Tech decline

Where is my flying car, bro?

Well, back before world war II, there were flying cars, in that affluent middle class people who owned enough land, usually rural middle class people, often had their own personal airport, and a private plane that could take off from a very short and very rough runway — which was typically a gravel track that got graded from time to time. The British airforce in world war one and two recruited its pilots from kids that had learned to fly in their dad’s plane.

The regulatory state forbade those planes and those airports, but those who had a plane and an airport got grandfathered in, and when I was a kid there still quite a few old men around who had a dirt track airport, and plane that had had every part replaced several times by small private informal workshops — because replacing the plane would be illegal, and repairing it was theoretically illegal.

in the seventies or so, there was a huge expansion in middle class sailboat ownership, thanks to advances in fibreglass technology in the sixties, that made hulls cheaper and better. Today, fewer and fewer people can afford a sailboat. It is once again becoming a luxury of the rich. If living standards are rising, why can ever fewer people afford a house with a garden, a stay at home wife, or a sailboat?

Western cars have been getting crappier and crappier since the late seventies. Electric cars may well be an improvement in certain ways — but have become useful as a result of Chinese advances in battery technology. China has taken a decisive lead in this area. Also, Chinese high speed trains are a major advance — one that the west has not successfully imitated.

Musk is promising a flying car, with the enormous improvement that it will have vertical takeoff and landing.. If he succeeds, this is partly because of Chinese advances in battery power density, and partly because his charisma and concentrated wealth gives him the ability to influence regulation. However the Chinese high power density batteries, unlike their expected sodium batteries, are expensive, short lived, and prone to fire.

In England today, middle class people who own and provide rental accommodation have just been illegalised by a regulatory regime that only giant corporations can comply with, resulting in a massive collapse of the price and availability of rental accommodation. They have been forced to sell at a price that has suddenly dropped.

Obviously we had massive tech progress with computers — until Moore’s law stopped working.

Photolithography ran out of puff at 180 nanometers, because at shorter wavelengths, it stops being uv light, and become more like very soft X-rays — it becomes very difficult to manipulate shorter wavelengths with matter.

The chip industry found cleverer and clever ways to make do, with declining results and dramatically increasing costs. Progress has continued, but has greatly diminished. When they say “four nanometres” all actual features on the chip are far larger than “four nanometres”.

Large language models are very impressive, and are going to get more impressive. That is real progress, albeit progress far less dramatic that it looked like at first sight.

The next step is contact lithography in place of photolithography, which the Japanese are attempting. So far, however, they have a problem. The chips made by this method tend to have a lot of big errors, because contact damages the mask.

Modern civilisation runs on electricity. And electricity runs on the grid. Power coming out of the grid is vastly more expensive than power at a big generator, the primary cost of power is not generating it, but making it available at the flick of a switch wherever and whenever it is needed.

Green power is enormously more expensive than other forms, because the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, so green energy makes the grid much more expensive, even though green energy is inexpensive when the sun shines and the wind blows. Grid costs massively dominate, thus the green transition has destroyed Europe.

China urgently wants green energy, partly because they have a pollution problem, but mostly for reasons of national security. They have to import oil and coal, and they do not want outsiders to have the power to turn China off.

China has made a breakthrough with its new sodium batteries, whose very long life makes batteries useful. This can potentially relieve the grid problem. China’s cities are too dense for solar panels on roofs to be very useful, and tend to be located in areas where the weather can remain severely clouded for a long time, and their planned solution for this problem is big centralised solar farms in deserts, and batteries in and near cities.

If you have a sunny climate, which seldom has long periods of severe cloudiness, then rooftop solar panels with local batteries are now likely to become a viable solution even without regulation and subsidy thanks to Chinese tech advances. The promised longer life and lower cost of sodium batteries potentially provide an alternative to the ever rising cost of the grid. However the regulatory state does not like islandable home installations, and finds a variety of ways to make this difficult, without quite outright banning it.

Drones also are a major advance, and all drones depend on China.

So progress has not stopped. Just the west has been regressing in many important areas, while Western progress has greatly slowed even areas where progress continued. However progress continues in the East. It is just that white civilisation has lost its mojo.

This has for a long time been obvious from twenty thousand feet. When one flies in to an eastern city, compare the eastern skyline and the eastern airport with the western skyline and western airport. Western cities have steadily got uglier, lower tech, and poorer looking.

141 comments Tech decline

dave says:

Seems suspicious that Moores law stopped working around the time that Intel and others started hiring H1B replacements. They kept it going by outsourcing chip design to the israelis, but seems like thats hit a wall as well. Probably not a coincidence.

The Cominator says:

If subcontinentals were good engineers India would have had a tier one civilization sometime since the Indus valley civilization but it has not. So of course Indians displacing whites and high tier asians tech even under the false pretense they got their “meritocratically” (which they did not even if there are a minority of genuinely smart ones) was a disaster.

Taboaik says:

I assure you neither Korea or Taiwan are depending on pajeets, although Chinese are a noticeable level of H1-Bs etc. granted. What happened with Moore’s law slowing down was mostly physics.

190 nm is about the limit for water immersion lithography; Intel explored something in-between 190i and EUV, but it would have required lens made from a new and water soluble material, and for whatever reasons it didn’t get very far. Instead the industry moved to multi-patterning, using two to four illuminations and masks to expose a single layer and a variety of etching tricks. For that matter, because of its constraints like very high energy photons I’ve read EUV is usually double patterned by TSMC.

Note we’re talking about logic here, where there is now only one leading company, TSMC. Intel says they’ll give up if their next 14A process does not attract any big foundry customers and their 18A node will prove itself next year or not. Samsung was not reliable in developing good new nodes, a reason they lost the business of Apple and Nvidia, and their current leading edge nodes don’t yield. They’ve got terrible management problems in both logic and memory, it’s not clear how that will play out.

I’m not too familiar with memory production, DRAM and flash, but there are only three competitive companies in the market, Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynix.

As for design, Intel had and has several design teams, the Israeli one came up with the microarchitecture that partly dug them out of the Netburst mess, and also made the home run of Sandy Bridge, but US based teams have also done a lot of work, like Atom in Austin. They’ve also recently tread water by internally shifting from bespoke design tools that long ago were world leading to current off the shelf systems, upon which their foundry hopes depend. That took effort that otherwise might have made some of their current offering faster.

Intel’s problem ultimately was a corporate culture that failed for years to make their next 10 nm node work and a pajeet was in the loop, a CEO who then didn’t have what it took to recover from that, and they’re now trying a saving throw.

Late night low effort required crimethink: Women are our ultimate boss. They are monsters in a much less easily tamed way than men are, and enough structures in the West, and beyond as far as I can tell like Japan and Korea, have been dismantled that allowed a continuing civilization.

Another factor has to be the conceit that the government will take care of you; I don’t just mean things like Social Security and Medicare, but not ruining the economy so much that in your old age you will have to depend on descendants. Referring primarily to Social Security, Gary North labeled this as something like the worst outcome of the New Deal, sundering the bonds between generations.

I have no good idea how to fix this, am too old for it to matter much to me anyway, but it will require harshness America hasn’t been able to muster probably since sometime in the 19th Century when a lot bad things started taking hold. For example the first major outside the Hajnal line migration of the Irish, to I think in that century not having what it took to automatically punish felonies with death but it could have been earlier.

Jim says:

> What happened with Moore’s law slowing down was mostly physics. 190 nm is about the limit

It is the limit for photolithography. The limit for contact lithography is the silica unit cell, which is 1nm.

It was obvious then as now they should have switched to contact lithography. Pushing on with photolithography past 180 nm was a bean counter decision, a bureaucrat decision, not a decision of engineers and scientists.

Jim says:

> I have no good idea how to fix this [the woman problem]

The fix is obvious though unthinkable.

Taboaik says:

It’s the how to get from A to B I’m at a loss for this side of a civilizational catastrophe. We have obvious enough RETVRN TO TRADITION packages of policies that ought to fix things, or that would be a “good first step” that could be iterated on.

But not for example the will to physically remove, even just to camps, the terminally poisoned by feminism women who currently apply dyscivic social pressure to other women that push the latter away from raising children. How do we make such harsh policies thinkable?

Sher Singh says:

Violence

Jim says:

There are pile of perfectly sound physics based reasons why Moore’s law was going to hit the wall when it did, but way back then, people realised the solution was contact lithography. And presumably if they had pursued contact lithography back then, they would have been where the Japanese are now, which is to say, Moore’s law would have kept on going.

H1B replacements was a decision made by the bean counters, not the techies, and the H1B replacements showed the bean counters are in control. And if the bean counters are in control, you are not going to get tech progress.

