Just to be difficult and different, I'm going to start writing about light-hearted topics I find fun. ☺ (Boom, professional smiley bitches)
For my first foray into frivolity, I want to discuss one of my favorite TV shows I rarely talk about. Gilmore Girls. Cheesy ass theme song aside, this is a really good show.
This brings up an interesting fact about me, by the way. Besides for liking dick (and possibly the West Side Story joke in the title connected to this fact, referencing the moving of course) my fondness for the Gilmore Girls is probably the gayest thing about me.
But I digress. This show makes me happy. I relate very strongly to one of the main characters (Paris Geller). While people who know me may disagree, she closely matches how I view myself... for better and for worse. Disdain for most people, stupid indiscretions, fierce passion, and often perceived arrogance that is really self-doubt and insecurity in disguise. If I could magically change into one person, it'd probably be Paris. She is the unfiltered me; how I would act if I truly didn't give a fuck about people (too bad I do).
So here's my multimedia tribute, a decent compilation of some great Paris Geller antics.
PS, all 153 episodes are on Netflix and the revival (four 90 minute episodes) is coming November 25th. I can't wait.
PSS, Tie your tubes idiot
Trump's policy shop was a quintessential trumpsterfuck.
Trumpsterfuck [truhmp-stur-fuhk] noun: 1. Several clusterfucks fucking each other.
I usually like to include some type of media in posts to make it more interesting. Tonight, I will shamelessly post a video that hit me hard.
u235, you were/are right. I'm done with this. No more talking about it. I'm done with politics until I'm 65. If I even make it that far.
I'm used to tech support not being any help. Turn it off and turn in on again. No shit, don't treat me like I'm an idiot.
I was pleasantly surprised when u235 posted about a positive result from tech support recently. Now I can contribute my own success story. Are things actually getting better or am I getting older to the point where now I'm "that idiot" and I don't even realize it?
Anyway. My story. Downloaded game. Installed game. The game is WildStar. WildStar runs through a launcher. Launcher loads. 30 minutes of patching later because, idk, why NOT include the latest patch in install? Whatever. Everything is finally downloaded and there is a shiny "Play" button on the launcher. I click it. The launcher disappears. Nothing happens.
I tried everything. You name it. Run as Admin. Manually adding ports and firewall rules. Compatibility mode. Single monitor with vanilla resolution. Uninstall/reinstall. Verifying files. Blah blah blah. In case you can't get into my head space on this one, it is tremendously frustrating to click "Play" and then have nothing at all happen. No error, no screen flicker, fucking nothing. It was infuriating.
So I contact WildStar support. They responded quickly and reasonably. I shipped them some log files, no big deal. They asked me to try a few things and it actually worked. Stopping all non-Window's services, disabled all startup programs, Winsock reset, and some others. After it was working I slowly started turning things on until I found the thing that was stopping my game. Fucking NVIDIA. Apparently, if you like NVIDIA enough to give them lots of money, they shower you with extras like the NVIDIA Capture Server Proxy. Whatever this thing actually is, if it's on your machine I recommend taking it off. Once I killed that asshole everything worked fine.
Sigh, so what now, now I can play the game.
I'm so excited for my family to come visit. I had such a good weekend with old friends with whom I have so much in common. My bosses usually make good decisions. I hate the cold. I miss summer. Math is dumb. Sports are awesome. I wish I owned more flannel (and I know the difference between flannel and plaid).
Poe's Law is no joke.
Is introducing Poe's law an indicator of Poe's law at work? I'll leave that to the reader as an exercise.
PS, It is not wise to confuse Poe's law with Lewis's Law. People don't like it at all.
Don't we just all love people on the internet (Including ourselves) ...
It is popular in the news (not these days but usually). There's usually plenty of things to read or watch about it (especially on this blog). There are myriad opinions too (although this blog typically has only one).
Of course we're talking about the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
But with all of this content and opinions, what strikes me the most about the 2nd Amendment and those who support it in today's world is the irony of it all. Allow me to pontificate.
