![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For those of you in the UK: vote, or lose the right to complain when your council is controlled by the BNP.
When flying out to Germany (pre-kneesplosion), ChrisC and I checked ourselves in using one of the automatic touch-screen check-in machines rather than dealing with a human. You scan your passport, and push buttons to indicate how many bags you have.
( She stares at the screen and the little words of green )
( She stares at the screen and the little words of green )
Take a seat in my dream kitchen
Jan. 4th, 2016 02:05 pm( Our cooker is broken )
So we've decided to replace the cooker.
You want more fans, I want more stage
Nov. 12th, 2015 02:13 pmIn a radical departure from asking people what they're wearing, I would now like to ask for help with git. If you don't understand the question, just be very grateful and move on ;-)
When an incoming git pull suffers a merge failure[*], why, why, does git decide to compound the problem by staging every modified file it can lay its grubby little paws on?
I assumed that if I started typing "why does git stage..." into Google it would auto-complete with all the various phrases distressed people all over the internet have typed in. It does not, and I can't find anyone writing about it. For bonus points, tell me how to stop it doing this - but I'll settle for understanding the rationale behind it!
[*] Which, if the two versions have changed lines anywhere near each other, it will
When an incoming git pull suffers a merge failure[*], why, why, does git decide to compound the problem by staging every modified file it can lay its grubby little paws on?
I assumed that if I started typing "why does git stage..." into Google it would auto-complete with all the various phrases distressed people all over the internet have typed in. It does not, and I can't find anyone writing about it. For bonus points, tell me how to stop it doing this - but I'll settle for understanding the rationale behind it!
[*] Which, if the two versions have changed lines anywhere near each other, it will
What a great way to wake up.
Firstly, my alarm clock failed so no yoga for me this morning.
Secondly, Nigel Farage has publicly given up alcohol for January, and either he or the Sun newspaper[*] has invited people to dob him in if they see him drinking a pint. Using the hashtag #pintwatch, which is currently trending on Twitter. Since I tweet as Pintwatch, this does not make me happy :(
[*] I'm not sure, as I'd have to sign up to the Sun website to read the story.
Mostly what I have learned this week is that you lot are much more into jam jars than you are gig reviews. Still, I shall press on :)
( Helen Love @ The Lexington )
( Getting chilled to the bone on the stupid bus home )
( Helen Love @ The Lexington )
( Getting chilled to the bone on the stupid bus home )
Last week, ChrisC and I got some post. It turns out to be a ticky-box survey each from Mr Cameron, asking for our opinions on how to run the country.
Since I've yet to find anyone else who's received this survey, I assume he has chosen us as his special advisers. I had no idea the Tory party was in such disarray.
Anyway, I've filled it in this morning. And written a snitty letter to go with it, pointing out that every single questions is at least one of (a) leading, (b) reductive, (c) intrusive or (d) plain stupid.
( Argh. )
Since I've yet to find anyone else who's received this survey, I assume he has chosen us as his special advisers. I had no idea the Tory party was in such disarray.
Anyway, I've filled it in this morning. And written a snitty letter to go with it, pointing out that every single questions is at least one of (a) leading, (b) reductive, (c) intrusive or (d) plain stupid.
( Argh. )
So, while at Glastonbury, I watched Amanda Palmer. She was awesome.
As brought to my attention by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fractalgeek, the Daily Mail covered her performance. They could have written about all kinds of stuff - performing in the face of adversity having lost all the kit in a BA mix-up, say. They could have posted a fabulous picture of her singing while crowd surfing, with about twenty feet of sky-blue train spreading across her audience[*]. They could have mentioned a triumphant Pulp cover which had a whole field jumping up and down. They could have written something about an independent artist carving her own unique path through the music industry and still ending up on a main stage at one of the world's greatest festivals. Hell, as a last resort they could have written about the music.
Did they?
No. They reported that her set "saw her breast left on show after it escaped her bra".
For the record, I failed to notice this happen at the time. Besides, if you want to look at her breasts the internet and/or her shows and/or her videos provide absolutely no shortage of opportunity.
I think Amanda Palmer is one of those people I'd approve of, even if I hated her music. She's doing her own thing, and good luck to her. And now she's composed her response to the Daily Mail. I think this is filmed-on-a-phone in the Roundhouse in Camden, but it's worth a watch.
Video NSFW because - have you guessed yet? - there's nakedness in it.
[*] No, I'm not quite clear why someone who's lost all her stage costumes still has a coat with a train like that. I do hope she flew in wearing it.
As brought to my attention by
fractalgeek, the Daily Mail covered her performance. They could have written about all kinds of stuff - performing in the face of adversity having lost all the kit in a BA mix-up, say. They could have posted a fabulous picture of her singing while crowd surfing, with about twenty feet of sky-blue train spreading across her audience[*]. They could have mentioned a triumphant Pulp cover which had a whole field jumping up and down. They could have written something about an independent artist carving her own unique path through the music industry and still ending up on a main stage at one of the world's greatest festivals. Hell, as a last resort they could have written about the music. Did they?
No. They reported that her set "saw her breast left on show after it escaped her bra".
For the record, I failed to notice this happen at the time. Besides, if you want to look at her breasts the internet and/or her shows and/or her videos provide absolutely no shortage of opportunity.
I think Amanda Palmer is one of those people I'd approve of, even if I hated her music. She's doing her own thing, and good luck to her. And now she's composed her response to the Daily Mail. I think this is filmed-on-a-phone in the Roundhouse in Camden, but it's worth a watch.
Video NSFW because - have you guessed yet? - there's nakedness in it.
[*] No, I'm not quite clear why someone who's lost all her stage costumes still has a coat with a train like that. I do hope she flew in wearing it.
