Brown corduroy pants

The very first piece of clothing I ever owned that made me feel good in my post-puberty body was, weirdly enough, a pair of brown corduroy pants.

It was the mid-90s and I was in my mid-teens. I didn't feel good about corduroy on principle (it's what the frumpiest adults of my acquaintance wore, and in Grade 1 my elementary school classmates had laughed at the noise my knock-kneed legs made in my red corduroy pants), but these were different.  They were what I now know to be called a finer wale, almost like velvet. They were on-trend for that time and place - either boot-cut or flared (my teenage self didn't know the different), low slung and a bit baggy.

This shape was both flattering to my curves and comfortable to sit in. (The first time I had experienced both since Mother Nature had seen fit to give me adult curves as a preteen!). With sandals and a tank top, it evoked a sort of hippy look (something I admired and aspired to, although I've never been cool enough). With boots and my new awesome peacoat, it evoked a sort of retro 70s look (which was what the kids who were cooler than I could have ever imagined were going for).  Both these looks worked well with my long straight hair - the first time in my life my natural hair has actually helped an aesthetic, given that my life thus far had taken place in the era of big 80s hair!

In short, this was the first time either "flattering", "comfortable" and "fashionable" were ever within reach for me - and I got all three for one!

I wore them so much they eventually got holes in undignified places and I couldn't wear them any more. But those pants opened the door: I could feel good about myself in clothes! I could achieve looks that I aspired to!  I learned more about what shapes and colours are flattering to the particularities of my body, I bought more clothes that make me feel good about myself, and I grew up to be a well-dressed grownup lady - something my preteen self never dared dream of!

The other day, I saw a poster outside a mall store where the model's outfit included brown corduroy pants that appeared to be boot cut.  They didn't have them in store, but I hope they come in as part of the fall collection and they fit me.  I still think brown and corduroy are both objectively frumpy, but I would love to have something in my closet that reminds me of feeling good about myself for the very first time.

Things CRA Should Invent: automated phone system tells you whether they've actually called you

I recently had to call CRA to deal with some boring grownup stuff.

Everyone I talked to was awesome and helpful and extremely patient with my ignorance, the boring grownup stuff got dealt with, but before that could happen I had to wait half an hour on hold for someone to help me.

This is a problem in light of the ongoing telephone scam where they call you and impersonate CRA.

CRA encourages you to call their 800 number if you're unsure about the legitimacy of a call you received, but that's a problem when the hold times are so long - especially since they're only open 9-5 Monday to Friday.  Someone who also works 9-5 Monday to Friday, only gets half an hour for lunch and isn't at liberty to make phone calls while working might not ever be able to get through!

I propose a solution: CRA should have an option to automatically detect your phone number and have the automatic system tell you whether they're trying to get in touch with you.

For example, "If you've received a call claiming to be from CRA and would like to confirm whether CRA is trying to get in touch with you, press 3."

I believe this is technologically possible.  When you call Rogers, their system says something like "I notice you are calling from a phone number ending in ####. To talk about the account associated with this number, press 1."  This means an automated system can compare the number you're calling from with numbers in a database, and route your call accordingly.

CRA could maintain a database of "numbers we have called and left messages with", and have an option in their automated system to compare callers' numbers with this database.  That way, callers who are trying to check whether the CRA call they received was a scam can get a quick, automatic message saying "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part."

In fact, since this could be done automatically, it wouldn't even have to be done during business hours!  You call whenever, press 3, and you get a message saying either "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part" or "We have been attempting to contact you by phone, please call us back during business hours."

This way there are far fewer barriers to avoiding scams, and human telephone representatives could be freed up for work that actually requires humans.

Other organizations that are frequently impersonated by scam callers (banks, utilities, etc.) could also use this system. I just think it's particularly important for CRA given their limited business hours and long hold times.

The Segoe UI font is easy to read with convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma

Recently, for the first time since my head injury, I received a text to translate that I could actually read effortlessly!

I immediately checked what the font was, and it turns out it's called Segoe UI.  I changed my default Firefox font to Segoe UI, and now life is so much easier!

So if you're ever looking for a font that's effortlessly readable with convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma, Segoe UI fits the bill!

I'm working on adding Segoe UI to my blog's style sheet so everyone can enjoy its effortless readability (just plugging it in turned out to mess up the font size, so I need to do some tweaking).

