New:
1. The Ward Uncovered: The Archaeology of Everyday Life Edited by John Lorinc, Holly Martelle, Michael McClelland, and Tatum Taylor
2. Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore
Reread:
1. Portrait in Death
Friday, July 31, 2020
Friday, July 03, 2020
Things They Should Invent: grocery pickup edition
1. Mark items as "essential"
The first time I tried grocery pickup (in this case, PC Express at Loblaws), I was making the purchase because I had immediate need of a specific item.
In keeping with the pandemic mindset of minimizing trips and keeping two weeks of provision on hand, I didn't just buy that one item, I bought everything I expected to need for the next two weeks, regardless of whether it was on sale.
Then, shortly before pick-up time, I got an email saying that my order was ready - except they didn't have that one specific item in stock! There was no way to cancel the order at this point, so I had to put on my mask, wait in line, go into a store, talk to an employee, pay for a bunch of stuff that wasn't even on sale, lug it all home and wipe it all down - all for nothing!
Proposed solution: users should have the option of marking one or more items in their cart as "essential". If the essential item is unavailable, the order is cancelled. When the user marks more than one item as essential, they can either mark them as "ALL" or "ANY". If the essential items are marked "ALL", then the order only goes through if all the essential items are available. If they essential items are marked "ANY", the order goes through if any one of the items is available.
This should certainly be programmable - it's basically a set of IF/THEN statements - and it would certainly help during the pandemic when we're supposed to be minimizing trips and contacts.
2. "Your cart contains # bags of groceries"
Another problem with grocery pickup is that ordering groceries online is much easier than carrying those groceries home - I'd almost bought more than I can carry!
Solution: tell users how many bags of groceries their cart contains, measured in the standard grocery bags found at the checkout.
People who are accustomed to grocery shopping have a good sense of how many bags of groceries they can carry and how many will fit into their tote bag or bundle buggy or bike basket or car trunk or whatever they might be using, so this would make it easier to avoid over-ordering, and thereby finding yourself at the store faced with more groceries than you can get home in one trip.
The ideal implementation would calculate the number of bags in terms of both mass and volume, because both of those are factors in how much people can carry. But I'd imagine an immediate implementation would be possible based on mass alone. Grocery stores already have a database of the mass of all their products, since the self-checkouts have a built-in scale to make sure you're not stealing. Surely someone in human history has quantified how many grams/pounds/kilograms a grocery bag will carry, so it's a simple question of division.
The first time I tried grocery pickup (in this case, PC Express at Loblaws), I was making the purchase because I had immediate need of a specific item.
In keeping with the pandemic mindset of minimizing trips and keeping two weeks of provision on hand, I didn't just buy that one item, I bought everything I expected to need for the next two weeks, regardless of whether it was on sale.
Then, shortly before pick-up time, I got an email saying that my order was ready - except they didn't have that one specific item in stock! There was no way to cancel the order at this point, so I had to put on my mask, wait in line, go into a store, talk to an employee, pay for a bunch of stuff that wasn't even on sale, lug it all home and wipe it all down - all for nothing!
Proposed solution: users should have the option of marking one or more items in their cart as "essential". If the essential item is unavailable, the order is cancelled. When the user marks more than one item as essential, they can either mark them as "ALL" or "ANY". If the essential items are marked "ALL", then the order only goes through if all the essential items are available. If they essential items are marked "ANY", the order goes through if any one of the items is available.
This should certainly be programmable - it's basically a set of IF/THEN statements - and it would certainly help during the pandemic when we're supposed to be minimizing trips and contacts.
2. "Your cart contains # bags of groceries"
Another problem with grocery pickup is that ordering groceries online is much easier than carrying those groceries home - I'd almost bought more than I can carry!
Solution: tell users how many bags of groceries their cart contains, measured in the standard grocery bags found at the checkout.
People who are accustomed to grocery shopping have a good sense of how many bags of groceries they can carry and how many will fit into their tote bag or bundle buggy or bike basket or car trunk or whatever they might be using, so this would make it easier to avoid over-ordering, and thereby finding yourself at the store faced with more groceries than you can get home in one trip.
The ideal implementation would calculate the number of bags in terms of both mass and volume, because both of those are factors in how much people can carry. But I'd imagine an immediate implementation would be possible based on mass alone. Grocery stores already have a database of the mass of all their products, since the self-checkouts have a built-in scale to make sure you're not stealing. Surely someone in human history has quantified how many grams/pounds/kilograms a grocery bag will carry, so it's a simple question of division.
Wednesday, July 01, 2020
The mystery of the disappearing desks
I blogged before about how people keep saying "things you have around the house" for things that I don't have around the house.
One thing I do have around the house is a desk. And, with the pandemic, I was surprised to learn just how many people don't have a desk.
My high-school graduation gift was a computer - a desktop computer, because that's what my father thought was most suitable. Laptop computers did exist in those days, but in the days before wifi you were tethered to a wall if you want to use the internet anyway, so desktops were a lot more common.
I set up my computer on my desk in my childhood bedroom, and subsequently on the desk in my dorm room and, being an internet addict, I spent most of my waking hours there, talking on the internet to other people who were also at their desktop computers tethered to the wall.
When I got my first apartment, I brought in my furniture from my childhood bedroom (my parents had the foresight to furnish our childhood bedrooms with regular grownup furniture rather than small/cutesy child-specific furniture). It was a small apartment, but my computer was still my top priority in my waking hours, so I set up my desk right in the living room, so I could continue my habit of spending time on the internet talking to other people also sitting at their desks.
Around this time I learned about ergonomics at work, so I applied the same principles to my desk at home. My set-up in student housing had been unergonomic and caused me a lot of neck pain, so I wanted something more sustainable for my adult life.
Then, when I got a laptop, I saw no reason not to continue with my comfy, ergonomized desk. I connected the laptop to my ergonomic peripherals, and kept right on spending my days at my desk, talking to people on the internet who, I had every reason to believe, were also at their desks.
Then, when the pandemic came along and everyone who can work from home started doing so, I was shocked to discover that the internet was full of people who . . . don't own a desk!!! All these people whom I'd always pictured as being at their desks were suddenly setting up makeshift workstations at kitchen tables and on couches and in bed . . .
Where did all the desks go??
I do understand intellectually that you can internet on laptops and mobile devices, but I've always found working at a desk more comfortable and convenient.
I also understand that many people live in small homes - I do myself! It's just my desk has always been so important to me that it's my second priority, after a bed.
So it's quite astonishing to me that it's such a low priority for so many people that "how to work from home when you don't have a desk" was a major topic of conversation in the early days of the pandemic!
But in addition to the question of "Why don't people have desks?" there's also the question of "What happened to the desks that people used to have?"
A lot of the "no desk, now what?" that's reaching me is coming from people who have been on the internet (in a personal capacity, not just for work or school) for at least as long as I have. Which means that, once upon a time, they almost certainly must have had a desk in their home - even if not a literal desk, then a designated table where a computer could be set up.
And now they don't. They must have, at some point, gotten rid of the literal desk. Which is so bizarre to me - they looked at what I consider the second most important piece of furniture in a home, and thought "I don't anticipate ever needing to fulfill this function again."
Or what if they never had them in the first place? What if, for all these years, all these people on the internet I thought were sitting at their desks actually weren't?
That would be interesting to study - survey people who were caught out without a desk in the pandemic and ask them if they've ever owned a desk.
If you had asked me, back in the 90s when I was setting up my very own computer at my very own desk, to predict what will happen in the world in the year 2020, I would never have come up with "A lot fewer people own desks"!
One thing I do have around the house is a desk. And, with the pandemic, I was surprised to learn just how many people don't have a desk.
