Tag: reflections

Like many of my friends, I have treated professional sports with cultivated indifference. But a year and a half ago, I decided to become a football fan.

Several years ago, I was at a talk by Michael Albert at MIT where he chastised American intellectuals for what he claimed was cultivated disdain of professional sports. Albert suggested that sports reflect the go-to topic for small talk and building rapport across class and context. But he suggested that almost everybody who used the term “working class struggle” was incapable of making small talk with members of the working class because — unlike most working class people (and most people in general) — educated people systematically cultivate ignorance in sports.

Professional sports are deeply popular. In the US, Sunday Night Football is now the most popular television show among women in its time slot and the third most popular television in America among 18-49 year old women. That it is also the most popular television show in general is old news. There are very few things that anywhere near half of Americans have in common. Interest in football is one of them. An enormous proportion of the US population watches the Superbowl each year.

I recognized myself in Albert’s critique. So I decided to follow a local team. I picked football because it is the most popular sport in America and because their strong revenue sharing system means that either team has a chance to win any given match. My local team is the New England Patriots and I’ve watched many of the team’s games or highlights over the last season and a half. I’ve also followed a couple football blogs.

A year and half in, I can call myself a football fan. And I’ve learned a few things in the process:

1. With a little effort, getting into sports is easy. Although learning the rules of a sport can be complicated, sports are popular because people, in general, find them fun to watch. If you watch a few games with someone who can explain the rules, and if you begin to cheer for a team, you will find yourself getting emotionally invested and excited.
2. Sports really do, as Albert implied, allow one to build rapport and small talk across society. I used to dread the local cab driver who would try to make small talk by mentioning Tom Brady or the Red Sox. No more! Some of these conversations turn into broader conversations about life and politics.
3. Interest in sports can expand or shrink to fill the time you’re willing to give it. It can mean just glancing through the sports sections of the paper and watching some highlights here or there. Or it can turn into a lifestyle.
4. It’s not all great. Football, like most professional sports, is deeply permeated with advertisements, commercialism, and money. Like other sports, it is also violent. I don’t think I could ever get behind a fight sport where the goal is to hurt someone else. The machoness and absence of women in the highest levels of most professional sports bothers me deeply.

I’ve also tried to think a lot about why I, like most of my friends, avoided sports in the past. Disinterest in sports among academics and the highly educated is, in my experience, far from passive. I’ve heard people almost compete to explain the depth of their ignorance in sports — one doesn’t even know the rules, one doesn’t own a television, one doesn’t know the first thing about the game. Sports ball! I did the same thing myself.

Bethany Bryson, a sociologist at JMU has shown that increased education is associated with increased inclusiveness in musical taste (i.e., highly educated people like more types of music) but that these people are most likely to reject music that is highly favored by the least educated people. Her paper’s title sums up the attitude: “Anything But Heavy Metal.” For highly educated folks, it’s a sign of cultivation to be eclectic in one’s tastes. But to signal to others that you belong in the intellectual elite, it can pay in cultural capital to dislike things, like sports, that are enormously popular among the least educated parts of society.

This ignorance among highly educated people limits our ability to communicate, bond, and build relationships across different segments of society. It limits our ability to engage in conversations and build a common culture that crosses our highly stratified and segmented societies. Sports are not politically or culturally unproblematic. But they provide an easy — and enjoyable — way to build common ground with our neighbors and fellow citizens that transcend social boundaries.

Last weekend, my friend Andrés Monroy-Hernández pointed out something that I’ve been noticing as well. Although the last decade has seen a huge decrease in the time my laptop takes to boot, the same can not be said for the increasing powerful computer in my pocket that is my phone.

As the graph indicates, I think my cross-over was around 2010 when I acquired an SSD for my laptop.

A couple days ago, I woke up to this exciting series of text messages from a unfamiliar phone number.

Because I’ve not received a reply in the last couple days, because it was a Seattle phone number but I haven’t lived in Seattle for years, and because I don’t know of anyone in Seattle who was about to give birth, I’m pretty confident that this was indeed a case of misdirected text messages!

But whoever you are: Congratulations! I know it was a mistake, but that really made my day!

This vision of the future at Sam’s No. 3 in Denver suggests that we will have ample blackboards after the apocalypse.

And that the contrast will be greatly improved in direct sunlight.

