Monica

Once upon a time multi-processing was harder. I remember the days of a terminal (not computer!) connected to the ARPANet via 1200-baud modem, watching the next Usenet article sloooowly appear on the screen. It's not like I could do anything else electronic in parallel. Sometimes I did menial tasks like paying bills in parallel, but mostly I think I put up with it. Windowing systems set us free.

Now, I'm often doing a bunch of things at once, and this sort of thing is a minor speed bump rather than a noticable problem. In fact, my morning routine pretty much consists of, in parallel: reading two streams of email, checking half a dozen comics, checking the company Wiki, checking the day's meetings, updating and compiling my source tree, and reading news headlines. If the folks who came up with the ad strategy aren't just desperately guessing, they must have reasons to believe that people will sit and wait for their comic strip. Do enough people really do that?

dglenn re-posted a link to the spoons essay that attempts to explain living with chronic pain to healthy folks like me. It's a powerful anology that I've known about for a long time, but I wanted to (1) cache the link and (2) spread it.

Bruce Shneier on the new national ID card (link from goldsquare). Bruce has a lot of good things to say about why this is a bad idea. While I have some minor quibbles, I agree with what he's saying here.

I think I finally have my spam filters working reasonably well. (That is, as well as they can based just on SpamAssassin ratings and a few repeat offenders who warrant special treatment.) I occasionally get false positives, so I want to be able to glance through candidates, but at ~100/day that's tedious. It appears that sending messages rated 7 or higher to the bit bucket, while keeping 5-6 to inspect, will work. I've been using these settings for a week and during that time the "maybe spam" folder has only accumulated 80 messages (compared to 600 in "almost definitely spam"). Sadly, the spam that makes it to my inbox usually comes through with scores under 2, and much of my legitimate mail is that high, so I can't do much about that.

Overheard in the office: "Should that be on fire?"

From the whiners-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands department, a new education fad: some parents (and students) object to grading in red ink. Red is "stressful", some say, and teachers should be using more "positive" colors like blue. Sheesh. Some people will read negativity into anything. It's just a color, people! And for the record, I much prefer mark-up in red as opposed to blue or the fluffy alternatives like turquoise (which is too light to be able to see easily). Red has the best contrast with the black ink on the white page; if you want me to see your little squiggle, don't use lime green!

1. How has the field of software documentation evolved during your career?

( Read more... )

2. How did growing up in the SCA community in particular influence who you are now? Would you have grown into more or less the same person in a different social environment, such as your current congregation?

( Read more... )

3. If you could become a pen pal of any person from any time, with whom would you correspond? (To avoid paradox, assume that the person exists in a parallel universe, so you could even correspond with yourself from the past without causing reality to implode.)

( Read more... )

4. Alternatively, what do you do if the genie allows you to undo after seeing the consequences? Specifically, you may once instantly revert reality to a backup copy of the moment before he would have contacted you. Does your answer change if you could remember your experiences from the forked reality?

( Read more... )

5. How would you characterize the stories that you most enjoy reading or watching? How have these desiderata changed over time?

( Read more... )

Here's how this works:

1. If you want to be interviewed, leave a comment saying so.
2. I will respond, asking you five questions.
3. You'll update your journal with my five questions and your five answers.
4. You'll include this explanation.
5. You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.

siderea

There are a very few people to whom I will respond "yes". There is a much larger set of people to whom my response is typically "probably!" (i.e. tell me more), with a smile. Farther out, there is the "that depends -- what is it?" response.

Another commenter challenged me on this, suggesting that it may be better to say "yes" by default and filter out the people who turn out to try to abuse your good nature. I can see that point, but I have trouble taking that approach. I find it difficult to disappoint people, and saying "yes" and then finding out the favor is something I can't do for whatever reason forces me to recant. Ok, not really -- a request for a favor always carries an implicit "if you can" -- but that's how it feels to me. If I say I'll do something, I feel obligated to do it. And thus, I am reluctant to hand out blank checks.

