Lol, that site is about as far from impartial as you can get.
You are confusing "political correctness" to "being correct". In fact, it's often kinda impossible to keep on being "impartial" AND on topic when you start listing facts about something and all of them are quite bad.
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
Not sure where that came from, it is not a quote from my reply to you or wikipedia. You do not source it, so not really sure how it pertains to anything unless it is what you are saying, in which case I am just confused by the quotation marks around it.
That's called caricaturing. Look it up, then look at the quote above in context of the previous post.
That WAS the main thrust of the criticism on the wikipedia page linked to originally though.
Aaaand that is why I said "Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive." to indicate how THAT which is listed on wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg.
And why do you keep jumping back to "not on wikipedia page, not on wikipedia page..."? Haven't you already disregarded it as "Bah, that's only wikipedia"?
I can find you just as many articles saying you shouldn't go to wikipedia looking for factual information either:)
It can't be that you'd want to limit the discussion in such a way that you can then disregard any counterargument with logicalfallacies. That would be silly.
I think it is worth noting though that the main thrust of criticism is not that Gladwell's writing lacks facts, it is instead that they take issue with how he draws conclusions and oversimplification.
Cause saying that oversimplification (a process that by definition MUST not only discard, but also ignore facts) is somehow an alternative to lacking facts sounds exactly like something Malcolm Gladwell would say. Just like presenting false conclusions and oversimplification as a "lesser sin".
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
And no... that's not the "main thrust of criticism". THAT is just the criticism aimed at his books. Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive.
Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?
I am not sure, but I think that it has something to do with the size of the hats. The bigger the hat, the more serious the libel. Which would also explain many a gunfight in the Wild West as stemming from libel aimed at people who wore big hats.
If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions
So a glass of water thrown at a valuable painting is a weapon of mass destruction?
and there is a large number of injured or dead
Cars, skis, swimming pools, common cold, corners of furniture that seem designed for you to stub your toe on, LEGO bricks... Millions get killed or injured by those EVERY DAY!
And don't get me started on A4 paper and the cuts one can get from THAT.
It will be more like a scantily-dressed 18-year-old female yelling "Here I am! Come get me!" in the middle of an ocean, with nothing but said ocean in sight.
I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.
That would be a logical guess, but no. Most of the people I work with are intelligent and educated, but I chose to live within walking distance from work. I spend very little on gasoline, but the tradeoff is that it's a bad neighborhood. I frequent a bar about fifteen blocks away in an even worse part of town. The bar owner also owns a construction company, and his construction workers are straight out of My Name is Earl. Great fodder for writing even if it is a little dangerous. One guy woke up one morning with a broken leg and had no idea how he broke it! Then there's Crazy John who thinks I'm a space alien, he actually believes he was abducted by aliens a few years ago.
Ummm... Sorry to break it to you, but that's a classic example of a cherry picked set.
It's like going to China and concluding based on a survey taken from people you meet there that no one speaks Portuguese. Or going to an NRA meeting and concluding that everyone is against gun control. Or going to an Apple store and concluding that the iPhone is the only brand of mobile phones. Meeting one Frenchman and concluding that everyone in France is named Pierre.
I'm sure there are, and there are also intelligent people who just don't have a sense of humor - I've known people like that, too.
And that's classic confirmation bias. With a side order of ignoratio elenchi.
The "cringe worthy" is a result of it hitting too close to home (and yes, it's made me cringe once or twice for that very reason). The blog posts you link are well written and thought out, but the theme is the same -- "They're making fun of me!"
While that may be true in some cases, it is not necessary to find the quality of jokes to be cringe worthy.
And then there's the empathy issue. Or as someone has put it once - feeling the shame those people on TV are supposed to be feeling in that situation.
I have that issue with Mr. Bean and most modern sitcoms where intended comedy is a product of greed, ignorance, lying and other negative aspects of personalities of the characters involved. With Mr. Bean it always felt to me like someone was trying to make me laugh at a mentally retarded person. Or at least making me watch Rain Man with people who think that movie is a comedy. With stuff like Modern Family it feels as if I'm silently supporting every bad decision those characters are making, and then I'm supposed to be laughing at their misfortune.
