by Steve Szilagyi

It’s been many decades since I worked as a restaurant dishwasher. The best part of the job was the camaraderie of the kitchen—the japes, the clash of pans, and the friendly female server who’d stop back to chat during slack times. The worst part was wiping uneaten food off plates with my bare hands into a dirty garbage can by the sink. I had a keen social conscience at the time, and it was depressing to send one half-eaten or barely touched delicacy after another into the moist abyss with my bare palm (no rubber gloves in those days), while elsewhere my favorite rock stars were raising money to feed the starving in Bangladesh. Once I’d cleared the plates of food, I’d spray them with a hose and place them into the rack of the dishwashing machine. Once the rack was full, I’d close the hood, press a button or something, and wait a couple of minutes while the machine soaped and rinsed the dishes at the requisite 140-180 degree temperature. Then I’d lift the hood, let the steaming dishes dry for a few seconds, then pile them on the shelf. The pots and pans I did by hand over the sink.

The human dishwasher is the lowest person in the restaurant kitchen hierarchy. (I was demoted to the position from busboy after an unfortunate incident involving a tray of hot soups and a customer’s lap.) But it’s not a disgraceful position. The dish-doer in a restaurant has a certain solitary dignity, supported by the essential nature of his or her task. In the home, however, dishwashing can be a surprisingly emotional flashpoint. It’s not for nothing the British domestic dramas of personal and social resentment were labeled the kitchen sink school.

While there are many volatile issues involved, the main points of contention are who does the dishes; when they get done; and who notices they need doing. What’s at stake isn’t the difficulty of the task, it’s the implied low status of whoever does it.

Really, since the invention of modern plumbing, dishwashing is probably the least difficult of regularly performed domestic tasks. Compare it to making beds, mopping floors, or changing the cat box. Washing dishes is no more physically demanding than washing your hands. Most kitchens have a window over the sink. You can contemplate the view, slap on a pair of headphones, and listen to podcasts while you wash.

Yet dirty dishes still trigger sulks, accusations, and grim domestic reckonings. Perhaps because the argument occurs in the kitchen – the emotional center of the house – where resentments hum like an old Kelvinator. Read more »

by Brooks Riley

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Paul Braterman

Study this book if you are at all interested in the threats to the scientific and rational underpinnings of our culture, in the US and to some extent elsewhere. It is not an easy read, because of the density of material that the authors assembled to make their case, and the wide-ranging phenomena that they survey, but this is unavoidable given the depth of our predicament. Science, and indeed any sense of reality, is increasingly under threat from governments and the oligarchs who control them. Such a level of disdain for truth, and irresponsible indifference to the consequences of this disdain, once seemed an absurd nightmare, but is now our everyday reality. Since the book was written, growing US government interference with science, and the collusion of a press increasingly controlled by a handful of oligarchs, must add to the force of the authors’ warnings. The book itself, incidentally, it is excellent value at $35/£20 for a 350-page hardback.

Some examples of what would have seen impossible a mere decade ago. Vaccine refusal based on ignorance and ideology is estimated to have caused at least 230,000 unnecessary Covid-related deaths in the US. (For comparison, the total US military death toll in all foreign wars since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and both Gulf Wars, was slightly less than 90,000). The US Department of Energy secretly commissioned a report from the denialist fringe of climate science (two of whose members I have written about earlier), and then attempted to conceal their working documents. As I write, the future shape and funding of agencies such as NOAA, NSF, and NASA is in doubt. And two days after the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz, the US Interior Department announced that it was paying almost $1 billion to the French company, TotalEnergies, to not proceed with planned wind and solar generation. All this in the nation that has been (had been?) the world’s leader in science for more than 80 years.

As this book explains in great detail, such things do not happen by themselves. In 270 pages of main text, and 60 pages of notes, including 800 references, the authors give us their perspective on these phenomena. And a very well-informed perspective it is. Read more »

by Bill Murray

International order in the twentieth century was set by empires, then blocs engaged in ideological struggle, and finally by alliances based on common ideological and financial interests. Now even those alliances are dissolving. The Iran episode is the unmistakable break, and the United States is the agent of that break.

For most of the twentieth century, the world was organized not just among sovereign states, but also by hierarchy. First, powerful empires governed weaker colonies. Then two powerful Cold War superpowers rode herd over their less powerful allies.

Post-Cold War alliances also required a dominant member, and in the West it was the United States. Now, even the post-Cold War system is breaking down before our eyes. The eighty-year post-World War II order looks unlikely to survive abandonment by its architect.

