Friday, January 23, 2026

Thursday, January 22, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The Valley of the Sambre, 1890 by Théo van Rysselberghe

The Valley of the Sambre, 1890 by Théo van Rysselberghe (Belgium, 1862-1926)




















Click to enlarge.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

The peasant was the last to find his voice.

Medieval Technology and Social Change by Lynn White, Jr..  Page v.

Voltaire to the contrary, history is a bag of tricks which the dead have played upon historians. The most remarkable of these illusions is the belief that the surviving written records provide us with a reasonably accurate facsimile of past human activity. ‘Prehistory’ is defined as the period for which such records are not available. But until very recently the vast majority of mankind was living in a subhistory which was a continuation of prehistory. Nor was this condition characteristic simply of the lower strata of society. In medieval Europe until the end of the eleventh century we learn of the feudal aristocracy largely from clerical sources which naturally reflect ecclesiastical attitudes: the knights do not speak for themselves.  Only later do merchants, manufacturers, and technicians begin to share their thoughts with us. The peasant was the last to find his voice.

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Data Talks

 

Home To Bed by Gary Bunt

Home To Bed, 2022 by Gary Bunt (England, 1957-2025)





















Click to enlarge.

Try to love the questions themselves

From Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke in 1903.  

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.

It's dense, a bit like digesting a delicious whale

From a tweet by Anders K. @Falliblemusings  He is pointing out that the fashionable nihilism of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari is based on bad philosophy.

Deutsch has a concept he calls 'bad philosophy.' Not philosophy that's merely false, but philosophy that actively prevents the growth of knowledge. Ideas that close doors rather than open them. That makes problems seem unsolvable by design.

After soaking in Deutsch's framework (it's dense, a bit like digesting a delicious whale), it becomes clear: Harari's books are riddled with bad philosophy. They're smuggling nihilism in under the guise of scientific objectivity.

[snip]

Where Harari sees a species of deluded apes stumbling toward obsolescence, Deutsch sees universal explainers, the only entities we know of capable of creating explanatory knowledge, solving problems, and potentially seeding the universe with intelligence.

The difference isn't academic. Ideas shape action. If you believe life is meaningless, progress is a trap, and humans are hackable animals with no free will, how does that affect what you build? What you fight for? What you teach your children?

Harari's books sell because they flatter a fashionable pessimism. They let readers feel sophisticated for seeing through the "delusions" everyone else lives by. That smug cynicism is corrosive. And it's everywhere: in schools, in media, in bestselling books. More than half of young adults now say they feel little to no purpose or meaning in life. This is what happens when you teach an entire generation bad philosophy. Less progress, less health, less wealth. Less flourishing. And ultimately, a higher chance that civilization and consciousness go extinct.

Fortunately, there's another equally well-written, but much truer, account of homo sapiens, appropriately titled 'The Beginning of Infinity'. And this one smuggles no despair in by the backdoor.

The contrast he is drawing is with The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch.  

After Sapiens had been out for a year or two and had received such effusive praise across the spectrum, I broke down and purchased a copy expecting it to be an exciting fresh treatment of material with which I was broadly already familiar.  

It still sits upon the shelf waiting to be read.  I sampled it.  Read the first few pages.  Leafed through the chapters trying to find a snippet that gripped.  There are plenty of good books which fail that test and sit on a shelf and which I later read with enjoyment and benefit.  

But Sapiens failed the test and still sits, waiting for a second chance.  But Fallible Musings pushes an alternate to the head of the line and I am on the hunt for The Beginning of Infinity.

Feeling insignificant because the universe is large has exactly the same logic as feeling inadequate for not being a cow.

From The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch, p. 34.  

