#IT operating model evolution

[goodoldbandit]

Edge Infrastructure: Leadership Considerations for Future Deployments.

Sanjay Kumar Mohindroo Sanjay Kumar Mohindroo. skm.stayingalive.in A deep dive into how CIOs and tech leaders must rethink strategy for edge infrastructure deployments—and why it matters now. Rethinking the Edge as a Strategic Frontier Every few decades, infrastructure evolves so significantly that it redefines the boundaries of innovation. We are living through one such moment now. Edge…

[ecrivainsolitaire]

A summary of the Chinese AI situation, for the uninitiated.

These are scores on different tests that are designed to see how accurate a Large Language Model is in different areas of knowledge. As you know, OpenAI is partners with Microsoft, so these are the scores for ChatGPT and Copilot. DeepSeek is the Chinese model that got released a week ago. The rest are open source models, which means everyone is free to use them as they please, including the average Tumblr user. You can run them from the servers of the companies that made them for a subscription, or you can download them to install locally on your own computer. However, the computer requirements so far are so high that only a few people currently have the machines at home required to run it.

Yes, this is why AI uses so much electricity. As with any technology, the early models are highly inefficient. Think how a Ford T needed a long chimney to get rid of a ton of black smoke, which was unused petrol. Over the next hundred years combustion engines have become much more efficient, but they still waste a lot of energy, which is why we need to move towards renewable electricity and sustainable battery technology. But that's a topic for another day.

As you can see from the scores, are around the same accuracy. These tests are in constant evolution as well: as soon as they start becoming obsolete, new ones are released to adjust for a more complicated benchmark. The new models are trained using different machine learning techniques, and in theory, the goal is to make them faster and more efficient so they can operate with less power, much like modern cars use way less energy and produce far less pollution than the Ford T.

However, computing power requirements kept scaling up, so you're either tied to the subscription or forced to pay for a latest gen PC, which is why NVIDIA, AMD, Intel and all the other chip companies were investing hard on much more powerful GPUs and NPUs. For now all we need to know about those is that they're expensive, use a lot of electricity, and are required to operate the bots at superhuman speed (literally, all those clickbait posts about how AI was secretly 150 Indian men in a trenchcoat were nonsense).

Because the chip companies have been working hard on making big, bulky, powerful chips with massive fans that are up to the task, their stock value was skyrocketing, and because of that, everyone started to use AI as a marketing trend. See, marketing people are not smart, and they don't understand computers. Furthermore, marketing people think you're stupid, and because of their biased frame of reference, they think you're two snores short of brain-dead. The entire point of their existence is to turn tall tales into capital. So they don't know or care about what AI is or what it's useful for. They just saw Number Go Up for the AI companies and decided "AI is a magic cow we can milk forever". Sometimes it's not even AI, they just use old software and rebrand it, much like convection ovens became air fryers.

Well, now we're up to date. So what did DepSeek release that did a 9/11 on NVIDIA stock prices and popped the AI bubble?

Oh, I would not want to be an OpenAI investor right now either. A token is basically one Unicode character (it's more complicated than that but you can google that on your own time). That cost means you could input the entire works of Stephen King for under a dollar. Yes, including electricity costs. DeepSeek has jumped from a Ford T to a Subaru in terms of pollution and water use.

The issue here is not only input cost, though; all that data needs to be available live, in the RAM; this is why you need powerful, expensive chips in order to-

Holy shit.

I'm not going to detail all the numbers but I'm going to focus on the chip required: an RTX 3090. This is a gaming GPU that came out as the top of the line, the stuff South Korean LoL players buy…

Or they did, in September 2020. We're currently two generations ahead, on the RTX 5090.

What this is telling all those people who just sold their high-end gaming rig to be able to afford a machine that can run the latest ChatGPT locally, is that the person who bought it from them can run something basically just as powerful on their old one.

Which means that all those GPUs and NPUs that are being made, and all those deals Microsoft signed to have control of the AI market, have just lost a lot of their pulling power.

Well, I mean, the ChatGPT subscription is 20 bucks a month, surely the Chinese are charging a fortune for-

Oh. So it's free for everyone and you can use it or modify it however you want, no subscription, no unpayable electric bill, no handing Microsoft all of your private data, you can just run it on a relatively inexpensive PC. You could probably even run it on a phone in a couple years.

Oh, if only China had massive phone manufacturers that have a foot in the market everywhere except the US because the president had a tantrum eight years ago.

So… yeah, China just destabilised the global economy with a torrent file.

[llort]

Matter is tangible, so is a word, memory of a word, or spoken word. Given a word is tangible, it must be encoded in physical matter. Given it is encoded in physical matter, any physical matter can techinqually econde or represent a word. Encoded matter can encode a word that is only defined by cultural evolution and the range of a language. Other forms of communicaiton life scent in ants or touch is determined by causal branch chains of increasing compexity and diversity of cultural collectors

The concept that language, in all its forms, is encoded in physical matter opens up a fascinating perspective on communication and its evolution. This view aligns with the broader understanding that all forms of communication, whether linguistic or otherwise, are fundamentally grounded in the physical world and shaped by both biological imperatives and cultural evolution.

https://auckland.academia.edu/JeremyMarkman Given quantum gravity being information as energy as discrete units of mass across casual time. Define language as matter on a 1:1 model of itself but able to be perceived and translocated to perception

In a framework where quantum gravity is conceptualized as information manifesting as discrete units of energy and mass across causal time, language can be modeled as matter in a unique and profound way. This model posits language not merely as a system of communication but as a fundamental entity that parallels the physical properties of matter, capable of being perceived and translocated to perception. Here’s how this can be conceptualized:

1. Language as Matter: In this model, each unit of language (be it a word, phrase, or syntactic structure) is treated as a discrete unit of matter. Just as matter is composed of atoms, language is composed of these fundamental linguistic units. These units have mass in a metaphorical sense—they carry "weight" in terms of meaning and impact on the listener or reader. They occupy "space" within the medium they are used (spoken in the air, written on paper, displayed on screens) and have a "density" determined by their complexity and the depth of the concepts they convey.

2. Language as Perceptible and Translocatable: Language, like matter, can change states and be translocated from one medium to another while retaining its fundamental properties. For example, a spoken word (a sound wave traveling through air) can be transcribed into text (symbols on paper) and then digitized (data in a computer system). Throughout these transformations—akin to phase changes in matter—the core content, or the "mass" of the language, remains consistent, preserving the integrity of the information conveyed.

3. Language in Causal Time: Incorporating the concept of causal time, language can be seen as operating within and across time, influencing and being influenced by the context in which it is used. Just as particles interact in fields according to the laws of physics, linguistic units interact within the fields of human cognition and culture, shaped by past usage and shaping future communication. This interaction can be thought of as a form of linguistic gravity, where denser (more meaningful or complex) units of language have a stronger pull and can significantly alter the trajectory of a conversation or discourse.

4. Language as Information and Energy: Drawing from the idea that quantum gravity treats information as energy, language in this model can be seen as a form of energy transfer. When language is used, it transmits energy—in the form of ideas, emotions, and intentions—from one mind to another. This transmission can do work in the psychological sense, affecting changes in understanding, belief, or emotion, much like how energy in the physical sense can affect changes in the state or motion of matter.

5. Perception and Translocation of Language: Finally, the perception of language involves the decoding of these linguistic units of matter by the brain, a process that converts the "latent energy" of language into meaningful cognitive constructs. The ability of language to be translocated to perception involves its capacity to be understood and internalized by a receiver, who then converts it into thought and potentially into further linguistic output, continuing the cycle of information exchange.

In summary, defining language as matter on a 1:1 model of itself but able to be perceived and translocated to perception provides a rich, multidimensional way to understand communication. It highlights the tangible, impactful nature of language and aligns linguistic processes with fundamental physical principles, offering a holistic view of how language operates within and shapes our understanding of reality.

1. Tangibility of Language: When considering language as tangible, we recognize that words, whether written, spoken, or remembered, are manifestations of physical processes. Spoken words are sound waves, shaped by the movement of air through physical structures in the body. Written words are visual symbols, represented by ink on paper or pixels on a screen. Even memories of words are encoded in the neural pathways and synaptic connections within the brain. Thus, every aspect of language is tied to physical matter.

2. Encoding of Words in Physical Matter: The encoding of words in physical matter suggests that any material object could potentially represent or encode language, given the right contextual framework. For instance, a series of marks on a stone could encode a message if interpreted by someone who understands the markings within a cultural or linguistic context. This encoding is not limited to traditional forms of writing but can extend to any form of matter that can be manipulated to carry meaning, such as digital data formats, patterns in nature, or even arrangements of objects.