The last day of February, 2026 could be remembered by history as the day the incredible shrinking of respect, regard, and trust for the United States crossed a terrible threshold, under the leadership of a president clearly in over his head.

Until that day, when ill winds had whistled through the rules-based international order, the timbers may have creaked, but the structure stood strong. On February 28th the Western alliance, on life-support since 2016 through well-meant efforts of various world figures, just may have died along with the ayatollah.

Let’s look at how Washington’s attack on Tehran hastens a much larger unraveling of the Western system that World War II built, and sends us all into uncharted territory. Read more »

by Dilip D’Souza

Here’s a factoid that, over a century later, still stuns: In 1914, the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan published an academic paper in which he spelled out 17 – yes, seventeen – formulas to calculate π (pi). 

This is remarkable on many levels. Most of us run into π in school, via an approximation. That’s usually 3.14, or 22/7. We learn that it is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and those approximations are usually close enough to the actual value of π for most purposes we might encounter in school. At some point we might even have come across Aryabhata’s approximation:

Add 4 to 100, he said, and multiply the result by 8. Add 62,000. Divide the result by 20000. The answer, he said, approaches the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. [My free and easy translation of his words.]

And that answer is 3.1416, which is π accurate to four decimal places. Which is π good enough for most calculations most of us would attempt. After all, it differs from π by about 0.0002 percent, which percentage by itself is hard to comprehend – though the word “approaches” fits well.

Now if you are interested in precision engineering, or in travelling into space, you will want more decimal places. 15 is the number NASA used in its calculations for the Voyager I mission it launched in 1977. That intrepid spacecraft is now sailing through interstellar space about 26 billion km from the Earth, so it’s safe to say the 15 digit calculations have served it, and NASA, well.

More recently – well, as I write this! – Artemis 2 is on its way to the Moon carrying four astronauts. Its path to our satellite is a tribute to careful, intricate calculations. I say that because there is really no sense in which the four astronauts in that spacecraft are piloting their voyage to the Moon. Instead, they are following a precisely-determined path. π was certainly part of that determination – so if the value used was accurate to four decimal places, would that have been enough? Read more »

Sughra Raza. Fungal Abstractions. March 2022, Vermont.

Digital photograph.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by W. Alex Foxworthy

We are trying to build artificial intelligence systems that share our human values. Yet we cannot agree – across worldviews and cultures – on what those values are, or why they matter. The alignment problem is a reflection of something broken in us – we lack a shared rational account of what matters and why.

The old organizing stories – religious narratives about why we are here, what we owe each other, and where we’re headed – have proven tenuous in the face of all we have learned since they were formulated. Science has dramatically deepened our understanding and capabilities. But it has offered no account of what we’re here for. Secular humanism has tried to answer this question and has produced something intellectually respectable but for most people emotionally thin – principles that do not hold communities together during crisis or give people a sense of deep purpose and belonging. The consequences of the breakdown of these shared frameworks are visible everywhere: in epidemic depression and anxiety, in addiction and rising suicide rates, in deepening political divides, and in conspiracy thinking. I believe these flourish not because people are stupid but because they’re desperate for a story that makes sense of their purpose, their lives, and their place in the grand scheme of things.

This essay is a beginning – an attempt to lay a rational foundation for shared meaning among humans and the intelligences we’re building. Read more »

by David J. Lobina

The role of failure is an underappreciated issue in professional sports – and a brutal reality for most sportspeople in general, in fact, professional or otherwise. I myself play tennis regularly, and I find that I often lose my matches even when I play well. It is rather disheartening, but the fact that I don’t play badly in these losses – and, well, that I typically enjoy playing anyway – makes it worthwhile to continue, though it can take a toll sometimes.

And the situation is all the more dramatic for professional tennis players; indeed, it is hard not to notice that many tennis pros lose more matches than they win, and the toll must be huge (there are expenses to cover, ranking points to covet, and a living to make; this book in particular is an enlightening and fascinating account from a player who did not quite make it, but still play some big matches).

This here is the current ranking of the top 100 male professional players according to their win/loss index. The very top players (2/3) rarely lose; the players below and up to the top 30 win more matches than they lose; the players below the top 30 win a bit more than they lose (but in some cases barely above a 50% success rate); and then from the top 50 downwards the success rate starts at 50% and quickly goes down (the current number 100 has a 6-14 record). And this is only in terms of match win/loss ratios; the vast majority of professional players have not won a tournament this year (this is true of 3 players from the current top 10 right now), and winning tournaments is the most coveted outcome in professional tennis.

