There are some recipes I make mostly as an excuse to make others. Among those is toffee. Nowadays, I mostly1 make toffee when I’m making chocolate toffee cookies.2 This is not a recipe for the cookies,3 but only for the toffee.
Now, you may notice the preface of “nowadays” for how I make toffee lately. At first, I made toffee for its own sake. The first time I made it, I made it for one of my older brother’s friends. What follows is the fruit of my painstaking4 trials into making toffee.
Ingredients:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Directions:
Put butter in large sauce pan (at least 6x the volume of the butter) over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla, and mix until well incorporated.
While cooking, it should expand to a much larger size. When it does so, continue stirring until it reaches hard crack,5 or, once you’ve made it a few times, until the aroma and color is correct.
Pour into a well greased sheet pan
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
Serve however you intend to.
When I was younger, one of the first recipes I taught myself6 was toffee. Now, this was not an unprompted decision. A friend of my brother remarked on the expense of it, and after looking at the price, I thought it unreasonable, given how simple the recipe is. And, after much experimentation with other recipes, I’ve found one that works for me. Here it is:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Put butter in pan over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla.
Cook, stirring occasionally until it begins to grow in size.
Continue cooking until when you drop a little into a glass of room temperature water, it cools to a hard, crunchy ball,7 then pour onto a greased sheet pan.
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
When I was a young lad,8 I learned how to make toffee. Now, this was not an unprompted decision. One of my brother’s friends really liked toffee, and I learned this when I received an email from a candy company.9 He asked me how much it would cost to purchase some, and I thought the price looked ridiculous. When I looked up the recipe, it seemed simple enough to make. And, it is!10 So, a recipe for Toffee:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Put butter in pan over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla.
Cook, stirring occasionally until it begins to grow in size.
Continue cooking until the correct color, then pour onto a greased sheet pan.
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
read: exclusively↩︎
because sometimes I’ll start making toffee and realize what I’ve done. The only solution is cookies.↩︎
but one is probably forthcoming↩︎
read: really delicious↩︎
Wikipedia suggests that means 295-309 F, or 146-154 C. If you drop it into a glass of water, it should form hard balls or threads that snap, rather than bending.↩︎
as opposed to being shown↩︎
hard crack↩︎
my father took me into the city↩︎
I never know how much background information to give, but this feels like the wrong amount↩︎
Yay!↩︎
I couldn’t think of anything to write today. But, I was listening to a lot of music today, so I thought I’d try to make a mixtape. The theme is inspiration, specifically academic inspiration.
Front Side:
Anthem by Harry Chapin
Anything I’m Not by Lenka
Corner of the Sky from the Pippin (New Broadway Cast Recording)
Country Dreams by Harry Chapin
Cover of the Rolling Stone by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show
Dammit Janet by the Rocky Horror Cast
Dancing Queen by ABBA
Don’t Stop Believing by Journey
Back Side:
Grey Seal by Elton John
A Hard Day’s Night by the Beatles
Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat) by the DeFranco Family
How Far I’ll Go from Moana
It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me by Billy Joel
Kelly the Boy from Killane by the High Kings
Livin’ On A Prayer by Bon Jovi
Long Goodbye by the Nadas
Mo Ghile Mear by Celtic Thunder
Explanation: Like Chapin’s protagonist, who’s “looking for an anthem”, I start by searching for motivation to start a paper. But, within seconds of writing a paper, I realize that it’s hard to be “Anything I’m Not”, and I’m hoinh to procrastinate. I’ll go find my “Corner of the Sky” to hang out at until I have the motivation to work. While in the “Country(,) Dreams” of avoiding responsibility come into my head. But, if I want to make it “On the Cover of the Rolling Stone”, I’ll need to get to work, and “Dammit Janet”1 I can’t think of anything. I just want to be “Dancing (to) Queen”, not writing this paper. But I know that if I “Don’t stop Believing” and write this paper, I might have time to go out.
