Dr. GNo

MacBook Pro M5 14" 2025 Review

2026-02-18T00:00:00Z

MacBook Pro M5 14" Review

I've been MacBook Pros for like a decade, I hate the Microsoft Windows experience so much. Tahoe makes Windows 11 seem like it came out of 2015. However, the increasing cloud/thick-client & Activation/Erasure & Walled-Garden nature of MacOS is now absurd. Given the Design tools are so world class, it says a lot that I'm leaving the Apple ecosystem.

Here is a great explanation. I've been using a MacBook Pro 2019, another Christmas Gift, from then until now.

I expected jumping into M5 would be a whole 'nother level of mind blowing computing... not ..at ..all. It was just faster and more comfortable.

Apple AI sucked and it was another companies product which is so strange to make it a "killer app" for your OS. Before I get to the kicker lemme just talk about the laptop's RAM. I first got the highest retail generic version with 16GB. With widgets of Little Snitch, Things, Weather, and disabling nearly everything else, I was using 11GB of RAM, absolutely ridiculous, so I returned that version and got a 24GB for $200 extra and that fixed that ...except

It ran hot much of the time using just a single fan that did not sound Tier A so I returned it.

Legendary Economist on Tariffs

2026-02-17T00:00:00Z

Economics in One Lesson (PDF) by Henry Hazlitt, 1946

CHAPTER 11

Who’s “Protected” by Tariffs?

A mere recital of the economic policies of governments all over the world is calculated to cause any serious student of economics to throw up his hands in despair.

What possible point can there be, he is likely to ask, in discussing refinements and advances in economic theory, when popular thought and the actual policies of governments, certainly in everything connected with interna- tional relations, have not yet caught up with Adam Smith? For pres- ent-day tariff and trade policies are not only as bad as those in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but incomparably worse. The real reasons for those tariffs and other trade barriers are the same, and the pretended reasons are also the same.

In the century and three-quarters since The Wealth of Nations appeared, the case for free trade has been stated thousands of times, but perhaps never with more direct simplicity and force than it was stated in that volume. In general Smith rested his case on one funda- mental proposition: “In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest.” “The proposition is so very manifest,” Smith continued, “that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common- sense of mankind.”

From another point of view, free trade was considered as one aspect of the specialization of labor:

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoe- maker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its pro- duce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for. What is pru- dence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.

But whatever led people to suppose that what was prudence in the conduct of every private family could be folly in that of a great king- dom? It was a whole network of fallacies, out of which mankind has still been unable to cut its way. And the chief of them was the cen- tral fallacy with which this book is concerned. It was that of consid- ering merely the immediate effects of a tariff on special groups, and neglecting to consider its long-run effects on the whole community.

2

An American manufacturer of woolen sweaters goes to Congress or to the State Department and tells the committee or officials con- cerned that it would be a national disaster for them to remove or reduce the tariff on British sweaters. He now sells his sweaters for $15 each, but English manufacturers could sell here sweaters of the same quality for $10. A duty of $5, therefore, is needed to keep him in business. He is not thinking of himself, of course, but of the thou- sand men and women he employs, and of the people to whom their spending in turn gives employment. Throw them out of work, and you create unemployment and a fall in purchasing power, which would spread in ever-widening circles. And if he can prove that he really would be forced out of business if the tariff were removed or reduced, his argument against that action is regarded by Congress as conclusive.

But the fallacy comes from looking merely at this manufacturer and his employees, or merely at the American sweater industry. It comes from noticing only the results that are immediately seen, and neglecting the results that are not seen because they are prevented from coming into existence.

The lobbyists for tariff protection are continually putting forward arguments that are not factually correct. But let us assume that the facts in this case are precisely as the sweater manufacturer has stated them. Let us assume that a tariff of $5 a sweater is necessary for him to stay in business and provide employment at sweater making for his workers.

We have deliberately chosen the most unfavorable example of any for the removal of a tariff. We have not taken an argument for the imposition of a new tariff in order to bring a new industry into exis- tence, but an argument for the retention of a tariff that has already brought an industry into existence, and cannot be repealed without hurting somebody.

