All too often, my parents dragged us along to do boring grownup stuff like shop for new windows for the house or pick out appliances. There was nothing for us to do - we wouldn't have known how to participate even if we'd wanted to - so we just had to stand around for hours and hours while they had boring conversations we didn't understand about stuff we didn't care about.
So why didn't they tell us to bring a book?
You've got two kids who don't get along with each other, being dragged along for time-consuming boring grownup stuff, both of whom are voracious readers. We would have been quite content to sit quietly and read. In fact, the reason why I resented being dragged along so much is because I really just wanted to be alone in my room with a book.
What is gained by having your kids be bored rather than quietly amused?
Friday, May 18, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wherein visualization works for me for the only time in my life
A few weeks ago, I saw an absolutely disgusting image on TV. It caused me to switch off the TV, curl up in a fetal position, and stim. I'm tense and wringing my hands just writing this. The image was burned in my brain, and I knew it would be there forever. I knew it would sit there haunting me as I tried to fall asleep and it would come to me in my dreams for years to come.
This was the worst possible time for this to happen. It was during the few days when I thought I was going to be buying a condo and was nervous about doing something so big and important and completely unknown to me, which also coincided with the busiest time at work when everything absolutely had to get done by the day before Condo Day. I was carrying an unhealthy amount of stress and nerves as it was, and literally didn't have room to handle this disgusting image.
I had to do something, but there was nothing to be done. So I did something that I knew would never work: picturing the image as printed on a piece of paper, I reached out with my hands, mimed crumpling up the piece of paper, and threw it away over my shoulder.
It worked. Temporarily.
Then it came back.
So I crumpled it up and threw it away again.
I had to do this maybe half a dozen times, but I was eventually able to fall asleep without the image haunting me or invading my dreams.
The next day and the days that followed, the image kept popping into my head. I kept crumpling it up and throwing it away. It never stayed away permanently, but it always went away for a little while. After some time passed, the image had faded somewhat. It's still present (I never, ever, ever forget things that are visceral or emotionally-laden) but it has faded far more than I would have expected it to by now.
The visualization shouldn't have worked. I don't even believe in visualization. But it worked.
But I don't think it will work again unless I'm in similar distress. I read a while back about a concept called a "psychological immune system", where your brain protects itself against things that are just too much for it. That's never happened to me before, but I think that's what was happening here. But, for some bizarre reasons, it worked this one time. Freaky.
This was the worst possible time for this to happen. It was during the few days when I thought I was going to be buying a condo and was nervous about doing something so big and important and completely unknown to me, which also coincided with the busiest time at work when everything absolutely had to get done by the day before Condo Day. I was carrying an unhealthy amount of stress and nerves as it was, and literally didn't have room to handle this disgusting image.
I had to do something, but there was nothing to be done. So I did something that I knew would never work: picturing the image as printed on a piece of paper, I reached out with my hands, mimed crumpling up the piece of paper, and threw it away over my shoulder.
It worked. Temporarily.
Then it came back.
So I crumpled it up and threw it away again.
I had to do this maybe half a dozen times, but I was eventually able to fall asleep without the image haunting me or invading my dreams.
The next day and the days that followed, the image kept popping into my head. I kept crumpling it up and throwing it away. It never stayed away permanently, but it always went away for a little while. After some time passed, the image had faded somewhat. It's still present (I never, ever, ever forget things that are visceral or emotionally-laden) but it has faded far more than I would have expected it to by now.
The visualization shouldn't have worked. I don't even believe in visualization. But it worked.
But I don't think it will work again unless I'm in similar distress. I read a while back about a concept called a "psychological immune system", where your brain protects itself against things that are just too much for it. That's never happened to me before, but I think that's what was happening here. But, for some bizarre reasons, it worked this one time. Freaky.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Recommendations
I'm filling out a customer satisfaction for a grocery store, and it asks me how likely I am to recommend the store to family or friends. And, of course, the answer is "highly unlikely". Not because there's anything wrong with the store, but because why would I recommend a grocery store? I go there because they're near me and sell groceries. If you're nearby, I'll say "That's where the nearest grocery store is." If you're not nearby, I'll assume you want to go to one of the multiple comparable stores that's closer to you.
A website that sells undergarments contains very detailed descriptions of its bras, and solicits user reviews. The reviews include a checkbox for whether you'd recommend that bra to others. But why would I recommend a bra to others? Even if it works fantastically for me, that's meaningless to other people. It's such a person item that I would never presume that my experience is in any way applicable to others, or vice versa.
This is something I've been noticing an awful lot lately - reviews and feedback asking you if you'd recommend the thing in question to others, without any regard for whether recommending that genre of thing is even appropriate or relevant. What's up with that?