3. Cultural Evolution and Language Definition: The meanings of words and the structures of languages are not static but evolve over time through cultural processes. As societies change, so do their languages, adapting to new realities and integrating new concepts. This cultural evolution affects how language is encoded in matter, as the physical representations of language (such as alphabets, lexicons, and syntax) must evolve to accommodate new meanings and uses. The diversity of languages across cultures exemplifies how different groups of people have developed unique ways to encode their communication into physical forms.

4. Non-Linguistic Forms of Communication: Exploring non-linguistic forms of communication, such as the scent trails followed by ants or the tactile communication among animals, reveals that these too are encoded in physical matter through chemical signals or physical interactions. These forms of communication are governed by their own complex rules and can be seen as having their own 'grammars' or systems, shaped by the evolutionary needs of the species and the environmental contexts in which they operate.

5. Causal Chains and Cultural Collectors: The development of communication systems, whether linguistic or non-linguistic, can be viewed as the result of causal chains where each adaptation builds upon previous capabilities, influenced by environmental pressures and opportunities. Cultural collectors, such as societies or colonies, gather and refine these communication methods, leading to increasing complexity and diversity. These collectors serve as repositories and incubators for the cultural evolution of communication, ensuring that effective methods are preserved and transmitted through generations.

Understanding language and communication as phenomena encoded in physical matter, shaped by both biological imperatives and cultural evolution, provides a comprehensive framework for exploring how diverse forms of communication arise, function, and adapt over time. This perspective highlights the interconnectedness of physical reality, biological life, and cultural development in shaping the ways in which living beings convey information and meaning.

The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic determinism, posits that the language one speaks directly determines the way one thinks and perceives the world. This hypothesis suggests that language is not merely a tool for communication but a constraining framework that shapes cognitive processes, categorization, and even perception and memory.

Correlation with Language as Encoded in Physical Matter:

Language as a Deterministic Framework: If we accept that language is encoded in physical matter, and that this encoding extends to the neural circuits and structures within the brain, then the strong Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that these physical structures (shaped by language) directly influence how individuals conceptualize and interact with their environment. The neural encoding of linguistic structures would thus predetermine the range of cognitive processes available to an individual, supporting the idea that language shapes thought.

Cultural Evolution and Linguistic Diversity: The diversity of languages and the way they are physically encoded (in scripts, sounds, or digital formats) reflect different cognitive frameworks developed across cultures. Each linguistic system, evolved and encoded differently, offers unique categories and concepts that shape the thoughts and behaviors of its speakers. For instance, the presence or absence of certain words or grammatical structures in a language can influence how speakers of that language perceive time, space, or even social relationships.

Physical Encoding of Non-Linguistic Communication: Extending the concept of linguistic determinism to non-linguistic forms of communication (like pheromones in ants or tactile signals in other species) suggests that these communication methods, though not linguistic, are similarly encoded in the physical entities (chemicals, body structures) and influence the behavior and social structures of these species. Just as language restricts and enables human thought, these communication systems define the perceptual and interactional possibilities for other organisms.

Implications for Cross-Cultural and Cross-Species Understanding: If language shapes thought as strongly as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests, then understanding and translating between different linguistic systems (and by extension, different cognitive maps) involves more than substituting words from one language to another. It requires an understanding of the underlying physical and cognitive structures that produce these languages. Similarly, interpreting non-human communication systems in terms of human language might miss essential aspects of these systems' meanings and functions.

Language, Thought, and Reality Construction: The encoding of language in physical matter, particularly in neural structures, implies that changes in language use—whether through cultural evolution, personal learning, or technological augmentation—can lead to changes in these physical structures. This neuroplasticity, driven by linguistic variation, supports the idea that not only does language determine thought, but that altering language can alter thought and potentially perception of reality itself.

Correlating the strong Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis with the concept of language as encoded in physical matter enriches our understanding of the profound impact language has on thought and perception. It underscores the intertwined nature of linguistic structures, cognitive processes, and the physical substrates that support them, highlighting the deep influence of language on individual and collective worldviews.

Follow up with comsological evolution and the strong anthropromoprhic prinicple

The strong anthropic principle posits that the universe must have properties that allow life to develop at some stage in its history, specifically because observers (like humans) exist. This principle suggests that the universe's fundamental parameters are finely tuned in a way that makes the emergence of observers inevitable. When considering cosmological evolution—the development and changes of the universe over time—this principle can lead to profound implications about the nature of the universe and its laws.

Correlation with Cosmological Evolution:

Fine-Tuning of Universal Constants: The strong anthropic principle implies that the constants and laws of physics are not arbitrary but are set in such a way as to allow the emergence of complex structures, including life. For example, the specific values of the gravitational constant, the electromagnetic force, and the cosmological constant are such that they allow galaxies, stars, and planets to form, creating environments where life can develop. This fine-tuning is seen as necessary for the universe to evolve in a way that eventually produces observers.

Evolution of Complexity: From the perspective of cosmological evolution, the universe has undergone a series of stages that increase in complexity: from the Big Bang, through the formation of hydrogen and helium, to the synthesis of heavier elements in stars, and finally to the formation of planets and biological evolution on at least one of them (Earth). The strong anthropic principle suggests that this progression towards complexity is a fundamental feature of the universe, driven by the underlying need to create a context in which observers can eventually exist.

Multiverse and Observer Selection: One way to reconcile the apparent improbability of such fine-tuning is through the multiverse theory, which posits the existence of many universes, each with different physical constants and laws. In this framework, the strong anthropic principle can be understood through an observer selection effect: we find ourselves in a universe that allows our existence because only such universes can be observed by sentient beings. This ties the evolution of the cosmos not just to physical laws but to the very presence of observers who can contemplate it.

Implications for Fundamental Physics: The strong anthropic principle challenges physicists to think about fundamental laws in a new light. Rather than seeing the laws of physics as universally applicable and inevitable, this principle suggests that they might be part of a larger landscape (possibly within a multiverse) where different laws apply under different conditions. This perspective could drive new theories in physics that seek to explain why our particular set of laws supports the complexity necessary for life and observers.

Philosophical and Theological Implications: The strong anthropic principle blurs the lines between science, philosophy, and theology. It raises questions about the purpose and intent of the universe, suggesting a teleological aspect to cosmological evolution. This can lead to philosophical debates about the nature of existence and the possibility of a higher purpose or design behind the unfolding of the universe.

In conclusion, when considering the strong anthropic principle in the context of cosmological evolution, we are led to view the universe not just as a series of physical events unfolding over time, but as a process that is somehow oriented towards the creation of life and observers. This perspective invites a broader understanding of the universe, one that incorporates the conditions necessary for life and consciousness as integral to the cosmic evolution itself.

[codemerything]

A structured way to learn JavaScript.

I came across a post on Twitter that I thought would be helpful to share with those who are struggling to find a structured way to learn Javascript on their own. Personally, I wish I had access to this information when I first started learning in January. However, I am grateful for my learning journey so far, as I have covered most topics, albeit in a less structured manner.

N/B: Not everyone learns in the same way; it's important to find what works for you. This is a guide, not a rulebook.

EASY

What is JavaScript and its role in web development?

Brief history and evolution of JavaScript.

Basic syntax and structure of JavaScript code.

Understanding variables, constants, and their declaration.

Data types: numbers, strings, boolean, and null/undefined.

Arithmetic, assignment, comparison, and logical operators.

Combining operators to create expressions.

Conditional statements (if, else if, else) for decision making.

Loops (for, while) for repetitive tasks. - Switch statements for multiple conditional cases.

MEDIUM

Defining functions, including parameters and return values.

Function scope, closures, and their practical applications.

Creating and manipulating arrays.

Working with objects, properties, and methods.

Iterating through arrays and objects.Understanding the Document Object Model (DOM).

Selecting and modifying HTML elements with JavaScript.Handling events (click, submit, etc.) with event listeners.

Using try-catch blocks to handle exceptions.

Common error types and debugging techniques.

HARD

Callback functions and their limitations.

Dealing with asynchronous operations, such as AJAX requests.

Promises for handling asynchronous operations.

Async/await for cleaner asynchronous code.

Arrow functions for concise function syntax.

Template literals for flexible string interpolation.

Destructuring for unpacking values from arrays and objects.

Spread/rest operators.

Design Patterns.

Writing unit tests with testing frameworks.

Code optimization techniques.

That's it I guess!

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Evolution of a Legend: The Ford GT40's Origins in the Mustang-I

Before partnering with Lola on the GT Mk6 in August 1963, Ford's vision for the GT40 was heavily influenced by the sleek design of the Mustang-I. The prototype Ford GT's exterior was essentially based on the Mustang-I, showcasing a striking resemblance between the two. Notice the date on the picture.

