%%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)       |
| I wanted to share this article, not just because the story isn't that widely known, but because of a tenuous personal connection to it. This Odd Early Flying Machine Made History but Didn’t Have the Right Stuff  Aerodrome No. 5 had to be launched by catapult on the Potomac River on May 6, 1896, but it flew unpiloted 3,300 feet The vessel floated in the shallows of the Potomac River on the leeward side of Chopawamsic Island, just off Quantico, Virginia. It's fairly common knowledge that Maryland claims the Potomac. In contrast with standard surveying practice, which usually puts boundaries in the river's thread or main channel, Maryland gets the whole expanse, up to some defined line (I think it's the mean low tide line where it is tidal, which is all the way up past DC) on the opposite side. This is in spite of the fact that the river is named for an Indian tribe that lived, to the best of my knowledge, exclusively in what is now Virginia. The reason for this isn't relevant to this story, though, except to note that because of this historical oddity, there just aren't that many islands in the Potomac that are part of Virginia. And this one is also claimed by the county where I (arguably) grew up, exactly (I checked) 10 miles from my childhood home. They had to do some creative surveying to include it within Stafford County, but it's there, in a kind of pseudopod-like extrusion. So, that's the personal connection. I told you it was tenuous. History would be made that day, May 6, 1896, as this apparatus—a flying machine, known as Aerodrome No. 5—was started and then launched from a spring-loaded catapult. An "aerodrome" is what we (well, mostly the British) call what's basically a small airport today. In 1896, no airports existed, so I guess the word meant something different. The Aerodrome would take off and travel for 90 seconds some 3,300 feet in an effortless spiral trajectory and then gently land in the river. Both time and distance exceed my best efforts at paper airplanes when I was a kid. To be fair, those experiments usually ended at a classroom wall. The third Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Samuel Pierpont Langley, an astronomer who also enjoyed tinkering with his own creations, was aboard the boat. His winged invention had just made the world’s first successful flight of an unpiloted, engine-driven, heavier-than-air craft of substantial size. Yeah... those are some specific definitions. Not quite the level of success the later Wright Brothers enjoyed, but why let North Carolina get all the credit? As for Langley himself, yes, it was that Langley, the one the famous Air Force base is named for. He was also a Secretary at the Smithsonian (a position similar to Royal Astronomer of Britain), so of course this article is from Smithsonian. With Langley that day, was his friend Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone... Another dubious claim, but that's what history insists upon, though that's really irrelevant right now. It should be emphasized again that this flight wasn't quite as significant as the Wright one, and the article does so: The world rightly remembers that in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved human flight at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. “Langley’s Aerodrome No. 5 wasn’t practical and it wasn’t a working prototype for any real flying machine,” says Peter Jakab, senior curator at the museum. But the largely forgotten unpiloted flight that took place seven years before Kitty Hawk did move motorized flight from the drawing board into reality. Langley was also apparently one of the last great polymaths: “Langley’s real accomplishments in research were in astronomy,” says Jakab. “He had done a great deal of significant work in sun spots and solar research, some of that while at the Smithsonian.” He had a bit of mad scientist about him, apparently: “This was still a period when people didn’t think flight was possible,” Jakab says. “If you were a young person in the 1890s contemplating a career in engineering, flight was not exactly an area you would go into. It wasn’t taken seriously by a lot of people. The fact that someone like Langley was starting to study flight gave the field credibility.” The article goes on to describe his fundamental errors in design, and how he lost out to those brothers from Ohio a few years later. “Those two catastrophic failures in 1903 ended Langley’s aeronautical work,” Jakab says. “He was a broken man because he took a lot of ridicule. He spent a lot of money and did not achieve a great deal in this field.” Perhaps not, but we also learn from failures. And by all accounts, he accomplished great things... just not so much in aviation. Still, he did what few others even dared to try, and isn't that worth remembering? |
| It's unlikely that any individual is "an average human." To claim so would be mean. What does the average human do every day? The Human Chronome Project finds that the average human sleeps for 9 hours but only works for 2.6 hours. Pun intended, of course, if a bit forced. While each of us has a decent conception of how we spend our own time, the actions of our fellow humans — from our next-door neighbors to people living in faraway countries — can seem quite mysterious. Do they watch as much TV? Work as many hours? Fiddle with their smartphones as frequently? Cook as often? Spend as much time watching their kids? Even some of those questions reveal a developed-world bias. First and foremost, the average human spends about 9.1 hours sleeping or resting. As the article notes, "human" includes everyone, including children. I usually manage something like that, but certainly did not when I was working full-time. While awake, the average person spends close to one-third of their day on passive, interactive, and social activities. These roughly 4.6 hours include reading, watching TV, making art, playing games, going to gatherings with friends or family, or simply doing nothing at all. The idea of "simply doing nothing at all" seems incomprehensible to most Americans. Eating and food preparation accounts for another 2.5 hours. Yes, fast food isn't universally available. Hygiene, including grooming, washing, and dressing, takes about 1.1 hours. Oh, that's what I'm missing. Cleaning and maintaining the spaces we inhabit costs us 0.8 hours of the day. And that. Though employment can be hugely time-consuming for working individuals, when looked at through the lens of the global human day, it appears as a mere sliver of time, just 2.6 hours. Coincidentally, that's about how much actual productive time most office drones achieve. Education also isn’t very demanding, only 1.1 hours. That's because a whole lot of 0s skew the average. The researchers were also curious about how average human time use changes with wealth. One big advantage of being rich is grasping more leisure time by paying others to have more working time. For instance, I (not really rich for an American, but close enough) pay people to mow my lawn. To be clear, though, it used to take me about 4 hours to do it, while they knock it out in 15 minutes. Additionally, people in the richest countries spend an average of just five minutes a day growing and harvesting food, while people in the poorest countries spend well over an hour doing so. As this illustrates, you do, too, if you go shopping at a grocery store instead of growing your own food and butchering your own hogs. By assembling the human chronome, the researchers say that we can compare ourselves to civilizations from the past. Right, because we know exactly how they used all of their days. Also, civilization itself changes its individuals' time utilization. More importantly, we can see from a high-level, empirical perspective what our species is doing on our planet and make more informed decisions about reallocating our collective time to change the world and society for the better. Like that's going to happen. Also, the worst excesses are perpetrated by a very small, average-skewing group with greater resources (aka "the Rich"). So, while this research may be useful (no such thing as useless knowledge), I don't think it has the lofty practical potential that they claim. Not to mention that just looking at an "average" (however that's computed) tells you enough about the range. It's just another way of manipulating with statistics. For example, "the average human" possesses fewer than 2 legs. Think about it, and you'll realize I'm right. But saying that can be misleading, as the vast majority of people have exactly 2 legs. Like me! I always knew I was above average at something. |