But as mentioned, you can play well in a tennis match and still lose, which introduces a different family of failures altogether; in particular, the rate at which players actually lose points in a match. The final match at the 2025 Roland Garros between the top 2 male players at the time is a good example. A total of 385 points were played on the day, with each player winning 50% of points (192 for the winner, 193 for the loser), and this suggests that the match was won (or lost) at very specific junctures – one player managed to win some of the most important points here and there (break point up, set point up, etc.). Read more »

Lucky Again

Yesterday today
might never have come but
I’m lucky again

It did and here you are
my bulwark against
a lone sea.

In the garden you began
years ago in our plot of sand
where little grew but wild
strawberries close to the ground,
their tendrils groping dry earth,
we now have hibiscus with blossoms
the size of dinner plates, and day lilies
in colors of all things that make death an illusion.

For years under your baton
we’ve sown our sand with
death’s stuff—

mown grass,
…dry leaves,
……. the remnants of meals,
………….. manure of nearby farms,
……………… until what was dry is lush,
…………………. was empty is full,
………………………. was barren is flush.

Today tomorrow
may never come but here
you are and I am
………………………. lucky again.

by Jim Culleny; August 29, 2009

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Richard Farr

I’m on a trip to London and Spain. In Trafalgar Square with a spare half hour, I plunge into the National Gallery because I want to see the Arnolfini portrait again. Alas, van Eyck’s cadaverous old merchant and his heavily pregnant (or not pregnant) young wife (or betrothed, or recently dead ex-wife — pick you theory) are being attacked by a hundred-strong mob. I can’t even get close enough to see the annoying little dog, never mind the details.

But my consolation prize waits nearby, all but ignored: a lovely double portrait by Robert Campin from about 1435. Also, Rogier van der Weyden’s Mary Magdalene Enjoying Her Morning Latte.

I’ve never seen a painting by either Campin or van der Weyden of which I didn’t think “this deserves to be better known.”

Days later I’m in València. Near the entrance to the Museo de Bellas Artes some anonymous genius from the fourteenth century has gifted us a brilliantly expressive carving of John the Evangelist. Those eyes; that exact position of the head and neck; that subtle tension in the right hand. I don’t know what to say. What I want to say “Thank you! Thank you! How did you do that?” 

Behind him there’s a grand gallery of altarpieces from the same era or a little later. Some are more than 20 feet high; they all look as if they were painted yesterday in a color-mad frenzy of devotion. I most harbor some inchoate prejudice about the late Medieval world because I’m amazed by the psychological acuity and wit and sheer individuality in the rendition of the faces.

The next day, wanting something Modern, I go to the Centre del Carme, which has an enormous show that might be called, though it isn’t, Margins of the Unendurable. Some thousand or so dimly-lit square meters are devoted to a well-known video artist. There are, the blurb explains: “nine large-scale installations conceived as immersive stage sets that envelop the viewer and prompt reflection on issues such as emigration, violence, identity, and philosophical concepts like eremitism and the infinite seriality of life.” 

I am not making this up. Read more »

by John Ambrosio 

In a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, drew on a paper written by the renowned Czech dissident, and later president, Václav Havel that discussed how totalitarian regimes, like the former Soviet Union, seek to control the population by providing individuals with an “ideological excuse” that enables them to conceal from themselves their silent capitulation, in the face of real and threatened state repression, in order to avoid the shame and indignity of having their obedience to the regime exposed.

In The Power of the Powerless, Havel used the example of a greengrocer who put a sign with an official slogan in his shop window to illustrate how totalitarian regimes seek to control and manipulate the population. Havel wrote that “the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the façade of something high. And that something high is ideology. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo,” an “excuse that everyone can use” to maintain an “illusory identity, dignity, and morality,”  to “live within a lie.”

As the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci argued, in capitalist systems with highly developed civil societies the ruling class exercises power through a combination of force and consent. That is, it achieves hegemony through coercion and state violence, and by obtaining the passive or active consent of the masses of people by exercising moral and intellectual leadership. Hegemony is never complete or final and must be continually reproduced, which is why authoritarian regimes strenuously repress criticism of their ideological excuses, of the official stories people tell themselves about themselves, one another, and the nation that enable them to conceal from themselves their obedience to the regime. For most people, avoiding the shame of having their accommodation to the regime exposed is a powerful motivational force. Read more »

by Mike O’Brien

A few weeks ago, Québec’s official housing tribunal (TAL) ruled on a case about no-pet clauses in residential leases. The case involved a tenant, M. Desjardins, who had lived in the same apartment since 2011, having taken over a lease from the previous tenant (this is a very common situation in Montréal, where transferring existing leases is one of the few ways tenants can avoid the staggering rise in rents over the last decade). At that time, all tenants in the building were subject to leases that forbade pets, but most or all of them kept pets regardless, and the landlord at the time tolerated this situation with no apparent issues arising from the animals living there. The ownership of the building changed hands twice since 2011, and the new landlords continued to include a no-pets clause in their leases. The current landlord, fed up with Desjardins’ disregard of the no-pets clause, applied to the housing tribunal for permission to end the lease.

