Whistling is hard, at least compared with other ways of producing potentially-musical noise such as humming or singing or just opening your mouth and vocalizing. It takes more skill and experience and precision to produce the intended note than it does with humming or singing.
Whistling is also non-intuitive compared with other ways of producing potentially-musical noise. When you see a pre-verbal baby vocalizing, you can see how a person might stumble upon humming or singing, but you can't see whistling just happening by accident.
And yet somehow, someone in human history figured out how to whistle. And thought it was worth the trouble as opposed to humming or singing. And, somehow, the idea caught on and now it's something that everyone is at least aware of if not capable of doing. (Unless it's cultural? A quick google for whether there are any cultures that don't have whistling only turns up cultures where whistling plays a key role.)
And not only does whistling persist on a macro level, it also persists on an individual level. There are people who, when they have a tune in their head that they want to express, opt to whistle it out instead of humming or singing or going "dodo dodo dooo".
I can't fathom why whistling is so normalized or why a person would opt to whistle rather than hum their current earworm, but it is an interesting cultural phenomenon.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
The mystery of the Yonge Eglinton haters
The "density creeps" who have been in the news lately remind me of one of the mysteries of Yonge & Eglinton: people who deliberately move here and then complain that the neighbourhood has characteristics that it has had since long before they moved here.
In the density creeps story, that characteristic is density. Directly across the street from the proposed development site are highrise buildings, which are part of the highrise cluster that was built in the 1970s, 20 years before the density creeps moved here. There are also four 4-storey apartment buildings that appear architecturally to date back to the 1950s on that one block alone.
In short, the kind of density they decry, along with the attendant impact on property values and population demographics, were well-established in the neighbourhood long before they even arrived.
(Which makes me want to flag a lot of the commentary on this story with #JournalismWanted - many commentators seem to be taking the density creeps at their word that this new development is somehow significantly denser or significantly cheaper than the established neighbourhood, when this allegation could be disproven with a simple google, or by going to the site (conveniently located just 4 blocks north of Eglinton subway station!) and taking a quick look around.)
But the density creeps aren't the only ones I've seen doing this. Far more frequently than you'd expect, mostly on the internet but sometimes just walking down the street, I hear people who live here and, based on demographics, appear to have moved here recently and to have had a choice in the matter (i.e. they're old enough and employed enough to live independently of their parents, but young enough that they definitely didn't move here before the 21st century) complain about things like density or highrises or chain stores or yuppies - things that have all been here since before the 21st century, and things whose presence you can easily detect by walking down the street. If you don't like those things, you can see that the neighbourhood isn't for you the moment you emerge from the subway.
The other thing is, this isn't the cheapest neighbourhood. If you want lower density or lowrises or fewer chain stores or fewer yuppies, there are other neighbourhoods that meet those characteristics and are cheaper to live in. So what are they doing here?
Despite the criticism from some quarters, this isn't the worst neighbourhood in Toronto. We're generally closer to the top than to the bottom for indicators such as amenities, services, accessibility, quality of schools, quality of housing stock, infrastructure, lower crime rates, etc.
I wonder if people in neighbourhoods that are worse in all these areas complain as much as the residents of Yonge & Eg, who, by all appearances, could totally choose to live elsewhere?
In the density creeps story, that characteristic is density. Directly across the street from the proposed development site are highrise buildings, which are part of the highrise cluster that was built in the 1970s, 20 years before the density creeps moved here. There are also four 4-storey apartment buildings that appear architecturally to date back to the 1950s on that one block alone.
In short, the kind of density they decry, along with the attendant impact on property values and population demographics, were well-established in the neighbourhood long before they even arrived.
(Which makes me want to flag a lot of the commentary on this story with #JournalismWanted - many commentators seem to be taking the density creeps at their word that this new development is somehow significantly denser or significantly cheaper than the established neighbourhood, when this allegation could be disproven with a simple google, or by going to the site (conveniently located just 4 blocks north of Eglinton subway station!) and taking a quick look around.)
But the density creeps aren't the only ones I've seen doing this. Far more frequently than you'd expect, mostly on the internet but sometimes just walking down the street, I hear people who live here and, based on demographics, appear to have moved here recently and to have had a choice in the matter (i.e. they're old enough and employed enough to live independently of their parents, but young enough that they definitely didn't move here before the 21st century) complain about things like density or highrises or chain stores or yuppies - things that have all been here since before the 21st century, and things whose presence you can easily detect by walking down the street. If you don't like those things, you can see that the neighbourhood isn't for you the moment you emerge from the subway.
The other thing is, this isn't the cheapest neighbourhood. If you want lower density or lowrises or fewer chain stores or fewer yuppies, there are other neighbourhoods that meet those characteristics and are cheaper to live in. So what are they doing here?
Despite the criticism from some quarters, this isn't the worst neighbourhood in Toronto. We're generally closer to the top than to the bottom for indicators such as amenities, services, accessibility, quality of schools, quality of housing stock, infrastructure, lower crime rates, etc.
I wonder if people in neighbourhoods that are worse in all these areas complain as much as the residents of Yonge & Eg, who, by all appearances, could totally choose to live elsewhere?
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Various thoughts on various kinds of prejudice depicted in Call the Midwife (full spoilers)
1. In one episode, the expectant parents with the Medical Drama of the Week happen to be a black couple. It's mentioned in passing that they're from another country, and their accent suggests somewhere in the Caribbean (I'm not familiar enough with Caribbean accents or history to narrow it to a specific country, and further details were not given on-screen.) The husband is a bus driver, and they live in one of the nicer flats portrayed in the series (clean, well-lit, decorated, not overly cramped). As I watched this, I appreciated that they managed to portray the real-life diversity of London in a matter-of-fact sort of way that wasn't limited to discrimination plotlines.
In the next episode, there was an Irish family that was living in squalor and destitution because people wouldn't hire them or rent housing to them on the grounds that they were Irish. My first thought was surprise that after people would even consider holding such petty prejudices so soon after WWII. But then I was even more surprised that in a time and place where English people would discriminate against Irish people for employment and housing, black people could successfully get employment and housing! It seems like black people would seem more Other to the white English majority.
They did show a black patient facing prejudice in a previous episode (I can't remember if they've shown Irish people not facing prejudice) and before the Irish episode I was able to handwave the fact that this more recent black couple wasn't facing prejudice with the intellectual understanding that showing diversity outside of discrimination plotlines is a good thing, but after the Irish episode, I had more trouble getting past it, feeling like we needed an explanation of why they didn't face discrimination.
2. In one episode, a young man was discovered to be gay when he fell into a police sting operation, where the police had an undercover officer hanging out in a public washroom trying to instigate a tryst. I'm well aware that homophobia was far more rampant in that era, but I'm surprised they'd consider that a good use of police resources!
3. In the same episode, the neighbourhood had their Rose Queen festival, where tradition dictates that the new Rose Queen is crowned by last year's Rose Queen. As it happens, last year's Rose Queen is the wife of the young man who was discovered to be gay. As a result, there was vocal outcry about her participating in the Rose Queen ceremony.
I kind of surprised that the woman who unwittingly married a gay man wasn't seen as a victim. I kind of surprised that the fact that she was pregnant didn't count in her/their favour. But more than anything, even given the ignorance and homophobia of the era, I was surprised that someone would get from "Her husband is gay" to "So, naturally, we can't possibly have her fulfill the duties of the outgoing Rose Queen!" It's so inconsequential, and so irrelevant to her husband, and so ephemeral, I was amazed that the people of Poplar had time in their busy, hardship-filled lives to think about it.
4. After Patsy attends a particularly emotionally devastating birth, she goes to visit Delia for comfort. She lets herself into the nurses' home where Delia lives, goes to Delia's room, and sits on her bed crying while Delia consoles her. After the first wave of sobbing is over, Patsy reassures Delia that she'll be out of there very early in the morning, so "no one will ever know I was here".
It surprises me that anyone in that era and setting would even conclude "Patsy is in Delia's room crying" = "Clearly, they're lesbians!" Patsy used to work in that hospital (and, presumably, used to live in that nurses' home) and, since Delia is her best friend, they've probably spent a lot of time hanging out in each other's rooms, much like the secular midwives at Nonnatus. And, since they're both young nurses, this probably isn't the first time one of them has had an emotionally devastating nursing experience. If anyone wonders what's going on, they'd simply have to tell them the truth: Patsy just came from a delivery of undiagnosed twins, the first one stillborn and the second still alive, and after struggling to keep a brave face throughout the ordeal for the sake of the patient. So now she's talking through it with her best friend and fellow nurse, just as they always did about emotionally-difficult cases when they worked together, in a place where they would have frequently hung out when working together. Given that same-sex relationships weren't seen as "normal" or common in those days, I'm surprised that they think people would arrive at "They must be lesbians!" rather than "Poor Patsy, she had a rough day!"
5. But just a few episodes later, Patsy and Delia decide to get a flat together. And they don't seem too worried about people finding out about their relationship. "Lot of girls share flats," they say, "Not even a nun would bat an eyelid." Again, I found this hard to reconcile with their previous fear of being caught talking in Delia's room together. If you can't even be seen hanging out in your best friend's room in a way that's been established as perfectly normal among nurses who work together, aren't people going to raise an eyebrow when you start living together in your own flat?
In the next episode, there was an Irish family that was living in squalor and destitution because people wouldn't hire them or rent housing to them on the grounds that they were Irish. My first thought was surprise that after people would even consider holding such petty prejudices so soon after WWII. But then I was even more surprised that in a time and place where English people would discriminate against Irish people for employment and housing, black people could successfully get employment and housing! It seems like black people would seem more Other to the white English majority.
They did show a black patient facing prejudice in a previous episode (I can't remember if they've shown Irish people not facing prejudice) and before the Irish episode I was able to handwave the fact that this more recent black couple wasn't facing prejudice with the intellectual understanding that showing diversity outside of discrimination plotlines is a good thing, but after the Irish episode, I had more trouble getting past it, feeling like we needed an explanation of why they didn't face discrimination.
2. In one episode, a young man was discovered to be gay when he fell into a police sting operation, where the police had an undercover officer hanging out in a public washroom trying to instigate a tryst. I'm well aware that homophobia was far more rampant in that era, but I'm surprised they'd consider that a good use of police resources!
3. In the same episode, the neighbourhood had their Rose Queen festival, where tradition dictates that the new Rose Queen is crowned by last year's Rose Queen. As it happens, last year's Rose Queen is the wife of the young man who was discovered to be gay. As a result, there was vocal outcry about her participating in the Rose Queen ceremony.
I kind of surprised that the woman who unwittingly married a gay man wasn't seen as a victim. I kind of surprised that the fact that she was pregnant didn't count in her/their favour. But more than anything, even given the ignorance and homophobia of the era, I was surprised that someone would get from "Her husband is gay" to "So, naturally, we can't possibly have her fulfill the duties of the outgoing Rose Queen!" It's so inconsequential, and so irrelevant to her husband, and so ephemeral, I was amazed that the people of Poplar had time in their busy, hardship-filled lives to think about it.
4. After Patsy attends a particularly emotionally devastating birth, she goes to visit Delia for comfort. She lets herself into the nurses' home where Delia lives, goes to Delia's room, and sits on her bed crying while Delia consoles her. After the first wave of sobbing is over, Patsy reassures Delia that she'll be out of there very early in the morning, so "no one will ever know I was here".
It surprises me that anyone in that era and setting would even conclude "Patsy is in Delia's room crying" = "Clearly, they're lesbians!" Patsy used to work in that hospital (and, presumably, used to live in that nurses' home) and, since Delia is her best friend, they've probably spent a lot of time hanging out in each other's rooms, much like the secular midwives at Nonnatus. And, since they're both young nurses, this probably isn't the first time one of them has had an emotionally devastating nursing experience. If anyone wonders what's going on, they'd simply have to tell them the truth: Patsy just came from a delivery of undiagnosed twins, the first one stillborn and the second still alive, and after struggling to keep a brave face throughout the ordeal for the sake of the patient. So now she's talking through it with her best friend and fellow nurse, just as they always did about emotionally-difficult cases when they worked together, in a place where they would have frequently hung out when working together. Given that same-sex relationships weren't seen as "normal" or common in those days, I'm surprised that they think people would arrive at "They must be lesbians!" rather than "Poor Patsy, she had a rough day!"
5. But just a few episodes later, Patsy and Delia decide to get a flat together. And they don't seem too worried about people finding out about their relationship. "Lot of girls share flats," they say, "Not even a nun would bat an eyelid." Again, I found this hard to reconcile with their previous fear of being caught talking in Delia's room together. If you can't even be seen hanging out in your best friend's room in a way that's been established as perfectly normal among nurses who work together, aren't people going to raise an eyebrow when you start living together in your own flat?
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The folly of condemning a boycott
There was recently a story tweeted into my feed about proposed "zero tolerance" for boycotting Israel.
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Why are manufacturers pushing detergent pods?
I'm signed up for various free sample and coupon sites, and I've noticed recently that they are really pushing detergent pods, for both laundry and dish detergent. Samples are only ever of detergent pods, never regular liquid or powder detergent, and now I'm finding sometimes you can only get coupons for the pods, not for the regular detergent.
I wonder why they're pushing them so hard?
I have found that, without exception, the detergent pods are far inferior to regular liquid detergent (and to old-fashioned powder detergent.) They simply don't break up in the machine when used as directed, so you have a half a pod, a few clumps of detergent powder, and a not-fully-clean load of laundry or dishes.
On top of that, detergent pods seem like they'd be more expensive to manufacture than regular detergent, because you'd have to make the different components and then combine them all into a pod and count out a specific number of pods into each container, whereas with liquid or powder detergent you can just manufacture it in bulk in a giant vat and dispense it into containers.
Even if there is some reason I can't see why some customers might prefer pods, why are manufacturers pushing pods to the exclusion of regular detergents? What is gained by trying to urge us away from the more effective product that's easier to manufacture?
I wonder why they're pushing them so hard?
I have found that, without exception, the detergent pods are far inferior to regular liquid detergent (and to old-fashioned powder detergent.) They simply don't break up in the machine when used as directed, so you have a half a pod, a few clumps of detergent powder, and a not-fully-clean load of laundry or dishes.
On top of that, detergent pods seem like they'd be more expensive to manufacture than regular detergent, because you'd have to make the different components and then combine them all into a pod and count out a specific number of pods into each container, whereas with liquid or powder detergent you can just manufacture it in bulk in a giant vat and dispense it into containers.
Even if there is some reason I can't see why some customers might prefer pods, why are manufacturers pushing pods to the exclusion of regular detergents? What is gained by trying to urge us away from the more effective product that's easier to manufacture?
