I was identified as gifted when I was in Grade 5, which meant every year I'd get an IPRC, where I'd meet with my parents and the resource teacher and they'd make a plan for how to get the most out of my education.
The one thing the resource teachers always did (every single resource teacher over the years did this - I can think of at least three individual teachers and I'm sure I'm missing some) was put in the plan that I should raise my hand and answer more questions in class.
Even looking back at it as an adult, I don't understand what that was supposed to achieve. (I knew that I knew the answers, I was just staying quiet to avoid bullying.) But there was very strong messaging that I should raise my hand and give the teachers the answers I already knew I already knew, that doing so would be a good thing, and that failing to do so was a bad thing.
Similarly, as a shy person who doesn't always speak in groups, I've gotten a lot of "You should speak up! You should contribute!" as social skills advice.
As though I necessarily have something not just to say, but to contribute? I can't fathom what that might be!
So for the first 30ish years of my life, I was receiving constant messaging that I should say something, anything. That not putting in my two cents is practically not pulling my weight.
And then, when I was well into my 30s, I was exposed for the first time to the concept of staying in one's lane.
This was literally the first time in my life I had heard that perhaps I shouldn't speak up, perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to a given discussion.
(When I was a kid, adults would tell me to be quiet and not to talk back in a given moment, but on a philosophical/theoretical level they definitely would have said I should speak up and contribute.)
Now, I can't tell you how much of this "you should speak up and contribute" was because I'm white, and I can't tell you whether my non-white classmates were treated differently. My school was fairly small (if you had shown me a photo of any of my classmates, I could have instantly told you their name and something about them) and there were so few non-white students that I could count them without running out of fingers.
I cannot think of/remember a single instance of any of my classmates, of any race, being urged to systematically speak up more or to systematically be quiet. But also, I wasn't paying attention to such things at the time, so who knows what I might have missed?
If there was any difference in how we were treated, I'm sure the adults would have told you they were treating us as individuals, based on our individual needs. And there simply isn't enough data to suggest otherwise - I had too few non-white classmates to identify any sort of pattern.
But the fact of the matter is there were, in raw numbers, a lot of white people around in that time and place, and other times and places like it. I can't possibly have been the only person who was told to speak up and contribute. (I seriously doubt the adults around me would have come up with an all new unprecedented piece of advice just for me!)
Maybe the world would be a better place if more of us were told there are some times and places where you should sit down, be quiet and listen - and not just when those in power and authority are talking.
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Friday, June 05, 2020
The best things in life and the worst things in life
The April 26 Frazz comic:
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
 |
| Caulfield: A few weeks ago, you were all but howling at the full moon. Frazz: Beautiful! Enormous, razor sharp and bright enough to hold its own against the rising sun across a vast, cloudless sky. Caulfield: So you remember it. Frazz: Of course! A moon like that is one of the best things in life. Caulfield: Do you remember a week ago? Frazz: I guess I don't. Caulfield: It was inky and overcast, and there wouldn't have been a visible moon anyway. The complete opposite of the best thing in life, if you catch my drift. Frazz: You're overthinking this. Caulfield: Ergo: The worst things in life aren't as bad as the best things are good. Frazz: I like the way you overthink. |
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Having an unsophisticated palate is convenient
One thing that people have judged me for my entire adult life is having an unsophisticated palate. For many kinds of food, I'm perfectly happy to eat eat cheap, processed, commercial convenience foods. I can enjoy a meal at a chain restaurant. I can enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant. I can enjoy some junk food scarfed down from a vending machine.
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
Monday, June 01, 2020
Analogy for app-only
An unfortunate trend that has emerged in the past decade or so is "app-only" - i.e. requiring a purpose-built app on a mobile device to do something (for example, make an online purchase) that is totally technically feasible over the web - and, often, was frequently done over the web before smartphones came along!
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
Monday, May 11, 2020
Things They Should Invent: tell everyone what information contact tracers need
In this pandemic, we're hearing a lot about contact tracing. We're hearing a lot about how it's a time-intensive and labour-intensive task.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
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.
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.
The Star Wars sequel trilogy should have started earlier
The problem with the Star Wars sequel trilogy is it starts too late.
The original trilogy ends with a happily ever after. Evil is vanquished! Fireworks! Ewok dance party!
When the sequel trilogy starts, evil has already risen again, complete with armies and spaceships and an established power structure. Everything earned in the original trilogy was for naught. We didn't even get a moment to savour our happily ever after. This is emotionally unsatisfying and, as I've blogged about before, makes it practically impossible to end the sequel trilogy on an emotionally-satisfying happily every after.
This could have been avoided by starting the sequel trilogy earlier in the arc.
They could have started it the same number of years in the future - years and ages don't matter - but it should have started before evil began rising once again.
Picture this: we start in the happily ever after. The galaxy is a thriving, flourishing society. We see people living happy, prosperous lives, much like the Shire at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.
Our heroes from the original trilogy are living their best lives. Leia is in a position of power and authority. Luke is training young people (who may or may not include Ben Solo, depending on the needs of the plot) in the ways of the Force. Han is doing whatever is most convenient for the plot.
Then Ben Solo finds out something bad. Not "evil empire" bad - no war atrocities or anything - but rather peacetime bad. Corruption, insider trading, tax evasion, something like that. (Maybe Han is the perpetrator if that helps the plot?) This causes him to get disillusioned with the idealism he learned at his mother's knee, and he starts wondering if perhaps there's another way.
He goes looking for another way, gets radicalized, and begins studying the ways of the Sith.
