%%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)       |
A puzzling prompt from "JAFBG"  [XGC]No one is perfect. What's your most toxic personality trait? What's your best personality trait that offsets that? My sense of humor. And my sense of humor. I guess, anyway. Confession: I am utterly incompetent at analyzing myself. I'd have to ask a friend. But, being a friend, they probably wouldn't tell me the bare truth. Or, if they did, I wouldn't believe them, because of course I don't want to think I have any toxic personality traits. It's likely that I do, though, or else I might have more friends. I just have no idea what those traits might be. But being unable to analyze myself is not necessarily, in itself, either a toxic or a positive personality trait. On the plus side, it means I don't have to do a lot of work to accept myself. On the minus side, I'm sure there are things about myself that I should work on, but I don't know what they are. The reason my mind went straight to "sense of humor," though, is that there's one thing I'm pretty sure of about myself: I sometimes make inappropriate jokes. I don't think that manifests online very often, because there's a big difference between saying something in the spur of the moment, and having to think about it long enough to type it and then press enter or whatever. But many's the time I've started to make a joke here or somewhere else on the internet, and stopped myself because I decided it could be too hurtful. I'm sure there were times I didn't stop myself, though. At the same time, however, humor can defuse tension, so I don't think it's a bad thing in general that I make jokes. Just that my mouth is sometimes faster than my brain. Comedy is like drinking: It can get you into, and out of, some awkward situations. So, at the risk of finding out something I don't want to find out, you tell me what the actual answer is to the prompt. I'd make it a mini-contest, but I don't want to know that badly. |
| And another from "JAFBG" [XGC]: What minor inconvenience drives you fucking mad? I think I'm one of those people who freak all out of proportion when something minor happens, but if it's major -- like when my car got totaled -- I tend to stay cool and focus on dealing with the problem. I'm sure there have been exceptions to this, especially on the "minor problem" side. If I'm in the right mood, I can brush it off. But there's one thing that really shouldn't bother me as much as it does, and that's clothing pricks. No, I don't mean douchebags who wear shitty fashion. I mean, like, I put on a T-shirt and something in the seam or whatever irritates my skin. There's a tiny pokey thread, or whatever, and it digs into my skin, but when I go to look for it, I can't see anything. And then I put the shirt back on and it continues to be irritating. This is absolutely rage-inducing, especially when I'm in a hurry and I have to dig through the clean laundry basket (don't judge; I'm a single man) to find a different shirt, hopefully one without stray pokey things. Worse, of course, is when the problem doesn't manifest until I've thoroughly left the house. I'll be sitting there at the movie theater, munching on popcorn, enjoying the flick (or not, which is also enjoyable because I can then rehearse how I'll rag on it in a one-sentence movie review), and there it is, like a needle scratching at my skin. It's enough to turn a four-star movie into a three-star movie. "Loved the action sequences and seamless CGI, but my goddamned shirt was all scratchy." Then I have to walk home after the movie's over with a shirt that has obviously come to hate me for making it sit through a stupid action movie. And then when I look at the area, there's maybe some redness, but no actual pinholes. So maybe my skin is hypersensitive, or maybe I should quit buying cheap-ass T-shirts -- still, after doing a load of laundry, that particular shirt doesn't bug me anymore, but another one, one I have never had problems with, starts doing the pokey thing. Speaking of movies, I was really hoping to go see Licorice Pizza, but apparently it's out of the local theater now. Not a lot of point in finding it on streaming; the whole reason I go is to experience the movie on a big screen, with other people, and to drink beer. I meant to go last week, but a bunch of stuff kept getting in the way. Hopefully the snow we got -- which wasn't even anywhere close to the predicted foot -- will melt enough that I can walk over there sometime this week to see... I don't know. Something. I'll just have to give myself enough time to change shirts before I go, just in case. |
| A "JAFBG" [XGC] prompt: What is something people get wrong about your occupation, gender, community, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, medical condition, etc. that you would like to clarify? Occupation: Being retired doesn't mean I sit around all day staring at nothing, waiting for someone to come by to alleviate the monotony. I am always doing something. Last night, that something was getting completely danchu. Gender: Contrary to popular belief, men don't just want One Thing. But often they have to act like they do because they've been conditioned to suppress their actual feelings. Community: Yes, Charlottesville has achieved international fame because there were a bunch of right-wingers who caused problems here. No, most of them were not from Charlottesville. My town is mostly leftist pinko commie socialist liberal hippies who drive Priuses. Pria. Prii. Whatever. Ethnicity: No, we don't have access to space lasers, and we don't secretly pull the strings of a global conspiracy shadow government. Jesus, give it a rest already. Sexuality: Being single doesn't mean I'd fuck anything that moves. I do have standards. Religion: Most atheists don't want to ban or destroy religion; we just want true freedom of religion for individuals, and freedom from religion in the public sphere. Medical condition: No, I'm not always going to follow my doctor's advice to the letter. It is more important to live a full life than it is to live an especially long one. Example: last night. Some people think hangovers are punishment for the good time you had. Me? I consider them a badge of honor. I just wish my cats didn't walk so loud. |
| Another one from "JAFBG" [XGC] today: What are you most exhausted with in this exact moment? What was your breaking point with this issue? I don't suppose "everything" counts? Maybe? No? Fine. Yesterday, I got some groceries delivered. Not an unusual occurrence, as I've noted. I could have waited a few more days, but what with the blizzard whiteout we expect Sunday (now down to about 8 inches), I figured the stores would be out of bread and milk by tomorrow, so I bought a shitload of bread and milk. Just kidding. But I did buy other essentials like Crack Zero and beer. All in all, I ordered about 20 items, not a huge amount. The store was out of eight of them and the shopper had to find replacements for another four. More, since I was wanting to make loaded baked potatoes at some point, I asked for cheese, potatoes, and bacon bits. They were out of cheese and potatoes. I'd put instructions on the bacon bits: Only buy these if there are also potatoes and cheese. What did I end up with? Bacon bits, of course. Oh well. They should last a while. The point is, fuck these shortages. No, I'm not going to starve or, worse, go thirsty, but that doesn't mean I'm not annoyed. And I understand why they're happening, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. And yes, I realize other people have it worse. Which only enrages me more, because them having it worse doesn't negate the fact that this is what is pissing me off right at this moment. Ask me tomorrow and I'll say "the situation in Ukraine" or "the high cost of healthcare" or "people getting screwed by student loans" or something else that's not my immediate problem. And ask me on Monday and I'll probably be like "the tree branch that just broke my house" because it's going to sn*w, then rain, then freeze. But today, I choose to wallow in my first world problem. |
