Apparently they've just finished renovating Dufferin Mall to make it less "ghetto".
Was it actually ghetto before? Or is that just how the target audience of the Globe and Mail's Style section would perceive it?
Ever since I moved to Toronto I've been going there a couple of times a year for when I need to go to Walmart, and I would never have described it as ghetto. It's certainly not posh, more serviceable and working class. But that's to be expected from somewhere that I'm going for the express purpose of going to Walmart. I'd never describe it as ghetto - Dufferin Mall:my usual haunts::Bloor line:Yonge line. Surely there are far more ghetto places in the city?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
One of these things is not like the others
I don't know the story here, I just found the pic on that list of random articles on the log-in screen of Google Reader, and I thought it was funny.
Things They Should Invent: heat-generating appliances that cool the surrounding room
Cooling appliances, like refrigerators, radiate heat into the surrounding room because they're discharging the heat that they sucked out of the thing being cooled.
Heating appliances, like ovens, also radiate heat into the surrounding room because of the heat that they're generating.
So why not make ovens that generate heat inside the oven partially by cooling the surrounding room? That would be way better in the summer! Maybe they could even have a switch so they could radiate heat in the winter but cool the room in the summer.
Now you're probably thinking "How often do we use ovens in the summer?" But you know what we do use all the time in the summer? Water heaters! We have energy heating our water and more energy air conditioning our home. Why not take the heat being removed from the air and use it to help heat the water?
Heating appliances, like ovens, also radiate heat into the surrounding room because of the heat that they're generating.
So why not make ovens that generate heat inside the oven partially by cooling the surrounding room? That would be way better in the summer! Maybe they could even have a switch so they could radiate heat in the winter but cool the room in the summer.
Now you're probably thinking "How often do we use ovens in the summer?" But you know what we do use all the time in the summer? Water heaters! We have energy heating our water and more energy air conditioning our home. Why not take the heat being removed from the air and use it to help heat the water?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Things They Should Invent: self-cleaning dishwasher spray arms
Sometimes bits of food get stuck in the little water-spraying holes of my dishwasher spray arms. This is problematic because they then spray bits of food back onto the dishes, so the dishes don't come out fully clean. They're annoying to clean out - I have to detach the arms and remove them from the dishwasher and soak them in the sink and poke at the bits of food with a brush.
It occurs to me that they could be cleaned from the inside out by squirting water out at high pressure. Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to run a dishwasher cycle, which uses a lot of water.
I want a setting where the dishwasher will send just a few good sharp squirts of water through the arms to blast the food particles out. It will only take a minute and won't use nearly as much energy as a full dishwasher cycle.
It occurs to me that they could be cleaned from the inside out by squirting water out at high pressure. Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to run a dishwasher cycle, which uses a lot of water.
I want a setting where the dishwasher will send just a few good sharp squirts of water through the arms to blast the food particles out. It will only take a minute and won't use nearly as much energy as a full dishwasher cycle.
Things They Should Invent: partial basket of goods CPI
Apparently the inflation rate was negative in June, due primarily to lower gas prices.
I don't know about June specifically but I have been feeling inflation lately. And, as it happens, I don't have a car so I don't buy gas. (I know that gas prices should theoretically also impact the price of consumer goods, but you can see how I'm not feeling it as much as someone who drives a car.)
So this got me wondering what the inflation rate for products and services I actually do buy is.
They could totally calculate this. They know what's in the basket of goods, they know how much each of the goods cost, they're dealing with real numbers that actually happened - they could totally write a program to calculate all this stuff and put it up on a website similar to the inflation calculator.
I don't know about June specifically but I have been feeling inflation lately. And, as it happens, I don't have a car so I don't buy gas. (I know that gas prices should theoretically also impact the price of consumer goods, but you can see how I'm not feeling it as much as someone who drives a car.)
So this got me wondering what the inflation rate for products and services I actually do buy is.
They could totally calculate this. They know what's in the basket of goods, they know how much each of the goods cost, they're dealing with real numbers that actually happened - they could totally write a program to calculate all this stuff and put it up on a website similar to the inflation calculator.
