Since we just had a federal election in May, I'm not rewriting everything from scratch. The pertinent links are below. For how to use them, click on "How to Vote", "Where to Vote", and "How to Vote Strategically" below. As usual, this post will be updated until election day. If I've missed anything, please let me know in the comments.
Getting Started
Election day is October 6.
Voter information from Elections Ontario
My How to Vote
My Where to Vote
My How to Vote Strategically
Platforms
Conservative
Green
Liberal
NDP
Tools
CBC Vote Compass
Election Prediction Project
Hill and Knowlton Predictor
DemocraticSPACE
LISPOP
Riding-by-riding polls for the GTA
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Voted
Another election on a beautiful day, and another provincial election nursing a virus (which has mutated from a sore throat to a runny nose today). I encountered many many doggies today and got a lot of petting in, including my next-door neighbour's dog for the whole elevator wait and ride. Hopefully that's enough good luck.
I didn't get a voter's card this year and had to wait in a bit of a line to register (a process that was a bit slower than I recall) but it got done in under half an hour with no particular difficulties. I voted in a seniors' residence instead of a school this time. Some of the residents were milling around outside watching all the comings and goings, and I believe some of them were working at the polling station. Nice friendly community-like chat waiting in line, dogs and children got squeed at, and the whole process took under half an hour.
Now I'm at home to nurse my cold and a glass of wine, and watch results.
I didn't get a voter's card this year and had to wait in a bit of a line to register (a process that was a bit slower than I recall) but it got done in under half an hour with no particular difficulties. I voted in a seniors' residence instead of a school this time. Some of the residents were milling around outside watching all the comings and goings, and I believe some of them were working at the polling station. Nice friendly community-like chat waiting in line, dogs and children got squeed at, and the whole process took under half an hour.
Now I'm at home to nurse my cold and a glass of wine, and watch results.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Complaints about vitaminwater
Given the sudden dearth of Fruitopia in my environs, I decided to try the flavour of vitaminwater that looked like it was indicated for fighting a cold ("defense" it's called, complete with USian spelling.)
1. The flavour said raspberry-apple. It didn't taste like raspberry, or apple, or fake raspberry, or fake apple. It tasted like fake cranberry. If I wanted that, I'd get cranberry juice.
2. The nutrients featured prominently on the label were vitamin C and zinc. However, on reading the fine print, I noticed these were the last two of the medicinal ingredients, behind a bunch of B vitamins (which, while important nutrients, are not what I'm after when I'm fighting a virus).
3. It contains 90 mg of vitamin C and 3.75 mg of zinc. In contrast, my vitamin C supplements contain 500 mg, and my zinc lozenges contain 35 mg (plus 50 mg of vitamin C).
I suppose I should have read the label in detail before I bought it, but I'm used to things sold medicinally (and this is labelled medicinally, with medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients rather than a nutrition box) containing significant amounts of the nutrients they're meant to supplement. In any case, I resent actual foodstuff (i.e. fruit juice) being taken off the shelves in favour something that's less food-like, less nutritious, less effective, and less yummy. I don't mind fake food in and of itself, but I don't want it displacing real food!
1. The flavour said raspberry-apple. It didn't taste like raspberry, or apple, or fake raspberry, or fake apple. It tasted like fake cranberry. If I wanted that, I'd get cranberry juice.
2. The nutrients featured prominently on the label were vitamin C and zinc. However, on reading the fine print, I noticed these were the last two of the medicinal ingredients, behind a bunch of B vitamins (which, while important nutrients, are not what I'm after when I'm fighting a virus).
3. It contains 90 mg of vitamin C and 3.75 mg of zinc. In contrast, my vitamin C supplements contain 500 mg, and my zinc lozenges contain 35 mg (plus 50 mg of vitamin C).
I suppose I should have read the label in detail before I bought it, but I'm used to things sold medicinally (and this is labelled medicinally, with medicinal and non-medicinal ingredients rather than a nutrition box) containing significant amounts of the nutrients they're meant to supplement. In any case, I resent actual foodstuff (i.e. fruit juice) being taken off the shelves in favour something that's less food-like, less nutritious, less effective, and less yummy. I don't mind fake food in and of itself, but I don't want it displacing real food!
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Where has all the fruit punch gone?
Normally, I drink water during the day and with meals. However, I'm currently nursing a sore throat (likely viral), so I find myself wanting juice.
Citrus juices are on my no list for GERD, so I decided I'd drink fruit punch. At home I just mixed up a jug of Minute Maid fruit punch from concentrate (which has been my default juice since childhood), and at work I figured I'd just buy a couple of single-serving bottles of the same stuff or its Fruitopia equivalent.
But they don't sell it anywhere. Cafeteria, food court, drugstores, convenience stores, the juice aisle in the grocery store - no one has single-serving bottles of fruit punch, or in fact any non-citrus non-cranberry fruit juice.
They sell orange juice, lemonade, cranberry juice (which I'm not terribly fond of and, at least in the forms being sold in single-serving bottles, does not have significant amounts of vitamin C), and a bunch of sports drinks and vitamin water concoctions.
But I don't want fortified flavoured water when I'm sick, I want actual fruit juice! The sweetness is what soothes my throat and makes it go down easier than water.
Last time I was sick in a way that made me want juice, you could get a few different kinds of Fruitopia everywhere. Now you can't. It seems to have all been replaced with vitamin water. I already have vitamins and water in my arsenal, what I need is juice. But, somehow, it's been discontinued.
Citrus juices are on my no list for GERD, so I decided I'd drink fruit punch. At home I just mixed up a jug of Minute Maid fruit punch from concentrate (which has been my default juice since childhood), and at work I figured I'd just buy a couple of single-serving bottles of the same stuff or its Fruitopia equivalent.
But they don't sell it anywhere. Cafeteria, food court, drugstores, convenience stores, the juice aisle in the grocery store - no one has single-serving bottles of fruit punch, or in fact any non-citrus non-cranberry fruit juice.
They sell orange juice, lemonade, cranberry juice (which I'm not terribly fond of and, at least in the forms being sold in single-serving bottles, does not have significant amounts of vitamin C), and a bunch of sports drinks and vitamin water concoctions.
But I don't want fortified flavoured water when I'm sick, I want actual fruit juice! The sweetness is what soothes my throat and makes it go down easier than water.
Last time I was sick in a way that made me want juice, you could get a few different kinds of Fruitopia everywhere. Now you can't. It seems to have all been replaced with vitamin water. I already have vitamins and water in my arsenal, what I need is juice. But, somehow, it's been discontinued.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Things They Should Invent: central repository of research ideas
As I've blogged about before, one thing I really enjoy about the workplace as opposed to academia is that I don't have to come up with my own ideas for what to work on. All my major projects, even in undergrad, were "think of a topic and do a project on it," and I could never think of a good topic or tell what kind of topic would produce a good project. In the workplace, I simply translate what I'm assigned. This is one of the reasons why I haven't done a graduate degree - the idea of having to think up a thesis topic (and probably project topics for the coursework) puts me off now that I've become accustomed to a world where I simply do what I'm told.
However, I often come up with ideas for research in other fields.
Surely I'm not the only person in the world who has trouble thinking of something suitable to research. And surely I'm not the only person in the world who occasionally thinks "Hey, someone should do a study on that!"
So why not put the two together?
We need one single central website where people can post any research ideas they come up with, and would-be researchers can look for good ideas. The ideas could be random things that occur to you, or they could be information you want for which no research has been conducted (for example, if you'd like clinical testing conducted on a natural remedy you're considering). Prospective researchers could use ideas or use them as a jumping-off point for their own ideas. Researchers who do use ideas could mark them as such, thus drawing attention to their research. Users could also vote for other ideas, so the ideas that more people like get a more prominent place on the page. Perhaps this demand for the research could even be a factor in helping secure research grants?
However, I often come up with ideas for research in other fields.
Surely I'm not the only person in the world who has trouble thinking of something suitable to research. And surely I'm not the only person in the world who occasionally thinks "Hey, someone should do a study on that!"
So why not put the two together?
We need one single central website where people can post any research ideas they come up with, and would-be researchers can look for good ideas. The ideas could be random things that occur to you, or they could be information you want for which no research has been conducted (for example, if you'd like clinical testing conducted on a natural remedy you're considering). Prospective researchers could use ideas or use them as a jumping-off point for their own ideas. Researchers who do use ideas could mark them as such, thus drawing attention to their research. Users could also vote for other ideas, so the ideas that more people like get a more prominent place on the page. Perhaps this demand for the research could even be a factor in helping secure research grants?
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Things They Should Invent: drop-in daycare in medical buildings
This post was inspired by the following question from a Carolyn Hax chat:
Reading this, I remembered how one of the community pools where we'd have swimming lessons had a "daycare", which was really just a room where kids could go and play with toys under adult supervision while their parents participated in adult swim classes or took a younger sibling to an infant class.
So why not put something similar in medical buildings?
It would be easier than a regular daycare from the perspective of all parties. The daycare operators wouldn't need to plan a curriculum or provide snacks since the kids would only be there for an hour or two. And the parents wouldn't need to worry about whether the daycare provides an optimal curriculum and a classroom environment that's conducive to social development, all they need for a couple of hours is for it to be safe.
It wouldn't even be terribly extortionate for the daycare to be run on a for-profit basis and charge the parents market rates for their kids to attend, because any parents who are in the market for drop-in daycare while they attend a medical appointment would otherwise have to pay for child care during their medical appointment anyway.
I'm surprised there aren't more things like this.
Hello, I am feeling very overwhelmed and hope that I can get a kick in the pants. I have 2 children under 2. My husband and I moved to a city we hate - despite months of attempts, the moms groups have been very cold to me, for example. He is getting deployed, and is away for weeks at a time. It takes everything in my power to get up each morning and do things with my kids. I know I am battling with depression and/or PPD, but I can't go to a therapist because I don't have child care. I know the steps to take to help improve my mood and stress level (exercise, etc.) but I can't drag myself out of it all to start, and I just wind up eating junk on the couch after the kids go to bed. Any words of advice? Thanks, I've been reading this chat since the beginning.
Reading this, I remembered how one of the community pools where we'd have swimming lessons had a "daycare", which was really just a room where kids could go and play with toys under adult supervision while their parents participated in adult swim classes or took a younger sibling to an infant class.
So why not put something similar in medical buildings?
It would be easier than a regular daycare from the perspective of all parties. The daycare operators wouldn't need to plan a curriculum or provide snacks since the kids would only be there for an hour or two. And the parents wouldn't need to worry about whether the daycare provides an optimal curriculum and a classroom environment that's conducive to social development, all they need for a couple of hours is for it to be safe.
It wouldn't even be terribly extortionate for the daycare to be run on a for-profit basis and charge the parents market rates for their kids to attend, because any parents who are in the market for drop-in daycare while they attend a medical appointment would otherwise have to pay for child care during their medical appointment anyway.
I'm surprised there aren't more things like this.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Teach me how union finances work
There is clear choice in this election, said Hudak from Dundas on Saturday. Taxpayers can’t afford to pay big union boss salaries anymore or pay for their ad campaigns, he has said.
Does Tim Hudak not understand how union finances work, or do I not understand how union finances work?
My understanding, extrapolated from conversations with union members and observations from having worked in a unionized environment, is that union members pay union dues out of their salaries, and the expenses of operating the union (including advertising and any pay the union leaders receive for doing their union leader duties) are all funded from the union dues. My understanding is that the employer does not pay into the union (wouldn't that be a heinous conflict of interest?) So the amount of money a union spends on various things is between the union and its members.
Extrapolated to the provincial government, this means that the money union leaders get for their work as union leaders and the money unions spend on ad campaigns come out of the pockets of provincial public servants, in their role as the employees. The taxpayers, in their role as employer, aren't paying for any of it. And what the unions spend money on is between them and the public servants - the taxpayers and the government, in their capacity as employer, have no say in it or authority to change it.
Am I understanding this correctly? If not, please correct me in the comments.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Things They DID Invent: Interview Your Bully
A while back, I came up with the idea of interviewing bullies and other mean people to get inside their head and find out what they're thinking.
Turns out Salon is doing it, having people interview their bullies! Half of me thinks this is brilliant, half of me thinks no good can possibly come of it, and half of me wishes I was brave enough to do it myself.
Turns out Salon is doing it, having people interview their bullies! Half of me thinks this is brilliant, half of me thinks no good can possibly come of it, and half of me wishes I was brave enough to do it myself.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Things They Should Invent: sleepable ER waiting rooms
This story of a blogger's experience in the ER got tweeted into my twitter feed, and what struck me reading it is that, because he arrived in the ER in the evening and had to wait several hours, he basically went a night without sleep.
This sounds like a solvable problem.
What if there were cots for ER patients waiting to be seen? What if there were recliner chairs? What if, instead of just calling patients' names, the admissions people would actually go out into the waiting room to find them?
If patients could sleep in the waiting room, that makes wait times less of a problem. Compare the prospect of sitting for hours in an uncomfortable chair in a room full of sick people vs. the prospect of taking a nap and they'll wake you up when they're able to treat you. It would turn some ER visits (for example, a small child with a fever) from a nightmare to a mere inconvenience. Sleeping certainly gets better health outcomes than sleep deprivation. And hospital staff will have to deal with fewer angry/agitated/distressed patients if a significant number of patients are asleep.
With a few changes in furnishings and interior decoration, they can make the whole ER experience far easier and less stressful for everyone.
This sounds like a solvable problem.
What if there were cots for ER patients waiting to be seen? What if there were recliner chairs? What if, instead of just calling patients' names, the admissions people would actually go out into the waiting room to find them?
If patients could sleep in the waiting room, that makes wait times less of a problem. Compare the prospect of sitting for hours in an uncomfortable chair in a room full of sick people vs. the prospect of taking a nap and they'll wake you up when they're able to treat you. It would turn some ER visits (for example, a small child with a fever) from a nightmare to a mere inconvenience. Sleeping certainly gets better health outcomes than sleep deprivation. And hospital staff will have to deal with fewer angry/agitated/distressed patients if a significant number of patients are asleep.
With a few changes in furnishings and interior decoration, they can make the whole ER experience far easier and less stressful for everyone.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Ontario voter list mystery
I'm not on the Ontario voter list this election. I'm never on the Ontario voter list. Every single Ontario election since I was 18, I didn't receive a voter card and had to register on election day.
