Ace-Garageguy

Also apparently on a vintage Johan sheet:

Here's a little better picture, but I still can't make it out...though it looks like a line drawing of a rhinoceros on the bottom...

"Beholder" is not Newspeek for "beer holder", though it may be similar to some local or regional or ethnic pronunciations where "beer" is pronounced "bee-ah" and the second syllababble is minimized.

Really saddens me to see that car destroyed. They're one of the truly great cars of the era, and there are fewer and fewer every day. A low-miles metallic blue creampuff I had (waiting for an engine) mysteriously disappeared while I was moving out of a place of employment...as did the 4-cam engine that was to go in it. Hollyweird probably eliminated more of them than any other car to ever grace the silver screen. I hope they give you what it was actually worth to replace, and don't try to force the old standard lowball routine. Stated-value coverage on something like that would be a wise path to follow if you get another one.

Badges generally denote authority, but why is playing a SIMPLE game by SIMPLE rules apparently so distasteful?

Be that as it may, why quit when you can just write actual sentences? It's not a "game" if there aren't any rules. It's just post-any-string-of-words-that-pops-into-your-head. Yeah, I know. I'm mean and it's "just a game". But that's the point. It's a GAME.

Very nice indeed.

I've chopped a lot of '32s and '34s, both lengthening the turret and not. IMHO, the "not" version accomplished here (and a couple of other ways that work on a model but not in full-scale steel or fiberglass) makes the more attractively proportioned car in the end.

"Shelve"-ended phrase above is NOT a sentence; c'mon people, it's just not that hard to play by the incredibly simple rules.

Agreed, but I've seen some amazingly effective paint treatments. Once your color is down and buffed, come back and do the louver "openings" with a good quality thinned flat black acrylic and a very fine brush, under magnification. Let it dry thoroughly, and any little bit of black that got where it's not supposed to should easily polish off. Lots easier than opening them up, which would be a double-barreled PITA anyway on an injection molded part that's that thick. The ultra-fine black Sharpie might work well too, or one of the marking pens with a 'brush' tip. PS: I have a full-scale louvered fiberglass '32 deck skin, and even opening those big ones up cleanly is no walk in the park.

Today and every day...

IIRC, the grilles from most of the other '32 Fords out there can be made to work easily enough. Far as the hood goes, it's no biggie to file and sand the louvers off, if that's what bugs you, but be prepared to do a lot of repeat priming and sanding to kill ghosting. I personally like that hood, and have used it multiple times on 1/25 scale builds (and made a mold of it, so I don't have to buy more kits to get one), though being 1/25, it usually needs to be shortened a little...usually at the rear, after which it's the right width too.

Where AI undoubtedly excels is in sorting through thousands of documents quickly, and organizing what it sees as relevant results into plausible-sounding text. Where it usually fails is in separating documentable facts from rebleated fiction, and weighting its answers towards the absolute truth rather than just generating something that sounds good. Kinda like the old axiom in HS re: essay questions. "If you don't know the subject, dazzle 'em with BS" Googli's AI has something to say about that concept too, quoted below, and maybe otter take some of its own advice: "The axiom "If you don't know the subject, dazzle 'em with BS" is a cynical approach to writing an essay and is not a reliable strategy for academic success. While it may have a reputation as an old high school trick, it is a poor substitute for genuine understanding. Instructors can typically recognize when a student is attempting to hide a lack of knowledge with vague or overly complex language. Why "dazzle with BS" is ineffective Rewards superficiality: Teachers assign essays to test a student's critical thinking and analytical skills, not their ability to write convincingly about a subject they don't understand. Trying to write around a lack of knowledge will likely miss the specific details or analytical approach the prompt requires. Lacks focus: Essays written without a solid grasp of the material often contain disorganized, random facts and ideas that are only vaguely related to the prompt. This "shotgun" approach gives the impression that you do not understand the material. Undermines clarity: Using verbose or confusing language to feign knowledge actually hurts your argument rather than helping it. A well-constructed essay is built on clear analysis and direct, concise arguments, not on filler. Results in lower grades: Teachers often mark down essays that demonstrate a lack of focus, poorly supported arguments, or confusing sentences. A student attempting to bluff might receive a lower grade than one who writes a clear, albeit brief, answer that shows some genuine understanding of the topic. An effective alternative: Acknowledge and build When you are faced with an essay question on a topic you don't know well, a better strategy is to pivot from bluffing to acknowledging and building. Instead of faking expertise, follow these steps to deliver a focused and honest response. Read the prompt carefully: Your instructor will not ask you to write about a topic that was never covered in the course material. Identify the keywords and relate them to the concepts you do remember from class. Use what you know: Focus on the aspect of the question that you are most confident about. If you are asked about the causes of a historical event and you only know about the economic factors, write about those. A narrower but well-supported answer is better than a broad and flimsy one. Use a confident structure: Start your response with a concise thesis statement that is directly related to what you can confidently discuss. Use your introduction to map out the specific points you will cover. Show critical thinking: Even without a deep reservoir of facts, you can show a teacher that you have good academic instincts. In your response, demonstrate your analytical skills by connecting related ideas, defining concepts, and clearly explaining the connections between them. Answer the question you can, not the one you wish you could: If a question asks for a comparison of two topics and you only know one, address the known topic directly. Then, acknowledge that a full comparison would require more information and briefly speculate on how the second topic might fit in based on any limited knowledge you have. An honest but limited answer will almost always score better than one filled with transparent fluff. "

