New:
1. How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi
2. Queen's Shadow by E. K. Johnston
3. That Inevitable Victorian Thing by E. K. Johnston
4. The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was by Chantal Hebert with Jean Lapierre
Reread:
1. Judgement in Death
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Horoscopes
Toronto Star
Globe and Mail:
The Star one just sounds exhausting. The Globe and Mail one kind of already happened as I tried to figure out how to make a life after my head injury.
IF TODAY IS YOUR BIRTHDAY: What you can expect this year is the unexpected. Once you find your life settling down and working well, do not be surprised at the wave of excitement that falls on you. Children and loved ones could be involved. If single, you could be overwhelmed by a series of passionate love affairs; with each affair, you might believe this is the right person. Let time be the judge. If attached, you will not be able to complain about boredom. It will be as if you are newlyweds or new lovers again. SCORPIO encourages you to live life with passion.
Globe and Mail:
A Mars-Pluto link on your birthday will add a touch of iron to your nature and anyone who thinks they can bully you is going to realize you are not the pushover they thought you were. What happened to your easygoing attitude? Who knows, but it’s gone!
The Star one just sounds exhausting. The Globe and Mail one kind of already happened as I tried to figure out how to make a life after my head injury.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Books read in November 2019
New:
1. Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King
Reread:
1. Witness in Death
1. Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King
Reread:
1. Witness in Death
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Another option for Captain Awkward #1237
From Captain Awkward:
In addition to Captain Awkward's idea (which are definitely worth reading - a lot of interesting food for thought about what happens when etiquette no longer serves us well), I have another script suggestion:
"Let's not do gifts any more."
You might cite reasons like "We're all adults now, we can all buy whatever we want for ourselves just as easily as we can buy things for each other. We all know what we ourselves have and need, whereas we can't see what the others have or need."
If your mother is going to be disappointed by the thought of her children not exchanging gifts, you can add something about "What's really important is being together."
(If you want to keep exchanging gifts with your mother, your initial script can be "Let's not do gifts among siblings.")
This approach will achieve several things:
Basically, the worse your siblings' intentions, the more this approach punishes them, whereas the better their intentions, the more this approach unburdens them. And all while requiring no effort whatsoever from you!
Hi!
I am 28, she/her. My sister in law (“A”) is also 28 and my brother (“D”) is 31.
I have a question about gift etiquette.
Last year on my birthday, A and D gave me a bunch of used DVDs. They got me slightly damaged copies of a couple movies and every season of a TV show my parents liked in the 90’s that I have never expressed any interest in. They wrapped each one individually so they could watch me unwrap them and giggle. I got the joke – this is a terrible gift! Hahaha – but I wasn’t included in the joke. With each one I opened, I got more confused, which seemed to make it even more funny for them.
That Christmas, they did it again, and this time they did it to my parents as well. They got me individual seasons of a TV show that is available in its entirety on Netflix and that I have had conversations about with them in the past where I said I did not like the show. They got my parents copies of DVDs they already owned. All of these were slightly beat up from being previously owned. They giggled and said things like “That’s an important one” and “Better get on watching that soon” the whole time.
My parents pretended to like them the whole time, but as A and D had already done this on my birthday, I finally got frustrated and refused to open more presents from them, because they just kept coming. We all take turns opening gifts and every time it was my turn, it was another used DVD.
Meanwhile, I work very hard on gifts. Last year I got A, a notorious anglophile, a certificate to a years subscription to a service that gets a ton of different British TV shows she had been wanting to watch but hadn’t been able to get access to. I nestled the certificate in a box of fortune cookie fortunes I had collected throughout the year (she collects these and plans to cover a table with them someday). For D I spent months searching for a sweater that had the Coca Cola logo on it. (He loves Coke. He once wrote an essay on its history for a college history class.) These were in addition to other things – games they didn’t have (they love board games) and nice teas (they enjoy tea). I spent ages trying to find thoughtful gifts and then I wrapped each one in nice paper that’s in their favorite colors.
The Christmas before last they didn’t get me a joke gift. They got me a “gummy candy maker.” It was essentially brightly colored silicone molds and unbranded Jello to put in them. It was obviously a children’s toy, and when I opened it, it was sticky from being previously owned. I pretended to be interested and thanked them, which made them smirk at each other. They also gave me a wine-scented candle. It was branded as being from a winery A’s parents had gone to a month or two prior. (Meaning I think they regifted it.)
So they have always given gifts like this, last year was just kind of a new level.
After they left last Christmas, my mom pulled me aside and was like, “Do you know what was going on with all the used DVDs?”
I said, “I think they just thought it was funny.” She seemed a bit crestfallen. She gives gifts similar to mine. She had gotten A a rare kind of tea set.
Furthermore, I don’t think A used the gift certificate and I know D got rid of the sweater because this year Mom said we should take a family photo wearing goofy sweaters and D said he didn’t have one. I said, “What about the one I gave you last Christmas?” He said “Oh, right. I might still have that.”
This is not a money thing – they both make more money than I do and buy nice, new things for themselves regularly. They’re just giving me joke gifts and doubling down when my feelings are hurt. I guess they just don’t like the gifts I give them.
I don’t mean to seem like I’m bragging about being super great at giving gifts or I’m entitled to lots of cool presents. I only meant that I try to put a lot of thought into their gifts and save up for them for a long time. They take a long time to think of and pull off. And A and D get cheap gifts at the last second. I would rather they didn’t get me anything at all.
My question is, what is the etiquette for receiving gifts that hurt my feelings? Do I have to keep pretending they don’t? What should I feel about trying really hard to get them things they like and having them openly dislike them? I want to just get them Amazon gift cards this year, but if they decide to get me non-joke presents this year I’ll just look like an asshole. I don’t know what to do or say.
Sorry this is so long. Thank you in advance.
In addition to Captain Awkward's idea (which are definitely worth reading - a lot of interesting food for thought about what happens when etiquette no longer serves us well), I have another script suggestion:
"Let's not do gifts any more."
You might cite reasons like "We're all adults now, we can all buy whatever we want for ourselves just as easily as we can buy things for each other. We all know what we ourselves have and need, whereas we can't see what the others have or need."
If your mother is going to be disappointed by the thought of her children not exchanging gifts, you can add something about "What's really important is being together."
(If you want to keep exchanging gifts with your mother, your initial script can be "Let's not do gifts among siblings.")
This approach will achieve several things:
- If your siblings dislike the gifts you give them, this will free them from that burden!
- If your siblings like your thoughtful gifts, this will deprive them of that pleasure!
- If your siblings struggle to find an appropriate gift for you, this will free them from that burden!
- If your siblings enjoy watching your discomfort as you open an unsuitable gift, this will deprive them of that pleasure!
Basically, the worse your siblings' intentions, the more this approach punishes them, whereas the better their intentions, the more this approach unburdens them. And all while requiring no effort whatsoever from you!
Saturday, November 09, 2019
Not blogathoning this year
Traditionally, I blogathon on Remembrance Day.
However, this year's goal is to eliminate things that don't serve me well, and blogathoning would not serve me well in the current context.
I do have a quite a few posts half drafted and they will come along in due course, it's just spending an entire day on it that would be unhelpful.
However, this year's goal is to eliminate things that don't serve me well, and blogathoning would not serve me well in the current context.
I do have a quite a few posts half drafted and they will come along in due course, it's just spending an entire day on it that would be unhelpful.
Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Why is there a "gender" field in Elections Canada's voter registration?
You can use Elections Canada's Voter Registration Service to see if you're registered to vote.
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Books read in October 2019
New:
1. Vendetta in Death by J.D. Robb
2. Be With: Letters to a Caregiver by Mike Barnes
Reread:
1. Loyalty in Death
1. Vendetta in Death by J.D. Robb
2. Be With: Letters to a Caregiver by Mike Barnes
Reread:
1. Loyalty in Death
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Wish strategy
1. If you ever find a genie in a bottle or some other wish-granting mechanism, here's how you do the most good:
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal on as broad a level as possible.
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal for me.
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
I wish that nothing will ever get worse for me or anyone I care about.
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me.
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me that they perceive to be positive.
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Voted
I usually blog about my voting experience directly after the election, but I've had an extremely busy week so I'm not getting to it until now.
Voting went literally as quickly as humanly possible. I walked out the door straight to the polling place (pausing only to pet two friendly dogs who proactively greeted me). There was no line at the door, there was no line at the table for my poll, I cast my vote immediately and walked straight home. No more than 10 minutes elapsed between locking my door on the way out of the apartment and unlocking the door on the way back in.
I saw more than the usual amount of signs this time around, in the usual proportions. On the weekend before the election, a fringe candidate in my riding put up a bunch of signs on lampposts - some at the perfect height to smack pedestrians in the face, others so high up that the property owners would need a ladder to remove them. The next day, I noticed that many of the face-height signs were battered and torn.
I got one flyer each from my Liberal, NDP and Conservative candidates. The Liberal and NDP flyers were the usual boilerplate. The Conservative flyer managed to assume both that I'm wealthier than I actually am and that I have a harder time making ends meet than I actually do. It also failed to mention the candidate's name.
The Conservative candidate also had a branded SUV that they kept parking just outside the riding (probably because my neighbourhood marks the boundary of three ridings and street parking is scarce.) I can't tell if this was an advertising measure or if that was just their campaign vehicle. (Do candidates in transit-intensive urban neighbourhoods have campaign vehicles?)
One thing I do appreciate is that my Liberal candidate's campaign office configured their phone service so that a name showed up on call display. I find that fewer and fewer callers are doing that lately, and I particularly appreciate knowing who's calling when it's for a legitimate reason. I don't know if any of the other campaigns called me. I didn't get any voicemail messages from them or see any of their names on call display, and I don't answer the phone to unknown numbers.
Voting went literally as quickly as humanly possible. I walked out the door straight to the polling place (pausing only to pet two friendly dogs who proactively greeted me). There was no line at the door, there was no line at the table for my poll, I cast my vote immediately and walked straight home. No more than 10 minutes elapsed between locking my door on the way out of the apartment and unlocking the door on the way back in.
I saw more than the usual amount of signs this time around, in the usual proportions. On the weekend before the election, a fringe candidate in my riding put up a bunch of signs on lampposts - some at the perfect height to smack pedestrians in the face, others so high up that the property owners would need a ladder to remove them. The next day, I noticed that many of the face-height signs were battered and torn.
I got one flyer each from my Liberal, NDP and Conservative candidates. The Liberal and NDP flyers were the usual boilerplate. The Conservative flyer managed to assume both that I'm wealthier than I actually am and that I have a harder time making ends meet than I actually do. It also failed to mention the candidate's name.
The Conservative candidate also had a branded SUV that they kept parking just outside the riding (probably because my neighbourhood marks the boundary of three ridings and street parking is scarce.) I can't tell if this was an advertising measure or if that was just their campaign vehicle. (Do candidates in transit-intensive urban neighbourhoods have campaign vehicles?)
One thing I do appreciate is that my Liberal candidate's campaign office configured their phone service so that a name showed up on call display. I find that fewer and fewer callers are doing that lately, and I particularly appreciate knowing who's calling when it's for a legitimate reason. I don't know if any of the other campaigns called me. I didn't get any voicemail messages from them or see any of their names on call display, and I don't answer the phone to unknown numbers.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Voters' Resources (Canada 2019 edition)
Getting started
Election Day is October 21!
First, go to the Elections Canada website and type in your postal code to find out if you're registered to vote, your riding, your candidates, and where to vote.
You need ID to vote. Here's the list of acceptable combinations of ID.
Your employer needs to allow you three consecutive hours off during voting hours.
Platforms
Bloc Québécois (PDF)
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
My posts about deciding how to vote
How to decide who to vote for
How to decide where to vote if you have a choice
How to vote strategically
To figure out which party is best for you
CBC Vote Compass
Political Compass: compare your results on the test with the Canadian federal elections 2019 chart
Riding-by-riding predictions
Election Prediction Project
338 Canada
LISPOP
Too Close to Call
This post will be updated through to Election Day as I find more information. Do you know of anything else that should be included here? Are any of the links dead? Let me know in the comments!