I have voted in (and registered at) every Ontario election since I was 18. Last election, I lived at the same address as I do now, so my registration from last election should be valid.
I was registered federally for, and voted in, the election this past May, and I'm pretty sure both federal and provincial get their voter's lists from the tax rolls. I recently got a jury duty questionnaire, which means provincial does know about me. But I'm not on the voter's list. And the same thing happens every election. Weird.
I have voted in (and registered at) every Ontario election since I was 18. Last election, I lived at the same address as I do now, so my registration from last election should be valid.
I was registered federally for, and voted in, the election this past May, and I'm pretty sure both federal and provincial get their voter's lists from the tax rolls. I recently got a jury duty questionnaire, which means provincial does know about me. But I'm not on the voter's list. And the same thing happens every election. Weird.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Things They Should Invent: incentivize clinical testing of natural remedies
Whenever I'm looking into natural remedies for various things, I keep running up against the problem that clinical testing simply hasn't been done so answers don't exist to the questions I have. A lot of the time I'm willing to take the risk and try it out on myself, but for certain things (like if I think might weaken my birth control pills, for example) I want hard data. And I keep googling up against the fact that studies haven't been done, because studies aren't required for natural remedies.
I don't want to make clinical testing mandatory, because that would take a bunch of stuff off the shelves until it gets tested, even if many people have been using it harmlessly and effectively for years and years. I just want to create some kind of carrot to encourage testing of natural remedies, and to remove any barriers to testing them.
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific ideas that wouldn't have been thought of already. They'd be able to put "clinically tested" on the label. They know that already. They could do they research as pure science, through universities, rather than commercially like pharmaceutical companies do. They know that already. Someone could start a non-profit. They know that already.
But it would be extremely useful if this could somehow be made to happen, and it would increase the credibility of natural remedies in the eyes of those who are likely to be skeptical, including conventional medical professionals who are disinclined to recommend useful remedies solely on the basis that they haven't undergone formal testing.
I don't want to make clinical testing mandatory, because that would take a bunch of stuff off the shelves until it gets tested, even if many people have been using it harmlessly and effectively for years and years. I just want to create some kind of carrot to encourage testing of natural remedies, and to remove any barriers to testing them.
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific ideas that wouldn't have been thought of already. They'd be able to put "clinically tested" on the label. They know that already. They could do they research as pure science, through universities, rather than commercially like pharmaceutical companies do. They know that already. Someone could start a non-profit. They know that already.
But it would be extremely useful if this could somehow be made to happen, and it would increase the credibility of natural remedies in the eyes of those who are likely to be skeptical, including conventional medical professionals who are disinclined to recommend useful remedies solely on the basis that they haven't undergone formal testing.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Teach me how Catholic school funding works
People talk about Catholic school funding as though everyone is paying for it out of their own taxes. Most recent example I've seen is from this article, written by a Catholic school parent:
So here's where I'm confused: from time to time, I receive a form from the municipal property assessment people that contains a question about which school board I want to support. I don't remember the exact wording and I don't have a form with me so I'm probably missing some information, but I remember that anyone can support the English-language public board, people who meet certain Catholic requirements (which I meet by virtue of having been baptised) can support the Catholic boards, and people who meet certain Francophone requirements (which I do not meet) can support the French-language boards. You can vote for trustees only in the board you support.
So is everyone really paying for the Catholic boards, or are they only being paid for by people who direct their taxes that way on their assessment? If they're being paid for by everyone, why does the municipal property assessment ask us which board we want to support? If they're only being paid for by people who direct their taxes that way, why do so many people think they're being paid for by everyone?
Now, you’ll hear defenders of the current discriminatory system say that the Catholic board is funded only by Catholic taxpayers who choose to direct their school taxes to the separate system. Not true: Catholic and public schools alike are funded by general provincial revenues, and the amount of funding each school gets is determined for both systems by a per-pupil formula set by the province. But even if it were true, it would be grossly unjust. Those who send their children to private schools aren’t exempt from paying taxes to fund the public system, just as those who drive are not exempted from paying taxes to support transit capital costs.
So here's where I'm confused: from time to time, I receive a form from the municipal property assessment people that contains a question about which school board I want to support. I don't remember the exact wording and I don't have a form with me so I'm probably missing some information, but I remember that anyone can support the English-language public board, people who meet certain Catholic requirements (which I meet by virtue of having been baptised) can support the Catholic boards, and people who meet certain Francophone requirements (which I do not meet) can support the French-language boards. You can vote for trustees only in the board you support.
So is everyone really paying for the Catholic boards, or are they only being paid for by people who direct their taxes that way on their assessment? If they're being paid for by everyone, why does the municipal property assessment ask us which board we want to support? If they're only being paid for by people who direct their taxes that way, why do so many people think they're being paid for by everyone?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Ever wondered what Ontario would look like with a different electoral system?
Check out Three Ontario Votes. You go and cast an imaginary ballot under three different electoral systems, and after the election they'll release the results, so we can see what our province would look like with a different electoral system.
Previous results models for different electoral systems use real-life election data, which is problematic because some voters' strategies might be different under a different electoral system. But this model lets you cast a vote under each of the systems being tested, for the election that's actually happening right now in real time.
We'll get extremely useful information out of this study - more useful than any existing data to inform any future decisions about electoral reform. I strongly encourage everyone of all political stripes to go to Three Ontario Votes and vote with each of the ballots so this information will be as complete as possible.
Previous results models for different electoral systems use real-life election data, which is problematic because some voters' strategies might be different under a different electoral system. But this model lets you cast a vote under each of the systems being tested, for the election that's actually happening right now in real time.
We'll get extremely useful information out of this study - more useful than any existing data to inform any future decisions about electoral reform. I strongly encourage everyone of all political stripes to go to Three Ontario Votes and vote with each of the ballots so this information will be as complete as possible.
Monday, September 19, 2011
How I want my doctor to approach alternative medicine.
I was pleased to see that CPSO is considering guidelines that are more open-minded about alternative medicine, but I'm concerned at the kinds of criticism this idea is receiving.
I would love to have my doctor give me alternative medicine advice because then I'd get one-stop shopping. My doctor would tell me if I would benefit from seeing a gastroenterologist or a gynecologist or a dermatologist. He would tell me if I would benefit from taking a certain vitamin or if I should avoid a certain over-the-counter drug. I'd also like him to tell me if I'd benefit from seeing a naturopath or taking a certain herb. I don't want to have to come up with the idea myself.
However, it concerns me that some organizations don't want CPSO even thinking about alternative medicine because it's "unscientific" or "unproven".
The reason why many alternative therapies are "unproven" is because they aren't required to undergo the same scientific testing as conventional medicine, so they often don't. The fact that they're unproven doesn't mean that they don't work, it doesn't mean that they're dangerous, it just means that the science hasn't been done yet.
Analogy: I have never in my life undergone any sort of formal English-language proficiency testing. That doesn't mean I can't speak English. Of course, you can't go around blindly assuming that I can speak English either, but you could conduct an informal, unscientific test by speaking to me in English, and the results of that would be a pretty good indicator.
I'm also worried that critics seem to be assuming that unproven = harmful. It's very possible for something to not have been tested scientifically but not be harmful. It's even possible for it be ineffective but not be harmful.
Analogy: When I was having difficulty swallowing, I googled up the reflexology points for the esophagus and massaged them. Is reflexology scientifically proven? A quick google is inconclusive. (To say nothing of the fact that my amateur attempt at reflexology was probably not properly done.) But it certainly wasn't harmful for me to sit there massaging my own feet on the off-chance that it might help.
One of the (many) things that frustrates me about GERD "treatment" is that conventional medicine and naturopathy recommend different (and often contradictory) diet changes. For example, conventional medicine says no to citrus and yes to low-fat milk products, and naturopathy is the other way around. So I find myself in the position of having two trained, credentialed, experienced professionals, both of whom have gotten results for me in the past, telling me opposite things. And, because I don't feel pain when I'm refluxing, I can't even do an experiment and see which works best for me.
I see conventional and alternative medicines as complementary tools in my toolkit, and I want my practitioners to work together as a team rather than competing with each other. When I see medical professionals getting alarmist, conflating "unproven" with "dangerous", it starts making me wonder if they have something to hide. And I don't want to be wondering if they have something to hide, because I need to be able to trust them - I'm not smart enough to figure stuff out myself.
If my doctor were to start warning me away from all alternative treatments just because they haven't gone through full clinical testing, I'll just end up feeling disinclined to tell him about any alternative treatments I might be experimenting with. I want him to warn me away from anything known to be dangerous, point me towards any treatments or alternative medicine professionals likely to be useful, and non-judgementally give me any information he might have about things that are harmless but likely ineffective. Anything less is useless to me and weakens the credibility of his profession in my eyes.
I would love to have my doctor give me alternative medicine advice because then I'd get one-stop shopping. My doctor would tell me if I would benefit from seeing a gastroenterologist or a gynecologist or a dermatologist. He would tell me if I would benefit from taking a certain vitamin or if I should avoid a certain over-the-counter drug. I'd also like him to tell me if I'd benefit from seeing a naturopath or taking a certain herb. I don't want to have to come up with the idea myself.
However, it concerns me that some organizations don't want CPSO even thinking about alternative medicine because it's "unscientific" or "unproven".
The reason why many alternative therapies are "unproven" is because they aren't required to undergo the same scientific testing as conventional medicine, so they often don't. The fact that they're unproven doesn't mean that they don't work, it doesn't mean that they're dangerous, it just means that the science hasn't been done yet.
Analogy: I have never in my life undergone any sort of formal English-language proficiency testing. That doesn't mean I can't speak English. Of course, you can't go around blindly assuming that I can speak English either, but you could conduct an informal, unscientific test by speaking to me in English, and the results of that would be a pretty good indicator.
I'm also worried that critics seem to be assuming that unproven = harmful. It's very possible for something to not have been tested scientifically but not be harmful. It's even possible for it be ineffective but not be harmful.
Analogy: When I was having difficulty swallowing, I googled up the reflexology points for the esophagus and massaged them. Is reflexology scientifically proven? A quick google is inconclusive. (To say nothing of the fact that my amateur attempt at reflexology was probably not properly done.) But it certainly wasn't harmful for me to sit there massaging my own feet on the off-chance that it might help.
One of the (many) things that frustrates me about GERD "treatment" is that conventional medicine and naturopathy recommend different (and often contradictory) diet changes. For example, conventional medicine says no to citrus and yes to low-fat milk products, and naturopathy is the other way around. So I find myself in the position of having two trained, credentialed, experienced professionals, both of whom have gotten results for me in the past, telling me opposite things. And, because I don't feel pain when I'm refluxing, I can't even do an experiment and see which works best for me.
I see conventional and alternative medicines as complementary tools in my toolkit, and I want my practitioners to work together as a team rather than competing with each other. When I see medical professionals getting alarmist, conflating "unproven" with "dangerous", it starts making me wonder if they have something to hide. And I don't want to be wondering if they have something to hide, because I need to be able to trust them - I'm not smart enough to figure stuff out myself.
If my doctor were to start warning me away from all alternative treatments just because they haven't gone through full clinical testing, I'll just end up feeling disinclined to tell him about any alternative treatments I might be experimenting with. I want him to warn me away from anything known to be dangerous, point me towards any treatments or alternative medicine professionals likely to be useful, and non-judgementally give me any information he might have about things that are harmless but likely ineffective. Anything less is useless to me and weakens the credibility of his profession in my eyes.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Why I've lost confidence in Dell
Every computer I've ever owned myself has been a Dell. Up until this past week, my experience with them has been consistent: I get 4ish good years of use, then have a hardware problem. The faulty hardware problem is promptly resolved via excellent warranty support, and I get another year or two out of the computer, after which I'm happy to replace it for something more up to date. Because of this longevity and excellent support, I've always blindly turned to Dell when buying my next computer, figuring it means I won't have to worry about my computer for five years.
Unfortunately, this confidence was shattered this past week.
The computer is a Dell XPS 15 bought brand new in December 2010. Last Saturday, I started having problems with Windows loading. Sometimes it would freeze on the Welcome screen, sometimes I'd get a black screen with a mouse cursor, sometimes the desktop would load but nothing I clicked on would do anything. After a System Restore failed without rebooting Windows, I called tech support.
I didn't have to wait on hold at all, just do the menu dance, and a very nice tech walked me through some troubleshooting. I appreciate his work because he started at a more advanced level than I'd been troubleshooting at rather than reiterating the basics, and was very patient through a troubleshooting process that took over an hour. We eventually determined there was a problem with my wifi adapter (I hadn't noticed because my primary internet connection uses an ethernet cable), so he uninstalled and reinstalled it, and my computer booted up beautifully. He then told me that I'd be receiving an automatic follow-up email, and if I had any further problems I should forward the email to the address indicated and they'd give me a priority call back. Brilliant idea! That would mean we don't have to troubleshoot from scratch if the problem reoccurs!
Unfortunately, the problem reoccured the next day (Sunday). And, on top of that, the computer couldn't find the wifi adapter that had just been reinstalled the day before. So I forwarded the email to the address indicated and got an automatic reply saying they aim to reply within six hours during their business hours (9-7 Central).
But they never called back.
I emailed again on Monday and Wednesday and tweeted @DellCares (who requested a DM with pertinent information and said they'd look into it), but I never got my callback.
Meanwhile, my computer was deteriorating. I was working in Safe Mode with networking, unable to access games or music or word processing. Boot-up was slower each time, the computer couldn't always detect its network card, bizarre things started happening (itunes opening when I plug in my ipod even though I specifically set it not to do that, then telling me it couldn't read the iphone even though it isn't an iphone; browsers giving me random encoding errors even on simple websites).
On Thursday, I gave up. I got an external hard drive, backed up all my stuff, and reinstalled everything from scratch using my recovery disk. It took three hours (back-up, reinstallation, and getting all my settings just so), but everything has been working properly since then (knock wood).
But this makes me lose confidence in Dell for two reasons:
1. Serious, mysterious problems that hinder useability even though my computer is only nine months old. I've never before in my lifelong relationship with Dell had to actually use the recovery disks. This makes me nervous. Whenever a boot-up takes a second or two longer than usual, I start worrying that it's a sign of a serious problem.