I was wrong to be impressed by the mere scale of what I was looking at. Some people become depressed at the scale of the universe, because it makes them feel insignificant. Other people are relieved to feel insignificant, which is even worse. But, in any case, those are mistakes. Feeling insignificant because the universe is large has exactly the same logic as feeling inadequate for not being a cow. Or a herd of cows. The universe is not there to overwhelm us; it is our home, and our resource. The bigger the better.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Barge Haulers on the Volga by Ilya Repin

Barge Haulers on the Volga by Ilya Repin (Russia, 1870–1873)















Click to enlarge.

Monday, January 19, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Blackbird & Berries by Angela Harding

Blackbird & Berries by Angela Harding (England, 1960 - )

























Click to enlarge.

Sunday, January 18, 2026

History

 

An Insight

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

View of the Bosporus by Ivan Aivazovsky

View of the Bosporus by Ivan Aivazovsky (Russia, 181-1900)




















Click to enlarge.

Saturday, January 17, 2026

Leeroy Jenkins!

Somehow these need to go together.  Not disavvowing CAPs point, just pointing out that it is incomplete. 
Those paying attention will of course have a valid argument that Leeroy Jenkins does not meet the minimum criteria:  "one reasonably smart normal guy."   

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

View Across Frenchman`s Bay from Mount Desert Island, After a Squall, 1845 by Thomas Cole

View Across Frenchman`s Bay from Mount Desert Island, After a Squall, 1845 by Thomas Cole (America, 1801-1848)
















Click to enlarge.

Friday, January 16, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Self-deception can be the predicate to self-destruction. Sometimes kind indulgence results in disaster.

The Renee Good shooting in Minneapolis has been a clarifying Rorschach test.  Everyone has seen what they wanted to see from the very beginning (See Win Bigley by Scott Adams; two movies one screen.)  It took a few days but the answers were pretty much available from day three or so.  

There is still more to be discovered.  But there is clearly a history of difficult or questionable life choices leading up to Good's decision to insert herself into a chaotic ICE mission and then to confront and harass ICE officers performing their duties to enforce the law.  To the tragic decision to refuse lawful orders.  To her final and fateful decision, almost certainly reflexive, to escape the position she had placed herself in by accelerating her vehicle at an armed officer.

There are so many details and interpretations and arguments to be had.

It seems to me to be crystalizing that there are people (such as Renee and Rebecca Good) who are sufficiently radical and fanatical that they are willing to impose their own choices on everyone else.  ICE are lawfully in Minneapolis at the order of the President of the United States, executing lawful orders in compliance with the lawfully elected (popular majority as well as Electoral College victory) President, in pursuit of lawful policies (border control, immigration control, and crime suppression) which were at the center of the 2024 election.  

In other words - the fanatics have decided that their personal preferences override the outcome of our constitutional federal republic and its democratic processes.  It seems almost impossible to make the argument, as some seem to attempt, that they are defending rule of law and democracy.  

The second revealing aspect of this tragedy is the degree of self-deception possible by individuals.  We all of us know from studies and personal experience that all humans are capable of grave self-deception.  Just one of our attributes.  But sometimes the extent and impermeability of the bubbles of self-deception are still surprising.

As journalists have begun to slowly unpick the details of the participants in the tragedy, the scale of self-deception has become clearer.  Rebecca Good wailing "Why did you have real bullets?" after Renee Good was shot seems to be almost an almost incomprehensible level of naiveté.  

To me, though, there is a more subtle and as tragic degree of self-deception that seems to have emerged in the past few days.

Initially Renee and Rebecca Good were reported as married spouses.  However, reporters have not been able to find any record of a marriage.  They did come up with records of Renee Good's legal change of her last name to match that of her "partner", not spouse.  I parked this as possibly interesting information but was waiting for some coalescence of sources as to whether the charge was true.

Still kind of waiting but then saw this.
York links to, Renee Good Was Concerned About ICE, a Lawyer Says, but Wasn’t Following Agents by Mitch Smith of the New York Times.  If the NYT has accepted the charge, even against their own narrative preferences, then it suggests to me that the balance of evidence has come into alignment with the claim.  Rebecca and Renee Good were not in fact married.

