There are formulas for housing affordability. You shouldn't be spending more than 1/3 of your income on rent (and there's a proportion for mortgage payments, but I forget what it is). So it's easy to extrapolate from these numbers and determine for what percentage of the population housing is affordable, or whether a given household can afford a reasonable proportion of the available housing, etc.
It would be interesting to come up with similar calculations for, like, everything. Determine what percentage of one's income should be spent on a particular product or service, and then compare that with income data. Based on income data, is cable reasonably priced? Are beauty products? Is furniture? Rink time? Nonstandard-sized bras? Movie rentals?
Then they can work out all kinds of interesting things from this. Are feminine hygiene products affordable to households receiving welfare? What percentage of police officers can afford a family vacation to Disney World? To what percentage of the population is organic food unaffordable but nonorganic food affordable?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Things They Should Invent: "Yes, and…" debates
In improv, you're not supposed to shoot down someone else's idea. You're supposed to go along with it and build upon it.
This idea should be introduced into political legislatures. You can't shoot down ideas or diss people. You can only talk if you have something new and productive to add, to build on existing ideas.
It wouldn't work all the time - and we do need some time to shoot down generally harmful ideas - but there should be designated "yes, and" periods so we can actually get some work done once in a while.
This idea should be introduced into political legislatures. You can't shoot down ideas or diss people. You can only talk if you have something new and productive to add, to build on existing ideas.
It wouldn't work all the time - and we do need some time to shoot down generally harmful ideas - but there should be designated "yes, and" periods so we can actually get some work done once in a while.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sometimes I hate introvert brain
One effect of my highly introverted brain structure is that thoughts and ideas don't always come to me in words. They come to me in abstract, intangible concepts, which then need to be consciously and mindfully put in les mots justes before I can express them. This is why sometimes in conversation I just sit there saying nothing. This is why I sometimes just freeze up in my other languages - when the concept isn't coming out in perfect words, it isn't coming out at all. (Hoshi Sato demonstrates this phenomenon here.) It's actually an advantage in translation, because I'm less likely to become married to the idea that a certain word is a certain concept, so my translations are more idiomatic and I don't fall for calques or faux amis as often. But sometimes it's a disadvantage in real life, because people tend to evaluate you based on the words on the tip of your tongue.
Today this is annoying me especially, because I just read this article, and there's something he's missing. It's a nuance. I'm certain it's present IRL, but the USian author of that article can't see it from where he's sitting. I know it's there. I can feel it in my brain. I could point you to the precise part of my brain where I can feel it. But it isn't coming to me in words.
It's like I'm a fish who has lived in salt water my whole life and has never been in fresh water, talking to a fish who has lived in fresh water his whole life and has never been in salt water (it's amazing what modern telecommunications technology can do!), trying to explain to this freshwater fish what it feels like when ocean salinity levels change. I know there is something he isn't groking, but I can't articulate it because it's both a subtle nuance and an inherent part of my cultural environment.
And, current events being what they are, by the time it comes to me in words, it will be irrelevant.
Today this is annoying me especially, because I just read this article, and there's something he's missing. It's a nuance. I'm certain it's present IRL, but the USian author of that article can't see it from where he's sitting. I know it's there. I can feel it in my brain. I could point you to the precise part of my brain where I can feel it. But it isn't coming to me in words.
It's like I'm a fish who has lived in salt water my whole life and has never been in fresh water, talking to a fish who has lived in fresh water his whole life and has never been in salt water (it's amazing what modern telecommunications technology can do!), trying to explain to this freshwater fish what it feels like when ocean salinity levels change. I know there is something he isn't groking, but I can't articulate it because it's both a subtle nuance and an inherent part of my cultural environment.
And, current events being what they are, by the time it comes to me in words, it will be irrelevant.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
If you only read one of my Eddie Izzard posts, read this one
I know I've exceeded my quota of posts about Eddie Izzard, I just really need to draw everyone's attention to this and then I'll stop fangirling get back to posting like a normal human being.
Remember how last summer Eddie was being a complete and total looney by running around the circumference of Great Britain to raise money for charity?
Well, it turns out he raised over 1.1. million pounds! That's British Pounds, which is, like, way more than dollars.
Beyond total awe and respect. I don't have the words.
Update: direct from Eddie's twitter feed we're now over 1.6 million pounds!!! I'm extra happy about that, because it's greater than Eddie's number of twitter followers!
Remember how last summer Eddie was being a complete and total looney by running around the circumference of Great Britain to raise money for charity?
Well, it turns out he raised over 1.1. million pounds! That's British Pounds, which is, like, way more than dollars.
Beyond total awe and respect. I don't have the words.
Update: direct from Eddie's twitter feed we're now over 1.6 million pounds!!! I'm extra happy about that, because it's greater than Eddie's number of twitter followers!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fact: the majority of Canadians support birth control
The most surprising thing about the (now refuted) Conservative decision to exclude contraception from maternal health initiative for developing countries is that a sizable, if not vast, majority of Canadians supports the use of birth control.
This is not social commentary, this is a fact. It is based on statistics and logical extrapolations from statistics.
Look at the chart at the bottom of this article (the article itself is irrelevant). There are 11 million prescriptions for contraceptives issued in Canada every year out of our population of 33 million.
Unless there have been recent innovations of which I'm unaware (and if there have, please do let me know in the comments), the contraceptives for which a prescription is required are only used by women, i.e. on or in the woman's body. Most often, when contraceptives are being used, there is at least one man and at least one woman involved in the relationship. So if we use a really extremely cautiously low estimate that half of the women using contraceptives have a male partner who actively supports their contraceptive use (and I do think the number must in reality be much higher - if it were only 50% our society would be far more dysfunctional), that would mean that half of all Canadians are actively involved in and supportive of family planning using prescription contraceptives. If every single one of the prescription-contraceptive-using women has a partner who actively supports her contraception use, this number increases to two-thirds of all Canadians.
On top of this one-half to two-thirds of Canadians, there are a number of other demographics of which at least some people support the use of birth control. (Because we're starting at 50% as a baseline, the numerical value of "some" isn't especially important.) The largest of these demographics will be people who are now too old to conceive. This is a large demographic because it includes the baby boomers - people like my parents who came of age during the sexual revolution and with the advent of the Pill. It's safe to say a large majority of this demographic used birth control during their fertile years, or the sexual revolution wouldn't have played out the way it did.
Other groups who support birth control but wouldn't show up in these statistics include:
- People who use non-prescription contraception. This includes condoms (male and female), spermicide, IUDs, and diaphragms.
- People who do use contraception to plan their families, but are currently in the having babies portion of family planning and therefore aren't using any contraception at the moment.
- People who did use contraception to plan their families, but got sterilized after their families were complete.
- People who do use contraception when they're in a sexual relationship, but are currently not in a sexual relationship.
- People who engage only in same-sex relationships, but have no objection to other people they have nothing to do with managing their private lives as they see fit. (This is likely to be a very high percentage of people who engage only in same-sex relationships; the fact that same-sex relationships have for so long be persecuted by outsiders who have nothing to do with them, this demographic is more likely not want to go around persecuting others for their personal choices).
- People who are infertile, but have no objection to others planning their families as they see fit.
- People who don't engage in family planning themselves, but have no objection to others doing so.
All the demographics that I have listed above consist only of adults. However, the 33 million baseline I used for the population of Canada is our entire population, including children. Children under the age of, say, 10 should be subtracted from this baseline, because they probably wouldn't even know about the concept of contraception.
So based on these numbers, I'm really surprised they thought it politically viable even for a minute to exclude contraception from maternal health. There is no way to make the numbers conclude anything but that the majority of Canadians support it.
This is not social commentary, this is a fact. It is based on statistics and logical extrapolations from statistics.
Look at the chart at the bottom of this article (the article itself is irrelevant). There are 11 million prescriptions for contraceptives issued in Canada every year out of our population of 33 million.
Unless there have been recent innovations of which I'm unaware (and if there have, please do let me know in the comments), the contraceptives for which a prescription is required are only used by women, i.e. on or in the woman's body. Most often, when contraceptives are being used, there is at least one man and at least one woman involved in the relationship. So if we use a really extremely cautiously low estimate that half of the women using contraceptives have a male partner who actively supports their contraceptive use (and I do think the number must in reality be much higher - if it were only 50% our society would be far more dysfunctional), that would mean that half of all Canadians are actively involved in and supportive of family planning using prescription contraceptives. If every single one of the prescription-contraceptive-using women has a partner who actively supports her contraception use, this number increases to two-thirds of all Canadians.
On top of this one-half to two-thirds of Canadians, there are a number of other demographics of which at least some people support the use of birth control. (Because we're starting at 50% as a baseline, the numerical value of "some" isn't especially important.) The largest of these demographics will be people who are now too old to conceive. This is a large demographic because it includes the baby boomers - people like my parents who came of age during the sexual revolution and with the advent of the Pill. It's safe to say a large majority of this demographic used birth control during their fertile years, or the sexual revolution wouldn't have played out the way it did.
Other groups who support birth control but wouldn't show up in these statistics include:
- People who use non-prescription contraception. This includes condoms (male and female), spermicide, IUDs, and diaphragms.
- People who do use contraception to plan their families, but are currently in the having babies portion of family planning and therefore aren't using any contraception at the moment.
- People who did use contraception to plan their families, but got sterilized after their families were complete.
- People who do use contraception when they're in a sexual relationship, but are currently not in a sexual relationship.
- People who engage only in same-sex relationships, but have no objection to other people they have nothing to do with managing their private lives as they see fit. (This is likely to be a very high percentage of people who engage only in same-sex relationships; the fact that same-sex relationships have for so long be persecuted by outsiders who have nothing to do with them, this demographic is more likely not want to go around persecuting others for their personal choices).
- People who are infertile, but have no objection to others planning their families as they see fit.
- People who don't engage in family planning themselves, but have no objection to others doing so.
All the demographics that I have listed above consist only of adults. However, the 33 million baseline I used for the population of Canada is our entire population, including children. Children under the age of, say, 10 should be subtracted from this baseline, because they probably wouldn't even know about the concept of contraception.
So based on these numbers, I'm really surprised they thought it politically viable even for a minute to exclude contraception from maternal health. There is no way to make the numbers conclude anything but that the majority of Canadians support it.
Friday, March 19, 2010
This is harder than I thought
The loss of this little dog, who isn't even mine, is really kicking my ass. I've been trying to figure out why (I've known dogs who have died before, I've known people who have died too) and I think it's because a) it was unexpected, b) this is the first bereavement I've had as an adult, and c) I don't actually have any claim to this dog.
My previous bereavement was nearly 10 years ago (which is a hella long time to go without bereavement!), when my grandfather passed away. (I know some people aren't going to like that I'm comparing a dog and a grandfather, but this is the emotional frame of reference I have available.) He spent the better part of a year dying, so by the time it actually happened we were ready. We'd grieved months ago. In comparison, it only took a day or two for the little dog to start acting not entirely well, go to the vet, get diagnosed, and get put down. Even though he was nearly 15, I wasn't expecting this.
When my grandfather passed away, I was still a teenager and had only just moved out of my parents' house. While intellectually I felt like I should be fulfilling an adult role, functionally I wasn't yet expected to. It was okay to just go hide in my room for a while. If I did anything to help out, the grownups saw that as a bonus. But here I can't go hide in my room and leave the condolences and the business of everyday life to the grownups. I have to hold my own, pull my weight on my team at work, plus keep food in the fridge and get my taxes done, and on top of all this do right by the dog's human.
And that's the other problem. He's not my dog, he's someone else's dog. When my grandfather died, he was my grandfather. Yes, he a husband and a father to other members of my family, but our grandparent-grandchild relationship was perfectly valid, so I was perfectly entitled to grieve however I needed to. But this little dog is not mine, so the grief belongs to his human. I have to be supportive of his human. I can't give the impression that I think the decision to have him put down was incorrect (and intellectually I don't think it was incorrect - intellectually I know we're bearing the pain so this poor little doggie doesn't have to - but emotionally I'm still sobbing "But he's just a little dog! He barked and wagged and ran and played and never hurt anyone!"). You can skip out on obligations because your grandfather just died, but you can't skip out on obligations because a dog you've never even lived with just died.
So it's not just the grief, it's that I don't feel like I'm allowed to have this grief, and that I'm supposed to be strong for the person who is allowed to have this grief.
My previous bereavement was nearly 10 years ago (which is a hella long time to go without bereavement!), when my grandfather passed away. (I know some people aren't going to like that I'm comparing a dog and a grandfather, but this is the emotional frame of reference I have available.) He spent the better part of a year dying, so by the time it actually happened we were ready. We'd grieved months ago. In comparison, it only took a day or two for the little dog to start acting not entirely well, go to the vet, get diagnosed, and get put down. Even though he was nearly 15, I wasn't expecting this.
When my grandfather passed away, I was still a teenager and had only just moved out of my parents' house. While intellectually I felt like I should be fulfilling an adult role, functionally I wasn't yet expected to. It was okay to just go hide in my room for a while. If I did anything to help out, the grownups saw that as a bonus. But here I can't go hide in my room and leave the condolences and the business of everyday life to the grownups. I have to hold my own, pull my weight on my team at work, plus keep food in the fridge and get my taxes done, and on top of all this do right by the dog's human.
And that's the other problem. He's not my dog, he's someone else's dog. When my grandfather died, he was my grandfather. Yes, he a husband and a father to other members of my family, but our grandparent-grandchild relationship was perfectly valid, so I was perfectly entitled to grieve however I needed to. But this little dog is not mine, so the grief belongs to his human. I have to be supportive of his human. I can't give the impression that I think the decision to have him put down was incorrect (and intellectually I don't think it was incorrect - intellectually I know we're bearing the pain so this poor little doggie doesn't have to - but emotionally I'm still sobbing "But he's just a little dog! He barked and wagged and ran and played and never hurt anyone!"). You can skip out on obligations because your grandfather just died, but you can't skip out on obligations because a dog you've never even lived with just died.
So it's not just the grief, it's that I don't feel like I'm allowed to have this grief, and that I'm supposed to be strong for the person who is allowed to have this grief.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
:(
I just found out that one of the dogs in my life passed away. He was a tiny little bundle of energy who was just so excited and thrilled about everything and anything. The first time I met him (nearly 15 years ago) he tried to eat the buttons off my clothes. The last time I saw him (a few months ago) he licked my face so excitedly his tongue went up my nose.
I was never by any remote definition his human, I have no claim to him, technically I'm not the one bereaved.
But I'm still grieving. I can't help it.
(PS: if anyone posts rainbow bridge, I'll kick their ass)
I was never by any remote definition his human, I have no claim to him, technically I'm not the one bereaved.
But I'm still grieving. I can't help it.
(PS: if anyone posts rainbow bridge, I'll kick their ass)
Monday, March 15, 2010
Now that I've got my tickets, I'll generously share all the intelligence I have at my disposal
Eddie Izzard!
Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver (and apparently Victoria too?) edited to add: and Regina, Montreal and Ottawa.
Presale code is BEES. Go!
Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver (and apparently Victoria too?) edited to add: and Regina, Montreal and Ottawa.
Presale code is BEES. Go!
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Things They Should Invent: hair removal methods that change the colour of regrown hair
As we all know, methods that remove hair from the root may reduce hair regrowth, but results may vary. However, as we also know, existing hair removal methods can only remove hairs that are currently sticking out of the skin. Hairs that are dormant are not removed. So you go through your favourite hair removal method, and then a few days later there are hairs growing back in that area. Are they the same hairs regrowing, or are they previously dormant hairs waking up? We have no way of knowing, so it's hard to tell how well the hair removal method is actually working.
What I want is a system that causes any hair that was once removed to absolutely, infallibly grow back looking noticeably different. For example, where my body hair is black, the regrown hair would all be blonde. Then I could tell if it's actually working.
What I want is a system that causes any hair that was once removed to absolutely, infallibly grow back looking noticeably different. For example, where my body hair is black, the regrown hair would all be blonde. Then I could tell if it's actually working.
More information please: how does severance pay work in the private sector?
There was a story in the news a few days ago where, with the changeover to HST, some tax jobs are changing from provincial to federal and the people who hold those jobs are getting severance pay even though they're going directly to work for federal. This is being presented in the media as an outrage.
