Monday, September 2, 2019

Why I Prefer Traditional Computers to Mobile Devices

Although mobile devices like tablets and smartphones are enjoyable to use, there are a number of reasons why I prefer to do most of my computing on traditional machines like desktops and laptops.  These include ease of use for heavier workloads, ease of repair, lifespan, and privacy.

Probably the most immediate reason why I still do most of my computing on desktops and laptops is simply because I’ve always used such devices and haven’t had any compelling reason to switch to another type of device.  However, as summarized, there are other reasons why I feel that using desktops and laptops – at least for heavier workloads – are preferable to mobile devices.

Tablets and smartphones are obviously great devices because they make life much more convenient than before their existence.  Multiple devices can be combined into one unit – without having lug around multiple different, individual devices.  Finding addresses, listening to music, watching videos, etc. can be done just about anywhere thanks to mobile devices.  I am in no way saying that desktops and laptops are preferable for all purposes.  Mobile devices are preferable for most quick, non-intensive daily tasks (such as looking up addresses, playing music, taking pictures, etc.).  However, they are not ideal for heavier workloads – such as typing essays, video editing, etc.

Desktops and laptops are preferable to mobile devices for heavier workloads for a few reasons.  One is that it is much easier and more comfortable to type quickly on a keyboard than to peck on tiny screens where there’s a heightened chance that the wrong key (or multiple wrong keys) might be pressed – particularly on tiny smartphone screens where the buttons are smaller than a person’s fingers.  It would be uncomfortable to do such an enormous amount of typing in such a small space – compared to the more ergonomic traditional keyboard.  In this day and age, one could say that nobody really needs a keyboard anymore because voice recognition has gotten better and better.  However, I would imagine that nobody would want to wear out one’s throat by dictating an entire novel, report, or any other lengthy, text-based material.  I personally would not like to do that – at least not all the time.  Even if some people didn’t mind doing that, the issue of privacy is raised because others could hear potentially confidential material that they otherwise wouldn’t have.  Again, some people might not mind sacrificing their privacy, but there are likely others, including myself, who would not want to sacrifice privacy.

Another reason why desktops and laptops are better for heavier workloads is that, with mice, more precision is possible.  With smartphone screens in particular, buttons are just big enough to be able to be pressed by fingers, but many buttons are still pretty small, so there is a greater risk of pressing wrong buttons.  Mobile interfaces are generally adequate and large enough for quick, non-intensive tasks, but fingers lack the precision of mouse pointers, which can be very important for doing detailed and/or intensive tasks like using image editors, video editors, etc.  While it may be possible to do things like zoom in on individual pixels, the smaller screens of tablets – and especially smartphones – make it harder to be both precise and efficient.  There are fewer things that can fit on a mobile screen that can also be clicked with the same precision of a mouse pointer.  Therefore, work would become slow and tedious compared to on desktops and laptops.

Overall, one of the biggest reasons why I prefer working on desktops and laptops is that they are physically more comfortable to use for heavier workloads.  Doing tasks like writing and drawing would be much less comfortable on mobile devices – having to cram fingers – sometimes in awkward positions – within the small, limited workspace of a mobile screen – and in some cases get further strained by needing to use one hand just to hold the mobile device – compared to the more ergonomic, relaxed position of having one’s hands evenly spaced – and having a mouse just to the left or right of one’s hand (depending on whether one is left or right handed) – not forcing all the hand and finger muscles to work – and letting the arm muscles do some of the work to relieve the tension in the smaller and more sensitive areas.  One can work longer and with less fatigue with the use of larger, less compact devices like keyboards and mice.

Going slightly off topic, even in the days before tablets and smartphones became widespread, I disliked (and still dislike) using laptop touchpads.  They’ve tended to be located in the middle of the laptop, which means bending my arm at a somewhat awkward angle to reach it – and then having to swipe my finger across multiple times just to get the cursor to move.  A mouse, however, is more in alignment with my arm, so there’s no stretching or straining involved, and I can move the cursor across the screen with one long, simple move.

Having said all that, desktops and laptops are generally more ergonomic in design and, due to larger screens and input devices, allow both precision and efficiency.  Therefore, they are better suited for lengthy, intensive workloads.

