%%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)       |
| 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. |
| Of course the bicycle moved us forward. I've never seen one with a reverse gear. The article, from Mental Floss, is from 2016, but I doubt there have been massive changes in our knowledge of transportation history since then. I'm entirely too lazy to retype section headers. They're in ALL CAPS. 1. IT REVOLUTIONIZED HOW PEOPLE HOOK UP, A CENTURY BEFORE TINDER. I've been on the internet long enough to remember when it was all, "Don't hook up with anyone from the internet." Now it's "Only hook up with someone from the internet." The effect on romance was profound: Long-distance courtships were possible. This section has a distinctly British slant, so remember: In England, 100 miles is a long way; in the US, 100 years is a long time. 2. IT SHOWED THE WORLD THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS BELONGED. And this section is slanted American, like people of African ancestry didn't live anywhere else that there were bicycles. 3. IT GAVE US THE NATION'S FIRST PAVED HIGHWAYS. Having studied transportation engineering, I knew this. It's ironic now, as automobile drivers tend to think the road belongs to them and them alone, and many of them treat cyclists as annoying obstacles. 4. IT DEMONSTRATED THAT SPACE IS SAFE FOR ASTRONAUTS. In 1973, the Skylab space station crew became the first people to pedal in space (on stationary bikes). That's a stretch. 5. IT EMANCIPATED WOMEN FROM THE HOME (AND THEIR WARDROBE). Not only did women love the freedom, they loved the dress, ditching heavy skirts for bloomers to work the pedals. I've made jokes before about how if life made sense, it'd be men's bikes that didn't have the ball-racking upper tie bar. But the historical reason for the design of chick bikes has nothing to do with genitalia, but with fashion. 6. IT HELPED HUNDREDS OF JEWS ESCAPE THE HOLOCAUST. Bartali helped Jews escape the country, carrying counterfeit identity papers in the frame and handlebars of his bicycle on “training rides.” If stopped by police for search, he’d ask them not to touch his “specially calibrated” bicycle. These days, that would result in the cops disassembling the bike into its component parts, bending every single resulting piece, beating the rider for resisting arrest, and then charging the dude for their time. At least, that's how it would work here in the US. 7. IT BROUGHT LIFE-SAVING CINEMA TO PEOPLE IN REMOTE PLACES. In 2013, a charity wanted to screen educational films in Malawi to spread info on HIV prevention, modern farming, and other issues. But most villages lacked electricity or gas for a generator. Enter Colin Tonks of Electric Pedals, who built a pedal-driven cinema that fits in two backpacks and weighs less than 40 pounds—perfect for toting to remote spots. Seems to me there might be easier ways to get the information there, but what do I know? 8. IT CREATED THE PERFECT URBAN AMBULANCE. In 1993, London ambulance driver Tom Lynch was stuck in traffic on his way to a call when he started thinking about how much faster he could get there on a bike. More importantly, bikes make great urban pizza delivery vehicles. 9. IT PROVIDES CHEAP, CLEAN POWER FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES. "Cheap" only if labor is "cheap." 10. IT HELPS ALLEVIATE SYMPTOMS OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE. In 2003, biomedical engineer Jay Alberts was on a high-effort weeklong tandem ride with a friend who has Parkinson’s when the friend’s symptoms nearly disappeared. Alberts then studied a group of Parkinson’s patients who rode at an intense 80-90 rpm clip on a tandem bike, and had a 35 percent improvement in symptoms. What a dilemma: do hard work, or continue to experience symptoms. I'm honestly not sure which would be worse. |
| Well, that holiday's over. Hope everyone still has all their fingers. If not, I'm going to laugh, especially because people all around me were setting off illegal fireworks last night—some of them not quitting until 2am. No, it didn't keep me awake; I was awake anyway, listening for the siren sounds of screams and the screaming sounds of sirens. No luck either way, dammit. Well... one distant scream, but no follow-up siren. Mean? Maybe. But at least I'm not faking positivity. While this article is from almost exactly four years ago, I haven't seen much improvement in attitudes, so here it is. Our culture's smiley insistence on feeling happy 24/7 now has its own name: "toxic positivity." And this happiness pressure has started to raise concern among mental health experts. As I am not a mental health expert, I'm not concerned; I'm just annoyed. More annoyed than by the aforementioned fireworks last night. I reached out to Dr. Allison Niebes-Davis, a licensed clinical psychologist, for her professional definition of the problem: "Toxic positivity is an oversimplified approach to difficult stuff. It insists on people only seeing the bright side, that they be happy, cheerful, and positive. Phrases like 'Just think positive,' 'It’ll get better,' and 'Everything happens for a reason' are frequent offenders." Several sayings are guaranteed to light my fuse, and those are three of them. Mostly that last one. If I punch you in the mouth after saying it, there was a reason for that. Actually, "It'll get better" doesn't bug me that much, but "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" does (it's demonstrably untrue). As for "just think positive," I'm positive that we're doomed, and this is just more evidence of that. As Dr. Niebes-Davis explains to Romper, "Toxic positivity minimizes painful emotions and downplays difficult experiences. It sends a subtle but clear message that there’s no space for sadness or tough stuff. When we insist on only looking at the positive, we shame people for struggling, and as a result, they often feel isolated and alone." I forgot to mention, in case you haven't clicked yet, that the site I linked above is unfortunately named Romper. Below I point out the top three ways it sneaks its rainbow-patterned way into your day. Because it's Romper, and not Cracked, the list actually counts up from 1. 