Mike Riversdale

A Hint At Rugby

2026-04-05T09:33:00.002+12:00

In the photo archives there's quite a few rugby photos, here's just seven from the daily theme to hint at them all.

Be Selfish And Make It Easy For Them

2026-04-02T17:23:00.006+13:00

Years ago I worked at the Ministry of Health based up the top of Molesworth Street, a building with a swanky entrance up a few levels from the footpath. One week they were fixing up the "disabled" ramp that allowed people with wheelchairs etc to pass the steps and enter reception.

All sorted, easy job.

The following Monday I noticed that courier cyclists were zooming up the ramp. Hah, it wasn't built for them but it certainly made their life a lot easier.

It is called the 'curb cut effect'

The curb cut effect is the phenomenon of disability-friendly features being used and appreciated by a larger group than the people they were designed for.

Excellent designers, be they of physical things, processes, or electronic malarkey, know this and by making something universally accessible they make it so much easier for me. Thank you!

I love these other examples:

Closed Captioning (Subtitles): Created for the d/Deaf or hard of hearing, they are widely used in noisy public transport or for studying.
Video game accessibility features: used by players with no disabilities.
Text-to-speech applications: Used by people without visual impairment or mutism. It's common for users to listen to these apps while commuting or multitasking.
Audible pedestrian crossing signals: Originally designed for people with visual or hearing impairments but now provide safety and awareness for all.
Automatic Doors: Designed for accessibility, they benefit shoppers with heavy bags, parents holding children, and hospital staff.
Voice Control & Assistants: Initially for users with motor impairments, these are now standard for hands-free tasks in cars and homes.
Lever Door Handles: Designed for individuals with limited dexterity, these are easier for everyone to use (e.g., when your hands are full).
Audiobooks: Originally created for blind readers, they are now widely used for commuting and multitasking.
Text Descriptions (Alt-Text) on Images: Meant for screen readers, they assist with search engine optimisation (SEO) and slow internet connections.
Zero Threshold Showers: Created for wheelchair accessibility, they are now a stylish "spa-like" feature in modern homes.
Electric Toothbrushes: Originally designed for people with limited grip, they are now common household items.
Typewriters & Keyboards: The earliest typing machines were created to help blind individuals write legibly.
Adjustable Audio Speed: First added to help people with auditory processing difficulties, "1.5x" or "2x" playback speeds are now standard for podcast listeners and students looking to consume information faster.

Catch The Bus They Said, It'll Be Fun They Said

2026-04-01T13:02:00.002+13:00

It starts so simply on a cold January day, at 11:27am a guy wakes up on the bus he's caught to get home:

I just woke up from a nap and somehow while I was asleep, everyone on the bus has figured out we are not going to the right place.

And thus the venture started with the following posts taking us up to 11:48am:

they switched drivers at a rest stop and the new driver is telling everyone that they’re the ones on the wrong bus??

he’s refusing to talk to anyone while he’s driving and is now just driving really fast

people are calling the police

I think I might end up in Vienna Virginia but I’m …not sure???

two big guys just went up and said we’re going to Union station!! and he said no we’re not

someone got the bus company on the phone

they’re looking into it but he’s still insisting we’re not going to Washington DC

It’s particularly weird because this route only has three stops: penn station, union station, and DuPont circle

The bus company says they are trying to call the driver and he’s not answering

Someone pulled up Waze and said he’s going 75 in a 55 zone

and the lady behind me says he said he’s stopping in Vienna and Manassas, so I’m going to end up like an hour outside DC at 10pm on a holiday and also…who knows WHERE

Ok someone got the bus company on speakerphone and is walking it up to the front of the bus

Finally, we have some sort of resolution, surely ... nope, time drags on to 12:29pm before people can get off:

I can hear the bus company guy yelling YOURE GOING TO UNION STATION

the lady with the speakerphone hasn’t come back to her seat yet 😬

The company told him to take us to Union station and he screamed that he doesn’t get paid enough and is refusing

I uh, un-recommend Best Bus

Two passengers in the front are still fighting with the driver, in the back we’re debating whether calling the police is going to set him off

the bus is divided on calling the police

if people take their phones up with the company reps on speakerphone he grabs them and hangs them up

this is uh, fucking crazy

People are screaming at him “you’re going to be fired”

Passengers are now fighting with other passengers because they don’t want the guy to be set off anymore than he is
It seems like the consensus is get him to just stop the bus somewhere??

someone else tried to talk to the driver bc we are almost to DC and he says he has family to go home to and doesn’t have time to stop in DC

I uh, hope he has time to be arrested

Ok someone called the police but suggested they avoid pulling the bus over bc he’s driving so erratically. We’re passing DC

woman behind me is now screaming at the bus company on the phone

the company wasn’t being super helpful so she goes “just so you know we just reported to the police that we’re being kidnapped”
but the area being what it is we have to call different police lol

It sounds like they are going to have a different bus pick us up in Vienna.
Some woman is really upset and is screaming at the driver

Police are asking where we’re going to stop and we don’t actually know because we were never supposed to stop here lol

Ok he’s getting off the highway and the lights just got on

Things get filmed, someone has definitely made some poor choices along the way:

this guy is insane
https://bsky.app/profile/musicologyduck.bsky.social/post/3mct6j6h4vk2p

passengers are blocking the bus from leaving and there’s a kid under 18 who won’t get off because his mom said he was supposed to be at Union station

he was trying to crush this girl with the door???
https://bsky.app/profile/musicologyduck.bsky.social/post/3mct74mrojk2p

Wtfff
https://bsky.app/profile/musicologyduck.bsky.social/post/3mct7fa62mk2p

And it draws to an end, around 12:57pm

The company sent another bus to get us and I feel like I probably should have taken the metro but I’m hoping there’s a company rep at Union Station to scream at

Crazy guy finally got everyone off the bus and drove off, police didn’t show possibly bc we couldn’t figure out if it was supposed to be Vienna or Fairfax county 🙄

sorry my mentions are a wreck now—will be sending photos and videos to the company tomorrow and will update if I learn anything about how this happened or what they did about it
but uh, thanks for tuning in for this episode of “musicology duck gets briefly kidnapped”

updates: nobody from the bus company was in the booth at Union Station.
Also people are asking about the kid I mentioned-- he got off when the second bus arrived, but we had to make the original driver get his luggage out from underneath and he was, unsurprisingly, a real jerk about that too

also a clarification based on people’s comments: the driver wouldn’t give us his name but he was apparently French (at one point a passenger even started arguing with him in French thinking he just wasn’t understanding lol)

The end came the next morning after, I'm hoping a good night sleep for everyone!

update: woke up to a refund and an apology by 7am

Note: to see the original Bluesky thread you'll need to be logged in.

Outsmart, Easy To Play But Difficult To Win

2026-03-31T16:08:00.005+13:00

Five rounds, first to 3 wins.
In each round, the higher bet wins.
You have 100 total points, so bet wisely.
Can you outsmart the machine?

And that's it! Lose yourself as you get frustrated and try and win three in a row: https://labs.davidbauer.ch/outsmart/

One Ocean

2026-03-30T16:36:00.005+13:00

What a wonderful yet slightly challenging view of this planet we call home.

Source: instagram user @n.renier via @infobeautiful@vis.social

The Red Road

2026-03-29T23:43:00.002+13:00

A fake book cover joins the collection.