I can't think of a single TV comedy that doesn't use pop culture references, and they're often funny and often not.
Naaah... there's a difference. There's occasional use of pop culture references - and then there's basing 90% of jokes on pop culture references alone OR pop culture reference being the joke. With or without a non sequitur. Rickroll. Laugh.
It's a difference between a having an episode with a rodeo clown named John Wayne, and having the whole cast of the show named after serial killers and having them continuously performing acts related to said killers in each episode. I.e. Having a guy called Ted Bundy constantly wearing a cast and driving around in a VW Beetle, both being a recurring joke along with everyone looking at him in a strange way when he introduces himself. It's a sitcom written by Stephen King. Whatever. Just go with it.
Name the guy with the WV Beetle John and the clown Ted - and there's no joke left.
I.e. It was NEVER A JOKE. Just a pop culture reference.
- More dies eaten per American after 1990 than before. - No claims of health benefits in dies - Dies are mostly used with artificial fruit flavor - Died candies, sodas, etc have more calories than fruit &/or water they're simulating,* especially when considering the absorption effects of fruit fiber. - Weight gain (thus, obesity) is based on excessive caloric intake.
Since you seem to have trouble reading let me make it easier for you.
WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STUDIES YOU'RE BASING THOSE CLAIMS ON.
*WTF? Chocolate and Coca Cola are simulating fruit? Which one? I want me some of that fruit.
Here... let me fix that analogy of yours so it reflects reality.
Team A would check every other team's playbook without their knowledge. They would do it by making copies of said playbooks naturally. But they would also by spying on every coach of every team, every player of every team, their family members, neighbors, anyone who ever had any contact with them, including the players, families and everyone even remotely connected to players on the team A.
Would that be OK with you? One team doing all that spying so they could win every, single game? OK?
Since the '90s the US has eaten this synthetic & has also gained a massive obesity spike. Its synthetic nature benefits no one. We don't need fake color to confuse minds into thinking they're seeing fruit.
Would love to see the studies you're basing that claim on.
It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?
Nope.
You kinda missed the point there. It's called a stunt. You know... basing the episode around an act intended to catch you attention instead of on actual story or plot. Or humor.
Occam says A in this case.
Actually, Occam says it's what I mentioned above - cherry picking. Also, confirmation bias.
I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set. Also, that you did no actual statistical analysis on the subject NOR actual inquiry into WHY those and other people find it not funny.
In other words, all your "conclusions" are actually based on time honored theory of "I like this, this is great, those who don't like it are stupid".
On the other hand, there are vast numbers of sources pointing out that many of people who don't find TBBT funny or likeable ARE quite intelligent and that they get the intended joke - only they find it not funny at best and cringe worthy at other times.
BTW, have you noticed just how much of it's humor is based on a) pop culture references, b) catch phrases and c) laugh track? Neither of which is humor. One is basic recognition (which presses some of the same buttons in your brain as "getting a joke") and the other two are borderline Pavlovian prods to try to incite laughter. "LAUGH MONKEY BOY! LAUGH! BEJEZUZ! ZIMBABWE! BLOOBLOOBLUBLU! LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE LAUGHING! IT IS SOOOO FUNNY! LAAAAUGH!"
While we're on the subject of pop culture references... American Dad and Family Guy for instance do A LOT of the "pop culture instead of humor" thing. Basically, all of its humor is in those bits that have no connection to the story otherwise. Not sure about the older episodes but relatively recent seasons of The Simpsons are doing the same thing. Except instead of cutting away to completely unrelated characters it's one of the usual clowns (Homer, Wiggum Sr. or Jr. etc.) that does the "IT'S FUNNY! LAUGH!" bit.