Although comfort and precision are the biggest reasons why I prefer using desktops and laptops – especially for more intensive tasks, I also appreciate the ease of repairing and upgrading such machines.  Desktops in particular are relatively easy to repair and upgrade because the parts are larger, so they are easier to handle without worrying as much about breaking them or stripping the screws holding them in place.  Mobile devices are much smaller, and thus, more delicate and at risk for damaging, and since everything is condensed compared to desktops, if one thing gets broken, there’s a chance that the whole device could stop working.  Also, upgrading is next to impossible since mobile devices aren’t really designed for that purpose.  They are relatively disposable – meant to be replaced maybe every year or two.  Desktops are good because they are more easily repaired – as well as more customizable.

Similarly, desktops are preferable to mobile devices because they are more likely to have longer lifespans.  Since the computing components are larger and more spread out, they are, at least seemingly, less likely to wear out as fast since heat is ventilated better, and the components are generally thicker and more durable – and less delicate and prone to breaking.  Also, as stated before, if one thing breaks, it is less likely to compromise the whole system than if something broke in a mobile device.  While it is true that mobile devices generally run cooler than desktops, as stated, their components are still smaller and seemingly more prone to breaking, but also, mobile devices tend to use SSDs for internal storage – as opposed to traditional hard drives.  SSDs tend to be limited to 100,000 read/write cycles, and internal memory is next to impossible to easily replace in mobile devices, so that is yet another advantage for desktops (which ties in with what I said before about being more easily repaired and upgraded).  It is true that mobile devices tend to rely more on cloud technology than internal storage, but I think that it is important to not rely so heavily on the cloud.  For privacy purposes, I believe in the right to control one’s own data, and therefore, while the cloud is very useful, people should still be able to have a decent amount of internal, local storage available on their devices.  Given the larger, less delicate parts of desktops and their ability to ventilate heat better, I feel those things also make desktops a preferable computing choice for heavier workloads.

Finally, as touched on before, privacy is another big reason why I prefer desktops and laptops to mobile devices.  Since 2018, I’ve realized how important privacy is for things like freedom of thought, freedom of speech, etc., and nowadays, with the rise of mobile devices, online services, and the sharing economy, it seems that privacy is diminishing.  Cloud computing is becoming more widely used, and people store lots of their personal data with private companies.  They are at risk for having their files lost, deleted, shared, etc.  They no longer have control of their own data as they should.  Mobile devices appear to be designed to heavily rely on cloud computing, whereas desktops and laptops are more designed to use local storage.  Also, a number of countries require the registration of SIM cards prior to buying prepaid cell phones – putting up more red tape and bureaucracy – making it potentially impossible for a disenfranchised person, having no government-issued ID, to be able to use a computing device.  This makes such a person’s situation worse – given that the world is relying more and more on computers for daily life.  Not only that, but with a phone being registered to someone, the phone company and/or government can now track what that person is doing on that phone.  There is no sense of privacy.  On the other hand, people have not been required to register desktops or laptops, so even someone lacking a government ID – but still having some money – would have the potential to use a computer without worrying about red tape or being tracked by corporations or governments.  The increased privacy in using desktops and laptops is yet another reason why I prefer them to mobile devices.

I definitely like the convenience provided by mobile devices like tablets and smartphones.  However, that’s primarily what they should be used for – convenience – things like getting driving directions, messaging someone while out in the middle of nowhere, quickly looking up an article on Wikipedia, and so on.  However, that doesn’t mean that they should be a complete replacement for desktops and laptops.  As stated, there are some tasks just better suited for traditional computing devices – and some reasons why they are preferable to use to mobile devices.  Having said that, I think that a computer in the future could very well incorporate some of the best of mobile and traditional computers – perhaps in the form of a mobile device (like a tablet or smartphone) that can also be docked at a station hooked up to a keyboard and mouse.  In any case, I do prefer doing much of my computing on desktops and laptops.

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Computer Sound Latency

Lately, I've had an issue with the sound on my main desktop computer having latency.  Even in the past when I had temporarily high CPU usage, and even when my mouse would freeze during high CPU and/or I/O load (mainly within the first several hours of the computer being turned on), I didn't usually have sound latency issues.  Back in 2017, I did notice a sound latency issue when I adjusted a setting to allow Process Lasso to act on system processes, but the problem would go away after changing back to the original setting and restarting the computer.  Despite still having that setting, I have been having sound latency.  It is very strange.  I downloaded a program called LatencyMon, and it seems to have identified some files associated with the latency.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Process Lasso Is Garbage

This afternoon, I had an experience which showed very clearly that Process Lasso is ineffective at preventing computer freezing.

