aLDSKFJALKGHALDKFHS
People who comment on the eating habits of others drive me up the freaking wall.
Like, it’s okay if you’re good friends with the someone and you’re both okay with the comments, but if you’re acquaintances/friends that aren’t too close/strangers, then it’s like…seriously?
Who even cares, anyway? What business is it of yours? So Person X eats more than you/less than you/rarely/frequently/constantly/late at night/only on odd days of the month/food you’d never touch with a 10-foot pole? Unless you’re legitimately concerned about their health (and even then it can be iffy), don’t comment on it. Because it doesn’t concern you.
Also, some people just don’t like talking about that kind of stuff, so if someone says to them, “why do you [some obnoxious comment about food habits]?” it might make them feel super awkward or embarrassed.
So shut up.
Apple! Y U no good at business anymore?
ALRIGHT, ITUNES, WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE.
Apparently, iTunes has stopped offering its weekly free song. I know they’ve been doing that since at least 2006, but now they’ve just decided to stop.
What the hell?
Is it just me, or is that a super dumb move? I can, off the top of my head, name at least ten artists that have gotten a lot of good publicity by having a free song of theirs offered on iTunes. Remember when Sleepyhead was the freebie of the week? I can still remember the exact date I downloaded that song because it was such a good one. And I don’t know about other people, but I know that for me and for quite a few of my friends, that was our first exposure to Passion Pit and we’ve all become pretty big Passion Pit fans since.
I echo the Apple forum poster quoted in this article: “… the free single each week got me to the Store and I usually bought a few songs. Now, there’s less reason to go.”
I pretty much always wound up buying another song or two once I got my freebie, just because I was in the iTunes store and always ended up browsing the music. I can still browse now, of course, but that tantalizing allure of the freebie is gone and I probably won’t end up buying as much as I used to*.
This hurts my music soul. I have gotten some damn good songs from the iTunes weekly freebie thing:
- Lights and Music
- Shake It
- Symphonies
- Chocolate
- Fireflies
- Buildings and Mountains
- Night Like This
- I’m going to mention Sleepyhead again, ‘cause that song was my #1 most played for like five years straight.
Good move, iTunes. Good move.
*Okay, that’s a lie; I need to be able to complete my Decade of Music project, after all. So let’s just say I’ll be less motivated to browse and more likely to buy songs I’ve already heard elsewhere, like on YouTube and such.
Complex analysis: it’s all fun and games until someone loses an i.
AHEM. If anyone ever tells you you’re “too old” to contribute to your field of choice…
Granted, it’s a subjective collection of greatest works/greatest minds, but notice the wide spread of ages in all categories.
This is important to me mainly because I’ve always heard (from various people/sources) that math, in particular, is “for the young” and that once you’re past a certain age (30 is commonly mentioned), learning math—let alone understanding it on an intuitive level—just doesn’t happen. And good luck trying to contribute something to the field if you’re 30+, right?
That idea’s just always bothered me. What does age have anything to do with your math ability (apart from, of course, possibly having more learning time in general if you start at an earlier age versus an older age)? I guess it may be true that the older you get, the harder it is to learn in general, but there’s no reason why that should translate to “you’re 30, so now suddenly the math part of your brain will never understand anything new and you will be of no use to the field, so get out and go study Brit lit or something!”
Hell, based on personal experience, I feel like I’m getting more from my “older” degrees (like math, which I got at age 26) than I did with my “younger” degrees (like psych and philosophy, ages 20 and 21 respectively). That of course may just be due to the fact that since I’ve been in school for SO LONG that my brain’s just kind of morphed into some super-efficient book-learning machine, but I think it’s more likely that seeing the processes and connections and “inner workings” of a lot of subjects and topics is just easier for me now that I’m a little older. I’m not sure if that’s the case for other people who seem unable to leave academia like myself (I keep trying, but it KEEPS DRAWING ME BACK IN), but it’s certainly true for me.
ANYWAY.
How to Make Introductory Statistics Completely Unappealing: A Handy Guide
(Inspired by past experience, past observations, and the complaints of undergraduates from three—count ‘em, three—universities.)
- On the first day of class, go over the syllabus, ask if there are any questions, and then launch right into the material. Omit any form of road map for the course or any reasoning as to why everyone from bio majors to engineering majors to political science majors are required to take the course.
- Pick the driest, most boring textbook possible. Use it and it alone as supplemental material to your lecture notes.