The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost $15 apiece can be bought for $10. Consumers can now buy the same qual- ity of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $10 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment—as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted—in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any num- ber of other industries in the United States.

But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as multilateral exchange, loans, credits, gold movements, etc. which do not alter the end result) is the only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us. They are, in fact, eventually forced to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain per- petually unused. So, as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And though fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed—and much more efficiently employed—in, say, the Ameri- can automobile or washing-machine business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British produc- tion on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being forced to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better pro- vided with sweaters, and British consumers are better provided with motor cars and washing machines.

3

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tar- iff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying for- eign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American con- sumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment.

Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else.

He would have to reduce his expen- ditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employ- ees, the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each con- sumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would prob- ably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

4

It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for, as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor pro- ductivity.

Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages.

Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles. There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall, the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced. If we look at it now from the consumer’s point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff—though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected indus- tries —must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages.

Only minds corrupted by generations of misleading propaganda can regard this conclusion as paradoxical. What other result could we expect from a policy of deliberately using our resources of capital and manpower in less efficient ways than we know how to use them? What other result could we expect from deliberately erecting artificial obsta- cles to trade and transportation?

For the erection of tariff walls has the same effect as the erection of real walls. It is significant that the protectionists habitually use the language of warfare. They talk of “repelling an invasion” of foreign products. And the means they suggest in the fiscal field are like those of the battlefield. The tariff barriers that are put up to repel this inva- sion are like the tank traps, trenches, and barbed-wire entanglements created to repel or slow down attempted invasion by a foreign army. And just as the foreign army is compelled to employ more expensive means to surmount those obstacles—bigger tanks, mine detectors, engi- neer corps to cut wires, ford streams, and build bridges—so more expen- sive and efficient transportation means must be developed to surmount tariff obstacles. On the one hand, we try to reduce the cost of trans- portation between England and America, or Canada and the United States, by developing faster and more efficient ships, better roads and bridges, better locomotives and motor trucks. On the other hand, we offset this investment in efficient transportation by a tariff that makes it commercially even more difficult to transport goods than it was before. We make it $1 cheaper to ship the sweaters, and then increase the tariff by $2 to prevent the sweaters from being shipped. By reducing the freight that can be profitably carried, we reduce the value of the invest- ment in transport efficiency.

5

The tariff has been described as a means of benefiting the pro- ducer at the expense of the consumer. In a sense this is correct. Those who favor it think only of the interests of the producers immediately benefited by the particular duties involved. They forget the interests of the consumers who are immediately injured by being forced to pay these duties. But it is wrong to think of the tariff issue as if it represented a conflict between the interests of producers as a unit against those of consumers as a unit. It is true that the tariff hurts all consumers as such. It is not true that it benefits all producers as such. On the con- trary, as we have just seen, it helps the protected producers at the expense of all other American producers, and particularly of those who have a comparatively large potential export market.

We can perhaps make this last point clearer by an exaggerated example. Suppose we make our tariff wall so high that it becomes absolutely prohibitive, and no imports come in from the outside world at all. Suppose, as a result of this, that the price of sweaters in Amer- ica goes up only $5. Then American consumers, because they have to pay $5 more for a sweater, will spend on the average five cents less in each of a hundred other American industries. (The figures are chosen merely to illustrate a principle: there will, of course, be no such sym- metrical distribution of the loss; moreover, the sweater industry itself will doubtless be hurt because of protection of still other industries. But these complications may be put aside for the moment.) Now because foreign industries will find their market in America totally cut off, they will get no dollar exchange, and therefore they will be unable to buy any American goods at all. As a result of this, American industries will suffer in direct proportion to the percentage of their sales previously made abroad. Those that will be most injured, in the first instance, will be such industries as raw cotton producers, copper producers, makers of sewing machines, agricultural machinery, type- writers and so on.

A higher tariff wall, which, however, is not prohibitive, will pro- duce the same kind of results as this, but merely to a smaller degree. The effect of a tariff, therefore, is to change the structure of American production. It changes the number of occupations, the kind of occupa- tions, and the relative size of one industry as compared with another. It makes the industries in which we are comparatively inefficient larger, and the industries in which we are comparatively efficient smaller. Its net effect, therefore, is to reduce American efficiency, as well as to reduce efficiency in the countries with which we would otherwise have traded more largely.

