jack: (Default)
Question 1

You have a graph on an even number P people where each node has E=3 edges connected to it. You colour in one edge. Then you colour in another edge such that each person has at most one coloured edge, aka not touching a previous coloured edge (without planning ahead). You keep doing this as long as you can.

I think for some graphs (e.g. 4 people, or 6 people each connected to the adjacent people and the opposite person) you are guaranteed to be able to colour P/2 edges so that each person touches exactly one coloured edge, whatever your early choices were. Whereas for other graphs (e.g. the corners of a triangular prism?) you can end up in a "dead end" where you've coloured two edges and then the two people left over with no coloured edge have no edge between them to colour.

Is there a description of which graphs guarantee and which don't? What about if E=2 (probably usually not guaranteed?). Or E=4?

Question 2

You have a graph with even P nodes each with E=3 edges. There are A=3 acts. In the first, you colour P/2 non-touching edges. In the second you colour P/2 non-touching edges, not colouring edges that were coloured in act 1 (without planning ahead to act 3). In the third act, you also try to colour P/2 non-touching edges that weren't coloured in acts 1 or 2. Are there graphs where if you colour the edges one at a time you're guaranteed to fill in all the edges without discovering you need to backtrack?

What about for different values of E and A? If E is greater than A? If E is ALL the possible edges then it's always possible, but for values less than that?

Question 3

You have a graph with even P nodes each with E=3 edges. There are A=3 acts. In the first, you colour P/2 non-touching edges with +1, 0 or -1. In the second you colour P/2 non-touching edges, not colouring edges that were coloured in act 1, with +1, 0 or -1 (without planning ahead to act 3). In the third act, you also try to colour P/2 non-touching edges that weren't coloured in acts 1 or 2, also with +1, 0 or -1, but try to ensure that three values each node touches sum to 0. Are there graphs that guarantee that's possible in act 3, regardless of what you did in acts 1 and 2?

What if you had E=4 and coloured +1 or -1?
jack: (Default)
I tried many, many different things to get more productive. None of them fixed everything, but many of them were useful.

Getting Things Done

Gettings Things Done by Dave Allen was about getting a handle on a mess of different todo lists you never actually do. The advice that worked I've mostly internalised so I can't easily remember what was actually in it, just stuff that seems normal now.

But what I really liked about it was that it gave you a compartmentalised network of different tools, and explained what purpose each was supposed to serve, so you could choose ones that worked for you and adapted ones that weren't quite right, and skip ones where you already did something else that worked.

I know some people respond better to "just trust me, do what this says and don't question why" but I always find it really hard to trust without knowing why.

Assorted tips from here. Keep a calendar! Having google calendar or similar means now that's easier for most people to do automatically, but if you need to remember to do things on specific days, calendar.

Have a filing cabinet. Or somewhere else where papers are *supposed* to go (scanned on a computer would also make sense). You can't tidy things when they don't have a place to go. It feels like you can, but you can't. It should be not overfull (I'm falling down on this nowadays), so that it's as easy to put bills etc straight into the filing cabinet as to "put them down somewhere to deal with later".

Do not succumb to the temptation to have a file for "important" things. File by subject. Don't worry too much about ambiguities, if it's under "HSBC" or "bank", you'll still find it really quickly as long as you're looking for one file out of twenty -- but don't have duplicate files where some of the content is in one and some in the other. It's much easier to find "six months ago, I got a letter from the bank" than "six months ago, would I have considered this 'important'"?

That's for everything which you need to keep. If you still need to pay it it's ok to have a pile of things you need to DO (although better to keep it in a filing cabinet and have a list of things to do instead). Indeed, he advocates having an "inbox" of stuff, which you deal with now and move into long term storage. I need to resurrect this, I fell off the bandwagon.

Do not succumb to the temptation to put in your calendar or todo list things which you HOPE to work on today. Be clear what you HAVE to do today, because the deadline's today, and have a separate list of things you INTEND to work on today.

Diary

Inspired by some of Allen's advice, but later on, I started keeping a diary, a text file, a mix of "what I did today" and "todos for today/the week". Keeping that all in a single file really really helped keep spiralling todo lists out of control, even as I repeatedly declared bankruptcy and started over.