A website that sells undergarments contains very detailed descriptions of its bras, and solicits user reviews. The reviews include a checkbox for whether you'd recommend that bra to others. But why would I recommend a bra to others? Even if it works fantastically for me, that's meaningless to other people. It's such a person item that I would never presume that my experience is in any way applicable to others, or vice versa.
This is something I've been noticing an awful lot lately - reviews and feedback asking you if you'd recommend the thing in question to others, without any regard for whether recommending that genre of thing is even appropriate or relevant. What's up with that?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
False goals
One bit of conventional wisdom that has been omnipresent since I first heard of it in middle school Guidance class is that you should set goals. They gave us a worksheet where we had to write down five short-term goals, five medium-term goals, and five long-term goals. So I dutifully wrote down things like completing my science project, passing my next piano exam, and graduating.
But those weren't actual goals. Those were just things I was supposed to be doing at the time.
For most of my life, I haven't had actual goals. I wanted to finish high school and go to university because...that's what people usually do at that age, and I couldn't think of anything better. I wanted to get a job because...I didn't have one. The vast majority of things I could have described as goals were just following the script. I achieved these goals, of course, but that's because I basically took something I was already going to achieve within an appropriate timeframe by proceeding through life normally and thought of it as a goal.
It's not like I'm following the script at the expense of my real goals either. Most of the time there isn't actually anything there. For most of my life, there's been nothing on my bucket list. There's nothing on it now. There have only ever been two things on my bucket list, and no more than one has ever been on the list at a given time, with large gaps before, in between, and after. (The two things were losing my virginity and seeing Eddie Izzard - which points to another problem: my genuine goals are rather more dependent on the cooperation of others than typical goals are.) Most of the stuff that I might put on a goal list (buy a condo? get promoted?) is stuff where it wouldn't hurt if I didn't achieve it.
Right now I'm reading a book on success factors (which I might blog about once I'm done), and it talks about how people who are highly goal-oriented tend to be more successful than people who are less goal-oriented. And when I googled some terminology found in that book, the entire first page of google results was articles talking about how you won't ever be successful in life unless you very deliberately set goals and then work to achieve them.
But what if your goals aren't even real? How does that fall into this goal-setting philosophy?
But those weren't actual goals. Those were just things I was supposed to be doing at the time.
For most of my life, I haven't had actual goals. I wanted to finish high school and go to university because...that's what people usually do at that age, and I couldn't think of anything better. I wanted to get a job because...I didn't have one. The vast majority of things I could have described as goals were just following the script. I achieved these goals, of course, but that's because I basically took something I was already going to achieve within an appropriate timeframe by proceeding through life normally and thought of it as a goal.
It's not like I'm following the script at the expense of my real goals either. Most of the time there isn't actually anything there. For most of my life, there's been nothing on my bucket list. There's nothing on it now. There have only ever been two things on my bucket list, and no more than one has ever been on the list at a given time, with large gaps before, in between, and after. (The two things were losing my virginity and seeing Eddie Izzard - which points to another problem: my genuine goals are rather more dependent on the cooperation of others than typical goals are.) Most of the stuff that I might put on a goal list (buy a condo? get promoted?) is stuff where it wouldn't hurt if I didn't achieve it.
Right now I'm reading a book on success factors (which I might blog about once I'm done), and it talks about how people who are highly goal-oriented tend to be more successful than people who are less goal-oriented. And when I googled some terminology found in that book, the entire first page of google results was articles talking about how you won't ever be successful in life unless you very deliberately set goals and then work to achieve them.
But what if your goals aren't even real? How does that fall into this goal-setting philosophy?
Friday, May 11, 2012
How does the Crown have access to people's mental health diagnoses?
A series of cases occupying the country’s highest courts has cast a spotlight on Crown attempts to probe the personal backgrounds of prospective jurors, potentially undermining the sanctity of the jury system.Important question: how did the Crown come about information about people's mental health? That's medical records. Does the Crown also know that I have GERD? Does it know that I had strep throat at xmas?
[...]
The most contentious case involves a 2007 murder trial in Barrie, Ont., where the Crown was privy to private, background information about the mental health, age and driving records of many of the 280 citizens in the jury pool.
And here's why everyone should be worried about it, even people who have never sought mental health care: in my experience with mental health care, I didn't just talk to my mental health care provider about the specific issues that are in the DSM. I also talked to them about my parents' personality traits and my partner's sexual proclivities and the pros and cons of being friends with my friends. So if mental health information is somehow available to the Crown, any information about your interpersonal relationships with anyone you might know who has sought mental health care should logically be available by the same means.
