Much Better Now
I got a lot of sleep yesterday, and my head started to dry out, so today I feel almost human. Go me.
In Which I Was A Bit of a Crank
I got a bit pissy on Torgersen's blog regarding free speech. Dave Freer, one of a group of people who consistently push my buttons, dropped on by and did his thing. I think what gets me cranked are in equal parts:
1) "I'm so much smarter than you" (not really)
2) "All you leftists are picking on us!" (no, we're disagreeing)
3) "This person read (or worse, failed to denounce) this obscure thinker, therefore they both stand 100% for the same things." (usually the connection exists only in the button-pusher's mind)
4) "You've been brainwashed, you sheeple!" (maybe, but apparently the washer did a really good job of it.)
More Hugo Thoughts
I was referred to this analysis of popularity and Hugo winning. Basically, the writer finds a reasonable correlation between "popular" books and "books that won a Hugo." Now, since he's working backwards from what won to what was popular, there's a significant risk of bias. There's also a problem in that determining what books are "popular" is hard - the data is not very good.
In any rate, Occam's Razor is your guide. If the simplest explanation is that your taste and that of the median Hugo voter for that year don't align, then your favorites probably won't win the shiny rocket.
In Which I Was A Bit of a Crank
I got a bit pissy on Torgersen's blog regarding free speech. Dave Freer, one of a group of people who consistently push my buttons, dropped on by and did his thing. I think what gets me cranked are in equal parts:
1) "I'm so much smarter than you" (not really)
2) "All you leftists are picking on us!" (no, we're disagreeing)
3) "This person read (or worse, failed to denounce) this obscure thinker, therefore they both stand 100% for the same things." (usually the connection exists only in the button-pusher's mind)
4) "You've been brainwashed, you sheeple!" (maybe, but apparently the washer did a really good job of it.)
More Hugo Thoughts
I was referred to this analysis of popularity and Hugo winning. Basically, the writer finds a reasonable correlation between "popular" books and "books that won a Hugo." Now, since he's working backwards from what won to what was popular, there's a significant risk of bias. There's also a problem in that determining what books are "popular" is hard - the data is not very good.
In any rate, Occam's Razor is your guide. If the simplest explanation is that your taste and that of the median Hugo voter for that year don't align, then your favorites probably won't win the shiny rocket.