In the process of doing this, he encounters Rey through their Force connection.
Rey is being brought up in the ways of the Sith, and she's beginning to question it. Through her Force connection with Ben, she gets a glimpse of another life. But everyone around her - and this dude with whom she apparently has a force connection now - are out to destroy it.
Adventures happen! Light sabre battles happen! Special effects make movie audiences gasp in delight! Entertaining subplots involving marketable action figure characters happen! Emotionally satisfying beats involving old favourite characters happen! The couple you're shipping kisses!
And, ultimately, evil doesn't rise. It tries to, but throughout the movies we see how the the foundation built up by the good guys in the original trilogy stops them from getting too far, and provides us with the reassurance that, even if evil tries to rise in the future, things will never again get as bad as they were at the height of the empire.
This would still let us have our Star Wars adventure, but wouldn't render everything the original trilogy earned irrelevant. And, in a universe where the benefits of the original trilogy's happily-ever-after are felt throughout our heroes' attempts to stop evil from rising, we can feel confident that any happily-ever-after that this trilogy delivers will have lasting effects.
The original trilogy ends with a happily ever after. Evil is vanquished! Fireworks! Ewok dance party!
When the sequel trilogy starts, evil has already risen again, complete with armies and spaceships and an established power structure. Everything earned in the original trilogy was for naught. We didn't even get a moment to savour our happily ever after. This is emotionally unsatisfying and, as I've blogged about before, makes it practically impossible to end the sequel trilogy on an emotionally-satisfying happily every after.
This could have been avoided by starting the sequel trilogy earlier in the arc.
They could have started it the same number of years in the future - years and ages don't matter - but it should have started before evil began rising once again.
Picture this: we start in the happily ever after. The galaxy is a thriving, flourishing society. We see people living happy, prosperous lives, much like the Shire at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.
Our heroes from the original trilogy are living their best lives. Leia is in a position of power and authority. Luke is training young people (who may or may not include Ben Solo, depending on the needs of the plot) in the ways of the Force. Han is doing whatever is most convenient for the plot.
Then Ben Solo finds out something bad. Not "evil empire" bad - no war atrocities or anything - but rather peacetime bad. Corruption, insider trading, tax evasion, something like that. (Maybe Han is the perpetrator if that helps the plot?) This causes him to get disillusioned with the idealism he learned at his mother's knee, and he starts wondering if perhaps there's another way.
He goes looking for another way, gets radicalized, and begins studying the ways of the Sith.
In the process of doing this, he encounters Rey through their Force connection.
Rey is being brought up in the ways of the Sith, and she's beginning to question it. Through her Force connection with Ben, she gets a glimpse of another life. But everyone around her - and this dude with whom she apparently has a force connection now - are out to destroy it.
Adventures happen! Light sabre battles happen! Special effects make movie audiences gasp in delight! Entertaining subplots involving marketable action figure characters happen! Emotionally satisfying beats involving old favourite characters happen! The couple you're shipping kisses!
And, ultimately, evil doesn't rise. It tries to, but throughout the movies we see how the the foundation built up by the good guys in the original trilogy stops them from getting too far, and provides us with the reassurance that, even if evil tries to rise in the future, things will never again get as bad as they were at the height of the empire.
This would still let us have our Star Wars adventure, but wouldn't render everything the original trilogy earned irrelevant. And, in a universe where the benefits of the original trilogy's happily-ever-after are felt throughout our heroes' attempts to stop evil from rising, we can feel confident that any happily-ever-after that this trilogy delivers will have lasting effects.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Star Trek, colonialism and idealism: a braindump
What appealed to me about Star Trek as a kid was seeing a variety of different people all working together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect. In a middle-school world where I was ostracized for difference, competence and intellect, that's exactly what I wanted to be when I grew up, even though it seemed utterly impossible.
TNG ended when I was 13 and I wasn't yet ready for Voyager or DS9, so I took a break from Star Trek. In the meantime, I learned and grew. The world around me learned and grew. I learned and grew from the learning and growing world around me. I finished middle school, high school, university, and had the extreme good fortune to end up in a place where a variety of different people all work together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect.
Eventually, well-established in this adulthood that my middle-school self never dared dream of, I settled in for a nice cozy re-watch of Star Trek . . . and came to the realization that it's awfully colonialist.
I mean, that's obvious in hindsight - they're literally colonizing places! The initial premise was "wagon train to the stars"! - but I didn't spot it as a kid because I was born into a colonialist society, my very origin story is one of colonization. I was like a fish who didn't know what water was.
But I'd learned and I'd grown, and as an adult I could see it. Every line about how humanity is special made me cringe at how presumptuous and oblivious all my faves were.
Star Trek: Discovery premiered in 2017, when reconciliation was the buzzword of the moment here in Canada. At the time, I tweeted that I hoped Discovery would address Star Trek's colonialism problem.
Discovery has been less colonialist than 20th-century Star Trek (at least, that's what I perceive as I swim around here in the ocean trying to detect signs of water), but things have gotten especially interesting with Picard.
Jean-Luc Picard became disillusioned with Starfleet and resigned when they fail to live up to their lofty ideals, sacrificing vulnerable people they define as expendable, closing ranks in a time of crisis, turning away refugees.
The systems and structures of the Federation, which he'd always believed in, which he'd always seen as forces for good, which had always served him well and uplifted him, were being used to do harm. And had been for longer and more deeply than he'd realized.
Which reminds me very much of some of the things I'd learned about once I started reading for reconciliation!