Some context: Québec, and Montréal particularly, has a very strong regime of tenant rights. Montréal is largely a city of renters, and has a robust culture of community organizing and public protest that is quick to attack any perceived threat to housing security. It is also in the grips of a homelessness and housing affordability crisis, not as bad as in Vancouver or Toronto but still desperate. As the only major city (not counting Laval, which one shouldn’t) in North America’s only officially francophone territory, Montréal is the natural destination for people leaving their communities all over Québec, concentrating the effects of province-wide affordability issues. The recent explosion of longer-simmering housing problems is particularly shocking to a place that, for decades, was considered a haven of affordability and “livability”, where working class people could live comfortably (if modestly) within a world-class city. Montréal’s reputation as an artistic incubator stems largely from the fact that young artists could split their time between making art and earning wages, and still be fed and housed. Many Montréalers now wish, half-joking, half-not, that the recent uptick in separatist rhetoric from the Parti Québecois (which hopes to unseat the floundering Coalition Avenir Québec government in this year’s provincial elections) will scare away foreign real estate investment and depress rents, repeating the effects of the 1980 and 1995 separation referenda. Read more »

by Barry Goldman

Let’s start with a simple case. You want to know if the tires on your bike are properly inflated. You give them a squeeze. They feel fine. But you want to be sure. So you get out your handy tire pressure gauge. It says they’re at 68 psi. The tires say they want to be at 72. So you give them another shot of air. You trust the tool more than you trust your own senses. Why?

I think there are three reasons. You trust the gauge because you believe it has more reliability and more validity than your squeeze. Reliability means the gauge will give the same measurement whenever the tire pressure is the same and a higher or lower measurement when the pressure is higher or lower. Validity means the gauge is measuring what you want to measure – tire pressure – and not some other variable. It may be that if your fingers are hot or cold or if you are hungry, angry, lonely or tired it affects the accuracy of your tire-squeezing. A pressure gauge doesn’t make those mistakes.

The third reason you trust the gauge, logically prior to the other two, is that you believe tire pressure is the kind of thing that it makes sense to measure with a tool. You believe you’re not making a category mistake. We’ll come back to that.

Now suppose you’re buying a new pair of shoes. The shoe store has a machine that tells you what size you need. You place your feet on the black box and the robot brings you a pair of shoes. You put them on and they squash your toes. You complain to the robot. “These shoes squash my toes,” you say. The robot says you’re mistaken. It says it was trained by the finest experts using millions of data points and it has access to vast troves of information you can’t possibly be aware of and it knows more about shoes and toes than you will ever know and you are just wrong.

Is there anything the robot could say that would convince you to trust the machine instead of your own senses? You were willing to do it with the tire gauge. What is the difference between tire pressure and toe pressure? Read more »

by Derek Neal

I find myself increasingly unable to read anything resembling AI text, that is, anything seemingly preformed, readymade, or mass produced, like an IKEA chair; but even as I write this, I think to myself—why an IKEA chair? Why does this object, or rather, this unit of language—IKEA chair—come to me unbidden? “IKEA” as signifier of anonymous, impersonal and practical furniture, and “chair” as typical illustrative example—Wittgenstein’s theory of family resemblances as shown by how the concept of “chair” functions in language, for example—combining to form the perfect analogy: IKEA chair is to furniture as AI text is to human writing; and yet, when I visualize an IKEA chair, or rather, when I see myself walking through the showroom in Burlington, Ontario, I see many chairs of all shapes and sizes, some hard and made of wood, some soft and upholstered, some big and roomy, some ergonomic and sleek, and I realize that, in fact, IKEA makes a wide variety of chairs, and perhaps my analogy is flawed.

