorov of the Philadelphia Flyers declined to wear it back in January, citing his Russian Orthodox faith, and Pride nights were cancelled in New York and Minnesota (presumably because the refusals would be conspicuous enough to cause undue controversy, but I have no evidence of this). So it's been simmering for a while, but this was the first real big blowup. Getting mad at Russians for having "incorrect" beliefs doesn't get much traction (Ovechkin's support of Putin was never that big a deal) because it's presumed that they aren't exactly the most enlightened people. And individual teams cancelling events seems suspect but teams are already too easy to get mad at for a variety of reasons, though people certainly took advantage of the opportunity. But now, with Reimer, and Anglo Protestant. conservatives finally have their Colin Kaepernick.
Reaction was predictable. The Fox News comment section duly praised Reimer for his courage to stand up against the wokeness that has come to infect professional sports. Reddit, meanwhile, seemed disgusted that the NHL would allow one of its players to openly flaunt the ideals of inclusiveness. There was also a quite a bit of armchair theologizing, with people who almost assuredly aren't religious either making fun of religion wholesale or claiming that, actually, Reimer's faith should make him an LGBT ally. Nearly absent from this conversation, though, is Kaepernick, despite the obvious parallels. Conservatives had previously argued that "politics should be kept out of sports", and that Kaepernick's nonparticipation in a team-oriented civic ritual was tantamount to injecting his own politics into the game. Even Mike Tomlin's decision to keep the Steelers in the tunnel in an attempt to avoid controversy that may have resulted from a player kneeling backfired; participation was mandatory, and Alejandro Villenueva was praised as a folk hero for conspicuously entering the field anyway to stand for the anthem. Ditto liberals, who also failed to see that the idea of punishing a player for refusing to participate in a pregame activity because it was against his religious or political beliefs is something that extends across the board; we can't pick and choose which beliefs are okay to protest and which aren't. The only real difference is that conservatives seem to believe that Pride nights are an abomination that has to go, while I never heard any serious Kaepernick supporters suggest that the NFL should do away with the anthem.
What's surprising is the lack of self-awareness. It's not that people in these comments sections don't challenge people with the obvious Kaepernick comparisons, it's that no one seems willing to even engage. I have yet to see anyone on either side make a statement about consistency (i.e. I defended Kaepernick and I defend Reimer/I criticized Kaepernick and I'm criticizing Reimer) or attempt to differentiate the situations. People usually try to differentiate because they want to appear principled and not just reacting based on their own biases, but most controversies give a little room for it. The Kaepernick case is so familiar and so alike that it's almost as if the cognitive dissonance actively prevents people from engaging. I'd like to see one person try to justify their position in light of this argument. Just one.
Rov_Scam
10mo ago
The people in power most associated with the Iraq war were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice, and John Bolton, not a Jew among them. No Jews on the entire National Security Council, either. The idea that none of these people actually wanted the war but were talked into it by the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz is ridiculous. I could just as easily make an argument that the war was completely the work of blacks.
Rov_Scam
11mo ago
Combat sports are subject to the jurisdiction of the various state athletic commissions. The matches themselves are scheduled independently by promoters (the biggest MMA promoter is UFC) and are supervised by sanctioning bodies approved by the athletic commission. The actual rules the commission enforces are state law and determined by the legislature. Only two trans women to date have fought in unsanctioned MMA matches, the most prominent of whom was Fallon Fox, who amassed a 5–1 record between 2012 and 2014. All that happened there was that she was granted a license by the California Athletic Commission after she had proven she had undergone all the necessary procedures (and the commission required a full sex change), and a promoter scheduled the fights. She was later granted a license in Florida. MMA people were pissed but it wasn't MMA people who had the authority to make the decision, it was state bureaucrats and individual promoters. The inherent danger of combat sports means they aren't like basketball or whatever where anyone can rent a gym and stage a tournament, and the increased level of state supervision has historically led to a system that was based more on independent promotions rather than organized leagues or even widely-recognized sanctioning bodies (which is why boxing has 743 sanctioning bodies and title fights result in the awarding of 15 belts).
Rov_Scam
11mo ago
Saying that society should recognize that these people are garbage and not give a damn about them is a position that can only be taken if one is very selective about whom this categorization refers to, and this selectivity is why activists protest and call opinions such as yours inherently racist, or classist, or whatever. When Mr. Penny decided to put Mr. Neely in a chokehold, his information was limited to what he could tell from the approximately 30 seconds or whatever it was that Penny observed him in public. He didn't have a copy of the guy's criminal record to know that he was a general homeless scofflaw who had been arrested 42 times previously, mostly for turnstile jumping and public drunkenness but at least four times for assault. All he knew was that the guy was ranting and raving about being hungry and not caring if he went to jail and that this behavior made some (most?) people around him uncomfortable so he decided to do something about it, or, more accurately, assist in a group effort to do something about it.
Giving him a free pass on this seems reasonable enough, but only because we have the additional context that this was a black, homeless, schizo, ne'er do well. Suppose, on the other hand, a white, middle-class, student at a prestigious university (possibly your son) got drunk and started making a scene on public transit. A group of black passengers were made uncomfortable by his behavior and the young man died after on of these passengers put him in a choke hold. When I was in my early 20s being drunk, loud, and obnoxious on public transit was a regular occurrence, as we could go to the club in the city on 50 cent drink night without having to drive or park. Just a few years ago a friend of mine went into a similar rant about Taco Bell on the train back to the hotel after the 2018 ACC Championship Game in Charlotte. And if the counterargument is that Neely was obviously a dangerous hobo then that just confirms the suspicions of all the social justice do-gooders that you expect the rules to be different for certain people, and we're supposed to expect people to be able to tell the difference based on the way a guy's dressed or whether we think he's mentally ill or homeless or, mast damningly, whether he's white.
