This post help document work done by Ben to develop a low cost system to use image processing to score and televise the status of a bocce game.

---

---

2026-04-01 python files mentioned in bocceVisionStatus02

I asked Microsoft Copilot:
Compared to Florida 2012 to 2026, when I lived in Michigan 1973 to 2012, it seems that Michigan built roads faster but buildings slower. Any evidence for that?

It replied:
Here’s the short version: there is evidence that Michigan historically built and repaired roads faster than Florida, while Florida has generally built private-sector buildings (especially housing and commercial space) much faster than Michigan. But the reasons have more to do with policy, climate, and economics than with construction skill.

Below is a clear, evidence‑based breakdown.

---

🛣️ Road Construction: Michigan vs. Florida

1. Michigan’s road‑building pace (1970s–2010s)

Michigan’s transportation system was shaped by:

• A highly centralized state DOT (MDOT) with strong control over highways.
• A long tradition of heavy manufacturing, which pushed for robust freight corridors.
• Stable gas‑tax funding through the 1990s–2000s, allowing predictable multi‑year road programs.
• Aggressive seasonal scheduling: because Michigan has a short construction season, MDOT historically compresses work into intense summer periods, which feels fast to residents.

Evidence:

• MDOT’s Five‑Year Plans from the 1990s–2010s show large annual lane‑mile resurfacing totals and high project throughput (e.g., I‑96, I‑75, US‑23 corridors).

2. Florida’s road‑building pace (2010s–2020s)

Florida DOT (FDOT) is also highly capable, but:

• Explosive population growth (the fastest in the U.S. during 2010–2023) means demand far outpaces capacity.
• Environmental permitting (wetlands, coastal zones, wildlife corridors) slows project starts.
• Right‑of‑way acquisition is often slower due to rapid land‑value increases.
• Year‑round construction spreads work out, so residents perceive less “intense” progress.

Evidence:

• FDOT’s traffic and project data show massive volume increases and long planning horizons for major corridors (I‑75, I‑4, Turnpike).
• Multi‑year I‑75 widening and interchange projects from Tampa to Naples illustrate long timelines.

Conclusion on roads:
Michigan’s road projects feel faster because they are compressed into short seasons and historically had more stable funding relative to population growth. Florida’s projects are larger, more complex, and slowed by environmental and land‑use constraints.

---

🏗️ Building Construction: Michigan vs. Florida

1. Michigan (1970s–2010s)

Michigan’s building environment was shaped by:

• Slow or negative population growth (1970s–2010s).
• Lower demand for new housing and commercial space.
• Stricter building codes for snow load, insulation, and freeze‑thaw durability.
• Longer permitting and zoning processes in many municipalities.

Result:
Construction happened, but slowly, and mostly as infill or replacement rather than rapid expansion.

2. Florida (2012–2026)

Florida’s building environment is almost the opposite:

• Massive population growth (especially 2015–2025).
• Developer‑friendly zoning in many counties.
• Large master‑planned communities (e.g., Estero, Naples, Orlando, Tampa suburbs).
• Year‑round building season.
• High investor and retiree demand.

Result:
Florida builds housing, retail, medical, and industrial buildings at extremely high speed, often with entire subdivisions rising in months.

---

🧩 Why your experience matches the data

You lived in:

• Michigan (1973–2012) — a period of:
  • Strong MDOT road programs
  • Slow population growth
  • Slow private construction
• Florida (2012–2026) — a period of:
  • Explosive population growth
  • Overloaded road systems
  • Very fast private construction

So your perception aligns with the structural realities:

Category	Michigan (1973–2012)	Florida (2012–2026)
Road construction speed	Fast, intense seasonal work	Slower relative to demand; complex permitting
Building construction speed	Slow (low demand, strict codes)	Very fast (high demand, year‑round building)
Population pressure	Low	Extremely high
Regulatory environment	Moderate–strict	Often developer‑friendly

---

🧠 If you want, I can dig deeper

For example:

• Compare lane‑miles added per capita in each state.
• Look at permit timelines for buildings.
• Examine funding levels for MDOT vs FDOT.
• Analyze specific counties (e.g., Lee County vs Oakland County).

I asked Microsoft Copilot:
Did the Worcester MA city council vote to ban the firing of rockets within the city after Robert Goddard started a fire at Clark University.

It replied:
Here’s the historically accurate answer — and it’s a fun bit of Worcester lore because the story is often repeated incorrectly.

🚀 Short answer: No. Worcester did not pass a special ordinance banning rocket‑firing because of Goddard’s 1926 mishap at Clark University.

There was a small fire during one of his early tests, and Worcester officials became uneasy, but the city never enacted a rocket‑specific ban in response.

---

📘 What did happen?

Here’s the sequence historians agree on:

🔥 1. Goddard’s early liquid‑fuel rocket tests at Clark (1920s) caused concern

• During bench tests in the Physics Department courtyard, one experiment scorched the ground and alarmed campus staff.
• Worcester fire officials and the city manager expressed worry about safety.

🏙️ 2. Worcester discouraged further experiments — but did not legislate a ban

• City officials informally told Goddard that his experiments were too dangerous to continue within city limits.
• This was administrative pressure, not a City Council vote or ordinance.

🌾 3. Goddard moved his work to Auburn, MA

• The famous March 16, 1926 launch — the first successful liquid‑fuel rocket in history — took place on his Aunt Effie’s farm in Auburn, not Worcester.
• Auburn officials were more accommodating, and the rural setting was safer.

📜 4. No record exists of a Worcester ordinance banning rockets

• Searches of Worcester’s Revised Ordinances and historical bylaws show no rocket‑specific prohibition.
• Massachusetts municipal law collections also show no such ordinance.
• Local newspaper archives discussing Goddard’s centennial and early experiments mention the fire incident but do not reference a City Council vote or ban.

---

🧭 Why the myth persists

The story is often retold as:

“Worcester banned Goddard from firing rockets after he set the physics building on fire.”

But the truth is subtler:

• Worcester officials were nervous.
• They asked him to stop.
• Goddard, ever cautious and private, simply moved his work elsewhere.

No ordinance. No vote. Just bureaucratic discomfort.

---

If you’d like, I can also trace the exact fire incident, the correspondence between Goddard and Worcester officials, or how Auburn later embraced its role in rocket history.

“Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you.”
separately he said:
“I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

– John Adams

Jim Babka discusses Ammon Bundy’s views on immigation. See whitepaper below.

from: https://www.peoplesrights.ws/asset/news/a3a48d43-411d-448c-a5e0-4c91ac739ab4/the-stranger-2922.pdf

Elinor Bingham Bachrach died March 3, 2026 at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC at the age of 81.

Elinor was born in Boston, MA on August 2, 1944, daughter of the late Louis Bachrach, M.D., and Anne Jameson Bachrach. She was raised in Brunswick, ME, graduated from Brunswick High School (1961), and received a BA from Pembroke College (1965) and an MA from the University of Chicago (1971).

Majoring in political science, Elinor had a long career in public policy both nationally (at local, state, and national levels) and internationally (with the IMF and USAID). Among the highlights of her career were: six years on the Senate Banking Committee (and especially the New York City Loan Guarantee Act and the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act); ten years as Deputy Comptroller for New York City; and fifteen years as a senior advisor (primarily for USAID) in Ukraine and Moldova, Indonesia, Serbia and Montenegro, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where she focused on strengthening fiscal institutions, reforming regulatory systems, and supporting local governance.

Elinor is survived by her three brothers: Peter Bachrach (Susan), George Bachrach (Christine), and David Arthur Bachrach (Sheila); her nephews Peter A. Bachrach, Thomas Bachrach (Whitney), and Benjamin Bachrach; her niece Anne Bachrach; and her grand-nieces Katharine Bachrach and Lillian Bachrach.

Though Elinor traveled widely and lived abroad for extended periods, she remained devoted to Maine and spent summers at the family cottage on Mere Point over the last fifteen years. Private services will be held there at a later date.

Memorial contributions may be made to the American Civil Liberties Foundation.

received from George Bachrach 3/9/2026

as published in the Worcester Sunday Telegram 7/14/2002

from the collection of Andrea Martin Bachrach

by Laurence J. Gillis, Sr. via Facebook
source

THERE SHOULD BE NO “PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY”:

When you take the government to court, remember that all laws and regulations are presumed by the court to be OK. This “thumb-on-the-scales” approach by the judges is not a good idea.

(In response to my artfully-phrased inquiry, “Copilot” came up with the following in 0.9 seconds)

1. It flips the Constitution on its head

The Constitution is a charter of limits, not a permission slip. The government has enumerated powers, and everything else is reserved to the states or the people. A presumption of constitutionality reverses that logic by treating government action as valid unless citizens prove otherwise. That is the opposite of what a limited‑government framework requires. The burden should rest on the government, not the governed.

2. It undermines judicial independence

Courts exist to check the political branches, not defer to them. When judges presume constitutionality, they effectively: (a) outsource constitutional interpretation to Congress, (b)

rubber‑stamp legislative preferences, and (c) weaken the separation of powers. Judicial review becomes judicial acquiescence.