In the long run, notwithstanding the mountains of argument pro and con, a tariff is irrelevant to the question of employment. (True, sudden changes in the tariff, either upward or downward, can create temporary unemployment, as they force corresponding changes in the structure of production. Such sudden changes can even cause a depression.) But a tariff is not irrelevant to the question of wages. In the long run it always reduces real wages, because it reduces efficiency, production and wealth.

Thus all the chief tariff fallacies stem from the central fallacy with which this book is concerned. They are the result of looking only at the immediate effects of a single tariff rate on one group of produc- ers, and forgetting the long-run effects both on consumers as a whole and on all other producers.

(I hear some reader asking: “Why not solve this by giving tariff pro- tection to all producers?” But the fallacy here is that this cannot help producers uniformly, and cannot help at all domestic producers who already “outsell” foreign producers: these efficient producers must necessarily suffer from the diversion of purchasing power brought about by the tariff.)

6

On the subject of the tariff we must keep in mind one final precau- tion. It is the same precaution that we found necessary in examining the effects of machinery. It is useless to deny that a tariff does benefit—or at least can benefit—special interests. True, it benefits them at the expense of everyone else. But it does benefit them. If one industry alone could get pro- tection, while its owners and workers enjoyed the benefits of free trade in everything else they bought, that industry would benefit, even on net balance. As an attempt is made to extend the tariff blessings, however, even people in the protected industries, both as producers and con- sumers, begin to suffer from other people’s protection, and may finally be worse off even on net balance than if neither they nor anybody else had protection.

But we should not deny, as enthusiastic free traders have so often done, the possibility of these tariff benefits to special groups. We should not pretend, for example, that a reduction of the tariff would help everybody and hurt nobody.

It is true that its reduction would help the country on net balance. But somebody would be hurt.

Groups previously enjoying high protection would be hurt. That in fact is one reason why it is not good to bring such protected interests into exis- tence in the first place. But clarity and candor of thinking compel us to see and acknowledge that some industries are right when they say that a removal of the tariff on their product would throw them out of busi- ness and throw their workers (at least temporarily) out of jobs. And if their workers have developed specialized skills, they may even suffer permanently, or until they have at long last learnt equal skills. In trac- ing the effects of tariffs, as in tracing the effects of machinery, we should endeavor to see all the chief effects, in both the short run and the long run, on all groups.

As a postscript to this chapter I should add that its argument is not directed against all tariffs, including duties collected mainly for rev- enue, or to keep alive industries needed for war; nor is it directed against all arguments for tariffs. It is merely directed against the fallacy that a tariff on net balance “provides employment,” “raises wages,” or “protects the American standard of living.” It does none of these things; and so far as wages and the standard of living are concerned, it does the precise opposite. But an examination of duties imposed for other purposes would carry us beyond our present subject.

Nor need we here examine the effect of import quotas, exchange controls, bilateralism, and other devices in reducing, diverting or pre- venting international trade. Such devices have, in general, the same effects as high or prohibitive tariffs, and often worse effects. They present more complicated issues, but their net results can be traced through the same kind of reasoning that we have just applied to tariff barriers.

New Year's 2026 Chemtrails for Elias

2025-12-29T00:00:00Z

Right over my fucking head. At low altitude, watch:

I took it on my Panasonic DMC-GX85 DSLR in 4K which you can download in 2160p H264

It's poison, poison, poison for me! They already gave me multiple diseases recently and I'm bone thin, it freaks me out. What this means for you is we might get a big false flag this New Year's when they try to wipe me out in days.

Looking back I think I've been at total war since I born.

Empirical, Logical, Rational reasons to not be gay or trans

2025-10-15T00:00:00Z

Gender is an amorphous construct that was defined by some obscure scholar who advocated genital surgeries. It does not exist empirically as it is simply a behavioral choice with no Scientific evidence because we cannot read minds. Genital surgery is a gross violation of the body and soul, de facto. Sex is innately private and should not be evangelized because that is an oxymoron.