I can’t really work “Grey Seal” in here, but it’s a good next song. As I look at the clock, unsure of whether the 6 is an AM or PM, I realize it’s been “A Hard Day’s Night”. And, as the deadline approaches, our heart may start pumping out of control. But, if we remember that “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” you can tell yourself that it’s not panic, it’s love of the topic.
As the paper continues, I often wonder “How Far I’ll Go” in trying to finish the paper. What’s the tenuous connection I hope the professor won’t latch on to.
Each paper and assignment is still somehow different from the one before. But, as Billy Joel points out, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”. Every work is different, but the same in principle.
“Kelly the Boy from Killane” is just a bop.
As I’ve mentioned a lot so far, as a deadline draws near, students often feel nervous, like they’re “Living On A Prayer”. And, as we look at the work we have left in the semester, and the time left to do it, we may have to say a “Long Goodbye” to our friends until the work we all have is resolved.
But, we have hope that we’ll make it through. “Mo Ghile Mear” is a song of hope, so it seems fitting to end the list.
As I’ve mentioned in many other posts, I like music. So, I decided that I would make a mix tape today. Cassette tapes apparently hold 60-90 minutes of music, so that seems like a good length to shoot for. I’ll assume 30 minutes per side, since I’m feeling unambitious.
Next I need a theme. I think today’s theme will be inspiration. It’s the point in the semester where it seems that inspiration is needed.2 Of course, inspiration comes in a variety of places. So, I’ll start with “Anthem” by Harry Chapin.3 I’ll follow it with Lenka’s “Anything I’m Not”.4 5 Next is “Corner of the Sky” from the Pippin (New Broadway Cast Recording) 6 Following that will be “Country Dreams” by Harry Chapin.7,8 Next: “Cover of the Rolling Stone” by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show.9 After this: “Dammit Janet” by the Rocky Horror Cast.10 Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t throw some ABBA in, so next is Dancing Queen.11,12 Continuing the theme of powerpop from older generations’ childhoods, “Don’t Stop Believing” by Journey.13
Backside: “Grey Seal” by Elton John.14 It was so tempting to put another Harry Chapin song here,15 but instead, “A Hard Day’s Night” by the Beatles.16 And: “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” by the DeFranco Family.17 Following that, “How Far I’ll Go” from Moana.18 Next: since I realize I’m missing Billy Joel, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”.19 “Kelly The Boy from Killane” as performed by the High Kings follows this.20 Returning to nostalgia I have no right to have, “Livin’ On A Prayer” by Bon Jovi.21 And, following that, a song by an Iowa group,footnoteyay! “Long Goodbye” by the Nadas.22 Finishing off the playlist, “Mo Ghile Mear” as performed by Celtic Thunder.23
Time to give the playlist a24 listen, then revise/add comments. To begin: I started with Harry Chapin’s “Anthem,” because it has a strong driving beat, which helps focus, and it has lyrics that I appreciate. Also, the background instrumentation feels much sparser than most of his songs, which I appreciate.
Anything I’m Not follows, as it too has a strong pulse. Unlike Chapin, Lenka has25 a much more cheerful outlook. The song ends with an idea of escaping, and becoming free, which fits in so well with the next song.
Corner of the Sky is my favorite Pippin song, and one of my favorite musical theatre songs. Like many graduates of my high school, I have fond memories of watching our choir director sing this song at our senior choir concert. The song helps keep me focused when I really need to get work done.26 It speaks about finding where you belong, which the next Chapin song, “Country Dreams” does as well.
Unlike in the Pippin song, Chapin fully accepts that he’s given up on his dreams. But, he’s accepted that, and still keeps on trucking. Especially as deadlines approach, knowing that you’ve got something, even if it’s not what you want, is all you can sometimes ask for.
But, we still dream big, and so to do Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show’s in “Cover of the Rolling Stone”. Of course, once you’re at the top, there’s always something that can go wrong. A car could break down outside of a house, and you might need to go into a creepy house to get your way back to civilization.
