According to SoupedUp "Mandy":
400 g of (high protein) flour
210 g of water
1/2 tsp salt
-----------------
I convert this to
3.2 cups flour
.89 cups water
1/2 tsp salt
-----------------
That's a pretty dry dough. Did I convert it wrong? I am thinking to try:
3 cups flour
1 cup water
1/2 tsp salt.
Mandy points out that after the mixture has rested for a half hour or so, it should be kneaded carefully for 5-8 minutes. She says "do your best" - meaning this is important.
Due to some basement flooding, I have been airing out the paper contents of a box containing my old writings. These consist primarily of a set of notebooks, starting from when I was an adolescent traveling in Europe, through to when I was in graduate school. I stopped routine writing when I had to concentrate on the final PhD exams. There are a few entries from the years when I was first married and later. There are also various sketches and pictures as well as some old letters.
The vast majority of what I wrote concerned my attempts to find my own way through some kind of constructivist/idealist logic. Looking back at it, it looks like mostly gobbledygook. A great deal of clarity is provided by today's theory of the Moving Topic. I also wrote about loneliness, looking for sex and love, and about the first years of marriage when I wasn't happy. My early years in Minneapolis in graduate school were particularly painful but also fun in their own way. Luckily things began to warm up when I left academics and there are traces of a happier person emerging.
There are also some old math papers published and un-published. I am pretty sure I was on the edge of some good math but was not a strong enough thinker to pull it off. For example the theory of bi-measures holds hints about solving the Blaschke inversion transform [finding a domain shape from its distribution of chord lengths] using the Bmn(). And the theory of derivatives of the associate function being Tauberian and all my struggles to define asymptotic behavior of a curve in terms of "basis" curves with simple derivative behavior. I did not pull these things over the finish line and I blame my weakness.
There are plenty of surreal pictures and surreal poems and stream of conscious bull. There is a naturalism that I can be proud of and a flawed character that -what can you say- I had to live with.
They are starting to study bi-directional digital "skin" that transmits or receives touch information. Since it is a no brainer I have been discussing for some time, let me state the obvious pornographic uses:
You wrap the "skin" around one thing and stroke it or insert it for a person wearing it to receive at the other end of the signal.
I claim this idea. As soon as they reduce the lag time to something immediate.
The skies in her eyes were usually gray
It made me realize she had nothing to say
But her ass was on fire and did inspire
So I'd listen intently anyway
Let's start with:
- A penny is in my pocket and my pocket in in my pants, so the penny is in my pants.
- The present is in a box and the box is in the garage, so the present is in the garage.
I think we regard these as examples of the transitivity of "in" only by ignoring differences. To be "in a box" is not really the same relation as "in the garage". Here, to be "in" implies certain steps one can take to locate something. Clearly, opening the box is an additional step. All of which gets suppressed. Similarly, and more easily justified: to be "in the pocket" is not the same as to be "in the pants".
Just saw one. Note the date: March 30. Last year it was March 29. As I have said, the New Yorkers are not far behind.
I know I saw cormorants a week or so ago. I am under the impression they stayed all winter.
World worst screen savers: dead rat..... colonoscopy record....skin tag...
Answering "What are your pronouns?" without understanding the word "pronouns". Eg: "My pronouns are: or, not, and if...then". "My pronouns are: a, the, and another". Or like "me, my, mine". Or "I kind of like Mike Tyson".
