The responsibilities of Canadian citizenship

Sometimes you hear people say in letters to the editor etc. that there's too much emphasis on our rights as Canadian citizens and not enough on our responsibilities. I gave this some thought, and realized I have no idea what my responsibilities specifically as a Canadian citizen are. I mean, I assume I'm doing it right since no one has complained, but as I was born into citizenship it's not something I've ever had to give a moment's thought to. So I googled it.

From Citizenship and Immigration Canada:

* to obey Canada’s laws;
* to express opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others;
* to help others in the community;
* to care for and protect our heritage and environment; and
* to eliminate discrimination and injustice.

Citizens have all the responsibilities listed above and the responsibility to:

* vote in elections.

That sounds an awful lot like Wheaton's Law: "Don't be a dick." Most people do these things anyway, without even giving a moment's thought to citizenship, just because they don't want to be the kind of asshole who doesn't.

Does anyone really require it being made part of the responsibilities of citizenship to do these things? Would the fact that they're the responsibilities of citizenship change the mind of the kind of person who isn't inclined to do these things? What are these letters to the editor writers experiencing that they think it's so important greater emphasis be put on these things in their specific capacity as responsibilities of citizenship?

Although, I do see a lot of potential for fun to be had incorporating these factors in their specific capacity as responsibilities of citizenship when emailing our elected representatives...

Things They Should Invent: sexy nighties with built-in support

Picture a long, sleek, sexy nightgown. A bit shiny, spaghetti straps, the kind of thing that could almost-kinda-sorta look like a simple formal dress. The kind of thing you might wear for seduction, but also might wear to bed at home just for yourself, to feel sexy and feminine. Nice, eh?

The problem is, if you're well-endowed, it just doesn't work as well. You're walking around with your arms folded under your breasts so you don't flop around, and they ooze unattractively out your armpit holes when you lie down. That just isn't sexy at all.

The solution? A bit of support. Nothing hardcore - no underwires or anything - but maybe a few elastics or something just to keep the girls from straying outside their designated territory, like you might have in a bathing suit. I've seen bras installed in babydoll-type nighties that clearly are not intended for sleep at all, why not also do it for things that a person might ostensibly sleep in?

Things They Should Study: do dynamic opinions ever change direction?

There are many many things in life I don't know everything about. So in circumstances where I don't know everything but I still need to have an opinion, I tend to pay attention to my dynamic opinions. The more I learn about X, the more I think Y. For example, the more I learn about WWI, the more I think it wasn't a worthwhile war. The more I learn about real estate, the more I think it shouldn't be treated as an investment. The more money I make and the more taxes I pay, the more I feel it's essential to use our taxes to strengthen our social safety net.

What I'm wondering: are dynamic opinions reliable in the long term, or do people's dynamic opinions ever reverse directions? If so, under what circumstances? Are there specific triggers?

Slices of life

1. Last time I went to the library, I found a teensy, adorable, baby blue mitten on the ground, probably thrown by some baby in a stroller playing the "What happens when I throw things out of the stroller?" game. It was so tiny and cute I just had to pick it up off the ground and carefully place it on a nearby newspaper box. Today I went to the library again, and the mitten was still there on the newspaper box. That made me feel about three conflicting and irrational emotions at once.

2. I was at Shopper's trying to decide whether I want my eyelashes to be 70% curlier or 10x more voluminous. Meanwhile, the guy browsing the shelves next to me is doing the "Avoid eye contact so the other person doesn't notice you" thing. Which was odd, because he wasn't someone I knew at all even in passing, he was just some random stranger. Meh, whatever. I went with 10x more voluminous and continued my shopping. It wasn't until I had finished my shopping, waited in line, paid for my purchases, and was leaving the store that it occurred to me that perhaps the reason he was shy and/or trying to avoid being notice was because he was a man shopping for cosmetics.

Code or divorce law?