1. Social Media I avoid social media not just because of toxic positivity, but also its opposite. Occasionally, something good will happen there, but those rare instances usually sneak out into my attention sphere anyway. Anyone who's spent any time on Insta is well aware of the endless #positivevibes posts, usually featuring someone in a stylish white fedora hanging off the back of a yacht somewhere off the coast of Croatia. (Guess what, Genius Fedora Woman? It's pretty easy to be positive in that sitch.) See? Money can buy happiness. Take stock of your emotional state post-scroll. Or—and I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here—avoid social media entirely, or at least curate your feeds better. Or whatever it is you do these days. As of this writing, the former has gotten easier for Twatter, which to me is a positive thing. 2. Happiness Merch I'm detecting a tendency on the author's part to use cutesy abbreviations, which is also setting me off like a Fourth of July firecracker. There currently seems to be a surplus of products featuring not-so-subliminal messages of positivity. Happiness is clearly #onbrand. Not to mention number signs. If Twutter goes away, will pound signs? Actually, the name of the symbol is "octothorpe," which I only mention because that's an awesome word. Maybe you just lost your job. Or your dog. Or your mind. You certainly don't want to "Smile!" You probably want to go home and shatter your "Good Vibes Only" mug with ball-peen hammer. And if so, well that is a perfectly normal and healthy response! As Dr. Niebes-Davis wisely reminds us: "Some things just aren’t happy. Some situations just can’t be made shiny." The phrase is, "you can't polish a turd." Or something to that effect. 3. Friends IRL Get better friends. How are they when you try to open up about your struggles? Are they able to just sit with you and your feelings? Or do they immediately try to talk you out of your emotions, and put a "positive" spin on your pain? "I don't want to be around negative people, so either cheer up, or go away until you do." While trying to "stay positive" can of course be a good and sometimes necessary strategy for getting up and plowing through yet another day as a mortal being scurrying over a dying rock floating through space... I'm just including this bit because I love the phrasing, which makes up for the precious abbreviations earlier. And that's what's it's all about, right? The positive and the negative. As writer Harlan Ellison so wisely mused: "For without pain, there can be no pleasure. Without sadness, there can be no happiness. Without misery there can be no beauty. And without these, life is endless, hopeless, doomed and damned." All due respect to the great Harlan Ellison, I think the great philosopher duo of Beavis and Butt-Head put it more succinctly: "If everything was cool, and nothing sucked, how would we know what was cool?" |
| Clearly, it's sorcery. Or maybe ghosts. No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air Do recent explanations solve the mysteries of aerodynamic lift? Actually, what "no one can explain" is why I fell for the clickbait headline. Maybe because I expected better from Scientific American. In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times ran a story entitled “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” One could say it doesn't much matter, because it's obvious that they do stay up. The vast majority of the time, anyway. But that's not science. This is like the old nonsense about how bumblebees can't fly (spoiler: they actually can). To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field. Okay, I can accept those credentials, for now. What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift. “There is no simple one-liner answer to this,” he told the Times. "There is no agreement" is not the same thing as "there is no simple answer." In the interest of full disclosure, I had, for a long time, been under the impression that it's all about Bernoulli's Principle (airfoil causes air above the wing to have higher velocity and thus lower pressure), though it never really seemed to explain everything. And it doesn't. For instance, you know those old planes that could fly upside down? Can't be explained by airfoils alone. By far the most popular explanation of lift is Bernoulli’s theorem, a principle identified by Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli in his 1738 treatise, Hydrodynamica. Told you so. The article goes into this in more depth, of course, but I won't reiterate much of it here. Basically, there are other factors involved as well. The controversy, as far as it goes, seems to be about how much each of those different factors contribute. There's also unstable, chaotic effects at play, which are poorly understood right now. But that's not why I linked the article. I mean, sure, this stuff's fascinating to me, but I don't expect everyone to be riveted by the article or whatever. No, my main points here are to show that a) just because you don't fully understand something doesn't mean it's not real; and b) I'm really annoyed that SciAm would use a headline like that. It fosters distrust in science, something that's pervasive enough in the world right now. "Why should I trust scientists?" I can hear the willfully ignorant saying while clutching a Coors Light. "They can't even explain how airplanes fly!" It's true that science sometimes gets things wrong. I'm not contesting that. It is even more true that without it, we'd get a whole lot more wrong. |
