So there are calls to boycott Firefox because its CEO has made anti-gay political donations.
My question: does my using Firefox actually benefit Mozilla or its CEO in any way? I didn't pay for it. I'm not being shown any advertising. Does it actually have any impact on them?
This question is not purely academic. As I blogged about before, I don't want to use Chrome because I don't like Google's sneaky attempts to manipulate me into using it. But if we should be boycotting Firefox too, what am I supposed to do? Use a subpar browser? (I've used IE and Opera, and find them both less useful than Firefox or Chrome.)
On one hand, it seems more important to choose not to use Chrome, because my reasons for doing so are directly related to the company's business practices as they affect me as a consumer. They keep inconveniencing me in an attempt to get me to use their browser, so I shouldn't reward this by using their browser.
On the other hand, you can't let convenience overrule a political boycott, or that completely defeats the purpose of a political boycott.
On the other other hand, if Google so very badly wants me to use Chrome (which users don't pay for either), there must be some benefit to a company if people use their browser. Although Google and Mozilla have different corporate structures. Google has shareholders and stuff, whereas Mozilla doesn't. The internet tells me that the Mozilla Corporation is not non-profit, but its profits support the Mozilla Foundation, which is.
Normally I'd go ahead with the boycott, but in this case the user-friendly alternative is something I'm already boycotting. Not sure what to do here.
Any thoughts?
Update: Some info via @AmyRBrown on Twitter (you can see the full conversation here):
A primary revenue source for Mozilla is money paid to them by Google when people access Google via the Firefox search box. (The FAQ of Mozilla's 2012 Annual Report confirms this, and adds that they also get search box revenue from "Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, eBay and others".)
So an effective economic boycott would be not to use Google or any other revenue-generating search function in the search box.
Changing the search engine to Duck Duck Go should generate the same results without Google involvement, and there are also unofficial Google toolbar add-ons for Firefox that don't pass through the search box and therefore generate revenues.
I haven't yet figured out if my own preference of Wikipedia in the search bar generates revenues, or if there are other benefits to my using Firefox even if I'm not generating revenues for them.
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Thoughts on the How I Met Your Mother finale (contains allusions to spoilers)
When I read the last page of the last Harry Potter book, I was done. I didn't need to visit the Potterverse any more. That was the end. I finished the fanfic stories I was in the middle of at the time, and then no more. I didn't even watch the movies that came out after the book. It wasn't a ragequit or anything, it was just closure. I didn't cease to be a fan, but I just get nothing by going back. (Fortunately, I had just recently discovered Eddie Izzard then, because Harry Potter was my previous primary fandom, and it would have left a huge gap if my next primary fandom hadn't already fortuitously come along!)
How I Met Your Mother just did the same thing to me. I'm done. Nothing gained by going back. I wouldn't watch a rerun now. I'm just done.
The ending was satisfyingly done for containing plot points I was dreading, but I'm still slightly mourning the fact that we aren't going to get to hang out with The Mother more. Which is appropriate, I suppose, but it seemed to really marginalize her with the combination of the pacing and the ultimate resolution of the final episodes.
I'm kind of glad I only recently joined this show. I think I would have had a negative emotional reaction if I'd been following it with bated breath for nine years.
How I Met Your Mother just did the same thing to me. I'm done. Nothing gained by going back. I wouldn't watch a rerun now. I'm just done.
The ending was satisfyingly done for containing plot points I was dreading, but I'm still slightly mourning the fact that we aren't going to get to hang out with The Mother more. Which is appropriate, I suppose, but it seemed to really marginalize her with the combination of the pacing and the ultimate resolution of the final episodes.
I'm kind of glad I only recently joined this show. I think I would have had a negative emotional reaction if I'd been following it with bated breath for nine years.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Books read in March 2014
New:
1. How the Light Gets In by Louise Penny
2. How the Dead Dream by Lydia Millet
3. American Savage by Dan Savage
4. A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki
Reread:
1. Visions in Death
2. Survivor in Death
3. Origin in Death
1. How the Light Gets In by Louise Penny
2. How the Dead Dream by Lydia Millet
3. American Savage by Dan Savage
4. A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki
Reread:
1. Visions in Death
2. Survivor in Death
3. Origin in Death
The folly of live-tweeting Earth Hour
I was surprised to see the number of people who were promoting Earth Hour by live-tweeting it, i.e by tweeting during actual Earth Hour.
This is totally contrary to the spirit of Earth Hour! Even if you're not plugged in and are tweeting from a battery-powered device (even if you're making a big show of doing it by candlelight - and why would you need candles when your screen lights up?), the electricity you use will just have to be charged off the grid after you're done. Plus, if you're connected by ethernet or wifi, your modem is also plugged in and using power.
Not to mention that by posting new content during Earth Hour, you're creating incentive for other people to be online during Earth Hour, using their modems and computers or devices, which will also need to be recharged from the grid even if they're not plugged in. If nothing new appeared on the internet during Earth Hour, people wouldn't have any reason to be watching their feed. By posting, you're part of the problem.
If you don't want to shut down for Earth Hour, that's fine. I don't do it myself, for the reasons I explained here.
But don't claim to be doing Earth Hour if you're still online, even if you did turn out your lights!
This is totally contrary to the spirit of Earth Hour! Even if you're not plugged in and are tweeting from a battery-powered device (even if you're making a big show of doing it by candlelight - and why would you need candles when your screen lights up?), the electricity you use will just have to be charged off the grid after you're done. Plus, if you're connected by ethernet or wifi, your modem is also plugged in and using power.
Not to mention that by posting new content during Earth Hour, you're creating incentive for other people to be online during Earth Hour, using their modems and computers or devices, which will also need to be recharged from the grid even if they're not plugged in. If nothing new appeared on the internet during Earth Hour, people wouldn't have any reason to be watching their feed. By posting, you're part of the problem.
If you don't want to shut down for Earth Hour, that's fine. I don't do it myself, for the reasons I explained here.
But don't claim to be doing Earth Hour if you're still online, even if you did turn out your lights!
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Wherein I play Carolyn Hax
My first thought is to wonder if the unfettered eating is actually a problem. Perhaps LW has found what does and doesn't actually make them happy, regardless of what society tells us should make us happy. LW states outright that eating provides bursts of happiness and amending their diet feels terrible and feels like suffering.
Hi Carolyn. I've written and re-written this entry. I can't stop compulsively eating at work (where a lot of unhealthy snacks are free) and at home. Eating makes me happy (though fleetingly so). I have no self-control when it comes to putting food in my mouth, especially anything involving carbs and sugar. The worst/best part? Last year I made a major career change and my new path is off to a fantastic start. I use my great work situation as an excuse to let my guard down when it comes to my eating habits. Though, if I'm being completely honest, I'm just effing tired of constantly thinking about my weight and my eating (as I've done since puberty). Eating provides quick bursts of happiness. Whenever I try to amend my diet (not even to restrict calories, just to restrict empty calories), I feel terrible! Maybe not physically but certainly mentally. Saying no to snacks is like forcing myself to suffer. I know that sounds irrational but that's how my brain interprets it. I don't even know what I'm asking you here. I guess: how do I stop using my professional success as an excuse to not pay attention to my shi**y diet and the fact that my weight has spiraled out of control. Literally every time I put something in my mouth, in an effort to avoid self-hate I just think "who cares if I'm fat, I'm a hard worker and that's what matters in life!"
Carolyn's advice is focused on ways for LW to more successfully eat well and lose weight, but she completely disregards the fact that LW gets happiness from eating and suffers from dieting. I think it would be better to take an approach that at least acknowledges this.
My first suggestion to LW would be to permit themselves to eat whatever they want with no guilt for a certain defined period of time (maybe two weeks, maybe a month - long enough for the novelty to wear off, short enough that any harmful effects are still reversible). This is an experiment, and their only responsibility during this time is to gather data by eating whatever they feel like and observing what happens.
After this period of experimentation, LW takes stock. What happened, and how do they feel about it? Maybe they will be perfectly happy with the outcome. Maybe they will dislike how much weight they gain. Maybe they'll discover that they eat less compulsively when they're "allowed" to eat whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. Maybe they'll discover a threshold where it feels bad physically (this is how I ended up cutting back on sodium - not because I'm supposed to, but because there's a point at which it feels bad). Maybe they'll be happy with how they feel, but discover they need to buy new clothes and that isn't worth the trouble.
They can then use this information to make an informed decision about whether they should be following Carolyn's advice for approaches to losing weight and watching what they eat, or whether they should be embracing what makes them happy in life, or perhaps some balance in between.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Wherein I play Dan Savage
Both these questions are from this Savage Love column:
Something for LW to think about that Dan Savage didn't mention: who do you want to be your next of kin?
As you're dying, your next of kin will become relevant. They'll have to make decisions on your behalf when you're no longer able to, like whether to donate your organs and when to pull the plug. You'll have to trust them to understand and carry out your wishes. If you don't designate someone else, they'll probably also have power of attorney and stand to inherit (depending on the laws where you live.) Even if you make a will, it can be contested if it leaves out the person who's your clear next of kin.
If you're married to your wife, she's your next of kin. How do you feel about that? Is she the best person for the job? Or do you not want her doing this job under any circumstances? Who would be your next of kin if your wife was no longer your wife? Would that person be a better or worse candidate? Do you have someone else in mind who would be better at the job? Or are you just hoping you might find someone better in the next five years? If you have a job with benefits and those benefits include a survivor's benefit or life insurance or something for your next of kin, how would you feel about your wife getting those things as opposed to your next closest relative? If the survivor's benefits only go to your spouse, how would you feel about your wife getting them as opposed to nobody getting anything?
If your wife is a better candidate for next of kin than your next-closest relative, that weighs in favour of staying married - especially if you live apart. If you don't want your wife involved in these things, that weighs very heavily in favour of divorce. If you want your wife to have power of attorney or inherit but you divorce her, that increases the likelihood of your will being contested by other relatives. Conversely, if you don't want her involved but stay married, that increases the likelihood of your will being contested by your wife.
This isn't the only factor, and obviously your wife gets a say too, but if you don't want her involved in your caregiving and your estate, you probably shouldn't stay married. And if you do want her involved in your caregiving and your estate, you should probably consider staying married and perhaps coming to an arrangement of caregiving in exchange for inheritance and otherwise both living your lives as you please.
My first thought on reading the letter, as someone whose preferences are strictly vanilla, is how much it would suck to have a partner who wants me to beat them and hurt them and humiliate them. I don't want to do that! I like my partner!
Then I thought how ironic it would be (if LW is in fact submissive) to have your allegedly submissive partner trying to get you to do stuff you don't want to do. If they really are submissive, shouldn't they be doing what you want them to do, not vice versa? There are things I want my partner to do, they just don't involve violence or pain or humiliation.
There must be something LW's husband wants her to do. It probably isn't painful or degrading. It might not even be sexual. So what if they try, as an experiment, making a rule that for a specific limited period of time (an hour or an afternoon) LW has to do whatever her husband tells her? He might tell her to bake a cake. He might tell her to do their taxes. He might tell her verb his noun in that one particular way he likes best.
This is a more emotionally safe way to experiment with the D/s dynamic, because the person who's less comfortable with the dynamic is in complete control over how far it goes. It's possible that the husband might enjoy it if he's actually in charge and they're doing things he actually enjoys, and it's possible that if he enjoys it he may develop an interest in pushing it further, or at least expanding it from a one-time experiment to something more frequent or maybe even a lifestyle. It's possible LW might find that being truly submissive to her husband's actual needs scratches that itch, or at least scratches it enough for the time being that she's okay with sticking with this for now and seeing whether it evolves.
Of course, it's also possible that LW needs physical pain to get off sexually, in which case this suggestion wouldn't work. But they'd be no worse off than they are now.
I have a slowly terminal disease and don't have more than five or six years left. I haven't told my wife, which brings me to my problem. We had lived together for seven years when she cheated on me the first time. We worked things out, we got back together, but we continued to live separately. Then I cheated on her. We got back together again but continued living apart. After a year of therapy, we got married, but again we kept our households separate. Fast-forward one eviction and three years of living in a studio driving each other crazy, and she cheated on me again—this time in our house. I moved out instantly. A few months and a terminal diagnosis later, I don't have the will to file the divorce paperwork. We've talked a few times about trying to figure out how to fix us, but I don't know if I can ride this messed-up roller coaster anymore. On the other hand, I don't want to waste the rest of my life being a divorced fortysomething, but I still feel idiotic trying to fix our fucked-up relationship. She reads your column every week, so if you publish this, I'll have to talk to her about my illness, so at least that won't be an issue. What should I do about us?
Something for LW to think about that Dan Savage didn't mention: who do you want to be your next of kin?
As you're dying, your next of kin will become relevant. They'll have to make decisions on your behalf when you're no longer able to, like whether to donate your organs and when to pull the plug. You'll have to trust them to understand and carry out your wishes. If you don't designate someone else, they'll probably also have power of attorney and stand to inherit (depending on the laws where you live.) Even if you make a will, it can be contested if it leaves out the person who's your clear next of kin.
If you're married to your wife, she's your next of kin. How do you feel about that? Is she the best person for the job? Or do you not want her doing this job under any circumstances? Who would be your next of kin if your wife was no longer your wife? Would that person be a better or worse candidate? Do you have someone else in mind who would be better at the job? Or are you just hoping you might find someone better in the next five years? If you have a job with benefits and those benefits include a survivor's benefit or life insurance or something for your next of kin, how would you feel about your wife getting those things as opposed to your next closest relative? If the survivor's benefits only go to your spouse, how would you feel about your wife getting them as opposed to nobody getting anything?
If your wife is a better candidate for next of kin than your next-closest relative, that weighs in favour of staying married - especially if you live apart. If you don't want your wife involved in these things, that weighs very heavily in favour of divorce. If you want your wife to have power of attorney or inherit but you divorce her, that increases the likelihood of your will being contested by other relatives. Conversely, if you don't want her involved but stay married, that increases the likelihood of your will being contested by your wife.
This isn't the only factor, and obviously your wife gets a say too, but if you don't want her involved in your caregiving and your estate, you probably shouldn't stay married. And if you do want her involved in your caregiving and your estate, you should probably consider staying married and perhaps coming to an arrangement of caregiving in exchange for inheritance and otherwise both living your lives as you please.
Are there kinky people interested in BDSM without sex? I'm an early-40s gal living in the Midwest. I'm in a decent-to-great marriage, have two kids, a good life. But my husband is not kinky, not at all. I feel like I've done all I can to get him comfortable with rough sex, power play, etc., but aside from some very reluctant spanking, hair pulling, and a few humiliating (not in a good way) attempts at bondage, our sex life is almost totally vanilla. I enjoy the sex we have, but not being all of who I am sexually is making me resentful, miserable, and desperate. At this point, I'm not even interested in trying to get my husband on board—it obviously makes him uncomfortable, and I think he's just been hoping my desires would go away. They have not, of course, and will not. But I can't see breaking up my marriage over this! My desires for intense physical play, D/s, role-play, etc. are only getting stronger. Is it even worth trying to find people to play with who would be okay with no sex? I think I could be happy staying monogamous if I could just get some of my needs met elsewhere. I'm going insane, but I don't know if this is a thing, and research online has not been helpful. Is there any hope?LW doesn't say if she's dominant or submissive. If she's dominant, nothing I have to say is relevant and there's no point in reading further. But if she's submissive, I have a suggestion: as an experiment, try non-sexual (or vanilla-sexual) D/s, without the B or the S&M.
My first thought on reading the letter, as someone whose preferences are strictly vanilla, is how much it would suck to have a partner who wants me to beat them and hurt them and humiliate them. I don't want to do that! I like my partner!
Then I thought how ironic it would be (if LW is in fact submissive) to have your allegedly submissive partner trying to get you to do stuff you don't want to do. If they really are submissive, shouldn't they be doing what you want them to do, not vice versa? There are things I want my partner to do, they just don't involve violence or pain or humiliation.
There must be something LW's husband wants her to do. It probably isn't painful or degrading. It might not even be sexual. So what if they try, as an experiment, making a rule that for a specific limited period of time (an hour or an afternoon) LW has to do whatever her husband tells her? He might tell her to bake a cake. He might tell her to do their taxes. He might tell her verb his noun in that one particular way he likes best.
This is a more emotionally safe way to experiment with the D/s dynamic, because the person who's less comfortable with the dynamic is in complete control over how far it goes. It's possible that the husband might enjoy it if he's actually in charge and they're doing things he actually enjoys, and it's possible that if he enjoys it he may develop an interest in pushing it further, or at least expanding it from a one-time experiment to something more frequent or maybe even a lifestyle. It's possible LW might find that being truly submissive to her husband's actual needs scratches that itch, or at least scratches it enough for the time being that she's okay with sticking with this for now and seeing whether it evolves.
Of course, it's also possible that LW needs physical pain to get off sexually, in which case this suggestion wouldn't work. But they'd be no worse off than they are now.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Answering advice columns with conspiracy theories
My 35th birthday is coming up about a month from now. I don’t have much in the way of family and friends to celebrate with (we are new to the city we live in), so I haven’t made any plans yet. In fact, I hadn’t really thought about it until today. I’m not sure what I want to do this year, but the reason it was brought to my attention today is that I just received an email invitation to attend my sister's boyfriend’s surprise birthday party next month (they live in the same city as us, but have been here for a few years longer and are much more outgoing and social than my husband and me). Except...
My sister scheduled her boyfriend's surprise birthday party for my birthday! This is logistically understandable because our birthdays (his and mine) are five days apart, and my birthday is the Saturday night that week. However, there is absolutely no mention on the invitation of it being my birthday too, and obviously I am not being jointly included in the “surprise” part of the party. I would gladly go to the party if it was being held any other day, but I know I will resent all the attention, gifts, etc. being directed towards him by his friends and family, while the fact that it is actually my birthday is either ignored or unknown by other party goers.
I texted my sister to ask her if she realized the party was scheduled for my birthday, and her response was: "Yes I know I meant to apologize about that. It was the only weekend we could do it. I hope you can come! But I understand if you can’t."
My solution would be to go away for the night or the weekend, but we are a bit short on cash these days. What would you recommend I do in this situation? Should I go the party and suck it up by not saying anything about my birthday, or should I plan something else for that night?
Conspiracy theory: the letter-writer's sister is actually planning a surprise birthday party for the letter-writer. Pretending it's a party for her boyfriend is the perfect cover, because it provides an explanation for any party-planning she's caught doing!
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
The real problem with The Agenda's guest booking
Steve Paikin's blog post on the difficulties The Agenda has been experiencing with getting female guests has been getting a lot of attention, but buried in this post is a far bigger problem for everyone who watches The Agenda and/or trusts its journalism:
The female character in the cartoon is saying "I'm not sure I'm the right person for this", and the male character is saying "I can read up on this. I'd be happy to join you."
This is a problem.
The problem is not, as Steve Paikin suggests, that the female character declines to go on TV because she doesn't feel she's an expert. The problem is that the male character isn't an expert and is just cramming for the interview, but they let him go on TV anyway!
I was shocked to see such a widely-respected journalist as Steve Paikin suggest that agreeing to go on TV and be interviewed as an expert when you aren't actually an expert and are just going to read up on the subject in the short time before the interview is laudable. Because it is not laudable. Rather, it does a huge disservice to viewers and society as a whole.
If I'm taking the time to watch a TV interview about a subject, I've already read up on it. That's how I know I'm interested enough in it to involve myself in the more time-consuming process of watching a video.
If the person being interviewed is just reading up on it too, as opposed to having long-standing independent and practical expertise, it's quite likely that they're reading a lot of the same stuff I am. So not only do they have a far more limited pool of knowledge than an actual expert, their knowledge is closer to mine than an actual expert's. And, of course, when they're interviewed, we only see a fraction of their knowledge. So I'm tuning into hear what the experts say, and I'm hearing someone parroting a small fraction of my own knowledge. So not only am I not learning, I'm getting an over-inflated sense of my own expertise (I already knew everything that expert on TV said!)
Giving people an over-inflated sense of their own expertise is detrimental to society as a whole. I'm probably not the only one watching TV who is not an expert but has read up on the subject. If everyone who is doing the same thing comes away feeling like we already know enough about the subject, we'll probably stop reading up on it. And then we'll end up in a situation where we're all taking action and making decisions while underinformed, without even knowing that we're underinformed.
We've all seen what harm voting while underinformed can do. The situation will become even worse if more engaged and activist people who make a concerted effort to be informed - by watching The Agenda, for example - come away underinformed unbeknownst to themselves.
As for the original problem of prospective female guests accepting far less frequently than prospective male guests, the solution becomes quite clear if we look at the situation in broader terms, without any explicit or tacit gender markers:
The Agenda is a TV show. They've noticed a recurring pattern where people they want to interview are unable to appear on the TV show, either because they do not have an opening in their schedule for the time of the interview or because they're unable to be prepared for the interview by the time of the interview.
Therefore, the solution is longer lead times.
If The Agenda gives the people they wish to interview more time and more warning, they can clear their schedule (including things like finding childcare, if applicable) and get themselves properly prepared (including things like getting their hair done, if applicable).
The Agenda is not a breaking news report, it's an in-depth interview and analysis program. I'd rather see The Agenda interview the best expert weeks after the story broke than interview someone who wasn't up on the issue but crammed so they could be on TV the same day the story broke.
On top of that, I find myself wondering how I, as a viewer, can trust The Agenda knowing that they accept interviewees who aren't true experts but rather simply cram on the topic before the interview? How do I know whether the person being interviewed actually has true in-depth knowledge, as opposed to having just read some stuff about the topic just like I have? If everything they mention is something I already know, does that mean I know everything I need to? Or does it just mean that the alleged "expert" doesn't know enough? If what they're saying sounds completely bizarre and ridiculous and incompatible with the world as I understand it, does that mean I need to question my whole understanding of the world? Or does that just mean that they're ignorant but willing to appear on TV?
This is compounded by the blog post's invalidating dismissiveness of prospective guests' not wanting to appear on TV as experts because they don't feel they're actually experts. Why would The Agenda trust someone to appear on TV as an expert informing the public about a complex subject, but not trust that same person to say "I'm not a good enough expert to do this job. You need someone who is more of an expert than I am"? It's quite likely the subject is far more complex than a TV producer perceives and there are layers of expertise that the producer can't even begin to fathom - which is fine, the TV producer has their own job to do. But if you don't trust your would-be expert's expertise, why are you inviting them to appear on TV and educate the rest of us? If you trust them that much, you should be taking them at their word and finding someone better.
If The Agenda can't get the guests they want because of scheduling-related issues, they should produce their shows with longer lead times. If the experts they originally seek out tell them they need better experts and they can't get enough better experts to do the shows they want to do, they should do fewer shows - maybe one or twice a week rather than every day. But they're doing their audience - and the public as a whole - a huge disservice by airing shows with people whose best qualification is that they're willing to be on TV.
No man will say, "Sorry can't do your show tonight, I'm not an expert in that particular aspect of the story." They'll get up to speed on the issue and come on.In the graphic at the bottom of the page, they describe it as follows:
The female character in the cartoon is saying "I'm not sure I'm the right person for this", and the male character is saying "I can read up on this. I'd be happy to join you."
This is a problem.
The problem is not, as Steve Paikin suggests, that the female character declines to go on TV because she doesn't feel she's an expert. The problem is that the male character isn't an expert and is just cramming for the interview, but they let him go on TV anyway!
I was shocked to see such a widely-respected journalist as Steve Paikin suggest that agreeing to go on TV and be interviewed as an expert when you aren't actually an expert and are just going to read up on the subject in the short time before the interview is laudable. Because it is not laudable. Rather, it does a huge disservice to viewers and society as a whole.
If I'm taking the time to watch a TV interview about a subject, I've already read up on it. That's how I know I'm interested enough in it to involve myself in the more time-consuming process of watching a video.
If the person being interviewed is just reading up on it too, as opposed to having long-standing independent and practical expertise, it's quite likely that they're reading a lot of the same stuff I am. So not only do they have a far more limited pool of knowledge than an actual expert, their knowledge is closer to mine than an actual expert's. And, of course, when they're interviewed, we only see a fraction of their knowledge. So I'm tuning into hear what the experts say, and I'm hearing someone parroting a small fraction of my own knowledge. So not only am I not learning, I'm getting an over-inflated sense of my own expertise (I already knew everything that expert on TV said!)
Giving people an over-inflated sense of their own expertise is detrimental to society as a whole. I'm probably not the only one watching TV who is not an expert but has read up on the subject. If everyone who is doing the same thing comes away feeling like we already know enough about the subject, we'll probably stop reading up on it. And then we'll end up in a situation where we're all taking action and making decisions while underinformed, without even knowing that we're underinformed.
We've all seen what harm voting while underinformed can do. The situation will become even worse if more engaged and activist people who make a concerted effort to be informed - by watching The Agenda, for example - come away underinformed unbeknownst to themselves.
As for the original problem of prospective female guests accepting far less frequently than prospective male guests, the solution becomes quite clear if we look at the situation in broader terms, without any explicit or tacit gender markers:
The Agenda is a TV show. They've noticed a recurring pattern where people they want to interview are unable to appear on the TV show, either because they do not have an opening in their schedule for the time of the interview or because they're unable to be prepared for the interview by the time of the interview.
Therefore, the solution is longer lead times.
If The Agenda gives the people they wish to interview more time and more warning, they can clear their schedule (including things like finding childcare, if applicable) and get themselves properly prepared (including things like getting their hair done, if applicable).
The Agenda is not a breaking news report, it's an in-depth interview and analysis program. I'd rather see The Agenda interview the best expert weeks after the story broke than interview someone who wasn't up on the issue but crammed so they could be on TV the same day the story broke.
On top of that, I find myself wondering how I, as a viewer, can trust The Agenda knowing that they accept interviewees who aren't true experts but rather simply cram on the topic before the interview? How do I know whether the person being interviewed actually has true in-depth knowledge, as opposed to having just read some stuff about the topic just like I have? If everything they mention is something I already know, does that mean I know everything I need to? Or does it just mean that the alleged "expert" doesn't know enough? If what they're saying sounds completely bizarre and ridiculous and incompatible with the world as I understand it, does that mean I need to question my whole understanding of the world? Or does that just mean that they're ignorant but willing to appear on TV?
This is compounded by the blog post's invalidating dismissiveness of prospective guests' not wanting to appear on TV as experts because they don't feel they're actually experts. Why would The Agenda trust someone to appear on TV as an expert informing the public about a complex subject, but not trust that same person to say "I'm not a good enough expert to do this job. You need someone who is more of an expert than I am"? It's quite likely the subject is far more complex than a TV producer perceives and there are layers of expertise that the producer can't even begin to fathom - which is fine, the TV producer has their own job to do. But if you don't trust your would-be expert's expertise, why are you inviting them to appear on TV and educate the rest of us? If you trust them that much, you should be taking them at their word and finding someone better.
If The Agenda can't get the guests they want because of scheduling-related issues, they should produce their shows with longer lead times. If the experts they originally seek out tell them they need better experts and they can't get enough better experts to do the shows they want to do, they should do fewer shows - maybe one or twice a week rather than every day. But they're doing their audience - and the public as a whole - a huge disservice by airing shows with people whose best qualification is that they're willing to be on TV.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
So why does Ron Swanson work for the government anyway?
In last week's Parks and Recreation, Ron Swanson spent a day renovating some office space that needed to be renovated (sending away the contractors whose actual job it was), and said it was the best day of working for the government he'd ever had.
This has me wondering: why does he work for the government in the first place?
Ron is skilled at and enjoys building things and fixing things. He also believes this is an honourable thing to do with one's time and energy. By contrast, he does not enjoy government work, thinks it's not honourable, and thinks it's a waste of time and energy.
As the character develops over the seasons, it becomes apparent that being honourable and living authentically is important to him, and that he respects people who stand up for and work for what they believe in.
So why would he betray his core beliefs for a job when he could easily earn money doing something that he believes in, enjoys, and is good at? (On top of the fact that it's been established that he's independently wealthy?)
I know that the character of Ron Swanson originated because the series creators heard of a a real life libertarian government official who doesn't believe in government. But if they're going to develop the character to be authentic and honourable (which I do think was a good character decision - I think the show started getting good when Ron started being honourable and Leslie started being competent) they'd have to explain why he's doing this job he doesn't believe in.
It would be a lot more plausible if he simply needed work, like everyone does. Sometimes people have to do things that don't align perfectly with their beliefs in order to put food on the table. That would be interesting, and realistic, and perhaps even a sympathetic character point depending on how it's written. But as it is, they've written themselves into a plot hole.
This has me wondering: why does he work for the government in the first place?
Ron is skilled at and enjoys building things and fixing things. He also believes this is an honourable thing to do with one's time and energy. By contrast, he does not enjoy government work, thinks it's not honourable, and thinks it's a waste of time and energy.
As the character develops over the seasons, it becomes apparent that being honourable and living authentically is important to him, and that he respects people who stand up for and work for what they believe in.
So why would he betray his core beliefs for a job when he could easily earn money doing something that he believes in, enjoys, and is good at? (On top of the fact that it's been established that he's independently wealthy?)
I know that the character of Ron Swanson originated because the series creators heard of a a real life libertarian government official who doesn't believe in government. But if they're going to develop the character to be authentic and honourable (which I do think was a good character decision - I think the show started getting good when Ron started being honourable and Leslie started being competent) they'd have to explain why he's doing this job he doesn't believe in.
It would be a lot more plausible if he simply needed work, like everyone does. Sometimes people have to do things that don't align perfectly with their beliefs in order to put food on the table. That would be interesting, and realistic, and perhaps even a sympathetic character point depending on how it's written. But as it is, they've written themselves into a plot hole.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Typos and word counts
Sometimes I'm proofreading a translation or looking back at an old blog post, and I'm shocked to discover that I typed "their" when I was supposed to use "there". WTF? I know the difference full well! Why did the wrong one come out of my fingers?
Of course, my thoughts then turned to dementia. I never made these mistakes when I was a kid in school! Am I losing my mind??
