On Sunday, I am wearing my 3 piece Navy Jos A Bank Traveler suit to church. I am deciding whether to wear my Tecova loafers or cowboy boots. What does everyone think?

"Unique" and "data" are used wrong all the time! I firmly believe that using our words carefully and accurately is a central aspect of being a well-intentioned gentleman. Vocabulary ensures that what we say is accurately understood by our audience (online and in person). Vocabulary is also the single strongest predictor of overall intelligence on standardized intelligence tests (this was my field of research for about a decade). In order to avoid this coming across as elitist, I want to stress that the two guidances below - certainly pet peeves of mine - are words we use every day rather than something only used in rarified academia or by some PhD on a sartorial forum... 🤓 Unique: its simple definition is "one of a kind". This is dichotomous, like a light is on or off. No in between. Therefore, nothing can be "really unique", or "largely unique" or nearly any other modifier applied to it. When something is not one of a kind, we still like "unique" because it sounds stronger than what we should probably say: very rare. It is, however, wrong and inaccurately conveys our intent. The only appropriate modifier for unique is something which clarifies the noun is becoming unique. If only three of something remain in the world and one is destroyed, saying the final two are "nearly unique" is appropriate. Data: this word is ALWAYS a plural. Datum is the word to describe a single piece of data. This is just like saying "this people is funny" when we mean "this person is funny". As a statistician, you can only begin to imagine how much this drives me nuts because of its near omnipresent use. "These data are impressive" may sound weird at first, but it is the only grammatically appropriate way to say it. I hope this was helpful and not pedantic!

Happy Friday, everyone. The day began very well with our longest client asking us to prepare a contract for a two-year project. She was also providing us for information on a presentation we just had accepted at a major conference (major for my niche industry) on the comfort and appropriateness of using AI in patient-reported outcomes research from the perspective of experts from pharmaceutical companies, major consultancies, and AI experts (who, interestingly, are the most hesitant). I will be presenting this research in Vienna in November. Today is also a good day in that it is my first official wear outside (after my 24 hours of break in) for my Yearn oxblood Balmoral boots! I am loving them. Unfortunately, the outfit I have on reveals that the slacks and jacket need alterations, and the slacks were already altered! I think I may have grown taller... Charcoal, blue and oxblood for a polished Friday video-conference look Friday rotation check: The Friday rule was met at the time of selection: DS-051, NT-065, and DSo-095 each had zero prior recorded wears and therefore fell within the 35 least-worn items. Today’s entry raised each to one wear; additional low-use pieces included DSh-022 (the new boots! I did count a wear inside my house one day as it was all I wore during a weekend day) and DOJ-008, while overall harmony took priority over forcing more zero-wear items into the outfit. • Jacket — DOJ-008 (Hart Schaffner & Marx): A charcoal-gray wool odd jacket with restrained light-brown detailing, notch lapels and a fully lined construction. The charcoal contrasts deliberately with the light-brown trousers, while its brown accent connects naturally to the oxblood leather. • Trousers — SL-019 (Ralph Lauren Green Label): Light-brown basket-weave wool trousers with dark-brown and cream details, cut in a classic 34W × 27L fit. Their subtle sheen and warm coloring bridge the charcoal jacket and oxblood boots without resembling an attempted matched suit.

I can't remember where I originally heard this, but it seems to be something a lot of people have either forgotten or never heard... The people that matter aren't impressed by things, they are only impressed by people. A Rolex on a random wrist means nothing more than a receipt. The important factor isn't the watch, but the wrist. Any interesting watch on an impressive gentleman's wrist becomes a status symbol - because of the wrist that's wearing it. There's a reason the phrase, "an empty suit," even exists. It's because the suit doesn't make the man; the man - or woman, for that matter - makes the suit. Buying things that a significant number of people can purchase does not impart status. Striving to be the best version of yourself, however, demonstrates a status that cannot be purchased...