- 0 is the most attractive number. In areas where it makes sense, -0 is not as attractive but has an evil thrill associated with it that makes it better
- Nonzero Integers ending in 0 are very very attractive
- Even Integers are more attractive than odd numbers
- Integers ending in 5 are fairly attractive, provided that the tens digit is not 0
- 4 is more attractive than 2
- 7 is sneaky
- 6 is less attractive than 8 and much less attractive than 4
- Scientific notation is not attractive but it can be cute, provided it is written in E notation. 3.07E4 is cute, but 3.07×10⁴ is not. If the number after the E is 0, it is not at all cute.
- Rational numbers are both cute and attractive when written in numerator-denominator fractions where both are integers (seems redundant, but actually isn't)
- Standard decimal notation is ugly
- Decimal, Oct, and Hex are the pretty bases
- Complex numbers are attractive in a very kinky way. Transfinites are even more so.
- Avogadro's number is like a platonic friend. It needs a cool symbol because it's only attractive in the ideal sense, not the form. Perhaps that's what makes it platonic?
- π isn't particularly attractive for most purposes.
I took a nice jog tonight in deep darkness.
Recently I've been a bit obsessed with the wonderful voice of Orson Welles. For the real stuff, archive.org has the full "War of the Worlds" broadcasts online for free download (caution: Does not actually have lots of Welles). I learned that Maurice LaMarche (a comedian) gave the impression of Welles for many cartoons I've liked (the Critic, Pinky and the Brain (Brain had Welles's voice), Freakazoid) but his comic acts are irritating beyond belief. Tangentally related, a comic that I do like, Norman Lovett (played Holly in Red Dwarf) has very amusing episodes online of various things he's been in/written.
- Detroit's Mayor is in Jail for violating the terms of his release on bond for his trial on something else.
- I don't remember how I came across it, but "Make" magazine looks particularly awesome.
- Two movies I think might be interesting to see: "Red" and Kryzsztof Kieslowski's three colours trilogy look neat. They're unrelated unless you, the reader, decides they arn't.
- My excitement with Obama is only moderate - I'm still kind of disappointed that we can't do better, but he still seems to be a good candidate - I'd say my gut feeling on him is around 70%. One of the things I think he's doing right is campaigning in every state - while in the short term it may seem a waste of money, it's important for two reasons:
- He would lead the entire country rather than just the solidly Democratic ones. To help push against cynicism, it's important that he connect to as much of the people as possible
- He opens the door for radical politican changes in states. I don't think that states really "make sense" on a deep level, especially in the presidency. Treating the states as static entities makes the problems I see worse.
Also, a random personal opinion: purses are very ugly/unsexy. Backpacks and computer bags both say much more awesome things about a person than a purse.. even a fanny pack/bum bag is better. I'm not sure if many other people are with me on this æsthetic judgement though...
- In theory, many of the values I care about in an employer are "inefficiencies" in capitalism - treating employees well and caring for them, and are provided, at most, because of competition - "externalities" that the system is forced to care for to a limited extent for higher-waged employees.
- I identify more with socialist values and organisations because the welfare of all is closer to their heart
- But... sufficiently wealthy companies/people/subculture-culture value these things too, for their own kind (a problem) and provide them even given that they're inefficiencies, while sufficiently poor organisations (even those that are not corrupt) often don't provide comprehensive care (material side of these values) because the cost is so high relative to operations.
- Some businesses, those that rely on highly-trained/paid employees, are almost like socialism for the rich, with the hidden costs shuffled under the carpet (do the janitors get benefits? where do the raw materials come from, if any?)
- Notion of "selling out" - break with solidarity of good of all
Strong crushes that don't want to go away and don't get fulfilled suck. I still have 3 that float around when my head isn't looking right at the ground. Damn.
Rereading Wolfram's "New Kind of Science", courtesy being given Gustavo's copy as he prepares to leave town. It's LOLtastic, alhough one gets the impression, given enough of a background on Philosophy of Science, that there are some interesting ideas buried behind the grandiose claims/interpretations and terribly kooky presentation. It is possible that changes in the process and culture of science could lead to the Institution of Science in global society doing a better job, and that there is a reluctance to adopt certain kinds of models - we might consider the adoption of and integration of statistical reasoning into science as an analogy of a past shift across different fields (perhaps we can even imagine a philosophical "camp" lightly parallel to intuitionists in mathematics that would refuse to accept most or all statistical reasoning as valid). It would be interesting to imagine under what kind of a forum such shifts/philosophy could be discussed - it would pair naturally (like a wine) with general discussion on what is accepted as valid science in each discipline and what journals of specific sciences demand (either through the editors or "enforced" through peer-review) of those who would publish.
Dotfiles.org looks pretty cool.