|Wednesday, January 1st, 2025|
7:42 am - Thoughts on education
|Friday, March 24th, 2017|
5:59 pm - The Art of Influence
Apply this to any situation you like whether man-driven global climate change, health care reform, Sarah Palin, Tiger Woods, or actuarial credentialing [this last one is actually what I'm dealing with] I want to ask about a particular tactic and how effective this is in influencing opinion.|
Let's say there is an official position A being put out there, and then strong opposing position B. The A-supporting guys are the leaders, in position due to elections or appointments, and A has been put forth multiple times previously and every time rejected. But this time, they think, they'll be able to get it through as they outnumber the B people overwhelmingly amongst the official leaders.
But what do the onlookers think about the situation? And how to influence them?
The A-side people cast aspersions on the intelligence and the intentions of the B-siders. Is this effective in influencing the opinion of onlookers? When the B-siders are attacking the specific qualities of A as opposed to the characteristics of A-supporters themselves?
What do you think?
[A resurrected post from December 8, 2009]
(comment on this)
5:55 pm - Digging up Old Blog Posts from Elsewhere, and On Meep Being Pissed
So, I've blogged at other people's websites in the past, and many of those past websites are now gone (which is why I do my blogging on my own site now. It's not fancy. I don't like fancy.) Well, I've forgotten a lot of what I wrote, and I'd like to grab some of it back, and I've mainly been using Internet Archive to help me.|
But first, let me tell you a story.
I read this dumbass piece this morning:
The advice hackers give when looking for dirt in a pile of data is to search for words such as pissed or angry. They suggest figuring out to whom the most emails are sent, since that signals a trusted relationship. And to use Facebook to suss out relationships--ex-girlfriends, college acquaintances--to spot dubious interactions. Deleted photos are telling, as are erased emails. And they say to always, always look in the draft folder, which houses the truly horrible stuff people are too smart to send. The draft folder is each and every one of our personal Nixon White House tapes.
Remembering my prior foray into searching my email for particular terms, I thought "why not?"
I searched on "pissed", and while it reminded me of all sorts of things, I wouldn't be the person embarrassed by those particular emails being aired out in public. I got 118 results.
Because it is almost all about actuarial politics. I'm not joking. When it's not about actuarial politics, it's about the politics of public pensions.
If they dig through the person I get most emails from, they'll find people I've never met who are sending me stories about public pensions.
I have some of the most boring email dirt there is. Mainly because I do not use email for spicy stuff. If I'm going to be nasty over personal stuff, I'll do it over the phone or face-to-face. I like the personal delivery to be close.
Here is some stereotypical text from me using the word "pissed":
Likewise, clamping down on legit emails so that you're not annoyed by various spam (and to prevent dangerous email worms) means you get more pissed-off people and more phone calls if it's not intelligently implemented, which is not necessarily increasing productivity. Especially when said system is implemented during the heaviest time for exams.
I was emailing somebody at the Society of Actuaries about their new spam filter, which they started during an actuarial exam sitting, which is when they have their highest incoming email traffic.
Even more stereotypical:
I started out on the Actuarial Outpost in dispute with fellow
actuaries (I was working with annuities, and was getting pissed off
with pension actuaries), and then started branching out beyond that
when I saw the extent of the public finance mess.
Anyway, I can just imagine people begging off on such a "hacking" assignment for me. They'd probably go... "how the hell can someone get so pissed off at a payroll growth assumption? Is that normal? I can't stay awake!"
And when I went into my Drafts folder, 38 were just empty. There actually might be more in the 124 drafts that are left, because if it's an empty email at the end of a thread, I didn't notice. Most of my drafts aren't sent because something bobbled and I forgot to delete the draft. It wasn't because I was agonizing over not sending the email. I bet at least 30 more of those drafts are empty, if not almost all.
(comment on this)
|Saturday, March 18th, 2017|
2:55 pm - Bring back finishing schools
So I read this piece by Kyle Smith at the NYP and, well, let me excerpt:|
‘Adulting’ classes prove millennials’ nitwit parents are to blame
Millennials are shamelessly signing up for “adulting” classes to teach them how to be grownup. Why didn’t we ever need to use “adult” as a verb before? Simple. All of youth was spent taking responsibility, learning to be independent, achieving maturity. Adulting was simply growing up. You were mature long before you were an adult.
Not anymore. Today’s young adults seem baffled and overwhelmed by ordinary grownup stuff (see the video “Stressed Out” by Twenty One Pilots — the Crosby, Stills and Nash of the participation-prize generation). “I see a lot of suffering around not knowing how to do the ‘adulting’ thing,” Maine psychotherapist Rachel Weinstein told the online magazine Quartz. Along with elementary school teacher Katie Brunelle, she created the Adulting School, which pitches itself with these words: “We know you’re sick of feeling like you’re pretending to be a grown-up and that someone’s going to realize you don’t know the sh%#t you’re supposed to know.”