I remember a similar storyline back when black guys getting shot by cops was in the news more often, and most of the conservatives I know kept pointing out that one has an obligation to obey when a police officer tells you to do something. As a guy in his '30s this seemed reasonable, until I looked back at my own life and realized that by these people's standards I'd have been dead a long time ago. Yes, I agree generally with the argument that if a police officer decides to arrest you then what happens afterward happens on his terms, not yours, and if you have a problem with that you can bring it up in court. On the other hand, any teenager who is told to stop by police is going to start running. I wasn't a bad kid by a long-shot—I only got two write-ups in four years of high school, and one was for a class cut—but I still liked to occasionally indulge in the kind of mischief kids indulge in, like drinking in woods of indeterminate ownership or stealing pumpkins from farm fields and shit like that, and this would sometimes end with a fat, black cop chasing a bunch of spry kids through fields and woods. I once got away because I crawled under a fence that the guy couldn't fit under. If we took these statements about a duty of compliance to their logical conclusion, the officer had every right to shoot me. After all, I had clearly committed a crime, ignored his orders and fled. And it was clear that he wasn't going to catch me unless he could stop me from a distance. And this was for the same type of "quality of life" shit a lot of law and order types are complaining about. How would you like it if property you paid for was being used without permission by people on quads and dirt bikes during the day, cutting trails you don't want, contributing to erosion, and scaring away huntable animals, and then at night the same kids would come back and build fires and leve beer cans and fast food wrappers everywhere? People in rural areas have gotten in trouble for putting up tripwires and spike strips and other kinds of booby traps to keep people from trespassing, and while there's some pushback it's understandable that parents get pissed when criminal trespass results in serious premeditated injury. If we develop standards they have to apply to everybody, and few people realize what the implications of this would be.
Online music piracy became commonplace precisely because no one ever had any ethical concerns about it. Taping albums, radio, videocassettes, television programs, and the like had been commonplace since consumer grade technology permitted it. No one in the '90s had any ethical concerns about taping The Wizard of Oz off of television so your kids could watch it whenever they wanted to. Hell, when I bought CDs in high school my own parents would sigh and tell me I shouldn't be spending money on something I could download off the internet. The reason kids these days take a view of copyright infringement that's more in line with the actual law is because the media environment makes it cheap and easy to avoid resorting to piracy. Ironically, this environment owes its entire existence to the piracy of the early '00s; the music industry would prefer the 20th Century way of doing business, and they only switched to streaming after they were effectively forced to (actually well past the point when they were forced to). If streaming services disappeared and the only way to legally have unlimited access to the latest pop hit was to pay $35 for a CD with 12 fixed songs, most of which you have no immediate interest in, the younger generation's attitudes toward piracy would change in a heartbeat.
Even today, no one really pays too much attention to the letter of the law when it comes to copyright infringement. The people who would tsk tsk you for pirating a movie off of an illegal stream because you didn't want to pay for it probably wouldn't be too concerned about whether your use of Dilbert's picture in a presentation for work was properly licensed, or whether their local bar was signed up with ASCAP and BMI so some guy at open mic night can play "Midnight at the Oasis" in public. Hell, Netflix recently announced plans to crack down on sharing accounts, which is both widespread and technically illegal.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
I may have mentioned this before, but for those of you don’t know, I’m an unapologetic music junkie. Since 2010 or so, I’ve been making my way through the corpus of music history in a semi-systematic way that makes sense only to me, and rating albums as I go through it using a scale of 0 to 5 stars, half stars included. To date, I have awarded 186 albums the highest ranking the criteria for which are as follows:
The crème de la crème. Albums that have no serious weak moments and many transcendent ones. Any weak spots or less than captivating songs are overshadowed by the splendor of the glorious majority. In any event, these are minor enough that pointing them out is the kind of petty nitpicking that even fans of the work in question will argue over. Nearly all of these records defined either the genre which they belong to or the era in which they were recorded.
I don’t normally rank the albums as I rate them, but I’ve done so for the top tier. As a sort of personal indulgence, I will include capsule reviews for all the albums on this list over the next several Fridays, including as many reviews as character limits allow. Without further ado:
186 Lynyrd Skynyrd – One More from the Road (1977)
Most live albums are superfluous—they include pleasant live renditions of the familiar studio material but rarely offer anything essential. The best live albums are usually the shorter ones that highlight a few key performances rather than attempting to provide the full concert experience. Unfortunately, there was a trend in the 1970s where any artist nearing the end of its contract would release an obligatory double live album that clocked in at over an hour and contained everything a fan could want in a live release. Most of these are decent, but inessential. This record is one of the few exceptions. Lead guitarist Steve Gaines had recently joined the band and would only be present for one studio album, but the performances he gives here are nonpareil, giving the familiar classics a level of sophistication they hadn’t had previously. And the performance of "Freebird" that ends the album makes it abundantly clear why calling for it at the end of unrelated concerts became such a cliché 20 years later.
