Famed literary critic "my wife" introduced me to a new rating system which I have since adopted.  She reads a lot of books, and she rates them on a scale from 1 to 5.  But unlike the typical 1-5 scale which rates most things as 4 or 5, she goes with 3 as sort of the default.  So: 

5. Amazing - would read again and will bring it up in conversation
6. Great but not amazing - would recommend but wouldn't read again
7. Good - didn't love but didn't hate
8. Bad but not awful - didn't like and wouldn't recommend
9. Awful - hated and will bring it up in conversation

I feel like most books and movies and other entertainment or consumption choices are merely good to ok.  Critics tend to give nearly everything 5 stars, which muddies the playing field -- everything can't be the best.  On this scale, 3 stars is good, not middle-of-the-road.  Most things fall into this category.  [I would actually prefer 3.5, but most rating systems don't go by half points.]  For a book to get a 4, it needs to go above and beyond, or have some sort of quality that makes it particularly enjoyable.  A 5 is very rare, but you know it when you see it. 

An obvious question is, "Why would you read a book that's a 1 or a 2?"  Sometimes you don't know what you're gonna rate something until the very end.  Other times it starts out as a 4 and ends as a 2.  My wife is part of a book club that chooses some books for the group to read, so not all the books are winners.  And sometimes you want to branch out to attempt to be part of the wider literary world, and you find out that everyone there has bad opinions.  You can't have a 5 if you don't have some 1s. #entertainment

There are a handful of bands who have a level of technical mastery and musical precision that I really respect from a musician standpoint, but which I don't enjoy listening to.  Those bands are Rush, Tool, Steely Dan, and now Umphrey's McGee.  [I'm realizing now that I wrote them down, these are sort of all progressive rock bands; maybe that's my issue.]  There's no question as to the level of musical talent in these bands.  In fact it sounds to me like these people went to music school and have degrees in musical composition.  But when I sit down to actually listen to the music, I find it unenjoyable.  It's not easy to listen to, it's not catchy, it's not easy to sing along to.  It's like it's music created by a machine; perfect and complex and impressive, but not good.  As a person who appreciates precision and perfection in most other areas of my life, it surprises me to say I prefer my music to have a little dirt it in. #music

I've been using AI a worryingly large amount, but it's quickly become an essential part of my workflow for my job.  I also use it for my personal side projects, like the backend of this website and some math and physics stuff I like to tinker with.  Currently I do a lot of manual copy and paste with AI, like "solve this error" or "make a function that solves this annoying problem which would require me a tedious amount of time to solve," and then I copy-paste the solution to try it out.  I'm tempted to go full agentic mode and give an AI system access to my code repository and development toolset, but it kind of hit me that that would completely defeat the purpose of most tinkering projects, which is to futz around with things and challenge my brain to come up with a way to make a thing work.  I happily use AI to write helper functions and explain certain concepts to me, similar to how I used to use the regular internet.  But for the core "meat" of a personal project, the point of doing it is to do it myself.  I could easily find an existing solution or download somebody else's work from the internet, but that takes away the challenge and the joy of figuring it out myself.  Life is mostly a collection of silly little hobbies, and one of my hobbies is writing code.  It's weird to be in a position where I know I could easily use a tool to do the work for me, but I prefer to do the work manually myself.  It's like using my fingernail to screw in a screw instead of using a screwdriver or drill. #technology

I generally don't watch many movies these days.  It's kind of a big continuous time commitment, despite my willingness to waste tons of continuous time on other hobbies.  And it feels like all movies are part of a "universe" which I have a hard time getting into. 

But aside from all that, the one thing that's been bugging me for a while now is that movies in the past 15 years or so feel more "fast-starting" than they used to, which makes them feel less impactful.  This could absolutely be because I'm older and my brain is less flexible or whatever.  But it feels like modern movies don't spend enough time developing the plot and characters early on.  We just jump right in, here's the main guy, he's got one characteristic, and he's currently involved in the main plot of the movie which is currently operating at full pace.  Like, where's the build-up, and the character arc, and the tension and resolution?  It feels like every one-dimensional character encounters the story's main obstacle and instantly overcomes it.  It leaves me feeling disconnected from the character and uninvested in the outcome of the movie. 

The thing is, I would say I typically feel "entertained" by movies, even the dumb ones.  Fast cars, explosions, aliens -- it's entertaining, but it's not meaningful or fulfilling in any way.  I don't ask other forms of entertainment to provide me with fulfillment, but I guess if I'm investing 2 hours  of my life into something that cost a billion dollars to make and will win awards and become part of the cultural lexicon, I expect a little more than "ooh cool explosions." #entertainment

It's funny how one of the internet's most talked-about and valuable products is so poorly named.  ChatGPT is four spoken syllables, is difficult to say quickly, and contains an acronym that is essentially meaningless and unmemorable for its users.  It's like an internal codename that accidentally slipped into production. #technology

A few things to clarify: 

• Frog vs. Toad - Toads are a type of frog.  Frogs have smooth, moist skin and live near water.  Toads have dry, bumpy skin and live on dry land.  You can't get warts from a toad (that's a myth).
• Lizard vs. Salamander - Lizards are reptiles with dry, scaly skin and claws; they can live in dry or wet environments.  Salamanders are amphibians with smooth, moist skin and no claws; they can only live in wet or damp environments.
• Turtle vs. Tortoise - Tortoises are a type of turtle.  Turtles spend most of their time in water, and have streamlined shells to help them swim faster.  Tortoises spend most of their time on land and have more rounded or domed shells.
• Handling Baby Birds - It's a myth that parent birds will abandon young that have been touched by humans.

