%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    Not for the faint of art. |
|
Complex Numbers A complex number is expressed in the standard form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is defined by i^2 = -1 (that is, i is the square root of -1). For example, 3 + 2i is a complex number. The bi term is often referred to as an imaginary number (though this may be misleading, as it is no more "imaginary" than the symbolic abstractions we know as the "real" numbers). Thus, every complex number has a real part, a, and an imaginary part, bi. Complex numbers are often represented on a graph known as the "complex plane," where the horizontal axis represents the infinity of real numbers, and the vertical axis represents the infinity of imaginary numbers. Thus, each complex number has a unique representation on the complex plane: some closer to real; others, more imaginary. If a = b, the number is equal parts real and imaginary. Very simple transformations applied to numbers in the complex plane can lead to fractal structures of enormous intricacy and astonishing beauty. ![Merit Badge in Quill Award
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning Best Blog in the 2021 edition of [Link To Item #quills] !](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quill_Award-1375927_6.gif) ![Merit Badge in Quill Award 2
[Click For More Info]
2022 Quill Award - Best Blog - [Link To Item #1196512] . Congratulations!!!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quill_Award_2-1375927_6.gif) ![Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning the Jan. 2019 [Link To Item #30dbc] !!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-30DBC_Winner-2064535_14.gif) ![Merit Badge in Blogging
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning an honorable mention for Best Blog at the 2018 Quill Awards for [Link To Item #1196512] . *^*Smile*^* This award was sponsored by the blogging consortium including [Link To Item #30dbc] , [Link To Item #blogcity] , [Link To Item #bcof] and [Link To Item #1953629] . For more details, see [Link To Item #quills] .](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/type-Blogging-2180.gif) ![Merit Badge in Highly Recommended
[Click For More Info]
I highly recommend your blog.](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/Kudos-Highly_Recommended.gif) ![Merit Badge in Opinion
[Click For More Info]
For diving into the prompts for Journalistic Intentions- thanks for joining the fun!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/genre-Opinion-1150.gif) ![Merit Badge in High Five
[Click For More Info]
For your inventive entries in [Link To Item #2213121] ! Thanks for the great read!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/Kudos-High_Five.gif) ![Merit Badge in Enlightening
[Click For More Info]
For winning 3rd Place in [Link To Item #2213121] . Congratulations!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/general-Enlightening.gif) ![Merit Badge in Quarks Bar
[Click For More Info]
For your awesome Klingon Bloodwine recipe from [Link to Book Entry #1016079] that deserves to be on the topmost shelf at Quark's.](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quarks_Bar-2046190_12.gif)       |
| Today, I have an article about writing... sort of. Even if you're not interested in writing essays, speeches, or other traditional vehicles for rhetoric, knowing the tools of the trade could be useful. If nothing else, it'll help you spot rhetorical tricks used to manipulate you. Maybe. Personally, I can never remember all the Greek-y words, but at least sometimes I can remember the devices they signify. Rhetoric is often defined as “the art of language.” That might sound like a bit of a cliché (which it is), but it’s actually quite a nice way of saying that rhetorical devices and figures of speech can transform an ordinary piece of writing or an everyday conversation into something much more memorable, evocative, and enjoyable. Hundreds of different rhetorical techniques and turns of phrase have been identified and described over the centuries—of which the 21 listed here are only a fraction—but they’re all just as effective and just as useful when employed successfully. I'm not going to hit all of them here. Just some comments. 1. ADYNATON You’ll no doubt have heard of hyperbole, in which an over-exaggeration is used for rhetorical effect, like, “he’s as old as the hills,” “we died laughing,” or “hyperbole is the best thing ever.” But adynaton is a particular form of hyperbole in which an exaggeration is taken to a ridiculous and literally impossible extreme, like “when pigs fly!” or “when Hell freezes over!” "When pigs fly" is one of my favorite phrases. I have a collection of winged pigs. Nothing profound about them; I just enjoy the absurdity. Pretty sure Hell froze over when the Cubs won the World Series, though. 