| There are several articles in my queue, from various sources, about planets in our solar system. Fittingly, though randomly, the one about Mercury (from Vox) shows up here first. It's still a mystery to me. I've never knowingly seen it in the sky. All the other visible planets, sure, no problem. Venus, when it's visible at all, is very visible, usually the brightest thing in the night sky apart from the Moon. Mars is generally easy to spot for its color; Jupiter, like Venus, tends to be bright, but isn't limited to just after sunset or just before sunrise. Saturn, while you can't see its rings with unaided eyes, is generally recognizable. I've even seen the next planet out, through a telescope that someone else pointed. No, I won't name it until its article comes up, lest someone make a worn-out, juvenile joke about it. But Mercury? Its visibility is even more limited than that of Venus, always close to the twilight horizon if it's visible at all, not to mention much dimmer, and that makes it tough if you don't know exactly what to look for. And despite my interest in astronomy, I never could be arsed to get one of those cellphone apps that tells you what everything is. It's entirely possible that I've seen it and mistaken it for a star near the horizon, where some constellational context is missing. Anyway, that's not what the article is about. Thanks to space robots (we have SPACE ROBOTS), we've seen Mercury quite a bit. On Friday, the US Geological Survey released the most comprehensive topographical map of Mercury ever created, depicting its craters, ridges, volcanoes, and mountains — some rising more than 2 miles high — in fine detail: You'll have to go to the link to see the map. Also, "on Friday" refers to a long-ago Friday in early 2016, as the article is pretty old now. Because Mercury is so small and close to the sun, it's tricky to send spacecraft to visit it — before NASA's MESSENGER probe, the only craft that had come close was Mariner 10, which made a series of quick flybys in the 1970s. The difficulty of getting to Mercury may seem counterintuitive. Woudn't a probe just fall toward the Sun? Well, no, for the same reason Earth (much to our relief) doesn't; you have to cancel a lot of angular momentum, and that takes fuel, careful planning, and lots and lots of math. So, the rest of the article consists of some of the stuff we managed to figure out thanks to fuel, careful planning, and lots and lots of math. 1) Mercury is shrinking And no, not because of #2 here: 2) Mercury has water ice This has long been theorized, but lots of things were theorized that turned out not to be the case. The brief explanation for how ice can exist on the surface of a planet that's famously close to a giant perpetual fusion bomb is that Mercury has no real atmosphere to distribute heat, and the ice is in shadowed craters at the poles. 3) Mercury had a violent, volcanic past While, again, it's good to get evidence, this isn't exactly surprising given that other terrestrial planets (and the Moon) have or had volcanic activity. 4) We can't quite figure out how Mercury formed To be fair, we're a little fuzzy on the details of how any planets formed. What's cool is that we're able to figure out things like how big a planet's core is and what it's made of, and that we have the technology to send robots there in the first place. 5) Mercury has a weird, off-center magnetic field "Weird" meaning "No, we don't understand that yet, either, but it'll help us do more science." So, there it is: stuff we didn't know before, or suspected but didn't have proof of. Always more to find out. |
| As usual for Sundays, I used my handy Random Number Generator to excavate an ancient blog entry. This time, it pointed me to what might actually be my shortest entry ever, though I'm not going through all 2400+ entries to verify that. The entry in question is from all the way back in October of 2008: "Best Waste of Time EVER" It consists of a naked link (this was, if I recall correctly, before the xlink: feature was implemented), the words "Go ahead. Click." and a smirk emoticon. (This was also before the smirk2 emoticon). Hesitantly, I clicked on the link. It is, after all, at least 15 years old. If it's not dead, I thought, it's probably redirected. Or possibly encrusted with ads or other extraneous nonsense. Or, even worse, infested with malware. So I made sure my ad and script blockers were on and fully functioning. This is why I try to always expect the worst: Either I'm wrong, and something other than the worst happens, which is by definition good; or I'm right, which always feels good. And yet, the link is still active. I'm sure some things have changed there since 2008; for instance, now there's the option to get the corresponding app for your smartphone, and there are probably a few extra links near the bottom of the page... but no intrusive ads (I checked on a different browser, but not on my phone) or, as far as I and my extensive guardian plugins can tell, anything dangerous there. This is the link, if you don't care to look at that older blog entry.So what we get is a nice blast from the past, a reminder of what the internet used to be before most everything went to shit and became commodified, intrusive, and sanitized. And perhaps even a place to exercise artistic talent, if you have any, that is; I do not, but there are plenty of examples at the link of the works of people who do. Whether it's still the "best waste of time ever" is debatable. |
| It's been a while since I did a cooking article. Well, this is sort of cooking-adjacent, anyway. I always figured a smidgen was what you get when you run over a pigeon. Turns out, I was wrong. This article is basically an ad for a book, as is common around here, but uncommonly, it's a book I actually would like to read. It also delves into more than just the "smidgen;" the first section goes into how "stone" became a unit of measurement: For example, an English statute from around 1300 set a London stone at 12.5 lbs.; however, a stone for weighing lead was said to be 12 lbs., while a stone for measuring beeswax, sugar, pepper, cumin, almonds and alum was 8 lbs., and the stone for weighing glass was 5 lbs. The inconsistent and archaic use of stones continued in Britain for some time. And, colloquially, they still speak of some weights in terms of (far more standardized) stones there. It took me a while, as an American, to figure out that one stone was 14 pounds, and even longer to convert that to kg (which isn't a proper conversion either, as kg is a unit of mass, not weight, but whatever). An interesting side note is that, although the stone was not greatly used in America, in 1790 Thomas Jefferson suggested a new decimal system of coinage, weights and measures. His decimal currency was adopted, but his idea to introduce an American stone of 10 lbs. (with each pound weighing ten ounces) was rejected. I think I did an entry a while back on how we managed to decimalize our currency as a newly-independent nation, but attempts to decimalize anything else failed miserably. The UK, in contrast, didn't use a decimal-based currency until almost 200 years later. Smidgen, pinch, dollop, dash, and drop I did promise a cooking-adjacent thing up there, and this is it. Most people recognize that they refer to a small amount of something, but just how small is left open to interpretation. In fairness, some recipes are more forgiving than others when it comes to quantities. Smidgen is generally used to refer to an almost trace amount, a few grains or a tiny sliver. Still wiggly, since it doesn't specify the size of the grains or how tiny "tiny" is. To assist novice cooks it seems some American food writers have begun giving exact measurements (as fractions of teaspoons) to the traditionally inexact terms. A dash is said to be 1/8 of a teaspoon, a pinch 1/16 of a teaspoon, a smidgen 1/32 of a teaspoon, and a drop 1/64 of a teaspoon. You can now even purchase a set of measuring spoons for these tiny amounts. Meanwhile, I wish we'd get rid of "teaspoon" and just measure everything in grams. Far more precise. Some ingredients don't fit nicely into a teaspoon, tablespoon, or even a cup. Ever try to measure 1/4 cup of brussels sprouts? No amount of precision in the manufacturing of the 1/4 cup measure can fix the problem. There's a lot more explanation at the link, including (my favorite part) the etymology of some of these words. And, clearly, there's even more in the book. |