This leaves me with one question to which I don't know the answer: what would happen in a similar situation in a private sector? I've never been in a situation in which severance pay is involved, but it seems to me just based on logic that you'd still get severance pay. You lose your job because your employer no longer provides your particular service. So you either apply to or are recruited by the people who now do provide that service. That's a sensible way to go about job search/staffing. But severance pay is not a function of how sensible or successful the laid off employees' job search is, it's a function of the nature of the lay-off, no?
So, in the private sector, when there are layoffs with flawless outplacement, do the laid off workers still get severance?
This leaves me with one question to which I don't know the answer: what would happen in a similar situation in a private sector? I've never been in a situation in which severance pay is involved, but it seems to me just based on logic that you'd still get severance pay. You lose your job because your employer no longer provides your particular service. So you either apply to or are recruited by the people who now do provide that service. That's a sensible way to go about job search/staffing. But severance pay is not a function of how sensible or successful the laid off employees' job search is, it's a function of the nature of the lay-off, no?
So, in the private sector, when there are layoffs with flawless outplacement, do the laid off workers still get severance?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Two perspectives on O Canada
As a Translator
One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.
Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.
O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.
However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".
Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.
As a Conspiracy Theorist
When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.
This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.
When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.
One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.
Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.
O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.
However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".
Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.
As a Conspiracy Theorist
When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.
This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.
When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.
Standards: I do not think it means what you think it means
A book came out recently with the thesis that people should lower their romantic standards, even going to far as to suggest that people should marry someone who doesn't meet their standards.
Based on what I've seen in reviews, the book makes a good argument. The examples given of too-high standards look foolish, making those of us whose standards aren't anywhere near that foolish feel smug and good about ourselves, and making it tempting to buy the book as a gift for people who you think are handling their private lives foolishly. I'm sure it will sell very well.
But I find myself wondering whether it really is ultimately helpful to ask people to ignore their standards. Standards tend to be there for a reason; that's why they're standards. Think about your own standards. Aren't they there for a reason? Even if they're foolish?
As an example, we'll take the most foolish of my own standards: I find facial hair repulsive. Yes, this sentiment is foolish, shallow, petty, and hypocritical. However, the fact remains that it's like an emergency power cut on my libido. I would, by far, much rather go to bed alone than feel facial hair touch me while my noun is being verbed, no matter how skilled the mouth surrounded by that facial hair or how awesome the person whom it's attached to.
Now suppose you were looking at me as a prospective partner. And suppose you have facial hair, or would like to retain the option of having facial hair in the future. (If you can't identify with having facial hair, replace it with any other part of your body where you want the option of not necessarily diligently removing hair for the entire rest of your life.) Would you want me to try to ignore my revulsion and move forward in our relationship? Would you want a partner who's struggling not to cringe every time you kiss her, or engaging in a sexual power struggle over personal grooming? Wouldn't you rather I leave you alone so you can use your time and energy to pursue someone who isn't repulsed by standard personal grooming choices?
The same goes with all my standards. They're there for a reason. Even when they are objectively foolish, they're either factors that would cause me to find it more enjoyable to spend time alone than with someone who doesn't meet a given standard, or factors that would be a hindrance to making a life together in the long term. And I'm sure that your standards are the same. I just don't see that any good could come of trying to ignore them.
Based on what I've seen in reviews, the book makes a good argument. The examples given of too-high standards look foolish, making those of us whose standards aren't anywhere near that foolish feel smug and good about ourselves, and making it tempting to buy the book as a gift for people who you think are handling their private lives foolishly. I'm sure it will sell very well.
But I find myself wondering whether it really is ultimately helpful to ask people to ignore their standards. Standards tend to be there for a reason; that's why they're standards. Think about your own standards. Aren't they there for a reason? Even if they're foolish?
As an example, we'll take the most foolish of my own standards: I find facial hair repulsive. Yes, this sentiment is foolish, shallow, petty, and hypocritical. However, the fact remains that it's like an emergency power cut on my libido. I would, by far, much rather go to bed alone than feel facial hair touch me while my noun is being verbed, no matter how skilled the mouth surrounded by that facial hair or how awesome the person whom it's attached to.
Now suppose you were looking at me as a prospective partner. And suppose you have facial hair, or would like to retain the option of having facial hair in the future. (If you can't identify with having facial hair, replace it with any other part of your body where you want the option of not necessarily diligently removing hair for the entire rest of your life.) Would you want me to try to ignore my revulsion and move forward in our relationship? Would you want a partner who's struggling not to cringe every time you kiss her, or engaging in a sexual power struggle over personal grooming? Wouldn't you rather I leave you alone so you can use your time and energy to pursue someone who isn't repulsed by standard personal grooming choices?
The same goes with all my standards. They're there for a reason. Even when they are objectively foolish, they're either factors that would cause me to find it more enjoyable to spend time alone than with someone who doesn't meet a given standard, or factors that would be a hindrance to making a life together in the long term. And I'm sure that your standards are the same. I just don't see that any good could come of trying to ignore them.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Things They Should Invent: translate criminal skills into marketable job skills
Inspired by a text I was working on, it occurred to me today that some of the skills involved in being a drug dealer could be useful in the straight job market. Drug dealers need to build a client base, market themselves appropriately, anticipate and manage supply and demand under constantly shifting market conditions, and keep overhead down. They have to have people skills, negotiation skills, business planning skills, and networking skills. They're franchisees or entrepreneurs working on 100% commission.
I can't do all that, and I have a respectable, socially-acceptable grownup job!
I wonder if they take this into account in criminology? I know one thing the corrections system does is try to make offenders into people who will be productive members of society once they're released, which includes making them employable. I wonder if they take into consideration how their criminal skills could be rebranded as marketable job skills?
I can't do all that, and I have a respectable, socially-acceptable grownup job!
I wonder if they take this into account in criminology? I know one thing the corrections system does is try to make offenders into people who will be productive members of society once they're released, which includes making them employable. I wonder if they take into consideration how their criminal skills could be rebranded as marketable job skills?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Programming note
Know what's fun? A gigantic urgent project that will take an extra five person-days per team member due for Friday sans faute, and this in a week that started out with the entire team having only two hours free collectively.
So blogging will be light to non-existent for the better part of this week.
On tap:
- Do Slavic languages' treatment of verbs of motion affect urban planning in those countries?
- What George Smitherman and his supporters need to do to win my vote.
- The argument for steadfastly clinging to your most ridiculous standards for romantic partners.
- O Canada: a translational analysis and a conspiracy theory
Meanwhile, enjoy Eddie (au masculin today) torturing his translators as he demonstrates his thesis that Rome fell because Latin is hard:
So blogging will be light to non-existent for the better part of this week.
On tap:
- Do Slavic languages' treatment of verbs of motion affect urban planning in those countries?
- What George Smitherman and his supporters need to do to win my vote.
- The argument for steadfastly clinging to your most ridiculous standards for romantic partners.
- O Canada: a translational analysis and a conspiracy theory
Meanwhile, enjoy Eddie (au masculin today) torturing his translators as he demonstrates his thesis that Rome fell because Latin is hard:
Monday, March 08, 2010
How they could have made Own The Podium a success with simple rebranding
The problem with Own The Podium, (apart from its arrogance and inhospitality) is that it took perfectly satisfactory potential outcomes and redefined them as failure. Every Canadian athlete sets a personal best? FAILURE! It's universally acknowledged as the Best Olympics Ever? FAILURE! A world record is set in every event? FAILURE! We win a number of medals proportionate with our population? FAILURE! We top our own Olympic medal count record? FAILURE!
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
Analogy for today's Anthony Wolf column
Anthony Wolf writes a column about why it's not fair for a custodial parent to remarry against their kid's will.
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
Things They Should Study: is ESL harder when both parties are ESL?
I overheard a conversation today between two people, from two different countries, both of whom spoke English as a second language, speaking to each other in English because it's the lingua franca here in Toronto. They seemed to be having some difficulty, and I wondered if it's because both of them spoke English imperfectly in different ways, and they weren't accustomed to each other's imperfections. I didn't hear enough of the conversation to tell if this was the case, or if they would have had as much trouble with a native speaker of English.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
Things They Should UNinvent: public opinion polls in lieu of factual information
"Canadians say rising health costs unsustainable."
