S. Evan Townsend's Blog

1959 Cadillac Coupe deVille

The other day I was at a stoplight behind an Acura ADX A-Spec. That's a mouthful. Not sure what that "A-Spec" means. It doesn't seem to mean more horsepower or anything sporty according the the Acura website. (There is a Type S ADX that has more horsepower.)

But I was struck by the designation of the car: "ADX." When I was a kid most cars had names. Yes some still do, but a lot of car companies have just gone to alphanumerics. Acura is one of the worst offenders, as are Cadillac (except for the Escalade and their electric vehicles) and Infiniti. The Ford F-150 (pickup truck) has been called that since 1984, but Ford and Lincoln still name their other vehicles such as the Mustang, the Explorer, and the Navigator.

BMW, Audi, and Mercedes Benz have, as far as I know, always used alphanumerics. They used to mean something. For example a BMW 540i was a 5-series with a 4.0 liter V-8 engine. The "i" meant that is was a fuel-injected gas vehicle.

Car names used to evoke emotions such as Camaro (a made-up word) or Bonneville. Ford sullied the Mustang name by attaching it to an SUV EV. I've read that Chevrolet is planning a Corvette line of vehicles, including an SUV. I hope not.

It got me thinking: which letters are cool on cars and which are not? There's only 26 letters in the alphabet and some haven't been used, as far as I know. Such as K or U. Even B found a home in the Toyota bz4x EV.

"GT" has been used a lot on cars, especially the Mustang. "GT" stands for "grand tourer" or "gran tourer" (or in Italian, "Gran Turismo"), Ferrari also used "GT" on some of its cars such as the  250 GT California Spyder. (I talk about what "Spyder" means here.)

I miss cars having names. the Cadillac CT5 isn't as evocative as "Coupe deVille." 

What do you think? Do you prefer cars to have names or just alphanumerics. And which letters aren't cool on cars? Let me know in the comments below.

Atari 2600My 6-year-old grandson came to visit on a recent weekend. One of the things he wanted to do was play video games on his uncle’s Switch (it might be a Switch 2; I can't keep up). He's coming for Thanksgiving, too, and I'm sure will want to play video games with his uncle then, too.
I realized he’s never lived in a world without video games or the internet or small portable screens, and big-screen televisions a couple of inches thick, if that. His father and uncles had video games but not handheld ones until the Gameboy came out.

I remember seeing my first arcade game at about age 15. It was a space thing that was a blatant rip off of Star Trek.  I specifically remember playing "Tank" on an arcade for a quarter.  I didn’t have home video games until I bought an Atari 2600 when I was 21 or 22. I remember circa 1994 (I was 33) learning about email and then the internet. Now look at me, blogging and stuff.

I stopped playing video games about the time I turned 50. I kept dying because I couldn't react fast enough. It was no longer fun. Although I did play "Angry Birds" on my phone. Even that was a long time ago.

My point: my grandson will grow up with stuff I never had. His parents are smart and limit his game time and his "tablet time." And I noticed he plays mostly educational games on his tablet. I just hope he gets to enjoy some of the joys of my childhood: playing outside and riding my bicycle all over the neighborhood.

When did you first play video games? How old were you? Let me know in the comments below.

It's November and for a lot of writers that means it's time for NaNoWriMo. Or, National Novel Writing Month.

Alas, NaNoWriMo is no more. 

The object of NaNoWriMo was to write 50,000 words in November. It was to get people who are stuck or think too much or have writers block to just write. I think it was Hemingway who said "Write drunk, edit sober." So NaNoWriMo was to get writers and want-to-be writers to actually write.

There was a national non-profit organization that ran it all and had a website where you could track your progress and "win" by actually writing at least 50,000 words. I did NaNoWriMo four times and won three (the other time I was stymied by the need for research). I haven't done NaNoWriMo since 2015.

The organization went out of business recently due to financial reason. There was some controversy surrounding AI, too, that eroded trust in the organization.

Of course, if you're a writer, you can do your own NaNoWriMo, just keep track of the words yourself. I did this on an Excel spreadsheet in addition to the website. Not every writer is skilled with Excel, however.

The spirit of NaNoWriMo can live on: just keep writing. Overcome writer's block, perfectionism, and procrastination by setting a writing goal and get the first draft of a novel written. 

There was a down side to NaNoWriMo. I discuss here. 

I'm sort of sad NaNoWriMo is no more. It was great camaraderie as writers would get together to write doing challenges and "sprints" (write as many words as you can in a set time). 

How do you feel about NaNoWriMo going away? Let me know in the comments below.

