Tie Knots: Know More Than One

I got lots of requests to actually show how to do some of the tie knots that I have been wearing, and that I blogged about a while ago. So... I will attempt to do my best with the help of Thomas Fink.

First, the knots that I will present here are the 85 ways to tie a tie, the STANDARD way. Meaning that the tie will be made with the wide end wrapping around the narrow end. Some of the nuttier knots involve wrapping the narrow end around the wide end to create the knot. I won't show those here.

Here are the two ways you can start the knot:

Pay attention to the letters. C is for Center, L is for Left, R is for Right, O is for seam on the OUTside, and I is for seam on the INside.
So looking at the diagram you notice that you start your knots by putting you seem on the outside crossing the wide part under the narrow, or having your seem on the inside crossing the wide part over the narrow.
Notice, also, that you should start with your wide part on the Right and you narrow on the right, so that you always begin the knot by moving the wide part to the left.

Next we have six ways to continue the knot:

Pay very close attention to the notation. Where the seem is, tells you HOW you get to that next position.

Now the three ways to end the knot:

If the notation is TT there is a double wrap at the end:


So we can now start to use the above notation to represent the steps for tie knots. Let's start with one of the very simplest knots, the Four In Hand knot. Notation: Li Ro Li Co T
You will notice that this knot is simply the beginning step, Li (wide end on the left seem on the inside) followed by the finishing step Ro (wide end to the right seem on the outside), Li (wide end to the left seem on the inside), Co (wide end straight up in the center seem on the outside), T (wide end goes through the loop created by the last step, tighten the knot). Here is a step by step diagram:


Now we can get a bit more complicated. The Double Windsor knot (or the Windsor to non-Americans) has a few more steps. Notation: Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T
As you can see from the notation, the tie is crossed then wrapped around the "legs" at the neckline. This is done on both sides to create a symetrical wide triangle look. The step by step diagram:


Got it? So here are the 85 ways to tie a tie, regardless of aesthetics (note that only about 20 of these actually look any good):
Legend:
Number is the number of the knot, and, along with any subscripts or superscripts, a unique identifier (e.g., FM7 is the half-Windsor, where FM refers to the Fink-Mao notation). Knots are ordered first by size, then by the number of centre moves C, then by symmetry s, then by balance b.

Size is the number of moves, not including T. Higher values correspond to bigger knots.

Centres is the number of centre moves C. Higher values correspond to broader knots.

Sequence The instructions for tying the knot, using the notation described at the top of this page.

Symmetry (s) is the absolute value of the difference between the number of R and L moves.

Balance (b) is the number of times the winding of the wide blade switches from clockwise to counter-clockwise, or vice-versa.

Knotted status (k) Whether, when the tie is removed over the head and the thin end pulled out of the knot, a knot remains (y) or does not (n). If a knot remains, it is said to be not self-releasing; if no knot remains, it is said to be self-releasing.

Name Standard name of the knot.

3on The subscript on is short for Onassis, and it indicates his particular style of bring the wide blade behind and through the center after tying a four-in-hand. This variation can be applied to any knot but the results are all much the same.

32, 62, etc. If a knot ends with two Ts, it is subscripted 2; if three Ts, it is subscripted 3; and so on.

32r, etc. The superscript r means the tie is worn in reverse, that is, back-to-front. While this is of course possible for any knot, with some it gives unusual and pleasant results. The tie itself should be reversed before tying.

No.	Size	Cen.	Sequence	s	b	k	Name
1	3	1	Lo Ri Co T	0	0	y	Oriental
2	4	1	Li Ro Li Co T	1	1	n	four-in-hand
2on	4	1	Li Ro Li Co T Ri Co	1	1	Onassis
3	5	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y	Kelvin
32	5	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	2	cross Kelvin
32r	5	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	2	diagonal
4	5	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	0	n	Nicky
5	5	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	1	y	Pratt
6	6	1	Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	3	n	Victoria
62	6	1	Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	3	cross Victoria
7	6	2	Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	0	y	half-Windsor
8	6	2	Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	1	n	co-half-Windsor
9	6	2	Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	1	y
10	6	2	Li Co Li Ro Li Co T	2	2	n
11	7	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	4	y
112	7	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	4
113	7	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T	0	4
12	7	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	1	n	St Andrew
13	7	2	Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T	1	1	n
14	7	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	2	y	co-St Andrew
15	7	2	Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	2	y
16	7	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	2	n
162	7	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	2
17	7	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y
172	7	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	1	3
18	7	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	1	y	Plattsburgh
19	7	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	2	n	co-Plattsburgh
20	7	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	2	2	n
21	7	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	2	3	y
22	8	1	Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	5	n
222	8	1	Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	5
223	8	1	Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T T	1	5
23	8	2	Li Ro Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y	Cavendish
24	8	2	Li Ro Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y
25	8	2	Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y
252	8	2	Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	2		Christensen
26	8	2	Li Ro Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	3	n
27	8	2	Li Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T	0	3	n
272	8	2	Li Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	0	3	co-Christensen
28	8	2	Li Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	3	y
282	8	2	Li Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	3
29	8	2	Li Ro Li Co Li Ro Li Co T	2	3	n
30	8	2	Li Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T	2	4	n
302	8	2	Li Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	2	4
31	8	3	Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	0	n	Windsor
32	8	3	Li Co Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	1	y	co-Windsor 1
33	8	3	Li Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	1	y	co-Windsor 2
34	8	3	Li Ro Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	1	n
35	8	3	Li Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	1	2	n	co-Windsor 3
36	8	2	Li Ro Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	2	y
37	8	3	Li Ro Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	2	y
38	8	3	Li Co Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T	1	2	n
39	8	3	Li Ro Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	1	3	n
40	8	3	Li Co Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y
41	8	3	Li Co Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y
42	8	3	Li Co Li Co Li Ro Li Co T	3	4	n
43	9	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	6	y
432	9	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	6
433	9	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T	0	6
434	9	1	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T T	0	6
44	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T	1	3	n	Granchester
45	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	3	n
452	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	3
46	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	3	n
47	9	2	Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	3	n
472	9	2	Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	3
48	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	4	y	co-Grantchester
49	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	4	y
492	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	1	4
50	9	2	Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	4	y
51	9	2	Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	4	y
512	9	2	Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	1	4
52	9	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T	1	4	n
522	9	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	1	4
523	9	2	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T T	1	4
53	9	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	1	5	y
532	9	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	1	5
533	9	2	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T	1	5
54	9	3	Lo Ri Co Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	0	y	Hanover
55	9	3	Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	0	1	n	co-Hanover 1
56	9	3	Lo Ri Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	1	n	co-Hanover 2
57	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	1	y
58	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	1	y	co-Hanover 3
59	9	3	Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y
60	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	2	n
61	9	3	Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y
62	9	3	Lo Ri Co Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	2	y
63	9	3	Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	0	3	n
64	9	3	Lo Ri Co Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T	0	3	n
65	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	3	y
66	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	0	3	y
662	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	0	3
67	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T	0	4	n
672	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	0	4
68	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	2	2	n
69	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T	2	2	n
70	9	3	Lo Ci Ro Li Co Li Ro Li Co T	2	2	n
71	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	2	3	y
72	9	3	Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	2	3	n
73	9	3	Lo Ri Co Li Co Li Ro Li Co T	2	3	n
74	9	3	Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	2	4	y
75	9	3	Lo Ri Co Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T	2	4	y
76	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T	2	4	n
762	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T	2	4
77	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T	2	5	y
772	9	3	Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T	2	5
78	9	4	Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	1	2	n	Balthus
79	9	4	Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y
80	9	4	Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y
81	9	4	Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	1	3	y	co-Balthus
82	9	4	Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T	1	4	n
83	9	4	Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co	T	1	4	n
84	9	4	Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T	3	4	n
85	9	4	Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T	3	5	y

I Know! Let's Prevent Our Law Abiding Employees From Carrying Guns!!!

