I was reading some statements from a politician who is more right-wing than I'm comfortable with, and I found myself whimpering at the screen "But I just want to be safe!"
The policies being described would make people have to struggle to earn a living where now we merely have to work. They'd make aspects of life that are currently effortless somewhat difficult, and/or hinder work that is currently being done to make difficult aspects of life easier. Similar political opinions often want to weaken the safety net that will catch us if we fall, making it easier to end up in grinding poverty and harder to climb back out. That makes me feel less and less safe.
What makes me feel safe is if I can be a good girl, do what I'm supposed to, go to work and do my job well, pay my bills in full and on time, don't be a dick to people, don't do anything too stupid, and that's enough to keep life from getting worse. The policies I was reading about would result in life being worse even if people are good and do what they're supposed to. I can't feel safe in a world that works like that.
People who are the same flavour of right-wing as the politician whose statements I was reading tend to be opposed to taxes. It's not something I feel myself - taxes have always felt negligible to me, but then I don't make enough money to be in a very high tax bracket, so I do get that it might feel different if you're in a high tax bracket.
What I'm wondering: do taxes make them feel unsafe, the same way the policies I was reading about make me feel unsafe? Or is it something other than feeling safe?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Worst. Dear Abby Letter. Ever.
Last letter in today's column:
Um, why not grab the nearest lamp and check for yourself?
DEAR ABBY: I'm having a dispute with my husband. He thinks that you screw in a lightbulb clockwise. I disagree. I say counter-clockwise. Which of us is correct?
Um, why not grab the nearest lamp and check for yourself?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wherein a foreigner who knows nothing about privatized health insurance tries to fix the US health insurance system
What if US health insurance companies weren't taxed on their earnings, and were instead taxed on the value of the claims they decline? If they pay in full every claim submitted to them, they won't pay any taxes. If they pay none of the claims submitted to them, they have to pay taxes on the full amounts of all the claims submitted to them.
Other problems I've heard of are a) insurance premiums being too expensive, and b) patients being refused insurance coverage at all because they are or have been sick. So in addition to taxing the amounts of any claims that are refused, they should also tax the amounts of any insurance premiums above a certain percentage of the client's income, and there should be a penalty for every applicant they refuse to cover, equal to either the cost of their average client or the cost of their most expensive client (I can make arguments for both).
Now the obvious flaw here is that taxes are never 100%, so the insurance companies would still be saving money by doing whatever they want. It's possible that anti-tax sentiment would provide sufficient motivation, but you can't make policy on the assumption that people are that stupid. So the next step is to use any money collected through this coverage denial tax to create an insurance fund for people who can't get or afford coverage elsewhere. So basically the insurance companies are paying the insurance premiums of people they refuse to cover.
I think they either did or were talking about making a rule in the states where every citizen has to buy health insurance, so it would be perfectly logical to tweak legislation at this point to make that more feasible. And if the insurance companies don't want to pay any denied-claim tax and just want to revel in unbridled capitalism, all they have to do is provide their services to anyone who asks at a fair price.
Other problems I've heard of are a) insurance premiums being too expensive, and b) patients being refused insurance coverage at all because they are or have been sick. So in addition to taxing the amounts of any claims that are refused, they should also tax the amounts of any insurance premiums above a certain percentage of the client's income, and there should be a penalty for every applicant they refuse to cover, equal to either the cost of their average client or the cost of their most expensive client (I can make arguments for both).
Now the obvious flaw here is that taxes are never 100%, so the insurance companies would still be saving money by doing whatever they want. It's possible that anti-tax sentiment would provide sufficient motivation, but you can't make policy on the assumption that people are that stupid. So the next step is to use any money collected through this coverage denial tax to create an insurance fund for people who can't get or afford coverage elsewhere. So basically the insurance companies are paying the insurance premiums of people they refuse to cover.
I think they either did or were talking about making a rule in the states where every citizen has to buy health insurance, so it would be perfectly logical to tweak legislation at this point to make that more feasible. And if the insurance companies don't want to pay any denied-claim tax and just want to revel in unbridled capitalism, all they have to do is provide their services to anyone who asks at a fair price.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Adult material?
Via Slap:
Technically, as per the letter of the law, that would include romance novels. That would include fashion magazines if they contained some of the more provocative perfume ads. If "images" includes video, that would include DVD box sets of most (if not all) the Golden Globe nominees for Best Drama. None of which is porn. It is intended for adults, yes, but you can buy romance novels in a grocery store, and see images suggestive of sexual activity by channel-surfing after 10 pm.
What were they thinking when they wrote this definition?