And at some point Ghoti introduced me to bullet journals and bought me fancy erasable japanese biros, and I incorporated a lot of the bullet journal techniques into my diary, and I really loved using the pens for quite a few things, even though "making todo list pretty" didn't work for me the way it did for many people.

Beeminder

Beeminder is a website built around committing to specific goals. The actual idea is rather weird -- instead of a paid subscription, you commit money to pay if you fail your pledge, which you can have go up in a fibonnci-sequence like rise. I avoided that side of the site entirely -- I knew the pressure would make me worse not better, and it's specifically designed for goals where you commit to an average of X, no matter what, which wasn't always what I wanted. But the admins were ever so helpful (Thank you Daniel et al!)

This is finally what started my gym habit. I resolved for twice a week, and doing extras when I could, and to start with I was often doing it on the last day I could when I *had* to do it, although now it's just a part of my usual routine.

I've used beeminder for a few other goals too, when the "ALERT ALERT YOU'RE GOING TO FAIL IF YOU DON'T DO THIS IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS! NEXT ONE DAY! RIGHT NOW!" effect is what I need to keep myself honest.

And recently I've adopted another app, currently Habits by Loop Habit Tracker, for day to day habits where I don't want to be pressured when I don't have time but I do want a helpful guide to "I have five minutes, can I remember to tidy up/do duolingo/etc" which has been useful.

Pomodoros

The name is embarrassingly "hip", but the idea is simple and good, of setting a timer -- traditionally 25 minutes -- where you work on something specific. I've done this occasionally, but it's very useful for most people where a little bit of guidance getting into the flow on a task helps.

I would like to do this more but it veer between "don't need it" and "I have a more fundamental problem it doesn't help with" so I only sometimes use it, but it's a really good one to try. Many people have online chat rooms where they set a timer, and having other people with you virtually really helps.

I used them for slightly different reason. When I had tasks to do that I was so scared of I was actually shaking, and even when I'd got all of my procrastination excuses out of the way and was staring at a computer trying to do them, setting a timer for five minutes, or twenty five minutes, and trying to do, well, even thirty seconds of work in that time, broke me out of being completely stuck.

In retrospect, I wish I'd thought to see if someone else would help me with the tasks I was most blocked on, but that didn't seem appropriate (partly, several were financial, and partly, I didn't want to make anyone feel responsible for it as an ongoing thing) and I didn't have the awareness to realise it might have been better to do that anyway. Anyway, I got through it.

I don't recommend this as a technique, but when I used to be blocked like this, it often used to involve staying up late (or staying at work late) not so much until I finished, but until I started...

Procrastination root causes

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ty2tjPwv8uyPK9vrz/my-algorithm-for-beating-procrastination

Someone on less wrong message board wrote an essay which really resonated with me at the time, of diagnosing the root cause of individual cases of procrastination. Like, if you're hesitating over the task because you expect that you will fail it, or that the result will be one you don't want, recognising that and being realistic about your expectations can help more than forcing yourself to do it anyway.

If you're just finding the task itself unpleasant or boring, then little tricks like "do five rows, then take a break and do something nice for a minute, then repeat" can help a lot.

If the reward is very distant from the task itself, setting intermediate rewards can help. e.g. you need to hand this work in but it won't be marked for months, then try to work with someone and encourage each other, or give yourself a chocolate after.

This didn't turn out as useful for me as I'd hoped, because my problems tended to be much bigger (and the problem was obvious but not easy to fix) or much smaller (I didn't want to do this analysis for every little household chore), but I still think it was a useful way of thinking about it.

General principles

What lessons do I draw from that? Well, there's several examples above, but one big one, is don't overthink it looking for the perfect technique, MOST techniques help a lot just by providing some structure whether they're the best or not, and it's often easy to tweak them once you get a better idea what you need. So... just pick something promising and try it.