Monday, May 07, 2012
False savings
For consumable products that I use regularly, I tend to clip coupons and watch for sales. However, I've noticed that a lot of coupons (and even some sales) are useless, because the products in question are regularly on sale for significantly less.
For example, I recently had a coupon to save a dollar on a multipack of kleenex (not necessarily Kleenex-brand kleenex, but some brand or another). However, even after the coupon, the price came to approximately a dollar a box. Meanwhile, between the two grocery stores and two drug stores I frequent, there's always some brand of kleenex on sale somewhere for 49 cents a box.
Today I saw a beauty product I use on sale for $8.99, so I bought three. The receipt told me I'd saved $12, since the regular price at that store was $12.99. However, the regular price of the same product at a different store is $9.99. So while I did save money and it was the right time to stock up, I only saved $3.
I'm always finding coupons to save a few dollars on certain brands of make-up that I use. And those brands of make-up are always about half price on ebay.
I don't go out of my way to comparison-shop, I just happen to live and work in high-density neighbourhoods containing several stores that sell things I regularly buy. But even then, it took me about seven years of living on my own before I started noticing these patterns. I can imagine how people in lower-density areas or people with children to take care of in addition to doing their job will be even less likely to notice these patterns.
How much extra money are stores making because customers fall for these false savings? And what other false savings might I not be noticing?
For example, I recently had a coupon to save a dollar on a multipack of kleenex (not necessarily Kleenex-brand kleenex, but some brand or another). However, even after the coupon, the price came to approximately a dollar a box. Meanwhile, between the two grocery stores and two drug stores I frequent, there's always some brand of kleenex on sale somewhere for 49 cents a box.
Today I saw a beauty product I use on sale for $8.99, so I bought three. The receipt told me I'd saved $12, since the regular price at that store was $12.99. However, the regular price of the same product at a different store is $9.99. So while I did save money and it was the right time to stock up, I only saved $3.
I'm always finding coupons to save a few dollars on certain brands of make-up that I use. And those brands of make-up are always about half price on ebay.
I don't go out of my way to comparison-shop, I just happen to live and work in high-density neighbourhoods containing several stores that sell things I regularly buy. But even then, it took me about seven years of living on my own before I started noticing these patterns. I can imagine how people in lower-density areas or people with children to take care of in addition to doing their job will be even less likely to notice these patterns.
How much extra money are stores making because customers fall for these false savings? And what other false savings might I not be noticing?
Sunday, May 06, 2012
My child-self's problem with princesses
Some people think the presence of princess characters in children's media are problematic, thinking that they might lead kids to value being pretty and waiting around to be rescued by Prince Charming. For me they were problematic for other reasons, but I couldn't articulate it until I read a blogger's experience interviewing Julie Andrews about princesses in children's media.
This was problematic for me when I was a kid. When I was very young, I didn't perceive the key characteristics of the Disney princesses and other similar fictional characters to be that they were pretty or that they were rescued by their prince. I perceived it to be that they were Very Very Good. The general moral that I got from the stories is that girls who are Very Very Good - they were patient, they were cheerful, animals loved them, they were proactively helpful, they never lost their temper - got to live Happily Ever After.
And this made me feel bad about myself because I'm not Very Very Good. I'm not terribly cheerful - usually the best I can do is copacetic. I try hard to be good, but sometimes I lose my temper. I don't know how to make people feel good about themselves. I'm not good at seeing ways to be proactively helpful. I'm not bad and I'm not mean, but the best I can do is just quietly stay out of everyone's way and not hurt anything. I'll never have what it takes to be Very Very Good. So I'll never get to live Happily Ever After.
On top of that, it wasn't just the princesses who were Very Very Good. Most, if not all, of the female protagonists I encountered at a young age were Very Very Good. Since I'm not Very Very Good, that made me feel insecure in my femininity. As I've blogged about before, I take after my father, I'm not very feminine-looking and was even less so without the benefit of puberty and makeup, and before I grew my hair long I was constantly mistaken for a boy. My parents discouraged me from wearing skirts and (in a way that's rather similar to today's parents hand-wringing about princesses) tried to encourage me towards less girly pastimes and media consumption. This led me into this weird cycle of self-loathing where I thought my parents didn't want me to do girly stuff not just because I'm not pretty enough but because I'm not Very Very Good, and I also thought I was going to turn into a boy because I'm not pretty enough and because of other misunderstandings of how human anatomy works, and I though that my inability to be Very Very Good was a sign that I must really be a boy. But I didn't want to be a boy, I want to be a girl! (And for those of you just tuning in, I'm female-born and cisgendered.)
Unfortunately, I don't think this trend of Very Very Good protagonists is going to go away. Adults want kids to be good, so it makes sense that they'd keep producing children's media where Very Very Good = Happily Ever After.
