The Iron Yuppie

This is surprisingly difficult to keep writing with the same regularity. I guess that's why columnists get paid the big bucks. And now onto the post...

I was preparing dinner tonight (a quite good shell-less turkey taco concoction (I only mention because apparently you, the blog reading public, want to know)) and again I came upon a problem. I’m dicing tomatoes and it strikes me that I really don’t know what the hell I’m doing. I mean, I’ve always gone cut it in half, then lots of cuts in one direction and then lots of cuts perpendicular to that, and then I get my little square tomato pieces. But this can’t be right, as it seems kind of slow and, worse, by the time you get to the end, it’s practically impossible to make straight cuts because the tomato can’t stand up. It reminds me a lot of a conversation from that movie, Barcelona, where one of the main characters goes into a discussion about how he was taught how to shave by his dad, but he recently watched a commercial that gave him the impression he was doing it all wrong. By the way, if you haven’t seen that movie, I highly recommend it.

My feeling is that it’s always frustrating to come upon a task that people have done roughly a hojillion times before you (in this case dicing tomatoes) and to have to rediscover the knowledge of how to do it. But, rather than going and talking to an expert chef to see how she dices tomatoes, I’ll just continue to do it this way for a while, and then come upon a better way one night. I think it’s something that’s really missing from our society. There are a lot of people out there who are very good at what they do and they’re really not very good at passing that knowledge on. Oh sure, maybe the how-to-be-a-millionaire-by-the-time-you-are-sixty-five authors would disagree with me, but I’m sticking to my guns. We don’t pass on inherited knowledge very well. Maybe blogs and search engines will help. I wonder what advice google has for me on dicing tomatoes? Apparently, not very much.

D

First, I'd like to give a big shout out to Traci. Traci, thanks for reading the blog. If you'd like your name here, please don't hesitate to not email me. I'm getting to be way too big a celebrity to write random people's names here.

Second, I had a very interesting discussion Friday night (sorry about the lack of posting) about reading and the nature of what we choose to read. Actually, it concerns any types of input. I've never been one to feel like it's ok for me NOT to read a copy of the New Yorker, or Discover, or anything else out there. And not only do I read them, I try and read them cover to cover, reading every article. The problem(?) is that every time I read one of these magazines, I always derive something interesting or some new way of looking at the world. It's kind of like who the hell am I to be deciding whether or not I should read an article based on the title, the subtitle or the first few lines. What could I be missing in the most recent story!?

But then I feel guilty, because I'm never able to keep up, what with all my busy TV watching and computer playing. Even if I could keep up, it doesn't seem like the absolute best use of my time... like the actual living of life might be just as educational. The opposing side of the argument (could you tell which side I was on?) was that any intelligence I have comes from my ability to absorb from the environment around me, not actually the environment around me. That is to say, the best I can do is surround myself with a variety of information, and I'll absorb what I can, whether or not it is a magazine, or a radio story, or whatever. Or, even better, you cannot assume that this magazine is the best use of your time anyway, so don't feel bad about not reading them.

In either case, what I actually DO spend my time doing (namely watching TV and messing around on the computer) probably is NOT the best use of my time. And, in either case, I have fairly large stacks of magazines all over the place. And I never feel bad when I finish one. However, I hate feeling guilty, so I've decided that I'm going to blissfully forget this entire discussion and clean house later this week.

D

Interesting little tidbit on Ralph Nader's potential candidacy and encouraging him not to run (ralphdontrun.net). I was living in New York at the time of the 2000 election, and I recall the time was absolutely astounding. Everyone on every street corner was talking about it. But not in any kind of panicked way; it was just the only topic of conversation for about 2 weeks. I'm not exaggerating, you'd get in a cab and the drivers would ask you how many counties is Florida had been counted at that hour. People wrote little applications to parse the CNN website and ping every time there was an update. But it's funny, the website above is absolutely correct. It would have been a landslide (not necessarily of popular votes, but certainly of electoral votes) if Nader had not run. I'd be surprised if he was able to pull even 1/3 as many votes this time as he did last time, because the people that voted for him last time are so likely to be Bush haters, and are much more concerned with electability than issues. That said, I would not at all be surprised to see Bush win again, in that the Bush White House is one of the most electoral savvy I've ever seen.

Not that I think this is going to affect me either way. I'm just a cynic.

Ozymandias

I met a traveler from an antique land,
Who said -- "two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ... near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lips, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

-- Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

This is absolutely amazing poetry. I feel like a fraud for even posting it.

Have I already mentioned how depressing it is that all the great thoughts have already been thought? And how all the great words have already been spoken? On the other hand, if everyone thought that, I suppose nothing would ever be done. One of the most depressing things for me is when you come to what you feel is some brilliant conclusion and discover someone years ago already discovered it. It's not the discovery of the older work that's depressing; it's the deflation after you realize your thought has no unique value whatsoever. It always makes me feel like I should become a historian before I try any original thought.

As a note, I have never experienced the other side of this scenario, where I have thought something I thought was old and discovered no one else had ever thought of it; it's possible the opposite scenario is just as depressing. If I was really smart, I would take the fact that someone had already looked at the problem and all the mental power they spent coming up with a conclusion as directional advice. E.g. If there's a big X on the ground and hundreds of shovel marks in the middle, you are encouraged not to spend any time digging right where the X is, but can instead try to use some other solution. But if everyone thought that way, then there would be no shovel marks on the red X! Ah paradoxes. They go round and round until you stop and say "Ah paradoxes. They go round and round until..."