Dandy. Artificial stupidity proves once again that it's a worthy replacement for human incompetence and laziness and lack of accountability. Yet the mad rush to implementation in critical applications continues unabated. EDIT: The unavoidable conclusion is that the majority of AI developers have little to no understanding of the complexity and need for accuracy IN CONTEXT of the applications they're vomiting out, while an equally technically ignorant and unthinking client base is clamoring after them anyway. EDIT 2: Interestingly, Googli's little AI agrees...quoted below. Take that for what it's worth. "The sentiment expressed in the statement—that a disconnect exists between AI developers rushing out applications and an equally uninformed client base—is supported by multiple contemporary trends and documented criticisms of the AI industry. AI developer challenges Reliance without understanding: Surveys from mid-2025 reveal that a high percentage of developers use AI coding assistants, but a majority admit they don't fully understand the code that is generated. This can introduce security vulnerabilities and compliance issues, particularly when junior developers over-rely on AI tools and fail to develop fundamental skills. "The 70% Problem": Veteran developers describe AI's assistance as only getting them "70% of the way there" on complex projects. While AI can handle common coding patterns, it struggles with the essential, more creative task of managing overall complexity. This leads to diminishing returns as project complexity increases. Speed over quality: In the highly competitive tech market, companies rush to release products faster, often relying on AI to speed up development. This focus on hyper-efficiency can lead to poor code quality and a failure to address complexities properly. Introducing new complexity: AI isn't simply reducing complexity; it's often shifting it. According to one analyst, AI can introduce new dependencies and require specialized infrastructure that even normal engineers can't handle, creating "a tangled mess" that is hard to manage without thoughtful leadership. Performance vs. production: Many AI models perform impressively in a demo environment but fail when deployed to complex, real-world conditions where nuanced understanding is required. This has resulted in a high failure rate for enterprise AI projects. Client and business-side issues The "context crisis": AI tools lack crucial contextual intelligence needed for many real-world applications. For example, a customer service AI needs a customer's specific history to respond accurately, and a fraud detection system needs real-time transaction patterns. When this context is missing, AI performance degrades. Ignoring fundamental limitations: Business leaders often have unrealistic expectations, fueled by media hype, and pursue AI as a "silver bullet solution". They may push for AI integration without understanding its fundamental limitations, such as its inability to reason from first principles or understand cause and effect. Ignorant enthusiasm: There is a phenomenon where greater AI knowledge reduces a person's interest in certain AI-powered products, while those with less knowledge are more likely to hand over control, especially in creative domains. This suggests a user base whose enthusiasm is inversely correlated with their understanding. Trusting the faulty output: A key risk is that humans begin to trust AI that is "ignorant and faulty," which is easy to do because current generative AIs are persuasive even when they are wrong. Users, especially those not familiar with the subject, may trust the AI's output without scrutiny. Pursuing AI for the sake of AI: Many AI projects are launched for their novelty rather than a solid business strategy, leading to solutions without a clear problem. This can result in "proof-of-concept purgatory" where pilot programs never scale because they fail to deliver real business value. The consequences Buggy, poor quality software: Developers, particularly those building consumer-facing apps like YouTube or Discord, are criticized for overlooking user experience (UX) details. AI is expected to exacerbate this problem, resulting in even buggier software with worse UX. Erosion of skills: Heavy reliance on AI tools is causing a "cognitive offloading" that can degrade developers' critical thinking and core programming abilities over time. Failure and wasted investment: A significant number of AI projects fail to deliver a positive return on investment (ROI). This is often due to a complex web of issues, including poor data quality, talent shortages, unclear business cases, and resistance from employees. "

The engine you're using will be a great upgrade for this old sow. Not a great kit maybe (agreed), but IMHO the best-proportioned '32 Ford roadster on the kit market...so if you want to build a fendered car that gets the look close to righteous, this is the one. The frame molded into the fender unit is a buzz-kill, but a slightly lengthened frame from the many Revell '32s will work just fine for a fenderless rod.

Only one I could get to easily to check for sure is the Revell 2-in-one '57 Ford Custom, and it appears to be a 3-speed manual: two shift levers on the side. I'd assume the other Revell '57 Fords are equipped similarly.

Porsche 356s running VW engines weren't that uncommon back in the mid-1970s, as you could get a lot more power from a big-displacement hot-rod Bug engine for a whole lot less money, and the trans bolt-pattern is identical...but swaps in the other direction were popular too, as junkyard stock Porsche 4-cylinder engines were relatively cheap.

Pepperidge Farm remembers

https://www.livescience.com/8035-slime-mold-beats-humans-perfecting-traffic-networks.html

Zone traffic can flamdambulate before your scrammis is ramped up to obsculute effectively.

Air immediately in front of the hood ornament was the 'target zone'.

So far no real irks, but the Blazer is trying to run a little hot. I knew I'd have to replace the radiator and water pump, but thought I'd be able to get her through the winter at least. It's always something.

More "antique mall" scores, including a NOS HO McKeen double 45-foot trailer kit in Burlington Northern colors, usually between $25 and $35 online & delivered, for $4. These are too long for the period I'll be modeling, but the chassis and wheels will work just fine under older, shorter shells fabbed from styrene stock. And several NOS HO Athearn 34-foot open top hopper kits in random liveries and no repeating road numbers, for $5 each. These go for anywhere from $17 to about $30 online, delivered. I'll need a lot of coal hoppers to service the Hulett unloaders and the steel mill coke and municipal power plants, and I usually buy cheapo or broken RTRs that need weathering or parts like wheels, trucks, and Kadees to make them presentable...often for just a buck or two each...but when these nicely detailed kits come up cheap, it's hard to resist them for foreground placement. My planned layout (a dream at this point, because I have no room now or in the foreseeable future EDIT: though I think I'll at least be able to build a module or two) is intended to celebrate the peak of America's heavy industrial period. Photo below shows hoppers lined up waiting for loading under massive Huletts.

When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.

"Favourite" has an unnecessary extra 'U' in it from my south-of-the-border, Noah Webster-influenced viewpoint.