| From "JAFBG" [XGC]: Imagine the pandemic never happened. How do you think your life would be different now, if at all? What pandemic? ...okay, look, I'd like to say that the only thing that would be different is that I wouldn't have canceled my gym membership. But let's be real: I still would have canceled my gym membership. Eventually. Because I'm lazy. Before the pandemic, I was going out only rarely, ordering delivery groceries, and buying most of my shit from Amazon. Now, I go out only rarely, order delivery groceries, and buy most of my shit from Amazon. I guess the biggest difference is now I wear a mask when I go out? And I gotta tell you, I like it a lot better. The mask I usually wear isn't the one in my Notebook picture, but rather has on it a photo of a cat's nose and mouth, so it looks like my lower facial features are replaced by a feline's. I will continue to wear this mask in public, regardless of what diseases may or may not be circulating. This is because, every time I wear it, I get compliments on it. I have never, not once, ever gotten a compliment on my actual face. This is called positive reinforcement, and it works. As a bonus, I hope this causes any facial recognition software in my vicinity to spark, smoke, and explode. I probably would have traveled more, but even that would have led to me being, right now, sitting here at home wishing winter would end already because fuck, I've had it with winter. Yes, I know I still have the rest of January and all of February to go through. Thanks for reminding me. I hate February. Except for the year I spent February on Maui. That was a good February. Hm. One thing that might be different. I might not be so completely, utterly done with approximately half of the population of the US. I might still have some tiny thread of hope for the future. But probably not. |
| Well, this "JAFBG" [XGC] prompt was going to come up sometime. Tell us about something/someone that fucked you off this week. My city. I can't say it was specifically this week. It's more of an ongoing thing. First, a bit of background that's probably necessary for understanding: Like many cities, mine has a recycling program. Whether the items that go into recycling are actually recycled or not is an open question, but that falls into the category of Not My Problem. Recycling is free (or paid for by taxes or whatever; the point is that we don't pay per pickup for recycling). Other waste (which I will refer to herein as Garbage to distinguish it from Recycling) is paid for through an annual fee and/or a per-pickup tag. Garbage is picked up every week. Recycling is picked up every other week, by a different truck. In my neighborhood, we put the bins out on Monday evening for a Tuesday pickup, then we have to take the bins back from the curb by Tuesday evening. I told you about the shitty sn*wstorm we had here last week. That was on Monday morning. I dutifully lugged the bins to the curb despite the sn*w. I didn't really expect the pickup to happen on Tuesday, because of the heaps of frozen slush, but just in case, there they were. Tuesday came and went. No pickup. Well, I'm not schlepping that shit back through the sn*w; probably it would happen Wednesday. Wednesday goes by. No pickup. Most of the sn*w melted from the roads and yard. I leave that crap out there (as do the neighbors) all week. No pickup. There's a Garbage bin, a Recycling bin, and several cardboard boxes filled with overflow recycling because I buy all kinds of shit online because I don't give a damn and it's not like I can go to stores right now. The following Monday (this week, which makes this all fit the prompt), the garbage pickup happened. The recycling continues to sit by the curb. Getting soggy. There's no way in hell I'm dragging all of that back up to my house. I mean, it's only 25 feet, but now the yard is filled with fallen branches because sn*wstorm. They're not going to pick it up this week. The next scheduled recycling pickup is this coming Tuesday. Guess what's predicted to happen Sunday. Go ahead. Take a wild-ass guess. You're right: a blizzard. Well. A Virginia blizzard, which translates to "flurries" from the perspective of my friends in Minnesota, Michigan and Canada. Predictions are for a foot of sn*w. Or maybe mixed sn*w and ice. Or maybe rain and sn*w. Whatever, the point is, I'd bet $100 (the approximate annual price of an annual garbage can sticker) that the trucks won't make it here next Tuesday either, because this is Virginia and if there's a foot of sn*w, it might as well be twenty for all anyone can move on the roads. Meanwhile, I have another two weeks' worth of recycling ready to go to the curb. And to the curb it will go: on Saturday, before the oncoming storm, because there's no way in frozen hell I'm going to try to drag it through a foot of sn*w on Monday. And if they don't pick it up, it will continue to sit there, because I'm done. I did what I was supposed to do. They did not. They can try to give me shit about it if they want, but the bottom line is: if they don't want a bunch of soggy, falling-apart cardboard boxes filled with a mix of more cardboard, plastic, beer bottles, paper, more plastic, cans, and more beer bottles, any one of which could fall apart at any moment, and which will soon be also weighed down by sn*w, sitting in the street, they can goddamned well pick it up themselves. Not. My. Problem. |
| Today's attempt at a "JAFBG" [XGC] prompt... What is a big debate in a small subculture that you're part of which the average person wouldn't know about? (ex. a debate in your field of study, in a specific hobby, in your profession, in your community) Well, I suppose I could take sides over who would win in a fight, Superman or the Hulk. Or maybe go the Trek route and enter into the great debate over who is the best captain, Kirk or Picard. (Trick question. It's Sisko.) But how about the small subculture that most of us here share, and the great debate that will almost certainly never be settled to anyone's satisfaction? I'm referring, of course, to the Oxford comma. Here are some shining examples, courtesy of Thesaurus.com, of why the Oxford comma is a necessity: "Rachael Ray finds inspiration in cooking her family and her dog" Too bad she can only do that once. "World leaders at Mandela tribute, Obama-Castro handshake and same-sex marriage date set... " In fairness, that one could have gone either way. " ... an overworked employee at the Ministry of Magic, a husband and father of three school-age children." It seems this is from fanfiction, not original Rowling, but even fanfic writers should know better than to be this ambiguous. "We went caroling with our dogs, grandma and grandpa." Strange names for dogs, but you do you. " ... Merle Haggard's two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall." Okay, well, if it worked for them, fine. " ... Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." And I'm going to stop right there, because if that phrase is not enough to convince you that the Oxford comma is an absolute requirement, nothing will be. |
| Still going through "JAFBG" [XGC] at random, mostly to prove to myself that I can write about almost anything. Write about something people do that isn't necessarily a huge deal, but if everyone did it, it would be total chaos. Well, the sidewalk snow removal (specifically, lack thereof) thing from a few days ago comes to mind, but I already wrote about that. Ethics 101: ask yourself, would it still be ethical if everyone did it? I'm sure there's more nuance to it than that, but I consider it a starting point. For example. Imagine you're at a university that features an internationally-famous lawn. One of the main entry points to this lawn is along one side. Also, the entrance to the Philosophy department is diagonally across this lawn from that entry point. Sidewalks run along all sides of the lawn, with a few cutting straight across, so you're meant to do a Pac-Man thing and turn right, then left (or go straight then turn right). But you're also taking math classes, so you know that the shortest distance, the one that requires the least steps, is to cut across the lawn past a statue of, say, Homer. The blind poet, not the Simpson. So you're running late to your first-year Ethics class one day, and to shave a few seconds off the walk, you cut across the lawn, giving Homer a high-five on the way. No big deal. People walk and play frisbee on the lawn all the time; one student taking a shortcut isn't going to make a lick of difference. Problem is, though, that other people see you do that, and they take the high-fiving Homer route. The increased traffic kills the grass and compacts the soil underneath, wearing a strip of dirt into the historic sward. Then it rains, and everyone taking the shortcut walks into Ethics class with muddy Uggs. Homer would roll his eyes if he had