Oh, by the way, The Strokes are amazing. Stop whatever you're doing and go buy their albums.

D

Man I hate carrying around cash. This (Credit on your key ring) may be my solution. The only problem here is that every store on earth is going to have to upgrade their point-of-sale machines in order to support this. Have fun using it in 20 years.

Just wanted to let everyone know I've published a link to my Atom Feed, which will let you read the blog in Outlook without having to get mail, and use the excellent Newsgator I mentioned earlier. It's over there on the side (for those reading this in email or via feed, you'll have to go to the site to see it; though I suppose if you're reading this by feed, you don't need to go to the site at all).

D

This past weekend was Valentine's Day. The particularly interesting part for me is that since I'm not seeing anyone seriously right now, I completely forgot it. Actually, that's not exactly true. My google toolbar changed to hearts, my bug tracker changed to roses and candy hearts, and there were notifications all over the front of my miscellaneous websites. But basically, I just didn't pay attention to any of the signs and Sunday rolls around and I realize that yesterday was Valentine's Day.

What really struck me about this was the concept of shared consciousness and what it’s like to be completely outside it. For example, I remember listening to a story during Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me on NPR right after the last Seinfeld was aired. A guy called up and they were asking him questions about the episode and he had missed the episode to watch the Red Wings in a playoff game. Millions upon millions of people were present to some occurrence (in this case something trivial like the last episode of a TV series) and this individual was completely outside that. I felt a little like that on Sunday. It seems like so much of our society works towards getting everyone to do one thing at any one time, and when you’re outside that, an enormous amount of the mental and emotional energy of the populous goes completely missed by you. Then, when everyone is talking or discussing it, you have no opinion on the matter. Not that it’s a bad thing, just that’s what is.

The one advantage to this, I think, is that you really get to take a fairly objective look at what’s going on. For the Seinfeld guy, he could look around and see the absurdity (or not) of millions of people sitting down to watch a show. For me, it was thinking about all the heartfelt exchanges that happened the previous day, and how I was a part of none of them. This is not depressing for me; it’s just kind of interesting.

D

Nothing of great import today (is there ever anything of great import?). I've joined orkut, thanks to a friend of mine, and the concept is definitely interesting. I messed around with Friendster for a while, but it was so slow it was absurd to use. The concept, for me, is a wonderful one; basically it allows what were formerly passive networks to be actively processed by people. For dating, it's great in that A: you know your friend knows this person and B: your friends no longer have to actively answer the question "Do you have any single friends". However, I wonder how well this will work for non-dating scenarios. Like could I get a VC contact through this? The other question is how skewed is the sample. Are only computer geeks (myself included) going to be the one who log in? There was a great article on this, and other online dating tools, in the New York Times Magazine a while ago; I have yet to see any payoff however. My dates seem to only be acquired the old fashion way... by making an ass of myself. Email me if you'd like to be my "friend" (on orkut or otherwise, I suppose).

D

A few quickies today...

First, someone sent me a link for this software. FolderShare. VERY impressive. Allows synching of home, work and mobile PCs transparently, through firewalls. Dave like.

Second, I was turned on to Newsgator recently. I'm really impressed with this software as well. Integrates completely into Outlook and Exchange, which means you can take it on the road or where ever you want. It's worth the $30.

Third, while browsing through my new found enormous list of blogs to read as part of this Newsgator feed, I came across a great page. I find myself torn, though, because I don't just want to reference other blogs. I always find that the most interesting resources on the web are where people bring something new and interesting to the table. Like the number of bars in Seattle, or the number of steps between major landmarks in NYC. On the other hand, if you haven't seen it... It's new to you, right? Ah the dilemmas of a new medium. I think for now, I'll just reference it and quote the source. That should be fair, right? Anyhow, I miss pasta. (Courtesy of Instapundit)

D

Just as a warning, I’m going to be talking about me in the shower in a minute. You’ve all been warned! Abandon hope, all ye who enter here …

Today I was getting ready for work, and I took a shower for the second time in roughly 9 hours. I was thinking that this is probably a waste of water, why am I in here? I had just showered after I worked out the night before; I’ve got to still be clean, right? But then I rationalized it by saying, no this is waking me up. That’s got to have some value. You know the way my mind works, and immediately I recalled the commercial from the 80’s, which I’m embarrassed to say, I not only remember the words, but the tune. For some reason, it finally struck me how absurd this entire advertising slogan is. Are you kidding? A bar of soap is going to make you feel alive? Um, ok!

Ok, so the scary thing for me is not that I remembered this slogan, but that in my old age I’ve turned into some Andy Rooney want-to-be. I am now the type of person who actually listens to the absurd words in a song or slogan and realizes how absurd they are. It’s a bit funny, because the whole ignorance is bliss thing really comes into effect. I was so much more tolerant of TV when I didn’t pay attention to these details. What do you think it is about growing older that would actually turn you into this crotchety old complainy person? Here’s to reversing the aging process…

D