@hooser's banner p

hooser


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 02 12:32:20 UTC

				

User ID: 1399

hooser


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 02 12:32:20 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1399

Seems like a part of a general trend within the US Armed Forces.

Two days ago the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have jointly published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Since it's behind paywall, I will quote the entire thing and boldface the part that stands out to me as relevant to this conversation:

An all-volunteer military has defended the U.S. for nearly 50 years. America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and guardians stand shoulder to shoulder with allies and partners to defeat tyranny, prevent war and defend the freedom that allows democracy and prosperity to thrive.

As the U.S. refocuses on rising challenges from China and Russia, the armed forces are confronting a generational recruiting shortfall. As global threats loom, our respective services face a shrinking pool of qualified and willing applicants. Military communities are increasingly isolated. A strong U.S. job market in which there are nearly two open positions for every person seeking work increases the difficulty of attracting recruits. But the nation needs defending, even when the job market is historically strong.

As the civilian leaders of the Army, Navy and Air Force, we join to ask every young American to consider serving in the U.S. military. If you seek a life of purpose and passion, if you hope to invest your talents in a cause bigger than yourself, if you want to belong to a community of people who also choose to serve, you can find that connection and more in the armed forces.

This is an exciting time to serve. Since the end of the draft gave way to the all-volunteer military in 1973, new technologies have emerged that shape how we engage with those who seek to do us harm. Today more than ever, the armed forces need data scientists, coders and engineers as much as we need pilots, submariners and infantry. If you join, you’ll get the chance to change lives, use technology and develop skills that the private sector can’t match. You’ll serve in every part of the world, protecting freedom and responding to crises with the skills to make a difference. Our goal is to recruit and build a force that looks like America, and so we are working to strengthen and support diversity, equity and inclusion for all who serve. Whether you serve three years or 20 years, there are ample opportunities for tailored professional and personal development. You’ll do work that matters.

We know that there are misperceptions about the military that might keep people from joining. We are providing unparalleled training and educational opportunities for our service members and investing billions of dollars in housing and quality of life, while also changing policies that are more in step with what this generation has come to expect from the best institutions. We are finding new ways to help young Americans meet our necessarily high standards.

To do all these things, we are counting on policy makers, schools, religious institutions, and families to reinforce the importance of service and the opportunities it provides. Members of Congress, we ask for your support as we work on solutions to the recruiting challenge. We ask civic leaders and educators to open your communities to active-duty military and veterans, especially in places where we haven’t adequately invested in the past. To parents and families, we ask that you give us the opportunity to share all that we’re doing to make the military even more of a place for the next generation to grow and thrive, including our unprecedented commitment to making the military a place where all who serve can be free from harassment, discrimination or abuse.

To our veterans, we ask that you tell your stories of service to the greatest nation in the world. Most of all, we ask young Americans to join us—and to write your own stories of service to our nation.

The military can and must do more to recruit and retain America’s finest, but we need America behind us. We must ask ourselves how we can help ensure that there is a new generation able and inspired to carry on the nation’s proud, selfless and distinguished legacy of service. You can write your own story of service to the country.

Ms. Wormuth, Mr. Kendall and Mr. Del Toro are, respectively, secretary of the Army, Air Force and Navy.

I have a similar proposition for women: regardless of sexual preferences, many women interested in raising a family would be happier in a same-sex marriage with another woman.

Hear me out.

There are a lot of women in US who want both children and a career. If you are such a woman, it's not that difficult to find another woman with similar goals. If the two of you get along as BFFs, why not get married? If neither of you are into women sexually, that makes the arrangement even more stable: there will be no miscommunication on expectations of sexual intimacy between the spouses.

If both of you want your own biological children, you can plan out a pregnancy schedule. If one of you is way more into pregnancy than the other, that's cool too. The studs could be long-term boyfriends, male friends-with-benefits, or sperm-bank donors. The advantage of studding with long-term boyfriend is that he's even likely to pitch in financially for the child.

For male role models, bring into the fold male friends you actually admire, as opposed to those you find hot. Could be your brothers or male cousins, could be the baby-daddies, could be close male friends.