[Canada Post's new] policies, which came into effect just over a year ago, now mandate that all “sexually suggestive” admail—even commercial mail that is explicitly addressed to the recipient—be clearly labelled as adult material, thwarting all attempts at discretion. This includes all images “that are suggestive of sexual activity,” as well as text that “describes sexual acts in a way that is more than purely technical.”
Technically, as per the letter of the law, that would include romance novels. That would include fashion magazines if they contained some of the more provocative perfume ads. If "images" includes video, that would include DVD box sets of most (if not all) the Golden Globe nominees for Best Drama. None of which is porn. It is intended for adults, yes, but you can buy romance novels in a grocery store, and see images suggestive of sexual activity by channel-surfing after 10 pm.
What were they thinking when they wrote this definition?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Open Letter to the Toronto Star
Dear Toronto Star:
How come an article that gets a graphic content warning on your website appears on the front page, above the fold, with no content warning in your print edition? What is your reasoning here? What scenarios did you have in mind when imagining that online readers might require a content warning but print readers would not?
Sincerely,
A reader who prefers to avoid graphic content at the breakfast table
How come an article that gets a graphic content warning on your website appears on the front page, above the fold, with no content warning in your print edition? What is your reasoning here? What scenarios did you have in mind when imagining that online readers might require a content warning but print readers would not?
Sincerely,
A reader who prefers to avoid graphic content at the breakfast table
Why does the military do disaster relief?
Mentioned frequently and matter-of-factly in the news is that the military is sending search-and-rescue and other disaster-relief teams to Haiti. Which is very much a good thing.
However, this is making me wonder how it came about that the military has disaster relief in its skill set in the first place. We accept it as a given, but if you think about it, it's rather odd for an organization originally intended for warfare to develop humanitarian expertise. Not questioning its value - I'd much rather have them doing disaster relief than making war - just wondering how it happened.
However, this is making me wonder how it came about that the military has disaster relief in its skill set in the first place. We accept it as a given, but if you think about it, it's rather odd for an organization originally intended for warfare to develop humanitarian expertise. Not questioning its value - I'd much rather have them doing disaster relief than making war - just wondering how it happened.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Things They Should Invent: celebrate functional fashion design
If you've ever had the pleasure of owning a particularly well-designed piece of clothing, you'll know that they work with your body to make your shape look better than it is. Well-placed design features smooth out any lumpiness, make your torso look sleek and your breasts look high, and use your hips to create a general impression of sexy curves rather than pear-shaped endomorphism. I had the extreme good fortune to find two such dresses in the past year (name-dropping to give credit where credit is due: dresses by Calvin Klein and Adrianna Papell respectively, both found at Winners) and was very impressed by the thought that went into the designs. It was like engineering or architecture! I came away with a profound appreciation of the talent that goes into good fashion design.
However, haute couture doesn't really work this way. The outfits on a fashion show runway are pure artistic expression by the designer, and the models are specifically chosen for having figures and features that aren't going to interfere with the clothes.
Fashion magazines do sometimes do articles on dressing to enhance or conceal certain aspects of your figure, but they place the responsibility on the wearer to find clothes that work for them. It's presented as a way to improve the wearer's shopping skills, without lauding the designers for designing helpful clothes.
This does make sense from a practical perspective (the person reading the magazine is the wearer, who presumably does want clothes that work for them), but I think it's unhelpful overall. People often worry that the use of extremely skinny fashion models leads to body insecurity and eating disorders among the general population. I'm wondering if it isn't the skinny models per se, but rather the fashion hierarchy that celebrates haute couture where models are chosen not to interfere with the clothes as the pinnacle of design achievement, while actual well-designed clothes that work well on real people are seen as more downmarket. This leaves people feeling insecure because their body won't serve all the clothes, whereas in reality the clothes should serve the wearer. Good interface design makes it obvious where to click, rather than requiring users to RTFM. Good architecture or engineering works with how users are going to naturally use the structure, rather than requiring a change in user behaviour. Good fashion design - the work that is celebrated as the pinnacle of fashion design - should be similarly user-centric.
I'd love to see a piece in Vogue where big-name designers make clothes for real people. Not magazine "real people" - flawlessly attractive people whose hips happen to be slightly bigger than their bust, or size 12s being dubbed "plus-size models". I'm talking about people who are as conventionally attractive as Susan Boyle. Get top designers to design clothes specifically for these real people to wear in real life, and present it as a celebration of real design skill.