My high-school graduation gift was a computer - a desktop computer, because that's what my father thought was most suitable. Laptop computers did exist in those days, but in the days before wifi you were tethered to a wall if you want to use the internet anyway, so desktops were a lot more common.
I set up my computer on my desk in my childhood bedroom, and subsequently on the desk in my dorm room and, being an internet addict, I spent most of my waking hours there, talking on the internet to other people who were also at their desktop computers tethered to the wall.
When I got my first apartment, I brought in my furniture from my childhood bedroom (my parents had the foresight to furnish our childhood bedrooms with regular grownup furniture rather than small/cutesy child-specific furniture). It was a small apartment, but my computer was still my top priority in my waking hours, so I set up my desk right in the living room, so I could continue my habit of spending time on the internet talking to other people also sitting at their desks.
Around this time I learned about ergonomics at work, so I applied the same principles to my desk at home. My set-up in student housing had been unergonomic and caused me a lot of neck pain, so I wanted something more sustainable for my adult life.
Then, when I got a laptop, I saw no reason not to continue with my comfy, ergonomized desk. I connected the laptop to my ergonomic peripherals, and kept right on spending my days at my desk, talking to people on the internet who, I had every reason to believe, were also at their desks.
Then, when the pandemic came along and everyone who can work from home started doing so, I was shocked to discover that the internet was full of people who . . . don't own a desk!!! All these people whom I'd always pictured as being at their desks were suddenly setting up makeshift workstations at kitchen tables and on couches and in bed . . .
Where did all the desks go??
I do understand intellectually that you can internet on laptops and mobile devices, but I've always found working at a desk more comfortable and convenient.
I also understand that many people live in small homes - I do myself! It's just my desk has always been so important to me that it's my second priority, after a bed.
So it's quite astonishing to me that it's such a low priority for so many people that "how to work from home when you don't have a desk" was a major topic of conversation in the early days of the pandemic!
But in addition to the question of "Why don't people have desks?" there's also the question of "What happened to the desks that people used to have?"
A lot of the "no desk, now what?" that's reaching me is coming from people who have been on the internet (in a personal capacity, not just for work or school) for at least as long as I have. Which means that, once upon a time, they almost certainly must have had a desk in their home - even if not a literal desk, then a designated table where a computer could be set up.
And now they don't. They must have, at some point, gotten rid of the literal desk. Which is so bizarre to me - they looked at what I consider the second most important piece of furniture in a home, and thought "I don't anticipate ever needing to fulfill this function again."
Or what if they never had them in the first place? What if, for all these years, all these people on the internet I thought were sitting at their desks actually weren't?
That would be interesting to study - survey people who were caught out without a desk in the pandemic and ask them if they've ever owned a desk.
If you had asked me, back in the 90s when I was setting up my very own computer at my very own desk, to predict what will happen in the world in the year 2020, I would never have come up with "A lot fewer people own desks"!
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Books read in June 2020
New:
1. A Better Man by Louise Penny
2. Tilly and the Bookwanderers by Anna James
Reread:
1. Purity in death
1. A Better Man by Louise Penny
2. Tilly and the Bookwanderers by Anna James
Reread:
1. Purity in death
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Flaws in my education: treating anti-racism readings like any other literature
I blogged before about how the books used in the anti-racism unit in my Grade 9 English class didn't serve us well.
Another aspect that didn't serve us well was that they treated it like any other English class unit. We did discuss racism (I don't think we managed to get as far as anti-racism, given that I didn't know the nuance until I was well into my 30s), but there was a lot of writing and talking about symbolism, "compare and contrast", etc., and that got in the way of learning actual anti-racism.
An educational trend in that time and place was letting students arrive at conclusions themselves (in either Grade 9 or Grade 10, I had a whole-ass science textbook that used the socratic method FFS!), but a bunch of ignorant white 14-year-olds who may or may not be able to name a racial stereotype are not going to arrive at any sort of useful conclusion about anti-racism without a lot more guidance and context! (And having to sit in the classroom while we fumbled around trying to do so probably wasn't a very safe experience for the few racialized students in our school!)
Literature is an excellent tool for teaching students about all manner of people and lives and experiences and ideas, and English class seems like the sensible place for some literature. But anti-racism isn't just a regular old English unit like "poetry" or "Shakespeare". It's meant to equip us to function in society and right the wrongs of our ancestors and overcome the negative influences around us that we, at the age of 14, might not even recognize as negative influences. We certainly need a lot more structure and guidance than "what do you think?" and "Discuss themes!"
I wonder if approaching anti-racism in a way that's parallel to other, more abstract literature topics might also be exacerbating the unfortunate trend of some people think it's a good idea to "debate" or ask for documentary evidence of others' lived experiences, or trying to broadly apply philosophical theory to others' lived experiences, and then saying their lived experiences are inapplicable when they don't fit into the theory. When anti-racism is presented as though it's up for exactly the same kind of theorizing as things like the symbolism of the green light - and when ignorant white kids like me are specifically asked to write about it this way - the students might come away with the idea that their theorizing is useful and welcome.
There's also the fact that, like it or not, literary analysis is rather esoteric, with not so many direct, immediate applications to the practicalities of everyday life. And, because of that, it's seen as useless by many people who aren't huge fans of it. Treating anti-racism so similarly risks leading students who are less fond of literary analysis to see anti-racism as esoteric and inapplicable, rather than being a crucial part of living ethically in the world.
Some people will point out that students "should" be able to do both literary analysis and anti-racism.
But the fact of the matter is that, in that Grade 9 classroom 25 years ago, being new to the concept of literary analysis and being new to the concept of anti-racism, we weren't all able to do both effectively.
If our curriculum and our teachers had prioritized the anti-racism aspect, even if it meant we didn't read the readings like we did our other English class readings, perhaps I and others like me would be better people today.
Another aspect that didn't serve us well was that they treated it like any other English class unit. We did discuss racism (I don't think we managed to get as far as anti-racism, given that I didn't know the nuance until I was well into my 30s), but there was a lot of writing and talking about symbolism, "compare and contrast", etc., and that got in the way of learning actual anti-racism.
An educational trend in that time and place was letting students arrive at conclusions themselves (in either Grade 9 or Grade 10, I had a whole-ass science textbook that used the socratic method FFS!), but a bunch of ignorant white 14-year-olds who may or may not be able to name a racial stereotype are not going to arrive at any sort of useful conclusion about anti-racism without a lot more guidance and context! (And having to sit in the classroom while we fumbled around trying to do so probably wasn't a very safe experience for the few racialized students in our school!)
Literature is an excellent tool for teaching students about all manner of people and lives and experiences and ideas, and English class seems like the sensible place for some literature. But anti-racism isn't just a regular old English unit like "poetry" or "Shakespeare". It's meant to equip us to function in society and right the wrongs of our ancestors and overcome the negative influences around us that we, at the age of 14, might not even recognize as negative influences. We certainly need a lot more structure and guidance than "what do you think?" and "Discuss themes!"
I wonder if approaching anti-racism in a way that's parallel to other, more abstract literature topics might also be exacerbating the unfortunate trend of some people think it's a good idea to "debate" or ask for documentary evidence of others' lived experiences, or trying to broadly apply philosophical theory to others' lived experiences, and then saying their lived experiences are inapplicable when they don't fit into the theory. When anti-racism is presented as though it's up for exactly the same kind of theorizing as things like the symbolism of the green light - and when ignorant white kids like me are specifically asked to write about it this way - the students might come away with the idea that their theorizing is useful and welcome.
There's also the fact that, like it or not, literary analysis is rather esoteric, with not so many direct, immediate applications to the practicalities of everyday life. And, because of that, it's seen as useless by many people who aren't huge fans of it. Treating anti-racism so similarly risks leading students who are less fond of literary analysis to see anti-racism as esoteric and inapplicable, rather than being a crucial part of living ethically in the world.
Some people will point out that students "should" be able to do both literary analysis and anti-racism.
But the fact of the matter is that, in that Grade 9 classroom 25 years ago, being new to the concept of literary analysis and being new to the concept of anti-racism, we weren't all able to do both effectively.
If our curriculum and our teachers had prioritized the anti-racism aspect, even if it meant we didn't read the readings like we did our other English class readings, perhaps I and others like me would be better people today.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Sanditon fanfic bunny, free for the taking: "I Will Toil and You Can Blossom"
This post is a full spoiler zone for the Sanditon miniseries.
I recently finished the Sanditon miniseries, and was pleased to see that my ship of Charlotte/Arthur is still a possibility.
I have a massive fanfic bunny and lack the skills to write it, so I'm posting it here in case someone else wants to write it. Steal this idea!
Premise:
Charlotte and Arthur enter by mutual consent into a companionate marriage (in the sense of companionate love as opposed to consummate love.)
This puts Charlotte in a good position to continue her work with the Parker family's business, which she found so self-actualizing in canon. (After all, it's much more respectable for a Mrs. Parker to be acting on behalf of the Parker family than a Miss Heywood.) She gets to be married to someone who is pleasant and harmless and respects her.
Meanwhile, Arthur gets to continue enjoying the simple pleasures of life without having to work too hard, because Charlotte is pulling their share of the weight in the family business. He gets to be married to someone who is pretty and personable and accepts him for who is he is without playing games. He can spend his days enjoying his port wine and buttered toast and getting down on the floor to play with the children.
(Despite it being a companionate marriage, I do imagine that Charlotte and Arthur would consummate their marriage. They've both shown themselves eager to try new experiences (e.g. sea-bathing) and sex is a new experience that's now available to them. And they may well continue to make sex part of their lives, either to have children, simply because they think it's fun.)
So where's the conflict in this scenario? From the whole rest of the town of Sanditon! Nearly everyone we've met in canon has some kind of drama, and with Sanditon being a resort town all kinds of personalities could pass through. And meanwhile, Charlotte and Arthur build themselves an oasis of peace in the midst of all the drama.
Interesting notions this fic would explore:
- A mutually-satisfying and mutually-respectful companionate marriage. In fiction, we see explorations of passionate marriages, unhealthy marriages, abusive marriages, bickering marriages. I've never seen a portrayal of a marriage between two people who like each other and respect each other and get along well, but aren't in love with each other and are okay with that.
- Sex as fun, but not passionate. I do think if Charlotte and Arthur were married, they would explore sex. They've both shown themselves game to try new experiences (sea bathing, horseback riding), and I think they would have a go at consummating their marriage in a similar spirit. After all, they're allowed - even encouraged! And if it turns out to be an enjoyable experience for both, they'd probably make it a regular part of their life. Sex in fiction tends to be portrayed as imbued with great emotion and meaning (as it often is in real life) - either positively or negatively depending on the character being portrayed. But some people must find it just...fun. (After all, friends with benefits is a thing.) It would be interesting to see that explored in fiction.
- The value of a harmless husband. We normally see the notion of a "safe option" in marriage portrayed negatively, or as a person in a safe marriage yearning for something more. But in a historical era where a wife is entirely at her husband's mercy socially, legally and financially, a harmless husband like Arthur would be quite the catch! He's cheerful and happy to be pleased, he's happy to cede the floor to Charlotte when she knows better, and he's not going to bankrupt them (c.f. he's hardly touched his inheritance).
(Charlotte is also harmless and I'm sure that has value for Arthur, but given the realities of the era, I'm more interested in how Arthur's harmlessness enhances Charlotte's life.)
- Young newlyweds growing up together. Once upon a time, I read something that said that in the 21st century, people expect to finish growing up and then to get married. But in the past, when people married younger, they'd get married and expect to finish growing up together. I haven't a clue whether that's true as a general societal attitude (I've only heard it once from a source that is lost to history), but it must have happened in some cases, and it would be an interesting thing to explore. Charlotte and Arthur, while of marriageable age in their historical context, are both very young and both still have some growing up to do. At the same time, living and working within the extended Parker family would give them a context in which they can safely do this growing up together.
I recently finished the Sanditon miniseries, and was pleased to see that my ship of Charlotte/Arthur is still a possibility.
I have a massive fanfic bunny and lack the skills to write it, so I'm posting it here in case someone else wants to write it. Steal this idea!
Premise:
Charlotte and Arthur enter by mutual consent into a companionate marriage (in the sense of companionate love as opposed to consummate love.)
This puts Charlotte in a good position to continue her work with the Parker family's business, which she found so self-actualizing in canon. (After all, it's much more respectable for a Mrs. Parker to be acting on behalf of the Parker family than a Miss Heywood.) She gets to be married to someone who is pleasant and harmless and respects her.
Meanwhile, Arthur gets to continue enjoying the simple pleasures of life without having to work too hard, because Charlotte is pulling their share of the weight in the family business. He gets to be married to someone who is pretty and personable and accepts him for who is he is without playing games. He can spend his days enjoying his port wine and buttered toast and getting down on the floor to play with the children.
(Despite it being a companionate marriage, I do imagine that Charlotte and Arthur would consummate their marriage. They've both shown themselves eager to try new experiences (e.g. sea-bathing) and sex is a new experience that's now available to them. And they may well continue to make sex part of their lives, either to have children, simply because they think it's fun.)
So where's the conflict in this scenario? From the whole rest of the town of Sanditon! Nearly everyone we've met in canon has some kind of drama, and with Sanditon being a resort town all kinds of personalities could pass through. And meanwhile, Charlotte and Arthur build themselves an oasis of peace in the midst of all the drama.
Interesting notions this fic would explore:
- A mutually-satisfying and mutually-respectful companionate marriage. In fiction, we see explorations of passionate marriages, unhealthy marriages, abusive marriages, bickering marriages. I've never seen a portrayal of a marriage between two people who like each other and respect each other and get along well, but aren't in love with each other and are okay with that.
- Sex as fun, but not passionate. I do think if Charlotte and Arthur were married, they would explore sex. They've both shown themselves game to try new experiences (sea bathing, horseback riding), and I think they would have a go at consummating their marriage in a similar spirit. After all, they're allowed - even encouraged! And if it turns out to be an enjoyable experience for both, they'd probably make it a regular part of their life. Sex in fiction tends to be portrayed as imbued with great emotion and meaning (as it often is in real life) - either positively or negatively depending on the character being portrayed. But some people must find it just...fun. (After all, friends with benefits is a thing.) It would be interesting to see that explored in fiction.
- The value of a harmless husband. We normally see the notion of a "safe option" in marriage portrayed negatively, or as a person in a safe marriage yearning for something more. But in a historical era where a wife is entirely at her husband's mercy socially, legally and financially, a harmless husband like Arthur would be quite the catch! He's cheerful and happy to be pleased, he's happy to cede the floor to Charlotte when she knows better, and he's not going to bankrupt them (c.f. he's hardly touched his inheritance).
(Charlotte is also harmless and I'm sure that has value for Arthur, but given the realities of the era, I'm more interested in how Arthur's harmlessness enhances Charlotte's life.)