185 Strawbs – Ghosts (1975)
Strawbs were about as undistinguished a Progressive Rock band as you could get, never having any commercial success, always showing flashes of brilliance but never making a truly great album (though Hero and Heroine came close). Then, in 1975, as Progressive Rock was in its death throes, everything finally came together. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about the album, just that it combines great songs with enough of the usual progressive elements to keep things interesting.
184 Organized Konfusion – Organized Konfusion (1991)
Most rap albums—even the important ones—suffer from some critical flaw that prevents them from achieving the highest ranking. I’d be remiss if I claimed that this album held any particular degree of importance in the history of rap music, but it manages to run for nearly an hour without a bum track in sight. The liberal Steely Dan samples don’t hurt, either.
183 Thievery Corporation – Sound from the Thievery Hi-Fi (1997)
Downtempo albums can be difficult to judge because they are, at some level, supposed to exist in the background as much as the foreground. Ones that emphasize the former tend to be generic and unmemorable. Ones that emphasize the latter can be good albums, but they aren’t really effective as Downtempo albums. Not only does Thievery Corporation manage to strike this balance perfectly, they also manage to strike a similar balance between Hip-Hop and Easy Listening, making this album equally suited for smoking a joint as it is to being played in a department store. And, of course, the individual cuts are great as well.
182 The Byrds – The Notorious Byrd Brothers (1968)
It seems odd looking back at the catalog of one of the most significant bands in Rock history that this was the only album they released that makes this list. There are at least five other Byrds albums that probably have better critical reputations than this, and they are very good albums, but all suffered from pretty significant flaws. What makes it all the more unusual is that this album was recorded at an uncertain point in the band’s history; personnel changes were rampant, with the only constants being Roger McGuinn and Chris Hillman, and session musicians were used to complete the songs. Nonetheless, this album manages to encapsulate everything that was great about the Byrds: “Goin’ Back” echoes back to their early Folk-Rock period, “Wasn’t Born to Follow” looks ahead to their Country-Rock future, and there’s plenty of psychedelic weirdness thrown in for good measure.
181 Bob Seger – Night Moves (1976)
While Bruce Springsteen has always fashioned himself as the working-class Heartland Rocker par excellence, Bob Seger is a much better choice for that distinction. He’d spent the past decade as a true working musician, putting out albums regularly, touring constantly, and getting little recognition outside of Michigan for it. His breakthrough album was the typical double-live Live Bullet, but this was his first real studio success, containing great songs that encapsulate the heartland approach without resorting to the theatrical bombast of Bruce Springsteen or the overearnestness of John Mellencamp.
180 Roy Harper – Stormcock (1971)
Roy Harper’s claim to fame among most Rock fans is as the namesake of the Led Zeppelin song “Hats Off to (Roy) Harper” and as the lead vocalist on Pink Floyd’s “Have a Cigar”. He was always bound to be the kind of guy that was more popular among musicians than among the general public. This is certainly an unusual album in the Rock canon—only four tracks, two per side, just acoustic guitar and vocals. But the length of the songs works to their advantage, as Harper is talented enough to make them seem epic rather than overlong, and his guitar playing is intricate enough that the spare instrumentation never seems inadequate.
179 Boards of Canada – The Campfire Headphase (2005)
The critical consensus may be that Music Has the Right to Children is the best Boards of Canada album, and while that record was more influential, it had to much weirdness for the sake of weirdness to make it into the top tier. By the time The Campfire Headphase was released, the band was no longer on the cutting edge, but the more deliberate composition and integration of acoustic instruments made this the better album.
178 Donovan – A Gift from a Flower to a Garden (1967)
Donovan was by far the dippiest member of the British Folk-Rock scene (he went to India with the Beatles and actually took the whole trip seriously), so it’s no surprise that he recorded a children’s album that was more than a lazy cash-in. While the individual songs are relatively short, the album is a double, and it’s clear that he was contributing A material. The dippiness actually works to this album’s advantage, as Donovan can parlay that into a sense of whimsy rather than simply dumbing-down the music, as so many other musicians are wont to do when playing for children. The end result is a kid’s album that you wouldn’t even know is a kid’s album unless someone told you.
177 Fleetwood Mac – Tusk (1979)
Lindsey Buckingham abandons the tight pop songs that made Fleetwood Mac icons in favor of his own eccentric weirdness, which isn’t merely limited to his contributions but to the arrangements he provides to the Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie songs. And it works! The counterbalance the rest of the band provides makes this more palatable than his solo material (where he simply runs wild). The rest of the band would tell him to cut it out after this and release more conventional pop albums, but they’d never reach these heights again.
176 Big Star – No. 1 Record (1972)
This is one of those overrated critical darlings whose reputation precedes it. As much as I want to resist fellating this album the way so many critics do, I have to admit that this is a pretty near perfect collection of Power Pop songs, and there ain’t nothing wrong with that.
175 Heart – Dreamboat Annie (1976)
Heart has developed a reputation as a sort of female-fronted Zeppelin, and while that characterization isn’t entirely fair, what makes their early career is their Zeppelin-like ability to blend Hard Rock riffage with more contemplative acoustic material. By the time the ‘80s rolled around, commercial pressures forced them into a generic power ballad arena band, but at the beginning, they were able to craft thoughtful albums with a cohesive artistic vision.