Another interesting thing about Picard is they're talking about money. Raffi comments on how Picard is living in a chateau on his family's estate while she lives in what looks like a trailer in the middle of a desert, suggesting that, even though the Star Trek universe has heretofore claimed to have transcended money, hereditary wealth might still have some impact on people's lives of which our privileged Starfleet officers have been ignorant.
Which reminded me of how people talked about money when I was a kid.
Around the age when I was first watching Star Trek, I got constant lectures from my father that all you have to do is go to school, get an education, get a job, work hard, and you'll have money. If you're poor or *gasp* have to go on welfare, my father's lectures went, it's obviously because you aren't working hard enough or being diligent enough.
When I entered the workforce, I came to realize it wasn't that simple. And then, when I read Thomas Piketty, I further learned that the economic context in which my father had the experiences that led him to develop these ideas was fleeting and historically unprecedented. He was a fish in an aquarium, being fed regularly by his keepers, lecturing ocean fish on how to get food and avoid being caught in nets.
He was saying it's basically a solved problem, all you have to do is follow the system, but in reality he happened to be born in one of the rare niches where the system worked. As, we're coming to realize, was Jean-Luc Picard.
Some people have criticized 21st-century Star Trek for not having the idealism of 20th-century Star Trek.
But the fact of the matter is, in a world where we've had our consciousnesses raised to the notion of reconciliation and then watched it be sacrificed on the altar of short-sightedness, a wagon train to the stars isn't going to cut it any more.
But here comes Jean-Luc Picard.
He has become disillusioned with the harm that has been done by the systems and structures he'd always believed in, the very systems and structures from which he drew all his power and authority and expertise. He has come to realize that the economy into which he was born does not serve everyone as well as it serves him.
And he's out to right wrongs.
Yes, I do realize right now he thinks he's just on a simple rescue mission. Yes, I do realize that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
But right now, right this minute as I type this, given what has happened so far and given what still remains up in the air (and, on a meta level, given the fact that the series has already been renewed for a second season) Jean-Luc Picard could maybe, just maybe, dedicate himself to fixing this shit.
He's become aware of the ways the systems and structures and economy he came up in have been used to harm others even as they've served him well. He's in possession of the power and authority and expertise and wealth that he accrued through these systems and structures, and he's using it to right wrongs. Maybe, just maybe, once Soji is safe, he'll take on the bigger challenge of righting wrongs by fixing the systems and structures, so no more harm is done, so we have a universe that truly serves everyone well, and we can once again sincerely imagine an idealistic future.
Which is exactly what I want to be when I grow up, even though it seems utterly impossible.
TNG ended when I was 13 and I wasn't yet ready for Voyager or DS9, so I took a break from Star Trek. In the meantime, I learned and grew. The world around me learned and grew. I learned and grew from the learning and growing world around me. I finished middle school, high school, university, and had the extreme good fortune to end up in a place where a variety of different people all work together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect.
Eventually, well-established in this adulthood that my middle-school self never dared dream of, I settled in for a nice cozy re-watch of Star Trek . . . and came to the realization that it's awfully colonialist.
I mean, that's obvious in hindsight - they're literally colonizing places! The initial premise was "wagon train to the stars"! - but I didn't spot it as a kid because I was born into a colonialist society, my very origin story is one of colonization. I was like a fish who didn't know what water was.
But I'd learned and I'd grown, and as an adult I could see it. Every line about how humanity is special made me cringe at how presumptuous and oblivious all my faves were.
Star Trek: Discovery premiered in 2017, when reconciliation was the buzzword of the moment here in Canada. At the time, I tweeted that I hoped Discovery would address Star Trek's colonialism problem.
Discovery has been less colonialist than 20th-century Star Trek (at least, that's what I perceive as I swim around here in the ocean trying to detect signs of water), but things have gotten especially interesting with Picard.
Jean-Luc Picard became disillusioned with Starfleet and resigned when they fail to live up to their lofty ideals, sacrificing vulnerable people they define as expendable, closing ranks in a time of crisis, turning away refugees.
The systems and structures of the Federation, which he'd always believed in, which he'd always seen as forces for good, which had always served him well and uplifted him, were being used to do harm. And had been for longer and more deeply than he'd realized.
Which reminds me very much of some of the things I'd learned about once I started reading for reconciliation!
Another interesting thing about Picard is they're talking about money. Raffi comments on how Picard is living in a chateau on his family's estate while she lives in what looks like a trailer in the middle of a desert, suggesting that, even though the Star Trek universe has heretofore claimed to have transcended money, hereditary wealth might still have some impact on people's lives of which our privileged Starfleet officers have been ignorant.
Which reminded me of how people talked about money when I was a kid.
Around the age when I was first watching Star Trek, I got constant lectures from my father that all you have to do is go to school, get an education, get a job, work hard, and you'll have money. If you're poor or *gasp* have to go on welfare, my father's lectures went, it's obviously because you aren't working hard enough or being diligent enough.
When I entered the workforce, I came to realize it wasn't that simple. And then, when I read Thomas Piketty, I further learned that the economic context in which my father had the experiences that led him to develop these ideas was fleeting and historically unprecedented. He was a fish in an aquarium, being fed regularly by his keepers, lecturing ocean fish on how to get food and avoid being caught in nets.
He was saying it's basically a solved problem, all you have to do is follow the system, but in reality he happened to be born in one of the rare niches where the system worked. As, we're coming to realize, was Jean-Luc Picard.
Some people have criticized 21st-century Star Trek for not having the idealism of 20th-century Star Trek.
