i have seen some goofy audio tech, but this…

Apparently, sometime in the 1980s, TEAC – a legitimate, major, respected maker of audio gear – thought it would be a great idea to combine reel-to-reel loading technology with audiocassette frames.

Yes, it’s a compact audiocassette where you load the reels individually. And you can swap them out! I AM NOT EVEN MAKING THIS UP LOOK AT IT THIS IS LUDICROUS:

"TEAC O'Casse Open Cassette - Reinventing the Reel" (Watch on YouTube)

The selling point was presumably size of the little mini-reels vs. size of an entire cassette frame. But… honestly, how did this ever make it to market? Particularly given what a pain in the ass it is to actually load into a cassette frame and use. Watch the video, it’s pretty much hilarious.

Mirrored from Crime and the Blog of Evil. Come check out our music at:
Bandcamp (full album streaming) | Videos | iTunes | Amazon | CD Baby

picking your theory to match the facts

Those who are interested in thinking about macroeconomics at this point in time should probably be reading the blog Pragmatic Capitalism. And not just because he likes picking fights with Krugman, though that is a bonus.

http://www.pragcap.com/

You see, most people - even very smart people - tend to pick a system of how the world works, then fit the real world's data to that system. Pragmatic Capitalism is not, as far as I know, an exception - tho' I'm fairly new to it, so I won't rule that out, either.

But bear (ha, bear) with me.

Prudent Bear did that, and Market Ticker did that, and Zero Hedge did (and still, do, really, only their model has just launched off into paranoid conspiracy theory)... and the thing is, when the world matches they're model, that makes them very, very good.

Prudent Bear's systemic views matched the actual world situation in 1999-2001. Market Ticker and Zero Hedge's systemic views matched the actual world situation in 2006-2009. They were on top of shit.

Pragmatic Capitalism just might be matching the now. Nobody else is, and for whatever it's worth, the theory that they lay out seems to be the least bad fit I've seen as yet.

All of which should serve as a reminder: if the valid data doesn't match the theory, it's not the valid data - it's the theory. I wish more people could internalise that.