The ones that are most likely to be useful seem to be:

* Anything with other people providing mutual support and just being there so someone sees if you do it or not
* Anything providing a regular routine which can become a habit

Overall conclusions

If the coping technique works well enough, that can be a solution all by itself.

If you can keep on top of all the admin, but only if you use a clock for pomodoros, or if you work alongside someone else, or whatever, well, if there's no particular downside to that, then just keep doing that!

Most successful people have *ways* they work, they don't just magically work wonderfully by strength of will regardless of the situation.

Indeed, many successful people are super screwed up and do SOME things exceedingly well, while relying on other people picking up the slack for everything else (a spouse to do household admin, hiring employees to work the way that works for them and never working with people who need to work a different way, people who are good at work but crap at work politics, or people who are good at work politics but crap at useful work, etc)

Working in different circumstances when you need to is a skill it's worth developing, but it's not a threshold you need to count for what you get done to "count". (Just, if you completely fall to pieces without your coping strategy, be aware of that and know what to do if it happens, don't just pretend it isn't true.)

This didn't work for me that much, as I had lots of coping strategies which helped some amount, but still left me really struggling to get anything done. Indeed, now I've dealt with some of the serious issues, I find myself in a place a lot more like what other people described, picking up techniques to deal with what feel like normal levels of getting round to things.

Dead phone

Jun. 10th, 2017 06:22 pm
jack: (Default)
Sigh, my phone seems to have worn out. I thought this one had been treated fairly well, with a case, and not suffering any disastrous drops. But now when I turn it on, it reboots again either immediately before finishing the boot sequence or as soon as I open an app.

I tried removing the case and waggling the buttons, and doing a factory reset and that didn't make a difference. Is there anything else I should try?

Assuming I need a replacement, what should I get? Probably a recent android phone. I used to always get nexus but pixel seem to have got expensive.
jack: (Default)
Poly speed dating again tomorrow! In 3s. I managed to escape doing the programming for the matching algorithm this time :)

What should I tell people about why they should like me?
jack: (Default)
Have I talked about this recently?

It feels like there's two sorts of advice. Or maybe a spectrum of advice with an axis which I have particularly noticed.

Some advice is implicitly obvious once it's pointed out. If you say "turn capslock off" when someone can't see why their password doesn't work, it's hard to reject if you know what capslock does at all. Sometimes it's obvious once you try it, like "try pressing capslock" when you don't know what it capslock does.

Other advice is implicitly "you won't be able to tell whether it's working or not, just trust me and keep doing it". Anything fairly long term, any "do this every day and you'll be more organised/fitter/healthier/have less chance of X".

And some advice is somewhere between.

I realised aphorisms are generally the _first_ sort of advice. Sometimes "the early bird catches the worm". Sometimes "measure twice, cut once". But when you *think* "are there obvious risks to delaying? are there obvious risks to moving too quickly?" it often obvious which is more risky, and you know to avoid that. (And in a minority of cases it's not clear and its more of a judgement call.)

But I think those aphorisms are still useful, not because they're ALWAYS true, but because they're a useful reminder to consider them when you might otherwise have forgotten to.

But I think we usually need to treat advice like this. Like, it should usually be obvious WHY it's better. Otherwise, it might be worth bearing in mind as something that *might* be useful, but not be treated as absolute.

There are times when it's useful to adopt something without understanding. If you can't see any clear pros and cons, doing it the way a more experienced person does is OFTEN good, because they probably wouldn't do that if there were obvious problems, and there may be non-obvious benefits which they can't immediately explain.

But I think, when someone gives advice, it's worth considering, "does this make sense to me"? And if not, "is it likely to be safer than what I was doing anyway".
jack: (Default)
Last minute suggestions for things to see in Amsterdam?

Tyre width

Jan. 20th, 2016 12:03 am
jack: (bike)
The tyres on my bike seem to be 35c and 38c width, if I read them right. Would a thinner tyre be better for cycling round Cambridge? I mostly go short distances 1 mile to 4 mile, but it would be nice if there wasn't unnecessary effort, and nice if it was possible to cycle to Shelford occasionally, which right now is possible but a bit too much of a trek to ever want to do it. Or should I be looking at a better bike instead?
jack: (Default)
Tumblr says that any part of my life spent not watching Supernatural is wasted. And I have to admit, it sounds like my sort of show. But I'm not sure I want to watch eleven seasons of anything. Is there a sensible subset which is worth watching by itself?

