I've always been annoyed by Debian's version naming. My first encounters with it were in the "Stretch" and "Buster" eras. Which was the more recent one and which was being phased out?
When you search for compatible binaries, libraries, etc, you have to specifically search by name: We're currently in a "Bookworm" vs "Bullseye" era. Which do I need? And the repetition of the "B" names makes it even harder to remember which is which.
(note to self: Bookworm... except in the older setups that need Bullseye... 😭)
But I never thought to ask what the naming convention was.
Fuck, I kind of love that.
But as cute as it may be, VERSION NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS BE MORE USER-FRIENDLY!!!
Pre-salt it on both sides. Light coat of high-temp oil (I use avocado).
Oven at a low 325°F. Cook until internal temp hits 135°F. This 1lb cut was about 1.5" thick so it took about 25min. Low and slow keeps it moist.
You could let it proceed to 145°F and eat it as-is, but low-temp baked salmon just looks horrible. Do the next step!
Prep a blazing hot cast iron pan w/more oil or butter. Just like a steak, sear the shit out of all sides with high heat. Should only take ~30s per side, plus the edges.
Perfectly juicy on the inside (and, yes, I left the temp probe in and confirmed that the center reached 145°F during the sear). The sear gives it a flavor kick and looks SO MUCH better than baked salmon's gross pastiness.
I then used the leftover oil and the hot cast iron pan to saute broccoli, mixed in some spinach and miso paste at the end.
HAMNET is a fictional portrayal of Shakespeare's real son who died of the plague. O'Farrell says she couldn't understand how Shakespeare could write "Hamlet" just 4yrs after his Hamnet's death. So she had to explore it.
This opening note explains wtf is up with the weird HamNet vs HamLet thing happening here, which I found maddening upon first hearing about this book:
O'Farrell is a beautiful writer. It's somewhat stream-of-consciousness; a character enters a room and notes each moment that hits their senses: this quality of the light, a faint aroma, etc. O'Farrell is a lovely observer of the world and imbues her main character, Shakespeare's wife, Agnes, with a deep connection to nature.
It took me about 50 pages to get settled in and accustomed to O'Farrell's style. Well worth it. "Lovely" really is the key word here.
(pretty baller way to open the novel!)
And this really is Agnes' story. The Shakespeare-y-ness of it all is deliberately shrouded; the name Shakespeare is never mentioned and her husband's first name is actually never uttered, either.
Agnes has a kind of magic about her via her deep intuitions. It's lovely and in a horrible way makes the death of her son even more painful. I absolutely can NOT recommend this for anyone who has young children; it's just too steeped in the mother's grief and despair.
(The book has been adapted into a film that is now winning all the awards)
One critique: the portrayal of Shakespeare as a ne'er-do-well lost dreamer just isn't credible. There's no way he could discover theater in early adulthood and within 4 years write "Hamlet". The works of Shakespeare reflect a life dedicated deeply to the craft from an early age. Simply wandering into his calling later in life is absurd.
At a showing of "Hamlet" he even wonders to himself if his writing is any good. Abso-fucking-lutely absurd to have that kind of doubt when that play is the pinnacle of his skills.
Another: When O'Farrell finally pays off the concept -- how does Hamnet relate to "Hamlet"? -- it's quite disappointing. Cathartic for Agnes but just a too-thin attempt to join the ideas together for anyone who's studied the play. "Hamlet" just isn't how you'd honor your dead 11yr old son.
O'Farrell seems to get unmoored as Agnes is lost in despair. Her narrative stops making much progress and then the final payoff is meh.
But overall, O'Farrell is such a strong writer and Agnes being such a unique, in-tune creature in the world make HAMNET still well worth the read.
---
*(My UCLA Shakespeare prof favored the theory that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, was really the author of Shakespeare's plays. De Vere had the privilege and deep + broad education that was exceptionally rare at the time that would seem to be a prerequisite for being able to produce those plays. Always made more sense to me)
There is residual meningioma around the outside of her brain, but her doc says she has "an estimated 90% reduction in overall tumor burden"!
Her pet insurance covered the very expensive radiation therapy to zap the tumor last April. Now 10 months later her doc is thrilled to say that this is probably the best outcome he's ever seen.
