April 22nd, 2019
Yeah, it's been four months since I wrote about Chapter 11. Stuff happened.

Anyway, it's the next toy game to try to understand no-limit poker. It's a two player game, button is the small blind, and the defender is the big blind, and either the button jams for all their chips, or folds.

The basic idea is that the larger the stack size, the more selective the attacker has to be. Furthermore at very small stack sizes, there's no decision. But there's some interesting stuff along the way.

One is a method for finding near-optimal strategies. This one is iterative - pick any strategy you like as the attacker. The defender finds the optimal counter-strategy. The attacker mixes in something to defeat the nemesis strategy at some appropriate mixing ratio, the defender counters that. Lather, rinse, repeat. With enough iterations, you get something near-optimal.

Another is that, perhaps counter-intuitively, one's strategies don't gradually change as stack sizes decrease - it's much more like phase changes in physics - you exclude hands until you meet a certain threshold, and then you add them into the jamming table.

This chapter is of large importance to tournament players, where inevitably, the blinds get large compared to the stacks; for cash game players, less so. However, even in cash games, jam-or-fold turns out to be near-optimal for up to stack sizes of 10 big blinds or so.
disgruntled_owl: annoyed owl (Default)
posted by [personal profile] disgruntled_owl at 09:32pm on 22/04/2019 under ,
As of April 21, I’ve written up 10 stories for my Short Story 100 project, putting me at 10 percent of the project goal. For more info about the Short Story 100, check out this post. 

It’s been fun to scavenge for short stories to read. I’m opening up long-untouched collections on my home bookshelves, exploring new sections of the library, and getting cool recommendations from friends (thanks, 
[personal profile] bironic !). I had a rough idea of where short stories were published before embarking on this project, but it’s been instructive to see where specific stories appeared for the first time, whether in print or online magazines or as part of author collections or anthologies. My “25 or more works written in 2000 or later” rule has given me a welcome shove outside of my classics comfort zone, and I’m discovering new authors that I enjoy, including both Caitlín Kiernan and Raymond Carver. 

Thus far, I’d say my accompanying writing exercise for each story has been fruitful. I typically set a timer for 20 minutes or so and try to get through writing the synopsis, the logline, and other notes about things that occurred to me regarding structure, characterization, etcetera. While a complex story can take me more time to write up, I limit the amount of time I spend writing about each one so this overall project doesn’t become too overwhelming. While producing the synopsis takes up the lion's share of that 20-25 minutes, this work sets me up to create the logline, which is the trickiest but also the most useful part of the exercise. My current challenge is trying to get ideas for short stories, so it helps to capture in one sentence what other people felt compelled to write about. I also appreciate the practice for when I need to write loglines for my own stories. Strong loglines make for good AO3 summaries, and when I write them in the middle of a project that’s lost its way, I can usually get myself back on track. 

Based on the stories I’ve read so far, one trend has emerged: short stories are weird, man. At least these were. If they were pieces of music, they’d all be in a minor key. Even when they close on a hopeful note, their sense of uncertainty is what lingers in my mind. I suppose that as I keep reading, I'll learn whether this is a feature of the the stories I'm drawn to, or a more common feature across the board. 
List of Short Stories 1-10 (including loglines) )
7. Whose Heart I Long to Stop with the Click of a Revolver, Rivers Solomon, 2018. "A guarded woman confronts the legacy of the predator she murdered when their daughter comes back into her life." 
8. The Man Who Shot Snapping Turtles, Edmund O. Wilson, 1942. "A lout convinces his obsessed neighbor to cultivate rather than kill the snapping turtles he loathes, and in so doing creates a monster." 
9. Where I'm Calling From, Raymond Carver, 1982: "Two alcoholics struggle with shame and uncertainty about their futures as they begin their recovery." 
10. Cathedral, Raymond Carver, 1981: "When his wife's blind friend visits, an ordinary husband finds himself facing his prejudices, his limitations, and ultimately, his spirituality."

sorcyress: Drawing of me as a pirate, standing in front of the Boston Citgo sign (Default)
posted by [personal profile] sorcyress at 10:03pm on 22/04/2019
I'm home!

I'm home, and I just took a three hour nap, and I am going to write my words and then go back to bed for seven hours or so, which will not exactly cure the sleep deficit I had from last night, but it will help _a lot_.

