[Newfie]

The problem is that “gun control” only works for those that obey the law.

There are a few high profile cases that hit the media and shape the gun control argument. The vast majority of murders and attempted murders get only local attention and are different that the incidents in mass media.

Above I reported on 5 execution style murders in Philadelphia in 3 days. In one a young woman was shot from behind on a city street and the whole thing was caught in video, the mans face clearly visible. But no one knows nothing.

That is not a gun control problem, it is much deeper and systemic.

And it is not being reported on in MSM, barley by local outlets, so it is not being discussed

[Newfie]

Here is an editorial by a recent past Philly Mayor. It bears on the subject at hand.

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commen ... 11207.html

Krasner was recently re-elected as DA simply because he was the Democrat and no Republican can win anything in Philly.

[Pops]

Have you ever seen this article, on the origins of gun control in California? It is fascinating, along the point you've just raised, if only because who was involved, and maybe why.

I've mentioned that before. I'm old enough to remember it on TV (lived in the central valley and sierras). My folks went bat-shit crazy. They were "southern" baptists for a reason.

Speaking as a lilly-white boy, there was a point there with the "black power" movement that they seemed to be doing themselves some good. Unfortunately Nancy's war on drugs came along and repeated the original prohibition's mistake. Illegal drugs did for blacks in the city exactly what alcohol had done for the Sicilians 50 years before, it has just lasted 40 years longer and entrenched the hook so much deeper.

Politically it is good policy to promote the chaos and carnage and point at blacks. Uneducated, religious, white people, especially men, feel they are losing status—and rightly so— they are. Demonizing blacks, Mexicans, muslims, politicians, expert, elites—name your boogieman— is a sure way to deflect from the other thing the Reagans brought: massive wealth transfer upwards. Big black guns make whites feel like they still have a bit of power.

Once the economy begins its inevitable retraction (call it degrowth if it feels better) they'll certainly want to use them
.

[AdamB]

The problem is that “gun control” only works for those that obey the law.

Indeed. And no one has the ability to figure out in advance who is crazy enough to decide to randomly start shooting. The Dems seem to think that making all gun owners criminals is the answer, presuming that human psychosis is the inanimate objects fault, and the answer of handing them out like candy doesn't cure the problem any better.

Above I reported on 5 execution style murders in Philadelphia in 3 days. In one a young woman was shot from behind on a city street and the whole thing was caught in video, the mans face clearly visible. But no one knows nothing.

Aren't you getting out of there just in time then.

That is not a gun control problem, it is much deeper and systemic.

Any suggestions better than the normal party line ones? Ive got ideas myself, but darned if I can honestly pretend they are solutions.

[Newfie]

Adam wrote:

Any suggestions better than the normal party line ones? Ive got ideas myself, but darned if I can honestly pretend they are solutions.

I am in about the same position. We have been digging this hole for a ling, ling time and its pretty deep. I could go off on a number of rants and bore everyone to tears.
Term limits.
I have made some suggestions about revising the Presidential selection process and the House.
We have deeply screwed up primary education.
Our mass media is completely bat shit crazy but I have no idea how to fix it.

These all leap to my mind but they are just some and perhaps not the most important issues.

My fear is that like climate change there is a certain inertia to the system so that even if we did every thing right starting now it would still tale a very long time to unfuck that which has been very severely fucked.

At tuis point I seek to survive. Trying to understand is simply a hobby I guess.

[Doly]

Our mass media is completely bat shit crazy but I have no idea how to fix it.

It would help if people had some notion about why it went bat-shit crazy in the first place. I've been wondering about that question because I have the feeling that once you understand that, a lot of the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. You would have a much clearer idea of why some policies are a no-no.

[Newfie]

That is a good question. My SUSPICION is that it is because the MSM is ratings and profit driven. They will say almost anything to make a buck. I think there was a period when that was not so, or at least not as much as now. Early journalism was pretty damn bad then it improved for a while. Now it is bad once again.

[vtsnowedin]

I can't think of a time going all the way back to the American revolution where the press was as good as it should have been.
So everything you read or see should be taken with a full spoonful of salt and skepticism.

[Newfie]

Not sure this is the best place for this article but its an a thread and could fit.

This article discusses the supply chain “crisis” looking forward. It notes how the news is being manipulated, the line if ships outside Long Beach has diminished because they are simply loitering further off shore. Another article noted that ships off Chinas coast were turning off their AIS thereby “disappearing” from satellite monitoring.

The authors clearly think the global supply chain is in a very unstable position which at best wont fully recover for a year or more. They also postulate the chain is very susceptible to future shocks.

https://gcaptain.com/vanishing-ships-un ... -a-mirage/

When I read this I first winder how accurate it is and if to pay attention. If I do give it credence then I see it as supporting the idea that we are encroaching upon the peak(s) as described in LTG. While LTG looked at discrete indicators I think there is some merit in sort of rolling it all together, they sort of alluded to this in noting that once one indicator breaks bad the model falls apart because it is all interconnected. I see some value in looking at this combined system as denoting “complexity”.

The more people, the linger life span, the more gadgets, the more pollution, the more output all requires more complexity to keep it all in balance, the harder it is to balance. It works so that as we approach the apex the balance gets wobbly, we can adjust but then something else goes wonky. The only way to achieve balance is to reduce complexity, but that runs counter to the tenets of Capitalism.

