Wikimedia chair, lawyer at Creative Commons, tech policy geek, FLOSS advocate, bassoonist, violist, nerd.
173 stories
·
16 followers

How to seed a pomegranate

1 Share

A few years back I was excited to learn that there was a video that would teach me how to remove the seeds from a pomegranate in ten seconds.

I was less excited when I learned that the video was four and a half minutes long. It shouldn't take more than sixty seconds to explain how to do something that only takes ten seconds to demonstrate. Maybe something like this:

“Here's how to seed a pomegranate in ten seconds: Cut the pomegranate like this.”

THUNK THUNK

“Hold half of the pomegranate over a bowl. Take a wooden spoon.”

WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP

“Now the other half.”

WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP

“There you go! Thanks for watching.”

Instead, this guy spent two minutes up front building suspense and telling us how awesome this was going to be once he finally got around to showing it to us. Then he spent another minute on the back end waffling around instead of just turning off the camera.

Many years ago I gave a conference talk in which I complained that conference speakers waste everyone's time introducing the subject before they work around to the point. I wish I'd used that pomegranate video as an example.

Read the whole story
mindspillage
10 days ago
reply
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete

ms-demeanor: emilysidhe: dont-spoop-yourself: emilysidhe: Baby It’s Cold Outside discourse is...

1 Share

ms-demeanor:

emilysidhe:

dont-spoop-yourself:

emilysidhe:

Baby It’s Cold Outside discourse is the same as Macbeth discourse. 

Explain?

OK, so one of the big debates in Macbeth involves the scene in which Lady Macbeth talks Macbeth into killing King Duncan.  People debate strenuously over whether it’s a scene of Lady M pressuring her reluctant husband into it, or whether it’s a scene of her sensing, due to their emotional intimacy, that this murder is something her husband secretly wants and has partially internally decided to do, and is arguing him into it in order to help him give himself permission to do it, in the same way that people see their loved ones wavering over the dessert menu and jump in with things like, “Go on, get the cheesecake, it’s your birthday!”  Readers and scholars disagree strenuously about this - we even studied an incident in college in which two 18th century illustrators attended the same performance and happened to draw the scene the day after, producing two images that advanced opposite interpretations even though they’d seen the exact same actors do the exact same performance.  It’s a big deal.

In the same way, the Baby, It’s Cold Outside discourse is about whether this is a song about sexual harassment, or whether it’s a woman singing about how she wishes she could spend the night with the guy she just had an excellent date with if only the neighbors wouldn’t talk, and him responding, “Stay, baby, it’s cold out!  No one could expect you to go home in this!”

I really don’t know (baby stab his side)
King Duncan’s a bro (baby cut through his hide)

I like him a lot (That decrepit old sot?)
This plan ain’t so great (But what a king you’d make!)

The guards might worry (Darling, do it in a hurry!)
His sons will rush the door (So knock them on the floor.)

I’m not such a knave (Bash his head with a stave)
But I’d be a good king (Now you’re starting to think)

The dukes might all talk (But their chatter means naught)
Say, love, what do you mean (You’d make such a king)

I simply must go (baby cut through his hide)
There’s a war on you know (baby cut through his hide)

But what of his wife? (And what of his life?)
It feels like bad luck (But that don’t mean much)

I’ve got a bad premonition (And I’ve got a mission)
But that’s just superstition (My love, you’re a vision)

The witches said I’d rule (If they lied they were cruel)
So baby let’s stab
Stab his siiiiide!

Read the whole story
mindspillage
23 days ago
reply
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete

nuclearspaceheater: “Procrastination isn’t relaxing. It’s like… false.”“How do you mean?”

2 Shares

nuclearspaceheater:

“Procrastination isn’t relaxing. It’s like… false.”

“How do you mean?”

image
Read the whole story
greggrossmeier
28 days ago
reply
SF, US
mindspillage
30 days ago
reply
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete

Mmmm baked potatoes

1 Share

I recently wrote an article here complaining that even though everyone agrees on what a good french fry is like, and even though it's not hard to make a good french fry, most of the fries you actually get are not good.

I have a similar complaint about baked potatoes. Restaurant baked potatoes are uniformly terrible, even when you pay $10 for them at an expensive steakhouse. The potato is supposed to steam inside its skin and become soft and fluffy inside, and crisp on the outside. Instead you almost always get a potato that is not too different from raw.

The bad fries are a mystery. It only takes a few minutes longer to make really good fries, and I don't understand why more people don't do it. The baked potatoes are easier to understand. Making a good baked potato takes a lot of time. It doesn't require skill or attention, just patience.

The recipe is: heat the oven to around 350°. Start with a big starchy potato, the kind with dusty brown skin. Wash, dry, and oil the potato, prick it with a fork, and put it naked into the oven. (No foil! Unless you want your baked potato to be a steamed potato instead.)

And then add the secret ingredients: time and heat. Many recipes advise baking the potato for an hour. This is not enough. Once the potato goes into the oven, leave it there, for at least ninety minutes, maybe a hundred and twenty. If it's in a pan you might want to turn it over once. It's probably better to just put it on the rack, then you don't need to turn it.