| I do like a "you're wrong about that" article... if the article itself isn't wrong. Almost everything you know about cheese is wrong Shredded cheese doesn’t melt as well and other fascinating facts about fromage. Forcing French for funny fails. A bag of pre-shredded cheese from the supermarket can really come in handy if you’re in a hurry and looking for a quick fix of salt and fat. And you're not starting out stellar, here: cheese contains those things, but its purpose is protein. And, of course, flavor. Unfortunately, many pre-shredded cheeses also come with a dose of cellulose, which is essentially wood pulp. It's a nature-derived preservative. Would you prefer an "artificial" preservative? The solution then is to grate the cheese fresh off the block or skip the grating process completely, says Mary Rizzo, owner of The Cheese Traveler shop in Albany, New York. I mean, sure. But that's work. Not just the shredding part, but the cleanup afterwards. The convenience of pre-shredded cheese is enticing. If you banned shredded cheese, you'd Make America Grate Again. Here are some other common fixes (or upgrades) you can make to your cheese game... Shredded cheese snobbery is right up there with pre-chopped garlic snobbery, in my book. I admit it's better, but it's also often too much like work. Some of these other items, though... Venture beyond processed cheese Yeah, I've ragged on this in here before. Unfortunately, lots of people have come to believe that Kraft Singles is what cheese is "supposed" to taste like, or perhaps Velveeta, and there is no fixing that attitude. Don’t always use air-tight plastic for storage I have to agree with this one, too, but again, you have to balance the benefits with the extra work involved. Learn why certain cheeses are crunchy Because they're coated with nuts? Okay, no, the article explains this as a natural product of cheese aging. Which, admittedly, I didn't know the details of. So I learned something, too. Sample real American cheese I'm all for local artisanal food (I am, after all, a craft beer and local wine snob), but let's not limit ourselves to America, even if we live in the US. It is good to know that, according to this article, local cheese is finally happening in the US; I hadn't heard much about it. Choose your pairings wisely This is the kind of thing that can only come with experience, and perhaps someone else to act as Cheddi Master. Everyone's taste is different, even discounting the wrecked palate that leads some people to prefer process "cheese," and what works for me might not work for you. But in the end, this is work that is worth it, to me: finding out which cheese pairs best with which wine or beer, or with other foods. It only improves one's enjoyment of life, and isn't that the whole point? |
| No streak lasts forever, so today's article comes from Rolling Stone: How ‘Disney Adults’ Became the Most Hated Group on the Internet “People were saying Disney fans are a plague upon society," says one expert. "That they will be the end of Western civilization” Most hated group? Really? I thought that was predators of children. Or maybe aficionados of that abomination they call "pizza" in Chicagoland. Article is about 13 months old, though, so anything might have changed since then. By all reasonable definitions and standards, I am a Disney Adult. I have seen all of the movies multiple times, and enjoy most of them at least a little bit. "Enjoy most of them at least a little bit" is damning with faint praise. The author goes on to build her (I looked up the bio, so that pronoun is correct) Disney bona-fides. I can't relate—I've seen quite a few of the movies, myself, and liked them, but I haven't been to a park in 40 years, nor do I have any intention or desire to do so. But I still don't hate her. On the internet, however, being a Disney adult is nothing short of an embarrassment. A Disney adult is someone who lives and breathes the brand, buying limited-edition mouse ears and popcorn buckets and branded fitness trackers the moment they drop, constantly posting free advertisements for the park in the form of Cinderella’s Castle and Purple Wall selfies (so named for the violently mauve wall in Tomorrowland) whilst wearing rose-gold mouse ears. "Strong dislike" is building after this bit, however. At no time was this distaste drawn into sharper relief than earlier this month, when a post on Reddit’s Am I the Asshole forum went massively viral. The post, which was reportedly written by a bride who had opted to pay for Mickey and Minnie to appear at her wedding rather than feed her guests, was, like most things on Reddit, anonymously written and poorly sourced. As a reminder, that would be last June. Before Reddit imploded. But from what I've seen, my default for AITA posts is "they're making shit up." Which is fine; hell, I'm a fiction writer sometimes, myself. “People were saying Disney fans are a plague upon society, that they will be the end of Western civilization,” says Jodi Eichler-Levine, a professor of religious studies at Lehigh University who studies the intersection of Disney and religion. I'm just going to pause here a moment to absorb the new knowledge that there is at least one actual PhD professor who "studies the intersection of Disney and religion." Oh hey, look, a bird is divebombing one of my cats. She probably deserves it. Okay, now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Disney is a business that sells products and experiences to consumers. So are most religions. So I guess that's fair. Is this accurate? Do Disney adults truly signal the end of Western civilization? No. For fuck's sake, are you so far up the Mouse's ass that you don't recognize hyperbole when you see it? To find out, and to learn where the concept of the “Disney adult” comes from in the first place, I talked to a slew of academics, internet culture and fandom experts, and, yes, Disney adults. The article is fairly long, and I'm not going to waste a lot of your time repeating it. Just a few choice quotes. On its most basic level, it strikes outsiders as deeply embarrassing to throw oneself into a subculture ostensibly aimed at children — despite the fact that the Disney parks, as Walt Disney first conceived of them, were very much intended for people of all ages. The problem with "for all ages" is that it leaves out quite a bit of the full human experience. Sex, for example, or violence past a certain level. Cussing. Having to pay taxes. But I understand that some people would rather pretend these things don't exist, or at least gain respite from them. Adding an extra layer of repulsion to outsiders, Disney adults’ ability to escape into this fantasy is almost entirely dependent on their ability to afford it. Ever since I got berated for wanting to waste money gambling by a guy who had a literal, actual monkey (that he paid money for) on his back, I've shied away from judging people by how they spend their money. If it's not Disney, it's sports, or luxury travel, or hitching a ride on a rocket that technically reaches space. Though I do admit to some residual judgment of people for spending money they don't have, even that isn't always their fault. As early as the 1990s, coverage of Disney’s fairy-tale weddings programs prompted plenty of sarcastic headlines about why grown people would want to get married in the vicinity of a cartoon mouse. Look, it's not for me, sure. Marriage or cartoon mice. But hey, these days, if you want, say, a Jedi wedding, that makes you a Disney fan too. Just saying. And where people choose to get married is their business, not ours. “There’s a real moralistic judgment of Disney adults,” she says. “It’s like, ‘How dare you, instead of putting all this money into buying a house or raising a family, put [it] into fleeting experiences?’ But that probably corresponds with changing cultural expectations for young adults.” How DARE you not live according to my preset life script? But this has, ironically, led most people to conceive of Disney adults as female and to bring their accompanying stereotypes along with it, even though the fandom is pretty evenly split gender-wise. I could probably write a thesis to conclude from this that mocking of Disney adults comes down to anti-feminism and sexism, but I'm already banging on long enough, and it really should be obvious. But we do have the male-dominated equivalent, which is comic book fandom. Yes, there are women in that group, too, but if you picture someone with a love for the superhero genre, it's probably a big, bearded guy. Me, e.g. And of course, now there's overlap there too, as one of the big superhero publishers is owned by Disney. “There was a lot of judgment on women who participated in that kind of activity. It was like, ‘Oh, you’re enjoying this fun thing that I consider childish? I’m going to make fun of you.'” How DARE you have fun when there's serious shit going on, and you should be bringing children into a doomed world instead? [Eichler-Levine] refers to the fandom as “a place where meaning and ritual and capitalism all come together, just like MLB, just like Star Trek. Name your fandom.” Just like I've been saying, and I don't need a PhD to recognize that. On a related note, sports fans long ago lost the right to complain about the rest of us dressing up and putting on body paint, etc., to celebrate the things we enjoy. I am not, and never have been, a person for whom joy really comes in consistent supply. But at Disney, it’s nothing less than an IV in my arm. Even the meticulous planning of the daily schedule gives me more of a sense of satisfaction than I feel in my everyday life. And considering how hard joy is for me to come by, I feel no need to apologize for that. And you shouldn't. "Stop liking what I don't like" is a meme for a reason. No, you're not ushering in the end of civilization; capitalism in general is doing a damn fine job of that. Until it happens, though... enjoy the ride. |