| Finally, some vindication. Good news: America has officially entered its messy-house era. Like I needed to wait for permission. Then, this past week, Marie Kondo herself admitted her house is a mess now that she has kids, a statement that was received like a divine pardon by mothers the world over. I guess the mess finally sparked joy. I’ve been waiting for this change for a long time, not because I love a mess, but because I have always had conflicted feelings about the moral supremacy of cleanliness. I want to make a distinction here that the article kind of glosses over, at least at first: there's a difference between mess and clutter. Mess, to me, is not cleaning up your cat's puke, having pizza boxes lying around, or leaving dirty dishes in the sink. There are reasons to deal with messes that have nothing to do with morality, such as minimizing bug infestations. Clutter, on the other hand, is just stuff being organized in non-traditional ways. The problem comes in when the clutter gets in the way of cleaning up the mess. ...mess is a sign of minds engaged in more important pursuits than tidying up. And that used to be my excuse. We need our ideas about cleanliness to catch up with reality, because they are stuck in the mid-20th century, when most women didn’t work outside the home. We also need to stop using staged real-estate ads as an ideal. Women were responsible for housekeeping for thousands of years, up until just a few decades ago. [citation needed] For two-income families who can’t afford a full-time housekeeper, maybe caring less is where the solution lies. There is, indeed, a great deal of freedom when you finally stop giving a shit. I know there are some readers who bristle at this because it smacks of lowering one’s standards to accommodate masculine laziness. The messiest people I have ever known, not excluding myself, were my first wife, and a woman I dated for a while in the 90s. I freely admit that I'm lazy, but compared to them, I'm a cleanaholic. Valid point! No, it's not, you sexist sow. The neatest person I know was a guy who lived in my spare room for a couple of years. Cleanliness has historically been about well-being, peace, and, to a lesser extent, health. But “clean” and “dirty” are also categories dreamed up by social groups. I'll also point out that there's an element of privilege involved. My parents came of age during the Great Depression. That period, at least in the US, left scars on the people who lived through it. They hated to throw anything away, on the grounds that it might come in handy one day. It's a scarcity mindset. If you keep throwing your stuff out, then you have to keep buying more stuff to replace it later on. This only helps merchants, and I'm pretty sure that's why they keep promoting minimalism: it's basically a marketing ploy. Best to not buy all that shit in the first place, but obviously, the marketers don't go in that direction. Meanwhile, product marketing has convinced us that we have to clean obsessively for our health. I can report from extensive first-hand experience that things can get quite filthy before people are actually getting sick. And that's the other marketing push: buy these cleaning products to improve your life! In conclusion, while I have some issues with the way the article is presented (not just the stereotyped gender roles, but way too many mentions of DikDok), I appreciate that someone else understands the value of not living in a perfectly curated space. It's one less thing to be neurotic about in a society that tries to make us neurotic about everything. |
| As it's now Sunday, I'm going back in time. The destination is late 2021, and it's a response to a 30 Day Blogging Challenge prompt: "Epiphany" I have, before I save this one, 2380 entries in this blog (the max is 3000, so you're stuck with me for a while yet). While I try not to reuse titles, sometimes it happens, especially when I can't be arsed to search for a title before I use it. "Epiphany" was one of them. According to my search, which I did this time, I have three entries with that title (one of them includes a question mark). This annoys me, but I doubt anyone else cares. The prompt in question, in this version of Epiphany, was to "write about a moment in your life that changed the way you view the world." I've had a few moments like that, and it seems I wrote about most of them. The one in particular noted in the linked entry was that whether something is created or destroyed depends on your point of view about it. That insight was an example of itself. My old worldview was destroyed, a new one created. Which one's superior? Obviously, I think the later one is. Others might have a different perspective. Nothing since that epiphany (or since the entry where I wrote about it) has changed my mind about its truth, but, admittedly, it's not something that much affects my life. I continue to consider things like erecting a building to be "creation," while things like bombing that building to be "destruction." Likely, most people do that; it's a rare situation when you have to think about it to decide whether something is created or destroyed. The word itself apparently comes from Greek and Latin, with the original meaning of "reveal." It's now inextricably tied to religion, as Epiphany is a celebration associated with Christmas. (It's either about the coming of the Magi, or the baptism of Jesus, depending on whose church you're talking about.) There's a lesser-known definition that's more broadly religious, meaning some sort of manifestation of the divine, not limited to Christianity. As I'm not religious, though, that's almost never the connotation I mean when I use the word; it's the more secular meaning of a sudden insight, which anyone can have, whether they're religious or not. As I noted in that 2021 entry, nothing is actually created or destroyed, only transformed. As others have noted, the only certainty in the universe is transformation. Well. That, and death and taxes. |
