How to write like Dan Brown
May. 8th, 2013 05:37 pmIf you saw a mainstream link to "How to write like Dan Brown" would you expect it was sarcasm, or serious?
Dear Orange Mobile Customer Support
Apr. 17th, 2013 01:11 pmDear Orange Mobile Customer Support
Dear Orange Mobile Customer Support,
This may surprise you to know, but most MOBILE PHONE customers call your MOBILE PHONE customer service support line from their MOBILE PHONES. This means:
1. Thy can't easily listen and press buttons on the keypad at the same time.
2. It's unnecessarily difficult to memorise which letters used to be on which keypad buttons in the last millennium. I can just about do it because I've used it enough, and remember that "1" was used for something else, and "abc" starts on "2". Is there a good reason we can't use our KEYBOARDS for entering letters?
Also:
1. The convoluted "press the number corresponding to the numeric value of 3rd character of your password divided by three and a half plus one" system is rather undermined when the phone rep helpfully responds to "I can't remember which password I used" with "is it the <something> one?" I don't think you understand how passwords work. (Hypocritically, I might rather have the convenience over the security, but it's still a bad idea to pretend you're more secure than you are.)
2. I first got an orange phone about ten years ago. The breakdown of which systems (phone, web, pin, etc) use completely separate passwords has changed in that time. Try something helpful like "this is the same password you use on the website" or "this is not the same password you use on the website, you would have had to set it up when you set up the account" would be more helpful than "I don't know".
3. I'm aware you perpetrate an internal zargon, but are you seriously unaware that people who are not mobile phone providers may not see "disconnect from the network" and "disconnect from the network with a PAC code" as two disparate options? If someone says they want to disconnect from your network, which is more likely?
A. They are one of the 99% of people who are cancelling because they're moving to a different network and ALWAYS want to keep their mobile phone number and used "disconnected" in the normal English meaning, not the mobile phone operator specific meaning, or,
B. They are one of the 1% of people who has decided mobile phones are for mugs, or who wants to vanish unreachably from their friends, and divined that "disconnect" means "disconnect without a PAC code"?
I think A is more likely. Even if you consider it imperative that you force them to repeat their request using your terminology, a better way to do that would be to ask them to, not deliberately misunderstand them and force them to start over.
4. I'm going to stop giving you money. I'd prefer you to stop giving me mobile phone service. I can't believe you don't have a procedure for this. But no. I have to pay for the following month come what may. And I can be issued with a PAC code which only operates UNTIL the end of the month. And if I fail to apply that in 26 days time, Orange are entitled to RENEW billing me. How the hell is that legal? And to me that sounds like "I have to pay for two days of overlap". But no, the rep thought that was completely wrong, but I couldn't understand how what he said was different.
I'm sure there's a good reason it works that way, but I was still very frustrated.
Love Jack
Postamble
Oh dear. If I can find that much wrong in a five minute conversation with (apparently) a successful outcome, how can I cope with the rest of life? I think the problem is that I instinctively EXPECT things to make sense, and if they don't, either hate myself for misunderstanding, or hate the person I'm talking to for being difficult. Which I KNOW shouldn't be the case -- I KNOW that a lot of the time, "just get it sorted" is the only option, and it's only worth so much effort. But knowing it doesn't convince my emotions to actually believe it :(
Dear Orange Mobile Customer Support,
This may surprise you to know, but most MOBILE PHONE customers call your MOBILE PHONE customer service support line from their MOBILE PHONES. This means:
1. Thy can't easily listen and press buttons on the keypad at the same time.
2. It's unnecessarily difficult to memorise which letters used to be on which keypad buttons in the last millennium. I can just about do it because I've used it enough, and remember that "1" was used for something else, and "abc" starts on "2". Is there a good reason we can't use our KEYBOARDS for entering letters?