There are plenty of cultures where mothers (and grandmothers) are the stable center of the family and fathers are on the periphery. Same-sex marriage between two women interested in raising a family mirrors such an arrangement.

My personal observation is that almost everyone I still see wearing a mask in public transport or while shopping is a senior citizen or a middle-aged person that seems obviously sickly.

I wonder how many of those people are like my husband, who wears a mask to stave off the chance of smelling perfumes and cleaning fragrances. He gets bad sinus headaches that last for days from artificial fragrances and he is very happy that now he has a normalized excuse for wearing a mask in public.

I saw the movie with my husband (who apparently would do anything for love). It was funny and entertaining, and I was pleased to see how well this move upholds essentially conservative ideals of monogamy and sacrifice for the sake of your partnership within the context of very permissive do-who-you-want-so-long-as-everyone-consents sexual norms.

"BROS" has a bog-standard rom-com / sex-com story arc. A quirky, passionate, somewhat neurotic, career-driven girl man is convinced that he is satisfied with his non-experience of love (though plenty of tinder hook-ups). He meets a hottie popular guy who is his exact opposite (conventionally gorgeous, popular, chill). They get together, in the opposites-attract sort of way. They get split up, in the opposites-repel sort of way. They get together again, because opposites-still-very-much-attract, and in the process each gives up something very important to them for the sake of making their now-monogamous relationship work.

Woven into the story are funny scenes that depict the awkward tinder negotiations, awkward logistics of group sex (really, there is nothing porny about this movie), and drama-drama-drama that one could foresee any attempt at opening an LGBTQ(letters-letters-maybe-a-2?-letters)-specific museum.

You may be absolutely right about the marketing of the move. I wouldn't know, I have not seen anything other than a trailer before we went to see it.

Yes, the father figure would be less likely in such an arrangement. On the plus side, it increases the odds of an uncle figure.

Once you acclimate to London, I recommend visiting Vienna. You'd be like: what? why did I ever think London was clean!!

I very much appreciate posts like yours, which give a personal, unusual (to me) in-depth perspective on something that I regard as a given. I was in India some years back for over a month, and I still remember coming out of Los Angeles airport (LAX) and being stunned how clean it is. How clean the air is. And the water--I can drink it straight from the tap! And the LA traffic... so orderly! Cars stay in their lane! Cows are nowhere on the freeway!

Best of luck to you and your girlfriend.

Brasilian president Jair Bolsonaro pledges to respect the Constitution after the election loss. I am posting this here as an example of where culture war gets actually rather civilized. The race between Bosonaro and Lula was tight, and the former could have made serious trouble re. transition of power. Since that link is pay-walled and I have yet to figure out how to get archive.org to take a snapshot of what I am seeing, I will reproduce the parts that I find interesting.

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro on Tuesday vowed to respect the constitution after he lost the presidential election to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, ending a tense silence of 45 hours in which he had refused to acknowledge the results even as his allies urged him to do so.

Mr. Bolsonaro didn’t comment on his loss in Sunday’s runoff vote in a press conference in Brasília, the capital. His chief of staff, Ciro Nogueira, flanking Mr. Bolsonaro in the briefing, told reporters that the president had authorized him to begin the transition process that would end with Mr. da Silva’s inauguration on Jan. 1.

“I will continue complying with the orders of the constitution—it’s an honor to be the leader of millions of Brazilians who, like myself, believe in economic freedom, religious freedom, free speech, honesty and the green and yellow colors of our national flag,” said Mr. Bolsonaro, speaking to reporters from his official residence.

Mr. Bolsonaro thanked the more than 58 million people who voted for him Sunday, saying that protests by truckers across the country Tuesday in support of his government were the result of “indignation and feelings of injustice over the electoral process.”

Mr. Bolsonaro has spent much of the past few years raising allegations of fraud in Brazil’s electronic-voting system and warned that this year’s election could be stolen from him, without presenting evidence.

