Cup of Coffee

June 5, 2014: These Things Really Happen

170 Comments

Customer: I need a cable for a TV.
Dilraj: ...what kind of cable?
Customer: Oh...about three feet, I guess.
Dilraj: .................what kind of cable?
Customer: The best.

170 thoughts on “June 5, 2014: These Things Really Happen”

  1. Customer person was going to walk out with a high quality cable whether you like it or not.

    1. I find it is becoming ever harder to be surprised by people or events that would have at one point astonished me. I've taken to finding it amusing rather than be cynical about them. When it comes to human folly, when someone uses the phrase "I can't believe it," I assume they're just not imaginative enough.
      And I'm sure I've been the source of such a story at least a time or two.

      1. And I'm sure I've been the source of such a story at least a time or two.

        Anytime I discuss car issues, I've got the feeling in the back of my mind that I'm providing the person that I'm talking to with one.

    2. Things I've been asked for:

      'Spoiler' SelectShow

      Yesterday a guy asked me for a cable and I said "What are you hooking up with it?" He said after a pause, "That's a good question." Wait...it is?

      1. I'm hoping you'll be able to give me your professional opinion on these things soon.
        I believe the reason that we were given the SiL's HD TV (made in 2006 I think) was that it wouldn't accept something that seems to be the standard now.
        I want a Blu-ray player but I don't want a new TV.
        I've written down a list of all the inputs and specs on the TV, but the list hasn't made it near the computer yet.

        I assume it's something that will be painfully obvious to you.

        1. Probably. Pass over the relevant info (model numbers are a great help) and I should be able to give you your realistic options quickly.

        2. A lot of those older HDTVs use DVI connections instead of HDMI. If so you'd just need a HDMI to DVI crossover cable. You would need a separate connection for audio.

  2. Interesting nugget from Derek Wetmore at 1500
    ...

    There may have been a catch, though. Arcia didn't exactly hustle out of the box as he watched the ball carry, which may have caused the perception he was admiring his blast. (Again, I have no problem personally with this but you wonder if some teams or players consider this a code violation.) After the ball was ruled fair Arcia ran hard the rest of the way around the bases. Asked postgame about the shot, Arcia cleared up that he was not trying to show up anybody.

    "The angle he saw the ball, he thought it was going to be homer right away but he knew it was going to be close," Eduardo Nunez said, interpreting for Arcia.

    "He never thought about running the bases slow. Just he was waiting about the home run. He doesn't want people to think he's [trying to be] David Ortiz or something like that, running slow. He knows he's a rookie."

    If a guy hits a ball as hard as Arcia did on that HR, I dont mind a little admiration.

    1. I also didn't think he was admiring his shot. The ball had zero chance of landing in fair territory, and a good chance of curling foul. If I'm him, I might also wait to see if it's fair before expending my energy running.

    2. In the universe of bad things an athlete can do, standing at the plate and admiring a home run is pretty damned low on the list.

      2. On a questionable one (one that barely makes it over the fence), I'd probably like to see a little hustle out of the box, just in case it dies, since it could be the difference between a double and a triple.

        On a no-doubter? Enjoy the hell out it.

    3. I love what that quote implies. It is ok for David Ortiz but not other players.

      I have to admit that Ortiz is quickly becoming one of my least favorite baseball players.

      2. That annoys me about a lot of things in sports--that young players get constant criticism for things that veterans do all the time and don't get criticized for.

  3. I was pretty pleased when this one arrived yesterday, just in time to post today...

    ID the AU -- which Twins player (future or current or coming soon) writes this signature on his signing bonus?
    AU

    'hint' SelectShow
    Answer SelectShow

        1. it could almost be Arabic.

          'Spoiler' SelectShow

  5. President Ronald Reagan died ten years ago today.

    'Spoiler' SelectShow

    1. At that time I happened to be on a larger base between assignments to FOBs, so I watched his funeral at midnight while eating a fantastic shrimp curry with the Indian contractors in the chow hall.

      'Also' SelectShow

  6. I'm going to tonights game! First of the season.
    Small work group, entertaining the auditor from corporate in his last night here.

  7. I just watched the highlights from last night's game. I really hope Hammer's "Slide" is a gif somewhere.

    SEND HIM!!

  8. So guess who's now acquaintances with a 2x Masters winner's daughter? The golfer's name rhymes with "Cren Benshaw".

    Edit: And, no, not a euphemism. One of my footy teammates and her grew up together and we all hung out at Blues on the Green

    1. Also, The Heartless Bastards are the band for Blues on the Green next week. I've wanted to see them for years.

  9. Last night Stephen Colbert took Amazon to task for their essentially monopolistic tactics. He then openly endorsed a work of fiction by a new author, and is selling it directly on his site.