2. I didn't get a "priority" callback! I waited five days, requested it four times through two different mediums, and no one called me. I've always gone with Dell because I could trust their support, and now I can't? And this despite the fact that I invested in the biggest warranty possible? What will happen when I have a bigger hardware problem that can't be fixed with a full reinstall?
In the interest of fairness, I should say that I never called Dell back either. I had the option of calling them again and starting from scratch, and I opted not to, first because I still had internet access in safe mode and I decided I'd rather relax and go about my life than wait on hold/going through first-level support. I figured the phone would ring when there was someone ready and available to give me second-level support. I should also point out that, in response to my second complaint to them, @DellCares apologized and told me to contact them so they could escalate me if the problems reoccur after reinstallation.
But I've still lost confidence, mostly because they specifically told me that forwarding the email to the address specified would get me a priority callback, and it didn't. What other promised support might I not get in the future? What if it happens when I need to work? What it happens when I'm away from home and my full resources and dependent on wifi? (That is why I bought a laptop in the first place, even if I don't often end up taking it out of my apartment.) What if I were a less technically proficient customer and a full recovery wasn't easily feasible for me? And WTF even was the problem in the first place?
This loss of confidence spirals out and affects my interpretation of my whole relationship with the company. For example, during my tech support call, the technician told me about a product Dell solves that detects and repairs problems with your system. It was clearly part of his script to push this product, which I normally wouldn't have given any thought. But sitting there working in Safe Mode awaiting a callback that wasn't coming, I started wondering if they put something in the computers to deliberately make them malfunction so they can push this product.
Sometimes when people blog about problems with products or support, the company wants to make it right. The unfortunate thing in this case is that there's nothing Dell can do to make it right, apart from doing their jobs properly in the future. Getting my callback now would be useless since I got the computer working. Free stuff would be useless because there simply isn't anything I need from Dell. A store credit would be irrelevant because there wasn't money involved in this interaction, unless they wanted to give me a store credit that would last for five years and win back my trust in the meantime. (If I do have to buy a new computer in less than five years, it won't be from Dell).
All Dell can do to win back my confidence is have my computer work properly for the rest of its planned life, and give me support properly next time I need to call them, preferably without trying to sell me software at the same time. But, even so, I'll probably be doing at least some cursory comparison shopping next time.
Update: Dell initiated a follow-up call on Tuesday (9 days after I requested a call back) and we made contact on Wednesday after a round of telephone tag. They apologized for the delay, saying it was due to "technical reasons" (which doesn't instill confidence when I'm after a solution to a technical problem), listened to my whole story, and apologized for the mix-up, but there wasn't much else they could do for me because I'd already used the recovery disk.
Unfortunately, this confidence was shattered this past week.
The computer is a Dell XPS 15 bought brand new in December 2010. Last Saturday, I started having problems with Windows loading. Sometimes it would freeze on the Welcome screen, sometimes I'd get a black screen with a mouse cursor, sometimes the desktop would load but nothing I clicked on would do anything. After a System Restore failed without rebooting Windows, I called tech support.
I didn't have to wait on hold at all, just do the menu dance, and a very nice tech walked me through some troubleshooting. I appreciate his work because he started at a more advanced level than I'd been troubleshooting at rather than reiterating the basics, and was very patient through a troubleshooting process that took over an hour. We eventually determined there was a problem with my wifi adapter (I hadn't noticed because my primary internet connection uses an ethernet cable), so he uninstalled and reinstalled it, and my computer booted up beautifully. He then told me that I'd be receiving an automatic follow-up email, and if I had any further problems I should forward the email to the address indicated and they'd give me a priority call back. Brilliant idea! That would mean we don't have to troubleshoot from scratch if the problem reoccurs!
Unfortunately, the problem reoccured the next day (Sunday). And, on top of that, the computer couldn't find the wifi adapter that had just been reinstalled the day before. So I forwarded the email to the address indicated and got an automatic reply saying they aim to reply within six hours during their business hours (9-7 Central).
But they never called back.
I emailed again on Monday and Wednesday and tweeted @DellCares (who requested a DM with pertinent information and said they'd look into it), but I never got my callback.
Meanwhile, my computer was deteriorating. I was working in Safe Mode with networking, unable to access games or music or word processing. Boot-up was slower each time, the computer couldn't always detect its network card, bizarre things started happening (itunes opening when I plug in my ipod even though I specifically set it not to do that, then telling me it couldn't read the iphone even though it isn't an iphone; browsers giving me random encoding errors even on simple websites).
On Thursday, I gave up. I got an external hard drive, backed up all my stuff, and reinstalled everything from scratch using my recovery disk. It took three hours (back-up, reinstallation, and getting all my settings just so), but everything has been working properly since then (knock wood).
But this makes me lose confidence in Dell for two reasons:
1. Serious, mysterious problems that hinder useability even though my computer is only nine months old. I've never before in my lifelong relationship with Dell had to actually use the recovery disks. This makes me nervous. Whenever a boot-up takes a second or two longer than usual, I start worrying that it's a sign of a serious problem.
2. I didn't get a "priority" callback! I waited five days, requested it four times through two different mediums, and no one called me. I've always gone with Dell because I could trust their support, and now I can't? And this despite the fact that I invested in the biggest warranty possible? What will happen when I have a bigger hardware problem that can't be fixed with a full reinstall?
In the interest of fairness, I should say that I never called Dell back either. I had the option of calling them again and starting from scratch, and I opted not to, first because I still had internet access in safe mode and I decided I'd rather relax and go about my life than wait on hold/going through first-level support. I figured the phone would ring when there was someone ready and available to give me second-level support. I should also point out that, in response to my second complaint to them, @DellCares apologized and told me to contact them so they could escalate me if the problems reoccur after reinstallation.
But I've still lost confidence, mostly because they specifically told me that forwarding the email to the address specified would get me a priority callback, and it didn't. What other promised support might I not get in the future? What if it happens when I need to work? What it happens when I'm away from home and my full resources and dependent on wifi? (That is why I bought a laptop in the first place, even if I don't often end up taking it out of my apartment.) What if I were a less technically proficient customer and a full recovery wasn't easily feasible for me? And WTF even was the problem in the first place?
This loss of confidence spirals out and affects my interpretation of my whole relationship with the company. For example, during my tech support call, the technician told me about a product Dell solves that detects and repairs problems with your system. It was clearly part of his script to push this product, which I normally wouldn't have given any thought. But sitting there working in Safe Mode awaiting a callback that wasn't coming, I started wondering if they put something in the computers to deliberately make them malfunction so they can push this product.
Sometimes when people blog about problems with products or support, the company wants to make it right. The unfortunate thing in this case is that there's nothing Dell can do to make it right, apart from doing their jobs properly in the future. Getting my callback now would be useless since I got the computer working. Free stuff would be useless because there simply isn't anything I need from Dell. A store credit would be irrelevant because there wasn't money involved in this interaction, unless they wanted to give me a store credit that would last for five years and win back my trust in the meantime. (If I do have to buy a new computer in less than five years, it won't be from Dell).
All Dell can do to win back my confidence is have my computer work properly for the rest of its planned life, and give me support properly next time I need to call them, preferably without trying to sell me software at the same time. But, even so, I'll probably be doing at least some cursory comparison shopping next time.
Update: Dell initiated a follow-up call on Tuesday (9 days after I requested a call back) and we made contact on Wednesday after a round of telephone tag. They apologized for the delay, saying it was due to "technical reasons" (which doesn't instill confidence when I'm after a solution to a technical problem), listened to my whole story, and apologized for the mix-up, but there wasn't much else they could do for me because I'd already used the recovery disk.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Programming note
Currently experiencing technical difficulties. Blogging will resume once they've been resolved. Expect a review of the Dell XPS 15 and Dell warranty support once I'm back.
Friday, September 09, 2011
What to do when someone is standing in front of the seat you want on the subway
I always get really annoyed by people who stand in front of empty seats on the subway, blocking access to those seats for others who might want to sit down.
The other day, I was inadvertently that idiot standing in front of the seat. (The seat was vacated just before I was about to get off the train myself, and I was too oblivious to think to move.)
This lady moves in towards the seat, but I'm blocking the way. So she says to me "Oh, sorry, were you going to sit there?" Which led me to step back from the seat, give it to her, and apologize.
Some people argue that you should just ask standers who are blocking seats to move so you can sit down, but not everyone is comfortable with that approach and it is marginally confrontational, asking the stander to stop doing something (thus implying that they're being bad). This lady's approach allows both people to save face and look generous by offering the seat to each other, with the same end result.
Thanks, subway lady, and I apologize again for blocking your seat!
The other day, I was inadvertently that idiot standing in front of the seat. (The seat was vacated just before I was about to get off the train myself, and I was too oblivious to think to move.)
This lady moves in towards the seat, but I'm blocking the way. So she says to me "Oh, sorry, were you going to sit there?" Which led me to step back from the seat, give it to her, and apologize.
Some people argue that you should just ask standers who are blocking seats to move so you can sit down, but not everyone is comfortable with that approach and it is marginally confrontational, asking the stander to stop doing something (thus implying that they're being bad). This lady's approach allows both people to save face and look generous by offering the seat to each other, with the same end result.
Thanks, subway lady, and I apologize again for blocking your seat!
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Things They Should Invent: install stomach lining in the esophagus
Stomach acid is one of the most acidic things there is, but it doesn't harm the stomach because the stomach lining is strong enough to withstand it. However, it causes damage when it refluxes up into the esophagus, because the esophagus isn't meant to withstand stomach acid and therefore isn't strong enough.
Solution: come up with a way to line acid reflux patients' esophaguses (maybe just the bottom, maybe the whole thing) with stomach lining, so the acid reflux can't do any more damage.
Ideas on where to get the stomach lining from: could they remove a thin layer (not the whole thing) from the patient's stomach? Could they transplant it from a dead person? Could they grow it in a test tube from stem cells? Could they grow it in the esophagus itself from stem cells?
I'm not exactly sure how this could be done, but they can do face transplants and sex changes! Surely they can install a few inches of new lining!
Solution: come up with a way to line acid reflux patients' esophaguses (maybe just the bottom, maybe the whole thing) with stomach lining, so the acid reflux can't do any more damage.
Ideas on where to get the stomach lining from: could they remove a thin layer (not the whole thing) from the patient's stomach? Could they transplant it from a dead person? Could they grow it in a test tube from stem cells? Could they grow it in the esophagus itself from stem cells?
I'm not exactly sure how this could be done, but they can do face transplants and sex changes! Surely they can install a few inches of new lining!
Monday, September 05, 2011
Things They Should Invent: free chalk in public spaces at all times
Inspired by the impromptu memorial to Jack Layton, I think chalk should be available in all concrete-intensive public spaces at all times, so people could write or draw whatever they want on the concrete. Write whatever's on your mind, comment on other people's graffiti like people do in the more interesting bathroom stalls of the world, draw hopscotch and other playground games on the ground and watch as besuited office workers use them on their lunch break.
The first thought that springs to the minds of people who are going to object is "But people might write bad things!" That's okay, the beauty of chalk is that it's easily erasable (and washes away with each rain anyway). And in between rainfalls, public space can become a constantly evolving dialogue and art installation. Isn't that the essence of what public space is for?
The first thought that springs to the minds of people who are going to object is "But people might write bad things!" That's okay, the beauty of chalk is that it's easily erasable (and washes away with each rain anyway). And in between rainfalls, public space can become a constantly evolving dialogue and art installation. Isn't that the essence of what public space is for?
Sunday, September 04, 2011
On being hungry
The first symptom of what turned out to be GERD was a feeling of food being stuck on the back of my throat, which, over the next few days, quickly progressed to difficulty swallowing solid food. Food would simply take too long to pass through my esophagus, until I got to a point where I could only eat about a quarter cup of food and then had to wait a couple of hours for it to move down far enough to make room for more food. What with not being certain if it's a problem and then wanting to wait and see if it would go away by itself and then having a long weekend delay my initial doctor's appointment, I ended up spending over a week physically incapable of intaking anywhere near enough food.
And here's what I learned: being hungry makes me slow, stupid, and clumsy.
It took me about four or five days of not being able to get enough solid food down my throat to come up with the glaringly obvious idea of getting some liquid meal replacements. I read more slowly than usual, made more typos than usual, and often lost my place when proofreading. I spilled things on myself about three times as frequently, so that at any given time I'd have a wet spot or a stain on my shirt. I walked more slowly than usual. I got more easily distracted and frustrated by co-workers in other cubicles having ordinary conversations. I'd sometimes forget myself and scratch or pick my nose while in my cube or walking down the street where other people could see me.
Basically, I turned into one of the dumb kids in school. Not just the ones who got bad marks, but the ones who were slow and loud and messy and didn't follow instructions well and didn't listen to the teacher and did things like fall out of their chairs. The ones that my classmates, in the ignorance and cruelty of childhood and the language of the 80s, would have called "retards".
I've always been an A student, but if you took my hungry self and stuck her in school, she wouldn't have been able to achieve any better than a B if she's lucky. So what happens when you take an average student, someone less academically inclined, and send her to school hungry?
I've been doing my job with the benefit of sufficient caloric intake for 8 years, so I had a reputation for being competent at my job and not a total idiot in life in general, so a week of being slower than usual didn't do much harm. Plus I was having a clearly articulable, if then-undiagnosed, medical problem, so if anyone noticed I wasn't myself I could explain why. But what happens if people only ever see you when you're slower? What if this situation is baseline for you, so it never occurs to you that you could solve it with the input of more food?
Every once in a while, the idea is raised of schools providing breakfast so disadvantaged students don't have to go to class hungry. And one of the objections I always hear is parents talking about how their own kids sometimes just don't eat breakfast even though it's available at home, and complaining that all the food will end up going to non-disadvantaged kids who are just too lazy or spoiled to get up 15 minutes earlier and eat some oatmeal.
But based on this experience with undernourishment, and based on how it correlates with the traits of the kids who got labelled as stupid - and probably ended up thinking of themselves as stupid, because the whole time they were in school they were slower and clumsier and more easily distractable than everyone around them - I am absolutely certain that it's worth it to feed everyone who is interested so that those who are undernourised can be properly nourished. When I couldn't eat enough, my performance in all areas of life dropped a full letter grade. Imagine raising the most disadvantaged students' performance by a full letter grade with nothing more than a daily meal!
