2026-11-03 01:55:00
I've made a lot of new friends recently, and I really like them. I have fun hanging out with them. It makes me happy.
After a group hangout, when the night settles down, my mind spins and spins. Replaying things they said, things I said, analyzing my feelings, etc.
I've also been talking to a woman - a crush - recently. I had asked her out, mainly because I just found her so super cute. We've been talking online but haven't met yet. I think I really like her - I don't really know until we spend some quality time together. And I also find myself ruminating about her a lot.
It occurred to me last night that most of the rumination is pinned to some kind of feelings. With my crush, I'm excited, I'm nervous, I'm wanting more of her. With one of my new friends, I'm feeling a really strong bond, just feeling really connected, and I adore them. With other of the new friends, I feel happiness, curiosity, reluctance, and other things.
The crush and friendships are all still new. My feelings are still a mixed bag, a mess that I don't really understand. I don't yet know what kind of relationships will settle from them. Will my crush become a partner? Will we even date? Will we be friends if that doesn't work out? Will my one friend become a bestie? Will I find a meaningful connection with the other friends, and what will those friendships be like?
It is a lot of uncertainty, about the future, about what I'm feeling right now, about what all these people are feeling toward me.
And so it all feels kind of fragile. Like I (or someone else) could do something that would take away all this new wonderful stuff, all these new wonderful people and experiences, from my life. I'm afraid of losing these friends, this crush. I want these friendships to grow. I want this romance to grow. And I'm afraid they won't.
My normal response to this fear is to comfort myself. While it has it's place, I'm not so sure this is healthy for me.
"Well, if she's not interested in me, there are other people I can date." Yeah. There are. That's a reason not to catastrophize. Like, this isn't my last-chance or anything. But I like her, and if she rejects me, that would hurt and I wouldn't get to know her better. I'm afraid she'll reject me, and it's okay that I'm afraid of that. I need to let myself feel it.
If my new friends reject me, yes I have other friends, I have family, and can make more friends yet. But I want these friends; I don't want to lose them.
I think this is where a lot of the rumination comes from, really. This back-and-forth between my feelings and the rejection of those feelings. When I respond to these completely reasonable fears by comforting myself, I'm rejecting what I'm actually feeling. And it just spins up this cycle. My brain goes "here's another reason to worry" and I respond with "Well I don't need to worry because ____", so my brain offers another, and I reject it again.
But okay, brain. You're right. There are reasons to worry. There are things to be afraid of.
I shan't let them consume me. I can't sit in fear and worry forever.
But the funny thing is ... if I just let myself feel it, it passes.
2026-10-28 02:57:00
I sat down to meditate last night, and an unpleasant thought popped into my mind. I squeezed my eyes shut and used all my mental energy to stop the thought - it was a visual thought that I didn't want to see.
I promptly identified it as an intrusive thought, as I have identified many other "intrusive" thoughts over the years.
Then I wondered what makes this thought intrusive, but other pop-up thoughts not intrusive, thus beginning a think session before meditation proper.
I don't really know how my thoughts bubble up, even the ones I'm looking for, but when I have desirable thoughts, its because my focus is pointed toward them. My attention is on them. And it is there purposefully, because I want my attention on them.
When I'm meditating or just going through my day, thoughts will pop into my head. A lot of replaying social situations, anticipating social situations, worrying about the future. Stuff like that. When those thoughts pop up, I'm often caught up in them, they pull me, I turn my focus toward them.
Are these not also intrusive?
Certainly not in the same way as when I hear "I hope [loved one] dies" in my head. I don't identify with that thought. I don't agree with that thought. I don't turn my focus toward it and explore it. I don't really want them to die. But it is a thought. It is in my head. But is it really so different than "I hope [loved one] is having a good day?"
I think I identify thoughts as "intrusive" not when they intrude on my attention, but when they intrude on my sense of self, when I dislike them, when I reject them, when I don't want them, when they are shameful.
Calling them "intrusive" has its utility, but it also serves as a way of distancing myself from them. It says: This shameful thought is not my thought. It was forced upon me.