Flood maps

Apr. 14th, 2014 11:18 am
jack: (Default)
I'm looking at flood maps as linked on the previous post. But it looks like NONE of the fen ditton housing estates are in any of the areas marked as risk, at worst some of the houses added on to fen ditton proper.

When people warned about the recent flooding, did they mean places like Ditton Fields and Fison Road at all? Or did they just mean places like Green End, Fen Ditton?

I feel stupid for not having checked at the time. But I'm confused. Green End end of fen ditton is right by the river. OBVIOUSLY it floods. When people warned about flooding I assumed they were talking about the bulge and the other side of the main road, because that's where you could get bitten if you didn't realise you were at danger. But now I ask if that was completely wrong. Is there any way of finding out where actually flooded in the recent floods?
jack: (Default)
There's a stuffed toy hanging from a telephone wire across Chesterton High Street. Is it worth seeing if BT care? I asked the council and they say it's not their problem and to phone BT, but if it doesn't harm the wire I don't see why BT would care.
jack: (Default)
I didn't want to think about it before, but following Liv's excellent example last year, I want to join a gym in Cambridge. I know a couple of you have, where did you join? Are you happy with it?

I also want to get Liv some home weights for xmas. Cardio exercise is probably more important, but that probably wants more variety, but if she continues to go to the gym, she can do some weights on other days, and do more cardio when she's in the gym. Does that make sense?

And does anyone have any experience or suggestions for what to buy?
jack: (Default)
When someone says "easy to use", a high proportion of the time they're talking about a different use cases to the one you're thinking of. It's an easy mistake to make, as often one's usage pattern is representative, but also, often it isn't. And if it isn't, it's easy to forget that someone else might be talking about how easy it is to do something else -- either something so basic you'd forgotten it was necessary, or something so complicated you simply never needed to use it.

Classic example: 3.5 ed DnD Forums. Essentially every conversation on the forum[1] went something like this:

Beginner: Which class is [most powerful/easiest to play effectively/most fun]?
Expert: Oh, that's easy. Everyone knows the best class is [wizard/cleric/non-core prestige class X]
Other beginner: What? I tried that and [I was eviscerated by a Kobold in the first encounter because I started the game with -57 hit points[1]]. What are you smoking?
Expert: NEWB!
Beginner: DICK!

Etc, etc.

The same applies to unspoken differences in GMing style, which can make social skills overwhelmingly broken, or near-useless; or make time to prepare spells before combat into an assumed right, or a rare luxury; or make finding a highly enchanted weapon suited to your skills a certainty, or an unheard of stroke of luck.

But the same applies to all sorts of other things. I recently saw a thread asking "is [version control A] [more powerful/easier to use] than [version control B]" and it turns out that whether or not it's clear what the answer is, it depends whether you mean "for going from 'never used it' to 'first check in'" or "for editing the history in creative ways", and it's easy to dismiss the other person as wrong, when "not relevant to me and so I assumed that wasn't relevant to anyone" would have been more accurate.

[1] Mild exaggeration
jack: (Default)
Q. People used to think the moon was knocked out of hole in the earth, leaving behind the Pacific Ocean. At any rate, it would just fit. If you put it down there really, really gently, would we be ok living on an earth with a moon balanced on it?

A. No. The surface of the crust is nowhere near enough to support a protrusion on the surface a large fraction of the size of the planet. It would settle. Having a density similar to that of magma, it would not plunge straight to the centre of the earth, possibly ejecting large fractions of the earth into an escape velocity in a gigantic "splash", but would certainly become immersed, engendering a massive rise in magma levels.

You probably know the massive destruction a large Tsunami can wreak on coastal (and not so coastal) cities, forests, stuff, etc. A largest tsunami is less than a mile high, and might kill hundreds of thousands of people and scour hundreds of square miles of land.

