Writing down opinions on things have done wonders for my ability to reason about them, especially when the opinions are built on 10 years of "hunch" and no discussion.
And now, being at a point in my career where I have opinions on many things and discuss them with peers, I slowly realized writing about it was actually helping me more than anything.
In France essays are all about writing in a complex way to show how smart you are. Which not only is not a useful skill to have, it's detrimental because we learn to write in obscure and hard to understand ways.
It wasn't a "language" problem because I was already a fluent American English speaker. It was all style-related.
I've recently started reading 19th century French literature again and sometimes I have to reread sentences multiple times because they're so long I come to the wrong conclusion too early.
For some reason, that image will forever accompany that phrase in my mind.
I was once asked to write to then governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to sway him on some political issue. That's certainly a practical assignment, but I chatted with some classmates about it, and none of us thought the professor would give a good grade to something that might genuinely sway the man.
It is interesting in how challenging it can be to convince some younger developers of this. Some of the stronger and more technically proficient developers (that are young-ish... mid 30's and down, let's say) have a level of contempt for those skills that is surprising and not trivial to coach them on. They seem to suffer from "smartest person in the room" syndrome and mistakenly believe those smarts apply to everything they deal with rather than the just the technical areas that they excel in.
As a result, computer touchin' is how my entire cohort developed sentience, since computers have the useful property of always responding correctly when asked correctly. Humans, meanwhile, can quite easily become trapped in a permanent low-intensity fight-or-flight state - where they only respond correctly to incorrect statements, and vice versa.
If I was exposed to LLMs when I was a wee atom, I strongly suspect it would've had a massively detrimental effect.
Tbh, an effect not unlike that of the shitfractal of media that our salad days were wasted on. You know, all those endless cultural artifacts that purport to explain people to themselves (in a literally - but at least somewhat more visibly - irresponsible way.) Just ... vastly more so.
Basically, with my socioeconomic background, if I'd had GPT as a kid, I don't think I would have even developed a mind. Exact opposite of a Diamond Age scenario.
Generally, I consider the perspective of people aligned with AI to be a perspective from which a P-zombie is superior in all respects to a conscious being. And I've seen enough of that shit without needing to fucking self-host it, thank you very much, go get an actual therapist, they need to eat too.
A fictional example of this that I love is (seriously) the Twilight rewrite Luminosity: https://luminous.elcenia.com/chapters/ch1.shtml. Bella writes everything down in her notebook and is unusually self-reflective.
Diversity of thought is pretty valuable. So is training yourself to think independently, come up with your own premises and learning to build sound arguments, which you also get from writing and discussing ideas.
My point is that you don't need a massive audience. If you can reach one person and make them laugh, or teach someone something new, or give someone hope when they really needed it, then your writing will be worth it.
And the book it led to is 101 Amazing Sights of the Night Sky: https://www.amazon.com/101-Amazing-Sights-Night-Sky/dp/15919...
Neither is very popular, but it was a lot of fun.
But I'm hoping to make $2K from the Anthropic settlement, so I got that going for me.
Thanks.
And because I love irony, Claude can tell us more: https://claude.ai/share/4ee7f444-e296-48ce-85eb-15d50dbd6c93
A numerical distillation of our aggregated thoughts will live on for potentially longer than any ordinary person could have hoped for (and maybe wanted).
We actually get our own slice of immortality.
I clerked for a judge who helped us become really good writers. I know this is shocking to some, but some judges actually really do care and don't try to write thousands of pages. He really cared about trying to write opinions everyone could read and understand.
We would all get together as clerks, read the draft we had written out loud to the judge and the other clerks, and remove excess words, rewrite sentences that were too complicated, you name it. For every sentence, he encouraged us to think about who the audience really was and what we want the reader to take away from it.
If you want to make your writing shorter, this is a good approach whether you read it out loud or not. Lots of engineers write very long things because they are unsure who the audience is, or they don't think about how each sentence helps them convey something to that audience. Or they are trying to guess what questions they will get asked. Pick an audience. Go through every sentence. Remove the ones that don't actually help you convey something to your audience. Be ruthless to yourself. It's better to answer questions people have later than try to guess what they will ask you and answer it in the piece.