Monday, May 11, 2015
Stressing about stress
As you've noticed if you've been reading me these past few months, I've been getting stressed about various things that I think are too petty to be getting stressed about.
And, I realized, the very fact that I was getting stressed about these things was stressing me out. In addition to dealing with or coping with the stressers, I was stressing about the fact that I was dealing with or coping with the stressers less perfectly than I thought I should be.
Because of that, this blog post was originally going to be about the balance of self-care vs. self-improvement. On one hand, maybe I should just take an "it is what it is" approach during high-stress times - deal with what's actionable, care for myself the best I'm able to, get through it, and regroup when life stabilizes. On the other hand, I'm not going to become a competent and adequate human being if I baby myself instead of treating the areas where I'm not a competent and adequate human being like problems!
Then two things happened:
First, one day, about six weeks after my I got my computer back from the depot drama, I got out of the shower to find my apartment flooded with golden morning sunlight. I put on my bathrobe, made a cup of coffee, and sat in the sunshine with my hot coffee and my wet hair, being warmed up inside and out. It was peaceful and delightful in a way I hadn't experienced in quite a while.
Despite the fact that I have my morning coffee in the sunshine every sunny morning.
During one of my computer-less days during the depot drama several weeks previous, I'd been sprawled on the living-room floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper, and yearning for idle aimless internetting. I thought back to when I was a teen, and sprawling on the floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper was one of my favourite ways to spend a weekend afternoon. So I started worrying about what happened? Why wasn't this good enough for me?
But in that contented morning sunshine several weeks later, I realized that the stress of the computer drama (and the stress over the fact that I was stressed by the computer drama) was actually making it impossible for me to enjoy the simple things in life like my morning coffee. It's like when your Sim's "Tense" moodlet is too strong - you could be drinking coffee and sitting in a beautiful room and listening to music, and none of those things are going to outweigh the tense. So I hadn't lost my ability to enjoy simple pleasures, I was just at a stress level that was beyond what simple pleasures could achieve.
The second thing that happened was my little breast lump adventure. Even in the shock of getting a telephone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when I didn't know that was a thing that could happen at that point in the diagnostic protocol), I wasn't nearly as stressed as I was with my computer out for repair and no fanfiction to tide me over. Why on earth was this?? WTF is wrong with my priorities???
After some thought, I came to the realization that I wasn't as stressed during the breast lump incident because I felt like I was allowed to be stressed about it, so I wasn't stressing about being stressed. I'm allowed to be stressed! I have to get a mammogram at the age of 34 FFS! So I just flipped the world the metaphorical bird, had comfort food and wine (for which I got carded - if there hadn't be a dudebro behind me in line, I would have actually called the cashier out on that), and got myself through that night and off to the clinic the next day. I'm not sure if anything else got done that day, but it didn't matter. I went from thinking my first mammogram would be in 15 years to learning my first mammogram would in fact be in 15 hours, and I had to assimilate that information and deal with the mammogram process and all the attendant what-ifs. I just got through it, regrouped on the other side, and life proceeded with as little stress as humanly possible under the circumstances.
Reflecting upon this, I realized a similar thing happened after my grandmother passed away. My employer gave me a certain amount of bereavement leave, so I made the decision to use this time to process the experience however I needed to. Apart from any duty to my family, I decreed to myself that I wasn't required to do anything specific during those days. A day spent doing nothing but gaming, drinking, and eating cheese was totally allowed. A day spent in bed watching Eddie Izzard videos was totally allowed. If I felt the need to do something completely uncharacteristic like take a long walk in the woods, that was totally allowed. There was no wrong way to use my time. And because I wasn't worrying about my day-to-day (I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, and if I found myself at a loss the system was still there), I didn't stress, just processed my bereavement as much as one can in six days and then returned to work on Monday.
So from all this, perhaps I can conclude that if I give myself permission to be stressed by the things that are stressing me, they won't stress me as much.
But, on the other hand, I'm very good at justifying self-indulgence. And I don't think you get to be good enough by telling yourself it's okay to not be good enough.
And, I realized, the very fact that I was getting stressed about these things was stressing me out. In addition to dealing with or coping with the stressers, I was stressing about the fact that I was dealing with or coping with the stressers less perfectly than I thought I should be.
Because of that, this blog post was originally going to be about the balance of self-care vs. self-improvement. On one hand, maybe I should just take an "it is what it is" approach during high-stress times - deal with what's actionable, care for myself the best I'm able to, get through it, and regroup when life stabilizes. On the other hand, I'm not going to become a competent and adequate human being if I baby myself instead of treating the areas where I'm not a competent and adequate human being like problems!
Then two things happened:
First, one day, about six weeks after my I got my computer back from the depot drama, I got out of the shower to find my apartment flooded with golden morning sunlight. I put on my bathrobe, made a cup of coffee, and sat in the sunshine with my hot coffee and my wet hair, being warmed up inside and out. It was peaceful and delightful in a way I hadn't experienced in quite a while.
Despite the fact that I have my morning coffee in the sunshine every sunny morning.
During one of my computer-less days during the depot drama several weeks previous, I'd been sprawled on the living-room floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper, and yearning for idle aimless internetting. I thought back to when I was a teen, and sprawling on the floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper was one of my favourite ways to spend a weekend afternoon. So I started worrying about what happened? Why wasn't this good enough for me?
But in that contented morning sunshine several weeks later, I realized that the stress of the computer drama (and the stress over the fact that I was stressed by the computer drama) was actually making it impossible for me to enjoy the simple things in life like my morning coffee. It's like when your Sim's "Tense" moodlet is too strong - you could be drinking coffee and sitting in a beautiful room and listening to music, and none of those things are going to outweigh the tense. So I hadn't lost my ability to enjoy simple pleasures, I was just at a stress level that was beyond what simple pleasures could achieve.
The second thing that happened was my little breast lump adventure. Even in the shock of getting a telephone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when I didn't know that was a thing that could happen at that point in the diagnostic protocol), I wasn't nearly as stressed as I was with my computer out for repair and no fanfiction to tide me over. Why on earth was this?? WTF is wrong with my priorities???
After some thought, I came to the realization that I wasn't as stressed during the breast lump incident because I felt like I was allowed to be stressed about it, so I wasn't stressing about being stressed. I'm allowed to be stressed! I have to get a mammogram at the age of 34 FFS! So I just flipped the world the metaphorical bird, had comfort food and wine (for which I got carded - if there hadn't be a dudebro behind me in line, I would have actually called the cashier out on that), and got myself through that night and off to the clinic the next day. I'm not sure if anything else got done that day, but it didn't matter. I went from thinking my first mammogram would be in 15 years to learning my first mammogram would in fact be in 15 hours, and I had to assimilate that information and deal with the mammogram process and all the attendant what-ifs. I just got through it, regrouped on the other side, and life proceeded with as little stress as humanly possible under the circumstances.
Reflecting upon this, I realized a similar thing happened after my grandmother passed away. My employer gave me a certain amount of bereavement leave, so I made the decision to use this time to process the experience however I needed to. Apart from any duty to my family, I decreed to myself that I wasn't required to do anything specific during those days. A day spent doing nothing but gaming, drinking, and eating cheese was totally allowed. A day spent in bed watching Eddie Izzard videos was totally allowed. If I felt the need to do something completely uncharacteristic like take a long walk in the woods, that was totally allowed. There was no wrong way to use my time. And because I wasn't worrying about my day-to-day (I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, and if I found myself at a loss the system was still there), I didn't stress, just processed my bereavement as much as one can in six days and then returned to work on Monday.
So from all this, perhaps I can conclude that if I give myself permission to be stressed by the things that are stressing me, they won't stress me as much.
But, on the other hand, I'm very good at justifying self-indulgence. And I don't think you get to be good enough by telling yourself it's okay to not be good enough.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Another reason why early sex ed will lead to less early sex
This post was inspired by, but is not directly related to, this quiz testing how much you know about the new Ontario sex ed curriculum. (I got 9/10.)
Some critics of sex ed criticize teaching students about various sex acts at an age that is generally perceived to be too young to be engaging in those sex acts.
But it occurs to me that if your goal is to prevent young people from having sex, introducing the concepts early would probably help achieve that goal.
I was informed, via age-appropriate educational books, about the existence of various sex acts years before I was ready for them (which was a good thing, since I reached menarche years before I had the slightest even theoretical interest in sex), and every single time my visceral reaction was "Ewww, gross!!!!" As I evolved in the direction of developing interest in sex, I had to overcome the "Ewww, gross!!!!" before I could develop positive interest.
I also learned of various other sex acts, via the internet, when I was older and ready to have sex. In these situations, my reaction was either "Hmm, interesting..." or "Meh, not for me." Even for the sex acts I find more distasteful (which are objectively more distasteful than any of the sex acts I learned about before I was ready for sex) I never reached the same level of visceral revulsion as I did before I was ready to have sex.
So if you want young people to not have sex, telling them about sex when they're young enough to think that it's gross will introduce an additional emotional barrier that will stand between them and their desire to have sex for a certain period of time.
Some critics of sex ed criticize teaching students about various sex acts at an age that is generally perceived to be too young to be engaging in those sex acts.
But it occurs to me that if your goal is to prevent young people from having sex, introducing the concepts early would probably help achieve that goal.
I was informed, via age-appropriate educational books, about the existence of various sex acts years before I was ready for them (which was a good thing, since I reached menarche years before I had the slightest even theoretical interest in sex), and every single time my visceral reaction was "Ewww, gross!!!!" As I evolved in the direction of developing interest in sex, I had to overcome the "Ewww, gross!!!!" before I could develop positive interest.
I also learned of various other sex acts, via the internet, when I was older and ready to have sex. In these situations, my reaction was either "Hmm, interesting..." or "Meh, not for me." Even for the sex acts I find more distasteful (which are objectively more distasteful than any of the sex acts I learned about before I was ready for sex) I never reached the same level of visceral revulsion as I did before I was ready to have sex.
So if you want young people to not have sex, telling them about sex when they're young enough to think that it's gross will introduce an additional emotional barrier that will stand between them and their desire to have sex for a certain period of time.
Things They Should Study: do more apartments get too hot or too cold in shoulder seasons?
I was very happy to hear that the City of Toronto is consulting the public about indoor temperature bylaws for rental housing. I'm miserable for a week or two every May and September because the weather is hot but my landlord is legally required to provide heat (and, therefore, can't have the building's air conditioning turned on.) So I was all set to write a submission advocating for air conditioning to have precedence over heating during shoulder seasons with warm daytime highs and cool overnight lows.
Whenever air conditioning is available, I set my thermostat to 25 degrees, which is the highest it will go. And the air conditioning switches on nearly every single day.
In cool weather, I set my thermostat to 20 degrees, which is the lowest it will go. And the heating switches on an average of once per year. Some years it's one time, some years it's two times, some years it's zero times. Last winter, it was zero times.
Therefore, I strongly advocate for air conditioning taking precedence over heating in the shoulder seasons. Even if it gets cold in your apartment overnight, you can just snuggle up under an extra blanket. Certainly a fair price to pay for being comfortable during the day!
But as I was writing this, occurred to me that this could be studied comprehensively for a wide variety of housing types. Get residents of buildings of a wide variety of sizes, ages and constructions, with the sample including apartments with exposure in each direction (and corner units). Have the study participants agree not to use heating or air conditioning during the study period, and to using optimal temperature management practices otherwise (e.g. blinds open to let the sun in if it's cold out, blinds closed to keep the sun out if it's hot out, windows open if you want the indoor temperature to move in the direction of the outdoor temperature, windows closed if you don't, minimize use of electronics and appliances if it's hot, etc.) Then track the temperature inside the apartments, and have residents record their comfort level.
Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether heating or air conditioning should be prioritized. Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether more people and homes get too hot or too cold in the shoulder seasons in the absence of appropriate indoor climate control. Maybe there are patterns based on type or age of building, and bylaws that take that into account would be more appropriate.
We already know the current bylaw does not reflect the needs of our current climate and housing stock. We should take this opportunity to do research and identify what exactly our needs are, and write a bylaw that reflects that.
Whenever air conditioning is available, I set my thermostat to 25 degrees, which is the highest it will go. And the air conditioning switches on nearly every single day.
In cool weather, I set my thermostat to 20 degrees, which is the lowest it will go. And the heating switches on an average of once per year. Some years it's one time, some years it's two times, some years it's zero times. Last winter, it was zero times.
Therefore, I strongly advocate for air conditioning taking precedence over heating in the shoulder seasons. Even if it gets cold in your apartment overnight, you can just snuggle up under an extra blanket. Certainly a fair price to pay for being comfortable during the day!
But as I was writing this, occurred to me that this could be studied comprehensively for a wide variety of housing types. Get residents of buildings of a wide variety of sizes, ages and constructions, with the sample including apartments with exposure in each direction (and corner units). Have the study participants agree not to use heating or air conditioning during the study period, and to using optimal temperature management practices otherwise (e.g. blinds open to let the sun in if it's cold out, blinds closed to keep the sun out if it's hot out, windows open if you want the indoor temperature to move in the direction of the outdoor temperature, windows closed if you don't, minimize use of electronics and appliances if it's hot, etc.) Then track the temperature inside the apartments, and have residents record their comfort level.
Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether heating or air conditioning should be prioritized. Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether more people and homes get too hot or too cold in the shoulder seasons in the absence of appropriate indoor climate control. Maybe there are patterns based on type or age of building, and bylaws that take that into account would be more appropriate.
We already know the current bylaw does not reflect the needs of our current climate and housing stock. We should take this opportunity to do research and identify what exactly our needs are, and write a bylaw that reflects that.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
Things I Don't Understand: non-tossed salads
Sometimes when I buy a salad it's not tossed, it's organized. All the tomatoes are together in a clump, all the cheese is together in a clump, all the cucumbers are together in a clump, etc.
I don't understand why a restaurant would do this.
The pleasure of a salad is the interaction between the flavour and the texture of the different ingredients. The crispness of the lettuce, the bite of the tomato, the creamy smoothness of the cheese, the zing of the dressing...this isn't nearly as pleasurable when you end up eating all the cheese in one bite, or get a forkfull of nothing but tomato.
Yes, it's marginally easier not to toss the salad, but tossing a salad isn't terribly difficult when you have a properly-equipped commercial kitchen and are making dozens or even hundreds of salads a day. In any case, it's certainly easier to toss a large batch of salad in a restaurant kitchen than it is for a customer to toss it at the table with only a fork, or for an office worker getting a takeout lunch to toss that salad in the tightly-packed takeout container at their desk!
Even if you don't like all the ingredients and want to avoid one or two of them, it's far easier to skip the red peppers in a tossed salad than to toss your own salad with only one utensil and no access to a large bowl.
Most places I buy salads from seem to pride themselves in their freshness, quality, and interesting combinations of ingredients. So why not make the most of that by tossing the salads properly?
I don't understand why a restaurant would do this.
The pleasure of a salad is the interaction between the flavour and the texture of the different ingredients. The crispness of the lettuce, the bite of the tomato, the creamy smoothness of the cheese, the zing of the dressing...this isn't nearly as pleasurable when you end up eating all the cheese in one bite, or get a forkfull of nothing but tomato.
Yes, it's marginally easier not to toss the salad, but tossing a salad isn't terribly difficult when you have a properly-equipped commercial kitchen and are making dozens or even hundreds of salads a day. In any case, it's certainly easier to toss a large batch of salad in a restaurant kitchen than it is for a customer to toss it at the table with only a fork, or for an office worker getting a takeout lunch to toss that salad in the tightly-packed takeout container at their desk!
Even if you don't like all the ingredients and want to avoid one or two of them, it's far easier to skip the red peppers in a tossed salad than to toss your own salad with only one utensil and no access to a large bowl.
Most places I buy salads from seem to pride themselves in their freshness, quality, and interesting combinations of ingredients. So why not make the most of that by tossing the salads properly?
Sunday, May 03, 2015
Things They Should Study: does the societal move away from print newspapers affect how informed kids grow up to be?
I've blogged before about how a lot of my basic understanding of medical and political concepts comes from my lifelong habit of reading newspapers, and how my lifelong habit of reading newspapers comes from having them around the house when I was growing up.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Books read in April 2015
1. Pawnee: The Greatest Town in America by "Leslie Knope"
2. This is Improbable by Marc Abrahams
3. TransAtlantic by Colum McCann
4. Festive in Death by J.D. Robb
5. Elegy for Iris by John Bayley
6. A Year in the Life of Downton Abbey by Jessica Fellowes
7. Obsession in Death by J.D. Robb
2. This is Improbable by Marc Abrahams
3. TransAtlantic by Colum McCann
4. Festive in Death by J.D. Robb
5. Elegy for Iris by John Bayley
6. A Year in the Life of Downton Abbey by Jessica Fellowes
7. Obsession in Death by J.D. Robb
Monday, April 27, 2015
Emotions are weird
When I was a little girl, my grandmother took us to see Sharon, Lois & Bram whenever they were in town. Eventually, we outgrew their concerts, as one does, and we never went again.
Last year, they named a playground in my neighbourhood after Sharon, Lois & Bram, and the trio showed up at the dedication and sang a few songs.
When I heard that Lois died, one of the first feelings to come to me was "OMG, that time I saw them at the park was the last time I'd ever see them perform live in my whole entire life!!!"
Except of course it was.
I'm a grown adult who's childfree by choice. There's no reason to think I'd ever go to a Sharon, Lois & Bram concert again.
I didn't regret not having gone to more when I was an older kid. I had outgrown them and, in addition to not enjoying them as intended, would have felt awkward and out of place. I only went to the one in the park last summer because it was in a park - I could just walk by on a public sidewalk, stop and listen if I felt moved to do so, and casually drift away if I got bored or felt out of place.
And, just to make things weirder, if I hadn't had the opportunity to see them in the park last summer, I would never have felt "OMG the last time I saw them was the last time ever!" I wouldn't even have had a specific memory of the last time I saw them, just like how I don't have a specific memory of the last time I watched Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers (both of which I do occasionally watch as an adult).
But for some reason, because I had the opportunity to wander age-appropriately into this little mini-concert last year, I felt this pang of...whatever the hell you'd call the emotion of "OMG that was the last time ever!", which I never would have felt otherwise.
Emotions are weird.
Last year, they named a playground in my neighbourhood after Sharon, Lois & Bram, and the trio showed up at the dedication and sang a few songs.
When I heard that Lois died, one of the first feelings to come to me was "OMG, that time I saw them at the park was the last time I'd ever see them perform live in my whole entire life!!!"
Except of course it was.
I'm a grown adult who's childfree by choice. There's no reason to think I'd ever go to a Sharon, Lois & Bram concert again.
I didn't regret not having gone to more when I was an older kid. I had outgrown them and, in addition to not enjoying them as intended, would have felt awkward and out of place. I only went to the one in the park last summer because it was in a park - I could just walk by on a public sidewalk, stop and listen if I felt moved to do so, and casually drift away if I got bored or felt out of place.
And, just to make things weirder, if I hadn't had the opportunity to see them in the park last summer, I would never have felt "OMG the last time I saw them was the last time ever!" I wouldn't even have had a specific memory of the last time I saw them, just like how I don't have a specific memory of the last time I watched Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers (both of which I do occasionally watch as an adult).
But for some reason, because I had the opportunity to wander age-appropriately into this little mini-concert last year, I felt this pang of...whatever the hell you'd call the emotion of "OMG that was the last time ever!", which I never would have felt otherwise.
Emotions are weird.
Friday, April 24, 2015
The first camper
I was recently thinking about the notion of the first tourist, i.e. the first person in human history to travel for recreational purposes.
It further occurred to me that someone in human history must have been the first person to go camping recreationally.
People did, of course, live in the woods and in crude shelters for much of early human history, and then for much more of human history used tents etc. when travelling or on military campaigns or as temporary shelters for various reasons, probably including in the course of travelling from Point A to Point B.
But someone was the first person to come up with the idea of travelling away from their home and whatever degree of shelter and civilization was baseline for them to a wilder, less developed place with less civilization, and spending some time there in a temporary shelter that provides less shelter and fewer amenities than usual, all for solely recreational purposes.
In the modern world, people who are into camping think spending time in nature is in some respect better than spending time in civilization. Some simply think it's pretty and relaxing, others go so far as to consider it very nearly virtuous. Someone in human history must also have been the first person to have this attitude! For so much of human history, people were just trying to survive - and, in fact, built up whatever level of civilization they had at the time for the purpose of surviving - that it would never occur to them that less civilization and more nature would be better. I'm sure if you put a prehistoric person in a modern-day shelter, they'd be so thrilled that temperature and wind and precipitation and darkness are rendered completely irrelevant and that they are absolutely certainly not going to get eaten by a wild animal that it wouldn't even occur to them to bemoan the fact that you can see things other than trees or that not all the stars are visible.
And then, someone was the first person to have the luxury of thinking that less shelter may have been better than more shelter.
It further occurred to me that someone in human history must have been the first person to go camping recreationally.
People did, of course, live in the woods and in crude shelters for much of early human history, and then for much more of human history used tents etc. when travelling or on military campaigns or as temporary shelters for various reasons, probably including in the course of travelling from Point A to Point B.
But someone was the first person to come up with the idea of travelling away from their home and whatever degree of shelter and civilization was baseline for them to a wilder, less developed place with less civilization, and spending some time there in a temporary shelter that provides less shelter and fewer amenities than usual, all for solely recreational purposes.
In the modern world, people who are into camping think spending time in nature is in some respect better than spending time in civilization. Some simply think it's pretty and relaxing, others go so far as to consider it very nearly virtuous. Someone in human history must also have been the first person to have this attitude! For so much of human history, people were just trying to survive - and, in fact, built up whatever level of civilization they had at the time for the purpose of surviving - that it would never occur to them that less civilization and more nature would be better. I'm sure if you put a prehistoric person in a modern-day shelter, they'd be so thrilled that temperature and wind and precipitation and darkness are rendered completely irrelevant and that they are absolutely certainly not going to get eaten by a wild animal that it wouldn't even occur to them to bemoan the fact that you can see things other than trees or that not all the stars are visible.
And then, someone was the first person to have the luxury of thinking that less shelter may have been better than more shelter.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Legally-mandated helicopter parenting vs. children's literature
When I was a kid, I always felt vaguely humiliated that my life didn't work like the lives of the protagonists of my books. They got to have their own independent adventures. They got to go to the park or walk in the woods or go to a friend's house or be home alone, all without adult supervision. Sometimes they even bought things at stores or went to the library or went to the doctor without an adult. And I wasn't allowed to do anything! What was wrong with me? Why wasn't I worthy of this basic human independence that all my protagonists got to enjoy??
Reading a recent article where "free range" children got picked up by the police, I find myself wondering how 21st-century kids feel about this.
I was feeling humiliated because my parents wouldn't allow me the freedom of the protagonists in my books, but today it's even worse - it's not just that your parents say no, it's that the police will come and arrest you! (Yes, the police didn't technically arrest the kids, but I'm sure it feels to the kids like they did.)
But then it occurred to me that maybe this very serious sense of "You can't go to the park alone or the police will come and arrest you" might actually make it feel less bad for the kids. It's not that you aren't allowed because you aren't good enough, it's that no one is allowed because it's against the law. But, on the other hand, that might just cause confusion. Peter and Jane did it, so why can't I? If it's against the law, why didn't the policeman arrest Peter and Jane when he was talking to them?
Another possibility that I hadn't considered is that children's books may have caught up with reality. Perhaps the protagonists of today's children's books are supervised at all times? That would certainly make it more difficult to come up with a workable story, but so do cellphones and they appear in fiction. (Or maybe that's why so many of my early children's books were populated by anthropomorphic animals living in the quaint, non-specific past?)
This all made me realize that children's books are in fact the original media that influences impressionable children! People always talk about TV and movies and video games, but far, far more of my idea of How The World Is or Should Be were formed by the books I read at a very young age. I think I was far more influenced by the idea that I should be able to ride a zebra because that's what a character in a book was doing than by anything I saw on TV.
Reading a recent article where "free range" children got picked up by the police, I find myself wondering how 21st-century kids feel about this.
I was feeling humiliated because my parents wouldn't allow me the freedom of the protagonists in my books, but today it's even worse - it's not just that your parents say no, it's that the police will come and arrest you! (Yes, the police didn't technically arrest the kids, but I'm sure it feels to the kids like they did.)
But then it occurred to me that maybe this very serious sense of "You can't go to the park alone or the police will come and arrest you" might actually make it feel less bad for the kids. It's not that you aren't allowed because you aren't good enough, it's that no one is allowed because it's against the law. But, on the other hand, that might just cause confusion. Peter and Jane did it, so why can't I? If it's against the law, why didn't the policeman arrest Peter and Jane when he was talking to them?
Another possibility that I hadn't considered is that children's books may have caught up with reality. Perhaps the protagonists of today's children's books are supervised at all times? That would certainly make it more difficult to come up with a workable story, but so do cellphones and they appear in fiction. (Or maybe that's why so many of my early children's books were populated by anthropomorphic animals living in the quaint, non-specific past?)
This all made me realize that children's books are in fact the original media that influences impressionable children! People always talk about TV and movies and video games, but far, far more of my idea of How The World Is or Should Be were formed by the books I read at a very young age. I think I was far more influenced by the idea that I should be able to ride a zebra because that's what a character in a book was doing than by anything I saw on TV.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Ontario has destreamed Grade 9 at least once before
An article on the front page of today's Toronto Star says that an advocacy group is calling for an end to streaming in Ontario high schools, by which they mean having "academic" and "applied" versions of each class. This surprised me, because neither the article nor the report (PDF) makes any mention of the fact that Ontario has destreamed Grade 9 (as this advocacy group is recommending) at least once before.
I know, I was there.
My Grade 9 classes were all destreamed when I started high school in 1994. It was a fairly new development at the time. Mine might have even been the very first destreamed year - in any case, it was definitely being talked about like it was new and unprecedented when I was in middle school.
Surely there's data on student outcomes from this time. There are probably even teachers around who taught in Ontario high schools before, during and after the early-90s destreaming. It seems like this would all be highly relevant in lobbying and making decisions about whether Ontario schools should be streamed.
I want to make it very clear that I am not arguing or hinting for or against streaming. I have no strong feelings about my own destreamed experience, and I readily acknowledge that, as a student who thrives in any academic environment regardless of whether or not it challenges me, my own experience is irrelevant to any goals they might be trying to achieve with either streaming or destreaming.
I'm simply saying that Ontario-specific data and experience exists. It would be remiss of them not to use it.
I know, I was there.
My Grade 9 classes were all destreamed when I started high school in 1994. It was a fairly new development at the time. Mine might have even been the very first destreamed year - in any case, it was definitely being talked about like it was new and unprecedented when I was in middle school.
Surely there's data on student outcomes from this time. There are probably even teachers around who taught in Ontario high schools before, during and after the early-90s destreaming. It seems like this would all be highly relevant in lobbying and making decisions about whether Ontario schools should be streamed.
I want to make it very clear that I am not arguing or hinting for or against streaming. I have no strong feelings about my own destreamed experience, and I readily acknowledge that, as a student who thrives in any academic environment regardless of whether or not it challenges me, my own experience is irrelevant to any goals they might be trying to achieve with either streaming or destreaming.
I'm simply saying that Ontario-specific data and experience exists. It would be remiss of them not to use it.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The first tourist
In the shower this morning, it occurred to me that some one person in human history must have been the very first tourist, by which I mean the first person to travel recreationally.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
In which Google messes up and gives me a scare
I recently decided to try a face cream containing retinol. Shortly after I applied it, I felt a funny taste in my mouth.
So I googled retinol taste in mouth.
Near the top of the results was the wikipedia entry for strychnine poisoning!
It turns out that this result came up because Google perceives "retinol" as a synonym for "Vitamin A". The strychnine poisoning article has a "Poisonings, toxicities, and overdoses" category box at the bottom, which includes a link to Vitamin A. And one of the symptoms of strychnine poisoning is a taste in the mouth.
So I didn't die, and the next time I tried the retinol cream there was no taste in my mouth, so it must have been unrelated.
I haven't noticed any difference in my skin using retinol though.
So I googled retinol taste in mouth.
Near the top of the results was the wikipedia entry for strychnine poisoning!
It turns out that this result came up because Google perceives "retinol" as a synonym for "Vitamin A". The strychnine poisoning article has a "Poisonings, toxicities, and overdoses" category box at the bottom, which includes a link to Vitamin A. And one of the symptoms of strychnine poisoning is a taste in the mouth.
So I didn't die, and the next time I tried the retinol cream there was no taste in my mouth, so it must have been unrelated.
