PEMDAS

I just saw one of those posts asking people to solve a relatively simple math problem. I’ve seen these on the facebook from time to time. 

In this case, the problem was this: 6-1x0+2÷2 = 

There are some correct answers (7), and some incorrect (mostly 1 or 3.5, some 5). 

Ironically, some of the people who have the wrong answer are calling other people stupid. The answer is 7 because of a thing called “order of operations”. Order of operations means that you solve certain parts of the problem before solving other parts. It’s also called “PEMDAS”, which is an acronym for the order. 

In this case, there are no parentheses, nor any exponents (like x²). So the next thing is to do the multiplying and dividing from left to right, then the adding and subtracting from left to right. 

This is basic grade school math. You’re supposed to learn it in fourth grade, or somewhere around there. But a lot of people have simply forgotten it. It’s not something that we use in our daily lives, so we forget most of it, just like a lot of stuff we learned in school. (Well, some people forget it. Some of YOU people.) 

Anyway... 

The really weird thing about these kind of math posts is that some people recognize what the correct answer actually is and why, but then they say it ought to be something else because that’s what makes more sense to them. Well, those people really need to stop that, because it’s math, and their opinion and what subjectively seems right inside their head doesn’t matter. Math has rules. Maybe it would “make more sense” to just solve the problem left to right, with no regard for the order of operation, but that’s not the rule. I didn’t make that rule. That’s just how it is. Probably the order of operations is useful when you get into more complex equations, but it also applies to simpler equations, so people who do use math won’t have to learn a different way to deal with more complex equations. 

We seem to live in a time (and culture) where people think their opinion about something like this is just as valid as anyone else’s. It’s not. Your opinion about the answer is irrelevant. It’s like saying “I think it makes more sense that our sky is yellow instead of blue, because the sun is yellow. That’s what makes sense to me.” Well, it doesn’t matter, because the sky is blue. There are complicated science-y reasons for it. 

It’s okay to not know something about math. But being ignorant doesn’t give you the right to have your own opinion that’s “just as valid” as the actual way to solve this math problem. The same is true about science and tons of other areas of study and expertise. Yes, sometimes things are up for interpretation, but a lot of it isn’t. This particular math problem isn’t. 

You can also apply this complaint of mine – that many people are adamantly certain they know what’s right because it “makes sense” to them – to our cultural attitudes about most social/political issues. In fact, I feel justified in saying this little math problem is what’s wrong with our country today.

Pulling Strings – my review

Last night I watched Pulling Strings.

The movie is roughly half in English and half in Spanish. I watched it on netflix. There was issue with the subtitles. (I don’t know if that would be true if you rented a DVD or watched it somewhere else online.) When you turn on the English subtitles, it only shows translated subtitles for the Spanish dialogue. Y los subtitulos españoles aparecen sólo para el diálogo Inglés.

But that wasn’t a big deal. Here’s what was a big deal: the ending.

As I watched the movie, I thought it was a nice little romantic comedy – sweet, cute, fun. I liked it. And then the ending happened. Literally, the last couple of minutes of the movie ruined it for me. What would’ve been maybe a 4 out of 5 star rating from me is now 2 stars, because of that ending.

SPOILER ALERT.

Here’s what happens:

The man hurts the woman; the man asks for forgiveness; the woman refuses and leaves the country; the man is devastated. Now if that’s the end of your movie, fine, so be it. I’m okay with that. BUT NOOO! That wasn’t the end.

Cut to "one month later" and the woman just shows up out of nowhere, and suddenly everything's okay – no questions, no explanations, no apologies, no nothing?!?! Just, happily ever after/the end?

I’m sorry, but that is not acceptable. I say no to that ending. I reject that overly simplistic, happy ending. Fuck you, movie.

While this isn’t the best movie ever made, it deserves a little more than that, more than just the woman shows up and everything is fine – no hurt feelings, no recriminations.

¡No mames, pinche película! 

giant, side-of-the-road crosses

You know what I’m talking about, right? Giant, side-of-the-road crosses. They look like this:

They’re huge eyesores that you’ll see driving along the interstate, or highway, or maybe even local city roads. Well, there are two things I think about whenever I see these monstrosities.

First, and more important: 

If someone went around this country (The United States of America) putting up giant symbols of ANY other religion in the world, there’s a sizable chunk of the population – i.e., those extreme conservative, christian, Fox News-watching types – who would lose their fucking minds. They would, strangely, consider it an attack on their religious beliefs, to have such a thing forced upon their eyeballs. Yet, if someone suggests they take down these disturbing, giant crossbar-ed phalluses, for religious reasons or any other reason, really, those same folks would call out their right to free speech. 

And second: 

If this were just some guy putting up something this shape and size, everyone would think (though they might not say it) that the guy just has a small penis. I will let you all draw your own conclusions about the size of God’s penis.

Fuck you, Roy Moore.

I just watched this:

Well, fuck you, Roy Moore.

Even IF we accept as a guideline for laws that we are “endowed by” our “Creator” with certain rights, what the fuck does that have to do with how you define marriage? “Creator” does not necessarily mean conservative, Baptist-y version of Jesus.

If you’re falling back on a traditional, historic, Biblical-God definition of marriage, well, we don’t do most of that shit anymore. (Fuckin’ look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)

Anyway, what about the rest of that line: “pursuit of happiness”? And what about equal protection and equal application of laws?

As I said, fuck you, Roy Moore.

Fuck.

You.

skirt blowing

Apparently there was a thing called a “skirt blowing machine” at amusement parks. It blew a burst of air up through a vent for the purpose of blowing up women’s skirts, revealing their legs and undergarments. Sometimes this vent would be part of a “fun house” or sometimes at the exit of a popular ride.

AND there was a person whose job it was to operate that machine. So when a woman walked by, the machine operator pushed a button or pulled a lever or whatever, causing the burst of air.

ALSO sometimes there would be one or two other amusement park employees whose job it was to take a woman by the hands – ostensibly to help them down from a ride, etc. – but in reality they were guiding her to the air vent and preventing her from pushing or holding her skirt down. They might even hold her there longer, and control how long her legs and undergarments were exposed.

Now, I can sort of get how someone might think this is just good, silly fun – everyone laughs and the woman is embarrassed but not really hurt. BUT I can easily see how this could feel like a real violation – with not choice or foreknowledge to be made into a sort of sexual spectacle for the general public’s entertainment.

Mostly it’s really difficult for me to grasp the mindset and the cultural environment in which something like that is normal and okay. This was still going on in the 1960s and 70s, maybe later. Actually, for all I know, it could still be going on at some parks.

Obviously our current culture has a really messed up relationship with sex and nudity and with our bodies. Maybe there’s something beneficial in public displays of bodies and sexuality – in admitting that we humans are sexual being and that a sexual appetite is normal and healthy. But I guess it’s the lack of choice in this whole “skirt blowing” idea that rankles. Should not the skirt blowing be optional? What if everybody knows where the skirt blowing vents are, and can easily avoid them if they choose, but also everybody tacitly agrees to be “surprised” when a skirt is blown up?

Hmm... Ya know, I’d probably take issue with that as well. Yeah, I’d probably say to that, if you want to expose your body, just do it. You don’t have to be ashamed of it. It’s your body, woman or man, and if you want to show your ankles or knees or thighs or every bit of it, I say yes. Empower yourself; be not ashaméd. 

To Be Takei – my review

To Be Takeiis a 2014 documentary by Jennifer M. Kroot about George Takei, the actor and activist. He’s (arguably) best known for the role of Sulu on the original Star Trek TV series and films.

I loved it. (By the way, it’s quite rare for me to say that.) In the documentary, George Takei talks about his life – Star Trek, his being in the closet and coming out, his marriage, his work in politics, his activism, even his popularity on facebook.

But beyond the sci-fi and the gay activism and his funny and strange laugh, to me the heart of this film, and the absolutely heart-breaking part of the film, is when George Takei talks about his time as a child in a U.S. Internment Camp for American citizens of Japanese descent during World WarTwo.

To Be Takei is fun and funny, sad and heartbreaking (I had a good little cry), informative and absolutely joyous. I would rate it five out of five stars. In fact, I did rate it that, on the netflix.

In my life, I’ve met a couple of famous people, and while it was interesting to have met them, I didn’t get all crazy and excited about it the way many people do; that’s just not me. I just don’t care about the idea of meeting celebrities. But this film makes me wish I knew the man, George Takei, in person. 

Some other reviews

I just posted a review of something I was watching. It was basically the review I’d just posted on netflix, with a few additions and changes. I thought I’d look back my other netflix review and post them here, too.

I haven’t written a whole lot of netflix reviews, especially compared with the outrageous amount of stuff I’ve watched on netflix. I think most of these reviews were prompted by something in the movie or TV show pissing me off. Yeah, I guess I’m just full of negativity. Sorry.

Dragonfyre (2013)

My review from 1 December 2014: 

This movie passes the Bechdel test (at least 2 female characters who have names, who talk to each other about something other than men). Good for them! Of course, that's no indication of the quality of the film. It's probably “easier” for this sort of film to pass the Bechdel test, as it is not about romantic or sexual relationships. There's not even a love interest, which could easily happen.

Anyway…

The movie is so-so. It's not what I would call a good movie, but it's far from horrible. A few interesting ideas. Probably not terribly expensive to make, compared to a lot of films. It’s a 

B movie. If you’re okay with that, then, by all means, give it a go.

Haven

Syfy channel TV show about a town where supernatural things happen. 

My review from 20 August 2014:

I miss the days when netflix allowed you to rate each season of a TV show separately. Often shows take a few seasons to get good. But sometimes, as seems to be the case with Haven, a show will start out pretty good and go a few seasons basically maintaining that quality. It wasn’t the best show ever, but I liked it well enough. And then something happens – maybe it’s new producers, writers, directors come on board. Or maybe it’s that the same writers just get bored or run out of ideas. So the show changes. 

In this case, Haven season 4 is when it changes. And I think it’s not as good. The basic story goes in a whole different direction, new characters are introduced (some “work” and others don’t). I was disappointed. It just sort of feels like a different show. Seasons 1-3: three stars Season 4: two stars. I haven’t seen season 5 (no TV, just a computer).

Hemlock Grove

My review from 14 July 2014:

If you obsessively consume all things fantasy, or, if you like to have something playing in the back ground while you do something else, then watch it. But if you’re looking for a show you can get into, skip it. 

Season 1: My general feeling: meh. The story, etc, is okay. It’s a lot more subtle than your typically fantasy-type show. But at times the dialogue is unsuccessfully quirky (that is, it TRIES to be quirky with a line here and there, but it just doesn’t work). Some of the acting is not good, as if the characters simply do not believe or feel what they’re saying. Yes, there’s a werewolf, etc, but I wouldn’t call it a “werewolf show”, not in the style of action-oriented shows (Twilight, etc). Hemlock Grove is more of a moody mystery/drama with a few supernatural elements. 

Season 2: For me, it’s less interesting than season 1. On the plus side, the (failed) quirky dialogue disappears, and the acting is generally better. But the story is less interesting – some mystery, but it’s nothing I cared about. One promising character who had a big turn at the end of season 1 is gone, explained away with one line of dialogue. Another season 1 major character basically disappears, making brief appearances in a couple of episodes. And there’s a point where they resurrect a dead character, only to kill that character off again after a minute or two. Why bother? There are a few new players introduced; they seem like they should be important, or mysterious, or dangerous, or SOMETHING, but they just fall flat. And a couple of minor characters from season 1 get much more camera time but no significant character development. Basically, season 2 is kind of bland. 

Oh, and a picky detail thing: if you’re going to quote Yeats’ “The Second Coming”, at least be accurate. Or, better yet, find some other moody poem to quote – something not so overused. Yeah, do that. No more TV shows or movies slouching toward Bethlehem from now on, okay? Thanks. 

The Adventurer: The Curse of the Midas Box (2013)

My review from 26 May 2014:

Harry Potter meets Indiana Jones with a touch of the style of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, but without anything to make me care about the characters or their situation. Also, the writing is mediocre at best – unlikely and lucky things happening &/or characters somehow knowing things they just wouldn't know with no explanation how such things came to be.

The story seems to rely on the audience's interest in the current fad of stories in which young people are thrown unprepared into a sort of magical world and have exciting adventures. And, of course, the ending sets up the possibility of future installments. There are other books in the series, but I hope additional movies never happen. It would be a waste of money and time for more like this. MAYBE the book is better. I haven't read it, and nothing about this movie would make me want to do so. 

My Future Boyfriend (2011)

An archaeologist from the future goes back in time to learn about love.

My review from 27 May 2012:

I don't write many reviews, but I feel compelled to say something. I don't watch many movies like this, but it looked kinda cute. This is a formulaic, made-for-tv, romantic comedy. And it was really nice: nothing deep, nothing meaningful, but exactly what you'd expect for a formulaic, made-for-tv, romantic comedy. The lead actors/characters were compelling, and I really rooted for them.

The film made no missteps...until the last 2 minutes. And even then, it fit into the formula. But one significant detail was off. I'm not going to “give it away”, but it made me say, out loud to nobody else, “NO!” It pissed me off that they got so much right, and this one thing wrong. Argh!

(Ya know, I don’t remember what the thing was that pissed me off, but I do remember being pissed off.)