Also:
1. The convoluted "press the number corresponding to the numeric value of 3rd character of your password divided by three and a half plus one" system is rather undermined when the phone rep helpfully responds to "I can't remember which password I used" with "is it the <something> one?" I don't think you understand how passwords work. (Hypocritically, I might rather have the convenience over the security, but it's still a bad idea to pretend you're more secure than you are.)
2. I first got an orange phone about ten years ago. The breakdown of which systems (phone, web, pin, etc) use completely separate passwords has changed in that time. Try something helpful like "this is the same password you use on the website" or "this is not the same password you use on the website, you would have had to set it up when you set up the account" would be more helpful than "I don't know".
3. I'm aware you perpetrate an internal zargon, but are you seriously unaware that people who are not mobile phone providers may not see "disconnect from the network" and "disconnect from the network with a PAC code" as two disparate options? If someone says they want to disconnect from your network, which is more likely?
A. They are one of the 99% of people who are cancelling because they're moving to a different network and ALWAYS want to keep their mobile phone number and used "disconnected" in the normal English meaning, not the mobile phone operator specific meaning, or,
B. They are one of the 1% of people who has decided mobile phones are for mugs, or who wants to vanish unreachably from their friends, and divined that "disconnect" means "disconnect without a PAC code"?
I think A is more likely. Even if you consider it imperative that you force them to repeat their request using your terminology, a better way to do that would be to ask them to, not deliberately misunderstand them and force them to start over.
4. I'm going to stop giving you money. I'd prefer you to stop giving me mobile phone service. I can't believe you don't have a procedure for this. But no. I have to pay for the following month come what may. And I can be issued with a PAC code which only operates UNTIL the end of the month. And if I fail to apply that in 26 days time, Orange are entitled to RENEW billing me. How the hell is that legal? And to me that sounds like "I have to pay for two days of overlap". But no, the rep thought that was completely wrong, but I couldn't understand how what he said was different.
I'm sure there's a good reason it works that way, but I was still very frustrated.
Love Jack
Postamble
Oh dear. If I can find that much wrong in a five minute conversation with (apparently) a successful outcome, how can I cope with the rest of life? I think the problem is that I instinctively EXPECT things to make sense, and if they don't, either hate myself for misunderstanding, or hate the person I'm talking to for being difficult. Which I KNOW shouldn't be the case -- I KNOW that a lot of the time, "just get it sorted" is the only option, and it's only worth so much effort. But knowing it doesn't convince my emotions to actually believe it :(
ZOPA
When two people are negotiating, they both have an implicit limit on what they're willing to accept. That limit may be a good one or a bad one depending how good your other options are (your "Best Alternative to Negotiated Settlement").
Between those two limits, the worst one person A will accept, and the worst one person B will accept is the range of possible agreements they can come to. In an ideal negotiation, there's a good range which is still very beneficial to both parties, and it's not important exactly where they split the difference, they're both better off.
In a modern society, we rarely actually negotiate -- buying mass produced goods at a fixed price is much more common. So when we do negotiate (a new job, a new house, or a new car), we're often stressed and unsure, and feel like there should be an objective "fair" price we can turn to.
Inequalities of negotiating position
Normally the fair price is "somewhere in the middle". If you're a statesman or a used-car salesman, you may have to spend a lot of effort shifting the potential agreement around within the ZOPA, which is necessary to your job, but ultimately useless to society.
If you're an idealist or a geek, you may avoid thinking about it and hope for the best -- if person A and person B founded google.com together, it would be unfair if one got 99% of the profit and one got 1% of the profit, but they're still millions of times better off than walking away and getting 50% of somethingelse.com.
But the unfairness is sometimes really obvious. The "fair" wage for a job is somewhere between "the minimum people will do it for" and "the most the company can afford to pay". It's not one or the other. But if there's a small number of companies and many potential employees, the company can ignore "what it can afford to pay" and just make the wage the least people will still work for. If there's one national union and a small number of companies, the wage may be "the most the company can afford to pay", or even more.
You can't say "this value is right", but you can often say "this value is wrong", if one party gets almost all the benefit out of the deal.