Of course, that’s nonsense, but “Dammit Janet” from Rocky Horror Picture Show has the strong beat that we appreciated in the first songs, and speaks of Brad’s27 goal to achieve.
Next, “Dancing Queen” by ABBA starts with the line that students dream of during studies.28 After 20 minutes of concentration, I need something to lighten my spirits.
Of course, the next song, “Don’t Stop Believing” speaks to me every time I know I don’t have enough time to finish an assignment. Somehow, I’ll make it through. And there ends the front side.
In the time it takes me to switch our metaphorical cassette tape over,29 I need a quick and lively introduction. Elton John’s “Grey Seal” gives that to me. Then, since homework is still continuing, “A Hard Day’s Night” goes through my head when I’ve been inside a building working on an assignment, and am not sure which 6 the clock is pointing to.30 And, as the deadline approaches, our heart may start pumping out of control. But, if we remember that “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” you can tell yourself that it’s not panic, it’s love of the topic.
As the paper continues, I often wonder “How Far I’ll Go” in trying to finish the paper. What’s the tenuous connection I hope the professor won’t latch on to.
Each paper and assignment is still somehow different from the one before. But, as Billy Joel points out, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”. Every work is different, but the same in principle.
There’s nothing special about “Kelly the Boy from Killane”, it’s just a motivational song.
As I’ve mentioned a lot so far, as a deadline draws near, students often feel nervous, like they’re “Living On A Prayer”. And, as we look at the work we have left in the semester, and the time left to do it, we may have to say a “Long Goodbye” to our friends until the work we all have is resolved. And, like any good playlist, it ends with hope. Specifically, hope that someone will come set us free. Here, “Mo Ghile Mear” stands in nicely.
for the purpose of this essay, assume I have a muse whose name is Janet↩︎
at least to me↩︎
3:56↩︎
3:18. Total time: 7:14↩︎
and apparently this mixtape will be in alphabetical order↩︎
2:57. Total time: 10:11↩︎
sorry, this may be a Chapin heavy playlist. I’ve been listening to a lot of him lately, so it’s on my mind↩︎
4:48. Total time: 14:59↩︎
2:54. Total time: 17:53↩︎
2:47. Total time: 20:40↩︎
one of the songs that I listened to for the 15:30 of continuous CPR I was to do↩︎
3:51. Total time: 24:31↩︎
4:09. Total time: 28:40↩︎
4:01↩︎
bonus points to whoever knows what song it is↩︎
2:33. Total time: 6:34↩︎
3:10. Total time: 9:44↩︎
2:43. Total time: 12:27↩︎
2:57. Total time: 15:24↩︎
3:29. Total time: 18:53↩︎
4:11. Total time: 23:07↩︎
3:06. Total time: 26:13↩︎
2:55. Total time: 29:08↩︎
minimal↩︎
to me↩︎
the alleged point of this tape↩︎
and later Janet’s↩︎
Friday night and the lights are low/looking out for a place to go/where they play the rock music↩︎
since I don’t know where I would find, make, and play a real cassette tape↩︎
if my mother is reading this, I always go to sleep promptly at 10:00 pm and wake at 8:00 am↩︎
Today, I had the great pleasure of seeing Wicked on stage. It was, as you might expect, absolutely fantastic. The stage was beautiful. The lighting was sublime.
Today, as you might have noticed, is Thursday.1 On Thursdays,2 I’ve kept meaning to go to a Baptist Church somewhere in London, but haven’t for a variety of reasons.
So, there’s a reason for me to be at the Baptist Church, and it isn’t that I’ve had a sudden change of faith. Instead, there’s an Irish Bagpiping group that meets there every Thursday night. They’re an Irish Bagpiping group in the sense that they play the Irish Bagpipes,3 not the “normal” Scottish Pipes.4 Uilleann Pipes are objectively better as an instrument in many regards. So, I’ve been excited to try them, but haven’t yet.
The first week I was here, they didn’t meet, as it was Summer vacation in London. The second was the same. Last week, I was locked out of my dorm, so needed to find a way back into it.5 And this week, some members of the group decided to do a movie night, so I attended that instead.6 Maybe next week?