Things They Should Invent: removable on demand hair dye
The problem with dyeing your hair is that you have to either keep re-dyeing, or grow it out and have trashy-looking roots. Yes, there are temporary dyes on the drugstore shelf, but they're unreliable - sometimes they wash out way too quickly, sometimes they don't wash out at all. I was once walking around with six-inch roots from what was supposed to be a 24-day hair dye, which you can get away with when you're a teenager but doesn't work so well when you're pushing 30. I'd rather like some interesting colour, but it's an expensive commitment to do and maintain to a standard that's suitable for my age and hair length.
So here's what I want: hair dye that is permanent if left to its own devices, but can be washed out with a specific shampoo designed for that express purpose. Regular shampoo won't budge it and if you do it once without maintenance you'll get roots like usual. But then, once the roots are too much, if you don't want to re-dye, you can buy this special shampoo and wash the colour right out so you're back to your natural colour.
So here's what I want: hair dye that is permanent if left to its own devices, but can be washed out with a specific shampoo designed for that express purpose. Regular shampoo won't budge it and if you do it once without maintenance you'll get roots like usual. But then, once the roots are too much, if you don't want to re-dye, you can buy this special shampoo and wash the colour right out so you're back to your natural colour.
Crap!
I invented two things in the shower today, but when I got out of the shower and went to the computer I forgot the better of the two. So I went back and stood in the shower and remembered it again. But then when I got to the computer I forgot it again. So I went to the shower, and it wasn't there any more!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The other other problem with all this anti-labour sentiment
This post arose from, but is now only tangential to, today's Margaret Wente.
No more than six generations ago (and in some cases, far fewer generations than that), every single one of my ancestors was living in poverty - the kind of poverty portrayed in Fiddler on the Roof. They earned a living on farms or perhaps in mines, ceaseless work, starvation a very real possibility. I earn a living in sitting at a computer in air conditioning wearing high heels, and barring some true disaster I'm not going to starve (not because I'm confident in my own perpetual employability, but because there are enough people in the world who are sufficiently personally invested in me that they won't let that happen.)
How we got from my ancestors milking cows in Anatevka to me blogging in Toronto is a very common story. You probably have it in your own family. Free farms, immigration, industrialization, unionization, post-war diaspora and economic boom, education. And the recurring theme throughout this saga in my family, as it probably was in your family, is a better life for the children.
I'll admit I haven't given this much critical thought. It's something I've always blindly accepted - people want a better life for their children. But I think it's generally accepted as a positive value in our society. There's a certain romance about it, it's the sort of thing that's often invoked when trying to sell political platforms. And even if a better life for your children isn't top priority, you'd have to be a real excessive flaming asshole to be actively opposed to it.
In any case, it did work. My ancestors did make a better life for their children. Every generation has had freedoms their parents couldn't imagine (My grandmothers could vote! My parents could plan their family! I can marry a man OR a woman!) and every generation up to my parents' (to soon to tell for mine) has had a significantly better quality of life than their parents did. But, as I blogged about before, the most dramatic change has happened since my grandparents' generation. My grandparents might not have always had shoes; I have a favourite shoe designer. And the reason for this sudden, dramatic improvement within the last few generations is one thing: Good Jobs.
My grandparents' jobs at the plants paid enough that they could support their families and retire with a pension. Hard Work, yes, but they weren't going to starve. Their kids went and worked at the same plants as their summer jobs (apparently this was normal at the time - you could just get your kid a job at the plant), enabling them to earn their university tuition and get white-collar Good Jobs. They supported their children more comfortably (orthodontics, music lessons) and brought us up in a world where living in a safe neighbourhood and going to university after high school is perfectly normal. So we did just that and have been fortunate enough to get Good Jobs ourselves. So far, all our ancestors' hard work and sacrifice has built a better life for us.
But will it last?
As Margaret Wente discusses, these city jobs are Good Jobs. Stability, benefits, pension, a rate of pay where you can breathe. But fewer jobs in general are Good Jobs, because of the economics shifts that happened with the 90s recession. So, as Wente discusses, there are a lot of very loud people who want these jobs to stop being Good Jobs.