However, I'm not the audience of my blog - in fact, I am the one person in the world who has the least need to find my blog readable! - so if at any point you find the font has become less readable, leave me a comment to let me know, ideally articulating the specific problem (too big? too small? too fat? too skinny? too much of some other characteristic that I can't even fathom?)

Books read in July 2019

New:

1. Children of Blood and Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
2. Pride by Ibi Zoboi

Reread:

1. Ceremony in Death
2. Vengeance in Death

Things They Should Invent: vastly different-sounding words for "credit" and "debit"

Many cash registers require the cashier to push one button if you're paying by credit card and another button if you're paying by debit card.

Problem: the words sound very similar, so there's a high likelihood that the cashier will mishear you when you tell them how you're paying. Then they'll have to re-input the transaction, wasting everyone's time and messing up their numbers.

Solution: words for "credit" and "debit" that are completely different.  Like one is "plop" and the other is "oogly-boogly".

I suppose, on an individual level, we could state the name of the credit card (e.g. "Mastercard"), but that always makes me feel like I'm in a commercial.

Things They Should Invent: "you guys" gender map

Some people perceive "you guys" as masculine, even in the vocative case.

Others, such as myself, perceive it as having no element of gender.  "You guys" is a casual, inclusive vocative plural, completely unrelated to the masculine nominative singular "guy".

But I'm not here to convince you that I'm right.

I'm here to convince someone to map it.

One of the great moments of internet sociolinguistics is the Pop vs. Soda map, which shows the geographical patterns of American soft drink nomenclature.

Someone should do the same for whether "you guys" is masculine or gender-inclusive!

Based on the way people on the internet talk about the "you guys" question, I strongly suspect there's some geographical element to how it's received.  A crowdsourced mapping project, like Pop vs. Soda, could answer this question.

The technology exists, as evidenced by Pop vs. Soda. The answer would be informative, and help people better tailor their communication to various audiences. Surely there must be someone out there looking for a linguistics research project idea!

Things They Should Invent: make it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head in public

Apparently there was recently a story in the news where an airline requires passengers who are breastfeeding babies to cover their breasts and the babies. I didn't see the story myself, but I did see a bunch of people on Twitter reacting with stories about how their babies would not accept being covered while nursing.

A snarky comment came to mind: "Maybe the people who are offended by breastfeeding should put blankets over their heads!"

Then I realized: that idea is actually kind of appealing!

When I was a small child (older than breastfeeding age - I don't remember that far back), I would sometimes put a towel or a blanket over my head and just sit there enjoying my little cone of silence and privacy. I was in a room full of people, but I couldn't see them and they couldn't see my face.

I've seen other small children do that too, so I think it isn't that uncommon.

I don't feel the temptation to put a blanket over my head as an adult, but that's because I have privacy most of the time. If I don't want look at people or have them look at me, I can go home and lock the door.

But you can't do that on an airplane. You're stuck in this little metal tube in close quarters with dozens (hundreds?) of other people for several hours.

Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to hide?

But the problem is we live in a society that is particularly wary of behaviour that is perceived to be irregular on an airplane. So even those of us who find the idea of hiding under a blanket appealing would be reluctant to do so for fear that someone will overreact and alert the authorities and the plane will be redirected to the nearest airport and surrounded by armed law enforcement and we'll be disappeared into some prison hellscape for the rest of eternity.

Solution: we as a society should unanimously declare it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head whenever you need a moment's privacy. It's not feasible in every circumstance, of course - you couldn't do it while walking down the street - but there's no reason why you couldn't have a blanket over your head while sitting on an airplane or a train or a park bench. Even in an open-concept office, there's no reason why you couldn't put a blanket over your head and your monitor for some psychological privacy, if we would only deem it socially acceptable.

Even if you yourself can't imagine wanting to put a blanket over your head, wouldn't it be convenient if the other people around you - the ones who might complain that you're nursing your baby or staring at your phone too much or chewing in a way they find unattractive - felt free to do so?

In this modern world, we find ourselves increasingly forced into close quarters with other people, and tensions rise because of lack of privacy. But the only thing that's preventing us from taking a modicum of psychological privacy is that we've arbitrarily deemed it socially unacceptable.  Let's undo that.

Things Twitter Should Invent: retain hashtag capitalization

When you search for or click on a hashtag in Twitter, it shows you a feed of all tweets with that hashtag.  Useful!

If you then click on the "Tweet" button while this hashtag feed is open, it populates the tweet composition box with the hashtag in question, on the assumption that you're going to tweet using the hashtag in question. Useful!

Problem: Sometimes the hashtag that populates the tweet composition box is written in all lowercase, even if the hashtag you originally searched on or clicked on was written in a combination of capital and lowercase.

This is an issue because screen readers use the capitalization in hashtags to determine when a new word starts, and writing hashtags in all lowercase makes the screen reader attempt to pronounce the hashtag as all one word. And, aside from that, #CapitalizingEachWordLikeThis is easier to read than #writingthewholethinginlowercase.

What Twitter should do: make sure that any capitalization in the hashtag clicked on or searched for is retained when populating the tweet composition box. This means people who have already made the effort to make their hashtags accessible don't have to repeat that effort every time they tweet.

While writing this blog post, I tried to determine the specific conditions under which Twitter retains the capitalization of the hashtag versus when it changes it to all lowercase, and I wasn't able to pinpoint it with any consistency. All I can tell you is sometimes it retains capitalization, and sometimes it goes all lowercase.

However, the fact that it sometimes retains capitalization means that retaining capitalization is technologically possible, so Twitter should make that happen all the time.

Aidez-moi à transcrire les phrases français dans Let Me Go par Cake

This post is available in English here.

Les paroles de la chanson Let Me Go par Cake sont bien en anglais, mais il y a quelques phrases parlés en français, qui sont en-dessous de la mélodie et donc difficile à entendre.

Chaque fois que j’entends cette chanson, je me demande qu’est-ce que les mots français disent, mais je ne peux en comprendre que quelques mots.

J’ai effectué plusieurs recherches Internet pour ces mots français pendant les années, et il me semble que personne ne les a jamais transcrits.

Donc il nous incombe de le faire nous-mêmes.

Voici Let Me Go, au moment où le français commence.



Les quelques mot que j’entends : « ??? au contraire ??? conserver les échantillons ??? papier, plastique ??? »

Seriez-vous en mesure de combler les lacunes?

The French words in Let Me Go by Cake

Ce poste est disponible en français ici.

Every time I hear to the song Let Me Go by Cake, I wonder what the French words spoken under the melody line are saying.

I do understand French, but I'm also lyric deaf, so the music gets in the way of my hearing all the words (in any language).

Every time I wonder this at a time when it's convenient to google, I try to see if anyone on the recorded internet has written down what the French says, and I can never find anyone who has.

So we're going to have to do it ourselves.

Here is Let Me Go by Cake, cued up to the point where the French starts.



Here's what I hear:

"[unintelligible] au contraire [unintelligible] conserver les échantillons [unintelligible] papier, plastique [unintelligible]"

Can you fill in any gaps?

For those who don't speak French:

au contraire = the same as in English: literally "to the contrary", a general indicator of disagreement
conserver les échantillons = keep/store/preserve the samples
papier, plastique = paper, plastic

Wanted: emergency radio with long shelf life

Today I had a power outage for the first time in years, so it occurred to me that I should test my emergency radio.

And it turns out the battery doesn't hold a charge.  I keep the radio in a place where it gets direct sun every day, but when I turn it on the battery light blinks out after a second, before I can even tune it to a radio station.  The same thing happens when I crank it up - the battery appears to charge, but it doesn't hold the charge long enough to pick up a radio station, which, of course, defeats the purpose.

This happened with my previous emergency radio too. After a few years, the battery simply stopped holding a charge, rendering it useless.

Can anyone recommend an emergency radio that will retain functionality after years of neglect?

I'm willing and able to keep it somewhere where it gets direct sunlight every day for solar charging.  I'm also willing and able to keep it in the dark if constant charging is bad for battery life, but in that case I'd need it to charge fairly quickly (e.g. under 15 minutes) in normal indoor ambient light levels

Ideally, I'd also like to be able to charge devices with it. Alternatively, I'd be interested in any other gizmos that let me charge devices from solar and crank power - or even from the ordinary Duracell batteries I have sitting around in a desk drawer! - regardless of whether they have a radio.  A flashlight feature would also be a plus. (I already have multiple flashlights, but I wouldn't mind one that could charge by solar.)  But, again, these devices would need long shelf life, so I can neglect them for years and then they'll be ready for me in an emergency.