[something something stocks, because it's Wall Street Journal]

The 67-year-old former army captain came close to winning, but ultimately lost Sunday’s runoff election to Mr. da Silva, a leftist former president, in the closest presidential race in Brazil’s history. In the final tally, Mr. da Silva, a 77-year-old former trade-union leader who served two terms as president ending in 2010, garnered 50.9% of the vote, 2.1 million more votes than Mr. Bolsonaro, who got 49.1%, according to the country’s electoral court.

Though Mr. Bolsonaro had pledged shortly before the Oct. 2 first round of voting that he would only accept the outcome if the vote was clean, prominent allies had quickly recognized the result after electoral authorities counted the more than 120 million ballots Sunday.

[someone possibly well-known in Brasil calls for Bolsonaro to concede]

Mr. Bolsonaro’s short speech came as Mr. Garcia and other politicians called on him to acknowledge the outcome to help tame protests by truckers across the country who blocked major highways in a show of support for the president. Brazil’s traffic police said it was investigating cases in which its own officers had sided with the truckers.

As of midday Tuesday, truckers had erected more than 200 blockades across Brazil, the federal traffic police said, including at São Paulo’s international airport, where flights were canceled after the main access road was blocked. The authorities said they had cleared hundreds of others.

I am in US. There is one thing I expect my president to do: step down. So kudos to Brazil.

Oh, I agree with your premise! Where we disagree is on whether the casting already accomplished this goal. Luke MacFarlane is a hottie and played the role of conflicted boyfriend especially well. Billy Eichner is no Timothée Chalamet, but rom-coms frequently have the girl main protagonist not be conventionally beautiful. Which was important to the plot.

If I were in charge of marketing this movie... it would probably tank harder, because I don't know the first thing about marketing. But Monday-night arm-chair quarterbacking is as American as Apple Pie, so:

I would market it hard to young heterosexual women, with lots of hints to suggest that they can use this movie as a potential litmus test on whether their date is willing to signal openness to leftie liberal ideals regarding sexuality. Since the movie's ultimate morality lesson is about monogamous commitment, the date's response to that would also be useful.

Thanks for the tip!

Perspective from the relevant location is much appreciated. I hope you will post follow-ups.

using Google (or Bing for the freaks out there, you know who you are)

... or DuckDuckGo, for us nerds!

I appreciate that you are taking the time to fact-check both yours and others' assertions. I recommend not using time between responses as an indication of indecision; some of us deliberately restrict our internet usage.

I can't speak to SharpieGate, but I can recall when I was relatively certain (say, 95%) that there were people in US government / political elite who knew that 9/11 would likely happen and benefited from it. I wouldn't say that I was deeply into 9/11-Truth conspiracies (though I did come across them, and I do own a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, so maybe I need to re-evaluate that).

My certainty was based not on corroborated facts, but rather on my mental model for how elite social world works. If I were to try to summarize:

  • Politically involved elites tend to be interconnected (politically involved elite people know lots of other elite people).

  • These interconnections cross international boundaries (e.g., they or their kids go to the same prestigious colleges).

  • People pass information (or at least tips) along their network of friends / acquaintances.

  • Large well-funded conspiracies leak, and 9/11 was a large well-funded conspiracy.

It's been two decades. I am far less certain now (more like 20%) about my original assertion, because I haven't come across any well-publicized scandal that so-and-so did some insider trading based on their advanced knowledge on the matter. My suspicion did not disappear entirely though, because my mental model for how elite social world works hasn't changed.

For those less familiar with decision theory, this not an abstruse philosophical question - it's simply a mathematical fact with probability approaching 1 (specifically, 0.49^n for large n), SBF will destroy the world.

Correction: the probability that SBF will destroy the world under these circumstances is 0.49 + 0.51*0.49 + 0.51^2 * 0.49 + 0.51^3 * 0.49 + ... + 0.51^(n-1) * 0.49, where n is however many times he plays that game. That's cumulative probability of the geometric distribution.

(Whereas 0.49^n goes to 0 as n goes to infinity.)

