TINDER RULES...

     After futzing around on Tinder for a while, I've noticed the following consistencies in my "swipe left" rejection behavior:

1. When the girl mentions her height, I'm too short for her.

     While I would be considered "minimally tall" at 5'10", it doesn't matter if she says she's 4'11, 5'2, 5'8, or 6'...if she's mentioned her height, she's looking for someone over six feet tall.

2. When the girl mentions she's not looking to hook-up.

     Look, I'm not on this site to hook-up either but I'm fairly confident that if you have to go out of your way to mention it, you're not fun no matter how fun you claim to be.

3. When the profile has only one picture.

     Best case scenario, it's a fake profile and you're just going to be led into what will eventually turn into a spam conversation where the girl tells you to go to an outside e-mail to see her "other" pics. Otherwise, and especially if that one photo is up-close, difficult to make out, or a cartoon/sports team logo...you've got nothing to work with.
     Even if the one picture is fantastic, anyone can look good in a single photo.

4. When the girl has a foreign/ghetto name.

     I want a fully-Americanized girl and I'm just not confident that a Lyudmila, Sirin, Jennyffyr, Yessica, Shayvon, Yeon-hee, Desserae, Huma, Shivani, Xiomena, Dharmista, or Meiying will be so. I'm not interested in dating another language and/or culture, especially if that culture prizes submissive femininity and/or values overly dominant/involved parents. I want a feminist girl: one who's her own woman.

4a. When the girl shows obvious signs of religiousness.

     As a corollary to the above, if your religion is an important part of your identity, it's just going to clash with my atheism; even more so for religions (and lifestyles like vegetarianism/veganism) with dietary restrictions. But if you're just a Christian, Jew, or Muslim in name-only, I'm cool with that but say it in your Tinder profile.
     This also applies to food allergies. I probably eat all-the-time what you're allergic to. Let's just not bother.

5.When a girl mentions she works with "special needs" people.

     Doubly so if she has one or more close retarded family members. You know I'm a eugenicist, right?

6. When the girl has the same name as my Mom.

    My Mom's name isn't a common one like Jennifer, so I won't ever be able to dissociate. And this is one of the few times I would totally understand being rejected for the complementary reason...

7. When a girl mentions she doesn't like cats.

    Even though I'm not allowed to have animals where I currently live, I do look forward to the day I may have a cat of my own. I can tolerate dogs, but I'm not fond of them and if anything, I would want a cat-person too because it is really no joke just how many single women own dogs on these kinds of sites. I'm really convinced that it is a bad thing for a woman to be a dog lover...

POINTLESS ENTRY IS POINTLESS...

     I miss the passion I used to have for this blog. The entries have dwindled practically to zero. It's not that I don't want to write anymore. It's just that I don't know what to write about.

     I have this old running post idea that would get me to come back at least once weekly. My image macros folder on my PC is filled with images I could never post on Facebook because they would offend one too many sensibilities. They're things I find funny in their own absurd (and sometimes mean) ways. I just never got around to setting it up.

     Maybe it's because I have too many open accounts online now. It'd be a job in of itself to keep up to date with all of them, especially a blogging site which requires some measure of dedication to generate an entry that's more than me just bitching about something.
     My most popular entry to date is still the Carly McKinney one and that's entirely due to the pictures I posted within the post. People are finding the entry via Google searches so if anything, yeah...the right images can generate views but that entry had some sincere passion in it which took some time to plan out and compose. It wasn't just a post offering a gallery of pictures for viewers to ogle.

     I don't know. I have occasional ideas but I'm not budgeting my online time well. Facebook and Twitter draw my time like television once did which reminds me, like with Twitter, I need to create a core group of friends on Facebook I definitely follow and have an "Everybody Else Day" for when I have the time or otherwise bored. I've already cleared my feed of the "Posts Too Much" crowd: those people who love oversharing links and whatnot. I feel like I must be on quite of few of them seeing as how few the reactions are to anything I post. I accept the emptiness on Twitter: it's part of its design. It's more depressing on Facebook.

     It'll be another year before I update the America the Beautiful mintages and another two years before I update the Deliberately Circulated running entries.

     Maybe I got out much of what I had wanted to say in 2010 and 2011 when this blog was new. It probably helped that I was still reading Gawker and listening to Opie & Anthony daily to keep my rage informed. Perhaps I've mellowed out?