My wife works in a state run hospital. It is situated down town in a crappy part of town. It is the only trauma center in the city, so when two gangs have a shoot out, all the wounded come to this ER. It is also the only place for those without insurance to get free baby deliveries. So all of the gangs bring their baby mommas to the hospital. Mostly to see my wife... She is an OB/GYN doctor.
While the gang bangers', and other miscreants' baby mommas are busy pushing out their spawn, they are out in the parking lot car jacking and holding up the doctors, nurses, and technicians that just got done caring for their friends.
Two weeks ago the hospital was put on lock-down as the Police had a shoot out with an armed gang member in one of the hospital's cafeterias.
What does the hospital administration do? Specifically inform all staff that carrying concealed weapons, even for licenced CCW holders, is strictly prohibited and will be punished by immediate termination. This is a No Tolerance policy.

So, despite all of the crime in their area and in their parking lots, the administration has told their staff that they are not to take measures to protect themselves. This is supposed to create a "safe" work environment.

This is about as stupid as you can get. It is tantamount to South Korea throwing away all of its weapons so that the people feel safe. Meanwhile, the North rolls through the country like locusts on a corn field.

I was at the hospital last weekend to take my wife to a meeting. While she went up to the floor I stayed in the lobby. While there, two groups of people converged and began shouting and pushing one another. Things started to heat up, to the point where I had my hand on my .45 ready to pull. Thankful the Police arrived, they are on constant patrol inside the hospital, and forced the groups to disperse. They simply went in to the parking lot and began their fight.
I asked my wife about this when she got done with her meeting, and she replied with a shrug, that this kind of thing happens so often that it really isn't anything to talk about now.

Even in a hostile environment such as this hospital, and this one is far from the worst, employers will not allow their employees to carry firearms in to the workplace. In my opinion this is the height of idiocy. It is not the law abiding citizen with a CCW license you need to worry about. It is the disgruntled crazy former, or soon to be former, employee who cares nothing about breaking the law, let alone your stupid policy, that you need be concerned about. Disarming your employees only leaves defenceless targets cowering behind their desks for the crazy to pick off with impunity.
What is the proper response to an assailant who has opened fire? Ask the Police. Ask the military. They both respond with aggressive counter fire to bring the bad guy down. 100% of the time they will NOT say, that they would cower behind some flimsy cover and stay there until the bad guy comes to finish us off. Yet, this is the policy of businesses, even when the threat of violence is very very real.

TSA Enhanced Screenings

The TSA is busy doing all sorts of groping and grabbing. They strictly refuse to profile people to find out the most likely to be the kind that would blow up airplanes. But that would mean firing most of the worker drone workers, union people now, and hiring some skilled workers, who actually care about the safety of the airplanes. Anyway, the new Republican class is starting to make waves about these screenings. What are they saying about them? Are they saying that the screenings are a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Are they saying that the screenings are ineffective against finding the explosives that will be used? Are they saying that the TSA is simply security theater? No. They are saying that you don't know the sexual orientation of the screener doing the groping. Seriously. They are worried that they might be touched on the pee pee by a gay man.

For the love of Pete, you can not catch the gay from hand to pee pee contact. And really... Get over yourself. What are the odds you get a gay man who is in to obese dudes with a rod up their ass? The screeners, gay and straight, hate the grabbing as much as you do, probably more. Just think what happened at that meeting where the higher ups told the TSA union morons what they had to do. "Happy Thanksgiving, and we now have to touch the passenger's junk." "Wait wat?"

The real solution here is to get rid of the TSA, and hand security back over to the airlines. They are the ones who are ultimately on the hook for the safety of their flights, and it is time that the government backs away. The TSA was a massively bad idea to start with, and we are not making it any better. Time to cut and run while we still can.

Why???