| Going by Eastern Daylight Saving Time, there's a full moon coming up on July 3. The next one occurs on August 1, and the one after that, August 30. There has already been media hype about the third one being a Blue Moon. As I've noted before, repeatedly, and with little effect, this is incorrect. The Blue Moon is not the second full moon in a calendar month. No, I will not stop pointing that out, and you're going to see it again from me as we inevitably get more articles about it in the near future (there's already another one in my queue). But today's article is, in part, related to a different label, a more recent one: the "supermoon." How Far Is the Moon From Earth? And Everything Else You Need To Know About Our Glorious Natural Satellite What is it actually made of? How far is the moon from Earth? And is there really water up there? I don't actually have a problem with the label "supermoon." Maybe it's a bit overhyped; all it means is that the full moon occurs near perigee, so the familiar cratered face seems a bit larger than usual. Here’s everything you could possibly want to know about the moon. Nonsense. There's always more to learn. How Did the Moon Form? Pick a culture, and they probably have a story about that. The most commonly held theory for the moon’s creation is known as the “Giant Impact Hypothesis.”...A NASA study from 2019, for instance, cast doubt on the Giant Impact Theory. Specifically, scientists couldn’t find enough of a large group of Earth elements in the moon, even though the moon should contain them, per the Giant Impact Theory. See? More to learn. How Long Does It Take the Moon to Orbit Earth? One month, duh. That's why we call it a month. But not the mostly arbitrary months of the Gregorian calendar. It takes a little over 27 days—27.322, to be exact. Coincidentally, it also takes the moon 27 days to rotate on its own axis. That's not "coincidence." Coincidence is that we're around at a time when the moon and sun are roughly the same apparent size in the sky. The moon is tidally locked; that's physics. The moon’s orbit of Earth follows what scientists call an elliptical path, shaped more like an oval than a circle. So while we can’t see the moon spinning, we can see it change in size. It’s just a matter of perspective, but it reflects how the moon interacts with Earth. When the moon is farthest away from Earth, scientists refer to that as the “apogee,” and when it is closest, it’s at its “perigee.” Ugh. Everyone calls it an elliptical path, not just scientists. I feel obligated to point out that there is some variation in the face the moon presents to us; this is called "libration" (okay, that one's mostly scientists). So, sometimes, we can see a little more of one edge or the other. How Far Away Is the Moon From Earth? This is the bit that's related to the "supermoon" concept. At its apogee, it’s 252,088 miles (405,696 kilometers) from Earth. At its perigee, it’s closer, at 225,623 miles (363,104 kilometers). Perigee occurs once per orbit. It's only when the full moon happens close to perigee that we get the supermoon thing, but really, it's always slightly bigger at some point once a month. That works out to an average of 238,855 miles (384,400 kilometers). That’s around 60 times the radius of Earth, or enough distance for 30 Earths in between. I read somewhere (can't be arsed to look it up now) that it's also enough space for all the other planets in between. Which in reality would be catastrophic; this is just a size comparison. How Does the Moon Affect the Tides? ...seriously? Okay, sure, the actual physics is a bit complicated (it took me a while to fully grok why there's a tidal bulge on the opposite side of the Earth, as well as the moon-side, and the article glosses right over that bit), but I thought it was common knowledge that the tides are caused by the moon. What’s the Dark Side of the Moon? A classic rock album by Pink Floyd. A classic rock album by Pink Floyd. I TOLD YOU SO. But seriously, there’s no actual dark side of the moon, because the moon rotates just like Earth; as the moon rotates around Earth, it also rotates around the sun. This hidden region is better known as “the far side of the moon.” Uggggghhhhh. I mean, okay, not completely wrong, but just wrong enough to annoy me. Just like half of Earth always faces away from the sun, giving it a "dark side" (we call it "night"), the same is true for the moon, which is how phases work. There is a bit of a complication, because when the dark side faces Earth (near the new moon), it's lit up by reflected sunlight from Earth. Earthshine. (I have to wonder if our future lunar colonists will make illicit hooch and call it earthshine.) There is a dark side, but it cycles through every month. But yeah, don't confuse the far side (not the comic, but the hidden face of the moon) with the dark side... except during a full moon, when they're basically the same. Or, as is noted on the aforementioned album, which I've quoted here multiple times: "There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark." Which it is. From a certain point of view. |
| I can't for any amount of money recall why I saved this particular Cracked article, but I'm going to link it anyway. History is full of success stories. These are not those. The idea that you need to “strike while the iron is hot” has morphed from a straightforward explanation of blacksmithing into an endlessly repeated cliche. It, or some more unwieldy modern rejiggering, is plastered over everything from horoscopes to aviator stock photos on hustle culture Instagram accounts. Every cliché was once profound wisdom. Plenty of people throughout history have filled their metaphorical blade with microfractures by waiting too long, while others have snapped the sword in half entirely because of ill-advised hesitation — losing a couple million dollars or an entire city in the process. It's not enough to invent something; one must also have the imagination to see the implications in one's invention. 