174 Rush – Hemispheres (1978)
Most people would rate their next two albums as better than this, but for me, this is as good as Rush ever got. The title cut might be the last great sidelong suite, “Circumstances” is a solid Hard Rock cut, and the Harrison Bergeron-inspired “The Trees” doesn’t disappoint either. But the real standout here is “La Villa Strangiato”, which is the best instrumental of Rush’s career and is in the running for best Rock instrumental of all time. Rush would find a more distinctive voice in the ‘80s, but they never really topped this.
173 Bad Company – Bad Company (1974)
Bad Company’s reputation isn’t the best since they’re viewed as responsible for all the generic arena bands of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s like Journey, Foreigner, Loverboy, and, well, all the other Bad Company albums. But this is still a killer collection of songs that remains unparalleled in the genre, and that won’t change regardless of how much crap it inspired.
That's it for now. Let me know what you think!
Rov_Scam
4mo ago
You're giving these people entirely too much credit. They're not Satanists of the Anton LaVey hedonist school (which is a pretty thin reed as it is) but a political group masquerading as a religion so they can pull publicity stunts like this. As much as people complain about the encroachment of politics into mainstream Christianity, it's really just ancillary to what the bulk of the Church's activities are. For instance, on the About Us page of their website they state:
We have publicly confronted hate groups, fought for the abolition of corporal punishment in public schools, applied for equal representation when religious installations are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict people's reproductive autonomy, exposed harmful pseudo-scientific practitioners in mental health care, organized clubs alongside other religious after-school clubs in schools besieged by proselytizing organizations, and engaged in other advocacy in accordance with our tenets.
This is pretty unremarkable on its own, but when you consider that there are only three things on that part of the site, and there's an entire tab dedicated to advocacy, it's pretty clear that this so-called "religion" doesn't have that much going for it. That being said, this is really just a case of the usual religious zealots being hoisted by their own petard. The courts had already ruled that secular Christmas decorations were okay on public property and not an endorsement of religion. That wasn't enough for some of these people, who apparently needed a nativity scene in front of city hall in order to feel vindicated. Unfortunately for them we don't live in a country with an official religion, so it was difficult for courts to permit such a blatant endorsement of one religion (especially since we know what the reaction would be if a municipality decided to forgo Christian imagery in favor of Muslim). So they had to reach a compromise whereby outside groups could put their own displays on public property, provided that no religion was favored over another. And thus we get blatant political trolls like the Satanic Temple who only build these displays for the purpose of pissing off Christians they don't like. They don't care that the statue was vandalized because that's what they were expecting. Since Satanic Temple has nothing to offer members other than smug political advocacy, it would be hard to attract enough donations to pay for all of this stuff if they couldn't sell the whole business as a war against religious zealot morons who don't respect the separation of church and state. These displays would go away. But, much as we see with the continued "War on Christmas" rhetoric, both sides are incentivized to at least keep the battle at a low simmer.
Rov_Scam
9mo ago
He calls the book "literary fiction" but doesn't make clear what's so fictitious about it beyond a he-said-she-said account of a breakup. If he presented a list of outright fabrications then I'd be all-ears, but he seems more inclined to imply the book was more fictitious in the sense that it misrepresented Barack Obama's personality, which, mais non! A self-serving political autobiography?! Obama's simply a dork with a huge ego, which honestly describes a lot of people.
Rov_Scam
9mo ago
Oddly enough, I had the opposite experience when crossing from Connecticut into New York about ten years ago. While New England is nice, the whole thing (lower New England at least, Vermont, etc. is different) feels kind of fake. If I drive to a small town in a rural area, I want it to feel like a small town in a rural area and not a hip part of Pittsburgh (my hometown) transported to the mountains for the benefit of urban emigres. Most of Western Massachusetts and Connecticut is like this. Stately farmhouses with plaques bearing the date of construction and grounds so well-maintained they couldn't have seen any real agriculture for decades. The whole thing broke down when I was in the northwestern corner of Connecticut and I stopped to get breakfast. I had hiked off the AT that morning and was looking for a nice greasy diner and I didn't care how much I paid. The town was handsome and I asked a man on the street if there was a place to get breakfast; he said there was a place right across from where I was and I thanked him and headed there. On my way in I noticed a bookstore near the parking lot that I planned to check out afterwards. I ordered eggs Florentine for 12 bucks, pricey but I wasn't complaining, and was not given the Hollandaise-sauce extravaganza I was expecting but a couple of coddled eggs and a few pieces of baguette. I wasn't anywhere close to full. As I went to check out the bookstore I saw the sign more clearly and noticed that it was a rare bookstore "open by appointment or by chance". There's something off-putting about a small, rural town where one can buy a rare book but can't buy a can of baked beans. As soon as I crossed into New York the whole scene changed and the towns had real businesses like hardware stores and banks and transmission places and the farms smelled like cow shit and it felt like a place people actually lived and not some glorified resort.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
As most people here know, I'm a lawyer and I mostly work in the oil and gas industry doing titles, and while I've only done a few real estate titles in my career, O&G titles cover all of the same ground and then some, so I consider myself especially qualified to respond to this given that I spend all day looking at property records. This is a completely unworkable proposition.
First, there are interests other than outright ownership of the entire property that would affect the validity of title. Mortgage holders, holders of easements for utilities, oil and gas lessees, etc. The way it works now is that the property owner executes an instrument conveying the interest and it's the responsibility of the person receiving the interest to record it with the county. So who has the authority to edit the NFT? That's sort of a trick question because NFTs can't be edited, though the metadata can. The problem there is that if I can edit NFT metadata I can also edit away any pesky title defects and the whole issue is moot; I can't just mosey down to the local recorder's office and tell them to delete my mortgage from their records because I don't feel like paying for it. And it really would have to be editable by anybody because there are a lot of instruments relating to your property that are totally one-way transactions that you'd prefer not get on there. Like judgment liens, mechanic's liens, tax liens, condemnations, lis pedens, etc. And all this metadata would have to be viewable by the general public because there are a surprising number of people out there who need to know what is going on with property.
