Tag Archives: twitter

A Thing I’d Never Thought I’d Say:

I prefer Twitter to Facebook now.

Reasons:

  • Of the 40-ish friends I have on Facebook, most of them are either using Facebook to be passive-aggressive to another person or are pooping out kids and posting exclusively about pooping out kids (or, in one bizarre case, passively-aggressively pooping out kids). I have no interest in any of those things.
  • On Twitter, I follow The Royal Society, Calgary Transit, a few pedestrian-promoting groups, some of the AH guys, Stats Canada, other stats groups/dudes, and a fair number of baseball pages/people. So y’know, things that are interesting and drama-free.

(Except for baseball. Sometimes baseball has all the drama.)

So yeah.

Advertisements

Twitt

This is fantastic.

Sorry, I’m super busy and super stressed and super garbage.

More Ted

This is really interesting.

Twit

I think I’ve said this before on here, but I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake. The only thing Twitter is good for is sports updates. That’s the only thing. Everything else on it is dumb. I don’t want to see your oh-so-important garbage broken into 140-character chunks of text.

IT.
LOOKS.
STUPID.

Get a blog, you plebs.

Anyway, here’s the real reason for this post. The Mets Twitter posted this little guy during the game last night and I’m still laughing.

08-02-2017.png

It’s just the perfect representation of how their season is going.

THIS IS WHAT TWITTER IS FOR.

Anyway.

Are fake potatoes imitaters?

This guy gets it. He gets it.

Haha, and I’m right there with the “using emojis ironically” thing. It’s so tempting because it’s like “what in the fuck random garbage nonsense can I portray with a poop, six buckets, a dime, a plus sign, and three more poops?” but then I have to back off and not actually start, because it’s a slippery slope, yo.

It’s like Twitter. At first you use it for garbage Tweets like so:

 

But then, after a while, you start—

 

 

…okay, never mind.

Text2Personality

So I found an interesting thingy. From the website: “This service applies linguistic analytics and personality theory to infer attributes from a person’s unstructured text.” Basically, you can use someone’s Twitter account (with or without replies) or a body of text and see what’s what with their personality.

Let’s give it a shot!

My Twitter* sez:

“You are a bit critical, skeptical and can be perceived as indirect.

You are self-focused: you are more concerned with taking care of yourself than taking time for others. You are reserved: you are a private person and don’t let many people in. And you are self-conscious: you are sensitive about what others might be thinking about you.

Your choices are driven by a desire for prestige.

You consider independence to guide a large part of what you do: you like to set your own goals to decide how to best achieve them. You are relatively unconcerned with tradition: you care more about making your own path than following what others have done.”

Eh, I suppose. Traits:

06-04-2016-a

And here’s the results from entering the text of that Vancouver thing I wrote. It’s probably the longest “personal” thing I’ve written in a long time:

“You are inner-directed, shrewd and strict.

You are independent: you have a strong desire to have time to yourself. You are empathetic: you feel what others feel and are compassionate towards them. And you are calm-seeking: you prefer activities that are quiet, calm, and safe.

You are motivated to seek out experiences that provide a strong feeling of well-being.

You are relatively unconcerned with both tradition and achieving success. You care more about making your own path than following what others have done. And you make decisions with little regard for how they show off your talents.”

Traits:

06-04-2016-b

Twitter’s more accurate, I think, but that’s probably because my nonsense tweets have zero filter and are basically me just rambling about garbage.

 

*Yes, I still hate the fact I have a Twitter and, on occasion, tweet. Feel free to hate me.

I am Cantor Dust

Okay, so I know I’ve posted a bunch of examples from That Can Be My Next Tweet, but I think the results are hysterical, so here are some more. Please ignore the fact that I have a Twitter account. I hate myself for it, if that’s any consolation.

