There is a game that is somewhat an RPG but has that puzzle element and card collecting element that makes it stand out from other games. The title is "Spirit Stones" and the game is well made. Yes it is a fantasy setting. Yes there are fighters and mages and monsters and elves and whatever else would be found in a fantasy setting. And, yes, the women are mostly scantily clad in either armor or the most flimsy of costumes.
(The fact that even a few of the women are fully clothed does surprise me.)
The scantily clad women are not my point of contention. The sticky sexism that I would like to point out is that whenever a MALE character is advanced to a final evolution (also known as "upgrading") it CANNOT BE MERGED with another card to make a Rare rank card. Most of the evolved cards presenting female characters can be merged with other evolved cards to make Rare rank cards (which also present females). In others words, it sucks to be a guy.
I claim sexism because the main mechanic in the game is not the RPG or the card collecting, but the match-3 game you use to attack the monsters. In the current app environment a match-3 game is considered "casual" and targeted primarily at "females". I propose that by allowing only female cards to be advanced beyond the evolution rank that the game objectifies women and only targets men (or "males" if you want to include age ranges) for this game.
It is a fun game and both genders can play, but the pandering and the gender bent holds back the potential for this game to really catch on in the mainstream. (Just think of all those "nerd" women who play match-3 games AND role-playing games.)
Addendum: I found that there is a card with a male character that, when combined with a female character, makes a more powerful female rare card. I admit that I was wrong.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
You Can't Say It Is Art
I am not an artist. I might draw a picture and people may say something about it but no one with working eyes and a sane mind would say my art is "artistic". If a person did say that, then I would question their motives. And their inclinations. And their tastes. And their really dry sense of humor.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Well, It's a Guess
I just got a new prescription for my glasses and the headaches are going away. I am closer to looking at a screen and not having headaches, though turning my head quickly causes a visual imbalance for me.
I just watched a video from Numberphile and they were talking about Brown Numbers. I won't go into what a Brown Number is (they do a great job at explaining it) but I will talk about what they said about how many Brown Numbers there are. A mathematician conjectured that there are only three pairs of Brown Numbers.
Mathematicians makes conjectures all the time. It's a kind of hypothesis but with different rules. The point of conjectures, as I understand it from the video, is that a mathematician has a set of rules, sees it work for a finite number of values, and then makes a guess that the rest of the (infinite amount) of values that the rule set is true. That is the short of it. However, the conjecture must be a guess that has some merit or quality that could make it a worthy conjecture. (I am using worthy to distinguish off the cuff guesses from formal problems.)
My previous article about assumptions fits the form of conjecture perfectly. However, I don't think any mathematician worth their weight in salt would shake a finger at my conjecture. Again, to reiterate what I said in that earlier article, my conjecture attacks the very foundation of mathematics. It says that the current basic rules of mathematics is nothing but a simplistic way of viewing the complete mathematical universe, that we are blind to the myriad ways that the universe can be constructed outside our experiences.
The point of this article, however, is not about my conjecture but if I should name my conjecture. To name it after myself (I'd use my real name and not HardWearJunkie) would be grand. Proven or disproven, my name would be remembered as a nearly insurmountable mathematical problem. It would be like carving your name into the earth using a galactic shovel and digging as deep as the Grand Canyon. Or at least it would feel like that.
Alas, I am just a layman and creating my conjecture is nothing but a science fiction author reaching for the next universe.
I just watched a video from Numberphile and they were talking about Brown Numbers. I won't go into what a Brown Number is (they do a great job at explaining it) but I will talk about what they said about how many Brown Numbers there are. A mathematician conjectured that there are only three pairs of Brown Numbers.
Mathematicians makes conjectures all the time. It's a kind of hypothesis but with different rules. The point of conjectures, as I understand it from the video, is that a mathematician has a set of rules, sees it work for a finite number of values, and then makes a guess that the rest of the (infinite amount) of values that the rule set is true. That is the short of it. However, the conjecture must be a guess that has some merit or quality that could make it a worthy conjecture. (I am using worthy to distinguish off the cuff guesses from formal problems.)
My previous article about assumptions fits the form of conjecture perfectly. However, I don't think any mathematician worth their weight in salt would shake a finger at my conjecture. Again, to reiterate what I said in that earlier article, my conjecture attacks the very foundation of mathematics. It says that the current basic rules of mathematics is nothing but a simplistic way of viewing the complete mathematical universe, that we are blind to the myriad ways that the universe can be constructed outside our experiences.
