Social fragmentation

Despite all its faults, as a science writer I have found social media wonderful - it allows me to tap into both the science and writing communities, which is excellent for someone working in a job where you don't have much opportunity to meet others in your line of work.

I've been involved in this kind of thing for a while, beginning with an ancient forum (I can't remember where it was hosted) set up by the Society of Authors. I'm still in contact with quite a few writers from this, who can share a wry smile when remembering the lack of foresight from whoever set it up, that a forum titled Writers' Exchange might look a little misleading when the words are run together without an apostrophe.

Until recently, by far the most useful social media site for me was Twitter. It probably still is, but X is declining in value because a number of my long-standing contacts have abandoned it out of dislike for its owner. Personally, I think this amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face, as it would take a long time for any alternative to generate the same following - and some, such as Mastodon, seem to me too technical and user-unfriendly for mass adoption.

So, I'm not leaving X - but I do now also post on both Bluesky and Threads, and would be very happy to build up my contacts if anyone would care to follow me. My full social broadside is:

Twitter/X - https://x.com/brianclegg
Bluesky - https://bsky.app/profile/brianclegg.bsky.social
Threads - https://www.threads.net/@briancleggauthor
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/briancleggauthor
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianclegg/

I usually post any new stuff on all of them, though the best way to see all my output is to subscribe below.

Image by Nathan Dumlao from Unsplash

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog