Top 10 #1: Top 10 Best Numbers Between 1 and 10

And so we come to the end of a particularly daft enterprise. But better to reach an ending than to abandon a program unfinished, right?

Hm. Either way, I've now finally reached the most profound and meaningful of my Top 10 Top 10 Lists That Don't Really Deserve To Be Top 10 Lists:

It's

The Top 10 Best Numbers Between 1 and 10!

10. 9

9. 5

8. 1.01

7. 3

6. e

5. π

4. 6

3. δ

2. 2

1. φ

Why these numbers, you ask? Hypothetical reader, I am glad that you ask (or in fact, that you allow me rhetorically to ask you).

9

It's the biggest numeral we have: after 9, all we have left is 0 again. Also, it creates a hypnotically symmetrical square, which is kind of neat, don't you think?:

5

Symbolism, magic, political power: that's 5. It crops up surprisingly often, if you look for it.

1.01

This should be an obvious choice, shouldn't it? It's 1, but it's a bit more than 1. It's a symbol of improvement, of education, of progress. Doesn't it make you feel better, just looking at it?

3

The smallest number that's big enough to be genuinely numberish. 3 things are enough things to create a whole bunch of problems that literally can't be solved. 3 contains enough complexity to generate a universe.

e

It's a bit more than 2. It's all natural. It's a pleasantly fractal concept to base your logarithms on, if you need some logarithms. And hey, who doesn't need logarithms? Who doesn't like logs? Who doesn't like rhythms? Answer: nobody! (FACT.)

π

Obviously.

6

For making us happier, and in particular for giving us the best opportunity to giggle at New Zealand accents.

δ

By which I'm talking about the Feigenbaum constant, 4.669201609etc. This number emerges at the heart of complex systems like the weather, or the economy, or pretty much every system of interacting relationships in our world. This constant is our sublime proof that chaos theory is not chaotic. So, you know; it's kind of important, and it's kind of neat.

2

The loneliest number, next to number 1. (So, it's not so lonely.) This can still be problematic, but it's also pretty nice.

φ

By which I'm talking about the number of the Golden Ratio, 1.6180339887etc. (And yeah, the Silver Ratio probably also deserves some respect, but that's another story.) This number is the ratio of ratios: it's everywhere, even when it's not, and it's the reason that most nice architecture and design looks so nice. For services to aesthetics, recognised & unrecognised: thanks, φ.

Cheers.

--the listless thoapsl

Synaesthesia

I usually don't do linkblogs, but goodness me: this is spectacularly awesome, I think.

Hat-tip to the fine people of io9, and there's more detail here.

(Pic unrelated. But if it intrigues you, you should really go check this out.)

Excelleunt! Crazeunt! (sic)

So I was looking up the exact technical definition of "Exeunt" (I'm unemployed right now). You know? It's what you see written in the script of a play when it's time for some actors to get off the stage already.

So, it turns out that the prime wikipedia link (& a top google too) isn't a definition of the word. It's a link to SPL: the Shakespeare Programming Language. A programming language that is constructed so that its program code reads like a Shakespearean play. Follow the links to see for yourself, it's really something...

It turns out there's in fact a whole bunch of "esoteric" programming languages like this, each specifically designed to require program code that looks like a joke. Chef programs read like recipes; brainfuck is nothing but punctuation. Huh.

No comment, I just wanted to draw your attention to this.

Friday Is Out Of Context

Dr. Ronald Chevalier - The Art Of Relaxating

Hey, Jemaine from Flight Of The Conchords has allowed a beard on his face. See here for the context. I especially like the audio book excerpt...

This Friday Is Out Of Context Thoapsl says: A chord is not a disagreement.

It's Not The Plants

THE HAPPENING

So, I saw The Happening the other day – it had gotten such weird and conflicting reviews that I figured I had to see it for myself. Hey, The Village got terrible reviews, and I liked it anyway; unlike (apparently) most other people who saw the film and were pissed off because the "twist" was crap, I didn't mind because I thought the twist was obvious on purpose, it wasn't supposed to be a shocking twist. The twist wasn't the point of the film, it was just... never mind, I'm getting distracted and I don't really care anymore. Anyhow, The Happening was flawed in a lot of ways, but I thought that some aspects of it were really quite neat. I was thinking of writing something about it, but then I found the general thrust of my thoughts were already expressed wonderfully in here*:

"you've got to admire Shyamalan's amazing ability to whip out a perfectly-constructed horror/scifi plot without actually ever having any kind of monster or coherent threat. We get all the classic "scary monster" moments in this movie — people staring at stuff with horrified looks on their faces, distant screams, long tension-mounting shots in creepy houses — and yet at the moment when we expect to look into the face of The Big Bad there's literally nothing. No Cloverfield with its throbbing, toothy face, no disfigured bad guy with a bag of poison. Just beautiful fields of trees and grasses moving gently in the breeze.

There's a kind of true brilliance to The Happening at these moments. It's as if Shyamalan, a smart guy if nothing else, is trying to show us that at the heart of every monster movie there really lurks nothing at all. Just an empty field that you can fill with whatever terrifies you most."

That's the part of the film that I enjoyed the most; if you've got the time & money to spend on two hours of Shyamalan, the film is possibly worth it just for this aspect. It's wonderful, if you're willing to look for your cinematic satisfaction in some intriguing metafiction. Rather than in the fiction itself.

(Yes, I'm using the word "metafiction". Sometimes it just can't be helped).

--the Cinematic Thoapsl

*ps: the rest of the post containing the above quote is basically all about the film's (alleged) covert promotion of "Intelligent Design". I wasn't reminded about ID in particular when I was watching the film, but I was struck by the rather unscientific rhetoric of the science-teacher protagonist (Marky Mark) in his introductory scene, quote: "acts of nature we'll never understand". Interesting perspective, hmm, coming from a science teacher? Insert joke here about the failures of the US public education system.

On the other hand, of course all kinds of bullshit masquerades as "science" in movies. I usually hope it's either creative license for the sake of an easier story, or else that it's only the usual ignorance (ie: unfortunate, but not essentially malignant). It's certainly bad stuff. However, wilful misrepresentation by anti-scientific ideologues is a lot worse. Scary and sad.