Anyway, its an interesting read. Enjoy.

Oh, and just to keep things from getting too morose, here is an article about cream cheese and the supply chain crisis.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yed-a-part

[Doly]

I do worry about supply chains, but I don't think the LTG model is a good one to think about this particular issue. I've read that supply chains can be compared to traffic, and I wish I had a clearer idea of how the two have been connected (hopefully there is a mathematical connection, rather than just a vague metaphor). I've read studies about traffic that point out that traffic jams tend to appear suddenly, there is a "phase transition" sort of situation. If the same is true for supply chains, and supply chain blocks can appear quite suddenly, it would suggest that it isn't impossible for a serious supply chain "freeze" to appear out of the blue.

[AdamB]

I do worry about supply chains, but I don't think the LTG model is a good one to think about this particular issue. I've read that supply chains can be compared to traffic, and I wish I had a clearer idea of how the two have been connected (hopefully there is a mathematical connection, rather than just a vague metaphor). I've read studies about traffic that point out that traffic jams tend to appear suddenly, there is a "phase transition" sort of situation. If the same is true for supply chains, and supply chain blocks can appear quite suddenly, it would suggest that it isn't impossible for a serious supply chain "freeze" to appear out of the blue.

Does the LTG model in fact know anything about supply chains?

[Newfie]

Read and find out.

But in short LTG as looking a bigger trends, supply chain are a cog in the global machinery. So they would be a subset of the other trends like production.

I was postulating that the LTG factors when summed equate to “complexity.” The more complex the less stable.

[AdamB]

Read and find out.

I did, as best I could, the original work. As best I could tell, it didn't know anything about supply chains, no functions, no correlations or relationships, but Doly said she was both an expert and familiar with the revisions, and would answer questions. And I mentioned that my interests were elsewhere, but hey, I specialize in doing my best, being wrong, and having experts correct me.

I was postulating that the LTG factors when summed equate to “complexity.” The more complex the less stable.

Others have supposed similar things. But I'm betting that LTG and its 70's vintage "complexity" gets beat by most NASA systems that land things on other planets, or flybys of asteroids and comments and such, and most of the time they seem stable, I mean really, Voyager I and still running, all this time later?

[mousepad]

Others have supposed similar things. But I'm betting that LTG and its 70's vintage "complexity" gets beat by most NASA systems that land things on other planets,

You're confusing complex with complicated. The nasa gadgets are complicated, the supply chain thingy is complex.

A complicated system is one where there are many intricate component parts that work in a predictable and linear manner. A complicated system is where the whole is the sum of the parts and the behaviour of the system can be derived by studying the behaviour of the individual parts. Examples of a complicated system would include mechanical watches, internal combustion engines etc. These systems are linear and their behaviour can be derived analytically.

A complex system is one in which there are feedback processes that make the system non-linear in behaviour. These systems cannot be understood without looking at the whole. Example of complex systems would include the Weather (Butterfly Effect), predator prey relationships in an ecosystem, the ecosystem itself, most living systems etc.

[Newfie]

Mouse,
Thank you. I had never read that description before. It is a good distinction.

[AdamB]

You're confusing complex with complicated. The nasa gadgets are complicated, the supply chain thingy is complex.

A complicated system is one where there are many intricate component parts that work in a predictable and linear manner. A complicated system is where the whole is the sum of the parts and the behaviour of the system can be derived by studying the behaviour of the individual parts. Examples of a complicated system would include mechanical watches, internal combustion engines etc. These systems are linear and their behaviour can be derived analytically.

A complex system is one in which there are feedback processes that make the system non-linear in behaviour. These systems cannot be understood without looking at the whole. Example of complex systems would include the Weather (Butterfly Effect), predator prey relationships in an ecosystem, the ecosystem itself, most living systems etc.

A non-trivial difference for sure. And an outstanding correction of my conflating the two. As they say, you learn something every day. Thanks.

[Pops]

Very good.

[Doly]

Does the LTG model in fact know anything about supply chains?

No, that's why I said it wouldn't be a good one to think about supply chains.

I was postulating that the LTG factors when summed equate to “complexity.”

There are different ways systems can be complex. I think the way the LTG model is complex is different from the way supply chains are complex. I say "I think" because I haven't read enough about the maths underlying supply chains to make a definite statement, but I definitely intend to try to read more on the subject.

The more complex the less stable.

Absolutely false. I don't know where you got that idea from. The metabolism of the human body is very complex, and it maintains your vital constants rather stable.

The nasa gadgets are complicated

Some of those gadgets are complex. The Mars helicopter seems pretty complex to me.

[Pops]

The more complex the less stable.

Absolutely false. I don't know where you got that idea from. The metabolism of the human body is very complex, and it maintains your vital constants rather stable.

The body is actually a great example. It is very complex and resilient, it can handle everything from feast to famine — as long as everything is functional.
But if a few specialized cells in the pancreas succumb to a few wayward cells of the immune system, it's all over.

Global supply chains are similarly complex, increasingly specialized (monopolized) and vulnerable to failures in the critical path. And each link in the chain has its own supply chain and weak link choke points.

CHSmith has a good post up,

How vulnerable is your personal supply chain?
For the average American, the answer is: very.

[jedrider]

I see nothing wrong with 'complexity'. It was never our problem as some have stated. Our problem is with the exponential. It is 'complicated' unless one understands it and, then, it is simple: We're doomed.