- Young newlyweds growing up together. Once upon a time, I read something that said that in the 21st century, people expect to finish growing up and then to get married. But in the past, when people married younger, they'd get married and expect to finish growing up together. I haven't a clue whether that's true as a general societal attitude (I've only heard it once from a source that is lost to history), but it must have happened in some cases, and it would be an interesting thing to explore. Charlotte and Arthur, while of marriageable age in their historical context, are both very young and both still have some growing up to do. At the same time, living and working within the extended Parker family would give them a context in which they can safely do this growing up together.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Flaws in my education: using non-contemporary readings for anti-racism
In Grade 9, we had an anti-racism unit in English class. Works studied included To Kill A Mockingbird, Black Like Me, and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Problem: these were all American works that were decades old.
I don't remember reading anything Canadian in our anti-racism unit. I never read anything about race set in my own lifetime until I was an adult. The only thing about race in Canada that I remember reading in school is Obasan, which is set during the Second World War.
Many white Canadians - including myself until shamefully recently - perceive racism to be a thing of the past, and/or an American problem.
And I strongly suspect this is influenced by the fact that our anti-racism education focused on American works from before we were born.
I often say I'm about 30 years behind where I should be in things like anti-racism. That Grade 9 class was 25 years ago.
Maybe the world would be a better place if I, and others like me, had been equipped for all these years to think of racism as a problem that exists in the here and now. I know I certainly would be a better person if I were now decades into my journey into anti-racism rather than just starting out on the cusp of middle age.
Problem: these were all American works that were decades old.
I don't remember reading anything Canadian in our anti-racism unit. I never read anything about race set in my own lifetime until I was an adult. The only thing about race in Canada that I remember reading in school is Obasan, which is set during the Second World War.
Many white Canadians - including myself until shamefully recently - perceive racism to be a thing of the past, and/or an American problem.
And I strongly suspect this is influenced by the fact that our anti-racism education focused on American works from before we were born.
I often say I'm about 30 years behind where I should be in things like anti-racism. That Grade 9 class was 25 years ago.
Maybe the world would be a better place if I, and others like me, had been equipped for all these years to think of racism as a problem that exists in the here and now. I know I certainly would be a better person if I were now decades into my journey into anti-racism rather than just starting out on the cusp of middle age.
Saturday, June 13, 2020
O'Keeffe's Working Hands: a hand cream like any other
With all the extra pandemic handwashing, I needed to level up my hand cream game, so I decided to try O'Keeffe's Working Hands, which purports to be for dry, cracked hands resulting from manual labour. Surely, I thought, a hand cream designed for working hands will be particularly magical on hands that normally do nothing more demanding than type, and are now being put to the test with a few extra washings a day.
Turned out, it's not particularly magical. It's no better on dry, cracked areas (or on eczema) than any other hand cream I've tried.
It's no worse than any other hand cream either, so if you feel like trying it, there's no reason not to try it.
Turned out, it's not particularly magical. It's no better on dry, cracked areas (or on eczema) than any other hand cream I've tried.
It's no worse than any other hand cream either, so if you feel like trying it, there's no reason not to try it.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Flaws in my Education: "You should speak up and contribute!"
I was identified as gifted when I was in Grade 5, which meant every year I'd get an IPRC, where I'd meet with my parents and the resource teacher and they'd make a plan for how to get the most out of my education.
The one thing the resource teachers always did (every single resource teacher over the years did this - I can think of at least three individual teachers and I'm sure I'm missing some) was put in the plan that I should raise my hand and answer more questions in class.
Even looking back at it as an adult, I don't understand what that was supposed to achieve. (I knew that I knew the answers, I was just staying quiet to avoid bullying.) But there was very strong messaging that I should raise my hand and give the teachers the answers I already knew I already knew, that doing so would be a good thing, and that failing to do so was a bad thing.
Similarly, as a shy person who doesn't always speak in groups, I've gotten a lot of "You should speak up! You should contribute!" as social skills advice.
As though I necessarily have something not just to say, but to contribute? I can't fathom what that might be!
So for the first 30ish years of my life, I was receiving constant messaging that I should say something, anything. That not putting in my two cents is practically not pulling my weight.
And then, when I was well into my 30s, I was exposed for the first time to the concept of staying in one's lane.
This was literally the first time in my life I had heard that perhaps I shouldn't speak up, perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to a given discussion.
(When I was a kid, adults would tell me to be quiet and not to talk back in a given moment, but on a philosophical/theoretical level they definitely would have said I should speak up and contribute.)
Now, I can't tell you how much of this "you should speak up and contribute" was because I'm white, and I can't tell you whether my non-white classmates were treated differently. My school was fairly small (if you had shown me a photo of any of my classmates, I could have instantly told you their name and something about them) and there were so few non-white students that I could count them without running out of fingers.
I cannot think of/remember a single instance of any of my classmates, of any race, being urged to systematically speak up more or to systematically be quiet. But also, I wasn't paying attention to such things at the time, so who knows what I might have missed?
If there was any difference in how we were treated, I'm sure the adults would have told you they were treating us as individuals, based on our individual needs. And there simply isn't enough data to suggest otherwise - I had too few non-white classmates to identify any sort of pattern.
But the fact of the matter is there were, in raw numbers, a lot of white people around in that time and place, and other times and places like it. I can't possibly have been the only person who was told to speak up and contribute. (I seriously doubt the adults around me would have come up with an all new unprecedented piece of advice just for me!)
Maybe the world would be a better place if more of us were told there are some times and places where you should sit down, be quiet and listen - and not just when those in power and authority are talking.
The one thing the resource teachers always did (every single resource teacher over the years did this - I can think of at least three individual teachers and I'm sure I'm missing some) was put in the plan that I should raise my hand and answer more questions in class.
Even looking back at it as an adult, I don't understand what that was supposed to achieve. (I knew that I knew the answers, I was just staying quiet to avoid bullying.) But there was very strong messaging that I should raise my hand and give the teachers the answers I already knew I already knew, that doing so would be a good thing, and that failing to do so was a bad thing.
Similarly, as a shy person who doesn't always speak in groups, I've gotten a lot of "You should speak up! You should contribute!" as social skills advice.
As though I necessarily have something not just to say, but to contribute? I can't fathom what that might be!
So for the first 30ish years of my life, I was receiving constant messaging that I should say something, anything. That not putting in my two cents is practically not pulling my weight.
And then, when I was well into my 30s, I was exposed for the first time to the concept of staying in one's lane.
This was literally the first time in my life I had heard that perhaps I shouldn't speak up, perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to a given discussion.
(When I was a kid, adults would tell me to be quiet and not to talk back in a given moment, but on a philosophical/theoretical level they definitely would have said I should speak up and contribute.)
Now, I can't tell you how much of this "you should speak up and contribute" was because I'm white, and I can't tell you whether my non-white classmates were treated differently. My school was fairly small (if you had shown me a photo of any of my classmates, I could have instantly told you their name and something about them) and there were so few non-white students that I could count them without running out of fingers.
I cannot think of/remember a single instance of any of my classmates, of any race, being urged to systematically speak up more or to systematically be quiet. But also, I wasn't paying attention to such things at the time, so who knows what I might have missed?
If there was any difference in how we were treated, I'm sure the adults would have told you they were treating us as individuals, based on our individual needs. And there simply isn't enough data to suggest otherwise - I had too few non-white classmates to identify any sort of pattern.
But the fact of the matter is there were, in raw numbers, a lot of white people around in that time and place, and other times and places like it. I can't possibly have been the only person who was told to speak up and contribute. (I seriously doubt the adults around me would have come up with an all new unprecedented piece of advice just for me!)
Maybe the world would be a better place if more of us were told there are some times and places where you should sit down, be quiet and listen - and not just when those in power and authority are talking.