But these are all just technical problems; suppose you could create a publicly-viewable NFT system that can only be edited one-way that anyone can theoretically add to. Well, now you've just gotten us to the level of security of a title opinion and not title insurance. Because the real risk isn't what's out there but what isn't. I'll use an example to illustrate my second point:
Suppose an old man owns a piece of property and dies seized of it. He leaves no will, and has four surviving children. One of the children is appointed administrator of the estate and, along with the three remaining children, he executes a deed conveying the property to a third party. Except the old man actually had five children, one of whom moved across the country decades ago and has been dead for years. He had two children who aren't close to the rest of the family by virtue of distance and were minors at the time of the old man's death. The administrator didn't hire an attorney and no one in the family is particularly sophisticated when it comes to probate law. Years later the grandchildren find out about the property that had been sold out from under them and to which they were entitled to a share of the proceeds. The third party has since sold the property to you, and the grandchildren are now suing you to quiet title. Regardless of the outcome of the case, you're now stuck paying to litigate this, and this isn't the kind of thing that a diligent title search would uncover and isn't the kind of thing that could be entered into the blockchain, since no one knew about it until well after the transaction was already completed. In other words, this is exactly the kind of situation title insurance is supposed to deal with.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
Israel didn't participate in either of the Gulf Wars (in fact they sucked up Patriot missile batteries that could've been used elsewhere due to Iraqi Scud strikes attempting to fracture the US-led Coalition).
I haven't read Mearsheimer's book so I'm not familiar with how he handles the subject, but there are good reasons Israel didn't participate in either Gulf War. Namely, the US didn't want it to. In Desert Storm, there was concern that if Israel got involved it would put the Arab members of the coalition in a precarious position and they would need to withdraw, as being openly allied with Israel would have been a political disaster for them internally. Given that the coalition needed to use these countries as staging areas, having them in was critical. Saddam understood this, which is why he launched SCUD missiles at civilian targets in Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities—if he could provoke Israel into joining the war, the coalition effort would be imperiled. It took a great deal of restraint and US diplomacy to ensure that Israel wouldn't retaliate even after the attacks continued, and the crisis eventually passed.
Rov_Scam
7mo ago
He isn't taking criticism because he took run-of-the mill shots that didn't land. He's taking criticism because he came up with bullshit scenarios where he tried to convince women that they had some kind of professional responsibility to sleep with him, or engage in the kind of activity short of actual romantic involvement that most men would nonetheless like the opportunity to do with attractive women. And then to top it off he tried to lay a guilt trip on them if they expressed any reservations, making a claim that children would be harmed or even killed from a position as someone who would at least seem to be a credible authority on the subject. Maybe there's a legitimate explanation, but it all depends on the timeline. The kinds of things he asked the women to do are certainly unusual requests for employees or volunteers for a charitable organization. If you're going to make these kinds of requests from a position of authority, they'd better be necessary, and exactly what is required needs to be made explicit at the very beginning of the relationship, preferably with signed consent forms. If this seems extreme, keep in mind that these aren't women he met at a bar and invited to Ocean City for the weekend who were taken aback by his advances; they were women who never expressed any desire other than to help trafficked children. I haven't heard the whole story, and if he actually did all that it would be one thing. But my guess is that the "we have to share a bed and shower together" thing isn't something they found out about until they got to the hotel.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
I intended to bring this up the next time someone bemoaned progressive (or really just left-leaning) institutional capture, but I'm lazy so luckily you beat me to the punch. Conservatives have complaining about how left-wing academia has become at least since I was in college 20 years ago, but there's been little introspection about why this is the case; indeed, much of their other rhetoric actually undermined any chance of them having any influence at all. All we heard was that studying English and history and any other humanity or social science was useless for anything except academia, and it was pointless to spend a decade pursuing a PhD just so you could compete in a hyper-competitive lottery where the prize was a low-paying job at small school in the middle of nowhere. Much better to major in business or accounting or a hard science and make real money in the real world. And by hard science I mean major in cell and molecular biology so you can work in the pharmaceutical industry, not, like my ex-girlfriend, get a doctorate in cell and molecular biology from an unprestrgious school and focus your research on hearing in whales.
Government jobs are a little bit different since they're much easier to get. They pay less than comparable private sector jobs, but they usually have good benefits and aren't susceptible to recessions or corporate downsizing. But they aren't the place for over-ambitous young go-getters to make names for themselves. Pay is strictly regimented and promotions are slow to come by. Performance bonuses are all but non-existent. And even if you make it into senior administration you're salary will be capped at about 250k a year, you'll have to live in Washington, and you'll be permanently locked out of executive-level positions that go to political appointees. Unless, of course, you have the necessary connections and don't mind losing your job with the next administration or whenever the current one is looking for a scapegoat.
And then there's the added complication that conservatives have traditionally railed against bureaucracy as emblematic of government bloat and unnecessary spending. You look at the cube next to you at a guy who's been phoning it in for the past 20 years but who makes more than you due to seniority rules and can't be fired, and whose job it is to administer programs you think are a waste of money. Why would any conservative want to be part of this when they can make more money doing essentially the same thing at 3M, or US Steel?