Election Day is October 21!
First, go to the Elections Canada website and type in your postal code to find out if you're registered to vote, your riding, your candidates, and where to vote.
You need ID to vote. Here's the list of acceptable combinations of ID.
Your employer needs to allow you three consecutive hours off during voting hours.
Platforms
Bloc Québécois (PDF)
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
My posts about deciding how to vote
How to decide who to vote for
How to decide where to vote if you have a choice
How to vote strategically
To figure out which party is best for you
CBC Vote Compass
Political Compass: compare your results on the test with the Canadian federal elections 2019 chart
Riding-by-riding predictions
Election Prediction Project
338 Canada
LISPOP
Too Close to Call
This post will be updated through to Election Day as I find more information. Do you know of anything else that should be included here? Are any of the links dead? Let me know in the comments!
How to vote strategically
This is part of my Voters' Resources post.
Some people vote for the party whose platform they find most suitable (the Best Party). If that's what you're trying to do, this post isn't for you. Go vote for the Best Party.
Other people try to prevent the party whose platform they find most harmful (the Worst Party) from being elected, by voting for the party that's most likely to defeat the Worst Party (the Compromise Party). This is called strategic voting.
The most important thing about strategic voting is that your strategy has to apply to the reality in your riding. The media feeds us national polls for breakfast every day, but they're not directly relevant. Regardless of what the rest of the country is doing, your vote will only be used to elect the MP for your own riding. If your riding is already disinclined to elect the Worst Party, there's no point in a strategic vote - you'd just end up making the Compromise Party look more popular than they really are.
So here's what to do if your priority is stopping the Worst Party from winning:
1. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's going to win in this particular riding?"
If the answer is a party other than the Worst Party, vote for the Best Party. If the answer is "the Worst Party" or "it's too close to tell," go on to step 2.
2. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's most likely to defeat the Worst Party in this particular riding?"
This is your Compromise Party. Read their platform. If it's acceptable, vote for the Compromise Party. If it's not acceptable, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: ignore the national polls; think only about the situation in your riding!
Links to tools to help you figure out what's going to happen in your riding are available in the Voters' Resources post
Some people vote for the party whose platform they find most suitable (the Best Party). If that's what you're trying to do, this post isn't for you. Go vote for the Best Party.
Other people try to prevent the party whose platform they find most harmful (the Worst Party) from being elected, by voting for the party that's most likely to defeat the Worst Party (the Compromise Party). This is called strategic voting.
The most important thing about strategic voting is that your strategy has to apply to the reality in your riding. The media feeds us national polls for breakfast every day, but they're not directly relevant. Regardless of what the rest of the country is doing, your vote will only be used to elect the MP for your own riding. If your riding is already disinclined to elect the Worst Party, there's no point in a strategic vote - you'd just end up making the Compromise Party look more popular than they really are.
So here's what to do if your priority is stopping the Worst Party from winning:
1. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's going to win in this particular riding?"
If the answer is a party other than the Worst Party, vote for the Best Party. If the answer is "the Worst Party" or "it's too close to tell," go on to step 2.
2. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's most likely to defeat the Worst Party in this particular riding?"
This is your Compromise Party. Read their platform. If it's acceptable, vote for the Compromise Party. If it's not acceptable, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: ignore the national polls; think only about the situation in your riding!
Links to tools to help you figure out what's going to happen in your riding are available in the Voters' Resources post
How to decide where to vote (if you have a choice)
This is part of my Voters' Resources post.
Some people (such as university students renting housing in the community where they go to school who also still have their parents' house as their "permanent address") are in a situation where they could legitimately vote in one of two possible ridings. This post is intended to help them decide where to vote.
1. If one of the ridings is a really close race, vote in that riding. If both are close, vote in the riding with the closest race. If neither is really close, follow the instructions below.
2. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision for the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision for the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
3. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
4. If it's more important to you that the Best Party win, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
5. If it's more important to you that the Worst Party not win, and the Worst Party has a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party in the riding where the Worst Party is most likely to win.
6. If the Worst Party doesn't have a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
Tools to help you figure out where you're eligible to vote and which party is most likely to win in your ridings can be found in the Voters' Resources post
Some people (such as university students renting housing in the community where they go to school who also still have their parents' house as their "permanent address") are in a situation where they could legitimately vote in one of two possible ridings. This post is intended to help them decide where to vote.
1. If one of the ridings is a really close race, vote in that riding. If both are close, vote in the riding with the closest race. If neither is really close, follow the instructions below.
2. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision for the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision for the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
3. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
4. If it's more important to you that the Best Party win, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
5. If it's more important to you that the Worst Party not win, and the Worst Party has a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party in the riding where the Worst Party is most likely to win.
6. If the Worst Party doesn't have a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
Tools to help you figure out where you're eligible to vote and which party is most likely to win in your ridings can be found in the Voters' Resources post
How to decide which party to vote for
This is part of my Voters' Resources post
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, determine which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Best Party). Then determine which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for Canada, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding. Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform any strategic voting you might choose to do. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
Information about how to find who's running in your riding and links to party platforms can be found in the Voters' Resources post. Further information on how to assess parties' chances in your riding and other aspects of effective strategic voting can be found in the How To Vote Strategically post.
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, determine which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Best Party). Then determine which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for Canada, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding. Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform any strategic voting you might choose to do. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
Information about how to find who's running in your riding and links to party platforms can be found in the Voters' Resources post. Further information on how to assess parties' chances in your riding and other aspects of effective strategic voting can be found in the How To Vote Strategically post.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Analogy for spicy food
Imagine you're at an amazing concert - the music is beautiful, the lyrics are deep, the artistry is incredible...except someone pointed a microphone at a speaker, causing loud high-pitched feedback.
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
Wednesday, October 02, 2019
[X] or [X+1] [noun]s
A turn of phrase I've noticed recently, although it seems old-fashioned (or possibly British) is "[X] or [X+1] [noun]s".
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Monday, September 30, 2019
Books read in September 2019
New:
1. Moccasin Square Gardens by Richard Van Camp
2. Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call by Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ron Derrickson
3. Frying Plaintain by Zalika Reid-Benta
4. The English Governess at the Siamese Court by
Reread:
1. Conspiracy in Death
1. Moccasin Square Gardens by Richard Van Camp
2. Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-up Call by Arthur Manuel and Grand Chief Ron Derrickson
3. Frying Plaintain by Zalika Reid-Benta
4. The English Governess at the Siamese Court by
Reread:
1. Conspiracy in Death
Friday, September 13, 2019
Things They Should Invent: "helpful" "funny" "agree" buttons on advice column comments
As I've mentioned before, I enjoy reading advice columns.
Many columns have robust commenting communities, where commenters provide helpful advice, insight and perspective.
Many columns have robust commenting communities where commenters provide entertaining snark.
Many columns have robust commenting communities where commenters provide unpleasant toxicity.
And, often, these three types of communities overlap.
For a while, I've been thinking that advice column communities should have an upvote/downvote system or a system where you can click Like on a comment, so helpful comments can rise to the top and toxic ones can be buried.
But, on further reflection, I think a three-factor voting system would be more helpful.
On Yelp, you can mark a review as "useful", "funny" or "cool".
I'd like to see this adapted to advice columns, so you could mark a comment as "helpful", "funny", or "agree" (or any combination thereof), and sort the comments view by any one of these three factors.
Letter-writers and anyone with the same problem could sort the comments by "helpful" to see the best ideas for addressing their problem, without all the other clutter and judgement.
People who are there for the popcorn could sort the comments by "funny" to see the most entertaining comments.
And people who are interested in avoiding toxicity can sort comments by "agree", so bad comments are buried.
Voting on comments might also reduce arguments and other clutter in the comments section, because the fact that a comment has a lot of votes or no votes tends to speak for itself, and people don't feel the need to respond with "THIS!" or "BULLSHIT!" or whatever.
Many columns have robust commenting communities, where commenters provide helpful advice, insight and perspective.
Many columns have robust commenting communities where commenters provide entertaining snark.
Many columns have robust commenting communities where commenters provide unpleasant toxicity.
And, often, these three types of communities overlap.
For a while, I've been thinking that advice column communities should have an upvote/downvote system or a system where you can click Like on a comment, so helpful comments can rise to the top and toxic ones can be buried.
But, on further reflection, I think a three-factor voting system would be more helpful.
On Yelp, you can mark a review as "useful", "funny" or "cool".
I'd like to see this adapted to advice columns, so you could mark a comment as "helpful", "funny", or "agree" (or any combination thereof), and sort the comments view by any one of these three factors.
Letter-writers and anyone with the same problem could sort the comments by "helpful" to see the best ideas for addressing their problem, without all the other clutter and judgement.
People who are there for the popcorn could sort the comments by "funny" to see the most entertaining comments.
And people who are interested in avoiding toxicity can sort comments by "agree", so bad comments are buried.
Voting on comments might also reduce arguments and other clutter in the comments section, because the fact that a comment has a lot of votes or no votes tends to speak for itself, and people don't feel the need to respond with "THIS!" or "BULLSHIT!" or whatever.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
A Grade 3 moment
My fairy goddaughter just started Grade 3! So here's the story of a seminal moment from when I was in Grade 3:
Mornings in our Grade 3 classroom followed a routine: spelling, then math, then journal, then silent reading. The teacher started each morning by writing the day's spelling exercises, math questions and journal topic on the board, so we could see as soon as we walked in what the morning would bring.
I was one of the better students in the class, so I was always among the first to finish my spelling exercises. Then, one day, I had an idea: I'm done my spelling, so rather than sitting around waiting bored, I'll do my math next!
So I took out my math book, worked through the questions written on the board, and finished them all while the class was still working on spelling.
So then I took out my journal, and wrote a journal entry on the topic written on the board. The class was still working on spelling.
So I took out my silent reading book - it was a good book and I was looking forward to it! - and settled in to spend the rest of my morning reading.
My teacher noticed I was reading instead of working, so he came over to see what's up. I showed him I'd already finished the morning's work and was now diligently doing my silent reading. He praised me to the class for my initiative (which was awkward) and then let me read.
***
What's interesting about this moment is how representative it is of my strengths and temperament.
I find task-oriented work far more satisfying than project-oriented work.
I find it disproportionately satisfying to work through a list and check everything off and then have free time afterwards (and, in fact, that's what my system that I'm currently trying to redesign is intended to do).
When I worked in fast food, I loved working closing shift because it basically consisted of going through a checklist. (I would have felt the same about opening shift, except it took place at an obscenely early hour.)
When I worked in tech support, much of my job was going through a queue of requests and responding to or escalating them. And, since part of the job was simply staffing the helpdesk, once all the requests were complete I was at liberty to do homework or internet once I finished everything on my list.
Even now as a translator, my work is task-oriented and I have a list of texts and deadlines to work my way through. And, because I work from home, I have some flexibility once I finish the day's deadlines and word count, as long as I stay within earshot of my phone and email during office hours so I can respond to anything new that comes in.
I never knew that that moment in Grade 3 was so important. None of my parents or teachers or guidance counsellors identified this as an area of strength that could be used to point me towards jobs that I would find satisfying. I don't think anyone even knew where to look.
Simply based on the number of people who respond to the fact that I work from home with "But how does your boss know you're working???" I suspect a lot of white-collar work isn't like this. I think much of it is more project-oriented, working towards broader goals, without a checklist to follow and without a clear endpoint.
So I'm very lucky I did stumble into jobs that scratch this itch!
Mornings in our Grade 3 classroom followed a routine: spelling, then math, then journal, then silent reading. The teacher started each morning by writing the day's spelling exercises, math questions and journal topic on the board, so we could see as soon as we walked in what the morning would bring.
I was one of the better students in the class, so I was always among the first to finish my spelling exercises. Then, one day, I had an idea: I'm done my spelling, so rather than sitting around waiting bored, I'll do my math next!
So I took out my math book, worked through the questions written on the board, and finished them all while the class was still working on spelling.
So then I took out my journal, and wrote a journal entry on the topic written on the board. The class was still working on spelling.