There's a related and well known pattern in relationships, where men focus on fixing things while women talk to feel listened to, understood and valued. Similarly, it's much easier to debate a man and even vehemently call him wrong, and then pat him on the back and grab a beer afterwards. With a woman it usually gets interpreted as an attack on a deep personal level.

I have noticed a similar pattern among people I interact with, but it also overlaps strongly with the divide between those in STEM (especially engineers) and those in more Humanities-adjacent fields.

I like to categorize the patterns of discourse as "n-dimentional social chess". Imagine that you are part of a group of people who together are playing chess against an online opponent. The group discusses strategies for their upcoming move.

  • "Zero-dimensional social chess": you focus solely on the merits of the proposed strategies in defeating the online opponent. It doesn't matter who proposed which strategy; you evaluate each proposed strategy solely on its own merits.

  • "One-dimensional social chess": you keep track of who said what. You are doing this to help you evaluate the merits of proposed strategies (like, giving more weight to strategies proposed by people with more experience playing chess).

  • "Two-dimensional social chess": you keep track of who said what, and how they said it. You are doing this because you are aware that, within your group, people are jockeying for social status. So you keep track not only of who said what, but what that means for everyone else in terms of social status within the group.

  • "Three-dimensional social chess": you not only keep track of who said what (and how they said it), but also who didn't say what (and how they didn't say it). You are doing this because you are aware that the group members are jockeying for social status, and you also assume that they know that everyone else is doing it too. Therefore you expect to see shifting alliances, communicated subtly through the phrasing of support, or withholding support where it was expected.

  • "Four-dimensional social chess": you not only keep track of who said what (and how they said it), but also who didn't say what (and how they didn't say it), but also have a good working theory of the level of n-dimensional social chess that each person in the group is at.

I find that (at least in my social circles) most engineer groups (and majority-male groups) tend to play two-dimensional social chess; most humanities-adjacent groups (and majority-female groups) tend to play three-dimensional social chess. People who move fluently between engineers and humanities circles either play four-dimensional social chess and code-switch, or play one-dimensional social chess and are blissfully unaware of the status games.

The trope of a frustrated girlfriend saying "If you don't know what's wrong then I am certainly not going to tell you!" would be my example of a situation where the girlfriend by default plays three-dimensional social chess and can't imagine that others (including her boyfriend) don't. So she's definitively not playing at four-dimensional social chess, since she fails to have a good working theory of her boyfriend's level.

[Edit: Edited the lower categories, upon further reflection. Zero-dimensional social chess is just chess, with some pooling of strategies. One-dimensional social chess takes relative expertise into account, but it's still all about the chess. With n>1, the "social" part becomes a competing goal.]

Looks like you have already substantially analyzed the pros and cons of moving. One additional possible cost of moving (depending where you're at): the deposit.

In California, my experience is that renters can kiss their deposit goodbye. The standard renting procedure is to pay upfront first month's rent, last month's rent, a deposit for the keys (a couple hundred dollars), and an additional deposit in the amount of monthly rent in case you leave the place trashed once you move. My experience with renting is that there is a high chance that the landlord will by default not return that deposit, even though I always clean up the place before moving out. The times I have asked for itemized list of what that deposit went towards fixing (which they are required to provide upon request), the list included carpet cleaning, repainting, and other stuff that is about sprucing up the place after normal wear-and-tear.

Once, that list included carpet cleaning for an apartment with no carpets. I did get that portion back, but only after making a credible threat to sue.

In other parts of the US, however, I got my deposit back without such problems. So I recommend considering the norms regarding deposits where you're at, and if the norms are for those deposits to go to upkeep for normal wear-and-tear, then adding both your deposit for your current place and your deposit for the other place as part of the moving costs.

That's a reasonable guess, but doesn't apply to me. My experience renting in California is during the time that I had a reasonably-paid and very steady full-time employment. When I rented from corporate landlords at "luxury" apartment complex, I didn't get my deposit back two-out-of-three times. When I rented from individual landlords, I didn't get my deposit back one-out-of-two times. At each of those locations, I cleaned the apartment after all my stuff was moved out, prior to handing back the key during the inspection.