The point of this article, however, is not about my conjecture but if I should name my conjecture. To name it after myself (I'd use my real name and not HardWearJunkie) would be grand. Proven or disproven, my name would be remembered as a nearly insurmountable mathematical problem. It would be like carving your name into the earth using a galactic shovel and digging as deep as the Grand Canyon. Or at least it would feel like that.
Alas, I am just a layman and creating my conjecture is nothing but a science fiction author reaching for the next universe.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Sarcasm: Humanity Should be CENSORED!
Normally, I would be against censorship. Open access to knowledge for every breeds freedom, drowns bigotry (or at least tries to), and enriches everyone's life.
There are some things, however, I probably would have been fine to have censored. On Wikipedia (I blame them for my current mental damage) I looked up what "twerking" meant. They described it as (paraphrasing) "the shaking of the buttocks in a back-and-forth fast vertical manner". And they provided a link to a video.
I clicked the video. I watched. And now I WANT TO UNWATCH IT!
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?! Whose idea was it to shake their ass in that way? Who thought it looked good?
I had a gag reflex when the woman started twerking. Now I know why everyone is talking about it. It's a hideous motion that captures the awful, depraved brain cells of perverts and lecherous old men!
Say all you want about Elvis and his hip shaking. That was a tremble compared to that Wiki video! I'm not sure the ass is supposed to move like that. It's easy to shake it left to right and make it wobble in a circular fashion. That seems normal. Good on all the dancing where that happens. The twerking is NOT a standard motion. That motion is associated with sex. Why would you want that revolting movement tied to the conception of your children?
Now I need to sterilize my mouth because I'm about the hurl. Again.
There are some things, however, I probably would have been fine to have censored. On Wikipedia (I blame them for my current mental damage) I looked up what "twerking" meant. They described it as (paraphrasing) "the shaking of the buttocks in a back-and-forth fast vertical manner". And they provided a link to a video.
I clicked the video. I watched. And now I WANT TO UNWATCH IT!
Who the hell thought this was a good idea?! Whose idea was it to shake their ass in that way? Who thought it looked good?
I had a gag reflex when the woman started twerking. Now I know why everyone is talking about it. It's a hideous motion that captures the awful, depraved brain cells of perverts and lecherous old men!
Say all you want about Elvis and his hip shaking. That was a tremble compared to that Wiki video! I'm not sure the ass is supposed to move like that. It's easy to shake it left to right and make it wobble in a circular fashion. That seems normal. Good on all the dancing where that happens. The twerking is NOT a standard motion. That motion is associated with sex. Why would you want that revolting movement tied to the conception of your children?
Now I need to sterilize my mouth because I'm about the hurl. Again.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
About Consequences of Assumptions
In a previous entry I wrote that numbers do not exist. And though Vi-Hart (or is it Vi-Heart?) has demonstrated that nature seems to use the Fibonacci series to design seeds, pine cones, sea shells, and a plethora of flora plants, I still do not believe that nature creates numbers, but that nature uses amounts, quantities, and (now that I think about it) ratios. The fact that Vi has pointed out the numbers are part of the Fibonacci series could just mean that nature uses convenient ratios that match up to our observations.
Then I remember a joke in one of my High Level Mathematics Classes (or maybe it was my High Level Engineering class) where a professor was talking about the three dimensional math that physicists use.
Here is the story. There was a set of equations that the Physicist could not solve because an inequality was always coming up. The professor was using, at the time, i-hat, j-hat, and k-hat to indicate the directions of normal space. (Engineers and physicists use different terms to separate their work from mathematical work to avoid "confusion".)
The Engineer came along and asked to see the work. The Physicist showed the equations and challenged his friend to solve it. So the Engineer looked at the problem and then, with one stroke of the pen (or chalk if the story was using a chalkboard) placed a negative sign in front of the k-hat.
The physicist looked at the equations and found that the equations were then solvable. He turned to the Engineer and asked, "But why should it be negative?"
To which the Engineer replied, "I don't care. I just know that it works."
For many scientists and intellectuals, the need to know keeps them going forward. The universe does not make sense unless it can be made to make sense. In order to do that, we as a species invented numbers and assigned them values that correlate to the observable universe.