But the fact of the matter is, in a world where we've had our consciousnesses raised to the notion of reconciliation and then watched it be sacrificed on the altar of short-sightedness, a wagon train to the stars isn't going to cut it any more.
But here comes Jean-Luc Picard.
He has become disillusioned with the harm that has been done by the systems and structures he'd always believed in, the very systems and structures from which he drew all his power and authority and expertise. He has come to realize that the economy into which he was born does not serve everyone as well as it serves him.
And he's out to right wrongs.
Yes, I do realize right now he thinks he's just on a simple rescue mission. Yes, I do realize that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
But right now, right this minute as I type this, given what has happened so far and given what still remains up in the air (and, on a meta level, given the fact that the series has already been renewed for a second season) Jean-Luc Picard could maybe, just maybe, dedicate himself to fixing this shit.
He's become aware of the ways the systems and structures and economy he came up in have been used to harm others even as they've served him well. He's in possession of the power and authority and expertise and wealth that he accrued through these systems and structures, and he's using it to right wrongs. Maybe, just maybe, once Soji is safe, he'll take on the bigger challenge of righting wrongs by fixing the systems and structures, so no more harm is done, so we have a universe that truly serves everyone well, and we can once again sincerely imagine an idealistic future.
Which is exactly what I want to be when I grow up, even though it seems utterly impossible.
Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Why is there a "gender" field in Elections Canada's voter registration?
You can use Elections Canada's Voter Registration Service to see if you're registered to vote.
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Wish strategy
1. If you ever find a genie in a bottle or some other wish-granting mechanism, here's how you do the most good:
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal on as broad a level as possible.
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal for me.
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
I wish that nothing will ever get worse for me or anyone I care about.
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me.
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me that they perceive to be positive.
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Analogy for spicy food
Imagine you're at an amazing concert - the music is beautiful, the lyrics are deep, the artistry is incredible...except someone pointed a microphone at a speaker, causing loud high-pitched feedback.
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
Wednesday, October 02, 2019
[X] or [X+1] [noun]s
A turn of phrase I've noticed recently, although it seems old-fashioned (or possibly British) is "[X] or [X+1] [noun]s".
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Friday, August 30, 2019
Things the City of Toronto Should Invent: natural gardens as of right
When I read this recent story about how the City of Toronto doesn't allow lawns made of artificial turf, my first thought was to wonder if there are City by-laws unintentionally incentivizing artificial turf, perhaps by having strict aesthetic standards for lawns.
So I went a-googling, and discovered that if you want to have a natural garden (as opposed to a lawn), you have to apply for an exemption.
I think that's bass-ackwards.
In addition to the drainage issues that the ban on artificial turf is trying to address, a natural garden would help with pollinators, native species, and biodiversity. Growing food in residential yards would also boost the city's food sovereignty and sustainability (as well as urban biodiversity, and probably pollinators too.)
In contrast, a lawn is...green and flat. And that's about it.
It's monoculture, it doesn't contribute to biodiversity or pollination, I think it might even be an invasive species.
If the City's priority is green and flat, they should allow artificial turf.
If the City's priorities are environmental, they should allow natural gardens as of right, so people don't have to apply for an exemption, they can just go ahead and have a natural garden - including by neglecting their lawn and letting it revert to nature in its own time.
But let's be brave and bold and take this a step further: what if we make natural gardens the default, and require an exemption for lawns?
"But lawns are important!"
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption - just apply for an exemption telling them about why it's so important.
"How do you propose we transition existing lawns to natural gardens?"
I'm a huge fan of benign neglect myself. But when it comes to designing actual policy, a good starting point would be to look at how transitions are normally handled when there's a change in property standards, identify weaknesses in past transitions, and adjust to eliminate those weaknesses.
So I went a-googling, and discovered that if you want to have a natural garden (as opposed to a lawn), you have to apply for an exemption.
I think that's bass-ackwards.
In addition to the drainage issues that the ban on artificial turf is trying to address, a natural garden would help with pollinators, native species, and biodiversity. Growing food in residential yards would also boost the city's food sovereignty and sustainability (as well as urban biodiversity, and probably pollinators too.)
In contrast, a lawn is...green and flat. And that's about it.
It's monoculture, it doesn't contribute to biodiversity or pollination, I think it might even be an invasive species.
If the City's priority is green and flat, they should allow artificial turf.
If the City's priorities are environmental, they should allow natural gardens as of right, so people don't have to apply for an exemption, they can just go ahead and have a natural garden - including by neglecting their lawn and letting it revert to nature in its own time.
But let's be brave and bold and take this a step further: what if we make natural gardens the default, and require an exemption for lawns?
"But lawns are important!"
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption - just apply for an exemption telling them about why it's so important.
"How do you propose we transition existing lawns to natural gardens?"
I'm a huge fan of benign neglect myself. But when it comes to designing actual policy, a good starting point would be to look at how transitions are normally handled when there's a change in property standards, identify weaknesses in past transitions, and adjust to eliminate those weaknesses.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Loving your child is necessary but insufficient
In a recent Twitter thread where people were discussing why they wouldn't tell their fathers if they were raped, one commenter made a reply to the effect of "This is why I make sure my kids know that I'll love them no matter what."
(I'm not linking directly to the thread or quoting the comment directly because I don't want to pile on to this individual. You frequently hear this kind of comment from a wide range of parents, and my thoughts in this post apply in most, if not all, of these cases.)
Loving your child is important. Loving your child no matter what is the right thing to do.
