George Washington and vaccines

We're taught a version of the Revolutionary War that is somewhat incomplete.  One aspect that is often overlooked is the time at Valley Forge.  

Washington set up a camp there at the end of 1777, and remained there through the summer of 1778.  The very high-level general purpose was to prepare for the future of the war, to train the troops while he waited for reinforcements, word on the French, etc.  The British knew full well they were there, and just let them be - but kept an eye on them.

Things were definitely rough for the Continental Army, but Washington did two very important things that ultimately led them to victory.  The first was that he brought on Prussian Inspector General Baron von Steuben to organize and train the troops.

The second thing was something that's still relevant today.  To this point, Washington might be considered "anti-vax" by today's standards.  His rationale was that exposing his men to the diseases took them out of commission for a few days to a few weeks while their bodies developed an immune response.  He wanted them to be ready to engage at any time.

But Washington saw the error of his ways as Small Pox was ravaging the Americas.  There was an inoculation available, and he decided to take advantage of it, thus protecting his troops from falling ill.  

Yes, he ordered vaccines be administered to  everyone in his army.  And that left his troops healthy as they fought the British.

You can read more about Washington's stance on vaccines in the attached links.  The second one - somewhat surprisingly because I would not expect such a thing from this admistration - is from the National Parks Service.    

https://historyofvaccines.org/blog/washingtons-war-against-smallpox-revolutionary-inoculation-campaign/

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/smallpox-inoculation-revolutionary-war.htm

Inside the Armed Incursion to Cuba

A lot of news is merely a short statement, or a headline, without any context. And when we do get news, its often slanted to meet a particular set of interests.

I prefer to get my news from many sources, to try and get to something meaningful.

Here's a story that I don't recall seeing get coverage; its about 10 men who wanted to invade Cuba - and attempted to (foolishly) do so.  5 died in a battle with a Cuban naval vessel, and the other 5 were taken into custody in Cuba.

I appreciated the comment, which I believe can be applied to many situations these days, and not just Cubans:

“The advice I’d give other Cubans is stop consuming so much trash [on social media]. Keep your jobs and don’t come to Cuba to do anything because it’s not going to turn out well,” 

The attached story is long form, and thorough.  It talks about policy and the history of Cuba and its relationship with the United States. 

https://open.substack.com/pub/dropsitenews/p/inside-the-armed-incursion-from-florida

First Hispanic woman in space shares memories of historic NASA career with Idaho Falls crowd | KSL.com

This is a kind of fun human interest story about the first Hispanic woman in space. 

She recounts a few stories and shares some accomplishments. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/51626399/first-hispanic-woman-in-space-shares-memories-of-historic-nasa-career-with-idaho-falls-crowd

Third-Party Pin Trading App Blames Meta for AI Ad Altering Creator's Likeness Following $85,000 Legal Demand - WDW News Today

I found this to be an interesting example of the relative dangers of AI. The summary goes a little like this: 

A company developed an app for pin trading. They hired an influencer to make a few videos promoting the app. She did and that was that. 

Then, she discovered that a version of her was appearing in new ads. There was the obvious problem of AI producing content with her likeness. But there was a secondary issue that the AI had slightly adjusted her likeness to make her appear “more white.”

She asked them to take them down, and it seemingly got contentious. They said it wasn’t them who produced the new ads, and blamed meta for the problem. 

So shes suing to get it to stop. In reading through it, it seems meta has this baked into their agreements. They can, will, and do continue to make content without consent of the owner by default. And just who is the owner since she was hired to do ads?

https://wdwnt.com/2026/09/third-party-pin-trading-app-blames-meta-for-ai-ad-altering-creators-likeness-following-85000-legal-demand/

The Macklemore problem

This … for lack of a better word … nonsense ... surrounding Ed Sheeran and one of his opening acts - Macklemore - is just another example of how messed up we are as a society.

Let me preface this by saying that the entire situation in the middle east as it relates to Israel and Palestine is complex.  I don't think there is a "right" answer, and support or distrust of one element doesn't automatically mean that you are taking a stand.  And to be clear, no matter what, there is a humanitarian crisis.  

So, Macklemore says something.  And people lose their minds.  Doesn't he have a right to free speech, too?  Yes, he has a public forum, and maybe he's abusing it in a way.  But IMHO the conversation should be about whether that's the right forum - not whether he should be saying such things. And arbitrating that he's wrong.

Then Robert Kraft got involved, and it blew up.  He told Sheeran that "you can't use my stadium"  - which is also a complicated statement.  The world of professional stadiums is just a mess.  Like all stadiums, he took public funds to build it, and continues to get tax incentives and other considerations to continue to operate it.  So while he will tell you he owns it, it's not quite that simple since it was a very nebulous "public-private partnership"... I would argue that he's speaking on behalf of the taxpayers who contributed to it.  Which just makes this all somehow worse.

In the end, we all just need to settle down. Stop focusing on *what* the guy said and the kneejerk to it (seemingly based on politics by the way) - and focus instead on there being a large humanitarian crisis with no easy answers... but where people are dying based on actions outside of their control, with no way out.

BASF sues Apple in US, says iPhones infringe face authentication patents | Reuters

The world of corporate intellectual property is always interesting to me. 

Here’s a case where BASF created a means to detect people’s faces, and patented it. 

And Apple is accused of having stolen it for use in iPhones. They filed suit and the most likely outcome is that Apple winds up licensing it from BASF. Of course it’s also possible they created a new piece of technology, and they get the case dismissed.  

But one thing to keep in mind: when Apple first invented the iPhone, much of their camera technology was “likely” infringing on some things Kodak had developed. But Kodak was a little disorganized at that time and also had some financial difficulties. So they chose not to pursue legal action. Thus letting Apple “steal” some of their work (or so would seem). 

https://www.reuters.com/world/basf-sues-apple-us-allegedly-infringing-its-face-authentication-patents-2026-09-03/

Never Forget the Space Monkeys That Made It All Possible

Although the stories are not well chronicled, and they aren’t all that well known, monkeys played a critical part in understanding human space flight. 

This story summarizes their contributions. I would like to note that among them, Bonnie is perhaps the most interesting one. And that’s because they wanted to study longer term effects in space, but Bonnie’s condition deteriorated rapidly and they had to abort the mission - and this was concurrent with the moon landing. Surely this was a concern among scientists. 

And second, the public reaction to using Bonnie in this situation caused nasa to re-think how they handle primates in experimentation. 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/five-important-ape-o-naut-moments/