4. ANTHYPOPHORA You know when you pose a question for dramatic effect and then immediately answer it yourself? That’s anthypophora. Ha, I see what you did there. 5. ANTIMERIA If you’ve ever friended or texted someone, emailed or DMed something, tabled a meeting or motorwayed your way across country, then you’ll be familiar with antimeria, a rhetorical device in which an existing word is used as if it were a different part of speech. Verbing weirds language. -Calvin 9. ASTERISMOS Right. Okay. Here goes. Asterismos is the use of a seemingly unnecessary word or phrase to introduce what you’re about to say. Semantically it’s fairly pointless to say something like “listen!” before you start talking to someone, because they are (or at least should be) already listening. Yeah... I do use this one a lot. 17. HYPOCATASTASIS When you say that something is like something else (“as busy as a bee”), that’s a simile. When you say that something actually is something else (“a heart of stone”) that’s a metaphor. But when you just go all out and label something as something that it actually isn’t (“You chicken!”), that’s a hypocatastasis. I'm just leaving this one here because now hypocatastasis is my new favorite word. For now. Anyway, like I said, just informational today. I wanted to have time to do a review. Yesterday I went to the theater and saw a... I don't know if "movie" is the right word. It's not a documentary. Whatever; I saw a film about the band Rush, focused on performances from their 2015 tour, with a few other fun things sprinkled in, and here's the review.   One-Sentence Movie Review: Rush: Cinema Strangiato - The Director's Cut You can either accept that Rush was unique, and one of the greatest bands of all time, or you can be wrong. Rating: 4.5/5 |
| Here's an article from 2017, but one that seems more relevant now than in the Before Time. The Five Universal Laws of Human Stupidity  We underestimate the stupid, and we do so at our own peril. Normally, I'd link to the original source, but it's paywalled. This is a reprint. Stupid people, Carlo M. Cipolla explained, share several identifying traits: they are abundant, they are irrational, and they cause problems for others without apparent benefit to themselves, thereby lowering society’s total well-being. I would be remiss if I didn't note that intelligence isn't the last word on human worth. Half the world's human population possesses below-average intelligence (more or less), and it's possible to be stupid and nice, just as it's possible to be smart and an asshole. A university professor like Cipolla might have had some bias in the matter, though. The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren. Wait, you want me to be smart and work hard? Let's not go too far, okay? Of course, everyone does stupid things from time to time. I think it's a matter of proportion. Let’s take a look at Cipolla’s five basic laws of human stupidity: Oh, good. Having "The Five Universal Laws" in the headline and not stating them in the body would be... well... stupid. Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation. No matter how many idiots you suspect yourself surrounded by, Cipolla wrote, you are invariably lowballing the total. Yeah, best to assume everyone's an idiot until they show otherwise, and then still be prepared to revise one's opinion of them upon further observation. But like I said... it's about half the population (depending on what's meant by "average"). Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. Cipolla posits stupidity is a variable that remains constant across all populations. Every category one can imagine—gender, race, nationality, education level, income—possesses a fixed percentage of stupid people. This may seem counterintuitive. Okay, it does seem counterintuitive. But the whole purpose of reasoning, and of science, is to check our intuition, which is usually less reliable than logic. Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. Cipolla called this one the Golden Law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is one who causes problems for others without any clear benefit to himself. I'm just going to come right out and say it: anyone who trusts horse dewormer over a proven (yes, proven) preventative vaccine is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, in this group. But to me, the important thing to know is the spectrum this economics professor proposed to map humanity: This law also introduces three other phenotypes that Cipolla says co-exist alongside stupidity. First there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then there is the bandit, who benefits himself at others’ expense. And lastly there is the helpless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. You'll have to click on the link to see the graphic. Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake. We underestimate the stupid, and we do so at our own peril. There's a quote attributed to Robert A. Heinlein that's relevant and I've kept it in mind for lo these many years: "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. If "stupid" is defined as above, then yeah, I can believe that. Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as successful ones. But they also have high percentages of helpless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity.” “Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to Hell.” So, based on this, the only way to keep the stupid in check is to actively increase one's position on the article's graph, up and to the right. Can it be done? I don't know. I'm too lazy to try, which I guess puts me in the "stupid" quadrant. I think it takes an economics professor to think of things in this way. I have to wonder what his thoughts on Rational Market Theory were, considering the percentage of people who act irrationally. It was in vogue around the time he wrote the above. But I can't be arsed to look it up. |
| This one might not make a lot of sense unless you're a Springsteen fan. It's also from The New Yorker, generating cognitive dissonance within me. In this case, though, the content supersedes the medium. A Springsteen Mystery Solved Jon Landau, the Boss’s longtime close collaborator in matters musical and financial, offers a definitive answer about what Mary’s dress is doing in “Thunder Road.” Thunder Road happens to be one of my all-time favorite songs, one that cemented my lifelong appreciation for Springsteen. It's almost fifty years old now. Bruce himself has expressed amusement at his twentysomething self writing the line, "maybe we ain't that young anymore." The Internet is an uneven contribution to the human prospect... Thor's balls, TNY, just once get to the point at the beginning and stop meandering around like a rabbit in Central Park. All the way in the middle of paragraph 3: Early this month, on a day too grim for dogs or snakes, it was best to stay inside, scroll numbly through Twitter, and wait for a virtual brushfire. Maggie Haberman, the tireless chronicler of the Trump Administration for the Times, unintentionally provided one, tweeting a photograph of a half-empty theatre and stage along with the lyrics “A screen door slams, Mary’s dress sways.” The lyrics are the opening to “Thunder Road,” arguably the best song on Bruce Springsteen’s breakthrough album, “Born to Run.” There is no "best song" on Born to Run. The entire album is a masterpiece. Haberman was blasted for getting Springsteen’s lyric all wrong, and, in the days since, people have continued offering confident opinions. It’s not “Mary’s dress sways”! It’s “Mary’s dress waves.” My original LP of BTR was lost in a flood many, many years ago, but I remember the lyric sheet. And I'm pretty sure it said "waves." But it's not like you can tell from the actual song; Springsteen is an epic songwriter and musician, but he's not the world's greatest enunciator. The article goes on to re-create a Twatter spat and mention several other sources, none of which is very enlightening, in typical TNY fashion. Both on Springsteen’s official Web site and in his songbook, the word is “waves.” And yet Springsteen uses “sways” on page 220 of his memoir, which is also called “Born to Run,” and in his handwritten lyrics, which were auctioned off a couple of years ago by Sotheby’s. Yes, I have a copy of the book Born to Run. No, I don't remember the lyric being different. You think you can't understand Bruce's voice sometimes? Try reading his handwriting. Dude should have been a doctor. I'm not trying to be mean, here. My handwriting sucks ass, too. In Bruce's case, you don't have to have good handwriting to write powerful lyrics. Or, for that matter, write a damn good book. I e-mailed Jon Landau, who, as a critic for The Real Paper, in 1974, declared Springsteen to be the future of rock and roll, and then became his close collaborator in matters musical and financial. Short of Springsteen himself, no one could answer the question more definitively than Landau. That's from the penultimate paragraph. It's like they have to drive from midtown through Delaware to get to the Bronx. “The word is ‘sways,’ ” Landau wrote back. “That’s the way he wrote it in his original notebooks, that’s the way he sang it on ‘Born to Run,’ in 1975, that’s the way he has always sung it at thousands of shows, and that’s the way he sings it right now on Broadway. Any typos in official Bruce material will be corrected. And, by the way, ‘dresses’ do not know how to ‘wave.’ ” Well. I'd rather get confirmation from Bruce himself, but I guess Landau's the next best source. And you know, now I think of it, I don't see how it could be any other way. Early Springsteen was absolutely obsessed with rhymes. The first song (Blinded by the Light) on his first album was, by his own admission, the result of him sitting down with a guitar and a rhyming dictionary. And the last word of the second line of Thunder Road? The one right after the Mary's dress one? It's "plays." Of course the first line had to end with "sways." Why I never saw this before, I don't know -- but now I'll never unsee it. I remember the shock and dismay I felt when I found out some people don't care about lyrics. I mean, what the hell? Especially with people like Springsteen, they're, like, at least 70% of the power of the music. Regardless of the source, this was another surprise for me -- I'll try to remember it next time I'm belting out that song at karaoke. Thunder Road breaks all the rules of songwriting. There's no real chorus. There's no melodic hook. It just jumps out (it was the first song on the album) like a bull in a rodeo, bucking and bellowing, never letting up... just, eventually, fading out like you're bored with the show and looking for something else to do, but you know that somewhere, the bull's still raging, and it will not quit until the last recording of it succumbs to the entropy that will eventually take us all. And of course, I can't let this go without at least including the song in question. The screen door slams, Mary's dress wavesways Like a vision, she dances across the porch as the radio plays Roy Orbison singing for the lonely Hey, that's me, and I want you only Don't turn me home again I just can't face myself alone again... |
| Today's article is more about reading than about my comments. But of course, I have comments, too. The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood. This article is over seven years old. I only wish more people had read it before... well. You know. Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934–December 20, 1996) was many things — a cosmic sage, voracious reader, hopeless romantic, and brilliant philosopher. But above all, he endures as our era’s greatest patron saint of reason and critical thinking, a master of the vital balance between skepticism and openness. I never read much of his stuff, and only saw a few of his videos, but I guess you could say he was an inspiration for me. I wouldn't call him a saint, though. It's not a good idea to elevate people like that. Besides, have you seen what passes for a saint lately? No thanks. In a chapter titled “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible — from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.” At the same time, though, scientists have to make money somehow, and they're certainly not going to do it by stashing mircochips in vaccines or hoaxing us into believing the planet is round and global warming is an existential hazard. Because they're not doing either of these things. Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods: Ideally, yes. In practice, some slip through the cracks. But one doesn't have to be a scientist to use some of the tools. The article goes on to list the actual thinking methods involved. I've highlighted a few of them in here before. Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. I've come to the conclusion that common sense is neither. It's often wracked with nonsense, and everyone's idea of "common" is different. Science tries to get past that and into some sort of objectivity. Often, its conclusions defy common sense, and yet are still true, to the extent that anything can be called "true." I'd encourage everyone to read the next section, because it lists a bunch of fallacies that, in order to avoid, one must recognize. They're important, and I know I need to be reminded of them repeatedly for some of them to sink in. The Demon-Haunted World is a timelessly fantastic read in its entirety, timelier than ever in a great many ways amidst our present media landscape of propaganda, pseudoscience, and various commercial motives. And one of these days, I really should read that. |
| Yes, this article is about math. Sort of. There's very little actual math involved, so no one's head should explode if you click it. New mathematical record: what’s the point of calculating pi? The famous number has many practical uses, mathematicians say, but is it really worth the time and effort to work out its trillions of digits? I mean, really, when it comes right down to it, what's the point of doing anything? Why don't we just sit here and let shit happen to us, passively? Why climb Mount Everest? Why do research at the South Pole, why swim across the Atlantic, why break speed records, why build faster computers? Swiss researchers have spent 108 days calculating pi to a new record accuracy of 62.8tn digits. Okay, wow, that's a serious lot of digits. It’s an impressive and time-consuming feat that prompts the question: why? Because it's what we do if we're not uncuriously ignorant. Jan de Gier, a professor of mathematics and statistics at the University of Melbourne, says being able to approximate pi with some precision is important because the mathematical constant has many different practical applications. That's great. Even if it didn't, it would still be a good thing to do, as the impractical also has a purpose. In maths, pi pops up everywhere. “You can’t escape it,” says David Harvey, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales. This is true. It even shows up in basic cosmological equations. “I can’t imagine any real-life physical application where you would need any more than 15 decimal places,” [Harvey] says. This is also true. At least for now. Things have a way of expanding to require greater precision. Given that even calculating pi to 1,000 digits is practical overkill, why bother going to 62.8tn decimal places? De Gier compares the feat to the athletes at the Olympic Games. “World records: they’re not useful by themselves, but they set a benchmark and they teach us about what we can achieve and they motivate others. And sometimes, by achieving something like that, you discover new methods and other things -- some utilitarian, some not. There is no such thing as useless knowledge. Everything is connected to everything else, and just because none of us can see the Big Picture, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, won't make a paradigm-shattering discovery just by playing around with what us ignorant shitheels call "trivia." It's great to ask "why" in most circumstances. But when it comes to wondering why we should learn new things, push limits, search for new ways of looking at things... well, in those cases, it's perfectly acceptable to shrug and answer, "Because." Knowledge is its own justification. |
| In a world where headlines are clickbait and ledes are buried deeper than COVID-19 mass casualties, it can be refreshing to come across a story, however bizarre, that actually qualifies as news. That's right. You read it here, folks: an actual Man Bites Dog story!A 32-year-old man is facing charges after allegedly biting a Vancouver Police dog on Thursday morning. Now see? That's how you write a lede. It covers the basics: who, what, when, where, and why, with the "how" notably absent but able to be inferred ("with his teeth.") Also, the rest of the article covers that bit. “The suspect allegedly resisted arrest and bit Police Service Dog Mando, which was assisting in the arrest,” VPD said. Mando? Mando? Does he have a companion named Grogu? Perhaps with an insatiable hunger for frog eggs? The suspect was bitten by the police dog during the arrest and treated at hospital. Police Service Dog Mando has minor injuries, VPD said. Oh, you were doing so well until BOOM passive voice. Still, "minor injuries" is encouraging. Police said they are recommending “multiple charges” against the suspect. Might want to test him for rabies while you're at it. Hopefully, after this sad tail, the dog will recover fully and get a new leash on life. He can harness the paw-er of this experience for future encounters. As for the suspect, well... looks like he's boned. |
Just a few short hours ago, I had a few drinks with Sum1  , who's visiting for a couple of days (and also with Artemismad  ), so it's just as well that today's randomly-selected article is easy to deal with. It does, however, touch on a controversial and divisive topic, one that has been known to destroy friendships, end marriages, and divide siblings. Yes, I'm talking about... cryptocurrency.Or, rather, Cracked is doing most of the talking. Well, I guess we know where the world's foremost intellectual site stands on the issue. Especially when they can't count. Whether you think cryptocurrency is the second coming of Cyber-Jesus or that crypto is just stupid computer program money based on nothing (as opposed to fiat currency, which is also based on nothing), crypto's got some problems all the best Reddit-soaked minds haven't solved yet ... Look, in the end, everything is based on nothing. The other alternative to fiat currency? Commodity-based currency. What's the actual, intrinsic value of, say, gold? Why, it's whatever people decide it is. Come the Apocalypse, gold won't be worth the paper it's printed on: it's shiny and pretty, but if you can't eat it or smite your enemies with it, it's worthless. What will be valuable after the complete collapse of civilization? Certainly not crypto, which requires electricity -- you know, that stuff that we won't have ANY of when the survivors emerge, starved and blinking, from their bunkers. No, the Ruler of the Post-Apocalyptic Wasteland will be whoever has managed to stockpile the most coffee. Anyway. Back to cryptocurrency, which I call Dunning-Krugerrands. As usual, Cracked counts it down. 6. Lose Your Password, Lose Your Money One of the benefits of crypto is that it's decentralized. There's no central bank, no cabal of corporate overlords, Cultural Marxists, and whoever else we don't happen to like today, controlling your cash. Instead, crypto relies on a wallet, a password-protected application that holds your digital assets for you, like your own mini-bank (not of the spank variety). Periodically, I forget the password to my primary bank account. I can recover it via a link (assuming I can remember the password to my email account). I don't think it works that way for Dunning-Krugerrands. It's true that you can call up a professional to use brute force attacks on a crypto wallet to try and unlock it if you want to put your economic future in the hands of Dave Bitcoin. So... it's not secure? 