The Adulting School sets out to teach basic stuff. Really basic stuff: The first item on the “Adulting Quiz” (which is not a quiz but a series of statements to which the respondent is supposed to answer yes or no) is “I know how much money I have and how to access it.” Another is, “I’m comfortable following recipes.” Another is, “I know when to use which form of correspondence . . . for example, I wouldn’t break up with someone over a text.” Jeez, in my day, everyone knew the proper way to dump someone wasn’t via text: It was via ceasing to return phone calls.
To a certain extent, I don't think this is fair. First off, only kids from a certain level of privilege can get through childhood not knowing how to do certain substantive things. This is not an across-the-board problem. Secondly, I remember similarly clueless college kids 25 years ago at NCSU, who didn't know how to cook for themselves or do laundry. To be fair, I don't think their parents really knew how to cook, either. They could stick something in the microwave, no prob.
Yes, parents should be helping their kids to acquire life skills, but there have been finishing schools of various sorts before, so why not our own version now?
So yay with the adulting classes and getting shit done.
(8 comments | comment on this)
|Monday, March 13th, 2017|
2:53 pm - Too much fun with mortality research...
...ok, I would argue I'm having exactly the right amount of fun, but whatever.|
Before I share my laughs with you, I've been doing a series of blog posts on my main blog, STUMP, called Mortality Mondays.
Here they are so far: (for clarity b/c of my lj format: each bullet item here is a link to the post)
Now to my fun.
I've been reading through a paper titled "Why Men Die Younger", (Barbara Blatt Kalbenm FSA, EA, MAAA (2000). North American Actuarial Journal, 4:4, 83-111) which has a nice overview of sex-differentials in mortality -- which apparently goes back to at least 1330 in European nobility (and non-nobility from more recent periods). Even with death in childbirth, women tended to live longer than men (men have always been more likely to die of homicide and other violent causes, for example... and no, it's not only war.)
So a few items I pulled out:
If you want to cite a paper written by a monarch:
James I, King of England. 1604. A Counterblast to Tobacco, as transcribed in Two Broadsides Against Tobacco, 1672. London, England: John Hancock.
If you're interested in what King James had to write: Full Text of Two Broadsides Against Tobacco.
Here is the concluding paragraph:
Have you not reason then to be ashamed, and to forbear this filthy Novelty, so basely grounded, so foolishly received, and so grosly mistaken in the right use thereof: In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in Persons and Goods, and raking also thereby the marks and notes of Vanity up∣on you; by the Custome thereof, making your selves to be wonder∣ed at by all forreign civil Nations, and by all Strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contempted; a custome loathsome to the Eye, hateful to the Nose, harmful to the Brain, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest re∣sembling the horrible stigian smoke of the Pit that is bottom∣less.
Here is a quote from a paper from 1954 on why work kills men more than women (from a public health physician named Wilson Sowder from his paper titled "Why is the Sex Difference in Mortality Increasing?", Public Health Reports 69(9):860-864.)
It is possible that women escape the consequences of worry, frustration, disappointment, and tension to a greater degree than men by being more vocal about these conditions, through tears, or occasionally hysterics. The reaction of men, on the other hand, may be in the form of coronary disease, hypertension, or ulcers"
A different theory from Herb Goldberg, from his book The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege, published in 1976 was that the male is afraid that he can't survive without the woman.
Now that comes off as a bit laughable, but you need to remember when that was written, but also various items were quoted: higher male mortality after divorce and being widowed (see the Broken Heart Syndrome post); higher suicide rates after maternal deaths; higher suicide rates among single men than single women.
And many of these aspects do still persist, fwiw.
The sex gap re: mortality is not a new thing, though it's smaller now than it was mid-20th century... but the gap was a lot smaller in centuries past (when everybody died quite a bit more often from infectious disease).
This is 20 years old now, but in 1998, there were only 6 out of 72 detailed causes of death by the CDC where the age-adjusted death rates were higher for females than males. Two you can guess easily: breast cancer (which some men do get) and pregnancy/childbirth.
Here are the other four: Alzheimer's disease, asthma, rheumatic fever, and kidney infections.
Note that this is not merely because women tend to live longer -- these are age-adjusted rates, so that means these are more prevalent for women.
The 6 causes listed were the cause of only 7% of female deaths in 1998, though.
Anyway, I'll be looking into that more later, but I find that stuff interesting.
(2 comments | comment on this)
|Wednesday, March 8th, 2017|
6:43 pm - Are advanced students being left behind in school?
I'm not quite sure that's what this study really shows:|
HOW CAN SO MANY STUDENTS BE INVISIBLE? LARGE PERCENTAGES OF AMERICAN STUDENTS PERFORM ABOVE GRADE LEVEL
By Matthew C. Makel2, Michael S. Matthews3, Scott J. Peters4, Karen Rambo-Hernandez5, and Jonathan A. Plucker6
Conclusion 1: Very large percentages of students are performing above grade level.