Taboaik says:

Were bean counters in charge in Japan and the Netherlands? The US was out of the photolithography game by this point, except for buying decisions. Canon and Nikon were making all the machines, and I’ve read one of them never mastered immersion, that is putting a layer of water between the mask and the die.

ASML bulldozed both companies by making DUV machines with better software, including for integrating with the rest of a fab before they made practical EUV machines. TSMC certainly run by bean counters as a pure foundry, but your claims of Japan winning with a return to contact lithography haven’t resulted in a competitive company selling chips to others, but maybe buying decisions for which fashion is critical overwhelmed it. Still, I doubt anyone wants to return to those days before Perkin-Elmer, pushed by the Air Force, gave yields a five to seven times push with the first non-contact lithography machine in 1973.

One reason the 6502 started out the gate as such a cheap processor. 3/4ths the gates as the Motorola 6800 it was spawned from, they began manufacturing it at just the right time to buy those machines so they could sell it at a tenth the price, although Motorola could and did respond. Bean counting matters when the customer’s price for a die is important, which is almost all logic by sales volume. Is this new contact lithography being used for low volume military sales?

Jim says:

> your claims of Japan winning with a return to contact lithography haven’t resulted in a competitive company selling chips to others,

They only just got started.

jaggard says:

According to the cia wiki :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography#cite_note-38

“As of October 2007, Toshiba is the only company to have validated nanoimprint lithography for 22 nm and beyond. – “Toshiba claims to ‘validate’ nanoimprint litho,” EETimes, October 16, 2007″

So that was 18 years ago supposedly…

Also, “molecular electronics” as far as I know is mostly if not purely theoretical – just like “nanotechnology assemblers” or whatever the hype was.

Jim says:

Yes, they are all purely theoretical because all the effort and energy has been focused on pushing optical technology beyond the its natural limits.

At the 65 nanometer node it was time to give up on optical lithography and do something different, and all work on optical lithography since then is a waste of effort, because no matter how much money and effort you throw at it, you are just not going to get very far.

If they keep pushing on optical, they are going to announce the 0.0001 nanometer node, but it will be only a little bit different from the 45 nanometer node, and all nodes since the 45 nanometer node.

If contact litbography does not work, there are other technologies, like low energy electron holography, that can reach the one nanometer scale.

cloudswrest says:

Also, “molecular electronics” as far as I know is mostly if not purely theoretical – just like “nanotechnology assemblers” or whatever the hype was.

Well, since you and me and Jim all exist, there’s proof of principle that nanotechnology works.

jaggard says:

>all the effort and energy has been focused on pushing optical technology beyond the its natural limits.

Indeed that seems to be the case. Maybe corruption plays a role? There are special interests that only know how to do things this way and have no reason to change. But although microelectronics is dominated by big business, there still seems to be some “free market” competition, so I would expect somebody to eventually come up with something new. Yet nobody does.

So, my half educated guess is that the problem is (a lot) harder than you are making it sound. Nobody has a clue how to mass produce “molecular electronics”.

And anyway, what benefit would people get from molecular electronics, apart from the trannyhumanists getting closer to exterminating humanity.

Jim says:

The reason they cannot switch gears is that advancing optical lithography will give you a payoff. Just an ever diminishing payoff. Ever more money for ever smaller gains.

Investing in a technology with more blue sky potential is not guaranteed to give you a payoff.

To gamble on a blue sky technology, you need someone who actually knows what he is doing. You need a Musk. The man who makes the call has to actually understand the call he is making. So if the power and the money is in the hands of non techies, they are never going to go for the blue sky technology.

Jim says:

> Nobody has a clue how to mass produce “molecular electronics”.

When you are building a chip, you are placing large aggregates of atoms, several hundred atoms wide, exactly where you want them.

If you could place individual molecules exactly where you want them, then you could produce molecular electronics

jaggard says:

Yes but there’s a big qualitative difference between on one hand a transistor made of different parts which in turn are made of aggregates of atoms, and on the other hand a single molecule transistor.

Quantum computers are more or less based on single particles so I guess they show that the idea isn’t purely theoretical. There’s a little catch though. In order to use a particle as a computer you need to sorround it with literally tons of equipment costing millions of dollars. Oops.

>If you could place individual molecules exactly where you want them, then you could produce molecular electronics

But there’s this thing called chemistry that deals with the interactions between single atoms and single molecules. Chemical bonding prevents you from arbitrarily manipulating atoms and molecules.

Jim says:

Carbon nanotube transistors have been demonstrated in actual practice. They are not very good, because composed of a big pile of carbon nanotubes in random orientations. If you scaled it down to two precisely oriented carbon nanotubes, it would be a molecular transistor.

jaggard says:

I found your concern about alleged technological decline somewhat puzzling since from my point of view the only thing that has “progressed” in say the last 30 years is computers. Things that really matter though, like freedom, are indeed in a steep decline.

And since you mentioned musk, notice that he is pushing brain chips. Once you have your chip implanted, you will be able to connect to the matrix, and you’ll have your flying car. At least a virtual one.

And then, the super human AI (controlled by musk of course) will decide that it’s time for you to exit reality, virtual and otherwise, and you will go to heaven – because your tech oligarchs do not need you.

jaggard says:

>molecular transistor

As far as I can tell, CNT FETs are silicon FETs in which the channel has been replaced with carbon tubes. They might outperform ordinary FETs but they can’t be mass produced. They are mostly silicon anyway and have the same size as ordinary FETs.

Jim says:

Yes, CNT FETS are fairly useless. They are fairly useless because we cannot control matter on the scale of carbon nanotubes. It is a scaling problem.

A2 says:

Carbon Nanotubes: MIT built a 16-bit RISC-V processor out of 14,000 CNFETs a while back. (The group seems to have moved to Harvard since then.)

“It also executed a modified version of the classic “Hello, World!” program, printing out, “Hello, World! I am RV16XNano, made from CNTs.””

https://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-nanotubes-microprocessor-0828

I wonder if they could use magnetism to align the tubes more elegantly?

TheDividualist says:

I can understand when the engineers are in charge, I can understand when the marketing types are in charge, but bean counters like Boeing? Really strange. S-Ox, Jim?

Humungus says:

> “Where is my flying car…”

Humungus has seen these so called flying cars and they are more like a cross between a four propeller drone and helicopter two seater.

I prefer an old fashioned V8 driven vehicle, which are still available. Mercedes will be making one next year and Cadillac still makes one. Also a variety of full sized trucks still make a V8 driven vehicle.

Why a V8 gas motor? Reliability, power, torque, acceleration, can be converted to LNG or propane.

Buy what you want though. Humungus has already covered this. When things get rough, and they will, you be glad you took my advice.

dharmicreality says:

When dharma declines, everything declines in slow synchronization. Happening all over the world.

Women emancipation -> Collapse of patriarchal families -> Collapse of fertility especially among elites -> Collapse of technology due to insufficient current generation smart elite men

No mainstream right winger talks about this directly addressing the core issue (feminism/women emancipation). As we have discussed so many times in the past, the core problems go back to women emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal families. The smart elites, having adopted an evil, insane state religion, have just stopped reproducing in sufficient numbers to keep civilization going.

Technology collapse is downstream of the collapse of society as a whole. While the tech-bros may seem confident of keeping tech alive and burning in isolation, the smart ones are not reproducing are they? Who will keep the technology alive in 50 years from now? Nobody is willing to address that question.

alf says:

There’s a whole ‘war with China’ shillverse out there, but honestly I’m happy that the lights continue to be on somewhere in the world and that we get to benefit from that.

Pax Imperialis says:

Saw a lot of higher ranking officers be very optimistic about winning a war with China in public, but as soon as I talked to them one on one and laid out the technical and logistical disadvantages we face in such a conflict they quietly affirmed that it would go very poorly. What I realized was that as officers, we are stuck in this extremely difficult position where we know our capabilities and limitations, but in an effort to maintain some level of morale in the troops, we have to lie to them and to ourselves. It is a terrible state of affairs. Seeing the quiet shifts in DOW priorities after they found out they couldn’t even deal with the Houthis, is evidence that top level also has major concerns. Likely why tensions have been heating up in our backyard rather than far off theaters. Likely as a means to lock down the northern hemisphere in order to regain a strategic grounding.

A2 says:

Isn’t it a revived Monroe doctrine?

Pax Imperialis says:

Same, but different. Original Monroe was from a position of relative strength and growing confidence. New Monroe is from a position of retreat and panic. Results may differ.

