- Kimmy - My Google/Blogger sister.
- Eric - For being my original support guru and role model.
- Steve and Tine - The rest of my original Blogger family.
- Anna - For fun with diametrically opposed personalities.
- Wen-Ai and Sophia - For the best cube-mate memories.
- Rowyn - For being the kind of friend I most need.
- The entire Blogger and Reader teams - Who let me be part of the awesome stuff they create.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I'm Feeling Unemployed
Sorry, couldn't resist that title. But yes, today was my last day at Google. My reasons for leaving are all still as valid as ever, but that doesn't mean it wasn't difficult to do. This is a very large part of my life I'm leaving behind, and I'll definitely miss it. I'm grateful and proud to have spent the last four and a half years working on products I love and believe in, with great coworkers and friends, within a large community of really brilliant people. Specific thanks and props go to:
Monday, February 18, 2008
What's the Right Thing to Do With CDs?
I love having all my music in digital form. In the interests of encouraging it, I always start by checking eMusic.com and Amazon MP3 first whenever I want to buy something. Aside from the instant gratification and better prices, I really appreciate not having to deal with the actual CDs. Heck, just unwrapping those things is a pain, and then once I've ripped them onto my computer, I've got them just sitting around taking up space even though I never intend to use them again. But sometimes, a CD is all that's available, so I'm stuck with it.
I have a lot of my original CD collection stored in several CD binders, which sit fairly unobtrusively in a closet these days. So they at least take up less space if not none. But they're full, and I've acquired a lot of new CDs recently that are stacking up because I don't really know what to do with them. I'm disinclined to buy more binders and transfer the CDs to them, because I don't want to go to that extra work for stuff that I don't even want to keep around in the first place. I don't want to just throw away the CDs because it feels so painfully wasteful. I can't sell or even give them away, because I'm keeping a copy on my computer, and that puts you back in the illegal file sharing situation: two copies are being used where only one was paid for.
So here I am, trying to be good and support artists I like by not downloading illegal music. But I'm paying a penalty for it by adding clutter to my life. What's the right thing to do here? Anybody have any ideas? (Building a CD stack lamp is kind of cool, but probably not something I'd realistically do.)
I have a lot of my original CD collection stored in several CD binders, which sit fairly unobtrusively in a closet these days. So they at least take up less space if not none. But they're full, and I've acquired a lot of new CDs recently that are stacking up because I don't really know what to do with them. I'm disinclined to buy more binders and transfer the CDs to them, because I don't want to go to that extra work for stuff that I don't even want to keep around in the first place. I don't want to just throw away the CDs because it feels so painfully wasteful. I can't sell or even give them away, because I'm keeping a copy on my computer, and that puts you back in the illegal file sharing situation: two copies are being used where only one was paid for.
So here I am, trying to be good and support artists I like by not downloading illegal music. But I'm paying a penalty for it by adding clutter to my life. What's the right thing to do here? Anybody have any ideas? (Building a CD stack lamp is kind of cool, but probably not something I'd realistically do.)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Quirkyalone Thoughts
Today is International Quirkyalone Day, according to Sasha Cagen, who created the word "quirkyalone" and formalized the concept in her book: Quirkyalone: A Manifesto for Uncompromising Romantics. IQD is specifically not anti-Valentine's Day, but "just happens" to fall on the same day. Since I do happen to be single and quirkyalone on this particular V-day, it gets a post. Here's the basic definition from the beginning of the book:
The book fleshes it all out in much more detail, and I find, naturally, that there are some parts I identify with more or less than other parts. In the aggregate, though, it's a model I can relate to fairly strongly. The part that makes us "uncompromising romantics" is the part about not dating for dating's sake. We're picky, and we believe that there are truly incredible relationships out there, and thus we have little patience for anything lacking that magic. I was lucky in my last relationship to have a partner that understood this. We both realized that while the relationship could continue, it didn't need to, and so it made more sense (all things considered) to refactor ourselves back into friends.