5. Letting Someone Else Hold Your Bitcoins ... Doesn't Always Go Well Either I can't find a decent excerpt here. You're just going to have to go to the link to see how bitcoin exchanges can suck ass. 4. Crypto Anonymity is Only For the Sophisticated Police are actually getting pretty good at tracing and seizing the stuff. So... yeah, this. Think you're safe from prosecution because you hired that hitman (who was really an FBI agent) with Dogecoin? Such naïvété. wow. much laughter. 3. Crypto is Actually Hard to Use Crypto relies on digital infrastructure alone, which means that if that infrastructure screws up, you can't buy a car, pay for pizza, or the bootleg Ninja Turtles boxset you've had your eye on. You're totally dependent on it to transact business. Again, utterly useless come the Apocalypse. But even if we manage to escape that, how many times a day does YOUR internet glitch? 2. All Our New Renewable Energy Capacity is Being Eaten by Crypto Hell, for that kind of energy, you could just go mine gold. Like, out of the ground and everything. This has been bugging me for a while. So much energy is needed to mine twitcoin now that, well, there have got to be more efficient ways to make a profit, right? At some point, it will become cheaper to invent a fusion reactor that can literally turn lead into gold... at which point, gold will lose what value it has left. 1. Inequality is a Huge Problem in Crypto Too Another one I can't do justice to. This isn't about racial inequality, though, but the ability for large players to do market manipulation. You know, just like with fiat currency. I'm not trying to come down hard against cryptocurrencies, mind you. I don't know enough about them, and I know I don't know enough about them. I just think it's important to know potential downsides whenever trying anything new. If you can still live with the disadvantages, great, have at it. But I've encountered too many people (all online, naturally) who have absolutely converted to the cryptocult, and there's no swaying them. And it's still a sad state of affairs when those disadvantages are most clearly enunciated by a comedy website. |
| Here's a Bloomberg link that's not nearly as pants-on-head stupid as the last Bloomberg article... though that's not a high bar to clear. The Economics of Dining as a Couple Sure, protectionism would guard your pommes frites. But free trade ensures that the best goods reach both sides of the table. Actually, it's rather amusing, and I do like to see complicated concepts made relatable. I will point out that the article is five years old, but I don't think that matters here. Marriage counselors tell us that couples frequently tie the knot without discussing the core matters that can cement or sunder their marriage: finances, children, religion. Well, let me add one under-discussed biggie to the list: restaurant dining. Well, I guess it does matter. A lot of restaurants in my area never reopened. Some of those that have are operating under reduced hours and/or capacity, and workers are fed up with dealing with assholes while not getting paid enough to deal with assholes, so they're understaffed. Still, you remember the concept of "restaurants," don't you? But. To get back to the article. I'm sure some couples "forget" to discuss finances, children, and religion before getting hitched, though... I mean... why? However, I'd venture that most couples go on at least one restaurant date before getting married. If they don't, chances are they're not restaurant people to start with, so it won't matter. I am eternally astonished to find not only that many couples I know failed to discuss this key area before they marched up to the altar, but also that many of them still have not developed a joint dining strategy even after 10 or 20 years together. This is madness. This... is... Sparta! Sorry, knee-jerk reflex. As a romantic economist might put it in a wedding-reception toast, couples have the chance to jointly move to a higher utility curve. You'll probably have to look that one up. I did. There are basically four strategies that a couple can practice at a restaurant. I should note here that this is something I'll personally never have to deal with again, but I do have an interest in economic theory, so I read on. 1. Autarky. This is when a country is closed to imports or exports, and produces everything it consumes. In the restaurant context, it means that you are each independently deciding on what to eat, with no