Spacetime Without Repetition I read the Science News piece on spacetime quasicrystals on a foggy morning when the cherry and pear trees outside my window looked like discretized columns, evenly spaced but not quite repeating. That felt appropriate. Quasicrystals have always been about that uneasy feeling, the sense that order doesn’t need periodicity to exist. It turns out spacetime itself might share that temperament (Conover, Spacetime quasicrystals, 2026). Quasicrystals entered human knowledge as an embarrassment. In 1982, Dan Shechtman observed diffraction patterns that should not have existed if crystallography’s rules were complete. His structures had long‑range order without translational repetition.

Imagine time with pattern anxiety: ordered, unrepeatable, and mildly smug. Spacetime quasicrystals promise coherence without the marching band. Fun for theorists, confusing for clocks.

Read:

Is This Just a Recession, or Are We Lying to Ourselves Again? What We Call It Before It’s Over The latest zeitgeist in Threads kicked off cleanly, boldly, right at the top of the post, the way only trouble does. A simple question, deceptively academic, dropped into the open like a match: “Did people actually call it the Depression while it was happening, or is that one of those names we stapled on later, once the danger had passed and the textbooks were feeling confident?” I remember reading it and grinning, because that is never just a history question. It is a vibes question.

We stopped saying “depression” when policy learned to fight hard. If credit seizes, banks fail, and jobs don’t come back, names won’t save us. How many breaks before we admit the system is cracking?

Read:

They Will See His Face: What Kind of Seeing? The question didn’t come from a theology class or a church lecture. It came from Facebook. Someone wrote: “Atheists say Jesus hides. But He’s not hiding. The Bible says we will see Him face to face. Revelation 22:4. Billions have seen Him.” It was meant as a conclusion, not an invitation. A verse was cited, the implication asserted, and the discussion treated as finished. But the more I sat with the claim, the more it became clear that the verse wasn’t doing the work people thought it was. The confidence of the statement depended less on the text itself and more on a very particular way of reading it.

Revelation 22 offers relentless visibility: no night, names on foreheads, eternal service. If that counts as freedom, freedom becomes unfalsifiable. A close read complicates the comforting slogan.

Read:

Remembering Amalek Political Theology, Sacred Violence, and the Cost of Turning Scripture into Policy I have spent a lot of time sitting with the Amalek story because it does not sit quietly. It refuses to stay in the past. In the Hebrew Bible, Amalek is not just an enemy people; Amalek is turned into an absolute. The command in 1 Samuel 15 is not conquest, not punishment, not deterrence. It is annihilation. Men, women, children, livestock. Memory itself is targeted. That detail matters because it sets this story apart from ordinary ancient warfare and gives it a moral weight that reverberates far beyond the text.

Amalek’s command was annihilation. When scripture’s most lethal reading is repurposed as policy, mercy becomes treason and civilians vanish as moral categories. A warning about sacred violence we ignore at our peril.

Read:

What You Use When Missiles Stop Being Convincing Railguns, Kaiju, and the Quiet Logic of Japanese Engineering Here’s the thing. I live on the damp west side of the Cascades, where the rain is persistent but rarely dramatic, and where the natural world teaches you early that scale matters. Mountains are patient. Rivers win eventually. That context sticks with you. It also makes the idea of Kaiju feel less absurd than it probably should. When something truly large shows up, you don’t argue with it. You adapt. That’s why Japan’s recent advances in railgun technology matter, even if we keep pretending this is only about peer‑state deterrence and not about the large, angry things that occasionally crawl out of the sea.

Rainproof take: missiles scream, Kaiju shrug. Japan’s quiet railgun science is more “drive a spike through the problem” than fireworks. Less fallout, more physics... and frankly, I prefer the crack of rails to the panic of missiles.
Read more:

Fog, Ferries, and the Fine Print of Free Speech I live in a place where people will argue about constitutional theory while waiting patiently for a ferry that is already late. Freedom of speech comes up a lot out here. Usually not in law‑school tones, more like “I heard you can’t even say X anymore” or “free speech means the government can’t stop me from posting this meme.” The weather is gray. The opinions are not. The most famous line in these conversations is the one that refuses to die: you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater. People say it as if it were engraved on stone tablets and handed down with the First Amendment.