In this same time frame, I came across a photo which I had seen before.  There was a detail in it, though, that took on new salience with the new reporting.  















Click to enlarge.

Look at her left hand.

She is wearing a wedding ring.  She and Rebecca are not married but Renee has chosen to take Rebecca's last name and she has chosen to wear a wedding ring as if they were wed.  

No telling at this point what to make of that picture, but there is an inescapable air of personal tragedy.  Made more tragic by Rebecca Good's statement following the shooting, "I made her come down here. It's my fault. They just shot my wife."

I am perhaps over-interpreting but if a couple are willing and able to redefine marriage so completely (a marriage of emotion but not by law?) then it seems more comprehendible that they could also be so self-deceived about the danger they were deliberately placing themselves in.

This degree of personal manipulation of perceived reality also reminds me of a picture shared by Pete and Chasten Buttigieg in September 2021, when they announced the adoption of twins.  
















Click to enlarge.

When this first appeared, I thought it must be some spoof attacking them by making it appear as if a gay couple had had children in a hospital (with hospital armbands and all).  I later learned the photos were legitimate and from the Buttigiegs which made me question their own self-presentation.  The reality eventuality emerged that the twins were born prematurely and with health issues.  The Buttigiegs arrived the day after the twins were born but quite a while before they were discharged from the hospital.  In the end, there was not quite the deception that had seemed to be going on in the first place.  

But there remains a feel of a hijacked social icon of the exhausted mother sitting up in the hospital bed holding her newborn, repurposed for an exhausted gay couple (exhausted from flying and driving) mimicking that iconic scene of maternity.

A photograph of simulated maternity, a photograph of simulated marriage - it all brings to mind George Orwell's classic Politics and the English Language in which he warns everyone of the authoritarian/totalitarian habit of trying to redefine reality by redefining words.  The Marxist habit of insisting that reality is a social construct rather than the far more obvious situation where all societies (and their languages) are shaped by reality.  

A ring does not make a marriage.  A hospital photo does not make a maternal birth.  Real officers of the law use real bullets when they are attacked and injured in the course of their duties.  

Bringing us back to Orwell.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

We hesitate to disabuse those who deceive themselves.  We want them to be happy.  As classical liberals, we indulge all beliefs which are not coercively imposed.  Even if we believe them to be misleading or unreal.

But as in the Minneapolis shooting there is a deadly corollary.  Self-deception can be the predicate to self-destruction.  Sometimes kind indulgence results in disaster.  

Data Talks

 

The Bathing Pool, 1780 by Hubert Robert

The Bathing Pool, 1780 by Hubert Robert (France, 1733-1808)


































Click to enlarge.

Thursday, January 15, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Pont Saint-Louis, Paris, 1928 by Albert Marquet

Pont Saint-Louis, Paris, 1928 by Albert Marquet (1875-1947)




















Click to enlarge.

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

A Day Indoors, 1962 by Fairfield Porter

A Day Indoors, 1962 by Fairfield Porter (America, 1907-1975)































Click to enlarge.

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

From the Apartment Window, Paris, 1901 by Hans Heysen

From the Apartment Window, Paris, 1901 by Hans Heysen (Australia, 1877-1968)






























Click to enlarge.

Monday, January 12, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Barn at Cherington, Gloucestershire by Sir William Rothenstein

Barn at Cherington, Gloucestershire by Sir William Rothenstein (England, 1872-1945)




















Click to enlarge.

Sunday, January 11, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pitt, jog on like man and wife, that is, seldom agreeing, often quarreling, but by mutual interest…not parting.

From The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America by Walter Borneman.  Page 72.

But Pitt was not in for an easy ride. Disdaining the treasury, Pitt chose the duke of Devonshire as first lord of the treasury and the nominal head of his government and himself took the position of secretary of state for the Southern Department. The middle class loved him, but their champion had not exactly endeared himself to the House of Commons at large. Many in Parliament opposed him. The duke of Cumberland did not support him. The king, it was said, loathed him. These were not relationships that would inspire Pitt’s confidence or help him to govern decisively. Then, of course, there was still Newcastle. The duke might no longer be the head of the government, but after his nearly four decades in one office or another, the government bureaucracy was filled with his appointees.