Thoughts come. I experience them. Often feelings come, too, and I experience those. Sometimes I really don't like the feeling that comes with the "intrusive" thought. And then I clam up. I fight with myself. I argue. I justify. I correct. I judge.
I think I take too much responsibility for my inner world, and I hold my moral standards to what's going on inside of me. I judge myself as "bad" if the thoughts are shameful, if they're things I wouldn't say, thoughts I wouldn't discuss, even for the sake of getting support.
And I react strongly to my thoughts.
That moment where I slam my eyes shut and force my mind blank. The reactive voice that says "that's mean".
The thoughts often come with feelings, and these feelings are not reactive, but merely part of my human experience. But then I have feelings of guilt and shame that follow, and those feelings are reactive.
So I thought through all of this last night. And then I began my meditation proper.
I've long heard the instruction to "observe" thoughts and "let them go", to not become attached to them. But last night was the first time I had a meaningful understanding of this. Last night was the first time I saw a clear distinction between the thoughts that come and the reactivity that follows. I was able to see which part was "happening" and which part I was "doing". I was able to feel it, as there is a particular sensation to it.
In recognizing this, I found myself finally able to observe thoughts, not get pulled into every single one of them, able to be non-reactive.
I've been meditating on-and-off for almost 20 years. I've been meditating almost every night for a year now.
A few days ago, I was feeling bored at the idea of my usual meditation - simple breath awareness: "I know I am breathing in; I know I am breathing out." But I encouraged myself to show up and do this same meditation anyway. That this was an opportunity for growth. That moving through this boredom and disinterest was a way to deepen my practice. I was right.
It's a little amazing to me that ... for quite some time, I've felt fairly stagnant in my meditation practice. It's been great for me mentally. It helps me sleep. It does improve my default mental state. But in terms of depth and spirit, I felt I had stagnated. And now I've had this sort of breakthrough, which helped me go deeper last night than I have in a long time. It feels like I unlocked a new state for my mind to operate in. A healthier state.
And beyond the meditation, to my life as a whole, I've advanced the relationship I have with myself, enhanced the relationship I have with my thoughts. I'm not sure what I will do with the label "intrusive thought". If anything, I believe I will expand it to capture a wider variety of thoughts - both pleasant and unpleasant ones.
I might drop the "intrusive" label all together. I'm not entirely sure it serves me anymore.
I recognize more deeply that thoughts come to me. I hear them, see them. Feelings often come with them. And then I am reactive to those thoughts and feelings.
I am responsible for the actions I take. But I think I need to take less responsibility for the plethora of things that pop up in my head. When I overhear a neighbor say something problematic, I don't take responsibility for that; When I overhear my mind mutter something problematic, perhaps I don't need to own that either. Nor do I need to distance myself from it. Just hear it. It's there. It's okay. I'm okay.
I'm curious to see where this will lead me. I know my meditations will not all be deep. It could be a day, a week, or even several months before I have another meditation like I did last night. These things kind of come-and-go. But this was meaningful for me, powerful for me, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
2026-10-27 04:05:30
Real Life Cartographers place "phantom settlements" on their map so they can prove copyright infringement if other mappers copy their work.
SPOILERS ABOUND
In The Cartographers, these phantom settlements are real, as long as you have the map in-hand when approaching them.
seriously, I'm going to spill the entire plot now
So. This book starts with an absolutely amazing premise - that maps contain magic, that real physical spaces can be created by adding them to maps. This is an idea I absolutely love. This book explores this magical idea to a mediocre degree. Insofar as it deals specifically with the map-magic, I like this book, and it does a pretty decent job. But the overall plot, the character development, and many technical aspects are just ... not very good.
Nell Young was working in the map division at the New York Public Library when she found a 1930s New York State road map. She presented that map, and others, to her father - who led the map division. He was furious and refused to let her start the project. Her boyfriend Felix defended her. They both got fired and Nell spent 7 years not speaking to her father, before he was murdered. Felix and Nell broke up because Felix was mad at Nell for getting him fired.