("why did you have a-" because I got home from the airport at 2:30 in the morning and left the house for work at 6:30. Like, I knew it was gonna happen and all, but uuuuughhh.)

California was a very Good Time! Some highlights, in no particular order:

*I met mek's friend Samantha and hit it off swimmingly! We chatted briefly after writergroup, and then we spent much of Friday all in a group chat as I read stories and Had Feels and then mek and I went over Saturday afternoon-to-early-evening to watch taskmaster and eat _fucking delicious_ Moroccan lentil stew (NTS: Recipe) and chill. All of this was excellent!

Samantha is a person who is super fascinated by and fascinating about people. It's really really fun to talk to her about brains and perceptions and anxiety and the work we all have to do and how it is different from or the same as each other.

*Also Samantha did my hair up _super_ pretty, with lovely dutch braids at the top, and then spiraling the hair through its braid. Twitter has pics. The top part is still in --I rebraided the bottom this morning, and it actually still looks pretty good and it feels wonnnderful. Also it was cute, as I asked if she wanted to braid my hair and she acted as though this is a great intimate honor and was pleased I trusted her or whatever, which I mean, a little, but mostly I'm just REALLY EXCITED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO MY HAIR! So seriously, everyone, if you want braiding practice, or you want to get your feet into 42 inches of the silky stuff, hit me up.

*Speaking of writersgroup, I brought a piece in on a whim and it was received really well! So now I feel all pleased and gotta work on it more, so that maybe next time I visit California I can please people by bringing in more of the story.

*mek and I spent a day attempting to go to the amusement park, then learning that they've completely shot themself in the foot by no longer making the rides all-you-can-ride. Like, there is simply no pass or version of their payment scheme that means you can ride *all* the rides (you can get a time block with most of them, but only at certain points of the week, and it doesn't include the Screamer.)

*So we went bowling instead. It's been a while since last bowling, and what we learned is that I am, while not a good bowler, slightly better than mek. This pairs very well with us having done minigolf, where I am slightly worse than mek.

*Also at bowling we got snax, and the mozz sticks and funnel cake were _shockingly_ good. The bowling place also has lazer tag, so we might try that next time I'm in town, or just go to six flags for proper amusement parking.

*We watched two and a half seasons of Taskmaster, and I count it as an absolute win that mek enjoys it. mek and Samantha want to write it into their Changeling universe/rpg, which I am All About. The idea of the fae getting ahold of Taskmaster is a great one.

(Taskmaster has been my television fav of the last year, and I've shown a lot of people. Comedians did tasks. Now the tasks are being shown and ranked! Everyone wins!)

*Also showed mek Anna and the Apocalypse, which is of course the current movie obsession. I am three-for-three on showing it to people and having them quite enjoy it, so yay! It is...just a really excellent movie, and if you like zombie Christmas musicals you should definitely hmu.

*There was also just heaps of snuggling and reading things across each other and fucking around online, and we went to a park one of the days and had a picnic, and life was good! But now I am home, where life is...well mostly life is woefully underslept and skipping dance. But I'm working on it!

I hope your life is lovely.


Posted by Scott Alexander

[Epistemic status: Very speculative, especially Parts 3 and 4. Like many good things, this post is based on a conversation with Paul Christiano; most of the good ideas are his, any errors are mine.]


In the 1950s, an Austrian scientist discovered a series of equations that he claimed could model history. They matched past data with startling accuracy. But when extended into the future, they predicted the world would end on November 13, 2026.

This sounds like the plot of a sci-fi book. But it’s also the story of Heinz von Foerster, a mid-century physicist, cybernetician, cognitive scientist, and philosopher.

His problems started when he became interested in human population dynamics.

(the rest of this section is loosely adapted from his Science paper “Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026”)

Assume a perfect paradisiacal Garden of Eden with infinite resources. Start with two people – Adam and Eve – and assume the population doubles every generation. In the second generation there are 4 people; in the third, 8. This is that old riddle about the grains of rice on the chessboard again. By the 64th generation (ie after about 1500 years) there will be 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 people – ie about about a billion times the number of people who have ever lived in all the eons of human history. So one of our assumptions must be wrong. Probably it’s the one about the perfect paradise with unlimited resources.

