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