Monthly Archives: December 2012

076: Nearshore

Noun: nearshore – The region extending seaward from the shoreline.

Seriously good haul this year – a nice blue scarf from Mom and New Super Mario Bros. from Dad!

The scarf was gorgeous to unwrap – I tore off the paper and there’s the softest fabric you’ll ever touch. She said that not only was it cheap, but it’s probably more comfortable than that towel I like wearing around these days.

New Super Mario Bros. was something of a shock – the box was small and light; when I unwrapped it, I glimpsed the Coach logo and groaned internally. Fancy brand names aren’t my thing. Then the tissue paper came out and I started laughing hysterically. Troll Dad.

That was actually all last night, as per family tradition not to wait until the 25th.

This morning, though, I had a pleasant surprise when I found out that my laptop’s built-in microphone captures the piano a lot better than the microphones lying around our house. So I recorded a rehearsal run-through of “My Neighbor Totoro” (my two-piano arrangement). My counting is truly something atrocious.

More will follow.


075: Theft

Noun: theft (plural thefts) – The act of stealing property.

From the English Wikipedia:

“In common usage, theft is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.”

This will be a long post that sacrifices conciseness (like I ever have that in any quantity) for freedom of prose and ease of understanding. In other news, I think I’ve become a bit fond of the adjective “imbecilic.”

Daniel Cross Sepley used to run a grocery store, and some time during those days he spouted this long spiel:

“I sell lots of apples. People like apples. They want apples, need to have apples. My apples cost money. People are miserly and don’t like parting ways with their money. But I need money to survive; if you want my apples, you should exchange a sum we agree upon for it – preferably in green paper-like stuff.

“When you buy an apple from my store, you are implicitly agreeing that the price is acceptable. When you turn your nose up and walk past my apple bins, you are implicitly haggling down with me on the price. ‘It’s too high,’ you say to me, by virtue of not buying. That’s fine – the apple is still there. My account still holds the value that lies in those apple bins.

“If I don’t sell that apple or much else in my store – ever – then I lose my means of making a living. I can live a while off my savings and eating what’s in-store, but without a profit. I have to scratch my head and think to myself, ‘Is that apple really worth so much? Maybe I can lower the price a bit, and still make enough money, and still have everyone be happy when they can afford my apples.’

“Now say that my careless assistant drops that bin of apples on a box of TNT. Let’s also say that by comedic intervention, he is left unhurt (even though we don’t really care about him) but the apples are completely decimated.

“I have now lost a whole bin of apples. They are un-sellable, except to fanatics who enjoy collecting the finely powdered mixture of consumed TNT and rotten apple bits, and they are few in number. Whatever value there was in those apples has now gone to zero for me – and I no longer have any chance to compensate myself for the money I spent on buying them from that farm down the road, much less make any profit off of them.

“The apples are PHYSICALLY gone. That’s the key point. Because they’re physically unfit to be sold, there is no money to be made. We do not care that the apples return to the earth as so much fine ash fertilizer, we do not care that the ants and rats – the ones that live OUTSIDE the store, never inside – will feast on apple bits. At least, I care nothing – I focus on myself and my own livelihood.

“Theft is the same thing. Say a boy is addicted to apples, but can’t spare any pocket money for them (though apples are not at all essential for his survival). He must choose: he can either obtain some pocket money, by earning or by cutting, or do things the less legitimate way. If he chooses the second, I’m cut to the quick – it’s as though my buffoonish assistant blew up another apple or two with some dynamite and further robbed me of profit. When that pitiful boy, enamored by apples, steals from me, he deprives me of profit, and chips away maliciously at my livelihood.

“Say some up-and-coming scientist builds a machine that can clone things (or at least make very decent copies that have the same functionality as the original – the exactness of the cloning is irrelevant). Said scientist decides this machine can be exploited into a huge money-making machine, but also happens to be very nice. He buys an apple from me (I am happy because I make a little money from the transaction; little do I know what becomes of that apple) and clones it a thousand times, into a thousand fruits of more or less equal functionality (I’m only saying that for generality – this is relevant later) and, being a nice person, gives them all away for free to anybody who wants an apple but doesn’t care to spend any money for it.

