High Specific-gravity!

Six pounds of sliced, Kieffer pears and five pounds of sugar made enough pear preserves to fit into 7 pint jars. I was figuring that I would get ten pints but I was wrong.

The recipes on the internet were all volume based, 2-parts thinly sliced pears to 1-part sugar. I did that by eye-ball and those are the weights I ended up with.

The Kieffer pears are very easy to peel. If I get good reviews from my customers, then I will do this again next year. Mostly, I am trying to match memories from when folks my age were kids. The difficultly is that nobody gets as hungry as a kid and no food ever tastes as good. Another joker-in-the-deck is that our taste-buds change. We can tolerate more sour and bitter and they are not as acute.

3 shots, 3 seconds, 3 feet

It has been a while since I heard this self-defense trope: "The typical gun-fight involves three shots fired at three feet and is over in three seconds."

Chris Baker over at Lucky Gunner posted an excellent essay in 2021 on this topic.

It is challenging to draw conclusions that will not generate criticism but he does his best. One of the things that makes the data "dirty" is that Law Enforcement shootings and Law Enforcement Officer shooting victims and armed citizens deterring crime are three very, very different things and you get very different numbers from each source.

Law Enforcement is trained to engage at whatever distance the target is as soon as they are legitimate threats. That can be over a hundred feet if the target is shooting from a building. They also are wearing body-cams which aren't great for estimating distance but can be used to verify whether the event started at inches, feet or yards.

Law Enforcement Officers who are gunned down are often "executed" as they sit in their vehicle. The perp walks up behind them and shoots them in the back of the head.

Data of citizens deterring crime using firearms (almost universally handguns) is much more scarce.

Three-to-five yards is 9 feet-to-15 feet. Basically the length of a standard 2-by-4 stud and the length of two studs laid end-to-end.

Tom Givens of Rangemaster Firearms Training is one of the few credible sources of that data. The graph of his data is shown above.

Chris Baker writes the following about that data

Tom’s explanation for these numbers is that most civilian incidents involve armed robbery or sexual assault. Violent criminals typically attempt to threaten and scare victims into compliance when they’re still a safe distance away. That’s outside of what most of us consider our personal space. Once it’s clear the victim is going to do what they say, the attacker will move in closer.

Keep in mind, these are all former students of Tom Givens, so by definition, they’ve all had at least one or two days of really solid training. If we had a data sample from the more typical untrained masses, the numbers might look a little different. I suspect, with an untrained population, people might be a bit slower to react and we’d probably see a greater share of encounters in that 0 to 2 yard range.

Personally, I think the last sentence is optimistic. I think most untrained people will not even have cleared their holster.

Since we might be entering a period of "spicy times", re-read the underlined sentences. Then read them again.

Your first solid "vibes" of violent intent is when you should be moving away which buys you time-and-distance and you should be starting to clearing leather...even if all that you are carrying is pepper-spray.

When sh!t goes down, it goes down fast.

---Disclaimers---

I am not a certified defensive handgun trainer.

I am counting on my readers to set the record straight if I screwed-the-pooch on this one.

Bonus Image

 Pear preserves in the kettle this morning. My IR thermometer tells me that we are up 173F.

Presented without comment

 

I watched part of Baier's interview with Harris

I don't think it will change very many minds.

Forgive me for being snide; I can see why she calls herself a "Brat". She cannot control herself when she doesn't get her way.

I have to admire Baier's artistry. He offered Harris a chance to repeat her allegations that Trump is mentally unfit for the office and then IMMEDIATELY counter-punched with "...and when did you first notice that Biden was unfit for the office?" implying that she is not a trustworthy witness for that kind of assessment.

Harris was oblivious to how she discredited her previous screed.

Also ironic is that Harris pointed to the turn-over in the White House staff during Trump's first presidency as evidence that he was too horrible of a person to be POTUS. Meanwhile, the Harris VP staff experienced almost 100% turn-over during her tenure. Again, she was completely oblivious to the three fingers pointing back at herself.

