The perfect closet organizing business model

 A kind, compassionate, trustworthy, non-judgemental person with excellent EQ comes to your home with a measuring tape, a dressmaker's mannequin, and a box.

They measure your body, perhaps even without telling you what the measurements are, and set the dressmaker's mannequin to match your measurements.

Then they go through your closet and try every single item of clothing on the dressmaker's mannequin. You don't have to be in the room while they do this.

Every item of clothing that is too small for your body goes into the box, which they close and seal.

Then, when they're done, you have more closet space and 100% of the clothes in your closet fit your body.

You don't have to see which of your favourite clothes are too small for you, or go through the upsetting experience of trying on favourite clothes that ended up being too small.

They can take away the box of too-small clothes and donate them appropriately, or they can leave it with you, closed and sealed, for you to either revisit when you can cope with it or completely disregard.

Updated with a bonus round:

The closet organizer is paired up with a personal shopper, to whom they provide your measurements and the quantity and characteristics of the clothing that was removed from your closet, and the personal shopper finds suitable replacements that fit your current body.

Those lovely blouses in jewel tones that you bought years ago are now too small? Here's a selection of flattering blouses in jewel tones! 

You have to give up your twirly sundress? Here are a few twirly sundress options!

All about my Good Omens OC named Muriel

I was amused to see that season 2 of Good Omens will include an angel named Muriel, because the Good Omens sequel fic that lives in my head also includes an angel named Muriel. My fic is almost certainly going to stay in my head because I can't figure out enough of what the plot needs to be even to put together all the good bits as a tantalizing series of vignettes, so instead I'm going to post what I know about my Muriel character, so when the actual Good Omens season 2 comes out I can delight in any resemblance to the canon Muriel.

 

My premise, inspired by Aziraphale's "Just imagine how awful it might have been if we'd been at all competent" line is that Heaven and Hell have replaced Aziraphale and Crowley respectively as their agents on Earth with people who are actually competent, by virtue of having been actual humans before they died and went to Heaven and Hell respectively.

Muriel is Heaven's new agent on Earth. I chose her name because it's an actual human name that also sounds like it follows angelic nomenclature patterns. (A quick google as I was writing this blog post finds an actual angel named Muriel, but I didn't know that when I chose the name.) Depending on Good Omens theology and the needs of the story, she might be an actual angel, or she might be a human soul who was sent to heaven but doesn't count as an angel.

In her human life, Muriel was a frumpy older woman, easily overlooked and underestimated, and used these characteristics to her advantage in her actual human career as a highly skilled secret agent. (This was inspired by an article I read long ago about how the best secret agents are actually nondescript, unassuming people.)

 

Her dress and grooming are reminiscent of a Monty Python pepperpot, and she has an extensive range of hidden skills and talents. (Whatever the plot requires!) It's possible that she's the older lady who lives downstairs from Crowley, but I'm not sure if the timing on that works.

 

Muriel isn't actually an especially good person, and got into Heaven on a technicality. (Perhaps the Catholic church's pandemic plenary indulgence, but I'd have to understand the nuances in greater detail to see if that would work.)

 

Muriel has angelic powers like Aziraphale, but, because she's lived as a human for most of her conscious existence, she keeps forgetting about her powers and doing things the human way. This is played for laughs throughout the story, and then ends up playing a key role in the denouement.

Muriel's assignment as Heaven's agent on Earth includes spying on Aziraphale and Crowley. However, she sympathizes with them - she'd rather just be left alone to live on Earth too!

Muriel has a Hellish counterpart, whose name I haven't decided yet. Her Hellish counterpart is also a highly-competent former human with a complementary extensive range of hidden skills and talents resulting from their life as a human. (These skills and talents, and therefore the specifics of the Hellish counterpart's human life, are what the plot needs them to be, and I don't know enough about the plot to fill in the blanks.) The Hellish counterpart isn't actually a bad person, but rather got sent to hell on some kind of technicality. (I like the idea of them being an unbaptized infant, but I don't think the theology works out, plus I don't have an explanation for how they gain the ability to function as an adult on Earth.) And, obviously, the Hellish counterpart would rather be left alone to leave peacefully on Earth as well.

If Muriel and her Hellish counterpart fall in love (which would be an elegant parallel to Aziraphale and Crowley, but I haven't figured out how to make it happen without feeling forced - probably because I haven't figured out what kind of person Muriel's Hellish counterpart needs to be), they would address it with Heaven and Hell by cleverly writing "posing as a couple" into their scope of mission.

 

The actress who's been cast as the real Muriel in the real Good Omens appears significantly younger than my headcanon Muriel, so I strongly doubt the actual Good Omens character will in any way resemble mine.

 

But if there were any resemblance, I would be nothing but delighted. And if someone wants to use elements of my Muriel in their own fanfiction, I would be similarly delighted. #StealThisIdea

Things the Library Should Invent: lend out external media readers

While rummaging through my box of 20 years of accumulated spare cables, I found some random unmarked floppy disks. I have no idea what's on them, and no longer have any computers with a floppy drive.

 

I pondered what might be on the disks, and tried to brainstorm ways I might get at a floppy drive. I wondered whether you can rent an external floppy drive. There doesn't appear to be any such thing. They're fairly cheap to buy, but I'd only need it for a few minutes to read and possibly copy the contents of the disks, and then I'd be done with it forever.

 

Then I wondered if the library computers still have floppy drives. Doubtful. Apart from the fact that floppy disks haven't been in common use for quite a while, I doubt the library wants to make it easy for people to run random programs on their computers.

Then I realized, this is a problem that the library could solve by making external media readers available to borrow - floppy drives, CD drives, maybe even cassette players and record players that can be plugged into computers to convert music to MP3s, if such a thing exists.

Surely I'm not the only one with some obsolete media that I'm no longer equipped to read or back up. Surely I'm not the only one who just needs a floppy drive briefly, with no need to own one.

An external USB floppy drive costs less than the retail price of a hardcover book, so it seems like the library should be able to afford a few to lend out. And if the library lends me a USB drive that I plug into my own computer, my computer bears the risk of whatever the contents of my mystery disks might be - the library's disk drive is just a conduit.

 

Q: But if you let people borrow electronic equipment, they might wreck it! 

A: Yes, just like if you let people borrow books, they might wreck them! I suspect libraries are accustomed to budgeting for eventual wear and tear on their items.

 

Part of the library's mission statement is to provide universal access to a broad range of information. Perhaps that could include the information that we have stored on outdated media?

Things They Should Invent: concordance tool with a Boolean NOT function

Many words, terms and phrases have a common go-to translation, but also have scope of meaning that doesn't fall under the common go-to translation.

 

If the common go-to translation is extremely common, it can saturate concordance tool results, completely burying alternative translations. This can lead inexperienced translators to conclude there is no other possible translation (even if the go-to is inappropriate), and can even stymie experienced translators ("I know there's another translation, but I'm completely blanking on it!")

To remedy this, I want to be able to apply a Boolean NOT function to the target-language results, to eliminate the common go-to translations and see what's left.

Examples:

 

- Show me translations of porte-parole that are not "spokesperson".

- Show me translations of intervenant that are not "intervener" or "responder".

- Show me translations of animateur that are not "animator" or "facilitator".

 

With the common translations that I know are not suitable out of the way, the tool can better do its job of giving me options to pinpoint le mot juste for my particular translation needs.

I have no idea how feasible this would be from a programming perspective. I know a Boolean NOT can be used in user input, I know that you can filter output by selecting and unselecting attribute tags from a given list (like you often find in online shopping), but I have no idea about the feasibility of filtering output with user-provided Boolean operators.

If it would in fact be unfeasible, I have an idea for an alternative: sort results in alphabetical order by how the word/term/phrase in question is translated in the target text.

This would group all the translations I know I don't want to use together, making it easier to find other options.

