Well, first let me apologize for yesterday’s blog that largely concerned the weather, and in a trivial sense at that. It was rather lamentable, I know, with emphasis on the first four letters of that adjective.
On the other hand, I don’t apologize for having had my little bit of fun with the date. That may have been even less interesting to most of you than my jabbering on about the weather, but I like it. I fully expect that I will do such things again. For instance, in a similar vein, today is a bit fun because it is 11-12*, so the numbers are in appropriate ordinal sequence with no gaps.
That’s not very fun. More fun will be had (by me, anyway) on Friday, when it will be 11-14-25. If you don’t immediately see the fun there, it may help that a similar fun date next month will be available on 12-13-25. This fun also works with the European date order (but in both you have to leave out the digits that denote the century). Also, there were no equivalently fun dates in any month before October.
This is the most fun I’ve had on any kind of date in at least 16 years, I would guess. That’s an easy call, because I haven’t been on any date at all in at least that long. See what I did there with the multiple meanings of the word “date”? Of course you did. What do I think you are, a moron?
No, I do not think that. You are reading a blog post, so you are a reader, which gives you a serious leg-up, moronia-wise. You draw from the well of that greatest of all human inventions: written language. Your taste in reading material may be somewhat questionable, but I cannot legitimately complain about that.
Wow, I feel like I ought to be almost done with this post, but I’ve barely passed 300 words.
On to other things. I’m going to try to do a better job about science reading during my downtime in the office. It’s not that I’m completely slacking; I’m reading Shape by mathematician Jordan Ellenberg, and I just read his earlier book How Not to Be Wrong. I’ve read both before and/or listened to the audio books, but they are well worth rereading. He’s a great math professor, and has a gift for explaining potentially abstract concepts. I think he’s slightly better at this than Steven Strogatz, the author of The Joy of X and Infinite Powers, but they’re all good.
I also just yesterday gave in to an urge I’ve had for some time: I ordered a textbook I liked in med school but which we didn’t really get into as deeply as I would like: Principles of Neural Science, by Kandel et al. The edition I had was by Kandel and Schwartz, if memory serves, but Dr. Schwartz is no longer involved, it seems.

It’s a textbook, so it’s pricey, even in paperback, but I discovered that I could put it on a payment plan through Amazon, so that’s what I did. It arrives today.
I’ve also resolved, at least tentatively, to try to take the heat off my reading of my science books‒including the above newcomer‒by doing something I did when reviewing/studying in med school: I would get a text that I was reviewing, and I would pick a section to read/review by flipping a coin.
Actually, it was a series of flips, each one dividing the “remaining” part of the book in half. In other words, for the first flip, heads would mean I would look in the front half of the book, tails would mean the back half. Then the next flip would decide to which half of that half I would narrow things down further.
Anyone who has spent any time dealing with computers and/or binary numbers can readily recognize that, with 10 flips of the coin, one could choose a specific page in a 1024 page book. I guess every flip would count as a kind of “half-life” for the book’s pages. If one wanted, one could even choose one’s pages not with a coin flip, which is not truly random, but with a quantum event that has a 50-50 chance, like measuring whether a given electron’s spin is up or down.
Of course, I don’t have a Stern-Gerlach gate, so I would have to “farm out” that process. But I understand that there are apps that you can use that have their sources at labs where each decision is truly made by a quantum measurement.
It’s not terribly practical nor more useful for pickling book pages than is a coin flip, but if you’re a convinced advocate of the Everettian, “many worlds” version of quantum mechanics, it has the added “benefit” that each “flip” will divide the universe into two “worlds”, one where you choose from the earlier half, another where you choose from the latter.
Coin flips do not enact such splitting, not in anything but the trivial sense that every quantum level interaction potentially does so. The experience will be the same for you, though, except whatever glee you might derive from splitting the universe to choose a section to read.
Anyway, I’ll be trying to read my books, random section by random section. Believe it or not, this works for me. I don’t have to learn things in order, usually, and this method avoids me feeling bored while trying to trudge through a text in order.
Perhaps I do have some aspects of ADHD up in there in my brain.
Well, I’ve now passed my target length for this post by some margin, so I’ll call this enough for today. I expect to be writing another post tomorrow, but like everything else**, it is not absolutely certain. I hope you have a very good day.
*Only in the American style Month-Day-Year format, though. It is less fun in the European Day-Month-Year format.
**Yes, even death and taxes, in principle.