P.S.: I came so close to titling this "NaNoWriMo is No Moreo."

 My son gave me a 2025 Jeopardy desk calendar for Christmas last year. And I've enjoyed it all year long. I'm sure he got it for me because I watch Jeopardy every weekday. Well, unless it's preempted for sports. Which makes me grumpy, especially because it's usually basketball.

The calendar is set up for you to record your winnings and then bet and do Final Jeopardy on Sundays. I haven't been doing that. I just keep track of how many clues I've gotten correct in a row. My personal best is 13 (see picture). Before that it was eight. I was feeling pretty good about 13 until I got two answers in a row incorrect including last Monday's. The Monday clues are usually the easiest of the week. 

I watch Jeopardy because I enjoy challenging my brain. And I have a cordial competition with a friend on who can get the most Final Jeopardy answers correct in a week. She usually wins (last week we tied). 

Do you watch Jeopardy? Why or why not. Let me know in the comments below.

The World Series starts tomorrow (without the Mariners!). And that reminds me that I, yes, I, invented the pitch timer.

In 2017 I was watching an MLB game (probably the Seattle Mariners). I don't watch a lot of baseball games and have, in fact, made it my goal to watch zero MLB games per season.

During that game, I watched as the pitcher would goof off before throwing the ball and the batter would step out of the batter box to adjust his gloves or hit his shoes with his bat for some reason.

And I decided that baseball needed a pitch clock. I posted this on facebook:

And in 2023, MLB introduced a pitch "timer" which is basically a pitch clock. So I was six years ahead of the MLB. Now the MLB rules are a bit different from what I proposed, including the amount of time given being a lot more. I based my 7 seconds on how long it took the pitcher to throw the ball after he gets it if he doesn't goof off.

What do you think of the pitch clock? Hate it or love it? It's supposed to speed up games (I'm not sure if it has). 

The recent death of Diane Keaton made me sad. She was a wonderful actor especially in the Godfather movies.

It also reminded me of the 1978 Academy Awards. Those were the 50th annual Academy Awards. But that's not what I remembered.

Diane Keaton won the best actress in a leading role Oscar for the movie Annie Hall, a movie directed by Woody Allen and for which he won Best Director (probably didn't show up).

But it was the best picture Oscar that really upset me. The nominees were:

Annie Hall (it was funny in that understated, Woody Allen way)Julia (I don't remember anything about it)The Turning Point (ditto)The Goodbye Girl (a funny comedy)Star Wars And the winner was.... Annie Hall.
Now, let me ask you: which movie of those five had the biggest impact on the movie industry. It wasn't Annie Hall, a barely remembered comedy. It was, of course, Star Wars. It launched a whole science fiction franchise that is still going on. If it weren't for Star Wars, there would have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture which revived that science fiction franchise that is still going on. Without Star Wars there would be no Star Trek series such as The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.
But the Academy hates popular movies and Star Wars was the biggest grossing movie of 1977. But I was so mad I refused to watch Annie Hall for decades. I kind of regretted that when I finally watched it because it is an enjoyable film.
Do you think Star Wars should have won the 1978 Best Picture Oscar? Let me know in the comments below.
The above photo is being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

A recent weekend I watched two science fiction movies back-to-back that couldn't be more different and yet, coincidentally, where linked. 

The first was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. It was the last Star Trek movie with all of the TOS crew (some were in Star Trek: Generations). That Star Trek VI was a cold war ending allegory could hardly be more obvious. I've discussed a bit of this movie before. Not sure why I watched it. I guess I felt as if I hadn't seen it for a while.

The second movie I watched was the 1954 Disney version of 20,000 Leagues under the Sea. To be honest, I'm not sure what inspired me to watch it. It was based on the 1868 book by Jules Verne Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas. The movie starred James Mason as Captain Nemo, Kirk Douglas as an American whaler, and Peter Lorre as the French professor's apprentice. Those were the only actors I recognized. 

I know I'd seen 20,000 Leagues under the Sea before as a kid, maybe in the theater. In the 1960s and early '70s, Disney would re-release its live-action and animated movies because, for some reason, they weren't making new ones. In any case, I know I've seen that movie before. Also, I'm not sure but I might have read the book (translated to English, of course). I know I read Journey to the Center of the Earth by Verne when I was a kid. Later in life I read Around the World in Eighty Days.

20,000 Leagues under the Sea is about a submarine (very much science fiction in 1868) named Nautilus that attacks ships by ramming them. It is powered by a mysterious, abundant source of energy. This is why the first nuclear submarine in the U.S. Navy was named Nautilus after the submarine in the book/movie. 

But how are they linked?

Warning: SPOILERS ahead.

In Star Trek VI, Kirk and McCoy are accused of killing the Klingon chancellor. At their trial they are sentenced to the prison asteroid of Rura Penthe, known throughout the galaxy as "the Aliens' Graveyard."

In 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, Captain Nemo takes the professor to see Rura Penthe, "the white mans' graveyard."

I bought the Kindle version of the Vern book for 29 cents (31 cents with tax). I searched for "Rura Penthe" and "graveyard" and neither came up. So I'm thinking it's only in the movie.

The writers of Star Trek VI snuck in a Jules Verne and/or Disney reference in the movie. The screenplay was written by Nicholas Meyer and Denny Martin Flinn. I would think it was Meyer (who also directed) who snuck in that reference. He likes to do that in his movies. 

But if I hadn't watched the movies back-to-back, I would probably have never made that connection.

Entertainment gives us all survivor bias. 

Let me explain.

The hero/heroine always survives (except in Titanic but that's a rare exception). Books, movies, television, the protagonist always survives. Think about the movie Independence Day (try not to think too much, it's not a very good movie). Millions die but most of the main characters live.

I'm guilty of this. In my books the protagonist (almost) always survives. I did kill off my main character once in a book.

Because of entertainment, I believe we all secretly think we're going to survive. I think people going into a war have to think they will survive. Otherwise, they wouldn't go. But some don't survive.

But in real life, your odds of surviving disasters are much less. I remember reading years ago (I think in Readers Digest) about a skyscraper fire in Brazil (this might have been the fire). People trying to escape came to the end of a hall. There were two ways out: left or right. The ones that went one way survived. The ones that went the other way, didn't. So you had a 50% chance of making the wrong choice and dying. And that stuck with me. A 50% chance of dying based on a random choice. That's scary.

When I drove on the racetrack, I assumed nothing bad was going to happen to me even though what I was doing was inherently dangerous. (Nothing bad did happen.)

So, we all probably have survivor bias. I think we wouldn't step out of the safety of our houses if we didn't to some degree. 

Do you think people have survivor bias and it's mostly because of popular entertainment? Let me know in the comments below.

I'm not a big fan of the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies (also known as the Kelvin timeline).  The first one was okay. Then came Star Trek into Darkness and it was downright bad. There was one scene I thought was completely gratuitous when actress Alice Eve (playing Carol Marcus) stood around in her underwear.

Alice Eve is a lovely woman and as a testosterone-poisoned male, I enjoyed the scene, but even then, I thought it was completely unneeded. 

But, sex sells. 

Some women were upset at the Alice Eve scene. But have you looked at romance books lately? Here's an example:

It seems on a lot of romance books there are shirtless men. But sex sells.
In my novel Rock Killer , I had a character named Charlie Jones. After writing less than a paragraph, I changed Charlie from a man to a woman with the same name. And I made her an attractive woman because... sex sells. (I decided her name was Charlene but everyone called her "Charlie.") And, at the beginning of the book, Charlie is in a bathtub. Because... sex sells. In that scene I say:
"She soaped up a washcloth and rubbed it over her dark skin; Frank called it chocolate-cheesecake colored."
Have you noticed other examples of using sex to sell entertainment? Let me know in the comments below.
The above photos are being used under Section 107 of the Copyright Act: fair usage.

The one thing that hasn't gone metric is time. There's still 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, etc.

And for good reason. Metric time just wouldn't work.

The SI unit of time is the second. It's described as:

The second [...] is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency, ΔνCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s^−1

Yeah, I don't understand it either.

There is a "metric time" accepted for use with the metric system, minutes, hours, and days which are not considered SI units. French Revolutionary Time divided the day into 10 hours, each with 100 minutes, and each minute with 100 seconds, That resulted in a metric second being a slightly different length than a standard SI second. 

According to Wikipedia:

The [French Revolutionary] calendar consisted of twelve 30-day months, each divided into three 10-day cycles similar to weeks, plus five or six intercalary days at the end to fill out the balance of a solar year. It was designed in part to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar, and it was part of a larger attempt at dechristianisation and decimalisation in France.

 I doubt it worked well and the calendar was abolished in 1805 after 12 years of usage.

Our current system of 60 seconds per minute and 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours in a day, etc., is just too ingrained in society. Plus it works, unlike the French Revolutionary Calendar. 

What do you think of "metric time"? Let me know in the comments below.

Side note: I started this blog on September 19, 2012. So tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of it. Since then I have made 1,373 posts including this one.