They walk in to the gym, talking large and with a strut. Most of the time they smell like cigarettes. A good number already have a fight scheduled, all that do the fight is in about two weeks, most likely sooner.
They start out the warm up balls to the walls, slow with in 30 seconds, and in a minute they are sucking wind, asking for a water break and we haven't even started shadow boxing yet.
Before practice their talk was large, about fights they won, and techniques they pulled off. During practice they show an ability to eat jabs and throw winding looping punches that are easily avoided and countered. They throw kicks off balance, and eat them like they are candy.
They profess to be submission kings, and to have wrestled "all of their life." On the mat they show an amazing ability to give up more submissions than if they were actually allowing you to submit them.

Why? I don't get it. People don't automatically assume that they can run a marathon with less than two weeks training, even if they ran a mile once or twice. Why do they believe that they can step in to the ring and fight, even if they had a street fight or two. It makes little sense. Yet, last night I saw a guy with his chest puffed up walking in to the gym with a swagger, and I knew what he was up to. I can understand the trainers taking him in. His money is as green as everybody else's. They get the first month's dues and set him loose. They know that the vast majority of these guys will not stay past the first month, so take his money and feed him to the wolves.

I guess that I have a problem with all of this because I love combat sports, and this kind of behavior only serves to stain their reputation. Promoters who put up these fights are what give the sport such a bad name. If this guy walks in to the ring with a trained guy he will bust his wad with in 30 seconds, then gasp for breath as his opponent mauls him. If he steps in with another like him, the fans will be treated to two guys winging hay-makers for 30 seconds, then push on each other for the rest of the fight. Fun for the fans, I guess.

Promoters should only schedule fights with legitimate gyms. You still will get the mauling, but at least you will know that the fighters will have a little bit of gas in the tank, and some halfway decent technique behind them. The problem is that most promoters are little more than street slime themselves, looking to make a buck not on the sport, but on the blood and trauma of the fighters.

The Fourth Amendment

You're Doing It Wrong!!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I Want One!!!!

Typically I am not a fan of laptop or tablet computers. They have lots and lots of problems that PCs just don't have. On top of that, they are much slower than a desktop purchased for the same money, at the same time. However... This thing is just cool:


It is the new Dell Inspiron Duo. It is a combination of the iPad style app driven, touch screen tablet and a standard laptop computer. This is the kind of thing that I have been looking for. A low cost (maybe) low power system (2GB RAM max, on a nicely powered N550 dual core Atom CPU).
This is not going to be your favorite gaming system, but it is about perfect as a carry around box, which is exactly what the tablet market is about. Something that you can do documents on, but is used primarily for email and Internet applications.
The fact that it carries Windows 7 is a great bonus, because, unlike the iPad, I can use remote desktop to connect to my beefy home server box to do anything that needs serious hardware.

The Inspiron Duo is expected to be out later this month for pre-orders.

More pics:

Coooooooool

Idiots, This Country Haz Dem

People of California, really??? Jerry Brown again? You didn't get enough of Governor Moon Beam in the 70's? You had a clear choice California, a return to solvency and to prosperity, or a dive straight down the rabbit hole to bankruptcy and red tape... You all took the red tape. You deserve what you get, and I will work hard so that the rest of the country does not bail your stupid asses out.

People of Massachusetts, really??? Barney Frank?? There are a few people we can name that are directly responsible for the housing meltdown. Frank is one of them. You people could have sent a clear message that you weren't going to take the corruption any more. You chose to say that you don't care about the mismanagement of Fannie Mae, you don't care about the ethics and corruption of Frank. The horrible thing is that what Frank does DIRECTLY affects my life. I pay for your ineptitude. Thanks Mass, right back atcha.

Praise the Baby Zombie Wiccan Jebus that there were not enough idots to sweep Christine O'Donnell to victory... How she ever got nominated is beyond me. Have the sense to nominate someone who actually has read the Constitution, and knows what the Kelo decision was before you vote next time Delaware.