Now imagine a a tidal wave several thousand miles high which is made of hot lava. This is not a human survival positive indicated event. I'm not sure even the cockroaches are going to like this one. I mean, I'm sure some of the bacteria may survive, but I don't know if they'll survive on Earth, or only by having previously escaped the Earth and drifting in interstellar space, hoping to waft into another hospitable planet. There are some bacteria that might survive being frozen to near absolute zero[1], but not, I think, vaporisation.[2]

Ah, you say, but what about humans, or bacteria, buried safely at the bottom of a disused mine-shaft, under a mountain? Well, there are two problems with this: (1) a few isolated bacteria and no other biota in existence may, upon resumption of a decent environment, be able to recolonise from scratch. Humans, not so much. (2) the in-a-mineshaft plan depends heavily on the mineshaft being buried safely just below the surface of the earth's crust, and as I think I indicated previously, I strongly suspect the entirety of the earth's crust to be the front-line casualty in a moon-magma-plop scenario.

As a comparison (in the tradition of the awesome demonstration in The Core), consider an orange filled with boiling-hot jello[3]. Put some ants on the surface. Now smash the orange with a hammer (to simulate the splash) and whack all the bits of peel a few more times (to simulate the effect of very high G on human anatomy). Then scoop it all back together again, mixing the bits of peel with the surface of boiling jello. Examine the ants. Did any survive?

Of course, this is unfair. Suppose the moon is immersed carefully in the magma. This would merely cause the earth's surface to expand a bit, leading to massive tectonic upheaval, but life perched carefully in the middle of relatively stable continental plates may be ok. Or suppose it's levitated carefully to just touch the bottom of the ocean but not fall any further. Assuming the moon is stable under its own gravity to hold together enough that no bits fall off in the Earth's gravity (which would result in a mess similar to scenario #1) This will merely cause a lot of nearby water and possibly mountains to fall sideways off the earth and onto the moon, causing more traditional world-wise Tsunamis that may be made of water rather than lava. In both cases, primitive biota and mammals cosying in mine shafts may be ok.

[1] And viruses, but bacteria need water and some useful chemicals to come back to life. Viruses need bacteria.

[2] I use the term "Tidal wave" despite the "tidal" being considered a misnomer. Despite the name, these waves are typically not being caused by the moon, which causes many pedants to prefer the more euphonious "Tsunami". However, as I have been at quite unnecessary pains to explain, the wave I'm discussing here IS caused by the moon. So I'm going to say the not-quite-correct "Tidal wave" in the hopes that bad pedants will be annoyed and good pedants will think it's funny.

[3] I have no justification for choosing the American proprietary term "Jello" rather than the British generic term "Jelly", but did so PURELY to annoy pedants. However, it occurred to me because it (1) sounds funnier and (2) suggests clearly that I'm referring to desert jelly, rather than royal jelly, petroleum jelly, gelignite, American-made jam, or any other anatomic, biological, lubricating or industrial substance which wobbles or has a similar technical name and picked up the descriptor "Jelly" somewhere along the line.
jack: (Default)
Tip: Don't name the last episode of your TV show after any common DVD menu navigation features :)
jack: (Default)
1. Make an 'A' with 2000 unicode combining underlines
2. Paste into Microsoft Word
3. Restart Microsoft Word without document autorecovery

So, my other question is, if I have a programming language which specifies programs of the form "One single capital latin 'A', followed by some number N of unicode combining underlines" and processes them according to "Interpret N as a binary expression, and reinterpret it as an encoding of a perl/brainfuck program, then run it", does this mean that for the purposes of code golf writing-a-program-in-the-minimum-number-of-characters, every program will count as having only one character?

You could have a somewhat more efficient encoding by using different characters to encode more information.

I agree the idea of comparing fewest-number-of-character programs between languages is not a priori meaningful, but I think it often produces interesting results. (And the observation that there's always some imaginary language where the program you want is one or zero characters is correct, and good to make once, but does NOT invalidate the idea that it's interesting to compare different langugaes.)

This has the advantage that although the language is degenerate/isoteric, it will be the same language admitting different programs, just one-character programs, rather than only meaningful for one particular code gold challenge.