And, in my capacity as my parents' child, the question of whether they love me is completely irrelevant to the question of whether I'd go to them in an emergency or tell them about a traumatic experience.
My parents' love for me is internal to them. They feel it inside themselves.
What's relevant to me is external to them - their words and actions as I perceive and experience them (which, unfortunately, includes their failed attempts to hide their emotional response).
If I believe my parents' response to a situation will be useful to me, I will go to them for help and support. If it isn't useful to me - for example, if it frustrates me or requires additional emotional labour from me or even just doesn't contribute anything that I can't already contribute myself - I won't go to them.
It is possible for a parent to love their child and also be unhelpful. It is also possible for someone to not love you but be supremely helpful.
If it is important to you for your kids to come to you in an emergency, be a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency, and provide your kid with a lifetime's empirical evidence that you're a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency. Not just that you will feel the right feelings, that your words and actions will be what they actually need.
(I'm not linking directly to the thread or quoting the comment directly because I don't want to pile on to this individual. You frequently hear this kind of comment from a wide range of parents, and my thoughts in this post apply in most, if not all, of these cases.)
Loving your child is important. Loving your child no matter what is the right thing to do.
And, in my capacity as my parents' child, the question of whether they love me is completely irrelevant to the question of whether I'd go to them in an emergency or tell them about a traumatic experience.
My parents' love for me is internal to them. They feel it inside themselves.
What's relevant to me is external to them - their words and actions as I perceive and experience them (which, unfortunately, includes their failed attempts to hide their emotional response).
If I believe my parents' response to a situation will be useful to me, I will go to them for help and support. If it isn't useful to me - for example, if it frustrates me or requires additional emotional labour from me or even just doesn't contribute anything that I can't already contribute myself - I won't go to them.
It is possible for a parent to love their child and also be unhelpful. It is also possible for someone to not love you but be supremely helpful.
If it is important to you for your kids to come to you in an emergency, be a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency, and provide your kid with a lifetime's empirical evidence that you're a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency. Not just that you will feel the right feelings, that your words and actions will be what they actually need.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Things They Should Invent: "you guys" gender map
Some people perceive "you guys" as masculine, even in the vocative case.
Others, such as myself, perceive it as having no element of gender. "You guys" is a casual, inclusive vocative plural, completely unrelated to the masculine nominative singular "guy".
But I'm not here to convince you that I'm right.
I'm here to convince someone to map it.
One of the great moments of internet sociolinguistics is the Pop vs. Soda map, which shows the geographical patterns of American soft drink nomenclature.
Someone should do the same for whether "you guys" is masculine or gender-inclusive!
Based on the way people on the internet talk about the "you guys" question, I strongly suspect there's some geographical element to how it's received. A crowdsourced mapping project, like Pop vs. Soda, could answer this question.
The technology exists, as evidenced by Pop vs. Soda. The answer would be informative, and help people better tailor their communication to various audiences. Surely there must be someone out there looking for a linguistics research project idea!
Others, such as myself, perceive it as having no element of gender. "You guys" is a casual, inclusive vocative plural, completely unrelated to the masculine nominative singular "guy".
But I'm not here to convince you that I'm right.
I'm here to convince someone to map it.
One of the great moments of internet sociolinguistics is the Pop vs. Soda map, which shows the geographical patterns of American soft drink nomenclature.
Someone should do the same for whether "you guys" is masculine or gender-inclusive!
Based on the way people on the internet talk about the "you guys" question, I strongly suspect there's some geographical element to how it's received. A crowdsourced mapping project, like Pop vs. Soda, could answer this question.
The technology exists, as evidenced by Pop vs. Soda. The answer would be informative, and help people better tailor their communication to various audiences. Surely there must be someone out there looking for a linguistics research project idea!
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Things They Should Invent: make it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head in public
Apparently there was recently a story in the news where an airline requires passengers who are breastfeeding babies to cover their breasts and the babies. I didn't see the story myself, but I did see a bunch of people on Twitter reacting with stories about how their babies would not accept being covered while nursing.
A snarky comment came to mind: "Maybe the people who are offended by breastfeeding should put blankets over their heads!"
Then I realized: that idea is actually kind of appealing!
When I was a small child (older than breastfeeding age - I don't remember that far back), I would sometimes put a towel or a blanket over my head and just sit there enjoying my little cone of silence and privacy. I was in a room full of people, but I couldn't see them and they couldn't see my face.
I've seen other small children do that too, so I think it isn't that uncommon.
I don't feel the temptation to put a blanket over my head as an adult, but that's because I have privacy most of the time. If I don't want look at people or have them look at me, I can go home and lock the door.
But you can't do that on an airplane. You're stuck in this little metal tube in close quarters with dozens (hundreds?) of other people for several hours.
Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to hide?
But the problem is we live in a society that is particularly wary of behaviour that is perceived to be irregular on an airplane. So even those of us who find the idea of hiding under a blanket appealing would be reluctant to do so for fear that someone will overreact and alert the authorities and the plane will be redirected to the nearest airport and surrounded by armed law enforcement and we'll be disappeared into some prison hellscape for the rest of eternity.
Solution: we as a society should unanimously declare it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head whenever you need a moment's privacy. It's not feasible in every circumstance, of course - you couldn't do it while walking down the street - but there's no reason why you couldn't have a blanket over your head while sitting on an airplane or a train or a park bench. Even in an open-concept office, there's no reason why you couldn't put a blanket over your head and your monitor for some psychological privacy, if we would only deem it socially acceptable.