This is why people who say "if you agreed to something, it was by definition fair" are so tragically wrong. If the bargaining power is approximately equal, fairness will often emerge (sometimes with a helping hand). If the bargaining power is unequal, the result will usually be unfair.
Minimum Wage
This is basically what minimum wage does. People who paid less than minimum wage are typically in a bad bargaining position, so the proportion of the value they bring to the company which is reflected in their salary is prone to being "the least people will accept" and nowhere near "the most the company can afford to pay" (unless, by coincidence, those are identical, but there's no reason they should be).
Theoretically, the minimum wage should restore the equity to a position closer to what the free market would have found if the inequality of bargaining position hadn't distorted it (without waiting until people are desperate enough for general strikes and revolution).
If minimum wage were equal or more than the salary people bring to the business (with a small safety margin), then the naysayers would be right -- companies would literally be unable to afford employees and would shrink or go bust, or abroad, or employ people under the table.
So, the minimum wage should be somewhere in that range. I and many people think it could be higher. Other people think it's already too high. I've heard people describe a minimum wage which is too high, not in money, but in job security, and the bad result was that most people had temporary unofficial jobs outside the regular system. But in order to argue that, I think someone has to point specifically to those sort of problems, not just offer vague platitudes.
When two people are negotiating, they both have an implicit limit on what they're willing to accept. That limit may be a good one or a bad one depending how good your other options are (your "Best Alternative to Negotiated Settlement").
Between those two limits, the worst one person A will accept, and the worst one person B will accept is the range of possible agreements they can come to. In an ideal negotiation, there's a good range which is still very beneficial to both parties, and it's not important exactly where they split the difference, they're both better off.
In a modern society, we rarely actually negotiate -- buying mass produced goods at a fixed price is much more common. So when we do negotiate (a new job, a new house, or a new car), we're often stressed and unsure, and feel like there should be an objective "fair" price we can turn to.
Inequalities of negotiating position
Normally the fair price is "somewhere in the middle". If you're a statesman or a used-car salesman, you may have to spend a lot of effort shifting the potential agreement around within the ZOPA, which is necessary to your job, but ultimately useless to society.
If you're an idealist or a geek, you may avoid thinking about it and hope for the best -- if person A and person B founded google.com together, it would be unfair if one got 99% of the profit and one got 1% of the profit, but they're still millions of times better off than walking away and getting 50% of somethingelse.com.
But the unfairness is sometimes really obvious. The "fair" wage for a job is somewhere between "the minimum people will do it for" and "the most the company can afford to pay". It's not one or the other. But if there's a small number of companies and many potential employees, the company can ignore "what it can afford to pay" and just make the wage the least people will still work for. If there's one national union and a small number of companies, the wage may be "the most the company can afford to pay", or even more.
You can't say "this value is right", but you can often say "this value is wrong", if one party gets almost all the benefit out of the deal.
This is why people who say "if you agreed to something, it was by definition fair" are so tragically wrong. If the bargaining power is approximately equal, fairness will often emerge (sometimes with a helping hand). If the bargaining power is unequal, the result will usually be unfair.
Minimum Wage
This is basically what minimum wage does. People who paid less than minimum wage are typically in a bad bargaining position, so the proportion of the value they bring to the company which is reflected in their salary is prone to being "the least people will accept" and nowhere near "the most the company can afford to pay" (unless, by coincidence, those are identical, but there's no reason they should be).
Theoretically, the minimum wage should restore the equity to a position closer to what the free market would have found if the inequality of bargaining position hadn't distorted it (without waiting until people are desperate enough for general strikes and revolution).
If minimum wage were equal or more than the salary people bring to the business (with a small safety margin), then the naysayers would be right -- companies would literally be unable to afford employees and would shrink or go bust, or abroad, or employ people under the table.