So I took out my silent reading book - it was a good book and I was looking forward to it! - and settled in to spend the rest of my morning reading.
My teacher noticed I was reading instead of working, so he came over to see what's up. I showed him I'd already finished the morning's work and was now diligently doing my silent reading. He praised me to the class for my initiative (which was awkward) and then let me read.
***
What's interesting about this moment is how representative it is of my strengths and temperament.
I find task-oriented work far more satisfying than project-oriented work.
I find it disproportionately satisfying to work through a list and check everything off and then have free time afterwards (and, in fact, that's what my system that I'm currently trying to redesign is intended to do).
When I worked in fast food, I loved working closing shift because it basically consisted of going through a checklist. (I would have felt the same about opening shift, except it took place at an obscenely early hour.)
When I worked in tech support, much of my job was going through a queue of requests and responding to or escalating them. And, since part of the job was simply staffing the helpdesk, once all the requests were complete I was at liberty to do homework or internet once I finished everything on my list.
Even now as a translator, my work is task-oriented and I have a list of texts and deadlines to work my way through. And, because I work from home, I have some flexibility once I finish the day's deadlines and word count, as long as I stay within earshot of my phone and email during office hours so I can respond to anything new that comes in.
I never knew that that moment in Grade 3 was so important. None of my parents or teachers or guidance counsellors identified this as an area of strength that could be used to point me towards jobs that I would find satisfying. I don't think anyone even knew where to look.
Simply based on the number of people who respond to the fact that I work from home with "But how does your boss know you're working???" I suspect a lot of white-collar work isn't like this. I think much of it is more project-oriented, working towards broader goals, without a checklist to follow and without a clear endpoint.
So I'm very lucky I did stumble into jobs that scratch this itch!
Friday, September 06, 2019
System reboot status
My attempt to update my system was stymied by the all-consuming bra-induced back pain that I suffered at the beginning of the year. I've figured out some things I should try and identified other areas to address but haven't figured out how to address them. I'm posting what I have so far to keep myself honest.
- Even though I reset my system to zero on my birthday, I'm once again significantly behind. This tells me that the system as it stands is untenable, but it's not apparent to me what could be cut out.
- I need unstructured time in my system - time I can spend staring at the internet or rereading old fanfic or googling weather patterns in the south Pacific. When I originally designed my system, my specific intention was to eliminate mindless staring at the computer. I even scheduled in specific time for gaming and internetting to acknowledge and address that I do have these needs. But it turns out the "unstructured time" itch isn't scratched by "designated time for the things I end up doing when I'm supposed to be doing other things", so I need to figure out a way to fix that. I currently have no idea how to do so and also get done all the things I need to get done.
- When I started working from home, I had a system of shortish work segments and even shorter breaks, which was an excellent fit with my strengths, weaknesses and temperament. However, since my head injury, transitioning between the two has been difficult - I have trouble jumping directly from focusing on X to focusing on Y, and time is lost futzing around during each transition. So I'm now experimenting with longer, intensive work periods and a a different rest structure that better meets my post-head-injury needs. I'm not sure if it will help - the strengths, weaknesses and temperament that were conducive to short segments and shorter breaks are still present - but it should at least be informative, and I can extrapolate from there.
- A few months back, I decided it was high time to return to my pre-head-injury sleep patterns. That was a mistake. So I've made the decision to treat my post-head-injury sleep patterns like a new normal, and adjusting various practises to make it easier to go to bed when my eyes start closing themselves, and be able to wake up naturally more often. (Thank you, working from home!) It's kind of disheartening to have to approach this like it will never get better, but if it ever does end up getting better, then I'll just find myself waking up bright and early and fully-rested, which is better than the status quo of waking up thinking "FUUUUUCK!" every single morning.
- Even though I reset my system to zero on my birthday, I'm once again significantly behind. This tells me that the system as it stands is untenable, but it's not apparent to me what could be cut out.
- I need unstructured time in my system - time I can spend staring at the internet or rereading old fanfic or googling weather patterns in the south Pacific. When I originally designed my system, my specific intention was to eliminate mindless staring at the computer. I even scheduled in specific time for gaming and internetting to acknowledge and address that I do have these needs. But it turns out the "unstructured time" itch isn't scratched by "designated time for the things I end up doing when I'm supposed to be doing other things", so I need to figure out a way to fix that. I currently have no idea how to do so and also get done all the things I need to get done.
- When I started working from home, I had a system of shortish work segments and even shorter breaks, which was an excellent fit with my strengths, weaknesses and temperament. However, since my head injury, transitioning between the two has been difficult - I have trouble jumping directly from focusing on X to focusing on Y, and time is lost futzing around during each transition. So I'm now experimenting with longer, intensive work periods and a a different rest structure that better meets my post-head-injury needs. I'm not sure if it will help - the strengths, weaknesses and temperament that were conducive to short segments and shorter breaks are still present - but it should at least be informative, and I can extrapolate from there.
- A few months back, I decided it was high time to return to my pre-head-injury sleep patterns. That was a mistake. So I've made the decision to treat my post-head-injury sleep patterns like a new normal, and adjusting various practises to make it easier to go to bed when my eyes start closing themselves, and be able to wake up naturally more often. (Thank you, working from home!) It's kind of disheartening to have to approach this like it will never get better, but if it ever does end up getting better, then I'll just find myself waking up bright and early and fully-rested, which is better than the status quo of waking up thinking "FUUUUUCK!" every single morning.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Books read in August 2019
New:
1. Waiting 'til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America by Peniel E. Joseph
2. The Ghost and Lone Warrior by C.J. Taylor
3. Point Your Face at This: Drawings by Demetri Martin
4. Stolen from Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities by Suzanne Fournier and Ernie Crey
Reread:
1. Holiday in Death
2. Midnight in Death
1. Waiting 'til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America by Peniel E. Joseph
2. The Ghost and Lone Warrior by C.J. Taylor
3. Point Your Face at This: Drawings by Demetri Martin
4. Stolen from Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities by Suzanne Fournier and Ernie Crey
Reread:
1. Holiday in Death
2. Midnight in Death
Friday, August 30, 2019
Things the City of Toronto Should Invent: natural gardens as of right
When I read this recent story about how the City of Toronto doesn't allow lawns made of artificial turf, my first thought was to wonder if there are City by-laws unintentionally incentivizing artificial turf, perhaps by having strict aesthetic standards for lawns.
So I went a-googling, and discovered that if you want to have a natural garden (as opposed to a lawn), you have to apply for an exemption.
I think that's bass-ackwards.
In addition to the drainage issues that the ban on artificial turf is trying to address, a natural garden would help with pollinators, native species, and biodiversity. Growing food in residential yards would also boost the city's food sovereignty and sustainability (as well as urban biodiversity, and probably pollinators too.)
In contrast, a lawn is...green and flat. And that's about it.
It's monoculture, it doesn't contribute to biodiversity or pollination, I think it might even be an invasive species.
If the City's priority is green and flat, they should allow artificial turf.
If the City's priorities are environmental, they should allow natural gardens as of right, so people don't have to apply for an exemption, they can just go ahead and have a natural garden - including by neglecting their lawn and letting it revert to nature in its own time.
But let's be brave and bold and take this a step further: what if we make natural gardens the default, and require an exemption for lawns?
"But lawns are important!"
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption - just apply for an exemption telling them about why it's so important.
"How do you propose we transition existing lawns to natural gardens?"
I'm a huge fan of benign neglect myself. But when it comes to designing actual policy, a good starting point would be to look at how transitions are normally handled when there's a change in property standards, identify weaknesses in past transitions, and adjust to eliminate those weaknesses.
So I went a-googling, and discovered that if you want to have a natural garden (as opposed to a lawn), you have to apply for an exemption.
I think that's bass-ackwards.
In addition to the drainage issues that the ban on artificial turf is trying to address, a natural garden would help with pollinators, native species, and biodiversity. Growing food in residential yards would also boost the city's food sovereignty and sustainability (as well as urban biodiversity, and probably pollinators too.)
In contrast, a lawn is...green and flat. And that's about it.
It's monoculture, it doesn't contribute to biodiversity or pollination, I think it might even be an invasive species.
If the City's priority is green and flat, they should allow artificial turf.
If the City's priorities are environmental, they should allow natural gardens as of right, so people don't have to apply for an exemption, they can just go ahead and have a natural garden - including by neglecting their lawn and letting it revert to nature in its own time.
But let's be brave and bold and take this a step further: what if we make natural gardens the default, and require an exemption for lawns?
"But lawns are important!"
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption - just apply for an exemption telling them about why it's so important.
"How do you propose we transition existing lawns to natural gardens?"
I'm a huge fan of benign neglect myself. But when it comes to designing actual policy, a good starting point would be to look at how transitions are normally handled when there's a change in property standards, identify weaknesses in past transitions, and adjust to eliminate those weaknesses.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Age of majority
In the English-speaking world at least, ages of majority are weird. It tends to be 18, 19 or 21. But never 20. Why are they avoiding the only round number in the general range?
I know the age of majority of 21 originally comes from England centuries ago - it was the age of majority for the purposes of marriage without a parent's consent in Jane Austen - but it's not easy (and certainly not readily googleable) to find how they landed on that particular age.
People's instinctive answer is going to be "because that's when you stop being teenage-like and start being adult-like," but I wonder about the actual cause and effect there. It's a lot easier to actually be adult-like when you are legally and socially permitted to! Fifteen-year-olds may well be sufficiently adult-like within a social structure that allows them adult roles, and doesn't require them to be in child roles (e.g. in school) by default and/or to achieve long-term success.
The other interesting thing about 21 as an age of majority (at least in historical England) is people under the age of 21 could easily fulfill adult roles in a society where formal education was far from the norm and there were no other obligations specific to teenagers. A 20-year-old, or a 17-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old, would have been doing work that is comparable to their parents' work. I wonder why societal structures kept them legally dependent for what seems like an awfully long time?
As someone who was a legal adult for years before I was an adult economic actor (I was a full-time student until the age of 22, but a legal adult at 18) I wonder what it would have been like to be an adult economic actor but not a legal adult?
I'm going to have to find a book on this or something - there's a lot of interesting stuff in here, and I'm sure some of it has been documented as history and/or sociology.
And I still wonder why the age of majority is so rarely the nice round number of 20?
I know the age of majority of 21 originally comes from England centuries ago - it was the age of majority for the purposes of marriage without a parent's consent in Jane Austen - but it's not easy (and certainly not readily googleable) to find how they landed on that particular age.
People's instinctive answer is going to be "because that's when you stop being teenage-like and start being adult-like," but I wonder about the actual cause and effect there. It's a lot easier to actually be adult-like when you are legally and socially permitted to! Fifteen-year-olds may well be sufficiently adult-like within a social structure that allows them adult roles, and doesn't require them to be in child roles (e.g. in school) by default and/or to achieve long-term success.
The other interesting thing about 21 as an age of majority (at least in historical England) is people under the age of 21 could easily fulfill adult roles in a society where formal education was far from the norm and there were no other obligations specific to teenagers. A 20-year-old, or a 17-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old, would have been doing work that is comparable to their parents' work. I wonder why societal structures kept them legally dependent for what seems like an awfully long time?
As someone who was a legal adult for years before I was an adult economic actor (I was a full-time student until the age of 22, but a legal adult at 18) I wonder what it would have been like to be an adult economic actor but not a legal adult?
I'm going to have to find a book on this or something - there's a lot of interesting stuff in here, and I'm sure some of it has been documented as history and/or sociology.
And I still wonder why the age of majority is so rarely the nice round number of 20?
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Loving your child is necessary but insufficient
In a recent Twitter thread where people were discussing why they wouldn't tell their fathers if they were raped, one commenter made a reply to the effect of "This is why I make sure my kids know that I'll love them no matter what."
(I'm not linking directly to the thread or quoting the comment directly because I don't want to pile on to this individual. You frequently hear this kind of comment from a wide range of parents, and my thoughts in this post apply in most, if not all, of these cases.)
Loving your child is important. Loving your child no matter what is the right thing to do.