Conclusion 2: Large percentages of students are performing well above grade level.
Conclusion 3: These percentages represent staggeringly large numbers of students.
Implication 1: Federal and state education policies focusing on grade-level proficiency are irrelevant for a huge number of American students.
Implication 2: The U.S. K-12 context, which is organized primarily around age-based grade levels, needs serious rethinking.
Implication 3: States should require each district and school to report its percentages of above-grade-level performers and to disaggregate students’ average growth by starting scores.
Currently, the evidence suggests that between 15% and 45% of students enter the late-elementary classroom each fall already performing at least one year ahead of expectations. Our initial question – How many students are learning above grade level? – needs to be extended. The more important questions may be:
1. How should we reorganize our schools, now that we know that large numbers of these students exist?
2. How can we best meet these students’ learning needs, if they already have mastered much of the year’s content before the year has even started? And lastly,
3. How can schools balance the potential for excellence against the need to achieve basic proficiency, when the variation in student achievement within classrooms and schools is so vast?
Okay, there's a bunch of problems with this.
But the main thing is whether the "grade level" from these tests have anything to do with what those specific kids are being taught in school.
Here's a graph made in this blog post -- Study: Smart Kids Are Being Held Back
Here's the deal: I was never in a "nth grade English class"... in any grade! Yes, I know tracking isn't exactly popular, but it still goes on under a variety of names. I wouldn't assume that just because students are "above grade level" that they're really missing out on being challenged in the classroom -- to wit, there's nothing really connecting those test results with what they're actually being taught. Many schools have programs specifically for people who are well ahead or way behind, keeping them in age groups for social reasons, not academic reasons.
Now, the issue is that they want to say individual student progress should be measured, as opposed to comparing to a floor. I suppose that's okay.
But the "fix" isn't necessarily to advance someone to a higher grade, even. Someone who has a very high achievement level for their age is not going to perform the same way as someone at the same achievement level in terms of skills/knowledge, but at the "average" age for that achievement.
My point is that simply advancing students a grade doesn't fix the issue, because they may very well continue to learn faster than the people in the class they're in. They're still not being challenged.
The particular author of this linked blog post from the same site may have been helped by skipping a grade, but I know it wouldn't have helped my situation. When I was in calculus in high school, and I was a 10th grader and all the other students were seniors... I had a much easier time of it than they did. Even though they were advanced for the school. If I had merely "progressed" one year per year, even after being skipped a few grades, I would have been well behind where I ended up in terms of actual knowledge. It's not a fix to stick the really fast students with slower, much older students at the same level. To be sure, I'm talking about some really extreme extremes.
That said, when the student body is fairly small (as is the case for my kids), I agree that "grades" may be very unhelpful ways of grouping the students. A one-room schoolhouse model may be a better fit. You progress when you've achieved, and you move on. But that requires a lot more one-on-one work.
In any case, I don't see why any of this needs to be a federal issue. If you're going to define education policy at the federal level, you're going to try to cram the problems of huge schools from densely populated cities into the same buckets as those in rural or suburban areas. How about just providing guidance of reasonable levels of achievement for certain grades (the percents above show that perhaps these standards may be a bit low), and then let people know where they land?
I'm very pro-gifted education, and I definitely think there shouldn't be such strict age segregation in schools. There should be multi-age socialization going on, if they're concerned about social issues.
But I don't think this study really shows much. Yes, many people are better than average. Shocker.
(comment on this)
|Saturday, March 4th, 2017|
9:53 pm - Retelling Old Tales
To begin with, this is a plug of Neil Gaimain's recent work, Norse Mythology. In particular, I'm pushing the audiobook version where Gaiman himself is "performing" the book.|
And performing is a good verb to describe it. He's like the fun uncle who does all the voices ... though given his age, he's more like my husband who does all the voices.
But before I get into just rambling, let me explain why you should get this book/audiobook: because they're good stories, well-told.
No, Gaiman did not invent these stories. But I think too often our current society over-rates "originality". There are excellent stories that should keep being retold, and you can update the stories to make them more compelling to the current age.
Yes, one can go this route:
Man, that's an awesome book.
But of course, Thug Notes is giving a really short version of a really awesome (and very long) book. I was laughing my ass off throughout that book, but your mileage may vary.
The point is, the Norse myths from the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda really kick ass. And Gaiman was careful to pick the most compelling of the stories from those traditions. To be sure, I have not read either work (in translation or original language), but I have read various derivative works, including some off-shoots from Gaiman previously (like American Gods and The Sandman).