Before we go on further, I'll surprise readers and say there is nothing wrong with being bi-sexual or pansexual for a time. After all, sex is about exploration and discovery of self. Keep it to yourself though. Let's get to the crux of the title now, good and well reasons to not be gay or transgender and my arguments will be very hard to dispense with, I assure any doubters.

First, you will die and everything you ever did and ever had will go away for you. What is left then is what you did for others, your legacy. Your legacy could be a Library, that is one of the penultimates, but that is for the rich. Let us think in more achievable terms, ones that harken backwards: A family legacy. Being straight with a Marriage and Children passes on your life's work to your Children which may last generations adding up to maybe a 100 years or more through Grandchildren. That's worth your life and is rock solid. Unlike a Corporation, Societal Group, or Advocacy Entity, you can be sure your progeny will fight hard, tooth and nail, to keep living and keep those inherited resources and knowledge passed.

In contrast, the gay couple will not have progeny of their own lineage and IVF provides no spark of vitality, no love was required in it's conception. Life if you've not figured it out by now is about connection. A baby not touched will die. A person who grew up alone without others will be a shell of a modern human. The gay couple may join Societal Groups and Advocacy Entities but these come and go with the wind in terms of centuries. Even if these abstract ideological pacts persist past a 100 years the very nature of the advocacy is not self-sustaining.

Secondly, the percentage of LGBT adults in the world is estimated to be around 9%. This is a very small minority whom deceptively portrays itself as larger than it is aided and abetted by all kinds of Media, Laws, and Groups who do not themselves benefit from it's own advocacy. How do the advocacy groups benefit from your gayness or transgenderism in real and powerful ways? They simply don't. Their power is in convincing others. They cannot possibly benefit in the long term. If the LGBTQIA+ trend continues rising, the net legacy of common populations will decimate itself through non-legacy, self annihilation. As LGBTQIA grows, legacy shrinks.

If we process the rise of homosexuality to it's endpoint where the population is substantially gay then extinction is near. Birthrates determine Nation-State rises and falls. This is why Islam is growing immensely in power. This is why Mexican families are taking over or at least were taking over major Professions and sometimes Industries in America. Nearly all Trades and Food Service Industries were inundated with majority heterosexual Mexican families, entire extended families, barrios.

Thirdly, we must approach the most sensitive topic of Transgenderism and I may come across as vituperate here at the expense of being Scientific and Logical. In this case there is absolutely no winning formula at all. There is absolutely no logical, empirical, or rational reason to surgically remove your genitals and reconfigure what is left. The body is anathema to any type of surgery despite today's Medicine. Your body is always even if in small amounts traumatized, scarred, and degenerated -- especially in older age. It WILL catch up to you. Imagine your genital surgery at 50, 70 years old.

I've seen the failed and cheaper surgeries and read the horror stories. I've looked into the Doctors that do these surgeries. I've looked into the profit motive of the places that do them and so should you. What you will find is grotesque. What you will find is life long pain and misery in too many cases. It's not worth the risk or trauma and the benefits? I have an extremely active imagination and I cannot come up with a strong case for life-long satisfaction versus others means of sexual gratification.

Lastly, I'll give you goods and you better believe it. What I'm going to say connects all the dots and ticks all the boxes. They want you to self-select out of the gene pool to reduce the population. They don't give a fuck about you.

P.S. I'll throw out an olive branch for those whom are committed despite what I say: Divert your LGBTQIA+ misplaced evangelism and replace it with a legacy that is for everyone, is sure to last, and makes us all better for the future to come.

Zero Trust is a losing game

2025-10-14T00:00:00Z

As the late Robert Steel hammered into everyones brains at the Public Intelligence Blog "The Truth at all costs lowers all other costs". So, the futile pursuance of "Zero Trust" systems employing thousands over Engineer hours and hundreds of millions of dollars has gotten Civilization about a thimble full of things we can depend on and use in your daily lives.