"A sun-drenched odyssey! Riversdale captures the raw pulse of the Red Centre with Everyman's wit." — The Sydney Morning Herald

"Brilliant... Where the bitumen ends, the real adventure begins. A must-read for the modern nomad." — The Territorian

"An intimate, sweeping portrait of the pioneers taming Australia’s vast and lonely frontier." — The Age

"Ripping yarns! From crocodile creeks to cattle kings, there is high-octane adventure at every turn." — Outdoor Life

"Stunningly evocative. Riversdale has captured the haunting beauty of a land that time forgot." — The Australian Women's Weekly

"A vivid, firsthand account of life where the desert meets the sky. Essential Outback reading." — Centralian Advocate

"Practical advice meets legendary tall tales. Riversdale is the definitive voice of the North." — Walkabout Magazine

"A profound journey. Explores the ancient mysteries of the world’s oldest, harshest terrain." — Geographical Journal

Fictional Book Cover

A digital illustration designed to look like a weathered, vintage paperback for a fictional book titled "THE RED ROAD." The artwork features a straight, dusty red dirt road stretching toward distant blue mountains under a bright, cloudy sky, flanked by green outback scrub. The title is displayed at the top in large, distressed yellow block letters, with the subtitle "AN AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK ADVENTURE" in red, playful font below it.

The bottom half includes a fictional promotional quote attributed to The Sydney Morning Herald and the imaginary author’s name, "BY NATALIE RIVERSDALE," in a gold, stylized font. The entire image has artificial creases, frayed edges, and a faded texture to mimic the appearance of an old, well-read adventure novel.

Why Can't We Be In Flow State All The Time?

2026-03-27T19:30:00.004+13:00

You know what it is, but just in case:

Flow in positive psychology, also known colloquially as being in the zone or focused, is the mental state in which a person performing some activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation in one's sense of time.

Sounds awesome eh - why can't we be in that for ever?

Probably absolutely knackering eh, although it seems like it's a 'restive' state of mind. Maybe this is what Buddhists and those that meditate also experience, do they get knackered? If one becomes an "enlightened one" (there's been a stack of Buddha's over the centuries however we normally only think of Siddhartha G) perhaps that's being in the flow constantly.

If you're bored with it all and can't be bothered which makes you anxious you're unlikely to get into the flow state, just saying:

Some of the challenges to staying in flow include states of apathy, boredom, and anxiety. The state of apathy is characterized by easy challenges and low skill level requirements, resulting in a general lack of interest in the activity. Boredom is a slightly different state that occurs when challenges are few, but one's skill level exceeds those challenges causing one to seek higher challenges. A state of anxiety occurs when challenges are high enough to exceed perceived skill level, causing distress and uneasiness. These states in general prevent achieving the balance necessary for flow. Csíkszentmihályi has said, "If challenges are too low, one gets back to flow by increasing them. If challenges are too great, one can return to the flow state by learning new skills."

Not bored, apathetic, or feeling anxious, here's what you need to get into that flow state:

Know what to do
Know how to do it
Know how well one is doing
Know where to go (if navigation is involved)
Have high perceived challenges
Posses high perceived skills
Be free from distractions

A key for one to enter the flow state is to remove all distractions (both external and internal distractions). Distractions are the biggest enemy that stops one from entering a flow state and focussing on things that matter.

I also try to schedule my 'deep' work for mid-morning. This time in the morning, it is quiet with minimal external distractions, thus enabling me to enter a flow state quickly - it's when I wrote this for instance. You need to find the best time in your day where external distractions are minimum and your energy levels are at peak.

Now, let's talk about those damn beeps and electronic notifications we are always getting - oh, and are you someone who ends up opening 20 tabs and getting into a wormhole of distractions? You are not alone; I can find myself in the same boat too. But technology can help us remove distractions. I use focus mode on my phone / computer to help me silent incoming calls, switch off notifications, and stay away from apps.

Now that distractions are removed, the next thing is to pick the right task or challenge you want to work on. Flow state allows you to fully immerse your mental state in completing a task. But knowing what should be done and the expected outcomes significantly helps us enter the flow state. Pick one specific task at a time. You need to make sure the task is challenging enough but not too challenging.

And I finally, adding some routine or ritual reminds the brain about deep work and prepares to enter a flow state. My ritual is writing the task with expected goal in Keep and taking a second to affirm to myself how I will complete this task.

Read much more at the Flow (psychology) Wikipedia page.

Daily Faces In The Crowds

2026-03-26T12:32:00.004+13:00

End of the People theme, Friends and Family I have shared and here's Faces and Crowds. Next couple of weeks the theme says Sport: Rugby, Cricket, Kids, Stadia.

Faces

Crowds

When You Are Given Compliment Be Like Margaret Thatcher & Paul McCartney

2026-03-25T16:27:00.004+13:00

Years ago I read an article in the Sunday Times Magazine that outlined the one common trait that 'all' successful people had in common, they say, "Thank you" when given a compliment about something they have done.

Through the mists of time I recall three of the people given as examples of successful people that all say "thank you", Richard Branson, Margaret Thatcher, and Paul McCartney. The line about McCartney went something like this

If you tell McCartney that you think Yesterday is an excellent song he won't try and brush it off as, "Just one of the many songs we wrote", or, "It wasn't me it was the muse", he will unashamedly say, "Thank you."

Something like that.

I have Googled everything I can over many years to see if I can find the original article (which may or may not have actually be Sunday Times Magazine, who knows) - nothing, never found anything of the article nor any such research the article was probably based upon. But it was real, promise.

I have never forgotten it, and always try to say thank you when someone says nice things to me.

btw: if you want to know the number one trait of successful people, this is the list according to the World Wide Web:

Persistence
Resilience (grit)
Creativity
Goal setting
Sociability
Adaptability
Clarity
Continuous learning
Focus
Self-discipline
Patience
Honesty
Unafraid to fail
Disciplined
Optimism
Collaborative
Composed
Routines and rituals
Obsession
Realistic
Sacrifice
Integrity
Action orientated
Positive body language
Self control
Clarity of communication
… and on it goes!

Take your pick!

This post re-inspired by Psychology Says People Who Say “Please” And “Thank You” Without Thinking Twice Usually Display These 7 Deeply Rooted Qualities, March 21, 2026

< 43: Be embarrassed 45: Enjoy yourself >

Let's Meet Johnny Warangkula

2026-03-24T15:06:00.011+13:00

An AT (Aboriginal Teacher / Assistant Teacher) sat next to me the other week and was telling me how Johnny was her grandad.

"Johnny? Johnny who?", I asked, she looked bemused at me.

So I Googled and here's Johnny!

Johnny Warangkula Tjupurrula (1925 – 12 February 2001) was an Australian painter whose work has been widely collected and well-regarded since the late 60s. Many of his pieces are said to stand out from that of other Australian Aboriginal artists in the way they present the transitory beauty of water and its transformative effect on the landscape represented in works. His paintings are held in galleries and collections in Australia and elsewhere, including the National Gallery of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the Art Gallery of Western Australia and the National Gallery of Victoria.

Yup, a full-on Wikipedia page all about him, cool!

And there's the connection:

In the last ten years of his life Warangkula lived with his second wife Gladys Napanangka at Papunya. He had two sons and six daughters from this marriage and two daughters from a previous one.

Let's have a look at some of Johnny's art. As with many art of this style imagine you are floating over the scene looking directly down and these paintings are more akin to maps than portraits. People are symbolised by a curve / U symbol, which represents the imprint left in the sand by a person sitting cross-legged. For a woman the artists often add the following:

A Digging Stick: Represented by a single straight line.
A Coolamon: Represented by an oval shape.

A man is represented by the same U-shape accompanied by his traditional hunting and protection tools:

Spears: Represented by one or more long, straight lines (sometimes with barbs).
Boomerangs: Represented by curved or "L" shaped marks.
Shields: Often shown as an elongated ova.

