California's recent storms have coincided nicely with our discussion of weather in German. Almost immediately after my professor began to teach some weather vocabulary today came a roar of thunder - particularly loud because the classroom door was open.
Yesterday we waited about 30 minutes in similar weather outside of the Griddle Cafe in Hollywood, which turned out to be quite worth the wait. We ordered a giant pancake filled with Oreos, which was incredibly tasty, and so large that two of us could only finish about 2/3 of it. The issue was not so much its size as its sugar content. I would like to know precisely how many Oreos I consumed yesterday, because I have never been so repulsed by the thought of sweet food as I was after that pancake. I have now gone nearly a day and a half without eating anything sugary, which is a little unusual for me.
And now for a discussion of an eternally evident trend: that frequency of blog posts varies inversely with the blog's age.
Over the void of the past few months I have developed an admiration for daily bloggers - this is something to work towards. (Side note: Blogger.com's spell check insists that "blog" and "blogger" are not words.)When you've just started a blog the words come effortlessly: in 2007 I posted 17 times in November and December alone. You might not suspect writing a few sentences each day to be difficult - it certainly sounds simple to me.
But I have some chronic writer's block. I've attributed it to a lack of motivation: the same deficiency which prevents me from picking up a book and reading it, working on a large-scale programming project, or actually getting the music in my head onto paper. Instead I find myself watching movies and television, presumably due to their minimal brainpower requirement.
Case in point: this weekend I watched all three Bourne movies, which were quite enjoyable, though a bit formulaic:
Bourne, to self: Who am I?!
Some CIA division head: I want all eyes in (European city) on Bourne! Give the asset his location!
Bourne, on the phone with division head: Send (CIA employee) to meet me at (crowded European city square). Come alone!
Some CIA employee: That place is a surveillance nightmare!!
CIA division head: I want snipers on the rooftops! And all eyes on Bourne!
Bourne: You didn't come alone! I'm out of here!
(car chase in which Bourne escapes and then travels to another European city)
Intellectualism has been pushed to the sidelines. Although recently Frank told me he might be able to show my clarinet sonata to a clarinetist and a pianist, which prompted me to make some revisions. Since I finished the piece last summer there have been a few unsatisfactory spots: in particular a stale restatement of the main melody of the first movement down an octave. I've since replaced it with a passage in which the clarinetist refuses to play, to the pianist's dismay. They proceed to musically mock each other until the pianist flips out and begins to play discordant variations on the clarinet's themes. Of course, this probably sounds much more interesting in words than in reality.
This has only confirmed my suspicion that I need some incentive beyond personal satisfaction to actually accomplish things. School is never an issue because it entails its own deadlines and provides immediate feedback. But I worry that when I lack the motivation to do what I consider my hobbies, there might be a problem.
What motivates you?
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, July 13, 2009
Underschtand
Something I understood when I was little and don't understand now:
When drinking fountains come in pairs, there is always a lower one and a higher one. As a kid it was obvious to me that the left drinking fountain was for short people, while the right drinking fountain was for tall people, and that was that. This explanation suffices in the case of say, elementary schools, when students' heights vary dramatically. But the "tall" fountain is still low enough that most people older than 13 or so can drink from it effortlessly.
So why is there always a "short" drinking fountain? Clearly it is to accommodate children, which could be reasonably be in any public place. But if they aren't tall enough for the "tall" fountain, are they tall enough for the average public restroom sink? If they aren't tall enough for the "tall" fountain, should they really be wandering around without someone there to assist them? And if we are to accommodate a minority group like children at a university, shouldn't we also consider the minority of tall people with back problems, who can't reasonably bend over that far to drink some water?
It's uncomfortable for me to drink from the tall drinking fountain, and I don't have back problems, nor am I exceptionally tall. And since in the average non-elementary-school public space, the "tall" fountain is used almost exclusively, it is usually not working optimally. So everyone is forced to use the short one - an inconvenience to a much greater number of people than would be inconvenienced if
Or maybe if, best of all, there were an adjustable-height drinking fountain (I really should patent this.)
Something I didn't understand when I was little and do understand now:
Say you are a pedestrian crossing a large intersection: you press the button, the walk symbol is displayed, and you begin to cross. Mere seconds later the icon changes to the flashing red "prepare to stop!" hand. "How can they expect anyone to cross the street that fast?" This baffled me for the longest time. I stopped thinking about it for over a decade, probably because I am rarely a pedestrian in an area with large streets. But this summer I have been doing a lot of walking at UCI during lunch. Almost immediately after I started in late June it finally struck me.
The reason the pedestrian traffic signal changes to the flashing hand so quickly is because beyond that point, they don't think you will have enough time to cross the intersection. If the "walk" icon were displayed much longer than the hand icon, as I thought it should be when I was younger, someone might arrive at the crossing moments before the hand disappeared, enter the street, and then find themselves stuck with mere seconds to cross. So rather than an underestimate of the time it takes to cross the street, it's an overestimate. When I think of it now it is almost offensively obvious; it absolutely could not function any other way.
I'll just tell myself I'm getting wiser.
When drinking fountains come in pairs, there is always a lower one and a higher one. As a kid it was obvious to me that the left drinking fountain was for short people, while the right drinking fountain was for tall people, and that was that. This explanation suffices in the case of say, elementary schools, when students' heights vary dramatically. But the "tall" fountain is still low enough that most people older than 13 or so can drink from it effortlessly.
So why is there always a "short" drinking fountain? Clearly it is to accommodate children, which could be reasonably be in any public place. But if they aren't tall enough for the "tall" fountain, are they tall enough for the average public restroom sink? If they aren't tall enough for the "tall" fountain, should they really be wandering around without someone there to assist them? And if we are to accommodate a minority group like children at a university, shouldn't we also consider the minority of tall people with back problems, who can't reasonably bend over that far to drink some water?
It's uncomfortable for me to drink from the tall drinking fountain, and I don't have back problems, nor am I exceptionally tall. And since in the average non-elementary-school public space, the "tall" fountain is used almost exclusively, it is usually not working optimally. So everyone is forced to use the short one - an inconvenience to a much greater number of people than would be inconvenienced if
- both fountains were the same height, or better yet, if
- there were still two distinct heights, but both were taller than they are now.
Or maybe if, best of all, there were an adjustable-height drinking fountain (I really should patent this.)
Something I didn't understand when I was little and do understand now:
Say you are a pedestrian crossing a large intersection: you press the button, the walk symbol is displayed, and you begin to cross. Mere seconds later the icon changes to the flashing red "prepare to stop!" hand. "How can they expect anyone to cross the street that fast?" This baffled me for the longest time. I stopped thinking about it for over a decade, probably because I am rarely a pedestrian in an area with large streets. But this summer I have been doing a lot of walking at UCI during lunch. Almost immediately after I started in late June it finally struck me.
The reason the pedestrian traffic signal changes to the flashing hand so quickly is because beyond that point, they don't think you will have enough time to cross the intersection. If the "walk" icon were displayed much longer than the hand icon, as I thought it should be when I was younger, someone might arrive at the crossing moments before the hand disappeared, enter the street, and then find themselves stuck with mere seconds to cross. So rather than an underestimate of the time it takes to cross the street, it's an overestimate. When I think of it now it is almost offensively obvious; it absolutely could not function any other way.
I'll just tell myself I'm getting wiser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)