“Here we have to step back and recall some big-picture concepts. Firstly, there is no cosmic law that decides what is right or wrong. Different countries and different cultures believe in different kinds of wrongs – and even the courts within the same country will rule back and forth on what constitutes a wrong. Matters of right and wrong are purely artificial – social constructs (yay sociology students) that the people (or whoever holds the judicial power) create.

“Now, most people agree that taking something without payment where payment is due constitutes a wrong. Things get thornier on what things exactly require payment, or at the least deserve monetary restitution. Does a musical idea deserve a price tag? How about a formula? What about a general idea?

“Back to the groove. The scientist is doing everybody a service by satisfying a demand with an indefatigable supply at essentially no cost, but he does me a great disservice – now far fewer people come to my store to buy my apples. Barring rotting, the apples are still sitting there, less sold than before, and making me less money. But their value remains in my account. I still have the potential to sell them, one way or another – so long as someone buys, I can sell. That scientist has not wronged me by theft: he bought that single apple from me and found a better way to produce that I can’t keep up with. It was not as though he blew up my store (and all my apples) with some TNT, and it was not as though he stole all my apples and gave them out to people, because either way I would then REALLY be in a pickle, unable to make a profit.

“So, then, is anybody really in the wrong? Is the scientist somehow obligated to pay me licensing fees for every copy of the fruit he makes and distributes? Are the consumers who receive his bootleg vitamin C obliged to pay me in full, perhaps?

“The scientist technically has not robbed me of anything. He has diminished the demand artificially, and perhaps that is a sort of ethical wrong…”

Let us move out of allegorical mode and take aim at my point: Daisy-chain logic doesn’t always hold up when you don’t grasp the fine points. Someone suggested to me yesterday (early this morning, for the nit-picky) that theft – physical theft, as we commonly use the word – is justified because a huge portion of society has not criminalized what is generally called “piracy.” This is borderline imbecilic.

I repeat for emphasis: this is borderline imbecilic.

I repeat for more emphasis: This is borderline imbecilic.



In the first place, “that”  person forgot the critical insight that most of society still agrees upon: snowballing a small following for the lynch mob doesn’t change it into the Justice League: it’s still a lynch mob. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” isn’t as applicable, but a similar logic applies – if we decide that some X is wrong but decline to comment on Y, pointing out the similarities in X and Y and using the lack of judgement on Y (or the ancient “everyone else is doing it”) does NOT justify X. Now let X = theft and Y = “piracy as it seems to be called” and “that” person can shove it.

That huge long shtick from DxSepley should be taken in context of our substitutions for X and Y; it’s an attempt to prove that Y is actually NOT so like X, that “piracy” is not so much like theft, if that serves anything against “that” person’s logic. If that fails, then the original formula (concisely: if X ~ Y, and if X is wrong but Y is fine, X STILL != Y and X is STILL wrong) is a logical fallback.

I know that music and movies are not directly comparable to apples (because their true value lies in their expressions and their ideas, as opposed to their physical manifestations), but the logic is roughly the same. I am no advocate of piracy (and yes, I think that scientist with the cloning machine is in the wrong) but I recommend Hollywood’s Copyright Wars: from Edison to the Internet by Peter Decherney for further reading … the ideas I gained from that book are the reason why I can’t really take a solid stance on piracy.

This is the one time I’ve been pushed over the threshold of negative emotion in zher direction. “That” person had better get zher act together.


074: Technoshamanism

Noun: technoshamanism (uncountable) – Alternative form of techno-shamanism.

Piano Sonata in A major, op. 2 no. 2 – 1. Allegro vivace (6:22)
Rafał Blechacz, Ludwig Van Beethoven
from Rafał Blechacz – Sonatas – Haydn | Mozart | Beethoven – Track 4/10

His teacher once said that the other students, compared to Rafal, weren’t gifted by God. It was (though not meant to be) a cruel observation.

People say I type quickly. Two things: I rely heavily on my keyboard for the trivialities of my daily computing, and I use Dvorak. I like to credit the second part for my speed, but I can’t be sure.

I type quickly, but when I sit down at the ivories to take a whirl, I’m suddenly sluggish and uncoordinated.

I played this very movement for Panel. I remember my every nuance – and my every mistake.

Rafal plays with such delightful energy and vigor. It’s not exaggerated or forceful, but it’s so devilishly fast that you wonder how much of his soul he gave to Mephisto to achieve that ungodly speed. Better phrased: how much favor did God grant him to achieve such heavenly ability?