5. Greeks Almost Inventing The Steam Engine Eh. This one wouldn't have gotten very far, anyway. The math wouldn't be ready, also the fault of the Greeks, who insisted that irrational numbers were of the devil. 4. Not Signing The Beatles This is fairly well-known, I think, and usually held up as an example of big mistakes. Now, Decca Records weathered the blunder and has still been plenty successful in their own right. I think maybe I had in mind, when I saved this article to my queue, something like "just because a publisher rejected your manuscript doesn't mean it sucks." However, it still might. It's just not a sure thing. 3. Passing on the Patent for the Telephone Orton and Western Union were offered the patent to a newfangled communication device invented by Alexander Graham Bell, one we know as “the telephone.” Sure, the asking price was high at $100,000, but you’d like to think the head of a communications company might see the value in the fucking telephone. Instead, he balked, apparently not seeing a future in the device that would, you know, literally define the future. This is where that lack of vision comes in. Western Union was used to doing business a certain way, and the telephone would have changed that. See also: Sears, who could have seen this whole Internet coming and positioned itself to take advantage of it, but no, Amazon won that race. 2. The Byzantine Empire Not Buying A Huge Cannon In general (pun absolutely intended), if you're at war, don't turn down enemy-destroying weapons. 1. Not Letting Hitler Drown By contrast to some earlier entries, this one's not a lack of vision. I'd like to think most of us would save a drowning kid, if we had the opportunity and didn't know for sure he'd grow up to be a genocidal autocrat. In 1894 in Germany, a man named Johann Kuehberger saw a drowning boy in a river and, without a second thought, strode in to save his life. Incredible, awe-inspiring, medals all around, right? At the time, sure. Time-travelers, take note: this is your moment. Except killing baby Hitler is the biggest cliché in time-travel fiction, and we don't know if the result would have been worse. "But what could be worse than 11 million dead people?" Well, someone just as evil and actually competent might have risen to power, someone who wouldn't have done the 20th century equivalent of turning down a war-ending cannon by losing all their rocket scientists and nuclear engineers. |
| The headline from today's article sounds like something Cracked would tackle, but no, it's LitHub. You'd think that out of all possible professions, writing would be among the least prone to occupational hazard. Maybe the occasional carpal tunnel, but that's about it, right? Well, you'd be right, but as this article shows, nothing is perfectly safe. Even the toughest of poets and strongest of Hemingways would have to admit that “writer” is not a particularly dangerous job. (Unlike, say, fisherman, miner, logger, knife-thrower assistant.) This, of course, depends on the kind of writer you are. Novelist who sits at home and relies on Wikipedia for research? Sure. War correspondent? Not so much. Still, a few writers in history have actually suffered some serious health problems as a result of their writing practice—or in some cases, the drugs they used to fuel it. Yeah, drugs probably shouldn't count. Those aren't specific to the writing profession. As I noted above, this isn't Cracked, so no numbered list, countdown or otherwise. Orwell struggled with health problems from childhood, and things were not improved when he was shot in the neck in Spain. But as Ross writes at PW, “his health collapsed for the first time after the writing of Homage to Catalonia, and the heroic effort of writing and revising Nineteen Eighty-Four would kill him.” Or was it the government trying to suppress his work? Over at Poets & Writers, Anelise Chen notes that Herman Melville “dove with such intensity into his whale book that his entire family circulated letters conspiring to make him rest. Ignoring their pleas, he emerged from Moby-Dick plagued with eye spasms, anxiety attacks, and debilitating back pain.” What a coincidence. Those things happen when you try to read it, too. The nineteenth-century Italian poet Giacomo Leopardi... Who? ...whom Adam Kirsh has dubbed “the supreme poet of passive, helpless suffering,”... Clearly, Kirsh didn't know Leonard Cohen. ...may have turned out that way because he from debilitating scoliosis, which gave him a hump and turned him into, as he put it, “a walking sepulcher.” He blamed his condition on his “scholarly excesses” Nah, it was all the sex he got from being a poet. Honoré de Balzac was famously addicted to coffee, which he loved for what it did for his writing. Take heed, fellow WDC authors. Neither did it go perfectly well for Balzac himself, who reportedly died of caffeine poisoning at the age of 51. Fuck me, caffeine poisoning is a thing? Objectivist Ayn Rand also had an addiction that sprang from her writing process: amphetamines. Unfortunately for the world, they didn't cause her early demise. If you’re familiar with his work, it isn’t particularly surprising to find out that Franz Kafka put himself through emotional and physical hell to get his writing done. What? That's absurd. His throat closed up, precluding the ingestion of any food, and so he technically died of starvation, working on his story “The Hunger Artist” to the very last. Thus was the modern definition of irony born. |