I haven't noticed any difference in my skin using retinol though.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Mammogram after ultrasound
When I got the phone call telling me I needed a mammogram, part of the reason why I was so freaked out was that my research about breast ultrasounds had suggested that ultrasounds are superior to mammograms and are sometimes ordered as follow-ups to mammograms (as opposed to stand-alone tests like I had), so I couldn't fathom why a mammogram would be ordered after an ultrasound. I googled around the idea of mammogram after ultrasound, and couldn't find anything informative - mostly just people saying that it seemed backwards and ultrasound normally comes after mammograms.
I know I've already posted at length about my breast lump diagnosis process and this post basically repeats that information, but with more focus on why the mammogram was applicable after I'd already received the breast ultrasound, and what we learned from the mammogram that we didn't learn from the ultrasound, with the target audience being people who are googling for patient experiences with a mammogram after a breast ultrasound.
Patient profile: 34-year-old female, never been pregnant, no family history or risk factors of breast cancer
Diagnostic process: While conducting a routine breast exam during my annual physical, my doctor noticed an assymetricality in the armpit area of my breasts. He ordered an ultrasound, which found the lymph nodes were enlarged on one side. The mammogram was then ordered to get a better look at the lymph nodes.
My doctor's explanation for the mammogram: My doctor said that the mammogram can get a better look at the architecture of the lymph nodes than an ultrasound.
The content of the mammogram report: The mammogram report said that there were no malignancies, and also said that my breasts are fibrocystic. The ultrasound report did comment on either of those things. The logical conclusion would be that the ultrasound couldn't determine either of those things, but I don't have the medical knowledge to make a definitive declarative statement to this effect.
Diagnosis: enlarged lymph nodes on one side but not the other. I believe this is due to a recent vaccination. I've been instructed to get an ultrasound again in 6 months to make sure they're back to normal. (I hope the don't follow that ultrasound with another mammogram!)
I know I've already posted at length about my breast lump diagnosis process and this post basically repeats that information, but with more focus on why the mammogram was applicable after I'd already received the breast ultrasound, and what we learned from the mammogram that we didn't learn from the ultrasound, with the target audience being people who are googling for patient experiences with a mammogram after a breast ultrasound.
Patient profile: 34-year-old female, never been pregnant, no family history or risk factors of breast cancer
Diagnostic process: While conducting a routine breast exam during my annual physical, my doctor noticed an assymetricality in the armpit area of my breasts. He ordered an ultrasound, which found the lymph nodes were enlarged on one side. The mammogram was then ordered to get a better look at the lymph nodes.
My doctor's explanation for the mammogram: My doctor said that the mammogram can get a better look at the architecture of the lymph nodes than an ultrasound.
The content of the mammogram report: The mammogram report said that there were no malignancies, and also said that my breasts are fibrocystic. The ultrasound report did comment on either of those things. The logical conclusion would be that the ultrasound couldn't determine either of those things, but I don't have the medical knowledge to make a definitive declarative statement to this effect.
Diagnosis: enlarged lymph nodes on one side but not the other. I believe this is due to a recent vaccination. I've been instructed to get an ultrasound again in 6 months to make sure they're back to normal. (I hope the don't follow that ultrasound with another mammogram!)
Friday, April 03, 2015
Improving upon the parking space management company idea
I previously came up with the idea of a parking space management company, for people who own parking spaces for their condos but don't actually use them.
This morning the shower gave me a much simpler solution: the condo corporation should fulfill this function as a service to residents.
If you own a parking space that you don't need, you sell it to the condo corporation, which buys it at assessed value.
If you want a parking space, you can buy one from the condo corporation at assessed value (if there are any available).
If you're selling a condo and your buyer doesn't want to buy the parking space, you can sell it to the condo corporation at assessed value.
If you're buying a condo and it doesn't come with a parking space, you can buy one from the condo corporation at assessed value (if there are any available).
The condo corporation can rent out any unused parking spaces at a profit, with the revenues going into general coffers. When I ran the numbers on my own condo, I determined that renting out a parking space at the going rate in my neighbourhood would pay for itself in 20 years, which would provide an influx of revenue just as the building comes up for major repairs. Until then, it should be revenue-neutral.
Residents would, of course, be free to sell or rent out their own parking spaces, but if they don't want to do the work themselves, the condo corporation would provide the service.
At this point, you may be thinking "Wouldn't it be simpler for the condo to just own all the parking spaces and rent them out to residents?" I agree, but, based on the complaints I've read when googling about condos that do this, many car + condo people don't like this approach. Having the condo corporation manage parking spaces if there is demand for such a service would maximize options for everyone.
This morning the shower gave me a much simpler solution: the condo corporation should fulfill this function as a service to residents.
If you own a parking space that you don't need, you sell it to the condo corporation, which buys it at assessed value.
If you want a parking space, you can buy one from the condo corporation at assessed value (if there are any available).
If you're selling a condo and your buyer doesn't want to buy the parking space, you can sell it to the condo corporation at assessed value.
If you're buying a condo and it doesn't come with a parking space, you can buy one from the condo corporation at assessed value (if there are any available).
The condo corporation can rent out any unused parking spaces at a profit, with the revenues going into general coffers. When I ran the numbers on my own condo, I determined that renting out a parking space at the going rate in my neighbourhood would pay for itself in 20 years, which would provide an influx of revenue just as the building comes up for major repairs. Until then, it should be revenue-neutral.
Residents would, of course, be free to sell or rent out their own parking spaces, but if they don't want to do the work themselves, the condo corporation would provide the service.
At this point, you may be thinking "Wouldn't it be simpler for the condo to just own all the parking spaces and rent them out to residents?" I agree, but, based on the complaints I've read when googling about condos that do this, many car + condo people don't like this approach. Having the condo corporation manage parking spaces if there is demand for such a service would maximize options for everyone.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Books read in March 2015
1. Paul a un travail d'été by Michel Rabagliati
2. Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success by Adam Grant
3. Concealed in Death by J.D. Robb
4. Elizabeth is Missing by Emma Healey
5. Le silence du banlieusard by Hugo Léger
2. Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success by Adam Grant
3. Concealed in Death by J.D. Robb
4. Elizabeth is Missing by Emma Healey
5. Le silence du banlieusard by Hugo Léger
Things that I learned about having a mammogram
1. At the beginning of the appointment, they screen you for pregnancy. They do this by asking if there's any chance that you're pregnant. When you say "None whatsoever," they take you at your word. This is a vast contrast to those various adolescent medical appointments where they interrogate you about choreography and bodily fluids.
2. If you're of childbearing age, you get a lead apron to put over your abdomen so your uterus is protected. Then they tell you to lean over further so your head is closer to the machine.
3. The machine compresses your breast as far as humanly possible, and then another 10% further. The pain is exactly what I would have expected from this - it's not a shocking new disproportionate kind of pain, but neither is it painless.
4. The pain stopped as soon as they took me out of the machine. There was no residual pain, and no marks or bruising left on my breast.
5. What was weirdest to me about the whole experience is that you literally can't move once you're in the machine. You're held in place by your breast. That's rather a disconcerting experience.
6. If your hair is breast length or longer, you should wear it in a bun for the appointment. They don't tell you this in your pre-appointment instructions, but your hair can easily get caught in the machine.
7. The mammogram is taken by a technician. The images are then sent to a radiologist, who writes the report. The report is then sent to your doctor. This means that your doctor doesn't have access to the images, and the person who interprets the images isn't present when taking them. So the person interpreting the images might wish she could pan over to the left a bit, but she can't unless she calls me back in for more imaging (which is not a step taken lightly). Or my doctor might be wondering how the mammogram findings jibed with what he was feeling in my breast that he believed to be a cyst, but he can't just look and see. That seems inefficient to me, and likely to magnify any human error that may occur.
2. If you're of childbearing age, you get a lead apron to put over your abdomen so your uterus is protected. Then they tell you to lean over further so your head is closer to the machine.
3. The machine compresses your breast as far as humanly possible, and then another 10% further. The pain is exactly what I would have expected from this - it's not a shocking new disproportionate kind of pain, but neither is it painless.
4. The pain stopped as soon as they took me out of the machine. There was no residual pain, and no marks or bruising left on my breast.
5. What was weirdest to me about the whole experience is that you literally can't move once you're in the machine. You're held in place by your breast. That's rather a disconcerting experience.
6. If your hair is breast length or longer, you should wear it in a bun for the appointment. They don't tell you this in your pre-appointment instructions, but your hair can easily get caught in the machine.
7. The mammogram is taken by a technician. The images are then sent to a radiologist, who writes the report. The report is then sent to your doctor. This means that your doctor doesn't have access to the images, and the person who interprets the images isn't present when taking them. So the person interpreting the images might wish she could pan over to the left a bit, but she can't unless she calls me back in for more imaging (which is not a step taken lightly). Or my doctor might be wondering how the mammogram findings jibed with what he was feeling in my breast that he believed to be a cyst, but he can't just look and see. That seems inefficient to me, and likely to magnify any human error that may occur.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Why copayments for medical appointments are a bad idea: a breast lump story
When conducting a routine breast exam during my annual physical, my doctor detected something on the armpit side of my left breast that wasn't present on the right side. He ordered a breast ultrasound, which found some of my lymph nodes in that area were larger than perhaps they should be. A mammogram was then ordered, which found that a few individual lymph nodes were enlarged, but there were no malignancies or other problems. I was therefore instructed to return in six months for another breast ultrasound to see if the lymph nodes in question returned to normal.
While I was in the middle of this process, Steve Paikin posted a blog post sharing his doctor's idea for copayments for each medical appointment. I commented on that post expressing my concern that the majority of medical appointments I get aren't even my idea but rather are required by red tape (I've previously blogged about that here), but this breast lump diagnosis process was an even better example.
During this little adventure, I had five appointments in a nine-day period (and a minimum of three more if I opt to follow up in six months as recommended), none of which I actually wanted or would have thought to request for myself.
I only got the annual physical because it's the price of admission for getting my birth control renewed. I'd be more than happy to buy my birth control over the counter (as some have recommended should be possible for public health purposes), but I have no choice but to go to my doctor and get the recommended screenings if I want a new prescription.
I didn't think the thing my doctor found was a problem - to my touch it felt just like a normal part of my breast anatomy. After reading up on breast cysts, I didn't think getting a potential breast cyst diagnosed was especially important - they're not a problem, most often non-actionable, and quite often go away by themselves. That area of my breast is squishy and mobile, it's nothing like the description of hard, immoveable lumps that I've always been told indicate possible cancer. But I went along because it's a quick, easy, non-intrusive test and it was probably faster to get the test than to argue. And, I figured, once the test shows it's nothing, my doctor will be more likely in the future to take me at my word when I say that's just how my breast is.
After the test, I had to go to the doctor for test results, which I think is a suboptimal way of doing things. I'd rather have the results emailed directly to me, and schedule an appointment with the doctor if I had any questions. But my doctor's policy is that they only contact you with results if action is required, so if I didn't go for that follow-up I'd never learn what action was apparently required.
On an intellectual level, I didn't think the mammogram was necessary as a follow-up to the ultrasound either. After reading up on breast ultrasounds, I didn't see why a mammogram would be helpful or informative as a follow-up to an ultrasound - all the information I found talked about how ultrasounds saw things that mammograms didn't see. But, frankly, I was scared into it. Getting a phone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when this wasn't on my "things that might happen" list) was shocking and disconcerting. I have it mentally categorized as a "cancer test", so it triggered fears of cancer, and I went along with the test to rule out cancer.
And, again, I had to go to the doctor for the mammogram results even though they were clear to me and I didn't need any help with interpretation. Because I have no way of getting the results without going to the doctor, I had to take that appointment or I would never have received confirmation that there were no malignancies.
So that's five appointments, all of which were required by my doctor as opposed to by me, none of which I would ever have asked for myself if it were completely up to me. And if I follow up in six months, I'll need three more (one with my doctor to get the ultrasound requisition, one at the imaging clinic for the ultrasound, and one with my doctor for the ultrasound results.) I'm really disinclined to follow up - it feels like a fishing expedition - but I'm concerned about being considered a non-compliant patient if I don't, and I do need my doctor's goodwill to keep getting my contraception.
At this point, some of you are thinking "Breast lumps are serious business! It's good and important that you got it checked out - you really shouldn't skimp on that sort of thing!"
If that's the case, that's a very good reason why there shouldn't be a copay for each appointment. A copay would disincentivize patients like me from following up on lumps in their breasts, or perhaps even having these lumps detected in the first place.
Besides all that, before they can even consider a copay, they'd have to streamline the process so that fewer appointments are required by red tape. For example, as I mentioned above, they shouldn't make you go in to see the doctor to get your test results. It would be much more efficient to just email them to the patient when emailing them to the doctor, and the patient can contact the doctor if they have any question. When I'm doing medical translations, I find it a fairly simple matter to google up any terminology I don't understand and the implications of the test results become apparent once I've worked out the meaning of all the words. If they want to cut down on the number of appointments, they need to at least start by eliminating unnecessary appointments like test results that can just be replaced by a simple email!
At this point, some of you are thinking "That would be hideously irresponsible! Many people can't accurately interpret medical results and there's all kinds of ridiculous information on the internet! People who aren't medical professionals need the guidance of medical professionals."
If that's the case, that's another very good reason why there shouldn't be a copay for each appointment. A copay would disincentivize patients like me from discussing our test results with our doctors, and instead leave us making decision based on our haphazard informal education and Google.
While I was in the middle of this process, Steve Paikin posted a blog post sharing his doctor's idea for copayments for each medical appointment. I commented on that post expressing my concern that the majority of medical appointments I get aren't even my idea but rather are required by red tape (I've previously blogged about that here), but this breast lump diagnosis process was an even better example.
During this little adventure, I had five appointments in a nine-day period (and a minimum of three more if I opt to follow up in six months as recommended), none of which I actually wanted or would have thought to request for myself.
I only got the annual physical because it's the price of admission for getting my birth control renewed. I'd be more than happy to buy my birth control over the counter (as some have recommended should be possible for public health purposes), but I have no choice but to go to my doctor and get the recommended screenings if I want a new prescription.
I didn't think the thing my doctor found was a problem - to my touch it felt just like a normal part of my breast anatomy. After reading up on breast cysts, I didn't think getting a potential breast cyst diagnosed was especially important - they're not a problem, most often non-actionable, and quite often go away by themselves. That area of my breast is squishy and mobile, it's nothing like the description of hard, immoveable lumps that I've always been told indicate possible cancer. But I went along because it's a quick, easy, non-intrusive test and it was probably faster to get the test than to argue. And, I figured, once the test shows it's nothing, my doctor will be more likely in the future to take me at my word when I say that's just how my breast is.