them. And wasn't a statue. And yes, this actually happened when I was at UVA. Except there weren't Uggs back then. One of my first attempts at satire was a proposal I wrote for the editorial section of an April Fools issue of the student paper, suggesting that, at night, the Grounds maintenance crew should bury claymores along the path. Nothing, I argued, would discourage people taking that shortcut more than watching a few of their classmates' legs get blown off by the shrapnel. As a bonus, the soil would become aerated and could be successfully reseeded. Sadly, they didn't end up mining the Lawn, but they did install some short steel posts around the corners and stretch a chain through them. Which might have actually been effective if they had taken into account that they're dealing with agile teenagers who can easily hop a steel chain, not aging hippies like me who can't catch air to save their lives. Total chaos? Eh, no, just an ugly brown streak on the diagonal across the Lawn and, ultimately, a destruction of its pristine (and, as I said, historically recognized) design caused by the installation of the ineffective barrier. But that particular kerfluffle stuck in my head and served me well when I graduated and did public space design for a living. No, I never designed land mines, but I always kept in mind where the probable foot traffic would go and propose sidewalks accordingly. But I'm sure I could think of other examples that fit the prompt, if I weren't so completely hung over right now (thanks, lunch beers). Here are a few that pop into mind:  Driving a gas-guzzling car Letting your dog shit in someone's yard and not picking it up Having a dozen kids Having no kids Stealing a Coke from a store Drinking three high-octane beers at lunch Not wearing a fucking mask in the grocery store during a pandemic Speaking of grocery stores, failing to return your cart to the corral afterward. LitteringIn a sense, these are all counterexamples of my Lone Asshole Theory. If you didn't read that previous entry, basically, Lone Asshole Theory states that even if the majority of people act ethically, all it takes is one asshole to ruin your day. I used the example of leaving your car unlocked; all it takes is one thief and your interior is trashed, even if 99% of people walking by would leave it alone. In these cases, however, what you're doing barely registers on anyone's radar, but if everyone did them, there would be, if not total chaos, at least some sort of suboptimal result for everyone. But they're also kind of moral hazards, aren't they? Like in the example I used above: one person cutting across the Lawn, by herself, makes no discernible difference. But other impressionable students, seeing that, might go, "Hey, if she's doing that, then so can I!" And so you get the bare diagonal trail. And aren't you glad that not everyone writes a long-winded blog entry every day? You'd have no time to do anything but read blogs or, worse, you'd have no time to read mine. |
| From "JAFBG" [XGC], a discussion of intestines. Tell us about a time when you had a gut instinct about someone or some situation that turned out to be 100% accurate. I find it interesting to examine some of the metaphors we use for certain feelings. Several emotions including love are, as we all know, attributed to the heart. Guts are the source of fortitude or courage (when we're not using gonads as the metaphor), in addition to the sense used in today's prompt. Sometimes when you're absolutely certain of something, you "feel it in your bones." When it's hard to accept something, we sometimes say we can't stomach it. And, while it's not a body part but rather created by body parts, bile is traditionally associated with strong emotions such as anger. In consensus reality, though, all these things are products of consciousness, which is largely a brain thing. Still, the metaphors persist. I'm not entirely sure, but I think this all has to do with classical attempts at medicine, at least in the West. You know, the whole "balancing the humours" thing or whatever. Similar systems exist in Eastern traditions; the one I'm most familiar with involves chakras from Indian culture, which attribute different aspects of being to certain centers in the body.All of this is not to provide a crash course in ancient spiritual traditions, which I'm not qualified to do anyway, but to point out that it seems to be a nearly universal human trait to associate different parts of the physical body with different aspects of the mind -- even if the exact associations might be different between cultures. But what I find the most interesting about all this is that, more recently, Western scientific, evidence-based medicine has indeed found links between mind and body; in fact, one could say that drawing a solid line between "mind" and "body" might not be as easy as was once thought. For instance, we know that stress affects the body as well as the mind. And that gut health -- the presence and function of certain species of microorganisms that exist in our digestive tracts -- is somehow connected to mental health. Which direction that correlation goes, I can't say, but from what I understand, people with messed-up intestinal flora tend to have mental issues as well. Incidentally, it appears that the appendix , long ignored as a vestigial organ whose only function appeared to be its ability to get infected and kill you if they don't surgically extract it, actually might serve a purpose: as a reservoir for gut bacteria that can replenish the intestinal tract if, through illness or poisoning or whatever, it loses its natural ecosystem.Wish they'd figured that out before they yanked my appendix, but whatever. But I digress. The gut biome is a thing, though, and they're still figuring out stuff about it. The interesting thing is that these microorganisms are their own species, and the number of them exceeds the number of human cells in our bodies. (As I understand it, this is possible because they are much smaller than animal cells.) And they do not share our DNA. (That might not be an entirely accurate statement because of arcane concepts like horizontal gene transfer and other stuff I don't fully understand, but on a very simplistic level, that's my understanding.) But without these non-human entities which are nevertheless a part of us, we wouldn't function properly, if at all.All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the "gut instinct" referred to in the prompt might well be the product of biochemical communication with your intestinal flora, which, as living microorganisms, have their own evolutionary drive to survive. Or maybe not. This ventures into the realm of science fiction; I don't have any actual data to back it up, so just consider that to be speculation, but one that returns us to the older realm of body-part metaphors for emotion -- except that maybe it's not a metaphor, after all. In any case, I'm saying all this in order to avoid actually addressing the prompt -- because I couldn't think of a single situation where I had such a feeling that definitively turned out to be right. It's like... maybe you see a shifty-looking person hanging out in a doorway at night, and so cross the street to avoid them. Would they have mugged you? Maybe. Maybe not. But that just sounds like ordinary prudence to me. The only way to know if your "gut instinct" was right would be to watch them and see if they mug someone else, and why would you do that instead of just getting to a safer place as soon as possible? Sure, sometimes I've done something because I felt like it, and it turned out to be the better course of action. Like if I can take two roads, and I just suddenly decide to take the scenic route, and I find out later that the faster route had a massive traffic jam. Was it a feeling? Fate? More likely it was just the luck of the draw, and it could easily have gone the other way around. You tend to remember your lucky random choices and dismiss the unlucky ones. In any case, at this point my microorganisms are requesting nutrients, and who am I to question my unicellular overlords? |
