The Pure Emotions, in Piano Music

Below are 13 emotions and dispositions along with a work that I feel comes closest to epitomizing and capturing that particular emotion in piano music.

Joy
Beethoven: Piano Sonata, Op. 81a, III. Vivacissimamente

Grief
Chopin: Nocturne, Op. 48 No. 1

Serenity
Schubert: Impromptu, Op. 90 No. 3

Rage
Scriabin: Etude, Op. 8 No. 12

Terror
Chopin: Polonaise, Op. 44

Jocularity
Beethoven: Piano Sonata, Op. 31 No. 1, I. Allegro vivace

Snark
Prokofiev: Piano Sonata, Op. 14, II. Scherzo: Allegro marcato

Insanity
Liszt: Transcendental Etude, S. 139 No. 8

Unstoppableness
Prokofiev: Piano Sonata, Op. 83, III. Precipitato

Grandeur
Liszt: Transcendental Etude, S. 139 No. 11

Valor
Chopin: Polonaise, Op. 40 No. 1

Gratitude
Beethoven: Piano Sonata, Op. 90, II. Nicht zu geschwind und sehr singbar vorgetragen

Wonder
Chopin: Fantasie, Op. 49

I have actually only played four of these pieces, and only three of them in serious study. (Guess which ones if you want to.) Also share your opinions on pieces that exemplify these emotions if you wish!

Trick-Taking Card Games

Consider one round of a four-player trick-taking card game with no trumps and no breakages (for instance, if hearts did not need to be broken in Hearts). (That is, players must follow suit of the first card played in the trick unless they can’t.) How many of the 52! orderings of cards represent a legal order in which the cards could be played in the round?

To provide examples, any ordering that starts

6♣,K♣,Q♢,10♣,A♣,J♣,3♣,K♢,…

is illegal, as [6♣,K♣,Q♢,10♣] constitutes the first trick, and thus the player who played the K♣ starts the next trick, and thus the player after them has broken the rules as they clearly have at least one club (the J♣ they played this trick) that they did not play last trick (where they played a Q♢), but

2♣,2♢,2♡,2♠,3♣,3♢,3♡,3♠,4♣,4♢,4♡,4♠,…,A♣,A♢,A♡,A♠

is, as it turns out in this case the four parties were each dealt all the cards of one suit, and thus subsequent players will never be able to follow suit of the first player.

Here are some ideas for extensions: have a trump suit, have a breakage rule, have both, solve this for Napoleon.

Pokémon Go: Stats Upon Level 30

(Note: most of these statistics are as collected by the app. The app’s statistics are at times questionable.)

Today at 1759 Eastern Time, I reached Level 30 in Pokémon Go, by evolving a Pidgey, reaching 2000065 XP).

Here’s a snapshot of my stats at this point.

I started playing Pokémon Go on August 26. That means that I reached Level 30 on Day 92. I didn’t keep a record of which days I reached levels in general, but I know I reached Level 19 by Day 12, and looking back at my chatlogs, I was Level 25 on Day 51, and I reached Level 29 on Day 87.

My buddy is currently a Charmander. Previously, it was a Bellsprout, and before that, a Dratini. I have walked 36.4 km with this Charmander so far.

My Pokémon are currently at 247/250.
My eggs are currently at 8/9.
My items are currently at 442/350, specifically:
16x Potion
11x Super Potion
29x Hyper Potion
248x Max Potion
41x Revive
20x Max Revive
8x Lucky Egg
5x Incense
30x Ultra Ball
5x Lure Module
24x Razz Berry
Camera
Egg Incubator ∞

(I have used 0 Max Potions so far. I have a total of 2 Pokémon for which a Max Potion is distinguishable in effect from a Hyper Potion, and the occasion hasn’t come where I’d need to use it yet, and I’m mostly seeing how many I can rack up before I feel my bag is too annoying to handle.)