But eliminating Good Jobs is completely detrimental to the value of making a better life for one's children. How are people going to raise their children without Good Jobs? How are their children going to support themselves once they're adults? Frankly, I'm feeling this already - and I still have a Good Job! While I do have a few more toys than my parents did at my age, overall my quality of life is never going to exceed theirs, and is very likely to end up lower than theirs. (If I aspired to the same lifestyle as my parents - house, car, children, vacations - I would be certain that my quality of life will always be lower than theirs and I'll have no chance of ever reaching their quality of life. The only reason why my quality of life might ever be in the same league as my parents' is because I aspire to a far less expensive lifestyle.) If they take away the Good Jobs, I'm going to end up worse off than my grandparents were slaving away in the plants. Three generations of hard work (and Hard Work) and sacrifice to build a better life for the children, all down the drain.
Given the amount of anti-labour sentiment and the proportion of parents in the general population, I'd imagine at least some of the anti-labour people are or aspire to be parents. I wonder what kind of career arc they envision for their own children?
No more than six generations ago (and in some cases, far fewer generations than that), every single one of my ancestors was living in poverty - the kind of poverty portrayed in Fiddler on the Roof. They earned a living on farms or perhaps in mines, ceaseless work, starvation a very real possibility. I earn a living in sitting at a computer in air conditioning wearing high heels, and barring some true disaster I'm not going to starve (not because I'm confident in my own perpetual employability, but because there are enough people in the world who are sufficiently personally invested in me that they won't let that happen.)
How we got from my ancestors milking cows in Anatevka to me blogging in Toronto is a very common story. You probably have it in your own family. Free farms, immigration, industrialization, unionization, post-war diaspora and economic boom, education. And the recurring theme throughout this saga in my family, as it probably was in your family, is a better life for the children.
I'll admit I haven't given this much critical thought. It's something I've always blindly accepted - people want a better life for their children. But I think it's generally accepted as a positive value in our society. There's a certain romance about it, it's the sort of thing that's often invoked when trying to sell political platforms. And even if a better life for your children isn't top priority, you'd have to be a real excessive flaming asshole to be actively opposed to it.
In any case, it did work. My ancestors did make a better life for their children. Every generation has had freedoms their parents couldn't imagine (My grandmothers could vote! My parents could plan their family! I can marry a man OR a woman!) and every generation up to my parents' (to soon to tell for mine) has had a significantly better quality of life than their parents did. But, as I blogged about before, the most dramatic change has happened since my grandparents' generation. My grandparents might not have always had shoes; I have a favourite shoe designer. And the reason for this sudden, dramatic improvement within the last few generations is one thing: Good Jobs.
My grandparents' jobs at the plants paid enough that they could support their families and retire with a pension. Hard Work, yes, but they weren't going to starve. Their kids went and worked at the same plants as their summer jobs (apparently this was normal at the time - you could just get your kid a job at the plant), enabling them to earn their university tuition and get white-collar Good Jobs. They supported their children more comfortably (orthodontics, music lessons) and brought us up in a world where living in a safe neighbourhood and going to university after high school is perfectly normal. So we did just that and have been fortunate enough to get Good Jobs ourselves. So far, all our ancestors' hard work and sacrifice has built a better life for us.
But will it last?
As Margaret Wente discusses, these city jobs are Good Jobs. Stability, benefits, pension, a rate of pay where you can breathe. But fewer jobs in general are Good Jobs, because of the economics shifts that happened with the 90s recession. So, as Wente discusses, there are a lot of very loud people who want these jobs to stop being Good Jobs.
But eliminating Good Jobs is completely detrimental to the value of making a better life for one's children. How are people going to raise their children without Good Jobs? How are their children going to support themselves once they're adults? Frankly, I'm feeling this already - and I still have a Good Job! While I do have a few more toys than my parents did at my age, overall my quality of life is never going to exceed theirs, and is very likely to end up lower than theirs. (If I aspired to the same lifestyle as my parents - house, car, children, vacations - I would be certain that my quality of life will always be lower than theirs and I'll have no chance of ever reaching their quality of life. The only reason why my quality of life might ever be in the same league as my parents' is because I aspire to a far less expensive lifestyle.) If they take away the Good Jobs, I'm going to end up worse off than my grandparents were slaving away in the plants. Three generations of hard work (and Hard Work) and sacrifice to build a better life for the children, all down the drain.
Given the amount of anti-labour sentiment and the proportion of parents in the general population, I'd imagine at least some of the anti-labour people are or aspire to be parents. I wonder what kind of career arc they envision for their own children?