- Assume that all students, regardless of actual background or major, are familiar with such thing as summation notation, factorials, slopes, and calculus. That sociology major sitting in the middle row who’s struggling simply because they don’t know that 5! = 5*4*3*2*1? That’s their problem, not yours.
- Make sure your class is all application, no theory. After all, why would people need to understand the reasoning behind the tests they’re using so long as they know how to do the tests?
- If you cannot implement the above method, try making sure your class is all theory and no application. After all, if you teach the theory really well, odds are the students will be able to derive the practical applications by themselves, right?
- Stick to the most boring examples you can think of, and make sure every example you use is coming from the same area of research. Do you have a background in business? Every example should be business-related and involve as many technical terms as you can throw in there. Same idea if your background is biology or psychology. That way, students can really see how statistics can be used in practically every field—as long as that field is yours.
- There are plenty of cool, funny, and downright fascinating examples where statistics are used in unique and exciting ways. Make sure you keep these engaging examples out of the classroom.
- If there is a topic that the majority of the class is struggling with, assume that it’s their own faults for not studying it well enough and press onward to new material. Breadth, not depth, right? Who cares if there’s a section people are struggling with as long as you cover every chapter in the textbook by the end of the semester.
- Offer only one explanation of each topic. All students learn the same, and thus why waste time trying to explain a concept in two or more different ways? If there is confusion over your explanation as to why we use an ANOVA versus a bunch of paired t-tests for comparing 3+ means, it’s not your problem. Everyone should just be able to understand your explanation with no problem, so long as they’re applying themselves.
- Finally, lecture in the most unenthusiastic voice possible. After all, you’re talking about numbers, right? Numbers are obviously inherently boring and this boringness should be conveyed through your lecturing style. If students are willing to learn, they should be able to get past your droning voice at 8:30 in the morning. Those who fall asleep simply are slackers.
All of the above info must already be very obvious, because so many statistics teachers seem to glean their teaching techniques from at least one or two of the above points.
After all, if we’re not making statistics the most painful subject to learn, we’re not doing our jobs right.
Hipster Telephone had a “#” before it was cool.
I need to draw Hipster Telephone.
I was unaware that the term “pound sign” does not usually apply to the symbol “#” outside of the United States—hence my hesitation to use it in my title and confuse people even more than I already do. And I refuse to use the term “hashtag” because I’m too cool for school social media. Also, “hashtag” automatically reminds me of Twitter, and Twitter is my mortal enemy. Here are some things I dislike about Twitter:
- If I only get 140 characters to express my thoughts, you’d best be expecting some snarky rebellion on my part, ‘cause 140 characters ain’t happening. I can’t even voice my dislike of the 140 character limit in 140 characters. I CAN HARDLY EVEN SAY “HELLO” IN 140 CHARACTERS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
- “I’mma tweet this” is the most obnoxious phrase to enter the English language in the last 900 years.
- When did we turn into birds, anyway?
- When did we turn into birds that can only “tweet” the length of 140 characters? What if actual birds had this limitation? Imagine the bird version of Shakespeare (heh, “Bird Bard”) dealing with such a thing. Blasphemy.
- Wait, DID BIRDS IMPOSE THIS LIMIT ON US? Is Twitter really some sort of avian takeover of the human race?
- I’m picturing some sort of European Union: Bird Version type thing. “Alright guys, so we tried to give the humans our flu, but that didn’t take ‘em out like we’d hoped. So let’s set up this website—we’ll call it Twitter ‘cause that’s cute and they’re dumb—and give ‘em 140 characters to blather on about their day or their underwear or whatever it is they talk about when we’re not around. Soon their language will devolve into nonsensical 140-character pseudo sentences, which will shortly be taken over by hashtags. THEN WE WILL RISE, BRETHREN, AND TAKE OVER THE SKIES!” #birduprising2015
- The thing that really gets me is when people want to tweet something that’s more than 140 characters, so they just break it up into like 9 separate tweets, each of which is hardly a coherent sentence on its own. Really? Get a blog, long-winded bro! There’s no character limit on a blog! And blogging’s easy, see? Even I can do it!
- The 140-character thing is really what I’m stuck on. SERIOUSLY.
- Can you imagine someone like Descartes trying to use Twitter?
(I just spent five minutes not only looking for a “fake tweet generator” but also finding the smallest pic of Descartes to center in that little box. Good lord.)