Free speech isn’t “say anything, anywhere, consequence-free.” It’s: the government can’t silence you… but people can absolutely argue, fact-check, ignore, or ban your post. Turns out the First Amendment isn’t a personal PR team.

The war with Iran is still working... even though the administration looks like fools and it's costing $1.1B per day, goal achieved... Epstein file reporting is down 94%. Was down 98%, but then Melania had to open her mouth.

Spiritual, Without the Supernatural We were up before dawn at Bryce Canyon, the kind of early that feels slightly unreasonable even when you chose it on purpose. The road to the rim was empty, the air sharp enough to sting, and the sky still undecided about what it planned to do next. I had coffee cupped between my hands; my wife had hot chocolate, steam rising from the lid in small, defiant clouds. We stood there in near silence as the light began to move, not all at once, but step by step, spilling across rock formations that dropped a thousand meters down and then, somehow, kept going in the imagination all the way to plains and states far beyond what we could see.

Sometimes “spiritual” isn’t about gods at all. It’s standing in the cold at Bryce Canyon, watching the light climb the rocks, realizing the moment doesn’t need you... and still hits hard anyway. Awe doesn’t require the supernatural. Just attention.

Glance and un Coup D’œil “A blow that bounces off” I live in a corner of the map where conversation veers from espresso foam to avalanche reports without warning, so when I hear two words that seem to point at the same mental move, I get curious. Glance in English and un coup d’œil in French feel like linguistic cousins: both name that quick, skimming look we toss at a thing before we decide whether it deserves a second coffee. Under the hood, they even share the same physics metaphor: a blow that hits at an angle and ricochets.

Funny how English glance and French coup d’œil both started as “a blow that bounces off.” Even our eyes are out here ricocheting off reality like poorly aimed arrows. No wonder half my decisions are made at a 15° angle.

Living in the PNW, I’ve seen how bad framing lets myths thrive in the fog. This headline hands creationists easy ammo by reinforcing the “something from nothing” strawman. Physics isn’t making ex nihilo claims; the vacuum has structure, energy, and rules. Precision matters.

That “Scientists made something out of nothing” headline in Popular Mechanics made me wince. Not because the science is wrong, it isn’t, but because a quantum vacuum is not “nothing.” Vacuum fluctuations are well‑known in quantum field theory. This framing swaps precision for clickbait.

When “Dark Matter May Not Be One Thing” Becomes a Story About Uncertainty Living in the Pacific Northwest, where fog can sit in the valleys while the peaks remain clear, I’m always aware of how easy it is to mistake partial visibility for mystery. And every now and then, I get to look into the deep secrets of the Universe… Well actually, I just check out my astronomy and astrophysics feed. The recent SciTechDaily article, “Mystery Deepens: Astrophysicists Say Dark Matter May Not Be One Thing” leans heavily into that temptation. It presents genuine progress in dark matter modeling as if it were a conceptual crisis, and in doing so, quietly departs from what the underlying research actually claims.

Every time physics gets more precise, someone writes like reality is unraveling. New dark matter model? Not mystery... refinement. The universe didn’t get weirder overnight. Our models just got less wrong. Fog ≠ disappearance.

The Disappearing Y and Other Completely Reasonable Contingency Plans Somewhere between a headline and a punchline lives the claim that humans are slowly losing the Y chromosome and may need an alternative sex‑determination mechanism. I first heard it the way many people do, over drip coffee and Wi‑Fi, delivered with the tone reserved for half‑remembered apocalypse facts. Men are going extinct. Biology is broken. Stand by for Phase Two. The confidence is impressive. The evidence, less so. The actual science is quieter and more interesting. The human Y chromosome really has shrunk over evolutionary time. Compared to its ancestral partner, it has lost genes, streamlined itself, and specialized hard into testis determination and sperm production.