Even if you yourself can't imagine wanting to put a blanket over your head, wouldn't it be convenient if the other people around you - the ones who might complain that you're nursing your baby or staring at your phone too much or chewing in a way they find unattractive - felt free to do so?
In this modern world, we find ourselves increasingly forced into close quarters with other people, and tensions rise because of lack of privacy. But the only thing that's preventing us from taking a modicum of psychological privacy is that we've arbitrarily deemed it socially unacceptable. Let's undo that.
A snarky comment came to mind: "Maybe the people who are offended by breastfeeding should put blankets over their heads!"
Then I realized: that idea is actually kind of appealing!
When I was a small child (older than breastfeeding age - I don't remember that far back), I would sometimes put a towel or a blanket over my head and just sit there enjoying my little cone of silence and privacy. I was in a room full of people, but I couldn't see them and they couldn't see my face.
I've seen other small children do that too, so I think it isn't that uncommon.
I don't feel the temptation to put a blanket over my head as an adult, but that's because I have privacy most of the time. If I don't want look at people or have them look at me, I can go home and lock the door.
But you can't do that on an airplane. You're stuck in this little metal tube in close quarters with dozens (hundreds?) of other people for several hours.
Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to hide?
But the problem is we live in a society that is particularly wary of behaviour that is perceived to be irregular on an airplane. So even those of us who find the idea of hiding under a blanket appealing would be reluctant to do so for fear that someone will overreact and alert the authorities and the plane will be redirected to the nearest airport and surrounded by armed law enforcement and we'll be disappeared into some prison hellscape for the rest of eternity.
Solution: we as a society should unanimously declare it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head whenever you need a moment's privacy. It's not feasible in every circumstance, of course - you couldn't do it while walking down the street - but there's no reason why you couldn't have a blanket over your head while sitting on an airplane or a train or a park bench. Even in an open-concept office, there's no reason why you couldn't put a blanket over your head and your monitor for some psychological privacy, if we would only deem it socially acceptable.
Even if you yourself can't imagine wanting to put a blanket over your head, wouldn't it be convenient if the other people around you - the ones who might complain that you're nursing your baby or staring at your phone too much or chewing in a way they find unattractive - felt free to do so?
In this modern world, we find ourselves increasingly forced into close quarters with other people, and tensions rise because of lack of privacy. But the only thing that's preventing us from taking a modicum of psychological privacy is that we've arbitrarily deemed it socially unacceptable. Let's undo that.
Friday, June 14, 2019
Adventures in persistent spoonerisms
Chipo[l/t]e
The first time I ever saw the word chipotle, my mind inverted the T and the L and read it as "chipolte". Then, after some time, I realized I had it backwards. So I set a sort of mental flag. Whenever the word came up, I'd tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd successfully say "chipotle".
However, I didn't realize that I'd cured my spoonerism. The mental flag persisted. Whenever I went to say "chipotle" I'd stop and tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd say "chipolte".
So then I had to tell myself "Okay, you got this, no need to invert the letters any more." But it was too late. I'd gone charging right past "chipotle" back to "chipolte". So I had to tell myself to invert it again.
This pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, and somehow I've never arrived at the ability to permanently and consistently pronounce or spell "chipotle" correctly. No matter where I am in the cycle, I seem to get it right less than 50% of the time.
I looked it up multiple times while writing this post, and I'm sure I got it wrong at least once. (Weirdly, spellcheck isn't consistent about when it gives either spelling squiggles.)
Jolelujah
The internet told me that Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah (link is to the k.d. lang version because that's the one that speaks to me) and Dolly Parton's Jolene can be sung to each other's tunes.
I tried it out, and it turns out they can! The choruses you have to fudge a bit, but the verses work perfectly - and Leonard Cohen's melody really adds a delicious anguish to Dolly Parton's lyrics.
Then I had the idea of a comedic arrangement - the singer starts singing one song and somehow gets lost and ends up in the other, or, perhaps there are two singers trying to upstage each other and getting stuck in each other's songs.
So I was workshopping this in the shower, trying to figure out how the comedic timing worked, and I suddenly lost the ability to sing the verse melody of Jolene. I tried, but it kept coming out as Hallelujah!
So when I got out of the shower I listened to a recording of Jolene and got that melody back, but then I lost Hallelujah - it kept coming out as Jolene!
Now I can't hold the melody of either song, even when I'm trying to do just one song without any mashups whatsoever. It keeps changing, it's completely beyond my control, and it never comes out the same way twice!
And, to add insult to injury, it never once comes out with effective comedic timing either!
The first time I ever saw the word chipotle, my mind inverted the T and the L and read it as "chipolte". Then, after some time, I realized I had it backwards. So I set a sort of mental flag. Whenever the word came up, I'd tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd successfully say "chipotle".
However, I didn't realize that I'd cured my spoonerism. The mental flag persisted. Whenever I went to say "chipotle" I'd stop and tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd say "chipolte".
So then I had to tell myself "Okay, you got this, no need to invert the letters any more." But it was too late. I'd gone charging right past "chipotle" back to "chipolte". So I had to tell myself to invert it again.
This pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, and somehow I've never arrived at the ability to permanently and consistently pronounce or spell "chipotle" correctly. No matter where I am in the cycle, I seem to get it right less than 50% of the time.
I looked it up multiple times while writing this post, and I'm sure I got it wrong at least once. (Weirdly, spellcheck isn't consistent about when it gives either spelling squiggles.)