3. It incentivizes legislative overreach

If lawmakers know courts will give them the benefit of the doubt, they have every incentive to: (a) stretch the Commerce Clause, (b)

expand federal authority, (c) test the limits of police power, (c)

pass vague or sweeping statutes. The presumption becomes a blank check for creative constitutional evasion.

4. It contradicts the original understanding of rights

Rights are pre‑existing; government is the intruder. A doctrine that presumes constitutionality treats rights as negotiable—something citizens must defend rather than something government must justify infringing. This is backwards. The Founders did not fight a revolution so that future courts could say, “Well, Congress probably meant well.”

5. It erodes meaningful scrutiny

Even when courts claim to apply “strict scrutiny,” the presumption of constitutionality: (a) tilts the scale toward the state, (b) narrows the definition of “fundamental rights”, (c) expands the category of “legitimate government interests”, (c) The result is a jurisprudence where the government almost always wins unless the violation is egregious and obvious.

6. It is incompatible with a government of limited powers

A limited government cannot be presumed to be acting within its limits. That’s like presuming a defendant innocent after the trial has begun but presuming him guilty before the evidence is heard. If the Constitution is to mean anything, courts must begin with a presumption of liberty, not a presumption of constitutionality.

7. It weakens democratic accountability.

When courts defer, legislators avoid responsibility. They can pass expansive or constitutionally dubious laws knowing: (a) courts will likely uphold them, (b) voters won’t understand the constitutional stakes, (c) blame can be shifted to “the system”. The presumption shields lawmakers from the consequences of their own excesses.

from: https://cafehayek.com/2026/02/another-open-letter-to-scott-bessent.html

by Don Boudreaux on February 22, 2026

Scott Bessent, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC

Mr. Bessent:

Today on CNN you said that “the administration remains undeterred” at “getting rid of these massive trade imbalances” (“Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: Tariff revenue projections ‘unchanged’ after SCOTUS ruling,” February 22).

What trade imbalances? U.S. trade deficits are balanced by U.S. capital-account surpluses. When exporting, importing, and foreign investing are all taken into account – as economics demands – there are no imbalances.

In short, every dollar that foreigners don’t spend buying American exports is a dollar invested, one way or another, in America.

Some of these invested dollars return to the U.S. as foreign direct investment. Is the administration undeterred in efforts to stop such investment? If so, why? Do you think that foreigners’ eagerness to invest in America is evidence that America is ‘losing’ – or being cheated – at trade? And why does the president brag about all the commitments that he allegedly extracts from foreign companies to establish or expand operations in the U.S. – investments that would increase foreign direct investment in the U.S. and, along with it, U.S. trade deficits? Has Mr. Trump changed his mind about these investments?

Some of these invested dollars return as purchases of shares of American companies, thus increasing the ability of these companies to expand and innovate as they also raise the value of Americans’ pension funds. Is the White House undeterred at obstructing American companies’ access to foreign financing and reducing the value of Americans’ savings?

Some of these invested dollars return as purchases of U.S. Treasuries, thus preventing the U.S. government’s fiscal incontinence from pushing interest rates to heights those rates would reach absent these inflows of dollars from abroad. Are you and your colleagues undeterred in your efforts to jack up interest rates by preventing foreigners from lending dollars to the government?

Some of these dollars circulate globally as the global reserve currency, thus allowing us Americans the enormous advantage of buying foreign-made goods, or investing abroad, for the price of printing (or, even better, digitally creating) dollars. Is the administration undeterred at stripping us Americans of this advantage? If so, can you tell us when Mr. Trump changed his mind about wanting the dollar to remain the global reserve currency? After all, if the administration is determined to ensure that the dollar remains the global reserve currency it simply cannot, as a practical matter, also be undeterred at “getting rid” of what you misleadingly call “massive trade imbalances.”

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

How come I believe Valeria Chomsky’s response about interaction with Epstein but am skeptical about what others say about their interactions with him?

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/noam-chomskys-wife-responds-to-epstein-controversy

Statement from Valéria Chomsky

As many are aware, my husband, Noam Chomsky, now 97, is confronting significant health challenges after suffering a devastating stroke in June 2023. Currently, Noam is under 24/7 medical care and is completely unable to speak or engage in public discourse.

Since this health crisis, I have been entirely absorbed in Noam’s treatment and recovery, solely responsible for him and his medical treatment. Noam and I don’t have any kind of public relations assistance. For this reason, only now have I been able to address the matter of our contacts with Jeffrey Epstein.

Noam and I have felt a profound weight regarding the unresolved questions surrounding our past interactions with Epstein. We do not wish to leave this chapter shrouded in ambiguity.

Throughout his life, Noam has insisted that intellectuals have a responsibility to speak the truth and expose lies — especially when those truths are uncomfortable to themselves.

As is widely known, one of Noam’s characteristics is to believe in the good faith of people. Noam’s overly trust[ing] nature, in this specific case, led to severe poor judgment on both our parts.

Questions have rightly been raised about Noam’s meetings with Epstein, and about administrative assistance his office provided regarding a private financial matter—one that had absolutely no relation to any of Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Noam and I were introduced to Epstein at the same time, during one of Noam’s professional events in 2015, when Epstein’s 2008 conviction in the State of Florida was known by very few people, while most of the public – including Noam and I – was unaware of it. That only changed after the November 2018 report by Miami Herald.

When we were introduced to Epstein, he presented himself as a philanthropist of science and a financial expert. By presenting himself this way, Epstein gained Noam’s attention, and they began corresponding. Unknowingly, we opened a door to a Trojan horse.

Epstein began to encircle Noam, sending gifts and creating opportunities for interesting discussions in areas Noam has been working on extensively. We regret that we did not perceive this as a strategy to ensnare us and to try to undermine the causes Noam stands for.

We had lunch, at Epstein’s ranch, once, in connection with a professional event; we attended dinners at his townhouse in Manhattan and stayed a few times in an apartment he offered when we visited New York City. We also visited Epstein’s Paris apartment one afternoon for the occasion of a work trip. In all cases, these visits were related to Noam’s professional commitments. We never went to his island or knew about anything that happened there.

We attended social meetings, lunches, and dinners where Epstein was present and academic matters were discussed. We never witnessed any inappropriate, criminal, or reproachable behavior from Epstein or others. At no time did we see children or underage individuals present.

Epstein proposed meetings between Noam and figures that Noam had interest in, due to their different perspectives on themes related to Noam’s work and thought. It was in this academic context that Noam wrote a letter of recommendation.

Noam’s email to Epstein, in which Epstein sought advice about the press, should be read in context. Epstein had claimed to Noam that he [Epstein] was being unfairly persecuted, and Noam spoke from his own experience in political controversies with the media. Epstein created a manipulative narrative about his case, which Noam, in good faith, believed in. It is now clear that it was all orchestrated, having as, at least, one of Epstein’s intentions to try to have someone like Noam repairing Epstein’s reputation by association.

Noam’s criticism was never directed at the women’s movement; on the contrary, he has always supported gender equity and women’s rights. What happened was that Epstein took advantage of Noam’s public criticism towards what came to be known as “cancel culture” to present himself as a victim of it.

Only after Epstein’s second arrest in [July] 2019 did we learn the full extent and gravity of what were then accusations—and are now confirmed—heinous crimes against women and children. We were careless in not thoroughly researching his background. This was a grave mistake, and for that lapse in judgment, I apologize on behalf of both of us. Noam shared with me, before his stroke, that he felt the same way.

In 2023, Noam’s initial public response to inquiries about Epstein failed to adequately acknowledge the gravity of Epstein’s crimes and the enduring pain of his victims, primarily because Noam took it as obvious that he condemned such crimes. However, a firm and explicit stance on such matters is always required.

It was deeply disturbing for both of us to realize we had engaged with someone who presented as a helpful friend but led a hidden life of criminal, inhumane, and perverted acts.

Since the revelation of the extent of his crimes, we have been shocked.

In order to clarify the check: Epstein asked Noam to develop a linguistic challenge that Epstein wished to establish as a regular prize. Noam worked on it, and Epstein sent a check for US$20,000 as payment. Epstein’s office contacted me to arrange for the check to be sent to our home address.

Regarding the reported transfer of approximately $270,000, I must clarify that these were entirely Noam’s own funds. At the time, Noam had identified inconsistencies in his retirement resources that threatened his economic independence and caused him great distress. Epstein offered technical assistance to resolve this specific situation.

On this matter, Epstein acted accordingly, recovering the funds for Noam, in a display of help and very likely as part of a machination to gain greater access to Noam. Epstein acted solely as a financial advisor for this specific matter. To the best of my knowledge, Epstein never had access to our bank or investment accounts.

It is also important to clarify that Noam and I never had any investments with Epstein or his office—individually or as a couple.

I hope this retrospectively clarifies and explains Noam Chomsky’s interactions with Epstein. Noam and I recognize the gravity of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and the profound suffering of his victims. Nothing in this statement is intended to minimize that suffering, and we express our unrestricted solidarity with the victims.

February 7, 2026.

Valéria Chomsky