More Johnny info and art:

Trump Supporters Assume They Are In His Favour

2026-03-21T23:03:04.898+13:00

It always strikes me as unusual thinking from all Trump supporters that they, the unknowns with no money nor cogs in any wheels, are somehow within Trump's favour, he an establishment billionaire.

If you've no money, and therefore in Trump's eyes, of no value or influence, then he doesn't give any thought to you or your predicament. He merely wants what he can take from you, which at the moment is a cross in a box on a voting paper and to add your voice to his call.

Nothing else.

Which of course leads to a following question for Trump supporters, "What happens when it all becomes authoritarian and the tick is no longer needed?"

Well, you just become one of the "other", just like gay people, unmarried mothers, immigrants, non-millionaire non-Republican voters, those that crack jokes at Trump, and everyone else you currently denigrate and mock. You are no use to Trump, he'll clampdown on you the moment you think, "Hang on, that's affects me big time. Fuck that, let's do something about it."

A minority (34%) of Americans think the system is holding up and that Trump can't become a dictator, "Hitler can't happen here." Stop thinking about Hitler and the 1930s, that's not the playbook he's been using, rather look at competitive authoritarianism such as Putin, Erdoğan, and Modi (plus many others).

Competitive authoritarianism is a hybrid regime type where formal democratic institutions (elections) exist but are skewed in favor of incumbents, making them unfair but not fully closed. Developed by Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, these regimes feature regular, competitive elections where the opposition can compete and sometimes win, but media control, state resource abuse, and harassment create an uneven playing field.

Will this come to be the USA with Trump supporters discovering they are nothing to the state - very likely, yes, ‘Trump is aiming for dictatorship’. That’s the verdict of the world’s most credible democracy watchdog.

.. the speed with which US democracy is being dismantled is unprecedented in modern history. The main factor is a “rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency”, Lindberg says. Congress has been marginalised, jeopardising the “checks and balances” (judicial and legislative constraints on the executive) so crucial to US democracy. At the same time, civil rights have been rapidly declining and freedom of expression is now at its lowest level since the 1940s.

It's not just about America, closer to my heart is the UK (from the same article)

The report identifies the UK as a “new autocratiser”, driven by “a substantial decline” in freedom of expression and the media. “In the UK, it began before Keir Starmer, with the Elections Act 2022, and the government expanding its power over electoral commissions,” Lindberg says. “The Policing Act 2022 decreased civil rights and free speech. The Online Safety Act 2023 was used to penalise online speech and lawsuits silencing journalists. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 increased demands on universities to monitor protests and police free speech. What’s worrying is that once the democratic backsliding begins, it’s often hard to stop.”.

Where is Aotearoa New Zealand, or Australia? Dunno, not mentioned - yet, but AoNZ seems to be following a 'less democratic' trend. It's not just America though, the world eh.

Nearly a quarter of the world’s nations are now on the list of autocratizers: 44 countries.
44 autocratizers divide into 24 stand-alone autocratizers and 20 Bell-turns.
10 new autocratizers identified in 2025.
Among the new autocratizers are five European countries: Croatia, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK.
Media censorship remains the most common tactic among autocratizing governments with 32 countries (73%) resorting to it.
Repression of civil society has surged to affect 30 autocratizing countries (68%).

Source: DEMOCRACY REPORT 2026 - Unraveling The Democratic Era? [pdf]

An Experiment With Wit, Fallacies, And History

2026-03-21T19:14:23.062+13:00

A few posts recently have been a part of an informal experiment after the Google Analytics AI/LLM suggested a few blog titles that it thinks would be popular to the sort of people that read this blog - you, it's talking about you.

Over the past few weeks I've posted the following, all content created by Google Gemini AI/LLM:

Famous Last Words: A Collection of Wit and Wisdom

Apparently these four are part of a series that:

Based on the topics that have resonated with your audience in the past, here are a few suggestions for new blog post titles that could also generate high traffic ...

I shan't be doing any more of the suggestions, they're not really what interests me - although, "The Science of Laughter" does deserve a little digging so who knows.

The experiment was to see if they would become popular, and you can check it out by looking at the bottom of the page - do they appear?

I shared the first post, The Top 5 Historical Events You Probably Got Wrong, extensively and it's true to say it scratched an itch for quite a few readers. It's also featured high in Google for "events you probably got wrong", in fact first result (for me in private / incognito mode).

The others are also doing 'well'. I have sporadically shared them but will crack into the final one with social media gusto next month, just to see if it makes a difference.

I can certainly see why many websites that rely on advertising income are pumping out AI/LLM created / augmented content. That's all it is though, content to get eyeballs to generate income never from any human passion to discover and share. The blog posts all feel like bland blancmange content that serves no-one and slops their way over the good stuff.

These titles are designed to be attention-grabbing and appeal to a broad audience, similar to your previously successful articles. By creating high-quality content around these topics, you can increase your chances of attracting more visitors to your blog.

I'd say "high-quality content" is out of the reach of AI/LLM at the moment, let's see what 2027 brings though.

Famous Last Words: A Collection of Wit and Wisdom

2026-03-18T16:09:21.341+13:00

In this post, I want to explore some of the most memorable and thought-provoking final words uttered by famous figures throughout history. These words aren’t just a simple goodbye; they’re often a reflection of the person’s life, their beliefs, and their unique perspective on death.

1. William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Bio: The quintessential playwright of the English language, Shakespeare's works continue to enthral and inspire centuries after his death. His sonnets and plays remain cornerstones of literature.

Little Known Fact: While Shakespeare’s name is synonymous with theatre, there’s surprisingly little evidence that he was an actor himself. Some scholars believe he may have played minor roles in some of his productions.

Death and Final Words: The exact circumstances of Shakespeare's death are shrouded in mystery. Some believe he died of natural causes, while others speculate he may have succumbed to a fever or even a plague outbreak. His final words were reportedly,

"Let me not be ashamed of my death, for I am a man."

2. Marie Antoinette (1755-1793)

Bio: The last queen of France before the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette is often remembered for her opulent lifestyle and the famous (and likely misattributed) phrase, "Let them eat cake."

Little Known Fact: Despite her reputation for extravagance, Marie Antoinette was actually quite a frugal woman. She often repurposed her dresses and was known to be a patron of the arts.

Death and Final Words: As the Reign of Terror gripped France, Marie Antoinette was executed by guillotine. Her final words were,

"Pardon me, sir. I didn't do it on purpose."

This statement, often attributed to her having stepped on her executioner’s foot, showcases a remarkable level of humility and politeness, even in her final moments.

3. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Bio: An Irish playwright, critic, and polemicist, Shaw’s works are known for their witty social commentary and sharp wit. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1925.
Little Known Fact: Shaw was a lifelong vegetarian and a staunch advocate for animal rights. He was also a passionate socialist and a founding member of the Fabian Society.

Death and Final Words: After a long and illustrious career, Shaw passed away at the age of 94. His final words were,

"I have lived for nothing, and I will die for nothing."

This statement, while seemingly bleak, could be interpreted as a reflection of his own philosophical scepticism and his belief in the inherent meaninglessness of existence.

4. Voltaire (1694-1778)

Bio: A prominent French philosopher, writer, and historian, Voltaire was a key figure of the Enlightenment. His works often critiqued religious intolerance and political tyranny.

Little Known Fact: Voltaire was a prolific letter writer, and it's estimated that he wrote over 20,000 letters during his lifetime. He was also a huge coffee drinker, consuming up to 50 cups a day.

Death and Final Words: On his deathbed, a priest arrived to offer extreme unction. Voltaire, ever the sceptic, refused the last rites and uttered his famous final words,

"Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies."

This statement perfectly encapsulates Voltaire’s lifelong commitment to reason and his aversion to religious dogma.

5. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Bio: An Irish playwright, poet, and author, Wilde’s works are renowned for their wit, humour, and exploration of societal hypocrisy. He was also a central figure in the Aesthetic movement.

Little Known Fact: Wilde’s imprisonment for gross indecency had a devastating effect on his career and personal life. After his release, he lived in exile in France, where he wrote under the pseudonym Sebastian Melmoth.

Death and Final Words: Wilde died in a state of relative poverty in Paris. His final words were reportedly,

"This wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. Either it goes or I do."

This statement, while seemingly trivial, perfectly captures Wilde’s signature wit and his ability to find humor even in the face of death.

6. Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Bio: A British statesman, soldier, and writer, Churchill was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II. He is widely considered one of the most significant figures in 20th-century history.

Little Known Fact: Churchill was an avid painter, and his work was often praised for its technical skill and vibrant colours. He also loved to collect butterflies and had a vast collection of Lepidoptera.

Death and Final Words: Churchill passed away at the age of 90. His final words were,

"I am bored with it all."

This statement, while surprising, could be interpreted as a reflection of his long and eventful life and his readiness to face the next chapter, whatever it might be.

7. Humphrey Bogart (1899-1957)

Bio: An American film and stage actor, Bogart is considered one of the greatest stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood. His iconic roles in films like Casablanca [the greatest film ever] and The Maltese Falcon solidified his status as a cinematic icon.

Little Known Fact: Bogart was a passionate chess player and often played with his co-stars and crew on set. He was also a founding member of the Hollywood Rat Pack, along with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin.

Death and Final Words: Bogart died of oesophageal cancer at the age of 57. His final words were,

"I should never have switched from scotch to martinis."

This statement, while humorous, reflects Bogart’s penchant for strong drink and his characteristic wit, even in his final moments.

8. Elvis Presley (1935-1977)

Bio: An American singer and actor, Elvis Presley is widely considered the King of Rock and Roll. His energetic performances and soulful vocals captivated audiences worldwide.

Little Known Fact: Elvis was a huge fan of martial arts and even earned a black belt in karate. He was also a deeply religious man and often incorporated gospel music into his performances.

Death and Final Words: Elvis died of a heart attack at his Graceland estate. His final words were reportedly,

"I'm going to the bathroom to read."

This statement, while seemingly mundane, has taken on a poignant significance given the circumstances of his death.

9. Steve Jobs (1955-2011)

Bio: An American entrepreneur, inventor, and industrial designer, Steve Jobs co-founded Apple Inc. and was a pioneer of the personal computer revolution. His visionary leadership transformed the technology industry.

Little Known Fact: Jobs was a practicing Buddhist and often incorporated Zen philosophies into his approach to design and business. He was also a passionate fan of music and was known to have a diverse collection of albums.

Death and Final Words: Jobs passed away at the age of 56 after a battle with pancreatic cancer. His final words were,
"Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow."

This statement, simple and profound, perfectly captures Jobs’s sense of wonder and awe, even in his final moments.

10. Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Bio: A German philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist, and socialist revolutionary, Marx’s works have had a profound influence on modern history and political thought.

Little Known Fact: Marx was a lifelong friend and collaborator with Friedrich Engels, and together they co-authored The Communist Manifesto. He was also a passionate advocate for workers' rights and social justice.

Death and Final Words: On his deathbed, Marx was asked by his housekeeper if he had any last words. His response was,
"Go on, get out. Last words are for fools who haven't said enough."

This statement, while seemingly abrasive, perfectly encapsulates Marx’s belief in action over words and his rejection of religious and philosophical dogma.

These final words offer a fascinating glimpse into the minds of some of history's most notable figures. They are a testament to the power of language and the enduring human spirit, even in the face of death.

"Natalie, where are you?" 💔

Space-Time, I Still Don't Know What It Is, No-One Does

2026-03-18T14:49:06.956+13:00

Not knowing the true nature of space-time seems to be same for everyone, including Albert Einstein who invented / discovered / stumbled upon / math'ed it back in 1915.

Not knowing though is massively fun, it's the reason science exists, that and a burning curiosity within each and everyone of us.

Space-time is frequently described as the “fabric of reality.” In some accounts, this fabric is referred to as a fixed, four-dimensional “block universe” — a complete map of all events, past, present and future.

In others, it’s a dynamic field that bends and curves in response to gravity. But what does it really mean to say that space-time exists? What kind of thing is it — is space-time structure, substance or metaphor?

What, exactly, is space-time?, August 24, 2025 by Daryl Janzen

Who fucken knows tbh, but it's fun to see where we are at.

I get the impression that gravity and time, the current last two blocks to be understood and 'slotted' into Quantum Field Theory and/or General Relativity, will come to the fore and answer many outstanding fundamental questions of the universe we are a part of. Be bloody nice if someone could do that before I die, I'd love to be around in such a Newton / Einstein / Bohr moment … hah, maybe it's happened and, like all the other revolutionary theories, it's not been properly understood or accepted yet. Maybe.

5 MORE Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

2026-03-17T12:41:00.007+13:00

Back again with part two and the final set of five logical fallacies. In this "long read," we're going to break down five more common logical fallacies. Let's get into it, our first post covered the following:

Ad Hominem
Straw Man
Appeal to Authority
False Dichotomy / Dilemma
Slippery Slope

… and now it's time to finish the set.

The Cheat Sheet

If you can't be bothered to read it all here is the [tl;dr] "too long; didn't read and can't wait" version of all ten fallacies at a glance.

(click/tap the image to open big / download and print)

6. Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning / begging the question, also traditionally known by its Latin name petitio principii ("assuming the premise"), is a logical fallacy where the argument begins with what it is trying to end with. In other words, the conclusion is already assumed, either implicitly or explicitly, within one of the premises. Instead of providing evidence to support the conclusion, the arguer essentially states the conclusion in a slightly different way as justification. For example: "The book is true because it says it is true," or "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God."

Petitio principii is one of the classic fallacies identified and analysed by ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle, who included it in his Prior Analytics. He recognised it as a form of non-probative reasoning, where nothing new is demonstrated because the intended conclusion is already taken for granted at the outset. It has remained a cornerstone of logical classification ever since.

Downsides:

Completely Uninformative: It fails to provide any actual evidence or logical support for the conclusion. It simply restates belief, offering zero persuasive power to anyone not already convinced.
Hides Lack of Evidence: It's often used, consciously or unconsciously, when there is little to no actual evidence to support a belief, masking that weakness behind a façade of argument.
Traps Thinking: Circular arguments create closed loops that prevent critical exploration and questioning of fundamental assumptions.
Frustrates Dialogue: It makes productive debate impossible, as one party is simply repeating their conclusion as its own justification, leaving no room for genuine analysis or counter-evidence.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Map out Premises and Conclusion: Break down the argument into its core statements. Look closely: Is the conclusion essentially the same idea as one of the starting points, just reworded or assumed implicitly?
Ask "How Do We Know the Premise Is True?": Rigorously question the justification for each premise. If the only way to accept a premise is to already believe the conclusion, you have circular reasoning.
Identify Reworded Statements: Watch out for definitions or restatements that masquerade as evidence (e.g., "Successful people are good because good people succeed").

7. Hasty Generalisation

The Hasty Generalisation fallacy occurs when someone draws a broad, sweeping conclusion about an entire group or category based on an insufficient or unrepresentative sample size. Essentially, it's making a general statement from too few specific examples. This fallacy often relies on anecdote, personal experience, or limited observations ("I met two people from Country X who were rude, so all people from Country X must be rude"). It ignores statistical principles and variability, rushing to a conclusion before adequate data is gathered.