I wish he had book-ended most of her answers by observing "So even though you acknowledged that the American voters deserved an answer, you refused to answer the question as-asked."

The Fox staff also deserves some recognition. They flipped a graphic up on screen while Harris was bragging up how tough she was on Iran showing that Iran revenues more than doubled under Biden creating funds for terrorism.

A final bit of snark

The Harris supporters flooded social media with cheers about how well she did. Many of the comments, strangely, used similar wording. What caught my eye was "...she entered the Lion's Den..."

In my corner of the mid-West, there is a chain of porn-shops that cater to truck drivers. It is (or was) called "The Lion's Den". Freud is undoubtedly smirking in hell.

"Grants" and their impact on behaviors

There was a time when I thought I could turn my blog-writing-skills toward "writing grant applications". My thinking was that with inflation biting at my heals I might need additional income and "Writing grants" seemed like a natural evolution.

I recently had a very small taste of that activity and decided that my time will be better spent pulling weeds in the garden.

This is my current mental picture of "grants".

Arbitrary and capricious rewards/punishments

B. F. Skinner's lab did a landmark experiment with pigeons where they randomly rewarded the birds food. That is, they made food available to hungry pigeons for a short duration at random time intervals.

I think the original motivation was to determine if random rewards might be more suitable "control" while running experiments on behavioral-conditioning than feeding the birds short rations at regular intervals.

In the words of the published paper:

A pigeon is brought to a stable state of hunger by reducing it to 75 percent of its weight when well fed. It is put into an experimental cage for a few minutes each day. A food hopper attached to the cage may be swung into place so that the pigeon can eat from it. A solenoid and a timing relay hold the hopper in place for five sec. at each reinforcement.

If a clock is now arranged to present the food hopper at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior, operant conditioning usually takes place. In six out of eight cases the resulting responses were so clearly defined that two observers could agree perfectly in counting instances. One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in
which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return. The body generally followed the movement and a few steps might be taken when it was extensive. Another bird was conditioned to make incomplete pecking or brushing movements directed toward but not touching the floor...

***

The experiment might be said to demonstrate a sort of superstition. The bird behaves as if there was a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation is lacking. There are many  analogies in human behavior. Rituals for changing one's luck at cards are  good examples. A few accidental connections between a ritual and favorable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior in spite of many unreinforced instances. The bowler who has released a ball down the alley but continues to behave as if he were controlling it by twisting and turning his arm and shoulder is another case in point. These behaviors have,
of course, no real effect upon one's luck or upon a ball half way down an alley, just as in the present case the food would appear as often if the pigeon did nothing—or, more strictly speaking, did something else. 

A camel is a racehorse that was designed by a committee

Applications for grants are processed by committees. Sabrina, Tabitha, Heidi and Keith sit around a table and make decisions. First Sabrina gets to pick one and they vote. Then Tabitha picks one. Then Heidi and then Keith. A causal kind of collusion evolves where "If you vote for my choice, I will vote for yours." 

Each member of the committee has "special interests" that they refuse to compromise over. Often it is making sure that "their people" get a major piece of the action.

Each member is trying to impress their boss with the zeal with which they protect their silo's special interests.

Each member is also trying to read the weather with respect to future fads by which their decisions will be judged.

Finally, grant application directions are padded with fuzzy-feel-good boiler-plate* (Note, this language cut-and-pasted from an actual grant application):

• "Build local community capacity to grow, manage and care..."
• "Assist communities in developing and implementing sustainable community..."
• "Address environmental justice and equity issues by engaging and involving disadvantaged and/or underserved communities as defined by federal executive order 14008 (Justice40 initiative)"
• "Improve public awareness and understanding of the benefits of preserving, maintaining and expanding..."
• "Facilitate partnerships among residents and public, private, and nonprofit organizations to encourage stewardship..."
• "Support innovative projects and partnerships..."
• "Enhance the technical skills of those involved in planning, managing, or maintaining ..."
• "Incorporate       fill-in-blank       into climate adaptation and resilience strategies to support more equitable and resilient communities."