Chickens don't have teeth. Instead, they ingest small stones, sand, and other coarse material and they keep it in their gizzard to grind the food with.
If you were keeping them on a concrete or grassy surface they were very likely forced to eat their own poop just to fill their gizzards with anything coarse.
The carminic acid used to produce the pigment can also be extracted from various microbes engineered for the purpose. Microbes are dissolved in a containment structure separate from their cultivation vats, and then allowed to settle out. The liquid and suspended carminic acid is then siphoned off, and metal salts are then added to give a lake pigment in a procedure that is mostly identical to the procedure for acid extracted from insects.
The carminic acid used to produce the pigment can also be extracted from various microbes engineered for the purpose. Microbes are dissolved in a containment structure separate from their cultivation vats, and then allowed to settle out. The liquid and suspended carminic acid is then siphoned off, and metal salts are then added to give a lake pigment in a procedure that is mostly identical to the procedure for acid extracted from insects.
Also, the European Union bit:
As of January, 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has changed the way they manufacture Carmine E120 for pharmaceutical products. The EFSA had raised concerns, over the increasing number of allergic reactions to Carmine derived from insects (E120.360), when used within the British pharmacopeia. Pharmaceutical products which had previously contained insect-derived carmine, have been replaced with a synthesised version of the food colorant.
radius (n.) Look up radius at Dictionary.com
1590s, "cross-shaft," from Latin radius "staff, stake, rod; spoke of a wheel; ray of light, beam of light; radius of a circle," of unknown origin. Perhaps related to radix "root," but Tucker suggests connection to Sanskrit vardhate "rises, makes grow," via root *neredh- "rise, out, extend forth;" or else Greek ardis "sharp point."
The geometric sense first recorded 1610s. Plural is radii. Meaning "circular area of defined distance around some place" is attested from 1953. Meaning "shorter bone of the forearm" is from 1610s in English (the Latin word had been used thus by the Romans).
Cause when we reach a certain ratio of wireless devices to humans, people who are allergic to WiFi will start spontaneously combusting in the street.
So make sure you have your WiFi capable cameraphone with you in case you bump into one of those. It will make a great twit-post on your face-place wall thingy.
On a side note... That's a whole lot of lithium. Just sayin...
"When you start releasing info on yet to be confirmed or released hardware, services and sdk's, which are then verified, then you can take the piss."
Instead of:
"I'll take your word for it when you start releasing info on yet to be confirmed or released hardware, services and sdk's, which are then verified."
I don't know... Your line still sounds a bit too confrontational and criticizing of OP's right to joke, instead of like pointing out the credibility of said \m/-1337-h4x0r-\m/.
It's a sitcom for people who enjoy laughing at stereotypes presented in that show.
It's like a show about Asian people where the punchline is "those crazy Asians - they're so funny when they're all Asian and stuff". Or a show about black people where the punchline is "them crazy niggers - they're so funny when they're black and stuff". Or a show about women where the punchline is "those crazy cunts - they're so funny when they're all cunty and stuff".
Cases above were inspired by a colleague's review of "Will & Grace". It went something like "Do you watch Will and Grace? Those homos are so funny".
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, that site is about as far from impartial as you can get.
You are confusing "political correctness" to "being correct".
In fact, it's often kinda impossible to keep on being "impartial" AND on topic when you start listing facts about something and all of them are quite bad.
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
Not sure where that came from, it is not a quote from my reply to you or wikipedia. You do not source it, so not really sure how it pertains to anything unless it is what you are saying, in which case I am just confused by the quotation marks around it.
That's called caricaturing. Look it up, then look at the quote above in context of the previous post.
That WAS the main thrust of the criticism on the wikipedia page linked to originally though.
Aaaand that is why I said "Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive." to indicate how THAT which is listed on wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg.
And why do you keep jumping back to "not on wikipedia page, not on wikipedia page..."?
Haven't you already disregarded it as "Bah, that's only wikipedia"?