input from the other person, and then solely consuming what you ordered. Admittedly, this was always my preferred strategy. I was an only child, and while I'm happy to share a lot of things, my fries aren't one of them. An economist will tell you that autarky is terrible. You’re missing gains from trade! What gains? You steal my fries and offer me a bite of salad? Get bent. 2. Individual production with trade. Under this model, you both order whatever you want, and allow the other person to take a few bites in exchange for a few bites of their food. This is how the world economy works, and it is much better for dining than autarky. The above notwithstanding, if we have an international trade agreement in place before we order, I'm open to negotiation... but only if you don't order something I'm going to hate, like any vegan dish, or anything with eggplant. 3. Individual property rights, with option trading. Now we’re moving toward a more centrally planned economy. The menu is individually consulted, and then the two parties state their preferences. Which is what I was talking about above, Still, no, I don't care if it's someone I kiss all the time, her taking a bite out of my hamburger is completely out of the question. 4. Full food communism. A communist economy is a terrible idea. A communist dinner table, on the other hand, truly is a bounteous paradise. No. No it is not. If I ordered a steak, I expect to eat the whole steak, and not trade some for your oysters (which are only technically food anyway). Anyway, just a bit of fun here. I was especially amused, though, by the standard disclaimer at the bottom of the article: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Obviously, because it has the word "communism" in it. And rich people don't share. That's how they became rich. And now it's time for me to drink some Romulan Ale and watch Lower Decks. No, you can't have any; make your own. I'd have watched it earlier, but Shang-Chi opened yesterday and of course I had to go see that. Consequently... One-Sentence Move Review: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings I enjoy martial arts flicks and MCU movies; this one combines good stuff from both, though the Marvel tie-ins aren't nearly pervasive enough to shut out anyone unfamiliar with those films, and I feel like it can stand alone -- though one might not get the full effect from some of the in-universe references, there's plenty of action, fights, SFX, and even car chases to keep your mind off what you might be missing. Rating: 4.5/5 |
| Warning: This entry may be offensive to British readers. (It's still 18+ here though) The article is over two years old, and for all I know fashion has changed radically in that time (apart from the addition of face masks as an accessory). The “fanny pack” sold for $10 ($95 today). For the next several decades, it remained popular among recreational enthusiasts traveling by bike, on foot, or across trails where hands could be kept free and a large piece of travel luggage was unnecessary. So, it's useful. That should be enough to keep it from being shunned, whether it's ugly or not. From there, it morphed into a fashion statement, marketed by Gucci and Nike for decorative and utilitarian purposes in the 1980s and '90s, before becoming an ironic hipster joke. But of course, when something becomes a "fashion statement" rather than merely utilitarian, it opens itself up to ridicule. In the late 1980s, fashion took notice. High-end labels like Chanel manufactured premium fanny packs, often with the more dignified name of belt bag. Perhaps they were more aware of the British use of the word "fanny" and wanted to market in the UK. Like most trends, overexposure proved fatal. Fanny packs were everywhere, given out by marketing departments of major brands like Miller Beer and at sports arenas and stadiums. Yeah, that would have been the end for me, too. Now if it had been sponsored by someone who made actual beer, it might have been different -- but there wasn't a lot of that in the 80s. In 2018, fanny packs were credited with a surge in overall accessories sales, posting double-digit gains in merchandise. The fanny pack may have had its day as an accessory of mass appeal, but it’s not likely to completely disappear anytime soon. Which just goes to show that if something is actually useful, it will not completely fall out of style. Trousers... you're next. |