Alternatively (or in addition), there could be a TV show akin to Project Runway where the designers are given real-life design problems. The subjects could be real people, or they could be more extreme real-life issues (like that one house makeover show where they renovate houses for families with special-needs octuplets or whatever). Up-and-coming new designers could have challenges like making a functional and attractive wardrobe for someone with a colostomy bag, or creating flattering workout wear for a 60-year-old triathlete who has to train outdoors in the Canadian winter, or designing clothes that a transgender person could wear throughout their entire transition. This show would have to be done well (i.e. not stooping to presenting the subjects as a freakshow), but I think it would be enormously valuable both for the body image of the general public and for the design profession to present functional user-centric problem-solving as the pinnacle of exemplary fashion design.
However, haute couture doesn't really work this way. The outfits on a fashion show runway are pure artistic expression by the designer, and the models are specifically chosen for having figures and features that aren't going to interfere with the clothes.
Fashion magazines do sometimes do articles on dressing to enhance or conceal certain aspects of your figure, but they place the responsibility on the wearer to find clothes that work for them. It's presented as a way to improve the wearer's shopping skills, without lauding the designers for designing helpful clothes.
This does make sense from a practical perspective (the person reading the magazine is the wearer, who presumably does want clothes that work for them), but I think it's unhelpful overall. People often worry that the use of extremely skinny fashion models leads to body insecurity and eating disorders among the general population. I'm wondering if it isn't the skinny models per se, but rather the fashion hierarchy that celebrates haute couture where models are chosen not to interfere with the clothes as the pinnacle of design achievement, while actual well-designed clothes that work well on real people are seen as more downmarket. This leaves people feeling insecure because their body won't serve all the clothes, whereas in reality the clothes should serve the wearer. Good interface design makes it obvious where to click, rather than requiring users to RTFM. Good architecture or engineering works with how users are going to naturally use the structure, rather than requiring a change in user behaviour. Good fashion design - the work that is celebrated as the pinnacle of fashion design - should be similarly user-centric.
I'd love to see a piece in Vogue where big-name designers make clothes for real people. Not magazine "real people" - flawlessly attractive people whose hips happen to be slightly bigger than their bust, or size 12s being dubbed "plus-size models". I'm talking about people who are as conventionally attractive as Susan Boyle. Get top designers to design clothes specifically for these real people to wear in real life, and present it as a celebration of real design skill.
Alternatively (or in addition), there could be a TV show akin to Project Runway where the designers are given real-life design problems. The subjects could be real people, or they could be more extreme real-life issues (like that one house makeover show where they renovate houses for families with special-needs octuplets or whatever). Up-and-coming new designers could have challenges like making a functional and attractive wardrobe for someone with a colostomy bag, or creating flattering workout wear for a 60-year-old triathlete who has to train outdoors in the Canadian winter, or designing clothes that a transgender person could wear throughout their entire transition. This show would have to be done well (i.e. not stooping to presenting the subjects as a freakshow), but I think it would be enormously valuable both for the body image of the general public and for the design profession to present functional user-centric problem-solving as the pinnacle of exemplary fashion design.
Foolish pricing decision from Rogers
In October, I received an email from Rogers offering me a significantly better price on my existing home phone service. Being the procrastinative sort of person that I am, I didn't get around to switching to the new package until December. It was a good decision and I came away feeling like I won (which I never do when dealing with telecommunications.)
Yesterday, I got a letter from Rogers saying that the price of my phone package was increasing by $3. My first visceral reaction was "Dude, WTF????" I haven't even had a full billing period on my new phone package yet! I felt completely baited and switched!
And to make matters worse (for Rogers), in that same day's mail there was also an offer from Bell where the big bold number at the top of the page was now marginally lower than the new price with Rogers.
Of course, having been a consumer of telecommunications for several years, I had the sense to step back from my initial visceral feeling of being cheated to run some numbers and read some fine print. And it turned out that I'm still marginally saving money with Rogers and the fine print of Bell's offer pushes its price marginally higher than Rogers'.
But I have to wonder, what kind of a business decision was that on Rogers' part? If they had just made the home phone offer $3 higher in the first place, I would have come away feeling like I've won. Why even introduce this opportunity for customers to feel baited and switched?
Yesterday, I got a letter from Rogers saying that the price of my phone package was increasing by $3. My first visceral reaction was "Dude, WTF????" I haven't even had a full billing period on my new phone package yet! I felt completely baited and switched!
And to make matters worse (for Rogers), in that same day's mail there was also an offer from Bell where the big bold number at the top of the page was now marginally lower than the new price with Rogers.
Of course, having been a consumer of telecommunications for several years, I had the sense to step back from my initial visceral feeling of being cheated to run some numbers and read some fine print. And it turned out that I'm still marginally saving money with Rogers and the fine print of Bell's offer pushes its price marginally higher than Rogers'.