So, the minimum wage should be somewhere in that range. I and many people think it could be higher. Other people think it's already too high. I've heard people describe a minimum wage which is too high, not in money, but in job security, and the bad result was that most people had temporary unofficial jobs outside the regular system. But in order to argue that, I think someone has to point specifically to those sort of problems, not just offer vague platitudes.
Dear Sharepoint
Apr. 15th, 2013 01:10 pmDear Sharepoint,
It would help a lot if you could manage at least one of:
- previewing comments
- editing comments
- changing "click here for help with simple HTML formatting" to "WARNING: This entry field is incompatible with plain text and you MUST use HTML. If you use plain text it will neither process it as HTML and generate an error, nor process it as plain text, but will silently coerce it into something similar to HTML and irreversibly corrupt the formatting".
Love,
Jack
It would help a lot if you could manage at least one of:
- previewing comments
- editing comments
- changing "click here for help with simple HTML formatting" to "WARNING: This entry field is incompatible with plain text and you MUST use HTML. If you use plain text it will neither process it as HTML and generate an error, nor process it as plain text, but will silently coerce it into something similar to HTML and irreversibly corrupt the formatting".
Love,
Jack
Too much stuff to do
Apr. 7th, 2013 03:22 pmI constantly feel like I have too much stuff to do. That completely shouldn't be the case, unlike most people, there's nothing particular which is a giant problem, but I feel inadequate to take care of all the normal things. Especially, anything I've not done before, even if it's really little, I find very hard to do because I expect it to be a giant bureaucratic nightmare and I'm scared to start.
HDMI cables
Mar. 18th, 2013 11:22 pmWow, I'd always heard people complaining about the ridiculous mark-up of HDMI cables, but I always assumed it was you know, a one hundred percent markup, or a two hundred percent markup, not a five thousand percent markup.
Baked beans with sausages
Feb. 27th, 2013 10:31 pmDarn it! I bought some baked beans in sainsbury's, and when I got home, I found I'd accidentally bought some that some well-meaning person had put dead pig in. Is there a food bank anywhere convenient which would take them? Or if anyone would eat them, they're welcome to them.
I feel silly because for the cost, I'd be happy to just throw them away, but it feels worse to waste food than waste other things that cost about the same effort to produce, even though not wasting food doesn't actually help anyone who needs it.
Hm, I don't really have a "I don't eat pig" icon.
I feel silly because for the cost, I'd be happy to just throw them away, but it feels worse to waste food than waste other things that cost about the same effort to produce, even though not wasting food doesn't actually help anyone who needs it.
Hm, I don't really have a "I don't eat pig" icon.
More fake sunk cost fallacies
Jan. 30th, 2013 05:31 pmI'm still not sure what to call this, but several more examples of what I compared to the sunk cost fallacy, but with an unexpected opportunity you need to ignore, instead of a pre-committed cost you need to ignore.
1. Oh hey, I thought of a REALLY REALLY CLEVER plot twist for my book. I'll put it in.
This seems to happen in even quite high-profile films, where the director is wedded to some clever idea that isn't what everyone else likes about the film.
The author phrase for it is, "murder your darlings" as in, even bits of the book (sentences, ideas, characters, turns of phrase, plot points) that you like, or even, ones that are REALLY GOOD, may still not be the ones that produce the best whole.
2. I was going to lie, but now I have an opportunity to lie by telling the exact literal truth and let someone misinterpret me.
There are some good reasons for this. You want to be able to mock them later. You (or society) want to put artificial barriers in the way of breaking your resolution not to lie so you don't do so repeatedly.
But basically, it's just the same as lying, so lie well. (A good lie is often as simple as possible and mostly close to the truth, but happening to contain the same words as the truth doesn't actually help.)
3. Oh look, I have lots of hearts, I'll preempt in hearts.
Sometimes you have a really good preempt, and want to bid it. But if the existing bidding says that your preempt won't help, there's no point doing it just because you'd been looking forward to getting an opportunity to make that bid.
