Skip to navigationSkip to content
Charles Rogerson

Charles Rogerson

Data Architect at Radagast Associates
  • I think Imperial is better because it’s more natural, it’s closer to the human body in some way. Metric is artificial, and I never cared much for the French Revolution anyway, which is where metric came from. Metric represents an attempt to impose an artificial system, in a very totalitarian way, and

    I think Imperial is better because it’s more natural, it’s closer to the human body in some way. Metric is artificial, and I never cared much for the French Revolution anyway, which is where metric came from. Metric represents an attempt to impose an artificial system, in a very totalitarian way, and wipe out traditional ways of measuring things. I’m a scientist, but I like traditional stuff and I don’t want to see tradition abolished by totalitarian bureaucrats.

  • As Jordan Peterson predicted, PC ideologists have set their sights on STEM and are making converts. Let’s hope the results will not be as disasterous for STEM as they have been for the humanities. Judging from what’s going on in the Valley, I am not optimistic.

  • Perhaps because 80s tunes rock and most of the new stuff I hear doesn’t.

  • What isn’t addressed here is the growing popularity of the ‘long-form’ conversation popularised by Peterson, Rogan, Rubin, et al on YouTube. Long (two hours+), deep (no chit-chat, no trying to ‘win’)conversations with one or two friends can be a very powerful method for developing knowledge, insight

    What isn’t addressed here is the growing popularity of the ‘long-form’ conversation popularised by Peterson, Rogan, Rubin, et al on YouTube. Long (two hours+), deep (no chit-chat, no trying to ‘win’)conversations with one or two friends can be a very powerful method for developing knowledge, insight, personal growth, friendship, and community.

    Our culture has lost the art of conversation almost completely, replacing it with superficial and/or adversarial ‘short-form’ interactions: talk shows, late-night hosts, twitter fights, etc. I think people are starved for deep contact. Hopefully ‘long-form’ can bring back the art of real conversation.

  • This concept has been around for decades! It has not been implemented for several reasons. First, the difficulty of constructing the space-based component: it would require a team of humans in space for a long period of time. Habitation for them would have to be constructed first, which is not simple

    This concept has been around for decades! It has not been implemented for several reasons. First, the difficulty of constructing the space-based component: it would require a team of humans in space for a long period of time. Habitation for them would have to be constructed first, which is not simple. But the killer problem is one of safety: a geo-stationary orbit at 23,000 miles means that the power beam would be attenuated considerably before it reached Earth, so the space platform would need to be in a lower orbit, making it more difficult to focus and deliver the beam to the receiving station. This creates several safety hazards. A laser or microwave beam of that power could easily fry things on Earth if there were an error or malicious misuse. For these reasons, the idea was shelved a long time ago. If these concerns could be successfully addressed, whoopee! However, it's probably more cost-effective to expand solar panels on Earth. Besides, I really don't trust the Chinese not to turn it into a weapon.

  • Sorry, the Guardian has gotten so partisan and ideological that I just don't trust them anymore. I trust the Economist, the Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Independent, but not the Guardian.

    I also trust David Boyd ('The Optimistic Environmentalist') and Peter Singer more than I trust the writer

    Sorry, the Guardian has gotten so partisan and ideological that I just don't trust them anymore. I trust the Economist, the Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Independent, but not the Guardian.

    I also trust David Boyd ('The Optimistic Environmentalist') and Peter Singer more than I trust the writer of this article. I have looked at various datasets and I have traveled to a fair number of countries and it is quite clear that economic growth in China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, East Europe, South America, and elsewhere has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. One only has to look at cellphone sales and the growth of electronic banking worldwide to verify this.

    Deng Xiao-Ping had major faults, but his decision to allow the (relatively) free market to flourish in China allowed hundreds of millions of China's people to lift themselves out of poverty.

    Contrast this with the idiotic retrograde socialist policies of Chavez and Maduro which have sent millions of Venezuelans back into poverty. Don't read Marx, read Hayek and Friedman.

  • OMG! I actually was one of those commie radicals who studied MLM-Thought (Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-Tung-Thought) in the early 70s, and for many of us it was like an atomic bomb going off, destroying our ability to think clearly and non-ideologically. For me, it only lasted about a decade; for most of

    OMG! I actually was one of those commie radicals who studied MLM-Thought (Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-Tung-Thought) in the early 70s, and for many of us it was like an atomic bomb going off, destroying our ability to think clearly and non-ideologically. For me, it only lasted about a decade; for most of my comrades it was permanent; they are still wandering around in the postmodern neo-Marxist swamp. Deng Tsaio Ping, Friedman, Kolakowski, and Hayek helped me understand what a fraud Marxism is. Glad to see that Xi Jinping and his Party cronies are still wasting their time putting out this rubbish which nobody takes seriously any more.

  • What absurd nonsense. Beekeepers, including migratory beekeepers, are doing bees a favor by creating new hives and giving them sustenance. Honey producers separate one part of the hive so that larvae can't be put in that part. The bees put their excess honey in this part, which the beekeeper harvests

    What absurd nonsense. Beekeepers, including migratory beekeepers, are doing bees a favor by creating new hives and giving them sustenance. Honey producers separate one part of the hive so that larvae can't be put in that part. The bees put their excess honey in this part, which the beekeeper harvests. The beekeeper in returns protects the bees from foraging animals and sustains them through the winter by feeding them. The beekeeper will also protect swarms which might be destroyed, by relocating them.

    Have you ever seen commercial bees pollinating an almond orchard? They love it! This is their life, what they live for. And every year, thousands of new hives are created and protected, maintaining the bee population. Humans and bees have been living together for many hundreds of years. This nonsense about bees being exploited stems from profound anti-human ignorance.

  • I'm concerned about Google News (and Apple News). I daily refer to many left/right/center/academic news sources: NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, London Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times of India, Times of Japan, CNN, Fox, Hoover Institute, WSJ, Business Insider, Atlantic, New Yorker, Economist, Medium

    I'm concerned about Google News (and Apple News). I daily refer to many left/right/center/academic news sources: NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, London Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Times of India, Times of Japan, CNN, Fox, Hoover Institute, WSJ, Business Insider, Atlantic, New Yorker, Economist, Medium, Aero, Quillete, Twitter, Legal Insurrection, Intellectual Takeout, Foreign Affairs, National Interest, Al Jazzera, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Commentary, and others. Not all everyday, obviously, but many.

    This gives me a fairly good grasp of the range of events, reporting, and opinions. Google News, Yahoo News, and Apple News consistently report only left/liberal sources. In the past several years I have seen them report conservative sources only a handful of times. I also have never seen them show non-US sources. They rarely show any international news.This is why I have largely stopped using them, let alone rely on them. They are clearly biased.

    The question is, is this bias deliberate, algorithmic, or accidental? It could be that the greatest volume of US reporting is overwhelmingly left/liberal (even Vanity Fair, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Psychology Today, etc.), and this volume simply skews the results. But to the complete exclusion of conservative voices? I certainly don't think that Google or Apple are concerned about intellectual diversity.