dratajcz

On Friday, weather.com reported that the chance of rain on this coming Saturday -- a day of no small importance to me -- is 0%.

Now that's a bold statement, of course, but a reasonable interpretation of it is: "There is no way it is going to rain on Saturday".

When I checked the weather again today, weather.com now reports a 20% chance of precipitation.

How is this possible? My not unreasonable interpretation of the precipitation chance number N on day D is: "There is an N percent chance that it will rain on day D: given the initial conditions present today, if day D were to occur 100 times, it would rain on N of the times."

By this logic, 0% and 100% are very dangerous numbers. If a percent ever falls to 0% on a given day in advance of D, it can never leave 0% on subsequent days before D. Same with 100%. There is no occurrence that could induce a change. (Assuming arbitrary precision, which we'll discuss later.)

I think what weather.com really means is: "Given what we know now, there's an N% chance of rain on day D. But we may know more later."

Also reasonable, but a really irritating interpretation for those of us who just want to know what the weather will be like. We don't want to have to worry about what weather.com does or doesn't know. And I think weather.com could account for this uncertainty by an empirical analysis of past 0% and 100% claims. How often did they have to change that number before day D? Add in a little factor that accounts for this uncertainty.

I don't know enough about weather prediction to make any better suggestion at the moment. Also, I suspect that their desire to not appear overly precise, manifested in their use of only a single digit of precision in their percentages, is a real problem here. Anything under 5% might appear as 0%.

So that’s another good excuse. But the fact of the matter is that when I see 0%, I want to be able to plan my beach party with confidence. Don’t destroy my confidence, weather.com.

Damn. There's so much beauty in music it's absurd. What trick of evolution allows it this level of emotional resonance?

When I was in high school, someone gave me a collection of Edgar Allan Poe's short stories. Of course, all of his classics ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "The Pit and the Pendulum", etc.) were present, but at the very back was a story I had never read before, called "The Imp of the Perverse".

The Imp is a sneaky guy who lives in your head. He's the one who implores you to pull the red stop cord on the train, or take a step over the edge of the Grand Canyon – or to drop a snide comment at your family reunion. He eggs you on with a simple motivation: to see what happens when you do exactly the thing you're not supposed to do.

I was fascinated by this concept, mainly because I often feel this temptation. (I feel like it should be as well known as schadenfreude – it's got to be as universal, and there's no other good term for it.)

Anyway, I was delighted to read an article in the New York Times about the Imp featuring Daniel Wegner, who wrote the awesome The Illusion of Conscious Will. The article mentions that actively fighting "perverse" thoughts can paradoxically increase your chance of acting on them.

I had a related meta-problem: since I've read about the Imp of the Perverse, I'm always waiting for him to arrive. So as soon as I spot that tempting "Emergency Stop" button in the elevator, I think "Good ol' Imp", and before I know it I'm dreaming of pushing the button. One step closer.

---

I have a very simple technique for highway driving: I drive 13 miles an hour over the speed limit. This is usually fast enough to place me into the fast lane, but slow enough that it's not worth it for cops to ticket me. I've driven roughly 30k miles and have never been pulled over. So I think it's a good strategy.

However, the Bay Area is tricky about speed limits. Changes are frequent, and can vary by up to 20 mph (50-65 on 101S in SF; 45-65 on 880N in Oakland). So if I'm cruising at 78, I can get into big trouble if I don't notice that the limit just dropped to 45. I want some kind of phone or GPS app that will just tell me what the current speed limit is. (Even better: one that will beep when I exceed 13 mph over it.) Anyone? I don't really care about speed traps; I just want to know the speed limit.

---

I've been listening to a lot of American Analog Set lately. My friend Lonnie introduced me to them in 2000 and since then they've been a constant, steadying presence in my life. In fact, one of their songs was the genesis of the title of this blog. For various reasons I've listened to them less frequently of late, but they're back.

I guess you could classify Amanset as "drone-rock": whispered vocals, fuzzy or chiming guitars, languorous tempos, repetition, melancholy lyrics. A warm blanket. It's easy to find them boring if you don't listen carefully enough. But if you do, and let the music feel for you, it's a powerful experience.

Here's a YouTube playlist of some Amanset songs.

(Please click on the "HQ" button on the bottom right of the YouTube widget; it drastically improves the sound quality. Also there's silence at the end of every track, so you'll have to manually skip forward. Until there's a better way to embed audio streams, this will have to do. [Note: I'd be happy to pay the buck or whatever to enable repeated streaming for visitors. Let me do it!])

What's my favorite Amanset song? None of these, actually. Why spoil the fun?

I may continue this trend of exploring bands that I like. Next up might be Porcupine Tree, just because Steven Wilson keeps pumping out amazing stuff.

And the Winner Is . . .

The votes have been tallied, the results are in, and we have a winner (two, actually). Congratulations to the newly elected user representatives to the LJ Advisory Board: from lj_election_en, it's kylecassidy, and from lj_election_ru, it's nekbke! You can see the full breakdown of results for lj_election_en here and for lj_election_ru here. Thanks to everyone for your participation.