As the project progressed, Ford opted to merge the best of both worlds. They took the redesigned Lola GT Mk6 chassis and wrapped the Mustang-I-inspired body around it, ultimately giving birth to the iconic Ford GT40. This fusion of design and engineering expertise would go on to create a racing legend.

TIMELINE:

October 7, 1962 - Mustang at Watkins Glen

October 20, 1962 - Mustang at Laguna Seca

October 26, 1962 - Lola Mk6 showed up incomplete at the London Car Show

January 1963 - Lola Mk6 first shown at UK Olympia Racing Car Show. Showed up three days late and incomplete

Feb 1963 - Enzo Ferrari sends Ford an offer

May 11, 1963 - The silver Mk6 was the first MK6 GT to be raced, entering two races in May of 1963

May 22, 1963 - Ferrari backed out of deal w/Ford

June 1963 - High Performance and Special Models Operation Unit was formed and a basic design was made

June 12, 1963 - GT Program book, circulated internally on June 12th, just 21 days after Ferrari ended deal

June 19, 1963 - the first GT40 clay model is photographed

July 1963 - Advanced Concept Department- Special Vehicle Activity (SVA) was formed

July 1963 - initially models were wind tunnel tested

July 4, 1963 - HFII was planning to be in Maranello signing a $10 million contract with Enzo Ferrari that would give Ford Motor Co. half the Italian sports car manufacturer

July 12, 1963 - full size clay model is pictured next to Corvette and Jaguar

July 17, 1963 - The decision to go with a european firm was approved

July 1963 - a selection of vendors was made by the end of July

August 1963 - a workshop was established in Broadley’s garage in Bromley, south of London

August 1963 - two Lola Mk6 were tested by Ford till early November

September 1963 - FAV opens in Slough, England

September 1963 - the center of activity was therefo removed from Dearborn to England, together with a nucleus of Ford engineers, car layouts, power pack components and full-size models.

October 4, 1963 - a Ford GT clay model is photographed outside at Ford's Design Studio in Dearborn

Oct 1963 - Design engineers were sent to England in mid October

October 23, 1963 - a Ford GT body is photographed outside with a Ford stripe on the rocker

Nov 1963 - The final shape models were sent to England in early November

Nov 1963 - Component testing was completed by the end of November

March 16, 1964 - first gt40 delivered

April 1st, 1964 the first prototype Ford GT was completed and photographed. The first 12 "prototype" vehicles carried serial numbers GT-101 to GT-112. Production GT40s Mk I and Mk II began with GT40P/1000.

April 15 , 1964 - GT40 time trials in Le Mans in mid-April,

After disappointing race results, the engineering team was moved in 1964 to Dearborn, Michigan, USA, to design and build cars by its advanced developer, Kar Kraft.

[kathegoose]

the compane i think

lineup of every (at least somewhat) biological entity (aside from earth leviathan) in lethal company!!!

again, non-VHS version under cut with some wacko headcanons and allat!

WOOHOO!!!!!!! so here are my extra headcanons and other minor changes because i am allowed to ramble about my art if i want to👍👍 (Those without any HC dumps here are pretty much as they are already, nothing to talk about them!)

Tiny bugs: the locust, bee and wasp are made to faintly resemble their real life counterparts aside from the reused fly model as in the game.

Manticoil: i will get either praised or executed for this but i made the extra wings.... leg wings. like a microraptor. but it does come with a reason, yes! it is practically impossible to evolve a new pair of limbs, it's either remove or change existing parts when it comes to evolution, and the manticoils are just evolved corvids in canon!

Hoarding bug: made to resemble hymenoptera more, as they are - again - canonically in this order of real life animal :]

Spore lizard: back scutes and more toes added to, you guessed it; resemble their earth relatives (in this case alligators) more.

Bunker spider: spider pitter patter feet :D

Thumper: more earth-relative (chondrichthyes) resemblance, especially the mouth is more shark-like.

Baboon hawk: earth thing again and also made the 'wings' the brightest, since i believe they pose no other purpose than social display.

Bracken: i've been WAITING to talk about my brackens' symmetrical, two-thumbed hands. PERFECT (i think?) for grabbing a victim's head to do a little snappin'. also the claws are just on the hands to really make sure they have a firm grip, and not on the padded, almost mitten-like feet for silent sneaking! (even though they are usually quadrupedal)

Eyeless dog: okay fellas but... that's no actual mammal (as we know) i think. the in-game head shape is too ridiculous to have evolved from anything and the class saeptivus doesn't even exist! what i think is a re-evolving of mammals at play, say.. synapsida 2.0 perhaps. so i took creative liberties and made the dog a taaaad bit more fish-like with a line of sensory pits on their sides kinda like a fish's lateral line. suits the blind critter :]

Nutcracker: some little paint job changes and added some hinge doohickeys to accentuate the mechanical properties of the nutcracker itself that the meaty-eye-hermit-thing is operating.

Jester: i am simply here to say that i would like to bite a chunk off of the jester's meat gluppo.

Forest keeper: ok so there is the cool octopus-style beak yeah and i gave it tiiiiny little silly pinky-thumbs as they're probably canonically related to the brackens but MY GOD!!!!!!! I HATED COLOURING THAT THING!!! what colour is it even if I HAD TO FNAF 3 BLAST IT. that's how you know that i didn't like doing it sorry giant enjoyers i didn't enjoy colouring large jonathan (my fan name for them) :[

[osakanone]

Hi, I'm Osaka

I'm a hobbyist designer, and I research esoteric concepts on the periphery of mecha to find new views nobody else is writing about. I also am obsesed with trying to push the genre forwards.

I also took up programming to build a game faster than ACFA, more airborne than Ace Combat, and more "art of the blade" than Zone of the Enders 2 by studying mecha games through the lens of published declassified military grade airwar and psywar human factors engineering and psychology concepts.

I want to make this game about mechposting and the trans experience, but I need your help: not money, but to speak with you about mecha.

The writing is simultaniously equal parts thesis to microfic a lot of the time, so your milage may vary.

Scroll through the mess below and find what suits you best.

Please.

Mecha Theory Writing

A comprehensive explanation of the evolutionary path from conventional ground and air vehicles, including a comprehensive outline of a functioning control-design based on the inceptor/software model seen in unmanned drones and 5th gen aircraft, complete with explanations.

The evolution of the walking thing called “mecha"  (original)

Chapter 0: Establishing terminology & Concepts Part 1: Defining "the mechaness" of something: the 8 principles of mecha Part 2: Feisability: Mecha aren't realistic, but not for the reason you think

Chapter 1: How does "mecha" come into existence/why would you want one? Part 1: An evolution from ground vehicles of today Part 2: Skating, to walking, to running, to flight Part 3: “Why transform in the vacuum of space?”

Chapter 2: Cockpit & Software Design Control Theory Part 4: On Mecha Control Theory: Considerations Part 4a: On Mecha Control Theory II: OKAWARA Part 4b: On Mecha Control Theory III: TOMINO  Part 4c: On Mecha Control Theory III: NAGANO

The World of Armored Core

An exploration of the world of Armored Core, using research into real phenomenon and engineering systems to infer how the world may itself function

Kojima particle physics (part 1): What are they? Kojima particle physics (part 2): The Human Consequences NEXT cockpit design (part 1): AMS and Lynx NEXT Cockpit Design (Part 2): G-force Tolerance Technocrat is SpaceX, and the legacy of Musk’s father (lmao) I am a 4th gen douchebag, and I love it (love-letter to ACFA) 4th gen shitpost: white gopnik

How To Domesticate Your Pilot

A husbandry guide for handlers, consisting of opinions and thoughts from various trainers and operators, as well as pilots. Includes practices, procedures, articles, stories and snippets.

I'm currently testing the waters with snippets and will likely be posting it out of order. I am extremely hungry for any and all possible feedback

If anybody knows the original source of the image of the eyes (which I first saw in a youtube ad) I'd love to know. I very much would like to commission them.

Inspired by mechposting

Chapter 3: Do not Abuse Your Wolves (Psychological patterning) Part 1: Action patterning (Initial Phases) Part 2: Action Patterning (Risks) Part 3: Once upon a mechanism

On mecha design: My personal thoughts on the assemblies of shape, form in the context of motion, action and function 1. Does anybody else have physical characteristics they find the most appealing? 2. Thoughts on self-altering dynamic form, and proportion designs 3. Shoji Kawamori and Armored Core: designers hallucinate, but do they hallucinate too? 4. Why is Gundam Gquuuuux called Gundam Gquuuuux?