Application: I do not think it means what you think it means
I hadn't been following this super closely so I thought it was just some random bit of diplomatic businesses. But it turns out, to my shame, that the reason why Canada wants to require visas for visitors from the Czech Republic is because they say they're getting too many refugee applications from that country. This isn't the first time I've heard this government, in the context of immigration, complain that there are too many applications or too many unqualified applicants. And there's one issue here that I keep coming back to and just can't get past:
They're applications!
In general, in our society, the social contract surrounding an application is "You should totally apply!" If you think you might enjoy blogging about an island in Australia or standing on a plinth in London or having Google bring your most brilliant ideas to fruition, you should totally apply! If you're interested in an academic program or a scholarship or a job, you should totally apply, even if you don't quite have all the requirements. In fact, to fail to apply because you don't think you'd be accepted is generally seen as lazy - or, in the case of a job, irresponsible and lacking in due diligence. Meanwhile, applying even when you most likely won't get in is seen as positive, gusty, showing initiative. It's like the archetype of the little working class kid who convinces the neighbourhood grocer to let him stock shelves even though he's just a kid, and eventually grows up to own a whole chain of grocery stores. If you picture an employer sitting there with a stack of applications from applicants who don't meet the requirements, they'd be bemoaning the lack of qualified applicants, not the glut of unqualified applicants.
What's up with this total violation of the social contract surrounding the nature of application? I can't speak to whether previous governments have done it, but I've only noticed it recently. I know when I applied for EI six years ago, their explicitly stated policy is that if you're not sure if you qualify, you should apply anyway and they'll assess your application. That's how applications work. You have something desirable, applicants apply, you assess the applications. I've never before in my life ever heard of anyone dissing applicants for applying.
They're applications!
In general, in our society, the social contract surrounding an application is "You should totally apply!" If you think you might enjoy blogging about an island in Australia or standing on a plinth in London or having Google bring your most brilliant ideas to fruition, you should totally apply! If you're interested in an academic program or a scholarship or a job, you should totally apply, even if you don't quite have all the requirements. In fact, to fail to apply because you don't think you'd be accepted is generally seen as lazy - or, in the case of a job, irresponsible and lacking in due diligence. Meanwhile, applying even when you most likely won't get in is seen as positive, gusty, showing initiative. It's like the archetype of the little working class kid who convinces the neighbourhood grocer to let him stock shelves even though he's just a kid, and eventually grows up to own a whole chain of grocery stores. If you picture an employer sitting there with a stack of applications from applicants who don't meet the requirements, they'd be bemoaning the lack of qualified applicants, not the glut of unqualified applicants.
What's up with this total violation of the social contract surrounding the nature of application? I can't speak to whether previous governments have done it, but I've only noticed it recently. I know when I applied for EI six years ago, their explicitly stated policy is that if you're not sure if you qualify, you should apply anyway and they'll assess your application. That's how applications work. You have something desirable, applicants apply, you assess the applications. I've never before in my life ever heard of anyone dissing applicants for applying.
Things They Should Invent: popcorn utensil
Buttered popcorn is yummy, but feels unpleasant on the fingers. Popcorn is good to eat at the computer, but (even if it isn't buttered) your fingers get dirty which would get your keyboard dirty.
Someone should invent a utensil for eating popcorn with. Like a spoon, but better.
Someone should invent a utensil for eating popcorn with. Like a spoon, but better.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Juniority
When I was playing with the City of Toronto's sick leave buyout calculator to try to assess what kind of offer City employees were getting by plugging in my own real-life data, it gave me an insultingly low number. That offer didn't even come close to making up for the number in days of my career so far (like today, for example) when I've woken up in the morning, yearned to call in and take a mental health day, had the days available and could totally have gotten away with it no questions asked, but instead dragged myself out of bed and went to work because my team needed me that day.
But when I increased the number of years of service on the calculator from my real-life 6 years to a more approaching-retirement 30 years, the result was either 10 times or 20 times as much (depending on whether I said yes to the 1998 grandfathering clause.) Turns out the buyout isn't proportionate to the number of years of service - the workers get less per-year credit if they have fewer years of service.
I've heard about this sort of thing happening before when the employer wants to buy out some previously collectively bargained benefit, and I always have a massive, visceral negative reaction. Like beyond the "No fair!" factor of a year not being equal to a year. It really is a disproportionate reaction for something that doesn't affect me personally.
