I generally don't watch many movies these days.  It's kind of a big continuous time commitment, despite my willingness to waste tons of continuous time on other hobbies.  And it feels like all movies are part of a "universe" which I have a hard time getting into. 

But aside from all that, the one thing that's been bugging me for a while now is that movies in the past 15 years or so feel more "fast-starting" than they used to, which makes them feel less impactful.  This could absolutely be because I'm older and my brain is less flexible or whatever.  But it feels like modern movies don't spend enough time developing the plot and characters early on.  We just jump right in, here's the main guy, he's got one characteristic, and he's currently involved in the main plot of the movie which is currently operating at full pace.  Like, where's the build-up, and the character arc, and the tension and resolution?  It feels like every one-dimensional character encounters the story's main obstacle and instantly overcomes it.  It leaves me feeling disconnected from the character and uninvested in the outcome of the movie. 

The thing is, I would say I typically feel "entertained" by movies, even the dumb ones.  Fast cars, explosions, aliens -- it's entertaining, but it's not meaningful or fulfilling in any way.  I don't ask other forms of entertainment to provide me with fulfillment, but I guess if I'm investing 2 hours  of my life into something that cost a billion dollars to make and will win awards and become part of the cultural lexicon, I expect a little more than "ooh cool explosions." #entertainment

It's funny how one of the internet's most talked-about and valuable products is so poorly named.  ChatGPT is four spoken syllables, is difficult to say quickly, and contains an acronym that is essentially meaningless and unmemorable for its users.  It's like an internal codename that accidentally slipped into production. #technology

A few things to clarify: 

• Frog vs. Toad - Toads are a type of frog.  Frogs have smooth, moist skin and live near water.  Toads have dry, bumpy skin and live on dry land.  You can't get warts from a toad (that's a myth).
• Lizard vs. Salamander - Lizards are reptiles with dry, scaly skin and claws; they can live in dry or wet environments.  Salamanders are amphibians with smooth, moist skin and no claws; they can only live in wet or damp environments.
• Turtle vs. Tortoise - Tortoises are a type of turtle.  Turtles spend most of their time in water, and have streamlined shells to help them swim faster.  Tortoises spend most of their time on land and have more rounded or domed shells.
• Handling Baby Birds - It's a myth that parent birds will abandon young that have been touched by humans.

Ok that's all, carry on. #nature

I realize I'm not the first to say this, but timekeeping in soccer is absolutely ridiculous.  It's mind-boggling to watch a sport where literally no one knows when the game will end, not even the refs.  The argument is that if the refs stopped the clock during the game, teams could take advantage of the stoppage to get into a better position, or they could fake an injury to stop the clock, etc.  I get that, but surely there's a reasonable middle ground between no clock stoppages and some clock stoppages?  I watched a game where a guy BROKE HIS LEG, and the clock kept running.  That seems like a reasonable time to stop the clock.  Maybe there could be a handful of things that are stop-worthy, such as broken limbs, blood, decapitations (hasn't happened that I've seen), fan running on the field, etc. 

Aside from clock stoppages, could we at least get an idea of how much extra time there will be after regulation?  Surely that wouldn't too controversial.  Just a nice big clock on the sideline to let both the players and the fans know whether it'll be 30 seconds of extra time or 10 minutes. 

I played soccer (poorly) in high school, and we had timed halves.  I don't know how they managed the clock during the game, but it was never unclear when the game would end.  The fact that world-class major league soccer is run this nonchalantly is eye-opening to say the least. #sports

I've had a handful of experiences lately that have made me question the intelligence of the average person.  Doctor's offices, insurance companies, helpdesk people.  It's been a bit of a whirlwind. 

But actually intelligence is the wrong word.  Intelligence is essentially just "knowing things," and knowledge doesn't really come in to play as often as it might seem.  People can learn things.  Everyone is lacking intelligence about certain things, and that's fine. 

So then that made me think maybe it's capability, as in certain people are incapable of completing certain tasks.  But that's not really it either.  Human beings are surprisingly capable of many things, and they often become more capable as they become more intelligent. 

What I settled on was competence, which is basically having the intelligence and capability to accomplish something, and then actually successfully doing it.  Completing the task.  Finishing the job.  Whether for money or for free, a competent person will get a thing done. 

I don't know if it's a lack of motivation, or bad pay and long hours, or just a general disinterest in the positive outcome of a situation, but here's what I'm dealing with: 

• A medical receptionist who I called (multiple times) who was unable to successfully fax (yes, fax) a piece of paper to another doctor, only for me to suggest emailing it, which worked instantly.
• An insurance adjuster who couldn't understand the bill they sent me, and couldn't get the math to make sense on her end.
• An IT helpdesk person who couldn't identify a single human being involved in the servicing of a support ticket for software deployed and managed by his IT group.

I'm not the smartest person I know, or the most capable or competent, but I've either been unfairly conditioned by my coworkers and my friends and my family and basically every person I've ever known and interacted with to expect at least an ounce of competence, or people are getting dumber.

I obtained an electric vehicle about a month ago.  It's a KIA EV9, which is a 3-row "full size" SUV.  It's on the smaller end for SUVs, but it does really have three rows of seats that can fit several full size adults.  This is part of a three-part experiment: 

1. SUV vs. car:  I've never owned a vehicle larger than a sedan, and road trips with a child feel cramped.  I wanted to try a larger vehicle, but all the sizes between sedan and SUV are essentially the same (hatchback, crossover, etc.), so I gravitated toward an SUV.
2. Electric vs. gas:  I'm not totally pumped about SUV gas mileage, but it was a pill I could swallow.  But if an electric vehicle could offer the same size increase while also helping the environment, I could be interested.  I'm still not fully convinced the infrastructure is on par with gas, but we'll see.
3. Lease vs. own:  I've only ever bought the cars I've driven, for better or worse.  Since I was already branching out in vehicle size and engine type, I decided to try leasing.  That way my experiment has a fixed time window.

It's been a few weeks, and so far so good.  The vehicle looks good and feels good, but that can be said about any brand new thing.  The size felt a little uncomfortable at first, but I've gotten used to it.  The electric motor is perfect for commuting because I just charge it up in my garage overnight.  Taking it on a road trip will be a different experience.  In my limited experience with charging stations, there are at least 4 different "standard" charging interfaces (think nozzle shapes) and the converters are surprisingly not included with the vehicle.  Leasing is probably the most uncomfortable part, because I have to essentially return the vehicle in "barely used" condition in a few years, which wouldn't be a problem if I was the only person using it and also the only person on the road and in parking lots, but other people exist. #travel

I feel like "old twitter" was sort of a marketplace of ideas -- you know, the thing right wingers are always clamoring for.  It was free and open, and the marketplace (a.k.a. the userbase) allowed good ideas to percolate and bad ideas to be ridiculed.  People with bad ideas didn't like this system because it didn't allow them to spread their bad ideas. 

Enter Elon Musk, prominent Nazi.  Musk didn't like the marketplace so he simply bought it.  He changed the structure from "free and open" to "pay to win" so that paying customers would have their voices heard more.  Instead of good ideas rising to the top, bad ideas bought their way in.  On top of that, engagement became the new currency, so the bad ideas with the most engagement dominated the marketplace.  Twitter's marketplace of ideas is now a swamp of shit with the absolute worst people and worst ideas on the very top. 

Critics will say Elon had to do something to make Twitter profitable.  That sounds reasonable, but I have my doubts.  Tech companies absolutely don't need to make money.  Most corporations don't need to make money.  Private investments, stock buybacks, corporate restructurings, and mass layoffs are how pretty much all companies operate at what appears to be a profit.  It's all made up and doesn't matter at all.  The point is, Elon destroyed twitter because he's an awful lunatic attempting to curry favor with the most despicable human beings on the planet.

The government has been shut down for the past almost month and a half due to a funding disagreement.  As an employee of the federal government, I've been sort of unemployed this whole time.  Certain projects at work were in an "excepted" state which meant work was to continue as normal, while other projects were simply put on pause until funding resumed.  Some people have been doing absolutely nothing, while other people have been going to the office and working full-time.  I lucked out due to my funding level on one of those projects, and only had to work "to my allotment" which was 25%, which meant I did two hours of work per day and then called it a day.  If there's any doubt about this type of work schedule, I can firmly state this is the ideal amount of work that should be attempted in one day.  Two hours is enough to focus on something, make some progress, maybe complete a thing, and then call it quits.  It's the perfect work/life balance. 

The only downside was that we weren't getting paid.  There was an expectation that we would get paid after the shutdown ended, and this was even codified as a law after a previous shutdown.  But I no longer have confidence in the government's ability or willingness to follow laws.  Working without pay is fine for a short time, but it brings up some interesting questions after a while.  Like, how long do I feel like working without getting paid, and how hard do I feel like working?  At what point should I consider a different job, preferably one that pays me?  Because as much as I like my job, at the end of the day, it's a job.  If I didn't have to work for a living, I wouldn't.  If I could devote my time to something while not getting paid, it wouldn't be my job. 

But the other interesting question was:  What the hell should I do with my time?  It's hard to predict when a government shutdown will end, so you don't want to make any big future plans or anything.  So I mostly did nothing with my newfound free time.  I played video games, watched TV.  Standard things I would do with my downtime in pseudo-vacation mode.  But after a couple weeks, I decided I should probably be productive in some form, so I did a few house projects that have been waiting around for months.  Again, even with two hours of work and a few hours of home improvement work, it's still a great work/life balance. 

Which, by the way, I think the last time I had this much free time in my life was when I was maybe 15 years old, before I started working a summer job.  After that point, it was work, high school, college, summer internships, and then a full-time job.  High school and college weren't easy, stress-free times for me, so I've basically been "on" for the past 28 years straight. 

The source of the government shutdown was a disagreement between the president's budget proposal and congress's acceptance of that bill.  Now that the furlough is over, government employees have been assured they will receive back pay both for the actual work they did and also for the work they didn't do, i.e. they'll be paid for not working.  As a taxpayer, this is an absurd situation.  But as a government employee who had no say in whether or not the government was shut down, it's a no-brainer.  Pay me what you owe me, bitch.  I signed up for this job, I've created a life based around receiving a certain annual salary.  A political disagreement is honestly not my fucking problem.  And honestly it's a weird situation, where it's unclear who benefits from a government shutdown.  Surely the government workers don't benefit, and neither do the businesses and restaurants and all manner of other trickle-down economic players who aren't receiving that routine flow of cash.  But also the taxpayers don't benefit because not only are those tax dollars still being spent, you're also not getting the work production value out of them.  As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit are the small-brained politicians who get to essentially take hostage the entire national economic apparatus to exercise their silly little power plays. #politics

I think it's funny that the literal shape of the ball plays an important part in the game of football.  Most other ball sports that I can think of off the top of my head (baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, golf) have balls that are spheres, so the shape doesn't really come into play.  The texture (basketball), seams (baseball), and material (golf) all play a role, but not the shape.  A football is weird because it's oblong and pointy.  It makes it easy for a quarterback to throw, a ball-carrier to hold, and a receiver to catch.  But if the ball bounces off the ground, it literally exhibits unpredictable, random motion.  Sometimes that's good if you're punting or kicking and don't want the other team to have the ball.  But other times it's bad if you're trying to scoop up a fumble.  It's never not funny watching a group of large, athletic men chase around an chaotically bouncing ball. #sports

I've been using Microsoft Windows since version 3.1, when it was just a thing that ran on top of MS-DOS.  Then with Windows 95 it replaced MS-DOS as the operating system on your computer.  Windows 98 essentially introduced the Blue Screen of Death.  Windows 2000 mostly fixed that, and it was clean and wonderful.  Windows XP made everything bubbly, but still good.  There was a period of time in those days when Windows was stable and usable and everything felt good, but you had to download third-party software to do things like view pictures and videos (and different software for different filetypes!), and to do simple/standard things like open zip files.  I think I skipped Windows Vista, or it was unmemorable, but either way around this version or Windows 7, everything started to become baked in.  You didn't have to download any other software to do the things you do on a computer.  I would say this was the pinnacle of Windows.  I think I skipped Windows 8, but Windows 10 was essentially more of the same, though perhaps a little cleaner.  We're now at Windows 11, and things have changed.  If you haven't upgraded from Windows 10 to Windows 11, your computer will tell you, it will repeatedly remind you even if you tell it to stop asking, and it will nag you until you throw it in a dumpster out of frustration.  Windows 11 changed a bunch of functionality, removed a bunch of configurable settings, and introduced AI as a core component of the operating system.  There's even AI in Notepad, the simplest, most straightforward piece of software ever conceived, ruined by a half-baked, unnecessary, unhelpful, undesirable piece of forced technology. 

Throughout its lifetime, Windows started out as a clunky add-on, became buggy, became the industry standard, fixed its bugs, became its true self, and then deteriorated into a worthless pile of garbage foisted on its global user base by techno-futurist zealots.  An operating system isn't the piece of technology people want to interact with.  When I use a computer, I want to use software, I want to write, create, learn.  The operating system is simply the skeleton that holds everything up.  If I have to fight with my operating system to force it to allow me to do what I want to do, it no longer has any value for me.  Windows has become a nuisance, a paper cut, a broken bone.  I guess it was inevitable, but it's still sad to see. #technology