Prereading note: while writing a different post,1 I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized2 that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my3 footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.4 Draft 4 remains as such.
Like many bad authors,5 I rely a lot on gimmicks.6 Also like bad authors,7 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.8 If it isn’t clear from the eight9 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,10 I can’t have nested footnotes.11 Instead, I12 use nested sets of punctuation.13 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals14 I use, I was happy.15 So, my list of nesting symbols16 now goes: footnotes,17 parentheses,18 square brackets,19 then angle brackets.20 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets21 that I can find,22 so23 I used short and long dashes,24 then two asterisks25 when I needed26 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.27 I don’t28 like the way that they look,29 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five30 layers deep.31 And, as I read through this draft,32 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I33 won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes34 of the piece contain a total35 of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.36 Whoops.
Like many bad authors,37 I rely a lot on gimmicks.38 Also like bad authors,39 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.40 If it isn’t clear from the six41 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,42 I can’t have nested footnotes.43 Instead, I44 use nested sets of punctuation.45 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals46 I use, I was happy.47 So, my list of nesting symbols48 now goes: footnotes,49 parentheses,50 square brackets,51 then angle brackets.52 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets53 that I can find,54 so55 I used two asterisks56 when I needed57 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.58,59 I don’t60 like the way that they look,61 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three62 layers deep.63 And, as I read through this draft,64 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.
Like many bad authors,65 I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,66 I copy my gimmick from someone else.67 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals68 I need, I was happy.69 So, my list of nesting70 now goes: footnotes,71 parentheses,72 square brackets,73 then angle brackets.74 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets75 that I can find,76 so77 I switched to using two asterisks.78 I don’t really like the way that they look,79 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three80 deep.
Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.81 It now goes: Footnote,82 parentheses,83 square brackets,84 then angle brackets.85 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.86
which will be posted (and rewritten) next time that the situation is valid↩︎
about ten minutes in↩︎
nested↩︎
and I already have far too many footnotes↩︎
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩︎
or at least one gimmick↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
nine including this (assuming no more drafts)↩︎
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩︎
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩︎
as mentioned in the linked post↩︎
which before today was limited to ([])↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles -but that feels like needless pedantry –although I guess all pedantry is supposed to be needless **because of the word “excessive”**– that I don’t know enough math for->, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals -but not the convention of avoiding their usage->]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
I know one of them is an “em dash,” but I’m not sure which↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
read: wanted↩︎
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩︎
didn’t, and likely will not↩︎
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
wow five feels so much more freeing than three↩︎
hopefully↩︎
that number was changed at the very end of the (writing of the) piece to reflect reality, and does not include nestings↩︎
as above↩︎
ibid↩︎
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩︎
or at least one gimmick↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
seven including this (assuming no more drafts[which was wrong])↩︎
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩︎
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩︎
as mentioned in the linked post↩︎
which before today was limited to ([])↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**>, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals **but not the convention of avoiding their usage**>]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
read: wanted↩︎
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩︎
and no, I will not use em dashes, since I still don’t know whether ems are the long or short dash (- or –), or how long and short dashes differ. If I ever learn, I may incorporate them (whoops, the draft above disproves this)↩︎
didn’t, and likely will not↩︎
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
or I can learn to use dashes and em dashes (ooh I could use both of those to get two more layers free [shoot I’m writing another draft])↩︎
and hopefully some good ones↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in order hard to read, but different shapes (like this [or this]) easier to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior footnotes (or the following [with some exceptions])↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
mostly because it feels less like a divider, and more of just two random characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
like the footnote above’s line “ooh meta,” (or like this [or any of the following explanatory footnotes])↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although, they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
Prereading note: this post was written as an assignment, so drafts 4-61 lack much of my snark and2 will read much more like an academic essay. In the final draft, I hope to have restored some of the charm3 that I tend to have in my writings.