At the time numbers were invented, however, the observable universe could only be seen with the naked eye. Everything before Einstein (I believe) is now called Classical Physics and, within those rules, numbers worked perfectly. They described how the Earth moved and how liquid behaves and how we can breathe.
Everything after Einstein, however, showed that Classical Physics is a special case of Relative Physics. That there are other states of being besides our own has led to new branches of mathematics and theoretical physics that stump even me.
And still I ponder if we are correct. That if our Classical Physics is a special case of Relative Physics, then what if our (to make a correlation) Classical Mathematics is an actual special case of Universal Mathematics. What if the math our high school teachers gave us and that our university professors depend on is just one form of math that we made to fit our view of the universe. Maybe we need a new set of Math rules to help understand our new view of the universe.
Many will say that is what we are doing today. The math today is based on rules like 2+2=4. What if there are other states of being where 2+2=5? Or where 2+2=2. Why are we using math that is based on Classical observations instead of math based on Relativistic observations?
What if our assumptions of math are wrong outside of our existence? What do we do then?
Then I remember a joke in one of my High Level Mathematics Classes (or maybe it was my High Level Engineering class) where a professor was talking about the three dimensional math that physicists use.
Here is the story. There was a set of equations that the Physicist could not solve because an inequality was always coming up. The professor was using, at the time, i-hat, j-hat, and k-hat to indicate the directions of normal space. (Engineers and physicists use different terms to separate their work from mathematical work to avoid "confusion".)
The Engineer came along and asked to see the work. The Physicist showed the equations and challenged his friend to solve it. So the Engineer looked at the problem and then, with one stroke of the pen (or chalk if the story was using a chalkboard) placed a negative sign in front of the k-hat.
The physicist looked at the equations and found that the equations were then solvable. He turned to the Engineer and asked, "But why should it be negative?"
To which the Engineer replied, "I don't care. I just know that it works."
For many scientists and intellectuals, the need to know keeps them going forward. The universe does not make sense unless it can be made to make sense. In order to do that, we as a species invented numbers and assigned them values that correlate to the observable universe.
At the time numbers were invented, however, the observable universe could only be seen with the naked eye. Everything before Einstein (I believe) is now called Classical Physics and, within those rules, numbers worked perfectly. They described how the Earth moved and how liquid behaves and how we can breathe.
Everything after Einstein, however, showed that Classical Physics is a special case of Relative Physics. That there are other states of being besides our own has led to new branches of mathematics and theoretical physics that stump even me.
And still I ponder if we are correct. That if our Classical Physics is a special case of Relative Physics, then what if our (to make a correlation) Classical Mathematics is an actual special case of Universal Mathematics. What if the math our high school teachers gave us and that our university professors depend on is just one form of math that we made to fit our view of the universe. Maybe we need a new set of Math rules to help understand our new view of the universe.
Many will say that is what we are doing today. The math today is based on rules like 2+2=4. What if there are other states of being where 2+2=5? Or where 2+2=2. Why are we using math that is based on Classical observations instead of math based on Relativistic observations?
What if our assumptions of math are wrong outside of our existence? What do we do then?
Saturday, July 13, 2013
What Else Was I to Say?
Blarg!
Just...Blarg!
That, and new work boots. Same design as my previous pair. Previous pair demanded to retire.
Just...Blarg!
That, and new work boots. Same design as my previous pair. Previous pair demanded to retire.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
A New Pair of...Well, They're Not Eyes...
The previous computer I had came from my father. He dropped the laptop on the floor and cracked the screen. To compensate I lent him my old CRT monitor. It worked fine, but he wasn't satisfied with it. Then he got a Macbook Air (I think).
I got a better screen so I can use his old laptop. However, that computer became wonky with Blue Screen of Death reboots all over the place. Even when I was using Microsoft Word and nothing else I would still get a BSoD.
So, I get a new computer. It works like a charm, even though it's a desktop tower. Well, I wouldn't call it a tower because it doesn't seem to be big enough to warrant the name. It is a case, but that can be a label for a lot of other computers. I'll call it a box and we'll leave it at that.
The computer is a Dell with a 2.9 GHz Intel Pentium G2020 processor and 4GB of memory that can expand to 8GB as soon as I get the money. There is 500GB of storage, so most anything I had will fit with enough space for the Spruce Goose and the Titanic wingtip to stern. Although the graphics processor is the Intel on-board stuff, it can still run Diablo 3 plenty well with fairly beefy settings.
And that's where the point of this post is. With an improvement to the graphics capability and an incredibly faster chip I can run almost anything out there without fear of slow down or memory problems. With more memory in the next couple of weeks I can say that I can run nearly any movie, play nearly any game, and execute nearly any graphic program with impunity.
That is, until my specs become obsolete in the next six months. *Le sigh*
I got a better screen so I can use his old laptop. However, that computer became wonky with Blue Screen of Death reboots all over the place. Even when I was using Microsoft Word and nothing else I would still get a BSoD.
So, I get a new computer. It works like a charm, even though it's a desktop tower. Well, I wouldn't call it a tower because it doesn't seem to be big enough to warrant the name. It is a case, but that can be a label for a lot of other computers. I'll call it a box and we'll leave it at that.
The computer is a Dell with a 2.9 GHz Intel Pentium G2020 processor and 4GB of memory that can expand to 8GB as soon as I get the money. There is 500GB of storage, so most anything I had will fit with enough space for the Spruce Goose and the Titanic wingtip to stern. Although the graphics processor is the Intel on-board stuff, it can still run Diablo 3 plenty well with fairly beefy settings.
And that's where the point of this post is. With an improvement to the graphics capability and an incredibly faster chip I can run almost anything out there without fear of slow down or memory problems. With more memory in the next couple of weeks I can say that I can run nearly any movie, play nearly any game, and execute nearly any graphic program with impunity.
That is, until my specs become obsolete in the next six months. *Le sigh*
Friday, May 31, 2013
Adjectives
I am going to say something that a lot of people will take offense to. If you bear with me then you'll find my explanation makes some smattering of sense.
Numbers do not exist in nature.
I can see you think I'm nuts. You're not the first to say so. This topic is even debated by many mathematicians, some adhering to my claim, others camping on the other side of the topic.
Here is my explanation for my stance. Water has three atoms in its molecular structure: one oxygen and two hydrogen. When its relative temperature is lowered to zero degrees Celsius its structure changes from a liquid to a solid. When its relative temperature is raised to one hundred degrees Celsius then it boils and evaporates as a gas. I say relative because the pressure in which your water boils changes its boiling and freezing point.
Great scientific facts. Now, here's the kicker: does nature care? Does nature care that 1 standard atmosphere must be present for the boiling point of water to be 100 degrees centigrade? Does nature care that the freezing point of water is 0 degrees centigrade? Does nature care that in order for water to be water that there must be 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom?
Nature does not care. If there happens to be hydrogen and oxygen in the same area and the conditions are right, then water will form. If the conditions are not right then water will not form and you'll just have hydrogen and oxygen gas (depending on the local temperature and local pressure). Nature does not count. Nature does not measure. Thus, nature does not need numbers in order to do.
Humans, on the other hand, need numbers. In order to know how much of something we have, whether it be atoms, dollars, or llamas, numbers help us measure and describe the amounts that we are trying to keep track of. Without numbers, we could not understand how the Earth moved through the sky. Without numbers, we could not understand chemistry in order to make the things that build our world. Without numbers, we could not elect our politicians properly. (Actually, that last one wasn't such a good example.)
However, we had to invent numbers. Take the number "0". Before its use, many cultures around the world used the positions on ropes marked off by knots to record the count of items. This was not a very practical way to do math but it was the only way they had at the time. Someone (several websites I've read say the guy is from India) state that he started using a place holder in order to mark where an amount is absent (as in the year of the San Francisco earthquake 19.6). The symbol for "nothing" came shortly after and thus we have the number "0".
Note that there was a way to do math without the number "0" as a placeholder. This is historical evidence that numbers are arbitrary. They were invented so that we could understand our world better. Is the Earth still going to exist if numbers did not? Yes, it would still be here. We could still be using rope to count our sheep and the Earth will still be here.
So, what are numbers if they are not in nature? Numbers are symbols. They are arbitrary in their representation. They will work so long as you are consistent with their use. In other words, if you lay down a set of rules in how to use these symbols, then you have to stick with those rules.
Example: Look at the number line and you can count it off from left to right.