A lot of people interested in free software, and user autonomy and network services are very worried about Facebook. Folks are worried for the same reason that so many investors are interested: the networks effects brought by hundreds of millions of folks signed up to use the service.

Network effects — the concept that a good or service increases in value as more people use it — are not a new problem for free software. Software developers target Microsoft Windows because that is where the large majority of users are. Users with no love for Microsoft and who are otherwise sympathetic to free software use Windows because programs they need will only run there.

Folks worried about Facebook are afraid for similar reasons. Sure, you can close down your Facebook account and move to Diaspora. But who will you talk to there? You can already hear people complaining about Facebook the same way they’ve been complaining about Windows or Office for years. People feel that their hands are tied and that their software, and their social network, will be determined by what everybody is doing.

I’m worried about Facebook. But I’m not too intimidated by Facebook’s network effects for two reasons.

First, using Facebook doesn’t preclude using anything else.

Twitter has enormous overlapping functionality with Facebook. Sure, people use the systems very differently. But they both ask you to create lists of friends and followers and are designed around sending and receiving short status messages. Millions of people do both and both systems are thriving. For the millions of people who use both Facebook and Twitter, the two services have had to negotiate their marginal utility in a world they share with the other one. People decide that Twitter is for certain types of short messages and Facebook is for others. But these arrangements shift over time.

And the relationships between services aren’t always peaceful coexistence. Remember Friendster? Remember Orkut? Remember Tribe? Remember MySpace? MySpace, and all the others, are great examples of how social networks die. They very slowly fade away. MySpace users signed up for Facebook accounts and used both. They almost never just switched. Over time, as one platform became more attractive than the other, for many complicated reasons, attention and activity shifted. People logged in on MySpace less and Facebook more and, eventually, realized they were effectively no longer MySpace users. Anyone that has been on the Internet long enough to watch a few of these shifts from one platform to another knows that they’re not abrupt — even if they can be set in motion by a particular event or action. Users of social networking sites simply don’t have to choose in the way that a person choosing to boot Windows and GNU/Linux does.

I’m sure the vast majority of people with Diaspora accounts use Facebook actively. This is not a problem for Diaspora. It is how Diaspora — or whatever else eventually achieves what many of us hoped Diaspora would — could win.

Second, Facebook is for the ephemeral.

Facebook is primarily used for information that was produced very recently. This week if not today. If not this hour. Facebook has an enormous amount of data that users have fed it that may be hard to get out and move somewhere else. But most people don’t care very much about having any regular access to the large majority of this information. What people care deeply about is having access to the data that they and their friends created today. And that data can just as easily be created somewhere else tomorrow. Or, with the right tools, created just as easily in both places.

Compare this to something like Windows where moving away would require learning, converting, and perhaps even writing, new software. Perhaps even in new programming languages that most developers don’t know yet. Compared to Windows, a migration away from Facebook will be easy.

Facebook’s photo galleries are an example of an important place where this holds less well. Social network information — i.e., the list of who is friends with who — is another example of something that is persistently valuable. That said, people really enjoy the act of finding and friending. Indeed, this process was part of the initial draw of Facebook and other social networks.

None of this means that Facebook is over. It doesn’t even mean that its ascendancy will be slowed. What it does mean is that Facebook is vulnerable to the next thing more than many technology firms that have benefited from network effects in the past. If users are given compelling reasons to switch to something else, they can with less trouble and they will.

That compelling reason might be a new social network with better features or an awesome distributed architecture that allows freedom for users and the ability of those users to benefit from new and fantastic things that Facebook’s overseers would never let them have and without the things Facebook’s users suffer through today. Or it might be a sexier proprietary box to store users’ private information. It doesn’t mean that I’m not worried about Facebook. I remain deeply worried. It’s just not very hard for me to imagine the end.

When I set an alarm, my clock, now running on the computer in my pocket, is smart enough to tell me how much time will pass until the alarm is scheduled to sound. This has eliminated the old problem of sleeping past meetings before being surprised by an alarm precisely half a day after I had originally planned to wake.

The price has been having to know exactly how little I will sleep: a usually depressing fact that had previously been obscured by my difficulty doing time arithmetic in my most somnolent moments.

I3→I2→I1→SI2→SI1→VS2→VS1→VVS2→VVS1→IF→FL

The GIA diamond clarity scale, shown above, is rather opaque.

Since installing a whiteboard in our kitchen, conversations at the Acetarium have been moving in new and interesting directions.

For example, Mika and I recently noticed that, when rotated correctly, the skeletal formula for 2,3-dimethyl-2-butanol looks pretty friendly!

This weekend, I launched an extremely ambitious effort to collect evidence of extremely ambitious efforts. The result was a short program that searched the web and revealed the:

• Manhattan Project for the 21st century
• Manhattan Project for Advanced Batteries
• Manhattan PRoject for AI
• Manhattan Project for AIDS
• Manhattan Project for Alzheimer’s
• Manhattan Project for autism research and treatment
• Manhattan Project for Big Cats
• Manhattan Project For Bio-Defense
• Manhattan Project for Biomedicine
• Manhattan Project for Bioterrorism
• Manhattan Project for cancer
• Manhattan Project for Cellulases
• Manhattan Project for chemists
• Manhattan Project for climate change
• Manhattan Project for Cold Fusion
• Manhattan Project for computers
• Manhattan Project for creativity
• Manhattan Project for Cyber-defenses
• Manhattan project for Detroit
• Manhattan Project for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields
• Manhattan Project For Economics
• Manhattan Project for the economy
• Manhattan Project for ending the prostate cancer as a socio-economic crisis in our country and a public health disaster among African American men
• Manhattan Project for Energy
• Manhattan Project for Energy Independence
• Manhattan Project for the Environment
• Manhattan Project for Excellence in Radiochemistry
• Manhattan Project for exploiting extraterrestrial technologies and communication
• Manhattan Project for Finance
• Manhattan Project for fluoride damage
• Manhattan Project for fuel
• Manhattan Project for Fuel Cell Manufacturing
• Manhattan Project for future generations
• Manhattan Project for genetics
• Manhattan project for global hunger
• Manhattan Project for Global Peace, Prosperity and Stability
• Manhattan Project for Green Innovation
• Manhattan Project for Guitar Exercise
• Manhattan project for Hawkeyes
• Manhattan Project for a healthy nation
• Manhattan Project for Homeland Security
• Manhattan Project for Iowa
• Manhattan Project for IT
• Manhattan Project for Legal Education
• Manhattan Project for life
• Manhattan Project for Maine,
• Manhattan Project for materials that could resist corrosion by fluorine or its compounds
• Manhattan Project for medical treatment in the field of obesity
• Manhattan Project for Michael
• Manhattan Project for Miracles
• Manhattan Project for modular instruments
• Manhattan Project for National IDs
• Manhattan Project For Natural Disasters
• Manhattan Project for the NES
• Manhattan Project for Network Computing
• Manhattan Project for network security
• Manhattan Project for the Next Generation of Bionic Arms
• Manhattan Project for online identity
• Manhattan Project for Our Time
• Manhattan Project for Pb-Free Electronics
• Manhattan Project for Public Diplomacy
• Manhattan Project for Racial Achievement Gap
• Manhattan Project for real time biomedical research on human populations
• Manhattan Project for the restoration of motor function
• Manhattan Project for a revival of the Sacrament of Penance
• Manhattan Project for simulation with pseudo-random numbers
• Manhattan Project for the social and behavioral sciences
• Manhattan Project for stove testing and design
• Manhattan Project for systems engineering
• Manhattan Project for Texas Water
• Manhattan Project for transforming patient care for men and ending prostate cancer
• Manhattan Project for the war on terror
• Manhattan Project for Wildcat Service Corp
• Manhattan project for wind, electric, solar, geothermal, hydro and other renewable sources of enengy we’ve not even thought of yet
• Manhattan Project for XBLA
• Manhattan Project for yourself
• Manhattan Project for Zinnias

[Previously in this series: frailty, the invisible hand, science as dance.]

Public Resource republishes many court documents. Although these documents are all part of the public record and PR will not take them down because someone finds their publication uncomfortable, PR will evaluate and honor some requests to remove documents from search engine results. Public Resources does so using a robots.txt file or "robot exclusion protocol" which websites use to, among other things, tell search engine’s web crawling "robots" which pages they do not want to be indexed and included in search results. Originally, the files were mostly used to keep robots from abusing server resources by walking through infinite lists of automatically generated pages or to block search engines from including user-contributed content that might include spam.