Think about it, can you "trust" a widget in the zero trust pipeline to be robust enough and to meet your requirements well into the future with no knowledge of it? Humans in fact need and work on trust, we are wired that way. It is well and good because this ensures our future. Psychologically if you trust nothing and no one, your mental framework will begin to breakdown and you will experience bouts of paranoia and depression because of it, fact.

The 3 main things working against you

2025-10-14T00:00:00Z

Distractions

The Podcasts, talk, protests: You know everything you need to know to make change. You need no new information. Really think about the word "Protest". It's unbelievably ineffective, obviously. They could care less. You need direction action that concludes with real results.
Entertainment is spectacularly disproportionate to our living situation of increasing poverty and declining freedoms. We have hundred million dollar movies and games while we eat cake.
Racism as phenomena
Gender as phenomena

Time, Occupations

As pre-occupied as we are, you've got to find time to research the things that really matter, foundational things. You must dig deep past the fake facade of what you're being told and find real answers that solve real problems for you. You must be supremely open minded and not judge until the very, very end, until you are past exhausted of the topic, and then some.

Misplaced Trust

A system can be great but it matters most what entity controls it. Who and what you are paying attention to. For example there was this great grocery store in Newhall, CA. It had the best produce and the lowest prices, everyone loved it. It was however eventually found out that a Cartel owned the grocery store and all those dollars just returned to us in blood money and drugs. Well, the same is true for Google. All those free services are building the Panopticon, removing the Human Internet. Don't be a sucker!

Real things: Declining Economy, Declining Freedom Index, Declining Health, Declining Education, Increasing Panopticon

Forgejo is a rat race

2025-10-14T00:00:00Z

I recently tried every self hosted git server. I was set on seeing how Forgejo worked as it's the current fad. First of all the changelog for v13 was just spectacularly voluminous. How could a project have this many entires of all types.

Features which are not features, which are technically lies

PR: assorted ActivityPub code only refactors
feat(logger): rename settings for consistency and remove obsolete settings
chore: remove goroutine PID logging
update broken git hook error
avoid expensive SQL for org home
improve Go lexer
if OAuth2 is disabled return 'Not found' for openid configuration

18 + 24 bug fixes = 42 28 features + 13 = 41 features - 7 non-features 34

All of Technology can be explained using Cookies

2025-10-14T00:00:00Z

I mean come on it's laughable, in your face psyops, a tracking technology named "cookies". Might as well call telemetry phone-homes "icecreams", just like Warren Buffet, like an food buffet, fueuled by overly rich consumption, fake as hell, fat too. Bufeé makes his money from Insurance, the biggest scam ever. Anyway, I digress...

Humans and more over societies have a weakness: Do ill things to us slowly, perhaps over generations and we accept it. A frog boiling. So, website cookies. It does have good uses sure but look what it has become, tracking you across everything you do on the internet. Does any Government Agency or Regulatory Body curtail this rotten abusive behavior by our Corporatocracy/Oligarchy in our advocacy? No, why? Because it is to their advantage in creating a Panopticon.

Open Source Was a Ruse

2025-10-14T00:00:00Z

Someone has to be brutally honest with you about open source software. Again I must explain that as in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, these things happen over extended time, often over generations. It starts out great and ends up enshittified. Here is the final analysis my friend: Open Source was used to enrich Big Tech beyond measure by taking all your free work and incorporating it into their software systems. Generationally with hindsight, it could possibly be that all of this was planned to birth AI - that it was a planned obsolescence of FOSS developers, even all human programming. That eventualy programmers would no longer be needed. Maybe the mass burnout was part of the "insurance" all along. It would be different if we had control over Industry; Regulatory Bodies that would stop the "AI steal", would insure FOSS devs could get properly compensated in any number of ways like a Bureau of Consumer Protection even to merely advocate for FOSS, but we don't have that and we won't ever.

They as sure as the sun rises plan these things over decades, generations, oh yes, that's how you do it. It's worth Billions in the end, right? Why not plan in the super long term, in your perspective that is? I mean, wouldn't that strategy necessarily beat short term planners? Now you're thinking like Caesar, Alexander the Great, today's Trillionaires!

The bottom line is these examples are so numerous, but least of which, you, we, birthed the foundations for AI, FOR FREE.