  • Wow brain, thanks for rocking. Here’s hoping 2013 is like the Oxford comma. LAWL.
  • I automatically start every written comment with the keyboard does not allowed to Shut Up. What logical!
  • I’m not to analyze the audience. Mock teaching/training day! Probably should be damned! Party time!
  • Hitting 500 miles soon; hitting 1,000,000 steps sooner. In related news: I am 10,000 days old today. Love.
  • I get way too emotionally invested in my grades! The solar flares are BLOWING MY MIND!
  • The universe works in the first few paragraphs of the “Bird” Wikipedia page.
  • My thoughts are coming! Happy birthday, Leibniz! 750 miles! One final left asffsdfhghdfhsdkfsdfafghfff 7.
  • It’s a Fjord? HAHA SCREW SLEEP I’M MAKING C++ JOKES MAKE IT STOP Calculus, could you marry calculus?
  • Stealth dust devils? Not quite sure, but I just had a dilapidated casaba? Photoshop just told you I didn’t?
  • My life is trying to recover after a picture of sleep deprivation. I was defective. Um… Shoutout.
  • Is it inappropriate to jive? The weather is you two days into depression mode. Dude, l’Hôpital? —?
  • I am a large sample size. I supposed to be tired? HELL NO, I’M MAKING C++ JOKES!
  • I HAVE 69 TWEETS AND oh I think it’s confused. Why is my eardrum to my toe. Also, happy birthday?
  • I just spent 30 minutes laughing at a migraine. SORRY BODY, SLEEP IS FOR MORTALS! The universe works!
  • Apparently I’m supposed to jive? The solar flares are with the 1,000 mile mark! That’s resume material.
  • HaHA, Visual Basic is a Rubik’s Tesseract. What. Amazing scientific discoveries > sleep. Sorry, brain.
  • I’ve walked 180 km exploring the Tweet window like a French-Canadian version of a superhero.
  • I automatically start every written comment with half an adult. Tonight I am the “Bird” Wikipedia page.
  • Forecast, you go home, open your fridge, and think. Wow, it’s only the wake of angst!
  • Had Lord Kelvin done nothing with a large sample size, I think I feel very, very alone. I feel very, very.

TWIT!

AHEM.

Twittin’

Screw you, Twitter. SCREW YOU!

(That link takes your tweet nonsense and makes it into poetry nonsense.)

Finished reading
by Claudia

I can also feel it in my heart.
As I was waking up this morning.
Poop is a fantastic form of art.

Can’t need to CREATE!!
I am a bucket of sadness tonight.
“ICU” doesn’t seem appropriate…

I absolutely hate polar coordinates.

I am so done with this semester.

My nonsense sentence is better than your Tweet

ALRIGHT so I know I just went on this huge rant about Twitter like three weeks ago or whenever that was.

But this thing is the greatest Twitter-related thing ever. It’ll take your Twitter username (handle?) and then generate a few sentence-like Twitter-sized phrases out of the words you’ve used in your past tweets.

I don’t know what it does with anyone else’s tweets, but my results are hilarious. I did like 40 of them in a row and these are the best ones:

  • I believe in fictional characters. Woo, Canadian taxes. Dude. Infinite series are just…right. Walk?
  • You liiiiiied! Walk into the Imperial Unit. Somebody needs to laugh at a tree. The internet!
  • My fridge is the Oxford comma. LAWL, I don’t think it’s confused. Why not use it for a picture?
  • If I can’t concentrate on a large sample size, I prevent turning into depression mode. Dude, l’Hôpital?
  • Why can’t I concentrate on my tongue? Rage Quit mirrors my birthday. Descartes! American taxes are BLOWING.
  • Broccoli: My thoughts are just…right. Walk into famous photographs. This infomercial is increasing.
  • My thoughts are BLOWING MY MIND! Can I think it’s warm in front of the character limit?
  • Why I am so much funnier after that? HOW?? I regret nothing. Claudia, you expand the Oxford comma. LAWL.
  • I am a tree. The solar flares are coming! The internet is trying the Oxford comma. LAWL could I marry?
  • Do ghosts enjoy Boo-lean algebra? CALGARY!!!!!! Happy birthday, Leibniz! And Red Bull. I ruined it.
  • I am so much more than Canadian taxes. Dude. Infinite series are the semester before.
  • Adshfdlagdaf NONE of July! Go blow stuff up watching Sunshine. Make Descartes absolutely hated.
  • I am an aggressive list of Sleepyhead remixes. Now this is going into depression mode. Dude, l’Hôpital! (this is like my life summary in tweet form)
  • Dear Brain: it’s time to handle an adult. Tonight I marry calculus. Just finished reading. Worst. Ending. Ever.

I still hate Twitter, but this is great. I wonder if it utilizes a Markov process of some sort to make the sentences.

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?

Cartesian Plain

(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’.)

Three Points of Fantastic Insignificance and One Point of Moderate Meh

FANTASTIC INSIGNIFICANCE:

1. I really like the word “toast.” I also really like toasters. Especially brave ones.

2. Yay, I can still run 10k in under an hour, even after not running since August!

3. I found the perfect job for me. Unfortunately, it’s at Twitter and I don’t know if I could go on living with myself if I worked for Twitter. Google, maybe (ASSIMILATION). Twitter? No.

MODERATE MEH:

Another goal I want to add to my New Year’s Resolution list is this: I want to try and make some progress on a new SEM fit index, one that works better overall than the current popular ones. While I don’t think we’ll ever arrive at an index that is as error free as we’re hoping to find, I think there is currently still a lot of room for improvement.