| Here's another opportunity for me to rail against the smug supposed superiority of wormcatchers. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with waking up early, as I've noted before. It's the whole "turning it into a moral mandate" thing that bugs me, and the utter disregard for those of us with less common sleep schedules. Still, this article (from, ironically, Time) makes a few good points I hadn't considered A favorite trope of sleep research is to divide the entire human population into two cute, feathered categories: early birds (also called larks) and night owls. Often, these studies link people’s natural sleep patterns—called their chronotype—with some waking behavior or personality trait. Kind of like astrology. Research says that early birds are happier, more punctual, do better in school, and share more conservative morals. Night owls are more impulsive, angry, and likely to become cyberbullies; they have shoddier diets and, most critically, are worse at kicking soccer balls. "Research" done by larks. This is like those studies that conclude cats are psychopaths, which, when you look into the authors, you find they're all dogs. Well, dog people, at least. But can the population really be categorized so neatly? Or is the research painting an incomplete and overly moralistic picture? No. Yes. A study published May 24 in PLOS ONE by a group of Polish researchers takes a fresh look at the long-established link between being an early riser and being conscientious by examining a separate but potentially important variable that might underlie the link: being religious. The team found that people who woke up earlier tended to score higher on all dimensions of religiosity, leading them to conclude that being religious could help explain why early risers are more conscientious and more satisfied overall. In other words: correlation, not causation. Not that religion is any kind of predictor of a person's morality, either. “I think most people would recognize that, in reality, [chronotype is] more of a continuous type of variable,” says Brian Gunia, a sleep researcher, professor, and associate dean at Johns Hopkins’ Carey Business School. It exists on a spectrum: not everyone is always one or the other. But so much research uses this binary classification because people are usually able to self-identify that way, Gunia says. And there's that. Life is rarely binary. Is someone who wakes up at 6:59 am a lark, while someone who wakes up at 7 is an owl? I have similar issues with how "generations" are labeled. The bias that people who rise early are morally superior to evening people doesn’t just loom large in scientific research. It’s at the very heart of the U.S.’s founding principles of industry and hard work, says Declan Gilmer, a PhD student at the University of Connecticut who studies workplace psychology. “If someone gets up at 6 a.m., and they show up at work early, they’re viewed potentially as more committed,” he says. Founding principles, my ass. Also, one can also show one's commitment to helping one's boss buy a second yacht by staying late. “Some of the better work in the topic area has been trying to identify the genes that are most tightly linked to morningness and eveningness,” he says—genes that, if understood, could open the door to a more nuanced view of the topic. Especially since genes alone can't give you the full picture. There are other factors, including environmental. Very few chronotype studies include information about the time of day during which the research was conducted, but Gunia’s research has found that this seemingly simple factor can change data a fair bit. In a 2014 study of chronotype and ethical behavior, for example, “we found that morning people are most ethical in the morning, and evening people are most ethical in the evening, so maybe it’s more of a fit between chronotype and time [of day] than it is this idea that morning people are better or worse,” Gunia says. Studies that don’t take time of day into account “are missing half the equation.” That seems so blindingly obvious to me that I should be surprised no one's thought of it, and yet, I'm not, really. I know if I had to wake up at 6 am to go be a guinea pig in a chronotype study, I'd be grumpy as fuck. Humans don’t always fit neatly into one of two categories, even when it comes to their sleep preferences. Duh. For instance, I'm biphasic. While I tend to go to sleep late, I also sleep most late afternoons. One of the great things about being me is that I'm usually able to go to sleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I'm not. This is the pattern I fell into, but even when I had to simulate being a wormcatcher, my gas tank would run out in the afternoons. I'm not saying this makes me superior. It also doesn't make me inferior. You don’t have to be a morning lark or a night owl. You can be any kind of bird you like—there are plenty of worms to go around. The whole wormcatcher thing always bugged me anyway. Worms? Eugh. That's why I latched onto the alternative phrase: The second mouse gets the cheese. Mmm. Cheese. |
| Wrapping up my entries for June's "Journalistic Intentions" [18+]... jeté (This time, I added the accent aigu myself.) Long ago, I took a cinema class in college. I might have mentioned this before. No, it doesn't make me an expert on movies or anything; it was mostly an easy B and a different movie to watch every week. One film that stuck in my head was an artsy French science fiction short called La Jetée. While the words "artsy" and "science fiction" may give some readers pause, it can work. It's also more of a slide show than a "movie," but that's part of the art. The basic thrust (that's a pun, but you might not know it yet) of the film is that a kid witnesses a death on a jetée (which is the French name for the observation platform of an airport, and yes, it's related to the English "jetty"). Later, after the apocalypse, the guy's sent back into time and (spoiler alert) dies on the jetée, realizing at the end that he was the man whose death he'd witnessed in his youth. Does that sound familiar? It should. A few years later, when 12 Monkeys came out, I remember watching it and thinking, "I really hope Gilliam acknowledges La Jetée for this idea." And, indeed, he did. Of course, that synopsis fails to capture the metaphorical breadth and depth of the original film. It really is worth watching, and now