I was watching Some Like It Hot, and the guy who manages to get engaged to the millionaire says that his plan is not to tell the millionaire he's really a man until "Like right after the ceremony. Then we get a quick annulment, he makes a nice little settlement on me and I keep getting those alimony checks every month."

Could you get alimony from an annulled marriage in the 1950s? Or were they not allowed to say "divorce" in the movies?

Or was it just a flawed plan to start with?

Currently on repeat

Things They Should Invent: commission disclosure

All business should be required to post prominently, both on their website and in their stores, whether their employees get paid commission. That way we as consumers could make informed decisions.

This comes to mind as I go through the dance of buying new glasses. I've been feeling uninspired by the offerings available, and have been considering going into an optician and asking them "If you could put me in any frames, which ones would they be?" I wouldn't necessarily buy those automatically, but perhaps they might be able to match me up with something more suitable that I would have overlooked. But if they're on commission, I can't trust them to give me pure fashion advice, because they might also be trying to upsell me.

On the other hand, I always do the fashion aspect of my glasses shopping without my prescription in hand. That way, no one can possibly pressure me into buying anything and I am forced to revist my decision another day to see if I still like them. So the person who helps me with all the trying on isn't necessarily going to be the person who finalizes the sale. I'd very much like to know if they're on commission, so I can make sure the person who did all the work gets the commission.

New Rules

1. Parents are allowed to be overprotective on one condition: their kids get to choose what they want to be overprotected from. The parents can decide how many things they need to be overprotective about. For example, a parent might feel the need to be overprotective about six things. Then their kid will give them a list of six things they want to be overprotected from.

2. If you're trying to advertise something or get people to donate to charity or otherwise try to get people to do different things with their money, you have to work under the assumption that they're already being mindful about how they're using their money. "You could have X for the price of a cup of coffee a day!" But aren't you, personally, buying coffee when you need coffee and not buying coffee when you don't need coffee? Give others the respect of making the same assumption about them.

3. Many people and/or philosophies feel the need to encourage people to appreciate and/or be thankful for the simple things in life and/or the important things in life. That's fine, but you have to let them choose which simple/important things they want to appreciate/be thankful for rather than dictating it to them.

I wonder if people will one day learn to read non-predicted text

I wanted to add my optometrist's office's phone number to my cell phone. I typed in the number, then for the contact name I typed "optometrist". Unfortunately, the contact name field doesn't have predictive text, so what came out was "mptndtpgpt".

We all see predictive text typoes every once in a while, in text messages and on twitter. For example, "me" and "of" are spelled with the same keys, and we've seen them get confused with each other often enough that we can generally tell what was intended. I wonder if one day we'll become familiar enough with them that someone will be able to look at "mptndtpgpt" and see that it was obviously meant to say "optometrist"?

Things They Should Invent: load content before environment

Especially when using a slow computer or network, I often find myself staring at the header of a website while waiting for the actual content to load. The browser is processing the header and the sidebar and the widgets and the archives and the ads, and I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want to see the content.

So what we need is a new web standard: load content first. This would mean that the space in the template for content would be at the top of the template document, and would then be followed by the headers and sidebar and any in-body style sheets and widgets whatever other detritus is on the page. The result would be that if the page is loading slowly, we'd first see the content in the default font without the surrounding environment, and then the environment would appear as the page loads. Stuff might shift around as the page loads, but at least you could start reading the article right away instead of having to stare at the header while you wait for stuff to load.

Why is it normal for kids to pick out their parents' nursing home?

I don't know a whole lot about nursing homes, but I could learn if I have to. My parents (who are in their 50s) probably don't know much more than I do about nursing homes unless they've been doing some research lately, but they could also learn if they have to. We all have access to the same information and the same resources. If a nursing home decision had to be made right this exact minute, I am no better equipped than my parents to make this decision.