Okay, new plan. Assume a limited world with a limited food supply / limited carrying capacity. If you want, imagine it as an island where everyone eats coconuts. But there are only enough coconuts to support 100 people. If the population reproduces beyond 100 people, some of them will starve, until they’re back at 100 people. In the second generation, there are 100 people. In the third generation, still 100 people. And so on to infinity. Here the population never grows at all. But that doesn’t match real life either.

But von Foerster knew that technological advance can change the carrying capacity of an area of land. If our hypothetical islanders discover new coconut-tree-farming techniques, they may be able to get twice as much food, increasing the maximum population to 200. If they learn to fish, they might open up entirely new realms of food production, increasing population into the thousands.

So the rate of population growth is neither the double-per-generation of a perfect paradise, nor the zero-per-generation of a stagnant island. Rather, it depends on the rate of economic and technological growth. In particular, in a closed system that is already at its carrying capacity and with zero marginal return to extra labor, population growth equals productivity growth.

What causes productivity growth? Technological advance. What causes technological advance? Lots of things, but von Foerster’s model reduced it to one: people. Each person has a certain percent chance of coming up with a new discovery that improves the economy, so productivity growth will be a function of population.

So in the model, the first generation will come up with some small number of technological advances. This allows them to spawn a slightly bigger second generation. This new slightly larger population will generate slightly more technological advances. So each generation, the population will grow at a slightly faster rate than the generation before.

This matches reality. The world population barely increased at all in the millennium from 2000 BC to 1000 BC. But it doubled in the fifty years from 1910 to 1960. In fact, using his model, von Foerster was able to come up with an equation that predicted the population near-perfectly from the Stone Age until his own day.

But his equations corresponded to something called hyperbolic growth. In hyperbolic growth, a feedback cycle – in this case population causes technology causes more population causes more technology – leads to growth increasing rapidly and finally shooting to infinity. Imagine a simplified version of Foerster’s system where the world starts with 100 million people in 1 AD and a doubling time of 1000 years, and the doubling time decreases by half after each doubling. It might predict something like this:

1 AD: 100 million people
1000 AD: 200 million people
1500 AD: 400 million people
1750 AD: 800 million people
1875 AD: 1600 million people

…and so on. This system reaches infinite population in finite time (ie before the year 2000). The real model that von Foerster got after analyzing real population growth was pretty similar to this, except that it reached infinite population in 2026, give or take a few years (his pinpointing of Friday November 13 was mostly a joke; the equations were not really that precise).

What went wrong? Two things.

First, as von Foerster knew (again, it was kind of a joke) the technological advance model isn’t literally true. His hyperbolic model just operates as an upper bound on the Garden of Eden scenario. Even in the Garden of Eden, population can’t do more than double every generation.

Second, contra all previous history, people in the 1900s started to have fewer kids than their resources could support (the demographic transition). Couples started considering the cost of college, and the difficulty of maternity leave, and all that, and decided that maybe they should stop at 2.5 kids (or just get a puppy instead).

Von Foerster published has paper in 1960, which ironically was the last year that his equations held true. Starting in 1961, population left its hyperbolic growth path. It is now expected to stabilize by the end of the 21st century.


But nobody really expected the population to reach infinity. Armed with this story, let’s look at something more interesting.

This might be the most depressing graph ever:

The horizontal axis is years before 2020, a random year chosen so that we can put this in log scale without negative values screwing everything up.

The vertical axis is the amount of time it took the world economy to double from that year, according to this paper. So for example, if at some point the economy doubled every twenty years, the dot for that point is at twenty. The doubling time decreases throughout most of the period being examined, indicating hyperbolic growth.

Hyperbolic growth, as mentioned before, shoots to infinity at some specific point. On this graph, that point is represented by the doubling time reaching zero. Once the economy doubles every zero years, you might as well call it infinite.

For all of human history, economic progress formed a near-perfect straight line pointed at the early 21st century. Its destination varied by a century or two now and then, but never more than that. If an ancient Egyptian economist had modern techniques and methodologies, he could have made a graph like this and predicted it would reach infinity around the early 21st century. If a Roman had done the same thing, using the economic data available in his own time, he would have predicted the early 21st century too. A medieval Burugundian? Early 21st century. A Victorian Englishman? Early 21st century. A Stalinist Russian? Early 21st century. The trend was really resilient.

