|"24 hour illness" is a misnomer
||[Apr. 5th, 2011|06:07 pm]
I had wanted to attend the Maple Syrup festival this past Saturday, but my systems had other plans. |
In the wee hours of Saturday morning, I got quite ill. Let's just say that it was a spectacular ordeal, and by morning not a single bit of foreign organic matter remained between my pharynx and my anus. When the time came where I would have left for the Maple Syrup festival, I was lying on my couch in great pain, just cognizant enough to realize I shouldn't venture more than ten metres from a bathroom.
It's now Tuesday, and I'm still recovering. I haven't had a full meal since then, for one. My abs are still sore, for two. There's more, but I'll spare you that.
But I'm posting about this for a reason. It's not just that I want to use my soapbox to bellyache (haw, haw.) There's some humour in here, which I will now share with you.
So the symptoms were completely consistent with food poisoning, right? But how I got food poisoning was something of a mystery, since there were so many items I ate that day which carry what I call "background risk" (think background radiation), but nothing in particular stood out. Was it the sandwich I made with deli meat? The meat was purchased earlier that day. Was it the beefy-spaghetti sauce? I bought the beef the previous day. Was it the maple walnut fudge I had that day? Hm, maybe.
Amusingly, I still have samples of all of these things. The spaghetti, and deli meat are still in my fridge, and I still have some fudge at work. So, if I was a dedicated but misguided scientist, I could try and give myself food poisoning again.
But, I am neither dedicated enough to repeat my Saturday morning experience, nor am I misguided enough to believe two or three anecdotes are much better than the one I already have. Maybe if I had a couple dozen data points I'd start to get somewhere, but that would probably kill me. Sure, some science is worth dying over — but figuring out which bit of food is tainted ain't it.
Remember this xckd? I guess if you replace the lever machine with possibly tainted food, and replace the awesome lightning with all the disgusting and painful ways your body uses to eject contaminated food — while I do wonder if that "happens every time", I can live with not knowing. I guess that makes me a normal person now.
Further complicating the mystery: my housemate's boyfriend, who was over this weekend, got violently ill the following night. Coincidence?
|Value freedom, not multiculturalism
||[Feb. 6th, 2011|02:16 am]
We used to have debates in my Science, Technology, and Values class, which I took in the Winter of 2008. One week, the debate ended up being myself versus the entire class. My stance? That long-term multiculturalism is impossible.|
"How could you not believe in multiculturalism?" the other class members said, aghast. Now, the important thing about my generation is we all grew up watching Captain Planet. Most Canadians my age have ingrained ideas about what multiculturalism is, and what our opinion of it ought to be ("it's good"). But as I told my class, "multiculturalism" isn't about a menagerie of skin colours in the same room. It's not even about eating at places like Masala Bay Or Pho Dau Bo and liking the food. In the end, multiculturalism is about value systems. Competing value systems, at that.
The problem with competing value systems is sometimes they make mutually exclusive assertions. Let me give you an example.
In most (all?) Muslim cultures, it is forbidden for a woman to be alone in public with a man who is not her husband, father, or brother. But being with other women can be okay. Now, let's say a Muslim woman is in a situation where she has to be alone with another person for lengths of time. Like, she's getting driving lessons from a driving instructor. Two people alone in a car. Well, as long as the driving instructor is a woman, we're good to go, right?
Now imagine that driving instructor wasn't born a woman. The driving instructor is a male-to-female transsexual.
The above is not some contrived situation I concocted. It actually happened, and it went down pretty much as you'd expect. As far as the driving instructor was concerned, she was a woman. But the Muslim husband of the driving student asserted he was really a man. This scenario really turns political correctness on its head, for that reason it's currently my favourite news story of all-time. If there was software for tolerance, this would be a race condition. It's the sort thing Captain Kirk would say to a computer to make it explode.
But step back and think about it for a moment: if you have one culture which separates genders at nearly every opportunity, and another culture which doesn't believe in a binary definition of gender to begin with, they are not going to mix well. At some point, we as a people will have to make a value judgment, in essence siding with one of those groups. And that's not terribly multicultural.
I think it's important to remember how the West ended up with this multiculturalism problem to begin with. We're in this position because the West is pro-freedom — which is a good thing. But somewhere recently, within my lifetime I think, the freedom-train took a nasty turn. We started out struggling with "Okay, you can eat $STRANGE_MEAT" and "Okay, you can use birth control" and "Okay, you can marry whoever you want, regardless of religion, race, and (recently) gender". But now it's more like, "Okay, we'll stop people from celebrating their birthdays if it offends you" and "Okay, you can treat women like lesser people if your religion says so." We let freedom go in the wrong direction. It might amuse you to hear me of all people say that, but it's true. To maximize freedom overall, you can't let everyone do everything they want. If you let everyone do anything, we'd all end up under someone's jackboot in pretty short order.
Or, to put it another way, today's people learned the wrong lesson from the sexism and racism of the 20th century. They don't think at all about freedom, but they've learned all about tolerance. Tolerance and multiculturalism go hand-in-hand, after all.
When I was working for Imprint, I interviewed and hired two female co-op students. Unfortunately, I was sick while I interviewed them. Thus I did not shake their hands, explicitly because I didn't want to get them sick. But one of them admitted that she had been trained about "tolerance" and interview etiquette. She was told that some men would refuse to shake her hand on the basis of her femininity, and that she should be okay with that. I say, she should not be okay with that. Nobody should practice blind tolerance; nobody should co-operate with value systems that make them subservient and hamper their own freedoms. Or, as the UW engineers say, "We don't give a damn for any damn man who don't give a damn for us."
The queer rights activists know this, even though they wouldn't say it the way I do. If you doubt me, try the following experiment: wait until a queer rights activist starts talking about homophobia somewhere in the world. Homophobia in the Middle East, the Southern US, whatever — it doesn't matter. Immediately after they've finished describing the homophobia, interject with, "But shouldn't we tolerate other cultures and values?" I dare you. I promise the next few minutes of your life will be spectacular, though probably not very much fun to live through.
And going back to Captain Planet, the planeteers weren't very tolerant either. Yes, they are from five different continents and work as a team. But try selling bottled water around them — Wheeler will immolate you.
My point here is that nations can't pick "multiculturalism" or "tolerance" as their guiding principles, because they don't help us resolve anything when value systems inevitably do clash. Those principles don't even have to be stretched far to let people "tolerate" bigotry. This is what I believe UK Prime Minister David Cameron is saying with, "We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism."
As I said before, we have these problems in the West because we're pro-freedom. If we were a fascist nation which valued harmony instead, we wouldn't have to wrestle with problems of cultures clashing. But I wouldn't make that trade. These problems are worth solving, because freedom is a good unto itself.
One of my other arguments about the impossibility of long-term multiculturalism was this: if a culture has a thing which is good, that thing will spread. For example, nobody in Canada today thinks of drinking tea or coffee as a "multicultural event", though our forebears got both from other cultures. When every culture has the same practice, you can't call that practice "multicultural" anymore. In short, multiculturalism is possible, but it's fleeting. Transient. Perhaps ironically, maintaining long-term multiculturalism would require maintaining disparate cultures, and then routinely mixing parts of them. Which might happen anyway. Who knows.
|Defending a Rhino Feds ticket
||[Jan. 27th, 2011|12:50 pm]
I am trying, and failing, to not pay attention to the Feds election yet again.|
The most important thing is this post is not titled, "Defending THE Rhino Feds ticket." I have no idea what Ian Charlesworth, Edgar Bering and all have in mind, and I am unwilling to write them a blank check. But I can too easily see uptight student politicians criticizing a "joke" Feds ticket on its face. It's "disrespectful", I can see them saying. On the contrary, I think a Rhino ticket serves an important function, to the point where I wish there was such a ticket every year.
For one, Feds elections are ripe for mockery. Old students can only listen to promises to "increase student engagement!" or "be a student voice!" or "redesign Feds' crappy website!" for so many years before we're overwhelmed with the strong desire to laugh at them. Or maybe that's just me.
But more importantly, competing against a joke Feds ticket is a test. The candidates say they can foster engagement with the student body? Prove it. Running against a Rhino candidate is a great test. If you're going to fail at student engagement, it's better for us to know now than a year hence.
Most students don't know about Feds. In fact, I recently had a friend tell me, "Now that I don't spend any time in the SLC, Feds doesn't affect me at all." This has always been a problem. Most students just don't know about Feds. It's possible that Feds is just that well run, serving students without them knowing it. But it's also possible that Feds is a parasitic organization. (On that note: ask yourself how many undergrad students really miss CKMS.)
I know which one of those two possibilities I believe. Just to start, Feds got students the U-PASS, and prevented Ken Lavigne from charging every undergrad $10 a term for a service most won't use. But those are both the doing of the Feds of "my generation". Feds cannot rest on the laurels of its past successes, and must continually justify its existence. Incidentally, I know which one of those two possibilities Edgar Bering believes, too.
I know Matt Colphon. He was a great Science councillor, and I think he would be a fine Feds president. But I want Colphon to win on merit, and this is the first test. If Feds matters, students really will vote for him, the only non-joke candidate. But If Feds and its candidates can't withstand the subversion that is humour, then it really does not deserve to exist.
The saddest thing is the Rhinos were the only thing standing between Team REAL and a 50% executive acclaimation.
|By-law consultation session chaos; students, city councillors conspicuously absent
||[Jan. 15th, 2011|02:41 pm]
Thursday night I was at a public consultation session hosted by the City of Waterloo. The session was to solicit public input about a proposed by-law which would require anyone renting a room in a house, townhouse, or duplex to be licensed by the city. And the meeting got derailed before it even started. |
City of Waterloo staff member Jim Barry had just introduced the panel, and outlined the agenda. He hadn't even started the presentation yet, when the first question came from the audience. "Is there someone from council here?" a voice behind me asked. The room was filled with silence, followed by Jim Barry awkwardly chuckling. The people in the room were not pleased. And it was a big room — we were all in the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, and there were easily a couple hundred people there.
For the next several minutes, there was a big commotion about the fact that no councillors had showed up. One landlord said, "My feeling is that staff wants to hear from us, but my understanding is council only shows up to important meetings. So, I mean, from a conclusion perspective, I almost have to conclude that does council really want to hear from us?" Someone else said that we should all write to our councillors and "make them come". Someone else threatened a walkout (which fizzled.)
Look, city councillors, I know what life in politics is like. Everyone expects everything from you, all the time. Being in this position, you have to pick and choose which events you attend. Well, it'd probably be really helpful for your re-election chances if you attend the next session.
Also, former Mayoral candidate Jan D'Ailly was there. I have to admit, I felt a little sorry for the guy.
Eventually Barry got the meeting under control, sort of (it would be more fair to say that some attendees said they wanted to hear the presentation, so control was handed back to him by the audience) and he gave a short presentation of little note. Then, that presentation was followed by nearly two hours of audience members speaking — half speaking to the city staff, but half speaking to the other attendees. With a single exception, everyone who spoke was against the by-law.
Which isn't surprising, considering almost everyone who spoke was a landlord. One person (a UW graduate student) asked how many renters there were in the audience. Myself and one other raised hands. That other guy was the only undergraduate student in attendance, seeing as I don't count anymore. So, the landlords easily dominated Thursday's discussion.
It didn't occur to me until after the meeting, but there's a certain irony in landlords decrying the proposal as a "cash grab". This is the same group of people who are profiting from student's need to find housing. They own accommodation for students because it's a lucrative business, not out of the goodness of their hearts. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the word "investment" that night, I'd be able to buy my own lodging house.
Such was the primary concern of the people speaking that night. Landlords and property owners worried that property values would go down. Landlords complaining that apartments are exempt from the regulation, for some nebulous reason. Landlords complaining that they can't pass their "investment" (read: student housing) onto their children without their children being separately licenced. Some of the landlords there were former students, and thus more sympathetic to current students, but it still felt like most people were primarily concerned for their business interests.
All that being said, it's difficult to see how the proposed by-law would benefit students or tenants. Does this mean students can't sublet rooms while they're on co-op? Does this mean rent will go up? (Note: landlords made no bones about passing the costs of licencing to students). Then there's section 8.1 of the proposed by-law, which reads, "The City may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether [the by-law is] being complied with." As one person in attendance said, "I believe even the police need a warrant to enter your room."
There are two more consultation sessions; both will be held in the coming week. Read about them here. I really hope students show up next time. (Feds, are you listening?)
After the meeting, I walked to Uptown Waterloo so I could take the bus home. There, I ran into a friend. I told her where I had been, and she responded with her own housing tales: living in an apartment without any working smoke detectors. Mutual friends of ours being told that, if anyone from the city asks, they're "common-law" because their housing situation would be illegal otherwise.
"Playas gonna play", "haters gonna hate", and sketchy landlords are going to be sketch, no matter what the law says.
When you're a politician, every problem looks solvable by legislation.
|Blatchford and free speech, a continuation
||[Dec. 8th, 2010|02:42 am]
Christie Blatchford spoke, unhindered, at the University of Waterloo tonight. |
You already know I bought the book. Well, I read the book, and the talk was basically a summarized version. But I'm not going to say here what I thought of either. I started following Blatchford because her right to free speech was hindered, not because of what in particular she says. I don't want my opinion of the particular things she says to be conflated with my pro-free-speech stance in general. So I'll keep that out of here.
But even so, I have plenty to say.
Interestingly, it was the most security I've seen at a UW event, ever. There were at least a dozen Waterloo Regional police there, and that's just the police. There were Bomber bouncers, Conestoga College Security Guard majors, volunteers, the works. Bud Walker and I were comparing the security at this Blatchford talk to the security when now-Governor-General David Johnston returned to Campus. Bud said there were more guards at the Blatchford event, and I agree with him. But I responded that Johnston was surrounded by suits with lapel pins, and those should count as more than one guy.
I've never been patted down for a UW talk, either. Usually I'm carrying at least one utility knife, but wisely I left those at home today.
Dean of Arts Ken Coates did the introduction. Feridun Hamdullahpur himself didn't speak, but was spotted in the audience. I found Coates' introduction interesting, because it seemed geared towards countering all the anti-free-speech bad press UW got.
"A quick observation. If you'll recall, this is Christie Blatchford's second visit to the University of Waterloo. The first one was, uh, incomplete. She is an invited guest of the University of Waterloo, and has been invited here specifically to discuss her book. We welcome everybody here who has come to listen to what she has to say; we will not and we can not support anybody who is here to suppress her rights to speak, or our rights to hear what she has to say. In fact it is the essence of the university to listen to ideas, controversial or otherwise. It is also be very important that those ideas be challenged and questioned, we will accept answers, even difficult answers, throughout the question and answer period. We cannot and will not allow anyone to silence a speaker here, at the University of Waterloo."
Christie Blatchford speaking at the University of Waterloo. Note the absence of bike-locked protesters. Note also that she is actually speaking. Tuesday, December 7, 2010.
Blatchford started her talk by thanking Ken Coates for the introduction, thanking the attendees, and thanking the police, which got chuckles from the audience. Humourously, she ended her opening statement with, "And of course thanks to the alleged doctoral student Dan Kellar for all he's done to help sell my book." I'd object, but it's apt.
Let's talk about Kellar for a moment. Apparently he did show up at the talk tonight, to some extent. He got as far as the Modern Languages building before the police picked him up, accused him of trespassing, and escorted him off-campus. While the rest of us were at the Blatchford talk, he was updating his Twitter account. Angrily, if I read his emotions correctly. Among other things, he accused the university of being against free speech. What?
Let me get this straight, Mr. Kellar: You show up at the first Blatchford talk, with the explicit and stated goal of preventing her from speaking. You chain yourselves up on stage with bicycle locks. You succeed in the goal of preventing her from speaking. You tell the media, and I quote, "If she comes again, she'll be blocked again." (source) And after the police prevent you from interfering with her second talk, you have the gall to ask "where is the open debate?" (link) Seriously? Seriously?
I'll tell you where the open debate was. It was inside the Modern Languages theatre, being had by people sane enough to leave the bike locks outside. I'm not being disingenuous here. The very first question was a pointed query, questioning the wisdom of writing a book about Caledonia without including more Native backstory. It was far from the last pointed question, nor would I characterize most of the question-askers as Blatchford supporters. Few if any of the questions were softballs.
I've already said I won't comment here and now on what I think of Blatchford's views, or book. But I will say this: I enjoyed that her talk happened at all. Today is a good day for free speech.
One person who asked a question identified himself as a member of a Six Nations band. I wonder how he would feel if he was labelled a Nazi just for attending Blatchford's talk today, as the protesters would have accused him of being if he attended her first.
|Wanted - Label maker suggestions
||[Nov. 25th, 2010|02:09 pm]
Do you want to know what I find embarrassing and shameful? In my Minecraft game everything is neatly organized. All of my storage chests are labeled, and the labels accurately reflect the contents. If I want to find wood, or redstone, or silk, my in-game signs quickly direct me which place to look. It's all very 5S. |
But here in real life my room continues to be a disaster. I think it's the labels (and lack thereof) making the difference. I have storage units, but their contents are haphazard.
So I want a label maker. It's one of those things recommended by Getting Things Done anyway.
I've priced label makers out before, and they're cheaper than I expected. ($50 range.) But it quickly became clear that label makers follow the printer-cartridge-and-razor-blade pricing scheme: the tool is cheap, but the consumable element is expensive. I've been held back because I don't want to make a bad decision.
Maybe you can help me. Here's what I'm looking for in a label maker.
Anyone have any suggestions?
- Stand alone unit (I don't want my computer to have to be working to use the label maker)
- Fairly inexpensive label refills
- Failing the above, a refill that's at least well-supported or standardized
- Battery power, preferably AA
- Some colour ability (not necessarily printing in color, monochrome printing with single-colour label background is fine)
|Acting in defence of free speech
||[Nov. 24th, 2010|10:16 am]
I'm still ticked off about the Blatchford protest. The thing that irks me can be summed up by one quote from a protestor, as reported by The Cord.|
"Our goal was to not let her speak, we accomplished that."
Here's the biggest problem I have with their effort to silence free speech: it worked. If the object lesson here is that the group can silence free speech whenever they don't like whatever is being said, then they're just going to use that tool again. The group itself has said as much. This week's Imprint has a choice quote from non-student Dan Kellar.
"Kellar said he felt the protest was a success that would be repeated. 'If she comes again, she'll be blocked again,' he said."
If I don't want a group on campus to silence free speech again, then it's my responsibility to make the consequences of the free-speech-silencing protest worse than the speech itself, in the group's estimation. It is my job to make their protest not a success. With that in mind, the proper course of action became obvious.
If you love free speech, and you're disgusted that a small group of protesters silenced a speaker on the UW campus, then the course of action is obvious. You should buy Christie Blatchford's book. I'll be ecstatic if even only a few of you do so. There were only a few protestors (5-10, including the three chained up on stage) so a few extra book sales seems fair.
Now, some people reading this, people with specific political proclivities, might be unhappy that Blatchford now has some of my money. That's okay. I'll make you a deal: if you hear of another speaker being invited to the University of Waterloo, who arrives here only to be silenced by protesters, let me know. No matter what their cause, I'll probably buy their book too. The effect can only be that I'll end up owning many interesting books, and hey, who can complain about that.
My outrage isn't about Blatchford being blocked in particular. I don't know what's in her book. That's the point. Given that the university invited her here to speak, it is her right to speak, and it's my right to form my own opinions of what she says. Any third party which would then block her speech is (a) infringing on our rights, and (b) demonstrates their own point of view can't withstand challenge.
Maybe freedom of speech isn't a value cherished around the world. Suppression of speech is the norm in some places. But I'll not tolerate that in my own backyard.
Think hard about this, would-be censors: You stopped her from speaking. And as a result, I now own her book. Instead of (potentially) watching a debate between her and her detractors (I wasn't there), I am now going to read her book. Is that better for you? Are you happy?
If you're as disgusted as I am, and love free speech, buy Blatchford's book. Show those protesters that stopping free speech is counterproductive. South Campus Hall has her book, and $35 is inexpensive to support free speech. If you have less money but more patience, Amazon link here.
I find it ironic that these protesters, in their actions, are more fascist than the people they're protesting against. It's not the first time a group has behaved that way, either. You should read about Waterloo's old "Anti-Imperialist Alliance".
I also find it hilarious that Kellar's excuse is that she's a "non-academic". She has no right to academic freedom because she's a non-academic. That's laughable. It's like saying you don't have to abide by the Geneva conventions because you're dealing with "enemy combatants", not civilians or solders. Object lesson: if you want to violate someone's rights, and look professional while doing so, make up a new word to describe them. And then it turns out he's not even a student here! Awesome.
|A controversial figure has been scheduled to speak on your campus. What do you do?
||[Nov. 17th, 2010|11:54 am]
A controversial figure has been scheduled to speak on your campus. What do you think should be done?
(A) Don't let them speak.
(B) Let them speak.
(C) It depends if they're offensive or not.
(D) It depends on how controversial they are.
(E) It depends. I need to know who it is first.
All but one of those options are untenable. If you know me at all, you already know which option I've chosen. But I feel my rationale should be explicitly stated, so I'm going to tell you why all the other options are bad.
Option C is a cop-out, and picking that would be Begging the question. What, if anything, is controversial but not offensive? This is an honest question. I can't think of a single example of something which is controversial but inoffensive to everybody. I doubt such a thing exists.
Choice A has an obvious problem: if any speaker at a university has to be completely non-controversial to everybody, that limits the university to an extremely short list. Shorter than you think. The least offensive possible speaker I could think of would be Mr. Rogers (if he were still alive.) But if he were alive and went on a speaking tour, I would bet money that somewhere, a hardcore atheist would get his knickers in a knot because Fred Rogers is also an ordained minister. So I don't think choice A would work. Besides, anyone worth listening to is offensive to somebody. (A counter-example to that point would be welcomed. But note I've already stated that Fred Rogers is offensive to somebody.)
Well, there's always option D, and it seems reasonable. But it leads to the question of, "How many people have to be offended before someone is 'too controversial' to speak?" Note that the current going rate at UW is "three people", which is incredibly broken. I can find three people to be offended at anything. Three people who are outraged about gay marriage. Three people who think the entire Catholic school board should be shut down. Three people who are vegan, and think any meat constitutes animal cruelty. Three people who will eat enough meat to compensate for those three vegans out of spite. And if your response is "Well, it takes more than three people, then," you're missing two points. One, it's already been demonstrated that three people are sufficient to suppress speech, and two, what is the correct number, anyway?
If you picked E, there's a good chance that either you haven't thought your response through, or you're a hypocrite. Keep in mind that the term "controversial figure" could apply to Ann Coulter or Irshad Manji. I deliberately did not say who it is for this reason. You can not base your opinion of who can and cannot speak based on whether you find them agreeable. Because, frankly, you are not the centre of the universe. You and your friends are not the centre of the universe either, no matter how many friends you have, or how right you think you are.
So, the best option is B. And I'll add that I despise Ann Coulter. I think she's an idiot. But there's no better way to convince others that she's an idiot than letting her open her fool mouth.
And remember, any freedom you take away from the ignorant is a freedom you take away from the wise.
I'm going to defuse the predictable comments right now: yes, there should be limits on "free" speech. But those limits are based on direct harm. Direct harm. harm. Such as, "They'll tell everyone there's a fire and people will be trampled in the stampede." Or, "They're going to round up a posse and convince some dumbass to hang/stone $UNPOPULAR_MINORITY_TODAY." Not, "They're telling people that everything I know about climate change might not be true, but if we don't stop them people might die in the future, because I know I'm right." That doesn't cut it.
It seems that, mostly, people want to silence speakers on the basis that their feelings will be hurt. And I find that highly offensive.
On a tangential note, it seems to me that university student audiences are extremely fickle about who they deem "Controversial". One appearance of Norman G. Finkelstein will generate mass protests, but another appearance a few years later will have much less protest. Or maybe it's actually the media being fickle. Who knows? Probably both.
I don't use the <blink> tag often. The <blink> tag is like censorship itself: to be used as sparingly as humanly possible. However, in this case, I can think of no better way to emphasize the point, nor any word more worthy of emphasis.
|Someone tell ChemClub that I'm already poor
||[Nov. 15th, 2010|09:02 pm]
I saw this sign outside of PHYS 145 today. It's for an event tomorrow.
"Poor yourself." Why would I want to poor myself? I'm already poor.
Seriously, I'm surprised. I haven't seen this error often. More common mistakes are discreet / discrete, compliment / complement, and break / brake.
On a tangential note, the area outside PHYS 145 is plastered with posters advertising events for ChemClub, but I didn't see a single PhysClub poster there. Odd.
||[Nov. 10th, 2010|05:33 pm]
I have a post half-written, inspired by events of yesterday. I was hoping to finish it today, but I know that's not going to happen. I'm tired. |
I've been fighting heavy fatigue these last few days. Let me tell you how bad it is: I woke up at 6:00 this morning, after 7.5 hours of sleep. At 8:00 a.m., after drinking a whole pot of coffee, I was considering taking a nap.
The worst thing is, I don't know why I'm so tired. Is it something in my diet? Is it caused by, or merely correlated to my not sleeping well? Do I secretly have mono? All I know is I have so little energy right now, and I'm not accomplishing as much as I want to.
I film a lecture in half-an-hour. At 19:00h, I will go home, and I will sleep. Hopefully that post will be finished tomorrow.
||most recent entries