I can find you just as many articles saying you shouldn't go to wikipedia looking for factual information either :)
It can't be that you'd want to limit the discussion in such a way that you can then disregard any counterargument with logical fallacies.
That would be silly.
I think it is worth noting though that the main thrust of criticism is not that Gladwell's writing lacks facts, it is instead that they take issue with how he draws conclusions and oversimplification.
Cause saying that oversimplification (a process that by definition MUST not only discard, but also ignore facts) is somehow an alternative to lacking facts sounds exactly like something Malcolm Gladwell would say.
Just like presenting false conclusions and oversimplification as a "lesser sin".
"No, no, no... They don't say his writing lacks facts to back it up. They only have issues with the fact that he's drawing conclusions out of his ass and making up a 'better' version of facts cause he didn't understand the original, boring ones."
And no... that's not the "main thrust of criticism". THAT is just the criticism aimed at his books.
Criticism of Gladwell is more extensive.
Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?
I am not sure, but I think that it has something to do with the size of the hats. The bigger the hat, the more serious the libel.
Which would also explain many a gunfight in the Wild West as stemming from libel aimed at people who wore big hats.
...post on Dan's Data already?
He covered most options available for what you want back in 2009, and apparently he did an update in 2011.
http://www.dansdata.com/gz094.htm
If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions
So a glass of water thrown at a valuable painting is a weapon of mass destruction?
and there is a large number of injured or dead
Cars, skis, swimming pools, common cold, corners of furniture that seem designed for you to stub your toe on, LEGO bricks...
Millions get killed or injured by those EVERY DAY!
And don't get me started on A4 paper and the cuts one can get from THAT.
It will be more like a scantily-dressed 18-year-old female yelling "Here I am! Come get me!" in the middle of an ocean, with nothing but said ocean in sight.
I didn't ask for him to pronounce me his enemy. Now I'm a troll?
Where did you guys go to moderator school?
... your onus is showing.
But as I am good sport... I'll give you not one but TWO examples.
And to think that George Carlin died without (probably) learning about that.
I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.
That would be a logical guess, but no. Most of the people I work with are intelligent and educated, but I chose to live within walking distance from work. I spend very little on gasoline, but the tradeoff is that it's a bad neighborhood. I frequent a bar about fifteen blocks away in an even worse part of town. The bar owner also owns a construction company, and his construction workers are straight out of My Name is Earl. Great fodder for writing even if it is a little dangerous. One guy woke up one morning with a broken leg and had no idea how he broke it! Then there's Crazy John who thinks I'm a space alien, he actually believes he was abducted by aliens a few years ago.
Ummm... Sorry to break it to you, but that's a classic example of a cherry picked set.
It's like going to China and concluding based on a survey taken from people you meet there that no one speaks Portuguese.
Or going to an NRA meeting and concluding that everyone is against gun control.
Or going to an Apple store and concluding that the iPhone is the only brand of mobile phones.
Meeting one Frenchman and concluding that everyone in France is named Pierre.
I'm sure there are, and there are also intelligent people who just don't have a sense of humor - I've known people like that, too.
And that's classic confirmation bias. With a side order of ignoratio elenchi.
The "cringe worthy" is a result of it hitting too close to home (and yes, it's made me cringe once or twice for that very reason). The blog posts you link are well written and thought out, but the theme is the same -- "They're making fun of me!"
While that may be true in some cases, it is not necessary to find the quality of jokes to be cringe worthy.
And then there's the empathy issue.
Or as someone has put it once - feeling the shame those people on TV are supposed to be feeling in that situation.
I have that issue with Mr. Bean and most modern sitcoms where intended comedy is a product of greed, ignorance, lying and other negative aspects of personalities of the characters involved.
With Mr. Bean it always felt to me like someone was trying to make me laugh at a mentally retarded person. Or at least making me watch Rain Man with people who think that movie is a comedy.
With stuff like Modern Family it feels as if I'm silently supporting every bad decision those characters are making, and then I'm supposed to be laughing at their misfortune.
I can't think of a single TV comedy that doesn't use pop culture references, and they're often funny and often not.
Naaah... there's a difference.
There's occasional use of pop culture references - and then there's basing 90% of jokes on pop culture references alone OR pop culture reference being the joke.
With or without a non sequitur. Rickroll. Laugh.
It's a difference between a having an episode with a rodeo clown named John Wayne, and having the whole cast of the show named after serial killers and having them continuously performing acts related to said killers in each episode.
I.e. Having a guy called Ted Bundy constantly wearing a cast and driving around in a VW Beetle, both being a recurring joke along with everyone looking at him in a strange way when he introduces himself.
It's a sitcom written by Stephen King. Whatever. Just go with it.
Name the guy with the WV Beetle John and the clown Ted - and there's no joke left.
I.e. It was NEVER A JOKE. Just a pop culture reference.
Leila turns 27 today
Happy Birthday to her then. :)
- More dies eaten per American after 1990 than before.
- No claims of health benefits in dies
- Dies are mostly used with artificial fruit flavor
- Died candies, sodas, etc have more calories than fruit &/or water they're simulating,* especially when considering the absorption effects of fruit fiber.
- Weight gain (thus, obesity) is based on excessive caloric intake.
Since you seem to have trouble reading let me make it easier for you.
WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STUDIES YOU'RE BASING THOSE CLAIMS ON.
*WTF? Chocolate and Coca Cola are simulating fruit? Which one? I want me some of that fruit.
...and yet how off the mark you are.
Here... let me fix that analogy of yours so it reflects reality.
Team A would check every other team's playbook without their knowledge.
They would do it by making copies of said playbooks naturally.
But they would also by spying on every coach of every team, every player of every team, their family members, neighbors, anyone who ever had any contact with them, including the players, families and everyone even remotely connected to players on the team A.
Would that be OK with you? One team doing all that spying so they could win every, single game? OK?
Now imagine that team A is Russia.
I only write this to announce that I accept your animosity and give you in turn my own.
To the death, then! Knave.
P.S.: I think it is: Mit der Dummheit kÃmpfen selbst GÃtter vergebens
Blame Schiller.
Since the '90s the US has eaten this synthetic & has also gained a massive obesity spike. Its synthetic nature benefits no one. We don't need fake color to confuse minds into thinking they're seeing fruit.
Would love to see the studies you're basing that claim on.
It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?
Nope.
You kinda missed the point there. It's called a stunt.
You know... basing the episode around an act intended to catch you attention instead of on actual story or plot. Or humor.
Occam says A in this case.
Actually, Occam says it's what I mentioned above - cherry picking. Also, confirmation bias.
I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.
Also, that you did no actual statistical analysis on the subject NOR actual inquiry into WHY those and other people find it not funny.
In other words, all your "conclusions" are actually based on time honored theory of "I like this, this is great, those who don't like it are stupid".
On the other hand, there are vast numbers of sources pointing out that many of people who don't find TBBT funny or likeable ARE quite intelligent and that they get the intended joke - only they find it not funny at best and cringe worthy at other times.
http://bigbangmistakes.tumblr.com/whydoesitsuck
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9112031
http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2013/01/my-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
BTW, have you noticed just how much of it's humor is based on a) pop culture references, b) catch phrases and c) laugh track?
Neither of which is humor.
One is basic recognition (which presses some of the same buttons in your brain as "getting a joke") and the other two are borderline Pavlovian prods to try to incite laughter.
"LAUGH MONKEY BOY! LAUGH! BEJEZUZ! ZIMBABWE! BLOOBLOOBLUBLU! LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE LAUGHING! IT IS SOOOO FUNNY! LAAAAUGH!"
While we're on the subject of pop culture references...
American Dad and Family Guy for instance do A LOT of the "pop culture instead of humor" thing.
Basically, all of its humor is in those bits that have no connection to the story otherwise.
Not sure about the older episodes but relatively recent seasons of The Simpsons are doing the same thing.