She has residual brain damage and will need to stay on her anti-seizure meds. And there's no way to predict if or when the tumor might come charging back.
But for now there's a real chance that she'll live well past her upcoming 8th birthday.
She's my first doggie and, as a single guy, my only constant companion. The moment I sit on the couch, she hops up to snuggle. Every time. No creature (dog, human, or otherwise) has ever wanted to spend so much time with me, so consistently. 🤣
So glad to get this bonus time with her!
Yes, I'm a typical programmer nerd sci-fi geek. But I also studied Literature at UCLA and loved my two Shakespeare classes. The buzz on "Hamnet" is insane and it's a shorter read. And I'd rather read the book first before seeing the film.
Excited to keep working my way through The Expanse series, but a 9-book series is a heavy load. I'll keep them spaced out a bit so I don't go stale.
---
Aside: I haven't read all of Shakespeare's works, but I think Hamlet is the best written while The Tempest is probably my favorite (it's pretty intense to read it as Shakespeare speaking almost directly for himself via Prospero).
That being said, since I saw the TV show first, I can't say how disorienting or not it might be for completely noob eyes to take in and keep track of the wide variety of characters. I complained that with "Redshirts", an ensemble cast doesn't work in a novel. You'll have to tell me if this succeeds where "Redshirts" failed.
The sci-fi elements are of course fascinating and so richly detailed and well thought out; everything in this first book is foundational to why the TV series was so successful (btw: this book is roughly the first 1.5 seasons).
I did not expect to be this impressed. Read it.
Fun, quick read. Basically a must-read for any Star Trek nerd. It's a riff on some of the more absurd elements of Trek, but it's not trashing on Trek and has its own story to tell .
It's consistently interesting and entertaining, but I think it's a bit oversold as a comedy. Writing comedy is hard and I think maybe most sci-fi nerd authors are just kinda mid when it comes to their sense of humor.
I'm also not convinced that Scalzi is a great writer. He's certainly crafted a fun concept, but the word-by-word execution is just... fine... but not exceptional. He has about two main characters too many and never manages the load of all their weight; pretty much right up to the end I was still struggling to remember who was who. Ensembles work way better on TV.
However, the final coda is lovely and lovingly written. It actually is pretty exceptional (reminded me of Ann Patchett which is an absurd, unexpected compliment to Scalzi).
Overall well worth the short time commitment. It's not a masterpiece, but that's okay.
The last book I finished might've been The Bitcoin Standard or Popper's "Digital Gold". Focusing on nonfiction and narrowing to mostly just bitcoin books is likely a huge part of my nonexistent reading pace.
Aside from being fiction, I wonder if "Hail Mary" being told in the first person also helped combat my bad attention span. Third person: you're being told what's happening. First person, you're inside someone's thoughts and part of your brain receives it as if it was happening to you ("Ouch, that hurt!" vs "he burned his finger").
---
Quick review:
"Hail Mary" is pretty engaging (good job starting *in medias res*) with chapter length tailored to short attention spans (🙋♂️). Never gets to "omg I can't put this down" intensity but obv kept me hooked enough to enjoy coming back to it each day.
As is usual with Andy Weir, real-world science is baked into the story's bones. Though as it gets more speculative, it can seem a bit disappointingly simplistic. Something like the movie "Arrival" spends all of its focus on solving ONE really complex problem, but Weir's protagonist too easily overcomes what should be a number of near-impossible barriers.
I forgot that Weir is just never as funny as he thinks he is, or perhaps more favorably: his characters have a pretty lame, predictable 4-out-of-10 sense of humor. His protagonists also never talk or think like a normal person and the "it's 'cause I'm a super science nerd" excuse can only take him so far.
But the story is well told, pretty cool and interesting from a sci-fi perspective, moves fast, and never gets boring. The protagonist isn't as annoying as I'm making him sound and he gets a lot more accessible (and even funny!) after his disorienting beginning.
Critiquer gotta critique, but I really enjoyed it.
Recommended for sci-fi nerds who can ease up a bit and take in a nerdy-but-not-super-nerdy story.
---
*(yes, that's Japanese text; huge Japanese community here)