In 2005, inventor Ray Kurzweil published The Singularity Is Near, claiming there would be a technological singularity in the early 21st century. He didn’t refer to this graph specifically, but he highlighted this same trend of everything getting faster, including rates of change. Kurzweil took the infinity at the end of this graph very seriously; he thought that some event would happen that really would catapult the economy to infinity. Why not? Every data point from the Stone Age to the Atomic Age agreed on this.

This graph shows the Singularity getting cancelled.

Around 1960, doubling times stopped decreasing. The economy kept growing. But now it grows at a flat rate. It shows no signs of reaching infinity; not soon, not ever. Just constant, boring 2% GDP growth for the rest of time.


Here von Foerster has a ready answer prepared for us: population!

Economic growth is a function of population and productivity. And productivity depends on technological advancement and technological advancement depends on population, so it all bottoms out in population in the end. And population looked like it was going to grow hyperbolically until 1960, after which it stopped. That’s why hyperbolic economic growth, ie progress towards an economic singularity, stopped then too.

In fact…

This is a really sketchy of per capita income doubling times. It’s sketchy because until 1650, per capita income wasn’t really increasing at all. It was following a one-step-forward one-step-back pattern. But if you take out all the steps back and just watch how quickly it took the steps forward, you get something like this.

Even though per capita income tries to abstract out population, it displays the same pattern. Until 1960, we were on track for a singularity where everyone earned infinite money. After 1960, the graph “bounces back” and growth rates stabilize or even decrease.

Again, von Foerster can explain this to us. Per capita income grows when technology grows, and technology grows when the population grows. The signal from the end of hyperbolic population growth shows up here too.

To make this really work, we probably have to zoom in a little bit and look at concrete reality. Most technological advances come from a few advanced countries whose population stabilized a little earlier than the world population. Of the constant population, an increasing fraction are becoming researchers each year (on the other hand, the low-hanging fruit gets picked off and technological advance becomes harder with time). All of these factors mean we shouldn’t expect productivity growth/GWP per capita growth/technological growth to exactly track population growth. But on the sort of orders-of-magnitude scale you can see on logarithmic graphs like the ones above, it should be pretty close.

So it looks like past predictions of a techno-economic singularity for the early 21st century were based on extrapolations of a hyperbolic trend in technology/economy that depended on a hyperbolic trend in population. Since the population singularity didn’t pan out, we shouldn’t expect the techno-economic singularity to pan out either. In fact, since population in advanced countries is starting to “stagnate” relative to earlier eras, we should expect a relative techno-economic stagnation too.

…maybe. Before coming back to this, let’s explore some of the other implications of these models.


The first graph is the same one you saw in the last section, of absolute GWP doubling times. The second graph is the same, but limited to Britain.

Where’s the Industrial Revolution?

It doesn’t show up at all. This may be a surprise if you’re used to the standard narrative where the Industrial Revolution was the most important event in economic history. Graphs like this make the case that the Industrial Revolution was an explosive shift to a totally new growth regime:

It sure looks like the Industrial Revolution was a big deal. But Paul Christiano argues your eyes may be deceiving you. That graph is a hyperbola, ie corresponds to a single simple equation. There is no break in the pattern at any point. If you transformed it to a log doubling time graph, you’d just get the graph above that looks like a straight line until 1960.

On this view, the Industiral Revolution didn’t change historical GDP trends. It just shifted the world from a Malthusian regime where economic growth increased the population to a modern regime where economic growth increased per capita income.

For the entire history of the world until 1000, GDP per capita was the same for everyone everywhere during all historical eras. An Israelite shepherd would have had about as much stuff as a Roman farmer or a medieval serf.

This was the Malthusian trap, where “productivity produces people, not prosperity”. People reproduce to fill the resources available to them. Everyone always lives at subsistence level. If productivity increases, people reproduce, and now you have more people living at subsistence level. OurWorldInData has an awesome graph of this:

As of 1500, places with higher productivity (usually richer farmland, but better technology and social organization also help) population density is higher. But GDP per capita was about the same everywhere.