4. Oh look, I found a really cheap weasel froblicator!
I should buy that, in case I ever need a weasel froblicator. It would be a shame if I needed to froblicate some weasels and had to buy one full price. OK, yes, it would be a shame, but how likely is it? Really?
The commonality
The common thread, to me, is that you're presented with an opportunity you subconsciously expected to be rare, and hence precious, and hence you want to make the most of it.
But that's only actually useful if the opportunity is something that actually helps. If someone gives you a free weasel froblicator and you don't need it, it's mostly just a burden.
1. Oh hey, I thought of a REALLY REALLY CLEVER plot twist for my book. I'll put it in.
This seems to happen in even quite high-profile films, where the director is wedded to some clever idea that isn't what everyone else likes about the film.
The author phrase for it is, "murder your darlings" as in, even bits of the book (sentences, ideas, characters, turns of phrase, plot points) that you like, or even, ones that are REALLY GOOD, may still not be the ones that produce the best whole.
2. I was going to lie, but now I have an opportunity to lie by telling the exact literal truth and let someone misinterpret me.
There are some good reasons for this. You want to be able to mock them later. You (or society) want to put artificial barriers in the way of breaking your resolution not to lie so you don't do so repeatedly.
But basically, it's just the same as lying, so lie well. (A good lie is often as simple as possible and mostly close to the truth, but happening to contain the same words as the truth doesn't actually help.)
3. Oh look, I have lots of hearts, I'll preempt in hearts.
Sometimes you have a really good preempt, and want to bid it. But if the existing bidding says that your preempt won't help, there's no point doing it just because you'd been looking forward to getting an opportunity to make that bid.
4. Oh look, I found a really cheap weasel froblicator!
I should buy that, in case I ever need a weasel froblicator. It would be a shame if I needed to froblicate some weasels and had to buy one full price. OK, yes, it would be a shame, but how likely is it? Really?
The commonality
The common thread, to me, is that you're presented with an opportunity you subconsciously expected to be rare, and hence precious, and hence you want to make the most of it.
But that's only actually useful if the opportunity is something that actually helps. If someone gives you a free weasel froblicator and you don't need it, it's mostly just a burden.
Putting salt on food before you taste it
Jan. 22nd, 2013 12:48 pmThere's a story about a woman who went to a job interview, and was taken out to dinner, and put salt on her food before tasting it, and the boss immediately rejected her without further consideration.
It didn't literally happen, but the attitude that you should or shouldn't add salt to food is something people really do argue about.
The intended message is something like, "the candidate was stupid for adding salt without knowing if the food was salty enough, since she can't take it out again".
But in fact, that's an etiquette issue. Do you trust the person preparing the meal to have prepared it correctly, or not?
But as with all parables, there are many possible messages. What I see is a class issue. If you have been raised from birth eating primarily meals cooked by a personal chef, then yes, any meal in front of you should be tailored to your personal taste, and you shouldn't assume otherwise.
But if you've been cooked for primarily by an overworked unaided parent trying to cook for seven, or by McDonalds, the food probably hasn't been tailored to your personal taste. Or it has in some respects, but the chef probably aimed for "slightly below average preference for salt"[1] and assumed that everyone would know that and could add salt to whatever level they preferred.
There are reasons for workplaces to require people to jump through hoops even if they're completely arbitrary (eg. wearing shoes, wearing ties, not swearing, lying and pretending personality tests are super-effective, using a formal register of speech, etc). At a minimum it selects people who are willing to put in effort to fit in and not be disruptive.
But it's also true that, as a side effect, it selects for the people who are already in that system, and against those who aren't, even if they're equally competent.
So I'm not sure if I blame the fictional boss for blaming the applicant. I'm not even sure if I blame her for lying and claiming the applicant stupid, rather than just for coming from a different culture -- claiming that the ways people signal high social status are due to inherent virtue rather than learned conformity is itself a way people effectively signal high social status!