After the test, I had to go to the doctor for test results, which I think is a suboptimal way of doing things. I'd rather have the results emailed directly to me, and schedule an appointment with the doctor if I had any questions. But my doctor's policy is that they only contact you with results if action is required, so if I didn't go for that follow-up I'd never learn what action was apparently required.
On an intellectual level, I didn't think the mammogram was necessary as a follow-up to the ultrasound either. After reading up on breast ultrasounds, I didn't see why a mammogram would be helpful or informative as a follow-up to an ultrasound - all the information I found talked about how ultrasounds saw things that mammograms didn't see. But, frankly, I was scared into it. Getting a phone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when this wasn't on my "things that might happen" list) was shocking and disconcerting. I have it mentally categorized as a "cancer test", so it triggered fears of cancer, and I went along with the test to rule out cancer.
And, again, I had to go to the doctor for the mammogram results even though they were clear to me and I didn't need any help with interpretation. Because I have no way of getting the results without going to the doctor, I had to take that appointment or I would never have received confirmation that there were no malignancies.
So that's five appointments, all of which were required by my doctor as opposed to by me, none of which I would ever have asked for myself if it were completely up to me. And if I follow up in six months, I'll need three more (one with my doctor to get the ultrasound requisition, one at the imaging clinic for the ultrasound, and one with my doctor for the ultrasound results.) I'm really disinclined to follow up - it feels like a fishing expedition - but I'm concerned about being considered a non-compliant patient if I don't, and I do need my doctor's goodwill to keep getting my contraception.
At this point, some of you are thinking "Breast lumps are serious business! It's good and important that you got it checked out - you really shouldn't skimp on that sort of thing!"
If that's the case, that's a very good reason why there shouldn't be a copay for each appointment. A copay would disincentivize patients like me from following up on lumps in their breasts, or perhaps even having these lumps detected in the first place.
Besides all that, before they can even consider a copay, they'd have to streamline the process so that fewer appointments are required by red tape. For example, as I mentioned above, they shouldn't make you go in to see the doctor to get your test results. It would be much more efficient to just email them to the patient when emailing them to the doctor, and the patient can contact the doctor if they have any question. When I'm doing medical translations, I find it a fairly simple matter to google up any terminology I don't understand and the implications of the test results become apparent once I've worked out the meaning of all the words. If they want to cut down on the number of appointments, they need to at least start by eliminating unnecessary appointments like test results that can just be replaced by a simple email!
At this point, some of you are thinking "That would be hideously irresponsible! Many people can't accurately interpret medical results and there's all kinds of ridiculous information on the internet! People who aren't medical professionals need the guidance of medical professionals."
If that's the case, that's another very good reason why there shouldn't be a copay for each appointment. A copay would disincentivize patients like me from discussing our test results with our doctors, and instead leave us making decision based on our haphazard informal education and Google.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
"But I made it just for you!"
I'm sure by now you've seen Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess's post called "Consent: Not Actually That Complicated".
But what struck me when I first read this is that I've seen people actually, in real life, take similar offence to similar mundane everyday things. This often (but not always) happens with parents and their kids, and often (but not always) involves food. The offerer (often the parent) does something (often making food) that the offeree (often the kid) doesn't want and/or didn't ask for, then complains that the offeree doesn't want/take/eat/love it. Especially in a parent-kid scenario, the offerer has been known to scold the offeree for not wanting/taking/eating/loving it, or force/coerce the offeree into going through the motions of taking/eating/using the thing. And, especially in a food-related scenario, there seems to be a rather loud school of thought that etiquette requires putting on a show of taking/eating/using the thing, and that quietly abstaining is actively rude.
Now of course as adults, dealing with peers, sometimes we may find it's strategic to make the deliberate choice of putting on a show of appreciation in service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term, and then just quietly go home and make our own damn cup of tea just the way we like it. (Just like, as adults, sometimes we may choose to consent to an act of intimacy that we aren't quite dripping with enthusiasm about in the service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term.)
But, as adults, we understand that this is an option that one may choose to exercise, not a broadly-applicable expectation or a baseline requirement of social behaviour. Kids are still working out, mostly from example, what constitutes broadly-applicable expectations and baseline requirements of social behaviour.
And when you're dealing with kids who are still developing their framework for what constitutes normal human behaviour and what constitutes reasonable expectations for people to have of each other, it could be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're Being Bad if you say no to something you didn't want in the first place. And it could also be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're entitled to a positive response to your unwanted and unsolicited solely on the grounds that you presumptuously took the initiative.
If parents want to raise kids who respect other people's "no", and if parents want to raise who understand that if someone disrespects their "no" it isn't an act of love, maybe they should start by keeping an eye on the tone with which they offer their kids a cup of tea.
If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.The blogger is clearly setting up the mundane analogy with a cup of tea to quite effectively demonstrate how ridiculous it is not to respect someone's "no".
You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.
If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.
If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?
They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.
[...]
If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK”, or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT”.
But what struck me when I first read this is that I've seen people actually, in real life, take similar offence to similar mundane everyday things. This often (but not always) happens with parents and their kids, and often (but not always) involves food. The offerer (often the parent) does something (often making food) that the offeree (often the kid) doesn't want and/or didn't ask for, then complains that the offeree doesn't want/take/eat/love it. Especially in a parent-kid scenario, the offerer has been known to scold the offeree for not wanting/taking/eating/loving it, or force/coerce the offeree into going through the motions of taking/eating/using the thing. And, especially in a food-related scenario, there seems to be a rather loud school of thought that etiquette requires putting on a show of taking/eating/using the thing, and that quietly abstaining is actively rude.
Now of course as adults, dealing with peers, sometimes we may find it's strategic to make the deliberate choice of putting on a show of appreciation in service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term, and then just quietly go home and make our own damn cup of tea just the way we like it. (Just like, as adults, sometimes we may choose to consent to an act of intimacy that we aren't quite dripping with enthusiasm about in the service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term.)
But, as adults, we understand that this is an option that one may choose to exercise, not a broadly-applicable expectation or a baseline requirement of social behaviour. Kids are still working out, mostly from example, what constitutes broadly-applicable expectations and baseline requirements of social behaviour.
And when you're dealing with kids who are still developing their framework for what constitutes normal human behaviour and what constitutes reasonable expectations for people to have of each other, it could be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're Being Bad if you say no to something you didn't want in the first place. And it could also be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're entitled to a positive response to your unwanted and unsolicited solely on the grounds that you presumptuously took the initiative.
If parents want to raise kids who respect other people's "no", and if parents want to raise who understand that if someone disrespects their "no" it isn't an act of love, maybe they should start by keeping an eye on the tone with which they offer their kids a cup of tea.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Signs I'm getting old
Baby Cousin 1.0 and Baby Cousin 3.0 are brothers, just a year and a half apart in age. I've noticed that sometimes when I mention one or the other of them in conversation, I use the wrong name - I call Baby Cousin 1.0 by Baby Cousin 3.0's name or vice versa.
In the past year, I've noticed this happening quite a few times. I'll be talking about one person, and refer to them by the name of another person with similar characteristics. For example, I found a picture of Fairy Goddaughter when she was 9 months old and said aloud to myself "Aww, look at [Baby Cousin 2.0]", (Baby Cousin 2.0 being a 9-month-old girl). Or when mentioning an uncle, I'll use the name of another uncle (who is the first uncle's brother).
When I was a kid, older adults (especially my grandparents' age) would mix up names like this from time to time. I thought they were actually getting the people mixed up or forgetting the people's names, and their response when their errors came to light didn't disabuse me of this notion.
However, when I do this myself, I'm not forgetting names or mixing people up. I know with absolute certainty which baby cousin was born first and which was born second, and I can even tell you their dates of birth and distinguishing characteristics and recent accomplishments. This isn't like when I first started my job and got the names of the two petite francophone ladies of a certain age confused and didn't realize I had the names wrong until one lady retired. There's no confusion or uncertainty whatever in this case. It's just that sometimes the wrong word comes out of my mouth.
In the past year, I've noticed this happening quite a few times. I'll be talking about one person, and refer to them by the name of another person with similar characteristics. For example, I found a picture of Fairy Goddaughter when she was 9 months old and said aloud to myself "Aww, look at [Baby Cousin 2.0]", (Baby Cousin 2.0 being a 9-month-old girl). Or when mentioning an uncle, I'll use the name of another uncle (who is the first uncle's brother).
When I was a kid, older adults (especially my grandparents' age) would mix up names like this from time to time. I thought they were actually getting the people mixed up or forgetting the people's names, and their response when their errors came to light didn't disabuse me of this notion.
However, when I do this myself, I'm not forgetting names or mixing people up. I know with absolute certainty which baby cousin was born first and which was born second, and I can even tell you their dates of birth and distinguishing characteristics and recent accomplishments. This isn't like when I first started my job and got the names of the two petite francophone ladies of a certain age confused and didn't realize I had the names wrong until one lady retired. There's no confusion or uncertainty whatever in this case. It's just that sometimes the wrong word comes out of my mouth.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Idea for a new economic indicator
This post was inspired by, but is not directly related to, this article.
When talking about whether the population as a whole is making economic gains or losses, people often talk about middle class vs. low income vs. high income, or they look at average or median incomes for the population as a whole and for various demographics. Less often, but sometimes, they talk about the ratio of income to tuition to housing prices. (The Globe and Mail has a useful comparison tool.)
It occurs to me that another useful indicator would be to look at changes in income over time with people who bring various levels of education, skills and experience to the table. For example, how has the income level of a person with an undergraduate degree and 10 years of work experienced evolved over the years? What about a newly-minted Ph.D.? What about a student working their way through college? What about people who have been freelancing for 5 years?
It might be useful to get somewhat specific (Is the person with an undergrad degree and 10 years of work experience a translator or a teacher or a computer program?), but the data would cease to be comparable if you got too specific (I don't know how informative it would be to track the income of social media specialists or FORTRAN programmers over decades).
If the data is available, it would also be interesting to track negative factors. How has the income of people who were laid off one year ago evolved? (i.e. were they more or less likely to get new jobs within a year in previous decades?) What's the situation of people who started a business within the past two years? What about people who are involuntary entrepreneurs (i.e. they didn't want to start a business, but couldn't get hired)?
I think this would fill in some blanks, and it has the potential to draw attention to certain problems that may be hidden by the other, more commonly used indicators.
When talking about whether the population as a whole is making economic gains or losses, people often talk about middle class vs. low income vs. high income, or they look at average or median incomes for the population as a whole and for various demographics. Less often, but sometimes, they talk about the ratio of income to tuition to housing prices. (The Globe and Mail has a useful comparison tool.)
It occurs to me that another useful indicator would be to look at changes in income over time with people who bring various levels of education, skills and experience to the table. For example, how has the income level of a person with an undergraduate degree and 10 years of work experienced evolved over the years? What about a newly-minted Ph.D.? What about a student working their way through college? What about people who have been freelancing for 5 years?
It might be useful to get somewhat specific (Is the person with an undergrad degree and 10 years of work experience a translator or a teacher or a computer program?), but the data would cease to be comparable if you got too specific (I don't know how informative it would be to track the income of social media specialists or FORTRAN programmers over decades).
If the data is available, it would also be interesting to track negative factors. How has the income of people who were laid off one year ago evolved? (i.e. were they more or less likely to get new jobs within a year in previous decades?) What's the situation of people who started a business within the past two years? What about people who are involuntary entrepreneurs (i.e. they didn't want to start a business, but couldn't get hired)?
I think this would fill in some blanks, and it has the potential to draw attention to certain problems that may be hidden by the other, more commonly used indicators.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Things They Should Invent in Fiction: Getting To Know You magic spell
A trope that exists in fiction - especially fantasy genres where magic is present - is the love potion. You get the object of your affection to ingest the love potion, and they fall madly in love with you! Of course, the problem is that this will never be true love, because it's just the effects of the potion (e.g. Merope Gaunt in Harry Potter).
It occurred to me that what these makers of magic in fictional universes should invent instead is a "Getting To Know You" spell. You cast the spell on the object of your affection, and they instantly know you - your likes and dislikes, hopes and dream, everything that you need to learn about a person to know if they're a good match and to fall in love with them.
In fiction, the protagonist and the love interest often fall in love after plot points allow them to get past their preconceptions and get to know each other's real selves. (And, in real life, people suffering from unrequited love often feel like this would happen if the opportunity would only arise.)
At this point, you're probably thinking "But that would ruin the story! They'd get to know each other and fall in love instantly and then there's be no story to tell!"
But what it actually does it open up whole new story avenues!
What happens if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on their love interest, and this doesn't cause the love interest to become interested in them?
What if someone casts a Getting To Know You spell on the protagonist, but they aren't interested? And suddenly they have all this knowledge of some random person they're not interested in?
What if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on the love interest and the love interest appears by all signs to fall in love with the protagonist, but never casts at Getting To Know You back on the protagonist, so the protagonist doesn't know the love interest as well as the love interest knows the protagonist? Would this mean the love interest is up to something nefarious?
What if spies started trying to beguile their targets into casting a Getting To Know You spell on them in the hopes of learning their secrets, or at least making them more manipulable?
What if the spells aren't reversible, and casting them is a Big Life Step?
What if the spells are reversible, but you have to go on a quest to acquire a MacGuffin in order to reverse them?
And the person you thought was your love interest but who is in fact nefarious and now knows everything about you is trying to use this knowledge to hinder your quest?
In a universe where magic exists and the pitfalls of love potions have been proven, the next logical step would be for someone to come up with a Getting To Know You spell. I think this would open up new and interesting story avenues.
It occurred to me that what these makers of magic in fictional universes should invent instead is a "Getting To Know You" spell. You cast the spell on the object of your affection, and they instantly know you - your likes and dislikes, hopes and dream, everything that you need to learn about a person to know if they're a good match and to fall in love with them.
In fiction, the protagonist and the love interest often fall in love after plot points allow them to get past their preconceptions and get to know each other's real selves. (And, in real life, people suffering from unrequited love often feel like this would happen if the opportunity would only arise.)
At this point, you're probably thinking "But that would ruin the story! They'd get to know each other and fall in love instantly and then there's be no story to tell!"
But what it actually does it open up whole new story avenues!
What happens if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on their love interest, and this doesn't cause the love interest to become interested in them?
What if someone casts a Getting To Know You spell on the protagonist, but they aren't interested? And suddenly they have all this knowledge of some random person they're not interested in?
What if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on the love interest and the love interest appears by all signs to fall in love with the protagonist, but never casts at Getting To Know You back on the protagonist, so the protagonist doesn't know the love interest as well as the love interest knows the protagonist? Would this mean the love interest is up to something nefarious?