Interestingly, during this adventure, I discovered that the radio on my old middle-school Walkman still works beautifully if I just pop in a couple of the ordinary Duracell batteries that I have sitting around in my desk drawer.  So for an emergency device, I'd need better.

Brandingthink

On the front page of today's Globe and Mail, I noticed a small blurb about their logo:

On Monday The Globe and Mail is introducing the next evolution of our print nameplate.

The refreshed red logo is the same typeface and styling that appears online at the top of our homepage. By consolidating our print and digital designs, we are restating our dedication to groundbreaking journalism, no matter the platform.

This is interesting to me, and, in my capacity as a non-design person, I find myself pondering the thinking and process behind it - not the change in the logo, but the explanation and its wording.

Do they actually think that consolidating the design "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism, no matter the platform"?  Or was there a committee sitting around the table trying to come up with something?

Or was this the wording of the design brief, and the designer produced the logo and asserted that it achieves these things?

It's also interesting to me that they felt it was necessary to print a statement of intent behind their logo change, rather than just printing the new logo. I don't know that I would have noticed. Or, if I did notice, I would have just though "Meh, newspapers change their design from time to time."

The fact that they printed a statement of intent leans towards the idea of someone actually thinking that changing the logo "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism", because if they didn't think that, they could have just not printed an explanation rather than thinking up an explanation.  But, to my non-design brain, these things seem completely unrelated (like how my choice of font is completely unrelated to my commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle), so I'm intrigued that other people's brains can do this.

Books read in June 2019

New:

1. So You Want to Talk about Race by by Ijeoma Oluo
2. Hyperfocus: How to be More Productive in a World of Distraction by Chris Bailey 
3. As Long as the Rivers Flow by Larry Loyie 
4. Victoria: The Heart and Mind of a Young Queen by Helen Rappaport

Reread:

1. Rapture in Death

How I made my sweaters stop acting like clutter

While searching for a different old post, I found this old post about trying to figure out a way to stop my sweaters from cluttering up my living room, and I realized that I've solved the problem at some point.

When I'm sitting at my desk and I have to remove a sweater, I stand up. Then, as I'm removing the sweater, I take two steps until I'm standing in the door of my bedroom. Then I throw the sweater on my bed.

This means I have to hang up the sweater before I can go to sleep because it's lying on my bed, but that isn't too much of an imposition because my bedtime routine already includes putting away clothes that have ended up on my bed in the course of the day. (For example, when I'm dressing in the morning, I tend to take off my bathrobe and throw it on my bed. If I change clothes when I get home, I tend to lie the old ones on my bed.)

Yes, a perfectly diligent person wouldn't leave clothes lying around on the bed and would instead put them away immediately. But we've already established that I'm not a perfectly diligent person, and throwing the sweaters on the bed instead of hanging them on my desk chair puts the sweaters closer to where they should be while preventing them from cluttering up the room where they shouldn't be.

I don't remember when or why I started doing this, but it solves my silly problem!

Phosphenes and false memories

When I was a little girl, I had an unsuitably early bedtime. I wasn't even tired until about 2 hours after my bedtime. (Not a good parenting strategy, BTW. I became incapable of falling asleep in less than 2 hours even when I was tired, and it took until I was nearly 30 to overcome this.)

However, when I was small I did want to be a good girl, so I would lie in bed with my eyes closed trying really hard to fall asleep.

But a small child doesn't have the inner resources to just lie there doing nothing. I needed something to amuse myself.  Something that I could do while lying in bed with my eyes closed.

So I started watching the colours that I saw behind my eyelids when I closed my eyes (which, I would learn decades later, are called phosphenes). They would move and morph of their own volition, making for an interesting light show.

After some time, I gradually gained control over how the phosphenes moved and morphed.  It never became easy to move them - imagine the nuance of playing a theramin combined with the force required to fight the repulsion of like magnetic poles - but with effort I could manipulate them. I made it into a game, with my goal being to produce a red and blue checkerboard (the reason why I chose a red and blue checkerboard was lost to history) and I was able to reach the checkerboard almost every night.