     I should never discount that I'm simply lazy...

YOU CAN BE WORTH TOO MUCH...

     This isn't about God hatred. I don't really go for that. It's about that shitty handwaving mentality of "everything happens for a reason" I can't stand and this image macro post exemplifies it. I'm sorry things aren't going your way but it's because you're more valuable than the people who get what they want easily so you're just going to have to wait, and wait...and wait.....and wait some more believing that someday you, yes you!, will be found worthy of happiness long after the time it would've been useful for you to have.

     Ugh...

     There is such a thing as being too valuable. You see it in some convenience stores when they won't accept $50 or $100 bills regardless of how much you purchase. This poster says to me that while all your $10 and $20 friends get to have lunch, your $100 self will just have to go hungry because you're worth so much more than lunch right now when you need it...

     Ugh...

Anyone got change? I need change.

ATB QUARTER MINTAGES: WHERE ARE THEY NOW? (2015 update)

     2015's mintages have been released so it's time, once again, to update my comparison chart of America the Beautiful (ATB) Quarters mintages with that of the preceding 50 State Quarters program (1999-2009).

     As of 2014, the total mintage of the entire ATB Quarters program had still yet not exceeded that of the first year of State Quarters (though just barely). That would be left up to 2015's mintages, which would put a significant dent in the 2000 State Quarters' production totals.

          To recap, the mintages from the 1999 State Quarters program were 2.23 billion quarters produced at the Philadelphia mint and 2.21 billion quarters produced at the Denver mint for a total mintage of 4,430.8 million quarters which broke down as follows:
     Total mintage for Delaware was 774.8 million pieces
     Total mintage for Pennsylvania was 707.3 million pieces
     Total mintage for New Jersey was 662.2 million pieces
     Total mintage for Georgia was 939.9 million pieces
     Total mintage for Connecticut was 1,346.6 million pieces

    Additionally, we last left off with the production percentages of ATB Quarters to date compared to State Quarters production as follows:

Of the 1999 total: 98.6% with DE: 100% - PA: 100% - NJ: 100% - GA: 100% - CT: 93.4%
The combined production totals for 2010-2014 were 4,341.6 million quarters. For Connecticut, an additional 89.2 million quarters will be needed to exceed that state's mintage in the order and, for that matter, the entirety of 1999's mintage.

    As we will be moving into the second year of the 50 State Quarters program's mintages, now would be a good time to break down its production totals.
    The mintages from the 2000 State Quarters program were 3.67 billion quarters produced at the Philadelphia mint and 2.81 billion quarters produced at the Denver mint for a total mintage of 6,470.9 million quarters which broke down as follows:
     Total mintage for Massachusetts was 1,163.8 million pieces
     Total mintage for Maryland was 1,234.7 million pieces
     Total mintage for South Carolina was 1,308.8 million pieces
     Total mintage for New Hampshire was 1,169 million pieces
     Total mintage for Virginia was 1,594.6 million pieces

     2000 holds the record for the highest production totals in the program as well as the individual title holder for the highest minted State Quarter, Virginia.

     The total production of 2015 ATB Quarters was 1,417.6 million from the Philadelphia mint and 1,573.2 million from the Denver mint for a combined total of 2,990.8 million quarters, nearly double 2014's mintage.
     The 463 million total mintage of the Homestead quarter more than provides the 89.2 million quarters necessary to push out of 1999's production totals and into 2000's (that only took five years and change!) and combined with Kisatchie's 776.8 million total, we're just 1% shy of Massachusetts's mintage.
     The combined mintages of the Blue Ridge Parkway (830.8 million pieces) and Bombay Hook quarters (481.4 million pieces) not only quickly surpass the mintage of our union's sixth state, but also overtake Maryland's total by 5%.
     The mintage for the Saratoga quarter, the final ATB Quarter for 2015, provided an additional 438.8 million pieces to combine with the 64.3 million leftover pieces from Bombay Hook that exceeded Maryland's total, thus eating into, but not overtaking South Carolina's production total.

     In conclusion:

Of the 2000 total: 44.8% with MA: 100% - MD: 100% - SC: 38.4% - NH: 0% - VA: 0%
2015 dated quarters are:
Of total 1965-1998 quarter production (37,463 million pieces): 7.98%
Of total State Quarter production (1999-2009 : 35,451.2 million pieces): 8.44%
Of total clad quarter production (1965-2015): 3.73% [about 1 in 27 quarters will be dated 2015]

And of all quarters made from 1965-2015 (80,246.6 million pieces):
1965-1998 clad quarters make up 46.68% of the total [about 1 in 2 quarters]
State Quarters make up 44.18% of the total [about 1 in 2 quarters]
1999-dated quarters make up 5.52% of the total [about 1 in 18 quarters]
2000-dated quarters make up 8.06% of the total [about 1 in 12 quarters]
ATB Quarters from 2010-2015 make up 9.14% of the total [about 1 in 11 quarters]

POWER DYNAMICS AND FLIRTING...

     I hate the lack of defined social etiquette when it comes to when it's okay and when it's not okay for men to flirt with women (and vice-versa). I say this somewhat ironically as I despise social conventions as unnecessarily restrictive but they have their purpose, especially in tense or otherwise in scenarios with too many variables. A defined social etiquette, or diplomacy if you will, helps take the edge off by allowing participants to follows established guidelines rather than risk accidental offense.

    I accept, however reluctantly as a coward, that it is generally accepted that men make the opening moves when attempting to woo women ("woo" is a terrible word, isn't it?) however, while it is also generally accepted that not all situations are appropriate for male-initiated flirting, there is no clear-cut set of rules establishing when and where such behavior is appropriate.

    I'm not sure I can define the scenarios mathematically but an obvious, all-too-cliché, example where it is perfectly acceptable to flirt is ye olde bar or a dance club. People, strangers, deliberately meeting up in a public place purveying in intoxication is the standard-bearer for male-initiated wooing via inviting female body language.
    I'm not actually one to believe that the men are ever in control here. I feel, like in nature, women are generally always the ones holding all the cards and just make it look like the men are the ones doing so.

    But I think it's also safe-to-say that people would agree that the supermarket or restaurant are not places where male-initiated flirting is acceptable. The difference being that the female cashier (and even customer) and waitress are not in positions of power like they are at a bar or club. They have to be nice to you. They can't get away. They can't tell you off. Etc.
    Yet, as anyone can attest, guys still shamelessly flirt with such women all the fucking time. Now I'm not saying it's wrong, in of itself, for such flirting to happen. I'm saying it's wrong when the man initiates flirting when the power-dynamic does not favor the woman.

     There is a way around this. If the female cashier, waitress, or customer initiates flirting with the guy, she is granting him permission to do so in a venue where his advances would otherwise (and should) be frowned upon. In this way, the power dynamic of the bar/club is preserved in places where it may not simply be assumed by the male.

     The trouble is, I don't see anything like this actually going on nor when I was in school (or from posts I read online) were we ever educated in such a manner of when are where flirting is appropriate. Feminist posts will occasionally broach this topic but I've only ever read complaints about creepy men, etc. taking advantage of the topsy-turvy power dynamic, not calls for social etiquette.

     Admittedly, this sucks for me as only very rarely has a female customer even kinda-sorta flirted with me. It sucks because some of my customers are very attractive and from the ones who do speak, sometimes immediately appealing too. But it only seems fair to apply.
     I think of sexual harassment videos and shit from school and work. They always told you what not to do, but never what to do leaving cautious folk like me without guidance.

     Additionally, I think of the rather unnatural world of online dating and how the power dynamic perhaps ought to play out there as well. I regularly read complaints about creepy guys or overly sexual guys bothering women on these sites, ruining the experience for everyone. Sites like Tinder which require a mutual match before contact may be made and Bumble which require girls to initiate contact with men might help somewhat but what of simply the overall etiquette? What should it be?

     My thoughts on this are that it's okay for men to initiate contact on sites like Plenty of Fish and OKCupid but that it is not okay for them to ask for the girl's phone number. I feel by asking for the phone number, the men are violating the power dynamic.
     Online dating isn't like real life dating as there is no face-to-face communication and all its attendant body language, eye contact, smells, etc. that both consciously and subconsciously go along with face-to-face meetings. As women will readily admit, they're kinda sussing the men out to determine if they are creeps, sexual perverts, or the ever classic, serial killers and they're denied this pass/fail opportunity when the man is demanding her private contact information before she is willing to give it.

      Unfortunately, like the cashier and waitress examples, there are no defined and socially accepted rules for these scenarios so they continue to go often violated by men, making dating that much harder for the rest of us. I wish there were a way to socially shun the power dynamic violating men, but as of now, there isn't and as of now, it's still very hard for me to get a date playing by rules that I've effectively made up and may ultimately be projecting an apparent lack of interest when nothing could be further from the truth.

      It makes me hate my life...

AVATAR: THE LEFT-HANDED AIRBENDER...

     I wonder if the Air Nomads in the Avatar universe had a handedness to their airbending power?

source

     For instance, when I imagine generating a vortex of wind around me, it always develops in a counterclockwise motion. If I imagine shooting a blast of wind from my dominant hand, it also spins in a counterclockwise corkscrewing fashion (from my perspective...it would be clockwise from your viewpoint) and again, if I imagine shooting a blast of wind from my left hand, it is only a straight-up gust with no spin whatsoever.
     I asked Roommate about this, who is left-handed, and without leading on my part, he told me he imagined such vortices spinning clockwise when he thought of how they might spin.

     Makes me wonder if I might be on to something...

     In-Universe, the Air Nomads had all been killed prior to the start of the series and precious few glimpses are ever given to their way of life before the start of the Hundred Years War allowing for little exploration into the quirks of their culture.
     Still, might it possible that handedness determined the natural spin of one's vortices. It's not like it would be impossible to spin them the other way: it just wouldn't be your instinctual motion. After all, you can teach yourself to write and other tasks with your non-dominant hand. I can eat almost as comfortably left-handed as I do right-handed though with the latter I retain better control over the utensil.

     I wonder how clockwise benders might be viewed by counterclockwise benders? I choose clockwise as the minority because the emblem of the Air Nomads shows three swirls all moving in a counterclockwise rotation.

Emblem of the Air Nomads (source)

     Would their powers effectively cancel each other out when used against one and other (or at least lessen the severity of the attack or effectiveness of the defense)? Would they be embraced as an enhancing diversity or viewed with skepticism since they'd likely be a minority? Because they have the "opposite flow", would it affect the way they see the universe? Do they eat meat?
     If the latter, might they have been complicit in betraying the majority Air Nomads to the Fire Nation because they had wanted to rule only to have it backfire on them when Firelord Sozin chose to wipe all Air Nomads out?
     The non-canonical character Afiko was said to have hailed from the Southern Air Temple and betrayed his fellow Air Nomads. According to the card game where his character exists, he was said to have been envious of Aang, the new Avatar, and so revealed the secret location of the temple to the Fire Nation, allowing its soldiers to wipe out the monks who lived there. How did his vortices manifest?

Afiko: clockwise airbender?

     Stuff we'll never know...

HUMOR IS SUCH A SUBJECTIVE THING, DON'T YOU THINK, MOLLARI?

     Is there a name for the kind of humor where increasing the perspective progressively in steps keeps flipping the opinion of the observer back-and-forth from ire to empathy?

     I saw this post about a woman allegedly abusing her dog. You've likely seen the viral photo of the dog whose mouth has been muzzled with duct tape:

pictured: internet rage

    Now, because I'm me and am not in a hurry to rush to judgement, I found myself thinking strange things about the picture like, what if the rage the internet is showing with regard to this image was wrong...but also right...and then wrong again...and so forth?

    Like, what if everyone's mad because they see what appears to be an open-and-shut-case of animal abuse?

   But then you find out the reason the dog's mouth is muzzled shut is because the animal's jaw was broken and its owners couldn't afford the veterinarian's bill? Now you feel bad for misjudging. Maybe you even want to create a Kickstarter for the owner's vet bills.

   But then you find out the reason the dog's jaw is broken is because the owner kicked the dog in the face. Now you're angry again. How could she?! Arrest her!!!

   But then it's revealed the owner kicked the dog in the jaw, breaking it, in order to stop the dog from mauling the owner's small child. Now we feel bad again. She was only protecting her family and still wants to see the dog healed. Again, how we've misjudged...

   But it turns out the child was being mauled because it killed one of the dog's puppies. Now we're angry again. What kind of family teaches their kid to do these things?! Arrest her! Call the Child Protection Service!!!

   And I have to stop here because I can't think of anything absurd the puppy could have done to "deserve" being killed by the small child (which would, in turn, require another pullback of perspective to villainize that and so on and so forth)...

   But what is that kind of humor called? Surely it has a name...or at least a TVtrope associated with it.

    I wonder...