| Courtesy of "JAFBG" [XGC]... Hell is actually just a waiting room where your least favorite song plays on repeat for eternity. What song is playing? "Simply Having A Wonderful Christmastime." Bad enough that it's banal. Worse that it's repetitive. But what makes this song the dark nadir of the universe is that it oozed from the pen of one of the greatest songwriters of all time, someone who ought to have known better than to foist this musical mayonnaise sandwich on an adoring world, a world that expected greatnesses like "Blackbird" and "Live and Let Die," or any number of other songs with some bite to them. And just to forestall any comments along these lines, no, the song is certainly not about people practicing witchcraft and, unexpectedly interrupted, having to hide their athames, pentagrams, and wands behind their backs, whistle innocently and go, "eh, heh, hum, simply having a wonderful Christmastime, yep, that's all, nothing but Christmas here yes sirree" That's a stupid urban legend probably made up to try to give this shallow pablum the illusion of depth. Yes, that is an actual rumor that someone started. Considering that someone back in the 60s started the rumor that the original Paul McCartney is dead and this one is his doppelganger replacement... you know, actually, that might explain the utter crapitude of the song. But no. No. Stop it. In any case, I'm saying this with the holiday music loop season not far behind us. Ask me another time and I'd probably pick a different song. Anyway, if there were a hell, the prospect of listening to one song -- any song -- on endless loop would scare me straight more than the traditional fiery brimstone and eternal flaying or whatever it's supposed to be.   One-Sentence Movie Review: The Matrix Resurrections: With plenty of the visually intriguing action scenes and special effects that these movies are known for, and in spite of its interludes of explanatory dialogue that will surely provide fuel for countless amateur sophomoric philosophy discussions (mostly while stoned), the movie actually moves along quite nicely, if you ignore silly things like the plot -- John WickNeo does spend an inordinate amount of time trying to resist his calling, much as he did way back in the first movie; however, it's worth watching just for its slew of sly, self-aware meta-references. Rating: 3/5 |
| From "JAFBG" [XGC]: Make a list of all the things you've learned about the world during the pandemic in the last couple years. 1. If there is ever a worldwide crisis that requires human cooperation to solve, we won't do it. ...and that's all. Yes, I should have already known that, but this, the last vestige of hope and optimism in me, poured out of me like puke after a drinking binge, leaving me with that sour taste in my mouth, a headache, and the knowledge that yes, I will totally do that again, and telling myself I wouldn't would be lying to myself. As I'm sure you already know, we started the week off with a nasty snowstorm that knocked out power and toppled trees. I mentioned this a few days ago. Well, on Wednesday, I had two doctor appointments scheduled. Just routine stuff. Both were within two miles, so as is my custom in such situations, I walked, allowing myself extra time because there's still nasty frozen crap everywhere; the temperature was technically above freezing, but not enough to actually melt the slush that had, overnight, refrozen into ice. Now, it's important to note that our city has a law: while the city is responsible for salting and plowing the roads, it is required for each property owner to clear ice/snow off of the sidewalk adjacent to the property within 12 hours (or something like that, whatever) after the end of a snow or ice storm. I don't really care what you think of that law; that's not the point. The point is that it's on the books. After 12 hours, the city can levy fines. Naturally, it's not always enforced. But law or not, it's obvious that a) the city doesn't take responsibility for the sidewalks and b) therefore, clearing the sidewalk so people can walk on it is the Right Thing to Do. Most people do the Right Thing and clear the sidewalk. Maybe it's because of the possible fine, and maybe because it's Right, whatever, doesn't matter. But say you're a pedestrian trying to, I don't know, get to a doctor's office shortly after a storm leaves the pavement icy. Walking on cleared sidewalk is safe enough. But then you get to the sidewalk of a person to whom rules don't apply, who does whatever they want because FREEDOM, or maybe who insists that because the sidewalk is in the city right-of-way then they can fucking clear it if they want it cleared so bad (but who would object to raising taxes to do it). The sidewalk in front of this holdout's property is thus compacted into pure ice, maybe with a sheen of water to make it extra-slippery, so you have to either walk really, really carefully, or, if it's on a steep stretch, maybe hop the dirty slush drift the plows have kicked up so you're walking in the street where there's some traction, but also cars going by at 40 mph because it's a 25 zone. With narrowed lanes because of the aforementioned drifts. Honestly, if you have to do this maybe once or twice, okay, fine. But when one out of every three properties' sidewalks is a sheet of ice, hopping over the slush piles gets old and you're tempted to just walk in the street the whole way. But if you're a property owner, and you do what you're supposed to do, but then you see that your neighbor not only didn't do it but gets away with it, well, why are you doing all that extra work if the neighbor is just going to keep the sidewalk slippery? Point being that it only takes a few holdouts ruin the entire experience for everyone else. And this whole narrative is a metaphor for any kind of global crisis, whether it's a pandemic, global warming, or the inevitable asteroid strike (by the way, do not tell me to watch Don't Look Up. I will not do it.) "Just get a car already." I shouldn't have to have a car to go two miles; people should do what they're supposed to do to accommodate pedestrians. "Take an Uber." I shouldn't have to have a car to go two miles; people should do what they're supposed to do to accommodate pedestrians. It takes fewer people to ruin things than it does to create something. This is axiomatic. I have called it Lone Asshole Theory. For example, probably you lock your car when you go somewhere. Why? Is it because everyone who walks past will certainly try the handle and, finding it unlocked, steal the change from your console? No. Most -- the vast majority of -- people will walk by and respect that it's not their property, leaving it alone. But that doesn't matter, because all it takes is one person to steal all your spare change. (Yes, I know that even locking won't stop a determined thief, but that's irrelevant.) It took thousands of people several years to build the World Trade Center, and only a few religious fanatics to destroy them in hours. Most people are decent, or at least neutral. You'll meet thousands of them without being harmed. But all it takes is one asshole to kidnap, rape, murder, steal, stand on the left on an escalator, whatever. One accident on a road can tie up traffic for hours. And so on. Lone Asshole Theory asserts that no matter how good you are at following the rules and doing the Right Thing, all it takes is one asshole not playing along for everything to descend into chaos. Does this mean that you should be that asshole? Well, tempting as it might be, I don't think so. But it is tempting, because usually the assholes don't face any actual consequences, so why shouldn't you join them? So there it is. My list of one thing, and a rant to back it up. |