However, around the age of 8, I developed a new intellectual skill. At the time I called it "thinks", but I now know that it's called Mary Sue fanfiction - mentally writing stories inserting myself into various works of fiction. I found this a far more enjoyable way to spend the hours before I fell asleep, and my phosphenes fell by the wayside.

That pattern has continued ever since, with the addition of romantic fantasies once I reached the point in my life where that was of interest.  But every once in a while, during a bout of insomnia, I'd reach for the phosphenes again and find that I was out of practice, but could still manipulate them.

Until my head injury.

In the aftermath of my head injury, I completely lost the ability to daydream or fantasize. (It began returning 4 months later, but even now a year later, it's still not available 100% of the time like it was before the head injury.)

So, as I lay in bed waiting to fall asleep, I reached for my phosphenes.

And they weren't there.

I could see a pattern that looked like a red and green lava lamp, but it wasn't moving at all. And, behind the lava lamp, I could see the eye of Sauron. But it wasn't my phosphenes. It was immovable, unchanging, and vaguely terrifying.

I spent a lot of time lying in bed with my eyes closed after my head injury, and this eye of Sauron was always staring back at me through the lava lamp. I couldn't control it, I couldn't change it, my old familiar patterns weren't there, and I couldn't even fantasize.

I wasn't even sure if I was human any more.

After some months, the eye of Sauron went away. (Its departure correlated with my first burst of vision therapy progress, but I can't tell if this is a cause and effect relationship.)  I also regained the ability to fantasize, so I luxuriated in my newly-regained imagination and stopped worrying about my phosphenes.

Then, a few weeks ago, my phosphenes came back.

And they're completely different!

Sometimes they consist of green figures that remind me of Chinese characters (I can't read Chinese so I couldn't tell you if they're actually Chinese characters, and it's not logistically possible for me to draw them. But wouldn't it be interesting if they said something in Chinese!)

Sometimes they consist of indescribable shapes and colours that are completely different from the indescribable shapes and colours I had previously.

A new and interesting feature is that occasionally a cartoon character will peek its head out from behind the swirling shapes and colours. I can't name any of the cartoon characters, but I have no idea if they're my brain's own creation or existing cartoon characters that my subconscious memory somehow internalized. (Again, it's not logistically possible to draw them, and I haven't been able to google my way to a "Yes! That's it!" moment of recognition.)

These new phosphenes are so interesting and different that I've put daydreaming/fantasy aside, and spend some time exploring them every night as I wait for sleep to overtake me.  I can't control them like I could the old ones (or, at least, I can't yet control them - I haven't a clue whether I'll eventually regain that ability), but I can sort of look around, zoom in, and generally watch the show.

But the most fascinating thing about Phosphenes 2.0 is that after I spend some time watching them, I get a false memory.

Example of a false memory: I was climbing up the side of a building. Partway through I thought "This doesn't seem safe - I shouldn't be able to hang onto the side of a building with just my fingertips." Then I thought "Don't be silly, you've done this thousands of times, people do it every day!"

Of course, I've never actually climbed the side of a building, and I'm not physically capable of hanging off a building by just my fingertips.  And people don't do it every day.

But, somehow, my brain served up that ridiculousness like a memory (as opposed to like a dream or a predream).

Ever since my phosphenes returned, this happens every night. The Phosphenes 2.0 Show, followed by a false memory, followed by the realization that the false memory is false, and then I promptly fall asleep.

It will be interesting to see how long my brain keeps this up for!

Adventures in persistent spoonerisms

Chipo[l/t]e 

The first time I ever saw the word chipotle, my mind inverted the T and the L and read it as "chipolte".  Then, after some time, I realized I had it backwards.  So I set a sort of mental flag. Whenever the word came up, I'd tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd successfully say "chipotle".

However, I didn't realize that I'd cured my spoonerism.  The mental flag persisted.  Whenever I went to say "chipotle" I'd stop and tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters."  Then I'd say "chipolte".

So then I had to tell myself "Okay, you got this, no need to invert the letters any more."  But it was too late.  I'd gone charging right past "chipotle" back to "chipolte".  So I had to tell myself to invert it again.

This pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, and somehow I've never arrived at the ability to permanently and consistently pronounce or spell "chipotle" correctly. No matter where I am in the cycle, I seem to get it right less than 50% of the time.