If you are trying to be persuasive, i'd double down on making it short, and add "order your writing and arguments in order of strength", and then "remove all the weak arguments". People won't read all the way through most of the time, and either it's convincing or it isn't. If your strongest arguments don't convince someone, your weak ones will probably make people feel like you are grasping at straws, and make the whole thing less convincing overall.
Kind of. Sometimes you can see quibbles coming a mile away and want to head them off at the pass. Without guessing questions in advance, you create a duty for yourself to interact and answer them later, and maybe you don't wanna. Besides, the whole piece is providing answers to questions guessed in advance. That's why you'd put any writing out there. So it's right to do some guessing.
The problem is guessing badly.
A detailed memo is not meant for (most) senior management. They will all individually find a hook to hang up their coat of the week and you will go home a thousand questions, but without the decision you need. Give a senior management memo to technical staff and they will cry for months because you lack the technical skills to understand the problems they face. Give a sales memo to technical people, or the reverse and it will probably be flat out ignored. The key is differentiation. Differentiation is only possible if you practise writing the smallest set of convincing arguments in each memo you deliver.
Some of my worst habits formed seeing early posts go viral and then getting addicted to that endorphin hit. The amount of time I wasted checking analytics and new subs would probably equal the time it would take me to write 10 more posts or read a couple books.
But congrats at sticking to it for 10 years!
It's quite ironic given this. [2] He simply needs to go mammoth hunting.
[1] - https://waitbutwhy.com/
[2] - https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-op...
The whole question of how you get in front of the right people and tweak your message based on their reactions, and then setup a routine so you have a dependable performance-audience, all seem to be lost on many folks.
I think that's not due to algorithmic intervention of product design etc., I think people are just tired. The novelty of shouting at strangers on the internet has worn off - how many internet fights have we gotten into that did nothing in the end except waste time? It's only worse with a coin flip's chance of the other person being an LLM. We're all tired.
It's just hard to justify engaging. Worst case, I get a fight on my hands with someone who's as dogmatic as they are wrong, which is both frequent and also a complete waste of my time. (A tech readership is always going to veer hard into the well, akshually...) Most likely case, I get fictitious internet points. Which - I won't lie - tickle my lizard brain, just as they do everyone else's. But they don't actually achieve anything meaningful.
Best case is that I learn something. Realistically, this happens vanishingly infrequently, and the signal-noise ratio is much, much worse than if I just pulled a book off my shelf.
I suppose this is all an artifact of time and experience. Maybe I've just picked all the low-hanging fruit, and so I no longer have the patience to watch people endlessly repost the same xkcd strips from fifteen years ago, navel-gaze about tabs or spaces, share thrilling new facts that I have in fact known for many decades, etc. And while I'm very excited for them to discover all these things anew (and anew... and anew...), it's just not a good use of my time and patience to participate.
The three mindset changes I found that really help with this are understanding that:
* You don't have to try and get the last word in.
* Other people are not entitled to your time, especially if they're engaging in bad faith.
* Outside of small and curated communities, there's pretty good odds that you're not interacting with a real and honest person.
So whenever I click into the comment box, I always ask myself "Can I really be bothered with this? Is this really what I want to be spending my free time doing?"
And then I often close the comment box and get on with my life.
It's just hard to justify engaging.
Well, if your try and force yourself to engage with multiple people, the site won't let you post that many comments in such a short time period. Which, overall, is a good thing I believe.I'm curious if the decline in reacting is matched by a decline in replying and posting in general.
Anyways, I worry that apathy is on the rise as we get overwhelmed with the rate of change and uncertainty in the 2020s and I'm working pretty hard to fight that apathy and bring more empathy, so if you're interested, please reach out to me the contact info in my bio.
[0]: https://das.psy.ed.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SelfDAS....
Years ago I had a blog and one time I wrote a post in response to another blog post about education vs experience, arguing in favor of formal education. And that one got a link back from the original article, leading people back to my blog. I got engagement, comments, feedback, etc... and it was very uh. Overwhelming? Like suddenly I had to defend my arguments. It made me very uncomfortable, even though it was probably a good thing, all in all.
I don't know how to break that trend. I think I'd rather have realtime communications / chat, but that's another thing that seems to have died, at least in the space I've been at for a long time now.
If the answer is "yes", then make your comment, check back and interact with the responses (assuming they seem to be in good faith). If it's "no" then just close the comment box and get on with your life.