So why would I suddenly be better equipped 30 years from now? Yes, I'll probably learn more stuff from living in the world. But so will they - they live in the world too. Yes, I know some people get dementia or similar, but it's practically expected that the adult children are making their parent's care decisions instead of the parent making their own decisions. Why aren't the elders making these decisions for themselves?

This happens in other areas too. People manage their parents' money. Why? Weren't the parents managing their money before their kids were even born? Why would you lose that ability? Scammers prey on seniors. Why are seniors more susceptible to scams? Shouldn't they be even more familiar with potential scams since they've been around longer?

Hustle and bustle

I've often heard people say that they choose to live in cities because they enjoy all the hustle and bustle, being in the middle of everything. I find that odd, because to me it's irrelevant. I chose to live here because of convenience - everything is right there! It seemed odd to me that such a major life decision would be based on how many extras are walking through the frame of the movie of your life.

But then I saw this picture of Amsterdam taken by Alfie Hitchcock, the photographer on Eddie Izzard's tour (which should totally add a Toronto date to the itinerary, btw) and thought how it's rather amazing that there are real people, living real lives, in a place that looks like that. The next day, on my way to work, I tried to imagine what my corner of the world would look like to someone from another country. Walking down the street, I wasn't quite able to see it from foreign eyes, but I noticed what kept attracting my attention was all the stuff that was happening. The crane building the new condos was lifting a big heavy load. There was a truck delivering beer, a truck delivering shoes, and a truck delivering kitchen utensils. The mailman was delivering mail. People were rushing out of coffee shops with take-out cups of coffee. As I tried to view my life through foreign eyes, what was attracting my attention was all the hustle and bustle. But why?

***

When I was 10 years old, our family went on a vacation to England, the first week of which was spent in London. We flew into Gatwick airport and took a train into the city proper. I was really surprised by what I saw out the windows of the train - some of it was dirty, some of it was ugly, some of it was shabby. This was not what I expected. (Especially since I wasn't aware at the time that trains usually see the backs of things, not the front face that they present to the world). I'd always thought of Europe as the pictures I'd seen in storybooks, which didn't include peeling paint and pollution.

The flat we were staying in was a bit of shock too. The building was old (by my North American standards) - so old that it had originally been built without plumbing, and a toilet and a shower had been haphazardly installed in two separate closets later - literally water closets! But what was even more surprising was that when you looked out the back window, you saw roofs and chimneys of other buildings. They were old too, and kind of grungy, like the roofs in Mary Poppins. We could see other people's back windows from our back windows!

The other thing that was a bit of a shock, and I don't know if this is cultural or just because I was sheltered at home, was hints of human sexuality in media. In the Tube stations there were movie posters featuring a nude woman covered by a sheet. The sheet covered everything that needed to be covered, but it was apparent from the arrangement that she was nude underneath - no possibility for her to be wearing underwear or anything. I also clearly remember a cover of a women's magazine with a reference to "making love" and a man with his hands on a woman's (clothed) buttocks, which caused me to spend some time trying to figure out where a man touching your bum comes into the process of a penis going into a vagina. Magazine racks included magazines with pictures of topless women on the cover. TV sitcoms included sexual innuendo. This was an adult world, and I had literally never seen anything like it in my life.

This was a scary place, this London. It was quite clearly intended for adults, and it quite clearly had history far beyond anything I could possibly imagine. I wasn't used to this. I grew up in a house that my parents bought brand new when they were pregnant with me, and many of my friends lived in similar houses in a neighbourhood that was all built at the same time - a whole neighbourhood intended for child-rearing. Our house backed onto a ravine, so I wasn't used to being able to see into other people's space. My world consisted of a few winding streets on the 15 minute walk to my elementary school, with nothing more complex than a little park with swings and climbers, and a Becker's where we could buy candy. The rest of the world I saw through the window of a car. We'd go to my grandparents' houses and they were smaller and older, but that made sense because my grandparents were smaller and older. Sometimes I'd go on errands and stuff with my parents, we'd go places in cities, we'd go to tourist things, but these were just sets for different scenes in the movie that was my life. Just like in the books I read, I was clearly the protagonist, the different places I went were just sets, and the space in between viewed through the car window was nothing more than pictures to entertain me on the ride.

In London, I was quite obviously not the protagonist. This was an adult world, and there was no effort to hide that from the children. Because school was still in session when we were there, we would often be the only children in sight, and as a result I felt constantly out of place. It also had history. People had been there before, and they were relevant. I saw pictures from the 1940s of Tube stations - actual, real-life Tube stations that I had been in, in real life, just moments earlier - filled with people in suits and skirts hiding from WWII air raids. I saw pictures of Victoria Station, which I had actually been in, from the 19th century, filled with long skirts and top hats. All kinds of people had been there, most of them adults, doing important and historical things. They had left their dust and their fingerprints and their antiquated attempts to install toilets. I, 10 years old, in a sweatshirt and running shoes, was irrelevant to this world of grownups in suits and/or mohawks, walking in the footsteps of generations before them, through streets that had been bombed by nazis and shat on by horses and built by kings. I wasn't the protagonist. I wasn't even an extra. I was just some random kid who had accidentally wandered onto the set. I didn't belong there at all. It was terrifying.

But after a couple of days in London, I had a revelation: I knew how to use the Tube. I had been on public transit before, but I had always simply been following my parents, who knew where they were going. In London, I watched them figure it out, and saw that it was actually quite simple. I could totally use it independently! (Wasn't allowed to, being only 10, but I unquestionably had the ability.) Once we went to some town or something on the outskirts of London, a trip which involved a couple of different tube lines and one or two trains. Looking at the map, I could totally figure out how to get there myself. I had the ability to go to another town! Unilaterally! This was a super power! I spent hours looking at the gorgeous and complicated London Underground map figuring out how to get places. This world was terrifyingly big and old and adult, but I could navigate it! I had the ability to be a perfectly competent part of this big scary adult world just like all those grownups on the train! I had literally never before in my life felt adult competence, and I was feeling it not at home where I was the protagonist, but in this big, old, adult place where I clearly didn't belong. It had never before even occurred to me that I might ever one day - not even in the distant and adult future - experience such competence and empowerment. But the moment I realized I could navigate the London Underground, it occurred to me for literally the first time in my life that I might one day be able to fit into, or at least move undetected through, a world that is so much bigger and grander than me.

I've had an affection for trains ever since, and to this day, after nearly 10 years living in Toronto, I still feel a little bit cool when I take the subway.

***

So back to Toronto in 2009. I'm quite clearly not the protagonist here. I'm nothing more than an unnamed extra, and I'm quite content in that role. But as I walk down the street, watching all the hustle and bustle, I can see that it all relates to me. Those condos the crane is building? The people who live there will be my neighbours - at the very least I'll be able to recognize their dogs. Those trucks delivering stuff? I totally shop at those businesses. It's very likely that I'll drink that beer, buy those kitchen utensils, or try on those shoes. That mailman? He knocked on my door one hot, sunny, summer Saturday and handed me the Harry Potter book I was eagerly awaiting. That coffee shop? I once sat in there for an hour, waiting out a freak thunderstorm in which my shoes got wrecked and my foot injured. For the price of a cup of coffee they let me use whatever resources they could scrounge together to dry myself off, repair my shoes, and give first aid to my injured foot so I could get home.

I'm part of it! Not a big part, not an important part, but have my little niche and fit into it nicely, despite the fact that this world is so much bigger than me.

Kitten!

(as always, via Malene Arpe)

I think I've had too much "enrichment"

From this weekend's Globe and Mail:

Bob is in a bar, looking at Susan. But she is looking at Pablo. Bob is married. Pablo is not.

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? The answer could be (a) yes, (b) no or (c) cannot be determined.

Give this problem a shot before you keep reading, but don't feel badly if you get it wrong.

Roughly 80 per cent of people choose (c), but it is not the correct answer, says Keith Stanovich, a professor of human development and applied psychology at the University of Toronto.

[...]

If Susan is married, then a married person is looking at an unmarried person (Pablo) . If she is single, then Bob, a married guy, is looking at an unwed woman. Either way, the answer to the question is yes: A married person is looking at an unmarried one.

I did get it wrong, but not for the reasons the article proposes. I got it wrong because I have never in my life been asked a logic problem of this style in which I have had to apply real-world information (in this case, the fact that Susan must necessarily be either married or unmarried) to the elements of the problem.

Many IQ test questions and many of the questions in the enrichment activities I had to do in elementary school in my capacity as a "gifted" student are structured like this, but the nature of the elements is irrelevant. For example: "All shirts are green. My dog is green. Therefore, my dog is a shirt: true or false?" The fact that my dog is clearly not a shirt is irrelevant; they're testing my ability to logic out the fact that just because all Xs are Y, something that is Y isn't necessarily an X. Another possibility would be "All shirts are green. My dog is a shirt. Therefore, my dog is green: true or false?" The answer there would be "true", despite the fact that in reality my dog is clearly not a shirt.

Based on the structure of the Bob/Susan/Pablo question, I was expecting a dog/shirt type question. It never even occurred to me that I might be expected to take human reality into account, because I have never before been expected to take human reality into account when answering this kind of question.

(Interestingly, all the enrichment activities etc. led me to know exactly what to expect in the little quiz at the end of that article. I didn't even have to think about it - I rattled off the answers like you'd rattle off your times tables.)

Things They Should Invent: a freecycle in every apartment building

There are 200ish apartments in the typical highrise building. It's quite possible that's enough households for a viable freecycle. All buildings should have this. If you have something that's perfectly useful but you just don't need it, you can put it in a central location. And if you need something and wouldn't mind getting it used, you can look in this central location. It would be more convenient than conventional freecycling because you wouldn't have to find a specific taker or arrange a time and place to transfer the item, you could just drop it off in the central location. Perhaps after things have been in the freecycle for a certain amount of time without any takers, property management could donate them to some charity or arrange for a freecycle with a wider audience. (Perhaps this could be part of Environment Days?)

As I've blogged about before, things that are technically useful but their owner has no use for them tend to end up in the landfill. And I believe under current regulations (at least in Toronto) property owners are financially responsible for the amount of garbage produced by their building. It would be very much to their advantage to make this possible.

The weird thing about Casablanca

I'm watching Casablanca on TV. It's a well-known piece of trivia that when they started filming they didn't yet know how the movie would end. I just realized that, because the move was released in 1942, they also didn't know how WWII would end!

That was something that really struck me as I was reading Suite Française - the author didn't know, and never would know, how WWII ended. But when they made Casablanca they didn't know either. And there's probably some other books or movies written during WWII and set in WWII where they didn't know how the war would end. That is so weird!

Programming note

My flu shot is making my arm achy, so after a full day of typing at a computer (i.e. work) I'm not really up to more typing at a computer (i.e. blogging). Back in a couple of days hopefully.

The Toronto Public Health flu clinic was excellently organized, by the way. There wasn't even any wait yesterday. Props to them for their ability to quickly adapt!

Things Microsoft Word Should Invent: treat text boxes like part of the document

When text boxes are used in the documents I translate, it's always purely for layout purposes. The author just wants these words to be grouped off over here. The problem is that Word doesn't treat them like part of the document. When I Select All (to change language, to restore any formatting that has been altered by copy-pasting or translation memory) and when I search and replace (to save time, to ensure phraseological consistency, to fix any suboptimal translations I made early in the text for which better translations occurred to me later on), it doesn't include the text boxes in the process. This wastes my time and increases the likelihood of human error. I really would like Select All to mean All, including text boxes.