| For the ultra-rare three-in-a-row Cracked hat trick. I promise I have a variety of sources in the queue, but random numbers, like farts, often create streaks. Well, that's misleading. There are always rules. A world without these rules is the dream of the angriest teenage punks and Libertarians alike. Angry teenage punks and Libertarians just don't want to face consequences. Leaving the well-being of your neighbors and the continued functioning of society up to the natural good in people might sound feasible, if the only people you’ve ever met in your life were two nuns. Have you met nuns? 5. Slab City The city has no public oversight, or any of the services that comes with it — running water, electricity or the other niceties that are modern requirements for living. Sounds like a libertarian paradise, all right. And yet, if you read the article, sometimes the cops do respond there. Hence, rules, even if unwritten ones. 4. Antarctica Since there’s no owner or governing body, technically, there are no laws on Antarctica. Except that there actually are. And that's not even going into the whole "Don't go outside without a parka" thing; that's more of a natural law. 3. The Autobahn If you’re looking to the Autobahn for pure, unregulated freedom, though, you might be disappointed. In order to keep it from being basically a long stretch of twisted metal, there are plenty of other rules, some of which are policed more closely than elsewhere. "No speed limit" is hardly the same thing as "no rules." 2. International Waters Those are how certain pseudo-religious groups with lots of money and wide-eyed recruits get around pesky things like "child labor laws" and "regulations against slavery," but still... Thanks to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, jurisdiction in international waters is pretty cut-and-dry. First, there is international maritime law that applies regardless, and second, legal jurisdiction is decided by the country the vessel in question is registered in. 1. Your Imagination The cops can’t arrest you for what you do in your dreams… yet. But for just $19.99 a month of a low annual payment of $149.99, you can subscribe to DreamVPN. Keep those annoying Dream Police outside your head! |
| The random number gods have blessed us with back-to-back Cracked links. Not really useless, though, are they? Apart from my assertion that there's no such thing as useless knowledge, they at least get the site some clicks. For me, and most of us, space is like retirement: It seems cool, but there’s little to no chance I’ll ever personally experience it. Maybe stop buying lattes and you'll be able to afford a trip on the Muskrocket? Or retire. But not both. Along those lines, here are five of the most useless facts science has provided us with about outer space… Which might all someday be useful, if we don't blow ourselves up like a Muskrocket first. 5. Parts of It Smell Like Rum There are way worse things to smell like. There’s a cloud known as Sagittarius B2 that’s floating out in our own little Milky Way galaxy. In space, "cloud" is relative. From what I understand (I could always be wrong), it's even less dense than the Martian atmosphere. Specifically, it’s the chemical that gives rum its distinctive smell, meaning that, somewhere out in our galaxy, there’s a space cloud that, if you smelled it, would make you retch remembering your 21st birthday party. No, for that, it would have to smell like tequila. There is also an alcohol cloud in space; unfortunately, it's mostly methyl (the kind that makes you go blind if you drink it). But space is big, and in my headcanon, somewhere out there is a cloud of Everclear.SF idea: a spaceship dives into one of these clouds to replenish its fuel supply. 4. A Year on Venus Is Shorter Than A Day on Venus A year on Venus is shorter than a day, even though that is not what we have agreed those words mean like 99 percent of the time. It’s because Venus spins incredibly slowly on its axis, so much so that it completes a full revolution around the Sun before it rotates a full 360 degrees. This fact may indeed have little use—after all, on the surface of Venus, it doesn't much matter whether you're facing the sun or not; it's still hotter than actual hell. Not to mention corrosive and under more pressure than an intern on a deadline. But for a long time, we didn't know what the rotation rate of the planet was. All we had to go by was cloud top rotation, and that can be different. So the remarkable thing isn't that Venus rotates more slowly than it revolves, but that we know it. 3. There’s A Huge Diamond Out There That was an entire Doctor Who episode. The diamond is actually a huge, dead star known as a white dwarf. It's probably wrong of me to yawn at the idea of a white dwarf. It is, after all, an example of just how scary outer space can be. Larger stars, like our Sun, which so generously provides us with melanoma and the ability to burn ants with a magnifying glass, end with a supernova, one of the coolest things I hope to never see. Wrong. Our sun will also leave behind a white dwarf remnant. Supernovae start at, can't be arsed to look it up, a star much bigger than our sun.Once the sun starts fusing helium, however, it's likely to expand to Earth's orbit, so the distinction doesn't much matter to us. Also, whatever happens will happen billions of years from now. Probably. It’s so far away there’s nothing we can possibly do about it, but maybe, someday, we’ll figure out a way to send poor people there to harvest bits of it at great bodily danger to themselves. Another SF plot that writes itself. Unfortunately, one would have to first overcome the crushing gravity, not to mention the heat. 2. We’re Eventually Going to Crash Into the Andromeda Galaxy That's certainly not useless knowledge for a writer. It's just that this will happen just about when our sun expands; that is, billions of years from now. You tell me we’re about to collide with another galaxy, and when I ask, “So Earth and all the planets we know are just going to smack into the Andromeda ones?” I get hit with a “well, not exactly.” That's because space is largely made up of—you might want to sit down for this revelation—space. We've looked at galaxy collisions; the biggest effect is gravitational fuckery. 1. It’s Infinite Er... maybe. Probably not. Likely, it's very, very big. Maybe it's looped in four dimensions, the way the surface of the Earth is looped in three. Very, very big is just as far from infinity as 1 is.But from a practical standpoint, "very, very big" might as well be infinity, as there will always be things we don't know. And that's awesome. |
| They say necessity is the mother of invention. I say laziness is the milkman. Leave it to Cracked to point out a third option: comedy. Have you ever had a moment where you’re, say, shopping for pants, and you find a barren pocket field where the pockets no longer grow. So you say, “I guess I’ll just stick my phone up my butt.” Someone overhears, and the next thing you know, intra-anal wallets are a billion-dollar business? No, because I'm a man, and our trousers have pockets. Hell, I won't even buy sweats that don't have pockets. Still, that idea would go a long way toward reducing pickpocketing. 4. Schrödinger’s Cat I always had a problem with this thought experiment, and no, that problem wasn't "that poor cat." It was, after all, only a thought experiment. Austrian or not, torture wasn't Erwin Schrödinger’s thing. No, my problem is that it gives primary focus to the role of humans as observers, when there is one sentient observer who knows if he's alive; to wit, the cat. Physics in the 1930s was a wild west, or at least as wild as a bunch of nerds can get. There was all this quantum shit going around, things that can be nowhere and everywhere until you look at them, and not everyone was on board. For a dick joke site, this is a remarkably thorough but succinct summary of the situation in physics in the 30s. In response, he developed the “Cat Paradox,” which was supposed to illustrate what Schrödinger regarded as a flaw in the theory in the most ridiculous way possible. Obviously, a cat can only be either alive or dead, not both, and it doesn’t particularly matter who’s looking at it. Any cat owner can tell you they couldn’t give less of a shit about the actions of humans. That, too. But the joke was on Schrödinger. Quantum mechanics is now a pretty uncontroversial theory, and we’ve differentiated the behavior of quantum particles and non-quantum, catty objects, but that hasn’t stopped physicists from taking Schrödinger’s supposed paradox as a challenge. But still haven't actually involved real cats, to the best of my knowledge. Anyway, QM is indeed uncontroversial in its description of effects, but there's still debate about interpretations thereof. But yeah, it's all because one physicist was trying to get cute with a gedankexperiment. On a somewhat related note, the term "Big Bang" was coined by someone who didn't accept the idea of an origin for the universe. 3. America’s (Possibly the World’s) First Female Mayor To be fair, lots of politicians are jokes, regardless of gender. Or party. In 1887, when women were only kind of considered people, the ladies of Argonia, Kansas had just won the right to vote in local elections but still really only had the power to be mad about drunk dudes. I'm not going to blame the evils of Prohibition on females alone. The Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was passed before the Nineteenth (chicks can vote). But seriously, it's shameful how long it took for women to be able to vote even locally. ...they did underestimate how much local Republican Party officials disliked election tampering. Contrast that to today, when that party has it as an official platform plank. 