![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When realization seeps slow in the mind
Aug. 9th, 2006 11:59 pm
High today, here: 25. Dewpoint then: 15. High dewpoint: 15.
High today in TO: 26. Dewpoint then: 14. High dewpoint: 14.
Low today on the balcony: 14.1. High: 27.6. Currently: 21.2.
Fought with the weather sensor for a while this afternoon--it keeps cutting out around 4 p.m. lately, so I figured maybe the door opening and closing has been jarring it too much or something. It's now attached to the window frame. It gets a little leaf-filtered setting sun there, but I also just noticed that it was getting that on the door, too. The reading kept coming down with the sun on it, though, so that doesn't seem to be a factor. I'm a little worried about the high today being 2.6 above the Waterloo airport high, but I was also a little worried that I was missing some highs with it cutting out just about when the temperature usually peaks.
That's kind of interesting, actually--given that it's daylight savings time, the sun is highest in the sky around 1 p.m., so the temperature peaks three hours later. The sun is highest in the sky over the northern hemisphere two-thirds of the way through June, and the average temperature peaks, I guess, probably just about a month later. So, the daily temperature peaks about 12% later than when the sun's at its height daily, while the annual temperature peaks about 8% later than when the sun's at its annual height.
What the yahoo scoreboard-watching is showing up lately: generally, the top pitchers are coming back to the pack, while the top hitters are heating up. With the pitchers, it's really noticeable. Top closers are blowing saves all over the place, and four earned in six is a popular line for aces. And everyone's having walkathons. I guess it could be that as the season wears on, the hitters pick pitches up better from particular pitchers, and quit swinging at junk. Could be a fluke.
Read over the Meno paper today, and I was thinking, this is pretty good; possibly it's the best paper I've ever written, and, you know, as an MA student, I got a bunch of A+'s on papers, and A+'s are supposed to mean that a paper is publishable, as is--but, look, I ain't got nothing published yet; right now, the Foucault-Habermas paper is out for the second time, and surely it's less than even odds it gets accepted this time (eventually, I guess, but who knows where or when), and the Foucault-Habermas paper is the heavily refined distillate of a thesis that grew out of a paper I got an A+ on as an MA student. I mean, if it isn't publishable now, it shouldn't have been passable then.
Funny story, which maybe, but I don't think, I've put down here before: that was actually the first paper I got back in my career as a grad student, and I had no idea what to expect. It came back in an envelope, in my mailbox, and the first thing I pulled out of the envelope was a photocopied sheet explaining the grading system (like: A+ is excellent, publishable; A is very good; B+ is, I dunno, good, or acceptable; B is, I dunno, acceptable, or marginally acceptable; C+ is failing; C is summary expulsion; D is summary execution). I saw a mark, on the sheet, in the C-range, and the world took on that sort of floaty quality like you're falling into the water and there's nothing you can do, and then I took out the paper itself, and saw that it had an A+ on it; the mark on the sheet was a photocopier fleck. But, you know, if it had been a C, I would've figured, yeah, well, fair enough.
Anyway, reading over the Meno paper today, thinking about that, thinking, this is pretty good, but still, there are some evident problems with it, problems which could lead any particular referee whose hands it ends up in to reject it (though, of course, it's probably more likely to be rejected for reasons I haven't dreamt of), brought to mind again that APQ editor, admonishing profs in grad seminars to please kindly stop making their students (their callow aspirants!) think their papers ought to be published, because, really, they shouldn't.
High today in TO: 26. Dewpoint then: 14. High dewpoint: 14.
Low today on the balcony: 14.1. High: 27.6. Currently: 21.2.
Fought with the weather sensor for a while this afternoon--it keeps cutting out around 4 p.m. lately, so I figured maybe the door opening and closing has been jarring it too much or something. It's now attached to the window frame. It gets a little leaf-filtered setting sun there, but I also just noticed that it was getting that on the door, too. The reading kept coming down with the sun on it, though, so that doesn't seem to be a factor. I'm a little worried about the high today being 2.6 above the Waterloo airport high, but I was also a little worried that I was missing some highs with it cutting out just about when the temperature usually peaks.
That's kind of interesting, actually--given that it's daylight savings time, the sun is highest in the sky around 1 p.m., so the temperature peaks three hours later. The sun is highest in the sky over the northern hemisphere two-thirds of the way through June, and the average temperature peaks, I guess, probably just about a month later. So, the daily temperature peaks about 12% later than when the sun's at its height daily, while the annual temperature peaks about 8% later than when the sun's at its annual height.
What the yahoo scoreboard-watching is showing up lately: generally, the top pitchers are coming back to the pack, while the top hitters are heating up. With the pitchers, it's really noticeable. Top closers are blowing saves all over the place, and four earned in six is a popular line for aces. And everyone's having walkathons. I guess it could be that as the season wears on, the hitters pick pitches up better from particular pitchers, and quit swinging at junk. Could be a fluke.
Read over the Meno paper today, and I was thinking, this is pretty good; possibly it's the best paper I've ever written, and, you know, as an MA student, I got a bunch of A+'s on papers, and A+'s are supposed to mean that a paper is publishable, as is--but, look, I ain't got nothing published yet; right now, the Foucault-Habermas paper is out for the second time, and surely it's less than even odds it gets accepted this time (eventually, I guess, but who knows where or when), and the Foucault-Habermas paper is the heavily refined distillate of a thesis that grew out of a paper I got an A+ on as an MA student. I mean, if it isn't publishable now, it shouldn't have been passable then.
Funny story, which maybe, but I don't think, I've put down here before: that was actually the first paper I got back in my career as a grad student, and I had no idea what to expect. It came back in an envelope, in my mailbox, and the first thing I pulled out of the envelope was a photocopied sheet explaining the grading system (like: A+ is excellent, publishable; A is very good; B+ is, I dunno, good, or acceptable; B is, I dunno, acceptable, or marginally acceptable; C+ is failing; C is summary expulsion; D is summary execution). I saw a mark, on the sheet, in the C-range, and the world took on that sort of floaty quality like you're falling into the water and there's nothing you can do, and then I took out the paper itself, and saw that it had an A+ on it; the mark on the sheet was a photocopier fleck. But, you know, if it had been a C, I would've figured, yeah, well, fair enough.
Anyway, reading over the Meno paper today, thinking about that, thinking, this is pretty good, but still, there are some evident problems with it, problems which could lead any particular referee whose hands it ends up in to reject it (though, of course, it's probably more likely to be rejected for reasons I haven't dreamt of), brought to mind again that APQ editor, admonishing profs in grad seminars to please kindly stop making their students (their callow aspirants!) think their papers ought to be published, because, really, they shouldn't.