I don't have terribly high self-confidence, but I do have a certain sense of what I can do by virtue of the fact that I've always been an A student. Of course I can get into university! Of course I can do the next set of word problems in my math book! Of course I can read that great big long novel! But if this undernourishment had happened over a longer period of time when I was just starting school, my perception of my own capabilities would be a full letter grade lower as well. Instead of "Of course I can get into university!" it would be "Maybe I can get into university if I'm lucky." Which doesn't sound like a big deal, but imagine how it would play out at lower grade levels. "I'll never be able to read that book" could, with the simple application of food, turn into "I've never read a chapter book before, but it looks interesting so maybe I'll try." "I'll never get into university so there's no point in applying" could turn into "Maybe I'll apply and see if I get in anywhere." "I'll never be able to afford university" could turn into "Maybe I'll apply and see if I can get a scholarship."
I'd say those kinds of outcomes are certainly worth giving food to children even if they don't strictly need it.
And here's what I learned: being hungry makes me slow, stupid, and clumsy.
It took me about four or five days of not being able to get enough solid food down my throat to come up with the glaringly obvious idea of getting some liquid meal replacements. I read more slowly than usual, made more typos than usual, and often lost my place when proofreading. I spilled things on myself about three times as frequently, so that at any given time I'd have a wet spot or a stain on my shirt. I walked more slowly than usual. I got more easily distracted and frustrated by co-workers in other cubicles having ordinary conversations. I'd sometimes forget myself and scratch or pick my nose while in my cube or walking down the street where other people could see me.
Basically, I turned into one of the dumb kids in school. Not just the ones who got bad marks, but the ones who were slow and loud and messy and didn't follow instructions well and didn't listen to the teacher and did things like fall out of their chairs. The ones that my classmates, in the ignorance and cruelty of childhood and the language of the 80s, would have called "retards".
I've always been an A student, but if you took my hungry self and stuck her in school, she wouldn't have been able to achieve any better than a B if she's lucky. So what happens when you take an average student, someone less academically inclined, and send her to school hungry?
I've been doing my job with the benefit of sufficient caloric intake for 8 years, so I had a reputation for being competent at my job and not a total idiot in life in general, so a week of being slower than usual didn't do much harm. Plus I was having a clearly articulable, if then-undiagnosed, medical problem, so if anyone noticed I wasn't myself I could explain why. But what happens if people only ever see you when you're slower? What if this situation is baseline for you, so it never occurs to you that you could solve it with the input of more food?
Every once in a while, the idea is raised of schools providing breakfast so disadvantaged students don't have to go to class hungry. And one of the objections I always hear is parents talking about how their own kids sometimes just don't eat breakfast even though it's available at home, and complaining that all the food will end up going to non-disadvantaged kids who are just too lazy or spoiled to get up 15 minutes earlier and eat some oatmeal.
But based on this experience with undernourishment, and based on how it correlates with the traits of the kids who got labelled as stupid - and probably ended up thinking of themselves as stupid, because the whole time they were in school they were slower and clumsier and more easily distractable than everyone around them - I am absolutely certain that it's worth it to feed everyone who is interested so that those who are undernourised can be properly nourished. When I couldn't eat enough, my performance in all areas of life dropped a full letter grade. Imagine raising the most disadvantaged students' performance by a full letter grade with nothing more than a daily meal!
I don't have terribly high self-confidence, but I do have a certain sense of what I can do by virtue of the fact that I've always been an A student. Of course I can get into university! Of course I can do the next set of word problems in my math book! Of course I can read that great big long novel! But if this undernourishment had happened over a longer period of time when I was just starting school, my perception of my own capabilities would be a full letter grade lower as well. Instead of "Of course I can get into university!" it would be "Maybe I can get into university if I'm lucky." Which doesn't sound like a big deal, but imagine how it would play out at lower grade levels. "I'll never be able to read that book" could, with the simple application of food, turn into "I've never read a chapter book before, but it looks interesting so maybe I'll try." "I'll never get into university so there's no point in applying" could turn into "Maybe I'll apply and see if I get in anywhere." "I'll never be able to afford university" could turn into "Maybe I'll apply and see if I can get a scholarship."
I'd say those kinds of outcomes are certainly worth giving food to children even if they don't strictly need it.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Musical interlude
A couple of weeks ago, I ended up crying on the phone to my mother about all the things upsetting me about my GERD diagnosis. I don't often do this (I can't remember ever doing it in my adult life), but it made me feel a bit better. I was rather pleased to discover that crying to mommy still works and glad that that's an available option.
The next day, as I was getting ready for work, I heard that Jack Layton had just died. On top of everything else, he's exactly the same age as my mother, and his son is the same age as me.
This is the song that got me out the door that morning.
PS: Check out around 2:21 - let's just throw a guitar across the stage for no particular reason!
The next day, as I was getting ready for work, I heard that Jack Layton had just died. On top of everything else, he's exactly the same age as my mother, and his son is the same age as me.
This is the song that got me out the door that morning.
PS: Check out around 2:21 - let's just throw a guitar across the stage for no particular reason!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Overstock.com has good international shipping
I recently ordered something from Overstock.com. I was a bit hesitant because they ship by DHL (with which I've had bad experiences in the past), but I ultimately decided to buy it anyway because of the price and because the possibility of delivery is more convenient than having to go out to a store and schlep it home.
The first pleasant surprise is that Overstock guarantees the shipping and duty price - no COD! - which means that I can ask my super to accept the package for me.
The second pleasant surprise was when I got a Canada Post delivery notice, went to the post office, and found out that it was my Overstock order.
It turns out they use a service called DHL Globalmail for their international shipping (to Canada at least). I don't know exactly how it works, but on my end the result is that I get all the benefits of Canada Post delivery - no COD and the package ends up at the post office a block from my home rather than at some remote depot.
I'm very happy about this, and because of the convenience of the delivery I won't hesitate to order from Overstock.com again in the future.
The first pleasant surprise is that Overstock guarantees the shipping and duty price - no COD! - which means that I can ask my super to accept the package for me.
The second pleasant surprise was when I got a Canada Post delivery notice, went to the post office, and found out that it was my Overstock order.
It turns out they use a service called DHL Globalmail for their international shipping (to Canada at least). I don't know exactly how it works, but on my end the result is that I get all the benefits of Canada Post delivery - no COD and the package ends up at the post office a block from my home rather than at some remote depot.
I'm very happy about this, and because of the convenience of the delivery I won't hesitate to order from Overstock.com again in the future.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
How to get people to stop asking you for money
Put in your earbuds and walk down the street at your normal brisk, businesslike pace. Whenever you see someone panhandling or fundraising or otherwise trying to part you and your money, make direct eye contact, smile, nod, say "Good morning", and keep going without once breaking stride. Do this for a couple of weeks, and they'll all start ignoring you.
The earbuds give you plausible deniability of having heard the exact words they use to greet you, allowing you to make your own script. The direct eye contact and acknowledgement eliminates any incentive for them to take extraordinary measures to attract your attention. And the full polite greeting gives you control over the entire script for long enough to pass the other person walking at your normal brisk, businesslike pace.
After a couple of weeks of this, the panhandlers catch on that you're useless and focus their efforts on other people.
The earbuds give you plausible deniability of having heard the exact words they use to greet you, allowing you to make your own script. The direct eye contact and acknowledgement eliminates any incentive for them to take extraordinary measures to attract your attention. And the full polite greeting gives you control over the entire script for long enough to pass the other person walking at your normal brisk, businesslike pace.
After a couple of weeks of this, the panhandlers catch on that you're useless and focus their efforts on other people.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Slice of life
The time: just days after my 16th birthday. The place: driving school.
The driving school has three teachers. Two are fat and one is thin. (Which is a horrible way to characterize human beings, but it is the characteristic that is relevant to this story.)
On the last day of our in-class instruction, we're told to go up to one of the teachers and sign up for in-car lessons. A large number of students flock to the thin teacher. My first thought is that they're discriminating against the fat teachers, so I should counter that by choosing one of the fat teachers.
One of the fat teachers taught our in-class sessions, so I decide to choose the other one so she'll get a chance too. And that's how I decided who my driving teacher would be.
Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it is now apparent to me, based on my and my peers' experiences with the different teachers available, that the thin teacher was a better driving teacher. Everyone I know who had her said she was good, and they all turned out to be good drivers. Word had obviously spread about who the best teacher was, and I never thought to ask around because it never occurred to me that we'd get to choose our own teacher, or that it would even matter who our teacher was.
My teacher wasn't as good, in that she wasn't able to tell where I was at or what I didn't know. She assumed things were obvious to me that weren't, and gave me B's and C's on my in-car skills without telling me how to do them better. (And, me being my 16-year-old self, it never occurred to me that I might be allowed to ask.)
I'm certainly not under the impression that it's my teacher's fault that I'm a bad driver. I'm inherently nervous and skittish and clumsy. I'm not that good at manoeuvring my own body in space, never mind a giant metal machine. I find the act of driving exhausting, having to be so alert to so many things all the time. But sometimes I wonder if things might have turned out if I'd made a better decision in choosing my teacher.
The driving school has three teachers. Two are fat and one is thin. (Which is a horrible way to characterize human beings, but it is the characteristic that is relevant to this story.)
On the last day of our in-class instruction, we're told to go up to one of the teachers and sign up for in-car lessons. A large number of students flock to the thin teacher. My first thought is that they're discriminating against the fat teachers, so I should counter that by choosing one of the fat teachers.
One of the fat teachers taught our in-class sessions, so I decide to choose the other one so she'll get a chance too. And that's how I decided who my driving teacher would be.
Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it is now apparent to me, based on my and my peers' experiences with the different teachers available, that the thin teacher was a better driving teacher. Everyone I know who had her said she was good, and they all turned out to be good drivers. Word had obviously spread about who the best teacher was, and I never thought to ask around because it never occurred to me that we'd get to choose our own teacher, or that it would even matter who our teacher was.
My teacher wasn't as good, in that she wasn't able to tell where I was at or what I didn't know. She assumed things were obvious to me that weren't, and gave me B's and C's on my in-car skills without telling me how to do them better. (And, me being my 16-year-old self, it never occurred to me that I might be allowed to ask.)
I'm certainly not under the impression that it's my teacher's fault that I'm a bad driver. I'm inherently nervous and skittish and clumsy. I'm not that good at manoeuvring my own body in space, never mind a giant metal machine. I find the act of driving exhausting, having to be so alert to so many things all the time. But sometimes I wonder if things might have turned out if I'd made a better decision in choosing my teacher.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Is medical science working to eliminate the need for virtue?
The lifestyle changes that I've been whining about are considered, both by conventional and alternative medicine, to be the first step in treating the condition. The standard way of thinking is maybe they'll be all you need, and that would be a good thing. Medication and procedures are intended for more extreme cases, where lifestyle changes don't work.
This has me wondering: is anyone in medical science even thinking about it the other way around, i.e. can we invent a medication or procedure that would make the lifestyle changes unnecessary? Just make you not reflux at all, so you can have as much acidic food as you want?
(I haven't done extensive research this far, but what information I have suggests that medication for GERD are unsustainable in the long term because they can deteriorate your bones, and available surgeries might not necessarily last the rest of your life and might need to be redone. If you know of a medication or surgery that actually does stop GERD without lifestyle changes, please post it in the comments, I beg of you!)
This also reminds me of smoking. If you smoke, you're supposed to quit. There are tools to help you quit. But is there, or is medical science working on, a way to counter the harm done by cigarettes? Smoke a cigarette and then taken an anti-cigarette pill or something?
I've never heard of anything like this for anything.* Is that because science hasn't yet figured out how?
Or is that because of the Protestant-work-ethicish societal attitude that we should all just Be Good and Virtuous if we want our lives to work well?
I find myself wondering if that's true. So many of the people I've whined to were all "Oh, it's no big deal, you just have to make a few changes." But that's what's making me unhappy!
You'd think capitalism and big pharma would get behind this. Now, instead of people buying cigarettes, they can buy cigarettes AND anti-cigarette pills. Come on, get on it, our economy needs a boost!
*Update: I can think of one example: the morning-after pill. Another possible example is insulin, but I don't think diabetes management is quite up to the point where you eat whatever you want and then take the corresponding amount of insulin. Unless, of course, it is, in which case more power to you!
This has me wondering: is anyone in medical science even thinking about it the other way around, i.e. can we invent a medication or procedure that would make the lifestyle changes unnecessary? Just make you not reflux at all, so you can have as much acidic food as you want?
(I haven't done extensive research this far, but what information I have suggests that medication for GERD are unsustainable in the long term because they can deteriorate your bones, and available surgeries might not necessarily last the rest of your life and might need to be redone. If you know of a medication or surgery that actually does stop GERD without lifestyle changes, please post it in the comments, I beg of you!)
This also reminds me of smoking. If you smoke, you're supposed to quit. There are tools to help you quit. But is there, or is medical science working on, a way to counter the harm done by cigarettes? Smoke a cigarette and then taken an anti-cigarette pill or something?
I've never heard of anything like this for anything.* Is that because science hasn't yet figured out how?
Or is that because of the Protestant-work-ethicish societal attitude that we should all just Be Good and Virtuous if we want our lives to work well?
I find myself wondering if that's true. So many of the people I've whined to were all "Oh, it's no big deal, you just have to make a few changes." But that's what's making me unhappy!
You'd think capitalism and big pharma would get behind this. Now, instead of people buying cigarettes, they can buy cigarettes AND anti-cigarette pills. Come on, get on it, our economy needs a boost!
*Update: I can think of one example: the morning-after pill. Another possible example is insulin, but I don't think diabetes management is quite up to the point where you eat whatever you want and then take the corresponding amount of insulin. Unless, of course, it is, in which case more power to you!
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Teach me about driving
In driving, apparently you're not supposed to pass on the right. So if you're in the right-hand lane and the lane to your left is moving slower, what are you supposed to do?
(I honestly don't know. As I've mentioned before, I'm a bad driver, so I never got comfortable enough driving faster than other cars for this to ever be an issue.)