I think I've figured out why I'm reacting this way: they're treating the workers with fewer years of service as though they're less loyal.
Now, at first glance, you might be thinking "Well, of course! Someone with 30 years is a lifer!" But it cuts close to home for me because I'm a lifer too with my six years of service. How can I claim to be a lifer with only six years of service? Because I'm 28 years old, my job requires university-level training, and time proceeds linearly and at a fixed rate.
When I was growing up, all the grownups around me were lifers. Some people left the workforce to raise children, but other than that the reality as I knew it was you get a job, you work hard for decades, you retire. Then, just as I was starting to become economically aware, the 90s recession came along and the conventional wisdom was that no one will ever have a job for life at all ever again, you're always going to be constantly getting downsized and having to scramble for a new job. But (like many people, I'd imagine) I don't want to keep scrambling for a new job. I'd love to keep the same job all my life, work hard, and have that be enough to one day retire. If (when) that becomes impossible, it's going to be because of a decision by the employer, not because of how I want to live my life.
As a junior worker, I'm no less loyal than my senior colleagues. I just have fewer years of service because of the limitations of the space-time continuum. If my employer were taking away my benefits (when my employer does take away my benefits) it would be a second slap in the face to be treated like I'm less loyal just because I am, for reasons completely beyond my control, younger and newer.
But when I increased the number of years of service on the calculator from my real-life 6 years to a more approaching-retirement 30 years, the result was either 10 times or 20 times as much (depending on whether I said yes to the 1998 grandfathering clause.) Turns out the buyout isn't proportionate to the number of years of service - the workers get less per-year credit if they have fewer years of service.
I've heard about this sort of thing happening before when the employer wants to buy out some previously collectively bargained benefit, and I always have a massive, visceral negative reaction. Like beyond the "No fair!" factor of a year not being equal to a year. It really is a disproportionate reaction for something that doesn't affect me personally.
I think I've figured out why I'm reacting this way: they're treating the workers with fewer years of service as though they're less loyal.
Now, at first glance, you might be thinking "Well, of course! Someone with 30 years is a lifer!" But it cuts close to home for me because I'm a lifer too with my six years of service. How can I claim to be a lifer with only six years of service? Because I'm 28 years old, my job requires university-level training, and time proceeds linearly and at a fixed rate.
When I was growing up, all the grownups around me were lifers. Some people left the workforce to raise children, but other than that the reality as I knew it was you get a job, you work hard for decades, you retire. Then, just as I was starting to become economically aware, the 90s recession came along and the conventional wisdom was that no one will ever have a job for life at all ever again, you're always going to be constantly getting downsized and having to scramble for a new job. But (like many people, I'd imagine) I don't want to keep scrambling for a new job. I'd love to keep the same job all my life, work hard, and have that be enough to one day retire. If (when) that becomes impossible, it's going to be because of a decision by the employer, not because of how I want to live my life.
As a junior worker, I'm no less loyal than my senior colleagues. I just have fewer years of service because of the limitations of the space-time continuum. If my employer were taking away my benefits (when my employer does take away my benefits) it would be a second slap in the face to be treated like I'm less loyal just because I am, for reasons completely beyond my control, younger and newer.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Why would a business block call display?
A couple of times recently I've had phone calls from businesses who block their outgoing call display, so it just shows up as "private number" on my call display. These are legitimate businesses with whom I have existing client relationships and who are calling me for a specific and necessary reason. But I didn't answer because I always let calls I don't recognize go to voicemail.
Why would a business do this? How does it help them?
Why would a business do this? How does it help them?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
How to teach English lit: make the students read poorly-written fanfiction
I had a lot of trouble with English lit class. I read just fine (in the days before the internet I was a voracious reader) but the subject as a whole annoyed me. Why should that green light be symbolic? Why should that gun on the mantlepiece be important? Why should every word of dialogue be important? Life just doesn't work that way!
Of course, we all know that while all the business of everyday life does happen in the fictional universe, only the parts that are important to the plot or the characterization make it onto the page. Otherwise, the book is boring or just doesn't work.
I didn't understand literary analysis until I entered the Harry Potter fandom, where people were using literary analysis to try to figure out what was going to happen in the last three books. In school, we'd always do the analysis after we finished reading the book, at which point I didn't care. In Harry Potter, the story was still ongoing, so we were looking for clues! I could have done way better in school if I'd had an opportunity like that.
Similarly, I didn't understand how only the important stuff makes it onto the page (is there a literary term for this concept?) until I started reading fanfiction. Many fanfic authors do get this point, but when you encounter one who doesn't it's arduous to read! For example, I recently saw a fic where the general plot was "OMG, long lost relatives!" At least a dozen characters and their intricate degrees of relation to the protagonist were painstakingly introduced. And then nothing was done with them. The author just wanted to give the protagonist a big extended family.
So English teachers should make their students read a few things like that, dull and arduous fanfics that demonstrate what happens in the complete absence of the literary techniques being discussed.
Then compare that with the Harry Potter series, specifically in terms of the first three books and the revelations at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban.
Then they'll be prepared to buckle down and discuss symbolism and foreshadowing and plotting and characterization.
Of course, we all know that while all the business of everyday life does happen in the fictional universe, only the parts that are important to the plot or the characterization make it onto the page. Otherwise, the book is boring or just doesn't work.
I didn't understand literary analysis until I entered the Harry Potter fandom, where people were using literary analysis to try to figure out what was going to happen in the last three books. In school, we'd always do the analysis after we finished reading the book, at which point I didn't care. In Harry Potter, the story was still ongoing, so we were looking for clues! I could have done way better in school if I'd had an opportunity like that.
Similarly, I didn't understand how only the important stuff makes it onto the page (is there a literary term for this concept?) until I started reading fanfiction. Many fanfic authors do get this point, but when you encounter one who doesn't it's arduous to read! For example, I recently saw a fic where the general plot was "OMG, long lost relatives!" At least a dozen characters and their intricate degrees of relation to the protagonist were painstakingly introduced. And then nothing was done with them. The author just wanted to give the protagonist a big extended family.
So English teachers should make their students read a few things like that, dull and arduous fanfics that demonstrate what happens in the complete absence of the literary techniques being discussed.
Then compare that with the Harry Potter series, specifically in terms of the first three books and the revelations at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban.
Then they'll be prepared to buckle down and discuss symbolism and foreshadowing and plotting and characterization.
Things They Should Study: What percentage of expensive things actually are well-made? What percentage of cheap things are poorly made?
Conventional wisdom is that cheap things are poorly made and will wear out quickly and have to be thrown out, and that expensive things are made well and will last.
Empirical evidence collected to date is mixed. On one hand, my $2 necklaces keep breaking and the most expensive shoes I've ever bought are so truly awesome that I keep making people try them on. On the other hand, I'm listening to music from a pair of computer speakers that cost me $5 and are nearly 10 years old and wearing a bra that, while it is a fantastic piece of engineering, cost me more than I care to admit and is progressing towards needing to be worn on a tighter setting at a faster rate than I'm comfortable with.
My main qualm about buying expensive things is that I don't know how to tell if things are actually good quality. What's to stop people from making crappy things and putting expensive price tags on them? Someone once told me that some manufacturers of beauty products have a business model where they don't need repeat customers. They need X people to buy Acme Shampoo one time only for the company to turn a profit. Then six months later, they'll come out with a new product. If this is true (my source was not a neutral party), who's to stop someone from applying the same model to clothing or household goods? Make something cheaply, market and price it like it's well-made, then re-brand.
So I'd like to see some research on the how product quality actually correlates to price. Are there poorly-made expensive products out there? If so, how many? Are there well-made cheap products out there? If so, how many?
(Another point that people often neglect is that not everything needs to be made to last. I buy drinking glasses at the dollar store because I'm so clumsy that all my dishes are in for an early death anyway. If I need to replace a proprietary device-specific cable or charger, I buy a knockoff on ebay. Yes, the knock-offs wear out and die after three or four months, but they only cost $5, the real thing is $75 from the manufacturer, and no way is my cellphone going to last me long enough to make the real thing worth my while.)
Empirical evidence collected to date is mixed. On one hand, my $2 necklaces keep breaking and the most expensive shoes I've ever bought are so truly awesome that I keep making people try them on. On the other hand, I'm listening to music from a pair of computer speakers that cost me $5 and are nearly 10 years old and wearing a bra that, while it is a fantastic piece of engineering, cost me more than I care to admit and is progressing towards needing to be worn on a tighter setting at a faster rate than I'm comfortable with.