But even if it's inevitable that people do so, and even if I'm equally "guilty" of being "stupid" and of "eating in the wrong restaurants", I resent being dismissed for the wrong thing, for being called stupid if I come from the wrong culture, or having my culture blamed if I ever show mental aptitude for something.
[1] In taste, not health.
It didn't literally happen, but the attitude that you should or shouldn't add salt to food is something people really do argue about.
The intended message is something like, "the candidate was stupid for adding salt without knowing if the food was salty enough, since she can't take it out again".
But in fact, that's an etiquette issue. Do you trust the person preparing the meal to have prepared it correctly, or not?
But as with all parables, there are many possible messages. What I see is a class issue. If you have been raised from birth eating primarily meals cooked by a personal chef, then yes, any meal in front of you should be tailored to your personal taste, and you shouldn't assume otherwise.
But if you've been cooked for primarily by an overworked unaided parent trying to cook for seven, or by McDonalds, the food probably hasn't been tailored to your personal taste. Or it has in some respects, but the chef probably aimed for "slightly below average preference for salt"[1] and assumed that everyone would know that and could add salt to whatever level they preferred.
There are reasons for workplaces to require people to jump through hoops even if they're completely arbitrary (eg. wearing shoes, wearing ties, not swearing, lying and pretending personality tests are super-effective, using a formal register of speech, etc). At a minimum it selects people who are willing to put in effort to fit in and not be disruptive.
But it's also true that, as a side effect, it selects for the people who are already in that system, and against those who aren't, even if they're equally competent.
So I'm not sure if I blame the fictional boss for blaming the applicant. I'm not even sure if I blame her for lying and claiming the applicant stupid, rather than just for coming from a different culture -- claiming that the ways people signal high social status are due to inherent virtue rather than learned conformity is itself a way people effectively signal high social status!
But even if it's inevitable that people do so, and even if I'm equally "guilty" of being "stupid" and of "eating in the wrong restaurants", I resent being dismissed for the wrong thing, for being called stupid if I come from the wrong culture, or having my culture blamed if I ever show mental aptitude for something.
[1] In taste, not health.
Moving house with a car
Jan. 9th, 2013 11:09 pmWhen moving house with a car, the sequence of events seems to be something like this:
1. Apply online to have your driving license changed to a new address.
2. Cut both halves of your driving license into two parts and post them to DVLA Swansea (which seems like an act of rebellion, but apparently is the correct means of disposal.)
3. Find your vehicle registration certificate, write your new name and address and driver's license number (make sure to do this before step 2?) and post it back to DVLA.
4. Phone your insurer. They will make a big deal out of the fact that they don't charge you an administration fee for non-voluntary changes to your policy, but they will charge you £100 more. Or to be more exact, they'll smugly announce an amount, but leave you to guess whether that amount is more or less, or some other number than "the difference in fees between what you were paying and what you are paying". I'm pessimistic that this is (a) pro-rata or (b) refunded if you move somewhere cheaper.
1. Apply online to have your driving license changed to a new address.
2. Cut both halves of your driving license into two parts and post them to DVLA Swansea (which seems like an act of rebellion, but apparently is the correct means of disposal.)
3. Find your vehicle registration certificate, write your new name and address and driver's license number (make sure to do this before step 2?) and post it back to DVLA.
4. Phone your insurer. They will make a big deal out of the fact that they don't charge you an administration fee for non-voluntary changes to your policy, but they will charge you £100 more. Or to be more exact, they'll smugly announce an amount, but leave you to guess whether that amount is more or less, or some other number than "the difference in fees between what you were paying and what you are paying". I'm pessimistic that this is (a) pro-rata or (b) refunded if you move somewhere cheaper.
Dear ridiculously annoying advert protagonists,
It's possible to have fun without recorded music! Talk to each other. Play a board game. Make out with each other. Learn how to say "hello" in chinese. Dance to an imaginary capella. Make an impromptu amateur film based on gender-switched versions of the adventures of Tin-Tin acted out with halloweeen decorations.