But I have to wonder, what kind of a business decision was that on Rogers' part? If they had just made the home phone offer $3 higher in the first place, I would have come away feeling like I've won. Why even introduce this opportunity for customers to feel baited and switched?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A gap in my musical education
For reasons I cannot fathom, my parents' Beatles collection never included Abbey Road. So the first time I knowingly heard I Want You (She's So Heavy) was a couple of years ago in Across the Universe:
It only just occurred to me that the Beatles version probably isn't intended to sound militaristic.
It only just occurred to me that the Beatles version probably isn't intended to sound militaristic.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Professionally-administered personality tests
I read somewhere that you can get personality tests (Myers-Briggs etc.) professionally administered. Has anyone ever had that done? If so, does the professional administering it help you pick the most applicable answer? One problem I always have is that I'm always mentally screaming at the test "Well, both!" or "It depends on the context!" Abstract or concrete? As it happens, I like my tangibles abstract and my intangibles concrete. Are you more analytical or emotional? Well, either or both, depending on the context. I tend to get a gut feeling, analyze the fuck out of it, fret that maybe I'm missing some key point for a couple of days, and end up going with the gut feeling. But I don't consider a gut feeling out of which the fuck has not yet been analyzed to be valid. So where does that fall on a dual choice test?
It would be interesting to do these personality tests in a context where I can talk through these questions with someone. Is that what professionally-administered involves?
It would be interesting to do these personality tests in a context where I can talk through these questions with someone. Is that what professionally-administered involves?
Monday, January 11, 2010
An Eddie Izzard reference in Ziggy...AGAIN!
This is the second time I've seen an Eddie Izzard reference (at 0:55) in Ziggy.
The first time was the one shown by Comics Curmudgeon here, and the relevant Eddie is here at 3:49.
And I don't even read Ziggy!
The first time was the one shown by Comics Curmudgeon here, and the relevant Eddie is here at 3:49.
And I don't even read Ziggy!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Wherein I might have figured out how customer service works over a decade after I started working customer service
The salesman is very much a salesman. Intellectually, I know every trick he's doing. His face lights up with friendly recognition when I walk in, just like my face has lit up for every customer who interrupted the work that I absolutely had to get done by the end of shift. When he says "Don't you own another pair in this line?" he isn't actually thinking he remembers which shoes I've bought before, he just recognized me as a return customer by the way I phrased my request and was trying to elicit that very information from me. And yet I fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
Normally I don't fall for these things. So why did I this time? Because I was feeling insecure. By objective standards, I'm not cool enough to shop in that store. By acting as though he recognized and remembered me, salesguy was validating my presence, making me feel like I'm totally allowed to be in there.
My first customer service training was when I was a fast food cashier, and it was presented as trying to make customers feel like we're their friends. I thought that was ridiculous and insulting to the customers. Like they're really going think that we're friends just because I call them by name after reading their name off their debit card? Like they're so lacking in friends they'll feel good when some random fast food cashier treats them like they're friends? But now I'm thinking it might be more validating. Yes, you personally are totally allowed and welcome to be buying food here. Seriously, come back again soon, you're exactly the kind of person we're here for. Since my days of working in fast food I've received a wide range of customer service from a wide range of places, and the good customer service was always characterized by validating me and making me feel like I'm allowed and welcome, whereas the bad customer service always made me feel like I wasn't actually supposed to be there.
But if customer service actually works this way, that would mean that everyone is as insecure as I am. If that is the case, how on earth does society function?
Normally I don't fall for these things. So why did I this time? Because I was feeling insecure. By objective standards, I'm not cool enough to shop in that store. By acting as though he recognized and remembered me, salesguy was validating my presence, making me feel like I'm totally allowed to be in there.
My first customer service training was when I was a fast food cashier, and it was presented as trying to make customers feel like we're their friends. I thought that was ridiculous and insulting to the customers. Like they're really going think that we're friends just because I call them by name after reading their name off their debit card? Like they're so lacking in friends they'll feel good when some random fast food cashier treats them like they're friends? But now I'm thinking it might be more validating. Yes, you personally are totally allowed and welcome to be buying food here. Seriously, come back again soon, you're exactly the kind of person we're here for. Since my days of working in fast food I've received a wide range of customer service from a wide range of places, and the good customer service was always characterized by validating me and making me feel like I'm allowed and welcome, whereas the bad customer service always made me feel like I wasn't actually supposed to be there.
But if customer service actually works this way, that would mean that everyone is as insecure as I am. If that is the case, how on earth does society function?