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
How is any investigation into Fauci not performative? I understand that a lot of people didn't like his recommendations, including myself at times, but the guys was an advisor. He had no real power when it came to the pandemic, just outsize influence. And this influence is completely Trump's responsibility. There was no natural reason for Fauci to be the face of COVID—the head of the CDC would have made more intuitive sense then an infectious disease expert from NIH—but Trump and his advisors felt that a respected expert would be more credible than a political appointee. And when the respected expert who was appointed for his credibility started saying things that Trump found politically inconvenient, now he needs to be behind bars. Trump tried to minimize Fauci's role but by that point he was already America's accepted expert and would still make a ton of TV appearances. Any congressional hearing is just going to be a bunch of scientifically illiterate politicians arguing with one of the nation's leading experts. They may get a few soundbites that will be replayed on Fox News that they can use for fundraising, but other than that the whole thing will be quickly forgotten.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
My guess is when men's sex toys start selling a the rate women's sex toys sell. How many men on here own sex toys they bought strictly for themselves? I know I don't and I'm unaware of any of my IRL friends who own them. Meanwhile, almost every woman I know owns a vibrator and isn't afraid to let you know about it if the topic comes up in conversation. A bar I used to frequent hosted a sex toy party once and all the men who were regulars were asking when it was going to end so they wouldn't show up while it was going on. The bartender said that there was no need to wait because the lady hosting the thing had a few items for men they might be interested in, and everyone took this as a joke. The truth is, the reason men's sex toys don't sell has nothing to do with status, or feminism, or any other culture war topic, it's because men generally don't need help getting off. Most guys learn to rub one out in 15 minutes at the age of 12 and though it may take longer in later years, the basic technique remains the same. Women, on the other hand, don't reach orgasm as easily and it can take quite a bit of self-exploration to figure out what they like.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
To those below, particularly @greyenlightenment and @Walterodim who argue that this sort of behavior is fine if it means getting various scofflaws off the streets, I'd argue that the problem with that isn't so much that it's bad for criminals but bad for people like you and me who get caught up in these dragnets. I couldn't tell you the number of times I've been pulled over for a light I didn't know was out or some other bullshit that resulted in a totally unnecessary amount of stress and inconvenience. And there's no rhyme or reason to how the interaction goes; in some cases I get a friendly oral reminder and I go on my way, in other cases I get grilled about whether I've been drinking or whether I have guns or drugs in my car and usually end up taking a field sobriety test (that I easily pass) because the cop didn't feel like taking me at my word or felt pressure to make sure because I admitted to having one beer. Two incidents stand out, though.
My final year of law school, the afternoon before Thanksgiving, I met up with friends from high school at one of their homes to shoot guns in his yard. Afterwards, we all went to a local restaurant to get wings. As I was driving one of my friends home (at about 7pm), I got lit up by two state troopers. I was told that the reason I was pulled over was because the light above my plate was a bit dim. I was then grilled for what seemed like forever about whether I had been drinking. During the course of the conversation I admitted to having drunk a single beer several hours earlier, and that no, I was not drinking while driving because the beer was in my trunk. The cop then insisted on my opening the trunk to let him see the case of beer. When I told him that this wasn't necessary, he insisted that he had to because he needed to verify that I had only had one beer. I told him (well, both of them) that this was ridiculous because other people had drunk beer from the case and in any event I had bought it several days earlier and had probably consumed half of it before I even brought it to my friend's. At this point I was asked to leave the car, was illegally frisked (police can't reach into pockets, or even roll fabric between their fingers), and was given every field sobriety test in the book.
After I passed all of them, the police told me that they detected the faint odor of marijuana when they pulled me over a half hour earlier. At this point I knew they were totally full of shit at let them know it, at which point they told me that if I didn't open the trunk in the next five minutes they'd have to call the barracks to bring a drug dog in. At this point it pretty much ended—I told them that if they were calling for a drug dog then the closest dog was a half-hour drive away and it would probably take them 15 minutes to put the call in and get the car loaded so that if they had 45 minutes then I did as well. Then the other cop, who had been talking to my friend, who was still in the passenger seat, told me that he wanted to move the process along so I caved (not my proudest moment) and opened the trunk for them. They looked at the inside for about two seconds before telling me to close it and letting me go. They never mentioned the license plate light once after I had been pulled over, and I didn't get ticketed for anything. My guess is that the trunk was riding low and they thought something looked hinky and after they pulled us over they thought we looked like drug traffickers (I had long-ish hair at the time and I overheard one of the cops say "couple of stoners" when they were walking toward the car). Either way, it was a stressful encounter that no one who isn't breaking the law should have to endure, especially under such bullshit pretenses.
The second incident happened a few years ago. I was driving along a heavily-traveled suburban thoroughfare at about 1am on a weeknight when I got pulled over. I didn't have the slightest idea why (I wasn't speeding), but was told that a strap hanging off my bike rack was blocking one of my license plate numbers. The cop basically spent the entire stop profusely apologizing and explaining that this kind of thing would only happen late at night when there aren't many speeders because the officers are required to make so many contacts in order to justify their jobs. I obviously didn't bother telling him that if this was the best they could come up with then maybe their jobs weren't really needed. Anyway, nothing happened, though I did get a written warning, and I avoid that road late at night. The funny thing is that I actually had been drinking earlier that night, but the cop didn't even ask.