- #You #don’t #need #these #buggers #on #every #freaking #word
- I…I just don’t get the appeal, to be honest. If I like someone enough to want to read their thoughts/opinions, I’d probably want to read more than 140-character snippets. Just sayin’.
- (Here’s where I turn into Hypocrite Central and admit with downcast eyes that I do, in fact, have a Twitter account that does, in fact, have more than 0 tweets. DON’T YOU GO SEARCHING FOR IT OR I’LL MAKE #birduprising2015 A THING, I SWEAR TO GOD.)
Wow, this blog took a serious turn into a Twitter rant, didn’t it? I can’t even remember what I was originally going to blog about.
Oops.
That happens sometimes.
(Also, something like a bagel might be more intuitively represented using spherical coordinates rather than Cartesian coordinates. Just sayin’.)
Another rant, haha
Sorry, I’m in rant-mode this week.
Alright, so one of the malls I walk to all the time is North Hill Centre. The reason I frequent this mall so much is because it’s in between UC and my apartment, meaning I can walk there from school, get grocery nonsense at Safeway, and walk home fairly easily.
To get to the mall form across the street, you have to go over this above-highway walkway thingy. Here’s Google Maps to help you visualize this:
(Do you like my super professional-looking labeling?)
Let’s zoom in on the mall parking lot, shall we?
Oh, what’s this yellow painted walkway? A corridor for pedestrians to get through the parking lot, perhaps?
Why yes it is! Look, the Google Maps shot even has pedestrians utilizing it!
So how come every time I go to that damn mall there’s at least one car parked in that yellow walkway?
Seriously. Do they really think that’s a special little parking spot for them? Do they not realize it’s a WALKWAY for LEGS??
It wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t so hard to cross right there (okay, maybe it still would), but the way the other parking spots are arranged makes it hard for the cars to see you and you to see the cars. Heck, even when the walkway’s clear you basically have to step out into the lot to see if there are any cars coming. So why not add the obstacle of one or two drivers thinking that they’re super special and allowed to park in the shiny yellow spots?
*frustrated pedestrian mumbling*
Pedestrian Rant
There are two types of drivers here:
- Those who are super, super courteous to pedestrians and will stop like half a block away to let you cross the street and/or who will smile and wave at you when you take 3 minutes to cross because you’re trucking through two feet of slush.
- Those who will mow you down because they’re on their phone/are far too important to wait at most 15 seconds for you to cross the street/both of the above/taxi drivers.
Seriously, the taxi drivers like swerve to mow down pedestrians here. “Y U NO PAY ME FARE TO GET WHERE UR GOING HOW ABOUT I TAKE OUT YOUR LEGS THEN YOU’LL HAVE TO USE MY SERVICES HAHAHAHAHA”
(Or so they appear to be thinking.)
I don’t think I ever had a close call with a car in Vancouver; here I’ve had at least three. Not cool, Calgarians, not cool!
(Except for those of you drivers who are very pedestrian-aware. You guys rock.)
THE END!
STRUM STRUM I’M A DRUM
Alright you dude-machines, it’s time for a rant (and lots of caps lock).
(I’ve ranted about this like 238 times before, but it’s still important, so you have to deal with it.)
It really bothers me when people divorce mathematical theorems/proofs/lemmas/what-have-yous from the people who came up with them.
Like, I get it. The math on its own is obviously important. DUH.
But it really bugs the crap out of me when people are like, “why do we care about Such-And-Such who came up with the Such-And-Such Theorem? Just give us the math, yo!”
UM HELLO YOU WOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THE SUCH-AND-SUCH THEOREM IF IT WEREN’T FOR SUCH-AND-SUCH SO GIVE SUCH-AND-SUCH THEIR MOMENT IN THE SUN OKEY-DOKEY?
ALSO. I think knowing who/when/why/how someone freaking COMES UP WITH A THEOREM (or lemma or proof or whatev) can not only help someone better understand the reasoning/logic behind the theorem, but can also help put it into context with other possibly non-math events and maybe make it more relevant/understandable. Remember when I talked about how Kepler doubted the accuracy of the volume measure of a wine maker’s wine barrel and how that helped lead him on the path to figuring out a more accurate method of measuring the volume of such an oddly-shaped object? Not only is that an interesting tidbit of knowledge, but it helps give some context/background for the beginnings of calculus. It’s not necessary to understand the math, but I think it helps from making the math seem so removed from “real life” as it has a tendency to be if it’s taught as a bunch of formulas and Greek letters and “this will be on the test so memorize it” pieces of info.