But children's media could help produce more children who are closer to Very Very Good by teaching kids how to be Very Very Good, perhaps by showing characters who are working on it. How do you make your friends feel good about themselves? How do you be patient and never lose your temper? How do you be proactively helpful? The stories I read as a kid portrayed these characteristics as innate, but they're actually things people can learn and work on.
There's recent research (I'm pretty sure I read it in Malcolm Gladwell, but the specific source escapes me) that kids who think good grades are the result of hard work get better outcomes than kids who think good grades are the result of innate intelligence. I think something similar could happen if virtue were presented as the result of work rather than as innate, as something you have to think about rather than something that comes automatically.
And so I asked Julie Andrews (JULIE ANDREWS!), and Emma, who happened to be there with her own young daughter, how we raise strong, confident independent girls in a culture that’s so saturated with princesses.
I asked really nicely, I promise.
And their answers were terrific.
Because they didn’t talk about tiaras. Or even princes. They talked about values.
-Princesses are involved in charitable causes
-Princesses are kind
-Princesses are patrons of the arts
-Princesses make their friends feel good about themselves.
This was problematic for me when I was a kid. When I was very young, I didn't perceive the key characteristics of the Disney princesses and other similar fictional characters to be that they were pretty or that they were rescued by their prince. I perceived it to be that they were Very Very Good. The general moral that I got from the stories is that girls who are Very Very Good - they were patient, they were cheerful, animals loved them, they were proactively helpful, they never lost their temper - got to live Happily Ever After.
And this made me feel bad about myself because I'm not Very Very Good. I'm not terribly cheerful - usually the best I can do is copacetic. I try hard to be good, but sometimes I lose my temper. I don't know how to make people feel good about themselves. I'm not good at seeing ways to be proactively helpful. I'm not bad and I'm not mean, but the best I can do is just quietly stay out of everyone's way and not hurt anything. I'll never have what it takes to be Very Very Good. So I'll never get to live Happily Ever After.
On top of that, it wasn't just the princesses who were Very Very Good. Most, if not all, of the female protagonists I encountered at a young age were Very Very Good. Since I'm not Very Very Good, that made me feel insecure in my femininity. As I've blogged about before, I take after my father, I'm not very feminine-looking and was even less so without the benefit of puberty and makeup, and before I grew my hair long I was constantly mistaken for a boy. My parents discouraged me from wearing skirts and (in a way that's rather similar to today's parents hand-wringing about princesses) tried to encourage me towards less girly pastimes and media consumption. This led me into this weird cycle of self-loathing where I thought my parents didn't want me to do girly stuff not just because I'm not pretty enough but because I'm not Very Very Good, and I also thought I was going to turn into a boy because I'm not pretty enough and because of other misunderstandings of how human anatomy works, and I though that my inability to be Very Very Good was a sign that I must really be a boy. But I didn't want to be a boy, I want to be a girl! (And for those of you just tuning in, I'm female-born and cisgendered.)
Unfortunately, I don't think this trend of Very Very Good protagonists is going to go away. Adults want kids to be good, so it makes sense that they'd keep producing children's media where Very Very Good = Happily Ever After.
But children's media could help produce more children who are closer to Very Very Good by teaching kids how to be Very Very Good, perhaps by showing characters who are working on it. How do you make your friends feel good about themselves? How do you be patient and never lose your temper? How do you be proactively helpful? The stories I read as a kid portrayed these characteristics as innate, but they're actually things people can learn and work on.
There's recent research (I'm pretty sure I read it in Malcolm Gladwell, but the specific source escapes me) that kids who think good grades are the result of hard work get better outcomes than kids who think good grades are the result of innate intelligence. I think something similar could happen if virtue were presented as the result of work rather than as innate, as something you have to think about rather than something that comes automatically.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Teach me about the Canadian Forces drug plan
Reading this article, the following description of a drug program the Canadian Forces is considering cutting struck me as odd:
In any case, I think it's inappropriate for Viagra (or any other drug) to get special treatment. It shouldn't have a special program, it shouldn't be specifically cut back. Choices of specific medications should be between doctor and patient, and drug plans should cover what the doctor prescribes. To prioritize or pick on specific drugs because they make someone's inner 12-year-old snicker makes you no better than Arizona.
Within government, officials have expressed concern for years about the rising cost of the wildly popular Viagra program, which saw members limited to six of the little blue pills a month — at a cost of between $15 and $22 per pill.The article gives the impression that the Canadian Forces have a Viagra program that is separate from their ordinary drug plan. Is this actually the case, or are the numbers quoted above just what happens when you apply the ordinary drug plan to Viagra?
