Building trust in media

Having Kids (Paul Graham)

by

Before I had kids, I was afraid of having kids. Up to that point I felt about kids the way the young Augustine felt about living virtuously. I’d have been sad to think I’d never have children. But did I want them now? No.

If I had kids, I’d become a parent, and parents, as I’d known since I was a kid, were uncool. They were dull and responsible and had no fun. And while it’s not surprising that kids would believe that, to be honest I hadn’t seen much as an adult to change my mind. Whenever I’d noticed parents with kids, the kids seemed to be terrors, and the parents pathetic harried creatures, even when they prevailed.

When people had babies, I congratulated them enthusiastically, because that seemed to be what one did. But I didn’t feel it at all. “Better you than me,” I was thinking.

Citing a PDF: Nitrogen Calibration Chart

by

PDF: https://www.paulbparts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nitrogenCalibrationChart.pdf

 

100 units of nitrogen are divided by 3.3 = 30.3 gallons per acre.

 

The text that I copied off the PDF is:

Calibration for Dripping Nitrogen with D-Orifice Discs
Information Needed: Formula to Calibrate Nozzle Size:
– gallon per acre
– speed of travel G.P.M. = G.P.A. x M.P.H. x W
– nozzle spacing (inches) 5940
Key:
P.S.I. = pounds per square inch
G.P.M. = gallons per minute
M.P.H. = miles per hour
G.P.A. = gallons per acre
W = nozzle spacing
Note: 3.3 UNITS OF NITROGEN PER GALLON
Example of Calibration:
100 units of nitrogen are divided by 3.3 = 30.3 gallons per acre. 30.3 gallons per
acre x speed of 4 mph = 121.2. Now multiply 121.2 x 30″ nozzle spacing. = 3636.
Next divide 3636 by 5940 = .61 gallons per minute flow per nozzle. Now by
checking D-Orifice chart, you will see D-5 Orifice with liquid nitrogen flows .62
gallons at 30 lb pressure.
Note: WHEN USING BALL CHECK STRAINERS, ADD 5 LB PRESSURE.
Checking Tractor Speeds:
Speed in MPH Time required in seconds to travel a
distance of
100 ft 200 ft
3.0 23 45
3.5 20 39
4.0 17 34
4.5 15 30
5.0 14 27
6.0 11 23
7.0 —- 19
7.5 —– 18
8.0 —- 17
Ph. 717 – 738 – 7350
Fax 717 – 738 – 8061

National Press going along with Transparent Deception: NYTimes’ David Sanger

by

However, national press going along with the transparent deception is a lot less forgivable. We’re headed toward a major war and not telling the population the reasons for it. New York Times writer David Sanger for instance knows better than to look into a CNN camera and say, hoping to be taken seriously, that it’s hard to imagine others with a significant motive. That such an experienced reporter would pretend he didn’t live through ten years of American politicians screeching demands to stop the pipeline tells you the extent to which government and media have merged. There’s no discernible difference now between the Sangers and Chuck Todds of the world and the craggy-faced retired CIA flacks the networks bring on as guests. The media performance on this one was and is as bad as it gets.

Original article: Who Blew Up the Nord Stream Pipelines? “Russia, Russia, Russia!”

On Left Straussianism

by

We might therefore say that the left intellectual becomes the left Straussian when they decide that, in addition to sometimes filtering their own public speech to advance an ideological agenda, they’re additionally responsible for “protecting” the public from being exposed to conversations not disciplined by political strategy. To the extent that their own ideas are not already disciplined by such a strategy, they limit discussion of them to close friends and sympathetic colleagues.

And:

In each case, thoughtful criticism of an author’s argument—for being confused, or incomplete—was overshadowed by the left-Straussian assertion that, regardless of whether the argument was true or reasonable, it was “irresponsible” for the author to make it in public.

And:

Those who engage in such tactics would never endorse Strauss’s hard distinction between the elect few and the unthinking many—at least not explicitly. But the care they take to pre-screen intellectual material indicates that they share his dark foreboding about the “costs” of public intellectual conversations reflecting rather than repressing the complexities of private ones. Attempting to marginalize or disqualify intellectual arguments itself implies a gap between the commentator, who trusts themselves to evaluate the arguments in question, and their imagined audience, who is assumed to lack either the tools or the ability to do so unaided. Left Straussians may not believe that they are philosopher-kings but they repudiate, in practice and increasingly even in theory, the possibility of the philosopher-reader.