I had just started the computer and was starting to browse the internet, when suddenly, everything froze except the mouse pointer.  Everything was frozen for a long time - although after a minute or two, I did briefly hear some of the music that I had playing in the background.  However, it didn't seem that the computer was going to unfreeze - at least not anytime soon, so I abruptly cut off the power and restarted the computer.

At some point - either before or after restarting the computer, I found that, according to Process Lasso, the culprit was AVG...which had been using 99% of the RAM!  NINETY-NINE PERCENT!  Within a few minutes, AVG was using 99% of RAM yet again, and I had to abruptly shut off the computer and restart it.

I then decided that enough was enough.  Process Lasso wasn't stopping AVG, and AVG was going to keep suddenly using resources - rendering my computer useless - unless I could remove AVG - at least temporarily until I could figure out why AVG was acting so strange.  So after the computer restarted, I uninstalled AVG, but just as it was about to finish uninstalling (or so it seemed), the computer froze YET AGAIN!  I turned off the computer and restarted it again, and thankfully, AVG seemed to have been removed.

This whole incident was ridiculous.  Process Lasso let a BACKGROUND PROCESS use 99% of the RAM!  Nominally, it was using over 4 GB of RAM!  ONE PROGRAM was using 4 GB of RAM!  And yet, Process Lasso did NOTHING to prevent this from happening!  The point of Process Lasso should be to PREVENT bottlenecks from taking place instead of automatically adjusting priorities, but IT DOESN'T DO THAT!  A BACKGROUND PROCESS should not use anywhere EVEN CLOSE to 99% of RAM or CPU!

Most of the people that I've observed online seem to think positively of Process Lasso, but it seems odd as to why since the program clearly doesn't intervene effectively enough to prevent system freezing.  It let a BACKGROUND PROCESS use 99% of the RAM.  What does that say about the program's effectiveness?

Keep in mind that this is the only time that I've had issues with AVG before.  Even though it did tend to have high resource usage - especially when starting the computer, it never even came close to using 99% of my RAM.  None of my other programs have come so close, either - not even the foreground programs.  I was even using the computer early this morning and had no problems with freezing.  Something happened to cause AVG to start acting weird.

One might ask, "Well, if AVG is the problem, then why hate on Process Lasso?"  I'm not saying that Process Lasso caused the system to freeze.  I criticize Process Lasso because it is a program supposedly designed to stop system freezing, but it let ONE PROGRAM use all the memory and ultimately allowed the computer to freeze.  Such a program should not allow such things to happen.  They should PREVENT them from happening by not allowing programs - ESPECIALLY BACKGROUND PROCESSES - from using so many resources, but for some reason, it wasn't designed that way!  And yet, people somehow consider it a helpful program.  It's crazy.  Basically, even if AVG were the problem, it shouldn't matter.  Process Lasso should neutralize whatever problematic program exists, and if it doesn't, then that shows that it is ineffective at the task for which it was supposedly designed.

One might say, "Well, programs aren't infallible.  They're bound to screw up once in a while."  The point is that Process Lasso has virtually NEVER been effective.  For one, Process Lasso didn't screw up just once.  I had to restart my computer THREE TIMES IN A ROW because Process Lasso didn't stop AVG!  Also, the only reason why I haven't had constant freezing in the past is because none of my programs, including AVG, ever did use excessive memory, and no, it was not because Process Lasso was in some way effective.  In regards to CPU usage, programs have run at 100% for lengthy periods of time - even with multiple rules set - even with multiple requests to terminate the program (which are almost always unresponsive (another reason why Process Lasso is junk)).  The occasionally high CPU usage has slowed down computer performance - but has not caused it to come to a halt (the computer would have acted the same even if I didn't have Process Lasso installed).  Whatever the case, Process Lasso DID NOT STOP the high CPU usage of BACKGROUND PROCESSES.  I have had occasional system slowdowns because of this - despite having Process Lasso, so it has proven to be ineffective with CPU.  Despite having programs running with high CPU, I haven't had any issues where memory was maxed out - until today.  If I had programs constantly using all my memory, then that would be further proof that Process Lasso was ineffective.  But I didn't lack high memory usage because Process Lasso was doing its job.  I just lucked out in that regard since my problematic programs seem to be mainly CPU hungry.  I only have had to deal with CPU-related issues, and even those Process Lasso was NOT effectively handling.  It could be seen as an illusion of, "Hey, no freezing, so I guess that means that the program's working, right?"