And, in my capacity as my parents' child, the question of whether they love me is completely irrelevant to the question of whether I'd go to them in an emergency or tell them about a traumatic experience.
My parents' love for me is internal to them. They feel it inside themselves.
What's relevant to me is external to them - their words and actions as I perceive and experience them (which, unfortunately, includes their failed attempts to hide their emotional response).
If I believe my parents' response to a situation will be useful to me, I will go to them for help and support. If it isn't useful to me - for example, if it frustrates me or requires additional emotional labour from me or even just doesn't contribute anything that I can't already contribute myself - I won't go to them.
It is possible for a parent to love their child and also be unhelpful. It is also possible for someone to not love you but be supremely helpful.
If it is important to you for your kids to come to you in an emergency, be a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency, and provide your kid with a lifetime's empirical evidence that you're a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency. Not just that you will feel the right feelings, that your words and actions will be what they actually need.
(I'm not linking directly to the thread or quoting the comment directly because I don't want to pile on to this individual. You frequently hear this kind of comment from a wide range of parents, and my thoughts in this post apply in most, if not all, of these cases.)
Loving your child is important. Loving your child no matter what is the right thing to do.
And, in my capacity as my parents' child, the question of whether they love me is completely irrelevant to the question of whether I'd go to them in an emergency or tell them about a traumatic experience.
My parents' love for me is internal to them. They feel it inside themselves.
What's relevant to me is external to them - their words and actions as I perceive and experience them (which, unfortunately, includes their failed attempts to hide their emotional response).
If I believe my parents' response to a situation will be useful to me, I will go to them for help and support. If it isn't useful to me - for example, if it frustrates me or requires additional emotional labour from me or even just doesn't contribute anything that I can't already contribute myself - I won't go to them.
It is possible for a parent to love their child and also be unhelpful. It is also possible for someone to not love you but be supremely helpful.
If it is important to you for your kids to come to you in an emergency, be a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency, and provide your kid with a lifetime's empirical evidence that you're a person who is helpful in that kind of emergency. Not just that you will feel the right feelings, that your words and actions will be what they actually need.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Brown corduroy pants
The very first piece of clothing I ever owned that made me feel good in my post-puberty body was, weirdly enough, a pair of brown corduroy pants.
It was the mid-90s and I was in my mid-teens. I didn't feel good about corduroy on principle (it's what the frumpiest adults of my acquaintance wore, and in Grade 1 my elementary school classmates had laughed at the noise my knock-kneed legs made in my red corduroy pants), but these were different. They were what I now know to be called a finer wale, almost like velvet. They were on-trend for that time and place - either boot-cut or flared (my teenage self didn't know the different), low slung and a bit baggy.
This shape was both flattering to my curves and comfortable to sit in. (The first time I had experienced both since Mother Nature had seen fit to give me adult curves as a preteen!). With sandals and a tank top, it evoked a sort of hippy look (something I admired and aspired to, although I've never been cool enough). With boots and my new awesome peacoat, it evoked a sort of retro 70s look (which was what the kids who were cooler than I could have ever imagined were going for). Both these looks worked well with my long straight hair - the first time in my life my natural hair has actually helped an aesthetic, given that my life thus far had taken place in the era of big 80s hair!
In short, this was the first time either "flattering", "comfortable" and "fashionable" were ever within reach for me - and I got all three for one!
I wore them so much they eventually got holes in undignified places and I couldn't wear them any more. But those pants opened the door: I could feel good about myself in clothes! I could achieve looks that I aspired to! I learned more about what shapes and colours are flattering to the particularities of my body, I bought more clothes that make me feel good about myself, and I grew up to be a well-dressed grownup lady - something my preteen self never dared dream of!
The other day, I saw a poster outside a mall store where the model's outfit included brown corduroy pants that appeared to be boot cut. They didn't have them in store, but I hope they come in as part of the fall collection and they fit me. I still think brown and corduroy are both objectively frumpy, but I would love to have something in my closet that reminds me of feeling good about myself for the very first time.
It was the mid-90s and I was in my mid-teens. I didn't feel good about corduroy on principle (it's what the frumpiest adults of my acquaintance wore, and in Grade 1 my elementary school classmates had laughed at the noise my knock-kneed legs made in my red corduroy pants), but these were different. They were what I now know to be called a finer wale, almost like velvet. They were on-trend for that time and place - either boot-cut or flared (my teenage self didn't know the different), low slung and a bit baggy.
This shape was both flattering to my curves and comfortable to sit in. (The first time I had experienced both since Mother Nature had seen fit to give me adult curves as a preteen!). With sandals and a tank top, it evoked a sort of hippy look (something I admired and aspired to, although I've never been cool enough). With boots and my new awesome peacoat, it evoked a sort of retro 70s look (which was what the kids who were cooler than I could have ever imagined were going for). Both these looks worked well with my long straight hair - the first time in my life my natural hair has actually helped an aesthetic, given that my life thus far had taken place in the era of big 80s hair!
In short, this was the first time either "flattering", "comfortable" and "fashionable" were ever within reach for me - and I got all three for one!
I wore them so much they eventually got holes in undignified places and I couldn't wear them any more. But those pants opened the door: I could feel good about myself in clothes! I could achieve looks that I aspired to! I learned more about what shapes and colours are flattering to the particularities of my body, I bought more clothes that make me feel good about myself, and I grew up to be a well-dressed grownup lady - something my preteen self never dared dream of!
The other day, I saw a poster outside a mall store where the model's outfit included brown corduroy pants that appeared to be boot cut. They didn't have them in store, but I hope they come in as part of the fall collection and they fit me. I still think brown and corduroy are both objectively frumpy, but I would love to have something in my closet that reminds me of feeling good about myself for the very first time.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Things CRA Should Invent: automated phone system tells you whether they've actually called you
I recently had to call CRA to deal with some boring grownup stuff.
Everyone I talked to was awesome and helpful and extremely patient with my ignorance, the boring grownup stuff got dealt with, but before that could happen I had to wait half an hour on hold for someone to help me.
This is a problem in light of the ongoing telephone scam where they call you and impersonate CRA.
CRA encourages you to call their 800 number if you're unsure about the legitimacy of a call you received, but that's a problem when the hold times are so long - especially since they're only open 9-5 Monday to Friday. Someone who also works 9-5 Monday to Friday, only gets half an hour for lunch and isn't at liberty to make phone calls while working might not ever be able to get through!
I propose a solution: CRA should have an option to automatically detect your phone number and have the automatic system tell you whether they're trying to get in touch with you.
For example, "If you've received a call claiming to be from CRA and would like to confirm whether CRA is trying to get in touch with you, press 3."
I believe this is technologically possible. When you call Rogers, their system says something like "I notice you are calling from a phone number ending in ####. To talk about the account associated with this number, press 1." This means an automated system can compare the number you're calling from with numbers in a database, and route your call accordingly.
CRA could maintain a database of "numbers we have called and left messages with", and have an option in their automated system to compare callers' numbers with this database. That way, callers who are trying to check whether the CRA call they received was a scam can get a quick, automatic message saying "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part."
In fact, since this could be done automatically, it wouldn't even have to be done during business hours! You call whenever, press 3, and you get a message saying either "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part" or "We have been attempting to contact you by phone, please call us back during business hours."
This way there are far fewer barriers to avoiding scams, and human telephone representatives could be freed up for work that actually requires humans.
Other organizations that are frequently impersonated by scam callers (banks, utilities, etc.) could also use this system. I just think it's particularly important for CRA given their limited business hours and long hold times.
Everyone I talked to was awesome and helpful and extremely patient with my ignorance, the boring grownup stuff got dealt with, but before that could happen I had to wait half an hour on hold for someone to help me.
This is a problem in light of the ongoing telephone scam where they call you and impersonate CRA.
CRA encourages you to call their 800 number if you're unsure about the legitimacy of a call you received, but that's a problem when the hold times are so long - especially since they're only open 9-5 Monday to Friday. Someone who also works 9-5 Monday to Friday, only gets half an hour for lunch and isn't at liberty to make phone calls while working might not ever be able to get through!
I propose a solution: CRA should have an option to automatically detect your phone number and have the automatic system tell you whether they're trying to get in touch with you.
For example, "If you've received a call claiming to be from CRA and would like to confirm whether CRA is trying to get in touch with you, press 3."
I believe this is technologically possible. When you call Rogers, their system says something like "I notice you are calling from a phone number ending in ####. To talk about the account associated with this number, press 1." This means an automated system can compare the number you're calling from with numbers in a database, and route your call accordingly.
CRA could maintain a database of "numbers we have called and left messages with", and have an option in their automated system to compare callers' numbers with this database. That way, callers who are trying to check whether the CRA call they received was a scam can get a quick, automatic message saying "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part."
In fact, since this could be done automatically, it wouldn't even have to be done during business hours! You call whenever, press 3, and you get a message saying either "We have not made any attempt to contact you by phone, no action is required on your part" or "We have been attempting to contact you by phone, please call us back during business hours."
This way there are far fewer barriers to avoiding scams, and human telephone representatives could be freed up for work that actually requires humans.
Other organizations that are frequently impersonated by scam callers (banks, utilities, etc.) could also use this system. I just think it's particularly important for CRA given their limited business hours and long hold times.
Sunday, August 04, 2019
The Segoe UI font is easy to read with convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma
Recently, for the first time since my head injury, I received a text to translate that I could actually read effortlessly!
I immediately checked what the font was, and it turns out it's called Segoe UI. I changed my default Firefox font to Segoe UI, and now life is so much easier!
So if you're ever looking for a font that's effortlessly readable with convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma, Segoe UI fits the bill!
I'm working on adding Segoe UI to my blog's style sheet so everyone can enjoy its effortless readability (just plugging it in turned out to mess up the font size, so I need to do some tweaking).
However, I'm not the audience of my blog - in fact, I am the one person in the world who has the least need to find my blog readable! - so if at any point you find the font has become less readable, leave me a comment to let me know, ideally articulating the specific problem (too big? too small? too fat? too skinny? too much of some other characteristic that I can't even fathom?)
I immediately checked what the font was, and it turns out it's called Segoe UI. I changed my default Firefox font to Segoe UI, and now life is so much easier!
So if you're ever looking for a font that's effortlessly readable with convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma, Segoe UI fits the bill!
I'm working on adding Segoe UI to my blog's style sheet so everyone can enjoy its effortless readability (just plugging it in turned out to mess up the font size, so I need to do some tweaking).
However, I'm not the audience of my blog - in fact, I am the one person in the world who has the least need to find my blog readable! - so if at any point you find the font has become less readable, leave me a comment to let me know, ideally articulating the specific problem (too big? too small? too fat? too skinny? too much of some other characteristic that I can't even fathom?)
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Books read in July 2019
New:
1. Children of Blood and Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
2. Pride by Ibi Zoboi
Reread:
1. Ceremony in Death
2. Vengeance in Death
1. Children of Blood and Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
2. Pride by Ibi Zoboi
Reread:
1. Ceremony in Death
2. Vengeance in Death
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Things They Should Invent: vastly different-sounding words for "credit" and "debit"
Many cash registers require the cashier to push one button if you're paying by credit card and another button if you're paying by debit card.
Problem: the words sound very similar, so there's a high likelihood that the cashier will mishear you when you tell them how you're paying. Then they'll have to re-input the transaction, wasting everyone's time and messing up their numbers.
Solution: words for "credit" and "debit" that are completely different. Like one is "plop" and the other is "oogly-boogly".
I suppose, on an individual level, we could state the name of the credit card (e.g. "Mastercard"), but that always makes me feel like I'm in a commercial.
Problem: the words sound very similar, so there's a high likelihood that the cashier will mishear you when you tell them how you're paying. Then they'll have to re-input the transaction, wasting everyone's time and messing up their numbers.
Solution: words for "credit" and "debit" that are completely different. Like one is "plop" and the other is "oogly-boogly".
I suppose, on an individual level, we could state the name of the credit card (e.g. "Mastercard"), but that always makes me feel like I'm in a commercial.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Things They Should Invent: "you guys" gender map
Some people perceive "you guys" as masculine, even in the vocative case.
