jack

My bank has taken "being indistinguishable from a scammer" to a new level, they actually have an email address phishing@bankname.com

People in the bible	Number of times they died
ElijahA	0
Everyone else	1
LazarusB	2

[A] Edit: Also Enoch (?), Also Mary (according to Catholicism only?)
[B] Edit: Also Widow of Zarephath, also some of http://www.pathlightspress.com/resurrection.html (?)

Last month I posted a rant/essay about how to make predictable jokes, how to use them as social grease, and how to make them obnoxiously pushy. This morning, I was wheeling my bike, and someone helpfully called out "you know, you're supposed to ride it, not push it". I actually stopped to ask if he genuinely thought I hadn't noticed that.

I mean, I get that if it's incongruous, you want to point it out. If you see someone carrying a donkey, you very probably are unable to help yourself saying "it's supposed to be the other way round", even if you know intellectually that there is probably a reason they're doing that.

But seriously, have you never seen someone pushing a bike before? I mean:

* I had just put my mobile away. Cycling while talking on a phone is contra-indicated, but pushing is ok
* I was at an awkward junction, where it might make sense to cross on foot rather than go all the way round Mitcham's corner
* I was two feet away from some bike racks
* I have previously pushed my bike for at least a little way if it's had a puncture, or even if I just feel tired.

I admit I don't see someone pushing a bike _that_ often. But surely it can't be a surprise?

I found my gloves, and it turns out they actually are a lot more effective than saying "Oh, I'm young, and it's England, it can't be that cold" :)

Years of using the subjunctive as correctly as I could, I thought might pay off. Yesterday I verbally assumed something that was true, and didn't use the subjunctive. I reasoned that ought to send a clear signal, letting us discuss the implications, without worrying about whether it was definitely true[1], without implying that it wasn't. However, it didn't turn out like that :)

[1] Cynically, observe that I verbally assumed before I reasoned. But it worked out grammatically :)

Euler's theorem in everyday life. OK, but maybe not really. But on Saturday, people played with Modulok (build-a-monster-out-of-limbs child's toy reassembled as top-of-the-bookcase-living-room-decoration). I was puzzled to see there was one limb left over, but nowhere to put it. (Pieces have nodules analogous to lego bumps, and holes analogous to bottoms of legos.) Had someone lost one of the bifurcating shoulders?

No. But there had previously been three separate creatures; now there are only two. Separating them again leaves a spare hole, but they're designed to look natural.