There were always occasional windfalls from exciting discoveries or economic reforms. For a century or two, GDP per capita would rise. But population would always catch up again, and everyone would end up back at subsistence.

Some people argue Europe broke out of the Malthusian trap around 1300. This is not quite right. 1300s Europe achieved above-subsistence GDP, but only because the Black Plague killed so many people that the survivors got a windfall by taking their land.

Malthus predicts that this should only last a little while, until the European population bounces back to pre-Plague levels. This prediction was exactly right for Southern Europe. Northern Europe didn’t bounce back. Why not?

Unclear, but one answer is: fewer people, more plagues.

Broadberry 2015 mentions that Northern European culture promoted later marriage and fewer children:

The North Sea Area had an advantage in this area because of its approach to marriage. Hajnal (1965) argued that northwest Europe had a different demographic regime from the rest of the world, characterised by later marriage and hence limited fertility. Although he originally called this the European Marriage Pattern, later work established that it applied only to the northwest of the continent. This can be linked to the availability of labour market opportunities for females, who could engage in market activity before marriage, thus increasing the age of first marriage for females and reducing the number of children conceived (de Moor and van Zanden, 2010). Later marriage and fewer children are associated with more investment in human capital, since the womenemployed in productive work can accumulate skills, and parents can afford to invest more in each of the smaller number of children because of the “quantity-quality” trade-off (Voigtländer and Voth, 2010).

This low birth rate was happening at the same time plagues were raising the death rate. Here’s another amazing graph from OurWorldInData:

British population maxes out around 1300 (?), declines substantially during the Black Plague of 1348-49, but then keeps declining. The List Of English Plagues says another plague hit in 1361, then another in 1369, then another in 1375, and so on. Some historians call the whole period from 1348 to 1666 “the Plague Years”.

It looks like through the 1350 – 1450 period, population keeps declining, and per capita income keeps going up, as Malthusian theory would predict.

Between 1450 and 1550, population starts to recover, and per capita incomes start going down, again as Malthus would predict. Then around 1560, there’s a jump in incomes; according to the List Of Plagues, 1563 was “probably the worst of the great metropolitan epidemics, and then extended as a major national outbreak”. After 1563, population increases again and per capita incomes decline again, all the way until 1650. Population does not increase in Britain at all between 1660 and 1700. Why? The List declares 1665 to be “The Great Plague”, the largest in England since 1348.

So from 1348 to 1650, Northern European per capita incomes diverged from the rest of the world’s. But they didn’t “break out of the Malthusian trap” in a strict sense of being able to direct production toward prosperity rather than population growth. They just had so many plagues that they couldn’t grow the population anyway.

But in 1650, England did start breaking out of the Malthusian trap; population and per capita incomes grow together. Why?

Paul theorizes that technological advance finally started moving faster than maximal population growth.

Remember, in the von Foerster model, the growth rate increases with time, all the way until it reaches infinity in 2026. The closer you are to 2026, the faster your economy will grow. But population can only grow at a limited rate. In the absolute limit, women can only have one child per nine months. In reality, infant mortality, infertility, and conscious decision to delay childbearing mean the natural limits are much lower than that. So there’s a theoretical limit on how quickly the population can increase even with maximal resources. If the economy is growing faster than that, Malthus can’t catch up.

Why would this happen in England and Holland in 1650?

Lots of people have historical explanations for this. Northern European population growth was so low that people were forced to invent labor-saving machinery; eventually this reached a critical mass, we got the Industrial Revolution, and economic growth skyrocketed. Or: the discovery of America led to a source of new riches and a convenient sink for excess population. Or: something something Protestant work ethic printing press capitalism. These are all plausible. But how do they sync with the claim that absolute GDP never left its expected trajectory?

I find the idea that the Industrial Revolution wasn’t a deviation from trend fascinating and provocative. But it depends on eyeballing a lot of graphs that have had a lot of weird transformations done to them, plus writing off a lot of outliers. Here’s another way of presenting Britain’s GDP and GDP per capita data:

Here it’s a lot less obvious that the Industrial Revolution represented a deviation from trend for GDP per capita but not for GDP.