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
Sunday, March 07, 2010
How to teach writing: make the content obvious
My high school English classes focused on two things: writing skills and literary analysis. The problem was that they tried to teach us writing skills by having us write literary analysis essays. For me, this meant that I had trouble focusing on my writing skills because I was struggling to come up with decent literary analysis. (I neither particularly care about nor am very good at literary analysis.) This was compounded by the fact that some teachers would give you better marks for coming up with a creative and unique interpretation and fully justifying and supporting it with the text, while others would give you worse marks for not coming up with the standard interpretation. I never reached the point of giving a moment's thought to "Is the structure of my argument optimal? What questions would the reader be asking at this point?" because I was too busy trying to come up with a thousand words about symbolism.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
Things They Should Invent: coffee makers that automatically turn off when the carafe is empty
Having an empty carafe on the hot plate of a coffee maker is bad. It might damage the carafe, and there's no situation in which any good can come of this.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Bilingualism as an expense
You sometimes here people talking about language training or bilingualism in terms of cost.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
In all of us command
When I was in Grade 3, a substitute teacher told us that the words to O Canada had been changed. The line "in all thy sons command" was now "in all of us command". That seemed eminently sensible to me, so I started using it and never looked back.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
This is so cool!
Sesame Street from 1977. Buffy Sainte Marie explains breastfeeding to Big Bird, while actually feeding her real-life baby! I love how it's so simple and age-appropriate, and yet answers every possible question without any drama
Dog show dress codes
A while back, I discovered that dog shows have dress codes for humans.
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
Monday, March 01, 2010
Things They Should Invent: bathroom electrical outlets that are nowhere near the sink
Everywhere I've ever lived has had the electrical outlet just to the left of the sink. This means that for practically everything I might use them for, the cord has to go over/next to/through the sink, especially since I'm left-handed.
Surely there's a better way!
Surely there's a better way!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Things They Should Study: does athletic success correlate with religious faith?
Watching Joannie Rochette's short program, I found myself coveting whatever sports psychology she does. I wish I had that mental resilience and focus!
Coincidentally, the next day Rosie DiManno wrote a column about sports psychology, and I realized it would never work on me. I know some people who swear by visualization or mantras or positive thinking, but it doesn't work on me because I know that it's just visualization. I'm not actually doing anything, I'm just picturing stuff in my head.
Within my own mind, in terms of the thoughts and feelings I experience, my inability to do visualization come from the same place as my inability to have religious faith. I know that it is powered solely by believing in it, and because of that I'm unable to believe in it.
Elite athletes are obvious able to believe in it. I wonder if this also means that they're more likely to be capable of religious faith?
Coincidentally, the next day Rosie DiManno wrote a column about sports psychology, and I realized it would never work on me. I know some people who swear by visualization or mantras or positive thinking, but it doesn't work on me because I know that it's just visualization. I'm not actually doing anything, I'm just picturing stuff in my head.
Within my own mind, in terms of the thoughts and feelings I experience, my inability to do visualization come from the same place as my inability to have religious faith. I know that it is powered solely by believing in it, and because of that I'm unable to believe in it.
Elite athletes are obvious able to believe in it. I wonder if this also means that they're more likely to be capable of religious faith?
Pink
Six months ago, I resolved to add pink to my wardrobe.
My first step was to enter this contest, but didn't win. (Which isn't surprising - I seriously doubt they actually have samples sitting around in an 11.)
Then I tried on a number of different things as I encountered them, but kept finding problems - the fabric was unpleasant or the cut was wrong or something. I considered painting my toenails pink, but it's too classic for toes - I want something interesting, like shimmery turquoise.
But now I've completed my mission with the acquisition of a sweater in a deep raspberry. It's soft and beautiful and well-cut, and works fantastically with the fine pieces of engineering available at Secrets From Your Sister. Plus I got it for 50% off!
Now we'll see how this works. Will I end up buying more pink stuff in the future?
My first step was to enter this contest, but didn't win. (Which isn't surprising - I seriously doubt they actually have samples sitting around in an 11.)
Then I tried on a number of different things as I encountered them, but kept finding problems - the fabric was unpleasant or the cut was wrong or something. I considered painting my toenails pink, but it's too classic for toes - I want something interesting, like shimmery turquoise.
But now I've completed my mission with the acquisition of a sweater in a deep raspberry. It's soft and beautiful and well-cut, and works fantastically with the fine pieces of engineering available at Secrets From Your Sister. Plus I got it for 50% off!
Now we'll see how this works. Will I end up buying more pink stuff in the future?
Things They Should Invent: translation problems wiki
I don't really like going to translation workshops and seminars because more often than I'd like, they aren't telling me anything new. More than once I've been stuck in a room playing "Let's brainstorm possible ways to translate intervenant", with no one coming up with anything I couldn't have done myself. Been there and done that in first year university.
However, I know there are translators out there who need this. More than once I've gotten a text from an outside contractor where intéressant was systematically and automatically translated as "interesting". (For the googlers: it can also mean something in the range of beneficial/advantageous/profitable/useful/helpful/worthwhile. Start with the Collins-Robert or TransSearch, then hit the thesaurus until you land on le mot juste.)
What we need: a wiki of possible translations for these tricky words. One wiki for each language combination and direction, one entry for each tricky word. Everyone adds every idea they have, with examples and context. If you come up with a solution that isn't already in the wiki, you add it to the wiki.
This is different from the translation community forums in that we aren't trying to solve a specific translation problem we're facing in our current text, we're trying to brainstorm all the ways to solve a recurring problem for the benefit of future translators.
This would improve the overall quality of translations in general because everyone would be able to access everyone else's ideas, and it would also improve the quality of translation training because there would be no more need to brainstorm on intervenant, at least not outside of a first-year undergrad class. There'd be a cascade effect and we'd all get smarter and better.
I probably have the skills to set this up and admin it, but I don't have the network to get a critical mass of people to use it. If you have the network and want my help to make this happen, contact me privately or through one of the professional networks.
However, I know there are translators out there who need this. More than once I've gotten a text from an outside contractor where intéressant was systematically and automatically translated as "interesting". (For the googlers: it can also mean something in the range of beneficial/advantageous/profitable/useful/helpful/worthwhile. Start with the Collins-Robert or TransSearch, then hit the thesaurus until you land on le mot juste.)
What we need: a wiki of possible translations for these tricky words. One wiki for each language combination and direction, one entry for each tricky word. Everyone adds every idea they have, with examples and context. If you come up with a solution that isn't already in the wiki, you add it to the wiki.
This is different from the translation community forums in that we aren't trying to solve a specific translation problem we're facing in our current text, we're trying to brainstorm all the ways to solve a recurring problem for the benefit of future translators.
This would improve the overall quality of translations in general because everyone would be able to access everyone else's ideas, and it would also improve the quality of translation training because there would be no more need to brainstorm on intervenant, at least not outside of a first-year undergrad class. There'd be a cascade effect and we'd all get smarter and better.
I probably have the skills to set this up and admin it, but I don't have the network to get a critical mass of people to use it. If you have the network and want my help to make this happen, contact me privately or through one of the professional networks.
Things They Should Invent: non-informative condom sizing
Apparently there are problems getting people to buy the right condom size, both because of a disinclination to buy condoms labeled anything that connotes smallness, and because of efforts made by manufacturers to counter this disinclination.
Solution: instead of sizes, give them meaningless qualitative descriptors. You know how beauty products (especially body washes, etc.) sometimes have names like "revitalize" and "rejuvenate" with vague descriptions that don't exactly mean anything, so you find yourself standing in the drugstore wondering whether you want a revitalizing cream scrub or a soothing clarifying exfoliator.
They should do the same thing with condom sizes. Give them qualitative names, all of which are equally manly-sounding, with no informative or linear characteristics. Have maybe eight or twelve different varieties, and make it known that they don't just vary by length, but also by girth and proportion and perhaps some other factors if they can think of some good ones. Therefore, it's not a matter of simply big or small, it's a matter of finding the right fit. You know how sometimes, IRL, a particular brand or style of condom just...doesn't fit right? Like the "elastic" isn't comfortable to the wearer or the reservoir is wonky or something? Leverage that and start advertising the importance of having the just right fit.