My main qualm about buying expensive things is that I don't know how to tell if things are actually good quality. What's to stop people from making crappy things and putting expensive price tags on them? Someone once told me that some manufacturers of beauty products have a business model where they don't need repeat customers. They need X people to buy Acme Shampoo one time only for the company to turn a profit. Then six months later, they'll come out with a new product. If this is true (my source was not a neutral party), who's to stop someone from applying the same model to clothing or household goods? Make something cheaply, market and price it like it's well-made, then re-brand.
So I'd like to see some research on the how product quality actually correlates to price. Are there poorly-made expensive products out there? If so, how many? Are there well-made cheap products out there? If so, how many?
(Another point that people often neglect is that not everything needs to be made to last. I buy drinking glasses at the dollar store because I'm so clumsy that all my dishes are in for an early death anyway. If I need to replace a proprietary device-specific cable or charger, I buy a knockoff on ebay. Yes, the knock-offs wear out and die after three or four months, but they only cost $5, the real thing is $75 from the manufacturer, and no way is my cellphone going to last me long enough to make the real thing worth my while.)
Things They Should Invent: self-chilling brita
I recently rearranged my fridge so my brita is as effortless to reach as possible. Before it was either a bit tricky to get out of the fridge, or it had to be kept on the counter (depending on what's in the fridge) and I'd pour room-temperature water onto ice cubes. But now it has a permanent, easily-accessible home in the fridge regardless of fridge contents. And because of this, I find I'm drinking more water. Just making cold yummy water that tiny bit easier to get at was the tipping point to notably increased water consumption.
So then I got thinking that maybe I could do the same thing at work. We actually do have a brita in the office fridge, but it's SO far away! (My co-workers are all laughing at me for that statement - I sit closer to the kitchen than any of the people who actually use the brita.)
But I'd totally drink more water if I had a brita on my desk at work! Except then it would be room-temperature, and that's no fun.
Solution: self-chilling brita. It looks vaguely like an electric kettle and plugs into the wall, but instead of heating the water it cools it down.
So then I got thinking that maybe I could do the same thing at work. We actually do have a brita in the office fridge, but it's SO far away! (My co-workers are all laughing at me for that statement - I sit closer to the kitchen than any of the people who actually use the brita.)
But I'd totally drink more water if I had a brita on my desk at work! Except then it would be room-temperature, and that's no fun.
Solution: self-chilling brita. It looks vaguely like an electric kettle and plugs into the wall, but instead of heating the water it cools it down.
That was no fun at all
I recently blogged about how I've never dreamed about translation.
Last night I did.
I dreamed that an IRL person with whom I've recently had a (private, on-the-surface-civilized) disagreement about translation (and I should emphasize that this is NOT one of my co-workers) tracked down some old translations of mine. (IRL these are tucked away in the corner of the internet, but my name isn't on them and it would take some hardcore digging through systems to which this person doesn't have access to find them and attribute them to me.)
They then went over these with a red pen and released the results to the media, spinning me as incompetent. (IRL, the translations are not incompetent, but might be more suboptimal than I'd prefer. Worst case they'd get a mark of 75% when I'm aiming for 100%.)
Their spin was very effective, and the media ran with it as one of those shocking oversensationalized lead stories (like a while back where some government consultant expensed cookies.) People were calling for me to never work again, people were following me around with cameras taking my picture, people were criticizing my physical appearance and speculating on my sexual proclivities in comments threads, people were criticizing me for being overpaid because I recently (IRL too) started wearing real silver earrings (for piercing health) instead of cheap $2 crap from mall kiosks.
All because in a long time ago, in a couple of places, I translated effectué une recherche as "searched" (like it normally is) where in that context it should have actually been "conducted a search".
DO NOT WANT!
Last night I did.
I dreamed that an IRL person with whom I've recently had a (private, on-the-surface-civilized) disagreement about translation (and I should emphasize that this is NOT one of my co-workers) tracked down some old translations of mine. (IRL these are tucked away in the corner of the internet, but my name isn't on them and it would take some hardcore digging through systems to which this person doesn't have access to find them and attribute them to me.)
