There have been a lot of technological changes in recent years, and I haven't felt it necessary to adapt these changes wholesale. As a result, my overall media consumption and telecommunications patterns are starting to look a bit old-fashioned.
Here's what happened:
Newspapers
I've found that I read about three times as many articles in print newspapers than in online newspapers. Because you have to page through all the pages, more headlines and such catch my eye and I end up reading more articles, whereas when I'm reading online I tend not to dig deeper than what's linked to on the front page. It isn't readily apparent to me online whether I've looked at all the day's headlines or not, and it's important to me that I at least see what the headlines are even if I choose not to read all the articles.
I do use newspaper websites too, of course. There are columns I read regularly in papers I don't subscribe to, I look at how other media outlets are covering stories when I'm trying to get a full in-depth picture, and I often land on newspaper websites when googling things. But I continue to read my core newspapers in print so that my baseline news consumption doesn't get drastically reduced.
Books
I also mostly read books in print, because I find I focus better. I do use ebooks from time to time (when the library doesn't have something in print, when I want searchable, when I want to be able to read on my ipod), but I find I can concentrate and get into the story better when reading on paper. (I'm more likely to glaze over when reading on screen.)
I also find I like the physical switch from sitting in my computer chair and looking at my computer screen - especially since I'm now working from home so I'm in this exact same chair looking at this exact same screen for nearly all my waking hours. Don't get me wrong, I love my computer, but when I'm reading a book I sit in a different place, in a different position, facing a different direction, and escape into a different world.
Cable
When TV shows and movies are available on demand, I can watch them whenever I want. So I end up never watching them because I can always get to them later. So then, instead of being a nice break and bit of entertainment, they become an item on my to-do list.
However, if TV shows or movies are on TV at a specific time, then I'll stop what I'm doing if at all possible and watch them at that time because that's when they're on. It's a perfectly valid excuse to take a break, and it's also a clearly circumscribed break. No half-assed "I'll just game for a bit." Nope, I game for the duration of this specific TV show, and then get back to what I should be doing.
For example, I'm currently watch 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation because they're in syndication on channels I get. Twice a day, I take a half-hour break, and I'm getting through these shows at the rate of one episode a day.
However, United States of Tara, Big Love, Dexter and Arrested Development have been languishing on my "stuff I should get around to watching" list for literally years. Because they're no longer on TV or on channels I get, I'd have to get the DVDs from the library and binge-watch (because you can only take out a DVD for a week) or acquire them through unofficial channels. But I can do that whenever, so I haven't done it yet. The DVDs are languishing on my holds list and the shows are among the many things weighing down my mental to-do list.
I also don't feel any particular need to avoid television that has commercial breaks, because I have a long-standing habit of using commercial breaks to get shit done. When I'm watching something and commercials come on, I start doing housework or, if it's close to bedtime, going through my evening routine. I'm motivated because it's such a short period of time, so I get a surprising amount done. I wouldn't be anywhere near as motivated or efficient if I just though "I'll do 15 minutes of housework now for no particular reason."
There's also the fact that I use TV for exercise. The "if I can do it whenever, I'll never get around to it" thing holds here too. I'll get down on the floor and do pilates because Pilates from the Inside Out is on TV. But if I had DVDs or online videos, I'd procrastinate it. And given how much I detest exercise, anything that gets me doing it is good.
Cable is a major expense and is high on the Things I'd Cut If I Needed To Save Money list, but fortunately I don't need to cut it yet, so I keep it for the structure that it gives to my recreational habits.
Landline
I do own a cellphone, but it's a cheap phone that's uncomfortable to talk on with the cheapest plan I could find. (And for three years, I had a deal where I didn't pay anything at all for it.) I use it when I need to get in touch with someone while I'm out of the house, but I don't like it for social conversation. For social purposes, I very much prefer the landline.
The major advantage of the landline is it's in my home, not in my purse. I'm only able to chat for social purposes (and for many business purposes) when I'm at home. When I'm out and about, I've got shit to do and/or I'm already socializing with someone, so I'm simply not available for telephone conversations. I do still enjoy long, rambling, high-school-style telephone conversations when both parties have the time, but I only ever have time when I'm at home.
I think one of the factors here is that I live alone. I don't need telephone privacy from anyone else or have anyone else tying up my line (and back when these things did apply, it was the 20th century and I was a teenager, so a cellphone would have been an unattainable luxury for me at the time), so I don't have any reason not to use the landline, or any reason why using the cell would be preferable.
Email
Many people in recent years have moved towards using texting for social purposes, but I still find email more convenient for many of the same reasons why I find the landline more convenient. Again, I do use texting if I'm out and about and need to communicate with someone textually, or if I need to put textual information directly into someone's cellphone. And when people text me, I do text back (eventually, once I'm within reach of my cell and have it turned on.)
But I find it inconvenient for purely social "Hi, how's it going, how was your day?" purposes, again because I'm only up for these purely social conversations when I'm at home, and when I'm at home it's much more convenient to write textual conversations on the computer.
I can type nearly 120 wpm (my typing speed actually went up after plateauing for years!) but I can only text at about 50 on a good day. The keyboard is also more conducive to using sentences and paragraphs and punctuation and such. You don't need to press a extra button to insert a number or a semicolon or anything, you just go. Plus, if I'm at home, I'm almost always at the computer so it's just a question of alt-tabbing to another window and replying, whereas if I were to text a reply I'd have to put down/stop what I'm doing, pick up another device, and painstakingly peck out a reply.
Again, this is also informed by the fact that I live alone and in a very small apartment. I leave my computer on whenever I'm home and awake, I can hear any incoming email thanks to Gmail Notifier, and basically I'm never in a situation where using another device is more convenient for me than using my computer and I'm up for social chitchat. So, again, I don't have any reason not to use email, or any reason why texting would be preferable for casual conversation.
But apparently all these things are starting to be seen as old-fashioned, and, from what I've seen on Reddit and such, younger people in their teens and 20s hardly use them at all. But I'm well over 30 now. I hope that makes me old enough to be a bit old-fashioned.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Why try to force people to exchange gifts when none of them want to?
DEAR MISS MANNERS,
As a father of two teenagers sons (14 & 18) and step-father of two more boys (16 & 21), I am at odds with my wife about birthday gifts between the siblings.
While I understand that giving should be from the heart, I feel the teenage boys could use a "nudge" in the right direction. My idea was that sibling gifts should be at least $25, and no limit to generosity above this base level of gift card or purchase. In this way, the amount always comes back to them anyway, so it's not a big budget issue, looking at the year as a whole.
What are your thoughts about brotherly love through birthday gifts, should it be regulated just enough to encourage giving?
If they're unenthusiastic about giving each other gifts, why eliminate the option of a mutual agreement not to exchange gifts? Giving the perfect gift is awesome, but the would-be joy of giving quickly becomes an arduous chore when it's forced upon you.
If the kids have different ideas of what constitutes an appropriate birthday present, it might be an idea to make some guidelines (with their input!) But if they're all just unenthusiastic, I think it would be a better idea to let them drop it in favour of exchanging gifts with people they actually care about. The most important thing in encouraging giving is to make it a pleasure, not a chore.
Things They Should Invent: insist on Advent
On November 1, multiple non-retail sources, ranging from Weather Network polls to Reddit alien doodles, turned Christmasmas themed. As though everyone had collectively decided "It's November, therefore it's time to think about Christmas!" (In fact, one of the polls or articles on the Weather Network even said this outright.)
This is ridiculous. It wasn't too long ago that US Thanksgiving was considered the distant early beginning of Christmas shopping and such. But to stretch it out to very nearly 2 full months? That will ruin it for everyone, because everyone will be tired of Christmas by the time December rolls around. And to unquestioningly treat that as baseline human reality? Unacceptable!
I have a solution: Christians should insist that Advent be respected.
Advent is, in many Christian denominations, a period of anticipation and preparation for the arrival of Christ. In Western denominations (which includes Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist), it begins four Sundays before Christmas, which ranges from November 27 to December 3 depending on how the calendar falls that year. That seems like plenty of time for actively getting ready for Christmas. In fact, it has been decreed to be enough time by the very people who decreed that Christmas is A Thing in the first place!
Appropriately, because Christmas is a Christian holiday, this solution needs to be pushed and promoted and advocated for by Christians. There are people out there who are very insistent that Christmas should be acknowledged in public spaces, going to far as to proclaiming there is a "War on Christmas" if it isn't acknowledge to their satisfaction.
These people, especially, can do an enormous amount of good by also insisting that Advent be acknowledged, and by proclaiming and pre-Advent public display of Christmas paraphernalia to be a War on Advent.
The liturgical calendar exists for a reason. There are different seasons that reflect the trials and tribulations of the life of Christ and of the human condition. Christianity - and life itself - are not all trees and presents and food and adorable haloed babies. Advent, too, is there for a reason, and organizations that fail to respect it are failing to respect the complexity of your religion. You should protest this, like you would protest the use of a creche as an Easter decoration.
This is ridiculous. It wasn't too long ago that US Thanksgiving was considered the distant early beginning of Christmas shopping and such. But to stretch it out to very nearly 2 full months? That will ruin it for everyone, because everyone will be tired of Christmas by the time December rolls around. And to unquestioningly treat that as baseline human reality? Unacceptable!
I have a solution: Christians should insist that Advent be respected.
Advent is, in many Christian denominations, a period of anticipation and preparation for the arrival of Christ. In Western denominations (which includes Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist), it begins four Sundays before Christmas, which ranges from November 27 to December 3 depending on how the calendar falls that year. That seems like plenty of time for actively getting ready for Christmas. In fact, it has been decreed to be enough time by the very people who decreed that Christmas is A Thing in the first place!
Appropriately, because Christmas is a Christian holiday, this solution needs to be pushed and promoted and advocated for by Christians. There are people out there who are very insistent that Christmas should be acknowledged in public spaces, going to far as to proclaiming there is a "War on Christmas" if it isn't acknowledge to their satisfaction.
These people, especially, can do an enormous amount of good by also insisting that Advent be acknowledged, and by proclaiming and pre-Advent public display of Christmas paraphernalia to be a War on Advent.
The liturgical calendar exists for a reason. There are different seasons that reflect the trials and tribulations of the life of Christ and of the human condition. Christianity - and life itself - are not all trees and presents and food and adorable haloed babies. Advent, too, is there for a reason, and organizations that fail to respect it are failing to respect the complexity of your religion. You should protest this, like you would protest the use of a creche as an Easter decoration.
The best thing about having bought a condo
So it was just over a year ago that I bought my condo. It's currently under construction, and my strongest feeling about the whole thing is relief that I don't have to buy a condo!
I've never felt it's strictly necessary to buy a condo, but I have felt that it's strictly necessary for my decision to rent to be the best choice, which meant that I needed to keep running numbers and researching prices and basically working on buying a condo even when I wasn't buying one.
But the numbers and the situation turned last year, and I managed to buy the exact unit I wanted, which means that for the past year this omnipresent chores has been off my to-do list!
Condo people are always asking me if I'm excited about the new place, and I'm not. I have no negative feelings about it, but my positive feelings aren't as strong as excitement. However, I have been incredibly relaxed and stress-free for the past year because it's no longer up in the air. The complex multivariable equation of what/when/where/if has been turned into something simple: hoard money and throw it at the mortgage.
That I can do.
I've never felt it's strictly necessary to buy a condo, but I have felt that it's strictly necessary for my decision to rent to be the best choice, which meant that I needed to keep running numbers and researching prices and basically working on buying a condo even when I wasn't buying one.
But the numbers and the situation turned last year, and I managed to buy the exact unit I wanted, which means that for the past year this omnipresent chores has been off my to-do list!
Condo people are always asking me if I'm excited about the new place, and I'm not. I have no negative feelings about it, but my positive feelings aren't as strong as excitement. However, I have been incredibly relaxed and stress-free for the past year because it's no longer up in the air. The complex multivariable equation of what/when/where/if has been turned into something simple: hoard money and throw it at the mortgage.
That I can do.
Scientific approaches without critical thinking
I blogged before about the guy on the GO bus who was trying to convince me that I shouldn't use my anti-carsickness wristbands because he believed their effect was purely psychosomatic and had no scientific basis.
This is an example of something that's been irritating me for a while: people who are so dedicated to the scientific method that they don't think critically about whether it's necessary to approach a particular problem or situation from a purely scientific perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of science. It's just that it isn't absolutely necessary to limit oneself to a strict, solely evidence-based, clinical, experimental approach to absolutely everything in the world at absolutely all times.
Here are some of the problems:
Unwillingness to make educated guesses
Sometimes, if you ask an evidence-based expert's opinion on something, they'll just say "There haven't been any studies conducted." But, as someone who doesn't know much about a number of subject areas, I'd very much like their educated guess.
Using a blatantly fake example so as not to accidentally create googleability on something I don't know anything about, suppose I've read on the internet that jumping out of a second-storey window will cure your cancer. They probably haven't done any studies on this. But we can still use our basic knowledge of how cancer and gravity and the world work to conclude "No, it doesn't work that way." But suppose I say that I've read on the internet that if you jump out a second-storey window, you'll most likely survive but might injure the part of your body that you land on. Without conducting any studies, we can look at our basic knowledge of the world and say "Seems about right."
This comes up and annoys me most often in websites dedicated to scientific analysis of beauty products. They'll say something like "The product claims to do X, Y and Z. There have been no studies conducted on whether these ingredients would do X, Y or Z." And then they leave it at that. Okay, but is the claim plausible? Is the claim ridiculous? In the absence of clinical evidence, use your education and make an educated guess! I'm reading you for expertise, not just for you to google up other people's studies so I don't have to.
The assumption that untested = harmful
When I was having my dysphagia incident, at one point during the long, scary weekend when I was waiting to see my doctor, I googled up the reflexology points that correspond with the esophagus, and massaged them. It helped a little. If my esophagus was functioning at 10%, it felt like it was functioning at 15% after I did my little experiment in self-reflexology.