I looked it up multiple times while writing this post, and I'm sure I got it wrong at least once.  (Weirdly, spellcheck isn't consistent about when it gives either spelling squiggles.)

Jolelujah 

The internet told me that Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah (link is to the k.d. lang version because that's the one that speaks to me) and Dolly Parton's Jolene can be sung to each other's tunes.

I tried it out, and it turns out they can! The choruses you have to fudge a bit, but the verses work perfectly - and Leonard Cohen's melody really adds a delicious anguish to Dolly Parton's lyrics.

Then I had the idea of a comedic arrangement - the singer starts singing one song and somehow gets lost and ends up in the other, or, perhaps there are two singers trying to upstage each other and getting stuck in each other's songs.

So I was workshopping this in the shower, trying to figure out how the comedic timing worked, and I suddenly lost the ability to sing the verse melody of Jolene.  I tried, but it kept coming out as Hallelujah!

So when I got out of the shower I listened to a recording of Jolene and got that melody back, but then I lost Hallelujah - it kept coming out as Jolene!

Now I can't hold the melody of either song, even when I'm trying to do just one song without any mashups whatsoever.  It keeps changing, it's completely beyond my control, and it never comes out the same way twice!

And, to add insult to injury, it never once comes out with effective comedic timing either!

A different point of view for Captain Awkward #1203

Captain Awkward #1203:

Hi Captain!

I’m 24 years old, and next year I’m undergoing the “consecration of virgins” ceremony from Catholic tradition, where essentially I agree to give up romantic attatchments and “marry” myself to God, like halfway to being a nun. I’m very excited about this, and have already started plans for the ceremony, including dresses and rings and whatnot. Hurray for future fancy clothes day! \o/

My problem is with my family. None of my family are invited to the ceremony – I haven’t even told them that I’m undergoing it. I’m keeping the ceremony strictly in-faith, mainly because of the “woo” factor, but my family aren’t Catholic, and while my family are subscribed to the Big Man In The Sky idea, they’re not sold on the more “woo” aspects like divine intervention or godspousery. While they can believe what they like, freedom of faith and all that jazz, I’m not comfortable handling the spiritual disbelief of half my guests at my “wedding”. There’s also complicated history between us which I don’t want encroaching on what is a really important day for me. But I know they’re going to be hurt if I don’t invite them, and I feel horribly guilty about it, especially since this’ll be the closest thing they’ll get to a big white wedding for me!

How do I explain to my family about my upcoming “marriage” and why they’re not invited?

Thanks!

All The Lace

(ps: although I know you probably wouldn’t do this, I just want to make it clear that I’m not interested in any advice on finding “real” datemates to have a “real” marriage)

Captain Awkward's response had more focus on the question of  how to decide whether to invite family and how family might respond to invitations than I thought LW was going for.

I interpreted LW's situation as more that the "not inviting family" part was already set in stone, and it's more a question of how to explain that they're not invited without hurting any feelings.

I think the answer to that lies in the "otherness" of Catholicism in the eyes of your family.

Your family isn't Catholic, they've probably never heard of this ceremony (I was raised Catholic and I'd never heard of it!), so you can present it as a church thing that has nothing to do with them.

Mention it when it comes up naturally in conversation, but don't, like, announce it to them proactively, because it's a church thing that has nothing to do with them. Depending on what works best for the personalities or dynamics involved, you could answer any questions they might have, or you could wave it off with "It's a church thing, don't worry about it."

Your response here should be analogous to how you'd respond to someone unfamiliar with Palm Sunday asking what your palm frond is for - either explain it or wave it off, depending on how the person will take it. (I know IRL your consecration ceremony is a far bigger deal than Palm Sunday, but for non-church people they're of equal importance, i.e. it's a church thing, nothing to do with them.)

Now, as Captain Awkward points out in her answer, the price of this approach is you can't ask or expect them to be as happy for you / excited / invested in this ceremony as perhaps you'd like.  The more you push this as something they should care deeply about, the more likely they are to feel left out at not being invited.

If, upon thinking this through, you find you do want this emotional investment from your family, you're certainly free to frame it that way.  But that would increase the risk of hurt feelings and the very drama you're hoping to avoid.  To avoid that drama, avoid the emotional investment by waving it off as nothing to do with them.

