New:
1. Children of Blood and Bone by Tomi Adeyemi
2. Pride by Ibi Zoboi
Reread:
1. Ceremony in Death
2. Vengeance in Death
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)