(I honestly don't know. As I've mentioned before, I'm a bad driver, so I never got comfortable enough driving faster than other cars for this to ever be an issue.)
Friday, August 19, 2011
How to raise taxes so it doesn't hurt
There are a number of jurisdictions in the world where raising taxes would be useful, but people don't want them to because it will hurt. Here's an idea on how to possibly make it not hurt.
If tax brackets are constructed properly, people whose gross incomes increase will always have a higher net income, even if it puts them in a higher tax bracket.
However, if taxes increase, it's possible that people whose gross incomes increase or stay the same might end up with a lower net income than before, and that's where it really hurts. (If your gross income and net income both increase, you still feel like "YAY, more money!" If your gross income decreases your net income will also decrease and that will hurt, of course, but it will hurt regardless of taxes.)
Here's an example of how it works. For simplicity, I'm pretending there's only one tax bracket. The principle still applies with tax brackets, it's just that even fewer people would be affected.
Suppose your gross salary is $50,000 and your tax rate is 20%. $50,000*0.8=$40,000, so your net pay is $40,000.
Suppose they raise the tax rate to 21%, and at the same time you get a raise and your gross pay increases to $51,000. $51,000*0.79=$40,290. So your net pay is still higher than it was last year, even though your tax rate has increased.
Now suppose that, instead of $51,000, your gross pay increases to $50,500. Your net pay would be $50,000*0.79=$39,500, which means you'd be taking home less money than last year even though you got a raise. THAT would suck.
So what they need to do is have some kind of grace period for the people in these margins, whose gross income increases but net income decreases because of the tax hikes. Maybe for a year or five years or something reasonable, they could guarantee that if your gross income increases, your net income will not decrease. If your gross income decreases, your net income will remain the same proportion of your gross income.
Given the nature of inflation, unless the whole economy is tanking (which it might actually be...), this will affect very few people. In the example I gave above, the pay raise to $51,000 is a 2% increase, and 2% is generally the target inflation rate. So everyone who isn't falling behind will still get a net pay increase. All they need to do is put in a bit of a net income guarantee for those who are falling behind, and it won't hurt.
If tax brackets are constructed properly, people whose gross incomes increase will always have a higher net income, even if it puts them in a higher tax bracket.
However, if taxes increase, it's possible that people whose gross incomes increase or stay the same might end up with a lower net income than before, and that's where it really hurts. (If your gross income and net income both increase, you still feel like "YAY, more money!" If your gross income decreases your net income will also decrease and that will hurt, of course, but it will hurt regardless of taxes.)
Here's an example of how it works. For simplicity, I'm pretending there's only one tax bracket. The principle still applies with tax brackets, it's just that even fewer people would be affected.
Suppose your gross salary is $50,000 and your tax rate is 20%. $50,000*0.8=$40,000, so your net pay is $40,000.
Suppose they raise the tax rate to 21%, and at the same time you get a raise and your gross pay increases to $51,000. $51,000*0.79=$40,290. So your net pay is still higher than it was last year, even though your tax rate has increased.
Now suppose that, instead of $51,000, your gross pay increases to $50,500. Your net pay would be $50,000*0.79=$39,500, which means you'd be taking home less money than last year even though you got a raise. THAT would suck.
So what they need to do is have some kind of grace period for the people in these margins, whose gross income increases but net income decreases because of the tax hikes. Maybe for a year or five years or something reasonable, they could guarantee that if your gross income increases, your net income will not decrease. If your gross income decreases, your net income will remain the same proportion of your gross income.
Given the nature of inflation, unless the whole economy is tanking (which it might actually be...), this will affect very few people. In the example I gave above, the pay raise to $51,000 is a 2% increase, and 2% is generally the target inflation rate. So everyone who isn't falling behind will still get a net pay increase. All they need to do is put in a bit of a net income guarantee for those who are falling behind, and it won't hurt.
Economics questions inspired by The Onion
A headline from The Onion: "Cackling Warren Buffett Burns Entire Fortune In Front Of Nation"
Seriously though, if that actually did happen, how would that affect the economy? Not Warren Buffett specifically, but what would happen if billions of dollars in cash were eliminated from circulation?
Somewhere along the way in life, I absorbed the idea that government can't just print more money to pay their bills because that would drive up inflation. If this is the case, burning a large quantity of cash should, logically, result in deflation. This would drive prices down, which would be useful to people whose incomes wouldn't immediately be driven down accordingly. If you owe a big mortgage and your income drops with deflation you might be in trouble (unless the money you can save on your more variable expenses makes up for it), but if you have a fixed salary and your expenses are either fixed or dependent on market forces, it would get a bit easier to make ends meet.
I don't know how many people fall into each category, but is it possible that if Warren Buffet burned his entire fortune, the economic consequences would make life easier for millions of people?
Another question is whether, if inflation would in fact be cause by printing large amounts of currency and, conversely, deflation would in fact be caused by the disappearance of large amounts of currency, does this phenomenon only work if the markets know about it? If they printed more money in secret, or if Warren Buffet locked himself in his office and ran his entire fortune through the paper shredder, would they still have the same economic impact?
Seriously though, if that actually did happen, how would that affect the economy? Not Warren Buffett specifically, but what would happen if billions of dollars in cash were eliminated from circulation?
Somewhere along the way in life, I absorbed the idea that government can't just print more money to pay their bills because that would drive up inflation. If this is the case, burning a large quantity of cash should, logically, result in deflation. This would drive prices down, which would be useful to people whose incomes wouldn't immediately be driven down accordingly. If you owe a big mortgage and your income drops with deflation you might be in trouble (unless the money you can save on your more variable expenses makes up for it), but if you have a fixed salary and your expenses are either fixed or dependent on market forces, it would get a bit easier to make ends meet.
I don't know how many people fall into each category, but is it possible that if Warren Buffet burned his entire fortune, the economic consequences would make life easier for millions of people?
Another question is whether, if inflation would in fact be cause by printing large amounts of currency and, conversely, deflation would in fact be caused by the disappearance of large amounts of currency, does this phenomenon only work if the markets know about it? If they printed more money in secret, or if Warren Buffet locked himself in his office and ran his entire fortune through the paper shredder, would they still have the same economic impact?
Thursday, August 18, 2011
More information please
The dignitaries smiled for the cameras, gamely wearing blue hardhats with grey shark fins protruding from the top and sides.
All, that is, except Ontario Tourism and Culture Minster Michael Chan, whose hardhat was distinctly de-finned despite the fish-themed frivolity at the ceremonial groundbreaking for the new Ripley’s aquarium.
An organizer of the event told the Star that Chan’s office said the minister would not wear the fake fins because of growing controversy in the GTA over the harvesting, selling and serving of sharkfin soup.
So does that mean he's for or against sharkfin soup? Seriously, I can't tell.
One more complaining post, then I'll blog about something different next
People I know who have serious or chronic medical problems complain that they feel betrayed by their body. Their body has always been strong or beautiful or fertile, and then suddenly it's not and it betrays their vision and sense of themselves.
I've never felt strong or beautiful or fertile. I've never needed to play sports or wear small clothing sizes or bear children or perform fantastic feats of sexual prowess or walk long distances or lift heavy things or be energetic or any of that stuff. I've always been quite willing to cheerfully admit that my body is pretty much useless for anything except sloth, and I have no problem with that.
Similarly, I've never been a terribly indulgent person. I'm an introvert with low novelty-seeking. I don't need to travel the world or climb mountains or set world records. I'm happy alone with a good meal and a good book. My happy places are food and fandom, and food is the only one over which I have control. (Fandom is dependent on other people creating new stuff - whether it be canon or forum posts - whereas I can just go buy a slice of cake whenever I want.)
This bastard knew just where to get me where it would hurt the worst.
I've never felt strong or beautiful or fertile. I've never needed to play sports or wear small clothing sizes or bear children or perform fantastic feats of sexual prowess or walk long distances or lift heavy things or be energetic or any of that stuff. I've always been quite willing to cheerfully admit that my body is pretty much useless for anything except sloth, and I have no problem with that.
Similarly, I've never been a terribly indulgent person. I'm an introvert with low novelty-seeking. I don't need to travel the world or climb mountains or set world records. I'm happy alone with a good meal and a good book. My happy places are food and fandom, and food is the only one over which I have control. (Fandom is dependent on other people creating new stuff - whether it be canon or forum posts - whereas I can just go buy a slice of cake whenever I want.)
This bastard knew just where to get me where it would hurt the worst.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Why I find my reflux disagnosis disempowering
The problem with reflux management protocol is that most of the lifestyle changes are negative. Don't eat this, don't eat that. Don't eat at these times or under these circumstances.
This is why I feel disempowered.
I felt empowered after my initial appointment with my doctor to treat my swallowing problem. He examined me, ordered some tests, and prescribed the most likely useful medication (which he totally got right in one!) I then had things to do. Go to the lab, drop off this culture, and give them some blood. Go to the pharmacy, fill this prescription, take it as directed. The results will either be useful or informative. Report to this location at this time to drink barium. I was helping generate data and find solutions.
One thing I found very useful in managing my weight was eating a salad when I got home every day. It wasn't a don't. I was totally allowed to eat whatever I wanted. I just had to have a salad first. And, over time, I could see a tangible achievement: look how my weight is dropping!
That's also how I manage my money. I divert a certain amount from each paycheque into a different, less accessible account. I'm not telling myself I can't buy stuff. I can buy whatever I want! I just have to move that money aside first. And, over time, I could see a tangible achievement: look at my life's savings!
But what are my achievements in managing reflux? I didn't eat tomato sauce today or yesterday. My morning coffee was 25% smaller. I didn't have wine yesterday. Those aren't tangible, and if I think about them too much I'll feel deprived. And the best possible result is I'm not feeling this little feeling that isn't even painful and is barely even present but makes me paranoid (although it was less present and paranoid-making today than yesterday.)
So I somehow have to figure out how to turn all the thou shalt nots of reflux management into positive actions to take.
I have a small, initial positive step. Traditionally, while I do my evening wind-down, I drink a glass of wine, a glass of milk, and a cup of sleepy tea, all over a period of two or three hours. The prospect of prohibiting wine is too overwhelming at this point, so what I'm doing is changing the order. Now it's milk, then tea, then wine. This means I might be ready to fall asleep before it's time for the wine, so I'll be ready to go right to bed without actually using self-discipline to deprive myself of the wine. It worked yesterday, while watching a comfort-food movie and doing my bedtime ablutions during commercial breaks. Will it work consistently? I have no idea.
Ironically, my high rate of tomato sauce consumption was originally a small positive step in eating healthy. I found myself craving pasta with tomato sauce with some frequency, so I decided to routinely eat it every day in as healthy a combination as possible (multigrain pasta, low-fat cheese, sodium-free tomato sauce) and eat it for breakfast. That nipped my craving in the bud and got a large, healthy breakfast into me so I could be alert for work and eat less later in the day when it's less healthy to do so. And now it looks like it's been hurting me all this time.
My 2008 New Year's Resolution was to step back when I'm feeling frightened and overwhelmed and use the tools at my disposal to restore my mood rather than trying to push my way through dark moods (which, I'd discovered, just prolongs them). This has served me very well and made my life much easier. But, I've discovered, one of the most effective tools to make this happen is comfort food, all of which is now contraindicated.
This is why I feel disempowered.
I felt empowered after my initial appointment with my doctor to treat my swallowing problem. He examined me, ordered some tests, and prescribed the most likely useful medication (which he totally got right in one!) I then had things to do. Go to the lab, drop off this culture, and give them some blood. Go to the pharmacy, fill this prescription, take it as directed. The results will either be useful or informative. Report to this location at this time to drink barium. I was helping generate data and find solutions.
One thing I found very useful in managing my weight was eating a salad when I got home every day. It wasn't a don't. I was totally allowed to eat whatever I wanted. I just had to have a salad first. And, over time, I could see a tangible achievement: look how my weight is dropping!
That's also how I manage my money. I divert a certain amount from each paycheque into a different, less accessible account. I'm not telling myself I can't buy stuff. I can buy whatever I want! I just have to move that money aside first. And, over time, I could see a tangible achievement: look at my life's savings!
But what are my achievements in managing reflux? I didn't eat tomato sauce today or yesterday. My morning coffee was 25% smaller. I didn't have wine yesterday. Those aren't tangible, and if I think about them too much I'll feel deprived. And the best possible result is I'm not feeling this little feeling that isn't even painful and is barely even present but makes me paranoid (although it was less present and paranoid-making today than yesterday.)
So I somehow have to figure out how to turn all the thou shalt nots of reflux management into positive actions to take.
I have a small, initial positive step. Traditionally, while I do my evening wind-down, I drink a glass of wine, a glass of milk, and a cup of sleepy tea, all over a period of two or three hours. The prospect of prohibiting wine is too overwhelming at this point, so what I'm doing is changing the order. Now it's milk, then tea, then wine. This means I might be ready to fall asleep before it's time for the wine, so I'll be ready to go right to bed without actually using self-discipline to deprive myself of the wine. It worked yesterday, while watching a comfort-food movie and doing my bedtime ablutions during commercial breaks. Will it work consistently? I have no idea.
Ironically, my high rate of tomato sauce consumption was originally a small positive step in eating healthy. I found myself craving pasta with tomato sauce with some frequency, so I decided to routinely eat it every day in as healthy a combination as possible (multigrain pasta, low-fat cheese, sodium-free tomato sauce) and eat it for breakfast. That nipped my craving in the bud and got a large, healthy breakfast into me so I could be alert for work and eat less later in the day when it's less healthy to do so. And now it looks like it's been hurting me all this time.
My 2008 New Year's Resolution was to step back when I'm feeling frightened and overwhelmed and use the tools at my disposal to restore my mood rather than trying to push my way through dark moods (which, I'd discovered, just prolongs them). This has served me very well and made my life much easier. But, I've discovered, one of the most effective tools to make this happen is comfort food, all of which is now contraindicated.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Diagnosis
So my barium swallow found that I have gastroesophageal reflux disease, commonly known as acid reflux. I should be happy about this - no narrowing of the esophagus, no damage, no mysterious lumps, the little valve between my esophagus and my stomach is just refluxing some. But I'm finding it disproportionately and irrationally upsetting.