In any case, I think it's inappropriate for Viagra (or any other drug) to get special treatment. It shouldn't have a special program, it shouldn't be specifically cut back. Choices of specific medications should be between doctor and patient, and drug plans should cover what the doctor prescribes. To prioritize or pick on specific drugs because they make someone's inner 12-year-old snicker makes you no better than Arizona.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Things They Should Invent: give the collections of closed government libraries to Google
Apparently they're closing government libraries. Which is a problem in and of itself, but more distressing is that some of the collections might get thrown out:
Solution: any materials that would otherwise be thrown out should be given to Google.
Yes, giving public assets to a private corporation is generally not a good practice. However, if they are otherwise going to go into the trash, giving them to Google will at least preserve the information. It won't be properly catalogued like in a library, but they can scan and index it like they do with Google Books, and at least it will be searchable.
They could also probably be convinced to index the English and French versions of documents in parallel, since that will add to the corpus they use for Google Translate (which definitely needs the help - I recently saw it translate "Bill Cosby" as "projet de loi Cosby"!)
From the point of view of Google, this would be a major donation, so I'm sure the government could negotiate an agreement whereby in exchange for the donation Google commits to indexing it and making it searchable and accessible to everyone. It would cost nothing, and protect our public assets rather than destroying them.
Transport Canada's library is now closed, too, with seven workers informed Monday their jobs are obsolete. They will now spend months packing up and told CBC News much of the collection will soon be in the trash.
[...]
Some archives are being tossed because there is no central library and so many departments are closing their libraries.
Solution: any materials that would otherwise be thrown out should be given to Google.
Yes, giving public assets to a private corporation is generally not a good practice. However, if they are otherwise going to go into the trash, giving them to Google will at least preserve the information. It won't be properly catalogued like in a library, but they can scan and index it like they do with Google Books, and at least it will be searchable.
They could also probably be convinced to index the English and French versions of documents in parallel, since that will add to the corpus they use for Google Translate (which definitely needs the help - I recently saw it translate "Bill Cosby" as "projet de loi Cosby"!)
From the point of view of Google, this would be a major donation, so I'm sure the government could negotiate an agreement whereby in exchange for the donation Google commits to indexing it and making it searchable and accessible to everyone. It would cost nothing, and protect our public assets rather than destroying them.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
The Queen's hats
When I was younger, I thought the Queen looked disproportionately frumpy, by which I mean that, even taking into account her age and the styles of the day and her need to dress conservatively, she looked frumpier than she should given all these factors. But in the past decade or so, I stopped thinking this.
Looking at this retrospective of her hats, I realize why. Brimmed hats are much more flattering on the Queen than brimless hats, but it seems she's only started wearing brimmed hats in the past decade or so.
Based on what I've read of the Queen's fashion strategy, this is probably for utilitarian purposes. She wants people to be able to see her, and a brimless hat shows her face much better. Unfortunately, it also adds a dozen years and makes her look mean.
However, in the past decade or so, the royal milliners seem to have solved the engineering problem of designing a brimmed hat that still shows enough of the Queen's face so she can be photographed. Well done, but I'm kind of surprised that it took 50 years to achieve that.
Looking at this retrospective of her hats, I realize why. Brimmed hats are much more flattering on the Queen than brimless hats, but it seems she's only started wearing brimmed hats in the past decade or so.
Based on what I've read of the Queen's fashion strategy, this is probably for utilitarian purposes. She wants people to be able to see her, and a brimless hat shows her face much better. Unfortunately, it also adds a dozen years and makes her look mean.
However, in the past decade or so, the royal milliners seem to have solved the engineering problem of designing a brimmed hat that still shows enough of the Queen's face so she can be photographed. Well done, but I'm kind of surprised that it took 50 years to achieve that.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Best story ever
A while back, I stumbled upon a blog by a woman who was raised in a fundamentalist christian household and grew up to marry a minister and have lots of children in quick succession. I found the author sympathetic and engaging, and was soon reading it regularly because I was just so interested in a life that's so different from my own.
This blogger has recently posted the most amazing story - and the most romantic real-life love story - I've ever heard of. I highly recommend reading the whole thing, start to finish.
This blogger has recently posted the most amazing story - and the most romantic real-life love story - I've ever heard of. I highly recommend reading the whole thing, start to finish.
How to cool the Ontario housing market without hurting ordinary people
Recently in the news: Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney wants to cool the housing market.
This made me think of subsection 6(2) of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, which states:
So to cool the housing market, they should either remove this exemption, or place a time limit on it like there was in 1992.
From the point of view of an ordinary person hoping to break into the housing market simply to purchase a place to live in, the problem with the housing market is investors. They have lots of money and go in buying up condos en masse to rent out and perhaps later flip, taking them away from those of us who need to be prudent and evaluate a unit from the perspective of "How would I feel about pouring my life's savings into this and living here for the rest of my life?"
If the exemption from the guideline rent increase is eliminated, rental properties will be less attractive investments. It wouldn't make them completely unattractive investments, but a limit in how much you can increase rent where no such limit existed before should cool the market a bit by making investors more cautious.
But this will not make condos any less appealing to ordinary buyers looking for a home for themselves. It will simply take some of the investors out of the market and leave more units for the rest of us.
It will also have the advantage of improving long-term affordability of newer (and therefore better-quality and more energy-efficient) rental housing, thereby making better housing more accessible for everyone.
This made me think of subsection 6(2) of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, which states:
(2) Sections 104, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 126 to 133, 165 and 167 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,Section 120 of the ORTA applies to the guideline rent increase, which means that properties that were built or started being rented out after 1998/1975/1991 (as applicable) are exempt from the rent increase guideline, and the landlords can raise the rent by however much they want.
(a) it was not occupied for any purpose before June 17, 1998;(b) it is a rental unit no part of which has been previously rented since July 29, 1975; or(c) no part of the building, mobile home park or land lease community was occupied for residential purposes before November 1, 1991. 2006, c. 17, s. 6 (2).
So to cool the housing market, they should either remove this exemption, or place a time limit on it like there was in 1992.
From the point of view of an ordinary person hoping to break into the housing market simply to purchase a place to live in, the problem with the housing market is investors. They have lots of money and go in buying up condos en masse to rent out and perhaps later flip, taking them away from those of us who need to be prudent and evaluate a unit from the perspective of "How would I feel about pouring my life's savings into this and living here for the rest of my life?"
If the exemption from the guideline rent increase is eliminated, rental properties will be less attractive investments. It wouldn't make them completely unattractive investments, but a limit in how much you can increase rent where no such limit existed before should cool the market a bit by making investors more cautious.
But this will not make condos any less appealing to ordinary buyers looking for a home for themselves. It will simply take some of the investors out of the market and leave more units for the rest of us.
It will also have the advantage of improving long-term affordability of newer (and therefore better-quality and more energy-efficient) rental housing, thereby making better housing more accessible for everyone.
Metro has changed its cash registers for the worse
Metro recently changed their cash register software. Previously, when a sale item was scanned, the regular price and the discount showed up on the screen immediately. Now, the discounts don't show up until all the items have been rung in.
This is a problem. It's no longer possible for a cashier to scan an item to see if it's on sale, or for customers to check that what they think on sale is in fact on sale until all the items are scanned and packed. And if it turns out the item isn't actually on sale and you don't want it (or don't want as many) at the full price, the process of unscanning and returning them will take even longer if left to the end of the checkout process.
This must also be annoying for the cashiers. I wouldn't be surprised if, several times a day, customers go "Wait, I thought that was on sale!" and the cashier has to stop what they're doing and reassure the customer that it is in fact on sale and the discount will show up at the end of the transaction. And I'm sure some more demanding customers won't be happy with that explanation and arguments will ensue.
This change has no appreciable benefits and causes mild to moderate annoyance and inconvenience for everyone involved. I have no idea what Metro was thinking when they introduced this system, but I hope it's undoable.
This is a problem. It's no longer possible for a cashier to scan an item to see if it's on sale, or for customers to check that what they think on sale is in fact on sale until all the items are scanned and packed. And if it turns out the item isn't actually on sale and you don't want it (or don't want as many) at the full price, the process of unscanning and returning them will take even longer if left to the end of the checkout process.
This must also be annoying for the cashiers. I wouldn't be surprised if, several times a day, customers go "Wait, I thought that was on sale!" and the cashier has to stop what they're doing and reassure the customer that it is in fact on sale and the discount will show up at the end of the transaction. And I'm sure some more demanding customers won't be happy with that explanation and arguments will ensue.
This change has no appreciable benefits and causes mild to moderate annoyance and inconvenience for everyone involved. I have no idea what Metro was thinking when they introduced this system, but I hope it's undoable.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Who are these people and why do they live in Toronto?
“I know Rob Ford. He is a far more tolerant individual than many of the people attacking him. Ford’s problem isn’t homophobia, nor does he have a hidden agenda to take away gay rights. His concern is that his participation in a Pride event, particularly the parade, will tick off his political base. But Ford needs to remember his base consists of a lot more people than social conservatives.” - Adrienne Batra, former press secretaryThe precedent of the Mayor of Toronto participating in Pride is over 20 years old. If there are in fact people who are so vexed by a mayor doing this part of the mayor's job that they wouldn't vote for that person for the job of mayor, why are they still living here? Nearly everywhere else has a smaller, quieter Pride (and there are probably still some smaller towns that don't have a Pride). Surely they'd be more comfortable elsewhere?
Friday, April 27, 2012
What if Barrett's esophagus isn't actually a problem?
I previously came up with the idea that medical science should come up with a way to install stomach lining in the esophagus to protect it against acid reflux.
In some reading I was doing today, I discovered that the changes to the esophagus that constitute Barrett's esophagus are actually making it closer to stomach lining than to esophageal lining.
So what if Barrett's esophagus isn't a problem? What if it's just the esophageal equivalent of a callous?
The reason why Barrett's esophagus is even a thing is that it's considered a precancerous condition, in that a large percentage of esophageal cancer patients have Barrett's esophagus. Because of this, a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus triggers a more active esophageal cancer screening protocol.
But I really am beginning to suspect that Barrett's esophagus itself isn't actually a problem, it's just a correlation. Fortunately, science does seem to be working in that direction. Most of the papers I see recently emphasize how few Barrett's esophagus patients (usually stated at only 1%) go on to develop esophageal cancer, and science does seem to be looking at it as correlation instead of causation. Hopefully researchers will focus on better pinpointing the actual root cause that differentiates that 1% within the next 10 years and spare me any unnecessary scoping.
In some reading I was doing today, I discovered that the changes to the esophagus that constitute Barrett's esophagus are actually making it closer to stomach lining than to esophageal lining.
So what if Barrett's esophagus isn't a problem? What if it's just the esophageal equivalent of a callous?
The reason why Barrett's esophagus is even a thing is that it's considered a precancerous condition, in that a large percentage of esophageal cancer patients have Barrett's esophagus. Because of this, a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus triggers a more active esophageal cancer screening protocol.
But I really am beginning to suspect that Barrett's esophagus itself isn't actually a problem, it's just a correlation. Fortunately, science does seem to be working in that direction. Most of the papers I see recently emphasize how few Barrett's esophagus patients (usually stated at only 1%) go on to develop esophageal cancer, and science does seem to be looking at it as correlation instead of causation. Hopefully researchers will focus on better pinpointing the actual root cause that differentiates that 1% within the next 10 years and spare me any unnecessary scoping.
Mnemonic wanted
Does anyone know a mnemonic for correctly identifying when to use "consist of" and when to use "consist in"?
I know the theoretical difference between the two. "Consist of" is "to be made up of"; "consist in" is "to have as its main or essential part". The problem is that every single time I try to apply that logic to a sentence, including the sentences used by credible reference books as examples for "consist in", my logic comes up with "the meaning there is clearly "to be made up of", therefore the correct answer is "consist of."
Anyone know any tricks for landing on the right answer when you're at a philosophical impasse?
I know the theoretical difference between the two. "Consist of" is "to be made up of"; "consist in" is "to have as its main or essential part". The problem is that every single time I try to apply that logic to a sentence, including the sentences used by credible reference books as examples for "consist in", my logic comes up with "the meaning there is clearly "to be made up of", therefore the correct answer is "consist of."
Anyone know any tricks for landing on the right answer when you're at a philosophical impasse?
Monday, April 23, 2012
How M 3-12 is setting back all of society
I've recently been working on my primary client's two most important projects of the year. There are some awkward-to-translate phrases that keep popping up, and I'd really like to reflect and brainstorm on them and come up with something that sounds smooth and idiomatic in English to improve my client's credibility in the eyes of the English-language audience they're trying to convince.
I heard on the radio this morning that Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney thinks the housing market needs to be cooled. My shower gave me a few ideas that might actually cool the housing market without harming ordinary citizens and would solve some other problems that exist in the Toronto housing market at the same time, and I really want to get that refined and blogged.
I've been reading about various strategies used in schools today to make kids less inclined to bully, and I think some of them might not work and might actually do more harm than good. I want to sit down and work on explaining my child-self's visceral "That won't work!" using my adult articulateness and post it here so the people with the ability to change anti-bullying programs can google upon it and keep it in mind when refining their programs.
But I don't have the time and mental energy to give to all these things, because I have to give that time and energy to fighting for the same scope of medical care that was available to my mother when she was my age. My mother! Who is old enough to collect CPP!
When reading the first few paragraphs of this post, you were probably thinking "So what? That's nothing special. Everyone has ideas that they want to work on and perfect."
And that's my point exactly.
Everyone has a few ideas in their head that they want to work on. Most people probably have more than I do, since I'm so far on the introvert side of the scale. We think about these ideas, let them fester, brainstorm, journal, talk them over, try things out, and eventually arrive at something that's new or innovative or an improvement on the status quo or otherwise helps make our little corner of the world better. That's how society progresses.
But now that we suddenly have to put all this time and energy and effort into a tedious rehashing of what was settled a generation ago, we have less time and energy and effort to put into the new and improved and innovative. And this is slows down the progress we make as a society.
Simple demographics show that the majority of Canadians are potentially affected by or care about whether abortion is available when needed. Even if you are one of the few who isn't affected and doesn't care, you can still see how it will slow us down to have so many people have to drop everything and focus on the old and redundant.
With some regularity, the news reports that Canada has to improve its productivity and innovation. How can we be expected to do this when those in power keep forcing us to rehash the same old thing? This is detrimental to everyone, regardless if they'll ever need to end a pregnancy.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
How to make me hate a new condo in my neighbourhood
I've always been baffled by the trend of dissing condos, and enthusiastically embraced every condo they've built in my neighbourhood in the near-decade I've lived here. They're homes! For people! My neighbourhood is awesome, so I'm glad that more people will get to enjoy it. What makes my neighbourhood awesome is that its density allows all kinds of different businesses and amenities to thrive here, so more people will create more demand and lead to even more new and interesting businesses and amenities. And, on top of all this, one of those condos might end up being just right for me.
But I was rather pissed off when I saw signage today suggesting that this is actually getting built. So why does this one condo piss me off when all the other thrill me? Because of the following quote from the developer, taken from the article linked above:
The architecture of that "ratty block" isn't particularly ratty. It's your standard 19th century Yonge St. lowrises and doesn't deserve to be maligned any more than any other part of the city does. But, more importantly, the content of that "ratty block" is an integral part of my neighbourhood. I use the businesses and amenities in that block all the time, and they're a key part of my sense of "I love this neighbourhood, it has everything!"
All the other condos, including the much-NIMBYed Minto towers, have presented the neighbourhood as a feature. But (as demonstrated by the article as a whole, not just that one quote), this developer seems to have less respect for the existing neighbourhood, seeing it as something to be knocked down and built over. And if they don't respect our neighbourhood, will they do anything to find a home for our local pub in the new development? Or the used bookstore? Or the kitchen store? Or that one video store that's actually good? Losing these businesses would make our neighbourhood less convenient, which is a major blow in a neighbourhood that we chose for its convenience. All of this makes me - a pro-condo neighbourhood resident - inclined to oppose the building.
And it also makes me - in the market for a condo in the neighbourhood - disinclined to even consider buying from this developer.
But I was rather pissed off when I saw signage today suggesting that this is actually getting built. So why does this one condo piss me off when all the other thrill me? Because of the following quote from the developer, taken from the article linked above:
“What a ratty block of what I consider to be one of the premier addresses in the city,” says Mr. Sonshine.
The architecture of that "ratty block" isn't particularly ratty. It's your standard 19th century Yonge St. lowrises and doesn't deserve to be maligned any more than any other part of the city does. But, more importantly, the content of that "ratty block" is an integral part of my neighbourhood. I use the businesses and amenities in that block all the time, and they're a key part of my sense of "I love this neighbourhood, it has everything!"
All the other condos, including the much-NIMBYed Minto towers, have presented the neighbourhood as a feature. But (as demonstrated by the article as a whole, not just that one quote), this developer seems to have less respect for the existing neighbourhood, seeing it as something to be knocked down and built over. And if they don't respect our neighbourhood, will they do anything to find a home for our local pub in the new development? Or the used bookstore? Or the kitchen store? Or that one video store that's actually good? Losing these businesses would make our neighbourhood less convenient, which is a major blow in a neighbourhood that we chose for its convenience. All of this makes me - a pro-condo neighbourhood resident - inclined to oppose the building.
And it also makes me - in the market for a condo in the neighbourhood - disinclined to even consider buying from this developer.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
More information please: why do people who think catechism is inappropriate for children send their kids to Catholic school
Recently in the news: parents who are opposed to a Catholic school brochure that describes homosexuals as "objectively disordered".
My (and, likely, many others') first reaction was to roll my eyes. The "objectively disordered" wording comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So my first thought was "If you don't like the teaching of the Catholic church maybe you shouldn't be sending your kids to Catholic school!"
But this is a glaringly obvious question - the first one that comes to mind when one recognizes or learns that the objectionable phrase is taken directly from catechism.
So why did the reporter not ask that question and put the answer in the article? It does mention in passing that one of the mothers is Catholic, but that actually raises more question than it answers. If she's Catholic, she's more likely to already be familiar with the catechism, which means that she's identifying with this religion despite the fact that it considers her "objectively disordered". But she doesn't consider this teaching of the religion she identifies with appropriate for her kids? What leads a person to lead their life in such a self-contradictory way?
It makes the parents look foolish to present these contradictions without explanations, and the Star is doing them a disservice by printing this story without answering these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)