What if spies started trying to beguile their targets into casting a Getting To Know You spell on them in the hopes of learning their secrets, or at least making them more manipulable?
What if the spells aren't reversible, and casting them is a Big Life Step?
What if the spells are reversible, but you have to go on a quest to acquire a MacGuffin in order to reverse them?
And the person you thought was your love interest but who is in fact nefarious and now knows everything about you is trying to use this knowledge to hinder your quest?
In a universe where magic exists and the pitfalls of love potions have been proven, the next logical step would be for someone to come up with a Getting To Know You spell. I think this would open up new and interesting story avenues.
Monday, March 09, 2015
Evidence
There is a cigarette pack on my balcony.
This is noteworthy because I don't smoke, and no one has ever smoked on my balcony in the entire history of this building.
This has actually happened a few times over the years - random cigarette packs or cigarette butts ending up on my balcony - and it turns out the wind blew them there. They always show up on a significantly windy day, and sometimes even disappear overnight. (I'm sure as hell not going out on my high balcony on a cold, windy winter day to pick up someone else's dirty cigarette litter, so sometimes they're there for a few days.)
But this makes me wonder about criminal evidence. If detectives were investigating me, they could logically conclude that someone has smoked on my balcony. They could also reasonably conclude that the person whose DNA is on the cigarette has been on my balcony. If the person who smoked the cigarette ended up dead or something, I could turn out to be a person of interest just because of the vagaries of the wind.
From time to time, a hair falls out of my head. I often find them on the floor of my apartment, but surely they sometimes fall out when I'm outdoors too. And if a cigarette pack can be picked up by the wind and blown onto my balcony, a loose hair can certainly also be picked up by the wind and blown somewhere, maybe even further away. It could also stick to someone's coat or shoes and be carried into their home or something. So if I was abducted or murdered and the police were looking for evidence, they might find one of my hairs somewhere I've never been.
In detective fiction, they often find the bad guy based on one tiny bit of physical evidence - a cigarette butt or stray hair DNA showing that a person was in a specific place, and that's what cracks open the case. In real life, I wonder if they take into account that stuff is sometimes blown around by the wind?
This is noteworthy because I don't smoke, and no one has ever smoked on my balcony in the entire history of this building.
This has actually happened a few times over the years - random cigarette packs or cigarette butts ending up on my balcony - and it turns out the wind blew them there. They always show up on a significantly windy day, and sometimes even disappear overnight. (I'm sure as hell not going out on my high balcony on a cold, windy winter day to pick up someone else's dirty cigarette litter, so sometimes they're there for a few days.)
But this makes me wonder about criminal evidence. If detectives were investigating me, they could logically conclude that someone has smoked on my balcony. They could also reasonably conclude that the person whose DNA is on the cigarette has been on my balcony. If the person who smoked the cigarette ended up dead or something, I could turn out to be a person of interest just because of the vagaries of the wind.
From time to time, a hair falls out of my head. I often find them on the floor of my apartment, but surely they sometimes fall out when I'm outdoors too. And if a cigarette pack can be picked up by the wind and blown onto my balcony, a loose hair can certainly also be picked up by the wind and blown somewhere, maybe even further away. It could also stick to someone's coat or shoes and be carried into their home or something. So if I was abducted or murdered and the police were looking for evidence, they might find one of my hairs somewhere I've never been.
In detective fiction, they often find the bad guy based on one tiny bit of physical evidence - a cigarette butt or stray hair DNA showing that a person was in a specific place, and that's what cracks open the case. In real life, I wonder if they take into account that stuff is sometimes blown around by the wind?
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Contemplating the ethics of donating food to the Salvation Army food bank
I do not donate money to the Salvation Army because their history of anti-gay action.
However, the easiest way for me to donate food to a food bank is to put it in the food bank bin outside my local supermarket. This is the only place I know of in my immediate neighbourhood where you drop off a food bank donation. And this bin happens to be for the Salvation Army food bank.
I don't normally buy food for food banks, choosing instead to give them money so they can buy what they need and take advantage of bulk discounts and wholesale pricing, but from time to time I find myself with unwanted food or household products (I buy something that ended up not being right for me, I get a free sample box that includes stuff I'm never going to use, etc.), and I feel that the food bank is the best place for these things.
So I'm wondering where food bank donations fall ethically.
On one hand, they can't use food donations for anti-gay actions like they can with money donations, and having a busy food bank to run might take their attention away from other things.
But, on the other hand, would donating food to the food bank free up money that would otherwise be spent on the food bank for harmful political action?
Also, what would happen if their food bank failed because they didn't receive any food donations? Would people who need food suffer, or just be redirected to another food bank? Would the Salvation Army suffer, or just have more time and attention for activities that are less helpful than a food bank?
In short, could the Salvation Army do harm with donations of food like they've been known to do with donations of money? Or is the only possible outcome that the food goes to hungry people?
However, the easiest way for me to donate food to a food bank is to put it in the food bank bin outside my local supermarket. This is the only place I know of in my immediate neighbourhood where you drop off a food bank donation. And this bin happens to be for the Salvation Army food bank.
I don't normally buy food for food banks, choosing instead to give them money so they can buy what they need and take advantage of bulk discounts and wholesale pricing, but from time to time I find myself with unwanted food or household products (I buy something that ended up not being right for me, I get a free sample box that includes stuff I'm never going to use, etc.), and I feel that the food bank is the best place for these things.
So I'm wondering where food bank donations fall ethically.
On one hand, they can't use food donations for anti-gay actions like they can with money donations, and having a busy food bank to run might take their attention away from other things.
But, on the other hand, would donating food to the food bank free up money that would otherwise be spent on the food bank for harmful political action?
Also, what would happen if their food bank failed because they didn't receive any food donations? Would people who need food suffer, or just be redirected to another food bank? Would the Salvation Army suffer, or just have more time and attention for activities that are less helpful than a food bank?
In short, could the Salvation Army do harm with donations of food like they've been known to do with donations of money? Or is the only possible outcome that the food goes to hungry people?
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Best Customer Service Ever from Soak
I've been using Soak to wash my bras ever since I was introduced to the product by the bra-fitting geniuses at Secrets From Your Sister. It's super convenient for someone like me who lives in a small apartment with no access to a laundry tub because, as the name suggests, you just have to soak your delicates - no rinsing! I've also discovered it's useful for knits (which is very helpful given my love of cashmere), and for spot-cleaning things that can't easily be rinsed (put the tiniest dab possible of Soak on a damp cloth, and scrub well). The internet has also suggested that it could be used for stuffed animals, although I haven't tried this myself yet.
Unfortunately, the Secrets From Your Sister location in my neighbourhood closed, and then Très Jolie also closed, so there was nowhere to buy it in my neighbourhood any more!
(Retailers in the Yonge-Eglinton area: there's a business opportunity for you here.)
Then I discovered that you can buy directly from the Soak website! Awesome! Since they had free shipping on orders over $75, I ordered several bottles, figuring I'll certainly use it all eventually.
But when my order arrived, I discovered that many of the bottles weren't what I ordered! Soak comes in a number of different scents, and most of them were in a completely different scent.
I retraced my steps, and discovered that there was a fluke on their website (my best guess is a copy-paste error in some code) that caused the wrong scent to be listed in one of the items on the page of the scent I was shopping for.
I figured I didn't want to deal with an exchange since it would be expensive to ship back (being liquid) and I could live with the incorrect scent. But I decided to email the Soak people to let them know of the website problem anyway - some future customer might be more upset or inconvenienced about receiving the incorrect scent.
To my utter astonishment and delight, they promptly sent me replacements in the correct scent, and told me I can just pass the incorrect bottles on to someone else rather than having to pay for returning them! The replacement bottles arrived by FedEx first thing in the morning on the next business day, and, even though they were already sending me free product at non-negligible cost the box even contained a few little free sample packets!
This is literally the best customer service I have ever received in my life! Thank you Soak!
Therefore, I am strongly recommending Soak to everyone who's in the market for a hand-washing and/or rinse-free laundry detergent. Not just because it's a useful, convenient and effective product (which it is), and not just because it's a local, made-in-Canada product (which it is), but also because they're an awesome company and deserve to win.
Unfortunately, the Secrets From Your Sister location in my neighbourhood closed, and then Très Jolie also closed, so there was nowhere to buy it in my neighbourhood any more!
(Retailers in the Yonge-Eglinton area: there's a business opportunity for you here.)
Then I discovered that you can buy directly from the Soak website! Awesome! Since they had free shipping on orders over $75, I ordered several bottles, figuring I'll certainly use it all eventually.
But when my order arrived, I discovered that many of the bottles weren't what I ordered! Soak comes in a number of different scents, and most of them were in a completely different scent.
I retraced my steps, and discovered that there was a fluke on their website (my best guess is a copy-paste error in some code) that caused the wrong scent to be listed in one of the items on the page of the scent I was shopping for.
I figured I didn't want to deal with an exchange since it would be expensive to ship back (being liquid) and I could live with the incorrect scent. But I decided to email the Soak people to let them know of the website problem anyway - some future customer might be more upset or inconvenienced about receiving the incorrect scent.
To my utter astonishment and delight, they promptly sent me replacements in the correct scent, and told me I can just pass the incorrect bottles on to someone else rather than having to pay for returning them! The replacement bottles arrived by FedEx first thing in the morning on the next business day, and, even though they were already sending me free product at non-negligible cost the box even contained a few little free sample packets!
This is literally the best customer service I have ever received in my life! Thank you Soak!
Therefore, I am strongly recommending Soak to everyone who's in the market for a hand-washing and/or rinse-free laundry detergent. Not just because it's a useful, convenient and effective product (which it is), and not just because it's a local, made-in-Canada product (which it is), but also because they're an awesome company and deserve to win.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Books Read in February 2015
New:
1. The Oracle Glass by Judith Merkle Riley
2. And the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini
3. Calculated in Death by J.D. Robb
4. Cataract City by Craig Davidson
5. The Ig Nobel Prizes 2 by Marc Abrahams
6. Wave by Sonali Deraniyagala
7. Thankless in Death by J.D. Robb
8. Sanaaq by Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk (English translation by Peter Frost)
9. Taken in Death by J.D. Robb
10. Aunt Winnie by Elspeth Cameron
Reread:
1. Delusion in Death
1. The Oracle Glass by Judith Merkle Riley
2. And the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini
3. Calculated in Death by J.D. Robb
4. Cataract City by Craig Davidson
5. The Ig Nobel Prizes 2 by Marc Abrahams
6. Wave by Sonali Deraniyagala
7. Thankless in Death by J.D. Robb
8. Sanaaq by Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk (English translation by Peter Frost)
9. Taken in Death by J.D. Robb
10. Aunt Winnie by Elspeth Cameron
Reread:
1. Delusion in Death
Monday, February 23, 2015
Door etiquette
Proper door etiquette is normally to let people out first and only enter once everyone has exited.
This makes perfect sense for enclosed spaces like elevators and trains, and everyone should diligently follow this rule at all times.
However, it occurs to me that the rule should be the opposite for entrances to buildings, especially in bad weather: you should let people in first, and only exit once everyone waiting to answer is inside. This means that the people in the cold/heat/wind/rain/snow/humidity can get out of the uncomfortable environment as quickly as possible, and all waiting is done in the comfortable environment. In other words, wait inside the comfortable lobby to let people get out of the cold rather than vice-versa.
In cases where both weather and enclosed space are factors, such as a train with an outdoor platform, I think we have to let the enclosed space rule take precedence. Regardless of the weather, it's still logistically necessary to let people out so there's room for new people to get in. Plus, in the specific case of a train, it's easier for the person in charge of the doors to see that the loading/unloading process is still ongoing if there are still people on the platform, so they'll be less likely to close the doors and tell the train to leave while people haven't gotten on or off the train.
But in cases where there's plenty of room for everyone and no one is going to drive away and leave anyone stranded, let's let people in out of the cold as quickly as possible, shall we?
This makes perfect sense for enclosed spaces like elevators and trains, and everyone should diligently follow this rule at all times.
However, it occurs to me that the rule should be the opposite for entrances to buildings, especially in bad weather: you should let people in first, and only exit once everyone waiting to answer is inside. This means that the people in the cold/heat/wind/rain/snow/humidity can get out of the uncomfortable environment as quickly as possible, and all waiting is done in the comfortable environment. In other words, wait inside the comfortable lobby to let people get out of the cold rather than vice-versa.
In cases where both weather and enclosed space are factors, such as a train with an outdoor platform, I think we have to let the enclosed space rule take precedence. Regardless of the weather, it's still logistically necessary to let people out so there's room for new people to get in. Plus, in the specific case of a train, it's easier for the person in charge of the doors to see that the loading/unloading process is still ongoing if there are still people on the platform, so they'll be less likely to close the doors and tell the train to leave while people haven't gotten on or off the train.
But in cases where there's plenty of room for everyone and no one is going to drive away and leave anyone stranded, let's let people in out of the cold as quickly as possible, shall we?
Thursday, February 19, 2015
There is no incentive to falsely take a citizenship oath
Recently in the news is the story that the government intends to appeal the Federal Court ruling that it is unlawful to require people to remove their clothing (in this case, a niqab) before taking a citizenship oath.
Sitting here steeped in white girl cultural hegemony, I tacitly assumed that they wanted people to uncover their faces during the oath for identification or fraud prevention purposes. But it occurred to me in the shower this morning that no one would cover their face during a citizenship ceremony for nefarious purposes, because there's no incentive to do so - nothing would be gained or achieved by doing so, and it wouldn't change anything.
Let's unpack this.
Scenario: Cindy the New Citizen has gone through the entire immigration process and permanent resident process and citizenship exam and all the hoops and paperwork and everything, and has just received an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony and take the citizenship oath. Congratulations, Cindy! But Cindy doesn't attend the ceremony and take the oath. Instead, Irene the Imposter attends the ceremony, pretending to be Cindy, and takes the oath in her place.
So what would the outcome of this scenario be?
Would Irene become a citizen by taking the oath? Of course not - it's not a binding magical contract like in Harry Potter! The record would show that Cindy, who is fully qualified to be a citizen, is now a citizen. So Cindy would be a citizen and Irene's status would not change.
This means that Irene has no incentive to impersonate Cindy, because it would have no impact on Irene's status.
But what if it's not Irene whose intentions are nefarious, but rather Cindy? What if Cindy is trying to get citizenship without being beholden to the oath? Let's think about this.