By now I give at least even odds that I won't get my deposit back when I move.

I wish the nascent yet-to-prove-it's-viable cultivated meat industry the best of luck, because I am excited about the possibilities of what might happen if they manage to pull it off.

Imagine: celebrity steaks that are actual meat from celebrities! Want a bite of Ryan Gosling? Now you can!

Ever wanted to try panda meat but have obvious ethical and legal barriers? Now you can!

Or: Ever wonder what an alicorn would taste like? Our food artists have combined muscle cells from a horse, an eagle, and a rhinoceros.

Plus, for the record, if we could engineer 'brain dead' animals that could carry out all the activities necessary to grow to full size for slaughter but were incapable of feeling any pain or pleasure, I would find this a perfectly acceptable solution as well. I don't want animals to suffer.

It's an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work. In effect, it would mean that the animal has leprosy. Humans who have leprosy (aka Hansen's disease) need to actively and consciously monitor themselves for any physical damage, because it's their inability to feel pain that leads small wounds to fester. (And they get wounds easier in the first place because the pain feedback isn't there.)

So a baby calf with something like leprosy will quickly hurt itself and get festering wounds.

That means that for this enterprise to be at all viable, you'd need to keep that calf isolated and in clean environment, and still check it over like every day for sores or cuts. That's a lot of work, and therefore not economically worth it.

Nice effort-post! And thanks for doing the hard work of examining qualitative evidence.

Your main point is: (A) there's been a lot of female empowerment in Saudi Arabia over the past half-a-century, and (B) that's what explains the coincidental drop in fertility rates.

I agree that evidence indicates a substantial rise of female empowerment. To back up your qualitative evidence: Gender Inequality Index has a sharp drop in 2013, going from higher than Iran to on-par with Russia. "This index covers three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, and economic status." For comparison, I have included other countries: USA is lower than Russia but higher than Japan, which in turn is higher than South Korea, which by 2015 is on par with Sweden.

I looked at other measurements in Our World In Data, but many of those measurements don't take into account that almost 40% of people in Saudi Arabia are migrant workers, most of whom are men.

However, I am far from convinced that female empowerment is the main cause of the drop in fertility rates.

There is a strong correlation between fertility rate and child mortality rate, and this is likely causal. If you want to eventually have three adult children and each baby is likely to reach adulthood, then you only need to have three babies; but if half of babies die before adulthood, then you better plan to have six babies.

In Saudi Arabia, child mortality starts dropping in the 60's and 70's, and fertility rate start dropping in the 80's. That's the kind of generational delay I would expect: people get used to the fact that kids aren't dying like flies, and adjust accordingly.

The correlation between female empowerment and fertility rate could have the opposite causal explanation: as it became less necessary for women to have lots of babies in order for a few of them to survive to adulthood, the society can empower women to marry later, get more education, and participate more in the labor force.

Am I missing something here? Do other people believe that all of these women (I’ve probably had this conversation with roughly two dozen of them) have been individually harassed on public transit, and I just have never noticed it? Despite being here every day of my life for over a decade? What is going on?

Thank you for considering the possibility that you are missing something. You are: most acts of public harassment are subtle and most women will not make a scene. (I am speaking from my experience and experience of women I know.)

Here's a specific example: I and my husband are riding a crowded train. We are standing, getting jostled around as people move around. My husband and I are facing each other, we are talking. Suddenly I feel the guy behind me grinding his clearly-erect penis into my butt.

I don't make a scene; I ask my husband to switch places with me, that's all. My husband doesn't notice a thing, nobody else noticed a thing. I look at the guy, and he just pivots away.

And, before anyone asks: yes, I firmly believe that not making a scene was the best option for me. I don't want to start a fight where I or my husband may get hurt; I don't want to report a harassment that has zero chance of prosecution.

And yes, almost all of my women friends who have lived in large metropolitan areas have at least one such story, and we are nothing special.

Norms around school bullying are definitely changing. Here's a sample from Wall Street Journal: "When kids exclude peers from group chats and texts, is that bullying? (With lots of "yes" answers from various authorities.)