Listening to his playing puts me to shame. And Akiko (who maintains Preludia, the fansite for Rafal) made a critical insight: imagine how hurtfully the other finalists must have been crushed in 2005 when the judges refused to award a second prize.

If I were to compete today at that great concert hall in Warsaw, I wouldn’t even pass the preliminaries. Such is the ineptitude of my fingerwork. It hurts me so much to think that something I enjoy so much could be so far away from me: that I’ll never achieve the creative output of any of those amazing composers, nor the heaven-sent virtuosity of these great pianists.

Sergei Rachmaninoff really had it all. His fourth concerto is more beautiful than most credit (I for one enjoy it immensely), as are many of his less-popular works. Not only that, but he was really the pianist’s pianist – his Chopin album that I bought from Rasputin Music (“Rachmaninoff plays Chopin”) was an excellent buy. It’s such confident, such bold playing – almost a little overstated at times, not to suggest I could have done any better – something to contrast with the laid-back, always introspective Blechacz.

I could practice etudes and fugues all day and still be many long shots away from these two amazing men. And Mikhail Pletnev too. And Martha Argerich. And Yundi Li. And Yulianna Avdeeva too, I guess. Note that I don’t mention Horowitz because I’m not objective towards him.

The least I can do is pride myself on being ahead of the curve in my particular field: my arrangement for the three selections from “Kiki’s Delivery Service” sounds pretty nice, if I may say so myself. I think I will chance tackling some from “The Cat Returns” if time permits.

As for the Mozart sonata, it’s also doing surprisingly well – I’ve never appreciated his music more than I have now. Although I’m reduced to playing the second part, I enjoy it immensely.


073: Desulphurizes

Verb: desulphurizes – Third-person singular simple present indicative form of desulphurize.

– Documenting all the battles I win against my computer

– Listening to film scores by Joe Hisaishi

– Reading obsessively about all kinds of gory, nasty accidents – as if I wasn’t paranoid already

– Watching all those TV shows and anime that I had piled up in my queue

– Reading Mozart, because I’ll be playing with Lyra spring semester

– Actually getting out of the house every now and then

– Getting kissed on the cheek by a sweet old 92-year-old

– Breaking out every now and then and trying to be myself in a way that people can enjoy

I mean, she was talking with Mom the whole time (we performed at the Carlton Plaza today), but as soon as she saw me, she asked if she could kiss me on the cheek. What do I say? No? So of course I smiled (and I meant it) and leaned forward a little.

After I took a picture of Mom and her, I struck up a conversation with Ruthie (sp?) who had earlier congratulated me and suggested that my antics were worthy of Victor Borge.

“You know, I am so glad that Asians came to this country. They make me so happy!”

That COULD be misconstrued as being racist. I think it was more reactionary: to be taken in the same gulp as the idea that we’re not welcome here. If she had said that right after someone told me “get the hell out of my country you damn chink,” it wouldn’t have been even mildly racist. I was HONORED to be compared to Victor Borge, so I knew that she didn’t mean anything by the “Asians” comment. She escorted Mom and me out when we told her that we had to go; people wished us “Happy Holidays” all the way out.

Goodness. If I weren’t so easily stressed by work of the hands, I think a senior center might be a good place to work at.

And above is just a menagerie of all the perks I enjoy while at home for the holidays.


072: Emulatress

Noun – emulatress (plural emulatresses) – A female who emulates.

Part or all of this entry has been imported from the 1913 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, which is now free of copyright and hence in the public domain. The imported definitions may be significantly out of date, and any more recent senses may be completely missing.

I must make it a habit to document my winning commands. I’ve been struggling for ages to make a digital copy (for personal use!) of Howl’s Moving Castle. All my ripping methods seem to fail. The obvious “vobcopy -l” just hangs (later I made some breakthroughs), Brasero throws an I/O error and dies at about 60%, dvdrip suffers from a similar problem, ddrescue was helpless … I was tearing my hair out with each new setback.

I only tried Brasero last night, not expecting much, and ddrescue is not a utility that I put much hope in. As for dvdrip, what I can do with that GUI I can do just as efficiently with the back-ends (or similar).

I concentrated my firepower on dd. I had a feeling that would save me. My idea was a two-step deployment: one, image the DVD (which was either damaged or rigged to appear that way, throwing off potential copying attempts); two, extract the videos from the copy on the hard drive.

At one point I made a proud breakthrough with vobcopy (turns out -b is rather useful. There was a half-second-or-so corrupted – I think – dead zone in the DVD between the zeroth and first seconds that made vobcopy choke 9 times out of 10. The ONE time it got past, I celebrated; but VLC then choked on the resulting file, by extending that dead zone into two or three minutes of black screen which I could only pass through by seeking forward, then backward by the right amount. The -b option allowed me to bypass that zone when ripping.) Well, surprise surprise, at about 60% it just hung there.

I went back to dd like my gut told me to.I first tried

dd if=/dev/cdrom bs=2048 count=3801920 conv=notrunc,noerror of=howl.iso

Exactly as the linked page suggested. Eventually this got stuck:

“155718+0 records in / 155718+0 records out / 318910464 bytes (319 MB) copied, 2643.94 s, 121 kBs”

displaying that line repeatedly with time incrementing and read rate decrementing.

The winning command?

dd if=/dev/cdrom bs=2048 count=3801920 conv=sync,noerror of=howl.iso

That sync option did it – sync and noerror together signal dd to continue reading no matter what. This became especially important over that I/O error at about 60%; whereas the previous command sat there for hundreds of seconds trying to correct the error, the winner just zipped past it.

From “dd: reading `/dev/cdrom’: Input/output error / 155718+0 records in / 155718+0 records out / 318910464 bytes (319 MB) copied, 292.893 s, 1.1 MB/s,” dd went on to throw more I/O errors while steadily incrementing the copied bytes counter. I threw a happy fit. This carried on heavily long after I was asleep (I glimpsed the little green read light on the drive flashing before I dropped off), but i checked the output this morning. The last of it:

“dd: reading `/dev/cdrom’: Input/output error
156050+383 records in
156433+0 records out
320374784 bytes (320 MB) copied, 6855.27 s, 46.7 kB/s
3801536+384 records in
3801920+0 records out
7786332160 bytes (7.8 GB) copied, 9730.56 s, 800 kB/s”

VICTORY. At long last, my hard-fought battle had ended in my victory.

Running “vobcopy -l -i howl.iso” (bad habit of operating in my home directory – maybe I should break that) monkey-wrenched me that dead zone again, so I used the other important shenanigan. The winner:

vobcopy -l -b 7390k -i howl.iso

Note the divisibility of 7390 by 13. Heh.



071: Bootful

Noun: bootful (plural bootfuls)

as much as a boot will hold

Some common points and rebuttals, vaguely taking a side:

– The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms.

=> The Second Amendment (and not the Constitution direct) guarantees us this right. Not like that’s important.

– The Second Amendment is meant to ensure that Americans can defend themselves.

=> It’s true that some research shows that weapons seem to deter crime. The study I read described a trend: robbers and thieves were less willing to act when their victims had weapons readily available.

– So weapons are major forces in self-defense.

=> Most thievery takes place during the day, during work hours, when you are away from the house, and is covertly done so that neither you nor your neighbors notice. Chances are that unless you have a gun safe, your weapon will be stolen along with all your valuables.

=> And even if someone breaks and enters while you’re in, you won’t really have time to go for your gun before they either leave or pull a gun on you first. Chances are.

– Weapons highlight the American tradition of hunting.

=> Be nice to the poor animals, they’re disappearing. And where they’re not, you can break that tradition anyway – unless you hunt for food (and there’s not much excuse to these days), change might be welcome. Kind of like the evolution of civil rights, of marriage, of sexuality – no reason why there can’t be a little change on the usage of guns.

– Weapons ensure our right to rise up against our government should we so wish.

=> This is imbecilic. If you want to rise up violently against the government, you’ll be dead before you can say “insurrection.” Facing the military with the conventional weapons and little training that most sane people have would be like hunting space aliens with a cap-gunthe kind that doesn’t even shoot.


EDIT: I would like to append a thought, after reading Reddit. Yes, stricter gun control (maybe even a ban) would not stop determined killers from doing what they do. There is a tightrope called “life” stretched over the gajillion different pits of death, all of which are of course completely fatal. Death by lead is a drop in the bucket of a gajillion.

HOWEVER, we take into account cost-benefit-analysis as a deterrent, as well as the singular human temptation. Let’s say I’m a deranged madman who wants to take revenge on society. I can go around with a garrote, strangling everyone I meet (and probably be taken down before I can even permanently harm ONE person), or I can go buy a nice shiny death machine and go around doling out death by the dozens causing mass panic and becoming a celebrity (albeit a hated figure) in the hyperactive media.

In case you failed high-school English, let me rephrase that: the CRAZY dude who wants to kill everyone will much prefer using guns because they are easier to kill with. Why go to all the trouble of actually being creative and sneaky when you can go in, guns blazing, get a bunch of people, and THEN kill yourself in a blaze of glory?

And in case you also failed middle-school English, let me add that I am not a crazed madman bent on taking revenge on society. I love people and I detest misanthropists, most of all those who would release their anger so selfishly.

In other news, temptation. Ever seen the gummy bear experiment? Kids are shut in a room with a gummy bear on the table. They are pre-informed of the premise: let the bear sit for some time (I think half an hour?) and if at the end of the period they have not touched it, they get another one! Not a whole lot of the kids kept it there. It was entertaining to watch some of them put up their fights, but in the end …

In that same sense: if you’re angry at the world and there’s a metaphorical gummy bear (“gunny” bear) sitting on the table in front of you, you can get help (let it sit there and don’t consummate your desire – call a suicide hotline or something, get mental consulting) – or you can eat it (go to town with it).

Banning (or even just restricting) guns may not necessarily be an end-all to these horrific crimes. Bans (or restrictions) would, however, be a big step in the right direction.


EDIT: An addition:

– We already have armed guards in malls and airports and churches and so many places of importance! So why not have some at school?

=> Nobody who wants revenge on society will drive all the way out to the airport to be gunned down in a trice. In a mall, there’s more exits and hiding places than there are targets – to be completely blunt, it’s not efficient for those who’re looking to gun people down. A school is uniform and often offers little cover and few avenues of exit (at least from each classroom). The victims are up close and personal. A church is an easier target, but is smaller and more selective about times – burst in guns blazing to an empty church and you’ll be forced to shoot yourself on the spot without your so-called “revenge on society.” A school – a school is a holy place in and of itself. You violate that, and you’re doing something truly awful, as the Sandy Hook shooter demonstrated – CHILDREN at an ELEMENTARY school. They’re easy targets, and they maximize the horror factor in our reaction.

=> Armed guards – especially in schools – are just formalities, for the most part. Short of imposing TSA-esque policies on any and all public places, there’s no serious way to prevent a shooter from getting the jump on everyone and blazing away anyway. Putting armed guards in schools won’t cut it. As for stripping the nation of guns, that’s not necessarily the best step, but it’s oriented in the right direction, I’d say.


066: Nonet


Etymology: Italian nonetto, from nono, ninth


nonet (plural nonets)

(music) a composition written for nine instruments or nine voices

(Can we date this quote?) Saturday Review:

The small-group sides are the best, with the nonet in particular coming through as a sparkling unit.

a group of nine nuclear or subatomic particles

I’m feeling lucky! A musical word for once. It’s been tainted with some physics, but that’s all right. I read two articles from the Daily Cal; the first one is not fit to reproduce or even link to here (it made it to the Huffington Post for some of the wrong reasons). The second, “Why good girls like bad boys,” by Mia Shaw, can be found here.

Let me be clear: I am not a relationships expert. I am, however, the archetypal “nice guy” who has blundered time and again in the minefield of love. I am also Asian (oriental) yet relatively un-traumatized from my life experiences. I will try here to provide some balanced insight into what’s “going on.” I will be drawing on my own experiences and observations, and virtually no external sources, so this can’t be taken like a thesis or anything nearly as serious.

And yes, I really shouldn’t be spending all my time on writing this, but I happen to like writing.

Our first problem jumps out immediately: nailing down the definition of a “nice guy” against a “bad boy.” Webster’s and Britannica fail spectacularly; this phenomenon is too recent to be researched easily. We can, however, lay down some blanket characteristics of both classes. The “nice guy” is … as the label implies, usually a pleasant person who has a default behavior of being agreeable. At the minimum there must be a façade of this.

Beyond this, though, the spectrum is too wide to be definite: there are the false-nice-guys, who will try awkwardly to sweet-talk their way into a girl’s pants, but really have some truly awful personalities; there are the genuine-nice-guys, who are really just that nice for reasons known best to themselves, and then there are the nice-guys-in-between. There are nice guys who are so passive, so deferential – so un-assertive – that they come across as complete pushovers. There are nice guys who don’t suffer from that kind of condition. There are nice guys who are needy and nice guys who aren’t; there are nice guys who whine and there are nice guys who don’t.

We’ll delve into the psychology of some of these later on. But now our task returns to definition – the latter part of definition – what we’ll address as the “bad boy.” This class is even harder to flesh out and throw into high contrast. We’ll use the same generalization as with the “nice guys:” males who don’t default to the nice behavior, whether they’re only putting that on as a shell or if they’re genuinely “bad.” They span the same wide spectrum (if not wider).

There’s no blame to be pasted: not on the “bad boys,” not on the girls, and probably not on the culture that constructed all this. Most of what’s said about “bad boys” is probably true (assuming what little I’ve heard is probably complete. “Bad boys” don’t show up often to talk about themselves): they are brimming with self-confidence, they don’t particularly care whether or not they have your approval, they do what they want. And indeed, most of what’s said about “nice guys” seems true enough to me too: “nice guys” tend to be more needy, “nice guys” tend not to go wild, “nice guys” don’t really show a girl a good time (that last one sizzles, but I can’t disagree).

The hard part is looking past the bitter vitriol and discerning what’s not-as-likely false.

Myth: all “bad boys” treat girls like scum and will end up making any girl they come in contact with unhappy.

Suggested truth: a select few with problems will do this. WITH PROBLEMS. This includes domestic violence / abuse. The real juicy core of a “bad boy” that girls want is the princely side of the beast from “Beauty and the Beast:” beneath a vicious shell lies a sweet side that they show only for and only to the beauty. And, as the animated Disney version demonstrates, this can be quite charming. If you’re a jerk to everyone but blush and stutter and falter in your manner in front of that girl, it’s probably somewhat appealing.

Myth: all “nice guys” lose the girls because they’re too homogeneous about their behavior: sickeningly nice all the time.

Suggested truth: not much to revise here. It’s completely plausible to believe that girls get bored of the gentleman routine day after day. What’s more, that kind of routine doesn’t really appeal to girls in the first place. Always deferential, always waiting for somebody else to make the decision, because they don’t want to run any risks of offending anybody.

There’s a whole sub-point to be expanded here: for want of self-confidence, a common “nice guy” behavior is to be as pleasant as possible to everyone. This includes absolute deference, absolute passiveness: “I don’t want to offend you by imposing my opinion upon you: I’m going to spoil you by playing the yes-man, by always asking your opinion before offering mine, by NEVER seeking to think that I know better than you.”

Quite honestly, that sort of behavior is disturbing to observe. It borders very nearly on being masochistic, and we all know how we react when we see that sort of play in public. The archetype of the wishy-washy guy is really, really cringe-worthy – picture the doe-eyed, wide-grinned sort of imbecile wandering around Sproul Plaza with a narrow-eyed, fox-grinned girl leading him by the nose.

Like it or not, the general sketch of a “male” figure is set in stone. It’s not a very clear sketch, but it’s still set in stone. We may not be banging rocks together, but we’re still the tragically de facto breadwinners (this is not my being sexist. You can either support the family or be labeled the fat, useless deadbeat) who ought to be strong, intelligent, and sexy. I’m sure many males still take the apron as a mark of shame (I personally think I look hilariously great in an apron, holding a spatula and frying pan).

Again I generalize (dangerously): girls go by the book, by that sketch of masculinity. If you want to break from it, you need a supremely redeeming feature to offset that. Being witty, extraordinarily well-read, or powerfully self-confident often helps. If you do not possess any such qualities, being a not-very-manly man will not do you any good.

One of the common failings of the nice guy is the attack. The attack is anything that ranges from the awful pick-up line to the hour or two in the cozy coffee shop. For some reason, nice guys are often abysmal at this.

At this point I’m not even sure any more: I think I’m starting to blur the line between “nice guy” and “incompetent guy” – it so happens that these two classes often seem to share many qualities, in my eyes.

What a depressing post of a thousand and two hundred words.