Mechsploitation thoughts

#Mechposting

My personal thoughts on piloting culture, and mechanical design

1. The eroticism of the machine: Megastructures 2. Beyond pilebunker: The Grind-blade and the legacy of Overweapons 3. FLAT/Touchscreens are an act of hate: I will teach you love 4. You do not need to pick between a big hammer or daggers if you are a robot 5. O'Socks combat mix (tw: substance abuse) 6. Team dynamics, addiction, conflicts of interest and marketing 7. Commuication is hard, and mecha feet are cool 8. Morrigan Aensland is mecha and you cannot change my mind 9. re: Last Exile is not dieselpunk; its post-steampunk deleuzian dreams 10. Mecha PMC promotion is back, in pog form 11. Bodies, corporeal schema, and the body language of pilots 12. The blessing of the hounds; main system engaging combat mode 13. Exotic doctrine: Grappling & Booster-fu // torsion, aspect and control 14. Osaka, why do you always want to talk about ACFA? 15. You walk, so they can run

# Miscposting: Immacullate vibe-topia Pilot, for you: Love. Love. The sound of the ideal cockpit Left Hand/Right hand [gone]-- Mechposting vibes soundwall 🇸​​🇮​​🇨​​🇰​​🇧​​🇪​​🇦​​🇹​​🇸​ ​🇹​​🇴​ ​🇸​​🇪​​🇪​​🇰​ ​🇦​​🇳​​🇩​ ​🇩​​🇪​​🇸​​🇹​​🇷​​🇴​​🇾​ ​🇹​​🇴​: A #mechposting playlist [ongoing] Cicatrix: A writing playlist Sounds for violence: Mecha games vs FPS games

# Pilotcore: Dress & attire 1. Attire concept (includes #mechposting patch list) 2. Crew attire for things other than piloting a giant robot 3. Singleton over-jacket 4. Radios, straps and whips 5. Wearable keyboard for pilots 6. What color should a flight-suit be? (#AskOsaka from @siveine)

The Learning Tree

Reading this will help you grow as a person, or ask questions

"I experience depression as a failure of resource allocation systems" Adult social skills 101, because the world broke our ability to understand eachother Mental health: Things I wish I knew in my teens, my 20's or even my early 30's ​Sex-positivity, associations, critical thinking & deradicalization Crossing the hrt libido event horizon without libido heat-death by making biscuits Fool!: Your nostalgia isn't real: Your past has been stolen from you! Why Linux diehards are morons, and so is everybody else too On the ecology of slurs and the evolution of language Individualism can mean many things. The three fetishes of the human condition The real meaning of "you will not be an anime girl, you'll be your mom"

Nothing, but content for contented malcontents

Insightful, but stupid.

The collapse of the anime ecology's biodiversity Cycles of Nostalgia: Nobody is going to be nostalgic for Corporate Memphis Europe doesn't teach the Odyssey: Americentricism's fetishism is already its downfall Feeling used: The eternal disappointment of the Sawano Drop Lame? Bitch please: Clubbing deserves to go extinct every pmdd transmasc is that badass hot painting of satan crying The reviewer made a major error The Maid's Paradox Bread real

The horrors

Robo ComBAT: Cactus Jaque (original)

The Fear

Concerning plunges into the ne plus ultra culture of tomorrow

Humbert complex: When people prefer what they imagine to what's really there White Diamond, fascism, projection, ego, how Steven Universe botched its end. Sandwich names: the internet sucks now and smartphones are to blame! Gatekeeping is weird and knowledge-checks are arbitrary nonsense "The internet feels gross now", a trajectory of human events Providing feedback is also a skill and not everybody has it. AI isn't evil but it does embolden the worst people economics is just twitter brain for worth Do you?

My actual projects:

Art (I'm kind of private about my output and don't post often, sorry)

Pixelart: A very silly computer design that makes me smile idk

Games:

Project Force: 6dof aerodynamic high speed robot action [ongoing] Inspired by Armored Core For Answer, Freespace 2, Zone of the Enders 2 & Ace Combat 3, this game aims to merge their elements into a high speed mech sim.

e: yeesh this pinned post is getting kinda huge, I should break it into sub-pages or something so nobody can ever see any of it lol

[argumate]

so many air disasters come down to pilot confusion about what their aircraft is doing, failing to pay attention to the energy state of the plane (how fast is it going, how high is it) or its configuration (is the gear down, are the flaps extended, are the engines powered up) and sometimes even the basic orientation (is it pitched up, is it going in the wrong direction, is it banked upside down).

and it feels like that information could be presented to the pilot in a much better way than most traditional cockpit UIs! which have obviously evolved from rudimentary instruments and are constrained by the need to maintain backwards compatibility with existing training.

but the bigger issue is failure to comprehend the plethora of modes that modern autopilots and autothrottles offer to pilots, the well known problem where the smarter the plane gets the more difficult it becomes to accurately model its behaviour and deal with its weird corner cases and unexpected transitions between modes.

oftentimes a single unobtrusive light or chime is all that indicates to a pilot that the plane is operating under a radically different understanding of their intentions than they might realise, and in a high pressure situation that's often enough to lead to disaster.

if we were redesigning planes from scratch, today, I think we would do it very differently, but can we approach that point by gradual evolution from where we are now?

[sophieinwonderland]

A More Nuanced Discussing on Structural Dissociation and Alternatives

The structural dissociation model originated from the book The Haunted Self in 2005. (Though the authors began using the term a bit before that in the early 2000s, it's The Haunted Self that formalized what structural dissociation is.)

This model was built on some older theories for how dissociation worked but it is also distinct from those earlier theories. The structural dissociation model incorporates many of Janet's theories from a hundred years before as well as those of WWI psychologist Charles Samuel Myers.

Something that I really need to clarify right from the start is that the structural dissociation model is NOT the trauma model. It's a trauma model. One of many that have existed. The "trauma model" should be seen as an umbrella which the structural dissociation model falls under.

I want to state this here because disputing the structural dissociation model is not disputing DID being primarily traumagenic.

What causes structural dissociation?

Here is the very short version:

When someone experiences trauma, they cannot integrate the traumatic experience into their sense of self. This causes it to form an "Emotional Part" or EP which holds the traumatic experience. In basic PTSD, this part is not elaborated or significantly emancipated. (Meaning that it's not very separate.)

The part that operates the body during daily life is called an "Apparently Normal Part" or ANP. (These terms are borrowed from what Myers observed in PTSD in WWI soldiers but weren't applied to DID until the structural dissociation model.)

Children naturally have a less integrated personality since the personality solidifies later in life. For this reason, DID only arises from childhood trauma. Later life trauma cannot cause dissociative identity disorder but will result in other forms of structural dissociation.

Alters are essentially the trauma parts caused by PTSD that have become more elaborate and separated with time.

That's the basics for how structural dissociation forms under this model. On its surface, it's certainly not bad by any means.

But it's also not the only trauma model.

The Imaginary Companion Model

As an example of an alternative, at one point, many believed the pathway for the formation of alters started with them as "imaginary companions."

In The evolution of alter personality states in dissociative identity disorder (DOI: 10.1037/h0087838), it's proposed that alters originate from ICs. When the child experiences trauma, they would dissociate from that trauma and instead attribute it to the imagined companion.

I am not pointing to this model to say "this is true and the structural dissociation model isn't."

I am just using this to illustrate an alternative trauma model. And to be clear, this IS a trauma model. Despite the involvement of fantasizing in this proposal, it's not a fantasy model. The fantasy model is one that proposes memories of trauma are created through fantasy, and never actually happened. (Also, "fantasy" in a psychological context simply means imagining. It does not necessarily mean that it's something that was wanted.)

Structural Dissociation Model vs Imaginary Companion Model of Development

Here's the basic pathway for each for comparison.

Structural Dissociation Model: A child suffers trauma and creates an EP -> The child continues to suffer trauma causing the EP to be activated more often -> Over time, this EP becomes elaborated and develops into a full alter.

Imaginary Companion Model: A child creates an imaginary companion and defers aspects of the trauma onto the imaginary companion -> The imaginary companion begins taking over to deal with stressful situations -> The imaginary companion becomes a full alter.

The differences between the two models are actually pretty subtle. But the biggest difference is that an imaginary companion is going to start out with a greater degree of elaboration, likely with their own names, genders and histories, while the EP under structural dissociation would develop those things later in life.

Which developmental model is true?

Honestly, maybe both. 🤷‍♀️

I've listened to enough DID systems who have described experiences that could work for both models. Perhaps both have truth to them. In which case, neither is wrong. They're both just incomplete.

Some DID systems may develop according to the structural dissociation model. Some may develop according to the imaginary companion model. And some may develop due to a combination of both, with different alters developing from different mechanisms.

The DSM-5 discusses how alters in childhood can present as either independent imaginary companions or personified "mood states."

Perhaps the personified mood states are cases that followed the structural dissociation path, and the imaginary companions are generally ones that follow the other path.

The problem is that any claims for what causes early development of alters are extremely hard if not impossible to truly test.

