Cats Playing Patty-cake, what they were saying…
OMG. this is the best.
Cats Playing Patty-cake, what they were saying…
OMG. this is the best.
mark manson is a life coach?!
Let me ask again: Why would you ever be excited to be with someone who is not excited to be with you? If they’re not happy with you now, what makes you think they’ll be happy to be with you later? Why do you make an effort to convince someone to date you when they make no effort to convince you?
What does that say about you? That you believe you need to convince people to be with you?
You wouldn’t buy a dog that bites you all the time. And you wouldn’t be friends with someone who regularly ditches you. You wouldn’t work a job that doesn’t pay you. Then why the hell are you trying to make a girlfriend out of a woman who doesn’t want to date you? Where’s your self-respect?
The entrepreneur Derek Sivers once wrote a blog post where he said that “If I’m not saying ‘Hell Yeah!’ to something, then I say no.” It served him well in the business world and now I’d like to apply it to the dating world. And because I’m more of a vulgar asshole than Derek is, I’ll christen mine The Law of “Fuck Yes or No.”The Law of “Fuck Yes or No” states that when you want to get involved with someone new, in whatever capacity, they must inspire you to say “Fuck Yes” in order for you to proceed with them.
The Law of “Fuck Yes or No” also states that when you want to get involved with someone new, in whatever capacity, THEY must respond with a “Fuck Yes” in order for you to proceed with them.
As you can see, The Law of “Fuck Yes or No” implies that both parties must be enthusiastic about the prospect of one another’s company. Why? Because attractive, non-needy, high self-worth people don’t have time for people who they are not excited to be with and who are not excited to be with them.
thanks to bristin for asking for my thoughts on this:
it’s a very nice article/philosophy. compellingly written, hard not to jump to my feet and support it. i _do_ think it’s a problem that people in general tend to do too many things in their somewhat short lives on things that they do not enjoy. i am a firm and total believer in really thinking critically about what you enjoy in life and what you don’t enjoy in life and optimizing.
A window seat reminder of humanity — how one woman taught me a lesson about trajectory and happiness.
the most absurd setup because i find it really stupid, but i think the takeaway is nice. (also, i have also totally been screwed out of a window seat because an older woman looked at me with sad eyes. ON A TRANSOCEAN FLIGHT) i’m still not convinced it’s DOABLE to have such control over your emotions (and coming from me, the robot, i think that’s saying something). when i’m angry i sometimes stop and ask myself if i want to be happy. the answer is invariably no.
I took a deep breath. I deleted the text. I had suddenly grasped how much power there was to be had in this moment — the true influence lies not in trying (and often failing) to affect your will upon the world, but in owning your reaction. It’s incredibly difficult to see past our knee-jerk perceptions, but in acknowledging our prejudice we can leave space for contemplation, and actual cognition, which ultimately leads to a more honest appraisal of our lives. It gives us the ability to retain agency over our lives.
We cannot control the events around us. We can plan, we can work hard, we can do all sorts of things to prepare, but ultimately things don’t always go as expected. But if we can remain calm, patient, and self-aware, we cancontrol what happens at every fork in our path. It’s not easy, but we have a choice.
We can tell ourselves the world owes us something, we can moan and groan about how unfair things are. We can choose anger — the well-worn road we naturally gravitate toward. We can let the adrenaline and the lizard braincloud our reasoning and darken our moods.
Or we can choose happiness. Instead of escaping into our devices and distractions, we can focus on the things we can control. We can laugh at discomfort, pain, annoyance, and realize that the way past those feelings comes from within ourselves. It’s liberating to take control of your path and of your experience in a healthy way. It’s powerful.
That woman took my seat. It was frustrating. But it would only continue to be frustrating if I allowed it to be. Frankly, it was a short flight to Portland. I was going to work on a script the whole flight anyway….I would likely get a window seat when I took the train down to San Francisco…and as I started to see the opposite side my body settled. My breathing slowed. I let a smile slip across my face, laughing at how silly my irritation was.
in other news, i went to a birthday party yesterday and saw some friends and had the weirdest, most mature conversations about relationship conflicts and the biggest strains of moving in together.
[on andrew’s evening]
a nice longread about how italian scientists were convicted of manslaughter.
Seventy miles from Rome, Giustino Parisse had already been woken twice by tremors. The second one, at 12:39 in the morning, had stirred his whole family. Checking the house, Parisse, a 50-year-old journalist with the L’Aquila newspaper Il Centro, met his teenage son in the hallway.
