Wondrous Woman — Splendid Isolation

Longtime Readers of this website will know that despite its several formats, there has been one constant, to whit the statement that Lynda Carter is one of the most beautiful women who ever lived. So without further preamble: No need to thank me; it’s all part of the service.

via Wondrous Woman — Splendid Isolation

Oh, hells yeah! Lynda Carter FTW. There’s a chicken place close to work that has a near full size poster of her as WW on the wall. I sit across from it every time I eat there.

Sunday Morning Saturday Wrap-Up

Good stuff.

Unranked Florida beats #5 LSU. We beat Florida.

Unranked Miss St. beats #8 Auburn. We beat Miss St.

Unranked Texas A&M beats #13 Kentucky.

Kentucky has scored 7 points on offence in the last 6 quarters and didn’t give the ball to Bennie Snell in OT against A&M? Coaches forgot to bring their brains to College Station. Sad.

Chinese Computer Parts Now Come With Free Egg Roll!


During the ensuing top-secret probe, which remains open more than three years later, investigators determined that the chips allowed the attackers to create a stealth doorway into any network that included the altered machines. Multiple people familiar with the matter say investigators found that the chips had been inserted at factories run by manufacturing subcontractors in China.

Nobody with two brain cells to rub together is surprised. Nobody, except this full of shit “expert”.

Still, to actually accomplish a seeding attack would mean developing a deep understanding of a product’s design, manipulating components at the factory, and ensuring that the doctored devices made it through the global logistics chain to the desired location—a feat akin to throwing a stick in the Yangtze River upstream from Shanghai and ensuring that it washes ashore in Seattle. “Having a well-done, nation-state-level hardware implant surface would be like witnessing a unicorn jumping over a rainbow,” says Joe Grand, a hardware hacker and the founder of Grand Idea Studio Inc. “Hardware is just so far off the radar, it’s almost treated like black magic.”

Who can afford to buy lots really big, powerful, relatively expensive servers? Really big companies and government agencies, that’s who, you idiot. How do you make sure they buy the right servers? You sell the parts cheap to the supplier who does business with those entities. Its not wocket science, people.


Oh and Apple found these exploit chips too, but didn’t say anything to anybody:

Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.

Traitorous bastards.


Goodbye, Madison!


The Madison City Council on Tuesday backed the removal of a Confederate monument in Forest Hill Cemetery that lists the names of about 140 Confederate soldiers buried there.

The Madison City Council backed the removal of a Confederate monument in Forest Hill Cemetery Tuesday after it overrode a commission decision that called for the monument to remain.

Council members voted 16-2 to overturn the Landmarks Commission’s ruling that barred the removal of a large, stone monument that lists the names of about 140 prisoners-of-war buried in a section of the cemetery known as Confederate Rest.

Steve Sailer comments:

What about the dead bodies of the 140 POWs who died for the False Narrative of Southern secession? Can you allow their mortal remains to pollute the moral purity of your cemetery? Maybe the POWs should be dug up and their dust scattered to the winds?

My own thoughts are that just removing the monument digging up the remains is not sufficient. Nope, to be sure you’d really need to nuke the site (Madison and it’s immediate surrounds) from orbit.



“I wonder if they’d publish a feminist rewrite of a chapter from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.”

This process is the one, single thread that ties all twenty of our papers together, even though we used a variety of methods to come up with the various ideas fed into their system to see how the editors and peer reviewers would respond. Sometimes we just thought a nutty or inhumane idea up and ran with it. What if we write a paper saying we should train men like we do dogs—to prevent rape culture? Hence came the “Dog Park” paper. What if we write a paper claiming that when a guy privately masturbates while thinking about a woman (without her consent—in fact, without her ever finding out about it) that he’s committing sexual violence against her? That gave us the “Masturbation” paper. What if we argue that the reason superintelligent AI is potentially dangerous is because it is being programmed to be masculinist and imperialist using Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Lacanian psychoanalysis? That’s our “Feminist AI” paper. What if we argued that “a fat body is a legitimately built body” as a foundation for introducing a category for fat bodybuilding into the sport of professional bodybuilding? You can read how that went in Fat Studies.

At other times, we scoured the existing grievance studies literature to see where it was already going awry and then tried to magnify those problems. Feminist glaciology? Okay, we’ll copy it and write a feminist astronomy paper that argues feminist and queer astrology should be considered part of the science of astronomy, which we’ll brand as intrinsically sexist. Reviewers were very enthusiastic about that idea. Using a method like thematic analysis to spin favored interpretations of data? Fine, we wrote a paper about trans people in the workplace that does just that. Men use “male preserves” to enact dying “macho” masculinities discourses in a way society at large won’t accept? No problem. We published a paper best summarized as, “A gender scholar goes to Hooters to try to figure out why it exists.” “Defamiliarizing,” common experiences, pretending to be mystified by them and then looking for social constructions to explain them? Sure, our “Dildos” paper did that to answer the questions, “Why don’t straight men tend to masturbate via anal penetration, and what might happen if they did?” Hint: according to our paper in Sexuality and Culture, a leading sexualities journal, they will be less transphobic and more feminist as a result.


It is to laugh and then weep or maybe the other way ’round?

The (mandatory) new logo for every college with a “gender” or “studies” department.

theatre-mask1 no border


Are All Women Sociopaths?