Suppose, Cindy breaks her oath and is caught. When called out on it, she says "Nope, you can't hold me to that! I didn't take the oath - I sent an imposter on my behalf!" She's still in trouble, since the content of the oath is, essentially, promising to fulfill your duties as a citizen and obey the law, so she'd be in trouble for being derelict in her duties and/or breaking the law. And, on top of everything else, she'd also be guilty of fraud!
This means that Cindy has no incentive to send an imposter on her behalf, because that would only make things worse.
But what if Irene isn't there on Cindy's behalf? What if she's there without Cindy's knowledge?
I can think of two possible motives for that: either Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, or she's trying to inflict citizenship upon Cindy without her knowledge.
If Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, she would have had to start long before the citizenship ceremony. She could only find out about Cindy's citizenship ceremony if she has access to Cindy's mail, in which case she's either successfully stolen her identity, or has access to far more useful things like credit card statements and tax documents. Going to the ceremony and taking the oath as Cindy will have no impact on the extent of her identity theft.
If Cindy doesn't actually want citizenship and Irene is trying to inflict it upon her without her knowledge, Cindy wouldn't even be having a citizenship ceremony. There's quite a lot of work to do and steps to take to become a citizen, and if Cindy didn't want it, she could just do nothing.
There is simply no reason why anyone would falsely take the oath with nefarious intentions, because it would do nothing to help them achieve their nefarious intentions and basically wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore, there's no reason to fret about being able to see everyone's faces at all times.
Sitting here steeped in white girl cultural hegemony, I tacitly assumed that they wanted people to uncover their faces during the oath for identification or fraud prevention purposes. But it occurred to me in the shower this morning that no one would cover their face during a citizenship ceremony for nefarious purposes, because there's no incentive to do so - nothing would be gained or achieved by doing so, and it wouldn't change anything.
Let's unpack this.
Scenario: Cindy the New Citizen has gone through the entire immigration process and permanent resident process and citizenship exam and all the hoops and paperwork and everything, and has just received an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony and take the citizenship oath. Congratulations, Cindy! But Cindy doesn't attend the ceremony and take the oath. Instead, Irene the Imposter attends the ceremony, pretending to be Cindy, and takes the oath in her place.
So what would the outcome of this scenario be?
Would Irene become a citizen by taking the oath? Of course not - it's not a binding magical contract like in Harry Potter! The record would show that Cindy, who is fully qualified to be a citizen, is now a citizen. So Cindy would be a citizen and Irene's status would not change.
This means that Irene has no incentive to impersonate Cindy, because it would have no impact on Irene's status.
But what if it's not Irene whose intentions are nefarious, but rather Cindy? What if Cindy is trying to get citizenship without being beholden to the oath? Let's think about this.
Suppose, Cindy breaks her oath and is caught. When called out on it, she says "Nope, you can't hold me to that! I didn't take the oath - I sent an imposter on my behalf!" She's still in trouble, since the content of the oath is, essentially, promising to fulfill your duties as a citizen and obey the law, so she'd be in trouble for being derelict in her duties and/or breaking the law. And, on top of everything else, she'd also be guilty of fraud!
This means that Cindy has no incentive to send an imposter on her behalf, because that would only make things worse.
But what if Irene isn't there on Cindy's behalf? What if she's there without Cindy's knowledge?
I can think of two possible motives for that: either Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, or she's trying to inflict citizenship upon Cindy without her knowledge.
If Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, she would have had to start long before the citizenship ceremony. She could only find out about Cindy's citizenship ceremony if she has access to Cindy's mail, in which case she's either successfully stolen her identity, or has access to far more useful things like credit card statements and tax documents. Going to the ceremony and taking the oath as Cindy will have no impact on the extent of her identity theft.
If Cindy doesn't actually want citizenship and Irene is trying to inflict it upon her without her knowledge, Cindy wouldn't even be having a citizenship ceremony. There's quite a lot of work to do and steps to take to become a citizen, and if Cindy didn't want it, she could just do nothing.
There is simply no reason why anyone would falsely take the oath with nefarious intentions, because it would do nothing to help them achieve their nefarious intentions and basically wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore, there's no reason to fret about being able to see everyone's faces at all times.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Downton needs to explain why Tom thinks they'll have a better life in America
This post contains spoilers up to and including Season 5, Episode 7 of Downton Abbey (the one that includes a cute scene of Tom and little Sybbie dropping sticks off a bridge into the creek below). Please do not include spoilers beyond that point.
In last week's Downton, Tom mentions to little Sybbie that he thinks they might be able to have a better life in America.
The show really needs to elaborate on why he thinks it would be better.
At Downton, Sybbie enjoys a much higher baseline level of security than she would living with Tom alone. Even if we take luxury out of the equation and don't consider it a contributor to quality of life, the fact remains that at Downton she will have a roof over her head and food in her belly. She will have new shoes whenever she needs them and a warm winter coat and a fire in her fireplace.
In America, Tom would need to find work and remain steadily employed to provide these things, but Downton has enough resources to provide these things regardless of what happens, and Sybbie will always be able to benefit from this security because everyone from Lord and Lady Grantham to Thomas the Evil Underbutler loves her.
Also, since Tom is a single parent, he would need to find childcare in America, whereas at Downton there's already childcare fit for a future earl.
Looking forward a few years, at Downton, education will be available to young Sybbie. If Tom wants her to go to school rather than being taught at home by a governess, I'm sure that could be made to happen without compromising her place within the security of Downton. If, when she gets older, she wants to go to some posh school or go on to university, her doting grandparents will make that available. She will be constrained by nothing but her gender (given the era), and I'm sure she'd be similarly constrained by her gender in the US as well.
What would Tom do to earn a living in America? Be a chauffeur or a taxi driver? That's not necessarily going to provide his child with security. Run a business? If he feels that he has the business savvy to build a stable life for his child, he can already make use of it in his current role as estate manager at Downton, in support of the estate that provides his daughter with a secure life.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Tom would necessarily fail in America. He could probably eke out a perfectly reasonable working class cum middle class living. We all know people who've done it - in fact, we probably all know people who've done it despite being a bit of an idiot!
But I just don't see why he's confident it would be better, especially from the point of view of building a future for a child. Normally this 20th century Europe to North American immigration arc involves people who are oppressed or otherwise have limited opportunities in their homeland, and Sybbie isn't and never will be in either situation.
Little Sybbie Branson the daughter of a widowed Irish chauffeur would probably have a better life - or at least more opportunities - in America, but you can't assume that Miss Sybil the granddaughter of an English earl necessarily would. Some insight into Tom's logic here would be helpful to the viewer.
In last week's Downton, Tom mentions to little Sybbie that he thinks they might be able to have a better life in America.
The show really needs to elaborate on why he thinks it would be better.
At Downton, Sybbie enjoys a much higher baseline level of security than she would living with Tom alone. Even if we take luxury out of the equation and don't consider it a contributor to quality of life, the fact remains that at Downton she will have a roof over her head and food in her belly. She will have new shoes whenever she needs them and a warm winter coat and a fire in her fireplace.
In America, Tom would need to find work and remain steadily employed to provide these things, but Downton has enough resources to provide these things regardless of what happens, and Sybbie will always be able to benefit from this security because everyone from Lord and Lady Grantham to Thomas the Evil Underbutler loves her.
Also, since Tom is a single parent, he would need to find childcare in America, whereas at Downton there's already childcare fit for a future earl.
Looking forward a few years, at Downton, education will be available to young Sybbie. If Tom wants her to go to school rather than being taught at home by a governess, I'm sure that could be made to happen without compromising her place within the security of Downton. If, when she gets older, she wants to go to some posh school or go on to university, her doting grandparents will make that available. She will be constrained by nothing but her gender (given the era), and I'm sure she'd be similarly constrained by her gender in the US as well.
What would Tom do to earn a living in America? Be a chauffeur or a taxi driver? That's not necessarily going to provide his child with security. Run a business? If he feels that he has the business savvy to build a stable life for his child, he can already make use of it in his current role as estate manager at Downton, in support of the estate that provides his daughter with a secure life.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Tom would necessarily fail in America. He could probably eke out a perfectly reasonable working class cum middle class living. We all know people who've done it - in fact, we probably all know people who've done it despite being a bit of an idiot!
But I just don't see why he's confident it would be better, especially from the point of view of building a future for a child. Normally this 20th century Europe to North American immigration arc involves people who are oppressed or otherwise have limited opportunities in their homeland, and Sybbie isn't and never will be in either situation.
Little Sybbie Branson the daughter of a widowed Irish chauffeur would probably have a better life - or at least more opportunities - in America, but you can't assume that Miss Sybil the granddaughter of an English earl necessarily would. Some insight into Tom's logic here would be helpful to the viewer.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Journalism wanted: how did the Toronto Star's HPV vaccine story end up being sensationalistic?
I recently wrote a blog post complaining about a Toronto Star article about HPV vaccination that presented the story very sensationalistically and failed to include necessary context.
This week's public editor column agrees with that assessment. Public editor Kathy English says:
I know the writers don't write the headlines and aren't necessarily involved in layout, and I know that senior editors might not necessarily vet every single page layout in the whole newspaper every single day. But you'd think they'd approve the front page! You'd think they'd edit an article extra-carefully if it's going to be the first thing people see, and you'd think they'd look at the big, front-page, above-the-fold headline and make sure it reflects the writers' intended thesis.
It would be informative to readers to write a story about how this sort of thing comes about.
This week's public editor column agrees with that assessment. Public editor Kathy English says:
In looking at all of this, I have to wonder why the Star published this at all — especially at this sensitive time in public health. If there is no proof that any of the young women’s illnesses, or the 60 adverse reactions in the database, were caused by the vaccine, then what is the story?In that same column, she says:
To be fair, in the Gardasil investigation, reporters David Bruser and Jesse McLean absolutely do not conclude or state that the vaccine caused any of the suspected side effects the young women talk about. The article was written carefully to try to impart to readers the message that there was no conclusive evidence.Also, on CBC radio program As It Happens, Toronto Star publisher John Cruikshank said:
"We failed in this case. We let down. And it was in the management of the story at the top."What I want to know: how did the front page layout and presentation and tone of the story turn out sensationalist if the public editor and the publisher both think this is inappropriate and it's not consistent with the reporters' stated intentions?
I know the writers don't write the headlines and aren't necessarily involved in layout, and I know that senior editors might not necessarily vet every single page layout in the whole newspaper every single day. But you'd think they'd approve the front page! You'd think they'd edit an article extra-carefully if it's going to be the first thing people see, and you'd think they'd look at the big, front-page, above-the-fold headline and make sure it reflects the writers' intended thesis.
It would be informative to readers to write a story about how this sort of thing comes about.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
My second Dell depot repair experience
The good: Dell appears to have fixed my computer by implementing the solution I suggested
The bad: It took two months after I suggested the solution, two separate depot repairs totalling 13 days computerless despite the fact that the problem occurred under an on-site service warranty, and an assortment of additional stressers.
The details:
The problem was that, following an in-warranty replacement of a failed hard drive, my BIOS sporadically failed to recognize the presence of operating system on the hard drive. This was a particularly stubborn problem, and had persisted through all possible troubleshooting and one previous attempt at depot repair.
I felt like they were grasping at straws when the best idea they could come up with was another attempt at depot repair and I was very reluctant to send my computer away and have to spend some time computerless, but the telephone technician told me it would be expedited since it's the second attempt (5-7 business days, rather than the standard 5-10). Since my first attempt at depot repair had only taken 4 days all in, I reluctantly agreed to give them one last chance.
I received the shipping box on a Monday, which was the day before my grandmother died, and when I learned of her death I decided to postpone sending out my computer for a week. Being computerless is very stressful to me, and I didn't want the additional stress when I was freshly bereaved.
So the next Monday, I dropped my computer off at the closest Purolator shipping office (a local print shop). I decided to drop it off rather than having a courier pick it up so I could use my computer for part of the day on Monday and prepare it for shipping at my leisure rather than having to have the whole thing ready by 9 in the morning because I don't know what day the courier will come.
Unfortunately, there was a snowstorm on Monday, so the Purolator truck didn't show up at the store to pick up my package!
After a frantic Tuesday morning spent trying to figure out why my computer wasn't in the Purolator system, it was ultimately picked up on Tuesday evening, and arrived at the Dell depot on Wednesday morning. I figured no big deal, last time around it arrived at Dell on Tuesday and was back in my hands on Thursday, so I'll probably still get it back this week.
The Dell tracker showed that they received my unit at 8:30 and began diagnosis at 2:30. Okay, a bit more of a delay than last time, but still reasonable. I was heartened to see the expected return day showing Thursday.
But on Thursday at 10 am, the status changed to "Customer Hold", which meant it was on hold until they got some information from me. I waited and waited, willing the phone to ring, obsessively checking my email, but no one contacted me.
As you might have noticed if you follow me on Twitter, this stressed me out. What was the problem? Why did they need to contact me? And if they so needed to contact me, why hadn't they done so yet? Had they lost my computer? Was it going to take months to fix? What could possibly be going on?
I spent much of the day stressing and crying and catastrophizing, and when I hadn't heard back by the end of the depot's business hours I started emailing and tweeting at anyone I thought might have information. I finally got a snippet of information from @DellCares: apparently, the depot hadn't been able to reproduce the problem. But that just raised more questions. Why did they need to contact me? And why hadn't they? If you need information from the customer about how to reproduce the problem before you proceed further, what is gained by not contacting the customer? It seems like in this case you'd either ship it straight back with "could not reproduce" to keep your numbers up, or you'd contact the customer right away so you could move forward. Both @DellCares and one of the techs I'd been emailing with said they'd have the depot get back to me the next day, so I eventually managed to soothe myself to sleep.
On Thursday at 10 am, I still hadn't heard from anyone. So I checked the tracker again, and it said the hold had been lifted at 9 am. But no one had contacted me! What was going on here? From where I'm sitting, it looks very much like they wasted a day (thereby doubling my number of computerless days because of the weekend) for no particular reason!
At 11, the tracker said they'd begun repair. I was glad to see progress, but how could they be repairing if they couldn't reproduce the error? I hoped this was just an interim step towards shipping my computer back to me.
Meanwhile, the email tech told me that the hold delay was due to the depot having to find out whether I have a complete or limited warranty. How does that take a whole day? And why did the tracker say "customer hold" when that wasn't information that they'd find out from me? And what kind of strange crazy problem did I have that required them to double check the warranty?
On Friday, the tracker still said the computer was under repair and the next update would be Monday. So I bolstered myself for the stress of a computerless weekend, exacerbated by all these questions about the mystery hold.