To be clear, I have felt that Process Lasso was ineffective since at least a year ago, and I didn't hold much confidence in it afterwards.  I just felt like writing this as an even clearer example in which Process Lasso utterly failed to do its job.  It failed to stop ONE BACKGROUND PROCESS from using 99% of RAM...THREE TIMES!  This was not a one-time screw up.  This was the result of an inherent flaw in Process Lasso's design.  It should focus more on PREVENTING high resource usage - and not on adjusting program priorities.  Sometimes that may help, but other times, that's just not enough.  Process Lasso should focus on actually RESTRAINING processes - and capping resource usage - ESPECIALLY FOR BACKGROUND PROCESSES.

Anyway, I don't want to be bitter toward the developers of Process Lasso, so I hope that they can improve the program.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Automation: The End of the Fourth Amendment?

Earlier today, I was looking at a tab in Google Chrome in which I searched for information regarding anarcho-capitalism and basic income, and when I got to the bottom of the page, I happened to notice a link regarding automation and capitalism.  Upon some quick internet searches, I became aware of the possibility that capitalism could end as a result of automation.

Although I'm no particular fan of right-wing economics, the potential end of capitalism is somewhat concerning because of its potential effect on civil liberties and protections - such as rights granted to American citizens under the Constitution - like the Fourth Amendment.

Before elaborating on the issue of constitutional rights, one should think about what might take place of capitalism - if capitalism were to somehow end as a result of automation.  Quite possibly, socialism - or something similar to it - could take over.

The potential problem with socialism is that it is related to anarchism - an ideology that, from what I've observed from online discussions, generally scoffs at the right-libertarian concept of the NAP (non-aggression principle).

If socialism or anarchism were to replace capitalism as a result of automation, there is a concern that socialist states could water down or eliminate protections like the Fourth Amendment.  Anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians generally support the idea of private property, but anarchists generally reject the idea of private property, and so the NAP (something that for the most part would protect private property and individual autonomy) is naturally also disregarded.  I think that the Fourth Amendment in a way is the protection of private property, so under an anarchist society, private property wouldn't exist, so people wouldn't have constitutional guarantees to reasonable privacy and non-interference in their own homes.

I feel that either capitalism must somehow survive automation - or if somehow socialism or some other system supersedes it, that system must guarantee the same protections that many modern countries now grant their citizens.

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Upstate New York vs. Florida Beaches

As a result of recently visiting both Upstate New York and Jacksonville Beach in Florida, I've thought about which place I prefer.  Both are places that I vacationed at in my childhood fairly often, so I truthfully like both of them - just for different reasons.  I also might tend to prefer one of the two places based on my mood.  Back in February, I was all about Upstate New York, whereas now, having recently visited Florida, I like the Florida beaches more.  Also, interestingly enough, yesterday, I learned that apparently, introverted people tend to like the woods more, whereas extroverted people tend to like the beach more.

As stated, my preference depends on my mood.  There are times that I really fall in love with the desolate woods, mountains, rivers, waterfalls, and rustic old houses.  I have a love for the supernatural, and I've thought that many old houses in the middle of the woods would make good haunted houses.  Similarly, the game The 11th Hour somehow reminds me of my grandmother's house in Upstate New York.  The spooky nature of The 11th Hour piques my interest in the deep, lonely woods and abandoned old houses.  Sometimes, I love the idea of being alone in the abandoned woods - living in a rickety old house.