Others, such as myself, perceive it as having no element of gender. "You guys" is a casual, inclusive vocative plural, completely unrelated to the masculine nominative singular "guy".
But I'm not here to convince you that I'm right.
I'm here to convince someone to map it.
One of the great moments of internet sociolinguistics is the Pop vs. Soda map, which shows the geographical patterns of American soft drink nomenclature.
Someone should do the same for whether "you guys" is masculine or gender-inclusive!
Based on the way people on the internet talk about the "you guys" question, I strongly suspect there's some geographical element to how it's received. A crowdsourced mapping project, like Pop vs. Soda, could answer this question.
The technology exists, as evidenced by Pop vs. Soda. The answer would be informative, and help people better tailor their communication to various audiences. Surely there must be someone out there looking for a linguistics research project idea!
Others, such as myself, perceive it as having no element of gender. "You guys" is a casual, inclusive vocative plural, completely unrelated to the masculine nominative singular "guy".
But I'm not here to convince you that I'm right.
I'm here to convince someone to map it.
One of the great moments of internet sociolinguistics is the Pop vs. Soda map, which shows the geographical patterns of American soft drink nomenclature.
Someone should do the same for whether "you guys" is masculine or gender-inclusive!
Based on the way people on the internet talk about the "you guys" question, I strongly suspect there's some geographical element to how it's received. A crowdsourced mapping project, like Pop vs. Soda, could answer this question.
The technology exists, as evidenced by Pop vs. Soda. The answer would be informative, and help people better tailor their communication to various audiences. Surely there must be someone out there looking for a linguistics research project idea!
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Things They Should Invent: make it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head in public
Apparently there was recently a story in the news where an airline requires passengers who are breastfeeding babies to cover their breasts and the babies. I didn't see the story myself, but I did see a bunch of people on Twitter reacting with stories about how their babies would not accept being covered while nursing.
A snarky comment came to mind: "Maybe the people who are offended by breastfeeding should put blankets over their heads!"
Then I realized: that idea is actually kind of appealing!
When I was a small child (older than breastfeeding age - I don't remember that far back), I would sometimes put a towel or a blanket over my head and just sit there enjoying my little cone of silence and privacy. I was in a room full of people, but I couldn't see them and they couldn't see my face.
I've seen other small children do that too, so I think it isn't that uncommon.
I don't feel the temptation to put a blanket over my head as an adult, but that's because I have privacy most of the time. If I don't want look at people or have them look at me, I can go home and lock the door.
But you can't do that on an airplane. You're stuck in this little metal tube in close quarters with dozens (hundreds?) of other people for several hours.
Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to hide?
But the problem is we live in a society that is particularly wary of behaviour that is perceived to be irregular on an airplane. So even those of us who find the idea of hiding under a blanket appealing would be reluctant to do so for fear that someone will overreact and alert the authorities and the plane will be redirected to the nearest airport and surrounded by armed law enforcement and we'll be disappeared into some prison hellscape for the rest of eternity.
Solution: we as a society should unanimously declare it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head whenever you need a moment's privacy. It's not feasible in every circumstance, of course - you couldn't do it while walking down the street - but there's no reason why you couldn't have a blanket over your head while sitting on an airplane or a train or a park bench. Even in an open-concept office, there's no reason why you couldn't put a blanket over your head and your monitor for some psychological privacy, if we would only deem it socially acceptable.
Even if you yourself can't imagine wanting to put a blanket over your head, wouldn't it be convenient if the other people around you - the ones who might complain that you're nursing your baby or staring at your phone too much or chewing in a way they find unattractive - felt free to do so?
In this modern world, we find ourselves increasingly forced into close quarters with other people, and tensions rise because of lack of privacy. But the only thing that's preventing us from taking a modicum of psychological privacy is that we've arbitrarily deemed it socially unacceptable. Let's undo that.
A snarky comment came to mind: "Maybe the people who are offended by breastfeeding should put blankets over their heads!"
Then I realized: that idea is actually kind of appealing!
When I was a small child (older than breastfeeding age - I don't remember that far back), I would sometimes put a towel or a blanket over my head and just sit there enjoying my little cone of silence and privacy. I was in a room full of people, but I couldn't see them and they couldn't see my face.
I've seen other small children do that too, so I think it isn't that uncommon.
I don't feel the temptation to put a blanket over my head as an adult, but that's because I have privacy most of the time. If I don't want look at people or have them look at me, I can go home and lock the door.
But you can't do that on an airplane. You're stuck in this little metal tube in close quarters with dozens (hundreds?) of other people for several hours.
Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to hide?
But the problem is we live in a society that is particularly wary of behaviour that is perceived to be irregular on an airplane. So even those of us who find the idea of hiding under a blanket appealing would be reluctant to do so for fear that someone will overreact and alert the authorities and the plane will be redirected to the nearest airport and surrounded by armed law enforcement and we'll be disappeared into some prison hellscape for the rest of eternity.
Solution: we as a society should unanimously declare it socially acceptable to put a blanket over your head whenever you need a moment's privacy. It's not feasible in every circumstance, of course - you couldn't do it while walking down the street - but there's no reason why you couldn't have a blanket over your head while sitting on an airplane or a train or a park bench. Even in an open-concept office, there's no reason why you couldn't put a blanket over your head and your monitor for some psychological privacy, if we would only deem it socially acceptable.
Even if you yourself can't imagine wanting to put a blanket over your head, wouldn't it be convenient if the other people around you - the ones who might complain that you're nursing your baby or staring at your phone too much or chewing in a way they find unattractive - felt free to do so?
In this modern world, we find ourselves increasingly forced into close quarters with other people, and tensions rise because of lack of privacy. But the only thing that's preventing us from taking a modicum of psychological privacy is that we've arbitrarily deemed it socially unacceptable. Let's undo that.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Things Twitter Should Invent: retain hashtag capitalization
When you search for or click on a hashtag in Twitter, it shows you a feed of all tweets with that hashtag. Useful!
If you then click on the "Tweet" button while this hashtag feed is open, it populates the tweet composition box with the hashtag in question, on the assumption that you're going to tweet using the hashtag in question. Useful!
Problem: Sometimes the hashtag that populates the tweet composition box is written in all lowercase, even if the hashtag you originally searched on or clicked on was written in a combination of capital and lowercase.
This is an issue because screen readers use the capitalization in hashtags to determine when a new word starts, and writing hashtags in all lowercase makes the screen reader attempt to pronounce the hashtag as all one word. And, aside from that, #CapitalizingEachWordLikeThis is easier to read than #writingthewholethinginlowercase.
What Twitter should do: make sure that any capitalization in the hashtag clicked on or searched for is retained when populating the tweet composition box. This means people who have already made the effort to make their hashtags accessible don't have to repeat that effort every time they tweet.
While writing this blog post, I tried to determine the specific conditions under which Twitter retains the capitalization of the hashtag versus when it changes it to all lowercase, and I wasn't able to pinpoint it with any consistency. All I can tell you is sometimes it retains capitalization, and sometimes it goes all lowercase.
However, the fact that it sometimes retains capitalization means that retaining capitalization is technologically possible, so Twitter should make that happen all the time.
If you then click on the "Tweet" button while this hashtag feed is open, it populates the tweet composition box with the hashtag in question, on the assumption that you're going to tweet using the hashtag in question. Useful!
Problem: Sometimes the hashtag that populates the tweet composition box is written in all lowercase, even if the hashtag you originally searched on or clicked on was written in a combination of capital and lowercase.
This is an issue because screen readers use the capitalization in hashtags to determine when a new word starts, and writing hashtags in all lowercase makes the screen reader attempt to pronounce the hashtag as all one word. And, aside from that, #CapitalizingEachWordLikeThis is easier to read than #writingthewholethinginlowercase.
What Twitter should do: make sure that any capitalization in the hashtag clicked on or searched for is retained when populating the tweet composition box. This means people who have already made the effort to make their hashtags accessible don't have to repeat that effort every time they tweet.
While writing this blog post, I tried to determine the specific conditions under which Twitter retains the capitalization of the hashtag versus when it changes it to all lowercase, and I wasn't able to pinpoint it with any consistency. All I can tell you is sometimes it retains capitalization, and sometimes it goes all lowercase.
However, the fact that it sometimes retains capitalization means that retaining capitalization is technologically possible, so Twitter should make that happen all the time.
Sunday, July 07, 2019
Aidez-moi à transcrire les phrases français dans Let Me Go par Cake
This post is available in English here.
Les paroles de la chanson Let Me Go par Cake sont bien en anglais, mais il y a quelques phrases parlés en français, qui sont en-dessous de la mélodie et donc difficile à entendre.
Chaque fois que j’entends cette chanson, je me demande qu’est-ce que les mots français disent, mais je ne peux en comprendre que quelques mots.
J’ai effectué plusieurs recherches Internet pour ces mots français pendant les années, et il me semble que personne ne les a jamais transcrits.
Donc il nous incombe de le faire nous-mêmes.
Voici Let Me Go, au moment où le français commence.
Les quelques mot que j’entends : « ??? au contraire ??? conserver les échantillons ??? papier, plastique ??? »
Seriez-vous en mesure de combler les lacunes?
Les paroles de la chanson Let Me Go par Cake sont bien en anglais, mais il y a quelques phrases parlés en français, qui sont en-dessous de la mélodie et donc difficile à entendre.
Chaque fois que j’entends cette chanson, je me demande qu’est-ce que les mots français disent, mais je ne peux en comprendre que quelques mots.
J’ai effectué plusieurs recherches Internet pour ces mots français pendant les années, et il me semble que personne ne les a jamais transcrits.
Donc il nous incombe de le faire nous-mêmes.
Voici Let Me Go, au moment où le français commence.
Les quelques mot que j’entends : « ??? au contraire ??? conserver les échantillons ??? papier, plastique ??? »
Seriez-vous en mesure de combler les lacunes?
Saturday, July 06, 2019
The French words in Let Me Go by Cake
Ce poste est disponible en français ici.
Every time I hear to the song Let Me Go by Cake, I wonder what the French words spoken under the melody line are saying.
I do understand French, but I'm also lyric deaf, so the music gets in the way of my hearing all the words (in any language).
Every time I wonder this at a time when it's convenient to google, I try to see if anyone on the recorded internet has written down what the French says, and I can never find anyone who has.
So we're going to have to do it ourselves.
Here is Let Me Go by Cake, cued up to the point where the French starts.
Here's what I hear:
"[unintelligible] au contraire [unintelligible] conserver les échantillons [unintelligible] papier, plastique [unintelligible]"
Can you fill in any gaps?
For those who don't speak French:
au contraire = the same as in English: literally "to the contrary", a general indicator of disagreement
conserver les échantillons = keep/store/preserve the samples
papier, plastique = paper, plastic
Every time I hear to the song Let Me Go by Cake, I wonder what the French words spoken under the melody line are saying.
I do understand French, but I'm also lyric deaf, so the music gets in the way of my hearing all the words (in any language).
Every time I wonder this at a time when it's convenient to google, I try to see if anyone on the recorded internet has written down what the French says, and I can never find anyone who has.
So we're going to have to do it ourselves.
Here is Let Me Go by Cake, cued up to the point where the French starts.
Here's what I hear:
"[unintelligible] au contraire [unintelligible] conserver les échantillons [unintelligible] papier, plastique [unintelligible]"
Can you fill in any gaps?
For those who don't speak French:
au contraire = the same as in English: literally "to the contrary", a general indicator of disagreement
conserver les échantillons = keep/store/preserve the samples
papier, plastique = paper, plastic
Friday, July 05, 2019
Wanted: emergency radio with long shelf life
Today I had a power outage for the first time in years, so it occurred to me that I should test my emergency radio.
And it turns out the battery doesn't hold a charge. I keep the radio in a place where it gets direct sun every day, but when I turn it on the battery light blinks out after a second, before I can even tune it to a radio station. The same thing happens when I crank it up - the battery appears to charge, but it doesn't hold the charge long enough to pick up a radio station, which, of course, defeats the purpose.
This happened with my previous emergency radio too. After a few years, the battery simply stopped holding a charge, rendering it useless.
