Author: OneTrueStudent

There is a strong inverse correlation between the number of goats sacrificed to elder gods and frequency of compile-time errors. r pretty close to -1. Just saying.

[Sad Deranged Neighing]

Stave, Stove, to Stave

Good word

I need to let written material sit for a day or three to review it. That way it’s just fresh enough I don’t mentally paper over the spelling errors while still clearly recalling the point I was trying to make.

The blog I try to update every day. Problems ensue.

The problem with social media isn’t anonymity. It’s that people don’t get all of the feedback they need from an interaction. All they get is the literal words or pictures, and lose body language, expressions, glances, and so forth. They lose all non-verbal communication. To get the same total response, the aggregate of verbal and non-verbal communication, they have to change their verbal communication to elicit such an intensity of response that they’re getting quantitative emotional content comparable to an in-person communication. This drives people toward highly polarized positions, extreme reactions, and toxicity.

I don’t have a good solution to this. When you read messages written with emoji, sound effects, wide varieties in text and font to express non-verbal cues, it comes across as being immature, embarrassing, or childish.

“Here’s the paper.”

“Thanks, Bob. ^_^”

See? Looks absurd.

But in real life, smiling at someone when they do you a favor is perfectly reasonable.

I think the cue comes across as absurd because it’s only reinforcing how much isn’t coming across, now much nonverbal communication is being lost. The attempt to communicate non-verbally through text reminds the reader of its own failure at the same.

But the fact that people try reinforces my belief that that non-verbal responses and connections are vital to communication.

I don’t have a solution to that.

I just don’t think anonymity is the problem.

Tom Brady has now definitively demonstrated he is not just a formula quarterback. He isn’t whichever QB Belichick and the Patriots put in the role. He’s legit.

In ‘Office Space’ Jennifer Anniston worked at a Chili’s style restaurant. Her boss criticized her for not wearing enough flair, ie not showing enough enthusiasm. It was made out to be one of the mundane little torments of the modern age.

It was a really good scene, btw, because of the lowkey way Anniston played it. I got the impression she’d wear more flair if necessary but just wanted to know the standard. Her character came across as very mundane yet agreeable, which was the reasonable reply to that little torment. If your boss wants you to wear more buttons, you don’t march for JUSTICE! You just wear more buttons. You also maybe look for another job.

Anyway, I follow a few car and motorcycle enthusiast sites, and some of the writers clearly don’t like cars. If they do, they are incapable of conveying enthusiasm. What’s the dividing line between demanding the employees wear more flair and saying they’re not doing their jobs supporting the hobby?

Is the appropriate reaction for me just not to read these authors or visit these websites? I do do that. But the blogs are effectively selling enthusiasm, so it’s not a peripheral product. In Office Space, Anniston’s character technically sells food. The analog for a car blog would have Anniston’s job modeling buttons.

The VA sent me a quality survey email about how well some computer functions they provided worked. The survey didn’t load.

Ladies and gentlemen: the VA.

Edit: They misprinted the unsubscribe link, so unsubscribing from survey emails takes me to…the survey. That doesn’t load.