Sunday, June 07, 2020
Things They Should Invent: express elevators for the pandemic
Most people in my building seem to be voluntarily abiding by a one person/household per elevator rule. I do this myself. I live in the lower half of the building, so often when I'm waiting for an elevator to take me to to the ground floor, there will already be someone in it. I cheerfully wave them on, and wait for the next elevator.
However, not everyone in my building does this. Sometimes I'm taking the elevator down, it stops to pick up someone who has pressed the call button on one of the floors below me, and they get in. And there's not really much I can civilly do to stop them. (I mean, I could scream and argue, or do something gross like cough or something creepy like scratch my ass and smell my finger, but I have few options that allow me to retain what social capital I have.)
I also think, in some cases, the person waiting for the elevator might feel it's rude not to get into the elevator, as though you're suggesting that there's something wrong with the person in the elevator. (Imagine, for example, how declining to get in an elevator with someone else would have read before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus.)
It would be useful if, for the duration of the pandemic, elevators could be put in express mode. You get in the elevator, press the button for your floor, and it goes straight to your floor without stopping. Then it goes and picks up the next person who has pressed a call button.
This would make elevator use during the pandemic as safe as possible without requiring optimal behaviour or any sort of effort from users. In my own experiences with skipping over occupied elevators and waiting for empty ones, I've never had to wait for more than three (and, about half the time, the first elevator that arrives is empty) so I don't think it would cause undue delays.
The challenge is I'm not sure whether it's technically possible without changes to how elevators work. The elevators I'm familiar with can be put in service mode with a key - you turn the key, the elevator goes your destination floor without stopping and then waits for you there. But if you don't turn the key back to the normal setting, the elevator will sit and wait for you rather than picking up the next passenger. And if you do turn the key back to the normal setting, it will go back to stopping wherever there's a call button pressed.
So I'm not sure if elevators can currently be programmed to take each passenger to their floor then go back for the next passenger without constant intervention. But if they can, they should be. And if they can't, elevator manufacturers should figure out how to introduce this functionality for the next time we need it.
However, not everyone in my building does this. Sometimes I'm taking the elevator down, it stops to pick up someone who has pressed the call button on one of the floors below me, and they get in. And there's not really much I can civilly do to stop them. (I mean, I could scream and argue, or do something gross like cough or something creepy like scratch my ass and smell my finger, but I have few options that allow me to retain what social capital I have.)
I also think, in some cases, the person waiting for the elevator might feel it's rude not to get into the elevator, as though you're suggesting that there's something wrong with the person in the elevator. (Imagine, for example, how declining to get in an elevator with someone else would have read before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus.)
It would be useful if, for the duration of the pandemic, elevators could be put in express mode. You get in the elevator, press the button for your floor, and it goes straight to your floor without stopping. Then it goes and picks up the next person who has pressed a call button.
This would make elevator use during the pandemic as safe as possible without requiring optimal behaviour or any sort of effort from users. In my own experiences with skipping over occupied elevators and waiting for empty ones, I've never had to wait for more than three (and, about half the time, the first elevator that arrives is empty) so I don't think it would cause undue delays.
The challenge is I'm not sure whether it's technically possible without changes to how elevators work. The elevators I'm familiar with can be put in service mode with a key - you turn the key, the elevator goes your destination floor without stopping and then waits for you there. But if you don't turn the key back to the normal setting, the elevator will sit and wait for you rather than picking up the next passenger. And if you do turn the key back to the normal setting, it will go back to stopping wherever there's a call button pressed.
So I'm not sure if elevators can currently be programmed to take each passenger to their floor then go back for the next passenger without constant intervention. But if they can, they should be. And if they can't, elevator manufacturers should figure out how to introduce this functionality for the next time we need it.
Friday, June 05, 2020
The best things in life and the worst things in life
The April 26 Frazz comic:
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
 |
| Caulfield: A few weeks ago, you were all but howling at the full moon. Frazz: Beautiful! Enormous, razor sharp and bright enough to hold its own against the rising sun across a vast, cloudless sky. Caulfield: So you remember it. Frazz: Of course! A moon like that is one of the best things in life. Caulfield: Do you remember a week ago? Frazz: I guess I don't. Caulfield: It was inky and overcast, and there wouldn't have been a visible moon anyway. The complete opposite of the best thing in life, if you catch my drift. Frazz: You're overthinking this. Caulfield: Ergo: The worst things in life aren't as bad as the best things are good. Frazz: I like the way you overthink. |
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
Thursday, June 04, 2020
New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XIV
19. If you're giving advice on how to make or fix something, and you say you can do it with "things you have around the house", you are required to provide those things to anyone in your audience who doesn't already have them around the house. You aren't allowed access to those things in your own home until everyone in your audience has them.
Wednesday, June 03, 2020
Pandemic, scarcity, and frugality
One of fate's running jokes during this pandemic is that my stuff keeps breaking.
There's a sizeable rip in my winter coat that's nowhere near a seam. A load-bearing seam in my running shoes got unsewn. A t-shirt seam ripped. One of my bed pillows tore (did you know that could even happen? I didn't know that could happen!) My kettle completely stopped working. A rung one one of my dining chairs popped out of place. My computer monitor occasionally flickers ominously, as does my TV set. My computer fan is perilously loud, even after cleaning and reseating. My sandals really need refurbishment. Both my desk and my ergonomic chair have stability issues. My ancient cell phone isn't holding charge for nearly as long as it used to. The light inside my microwave sometimes flickers for no apparent reason, and I can't figure out if this is a problem.
We're hearing a lot about scarcity of consumer goods on store shelves (in my experience, we're hearing a lot more than I'm actually seeing IRL), but all these problems I've been having highlight another type of scarcity: in-person help has become unavailable.
Apart from the t-shirt, the clothing repair tasks I described above exceed my skill. Normally, multiple people in my life and multiple businesses in my neighbourhood are able and willing to do this kind of sewing for me, but during the pandemic that isn't an option.
Even for the t-shirt repair, I didn't have the right shade of red thread, and wasn't able to actually go to a place that sells thread with the shirt to find the right shade.
For the chair repair, I lack either the strength or the dexterity. In any case, while YouTube is happy to tell me how to fix the problem, I can't make the pieces move the way they'd need to. Again, there are people IRL and businesses on the internet that would be happy to help me with this, and I can't rightfully ask any of them to come into my home.
I'm not sure whether I could carry a new computer monitor or a new TV set home from the store, and my building isn't allowing delivery people to come up to the apartments. The monitor - as well as the desk and chair - has to meet ergonomic requirements that can't be looked up online, so I have to try these things out and see if they work, or get them delivered with a particularly generous return policy. And, of course, I couldn't move a whole desk by myself and I'm uncertain whether I can move my old TV
My computer is under warranty so normally if the fan proves to be a problem, I'd have an on-site technician come and fix it, which obviously isn't an option during the pandemic. But, at the same time, I don't want to void my warranty by attempting repairs that surpass my skill level.
Ordering a cell phone online or buying one with curbside pickup isn't particularly difficult, but my older phone has an older SIM card, and I don't know if I can get a new SIM card during the pandemic.
My microwave is mounted over the stove, so I can't replace it myself, and I don't know if it's possible to buy a range microwave and just plug it into the wall in the interim, or if they have to be hard-wired.
In short, all these problems and potential problems are not because of supply chain issues or lack of money, it's because I'm not allowed to access other people's help.
I've internalized my origin story of my grandparents coming from war and deprivation and scarcity since before my memories even begin, so I've spent much of my life thinking about what it would be like to live in war and deprivation and scarcity. And it never once occurred to me that scarcity would look like not being allowed to have someone sew something for me! Even on a battlefield or in a concentration camp, if needle and thread and a willing person with sewing skills are available, you're totally allowed to have them sew something for you.