The recognition of this error is as old as inductive reasoning itself. Ancient skeptics pointed out the perils of making universal claims based on limited observation. Logicians throughout history, particularly those focused on scientific method and probability, formalised the understanding that reliable generalisations require substantial and unbiased evidence. The modern term reflects this fundamental requirement for rigorous data gathering before making broad claims.

Downsides:

leads to Stereotyping and Prejudice: Hasty Generalisation is a primary driver behind harmful stereotypes about social groups, based on negative interactions with a few individuals.
Undermines Scientific Understanding: It represents a failure to understand basic principles of sampling, statistics, and evidence-based conclusion-drawing, crucial for fields like science and social research.
Misleads Decision-Making: Relying on unrepresentative anecdotes can lead to poor decisions in business, policy, and personal life, as choices are based on skewed information.
spreads Misinformation: Isolated incidents can be easily amplified and generalised to create false narratives or perceptions about reality.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Evaluate Sample Size: Ask "How many examples or observations is this conclusion based on?" Be sceptical of general claims about large groups based on single anecdotes or small numbers.
Consider Representativeness: Even with a larger number, ask "Is this sample likely to be representative of the entire group?" (e.g., polling only people at a specific event to understand national opinion). Look for potential bias in how the examples were gathered.
Look for Counter-Examples: Challenge the generalisation by actively seeking out examples that contradict the broad statement. Recognising variability within groups is crucial to avoiding hasty generalisations.

8. Red Herring

The Red Herring fallacy is a distraction technique where someone introduces an irrelevant topic or argument to divert attention away from the original point of discussion. Instead of directly addressing the topic at hand, the arguer deliberately pivots to a related but distinct issue, often one that is more emotionally charged or easier for them to argue. The goal is to change the subject, either because they cannot effectively counter the original point, or simply to evade scrutiny. For example, if asked about a policy failure, a politician might instead launch into a speech about their opponent's character or a different popular issue.

The term comes from a 19th-century story (possibly apocryphal) about using smelly smoked fish (red herrings) to distract hounds tracking rabbits. Regardless of the origin, the metaphorical description perfectly captures the tactic of using a potent but irrelevant distraction to lead the conversation off-trail. As a rhetorical strategy, it has been observed and utilised throughout the history of public speaking and debate.

Downsides:

evades Accountability: It allows individuals or organisations to avoid addressing critical questions, failures, or inconsistencies by simply changing the topic.
Prevents productive Problem-Solving: By steering discussions away from the core issue, it hinders genuine efforts to understand and resolve problems.
manipulates Public Perception: Red Herrings are often used in media and politics to frame debates, obscure important information, and control narratives.
Frustrates Dialogue: It creates confusing and circular conversations where the original topic is lost, making constructive engagement impossible.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Keep Track of the Original Question/Topic: Mentally (or physically) note the specific issue being discussed. As the conversation progresses, check if the points being made are genuinely relevant to that specific topic.
Recognise the Pivot: Pay attention to shifts in focus, especially those accompanied by phrases like "But what about...", "This reminds me of...", or "Let's not forget the bigger issue...".
Redirect Gently and Persistently: If you spot a Red Herring, acknowledge the new topic briefly if needed, but then explicitly bring the conversation back to the original point: "That's an interesting point about X, but we were discussing Y. What about [the specific question or aspect of Y]?"

9. Equivocation

Equivocation is a logical fallacy that relies on using the multiple meanings of a word or phrase ambiguity to mislead or distort an argument. It involves shifting the definition of a key term in mid-argument, often subtly, making the conclusion seem logically sound when it actually depends on an illegitimate shift in meaning. For example: "A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark." (Here, "light" shifts from weight to illumination). More subtle examples can exploit political, ethical, or legal terms that have nuanced definitions.

Aristotle discussed ambiguity and the potential for error and deception in his works on logic and language. Medieval logicians further refined these concepts, categorising different types of ambiguity, including equivocation (equivocatio). They recognised that clear, consistent definitions are fundamental to valid reasoning and that exploiting ambiguity is a form of fallacious argument.

Downsides:

Undermines Clear Communication: It creates confusion and misinterpretation by exploiting the inherent flexibility of language.
Allows for Deceptive Argumentation: It enables people to make claims that appear valid on the surface but are fundamentally flawed and misleading.
Frustrates Debate: It makes meaningful disagreement impossible, as different parties might be using the same words but meaning entirely different things, without even realising it.
Demonstrates Intellectual Dishonesty: Resorting to intentional equivocation indicates a willingness to mislead rather than engage in transparent reasoning.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Define Key Terms: Actively clarify definitions, especially for potentially ambiguous words. Ask questions like: "What specifically do you mean by [term] in this context?" and "Are you using that term in the same way throughout the argument?"
Look for Logical Shifts: Break down the argument and carefully track key words. Does the conclusion only seem to follow because a term's meaning has shifted between the premises and the conclusion?
Consider Alternative Meanings: Brainstorm different interpretations of potentially ambiguous words and see if substituting alternative meanings dismantles the argument's apparent logic.

10. Confirmation Bias

While often discussed alongside cognitive biases, confirmation bias functions powerfully in informal reasoning, often underpinning fallacious arguments. It is the tendency to seek out, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, while simultaneously ignoring, devaluing, or misinterpreting information that contradicts them. We are essentially self-filtering our perception of reality, creating an echo chamber that reinforces what we already think. This is not a logical structure itself, but rather a deeply ingrained cognitive tendency that leads to flawed premises and uncritical reasoning, often fuelling other fallacies like Hasty Generalisation or Slippery Slope.

Observations about humans favouring information that aligns with their beliefs exist throughout history (Francis Bacon famously noted this in Novum Organum). However, the specific term "confirmation bias" was coined and rigorously studied by cognitive psychologist Peter Wason in the 1960s. Wason's experiments elegantly demonstrated our preference for confirming hypotheses rather than disconfirming them, even in simple logical tasks.

Downsides:

reinforces False Beliefs and Echo Chambers: It prevents us from objectively evaluating new information and makes it incredibly difficult to change our minds, even in the face of strong evidence.
Leads to Poor Decision-Making: By blinding us to contradictory data and alternative perspectives, it results in biased and potentially harmful decisions in personal life, business, science, and policy.
Polarises Society: We naturally gravitate towards sources and communities that confirm our biases, creating deep societal divisions and making understanding "the other side" challenging.
Impairs Learning and Progress: True learning often involves being challenged and reconsidering existing views. Confirmation bias blocks this process, hindering both personal growth and scientific/social advancement.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Actively Seek Contradictory Information: Make a conscious effort to find and engage with sources, viewpoints, and data that challenge your existing beliefs. Don't just look for support; deliberately seek disconfirmation.
Practice Intellectual Humility: Acknowledge that your knowledge is limited and that your beliefs could be wrong. Be genuinely curious about why others hold different perspectives and evaluate their arguments fairly, even if you initially disagree.
Question Your Assumptions and Filters: Notice when you feel immediately convinced by information that supports your views, and when you're instantly dismissive of contradictory data. Ask yourself why and consciously apply more critical scrutiny to the information you inherently want to believe.

Understanding these logical fallacies is a continuous journey. They show up everywhere – in the news, in casual conversation, in advertising, and, if we're honest, in our own thoughts. By learning to spot them and taking active steps to adjust our behaviour and thinking, we can contribute to more thoughtful conversations, make better decisions, and navigate the world with a healthier dose of critical awareness.

If you managed to get through both long reads, you've now got a solid grasp of how we often trip ourselves up with wonky logic, let's distil all those "how to adjust" tips into a manageable game plan.

Your Logical Defence Kit

(click/tap the image to open big / download and print)

Remember the one single mindset to help you navigate every one of these fallacies:

Prioritise "Getting it Right" over "Being Right."

