Blue Origin seems to finally be getting serious.
If so, it’s badly needed, with SpaceX pulling back from the commercial launch market.
The Second Amendment
…remains the Constitution’s red-headed stepchild.
But hopefully not for much longer.
There has been no more massive violation of civil rights in history than gun laws. Including the fact that the original purpose of gun control was to keep blacks disarmed, lest they defend themselves from people who wanted to lynch them. And we know what the political party of those people was, and that party’s position on gun freedom has not changed.
America’s Maritime Moment
Will we seize it?
Timing Is All
Porsche could not possibly have picked a more humiliating day to unveil this, and calling their decidedly non-flying car “A glimpse into the future” only makes the embarrassment more spectacular. Also the most merciless comment section in X history, and every bit of it deserved.
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 16, 2026
OK, as a recovering aerospace engineer, I’m wondering what kind of rocket-propulsion system that Tesla has. What’s the propellant, and how long can it do that kind of thing before it needs refueling? If he wanted to continue to claim that it was an electric car, they should be electric thrusters, like Hall effect, but those wouldn’t have sufficient thrust to do that stunt. Is he using nitrous for the oxidizer?
— Not-So-OK Boomer (@Rand_Simberg) October 16, 2026
Frozen Chicken
The mistake that “everybody makes.”
Scare quotes because I in fact have never done this. These days, I freeze it myself in a vacuum-seal bag, and when I want to thaw it, I throw it in the sous vide, set at room temperature.
This Year’s Continuing Resolution
Even by recent standards, it’s a disaster.
CRs are always a disaster, of necessity. It sure would be nice if Congress could actually pass a budget, like in the old days.
The End Of The World
We only have one month left.
OK, not really. As noted, the actual concern should be underpopulation, not overpopulation.
Space Superiority
What does it really mean, and how do we achieve it? A useful essay by Courney Stadd.
On The Hypocritical Backlash Against Shane Gillis
Women are dishonest about this stuff because they’re programmed to be. Their greatest weapon is their sexuality, but they also face social backlash for being too overtly transactional with sex, so women embrace ambiguity where they’re able to use sex to their advantage while maintaining plausible deniability Some examples: -Wearing sexy is outfits isn’t for the male gaze or to flex on other women for status, it’s just to feel good about themselves apart from any social factors -Dancing provocatively is not a sexual display, it’s just recreational fun -Marrying a rich guy isn’t about the money, he’s a good guy who provides security for their family -Wearing makeup and high heels to work isn’t to impress men and sway them, it’s just to feel confident I want to address a tangent here, which is that women will argue that these things are not sexual displays, because they do them at social events that are exclusively other women. I reject that: it’s still an indirect sexual display for the purpose of status Sexual attractiveness is perhaps the purest form of status that a human can possess. You’re desirable merely by your existence, you don’t even have to do anything. Women recognize this in each other and they will begrudgingly, although often subconsciously, recognize the status of other women who are more attractive (“ugh, she’s so hot, maybe I should set her up with one of my successful guy friends”). When women dress up for other women, they’re showing that they’ve got the goods to be a high status social ally. It’s a flex. Back to the main point, which is that we subsume our sexual behavior beneath socially approved motives. The thing is, women often aren’t being duplicitous when they say these things: their minds have convinced them that it’s the truth The human brain is incredible at rationalizing our baser desires. Men genuinely like sports. The reason we like them is probably because in our evolutionary environment, games like that prepared us for war. But men wouldn’t say they like sports because it’s preparation to kill the neighboring tribe; our brains simply find them fun. We enjoy doing adaptive things without consciously thinking about them Women engage in sexual signaling and sexual competition without deliberately thinking about it, and that’s a superpower because they can be disingenuous without lying. Their brains have disguised their motivations even to themselves. They don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. Women don’t want sexual behavior to be discussed explicitly, because it makes it more difficult for them to use it to their advantage. The ambiguity and optionality work to their advantage. If a hot guy hits on them, they can receive the advance. If an ugly guy hits on them, they can reject him and say they weren’t asking to be hit on. If one woman tries to slut shame another for an outfit that distracts men, the wearer can claim that she’s simply wearing something that’s comfortable and cute Ironically, women also can’t acknowledge that this is why they’re upset, because the whole game is that they have to avoid discussing it directly and explicitly. That’s why all the outrage and criticism deflects from whether these outfits are overtly sexual (they obviously are), and turns it into jockeying over social status and norms where women try to make it verboten for men to even comment on it Shane Gillis, by making a snarky comment, threatened women’s sexual power and sent their defense mechanisms into overdrive
— Porter (@ParkSlopeFlngsm) October 15, 2026
Who Are The Fascists, Again?