I don't know if reflexology has been clinically tested (the internet tells me it has and the internet tells me it hasn't). But even if it hasn't been tested, it's reasonable to assume I'm doing myself no harm by rubbing my own feet. If reflexology did serious harm, someone probably would have noticed by now. (In fact, if it could do harm, it's better for me to google up the correct reflexology points and operate under the assumption that I'm doing a medical treatment on myself than to just rub my feet willy-nilly.)
The assumption that ineffective = harmful
When I was a teenager, I read or heard somewhere that duct tape can cure warts. In the early 2000s, I had an opportunity to try it, and it worked fantastically where drugstore treatments had no effect. Sometime later, someone did a study of duct tape as a wart treatment (although they used clear duct tape and I used silver) and they found that the results for duct tape were no different than the results for no treatment.
What I have a problem with is people who use this study to conclude that you shouldn't try to treat your warts with duct tape. The study found that the results were no different from doing nothing. So why not give it a try if you want to do it? Basically the study proved that putting duct tape on your foot has no effect. So if you want to do something silly-looking that the evidence found has no effect, why shouldn't you?
When it doesn't matter if it's scientific
As I've blogged about before, I found significant, life-changing inspiration in the concept of Entitlement, which I learned about in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. A number of times I've mentioned this in discussions about things that inspired you, and been told that I shouldn't be inspired by that because Gladwell's methods aren't scientific.
But it doesn't have to be scientific for me to be inspired by it. The book introduced me to a concept I needed in a way that made it clear to me why I needed it and how I could make it work for me. So I tried it out, got good results, kept using it, and it was life-changing. No science required. It's like if someone says to you "You'd look good in red," or "Here, taste this food." They don't need to prove scientifically that you'd look good in red or that the food is yummy, you just try it out and either it works or it doesn't. And if it turns out you do look good in red or the food is yummy, these positive qualities are not negated by their not having been proven scientifically.
When it doesn't matter if it doesn't work
Shortly after my GERD diagnosis, in an informal conversation with someone with naturopathic training, I learned that apples are thought to be effective against GERD. The pectin in their peel is thought to form a protective barrier on top of the contents of the stomach, making it more difficult for it to reflux back up into the esophagus. To get the most out of this protection, I was told, an apple should be the last thing you eat at each meal and at the end of the day.
So I immediately started doing it.
Is it scientifically proven? I have no idea. Does it work for me? I have no idea - my GERD is silent so I don't feel heartburn.
But it doesn't matter. I love apples and I eat at least one (and 2-3 during peak season) every day anyway. Even with all the contradictory information I received from conventional and alternative medicine, apples were not contraindicated anywhere. So I took something I eat anyway and started eating it at specific points in my day rather than whenever the hell I want (although I'm also free to have them whenever the hell I want too.) If it doesn't work, nothing has changed and no harm has been done. So why wait around for someone to do a study?
The right to self-experimentation
One thing I hear quite often from people who are opposed to alternative medicine on the basis that it hasn't undergone clinical testing is that people shouldn't be experimenting on themselves or using themselves as test subjects for things that haven't been proven.
But why not? Experimentation and test subjects are necessary for things to become proven. So if you feel it's promising or would rather be doing something than doing nothing, why not experiment on yourself?
Weirdly, because this comes from nearly an opposite place, I've also seen this from people who think prescription medicines are overused. For example, when I had my dysphagia incident, my doctor offered me the option of taking a medication (Dexilant) while we waited for testing and referrals to go through. His reasoning was that most things that could be hindering my swallowing had reflux as the root cause, and Dexilant would help with reflux and help heal any damage to my esophagus caused by reflux. If reflux was a factor, it would help. If reflux wasn't a factor, it would be informative.
At that point, I really wanted to do something proactive, so I decided that yes, I want to try the medication. I noticed an improvement within an hour of taking the first pill, and I was able to eat normally in three days (i.e. before any tests results had come back or referrals had gone through.) It was an unmitigated success. But I've gotten static from a surprising number of people for taking a prescription medication without being 100% certain it was necessary.
One thing I learned when I got sick was that being proactive is helpful for me. I'm far less stressed when I feel like I'm doing something to make myself better. I left the doctor's office that day with a to-do list: go to the lab and give them some blood; go to the pharmacy, take the pills they give you, monitor what happens; go to this address at this time and drink some barium; when the hospital calls you, do what they tell you.
Similarly, when I get a cold, I bring on the home remedies. Vitamin C and echinacea and garlic and Cold-FX and zinc and juice and water and tea and broth and 12 hours of sleep a night. If I'm not asleep, I'm intaking some kind of fluid literally at all times. I have no idea if all of this stuff is proven (they keep coming out with studies changing what has been proven), I have no idea if all (or any) of it is necessary. For all I know, the 12 hours of sleep a night is doing all the work for me. But I feel far better when I'm doing something about it, so I do something about it.
Why would you want to deny someone the relief of being proactive if that's what works for them?
Anecdotal = empirical when it happened to you
Sometimes when I mention something that worked for me in my own firsthand experience, people point out that this is just anecdotal, not experimental data, and therefore I shouldn't rely on it.
But it actually did work for me. That's empirical evidence. Duct tape did cure my warts, so I will use duct tape next time I get a wart. Even if for some reason it doesn't work for anyone else in the world, I already know that it worked for me, so it will be the first thing I reach for next time. My home remedy bombardment when I have a cold has worked for me for the past 20 years, so next time I get a cold, I will reach for it. Even if it doesn't work for others, I know it works for me.
Everyone is their own best test subject for determining whether things work for themselves. If someone is willing to take the risk of playing guinea pig for themselves, why deny them that option?
This is an example of something that's been irritating me for a while: people who are so dedicated to the scientific method that they don't think critically about whether it's necessary to approach a particular problem or situation from a purely scientific perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of science. It's just that it isn't absolutely necessary to limit oneself to a strict, solely evidence-based, clinical, experimental approach to absolutely everything in the world at absolutely all times.
Here are some of the problems:
Unwillingness to make educated guesses
Sometimes, if you ask an evidence-based expert's opinion on something, they'll just say "There haven't been any studies conducted." But, as someone who doesn't know much about a number of subject areas, I'd very much like their educated guess.
Using a blatantly fake example so as not to accidentally create googleability on something I don't know anything about, suppose I've read on the internet that jumping out of a second-storey window will cure your cancer. They probably haven't done any studies on this. But we can still use our basic knowledge of how cancer and gravity and the world work to conclude "No, it doesn't work that way." But suppose I say that I've read on the internet that if you jump out a second-storey window, you'll most likely survive but might injure the part of your body that you land on. Without conducting any studies, we can look at our basic knowledge of the world and say "Seems about right."
This comes up and annoys me most often in websites dedicated to scientific analysis of beauty products. They'll say something like "The product claims to do X, Y and Z. There have been no studies conducted on whether these ingredients would do X, Y or Z." And then they leave it at that. Okay, but is the claim plausible? Is the claim ridiculous? In the absence of clinical evidence, use your education and make an educated guess! I'm reading you for expertise, not just for you to google up other people's studies so I don't have to.