| And again from "JAFBG" [XGC]: What widely-accepted piece of advice is actually total bullshit? Whoa. Like, where to begin? I suppose "Don't get that vaccine, just eat horse dewormer if you get sick" would be too obvious. But it fits the prompt. Perhaps something a little more general, like "Be yourself?" No, that one isn't total bullshit -- if you're attractive, rich and charming. If you're not, "be attractive, rich and charming" would be better advice. If only there were some way to successfully follow it. Oh, I know one! "When you get to prison, find the biggest inmate and punch them in the face to establish dominance." Yeah -- that's not great advice unless you want to avoid your long prison sentence by being dead. But it also won't apply to most people. Let's see... "Put all your cash into cryptocurrency?" Nah, not widely-accepted enough to qualify. But total bullshit. Well, I suppose if you like to gamble. But I like to gamble and I still stay away from that nonsense. So I'll dig deep, go against the grain, and follow several other clichés to suggest that one widely-accepted piece of advice that is total bullshit is... Never give up. A couple of years ago, there was a guy out in the desert who was absolutely, totally convinced that the Earth was flat, and that anyone who said otherwise was part of a vast, overarching, global (snort) conspiracy. What he believed the purpose of the conspiracy was, if anything, I don't really know, but it's irrelevant. So he built a rocket. I guess because the rockets that other people built and used to orbit the really very obviously round Earth were all part of this grand conspiracy or something. In case you've forgotten this little incident, here's the report of his final flight , which failed to prove or disprove the planar nature of the planet, but did effectively provide further evidence to support the theory of gravity."Mad" Mike Hughes, 64, crash-landed his steam-powered rocket shortly after take-off near Barstow on Saturday. 1. Appropriate nickname. 2. Steam-powered rocket. 3. I can't emphasize this enough: steam-powered rocket. A video on social media shows a rocket being fired into the sky before plummeting to the ground nearby. You know, as mulishly ignorant as this guy is, I don't want you to get the impression I'm amused by or celebrating his death. Nor do I have any interest in viewing a snuff video. But I will admit to making "not exactly a rocket scientist" jokes. At least when Musk played with rockets that demonstrated lithobraking, they weren't crewed. Hughes was well-known for his belief that the Earth was flat. He hoped to prove his theory by going to space. 4. Again... other people have done this and reported extensively on it. Complete with photographic evidence. 5. Moreover, one does not need to go into space to demonstrate the curved nature of the surface of the planet. 6. Specifically, we've known this since at least 500 BCE, thanks to math. You know, the stuff you need to know to do rocket science. With the help of his partner Waldo Stakes, Hughes was trying to reach an altitude of 5,000ft (1,525m) while riding his steam-powered rocket, according to Space.com. 7. 5000 feet? 8. I will remind you that he did this in or near Barstow, California. 9. Barstow is approximately 140 miles from the highest mountain peak in the continental US. 10. Said mountain (Mt. Whitney) has a summit approximately 14,500 feet above sea level. 11. Therefore, he could have fucking climbed Mt. Whitney and exceeded his goal altitude by a factor of nearly 3. 12. Or gotten into a jet that would cruise at around 30,000 feet. 13. And that still wouldn't have been enough to convince him. My point in going through all this is not to make fun of idiots or the stubbornly and willfully ignorant, though I'm certainly not above doing so. No, my point is that if he'd believed and listened to actual science, Hughes might well have given up. And possibly still be alive today. Except he probably wouldn't be, because I guarantee you he'd also deny the existence or severity of COVID, and was old enough to get hit hard by it. Had he lived, though, I don't know, maybe Bezos could have given him a ride in that giant phallus of his. I'd have loved to hear what he had to say about it afterward. My guess, though? For people like that, no amount of evidence would be enough, and he'd have found a way to double down on the flat-earth assertion. The moral of this story is: It's great to have a dream. It's great to pursue it. But at some point, if people keep telling you that it is not possible for a human to breathe water, you can either give up on proving it for yourself by sticking your head in a bucket, or you can die drowning. Yes, there have been instances in history of people who insisted that they were right, while the established beliefs were wrong. But in nearly every one of those instances, it was a matter of scientists doing science and pushing back against ignorance and superstition. Hughes was doing precisely the opposite of this. Want to know how to spot a crackpot? See if they say something like "No one believed Galileo either!" If they do, back away slowly. In other words... give up. |
| Another one from "JAFBG" [XGC]... Tell us something about yourself that you've had to learn to accept as just part of who you are. At this point? Pretty much everything. Laziness, lack of ambition, a biphasic sleep cycle, refusing to live with dogs, bachelorhood, an alcohol-positive lifestyle, generic apathy, collector tendencies, less-than-perfect health -- and, above all, the conscious decision not to change any of these attributes or many others. Accepting these things about myself was liberating. No more New Years Resolutions to fail. No more disappointment when yet another attempt at self-improvement makes me frustrated, resentful, or depressed. No wasted energy trying to pretend to be something I'm not. Yes, that was the easy part, accepting myself for who I am. It's a lot easier than working to change something, and like I said, I'm lazy. Unfortunately, other people tend to have issues with some or all of these qualities, so another thing I've had to accept is that many people will never show me the same level of acceptance. The telltale is they'll start a sentence with things like "Maybe you should..." or "Have you thought about..." or "I really wish you'd..." But even that has a positive side: fewer social obligations gives me more time to sleep and play video games. Contentment begins when you can safely tell other people to fuck right off. Sure, there are still a few things I'd like to improve, but I don't give any of them a lot of energy. Sometimes, though, the pain of being a certain way outweighs the pain of potential change, and something will shift. Fortunately, that happens less and less the older I get. It's like... I don't really want to change, and I don't really want to want to change, nor do I want to want to want to change, but occasionally I'll get a passing thought that maybe I should want to want to want to want to change, but that's as far as it goes. I'm not saying I like who I am, mind you. Just that I'd like the process of change even less. |
| Dropping another bucket into the "JAFBG" [XGC] well... Do you think intelligence and happiness are interconnected? Is an intelligent person more or less likely to be happy? Obviously they are negatively correlated, because I'm hyperintelligent and grumpy as fuck. Okay, yes, that's a joke on many levels. Also, one data point doesn't mean anything, and my opinion isn't worth the toilet paper it's smeared on. So, putting aside for the moment my War on Happiness, let's see what the science says. But before I do, I will make a prediction, and let's see if I'm right. If I am, then you will all have to agree that I'm a supergenius; if I'm wrong, you can call me an ignorant dumbass. That prediction is: Higher IQ will be associated with lower "happiness" (which as I've noted before isn't a quantifiable thing and is necessarily subjective). Probably because we giant-brains see the world as it is and are utterly appalled by all the willful ignorance and dumbassery, while the willfully ignorant dumbasses achieve brainless bliss. Here's one. The relationship between happiness and intelligent quotient: the contribution of socio-economic and clinical factors (PubMed)Results: Happiness is significantly associated with IQ. Those in the lowest IQ range (70-99) reported the lowest levels of happiness compared with the highest IQ group (120-129). Mediation analysis using the continuous IQ variable found dependency in activities of daily living, income, health and neurotic symptoms were strong mediators of the relationship, as they reduced the association between happiness and IQ by 50%. Conclusions: Those with lower IQ are less happy than those with higher IQ. Interventions that target modifiable variables such as income (e.g. through enhancing education and employment opportunities) and neurotic symptoms (e.g. through better detection of mental health problems) may improve levels of happiness in the lower IQ groups. Wait, that can't be right. Besides, the study only goes up to 129, and mine's in the 180 range. I gotta find an article that supports my confirmation bias. New research suggests that IQ leads to greater well-being by enabling one to acquire the financial and educational means necessary to live a better life (Scientific American)Crap, you're not helping here. Now I have to venture into the fetid swamp of Psychology Today. The Surprising Connection Between Intelligence and Happiness It turns out that IQ—even assessed in