The result for Public Resource, however, is that PR is now publishing, in the form of its robots.txt, a list of all of the cases that people have successfully requested to be made less visible!

In Public Resource’s case, this is is the result of a careful decision; PR makes the arrangement clear in on their website. The robots.txt home page also explains the situation saying, "the /robots.txt file is a publicly available file. Anyone can see what sections of your server you don’t want robots to use,", and "don’t try to use /robots.txt to hide information."

That said, I’ve looked at a bunch of robots.txt files on websites I have visited recently and, sadly, I’ve found many sites that use robots.txt as a form of weak security. This is very dangerous.

Some poorly designed robots simply ignore the robots.txt file. But one can also imagine an evil search engine that uses a web-crawler that does the opposite of what it’s told and only indexes these "hidden" pages. This evil crawler might look for particular keywords or use existing search engine data to check for incoming links in order to construct a list of pages whose existence is only made public through a file meant to keep people away.

Check your own robots.txt and ask yourself what it might reveal. By advertising the existence and locations of your secrets, the act of "hiding" might make your data even less private.

Kim Jong-Il is gone. That said, he continues to live on, looking at things, on the popular blog Kim Jong-Il Looking At Things which continues to be updated with new content from the archives.

It is now joined by Kim Jong-Un Looking At Things. I think I agree with João Rocha, creator of the original, that the younger Kim seems to be missing some hard-to-pin-down quality that made the original work well.

Back in 2007, Harpers Magazine published The Ecstasy of Influence: a beautiful article by Jonathan Lethem on reuse in art and literature. Like Lewis Hyde in The Gift (quite like Hyde, as readers discover) Lethem blurs the line between plagiarism, remix, and influence and points to his subject at the center of artistic production. Lethem’s gimmick, which most readers only discover at the end, is that the article is constructed entirely out of "reused" (i.e., plagiarized) quotations and paraphrases.

A couple months ago, I suggested to my friend Andrés Monroy-Hernández a very similar project: a literature review on academic work on remixing and remixing communities constructed entirely of text lifted from existing research.

After some searching around, Andrés pointed out that Lethem had essentially beaten us to the punch and linked me to his article. Only after I visited the link did I remember that I had read Lethem’s article when it was published and loved the idea then. Over time, I’d forgotten I read ever it.

Without knowing it, I had read, loved, forgotten, and then — influenced, if unconsciously — copied and reproduced the idea myself in slightly modified form.

And I suppose that was the point.

It seems that nearly all computer monitors have now switched from a 4:3 aspect ratio popular several years ago to a "wide screen" 16:10 and now mostly to an even wider 16:9.

But screen sizes are usually measured by their diagonal length and those sizes have not changed. For example, before I had my Thinkpad X201, I had a X60 and a X35. They are similar laptops in the same product line with 12.1" screens. But 12.1" describes the size along the diagonal and the aspect ratio switched from 4:3 to 16:10 between the X60 and the X201. As the screen stretched out but maintained the same diagonal length, the area shrunk: from 453 square centimeters to 425.

But screens are not only getting smaller, they are also getting less useful. The switch to wider aspect ratios is done so that people can watch wide screen movies while using a larger proportion of their screens. Of course, the vast majority of people’s time on their laptops is not spent watching wide screen movies but in programs like browsers, word processors, and editors. Because most of our writing systems lay out documents from top to bottom, the tools we most frequently use to display (and then scroll through) the things we read primarily use vertical screen space — the dimension that is shrinking.

If you have a desktop monitor, you might rotate the whole thing 90 degrees and "solve" the problem. If you’re on a laptop though (as I usually am) this is clearly not an option.

I am not the first person to be annoyed by this trend. In fact, many recent desktop UI changes are designed to work around this issue. In the free software world, both Unity and GNOME 3 have made efforts to hide, merge, or otherwise get ride of title bars, menu bars, and panels that take up dwindling vertical space. I use Awesome which I’ve mostly set up to do two side-by-side terminals with very little in the way of menu bars.

Applications are the worst offenders and the solutions for those things that won’t run in a terminal (or people that don’t want to live there) are still lacking. I have been using Firefox’s Tree Style Tab extension to move tabs to the side and hand-customized toolbars that squeeze everything I need (i.e., back, forward, stop, refresh, and URL bar) onto a single menu bar.

But the situation still drives me crazy. I’d love to hear what others are doing.