Nell returns to The Library after her father's murder and finds that old 1930s New York State road map, which has a phantom settlement on it called Agloe. Her Father & Mother had a group back in college, and they called themselves "The Cartographers". Nell reconnects with some of those people while investigating the map and her father's death. It takes awhile, but she learns that Agloe is a phantom settlement and that maps have real magic.
Nell also reconnects with Felix after her father's death, asking him for help with the map. They have a series of problems that are at about a middle-school level of maturity, despite both of them being in their mid-to-late 20s. It's pitiful. They end up on good terms by the end, but god they're both such fucking babies. And Nell (and those around Nell) blame her for the relationship failing, when actually Felix is an asshole. The book and characters in it make Nell responsible for Felix. Like he's mad that she is "putting maps before him". But like, bro, she has her own life, is an individual, and you're a fucking adult. Get over yourself. The maps, and the investigation about her father are NOT ABOUT FELIX. He's being immature and possessive and controlling, and the book seems to think Nell is wrong for not ... obeying.
So anyway. When Nell was 2 years old, 'The Cartographers' found Agloe and started a mapping project. Wally - her mom's best friend - went a little crazy. He scoured the planet for all copies of the 1930s map. The whole friend group had a bunch of drama and problems - petty shit that a tight-knit group (even college-aged) should have been able to work through, at least a little bit. Their story ends when wally sets all the maps on fire, causing Agloe to disappear, and apparently killing Nell's mom.
WELL. Agloe didn't disappear. Nell's mom was alive. She lived in Agloe for 25 years, continuing to work on her map of it. Nell's dad had kept the 1930s map a secret, and Nell's mom had stayed in Agloe, to keep them safe from Wally. The only reason Wally was a danger to anybody is BECAUSE HE WANTED THE FUCKING MAP. The only thing they needed to do to keep Nell & her mom safe was to GIVE WALLY THE MAP. But instead Nell grew up without a mom, her mom spent 25 years isolated from society .... it's just fucking stupid.
In the end, Wally gets arrested for his many crimes, her mom is freed, Agloe is saved, and Nell is revealing Agloe to the world. Felix and Nell will probably reconnect, but we don't know for sure.
My problem with the plot is that ... the central conflicts just are not convincing to me. Wally's motivations are, just ... they don't feel sufficient. Nell's parents' fear of Wally also seems ridiculous - especially since they never re-considered how to handle the situation over the course of 25 years. The relationship issues with Felix are just stupid, and poorly written, and takes a bad perspective, and I don't like it.
And there's a lot of technical issues with the writing, in my opinion. Like early on, there is a cop investigating the murder (and a subsequent break-in to the library) and the interactions with him just feel so ... poorly executed. The dialogue just feels ... idk. Not right.
I actually mostly enjoyed reading this book. But there were so many deficiencies with it.
And it could have done so much more with the map magic. I think the map magic is a really awesome concept, but it just wasn't explored enough. The book was more interested in character drama and internal thought processes than it was in the world it had created. That's really just a personal preference - I care more about the world and the magic stuff. But the character drama wasn't very good. It was frustratingly immature. I want thoughtful characters, mature characters, and characters who grow as people. Characters who make mistakes and take accountability for them. Drama that is born out of deep challenges rather than shallow immaturity. I'm down for some relationship drama. But like ... not when it's just because you're both incapable of having respect for yourselves and eachother.
I have a feeling this book would land really well for younger readers. I was definitely super interested in the over-arching plot. I think less critical readers may find the full plot and the characters satisfying. I never really wanted to stop reading the book. But my dominant feeling when I finished it was "that was fucking stupid". Entertaining story. But ultimately, "fucking stupid" is my opinion.
2026-10-24 11:05:33
I've had butterflies in my tummy for the past 6 hours.
I've been going to an improv class at my local library, and loving it. So our instructor signed us up for an event that is tomorrow - it's a clue-style murder-mystery thing. 5 of us will be playing suspects, while attendees will be investigating the crimes and figuring out who's guilty of which murder.
In 3 months, there have been 3 classes. I feel pretty good about my improv skills, but this is a two hour continuous-improv rather than small games & scenes like we've done in class. I'm excited for it. I think it's going to be a lot of fun, and I think we're going to do great. It's nervewracking too though! I also struggle with my mental health so there's an added layer of "Am I going to be feeling okay tomorrow? Am I going to sleep well tonight?" Let's hope so.
