Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 9:33 amWhy do so many people make such a big deal of owning, or getting to look at, the originals of paintings, in an age in which it is fairly easy to mass-produce very accurate replicas? What quality does an original have that an exact replica doesn't? What do you get from looking at an original that you don't get from looking at a replica?

When I first travelled to Europe, despite being a student on a tight budget, one thing I never stinted on was museum admissions. (It certainly helped that European public galleries tend to offer substantial student discounts and just fund their cultural institutions better in general.) At the time I couldn't articulate why the experience was so different to looking at the reproductions available to me here (Mark's done an admirable job of that in his reply), I just knew that it was. I ran clear across central Florence to make it to the Accademia before closing time to view Michelangelo's David and I'd do again even if it were twice the distance. I spent a half an hour simply in awe of it, viewing it from every side, noting details I'd never noticed in any of the many, many reproductions I'd seen up to that point. I don't really know what to say to someone who doesn't get the experience from being in the presence of an actual masterpiece except that for at least some of us the effect is real and profound.

Random thoughts on viewing the Wikipedia page on US presidents:

US history can be divided into the Clean-Shaven Era (1789-1860), the Facial Shrubbery Era (1860-1897), and the New Clean-Shaven Era (1897 plus). Wikipedia says the last major-party presidential candidate with a beard was Evans Hughes, in 1916. And Thomas Dewey, who had a mustache, lost twice.

Since Truman (1945), it seems we prefer our presidents to smile.

No bow ties allowed since McKinley (1901).

Look at that picture of Andrew Jackson: totally a vampire.

Who are the ugliest presidents? LBJ, Trump, Fillmore, Taylor. Andrew Johnson but only for the terrible haircut.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 3:45 pmUS history can be divided into the Clean-Shaven Era (1789-1860), the Facial Shrubbery Era (1860-1897), and the New Clean-Shaven Era (1897 plus). Wikipedia says the last major-party presidential candidate with a beard was Evans Hughes, in 1916. And Thomas Dewey, who had a mustache, lost twice.

This reminds me of the old joke that Russian/Soviet leaders since Lenin have alternated between "bald" and "hairy": Lenin (bald), Stalin (hairy), Khrushchev (bald), Brezhnev (hairy), Andropov (bald), Chernenko (hairy), Gorbachev (bald), Yeltsin (hairy), Putin (balding). Presumably whomever succeeds Putin will have a full head of hair...

Glenn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 6:46 pm This reminds me of the old joke that Russian/Soviet leaders since Lenin have alternated between "bald" and "hairy": Lenin (bald), Stalin (hairy), Khrushchev (bald), Brezhnev (hairy), Andropov (bald), Chernenko (hairy), Gorbachev (bald), Yeltsin (hairy), Putin (balding). Presumably whomever succeeds Putin will have a full head of hair...

You do know that Putin will eventually read this and the percentage of bald men in Russia will soon mysteriously increase rather a lot, don't you?

alice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 2:38 pm

Glenn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 6:46 pm This reminds me of the old joke that Russian/Soviet leaders since Lenin have alternated between "bald" and "hairy": Lenin (bald), Stalin (hairy), Khrushchev (bald), Brezhnev (hairy), Andropov (bald), Chernenko (hairy), Gorbachev (bald), Yeltsin (hairy), Putin (balding). Presumably whomever succeeds Putin will have a full head of hair...

You do know that Putin will eventually read this and the percentage of bald men in Russia will soon mysteriously increase rather a lot, don't you?

I would be shocked if he hasn't been aware of the pattern for at least a decade by now. (and when QI discussed that pattern, they started it not with Lenin, but with some of the later Tsars)

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:24 pmI would be shocked if he hasn't been aware of the pattern for at least a decade by now. (and when QI discussed that pattern, they started it not with Lenin, but with some of the later Tsars)

The joke goes back at least to the the 1980s; I first encountered it when Gorbachev was in power, and then saw a new version of it under Yeltsin (which included a "scientific prediction" about Yeltsin's successor that consisted of a drawing of the top of a bald head).

The pattern does work for at least some of the later tsars: Nicholas I (balding-ish), Alexander II (hairy), Alexander III (balding), Nicholas II (hairy), although it breaks down any earlier than that: Alexander I was balding, and going earlier than that leads us to the days of powdered wigs (Paul, Peter III) or female rulers (e.g., Elizabeth and Catherine the Great), all of whom appear with hair.

Glenn wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 6:17 pm and going earlier than that leads us to the days of powdered wigs (Paul, Peter III)

So it's all the fault of the abolition of powdered wigs!

Do we have any ZBB-ers in or near Los Angeles here? In that case, good luck and all the best.

We've reached that time of year when my Left Coast friends start sharing memes like this:



And I've been replying with "My favourite part of winter is when nothing around me is on fire."

Why do people even live in California? It seems like for at least half of the year it is on fire.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:21 am Why do people even live in California? It seems like for at least half of the year it is on fire.

That's the old rule. Now it seems to be the whole year.

Anyway, this reminds me of that one time during my childhood when we were watching the TV news, and one report was about intense flooding in California, and my Mom started to sing "It never rains in California..."

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:35 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:21 am Why do people even live in California? It seems like for at least half of the year it is on fire.

That's the old rule. Now it seems to be the whole year.

Yeah, this is normally the time when storms are trying to wash it into the sea.

Some years ago it occurred to me that, without my partner alive, there was no single compelling reason to remain in Chicago. But when I considered my options, I couldn't really find somewhere else that had the complete constellation of desiderata. High on the list was resistance to climate change. So far, the major effects here have been milder and less snowy winters coupled with year-round thunderstorms and an annual derecho that spawns a few tornadoes. Couple that with proximity to one of the largest sources of freshwater anywhere in the world, and Chicago looks like a mighty fine place to ride out whatever is coming our way.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:57 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:35 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:21 am Why do people even live in California? It seems like for at least half of the year it is on fire.

That's the old rule. Now it seems to be the whole year.

Yeah, this is normally the time when storms are trying to wash it into the sea.

Some years ago it occurred to me that, without my partner alive, there was no single compelling reason to remain in Chicago. But when I considered my options, I couldn't really find somewhere else that had the complete constellation of desiderata. High on the list was resistance to climate change. So far, the major effects here have been milder and less snowy winters coupled with year-round thunderstorms and an annual derecho that spawns a few tornadoes. Couple that with proximity to one of the largest sources of freshwater anywhere in the world, and Chicago looks like a mighty fine place to ride out whatever is coming our way.

Even once my daughter moves off to college I don't see any reason to move away from Wisconsin, partly for similar reasons. The only major downside to climate change I have seen is that last winter we had a few storms where it dumped massive quantities of a horrible mix of snow and slush that our older snowblower would simply immediately gum up on. Luckily we had just gotten a bigger, more powerful snowblower which could actually not completely gum up on the snow/slash mix, but even then it was a major PITA to blow -- and if it hadn't been blown then it would have frozen to ice, which would have been a pain unto itself.

Useful Things To Know #117614540/26C: a typical hot water bottle will give out useful heat for about six hours.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:57 am Some years ago it occurred to me that, without my partner alive, there was no single compelling reason to remain in Chicago. But when I considered my options, I couldn't really find somewhere else that had the complete constellation of desiderata. High on the list was resistance to climate change. So far, the major effects here have been milder and less snowy winters coupled with year-round thunderstorms and an annual derecho that spawns a few tornadoes. Couple that with proximity to one of the largest sources of freshwater anywhere in the world, and Chicago looks like a mighty fine place to ride out whatever is coming our way.

But doesn’t it get down to -20 °C there? (Or -4 °F if you must.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:14 pm But doesn’t it get down to -20 °C there? (Or -4 °F if you must.)

Pff. A brisk day!

More seriously, yes it does, but e.g. only for three days last January (and that was it for the whole winter).

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:59 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:14 pm But doesn’t it get down to -20 °C there? (Or -4 °F if you must.)

Pff. A brisk day!

More seriously, yes it does, but e.g. only for three days last January (and that was it for the whole winter).

I observe from that graph that it was well below freezing for nine days straight. Why anyone would voluntarily decide to live in that place baffles me.

The coldest I've ever experienced was -20°, and let me tell you that's a lot more comfortable to walk around in than +48° (118°F), or even 35° really.

Darren wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:33 am The coldest I've ever experienced was -20°, and let me tell you that's a lot more comfortable to walk around in than +48° (118°F), or even 35° really.

Than +48°, quite possibly. But 35°? I find that hard to believe.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:48 am

Darren wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:33 am The coldest I've ever experienced was -20°, and let me tell you that's a lot more comfortable to walk around in than +48° (118°F), or even 35° really.

Than +48°, quite possibly. But 35°? I find that hard to believe.

With the caveat that there was no wind and it was very dry. Seriously, I've felt colder some wet mornings here and it's never dropped below freezing.