sun-burnt and sunflower-bearing
word-dry of drafting
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
|You're viewing dreamwidth_haikai|
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More
While I'm all for the synergies presented by Verizon owning both companies, I am - I realized after writing about it - *not* in favor of a) AOL being completely absorbed by Yahoo nor b) the opposite happening.
As I just got done bitching about under lock, if either thing occurs it means something like this fiasco might be the end result, which means I might have to blog again.
And noooooo, noooooo, noooooo. I don't want to.
ETA, minutes later: googled around and found The Verizon Yahoo purchase, explained. It seems Yahoo's the one shutting down about half of its "verticals" (aka, mostly their "websites") not AOL, which jibes with my thinking: AOL still has a vibrant sort of thing going on in some cases, traffic-wise, while Yahoo does not. Which also finally solves the riddle of Yahoo shutting down Messenger. Of course! Because now everyone can just use AIM. I knew something weird was behind that. I just never guessed what.
This is the better of the two folds for me because it means I won't have to blog. Historically I don't help people with losing their Yahoo stuff and have no reason to start doing so now.
And with that, the consummation of the union I've pined away for for 10 freaking years (synergies, man; all the synergies) is well underway. Wedded bliss, at long last!
Like many marriages, this one was arranged by the groom's dad (Verizon, the proud adoptive parent of AOL) after the would-be-bride (the regal and perpetually purple-attired Queen Yahooniti) freaked out about it, saying, "I will NEVER marry you! Stop telling me I've got male! I don't want it!!!"
Finally her parents were like, "Money, bitches. Show us the money, and you can have our daughter; otherwise she will never be yours". So they showed it - $4.8 billion pieces of it, to be precise, one handsome dowry, indeed - which even includes Tim Armstrong, who the Queen's secretly been crushing on for years.
And the Yahoonitis were pleased.
But then there's Marissa. What will become of her? At least until the transition completes, her and Timmy are coworkers again (co-CEOS, I guess? Stranger things have happened), which might make me titter under normal circumstances, but from what I've heard they get on rather well, or at least did over at Google...the synergies, man.
I'm just basking in the warm glow of all these synergies.
On Wednesday, in what many experts are calling a milestone in neuroscience, researchers published a spectacular new map of the brain, detailing nearly 100 previously unknown regions — an unprecedented glimpse into the machinery of the human mind.
New yeasts found to be secret partners with known fungi and algae
birds pack neurons into their brains at densities well above densities in mammals' brains, putting some relatively compact bird brains into the same realm as those of primates when it comes to total cell counts.
The study, published by the journal Science, is a follow-up of a widely covered 2014 report that had a similar conclusion but was subsequently retracted.
At the Leadership Lab’s two-hour pre-canvass training that morning, volunteers were warned about “fake 10s,” people who think of themselves as against discrimination — many of them Democrats — but who can nonetheless be swayed by emotion-based appeals that provoke prejudice and fear.
I'd put writing about this off because I'm really tired but then it won't be the anniversary of her death anymore, so...when Amy died I didn't light a candle because at the time I just couldn't stomach her. She looked weird, and the bun, and the rather dramatic weight loss, and she was so foul-mouthed and contralto in her songs I just could not. Stand her.
I'd downloaded some of her music when she was still alive, and actually listened to it, so I tried. She's still the only famous Jewish pop singer I can think of offhand besides Barbra Streisand and as someone with a Jewish father, I admired her for that, because Jewish stars are rare and usually immensely talented if they do become famous. So knowing how celebrated and popular (and Jewish) she was, I tried to like her, or at least her music.
Then, I think sometime shortly after she passed, I listened to another song of hers. I can't recall if it was something I'd downloaded previously and perhaps never played because I was so disgusted with her other music and overall persona or if I just happened to catch it on Youtube, but I was crying before the song was over. It was a completely uncharacteristic-for-her ballad called Love Is A Losing Game. While I can do without the "five story fire" early on (I'd never understood what she thought she was adding to her catalog with her bawdiness or profanity, and I still don't) the rest of the song is a haunting retrospective on love gone wrong.
Seriously, there are maybe five songs in the world I can't listen to more than a few times a year, and even then only if I'm prepared to start crying because I know that's where this is leading, and this song is on that list.
With that, I not only forgave her transgressions against my ears and fashion sense, I actually, really got into her music. All of it. Now there's almost nothing mainstream I can hear from her that I don't like or already know the words to, with (so far) Tears Dry On Their Own (a rather upbeat and energetic live version she performed in Berlin; I don't really care for the studio recording or other versions), Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow and Valerie among my favorites.
In clicking on news about her tonight I found some more covers she did, most of which I don't think I've heard yet, and saw mention of a posthumous album, Lioness: Hidden Treasures, which I'm pretty sure I haven't heard all the way through (but I'm playing it on Youtube while I type this; it's OK, so far; she could perform Valerie half-asleep and totally acapella and I swear I'd still dig it).
I wish you were here. The world's not been the same since you've been gone. I'm not the same. I'm less risk-taking, more all-out when I do take risks, less sorry, more successful when I bother and less likely to than ever before and not at all sure why I'm here nor why I was left behind. I can't make it without you and don't want to and yet. Something's making me. The fact that I wake up each day. I gave no permission, would rescind it if I could, been trying to for four years but they won't take it back, whoever gives won't take it away. I wouldn't want you here: the world's horrible, a mean and selfish, violent and ugly, inward and self-centered place grown rotten to its core. I'd want you here, though, to discuss it with at least one of you and to rake you over the coals with the other, because you know better. But I miss both of you, not equally, but just as much in different ways, and for entirely different reasons. And I miss who I was around you and don't even know who I am without you to fall back on. Or is that against. I miss what the world once was and what it could've been. I hate where it's going.
I don't know why I'm writing this.
1)(tags) Finish sub-catergorizing [tag: subtag].
2) (css) See about right-justfiying metadata above linkbar, because damn, I'm preferring extraneous info right-justified.
3) (css) Comment section right-hand gutter is, whoops, looking a bit narrower than the left. (just my imagination; this was one pixel off - in the other direction) My eyes are...quite done for now. Left off here, about four years ago. ETA: one of the little-known perks of having more than 700 posts is skiplinks stop working at skiplink #749. Luckily I was back to mid-2009 by then. When they stop working, Dreamwidth throws you "View previous day" links. Luckily my internet's fast because otherwise that would've been torture. Need to go a second time once first round is done to add food ( "cooking"? "Comestibles"? Maybe a French word or phrase), software (either the blanket term "software" or else parse out names), poems (but I'm giving this some inappropriate name that only I can connect them to, like "oranges" "enchantment", because that's what poems are), my now-dead userscript ("uso"), prior utility/cable companies, and maybe a similarly inappropriate name for anything that falls through the cracks/is locked. Found two three CSS issues in perusing skiplinks: the linkbar is not clearing one-line posts and metadata is jamming into linkbars where a tagbar isn't around to separate them. Not every post will have a tag (well, not if I don't go with tagging what falls through cracks/is locked) so this might be an issue on my page and will be one on my Reading page, no doubt. And top of page link isn't landing correctly on day entries. Needs a butt kick to the right. Also have the problem where one tag is making me look psychic because it's past tense on what was written in present tense. There's a word for that but my brain is getting too done to find it. Anachronism.
In case you haven't been online or reading lately, Bowie's my new kitten. This is hardly an exhaustive list and will probably grow right along with him...
In order of what he played with first...
Bowie has turned out to be unbelievably fussy about wet food. He doesn't like anything organic or with seafood or beef, though he pretended to the first week or so he was here. But he loves (non-organic) chicken because OMG yum...I have no idea why he likes it so much (but doesn't like fresh-roasted chicken right off any chicken I just roasted...he pretended to like that, too, for a while, but no longer does...go figure). Bowie also loves...
I found a low cost clinic that will neuter him but not until he's three months old or three pounds, whichever he achieves first. I've been trying to tell Other Person he's already three pounds but he doesn't think so. I think he is. He has giant hands, feet and fingers which prove he's going to be a
mountain lion large cat when he grows up, and I think he's at three pounds now. Without the I'm A Poor Person Discount, the total comes out to around $150ish. With, about $80 bucks. Includes pre-exam, shots, rabies shot, the surgery, pain meds and fluids.
I've also found other low-cost clinics and groups that give out vouchers but that's for neutering only. I want him to at least have a cursory exam and his shots, too. Because we can't agree on how much Bowie weighs and I don't have a way to prove it, I'm going to wait a few more weeks; he'll surely be three pounds, if not more, by then.
Yeah, I know...nuh-uh, no more, but it's an election year and I need a tag for Trump. While I'm at it, I need a CSS tag and a couple of other good tags, too.
In the linked post above I made simply amazing arguments for not using tags, all of which I stand by 100% (it's funny how little I can disagree with myself, even given time and distance to think things over) but I've fucked so hard with Google's algorithms as applied to my blog (by changing metadata, blog organization and deleting tags, which in in itself seems to have permanently lost Google's bot out in space somewhere) that googling my own writing isn't as easy or reliably quick as it used to be anymore.
I've always had a theory - that's been enraging my online enemies since 2006 or so - that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. While as a practical matter it's not always feasible nor ethical to do so - not in all areas of my life - SEO is the one area where I tend to jump right in, so I'm only going to make tags for things I need to see doing well in Google. Should be fun.
I just checked DW's settings for tags and was reminded there are none. Metadata can be moved above or below each post but does not take tags with it. I want tags above and metadata below, and there is no untangling it unless I figure out how to re-write the s2 or put in a Suggestion at dw_suggestions that gets adapted.
But I'm pretty sure I have a suggestion in queue for it, already. Luckily, I save hard copies of my suggestions since denise only publishes them
once every 20 years or so rather irregularly, so I'll have to go through them soon, to double check.
Which reminds me, this is the last year I'm paying for Dreamwidth. I'm paid up through next spring, and I'm not sorry I am, but after that - barring some pretty miraculous changes - I'm done. Suggestions queue doesn't run anymore and truth be told, site owner is chronically ill, so she needs to pass the baton along to someone else now.
No, I'm not kidding. And I'm not going to sit here and keep my mouth shut when the lack of changes for the better on this site are hurting not just me but everyone.
10,000 computers, exactly? You'll find this gem about our Library of Congress just passingly mentioned in the article about the LOC's failure to digitize most of the books in their possession. I searched Google for more on this little "misplacement" but the one link I found looks like just another passing mention was made in an article on LinkedIn.
I mean, can you imagine this?
THE CAST: you, your boss. THE SCENE: your place of work, early morn at your desk. You sit looking at your most recent Word document, which apparently converted itself into Swahili after you saved it last night. THE QUESTION: your boss looks at your screen, asks if you can speak Tswana as well as write it, then, without waiting on an answer, asks almost apologetically: "Um, have you seen the 10,000 computers that were here when we closed up last night?" He grips his cup of coffee in a seemingly relaxed manner and stares intently at his feet.
THE ANSWER: 0_o...
Of course, no one knows if anyone did anything to recover the computers, because this was not fated to become one the bigger grand larcenies a government body's ever experienced (and therefore, one of the more sensational news stories ever told); rather, this was destined to become just another throwaway line in a few obscure web articles, because who cares?
Whew. I mean, I thought something was wrong, but it turns out they're just missing 10,000 computers, that's all.
Considering the battle of the bulbs I've been waging, this looks promising: an incandescent bulb is on the horizon that recycles its own heat to save energy while shining in the same warm spectrum of light we've come to expect from old-fashioned bulbs.
This is good news because I stared at an LED bulb in my bedside table lamp last night (a complete accident; obviously, my mind was on other things) just for a second and for the next 10 minutes could not stop seeing a pale greyish-blue in the perimeter of my vision every time I looked at anything white. I thought for sure I'd burned my eyes. Luckily I'm sort of sunlight eye-burn resistant and I guess this held true for the LED burn I could've given myself, but I wouldn't want to push it.
A 2013 study suggests LED light can burn your eyes, but according to an engineer who I guess likes to debunk things, you'd need to stare at a "100-W-equivalent light bulb from four inches away for 12 hr" to achieve the same effect. So am I supposed to merely accept having blue perimeter vision every time I accidentally stare at an LED bulb*?
The MIT bulb is more efficient than LED or fluorescent and costs even less to run. I can only wish they were already on the market.
*"[The study author] suggests wearing good-quality sunglasses with UV filters, and eating a diet rich in vitamin A to protect the eyes from retinal damage." Sure, let me break out the sunglasses to wear around my house, right away. And Vitamin A is practically poisonous to smokers.
Also, re: the first outbound link, I just love love loooooooove how Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. He did that. Except he didn't, yet the link still falsely credits him for the invention. Others got there first, and while Edison was still fine-tuning his own bulb, Adolphe Chaillet created the Shelby bulb, which might outlive everyone reading; it's still burning form the day it was first switched on - almost 112 years ago. Nope, not a typo. General Electric bought Chaillet's company out and discontinued the bulb because you can't make a profit on something that outlives your clientele, and while you can make a profit on something that doesn't, it's always wise to reduce its lifespan to make even more money. Of course!
I'm not a big TV viewer. I stopped watching altogether before 9-11, then watched through 9-11 and a small plane hitting some building in Queens or Brooklyn a month or so later (suspected, of course, as terrorism, which it turned out not to be) and didn't turn the TV back on until my mom convinced me to watch The Good Wife around 2008-2009. It took a lot of convincing. I spent not weeks but months asking her why she was so gung-ho about it and why I should watch. It meant breaking my TV embargo so it was really important that I not do so to watch fluff.