I remember posting here about the national rational for the new focus. Extracting as much wealth as possible while we still can. And getting a lot of flack for it. Now Trump is saying Venezuela has stolen American land, oil, and assets and is openly using military power in order to force regime change to regain business interests. It’s almost as if being a military officer close to power lets me have a window into what higher is thinking, but what do I know, I’m just a dirty war faction imperialist. Not that I’m confident it will work, but at this point desperation creates some potentially horrible incentives.

Taboaik says:

A reminder that Moore’s Law is a bean counter law. Quoting the 1965 paper:

“The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year”

Which became something like “the number of lowest cost transistors you can put on a die of a fixed size doubles every eighteen months,” the speed of what’s more an economic than physics law dominating and increasing by a quarter as Moore anticipated.

It “failed” in that moving to the next node slowed down, and Moore’s second law that the capital costs for new fabs would exponentially increase became dominant. All said, improvements are now more like 15% in some combination of power, performance, and area (PPA).

Power becoming critical after the heat and speed advantages of Dennard scaling failed in the first decade of this century, Intel’s Netburst failing because it depended on 5 and eventually 10 GHz parts. Area and performance being the other trade-offs, in part economic ones because area is still closely associated with yields. Or why Samsung’s current boasts are for very small die sizes.

So a drastic slowdown, but not quite a failure, especially for companies big enough that high volumes can cover the fixed overhead like non-recurring engineering (NRE) and mask manufacturing costs. Or if not directly economic, consume less power for mobile applications, there being no Moore’s Law for batteries. Just not overwhelmingly so like in the half century after Moore published his first paper.

And thus a return to contact lithography won’t satisfy Moore’s Law unless it also brings cost advantages one way or another. Beware the costs of running through masks quickly, they used to be bought by the truck load before photolithography. Which also made quickly fixing design flaws a lot more expensive, you’d have to throw away a lot of masks.

http://cva.stanford.edu/classes/cs99s/papers/moore-crammingmorecomponents.pdf

FrankNorman says:

Once advances in CPU density run up against the basic limitations imposed by physics (matter is made of atoms, so components can only be so small, electrons can move only so fast through metal, etc), that’s not where things stop. Right now much of the software used on those supertech computers is bloated and inefficient. Cleaner, better code… that will be the new frontier.

When I look back at some of the fun games I used to play on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum back in the 1980’s, and consider that if someone tried to write the same kind of software today it would need gigabytes of RAM… why?
If they could do what they did back then with a mere 64K of RAM.. just think what wonders we could have today, if only software were still being written to the same standards of efficiency.

Jim says:

> Once advances in CPU density run up against the basic limitations imposed by physics (matter is made of atoms, so components can only be so small

We are nowhere near the basic limitation of the size of atoms — nanoscale technology. When we get near that size, many remarkable and seemingly magical technologies become possible.

We are at, and have been for a long long time, ever since the 65nm node, at the limits of photolithography.

The decision to stick with photolithography even after we reached its fundamental physical limits was a decision to abandon tech progress, made by people who did not understand what it was.

The 180nm, 130nm, 90nm, and 65nm nodes had actual line pitches that close together, that as how small the wires and gates actually were.

But 90nm or 65nm is simply as small as you can go with light.

45nm was double patterning. They were laying down multiple 90nm patterns one on top of another, so they got denser patterns on chip than can actually be done with light. The pattern that can be laid down in a single mask stop is always going to be around 90nm or so, but you can go to more and more mask stops and a variety of other clever tricks.

32nm, 28nm, 22nm, 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, were not actual sizes, but bullshit. They attained bigher density by piling transistors on top of each other and things like that, but their mask feature size was limited by photolithography to around 90nm or so.

What is stopping quantum dots, molecular electronics, and all that, is that our actual mask features are still around 90nm. It is like trying to knit fine thread with your elbows.

Anon says:

“Cleaner,better code”

I hope and pray for this. Especially with ram price skyrocket. The biggest problem with hardware become faster and better , is software degradation due to low efforts from programmers who can always solve the inefficient code by add Ram bro, well, the ram now cost thousand bucks.
Microsoft should go bankrupt for the atrocious win 11.
Unfortunately it will never happen.

FrankNorman says:

The Penguin is calling.

TheDividualist says:
Jim says:

It “failed” in that moving to the next node slowed down,

And, more importantly, the difference between nodes became ever less than advertised. When they say “four nanometers” no features are actually four nanometers.

Next generation hardware is no longer a substantial improvement over the previous generation.

> Dennard scaling

There are also lots of solutions to the dennard scaling problem — spintronics, quantum dots, and molecular electronics. We cannot do molecular electronics because the four nanometer node is nowhere remotely near four nanometers.

> And thus a return to contact lithography won’t satisfy Moore’s Law unless it also brings cost advantages one way or another.

The fundamental advantage of contact is that its theoretical limit is much smaller scale than can be done with light. With light, our real limit is the half wavelength. With contact, the atom.

Cloudswrest says:

From Grok

Note that “nm” designations are now marketing terms rather than direct physical measurements, emphasizing generational improvements in transistor architecture and density.

Cloudswrest says:
Cloudswrest says:

There is some “logic” to the claim though. They’ve increased transistor density by vertical transistor orientations like finfet and gate all around technologies. If they were to achieve the same densities using old flat/planer transistors the technology would have to really be ~2nm to achieve the same density.

Since “basic” Moore’s law is petering out, improvements now need to be accomplished by better architectures, packaging, and removing all the bloat from software. 50 years of Moore’s law have made people fat and lazy.

Jim says:

> Since “basic” Moore’s law is petering out,

It never needed to peter out so soon. Our electronics are nowhere near the advertised scale.

Cloudswrest says:

There are also some technologies on the near horizon that don’t necessarily involve further miniaturization. For example memristors, which are an analog non-volatile storage technology that can potentially store 16 bits in the space of one transistor. These are potentially very useful for AI applications as they are more like synapse. Other integrated analog technologies have vast potential that has been largely ignored for 50 years due to the digital revolution.

Cloudswrest says:

BTW, the latest lithography machines use 13.5nm EUV (extreme ultraviolet) with inverse diffraction masks. Here’s Jensen Huang.

https://youtu.be/cJROlT_ccFM?si=5rlGI5Bn9NfbWqkb&t=167

Jim says:

> 13.5nm EUV (extreme ultraviolet)

Does not really help all that much, because the high energies associated with these short wavelengths mean you cannot control them to 13.5 nanometers.

If your energies are greater than the bond strength of matter, you lose controllability.

Cloudswrest says:

Doesn’t look like the lithography machine uses any lenses, which don’t work well at these wavelengths. Just mirrors and a diffraction mask, which is all or nothing. Here’s Grok on the wavelength performance of dielectric mirrors.

The practical short-wavelength limit for high-reflectivity dielectric multilayer mirrors is in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) region, around 13.5 nm. Here, Mo/Si multilayers are used in EUV lithography systems, providing ~70% reflectivity at near-normal incidence (the theoretical maximum is ~75%). These are still dielectric-like interference coatings, though one material (Mo) is metallic; the principle relies on the small refractive index contrast in this regime.Below ~10 nm (soft X-rays), reflectivity drops sharply, and grazing-incidence optics or specialized multilayers (e.g., W/Al₂O₃ for hard X-rays) are used instead of normal-incidence dielectric mirrors. True all-dielectric normal-incidence mirrors are not feasible for X-rays due to strong absorption and near-unity refractive indices in most materials.Thus, the shortest practical wavelength for effective dielectric mirrors is approximately 13 nm in the EUV, limited by material absorption, index contrast, and fabrication precision for ultra-thin layers.

Huang says the ASML machines cost over 250 million dollars.

Cloudswrest says:

Veritasium just came out with a video on this ASML machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUHjLxm3V0

Taboaik says:

Going from 190 to 13.5 nm helps a lot, even though as you say “you cannot control them to 13.5 nanometers.” More than a factor of ten in the basic wavelength gives you a lot to work with despite not being able to make 13.5 nm features with one exposure.

TSMC plus maybe some memory manufacturers are making bank using EUV, TSMC starting with adopting it a bit for N7+, original N7 being a less aggressive version of Intel’s 10 nm which is now named Intel 7. Intel has one EUV using node family in high volume manufacturing, if Intel 18A fails it will likely be from trying to move to both gate-all-around and mandatory backside power delivery all at once. TSMC is doing the first with the very popular N2 which is about to the point of HVM, their A14 will introduce optional BPD.

Taboaik says:

Thanks to Elon Musk, there’s one huge exception to this in SpaceX.

