I made the jump from WordPress 3.x to 4.0. Things went mostly smooth, though there is something about my server setup that does not allow for the archive to be unpacked automatically and I need to do a manual upgrade.
In an effort to make the site easier to maintain, I have decided to use the default theme as given. Previously, I had made a few tweaks to the CSS to scratch some itches, but since my free time is minimal, I’ll just take what they supply, the moral equivalent of grabbing cans of paint from the return shelf at Home Depot.
One thing I will say about the new theme is I’m not pleased with their use of green as the accent color and the inability to change that color within the dashboard. I’m not a big fan of green outside of plants. (I own a couple green shirts, but they were chosen at the behest of my wife to add color to my wardrobe.) I’m surprised that it’s not possible to easily change that accent color except by editing the CSS given its prominence now that the theme is almost entirely black and white and other aspects of the theme’s colors can be changed in the dashboard. But, since I am walking away from tweaking the styles, I have to go by my family’s maxim “you get what you get and you don’t get upset.”
Regardless of that, WordPress still has an insanely easy upgrade process despite its complexity. I’m very pleased since having moved over a year ago.
UPDATE: While surfing the web this morning, I realized that by picking the default theme my site now looks like Wil Wheaton’s. This is not necessarily a big problem if only because I always felt his site looked really sharp. But now the underlying designer in me feels that my site ought to have some distinction to its design. Not sure when I will find the time to do that since school has started, but now I have that “itch” to scratch.
Boing Boing has all the lowdown on a new album by Aphex Twin, hands down one of my favorite artists ever.
How did the label react when you told them you had a new album for them?
Steve [Beckett, Warp’s co-founder] was like, “No fucking way! Fuck me sideways.” He’s pretty funny.
Rolling Stone: Aphex Twin on New ‘Syro’ LP
In the never-ending war between PC and console gamers, one of the PC side’s favorite points is the fact that console hardware stays frustratingly static for years at a time, while PC users can upgrade everything from the RAM to the graphics card as technology improves. Thus, by the end of a given console generation (and sometimes earlier), a price-competitive PC will almost always be able to outclass the performance of its aging console competition.
This is true, as far as it goes. But as any console owners can tell you, unchanging hardware does not mean unchanging graphical performance over the life of a console. On the contrary, as time goes on, developers are often able to extract more from a console’s limited architecture than anyone ever thought possible when the system launched.
Ars Technica: “Same box, better graphics: improving performance within console generations”
Great retrospective that highlights how much those early consoles improved over time, though not so much on the later consoles. I’d be surprised if the same retrospective would be applicable to the consoles coming out today or in the next couple of years.
I am surprised, however, they didn’t highlight the Nintendo 64. I think of all the consoles listed in the article, the N64 would be the best example of just how much progress developers could make in a single generation. The Ocarina of Time was an amazing game in terms of story, scale, and mechanics, but the graphics, frankly, paled in comparison to Star Wars Episode 1: Racer and Conker’s Bad Fur Day. Despite the games being so expensive, I was really disappointed when the N64 was discontinued because the games looked great and had none of the load times seen on the PlayStation. I still miss that console sometimes, and if Nintendo would get their act together, face reality, and start releasing games on the iPhone, I would pick up pretty much every one of them.
Compete, target and reform
The priority should be a Rooseveltian attack on monopolies and vested interests, be they state-owned enterprises in China or big banks on Wall Street. The emerging world, in particular, needs to introduce greater transparency in government contracts and effective anti-trust law. It is no coincidence that the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, made his money in Mexican telecoms, an industry where competitive pressures were low and prices were sky-high. In the rich world there is also plenty of opening up to do. Only a fraction of the European Union’s economy is a genuine single market. School reform and introducing choice is crucial: no Wall Street financier has done as much damage to American social mobility as the teachers’ unions have. Getting rid of distortions, such as labour laws in Europe or the remnants of China’s hukou system of household registration, would also make a huge difference.
Next, target government spending on the poor and the young. In the emerging world too much cash goes to universal fuel subsidies that disproportionately favour the wealthy (in Asia) and unaffordable pensions that favour the relatively affluent (in Latin America). But the biggest target for reform is the welfare states of the rich world. Given their ageing societies, governments cannot hope to spend less on the elderly, but they can reduce the pace of increase—for instance, by raising retirement ages more dramatically and means-testing the goodies on offer. Some of the cash could go into education. The first Progressive era led to the introduction of publicly financed secondary schools; this time round the target should be pre-school education, as well as more retraining for the jobless.
Last, reform taxes: not to punish the rich but to raise money more efficiently and progressively. In poorer economies, where tax avoidance is rife, the focus should be on lower rates and better enforcement. In rich ones the main gains should come from eliminating deductions that particularly benefit the wealthy (such as America’s mortgage-interest deduction); narrowing the gap between tax rates on wages and capital income; and relying more on efficient taxes that are paid disproportionately by the rich, such as some property taxes.
The Economist: “True Progressivism”
“A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth”
I never was one for ready-made politics, but this is really good.
Boston.com used to be a useful website. But something happened earlier this year that has turned the site into one of the biggest piles of drivel I have ever come across. The content that is truly useful and entertaining—Weather Wisdom and Love Letters—are absolutely buried on the site, at least two clicks which in web terms is almost dead and gone, without any links on the front page. If Boston.com weren’t such a hack job nowadays I would kind of understand (but only kind of) making readers walk to the back of the store, but the front page content is so awful now that I don’t want to take the time to dig any deeper than absolutely necessary. Boston.com has become this confusing mix of poorly written editorials mixed in with articles somewhat resembling news (though largely unimportant and much of it having nothing to do with Boston) and not much visible, cohesive organization.
In reading about how to handle registration transfers for new cars, I came upon this question:
Q#9. I am 17 and hold legal title to my 1963 Honduras Maroon Chevy Impala. Can I use this law when I trade the Impala for a 1968 GTO?
“1963 Honduras Maroon Chevy Impala.” I need to add that to the joke vault. I think it’s the “Honduras Maroon.” Apparently it’s a thing.
I might have quoted this in the past, but I think this is just great:
We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing? Neither, is the answer. . . it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.
The Economist explains itself: Is The Economist left- or right-wing?
This, then, was one of my themes for Dune: Don’t give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero’s facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. And sometimes you run into another problem.
It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced—in a word, insane.
That was the beginning. Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe. The mistakes of superheroes involve too many of us in disaster.
Dune Genesis by Frank Herbert
The last time I’ve read Dune is many years ago. Perhaps a new reading during my winter break is in order.