I Can't Watch Shows at *That* Volume!

By -
As I adjust the volume on my TV at night, trying to keep it as low as possible, for sleeping others, while still audible, for me, I find there certain numbers at which I just cannot rest.

Let's say that 30 was just a bit too loud.  I can turn the volume down, but I can't turn it down to 29. At 29, I feel I am teetering on a pyramid supported only by 1 at its basis. A volume of 29 is completely unstable! But at 28, ah, now that's comfortable: I've got 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14 all holding me up. There is a volume with which I can relax on the couch.

Sometimes, it is not easy being me.

Comments

  1. shonk6:23 PM

    Well, 28 *is* a perfect number.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark Tovey8:05 AM

    Gene, why don't you take a break from watching the TV and read my first ever blog post instead? It is an Economics In One Lesson inspired dissection of Paul Krugmanisms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark Tovey8:36 AM

    (Oops, I meant Economics For Real People inspired, no EIOL...both great books, with similar titles!)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more