On Monday, I eagerly refreshed the tracker over and over, but it hadn't been updated despite the fact that it said Monday was the next update day. Had the repair failed? What if they couldn't figure it out and insisted on holding onto my computer for weeks and weeks? Partway through the day I received an email the email tech, but all he had to say was that the computer was still in repair. It seemed like the email was either automatically generated or he was blindly transcribing the tracker status into email without regard for utility.
Then, towards the end of the day on Monday, the tracker said the repair was complete and they were shipping my computer back to me! I was half delighted and half nervous, uncertain if the problem would actually be fixed or not, and, because of the various horror stories I'd read online, partly dreading that my computer might come back in worse condition. I'd already decided that if this repair hadn't fixed it I wouldn't accept a third depot repair because it was just too stressful for me, so I was also partly dreading having to be assertive to get my computer fixed without Dell marking me as a problem customer.
I received my computer on Tuesday. I was so worried that something might have gone wrong that I videoed the unboxing and the first few boot-ups, just in case I needed evidence of any damage or evidence of the problem reoccurring.
The first mystery was on the slip that came with the computer, telling me what work had been done. Under "The unit was received with the following cosmetic issues which is not covered by Dell's HW Warranty", everything was checked (Scratches/Marks on top cover/Case, Scratches/Marks on LCD Screen/Bezel, and Scratches/Marks on Palmrest). There were no scratches or marks when I sent it out! I inspected it closely, and discovered...there were no scratches or marks on it when I received it back either! Did the depot check all those off as a matter of course so they wouldn't be obligated to repair any damage they did??? Yet another source of distrust!
Dreading the prospect of having a damaged computer in hand that Dell would refuse to prepare, I booted up, still taking video. On the first boot-up, it said "Setup is preparing your computer for first use", just like it did after my last depot repair. Figuring that meant they hadn't tested it like I asked, I created an account, finished the installation of Windows, and decided to boot up a couple more times to see if the problem reoccurred.
On the first boot-up after the installation of Windows was completed, I saw that there were in fact two Windows accounts: my own, and one named "Dell". Maybe this meant they had tested it! I did two more boot-ups from complete shutdown, and the problem didn't reoccur.
I looked at the device manager, and saw that the hard drive they'd installed wasn't Western Digital this time! The device manager said my hard drive was a "ST1000LM024-HN-M101MBB", which, according to google, is a Samsung hard drive - just like I originally had and I requested after the first round of hardware troubleshooting failed back in December!
That appears to have solved the problem (so far at least, knock wood). Since I got the computer back, I've had 8 boot-ups from a power-off state and 3 boot-ups from a hibernate state, and it has worked every single time. I sincerely hope this means it's fixed!
A squandered opportunity
This whole saga has been a squandered opportunity for Dell to delight me and win back my unquestioning loyalty. As I mentioned in my post about how Dell needs to empower its employees, the telephone tech was not empowered to dispatch a Samsung hard drive as I requested, even after we'd eliminated every other variable.
If he had been empowered to do so, the whole problem would have been solved with the second on-site service call. I would have been delighted with Dell for, once again, saving my ass in the dying days of my warranty, and would have blindly gone with Dell for my next computer purchase, buying the best gaming laptop they'd be willing to sell me with all the warranties and upgrades available.
Since the problem would have been solved before xmas, I would have told everyone at xmas (empty-nester baby boomers and millennial young professionals, most of whom have more disposable income now than they ever have before) all about how Dell saved my ass. But, since the problem was still ongoing at xmas, I instead was telling them about how Dell was stressing me out by wanting to send my computer to a depot even though the problem occurred under an on-site warranty.
Since I wouldn't have had any reason to google up other people's Dell depot experiences, I wouldn't have seen other people's horror stories and therefore wouldn't have been stressing out nearly as much. I wouldn't have been saturating my Twitter feed with worries about Dell. I wouldn't have been blogging extensively about everything I found stressful about Dell. I would simply have written one blog post praising their warranty service, and gotten on with life.
But, because the Dell telephone technician was not empowered to take my suggestion of using the original brand of hard drive, and because the first round of depot repair either couldn't or didn't this suggestion, my loyalty was not won over and all the word of mouth and social media I produced about Dell over the past two months was full of stress and worry.
They should be able to do better, and it's rather their loss that they didn't.
The bad: It took two months after I suggested the solution, two separate depot repairs totalling 13 days computerless despite the fact that the problem occurred under an on-site service warranty, and an assortment of additional stressers.
The details:
The problem was that, following an in-warranty replacement of a failed hard drive, my BIOS sporadically failed to recognize the presence of operating system on the hard drive. This was a particularly stubborn problem, and had persisted through all possible troubleshooting and one previous attempt at depot repair.
I felt like they were grasping at straws when the best idea they could come up with was another attempt at depot repair and I was very reluctant to send my computer away and have to spend some time computerless, but the telephone technician told me it would be expedited since it's the second attempt (5-7 business days, rather than the standard 5-10). Since my first attempt at depot repair had only taken 4 days all in, I reluctantly agreed to give them one last chance.
I received the shipping box on a Monday, which was the day before my grandmother died, and when I learned of her death I decided to postpone sending out my computer for a week. Being computerless is very stressful to me, and I didn't want the additional stress when I was freshly bereaved.
So the next Monday, I dropped my computer off at the closest Purolator shipping office (a local print shop). I decided to drop it off rather than having a courier pick it up so I could use my computer for part of the day on Monday and prepare it for shipping at my leisure rather than having to have the whole thing ready by 9 in the morning because I don't know what day the courier will come.
Unfortunately, there was a snowstorm on Monday, so the Purolator truck didn't show up at the store to pick up my package!
After a frantic Tuesday morning spent trying to figure out why my computer wasn't in the Purolator system, it was ultimately picked up on Tuesday evening, and arrived at the Dell depot on Wednesday morning. I figured no big deal, last time around it arrived at Dell on Tuesday and was back in my hands on Thursday, so I'll probably still get it back this week.
The Dell tracker showed that they received my unit at 8:30 and began diagnosis at 2:30. Okay, a bit more of a delay than last time, but still reasonable. I was heartened to see the expected return day showing Thursday.
But on Thursday at 10 am, the status changed to "Customer Hold", which meant it was on hold until they got some information from me. I waited and waited, willing the phone to ring, obsessively checking my email, but no one contacted me.
As you might have noticed if you follow me on Twitter, this stressed me out. What was the problem? Why did they need to contact me? And if they so needed to contact me, why hadn't they done so yet? Had they lost my computer? Was it going to take months to fix? What could possibly be going on?
I spent much of the day stressing and crying and catastrophizing, and when I hadn't heard back by the end of the depot's business hours I started emailing and tweeting at anyone I thought might have information. I finally got a snippet of information from @DellCares: apparently, the depot hadn't been able to reproduce the problem. But that just raised more questions. Why did they need to contact me? And why hadn't they? If you need information from the customer about how to reproduce the problem before you proceed further, what is gained by not contacting the customer? It seems like in this case you'd either ship it straight back with "could not reproduce" to keep your numbers up, or you'd contact the customer right away so you could move forward. Both @DellCares and one of the techs I'd been emailing with said they'd have the depot get back to me the next day, so I eventually managed to soothe myself to sleep.
On Thursday at 10 am, I still hadn't heard from anyone. So I checked the tracker again, and it said the hold had been lifted at 9 am. But no one had contacted me! What was going on here? From where I'm sitting, it looks very much like they wasted a day (thereby doubling my number of computerless days because of the weekend) for no particular reason!
At 11, the tracker said they'd begun repair. I was glad to see progress, but how could they be repairing if they couldn't reproduce the error? I hoped this was just an interim step towards shipping my computer back to me.
Meanwhile, the email tech told me that the hold delay was due to the depot having to find out whether I have a complete or limited warranty. How does that take a whole day? And why did the tracker say "customer hold" when that wasn't information that they'd find out from me? And what kind of strange crazy problem did I have that required them to double check the warranty?
On Friday, the tracker still said the computer was under repair and the next update would be Monday. So I bolstered myself for the stress of a computerless weekend, exacerbated by all these questions about the mystery hold.
On Monday, I eagerly refreshed the tracker over and over, but it hadn't been updated despite the fact that it said Monday was the next update day. Had the repair failed? What if they couldn't figure it out and insisted on holding onto my computer for weeks and weeks? Partway through the day I received an email the email tech, but all he had to say was that the computer was still in repair. It seemed like the email was either automatically generated or he was blindly transcribing the tracker status into email without regard for utility.
Then, towards the end of the day on Monday, the tracker said the repair was complete and they were shipping my computer back to me! I was half delighted and half nervous, uncertain if the problem would actually be fixed or not, and, because of the various horror stories I'd read online, partly dreading that my computer might come back in worse condition. I'd already decided that if this repair hadn't fixed it I wouldn't accept a third depot repair because it was just too stressful for me, so I was also partly dreading having to be assertive to get my computer fixed without Dell marking me as a problem customer.
I received my computer on Tuesday. I was so worried that something might have gone wrong that I videoed the unboxing and the first few boot-ups, just in case I needed evidence of any damage or evidence of the problem reoccurring.
The first mystery was on the slip that came with the computer, telling me what work had been done. Under "The unit was received with the following cosmetic issues which is not covered by Dell's HW Warranty", everything was checked (Scratches/Marks on top cover/Case, Scratches/Marks on LCD Screen/Bezel, and Scratches/Marks on Palmrest). There were no scratches or marks when I sent it out! I inspected it closely, and discovered...there were no scratches or marks on it when I received it back either! Did the depot check all those off as a matter of course so they wouldn't be obligated to repair any damage they did??? Yet another source of distrust!
Dreading the prospect of having a damaged computer in hand that Dell would refuse to prepare, I booted up, still taking video. On the first boot-up, it said "Setup is preparing your computer for first use", just like it did after my last depot repair. Figuring that meant they hadn't tested it like I asked, I created an account, finished the installation of Windows, and decided to boot up a couple more times to see if the problem reoccurred.
On the first boot-up after the installation of Windows was completed, I saw that there were in fact two Windows accounts: my own, and one named "Dell". Maybe this meant they had tested it! I did two more boot-ups from complete shutdown, and the problem didn't reoccur.
I looked at the device manager, and saw that the hard drive they'd installed wasn't Western Digital this time! The device manager said my hard drive was a "ST1000LM024-HN-M101MBB", which, according to google, is a Samsung hard drive - just like I originally had and I requested after the first round of hardware troubleshooting failed back in December!
That appears to have solved the problem (so far at least, knock wood). Since I got the computer back, I've had 8 boot-ups from a power-off state and 3 boot-ups from a hibernate state, and it has worked every single time. I sincerely hope this means it's fixed!
A squandered opportunity
This whole saga has been a squandered opportunity for Dell to delight me and win back my unquestioning loyalty. As I mentioned in my post about how Dell needs to empower its employees, the telephone tech was not empowered to dispatch a Samsung hard drive as I requested, even after we'd eliminated every other variable.
If he had been empowered to do so, the whole problem would have been solved with the second on-site service call. I would have been delighted with Dell for, once again, saving my ass in the dying days of my warranty, and would have blindly gone with Dell for my next computer purchase, buying the best gaming laptop they'd be willing to sell me with all the warranties and upgrades available.
Since the problem would have been solved before xmas, I would have told everyone at xmas (empty-nester baby boomers and millennial young professionals, most of whom have more disposable income now than they ever have before) all about how Dell saved my ass. But, since the problem was still ongoing at xmas, I instead was telling them about how Dell was stressing me out by wanting to send my computer to a depot even though the problem occurred under an on-site warranty.
Since I wouldn't have had any reason to google up other people's Dell depot experiences, I wouldn't have seen other people's horror stories and therefore wouldn't have been stressing out nearly as much. I wouldn't have been saturating my Twitter feed with worries about Dell. I wouldn't have been blogging extensively about everything I found stressful about Dell. I would simply have written one blog post praising their warranty service, and gotten on with life.
But, because the Dell telephone technician was not empowered to take my suggestion of using the original brand of hard drive, and because the first round of depot repair either couldn't or didn't this suggestion, my loyalty was not won over and all the word of mouth and social media I produced about Dell over the past two months was full of stress and worry.
They should be able to do better, and it's rather their loss that they didn't.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Horrid journalism from the Toronto Star
The Toronto Star wrote very sensationalist front-page story about people who report having various illnesses after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination.
As they mention in the subheadline (with some weird conjuction use), they found 60 people who reported illnesses, out of hundreds of thousands who have received the vaccine
The problem: they don't mention the statistics of these kinds of illnesses occurring in similar populations who have not recently be vaccinated. We're talking tens of times among a sample size of hundreds of thousands, which is hundredths of a percent. It is certainly plausible that the number of illnesses reported are consistent with what would happen ordinarily in the general population.
Back when I did my research before getting Gardasil, my research found just that: the number of reported conditions in the sample group was consistent with the number in the general population. That could certainly be the case here. But the Star doesn't provide the numbers!
If the number of illnesses found in this investigation is significantly higher than what would have occurred in the control group, then that is important information that supports the Star's thesis and they should include it.
But if it is not, then this is an irresponsible piece of journalism.
By failing to include these numbers, they've made the article non-credible in the eyes of the most-informed audience who will read it critically, while sensationalistically creating paranoia among the least-informed audience who will only skim the headlines.
The article ends with one of the interviewees saying “I am not against the vaccine, I want people to be responsible about Gardasil. I am trying to inform people.”
In order to inform people so that they can make responsible decisions about Gardasil, you need to include control group numbers!
As they mention in the subheadline (with some weird conjuction use), they found 60 people who reported illnesses, out of hundreds of thousands who have received the vaccine
The problem: they don't mention the statistics of these kinds of illnesses occurring in similar populations who have not recently be vaccinated. We're talking tens of times among a sample size of hundreds of thousands, which is hundredths of a percent. It is certainly plausible that the number of illnesses reported are consistent with what would happen ordinarily in the general population.
Back when I did my research before getting Gardasil, my research found just that: the number of reported conditions in the sample group was consistent with the number in the general population. That could certainly be the case here. But the Star doesn't provide the numbers!
If the number of illnesses found in this investigation is significantly higher than what would have occurred in the control group, then that is important information that supports the Star's thesis and they should include it.
But if it is not, then this is an irresponsible piece of journalism.
By failing to include these numbers, they've made the article non-credible in the eyes of the most-informed audience who will read it critically, while sensationalistically creating paranoia among the least-informed audience who will only skim the headlines.
The article ends with one of the interviewees saying “I am not against the vaccine, I want people to be responsible about Gardasil. I am trying to inform people.”
In order to inform people so that they can make responsible decisions about Gardasil, you need to include control group numbers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)