When your goal is truth—even if that truth is uncomfortable or proves you wrong—you naturally become more curious, more sceptical of your own shortcuts, and much harder to manipulate. Slow down, breathe, and ask: "Am I trying to learn something here, or just trying to be the one left standing?"

Until next time, keep thinking critically!

5 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

2026-03-16T16:57:00.023+13:00

I want to run through something important but often overlooked in our daily conversations, debates, and even our own thinking: logical fallacies.

Understanding logical fallacies is like having a mental toolkit for spotting weak arguments, manipulation, and plain old fuzzy thinking. It's about sharpening your critical thinking skills and navigating the complex landscape of information and persuasion we encounter every day. In this "long read," we're going to break down five common logical fallacies (with another five in a follow-up post), look at where they came from (or how they were identified), explore their potential downsides, and, most importantly, provide actionable strategies for spotting them and adjusting our own thinking.

The Cheat Sheet

Alright, here is the [tl;dr] "too long; didn't read and can't wait" version of all ten fallacies at a glance for those of us who need the shorthand to get back to the rugby or the day job.

(click/tap the image to open big / download and print)

1. Ad Hominem

The ad hominem fallacy, which translates from Latin as "to the person," is one of the most pervasive fallacies out there. It occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. Essentially, it’s a distraction technique that aims to discredit the arguer rather than engaging with their points. This can take many forms, from outright insults ("You're just an idiot!") to more subtle attempts to undermine credibility based on personal history, affiliations, or even appearance. The core issue is that the personal characteristics of the speaker are usually irrelevant to the truth or validity of their argument.

While logical analysis has ancient roots, the formal identification and naming of specific fallacies like ad hominem developed over centuries, particularly within the tradition of Western philosophy and rhetoric. Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, laid groundwork by categorising different types of fallacious arguments used by the Sophists, who were known for persuasive but often misleading rhetoric. The explicit concept of "ad hominem" gained clearer articulation and classification during the medieval period and onwards as scholars sought to refine logical reasoning and identify common errors.

Downsides:

Derails Discussion: Ad hominem attacks shift the focus away from the actual issue being debated, preventing productive dialogue and understanding.
Undermines Critical Thinking: By encouraging dismissal based on personal bias rather than evidence and reason, it promotes lazy thinking and discourages genuine critical engagement.
Damages Relationships / Reputation: Repeatedly resorting to personal attacks can erode trust and damage personal and professional relationships, creating a hostile environment.
Blocks Progress: In fields like science or policy, ad hominem attacks on researchers or proponents of certain ideas can hinder the objective evaluation of potentially valuable contributions.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Look for Focus on the Person: Whenever an argument pivots away from data, logic, or specific claims and starts targeting someone's background, motives, intelligence, or appearance, raise a mental red flag.
Ask "Is This Relevant?": If a personal detail is introduced, rigorously evaluate whether it directly impacts the truthfulness or logical coherence of the argument being made. (e.g., If someone argues for specific traffic safety measures, their past speeding tickets might be relevant to their credibility on implementing them, but not necessarily to the logical soundness of the measures themselves).
Self-Reflect: Notice when you are tempted to dismiss an argument simply because you dislike or distrust the speaker. Challenge yourself to separate the message from the messenger and evaluate the claims on their own merits.

2. Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy involves misrepresenting, exaggerating, or fabricating an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the actual position, the fallacious arguer creates a distorted, weakened version – a "straw man" – and proceeds to knock it down triumphantly, claiming victory over the original argument. This tactic relies on oversimplification or caricaturisation. For example, if someone argues for reasonable regulations on certain industries, a Straw Man response might frame this as "They want to shut down all businesses and destroy the economy!"

The term itself is a relatively modern metaphorical description, emerging in the 20th century, likely popularised in debating circles and informal logic discussions. However, the concept of misrepresenting an opponent's position is ancient and has been noted throughout the history of rhetoric. Aristotle recognised similar tactics where debaters would present weakened versions of opposing viewpoints. The Straw Man fallacy formalises this specific, widespread manipulative strategy.

Downsides:

Prevents Honest Debate: By deliberately mischaracterising the opposing view, the Straw Man fallacy makes genuine, constructive dialogue impossible.
Polarisation: It can intensify conflict and polarisation, as people are attacking non-existent extreme versions of each other's beliefs, creating unnecessary division.
Misleads the Audience: A successful Straw Man argument can convince an audience that the original position is weak, radical, or easily dismissed, without them ever hearing the actual argument.
Demonstrates Intellectual Dishonesty: Resorting to this tactic often indicates a lack of confidence in one's own ability to counter the real argument.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Confirm the Original Position: When you hear a forceful refutation, try to find out what the original statement or position actually was. Does the summary being attacked accurately reflect it?
Look for Omissions and Hyperbole: Pay attention to whether the attacking party is leaving out crucial context, nuances, or using exaggerated language ("always," "never," "completely destroy") that misrepresents a likely more moderate position.
Practice Principle of Charity: When engaging in debate or analysis, strive to understand your opponent's position in its strongest possible interpretation. Critiquing the best version of an argument is far more rigorous and intellectually honest than knocking down a self-constructed caricature.

3. Appeal to Authority

This fallacy occurs when someone asserts that a claim is true simply because an authority figure says so, without providing independent evidence or sound logical reasoning to support the claim itself. The strength of the argument relies entirely on the perceived expertise or status of the cited individual or institution. It's crucial to distinguish this from the legitimate use of expert testimony, which is valid when the authority is genuinely qualified in the relevant field, speaking within that field, and represents a consensus (or at least substantial support) within that community. The fallacy arises when the authority is misplaced, biased, or when their word is taken as infallible evidence, bypassing critical evaluation.

Like other fallacies, the concept has ancient roots, with philosophers like Sextus Empiricus noting similar arguments. However, the specific term argumentum ad verecundiam ("argument from modesty/respect") was coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. Locke observed that people often feel modest or respectful towards authorities and therefore find it difficult to question their pronouncements, leading to uncritical acceptance.

Downsides:

Discourages Critical Thinking: Accepting claims solely on authority bypasses the need for evaluating evidence, asking questions, and understanding the reasoning behind assertions.
Vulnerability to Misinformation: Misplaced or fabricated authority can easily be used to spread falsehoods, pseudoscience, and propaganda, especially to audiences inclined to trust those figures.
Hinders Inquiry: Blind deference to authority can prevent individuals and societies from questioning established dogmas, exploring new ideas, or demanding better evidence, slowing progress.
Can Lead to Harm: In fields like medicine or finance, relying on inappropriate "authorities" (e.g., celebrities endorsing questionable treatments) can have serious, tangible consequences.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Check Qualifications and Relevance: Is the "authority" genuinely an expert in the specific field related to the claim being made? (An actor endorsing complex climate policy is not a credible scientific authority).
Seek Consensus and Evidence: Is there broad consensus among relevant experts on this topic? Even legitimate experts can be wrong, especially on the fringes of their field. Demand to see the evidence and reasoning they are using, not just their title.
Be Wary of Bias and Motivation: Consider whether the authority figure has potential conflicts of interest, biases, or motivations that might influence their pronouncements, regardless of their expertise. True authorities are open to scrutiny and acknowledge limitations.

4. False Dichotomy

Also known as the "Either-Or" fallacy or Black-and-White thinking, the False Dichotomy fallacy presents a complex situation as having only two extreme, mutually exclusive options, ignoring any nuances, intermediate possibilities, or alternative solutions. It simplifies nuanced issues into a stark choice, often making one option seem desirable and the other disastrous, pressuring the audience to accept the preferred choice. This is often framed dramatically: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," or "We either raise taxes or gut public services."