Falcon 9 in the most basic technology isn’t advanced, gas-generator kerolox, a special grade of kerosene plus liquid oxygen, the first stage F-1 engines of the Saturn V were of the same basic concept. But they made that work in space for the second stage, and how they use these machines is unprecedented. Wikipedia finds it profitable to keep track of each first stage, two of them have flow 23 times so far.

The in development and testing Starship is another story, it has the first flown full-flow staged combustion cycle engines. Methalox is a conservative fuel choice, methane plus liquid oxygen, compare to liquid hydrogen which more efficient but much harder to deal with. But nobody flew a rocket powered by this mix into space until 2023. And SpaceX built upon the reuse concept to catch the two stages right where they can be put back in use without slowly moving them around, and no landing legs saves a lot of mass for putting stuff into orbit.

So there are serious advances in rocket design and control systems, and the cost efficiency of reuse has allowed the company to run away with the market, while building a massive satellite system for Internet delivery to help fund new development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Block_5

TheDividualist says:

I say inflation. If Bretton Woods was still in force ($35/ounce) a house (in gold) in SF is 10% cheaper now than in 1975. In my Budapest, it is 60% cheaper in gold now than in 2000. So it seems construction tech is progressing. The crime is that our money is worthless.

Oog en Hand says:
Jim says:

Refute what?

Vox assumes, without explanation that evolution by natural selection does not work.

I suppose he presented the explanation somewhere, but he does not present it here.

Reflect on the evolution by artificial selection of corn from teosinte. Obviously artificial selection explains corn. Why then should not natural selection explain other kinds?

FrankNorman says:

Hi Jim.
Vox Day’s MITTENS thesis (Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) does not claim that Natural Selection “does not work”, but rather that it works too slowly for the timescale over which various species are supposed to have diverged.

Specifically, if the only source of genetic change were random copying errors in cell division. point mutations, significant evolutionary changes would take orders of magnitude more time than the geologists would be willing to grant.
And his proposed solution is that genetic changes are not random.

Now selectively breeding seeds was probably more about artificially selecting existing genetic options, than about waiting millions of years for the right random mutation to come up. When intelligent agents can rig the game by making the environment favour what they want, things can indeed move along a lot faster.
But we’d really need to compare the genomes to check.

Plant genetics is also in important ways a different game from animal genetics.. plants will often have 4, 8 or even more copies of their entire genome in each cell, which is a huge “nope!” for any animal – (unless we’re taking about Rotifers, which break the normal rules in other strange ways.)

VoxDay isn’t the first person at all to try to quantify Neo-Darwinian “evolution by random mutation and natural selection” in mathematical terms, other people before him have done the same sort of thing; and they always seem to come to the same conclusion: it would be much too slow.

But I think that as soon as one allows for sources of genetic variation other than chance point-mutations, the MITTENS argument ceases to apply.

Jim says:

> but rather that it works too slowly for the timescale over which various species

But obviously, artificial selection can and does work that fast and far faster.

> if the only source of genetic change were random copying errors in cell division. point mutations, significant evolutionary changes would take orders of magnitude more time than the geologists would be willing to grant.

Teosinte. to corn is four point mutations in six thousand years. Six thousand years is plenty of time for four cell division point mutations. And obviously corn is an unrecognisably different species to teosinte.

If teosinte to corn is four mutations that actually matter, and which can take place in parallel rather than in series, then ape to man is something like a dozen mutations that actually matter, and can take place in parallel rather than in series.

vox’s argument is that it is millions and billions of mutations, and they have to take place in series. Obviously it is not millions and billions, and they do not have to take place in series.

That is the point of sexual reproduction, so that evolution can happen in parallel rather than in series.

So by random mutation, one peasant selected a variant of teosinte with one mutation, and a thousand miles away another peasant selected another variant of teosinte with a different mutation, and a thousand years later their descendants met, each teosinte variant cross pollinated the other, and each peasant selected those descendants with both mutations in a single plant.

So probably what happened is that four random point mutations plus artificial selection produced four different crop plants, and then hybridisation and artificial selection of those hybrids produced corn.

Ape to man is probably something like a dozen or two mutations, each of which independently makes an ape handier as a ground dwelling predator, and less handy as a tree dwelling fruit eater. Take an ancestral population of chimp like creatures, who mostly eat fruit, but also do war and hunting — then they spread onto the lightly treed Savannah, and each mutation is independently selected for in parallel.

If teosinte to corn to is four mutations that matter and make the important differences, how many mutations between ape and man that matter and make the important differences? Cannot be very many. And none of those mutations that make the differences that matter need to evolve serially. They could evolve in parallel.

Aryans were the result of natural selection working on a hybrid population of brown eyed dark haired middle eastern farmers and blonde haired, red haired, and blue eyed, but brown skinned, western hunder gatherers.

Suppose there are a dozen mutations that matter between ape and man. Then you could get a dozen races of man like creature on the savannah, each with one major mutation that selects for upright position or for better cooperation in hunt and war. Then sex, and more natural selection. Plenty of time for all that.

Vox Days argument is a million mutations that have to take place sequentially. But if teosinte to corn if four mutations that could have taken place in parallel, ape to man is something like a dozen or so mutations that could have taken place in parallel.

> Now selectively breeding seeds was probably more about artificially selecting existing genetic options,

None of the four mutations that matter in the teosinte to corn transition could survive in the wild, so they all must have happened after cultivation. None of them needed to happen in series, so they all probably happened independently in domesticated teosinte, producing four independent new crops, which subsequently hybridised. Each mutation produces a major qualitative difference, which the peasant would have seen as a different kind of crop. And when apes went out onto the savanna we probably got a dozen or so apeman species, each differing from the original ape in millions of insignificant and irrelevant mutations, and one mutation that actually mattered, and these dozen or so apeman species with their dozen or so important mutations subsequently hybridised, bringing the dozen or so mutations that actually matter into a single lineage.

Vox’s argument is that it takes millions and billions of mutations, and each has to go to fixation sequentially. Obviously it does not and they do not.

> selectively breeding seeds was probably more about artificially selecting existing genetic options,

Here you are saying that artificial selection is allowed to use sex, allowed to do evolution in parallel, but natural selection is for some reason forbidden to do evolution in parallel — each mutation must go to fixation before the next mutation is allowed.

Given that chimps cooperate to hunt, and that they frequently stand upright during hunting and war, a mutation for upright stance, a mutation for greater intelligence, and mutation for more distinct vocalisations can each be selected for independently — you can have one kind of apeman that is more upright, another that is smarter, and a third that is more fluent, then they encounter each other and abduct each other’s females.

Neurotoxin says:

I just tune out of this stuff now. Creationists have had more than a century and a half since On the Origin of Species was published (1859) to refute the theory of evolution. Every time they’ve come up with a new argument it has been shot down. Now, 166 years later, they have used up all the expectation that anyone should listen to their arguments. When the boy cries “Wolf!” for the hundredth time, sorry, I’m not listening any more.

Taboaik says:

The clock should get restarted with big advances in biology, like figuring out the structure of DNA launching molecular genetics, and more recently computer aided population genetics and possibly getting genetic data from old fossils, DNA is pretty hardy.

But your Cry Wolf heuristic is useful, and I add heuristics for Vox Day including his fundamental dishonesty, general refusal to listen to others, and being terminally bad at STEM. He’s mostly good for some insights outside of STEM and coining rhetoric.

I take a middle ground, not presuming to know how God created man. Evolution, perhaps with a nudge here and there? Why not, and can we rule out his being patient?

Anonymous Fake says:

[deleted because don’t feel like reading it]

And let this through because it’s Christmas. 🙂

[merry christmas AF! -Alf]

Anon says:

i kinda sympathize with the creationist , despite their annoying ways.
darwinian evolution point to either non-existence god or absent one.
trying to do theistic evolution etc not gonna cut it, either the universe was created and religion is true or it was spontaneously existed and reigion central claim of creator god is false.
that dose not negate that religion is a useful tool for society cooperation and cohesion.

creationist reject the end point of evolution , absent god / non existed god more than the argument itself.

jaggard says:

>darwinian evolution point to either non-existence god or absent one

Exactly. Evolution is wholly materialistisc and atheistic. It’s funny to see alleged christians pushing such an idea.

A2 says:

Who was Gregor Mendel anyway?

jaggard says:

Mendel? Catholic monk, so another example of self-refuting christian…assuming Mendel actually believed in “god”.

FrankNorman says:

Who was Gregor Mendel anyway?
The irony of someone asking something like that while posting on the Internet
Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Very short version: he was a German monk who did some experiments with selective breeding of plants, specifically peas.

A2 says:

Fellows, do I really have to play along? Please read the context.