The assumption that untested = harmful
When I was having my dysphagia incident, at one point during the long, scary weekend when I was waiting to see my doctor, I googled up the reflexology points that correspond with the esophagus, and massaged them. It helped a little. If my esophagus was functioning at 10%, it felt like it was functioning at 15% after I did my little experiment in self-reflexology.
I don't know if reflexology has been clinically tested (the internet tells me it has and the internet tells me it hasn't). But even if it hasn't been tested, it's reasonable to assume I'm doing myself no harm by rubbing my own feet. If reflexology did serious harm, someone probably would have noticed by now. (In fact, if it could do harm, it's better for me to google up the correct reflexology points and operate under the assumption that I'm doing a medical treatment on myself than to just rub my feet willy-nilly.)
The assumption that ineffective = harmful
When I was a teenager, I read or heard somewhere that duct tape can cure warts. In the early 2000s, I had an opportunity to try it, and it worked fantastically where drugstore treatments had no effect. Sometime later, someone did a study of duct tape as a wart treatment (although they used clear duct tape and I used silver) and they found that the results for duct tape were no different than the results for no treatment.
What I have a problem with is people who use this study to conclude that you shouldn't try to treat your warts with duct tape. The study found that the results were no different from doing nothing. So why not give it a try if you want to do it? Basically the study proved that putting duct tape on your foot has no effect. So if you want to do something silly-looking that the evidence found has no effect, why shouldn't you?
When it doesn't matter if it's scientific
As I've blogged about before, I found significant, life-changing inspiration in the concept of Entitlement, which I learned about in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. A number of times I've mentioned this in discussions about things that inspired you, and been told that I shouldn't be inspired by that because Gladwell's methods aren't scientific.
But it doesn't have to be scientific for me to be inspired by it. The book introduced me to a concept I needed in a way that made it clear to me why I needed it and how I could make it work for me. So I tried it out, got good results, kept using it, and it was life-changing. No science required. It's like if someone says to you "You'd look good in red," or "Here, taste this food." They don't need to prove scientifically that you'd look good in red or that the food is yummy, you just try it out and either it works or it doesn't. And if it turns out you do look good in red or the food is yummy, these positive qualities are not negated by their not having been proven scientifically.
When it doesn't matter if it doesn't work
Shortly after my GERD diagnosis, in an informal conversation with someone with naturopathic training, I learned that apples are thought to be effective against GERD. The pectin in their peel is thought to form a protective barrier on top of the contents of the stomach, making it more difficult for it to reflux back up into the esophagus. To get the most out of this protection, I was told, an apple should be the last thing you eat at each meal and at the end of the day.
So I immediately started doing it.
Is it scientifically proven? I have no idea. Does it work for me? I have no idea - my GERD is silent so I don't feel heartburn.
But it doesn't matter. I love apples and I eat at least one (and 2-3 during peak season) every day anyway. Even with all the contradictory information I received from conventional and alternative medicine, apples were not contraindicated anywhere. So I took something I eat anyway and started eating it at specific points in my day rather than whenever the hell I want (although I'm also free to have them whenever the hell I want too.) If it doesn't work, nothing has changed and no harm has been done. So why wait around for someone to do a study?
The right to self-experimentation
One thing I hear quite often from people who are opposed to alternative medicine on the basis that it hasn't undergone clinical testing is that people shouldn't be experimenting on themselves or using themselves as test subjects for things that haven't been proven.
But why not? Experimentation and test subjects are necessary for things to become proven. So if you feel it's promising or would rather be doing something than doing nothing, why not experiment on yourself?
Weirdly, because this comes from nearly an opposite place, I've also seen this from people who think prescription medicines are overused. For example, when I had my dysphagia incident, my doctor offered me the option of taking a medication (Dexilant) while we waited for testing and referrals to go through. His reasoning was that most things that could be hindering my swallowing had reflux as the root cause, and Dexilant would help with reflux and help heal any damage to my esophagus caused by reflux. If reflux was a factor, it would help. If reflux wasn't a factor, it would be informative.
At that point, I really wanted to do something proactive, so I decided that yes, I want to try the medication. I noticed an improvement within an hour of taking the first pill, and I was able to eat normally in three days (i.e. before any tests results had come back or referrals had gone through.) It was an unmitigated success. But I've gotten static from a surprising number of people for taking a prescription medication without being 100% certain it was necessary.
One thing I learned when I got sick was that being proactive is helpful for me. I'm far less stressed when I feel like I'm doing something to make myself better. I left the doctor's office that day with a to-do list: go to the lab and give them some blood; go to the pharmacy, take the pills they give you, monitor what happens; go to this address at this time and drink some barium; when the hospital calls you, do what they tell you.
Similarly, when I get a cold, I bring on the home remedies. Vitamin C and echinacea and garlic and Cold-FX and zinc and juice and water and tea and broth and 12 hours of sleep a night. If I'm not asleep, I'm intaking some kind of fluid literally at all times. I have no idea if all of this stuff is proven (they keep coming out with studies changing what has been proven), I have no idea if all (or any) of it is necessary. For all I know, the 12 hours of sleep a night is doing all the work for me. But I feel far better when I'm doing something about it, so I do something about it.
Why would you want to deny someone the relief of being proactive if that's what works for them?
Anecdotal = empirical when it happened to you
Sometimes when I mention something that worked for me in my own firsthand experience, people point out that this is just anecdotal, not experimental data, and therefore I shouldn't rely on it.
But it actually did work for me. That's empirical evidence. Duct tape did cure my warts, so I will use duct tape next time I get a wart. Even if for some reason it doesn't work for anyone else in the world, I already know that it worked for me, so it will be the first thing I reach for next time. My home remedy bombardment when I have a cold has worked for me for the past 20 years, so next time I get a cold, I will reach for it. Even if it doesn't work for others, I know it works for me.
Everyone is their own best test subject for determining whether things work for themselves. If someone is willing to take the risk of playing guinea pig for themselves, why deny them that option?
Is anyone teaching young people how to drink?
In Grade 12, the student council president was in my homeroom, so a lot of posters and swag and propaganda and stuff got delivered to our classroom for her to use for student council purposes.
One day we got a package of anti-drinking posters. We opened them up and looked through them, and some of my classmates thought that one poster was inappropriate and shouldn't be used.
The inappropriate message? Guidelines for safer social drinking. (For example, the one part I remember was "No more than one drink per hour, no more than four drinks per occasion".) People thought this was inappropriate because the vast majority of the students in our school were under the legal drinking age, and they felt this poster was giving students permission to drink as long as they did so responsibly. So it didn't go up.
However, I saw the poster and internalized the message. Then, that summer, when I took up drinking, I followed those rules. One drink per hour, four drinks per occasion. Water in between, start on a full stomach.
And I've never had a hangover. Or a blackout. And the last time I vomited was four years before I started drinking.
This all came to mind when I saw a headline in Salon refuting the premise of another article that apparently alleges that no one is telling young women not to drink. (The article is not important to this blog post, it's just the headline that triggered this train of thought.)