How on earth do people arrive at seeing heterosexuality as morally imperative in the first place?
The fact that I am congenitally monogamous often confuses people. I am not religious, I have no intention of raising children, I don't in any way see monogamy as morally imperative (assuming you're not leading anyone to believe you're being monogamous with them), so often people don't understand why I am monogamous.
An answer I've found helpful is to describe it as my sexual orientation. Monogamy and commitment are what I find sexy. Polyamory and/or casual sex are simply not sexy to me and there's just...no point in my wasting my time with them, the same way that (if you are monosexual*) people who are not your target gender are simply not sexually attractive to you and there's just no point in engaging in sexual and/or romantic relationships with people who aren't your target gender.
Because monogamy is my sexual orientation, it would never occur to me to deem it a moral imperative. I don't even get to the point of thinking about it terms of broadly-applicable morality. It is simply what I find sexy, so I proceed accordingly.
So thinking about this, I really can't imagine how the people who consider heterosexuality morally imperative got to the point of thinking of it in terms of moral imperative. So you think people of the opposite sex are sexy. How do you get from there to thinking that everyone in the world should only ever have sex with people of the opposite sex? If you think redheads are sexy, would you at all ever possibly arrive at the point of thinking about it in terms of broadly applicable morality, and come up with a rule that everyone should only have sex with redheads?
*I know some people don't like the word monosexual, but I can't figure out how to construct the sentence without it. If you object to this word choice, feel free to rephrase the sentence for me in the comments.
An answer I've found helpful is to describe it as my sexual orientation. Monogamy and commitment are what I find sexy. Polyamory and/or casual sex are simply not sexy to me and there's just...no point in my wasting my time with them, the same way that (if you are monosexual*) people who are not your target gender are simply not sexually attractive to you and there's just no point in engaging in sexual and/or romantic relationships with people who aren't your target gender.
Because monogamy is my sexual orientation, it would never occur to me to deem it a moral imperative. I don't even get to the point of thinking about it terms of broadly-applicable morality. It is simply what I find sexy, so I proceed accordingly.
So thinking about this, I really can't imagine how the people who consider heterosexuality morally imperative got to the point of thinking of it in terms of moral imperative. So you think people of the opposite sex are sexy. How do you get from there to thinking that everyone in the world should only ever have sex with people of the opposite sex? If you think redheads are sexy, would you at all ever possibly arrive at the point of thinking about it in terms of broadly applicable morality, and come up with a rule that everyone should only have sex with redheads?
*I know some people don't like the word monosexual, but I can't figure out how to construct the sentence without it. If you object to this word choice, feel free to rephrase the sentence for me in the comments.
Currently on my mind
- It sure is cold outside.
- How's my job security?
- Will that change I suggested improve productivity or just annoy the admin team?
- Prorogation: WTF?
- What's up with my rent increase?
- When are they going to correct the N2 exemption error in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act?
- Should I buy a condo? If so, WTF do I do?
- Is a certain elderly person I know losing her mental faculties?
- What do I do about friends who I know are perfectly intelligent but aren't keeping themselves politically informed?
- How do I make my injured toenail grow back without becoming ingrown?
- Why has flakiness increased since my last scalp treatment?
- How many errands could I reasonably get done today?
- Should I buy a duvet?
- How should I go about updating my wardrobe?
- Is that a zit coming in in my ear?
- Why has the quality of my undereye makeup deteriorated recently, and what can I do about it?
- Is the blog entry I have in mind of sufficient interest?
- What would happen if Eve Dallas met Dexter Morgan?
- How do I get Eddie Izzard to bring his tour to Toronto?
- What does it mean when Zonealarm says "Protection up, UI is initializing", and why does that generate tons of temp files in my C:\windows\internet logs folder?
- Cheese would be yummy right about now.
- What kind of computer mouse should I get to fit my giant hands? Where's a good place to go shop for unconventional computer mice where you can look at them in person?
- How can we as workers reverse the socioeconomic trend towards contract hell and restore Good Jobs in all fields of work like my grandparents enjoyed in the 1950s?
- I wonder whatever did happen to Mariam Makhniashvili?
- Was that Minnie Driver I saw walking down the street?
This sort of thing is all floating in the background as I go about everyday life. I'm sure it's the same for you.
That's why I'm really surprised that some people say "People don't care about [political issue], they're too busy worrying about their jobs and families!"
- How's my job security?
- Will that change I suggested improve productivity or just annoy the admin team?
- Prorogation: WTF?
- What's up with my rent increase?
- When are they going to correct the N2 exemption error in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act?
- Should I buy a condo? If so, WTF do I do?