The exact time and temperature is not that important. This is not rocket science; it is just a potato. The proper cooking time is not a fleeting instant, it is a long afternoon, an easy target. At some point the potato will begin to overcook, but not for a long time, and if it does, it will happen very gradually. The skin will stay crisp and the inside will stay fluffy; only a thin shell in between will dry out too much, and even if it does you may not find it objectionable; some people like it that way. I suppose eventually the entire potato would char and catch fire, but you would have to work really hard to leave it in the oven that long.

The other key point is to take the baked potato out of the oven and deliver it to the table at the moment you are about to eat it, and not any sooner. The baking time is quite flexible, as long as you don't take it out too soon. So don't say “oh, the recipe said to bake it for 90 minutes”, and then take it out after exactly 90 minutes and let it sit around for a quarter hour before you serve it. Leave it in the oven until serving time, and when everything else is ready, then take it out and drop it on the plate.

Restaurant chefs have years of training and practice in the culinary arts, and because of this they cook many things much better than the rest of us. But how much advantage do they derive from their training and practice when baking a potato? Pretty close to zero.

Restaurants, by their nature, are really good at some kinds of food, much less good at others. The baked potato is very ill-suited to restaurant-style preparation methods. It takes a long time to cook, but unlike many long-cooking foods, such as stew or soup, it can't be prepared in advance and then reheated. (The outside, which should be the best part, would get tough and leathery.) The baked potato is best when served on the instant, but unless the restaurant had a whole oven devoted to potatoes in different stages of doneness, circulating in and out in shifts through the day, and unless they invested the attention and trouble to keep track of all those potatoes, putting in new ones and taking out the old ones every half hour or so, they wouldn't be able to produce a well-baked potato at the moment they needed to deliver it to the table.

And if the restaurant did go to all that trouble, what then? They wouldn't be able to charge enough to pay them back for the time and trouble, because it is just a potato, and who is going to pay a lot of money for a potato?

So baked potatoes are a dish that you can do at home better than a restaurant can, and you might as well. Let's all create a better world by cooking better baked potatoes.

Read the whole story
mindspillage
46 days ago
reply
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete

Keep Others’ Identities Small

1 Share

nequalszero:

I really like Paul Graham’s advice to “keep your identity small” - to avoid making groups or positions part of your identity if you want to remain unbiased. But I often want to add to it “and keep other people’s identity small too”.

It really annoys me when the first thing someone does when they hear something they disagree with is to attribute an identity to the person who expressed the view that roughly correlates with the view in question (feminist, liberal, conservative, religious, libertarian, etc.). When people do this they almost invariably fail to engage with the actual claims that the other person is making. Instead, they engage with claims they think someone from that group would typically make or they dismiss the person’s claims because they come from “a member of group x”.

I’ve seen this happen on all sides. Think IQ is heritable? You must just be racist and/or sexist. Think implicit bias might hinder women’s careers? You must just be a dyed-in-the-wool feminist. Think abortion might be wrong? You must just be religious and anti-women. This makes it almost impossible to sincerely engage with the claims in question. So if you want to actually expose yourself to a variety of views, it seems better to engage with people’s statements directly and attribute as small an identity to them as possible.

Read the whole story
mindspillage
54 days ago
reply
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete

probablynecromancerrpgideas: prokopetz: docexe-mx: prokopetz: flesheatingooze: prokopetz: proko...

1 Comment

probablynecromancerrpgideas:

prokopetz:

docexe-mx:

prokopetz:

flesheatingooze:

prokopetz:

prokopetz:

greyguardian64:

prokopetz:

It’s universally agreed that the mimic, a monster that impersonates a treasure chest and eats you if to try to open it, is the sort of conceptually ridiculous threat that could only come from old-school Dungeons & Dragons, but I suspect that a lot of folks who got into the game post-2000 - or who’ve only heard about it second hand - don’t realise just how representative it really is of the kind of dungeon-dwelling bullshit we had to put up with back in the day.

I’ve got a copy of the Monstrous Manual for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition (pub. 1993) in front of me, and in this book alone you’ll find:

  • A shapeshifting subterranean predator that impersonates doorways
  • A monster that looks like a cloak, and when you put it on it eats you
  • A giant - as in 20 feet across - flying manta ray that looks like the ceiling*
  • At least three unrelated beasties that impersonate decorative statues
  • A flesh-eating ooze that looks like a rock formation
  • A flesh-eating ooze that looks like a pool of water
  • A flesh-eating ooze that looks like a brick wall (you may have noticed that flesh-eating oozes are something of a theme)
  • An undead critter that also looks like a brick wall (the explanation for how it pulls this off is like half a page long)
  • A tentacled whatsit that impersonates a pile of trash
  • A snail-like critter that disguises itself as a stalactite, then falls on your head when you walk underneath it
  • A monster that looks like a stalagmite (can’t have one without the other, right?) that grabs you with sticky tentacles when you walk past
  • A monster that looks like a tree, and when you walk beneath its branches it sneakily places a noose-like vine around your neck and hangs you
  • A flying mushroom that looks like a different monster, except when you attack it, it explodes and infects you with poisonous spores

* Interestingly, there are no less than three apparently totally unrelated species of giant flying mantra rays in this book, though only one of them impersonates architecture.

