Speaker Dungsmear? Or?
McCarthy 2.0 seems a vast improvement over Speaker Dungsmear. So here’s the question. Was he once a conservative with a little fire in the belly that got captured by the system and now is finding the bellyfire again? Or is this all completely under duress?
For the moment, it doesn’t matter which one. But some day it will matter, and we will have our answer.
RINOs an Endangered Species?
According to Wikipoo, et. al., the Northern White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) is a critically endangered species. Apparently two females live on a wildlife preserve in Sudan, and no males are known to be alive. So basically, this species is dead as soon as the females die of old age. Presently they are watched over by armed guards 24/7.
Biologists have been trying to cross them with the other subspecies, Southern White Rhinoceroses (Rhinoceri?) without success; and some genetic analyses suggest that perhaps they aren’t two subspecies at all, but two distinct species, which would make the whole project a lot more difficult.
I should hope if the American RINO (Parasitus rectum pseudoconservativum) is ever this endangered, there will be heroic efforts not to save the species, but rather to push the remainder off a cliff. Onto punji sticks. With feces smeared on them. Failing that a good bath in red fuming nitric acid will do.
But I’m not done ranting about RINOs.
The RINOs (if they are capable of any introspection whatsoever) probably wonder why they constantly have to deal with “populist” eruptions like the Trump-led MAGA movement. That would be because the so-called populists stand for absolutely nothing except for going along to get along. That allows the Left to drive the culture and politics.
Given the results of our most recent elections, the Left will now push harder, and the RINOs will now turn even squishier than they were before.
I well remember 1989-1990 in my state when the RINO establishment started preaching the message that a conservative simply couldn’t win in Colorado. Never mind the fact that Reagan had won the state TWICE (in 1984 bringing in a veto-proof state house and senate with him) and GHWB had won after (falsely!) assuring everyone that a vote for him was a vote for Reagan’s third term.
This is how the RINOs function. They push, push, push the line that only a “moderate” can get elected. Stomp them when they pull that shit. Tell everyone in ear shot that that’s exactly what the Left wants you to think, and oh-by-the-way-Mister-RINO if you’re in this party selling the same message as the Left…well, whythefuckexactly are you in this party, you lying piece of rancid weasel shit?
In Defense of Ranked Choice Voting
One of the biggest obstacles to direly-needed change is RINOs, and one of the weapons in their arsenal is the “Wasted Vote” argument.
Periodically a third party has arisen, trying to hold RINOs to account by putting pressure on them from outside of the party, since doing so from the inside has historically done very little good. But, even if you find a third party candidate who perfectly reflects your views, you’re likely to vote for the RINO anyway. Why? Because if you don’t, the Democrat might win, and that would be even worse. So if you vote for that third party (that few will vote for), you’re throwing your vote away and increasing the likelihood of the Democrat winning. (It’s half as much a gain for the Democrat, as actually voting for the Democrat would be. Not as much, but half as much. Because although you denied the R your vote, you did not flip your vote to the Democrat.)
The Republican Party Establishment knows you don’t love them. But they know you hate the Democrats worse, and they use that to continue to herd you into supporting them. With gritted teeth you cast your vote, but your vote counts the same whether you cast it enthusiastically. And the other alternative, pissing on the voting apparatus to express your actual feelings, is probably a felony.
But what if you could vote for that third party without increasing the chances of the Dem walking away with the prize?
This is what ranked choice voting, or instant runoff voting, can do provided it is properly implemented. (And this includes the votes, and only genuine votes, being counted honestly, of course. However, I’m going to compare it to what we have today, and pretend that is honestly done too. RCV can’t work if it’s not honestly administered, just like our current system isn’t working because it isn’t honestly administered.)
The idea behind RCV is to vote by expressing your order of preference. You could vote for the Patriot Party, then for the RINO Party as your second choice (and ignore the Democrat, the Green, the Overt Socialist Schmuckmonkey Party, etc).
What does this do? It nullifies the wasted vote argument. Your vote will be counted for the Patriot party, first, then instead of it being “wasted” when the Patriot Party loses, it ends up going to the RINO. Actually, it’s just barely possible that the Patriot Party would actually beat the RINO, if people weren’t all individually afraid to vote for it.
It’s just like the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” where your fear of other peoples’ actions prevents you from doing the optimal thing–and vice-versa. As long as Job Lowe is afraid to vote Patriot because he’s afraid you’ll vote RINO, you’ll have to vote RINO because you fear that Job Lowe will, because he fears you will.
So on the whole I like RCV. It gives you a no-risk way to vote against the RINO scum, and in favor of someone who deserves your vote.
The problem is, as done here in the US, it comes packaged with a “jungle primary.” A bunch of candidates get to put their name out there, and the top four (or so) candidates get onto the “main” ballot. This gives party establishments their way around the threat of a good third party bumping them off. Because they know that few people bother with primaries, and third parties don’t have the resources to run in a primary…so they throw two or three establishment hacks into the primary and they will probably beat the third party. The result is the RINOs end up with two of the four slots in the general election, and the Dems get the other two. Now there’s suddenly no third party candidate on the ballot at all.