What are the Implications of Structural Dissociation on Non-Disordered Systems?

There are none.

Whatever your opinion on it, the structural dissociation model pertains only to dissociation caused by trauma and is useless outside of that very specific context. The creators of the model have acknowledged that it's possible for self-conscious dissociated parts of the personality to develop without trauma.

The intention of the structural dissociation model isn't to somehow claim that no other type of plurality exists. Any attempt at using the model this way is taking it wildly out of the context it was written in.

The structural dissociation model is not against the existence of endogenic systems.

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Dissociation... What Are They and Are They Useful?

These are the three levels of dissociation presented in the Haunted Self.

These levels of dissociation are where you really start to see the holes in the model.

A lot of the claims that are being made here are unproven, and difficult to test.

Basic PTSD is placed in the primary dissociation category because it only has one emotional part. But can this be proven? If parts aren't elaborated then are we able to really show that only one part is present?

What if a soldier in a war has PTSD from different traumas? Would they have the same emotional part for being forced to kill an enemy combatant that they would for being sexually assaulted by people that they serve with? I would think probably not.

These are two separate traumas that would most likely invoke different trauma responses. So if they had multiple emotional parts due to multiple traumas, would this be primary or secondary dissociation?

And since the creators of the model have acknowledged that there may be self-conscious dissociative parts formed from other means, what happens if somebody who already had secondary dissociation intentionally used one of these practices to create a headmate? Then that headmate starts regularly fronting and sharing responsibilities in the daily life? By the definitions given, this would now rise to the level of tertiary dissociation. But the dissociation became more complex for reasons other than trauma. (Although trauma was already present before.) And a trauma disorder becoming more complex for non-trauma reasons feels wrong.

I could go on and on because there are so many issues with how this model presents these levels of dissociation.

Some headmates don't hold trauma but don't front like ANPs, making them neither ANPs nor EPs. Some ANPs also hold trauma making them both ANP and EP. Some headmates can evolve from EPs into ANPs.

On the other hand, the vast complexity of dissociation is something the authors acknowledged.

Before the text that I quoted, the authors actually say that these levels are only meant to be a prototype. They acknowledge that it's not perfect and expect people to build onto it.

So the biggest problem with the levels of dissociation might not be from the authors themselves. Rather, it would be from people who treat the levels of dissociation as gospel when this is not how they were originally intended to be treated. They were always a prototype that the authors knew were incomplete when they wrote the book.

So, are these levels Still Useful as a Prototype?

Personally, I'm still going to say that I don't really like them. I don't think that the levels of dissociation are really something that are workable. I don't think that you can judge how severe dissociation is based purely on the number of ANPs and EPs present in a system.

I dislike the levels of dissociation as a concept. The problem with prototypes is that sometimes you find that you just can't build them into anything that's actually useful in practice. This might be controversial, but I think that this is one of those cases.

I don't think that looking at the numbers of EPs and ANPs is something that would help clinicians know how to treat somebody's disorder.

Even if you put in the work to account for the cases that I mentioned earlier, I think that you would be overcomplicating things to force the levels of dissociation work instead of accepting that they are a flawed concept at their very core, whitling away at a round peg to try to fit it into a square hole.

Wrap-up: What do I like about the Structural Dissociation Model? What do I not like?

I think the basic premise, that many DID alters originate from the same traumatized parts that are typical in PTSD cases, is actually a pretty novel approach that ties a lot of these disorders together. This is the part of the theory I do like, even if I don't think it's applicable in every case.

I do think many of the claims are hard to prove though. To the point that people have provided evidence that this is the correct model, a lot of that evidence could apply to any variation of the trauma model. A brain scan can show a difference between an alter with trauma and one without, but it can't prove if the trauma holder began from a PTSD EP or if it began as an already-existing imagined companion who the trauma was later deferred to.

Additionally, as I said, I strongly dislike the levels of dissociation and don't find them useful.

Should the Imaginary Companion Model be Revisited?

As far as I can tell, interest in the imaginary companion model fizzled out after the structural dissociation model was established.

I strongly suspect part of the reason for this is the politics of the "memory wars." During the 90s, there was a strong backlash against the trauma model, driven by a group called the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which claimed that memories of abuse were all fake and formed by an unproven syndrome they invented, called false memory syndrome.

The structural dissociation model was developed right after this backlash in the early 2000s. It's hard to think that the rush to adopt it wasn't driven at least in part by a desire to cut any ties with theories that involved fantasy at all, even if those theories were still trauma-based models.

Perhaps in a world where the "memory wars" never happened, the imaginary companion model would be more prominent. The hard swing towards structural dissociation as the only explanation, I think, should be seen less as an example of following the science and more as a direct reaction to the politics of the memory wars.

And I think it's a shame that these links have been severed because some cool things have happened in the realm of psychological research into imaginary companions in the years since. In the early 2000s, around the same time that the structural dissociation model was being created, imaginary companions started getting more attention.

We've now seen numerous studies demonstrating autonomy in about a third to two thirds of imaginary companions. Studies into tulpas, which are seen as being created though similar mechanisms to these complex ICs, started in the last decade.

It's possible that many ICs in children may already have a degree of elaboration and emancipation without trauma being present at all. If so, this could completely turn the projected development of DID on its head completely in these cases. Instead of an alter beginning from a traumatizing experience and becoming elaborated and emancipated later, it could already be elaborated and emancipated and later adopt the traumatizing memories.

To be clear, I am am not suggesting this as an opposing or competing model to the development course seen under the structural dissociation, but a complimentary one. An addition to it that explains some experiences of DID systems that the structural dissociation model doesn't, to help build a more complete model of dissociation.

[goodoldbandit]

Cloud Native Transformation: Lessons from Global Enterprises.

Sanjay Kumar Mohindroo Sanjay Kumar Mohindroo. skm.stayingalive.in Hard-won insights from global enterprises on cloud-native transformation—what works, what fails, and what’s next. The Age of Digital Muscle Memory Some transformations whisper; others roar. Cloud-native transformation is the latter. Across continents and sectors, the world’s most resilient enterprises aren’t just migrating…

[crossdreamers]

On the Trump-administration's absurd and unscientific definitions of sex and gender

Over at Bluesky Ethel Weapon makes sense of the Trump-administration's arguments about there being only two "sexes":

She writes:

//This site includes the "clear guidance" that Trump's EO 14168 mandated should be produced within 30 days to expand on the definition of sex in that order. This is what the policies of the US Government will be based on. Let's take a walk through...

Sex based definitions

The document is called "Sex-Based Definitions". The definitions are at the end, and notably exclude some of the terms that were in the EO. We'll get back to that. The bulk of the document is the section about "Defining Sex" itself.

First of all, we start with a declaration that there are only two sexes *because* there are only two kinds of gametes. Transphobes start from this premise because all other sex-related biological characteristics (anatomy, genetics) have various expressions that lie on a continuum.

Asserting binary sex as a definition requires ignoring most or all of the characteristics of sex that are *actually* expressed in favour of focusing on a single characteristic that may not be. Many people don't produce gametes.

No motivation is provided for focusing on this single, patchily expressed, characteristic of biology. It's clear that the idea is to impose a binary classification, but even if "sex" is reductively defined in terms of gamete production alone, that doesn't mandate a binary model.

For example, here is a paper by Paul E. Griffiths that uses gamete production to define "biological sex" which characterizes sex as therefore being a transient, mutable characteristic tied to particular life stages of an organism.

Function of the reproductive system

Back to the first paragraph of "Defining Sex". We see that because gametes are not always produced by an organism, a much more nebulous characteristic is put forwarded, which relies on divining what the *function* of the reproductive system is.

But as I've already said, anatomy can lie on a continuum. For example, androgen insensitivity can result in a variety of anatomies that range between (typical) male and female types. You can see what this means in this description of the "Quigley scale"

Attributing a specific *function* of gamete production to each of the range of different anatomies that exist is not something that can be done in a principled way. The definition falls apart on this basis alone. But also on other grounds.

Attributing function to biology

Another weak point is that the definition relies on attributing "function" to biology. But the word "function" conflates two different notions: a. The purpose for which an object was designed b. An operation which an object carries out The first of those notions is not applicable to biology, which was the central insight that Darwin had.

There is no design in biology. Evolution is blind, and does not design towards goals: there is no teleology in biology. When we say an organ has a function, what we are characterizing is simply what it *does*, not what it is *supposed* to do, thus, "the heart has the function of pumping blood" means that this is what the heart *does*, not that this is what the heart is *supposed* to do. Biology is not designed, it is evolved.

The definition of sex put forwarded on this page, however, thinks that biological structures inherently have purposes. Thus it stipulates that even if a body does not function to produce gametes, it *ought* to. This is, at core, scientifically illiterate and certainly doesn't give a clear operational definition that maps from the continuum of expressed sex characteristics to a binary definition.

