I’ll be dog-sitting my little pal Bentley for a couple of weeks starting Tuesday, so I thought I should get this month’s edition of Friday Notes done early. By the time Bentley leaves, I’ll have only one Friday left in June.
Of course, big news at the end of last month. Guilty on all 34 felony counts. A whole new level of strangeness in politics. Even bigger news comes next month with sentencing. Will a President serve while serving time?
That it’s even a question we need to ask is astonishing.
It’s happy hour and you and a friend go out for drinks. The bar is serving a new drink that catches your eye, and you both order one. They’re served in martini glasses (which are upside down hollow cones) and look quite tasty (see picture).
More to the point here, the glasses look acceptably full. Not a lot of “headroom” between the top of the drink and the top of the glass. Your friend, a mathematician, bets you they can pour all of your drink into their glass without spilling a drop.
Should you take that bet?
One of the more interesting sermons I heard during my last bout of churchgoing involved the notion that prayer wasn’t necessary because God knows what’s really in our hearts. Per the dogma of Christianity, that’s actually a true point. (Albeit perhaps a surprising one for a pastor to preach.)
It points out a key distinction between theism and deism. In the former, most religions, God is personally involved with us and hears our prayers (God’s responses have always been a different matter.) In the latter, God is not personally involved and doesn’t.
On the other hand, some see prayer as merely a form of meditation.
Bye-bye, TARDIS, bye-bye!
It’s TV Tuesday and time for another episode of channel surfing over what I’ve been watching on the TV machine. Speaking of which, I kind of miss channel surfing. It was fun seeing what else is on. (It’s how I stumbled on Little Big Town, now a favorite band.)
People with my (take your pick) interests, background, point of view, do not find most modern fare favorable. I’ve gone on about that plenty in the pages and years of this blog.
And that’s mostly what this post is, so caveat lector.
In the Science Notes post published last Friday, I didn’t have room for the last article that caught my eye in recent issues of New Scientist. This article was, I thought, a bit different from the others and seemed to require its own post.
Firstly, it has a meaty heft and ties in with an old post of mine as well as some notes I have for a post I thought to call Stillness Redux (in reference back to that old post).
What’s ironic to me is how what the article offers as possible anodyne for modern life is very much the life I’ve lived since I began navigating my own course across life’s seas.
It’s Friday, and I have Notes, but they’re all Science Notes, so while this post (and any others of similar ilk that may follow) is in the spirit of Friday Notes, it comes from a different direction. Science from right field, so to speak, rather than the usual oddities from left field.
These Notes were originally meant as reminders to mention some cool science things to friends over burgers and beers (or whatever). But rather than tasty morsels for the few, why not for the many? (Or at least for a few more.)
So today, Science Notes (and some reactions):
In the last post, I mentioned a simple logic puzzle that I’d stumbled over while wandering around the interweb. Start with four glasses, in a row, all upright. The goal is, through a series of moves, to turn them all upside down. On each move, you flip three of the four glasses — up if down or down if up.
The goal is to end up with all four glasses upside-down in the least number of moves possible. It’s not hard to find the solution by trial and error, but it turns out there’s an underlying trick that not only solves it but solves it regardless of the number of glasses (where each move flips N-1).
Bonus: these solutions even look pretty — or at least symmetrical.
I’ve been a semi-surreal mood lately. From a combination of things. It’s an election year. Politics these days is bad enough, but the last few Presidential elections seem to have written a weird new normal. Now, one candidate is in a criminal trial and potentially could be jailed before the election.
I spent winter wondering if I’d have wasps in the house again come summer. I’ve found three so far. Still no clue how they get in. Looks like I need an exterminator. Another surreal bullet point: this past winter kinda… wasn’t. Oddly, I missed it.
The surreal aside, however, Friday Notes marches on.
I don’t drink coffee. I never have. (Call me different and you’ll be right at least nine times out of ten.) In my whole life, I’ve consumed maybe two cups worth. That required multiple attempts — usually friends forcing it on me because “you’ll like this [flavor|variety|brand|style], I promise!”
They’ve all struck out. I just don’t care for the stuff, not even iced, not even extremely flavored and tarted up. In contrast, I’ve always liked iced tea, and therein lies my tale for the day. Because tea has plenty of caffeine, too.
And it gave me a double lesson about [1] why people drink coffee (one word: caffeine) and [B] the downside of drinking coffee (one word: caffeine).
Earlier this year, I posted about that math gag that seems to prove (very mathematically) that 2=0 (an alternate version “proves” 1=0 using the same trick: a covert division by zero, an operation whose undefined result breaks the chain of logic).
Today I’m posting about another somewhat common mathematical (or rather, geometrical) gag — one involving chocolate! In the form of a magical chocolate bar that lets us remove an infinite number of bite-sized pieces but somehow remains the same size. It seems impossible.
And of course, it is. In this post I reveal the magician’s trick!
Posts pertaining to programming!
Logos con carne 