I was wheezing a bit on this morning's run, so I cut it short and went home. The second I stopped running I couldn't get back up above a walk. I may have to check in with the doctor about this. I haven't had asthma problems in a couple years, I may need to go back on medication.

After seeing an article about a recent chessboxing match, I've considered taking it up. I have no boxing experience and some chess experience. Why not? It seems like a fun enough sport. I'd get in good shape. I like chess.

I very much enjoyed Nassim Taleb's article here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html I usually detest The Edge, but Taleb's a cool guy, so I made an exception and read his article. I don't actually have a strong enough background in probability to follow all of his assertions, but I have a good enough understanding to catch the drift. I think he's way cool, it sort of reminds me of Hume's assertion that there's no good philosophical reason to make assumptions about the future based on the past. I also enjoy how he points out the difference between statisticians and charlatans, noting that most economists are charlatans. That's my experience of hanging out with economists as a mathematician, really, and sort of why I disliked the economists I was grading so much. They always struck me as the sort to learn enough maths to get a job at a hedge fund and then just trust it. But they forget, or never even learn, that maths are ANTI-TELHARSIC. They assume that the past is an appropriate model for the future, and that their mathematical model captures all the salient details of their dynamically-hedged portfolio. Answer: wrong! The tails are fat.

I walked by the coffee shop. Russian coffee girl was there. Looks like they're continuing the occupation even after the cease-fire.

Great, a lot of these major players going into default and such were the sort of people I was hoping would employ me. Bloody hell.

I have seven weeks before that exam in... dynamic hedging. Bloody hell. Friggin' derivative markets.

Anyways, I made it so that instead of running 8 stored procedures, conveniently numbered 1-8 in the order they are to be run, this one user can just run one that runs all eight of them. I had originally done it the first way because, sometimes, you might occasionally want to do something between #3 and #4, but I decided that was rare enough that it was really better to do it all in one. The peasants rejoice! This also means less possibility for user error, so I think everybody wins. I like winning. I like you, too. So when I tell you that I love you, don't test my love, accept my love, don't test my love, 'cause maybe I don't like you all that much.

No coffee today.