Every few months someone announces the Y chromosome is “vanishing,” which is wild because the actual science says it’s just… doing its job. Shrinkage isn’t doom, it’s specialization. Evolution is messy, not a countdown clock. Panic is optional; jokes are mandatory.

The Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act was introduced in both the House and Senate and is now sitting in committee. It hasn’t moved to a vote yet, but it’s already reframing the debate around affordability by asking a simple question: why tax survival wages before taxing extreme wealth?

The Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act does something radical in a very plain way: it stops taxing income people need just to live. It exempts income up to the cost of living, cuts taxes for the middle class above that, and shifts the cost to multimillion‑dollar incomes instead of paychecks.

Inevitability, or the Comfort of Saying So Strong determinism has a way of entering conversations quietly and leaving scorch marks behind. It does not announce itself as a theory so much as a mood, a gravitational pull toward inevitability that promises relief from responsibility and explanation alike. At its highest altitude, strong determinism claims that everything that happens could not have happened otherwise. Not just stars collapsing or dice landing where they do, but beliefs, arguments, doubts, conversions, refusals, and this very sentence. It is a vision of reality that feels austere, almost elegant, until you notice what it quietly asks you to stop doing.

Funny how strong determinism keeps borrowing the architecture of theology and calling it physics. Swap “inevitable” for “ordained” and the script barely changes. Modern science gives us constraints, not cosmic destiny. The future isn’t prewritten, it’s probabilistic.

Where it stands: the Equal Tax Act has been introduced in both the House and Senate and is currently sitting in committee. It’s not law yet, but it’s already reshaping the debate over whether capital income deserves permanent favoritism over wages.

The Equal Tax Act is simple: once income passes $1M, money is taxed the same whether it comes from work, investments, or inheritance. No special capital‑gains rules for the ultra‑rich. Same dollars, same tax rate. That’s the whole argument.

Charging the Future One Neighborly Question at a Time One of my recent conversations started the way these things usually do, leaning over a fence with coffee in hand. Our neighbors had just filled their Subaru SUV and were still a little stunned by the receipt. Gas prices do that. They reorder priorities quietly and all at once. They know we’re on our second EV now, and the questions came faster than I could pretend I hadn’t memorized the answers by heart. How much did it hit your utility bill? What did the charger actually cost? How often do you even plug the thing in?

Owning an EV taught me two things:
1️⃣ Electricity is just fuel you actually see on a bill.
2️⃣ Most people don’t want a “tech revolution”... they want a car they can forget about.
Good news: we’re almost there.

I had a similar moment years ago when a friend from my own school died in the first Iraq war. This is how wars arrive. Not on maps, but in ordinary conversations with people who suddenly carry grief into the rest of their lives.

Flags are lowered in WA today for Major Ariana Savino. I was getting coffee when a woman mentioned they’d gone to high school together, class of 2013. Hearing it like that collapsed the distance.

Credotheism and the Comfort of Belief Without Burden There’s a particular kind of conversation that happens easily in this part of the country. It shows up on long walks under fir trees, in coffee shops where the rain feels like a participant, not background noise, and in online exchanges that start politely and end with someone invoking God as if that settles the matter. What stands out in these moments isn’t belief itself, but how lightly belief sometimes seems to rest on the person holding it. Again and again, the same pattern emerges: belief is affirmed clearly and confidently, while the ethical demands traditionally associated with that belief are treated as flexible, symbolic, or beside the point.

Ever notice how some people say “God first”… and then treat the fine print like optional DLC?
I call it credotheism; belief as identity, ethics as suggestions.
It’s more common than you think.

Ok, now evolutionary theory from Brad Guigar...