The first reason why I'm upset is that I wasn't feeling any heartburn, I was just having trouble swallowing (apparently the reflux was causing my esophageal muscles to spasm, which explains why applying icy hot to the outside of my neck helped food go down smoother), so now every time I feel any little thing in my upper torso I'm all "OMG, is that heartburn?"
The second reason why I'm upset is it's chronic. I've had it for an unknown period of time (possibly even my whole life, we have no way of knowing) and it won't ever go away. I've never had that happen before. Every physical ailment I've ever had has always gotten better. It's a stupid thing to be whining about, I know, and many many people have chronic conditions, but it's a bit of a mindfuck and a paradigm shift.
The third reason why I'm upset is the list of things that contribute to it is rather extensive. From the literature my doctor gave me: "Alcohol, being overweight, smoking, citrus juices and tomato products, chocolate, tea, coffee, carbonated drinks, fatty and fried food, highly acidic food (pickles, sauces and vinegar), peppermint, onions, garlic, spicy foods." I don't smoke and I'm slowly and steadily working on the being overweight part, but I love everything on that list! When I'm stupidly stressed or upset like I am now, (and, ironically, one of the recommended lifestyle changes is to reduce stress) I reach for a glass of wine and some comfort food. They're now contraindicated. And when I eat something on that list (which even includes my fricking salad dressing because it has garlic and vinegar in it!) I get in this loop of worrying about every little thing I feel in my upper torso, then worrying because I'm getting stressed.
Intellectually, I know that I don't have to cut the contributing foods to zero. I know from experience in many areas of life that small changes can make a difference. I've been mindlessly eating tomato sauce pasta dishes every day of my life for the past 15 years. I can easily get that down to twice a week, and might even be able to get it down to once every couple of weeks. That in itself should make a noticeable difference. I can cut out mindless afternoon coffees that I don't really need. I can cut out spicy foods that I have no particular enthusiasm for but end up eating from time to time because I feel like my taste in food should be more worldly. But emotionally I still feel bad and guilty and like I'm doin it wrong for not being able to do it perfectly, and emotionally I'm still mourning the loss of so many of my favourite foods even though I don't have to lose them entirely, and then I feel bad for stressing because I'm not supposed to.
Intellectually, I know that I'm not even feeling pain (just freaking out over every tingle and itch in my upper torso) and that the purpose of the recommended lifestyle changes is to reduce discomfort, but emotionally that isn't making it any less overwhelming.
Intellectually, I know that this is a good diagnosis for the symptoms. My esophagus is not damaged. I don't require any procedures where they stick a scope down my throat. But I wasn't emotionally prepared for something that won't go away ever, even though it's minor.
Intellectually, I know that the medication I'm taking (Dexilant) has gotten excellent results so far and is going to fix my esophagus even more during the one-month course I'm taking. Two weeks ago I was physically incapable of eating more than four strawberries. A week ago I was eating normal amounts but having various side effects. Now I'm eating normal amounts and not having the side effects that I was having a week ago. If these silly little feelings that are making me nervous are in fact in my esophagus, this medication will make them better before I finish. I know that if, once the medication stops, I start having further difficulties, I can easily get more of it. But I can't seem to make myself be patient.
Intellectually, I know that life is basically the same. I've already had reflux for some time without knowing it, and I'm actually more empowered know because I know what it is and how to prevent it and what meds to take if it gets unbearable. But I suddenly feel disempowered, like it's completely outside my control.
And, intellectually, I know that at least half the people reading this are dealing with some worse medical condition. But I still can't turn off the useless part of my brain that's stressing needlessly and making me whine to y'all.
The first reason why I'm upset is that I wasn't feeling any heartburn, I was just having trouble swallowing (apparently the reflux was causing my esophageal muscles to spasm, which explains why applying icy hot to the outside of my neck helped food go down smoother), so now every time I feel any little thing in my upper torso I'm all "OMG, is that heartburn?"
The second reason why I'm upset is it's chronic. I've had it for an unknown period of time (possibly even my whole life, we have no way of knowing) and it won't ever go away. I've never had that happen before. Every physical ailment I've ever had has always gotten better. It's a stupid thing to be whining about, I know, and many many people have chronic conditions, but it's a bit of a mindfuck and a paradigm shift.
The third reason why I'm upset is the list of things that contribute to it is rather extensive. From the literature my doctor gave me: "Alcohol, being overweight, smoking, citrus juices and tomato products, chocolate, tea, coffee, carbonated drinks, fatty and fried food, highly acidic food (pickles, sauces and vinegar), peppermint, onions, garlic, spicy foods." I don't smoke and I'm slowly and steadily working on the being overweight part, but I love everything on that list! When I'm stupidly stressed or upset like I am now, (and, ironically, one of the recommended lifestyle changes is to reduce stress) I reach for a glass of wine and some comfort food. They're now contraindicated. And when I eat something on that list (which even includes my fricking salad dressing because it has garlic and vinegar in it!) I get in this loop of worrying about every little thing I feel in my upper torso, then worrying because I'm getting stressed.
Intellectually, I know that I don't have to cut the contributing foods to zero. I know from experience in many areas of life that small changes can make a difference. I've been mindlessly eating tomato sauce pasta dishes every day of my life for the past 15 years. I can easily get that down to twice a week, and might even be able to get it down to once every couple of weeks. That in itself should make a noticeable difference. I can cut out mindless afternoon coffees that I don't really need. I can cut out spicy foods that I have no particular enthusiasm for but end up eating from time to time because I feel like my taste in food should be more worldly. But emotionally I still feel bad and guilty and like I'm doin it wrong for not being able to do it perfectly, and emotionally I'm still mourning the loss of so many of my favourite foods even though I don't have to lose them entirely, and then I feel bad for stressing because I'm not supposed to.
Intellectually, I know that I'm not even feeling pain (just freaking out over every tingle and itch in my upper torso) and that the purpose of the recommended lifestyle changes is to reduce discomfort, but emotionally that isn't making it any less overwhelming.
Intellectually, I know that this is a good diagnosis for the symptoms. My esophagus is not damaged. I don't require any procedures where they stick a scope down my throat. But I wasn't emotionally prepared for something that won't go away ever, even though it's minor.
Intellectually, I know that the medication I'm taking (Dexilant) has gotten excellent results so far and is going to fix my esophagus even more during the one-month course I'm taking. Two weeks ago I was physically incapable of eating more than four strawberries. A week ago I was eating normal amounts but having various side effects. Now I'm eating normal amounts and not having the side effects that I was having a week ago. If these silly little feelings that are making me nervous are in fact in my esophagus, this medication will make them better before I finish. I know that if, once the medication stops, I start having further difficulties, I can easily get more of it. But I can't seem to make myself be patient.
Intellectually, I know that life is basically the same. I've already had reflux for some time without knowing it, and I'm actually more empowered know because I know what it is and how to prevent it and what meds to take if it gets unbearable. But I suddenly feel disempowered, like it's completely outside my control.
And, intellectually, I know that at least half the people reading this are dealing with some worse medical condition. But I still can't turn off the useless part of my brain that's stressing needlessly and making me whine to y'all.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
My barium swallow experience
My doctor ordered a barium swallow as one of the tests to diagnose my difficulty swallowing solid food. Obviously the first thing I did was google it, and read many scary things. Turns out it wasn't nearly as difficult or uncomfortable as the internet suggested. Here's my experience:
The referral went through in one week, and my test was scheduled two days after that. It was scheduled for 8:15 a.m., and I was instructed not to eat or drink anything after midnight the night before.
Once at the clinic, I checked in and had a negligible wait in the waiting room, and was then taken to a dressing area (co-ed, but individual stalls with curtains for doors) and was instructed to remove all clothing and jewellery between my shoulders and waist and put on a gown. The gown as big enough to wrap all the way around me once I could figure out how to tie it properly, although an older gentleman who was in at the same time seemed to have trouble getting his to tie properly and his was gapping. I was then taken to another area (had to walk in gown and pants through an area populated by medical professionals and gowned patients of both genders) where I was shown to an examination room. The only people in the examination room were me and the doctor, and the room had a door that closed.
The doctor had me stand on a platform, took some images before I drank the barium and some pictures after I drank the barium. He then had me drink something fizzy and took more images. Then he told me to hold onto the edges of the wall behind me, and, to my surprised, it started tilting backwards until I was lying on a table. He then had me move into different positions, tilted the table to different angles, and had me drink barium with a straw followed by drinking water with a straw, taking images all the time. This process lasted about 15 minutes, after which I was directed back to the dressing area, changed into my own clothes, and was free to go. I left the clinic 23 minutes after my scheduled appointment time.
The internet told me that the barium would taste chalky and kind of gross, but to me it tasted like nothing. The adjective "chalky" suggested to me that it would make me even more thirsty than I already was (remember, I hadn't had anything to drink in 8 hours), but instead it made no difference to my thirst - neither quenched it nor worsened it. Basically, it didn't make any difference to me whatsoever whether there was barium in my mouth or not.
I found the test easy, noninvasive, and completely free of discomfort. I wasn't entirely thrilled with the co-ed dressing area and walking around in a gown (I'm accustomed to changing in the examination room) but nothing went amiss in the dressing area and, since I could keep my pants on, I was actually more covered in the gown than in my street clothes. If changing clothes in one co-ed area and then walking to another area is in fact logistically necessary, they could resolve my privacy concerns by installing doors with locks on the stalls (like most clothing stores have) rather than using curtains like they do right now.
But, overall, it was no big deal and if I ever have to have one again I will have no dread whatsoever.
Takeaway:
- Time between GP appointment and being informed of barium swallow appointment: 1 week (7 calendar days, 5 business days)
- Time between being informed of barium swallow appointment and date of appointment: 2 days
- Time between test and when I was called with results: probably 1 day. (My doctor's office called me the day after the test, but I wasn't able to get back to them before closing so I don't know what it was about yet)
- Preparation: nothing to eat or drink after midnight (for an 8:00 appointment)
- Time in waiting room: negligible
- Total appointment time: 20 minutes
- What it tastes like: nothing. It neither quenched or worsened my thirst
- What to wear: separate tops and bottoms, because you're allowed to keep your clothes from the waist down
- What to bring: apart from whatever paperwork you need, bring a full bottle of water because you're going to want to drink water when it's over.
- Recovery: negligible. You'll probably need some food and water because you'll have been fasting, but you can walk right out of the lab and straight back into real life.
The referral went through in one week, and my test was scheduled two days after that. It was scheduled for 8:15 a.m., and I was instructed not to eat or drink anything after midnight the night before.
Once at the clinic, I checked in and had a negligible wait in the waiting room, and was then taken to a dressing area (co-ed, but individual stalls with curtains for doors) and was instructed to remove all clothing and jewellery between my shoulders and waist and put on a gown. The gown as big enough to wrap all the way around me once I could figure out how to tie it properly, although an older gentleman who was in at the same time seemed to have trouble getting his to tie properly and his was gapping. I was then taken to another area (had to walk in gown and pants through an area populated by medical professionals and gowned patients of both genders) where I was shown to an examination room. The only people in the examination room were me and the doctor, and the room had a door that closed.
The doctor had me stand on a platform, took some images before I drank the barium and some pictures after I drank the barium. He then had me drink something fizzy and took more images. Then he told me to hold onto the edges of the wall behind me, and, to my surprised, it started tilting backwards until I was lying on a table. He then had me move into different positions, tilted the table to different angles, and had me drink barium with a straw followed by drinking water with a straw, taking images all the time. This process lasted about 15 minutes, after which I was directed back to the dressing area, changed into my own clothes, and was free to go. I left the clinic 23 minutes after my scheduled appointment time.
The internet told me that the barium would taste chalky and kind of gross, but to me it tasted like nothing. The adjective "chalky" suggested to me that it would make me even more thirsty than I already was (remember, I hadn't had anything to drink in 8 hours), but instead it made no difference to my thirst - neither quenched it nor worsened it. Basically, it didn't make any difference to me whatsoever whether there was barium in my mouth or not.
I found the test easy, noninvasive, and completely free of discomfort. I wasn't entirely thrilled with the co-ed dressing area and walking around in a gown (I'm accustomed to changing in the examination room) but nothing went amiss in the dressing area and, since I could keep my pants on, I was actually more covered in the gown than in my street clothes. If changing clothes in one co-ed area and then walking to another area is in fact logistically necessary, they could resolve my privacy concerns by installing doors with locks on the stalls (like most clothing stores have) rather than using curtains like they do right now.
But, overall, it was no big deal and if I ever have to have one again I will have no dread whatsoever.
Takeaway:
- Time between GP appointment and being informed of barium swallow appointment: 1 week (7 calendar days, 5 business days)
- Time between being informed of barium swallow appointment and date of appointment: 2 days
- Time between test and when I was called with results: probably 1 day. (My doctor's office called me the day after the test, but I wasn't able to get back to them before closing so I don't know what it was about yet)
- Preparation: nothing to eat or drink after midnight (for an 8:00 appointment)
- Time in waiting room: negligible
- Total appointment time: 20 minutes
- What it tastes like: nothing. It neither quenched or worsened my thirst
- What to wear: separate tops and bottoms, because you're allowed to keep your clothes from the waist down
- What to bring: apart from whatever paperwork you need, bring a full bottle of water because you're going to want to drink water when it's over.
- Recovery: negligible. You'll probably need some food and water because you'll have been fasting, but you can walk right out of the lab and straight back into real life.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Teach me how layoffs work
Take the city’s buyout package now or you might be laid off later, Mayor Rob Ford warned 17,000 city workers who have so far spurned the effort to get them off the payroll.
Ford, appearing Friday morning on Sun News Network, was asked about layoffs in light of a Star story revealing that his administration now feels they are inevitable because of very low take-up of the city’s buyout offer.
“Now if they don’t take the package, what else do we have to do?” Ford said. “We might have to lay them off.”
If more of the eligible workers don’t agree to leave their jobs in exchange for up to six months’ salary, the city has no choice but to issue layoff notices to cut labour costs and tame the 2012 deficit, he said.
“The last thing we want to do is put somebody out on the street so we’re working and saying here, here’s a package, I’d advise you to take it. What else are we going to do?
“If someone else can come up with a solution, let me know.”