But then I realise that it's fairly pointless writing this in the first place...
You can still find real people in niche communities (like here), where good moderators can maintain a grip on quality. Though perhaps HN has some secret moderator sauce, I’m not aware of.
Humans are just migrating off the old, big platforms that no longer feel real.
Maybe to YT or Threads instead.
I like Bsky but I don't think the userbase supports much large-scale communication (not a bad thing, frankly)
"Loneliness does not come from having no people around you, but from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to you"."
I'm using writing as an outlet for an active mind these days. Thoughts that seem important to me and need to come out even if there is nobody there to read them.
I’ve given myself a target of 6 blog posts per year. It forces me to complete something every once in a while, and it also makes me study a subject more thoroughly than I otherwise would: I don’t want to make a fool of myself.
It’s nice if a blog post resonates with a few people every once in a while, but that’s just a bonus.
An optimist take on your statement is this: we need MORE folks writing/talking in town square. More chances to encounter something valuable (to you).
Otherwise, I first read your statement the other way: too many people communicating into the ether with no audience and no feedback. But I suppose I prefer people practice that communication somehow rather than not...
Is your point that people do not understand how to present themselves and a point of view (on anything) in front of anyone? Work presentation to executive. Writing a coherent email. Running a meeting. Etc.
My stuff is too TL;DR, for most folks, these days.
Same idea, maybe with a bit more focus on RSS
“But is there still value in human produced writing? Subjectively, yes. Objectively? I'm not sure. I think there's a lot of personal value in writing though.”
There is value because I felt compelled to engage, but if it turns out you’re a bot then I’ll feel cheated and less likely to read other blog posts.
Because I moved to Sweden just about a year later, I started a new blog https://jeena.net/something-new where I would write in English, because I thought then both the people from Germany (to a lesser extend) and the people I know in Sweden would be able to read my blog.
It was a good decision to switch to English (which back then I didn't speak fluently at all, but writing was ok), because 5 Years ago I again moved countries, now I'm in South Korea and am still blogging in English.
It definitely helped me to learn English, which now is my main language at work and at home.
I had a friend message me saying they came across my blog googling how to run home assistant on k3s. And that's a satisfaction no money can buy.
I’ve also seen screenshots of my blog posts show up in random technical talks I happened to watch. I want to shout at the screen - “That was meeeee!”
I have a lot to say. About lot of things.
I don't blog because, most of the time, I'm worried about what people might think. Sometimes I speak up in public and people are confused, so - I think - it will only be amplified online. Sometimes I want to share a bit of code, and I'm not sure if the formatting will please everyone. Or naming convention.
But most of all it's putting it all together.
There was this famous kid who only talked in tweets because he had ADHD. Sometimes series of tweets. Like 20 of them. But always in tweets, because that gave him control, and removed - or add, depends on your point of view - constraints.
Anyway - don't be like me. Speak up. Tell people what you want them to hear.
Do what pleases you. Write and share first and most importantly for yourself. If other people find it interesting or useful they will read, if not, they will not.
Writing is a muscle you need to train, so start with small topics you want to say stuff about, learn, it will become easier. Then do the big topics you want to say a lot about.
I see this sentiment a lot; I've written tens of thousands of comments on the internet (on different sites) over 25+ years. Am I a better writer? I don't feel like one. Is there anything objectively measurable that could answer that?
Don't censor yourself out of fear of what others might think or misunderstand.
Many may get confused and some might not like it, but there may also be a small group of people who understand, which if you fall silent couldn't be reached.
My grandad used to be a farmer, and used to keep a diary in which he wrote an entry every day before bed. It was all just really simple sentences of the things he did from one day to the next. What he had for breakfast, the work he did, what he sold, who he met down at the market and the little things going on in his life and the lives of those around him.
I do the same now, as a programmer. I write down what happened in my day, albeit digitally, and with a few more thoughts and ideas than he did (he was much more serious and hardworking than me). The place I put them is public, because sometimes I share a link when I've written something I think a family member or close friend might find interesting.
Both he did, and I do it for the same reason. It's for us, the writers, to use as an outlet. I don't think grandad ever looked back at things in his book, and nor do I with my digital entries. We just date them, write them, and forget them. I think it's just useful as a place to write everything off of the brain. The actual writing process can help you in your writing, which is always a bonus, regardless of how many people are viewing it.