As the definition clarifies, the "alone" part of "quirkyalone" doesn't imply that one is always alone or single, but merely that they can be alone without a problem. The "quirky" part helps with this. The more interesting and varied your life is, the easier it is to keep yourself entertained. The book also takes the time to distinguish between different forms of being alone, and I particularly liked this quote:
Quirkyalones do get lonely sometimes, just like everybody else. But we also have a knack for experiencing aloneness as solitude instead. If loneliness is waiting dejectedly for the phone to ring, then solitude is being absorbed in creative endeavors, or being introspective, or otherwise independently directing our own lives without the need for other people. Some people need constant interaction to feel like they're fully living, but some of us have to have enough solitude to let us regenerate on a regular basis.
This independence also makes quirkyalones good at long-distance relationships. Once the spark is lit, our well-developed sense of romance helps keep us attached, but we don't necessarily need the constant physical presence because we keep ourselves so busy. (This isn't to say we don't miss each other or want to eventually be closer together, but c'mon, a little extra anticipation and longing just intensifies things.) I've certainly spent my share of time in this kind of a state, with many people not even realizing I wasn't single. Even in standard-distance relationships, attached quirkyalones (or "quirkytogethers") often have non-standard living arrangements, or other customized systems for maintaining appropriate amounts of independence within a committed, loving relationship. For a while, up until about a year ago, I was looking forward to figuring out how this would work once the distance shrank, but circumstances beyond my control have since closed down that particular life path.
And so, a tricky part of the definition for me these days is the part about "enjoy[ing] being single." While I can function perfectly well as a single person, and I certainly prefer it to various other possible states, I don't know that I'm yet at the point where I'm inherently happy with it. I have happy times -- it's not like I'm going around depressed all the time -- but I don't have an overall sense of rightness about my life, and so it's hard to feel truly happy as a real state of being. This could be simply because I haven't been single long enough to fully heal and realign. But I also feel that there's an essential part of my nature, the Knight of Cups part, that can't be expressed without a deep, romantic relationship. That's a hole that will take a while to fill.
Another issue for me is that I'm not only very good at being alone, but perhaps too good at it. Sasha Cagen's model of the quirkyalone lifestyle is still extremely social, just focused more on friends than couples. I make (close) friends as slowly and infrequently as I make romantic relationships. (See Wildflower Bloom for a good, relevant discussion about making friends.) That can mean that I don't always have a lot to fall back on when a relationship goes kaput, and it's aggravated by the fact that my natural defenses usually lead me to retreat farther into myself.
But I don't want to end on a down note. Embedded in the definition of quirkyalone is the "optimistic spirit" that lets us carry on come hell or high water. And so I will.
quirk•y•a•lone n. a person who enjoys being single (but is not opposed to being in a relationship) and generally prefers to be alone rather than date for the sake of being in a couple. With unique traits and an optimistic spirit; a sensibility that transcends relationship status. Also adj. Of, relating to, or embodying quirkyalones.
The book fleshes it all out in much more detail, and I find, naturally, that there are some parts I identify with more or less than other parts. In the aggregate, though, it's a model I can relate to fairly strongly. The part that makes us "uncompromising romantics" is the part about not dating for dating's sake. We're picky, and we believe that there are truly incredible relationships out there, and thus we have little patience for anything lacking that magic. I was lucky in my last relationship to have a partner that understood this. We both realized that while the relationship could continue, it didn't need to, and so it made more sense (all things considered) to refactor ourselves back into friends.
As the definition clarifies, the "alone" part of "quirkyalone" doesn't imply that one is always alone or single, but merely that they can be alone without a problem. The "quirky" part helps with this. The more interesting and varied your life is, the easier it is to keep yourself entertained. The book also takes the time to distinguish between different forms of being alone, and I particularly liked this quote:
Language has created the word loneliness to express the pain of being alone, and the word solitude to express the glory of being alone.
