John C. Kirk

Blood donation

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:53:37 GMT

Today I made my 25th blood donation, which was also my first platelet donation.

I made my first blood donation when I was 18, at the university's student union. I continued with this for a while after graduation, but then got out of the habit, until I resumed donations a couple of years ago. There have been some changes to the eligibility requirements, so if you've been turned away in the past then you might be allowed to donate now.

In particular, this affects men who've had sex with other men:
* Prior to 2011, there was a lifetime deferral (i.e. a blanket ban).
* In 2011, this was changed to a 12 month deferral (i.e. you had to wait 1 year after sex before donating blood).
* In 2017, this was reduced to a 3 month deferral.
* In 2020, the waiting period was eliminated, as long as you've only had 1 partner in the past 3 months. (E.g. you could have sex with that partner the day before donation.)

( Read more... )

comments

Voi scooter hire

Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:44:50 GMT

Today I tried out an electric scooter for the first time (while my bike is in the shop for repair). This is from the Voi scheme in Bristol, soon to be replaced by Tier, but I assume that I'd have much the same experience with any other provider.

In brief, there was some novelty value, and this was probably my least bad option for getting home today, but I'll be glad to resume cycling.

The e-scooters look like skateboards with a pillar (and handlebars) on the front. I've never been very good at skating, but I had no trouble balancing on this. On a skateboard (or a snowboard), I'd stand with one foot at the front and the other foot sideways at the back. On the scooter, I spent most of my time with both feet next to each other, although that meant that they were sticking slightly over the edge.

There's a "go" button, and you have to hold that down the whole time. You also need to push off on the road (Flintstones style) to get moving. When you want to slow down, you can stop pressing the button and/or use the brakes. I recommend wearing gloves, just to cushion the vibration of the handlebars.

I started out on a side road, and the speed felt comfortable. I then moved onto the main road (with a 40 mph speed limit), at which point the speed dropped, and the scooter had a light for "slow zone". I think this is based on GPS coordinates, but their map is clearly flawed! So, I got off and pushed for a while. A similar thing happened later, where I was travelling slower than walking pace. In fairness, I was nudging the upper weight limit (including my bag). However, the speed was fine elsewhere, so I think it was mainly a geo-fencing issue.

I had a similar problem later, when I stopped at traffic lights, and tried to do another kickstart when the light went green, but the scooter was barely moving. Again, I had to get off and push. I then wheeled it into a car park, at which point it immediately started moving. Maybe it was struggling with a hill start? If so, that's a bit of a design flaw.

In fairness, it was able to handle a fairly steep hill (once it was moving), at roughly the same speed I'd go while cycling, and it was far less effort for me! However, when I got onto the flat again, the scooter continued plodding along, whereas if I was cycling then I'd speed up.

As a more general point, it felt frustrating not to be able to affect the speed (beyond having my thumb jammed down on the button the whole time). On a bike, if I need to speed up then I can exert myself. In a car or a motorbike, I could accelerate. On the scooter, I'm stuck at the fixed speed, which is significantly below the speed limit. In turn, that made me feel more vulnerable than I do while cycling, especially when the scooter would suddenly decide to slow down on a busy road.

There are two ride modes: 20 km/hour (12.5 miles/hour) or 15 km/hour (9.4 miles/hour). As a beginner, I started out on the lower limit. Once I'd been riding for a while, I wanted to increase that, but I couldn't see any setting in the app. I tried pausing and resuming the ride, but that didn't help. I think I'd need to end the ride and then start a new journey, but then I'd have to pay another unlocking fee.

Speaking of fees, I had the scooter for 28 minutes which cost me £5.75. That's £0.99 for the unlocking fee and £0.17 per minute. If I went for a day pass, that would cost £7.99 with no unlock fee and 120 minutes included. So, that would definitely be more cost-effective if I was doing a return trip (e.g. commuting to/from work).

It's worth noting that this journey typically takes me 22 minutes if I'm cycling. Also, that 28 minutes doesn't include the walk to find a scooter or the walk back to my house after parking (roughly 12 mins in total). So, the total journey time was almost doubled. That said, I didn't have to get changed or have a shower afterwards, so that roughly evens out.

One nice feature of the scooter is the indicators. There's a switch next to the left hand grip, so you can press that rather than doing arm signals, and you can see the front indicators flashing next to your hands (so you know when they're on/off). In practical terms, you can't do hand signals, because if you put your right arm out to the side then you'd have to let go of the "Go" button.

You need to have at least a driving licence to hire a scooter, but they accept provisional driving licences. So, in practical terms this is just an age check. When I learned to ride a motorbike, I had to do a 1-day CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) course before I could ride solo with L plates, but there's no equivalent here. Based on that, I can understand why they restrict the speed. However, since I have a full driving licence (including cars and motorbikes), this just feels like a toy.