The internet's general interpretation of this statement is that people who volunteer will get packages, but if not enough people volunteer and the city has to forcibly lay off some people, those who are forcibly laid off won't get packages. I haven't been able to google up anything that explicitly confirms or disproves this interpretation. (If you have something more definitive, please do let me know in the comments.)
Is it normal to offer packages to those who volunteer to be laid off but not to those who are forced to be laid off? If so, why? The employer can afford to give packages to X people anyway, so why be so assholic about it? What does the employer gain by having people "volunteer" under duress rather than choosing who goes?
In the specific case of the City of Toronto, if they do in fact intend to offer packages only to people who volunteer, why are they encouraging more people to volunteer? If fewer people take packages, they'll have to spend less money. And if the general interpretation is incorrect and people who don't volunteer but are laid off anyway will in fact get packages, we're back to the question of why are they encouraging people to volunteer when they don't really want to?
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
An explanatory note
I recently experienced some kind of medical problem that made it difficult for me to eat enough. My doctor promptly prescribed a medication that has made it possible for me to eat normally again, and I'm in the midst of a battery of tests that's intended to diagnose the specific root of this problem and determine what treatment is needed, if any.
I'm writing this because I intend to blog about my experience with some of the medical tests (to make the kind of info I was looking for going in googleable), and I might blog about some thoughts arising from some of the symptoms. And I know it all sounds kind of scary when I'm sitting here saying that I couldn't eat properly, suddenly obsessing about medical tests, and not yet having a name for my ailment.
So here's the takeaway: nothing to worry about. I am now able to eat properly, I'm receiving appropriate medical care in a timely manner, and it's quite possible the medication I'm already taking is the actual solution to the problem. If not, it's going to be either an additional medication or a routine outpatient procedure.
This is getting blogged about because it's all very new to me (this is actually the first time in my adult life I've gone to a doctor without already knowing my diagnosis and necessary treatment), but as medical treatment goes it's objectively unremarkable and all this blogging is just my usual self-absorption.
I'm writing this because I intend to blog about my experience with some of the medical tests (to make the kind of info I was looking for going in googleable), and I might blog about some thoughts arising from some of the symptoms. And I know it all sounds kind of scary when I'm sitting here saying that I couldn't eat properly, suddenly obsessing about medical tests, and not yet having a name for my ailment.
So here's the takeaway: nothing to worry about. I am now able to eat properly, I'm receiving appropriate medical care in a timely manner, and it's quite possible the medication I'm already taking is the actual solution to the problem. If not, it's going to be either an additional medication or a routine outpatient procedure.
This is getting blogged about because it's all very new to me (this is actually the first time in my adult life I've gone to a doctor without already knowing my diagnosis and necessary treatment), but as medical treatment goes it's objectively unremarkable and all this blogging is just my usual self-absorption.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Things They Should Invent Words For
Today I was walking down the street when an e-bike drove past me. My first thought: "So THAT'S what an e-bike is." The same thing happened when I first saw a picture of Spongebob Squarepants. "Oh, THAT must be Spongebob Squarepants!"
This phenomenon, seeing a tangible thing you've previously only seen referred to in writing and instantly recognizing that it's what the word in question refers to, needs a name.
Nuances: This concept doesn't include when you learn what a word refers to by looking it up or having it explained to you. This doesn't include learning what a word refers to by hearing or reading it used in context. It is specifically the phenomenon of recognizing the referent the moment you see it with your own eyes, without clues or context.
This phenomenon, seeing a tangible thing you've previously only seen referred to in writing and instantly recognizing that it's what the word in question refers to, needs a name.
Nuances: This concept doesn't include when you learn what a word refers to by looking it up or having it explained to you. This doesn't include learning what a word refers to by hearing or reading it used in context. It is specifically the phenomenon of recognizing the referent the moment you see it with your own eyes, without clues or context.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Do landfills not work or something?
Two things that everybody knows:
1. You're supposed to cut up six-pack rings so fish don't get caught in them.
2. There's a big patch of plastic garbage floating in the ocean.
The question that both of these things raise: how is garbage that we intend to throw into a landfill end up in the ocean? When I throw something in the regular garbage stream (including six-pack rings), my understanding is that it ends up in a landfill somewhere in Southern Ontario and stays there forever, tragically never decomposing. Do landfills leak into the water table? If so, this needs to be more widely publicized. If not, how are all these plastic things getting into the ocean?
1. You're supposed to cut up six-pack rings so fish don't get caught in them.
2. There's a big patch of plastic garbage floating in the ocean.
The question that both of these things raise: how is garbage that we intend to throw into a landfill end up in the ocean? When I throw something in the regular garbage stream (including six-pack rings), my understanding is that it ends up in a landfill somewhere in Southern Ontario and stays there forever, tragically never decomposing. Do landfills leak into the water table? If so, this needs to be more widely publicized. If not, how are all these plastic things getting into the ocean?
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Things They Should Invent: WhatDoYouDoAllDay.com
Many people don't fully understand what jobs they've never done entail. For example, I blogged before about how I don't know what pharmacists do other than dispense and advise about drugs. When I worked in fast food, some of my customers clearly didn't understand (both to their frustration and to mine) that I had scheduled tasks to do in addition to making food and ringing in customers. I still don't understand what social workers do (people keep explaining it to me as "assisting clients with X" and "supporting clients in Y", but no one elaborates on how exactly they assist and support).
Apart from general interest, sometimes people go into a certain field without fully understanding what the job entails, and sometimes people loudly complain that certain jobs are overpaid without fully understanding what the job entails (which is particularly problematic for public-sector jobs, where a critical mass of loud complaining - even if it comes from a place of ignorance - can result in working conditions being unfairly worsened.)
We need a single central website where people in different jobs can describe in detail exactly what it is they do all day, including the parts of the job that their clients don't see. It would also be interesting to have information like what's annoying and what's rewarding? What rules hinder you and what small pleasures are there? If they could keep it well-moderated, they could even have readers ask questions. But mostly we need a full view of what exactly it is everyone does all day.
Apart from general interest, sometimes people go into a certain field without fully understanding what the job entails, and sometimes people loudly complain that certain jobs are overpaid without fully understanding what the job entails (which is particularly problematic for public-sector jobs, where a critical mass of loud complaining - even if it comes from a place of ignorance - can result in working conditions being unfairly worsened.)
We need a single central website where people in different jobs can describe in detail exactly what it is they do all day, including the parts of the job that their clients don't see. It would also be interesting to have information like what's annoying and what's rewarding? What rules hinder you and what small pleasures are there? If they could keep it well-moderated, they could even have readers ask questions. But mostly we need a full view of what exactly it is everyone does all day.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Why it would not be appropriate for the library to charge for hold delivery
I've seen a number of comment-thread commenters suggest that, as a budgetary measure, the library should start charging to deliver holds. But that wouldn't be appropriate, because if the library were to charge for delivering holds, it would create a two-tiered system.
Popular novels tend to accumulate far more holds than the library has copies even before they're released. This means that all copies in the system are sent to people with holds on it, and (with the exception of the "Best Bets" section) none of the copies are in the library.
Currently, anyone can put a hold on a book, so everyone has an equal chance of getting at the book. You just have to get in line.
But if they started charging money for holds, only people who can afford to pay would place holds. This means that richer patrons would get at the books before poorer patrons, because the poorer patrons can't afford to get in line. Speaking as someone who could easily afford to pay a fee for this service if necessary, I consider that unfair, unacceptable, and contrary to the mission of libraries.
At this point, some people are thinking "But what if you can place the holds for free, just not have the delivered to your home branch?" The problem is that would still create a two-tiered system. Think for a moment about how such a system would work. Either patrons would only be able to put holds on books that live at their home branch, or they'd have to pick up the hold wherever the book happens to be. If we are limited to putting holds on books that live at our home branch, that's a two-tiered system because the pool from which we can place holds is significantly smaller. If we have to pick up holds wherever they happen to be, then we might have to go to any corner of the city - very likely over an hour by bus given how wide-spread our city is.
I also question whether that would actually save any significant amount of money given how often books need to be shipped around anyway. If you return a book at a different branch (say you return it at the branch near work even though you checked it out from the branch near home) they have to ship it home anyway. If it's already been subject to a delivery hold, it will need to be shipped home. And if they're shipping them to one branch anyway, how much more expensive could it be to ship it to another branch?
In any case, charging for holds would have the basic effect of allowing richer patrons to access our entire library system, while poorer patrons are limited to the collection at their local branch, which completely defeats the purpose the fantastic library system our city has worked so hard to build.
Popular novels tend to accumulate far more holds than the library has copies even before they're released. This means that all copies in the system are sent to people with holds on it, and (with the exception of the "Best Bets" section) none of the copies are in the library.
Currently, anyone can put a hold on a book, so everyone has an equal chance of getting at the book. You just have to get in line.
But if they started charging money for holds, only people who can afford to pay would place holds. This means that richer patrons would get at the books before poorer patrons, because the poorer patrons can't afford to get in line. Speaking as someone who could easily afford to pay a fee for this service if necessary, I consider that unfair, unacceptable, and contrary to the mission of libraries.
At this point, some people are thinking "But what if you can place the holds for free, just not have the delivered to your home branch?" The problem is that would still create a two-tiered system. Think for a moment about how such a system would work. Either patrons would only be able to put holds on books that live at their home branch, or they'd have to pick up the hold wherever the book happens to be. If we are limited to putting holds on books that live at our home branch, that's a two-tiered system because the pool from which we can place holds is significantly smaller. If we have to pick up holds wherever they happen to be, then we might have to go to any corner of the city - very likely over an hour by bus given how wide-spread our city is.
I also question whether that would actually save any significant amount of money given how often books need to be shipped around anyway. If you return a book at a different branch (say you return it at the branch near work even though you checked it out from the branch near home) they have to ship it home anyway. If it's already been subject to a delivery hold, it will need to be shipped home. And if they're shipping them to one branch anyway, how much more expensive could it be to ship it to another branch?
In any case, charging for holds would have the basic effect of allowing richer patrons to access our entire library system, while poorer patrons are limited to the collection at their local branch, which completely defeats the purpose the fantastic library system our city has worked so hard to build.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Why Rob Ford and his allies should be responsive to slactivism
Doug Ford says:
But then Rob Ford said:
So if their base consists of very busy people, why do they insist that people make the time-consuming effort of going all the way down to city hall and waiting around all day to speak in person? As a person who is in fact busy working, I find that prohibitive. Shouldn't they be more responsive to emails? Petitions? Facebook groups? I've noticed on more than one occasion they seem to write off existing feedback as insufficiently effortful and encourage people to use other methods of communication. If their base consists of busy people, they should be making it easier, not harder, to state one's case.
“Ford Nation is too busy working, paying taxes, creating jobs. That’s what they are doing.”
But then Rob Ford said:
“I encourage people to come to the executive committee next Thursday,” he said during an interview on CP24. “Everyone has five minutes to talk to me personally at our executive committee. I invite the whole city. I don’t care if we have to sit there for three days. I don’t want to have people ... they have five minutes to tell me what business do you think we should be in. And it’s next Thursday at 9:30 at city hall. Come and let me know what you think – the average taxpayer out there – what are we doing right, what are we doing wrong. I want to hear from the people and I encourage them to come.“
So if their base consists of very busy people, why do they insist that people make the time-consuming effort of going all the way down to city hall and waiting around all day to speak in person? As a person who is in fact busy working, I find that prohibitive. Shouldn't they be more responsive to emails? Petitions? Facebook groups? I've noticed on more than one occasion they seem to write off existing feedback as insufficiently effortful and encourage people to use other methods of communication. If their base consists of busy people, they should be making it easier, not harder, to state one's case.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The other other awesome thing about libraries
With silly attitudes towards libraries in the news lately and having recently lived through the hottest day of my life so far, I find myself thinking about another benefit of libraries: they're a place where everyone is allowed to be. Not just where everyone is allowed to go, but where everyone is allowed to be.
If you want to hang out in Tim Hortons, you need to buy a coffee. If you want to hang out in the mall food court, they can kick you out for loitering if they want. But you are allowed - and in fact welcome - to hang out in the library for as long as you want. It's climate-controlled, there are comfy seats, there's psychological privacy (you're in an open room, but people generally mind their own business, and no one will think it's strange if you find an inconspicuous nook somewhere and hide there), and there are no rules about what you should be doing apart from not disturbing others. You don't have to be doing schoolwork, you don't have to be using library materials, you don't have to be doing something serious or important, you don't even have to be awake. You're just allowed to be there, for as long as it's open, doing your own thing.
It's very easy to forget how important this is when you're in a position of privilege. I myself don't hang out at the library that often, I tend to just swoop in, pick up my books, and go home. But that's because home is a comfy, internet-equipped, air-conditioned apartment that I have all to myself. Not everyone has that privilege. If home is too crowded or noisy or uncomfortable or abusive or non-existent, having somewhere else to go - a perfectly respectable place to go and to be (compare the connotations of spending hours in the library vs. spending hours in the bar) - can be a lifesaver. And once you're there, it's full of tools for educating and improving yourself or, worst case, quietly amusing yourself.
And despite the fact that it's of such value to the most marginalized people, it is not by any means charity. It's something literally everyone uses.
If you want to hang out in Tim Hortons, you need to buy a coffee. If you want to hang out in the mall food court, they can kick you out for loitering if they want. But you are allowed - and in fact welcome - to hang out in the library for as long as you want. It's climate-controlled, there are comfy seats, there's psychological privacy (you're in an open room, but people generally mind their own business, and no one will think it's strange if you find an inconspicuous nook somewhere and hide there), and there are no rules about what you should be doing apart from not disturbing others. You don't have to be doing schoolwork, you don't have to be using library materials, you don't have to be doing something serious or important, you don't even have to be awake. You're just allowed to be there, for as long as it's open, doing your own thing.
It's very easy to forget how important this is when you're in a position of privilege. I myself don't hang out at the library that often, I tend to just swoop in, pick up my books, and go home. But that's because home is a comfy, internet-equipped, air-conditioned apartment that I have all to myself. Not everyone has that privilege. If home is too crowded or noisy or uncomfortable or abusive or non-existent, having somewhere else to go - a perfectly respectable place to go and to be (compare the connotations of spending hours in the library vs. spending hours in the bar) - can be a lifesaver. And once you're there, it's full of tools for educating and improving yourself or, worst case, quietly amusing yourself.