You don't have any imagination. This is why your whole universe is devoted to selling some particular brand of broadband internet.
Love, Jack
It's possible to have fun without recorded music! Talk to each other. Play a board game. Make out with each other. Learn how to say "hello" in chinese. Dance to an imaginary capella. Make an impromptu amateur film based on gender-switched versions of the adventures of Tin-Tin acted out with halloweeen decorations.
You don't have any imagination. This is why your whole universe is devoted to selling some particular brand of broadband internet.
Love, Jack
Negotiations, monopolies and unions
Dec. 2nd, 2012 03:00 pmThinking about negotiations recently, it occurred to me a lot of the negotiating advantage goes to the party with more of a monopoly.
If you have two or three widget companies, and millions of widget-makers, the power is largely with the company, because if the company proposes an insultingly low wage, the widget maker's options are (a) accept it or (b) not have a job. The company can assume that sufficiently many widget makers will accept the deal. The same thing may happen even if there's a shortage of widget makers, to a lesser extent.
Conversely, if all the widget makers join one union, the companies are at a similar disadvantage.
The phenomenon of monopolistic companies and monopolistic unions is exactly the same from a game theory perspective, even though they can have very different social effects for practical and historical reasons. But it's easy to get polarised into "companies good, unions bad" or "companies bad, unions good" depending which examples they've seen a lot of in real life or propaganda.
If you have two or three widget companies, and millions of widget-makers, the power is largely with the company, because if the company proposes an insultingly low wage, the widget maker's options are (a) accept it or (b) not have a job. The company can assume that sufficiently many widget makers will accept the deal. The same thing may happen even if there's a shortage of widget makers, to a lesser extent.
Conversely, if all the widget makers join one union, the companies are at a similar disadvantage.
The phenomenon of monopolistic companies and monopolistic unions is exactly the same from a game theory perspective, even though they can have very different social effects for practical and historical reasons. But it's easy to get polarised into "companies good, unions bad" or "companies bad, unions good" depending which examples they've seen a lot of in real life or propaganda.
Good week, but still feel listless
Nov. 25th, 2012 01:44 pmThis week:
* Gym twice (5 min warm up, 15 min treadmill alternating walk and slow jog, 5 min something else), swim twice (1/3 mile and 1 mile)
* productive at work
* arranged a couple of flat viewings
* went to london with fishpi
* went to pub
* did recreational maths
But I still feel listless. I think mostly from stress about flat-finding, not necessarily finding somewhere to rent, but all the bits of logistics about moving out, like things I have to check with the letting agent, and will there be Doom about the mold, and junking old appliances and broken bike frames, and arranging cleaning and arranging moving, not of which is individually hard, but is all worrying.
I'd hoped to have a productive weekend, and I've done some stuff, but I barely left the house yesterday, trying to get some logistics out of the way, but ended up not evening making it to a party, or even out for a walk. Today I started by cleaning up a bit to get momentum going, and then getting out in the sunshine while there still is some, and then will arrange some more viewing for next week and, um, as much other stuff as possible :(
* Gym twice (5 min warm up, 15 min treadmill alternating walk and slow jog, 5 min something else), swim twice (1/3 mile and 1 mile)
* productive at work
* arranged a couple of flat viewings
* went to london with fishpi
* went to pub
* did recreational maths
But I still feel listless. I think mostly from stress about flat-finding, not necessarily finding somewhere to rent, but all the bits of logistics about moving out, like things I have to check with the letting agent, and will there be Doom about the mold, and junking old appliances and broken bike frames, and arranging cleaning and arranging moving, not of which is individually hard, but is all worrying.
I'd hoped to have a productive weekend, and I've done some stuff, but I barely left the house yesterday, trying to get some logistics out of the way, but ended up not evening making it to a party, or even out for a walk. Today I started by cleaning up a bit to get momentum going, and then getting out in the sunshine while there still is some, and then will arrange some more viewing for next week and, um, as much other stuff as possible :(
Dear ridiculously annoying advert
Nov. 23rd, 2012 09:24 pmDear ridiculously annoying annoying advert with too much embarrassment,
If you're deciding between "playing a CD" and "playing a perfect playlist which you haven't got working yet", why not play a CD and work on getting the playlist working at the same time? Then you get the best of both worlds and don't have to yell at each other!