Except instead of cutting away to completely unrelated characters it's one of the usual clowns (Homer, Wiggum Sr. or Jr. etc.) that does the "IT'S FUNNY! LAUGH!" bit.
Or small sharp stones?
Chickens don't have teeth.
Instead, they ingest small stones, sand, and other coarse material and they keep it in their gizzard to grind the food with.
If you were keeping them on a concrete or grassy surface they were very likely forced to eat their own poop just to fill their gizzards with anything coarse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine#Production
The carminic acid used to produce the pigment can also be extracted from various microbes engineered for the purpose. Microbes are dissolved in a containment structure separate from their cultivation vats, and then allowed to settle out. The liquid and suspended carminic acid is then siphoned off, and metal salts are then added to give a lake pigment in a procedure that is mostly identical to the procedure for acid extracted from insects.
Aslo, it has been synthesized since the '90s.
Like the production part.
The carminic acid used to produce the pigment can also be extracted from various microbes engineered for the purpose. Microbes are dissolved in a containment structure separate from their cultivation vats, and then allowed to settle out. The liquid and suspended carminic acid is then siphoned off, and metal salts are then added to give a lake pigment in a procedure that is mostly identical to the procedure for acid extracted from insects.
Also, the European Union bit:
As of January, 2012, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has changed the way they manufacture Carmine E120 for pharmaceutical products. The EFSA had raised concerns, over the increasing number of allergic reactions to Carmine derived from insects (E120.360), when used within the British pharmacopeia. Pharmaceutical products which had previously contained insect-derived carmine, have been replaced with a synthesised version of the food colorant.
Or the radicle.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=radius
radius (n.) Look up radius at Dictionary.com
1590s, "cross-shaft," from Latin radius "staff, stake, rod; spoke of a wheel; ray of light, beam of light; radius of a circle," of unknown origin. Perhaps related to radix "root," but Tucker suggests connection to Sanskrit vardhate "rises, makes grow," via root *neredh- "rise, out, extend forth;" or else Greek ardis "sharp point."
The geometric sense first recorded 1610s. Plural is radii. Meaning "circular area of defined distance around some place" is attested from 1953. Meaning "shorter bone of the forearm" is from 1610s in English (the Latin word had been used thus by the Romans).
Cause when we reach a certain ratio of wireless devices to humans, people who are allergic to WiFi will start spontaneously combusting in the street.
So make sure you have your WiFi capable cameraphone with you in case you bump into one of those.
It will make a great twit-post on your face-place wall thingy.
On a side note... That's a whole lot of lithium. Just sayin...
A show about factory workers would have those factory workers shooting a high powered laser at the moon?
It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?
and the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts.
Correlation is not causation.
It's often not even correlation but a case of a cherry picked set.
You just accidentally wrote:
"When you start releasing info on yet to be confirmed or released hardware, services and sdk's, which are then verified, then you can take the piss."
Instead of:
"I'll take your word for it when you start releasing info on yet to be confirmed or released hardware, services and sdk's, which are then verified."
I don't know...
Your line still sounds a bit too confrontational and criticizing of OP's right to joke, instead of like pointing out the credibility of said \m/-1337-h4x0r-\m/.
It's a sitcom for people who enjoy laughing at stereotypes presented in that show.
It's like a show about Asian people where the punchline is "those crazy Asians - they're so funny when they're all Asian and stuff".
Or a show about black people where the punchline is "them crazy niggers - they're so funny when they're black and stuff".
Or a show about women where the punchline is "those crazy cunts - they're so funny when they're all cunty and stuff".
Cases above were inspired by a colleague's review of "Will & Grace".
It went something like "Do you watch Will and Grace? Those homos are so funny".
...about stairs and elevators shafts?
Following such way of thinking, you'd have to conquer most of Europe and murder 6 million Jews before you could "take the piss" out of Hitler.
Don't forget commissioning a small economic car and being a vegetarian painter while doing all that.