Can anyone recommend an emergency radio that will retain functionality after years of neglect?
I'm willing and able to keep it somewhere where it gets direct sunlight every day for solar charging. I'm also willing and able to keep it in the dark if constant charging is bad for battery life, but in that case I'd need it to charge fairly quickly (e.g. under 15 minutes) in normal indoor ambient light levels
Ideally, I'd also like to be able to charge devices with it. Alternatively, I'd be interested in any other gizmos that let me charge devices from solar and crank power - or even from the ordinary Duracell batteries I have sitting around in a desk drawer! - regardless of whether they have a radio. A flashlight feature would also be a plus. (I already have multiple flashlights, but I wouldn't mind one that could charge by solar.) But, again, these devices would need long shelf life, so I can neglect them for years and then they'll be ready for me in an emergency.
Interestingly, during this adventure, I discovered that the radio on my old middle-school Walkman still works beautifully if I just pop in a couple of the ordinary Duracell batteries that I have sitting around in my desk drawer. So for an emergency device, I'd need better.
And it turns out the battery doesn't hold a charge. I keep the radio in a place where it gets direct sun every day, but when I turn it on the battery light blinks out after a second, before I can even tune it to a radio station. The same thing happens when I crank it up - the battery appears to charge, but it doesn't hold the charge long enough to pick up a radio station, which, of course, defeats the purpose.
This happened with my previous emergency radio too. After a few years, the battery simply stopped holding a charge, rendering it useless.
Can anyone recommend an emergency radio that will retain functionality after years of neglect?
I'm willing and able to keep it somewhere where it gets direct sunlight every day for solar charging. I'm also willing and able to keep it in the dark if constant charging is bad for battery life, but in that case I'd need it to charge fairly quickly (e.g. under 15 minutes) in normal indoor ambient light levels
Ideally, I'd also like to be able to charge devices with it. Alternatively, I'd be interested in any other gizmos that let me charge devices from solar and crank power - or even from the ordinary Duracell batteries I have sitting around in a desk drawer! - regardless of whether they have a radio. A flashlight feature would also be a plus. (I already have multiple flashlights, but I wouldn't mind one that could charge by solar.) But, again, these devices would need long shelf life, so I can neglect them for years and then they'll be ready for me in an emergency.
Interestingly, during this adventure, I discovered that the radio on my old middle-school Walkman still works beautifully if I just pop in a couple of the ordinary Duracell batteries that I have sitting around in my desk drawer. So for an emergency device, I'd need better.
Monday, July 01, 2019
Brandingthink
On the front page of today's Globe and Mail, I noticed a small blurb about their logo:
Do they actually think that consolidating the design "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism, no matter the platform"? Or was there a committee sitting around the table trying to come up with something?
Or was this the wording of the design brief, and the designer produced the logo and asserted that it achieves these things?
It's also interesting to me that they felt it was necessary to print a statement of intent behind their logo change, rather than just printing the new logo. I don't know that I would have noticed. Or, if I did notice, I would have just though "Meh, newspapers change their design from time to time."
The fact that they printed a statement of intent leans towards the idea of someone actually thinking that changing the logo "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism", because if they didn't think that, they could have just not printed an explanation rather than thinking up an explanation. But, to my non-design brain, these things seem completely unrelated (like how my choice of font is completely unrelated to my commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle), so I'm intrigued that other people's brains can do this.
This is interesting to me, and, in my capacity as a non-design person, I find myself pondering the thinking and process behind it - not the change in the logo, but the explanation and its wording.On Monday The Globe and Mail is introducing the next evolution of our print nameplate.The refreshed red logo is the same typeface and styling that appears online at the top of our homepage. By consolidating our print and digital designs, we are restating our dedication to groundbreaking journalism, no matter the platform.
Do they actually think that consolidating the design "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism, no matter the platform"? Or was there a committee sitting around the table trying to come up with something?
Or was this the wording of the design brief, and the designer produced the logo and asserted that it achieves these things?
It's also interesting to me that they felt it was necessary to print a statement of intent behind their logo change, rather than just printing the new logo. I don't know that I would have noticed. Or, if I did notice, I would have just though "Meh, newspapers change their design from time to time."
The fact that they printed a statement of intent leans towards the idea of someone actually thinking that changing the logo "restat[es their] dedication to groundbreaking journalism", because if they didn't think that, they could have just not printed an explanation rather than thinking up an explanation. But, to my non-design brain, these things seem completely unrelated (like how my choice of font is completely unrelated to my commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle), so I'm intrigued that other people's brains can do this.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Books read in June 2019
New:
1. So You Want to Talk about Race by by Ijeoma Oluo
2. Hyperfocus: How to be More Productive in a World of Distraction by Chris Bailey
3. As Long as the Rivers Flow by Larry Loyie
4. Victoria: The Heart and Mind of a Young Queen by Helen Rappaport
Reread:
1. Rapture in Death
1. So You Want to Talk about Race by by Ijeoma Oluo
2. Hyperfocus: How to be More Productive in a World of Distraction by Chris Bailey
3. As Long as the Rivers Flow by Larry Loyie
4. Victoria: The Heart and Mind of a Young Queen by Helen Rappaport
Reread:
1. Rapture in Death
Friday, June 28, 2019
How I made my sweaters stop acting like clutter
While searching for a different old post, I found this old post about trying to figure out a way to stop my sweaters from cluttering up my living room, and I realized that I've solved the problem at some point.
When I'm sitting at my desk and I have to remove a sweater, I stand up. Then, as I'm removing the sweater, I take two steps until I'm standing in the door of my bedroom. Then I throw the sweater on my bed.
This means I have to hang up the sweater before I can go to sleep because it's lying on my bed, but that isn't too much of an imposition because my bedtime routine already includes putting away clothes that have ended up on my bed in the course of the day. (For example, when I'm dressing in the morning, I tend to take off my bathrobe and throw it on my bed. If I change clothes when I get home, I tend to lie the old ones on my bed.)
Yes, a perfectly diligent person wouldn't leave clothes lying around on the bed and would instead put them away immediately. But we've already established that I'm not a perfectly diligent person, and throwing the sweaters on the bed instead of hanging them on my desk chair puts the sweaters closer to where they should be while preventing them from cluttering up the room where they shouldn't be.
I don't remember when or why I started doing this, but it solves my silly problem!
When I'm sitting at my desk and I have to remove a sweater, I stand up. Then, as I'm removing the sweater, I take two steps until I'm standing in the door of my bedroom. Then I throw the sweater on my bed.
This means I have to hang up the sweater before I can go to sleep because it's lying on my bed, but that isn't too much of an imposition because my bedtime routine already includes putting away clothes that have ended up on my bed in the course of the day. (For example, when I'm dressing in the morning, I tend to take off my bathrobe and throw it on my bed. If I change clothes when I get home, I tend to lie the old ones on my bed.)
Yes, a perfectly diligent person wouldn't leave clothes lying around on the bed and would instead put them away immediately. But we've already established that I'm not a perfectly diligent person, and throwing the sweaters on the bed instead of hanging them on my desk chair puts the sweaters closer to where they should be while preventing them from cluttering up the room where they shouldn't be.
I don't remember when or why I started doing this, but it solves my silly problem!
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Phosphenes and false memories
When I was a little girl, I had an unsuitably early bedtime. I wasn't even tired until about 2 hours after my bedtime. (Not a good parenting strategy, BTW. I became incapable of falling asleep in less than 2 hours even when I was tired, and it took until I was nearly 30 to overcome this.)
However, when I was small I did want to be a good girl, so I would lie in bed with my eyes closed trying really hard to fall asleep.
But a small child doesn't have the inner resources to just lie there doing nothing. I needed something to amuse myself. Something that I could do while lying in bed with my eyes closed.
So I started watching the colours that I saw behind my eyelids when I closed my eyes (which, I would learn decades later, are called phosphenes). They would move and morph of their own volition, making for an interesting light show.
After some time, I gradually gained control over how the phosphenes moved and morphed. It never became easy to move them - imagine the nuance of playing a theramin combined with the force required to fight the repulsion of like magnetic poles - but with effort I could manipulate them. I made it into a game, with my goal being to produce a red and blue checkerboard (the reason why I chose a red and blue checkerboard was lost to history) and I was able to reach the checkerboard almost every night.
However, around the age of 8, I developed a new intellectual skill. At the time I called it "thinks", but I now know that it's called Mary Sue fanfiction - mentally writing stories inserting myself into various works of fiction. I found this a far more enjoyable way to spend the hours before I fell asleep, and my phosphenes fell by the wayside.
That pattern has continued ever since, with the addition of romantic fantasies once I reached the point in my life where that was of interest. But every once in a while, during a bout of insomnia, I'd reach for the phosphenes again and find that I was out of practice, but could still manipulate them.
Until my head injury.
In the aftermath of my head injury, I completely lost the ability to daydream or fantasize. (It began returning 4 months later, but even now a year later, it's still not available 100% of the time like it was before the head injury.)
So, as I lay in bed waiting to fall asleep, I reached for my phosphenes.
And they weren't there.
I could see a pattern that looked like a red and green lava lamp, but it wasn't moving at all. And, behind the lava lamp, I could see the eye of Sauron. But it wasn't my phosphenes. It was immovable, unchanging, and vaguely terrifying.
I spent a lot of time lying in bed with my eyes closed after my head injury, and this eye of Sauron was always staring back at me through the lava lamp. I couldn't control it, I couldn't change it, my old familiar patterns weren't there, and I couldn't even fantasize.
I wasn't even sure if I was human any more.
After some months, the eye of Sauron went away. (Its departure correlated with my first burst of vision therapy progress, but I can't tell if this is a cause and effect relationship.) I also regained the ability to fantasize, so I luxuriated in my newly-regained imagination and stopped worrying about my phosphenes.
Then, a few weeks ago, my phosphenes came back.
And they're completely different!
Sometimes they consist of green figures that remind me of Chinese characters (I can't read Chinese so I couldn't tell you if they're actually Chinese characters, and it's not logistically possible for me to draw them. But wouldn't it be interesting if they said something in Chinese!)
Sometimes they consist of indescribable shapes and colours that are completely different from the indescribable shapes and colours I had previously.
A new and interesting feature is that occasionally a cartoon character will peek its head out from behind the swirling shapes and colours. I can't name any of the cartoon characters, but I have no idea if they're my brain's own creation or existing cartoon characters that my subconscious memory somehow internalized. (Again, it's not logistically possible to draw them, and I haven't been able to google my way to a "Yes! That's it!" moment of recognition.)
These new phosphenes are so interesting and different that I've put daydreaming/fantasy aside, and spend some time exploring them every night as I wait for sleep to overtake me. I can't control them like I could the old ones (or, at least, I can't yet control them - I haven't a clue whether I'll eventually regain that ability), but I can sort of look around, zoom in, and generally watch the show.
But the most fascinating thing about Phosphenes 2.0 is that after I spend some time watching them, I get a false memory.
Example of a false memory: I was climbing up the side of a building. Partway through I thought "This doesn't seem safe - I shouldn't be able to hang onto the side of a building with just my fingertips." Then I thought "Don't be silly, you've done this thousands of times, people do it every day!"
Of course, I've never actually climbed the side of a building, and I'm not physically capable of hanging off a building by just my fingertips. And people don't do it every day.
But, somehow, my brain served up that ridiculousness like a memory (as opposed to like a dream or a predream).
Ever since my phosphenes returned, this happens every night. The Phosphenes 2.0 Show, followed by a false memory, followed by the realization that the false memory is false, and then I promptly fall asleep.
It will be interesting to see how long my brain keeps this up for!
However, when I was small I did want to be a good girl, so I would lie in bed with my eyes closed trying really hard to fall asleep.
But a small child doesn't have the inner resources to just lie there doing nothing. I needed something to amuse myself. Something that I could do while lying in bed with my eyes closed.
So I started watching the colours that I saw behind my eyelids when I closed my eyes (which, I would learn decades later, are called phosphenes). They would move and morph of their own volition, making for an interesting light show.