Love, Jack
If you're deciding between "playing a CD" and "playing a perfect playlist which you haven't got working yet", why not play a CD and work on getting the playlist working at the same time? Then you get the best of both worlds and don't have to yell at each other!
Love, Jack
Insult to injury
Nov. 23rd, 2012 09:47 amSo, in addition to evicting me, my letting agency is ALSO raising my rent. Um, good luck with that.
Dear Movie Protagonist
Nov. 14th, 2012 10:14 pmI had a rant prepared about "stop being so wet, I don't care if you're too shy to express them, but have an opinion about something!" and "your problem is not that you have new relationship energy with someone else, it's that you and your fiance have nothing in common".
But that's not true, is it? Shakespeare wrote awesome plays about "oh look, new relationship energy, lets make really unfortunate decisions" and "oh dear, I don't know what to do now, oh look, everyone's dead".
But more and more mainstream films just make me want to yell at the characters to pull themselves together, but that doesn't help because (a) me yelling at people is no more informative than other people yelling at me (b) everything already happened and (c) it's fictional.
But that's not true, is it? Shakespeare wrote awesome plays about "oh look, new relationship energy, lets make really unfortunate decisions" and "oh dear, I don't know what to do now, oh look, everyone's dead".
But more and more mainstream films just make me want to yell at the characters to pull themselves together, but that doesn't help because (a) me yelling at people is no more informative than other people yelling at me (b) everything already happened and (c) it's fictional.
Verified by visa
Oct. 28th, 2012 12:37 pmAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!
How can the banking industry know less about security than me?
A while ago, "Verified by Visa" became compulsory when buying things online. In order to buy anything, you have to know your verified by visa password.
Except, SURPRISE! You don't have to. You can either know your verified by visa password "passcode", OR know your card details, postcode and date of birth.
Seriously, that's strictly less secure than asking for card details, postcode, and date of birth only. I don't think I could devise a system less secure than that if I tried. For instance, it still provides absolutely zero protection against someone you know "borrowing" your credit card: shouldn't that be something passwords protect against?
I mean, I understand -- they don't want to be inundated with phone calls from people saying "I tried to buy something and I couldn't, what's wrong". But after all the brouhaha about verified by visa I thought maybe you needed to speak to someone in person, or at least need the right dongle to reset it. But no, I was insufficiently cynical. Again.
There's probably some other good reason I should know about but don't? I hope?
I do not think that if people were asked to predict my major flaw they would guess "insufficiently cynical about human stupidity". But apparently, I am. Can I rebrand it as "optimism" or "faith in mankind"..? :)
How can the banking industry know less about security than me?
A while ago, "Verified by Visa" became compulsory when buying things online. In order to buy anything, you have to know your verified by visa password.
Except, SURPRISE! You don't have to. You can either know your verified by visa password "passcode", OR know your card details, postcode and date of birth.
Seriously, that's strictly less secure than asking for card details, postcode, and date of birth only. I don't think I could devise a system less secure than that if I tried. For instance, it still provides absolutely zero protection against someone you know "borrowing" your credit card: shouldn't that be something passwords protect against?
I mean, I understand -- they don't want to be inundated with phone calls from people saying "I tried to buy something and I couldn't, what's wrong". But after all the brouhaha about verified by visa I thought maybe you needed to speak to someone in person, or at least need the right dongle to reset it. But no, I was insufficiently cynical. Again.
There's probably some other good reason I should know about but don't? I hope?
I do not think that if people were asked to predict my major flaw they would guess "insufficiently cynical about human stupidity". But apparently, I am. Can I rebrand it as "optimism" or "faith in mankind"..? :)