I don't know if there are actually legitimate uses for text boxes where the user would specifically want them to be treated as though they weren't part of the document as a whole, but I've never seen one in the wide variety of texts my clients produce, in two years doing tech support, or in all my years in school. If people do need text boxes to be treated separately, they should at least have a "Select All including text boxes and everything, really" option.

Friday various

1. They spent several months doing construction on my section of Yonge St., with the normally four-lane street reduced to two lanes during that time. The two-lane street was obviously less convenient for drivers, but it made jaywalking much easier. Now the street is back to four lanes, and jaywalking is still easy! I'd say a good 75% of the time there's a clear jaywalk opening within sight when I arrive at the curb, and 95% of the time I can find an opening before I hit a crosswalk. (Previously, I'd have to wait for an opening nearly every time.)

2. It seems they're selling Kindle in Canada but without a browser. I didn't know Kindle had a browser, but I would totally get one if it did! The main reason why I don't have an iphone or a blackberry is that I can't justify the price of a data plan. But apparently with Kindle there's no monthly data charges?? I am not in the market at all for an ebook reader in and of itself, but I'd totally pay $260 upfront for free web access on a device I can carry in my purse!

3. Speaking of books, I sometimes see people describe intellectual vacuity in others by saying they have no books in their house. I have very few books in my home, but I read constantly. It's just that I read from the library. My holds list is constantly maxed out, with an overflow list on my computer. But on my bookshelves there's nothing but my dictionary collection, a few stray university textbooks, Harry Potter, and whatever rereadable favourites I've found in the dollar bin at BMV. I wonder how many people actually buy everything they want to read? I'd go broke doing that.

4. I've heard a number of times of people sending their kids to private school so they won't get bullied. Why do they think there aren't bullies in private schools? Have they never met a rich kid? I have, and a representative proportion of them are bullies. I've also heard of people joining the military because they were bullied and didn't want to be bullied any more. Have they never seen a boot camp movie?

5. Sometimes you see in newspapers advice for parents whose kids are being bullied. (But there's never advice for the actual kid who's being bullied.) There's always something along the lines of "talk to your kid and help them make a plan". As though you and your kid together can make a plan to stop bullying. I don't know how to stop bullying! My parents didn't know how to stop bullying! (And if I did anything my parents advised me to, my bullies would say "Did your mommy tell you to do that?") Why do they think we could work out a viable plan? (Also, why do people have kids if they don't know what to do to stop a kid from being bullied?)

6. I had an order on Amazon set for Super Saver Shipping, to ship when everything is ready. Some of the items hadn't been released yet, so it was on hold for a bit. I decided to see how much it would cost to ship it as items became available, so I logged in, changed the shipping settings, saw the total cost was more than I cared to pay, and changed the settings back. In the time it took me to do that, one of the items changed to "ready to be shipped" status. I just checked the time stamps on the notification emails, and I had the settings changed for no more than two minutes. In this two minute window, they managed to ship me one of the items and charged me $2 for the privilege. But, on a positive note, I now have the new Eddie Izzard DVD in hand. (And therefore might be a bit quiet for a while.)

7. Conspiracy theory: employer medical plans are designed to keep you healthy while you're working, but avoid enabling you to live too too long once you're retired and collecting a pension. I have no basis for this except that isn't that what you'd do if you were a big evil corporation?

8. An informal tool we frequently use in translation is what we call a Google Vote. If you're trying to figure out which term is more commonly used or which phrase sounds more idiomatic, you google the possible choices and go with the one that has the most google hits. GoogleGoogleGoogleGoogle will simplify that immensely.


9. A baby otter playing with toys (via Malene Arpe):



10. The future feels longer and more full of potential now than it did when I was a kid. I look at how much I've learned in six years of doing translation, and I look ahead and see another 30-40 years of work ahead of me (or twice that if retirement ceases to exist) - the potential is mind-boggling! Or I look at the things I've been able to do since I started working on Entitlement, which are unremarkable in and of themselves, but if you multiply it by my remaining lifespan it's astounding!