For example, if all the instances of "spokesperson" are together (with variants like "spokesman" nearby), I can start at the beginning of the alphabetically-sorted results and scroll through until I hit "spokesperson", seeing all the available options. Then, when I hit "spokesperson", I can jump to the last result and scroll through in reverse order until I hit "spokesperson" again, thereby quickly getting an overview of all the non-"spokesperson" results.

Concordance tools do tend to provide a sentence or a snippet as output, but they "know" what the matched term is, so it seems like it should be feasible to sort alphabetically by matched term but still show snippets.

Things They Should Invent: grocery pickup edition

1. Mark items as "essential"

The first time I tried grocery pickup (in this case, PC Express at Loblaws), I was making the purchase because I had immediate need of a specific item.

In keeping with the pandemic mindset of minimizing trips and keeping two weeks of provision on hand, I didn't just buy that one item, I bought everything I expected to need for the next two weeks, regardless of whether it was on sale.

Then, shortly before pick-up time, I got an email saying that my order was ready - except they didn't have that one specific item in stock! There was no way to cancel the order at this point, so I had to put on my mask, wait in line, go into a store, talk to an employee, pay for a bunch of stuff that wasn't even on sale, lug it all home and wipe it all down - all for nothing!

Proposed solution: users should have the option of marking one or more items in their cart as "essential". If the essential item is unavailable, the order is cancelled. When the user marks more than one item as essential, they can either mark them as "ALL" or "ANY". If the essential items are marked "ALL", then the order only goes through if all the essential items are available. If they essential items are marked "ANY", the order goes through if any one of the items is available.

This should certainly be programmable - it's basically a set of IF/THEN statements - and it would certainly help during the pandemic when we're supposed to be minimizing trips and contacts.

2. "Your cart contains # bags of groceries"

Another problem with grocery pickup is that ordering groceries online is much easier than carrying those groceries home - I'd almost bought more than I can carry!

Solution: tell users how many bags of groceries their cart contains, measured in the standard grocery bags found at the checkout.

People who are accustomed to grocery shopping have a good sense of how many bags of groceries they can carry and how many will fit into their tote bag or bundle buggy or bike basket or car trunk or whatever they might be using, so this would make it easier to avoid over-ordering, and thereby finding yourself at the store faced with more groceries than you can get home in one trip.

The ideal implementation would calculate the number of bags in terms of both mass and volume, because both of those are factors in how much people can carry. But I'd imagine an immediate implementation would be possible based on mass alone. Grocery stores already have a database of the mass of all their products, since the self-checkouts have a built-in scale to make sure you're not stealing. Surely someone in human history has quantified how many grams/pounds/kilograms a grocery bag will carry, so it's a simple question of division.

Sanditon fanfic bunny, free for the taking: "I Will Toil and You Can Blossom"

This post is a full spoiler zone for the Sanditon miniseries.

I recently finished the Sanditon miniseries, and was pleased to see that my ship of Charlotte/Arthur is still a possibility.

I have a massive fanfic bunny and lack the skills to write it, so I'm posting it here in case someone else wants to write it. Steal this idea!

Premise:

Charlotte and Arthur enter by mutual consent into a companionate marriage (in the sense of companionate love as opposed to consummate love.)

This puts Charlotte in a good position to continue her work with the Parker family's business, which she found so self-actualizing in canon. (After all, it's much more respectable for a Mrs. Parker to be acting on behalf of the Parker family than a Miss Heywood.) She gets to be married to someone who is pleasant and harmless and respects her.

Meanwhile, Arthur gets to continue enjoying the simple pleasures of life without having to work too hard, because Charlotte is pulling their share of the weight in the family business. He gets to be married to someone who is pretty and personable and accepts him for who is he is without playing games. He can spend his days enjoying his port wine and buttered toast and getting down on the floor to play with the children.

(Despite it being a companionate marriage, I do imagine that Charlotte and Arthur would consummate their marriage. They've both shown themselves eager to try new experiences (e.g. sea-bathing) and sex is a new experience that's now available to them. And they may well continue to make sex part of their lives, either to have children, simply because they think it's fun.)