Things the City of Toronto Should Invent: monthly property tax bills

I knew that when I switched from renting to owning that I would have to pay property taxes separately (rather than property taxes being included in my rent).

What I didn't know was how weird the City of Toronto's billing schedule would be.

I have six scheduled property tax payments a year. Any sensible person would conclude "Okay, so one payment every two months," but it doesn't work that way - they're unevenly spaced!  My six payments a year are due in March, April, May, July, August and September.

This spacing means that the payments always feel like a burden. Because I get five months in a row without a payment, it doesn't feel like the kind of regular recurring expense I would mentally take into consideration in my budget.  But, at the same time, the fact that it happens multiple months in a row doesn't make it feel like a one-off expense that hurts a bit in the month where it occurs but ultimately my bank account reachieves equilibrium. This arrangement is the worst of both worlds.

Solution: 12 monthly property tax payments

People are accustomed to sizeable monthly payments being due on the first of the month - after all, that's how rent works!  So not only would monthly payments make each cheque smaller, but, by fitting into the pattern to which we're accustomed, it would make it more painless.

I previously came up with a conspiracy theory that sales tax isn't included in sticker price to stoke anti-tax sentiment, by making it an unpleasant surprise at the cash register. 

I wonder if that's also the intention behind this erratic property tax schedule?

Parenting advice from the childfree

I recently fell down an internet rabbit hole and ended up reading a parenting advice column. And it seems I have Opinions, even though I don't have children.

Many years ago, before I got married, I had an abortion. I do not regret it, and it was the correct choice for me at the time. (I was a freshman in college and had no familial support.) Now I have two kind and lovely daughters in their early teens, and I am wondering if this is something I should talk to them about.

My husband is unsure, leaning toward no, and I can’t say I exactly relish the idea of having this conversation with my daughters, but especially considering the current political climate in the United States, I feel like I … should? Just tell me if I should, and if the answer is yes, how to do it.

One benefit of telling your daughters that you had an abortion is that they'll be more likely to feel that they're safe going to you if they ever need an abortion or otherwise have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

Many parents would say at this point "Of course my kids know that they can come to me with anything!", but less than 100% of their kids would agree with that assessment.

My own parents would probably think their kids can come to them with anything, but I wouldn't have felt safe coming to them with an unwanted pregnancy. (And, given that I didn't know abortion as a safe, controlled medical procedure existed until nearly a decade after menarche, the results could have been disastrous!)

But, because my mother once mentioned in passing that my parents had used birth control and plan their family, I never felt the need to conceal my birth control from them.

For my preschool-aged son’s birthday party, we bought (zany, colorful) squirt guns as a party favor. Our kids love to run around in the backyard squirting each other on hot summer days, and I’m fine with that—over time, it has given us good opportunities to talk about challenging subjects in bite-size, age-appropriate ways (i.e., guns: never touch a real gun; if you ever see a real gun or someone tries to show you one, leave immediately and tell a grown-up; it is only a game if everyone is having fun, etc.). However, I’m unsure whether giving squirt guns to others’ children is appropriate. If it matters, we aren’t gun owners; my partner did not grow up around them, but I did, and neither of us would ever want a real gun in our home.

I’m debating creating separate gift bags without the squirt guns, making a partywide PSA such as “never touch a real gun—and remember, squirting someone with a squirt gun is only a game if both people are having fun,” or something to that effect. My partner feels my concerns are overblown and says mentioning it would make things weird, but wouldn’t stop me if I insist on it. I feel the conversation is important but don’t know if this is the right place for it or what exactly to say. Any advice?

I am exactly the kind of kid you're worried about - I always interpreted adults words and actions in ways the didn't intend! - and I can assure you it never once occurred to me that squirt guns and real guns are in any way synonymous or interchangeable, any more than I thought they were interchangeable with glue guns or staple guns.

How long do kids get to be dictators? How long should we just do whatever they want to avoid massive tantrums? I know the whole “is this the hill you want to die on” argument, but there are times when I just get tired of the fact that my toddler’s whims and desires completely outweigh mine! And I know that I’m supposed to be the adult and be the bigger person here, but sometimes the frustration gets to me.