FrankNorman says:

What is your basis for claiming that only a dozen genetic differences matter between chimpanzees and humans? Can you state which genes?
Chimpanzees and humans do not even have the same number of chromosomes!

Given that chimps cooperate to hunt, and that they frequently stand upright during hunting and war, a mutation for upright stance, a mutation for greater intelligence, and mutation for more distinct vocalisations can each be selected for independently — you can have one kind of apeman that is more upright, another that is smarter, and a third that is more fluent, then they encounter each other and abduct each other’s females.

Nothing about any of those things is that simple. Seriously. Jim, you’re an intelligent man, but on some subjects you come across as simply not knowing how much there is that you do not know.

FrankNorman says:


Neurotoxin says:
2025-12-24 at 22:26

I just tune out of this stuff now. Creationists have had more than a century and a half since On the Origin of Species was published (1859) to refute the theory of evolution. Every time they’ve come up with a new argument it has been shot down. Now, 166 years later, they have used up all the expectation that anyone should listen to their arguments. When the boy cries “Wolf!” for the hundredth time, sorry, I’m not listening any more.

People like you have never been listening. Because you never wanted to listen.

Remember Jim’s “poster child” principle? Piltdown man! There is a long list of supposedly super-important fossil finds… that later got discarded as not really important. But every time they find a small fragment of fossil jawbone it’s treated as proving big things… until they lose interest in it and find another one.

No, the Creationist criticisms of Darwinism have not been “shot down” – they have simply been waved away. It’s become beyond obvious – at least to me – that behind this is a mindset of “if your objection to Darwinism was valid, then Evolution could not be true. But Evolution is true, so your objection can’t be valid!”

(And then maybe a generation later, the Evolution people quietly admit that their critics were right all along… but only once they’ve come up with a new version of the theory that they can pretend does not have the same problems.)

Neurotoxin says:

People like you have never been listening. Because you never wanted to listen.

Fuck you. I’ve gotten into online arguments with creationists that went on for days and weeks. I’ve put in the work, you fucking cunt, don’t tell me I haven’t listened.

No, the Creationist criticisms of Darwinism have not been “shot down” – they have simply been waved away.

No, they have been shot down. Stop lying. This is a text-book example of psychological projection. It should be printed out and put in a display case in a museum. Like everyone else, I’ve engaged with the mentally retarded arguments from incredulity, the sub-moronic misunderstandings of basic thermodynamics, the calculations involving randomness without selective pressures instead of randomness with selective pressures, the “arguments” that amount to digging up and ass-raping the corpse of William of Occam. (“Why does the human eye have a blind spot? Maybe the creator just likes inflicting blind spots on us. Then why do some animal’s eyes not have blind spots? Maybe the creator likes inflicting blind spots on some organisms but not others.”) Stop anal necrophilia on William of Occam.

The sheer presumption of a creationist (or whatever you are) telling someone else that their arguments “have simply been waved away.”

Suck a pig dick.

Then have a Merry Christmas.

I’ll see you on the 26th or later.

Cloudswrest says:

that behind this is a mindset of “if your objection to Darwinism was valid, then Evolution could not be true. But Evolution is true, so your objection can’t be valid!”

Four billion years ago the surface of the Earth was magma. There was no life. Today the Earth is teaming with life and species. The fundamental axiomis we got from A to B by the application of unchanging natural laws. The rest is details.

Jim says:

every time they find a small fragment of fossil jawbone it’s treated as proving big things…

Lucy is a reasonably complete skeleton of a creature midway between ape and man, plus we have a trail of footprints that look to be a father, a wife, and a child, of creatures with feet like Lucy’s and of about Lucy’s size who walked as humans walk.

Plus we have a cavern that appears to have been used as a cemetery, by generation after generation of Homo naledi, creatures who seem reasonably intermediate between ape and man. Lucy is upright walking, but otherwise quite chimplike, Homo naledi is still fairly chimp like, but obviously had religion and thanks to their religion, we have a whole lot of their skeletons. Also obviously spent a lot more time in the trees than modern humans do.

We have a lot more than a fragment of jawbone for homo naledi. We have a whole graveyard.

Jim says:

> the Creationist criticisms of Darwinism have not been “shot down” – they have simply been waved away.

OK, give me your best young earth creationist objection to Darwinism, and we shall see if it has been shot down or not.

The vox objection is that species change requires zillions and cabillions of mutations, which is obviously silly, and each mutation has to go to fixation before the next one can happen, which is obviously silly.

Jim says:

> What is your basis for claiming that only a dozen or so genetic differences matter between chimpanzees and humans?

Because only four genetic differences matter much between corn and teosinte, and corn seems to be roughly as different from teosinte as chimps are from humans, so the number of important genetic differences, differences that matter, cannot be hugely larger between chimps and humans, than between corn and teosynte.

> Nothing about any of those things is that simple.

But one mutation can make a big difference to one of those things, and we have identified some single point mutations that do make a big difference to one of those things.

Supposed we have some chimplike creatures. In part of their range, the jungle part, they live mostly in the trees and eat mostly fruit. In another part, the savanna part, they live mostly on the ground, have to defend themselves from ground dwelling predators, and eat mostly other animals. Then in the savanna part of their range, any mutation that improves upright motion or ability to cooperate is going to be selected for independently You don’t have to wait for each mutation to go to fixation before the next one can happen.

Cloudswrest says:

Vox Day is quite annoying.

Denies Evolution
Denies moon landing
Denies relativity, or at least Einstein.
Quite the “boomer” hater.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen anything from him on “chemtrails”.

Jim says:

Most young earth creationists are annoying. They resemble the new atheist movement. They will not engage in rational debate. When anyone’s religion demands belief in falsifiable and false facts about this world, this results in self induced stupidity and refusal to have real conversations.

Albeit a belief that the world is only six thousand years old is far harder to falsify than a belief that women are equal to men or that all men are created equal. So the young earth creationists tend to be less irritating than that lot.

FrankNorman says:

Does anyone who offers criticism of Darwinian evolution, or points out that some people treat it as a religious dogma, necessarily have to be a young-earth Creationist?

Vox Day is not YEC. But he comes across as one of the people who, having seen how the establishment will lie shamelessly in regard to things like Covid or the Ukraine war, has stated to question everything, so to speak.
I’ve seen other people go even further.

Start with: the supposedly “safe and effective” Pfizer RNA-based vaccine is actually neither of those things. But actual proper vaccines are good, right? Cowpox really did confer immunity to Smallpox, right?
Most of us would say yes.
But to some people, that’s still too much faith in “the system” now. Nope, the entire “Science” of vaccines was always fake, they will decide. None of them ever worked!
And while you’re still scratching your head at how someone can sincerely claim that, next thing he’s hosting someone who denies the germ theory of disease!
(This was not Vox Day, I should repeat. Someone here in South Africa whose posts I started to follow when he was just criticizing the government.)
What can you say to someone who flatly denies that there are any such things as bacteria that can make people sick?

Jim says:

> Does anyone who offers criticism of Darwinian evolution, or points out that some people treat it as a religious dogma, necessarily have to be a young-earth Creationist?

All the criticisms I see are religiously founded, and founded on stupid and evil religions. The left is more creationist than the right. They refuse to accept evolution from the neck up.

A2 says:

Still, is it as bad as soulless p-zombies in a simulation chowing down an endless stream of psychedelic drugs while transitioning to their real sex and denying genetics? That’s where our exceedingly clever mainstream fellows have ended up.

someDude says:

I posted this exact comment on his site regarding your disagreement with his theory. His comment

**********************************************************************************************************
You’re literally retarded. So is Jim of Jim’s Blog. Of course I dealt with parallel fixation. That was the very first thing that evolutionists run to, never mind that it also disproves Darwin and natural selection.

He hasn’t done the math. You haven’t done the math. You’re too stupid and lazy to do it.

I did. So did JBS Haldane. So did Stanislaw Ulam. We all reached the same conclusion. The only difference is that I had access to the genetic data required to empirically support the math.
*********************************************************************************************************

I’ve read him quite a bit and I don’t see where he addresses parallel fixation. Another commenter mentioned that I did not read Vox’s book. Perhaps he addressed in his books, but he certainly does not address it in any of his blogs or writings for public viewing

Jim says:

Parallel fixation disproves Darwin and natural selection?

How does that make any sense?

Consider a tribe of apes. One branch hangs out in the trees and eats mostly fruit, with a little bit of hunting. It only has to fight off the smaller tree climbing big cats. One hangs out on the savanna, relies on hunting and weapons, and has to discourage lions by collective defence and organised violence. Obviously every difference between man and ape is going to be under parallel selection. There is no reason for one difference to come first, and another difference to come second. There is no reason for one gene change to come before another gene change. They are not like steps on a ladder, at least not for quite small species differences such as those between men and apes.

