1320
   arright let's check out this libusb thing i've seemed unable to address
   for 2 days.
   one of the issues is that there are a lot of paths forweard and I keep
   switching between them, always deciding a different one is better,
   never making progress.
   1321
   one solution to having many approaches is to make a different worktree
   for every approach.
   `git worktree` lets you make different worktrees inside the same git
   repository.
   another solution is to pick one for a nonrelated reason such as being
   the first one, and stick to it hard.
   i'll probably try the worktree one here, unfortunately.
   1323
   I have some existing code open that is an offhand rebase of my code
   onto the new main tree.  it has 2-3 prominant bugs, one of them kind of
   confusing.
   what it comes down to, is that i'm not sure how to initialize the
   javavm pointer in the new setup, and here writing seems like it could
   be pretty helpful.
   the android javavm pointer is passed in by the user right now, as a
   libusb option.
   1323 and i'm having chest contractions
   the issue is: the pre-init options are now passed to the backend
   twice.  once when the user sets them.  and now a second time before the
   backend is initialised.  this lets the library manage defaults in some
   way.
   i'm going to review the code that passes them on the first time.  after
   writing it to this list, the first time seems kind of unnecessary.
   1328 I have a "master" worktree already.
   oops.  I jostled my phone cable because the phone wasn't charging.  it
   is now charging but my usb hub developed an issue and my raid array
   disconnected.
   looks like only one disk possibly went down
   1329
   1330 mdadm is misbehaving, but my libusb code is not on the raid array,
   so i'll ignore the issue for now
   1332
   I found the libusb call I want to inspect.  my arms try to move away
   from the system, so I dissociate and find a way to at least get them
   near, then dissociate again to do the task with them.
   it looks to me like this redundant call could be removed to retain the
   same functionality.  if i'm going to try that out, I'd likely want to
   test the changes.  the guy who did the fix contributed a test app in a
   different repository.
   1334