childhood—does predict the emotional ups and downs a person will have over the course of her life. People who were below average in intelligence experienced significantly more variability in their life satisfaction than did those who were above average. No, no, no, no lalalalalala. I know, I can usually trust BBC... IQ linked to levels of happiness People with lower intelligence are more likely to be unhappy than their brighter colleagues, according to UK researchers. Goddammit. (Yes, I know that one just quotes one of the same studies.) Okay, so I'm a grumpy, ignorant dumbass. Now sod off. On a more serious note, this sort of thing should demonstrate why science is important. You can come to your own conclusions based on lived experience or personal observations, but those are utterly useless for drawing general conclusions. Like, "I've never worn a seatbelt and I'm fine!" or "I got the 'rona and just had the sniffles, so this whole thing is overblown!" It's also wise to, when presented with evidence that contradicts your previously-held beliefs, don't dig your heels into your previously-held beliefs no matter what. Doing that, you look like a toddler having a meltdown in the cereal aisle. At the same time, we can't just accept studies at face value all the time. Things like "intelligence" can have a few different definitions, and as with a lot of science, the layperson's definition isn't necessarily the same as the technical definition. For instance, a lot of people think that intelligence means being able to remember lists of facts, basically what's needed to win a trivia contest. That's not intelligence, though; that's memory. It may be correlated, but intelligence is way more than remembering shit. Also, again, happiness isn't really measurable and is subject to different interpretations. Your lived experience is important when it comes to storytelling, but it's otherwise completely meaningless, and the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be. But what do I know? I'm an idiot. In conclusion, you really need to look at this graph  , but I'm not taking up space in my portfolio to make it an embedded image. Just click on the link. |
| 2022 continues to live down to all my expectations thus far. Yesterday morning, we got a few inches of ugly, dense, watery sn*w which brought down branches, leaves, trees, and a nearby transformer (the electric kind, not the Michael Bay kind, though I did get to hear it explode). And my home generator picked yesterday to go on strike for higher wages and better working conditions. To be fair, any wage would be higher that what I'm paying it now, but come on, you only have to work like twice a year; get over yourself. Thus the late blog entry; electricity just returned, naturally, announcing its homecoming with great fanfare (literally; I'd neglected to turn off the ceiling fan after the power cut out) about five minutes after I'd drifted off to a shivering, restless sleep. Oh, did I mention it's 20F out there? It's 20F out there, and everything is covered in formerly mushy, now icy, sn*w. If the power hadn't popped back on in the middle of the night, they'd have had to chip my corpsicle out of the solid block of ice that had once been a house. Look, I live in Virginia. I expect this kind of shit at least once per winter. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Anyway, though late it may be, I can now do today's rant for "JAFBG" [XGC], which is completely unrelated to crappy winter weather, the robot uprising (which is how I categorize my generator refusing to work), or me not getting any decent sleep.Fess up. Everyone's a little bit judgmental. What is the thing you're quickest to judge someone about? I might have told this story before, but whatever. One time, several years ago, I was drinking at a dive in some small town in South Dakota because it was within stumbling distance of that night's hotel. It wasn't bad as dives go; clean, at least, and the clientele didn't look like Klingons after a hard day's battle. There were a few taps, some of which were even some of the better-known craft brews, so I sat at the bar and ordered a Fat Tire and started going through that day's photos on my phone or some shit. After a couple, I started feeling pretty good despite being in a shitty bar in a shitty town in a shitty state (okay, that's not fair; South Dakota is actually rather nice from what I've seen). This lanky guy comes in, straddles the seat next to the one next to me, and catches the bartender's attention. "What'll it be?" sez the barkeep, or words to that effect. "A Bud Light and a water." And I was just drunk enough to say, out loud, "So, two waters." The bartender ignored me, and, fortunately, the guy who ordered two waters just kinda snorted, and then ignored me. As opposed to punching me in the face, which is an occupational hazard of drinking at a dive bar and disrespecting someone's chosen libation. Or looking at them funny. Or looking at their girlfriend. Or being from out of town. Or just being there. The point is, yes, I instantly judge you based on your beer selection. It's not fair, and I know it, but I'm not perfect (especially when I've had a couple). It's just that I used to drink that swill, too, but then I tasted Real Beer™ and never once looked back. Well, okay, maybe once or twice, if it was free at a party or whatever, just to confirm that I still had a functioning tongue. But if that dive bar had offered nothing but fake American watered-down rice-ass beer, I would have just asked for the water. Or, more likely, a gin and tonic, because I'm not quite as snobby about those. Once I get over the initial judgement, though, reason sets in. Maybe they don't have a lot of money, and still want to pretend to drink beer. Maybe their palate is about as complex as a doorstop. Maybe... shudder... maybe they actually like it better. And really, I don't want to shame anyone for drinking what they like. After all, I don't judge people who simply don't like beer at all, or who don't drink for whatever reason. It's just when someone has a choice between Crap Lite and, well, pretty much anything else, and chooses the Crap Lite, my inner judge, jury, and executioner kick in. Well, maybe not the executioner. Like I said, I get over it pretty quickly. Also, face tattoos. But mostly it's the beer thing. |
| Well, it finally happened - computer froze up as I was previewing an entry, so it got lost. The following represents a half-arsed effort at recreating what I was saying. Another "JAFBG" [XGC] entry. Probably going to do this all month.Talk about something that's illegal, but not morally wrong in your opinion. A bit over 100 years ago, in 1920, the US passed a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the use, sale, transportation, import, etc. of alcoholic beverages (or words to that effect; you can look it up easily enough). If you're not familiar with the US system, suffice it to say that a Constitutional amendment is a high bar to clear. You might have heard the expression, "It would take an Act of Congress," used when something is very, very difficult to get approved. Well, passing an Amendment makes an Act of Congress look like a walk in the park. And yet, in a rare example of a meeting of the so-called minds on both Left and Right, they managed, and for the next 13 years, the country sank deep into the Hell that was Prohibition. During those dark times, far more social harm was done by Prohibition than was ever done by allowing people to just fucking drink in peace. The only valid response to an immoral law is to work to repeal it, and that's what finally happened (there might have been other factors involved). So it is today with cannabis. While several individual States here have legalized it, it remains prohibited at the national level, so it fits the prompt. I've never been a big consumer of it, myself -- can't say I've never done it, though -- but that's immaterial; prohibiting it goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. And to have it be illegal when other substances, including tobacco, sugar and, yes, alcohol, have the potential do to far more harm just seems stupid to me; besides, I don't accept the idea that laws should protect people from themselves, only other people. Just get over yourselves and legalize it, already. Oh, sure, go ahead and put age limits on it and tax it like we do with booze, and no, people shouldn't drive under the influence -- but that's a completely separate issue and I resent that Prohibitionist groups have largely succeeded in swaying public opinion by conflating the two. Yes, I'm writing this from a US perspective; I'm aware other countries have already legalized it. But I live here, so I'm most familiar with US laws. And I had more to say, but like I noted above, I lost my original entry here, so that's going to have to do it for now. Hopefully tomorrow I'll be more careful. |