The overall point I'm trying to make is that it's easy to say that cops should have wide discretion to use minor offenses as pretext to stick their nose in is based on the assumption that other people are the ones who will be dealing with the fallout. When you're the one who's constantly getting pulled over because the cop doesn't like the looks of your car and thinks you must be up to no good, then you have a much different attitude. For minor vehicle code violations, there's no reason they can't just run your plate and send a warning in the mail. If they see the guy again and the problem hasn't been rectified, then cite him for it. The vast majority of the time, the cops aren't going to find anything more interesting than a guy who didn't know his brake light was out. And when they do find something interesting, it's not America's Most Armed and Dangerous; you'll get a few DUIs, and the warrants are mostly going to be for things like unpaid fines and missed court dates for minor offenses. These people probably aren't on the run and could be easily found if the police just went to their listed address, but the cases are so minor that they aren't going to make a special trip so instead they tell patrol cops to find reasons to pull people over when it's slow and hope that every once in a while something pops. This doesn't seem like the best way to go about doing things.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
This isn't legal representation, it's a registered agent. Basically, if you want to register an LLC in a state, you need to use a physical street address. For most businesses, this isn't an issue, as you either use your office address or the address of the mailbox store you're using (like the UPS store, though there are other copy shop type places that do this as well). An issue arises, though when you want to register your LLC in a state where you don't live and won't be receiving mail regularly. Registered agents provide this service for a low price. You will still receive some mail at this address, but it's not a regular business address, and the mail is forwarded to the address of your choosing. The main reason why a physical address is required is that if the LLC is the defendant in a lawsuit, the plaintiff can always opt to sue in the state in which the LLC is registered, even if that's the only connection to the state. So there has to be someone there whom you authorize to receive service on the LLC's behalf. So all this really means is that the LLC associated with Kiwifarms will either have to find another Wyoming address or reincorporate in another state, though I honestly don't know how much of an issue this is since the various departments of state don't seem to check up on this too regularly for small businesses.
As for a right of representation, I'm a lawyer, and there are various reasons why a lawyer would end representation, though this is unlikely to be one of them. First, if you want to withdraw from representation while there's ongoing litigation you need permission from the judge. If a client doesn't pay no judge is going to make the lawyer continue representing them for free. If the client's just a pain in the ass and not worth your time, then it depends on the judge, the stage of litigation, the consequences, etc. In a criminal case it's rarely allowed except under unusual circumstances. If there's no litigation pending then you can drop a client at any time, provided you return any unearned retainer. I've "dropped" plenty of "clients" who I had represented in the past but didn't want new business from because I was too busy, or didn't feel I was qualified to handle their matter, or the client was a bitch, or they were asking me to violate ethical canons, or any number of other reasons. I've never dropped a client because I didn't like the political stance of their issue, but I don't deal in issues that generally elicit strong political stances. And even if he is dropped, he'll find another lawyer. We represent all kinds of scumbags for all kinds of reasons, including plenty of people who have done a lot worse than he has. Even if his lawyers had dropped him for bullshit reasons, he'll find another lawyer. It might not be a very good lawyer, or he might have to pay more than he expected, but someone will represent him. Lawyers generally can't be cancelled like other businesses because a lot of us are solo or in small firms, and the big firms don't really give a fuck, so if one lawyer takes issue with something there will be 20 more ready to replace him. If it's really an issue, I'll represent him myself provided he has a 100k retainer and the understanding that I'm totally unqualified for whatever it is he needs. But it would still be better than representing himself.
Rov_Scam
5mo ago
If I'm a doctor I'm there to treat patients, not to spy for a foreign government. I'd also imagine that even if Hamas is using the hospital for nefarious purposes, it's probably reasonably out of public view; I doubt they keep the hand grenades on a shelf next to the nitrile gloves.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
I've read a bit about this and it basically comes down to two things. The first is that it's really hard to solve totally random killers. If you get murdered the first thing the police are going to ask is whether there was anyone bothering you, trouble at work, abusive ex, involved in drugs, etc. None of those lines of inquiry is going to lead to a total stranger with no real motive other than bloodlust. The second thing is that, up until the 1980s, most police thought that serial killers were a figment of the popular imagination. Sure, it may have happened occasionally, but real police knew that people were murdered by people they knew. So they followed the lines of inquiry I mentioned above, though they went nowhere. When searching for a serial killer you don't look at the victim, you look at the criminal community. Until the FBI got a handle on profiling and the like in the 1970s and high profile cases made serial killers a thing that was taken seriously, it wouldn't be too hard to go around killing people without getting caught since it was unlikely that any police investigation would lead to you, no matter how dumb you were.
Rov_Scam
1yr ago
I reran the data except instead of using the variable "to this point in the year" that was all different dates and a series of arbitrarily selected cities, I used the year-end data for all cities in the top 75 US Cities by population plus Buffalo plus whatever else was in the list you had. Then I got rid of any cities that had fewer than 10 murders in either year because any movement there can be chalked up to random variation and not trends (though the numbers were so low I can add it back in if you want; it won't make much of a difference). I also cut Riverside because Rusty Bailey is an independent and I couldn't tell whether he leaned liberal or conservative (for the few other independents it was pretty obvious that they all leaned liberal, but I can take them out if you'd like; it won't make a difference). Then I used your methodology and I came up with... a 23.58% increase in Democratic cities and a 34.33% increase in Republican cities.