I always thought scarcity would look like not having money or not having resources. But here I sit with money, thread, needles, multiple people in my own life able and willing to do the difficult sewing and multiple businesses in my immediate neighbourhood who would normally be quite happy to do it for a price that's well within my reach, but their skills are still not available to me. This was not on my catastrophizing mental list of worst-case scenarios.
***
There's also been a lot of rhetoric about how the various pandemic-related issues with acquiring material goods might actually be good for us, theorizing that it will teach people to "mend and make do" rather than automatically rush out and buy something new.
But I find myself in this situation of multiple malfunctions in the first place because of a lifetime's habit of mending and making do!
This isn't something I do out of frugality or virtue, it's simply because I hate shopping. If something I own still works, I keep using it. If I or someone near me can fix it, I fix it. If someone I know is getting rid of something I could use, I take it.
But as a result of this, many of my possessions are getting on in the years. Nearly everything I've had malfunction is over a decade old. Some are newer but not brand new (for example, the computer is three years old and the microwave is four years old), some are way older (the dining chairs might even be antiques by now - they're certainly older than me, and my grandparents owned them at once point).
If I had been in the habit of running around buying new things at the slightest provocation, all these malfunctions wouldn't have been a problem. I'd have more than one workable winter coat and more than one workable pair of running shoes. I'd have multiple workable old phones and more than the absolute minimum number of chairs I need.
But instead, I mended and made do, and never felt deprived for any of these things because I always figured I can just go out and buy a new thing when true need emerges.
And now, as true need appears to be emerging in the middle of a pandemic and I can't necessarily just go buy a new thing, I'm being lectured to mend and make do.
There's a sizeable rip in my winter coat that's nowhere near a seam. A load-bearing seam in my running shoes got unsewn. A t-shirt seam ripped. One of my bed pillows tore (did you know that could even happen? I didn't know that could happen!) My kettle completely stopped working. A rung one one of my dining chairs popped out of place. My computer monitor occasionally flickers ominously, as does my TV set. My computer fan is perilously loud, even after cleaning and reseating. My sandals really need refurbishment. Both my desk and my ergonomic chair have stability issues. My ancient cell phone isn't holding charge for nearly as long as it used to. The light inside my microwave sometimes flickers for no apparent reason, and I can't figure out if this is a problem.
We're hearing a lot about scarcity of consumer goods on store shelves (in my experience, we're hearing a lot more than I'm actually seeing IRL), but all these problems I've been having highlight another type of scarcity: in-person help has become unavailable.
Apart from the t-shirt, the clothing repair tasks I described above exceed my skill. Normally, multiple people in my life and multiple businesses in my neighbourhood are able and willing to do this kind of sewing for me, but during the pandemic that isn't an option.
Even for the t-shirt repair, I didn't have the right shade of red thread, and wasn't able to actually go to a place that sells thread with the shirt to find the right shade.
For the chair repair, I lack either the strength or the dexterity. In any case, while YouTube is happy to tell me how to fix the problem, I can't make the pieces move the way they'd need to. Again, there are people IRL and businesses on the internet that would be happy to help me with this, and I can't rightfully ask any of them to come into my home.
I'm not sure whether I could carry a new computer monitor or a new TV set home from the store, and my building isn't allowing delivery people to come up to the apartments. The monitor - as well as the desk and chair - has to meet ergonomic requirements that can't be looked up online, so I have to try these things out and see if they work, or get them delivered with a particularly generous return policy. And, of course, I couldn't move a whole desk by myself and I'm uncertain whether I can move my old TV
My computer is under warranty so normally if the fan proves to be a problem, I'd have an on-site technician come and fix it, which obviously isn't an option during the pandemic. But, at the same time, I don't want to void my warranty by attempting repairs that surpass my skill level.
Ordering a cell phone online or buying one with curbside pickup isn't particularly difficult, but my older phone has an older SIM card, and I don't know if I can get a new SIM card during the pandemic.
My microwave is mounted over the stove, so I can't replace it myself, and I don't know if it's possible to buy a range microwave and just plug it into the wall in the interim, or if they have to be hard-wired.
In short, all these problems and potential problems are not because of supply chain issues or lack of money, it's because I'm not allowed to access other people's help.
I've internalized my origin story of my grandparents coming from war and deprivation and scarcity since before my memories even begin, so I've spent much of my life thinking about what it would be like to live in war and deprivation and scarcity. And it never once occurred to me that scarcity would look like not being allowed to have someone sew something for me! Even on a battlefield or in a concentration camp, if needle and thread and a willing person with sewing skills are available, you're totally allowed to have them sew something for you.
I always thought scarcity would look like not having money or not having resources. But here I sit with money, thread, needles, multiple people in my own life able and willing to do the difficult sewing and multiple businesses in my immediate neighbourhood who would normally be quite happy to do it for a price that's well within my reach, but their skills are still not available to me. This was not on my catastrophizing mental list of worst-case scenarios.
***
There's also been a lot of rhetoric about how the various pandemic-related issues with acquiring material goods might actually be good for us, theorizing that it will teach people to "mend and make do" rather than automatically rush out and buy something new.
But I find myself in this situation of multiple malfunctions in the first place because of a lifetime's habit of mending and making do!
This isn't something I do out of frugality or virtue, it's simply because I hate shopping. If something I own still works, I keep using it. If I or someone near me can fix it, I fix it. If someone I know is getting rid of something I could use, I take it.
But as a result of this, many of my possessions are getting on in the years. Nearly everything I've had malfunction is over a decade old. Some are newer but not brand new (for example, the computer is three years old and the microwave is four years old), some are way older (the dining chairs might even be antiques by now - they're certainly older than me, and my grandparents owned them at once point).
If I had been in the habit of running around buying new things at the slightest provocation, all these malfunctions wouldn't have been a problem. I'd have more than one workable winter coat and more than one workable pair of running shoes. I'd have multiple workable old phones and more than the absolute minimum number of chairs I need.
But instead, I mended and made do, and never felt deprived for any of these things because I always figured I can just go out and buy a new thing when true need emerges.
And now, as true need appears to be emerging in the middle of a pandemic and I can't necessarily just go buy a new thing, I'm being lectured to mend and make do.
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Having an unsophisticated palate is convenient
One thing that people have judged me for my entire adult life is having an unsophisticated palate. For many kinds of food, I'm perfectly happy to eat eat cheap, processed, commercial convenience foods. I can enjoy a meal at a chain restaurant. I can enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant. I can enjoy some junk food scarfed down from a vending machine.
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
Monday, June 01, 2020
Analogy for app-only
An unfortunate trend that has emerged in the past decade or so is "app-only" - i.e. requiring a purpose-built app on a mobile device to do something (for example, make an online purchase) that is totally technically feasible over the web - and, often, was frequently done over the web before smartphones came along!
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Friday, May 29, 2020
Top 10 petty things I hope come out of the pandemic
Many, many people who are smarter than me have commented on major policy and social changes that they hope come out of the pandemic - a robust system of sick days! Stronger income security! An end to just-in-time supply chains!
I'm going to let the smart people comment on those important things. Meanwhile, I have some less-important things that I hope come out of the pandemic:
1. Touch screens that can be operated with a stylus
Back in the Palm Pilot days, touch screens could be operated with a stylus or some other object. Since the iPhone came along, the trend on everything from self-checkouts to microwaves has been towards screens that require a human finger, which makes it harder to have a no-contact experience. Even if we don't take hygiene into account, screens that can be operated with either an object or a finger are more versatile than those that absolutely require a human finger. Hopefully we can get that versatility back.