When he died a couple of years ago, I kept his books. A part of me actually feels odd reading them, like they are not for me, despite the normal contents. I think that, as a matter of fact, he would actually have wanted me to destroy them. He was always a very serious person. I'm keeping them stored away, like my own, because those books are a bit like having him here. When I do read bits, it's like he is still here. I can see him from the simple things he's written down, even if he wasn't an author or professional writer.
Maybe when I'm gone, my descendants will read my writings in the same way as I've found his.
This is what I'm encouraged by Grammarly as well. To some extent, perhaps the book "Elements of style" encourages this too.
However, I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. She writes long (wordy?) sentences that are clear, and even feels beautiful to read. I really enjoyed her writing.
But I'm not a native speaker. A question for the native speakers: what's your take on this? Has Shelly's writing style gone out of fashion, or are these two (Shelley's style and succinctness) different things?
The sheer act of writing helps me structure my thoughts and helps others grow. Win win!
What I did a while ago was splitting notes and articles: https://notes.dsebastien.net
Publishing unpolished notes is a great way to remove needless pressure
I do think it made me better at writing though, and it certainly made me aware of how much people are actually willing to read.
That apps spots problems I often don't see in first drafts. Weakeners like adverbs/passive voice. Complicated sentences. Fancy words over simple words. Etc. Stuff that makes writing harder to read.
Not perfect here at all! Always practicing. But more and more use helps me spot problems in first drafts, or avoid them altogether.
I've been blogging since 2006 and I feel the same way. The past few years I blog less, but I do try to write more to the point and use less idioms and spoken writing style.
But since then I moved it to Gemini, the real Gemini, not google's thing. I find that far easier to maintain.
But it's not the people who write them, but those who sell the LLMs trained on those blogs.
What?
good times.
Furthermore, I doubt there are any chances "right/wrong" applies to aesthetical types of philosophical discussions.
You don’t need to be a standup comedian yourself to spot bad comedy.
> Furthermore, I doubt there are any chances "right/wrong" applies to aesthetical types of philosophical discussions.
It’s hard to figure out what readers want because you don’t get direct feedback. But if you spend any amount of time in front of an audience, it becomes incredibly clear that some things work on stage better than others. I truly believe charisma is a learnable skill. By treating it as talent we deprive people who aren’t charismatic the chance to improve. Writing is just the same. Claiming that there’s no “right/wrong” here implies that it’s impossible to learn to write in a more engaging way. And that’s obviously false.
I did a clowning course a few years ago. In one silly exercise we all partnered up. Each couple were given a tennis ball, and we had to squish the ball between our foreheads so it wouldn’t fall. And like that, move around the room. Afterwards the teacher got half the class on stage and do it again, while everyone else watched. Then the audience got to vote on which couple we liked the most. It was surreal - almost everyone voted on the same pair. Those two in particular were somehow more interesting than everyone else. In that room there was a right and a wrong way to wordlessly hold a tennis ball between two people’s faces. And we all agreed on what it was.
I am not a native english speaker, I don't know anything about humourous form of language in that tongue.
Charisma depends on your audience, and audiences can differ quite a lot. There is no "right/wrong" because what please you as an audience may be considered wrong by another one. "Writing in a more engaging way" aka changing your conceptions of what is right/wrong in order to conform to the current cultural supremacia that is built up everyday by pushing some kind of fast-food culture or idk.
Your story is interesting, and I don't understand how you could be surprised : people that go to clowning classes can share the same taste about what is good/bad ? That's not a very surprising fact ! If you had told me that they were people from different cultures ...
Do you think Baudelaire cared about engagement ? You talked like there were no way taste could dramatically change to the point "ugly" is becoming "good" or vice-versa. Some of the writers and artists I like the most braved the taste™ of the different hegemonic culture of their time, and just trusted their own intuition of what they did want to express, say, create.
Marcel Duchamp is a great example of how a mid level joke can change the art world suddenly (and people's taste with it).
Yes; one of the most aspects of charisma is being sensitive to your audience. Charismatic people watch how their performance is received, and adjust it on the fly. Not too much, but enough to make the audience feel cared for. This is one reason why there's a sort of magic in live performances.