Within a month, however, Pitt had boldly written a three-point agenda for George II to deliver to Parliament. First, it recognized the essential importance of the North American colonies to the greater empire. By land and by sea, America must be defended. Second, it created a national militia designed to alleviate fears of a cross-channel invasion, while freeing up regulars for “service abroad. Third and last, it called for some measure of relief from the high price of corn and other commodities for the lower class. As with a presidential state of the union address, however, the executive may propose, but how the legislature deposes is an entirely different matter.

It was now up to Pitt to persuade Parliament to craft his ideas into law. He urged that an “expedition of weight” of not less than 8,000 men and a fleet be sent to North America and demanded that the Admiralty provide a list of ships “requisite “for the total stagnation and extirpation of the French trade upon the seas.” When he found that 62 of Great Britain’s 200 warships were out of commission, he began a four-year construction program to bring the Royal Navy up to 400 ships of all classes. But he also crossed both king and citizenry over the execution of Admiral Byng. To his credit, Pitt spoke his mind and his conscience. Whatever the circumstances of that day off Minorca, Pitt thought that Byng’s execution was not part and parcel of rectifying them. Against both the crown and popular opinion, Pitt favored clemency.

That was enough for George II. On April 6, 1757, he demanded Pitt’s resignation and ordered Newcastle to form an interim government. Almost three months of incessant political bickering and intrigue followed. England drifted without a rudder. The disputes were less about policy—all sides agreed that North America must be saved, and even Pitt now saw that subsidies to Hanover and Prussia were central to keeping France busy on the continent—than about personalities. Who was going to stand at the helm? Finally, it became clear that if neither Newcastle nor Pitt could govern England alone, it could not be governed without both of them.

In June 1757, Lord Chesterfield was instrumental in negotiating a coalition government into which Pitt brought the “confidence and support of the people” and Newcastle brought his far better relations with the king, Parliament, and the bureaucracy. Pitt resumed his office of secretary of state. Newcastle assumed his old post as first lord of the Treasury. In effect, Pitt would be prime minister, left to “appoint generals, admirals, and ambassadors” and to carry on the conduct of the war. Newcastle would be what he was best at being—the wizard behind the curtain working the wheels of patronage, currying favor with “the House of Lords, and reassuring the king. “I will borrow the duke’s [Newcastle’s] majorities to carry on the government,” the resurrected Pitt told the duke of Devonshire.

And so a most unusual partnership was born. “The duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pitt,” wrote Lord Chesterfield, “jog on like man and wife, that is, seldom agreeing, often quarreling, but by mutual interest…not parting.” Indeed, their relationship might well be considered the essence of the definition of partnership. Each party needed the other; each brought strengths the other lacked, and each was content—or at least resigned—to let the other do what he did best. “No amount of pressure could create the political machine that was prerequisite for conducting the business of government; the only man with such a machine was Newcastle.” And the only man bold enough to use it was William Pitt.

“Britain has long been in labor,” Frederick the Great observed later, “and at last she has brought forth a man.” It remained to be seen what that man could accomplish. Nevertheless, one fact was now crystal clear. Newcastle had fiddled with it and initially sought to limit its scope, but from now on, there was no doubt but that the conflict in which Great Britain found itself embroiled was Mr. Pitt’s global war.
 

Building the United Nations--#2--Ramp over F.D.R. Drive by Harold Weston

Building the United Nations--#2--Ramp over F.D.R. Drive by Harold Weston (America, 1894-1972)





























Click to enlarge.

Saturday, January 10, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Winter Evening at Nick's Nest, 2023 by Jeff Gola

Winter Evening at Nick's Nest, 2023 by Jeff Gola (America, 1962 - ) 



















Click to enlarge.