Now Showing:
I’m writing a musical. It’s called “Fuck You, U of I” and features such show-stopping hits as:
- “The ‘I’ Stands for ‘Incompetence’”
- “This Class is Required to Graduate but is Only Offered Once a Decade”
- “We Have No Money, so Let’s Renovate the Kibbie Dome!”
- “Oh, We Promised You a Job? Sorry, You Out of Luck, Bro!”
- “Fuck Bitches, Acquire Debt”
- “Oops, We Lost Your Tuition Check!”
- The Ballad of the Athletes on Academic Probation (Alternate Title: “Blame the Profs!”)
- “We Have No Money, so Let’s Renovate the Kibbie Dome!” (Redux)
Every damn year with this place, man. Every. Damn. Year.
Alright, it’s rant time
So I’m on Tumblr a lot. I like Tumblr because I can find fellow AH fanatics and not feel so weird about quoting Gavin Free to myself all the time I like to watch trends. I like to watch how certain things work their way around Tumblr and how quickly/slowly they do so.
There’s been one or two posts that have been going around lately that I would like to comment on, if y’all don’t mind.
(If you do mind, just skip this blog, ‘cause I’m gonna rant here anyway.)
(AGH TUMBLR IS DOWN WHY DO YOU FAIL ME WHEN I NEED YOU?!)
So I actually can’t pull up the posts at the moment like I wanted to (see above sentence), but the gist of them is this: people who do well under the implementation of our current educational methods (sit down and be lectured to, then take tests) aren’t actually learning and don’t actually know anything about the material they’re being taught. They’re just good at working the system. This whole thing links in with the opinion that GPA is just a measure of how well someone can work said system.
‘Kay, let’s pause for a moment.
I think most people who make this argument against the current most common delivery of information in our schools don’t think that people who just don’t do well in school are stupid and are incapable of learning. They just can’t work the system. They’re perfectly intelligent individuals who are fully capable of learning and retaining new info; they just don’t learn well when they’re forced to sit and listen to a teacher prattle on about something. Maybe they’d do better in a situation where they were able to watch active demonstrations of whatever material’s being taught (like a chemistry teacher throwing potassium in water rather than just talking about how/why doing so causes an explosion) or doing activities involving the material being taught (like actually throwing the K into the H2O themselves).
In fact, this is the whole idea behind different learning styles, is it not? Some people learn better one way, some people learn better another. It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption to make—not everyone gathers information in the same way.
So think about this for a second. If people all have different learning styles and we accept that a good number of people don’t learn best when sitting in a classroom and taking notes as a prof lectures, shouldn’t we also accept that there are likely people who do learn best in that environment? I mean, I know that schools across the globe don’t all follow this “students sit and listen to teacher talk” template, but you’ve got to think that such template wasn’t dreamt up by a bunch of people who sat around snickering “haha, let’s force students to follow this method even though it doesn’t work for anyone!” It was probably, at least in part, originally conceptualized by people who either learned best this way themselves or thought others did.
And it does work best for some people. I know that for a fact because I am one of those people. I learn best when I’m “forced” to listen to someone talk about the material. I have a very good aural memory. And like quite a lot of people, I remember stuff better when I’m exposed to it multiple times. That’s why I write stuff down during lecture. I hear the material, I write down the material, and the written stuff is there later if I need to refer to it. That works for me. I learn things that way. I’m the type of person for whom “they system” just works because it just so happens to match my learning style.
I know a lot of people for whom lectures aren’t very beneficial but labs really help them learn. I don’t usually retain stuff that’s taught in lab-like settings because when I get “hands on” with material, I like to do it alone and on my own time. Labs are stressful and they don’t help me learn. If our current educational system was all hands-on lab-based, I’d have to work extra super hard to retain anything ‘cause that’s just not the way my brain works.
So I guess what this meandering rant boils down to is this: for a lot of people, the current system may not be their ideal way to learn, and therefore some have probably developed ways to “work the system” and look like they’re doing well even if they’re not retaining anything past what’s necessary to earn them an A in a semester-long class. But for some people, maybe they’re not working the system at all—for them, the system just…works.
So please think of that next time you have the urge to assume that people who do well in school nowadays are just good at faking their way through.
[rant over; commencing Achievement Hunter video binge]
Alright, so here’s the deal:
We’ve all seen the posts on Tumblr/Facebook/wherever that say “You are more than your grades.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. For most people, that’s true.