Of course, I gave in and began watching (though not regularly until 2010) but I still didn't turn the TV on for anything besides. In the years since she's passed I've lived with nothing but heavy TV watchers, so running across TV has become inevitable and hard to avoid without deliberately sequestering myself night and day away from whichever TV is on.
That said, if I'm in, say, the kitchen, and the TV's on in the living room, and I happen to hear something interesting (open floor plan here), I might pause for a minute to go look (because yes, once an embargo, always an embargo; The Good Wife ended this spring so I have no reason to ever watch TV again). Which happened last night; from the kitchen I heard one of the woman announcers on Entertainment Tonight say, "And Donald Trump" blah blah blah "convention" and shot out of the kitchen to watch. Well.
What is it with the media treating this guy like he's normal? The woman announced, while standing in front of a still picture of him that took up the whole screen, that he wants a star-studded convention and to really put on a show. She had a gigantic smile on her face as she delivered this bit of fluff and seemed to nod perceptibly in approval.
That was it. But in this one minute of fluff? There's so much to unpack.
The first thing that hit me is when he's addressed by name on televised media, no one prefaces it with, "the racist and misogynistic" or "the name-calling, bigoted and insulting" or "the fascist-leaning" or "the white nationalist loving Donald Trump" and I can't understand why? Is the media that afraid of his oh-libel-happy ways?
Emphasizing his negative characteristics - and if he's not one big walking bundle of negative characteristics, then he's nothing at all..."12th Amendment", anyone? And don't even give me "Obama's 52 states, anyone?" He was counting territories, for Christ's sake, and was probably just tired or he wouldn't have done that - can only improve television ratings. It would also do an invaluable service to the general public, you know, the ones who don't get on the internet except to call people like me liberal sleazebags? And give them some perspective on why Trump is not exactly everyone's favorite guy?
I'd say at least 10-20 million people get most of their news from TV, and maybe a small percentage (a million?) get it from hour-long fluff pieces like Entertainment Tonight. But what's so entertaining about normalizing Trump, unless the folks running televised media want him for president and are fluff-piecing him to death to drum(ph) up the vote? Nothing. They need to tell the truth and paint him in the light he's earned himself, one disgusting word out of his mouth at a time.
Normalizing him isn't right because he isn't normal - or nice, or honest. Normalizing him suggests to those who do know and disapprove of his background that he's A-OK. Having deeply fascist leanings and openly consorting with white nationalists on Twitter? A-OK. Hating blacks and Mexicans? A-OK. Barring Muslims from entering the country? A-OK. Water-boarding suspected enemies and killing their wives and children? A-OK. Everything he says and does? A-OK! This guy? Always passes!
By normalizing him, by not mentioning anything bad he's said or done, televised media tells us he passes. He passes for normal. Whatever he says or does, passes. This, let me remind you, is the same guy who can shoot and murder someone in broad daylight on 5th Ave in New York City and still "get supporters". (Of course: even Charles Manson has those!) But the way the media's treating him - not with kid gloves, but like he's someone else, altogether - it wouldn't surprise me if he did, only to catch the same woman on TV that night delivering yet another fluff piece on him with that same gigantic smile plastered across her face and those same sickening, perceptible nods of approval.
Because yeah, so he murdered. So what. Who fucking cares? On with the show! This is ENTERTAINMENT! Tonight.
In the meantime, here's some news that's not a fluff piece. I'm not presenting it with a gigantic smile plastered across my face, nor am I (perceptibly or otherwise) nodding in any kind of approval. Yes, I'm a liberal sleazebag, thank you.
Donald Trump’s Social Media Ties to White Supremacists and Donald Trump's Love Affair With White Supremacists - so, why aren't we hearing about this on TV? Huh?
For Trump, it's (white) America First, because Donald Trump Knows Anti-Semites And White Nationalists Are The Center Of His Play. How does he know? Why, because Trump backers are the most bigoted! There are studies to prove it. Congratulations, haters.
Trump declines invite to NAACP convention. Because disown David Duke or Twitter fascists, racists haters and trolls? Neeeever. Disown black people? In a heartbeat!
Trump Supporters Flooded Me With Anti-Semitic Taunts & Death Threats Yesterday, but hell yeah, let's normalize this guy, let's make him seem as good, as American as apple motherfucking pie. Congratulations definitely go to televised media for this.