Maybe I should go further and say that I find myself increasingly unable to read any writing, especially fictional prose, that is written in short, declarative sentences, the purpose of which is to transmit information in a clear and succinct way. Instead, I’m reading W.G. Sebald. I drifted away from his novel Austerlitz after 100 pages last summer, but I’ve come back to it now, and although I initially had no idea what was happening, something about the prose and the long sentences has possessed me—I feel ensnared by the text, trapped in a twisting and turning labyrinth through which I must continue walking—and I’m deeply intrigued by the way a character will be narrating something, much like I’m doing here, but then, all of a sudden, there will be a pause in the text and the inclusion of “Austerlitz said,” before the narration picks up again, reminding us that we are not reading the thoughts of the narrator, but the words of another character relayed to us via the narrator. It’s as if, right now, in the middle of this essay, I included something like, “Sebastian said,” which would suggest that the previous words were not mine but were those of someone I was in conversation with, someone named Sebastian…

Do you know how in IKEA, Sebastian continued, they have those arrows on the floor, flowing you from one area to the next, until you end up at the warehouse section and then the checkout lanes? It’s a bit like that, AI text, in that the direction you’re supposed to go is so clearly defined, and you can’t move off in a different direction because behind you are more people, all going the same way, and they will crush you if you stop; you will be like a rock that has been ground down to a pebble and washed ashore, powerless to resist the strong current, as you end up at the self-checkout scanning a stainless steel spatula, wondering to yourself if you should purchase a $1 hot dog on the way back to the car. Read more »

by Laurence Peterson

History is not rhyming; it is not repeating itself; it is being ignored, dismissed as an inconvenience, perhaps on a uniquely vast scale. Events that have already affected all of us deeply, or will almost certainly do so in the very near future are being passively wished away, perhaps in the hope that we, in a society addicted to convenience, can turn customary inertia into a vital historical force. Markets worth trillions seem to be avoiding collapse on the mere assumption that developments with of the most dramatic import, initiated at an exceptionally rapid rate, in an atmosphere of unprecedented unaccountability, will somehow, against perhaps all indications, work out in the lazily pliable manner we have been conditioned to expect.

I have never been a supporter of what can be called the American-led order. As a socialist, I have worked in the hope of a transition to a radically different society almost all my adult life. I have been impressed, however, by the durability of American institutions, good or bad, to the point that, until rather recently, I have expected the changes I look forward to to originate in other societies. Now all that seems to be up for grabs.

One of my closest friends has a cousin who was snatched up and sent to one of the far-away ICE concentration camps in California, leaving her husband to take care of their three-year old child alone; she faces deportation to a neighboring country in the middle of a mass gang-war (whose misfortunes are to a great extent due to US policies). My relationship with a very close cousin is deteriorating due to disagreements that only remotely touch on politics, like planning a trip abroad; I cannot speak of the apprehensions I have about flights getting cancelled and so on, without mentioning the occasioning factor of obscenely unjust and illegal military actions. A dear friend and I are finding ourselves increasingly negotiating a similarly dicey interpersonal space over much the same thing. And then there are the inevitable economic and financial ramifications that will, very soon, take a severe toll on just about all of us, perhaps resulting in severe recession. A depression or market meltdown of some sort cannot be dismissed on intellectual grounds. Climate disaster nears at a palpably quickening pace. Even the use of atmospheric nuclear tests or employment of a limited nuclear weapon in the Iran conflict is mentioned as a distinct possibility more and more, even amongst mainstream press showing the most lapdog-type tendencies. Which, of course, makes the prospect of a full nuclear one more likely on its own. Read more »

by Rachel Robison-Greene

People all over the country wake in the morning and instantly dread the news headlines awaiting them on their phones. Have Americans bombed another school? Gutted one more procedural safeguard? Facilitated the reemergence of some long controlled infectious disease? Too often, we realize that one of these things has indeed happened. We carry on with our absurd lives anyway. We do dishes and pay bills. We run in place on treadmills and wash our hair. As Camus beautifully puts it in The Myth of Sisyphus,

Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm – this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the “why” arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement.

It’s difficult to manage the cognitive dissonance. Bad things happen every day, but we must carry on as if they don’t. How can we react to that without feeling crushed by the tragic absurdity of it all?

One proposal is that we could follow the advice of the Ancient Stoics. Thinkers like Epictetus and Seneca reflect on the human tendency to tie happiness to external goods and events. We want other human beings to make reasonable decisions. We want good things to happen in the world rather than bad things. We want to see others exhibit love and empathy rather than hatred and fear. These are reasonable preferences, but, as the Stoics point out, none of this is fundamentally up to us. Those of us with good intentions can each do our part, and it still might not be enough. What we can do instead is focus on what is under our control. We’ll never be able to fully control our fortune, the actions of other people, or the way global politics operate. What is up to us is what we are doing internally. Our own individual virtue is up to us, and that is what fundamentally matters anyway. Read more »

On the road. In front of my house. Very mysterious.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.