OK, the amniote egg, separating amphibians and reptiles, could not happen until fish had evolved into amphibians, but every difference between a fish and amphibian can happen in parallel. Between fish and amphibians, you only have one change that depends on previous changes. All the differences between a fish and amphibian are independently useful for a fish that lives on the tidal margins, so can all evolve in parallel.

someDude says:

Jim, I agree with you. It’s just that I don’t understand Vox’s attitude. He’s a smart Guy and yet, he has these ticks. There is also that comically ridiculous obsession with Neil Gaiman

FrankNorman says:

The basic function of the amniotic egg is that reproduction can (in fact must) occur on land, in air, rather than the animals having to be in water to lay eggs.

If we’re making evolutionary just-so stories, one could imagine a species of lobe-finned fish that crawled ashore to lay its eggs, because they would be safer from predators there.
Contrast with most amphibians, which lay thousands of eggs, most of which never make it to adulthood.

And then along come some cartilaginous fish, not even body fish, that laugh at the whole evolutionary scheme by not laying eggs as such at all, but giving birth to live young.

alf says:

Vox is just not that smart. Which is to say, still pretty smart, but a lot less smart than he makes himself out to be, which makes him a lot dumber than he could’ve been. All this is a pretty common phenomenon among men, pride being the prime sin for a reason.

Taboaik says:

Vox claims to have about the same IQ as I do, and I think he is that smart, just not about STEM.

There he’s crippled by being fundamentally dishonest, blood will tell, and it just doesn’t work with STEM at all. Along with a fundamental disrespect of STEM people I think he got from his outlaw father, which along with his insistence on under-resourcing projects has caused so many to fail over many decades going back to his gaming days.

His susceptibility to the sin of pride has been ridiculously blatant for decades, and both of these flaws played a large role in his self-immolation as an “alt right” thought leader back when he went crazy about some postings against him and his wife on Gab. I don’t think he’s been very interesting since then, although he still does put out some useful thoughts and rhetoric, and he’s settled on his one longtime successful niche as a publisher and perhaps author. Although I hope he’s stepped up his organization’s editing quality.

As for the instant question, if you are an honest STEM type, there’s just no reason to put in the effort to see if he’s correct or not with his new anti-evolutionary theory unless it gains traction.

And kudos to Jim for his tribes of apes example, you can see how each branch would acquire traits which would also be useful for the other. What each branch gains to fight off predators, be they tree climbing big cats or lions, what makes the tree branch better at finding and getting fruit will still be useful for the mostly land based one, etc. All they have to do is not diverge so much they are no longer interfertile.

Taboaik says:

Vox Day is less than a zero when it comes to anything STEM, and here we may have another example. As far as I can tell from some quick searches, “parallel fixation” is a more precise way to say parallel evolution, which of course is a well known and obvious evolutionary concept, similar selection pressures result in similar mutations (alleles).

See the map of lactose tolerance, there’s a huge set in Africa and just one for the rest of the world (it gimps a regulatory gene that turns off lactase production after a child is weaned). This says a whole bunch of things, but certainly nothing against evolution.

Jim (and I) are not talking about that at all. Instead, it is the concept that two different favorable (it is strongly implied) mutations can happen in a single timeline, you could say “in parallel,” and eventually join together in one set of organisms as they geographically reach each other, giving that set even more favorable survival characteristics. Jim gave us an artificial selection example, and it’s easy to see it happening without a helping hand of humans.

So you have enough organisms (don’t forget humans went through at least one severe narrowing), you can in theory radically collapse the timeline for the intuitive “one mutation at a time” simple, first cut explanation of how evolution works.

I also completely fail to see how either concept “disproves Darwin and natural selection” but I haven’t read anything he writes on this, having already seen how very bad he is at any type of STEM, and not having a strong enough background in evolution at this level to make it worth my time by learning that along with evolutionary math which I always found boring for some reason.

someDude says:

Agreed, I also am wondering if it is worth the time to dig into the Math and all the processes involved. Funny thing is Vox goes on and on about serial fixation in his blog posts for public viewing, yet nothing on parallel fixation in those same blogs. Apparently, it is in one of his books

His impatience is in stark contrast to Jim’s whose patience in dealing with known shills like Anonymous Fake and possible shills like Jaggard is assuming legendary proportions.

A2 says:

I can see the scene at the publisher.

“Boss, we got another AI-written book disproving evolution.”
“(Sigh) Put it in the pile.”

S says:

Vox Day has an interview on the Tree of Woe (Why is the Probability Zero?) where he talks about his book.

“Not at all. The example that I used, the e. Coli experiment that produced the 1,600 generations per fixation rate, specifically mentioned that the 25 fixations occurred in parallel. So I couldn’t figure out how he thought a retreat to parallel processing was an answer to a problem that already incorporated that.”

“To be clear, I propose something called Intelligent Genetic Manipulation, or IGM. It’s the rational conclusion that the elimination of all of the natural mechanisms as possibilities for explaining the origin of the species and the genetic variance that we observe means that the most parsimonious explanation is intentional manipulation of the genetic code. It’s not based on religion or philosophy, it’s the most logical conclusion now that we know natural random processes can’t account for what we observe. Dr. Tipler thought highly enough of it that he gave the theory a name.

It’s rather a clever name, actually, since Gray tends to make one thing of aliens, who are definitely one of the possible candidates for the manipulators.”

Aliens doesn’t work because
1) they need to evolve
2) the genetic modifications still needs to reach fixation in the population

Divine intervention driving the evolution of all life that can be seen except during experiments is chutzpah on the level of Kharijites.

Cloudswrest says:

It’s the black monolith I tell you!

Cloudswrest says:

I read claims that the large human brain is basically a Fisherian runaway. People also speak of the cerebrum as the “most complex” part of the brain. But personally, I think it’s architecturally the simplest. It’s like DRAM in the sense that it’s just “more of the same”. People often live, and even recover somewhat, after permanent damage to their cerebrum due to a stroke, or even a bullet. The brain just reallocates cerebral resources. But get the same amount of damage to the “more primitive”, or so called “reptilian”, parts of your brain and you’re permanently fucked, if not dead.

It would not surprise me if the genetic differences between a man and a chimp that are responsible for the larger human brain are less than 100 genes. The bigger human brain is just “more of same” where quantitative change becomes qualitative change.

Jim says:

Human intelligence is obviously not Fisherian runaway, because obviously females do not prefer intelligence.

Indeed, cheerful disregard of social norms is an obvious advantage with chicks, which tends to be correlated with being too stupid to understand social norms or consequences, or to understand when one can get away with breaking them, or how to get away with breaking them. Human female sexual selection selects for stupidity and stupid violence. Females just do not comprehend male on male power dynamics, they do not understand cooperation at scale. Males select for smarts by forming organisations composed of smart people. Females do not select for smarts, neither sexually, nor in employment decisions.

The human speciality is large scale cooperation. That is how we stood off the lions when we came down from the trees, and a thousand genocides continued to select for ever greater ability to cooperate at ever larger scales.

We are smart and virtuous, because the smart and virtuous killed off the stupid and wicked.

Cloudswrest says:

Yes, not a Fisherian runaway in the technical sense of *sexual* selection. But still a strongly selective positive feedback loop.

Jim says:

Obviously the smarter the hominid, the larger the scale at which it can successfully cooperate, and therefore successfully genocide inferior races of hominid.

On the other hand, the larger the scale of cooperation, the greater the propensity for cooperation to go horribly wrong, so the smart race winds up being exterminated by the large scale state that it successfully created.

Jehu says:

The first meaningful act of cooperation is of course to shut down female sexual selection hard. Monogamy is a massively overpowered social technology.

Pax Imperialis says:

Wave function collapse bothers me a great deal. It implies there is a great deal of physics we do not know, and there doesn’t seem much work to figure it out, rather much work seems to go into ignoring it. Hence MWI.

Jim, what is your opinion on the many worlds Interpretation? I feel the attempt to reconcile quantum with relativity is a very large jump in reasoning, like throwing up one’s hands in surrendering.

Cloudswrest says:

Bell’s inequality, verified by the Aspect experiment, demonstrates that no shared pre-existing/pre-measurement properties between two entangled particles (hidden properties) can reproduce the empirically observed correlation statistics, which perfectly match the predictions of quantum mechanics. And these correlations are non-local. Non-local correlations are order independent.