While there is certainly a trust issue, this is not just about trusting (or not trusting) the other person. Friends whom I trust have at times made what seemed to them to be perfectly reasonable requests for favors. But, sometimes, there's something about me that makes it difficult for me to grant the favor. People might observe that I drive at night but not know that I am very particular about the circumstances under which I do it, so they don't know that picking someone up at the airport at 9pm poses a real difficulty for me. People might see my writing and conclude that I'm articulate (well, maybe not based on this entry :-) ), but not know that I'm somewhat terrified of most public speaking and would really rather not give a speech to their community group. Stuff like that. Sure, trusting the person is a factor, but so are all these other things.

There are, as I said, a few people to whom I'll say "yes". These are certainly people I trust to not take advantage, but they are also people I know well enough that they probably know all the relevant limitations. I could be wrong about that, and if so we'd discuss it and the asker -- being someone close to me -- would probably withdraw the request on the spot. But for the most part, it doesn't seem to come up.

(Who's on the list? Not telling. I also don't always know precisely myself until I find the "yes" coming out automatically.)

For everyone else, I guess I just prefer to build toward "automatic yes" through the "probably" path, rather than defaulting to "yes" and having to disappoint more people. Maybe it's all about setting expectations; if I say "probably" or "maybe" the asker doesn't expect an automatic "yes", so he's less disappointed if I say "no".

grouchyoldcoot

blog_sociology

(Let me get this out of the way early: the word "friends" is very wrong in this context. Personally, I think of it more like a "subscriber" model. But I will use the word "friend" here, because that's the LJ lingo.)

LJ is big. Really really big. Over 5 million users, half active, or there-abouts. The vast majority of them are teenagers, and their norms probably differ from those of my circle of friends. I haven't been a teenager for a very long time, and to the best of my knowledge none of my LJ friends are teenagers. These are my opinions; YMMV, especially if your demographic varies.

Adding friends: Some people like to be asked before you add them; others don't care. The user info might contain a hint. I generally do not ask; I figure that if they put it out there for the public to read, there's no difference between reading discreetly and subscribing explicitly. If I see that the person has a very small friends list, I am more likely to post a comment fairly promptly upon subscribing.

Introductory comments: Some people like new subscribers to pop in and say hi explicitly; others don't care. I personally do not leave comments that consist entirely of "hi, I added you"; that sounds kind of high-schoolish to me. The first time I post something of substance, though, I'll often add something like "by the way, I found you via so-and-so".

Recipricocity: Some people expect you to add them back if they add you; others don't care. My advice is to not get into the game of keeping score; add the people you want to read and/or the people you want to give access to your restricted posts. While I don't automatically reciprocate, and it might be for reasons ranging from general content to grammar/format/spelling to the number of posts per day to a high concentration of quizzes to, in one past case, not speaking the language the journal is written in, I do periodically pop into the journals of the people I didn't add back. Journals and posters change over time, after all, and I may subscribe later. Or I may just pop in once every couple weeks, catch up, and maybe leave some comments. Usually it's just about managing my reading list and is not at all personal; there are only so many hours in a day. :-)

Quizzes: Mistakingly called "memes", these are the entries along the lines of "what LotR character are you" or "what color eggplant are you" or whatever. They usually have a graphic (sometimes large) and boilerplate text, with no original content. There are gazillions of them out there. Personally, I dislike them and appreciate it when my friends put them behind lj-cut tags, especially if they're doing a bunch in one fell swoop.

Other "memes": there are lots of things called memes floating around. My recent interview entries are part of one of them. There are also surveys floating around, and some others. I personally like the ones that involve original content, that tell me something about the person posting them. I really like the interview meme because not only does it tell us something about you but it encourages interaction. I think that's kind of neat. Yeah, it's a journal and not a bulletin board, but if you didn't want some level of interaction with your readers you'd just keep a private journal on your home computer, right?

Long posts: there is a convention that long posts should be partially or entirely behind an lj-cut tag so that people don't face excessive scrolling when reading their friends' pages. The definition of "long" varies. You'll get a feel for the local definition among your own friends just by hanging around. There's also a convention of putting large pictures, which consume a lot of bandwidth, behind a cut, particularly if you're posting more than one.

Ok, what basic ("101") topics have I missed, and what do the rest of you think about these?

jducoeur

ian_gunn

lorimelton

mommyathome

( music, interpersonal conduct, Robin Wood, gun control, SCA and synagogue communities )

We went to my parents' house for Thanksgiving as usual. There were seven of us, including my sister and her two kids.