2. Longer hair becoming popular
I find longer hair more attractive. Even when people wear their hair short, I prefer longer short hair. Frodo Baggins rather than Forrest Gump. For purely superficial reasons, I would enjoy if this temporary haircut moratorium leads to longer hair becoming popular. (Unfortunately, I think the opposite will ultimately happen as people rejoice in haircuts.)
3. Baggy pants coming back in fashion
Skinny jeans have been in style for over a decade. It's high time for loose-fitting pants to come back in style! I'm hoping the combination of so many people staying home (and therefore likely wearing comfy pants) and so much bread being baked (which someone has to eat) will lead to societal intolerance of skinny jeans, and a move towards a roomier (and, on my figure, more flattering) silhouette.
4. Handwashing right inside the door
When I walk into my apartment, I know I need to wash my hands. But I also have to take my shoes off, which means touching the shoes with my dirty hands. (Yes, I know some people can remove their shoes without using their hands. I'm not one of them.) If I walk into the kitchen or the bathroom before removing my shoes, I'm tracking outdoor dirt (which might include germs) into the apartment. So far I've been addressing this by wiping down the parts of my shoes that I touch, but it would be convenient to have a sink for hand-washing right inside the door, so you can wash your hands right away, then remove your outerwear with clean hands. I hope home design evolves in this direction.
5. Touchless public washrooms
You know those useless public washroom taps where you need to hold the button down the entire time in order to make water come out? They need to be GONE! This pandemic should be the warning everyone needs to design public washrooms so they can be completely touchless, including opening the door on the way out of the washroom.
6. Homes designed for privacy from other household members
As someone who lives alone, I actually find my open-concept apartment convenient - I can keep watching the TV or the computer screen while I putter around in the kitchen! - but it is not the right design for a multi-person household. People - even people who love each other - need privacy from each other, and I suspect quarantine is driving his point home for many people. I hope home design evolves in a way that gives people visual, auditory and psychological privacy from the other members of their household.
Sometimes in advice column comments, I see people who think your romantic relationship is broken if you need privacy from each other, and/or think it's appalling and materialistic to plan your family and your housing so that each of your kids can have their own room. I'd be very happy if being quarantined with their household makes them change their mind on these questions, although I suspect it will instead make the other members of their household value their privacy even more.
7. Parent-neutral schooling
This is something I've been thinking about long before the pandemic but never got around to blogging about. Schooling seems to be evolving in a direction of requiring more and more parental involvement. For example, I often hear parents talking about their children's homework as though it is absolutely essential for parents to be involved in helping kids with their homework, and it is in no way reasonable to expect kids to be able to do their homework themselves based on what they learned in the classroom.
This creates a situation where students are put at a disadvantage if their parents, for whatever reason, don't meet the school's expectations.
Which is completely bass-ackwards. Schools should be mitigating any disadvantages or lack of advantages brought by parents, not exacerbating them.
The curriculum should be rethought so that students are not at any disadvantage if their parents do not contribute sufficiently. In fact, the curriculum should be even more drastically rethought so that parental contribution cannot put kids at an advantage - kids succeed on their own merits, regardless of what their parents bring to the table.
The switch to learning at home during the pandemic is exacerbating all these issues. Students whose parents aren't able to do what the school expects are at even more of a disadvantage. I'd like to see this result in a switch to a parent-neutral approach. However, I fear that it might do the opposite - especially if we are pushed onto an austerity footing after the pandemic, schools might be pressured to say "the parents can help the students with this - after all, they did so during the pandemic!"
8. More lenient parenting
One pandemic problem is teens sneaking out to hang out with their friends, and therefore breaking quarantine and failing to comply with social distancing.
A contributing factor is that "don't hang out with your friends because global pandemic" is not terribly persuasive in a world where the grownups are always telling you not to hang out with your friends anyway - because they read a parenting article or because they heard your friend use a swear word or because there might be a boy there.
But this time it's different. This time it's really important. And I hope, when this is over, that parents remember that.
In recent years, is has become less and less socially acceptable to leave kids unsupervised, even in their own home. The age at which kids are allowed to be unsupervised seems to be significantly higher than the age at which they can actually handle it.
The pandemic rule is that only one person from each household is supposed to go grocery shopping, which is a problem in cases where there's only one adult in the household - especially since babysitters from outside the household are not an option.
In some cases, depending the kids' ages and personalities, the most reasonable thing to do is to leave the kid home alone while grocery shopping. I hope the pandemic makes that socially acceptable as well, and that it sticks.
Early into the pandemic, I saw a lot of stuff circulating about How To Quarantine Optimally - and, especially, The Optimal Quarantine Schedule For Your Kids - and I found myself thinking how much it would suck to have that imposed on you regardless of your own needs and temperament. I hope the challenges of quarantine make these parents see the folly of optimizing their kids and accept a more go-with-the-flow way of living, and that this happens without too much trauma for the kids.
9. Check real-time store inventory
When you're supposed to minimize trips into stores and have to wait in line to get into each store, it's a particular bother to discover that the item that was the underlying reason for your trip isn't available. If we could check real-time store inventory online, that would save all these failed trips, thereby reducing line-waiting time and contacts for everyone.
10. Normalize grey hair
I'm currently rocking my natural colour, greys and all, and I intend to turn 40 with my natural colour as a matter of principle, but the amount of visible grey is getting to the point where I don't feel my overall appearance is sufficient if I keep it natural. However, I have no desire to spend any more time in the hairdresser's chair.
Since so many people have gone so long without getting their hair coloured and skunk stripes abound, I hope greying naturally comes back in style. Unfortunately, I suspect this is another area where the opposite happens as people rejoice in finally getting their hair coloured.
I'm going to let the smart people comment on those important things. Meanwhile, I have some less-important things that I hope come out of the pandemic:
1. Touch screens that can be operated with a stylus
Back in the Palm Pilot days, touch screens could be operated with a stylus or some other object. Since the iPhone came along, the trend on everything from self-checkouts to microwaves has been towards screens that require a human finger, which makes it harder to have a no-contact experience. Even if we don't take hygiene into account, screens that can be operated with either an object or a finger are more versatile than those that absolutely require a human finger. Hopefully we can get that versatility back.
2. Longer hair becoming popular
I find longer hair more attractive. Even when people wear their hair short, I prefer longer short hair. Frodo Baggins rather than Forrest Gump. For purely superficial reasons, I would enjoy if this temporary haircut moratorium leads to longer hair becoming popular. (Unfortunately, I think the opposite will ultimately happen as people rejoice in haircuts.)
3. Baggy pants coming back in fashion
Skinny jeans have been in style for over a decade. It's high time for loose-fitting pants to come back in style! I'm hoping the combination of so many people staying home (and therefore likely wearing comfy pants) and so much bread being baked (which someone has to eat) will lead to societal intolerance of skinny jeans, and a move towards a roomier (and, on my figure, more flattering) silhouette.
4. Handwashing right inside the door
When I walk into my apartment, I know I need to wash my hands. But I also have to take my shoes off, which means touching the shoes with my dirty hands. (Yes, I know some people can remove their shoes without using their hands. I'm not one of them.) If I walk into the kitchen or the bathroom before removing my shoes, I'm tracking outdoor dirt (which might include germs) into the apartment. So far I've been addressing this by wiping down the parts of my shoes that I touch, but it would be convenient to have a sink for hand-washing right inside the door, so you can wash your hands right away, then remove your outerwear with clean hands. I hope home design evolves in this direction.
5. Touchless public washrooms
You know those useless public washroom taps where you need to hold the button down the entire time in order to make water come out? They need to be GONE! This pandemic should be the warning everyone needs to design public washrooms so they can be completely touchless, including opening the door on the way out of the washroom.