And that’s just in the core rules for that particular edition. Various supplements for this and previous editions have included carnivorous floors, undead clothing, malevolent furniture, and - I swear I’m not making this up - a beastie that looks like a tree stump with a rabbit standing on it, and attacks you if you try to catch the rabbit (which is actually an anglerfish-like lure).

Basically, there are two things you should take away from this:

1. The variant mimics you see on Tumblr are no more ridiculous than what you’ll find in the actual source material; and

2. In old-school Dungeons & Dragon, literally everything is trying to kill you.

Let’s not forget the Bag of Devouring, which is a beastie pretending to be the most useful/neccasarry item in the game (bag of holding) and doesn’t even reveal itself until after it has eaten all your stuff and part of your arm

Ah, yes - the Bag of Devouring. The perfect intersection between “disguised monsters that want to kill you in ways that make no sense” and “seemingly helpful magic items that want to kill you in ways that make no sense” - that latter could be a whole post on its own!

(I’m like 99% convinced that the entire SCP Foundation universe is just somebody’s “D&D Modern” AU.)

Okay, I’ve gotten multiple requests for the “seemingly helpful magic items that want to kill you in ways that make no sense” post, so here goes. Again, I am literally just reading out of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide - this isn’t like a “best of” compilation spanning the game’s entire product line or anything, it’s all right there in the core rules.

Notable entries include:

  • A magic ring that causes the wearer to become deluded that the ring has some useful magical power. (Its only real power is to delude the wearer into thinking it has powers.)
  • A magic ring that legitimately has some useful magical power, but also renders the wearer psychologically incapable of agreeing with any spoken statement.
  • The aforementioned bag of devouring, which impersonates a bag of holding (i.e., a bag that’s larger on the inside than the outside), but is actually a feeding orifice of some nasty extradimensional critter.
  • A different screw-you variation on the bag of holding that randomly transmutes precious metals placed inside into base metals, and destroys magic items.
  • An enchanted bowl that every test indicates will summon friendly water elementals with a suitable ritual. When the ritual is actually performed, however, it shrinks the user to the size of an ant and drowns her. (Also, any deaths caused by this bowl explicitly resist all normal methods of resurrection, for no obvious reason other than fuck you.)
  • An enchanted bell that seems to have the power to open locked doors, and actually does so the first few times it’s used. After several uses, however, it suddenly switches to causing everyone who hears it to become ravenously hungry, to the point that they’ll try to kill and eat each other if no other obvious food sources are available.
  • A cloak that kills you when you put it on. That’s it. That’s all it does.
  • A pair of glasses that turn you to stone when you put them on. Again, that’s their sole function.
  • A pair of boots that perfectly duplicate the functions of some other, actually useful type of magic boots; as soon as the wearer enters combat, however, their useful property vanishes and they start dancing.
  • A magic drum that permanently deafens the user and anyone else within seventy feet when struck.
  • A broom that is “identical to a broom of flying to all tests”, except when you actually try to use it to fly, it comes to life and starts swatting you in the face instead. 
  • A pair of gloves that seem to give you super-strength, but the first time you encounter a “life and death situation”, their effect switches to rendering you supernaturally clumsy instead. Once the curse activates they can’t be removed without magical aid.
  • A hat that makes you stupid. 
  • A harp whose music is so supernaturally bad that everyone within earshot is driven to attack the player in a mindless rage.
  • A carpet that rolls you up inside it and suffocates you if you sit on it.
  • A spear that functions normally at first, but has a small random chance to curl around and stab you in the back each time you use it.

That’s by no means exhaustive, but I’m going to have to stop there because there are just so darned many of the things.

The list of “seemingly helpful magic items that want to kill you in ways that make no sense” looks like it came straight out of Oglaf.

Oglaf is literally just Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition as played by moderately drunk college students. I don’t mean literally-for-emphasis - I mean that’s actually, 100% what happens. It could be revealed tomorrow that the whole comic is just the author’s gaming journal and I wouldn’t bat an eye.

What I get from this is: a) The influence of Dungeons & Dragons in other fictional works is really pervasive. b) Dark Souls is nothing else but a D&D campaign with a particularly sadistic GM.

Totally. D&D is, like, weirdly influential once you start digging into it; in the grand scheme of things, it’s a game that practically nobody actually plays, yet there are entire genres of popular media directly based on it. Not just in the West, either - look into the history of JRPGs or fantasy anime some time. The 1980s Satanism freakout notwithstanding, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was an actual deal with the Devil somewhere along the lines to account for it.

i’m here for the undead brick wall idk about y’all

Read the whole story
mindspillage
65 days ago
reply
"A magic ring that legitimately has some useful magical power, but also renders the wearer psychologically incapable of agreeing with any spoken statement."

If it weren't for the magic bit I'd be pretty sure I know some people who have this in real life...
Mountain View, California
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories