![](https://res.cloudinary.com/jerrick/image/upload/c_fill,f_jpg,fl_progressive,h_302,q_auto,w_1512/6567e764348192001d94b116.png)
Everyday Junglist
Bio
Practicing mage of the natural sciences (Ph.D. micro/mol bio), Thought middle manager, Everyday Junglist, Boulderer, Cat lover, No tie shoelace user, Humorist, Argan oil aficionado. Occasional LinkedIn & Facebook user
Stories (585/0)
Science Retires
Author's preface: Because this story did not meet Vocal's ludicrous 600 word count minimum I am forced to add yet another annoying author's preface. This is in addition to the author's postscript at the end of the story which contains my anti-censorship statement and which I intend to attach to every story I publish on Vocal until such time as those policies are eliminated. Vocal refers to these policies as "community standards" but please let's call a chicken a chicken, or is it let's call a duck a duck? I actually don't think it is either of those but whatever, it is censorship plain and simple. See my article here which defines four of my biggest problems with them, but there are many more. In any event the big question now is exactly how many words am I at? Have I made it to the magic number of 600? If only Vocal's editor provided a word count for me so I did not have to waste 2 minutes cutting and pasting into Microsoft word to check. But alas, they do not. I am going to cross my fingers on this one, roll the dice and say, yes, I have now hit at least 600 words. Here's hoping! By the way the post is a humor classic from my vast library of The Onion style satirical news articles.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Futurism
Quit Trying to Remember Stuff
Recently a friend mentioned that she was frustrated at work by her inability to remember some important details about a key aspect of a project she had been working on for months. She described how she had spent the past few days hunkered down with textbooks and on the computer, but the right connections needed to form a lasting memory of the material had still not materialized. After hearing her out I gave her some (non asked for) advice and said “memorizing stuff is a waste of time.” I quit trying to memorize or even remember most things soon after I got out of the hospital almost three years ago now, and my overall cognitive abilities have never been better (in my estimation). Moreover, my scientific pursuits have not suffered in the least, nor have any personal relationships been strained as a result. In many ways I consider my decision to stop trying to remember or memorize things one of the best decisions I have ever made. It feels as if a huge weight has been lifted off my mind and I am able to focus on the parts of my job and life that are important. Things like problem solving, abstract thinking, creative pursuits, and building and improving interpersonal relationships. I can do these things without the fear of forgetting a name or not remembering any particular equation or procedure because I now consider the concomitant tradeoff in efficiency one I am willing to make. In the end no matter how painful or time consuming it might be to have to look something up, the overall benefits far outweigh the negatives.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Psyche
Mathematical Modeling of the Written Universe
The Friedmann equation and the expanding universe Alexander Friedmann of Russia is credited with developing a dynamic equation for the expanding universe in the 1920s. At the same time Einstein, Willem de Sitter of the Netherlands, and Georges Lemaitre of Belgium were also working on equations to model the universe. Friedmann developed his version as a relativistic equation in the framework of general relativity, but the description used here, and (in our theoretical model presented below) applied to the written universe will be limited to a simplified, non-relativistic version based on Newton’s laws. Convenient forms of Friedmann’s equation with which to examine the expansion time and temperature for a big bang model of the actual universe are
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Futurism
On Fear and Suffering
Author's preface: Special thanks to writing colleague Samantha Drobac for inspiring this post with some questions she posed in response to two recent articles addressing the twin topics of fear and suffering. You can find more of her writings at my former home on Medium.com here. Also check out her fantastic publication on Medium No Echo which can be found here. She is credited with the "Q's" and "A-SD's" in the below. Sam's full piece where these questions and her answers first appeared can be found here.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Psyche
The Long Sleep of Harold Brown
Harold Brown couldn’t sleep. He could never sleep. Year after year he struggled but sleep refused to come. He had tried all of the conventional treatments; soothing music, counting sheep, self-hypnosis, drugs. All proved futile. He had visited every sleep clinic and sleep researcher in the world and still he found no relief. “It’s all in your mind” the therapists told him. “Just relax, breathe deep, think calming thoughts, and sleep will come,” but it never did.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Fiction
When Everyone Analyzes Data Who is Left to Create It
In my own workplace the spreadsheet jockeys outnumber the scientists by at least a 10 to 1 margin. I have little doubt that other technical businesses have similar or even much larger ratios. What I call spreadsheet jockeys they call business analysts, data “scientists”, financial analysts, economists, and business managers. Throughout my career, across multiple companies and businesses I have seen this ratio continue to grow ever larger, and there seems no end in site. The compensation paid to persons in these positions has also grown apace with the expansion in numbers. Meanwhile I have seen the ranks of my fellow scientists continue to decline and our compensation remain stagnant or decline. Those facts are depressing enough but the fact that the spreadsheet jocks typically spend 4–10 years less time in college/graduate school angers and worries me in equal measure.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Journal
Love in The Time of Post Apocalyptic Moulds
Author's preface: Below find the (almost) original version of the story published as (almost) intended with the artwork intact and in the correct position in the story. Apologies for the first version which omitted the arts for reasons partly of idiocy on the author's part, but mostly due to the poor functioning of Vocal's editor. He was too stupid and impatient to take the time to figure out how to include images in the body of the text and Vocal's editor still refuses to display the "+" sign needed to embed something no matter what I do. I have found if I type some text then highlight it then hit backspace (but not delete) it will appear about 50% of the time. I tried just copy pasting the images in but they were distorted badly. In the original they were smaller and positioned next to each other in grouping of four. Yet another frustrating limitation of Vocal's wonky editor. I mean come on? Resizing images? That is basic stuff. Gheesh. The text also still does not have the exact formatting of the original story as I cannot figure out how to center or change the spacing or even if it is possible. In any event. Enjoy!