It was weird to have Thor absent. Thor was my parents' golden retriever, who would have been 14 last month but died two months ago. On my mother's birthday, more's the pity. He was a good dog. They were really attached to him and they took it hard, but he had a good life and 14-minus-two-weeks is pretty good for a golden retriever. They haven't said anything yet about getting another dog. (There's almost always been a dog in that house.)

When my parents' basement flooded in September they lost their electric roaster, and I'd been thinking about replacing that for them in December. (I always have trouble identifying suitable gifts for them.) But they decided they wanted it for Thanksgiving, so so much for that idea. The turkey was done in five hours in the roaster; it was probably done sooner, as we measured the temperature at 200, but it was not dry. The skin was very crispy and that kept the insides moist. For those who missed my update to an earlier post, we determined that Butterball turkeys contain no actual butter, so I was able to eat it.

We got there before my sister and my mother mentioned that she would be bringing a mincemeat pie for dessert. This raised the question of just what's in mincemeat anyway; I certainly remember actual meat from my Italian grandmother's pies, but my mother asserted that the filling you buy in a store contains no meat. A little time with Google revealed that the traditional recipe involves beef and pork but that there are non-meat versions, so this remained a mystery. When my sister came we learned that she had bought the pie, not made it; she was pretty sure there was no meat in the filling, but commercial pie crusts contain lard more often than not, so I declined on that basis. (And if it didn't have lard, it probably had butter anyway.) I hope my sister did not feel rejected that I declined all three of the desserts she brought -- the others being cheesecake and fudge containing milk -- but I took some of the latter two home, so that probably helped. And it's not like the meat/dairy thing should come as a surprise by now. Oh well. It's not like I needed the dessert. :-)

( odd social dynamic )

Other than that, though, it was a nice visit!

Apropos of nothing... Since getting the broken window replaced in my car, the horn no longer sounds when I lock or unlock the car with the remote. It does sound if I push the button. This is not a complaint. :-)

The rules: You can ask me for a set of five questions; you'll post the questions and your answers in your journal along with an invitation like this one.

1. What, if any, fears do you have that you know are irrational, but are afraid of anyway?

There is a broad category called "making a fool out of myself", which manifests in public speaking, asking questions at talks, playing role-playing games in some circumstances, and stuff like that. While there is sometimes a rational basis for this, it's not rational nearly as often as I think it is. Interestingly, this only triggers for verbal communication, not written.

I'm also kind of afraid of unprotected heights -- planes are fine but tall ladders are scary, and that sort of thing. But that might be rational, at least partially.

2. If you could choose one person whose mind you could read whenever you wanted, who would you pick?

Expedience would call for that to be Dani, my husband, but I think there'd be some fascinating reading material in my rabbi's brain.

3. What one thing in your life do you feel most guilty about?

There was a romantic situation that ended badly through no actual fault or malice on anyone's part, but rather due to unfortunate circumstances. Still, I feel I could have handled it better, in a way that would result in the other person being comfortable being around me now.

4. How much money would it take to make you give up your favorite food forever?

Hmm. I wonder what my favorite food is. I gave up some strong contenders when I started to keep kosher and that didn't involve any money coming my way at all. On the other hand, it would take a lot of money to get me to give up cold liquid caffeine (Diet Coke et al), so maybe that's it. Absent a health or halachic issue, my gut feeling is that it would cost roughly my annual salary less what I spend on purchasing it, because absence of caffeine would affect my ability to do my job.

5. What do you think is your best physical attribute?

I suspect you mean "best" in the sense of "most attractive" (rather than, say, "best-functioning"). That's kind of hard for me to judge, as I really don't think much about physical beauty. I think my eyes are pretty when not hidden behind glasses, but I need the glasses so almost no one ever sees that. (No, I can't wear contacts.)

S and L are both women in their 80s. S is a bitter, cranky person whose husband went into a nursing home about a year ago. That's certainly a source of stress for her, though I suspect he's probably better off there because we've all seen her be pretty abusive to him. She speaks snidely of him now, behind his back. Better for her not to be his primary care-giver. L's husband died a year ago aftr 65 years of marriage, and L is one of the most kind and gentle souls I've ever met. I know all of that from observation, but this week I got strong examples from both, and it really struck me.