So where's the conflict in this scenario? From the whole rest of the town of Sanditon! Nearly everyone we've met in canon has some kind of drama, and with Sanditon being a resort town all kinds of personalities could pass through. And meanwhile, Charlotte and Arthur build themselves an oasis of peace in the midst of all the drama.


Interesting notions this fic would explore:


- A mutually-satisfying and mutually-respectful companionate marriage. In fiction, we see explorations of passionate marriages, unhealthy marriages, abusive marriages,  bickering marriages. I've never seen a portrayal of a marriage between two people who like each other and respect each other and get along well, but aren't in love with each other and are okay with that.

- Sex as fun, but not passionate. I do think if Charlotte and Arthur were married, they would explore sex. They've both shown themselves game to try new experiences (sea bathing, horseback riding), and I think they would have a go at consummating their marriage in a similar spirit. After all, they're allowed - even encouraged! And if it turns out to be an enjoyable experience for both, they'd probably make it a regular part of their life. Sex in fiction tends to be portrayed as imbued with great emotion and meaning (as it often is in real life) - either positively or negatively depending on the character being portrayed. But some people must find it just...fun. (After all, friends with benefits is a thing.) It would be interesting to see that explored in fiction.

- The value of a harmless husband. We normally see the notion of a "safe option" in marriage portrayed negatively, or as a person in a safe marriage yearning for something more. But in a historical era where a wife is entirely at her husband's mercy socially, legally and financially, a harmless husband like Arthur would be quite the catch! He's cheerful and happy to be pleased, he's happy to cede the floor to Charlotte when she knows better, and he's not going to bankrupt them (c.f. he's hardly touched his inheritance).

(Charlotte is also harmless and I'm sure that has value for Arthur, but given the realities of the era, I'm more interested in how Arthur's harmlessness enhances Charlotte's life.)

- Young newlyweds growing up together. Once upon a time, I read something that said that in the 21st century, people expect to finish growing up and then to get married. But in the past, when people married younger, they'd get married and expect to finish growing up together.  I haven't a clue whether that's true as a general societal attitude (I've only heard it once from a source that is lost to history), but it must have happened in some cases, and it would be an interesting thing to explore. Charlotte and Arthur, while of marriageable age in their historical context, are both very young and both still have some growing up to do. At the same time, living and working within the extended Parker family would give them a context in which they can safely do this growing up together.

How to make a "serious inquiries only" online dating system

This idea was inspired by, but is only indirectly related to, #9 in Captain Awkward's It Came From The Search Terms.


A problem that exists in dating is there are some people who will misrepresent themselves as wanting a serious relationship when they're really only looking for something casual.

I have an idea for an online dating system that can prevent that, or at least be unappealing to people who are really looking for something casual.


Basically, the premise of the site/app is that you can only talk to one person at a time. It won't show you new matches until you have decided to stop being involved with your previous matches - which your previous matches will be informed of.

So, for example, suppose you find someone interesting, and you message them. They can either accept or decline to chat with you.

If they decline, you will be shown new matches.

If they accept, you will not be shown any more matches until you mark the person you messaged as "no longer interested". They will receive a notification telling them that you're not longer interested.

If they do not respond, you can retract your message to see more matches. There could also be a built-in time-out system - if you message someone and they do not respond within a given period of time, they're assumed to have declined communication, so your message is withdrawn from their inbox and the system starts showing you new matches.


"But that's completely incompatible with the way I use online dating! I want to cast a wide net and talk to multiple people at once!"

Then this system is not for you! Go forth and use any other online dating site in the world!

"But I have a very specific, very important reason why I need to be able to see new matches even though I'm still dating my original match!"

Then you can explain to the actual human being you're actually dating what your very specific, very important reason is, and since it's so important and you're so compatible that you want to retain the relationship, surely they'll understand when they get the "X is no longer interested in you" email.