2. Pickering’s Harem Unfortunate name for the surprising discovery that women are people and can do jobs. Pickering was well aware that Williamina Fleming, the immigrant single mother he’d recently hired as a maid, was brilliant. His wife, the daughter of a former Harvard president, had even previously told him he should hire her to do more than dust. He eventually reached a point where doing so seemed advantageous on a number of levels. For one thing, women could be paid a lot less than men, but as an added benefit, her success would humiliate all those guys he just fired. How... progressive. It turned out Fleming and the other women on the team she oversaw, grossly referred to as “Pickering’s Harem,” really were much better than the men they’d replaced. They were only supposed to do tedious clerical and computation work based on photos of the night sky, “but they were very bright, so they drew their own conclusions and made several important discoveries." Imagine that. 1. Trickle-Down Economics I can't even see that phrase without imagining Reagan and Thatcher pissing down on the general public. Or without getting spitting mad about it. ...but the man who articulated it best was mostly in the business of dancing around in silly cowboy costumes. No, not Ronald Reagan — humorist Will Rogers. Like I said, comedy. Like many of the comedy greats, Rogers was mostly talking out of his ass. He was a vaudeville performer with a 10th-grade education, not an economist. But he turned out to be right: Trickle-down economics has been a disaster for the American economy. No, it hasn't, not for the ones doing the trickling. Despite my blinding rage at the entire concept, it is a concept, and it started (unintentionally) with a comedian. Yet another reason we really should watch what we say. |
| Reaching deep, deep into the past today, this entry comes to us from January of 2008: "Exercise" It's just a short personal update from a previous incarnation of myself that I can't recognize today. I went to the gym today for the first time in over a year. Younger Me had no good excuse other than "working too much" and "playing video games." Me? I haven't been to a gym since March of 2020. Mostly, I hate the gym because I never quite know what to do there. Yeah, "excercise," I know, but on what? It has been pointed out to me since then that many people don't actually go to the gym to exercise, but to socialize. This makes no sense to me, like going to the movies to do something other than watch a movie, visiting a bar for any purpose other than drinking, or going to school for some reason other than learning. While it is true that I almost never do anything for only one reason, I always had this thought in my head that the primary purpose of a gym was to work out. Apparently not. Also, note the embarrassing typo. I spelled exercise wrong in the entry but not in the entry's title. Blame it on the pain. But with my back the way it is, it was pretty much "swimming." At some point after this entry, I went to a doctor and got one of those steroid epidural shots. I don't have the greatest memory, but I remember pain quite vividly, and that was incredibly painful, for a few days. After that, my back pain lessened to the point where I could usually live with it. Made my leg so parts of it couldn't feel anything, but hey, less pain. |
| This guy looms large around here. Sometimes literally, what with all the statues. Like many of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson was a dad. I mean, it's right there in the group's name. Article is from Art of Manliness, which is biased toward fatherhood as a prerequisite for "manliness," whatever that is. I'm not defending the site here, or Jefferson's personal life. And like a lot of dads, he often took the opportunity to dispense unsolicited dad advice to his children. I like to think he made numerous, cringeworthy puns as well. They're called "dad jokes" now, but I'm living proof that you don't have to be a dad to make them. In an 1825 letter to John Spear Smith, Jefferson laid out his refined list of adages that he called his “Decalogue of Canons for observation in practical life.” You might recognize "decalogue" as the Greek name for what we call the Ten Commandments. Jefferson, as should be widely known, was not above editing the Bible. I'm not going to get much into the explanations of the rules; you can go to the link for that. No, as a fellow Charlottesvillian and graduate of the University he founded, I'm going to note my own version of the Rules, updated for life nearly 200 years later. 1. Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today. Waltz: Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. Life's too short to focus on productivity all the time. 2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself. Waltz: Never do yourself what you can pay someone else to do for you. (And I can't resist pointing out that this Rule is pretty fucking ironic coming from a slaveholder.) 3. Never spend your money before you have it. Waltz: Own, don't rent. 4. Never buy what you do not want, because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. Waltz: Never buy what you do not want. (This Rule took me a while, I guess because language changed in two centuries. I think that last phrase can be translated as "it will be more expensive in the long run.") 5. Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst, and cold. Waltz: We really need to come up with a different word; there's good pride and bad pride. (Did Jefferson, landed gentry, know hunger or thirst? Cold, I have no doubt of.) 6. We never repent of having eaten too little. Waltz: Don't go hungry if you can at all avoid it. It's distracting. 7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly. Waltz. Doing nothing is always an option. Unless you're hungry. 8. How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened! Waltz: How much pain have cost us the embarrassing things we did that we only remember at 3 a.m. 9. Take things always by their smooth handle. Waltz: Laziness is productive. 10. When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred. Waltz: Actions speak louder than words. Okay, I stole that last one from my mom, who was fond of repeating proverbs (which are things entirely different from pronouns, again illustrating how freakin' weird English is). And obviously, I don't actually believe it, because here I am typing words. Anyway, I'm sure you'll have your own opinions on these things. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that because a famous person from history said it, it's any more profound than if a nobody from today says it. |
| I've said stuff before about etymology. This is more stuff. Every linguist is familiar with the feeling of delight mixed with vexation when they notice a linguistic connection that had been right under their nose—like that abysmal is the adjective form of abyss. Does someone not know that? I suppose not anymore, now that you've read this or the article. Wait'll you find out that "terrific" originally meant "causing terror" and comes from exactly the same place as "terrible." Because somehow, that's not in today's list. 1. Disaster and Asteroid Doesn't take much knowledge of Latin to know where "aster" came from: "astra" I think "asteroid" would be a better word for "hemorrhoid." These star-crossed words remind us of the enduring human fascination with the heavens and our attempts to comprehend their influence. It would indeed be a disaster if a large enough asteroid crashed into Earth. 2. Galaxy and Lactose Yeah, this is a fun one. As you may have guessed, galaxy comes to us from a Latin word for “the Milky Way.”... French chemist Jean Baptiste André Dumas proposed that name for the natural sugar in milk, using the Latin lac for “milk” plus -ose in analogy to another sugar, glucose. Now I want a Milky Way bar. 3. Company and Pantry The Latin root panis, “bread,” links the words company and pantry. I'll just pause here for a moment while you do your Beavis and Butt-Head impression over "panis." Ready? Okay. Far as I can tell, neither of those words is related to panty. 4. Sarcasm and Sarcophagus I have to admit, I never saw the connection here, unlike with previous pairs. Meanwhile, a sarcophagus is a “flesh-eater,” so named because the limestone used for these coffins was believed to quickly decompose the deceased’s flesh. Perhaps ironically, sarcophagi (look, it's a legitimate plural) are most closely associated with Egypt, which, as I understand things anyway, used them to preserve bodies. Skipping a few. Not because they're not interesting, but because I don't have anything to add. 7. Muscle and Mollusk You might think the shared m and l link these two words, but it’s actually the diminutive -scus suffix connecting them. And here we have an example of a connection I might never have made on my own. And before you ask, yes, as far as I can tell, mussels are so named because of their muscle, and they are mollusks. BONUS: Silence and Silhouette This, they included as an example of words that aren't linguistically connected. Apparently, per the article, a silhouette is so named because the French dude it was named after was named Étienne de Silhouette. It's debatable whether Monsieur de Silhouette actually did silhouettes. He apparently had a reputation for being cheap, and silhouettes are cheaper than portraits. This reminds me of the origin of "guillotine," where Monsieur Guillotine didn't actually invent the device. But. Names have meanings, too. I can't find many references to the origin of the name "de Silhouette," but that form usually makes reference to a place name. An English equivalent would be, like, "Geralt of Rivia." (Yes, I've been watching The Witcher.) In this case, however, the only reference I can find (a literal footnote on a Wikipedia page, so it's not necessarily canon, indicates that the name appears to have a Basque origin, and as Basque is, weirdly, unrelated to other Indo-European languages. Or any other languages, for that matter. So yeah, those words are unrelated. But according to this footnote, the place origin of Silhouette is Zuloeta, which apparently translates to "an abundance of holes."If true, that's something of a coincidence, as well. But in case you were wondering, yes, English has at least one word of Basque origin (even if through French), which is fascinating enough by itself. |
| How do you think the war's going? No, not that war. Or that one. This one: Link is to Cracked, so at least this should be entertaining. For decades now, the American government has been fighting the “War on Drugs.” I always figured it was the conservative response to the liberal "War on Poverty." When a war has been going on for almost a half-century, it’s not usually because you’re winning. But admitting that you lost is embarrassing. Unless the goal was to horrendously overcrowd the nation’s prisons with nonviolent offenders. In which case, you showed them! As incarcerated individuals can legally be slaves, perhaps that was a goal all along: cheap labor. You want murderers digging ditches? I didn't think so. The term crashed onto the scene after it was proclaimed in a speech by actual criminal Richard Nixon. An actual criminal who avoided prison. This was in 1971, shortly before he would resign from office due to the Watergate scandal. Um, no. Nixon was elected to a second term in 1972, and it wasn't until August of 74 that he resigned. Three years is a significant portion of a Presidential term. Here are five of the most embarrassing products and occurrences since the War on Drugs started Yes, it's a countdown. 5. DARE Doesn’t Work Maybe one of the most famous anti-drug campaigns ever created was D.A.R.E., which is what I assume is a backronym of the unwieldy Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Everyone I knew said it stood for Drugs Are Really Excellent. D.A.R.E. probably had more of an effect on the graphic T-shirt business than the drug trade. There was a period in there when dealers would wear those shirts so potential customers could identify them. Or so I've been told. 4. Legal Weed’s Success We have been trying to get weed legalized for as long as I can remember. It's clearly not in the same category as other mind-altering substances, some of which are legal, in terms of potential negative effects, and can have actual benefits. The War on Drugs slammed the brakes on that effort... for a while. The devil’s lettuce was, for ages, one of the chief bogeymen in the War on Drugs’ lore as a gateway drug and the leading cause of reefer madness. The "gateway drug" argument is, and always was, absolute nonsense. Not only that, but the legalization of weed has created a booming business and a positively shocking amount of tax revenue for the states in which it’s implemented. "Wait, we can make money off this instead of spending money to try to stop it?" 3. Quadro Tracker Okay, no idea what this is. Let's find out. It was a small plastic device that claimed to be able to detect things like guns and drugs after you inserted the corresponding “frequency card” (which, of course, cost money). The location was then meant to be indicated by a metal antenna. Now, calling it a device at all might have been generous, given that it turned out to be just a hollow piece of plastic. Basically, police across the country dished out taxpayer dollars in a big way to buy drug-dowsing rods. Normally, I think people who perpetrate scams should be locked up. In this case, however, they should build statues. 2. ”Fentanyl Overdose” Cop Footage The stories continue to pile up of officers left lying panicked on the ground or looking like they can see directly into the face of death after contact such as brushing it off their uniform, or just being in a car where the drug was found. This has always made me laugh. I don't remember when fentanyl seemed to suddenly burst onto the scene; it wasn't that long ago that I first heard of it. Sometime in the last ten years, maybe. This century, for sure. But it was only because I kept seeing stories like "Officer gets a nanogram of fentanyl on skin, drops dead." Absorption through skin can be an actual thing for some drugs (it's how nicotine patches work, for example), but if it's that deadly, how can it be manufactured, delivered, and eventually used? Even assuming clean-room procedures. By the time the cops find it, it's already out in the open. Why doesn't it kill the dealers, too? 1. Admitting It Was B.S. in the First Place This, really, is the most damning banana in the whole bunch: Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, in an interview from Harper magazine in 1994, finally gave up the ghost on the true motives of declaring a War on Drugs. Even as admissions of guilt go, it was pretty stark. He told the interviewer, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black (people), but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.” You mean... the government can't be trusted? They'll just make shit up to discredit people they don't want having any power or influence? No way! (Of course, Ehrlichman might have been lying, too...) |
| As an Aquarius, I think astrology is nonsense. Eight out of 10 millennials know demographics are horseshit Millennials are no more similar to each other than they are to Gen X or Gen Z, so it’s time to leave this lazy approach to segmentation behind. Yes, this article caters to my confirmation bias. I'm going to give it a look anyway. I've ranted about this sort of thing before, but it's been a while, and this is a new article. The Pew Research Center is one of the most influential and important places for social science on the planet. They do seem to garner respect, but I'm sure someone can come up with an example of why they can't be trusted. But one thing it won’t be doing any more is using generational terms like ‘millennials’ or ‘Gen Z’ to describe different cohorts of society. Which won't stop the rest of the world from doing so. “The question isn’t whether young adults today are different from middle-aged or older adults today,” Parker notes. “The question is whether young adults today are different from young adults at some specific point in the past.” I'm... well, I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's likely a quote out of context, but it seems to me that you want to know, for example, who buys Cheerios, parties with the Druids, or votes Libertarian, broken down by age. You'd also want to see how these things evolve over time, of course. It's mostly the arbitrary cutoff dates between generations that I've objected to. Another problem for Pew is that the United States has seen significant population change during recent decades. When studies do pick up statistically different attitudes and behaviours across generational cohorts, the likely explanation is as much down to its different racial and ethnic constitution rather than any fundamental age related issue. The "likely" explanation? If only there were a place that could do polls and run them through statistical analysis to verify this claim. This part, though, I can accept: Finally, Pew is uncomfortable with the gigantic swathes of society that are suddenly lumped together under a single arbitrary identifier when names like millennials are used. “A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years,” Parker explains in her article. “As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behaviour within generations.” It's one thing to claim, for example, that Millennials as a group tend to buy organic produce (I don't know if this is true or not, but bear with me). You slice up groups by age and see that, of all the arbitrary age cohorts, Millennials buy more organic produce than other generations. One problem comes in when you get people who don't understand statistics and assume that, upon meeting a Millennial, that individual therefore buys organic produce. Another problem is that if you're a Millennial in that scenario and you see "Millennials buy organic produce!" then you may be tempted to do so yourself to fit in. This is like when you find out you're a Taurus, and what Tauri supposedly act like, and you suddenly start playing up the stubborn aspects of your personality. Most of our industry constantly talks about Gen Z, Gen X and their current obsession – millennials – as if these segments are well supported by data and instantly ready for target marketing. But so much of this stuff lacks any legitimate foundation. There are three enormous issues with using demographics to segment markets. The rest of the article deals with these "three enormous issues," and while it's targeted to marketers (now there's an example of recursion if there ever was one), the arguments are worth looking at. When I was young, "laziness" wasn't attributed to youth, as it has been throughout pretty much every other period of human history, but to being part of "Generation X." Well, Gen-X is in their 40s to 50s now, and it's Gen-Z who's called "lazy" and "slackers," because, well, they're young and it's the entire purpose of older people to call younger people lazy, and lie about how much more hard-working and conscientious we were. I can only reply with the rallying cry of my own supposed cohort, Gen-X: "Meh. Whatever." |