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Fiction
All* Of Your Blockchain Questions Answered
Author's note: The original version of this story was not approved for publication because it contained "graphic material". According to the small black box containing my rejection notice I need to make the following changes before submitting again. "Vocal does not publish slurs or epithets. Please remove derogatory language and resubmit." This will be quite a challenge because the original piece does not contain any slurs or epithets or derogatory language that I am aware of. Perhaps I need to refresh my memory on the definition of those terms and then review the text. Let's give it a shot and see if we can discover together what the moderators of this find publication found objectionable. So we are all on the same page let's start with the definitions of the terms in question. check.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in The Chain
The Complete Coyote Gulch Tale
Chapter 1: To the Edge of Coyote Gulch “Where will you be heading into the gulch at?” asked the National Park Service Ranger stationed behind the counter at the Escalante visitor center upon hearing our request for a backcountry permit. When my companion Kat replied “40 mile trailhead” the old woman’s head snapped up sharply and she fixed us both with a hard gaze. “You do realize the trail there is a 45 degree descent. Are you both capable of handling that, with packs?” We nodded as she gave us the once over, appearing satisfied with what she saw she handed over the permit and we turned to leave. A 45 degree descent sounded challenging but that was exactly the reason we had made the long trip out to the Utah desert, to test ourselves against some of the most difficult backpacking conditions to be found in the United States and prove our mettle. At the time I was grateful for the heads up and warning, later I would curse the old woman for what she neglected to tell us. The 45 degree descent into the gulch was a one way trip, it simply was not possible to return up out of the gulch the same way.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Wander
Four Intractable Flaws in Vocal's Censorship Policies
They are subjective and thus impossible to enforce fairly and thus unjust Subjectivity if fine when judging a piece of writing on its artistic merits. Beyond spelling, grammar, and a few other basic components judging the quality of any given written work is always going to be a highly subjective process. After all, people have very different tastes in what they like to read and two people can have diametrically opposed ideas on what they believe qualifies as "good" or "bad" writing. We all have our own unique likes and dislikes and inherent biases. There is nothing wrong with this and it is in fact part of what makes each individual person unique. Subjectivity in judging quality is a fact of life and any publication which wants to exclude works it feels does not meet a certain quality standard (as determined subjectively by whomever it feels qualified to judge such a thing) is entirely free to do so. I might think this is stupid and I might rail against the unfairness of it, but in the end I must accept it, and in fact I would accept it, no matter how much I might grumble about the unfairness of it. When it comes to quality, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. However, if said publication seeks to exclude works not because of a quality standard but rather for reasons of objectionable content the situation changes considerably. Unlike quality, content is an objective standard, or at least it should be. It must be in fact for the content standard to be considered fair in any sense of the word. And, because it is an objective standard it must be fair or the publication implementing the standard is behaving in an unjust fashion. Consider Vocal's prohibition on the publishing of works containing "religious" or "graphic" content. What is religious content and what is graphic content? Who defines these terms? Who determines if any given content meets the definition? Vocal defines them and the moderators/reviewers determine this. However, it is simply not possible for any person or group of persons to define either of those terms in a way that will account for any possible situation. And no single or group of moderators will ever be able to agree in every case as to the correct application of their own "rules" with respect to writings that may or may not have such content. They will always in the end be judgement calls, human made judgement calls, and they will be disputed. They will be subjective, and thus they will be unfair, they will be unjust. This makes Vocal, as currently configured, an unjust organization and an unjust publication. Congratulations.
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Journal
The Deceptiveness of Percent Effectiveness
If you asked most people if a given consumer product advertised as 99.9% effective at reducing microbial contamination (“kills 99.9% of germs” would be a more common wording) does a good job of killing “germs” they would almost certainly say yes. They might even think it does a fantastic job, after all 99.9% is a huge proportion of the germs that might be present. I don’t blame most people for thinking this, and it is true that 99.9% of something is a big chunk of that thing. However, in terms of antimicrobial effectiveness a 99.9% reduction may actually be translated as not effective at all or only barely effective. The same can be said of 99.99% and even 99.999% in some cases. How is this possible?
By Everyday Junglist3 years ago in Education
Subscribe to my stories
Show your support and receive all my stories in your feed.