But in the shower this morning, I realized there's a major difference between what I'm doing now and what I was doing in school: in my adult life, between translating and writing and blogging and emailing and chatting and assorted casual internet use, I invariably write thousands and thousands of words every day. I probably write more words in a day in my adult life than I'd write in a semester of any given class when I was in school.
I guess they had us write so little in school because the teachers had to mark all of it. If each teacher taught 100 students in any given semester (because it's plausible and makes the math easy) and they had the students write even 1,000 words a day, they'd have to read and mark 100,000 words a day, which would be rather a lot to do every single day.
But this means that, in adult life, I can make as many stupid brainfarts in a day as I did in a semester in school before I have to start worrying about losing my faculties.
Of course, my thoughts then turned to dementia. I never made these mistakes when I was a kid in school! Am I losing my mind??
But in the shower this morning, I realized there's a major difference between what I'm doing now and what I was doing in school: in my adult life, between translating and writing and blogging and emailing and chatting and assorted casual internet use, I invariably write thousands and thousands of words every day. I probably write more words in a day in my adult life than I'd write in a semester of any given class when I was in school.
I guess they had us write so little in school because the teachers had to mark all of it. If each teacher taught 100 students in any given semester (because it's plausible and makes the math easy) and they had the students write even 1,000 words a day, they'd have to read and mark 100,000 words a day, which would be rather a lot to do every single day.
But this means that, in adult life, I can make as many stupid brainfarts in a day as I did in a semester in school before I have to start worrying about losing my faculties.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Saving face
Walking home today, I saw a lady walking two dogs on a patch of grass near my building, and another lady started yelling out the window at her to pick up her dogs' poo.
I have no horse in this race - I neither own a dog nor use the grass - but the way the lady was yelling out the window inspired in me a feeling of "I don't want her to win!" and my mind, unbidden, promptly started brainstorming ways to make window-yelling lady feel bad or to give dog-walking lady a perfectly good reason to walk away without picking up her dogs' poo. I pondered whether there was a way to make one of the dogs run away, and then Dog-Walking Lady would have to chase him. I calculated whether I could lob a dog poo high enough that it would land in Window-Yelling Lady's stupid yelly face. I contemplated yelling back at Window-Yelling Lady "The dogs aren't even finished pooing yet!" (Which was true.) But I couldn't think of anything that would be effective, not escalate the situation, and not make me look crazier than Window-Yelling Lady. So I just kept walking and didn't see how the situation ultimately played out
But this provided a perfect example of something I learned back in my professional writing classes: you have to give your interlocutor an opportunity to save face. The way Window-Yelling Lady was making a big scene, trying to embarrass Dog-Walking Lady, and just kept yelling and yelling in a way that suggested her intention was to keep yelling until Dog-Walking Lady picked up the poo, created a situation where picking up the poo would be appearing to let Window-Yelling Lady win. If Dog-Walking Lady had waited until her dogs both finished their business and picked up their poo - even if this were here intention all along - it would look like she did it in response to Window-Yelling Lady's yelling. There was no way for Dog-Walking Lady to give Window-Yelling Lady or any other random onlooker the impression that she was intending the whole time to pick up after her dogs as soon as they actually finished pooing. As a result, because she has no way of not looking bad, the temptation increases to exact vengeance on the person who's making her look bad by leaving the poo behind.
However, if, instead of yelling through the window and publicly embarrassing Dog-Walking Lady, Window-Yelling Lady had instead chosen an approach that appeared to give Dog-Walking Lady the benefit of the doubt - for example, offer her a baggie and say "It's the worst when they just have to go and you don't have a baggie, isn't it?" This not only saves face for Dog-Walking Lady by treating her like a perfectly reasonable dog owner, it creates a scenario where Dog-Walking Lady would have to introduce assholicness into the situation by walking away and leaving the poo behind even though the nice neighbour lady had just helped her out by giving her a baggie.
It also reminded me of something that comes up in advice column forums. Sometimes, for letters dealing with fraught social situations where one party is not exhibiting the desired behaviour, the advice columnist or various commenters might suggest an approach that presents the desired behaviour as a pro tip (e.g. "We've found it helpful to respond actionable emails acknowledging that we've received them - just a quick "Thanks!" will do - so then the other person doesn't have to worry about whether we got it.") or by requesting it as a bit of a favour in response to a personal quirk or a one-off situation (e.g. "Could you do me a favour and let me know you got this email? The mail server has been erratic lately.") However, there are always people who always argue against these more subtle approaches, saying you should simply tell the person to engage in the desired behaviour ("Stop not answering your email!"), regardless of whether you have any authority over them, often even saying that you should tell them to engage in the desired behaviour pre-emptively (the email example doesn't work for this one, but it does apply to my mother's habit of telling me to hang up my coat before I've even taken off my coat, or telling me to say thank-you before I've even opened the present.)
I've been trying for some time to articulate why I don't think this approach would be productive, and Window-Yelling Lady showed me why. It creates a win-lose situation, and labels the person you want to engage in the desired behaviour as Someone Who Won't Engage In The Desired Behaviour. If they do it, it looks like they only did it just because you told them to, and therefore your nagging is necessary. If they don't do it, it makes them look like Someone Who Won't Engage In The Desired Behaviour, and therefore your nagging is necessary. It doesn't leave them any room to be seen as Being Good or give them any credit for their positive actions, so their only remaining incentive for the desired behaviour (other than the fact that it's right, which the nagger obviously doesn't believe is sufficient incentive) is to stop the nagger from nagging, which probably isn't going to work anyway because the nagger is going to think their nagging caused the desired behaviour.
But if you allow them to save face, it creates a win-win situation: you've extracted the desired behaviour from them, and they get to look like they're doing it on their own initiative.
I have no horse in this race - I neither own a dog nor use the grass - but the way the lady was yelling out the window inspired in me a feeling of "I don't want her to win!" and my mind, unbidden, promptly started brainstorming ways to make window-yelling lady feel bad or to give dog-walking lady a perfectly good reason to walk away without picking up her dogs' poo. I pondered whether there was a way to make one of the dogs run away, and then Dog-Walking Lady would have to chase him. I calculated whether I could lob a dog poo high enough that it would land in Window-Yelling Lady's stupid yelly face. I contemplated yelling back at Window-Yelling Lady "The dogs aren't even finished pooing yet!" (Which was true.) But I couldn't think of anything that would be effective, not escalate the situation, and not make me look crazier than Window-Yelling Lady. So I just kept walking and didn't see how the situation ultimately played out
But this provided a perfect example of something I learned back in my professional writing classes: you have to give your interlocutor an opportunity to save face. The way Window-Yelling Lady was making a big scene, trying to embarrass Dog-Walking Lady, and just kept yelling and yelling in a way that suggested her intention was to keep yelling until Dog-Walking Lady picked up the poo, created a situation where picking up the poo would be appearing to let Window-Yelling Lady win. If Dog-Walking Lady had waited until her dogs both finished their business and picked up their poo - even if this were here intention all along - it would look like she did it in response to Window-Yelling Lady's yelling. There was no way for Dog-Walking Lady to give Window-Yelling Lady or any other random onlooker the impression that she was intending the whole time to pick up after her dogs as soon as they actually finished pooing. As a result, because she has no way of not looking bad, the temptation increases to exact vengeance on the person who's making her look bad by leaving the poo behind.
However, if, instead of yelling through the window and publicly embarrassing Dog-Walking Lady, Window-Yelling Lady had instead chosen an approach that appeared to give Dog-Walking Lady the benefit of the doubt - for example, offer her a baggie and say "It's the worst when they just have to go and you don't have a baggie, isn't it?" This not only saves face for Dog-Walking Lady by treating her like a perfectly reasonable dog owner, it creates a scenario where Dog-Walking Lady would have to introduce assholicness into the situation by walking away and leaving the poo behind even though the nice neighbour lady had just helped her out by giving her a baggie.
It also reminded me of something that comes up in advice column forums. Sometimes, for letters dealing with fraught social situations where one party is not exhibiting the desired behaviour, the advice columnist or various commenters might suggest an approach that presents the desired behaviour as a pro tip (e.g. "We've found it helpful to respond actionable emails acknowledging that we've received them - just a quick "Thanks!" will do - so then the other person doesn't have to worry about whether we got it.") or by requesting it as a bit of a favour in response to a personal quirk or a one-off situation (e.g. "Could you do me a favour and let me know you got this email? The mail server has been erratic lately.") However, there are always people who always argue against these more subtle approaches, saying you should simply tell the person to engage in the desired behaviour ("Stop not answering your email!"), regardless of whether you have any authority over them, often even saying that you should tell them to engage in the desired behaviour pre-emptively (the email example doesn't work for this one, but it does apply to my mother's habit of telling me to hang up my coat before I've even taken off my coat, or telling me to say thank-you before I've even opened the present.)
I've been trying for some time to articulate why I don't think this approach would be productive, and Window-Yelling Lady showed me why. It creates a win-lose situation, and labels the person you want to engage in the desired behaviour as Someone Who Won't Engage In The Desired Behaviour. If they do it, it looks like they only did it just because you told them to, and therefore your nagging is necessary. If they don't do it, it makes them look like Someone Who Won't Engage In The Desired Behaviour, and therefore your nagging is necessary. It doesn't leave them any room to be seen as Being Good or give them any credit for their positive actions, so their only remaining incentive for the desired behaviour (other than the fact that it's right, which the nagger obviously doesn't believe is sufficient incentive) is to stop the nagger from nagging, which probably isn't going to work anyway because the nagger is going to think their nagging caused the desired behaviour.
But if you allow them to save face, it creates a win-win situation: you've extracted the desired behaviour from them, and they get to look like they're doing it on their own initiative.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Downton braindump (full spoilers up to the end of season 4)
- As you may have expected, I'm disappointed that they didn't show us Edith's pregnancy and time in Geneva. There's so much of interest there! Did they need a cover story or did they just keep quietly to themselves? Did Edith have to wear a fake wedding ring? Did they need to hire new servants for their time in Geneva to make sure that gossip wouldn't spread? Did Rosamund take her lady's maid? If so, how did she ensure her silence? If not, how did she explain the whole "I'm going on a trip and not taking you with me" thing?
- Jack's breakup with Rose is another story that they told rather than showing, but I did think the conversation between Jack and Mary was a good character moment for both of them.
- The problem with Mary having all the suitors is that if she marries someone, she will become the lady of their estate with all the related responsibilities, when she already has the responsibility of helping keep Downton well-run so it's secure for George's future. I can't see her just turning her back on Downton, but I also can't see an aristocratic marriage in that era working out with the lady of the house's primary responsibility being another estate. Not to mention that if she has a son with any future husband, that son would inherit the husband's estate.
- If Lord Grantham dies and Lady Mary hasn't remarried, what would her title be? Functionally she'd be a Dowager Countess, but she's never been a Countess because you have to be the wife of an Earl. Would she get some bigger title than simply Lady Mary?
- Actually, if Lord Grantham died right now, would Cora also be a Dowager Countess? If there can only be one Dowager (and what with Violet obviously being immortal), what would Cora be?
- Speaking of Lord Grantham, I think it's an excellent writing decision to make him incompetent. People have criticized the trope (often found in sitcoms and such) of the father being an incompetent buffoon (although Lord Grantham isn't a buffoon), but I think it's really interesting in this era and context because his decisions have so much impact on so many people. If a sitcom father does something foolish, maybe he blows up a barbecue. If Lord Grantham does something foolish, the livelihood of everyone in the house (and maybe the whole estate?) is harmed. So when he didn't want Mary to be involved in running the estate (with that paternalistic "for her own good" tone), this was actually a threat to the estate.
- When Thomas catches Branson showing the teacher around the house, Branson makes a point of explaining the situation to him and worrying about whether he misinterpreted it. But when Lord Grantham comments "I heard you had a guest", Branson simply says "Yes I did." That seems bass-ackwards to me. If Branson somehow felt that he owed Thomas an explanation, surely he'd owe Lord Grantham (who actually owns the house!) an explanation! Even if he'd collected his wits and wasn't going to fall into a stuttering apology/explanation, he could have just thrown in a very casual, "Yes, Miss Bunting the schoolteacher is very interested in our local art and history and architecture, so I was showing her around." Cora and Isobel and the Dowager Countess already know that he is friends with the schoolteacher, and even if they do evolve in the direction of a romance eventually that makes it look more organic, rather than having a secret assignation at his dead wife's parents' house while they're away.
- Why did the season finale mention that Mrs. Levinson's lady's maid had quit and that Cora had asked the Dowager Countess not to travel with a lady's maid and then not do anything with that information? They should have showed us some chaos with only two lady's maids for four ladies (plus Edith, plus Rose who was actually being presented to court and therefore would have wanted to look her best.) They should have at least showed them with slightly different hair styles than usual! (And speaking of which, who did Mrs. Levinson's hair etc. all during the ocean crossing if she wasn't travelling with a lady's maid?)
Ideas for spinoffs:
1. A prequel covering the early days of Robert and Cora's marriage. A benign marriage of convenience isn't something we really see portrayed on TV or in fiction in general, and it would be interesting to explore.
2. If Tom decides to move to America like he's mentioned in passing (although he hasn't raised the idea lately, there should be a sequel where, after WWII has conveniently killed off anyone who needs to die to make this happen, Baby Sybbie, now a twenty-something woman raised in the US by her working-class Irish father, inherits Downton. in all the mess of postwar Britain. Daisy is the cook, Anna is the housekeeper, and Thomas is the butler. (I haven't figured out where Mr. Bates is, but Thomas would be more interesting as the butler because he's evil but he's on Sybbie's side. And I know Anna isn't on a housekeeper track, but we don't have any other named maids.
3. Fifteen or twenty years in the future, George begins a flirtation with Edith's daughter, not knowing that she is his biological cousin. Edith tries to stop him, but he assumes she's just a snobbish old aunt. This could also have an interesting "everything dies and the illegitimate daughter inherits" denouement. Or maybe everyone but Edith dies, and then she reveals herself to her daughter.
- Jack's breakup with Rose is another story that they told rather than showing, but I did think the conversation between Jack and Mary was a good character moment for both of them.
- The problem with Mary having all the suitors is that if she marries someone, she will become the lady of their estate with all the related responsibilities, when she already has the responsibility of helping keep Downton well-run so it's secure for George's future. I can't see her just turning her back on Downton, but I also can't see an aristocratic marriage in that era working out with the lady of the house's primary responsibility being another estate. Not to mention that if she has a son with any future husband, that son would inherit the husband's estate.
- If Lord Grantham dies and Lady Mary hasn't remarried, what would her title be? Functionally she'd be a Dowager Countess, but she's never been a Countess because you have to be the wife of an Earl. Would she get some bigger title than simply Lady Mary?
- Actually, if Lord Grantham died right now, would Cora also be a Dowager Countess? If there can only be one Dowager (and what with Violet obviously being immortal), what would Cora be?
- Speaking of Lord Grantham, I think it's an excellent writing decision to make him incompetent. People have criticized the trope (often found in sitcoms and such) of the father being an incompetent buffoon (although Lord Grantham isn't a buffoon), but I think it's really interesting in this era and context because his decisions have so much impact on so many people. If a sitcom father does something foolish, maybe he blows up a barbecue. If Lord Grantham does something foolish, the livelihood of everyone in the house (and maybe the whole estate?) is harmed. So when he didn't want Mary to be involved in running the estate (with that paternalistic "for her own good" tone), this was actually a threat to the estate.