Passing coureurs de bois (trappers) in canoes were one thing; fresh-cut log cabins and planted fields were quite another.

From The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America by Walter Borneman.  Page 13.

The Iroquois called the river the Ohio, meaning “something big.” If relations between the French and English were complex and the rivalries of Europe convoluted, the status of Native Americans along the upper Ohio River was even more so. The dominant power in the region was the Iroquois Confederacy, a union of five nations—the Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga—that coordinated external relations with other tribes as well as with the French and the English. When these five were joined by the Tuscarora, the empire of the Six Nations stretched from the upper Hudson River westward to the Ohio and was an immense buffer between the French and English frontiers.

As the power of the Iroquois Confederacy grew, it exerted what in European terms might be called a feudal domination over other tribes, including the Mingo, Shawnee, and Delaware. These tribes—some historians have simply lumped them together as the “Ohio Indians”—had generally been pushed westward by European settlements.

Despite numerous pronouncements of neutrality, the Six Nations were constantly wooed by both the French and the English. Historically, the Mohawk along the New York frontier were more likely to trade with and be influenced by the English, while the Seneca along lakes Ontario and Erie were more likely to look north to the French. Neutrality aside, the Six Nations referred to its commercial and strategic relationship with the English as the “Covenant Chain” and maintained a similar relationship with the French.

While generally agreeable to advantageous trading relations, the Iroquois Confederacy, like most Native Americans, came to resist European encroachments that had an air of permanency. Passing coureurs de bois (trappers) in canoes were one thing; fresh-cut log cabins and planted fields were quite another. Of course, the French, whose empire was based largely on a transitory fur trade anchored at a few key points, were of a similar mind. Thus as the dust of Aix-la-Chapelle settled, the French determined to do something about these English incursions into the Ohio Valley and strengthen their relations with the Ohio Indians before it was too late.
 

Turns out that what the poor really want is not access to finance but to the ability to save safely

From Microloans Became Microdeposits by Tim Worstall.  The subheading is Interesting what the poor actually wanted....

But it’s worth reminding ourselves what Yunus really found out. Sure, obviously, giving money to poor people makes them better off. Giving a loan to poor people who want to invest in something will also make them better off. None of this was ever really in doubt.

What Yunus managed to find out was how to get those loans repaid. And the answer was to tie the loan repayment to social standing. He’d organise people in groups - say, 6 ladies. Only one of them could have a loan at any one time. So, there are 5 ladies yelling at the one to hurry up and repay. This works - but it only works in a society close enough that the opinions of your neighbours matter to you.

So, the real Yunus finding was that social standing can be the security, the guarantee, for a loan. Which is interesting, even fascinating. It also means it doesn’t scale - for that Elinor Ostrom reason. Once a human society gets past a couple or three thousand people then social pressure isn’t enough. It’s too large a society for such pressure to operate effectively. A commons managed by a few hundred people can survive for centuries, one managed by tens of thousands won’t.

However, the thing I find most interesting about this whole idea of microfinance is that it wasn’t, in fact, borrowing that was the big hit. This we found out when MPESA (the money on a telephone thing) rolled out across East Africa. It wasn’t long before the folk running the scheme were a bit puzzled - it wasn’t being used just as a payment system, its design. People were keeping substantial (by local income standards) positive balances on their accounts.

It turns out that what poor people really wanted was a safe place to save. Sure, sure, they’re poor. But most of that bottom end of the population know they’re poor and they also know they’re on variable incomes. They also have pretty much no access to a welfare state and all that. So, having some savings is an important part of household management. The reason why gold jewelry is so important in the sub-Continent, a bangle, or a pair of earrings, will be those household savings. But, obviously those can be stolen. Or cash savings can be eaten by rats and all that.

MPESA produced a system of safe savings in small amounts. So, that’s what it was used for by the poor.

Yes, this is very pencil sketch but it is indeed still all true. Turns out that what the poor really want is not access to finance but to the ability to save safely - microloans aren’t quite it, microdeposits are.