So basically these two particles have correlating, non pre-existing properties! They don’t exist yet, but they match when you measure them! My view is these variables are “malloc’ed” into existence at time of particle creation, and their values are initialized at measurement. Reality at the quantum level is dynamically created.

Cloudswrest says:

And while these correlations are non-local, they can’t be used for super luminal communications because each observer only sees random results and the correlations are not apparent until the observers get together (sub luminally) and compare results. So it’s literally like Nature is fucking with you! It’s like User versus Supervisor mode in an operating system. Users don’t have direct access to Supervisor system calls.

Pax Imperialis says:

And all that is fine, that means there is still physics to discover, my problem is that many in physics today seem to be like, ‘shut up and calculate’ and ‘don’t worry, it’s obviously many worlds’. The former is giving up, and the latter is an ass pull, and yet it’s one of the most, if not the most, accepted interpretations. All this signals to me that physics is in decline. Much like tech.

Cloudswrest says:

The two biggest issues I’m aware of with unifying Relativity with Quantum mechanics are:

1. Practical. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in effect than the other know forces, making relevant empirical study virtually impossible at the quantum level. So it’s hard to extract clues from nature. Although they have validated a neutron’s wave function variance as it falls in a gravitational potential.

2. Theoretical. Quantum mechanics is a linear theory. General Relativity is manifestly non-linear. So unmodified, QM is mathematically incompatible with GR.

Karl says:

No, it’s non-linear after the second quantization as every particle interacts with its own wave-function. Non-linear differential equations are difficult to solve. So most people use linear approximations.

Problem is a relativistic Hamilton operator. If relativistic expressions are used for the kinetic energy, difficult to solve.

Cloudswrest says:

… then ape to man is something like a dozen mutations that actually matter, and can take place in parallel rather than in series.

This is very apropos to the de-extinction efforts for the woolly mammoth, dire wolf, passenger pigeon, etc. They’ve already transferred the woolly mammoth hair gene into mice, creating “woolly mice”. They’ve already transferred dire wolf genes into real wolves (elephants are too expensive and difficult to work with, unlike canines). They don’t have to update all the millions of differences between an elephant and a mammoth to make a “practical” mammoth, or one good enough for the tundra. Purists will exclaim, “That’s not a real woolly mammoth. You’ve just made a bigger, hairy elephant. Well maybe, but there’s no deadline. You can always update more genes at your leisure.

Chimpanzees and humans do not even have the same number of chromosomes!

One human chromosome is the combination of two chimp chromosomes. The rest are analogous. Although not common, there are many examples of hybrids with mismatched chromosomes being fertile. If common descent is true then chromosome must have changed now and then.

I have a speculation that there exists events in the past that cause vast chromosomal corruption, perhaps retroviral plagues, that maybe kill off a sizable majority of the population, and the survivors wandering around like mutants from a SciFi. But DNA repair mechanisms and natural selection quickly scrub things clean and polish off the survivors resulting in a radiation of new species with varying chromosome numbers.

FrankNorman says:

I have a speculation that there exists events in the past that cause vast chromosomal corruption, perhaps retroviral plagues, that maybe kill off a sizable majority of the population, and the survivors wandering around like mutants from a SciFi. But DNA repair mechanisms and natural selection quickly scrub things clean and polish off the survivors resulting in a radiation of new species with varying chromosome numbers.

A Darwinian purist would scream in horror at your suggestion of “hopeful monsters”. 🙂
But yes, retroviruses are a real thing, that can and do make an organism’s descendants have some different genes from their ancestors.
As I said earlier… one valid criticism of VoxDay’s MITTENS idea is that it ignores causes of genetic change other than point-mutations.

Frater Lupus says:

Bringing the two themes in the comment section together, QM and evolution; I don’t see quantum indeterminacy in the past mentioned often. In elementary QM, time evolution forwards is like time evolution backwards, but conjugating the wave function. We know that the future is undetermined: we can’t predict things like atom spontaneous fission. These low-level indeterminacies must accumulate and get progressively macroscopic, until they seep into the initial conditions of chaotic processes, like the climate, rendering the future fundamentally unpredictable. We have to reach and ‘collapse’ it.
The same must happen if we go into the past. Of course we, as conscious beings, are hugely correlated to the past wave function of our planet, having many observations. For example, we exactly know the weather of the past 100 years or so. But as we go further into the past, quantum indeterminacy must become more dominant, as we have fewer observations, and (allegedly) fewer conscious observers.
Imagine trying to reason about the origin of life, at least 3.5 billion years in the past, and happening at a microscopic scale. That event must be so below the quantum indeterminacy threshold, that in our past there must have been quite many totally different, equally probable, precursor events: in time, place and probably nature. And to top the irony, for the event to have been concrete, or collapsed, there should had been a conscious observer to the origin of life. Who?
Probably other not so remote, but microscopic phenomena, like random mutations in the remote past, are also quite under the quantum noise threshold.

Taboaik says:

“I feel the attempt to reconcile quantum with relativity is a very large jump in reasoning”

Do you mean reconciling gravity with any or all of the other fundamental forces, EM, and the strong and weak interactions? Not as I understand it that we’ve got a complete model of the three others.

Ignoring interpretations like the Copenhagen and MWI and “just doing the math” has gotten us a long ways, even if it’s aggravating not to know what’s really happening. Is there any reason to believe we can do it, or should have done it in the short time scale we’ve been trying, which is only a century for gravity and EM?

Tejano Bob says:

The veins through the skull part I found pretty compelling:
https://www.macroevolution.net/

FrankNorman says:


Tejano Bob says:
2025-12-25 at 00:19

The veins through the skull part I found pretty compelling:
https://www.macroevolution.net/

Trying to take that theory about human origins seriously is like trying to read something with a bunch of pigeons perching nearby all going “Kook! Kook-kook-kook!”.
The way the author peppers his pages with quotes from other people praising him does not enhance his credibility.

Tejano Bob says:

Some people are terrible at sales.

1. He’s a biologist that specializes in hybrids, not sales.
2. He identifies what you would expect the evidence of any given hybrid to look like.
3. He identifies the differences between chimps and humans; then identifies a species with those characteristics.
4. I’m not a biologist; however the argument was accessible to me.

Try again.

Tejano Bob says:

“I have a speculation that there exists events in the past that cause vast chromosomal corruption, perhaps retroviral plagues, that maybe kill off a sizable majority of the population, and the survivors wandering around like mutants from a SciFi. But DNA repair mechanisms and natural selection quickly scrub things clean and polish off the survivors resulting in a radiation of new species with varying chromosome numbers.”

BTW, one of the markers of hybridization is chromosomal counts ending up somewhere between the two hybrid species; e.g. pig=2×19, chimp=2×24, human 2×23.

FrankNorman says:

I’m enough of a biologist that his theory sounds ridiculous.

First off… humans aren’t supposed to be descended from chimpanzees. That was never Darwin’s claim. Rather, there was supposed to have been some kind of ape species millions of years ago, that now no longer exists, which had descendants that evolved in at least two different directions – one that lead eventually to modern chimpanzees, the other leading to the hominid line, and therefore eventually to beings that believe in equality of the sexes, or the Labour Theory of Value. 🙂
Such evolution! Much brain development! Such wow!

Joking apart… anyone who approaches this topic by positing modern-day chimps as ancestral to humans doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Chimpanzees as such did not exist yet at the time of the first hominids.

The same would apply to modern-day wild pigs (as distinct from farm pigs selectively bred by man). For that guy’s theory to hold any water, it would need to be a hybridization of something ancestral to modern pigs, and something ancestral to modern humans.
And if such a thing had happened, we would not just find superficial similarities in anatomy, but substantial parts of the genome that were obviously porcine not simian.

Jim says:

> One that lead eventually to modern chimpanzees, the other leading to the hominid line, and therefore eventually to beings that believe in equality of the sexes, or the Labour Theory of Value. 🙂

One often sees chimps spending time in environments where they have to go between trees on the ground, and are exposed to risk from ground predators. We also sometimes see chimps using tools.

So, the progenitor species, the ancestor of chimps and men, split into two species, one specialised for ground life, and one specialised for tree life, and, somewhat orthogonally to ground and trees, the progenitor species also split into specialisation for tool use and non tool use – four species, or potential species.

And we are the branch that specialised in ground living, and also specialised in tool use. Tree dwelling tool users did not get far — could never get to using tools that could not be immediately discarded after a single use, so a few hundred thousand years ago were outcompeted by ground living kinds that had better — which is to say more deadly — tools.

Jim says:

You are now on moderation pending the Christian affirmation.