Pokédex: 113
Pokémon Caught: 4670
Evolutions: 734
Pokéstop Visits: 6823
Distance Walked: 428.7 km
Eggs Hatched: 111
Gym Battles Won: 962
Gym Trainings: 251

Continue reading “Pokémon Go: Stats Upon Level 30”

All US Presidential Elections Where One State Could Have Changed the Winner

14 of the 58 elections in US history were close enough that at least one state could have unilaterally changed the winner of the election.

3rd election: Adams-Jefferson (any of NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, or MD)
4th election: Jefferson-Adams (any of NY, PA, MD, VA, NC, or SC)
7th election: Madison-Clinton (either PA or VA)
15th election: Polk-Clay (NY)
16th election: Taylor-Cass (either NY or PA)
23rd election: Hayes-Tilden (any of ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, PA, SC, FL, OH, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, LA, KS, NE, CO, NV, CA, or OR) (winner lost the popular vote)
24th election: Garfield-Hancock (NY)
25th election: Cleveland-Blaine (NY)
26th election: Harrison-Cleveland (NY) (winner lost the popular vote)
33rd election: Wilson-Hughes (any of VA, NC, GA, AL, TN, KY, OH, MO, TX, or CA)
48th election: Carter-Ford (NY)
54th election: Bush-Gore (any of WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, KY, OH, IN, MO, AR, LA, TX, OK, KS, CO, AZ, UT, ID, or NV) (winner lost the popular vote)
55th election: Bush-Kerry (any of FL, OH, or TX)
58th election: Trump-Clinton (TX) (winner lost the popular vote)

What is interesting is that according to rankings of American presidents by scholars, most of America’s worst presidents were elected by landslides: the eight presidents with the lowest average ranking in polls of scholars consist of three that were presidents by succession and five for which elections they won do not make this list. Expand to the twelve worst and include George W. Bush and Zachary Taylor, whose elections do make this list, but also include Richard Nixon, who won the second-greatest landslide in US presidential election history.

There also exist ranked-excellently presidents that won their elections by landslides. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won all four of his as such, and Abraham Lincoln, although his second election is a special case due to no Confederate states being in the election.

The Place of Words

Words are the massive improvement civilization agreed upon that nearly always makes results for both camps of a disagreement better than what it would have been with sticks and stones. Their gradual increased protection is a contract for the members of humankind to be more willing to listen to others’ perspectives, however much one finds them appalling, rather than default to fighting with those in disagreement to advance one’s agenda, as the worst case scenario involves only the wound of time and the average case scenario is one of increased understanding between the two parties, even if possibly not an increased liking of the other.

In order to achieve this understanding, one must sufficiently incentivize the other to be willing to frankly speak their mind, particularly, to have this be a more desired outcome than to reap the gain of staying silent while secretly promoting one’s agenda. To continuously vilify the other camp to a degree never before, regardless of the degree to which the apparent core principles of the other camp are vilifiable, is to drastically remove the opportunities one has to understand the feelings, thoughts, ideas, and opinions pervading the other camp, and to be able to oneself act accordingly, and to incentivize the clouding of the true numbers of the other camp. If someone from across the aisle claims to feel silenced, and you call bullshit on that, you may be right, but there is no greater evidence that the other side has legitimately felt silenced than if their numbers turn out vastly greater than anyone on your side imagined.

The Inbreeding of Thought

Once tools have been made to be smart, to know what makes a user happy, and to reflect on these detections to tell people only that which they want to hear, to show people only that which they want to see, to expose people only to arguments for their belief, the inevitable end of the line is separate camps, preconvinced of the illegitimacy of the other, able to understand the other only as an unfathomable evil entity, and incapable of communicating with the other beyond the condemnation of the other as a singular evil.

Toxicity

Challenge: order the following substances by toxicity. (One could measure this, for instance, in terms of how little one needs to ingest to die. (More scientifically, LD50: the median lethal dose.))compounds