Looking at the options for 2-wheeled commuting, and going from best to worst, I'd pick:
* "Normal" bicycle
* Electric bicycle
* Motorcycle (electric or fossil fuel)
* Electric scooter

I won't rule out hiring a scooter again, but I'm not going to be a regular rider.

comments

Fax to the Future

Wed, 16 Aug 2023 19:30:09 GMT

A while back, someone asked me about a (perceived) plot hole in the "Back to the Future" films. That was a simple misunderstanding, but I've been thinking about the emotional arc in the second/third films, which holds up well after more viewings than I can count.

Just to clarify, none of this post is intended as a fan theory or head canon. I.e. I think this was all explicitly intended by the film makers. However, the nuance might not be obvious to everyone (as per this Reddit discussion), and I think it's worth giving credit to a summer blockbuster that has this level of subtlety.

By contrast, look at films like "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", where the character development basically consists of one character repeating another character's line. ("Eyes open, boy, I can't protect you all the time.")

The original question involves the ending of part 3, so I need to give big spoilers for the whole trilogy. Please proceed with caution if you haven't seen the films yet!

( Spoilers ho! )

comments

Christmas Carols

Sat, 24 Dec 2022 22:21:56 GMT

I've been following my Christmas tradition, by watching an episode of "The Real Ghostbusters": Xmas marks the spot. Basically, this is their version of "A Christmas Carol".

There are various adaptations of this story, and most of them fall into 2 categories:
1. Played straight as a costume/period drama, the same way that you might see a Jane Austen story.
2. Re-casting the roles for existing characters, e.g. Bob Cratchit is played by Mickey Mouse in "Mickey's Christmas Carol", and by Kermit the Frog in "A Muppet Christmas Carol".

The Ghostbusters version is different, because it's basically a crossover. So, it takes the original story as a starting point, then goes in a different direction. Some of the lines come directly from Dickens, e.g. Scrooge saying that "There's more of gravy than of grave about you" when he's sceptical about the ghosts.

The episode was written by J. Michael Straczynski (who later went on to create "Babylon 5"); generally, I'd say that he and Kathryn M. Drennan wrote the best episodes of the series.

Digressing slightly, I've read a lot of superhero comics where the basic premise is that two heroes will meet, fight each other, then team up. Typically the initial fight is due to a misunderstanding, but it works better when they have proper character motivations. A good example comes from when Acclaim did the Valiant heroes (in the late 90s), and Magnus Robot Fighter met X-O Manowar. Magnus was a time-traveller, from a future where humans has become completely dependent on technology to the extent that they were subservient to robots. Donovan Wylie had the X-O armour (similar to an Iron Man suit), and he relied on that technology to solve problems. So, they both had good reasons to be at loggerheads with each other.

Coming back to this episode, the basic premise is that ( Spoilers for episode from 1986 )

So, if you've never seen this episode, I highly recommend it. I've got the DVDs, but you can stream it via Amazon.

comments

What counts as research?

Fri, 03 Dec 2021 21:17:45 GMT

I've seen a post being circulated on social media, talking about what counts as research:

Please stop saying you "researched it."

You didn't research anything and it's highly probable that you don't even know how to do so.

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?

Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies.

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?

No? Then you didn't fucking research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little to no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.

On the face of it, this is correct. When I was thinking about doing a PhD, I read a book about what makes a good research project; one concept that stuck with me is that there should be no such thing as a bad result. I.e. if you design your experiment correctly, whatever result you get will give you new information. (That's a principle which I try to apply when I'm troubleshooting IT problems.)

However, in the context of COVID etc., I think it just comes across as pedantic nitpicking, which misses the main point. As an analogy, here's an imaginary conversation on a different topic:

Alice: "I can't believe there are so many frivolous lawsuits nowadays. Like that woman who sued McDonalds just because her coffee was hot, it's ridiculous!"
Carol: "Actually, I did some research into that. It turns out that the coffee was hot enough to give full thickness (third degree) burns and she was in hospital for 8 days."
Alice: "Hah, that's not research! It's not even a literature review. So, your argument is invalid. Good day."
Carol: "But..."
Alice: "I said good day!"

In a situation like this, "self-study" would be a better term than "research", but I think it's still a legitimate activity, and YouTube can be a good source of information. (E.g. when I was decorating, I watched videos to learn how to take my radiators off the wall.)

I think it's valid to question whether a source is reliable (e.g. Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend). It's also valid not to bother engaging at all, on the basis that anyone who's anti-vax at this point clearly hasn't been paying attention. But I don't think anyone is going to change their views just because you have a different definition of "research".

On a side note, there's some irony when it comes to evaluating primary sources. The text above is floating around in the form of a screenshot, e.g. in this Facebook post by "Women's Rights News" from August 2021. The screenshot comes from a post by Saya Olivia Hayasha in April 2020.