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
This is the number line as your teachers and your professors have taught you. However, since the numbers are symbols, you can redefine the number line as follows:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8
Crazy, I know. It can work so long as you stick to your rules. In the second number line if we follow the four basic rules then the following are correct:
(a) 1 + 1 = 1
(b) 1 + 3 = 3
(c) 3 + 5 = 7
(d) 6 - 2 = 5
(e) 3 * 3 = 3
(f) 0 + 0 = 31
(g) 2 / 7 = 5
And so on. It only looks wrong because we are trained to use the first number line above. The value we ascribe to "1" is universal, but the number itself is not universal. Thus, numbers do not exist outside of our consciousness. They are not natural, but they are our best tools to help shape and understand our universe.
Numbers do not exist in nature.
I can see you think I'm nuts. You're not the first to say so. This topic is even debated by many mathematicians, some adhering to my claim, others camping on the other side of the topic.
Here is my explanation for my stance. Water has three atoms in its molecular structure: one oxygen and two hydrogen. When its relative temperature is lowered to zero degrees Celsius its structure changes from a liquid to a solid. When its relative temperature is raised to one hundred degrees Celsius then it boils and evaporates as a gas. I say relative because the pressure in which your water boils changes its boiling and freezing point.
Great scientific facts. Now, here's the kicker: does nature care? Does nature care that 1 standard atmosphere must be present for the boiling point of water to be 100 degrees centigrade? Does nature care that the freezing point of water is 0 degrees centigrade? Does nature care that in order for water to be water that there must be 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom?
Nature does not care. If there happens to be hydrogen and oxygen in the same area and the conditions are right, then water will form. If the conditions are not right then water will not form and you'll just have hydrogen and oxygen gas (depending on the local temperature and local pressure). Nature does not count. Nature does not measure. Thus, nature does not need numbers in order to do.
Humans, on the other hand, need numbers. In order to know how much of something we have, whether it be atoms, dollars, or llamas, numbers help us measure and describe the amounts that we are trying to keep track of. Without numbers, we could not understand how the Earth moved through the sky. Without numbers, we could not understand chemistry in order to make the things that build our world. Without numbers, we could not elect our politicians properly. (Actually, that last one wasn't such a good example.)
However, we had to invent numbers. Take the number "0". Before its use, many cultures around the world used the positions on ropes marked off by knots to record the count of items. This was not a very practical way to do math but it was the only way they had at the time. Someone (several websites I've read say the guy is from India) state that he started using a place holder in order to mark where an amount is absent (as in the year of the San Francisco earthquake 19.6). The symbol for "nothing" came shortly after and thus we have the number "0".
Note that there was a way to do math without the number "0" as a placeholder. This is historical evidence that numbers are arbitrary. They were invented so that we could understand our world better. Is the Earth still going to exist if numbers did not? Yes, it would still be here. We could still be using rope to count our sheep and the Earth will still be here.
So, what are numbers if they are not in nature? Numbers are symbols. They are arbitrary in their representation. They will work so long as you are consistent with their use. In other words, if you lay down a set of rules in how to use these symbols, then you have to stick with those rules.
Example: Look at the number line and you can count it off from left to right.
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
This is the number line as your teachers and your professors have taught you. However, since the numbers are symbols, you can redefine the number line as follows:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8
Crazy, I know. It can work so long as you stick to your rules. In the second number line if we follow the four basic rules then the following are correct:
(a) 1 + 1 = 1
(b) 1 + 3 = 3
(c) 3 + 5 = 7
(d) 6 - 2 = 5
(e) 3 * 3 = 3
(f) 0 + 0 = 31
(g) 2 / 7 = 5
And so on. It only looks wrong because we are trained to use the first number line above. The value we ascribe to "1" is universal, but the number itself is not universal. Thus, numbers do not exist outside of our consciousness. They are not natural, but they are our best tools to help shape and understand our universe.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
I WILL Call It the "Secret Cow Level"
Diablo III has a secret level you can access when you construct the Staff of Herding. One of the materials for the staff is the Gibbering Gemstone. This item drops from a rare elite that shows up in the second level of a cave that shows up fifty/fifty in the Third Act.
Sixteen attempts (plus more resets when the correct cave does not show up) and I'm getting discouraged. The trip to the right cave and the dashed hopes every time the monster does not show up is becoming tedious. And this is my first attempt at acquiring the Gemstone.
I really, really, want to see the Secret Cow Level.
On the other hand, I did visit their Development Hell dungeon where the zombies were named after individual developers. That was interesting.