This Shabbat, as we were getting books out for Torah study, I accidentally bumped S with a book. I immediately said "I'm sorry" and she said "sorry isn't good enough" (!). I've had no previous altercations with this person, so I think that was really uncalled for. (Even though she's a crank I've never been anything but completely polite with her -- she'd stir up more grief than I'm willing to deal with otherwise.) So I said that I obviously didn't mean to bump her and all I could do after the fact was apologize, which I had done. She then said something like "you have to understand that I'm on [some drug] and I could bleed from a bump". Again, I said, it was an accident, I clearly didn't mean to hurt her, and I didn't see what else I could do about it. She muttered something testy-sounding under her breath and went into a sulk. (By the way, it was a very minor bump; it's not like I dropped a dictionary on her point-blank or swung at her or anything like that.) But to S, everything is about her, and if you're not 100% for her you're against her.

(S did later have the decency to say she shouldn't have snapped at me. I believe that she had outside help in reaching that conclusion. I fear she will not have learned anything from it, but I hope I'm wrong.)

After services I learned that L had walked (usually she gets a ride from someone), and she lives between shul and my house, so I and one other person offered to walk her home. We had a very pleasant conversation, and when we got to her building she insisted that we come in for a bit, and the next thing I knew she was getting lunch out for us. We spent a couple hours talking about all sorts of things -- her husband, her children, but also just as much about us (at her prompting), and politics, and assorted other things. After she fed us lunch she thanked us for sharing a meal with her. She's self-sufficient (aside from not driving and not going out alone at night), and she insisted on being a hostess -- but she was also a friend (and is). She obviously misses her husband quite a bit -- 65 years is a long time -- but she is finding ways to fill the time, and she's making additional friends, and she's just got this great outlook on life. (By the way, one of her kids is local and they have frequent contact.)

L and S may be about the same age, but L acts 20 years younger and S acts 20 years older. L sees the silver lining; S sees the cloud. L grieves but in a healthy way; S grieves and believes it's everyone else's fault that she's unhappy.

L is going to be my role model when I'm that age. She actually reminds me a lot of my maternal grandmother, who, sadly, didn't reach that age due to a stroke. But I think my grandmother would be a lot like L if she were still alive. And if she were still alive, I'd introduce them to each other first chance I got.

He seemed to assume in all seriousness that I would have some loyalty to this team or that I would care. My only connection to it is having graduated from that school more than 20 years ago. I don't know the players or coach, nor do I have any past association with high-school sports.

It's not just my father and high-school sports, of course. It's kind of expected that sports fans will root for the home team -- and that voters will vote for the local candidate, and that people will generally show some pride when someone who shares ethnicity, an alma mater, or the like does something noteworthy.

I don't care about such factors, however. For me, it's all about relevant factors, quality chief among them. Now I might end up knowing more about the similar person/team/company/whatever, and that may lead to favor, but the favor does not derive directly from the connection.

I don't root for the US teams at the Olympics or the Steelers/Pirates here. (Bad example, I know, because I don't follow football or baseball anyway, but if I did, I wouldn't necessarily favor those teams. I would favor the teams that showed the best balance of skill and sportsmanship, whoever they are.) I don't vote for politicians just because they're from my neighborhood/county/state, or women, or Jewish, or Carnegie-Mellon alums, or (speaking theoretically) SCA members or coworkers.

Now there are some areas where having something in common can affect a decision. In an election for city council, the guy who actually lives here and participates in the community has an edge over the guy with a local post-office box who's never seen on the streets. Or, if all other factors are equal (which they rarely are), I'd probably vote for the candidate who shares my religious views, because those views can affect how one governs (or judges, since we elect judges here). But that's not at all the same thing as favoring the secular Jew just because he's named Rosenblum.

I've seen a lot of campaigns that amounted to "vote to put a woman in office" or "vote for the home-town candidate". (And, of course, the "vote party line" appeals.) That sort of thing is actually less likely to get my vote, because they should have been talking about issues instead of appealing to my presumed "nationalism" ("statism"? "townism"?).

Now voting is important and sports are not, but I suspect that a lot of people base loyalties on the same kinds of factors in both. But I just don't feel that connection -- that someone went to the same school or lives in the same town is casually interesting, in a small-talk sort of way, but not really relevant.