I can understand why people share screenshots when they move between platforms, particularly since the original post would exceed Twitter's 280 character limit. However, if you're on the original platform, why not link directly to the source? That would improve accessibility (e.g. for blind people using screen readers), which is why I put the text above rather than an image. It's also worth noting that the original post mentions "Linda Gamble Spadaro" at the bottom, which was trimmed out in the screenshot. However, there's no link to where Spadaro wrote it, and I can't find the original. Someone has suggested that this was actually posted by someone else who then tagged her at the bottom, but I don't know whether that's true.

It's worth noting that Spadaro posted this about 2 weeks after Hayasha's post. Excerpt:

"I do not consent!
I do not consent to the mass manipulation of the public with faulty science and pharma propaganda.
I do not consent to quarantine and vaccines as the only way out of this manufactured pandemic."

So, it's interesting that she's being credited for a message which is used to discredit anti-vaxxers. It's also interesting that I've made more of an effort with source evaluation than lots of the people who shared the screenshot!

comments

Brexit as beer: do you want a glass with that?

Fri, 03 Dec 2021 20:10:50 GMT

I've seen a Brexit analogy doing the rounds on social media recently, although it dates back to at least September 2019:

Nigel Farage walks into a pub and says, "I'll have a pint of beer, please." The barman pours a pint, then throws it all over Farage.

"What did you do that for?" says Farage, drenched to the skin.

"Because you're in a metaphor which illustrates the stupidity of asking for something, but not stipulating how you fecking wanted it delivered, you frog-faced sniveling cant!"

"But I'm still thirsty, so I want a pint - this time in a glass!" says Farage.

"You can't ask again!" said the barman.

"Why not?" sniveled Farage.

"Democracy." says the barman.

Personally, I voted to Remain in the EU. I also went on a couple of protest marches after the referendum, and I think the UK government has done a terrible job of implementing Brexit. However, I don't think that this analogy is helpful; in fact, it plays into pro-Leave stereotypes.

The Brexit referendum should never have been a single question, because there were so many subtleties involved. It would have been better to ask a series of questions in an indicative vote, e.g.:

"Should we be in or out of the Single Market?"

"Should we be in or out of the Customs Union?

"How should we handle the Irish border?"

That lack of clarity means that it's absurd to claim that people knew what they were voting for, or that there was any kind of democratic mandate for what followed.

By contrast, ordering a pint of beer in a pub is a very simple process, and everyone knows what's involved. It would be ludicrous if you had to specify "I want that beer in a glass", "I want the glass to be upright", "I want you to put it down in front of me rather than balancing it on the roof", etc. That's the type of (mythical) EU red tape that Boris Johnson wrote about when he was a journalist.

I've heard some people claim that the EU are punishing the UK for leaving, e.g. by expecting us to actually stick to the terms of the deal that we signed. I don't think that's a fair criticism, but it's exactly what's happening in the analogy: the pro-EU bartender knows exactly what Farage wants, and is taking advantage of a tenuous loophole to be aggressive and abusive.

At first glance, I can see why this analogy is popular amongst Remainers. It's playing to the crowd, saying: "Hey, you know that guy you don't like? Here's a fantasy about something bad happening to him!" However, I think that the unfortunate result is to make him look like the voice of reason.

Back in my old blog, I wrote about some anti-UKIP propaganda. Then as now, I want to emphasise that I don't support Farage, UKIP, or the Brexit party. So please stop putting me in a position where I have to defend them!

comments

Sine of the times

Sun, 01 Nov 2020 01:21:02 GMT

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, people need to take precautions to stop the virus spreading. In particular, if you meet people outside your household (or support bubble):

Wear masks

It's safer to meet outside rather than inside (better ventilation)

Stay 2m away from each other

However, the downside of meeting outside in winter is that it gets cold! A solution is to sit in a circle around a bonfire, but that raises new questions: how should you position everyone in order to maintain the minimum distance? And will people actually be close enough to the fire to feel the heat at that point? This calls for trigonometry!

NB As I type this, England is about to go into a second lockdown (starting on Thu 5th November). At that point, you won't be allowed to visit friends in other households at all. However, this will be relevant for the next few days, and if/when the lockdown eases.

( Diagrams and equations )

comments

Fictional anosmics

Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:51:01 GMT

Today (27th Feb) is anosmia awareness day. For those who aren't aware, anosmia means that you don't have a sense of smell; it's a similar concept to being blind or deaf. There are two forms of this: congenital anosmia means that you were born that way, whereas acquired anosmia means that you started out being able to smell but then you lost the ability somewhere along the way (e.g. after an illness).

( Personal history )

This is where representation helps: it's nice to see stories about people like you, and it could also be someone's first exposure to the idea that anosmia exists. So, I've been making a list of "fictional characters with anosmia" for several years, and here are my top 10. (I was planning to do this as a YouTube video, with the relevant clips as supporting evidence, but I ran out of time and I wanted to get something out today. Consider this a sneak preview!) I've sorted them based on a couple of factors: how prominent is the character, and how significant is their anosmia to the plot?

( Top 10 )

comments