Nearly all gaming keyboards use the conventional typewriter-inspired keyboard shape. That is not a good shape for typing or gaming or frankly anything else.

image source

Continue reading

A few years ago, there was some publicity around a Navy fighter pilot who claimed to have seen an unidentified object that couldn’t possibly be explained except as an alien phenomenon. Many people considered this to be indisputable proof of aliens. “The pilot is an expert, there’s no way he could have been wrong.”

I am much more willing to believe that someone can make a mistake, regardless of how good they are at the thing in question.

Sure, fighter pilots have excellent vision, and sure, they’re better than I am at identifying objects in the sky. But they’re still fallible. There is no level of fighter-pilot skill that would make me believe aliens visited earth based solely on one person’s testimony.

For any scientific theory, no matter how well-established, you can always find at least one expert with a PhD who studies the topic for a living and disagrees with the consensus. So either almost all experts are wrong, or that one expert is wrong. Either way, experts can make mistakes.

Posted on Nov 29, 2025

This post contains spoilers for the first episode of Pluribus.

Continue reading

A reborrowed word is a loan word that goes from language A to language B and then back to language A. I think they’re neat.

A classic example is pidgin. A pidgin is a grammatically simple proto-language that emerges when two groups from different places have to learn to communicate. The word pidgin originally described a simplified form of English spoken by Chinese business people, with pidgin being approximately the Chinese pronunciation of the English word “business”. So “business” was borrowed by Chinese, and then borrowed back by English as pidgin.

Continue reading

The ethical principles that most people hold—and hold most strongly—go completely out the window when it comes to war.

Continue reading

I’ve been playing a lot of MTG Arena lately, but I refuse to spend any money on it, which means I can’t craft many rare cards. When I look up meta decklists, they always include a lot of rares and mythic rares. I don’t want to spend all my rare wildcards on one deck!

That’s sort of what the Pauper format is for. Pauper decks are only allowed to use common cards, which makes them cheap. But that format isn’t quite what I’m looking for, for four reasons:

1. There is no Pauper ladder on Arena, there are only tournaments.¹ I don’t want to play a tournament, I just want to be able to hop on and play a few games.
2. I have some rare wildcards that I can use to craft rare cards; I don’t have to limit myself to commons only. I just don’t have very many rare wildcards, so I want to spend them judiciously.
3. All the strongest Pauper decks are aggro decks. What if I don’t want to play aggro?
4. There are thousands of MTG cards that aren’t playable on Arena, so I can’t build most Pauper decks anyway.

There’s the Artisan format which is Arena-specific (so it fixes problem 4), but it still has the other three problems.

What I really want is to build a Standard deck using only 4–8 wildcards to craft the most important rares, and then if I decide I like the deck enough, I can craft some more. Which means I want to know which rares I really need, and which ones I can replace with common or uncommon substitutes.

Continue reading

Inspired by this post by Tomás Bjartur, which is an allegory; but I’m not writing an allegory, I’m writing about the rules of Quidditch.

The rules of Quidditch have a big problem. The game ends when a seeker catches the snitch, and the snitch is worth 150 points. So most of the players on the field don’t matter; in almost all games, the only thing that matters is who catches the snitch.

This also makes it a bad spectator sport because you can’t see the snitch, so nobody knows what the hell is going on.

I propose some rule changes:

Continue reading

Sometimes I’m talking about lifting weights and someone asks me, “What’s your goal weight?” I don’t understand why I would have a goal weight.

Say I want to bench press 300 pounds. What happens when I reach 300? I just give up on the bench press now? That would be silly. If I can keep getting stronger, I should.

What happens if I fall short of my goal? Say I haven’t been able to bench more than 285.¹ Should I start eating 5000 calories a day to put on as much muscle as possible? No, I’m not going to do that, I don’t want to get fat. Realistically, if I fall short of my goal, the answer to the question of what I should change is “nothing”.

The point of a goal is to make tradeoffs between objectives. But when you set goals, you have less information about your costs than when you’re trying to implement them. At implementation time, you have new information that might change how you prioritize things, which may result in failing to achieve a goal; and that’s perfectly fine.

Sometimes a goal turns out to be easier than you thought; that doesn’t mean you should give up after you achieve it.

Sometimes a goal turns out to be harder than you thought; that doesn’t mean you should sacrifice everything else for it.

Continue reading

A curiosity stopper is an answer to a question that gets you to stop asking questions, but doesn’t resolve the mystery.

There are some curiosity stoppers that I’ve heard many times:

• Why doesn’t cell phone radiation cause cancer? Because it’s non-ionizing radiation.
• Why are antioxidants good for you? Because they eliminate free radicals.
• Why do bicycles stay upright? Because of gyroscopic forces.
• Why do solids hold together? Because of intermolecular forces of attraction.

For the first three, those answers confused me because I didn’t know what those words meant. I guess I know what an ion is (it’s an atom with an electrical charge) but why do I care whether radiation is ionizing? And what makes radiation ionizing or non-ionizing?

What’s a free radical? Why is it bad?

What’s a gyroscopic force? (What even is a gyroscope? It’s some sort of top, right?) How on earth does a bicycle generate a gyroscopic force?

The fourth curiosity stopper—”intermolecular forces of attraction”—is even more of a non-answer. Of course solids hold together because a force holds them together. That’s what a force is. But what is the force, and where does it come from?

Another genre of curiosity stopper is the out-of-context number:

• “The Dow is down 600 points today.” (How much is that?)
• “My proposed policy will create two million jobs.” (What percentage is that? What are the odds that I, personally, get a new job?)
• “This product has 7 grams of protein per serving!” (How big is a serving? How much would I need to eat to meet my daily protein requirement?)

Answers (sort of)

Continue reading

Vizzini: Inconceivable!

Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What did Inigo mean by this?

(Don’t laugh, this is serious.)

Continue reading