- Is a certain elderly person I know losing her mental faculties?
- What do I do about friends who I know are perfectly intelligent but aren't keeping themselves politically informed?
- How do I make my injured toenail grow back without becoming ingrown?
- Why has flakiness increased since my last scalp treatment?
- How many errands could I reasonably get done today?
- Should I buy a duvet?
- How should I go about updating my wardrobe?
- Is that a zit coming in in my ear?
- Why has the quality of my undereye makeup deteriorated recently, and what can I do about it?
- Is the blog entry I have in mind of sufficient interest?
- What would happen if Eve Dallas met Dexter Morgan?
- How do I get Eddie Izzard to bring his tour to Toronto?
- What does it mean when Zonealarm says "Protection up, UI is initializing", and why does that generate tons of temp files in my C:\windows\internet logs folder?
- Cheese would be yummy right about now.
- What kind of computer mouse should I get to fit my giant hands? Where's a good place to go shop for unconventional computer mice where you can look at them in person?
- How can we as workers reverse the socioeconomic trend towards contract hell and restore Good Jobs in all fields of work like my grandparents enjoyed in the 1950s?
- I wonder whatever did happen to Mariam Makhniashvili?
- Was that Minnie Driver I saw walking down the street?
This sort of thing is all floating in the background as I go about everyday life. I'm sure it's the same for you.
That's why I'm really surprised that some people say "People don't care about [political issue], they're too busy worrying about their jobs and families!"
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The argument for using the garbage chute for organic waste disposal
I previously blogged that when organic waste collection comes to highrise buildings, the buildings without tri-sorters should use their garbage chutes for organic waste, and have people bring recyclables and landfill waste to the garbage room or the dumpsters. However, this idea doesn't seem to have caught on. I keep reading about allegedly innovative and forward-thinking buildings trumpeting the fact that there's an organics collection bin in the garbage room or out back, as though this is at all pleasant or convenient or going to result in optimal resident behaviour.
So here once again, broken down into simple concepts, is the argument for using the garbage chute for organics.
1. Organics are the most virtuous of all waste. Organic waste comes from healthy, wholesome foods. The better you eat, the more organics you have. Produce results in organic waste. Packaged, processed foods result in regular landfill waste. If logistical realities require disposal options of differing levels of convenience, the more virtuous eating habits should be rewarded with the more convenient disposal method.
2. Disposing of organics is more urgent. We've all had days when we're cold or sick or busy and don't want to go all the way down to the garbage room or outside to the dumpsters. If you leave your organics sitting around in your apartment, they'll attract bugs. If you leave your landfill waste sitting around your apartment, it won't. And bugs will not only affect the apartment where the organic waste is left sitting around, but also the neighbouring apartments. It should be as effortless as possible to properly dispose of the waste that is most likely to attract bugs.
3. The organics bin is the grossest. If any of the bins in the garbage room or dumpsters behind the building are going to smell or have bugs or be oozing mysterious gunk, it's going to be the organics bin. As I mentioned above, putting stuff in the organics bin is the most virtuous method of disposing of the most virtuous category of waste. All this virtue should be rewarded by letting people do it from as far away from the grossness as possible, not by making them touch the gross bin.
4. Organics are best disposed of at night. Most organic waste comes from food preparation, most of which tends to happen at dinner time. People are most likely to want to dispose of it before they go to bed, so it doesn't sit around stinking up the place and attracting creepy-crawlies at night. However, garbage rooms and dumpsters behind buildings are scarier after dark, because nefarious creatures of the two-legged and the six-legged variety are more likely to be skulking about then. The importance of and the unpleasantness of disposing of organics at night is disproportionate when compared with the time-sensitivity of the disposal of other types of waste. People will feel much safer if they can take care of this chore in their own well-light hallway.
5. Some people are going to throw the organics down the chute anyway. Because of the anonymity of garbage chutes, some people are going to throw stuff down the chute just because they don't feel like going out of their way to dispose of it properly. As mentioned above, organics are most urgent to dispose of than other types of waste, the organics bin is the grossest of all the bins, and organics are both best disposed of at night and most unpleasant to dispose of at night. It therefore stands to reason that organics is the category of waste most likely to be thrown down the chute improperly. Why not turn this improper behaviour into optimal behaviour simply by redesignating the purpose of the garbage chute?
So here once again, broken down into simple concepts, is the argument for using the garbage chute for organics.
1. Organics are the most virtuous of all waste. Organic waste comes from healthy, wholesome foods. The better you eat, the more organics you have. Produce results in organic waste. Packaged, processed foods result in regular landfill waste. If logistical realities require disposal options of differing levels of convenience, the more virtuous eating habits should be rewarded with the more convenient disposal method.
2. Disposing of organics is more urgent. We've all had days when we're cold or sick or busy and don't want to go all the way down to the garbage room or outside to the dumpsters. If you leave your organics sitting around in your apartment, they'll attract bugs. If you leave your landfill waste sitting around your apartment, it won't. And bugs will not only affect the apartment where the organic waste is left sitting around, but also the neighbouring apartments. It should be as effortless as possible to properly dispose of the waste that is most likely to attract bugs.
3. The organics bin is the grossest. If any of the bins in the garbage room or dumpsters behind the building are going to smell or have bugs or be oozing mysterious gunk, it's going to be the organics bin. As I mentioned above, putting stuff in the organics bin is the most virtuous method of disposing of the most virtuous category of waste. All this virtue should be rewarded by letting people do it from as far away from the grossness as possible, not by making them touch the gross bin.
4. Organics are best disposed of at night. Most organic waste comes from food preparation, most of which tends to happen at dinner time. People are most likely to want to dispose of it before they go to bed, so it doesn't sit around stinking up the place and attracting creepy-crawlies at night. However, garbage rooms and dumpsters behind buildings are scarier after dark, because nefarious creatures of the two-legged and the six-legged variety are more likely to be skulking about then. The importance of and the unpleasantness of disposing of organics at night is disproportionate when compared with the time-sensitivity of the disposal of other types of waste. People will feel much safer if they can take care of this chore in their own well-light hallway.
5. Some people are going to throw the organics down the chute anyway. Because of the anonymity of garbage chutes, some people are going to throw stuff down the chute just because they don't feel like going out of their way to dispose of it properly. As mentioned above, organics are most urgent to dispose of than other types of waste, the organics bin is the grossest of all the bins, and organics are both best disposed of at night and most unpleasant to dispose of at night. It therefore stands to reason that organics is the category of waste most likely to be thrown down the chute improperly. Why not turn this improper behaviour into optimal behaviour simply by redesignating the purpose of the garbage chute?
Help identify the mystery lace headpiece
I saw this woman on the subway with this white lace thing on her head. It was about the size of a maxi pad (without wings) and was pinned to her hair with the same kinds of pins that people use to keep yarmulkes on. The lace was kind of loose, kind of crocheted-like. The thing was too small to be called a cap, but too big to be called a headband. It was clearly entirely decorative, too loosely-woven and delicate to be functional.
I have the idea that this headpiece has some religious significance, but I don't know in what religion. The woman appeared white to me, and her hair was a medium to light brown, suggesting European ethnic roots. The rest of her clothes were unremarkable and I didn't catch any clues to her religion or ethnicity. I didn't hear her speak, so there are no linguistic clues.
Anyone have any idea what this lace headpiece is or what its purpose is? I know I've heard of such a thing before, perhaps in a novel, but I don't remember what it's for or what it's called.
I have the idea that this headpiece has some religious significance, but I don't know in what religion. The woman appeared white to me, and her hair was a medium to light brown, suggesting European ethnic roots. The rest of her clothes were unremarkable and I didn't catch any clues to her religion or ethnicity. I didn't hear her speak, so there are no linguistic clues.
Anyone have any idea what this lace headpiece is or what its purpose is? I know I've heard of such a thing before, perhaps in a novel, but I don't remember what it's for or what it's called.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Things the TTC Should Invent: non-binding ETAs on subway delay announcements
The other day I was in a subway delay due to smoke at track level. They announced there were shuttle buses, so everyone hurried over to the bus garage. I wasn't anywhere near close enough to make the first shuttle bus, but it looked like I might be able to jockey my way onto the second shuttle bus, so I waited around. We waited rather a long time with no second shuttle bus in sight, then there was an announcement saying service had resumed. The whole delay took maybe 10-20 minutes, making it hardly worthwhile to get on a shuttle bus. I wish I'd known that it was going to be so short - I would have grabbed a quick bite of breakfast instead of swarming the bus platform.
I asked TTC communications director Brad Ross if they've ever considered giving ETAs on subway delay announcements. I know it's not especially easy, but even just a rough idea would help us plan our next move. Under half an hour? Grab a coffee, do an errand, come back when the subway's ready. Over an hour? Get in line for the shuttle bus, call work and tell them what's up. Three hours? Go work from home for the morning. He replied that they do give ETAs when they have them, but it's difficult to tell. And I totally see where they're coming from on that. You don't always know exactly what the problem is, you don't always know how long until it's fixed, you don't want to underestimate the delay because people will get pissed off at you, you don't want to overestimate the delay because then you have the bad optics of frequent announcements saying "There will be a one hour delay on the Yonge-University-Spadina line" when it really ends up being only 15 minutes...