If we were to combine RCV with the present system where each party could nominate exactly one candidate to appear on the November ballot, or at the very least, ensure minor parties could get onto the ballot with at least one candidate regardless of the primary, we would be getting somewhere, but the establishment is smarter than we like to give them credit for. They will support the jungle primary + RCV “solution” rather than the more appropriate one-candidate-per-party + RCV solution.
It’s not RCV that is the problem, it’s the primary structure grafted onto it.
It says “Justice” on the picture.
And I’m sure someone will post the standard joke about what the fish thinks about the situation.
But what is it?
Here’s a take, from a different context: It’s about how you do justice, not the justice that must be done to our massively corrupt government and media. You must properly identify the nature of a person, before you can do him justice.
Ayn Rand, On Justice (speaking through her character John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged):
Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero—that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions—that to withhold your contempt from men’s vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit—and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.
Ayn Rand identified seven virtues, chief among them rationality. The other six, including justice, she considered subsidiary because they are essentially different aspects and applications of rationality.
Justice Must Be Done.
Trump, it is supposed, had some documents.
Biden and company stole the country.
I’m sure enough of this that I put my money where my mouth is.
The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system. (This doesn’t necessarily include deposing Joe and Hoe and putting Trump where he belongs, but it would certainly be a lot easier to fix our broken electoral system with the right people in charge.)
Nothing else matters at this point. Talking about trying again in 2024 or 2026 is pointless otherwise. Which is not to say one must never talk about this, but rather that one must account for this in ones planning; if fixing the fraud in the system is not part of the plan, you have no plan.
This will necessarily be piecemeal, state by state, which is why I am encouraged by those states working to change their laws to alleviate the fraud both via computer and via bogus voters. If enough states do that we might end up with a working majority in Congress and that would be something Trump never really had.
Lawyer Appeasement Section
OK now for the fine print.
This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines, here, with an addendum on 20191110.
We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.
And remember Wheatie’s Rules:
1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)
This week, 3 PM MT on Friday, markets closed for the weekend
Everything down or flat except palladium. Interesting!
Sines and Cosines from Plain Old Arithmetic
Well after last week’s difficulty with editing I’m going to have another go at it.
I ended by stating that there was a way of computing the sine and cosine of any arbitrary angle, without knowing any other sines or cosines.
This is good because if you do need other sines and cosines as inputs, then roundoff error in the previously determined sines and cosines will start you off wrong, and you’ll be making an roundoff error here (remember you can’t specify most of these numbers precisely, they’re irrational). These errors will only accumulate. A direct method that doesn’t depend on other calculations would be much better.
We have that method. Sort of. There are a couple of caveats: This method will give you an approximation, though you can put more work into it and get it as close to the actual sine or cosine as you want. The more accurate you want, the more work you will need to do. (It becomes precisely accurate if you do infinite work.
And the other caveat is you have to give your angle in radians, because that is the “natural” way to measure an angle: as a distance along the arc of a circle.
OK, here we go:
Remember a few weeks ago (https://www.theqtree.com/2023/06/10/2023%C2%B706%C2%B710-joe-biden-didnt-win-daily-thread/) I talked about the Taylor series, and a special case of it called the MacLaurin series. These can be used, in some cases to compute values of a function that might otherwise seem intractable, and by using pure arithmetic.
The function must be infinitely differentiable, which is a calculus concept. I’m going to try to explain it, but if you don’t want to know it won’t hurt you not to know…much. You may want to skip the next few paragraphs…I’ll put bold where it’s safe to pick up so you can scan for it.
Basically, if you have a function like sinx which is shown below with x in radians.
…you can create another function that gives the slope of sin x at any given point. So what would such a function look like? Well, when x is zero, the slope of the wiggly line is just about 1. Which is to say, right there at x = 0, it’s climbing at the rate of one square vertically for every one unit to the right (in radians). Our new “slope of sin x function” has a value of 1 at x = 0. At π/2 (or 90°), the curve of sin x is level, so the slope is zero. At π, the slope is -1. At 3π/2, it’s zero again. And at 2π, it’s back to being 1 again.
We already know of a function that has these values at these points. It’s the cosine of x. Is that a coincidence? Actually, no. It turns out (after a lot more proof than I am going to show you), that the “slope of sin(x) function” is indeed cos(x). Now for some terminology; the correct way to phrase this is “the derivative of sin(x) is cos(x).”
You can repeat this exercise for cos(x), and you will get -sin(x). So the derivative of cos(x) is -sin(x). But cos(x) is already the derivative of sin(x), so the derivative of the derivative of sin(x) is -sin(x). But we don’t want to say “the derivative of the derivative of..” so we call that the second derivative.
Unsurprisingly, the derivative of -sin(x) is -cos(x). And the derivative of -cos(x) is back to sin(x). In other words, you can keep taking the derivative of the derivative of the derivative…forever. Kind of boring.
But that’s what it means to say that sin(x) is infinitely differentiable. With most functions you’ll eventually end up with a derivative that’s zero for all values of x, and then you’re done. But not with sin(x) and also (since it shows up in the chain) not for cos(x).
Which means that sine and cosine are infinitely differentiable and we can use the Maclaurin series on them.
(OK the calculus-averse are back with us now, and we can continue.)
So here is the Taylor series of any function, f. The idea is to pick a central point, a, and then compute the value of f for some nearby x. Note that all of the terms have x–a in them; you get closer if x is very close to a.
If a is zero, it becomes the Maclaurin series:
And the tick marks denote the first, second, third, and four derivatives.
The 1!, 2!, 3! etc are factorials. You get a factorial by multiplying the number by every smaller number down to 1. So 4! is 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. (Practically, of course, you don’t bother multiplying by 1.)
So if we set a equal to zero (we’re going to be interested in values for x close to zero), the formula can simplify.
I pointed out in the section you skipped over that the first derivative of sinx is cosx, the second derivative is -sinx, the third derivative is -cosx, the fourth derivative is sinx again, and so on…the cycle repeats.
So if I substitute those in we have:
sinx = sin(0) + (cos(0)/1!)x + (-sin(0)/2!)x2 + (-cos(0)/3!)x3 + (sin(0)/4!)x4 + …
But we know that the sin(0) is zero, and so is -sin(0). So we can simply throw a bunch of these terms out (and as I do so I’ll bring in more terms from where the ellipsis was)
sinx = (cos(0)/1!)x +(-cos(0)/3!)x3 + (cos(0)/5!)x5 + (-cos(0)/7!)x7…
And the others (cos(0) and -cos(0)) can be replaced with 1 and -1 respectively, so simplifying:
sinx = x – x3/3! +x5/5! – x7/7!…
This is a nice pattern. Every odd power of x, divided by the factorial of the power. Every other term gets a minus sign. The further you carry it out, the more accurate you will be. Also, the closer to zero x is, the more accurate it will be, but you can always just carry it out further if x isn’t very close to zero, to make up for it. If you can follow this infinitely far, you can get the correct answers for numbers very far away from 0, as far away as you like.
Here is a graph of sinx, along with a graph of what you get out of the Maclaurin representation taken to the x7 term.
As a practical matter you do not need to go past x=π/2, because the function makes the mirror-image curve going down to π as it did climbing to π/2. So the sine of 89° is the same as the sine of 91°, and so on. And the stretch from π to 2π is also a mirror image, except flipped vertically. After that, it repeats. So even though you can see some difference at x = π, and a lot of difference at 2π, you can probably get everything you need from the range 0 to π/, where this is pretty close.
So you can get pretty close with this function, between –π/2 and π/2. I’ll repeat it with the factorials written out:
sinx is roughly equal to: x – x3/6 +x5/120 – x7/5040.
Certainly the brain inside a calculator should be able to do that very quickly! And so, that’s probably what it does. It might go out one or two more terms:
x – x3/6 +x5/120 – x7/5040 + x9/363,880 – x11/39,916,800
But you can see if x is small you’re not going to get much change from the x11 term.
So let’s do the same thing for cosines. Now when we go back to the MacLaurin series, everything shifts over, it starts with cosine, then -sine, then -cosine, then sine.
cosx = cos(0) + (-sin(0)/1!)x + (-cos(0)/2!)x2 + (sin(0)/3!)x3 + (cos(0)/4!)x4 + …
And now we know that the cosine of zero is 1, and the sine of zero is zero, so:
cosx = 1 + –x2/2! + x4/4! + –x6/6! + x8/8! +…
So here we have a pattern oddly like, but oddly unlike, the sine version. Now it’s the even powers of x (including x0 = 1) that show up, again with alternating signs.
And we have:
cosx is roughly equal to: 1 – x2/2 +x4/24 – x6/720 + x8/40,320.
So we can get increasingly accurate. Because, remember sine and cosine swap at 45 degrees. The sine of 60° is the same as the cosine of 30°, so if you want the sine of 60°, compute the cosine of 30° instead; your answer will be closer. (Needless to say first, convert to radians!) So we really only need these series to be accurate enough for whatever our purposes are, to 45° or π/4 radians.
Next time: I pull a mathematical rabbit out of my hat!
Obligatory PSAs and Reminders
China is Lower than Whale Shit
To conclude: My standard Public Service Announcement. We don’t want to forget this!!!
Remember Hong Kong!!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!
China is in the White House
Since Wednesday, January 20 at Noon EST, the bought-and-paid for Joseph Biden has been in the White House. It’s as good as having China in the Oval Office.
Joe Biden is Asshoe
China is in the White House, because Joe Biden is in the White House, and Joe Biden is identically equal to China. China is Asshoe. Therefore, Joe Biden is Asshoe.
But of course the much more important thing to realize:
Joe Biden Didn’t Win
Qiáo Bài dēng méi yíng !!!
Joe Biden didn’t win !!!