09 January 2006

Leta, where are you?

I haven't been blogging as much lately because my job has gone from having roughly six hours of work in an eight hour day to having roughly nine hours of work in an eight hour day. And as we are going to be housing the accounting staff here rather than in LA starting in the near future, I've been told that very soon I'll be even busier. And my main thought here is "Cool! Great! Bring it on!" because one feels, shall we say, more job-secure if one is busy. And besides, the stuff that I do supporting the contracts folks and the CFO is really interesting.

And, just to keep things extra interesting, I am the "Adjudication Coordinator" for WATCH this year. I'll report more on that some other time, but for now sufficeth to say that it looks to be pretty time consuming.

But, boy, this work stuff can cut into one's day. I have literally had entire blog posts - brilliant, witty, one-of-a-kind, piquant* little essays - all ready to be written and I was just too tired to wrap my mind around typing them. Even at lunch, I just couldn't work up the needed state of mind. And when I get home from rehearsal my bed is calling too loudly for me to concentrate on blogging. Ahh, the loss to the blogosphere. And to all of humankind, really.

But I shall try to get back in the grove because I know how much I enjoy writing my prattling little thoughts and because I know that y'all depend on me. Especially as I have been not one but two books popular science, so I can now explain how the multiverse works with handy examples.** I'm so there for you.

*I am assuming that this word is pronounced something like pee-KHANT and not PEEK-went. But, you know, I always think peek-went as I type it. Perhaps someone could give me some guidance on that before I say peek-went in David's hearing and cause him just that one tiny bit more unnecessary psychic pain.

**Especially as my explanations of how the mutiverse works will probably cause David great, big, huge amounts of psychic pain.

2 comments:

Brett said...

So, Leta how does the universe work? (Sorry David I have to know...)

MacDurk said...

Looking at Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "piquant" [from Middle French] could be pronounced PEE•kent, PEE•känt, or PIK•went [with the stress on the first syllable and the e's being upside-down]. I've also seen pee•KANT. So pick your favorite.

The definitions are also interesting. In Webster's, piquant is either "agreeably stimulating to the palate: savory" or "enjoyingly provocative, also having a lively arch charm." WordNet 2.0 [© 2003, Princeton University] defines piquant as "adj 1: having an agreeably pungent taste [syn: savory, savoury, spicy, zesty] 2: engagingly stimulating or provocative; "a piquant wit"; "salty language" [syn: salty] 3: attracting or delighting; "an engaging frankness"; "a piquant face with large appealing eyes" [syn: engaging] " Inquiring minds want to know: Which definition best fits you, Leta?

There is also IBM's "PIQUANT (Practical Intelligent QUestion ANswering Technology) project. Wouldn't it be great to have a "modular, multi-agent Question Answering environment?" It probably still would not reliably provide the One answer that the questioner really, really wants to hear....