that I know more French, I might even try to find a version without English subtitles. As a verb, the french "jeter" means to throw. The dance term, "jeté," has a meaning closer to thrust (also, it's a past tense construction); hence the really very obscure pun above. Because one doesn't really throw a leg (unless it's a prosthetic); one thrusts it. "Jetée" is a related word (feminine gender) for a structure that's thrust out into something else, like the abovementioned observation platform, or how a jetty is kind of thrust into the ocean. You can see I'm avoiding the more obvious, salacious puns related to gender and thrusting. Why? Not because they're salacious, but because they're too obvious for a professional punster such as myself. What I really want to know, though, is this: starting maybe about 15 years ago, a neologism entered the English language. I despise most neologisms, but this one is inherently funny. The word is "yeet," and it's a verb meaning something like "to throw without concern." As in "I watched him yeet the ball right through the asshole's window, then walk away." What I'm wondering is if it's inspired by the French jeter— as the "j" sound sometimes does become a "y" in linguistics. There's also some confusion over whether the past tense is "yeeted" or "yote," and I'm rooting for the latter. |
| Everyone has an opinion on video games. Most of them are wrong. I'm going to go ahead and note the precious no-caps headline, and then forget about it. A few weeks ago, I interviewed Dr. Rachel Kowert about the new genre of alarmist rhetoric around kids’ pandemic gaming and screen time. As is often the case, I'm behind the curve, here; this article is from early 2021. But the "alarmist rhetoric" has been going on since long before the pandemic; enforced social isolation only changed the narrative a bit. You might not have kids, and you might not spend much time worrying about gaming. I don't, and I'm too busy playing games to worry about them. But you can still recognize that as a society, we often spend a lot of time worrying about how a cultural product is affecting a group of people — kids, teen girls, grown-ass women — and very little time actually talking to the people actually consuming it. Right, because teen boys and men can be safely ignored. The problem, then, is that some people don’t want things to be complicated. They don’t want to hear people talk about why they like things, because if they listen long enough, it will challenge neat understanding of things that are “good” and “bad” — especially when it comes to children, or teens, or women. I'm going to spend the rest of this entry not being salty about the demographics there. I'll just note that this bit is otherwise pretty insightful, and argues against the pervasive good/bad binary. It's as if the great philosophers Beavis and Butt-Head live in people's minds, where everything is either cool, or sucks, and there's no nuance. One star or five stars, never anything in between. Kids don’t know everything. But they often do know themselves. So I wanted to hear them talk about their own relationship to the games they play: what they like about it, when they like to play, how games make them feel, who they like to play with, and how they respond to anxiety about their gaming/screen time. So, most of the article does just that. I won't highlight much from the interviews, but I found them interesting. There's just one caveat: I gave adults a list of potential questions, and then asked them to transcribe answers in as close to their kids’ voice as possible. Some of the answers have been shortened, but none of the wording has. I'd like to believe that, but this is, like, hearsay of hearsay. Some of the "voices" are questionable to me. So I wouldn't take any of them as accurate; some might be flat-out lying. I won't exacerbate that situation by quoting a lot from the actual interviews; just highlight a couple that I found to be interesting, whether it's actually a kid's "voice" or not. (5 year old kid) I hope you really enjoy video games too. They're invented to be really cool. They're invented to be engaging, rewarding, and at least borderline addictive. I say this as a gamer, but I'm also an adult (at least by chronology). (15 year old kid) Gaming is so new that there's no conclusive evidence yet to prove if it's actually harmful. It feels like they’re just trying to control us and tell us what to do. Now this, I can believe coming from a 15 year old. (13 year old kid) People need to make sure they don’t get correlation and causation mixed together. Which is what I've been saying. I'm tempted to not believe he actually said that, but other things in that kid's interview make me think he's rather advanced for a 13 year old. There's a lot more at the link. One final point, though: a lot of these kids focus on the social aspects of gameplay. I prefer playing solo games, myself. Unlike these kids, I followed the evolution of computer games from text-based adventures all the way to near-VR experiences. I've had a lot of good experiences playing multiplayer games, but I also think there's a toxic culture there. Not just online trolls, but the whole conversion of a leisure activity to cutthroat competition. I don't know. Maybe you think I don't get to have an opinion on the subject, because I don't have kids. That's your prerogative, of course, but these kids are part of the society I live in, so I do have an opinion. So do they. |