Be a woman, take it like a man.
Jun. 6th, 2013 11:02 amA while back I noticed posters advertising a "protein shake" called, I think, Upbeat and made a note to try it. I figured it was a potentially interesting snack-concept for days when I want to go straight from work to, say, a yoga class without keeling over. (Lots of other interesting snack-concepts are also available but hey, I quite like milkshake).
This morning, outside Ealing Broadway station, there were gentlemen in leather jackets handing out free samples of a chocolate "40% higher protein" milkshake called Wing-Co. Obviously protein shakes are the new Thing. Wing-Co has a blocky cartoon of a WWII-era pilot (his moustache dripping chocolate milk) on the bottle, and small planes whizzing past the nutritional information.
It's pretty nice, actually. Chocolate milkshake is very variable and often has a nasty, grainy texture but I enjoyed this one. Whether it can actually make good on its promise to "shoot down hunger, fast" remains to be seen. But I could imagine buying it again.
Except...
As the free-samplers were dishing out the bottles this morning, they said "Man up with Wing-Co!" to everyone they handed one to. According to the info box on the label, "WING-CO IS PROPER MAN FUEL". "DON'T BE A GIRL," it further elaborates, "SHAKE IT UP AND DRINK IT NOW!"
Oh. Good.
The info box is, of course, designed to look like a plate which has been screwed onto the bottle. Because, y'know, screws are very manly (they look like slotted-head countersunk woodscrews to me).
Think I'll try out Upbeat after all. In fact, Wing-Co has inspired me to compare the two, and Upbeat has real fruit in it, and more protein, and is made entirely from British milk.
This morning, outside Ealing Broadway station, there were gentlemen in leather jackets handing out free samples of a chocolate "40% higher protein" milkshake called Wing-Co. Obviously protein shakes are the new Thing. Wing-Co has a blocky cartoon of a WWII-era pilot (his moustache dripping chocolate milk) on the bottle, and small planes whizzing past the nutritional information.
It's pretty nice, actually. Chocolate milkshake is very variable and often has a nasty, grainy texture but I enjoyed this one. Whether it can actually make good on its promise to "shoot down hunger, fast" remains to be seen. But I could imagine buying it again.
Except...
As the free-samplers were dishing out the bottles this morning, they said "Man up with Wing-Co!" to everyone they handed one to. According to the info box on the label, "WING-CO IS PROPER MAN FUEL". "DON'T BE A GIRL," it further elaborates, "SHAKE IT UP AND DRINK IT NOW!"
Oh. Good.
The info box is, of course, designed to look like a plate which has been screwed onto the bottle. Because, y'know, screws are very manly (they look like slotted-head countersunk woodscrews to me).
Think I'll try out Upbeat after all. In fact, Wing-Co has inspired me to compare the two, and Upbeat has real fruit in it, and more protein, and is made entirely from British milk.
I avoided all the BBC frothing about bad grammar the other day. Much as I like a well-placed apostrophe, the sort of people who say "I think you'll find you mean 'fewer'" are, largely, arses (up with whom one should not put).
However, a nice grammar quiz? oh yes, that sounds like fun. I can answer it and feel all smug. Except, of course, I disagreed with it.
Question 3: Read this sentence carefully. "I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary." Which of the following is correct?
1. Hilary is male
2. Hilary is female
3. It's impossible to know from the context
Now, the BBC's answer is that Hilary is male, because there isn't a comma after 'brother'. Benedict is described as "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", so there must also be another brother, and thus that brother must be only-other-sibling Hilary.
I claim the answer is morally 3: it's impossible to tell. Because I, for one, got so lost among the commas of that god-awful sentence that I was frankly quite bewildered enough by the end without worrying about whether Hilary was a boy or a girl. Good grammar aids clarity, it doesn't reduce English to a puzzle of whether you knew the rules well enough to divine the writer's intent correctly. If your reader has to count commas to understand your statement, you've already got it monumentally wrong.
Bah.
However, a nice grammar quiz? oh yes, that sounds like fun. I can answer it and feel all smug. Except, of course, I disagreed with it.
Question 3: Read this sentence carefully. "I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary." Which of the following is correct?
1. Hilary is male
2. Hilary is female
3. It's impossible to know from the context
Now, the BBC's answer is that Hilary is male, because there isn't a comma after 'brother'. Benedict is described as "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", so there must also be another brother, and thus that brother must be only-other-sibling Hilary.
I claim the answer is morally 3: it's impossible to tell. Because I, for one, got so lost among the commas of that god-awful sentence that I was frankly quite bewildered enough by the end without worrying about whether Hilary was a boy or a girl. Good grammar aids clarity, it doesn't reduce English to a puzzle of whether you knew the rules well enough to divine the writer's intent correctly. If your reader has to count commas to understand your statement, you've already got it monumentally wrong.
Bah.
Last year, there was a Lego Christmas tree at St Pancras. I nearly didn't get to see it, because ChrisC only mentioned it by chance, having not thought I'd be especially bothered. Sometimes I wonder if he's met me.
Anyway, last week he made sure to notify me as soon as he heard there was going to be a Lego dinosaur in St Pancras. A Lego dinosaur! Bring it on.
So, having wandered round various bits of the Museum of London and the Barbican, we set off to stroll to... where is it again? St Pancras?
( Legosaurus )
Anyway, last week he made sure to notify me as soon as he heard there was going to be a Lego dinosaur in St Pancras. A Lego dinosaur! Bring it on.
So, having wandered round various bits of the Museum of London and the Barbican, we set off to stroll to... where is it again? St Pancras?
( Legosaurus )