A Walk That Took Longer Than Expected Okay, something a little different. I was talking with my spouse the other evening, and she pointed out, kindly, but accurately, that when I talk philosophy, I sometimes do it from a place not everyone can easily enter. I asked what she thought might help. Her answer was simple: “Talk like you’re talking to kids. Maybe use characters having a conversation.” I took that as a challenge. So I asked her which characters she had in mind. She paused, smiled, and then said it: Nietzsche and Camus. Right. Self‑overcoming versus accepting the absurd.

What happens when you try to explain Nietzsche and Camus using… Eeyore and Tigger?
Turns out it’s strangely accurate, mildly unhinged, and absolutely my spouse’s fault.
Read the walk that got out of hand:

I'm finding it funny that all these outlets seem to think that Trump has reached a cease-fire agreement with Iran. This is the same guy who organized the attach while negotiation, assaults girls, stiffs employees, and is sometimes referred to as the POOTUS. And they are acting like it's real.

Between Stone and Word: Mithraism and Early Christianity in Contrast Living in the Pacific Northwest, where old forests persist beneath layers of newer growth, I find it difficult not to think historically. Belief systems, like landscapes, are rarely erased; they are built over. Mithraism and early Christianity emerged from overlapping cultural soils, drawing on shared Indo-Iranian and Zoroastrian ideas, yet they grew in markedly different directions. One became the religious backbone of Europe; the other survives only in fragments, symbols, and revivals. The contrast between them tells us less about truth winning out than about how religions adapt, organize, and endure.

Ever wondered why one ancient religion took over the West while the other ended up as cool cave art and trivia for history nerds? Mithraism vs. Christianity is wildly more dramatic than advertised. My latest piece digs in... with jokes.

A Narrative Response to “The Achilles Heel of Atheist Resurrection Hypotheses” A YouTube video by Nathan Boseman on The Epitome Last year, I drove home through a steady Seattle‑style drizzle, made coffee that tasted like wet cedar, and pressed play on Nathan Boseman’s “The Achilles Heel of Atheist Resurrection Hypotheses” on The Epitome YouTube channel. Within minutes I found myself talking back to my screen like a Mariners fan in late September. I took lots of notes, filed them away, and then came back to look again about 2 months ago, as this video’s content bothered me from a 'cross shape peg being pounded in a triangular hole' perspective.

I watched a resurrection-apologetics video so you don’t have to. Then I wrote the Seattle-drizzle version of “sir, that’s not how evidence works.” If you like logic with your latte, here you go:

Apatheism, or: The Quiet Art of Not Caring Who Runs the Cosmos I learned the word apatheism on a rainy afternoon a couple of years ago that felt aggressively local. Americano cooling. Mountains obscured by cloud (standard February). Someone at the table was arguing about God with the same intensity people usually reserve for parking disputes. I remember thinking, not for the first time, that even if one side somehow “won,” nothing about my next grocery trip, my vote, or my obligation to be decent to the barista would change. That moment was not atheism. It was something quieter. Apatheism had been sitting there the whole time, like moss on a cedar fence, unconcerned with whether anyone noticed.

I learned there’s a word for not caring who runs the cosmos, which honestly feels like peak Pacific Northwest energy. If the universe wants something from me, it can leave a note on the fridge.

Breaking Barriers, Revisited Why Women Hesitate in STEM and What Actually Brings Them InBreaking Barriers: Exploring Women's Reluctance in STEM Careers This piece is a follow‑up to our ongoing series, Breaking Barriers: Women in STEM. Rather than celebrating success stories alone, I want to slow down and look more carefully at a question that still makes many people uncomfortable: why, in Western cultures that publicly value equality and innovation, do so many women hesitate to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in the first place? I’m not interested in easy answers or feel‑good slogans.

People keep asking why women “hesitate” in STEM like it’s some cosmic mystery. Spoiler: it’s not vibes, biology, or Mercury in retrograde. It’s culture. And women enter STEM for reasons better than “proving a point.”

Ironic thought experiment: if SCOTUS ended birthright citizenship, the “retroactive?” list could include Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy—U.S.-born to non‑citizen parents. Funny how originalism often depends on the very rule it questions.