Thanks for the empathy!

This is also a great example of the limits of sympathy [1]. My reaction to the event was closer to "oh well, that's the subway for ya". I dealt with it, and shrugged it off. Whereas another woman experiencing the same event may end up traumatized and vowing never to ride public transit again. There is no way to know what effect an identical event would have on two people without them telling of it.

(Though one can use a probability distribution based on statistics... I just realized how geeky that sounds, but I stand by it.)

[1] I keep having to remind myself which is which:

Sympathy (which comes from the Greek sym, meaning "together," and pathos, referring to feelings or emotion) is used when one person shares the feelings of another; an example is when one experiences sadness when someone close is experiencing grief or loss. Empathy is also related to pathos. It differs from sympathy in carrying an implication of greater emotional distance. With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself.

From an op-ed at Harvard Crimson (via Marginal Revolution):

Harvard employs 7,024 total full-time administrators, only slightly fewer than the undergraduate population. What do they all do?

[snip]

Yet of the 7,000-strong horde, it seems that many members’ primary purpose is to squander away tax-free money intended for academic work on initiatives, projects, and committees that provide scant value to anyone’s educational experience.

For example, last December, all Faculty of Arts and Sciences affiliates received an email from Dean Claudine Gay announcing the final report of the FAS Task Force on Visual Culture and Signage, a task force itself created by recommendation of the Presidential Task Force on Inclusion and Belonging. This task force was composed of 24 members: six students, nine faculty members, and nine administrators. The task force produced a 26-page report divided into seven sections, based upon a survey, focus groups, and 15 separate meetings with over 500 people total. The report dedicated seven pages to its recommendations, which ranged from “Clarify institutional authority over FAS visual culture and signage” to “Create a dynamic program of public art in the FAS.” In response to these recommendations, Dean Gay announced the creation of a new administrative post, the “FAS campus curator,” and a new committee, the “FAS Standing Committee on Visual Culture and Signage.”

Regardless of your stance on the goal of fostering a more inclusive visual culture, the procedural absurdity is clear. A presidential task force led to the creation of an FAS task force which, after expending significant time, effort, and resources, led to the creation of a single administrative job and a committee with almost the exact name as the second task force. I challenge anyone other than the task force members themselves to identify the value created for a single Harvard student’s educational experience.

I enjoyed reading the article, and as someone not at all affiliated with Harvard I am happy to argue against some of the ideas the author expressed.

Firstly, a quibble about facts:

In 1986, Harvard’s tuition was $10,266 ($27,914 adjusted for inflation). Today, Harvard’s tuition is $52,659, representing an 89 percent increase in real cost.

Yes, the sticker-prize tuition at Harvard has grown, as it has at other private colleges. But the question ought to be: do students actually pay more? According to College Scorecard, students [1] pay on average just under $14,000 per year--for everything, including living expenses. I don't have comparable data for 1986, but that's lower than the median for 4-year US colleges (which is around $19,500).

One may argue that all US colleges have bloated administration and thus increased cost, and I am sympathetic to that argument. But at least let's acknowledge that, regarding actual cost of attendance, Harvard seems to be doing better when compared not just to its peers but the set of all accredited US 4-year institutions.

Now, for the challenge that the author kindly provides:

I challenge anyone other than the task force members themselves to identify the value created for a single Harvard student’s educational experience.

I don't know any actual specifics, but I am willing to bet (a modest amount) that at some point in the past decade there were student protests at Harvard regarding the choice of art on display. Probably the protests involved non-white students, or people speaking on behalf of non-white students, and their main objection was something like: people of color don't feel welcome at this institution because all the prominently-displayed portraits are of white people. Likely some professors were part of the protesters.

Whatever your opinions are as to the validity of the protesters' claim that the choice of art affects non-white students, the protests themselves would be disruptive and/or stimulating to the educational experience. The president's response to create the task-force on the issue has calmed the protests (taking away the disruptive aspect ) while taking seriously the vocal minority's concerns. For those who found the protests stimulating to the educational experience (which includes acquisition and polish of social norms, and not merely subject matter studied in one's classes), the president's response models how one goes about addressing strongly-expressed concerns over some issue of institutional inertia.