Sixteen attempts (plus more resets when the correct cave does not show up) and I'm getting discouraged. The trip to the right cave and the dashed hopes every time the monster does not show up is becoming tedious. And this is my first attempt at acquiring the Gemstone.
I really, really, want to see the Secret Cow Level.
On the other hand, I did visit their Development Hell dungeon where the zombies were named after individual developers. That was interesting.
Monday, March 11, 2013
What Evil Hath I Wrought?!
Oh, I did not inflict suffering on others. I may have concerned a few people, but they are reassured. No, what I have done is upon myself alone.
I got my state refund first this year (surprisingly fast). It is a fairly big return. Thus, I was tempted by a sale I saw in a store (not revealing) that had the Kindle 3G/Wi-Fi available for half its $120 price tag. I could no longer refuse that. Yes, I'm still paying the taxes "early" on books I read through that e-reader, but I had to face a few facts: (1) I can't get my ass down to the local bookstore (Barnes and Noble) for any physical paper book; (2) I wanted to read books.
So I bought one, charged it up that evening, and then bought The Forever War the following afternoon as a breaking in book. I heard good things about the military sci-fi book.
...
I could not put the book down. I stopped for dinner and doing some chores around the house for two hours, then returned to the book. When I was done it was one in the morning. The first thought was that the book was good. The next thought is that THE KINDLE IS EVIL AND WILL SUCK MY SOUL OUT OF MY BODY!
Of course that statement is false and a stab at a joke, but the fact is that I was not bothered by the Kindle's flatness nor the flash of the screen as I "flipped" to the next page. Sure, I pressed the right arrow button at the edge of the pad a good four or five hundred times, but the construction is fine and the sensation to the touch is not unnerving.
The next day I bought (again, through the Kindle) Kris Longknife: Mutineer and I can report confidently that I am hooked. I will still get paper books, but when I can't get to the book store properly I will buy through the Kindle.
I rediscovered my addiction to books and I have no regrets!
--HardWearJunkie
I got my state refund first this year (surprisingly fast). It is a fairly big return. Thus, I was tempted by a sale I saw in a store (not revealing) that had the Kindle 3G/Wi-Fi available for half its $120 price tag. I could no longer refuse that. Yes, I'm still paying the taxes "early" on books I read through that e-reader, but I had to face a few facts: (1) I can't get my ass down to the local bookstore (Barnes and Noble) for any physical paper book; (2) I wanted to read books.
So I bought one, charged it up that evening, and then bought The Forever War the following afternoon as a breaking in book. I heard good things about the military sci-fi book.
...
I could not put the book down. I stopped for dinner and doing some chores around the house for two hours, then returned to the book. When I was done it was one in the morning. The first thought was that the book was good. The next thought is that THE KINDLE IS EVIL AND WILL SUCK MY SOUL OUT OF MY BODY!
Of course that statement is false and a stab at a joke, but the fact is that I was not bothered by the Kindle's flatness nor the flash of the screen as I "flipped" to the next page. Sure, I pressed the right arrow button at the edge of the pad a good four or five hundred times, but the construction is fine and the sensation to the touch is not unnerving.
The next day I bought (again, through the Kindle) Kris Longknife: Mutineer and I can report confidently that I am hooked. I will still get paper books, but when I can't get to the book store properly I will buy through the Kindle.
I rediscovered my addiction to books and I have no regrets!
--HardWearJunkie
Friday, March 1, 2013
Can't multitask because my mind IS multitasking already.
My mind is thinking of so many things right now. I have the potential to do great things, but I need to narrow all my efforts into one or two projects. Unfortunately parts of my mind are unsatisfied because I've committed effort into too many "sort of" projects. I have too many interests to fully commit to one or two. I need to find a way to convince my mind that what I am currently working on is what I should be doing at this minute.
What I am writing right now is flowing out of me because I don't plan it. I was trying to continue writing a story earlier but I couldn't keep my interest in it because I kept thinking about other things. I need to focus my mind and reduce the anxiety I feel every time I'm at the keyboard.
This writing thing used to be fun, but maybe I'm getting jaded or something. Maybe something worse.
What I am writing right now is flowing out of me because I don't plan it. I was trying to continue writing a story earlier but I couldn't keep my interest in it because I kept thinking about other things. I need to focus my mind and reduce the anxiety I feel every time I'm at the keyboard.
This writing thing used to be fun, but maybe I'm getting jaded or something. Maybe something worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)