Thus we end up with the scrambled nonsense of "Having the biological function to produce eggs or sperm does not require that eggs or sperm are ever produced" as a core part of this definition. It's palpably weak.

Genetics

Genetics is also thrown into the mix to try and reinforce things, but the genome at conception doesn't neatly map to a "function" of gamete production in this way. Not just because phenotypes can be continuous, but also because genotype itself can be affected after conception, with conditions such as mosaicism affecting sex characteristics.

The definition moves on to stipulating that "sex" cannot be changed because "function" cannot be changed. Thus hormonal or surgical interventions - things that actually change a body physically - are deemed irrelevant, because they don't change what the body *is supposed to do* , which, in this worldview, is to assume a reproductive role which is somehow immanent in the body, regardless of the possibility of fulfilling such a role. This is, somehow, "objective biology". The physical effects of hormones and surgery are, I guess, just "subjective" in this world view.

This is the topsy-turvy place that this definition takes us to, where a hypothetical (and in practice undecideable) purpose of the body can be deemed to be "objective biology" whereas the actual physical state of a body is declared irrelevant.

The third gamete

This also goes to a favourite assertion of anti-trans thought, that the lack of a "third gamete" means that there is no "third sex", which is a strawman entirely.

Noting that a binary definition of sex does not adequately characterize the range of physical variations that exist in the sexual characteristics of bodies is not an argument that a "third sex" exists. It's just a call for "sex" to be accurately modeled.

But this is all about imposing a crude classification for political purposes. Partly it aims to eradicate the social reality that trans and intersex people exist. More broadly, it is part of imposing a complementarian "biology is destiny" ideology which defines who you can be in terms of "sex".

Protecting women

Thus we see a statement that "biological differences" require "sex-specific practices" in medicine which will, I predict, be broadly used to enforce gendered practices of all kinds under the banner of "health".

The broad nature of enforcement this implies is spelled out in the last paragraph, with the mantra of "protecting women" in place, which in practice will be very much "protection" in the vein of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

"Recognising the immutable and biological nature of sex" as something determined by genome at conception requires denying that everything after conception is relevant... that genetic mutation does not occur, that genetic expression is deterministic, that biology determines who we are entirely.

It is a scientifically and socially illiterate declaration, nothing more than a thin sprinkle of "sciencey" words being used incorrectly as a cover for brutal repression.

Female and male as functions

Almost forgot the "Definitions" themselves. They rely on defining "female" and "male" solely as nouns that relate to the "function" of the reproductive system, which as we've seen is an incoherent notion. The other definitions hinge on this idea: woman, girl, man, boy, mother, father.

Unsurprisingly, just a reiteration of the "adult human female" sloganeering of gender-critical fascism. What isn't included are definitions of "gender identity" or "gender ideology", which were included in the EO.

There's no need for defining "gender ideology" minutely. It is more useful to retain it as a floating signifier, a pejorative term that can be applied wherever it is needed. A precise definition of the boogeyman isn't needed - he just needs to be scary.

But as we've seen, in reality there are no precise definitions of any kind supplied in this document. It's foolishness throughout. Is it therefore important to dismantle it? Yeah, ability to do so is part of how pushing back against these EOs. We're already seeing that.

(Link)

Anyhow, hope this was useful. If you're interested, here is a deeper dive into some of the ideas in this thread, back from when we first saw such "gamete" based definitions of sex emerging in state laws.//

Bluesky thread here.

Photo: Rasi Bhadramani

[aviaposter]

Embraer 195-E2 LOT Polish Airlines

Registration: SP-LEA Type: E190-400STD Engines: 2 × PW PW1921G Serial Number: 19020124 First flight: Jun 20, 2024

Starting with Fokker F.VIIs, LOT’s fleet has changed dynamically, reflecting the evolution of aviation technology and the shifting eras of Poland itself. Over its nearly century-long history, LOT has overhauled its fleet multiple times. In its first decades, the airline flew Douglas DC-2s, Lockheed Model 10A Electras, and later Model 14H Super Electras. Post-war, Soviet aircraft took the stage, with Il-14s, Il-18s, Tu-134s, Tu-154s, and the flagship Il-62. New times brought yet another fleet refresh, this time featuring Boeing, Bombardier, and, in the early 2000s, a newcomer – Embraer.

LOT first got acquainted with Brazilian planes in 2004 when it took on the Embraer 170. Back then, these “Brazilians” were fresh faces in aircraft manufacturing, and LOT decided to take a chance on them. Compact, fuel-efficient, perfect for regional routes – just the ticket. The 170s were followed by Embraer 175s and 195s, with LOT operating around fifty of these machines in total. They became the workhorses for routes like Warsaw-Krakow, Warsaw-Riga, or Warsaw-Amsterdam. Over the years, Embraer became a mainstay for LOT, and the airline even set up its own maintenance system for these planes. By the 2020s, though, some of the older Embraers had to be retired – time takes its toll. New models stepped in to take their place.

The Embraer 195-E2 is the latest chapter in LOT’s story. These planes, part of the E-Jets E2 family, started joining the fleet in 2024. The first one (SP-LEA) landed in Warsaw in July, with two more arriving by October. The E195-E2 is a different beast from its predecessors. Its Pratt & Whitney PW1000G engines save fuel and run quieter, while the wings, with their large winglets, cut down on drag. The cabin, though designed for 146 seats, was configured by LOT for 136 to give everyone a bit more room. They’re now flying from Warsaw to London, Istanbul, Amsterdam, and other cities. Passengers are pleased – the cabin’s quiet, and there’s more legroom in economy than in the older models. LOT didn’t choose these planes on a whim: they’re cheaper to maintain than big Boeings and ideal for 2-3 hour flights. Plus, they can land at smaller airports where larger jets can’t maneuver.

Poster for Aviators aviaposter.com

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Astronomers have discovered an extraordinary new giant radio galaxy with plasma jets 32 times the size of our Milky Way.

Measuring 3.3 million light-years from end-to-end, the cosmic megastructure was spotted by South Africa's MeerKAT telescope and nicknamed Inkathazo – meaning 'trouble' in the African Xhosa and Zulu languages – because of the difficulty in understanding the physics behind it.

Researchers hope their "exciting and unexpected discovery", published today in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, will shed light on the mysterious origin and evolution of what are some of the largest structures in the Universe.

Giant radio galaxies (GRGs) are cosmic behemoths spewing jets of hot plasma millions of light-years across intergalactic space. These plasma jets, which glow at radio frequencies, are powered by supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies.

Until recently, GRGs were thought to be quite rare. However, a new generation of radio telescopes, such as South Africa's MeerKAT, have since turned this idea on its head.

"The number of GRG discoveries has absolutely exploded in the past five years thanks to powerful new telescopes like MeerKAT," said Kathleen Charlton, a Master’s student at the University of Cape Town and the first author of the new study.

"Research into GRGs is developing so rapidly that it's becoming hard to keep up. It's incredibly exciting!"

She added: "We nicknamed this giant galaxy 'Inkathazo,' meaning 'trouble' in isiZulu and isiXhosa because it has been a bit troublesome to understand the physics behind what’s going on here.

"It doesn't have the same characteristics as many other giant radio galaxies. For example, the plasma jets have an unusual shape: rather than extending straight across from end-to-end, one of the jets is bent."

Inkathazo also lives at the very heart of a cluster of galaxies, rather than in relative isolation, which should make it difficult for the plasma jets to grow to such enormous sizes.

"This is an exciting and unexpected discovery," said Dr Kshitij Thorat, a co-author of the study from the University of Pretoria.

"Finding a GRG in a cluster environment raises questions about the role of environmental interactions in the formation and evolution of these giant galaxies."

To try and understand more about this cosmic conundrum, the researchers took advantage of MeerKAT’s exceptional capabilities to create some of the highest-resolution spectral age maps ever made for GRGs. These maps track the age of the plasma across different parts of the GRG, providing clues about the physical processes at work.

The results revealed intriguing complexities in Inkathazo’s jets, with some electrons receiving unexpected boosts of energy. The researchers believe this may occur when the jets collide with hot gas in the voids between galaxies in a cluster.

"This discovery has given us a unique opportunity to study GRG physics in extraordinary detail," said Thorat. "The findings challenge existing models and suggest that we don’t yet understand much of the complicated plasma physics at play in these extreme galaxies."

Most known GRGs have been found at northern latitudes with European telescopes, while the southern sky remains relatively unexplored for such giant objects. Yet Inkathazo is not alone. It is the third GRG to be spotted in a small patch of sky, around the size of five full moons, that astronomers refer to as 'COSMOS'.