But not for me.
I get a lot of crap for putting so much importance on my grades. “It really doesn’t matter what grades you get,” people say. “Past college, no one gives a crap.”
I know that, okay?
But I still put practically all of my self-worth into the grades I get. Why? Because I have no other redeemable qualities as a human being.
I suck at pretty much everything. I’m not pretty. I’m not funny. I have major anger issues. I’m not a good conversationalist. I have no original thoughts. I’m lazy. I’m messy. I have no close friends. I can’t even make friends anymore. I doubt I’ll ever be in a relationship again. I have horrible, self-destructive habits that also hurt others. I’m selfish. I’m negative. I’m uninteresting. I’m just…not a good person. But I’m pretty damn good at school.
So that’s where I focus my attention. That’s where I put all my worth, because that’s the only thing I’ve really got.
So yeah.
I don’t know why I had the sudden urge to make that declaration. Probably because I’m having yet another “stupid night” and I needed to either vent or go run into traffic.
Either way. I really don’t care anymore.
We’ve all seen the posts on Tumblr/Facebook/wherever that say “You are more than your grades.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. For most people, that’s true.
But not for me.
I get a lot of crap for putting so much importance on my grades.
“It really doesn’t matter what grades you get,” people say. “Past college, no one gives a crap.”
I know that, okay?
But I still put practically all of my self-worth into the grades I get.
Why?
Because I have no other redeemable qualities as a human being.
I suck at pretty much everything. I’m not pretty. I’m not funny. I have major anger issues. I’m not a good conversationalist. I have no original thoughts. I’m lazy. I’m messy. I have no close friends. I can’t even make friends anymore. I doubt I’ll ever be in a relationship again. I have horrible, self-destructive habits that also hurt others. I’m selfish. I’m negative. I’m uninteresting. I’m just…not a good person.
But I’m pretty damn good at school.
So that’s where I focus my attention. That’s where I put all my worth, because that’s the only thing I’ve really got.
So yeah.
I don’t know why I had the sudden urge to make that declaration. Probably because I’m having yet another “stupid night” and I needed to either vent or go run into traffic.
Either way. I really don’t care anymore.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Mini Rant
I’ve always hated the phrase “you are not your job” when used as a way to state that what you do for a living shouldn’t define who you are.
“But why, Claudia?”
I’ll tell you why! One of the first things we ask a new acquaintance/date/dude we sit next to on the bus is “what do you do?” And people respond with all sorts of things. “I am a barista.” “I am a student.” “I am a rocket scientist.” “I am currently unemployed.”
Clearly, jobs matter (or we just really suck at asking each other interesting questions).
So my claim is this: if we’re so bent on being interested in other peoples’ jobs, clearly we must think that the job itself has something to do with the person’s personality or likes or desires or whatnot.
And if we expect someone’s job to be a reflection of them (why else would we ask what they did for a living, after all?), clearly we think that there’s something going on where our jobs should at least bring us some modicum of joy.
Right?
So what am I saying? I’m saying that your job shouldn’t define who you are—you should find a job where your attitude about said job defines who you are.
EXAMPLE: suppose there’s this dude who really, really, really liked repairing watches. So he gets a job as a watch repairer. Now, watch repairer is probably not the sort of occupation where you’d think, “man, is that guy gonna change the world or what?!” And the dude doesn’t think so, either. But that doesn’t change the fact that he really, really, really likes enjoys his job because he’s doing what he likes to do.
And every time someone asks him what he does, he enthusiastically replies, “I’m a watch repairer!” as if it was the coolest, most important thing a person could be.
Because to him, it is.*
Now obviously I know we can’t always have jobs like this—or even that many of us won’t ever get to have jobs like this. But I think we should never stop striving to have jobs that we want to have define us. Because if we’re not enthusiastic about the thing we spend most of our waking hours doing, why are we even bothering with life?
*Note: this is pretty much how I feel about my current job
FFFFFFFFFFFF
I haven’t given you a proper rant yet this year, have I?
Well buckle up.
Recall this entry I posted awhile back about my relationship with math throughout my life. I’ve spent most of my college career trying to overcome my fear of failing at all things math (to reiterate an important point: I don’t (and never did) hate math, and I’m not afraid of math itself, I’m afraid of sucking at math). And I think I’ve done a pretty damn good job of it, all things considered. Hell, I’m technically a math major now anyway.