It's still reasonable to ask: was the process that the president cost-effective in achieving its objectives? I would love to see someone try to analyze that! In my experience, service on such committees isn't directly compensated, though it does suck up substantial time. Like, did those six students, nine faculty members, and nine administrators have better things to do? They were either on that committee because they were deeply interested in the issue (the students and faculty), or because they were the nine administrators. Did those administrators have languishing tasks which would have actually been more important to address than calming down vocal protesters current and future? Will that new administrative post be filled by an already-existing Harvard employee, or are they actually hiring a brand-new administrator?

Inquiring minds kinda want to know.

[1] At least, students who filled out FAFSA and received any federal financial aid.

The "Twitter Censorship Files" (WSJ, archived link) promise to shed some light on the Hunter Biden's Laptop Saga:

The Twitter documents published by Mr. Taibbi include part of what appears to be a memo from James Baker, the Twitter deputy general counsel. “I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted,” Mr. Baker wrote.

He continued that “there are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and/or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information.”

With an election so close, any delay helped the Biden campaign, which was trying to squelch the Hunter Biden story that raised questions about what Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s foreign business dealings. Twitter went ahead and suppressed the story across its platform, going so far as to suspend the New York Post’s Twitter account.

Apparently, no light can be shed without heat. Matt Taibbi agreed to certain conditions in obtaining the files:

Very shortly, I’m going to begin posting a long thread of information on Twitter, at my account, @mtaibbi. [...] There’s a long story I hope to be able to tell soon, but can’t, not quite yet anyway. What I can say is that in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions.

The conversation is therefore veering towards journalistic ethics rather than the content. That WSJ op-ed I linked to above leads with the following:

Elon Musk’s release of internal emails relating to Twitter’s 2020 censorship is news by any definition, even if the mainstream media dismiss it. There will be many threads to unspool as more is released, but a couple of points are already worth making.

The first is that Mr. Musk would do the country a favor by releasing the documents all at once for everyone to inspect. So far he’s dribbled them out piecemeal through journalist Matt Taibbi’s Twitter feed, which makes it easier for the media to claim they can’t report on documents because they can’t independently confirm them.

Thanks! Fixed it.

the worst offender being a piece that was literally just a square canvas planted black. That's it.

Yes, but which square canvas painted black was it?

It may be one of Robert Motherwell's Iberia series, painted during the Spanish civil war. Though the most famous variants have a dash of non-black paint somewhere, some don't. Motherwell's Iberia canvasses have thick black paint and look almost like a map relief.

It may be one of Ad Reinhardt's paintings. He did a lot of them. Reinhardt's canvasses tend to have very subtle patterns and shades, though the whole point of some of the canvasses is to not have any patterns whatsoever. That would be consistent with the philosophy of art-as-art he was exploring:

There is nothing there. What you see is not what you see. What you see is nothing. Nothing but shapes, lines, colors. What you see is whats in your mind. What you see is something somebody told you to look for. Look out for anything you see! Watch it! Watch out! Take care! Don’t leap before you look out.

But if you are really lucky, it was the original Black Square by Kazimir Malevich. The Black Square is one of the most influential works of modern art, ground zero for exploration of what modern artists and modern art audience mean by art. [Intentionally so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)): "It is from zero, in zero, that the true movement of being begins."

If it was the Black Square, then there is an additional [bonus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)) for the Culture War angle:

In 2015, while viewing the Black Square with a microscope, art historians at the Tretyakov Gallery discovered a message underneath its black paint. It was believed to read as "Battle of negroes in a dark cave." The reference was linked to an 1897 comic by French writer Alphonse Allais with the caption: "Combat de Nègres dans une cave pendant la nuit" or "Negroes Fighting in a Cellar at Night." The researchers at the State Tretyakov Gallery speculated that Malevich was responding to the joke within Allais' popular work.