6. Homes designed for privacy from other household members
As someone who lives alone, I actually find my open-concept apartment convenient - I can keep watching the TV or the computer screen while I putter around in the kitchen! - but it is not the right design for a multi-person household. People - even people who love each other - need privacy from each other, and I suspect quarantine is driving his point home for many people. I hope home design evolves in a way that gives people visual, auditory and psychological privacy from the other members of their household.
Sometimes in advice column comments, I see people who think your romantic relationship is broken if you need privacy from each other, and/or think it's appalling and materialistic to plan your family and your housing so that each of your kids can have their own room. I'd be very happy if being quarantined with their household makes them change their mind on these questions, although I suspect it will instead make the other members of their household value their privacy even more.
7. Parent-neutral schooling
This is something I've been thinking about long before the pandemic but never got around to blogging about. Schooling seems to be evolving in a direction of requiring more and more parental involvement. For example, I often hear parents talking about their children's homework as though it is absolutely essential for parents to be involved in helping kids with their homework, and it is in no way reasonable to expect kids to be able to do their homework themselves based on what they learned in the classroom.
This creates a situation where students are put at a disadvantage if their parents, for whatever reason, don't meet the school's expectations.
Which is completely bass-ackwards. Schools should be mitigating any disadvantages or lack of advantages brought by parents, not exacerbating them.
The curriculum should be rethought so that students are not at any disadvantage if their parents do not contribute sufficiently. In fact, the curriculum should be even more drastically rethought so that parental contribution cannot put kids at an advantage - kids succeed on their own merits, regardless of what their parents bring to the table.
The switch to learning at home during the pandemic is exacerbating all these issues. Students whose parents aren't able to do what the school expects are at even more of a disadvantage. I'd like to see this result in a switch to a parent-neutral approach. However, I fear that it might do the opposite - especially if we are pushed onto an austerity footing after the pandemic, schools might be pressured to say "the parents can help the students with this - after all, they did so during the pandemic!"
8. More lenient parenting
One pandemic problem is teens sneaking out to hang out with their friends, and therefore breaking quarantine and failing to comply with social distancing.
A contributing factor is that "don't hang out with your friends because global pandemic" is not terribly persuasive in a world where the grownups are always telling you not to hang out with your friends anyway - because they read a parenting article or because they heard your friend use a swear word or because there might be a boy there.
But this time it's different. This time it's really important. And I hope, when this is over, that parents remember that.
In recent years, is has become less and less socially acceptable to leave kids unsupervised, even in their own home. The age at which kids are allowed to be unsupervised seems to be significantly higher than the age at which they can actually handle it.
The pandemic rule is that only one person from each household is supposed to go grocery shopping, which is a problem in cases where there's only one adult in the household - especially since babysitters from outside the household are not an option.
In some cases, depending the kids' ages and personalities, the most reasonable thing to do is to leave the kid home alone while grocery shopping. I hope the pandemic makes that socially acceptable as well, and that it sticks.
Early into the pandemic, I saw a lot of stuff circulating about How To Quarantine Optimally - and, especially, The Optimal Quarantine Schedule For Your Kids - and I found myself thinking how much it would suck to have that imposed on you regardless of your own needs and temperament. I hope the challenges of quarantine make these parents see the folly of optimizing their kids and accept a more go-with-the-flow way of living, and that this happens without too much trauma for the kids.
9. Check real-time store inventory
When you're supposed to minimize trips into stores and have to wait in line to get into each store, it's a particular bother to discover that the item that was the underlying reason for your trip isn't available. If we could check real-time store inventory online, that would save all these failed trips, thereby reducing line-waiting time and contacts for everyone.
10. Normalize grey hair
I'm currently rocking my natural colour, greys and all, and I intend to turn 40 with my natural colour as a matter of principle, but the amount of visible grey is getting to the point where I don't feel my overall appearance is sufficient if I keep it natural. However, I have no desire to spend any more time in the hairdresser's chair.
Since so many people have gone so long without getting their hair coloured and skunk stripes abound, I hope greying naturally comes back in style. Unfortunately, I suspect this is another area where the opposite happens as people rejoice in finally getting their hair coloured.
Friday, May 22, 2020
Things They Should Invent: pandemic shopping edition
1. Glassdoor for the pandemic
With some jurisdictions permitting businesses to reopen, I wonder whether the employees of those businesses feel safe going back to work, or if they have no choice.
I do need to buy more things as the pandemic stretches on (so many things, ranging from my kettle to my mesh laundry bag, have broken somehow!), but if I have the option, I'd rather buy from somewhere that respects their employees' health and safety.
I'd very much like to have a single centralized website where workers post information about how well their employer actually is keeping them safe, so customers can make informed decisions about where to spend their money.
I mean, they could do this on Glassdoor too, but I haven't seen it yet for the businesses I've searched for.
2. Shopping search engine for boycotters
There's a lot in the news lately about how Amazon is making tons of money from the pandemic, but has horrible working conditions.
I've found that if I search the internet for a product description without having a specific brand or source in mind (for example, light cotton pyjamas or 4-cup coffee filters), I get results primarily from Amazon, and to a lesser extent from Walmart (which also has bad working conditions). If I exclude Amazon from the results, I most often get wholesalers, retailers from other countries, and other such unsuitable sources.
This happens even when I use search engines other than Google. It's way harder than it should be to find an ethical place to buy things when you don't already know where to buy them!
As I've mentioned many times before for many other reasons, I'd very much like to have a single comprehensive search engine of all online shopping. But I'd also like to have it set up to help people boycott.
You could boycott a specific retailer by excluding them from your search, but it would be even more helpful to be able to boycott by cause. For example, search for light cotton pyjamas and exclude sources with bad working conditions.
"But what if they all have bad working conditions?" Then you've done everything you can and don't have to knock yourself out looking for the ethical source that doesn't exist.
Of course, the complexity is that this would only work if they could index literally all retailers.
With some jurisdictions permitting businesses to reopen, I wonder whether the employees of those businesses feel safe going back to work, or if they have no choice.
I do need to buy more things as the pandemic stretches on (so many things, ranging from my kettle to my mesh laundry bag, have broken somehow!), but if I have the option, I'd rather buy from somewhere that respects their employees' health and safety.
I'd very much like to have a single centralized website where workers post information about how well their employer actually is keeping them safe, so customers can make informed decisions about where to spend their money.
I mean, they could do this on Glassdoor too, but I haven't seen it yet for the businesses I've searched for.
2. Shopping search engine for boycotters
There's a lot in the news lately about how Amazon is making tons of money from the pandemic, but has horrible working conditions.
I've found that if I search the internet for a product description without having a specific brand or source in mind (for example, light cotton pyjamas or 4-cup coffee filters), I get results primarily from Amazon, and to a lesser extent from Walmart (which also has bad working conditions). If I exclude Amazon from the results, I most often get wholesalers, retailers from other countries, and other such unsuitable sources.
This happens even when I use search engines other than Google. It's way harder than it should be to find an ethical place to buy things when you don't already know where to buy them!
As I've mentioned many times before for many other reasons, I'd very much like to have a single comprehensive search engine of all online shopping. But I'd also like to have it set up to help people boycott.
You could boycott a specific retailer by excluding them from your search, but it would be even more helpful to be able to boycott by cause. For example, search for light cotton pyjamas and exclude sources with bad working conditions.
"But what if they all have bad working conditions?" Then you've done everything you can and don't have to knock yourself out looking for the ethical source that doesn't exist.
Of course, the complexity is that this would only work if they could index literally all retailers.
Monday, May 11, 2020
Things They Should Invent: tell everyone what information contact tracers need
In this pandemic, we're hearing a lot about contact tracing. We're hearing a lot about how it's a time-intensive and labour-intensive task.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)