Idiots did not prevail in Kentucky or in Florida! Rand Paul and Marco Rubio walk in to the senate! Now, if we could just get the idiots to start looking at these guys for President rather than the idiot's choice of Sara Palin we will be on our way from destroying the idiocracy!

What Is "Luck"?

"You have had a lot of luck in your life so far." Said my dad during a recent visit to Dumbfuckville. It got me wondering. What is luck? I am a somewhat vocal skeptic in all things religious, yet even the hardest core Atheist, still believes in, or will mention luck. So what is it?

I would like to think my life has turned out the way it has because of cold rational decisions that I have made. But that is not true. For absolute certain, my life is what it is because of the choices I have made. This is the universal truth. What is not true about my above statement is that not all of my decisions have been cold and rational. Is luck when you make an emotional choice, or an irrational one, and it turns out well for you?

One such emotional choice was who I chose to spend the rest of my life with. When we met, we were both young. She was barely 21 years old, I had just turned 25. About 13 months after that we were engaged, and 8 months after that were married. This was a decision I made with my heart, not my head. The woman I met could barely speak English, she had been born in to a culture alien from my own, and we had drastic personality differences. After 9 years 11 months, the woman I married is not the woman that I currently live with. The woman I married was shy, had no self confidence, and was perpetually worried about everything. I realized that she had drastically changed from the woman I married in her second year as a medical student. She entered an essay contest in Neurology. The favorite to win this contest was a young man who entered medical school after getting a PhD in Neurology. When she brought me her paper to proof read, just like she did when her papers were little more than "See Jane run.", I couldn't understand a word of it. The language was advanced, the terminology was, for me, indecipherable. She went on to win the contest. A woman who could not read a newspaper not 5 years previous beat a PhD in his own field, in HIS native language.
My beaming aside, this choice of wife was undoubtedly a good one. It was the most important decision in my life. Was it "lucky"?

A close friend made a very similar choice to mine about the same time as I did. His choice was not a foreigner, but he made his choice with his heart, not his head. Just as I did. He divorced a few years later. His net worth was halved, his children were ripped from him, and he was saddled with half of the debt that she primarily ran up. He now has to forfeit a large percentage of his income to this woman, in the name of child support. Was this simply "unlucky"?

In my career, I have been just the opposite. I have made cold hard choices, sometimes accepting lower pay for the opportunity to lean skills. I left the field of study my degree is in to participate in what I knew was the next revolution in business. I have stayed at a company knowing that my compensation was beneath my market value, because I knew it was safe. Was this "luck"?

I have friends that have been just as calculating, just as careful, and have come up being laid off time and time again. Is he simply "unlucky"?

What is "luck"? Is luck when you make a choice with some element of risk and it pays off for you? Is something more lucky when you make a choice based on your emotions and not the facts? In fighting there is a saying that there are no lucky punches. You threw the punch it landed, no luck involved. Yet, we have all seen where men are getting beat from pillar to post, let one wild unaimed bomb in desperation, land it and win the fight.

I believe this: Luck does not exist. It, like religion, is a construct of man. It is nothing more than man attempting to put a name to something that he can not control. It is also a coping mechanism for those who have made poor choices to feel better about themselves for failing (I am not a failure, they are just lucky.)
Believing in luck, in my opinion is the same as believing in hope. Hope kills pilots. So does luck. Isn't it strange that those who work hard, make good choices based on the facts, and make more calculating choices than emotional ones seem to be "luckier" than the rest of us? The simple fact is that fortune, "luck", smiles on the prepared.

I admit that I have made choices that have not been based on rational fact. Like when I bought a car that I could not afford, but it was so damn pretty! More often than not, those choices were "unlucky."

However, no matter how rational your choices are, there are certain situations that do not break your way. Unforeseen issues that cause great hardship, or great joy. These things are just what they are. You had no control over them, accept that. What you do have control over is how you react to the issue, and amplify your joy, or mitigate the disaster. Spend less time worrying about luck, and never EVER put your life in luck's hands.