Now you're thinking "But then you'd have to buy all kinds of ill-fitting condoms to find the right one!" Solution (apart from the ubiquitous free samples): all places that sell condoms should sell condoms individually as well as in packages. (I'm honestly not sure whether they already do this or not - I've never been in the market for just one condom.) They could also have fitting instructions on their website, similar to the more advance bra-fitting instructions you sometimes see. For example, "If the elastic of the James Bond condom rides up, try the Chuck Norris condom."
Solution: instead of sizes, give them meaningless qualitative descriptors. You know how beauty products (especially body washes, etc.) sometimes have names like "revitalize" and "rejuvenate" with vague descriptions that don't exactly mean anything, so you find yourself standing in the drugstore wondering whether you want a revitalizing cream scrub or a soothing clarifying exfoliator.
They should do the same thing with condom sizes. Give them qualitative names, all of which are equally manly-sounding, with no informative or linear characteristics. Have maybe eight or twelve different varieties, and make it known that they don't just vary by length, but also by girth and proportion and perhaps some other factors if they can think of some good ones. Therefore, it's not a matter of simply big or small, it's a matter of finding the right fit. You know how sometimes, IRL, a particular brand or style of condom just...doesn't fit right? Like the "elastic" isn't comfortable to the wearer or the reservoir is wonky or something? Leverage that and start advertising the importance of having the just right fit.
Now you're thinking "But then you'd have to buy all kinds of ill-fitting condoms to find the right one!" Solution (apart from the ubiquitous free samples): all places that sell condoms should sell condoms individually as well as in packages. (I'm honestly not sure whether they already do this or not - I've never been in the market for just one condom.) They could also have fitting instructions on their website, similar to the more advance bra-fitting instructions you sometimes see. For example, "If the elastic of the James Bond condom rides up, try the Chuck Norris condom."
Friday, February 26, 2010
The good old days
A couple of days ago, I blogged about how my grandmother didn't have a pension from her job. The employer offered one, but the vast majority of the workers didn't want one because, in my grandmother's words, "they all had husbands." I didn't see the cause and effect there so I had to ask my grandmother a whole bunch more questions, but it turns out that each of the husbands had a job, each of those jobs came with a pension, and job security was so great in those days that they had literally no reason to believe that he would ever be without a pension. Even on the off chance he lost his job, he could totally find another job with a pension.
This got me thinking about happiness studies. There was one a few months ago that suggested women are becoming less and less happy (and I think there have been others to this effect too, about various demographics of people). All the commentary I saw on this was interpreting it as the influence of feminism (perhaps because I read about it in the feminist blogosphere), but what if it isn't about feminism at all? What if it's about employment conditions?
In my grandmother's day, when people had a pension, they had a pension. Imagine a world where getting a job with a pension means you will be able to retire and you no longer have to worry about it! I woke up this morning to Michael Hlinka saying interest rates on safe investments will likely be extremely low for a decade, so I lay there in bed wondering how earth do I save for retirement when I not going to be able to get the kinds of returns financial planning strategies are based on until I'm in my 40s. That's something my grandmother's cohort never had to worry about. They also never had to worry about what they'll do if their pension plan goes bankrupt and they're 80 years old and have been out of the workforce for nearly two decades. Nor did they have to worry about very loud people, likely embittered by years of contract hell, dissing people who have pensions and calling for them to be fired and/or pensions to be eliminated. All my grandmother's cohort had to do was get a job that has a pension, work hard, and they were fine.
Imagine a world where working hard is enough! My grandmother's job was typing! Just typing! Imagine being able to make a living just by being able to type! I would love to live in a world where that's even an option, where if I lose my awesome job, I could earn a living by typing or working on an assembly line or even collecting garbage. The problem is that, in my experience, employers aren't willing to give jobs to people who have had or that the employers perceive to be overqualified. So I can't assume I'd have the safety net of being able to serve coffee or answer phones or work a cash register. My grandmother never had to worry about that!
My grandmother has also told me stories about how to instill in her kids the value of education, she "got them" menial jobs, serving food or shoveling coke, so they'd get the sense that if they don't stay in school, they'll be doing that the rest of their lives. Imagine a world where a parent can just get a job for their kid! I have never known anyone in my own lifetime who could do that. It took me years to get a minimum wage fast food job because employers didn't want to hire someone who had never had a job before. My grandmother's generation (and my parents' generation) never had to worry about that, because the plant could always use another pair of hands somewhere.
So if I would in fact have been happier in another decade, I think it isn't because I'd be taking care of the house (and kids?) instead of being in the workplace (if I am in fact married in this alternate decade). Maybe it's because if I (or my spouse) was able to get a job with a pension I'd have no reason to believe the pension wouldn't always be there, so I wouldn't have to worry about long-term investment strategies or the possibility of having to work well into my 80s. If was good at something and worked hard - hell, I could type - I would never have to worry about unemployment. If I knew a person who had a job, they could probably get me a job. Whole categories of worries - probably 80% of the worries that I've been carrying around since I first became economically aware - were completely nonexistent. Even if they did have less money in the bank and fewer home electronics, who wouldn't be happier under those circumstances?
This got me thinking about happiness studies. There was one a few months ago that suggested women are becoming less and less happy (and I think there have been others to this effect too, about various demographics of people). All the commentary I saw on this was interpreting it as the influence of feminism (perhaps because I read about it in the feminist blogosphere), but what if it isn't about feminism at all? What if it's about employment conditions?
In my grandmother's day, when people had a pension, they had a pension. Imagine a world where getting a job with a pension means you will be able to retire and you no longer have to worry about it! I woke up this morning to Michael Hlinka saying interest rates on safe investments will likely be extremely low for a decade, so I lay there in bed wondering how earth do I save for retirement when I not going to be able to get the kinds of returns financial planning strategies are based on until I'm in my 40s. That's something my grandmother's cohort never had to worry about. They also never had to worry about what they'll do if their pension plan goes bankrupt and they're 80 years old and have been out of the workforce for nearly two decades. Nor did they have to worry about very loud people, likely embittered by years of contract hell, dissing people who have pensions and calling for them to be fired and/or pensions to be eliminated. All my grandmother's cohort had to do was get a job that has a pension, work hard, and they were fine.
Imagine a world where working hard is enough! My grandmother's job was typing! Just typing! Imagine being able to make a living just by being able to type! I would love to live in a world where that's even an option, where if I lose my awesome job, I could earn a living by typing or working on an assembly line or even collecting garbage. The problem is that, in my experience, employers aren't willing to give jobs to people who have had or that the employers perceive to be overqualified. So I can't assume I'd have the safety net of being able to serve coffee or answer phones or work a cash register. My grandmother never had to worry about that!
My grandmother has also told me stories about how to instill in her kids the value of education, she "got them" menial jobs, serving food or shoveling coke, so they'd get the sense that if they don't stay in school, they'll be doing that the rest of their lives. Imagine a world where a parent can just get a job for their kid! I have never known anyone in my own lifetime who could do that. It took me years to get a minimum wage fast food job because employers didn't want to hire someone who had never had a job before. My grandmother's generation (and my parents' generation) never had to worry about that, because the plant could always use another pair of hands somewhere.
So if I would in fact have been happier in another decade, I think it isn't because I'd be taking care of the house (and kids?) instead of being in the workplace (if I am in fact married in this alternate decade). Maybe it's because if I (or my spouse) was able to get a job with a pension I'd have no reason to believe the pension wouldn't always be there, so I wouldn't have to worry about long-term investment strategies or the possibility of having to work well into my 80s. If was good at something and worked hard - hell, I could type - I would never have to worry about unemployment. If I knew a person who had a job, they could probably get me a job. Whole categories of worries - probably 80% of the worries that I've been carrying around since I first became economically aware - were completely nonexistent. Even if they did have less money in the bank and fewer home electronics, who wouldn't be happier under those circumstances?
Question I wish I could ask religious people
Suppose there's someone who is completely unable to believe in your deity, despite all the convincing evidence otherwise. They just can't, any more than they can lick their own elbow.
Would your deity prefer that person pretend to believe, going through all the motions in order to convince the people around them (and the deity) and they are in fact a devout member of your religion? Or would your deity rather that person live honestly as an atheist?