On the other hand, I also really like the Florida beaches - interestingly enough for the exact opposite reason.  Compared to the dark, lonely woods of Upstate New York, the Jacksonville area seemed so much brighter and livelier - especially given its open, bright, blue, and sunny sky.  Also, in contrast to many dilapidated and/or abandoned buildings and fallen trees deep in the woods, many of the buildings in Jacksonville looked really upscale - or at the very least, the area just seemed like it was more decorated, luxurious, and well-maintained - especially given all the palm trees.  Also, despite being primarily an introvert, I liked Jacksonville because it was just so populated - compared to feeling practically abandoned in the hamlets and villages of Upstate New York.  It's weird that, as an introvert, I would like the feeling of being in a populated place like Jacksonville, but I think that being populated makes it somehow feel more happy and secure, whereas being alone in the woods could make one feel lonely and vulnerable.  Also, one plus to being in a highly-populated area is that one tends to blend in with the crowd, whereas in lesser-populated areas, one is more likely to get noticed - potentially triggering one's anxiety.

As stated, I like both Upstate New York and Jacksonville Beach for opposite reasons, and I might prefer one over the other given my mood at the time.  However, since I recently came back from Florida, I currently love Jacksonville.  Although Upstate New York is nice, for reasons stated above, Jacksonville just feels so much happier, and I somehow feel rich there, which is a bit strange - seeing as how the cost of living seems to be overall more expensive in Upstate New York than in Jacksonville - meaning that, in some measures, Jacksonville might be an overall better place to live.  One can feel "rich" in a city that actually costs less than one that has a dilapidated look.

Finally, yesterday, I found two articles of interest that actually support how I've felt about Upstate New York and Jacksonville: "A simple choice between two gorgeous photos reveals your personality" by Ana Swanson on August 6, 2015, on The Washington Post and "Beach or mountains? Study shows link between geography and personality" by Jordi Lippe-McGraw on August 14, 2015, on  Apparently, introverted people do prefer to be in the woods, while extroverted people like flat, open areas like beaches.  Both of those correlate with how I've felt about the woods and the beach - including the idea (suggested in The Washington Post article) that extroverts tend to be happier than introverts (which might explain why Jacksonville felt "happier" to me).

These two articles were perhaps the main reason why I wrote earlier about being introverted or extroverted in this blog.  As I said earlier, I'm mainly an introvert, but I do have extroverted moments - but only when I feel like it.  That might explain why I like both Upstate New York and Jacksonville Beach - depending on how I feel.

Am I an Introvert or Extrovert?

For the most part, I am an introvert.  However, for some time, I have thought that I do have occasional times when I feel like an extrovert.

Most of the time, I usually prefer staying at home and working on personal projects like writing stories and drawing - and also think about many philosophical things.  I get so caught up in my hobbies - but also procrastinate and tend to lose track of the time, so minutes become hours, hours become days, days become weeks, weeks become months, and months become years.  Something that I plan to do "within the next day or two" often ends up being several weeks, months, or even years later.

I also hate talking on the phone - even with friends and family, so I could say, "Yeah, I'll call you back later" - but then lose track of the time and/or procrastinate - and never do get around to calling anyone back.  They're usually the ones that end up calling me.  It's a combination of both losing track of the time - and also just hating talking on the phone in general.

I hate talking on the phone, but I also tend to shy away from other forms of conversation.  I hate having to commit to a conversation - and like being able to do things that I want on my timetable, so it could also be a bit of laziness, too.  But yeah, although I hate talking on the phone worst of all, I also shy away from chatting on Facebook and even hanging out in person.  After a few minutes of talking on the phone or chatting on Facebook - or after a few hours of hanging out, I usually feel the strong urge to want to go back to my own, secluded life.  It's nothing personal against anyone that I talk to or hang out with, though.

Within the last few years, I found an article called "Don't Call Us, We’ll Call … Well, No, Actually We Won’t..." by Sophia Dembling on February 22, 2010, on Psychology Today.  I have a lot in common with what was described in that article, and its title sums up how I am.  I pretty much never call anyone voluntarily - they're always the ones to call me.  I also really hate how loud phones can be.  Also, when I first found the article, I was shocked to see that the article listed Tetris and FreeCell as games for introverts to play because both of those are my favorite computer games!  I guess many introverts think alike.

The strange thing, though, is that despite being largely an introvert, I do feel rather extroverted at times.  There are sometimes when I absolutely love socializing with people, but those times aren't particularly common, and they can't be forced on me.  Basically, although I can be extroverted at times, it has to be when I'm ready for it - and when I want to be extroverted.

