Glögg review 1: Blossa lättglögg

As you have seen in my profile, I like glögg. Glögg is rather typical for northern europe and is served hot with raisins and almond during the winter season. It's most of all associated with Christmas, but some (like me) enjoy it from mid November to mid January. Glögg is made from wine, traditionally red but nowadays also white. It's seasoned, which gives it a unique sweet and rich taste. Do note that during my test sessions, I do not add almond, raisins or eat ginger snaps. It's only the glögg and nothing else that I will test.

Since a lot of people never hear of this excellent beverage I thought that I'd make a set of reviews of different kinds of glögg with low-alcohol content. There are plenty of brands and flavours to chose from when it comes to high-alcohol content, but for low-alcohol there are about eight kinds to chose from. But I will try to find more.

First out is the true classic "Blossa lättglögg". When you think of glögg, this is the brand that first springs to mind. It's sweet and has a rather spicy taste. You can clearly make out the traces red wine somewhere amidst all the other tastes.


Currently, this is my personal favourite. But it's rather plain, most Swedes ought to be used to this taste, so it's really nothing special about it. You just see it as what defines glögg. Therefore, I can't give it five out of five. Since, you can't stop thinking that perhaps there is another glögg out there, one that is richer, leaner and will taste even better with your ginger snaps. I therefore give it four out of five, it's good, really good. But still, there is nothing special about it.

Blossa lättglögg
4/5
Price: ~25SEK per bottle of 750ml

Those who want to know more about glögg should take a look at the Wikipedia article.

Friday night, is physics and Python night

It's Friday night, you don't have anything to do. Well, you could of course work. But after working hard for more than a week and not even having a weekend last weekend you don't want to do that. Besides, your studies and your employer must let you have some fun.

What I did was dig up Python, some upper secondary school physics and my Fundamentals of Physics (as I am a CS student I have only taken one course in physics at university level) and started to hack some code. Planetary orbits and gravity, I thought, could look rather nice when simulated. So a few hours later I have constructed a small program that simulates the effects of gravity.


What you see is a "sun", well, it's really just a much bigger astral body (just like a sun) and some smaller planets moving in orbits around it. The lines represent gravity vectors, speed vectors, acceleration vectors and so on. They are just there to help me debug the whole thing.

It has been a rather nice Friday night in my opinion. Perhaps I should hack a little more on the concept, who knows. Now I will get some sleep and tomorrow it's all school work and work again.

Is God dead?

Idling in the web I read the following about a Norwegian trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

-"Our project is nothing less than proving that God doesn't exist. In each program I will commit a deadly sin in a new country. ... If God doesn't react by the end of the series he is declared dead."

Well, I wouldn't care if God was dead. But this Norwegian clearly know nothing about how to prove that God doesn't exist. Any believer might just as well say "He chose not to act". In order to falsify the existance of God you need God to be falsifiable. Otherwise it's like beating someone capable of changing the rules of the game while playing.

An example of this. Say that I have constructed a device that can detect with 100% accuracy if God is within a 25m radius. I start the device and it says that God is not within 25m. I claim that this is a proof that God doesn't exist. How ever, any believer might simply say "You can't detect God if he doesn't want to be detected." or "He wasn't there at the time, since he doesn't want to proved, he wants to be believed.". Thus, any godly being can't be proven to not exist. Any attempts at doing this are futile and therefore should be ignored. It's better to spend our time at tasks that may lead to results that benefit us, rather than to chase ghosts.

Article in SvD (In Swedish)

Misuse of statistics?

DN has published an article by Pressens Mediaservice, some news agency (I haven't looked into it very much). The article is about the failure of Radiohead's latest CD release which was available for free, on line. You could chose to pay if you wanted to. The article deems this as a failure, since 62 percent chose not to pay.

Now, 62 percent is a lot, but it's not even close to what we would need to know in order to deem it a failure. How many downloaded it? How much did they earn? How much do they usually earn? How much does an old-fashioned way of distributing a CD cost? Perhaps knowing this and probably even more, we will have knowledge enough to judge whether it was a success or not. As it is now, the company who carried out the analysis (Comscore, and if they judged it a failure based on only these numbers it's time to give a free and mandatory course in statistics to each and every employee) or a journalist at Pressens Mediaservice have taken misuse of statistics to a whole new level. Statistics is a powerful tool, but one is not to take only so much that it provides a point of view that you want to present or that you feel comfortable with. Stay true to the data, at all costs, data never lies, people do.


Link to the article in DN (Swedish).