These British graphs show less of a singularity signature than the worldwide graphs do, probably because we’re looking at them on a shorter timeline, and because the Plague Years screwed everything up. If we insisted on fitting them to a hyperbola, it would look like this:

Like the rest of the world, Britain was only on a hyperbolic growth trajectory when economic growth was translating into population growth. That wasn’t true before about 1650, because of the plague. And it wasn’t true after about 1850, because of the Demographic Transition. We see a sort of fit to a hyperbola between those points, and then the trend just sort of wanders off.

It seems possible that the Industrial Revolution was not a time of abnormally fast technological advance or economic growth. Rather, it was a time when economic growth outpaced population growth, causing a shift from a Malthusian regime where productivity growth always increased population at subsistence level, to a modern regime where productivity growth increases GDP per capita. The world remained on the same hyperbolic growth trajectory throughout, until the trajectory petered out around 1900 in Britain and around 1960 in the world as a whole.


So just how cancelled is the singularity?

To review: population growth increases technological growth, which feeds back into the population growth rate in a cycle that reaches infinity in finite time.

But since population can’t grow infinitely fast, this pattern breaks off after a while.

The Industrial Revolution tried hard to compensate for the “missing” population; it invented machines. Using machines, an individual could do an increasing amount of work. We can imagine making eg tractors as an attempt to increase the effective population faster than the human uterus can manage. It partly worked.

But the industrial growth mode had one major disadvantage over the Malthusian mode: tractors can’t invent things. The population wasn’t just there to grow the population, it was there to increase the rate of technological advance and thus population growth. When we shifted (in part) from making people to making tractors, that process broke down, and growth (in people and tractors) became sub-hyperbolic.

If the population stays the same (and by “the same”, I just mean “not growing hyperbolically”) we should expect the growth rate to stay the same too, instead of increasing the way it did for thousands of years of increasing population, modulo other concerns.

In other words, the singularity got cancelled because we no longer have a surefire way to convert money into researchers. The old way was more money = more food = more population = more researchers. The new way is just more money = send more people to college, and screw all that.

But AI potentially offers a way to convert money into researchers. Money = build more AIs = more research.

If this were true, then once AI comes around – even if it isn’t much smarter than humans – then as long as the computational power you can invest into researching a given field increases with the amount of money you have, hyperbolic growth is back on. Faster growth rates means more money means more AIs researching new technology means even faster growth rates, and so on to infinity.

Presumably you would eventually hit some other bottleneck, but things could get very strange before that happens.

zhelana: (Marvel - Groot Close)
posted by [personal profile] zhelana at 09:10pm on 22/04/2019 under ,
I couldn't sleep last night. I spent most of the night talking to Sarah and Kali, and then after 5 or 6 I spent some time reading. I also did some writing on my Camp story. I tried to go to bed around 4:20 which woke Kevin up and he did a sort of stoner laugh and went "it's 4:20!" and then went back to sleep. I did not get to sleep. I finally got to sleep around 8:30, which is the latest I've ever gone to bed since starting the melatonin. I slept until Kevin got home at 4.

I got up and went to my mom's house to pick up Bennett. He was hiding upstairs from me and wouldn't come down. I had to go up and put him on a leash and then tug on him to get him to follow me. He kept looking behind him like he was afraid he was about to get beaten or something. It was sad and pathetic. I got him in the car, and he came home with me. Then I fed all 3 dogs while Kevin lay around complaining of a pulled hamstring.

Kevin asked if we could order Jimmy John's and I agreed. So we did that, and for some reason there was oil all over the outside of my sandwich. It was covered in it, and it was disgusting. I've never had that happen before, and I don't think I changed my order at all. So I don't know what that was about.

After dinner I started on my reading. I got about 2/3rds of the way through it before giving up. I didn't read from 4 books I think. It's too much, but soon I'll be done with the book club book which will free up some attention for other books. That one has long chapters, but only 10 of them plus an afterword and an epilogue. Why a book needs both of those, I'm not sure.

My endo called at 8:30 this morning when I was still awake in bed. She wanted to start me on a new med but the side effects of it are yeast infections and urinary tract infections. Sorry, I get enough UTIs all the time that I'm not going to start taking a med that causes them. I've never had a yeast infection but I certainly don't intend to go about getting one. The cure to that is too disgusting to contemplate. Anyway, it aggravated my paranoia too much, so I told her I wouldn't take it. She can come up with something else. But apparently the VA decided not to pay for the good med - my A1C was too low for it I guess. But because my sugar has been lower since doubling the one med I usually take, we're not starting insulin either.

It looks like a solid week of 80s and sunny, so hopefully I can get some fighter practices in and some walks.
ilzolende: drawing of me, framed with L10a140 link (Default)
posted by [personal profile] ilzolende at 08:17pm on 22/04/2019 under

They really, really, really don't.

This feature is non-standard and is not on a standards track. Do not use it on production sites facing the Web: it will not work for every user. There may also be large incompatibilities between implementations and the behavior may change in the future.

This feature is obsolete. Although it may still work in some browsers, its use is discouraged since it could be removed at any time. Try to avoid using it.

The HTML Multi-Column Layout element (<multicol>) was an experimental element designed to allow multi-column layouts and must not be used. It never got any significant traction and is not implemented in any major browsers. It's covered here only to warn you off in case you stumble on it in any other documentation.

Do not use this! In order to implement a multi-column layout, you should be using the regular HTML elements, like <div> in conjunction with CSS columns.

Specifications 🔗


Then again, if you think this is a strong warning, wait until you see their page on <blink>.

metallherz: (Tom Morello)
alatefeline: Painting of a cat asleep on a book. (Default)
Hugs from kiddos at school!job.
Kiddos expressing themselves.
Marginally good news about a friend who has been ill.
Plans for probably tomorrow.
Getting through the day with some functional ability to focus left.
Homemade coffee.
Fuzzy plaid pajamas.
Mood:: 'tired' tired
lannamichaels: "Be serious." "I am wild." (i am wild)
posted by [personal profile] lannamichaels at 08:26pm on 22/04/2019 under , , ,

Why, yes, I am that annoying person who makes yesterday was 0 and yesterday was 49 jokes every single year. It's a very important minhag.

I have also apparently gone this long and never posted a Good Omens fic???? I guess it was eaten by a cat...

Yesterday Was Zero. (271 words) by Lanna Michaels
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Additional Tags: Pesach, Crack, Ficlet, Chad Gadya

So, there was this goat.

captainsblog: (Shiny)
posted by [personal profile] captainsblog at 08:31pm on 22/04/2019
We don't, and therefore didn't, celebrate any of the three major holidays which fell in order. Not the start of Passover Friday night, nor any of Easter on Sunday, and not even any festivities for 4/20, despite several of our state's borders now encouraging that sort of thing.

On Saturday, we cleaned.  There's a half-bath in the cellar, which has been out of use for years except as a storage room; since we can lock it off from the cats, it's the safest place in the house from their comings and goings and leavings.  But, like most crap catchers, it acquired plenty of crap of the non-cat variety over the years, and it was time to say, No mas!  We pretty much filled our entire garbage tote with never-to-be-used again wrapping papers and boring Christmas ornaments and other assorted whatnots.  The recycling tote, of similar size, is virtually full of the boxes previously hoarding all this stuff.  Four huge racks of cassette tapes came up, to be checked for the few we haven't digitized over the years; once that's done, they, too, will hit the road.  A printer went to the town recycling center; a bunch of old kitchen things and books got marked for possible sale at a library event on an upcoming weekend; and lots of my old statements and other records from more than 3 years ago are awaiting a one-way trip to Shred City.

But there were three other things which told a more interesting tale.

I found three of Emily's old school art projects, dating from pre-K to probably late elementary school.  Here are my texts to her sending them for her reaction:

(the two above, that is....) and then I sent her this one that she'd done in pencil- not terribly well rendered even at full size, but she could make out the title:

So she did:

Did more cleaning things after that exchange, and got back to work today for multiple rounds of Mostly Frustration.  I did leave early, because I had to bring Eleanor's car in for its overnight repair.  As I was walking home, I saw I'd gotten an email from a relatively new client, who teaches at Emily's old high school. Last time we contacted each other, I thought to ask the teacher if Emily's name was familiar.

It was.  And not just to the teacher:  I got a photo of a painting Emily did back then, which still hangs on the wall outside the school library:

I asked Em if she knew it was still on display there; she said Cameron's parents see it often, since his youngest stepbrother is in school there now ("what even is time," she asked).