- When Thomas catches Branson showing the teacher around the house, Branson makes a point of explaining the situation to him and worrying about whether he misinterpreted it. But when Lord Grantham comments "I heard you had a guest", Branson simply says "Yes I did." That seems bass-ackwards to me. If Branson somehow felt that he owed Thomas an explanation, surely he'd owe Lord Grantham (who actually owns the house!) an explanation! Even if he'd collected his wits and wasn't going to fall into a stuttering apology/explanation, he could have just thrown in a very casual, "Yes, Miss Bunting the schoolteacher is very interested in our local art and history and architecture, so I was showing her around." Cora and Isobel and the Dowager Countess already know that he is friends with the schoolteacher, and even if they do evolve in the direction of a romance eventually that makes it look more organic, rather than having a secret assignation at his dead wife's parents' house while they're away.
- Why did the season finale mention that Mrs. Levinson's lady's maid had quit and that Cora had asked the Dowager Countess not to travel with a lady's maid and then not do anything with that information? They should have showed us some chaos with only two lady's maids for four ladies (plus Edith, plus Rose who was actually being presented to court and therefore would have wanted to look her best.) They should have at least showed them with slightly different hair styles than usual! (And speaking of which, who did Mrs. Levinson's hair etc. all during the ocean crossing if she wasn't travelling with a lady's maid?)
Ideas for spinoffs:
1. A prequel covering the early days of Robert and Cora's marriage. A benign marriage of convenience isn't something we really see portrayed on TV or in fiction in general, and it would be interesting to explore.
2. If Tom decides to move to America like he's mentioned in passing (although he hasn't raised the idea lately, there should be a sequel where, after WWII has conveniently killed off anyone who needs to die to make this happen, Baby Sybbie, now a twenty-something woman raised in the US by her working-class Irish father, inherits Downton. in all the mess of postwar Britain. Daisy is the cook, Anna is the housekeeper, and Thomas is the butler. (I haven't figured out where Mr. Bates is, but Thomas would be more interesting as the butler because he's evil but he's on Sybbie's side. And I know Anna isn't on a housekeeper track, but we don't have any other named maids.
3. Fifteen or twenty years in the future, George begins a flirtation with Edith's daughter, not knowing that she is his biological cousin. Edith tries to stop him, but he assumes she's just a snobbish old aunt. This could also have an interesting "everything dies and the illegitimate daughter inherits" denouement. Or maybe everyone but Edith dies, and then she reveals herself to her daughter.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Books read in February 2014
New books:
1. Behind the Scenes at Downton Abbey by Emma Rowley
2. The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II by Charles Glass
3. Bone and Bread by Saleema Nawaz
4. Dexter's Final Cut by Jeff Lindsay
5. Orange is the New Black by Piper Kerman
From my ongoing comfort-food reread of In Death:
1. Imitation in Death
2. Remember When
3. Divided in Death
1. Behind the Scenes at Downton Abbey by Emma Rowley
2. The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II by Charles Glass
3. Bone and Bread by Saleema Nawaz
4. Dexter's Final Cut by Jeff Lindsay
5. Orange is the New Black by Piper Kerman
From my ongoing comfort-food reread of In Death:
1. Imitation in Death
2. Remember When
3. Divided in Death
Dell XPS 15 / NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M / external monitor issues
I've recently had some curious computer behaviour that appear loosely related to my video card+external monitor combination. I have no idea if they're related to each other, I have no idea if this is the whole story, I have no idea if there's some other underlying issue I can't see. I'm just documenting what I know here for googleability in case it's helpful to someone.
The computer: a Dell XPS 15, running Windows 7
The video card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M
The display: a Dell E178FP LCD monitor, connected to the computer via a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter (because the computer doesn't have VGA output and the monitor only has VGA input. However, sometimes I unplug the external monitor and instead use the built-in screen, which has widescreen dimensions.
The monitor blinking out problem
Every once in a while, it seemed randomly, the monitor would blink out, as though it had gone into sleep mode even though I don't have a sleep mode set. Moving the mouse or pressing the keyboard wouldn't work and opening up the laptop wouldn't even work. It would be completely frozen and I'd have to do a hard reboot. The appearance of this problem correlated with appearance of the monitor occasionally flickering when I was shredding paper (about 3 feet away from the monitor) and with difficulty switching back and forth between laptop screen and external monitor - when I connected the external monitor, it wouldn't pick up the picture (even when I pressed Windows key + P). It would take multiple pluggings and unpluggings to make it work, and sometimes even a reboot. And it got worse as time passed.
After this had been going on for some time, I noticed that the monitor blinked out when the Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter got jiggled. I therefore bought a new adapter, and the problem stopped happening.
The Windows 7 Action Centre mystery
Shortly after I bought the new Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter that could withstand jiggling, an alert appeared in my Windows 7 Action Centre saying "Solve a problem with NVIDIA Graphics Driver." However, when I clicked on it, it said "This solution could not be downloaded." It's been saying that for months, always when I did in fact have a full and active internet connection. The problem that it claims to be solving correlates with times when the computer crashed because of the adapter problem, so I don't know that there is in fact a driver issue (when this first appeared, my driver was the most recent one available).
The bad Windows Update
I don't routinely install all Windows updates, because in the past I've had problems with them conflicting or causing problems. Once my setup works, I prefer to keep it that way. But, just recently, I noticed an update called "nVidia Graphics Adapter WDDM1.1, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.2, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.3, released in October, 2013". I thought this might be the NVIDIA solution that the Action Centre was trying and failing to deliver, so I installed it.
And it completely disabled my external monitor. No matter how many times I unplugged and replugged and switched back and forth between the monitors, nothing would display on my external monitor.
So I did a system restore, and the external monitor started working again.
The takeaway (to the best of my knowledge):
- If your external monitor is connected using a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter and you lose monitor signal, freezing the computer, try replacing the adapter.
- If this has happened and there's a useless Solve a problem with NVIDIA Graphics Driver" notice in your Windows Action Centre, this might be why.
- If you have installed a Windows update called "nVidia Graphics Adapter WDDM1.1, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.2, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.3, released in October, 2013" and lost the use of your external monitor, try undoing the update.
The computer: a Dell XPS 15, running Windows 7
The video card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M
The display: a Dell E178FP LCD monitor, connected to the computer via a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter (because the computer doesn't have VGA output and the monitor only has VGA input. However, sometimes I unplug the external monitor and instead use the built-in screen, which has widescreen dimensions.
The monitor blinking out problem
Every once in a while, it seemed randomly, the monitor would blink out, as though it had gone into sleep mode even though I don't have a sleep mode set. Moving the mouse or pressing the keyboard wouldn't work and opening up the laptop wouldn't even work. It would be completely frozen and I'd have to do a hard reboot. The appearance of this problem correlated with appearance of the monitor occasionally flickering when I was shredding paper (about 3 feet away from the monitor) and with difficulty switching back and forth between laptop screen and external monitor - when I connected the external monitor, it wouldn't pick up the picture (even when I pressed Windows key + P). It would take multiple pluggings and unpluggings to make it work, and sometimes even a reboot. And it got worse as time passed.
After this had been going on for some time, I noticed that the monitor blinked out when the Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter got jiggled. I therefore bought a new adapter, and the problem stopped happening.
The Windows 7 Action Centre mystery
Shortly after I bought the new Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter that could withstand jiggling, an alert appeared in my Windows 7 Action Centre saying "Solve a problem with NVIDIA Graphics Driver." However, when I clicked on it, it said "This solution could not be downloaded." It's been saying that for months, always when I did in fact have a full and active internet connection. The problem that it claims to be solving correlates with times when the computer crashed because of the adapter problem, so I don't know that there is in fact a driver issue (when this first appeared, my driver was the most recent one available).
The bad Windows Update
I don't routinely install all Windows updates, because in the past I've had problems with them conflicting or causing problems. Once my setup works, I prefer to keep it that way. But, just recently, I noticed an update called "nVidia Graphics Adapter WDDM1.1, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.2, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.3, released in October, 2013". I thought this might be the NVIDIA solution that the Action Centre was trying and failing to deliver, so I installed it.
And it completely disabled my external monitor. No matter how many times I unplugged and replugged and switched back and forth between the monitors, nothing would display on my external monitor.
So I did a system restore, and the external monitor started working again.
The takeaway (to the best of my knowledge):
- If your external monitor is connected using a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter and you lose monitor signal, freezing the computer, try replacing the adapter.
- If this has happened and there's a useless Solve a problem with NVIDIA Graphics Driver" notice in your Windows Action Centre, this might be why.
- If you have installed a Windows update called "nVidia Graphics Adapter WDDM1.1, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.2, Graphics Adapter WDDM1.3, released in October, 2013" and lost the use of your external monitor, try undoing the update.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Once again, a clever detail in the most recent Dexter book (spoiler-free)
When I first saw the Dexter TV series, I thought Michael C. Hall was too attractive for the role of Dexter. I've been reading the Dexter series since the first book came out, and I didn't see the character as anywhere near as conventionally attractive as Michael C. Hall.
So I was quite delighted to see, in Double Dexter, that Dexter seemed to have noticed for the first time that he's rather handsome. That totally resolve that very minor, completely subjective, inconsistency between the books and the casting - Dexter didn't seem handsome on paper because he's a non-omniscient narrator and he never thought to notice before!
Something similar happened with the most recent book. In Dexter by Design, Dexter says "Of course, for some bizarre reason, we don't have a National Registry of Who Your Friends Are". As I pointed out when I read it, Facebook serves that function.
And in the most recent book, Dexter's Final Cut, Dexter and Debra are shown Facebook by a civilian, and it turns out they weren't previously aware of it! It doesn't address why they weren't aware of it (maybe the books are set a few years ago?) but it does make it apparent that it wasn't a tool they had in previous books.
I love how this author closes tiny little plot holes that aren't even really plot holes!
So I was quite delighted to see, in Double Dexter, that Dexter seemed to have noticed for the first time that he's rather handsome. That totally resolve that very minor, completely subjective, inconsistency between the books and the casting - Dexter didn't seem handsome on paper because he's a non-omniscient narrator and he never thought to notice before!
Something similar happened with the most recent book. In Dexter by Design, Dexter says "Of course, for some bizarre reason, we don't have a National Registry of Who Your Friends Are". As I pointed out when I read it, Facebook serves that function.
And in the most recent book, Dexter's Final Cut, Dexter and Debra are shown Facebook by a civilian, and it turns out they weren't previously aware of it! It doesn't address why they weren't aware of it (maybe the books are set a few years ago?) but it does make it apparent that it wasn't a tool they had in previous books.
I love how this author closes tiny little plot holes that aren't even really plot holes!
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Helpful household hints
1. Mr. Clean Magic Eraser is good for degriming shower tiles
Based on the colour, the grime seemed to be related to my hair conditioner, and normal cleaning products plus elbow grease wouldn't budge it. But the Mr. Clean Magic eraser wiped it right off with only slightly more than the absolute minimum of effort humanly possible.
2. How to declog a paper shredder
The problem: the shredder wouldn't "grab" the paper, not even when set on "Forward" (i.e. run regardless of whether you think there's paper poised to be shredded.)
First I ran the shredder forward and backwards like the instruction manual said, but that didn't work.
After switching it off and unplugging it, I tried manually removing the bits of paper I could see stuck between the blades, but I couldn't get at all of them. I then tried blowing at it with compressed air (i.e. this sort of thing), but that didn't get rid of all the bits.
The ultimate solution: take the long, skinny straw-like thing on the compressed air can, and stick it down the slot of the paper shredder where I could see the bits of paper still stuck in there. (Making sure the shredder was still turned off and unplugged, of course!) It's skinny enough to get into the slot, flexible enough to get in between the blades without damaging them, and inconsequential enough that it didn't matter if I damaged it in the blades (which I didn't). And it got all the cloggy bits of paper out of the way, and now the shredder works more enthusiastically than ever.
3. How do get rid of bird poo without touching it (and without a hose)
The problem: bird poo on the outside of the glass outer wall of my balcony (i.e. the bit under the railing.) I can see its ugliness, but I'm too vertiginous to reach over the railing to clean it off (and would be too squeamish to touch it even indirectly with paper towels and rubber gloves even if I could reach it).
The solution: first, wait for a rainy day when the rain is beating rather heavily against the surface to be washed.
Spray some OxiClean Spray on the surface, above the bird poo. It will drip down, cover the poo, and the enzymes will get rid of a lot of it.
Next, after the OxiClean has either all dripped down below the mess or the rain has washed it away, squirt a dab of dish soap (the hand-washing kind, not the dishwasher kind) above the poo. It will drip down and cover the poo, and the rain will make it into a lather, which will wash the rest away.
The last step is to take some Windex, and spray a generous amount over as much of the area as possible, focusing on the top so it can drip down. This will clean off the build-up left by the Oxi-Clean and dish soap, so once everything is dry you won't even be able to tell anything happened there.
If you have a bird poo problem somewhere where you have access to a hose, you obviously don't have to wait for it to rain. But the approach I've described here works in cases where a hose isn't possible. As an added bonus, if you're very careful to spray the stuff only directly on the wall, it won't land on any passers-by who might be walking below.
Based on the colour, the grime seemed to be related to my hair conditioner, and normal cleaning products plus elbow grease wouldn't budge it. But the Mr. Clean Magic eraser wiped it right off with only slightly more than the absolute minimum of effort humanly possible.
2. How to declog a paper shredder
The problem: the shredder wouldn't "grab" the paper, not even when set on "Forward" (i.e. run regardless of whether you think there's paper poised to be shredded.)
First I ran the shredder forward and backwards like the instruction manual said, but that didn't work.
After switching it off and unplugging it, I tried manually removing the bits of paper I could see stuck between the blades, but I couldn't get at all of them. I then tried blowing at it with compressed air (i.e. this sort of thing), but that didn't get rid of all the bits.
The ultimate solution: take the long, skinny straw-like thing on the compressed air can, and stick it down the slot of the paper shredder where I could see the bits of paper still stuck in there. (Making sure the shredder was still turned off and unplugged, of course!) It's skinny enough to get into the slot, flexible enough to get in between the blades without damaging them, and inconsequential enough that it didn't matter if I damaged it in the blades (which I didn't). And it got all the cloggy bits of paper out of the way, and now the shredder works more enthusiastically than ever.
3. How do get rid of bird poo without touching it (and without a hose)
The problem: bird poo on the outside of the glass outer wall of my balcony (i.e. the bit under the railing.) I can see its ugliness, but I'm too vertiginous to reach over the railing to clean it off (and would be too squeamish to touch it even indirectly with paper towels and rubber gloves even if I could reach it).
The solution: first, wait for a rainy day when the rain is beating rather heavily against the surface to be washed.
Spray some OxiClean Spray on the surface, above the bird poo. It will drip down, cover the poo, and the enzymes will get rid of a lot of it.