And despite the fact that it's of such value to the most marginalized people, it is not by any means charity. It's something literally everyone uses.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Amy, Amy, Amy.
I was saddened to hear that Amy Winehouse was found dead earlier today. She was only 27.
I first heard Amy Winehouse sing in this mashup, where she put Ella Fitzgerald to shame (Ella is the first voice you hear, Amy is the second).
I had heard of her from media coverage of her private life, but I was rather surprised to discover that someone who attracted that kind of coverage was also such a genuine talent.
The world is now worse off for no longer having that talent among us, with all its potential forever unfulfilled. And it's tragic that even with all that talent and wealth she was never able to find peace.
Here are a few of her songs that always end up on repeat:
I first heard Amy Winehouse sing in this mashup, where she put Ella Fitzgerald to shame (Ella is the first voice you hear, Amy is the second).
I had heard of her from media coverage of her private life, but I was rather surprised to discover that someone who attracted that kind of coverage was also such a genuine talent.
The world is now worse off for no longer having that talent among us, with all its potential forever unfulfilled. And it's tragic that even with all that talent and wealth she was never able to find peace.
Here are a few of her songs that always end up on repeat:
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The problem with conventional thinking about machine translation
Reading In the Plex, Steven Levy's fascinating biography of Google, I came across the following quote from machine translation pioneer Warren Weaver:
I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is incorrect, and people who don't find themselves able to get past this way of thinking end up being very poor translators.
A more accurate approach would be "This idea really exists in a system of pure concepts unbounded by the limits of language or human imagination, but it has been coded in a way that one subset of puny humans can understand. I will now encode it for another subset of puny humans to understand."
To translate well, you have to grasp the concepts without the influence of the source language, then render them in the target language. You're stripping the code off and applying a new one.
If you translate Russian to English by assuming that the Russian is really in English, what you're going to end up with is an English text that is really Russian. Your Anglophone readers will be able to tell, and might even have trouble understanding the English.
The Russian text is not and has never been English. There's no reason for it to be. The Russian author need never have had a thought in English. He need never have even heard of English. Are your English thoughts really in Russian? Are they in Basque? Xhosa? Aramaic? Of course not! They're in English, and there's no need or reason for them to be in any other language.
This is a tricky concept for people who don't already grasp it to grasp, because when we start learning a new language (and often for years and years of our foray into a new language) everything we say or write in that language is really in English (assuming you're Anglophone - if you're not, then, for simplicity's sake, mentally search and replace "English" with your mother tongue for the purpose of this blog post). We learn on the first day of French class that je m'appelle means "my name is". But je m'appelle isn't the English phrase "my name is" coded into French. (If anything is that, it would be mon nom est.) The literal gloss of je m'appelle is "I call myself", but je m'appelle isn't the English idea "I call myself" coded into French either. If anything, it's the abstract idea of "I am introducing myself and the next thing I say is going to be my name" encoded into French. The French code for that concept is je m'appelle, the English code is "my name is".
I'm trying to work on a better analogy to explain this concept to people who don't already grok it, but here's the best I've got so far:
Think of the childhood game of Telephone, where the first person whispers something to the second person, then the second person whispers what they heard to the third person, and so on and so on until the last person says out loud what they heard and you all have a good laugh over how mangled it got.
What Mr. Weaver is proposing is analogous to trying your very very best to render exactly what you heard the person before you say.
But to grasp concepts without the influence of language and translate well is analogous to listening to what the person before you said and using your knowledge of language patterns and habits to determine what the original person actually said despite the interference.
Which defeats the purpose of Telephone, but is the very essence of good translation.
When I look at an article in Russian, I say, "This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I will now proceed to decode."
I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is incorrect, and people who don't find themselves able to get past this way of thinking end up being very poor translators.
A more accurate approach would be "This idea really exists in a system of pure concepts unbounded by the limits of language or human imagination, but it has been coded in a way that one subset of puny humans can understand. I will now encode it for another subset of puny humans to understand."
To translate well, you have to grasp the concepts without the influence of the source language, then render them in the target language. You're stripping the code off and applying a new one.
If you translate Russian to English by assuming that the Russian is really in English, what you're going to end up with is an English text that is really Russian. Your Anglophone readers will be able to tell, and might even have trouble understanding the English.
The Russian text is not and has never been English. There's no reason for it to be. The Russian author need never have had a thought in English. He need never have even heard of English. Are your English thoughts really in Russian? Are they in Basque? Xhosa? Aramaic? Of course not! They're in English, and there's no need or reason for them to be in any other language.
This is a tricky concept for people who don't already grasp it to grasp, because when we start learning a new language (and often for years and years of our foray into a new language) everything we say or write in that language is really in English (assuming you're Anglophone - if you're not, then, for simplicity's sake, mentally search and replace "English" with your mother tongue for the purpose of this blog post). We learn on the first day of French class that je m'appelle means "my name is". But je m'appelle isn't the English phrase "my name is" coded into French. (If anything is that, it would be mon nom est.) The literal gloss of je m'appelle is "I call myself", but je m'appelle isn't the English idea "I call myself" coded into French either. If anything, it's the abstract idea of "I am introducing myself and the next thing I say is going to be my name" encoded into French. The French code for that concept is je m'appelle, the English code is "my name is".
I'm trying to work on a better analogy to explain this concept to people who don't already grok it, but here's the best I've got so far:
Think of the childhood game of Telephone, where the first person whispers something to the second person, then the second person whispers what they heard to the third person, and so on and so on until the last person says out loud what they heard and you all have a good laugh over how mangled it got.
What Mr. Weaver is proposing is analogous to trying your very very best to render exactly what you heard the person before you say.
But to grasp concepts without the influence of language and translate well is analogous to listening to what the person before you said and using your knowledge of language patterns and habits to determine what the original person actually said despite the interference.
Which defeats the purpose of Telephone, but is the very essence of good translation.
Monday, July 18, 2011
This should be a tweet, but I can't get it down to 140
I find myself wondering how people who truly, genuinely believe in and fear hell can bring themselves to have children. Because bringing a child into a world where hell exists introduces the possibility that the kid will go to hell someday.
I did once yearn to have children, I did once genuinely fear hell, and I do have your basic adult hormonal child protection instincts, which I'd imagine are massively stronger when it's your own child.
It's perfectly normal protective instincts to be willing to risk one's life to save one's child's life. But, for those who believe in it, the threat of far is vastly worse than the threat of death. Death is a sudden extinguishing of life, while hell is eternal torture without hope of reprieve. Religious traditions with a strong fear of hell do tend to contain the idea that it's your religious duty to have children. But if any parent would risk their life for their child's life, wouldn't they also risk hell to save their child from hell?
It is true that parents tend to think "But MY child will be GOOD," but your basic human decency isn't usually enough in hellfearing religions. Religious traditions with a strong fear of hell also tend to make it difficult to get into heaven. The slightest lapse of virtue can send you to hell, and in some cases even a virtuous life with improper rites can send you to hell. Thinking back to my previous mindset of hellfear and adding protective instincts, the risk of having a child go to hell far outweighs the biological/hormonal yearning to have a baby and any other benefits of procreation that I can think of.
I wonder what other factors there are for hellfearing parents that outweigh even the horrors of hell?
I did once yearn to have children, I did once genuinely fear hell, and I do have your basic adult hormonal child protection instincts, which I'd imagine are massively stronger when it's your own child.
It's perfectly normal protective instincts to be willing to risk one's life to save one's child's life. But, for those who believe in it, the threat of far is vastly worse than the threat of death. Death is a sudden extinguishing of life, while hell is eternal torture without hope of reprieve. Religious traditions with a strong fear of hell do tend to contain the idea that it's your religious duty to have children. But if any parent would risk their life for their child's life, wouldn't they also risk hell to save their child from hell?
It is true that parents tend to think "But MY child will be GOOD," but your basic human decency isn't usually enough in hellfearing religions. Religious traditions with a strong fear of hell also tend to make it difficult to get into heaven. The slightest lapse of virtue can send you to hell, and in some cases even a virtuous life with improper rites can send you to hell. Thinking back to my previous mindset of hellfear and adding protective instincts, the risk of having a child go to hell far outweighs the biological/hormonal yearning to have a baby and any other benefits of procreation that I can think of.
I wonder what other factors there are for hellfearing parents that outweigh even the horrors of hell?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
How long do we have to keep stating the obvious for?
Despite the bombshell nature of many of the cuts suggested this week by a city-hired consultant, there is no stampede of Torontonians signing up to tell the politicians face-to-face, or in writing, how they feel about them.
I'll admit it never occurred to me to tell politicians how I feel about them. You know why? Because it's so blatantly obvious that they're destructive and unworkable, and I figured it's just as blatantly obvious to anyone who lives in the world. The KPMG study proves that there simply aren't workable cuts to be had by listing what few remaining things could even legally be cut. It isn't advocating cutting these things, it's pointing out how destructive large-scale cuts would be by saying that these important things are the things that would remain to be cut if large-scale cuts were to happen.
It really frustrates me that not wasting my time stating the obvious to politicians could be interpreted as support for or indifference to such destructive measures. And I think, on top of all the damage already being done to our city, this need to constantly be loudly shouting the obvious at the top of our lungs is also destructive to our city, because it takes away energy that could otherwise be used to think of ways to make things even better.
It's like if you had to say to every person you encountered "Please don't hurt me," and if you didn't they'd hurt you. That would be really draining, wouldn't it? You have to be totally on top of making sure you noticed every single person around you and said "Please don't hurt me" to them, plus it would preclude saying "Hi, how are you?" or "I love your shoes!" or "Can I pet your doggie?" And on top of that, it would also take up the energy you need to think "This sidewalk would be more easily navigable if the planters were flush with the curb" or "Hey, that store might sell greeting cards" or "What if I used the egg slicer to slice the mushrooms?"
Real life operates under a tacit assumption of the obvious. Of course people don't want you to hurt them. Why can't politics do the same?
In which my planned blog post is obsoleted
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Why I want everyone to refer respectfully to those I disagree with
Recently my twitter feed turned up a blog entry that formulated an excellent argument in support of a political position that I agree with, explaining the issue fantastically for those who aren't already familiar with it. My first instinct was to retweet it for the benefit of those who don't see this issue from the same point of view or haven't given it much thought. Unfortunately, the blog author used insulting nicknames for the individuals and organizations with whom they (and I) disagree. I'm not going to argue that the insulting nicknames weren't well-deserved, or, in some cases at least, perfectly accurate, but the problem is that they destroyed all the post's credibility in the eyes of those who didn't already agree with our position.
I know I'm not the boss of anyone else's blog and I know that we're all totally allowed to use our own blogs for venting, but it's just so frustrating to see such a useful argument that I can't use or share because of a bit of name-calling!
If you're going to say something I disagree with, go ahead and say it however you want. I welcome your destruction of your own credibility.
If you're going to say something I agree with but can express better, go ahead and say it however you want. I don't need you.
But if you're going to say something so brilliant and insightful and better than I could ever come up with that I feel compelled to link to it and share it, please don't do so disrespectfully. You don't even have to be actively respectful. Just calling people by surname only will do the job, and it's still easy to mentally pronounce venomously.
I know I'm not the boss of anyone else's blog and I know that we're all totally allowed to use our own blogs for venting, but it's just so frustrating to see such a useful argument that I can't use or share because of a bit of name-calling!
If you're going to say something I disagree with, go ahead and say it however you want. I welcome your destruction of your own credibility.
If you're going to say something I agree with but can express better, go ahead and say it however you want. I don't need you.
But if you're going to say something so brilliant and insightful and better than I could ever come up with that I feel compelled to link to it and share it, please don't do so disrespectfully. You don't even have to be actively respectful. Just calling people by surname only will do the job, and it's still easy to mentally pronounce venomously.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Wherein a monogamist presumes to give advice on how to handle adultery
Dear Annie: I recently found out that my 27-year-old married daughter is having an affair with her 40-year-old boss. He is married and has two children. She doesn't know that I know.
I warned her to be careful when I noticed that she and her boss sometimes work late. I told her that when I was her age, I did some things I was not proud of. I also sent her articles about people having affairs. I told her it was wrong and people would get hurt. I have tried to give her as much advice as I could without letting on about what I know, but now I think it's time to tell her.
I do not want to do this over the phone, so I am waiting for the vacation we are taking with her and her husband in a few weeks. This has truly been a shock to me because I thought I had taught her better than this. Before she married, her father and I separated for a year. I never told her that he was seeing someone else.
So far, I have told no one about my daughter's affair, but I want to confide in my husband. How should I handle this? -- Puzzled
I think the best approach here would be for the mother to simply inform the daughter of what she knows and how she found out. No judgement, no advice. Simply let her know that her ass isn't covered (if indeed it needs covering - some commenters in CF Abby suspected that it might be an open marriage) and that any interested party who is at least as competent as her mother would be able to find out about the affair.
The mother's first duty in this matter is to her daughter. Even if, as a general philosophy, she doesn't want adultery to happen or marriages to break up, her loyalty should be to her daughter over her daughter's husband or her daughter's boss. Simply pointing out what she knows and how would fulfill that loyalty to her daughter, and at the same time make her point about the pitfalls of having an affair far better than nagging or passive-aggression ever could. And, as an added bonus, doing so completely without judgement and advice sets her up as someone her daughter can confide in should it become necessary.
Of course, in this particular letter, it's too late for that. The LW has already given her daughter lectures and unsolicited advice and passive-aggressive newspaper clippings. At this point, her only hope is probably just to come clean. "Listen, I've been making a complete ass of myself and handling this really poorly and I understand completely if you don't want to talk to me any more. I'll just tell you this one thing and then leave you alone. All this started because I googled your name and the word Facebook and found a post in the Citizens Against Bad Puns facebook group in which you appeared to be flirting with a guy named Bill, so I clicked on his name, [etc.] In any case, all I wanted to do was point out that this information is publicly googleable so you can protect yourself accordingly. I truly am sorry for acting like such an idiot and making you uncomfortable. The only explanation I can offer is that I've never been in this situation before and couldn't figure out what to do, although at my age I really should know better."
Then drop it completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)