But...well...let's think. I don't read/speak the language of the Poetic Edda or Prose Edda. So, at the very least, I'd read in translation. And as Gaiman (and others) have remarked, these are not necessarily consistent sources on stories. And we're obviously missing explanations about various deities. But again, some of the most important Greek(Roman) gods didn't have intricate stories surrounding them... what could one say about Hestia? But if that fire in your household went out... you could be in trouble. Think about power outages now. So pick what's interesting, not necessarily what's important.
I actually had my own experience of the Norse myths in childhood similarly to Gaiman, but I happened to have read the book by the D'Aulaires. They also had some nice books on Greek myths. These books are both in my local library, and I thought to open them up today and.... was underwhelmed. As a child, learning about these stories for the first time, it was enough. And they had color illustrations! But as an adult... they lack vitality. Like learning about Julius Caesar from a schoolbook.
And then you get to see the Shakespearean play. (ok, Brutus was more alive in that play, but you know what I mean)
And that's what Neil Gaiman's version is like. All the stories in Neil Gaiman's book are in the D'Aulaire version. But... the characters in Gaiman's version are more alive. Thor & Loki definitely have better explained personalities, as does Freya, I think. Odin, unsurprisingly, is a bit more aloof. I'm on my third re-hearing of the audiobook (because the kids wanted to hear the stories from the beginning), and I'm picking up on a few details I think Gaiman dropped in to provide a more long-term narrative arc to the project, though it's still necessarily disjointed.
Even more to the point, they're more like living stories, like the stories my grandma told. My Carolinian relatives know what I speak about when I mention the stories that ended like "....and they never did find the head." Yes, the Norse myths are very like that (though they generally tell you where the head ended up, most likely floating in the well as a tattletale to Odin)
The funniest of the tales is Freya's Unusual Wedding and my favorite of the tales is the Mead of the Gods/Mead of Poetry (the part I particularly like is the source of bad poetry).
There is something very refreshing in the Norse myths in terms of the behavior of the gods and the shape of the tales. It's not that they're better-behaved (or worse-behaved) than the gods of other traditions, but I do like how little humans are actually involved in these stories. The most depressing part of the Greek myths is how the Greek gods invariably screw over some human who probably didn't deserve it. While in the Norse myths, there's definitely gratuitous murder, but at least it's just the gods and the giants/ogres/monsters killing each other while humans stand on the sidelines.
Thor and Loki are such a fun pairing, they really deserve some kind of buddy movie deal. Heck, they could do an entire series of Thor & Loki. No, the Marvel Universe isn't the same. I've not seen Marvel Thor, but I assume he's not as ... simple as the mythic Thor. And Loki... I really doubt the mythic Loki who had a goat tied to his dick to attempt to make a frost giant laugh.... yeah, I don't think Marvel covered that particular side of the character.
Anyway, the audiobook was very fun. Gaiman reads his own work very well and he puts to mind what the traditional storytellers must have been like (not that surprising, given storytelling is his vocation). His timing is good, and his voices work very well. I think he portrayed Thor, the various dwarves (especially Brock), Loki, and Freya very well. Oooh, that Freya. I can see(hear) why everybody wanted to marry her. The other characters are difficult to judge, especially Odin...he doesn't get as much time as Thor & Loki do, frankly. Odin is a really intriguing figure, in keeping his own counsel.
But I have been thinking there need to be more re-tellers of good, old tales in various formats. I think we miss, sometimes, that we're not really getting the stories of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Dickens because various purists demand we read their works in the close-to-original. I remember hearing stories of how people who don't speak English get to enjoy Shakespeare more because he's translated into their current vernacular, while we poor English-speakers are being forced to listen to a script that's over 400 years old.
I have seen extremely good productions of Shakespeare where they are very good in conveying what was meant (I love Branagh's versions...Henry V was excellent, of course, among others), but it's still a foreign language to a certain extent. Hell, the best incarnation of Shakespearean comedy I've seen was Verdi's version of the character Falstaff, pulling from three different plays, set in Italian, and I'm having to read subtitles in English. And there's nothing more harrowing than Verdi's Lady Macbeth. I haven't seen his Otello, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.
So for all people bitch about reboots and sequels, I really enjoy when people re-tell engaging stories in their own way.
There is something to be said in telling a story really well, even if you did not invent the characters, plot, setting... anything. Just the choosing of the words and the pacing of the story is a skill in itself.
(also, Gaiman, you magnificent bastard, I caught the natural poetic alliteration when you used it. That made me smile.)
(comment on this)
1:33 pm - Warning: Old Injuries Can Cause More Pain Years Later
This is not some sort of figurative or emotional type of injury I'm talking about -- I'm talking about physical damage.|
Specifically, on Thursday & Friday, Stu was in the hospital for pain (and other symptoms that I don't want to detail). For a while the doctors were baffled, but we think the source of the pain was found in the final procedure done.
The likely source: scarring from kidney stones... which Stu last had over 15 years ago.