Roseanne Conner Got Conned

Lately, the first episode of the Roseanne revival aired, and there's been a lot of talk about that - including that the character, Roseanne Conner, was a Trump supporter.  The odd thing is that even in real life, Roseanne Barr appears to be at least somewhat supportive of Donald Trump.

Even before the debut of the Roseanne revival, I was aware from Wikipedia that Roseanne supported Trump in the 2016 presidential election.  It seems that she supported him over Hillary Clinton because Trump talked about jobs leaving the country - and had other rhetoric appealing to white, working class voters, while Clinton didn't.

It certainly is understandable that many white, working class voters would be drawn to Trump - especially given how modern-day Democrats don't seem to do enough for them - and support trade deals like NAFTA and TPP.  However, as poor as today's Democrats are, working class voters should stop and think about what party is really more likely to do more for them.  Sure, Trump had a lot of populist, pro-working class rhetoric, but that's all it was: rhetoric.

Trump still ran as a Republican, and Republican ideology tends to support things that are non-beneficial for unions, the working class, etc.  As bad as the Democratic Party is today, it is still a better choice because its ideology supports giving more direct support for unions, the working class, poor, minorities, etc.  As Lyndon B. Johnson said, "The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican."

Even if Trump genuinely believed in supporting unions and the working class as progressives do (and to his credit, he did recently impose tariffs on steel), Republican Party influence would either prevent Trump from doing so - or they would influence him to enact more conservative policies.

Whatever the case, with some exceptions (e.g. pulling out of the TPP and imposing steel tariffs), Trump has proven himself to be a con artist.  He has largely governed as a conventional Republican - supporting many Republican ideas and passing a tax bill where most of the benefits went to corporations and the richest Americans.  Steve Bannon, once Trump's right-hand man, wanted a tax bill for only the middle class, but instead, Trump passed a standard GOP tax bill that favored the wealthy.  For the most part, Trump is just another Republican.

Trump doesn't care about the working class.  Sure, he's talked about bad trade deals, but I doubt that it's out of any sincere concern for the workers.  Trump just views America as a bad business model - perceiving it as being "ripped off," and that's all Trump cares about.  He cares about dominance - being superior in business - and being able to tout that to the rest of the world.  Trump likes to brag about everything, so it's not surprising.

Trump also likes being able to make money, so he cares only about supposedly being "ripped off" just because he wants to make more money himself.  From what I've observed, Trump just talks about being successful - and running a successful company - and enriching himself - not whether or not he treated his workers well or whatnot.

As stated, Trump only talks about America being "ripped off" just so he can supposedly do better business for himself.  Even though he might not have a particular concern for the working class, if he can use pro-working class rhetoric to get elected to enact policies to enrich himself, then why not?

Trump is no champion of the working class.  He has just used rhetoric appealing to the working class to get elected - and then enacts only a few policies that happen to benefit the working class - only to avoid being, or appearing to be, ripped off - and to make America a better business model so that he can enrich himself - not out of some genuine concern for the working class.  Aside from a few pro-working class policies, most of Trump's policies prove just that.  Aside from a few issues, Trump is just another Republican.

Having said all that, as much as I hate to say it, Roseanne Connor got conned.  I'm surprised that Roseanne even today still seems somewhat supportive of Trump - given all his conventional Republican policies.  Roseanne seemed to be a liberal in the past - as well as pretty intelligent, so why she would support Trump is surprising.  Yes, Trump had appealing rhetoric, but he was part of a party that would likely influence him to be more conservative.  Trump also has a proven track record of lying and deceiving people, so why would Roseanne be stupid enough to support someone like that?  I just don't get it.  I thought that Roseanne was smarter than that - especially after Trump has proven to be no better than most Republicans.

Yes, I get it - Clinton wasn't exactly a champion of the working class, but Clinton and the Democratic Party are still much better for the working class than Trump, who has nothing but rhetoric.  The Democratic Party, as bad as it is now, is still a better choice for the working class than someone that uses appealing rhetoric - but has no genuine concern for the working class - and aligns with a party that doesn't, either.

Also, yesterday, I watched the video "Pro-Trump 'Roseanne' Reboot Crushes In The Ratings" - uploaded by Secular Talk on YouTube, and I pretty much agree with everything that Kyle Kulinski said.  I'm glad that I wasn't the only one that felt that way about Roseanne's strange support for Trump.