| Today's throwback is from a bit over two years ago, and dealt with corporate jargon: "Put a Pin in This Synergy" The link, from NPR, is still there, as of today. No idea what NPR's archiving policies are.Sadly, despite another two years of pan(dem)ic with its much-discussed rise of work-from-home situations, corporate jargon endures. And it's likely morphed again since I wrote that entry, and since the original article's date of November 2020. I wouldn't know, though, since I don't keep up, and articles that unironically include it get X-ed into oblivion very quickly. I did want to touch on a few things I said back then, though: Look, the English language isn't exactly pure as driven snow. Not sure why I didn't mention this at the time (probably because it's irrelevant), but the cliché "pure as driven snow" deserves some attention. Today, when we talk about the verb "drive," from which "driven" derives (see what I did there), we think of cars or trucks. When vehicles kick up clots of snow, they're about as far from pure as one can imagine without being yellow. But the concept of "driving" a car comes from the pre-vehicular practice of driving a team of horses that are pulling, say, a carriage—in which case, "driven" would still not be associated with purity. Apparently, if my sources can be trusted, the verb "drive" has yet an older meaning, referring to windblown snow drifts, which were generally thought of as unsullied. And yes, the word "drift" is associated with that meaning of "drive." All of which is to say that today's corporate jargon is tomorrow's unintelligible cliché. And finally: Being able to complain about language changes is one of the many perks of getting older, along with joint pain and ragging on "kids these days." Which is why I push back when someone uses "literally" as an intensifier, or "decimate" to mean anything other than "remove 1/10th of." |
| The penultimate June entry in "Journalistic Intentions" [18+]: Interval training I can't stress enough. ...oh, you want more? Fine. I can't stress enough the importance of training your interval. Wild intervals can be chaotic, unpredictable, noisy, and even dangerous in the wrong situations. In the early days of interval domestication, trainers lost fingers, toes, and even noses to these stubborn beasts. Even today, improper training can lead to catastrophes, such as spilled coffee, punching in late for work, and a bad hair day. So, you may be wondering, what would the proper procedure be for interval training? Well, that's the problem, see: every interval is different. Some differences are nearly undetectable, while others are chasms rivaling the Grand Canyon. You'll need to discover the method that works for you and the interval. It's a long, difficult process, but the rewards can be inconceivable. In the end, you'll find that it was the interval that trained you. |
| Yes, this article is basically an ad for books. But it was like catnip for me. Guardian link, so UK spellings ahead. Few people would mistake a wolf for a dog. But if you saw the ancestor of the domestic cat in your backyard, your first thought would likely be “What a cool-looking housecat!” rather than “What’s an African wildcat doing in Manchester?” I'd be like "Hey, when did I get a house in Manchester? Cool! Where's the nearest pub?" What about behaviour, then? Which of the traits we commonly associate with our furry friends are the result of domestication, and which do they share with their wild relatives? This is why the article is interesting to me, though much about cat behavio(u)r remains a mystery—as it should. Let’s start with the classic cat sound. Yes, let's. What I find fascinating is not so much the meow itself, but the different interpretations of the sound across cultures. Oddly, this article spells it meow, when proper British cats go miaow. French cats say miaou—not so different (I suspect, but I'm not sure, that the plural is miaoux). Japanese cats say something like "nyan," which is the source of a popular meme from a few years ago. Most meows in other languages are at least close to onomatopoeic, though. I had always assumed that cats talked to each other by meowing, and that they were just including us in their social circle. However, detailed behavioural observations of unowned groups of cats living in southern England have revealed that they rarely meow among themselves. This appears to be borne out by other observations. I have a cat who almost never vocalizes. She'll purr when you expect her to, but I think I've heard her meow twice in eight years. I got her as an adult, and apparently she wasn't well-socialized with humans as a kitten. You'd never know it now, though, because she doesn't act feral at all. Domestic cats are thought to be like other felines: solitary, aloof and asocial. But that is not always the case. When unowned cats occur in large, dense populations – as happens when people provide a lot of food – they do live in groups, composed mainly of related females. Whoever thinks that doesn't know many cats. No, they're not always up in your face like those other animal companions are; to me, this is a feature, not a bug. But when they do want to hang with you, they won't leave you alone. Why, then, do we consider domestic cats to be loners? Remember that the key aspect of lion and domestic cat groups is that they are made up of female relatives. But when multiple cats are brought together in the same house, they often arrive at different times, from different families. Not surprisingly, they frequently don’t get along. My two (female) cats come from different places, and they have, at best, a wary armistice; at worst, a howling fight. Well, one of them howls. The other is silent, as usual. But they both get along well with my housemate's cats. And as for the disturbing claim that your cat would eat you if you died at home and your body weren’t discovered: don’t believe it. Research shows that dogs are the culprit much more frequently. I did want to address this libelous slander. Even if it were true... so what? What do you care? You're dead. And at that point, there is only one way for you to continue to fulfill your contractual obligation to your feline overlord. |
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
when I saw this. On the bright side, if the author smokes enough weed, maybe this kind of phrasing will fall by the wayside. In that case, uh, yay, weed?
