The Transportation Security Administration introduced TSA PreCheck in response to September 11 to prevent future terror attacks on airplanes. The system has a dual mission: expediting travel for people who submit to enhanced background checks and making everyone safer by allowing the government to focus on people who are considered risky or whose risk is unknown.

To qualify for TSA PreCheck, passengers undergo a screening process that determines whether or not they’re a risk. The process requires a questionnaire about biographical information and criminal history, fingerprints, and an in-person interview (exactly what’s involved in those background checks is classified). If approved, a so-called known traveler faces fewer security checks than everyone else. And by some measures, this system has been very effective. Experts say air travel has become safer even as threats have continued to evolve, partly since PreCheck allows the TSA to focus its attention on higher-risk travelers.

(Via Rani Molla on Vox)

Let me be clear here: TSA is terrible at its job.

A PreCheck-like program for gun ownership could work. the problem becomes deciding what government agency would enforce it.

That is a tomorrow problem. Today, we would benefit from a PreCheck-like gun system run by even the TSA.

What Exactly Are You Supposed to Do When a Hair Stylist Massages Your Head?:

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is one thing you should avoid doing at all costs. “The one response that can get a little strange comes from the ‘groaners,’” Norris explains, adding that the “groaners” might be the most prevalent response after quiet, eyes-closed enjoyment. “It’s like they forget they’re in public, or that their stylist isn’t their partner,” she says. “I understand that a scalp massage can feel good, but I always prefer ‘that feels nice,’ to loudly moaning with pleasure.”

I shall endeavor but no promises.

The fundamental precept of libertarianism is best summed up with the phrase:

All things being equal, …

Of course, few if any things are truly equal.

Libertarianism – as I understood it – is predicated on other secondary assumptions, assuming government doesn’t tell them to do these things:

• People have enlightened self-interest
• People are responsible for their actions and expect others to be
• People are predictably selfish
• People are rational actors
• There’s someone else who will fill in the gap: churches, charities, non-profits, and the like where enlightened self-interest, predictable selfishness, and acting rationally fail
• Open information is best and will help people be enlightened self-interest rational actors

That idea, that open information is best, feels right. It should be right, all things being equal.

Things are not equal. Just like the idea that there are markets in everything, there is gaming of everything. Come up with rules and someone will not only find ways around them but will frame their activity as right and true.

Many people are disturbed that Duck Duck Go will down-rank Russian disinformation on their search engine. They are declaring that DDG is dead to them.

I have no problem with this. I will keep an eye on down-ranking, but in this case I think it’s the right thing to do.

First, down-ranking means that the search results for the disinformation will still be there but maybe not at the top. So sources of bad information will have a hard time to manipulate algorithms to get their bad data at the top.

Second, there’s the idea that all users – in this case, all people – are the above-mentioned rational actors and can tell disinformation from fact. They can’t. See the amount of recent disinformation around Barack Obama’s birth certificate AND HE’S BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR FIVE+ YEARS. DDG is not preventing misinformation from being available but is not giving it equal weight to credible data.

Third, DDG’s announcement seems to assume the imperfect knowledge of most if not all users. That’s not wrong: We’re all variously imperfectly knowledgeable about Russia’s war with Ukraine, Brexit, the cartels in Mexico, the elections in South Korea, and a bunch of other stuff. I read the news for 1-2 hours per morning and I would not consider myself “well versed” on any of it.

Forth, DDG uses results from Microsoft’s Bing. One could do the same search in Bing and get the misinformation.

My takeaway is that DDG is being a responsible netizen, preventing misinformation from proliferating as on-par with verifiable information from credible sources. Those who think DDG is violating libertarian ideals and will not use it as their search engine – farewell and best wishes.

Scott Nesbitt’s story matches my time in Tokyo a bit – small apartment, not a lot of storage, a desire to to happy with less:

Weekly Musings: Weekly Musings 148:

Buy what you need. Not what’s on offer. Those eight words started the gears in my noggin slowly rotating. Those eight words prompted me to ponder what I own and whether I need all of it.

While I identify as something of a minimalist, I have to admit that own more than I perhaps should. And after moving into a 68 m² (about 732 ft², for those of you who don’t speak Metric) apartment in 2020, I realized had a bit too much in the way of possessions. Of all sizes — from larger items to smaller tchotchkes.

… It’s all just a bit too much, in my opinion. Too much that I need to cull it.

… But what is too much and what is enough? That varies by person. Some people can get away with just 100 essential things in their lives. Others might need more due to, say, personal or professional demands. Even then, they can be a bit more judicious about what they have, what they want, and what they need.

With latter two, there is a difference

… To escape, we need to ask ourselves this question: Do I really need this?

… You also need to escape the contingency mindset … Maybe you’re holding on to that extra something just in case. In case of what? Loss? Breakage? Breakdown? A situation in which your other tools or software or apps, the ones you use regularly, aren’t quite up to the job? You might run into that situation once in a proverbial blue moon. And chances are you’ll forget you even have that tool or app when (if?) it comes time to use it.

I disagree with Scott on the contingency mindset partially. One needs to have a planned contingency mindset, or better phrased an emergency mindset. One of the lessons learned during the pandemic is that some products and services are critical for riding out an emergency.

It’s also good to point out that minimalism is sometimes a privileged position to take. There’s a cost to replacing perfectly good if cheap pans to replace them with one or two high quality replacements in the pursuit of minimalism. However, if you’re stockpiling jelly jars just in case, then there is little to no opportunity cost to recycling them.

As a new homeowner I am trying to keep to the succinct mantra of “buy what you need, not what’s on offer”. Nevertheless, if there is an item I know I will need eventually but not right now I will sock away some savings for when that item does come on-sale (or on offer). For example, I recently bought a clothes iron that was significantly discounted.

The rest of Scott’s advice is solid, so I encourage you to check out his newsletter.