Diaries today are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,4 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog5 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused.6 But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable.7 The fact that two different agencies,8 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response.9 And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.10 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,11 it is a fairly trivial process12 to transcribe a backup.13 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.14 The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: neither promises permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time.15 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially now, some 20 years after the first published arguments, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries are becoming a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.16
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog17 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable. The fact that two different agencies,18 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”19, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards. Additionally, blogs all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.20 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries today are becoming more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. However, this transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, examination of these objections tends to show that they are rooted in either classism or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.21
And, for those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor a blog22 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The fact that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine23 or Google’s own caching system both make constant backups is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”24, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards.. Additionally, digital diaries all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers all contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Thirdly, since these backups are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.25 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.
The Internet, however, backs up everything. Yes, we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. And, like the other forms becoming digital, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.26
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance, a blog27 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since nearly old computers are still functional, and old operating systems are constantly being ported to new machines, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive28 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”footnoteDiaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them.
However, the lack of searching capabilities is never seen as a flaw in traditional diaries. Unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. They can also search, since every modern web browser has search and find capabilities.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.29 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The most honest answer is that they don’t. Most likely nothing any given blogger has to say won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the Internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone. The Internet makes it more likely that the unimportant words will live on.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.30 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people31 are turning, not to their notebooks, but to their keyboards when they decide to put to paper32 what’s in their mind. And, like these other records, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.33
For those unfamiliar with the Internet,34 online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,35 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,36 a blog37 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage38 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable.39 The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive40 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”41 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files42 still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, however, we can access43 any blog from anywhere and anytime,44 which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria45 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.46 Had the files been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.47
That leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,48 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.49 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The fairest answer is that they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed.50,51 But, we have a much higher chance that any thought of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.52 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. To me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.53
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,54 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,55 the blog post may can hypothetically become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage56 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web57 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive58 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”59 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, we can access all of the blogs from anywhere with an internet connection, which frees the researcher from having to find the funds to go to a library where a diary comes from.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria60 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.61 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exact document,62 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.63 But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? The short and long answer is they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant.
Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment if it isn’t printed out.64 But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.65 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. Diary studiers point to the spread of the clock as a phenomenon leading to the rise of the diary and see this as a good change, and yet don’t feel the same way about the rise of digital media. To me, this is, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries One common complaint about digital diaries is their alleged fragility.66
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, they can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,67 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,68 the file may become unreadable if the software becomes obsolete or unused. However, almost any old file system has seen some sort of official use, and so interpreters exist. It’s unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web69 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive70 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. It is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria72 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.73 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been likely hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? Even if it isn’t, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment. But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.74 And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. We no longer can question which draft of a manuscript is older.
hopefully↩︎
ibid↩︎
read snark↩︎
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
though MSDos(.? The old operating system emulator) existing does throw some doubt on that idea↩︎
not that diaries are ever burned or otherwise destroyed intentionally↩︎
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩︎
the fact that there is no similar analog equivalent remains unstated↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
though more effort than printing or backing up a digital file↩︎
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it↩︎
all joking aside, I find it absolutely horrible that some languages are now completely gone from the collective human knowledge↩︎
barring the author deleting it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
especially in younger generations↩︎
that expression may not work as well here↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
shoot, is this a capitalized thing?↩︎
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
a neologism, “shortening web log”↩︎
to the best of my knowledge↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
and physical remnants↩︎
almost↩︎
assuming an internet connection↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
/hrefhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/news-museu-nacional-fire-rio-de-janeiro-natural-history/Seen Here↩︎
given how cheap cloud storage is today↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it to the internet↩︎
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩︎
not to mention the fact that we also don’t have many of the works from that time period, which may have been even better than Beowulf↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
to the best of my knowledge↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
or, heaven forbid it, scan it and upload it to the internet↩︎
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and Blogging Bloggers Who Blog Them↩︎
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, or degradation of ink↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Tonight I had the pleasure of watching Othello at the Globe Theatre. In a wonderful turn of events, I was a groundling.1 I was right next to the stage, and even leaning on it for the piece of the play after intermission.