After some time, I gradually gained control over how the phosphenes moved and morphed. It never became easy to move them - imagine the nuance of playing a theramin combined with the force required to fight the repulsion of like magnetic poles - but with effort I could manipulate them. I made it into a game, with my goal being to produce a red and blue checkerboard (the reason why I chose a red and blue checkerboard was lost to history) and I was able to reach the checkerboard almost every night.
However, around the age of 8, I developed a new intellectual skill. At the time I called it "thinks", but I now know that it's called Mary Sue fanfiction - mentally writing stories inserting myself into various works of fiction. I found this a far more enjoyable way to spend the hours before I fell asleep, and my phosphenes fell by the wayside.
That pattern has continued ever since, with the addition of romantic fantasies once I reached the point in my life where that was of interest. But every once in a while, during a bout of insomnia, I'd reach for the phosphenes again and find that I was out of practice, but could still manipulate them.
Until my head injury.
In the aftermath of my head injury, I completely lost the ability to daydream or fantasize. (It began returning 4 months later, but even now a year later, it's still not available 100% of the time like it was before the head injury.)
So, as I lay in bed waiting to fall asleep, I reached for my phosphenes.
And they weren't there.
I could see a pattern that looked like a red and green lava lamp, but it wasn't moving at all. And, behind the lava lamp, I could see the eye of Sauron. But it wasn't my phosphenes. It was immovable, unchanging, and vaguely terrifying.
I spent a lot of time lying in bed with my eyes closed after my head injury, and this eye of Sauron was always staring back at me through the lava lamp. I couldn't control it, I couldn't change it, my old familiar patterns weren't there, and I couldn't even fantasize.
I wasn't even sure if I was human any more.
After some months, the eye of Sauron went away. (Its departure correlated with my first burst of vision therapy progress, but I can't tell if this is a cause and effect relationship.) I also regained the ability to fantasize, so I luxuriated in my newly-regained imagination and stopped worrying about my phosphenes.
Then, a few weeks ago, my phosphenes came back.
And they're completely different!
Sometimes they consist of green figures that remind me of Chinese characters (I can't read Chinese so I couldn't tell you if they're actually Chinese characters, and it's not logistically possible for me to draw them. But wouldn't it be interesting if they said something in Chinese!)
Sometimes they consist of indescribable shapes and colours that are completely different from the indescribable shapes and colours I had previously.
A new and interesting feature is that occasionally a cartoon character will peek its head out from behind the swirling shapes and colours. I can't name any of the cartoon characters, but I have no idea if they're my brain's own creation or existing cartoon characters that my subconscious memory somehow internalized. (Again, it's not logistically possible to draw them, and I haven't been able to google my way to a "Yes! That's it!" moment of recognition.)
These new phosphenes are so interesting and different that I've put daydreaming/fantasy aside, and spend some time exploring them every night as I wait for sleep to overtake me. I can't control them like I could the old ones (or, at least, I can't yet control them - I haven't a clue whether I'll eventually regain that ability), but I can sort of look around, zoom in, and generally watch the show.
But the most fascinating thing about Phosphenes 2.0 is that after I spend some time watching them, I get a false memory.
Example of a false memory: I was climbing up the side of a building. Partway through I thought "This doesn't seem safe - I shouldn't be able to hang onto the side of a building with just my fingertips." Then I thought "Don't be silly, you've done this thousands of times, people do it every day!"
Of course, I've never actually climbed the side of a building, and I'm not physically capable of hanging off a building by just my fingertips. And people don't do it every day.
But, somehow, my brain served up that ridiculousness like a memory (as opposed to like a dream or a predream).
Ever since my phosphenes returned, this happens every night. The Phosphenes 2.0 Show, followed by a false memory, followed by the realization that the false memory is false, and then I promptly fall asleep.
It will be interesting to see how long my brain keeps this up for!
Friday, June 14, 2019
Adventures in persistent spoonerisms
Chipo[l/t]e
The first time I ever saw the word chipotle, my mind inverted the T and the L and read it as "chipolte". Then, after some time, I realized I had it backwards. So I set a sort of mental flag. Whenever the word came up, I'd tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd successfully say "chipotle".
However, I didn't realize that I'd cured my spoonerism. The mental flag persisted. Whenever I went to say "chipotle" I'd stop and tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd say "chipolte".
So then I had to tell myself "Okay, you got this, no need to invert the letters any more." But it was too late. I'd gone charging right past "chipotle" back to "chipolte". So I had to tell myself to invert it again.
This pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, and somehow I've never arrived at the ability to permanently and consistently pronounce or spell "chipotle" correctly. No matter where I am in the cycle, I seem to get it right less than 50% of the time.
I looked it up multiple times while writing this post, and I'm sure I got it wrong at least once. (Weirdly, spellcheck isn't consistent about when it gives either spelling squiggles.)
Jolelujah
The internet told me that Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah (link is to the k.d. lang version because that's the one that speaks to me) and Dolly Parton's Jolene can be sung to each other's tunes.
I tried it out, and it turns out they can! The choruses you have to fudge a bit, but the verses work perfectly - and Leonard Cohen's melody really adds a delicious anguish to Dolly Parton's lyrics.
Then I had the idea of a comedic arrangement - the singer starts singing one song and somehow gets lost and ends up in the other, or, perhaps there are two singers trying to upstage each other and getting stuck in each other's songs.
So I was workshopping this in the shower, trying to figure out how the comedic timing worked, and I suddenly lost the ability to sing the verse melody of Jolene. I tried, but it kept coming out as Hallelujah!
So when I got out of the shower I listened to a recording of Jolene and got that melody back, but then I lost Hallelujah - it kept coming out as Jolene!
Now I can't hold the melody of either song, even when I'm trying to do just one song without any mashups whatsoever. It keeps changing, it's completely beyond my control, and it never comes out the same way twice!
And, to add insult to injury, it never once comes out with effective comedic timing either!
The first time I ever saw the word chipotle, my mind inverted the T and the L and read it as "chipolte". Then, after some time, I realized I had it backwards. So I set a sort of mental flag. Whenever the word came up, I'd tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd successfully say "chipotle".
However, I didn't realize that I'd cured my spoonerism. The mental flag persisted. Whenever I went to say "chipotle" I'd stop and tell myself "Wait, you have it backwards, remember to invert those two letters." Then I'd say "chipolte".
So then I had to tell myself "Okay, you got this, no need to invert the letters any more." But it was too late. I'd gone charging right past "chipotle" back to "chipolte". So I had to tell myself to invert it again.
This pendulum has swung back and forth over the years, and somehow I've never arrived at the ability to permanently and consistently pronounce or spell "chipotle" correctly. No matter where I am in the cycle, I seem to get it right less than 50% of the time.
I looked it up multiple times while writing this post, and I'm sure I got it wrong at least once. (Weirdly, spellcheck isn't consistent about when it gives either spelling squiggles.)
Jolelujah
The internet told me that Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah (link is to the k.d. lang version because that's the one that speaks to me) and Dolly Parton's Jolene can be sung to each other's tunes.
I tried it out, and it turns out they can! The choruses you have to fudge a bit, but the verses work perfectly - and Leonard Cohen's melody really adds a delicious anguish to Dolly Parton's lyrics.
Then I had the idea of a comedic arrangement - the singer starts singing one song and somehow gets lost and ends up in the other, or, perhaps there are two singers trying to upstage each other and getting stuck in each other's songs.
So I was workshopping this in the shower, trying to figure out how the comedic timing worked, and I suddenly lost the ability to sing the verse melody of Jolene. I tried, but it kept coming out as Hallelujah!
So when I got out of the shower I listened to a recording of Jolene and got that melody back, but then I lost Hallelujah - it kept coming out as Jolene!
Now I can't hold the melody of either song, even when I'm trying to do just one song without any mashups whatsoever. It keeps changing, it's completely beyond my control, and it never comes out the same way twice!
And, to add insult to injury, it never once comes out with effective comedic timing either!
Sunday, June 09, 2019
A different point of view for Captain Awkward #1203
Captain Awkward #1203:
I interpreted LW's situation as more that the "not inviting family" part was already set in stone, and it's more a question of how to explain that they're not invited without hurting any feelings.
I think the answer to that lies in the "otherness" of Catholicism in the eyes of your family.
Your family isn't Catholic, they've probably never heard of this ceremony (I was raised Catholic and I'd never heard of it!), so you can present it as a church thing that has nothing to do with them.
Mention it when it comes up naturally in conversation, but don't, like, announce it to them proactively, because it's a church thing that has nothing to do with them. Depending on what works best for the personalities or dynamics involved, you could answer any questions they might have, or you could wave it off with "It's a church thing, don't worry about it."
Your response here should be analogous to how you'd respond to someone unfamiliar with Palm Sunday asking what your palm frond is for - either explain it or wave it off, depending on how the person will take it. (I know IRL your consecration ceremony is a far bigger deal than Palm Sunday, but for non-church people they're of equal importance, i.e. it's a church thing, nothing to do with them.)
Now, as Captain Awkward points out in her answer, the price of this approach is you can't ask or expect them to be as happy for you / excited / invested in this ceremony as perhaps you'd like. The more you push this as something they should care deeply about, the more likely they are to feel left out at not being invited.
If, upon thinking this through, you find you do want this emotional investment from your family, you're certainly free to frame it that way. But that would increase the risk of hurt feelings and the very drama you're hoping to avoid. To avoid that drama, avoid the emotional investment by waving it off as nothing to do with them.
Hi Captain!
I’m 24 years old, and next year I’m undergoing the “consecration of virgins” ceremony from Catholic tradition, where essentially I agree to give up romantic attatchments and “marry” myself to God, like halfway to being a nun. I’m very excited about this, and have already started plans for the ceremony, including dresses and rings and whatnot. Hurray for future fancy clothes day! \o/
My problem is with my family. None of my family are invited to the ceremony – I haven’t even told them that I’m undergoing it. I’m keeping the ceremony strictly in-faith, mainly because of the “woo” factor, but my family aren’t Catholic, and while my family are subscribed to the Big Man In The Sky idea, they’re not sold on the more “woo” aspects like divine intervention or godspousery. While they can believe what they like, freedom of faith and all that jazz, I’m not comfortable handling the spiritual disbelief of half my guests at my “wedding”. There’s also complicated history between us which I don’t want encroaching on what is a really important day for me. But I know they’re going to be hurt if I don’t invite them, and I feel horribly guilty about it, especially since this’ll be the closest thing they’ll get to a big white wedding for me!
How do I explain to my family about my upcoming “marriage” and why they’re not invited?
Thanks!
All The Lace
(ps: although I know you probably wouldn’t do this, I just want to make it clear that I’m not interested in any advice on finding “real” datemates to have a “real” marriage)Captain Awkward's response had more focus on the question of how to decide whether to invite family and how family might respond to invitations than I thought LW was going for.
I interpreted LW's situation as more that the "not inviting family" part was already set in stone, and it's more a question of how to explain that they're not invited without hurting any feelings.
I think the answer to that lies in the "otherness" of Catholicism in the eyes of your family.
Your family isn't Catholic, they've probably never heard of this ceremony (I was raised Catholic and I'd never heard of it!), so you can present it as a church thing that has nothing to do with them.
Mention it when it comes up naturally in conversation, but don't, like, announce it to them proactively, because it's a church thing that has nothing to do with them. Depending on what works best for the personalities or dynamics involved, you could answer any questions they might have, or you could wave it off with "It's a church thing, don't worry about it."
Your response here should be analogous to how you'd respond to someone unfamiliar with Palm Sunday asking what your palm frond is for - either explain it or wave it off, depending on how the person will take it. (I know IRL your consecration ceremony is a far bigger deal than Palm Sunday, but for non-church people they're of equal importance, i.e. it's a church thing, nothing to do with them.)
Now, as Captain Awkward points out in her answer, the price of this approach is you can't ask or expect them to be as happy for you / excited / invested in this ceremony as perhaps you'd like. The more you push this as something they should care deeply about, the more likely they are to feel left out at not being invited.