Without using popular terms, I content that those who support the 2nd Amendment are typically those who like to follow the constitution to the letter or claim to understand and follow what the founding fathers intended. Some may disagree and we can debate via separate correspondence. But I'll just move on as if it were true.
Text: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
1) Follow the words crowd: putting aside the fact that scholars don't agree on the actual text (number of commas), it is clear that we have the right to form ?well regulated? militias and keep and bear arms. But these terms need definitions, especially if we're going to follow the words literally. Let's focus on the key word ? arms (next would be ?well regulated?). If the definition provided is literal, then we have the right to bear muskets, swords, hatches, and the other tools of the militia (unless they predicted future and included semi-automatic rifles and shotguns). But let's make it interesting and assume the smart old white dudes thought to the future with a forward looking ideal. Since the text clearly ties together the right to form a militia and keep and bear arms, then the arms we have the right to keep and bear are the same as those used by the militias. Interesting, this means we have the right to own all arms militaries around the world utilize, including rockets, nuclear weapons, the whole shebang. Well hold on, a sane person may say, why the comparison to the militia? Well sane person, without this linkage, the 2nd Amendment is as pointless as a militia bearing shotguns and assault rifles trying to seize liberty from our government with its drones, encrypted sat comms, and warships (Oh My!). Well hold on, a ridiculous person may say, so what, that's great! Well ridiculous person, it would be ridiculous to explain how ridiculously ridiculous you sound you ridiculously ridiculous person who inspires much ridicule. It seems you get a choice, ridiculous 2nd Amendment that allows nukes or a violation of the 2nd Amendment because you cannot bear enough arms to be infringed in the forming of your militia.
2) Intent crowd: It is hard to deny, although many will try (and they are wrong), that the intent is obviously to prevent the government from making it impossible for the citizenry to restore liberty when presented with a tyrannical government. In support of this, consider the context of the day. The founding fathers just went through hell struggling against the massively stronger military of their tyrannical government. It's no wonder why this is the 2nd Amendment and not found later in the list. They put this in place to limit the government so that citizens could fight back for liberty. While crazy today, this was a wonderful idea in its day. I argue it was even necessary at the time because of technology. But today's technology is very different. Dare anyone to argue that any of us could amass enough weapons to beat our military (and laugh in their face if they actually accept). For better or worse, our military is incredibly strong; we don't stand a chance. If you think worse, wake the fuck up and go join that ridiculous guy up there, you two are a pair (since it's so trivial, I'll leave the proof of this statement for the reader as an exercise). If you believe in the intent of the 2nd Amendment, I feel sorry for you for it was overcome by events over a century ago. Perhaps this is the best example of how our country?s documents can be overcome by time (but that's neither the monkeys or circus of this post).
The Irony: No matter who you are, your interpretation, or your opinion, the 2nd Amendment is useless. No matter what you do, bear arms or not, you can't protect yourself from anyone.
And behold the irony!
I was having a conversation with a colleague the other day about morals and philosophy. The point was that humans sometimes make suboptimal moral decisions and we both liked it that way.
Imagine you were exiting a burning building and you run into a baby sitting on top of a 1.4 million dollar painting. Surely you save the baby, most would. Except the moral philosopher might say, if you took the painting and sold it, surely you could donate the money to save more than one baby's life (for example, you could provide food and water for hundreds of babies that would die otherwise). In both cases you don't know the baby or the parents. You don't know any of their potentials. All you know is that it is a baby.
Do you save the baby or cast it aside for the painting? Do you save one life and cause hundreds of others to suffer and die or do you let the baby burn so you can save hundreds of others? Opportunity cost is a bitch.
But who wants to live in a world where people save the painting? That doesn't seem human. I, for one, am team baby (even though I generally loathe the filthy, sticky handed, disease spreading monsters).