Next, after the OxiClean has either all dripped down below the mess or the rain has washed it away, squirt a dab of dish soap (the hand-washing kind, not the dishwasher kind) above the poo. It will drip down and cover the poo, and the rain will make it into a lather, which will wash the rest away.
The last step is to take some Windex, and spray a generous amount over as much of the area as possible, focusing on the top so it can drip down. This will clean off the build-up left by the Oxi-Clean and dish soap, so once everything is dry you won't even be able to tell anything happened there.
If you have a bird poo problem somewhere where you have access to a hose, you obviously don't have to wait for it to rain. But the approach I've described here works in cases where a hose isn't possible. As an added bonus, if you're very careful to spray the stuff only directly on the wall, it won't land on any passers-by who might be walking below.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Things They Should Invent: a way to save non-stressed feelings for later
As I've mentioned before, my stress levels have been really low (and quite often zero) since I started working from home. However, my lease renewal recently came up, which reminded me that in a bit over a year I'm going to be moving into my condo, which is surely going to be stressful - not just from the moving but from the stuff related to the condo purchase, some of which, I'm sure, I haven't anticipated at all.
Despite the fact that, at condo time, I will have had nearly two years of a zero-stress day-to-day, I'll still get stressed then. It's just not possible to bank non-stress for when I need it. I can save money for when I need it, I can eat sparingly today so I have room for a good pig-out tomorrow, but stress is Tetris pieces, and no matter how good you are at Tetris, you can't move the bottom of the playing area any lower, even though you know the pieces will start coming too fast to handle when you reach Level 9.
Someone should really come up with a workaround for that. (Or, barring that, a Tetris cheat that moves the bottom of the playing area lower if you clear lines well enough.)
Despite the fact that, at condo time, I will have had nearly two years of a zero-stress day-to-day, I'll still get stressed then. It's just not possible to bank non-stress for when I need it. I can save money for when I need it, I can eat sparingly today so I have room for a good pig-out tomorrow, but stress is Tetris pieces, and no matter how good you are at Tetris, you can't move the bottom of the playing area any lower, even though you know the pieces will start coming too fast to handle when you reach Level 9.
Someone should really come up with a workaround for that. (Or, barring that, a Tetris cheat that moves the bottom of the playing area lower if you clear lines well enough.)
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Why would police have to search a hospital patient?
From The Ethicist:
He's been shot in leg, so it's perfectly reasonable to remove his pants. And people usually remove their footwear as part of removing pants. They could then put him in a hospital gown so he's not sitting around undressed, and logistically they'd probably have to remove, at a minimum, all but his bottom layer of shirts - perhaps all his shirts. If the hospital gown isn't necessary, they could also ask him to take his jacket/sweater/everything but t-shirt off to take his blood pressure or something.
Once he's down to a t-shirt and undies they'll probably be able to tell if he's carrying a weapon. And if they can't, they could do the "put the stethoscope on the patient's chest and have the patient breathe deeply" thing, which will allow them to lift the patient's shirt enough to see if there's anything underneath.
And all that's before we even get into the possibility of checking the patient's body for more wounds, which seems like something you might do when treating a patient who's been in a gunfight! Or x-raying a gunshot patient to verify the location of all the bits of bullet.
If the patient isn't searched by police officers and instead simply receives medical care from medical professionals, he's more likely to perceive the hospital as a safe place where there's no threat to him. And the police in the ER would hopefully be able to keep out the people who are trying to kill the patient, so the patient would have no reason to draw any weapons he might have on him.
My emergency unit handled a man who had been shot in the leg in the early hours of the morning. The trauma surgeons refused to have him transferred to the ward for wound management because they believed the victim would be pursued by his assailants, thereby posing a safety risk to staff members and patients. The police in the E.R. declined to pat down the injured man for weapons, as they were not legally empowered to do so. The man was retained in emergency for 12 hours. The emergency unit, which has an open-door policy for all comers 24/7, would most likely be the first place that assailants would look for an injured man. Are there ethical ramifications with the transfer of violent risk?I was surprised that the letter-writer was focused on whether the police could pat down the injured man, because it seems to me like the medical professionals could undress him (and thereby disarm him) or otherwise determine what he's carrying in the course of medical care. I don't know how medically ethical this is (which is probably why it wasn't mentioned in the Ethicist column), but from a purely logistical perspective it seems perfectly feasible.
He's been shot in leg, so it's perfectly reasonable to remove his pants. And people usually remove their footwear as part of removing pants. They could then put him in a hospital gown so he's not sitting around undressed, and logistically they'd probably have to remove, at a minimum, all but his bottom layer of shirts - perhaps all his shirts. If the hospital gown isn't necessary, they could also ask him to take his jacket/sweater/everything but t-shirt off to take his blood pressure or something.
Once he's down to a t-shirt and undies they'll probably be able to tell if he's carrying a weapon. And if they can't, they could do the "put the stethoscope on the patient's chest and have the patient breathe deeply" thing, which will allow them to lift the patient's shirt enough to see if there's anything underneath.
And all that's before we even get into the possibility of checking the patient's body for more wounds, which seems like something you might do when treating a patient who's been in a gunfight! Or x-raying a gunshot patient to verify the location of all the bits of bullet.
If the patient isn't searched by police officers and instead simply receives medical care from medical professionals, he's more likely to perceive the hospital as a safe place where there's no threat to him. And the police in the ER would hopefully be able to keep out the people who are trying to kill the patient, so the patient would have no reason to draw any weapons he might have on him.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Downton Abbey thoughts (up to S04 E06)
Spoilers: This post contains spoilers for Downton Abbey up to Season 4, Episode 6 (i.e. the one with the pigs). However, I haven't watched any further (I'm watching along with PBS) so please do not spoil me about future episodes.
When it was revealed that Edith is pregnant, my first thought was "Did they have abortion in England in the 1920s?" I knew that if it existed it was illegal, but I wondered if it was an option at all and, if so, how it worked.
So I was very disappointed that she just changed her mind at the last minute. That simply wasn't a good, interesting use of this plotline, given the setting and the era.
Given the setting and the era, it would have been really interesting to cover how abortion worked. I know they couldn't actually show it (even Call the Midwife had to do it by symbolism) but they could have taught us something about the reality of this era. But by having Edith ultimately choose not to go through with it, they missed that opportunity, and rather wasted precious limited screen time setting us up for it. If they need her to stay pregnant for long-term plot purposes, they could have her leave after the doctor explains the procedure to her, perhaps because she's afraid to go through with it or because the doctor wants to be paid in sexual favours or something.
Given the setting and the era, it would also have been interesting to see Edith attempting to procure the abortion, by which I mean attempting to find a place to have it done. Perhaps she first asks her doctor, who is shocked and appalled that she should suggest such a thing. Then she has to explore different and shadier avenues, providing us with a lot of interesting historical insight along the way. It's a time-sensitive secret mission! If they need her to stay pregnant for long-term plot purposes, they could simply have her not be able to figure it out in time. It's certainly not implausible for a sheltered upper-class lady of her era living in a country house not to be able to figure out how to obtain something illegal. But instead they just had the information fall into her hands offscreen (more telling rather than showing!)
But if Edith is going to have the baby, they could also simply not present abortion as an option. It's illegal, and Edith is a sheltered upper-class lady who lives in a country house. It's perfectly plausible she wouldn't even know abortion is an option.
If it's necessary for plot purposes to make Edith deliberately choose to have the baby, they could simply have someone discreetly mention to her that there are things you can do (Isobel would be a good candidate for this), and have her say "Oh no, I could never do that." Done and done, in one 30-second conversation, then we could get into the interesting part of what she'd actually do with the pregnancy and with the baby. (Hide it? Own it? Be disowned?)
But setting up all this intrigue and using all this screen time on a shady illegal abortion only to a) change her mind and walk out and b) do so without giving us any interesting historical details is just a waste of our valuable screen time. And our screen time is in fact valuable, because there are so few episodes and each season covers years. I'd much rather have it used on something other than "Look a plot...no, wait, no, we're just going to walk away from that." Like they did with "Patrick Crawley might be alive or it might be an imposter...but he just wandered off so never mind." Or with "Downton is dying, no wait Matthew inherited money, no wait he won't take it because he left Lavinia for Mary, no wait she was okay with that." Or with "Mary's infertile...no, wait, fixed it." Or with "Sybil is getting a new and interesting life in Ireland...but we're not going to show it to you." All this taking plotlines away rather than resolving them, and telling rather than showing.
Which makes me think this is all going to go away with a soap-opera miscarriage. (And if they wanted to do that, why not have it simply be a pregnancy scare?) If they can't resolve big, live-changing plots, why not just stick to smaller stories? Stories on par with Mrs. Hughes's old beau turning up at the fair or the courtship of Anna and Bates or Lady Mary saves the pigs are the kind of thing Downton does well, so just keep doing them!
***
This will never happen on the show, but I think the ideal person to solve all Edith's problems is Sir Anthony Strallan.
In the setting and era of the show, the way a lady secures her future is with a good marriage. Edith did everything right in that respect by getting Sir Anthony to the altar. Moreover, she was (given the reality of her era) very sensible in her choice. She wasn't holding out for a knight in shining armour or a handsome young duke with no war damage or Rudolph Valentino. She chose someone she gets along well with, who makes a good match pragmatically, and didn't blink an eye that he's older and disabled.
By the standards of her era and setting, she did everything right. So, by the standards of her era and setting, she deserves to be married - and, by extension, to be able to honourably have sex and have a baby.
But Sir Anthony left her at the altar - not because of anything she did wrong, but because he thinks, in a sort of romantic idealization - that he's not good enough for her and her life would be worse married to him.
But now she's in a situation where she would clearly and by all standards be better off being married to him. Being married would allow her and her child to live comfortably and respectably. It has already been established that Sir Anthony doesn't have children so this arrangement wouldn't be stealing any rightful inheritances from anyone (with the possible exception of some distance male cousin à la Matthew Crawley - and not even that if Edith's baby ends up being a girl). Yes, his estate would be inherited by someone who isn't his biological child. Fair penalty for abandoning Edith without thinking about her actual, practical, real-life needs and wants. And he still gets companionship and sex and caregiving and family connections with an earl and all the other benefits of an attractive younger wife. All he has to do is provide respectability for a woman he cares about and her child
When it was revealed that Edith is pregnant, my first thought was "Did they have abortion in England in the 1920s?" I knew that if it existed it was illegal, but I wondered if it was an option at all and, if so, how it worked.
So I was very disappointed that she just changed her mind at the last minute. That simply wasn't a good, interesting use of this plotline, given the setting and the era.
Given the setting and the era, it would have been really interesting to cover how abortion worked. I know they couldn't actually show it (even Call the Midwife had to do it by symbolism) but they could have taught us something about the reality of this era. But by having Edith ultimately choose not to go through with it, they missed that opportunity, and rather wasted precious limited screen time setting us up for it. If they need her to stay pregnant for long-term plot purposes, they could have her leave after the doctor explains the procedure to her, perhaps because she's afraid to go through with it or because the doctor wants to be paid in sexual favours or something.
Given the setting and the era, it would also have been interesting to see Edith attempting to procure the abortion, by which I mean attempting to find a place to have it done. Perhaps she first asks her doctor, who is shocked and appalled that she should suggest such a thing. Then she has to explore different and shadier avenues, providing us with a lot of interesting historical insight along the way. It's a time-sensitive secret mission! If they need her to stay pregnant for long-term plot purposes, they could simply have her not be able to figure it out in time. It's certainly not implausible for a sheltered upper-class lady of her era living in a country house not to be able to figure out how to obtain something illegal. But instead they just had the information fall into her hands offscreen (more telling rather than showing!)
But if Edith is going to have the baby, they could also simply not present abortion as an option. It's illegal, and Edith is a sheltered upper-class lady who lives in a country house. It's perfectly plausible she wouldn't even know abortion is an option.
If it's necessary for plot purposes to make Edith deliberately choose to have the baby, they could simply have someone discreetly mention to her that there are things you can do (Isobel would be a good candidate for this), and have her say "Oh no, I could never do that." Done and done, in one 30-second conversation, then we could get into the interesting part of what she'd actually do with the pregnancy and with the baby. (Hide it? Own it? Be disowned?)
But setting up all this intrigue and using all this screen time on a shady illegal abortion only to a) change her mind and walk out and b) do so without giving us any interesting historical details is just a waste of our valuable screen time. And our screen time is in fact valuable, because there are so few episodes and each season covers years. I'd much rather have it used on something other than "Look a plot...no, wait, no, we're just going to walk away from that." Like they did with "Patrick Crawley might be alive or it might be an imposter...but he just wandered off so never mind." Or with "Downton is dying, no wait Matthew inherited money, no wait he won't take it because he left Lavinia for Mary, no wait she was okay with that." Or with "Mary's infertile...no, wait, fixed it." Or with "Sybil is getting a new and interesting life in Ireland...but we're not going to show it to you." All this taking plotlines away rather than resolving them, and telling rather than showing.
Which makes me think this is all going to go away with a soap-opera miscarriage. (And if they wanted to do that, why not have it simply be a pregnancy scare?) If they can't resolve big, live-changing plots, why not just stick to smaller stories? Stories on par with Mrs. Hughes's old beau turning up at the fair or the courtship of Anna and Bates or Lady Mary saves the pigs are the kind of thing Downton does well, so just keep doing them!
***
This will never happen on the show, but I think the ideal person to solve all Edith's problems is Sir Anthony Strallan.
In the setting and era of the show, the way a lady secures her future is with a good marriage. Edith did everything right in that respect by getting Sir Anthony to the altar. Moreover, she was (given the reality of her era) very sensible in her choice. She wasn't holding out for a knight in shining armour or a handsome young duke with no war damage or Rudolph Valentino. She chose someone she gets along well with, who makes a good match pragmatically, and didn't blink an eye that he's older and disabled.
By the standards of her era and setting, she did everything right. So, by the standards of her era and setting, she deserves to be married - and, by extension, to be able to honourably have sex and have a baby.
But Sir Anthony left her at the altar - not because of anything she did wrong, but because he thinks, in a sort of romantic idealization - that he's not good enough for her and her life would be worse married to him.
But now she's in a situation where she would clearly and by all standards be better off being married to him. Being married would allow her and her child to live comfortably and respectably. It has already been established that Sir Anthony doesn't have children so this arrangement wouldn't be stealing any rightful inheritances from anyone (with the possible exception of some distance male cousin à la Matthew Crawley - and not even that if Edith's baby ends up being a girl). Yes, his estate would be inherited by someone who isn't his biological child. Fair penalty for abandoning Edith without thinking about her actual, practical, real-life needs and wants. And he still gets companionship and sex and caregiving and family connections with an earl and all the other benefits of an attractive younger wife. All he has to do is provide respectability for a woman he cares about and her child
Sunday, February 09, 2014
How to see the number of results with Google verbatim search
I previously blogged about how Google's Verbatim search function would be more useful if they showed the number of results.
I just figured out how to see the number of results.
First, a review of how to do a Verbatim search:
1. Do your search normally.
2. On the results page, click on Search Tools
3. Under All Results, choose Verbatim
To see the number of results, simply click on Search Tools again. The results page won't change, but the menus that dropped down when you clicked on Search Tools will pull back up, revealing the number of results.
I just figured out how to see the number of results.
First, a review of how to do a Verbatim search:
1. Do your search normally.
2. On the results page, click on Search Tools
3. Under All Results, choose Verbatim
To see the number of results, simply click on Search Tools again. The results page won't change, but the menus that dropped down when you clicked on Search Tools will pull back up, revealing the number of results.
Saturday, February 08, 2014
How Google is making me not want to use Chrome
When they cancelled Google Reader, I
wrote:
Google just cancelled another thing that I use: Gmail Notifier. It's a tiny, harmless little program that runs in your tray and alerts you when you have an email. And the other day, it just randomly stopped working, and googling around the problem told me that Google had discontinued it.
The internet tells me they apparently sent out a message telling people about this discontinuation, but I didn't receive anything!
However, the part that annoys me is:
Originally I started using Firefox instead of Chrome because at the time the Chrome interface looked kind of "wrong" to me. No big attachment or anything, I just tried two and I found one a wee bit visually irksome, so I went with the other. However, since then, Google has been killing off things I use in an attempt to get me to switch to Chrome. They killed the Google Toolbar for Firefox in an attempt to make us use Chrome exclusively if we wanted that kind of toolbar interface. They killed iGoogle and suggested a range of Chrome apps as a replacement. And now they kill Gmail Notifier and suggest a Chrome app as a replacement.
And every time they do this, it makes me more determined not to use Chrome. I don't want them win! I've found Firefox add-ons and websites to replace everything Google has killed, and I'm determined not to let this strategy of theirs be successful. Before they started doing this, I had no objection to Chrome, I just chose to use Firefox. But every time they kill something to get me to switch to Chrome, I dig in even more so they won't win.
Google Reader and iGoogle are my primary gateways to the internet, and now Google has cancelled both of them. This makes me fear for the future of Gmail and Blogger. (Or search, for that matter).
Google just cancelled another thing that I use: Gmail Notifier. It's a tiny, harmless little program that runs in your tray and alerts you when you have an email. And the other day, it just randomly stopped working, and googling around the problem told me that Google had discontinued it.
The internet tells me they apparently sent out a message telling people about this discontinuation, but I didn't receive anything!
However, the part that annoys me is:
If you want to continue to receive notifications, you can use any of the following alternatives to Google Notifier Beta, using the Chrome browser. To see the number of unread messages in your inbox at a glance, install the Gmail Checker Chrome app. To preview new messages on your desktop, go to Gmail's settings and enable Desktop Notifications.So basically they killed Gmail Notifier in an attempt to force people to use Chrome if they want to be notified when they have new email.
Originally I started using Firefox instead of Chrome because at the time the Chrome interface looked kind of "wrong" to me. No big attachment or anything, I just tried two and I found one a wee bit visually irksome, so I went with the other. However, since then, Google has been killing off things I use in an attempt to get me to switch to Chrome. They killed the Google Toolbar for Firefox in an attempt to make us use Chrome exclusively if we wanted that kind of toolbar interface. They killed iGoogle and suggested a range of Chrome apps as a replacement. And now they kill Gmail Notifier and suggest a Chrome app as a replacement.
And every time they do this, it makes me more determined not to use Chrome. I don't want them win! I've found Firefox add-ons and websites to replace everything Google has killed, and I'm determined not to let this strategy of theirs be successful. Before they started doing this, I had no objection to Chrome, I just chose to use Firefox. But every time they kill something to get me to switch to Chrome, I dig in even more so they won't win.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Things They Should Invent: "if you like...you may like..." for beauty products
I use Beautypedia, but I don't always agree with their reviews. For example, they give my favourite eyeliner a poor rating, saying that the long skinny brush is hard to control. But I find that the brush is easier to control specifically because it's long and skinny, and I vastly prefer it to every other brand I've tried, whose applicators are all too thick for the look I'm going for.
This means that when I'm in the market for eyeliner, Beautypedia is useless for me.
And it might also be less than perfectly useful for other products, and I'm just unaware of it. The perfect product for me might be sitting under some pile of average reviews on Beautypedia and Makeup Alley etc., because it isn't optimal for most people in the world but is perfect for my non-standard needs.
So I'd like to see a beauty product review site that compares products to other products. If you find Product A and Product B very similar, you say so, and perhaps articulate how they differ from each other. If you find Product C far superiors to Products A and B, say so and explain why. If you find Product D far inferior, say so and explain why.
If they can get a critical mass of reviews, they could even match up users with similar skin types or other similar makeup needs. For example, if several people have the same favourite masacara and the same favourite eyeliner, it might be helpful to know what each other's favourite eyeshadow is. Or, if a product gets discontinued, you could find out what other people who liked that discontinued product also like and dislike, and avoid some irritating trial and error.
So how do we get all these people to write all these comprehensive and detailed reviews? My idea is: what if this website was sponsored by a retailer that sells a wide range of brands of cosmetics, like Shoppers Drug Mart or even Amazon? Users could earn points for writing reviews, and the points could be redeemable for free cosmetics at that retailer. To encourage users to populate the site quickly, the first X reviews (where X is the number of reviews they need to make the site useful) can get exponentially more points. They could also have easy one-click links on the review site to buy reviewed cosmetics from the retailer.
This means that when I'm in the market for eyeliner, Beautypedia is useless for me.
And it might also be less than perfectly useful for other products, and I'm just unaware of it. The perfect product for me might be sitting under some pile of average reviews on Beautypedia and Makeup Alley etc., because it isn't optimal for most people in the world but is perfect for my non-standard needs.
So I'd like to see a beauty product review site that compares products to other products. If you find Product A and Product B very similar, you say so, and perhaps articulate how they differ from each other. If you find Product C far superiors to Products A and B, say so and explain why. If you find Product D far inferior, say so and explain why.
If they can get a critical mass of reviews, they could even match up users with similar skin types or other similar makeup needs. For example, if several people have the same favourite masacara and the same favourite eyeliner, it might be helpful to know what each other's favourite eyeshadow is. Or, if a product gets discontinued, you could find out what other people who liked that discontinued product also like and dislike, and avoid some irritating trial and error.
So how do we get all these people to write all these comprehensive and detailed reviews? My idea is: what if this website was sponsored by a retailer that sells a wide range of brands of cosmetics, like Shoppers Drug Mart or even Amazon? Users could earn points for writing reviews, and the points could be redeemable for free cosmetics at that retailer. To encourage users to populate the site quickly, the first X reviews (where X is the number of reviews they need to make the site useful) can get exponentially more points. They could also have easy one-click links on the review site to buy reviewed cosmetics from the retailer.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Books read in January 2014
I recently realized that I read more books than I thought I did. So, for 2014, I'm going to keep track of the books I read each month. Might be interesting to see how many I get done or if any patterns emerge. (Although which books I read when is really a function of the library's holds system rather than any deliberate choice.)
New books (i.e. read for the first time):
1. Lady Almina and the Real Downton Abbey by the Countess of Carnarvon
2. The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag by Chol-Hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulet
3. To Marry an English Lord by Gail MacColl and Carol McD. Wallace
4. How Doctors Think by Jerome Groopman
I'm also doing an ongoing comfort-food reread of the In Death series. I don't really think of this as "books I've read" because they're not new, but nevertheless they are books and I did read them. This month I read:
1. Purity in Death
2. Portrait in Death
Hmm...that's fewer than I expected when I tweeted excitedly about how many books I'd read earlier this month...
New books (i.e. read for the first time):
1. Lady Almina and the Real Downton Abbey by the Countess of Carnarvon
2. The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag by Chol-Hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulet
3. To Marry an English Lord by Gail MacColl and Carol McD. Wallace
4. How Doctors Think by Jerome Groopman
I'm also doing an ongoing comfort-food reread of the In Death series. I don't really think of this as "books I've read" because they're not new, but nevertheless they are books and I did read them. This month I read:
1. Purity in Death
2. Portrait in Death
Hmm...that's fewer than I expected when I tweeted excitedly about how many books I'd read earlier this month...
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Why did serving sizes get big?
Conventional wisdom is that food serving sizes are bigger than they used to be, particularly in restaurants, and that this is a leading cause of obesity. You can google up all kinds of articles and graphics and such giving examples.
What I don't understand is why restaurants and other food sellers would have started increasing their serving sizes in the first place. You're running a business selling people food. Your customers are accustomed to getting a certain amount of food for the money they pay. If you increase the amount of food in a serving, you're shrinking your profit margins for no reason.
A quick google turns up explanations of how large sizes at fast food restaurants came to be - they worked out that people aren't going to order two servings of fries even if they could eat more, but they'd feel that a large is good value because it costs less than two standard sizes, and the additional mark-up in retail price was significantly more than what the restaurant paid for the ingredients.
But that doesn't explain why serving sizes also increased in non-fast-food restaurants that don't have multiple size choices, or why restaurants with multiple serving sizes keep phasing out the smaller size (which was once upon a time the "regular").
What I don't understand is why restaurants and other food sellers would have started increasing their serving sizes in the first place. You're running a business selling people food. Your customers are accustomed to getting a certain amount of food for the money they pay. If you increase the amount of food in a serving, you're shrinking your profit margins for no reason.
A quick google turns up explanations of how large sizes at fast food restaurants came to be - they worked out that people aren't going to order two servings of fries even if they could eat more, but they'd feel that a large is good value because it costs less than two standard sizes, and the additional mark-up in retail price was significantly more than what the restaurant paid for the ingredients.
But that doesn't explain why serving sizes also increased in non-fast-food restaurants that don't have multiple size choices, or why restaurants with multiple serving sizes keep phasing out the smaller size (which was once upon a time the "regular").
Friday, January 24, 2014
My earring storage solution
I previously asked for advice on how to store my earrings. I've now found a solution.
In addition to the jewellery tree for my necklaces, I've got a second jewellery tree for earrings.
The metal butterflies on this stand have dozens of little holes in them, which are perfect for putting earrings in. Hoop earrings and dangly earrings can also be hung on the hooks and the arms.
I like this method because there aren't carefully circumscribed slots for the earrings to fit into (so I'm not going to run out of spaces any time soon) and because it allows my jewellery (i.e. pretty/interesting things that reflect my taste and character and that I already own through the normal course of life) to serve as a decorative element in my bedroom, rather than having to go seek out other decorative elements that reflect my taste and character.
The only flaw in this particular jewellery tree is it's too short for necklaces (and my necklaces aren't particularly long), so I had to get another one for necklaces.
If you're in the GTA, you can buy this and many other jewellery trees at Kitchen Stuff Plus.
In addition to the jewellery tree for my necklaces, I've got a second jewellery tree for earrings.
The metal butterflies on this stand have dozens of little holes in them, which are perfect for putting earrings in. Hoop earrings and dangly earrings can also be hung on the hooks and the arms.
I like this method because there aren't carefully circumscribed slots for the earrings to fit into (so I'm not going to run out of spaces any time soon) and because it allows my jewellery (i.e. pretty/interesting things that reflect my taste and character and that I already own through the normal course of life) to serve as a decorative element in my bedroom, rather than having to go seek out other decorative elements that reflect my taste and character.
The only flaw in this particular jewellery tree is it's too short for necklaces (and my necklaces aren't particularly long), so I had to get another one for necklaces.
If you're in the GTA, you can buy this and many other jewellery trees at Kitchen Stuff Plus.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
In which I dream my way into a starring role in a Community spin-off
Last night I dreamed I was a student at Greendale Community College (where the TV show Community is set) and I had to take a chemistry placement test. The chemistry prof was a crotchety old man (who, in retrospect, bore a striking - but not perfect - resemblance to the criminology prof who's been introduced this season) and, during the placement test, he led me to believe I was nowhere near good enough to be in his class.
Towards the end of the dream, I was in the chemistry lab, and I mentioned to someone "I'm not going to be taking any classes in this room. Well, probably not." The crotchety prof, without letting his facade of crotchetiness drop an inch, said something like "Don't be so sure about that" and lifted the piece of paper he was holding so I could see I'd gotten an A- on the placement test. (For those of you who don't watch it or aren't caught up, this season of Community has established that an A- is the grade professors give to students they don't like who have done work worthy of an A.)
I gave the crotchety prof a knowing smile and said "I look forward to it," knowing in that instant that I was setting myself up for multiple seasons of respectful antagonism à la Leslie Knope and Ron Swanson.
Then I woke up.
It will be interesting to see if I ever dream my way back there for further adventures.
Towards the end of the dream, I was in the chemistry lab, and I mentioned to someone "I'm not going to be taking any classes in this room. Well, probably not." The crotchety prof, without letting his facade of crotchetiness drop an inch, said something like "Don't be so sure about that" and lifted the piece of paper he was holding so I could see I'd gotten an A- on the placement test. (For those of you who don't watch it or aren't caught up, this season of Community has established that an A- is the grade professors give to students they don't like who have done work worthy of an A.)
I gave the crotchety prof a knowing smile and said "I look forward to it," knowing in that instant that I was setting myself up for multiple seasons of respectful antagonism à la Leslie Knope and Ron Swanson.
Then I woke up.
It will be interesting to see if I ever dream my way back there for further adventures.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
itunes lyrics efficiency
As I've mentioned before, I'm lyric-deaf, meaning I can't always clearly hear all the words of a song I'm listening to. As a result, often when I'm going about my everyday life, I feel the need to stop and google up the lyrics to the song I'm listening to.
But this morning my shower gave me an idea:
Every time I find myself googling up lyrics, I'll paste them into the "Lyrics" tab for that song. (Right-click the song, click on Get Info, choose the Lyrics tab.) Then they'll be available for me on my ipod, and apparently you can also download plug-ins that will show the contents of the Lyrics tab in itunes as the song plays. So if I keep doing this, every song with incomprehensible lyrics will eventually display its lyrics automatically when it plays.
But this morning my shower gave me an idea:
Every time I find myself googling up lyrics, I'll paste them into the "Lyrics" tab for that song. (Right-click the song, click on Get Info, choose the Lyrics tab.) Then they'll be available for me on my ipod, and apparently you can also download plug-ins that will show the contents of the Lyrics tab in itunes as the song plays. So if I keep doing this, every song with incomprehensible lyrics will eventually display its lyrics automatically when it plays.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Things They Should Invent: PBS donations conditional upon changing how Masterpiece is listed
I've been rather baffled and slightly irritated that PBS insists upon listing Downton Abbey as Masterpiece Classic in TV listings, when we all know that people are looking for Downton Abbey.
Wil Wheaton recently had the same complaint about Sherlock, which is listed under Masterpiece Mystery.
I don't understand why PBS does this or what they think they gain by listing popular TV shows under a less popular generic name, but I have an idea for how to stop them:
Everyone contact their local PBS station and promise to pledge money next pledge season if they start listing these things in a normal way. Then, as soon as we see our favourite programs being listed under their actual title, donate. If they don't, don't donate (even if you normally do).
Wil Wheaton recently had the same complaint about Sherlock, which is listed under Masterpiece Mystery.
I don't understand why PBS does this or what they think they gain by listing popular TV shows under a less popular generic name, but I have an idea for how to stop them:
Everyone contact their local PBS station and promise to pledge money next pledge season if they start listing these things in a normal way. Then, as soon as we see our favourite programs being listed under their actual title, donate. If they don't, don't donate (even if you normally do).
What I learned from my 2009 New Year's resolution
My 2009 New Year's resolution was "shut up and buy it".
I did this because in the year or so leading up to my making that resolution, I found myself wanting various things that were significantly more expensive than I was accustomed to spending, and this wanting kept sitting in my brain and yelling at me. I felt so guilty and conflicted about it - I can't just spend money! Then I'm going to want to keep spending money! - but it kept sitting there in my brain nagging me. So I decided that for a year I'd permit myself to buy whatever I wanted as long as I didn't have to go into debt or tap into my condo fund, and I'd use it as a learning experience. If it started to hurt or I regretted it, then that's where the dividing line is. If buying things didn't make me satisfied and instead just upgraded my wants, then I'd learn that that's how I operate. In any case, instead of sitting there feeling deprived and guilty, I'd be doing something about it.
That was three years ago, and I didn't end up stopping the "shut up and buy it" at the end of the year. But, I just realized, my wants didn't upgrade. I bought the things I was wanting at the beginning of the year, they made me feel happy, and no new wants came in to replace them.
This did still increase my ongoing spending. One of the things I wanted was better hair, and now I spent far more than I care to admit on natural shampoo and conditioner that achieve significantly better results than what you get at the drugstore. I started wearing more expensive bras (to fantastic effect!), and, while they don't need to be replaced quite as often as hair products, they still do need to be replaced from time to time.
But I bought the things I was originally wishing for when I started my resolution, and then didn't feel the need to buy any other things that I didn't have in mind going in. I didn't get caught up in some endless treadmill of materialism, it turned out I just wanted some nicer things.
Which supports my ongoing theses that I know my shit better than I think I do and I can buy happiness.
I did this because in the year or so leading up to my making that resolution, I found myself wanting various things that were significantly more expensive than I was accustomed to spending, and this wanting kept sitting in my brain and yelling at me. I felt so guilty and conflicted about it - I can't just spend money! Then I'm going to want to keep spending money! - but it kept sitting there in my brain nagging me. So I decided that for a year I'd permit myself to buy whatever I wanted as long as I didn't have to go into debt or tap into my condo fund, and I'd use it as a learning experience. If it started to hurt or I regretted it, then that's where the dividing line is. If buying things didn't make me satisfied and instead just upgraded my wants, then I'd learn that that's how I operate. In any case, instead of sitting there feeling deprived and guilty, I'd be doing something about it.
That was three years ago, and I didn't end up stopping the "shut up and buy it" at the end of the year. But, I just realized, my wants didn't upgrade. I bought the things I was wanting at the beginning of the year, they made me feel happy, and no new wants came in to replace them.
This did still increase my ongoing spending. One of the things I wanted was better hair, and now I spent far more than I care to admit on natural shampoo and conditioner that achieve significantly better results than what you get at the drugstore. I started wearing more expensive bras (to fantastic effect!), and, while they don't need to be replaced quite as often as hair products, they still do need to be replaced from time to time.
But I bought the things I was originally wishing for when I started my resolution, and then didn't feel the need to buy any other things that I didn't have in mind going in. I didn't get caught up in some endless treadmill of materialism, it turned out I just wanted some nicer things.
Which supports my ongoing theses that I know my shit better than I think I do and I can buy happiness.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
An alternative to Rimmel nail polish in Crushed Pearl
My previous go-to nail polish was Rimmel Lasting Finish Pro in Crushed Pearl. It's a subtle pink that alludes to the natural pink of my nails, but is a bit lighter and has a pearly finish, thereby making it more forgiving to my quickly-chipping nails.
Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere anymore. I'm not sure if it was discontinued or what, but it isn't in any stores or on ebay. So this sent me on a mission to find an alternative.
After much trial and error, I landed on the following:
1. One coat of Cover Girl Outlast Stay Brilliant in "Pink-finity"
2. A second coat of Cover Girl Outlast Stay Brilliant in "Perma-pink"
Pink-finity is a matte baby pink. It's very boldly baby pink in a way that's not nearly as natural as Rimmel Crushed Pearl and, because it's a shiny matte, isn't nearly as forgiving.
Perma-pink is a far more natural pink with a forgiving pearly finish, but it finishes somewhat sheer when used on its own (which I dislike).
However, in combination, these two colours produce a natural, forgiving, opaque pearly pink that's very close to Rimmel Crushed Pearl (a wee bit lighter and without that tiny drop of purple, but I doubt you're going to get close with what's currently commercially available.) Although I'd really still prefer Rimmel Crushed Pearl.
Added bonus factoid: Sally Hansen Hard as Nails Xtreme Wear in "Pink Satin" is not a suitable substitute for Rimmel Crushed Pearl. Even though it does have that drop of purple and appears similar in colour to the natural pink of my nails, it's far brighter and bolder, not subtle at all. It can't even be tamed with a layer of Cover Girl Perma-pink over it.
Update: If you don't want to combine colours, Revlon Colourstay Gel Envy in "Beginner's Luck" is also very similar. It does have a tiny tiny amount of glitter in it though - it's extremely subtle on the nail, but is more difficult to remove like glitter polishes tend to be.
Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere anymore. I'm not sure if it was discontinued or what, but it isn't in any stores or on ebay. So this sent me on a mission to find an alternative.
After much trial and error, I landed on the following:
1. One coat of Cover Girl Outlast Stay Brilliant in "Pink-finity"
2. A second coat of Cover Girl Outlast Stay Brilliant in "Perma-pink"
Pink-finity is a matte baby pink. It's very boldly baby pink in a way that's not nearly as natural as Rimmel Crushed Pearl and, because it's a shiny matte, isn't nearly as forgiving.
Perma-pink is a far more natural pink with a forgiving pearly finish, but it finishes somewhat sheer when used on its own (which I dislike).
However, in combination, these two colours produce a natural, forgiving, opaque pearly pink that's very close to Rimmel Crushed Pearl (a wee bit lighter and without that tiny drop of purple, but I doubt you're going to get close with what's currently commercially available.) Although I'd really still prefer Rimmel Crushed Pearl.
Added bonus factoid: Sally Hansen Hard as Nails Xtreme Wear in "Pink Satin" is not a suitable substitute for Rimmel Crushed Pearl. Even though it does have that drop of purple and appears similar in colour to the natural pink of my nails, it's far brighter and bolder, not subtle at all. It can't even be tamed with a layer of Cover Girl Perma-pink over it.
Update: If you don't want to combine colours, Revlon Colourstay Gel Envy in "Beginner's Luck" is also very similar. It does have a tiny tiny amount of glitter in it though - it's extremely subtle on the nail, but is more difficult to remove like glitter polishes tend to be.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The real problem in the York University religious accommodation case
I first heard about the York University religious accommodation story through Twitter, so I got all the outrage before I got a straightforward reporting of facts. It wasn't until I read Friday's Toronto Star editorial that I saw the missing piece that pointed to the real problem, which has gotten buried in all the debate and outrage and sensationalism. But, I'm pleased to report, the real problem is much simpler, less fraught, and more easily resolved.
The real problem is that this is an online course, but it includes a group project that apparently needs to be done in person, and this in-person component is not mentioned in the course calendar.
When this story first made the news, my first thought was "Well, what did the student expect?" The answer is he expected an online course. So he was actually conducting himself perfectly reasonably, given his limitations and the information available to him at the time, by enrolling in a course listed as online.
There are plenty of other situations where it might be disproportionately inconvenient to have an in-person requirement sprung on you. Maybe you have medical issues that preclude going to campus and are trying to keep chipping away at your degree while you convalesce. Maybe you're pregnant and on bedrest. Maybe you're a caregiver and can't get away for long periods of time but can occasionally find a moment to go online. Maybe you live somewhere car-dependent but recently lost the ability to drive and haven't yet been able to reorganize your life accordingly. I'm sure you can think of a few examples that you'd find perfectly reasonable.
So the solution is simply to accurately represent the course location in the course calendar. I'm not saying they have to pinpoint the specific room number way back when the course calendar is published, I'm thinking more in general terms. If it's on campus, say so. If it's on campus but not in a fully accessible location, say so. If it's on a different campus, say so. If it's an online course with an in-person requirement, say so. If it mostly takes place on campus but students will occasionally have to travel to other locations, say so. Are these locations in the city or outside of it? Accessible by transit or not? Whatever it is, say so.
This will allow students to make informed decisions about the courses they take. Students who would find a particular course unduly inconvenient can opt out ahead of time, without having to lose money by dropping the course or involving the administration in an attempt to get an exception. And only a very small number of professors and instructors would be inconvenienced by the need to edit the course calendar entries, because the vast majority of courses do in fact take place in the stated location and only the stated location.
The real problem is that this is an online course, but it includes a group project that apparently needs to be done in person, and this in-person component is not mentioned in the course calendar.
When this story first made the news, my first thought was "Well, what did the student expect?" The answer is he expected an online course. So he was actually conducting himself perfectly reasonably, given his limitations and the information available to him at the time, by enrolling in a course listed as online.
There are plenty of other situations where it might be disproportionately inconvenient to have an in-person requirement sprung on you. Maybe you have medical issues that preclude going to campus and are trying to keep chipping away at your degree while you convalesce. Maybe you're pregnant and on bedrest. Maybe you're a caregiver and can't get away for long periods of time but can occasionally find a moment to go online. Maybe you live somewhere car-dependent but recently lost the ability to drive and haven't yet been able to reorganize your life accordingly. I'm sure you can think of a few examples that you'd find perfectly reasonable.
So the solution is simply to accurately represent the course location in the course calendar. I'm not saying they have to pinpoint the specific room number way back when the course calendar is published, I'm thinking more in general terms. If it's on campus, say so. If it's on campus but not in a fully accessible location, say so. If it's on a different campus, say so. If it's an online course with an in-person requirement, say so. If it mostly takes place on campus but students will occasionally have to travel to other locations, say so. Are these locations in the city or outside of it? Accessible by transit or not? Whatever it is, say so.
This will allow students to make informed decisions about the courses they take. Students who would find a particular course unduly inconvenient can opt out ahead of time, without having to lose money by dropping the course or involving the administration in an attempt to get an exception. And only a very small number of professors and instructors would be inconvenienced by the need to edit the course calendar entries, because the vast majority of courses do in fact take place in the stated location and only the stated location.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Not letting it bother you vs. not being bothered by it
The following is a quote from from Far from the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity by Andrew Solomon. As usual, any typos are my own:
Example: one day last year, I was walking down the street when some random lady walked up to me and said "Where did you get such ugly shoes?" When I was a preteen or teenager, this would have devastated me, but now that I'm older and wise, I simply don't let things like that bother me. Not letting things like this bother me is a much better way to live life! Everyone should do it!
Except, as you'll recognize if you've been reading me for a while, this isn't an example of not letting something bother me. Rather, this is an example of something that never bothered me in the first place. As I blogged about when it happened, Shoe-Hating Lady's comment didn't bother me because she clearly had no fashion credibility, I've received a critical mass of external validation for those particular shoes, and she phrased her comment in a way that set me up perfectly for a bright and witty comeback. In comparison, when people would make negative comments about my appearance when I was young, they were people with more fashion credibility than me, I hadn't received any external validation, and I couldn't come up with a good comeback.
There was no skill or effort or virtue involved in my not being bothered by Shoe-Hating Lady's comments. I didn't transcend any bad feelings or will myself into some positive or zen emotional place, it's just that the bother never happened.
Sometimes, especially in advice column forums but in other places as well, I've noticed a certain soupçon of smugness/arrogance from some people about not letting things bother them. Rather than helping brainstorm specific solutions or alternate approaches for the letterwriters, their contributions are always "You shouldn't let it bother you" or "You should get past it" or "You shouldn't allow yourself to feel that way." But if you ask them for specifics on how to do that, they have nothing useful to contribute, or they just tell you to not let it bother you.
So I find myself wondering if some of the people who say they don't let things bother them are rather simply not bothered by those things. They're not actually actively doing anything to make the thing not bother them, it just simply happens to be a thing that doesn't bother them.
It also occurs to me that something similar might be happening with some of the cases where people think they've matured and outgrown feelings or priorities they used to have.
For example, when I was in middle school, it was very important to have a circle of friends who are near you at all times. It was very important not to wear the wrong clothes. It was very important to be familiar with the correct aspects of pop culture. I put a lot of time and energy into meeting all these criteria and never being seen to set a foot wrong. However, now that I'm older and wiser, I know that these things aren't really important and I do as I like rather than follow trends.
Except that this change has nothing to do with me and everything to do with how people treat me. In middle school, people would actively work to make my life miserable of they saw me without friends near me, or in the wrong clothes, or indulging in the wrong pop culture. And, because of the school setting, the people who did this were able to make my life miserable for seven hours a day, five days a week, and I couldn't walk away from them. Now in adult life, the vast majority of people simply don't care, and those who do can be easily avoided. This has nothing to do with my own maturity or wisdom, and everything to do with my day-to-day context.
So I find myself wondering if other people who say the same things did in fact become more mature and wiser, or if they're just removed from the situation where the importance of these things was artificially inflated.
A peculiar arrogance accrues to people who cannot recognize the diversity of human impulses, and who feel superior because they do not lapse into behaviours that don't tempt them in the first place. People disgusted by sexual predators say smugly that they don't pursue the sexual favours of children, without acknowledging that they don't find children sexually attractive. Those who do not tend toward chemical dependency express disdain for addicts; people with small appetites patronize the morbidly obese. A hundred years ago, my homosexuality would have landed me in jail, and I am fortunate to live in a place and an era that allow me to be true to myself. If I'd had to deny my longings, it would have been a different experience from that of straight people who have no such longings to deny. Spending time with criminals, I have seen that while many have poor impulse control or are weak or stupid or destructive, many others are driven by a compulsion. Some manifest enormous courage by refraining from theft although the wish to steal burns in them every minute, and their restraint of emotions they cannot eradicate is categorically different from the lawfulness of people who find the idea of thievery distasteful.This quote seems broadly applicable to many things in life and I expect to be referring back to it many times in the future, but the first thing that comes to mind is to wonder if it applies to "Don't let it bother you."
Example: one day last year, I was walking down the street when some random lady walked up to me and said "Where did you get such ugly shoes?" When I was a preteen or teenager, this would have devastated me, but now that I'm older and wise, I simply don't let things like that bother me. Not letting things like this bother me is a much better way to live life! Everyone should do it!
Except, as you'll recognize if you've been reading me for a while, this isn't an example of not letting something bother me. Rather, this is an example of something that never bothered me in the first place. As I blogged about when it happened, Shoe-Hating Lady's comment didn't bother me because she clearly had no fashion credibility, I've received a critical mass of external validation for those particular shoes, and she phrased her comment in a way that set me up perfectly for a bright and witty comeback. In comparison, when people would make negative comments about my appearance when I was young, they were people with more fashion credibility than me, I hadn't received any external validation, and I couldn't come up with a good comeback.
There was no skill or effort or virtue involved in my not being bothered by Shoe-Hating Lady's comments. I didn't transcend any bad feelings or will myself into some positive or zen emotional place, it's just that the bother never happened.
Sometimes, especially in advice column forums but in other places as well, I've noticed a certain soupçon of smugness/arrogance from some people about not letting things bother them. Rather than helping brainstorm specific solutions or alternate approaches for the letterwriters, their contributions are always "You shouldn't let it bother you" or "You should get past it" or "You shouldn't allow yourself to feel that way." But if you ask them for specifics on how to do that, they have nothing useful to contribute, or they just tell you to not let it bother you.
So I find myself wondering if some of the people who say they don't let things bother them are rather simply not bothered by those things. They're not actually actively doing anything to make the thing not bother them, it just simply happens to be a thing that doesn't bother them.
It also occurs to me that something similar might be happening with some of the cases where people think they've matured and outgrown feelings or priorities they used to have.
For example, when I was in middle school, it was very important to have a circle of friends who are near you at all times. It was very important not to wear the wrong clothes. It was very important to be familiar with the correct aspects of pop culture. I put a lot of time and energy into meeting all these criteria and never being seen to set a foot wrong. However, now that I'm older and wiser, I know that these things aren't really important and I do as I like rather than follow trends.
Except that this change has nothing to do with me and everything to do with how people treat me. In middle school, people would actively work to make my life miserable of they saw me without friends near me, or in the wrong clothes, or indulging in the wrong pop culture. And, because of the school setting, the people who did this were able to make my life miserable for seven hours a day, five days a week, and I couldn't walk away from them. Now in adult life, the vast majority of people simply don't care, and those who do can be easily avoided. This has nothing to do with my own maturity or wisdom, and everything to do with my day-to-day context.
So I find myself wondering if other people who say the same things did in fact become more mature and wiser, or if they're just removed from the situation where the importance of these things was artificially inflated.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Wherein I answer all the question in today's Ethicist
From The Ethicist:
I just noticed that the letter-writer lives in Los Angeles, so perhaps it isn't appropriate for his local homeless shelter. But I'd suggest googling around the idea to see if you can find a way to donate it to people in colder parts of the world who need coats.
I received an envelope that was addressed to my home but did not include a name. I recognized the last name on the return-address label. I opened the envelope and realized it was intended for my neighbor, a woman I have known, along with her husband, for many years. The letter chronicled the dates and locations of an affair the sender claimed his wife was having with my neighbor’s husband. I regret reading the letter. Upon looking more closely at the envelope, I was able to discern my neighbor’s name (the wife) and the words “private and confidential,” but these were obscured by the postmark. It seems the sender intentionally sent the letter to my home to keep the husband from intercepting it, counting on me to deliver it to the wife. Now that the envelope is open, the neighbors will know that I have read the allegations. What is my obligation: To deliver the letter or to inform the sender that this plan didn’t go as intended? NAME WITHHELDUnlike the Ethicist, I think the optimal solution is to write "return to sender - no one by this name at this address" (in whatever the official wording for your postal system is). The the sender knows that the intended recipient hasn't seen it and can take whatever action they consider appropriate.
In the depths of my mother’s closet, shrouded in a black garment bag, hangs her fur coat from the 1970s. And in the pocket of that fur coat, wrapped in a silk jewelry bag, is her ivory collection. “I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing any of it,” she says. “But I don’t know how to get rid of it.” Is there an ethical way to dispose of unethical waste? STEVEN FRANK, LOS ANGELESI have no idea what to do about the ivory, but the fur coat is still a coat, and therefore an item of which people have genuine need. It should be donated to the homeless or other people who genuinely need it to stay warm. I believe this approach is even considered acceptable in animal-rights circles, since it deglamourizes fur.
I just noticed that the letter-writer lives in Los Angeles, so perhaps it isn't appropriate for his local homeless shelter. But I'd suggest googling around the idea to see if you can find a way to donate it to people in colder parts of the world who need coats.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Pirate synchronicity
The following two comics were next to each other on yesterday's Globe and Mail comic page:
I like to think they're both the same pirate, getting all his medical exams done in in a row on his one day of shore leave.
I like to think they're both the same pirate, getting all his medical exams done in in a row on his one day of shore leave.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
The tale of the 13th floor poltergeists
My old apartment was on the 14th floor of a highrise building that's most likely concrete slab construction. When the temperature dropped below -20, the building would settle really loudly. Specifically, I'd hear these big loud cracking noises in the floor under me, loud enough to wake me up - often right under my bed when I was sleeping!
My current apartment is on the 12th floor of a highrise building of concrete slab construction. When the temperature drops below -20, the building settles really loudly. Specifically, I hear these big loud cracking noises in the ceiling over my head, loud enough to wake me up - often in the ceiling right above my head as I'm sleeping!
During the recent cold snap the loud noises started up again, so I started googling around the idea and couldn't readily find any reports of concrete slab buildings settling loudly in cold weather. There were plenty of reports of wooden buildings settling loudly, but nothing about concrete. (And I know for certain there's no wood in the construction of my current building because I watched it being built.)
Then I realized: neither of these buildings have a 13th floor - both skip straight from 12 to 14. So in the ceiling of the 12th floor and the floor of the 14th floor we have the ghost 13th floor. Obviously those sounds I hear are the poltergeists that live there!
My condo is on the 8th floor. If it doesn't settle loudly in -20 temperatures, we'll know that this theory is true.
My current apartment is on the 12th floor of a highrise building of concrete slab construction. When the temperature drops below -20, the building settles really loudly. Specifically, I hear these big loud cracking noises in the ceiling over my head, loud enough to wake me up - often in the ceiling right above my head as I'm sleeping!
During the recent cold snap the loud noises started up again, so I started googling around the idea and couldn't readily find any reports of concrete slab buildings settling loudly in cold weather. There were plenty of reports of wooden buildings settling loudly, but nothing about concrete. (And I know for certain there's no wood in the construction of my current building because I watched it being built.)
Then I realized: neither of these buildings have a 13th floor - both skip straight from 12 to 14. So in the ceiling of the 12th floor and the floor of the 14th floor we have the ghost 13th floor. Obviously those sounds I hear are the poltergeists that live there!
My condo is on the 8th floor. If it doesn't settle loudly in -20 temperatures, we'll know that this theory is true.
Monday, January 06, 2014
The benefits of low self-esteem
Scott Adams asks whether there are any benefit to low self-esteem.
As someone with low self-esteem, there is a benefit I have noticed: I'm quite often delighted, and very rarely disappointed.
I try to do something and I fuck up: no surprise there.
I try to so something and succeed: what an awesome surprise!I can't believe that worked!
I shop in a fashionable store and am treated rudely: no surprise there
I shop in a fashionable store and receive good service: I can't believe how nice they were to me!
I invite a friend to do something and they decline: no biggie, I'm sure they have more important things to do.
I invite a friend to do something and they accept: I feel so lucky to have friends I can go do things with!!
I'm introduced to a puppy or a baby or some other small adorable interesting creature and they don't like me: I don't blame them, I'm just a big weird stranger
I'm introduced to a puppy or a baby or some other small adorable interesting creature and they like me: My day is made!! Hell, my week is made!!!
At this point you might be thinking "But you've been successful at quite a surprising number of things over the course of your life. Doesn't that lead to you start expecting success at some point?" Yes, it does. But, because I have low self-esteem, when that success is followed by failure, I just assume "Meh, I was due for it. That's what happens when you get cocky. The other shoe had to drop eventually." And, until then, I'm walking around with a smile on my face and dancing when no one is watching at the shocking quantity of good fortune I'm enjoying.
As I read this over, I realize it sounds like one of those gratitude or optimism approaches to life that people write self-help books about, so I want to emphasize: this is not at all deliberate or mindful in any way. Unlike what Scott Adams suggests, this isn't a strategy. It's simply where my emotions land naturally. But it's certainly not without its benefits.
As someone with low self-esteem, there is a benefit I have noticed: I'm quite often delighted, and very rarely disappointed.
I try to do something and I fuck up: no surprise there.
I try to so something and succeed: what an awesome surprise!I can't believe that worked!
I shop in a fashionable store and am treated rudely: no surprise there
I shop in a fashionable store and receive good service: I can't believe how nice they were to me!
I invite a friend to do something and they decline: no biggie, I'm sure they have more important things to do.
I invite a friend to do something and they accept: I feel so lucky to have friends I can go do things with!!
I'm introduced to a puppy or a baby or some other small adorable interesting creature and they don't like me: I don't blame them, I'm just a big weird stranger
I'm introduced to a puppy or a baby or some other small adorable interesting creature and they like me: My day is made!! Hell, my week is made!!!
At this point you might be thinking "But you've been successful at quite a surprising number of things over the course of your life. Doesn't that lead to you start expecting success at some point?" Yes, it does. But, because I have low self-esteem, when that success is followed by failure, I just assume "Meh, I was due for it. That's what happens when you get cocky. The other shoe had to drop eventually." And, until then, I'm walking around with a smile on my face and dancing when no one is watching at the shocking quantity of good fortune I'm enjoying.
As I read this over, I realize it sounds like one of those gratitude or optimism approaches to life that people write self-help books about, so I want to emphasize: this is not at all deliberate or mindful in any way. Unlike what Scott Adams suggests, this isn't a strategy. It's simply where my emotions land naturally. But it's certainly not without its benefits.
Friday, January 03, 2014
How Google can fix the internet in one easy step
There's an article circulating called The Year We Broke the Internet. The way we "broke the internet" is by being so quick to share things via social media that ultimately turn out to be hoaxes.
Google can fix this problem in one easy step: introduce a reverse sort by date feature.
Google already allows you to search results by date, so you see the newest first. Therefore, its databanks must already have the pages organized by date. By adding a reverse sort by date feature, to simply reverse the order in which the results display so the oldest is first, Google will allow anyone to determine the original internet source and origin of anything in a single click.
This would be especially helpful for reverse image search. I find that if I'm doing a reverse image search of an image that has been heavily reblogged on tumblr, the first several pages of results are just tumblrs that have recently reblogged it without context. A reverse sort by date would let us see the source quickly and easily without having to dig through pages and pages of tumblr purgatory.
If a computer system can sort, it has the ability to sort bidirectionally just as easily as it can sort unidirectionally. You can see this in any kind of table with headers that you can click to sort. All Google has to do is give us an interface item that can activate this functionality, and it would be taking a huge step towards fulfilling its mission of organizing the world's information and making it accessible and useful.
Google can fix this problem in one easy step: introduce a reverse sort by date feature.
Google already allows you to search results by date, so you see the newest first. Therefore, its databanks must already have the pages organized by date. By adding a reverse sort by date feature, to simply reverse the order in which the results display so the oldest is first, Google will allow anyone to determine the original internet source and origin of anything in a single click.
This would be especially helpful for reverse image search. I find that if I'm doing a reverse image search of an image that has been heavily reblogged on tumblr, the first several pages of results are just tumblrs that have recently reblogged it without context. A reverse sort by date would let us see the source quickly and easily without having to dig through pages and pages of tumblr purgatory.
If a computer system can sort, it has the ability to sort bidirectionally just as easily as it can sort unidirectionally. You can see this in any kind of table with headers that you can click to sort. All Google has to do is give us an interface item that can activate this functionality, and it would be taking a huge step towards fulfilling its mission of organizing the world's information and making it accessible and useful.
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Teach me how to store my earrings
I have a lovely wooden jewellery box. It's lined in velvet or some reasonable facsimile thereof, with all kinds of neat little compartments. And it's utterly unsuitable for the jewellery I actually own - the sizes and shapes of the compartments simply don't correspond with the sizes and shapes of the jewellery, so my jewellery is currently all sitting in a tangled pile on top of the compartments, making it impossible for the box to close.
I've already worked out that I need a necklace tree for my necklaces, but that still raises the question of what to do about my earrings. Some necklace trees have a little tray at the bottom that you can put earrings in, but I'd prefer something that keeps them more contained. Googling around this idea, I see suggestions to use ice cube trays or egg cartons, but that would take up more room than I'd like. But, at the same time, I'd like to be able to see what I have at a glance rather than having to dig through.
I have probably between 10 and 20 pairs of earrings. (I've never actually counted, and I keep finding ones I've forgotten about because they're currently being stored in this tangle of jewellery.) I'd like a storage solution that enables me to acquire earrings willy-nilly without having to worry about whether I have space for them in my earring organization system. Most of my earrings are hoop or drop styles, but there are some studs in there too. The vast majority of them are cheap; none of them are expensive. The smallest are tiny little studs, and the largest are about 2 inches. I don't plan for any future earring purchases to go much more than 2 inches in diameter for hoops, but I might go longer than that for dangles if they're lightweight.
Any suggestions? How do you store your earrings?
I've already worked out that I need a necklace tree for my necklaces, but that still raises the question of what to do about my earrings. Some necklace trees have a little tray at the bottom that you can put earrings in, but I'd prefer something that keeps them more contained. Googling around this idea, I see suggestions to use ice cube trays or egg cartons, but that would take up more room than I'd like. But, at the same time, I'd like to be able to see what I have at a glance rather than having to dig through.
I have probably between 10 and 20 pairs of earrings. (I've never actually counted, and I keep finding ones I've forgotten about because they're currently being stored in this tangle of jewellery.) I'd like a storage solution that enables me to acquire earrings willy-nilly without having to worry about whether I have space for them in my earring organization system. Most of my earrings are hoop or drop styles, but there are some studs in there too. The vast majority of them are cheap; none of them are expensive. The smallest are tiny little studs, and the largest are about 2 inches. I don't plan for any future earring purchases to go much more than 2 inches in diameter for hoops, but I might go longer than that for dangles if they're lightweight.
Any suggestions? How do you store your earrings?
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Journalism wanted: why aren't Hydro workers electricians?
I just blogged that Hydro workers should be allowed to reconnect homeowners' equipment in order to facilitate power outage recovery.
Then I read an article about what the Hydro CEO was doing during the outage, which mentions in passing:
So why aren't Hydro workers electricians? They're working with electricity. They're connecting bigger wires than electricians usually work with, so it seems like they should be able to be electricians. Are they actually unable to do the work of electricians? Or is this merely a certification issue? Or is it a jurisdiction issue?
What would it take for Hydro workers to be electricians? Would they have to learn new skills? Or just get an additional certification?
I hate it when I walk away from a newspaper article with my questions than I went in with.
Then I read an article about what the Hydro CEO was doing during the outage, which mentions in passing:
(My emphasis.)Meanwhile, workers report that, after finally restoring power in many neighbourhoods, they are being forced to disconnect some houses because of damage done to stand pipes, the hollow masts usually mounted on rooftops that serve as a conduit for power cables to enter a dwelling. A bent or broken stand pipe poses a risk of fire, and it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to have it fixed by a qualified electrician.Hydro workers are not electricians.
So why aren't Hydro workers electricians? They're working with electricity. They're connecting bigger wires than electricians usually work with, so it seems like they should be able to be electricians. Are they actually unable to do the work of electricians? Or is this merely a certification issue? Or is it a jurisdiction issue?
What would it take for Hydro workers to be electricians? Would they have to learn new skills? Or just get an additional certification?
I hate it when I walk away from a newspaper article with my questions than I went in with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)