I highly advise not trying to write A-Underline code by hand, though :)

The only language I can imagine better at code gold would be the hypothetical JFGI language, which would accept programs of zero length and compile them to a program which accepts input on stdin, googles for it, and returns whatever follows on the top hit web page. That won't always work (it won't work on programs which aren't supposed to have an input), but it will work sometimes, and without all the tedious steps of _writing_ a program.
jack: (Default)
OK, this is going to be massively oversimplified and riddled with inaccuracies, and the networking gurus on my friendslist are probably more prominent than the Jewish ones, so expect a number of corrections in the comments, but for the benefit of Liv and anyone else interested, a very brief overview.

An ethernet packet

- Has a header containing destination address, source address, type, data and a couple of other things
- The type is a number specifying what protocol is in the data. This is typically an IP ("Internet protocol") packet.
- The addresses are addresses of the physical network cards of the computers
- Which will (always?) be MAC addresses, ie. a six-byte number which every network card manufactured has a unique one.
- It is normally written in hexadecimal with semicolons, like 00:0E:78:5D:10:04
- It doesn't matter how they're assigned, except that each manufacturer has a different set of them to assign (sequentially or randomly) to network cards they manufacture
- These do not need to be unique across the whole world, they only need to be unique within one physical LAN or wireless network. But because you don't know which computers will be plugged together, they're ALL made unique
- If a computer has an ethernet cable and a wireless card, they will have different MAC (?)
- This is transmitted by the computer by physically changing the electric voltage on the wire, or by physically transmitting a short radio burst
- That means that the computers have to take turns transmitting and so on -- how to do that is what ethernet specifies
- This will be received by all computers on the wire or within range of the wireless, but ignored unless it has the appropriate destination address (and possibly appropriate content -- a computer not listening for IP traffic will just ignore any)
- There are special MAC addresses which mean "to everyone" which everyone receives (probably FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF but I can't remember). This is not used for normal TCP/IP traffic, but for some special network uses.

An IP packet

- Directly after the ethernet packet headers typically come IP packet headers
- Again, this is a source address, a destination address, and something indicating the content
- But this is coincidence, they're all different to the ethernet fields I discussed above
- The IP addresses are four bytes, typically written with dots like: 131.111.12.20
- Originally the idea was that each individual network would communicate by ethernet, and you'd connect them together by having some computers which were on two neighbouring networks
- And every computer would have an IP address assigned by some independent body somewhere (originally Job Postel, later ICANN)
- And computers would maintain routing tables, saying that "messages for THESE IP addresses should be passed to THOSE networks, and so on"
- Which is what IP does (routes packets between networks to a specific IP address, but does NOT, for instance, combine packets into a longer message or have an acknowledgement that they got there)
- Most IP addresses (in theory) could be anywhere on the internet, but some are reserved for small networks to use themselves, so many different small networks might use 192.169.anything.anything for the computers on it, so long as they don't accidentally send messages for those IP address out onto the internet. There are also some special IP addresses not assigned to any computer but that mean "this computer" or "all computers on this network"
- Nowadays it's much more common for a home network to connect to the internet via a router, and the router (may) have a real internet IP address (though not normally the same one every day) which it uses to talk to the internet, but another, eg. 192.168.0.1 which it uses on the local network, and whenever it sends packets between the networks it switches the addresses around so they go out, and come back to the router, and then it switches them over to go to the local IP address.
- On a small internal network IP addresses are either assigned manually (by just picking 192.168.anything and making sure they're different) or by DHCP (which is much the same, except whenever a computer turns on, it asks the router for a new IP address that's no-one's using,and the router keeps a list and hands out the next free one)

TCP

- The contents of an IP packet are typically a TCP packet
- IP does the "get this packet to the right computer" but TCP does "send a reply to make sure it gets there, number all the packets I send so the other end can check they all arrive in the right order, and stitch together lots of small packets into one big message, number them so I can (eg) stream music and download a webpage at the same time, and the right messages go to the right program etc"
- There are some other protocols which are similar to TCP and use IP, but are different, eg. UDP which does a similar thing but WITHOUT all the checking.