Stu has passed kidney stones twice in his life. The first time, I took him to a shitty hospital (which later closed) and his stone was never captured & analyzed. The second time, we went to a better hospital, and the stone was caught, analyzed, and with the help of the book No More Kidney Stones, Stu has never had a problem with kidney stones since.
It seems the scar tissue from the old injury to the ureter (the tube from the kidney to the bladder... where most of the pain in "passing" the stones comes from, I believe) can grow over time and cause similar pain as kidney stones themselves.
The treatment was a stent in the ureter, and it seems to have done the trick (that said, it's not even been 24 hours, and the stent comes out on Monday).
Anyway, this is just a warning to my friends who have had kidney stones -- even if you're not getting stones any more due to dietary changes, you can still have trouble from them years later. Just be aware.
(comment on this)
|Saturday, February 18th, 2017|
3:32 pm - Limits
no, this isn't math.|
I am in pain. I don't mean this in some kind of figurative or existential way. I've got a screwed-up neck, a screwed-up brain, and I've had bad pain all this week. I've had to .. I've just had to.
and I've had it.
So fuck it.
When I say "fuck it", I mean I'm gonna listen to opera, read comics, and leave the damn post about asset returns in pension plans I've tried THREE FUCKING TIMES AND GOT EATEN BY THE INTERNET
I am annoyed, is what I'm saying. I've got some Mozart to listen to furiously.
(11 comments | comment on this)
|Sunday, February 12th, 2017|
12:40 pm - Some Call Me.... Mrs. Stu?
Just a quick response to this bit on female patronymics:|
The lawyer Miriam González Durántez was unimpressed this week when she was invited to speak at an International Women’s Day event by someone who addressed her as ‘Mrs Clegg’ (she is married to the MP and former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg). The Daily Mail deplored her ‘aggressive feminism’, while below the line its readers, inevitably, complained about bloody foreigners with no respect for British traditions.
Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Emily Thornberry MP–who is not a foreigner but rather the Shadow Foreign Secretary–protested to the Speaker after Theresa May called her ‘Lady Nugee’ (Thornberry’s husband, it transpires, is Sir Christopher Nugee). Whereas ‘Mrs Clegg’ seems to have been a careless mistake, ‘Lady Nugee’ was evidently a deliberate taunt. Even as May apologised, she found it necessary to inform the House that she herself had been known by her husband’s name for the last 36 years.
You might have thought that if there was one thing we could all agree on in the year 2017, it would be the right of every individual to be referred to by the personal name of their own choice. English law affirms that right: as long as you aren’t trying to defraud anyone, you may go by whatever name you like. So why is there still so much controversy about what married women choose to call themselves?
There's plenty more at the blog post, including some interesting history. The whole thing is more a breach of etiquette than anything else. FFS, use the last name people prefer (unless they're being absurd, but using their actual legal name is not an absurd assertion in the etiquette realm).
Now, I don't really care what name you use for me in the social realm. I'm fine with being called Mrs. Grace, Mrs. Stu, Mrs.-Diarmuid's-Mother - whatever it takes to identify me to whatever audience. I'm a fairly tolerant person. I use several names that aren't my legal names (examples: meep, meepbobeep, Mary Pat Campbell), but I don't require anybody to use those.
But I will give warning: I am not Mrs. Mary Pat Grace. If you want to call me Mrs. Grace, that's fine as-is, but full name use, it's Mrs. M. Stuart Grace. I'm a Miss Manners stickler on these forms.
It's just about politeness, and if you break the etiquette rule, I'm going to assume you're being annoying on purpose.
(Okay, I don't actually get worked up over Mary Pat Grace. As I said, I'm really tolerant. But it's properly Mrs. M. Stuart Grace.)
(comment on this)
|Tuesday, February 7th, 2017|
3:41 pm - Opportunity Knocks; Luck Says "How YOU doin?"
Okay, not sure where I was going with that metaphor, but just a quick response to this:|
The Key to Good Luck Is an Open Mind
Luck can seem synonymous with randomness. To call someone lucky is usually to deny the relevance of their hard work or talent. As Richard Wiseman, the Professor of Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, in the United Kingdom, puts it, lucky people “appear to have an uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time and enjoy more than their fair share of lucky breaks.”
What do these people have that the rest of us don’t? It turns out “ability” is the key word here. Beyond their level of privilege or the circumstances they were born into, the luckiest people may have a specific set of skills that bring chance opportunities their way. Somehow, they’ve learned ways to turn life’s odds in their favor.
“[Wiseman's] research is hilarious,” says [Christine] Carter. “He takes people who self-define as lucky and people who don’t say they’re lucky, and then he puts a $20 bill in the street and the lucky people notice them and pick them up. And unlucky people don’t.”
The experimental design may seem a little silly, a superficial way to distinguish the fortunate from the unfortunate. Yet this was the kind of result that Wiseman found in several related experiments over the course of about 10 years, from about 1993 to 2003. In one such study, Wiseman provided a group of volunteers with a newspaper and instructed them to count the photographs inside. Written in large font on half of the second page was this message: “Stop counting—there are 43 photographs in this newspaper.” A similar insert placed halfway through the paper read, “Stop counting, tell the experimenter you have seen this and win $250.” Overall, the self-identified unlucky participants were left counting. It suggested that luck could have something to do with spotting opportunities, even when they were unexpected.
Wiseman didn’t stop there. He turned these findings into a “luck school” where people could learn luck-inducing techniques based on four main principles of luck: maximizing chance opportunities, listening to your intuition, expecting good fortune, and turning bad luck to good. The strategies included using meditation to enhance intuition, relaxation, visualizing good fortune, and talking to at least one new person every week. A month later, he followed up with participants. Eighty percent said they were happier, luckier people.
I will just talk about the first item: maximizing chance opportunities.
I call this "Go do stuff". Sometimes it just means going to an event, or going for a walk for 15 minutes, or whatever.
But many of the random opportunities I've gotten came from me going up to somebody and telling/asking them something, because I was so moved.
Example: Early in the days of "googling one's name", well, let me not re-write what I wrote before:
Friday, August 30, 2002
Mary Pat Campbell's puzzle solution
A couple years ago, in a little competition with a friend of mine, I searched on my full name at google.com (we were trying to see which of us had more mentions on the web). And I found that there was a letter to Games World of Puzzles, praising an extra-large Paint-by-Numbers puzzle (it was of a butterfly) and asking for more! more!
I noticed that this was on a little site called conceptistech, and I noted that it gave me "attitude" because I didn't use Internet explorer, so I sent a pissy email to the people running the site... and the rest is history.
The rest of the story is how I came to write the original letter to Games World of Puzzles, but let me tell the story of the pissy email to Conceptis. (I'm infamous for my pissy emails.) I don't have the original (it was from my grad account at NYU), but I basically bitched them out about how crappy IE was and couldn't they use something better like Netscape?
And they said "How would you like to test puzzles for us?"
I said "...HOT DAMN!"
For several years, I got pdfs of the puzzles they wanted to be tested -- I would print them out, time how long it took me to complete, and my gauge of the difficulty. They were using my results not so much to let others know these things, but to train their code for automatically grading difficulty/time for puzzles. Conceptis is still around, though they re-branded. I still play their puzzles online, and I've got their apps, too.
But my point is that I "get" these opportunities because I communicate with lots of people about things I care about. Sometimes it's stuff that's complimentary -- it's not just bitchy letters from me (it's just that I find the responses to those to be really funny, and it's usually due to what I'm complaining about.) Sometimes it's just asking a question.
But the point is that I respond, and I go do stuff. Some of the bitchy letters (and complimentary ones, and questions) end up with no response at all, but that's okay. I'm not going into this expecting any particular result. I certainly wasn't expecting to test hundreds of puzzles (and I was basically paid in free puzzles, including the puzzle portrait of me), but man, free entertainment! I loved it! I've gotten side jobs, picked up some email pals, free CDs (and free drinks) from hanging out in bars -- all sorts of things. You just never know. It's not all the time, but it's often enough to keep life interesting.
The issue is that some people go in with "luck" and "opportunity" looking for something extremely narrow, and miss all sorts of possibilities that surround them because they've got the blinders on. I find that with various professional networking functions. Blech.
So just wander about, say howdy, and maybe luck will say howdy back.
And it may not be something you were ever expecting in the first place.
(4 comments | comment on this)
|Wednesday, February 1st, 2017|
4:12 pm - Story of a playlist
|Sunday, January 29th, 2017|
7:55 pm - Regifting
|Sunday, January 15th, 2017|
12:38 pm - Never Forget: Thoughts on To Build A Castle - a Dissident Memoir by Vladimir Bukovsky
This is not a full review; not yet. Here is a link to the current US Amazon listing for the book; I will be re-posting a cleaned-up review later this year. I mentioned the specific project to publish an e-book English version of this book, and I await the final form.|
After reading the copy I had, I posted the following review to Goodreads:
Amazing book, chronicling Bukovsky's run-in with the absurdities that kept the Soviet Union afloat for a while. Specifically exposes the abuse of psychiatric diagnoses for imprisoning/abusing political targets. I am a child of the 1980s, so Bukovsky's narrative is of an earlier Soviet Union that is forgotten by many. Just as Nazi era narratives are important, this is very important for people to read to know what it was like to be an individual caught up in the machinery of the Soviet Union.I bolded the bit from the book itself.
There is a thread of humor, reminding me of Crime & Punishment by Dostoevsky, where I just had to laugh. The pyramid scheme of prisoner complaints to gum up Soviet bureaucracy was genuinely funny.
Key passage in the book:
Why should I do it?” asks each man in the crowd. “I can do nothing alone.”
And they are all lost.
“If I don’t do it, who will?” asks the man with his back to the wall.
And everyone is saved.
That is how a man begins building his castle.
This is important. It is the heart.
( Thoughts and quotesCollapse )
(comment on this)
|Friday, January 13th, 2017|
11:16 am - The importance of Instapaper for self-treatment
I use Instapaper for all sorts of things, but by far the most important is saving important blog posts for offline viewing on my ipad when I'm in dire need. |
This is what happened yesterday.
I am currently at home, as part of an extended pain episode that started yesterday soon after lunch. I ended up leaving work early, but having to stop a couple times on the way home (work is 70 miles from home) Both stops I made were wifiless, and while I had Pickwick queued up for my delectation, a bit of the ole Charles D wasn't doing it for me.
So I scrolled down my Instapaper saves... to this bloggess post. I saved this post in instapaper back in 2015 when I saw it. It's come in handy many times when I'm in deep pain.
This is how the post starts:
Not really all that bad, obviously -- the kind of brain fart people have all the time. So obviously, people reply to the tweet with their brain farts, too; again, many of them are run-of-the-mill.
But some of them....
( fun with screenshotsCollapse )
(comment on this)
|Wednesday, January 11th, 2017|
9:39 am - Thinking through secondary effects of self-driving cars
On my political blog, I've got a post trying to think through the effects of self-driving cars on government revenue (because parking tickets and traffic violations would go away), and at the end I'm spitballing ideas:|
- no more valet parking
- only hobbyists will get to drive sports cars, out in closed tracks elsewhere
- short flights (such as under one hour) will no longer make sense — for the time it takes to drive to the airport, go through security, etc. — you may as well take your self-driving car. Especially given how often flights are delayed/cancelled.
- will small regional airports make sense? Connecting flights?
- Maybe all flights become huge hub to huge hub as a result – faster to take the last 100 mile leg in a car
- More income inequality? People like me spending the brain time doing work, making revenue — and thus peeling farther apart
- More in person meetings? Can get work done between physical locations in the self-driving car
- Speed limits increased on highways when all cars are self-driving, so everything above accelerates
- Acceleration to development of rural areas, as there’s so much empty land out in the U.S., but they were really inconvenient
- People who have anxiety over not being able to control the vehicles… I can imagine new psychiatric practices around this
So let me think of a few more random ideas:
- MADD will have to re-brand, as drunk driving will no longer exist. I suggest: Mothers Against Drinking yourself to Death. Related story: Nine charts that show how white women are drinking themselves to death
- people like me who use vehicles for storage may be on the way out, if cars become more of a rental concept. People will need personal trailers to tote stuff around.
Okay =I= will need a personal trailer I can easily hitch & detach from the self-driving car.
- I'll assume the tech will be good enough that specific crimes will no longer exist: carjacking, car insurance fraud
- no need for traffic lights -- the cars can just communicate with each other/the system. There can be some sort of in-vehicle messaging where people are notified something has happened (say a tree has fallen across the road) which is why all traffic has stopped
- interior car design will be like trains -- more people sitting sideways to direction of travel. People can do ride-sharing so they can have a bridge four during the commute... hell, there will be commuter clubs set up so that people with similar interests can schedule a ride share so they can practice their hobby/discuss
- like the Met Opera in HD facebook group I'm in - can do a group watch of an opera broadcast; the MST3K Revival League can watch new episodes together -- just like people did group watching of games/Game of Thrones in bars. Can do it in cars now!
- commute dates? Mmmm, I'll shelve that idea for now
- sex, obviously
- pre-programmed sight-seeing cars. Hmmm. Tourism cars! Like a personalized land cruise!
Okay, that's enough.
Y'all got ideas?
(11 comments | comment on this)
|Saturday, January 7th, 2017|
5:59 pm - Why are people moving to dreamwidth?
I don't even know what dreamwidth is. (And I'm too lazy to even go and look) |
I keep stuff on livejournal that I don't mind if I lose. Similarly for facebook, really. Facebook is for ephemera and chatting, in my opinion. I use livejournal when I want to do something facebook-y but longer (I don't like facebook "notes")
If I want to control/keep it, I have it on my own domains that I own. Which I've had longer than livejournal has existed.
Anyway, I assume people are moving to dreamwidth because of features it has that livejournal doesn't. What are they?
(7 comments | comment on this)
|Wednesday, January 4th, 2017|
6:47 am - Some Recommended Lectures for the Humanities-Minded: The Great Courses
Obviously, I'm a numbers nerd, but I love the humanities, too... especially now that I get to pick what I want to learn from that vast field of human achievement.|
Back in 2012, I did a series of 12 posts on the 12 Days of Learning, but I'm not going to go that far right now. I'm copying over a bunch of facebook comments I made here and here.
I will break this up into a few posts, though, going by my first addition: The Teaching Company, now called The Great Courses. I started buying their lecture sets back in the 1990s, on cassette tape.
Lectures and Lecturers I Recommend: The Great Courses
I am currently halfway through a 24-lecture series on the Black Death, and other than the pronunciation quibble I had from yesterday, I very much recommend it. The Black Death had a huge effect on European history and played a part in clearing away the medieval social world for modernism. You may not be happy that the feudal society was swept away due to population devastation, but it is what it is. What I'm finding interesting is the disparities in mortality (most of the towns covered so far had >40% mortality over a couple years... but some were relatively untouched. I wonder why... the lecturer is fair in indicating where there is still uncertainty in current scholarly research. There are some interesting genetic results due to the Black Death, unsurprisingly.)
I do enjoy intensely focused histories, because by picking one major event, trend, or theme (like dictionaries) you can often fit the whole world, looking through a major prism.
But that's what I'm listening to now.
What have I listened to in the past, that I recommend?
Other Great Courses lecturers I've enjoyed are Robert Greenberg on Music - hell, he is the music department at Great Courses (yes, a few other peep in, but I see his count is 112 sets, some of which are repeats). If you want a taste, get one of the short musical biographies, like the 8 lectures on Mozart's life.
If you want to go whole hog, you can go with his major survey courses, like How to Listen To and Understand Great Music or How to Listen to and Understand Opera.
But forget those -- get one where he does a nice working through one composer's work. Bach and the High Baroque, Life and Operas of Verdi, and Chamber Music of Mozart -- these I have listened to multiple times, they're so enjoyable.
Other Great Courses lecturers I enjoy: John McWhorter on linguistics (I've listened to all his sets), Kenneth Harl on History, Elizabeth Vandiver on Classical Culture, and Rufus Fears on Great Men and Great Ideas. Alas, Dr. Fears has been dead since 2012, and he is a bit of an acquired taste, but I like his stuff. I don't agree with some of his interpretations, but I don't mind.
Recommendation for format and source
So if you follow those item pages, you'll often see some eye-popping prices.
I have never paid those prices. (Also, do you ever pay the tag price at Kohl's or Macy's? If so, you're a sucker. Those aren't the "real" prices.)
First off, I am a patient person, and can sit around and wait for when they discount 80% some titles. And I often scrounge in their "bargain bin" when they're phasing out a set. Separately, there are people selling their lecture sets on Amazon and ebay, used. Steeply discounted.
Finally, many libraries have these lecture sets. I just check them out. I have racked up late fees on some of them, but eh. It's not $250.
I understand you can get some of the lectures via audible.com memberships, but I have never used that.
As for format -- most of these I'm listening to on CD in my van, as I commute (I drive ~33K miles per year.) Pretty much all these lecture sets have audio-only versions - the lectures I've gotten that have video-only versions are fairly limited, and you can understand why they require video. None I linked to above require video to comprehend.
The next post, I will cover the lectures/lecturers I like from the Modern Scholar series.
(comment on this)
|Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017|
11:06 pm - On inconsistent pronunciation of proper nouns from other languages
Okay, let me be blunt. It's French. It's almost always French.|
Yes, I loved that old SNL sketch where they made fun of the exaggerated Spanish pronunciation of Central American place names. But I rarely run into it in real life, just because those American news readers can't roll their rs. (That's not a criticism... I can't roll my rs either)
So I'm listening to my lecture series on the Black Death, and it's good, but I can't get over the "proper" pronunciation of Avignon (think of that last half being shoved up one's nose), and various other French place names but it's FRANTZ and PARRUS.
FFS. Just say Avignon, etc., without all the nasality, and I would be fine.
She also had a bit of fun with the German-language place names, but not as bad. She didn't attempt to make the Scandinavian place names sound all Swedish Chef, so I guess I should count my blessings.
(And yes, I was very happy to hear her mention Connie Willis's Doomsday Book, because I was just waiting to see if it would be mentioned.)
I liked Winston Churchill's approach which was to impose his own bizarre Anglicizations of foreign names. NAHZEE (yes, he did that on purpose), but also Lions, Marsails, etc.
None of these people ever say Paree or Fronce. It's PARRUS and FRANTZ. Make it all American. Own it. Culturally appropriate the hell out of their proper nouns.
And don't get me on how she pronounced people's names. I just can't.
(6 comments | comment on this)
|Monday, January 2nd, 2017|
7:42 pm - And with your spirit
No, this is not about religion, but about literature. No, not religious literature.|
It's something I noticed a long time back, and only became more aware of as I got older: the spirit with which an author treated humans.
Mind you, this has nothing to do with how these authors behaved towards other people in their actual lives.
This has to do with how these authors treated their characters... and no, it doesn't mean that bad things don't happen to good characters, and vice-versa. But that these characters are allowed to have some sort of human spirit, and not be squelched.
( the world is a stage, and the men and women merely playersCollapse )
(comment on this)