| I should probably work on my satire skills. Just to be clear regarding yesterday's entry, I don't actually advocate summary execution of airborne miscreants, nor do I support drugging people en masse. Consider those "modest proposals." Yes, I could use more satirical practice. But not today. Today, I'll attempt to address another "JAFBG" [XGC] prompt without satire. Or at least without too much of it.What is something you learned too late in life that you think others could benefit from knowing? I'm tempted to keep any such revelations to myself. After all, when I was a kid, the adults in my life hit me with all kinds of advice that I scoffed at, only to find from empirical study that they were, after all, right. But I just had to see for myself, didn't I? I assume other young people would do the same with any advice I'd proffer. But, in the spirit of doing a blog entry, and knowing that anyone who actually reads this isn't going to change their ways based on my personal experience, I'm willing to give it a shot. There's actually plenty of stuff I learned too late, like "don't stick your dick in crazy" (which can, in fact, be adapted to "don't let crazy stick its dick in you"). I have not considered what happens when both involved parties are crazy. I imagine that would be a match made in hell. Which might explain both my former marriages, assuming I'm crazy. Because if I am, by definition, I wouldn't know it. But I suppose the biggest thing I learned that I probably should have figured out earlier goes against all conventional wisdom, which probably explains why I didn't consider it earlier. This is that money does, contrary to popular belief, matter. People tell you it doesn't, but I think that's one of those lies that they tell you so you don't feel so bad about being poor. But money is actually freedom. I have a whole article about this in my article queue that I'll get to eventually. Some studies have apparently shown that one's happiness increases only up to a certain income level, after which you reach a point of diminishing returns. Assuming they're valid studies -- and since any study that purports to measure "happiness" is necessarily subjective, that may not be a good assumption -- there are at least two problems with this: 1) If you're just measuring income, that's only part of the whole picture. I've known people with high incomes who spend nearly all of it. Of course that doesn't make them "happy;" it just buys them stuff and services. People need to stop conflating income with wealth. 2) Happiness isn't all that important. Security is. Incomes can be pulled out from under you with no notice, people can die or cut off contact with you, but if you have a stash of cash, you can weather a lot of downturns in life. The only way to accumulate such a hoard, barring lottery wins or other windfalls, is to make enough money to save it. Consider some examples: There's a wildfire heading your way. You've been told all your life that it's more important to be happy than to be wealthy. So now you're displaced, and you have nowhere to go and no way to get there, and have to rely on the assistance of strangers. Or, worse, family and friends. Your beloved pet is ill and needs treatment and medicine. Without money, you're shit out of luck. More importantly, so is the pet. With money, you have options for them. This is the US, and you've just been diagnosed with a dread disease (pick one, doesn't matter). Since your insurance sucks, you can either wither away and die poor, or, if you have money, you can pay for actual good treatment. To make matters worse, you've just lost your job because you're sick.Paradoxically, things are more expensive if you don't have money. The late, great Terry Pratchett probably expressed it best with his "boots theory:" The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness. (From his 1993 novel Men at Arms) Apparently, though, we've decided as a culture that being poor automatically confers upon one the status of "virtuous," while being wealthy inevitably makes a person sinful. Some religions hold this as a core tenet, but a bit of thought is all it takes to disprove it: there are plenty of asshole poor people, and, yes, some wealthy people with qualities we'd consider good. While it's true that the relentless pursuit of money has the tendency to make a person seem selfish and uncaring, part of that is that if people find out you have a lot of money they start wanting it, and if you give them all your money, or spend it on bullshit, then you're the one who will be poor. So you have to be selective, and sometimes even mean about it. Just ask a few lottery winners. The ones who tried to buy friendship ended up with no money and no friends; the problem isn't the money, but that the kind of people who waste money on the lottery aren't generally the kind of people who are good with money in the first place. Also, there's nothing virtuous about begging rich people for a cut of their wealth. (No, I'm not going to allow this to turn into a debate about tax policy; fuck off with that shit.) "But Waltz, money can't buy everything." This is trivially true, and that's why I'm saying it's important, that it does indeed matter, not that it should be the only thing in life. But while there are things money can't buy, in the immortal words of the Beatles, "but what it don't get, I can't use." In the end, though, it doesn't matter how much money you have, only that it's enough for you. But having none or, as is the case for a lot of people, negative wealth in the form of debt, is a surefire way to insecurity. In conclusion, on this subject, received wisdom is absolutely misleading, and I wish I'd realized that earlier. |
| This year's going to suck no matter what, so why not start it off with rants, courtesy of "JAFBG" [XGC]? As usual, I'm just tackling the prompts at random. Unruly passenger incidents on airplanes have skyrocketed in the past couple years. What do you think about all these in-flight incidents and what should be done about it? What the hell do you think should be done about it? We live in a world where people are slapped onto a no-fly list for jaywalking, and yet they're not banning all passengers who commit assault in a crowded flying tin can with no survivable escape routes? That is, at a minimum banning them, or for the most egregious cases, they should install airlocks in the tail cone, and anyone who smacks a flight attendant or random fellow passenger gets instantly ejected... whether the plane's still on the ground or not. If you want to be fair about that last bit, engage the other passengers in a game of Judge, Jury and Executioner, and let them vote on it: Lifetime flight ban, fine, jail time, or airlock; you choose. Okay, summary execution may not actually fly (pun intended, as always), but a guy can dream, right? How about this, then: Airlines slap a surcharge on everything, already. Extra legroom, checked luggage, bag of ten tiny stale pretzels, oxygen, a toilet visit, whatever. How about for a small fee -- say, $50,000 -- you're entitled to one (1) punch, slap, or kick of a flight attendant. They can still do whatever they want to you afterward, including duct-taping you to the least comfortable seat in Cattle Class, but that one smack'll cost you 50 thousand smackers. Just institute mandatory MMA training for the flight attendants so they learn to take a punch (paid for by the surcharge, of course), and we're golden. Or, you know, if they're really serious about not wanting passengers to get all unruly and shit, how about not packing us in like sardines? Sure, that'll increase the cost of a plane ticket, thus causing fewer people to fly, but are you concerned about the environment, or not? Since that's not going to happen, free and mandatory Valium for adult passengers might work, too. Well, not free, obviously, but tack it on as another surcharge because they love doing that. It would be especially fun for us drunks. I was given Valium for (I think) the first time in my life last month, to keep me from screaming in terror as they fucked with my eyeballs, and it worked. Didn't drink afterwards, though. Vaporized THC in the cabin air is an option as well. No better time to get high than when you're getting high, and stoners don't get violent unless they're also mean drunks or someone laced their weed with PCP or some shit like that. Speaking of which, I'll also tell you one thing that should not be done about it, but apparently has been, and that's banning drinking or bar services on flights. Shit, alcohol is the only thing that makes cramming into steerage remotely tolerable, and most of us drunks aren't mean drunks; as with everything, the few who are ruin it for everyone else. Or, rather, the pissant airline companies use that excuse to ruin it for everyone else. It's not the poor alcohol's fault; the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the offending person themself. In any case, this hardly affects me because I don't fly much these days, for obvious reasons. Sure, there was the Delta flight I took in July when I was stranded in South fracking Dakota, but that was a legitimate emergency. No one got punched, all the flights were on time or early, and no one bitched about having to wear a mask on the completely full planes. |