Someone last week posted about how there wasn't any interesting AI-generated music, and my first thought was that there hasn't even been any decent AI music analysis. Here's what I'm talking about: If you study music at the collegiate level (or maybe even at a really good high school), you're going to be asked to transcribe a lot of recordings as part of your coursework. This can be time consuming, but it's fairly straightforward. Suppose you're transcribing a basic pop or R&B song. Listen to the bass part and write it out as sheet music. Listen to the guitar part, etc. After you have all the instruments down go back and add articulation marks, stylistic cues, etc. Figure out the best way to organize it (first and second endings, repeats, codas, etc.). In other words, turn the recording into something you can put in front of a musician and expect them to play. I've done it. It's not that difficult for anyone with a basic knowledge of music and dedication to learning, which is why they expect every musician to be able to do it. YouTuber Adam NEely has done videos where he transcribes pop recordings for a wedding band he's in. There are, of course, some people who can write out the third saxophone part of a big band recording from memory after hearing it once, and these people are rare (though not as rare as you'd think), but most musicians are still pretty good at transcribing.
Computers are absolutely terrible at this. There is software available that purports to do this, some of which is available online for free, some of which is built into commercial music notation software like Sibelius or Finale, and the utility of all of it is fairly limited. It can work, but only when dealing with a simple, clean melody that's reasonably in tune and played with a steady tempo. Put a normal commercial recording into it and the results range from "needs quite a bit of cleanup" to "completely unusable", and at its best it won't include stylistic markings or formatting. At first glance, this should be much easier for the computer than it is for us. We have to listen through 5 instruments playing at once to hear what the acoustic guitar, which is low in the mix to begin with, is doing underneath the big cymbal crash, and separate 2 sax parts playing simultaneously, sometimes in unison, sometimes in harmony. The computer, on the other hand, has access to the entire waveform, and can analyze every individual frequency and amplitude that's on the recording every 1/44,100th of a second.
Except that this is a lot harder than it sounds. As psychologist Albert Bregman puts it:
And Bregman was just talking about the ability to separate instruments! A lot of transcription requires a reasonable amount of musical knowledge, but even someone who's never picked up an instrument and can't tell a C from an Eb can tell which part is the piano part and which part is the trumpet part. And then there are all the issues related to timing. Take something simple like a fermata, a symbol that instructs the musician to hold the note as long as he feels necessary in a solo piece or until the conductor cuts him off in an ensemble piece. Is the comuter going to be able to intuit from the context of the performance that the note that was held for 3 seconds was a quarter note with a fermata and not just a note held for 5 1/2 beats or however long it was? Will it know that the pause afterward should take place immediately in the music and not to insert rests?
And what about articulations? Staccato quarter notes sound much the same as eighth notes followed by eighth rests. Or possibly sixteenth notes followed by three sixteenth rests. How will the computer decide which to use? Does it matter? Is there really a difference? Well, yeah. A quarter note melody like Mary Had a Little Lamb, with each note played short, is going to read much easier as staccato quarters, since using anything else needlessly complicates things, and doesn't giver the performer (or conductor) the discretion of determining exactly how short the articulation should be. On the other hand, a complex passage requiring precise articulation would look odd with a lone staccato quarter stuck in the middle of it. A musician can use their innate feel and experience as a player to determine what would work best in any given situation. A computer doesn't have this experience to draw on.
How does traditional machine learning even begin to address these problems? One way would be to say, feed it the sheet music for Beethoven's Fifth, and then show it as many recordings of that piece as you can until it figures out that the music lines up with the notation. Then do that for every other piece of music that you can. This would be a pretty simple, straightforward way of doing things, but does anyone really think that you could generate reasonably accurate sheet music to a recording it hadn't heard, or would you just get some weird agglomeration of sheet music it already knows? After all, this method wouldn't give the computer any sense of what each individual component of the music actually does, just vaguely associate it with certain sounds. Alternatively, you could attempt to get it to recognize every note, every combination of notes, every musical instrument and combination of instruments, every stylistic device, etc. The problem here is that you're going to have to first either generate new samples or break existing music down into bite-sized pieces so that the computer can hear lone examples. But then you still have the problem that a lot of musical devices are reliant on context—what's the difference between a solo trumpet playing a middle C whole note at 100 bpm and the same instrument at the same tempo holding a quarter note of the same pitch for the exact same duration? The computer won't be able to tell unless additional context is added.
The problem with most of the AI discourse is that it's too focused on the kind of intelligence that sci-fi tropes have always talked about as the hallmarks of humanity. Getting computers to play strategy games, getting computers to talk, etc. But getting computers to transcribe accurate sheet music from mp3s isn't sexy. If a program came out that could do this, it wouldn't disrupt any economies or cost anyone their jobs, it would just be appreciated by the kinds of people who need to make arrangements of pop songs for cover bands or who want a starting point for their own arrangements, and even then it wouldn't be a game changer, it would just make things a little easier. If most people found out today that such software had been available for the past 20 years, they wouldn't think anything of it. But this software doesn't exist. And, at least to my knowledge, it won't exist for a long time, because it's not sexy and there's no immediate call for it from the marketplace. But if we are ever going to develop anything remotely approaching general AI, such a program has to exist, because general AI, by definition, doesn't exist without it. I would absolutely love a program like this, and until one is available, I'm not going to lose any sleep over AI risk.
More options
Context Copy link