HTTP, FTP, etc, etc

- OK so, TCP sends a potentially long message. What is a message? Many, many different protocols use TCP/IP, typically used by different applications on the same computer
- For HTTP it might be something like "Hey computer? Do you have a file called index.html? Please send me a file called index.html!" and a webserver running on that computer would send an HTTP reply saying "404. That means I don't have it." or "200. That means, that file follows. OK, here goes. [lots of html/txt/jpg/etc]"
jack: (Default)
Most of us have "doh" moments, when something we normally do fine -- locking the door, reading an important letter without putting it down and losing it -- we completely fail to do. What I think is that once something like that is a habit, it will go fine -- unless it's interrupted, which is when mistakes happen. If someone speaks to you just as you're shutting the door, you then go into "I must remember to lock the door" mode. And most of us are much less reliable at "I must remember to do X" than in following an ingrained habit. (Some people are very good at remembering to do one-off tasks without making notes, but probably exhibit the same flaws elsewhere.)

My advice is, form the habit that when interrupted, you commit or roll-back the current task. So, if someone speaks to you when you're shutting the door -- open the door ajar again, and you will probably automatically shut and lock it. Or say "hold on a sec" and lock the door then. Don't wait paused in the middle of the door-locking activity, because you're much more likely to get distracted.

The thing is, locking the door goes fine 364 times out of 365. Which is very good, but to never, ever, get it wrong, you need it to be right every time in 20,000 I think competent, organised people are not those who never experience those little lapses (although that helps), because that only reduces the frequency, but those who ensure that when they do experience them, they recover well, either because (A) they have this habit or (B) they have another back-up, like leaving a key with a neighbour.
jack: (Default)
If you want to make someone sound pretentious go ahead and have them use lots of excessively long and obscure words. But if you want someone to sound intelligent or knowledgeable, then only use longer and more obscure words if they convey a greater or more concise meaning.

Sure, if the reader is less intelligent or knowledgeable, they won't be able to tell the difference between long words used to look clever and ones used to convey information. This confusion supports politics, con artists, and parts of soft science all over the world. But if you're trying to make someone seem smart to smart people, their words need to be concise, or clear, or technically detailed[1]. Fortunately, you have the advantage of time, you can probably prepare in five minutes something that would be terribly clever if your character talks like that all the time :)

[1] In fact, many people, notably me and many of my friends, are quite smart AND quite pretentious, and strive to be precise, both from clarity, and also because they think it's funny. It's quite likely they'll go together, but I still maintain there's a difference, especially if the character was previously dumb but tenacious and then is hit by an intelligence-ray for a short humorous interlude :)
jack: (Default)
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/17081/48/

If you're very drunk, don't go swimming. And if you do anyway, don't jump straight into an unknown sea. And if you do anyway, make sure there haven't been a recent spate of shark attacks. And if you do anyway, at least look to make sure the shark isn't RIGHT THERE. But if you do anyway, make damn damn sure you brain it right between the eyes.
jack: (Default)
"RSVP" traditionally means exactly what it says: please respond. Whether or not you're able to come. Traditionally, not doing so is rude (assuming the invitation came from someone who had a genuine reason to invite you).

Now, a much better heuristic is: on invitations to big social events like weddings, "RSVP" retains the traditional usage. On casual social engagements, "RSVP" typically means "let me know if you're going to come" and non-response is treated like a "no". Although often positive responses are helpful even if not necessary, and often there is some flexibility to turn up at the last minute.

Unfortunately, this means that you can't really say it at all without a little bit of ambiguity. Normally the heuristic works fine, but it may be slightly better to specify what you actually mean, eg. "let me know if X, letting me know if Y would be helpful but not necessary" or "please let me know by DATE if you want to come or not, or what it depends on if still unsure". Or even to give people a little helping hand by asking them if they're probably coming, which many people can answer immediately, and is often sufficient for small social occasions, rather than if they're definitely coming, which puts many people into "let me check my diary for three months" mode.

Active Recent Entries