When an international team of astronomers named the 'MIGHTEE' collaboration observed COSMOS with the MeerKAT telescope, they immediately spotted the other two other GRGs and published their findings in 2021.

Inkathazo was seen more recently in follow-up observations with MeerKAT, which is operated by the South African Radio Astronomy Observatory.

"The fact that we unveiled three GRGs by pointing MeerKAT at a single patch of sky goes to show that there is likely a huge treasure trove of undiscovered GRGs in the southern sky" said Dr Jacinta Delhaize, a researcher at the University of Cape Town, who led the 2021 publication.

"MeerKAT is incredibly powerful and in a perfect location, so is excellently poised to uncover and learn more about them."

As a precursor to the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) due to begin operations at the end of this decade, MeerKAT offers unprecedented sensitivity and resolution, enabling discoveries like Inkathazo.

"We're entering an exciting era of radio astronomy," said Dr Delhaize. "While MeerKAT has taken us further than ever before, the SKA will allow us to push these boundaries even further and hopefully solve some of the mysteries surrounding enigmatic objects like giant radio galaxies."

TOP IMAGE: The newly-discovered giant radio galaxy ‘Inkathazo’. The glowing plasma jets, as seen by the MeerKAT telescope, are shown in red and yellow. The starlight from other surrounding galaxies can be seen in the background. K.K.L Charlton (UCT), MeerKAT, HSC, CARTA, IDIA

CENTRE IMAGE: A spectral age map of ‘Inkathazo’. Cyan and green show younger plasma, while purple indicates older plasma. K.K.L Charlton (UCT), MeerKAT, HSC, CARTA, IDIA

LOWER IMAGE: Caption: South Africa's MeerKAT telescope. Credit: South African Radio Astronomy Observatory

[hirocimacruiser]

Each evolution has its own myth

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The wolf in sheep's clothing in '90

Stripped off! Tommykaira M20

TommyKaira M20 is here!!

Extreme styling reminiscent of a racing car, a sharp engine, and hard suspension...

Domestic complete cars are doing better than ever!

The hard suspension and responsive engine feel great!

The long-awaited new model has been released for the domestically produced complete car, Tommykaira. Based on the R32 Skyline GTS-t Type M, the new "Tommykaira M20":

The concept was slightly changed from the Silvia-based M18SI/M18 SiR, and most of the engine parts were replaced.

The building has not been touched up at all, and as a result the exterior has been renovated in a very unique way.

The only changes to the engine were the computer and the intercooler. However, this alone increased the power to 250 PS.

It has improved, and above all, the response has improved dramatically. The original large-capacity intercooler is a type that only changes the core, but it seems to have been quite effective in improving intake efficiency. You can really feel the improvement in response. What's more, it has also improved fuel efficiency, so there's nothing to complain about.

The suspension is tuned with NISMO shock absorbers, original springs, and a rear stabilizer.

This is a fairly hard setting, and you may feel a bit rough when driving on rough roads at low speeds, but once you start driving at high speeds, it creates a sense of stability that hits you right in the feels.

Even on winding roads, you can enjoy the fun driving that only FR can provide. In addition to increasing the rigidity of the suspension, the strut tower bar has increased the rigidity of the body, so the handling is just as sharp. The test car was equipped with the optional mechanical LSD (the standard is a viscous LSD), which made the car move even more briskly.

Now, the most interesting thing is the exterior and interior.

Terrier. The exterior is simply so exciting that it could be described as radical. The front and rear spoilers are designed in the image of a racing car, and the rear tail fins have pillow ball pillars that allow the angle of the wing to be adjusted. It looks just like a Formula car or a C car.

The interior is dressed up to match the exterior with a steering wheel, shift knob, footrest, and driving mat. The mood can be further enhanced by installing the options of Recaro seats, full-scale meter (speed, RPM), and triple meter (oil temperature, outside temperature, voltage).

PIC CAPTIONS

◆Inspired by the image of a real racing car, the body is white in concept color, 7J-16 wheels and 205/55 tires are standard equipment, and the vehicle price is ¥3,580.000.

★Powerful and striking tail fin with 120% visibility

◆The side steps get wider as they go towards the back, creating a nice balance and tightening the shape.

◆ Thanks to the seats with good holding power, the large footrest, and the steering wheel with excellent grip, the operability is perfect.

____________________________________________________________

scoop!

This guy is New Tommy Kaira M30

When I visited the Tomita Auto garage to test drive the Tommykaira M20, the "Tommykaira M30" was already in the final stages of being finished. It looks like it will have a 3.0-liter engine, similar to the old M30, and the body will be widened with large pre-sprung fenders, considering that it will have a 3-number plate. This means that the design will undoubtedly be even more radical than the M20! It will be announced on June 1st, so look forward to it!

The large protruding blister fenders clearly show the difference from the M20.

_____________________________________________________________

The two-stage wing shows off its performance!

Impul 532S

Hoshino Impul, led by racing driver Hoshino Kazuyoshi, has also produced an evolution model of the R32 Skyline, called the "Impul 532S."

The engine has been tuned up with computer changes, and the suspension system and special wheels are used to tighten the suspension. The interior is equipped with Impulse 913 steering, 260km/h Impul speedometer.

And the exterior. The front spoiler incorporating the fog lamps has a modest design, but the rear wing is two-stage and large like a Formula car, showing off the car's powerful driving. The side steps, which are also part of the door panels, add volume to the body and make it look more powerful.

F bumper (fog lights sold separately) ¥95,000・S step set (door panel included) ¥130,000・R bumper set (R bumper, punching metal set, R bumper side parts) ¥115,000 R wing ¥85,000. Set price ¥380,000 260km/h speedometer ¥45,000・Impul 913 steering ¥38,000・Shock absorber ¥15,000 Reinforced spring ¥9 500・Stabilizer ¥30,000/®¥25,000・Computer (with boost up parts) ¥148,000 (¥118,000 if trade-in is included) ・Decal set ¥9,800

_______________________________________________________

Limited to 500 genuine evolution models

Skyline GT-R NISMO

Nissan builds to win Group A

The Skyline GT-R NISMO is a machine that Nissan built in earnest to win Group A. Based on the GT-R, the ABS and active amenity system were abolished, the turbos were enlarged, the rotors were changed from metal to ceramic, the front bumper was changed, the rear fenders were enlarged, and a small R spoiler was added.

With the addition of the turbocharger, it is truly a competitive machine designed to win races. The driving feeling is hard, even with the slow start-up of the turbine, and a regular GT-R would run smoother on the street. However, when you take it to the circuit, the GT-R NISMO turns into a monster machine.

[usafphantom2]

The prototype B-52s scrapped after First Lady Lady Bird Johnson’s ‘beautification’ of the US Air Force Museum

The B-52 Stratofortress

For more than 60 years, B-52 Stratofortress bombers have been the backbone of the strategic bomber force for the United States. The B-52 is capable of dropping or launching the widest array of weapons in the US inventory. This includes gravity bombs, cluster bombs, precision guided missiles and joint direct attack munitions. Updated with modern technology, the B-52 is capable of delivering the full complement of joint developed weapons and will continue into the 21st century as an important element of our nation’s defenses. The Air Force currently expects to operate B-52s through 2050.

The B-52A first flew in 1954, and the B model entered service in 1955. A total of 744 B-52s were built, with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962. The first of 102 B-52H’s was delivered to Strategic Air Command in May 1961.

The prototype B-52s scrapped after First Lady Lady Bird Johnson’s ‘beautification’ of the US Air Force Museum: The story of the XB-52 and YB-52

The winning design

As explained by Scott Lowther in his book Boeing B-47 Stratojet & B-52 Stratofortress Origins and Evolution, the winning design for the XB-52, Model 464-49, transitioned to Model 464-67. While largely the same, there were some notable differences, most obviously the extension of the forward fuselage. Where 464-49 had the rear of the cockpit canopy behind the leading edge of the wing roots, 464-67 put the cockpit well ahead of the wing. The relatively vast expanse of spoilers on the wings were scaled down and the engine nacelles were reshaped. With those changes and an Air Force ‘letter of intent’ for B-52 tooling in March 1951, Boeing was ready to begin constructing two Model 464-67s.

The prototype B-52s

These prototype B-52s were given the designations XB-52 and YB-52… X for ‘experimental’ and Y being the designation for ‘prototype.’ Typically an `experimental’ aircraft is built before a ‘prototype’, but in this case while the XB-52 (serial number 49- 230) rolled out on Nov. 29, 1951, and the YB-52 (serial number 49-231) followed on Mar. 15, 1952, the YB-52 flew first on Apr. 15, 1952. This was due to the XB-52 suffering damage during pneumatic system pressurization testing which required extensive repairs.

