Some Doodles To Mark 5 Years Of The Owl House, Because I May Be At Work But I've Gotta Commemorate It

What issues would a Jewish Werewolf face? I mean with a lunar calendar and so many of the holidays near the full moon, they would have to get pretty inventive, just think about sleeping in the succah, or since Yom Kippor is about 4 days from the full moon, it should make things interesting as in most stories weres start to lose control near the full moon.

HMMM! (and thank you for sending me these anons!)

I suspect it depends on what tradition we’re drawing from. Werewolves as a whole are mostly a European thing, although people changing into or communing with animals is pretty much a worldwide myth. 

Some things to think about: If you’re not fully conscious (or not conscious in the same way) when you’re a wolf, are you accountable for any destruction you cause? Does transformation count as work? (Also, if you can’t stop yourself from doing work, you probably aren’t breaking Shabbat..) Can you attend synagogue as a wolf?

 And we do have recorded cases of nice werewolves! In Latvia in 1692, an eighty-year-old man named Thiess confessed to being a werewolf who, with other werewolves, regularly went to Hell three times a year to fight Satan to ensure a good harvest. This would be a great tradition for Sukkot, Shavuot, and Tu B’Shevat, and I propose we all adopt the custom immediately!

new rules for chess:

1. Friendly Fire ON

2. Landmines

3. If a player loses both of their bishops, the king can now legally divorce the queen without the papal go ahead. This puts the queen into FRENZY mode.

4. Once per game, a player may change one letter in a piece's name to change its role. The rook is now a book. The pawn is now a PAWG. The queen is now...well...I shan't say

5. Knights are now Horses

6. Horses are immune to landmines

7. Pawns can move back a space if they forgot something

8. A bishop can be combined with an adjacent rook to create the Wizard Tower piece

9. Each player now has 2 rows of pawns

I have a new post up on my blog, continuing the Fictional History of Numbers series. In part 1 we built on the natural numbers using algebraic operations, and got the algebraic numbers. In part 2 and part 3 we used geometric and analytic arguments to build up the real numbers.

These two sets of numbers overlap, but aren't the same; there are real numbers that aren't algebraic (as we saw in part 3) but also algebraic numbers that aren't real. So what happens if we combine the two? We get the complex numbers, which are complete and also algebraically closed. But proving this is a little tricky, and touches on the deep strangeness of complex analysis.

And in the process of adding algebraic closure to the real numbers, we lose the ability to order them, which has its own consequences.

Word rhyming is an equivalence relation

Take the definition that two words rhyme if and only if they end with the same sound.

Reflexive: Every word rhymes with itself.

Well, if two words are the same, all their sounds have to match, including the final one, so this point holds.

Symmetric: If A rhymes with B, B rhymes with A.

This one’s really hard to prove, because it’s so obvious. If A rhymes with B, then the final sounds of A and B are the same. They will still be the same if we swap the words around. Please don’t make me explain it more, I’ll cry.

Transitive: If A rhymes with B and B rhymes with C, then A rhymes with C.

Call the sound at the end of word A ‘&’. If A rhymes with B, then B also has to end with ‘&’. If B rhymes with C, and B ends with ‘&’, then C also has to end with ‘&’. This means that both A and C end with ‘&’, and so A rhymes with C.

There we go. The argument no one cares about but me has been made. Rhyme is an equivalence relation. You can all go home.

fields of mathematics

number theory: The Queen of Mathematics, in that it takes a lot from other fields and provides little in return, and people are weirdly sentimental about it.

combinatorics: Somehow simultaneously the kind of people who get really excited about Martin Gardner puzzles and very serious no-nonsense types who don’t care about understanding why something is true as long as they can prove that it’s true.

algebraic geometry: Here’s an interesting metaphor, and here’s several thousand pages of work fleshing it out.

differential geometry: There’s a lot of really cool stuff built on top of a lot of boring technical details, but they frequently fill entire textbooks or courses full of just the boring stuff, and they seem to think students will find this interesting in itself rather than as a necessary prerequisite to something better. So there’s definitely something wrong with them.

category theory: They don’t really seem to understand that the point of generalizing a result is so that you can apply it to other situations.

differential equations: physicists

real analysis: What if we took the most boring parts of a proof and just spent all our time studying those?

point-set topology: See real analysis, but less relevant to the real world.

complex analysis: Sorcery. I thought it seemed like sorcery because I didn’t know much about it, but then I learned more, and now the stuff I learned just seems like sorcery that I know how to do.

algebraic topology: Some of them are part of a conspiracy with category theorists to take over mathematics. I’m pretty sure that most algebraic topologists aren’t involved in that, but I don’t really know what else they’re up to.

functional analysis: Like real analysis but with category theorists’ generalization fetish.

group theory: Probably masochists? It’s hard to imagine how else someone could be motivated to read a thousand-page paper, let alone write one.

operator algebras: Seems cool but I can’t understand a word of it, so I can’t be sure they’re not just bullshitting the whole thing.

commutative/homological algebra: Diagram chases are of the devil, and these people are his worshipers.

wanted to experiment with some brushes on csp so i just sacrificed Regan from @zzztlk and doodled her

Generalized Golf

I have looked up nothing about golf to write this.

Let C be any topological space. We will call this the ‘course’. For any two points x,y ∈ C we have a collection S_xy of ‘shots from x to y’, where each ‘shot’ s ∈ S_xy is a path in C from x to y, which is to say a continuous function s: [0,1] → C with s(0) = x and s(1) = y. For a shot s ∈ S_xy we call x its ‘start’ and y its ‘end’. Let S denote the collection of all shots in C between any two points.

A ‘hole’ on C is a triple (t,h,p) where t ∈ C is a point called the ‘tee’, h ⊂ C is a subset called (confusingly) the ‘hole’, and p is an ordinal number called the ‘par’. For any cardinal number κ we define a ‘golf’ of length κ to be a function g: κ → H, where H is a set of holes on C. A golf g is called ‘finite’ if κ is finite and the par of every hole in the image of g is finite. We define the par of a finite golf as the sum of the pars of its constituent holes.

A quintuple (C,S,κ,H,g) defined like above is called a ‘game of (generalized) golf’.

Take a hole (t,h,p), a successor ordinal ω+1. Let F: ω+1 → S be a function such that F(0) is a shot from t, for every i < ω the end of F(i) equals the start of F(i+1), the end of F(ω) is an element of h, and no F(i) ends in h before this. Such an F is called a ‘play’. We call ω the ‘score’ of F.

A ‘golfer’ is a collection of probability spaces, which for any shot s ∈ S with start x and end y gives a probability space on the set of shots from x. This is to be interpreted as the ways in which a shot can deviate from the golfer’s intent.

…

Now to define the real numbers by way of games of golf on ℚ.

Suggested Alternatives to the One China Policy

Currently, the policy of the United States on the Taiwan question is that the US recognizes that polities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait hold that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. In the current tense international climate, it may be useful to considers alternatives to that policy.

Two Chinas Policy: The United States recognizes the independence of Taiwan as a sovereign state, separate from the People's Republic of China.

Three Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the mainland as independent states.

Four Chinas Policy: The US recognizes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and the mainland as independent states.

One China Policy (Retro 1978): The US switches its diplomatic recognition back from the PRC to the ROC.

One China Policy (Retro 1911): The US recognizes the Qing Dynasty as the legitimate government of China and finds some schmuck to play Emperor-in-Exile.

Many Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese province.

Too Many Chinas Policy: Hong Kong makes a perfectly fine city-state, so why not let everyone do that? The US recognizes every Chinese municipality as its own independent state.

1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every Chinese person.

2^1436506450 Chinas Policy: The US recognizes the sovereign independence of every subset of of the set of all Chinese persons.

2^1436506450-1 Chinas Policy: Same as above, but not including the empty set, because that doesn't even make sense because it's already claimed by Germany.

Infinite Chinas Policy (Countable): The US recognizes that (1) The PRC is a China and (2) for every China c, the successor S(c) is also a China, and (3) for every China c, c != S(c).

Infinite Chinas Policy (Uncountable): The US recognizes that the set C of all Chinas is an ordered field, and that every non-empty subset of C with an upper bound in C has a least upper bound in C.

No Chinas Policy: The United States embraces mereological nihilism and recognizes only atoms and the void.

His Famous Last Words: Billy Joel’s River of Dreams

From the first few chords of “No Man’s Land” to the fade-out at the end of “Famous Last Words”, this album is entirely unlike anything else I’ve ever heard. Heck, it’s unlike Billy Joel. He made a name for himself as the Piano Man—twenty years after that iconic breakout single, he made an album with barely a hint of piano on it and pretty much disappeared so that he could give new musicians a chance to be heard. And he didn’t come back until he had a truly worthwhile song to share.

Now, he’d seen his share of style changes over the years—look at Glass Houses or even The Bridge. But if those albums were a slow shuffle away from his piano-oriented roots, River of Dreams was a flying leap as he traded his trademark baby grand for overdriven guitars. But under this grittier rock sound, it really still feels like a Billy Joel album.

In my mind, no song handles better this fusion of the new sound with Billy’s signature lyrical style and themes than “No Man’s Land”. Despite its obviously rock sound, it is in many ways a thematic successor to The Stranger’s opening track, “Movin’ Out (Anthony’s Song)”. The two songs handle the a very similar sense of disillusionment and uncertainty, as well as the idea that you shouldn’t take what you’re told at face value. To the average listener, this is a shockingly punk rock sentiment to hear from a pop-oriented singer-songwriter, especially as blatant as it is in “No Man’s Land”. But I feel like this theme returning is a wonderful way to close the book on his career as a (probably unintentional) callback.

But that’s just it—this is his final album. He stepped back from music after River of Dreams. This whole album has a sense of finality about it; Billy has always been a storyteller more than just about any songwriter I’ve ever seen, and he seems to have done everything in his power to make his last big story (at least for now) great. For that reason, I find this album thematically akin to Turnstiles. Both deal with moving on and change, though in very different ways. That’s why—to me, anyway—this album seems so fitting as a goodbye. The drastically different styles present here fit and compliment the overall theme of change.

This is all pulled together by the final track, “Famous Last Words”. It’s a slow-paced, easygoing song exploring the prospect of change through the shift from summer into fall, ultimately using this as a metaphor for the end of Billy’s musical career. But it looks to this uncertain future with a feeling of safety and contentment, secure in the knowledge that good things must be somewhere up the road. It’s similar to “Vienna” in that way, as it’s also about accepting the future not with dread but with a willingness to go at your own speed and enjoy the scenery while you’re there.

I’d consider “Famous Last Words” to be among the greatest closing tracks ever—probably topped only by “The Long One” on the Beatles’ Abbey Road. It closes the record with every bit of strength with which “No Man’s Land” opened it, though in an entirely different way. With a track like this as his last true song for so many years, I think “Turn the Lights Back On” wasn’t the perfect single to release; it was the only one that could follow this song in theme, quality, and lyrics. In fact, I would count “Turn the Lights Back On” as almost a coda to River of Dreams because of this.

In the end, though, I think what River of Dreams represents most to me is an artist who wanted to leave a good legacy in terms of his work. From start to finish, it feels like Billy gave this record his all, and I have nothing but respect for any musician who decides to step back when they feel they have nothing left to say at the moment. Not to mention the fact that his decision to stop making new albums every few years most likely gave him time to really buckle down and get to breaking that record for longest residency at Madison Square Garden. Between the aforementioned residency and the clear care and effort put into both River of Dreams and “Turn the Lights Back On”, it seems that Billy Joel has a level of dedication to both his music and his fans that I greatly respect. If he were to make another full-length record, this precedent is enough to show me that it would very likely be a worthwhile one.

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XV (federal 2025): Katter’s Australian Party

Running where: QLD. The party is contesting three House divisions: Bob Katter himself for Kennedy, plus candidates in Herbert and Leichhardt, while in the Senate, a candidate is second on a joint ticket with Rennick First for Group G

Prior reviews: federal 2013, federal 2016, federal 2019, federal 2022

What I said before: “For those of us on the left, KAP has a few things to like and a lot to detest.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: I’ve already covered a bunch of “dontcha know who I am?” cult-of-personality parties, and here is perhaps the most larger-than-life personality of the Australian political scene: the North Queenslander in the big hat, the man who would let a thousand blossoms bloom, part of the parliamentary furniture itself, the one and only Bob Katter.

Now, Bob is a character but he's consistent one, so instead of reprising the greatest hits that I've featured before, I thought I would present you with some history to contextualise him and his electorate. Katter’s seat of Kennedy is a vast one. It stretches from the Coral Sea coast between Cairns and Townsville, across the Great Dividing Range, and through Outback towns such as Charters Towers, Hughenden, and Cloncurry out to Mount Isa, across to the NT border, and up to the shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Bob Katter has seemingly stomped the length and breadth of it to become an enduringly popular local member. Although Kennedy is one of the original 65 electorates from Federation in 1901, Katter is remarkably just the seventh person to hold it.

Kennedy was in Labor hands from 1929 to 1966 while Darby Riordan and then his nephew Bill held the seat, but for the last 59 years it has been a family business for the other side of politics:, a Katter has represented Kennedy for all but 3 years. Bob’s father, Bob Katter Sr, won it for the Country Party (later renamed the Nationals) and held it from 1966 until his death in 1990, while the young fella learned the family business as a state MP from 1974. Bob Jr served as a cabinet minister from 1983 under another larger-than-life Queensland pollie, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and in August 1989, Sir Joh unsuccessfully endorsed Katter as his successor as premier. Instead, Bob Jr had an annus horribilis: he went into opposition at the December 1989 Queensland state election, his dad died days before the March 1990 federal election, and Kennedy fell to Labor. The new MP, Rob Hulls, however, only got one term representing this sprawling constituency (and yes, Victorian readers with long memories, that is the Rob Hulls, deputy premier to John Brumby in 2007–10; quite the change of scenery!).

Katter shifted to federal parliament at the 1993 election, winning back the seat of dear old dad, and he has held Kennedy ever since. In 2001 he left the Nationals to sit as an independent: he disagreed with the rise of neoliberal economics (good!) and with some of the Coalition’s more socially liberal policies (bad! especially as the Coalition is uhh not very socially liberal!). In 2011, he founded Katter’s Australian Party, which met with very little success outside Queensland at the 2013 and 2016 federal elections and has since focused on winning seats in North Queensland. It really ought to be called Katter's North Queensland Party.

Bob’s son Robbie has been the party leader since 2020, and at state level KAP holds three seats that overlap with the Division of Kennedy. But Bob is the only KAP representative at federal level; ex-One Nation lunatic Fraser Anning briefly joined KAP as a Senator in 2018 but proved to be too barmy even for the Katters. I see little reason to anticipate any change to the party’s representation this year. If you live in Kennedy, you probably know Katter is a strong favourite to retain his seat; if you don’t, I hope the history above helped make this explicable.

What is Bob emphasising in his campaign this year? Well, per the homepage, “KAP = Castle Law”. Yes, their core focus is a fear campaign that “crime in Queensland is out of control” and people have a “right to defend their home against intruders without facing legal consequences”. Look, I spent my teenage years in a conservative Queensland setting where A Current Affair was as serious a source of news as the 7:30 Report, but shooting dead a trespasser in your garden is disproportionate. KAP states that “Under the current law, people must demonstrate they have only used ‘necessary’ force under the ‘reasonable belief’ that the intruder was entering their home to commit a serious crime”. Seems fine to me! But they think that people “cannot always make split-second, measured decisions in moments of crisis”. The existing law as per their own description already accommodates this: a person fiddling with your gate is obviously a different degree of threat to somebody confronting you in your bedroom with a knife, and going out all guns blazing at the former is not "reasonable". KAP's policy is a solution in search of a problem.

Other policies? Still on crime, KAP has a four-step “send ‘em out bush” policy for young offenders that in practice would just make them more resentful. You won’t be surprised to learn that KAP wants harsher sentences in general for youth offending and backs the LNP’s “adult crime = adult time” approach. Turning to energy, KAP want more coal, more gas, and new nuclear. Other infrastructure policies focus mainly on roads and on dams to support agriculture. Unsurprisingly for a party whose largest donors are from the gun lobby, KAP’s approach to firearms is permissive. And maybe one of their odder policies is that “KAP wants flying foxes gone from populated areas” and supports culling them. Did a flying fox steal your dog Bob? Come on man. Three of seven species of flying fox in Australia are listed as vulnerable or endangered.

And, of course, for a party led by a man whose most famous remark is about crocodiles tearing people to pieces in North Queensland, there is a policy that “values human life above crocodiles”. Enjoy. Should this move you, perhaps you might also want to buy an official “let there be a thousand blossoms bloom” shirt. If so, Bob’s got a shop for that. I am not kidding.

Recommendation: Give Katter’s Australian Party a very low preference in the House and a weak or no preference in the Senate.

Website: https://kattersaustralianparty.org.au/

(For the pol nerds: Bob is currently Father of the House, i.e. the longest-serving current MP, but at just over 32 years in office he is not yet in the top ten ever. If the new parliament goes to term and Bob does not retire before the election, he will be either 10th or 11th  on the all-time list depending on the exact day of election. He needs to serve five years from today to get into the top five, 10.5 years to get into the top two, and just shy of twenty years to pass Billy Hughes’ record of 51 years and 213 days. Keep in mind that Bob turns 80 next month. Now, yes, he served 18 years in Queensland’s state parliament, so as of this year he has been in a parliament for half a century, but Billy Hughes served in the NSW parliament for 7 years; to exceed Hughes’ cumulative time, Katter needs to be in office for another 8.7 years)