If no one goes to jail over this, they’ll do it again next time they’re in power.
[Update a while later]
Related:
Dear Secretary Bessent @SecScottBessent, My name is Everett Stern. In 2010 I was a compliance officer at @HSBC. From a back office in New Castle, Delaware, I watched billions of dollars move to drug cartels, sanctioned regimes, and terrorist organizations. The enemies of the United States. I documented it, I escalated it, and when the bank would not act, I took it to the @FBI, the @CIA, and eventually the @SECGov. The result was a $1.92 billion settlement. At the time, it was one of the largest in American history. It was also about five weeks of the bank’s profit. Not one banker was charged. Not one went to prison. I paid a different price. I lost my career, my savings, and my place in the industry I had trained for. I was blacklisted. Every door in American finance closed at once. I slept on a camping cot in a 300 square foot apartment because I could not afford a bed, and I waited tables at @PFChangs to eat. I tell you this not for sympathy, but so you understand that I know exactly what it costs to do the right thing in American finance, and exactly how little the system does in return. I made that sacrifice because I believed it would change something. Yesterday, your department fined @BankofAmerica $1.2 billion for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, some of it tied by your own findings to Chinese laundering networks, narcotics, and the southwest border, alongside 475 apparent sanctions violations touching Russia, Iran, and global terrorism. The bank admitted it willfully violated the Bank Secrecy Act. Fourteen years after HSBC. A bank with “America” in its name. And once again, not one individual charged. Secretary Bessent, I want to say plainly what I believe you already know. The fines are not working. A fine is paid by shareholders, absorbed by the balance sheet, and forgotten by the next earnings call. Bank of America reported earnings this morning. Nobody who set the alert thresholds, nobody who decided the 2024 cease and desist could wait, nobody who chose the backlog over the law will lose a single thing they value. Their lives are untouched. That is the entire reason the behavior repeats. This is money laundering. This is blood money. Money that reaches a cartel buys fentanyl that kills Americans. Money that reaches a terrorist organization buys the next attack. This country has fought a war on drugs and a war on terror for decades, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, and all the while we have allowed the financing to flow through institutions we charter and regulate. Cut off the money and we win. We have never seriously tried. There is also a question of equal justice that I cannot let go. Before I walked into the FBI building to report HSBC, I stopped in front of the Great Seal on the wall and read the words engraved beneath it: “Justice is the defense of our liberty.” I believed that. I still want to. But every day in this country, people go to prison for crimes that are nothing next to moving money for the people who want Americans dead. A suit, a title, and a corporate badge should not be a shield from the consequences that apply to everyone else. If a street dealer goes to prison for what he sells, the banker who moved the cartel’s money should be standing next to him. I also want to raise something that is rarely said in these conversations. Why has no one inside Bank of America come forward the way I did? The answer is that everyone in American banking knows what happened to me, and to the whistleblowers who came after. The last person who spoke up is the only policy anyone believes. That is a culture problem, and it starts with leadership, in the banks and in the agencies that regulate them. This is not a political issue. It has spanned administrations of both parties. It is a national security issue, and I am asking you to treat it as one. Three things would change the math overnight. Refer individuals for criminal prosecution. Not the analyst in the queue. The executives who set the thresholds and chose the risk. One banker in handcuffs would do more than every fine in Treasury’s history combined. End “too big to jail.” An institution cannot be too big to fail and too big to jail at the same time. If it is the first, it must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And if Bank of America will not act as America’s bank, review its charter. A national charter is a privilege granted on behalf of the American people. It should be conditioned on not moving money for the people trying to kill them. Secretary Bessent, you said yesterday that these actions send a clear message that even the biggest institutions are not above the law. With respect, the institution was never the problem. The people inside it are above the law, and they know it. Until that changes, I will keep writing letters like this one, and the next bank will keep paying the next fine. I gave up everything I had to stop this. I am asking you to use the power you have to finish it. Respectfully, Everett A. Stern HSBC Whistleblower Founder and Intelligence Director, Tactical Rabbit
— Everett Stern (@EverettStern1) October 14, 2026