These are all bumpers in the pin-ball machine that spits out grants and those factors create "randomness". Applicants who did not receive a grant invariably study the applications of those who did receive grants and make adjustments in next year's application.

Why this might be important to know

If the Harris machine somehow wins the election, .gov will dominate the economy into the foreseeable future.

They will pump money into the economy and "create" jobs via grants.

As bad as it is now, the chaos and irrational behaviors (like criminalizing the use of petroleum products) of individuals and organizations will get even worse.

Decisions will be based on "superstitions" (in the Skinner sense) rather than on well-defined objectives and rational thought.

*Unmeasurable!

Coffee break...

Time for a cup of coffee.

Work on the deck and orchards continues.

The chainsaw's clutch side-plate broke. I have two new ones coming from DeNile tomorrow morning. This is a big time of year for using the chainsaw.

Clothing

I am a big fan of 1/4 zip fleeces for winter wear, especially for very active activities like cutting wood or brush. "Layers" are the hot-ticket in the winter-time, especially when your calorie-burn can vary a lot.

They are extremely rugged. Even if the zipper gets trashed the garment still functions to keep body heat in. You cannot say that about full-zip garments or even shirts with buttons.

Being made from polyester, the fleece's insulation value is not impacted very much by moisture, whether from sweat or rain or melting snow.

Since they are soft, they make a better inner-layer than an outer-layer. Outer-layers are more likely to pick up burs of various sorts. A heavy 1/4 zip-fleece and a wind-resistant shell can be accessorized with various head and hand coverings.

Dunham's

Dunham's Sporting Goods is a local chain store and they advertised a sale on 1/4 fleeces. They were marked down from $30 to $20 which is cheaper than I can buy them from DeNile, plus I can try them on for size.

Pulling an XL off the rack, I tried to pull it on over my tee-shirt. No-go! What the heck?

It was too tight, by far, across the shoulders.

One possibility is that the manufacturers used less cloth so the dimensions "shrunk" across the shoulders. It just seems odd that I, at 5'-9" and 200 pounds, cannot fit into a stretchy, XL fleece.

The other possibility is that Belladonna's coaching on deadlifting bulked up my shoulders.

Resigned to reality, I ended up purchasing two XXL fleeces. It could have been far worse. It could have been too tight across the belly. Maybe they were. I wouldn't know. I was not able to pull the XL fleeces over my shoulders without popping threads.

Darn you, Belladonna. Darn you!

Explaining to young people what it feels like to be "old"

Do you know what it feels like when you put in 12 hours of labor that your body is not used to...like canoeing or scraping paint or hiking in mountains?

You know how every muscle and joint aches when you crawl into bed but you pop out of bed the next morning ready to do it again?

Yeah, being old feels exactly like that, except we feel that way after doing nothing and day long and we feel just as bad in the morning.

But thanks for asking...

Life Insurance

A couple of my kids are at that stage of life where they are thinking about life-insurance.

Visits to insurance brokers resulted in quotes...which sounded high to me.

I asked if those were term, whole or universal policies and they did not know. I asked if their financial advisor was "fee-only" and they said she was not.

My perception of insurance is that you should first check to see if your employer offers life insurance. Next, figure out the "envelop" of your needs. If you have a young child, for instance, then you will not need as much pay-out as they approach adulthood and much-less after they become adults.

If more kids show up, then you can buy additional policies to fine-tune the payout to your changing circumstances.

Term life is a pure insurance play and is almost always the least expensive option and offer a tremendous amount of flexibility. Why buy a tent when all you really need is a baseball cap?

I can see one policy that pays enough to bury you ($10k-to-$20k payout)

I can see a 20-year policy each time you add a kid to the family ($200k payout). I would structure the policy so the premiums "adjust" every five years. Young families never have enough money and having the premiums "level" for the entire period is stupid.

I could also see a single policy for five years at the start of a 15-year-mortgage to pay-off the house/farm (principle of mortgage payout) and then a second policy for years five-through-ten.

I know that I have many very-sharp people reading this blog and probably have people who sold insurance. Any comments?