    If he still does this kind of thing when he takes over The Late Show it will be very good for the world. Colbert as the new Oprah.

    1. My cousin just took a job with Amazon. I'll have to let him know how evil he is.

      1. A casual college friend graduated early and got a job with Musicland/Sam Goody corporate.
        I let her know.

    2. it's gonna take some mighty deep pockets (and tolerance for low margins) for someone to provide a real counterweight to Amazon.

      1. I know. But attention is a good first step. I know I'm going to be much more selective about what I buy from them in the future.

        1. I'm of mixed mind. Amazon has been very successful at providing value to customers. But I can tell you that The Roommate has very serious beefs with them. I'm less apoplectic, mostly because I'm not all that impressed with either the typical publisher or the typical bookstore (really? We're supposed to support the late, lamented Borders or Barnes & Noble? or the shrinking violets of local bookstores?). I love bookstores in general. But I don't see that I owe them my business.

          1. I like Half-Price Books. Their books cost less. I've been on a kick of old and foreign field guides for the past few months.

            I finally found the Golden that Dad R had when I was a kid. It wasn't half-priced though: a 50% markup!
            There was a scribbled-out price of $3.95 and I paid $5.99! Even with a faint musty smell.

            BTW, any tips for removing musty smells from books? I have a wonderful book something like "100 greatest paintings" that smells a bit too much. I'm afraid of the smell infecting other books.

              2. No, I'm just shootin' the digital breeze here.
                Do I have to have researched everything before I bring it up?

          2. I tend not to shop at Wal-Mart, despite their being very successful at providing value to customers. Sometimes I shop there, but it's not the usual.

            When it comes to Amazon, my concern is also their reach beyond books, into every other consumer field. I'm less concerned about the survival of particular competitors and more concerned about the existence of competitors in general.

            1. One of the things Mrs. Hayes and I feel very strongly about is the type of businesses we engage. We don't bank with any of the megabanks (though our mortgage was unfortunately sold to one of them), instead using credit unions and USAA. We never shop at Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, or Target because of their labor practices and deleterious effect on local businesses. We do shop at Costco because of its reputation for fair labor practices, good wages, and strong value for customers. Whenever possible/affordable, we try to buy our food from local producers. Some of this is easy once you get in the habit, but some of it (especially the economics of local food) is difficult or prohibitively expensive.

              Still, despite the reading I've done about Amazon's labor practices, I've had a hard time resisting making purchases from the company. Most of the things I buy from Amazon I could probably get elsewhere online (or from a local vendor), but the convenience – and especially the data privacy/security – Amazon offers does represent a serious value. The Target fiasco further underscored in my mind how valuable strong security is to consumers.

              I do wish Amazon had a strong direct competitor. I'm not a little unhappy that the Department of Justice went after Apple for its deal with publishers while Kindle books have remained as expensive as they've always been. I find myself hoping (probably irrationally) that some of the bad labor stuff Amazon and its warehouse contractors do is offset by its dependency on UPS, which by its nature has to keep jobs in my local community and has some organized labor counterweight to its labor practices. But do I buy products from Amazon I can't get or have never seen anywhere else? I do, partially because I'm not perfect and don't have enough discipline to deny myself some of the purchases, and partially because not enough online vendors offer me alternatives to PayPal (which is just as gross) like Stripe, allowing me to buy directly from them and keep my personal information secure at the same time. I just can't hand out my credit card to every single online business and trust they'll keep it safe. If Amazon ever has a data breach, it's in seriously deep weeds.

              1. I'm with you on a lot of this. Not quite as devoted, but we avoid Wal-Mart, have a share with a CSA, bank locally, and frequently do what we can to shop locally otherwise. Also, my dad works for UPS, so I do like them... Not that that has much to do with anything.

              2. I am not going to disagree with your overall point but in my own experience, I have seen small employers treat employees much worse than large employers. It is much easier for many to share the pot when it doesn't come directly out of their pocket.

                1. This.

                  The fascination with small business...fascinates me. I've known my share of small-town petty tyrants who've been skilled at manipulating local politics to their pecuniary benefit.

                  and now a wander into the Forbidden Zone SelectShow

                  1. My father-in-law is a small business owner. Because of this, he naturally has beef with a number of establishments in town that could utilize his services, but choose to do it with larger businesses, instead.

                    Linds and I have decided that we are not wealthy enough to let most of these disagreements dictate where we spend our money.

                    1. and I don't mean to imply #YesAllSmallBusinesses or anything along those lines.

