Snowpocalypse 2015

This snow is just awful. Some of the snow banks were as tall as I am back a week ago. Now, I’m sure they’re taller than me. They have to be.

How many inches of snow have we gotten? I don’t know. Too many. People are saying that it’s more than the Snowpocalypse 1978. I wasn’t around in ’78, so I’ll just have to trust the numbers. It’s been snowing almost every day since this time two weeks ago, probably before, and it’s not going to let up anytime soon, it seems.

The MBTA has been under a ton of stress, and the trains were shut down at 19:00 this evening, and they’re not starting up at all tomorrow. I’ve not been outside today, and I don’t think I’ll be going out tomorrow either. It feels very restricting to be forced to stay in one place all day, even if that’s something I would have done anyway. My choice in the matter is taken away, and that makes it seem more unhappy.

I’ve tried to use this time to be productive, and it’s worked to some degree. Mostly, it’s just been more reason to keep my pyjamas on and drink tea while I do my work. I’ve been spending a lot of the storm this week with a friend of mine who lives pretty close by. Tomorrow is a bad storm day, and public transit is severely limited, so we’ll be stuck inside tomorrow, and we’ve been trying to plan our meals for this particular episode of Snowpocalypse. This is in an attempt to make sure that the food that we’ve got lasts during the worst of this wave of snowfall. We’ve been pretty creative so far, and we’ve got some good ideas for tomorrow. So far, we’ve had a Drunken Noodle-inspired stir fry, a loaf of homemade bread, tortillas with beans and corn, and probably other things that I don’t remember…. Tomorrow is pancakes and curry—separately, of course. Not together.

I’ve also been reading some of Neuroskeptic’s posts recently, and found two today that I found pretty fascinating. This one is about how chance is not already 50% in the field of machine learning. I think that machine learning will continue to grow as one of the best ways to squeeze as much information out of limited imaging data, so I’m glad that people are bringing attention to the flaws in current methods. This one is an interview with Cordelia Fine, author of Delusions of Gender. In the interview, Fine discusses how confirmation bias leads scientists to find an over-abundance of evidence for gender essentialism, even when leading gender scholars agree that gender essentialism is probably not an accurate way to characterize gender. Neuroskeptic also wrote a review of Fine’s book, and I may post that here once I read it.

I’ll keep you updated on how the snow goes, and hopefully I’ll soon have my next (small) project done and ready to talk about. In the meantime, if you’re in the Boston area, stay safe and warm!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s