BUT another thing.
So there's this woman, who I've only half-met, who's not from our class, who's also acting tomorrow. And I find her so cute. I've had a crush since I saw their picture in the group chat ... and then during our practice session, she just also seemed really cool.
So I'm planning to ask her out for a cup of coffee ... at the end of the event. Let's not introduce potential awkwardness before we get started lol. I'm really nervous about that though. I might chicken out, but I hope not. I hope she's interested (and single!). It's been a long time since I've been on a date, or even had much interest in going on one.
2026-10-20 03:35:14
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) allows you to vote for multiple candidates on a ballot, putting your favorite first even if you don't think they'll get elected. Without RCV, strategic voting is required - for example, voting for a Democrat instead of Socialist because you really don't want the Republican to get elected.
There are electoral districts that have implemented RCV. In my state, some counties have RCV, even if statewide is choose-one.
Any time we implement RCV, there must be a process that chooses which votes get counted, and which votes get thrown out. Some situations are extremely simple, and have really intuitive answers as to what is "right". Other situations are really tough. For some of the problems, there are purely mathematical solutions, but then choosing which mathematical solutions to apply is an ethical question - an ethical nightmare, even.
One of the questions to answer is: Do we want the most-favored option to win, or the least-objectionable?
Consider. John & Carrie are running for Mayor. Each of them can be ranked as "1", "2", or can be not-selected. John gets 51 "1" votes. Carrie gets "49" 1 votes. John gets ZERO "2" votes. Carrie gets 51 "2" votes.
In this case, Carrie ultimately got 100 votes. John got 51. But John got more first-round picks. We have to decide: Does Carrie, the least-objectionable candidate win? Or does john, who won round-1 win? We can't answer this with math. It is a deep and difficult question, and gets even less intuitive if we change the numbers.
My mindset coming to RCV is that each voter is thinking "If my #1 choice doesn't win, then I'm going to change my vote to _____". And this brings up a question of "when does the vote get changed?"
Consider. Beth, Gary, and Zohran are running for Governor. Each candidate can be given "A", "B", "C", or left unselected. There are 102 voters.
Beth gets gets 51 A votes, and no other votes.
Gary gets 47 A votes, 6 B votes, no C votes.
Zohran gets 4 A votes, and no other votes.
All 4 of the Zohran voters chose Gary as B. 2 Beth voters chose Gary as B. Zohran clearly loses, so Gary gets 4 more votes.
Now it's 51 for Gary against 51 for Beth. But 2 of Beth's voters also approve of Gary, having chosen Gary as their B vote. So does Gary win because more voters approve? Do we call this election a tie & have another election? Does Beth win because she had the most A votes?
This is far from an exhaustive review of how difficult Ranked Choice Voting can be. But I hope you can see that there are deep ethical questions about which votes get counted. That math alone can't solve these problems.
Additionally, RCV ballots are guaranteed to be more complex than simple yes/no ballots. Voters may misunderstand how to use them, and may cast votes they don't intend in their heart, just because of their misunderstanding.
I'm extremely pro-RCV. I'm also interested in proportional-representation, though I'm not studied up on it and I haven't thought deeply about it. RCV has already been implemented in many places, and I'm quite curious what their implementations for vote-counting look like. I'm curious what the scholarly works on RCV math/ethics are.
And I hope you'll work in your community to bring about Ranked Choice Voting. Talk to your local political parties and political orgs. Ask your county clerk how to start a ballot initiative. Ask your State Elections Board what the law is around RCV for your state. Do your fact-finding, then make sure you're going to have the time and energy to really work on it. Get other people to help you.
P.S. You don't need to resolve the complex questions I pose here. Getting RCV approved will lead to a committee or something that figures out the details.
2026-10-20 02:57:00
a long while ago somebody did "silly things I hate" and i posted one and anyway i thought this sounded nice. Numbered to keep count, ordered by when i thought of each one. I started this post in May 2026 & am publishing Oct 19th.
