Latest Posts

Snooping Bastards

Bad News, Technology

Longtime Readers know that I detest the way tech companies strip-mine our personal information so they can sell it off to various other companies.  Here’s one take on it:

Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a frightening story about a small company named Clearview AI that can identify the person in a picture someone uploads to its service. The New York Times said Clearview AI has more than 3 billion images “scraped from Facebook, YouTube, Venmo and millions of other websites” and that more than 600 law enforcement agencies have started using it.
The report raises some really valid concerns about our privacy: If a picture of you exists somewhere online, and you participate in a protest or a rally, then it’s plausible law enforcement could upload a picture of you at the rally, run it through the Clearview system and easily find out who you are.

But fear not:

Facebook has a setting that can recognize your face so that you’re automatically suggested as a tag in pictures and video that your friends upload. (It won’t work if a stranger uploads your picture.) It’s not available for everyone, including people under 18. Facebook has been rolling it out in stages, and says it’s turned off by default, but I’ve had it for a while and have no recollection of how or when I turned it on.

  • Open Facebook.com in your web browser.
  • Tap the down arrow on the top right of the page.
  • Choose Settings.
  • Pick Face Recognition from the left side.  If you don’t see it, your account might not have the feature.
  • Next to “Do you want Facebook to be able to recognize you in photos and videos?” select No.

When you do that, Facebook says it will “delete your face recognition template” so you’re no longer recognized.

And if you honestly believe that your “face recognition template” has now actually been deleted, I have some snake oil to sell you, guaranteed to make you live forever, you witless simpleton.

I don’t trust any of these fucking bastards.

Ratting

The Gun Thing, Vermin

Following on from my earlier post about taking care of vermin (actual rats, not politicians, of course), I had this thought.

Given my ummm tendencies, I’d rather address the rat problem like this — I mean, why let dogs have all the fun?  I think I’d prefer an inexpensive .22 rifle (semi-auto, for a quick follow-up shot if needed) over an airgun, but I’m open to suggestions.

And no post of mine would be complete without at least a brief look at the guns one would consider.  I’m thinking of a heavy barrel semi-auto, like the Ruger 10/22 Competition:

…or the Thompson TC/R22:

…or a ringer, the Browning Buck Mark FLD Target (which might possibly have the best trigger of the three):

No bad choices there.  But I’d be at a loss for which optics to choose.  Daytime, no problem:  either a red-dot or conventional rimfire scope would work.  But a night-vision  scope?  Never owned one.

Tell me your suggestions, in Comments.  And remember:  I’m a Cheap Bastard, so no $900 EOTech miracles need apply.

The Story Of The Film So Far

Marxists, Politics

From J.J. Sefton at Ace Of Spades :

On a granular level, I cannot imagine the Democrats succeeding in peeling away not just two or three but 20 GOP senators in order to reach a two-thirds majority for conviction and removal. Despite the Democrats attempt to paint McConnell as a Russian agent and/or rigging the trial in Trump’s favor, this too like everything else before will blow up in their face. And yet, they will continue with more smears, more charges and more attempts to sabotage the President and sway voters from now all the way to November. That’s all they have. They have no candidates or positions that even remotely reflect the politics of the average American citizen. They know it and we know it. The only thing left is to either replace the American people with illiterate peasantry from south of the border or, failing that, round us all up and put us in gulags or mass graves.

And the story of the film to come:

The big question remains whither America in a post-Trump (that is, post 1/20/25) landscape? The attempted coup and the concomitant attempt at impeachment means we have a political party and movement that will stop at nothing to attain power. And that means absolute power going forward. The Constitution when it is to be observed will be used as both shield and cudgel, or more than likely abandoned entirely. There is no way to use legal methods and regular order or precedent to thwart them. It is refreshing to see anecdotal things like Martha McSally calling out Manure Raju, Lindsey Graham calling out the Dems’ lust for power during the attempted high tech lynching of Justice Kavanaugh, and more substantively Mitch McConnell going pedal to the metal to confirm as many Trump judicial picks as possible. I hope it’s a bellwether of things to come, and of a dam bursting wide open with an unrelenting torrent of same from now on. Because, sure as G-d made little green apples, the next time the Democrats gain the White House, it’ll be lights out for sure.

There it is, folks:  the political landscape, admirably (and perfectly) summarized in a dozen or so sentences.

A Gun Too Far

The Gun Thing

Insty sent me to Tami Keel’s thoughtful post  at Shooting Times :

For the last 10 years or so, though, the standard answer to the “What pistol?” question has been a polymer-frame, striker-fired, double-stack pistol chambered in 9 mm. The temptation is definitely there to think of writing “The End of History and the Last Pistol.” But how did we get here, and what could be next?
For the reasons behind the pistol type itself, it comes down to simple cost. There’s nothing more modern about a striker over a hammer. John Moses Browning’s first semi-automatic pistol, the FN Model 1899, was striker-fired. It’s not intrinsically superior mechanically, either. In fact, it has a few downsides. A hammer generally gets better ignition reliability, and a hammer allows the use of lighter recoil springs since the force required to override the hammer provides much of the initial braking force to the recoiling slide.

Frankly, I would have had a different title — and probably, a different emphasis in the piece altogether.  Let me illustrate why.  Here’s the timeline graphic as it appears in the article:

…and here’s my take on the same graphic:

…which would lead to my headline:

Have We Gone A Gun Too Far?

You see, I question the appearance of the Glock G17 on the chart altogether (and I should point out quite emphatically that I’m not  taking a dig at Tami).  It’s not the first striker-fired pistol (as Tami points out), and it’s certainly not the first semi-auto pistol.

But Tami’s next sentence, while correct, gives the game away:

The striker’s big advantage is simplicity, which translates to a less-expensive gun. There’s just no way to produce a hammer-fired ignition system as cheaply as a striker-fired one. Similarly, there’s just no way to chisel a frame out of steel or aluminum as cheaply as one can injection-mold one out of polymer. When it comes to the real world of accountants and budgets, the cheap gun that works just fine is going to displace the more-expensive gun that also works just fine.

All true, and all well and good.  But just making something cheaper  doesn’t warrant a place on the timeline, any more than making a more efficient (and more expensive) double-action revolver than the Beaumont-Adams (e.g. a Colt Python) would merit a similar inclusion.

Just because the Glock is one of the most popular handguns around doesn’t make it a step on the Gun Evolution Ladder, in other words.

Here’s my final thought on the matter.  For decades, we bought our Coca-Cola in glass bottles.  Then glass containers gave way to plastic bottles — which makes a case for a place on the container  timeline, but not one for inclusion on the soft drink  timeline.

I know, I know:  I’m splitting hairs here, and we all know the Glock is the greatest thing since ice cream etc. etc.  Except it isn’t.  It’s a cheap-to-produce plastic container, and its only real benefit is to the accountants.  As for the “cheaper” part, here’s the Gospel according to Bud:

But whatever.  Y’all can carry a Glock (or any of their copycats), with my blessing.  It’s not a horrible pistol;  it’s an affordable, effective and reliable gun.  Me, I’ll stick to my 1911 (which is on the timeline — and justifiably so) and one day, maybe, a Colt Python.

The rest of the article has to do with ammo, but everybody here knows my opinion about the 9mm Europellet.  Likewise, I’ll stick to .45 ACP and .357 Magnum.

And this exchange in the Comments to Insty’s post had me chuckling:

“Plastic crap”…