This logical error has been recognised throughout history as a fundamental flaw in reasoning that reduces complexity prematurely. Logicians have long noted that valid disjunctive syllogisms (!) rely on the options being genuinely exhaustive (meaning they cover all possibilities). When options are artificially limited, the resulting logic is fallacious. The modern terminology reflects this enduring observation of human tendency towards simplistic categorisation.

Downsides:

Simplifies Complex Issues: It ignores essential details, context, and the rich middle ground that exists in most real-world problems.
Polarises Discussions: False Dichotomies frame debates as zero-sum games, intensifying conflict and reducing opportunities for compromise or creative solutions.
Manipulative Persuasion: This tactic is frequently used in politics and advertising to steer people towards specific outcomes by presenting them as the only viable alternative to catastrophe.
Leads to Poor Decision-Making: By blinding decision-makers to other potential paths, it can result in suboptimal or harmful choices based on artificial constraints.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Question the Options Presented: Whenever you're told there are only two choices, immediately ask, "Are there really only two options? What other possibilities are we missing?"
Look for Complexity and Nuance: Actively seek out perspectives, information, or solutions that lie between the stated extremes or offer entirely different approaches.
Recognise Emotional Triggers: False Dichotomies are often delivered with strong emotional appeals. Be aware that dramatic framing ("it's all or nothing") might be a rhetorical tactic to bypass critical analysis.

5. Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope fallacy argues against a particular action by claiming that it will inevitably lead to a chain reaction of negative events, culminating in a disastrous outcome, without providing sufficient evidence for the probability or inevitability of that entire chain. It relies on escalation and fear-mongering, often jumping from a seemingly minor initial step to an extreme, catastrophic conclusion ("If we allow A, eventually B, C, and D will happen, and finally Z, which is terrible!"). The flaw isn't arguing that one event can lead to another, but asserting that the entire sequence will occur predictably, ignoring potential intervening factors, counter-measures, or simply the low probability of each subsequent step.

Like many fallacies, the fundamental error of exaggerating causal chains has been noted for centuries in rhetorical and philosophical analysis. However, the specific "slippery slope" metaphor and its categorisation as a distinct informal fallacy became more widely established in modern logic textbooks and debate analysis during the 20th century. It powerfully captures the visceral appeal and logical weakness of this particular style of argumentation.

Downsides:

Fear-Mongering over Evidence: It plays on anxieties rather than presenting a reasoned analysis of risk and probability.
Stifles Discussion and Progress: By focusing on extreme potential outcomes, it can discourage consideration of even moderate changes, potentially blocking beneficial actions based on unfounded fears.
Oversimplifies Causality: It ignores the complexity of real-world cause-and-effect relationships, where many variables influence outcomes, and chains of events are rarely inevitable.
Damages Credibility: Repeatedly making Slippery Slope arguments that fail to materialise can undermine trust and make people less likely to take genuine warnings seriously in the future.

3 Ways to Spot and Adjust:

Evaluate Each Step of the Chain: Rigorously examine the links between each event in the predicted sequence. Ask "Does A necessarily lead to B? How likely is that connection? What evidence supports it?" Demand proof for the probability, not just the possibility, of the entire chain.
Look for Intermediate Factors: Consider what other factors, decisions, or counter-actions could potentially interrupt, alter, or mitigate the predicted cascade of events.
Watch for Fear-Based Language: Pay attention when arguments escalate rapidly and rely heavily on dramatic, negative language to describe the final outcome, potentially bypassing critical evaluation of the steps.

If you managed to get through that long read, you've now got a solid grasp of how we often trip ourselves up with wonky logic. But knowledge without action is just trivia, right? So, let's distil all those "how to adjust" tips into a manageable game plan.

Your Logical Defence Kit

(click/tap the image to open big / download and print)

If you want one mindset to help you navigate every single one of these fallacies, it’s this:

Prioritise "Getting it Right" over "Being Right."

Most logical fallacies are born from our ego’s desperate desire to win an argument or feel safe in our existing beliefs. When your goal is to "win," you’ll instinctively reach for straw men, personal attacks, and biased evidence.

However, when your goal is truth—even if that truth is uncomfortable or proves you wrong—you naturally become more curious, more sceptical of your own shortcuts, and much harder to manipulate. Slow down, breathe, and ask: "Am I trying to learn something here, or just trying to be the one left standing?"

Until next time and the final five fallacies, keep thinking critically!

How To Speak Kiwi

2026-03-16T13:01:00.005+13:00

😀

The Top 5 Historical Events You Probably Got Wrong

2026-03-14T22:19:00.040+13:00

Why history’s greatest hits are often fabricated, and why the truth is far more fascinating than the fiction.

History's Greatest Hits (That Never Happened)

Ever feel like you know history? That you've got a handle on the big events, the defining moments, the rise and fall of empires? What if some of the most famous stories, the ones that spring to mind at a moment's notice, are just... well, totally made up?

I'm diving into five iconic historical "facts" that are actually widespread myths, persistent earworms of misinformation that have burrowed their way into the collective consciousness.

01 Marie Antoinette's Indifferent Dessert Request

Behind the Lines
This juicy quote became powerful propaganda during the French Revolution, perfectly framing her as uncaring and fueling public resentment. It served as kindling for the revolutionary fire.
The Classic Tale

"Let them eat cake!"

The Real Scoop
She almost certainly never said it. The phrase appeared in Rousseau's Confessions years before she was even queen, attributed to an unnamed "great princess." It's a case of mistaken identity, fueled by revolutionary fervor.

02 George Washington's Dentures of the Forest

The Dental Truth
His dentures were made from human teeth, cow teeth, hippopotamus ivory, lead, and various metals. No wood!
The Woody Wonder
Everyone "knows" the US first president sported wooden choppers. Images of Washington are often accompanied by the knowing wink of "those wooden teeth."

Why the Mix-Up?
The ivory likely discolored and stained over time, giving it a wood-like appearance. Wood is rustic; the reality—a horrifying amalgam of organic and inorganic matter—is far less palatable.

03 The "Dark Ages" - A Misguided Gloom

The Shadowy Stereotype
A time of intellectual blackout and barbarism sandwiched between antiquity and the Renaissance.
Shining a Light
Modern historians actively reject this term! The Middle Ages saw significant advancements in art, architecture, and technology.

The Name Game
It was termed "dark" much later by Renaissance scholars looking to highlight their own era's brilliance. It was a carefully crafted narrative of self-aggrandisement.

04 Pyramids: Not Built by Biblical Slaves

The Hollywood Epic
Ancient Egypt's grand pyramids were built by a vast, oppressed workforce of slaves... a scene etched into consciousness by countless films
The Archaeological Revelation
The pyramids were built by highly skilled, paid laborers and farmers. They were housed, fed well, and given tax exemptions.

Controversy's Cornerstone
The idea of slave labor originated with Herodotus, and the Israelite connection arose centuries later, influenced by religious texts.

05 Nero's Fiery Fiddle Fiasco

The Emperor's Concert
Nero is famously depicted playing a fiddle while Rome burned in 64 AD, epitomising callous indifference.
The Anachronism
The fiddle wasn't invented until the 11th century; he would have played a lyre. More importantly, Nero was in Antium and returned to organise relief efforts.

Propaganda's Melody
Hostile historians like Suetonius amplified rumors to vilify him and suggest he ordered the fire to clear land for his palace.

Why Do These Myths Stick Around?

Power of Narrative
Nuance is often the enemy of a good story. Simple, dramatic tales are easier to share.
Pop Culture
Movies and TV shows cement these inaccuracies in our collective consciousness for entertainment.
Hidden Agendas
History is written by victors who often have a specific political or cultural axe to grind.
"The past is not a closed book."