Jolelujah
The internet told me that Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah (link is to the k.d. lang version because that's the one that speaks to me) and Dolly Parton's Jolene can be sung to each other's tunes.
I tried it out, and it turns out they can! The choruses you have to fudge a bit, but the verses work perfectly - and Leonard Cohen's melody really adds a delicious anguish to Dolly Parton's lyrics.
Then I had the idea of a comedic arrangement - the singer starts singing one song and somehow gets lost and ends up in the other, or, perhaps there are two singers trying to upstage each other and getting stuck in each other's songs.
So I was workshopping this in the shower, trying to figure out how the comedic timing worked, and I suddenly lost the ability to sing the verse melody of Jolene. I tried, but it kept coming out as Hallelujah!
So when I got out of the shower I listened to a recording of Jolene and got that melody back, but then I lost Hallelujah - it kept coming out as Jolene!
Now I can't hold the melody of either song, even when I'm trying to do just one song without any mashups whatsoever. It keeps changing, it's completely beyond my control, and it never comes out the same way twice!
And, to add insult to injury, it never once comes out with effective comedic timing either!
Sunday, May 12, 2019
What if they didn't tell the heir about the entail?
The estate is entailed upon the male line! But the current master of the estate only has daughters! When he dies, the estate will be inherited by some distant cousin nobody has ever met! And the heir would be perfectly entitled to throw the widow and daughters out of their home! What do???
This is a common trope in fiction - well-known examples include Pride and Prejudice and Downton Abbey - as well as, I'm sure, being something that happened from time to time in real life.
But I wonder, what would happen if they just...didn't tell the heir that he's the heir?
It seems like it would be reasonably easy to conceal that information in an era before computerization and mass communication - it's just sitting in a file in some office somewhere, no one can look it up on a database or anything. It probably wouldn't even be too difficult to destroy the records if needed. (Maybe the lawyer whose office they're in is bribable?)
In Downton they have the additional complication that Lord Grantham is an earl with a seat in the House of Lords so his empty seat would be conspicuous, but Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice has no such distinction (and doesn't even share the Bennet surname!) If they just didn't tell people the estate was entailed, people probably wouldn't even notice if they just kept living there after Mr. Bennet died.
Even if people did know the estate was entailed, what if they just told the neighbours that the heir was kind enough to let them continue living there? Matthew Crawley legit would have let the Crawleys continue living at Downton, and it's perfectly plausible to stranger that Mr. Collins, being a man of the cloth, would have done the same. Or they could tell their neighbours that their lawyer discovered that the heir had died, thereby breaking the entail.
Or, if the heir did know he was the heir, what if they just didn't tell him when the master of the estate died? Under normal circumstances (in the absence of the Darcy-de Bourgh connection), Mr. Collins would have no way of knowing anything that happened at Longbourn.
It also occurs to me that an imposter absentee heir could be brought in. Get some guy that one of the daughters is enthusiastic about marrying, tell everyone that he's the heir, and ultimately the children of the daughter who marries him will inherit the estate. If the actual heir turns up and the imposter heir has already done the work of ingratiating himself to the neighbours, it should be fairly straightforward to accuse the actual heir of being the imposter - it's not like they have photo ID!
Was there some kind of central authority enforcing these entails and communicating to these distant heirs the fact that they were the heir? Because if there wasn't, it seems like they would be one lawyer bribe away from it not being a problem.
This is a common trope in fiction - well-known examples include Pride and Prejudice and Downton Abbey - as well as, I'm sure, being something that happened from time to time in real life.
But I wonder, what would happen if they just...didn't tell the heir that he's the heir?
It seems like it would be reasonably easy to conceal that information in an era before computerization and mass communication - it's just sitting in a file in some office somewhere, no one can look it up on a database or anything. It probably wouldn't even be too difficult to destroy the records if needed. (Maybe the lawyer whose office they're in is bribable?)
In Downton they have the additional complication that Lord Grantham is an earl with a seat in the House of Lords so his empty seat would be conspicuous, but Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice has no such distinction (and doesn't even share the Bennet surname!) If they just didn't tell people the estate was entailed, people probably wouldn't even notice if they just kept living there after Mr. Bennet died.
Even if people did know the estate was entailed, what if they just told the neighbours that the heir was kind enough to let them continue living there? Matthew Crawley legit would have let the Crawleys continue living at Downton, and it's perfectly plausible to stranger that Mr. Collins, being a man of the cloth, would have done the same. Or they could tell their neighbours that their lawyer discovered that the heir had died, thereby breaking the entail.
Or, if the heir did know he was the heir, what if they just didn't tell him when the master of the estate died? Under normal circumstances (in the absence of the Darcy-de Bourgh connection), Mr. Collins would have no way of knowing anything that happened at Longbourn.
It also occurs to me that an imposter absentee heir could be brought in. Get some guy that one of the daughters is enthusiastic about marrying, tell everyone that he's the heir, and ultimately the children of the daughter who marries him will inherit the estate. If the actual heir turns up and the imposter heir has already done the work of ingratiating himself to the neighbours, it should be fairly straightforward to accuse the actual heir of being the imposter - it's not like they have photo ID!
Was there some kind of central authority enforcing these entails and communicating to these distant heirs the fact that they were the heir? Because if there wasn't, it seems like they would be one lawyer bribe away from it not being a problem.
Friday, January 25, 2019
Working 9 to 5
It surprises me how often businesses and services that serve the public directly choose to have their operating hours Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.
This makes it far more difficult for customers who work regular business hours to use these businesses.
It's particularly surprising when I see these hours on, like, hair salons and small clothing boutiques in Yonge St. storefronts. While it's possible that customers could get time off work to go to the doctor, it's less likely that they could get time off work to get their hair done, and may well choose instead one of the many comparable businesses in the same neighbourhood with more convenient business hours. Especially with storefront space on Yonge St. being so expensive, I'm surprised they can afford to make themselves less convenient to their customer.
Also, if I think about it in the first person as a small business owner, why wake up early to open at 9 if you could instead sleep in, open later, and be available to the after-work crowd? If you're, like, a doctor, why not sleep in at least a couple of days a week so you have office hours where your patients wouldn't have to miss work? Why not work four 10-hour days and get three days off every week?
Even if you need to be available for deliveries etc., a very small business probably doesn't get deliveries every day. Be on site when you're expecting something, sleep in the other days.
If I had completely control over my schedule, I sure as hell wouldn't be waking up to an alarm! And if your clients are the people whose workday causes rush hour to happen, you'd also be doing them the kindness of being available at more convenient hours.
This makes it far more difficult for customers who work regular business hours to use these businesses.
It's particularly surprising when I see these hours on, like, hair salons and small clothing boutiques in Yonge St. storefronts. While it's possible that customers could get time off work to go to the doctor, it's less likely that they could get time off work to get their hair done, and may well choose instead one of the many comparable businesses in the same neighbourhood with more convenient business hours. Especially with storefront space on Yonge St. being so expensive, I'm surprised they can afford to make themselves less convenient to their customer.
Also, if I think about it in the first person as a small business owner, why wake up early to open at 9 if you could instead sleep in, open later, and be available to the after-work crowd? If you're, like, a doctor, why not sleep in at least a couple of days a week so you have office hours where your patients wouldn't have to miss work? Why not work four 10-hour days and get three days off every week?
Even if you need to be available for deliveries etc., a very small business probably doesn't get deliveries every day. Be on site when you're expecting something, sleep in the other days.
If I had completely control over my schedule, I sure as hell wouldn't be waking up to an alarm! And if your clients are the people whose workday causes rush hour to happen, you'd also be doing them the kindness of being available at more convenient hours.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Default couple genders in sketch comedy
I'm late to the game on this, but I just started watching the Baroness Von Sketch show this season, and I'm really enjoying it.
One little thing I appreciate is when a sketch involves a couple but the gender of the couple is irrelevant to the sketch, they most often make it a same-sex couple played by two of the (all-female) leads.
Here's an example:
That sketch is entirely gender-irrelevant. It would have worked out the same way regardless of the genders of the characters. So they simply cast two of the leads as characters who are the same demographic as the actors - two women played by two women.
If you think back to older sketch comedies like Monty Python or Kids in the Hall, they wouldn't do that. If the genders of the couple were irrelevant to the sketch, they'd make it an opposite-sex couple. They'd only use same-sex couples if there was a specific reason why a same-sex couple was needed.
But another thing that Monty Python and Kids in the Hall often did was have female characters portrayed by the all-male leads rather than using a female supporting actress to play a female character. They did use female supporting actresses as well (just as Baroness Von Sketch uses male supporting actors), but the default seemed to be a male lead dressed as a woman.
If you think about it, it's kind of bizarre that in a sketch comedy environment that couldn't perceive a same-sex couple neutrally, a sketch comedy couple consisting of one male actor dressed as a man and one male actor dressed as a woman was seen as neutral and unmarked (in the linguistic sense).
Someday in the future, probably sooner than we expect, people are going to watch those sketches and think all the Monty Python pepperpots are meant to be trans or genderqueer, and they'll need a historical explainer to understand what the Pythons are doing. And they're going to think this post, noticing that gender-irrelevant couples are portrayed as same-sex couples by the all-female cast, is going to come across as having homophobic undertones, like how someone's grandmother who gratuitously mentions the race of everyone she brings up in conversation comes across as having racist undertones.
One little thing I appreciate is when a sketch involves a couple but the gender of the couple is irrelevant to the sketch, they most often make it a same-sex couple played by two of the (all-female) leads.
Here's an example:
That sketch is entirely gender-irrelevant. It would have worked out the same way regardless of the genders of the characters. So they simply cast two of the leads as characters who are the same demographic as the actors - two women played by two women.
If you think back to older sketch comedies like Monty Python or Kids in the Hall, they wouldn't do that. If the genders of the couple were irrelevant to the sketch, they'd make it an opposite-sex couple. They'd only use same-sex couples if there was a specific reason why a same-sex couple was needed.
But another thing that Monty Python and Kids in the Hall often did was have female characters portrayed by the all-male leads rather than using a female supporting actress to play a female character. They did use female supporting actresses as well (just as Baroness Von Sketch uses male supporting actors), but the default seemed to be a male lead dressed as a woman.
If you think about it, it's kind of bizarre that in a sketch comedy environment that couldn't perceive a same-sex couple neutrally, a sketch comedy couple consisting of one male actor dressed as a man and one male actor dressed as a woman was seen as neutral and unmarked (in the linguistic sense).
Someday in the future, probably sooner than we expect, people are going to watch those sketches and think all the Monty Python pepperpots are meant to be trans or genderqueer, and they'll need a historical explainer to understand what the Pythons are doing. And they're going to think this post, noticing that gender-irrelevant couples are portrayed as same-sex couples by the all-female cast, is going to come across as having homophobic undertones, like how someone's grandmother who gratuitously mentions the race of everyone she brings up in conversation comes across as having racist undertones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)