But I still get major, major anxiety when it comes to math tests. I get test anxiety in general, but my math test anxiety is and has always been through the roof. I try to overcome it and tell it to shut the hell up, but it’s really hard for me to do so.
So you can imagine my frustration at hearing my dad repeatedly tell me that I’m an “artsy” person, not a “science” person whenever I mention my anxieties regarding math.
Couple points here.
Point the First:
Um, what? Okay, let’s for a second go along with this idea that there’s a strict demarcation between the artsy and the sciency. Last time I checked, I teach stats. That’s pretty damn sciencey, bro.
Point the Second:
I’m no genius or anything, but I’m pretty sure that people don’t fit into two nice little categories based on whether they have a propensity for painting or a propensity for solving integrals. You’re an academic, dad. You should at least know that a lot of the people we tend to think of as really freaking smart have been both “artistic” in the stereotypical sense and “sciencey” in the stereotypical sense. Mutual exclusivity does not apply here.
Point the Third:
This is the least important one, but that really messed with my anxiety levels. When someone’s anxious about doing something, you don’t essentially tell them “yeah, you shouldn’t be doing that anyway. You’re not expected to be able to do it ‘cause you’re not supposed to do it in the first place.” I don’t expect a pep rally or anything, but I wouldn’t mind it if you kept quiet about your doubts regarding my math ability when I say “hey, I’m anxious about math.”
BAH.
This was going to be longer, but I can feel my blood pressure rising and I still have homework to do. So I’m going to end this before this post spirals off into a black hole of seething anger and repression.
LAKFAJLALSDJFLDHF FREAKING COMPANIES
I’m not a frequenter of eBay, at least not to the extent I used to be. But I logged on today ’cause I wanted to see if anyone was selling any Alex Colman pants.
But before I could even start my shoppin’, this caught my eye:
What in the hell nonsense is this?! Seriously. The old eBay logo was iconic enough that I remember it as being one of the first “brands” on the internet from way back when I first started using it.
But I guess the 17-year-old company didn’t think of that in its throws of teen rebelliousness. It looks like eBay president Devin Wenig ran off to Fonts.com and snatched up the first sans serif that looked trendy, much like a young hipster runs to a newly-opened Hot Topic store to buy a crappy Twilight shirt.
And the result?
A colorful Bing wannabe that unfortunately loses the iconic trigger of the old, playful, “stop bidding against me, or I will INVADE YOU!” eBay.
It’s a sad day for the internet.
Scumbag Calibri
So I’ve figured out why Calibri is pretty much my least favorite font ever!
I was typing a draft of an email at work the other day. On the computers there, Microsoft Word’s settings haven’t been changed from their defaults; as such, things are automatically typed up in Calibri.
Gross, I know.
Anyway. Typing a draft of an email. I highlighted a phrase to italicize it and noticed something interesting:
Notice anything? I mean, aside from the italic-ness. Look again:
Mr. High and Mighty Calibri thinks it’s okay to change the lowercase g and lowercase a from double-story to single-story (actual terms) when italicizing.
Oh silly little arrogant fartface font. I knew there was a reason I didn’t like you, apart from your attempted overthrow of the Times New Roman dynasty upon the arrival of Word 2007 and all its tab-happy obnoxiousness.
Screw you! Times New Roman forever!
Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na…BLOG MAN!
I know I’ve mentioned this on here before at least once, but I’m going to mention it again because it still pisses me off and I keep hearing it more and more nowadays.
Judging others by their musical tastes makes you look dumb.
Almost everywhere you go, especially on the internet, you’ll hear people judge one another based upon their musical tastes.
And on Failblog as well.
All I have to say is this: who freaking cares?
Music is subjective, people. It’s a form of art, like paintings or sculpture or pieces of lit. I don’t hear people going around berating each other because one dude likes Hemingway and some other dude likes Stephen King (okay, maybe with some of my friends I hear that, but it’s not nearly as common as “OMG u leik justn beeber ur a horable prsn go die in a fyre!!!111one!”).
Is it because music is just so exposed? It’s everywhere? Or is it because it’s something that everyone likes? I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone who’s said they didn’t like music. Everyone likes music. Maybe it’s just something that’s so personal and so tied in with who you are that it’s easy to get overly defensive about it and kind of polarize music into “good” and “bad”.
But still, people…think about how stupid it is to judge others based on what conglomeration of sounds they prefer over others.
Unless they don’t like Sleepyhead. Then you can give them crap. ;)