A.I. - Restoring ancient texts and identifying patterns across vast datasets.

DNA - Molecular archaeology uncovering diets, migrations, and diseases.

LDR - LiDAR and drones revealing hidden sites beneath the earth's surface.

Become a History Detective

Challenge your assumptions, question popular narratives, and dig deeper. History, when it's true, is far more fascinating than any fiction!

Start Investigating

Beat The System

2026-03-13T13:16:00.002+13:00

[the brain whispers to you] "Get as much out of it as you possible can!"

I abhor this attitude and fight against it all the time … in fact, my brain never bothers anymore, it learnt a very long time ago that life is so much easier when one isn't fighting all the time.

Caveat, there's always readers (not you, others) that take my opening lines and extrapolate it out to mean that EVERY time Mike ALWAYS thinks xyz. No, of course not, life is all relative and this time is no different. For instance, if you work for an organisation that is nit-icky about filling in forms and getting approval for every time you breathe in, and a different form for breathing out, then fuck 'em, go for everything you can think of. Also, if you will genuinely be out of pocket due to a work expense and suffer because of it, ask for the money back.

If, however, you are claiming for every jar of coffee for the staff room, for every time you have had to buy some BluTac, or for any small amount that costs 10x to actually claim for it, then you are focusing on the wrong things in life.

If you are adding up every minute of smoko time and making sure you get exactly your contractually allotted time you are also focused on the wrong things. You are living life with a victim mentality, believing that you are being put upon at every opportunity. You are not - tell me otherwise!

Learned helplessness is the behaviour exhibited by a subject after enduring repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. In humans, learned helplessness is related to the concept of self-efficacy, the individual's belief in their innate ability to achieve goals.

…

Research has found that a human's reaction to feeling a lack of control differs both between individuals and between situations, i.e. learned helplessness sometimes remains specific to one situation but at other times generalizes across situations. [..] According to this view, how someone interprets or explains adverse events affects their likelihood of acquiring learned helplessness and subsequent depression. For example, people with pessimistic explanatory style tend to see negative events as permanent ("it will never change"), personal ("it's my fault"), and pervasive ("I can't do anything correctly"), and are likely to suffer from learned helplessness and depression.

Both quotes from Wikipedia: Learned helplessness

Good luck everyone, relax with the perception that "they" are out to get you, "they" are almost definitely not even thinking about you, and chill with the coffee, what goes around comes around.

[Mike's brain whispers to him] "Um, so what was that all about?"

Ach, some people eh … I do feel for them, and I'm sure there's way more going on inside and from their past. Sometimes though, you just wanna shake people and tell them to let it go, it's not worth the brain energy. But, it's their brain and their energy eh. le sigh

A Day in the Life of an Enshittificator

2026-03-11T23:53:00.006+13:00

Enter the Internet. All of a sudden I didn't have to move around to make things shitty. I could just sit in one place and make things shitty for way more people at the same time.

A Day in the Life of an Ensh*ttificator, from Forbrukerrådet (Norwegian Consumer Council).

Canadian writer Cory Doctorow coined the neologism enshittification in November 2022.

Family, Those People That Know You Far Too Well

2026-03-11T13:27:00.000+13:00

After Friends there are the ever present Family that know you so well, in that 'family' sense. It's interesting the sides of one that family see's, combined with history as long as your life in a lot of cases, they certainly can know where most of the soul skeletons are hidden away, deep in the depths of the mind. That's why we love them because despite of that, they are always there.

We're moving on from people I know to themes of Faces followed by Crowds.

"You Need To Acquit That" ... What?!

2026-03-10T20:19:00.008+13:00

An acquittal is, to my mind, something that happens at a court, but if you're a Northern Territory government process, you have another meaning.

Let's start with what we know to be true as the day is long, always has been, and always will b---, well maybe not always will be - is this your understanding?

Note the archaic reference at the bottom there, I suspect we might be onto something.

Over the past few work weeks I've heard and read the word, "acquittal" on forms for leave, travel, car use, and all manner of processes. What does it mean in this context?

In the first few weeks I received an email from someone in HQ asking me to "acquit" some travel but that was just before getting stuck in Alice Springs and by the time I returned there was a follow-up telling me not to worry and they acquitted it for me. I had no idea what had happened.

Today I asked, "Um, what does 'acquittal' mean in Australia, specially when a government process mentions it?"

So, it seems to be the final step in a process. The best way I can explain it is to give examples.

Applying to use a school vehicle.

Fill in school vehicle use form
Send form to get approval
Principal declines, it comes back to you
You acquit it

Applying for reimbursement.

Fill in reimbursement form
Send form to get approval
Finance accepts it
You get paid (no acquittal needed)

It seems that the acquittal stage is to close off any forms hanging around in a process, especially all those that didn't get approved and actioned.

ARCHAIC
discharge (a duty or responsibility).
"they acquitted themselves of their charge with vigilance"

Now, I'm not gonna say any government is archaic, maybe we look at it as a quirk of bureaucratic language and a lovely nod back to the past.

Views Of Papunya (Northern Territory, Australia)

2026-03-04T15:19:00.004+13:00

We've been in Papunya around six weeks and wow, it's true what they say, if you want to slow down time fill your life with new experiences. During this time I have, of course, been taking snaps of the ever changing streets and life in the community and I am popping all the snaps in a public Google Photos album:

The streets and views of Papunya (NT, Australia)

Here's eight random ones from that album, starting with a spot the difference once the rains came!

Daily Friends

2026-03-04T13:37:00.007+13:00

Friends (and Family, coming next) are the source of life, they fill the soul, they challenge you, they make you laugh, a life without amazing friends is a tough one - go hug your friends and tell them how uch they mean to you as you (I) probably don't do it enough.

[note: there are only seven days in a week and so it's a random smattering that I present here, you know who you are even if a photo of you didn't catch my eye this time around 💖]

Happy 2026 St David's Day / Dydd Gwŷl Dewi Sant Hapus 2026

2026-02-27T15:33:00.012+13:00

2026 here in Papunya (Northern Territory, Australia) and it will be/is already March 1st, St David's Day (and the glorious thing about time zones is it will also will be March 1st again in Wales).

Hope your 1st March is a happy one for you all and that you are eating leeks, speaking Welsh and singing (just to perpetuate all the myths) to the best of your abilities.

Random Acts of Welshness (2022)

St David’s Day - the day we celebrate all things Welsh, from the coast and inland. When we remember his words: gwnewch y pethau bychain - do the little things. What better way to celebrate than to bring those words to life with an outpouring of hwyl and kindness.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Fly the Draig
🍽️ Eat a leek
🫂 Cwtsh (also known as a cwtch!)
🧑‍🦳 Give a spoon
🗨️ Say it in Cymraeg
🍻 Buy David a pint
🧙 Wear Welsh
🧀 Eat some cheese
🍪 Share Welsh cakes
🏰 Visit a castle
🥷 Don your Welsh hat
🎶 Gwlad, Gwlad!
🎸 Listen to some miwsig
🐑 Enjoy a feast
🗺️ Tales of Wales
🍛 Go half and half
🍽️ Try laverbread
👊 Play Tippit
🖐 Say shwmae!
🏪 Buy Welsh
🍹 Cocktail Cymru
🚍 Cheers drive!
🍽️ Toss a teisen

Everything you need to know about St David's Day (2025)

Answer to these questions, and more ...

How do Welsh people celebrate St David's Day?
Three facts about Saint David
Why is there a dragon on the Welsh flag?
How did the daffodil become the national symbol of Wales?
Why is the leek the national symbol of Wales?

St. David's Day in Monmouthshire (2026)

Get amongst it people of my hometown / county:

St David's Cathedral