My experience is consistent with the Salon headline: everyone is telling young people not to drink.
But is anyone teaching young people how to drink? Is the information about timing and spacing and what constitutes moderate consumption and what constitutes safe consumption and what the threshold is for binge drinking being provided? Or are they just being told not to do it or not to overdo it?
Quantitative guidelines fell into my hands a few months before I had my first beer, and as a result I've always been in control of my inebriation. But these guidelines were kept from my peers for fear they might imply that it's possible to drink responsibly.
How many of my peers didn't learn how to drink responsibly as a result? Or perhaps even that drinking responsibly is an option?
One day we got a package of anti-drinking posters. We opened them up and looked through them, and some of my classmates thought that one poster was inappropriate and shouldn't be used.
The inappropriate message? Guidelines for safer social drinking. (For example, the one part I remember was "No more than one drink per hour, no more than four drinks per occasion".) People thought this was inappropriate because the vast majority of the students in our school were under the legal drinking age, and they felt this poster was giving students permission to drink as long as they did so responsibly. So it didn't go up.
However, I saw the poster and internalized the message. Then, that summer, when I took up drinking, I followed those rules. One drink per hour, four drinks per occasion. Water in between, start on a full stomach.
And I've never had a hangover. Or a blackout. And the last time I vomited was four years before I started drinking.
This all came to mind when I saw a headline in Salon refuting the premise of another article that apparently alleges that no one is telling young women not to drink. (The article is not important to this blog post, it's just the headline that triggered this train of thought.)
My experience is consistent with the Salon headline: everyone is telling young people not to drink.
But is anyone teaching young people how to drink? Is the information about timing and spacing and what constitutes moderate consumption and what constitutes safe consumption and what the threshold is for binge drinking being provided? Or are they just being told not to do it or not to overdo it?
Quantitative guidelines fell into my hands a few months before I had my first beer, and as a result I've always been in control of my inebriation. But these guidelines were kept from my peers for fear they might imply that it's possible to drink responsibly.
How many of my peers didn't learn how to drink responsibly as a result? Or perhaps even that drinking responsibly is an option?
Post your external hard drive recommendations here!
Just over two years ago, I bought a Western Digital Elements external hard drive. I didn't put a lot of research into this - I just had to reimage my computer so I needed something immediately for backup.
It served me well for nearly two years, but then the power supply died. I bought a new one on ebay, but it died just now, after only a few months' use. The internet suggests that this is not an uncommon problem with Western Digital external hard drives.
So I've decided it's time to go for quality. Can anyone recommend an external hard drive that has given them worry-free reliability and longevity?
I don't necessarily need anything with its own backup software or anything, I just need an external hard drive that will work and keep working for years without my having to worry about it.
Suggestions?
It served me well for nearly two years, but then the power supply died. I bought a new one on ebay, but it died just now, after only a few months' use. The internet suggests that this is not an uncommon problem with Western Digital external hard drives.
So I've decided it's time to go for quality. Can anyone recommend an external hard drive that has given them worry-free reliability and longevity?
I don't necessarily need anything with its own backup software or anything, I just need an external hard drive that will work and keep working for years without my having to worry about it.
Suggestions?
Interesting Canadian place names
I was slightly surprised to see Thunder Bay in the list of Eddie Izzard's Canadian tour stops. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy for the people of Thunder Bay that they get to see Eddie, but it is a bit of a "one of these things is not like the others" on the list of cities he's visiting.
So I was amused to see, in Eddie's interview in the Ottawa Citizen, “I’m excited to play Thunder Bay because I assume it’s an exciting place where Thunder happens.”
So here's a few more Canadian place names about which one could draw similar conclusion:
So I was amused to see, in Eddie's interview in the Ottawa Citizen, “I’m excited to play Thunder Bay because I assume it’s an exciting place where Thunder happens.”
So here's a few more Canadian place names about which one could draw similar conclusion:
- Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador
- Happy Valley, Newfoundland and Labrador (like the German Monty Python sketch!)
- St-Louis-du-Ha!-Ha!, Quebec
- Moose Factory, Ontario
- Medicine Hat, Alberta
- Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump, Alberta
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Things They Should Study: what kinds of wear and tear are and aren't avoidable with quality manufacturing?
Conventional wisdom is that good-quality products last longer and cheaply-made products wear out faster.
But this isn't necessarily going to apply for every single kind of wear and tear.
For example, because my gait is uneven, the outside back corner of my shoe heels wears out long before anything else. I've owned shoes at a wide range of price points, and this has happened with every pair that I've worn enough times. It therefore stands to reason that it's going to happen regardless of the quality of the shoes. (Unless shoes with 4-digit or higher prices, which I can't afford, won't wear out from uneven gait.)
A lot of my things that wear out seem to be from similar causes. The fabric of my coats gets threadbare where my purse hangs. My rug gets threadbare under my desk chair. Would better quality products not wear out in these ways (or wear out slower?) Or would everything wear out unevenly from an uneven application of friction (and therefore it's not worth it to buy more expensive if this is the first thing that wears out)?
As I've mentioned before, I buy cheap earbuds and treat them with no care whatsoever. And my earbuds always die within a few months. But are do they keep dying because they're cheap, or because I treat them with no care whatsoever? In other words, if I bought high-quality earbuds and continued to treat them with no care whatsoever, would they last me years and years?
It would be really useful if someone could study different kinds of wear and tear in different quality levels of products and determine for us what kinds of wear and tear can be avoided by buying better-quality products, and what kinds are unavoidable regardless. Then, if our possessions wear out from unavoidable wear and tear before avoidable wear and tear kicks in, we'll know that we're buying at a sufficient quality level for our needs.
But this isn't necessarily going to apply for every single kind of wear and tear.
For example, because my gait is uneven, the outside back corner of my shoe heels wears out long before anything else. I've owned shoes at a wide range of price points, and this has happened with every pair that I've worn enough times. It therefore stands to reason that it's going to happen regardless of the quality of the shoes. (Unless shoes with 4-digit or higher prices, which I can't afford, won't wear out from uneven gait.)
A lot of my things that wear out seem to be from similar causes. The fabric of my coats gets threadbare where my purse hangs. My rug gets threadbare under my desk chair. Would better quality products not wear out in these ways (or wear out slower?) Or would everything wear out unevenly from an uneven application of friction (and therefore it's not worth it to buy more expensive if this is the first thing that wears out)?
As I've mentioned before, I buy cheap earbuds and treat them with no care whatsoever. And my earbuds always die within a few months. But are do they keep dying because they're cheap, or because I treat them with no care whatsoever? In other words, if I bought high-quality earbuds and continued to treat them with no care whatsoever, would they last me years and years?
It would be really useful if someone could study different kinds of wear and tear in different quality levels of products and determine for us what kinds of wear and tear can be avoided by buying better-quality products, and what kinds are unavoidable regardless. Then, if our possessions wear out from unavoidable wear and tear before avoidable wear and tear kicks in, we'll know that we're buying at a sufficient quality level for our needs.
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
My schoolwork/studying technique
Since I've posted my essay-writing technique, I thought I'd also post my approach to schoolwork and studying.
I spent a designated amount of time on schoolwork per day per class. Extrapolating from guidelines in my high school student handbook, I started with 15 minutes per day per class in Grade 9, and gradually increased it to 30 minutes per day per class in university.
Note that I worked with the total amount of time, rather than distributing it evenly among all my classes. This means that, for example, in a university semester where I was taking 6 courses, I'd do a total of 3 hours of schoolwork each day, but I wouldn't necessarily do an equal amount for each course, or even do work for every course every day.
I'd decide what to work on by simple chronology. I wrote down every deadline (reading, assignments, tests, projects, exams) in my calendar, and would spend my designated hours of schoolwork on whatever was due next.
If the next thing due was a test to be studied for (as opposed to an assignment that can be definitively completed), I'd do one round of studying for the test, then go on to the next deadline, then do another round of studying for the test, then do the next deadline, then do another round of studying for the test, and so on and so forth until I wrote the test. What a "round of studying" actually was would depend on the nature of the test. It could be reading through all the relevant parts of the textbook, it could be quizzing myself on the material that would be on the test, it could be doing practice exams.
If the next thing due was a group project and my group hadn't yet sorted itself out enough for me to know what exactly I needed to do for the project, I'd work on it anyway. I'd just open up a Word document and start typing up reasonable content for the project. Then, at the end of the day's session, I'd email what I had to the rest of the group. I'd frame it as "I've been thinking about the project, and I think better by actually writing stuff down, so I threw together a partial, very rough draft. Feel free to critique whatever you don't like, or appropriate anything you do like, and we can maybe use it as a basis for discussion and planning for the rest of the project." I didn't think of this approach until university, and by then my classmates most often appreciated my work (as opposed to earlier grades, where they'd reject my work because I'm not cool, even though my work was objectively correct), so the end result of this was a not-insignificant chunk of the project was done, anyone who was worse than I am could see what needed to be done to get the project up to my level, anyone who was better than I am could catch anything I needed to improve early on, and the entire group would be nudged into a "time to do the project" mindset without having to actually schedule a meeting.
The most important thing about this method is to always do the designated hours of work, starting on the day you receive your course syllabus and every single day until you've finished your last project or exam, even when you don't have any imminent deadlines. What would usually happen is I'd get way ahead on my reading in the first couple of weeks when there weren't many assignments yet, which would pay off when assignments picked up later on in the semester, when deadlines started catching up with me and I spent most of my time working on the next day's deadlines. I'd pull ahead again during reading week, where I'd make some progress on final projects and studying for final exams, which had the added advantage of letting the material fester in my head for a bit once classes resumed and I was getting more imminent deadlines.
What was most valuable about this technique for me personally was that it gave me a definite point at which I could stop studying guilt-free. I'm naturally inclined to feel the burden of everything I have to do ever ("OMG, I have to pay off my mortgage! And save for retirement! Right now!"), so it's beneficial to me to have a system where all I have to do is study for three hours, regardless of how much or how little I get done in that time, and after the three hours are up I'm Officially Done for the Day.
I spent a designated amount of time on schoolwork per day per class. Extrapolating from guidelines in my high school student handbook, I started with 15 minutes per day per class in Grade 9, and gradually increased it to 30 minutes per day per class in university.
Note that I worked with the total amount of time, rather than distributing it evenly among all my classes. This means that, for example, in a university semester where I was taking 6 courses, I'd do a total of 3 hours of schoolwork each day, but I wouldn't necessarily do an equal amount for each course, or even do work for every course every day.
I'd decide what to work on by simple chronology. I wrote down every deadline (reading, assignments, tests, projects, exams) in my calendar, and would spend my designated hours of schoolwork on whatever was due next.
If the next thing due was a test to be studied for (as opposed to an assignment that can be definitively completed), I'd do one round of studying for the test, then go on to the next deadline, then do another round of studying for the test, then do the next deadline, then do another round of studying for the test, and so on and so forth until I wrote the test. What a "round of studying" actually was would depend on the nature of the test. It could be reading through all the relevant parts of the textbook, it could be quizzing myself on the material that would be on the test, it could be doing practice exams.
If the next thing due was a group project and my group hadn't yet sorted itself out enough for me to know what exactly I needed to do for the project, I'd work on it anyway. I'd just open up a Word document and start typing up reasonable content for the project. Then, at the end of the day's session, I'd email what I had to the rest of the group. I'd frame it as "I've been thinking about the project, and I think better by actually writing stuff down, so I threw together a partial, very rough draft. Feel free to critique whatever you don't like, or appropriate anything you do like, and we can maybe use it as a basis for discussion and planning for the rest of the project." I didn't think of this approach until university, and by then my classmates most often appreciated my work (as opposed to earlier grades, where they'd reject my work because I'm not cool, even though my work was objectively correct), so the end result of this was a not-insignificant chunk of the project was done, anyone who was worse than I am could see what needed to be done to get the project up to my level, anyone who was better than I am could catch anything I needed to improve early on, and the entire group would be nudged into a "time to do the project" mindset without having to actually schedule a meeting.
The most important thing about this method is to always do the designated hours of work, starting on the day you receive your course syllabus and every single day until you've finished your last project or exam, even when you don't have any imminent deadlines. What would usually happen is I'd get way ahead on my reading in the first couple of weeks when there weren't many assignments yet, which would pay off when assignments picked up later on in the semester, when deadlines started catching up with me and I spent most of my time working on the next day's deadlines. I'd pull ahead again during reading week, where I'd make some progress on final projects and studying for final exams, which had the added advantage of letting the material fester in my head for a bit once classes resumed and I was getting more imminent deadlines.
What was most valuable about this technique for me personally was that it gave me a definite point at which I could stop studying guilt-free. I'm naturally inclined to feel the burden of everything I have to do ever ("OMG, I have to pay off my mortgage! And save for retirement! Right now!"), so it's beneficial to me to have a system where all I have to do is study for three hours, regardless of how much or how little I get done in that time, and after the three hours are up I'm Officially Done for the Day.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Do silica gel desiccant packets get used up?
After the Infamous Rogers Centre iPod Drowning Incident of 2012, I started collecting everyone one of those little silica gel desiccant packets that crossed my path. I put them in a ziploc bag with some rice, just in case I should ever have a similar incident in the future.
That paid off this week, when I accidentally overturned a glass of water onto my ipod. I stuck the ipod straight into this bag and left it there for 24 hours, and it came out fully operational (and I think the moisture indicator didn't even turn, knock wood!)
My question: do I need to throw out all these silica packets, or are they still good for further use? I intend to keep adding packets to the bag as I encounter them, but can I keep the "used" ones in there or should I throw them completely out and start over?
That paid off this week, when I accidentally overturned a glass of water onto my ipod. I stuck the ipod straight into this bag and left it there for 24 hours, and it came out fully operational (and I think the moisture indicator didn't even turn, knock wood!)
My question: do I need to throw out all these silica packets, or are they still good for further use? I intend to keep adding packets to the bag as I encounter them, but can I keep the "used" ones in there or should I throw them completely out and start over?
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Nanoblur
I recently tried Nanoblur, which claims to instantly reduce the appearance of skin by changing the way light reflects off skin.
Many internet reviewers have said that they experienced instantly noticeable results. However, on me, it did basically nothing. I could see maybe a 2% improvement on my forehead wrinkles when I was wearing makeup, and nothing perceptible when I wasn't wearing makeup. Also, when I applied with with makeup, my eyes somehow looked smaller afterwards.
I also tried it on my elbows and on the backs of my hands (to duplicate tests I've seen people do on the internet), and there was no perceptible difference.
It didn't do anything to mitigate the dark skin around my eyes or my acne scars, which are my primary beauty concerns at the moment. (I suspect it might not be intended to address these issues, although the advertising didn't rule it out.) It also didn't do anything about my large pores, which the advertising did specifically mention.
One thing I did notice is Nanoblur is very matte. Which might be helpful if you don't have your shine under control, but is less useful if you do have your shine under control (which I didn't even realize I do until I tried Nanoblur!) My usual foundation regime (a combination of Cover Girl TruBlend liquid and powder foundations) usually gives me a tiny bit of a good shine - a certain luminosity, for lack of a better word - and Nanoblur slightly suppressed this.
I found it was compatible with makeup when used as directed (other online reviewers reported having difficulty combining it with makeup), and I didn't find it drying (other online reviewers did).
But I didn't find it worth using either. I'm not even planning to keep it for my special occasion makeup arsenal, instead I intend to pass it on to someone else who's interested in trying it to save them the expense.
Many internet reviewers have said that they experienced instantly noticeable results. However, on me, it did basically nothing. I could see maybe a 2% improvement on my forehead wrinkles when I was wearing makeup, and nothing perceptible when I wasn't wearing makeup. Also, when I applied with with makeup, my eyes somehow looked smaller afterwards.
I also tried it on my elbows and on the backs of my hands (to duplicate tests I've seen people do on the internet), and there was no perceptible difference.
It didn't do anything to mitigate the dark skin around my eyes or my acne scars, which are my primary beauty concerns at the moment. (I suspect it might not be intended to address these issues, although the advertising didn't rule it out.) It also didn't do anything about my large pores, which the advertising did specifically mention.
One thing I did notice is Nanoblur is very matte. Which might be helpful if you don't have your shine under control, but is less useful if you do have your shine under control (which I didn't even realize I do until I tried Nanoblur!) My usual foundation regime (a combination of Cover Girl TruBlend liquid and powder foundations) usually gives me a tiny bit of a good shine - a certain luminosity, for lack of a better word - and Nanoblur slightly suppressed this.
I found it was compatible with makeup when used as directed (other online reviewers reported having difficulty combining it with makeup), and I didn't find it drying (other online reviewers did).
But I didn't find it worth using either. I'm not even planning to keep it for my special occasion makeup arsenal, instead I intend to pass it on to someone else who's interested in trying it to save them the expense.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Things They Should UNInvent: banners that overlap the body text section of a website (or web browsers that can't handle this)
Some websites (such as Twitter and Salon) have banner-style headers that overlap the body text area.
The problem with this is if you press the spacebar to page down one screen, the browser behaves as though the area covered by the banner is visible, which means you miss a line or two every time you page down, and then have to page back up with a mouse. This is very irritating, and also bad ergonomically - pressing the spacebar to page down is basically the minimum amount of ergonomic strain, and having to mouse could cause problems for people who have or are prone to RSI.
Web design and browser design need to fix this. Pressing the spacebar should show the next page of text, with no text missed (and, in fact, with the last line of the previous page visible at the top, just to reassure the reader that they haven't missed anything.)
The problem with this is if you press the spacebar to page down one screen, the browser behaves as though the area covered by the banner is visible, which means you miss a line or two every time you page down, and then have to page back up with a mouse. This is very irritating, and also bad ergonomically - pressing the spacebar to page down is basically the minimum amount of ergonomic strain, and having to mouse could cause problems for people who have or are prone to RSI.
Web design and browser design need to fix this. Pressing the spacebar should show the next page of text, with no text missed (and, in fact, with the last line of the previous page visible at the top, just to reassure the reader that they haven't missed anything.)
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Things They Should Invent: public birthday parties
Sometimes people can't celebrate their birthday on their actual birthday, because the people they most want to celebrate with aren't available on that day.
Solution: public, meet-up style birthday parties for anyone who has a birthday that day. I'm picturing the parties being held by a group of bars or pubs - the kind of place where any random person can walk in and have a good time - that would rotate among themselves so each one has to throw a birthday party only every couple of weeks or so.
You go in, show ID showing that it's your birthday, and you're entitled to one free drink and a piece of cake and maybe all the nachos you can eat over the course of the evening (or whatever else they can give away without wrecking their margins). The employees (and, hopefully, other customers and birthday people) congratulate you and wish you happy birthday and generally make a fuss over you. Maybe there could also be bonus freebies for people celebrating a milestone birthday. There would also be a general discount for people whose birthday it isn't on birthday party days, so there will be other people around to wish happy birthday to the birthday people.
The bars get attention, publicity, drink sales (because few people are going to limit themselves to the one free drink on their birthday), and maybe some new regulars who remember how this bar made them feel happy and welcome and celebrated on that birthday when they were all alone.
The bar's regulars get a discount and a bit of a party atmosphere on that particular day, and the possibility of attracting new and interesting regulars to the bar (if the birthday people are made to feel happy and welcome and celebrated.)
The birthday people get something fun to do on their birthday that makes them feel happy and welcome and celebrated, plus they get to meet other people who have the same birthday and thereby make friends who will totally be into celebrating their birthday on their birthday next year!
And, because the birthday people will meet birthday buddies, they might be able to make it just a one-year project. This would eliminate any "Meh, I'll go next year" sentiment among the birthday people, and thereby increase attendance and popularity.
Solution: public, meet-up style birthday parties for anyone who has a birthday that day. I'm picturing the parties being held by a group of bars or pubs - the kind of place where any random person can walk in and have a good time - that would rotate among themselves so each one has to throw a birthday party only every couple of weeks or so.
You go in, show ID showing that it's your birthday, and you're entitled to one free drink and a piece of cake and maybe all the nachos you can eat over the course of the evening (or whatever else they can give away without wrecking their margins). The employees (and, hopefully, other customers and birthday people) congratulate you and wish you happy birthday and generally make a fuss over you. Maybe there could also be bonus freebies for people celebrating a milestone birthday. There would also be a general discount for people whose birthday it isn't on birthday party days, so there will be other people around to wish happy birthday to the birthday people.
The bars get attention, publicity, drink sales (because few people are going to limit themselves to the one free drink on their birthday), and maybe some new regulars who remember how this bar made them feel happy and welcome and celebrated on that birthday when they were all alone.
The bar's regulars get a discount and a bit of a party atmosphere on that particular day, and the possibility of attracting new and interesting regulars to the bar (if the birthday people are made to feel happy and welcome and celebrated.)
The birthday people get something fun to do on their birthday that makes them feel happy and welcome and celebrated, plus they get to meet other people who have the same birthday and thereby make friends who will totally be into celebrating their birthday on their birthday next year!
And, because the birthday people will meet birthday buddies, they might be able to make it just a one-year project. This would eliminate any "Meh, I'll go next year" sentiment among the birthday people, and thereby increase attendance and popularity.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Double candy buyback?
From The Ethicist:
The first Google result tells me that the average kids gets 10 pounds of Halloween candy, which means the food bank may well end up with a few hundred pounds of candy. So if they split it up among several dentists, they could get a few hundred dollars, which would buy a decent amount of food (especially since food banks can apparently buy food wholesale.)
I don't know if this would bring their clients as much happiness as getting some candy for a treat, but that's where my mind went.
Several dentists in our area offer to purchase candy during Halloween from their young patients for $1 per pound. Presumably they do this to reduce the risk to their patients of developing cavities. Unfortunately, the dentists then give the candy to the local food cupboard. There is little doubt that most (if not all) the clients who use the food cupboard can little afford proper dental care. I believe such behavior is thoughtless, unethical and unprofessional. I am a retired dentist.Unrelated to the question being asked and without claiming that this is actually a good idea, I find myself wondering if people could get candy from the food bank and have the dentist buy it from them from a dollar a pound? Or if someone from the food bank could just take it back to a dentist and get it bought out and use the donation to buy food?
The first Google result tells me that the average kids gets 10 pounds of Halloween candy, which means the food bank may well end up with a few hundred pounds of candy. So if they split it up among several dentists, they could get a few hundred dollars, which would buy a decent amount of food (especially since food banks can apparently buy food wholesale.)
I don't know if this would bring their clients as much happiness as getting some candy for a treat, but that's where my mind went.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Thankful without a "to"
I've blogged before about my non-thankfulness policy. But it occurs to me that the things I'm thankful for are those for which there is no one to be thankful to.
For example, I'm thankful that I don't feel the need to seek out adventure and am perfectly content at home with books and TV and internet and gaming.
I'm thankful that I'm introverted enough that I don't get lonely, functionally speaking (i.e. the frequency with which people pay attention to me in the natural course of life is sufficient to keep me from getting lonely).
I'm thankful that, through a series of flukes, I found my optimal career path and my optimal neighbourhood.
All of these are things for which I'm truly thankful, but there's no one to be thankful to. They're just how things turned out.
I want to make it clear: this isn't any sort of deliberate exercise in gratitude. This isn't the result of a philosophy or a self-help system. The purely internal things for which I'm thankful aren't the result of any attempt to master my emotions or become zen or otherwise self-improve. This is just how my naturally-occurring emotions landed: thankful without a "to".
For example, I'm thankful that I don't feel the need to seek out adventure and am perfectly content at home with books and TV and internet and gaming.
I'm thankful that I'm introverted enough that I don't get lonely, functionally speaking (i.e. the frequency with which people pay attention to me in the natural course of life is sufficient to keep me from getting lonely).
I'm thankful that, through a series of flukes, I found my optimal career path and my optimal neighbourhood.
All of these are things for which I'm truly thankful, but there's no one to be thankful to. They're just how things turned out.
I want to make it clear: this isn't any sort of deliberate exercise in gratitude. This isn't the result of a philosophy or a self-help system. The purely internal things for which I'm thankful aren't the result of any attempt to master my emotions or become zen or otherwise self-improve. This is just how my naturally-occurring emotions landed: thankful without a "to".
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Things They Should Invent: standardized "I'm about to smoke on the balcony" warning
I habitually keep my windows open when the outdoor temperature is comfortable. I find it's more effective (and cheaper) at regulating the indoor temperature, especially at this time of year when apartment buildings are switched over to heating mode but it's nowhere near cold enough to need heat.
Unfortunately, one of my neighbours smokes, and whatever it is they smoke is truly disgusting. It's worse than cigarettes, it's worse than pot. (I'm wondering if it might be cigars, since it really has a strong stinky old man smell.) I can't tell when they're about to start smoking, so my living room gets filled with stinky stinky stink before I can even get the window closed.
But smoking on one's balcony is a reasonable thing to do, so I can't exactly complain. I just wish I had some kind of warning so I could close my windows before the stinky stinky stink gets in.
Solution: some kind of standardized, audible "I'm about to smoke on my balcony" signal. A bell or something, loud enough to be heard when the windows are open but not when the windows are closed, with the same sound for everyone so everyone could recognize it. If you're going to smoke, you ring the bell, wait a minute or two, then light up.
One benefit of this approach would be that it retains some anonymity. Smokers could inform their neighbours they're going to smoke without actually having to converse with them (and risk having to deal with being yelled at or otherwise deal with attempts at dissuasion). The neighbours might not even know who it is who's about to smoke, just that it's someone nearby or downstairs or whatever. But we could still get fair warning so we could close our windows and not be disturbed by the smoke.
Unfortunately, one of my neighbours smokes, and whatever it is they smoke is truly disgusting. It's worse than cigarettes, it's worse than pot. (I'm wondering if it might be cigars, since it really has a strong stinky old man smell.) I can't tell when they're about to start smoking, so my living room gets filled with stinky stinky stink before I can even get the window closed.
But smoking on one's balcony is a reasonable thing to do, so I can't exactly complain. I just wish I had some kind of warning so I could close my windows before the stinky stinky stink gets in.
Solution: some kind of standardized, audible "I'm about to smoke on my balcony" signal. A bell or something, loud enough to be heard when the windows are open but not when the windows are closed, with the same sound for everyone so everyone could recognize it. If you're going to smoke, you ring the bell, wait a minute or two, then light up.
One benefit of this approach would be that it retains some anonymity. Smokers could inform their neighbours they're going to smoke without actually having to converse with them (and risk having to deal with being yelled at or otherwise deal with attempts at dissuasion). The neighbours might not even know who it is who's about to smoke, just that it's someone nearby or downstairs or whatever. But we could still get fair warning so we could close our windows and not be disturbed by the smoke.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Beware of calls from 1-877-974-2547 allegedly from RBC
I recently received a phone call from 1-877-974-2547, with the call display saying "RBC". I bank with RBC, so I answered. On the other end was a young woman in a very noisy call centre asking me if I wanted to switch to paperless statements. I've been on paperless statements for years, so this seemed suspicious to me.
So I asked RBC on Twitter, and they replied that it doesn't appear to be an official number:
So beware of any call you get from 1-877-974-2547. Remember: if you get a questionable call, you can always call the customer service number listed on the bank's website and ask them if there are in fact any problems with your account that require attention.
So I asked RBC on Twitter, and they replied that it doesn't appear to be an official number:
@impstrump We've chked into it, and this doesn't appear to be an RBC ph #. If u have concerns, reach out http://t.co/DnnQCHwk7B or DM us ^DH
— Ask RBC (@AskRBC) October 5, 2013
So beware of any call you get from 1-877-974-2547. Remember: if you get a questionable call, you can always call the customer service number listed on the bank's website and ask them if there are in fact any problems with your account that require attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)