| Well, that was a year. I know I said yesterday that I'd do a recap or something, but I can't be arsed. Besides, there's not much about this year that I want to remember. Best thing about it is I got my eyes fixed. Yay me. I'm not one for making New Year's resolutions. I used to, but I do try to learn things in life, like not to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. My mother liked to chant, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Which, now I think of it, is ironic for someone who tried over and over to have a child only to end up adopting one. One who ended up being a gigantic disappointment. I'm also not a fan of social media in general, but there is one app that I use regularly. It's called Untappd, and it's a place to record what beers you've tried and rate them. I call it "social media for drunks." I kind of wish they also did wine, or at least that I could find a different one for that purpose. But my first love is beer, so whatever. So I was looking in my Untappd records a few days ago, and discovered something distressing. In 2020, I checked in 648 times. In 2021, my number of check-ins was 520. I can't go on like this. I mean, a 20% reduction? That's outrageous. So my goal for 2022 is to drink at least 650 beers. They don't have to be all new to me, but I want my numbers back up, dammit. I know, I know, that sounds like a lot, average almost two beers a day, but remember, a good number of those were from tasting flights. As in, a lot of times, I just took a couple of sips of the brew. The only way, therefore, that I can get back to my 2020 numbers is to visit more breweries and get more tasting flights. What with everything going on right now, whether that's possible or not is up in the air. But it's something to reach for, and everyone needs a hobby. Speaking of hobbies... One-Sentence Movie Review: The King's Man A movie that reimagines the events leading up to and surrounding WWI and the Russian Revolution, the best thing about this movie was the character of Rasputin; other than that, it's pretty standard political/spy stuff that thinks it's more clever than it actually is, but also features several great fight scenes. Rating: 3/5 And so ends 2021, and good riddance. Everyone have a happy New Year, and, at the risk of sounding clichéd, see you next year. As it has become my habit to post one of these just after midnight, remember tomorrow's entry won't follow that pattern, as I will be in no shape to post then. But I'll get one in on New Year's day. Sometime. |
| This one has been hanging around in my queue for a while, and I don't remember the point I was going to make about it. If there ever was one. It doesn't help that a friend of mine smuggled me a bottle of delicious mead all the way from Utah, and I just drank it. Our Worst Idea About “Safety” A concept that took hold in the ’70s has haunted everything from seat belts to masks—and it’s going to keep putting us in danger. The concept many medical experts can’t seem to loosen their grip on is known as “risk compensation.” It’s an idea that comes from the study of road safety and posits that people adjust their behavior in response to perceived risk: the safer you feel, the more risks you’ll take. As far as transportation engineering is concerned, yes, that is a thing. If you’re driving on a precarious cliff-side road without guardrails, you’d probably drive more cautiously. But some proponents of the idea make a stronger claim: that guardrails cause so much reckless driving that any potential safety benefits of guardrails are offset or even reversed. Under this reasoning, a road with guardrails would cause more accidents than a road without guardrails. Guardrails aren’t helpful; they’re counterproductive. When I was in England several years ago, I was walking along a trail next to a stream when I noticed that something seemed off. After a while, I figured out what it was: even though the trail was, for the most part, significantly higher than the stream, there was no railing, no fence, no barrier of any kind. Here in the US, there would have been something like that -- or else they would have put the trail somewhere else, or, because this is America and we do what we want, moved the stream. The idea behind the railing is to keep people from accidentally falling into the stream. Without the railing, though, I think we had a greater sense of the risks involved and were therefore more careful. That's the kind of thing this article is talking about. But whenever risk compensation has been subjected to empirical scrutiny, the results are usually ambiguous, or the hypothesis fails spectacularly. Okay. I'm not going to argue with the science, if indeed it's saying what they claim it's saying. But I've thought for a while now that things are just too safe -- at least in the US. There needs to be some risk, some idea of the consequences of, say, falling off a two-meter retaining wall. But in 1975, University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman elevated what might have remained armchair speculation to a powerful argument against safety regulations. Writing in the Journal of Political Economy, Peltzman hypothesized that 1960s-era federally mandated vehicle regulations such as seat belts were actually making the roads less safe because they encouraged so much reckless and careless driving. In his thinking, any safety advantage of the new regulations was being offset. He analyzed traffic accident data before and after the regulations and found that not only did the regulations fail to decrease fatal accidents, but traffic-related fatalities increased after regulatory action. I vaguely remember some discussion about that at the time, but I was nine or ten years old, so I generally ignored it while riding unsecured on a tractor, swimming in questionable water, or learning to drive a truck without seatbelts. Yes, I learned the basics of driving before I hit puberty -- one dubious advantage of living on a farm. Note how one always "hits" puberty, by the way. One never eases into it. Decades of traffic data now leave little doubt that, overall, safety regulations have indeed reduced traffic-related fatalities. The fun thing about science is that sometimes science gets it wrong. And then it self-corrects, but people are so attached to the first conclusion that they ignore the correction. This is not a problem with science. This is a problem with humans. Anyway, like I said, I don't remember the point I originally had in mind, but it came up today so I'm sharing it. I've been thinking about risk management in general for a while now, and there is, as I think the article points out (after all that mead, I can't be sure), a difference between personal and public risk management. Tomorrow is the last day of the year, so it's very likely I'll do something other than riffing off of an article from somewhere, opting instead to do a review of the year or possibly a crystal-ball prediction for 2022. Maybe both. I haven't decided yet and probably won't until like 11:45 tonight. And as the following day is New Year's, don't expect a blog entry at the usual time, because I may be drunk now, but I plan to be completely danchu at that time. |
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