Ok that's all, carry on. #nature

I realize I'm not the first to say this, but timekeeping in soccer is absolutely ridiculous.  It's mind-boggling to watch a sport where literally no one knows when the game will end, not even the refs.  The argument is that if the refs stopped the clock during the game, teams could take advantage of the stoppage to get into a better position, or they could fake an injury to stop the clock, etc.  I get that, but surely there's a reasonable middle ground between no clock stoppages and some clock stoppages?  I watched a game where a guy BROKE HIS LEG, and the clock kept running.  That seems like a reasonable time to stop the clock.  Maybe there could be a handful of things that are stop-worthy, such as broken limbs, blood, decapitations (hasn't happened that I've seen), fan running on the field, etc. 

Aside from clock stoppages, could we at least get an idea of how much extra time there will be after regulation?  Surely that wouldn't too controversial.  Just a nice big clock on the sideline to let both the players and the fans know whether it'll be 30 seconds of extra time or 10 minutes. 

I played soccer (poorly) in high school, and we had timed halves.  I don't know how they managed the clock during the game, but it was never unclear when the game would end.  The fact that world-class major league soccer is run this nonchalantly is eye-opening to say the least. #sports

I've had a handful of experiences lately that have made me question the intelligence of the average person.  Doctor's offices, insurance companies, helpdesk people.  It's been a bit of a whirlwind. 

But actually intelligence is the wrong word.  Intelligence is essentially just "knowing things," and knowledge doesn't really come in to play as often as it might seem.  People can learn things.  Everyone is lacking intelligence about certain things, and that's fine. 

So then that made me think maybe it's capability, as in certain people are incapable of completing certain tasks.  But that's not really it either.  Human beings are surprisingly capable of many things, and they often become more capable as they become more intelligent. 

What I settled on was competence, which is basically having the intelligence and capability to accomplish something, and then actually successfully doing it.  Completing the task.  Finishing the job.  Whether for money or for free, a competent person will get a thing done. 

I don't know if it's a lack of motivation, or bad pay and long hours, or just a general disinterest in the positive outcome of a situation, but here's what I'm dealing with: 

• A medical receptionist who I called (multiple times) who was unable to successfully fax (yes, fax) a piece of paper to another doctor, only for me to suggest emailing it, which worked instantly.
• An insurance adjuster who couldn't understand the bill they sent me, and couldn't get the math to make sense on her end.
• An IT helpdesk person who couldn't identify a single human being involved in the servicing of a support ticket for software deployed and managed by his IT group.

I'm not the smartest person I know, or the most capable or competent, but I've either been unfairly conditioned by my coworkers and my friends and my family and basically every person I've ever known and interacted with to expect at least an ounce of competence, or people are getting dumber. #psychology

I obtained an electric vehicle about a month ago.  It's a KIA EV9, which is a 3-row "full size" SUV.  It's on the smaller end for SUVs, but it does really have three rows of seats that can fit several full size adults.  This is part of a three-part experiment: 

1. SUV vs. car:  I've never owned a vehicle larger than a sedan, and road trips with a child feel cramped.  I wanted to try a larger vehicle, but all the sizes between sedan and SUV are essentially the same (hatchback, crossover, etc.), so I gravitated toward an SUV.
2. Electric vs. gas:  I'm not totally pumped about SUV gas mileage, but it was a pill I could swallow.  But if an electric vehicle could offer the same size increase while also helping the environment, I could be interested.  I'm still not fully convinced the infrastructure is on par with gas, but we'll see.
3. Lease vs. own:  I've only ever bought the cars I've driven, for better or worse.  Since I was already branching out in vehicle size and engine type, I decided to try leasing.  That way my experiment has a fixed time window.

It's been a few weeks, and so far so good.  The vehicle looks good and feels good, but that can be said about any brand new thing.  The size felt a little uncomfortable at first, but I've gotten used to it.  The electric motor is perfect for commuting because I just charge it up in my garage overnight.  Taking it on a road trip will be a different experience.  In my limited experience with charging stations, there are at least 4 different "standard" charging interfaces (think nozzle shapes) and the converters are surprisingly not included with the vehicle.  Leasing is probably the most uncomfortable part, because I have to essentially return the vehicle in "barely used" condition in a few years, which wouldn't be a problem if I was the only person using it and also the only person on the road and in parking lots, but other people exist. #travel

I feel like "old twitter" was sort of a marketplace of ideas -- you know, the thing right wingers are always clamoring for.  It was free and open, and the marketplace (a.k.a. the userbase) allowed good ideas to percolate and bad ideas to be ridiculed.  People with bad ideas didn't like this system because it didn't allow them to spread their bad ideas. 

Enter Elon Musk, prominent Nazi.  Musk didn't like the marketplace so he simply bought it.  He changed the structure from "free and open" to "pay to win" so that paying customers would have their voices heard more.  Instead of good ideas rising to the top, bad ideas bought their way in.  On top of that, engagement became the new currency, so the bad ideas with the most engagement dominated the marketplace.  Twitter's marketplace of ideas is now a swamp of shit with the absolute worst people and worst ideas on the very top. 

Critics will say Elon had to do something to make Twitter profitable.  That sounds reasonable, but I have my doubts.  Tech companies absolutely don't need to make money.  Most corporations don't need to make money.  Private investments, stock buybacks, corporate restructurings, and mass layoffs are how pretty much all companies operate at what appears to be a profit.  It's all made up and doesn't matter at all.  The point is, Elon destroyed twitter because he's an awful lunatic attempting to curry favor with the most despicable human beings on the planet. #technology