Maybe not, but this one sure seems to be.

As Carreyrou writes, the company she built was just a pile of one deceit atop another. When Holmes courted Walgreens, she created completely false test results from their blood tests. When the company’s chief financial officer found out, Holmes fired him on the spot. Holmes told other investors that Theranos was going to make $100 million in revenue in 2014, but in reality the company was only on track to make $100,000 that year. She told the press that her blood-testing machine was capable of making over 1,000 tests, when in reality, it could only do one single type of test. She lied about a contract Theranos had with the Department of Defense, when she said her technology was being used in the battlefield, even though it was not. She repeatedly made up complete stories to the press about everything from her schooling to profits to the number of people whose lives would be saved from her bogus technology. And she did it all, day in and day out, while ensuring that no one inside or outside her company could publicly challenge the truthfulness of her claims.


She shouldn’t be in jail though; she should be under the jail. Will she serve a day in prison? Doubtful, because vagina.

There’s a nice podcast at the OP link that’s worth listening to. Runs 60 minutes. Can’t seem to get the embed link to work here in WP.

The Light Switch Effect – How Women Re-write The Past To Suit Their Present

I was originally typing this as a comment reply to this thread, but it turned into an entire post.

/u/projectself was writing about how women re-write history towards the end of a relationship:

Re-writing of history – It doesn’t matter that she was sending you love notes and texts a month ago. She has been unhappy for a long time now.

I call this the light-switch effect. And it happens when a woman is no longer attracted to you and is moving on, whether or not she cheated.

It’s not that she’s discrediting all the past good in the relationship, she actually believes it never existed. Let me expand on that a little, and tie it into what we call Briffault’s law.

Women use their emotional state to define reality- we already know this. When a man feels an emotion, he asks, what could have caused this emotion? Is it reasonable and rational? Perhaps it is, or is not, but exploring this line of reasoning is how he determines whether or not his feelings match objective reality. If the facts don’t line up, perhaps his reaction was wrong.

When a woman feels an emotion, she uses this as her objective reality. Why would she feel betrayed unless somebody had betrayed her? Why would she feel sad unless somebody or something made her sad?

Therefore the decisions she makes based on her reality may seem like total nonsense to a man (women are crazy, right?), because she has determined her reality based on the only prime truth she knows: her emotional state. If a woman is sad, she tells you “you made me sad.” She didn’t decide her emotional state, you did. Changing her own emotional state is outside the purview of her control.

So that means the emotional state she is experiencing means that you’ve done something to create that state, intentionally or not. Since she is sad, you’ve made her sad. Her objective reality states that you’ve done something wrong to make her sad. This is where a lot of arguments begin, because the man mistakenly will argue “you’ve taken what I said the wrong way, of course I didn’t mean it that way,” and to her, it doesn’t matter what is rational or reasonable. She is sad and she wouldn’t be sad if there wasn’t a reason to be sad. Her sadness defined this reality for her. If you hadn’t done something worthy of her being sad about, she simply wouldn’t be sad.

So back to the light-switch effect. When you’ve dated a woman for multiple years, and things start going sour, you experience the revisionist history where she claims to have “never loved you” or that you were “always abusive.” Yes, the always/never statements. And what they reflect isn’t a reality, rather, they reflect her new reality based on her emotions.

The thought process looks much like this: If true love is permanent and real, and I am not feeling true love for this person, but rather disdain and anger, then I must be feeling this way because of who they are. They make me feel bad, so they cannot be good. And since this person makes me feel bad I could not have loved them, because I would never love somebody who makes me feel bad (the qualities he exhibits now must have been inherent qualities he has always had). So I must have never loved them. The entire relationship must have been a lie. Real true love would be permanent, and this is not permanent, so it was never real true love.

And just like that, her emotional state defines a new reality, where nothing was ever good and everything was based on a lie. Like a light-switch goes from on to off, everything that you two had built disappears into the off position, as though it had never existed.

Many men at this stage try to bargain. “After all we’ve been through together, how can you throw this away? We can still salvage this!

And it’s a pointless question. What is she throwing away? Absolutely nothing, in her mind. If there was any value in the relationship, she wouldn’t feel this way. Therefore there must not have been value in the relationship.

Briffault’s law operates around this very principle:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.


  1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
  2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
  3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

Specifically corollary 1- past benefit does not provide for continued or future association. The concepts of past benefit and continued association requires a consistent objective reality where a woman can look at the implicit contracts made in a relationship: We’ll love each other forever, we’ll make it through thick and thin, I’ll give you a place to live and provide for you, and you’ll remember these sacrifices I made in the future when the chips are down.

In her mind, when the chips are actually down, her emotional state will define a new reality where past benefit doesn’t just not count, but rather it simply doesn’t exist at all. If her reality included that your sacrifices and love were genuine and real, she wouldn’t feel the way she does. She wouldn’t feel betrayed, she wouldn’t feel unattracted. But she does feel unattracted to you, so the reality where you provided benefit must not be real. The real reality is that you must have lied, and there was never a true relationship at all.

The light-switch effect.

And make no mistake, even if you’re in a good relationship with a good woman, when the chips are down, the light-switch always turns off.


Very nicely written. Concise and dispassionate, yet really gets the point across well.