Sadly, the set and lighting didn’t blow me away. The lights were fixed and immobile, and the set more or less was as well. What I can comment on, however, was the music.
The show began with natural trumpets,2 which was nice. Come the scene where Cassio becomes drunk, they are replaced with valved trumpets. Before the first intermission, they bring out the cornetti,
In the second act, the cornetti play lamentations as the piece falls to its tragic fate. The ending dance, however, returns with the beautiful jazz trumpeting. Other instruments included a lute during the drunk scene, played masterfully by Iago, drums and other percussion played by instrumentalists, and whistles.
Finally, as is requested by Shakespeare, there is singing. The drunken songs sounded drunk and merry. The whole cast song at the end was sung brilliantly.3 But, the song that struck me hardest was Desdemona and Emilia’s duet of the Willow Tree. They flowed between two part harmony and unisons flawlessly and beautifully. I stood entranced for the first4 time in the show. Nothing existed for me except the two flowing voices and the story they told.
And truly, that’s all that I can ask of a show. There was a moment where time stood still, and I found myself drawn, not into the story or characters, but simply into a place where I feel what the characters feel. Even in professional theatre, those moments can be hard to come by, but the cast brought me nearly to that point time and time again, and to the point in the soulful duet. But, as all good things do,5 it too came to an end.
Today’s Gospel1 reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.2 Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”3
Peter, the man who4 Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan.5 To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not always meekly or gently, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. In fact, he doesn’t even do it kindly. In no uncertain words, he tells Peter that he is sinning.
Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.6 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions, and Peter tried to accept this change.
This reading particularly speaks to me in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.7 We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone who has spoken out of ignorance has to say. Today’s reading was a good reminder to me that I need to try harder to love, even when it’s hard.
Today’s Gospel8 reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.9 Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”10
Peter, the man who11 Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan, the great betrayer. To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not as we see convenient, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.12 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions.
Overall, this reading speaks to me, especially in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.13 We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone has to say.
Today’s Gospel reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels. Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”14
Peter, the man who15 loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan. This is truly the best example of Jesus saying that we are to love the sinner, even if we abhor the sin. Moreso, it points out to me that we have the responsibility to help those around us who make mistakes. 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.16 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly there was some conversation during those 6 days where the misunderstanding was resolved.
24th Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year B↩︎
the other comes during the Easter season↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
the great betrayer↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
the “people we love” is important, because there’s no shortage of telling those we don’t know or care about that we disagree with them↩︎
24th Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year B↩︎
the other comes during Easter↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
the “people we love” is important, because there’s no shortage of telling those we don’t know or care about that we disagree with them↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
Some days you go to sleep, anxiously awaiting the coming morning and day. Other days you wake up, counting down the moments until you can go back to sleep.
There are many factors that can influence both of those, from what’s happening in your life at a macro scale,1 at a micro scale,2, and how much sleep you’ve gotten the night3 before.
Today I remembered that sleep you miss is at least as important as the other two. I didn’t sleep enough, and so today wasn’t as fully experienced as it could be. I’m hoping tomorrow will be better.
As you many have gathered from my prior post, I play the ukulele.1 There are two reasons I thought it important to bring with me on my trip to London. First, it’s the smallest instrument I know2 that can play chords and harmony, which is nice when I want to sing along with a backing.
The other reason is that I have minimal difficulty playing melodies on it. Whether I’m plucking out an old familiar melody to decide how to accompany it, playing along to my singing new melodies, or picking out new melodies, I can do them all with relative ease. Part of this is that the instrument is tuned to four of five pentatonic notes3 as its four strings. This also means when I want to play something with the dominant as the low note, it’s fairly easy to do, as the pentatonic scale a fourth below C still uses 4 of the 5 notes. The only difference is F instead of E.
All in all, the ukulele is a fun and easy instrument. I would highly recommend anyone to learn it.