In a past life I studies a type of history, although I would never claim to be a historian of any sorts. In the 1990's some unfortunate UN Peacekeepers in Srebrenica were charged with protecting a group of people. An overwhelming force opposes them and the UN Peacekeepers have no retreat or reinforcements. The opposition rolls in with buses and separates the men from the rest. It doesn't take a genius to know what their plans are for these poor souls.
But what is a UN Peacekeeper to do? Stand up to the threat? Fight back? Not only will the men still be killed, but now so will the UN Peacekeepers and the women and children. What the UN Peacekeepers did was take the painting; they chose the technically morally correct option and stood by while thousands were slaughtered. They even helped keep the peace while the buses were being loaded to avoid further waste of life. They saved thousands of lives by condemning some.
But this seems very wrong still. Most people want the UN Peacekeepers to act and even cry loudly that they are the worst type of cowards. But the alternative is many more lives lost. Is it worth more than doubling the death count just so you can fight back? More death, less life, but hey, we did the right thing. Really? Sometimes we have a hard time swallowing our own humanity.
I feel like this a lot. I see what the right thing to do is but it feels like I shouldn't do it. I see the painting and realize its true value but I still want to save the baby. I still want to fight.
So, what's a realist to do. Luckily my consequences are far less dire and I can drink it off by the end of the day. It is tiresome though, to ignore doing what I would do if I didn't understand how it would just making things worse. I save the painting. I help usher the men to certain death. I'm not wrong, but it sure doesn't seem right.
If you want to take the time, I recommend this video for context:
Maybe it's just me but nothing brings me quite as much contentment and elation as perfectly juxtaposed items.
A Pac-Man head in a desert under a palm. The sense of calm only chaos can bring. A joyful song playing to a murderous clown. Pearls with jeans and a t-shirt. Good things coming out of evil circumstances. Idiots achieving power. Depression on a beautiful summer day. Complex simplicity.
Something terrifyingly beautiful.
Things that are beautifully terrifying.
But be careful, ironically, irony poisons the moment.
Is it possible I'm more of a computer than a human? This is an existential question I pose to myself regularly, triggered by myriad thoughts and observations.
The thought popped into my head last week at a meeting where people in my team present work they are excited about. Everyone should present over time and I'm certainly behind the idea.
The host started the meeting by saying that people needed to sign up. That neurologically speaking, the more people speak in front of a crowd the better they become. I couldn't help but laugh. She was in front of a crowd talking about talking in a front of a crowd.
Of course someone actually saw me chuckle and called me out. So, I explained my thought to everyone. Someone else started laughing and said, "Don't you realize we are now talking about you talking about her talking about talking." I replied "now I'm talking about you talking about me talking about her talking about talking." I'd like to say this is where it ended but if you knew the people I work with you wouldn't be surprised it didn't.
Recursion is a bitch and it derails me as if I were a computer; I'm just not capable of breaking out.
Sometimes it's funny but it is mostly crippling. For example,the way I organize and approach problems is highly susceptible to recursion. I am easy to break. Push things on the stack and I can clear it. If you push more things before I pop everything I'll keep chugging. But, when something way down on the stack needs to be done or else, I have a hard time clearing everything away and deciphering dependencies. I have to recursively shift things in my mind like the Tower of Hanoi problem to keep things straight.
If you're my enemy,you know how to break me.
EDIT! The only cartoon I follow online posted this today. Apparently I'm not the only one.
Physical objects have temporal permanence in that the object continues to exist over time. Time changes but the object remains, it doesn't pop out of existence.
Physical objects do not have spatial permanence in that if you move an object it does not remain where it was. You "move" it, it pops out of where it was and pops into where you put it.
Imagine the chaos if physical objects had both. I would be a long snake like object filling space wherever I have been. The world would be one really complex multiplayer version of snake in 3-D. We'd climb to the sky or borrow deep. We'd have a lot less tolerance for waste. Small mistakes cost dearly. The implications are fun to the think about. But my guess is few will find this entertaining. It entertained me all day.
Is it friday yet?
Oh who could tell. Not me anyways.,