So what I think we should do, as a general social agreement among the people of Toronto, is ask the TTC to give us their best estimate based on the information they have, and in exchange we agree to accept their estimates as non-binding. It's like the download countdown on your computer. You know it isn't going to be accurate, you know the ETA is going to change weirdly multiple times, but that's okay. Really you just want to know if this is a good time to get up and go pee.
I think it would be helpful if the TTC could give us whatever information they have in terms of ETA, e.g. "We are currently experiencing a delay due to smoke at track level. This type of problem typically takes about 15 minutes to resolve, but our workers are still on their way to investigate so we aren't certain yet at this point." (Note to googlers: I completely made up that 15 minutes number and have no idea how long smoke at track level typically takes to resolve.)
And in exchange for this transparency, we, the people for Toronto, won't complain if it ends up taking 20 minutes or half an hour, or even an hour as long as they inform us once they've discovered it's more complicated. Because what we really want to know is should we line up for shuttle buses, or should we grab a coffee? Should we walk the rest of the way, or should we just wait for service to resume? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd go for this arrangement.
What do you think, Toronto? Could we make this work? Would you rather have a possibly-inaccurate best guess?
I asked TTC communications director Brad Ross if they've ever considered giving ETAs on subway delay announcements. I know it's not especially easy, but even just a rough idea would help us plan our next move. Under half an hour? Grab a coffee, do an errand, come back when the subway's ready. Over an hour? Get in line for the shuttle bus, call work and tell them what's up. Three hours? Go work from home for the morning. He replied that they do give ETAs when they have them, but it's difficult to tell. And I totally see where they're coming from on that. You don't always know exactly what the problem is, you don't always know how long until it's fixed, you don't want to underestimate the delay because people will get pissed off at you, you don't want to overestimate the delay because then you have the bad optics of frequent announcements saying "There will be a one hour delay on the Yonge-University-Spadina line" when it really ends up being only 15 minutes...
So what I think we should do, as a general social agreement among the people of Toronto, is ask the TTC to give us their best estimate based on the information they have, and in exchange we agree to accept their estimates as non-binding. It's like the download countdown on your computer. You know it isn't going to be accurate, you know the ETA is going to change weirdly multiple times, but that's okay. Really you just want to know if this is a good time to get up and go pee.
I think it would be helpful if the TTC could give us whatever information they have in terms of ETA, e.g. "We are currently experiencing a delay due to smoke at track level. This type of problem typically takes about 15 minutes to resolve, but our workers are still on their way to investigate so we aren't certain yet at this point." (Note to googlers: I completely made up that 15 minutes number and have no idea how long smoke at track level typically takes to resolve.)
And in exchange for this transparency, we, the people for Toronto, won't complain if it ends up taking 20 minutes or half an hour, or even an hour as long as they inform us once they've discovered it's more complicated. Because what we really want to know is should we line up for shuttle buses, or should we grab a coffee? Should we walk the rest of the way, or should we just wait for service to resume? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd go for this arrangement.
What do you think, Toronto? Could we make this work? Would you rather have a possibly-inaccurate best guess?
Currently wondering
Suppose I have an opinion on some political matter, so I send an email to the Minister responsible for that portfolio. This Minister is not my elected representative - they represent another riding - but they are the elected official responsible for the issue in question. I am not a person directly affected by the political matter in question. I am writing in my capacity as a generally politically engaged concerned citizen, but I do not fall into any particular group that the government would have a legal or moral obligation to consult.
And suppose the Minister's political party does not consider me their target audience. Their party's leaked election strategy makes it clear that they are not interested in voters of my demographics, and outspoken members of the party have publicly stated that they consider my demographic to be a fringe group.
Would my email to the Minister actually be taken seriously? Or would they disregard me based on my demographics? Yes, I know that theoretically they're supposed to take concerns from every citizen seriously, but would they in reality?
Or what if they see that someone in my demographic opposes their widget policy, and then conclude that their widget policy must be on the right track?
And suppose the Minister's political party does not consider me their target audience. Their party's leaked election strategy makes it clear that they are not interested in voters of my demographics, and outspoken members of the party have publicly stated that they consider my demographic to be a fringe group.
Would my email to the Minister actually be taken seriously? Or would they disregard me based on my demographics? Yes, I know that theoretically they're supposed to take concerns from every citizen seriously, but would they in reality?
Or what if they see that someone in my demographic opposes their widget policy, and then conclude that their widget policy must be on the right track?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)