| Welcome to September. I'm not participating in "30-Day Blogging Challenge ON HIATUS" [13+] this time around, because I volunteered to be a judge for a week later this month. That's right; I'm judging YOU. (If you're participating.)There's a lot going on in September. Not just the WDC 21st birthday celebration, but it also contains my own account anniversary, and soon, people can start signing up for "October Novel Prep Challenge" [13+]. That's right, November is coming up faster than you could possibly want, so it's not too early to start thinking about NaNoWriMo if you're into that sort of thing.It is, however, too early to start thinking about the December holiday season. The best thing about September, though -- actually, one of the only good things, because I'm one of those weirdos who prefers the heat of summer to the dreariness of autumn -- is Oktoberfest. Why, you ask, am I associating Oktoberfest with September? Good question. The official Oktoberfest season is mid-September to early (really early) October. I have no desire to go to the original (and couldn't this year anyway because it's cancelled), but that doesn't mean I can't take the opportunity to enjoy a fine Märzen lager. So that's one thing I always look forward to in September. Another is, believe it or not, pumpkin beer. A lot of them suck, yes, but occasionally you find a good one. But with the coming of cooler weather here in the Best Hemisphere, one thing I can appreciate more than I do in the summer is darker beers. Specifically, stouts. While I'm not above enjoying any beer in any season, some of them just work better in different weather conditions. And my favorite style of stout is Russian Imperial Stout, which isn't actually a Russian style but a British one, and that's a story for another time (if I haven't already told it somewhere in here). And, to segué into today's article, my favorite Russian Imperial Stout is made by North Coast in California, and it is called Old Rasputin. It even has a portrait of the Mad Monk on the label. Its motto is "Never Say Die," because Rasputin was famously hard to kill....or was he? In the winter of 1911, a group of high-ranking Russian priests gathered in secret to lay a well-planned trap. Their target was none other than the notorious Siberian mystic Grigori Rasputin, who seemed to have established a mysterious hold over the Tsar. Rasputin had been lured to the meeting by his former friend, the Archimandrite Iliodor. But as soon as he breezed into the room, he was rushed by Iliodor and the “holy fool” Mitka Kolyaba, a one-armed epileptic who had been a previous favorite of the royal family. They grabbed hold of Rasputin’s penis and squeezed it, demanding that he confess his sins, while a hysterical bishop began beating him around the head with a huge crucifix, screaming “Devil!” with each blow. After all, it’s like the old saying goes: “Problems with a mad monk? Try crushing his junk!” In case it's not blindingly obvious from that intro, or from previewing the URL at the link, this is from Cracked. From the safety of the palace, he had his enemies exiled. But perhaps he should have listened to them, or at least learned some lessons about attending mysterious meetings alone. Because five years to the day after the priests’ attack, Rasputin agreed to pay a late-night visit to Prince Felix Yusupov, the richest man in Russia. His body was pulled from a frozen river the next day. Some people never learn, I guess. But I suppose if you're buddies with the Tsar and banging the Tsarina (well, okay, allegedly), you might start to believe you're bulletproof. As we all (hopefully) know, no one in that court turned out to be bulletproof. You’ve probably heard the conventional version of the story, where he survived being poisoned, shot, beaten, stabbed and castrated, before finally drowning clawing at the ice of the frozen river Neva. That story actually has more problems than that math textbook Jay-Z wrote, but don’t worry! Everyone at Cracked is dressed in the full Lara Croft outfit, archaeology shorts included, and we’re ready to solve this historical mystery. There follows the usual Cracked numbered list, but I'm not going to paste it all here; this has already gone on long enough and, frankly, the remnants of a hurricane are blowing through here right now, along with rain, floods, wind, thunder, lightning, and cats and dogs living together, and my internet could go out at any moment. Especially since I just (11:25 pm) got a tornado warning on my phone. Still, some highlights: And no matter what a certain animated movie may have claimed, he definitely did not rise from the dead to lead the Russian Revolution. Look, anyone who thinks that ANY historical Disney movie has anything more than a wispy connection to the facts is beyond such warnings. In 1914, he was stabbed by a noseless follower of the mad priest-monk Iliodor. Why Disney has to make shit up when there's awesomeness RIGHT THERE is beyond me. Seriously, though, the rest of the article is fascinating, poking holes in the "official" history while suggesting alternatives. But one thing remains: whatever the actual facts are -- and we will probably never know for sure -- the mythology and speculation around those last years of the Tsars is compelling enough without needing to invent Zombie Rasputin. Great beer, though. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
Talk about retaining water... 