They then went over these with a red pen and released the results to the media, spinning me as incompetent. (IRL, the translations are not incompetent, but might be more suboptimal than I'd prefer. Worst case they'd get a mark of 75% when I'm aiming for 100%.)
Their spin was very effective, and the media ran with it as one of those shocking oversensationalized lead stories (like a while back where some government consultant expensed cookies.) People were calling for me to never work again, people were following me around with cameras taking my picture, people were criticizing my physical appearance and speculating on my sexual proclivities in comments threads, people were criticizing me for being overpaid because I recently (IRL too) started wearing real silver earrings (for piercing health) instead of cheap $2 crap from mall kiosks.
All because in a long time ago, in a couple of places, I translated effectué une recherche as "searched" (like it normally is) where in that context it should have actually been "conducted a search".
DO NOT WANT!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Things They Should Study: why are there monsters under the bed and how did they get there?
When I was little, my furniture turned into monsters at night. Sure, it sat very very still, but I knew it was a monster and I knew it was going to get me. The cabinet in the downstairs bathroom also turned into a monster if I blurred my eyes a certain way, and ALL the furniture in my baby sister's room (where my parents would sometimes send me as a punishment because there were no interesting toys in there, unlike my room) was turned into monsters at all times, even during the day. (No, I never questioned why the baby was kept in a room with monsters. I was too young to see a baby as something that needed protecting.) When I started elementary school there was no respite from the monsters. Some of the toilets had monsters in them, and this wisdom was carefully handed down over the years. I'll bet you anything that if you asked a current student at my former elementary school which toilet the toilet monster lives in, she'll say the last one on the right-hand side.
When you're a kid, there are monsters everywhere. Under the bed, in the closet, we know this. When you were reading me describe my childhood monsters, you probably weren't thinking I was a completely delusional loony. You probably know that they aren't there now because I'm a grown-up, but there were very much real when I was a child. Sure, they didn't actually get me and I never actually saw them move, but they were real.
But why do children have monsters? How did this come about? Is it cultural or evolutionary? Do all children in all cultures have monsters? If so, what evolutionary purpose does it serve? If not all cultures have monsters, which ones don't and why not? Why do we have them?
Life should be scarier now than it was when I was a child. I know, in more specific detail than I've ever wanted to, about things like torture, rape, and war crimes. If there's a phobia trigger, no one is going to rescue me. My grownups can't solve all my problems - in fact, we're getting frighteningly close to the point where they can't solve any problems that I can't already solve for myself. I'm well aware that my financial resources are finite and competence and hard work aren't enough to earn a living. The number of people in the world who actively want me to be safe is so small I could probably type up a list of names, and the number of people in the world who directly or indirectly want to do harm to me seems to be bigger every time I turn around.
But I don't have any monsters, and generally live in less fear that I did back when my dresser turned into a monster. So why did we have that omnipresent but nonspecific fear back when we were kids, and why do very real and specific fears seem to chase it away?
When you're a kid, there are monsters everywhere. Under the bed, in the closet, we know this. When you were reading me describe my childhood monsters, you probably weren't thinking I was a completely delusional loony. You probably know that they aren't there now because I'm a grown-up, but there were very much real when I was a child. Sure, they didn't actually get me and I never actually saw them move, but they were real.
But why do children have monsters? How did this come about? Is it cultural or evolutionary? Do all children in all cultures have monsters? If so, what evolutionary purpose does it serve? If not all cultures have monsters, which ones don't and why not? Why do we have them?
Life should be scarier now than it was when I was a child. I know, in more specific detail than I've ever wanted to, about things like torture, rape, and war crimes. If there's a phobia trigger, no one is going to rescue me. My grownups can't solve all my problems - in fact, we're getting frighteningly close to the point where they can't solve any problems that I can't already solve for myself. I'm well aware that my financial resources are finite and competence and hard work aren't enough to earn a living. The number of people in the world who actively want me to be safe is so small I could probably type up a list of names, and the number of people in the world who directly or indirectly want to do harm to me seems to be bigger every time I turn around.
But I don't have any monsters, and generally live in less fear that I did back when my dresser turned into a monster. So why did we have that omnipresent but nonspecific fear back when we were kids, and why do very real and specific fears seem to chase it away?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)