time for a column of sundries. it's 2 am and i'm sitting in bed vaguely trying to go to sleep but not really, and various one-paragraph thoughts are popping into my head.

we're having a relative heat wave here in berkeley, i'm guessing highs in the high-80's, maybe even low-90's. it's interesting to watch the locals react. it seems pretty bimodal -- half of the people retreat into their apartments and sop around the house, embalmed. the other half are out biking in tankinis. (and no, it's not just the girls.)

i feel like this split is roughly analogous to a feature of human existence. there are people who steer clear of hornets' nests, and there are people who try to find the honey. or maybe it's more mundane: maybe it's just people who like hot weather and people who like cold weather. chalk me up as the frozen explorer, myself.

i am idly curious as to who the people out there are. there are people reading this who at the very least i haven't been in touch with in a long time, and who at the very most i've never met. loyal readers. i know we're not in touch because i'm in touch with maybe four or five people (generously ascribing that property) not in the bay area, and there are like 15 of you whose ip's don't match this locale. what gives, dude?

pondering as always the dichotomy between making friends/spouses because you're in the right mood instead of because who they in particular are. it's not a coincidence that i didn't make any [close] friends my first year of grad school for instance. but does that mean my closest friends are the product of circumstances and my internal machinations rather than their own personal characteristics? i suppose the aptest description is as some sort of inextricably intertwined synergy.

my favorite band, beulah, has come out with a new album. i've listened to this album maybe 10 times now. they claimed that "you're not going to like this at first, but all will be revealed by the fifth listen." or equivalent. perhaps swayed by this, i really didn't like it at first. now it's okay. but it's still not as good as their previous stuff.

i wonder if that's because i have a fixed opinion of them -- because it has betrayed my expectations. or maybe it's just regression to the mean.

i wonder if regression to the mean is, ultimately, the fundamental flaw of human existence. if i think someone or something is fantastic, it's disproportionately likely to be because i caught them on a good day, or because i've heard their opinions i find interesting, or whatever. and so as you get to know someone better they start fading, they start becoming less clearly defined. and that person with 10 supersmart facets out of 11 is less than 90% likely to have the 12th be such as well. it's pretty remarkable as i think about it in my ultralucid state that this doesn't bring down all of human existence.

the fact that no society as complex as humans has been wiped out on earth (as far as we can tell) gives me hope that human society is not doomed. Mp<

why haven't we evolved to deal with climatic changes? i mean, 90 degrees is totally not out of the question. on every level (personal evolution, historical evolution) i should be adapted to brush this off. and yet it obviously stultifies my mind and body. bizarre stuff.

what's the deal with "hard to get"? this is coming up professionally as i decide between mit, who clearly couldn't care less if i were there, and minnesota, where i am obviously wanted (at least by vic.) i know it's stupid, but i feel almost as if mit's indifference is an important indicator that there's so much going on there. which of course i might want. might.

but personally? what the fuck? i mean, are you really going to be better off with someone who doesn't care about you? i guess it's the same logic, that they must be sufficiently cool that they can get people like you at will, or somesuch. it's still fucked up.

back to the weblog