Three hours later, Parisse and his wife woke to an avalanche of plaster and brick. They clawed and scrambled their way into the hall, lighting their path with a cell phone, and tried to reach the children. But it was too late: Domenico and Maria Paola were buried, dead.
The 28-second earthquake had demolished hundreds of buildings throughout L’Aquila. By the time the shaking was over, 297 people had been killed, more than a thousand injured, and tens of thousands were made homeless.
During the winter and early spring of 2009, Selvaggi and other seismologists at Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology had been monitoring numerous tremors around L’Aquila. The sequence of small quakes over a short period of time, known as a “seismic swarm,” is distinct from the aftershocks that follow a big quake.
And in places like L’Aquila, they are not necessarily abnormal. Local media repeatedly relayed that generic message to the public. Regional government officials insisted there was no need to fret, despite chronically unenforced building codes. The Civil Protection Department for Abruzzo, the region where L’Aquila is located, even issued a press release flatly proclaiming there would be no big earthquake.
But the people of L’Aquila were understandably concerned. Over the centuries, the city had been devastated by several major quakes: One in 1703 killed 10,000 people, and a magnitude 7.0 quake in 1915 killed 30,000. This history has given rise to a culture of caution. When the ground seems especially temperamental, many residents — like their parents and grandparents before them — grab blankets and cigarettes and head outside to mill about in a piazza or a nearby park. Others sleep in their cars. Better not to be in an ancient building that hasn’t been seismically reinforced.
As the swarm continued, anxieties were compounded by a local personality named Giampaolo Giuliani. Giuliani uses a homemade apparatus to try to predict imminent earthquakes. His proclamations—and the amplifying power of media interest in them—earned him a reputation in town. During church services at Santa Maria del Soccorso or over an orange soda at Bar Belvedere, he was often greeted not with Buongiorno but Tutto a posto?(Everything look okay?). One local news outlet referred to him as “the prophet of doom,” and every time the earth shook that winter it seemed to validate Giuliani’s incessant agitation.
By late March, thousands of tremors had happened, dozens of them hitting 3.5 on the Richter scale. Then, on March 30, a 4.0 tremor catapulted the situation from tense to near madness. Sensing the need for a gesture that would calm the public’s nerves, the country’s Civil Protection Department — Italy’s equivalent to FEMA — decided to call in the country’s top experts, the Serious Risks Commission, to assess the situation. Selvaggi, the seismologist in Rome, wasn’t on the commission. But his boss, Enzo Boschi, was. A titanic figure in the Italian science community, Boschi asked Selvaggi to come along and talk with the group.
Before the meeting, Italy’s civil protection chief, Guido Bertolaso, called the regional office in Abruzzo. According to a transcript that was later leaked to the media, Bertolaso said the goal of the meeting was “to shut up all of these morons and calm people down.”
“Don’t say this business about ‘No more tremors are expected.’ That’s a totally fucked up thing to say,” he said. “You can never say anything like that when talking about earthquakes… not even under torture.”
The meeting, attended by seven experts, including Selvaggi and Boschi, and a handful of local officials, took just an hour and a half. Their conclusion: A major quake in the near term was unlikely. But remember, this is earthquake country: You never know. Boschi’s words during the meeting would later prove pivotal. “A large earthquake along the lines of the 1703 event is improbable in the short term,” he said, “but the possibility cannot definitively be excluded.”
An Abruzzo official pressed the prediction question once more. “We would like to know if we have to believe those people who go around creating alarm.” She was referring to the self-proclaimed expert, Giuliani. Such claims have no scientific basis, replied commission chair Franco Barbari. “The seismic sequence doesn’t foretell anything, but it surely refocuses attention on the seismogenic zone where, sooner or later, a large earthquake will occur.” The only thing you can do to protect people in such a place, he reminded her, is make sure structures are safe. As scientists and engineers repeat almost like a rosary: Earthquakes don’t kill people; buildings kill people.
Essay Option 1.
What’s so odd about odd numbers?
i think the “easy” answer here is a very after school special “odd numbers have an odd-one-out loner/YOU”RE A SPECIAL UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE WE LOVE ODD THINGS ODD THINGS ARE THE BEST” essay. which i think would be a fun essay to write, but it would be very difficult to stand out in the crowd.
amount i would believe in the essay: 7/10
ability of the essay to show off: 5/10
i think i would take it in anotherish direction and still talk about why odd numbers are cooler, not because unique things are cooler, but because a lot more mathematical research is done on odd numbers/prime numbers than even numbers. suck it, even numbers! and then i would write about how cool math is and maybe try to do like a paragraph on how cool the twin primes conjecture is.