For example, the CFI works very well for detecting discrepancies between the model and the actual data when the discrepancies are at the latent level (e.g., the researcher’s model proposes two latent variables but the model underlying the actual data in reality has three) but does horribly at properly reflecting the degree of misspecification when there are error covariances omitted from a model (CFI shows excellent fit when the omitted error covariance is low or very high; it shows terrible fit when the omission is moderate in size).

I thought I had this super awesome idea the other day to apply a sort of bootstrapping mechanism to act as a fit index, but that’s already been thought up and either a) doesn’t work very well or b) is very hard to implement, as there are several papers on a bootstrap-like fit index but little documentation of the use of it (I didn’t come across it at all during my lit reviews). So maybe I’ll do some more research into that…perhaps my idea of how bootstrapping should be implemented in assessing fit is different (and probably way more incorrect…but whatever).

There are also transformations to look at, too, which would require examining how the minimum fit function changes as the size of the misspecification (as well as the TYPE of misspecification) changes.

You know what all this means? PARTY TIME WITH R!

I might as well be dating it, it’s not like I’ll ever have a boyfriend again.

But that’s okay. R!

Tweet and the world tweets with you. Blog and you blog alone.

Alternate title: Kilmer, please don’t haunt me

I think that I shall never glance
a tweet of any relevance
to life, to love, to truth, to function,
but serving only as an unction
to soothe the egos of the masses.
No inkling more than phatic passes
‘twixed the mind and lighted page:
the musings of the pithy sage.
No crux beneath these thoughts exist,
but is this lack of vigor missed?
Nay, but rarely do we an intelligent glitter
expect from a twit that tweets on Twitter!

Die in a fire, Twitter.

TWSB: Pokes and Tweets and Tech, Oh My!

I’m using the thin veil of “technology involves science” to disguise today’s blog as This Week’s Science Blog. This is mainly because I’ve had trouble finding any super-exciting science articles as of late. Apologies.

Anyway.

This is something I’ve always been pretty interested in: how different generations view and interact with technology. This article, written by Susan Weinschenk, reviews the similarities and differences regarding how three generations, Baby Boomers (born between 1943 and 1961), Generation X-ers (born between 1961 and 1981), and Millenials (or Generation Y, born between 1982 and 2002), interact with technology. The article is super interesting and I recommend reading it, but here are a few highlights with CLAUDIA COMMENTS!

Dualism vs. Ubiquitous: Boomers view technology as something separate, e.g., they “make a call on their cell phone,” while Millenials “make a call” and assume that said call is occurring on a cell phone as implicit information.
I don’t know if this one is inherent to generational differences or just availability differences. It seems like for Millenials (particularly the youngest ones), cell phones have existed forever and pretty much rule the world of telephone communication. To them, a landline phone is a pretty weird thing. Therefore, they make a call and assume that everyone knows the call is occurring via a cell phone because cell phones are the main available tool for making calls. For Boomers, on the other hand, they’ve had to deal with the transition from landline phones as being the main medium of voice communication to cell phones. Therefore, they still feel the need to qualify the means by which they are making a call.

Twitter and Facebook: Millenials prefer Facebook, Generation X-ers prefer Twitter, and Baby Boomers are kind of in the middle with the two.
I thought this one was pretty interesting. I would think the Millenials would be all over Twitter (‘cause, well, they are), but maybe the Generation X-ers like it because it’s not as complicated (read: mutable) as Facebook and therefore is consistently easy to use.

Is Technology Trapping Us? Baby Boomers grew up without the recent technology and are most able of the three generations discussed here to “let it go” and live without it. Generation X-ers are simultaneously most enamored with and feel most trapped by technology. Millenials incorporate technology in their lives pretty much 24/7, but are the most likely to eschew it in favor of more personal communication, such as speaking face-to-face.
It’s interesting that the “middle” generation of X-ers feel the most trapped by technology, but it also make sense. For Boomers, they can leave it ‘cause they remember life without it. Millenials seek to free themselves from it because it’s so engrained in their lives that it can become a hassle. It seems like X-ers have had to make the most effort to incorporate new technology in their lives and therefore have the worst time trying to break free of it again.

Once we’ve all aged another 20-30 years, it’ll be interesting to compare these data with those from Generation Z.

By the way, I found this article via a list entitled “47 Mind-Blowing Psychology-Proven Facts You Should Know About Yourself.” Usually I stay away from lists like these on the internet because they all seem to rehash the same things that everyone already knows over and over again, but this one is wonderfully written and actually involves interesting stuff.