This is a what I’d call a funny tale about how you never know how things are going to circle back:
(Long thread warning, but I think it's worth it)
1/?
For my own safety I eventually ran away from her to live with my dad. I left behind my dog (who was also 12), and my three cats (Rocky 8, Jewel 10, and Scamper 12 years old). 3/?
My dad, being an electrician, would come home from work after particularly hard days and jokingly say, "Just don't work in electrical Bernie." 4/?
5/?
On our first interaction, he very slowly approached my desk and started a conversation.
7/?
"Okay Bill" I reply.
"Tell me, if you went fishing, got drunk, woke up in the morning without any memories and your ass hurt, would you tell anyone?"
"No Bill, I don't think I-"
"GREAT! Want to go fishing?!" He blurted excitedly. 8/?
To paraphrase the person on the phone informed me he was my brother, and that our mother died.
For lack of a better way to put it, this was a (half) brother I didn't know I had. 11/?
I made arrangements not only for taking time off work to grieve and process this event, but also to use some summer vacation in a month's time when my new older siblings came down to spend time with them. 13/?
14/?
For instance, my first interaction with my brother was when picking him up at the airport. 15/?
At the exact same time my brother and I said:
"The top goes up" and "Hold it upright".
If I'm honest, I'm not even sure which of us said which.
16/?
Cat food? 18/?
19/?
At the back of one of these photo albums was an obituary for one "Elmer Vance".
23/?
In the "survived by" section, it listed Arthur as Elmer's son. This was my great grandfather, my mother's grandfather.
24/?
Huh. 25/?
The front door opens, and in walks Mr. Bill Adams. He hobbles along slowly, taking at least one full minute to walk to my desk where most do it in 10-15 seconds.
"Bill," I start.
26/?
Perplexed, he looks at me, "Yes..."
"Was her father's name Elmer?"
"Yes. What's going on?" He inquires.
Ignoring his question, I continue: "Did she have a brother named Arthur?"
27/?
More from For later read
1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread
How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.
Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were
2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work
3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics
4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things
5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.
Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were
Where are good old days when techies were libertarians.
— Cranky (@rushingdima) January 9, 2021
2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work
3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics
4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things
5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