Ostrom's Law

From Wikipedia

Ostrom's law

Ostrom's law is an adage that represents how Elinor Ostrom's works in economics challenge previous theoretical frameworks and assumptions about property, especially the commons. Ostrom's detailed analyses of functional examples of the commons create an alternative view of the arrangement of resources that are both practically and theoretically possible. This eponymous law is stated succinctly by Lee Anne Fennell as:

A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.

Friday, January 9, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Ignorance, activism or crass commercialism. Or possibly all three.

From Jill Filipovich, a mainstream journalist.  













Click to enlarge.

It feels as if establishment journalists are either not keeping up with technology or don't understand that their readers are ahead of them.

The faux (and fey) cluelessness is unpleasant.  Filipovich is posting 24 hours after the incident.  Still much to be discovered but the facts were reasonably established at that point.  And in terms of Filipovich's question, the law has remained the same over the entire past year.  This is not new news.  Her question has been well answered multiple times over multiple incidents over the past year.  If Filipovich has not been paying attention all year, it discredits her as a journalist.  If she has not been paying attention over the past day, shame on her.

Reading her post just feels like manipulative propaganda.  You may or may not like the law, but there it is.  No point in pretending to be ignorant.  

The Saturn symbol in the upper right of the screenshot is obviously Grok, an AI tool for genuine questions.  If Filipovich genuinely doesn't know what authority ICE had to stop the protestor, why doesn't she ask Grok instead of the world?  Seems deliberately engagement seeking rather than knowledge seeking.  

Grok provides the answer:
















Click to enlarge.

A good start.  But what is the language of the statute?  Grok:

18 U.S.C. § 111 is the federal statute that criminalizes assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain United States officers or employees (or former officers/employees in certain cases) while they are engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties.

This law protects a wide range of federal personnel, including (but not limited to) federal law enforcement officers, agents, employees of U.S. government agencies, and members of the uniformed services — as defined by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1114.

Current Text of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (as of January 2026)

(a) In General. — Whoever—

(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b) Enhanced Penalty. — Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. — There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

Key Penalty Breakdown

Simple assault (no physical contact and no intent to commit another felony): Up to 1 year imprisonment (misdemeanor level in many cases).

Assault involving physical contact or with intent to commit another felony: Up to 8 years imprisonment (felony).

Aggravated (with a deadly/dangerous weapon or causing bodily injury): Up to 20 years imprisonment (felony).

Important Notes
    • The term "forcibly" is a key element — courts generally require some form of physical force or threat of force (mere words or passive resistance are often insufficient).
    • This statute is frequently used in cases involving federal officers such as FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, Border Patrol agents, National Park rangers, TSA officers, and others.
    • The most recent notable change was the addition of subsection (c) in 2021 (Pub. L. 117–59), explicitly providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction (meaning the crime can be prosecuted even if committed outside the United States in certain circumstances).
For the most authoritative and up-to-date version, refer to official sources like the U.S. Code at Cornell LII, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, or GovInfo. If you're dealing with a specific legal situation involving this statute, consulting a qualified attorney is strongly recommended, as interpretations can vary by circuit and case facts.

Plenty of rabbit holes to go down here.  What is deadly assault?  Do vehicles count?  How does intent factor in? Were the officers being obstructed in their duties or were they being obstructed while not on a mission and does that make a difference?

But within 24 hours it seems to have been discovered and agreed that the protestor was part of an organized group who were deliberately interfering with federal agents in their authorized activities, used her vehicle initial to obstruct federal agent movements, then disobeyed instructions, and finally, whether intentionally or not, struck an agent with her vehicle.  

Further information may come forth but Filipovich seems not to be asking in good faith because the answer is already known from the past year and because the answer is at her fingertips whether from Grok, or Gemini or from traditional Google.  

Asking a question to either provoke or to simply gain attention is not journalism.  It is either activism or crass commercialism.  Or, of course, simple ignorance.