Would your deity prefer that person pretend to believe, going through all the motions in order to convince the people around them (and the deity) and they are in fact a devout member of your religion? Or would your deity rather that person live honestly as an atheist?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Canadian figure skating drinking game
There's a figure skating drinking game! (via Ice Charades, found on Xanboni's Twitter feed (a.k.a. the source of all the answers to my bizarre and obscure figure skating questions!))
Problem: it's very US-centric and assumes you're watching US TV.
So I made a Canadian version, at least for those of us watching in English. (Malheureusement, je n'en ai pas regardé assez en français pour créer une version pour celles et ceux de parmi vous qui regardent RDS.)
Drink when:
- The announcers between segments get way over-dramatic about something (e.g. "Heroes and villains!" in ski-jumping)
- Rod Black compares something happening on ice to something experienced by one of the figure skaters in the booth with him. Two drinks if you can think of a better figure-skating analogy.
- Someone falls. (Two drinks if they fall doing something you yourself can reliably do.)
- Someone has the same music as a previous skater. (Five drinks if they have the same dress.)
- Someone's costume has more flesh-coloured fabric than regular fabric.
- The in-rink announcer doesn't use French. (Finish the bottle if they use French but not English.)
- A commentator says "For those of you who are new to figure skating" and then proceeds to explain something that even people who don't watch figure skating know.
- The phrase "the new judging system" is uttered. Two drinks if it's by Jamie Salé or David Pelletier
- The phrase "final flight" is uttered.
- Elizabeth Manley's 1988 silver medal in Calgary is mentioned. (Two drinks if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley. Finish the bottle if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley but she isn't even working the booth that day.)
- The audience starts clapping along to the music. Two drinks if the clapping isn't quite in rhythm with the music, or is emotionally/thematically inappropriate.
And every time Therese Rochette is mentioned or alluded to, say a prayer for or send positive vibes to Joannie.
Problem: it's very US-centric and assumes you're watching US TV.
So I made a Canadian version, at least for those of us watching in English. (Malheureusement, je n'en ai pas regardé assez en français pour créer une version pour celles et ceux de parmi vous qui regardent RDS.)
Drink when:
- The announcers between segments get way over-dramatic about something (e.g. "Heroes and villains!" in ski-jumping)
- Rod Black compares something happening on ice to something experienced by one of the figure skaters in the booth with him. Two drinks if you can think of a better figure-skating analogy.
- Someone falls. (Two drinks if they fall doing something you yourself can reliably do.)
- Someone has the same music as a previous skater. (Five drinks if they have the same dress.)
- Someone's costume has more flesh-coloured fabric than regular fabric.
- The in-rink announcer doesn't use French. (Finish the bottle if they use French but not English.)
- A commentator says "For those of you who are new to figure skating" and then proceeds to explain something that even people who don't watch figure skating know.
- The phrase "the new judging system" is uttered. Two drinks if it's by Jamie Salé or David Pelletier
- The phrase "final flight" is uttered.
- Elizabeth Manley's 1988 silver medal in Calgary is mentioned. (Two drinks if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley. Finish the bottle if the reference is made by Elizabeth Manley but she isn't even working the booth that day.)
- The audience starts clapping along to the music. Two drinks if the clapping isn't quite in rhythm with the music, or is emotionally/thematically inappropriate.
And every time Therese Rochette is mentioned or alluded to, say a prayer for or send positive vibes to Joannie.
Parenting FAIL
In the mall, there's a big gorgeous doggie (kind of weimaranerish) tied to a railing, presumably while his humans stepped into a store. A couple pushing a toddler in a stroller comes up, squees at the doggie, and stops to pet it. But they park the stroller off to the side, as though it's an unimportant shopping cart, and don't involve the kid in the doggie interaction at all!
Aren't you supposed to show interesting animals to your small child whenever the opportunity presents itself? Shouldn't you be saying to your kid "LOOK! It's a DOGGIE! Look at the DOGGIE!" and taking him out of the stroller to interact with the doggie under your careful supervision? Even if you don't want to have your kid pet the dog since the dog is taller than your kid and the dog's humans aren't around, shouldn't you turn the stroller so your kid can watch and learn from the doggie interaction rather than turning him towards the wall?
Aren't you supposed to show interesting animals to your small child whenever the opportunity presents itself? Shouldn't you be saying to your kid "LOOK! It's a DOGGIE! Look at the DOGGIE!" and taking him out of the stroller to interact with the doggie under your careful supervision? Even if you don't want to have your kid pet the dog since the dog is taller than your kid and the dog's humans aren't around, shouldn't you turn the stroller so your kid can watch and learn from the doggie interaction rather than turning him towards the wall?
How did we get here?
I was talking to my grandmother, and it came up in conversation that she didn't get a pension from her job. This surprised me, because I had perceived her workplace as somewhere that would be progressive about labour relations and employee benefits. It turns out that a significant majority of the employees didn't want a pension, because their husbands had pensions. (Apparently it was an all-female workplace.) I sat there stunned and baffled for quite some time, and then asked "So did husbands not lose their jobs in those days?"
Apparently they didn't. Apparently job security was so great in those days that the fact that your spouse happens to be currently employed in a job that currently offers a pension is a good enough reason to go around declining the employer's offer to set up an employee pension plan!
So how did we get here?
Everyone wants a better life for their children - certainly no one wants life for their children to be worse. No one cradles their newborn baby and dreams of them having to work until the age of 80. So how, in two generations, did we get from a place where you can just turn down a perfectly good pension to a place where it's considered an obscene luxury to be eliminated?
Apparently they didn't. Apparently job security was so great in those days that the fact that your spouse happens to be currently employed in a job that currently offers a pension is a good enough reason to go around declining the employer's offer to set up an employee pension plan!
So how did we get here?
Everyone wants a better life for their children - certainly no one wants life for their children to be worse. No one cradles their newborn baby and dreams of them having to work until the age of 80. So how, in two generations, did we get from a place where you can just turn down a perfectly good pension to a place where it's considered an obscene luxury to be eliminated?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How the former Reform MPs can keep their pensions with the full support of the public
In 1993, MPs from the then-Reform Party (now part of the Conservative Party) spoke out against MPs' pensions and said they would refuse to collect these pensions themselves. It has recently been revealed that 11 of these MPs are now in line to collect six-figure (defined-benefit, indexed) pensions.
Here's how they can keep their six-figure pensions with the full support of all Canadians: create defined-benefit indexed pensions for everyone.
The Government of Canada already has expertise in administering defined-benefit indexed pensions: it's called the Canada Pension Plan. Unfortunately, the CPP pays a maximum of $934.17 a month, which isn't enough to live in with any degree of comfort or security.
So what they have to do (as I've blogged about before) is allow us to access this expertise - which is already being paid for by our tax dollars - by letting us put our RRSPs, contributions from defined-contribution plans, and any other money we care to throw at the problem into a fund from which the government will then guarantee a defined benefit. The defined benefit would be such that if you contribute your full RRSP amount, you get a return commensurate with the benefits you'd receive from a good employer-provided defined-benefit pension plan.
Based on CPP rates, I think this would be feasible. Maximum CPP benefits are $934.17, which works out to $11,210.04 a year. Maximum annual CPP contributions are $2,163.15. From this, we can conclude that the experts at the CPP can give you a pension of about to five times your annual contribution. Since your RRSP amount is 18% of your income, they should be able to get you a return close to your pre-retirement income if you contribute your full RRSP amount every year.
Contributing would be optional - if you think you can do better yourself, you're welcome to do so - but it would be there as an option for those of us who don't have hardcore long-term investing in our skill set. And I seriously doubt Canadians would begrudge a few MPs their pensions if we all had the security of commensurate pensions ourselves.
Added bonus analogy for why we need professionally-administered pensions for everyone:
Think back to when you were about nine years old. You knew intellectually that one day you'd have to get a job and make money to support yourself. You understood that concept perfectly well. However, you didn't know what to do about it. You'd never been employed or employable, so you didn't know how to make yourself employable. If you'd had to make yourself employable single-handedly, it would have been a hit and miss proposition. All you'd have is hearsay about what makes a person employable, and even if you grok and agree with someone else's assessment of what you need to achieve, you wouldn't necessarily know how to go about achieving it.
Fortunately, you didn't have to figure it out yourself. You were in school. People who knew better than you and had already gone through the process of making themselves employable (and acquired extensive training in how to turn children into functional members of society along the way) had a school curriculum all planned out, so all you had to do was keep going to school and work hard and do well. Be a good girl, and the experts will get you where you need to be.
That's what planning for retirement is like. I've never experienced long-term financial planning. Hell, I've never experienced long-term anything. Retirement is over 35 years away, and I haven't even been alive for 30 years (to say nothing of financially aware). I have some hearsay on how to do it, much of which is self-contradictory, but there's too much blind trust, too much guesswork, and even when I understand what I have to do I don't know how to go about doing it.
This is why we need a professionally-administered plan that we can pay into. We need experts who know better than us and are training in turning investments into defined-benefit pensions to make and administer a plan for us, so all we have to do is be good and pay in our designated RRSP contributions. It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to figure it out themselves, just like it's unrealistic to expect every 9-year-old to be able to figure out how to turn themselves into an employable adult.
Here's how they can keep their six-figure pensions with the full support of all Canadians: create defined-benefit indexed pensions for everyone.
The Government of Canada already has expertise in administering defined-benefit indexed pensions: it's called the Canada Pension Plan. Unfortunately, the CPP pays a maximum of $934.17 a month, which isn't enough to live in with any degree of comfort or security.
So what they have to do (as I've blogged about before) is allow us to access this expertise - which is already being paid for by our tax dollars - by letting us put our RRSPs, contributions from defined-contribution plans, and any other money we care to throw at the problem into a fund from which the government will then guarantee a defined benefit. The defined benefit would be such that if you contribute your full RRSP amount, you get a return commensurate with the benefits you'd receive from a good employer-provided defined-benefit pension plan.
Based on CPP rates, I think this would be feasible. Maximum CPP benefits are $934.17, which works out to $11,210.04 a year. Maximum annual CPP contributions are $2,163.15. From this, we can conclude that the experts at the CPP can give you a pension of about to five times your annual contribution. Since your RRSP amount is 18% of your income, they should be able to get you a return close to your pre-retirement income if you contribute your full RRSP amount every year.
Contributing would be optional - if you think you can do better yourself, you're welcome to do so - but it would be there as an option for those of us who don't have hardcore long-term investing in our skill set. And I seriously doubt Canadians would begrudge a few MPs their pensions if we all had the security of commensurate pensions ourselves.
Added bonus analogy for why we need professionally-administered pensions for everyone:
Think back to when you were about nine years old. You knew intellectually that one day you'd have to get a job and make money to support yourself. You understood that concept perfectly well. However, you didn't know what to do about it. You'd never been employed or employable, so you didn't know how to make yourself employable. If you'd had to make yourself employable single-handedly, it would have been a hit and miss proposition. All you'd have is hearsay about what makes a person employable, and even if you grok and agree with someone else's assessment of what you need to achieve, you wouldn't necessarily know how to go about achieving it.
Fortunately, you didn't have to figure it out yourself. You were in school. People who knew better than you and had already gone through the process of making themselves employable (and acquired extensive training in how to turn children into functional members of society along the way) had a school curriculum all planned out, so all you had to do was keep going to school and work hard and do well. Be a good girl, and the experts will get you where you need to be.
That's what planning for retirement is like. I've never experienced long-term financial planning. Hell, I've never experienced long-term anything. Retirement is over 35 years away, and I haven't even been alive for 30 years (to say nothing of financially aware). I have some hearsay on how to do it, much of which is self-contradictory, but there's too much blind trust, too much guesswork, and even when I understand what I have to do I don't know how to go about doing it.
This is why we need a professionally-administered plan that we can pay into. We need experts who know better than us and are training in turning investments into defined-benefit pensions to make and administer a plan for us, so all we have to do is be good and pay in our designated RRSP contributions. It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to figure it out themselves, just like it's unrealistic to expect every 9-year-old to be able to figure out how to turn themselves into an employable adult.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
How to label temperature controls for cooling devices
The temperature control on my fridge is a dial, with "MIN" at one end and "MAX" at the other end. I'm never clear on what this means. Every time, I have to dig out the instruction book to find out that "MAX" means colder.
All temperature controls on all cooling devices (fridges, freezers, air conditioners, etc.) should say "warmer" and "colder", not "min" and "max".
We also need to banish the phrase "turn the air conditioning up/down" from the language. From now on, we say "turn the temperature up/down".
All temperature controls on all cooling devices (fridges, freezers, air conditioners, etc.) should say "warmer" and "colder", not "min" and "max".
We also need to banish the phrase "turn the air conditioning up/down" from the language. From now on, we say "turn the temperature up/down".
Things They Should Invent: Alex Is On Fire
I just found out that the band Alexisonfire pronounces its name "Alexis On Fire". I always thought it was "Alex Is On Fire".
Therefore, someone needs to start a band called "Alex Is On Fire." I think making it four different words would circumvent the trademark issue.
Therefore, someone needs to start a band called "Alex Is On Fire." I think making it four different words would circumvent the trademark issue.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Figure skating music bunny
The Puppini Sisters' version of Walk Like An Egyptian would make good figure skating music. I could totally picture a music video for this song with people skating along the Rideau Canal or similar - skating in a "using it as a mode of transportation to get to a destination" way, not in a "let's skate around and have fun" sort of way. (Iść, not chodzić).
(As usual, the video is irrelevant, it's just the only way I could embed the song)
(As usual, the video is irrelevant, it's just the only way I could embed the song)
Friday, February 19, 2010
Things They Should Invent: contact method prioritization chart
All businesses should have a page on their website that lists in priority the best/most effective way to contact them for any given transaction (i.e. should I do it through the web site, or call them, or come in in person?)
I'm sick and tired of choosing the method that's most convenient for me only to be told that I have to do another method anyway, or it would have been way faster if I'd done another method, or having employees react to me like "WTF did you do that for?"
I'm sick and tired of choosing the method that's most convenient for me only to be told that I have to do another method anyway, or it would have been way faster if I'd done another method, or having employees react to me like "WTF did you do that for?"
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Things They Should Invent: Coach-less Olympics
I'd like to see an elite athletic competition where none of the athletes are allowed to use coaches. They have to figure it all out themselves. Why? Because it would be interesting to see what happens.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A (spoiler-free) quote from the latest Dexter book
Of course, for some bizarre reason, we don't have a National Registry of Who Your Friends Are.
Um, Dexter darling, it's called Facebook!
Monday, February 15, 2010
What to do if your Phillips Wake-Up Light hisses
My Phillips Wake-Up Light makes a hissing sound after I change the alarm settings. I've discovered that unplugging it from the wall and then quickly plugging it back in makes this go away. And, for some reason, if you do it quickly, the clock doesn't lose its settings.
(The internet has also suggested that this can be fixed under warranty, but I bought mine on ebay.)
(The internet has also suggested that this can be fixed under warranty, but I bought mine on ebay.)
Subterfuge
A while back, Language Log mentioned a book called The Big Penis Book. Before moving on to the morphosyntax of the title, the author says "I realize I don't have to defend my interest in the book...". And while he does go on to defend his interest in the book, when I was reading that for the first time back in 2008, it struck me for the first time in my life: you don't actually have to defend your interest in that book. We're all adults here, we can read The Big Penis Book if we are interested in doing so.
It does seem odd that it would take me until the age of 27 to realize that we don't need to defend our interest in whatever thing we might be interested in, but you have to remember that for the vast majority of my life, I was a child. And when you're a child, these things work differently. If you want The Big Penis Book when you're under 18, you have to justify it to your parents. Even if you can acquire it without their permission, they're probably going to ask you to explain yourself when they find it in your room. And even if your parents do allow you to keep it, your teachers at school might take it away and call your parents and try to get you in trouble. And even if you can get past all these grownups, if your classmates find out, they're probably going to call you gay and make your life a living hell. All in all, when you're a child, it really is best and easiest to resort to subterfuge.
The subterfuge becomes a habit - after all, you've never known anything else - and it does take some time and perhaps a bit of external revelation like I got from that Language Log post to realize that in adult life, if you just quietly do your thing, no one's going to judge you or try to stop you. People simply don't care if you're reading The Big Penis Book.
And that's where Adam Giambrone made his mistake.
We're an open-minded lot here in Toronto. No one would care if Adam Giambrone didn't have a partner by his side. How many people can recognize, or even name without googling, David Miller's wife or George Smitherman's husband? The only people were actually interested in Adam Giambrone's relationship status were those who think he's pretty. In any case, especially when you eliminate the demographic who wouldn't consider voting for him because of his age and/or politics, no one would care if he didn't have a partner. No one would care if he was single and enjoying "casual encounters" as they say on Craigslist. A 19-year-old girlfriend would have briefly raise a few eyebrows, but ultimately we'd shrug and go "Meh, they're all adults." No one would especially care if he were poly or in an open relationship with honesty and consent by all parties. Even if he danced down Yonge St. during Pride in a leather harness and fishnets, we'd just applaud and wolf-whistle and gloat about it when comparing ourselves to other more uptight cities in the world. But the fact that he had a long-term relationship, publicly presented himself as part of a long-term relationship - and this in a context where no one would have batted an eye if he didn't have a partner beside him - and then ended up being a cheater was the nail in his coffin.
It's like if he had announced, a propos of nothing, that he's working his way through the complete works of Tolstoy. The press never asked what he's reading, the only people who've asked what he's reading are people who are trying to flirt with him, but he tells people he's working his way through the complete works of Tolstoy. He also makes it known that he keeps a copy of War and Peace in his briefcase, perhaps seeing to it that he's photographed reading War and Peace on the subway. Then someone discovers that, inside the War and Peace cover is not Tolstoy's masterwork, but rather The Big Penis Book.
No one would have expected him to be reading War and Peace in the first place, it would never have occurred to anyone to think less of him for not reading Tolstoy right this minute, and no one would have particularly cared if he was seen overtly reading The Big Penis Book. But the subterfuge is the problem. It's what teenagers do when they don't want to get caught reading The Big Penis Book, and it's unbecoming an adult who would presume to be mayor of a city of millions, especially when the major barrier to his candidacy is seen as his relative youth.
It isn't about lying per se and it isn't exactly about the adultery (although I, personally, do find that distasteful and it is a large mark in the minus column). It's more about the choice to have an elaborate cover-up (i.e. camera-ready long-term partner brought into the spotlight as part of the campaign) of something that doesn't need covering up (i.e. multiple casual relationships).
All of which is terribly unfortunate, because this campaign is already skewing further right than I'm comfortable with.
It does seem odd that it would take me until the age of 27 to realize that we don't need to defend our interest in whatever thing we might be interested in, but you have to remember that for the vast majority of my life, I was a child. And when you're a child, these things work differently. If you want The Big Penis Book when you're under 18, you have to justify it to your parents. Even if you can acquire it without their permission, they're probably going to ask you to explain yourself when they find it in your room. And even if your parents do allow you to keep it, your teachers at school might take it away and call your parents and try to get you in trouble. And even if you can get past all these grownups, if your classmates find out, they're probably going to call you gay and make your life a living hell. All in all, when you're a child, it really is best and easiest to resort to subterfuge.
The subterfuge becomes a habit - after all, you've never known anything else - and it does take some time and perhaps a bit of external revelation like I got from that Language Log post to realize that in adult life, if you just quietly do your thing, no one's going to judge you or try to stop you. People simply don't care if you're reading The Big Penis Book.
And that's where Adam Giambrone made his mistake.
We're an open-minded lot here in Toronto. No one would care if Adam Giambrone didn't have a partner by his side. How many people can recognize, or even name without googling, David Miller's wife or George Smitherman's husband? The only people were actually interested in Adam Giambrone's relationship status were those who think he's pretty. In any case, especially when you eliminate the demographic who wouldn't consider voting for him because of his age and/or politics, no one would care if he didn't have a partner. No one would care if he was single and enjoying "casual encounters" as they say on Craigslist. A 19-year-old girlfriend would have briefly raise a few eyebrows, but ultimately we'd shrug and go "Meh, they're all adults." No one would especially care if he were poly or in an open relationship with honesty and consent by all parties. Even if he danced down Yonge St. during Pride in a leather harness and fishnets, we'd just applaud and wolf-whistle and gloat about it when comparing ourselves to other more uptight cities in the world. But the fact that he had a long-term relationship, publicly presented himself as part of a long-term relationship - and this in a context where no one would have batted an eye if he didn't have a partner beside him - and then ended up being a cheater was the nail in his coffin.
It's like if he had announced, a propos of nothing, that he's working his way through the complete works of Tolstoy. The press never asked what he's reading, the only people who've asked what he's reading are people who are trying to flirt with him, but he tells people he's working his way through the complete works of Tolstoy. He also makes it known that he keeps a copy of War and Peace in his briefcase, perhaps seeing to it that he's photographed reading War and Peace on the subway. Then someone discovers that, inside the War and Peace cover is not Tolstoy's masterwork, but rather The Big Penis Book.
No one would have expected him to be reading War and Peace in the first place, it would never have occurred to anyone to think less of him for not reading Tolstoy right this minute, and no one would have particularly cared if he was seen overtly reading The Big Penis Book. But the subterfuge is the problem. It's what teenagers do when they don't want to get caught reading The Big Penis Book, and it's unbecoming an adult who would presume to be mayor of a city of millions, especially when the major barrier to his candidacy is seen as his relative youth.
It isn't about lying per se and it isn't exactly about the adultery (although I, personally, do find that distasteful and it is a large mark in the minus column). It's more about the choice to have an elaborate cover-up (i.e. camera-ready long-term partner brought into the spotlight as part of the campaign) of something that doesn't need covering up (i.e. multiple casual relationships).
All of which is terribly unfortunate, because this campaign is already skewing further right than I'm comfortable with.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Question Ugly Betty needs to answer
What happens to Hilda's fetus?
They had an ultrasound that found the baby didn't have a heartbeat. So no baby for Hilda. But there's still a dead fetus in her uterus. What happens then? Does it come out by itself? Do they need to D&C it out? Even if they don't show this on screen, they should at least mention it in passing, because it's a great big question mark for people like me who have no experience with pregnancy.
(Also, Betty, Ignacio, and Babydaddy (I forget his name) were all in the ultrasound with Hilda, and the ultrasound technician makes some comment to the effect that she's never seen that many people in the ultrasound room before. Surely it's not THAT uncommon for a patient to bring in her babydaddy and her own parents (and maybe babydaddy's parents too) to get a first look at the baby? Or for the patient to bring the baby's biological father and the baby's future adoptive parents? Or her spouse and children? I mean, I'm sure in most cases it's just the baby's bio-parents, but I seriously doubt three support people is so uncommon that a tech would never have seen it before and would feel the need to common on it.)
They had an ultrasound that found the baby didn't have a heartbeat. So no baby for Hilda. But there's still a dead fetus in her uterus. What happens then? Does it come out by itself? Do they need to D&C it out? Even if they don't show this on screen, they should at least mention it in passing, because it's a great big question mark for people like me who have no experience with pregnancy.
(Also, Betty, Ignacio, and Babydaddy (I forget his name) were all in the ultrasound with Hilda, and the ultrasound technician makes some comment to the effect that she's never seen that many people in the ultrasound room before. Surely it's not THAT uncommon for a patient to bring in her babydaddy and her own parents (and maybe babydaddy's parents too) to get a first look at the baby? Or for the patient to bring the baby's biological father and the baby's future adoptive parents? Or her spouse and children? I mean, I'm sure in most cases it's just the baby's bio-parents, but I seriously doubt three support people is so uncommon that a tech would never have seen it before and would feel the need to common on it.)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Worst. Poll. Ever
Today's Globe and Mail poll question:
I haven't been following US politics especially closely, but surely there's a strong possibility that the correct answer is somewhere between the two extremes?
Is this the worst U.S. Congress ever, or is the system working as intended?
I haven't been following US politics especially closely, but surely there's a strong possibility that the correct answer is somewhere between the two extremes?
Friday, February 12, 2010
"Not a real sport"
Some people like to accuse various sports of not being a "real sport".
Why does it matter? Spaghetti isn't a real sport and I still enjoy it.
Why does it matter? Spaghetti isn't a real sport and I still enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)