| I would accompany this article from The Conversation with a significant amount of sodium chloride, but it's still interesting speculation. In evolutionary terms, the human population has rocketed in seconds. The news that it has now reached 8 billion seems inexplicable when you think about our history. No, it seems inevitable when you think about our history. There's a graph at the link showing population over time. Unsurprisingly, it's a classic exponential hockey-stick. Neanderthals were more inclined to stay in their family groups and were warier of new people. If they had outcompeted our own species (Homo sapiens), the density of population would likely be far lower. For homework, explain why this is a fallacious argument. Hell, I'll save you the trouble: to outcompete sapiens, they would have had to be more social, and thus increase their population density. But okay, let's play pretend. The reasons for our dramatic population growth may lie in the early days of Homo sapiens more than 100,000 years ago. Genetic and anatomical differences between us and extinct species such as Neanderthals made us more similar to domesticated animal species. Large herds of cows, for example, can better tolerate the stress of living in a small space together than their wild ancestors who lived in small groups, spaced apart. These genetic differences changed our attitudes to people outside our own group. We became more tolerant. I know this is going to raise objections from the down-on-humans brigade, but remember, "more tolerant" doesn't have to mean "very tolerant." We still have in-groups and out-groups. The article then goes into what it says in the headline, speculating (based on data, not wild guesses) how things might be different. I don't find this particular speculation useful, but it still sheds light on the differences between the two human species... assuming, of course, that inferences of their behavior based on archaeology and other disciplines are correct. As an aside, "species" can be a fuzzy concept. Usually it's meant to describe non-interbreeding populations. But, clearly, sometimes sapiens and neanderthalensis did interbreed. The whole designation thing is over my head, but for general purposes, calling them different species is good enough for communication; I'll let biologists hammer out the details. The more technology humankind develops, the more our use of it harms the planet. Intensive farming is draining our soils of nutrients, overfishing is wrecking the seas, and the greenhouse gases we release when we produce the products we now rely on are driving extreme weather. And yet, despite discussing both population and technology, the article stops short of what, to me, is a blindingly obvious connection there. The vast majority of human population increase has occurred over the last 200 years, roughly coinciding with the industrial revolution. But that's not a coincidence. Advances in science have increased average life spans and reduced infant mortality, while at the same time fouling the environment. On the surface, reduced mortality seems like a good thing, but the increase in population requires extraction and processing of ever more resources, feeding back onto the "fouling the environment" part. "Intensive farming" is needed to feed the 8+ billion. So is "overfishing." It's not "the more technology humankind develops, the more our use of it harms the planet;" it's "the more people there are, the more we need that technology to survive and make more people." So far, the benefits of technology have outweighed the downsides. But I doubt that will persist. I feel like the article veers way too close to romanticizing the Neanderthal, kind of a "noble savage" conceit. Sure, maybe the ecosystem would be in better shape had they been more successful, from an evolution perspective, than we were, but that's like speculating about whether dinosaurs would have ended up building rockets if that asteroid hadn't fucked things up for them. |
| Full disclosure: I don't "know" most of these authors. Should You Write What You Know? 31 Authors Weigh In From Toni Morrison to William T. Vollman, an Age-Old Question Answered Yes, sometimes I feature articles that are actually about writing. This is one of them, and I'm linking it because I still see arguments about "write what you know." Hell, I participate in them. Everyone who has ever taken a writing class or read a craft book has heard this piece of writing advice—even if only to have it instantly denounced. First, we should understand that this is what I'd call subjective advice, as opposed to objective advice (an example of which would be "send your ms to lots of different publishers"). (Whether that's good objective advice or not, I don't know.) Obviously, I'm not copying all 31 opinions, just the ones I have something to say about. Nathan Englander: I think what’s behind “write what you know” is emotion. Like, have you known happiness? Have you ever been truly sad? Have you ever longed for something? That's a take I hadn't considered. I guess if it works, it works. But I think that, for example, a childhood longing for a candy bar is quite different from an adult longing for meaningful companionship. Kazuo Ishiguro: It encourages people to write a dull autobiography. And I feel like this is missing the point. It's like the conceit that runs through the movie The Invention of Lying: Since no one can lie, and fiction is lying, the only entertainment available is stodgy guys sitting in chairs retelling the facts of history. Few would actually want that, so it's a stretch to think that this is what "write what you know" implies. Ursula K. Le Guin: I think it’s a very good rule and have always obeyed it. I write about imaginary countries, alien societies on other planets, dragons, wizards, the Napa Valley in 22002. I know these things. I know them better than anybody else possibly could, so it’s my duty to testify about them. I got my knowledge of them, as I got whatever knowledge I have of the hearts and minds of human beings, through imagination working on observation. I had to include this one because a) I respect LeGuin a lot; and b) we needed a science fiction/fantasy take on "write what you know." Zoë Heller: In fact, the injunction is only to know; the business of how you come by your knowledge is left quite open. And this one gets closer to my own opinion on the subject, which I'll share in a bit. Toni Morrison: You Don’t Know Anything I know that this assertion is postmodernist, anti-intellectual bullshit. Dan Brown: Make the writing process a learning process for you. I felt physical pain upon realizing that his advice is also close to my own thoughts on the subject. Physical pain, because I've never really liked Dan Brown's writing. I read Da Vinci Code when it came out, but, just before that, I read a (purportedly) nonfiction book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail. And it was clear to me that Brown had read it as well, and "wrote what he knew" from reading that book. Harry Crews: It’s true that a writer is told by a lot of stupid people, like English teachers... And I stopped reading there. If you can't respect your teachers, who can you respect? Gore Vidal: I'm not going to quote his actual words here, but I encourage you to go and read them because I love a good takedown of the snobbish "literary" genre. P.D. James: There are all sorts of small things that you should store up and use, nothing is lost to a writer. Not really sure who this is, but this bit touches on something I've been saying all along, which is that, in general and especially for a writer, there's no such thing as useless knowledge. Ernest Hemingway: You throw it all away and invent from what you know. I should have said that sooner. That’s all there is to writing. Appropriately, this is one of the shortest opinions on the list. But, all due respect to Papa, mine is shorter (we're getting to that...) Jillian Weise: I was told to write poems that cost me something to write them. They cost me a lot. I'm no expert on poetry, but this tracks. There's a lot more at the link, pro and con and in between. But I can't help but feel that this wouldn't even need to be a debate if, instead of "write what you know," we all followed the Rule of Waltz: Know what you write. (See? Shorter even than Hemingway.) |