                      Businesses are in business to make money. I don't begrudge any business purely for trying to make more money. Workers are working to make money (usually). I don't begrudge any worker purely for trying to make more money. Consumers are in the marketplace to satisfy wants and needs. I don't begrudge any consumer looking to maximize the value of his/her dollar.

                      We have regulatory structures and unions in part because of the inherent conflicts between the self-interests of employers and those of employees, and in part because of the inherent opportunities for businesses to take advantage of informational asymmetries between themselves and consumers. We don't trust the marketplace to consistently generate fair and equitable outcomes across these three sets of actors.

                    2. Businesses are in business to make money. I don't begrudge any business purely for trying to make more money. Workers are working to make money (usually). I don't begrudge any worker purely for trying to make more money. Consumers are in the marketplace to satisfy wants and needs. I don't begrudge any consumer looking to maximize the value of his/her dollar.

                      Pretty much this.

                    3. 'Regarding Unions' SelectShow
                  2. 'Forbidden' SelectShow
                    1. Dido SelectShow
                    2. 'Everyone else is doing it' SelectShow

                  3. I will also say that I avoid several local businesses too, for exactly this reason.

                    For me, it mostly comes down to community - is a business in my community likely to help the community in ways other than simply providing jobs? (Or conversely, hurt the community directly (the small-town tyrants)).

                    I go to my local barber instead of Great Clips or whatever, because I know them, and what they do in the community. I use my CSA because I know about their farming practices. I frequent a group of restaurants that support local charities and community events, and avoid other local restaurants that I know treat employees terribly.

                    I find there to be a much more human element in local business than in larger corporate businesses. I appreciate that (when the owners turn out to be good humans), and want to reward it.

                2. Good point. It's hard to make sweeping moral judgments when it comes to shopping. I had a social work teacher who would challenge people who wouldn't shop at Target due to their labor practices overseas. Her husband was from Bangladesh and he said that if it weren't for Target's presence there, tons of people would have no jobs and be further in poverty. So conscientious shoppers in America were not really helping anybody in Bangladesh by shopping elsewhere.

            2. I can tell you that for people who live in the middle of nowhere, and often don't have a locally-owned small business to get a lot of things from, both Wal-Mart and Amazon are incredibly valuable.

            1. Why?

              I mean, I like local bookstores as much as the next guy. But I don't fetishize them.

              2. As far as independent bookstores are concerned, I’ll admit that I do fetishize them. And I’m lucky enough to live just a few blocks away from a really good one. But what Amazon is doing is, in my mind, Not Good. Publishers are dying, bookstores are dying, and Amazon is doing all it can to hasten their deaths. Like all forms of art, the value of literature comes from diversity, from new voices, from risky and challenging material. Amazon’s ruthless monopolization represents an accelerated trajectory towards the lowest common denominator.

                1. Publishers are dying, bookstores are dying, and Amazon is doing all it can to hasten their deaths.

                  Hmm. Sounds a lot like the music industry.

                  Are authors dying? Is reading dying? I don't see the evidence for either.

                  I'm old enough to remember growing up before chain bookstores, and in a town that basically had jack for bookstores. My world of books was limited largely by what the librarians at the local library chose to stock and what my parents happened to have. Plus book fairs at school, dominated by Scholastica.

                  Amazon’s ruthless monopolization represents an accelerated trajectory towards the lowest common denominator.

                  I find this comment extraordinary, and I question its truth. Amazon's "ruthless monopolization" has entailed providing consumers with trivially easy, and much cheaper, access to and search of a huge, huge catalog of titles. The "long tail" is real. Making "good" literature (and who decides that?) accessible to a national or international marketplace promotes sales of good literature. It is not crowded off the shelves of a bricks-and-mortar establishment that must sell enough "popular" books to make payroll and keep the lights on.

                  1. I am concerned about access to system for new authors - but I think that's more of a publisher problem generally than an Amazon problem. But Amazon puts more pressure on the publishers, which results in them taking fewer risks, which exacerbates the problem. At least, that's my perception. I don't have access to enough inside information to know if I'm really right about that.

                    But I'm largely concerned about lack of competition for Amazon creating other problems - their ability to create gaps in supply, to delay deliveries, etc. This is not consumer friendly. So yes, Amazon has done some very consumer friendly things. But they're also doing very not-consumer friendly things, and that's how things tend to run when a single provider has too much market share.

                    2. I'm curious to know whether or not a story like the one that happened with Machine of Death could've happened under the old way. It probably could have, but as the rules change, people adapt alongside them.

                  2. The lowest common denominator bit is more in regards to what Amazon is doing to publishers rather than bookstores. I’d compare it to the film industry instead of the music business. As the industry is streamlined, the major studios are less and less interested in taking risks on new properties, meaning endless sequels and remakes assigned to bland, inoffensive directors. Distribution is also dominated by the same studios, which means that megaplexes are filled with profitable dreck with little room for anything else. Is there anyone besides studio executives who sees that as a positive state of affairs? There are, of course, independent theaters. Just like there are independent publishers and sellers. And it's always a damn shame when they close.

                    1. I might point out (add?) that the film industry under the studio system produced an awful lot of schlock. Just as the music industry always has.

                  3. Amazon's "ruthless monopolization" has entailed providing consumers with trivially easy, and much cheaper, access to and search of a huge, huge catalog of titles. The "long tail" is real. Making "good" literature (and who decides that?) accessible to a national or international marketplace promotes sales of good literature.

                    You're right about this. Amazon is indeed great at providing access to books that tons of people wouldn't otherwise have. I know that not everyone lives within walking distance of a bookstore, but I believe that everyone deserves to be able to read the books they want to read. But their strong-arm tactics with publishers are really disturbing to me. I don't want to see the publishing industry stripped down until it's limited solely to what Amazon deems in the best interest of its stockholders.

                    1. I don't want to see the publishing industry stripped down until it's limited solely to what Amazon deems in the best interest of its stockholders.

                      We can certainly agree on that. My prior is that the market would either prevent Amazon from going all the way to that end by threats of competitive entry, or competitive entry would happen. But YMMV.

                    2. I hope you're right. I realize that I'm thinking worst-case-scenario, but I'm not really optimistic about where it's all headed. Amazon is so huge that the publishers have few options but to cater to them. That's why I think it's important for bookstores to stay in business. If Amazon is the only means of distribution, publishers either have to obey Amazon's whims or go out of business. It will be really interesting to see how the Hachette thing plays out. If Hachette caves, then Amazon will only be more likely to assert their dominance in the future.

                    3. Given that Amazon is treating one of the big-5 publishers like this, you have to wonder what sort of tactics they're using with smaller presses that almost certainly have less leverage. Smaller presses definitely have a big role in taking chances on new voices, publishing more experimental, less commercial work, and just generally doing stuff you won't see from the big New York houses.

                    4. Yeah that's what really sucks. It's hard to envision any sort of bright future for the small presses, which means that eventually authors might have to either go through the big boys or self-publish. And with Amazon putting the squeeze on even the largest publishers, why would they take chances on unknown authors with limited sales appeal?

                      Some would say that the ease and growth of self-publishing is actually a good thing, since it has the potential to make all publishers irrelevant anyway. But... ughh. It's like if your only options for TV were the four network stations or YouTube.

                    5. I think what Amazon has done with/for self-published authors might be instructive for the way forward. But really, the blogosphere, Twitter, etc., have also opened new channels for discovery.

                      Discovery is a huge, huge deal in literature. Publishers/distributors have always been a major bottleneck to discovery (by consumers), just has always been true in music.

                      Film is arguably different because of the capital costs of making a quality film, and there is so much more involved in making a quality film than having a quality script. But the technical/technological/physical costs of entry for making great art in many other media are very, very low.

                      Now you can get your book written and published at very low cost.

                      What remains unchanged is how you get the marketplace to notice that you are good. So you send out unsolicited copies to potential tastemakers (e.g., reviewers, bloggers, etc.) and hope that you catch some eyeballs who will start a cascade of attention. The difference between this process and what publishers did is the publishers filtered the product before it got to the tastemakers.

                      Additionally, publishers are marketing cartels for their publications -- they can spend money to advertise on behalf of things in their catalogs. You lose that with self-publication.

                      Which approach is better for authors? Super cheap self-publication, followed by self-promotion, or a process in which publishers/agents take a significant cut of sales revenue in return for putting their brand name on a product and (if you are lucky) paying for marketing?

                      An author with an established reputation (Stephen King, etc.) can easily self-publish, make a lot of money, and retain the lion's share of the revenue. An unknown author can easily self-publish and be completely ignored. It's a lottery with very low odds of success. The Stephen Kings' also can publish through a known publishing house and let them take a cut (and POSSIBLY provide some value-added along the way). The unknown author can also throw himself on the mercy of the publishing industry and hope to be selected. Again, a lottery with very low odds of success.

      1. If you don't pay for "protection" your store windows mysteriously get broken.

            1. That was my favorite for that question.

              I came up with several for that one, but my favorite of mine was "PROPERTY OF GUERRILLA FOLEY DEPT."

      2. Colbert was very up front about his books being published by Hachette, too, which I was glad about.

    5. Colbert as the new Oprah.

      Do we really need someone else hyping the latest cultural/nutritional fads and giving major platforms to anti-vaccination nuts and vapid/gross celebrities?

      1. J F'n C. I can't say I'm surprised by this because it's the Wolvesiest thing in the world.

        1. Also, I am now firmly resigned to Love leaving. It was fun, please don't go to a team I hate.

      1. LOL. That thought crossed my mind, too. In honor of the predictability of this hire, I listened to the Common Man Progrum for the first time in years. It was just as I imagined it would be. He even had a clip of himself "breaking" the news that Flip was going to be the next coach. It originally aired on March 19th.

        1. It's a shame he's on from noon to 3 when I'm at work because he's the only guy on that station worth hearing.

          2. My God Pirate, I am kinda worried about you. I once listened to him and his producer talk baseball and could literally hear the brain cells dying within my brain.

            1. I don't listen to him for the baseball (I really don't listen to him at all). Still, at least he doesn't take himself seriously like those other clowns.

    5. No one else but Dave Joerger (who was using it to get job security in Memphis) wanted this job?

    1. I forgot about the security theater at the gates.
      Will they confiscate my pocketknife? I've misplaced regular knife so I'm with my backup.
      I'd rather just leave it at the office if that's the choice.

      1. I always forget to leave my pocketknife at home when I'm going places with security checks and metal detectors (county courthouse, Target Field, etc.). I think you'd definitely be better off leaving it at the office than risk losing it to an overzealous security guard.

        1. my fingernail clippers always get confiscated at the courthouse, but I always get them back on my way out

          1. The amount of contraband outside the courthouse when the giant snow piles melt after a long winter is staggering.

  15. the visuals on this story about a fundraiser in DC involving the consumption of cooked insects are kinda eww. But my favorite comment is what I want to highlight:

    Dana Franchitto • 23 minutes ago

    not surprised that the Salt would go along with this "novelty cuisine" rather than question the ethics of it.

    Really? The ethics of eating (sanitary, culinary) insects? Are we worried about the unethical farming (ranching?) of mealworms and grasshoppers now?

  16. Current OPS+ of tonight's Twins lineup:

    Santana 130
    Dozier 126
    Mauer 97
    Willingham 205
    Arcia 114
    Plouffe 107
    Nunez 89
    Pinto 106
    Escobar 116

    Last night, you would replace Nunez's 89 with Suzuki's 113.

    1. You don't even have to squint to make that look like a pretty decent lineup.

  17. I've been in England since Monday and I finally had something other than Boddingtons or Guinness.

    1. GAAAAAH. Are you trying to kill me? Nothing but Boddingtons or Guinness? Are you eating at McDonald's too?

            1. The bartender also informed me that the Port Street Beer House is an even better brewery, so I will probably be heading there tomorrow night.

              Edit: It looks like its more a craft beer bar, but still. I think I will also be heading to Brew Dog's Manchester bar, which is very close to my hotel for the rest of the weekend.

                  1. Hmmmm, I'll have to try to check prices before going in then. I have to provide a receipt for anything over $30 (which is only like 20 pounds). Maybe being so close to Scotland will make this Brew Dog less expensive.

    3. Marlins surprise a little by taking flame-thrower Tyler Kolek, meaning HS pitchers taken in the first two picks of the draft. This also means Rodon, the top college pitcher and a lefty (the Twins love both of these) is still available. We'll see if he lasts past the next two picks and is available for the Twins.

        1. Cubs take Kyle Schwarber, a catcher. What does this imply for the Twins at 5?

      2. Schwarber went to IU, so the Cubs probably saw him a bunch, maybe felt like they had more insight into him than other players on the board.

        1. Nick Gordon. I think that's the dude everyone said the Twins were going to pick. HS SS, seems highly regarded, hard to argue against that. Hopefully the Gordons aren't like the Youngs--Dee's only OPS'ing .636.

        1. But where will be play in the bigs? Center field? Second? Third? Corner outfield? My vote is reliever.

    1. More on the Seattle shooting.

      Not to get too forbidden zoney here, but the early reports state that the shooter was subdued while trying to reload his shotgun. You can read my meaning there pretty easily.

      1. Tragic indeed. However, 19 people were shot, four fatally, over Memorial Day weekend in NOLA. 19. The violence is generally concentrated in poor, black neighborhoods and therefore doesn't receive the same kind of press coverage. /forbidden

        1. While I have no disagreement with the general statement that the media generally are uninterested in gun violence in poor, black neighborhoods (except when they are), there is a qualitative difference in news "worthiness" between the kinds of (sadly) ordinary violence you mention and attempted mass murder. Just sayin'.

Comments are closed.