Eleanor's piece has now gone up on our dining room wall. Two more are ready to be picked up for future displaying, here and elsewhere.  Work may be difficult, but home is as beautiful and surprising as ever:)
kingstoken: (rogue gambit x-men)
kevin_standlee: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] kevin_standlee at 04:45pm on 22/04/2019 under ,
On Sunday morning, as I walked to the Wigwam for breakfast, I saw that being out early (to avoid the rush of people coming for breakfast on Easter morning) got me a look at our local rabbits again.

Don't See Any Eggs, Through )
location: Fernley, Nevada
Mood:: 'amused' amused

Posted by Alex Kasprak

The star, who has been battling cancer since 2017, was hospitalized in early April 2019.

Posted by Dan Evon

Curiously, the phrase "In God We Trust" wasn't even on paper currency in the United States 150 years ago.
yukonsally: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] yukonsally at 05:56pm on 22/04/2019 under
 what a weekend!

I added a thing to the handmedown box and shipped the box!

Two things to the donation pile. 

Added lots of little toys to the Halloween giveaway box (to which we will add candy for the trick or treaters, but they can choose a toy or candy).

I listed four things for sale, THREE of which have sold!

Spouse cleaned out a drawer, and I'm not sure what that pile on the bed is for (donation or give away), but it's on the move.
the_rck: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] the_rck at 06:24pm on 22/04/2019 under , ,
I regret that I didn't take time to deal with the dishes yesterday. I've ran the dishwasher twice today. My hands are very unhappy about this because getting things out of the dishwasher is much, much harder than putting them in. I try to have Cordelia do that part as much as I can, but I had missed how many dirty dishes we had because I hadn't realized that the dishwasher was nearly full.

I started a load of laundry before I emptied the dishwasher, and I tried to do some cooking. The latter task ran aground on the food I planned to cook being bad. I want to make banana bread, but the bananas aren't quite overripe enough yet, and my hands really weren't up to it after the cleaning.

I talked Cordelia through refilling the cold brew coffee thingy. I normally do it because I'm the one who tracks when it's empty. I don't drink it, but I pour Scott's mug (he drinks it cold and unmixed with anything else) and prepare Cordelia's every morning.

I'll probably leave switching over the laundry until Cordelia gets home. I'm not sure I can manage that on top of what I've already done.

I wanted to change the top sheets and pillowcases on our bed. We changed the fitted sheet yesterday because I sloshed coffee on it while reaching for a kleenex to clean up coffee that I'd sloshed on a library book on my bedside table while I was trying to set the cup down.

I considered going out to get my hair cut today, but I failed my morale check and stayed home. I think I need a different haircut because the long hair is giving me issues. It's exhausting to wash, and I keep moving wrong when I brush it. I'm safe down to a certain point. Then I twist my wrist to shift my grip and keep my brush moving.
finch: (Chenek)
posted by [personal profile] finch at 03:19pm on 22/04/2019
It's been a bit of a rollercoaster...

Bug got some more Lego-ish blocks for their birthday and is ready to let go of the much more space-taking Duplos! Yay!

I can't log into Craigslist at all for some reason, boo!

Facebook Marketplace netted someone who was interested in them within twenty minutes of posting, yay!

After negotiating the sale I immediately find ANOTHER box of Duplos, sigh.

Incrementally pushing that rock up the hill!

ETA: The lady coming for the Duplos might just take both and save me the trouble, yay!
used_songs: (Default)

Posted by Dan Evon

Google traditionally avoids making Doodles involving ANY overtly religious holiday.
syntaxofthings: An old-time picture of a woman and child reading together. ([random] Reading together)
posted by [personal profile] syntaxofthings at 04:06pm on 22/04/2019 under

A book I'm listening to right now said something about how "the girl looked me in the eyes, which startled me because no one ever really looks into your eyes."

I am pissy at this because I've been practicing looking into people's eyes, and autistic people are told they need to look at people's eyes when they are speaking at them, so how is it that people don't actually do that?!?!?!!?! Agggghhhhh.

(Note: the book is actually super interesting! There are queer kids! One of the narrators has a disability, and it's just something she deals with and no one else talks about it! It's called Spellbook of the Lost and Found.


2 3