Essay Option 2.
In French, there is no difference between “conscience” and “consciousness”. In Japanese, there is a word that specifically refers to the splittable wooden chopsticks you get at restaurants. The German word “fremdschämen” encapsulates the feeling you get when you’re embarrassed on behalf of someone else. All of these require explanation in order to properly communicate their meaning, and are, to varying degrees, untranslatable. Choose a word, tell us what it means, and then explain why it cannot (or should not) be translated from its original language.
mark chose “diu1 lian3”. which is pretty good, though i wonder if “save face” is close enough to the chinese meaning.
i should be able to come up with something better but i was going to talk about how, in english, “want” can refer to 1) desire or 2) lack of something. in chinese, “want” can refer to 1) desire or 2) plan on doing. which i find pretty interesting. and maybe i could talk about i wrote a paper where i used “want” as “desire” in a 10th grade paper and got a C and the teacher crossed out every instance. or how i’m teaching daniel chinese and the difference between studying a language academically vs learning it natively! and write one of those sort of BS-y “the difference in language reflects a difference in culture”.
amount i would believe in the essay: 4/10
ability of the essay to show off: 4/10
Essay Option 3.
Little pigs, french hens, a family of bears. Blind mice, musketeers, the Fates. Parts of an atom, laws of thought, a guideline for composition. Omne trium perfectum? Create your own group of threes, and describe why and how they fit together.
mine would be 1) leading a crowd of people through a choreographed dance through “footloose” at 4AM (hating dancing/avoiding prom to being an ardent dance marathon supporter); 2) organizing a through the night puzzle hunt for my residents (hating social interactions and being extroverted to becoming an RA); 3) first kiss (closeted to semicloseted) under the theme of “taking risks and going outside your comfort zone to enrich your life”.
amount i would believe in the essay: 9/10
ability of the essay to show off: 8/10
Essay Option 4.
Were pH an expression of personality, what would be your pH and why? (Feel free to respond acidly! Do not be neutral, for that is base!)
i think this is probably the cutest essay prompt that gives people the most creativity. you can go with various word associations (acidic/acrimonious, neutral, base/basic?!) or compare yourself to some sort of unique chemical and its real life properties or go super chemistry and talk about accepting or donating electrons. i love it.
i would go with “i am relatively acidic” because acids are more volatile and likely to incite change and really anthropomorphize acids and talk about how it sucks that people associate acids with burning people’s faces off, etc, when acids often create change in a positive manner. sort of a “you have to break eggs to make an omelette”, but also just how being a leader/someone who gets things done is a thankless, difficult job and how it’s infinitely easier to be distilled water and just criticize from the sidelines and not do anything. like “acids get a bad rap but acids get more done than water ever could”. DROPS MIC
amount i would believe in the essay: 9/10
ability of the essay to show off: 8/10
Essay Option 5.
A neon installation by the artist Jeppe Hein in UChicago’s Charles M. Harper Center asks this question for us: “Why are you here and not somewhere else?” (There are many potential values of “here”, but we already know you’re “here” to apply to the University of Chicago; pick any “here” besides that one).
this was a pretty hard one. i would just go full on existentialist in the essay and talk about a mini existential crisis and talk about my personal journey in overcoming it. i don’t think i would have anything super profound to say…. but it is my best answer to the question.
amount i would believe in the essay: 7/10
ability of the essay to show off: 4/10
in other news, being sick sucked and i felt really bad cancelling on plans on top of already feeling really sick. double jeopardy.
but i also really hate when other people flake and so i try to hold myself up to a really high standard of not flaking and thus force myself to do things that make me unhappy/beat myself up a lot for cancelling plans…. but then i remember that most people don’t hate flaking as much as i do and that it’s really not a huge deal.
ALSO made me totally appreciate how great life feels when you aren’t sick. wow.
also super interesting:
Assassins for Mexican-American drug cartels have been dissolving their victims’ bodies in chemicals, according to a piece published Tuesday in the New York Times. The process is known colloquially as making pozole, in reference to a traditional Mexican stew. It can take several hours to make a pot of pozole. How long does it take to dissolve a human body?
About the same, with the right chemicals and equipment. The assassins typically use sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, strong bases commonly known as lye. (The Times story misidentified their reagent of choice as an acid.) Heated to 300 degrees, a lye solution can turn a body into tan liquid with the consistency of mineral oil in just three hours. If your kettle isn’t pressurized, you won’t be able to heat the solution much above the boiling point of water, 212 degrees, and it might take an additional hour or two to complete the process. Narco-hit men did not pioneer this technique. Adolph Luetgert, known in his day as the “Sausage King of Chicago,” dumped his wife into a boiling vat of lye in 1897, then burned what was left. Police eventually found bone fragments in the factory’s furnace.
Acids can dissolve a body more completely than lye—liquefying even the bones and teeth—but it takes longer and can be hazardous. British murderer John George Haigh used sulfuric acid to dissolve at least six of his victims in the 1940s. He processed the bodies in a 45-gallon oil drum and reported that the victims dissolved completely in about two days. He also said he had to leave the room, finding the fumes intolerable. (Sulfuric acid can cause third-degree burns. A sprinkling of lye will merely irritate the skin but can be more dangerous if it’s mixed with water.) In 1980, a Gambino crime family henchman dissolved the body of a man who had accidentally killed John Gotti’s son in a traffic accident, using a 55-gallon drum and an unknown acid.
In addition to being safer and more efficient, lye is also easier to obtain than strong acids. You can purchase 8 pounds of it—enough to dissolve a few bodies—from soap-making or farm-supply stores for less than $15. If you can’t wait for delivery, pick up some drain cleaner from the supermarket, but it’s so dilute that you may need to use quite a few bottles. Sales of strong acids are much more tightly monitored, because they can be used in bomb-making (PDF).
[i will mention where in each review the spoilers start]
divergent (2014) - 8.5/10 drops of blood. the thematic heir to the hunger games, divergent is the first movie adaptation of a wildly popular dystopian YA book trilogy starring a female heroine kicking ass and falling in love.
i actually ridiculously enjoyed the movie. i didn’t take it super seriously (important.) and it has some really fun moments and GREAT one liners. and it has it’s dramatic moments and moments with heart.
Right off the bat, something is wrong with Divergent, the new teen action film based on the popular Y.A. book series. The people of the story, who live in a dystopian future Chicago, have split themselves up into five rigidly maintained factions, each with its own roles and philosophies: Abnegation (the selfless administrators), Dauntless (the protectors), Candor (the truth-tellers), Erudite (the intellectuals), and Amity (the placid farmers). Why are three of those names nouns and two adjectives? Couldn’t the smart faction be called Erudition, and the warrior group be called something like, I dunno, Bravery? It doesn’t make sense!
this is a funny line from richard lawson’s review: http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/divergent-review
I”M NOT DAUNTLESS. I”M DIVERGENT
EVERYONE HAS TO BE AFRAID OF SOMETHING
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i was jumping out of my chair and going crazy. <3<3<3
i find the love story simultaneously totally unbelievable and ridiculous because four is such a douchebag. but the whole thing where a GUY shows a GIRL his ULTIMATE FEARS and his VULNERABILITY? i can see why the movie has a legion of female fans.
OMG WHEN THEY HELD HANDS IN THE TRAIN i almost wanted to die. that was such a great moment. four has such an intense facial structure.
i’m really glad tris’s brother wasn’t evil.
isn’t letting someone into your brain the ultimate act of vulnerability? i partially understand the young adult draw. OMG WHEN HE SHOWED HER HIS TATTOOS!!!!!!!!!
oculus (2014) - 7.5/10 lightbulbs. a haunted mirror terrorizes a brother/sister pair in present day and 10 years ago in two stories told simultaneously.
the first act is absolutely bonkers and exciting and ambitious but it doesn’t quite stick the landing. i thought the structure of the movie was very cool as well and the tricks that the mirror could play were also quite imaginative, but the ending ultimately got a little old. but it has some incredible suspenseful moments and jumps and scares and unsettlingness.
the mindy project, season 2 (2013-2014, FOX) - 8/10 floors of the empire state building. rom com star mindy kaling comes back for a second season of hijinks in love and clumsiness and fat jokes in a very solid second season. i think they sometimes choose a good joke/one liner (DAMN if this show isn’t great at one liners, mindy’s are out of control incredible) over developing heart/character, but once you overlook that, it really is very great.
i am very sad that happy endings ended, but adam pally, while starting off pretty weak, ends up being pretty great in this season.
i don’t know how i feel about the whole danny/mindy thing. mindy can honestly really sell chemistry with anyone i think.
richard lawson is on a roll of hilarious gossip related ridiculousness:
According to the AP, government officials deemed that Miley “undertakes acts that go against morals and customs, which are punishable by Dominican law,” and she thus cannot perform in their country. Which is silly. What acts are these, exactly? Is it illegal for a woman to bend over in the Dominican Republic? Is it against the law to stick your tongue out? Does it violate Dominican morals and customs to weep while hugging a giant, laser-eyed dog? I mean, I’m not naïve, I know what these officials really mean—Miley Cyrus is a filthy woman who dares to make reference to her own sexuality, like some sort of sex demon—but come on. Miley Cyrus is not doing anything that bad in her shows.
Though, it has been a while since anyone on the VF.com staff has been to a Miley show. So maybe things have changed? What if she’s actually doing things that sincerely violate the laws, morals, customs, and beliefs of the Dominican people? Or that violate the very laws of nature? What if she’s killing a man on stage every night? We’d probably have heard something about that by now, but you never know. Maybe she hexes her audience into forgetting what they’ve just seen. Maybe Miley Cyrus has become some sort of murderous dark sorceress, and for whatever reason the only ones who can see it are the people on this censoring committee, and we should all be thankful to them for drawing our attention to this scary issue.
okay i have a specific brand of humor. also, this:
Taylor Swift and John Mayer Probably Aren’t Getting Back Together
I mean, they both wrote songs about each other. That’s pretty final in the world of music. Just ask Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham. (Actually don’t ask them.) Swift, of course, wrote the soaring self-help kiss-off “Dear John” in which she chastised a man named John for messing with an innocent girl. The song reaches its climax as Swift sings, “I’m shining like fireworks / Over your sad empty town,” an obvious reference to the brief period in 2009 when Swift became a being of pure glowing energy and hovered above Fairfield, Connecticut, for seven nights. It’s a pretty effective song.
Which all means that, in the very unlikely event that Swift and Mayer got back together, they’d have to write all new songs. “Sorry John,” maybe, in which Swift sings, “Sorry, sorry John / For that stupid song / Thought you were a jerk / But now we make it work,” or something better. (I’m not a lyricist.) And then Mayer writes something a little more oblique, about how he used to be a lothario but has reformed his ways and loves his old doll now. It would be an exciting age for music. But I really don’t think we’ll ever experience it. Because these two are probably not going to get back together.
Chances are, it was just an accidental thing that they were both at the Chateau Marmont on the same night, the other guests whispering or sighing with relief when Mayer strode in just after Swift left, imagining what awkward disaster could have happened had they run into each other. What stilted, perfunctory conversation would have taken place. “Hi John. How are you?” “I’m good, Taylor. And yourself?” “Great. Have a new song out.” “I saw the video. Lots of dancing.” “Mm.” “Well, I should get to my table.” “Yes, I suppose you should.” And then the whole goddang Chateau turns to ice like in Frozen. Thank heavens that was avoided. It coulda been really bad.
Only it didn’t start out as love. See, two summers ago, I came down with a mysterious illness. Not the common cold kind. Not even the achy back kind. This was the kind where you vomit massive amounts of blood throughout the day. The kind where doctors pass you from specialist to specialist. The kind where you’re bent over in pain with tears in your eyes.
And my roommate, Garrett, one of my best friends at the time, took pity on me. He took care of me. He picked up my prescriptions from the pharmacy. He cooked me dinner. He stayed in on Friday nights to watch movies. He’d even rub my back when I was in pain.
Each day, I waited anxiously until he came home from work. My face lit up when he surprised me with my favorite dinner. I replayed conversations we had when I was alone. I missed him when he was gone.
Two months into this routine, I had a thought — a tiny, little thought — that I loved him. It seemed preposterous. It seemed laughable. I shooed it away immediately. But that thought started creeping into my mind whenever he was away. That thought sneaked in whenever he did something nice or made me laugh.
And it all came down to this moment — one moment when he was cooking me dinner, and he looked over and smiled at me. I knew this was it. This was the moment where I had to decide if I could allow myself to love a man against everything I had previously known about myself. This was the moment when I had to decide if I was going to take a step forward into this crazy idea of telling my best friend that I loved him.
So, yes, I’m an otherwise straight man in love with a man. But I would never reduce Garrett down to just being a man.[….]But, if I’ve ever felt love, this is it. And, well — I think I’m in love with you.