| I'm used to reaching back in time for these retrospective entries, but this one also reaches out into space: "The Big Not So Empty" The link to the original article is broken, but by poking around on the Nautilus site, I found it with a different URL.This is good, because it's an exceptionally long articles, with fun and helpful cartoon illustrations, all focused on the goal of explaining to non-technical audiences what "space" is. I have no need to rehash what I wrote back then, but one of the reasons I revisit these older entries is to see if anything's changed. And in this case, it has, sort of. Near the end of the article, we have this: And the exciting thing is that we are closer than ever to being able to probe these extreme deformations of space. Whereas before we were deaf to the ripples of gravitational waves moving through the universe, we now have the ability to listen in to the cosmic events that are shaking and disturbing the goo of space. Perhaps in the near future we will understand more about the exact nature of space and get at these deep questions that are literally all around us. I remembered seeing something new about gravitational waves recently, so I went and looked for it, and, by cosmic coincidence, this was published just last week. Now, I'm not going to do my usual commentary on that. I'm not averse to spouting off on shit I know little about, as you know, but in this case, this stuff is so far above my pay grade that I don't even know how to respond. I'm told that physicists are deliriously happy about these findings, though, and that link I just posted seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the significance. In brief, as I understand it, they found a way to detect incredibly tiny space-bending gravitational ripples from events in the early universe. Which is cool, and I think it's a nice complement to how the JWST is giving us better (photonic) images of stuff from the early universe. I've even heard that they recently confirmed that time moved at a different rate back then, which... well, let's just say I need to make a run to the liquor store later to deal with all of this. Just one last thing to note, which is more about the ambiguity of the English language: "space" in this context refers to, well, everything we know about, including, say, the space between things here on Earth, while "space" can also mean "the stuff outside the Earth's atmosphere." Outer space. Similarly, though more obscurely, you can sometimes see the term "gravity waves" in relation to weather phenomena , but that has nothing to do with the gravitational waves these science articles speak of. |
| Despite what airy nonsense your life coach may have spouted, it is not possible for one person to change the world. And even if it were possible (which it's not), there's always the chance that no one would notice. Link is from Cracked, so don't try to use this in any world-changing scholarly papers. 5. Rosalind Franklin I agree she got dicked over (pun intended), but I suspect more people recognize her contribution now. Before 1953, though, the structure of DNA was unknown, until the now ubiquitous double-helix structure was modeled by James Watson and Francis Crick. If you know any names related to the study of DNA, it’s most likely theirs. To the best of my knowledge, Watson was unrelated to A.G. Bell's Watson, or Sherlock's. Watson and Crick did admit that solving DNA’s structure without the Franklin data would have been “unlikely, if not impossible,” but apparently putting her name at the top of the paper was a step too far. In case you're wondering, this is one reason I say it's impossible for one person to change the world: everyone has been influenced by others, and, in many cases, others have to let themselves be influenced by that person. 4. Ignaz Semmelweis I didn't recognize the name at first, but the thing he did was something I'd heard of. So what was Semmelweis’ incredible, world-changing medical discovery? It was that doctors should maybe start washing their hands. This really was tantamount to heresy at one point. 3. Michael Delligatti When you think of a central figure related to McDonald’s, you might think of the founder, Ray Kroc, or more likely, a fictional and mildly unsettling clown. Kroc founded McDonald's like Musk founded Tesla Motors: in mythology only. You may have assumed the Big Mac was cooked up in some secret burger laboratory deep beneath McDonald’s HQ. In reality, it was Delligatti who suggested a two-patty burger and developed the special sauce, an idea that McDonald’s hated at first. This may be heresy, too, but I've never really liked the Big Mac. I do miss the McDLT, so it's all for the best that it's no longer available. So what did Delligatti get for forever changing the cholesterol levels of the human race? The ultimate bare minimum: a plaque. We all get plaque from eating at McDonald's. 2. Philo Farnsworth If you’re born with a name like Philo Farnsworth, you basically have two viable career paths: some sort of strange preacher, or a brilliant inventor. You forgot "supervillain." I don't feel like copying much of this section; basically, he invented the television. Which, come to think of it, may have caused as much suffering as the Big Mac. (The part that was surprising, to me, was that said invention was nearly 100 years ago.) 1. Henrietta Lacks As with Franklin above, she's more widely known, these days. Unlike Rosalind Franklin, though, it wasn't what she did that was significant (which in no way should diminish her significance). For whatever reason, her cells reproduced at an unbelievable rate, and “HeLa” cells have been used in research ever since. She did finally get a book and a movie in which she was played by Oprah, but she and her relatives got a whole lot of absolutely nothing for years after her death. Played by Oprah? Talk about adding insult to injury. Moral of these stories: sometimes it just doesn't pay to be influential. |
| Here's a liberating take on food. There Is No Such Thing as “Junk” Food Food hierarchies are, in truth, sorting mechanisms. It does not make you a worse person to eat “junk” food, and it certainly doesn’t make you a better person to eat whole grains. Except that food has been linked to morality and virtue-signaling for a long time. When I was in elementary school, I filled out a well-intentioned worksheet that asked me to sort foods into boxes. What you were really learning was that humans like to stick everything into neat little boxes. The worksheet didn’t consider how to feed your child when you’re a single parent working swing shift and a Happy Meal or a frozen pizza is the cheapest and most reliable way to feed your kids, or if the nearest fresh broccoli was an hour’s drive away. And this is the often-overlooked dirty little secret of food snobbery: eating foods considered healthy is expensive and time-consuming. Being able to do so is a product of privilege. My understanding that certain foods were so “bad” they were junk was complicated by the peculiar diet culture of the ’90s, which convinced me that cheese and avocados were high-fat and to be avoided, bananas had too much sugar and should also be avoided, but Starburst Jellybeans (lot of sugar, sure, but fat-free!) or Snackwell Devil’s Food Cookie Cakes (cake...but diet?) were somehow okay. I've ragged on nutrition science in here before; no need to repeat it. I entered my 20s with deeply illogical ideas about food and nutrition, which became even more contradictory when injected with the sustainability gospel of Michael Pollan, anti-GMO politics, the locavore movement, and the rise of “fast casual” cuisine. But the problem isn't just nutrition science; it's that, as evidenced by the anti-GMO bit, people will believe whatever suits them. Some people, regardless of age, need more salt in their diet, not less; some people need more fat, or caffeine, or dairy, or none at all. And others just need more things in their lives that are delicious—that remind them of the true bounty and delights of being human. And really, as a hedonist, that last part resonates strongly with me. Food isn't penance. Food isn't medicine. Food isn't virtue. Food is about not being hungry, and, ideally, enjoying life. People weren't nearly as neurotic about food before we got all these choices. But now that we have them, sure, it's good to be healthy, but not at the expense of eating cardboard. The article goes on to link food snobbery with racism and classism, and it makes some good points, but it's tangential to my purpose in linking this. This is, to me, the important bit, right at the end: Contrary to what those worksheets might tell us, food does not have moral character, and consuming it does not influence or infect our own character. Food is delightful, and food is fuel, and food is culture. It becomes shadowed with shame—often, the sort that can distort our eating habits for years to come—not when we eat it, but when we restrict it, and attempt to spread that shame to others who do not. I noticed this in particular with the low-carb or gluten-free fads. There has not been a food that I'm aware of in the entire history of agriculture that has been more culturally significant than bread. It is symbolic to many religions, but even just culturally, it's something that brings people together. I can't help but feel that the attempts to demonize it are just another way to separate us from each other, and give us yet another thing to feel shame about—shame that can only be ameliorated if you Buy My Product. |
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
