Ydnew writes: DC folks are trying to plan a get together before the Stranded in Lubbocks skip town. April 20 (Easter) or 27th have been proposed as possible dates. Location is undecided. I think it would help to know whether we should be kid-friendly based on who's interested. We'll try to get some fresh air and sunshine, though. We can work it out in the thread and update with the consensus.

Says Stranded: "Hey, people. Torrey pine, x. trapnel, Iberian Fury, and the Strandeds will be meeting for breakfast at the Busboys & Poets near the U Street metro this Sunday, 4/6, at 10:00am, if anyone else would like to join us. If not, looking forward to seeing everyone later this month!"

Update: The current plan is to meet on April 27 around Georgetown Waterfront Park

E. Messily sends in Ditch the 10,000 hour rule!

Heebie's take: First of all, we all hate Gladwell, so great! Let's ditch him!

Second, this coincides nicely with what I personally believe about learning: that learning occurs during the retrieval process. Being able to fetch the concept or detail out of context means that you've learned it. The gist of the article is that spacing out practice and changing it up is more effective than massive one-task-at-a-time practices. (Something about ten minute swim class, I dunno.)

It happens all the time that someone will make some truism about learning - learning happens when you make mistakes! - and I will vehemently disagree, but keep those thoughts to myself.

Sally's writing something for a history class, and asked "So, 9-11 was the pretext for the Iraq War, but what was the real reason?" I had no idea at all what to say. Ten years later, I don't have an answer to that question that doesn't sound nutty to me. I ended up mumbling something about "To manipulate Bush's domestic polling?" What would you say as a shorthand summary of the real reason for the war?

The grammar of a clickbait headline. With a graph showing the surge of the phrase "restore your faith in humanity" coinciding with the launch of Upworthy.

I Am Here to Take Back the Clickbait. In Three Simple Steps, Find Out How Upworthy Titles Create Cognitive Problems In Readers. But What Happens If You Don't Click? You Won't Believe What Happens Next.

Not quite the same, but I got this advertisement just now:
"Diet Soda - Warning. Warning - Don't quit diet soda until you see this shocking report!"

Why not? Why not quit even without knowing the harm? Is the shocking report going to say that there is special timing to exactly when you should quit?

McDonald's has been marketing to black people since the 1970s. Also they pride themselves on employing lots of black people.

I can't quite figure out the linked piece. It's not merely "Look at goofy vintage advertising!" because it seems to be trying to make some point that McDonald's and black people have an especially mockable history. Aside from the fact that McDonald's cannot, for its life, hang on to its gs, I can't figure out what the big deal is. Why is it extra funny when the hamfisted 70s marketing is aimed at black people?

Why are we such wussies about going after domestic terrorists?

"But when it comes to the proven and interconnected threat of the armed, American extreme right wing, we're still treating every attack by them like a surprise, still treating those attackers like a lone wolf, regardless of however many letters you find between them," regardless of the places where they talk to each other online, "regardless of the tide of evidence that these organizations exist and are operational."

My guess is:
1. Rightwing terrorists don't actually pose any statistical danger, compared to, say, domestic disputes and ordinary gun violence (and neither do foreign terrorists).
2. No one on the bloodlust maniac rightwing side is screaming about going after these groups, the way they are about Islamist groups, so there is no political fallout for ignoring these groups.

1. I restarted playing soccer at age 23 or so, in graduate school. I'd played all through high school, both the school team and a select team, and thought I was pretty good.

As an adult, I finally figured out how to get better - my basic insight is that if you want to get better, it starts by you working harder. Concentrating more, for longer, sprinting to stay available on more plays, tackling harder - basically delivering more effort at every step. Being more tired at the end.

This insight has become one of those things I reach for all the time, in all sorts of contexts. The point isn't to increase my effort in all spheres of life, the point is to understand the trade-off. Studying more effectively actually means working more intently, and with your whole brain. On a given area, I might ask myself: Do I want to work hard enough to get better results? Y'know, I really don't. On this I shall coast.

2. When we were in California, Airedale said this about being a lawyer:
"My first hurdle was learning to make an argument that I felt was emotionally dishonest. The next hurdle was much harder - learning to make an argument that was intellectually dishonest. But once I got past that, I became a much better lawyer."

I enjoyed that line very much.

Below the jump is a photo of a bathroom in my parents' house. I'm very fond of the whole thing.

The counters and cabinetry is loosely what inspired (I hate myself) my vision for our future kitchen. I am very flexible on what kind of pink, but I did want pink counters. I was not willing to go down to 4" tile, but 12" tile would be okay.

As best I can tell, nobody sells pink anything. It's the flip side of pink being ghettoized to little girls - if you wanted to tastefully Mamie Eisenhower your bathroom (perhaps offset with some nice forest green curtains), fuck you.

I haven't decided what kind of compromise I'll go to. I'm still mourning the nonexistence of pink counters.

Looking at this list of facts about Clarence Thomas, I tried to squint and believe that he's so pissed at America that he's determined to make sure it lives with its shitty constitution. I couldn't quite manage it, but it would be nice to think so.

In the CT thread, the old "people with loathsome political views can be nice in person!" discussion has come up, and it's true that the proper response to this is "duh; that doesn't make their views less loathsome," but I have to admit that it does always throw me a bit, because I suppose I imagine someone's politics flowing from who they are, so discontinuity between the valence of the man and his opinions takes a moment to process. I think my error here is thinking that someone's manners offer more of a view to who they are than their politics, when, in fact, who you choose to ally yourself with reveals a lot more about you than whether you've learned not to act like a jerk.