I also think we're talking about two extreme ideas here that are both wrong:
1. Performances are on an objective spectrum from "right" to "wrong"
2. Nothing is good or bad. Everything is subjective.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. There's no such thing as "the objectively best pieces of music (/art / writing / etc)". But some music, art and writing is enjoyed by many people. And some is junk. There is no objective measure of music. But also, nobody would consider my amateur piano playing to be as good as The Beetles or Mozart.
> "Writing in a more engaging way" aka changing your conceptions of what is right/wrong in order to conform to the current cultural supremacia that is built up everyday by pushing some kind of fast-food culture or idk.
I don't know where to start with this.
Again, there's two extremes that are both wrong: a) As a writer / performer, you should conform exactly to whatever the audience wants. And b) Forget the audience. Write however you want without any regard for them.
Both of these extreme positions will result in bad work. The answer is somewhere in the middle. We don't want a performer to be our slave or our master. We want you to be our friend. Our leader. Our teacher.
In other terms, write however you want. But if you don't care about your audience, don't be surprised if your audience doesn't care about you.
> people that go to clowning classes can share the same taste about what is good/bad ? That's not a very surprising fact ! If you had told me that they were people from different cultures ...
I'm Australian. The class was in France, taught by a French clown. There were students from the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, South Africa, NZ, Finland, Germany and more.
Not all art works across different cultures, but clowning does. I think if you showed our performances to a group of monkeys, even they would also find it funny and if they could, they would pick out the same favorites.
Of course everything is subjective. The fact we're social animals creates the feeling that there's some kind of rules, but that's just a bias. We're biased. There is no absolute junk art-artefact, because humanity potentially extends timewise to so many instances of different humans that you cannot know in advance if something will be considered "good" at some point in time, culture, individusl brain etc...
> Both of these extremes position will result in bad work.
That's absurd, if someone "conform exactly to whatever the audience wants" then everyone in the audience would be pleased, how could it be bad work ?
Side note. Is it really possible for some artist to forget the audience ? I mean "however you want without any regard for them" is possible, but due to the fact you write as you want, it would be an absolute masterclass if you succeeded to be not cared about by anyone.
But yeah, that's not constituent of what is an artwork or not. This discussion is useless to the artist.
> [clown class]
Okay, but mondialization, hegemony of certain cultures etc... Are we truly different cultures ? I don't think so. But anyway, that's not the problem.
The problem is that you were using this example to justify the fact that taste is not relative. I accept that a group of clown students got impressed by the same clowns. But I don't accept that there wouldn't be some differences if the whole humanity (past and future) voted that day.
> [Australia]
Greetings from europe !
> There is no absolute junk art-artefact, because humanity potentially extends timewise to so many instances of different humans that you cannot know in advance if something will be considered "good" at some point in time, culture, individusl brain etc...
Look at the number of plays each song gets in Spotify. If everyone had their own, totally unique taste, there would be no mathematical correlation between which songs I enjoy and which songs you enjoy. We would see a uniform distribution of plays of all the songs in spotify. But the distribution is very non-uniform. Some songs get billions of listens. Some songs get essentially none.
However, if we all had exactly the same taste, Spotify would only need a small selection of "the best" songs for everybody to enjoy. This is also not what we see.
Art has fashions. But many of aspects of music and storytelling have remained relevant across culture and across time so far. We like musical rhythm. We enjoy narrative in stories. We enjoy stories about relationships between people. We like some variety, but not too much. And so on. I'm sure tastes will change. But if I just mash my hand on the piano with no skill and upload that to spotify, I doubt even in the fullness of time I'll ever get as many spotify listens as The Beetles.
> That's absurd, if someone "conform exactly to whatever the audience wants" then everyone in the audience would be pleased, how could it be bad work ? [...] This discussion is useless to the artist.
Yes exactly. An artist can't work like this. It wouldn't work. It has the wrong energy.
Its kind of paradoxical, but the audience doesn't want to feel like we're in charge too much. We like it when performers take risks on stage, and show us who they are so we can judge them. Look at the top rated videos on youtube. Or the most popular songs. Or any list of the best movies ever made. All of them will contain a strong, clear point of view of the artist. Stanley Kubrick and Mick Jagger don't ask the audience what we want. They tell us what we want. (And they get it right.)
---
At a broader level, I think this whole discussion is a diversion. You seem to have argued both that all art is subjective. And that creating works of art based on what people want would be submitting to the "current cultural supremacia". Both of these arguments sound like excuses to me. Excuses to not try and become skilled. Excuses to skip being be sensitive to your audience. Excuses that protect from failure. For what its worth, I struggle with this too. My clown teacher told me I need to "try to not die so much" when things don't work on stage. It is very difficult. If human tastes really do change so much across time, then don't create for people in the future. Create for people right now. The people right in front of you, who you can understand.
The most successful clowns, businessmen and writers all care about their audience. But when things inevitably don't work, they acknowledge the failure with lightness and try again.
That is what the audience actually wants.
I agree with the Kant interpretation of aesthetics as a "teleologic" thing : there is no objective "beauty" yet we perpetually fail to embrace this and instead, when we find something "beautiful" we consider this judgement as if it was universal, absolute and objective (when it is not).
On the other hand, to complete this, I agree with Wittgenstein when he says that "you cannot SAY anything about aesthetics/ethics".
These two ideas aren't forming any paradox.
> Create for the people right now.
I would prefer :
Set your own dogma or not, but do what you feel you want to do, be it creating for others, for yourself (you abominable narcissus), for your cat, for the banana you just eaten, or for whatever supreme being you chose to believe in.
Choose your audience, let an audience choose you, or choose to be alone, whatever fits for you.
> [spotify streams]
To me, we're in a difficult position because the only way you have to quantify the value of an artwork (music in this case) is the number of streams it has.
Call me a mad man but it is not rare for me to hate most streamed music and to prefer <none> streamed music.
Yet I seriously doubt I am "musically dumb".
What I find instead is that advertisment, reputation, exposure, a good label, radio streams will get you a long way to become a <most streamed> artist.
And no, that's not "an excuse" to not try and become skilled... What sense does it make to say "Dua Lippa is better skilled than J.S.Bach because she has more streams" (or the contrary) or "AC/DC is better skilled than Alan Vega because they sold more disks" (or the contrary).
> If I just mash my hand on the piano with no skill
Okay, that's pretty sure.
Now if you wrote a small piano piece, there is no way you could predict if it will become a hit or not. It depends on factors that are really far from being limited to "the piece in question".
This is where I think we really disagree. If I want to make music people like, I’m pretty sure piano lessons would help me. Theory. Rhythm. Learning to sing. Then I need to practice! Making a smash hit isn’t predictable, but it’s not random either. Luck is a necessary but not sufficient quality. As the saying goes, most overnight successes are 20 years in the making. Watch the early stuff from Louis CK. From Trey Parker and Matt Stone. It’s not as good. They got better over time.
You can learn to write better. To be more charismatic. To connect better to an audience. You’re not in control of whether or not an iOS app is successful. But you can’t make it at all if you don’t know how to code. And if you’re bad at design it probably won’t make it. It’s not simply a coincidence that some blog posts get read and others are ignored. Ask anyone successful. By honestly any metric of success. Practice, skill and hard work won’t guarantee anyone cares about your craft. But if you don’t try? Don’t listen to your audience and improve? Good luck.
I didn't say [learn piano = don't learn piano].
What I said is the banal : no matter how you're skilled, there's no guarantee of success, and in the small window of opportunity that is "becoming successful", there are (maybe normally distributed) skilled and non skilled people.
Not sure about "most overnight successes are 20 years in the making"; if I want to be perfectly rationnal, I recognize that this sentence is often false (but don't have the data to analyze this in depth, I would love to be able to check this though).
I don't want to offend you by any mean, but we have a tendency to pick up some examples and to hallucinate something from that few examples (which is a natural and quasi-reasonable thing to do when you have a sufficient large dataset); here you tell me about Louis CK, and while it can be true that they did better over time, I am pretty sure we can find counterexemples of this, no ? I imagine that's not a rare thing to meet people that prefer early-xxxx more than later-xxxx.
> Ask anyone successful.
I decided to erase what I meant to answer here (maybe it's time to move on haha).
Well, I think I understood you position, I'm glad we took the time to talk. The internet is full of these opportunities and I enjoy that from time to time, even if thinking in a language I master less than my main one is always tiresome and somewhat "violent" (I feel dumber in English ?). (Wow, it's late in Australia !)