My daughter is 3½ and very stubborn. She comes by it honestly: I’m pretty stubborn too. She’s also very dramatic and there have always been a few things that she just has to have a certain way or else she’ll lose her mind. For example, if we’re in the car listening to Disney music, she doesn’t like it if I sing along. She has gotten much better about asking me to please not sing, and as long as she asks and doesn’t scream at me, I’ll do what she wants. If I’m sitting on the couch, I can’t have a blanket on me. (I’m usually cold and like to snuggle under a blanket to keep warm.) If I don’t take it off, she loses her mind. She hates it when her dad and I try to have a conversation because she wants to talk to Dad. The other day she wanted me to put the windows up in the car. So I put hers up and put mine up almost all the way, but left it open some because it was a nice day. She lost her mind because she wanted them all up. I don’t want to have to dance on eggshells and do anything to avoid upsetting her. Sometimes (a lot of times) things don’t go the way you want and everyone just needs to learn to process that as best as they can!

I know she’s a toddler and can’t process things the same way an adult does. And I know that I’m probably fucking up royally by taking actions that I know will result in her losing her mind. But in the moment, sometimes I just can’t handle being bossed around by a 3-year-old. Am I really supposed to just let her have her way all the time? Does that not lead to her becoming an entitled asshole who thinks the world revolves around her? Since most of the time it basically does, I’d like to try to introduce the concept that she isn’t the center of the universe. Or am I just being a complete asshole?

The columnist advises focusing on situations where she's trying to control other people's lives or bodies (such as the situation where the kid doesn't like that LW is under a blanket) but another thing to keep in mind is situations where your daughter has no control over her own life or her own body.

For example, in the case where they're in a car and the daughter wants the windows up, she has no control whatsoever. She can't roll up the windows herself. She can't move since she's strapped into a carseat. She can't add or remove a layer of clothing since she's strapped into a carseat. She probably didn't even get a choice about whether she's going on a car ride at that moment and to that destination in the first place! At this moment, she has no control over her life or her body and is entirely at the mercy of your whims, including your (in her eyes) nonsensical whim to have the window open when it's clearly more comfortable to have it closed.

Giving more consideration to your daughter's needs and wants, however petty, in situations where the logistical requirements of childhood put you in full control over her life and her body would, in her eyes, put you in a better moral position to argue that she can't control other people's lives or bodies.

I’m divorced with an 11-year-old. She’s not the easiest child to parent as she is very independent, strong-willed, and opinionated. I love her though and honestly have no issues parenting her. I share 50 percent custody with her dad. Every week I hear from one of them about a fight they’ve had. He tells me she’s difficult, moody, angry, challenges him. She tells me he’s inflexible, always yelling, and unreasonable.

I sympathize with her and try to give him advice. But what is my role here? I don’t share with her that I think the problem is her dad. He seems out of his depth in parenting and has twice offered to pay me money to take her off his hands. My biggest problem with being married to him has been that he had no empathy and I believe it’s showing up in his relationship with our daughter. But do I keep giving advice (which I don’t know if he even takes or not)? And since I am not there and don’t see the whole picture, I’m afraid I might be giving the wrong advice. Should I take my daughter to therapy to deal with her dad? The angry, moody child he cites is sometimes there when she is with me, but she is also funny, pleasant, and engaging, and has no problems following house rules. Do I just let them figure it out? I’m just worried.

The columnist suggests at the end of her advice that if none of her other suggestions work you might consider re-opening the 50/50 custody agreement, but I think they should look at adjusting the custody agreement on principle, even if they're able to resolve this specific issue without changing custody.

Fifty-fifty custody is something chosen for a theoretical notion of fairness that doesn't necessarily reflect the actual needs of the actual people in the situation. That might make sense when a kid is younger and doesn't have and/or can't express specific custody-related needs and preferences, but it makes less sense the older the kid gets.

If you imagine a household where a kid lives with two parents, they almost certainly don't spend 50% of their time with each parent.  They spend the amount of time that makes sense given the personal factors involved. And, the older the kid gets, the more time the kid spends with neither parent - at school or work or involved in their own activities or at home alone.

Perhaps it would be better if your custody arrangement reflected this, and allowed your daughter to choose how much time she spends with which parent.

In a few short years, she'll be able to stay home alone and to travel to and from each parent's house independently, so the logistical issues of childcare and transportation will be gone.

Surely you can do better than an arrangement where the courts require your daughter to spend half your time with (and dependent upon, and at the mercy of) someone who has offered to pay to get rid of her.