The prototype B-52s scrapped after First Lady Lady Bird Johnson’s ‘beautification’ of the US Air Force Museum: The story of the XB-52 and YB-52

The XB-52 followed the prototype into the air on Oct. 2, 1952. The first flight of the YB-52 lasted two hours and was powered by prototype YJ57-P-3 engines. Despite the difference in designations, the XB-52 and the YB-52 were essentially identical.

The prototype B-52s were largely similar to the production aircraft in appearance. An immediately distinguishing feature of both aircraft, though, was the cockpit. A tandem fighter-style canopy somewhat similar to that used on the B-47 was employed; it was low-drag and gave the pilot excellent visibility.

Pioneering the landing gear layout

The prototypes pioneered the landing gear layout that the rest of the B-52 fleet would employ. Somewhat similar at first glance to the bicycle arrangement used by the B-47, the gear used by the B-52 was quite different. Four separate dual-wheel bogies were stored within the B-52 fuselage, but instead of deploying straight down they deployed out to the sides, twisting around so that the bogies stored fore-and-aft ended up side-by-side. This gave the B-52 not a bicycle arrangement, but a quadricycle. The B-52 would comfortably sit level on its main landing gear and not tip to one side or the other. It still employed smaller outrigger gear near the wingtips, but this was to keep the wingtips from striking the ground during heavily laden takeoffs or bumpy landings.

‘Crabbing’ into the wind

Additionally, the forward bogies could rotate up to 20° side to side, allowing the B-52 to do something unique: land while ‘crabbing’ into the wind, the fuselage of the aircraft pointed well off the axis of the groundpath of the flight. This would permit safe landings in high winds.

The prototype B-52s scrapped after First Lady Lady Bird Johnson’s ‘beautification’ of the US Air Force Museum: The story of the XB-52 and YB-52

The prototypes had flapperons, ailerons and spoilers on the main wings. The ailerons were relatively small and located far from the wingtip; in fact, just outboard of the inboard engine pylon. A wingtip location for the ailerons would have given them more authority, but that would have put them in a much thinner section of the wing, a section much given to flexing. The inboard location was sufficient for the manoeuvring that the bomber was expected to perform.

Folding vertical fin

In any event, the spoilers were to take care of the bulk of the control needs of the aircraft, and the ailerons would eventually find themselves redundant. Unlike the production aircraft that followed, the prototypes did not have the capability for inflight refuelling. Neither did they, initially, have the external fuel tanks that generally graced the outer wings of production model B-52s, but such tanks were eventually added later in the testing phase.

B-52H print

This print is available in multiple sizes from AircraftProfilePrints.com – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS. B-52H Stratofortress 2nd BW, 20th BS, LA/60-0008 “Lucky Lady IV”.

The horizontal stabilizers were all-moving, but this was meant for trim stabilization. Actual control was via slim elevators along the trailing edge. The elevators had, through the B-52F, trim tabs. An important but rarely noted feature not only of the prototype B-52s but of all B-52s that followed was the folding vertical fin. The fin was, at least until the G-model, a vast structure; too tall by far to allow the B-52 to fit within standard hangars. So it could fold over 90-degrees, greatly reducing the effective height of the aircraft. Unlike naval aircraft with wings that fold to fit in the limited space on board aircraft carriers, the fielding fin is not a self-contained system — an external crane is needed to lay it over and raise it back up again.

Prototype B-52s were hand-made

The prototypes were essentially hand-made at the Boeing Seattle factory. Production methods were not used as the jigs were not finalized; the equipment and instruments employed were also often not what would become standard. Neither prototype was fitted with defensive weapons; the tail turrets were represented by static fairings, with the painted-on lines.

The YB-52 was donated to the US Air Force Museum on Jan. 27, 1958, having flown for 783 hours. It was on display for a time but due to a ‘beautification’ scheme orchestrated by First Lady Lady Bird Johnson, both the XB-52 and YB-52 were scrapped sometime in the 1960s. Exactly how the official museum of the United States Air Force was ‘beautified’ by converting one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built into razor blades and soda cans is not adequately explained in the available literature.

Boeing B-47 Stratojet & B-52 Stratofortress Origins and Evolution is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo credit: U.S. Air Force

B-52 Model

This model is available from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS.

Dario Leone

Dario Leone is an aviation, defense and military writer. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviation Geek Club” one of the world’s most read military aviation blogs. His writing has appeared in The National Interest and other news media. He has reported from Europe and flown Super Puma and Cougar helicopters with the Swiss Air Force.

@kadonkey via X

[milk5]

On the Skidelsky/Fuller post I reblogged, I absolutely welcome automation given the following criteria:

1. The output is identical or, holistically, more positive than human labor output

2. This automation occurs within an economic system in which GDP growth (or similarly fraught metrics) is not the primary objective

3. The automation aids the sustainability of nature and humanity

The USA's agriculture industry is a wonderful example of modern automation failing all three of these criteria. Throughout the entire industrial revolution, agriculture has trended away from being a society-wide confederation of family/community-scale, labor-intensive smallholdings to our current reality of a small number of monolithic industrial farms that are maintained by astoundingly few people who operate increasingly complex and expensive equipment.

Our massive-scale industrial farms are fantastic at what they were designed for; they grow as much of a staple crop as possible without regard to human or environmental health, doing so using minimal labor. Fundamentally, it is an extractive industry. Fossil fuels are extracted to power the machinery, processing, and logistics systems. Nutrients are extracted from the soil to the point that crop growth can only be sustained with heavy amounts of industrial fertilizer input. Entire ecosystems are sacrificed when forests are cleared to be exploited and repeatedly battered with pesticides. This is all primarily to produce soybeans, feed corn, and cotton to then process into products like factory farm livestock feed-slurry, corn syrup, junk food, and sweatshop garments. Secondarily, it is to produce flavorless, nutrition-void produce that can be sold year-round. Consistency is the goal, although one may find that nature itself is curiously inconsistent.

This case study of automation's failings can be traced back to a few major factors:

1. Old-style agriculture work is disagreeable to the USA's perverted fascination for infinite GDP growth; each farm laborer that can be replaced by a machine is a potential worker that could move into a city (or suburb) and put in the same amount of hours at a higher-dollar job. It's just opportunity cost, and this is more-or-less what Skidelsky and Fuller find offensive about our current labor zeitgeist; instead of the now-jobless laborers being free to pursue their interests, they are instead shoehorned into some shitty desk job that produces a relatively greater amount of money to be leeched by executives and shareholders -- this is "more productive" to our economy on the basis of GDP growth and thus must be prioritized over agricultural labor.

2. Industrial approaches to large-scale agriculture are inherently reductive to an extreme extent. Nature is far more complex than Liebig or any other enlightenment thinker ever imagined. Industrialization is great at making cars or computer chips or Gucci jackets or whatever, as these are things that can be standardized with relative ease. Nature cannot be tamed and standardized in a similar way; ecosystems, particularly soil ecosystems, can vary massively even in small areas of the same climate type. Our agriculture systems cope with this simply by ignoring such factors and reducing crop growth to a formula. In X region, plant Y variety of Z crop on A date and apply a regimen of B-type fertilizer and C-type pesticide on D date etc etc. This is the most egregious reduction of something in all of history.

Liebig's reduction of agriculture to the NPK model, just three elements, is good for achieving the singular goal of making your plant of choice come out of the ground, but it ignores all the nuance of soil, climate, and evolution. The other factors don't matter. Modern lab-designed fertilizers often feature a plethora of additional micronutrients, but the goal is still to produce a healthy crop, not healthy soil. Soil itself is an organism, it is something that must be nurtured to be healthy; industrial pesticide/fertilizer regimens are to the soil as feed slurry/antibiotic regimens are to factory farm animals.

Natural processes are, itself, the greatest form of automation for agriculture. Plants and animals that are native to a region have evolved to grow there regardless of human intervention. It is our disruption of these processes that forces agriculture to be labor/resource-intensive. This isn't to say that everyone must immediately abandon all non-native foods and adopt a primarily undomesticated Ötzi diet, but instead, it's worth considering that the complexity of modern technology is not even close to being at parity with the complexity of nature; nature has a several billion year head start. There is no way to flawlessly "tame" it with technological solutions, but a comfortable middle ground can certainly be found.

If sustainable, climate-friendly food production is the primary objective of agriculture, this is far more easily achieved by small, ecology-considerate farms than massive, largely automated industrial farms. A healthy soil ecosystem will aid in growth, flavor, nutrition, and, (quite importantly) carbon sequestration. Broadforking, shoveling, and wheelbarrow-pushing is absolutely more labor intensive than sitting back in a huge John Deere tractor with GPS-based autopiloting features, but the extra labor can turn a woefully extractive process into one that is instead highly regenerative.