Him: "Can I share with you what I just read? ... Wait, why are you bouncing?"
Me: "I just found this website, The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, how cool is that? 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 23, 47, 106, 235... what's the next number?"
Me: "I don't know either! ... What did you find?"
Him: "This post about a woman in a heterosexual relationship seducing a friend who later becomes pregnant by the first woman's partner. Does she tell her male partner he's the dad?"
Contrast discussing ideas versus people, and what do you come up with?
Last night was irrigation. I would really like to have irrigation not between 1:00am and 4:00am. I feel like all the times I'm here they are at painful o'clock.
So, let's get the data. My times this year:
Okay, maybe my times aren't so bad, definitely confirmation and recency biases with the middle of the night irrigation whinging.
Last night's irrigation was relatively smooth. I woke at 1:05, drifted until 1:15, wandered out. John wasn't very talkative at 1:25 am this morning, and neither was I, so our chit-chat was short and lowkey.
John said the flow was fantastic, the head high. I checked the checks were in place after he released the water (right on time, was lovely), then went back to the house, set my alarm, and went back to sleep (always a risk, as waking back up to switch over is important). I woke up 1:30 into the delivery, wandered out to the portals, and pulled the east-side half check. I was more than a little bit out of it after wandering back to sleep for another 20 minutes, so didn't really check the yard, the flow, or the inlets where the water goes from the back to the front yard. When I wandered out at 3:30 am, there was water on both sides of the front yard, so I agreed with John that the flow was (sufficiently) good.
My sleep was only mostly wrecked by the irrigation, so, an irrigation win.
Trying to move a new treadmill into the house, I needed a wood plank to widen the sidewalk. Found this behind one of the ones left in the garage.
Yes, I find it strange, too.
Okay, so I've read an article on a girlie subject I know nothing about. Actually, I've finished reading five articles, and have moved onto reading some tips for the first timer with this particular girlie subject, what to expect, what will be gotchas, what to watch out for, and what to do post procedure.
All good. Some of it is about adjusting how one washes, or applies makeup, or sleeps, all reasonable points to mention.
At the bottom of the article, there's the Ultimate 11-step Guide to this procedure, which is a video. Great! I think, and start to watch the video, which is saying something, because I pretty much detest watching a video when I can read the information probably 20x faster than you can present it in video format.
The video has text overlay of the points in the article I just read, and the video has demonstrations of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE OVERLAY SAYS TO DO.
Who does the f'ing editorial on this? Someone spent money, time, on producing this video. Did they not actually read the words? Did they not understand that when the words say "do not do X," that showing a video of a woman doing X in the background is EXACTLY WRONG?
In case you are wondering why I hate girlie things, here's an example why. Beauty companies have no logical sense, it's all about feeeeeeeel this, and look pretty that. I don't f'cking care if random guy on the street doesn't find me attractive. Do. Not. Care. At. All (now, if said guy wants to talk tech, web performance, ultimate, baseball, desalination, machine learning, ceramics, or robotics, let's talk). This lack of internal consistency between words and pictures in this girlie product thing? Gah!