If, upon thinking this through, you find you do want this emotional investment from your family, you're certainly free to frame it that way. But that would increase the risk of hurt feelings and the very drama you're hoping to avoid. To avoid that drama, avoid the emotional investment by waving it off as nothing to do with them.
Saturday, June 08, 2019
Things the City of Toronto Should Invent: monthly property tax bills
I knew that when I switched from renting to owning that I would have to pay property taxes separately (rather than property taxes being included in my rent).
What I didn't know was how weird the City of Toronto's billing schedule would be.
I have six scheduled property tax payments a year. Any sensible person would conclude "Okay, so one payment every two months," but it doesn't work that way - they're unevenly spaced! My six payments a year are due in March, April, May, July, August and September.
This spacing means that the payments always feel like a burden. Because I get five months in a row without a payment, it doesn't feel like the kind of regular recurring expense I would mentally take into consideration in my budget. But, at the same time, the fact that it happens multiple months in a row doesn't make it feel like a one-off expense that hurts a bit in the month where it occurs but ultimately my bank account reachieves equilibrium. This arrangement is the worst of both worlds.
Solution: 12 monthly property tax payments
People are accustomed to sizeable monthly payments being due on the first of the month - after all, that's how rent works! So not only would monthly payments make each cheque smaller, but, by fitting into the pattern to which we're accustomed, it would make it more painless.
I previously came up with a conspiracy theory that sales tax isn't included in sticker price to stoke anti-tax sentiment, by making it an unpleasant surprise at the cash register.
I wonder if that's also the intention behind this erratic property tax schedule?
What I didn't know was how weird the City of Toronto's billing schedule would be.
I have six scheduled property tax payments a year. Any sensible person would conclude "Okay, so one payment every two months," but it doesn't work that way - they're unevenly spaced! My six payments a year are due in March, April, May, July, August and September.
This spacing means that the payments always feel like a burden. Because I get five months in a row without a payment, it doesn't feel like the kind of regular recurring expense I would mentally take into consideration in my budget. But, at the same time, the fact that it happens multiple months in a row doesn't make it feel like a one-off expense that hurts a bit in the month where it occurs but ultimately my bank account reachieves equilibrium. This arrangement is the worst of both worlds.
Solution: 12 monthly property tax payments
People are accustomed to sizeable monthly payments being due on the first of the month - after all, that's how rent works! So not only would monthly payments make each cheque smaller, but, by fitting into the pattern to which we're accustomed, it would make it more painless.
I previously came up with a conspiracy theory that sales tax isn't included in sticker price to stoke anti-tax sentiment, by making it an unpleasant surprise at the cash register.
I wonder if that's also the intention behind this erratic property tax schedule?
Saturday, June 01, 2019
Parenting advice from the childfree
I recently fell down an internet rabbit hole and ended up reading a parenting advice column. And it seems I have Opinions, even though I don't have children.
Many parents would say at this point "Of course my kids know that they can come to me with anything!", but less than 100% of their kids would agree with that assessment.
My own parents would probably think their kids can come to them with anything, but I wouldn't have felt safe coming to them with an unwanted pregnancy. (And, given that I didn't know abortion as a safe, controlled medical procedure existed until nearly a decade after menarche, the results could have been disastrous!)
But, because my mother once mentioned in passing that my parents had used birth control and plan their family, I never felt the need to conceal my birth control from them.
I am exactly the kind of kid you're worried about - I always interpreted adults words and actions in ways the didn't intend! - and I can assure you it never once occurred to me that squirt guns and real guns are in any way synonymous or interchangeable, any more than I thought they were interchangeable with glue guns or staple guns.
For example, in the case where they're in a car and the daughter wants the windows up, she has no control whatsoever. She can't roll up the windows herself. She can't move since she's strapped into a carseat. She can't add or remove a layer of clothing since she's strapped into a carseat. She probably didn't even get a choice about whether she's going on a car ride at that moment and to that destination in the first place! At this moment, she has no control over her life or her body and is entirely at the mercy of your whims, including your (in her eyes) nonsensical whim to have the window open when it's clearly more comfortable to have it closed.
Giving more consideration to your daughter's needs and wants, however petty, in situations where the logistical requirements of childhood put you in full control over her life and her body would, in her eyes, put you in a better moral position to argue that she can't control other people's lives or bodies.
Fifty-fifty custody is something chosen for a theoretical notion of fairness that doesn't necessarily reflect the actual needs of the actual people in the situation. That might make sense when a kid is younger and doesn't have and/or can't express specific custody-related needs and preferences, but it makes less sense the older the kid gets.
If you imagine a household where a kid lives with two parents, they almost certainly don't spend 50% of their time with each parent. They spend the amount of time that makes sense given the personal factors involved. And, the older the kid gets, the more time the kid spends with neither parent - at school or work or involved in their own activities or at home alone.
Perhaps it would be better if your custody arrangement reflected this, and allowed your daughter to choose how much time she spends with which parent.
In a few short years, she'll be able to stay home alone and to travel to and from each parent's house independently, so the logistical issues of childcare and transportation will be gone.
Surely you can do better than an arrangement where the courts require your daughter to spend half your time with (and dependent upon, and at the mercy of) someone who has offered to pay to get rid of her.
Many years ago, before I got married, I had an abortion. I do not regret it, and it was the correct choice for me at the time. (I was a freshman in college and had no familial support.) Now I have two kind and lovely daughters in their early teens, and I am wondering if this is something I should talk to them about.
My husband is unsure, leaning toward no, and I can’t say I exactly relish the idea of having this conversation with my daughters, but especially considering the current political climate in the United States, I feel like I … should? Just tell me if I should, and if the answer is yes, how to do it.One benefit of telling your daughters that you had an abortion is that they'll be more likely to feel that they're safe going to you if they ever need an abortion or otherwise have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
Many parents would say at this point "Of course my kids know that they can come to me with anything!", but less than 100% of their kids would agree with that assessment.
My own parents would probably think their kids can come to them with anything, but I wouldn't have felt safe coming to them with an unwanted pregnancy. (And, given that I didn't know abortion as a safe, controlled medical procedure existed until nearly a decade after menarche, the results could have been disastrous!)
But, because my mother once mentioned in passing that my parents had used birth control and plan their family, I never felt the need to conceal my birth control from them.
For my preschool-aged son’s birthday party, we bought (zany, colorful) squirt guns as a party favor. Our kids love to run around in the backyard squirting each other on hot summer days, and I’m fine with that—over time, it has given us good opportunities to talk about challenging subjects in bite-size, age-appropriate ways (i.e., guns: never touch a real gun; if you ever see a real gun or someone tries to show you one, leave immediately and tell a grown-up; it is only a game if everyone is having fun, etc.). However, I’m unsure whether giving squirt guns to others’ children is appropriate. If it matters, we aren’t gun owners; my partner did not grow up around them, but I did, and neither of us would ever want a real gun in our home.
I’m debating creating separate gift bags without the squirt guns, making a partywide PSA such as “never touch a real gun—and remember, squirting someone with a squirt gun is only a game if both people are having fun,” or something to that effect. My partner feels my concerns are overblown and says mentioning it would make things weird, but wouldn’t stop me if I insist on it. I feel the conversation is important but don’t know if this is the right place for it or what exactly to say. Any advice?
I am exactly the kind of kid you're worried about - I always interpreted adults words and actions in ways the didn't intend! - and I can assure you it never once occurred to me that squirt guns and real guns are in any way synonymous or interchangeable, any more than I thought they were interchangeable with glue guns or staple guns.
How long do kids get to be dictators? How long should we just do whatever they want to avoid massive tantrums? I know the whole “is this the hill you want to die on” argument, but there are times when I just get tired of the fact that my toddler’s whims and desires completely outweigh mine! And I know that I’m supposed to be the adult and be the bigger person here, but sometimes the frustration gets to me.
My daughter is 3½ and very stubborn. She comes by it honestly: I’m pretty stubborn too. She’s also very dramatic and there have always been a few things that she just has to have a certain way or else she’ll lose her mind. For example, if we’re in the car listening to Disney music, she doesn’t like it if I sing along. She has gotten much better about asking me to please not sing, and as long as she asks and doesn’t scream at me, I’ll do what she wants. If I’m sitting on the couch, I can’t have a blanket on me. (I’m usually cold and like to snuggle under a blanket to keep warm.) If I don’t take it off, she loses her mind. She hates it when her dad and I try to have a conversation because she wants to talk to Dad. The other day she wanted me to put the windows up in the car. So I put hers up and put mine up almost all the way, but left it open some because it was a nice day. She lost her mind because she wanted them all up. I don’t want to have to dance on eggshells and do anything to avoid upsetting her. Sometimes (a lot of times) things don’t go the way you want and everyone just needs to learn to process that as best as they can!
The columnist advises focusing on situations where she's trying to control other people's lives or bodies (such as the situation where the kid doesn't like that LW is under a blanket) but another thing to keep in mind is situations where your daughter has no control over her own life or her own body.I know she’s a toddler and can’t process things the same way an adult does. And I know that I’m probably fucking up royally by taking actions that I know will result in her losing her mind. But in the moment, sometimes I just can’t handle being bossed around by a 3-year-old. Am I really supposed to just let her have her way all the time? Does that not lead to her becoming an entitled asshole who thinks the world revolves around her? Since most of the time it basically does, I’d like to try to introduce the concept that she isn’t the center of the universe. Or am I just being a complete asshole?
For example, in the case where they're in a car and the daughter wants the windows up, she has no control whatsoever. She can't roll up the windows herself. She can't move since she's strapped into a carseat. She can't add or remove a layer of clothing since she's strapped into a carseat. She probably didn't even get a choice about whether she's going on a car ride at that moment and to that destination in the first place! At this moment, she has no control over her life or her body and is entirely at the mercy of your whims, including your (in her eyes) nonsensical whim to have the window open when it's clearly more comfortable to have it closed.
Giving more consideration to your daughter's needs and wants, however petty, in situations where the logistical requirements of childhood put you in full control over her life and her body would, in her eyes, put you in a better moral position to argue that she can't control other people's lives or bodies.
I’m divorced with an 11-year-old. She’s not the easiest child to parent as she is very independent, strong-willed, and opinionated. I love her though and honestly have no issues parenting her. I share 50 percent custody with her dad. Every week I hear from one of them about a fight they’ve had. He tells me she’s difficult, moody, angry, challenges him. She tells me he’s inflexible, always yelling, and unreasonable.
The columnist suggests at the end of her advice that if none of her other suggestions work you might consider re-opening the 50/50 custody agreement, but I think they should look at adjusting the custody agreement on principle, even if they're able to resolve this specific issue without changing custody.I sympathize with her and try to give him advice. But what is my role here? I don’t share with her that I think the problem is her dad. He seems out of his depth in parenting and has twice offered to pay me money to take her off his hands. My biggest problem with being married to him has been that he had no empathy and I believe it’s showing up in his relationship with our daughter. But do I keep giving advice (which I don’t know if he even takes or not)? And since I am not there and don’t see the whole picture, I’m afraid I might be giving the wrong advice. Should I take my daughter to therapy to deal with her dad? The angry, moody child he cites is sometimes there when she is with me, but she is also funny, pleasant, and engaging, and has no problems following house rules. Do I just let them figure it out? I’m just worried.
Fifty-fifty custody is something chosen for a theoretical notion of fairness that doesn't necessarily reflect the actual needs of the actual people in the situation. That might make sense when a kid is younger and doesn't have and/or can't express specific custody-related needs and preferences, but it makes less sense the older the kid gets.
If you imagine a household where a kid lives with two parents, they almost certainly don't spend 50% of their time with each parent. They spend the amount of time that makes sense given the personal factors involved. And, the older the kid gets, the more time the kid spends with neither parent - at school or work or involved in their own activities or at home alone.
Perhaps it would be better if your custody arrangement reflected this, and allowed your daughter to choose how much time she spends with which parent.
In a few short years, she'll be able to stay home alone and to travel to and from each parent's house independently, so the logistical issues of childcare and transportation will be gone.
Surely you can do better than an arrangement where the courts require your daughter to spend half your time with (and dependent upon, and at the mercy of) someone who has offered to pay to get rid of her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)