The article you linked to looks to have been posted by a child molesting gay Jewish demon worshipper.

Pax Imperialis says:

>Would his message of peace, mercy, and resistance to empire be branded as extremism?

Bullshit.

And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.

Mark 7:18–23

Jesus would have been labeled a Christian fundamentalist at best and an extremist most likely for his views on good and evil, law, and what characterized basic human dignity. He would have been actively suppressed, raided by the FBI and IRS, and perhaps even received the Waco treatment for worse of all he said.

“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Luke 22:36

For self sufficiency and self defense is heretical in the ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ open society.

>pending the Christian affirmation

These type of posters can’t even post scripture outside the false modern ‘Jesus as a community organizer’ view. What good would saying the Nicene Creed or any other affirmation do? Clearly it has not worked for the Catholics, and I doubt it works for any other group outside keeping the most demon infested out. I have seen this problem at lot while touring a plethora of Churches. At this point, need direct affirmation of scripture.

FrankNorman says:

And yet, when challenged to make that affirmation… they won’t do it.

Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

Merry Christmas, Friends.

cloudswrest says:
Randall says:

x.com/trad_west_/status/2004326292448055645
In 1965, CBS executives were terrified of A Charlie Brown Christmas special. They told creator Charles Schulz that having Linus read from the Gospel of Luke was “too religious” for television and would offend the audience. Schulz, a devout Christian, refused to back down. He told them: “If we don’t tell the true meaning of Christmas, who will?” It aired, unedited. It became the second most-watched show of the year and won an Emmy. Even in the 60s, the world wanted to erase Christ from Christmas. One man’s integrity kept Him on the screen for 50+ years.

Alf says:

Merry christmas!

A2 says:

Merry Christmas.

Adam says:

Merry Christmas everyone!

Contaminated NEET says:

Peace on Earth to men of good will.

FrankNorman says:

Peace to those on whom God’s favour rests.

Pax Imperialis says:

Hope all good men here had a merry Christmas and found themselves closer to God.

Varna says:

Merry Christmas, gentlemen!

Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, has illuminated the world with the light of knowledge, for through it those who serve the stars have been taught to worship Thee, the Sun of Truth, and to know Thee, the Rising Star from on high. O Lord, glory to Thee!

The Virgin on this day gives birth to the Supernatural, and the earth brings the cave to the Unapproachable; the angels and the shepherds sing praises, and the wise men travel with the star, for the sake of us was born the young Child, the Eternal God. Be adorned, cave, for the Lamb is coming, bearing Christ in her womb. And you, manger, raise up with the word of him who has freed us from the meaningless deeds of the earth. Shepherd, who playeth on the flute, bear witness to the wondrous miracle; and you, wise men from Persia, bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the king, for the Lord is born of a virgin. And before Him, humbly prostrating herself, the Mother herself bowed, addressing Him who was in Her embrace: “How was Thou begotten in Me? Or how didst Thou grow in Me, my Deliverer and my God?”

Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth! On this day, Bethlehem receives the One who sits forever with the Father. On this day, the angels of the newborn Child praise God: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, and goodwill among men!”

Oog en Hand says:

The ONLY way to save Christianity is [*deleted*]

Jim says:

I don’t think it is.

I would be happy to discuss this, but past experience is you just throw out hot takes and move right on.

Now if you present an actual argument, rather than confident assertion, I would allow it through.

The movement you reference looks thoroughly pozzed to me. Well, all the mainstream Christian denominations are pozzed, but each denomination contains an actually Christian element, and we are seeing the actually Christian element of each major denomination start to break away, notably GAFCON.

What I hope to see is Russian Orthodox breaks from Orthodox, Trad Catholic excommunicates a Vatican full of poofs, and Gafcon breaks from Canterbury, then they unite with each other.

Proclaiming that one denomination full of lesbian pastors is superior to another faction full of faggot priests buggering choirboys is unhelpful discord between denominations that should be looking inward at the beam in their own eye, rather than the mote in someone else’s eye.

And, as always, if anyone wants to tell Christians what Christianity really is on my blog, he first has to affirm the humanity and divinity of Christ.

Oog en Hand says:

[*deleted*]

Jim says:

And what is your position on Christology?

Oog en Hand says:

[*deleted*]

Jim says:

The Cominator says:

Merry Christmas and peace to all men of goodwill.

Humungus says:

Seasons Greetings from Humungus

On tech declining… Not only is tech in decline, but engine technology also. Which led me to research the most robust gasoline engine. The Chrysler Slant Six was the most “bulletproof” motor. Produced in the 60s through 90s it was a simple design with relatively fewer moving parts. That’s the key: simplicity. My personal favorite is the GM 350ci V8. There are instances of over a million miles on that engine.

On the topic of bitcoin. I don’t trust it due to the chance of being hacked. It’s complicated. Humungus likes simple things. But if one wanted to transfer wealth from one country to another under the radar of government snooping, that would be the way. Incidentally, I found a very interesting blog on the initial concept of bitcoin by “Satoshi”, no doubt a nom de gerri

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/threads/1/

Merry Christmas from The Humungus
Wasteland wanderer

Randall says:

Merry Christmas and Peace to all Men of Good Will.

c4ssidy says:

I don’t think we need random middle class people owning or managing the rental homes. It’s very unlikely that they understand the complexities of mold creation, and airflow. I drink at Starbucks. I buy food from corporate enterprises. My tech is all Apple. I’m all for wealthy people making more money, but I’d rather they have a large salary (or dividends) at a place with strict schemes of procedures with the input of specialist labour and teams of lawyers. If it applies to my coffee, fine with having the same logic for houses. Home planning, home building, home maintenance, benefits from the same economies of scale that you get on the other production lines

Jim says:

If only a few people own everything, property rights become indefensible — indefensible in that no one is going to pick up a weapon and actually defend them.

Maybe capitalism would be more economically efficient with an extreme gini coefficient, but it also going to end with capitalists hanging from ropes.

You need property ownership to be widely distributed, or else there will be no property.

Indeed, this was the Marxist recipe — that everything would wind up belonging to a few gigantic capitalists, and then no one would defend it from the Marxists.

Did not happen, because in addition to economies of scale, there are also diseconomies of scale. It turns out, and I speak from experience, there are enormous benefits to efficiency and productivity if the owner of the house knows the renter, the repairs, and the maintenance. Extreme concentration of ownership only happens when the state shoves its thumb on the balance in favor of highly concentrated ownership, because it turns out it is hard for a single entity to manage a lot of stuff.

Highly concentrated ownership just does not work very well in practice, because you wind up with too many layers of bureaucracy between the owner and the property.

Randall says:

Hayek was asked to leave “a statement for the future generations.”

x.com/FAHayekSays/status/2003455384863015137
“Modern civilization which enables us to maintain 4 billion people was made possible by the institution of private property. It is only thanks to this institution that we achieved an extensive order far exceeding anybody’s knowledge.” “If you destroy that moral basis, which consists in the recognition of private property, we will destroy the sources which nourish present-day mankind, and create a catastrophe of starvation beyond anything mankind has yet experienced.”

Alf says:

aka the Cambodian genocide

The Cominator says:

I know Jim isn’t a huge fan but Henry George mostly solved the real estate renters problem. Just need a non democratic system to uphold his ideas and the death penalty for corrupt political rent seekers who lobby against it.

Jim says:

George’s solution works great assuming a wise, competent, and efficient government with good intentions. Trouble is that even you have wisdom, competence, and efficiency at the top, this is very difficult to translate into wisdom, competence, and efficiency all the way down. The same scaling laws that have ruinous consequences for giant corporations attempting to rent lots of properties to lots of individuals have even more destructive consequences for governments attempting to collect a land rent that is a large portion of the long term lease value of the land.

A2 says:

The naive faith in government by godless socialists is quite touching at times.

The Cominator says:

George and Marx and their followers didn’t like each other at all with George calling Marx the prince of muddle heads. I resent the implication I’m some kind of leftist for acknowledging that while some of the details are difficult (as is any tax involving assessments) George is fundamentally right.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1947.tb00657.x

A2 says:

Not primarily intended for you though, but a belief in a wise, competent and efficient government is seldom well-founded nor rewarded.

Contaminated NEET says:

Our rulers don’t see why random middle class people should own cars, live in detached homes, or eat meat outside of holidays. They should hang for this. Someday they most certainly will, if not by our hands, than by those of the slaves and mercenaries they brought in to replace us. I only hope I’m still on this Earth then to see it.

Handi says:

Merry Christmas to all female property enjoyers!

S says:

Merry Christmas.

orthodox_uber_chad says:

Why don’t the chinks just go nuclear?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *