Cup of Coffee

March 11, 2014: Golden Brown

103 Comments

Today the Casa de Leche heads to Disneyland. I'm already burnt to a crisp from the girls' first trip to a beach yesterday. How does a 36-year-old man forget to use sunscreen when everyone else applied it on the way there? Well, here's hoping it's overcast or something.

103 thoughts on “March 11, 2014: Golden Brown”

  2. This story brought back memories of our first cat, who terrorized my in-laws while boarding with them during our move across country to go to grad school.

      1. I sure wouldn't keep the thing around if I felt that threatened by it, especially not with a young child in the house.

      2. I totally understand the difficulty in giving up a pet, even if it has a history of aggression (a situation I have direct experience with), but yeah, when its bad enough that you have to call 911 then that thing needs to go.

  3. spooky: I got a pretty good sunburn on my face and the top of my head (sigh) in LV last week. I never even thought about sunscreen.

    1. spring break sunburns for Minnesotans is the analog to southerners not knowing how to drive in snow flurries. Amateur!

      1. I have the most mediocre team that ever mediocred. I have a bunch of perfectly decent third starters, a mediocre bullpen, and a perfectly average lineup. It's frustrating because I have no gaping holes, but no frontline talent either. No wonder my team is stuck in a .500ish rut for the third or fourth straight season (admittedly, after a stretch where I won two titles and made the playoffs several other times).

        1. Yeah, I better get you a hanky. 🙂

          I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. My two rookie pitchers are all over the BABIP-related leaderboards. It will be a severe fall. Hopefully Joe Neikro hits a good stretch to counteract it.

          I'm thankful to have a good start, though. Certainly gets me engaged!

  5. Woke up at 2AM when the sinus pressure was making my teeth hurt. It's difficult to take a sick day when you work from home, but I'm going to give it a shot.

  8. Marginal Revolution discusses the SAT and the evidence on the impact of test prep. My favorite comment thread:

    Bill March 11, 2014 at 8:04 am

    You mean us !%ers, so known for our intelligence, misspent our money on test preparation?

    Let’s go to the FTC and argue that they engaged in false and misleading advertising, and hire Alex as our expert witness.

    Reply

    Ted Craig March 11, 2014 at 9:06 am

    I’m not sure it’s a waste of money. A few points could be the difference between, say, Princeton and the University of Illinois.

    Reply

    Brian Donohue March 11, 2014 at 10:33 am

    It might be cheaper to get your recruiter laid.

    Princeton can use a guy like Joel.

    Reply

    - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html#sthash.zeW3Bpkk.dpuf

    1. I never did a single question in preparation for the SAT.

      The LSAT, on the other hand, that I prepped for. My first practice test on the LSAT was X. I did ten of them and on every single one of them I did better than X, with a maximum of X+9. On test day, I did X+8, which was better than all but one of my practice tests. Did it help? I think it did because I figured out how to do a couple of the questions that I was having difficulty with (i.e. they were taking a lot of time). 8 points on the LSAT is a lot.

      Would I have done better on the SAT had I prepped? Maybe, but I think the LSAT was more conducive to gaining points through practice. So, my advice, if you are going to take the LSAT (other than don't do it) is to practice on the types of questions that you will see. I'm not sure SAT practice really helps.

      1. I think it helps to run through one practice test of just about any exam you are prepping for, just to be familiar with the format of the exam, also to familiarize yourself with the scoring (are points deducted for incorrect answers or should you guess even if you can't eliminate a single choice, etc.) Is it a marginal effect? Sure, but I think it's usually worth the time.

        In the end, the main reason I did great on the ACT math is that I was taking Calculus 2 at the time (and doing it well) and the ACT only tests through the most elementary trig possible. I am still irritated on some level that I got a question wrong on that test.

        I also undoubtedly benefitted from having two parents who each went to college (each of them was first in their family to go to college) and who placed a high value on education.

          1. I also didn't study for the ACT but still did well, although I did take it twice and bumped my score up the one point I needed to get the $1000 scholarship.

            1. I never studied for the ACT, nor did I know you could take it more than once. I did very well in any case; I tell Runner daughter's friends that I got a 41 (taking inflation into account)

              2. I never studied for the ACT, because I never took it. 🙂

                the SAT I took first and foremost because I was a national merit finalist based on the PSAT, and had to in order to compete for the Big Prizes. And when I found out that the Alma Mater and many other schools to which I was applying either accepted only the SAT or either, I was done.

                Have I told my tale of woe and misery in taking the SAT? I had to drive from Spamtown to Rochester to take the damned thing. The then-gf went with me, and we continued on to the Cities, as I was going to do a recruiting visit to GVLCC, then we were going to hang out. Did the trip, then my car decided that I only needed the top half of the H on the 3-on-tree (2nd and reverse). We ended up spending the night at my aunt's house in New Brighton, then I drove home, 100 miles, in 2nd gear. Sweet!

                1. And I never took the SAT, just the ACT, since that was enough to get me into any college I cared could afford to go to.

      3. I scored pretty well on the ACT, but my father decided I should take it again. I forgot a calculator the second time, yet scored higher in Math.

        I also did more prep for the LSAT than any other entrance exam. Once I figured out how to ace those logic questions, it was like they were handing out free points!

        1. I took the ACT twice as well. The first time I took it I did really well in both science & math but only okay on English. I took it again, did much worse in science, the same in math, and bumped my English scores up. I ended up with the same composite score.

        2. The ACT and SAT are really good at determining your socioeconomic level, which, I suppose, is why colleges rely on them so much.

            1. Yup.

              Also, I think the received wisdom on test prep is still that you ain't gaining much beyond what you can get for free by doing the free practice tests.

      4. I don't think I ever did much preparation for any of them (PSAT, SAT, ACT, LSAT) although I did look at the couple of example questions the LSAT website had up, I suppose. I believe I scored in the 95% percentile on that. I had a knack for being able to take those kind of standardized tests efficiently without needing a lot of advance preparation or practice. Of course, the LSAT has about as much to do with law school as the SAT has to do with anything.

      5. The funniest part of this thread is the fact that NOBODY talked about the Risky Business reference.

    2. I took the ACT once, still a bit drunk from the night before. Not my best life choice, but I scored better than my friend who studied graduated valedictorian, so I had that going for me. She still hangs that one on me.

      The first book I read on my deployment was Nicholas Lemann's The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. Reading about the origins of the SAT in IQ testing and the intentions of the test's creators made me pretty angry. I didn't get much guidance from any of my parents when it came to college applications or funding, and instead found myself in the desert taking orders from people selected to lead by the process Lemann was describing.

      I didn't prepare for the GRE, either. Thankfully, my score was good enough to get me into a national Top 10 program in my field. I hate taking standardized tests, and much prefer writing papers to taking any test. The only thing I can think of that is worse than taking a standardized test is practicing for one. I can't say the practice is a waste, since it will likely get you more comfortable with the question format and test mechanics, but learning how to take a test wastes an opportunity to learn something truly useful. Those test companies and their exam prep remoras do pretty well for themselves creating an artificial barrier to higher education. (Yes, I understand that there needs to be some kind of diagnostic to help admissions departments sort through applicants, but any process that promotes reducing prospective students to a single number is ultra-gross.)

      1. I didn't get much guidance from any of my parents when it came to college applications or funding, and instead found myself in the desert taking orders from people selected to lead by the process Lemann was describing.

        Fun, wasn't it?

        I hate taking standardized tests, and much prefer writing papers to taking any test. The only thing I can think of that is worse than taking a standardized test is practicing for one.

        This is me...except I'm blindly stubborn and a bit insecure, so I just keep taking them, hoping eventually it'll lead to something personally and professionally satisfying.
        Thus far, it has not.

  9. Question for Spooky: one of New Gal's friend's won a big screen TV in a raffle, but she only entered the raffle to be polite and she doesn't actually want the TV. I'm pretty sure it's this model. She wants to sell it for considerably less than the sticker, but do you know anything good or bad about Samsung TVs that would persuade/dissuade me from buying it?

    1. I loved my Samsung flat screen I had in Des Moines. I sold it to my friends before I went to Prague, and he says it's still working like a charm.

    2. If that's not the one we have in our downstairs living room, then it's pretty darn close. We have no complaints. I don't see anywhere that says it's a smart TV, though; is it? You'll want that.

      1. This reminds me of something I was thinking about yesterday when I was spending more than I wanted to on a washing machine (that won't even arrive until the 20th! damn!): I think we're putting too much emphasis on "definition" and resolution these days. There was something called a Ultra HD 4K tv at BB and as I was watching the brief clip they had for it (that I was told took up 4GB of space for 30 seconds), I could not, for the life of me, figure out how that much clarity could make the things I watch any more entertaining. I bought a Roku LT that only gets 720p (and my tv is only 1080i), but I find that it all looks fantastic when I'm watching movies and such. This is a problem I have with all the newer generation video game consoles. Every time a new one comes out, suddenly people are complaining about how crappy the "last gen" stuff looks regardless of how they felt about it just a year or two ago and regardless of the quality of the rest of the game(s) being played. Focusing less on this visual stuff and more on the cool stuff like smart tvs and the like is what I'd prefer to see.

        That said, this focus does make it a lot easier for me to find cheap "crappy, old" electronics.

        1. When we got a larger flatscreen TV (the said Samsung above), Mrs. Runner FINALLY admitted to seeing a big difference in HD vs. standard TV resolution. Resolution is only part of the issue; the size of screen and viewing room all enter into it.

          1. And quality of source material. DVDs only have 480 vertical pixels and 480p is a common streaming resolution. I'm generally fine with 480p since I watch on a computer and the bandwidth isn't too crazy.

    3. I've got a 6 year old Samsung plasma that has worked fantastically for me with zero issues so, other than what Rhu said about the smart tv thing if that is something you would like, I'd say go for it.

      1. I can't say that it not being a Smart TV is much of a factor for me. I already own a few connected devices that I would hook up anyway (PS3 and a Wii U) so I don't think I would be losing out on too much. The one apparent downside to this model is that it doesn't have any form of audio output ports, so, barring some sort of MacGuyver-esque solution, I wouldn't be able to connect any external speakers.

        1. It looks like it has an optical audio output based on the spec sheet on Samsung's website. You'd need to run that into a receiver of some sort I suppose, but at least it's an option?

    4. Proceed with caution, New Guy. The sound isn't great and that one has no audio output for an external sound source. The 6003 model is constantly returned for exactly that reason. It's as basic as televisions get. No smart features, no frills, not an out-of-this-world contrast ratio. This doesn't always have to be a big deal, but the lack of audio output is a killer for some.

      1. The sound isn't great and that one has no audio output for an external sound source.

        Note that Zack linked to the EH6000 model, not the FH6003 New Guy linked to. Assuming it really is that one, here's the right spec sheet. As spooky says, it's bare bones. No audio out seems crazy to me.

        2. speaking of no audio out, I had to return the $99 Vizio soundbar+subwoofer that I'd bought because neither my 32-inch Vizio nor the tv I bought for my parents had appropriate outputs for it. Needed analog outputs, since it only had analog inputs (don't ask me which flavor, since I don't remember). I guess that explains why the thing was on sale.

        3. Ahh bummer. I'm far from being an audiophile, so I could probably live with the built-in speakers. I've actually just been using my roommate's TV for several years, and it doesn't have any external speakers and it hasn't been a problem for me. But I'd like to at least have the option of hooking up a soundbar. If I can talk her down to like $500 I might buy it anyway, but I'm not quite so enthused about it now.

          1. Your roommate's TV, if it's several years old, has much better sound than this TV. That's not a comment on the model, but on the sound provided in today's TV's. You're practically expected to buy a soundbar, at the very least, if you buy today's TVs.

  10. It's that time of year again. Junior had his first Little League game of the season last night. He had a walk and a groundout which advanced a runner into scoring position that ended up scoring on a hit by the next batter. However, he dropped the only fly ball to come to him in left field.

    1. This has always seemed like an overblown concern to me:

      On the other hand, Ackerman worries that telling people they just need to practice more might set them up for failure: "The odds are pretty good, but not impossible, that if you have an I.Q. of 70, you're probably not going to get a Ph.D. in particle physics."

      Okay, so practicing at something is not going to guarantee that you will be an "expert" or whatever, but is anyone arguing that it's not going to make you better? I have no conception for what it means to have an IQ of 70 or how common that is, but I would submit that if a person of that intelligence practices the study of math/science/physics at an appropriate level in a consistent fashion, they'll get better at math/science/physics. Maybe they will fall short of some milepost, but trying and failing is as much a part of life as trying and succeeding.

      2. An IQ of 70 is two standard deviations below the mean and at about the level that persons are considered to have a mental disability. So, yeah, probably not going to get a Ph.D. in particle physics. However, someone with an IQ of say, 130 (2 standard deviations above the mean) might be able to accomplish a lot more than a person with a 145 IQ if they are a harder worker. As for the article, Gladwell's 10,000 hour bit sounds great, all else being equal or nearly equal.

        1. One of the things that goes alone with hard work is desire. Almost all of us find out that we can develop the ability to do much more than we ever thought we could if we want to develop that ability badly enough.

          1. That's one of the things that stood out to me listening to a radio segment of Macolm Gladwell talking about Wayne Gretzky. I'm sure the story was embellished to some degree, but it really paints a picture of Gretzky being totally obsessed with hockey starting from a young age (something like 2, I believe the claim was). Bobby Fischer was seemingly the same way, but with chess instead of hockey. In the non-sports realm, I've heard of Paul Allen sneaking out of his house at night (when his parents were sleeping) to get time on servers at the University of Washington in high school. Having that sort of obsession can have its downsides, but it also seems like just the thing to get you to practice and hone your craft 24/7, whatever it is.

            At any rate, I think if Gladwell's 10,000 hours is just looked at as being descriptive rather than prescriptive, it seems as though it'd be less controversial. I mean, just saying that really elite people worked really hard to get to the top of their field is a pretty easy sell to me, at least. Maybe he's selling it as prescriptive, but I haven't read enough of his arguments to know.

            1. Most geniuses in areas of science and math tend to be underdeveloped in other aspects of their lives, probably because of their obsession driving them in this one area. Of course, successful development and accomplishments in one area would bring a thrill that would feed into an obsession. I think it's hard to be driven to succeed at something without first having some talent to provide you early successes to drive you to seek more successes. Sort of a chicken or egg king of thing.

    2. Thanks for the link. It's too bad I can't read any of the studies discussed.

      "if you have an I.Q. of 70, you're probably not going to get a Ph.D. in particle physics." I'd argue that it's that sort of all-or-nothing thinking that leads to feelings of failure. The person who puts the work into math/science/physics is going to be the best they can be in that field, whether that leads to a Ph.D. or not. The focus needs to remain on the process and not on the expected outcome.

      1. He doesn't say that, that person is a failure for not getting a Ph.D. He says if they set an unrealistic goal for themselves of a PH.D., they could feel like a failure. Sometimes it's a difficult to find the right balance of encouragement and realistic expectations.

        1. in jr. high and high school, I was pretty obsessed with track & field, specifically the shot put and discus. My coach in jr. high used to have to chase me to the showers so that he could go home. This continued in high school, although I was a three-sport athlete and probably didn't have a Gretzky-level obsession. But pretty obsessed.

          Sadly, there is just no amount of practice that could turn me into Brian Oldfield (the greatest shot putter in history, IMO), Michael Carter (the greatest h.s. shot putter in history), or Mac Wilkins (my discus idol, both for his 1976 gold medal triumph over Wolfgang Schmidt and for his friendship with the East German despite the Cold War hype of the times). 🙁

    1. 'Spoiler' SelectShow
    3. 'Spoiler' SelectShow
      'Spoiler' SelectShow

        1. I'm with AMR.

          'Spoiler' SelectShow

    2. It was entirely worth it, just for the mental image of Bob Watson hunched over a Coinstar machine.

      Yes, because Watson wouldn't have an intern available to send to get the money.

  15. Gardenhire, however, made it clear Tuesday he is prepared to find a different leadoff hitter if necessary.

    “I could put [second baseman Brian] Dozier up there. [Catcher Kurt] Suzuki can lead off. I can do different things,” Gardenhire said.

    TWINS BASEBALL!!!!!

Comments are closed.