-Paul Tillich
Quirkyalones do get lonely sometimes, just like everybody else. But we also have a knack for experiencing aloneness as solitude instead. If loneliness is waiting dejectedly for the phone to ring, then solitude is being absorbed in creative endeavors, or being introspective, or otherwise independently directing our own lives without the need for other people. Some people need constant interaction to feel like they're fully living, but some of us have to have enough solitude to let us regenerate on a regular basis.
This independence also makes quirkyalones good at long-distance relationships. Once the spark is lit, our well-developed sense of romance helps keep us attached, but we don't necessarily need the constant physical presence because we keep ourselves so busy. (This isn't to say we don't miss each other or want to eventually be closer together, but c'mon, a little extra anticipation and longing just intensifies things.) I've certainly spent my share of time in this kind of a state, with many people not even realizing I wasn't single. Even in standard-distance relationships, attached quirkyalones (or "quirkytogethers") often have non-standard living arrangements, or other customized systems for maintaining appropriate amounts of independence within a committed, loving relationship. For a while, up until about a year ago, I was looking forward to figuring out how this would work once the distance shrank, but circumstances beyond my control have since closed down that particular life path.
And so, a tricky part of the definition for me these days is the part about "enjoy[ing] being single." While I can function perfectly well as a single person, and I certainly prefer it to various other possible states, I don't know that I'm yet at the point where I'm inherently happy with it. I have happy times -- it's not like I'm going around depressed all the time -- but I don't have an overall sense of rightness about my life, and so it's hard to feel truly happy as a real state of being. This could be simply because I haven't been single long enough to fully heal and realign. But I also feel that there's an essential part of my nature, the Knight of Cups part, that can't be expressed without a deep, romantic relationship. That's a hole that will take a while to fill.
Another issue for me is that I'm not only very good at being alone, but perhaps too good at it. Sasha Cagen's model of the quirkyalone lifestyle is still extremely social, just focused more on friends than couples. I make (close) friends as slowly and infrequently as I make romantic relationships. (See Wildflower Bloom for a good, relevant discussion about making friends.) That can mean that I don't always have a lot to fall back on when a relationship goes kaput, and it's aggravated by the fact that my natural defenses usually lead me to retreat farther into myself.
But I don't want to end on a down note. Embedded in the definition of quirkyalone is the "optimistic spirit" that lets us carry on come hell or high water. And so I will.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Multi-Dimensional Magic
I've recently been watching a series of lectures on DVD (borrowed from Pa) called The Joy of Thinking: The Beauty and Power of Classical Mathematical Ideas. It's pretty well done, and I've been enjoying it. The lectures on the fourth dimension got me thinking, of course, about magic.
Most of what they covered was pretty much what you'd get from reading Flatland, which is worth doing if you haven't already. In particular, think about a two-dimensional world where a two-dimensional being is looking at a square. Maybe the square is his safe, and he thinks his money is securely locked up there. But we, as three-dimensional beings, can simply reach inside the square and remove the money without the two-dimensional being seeing anything. The disappearance of his money would seem magical from his perspective. Similarly, a four-dimensional being could perform analogous feats that seem impossible from our three-dimensional perspective.
Now, something else mentioned in the lecture was that any attribute can technically be called a "dimension" (it's just fun and tricky to try to think about an extra dimension of space). For example, you could call color your fourth dimension, and then use x, y, and z coordinates plus a color to uniquely identify any point in that particular view of the universe. That mention of color reminded me of something I learned way back in one of my only two linguistics classes, and that is how people's perception of color isn't a fixed, physical thing. People from cultures with fewer words for color actually perceive fewer colors than people with more words for them. (This was tested by finding some obscure jungle tribes somewhere, with only three or so color words, and asking them to tell whether certain swatches of colors were the same or different. Many colors or shades that we would perceive as different actually looked the same to them.) I think this is interesting because it's a mental limitation (or enhanced ability if you take it the other way), and therefore something you can learn, as opposed to something physical, like color blindness.
So connecting these two ideas of perception and dimensions, makes me wonder if there are other dimensions we can't perceive now but can learn to. A fourth dimension of space would be a good start, but other unusual attributes would be intriguing as well. Taking it to an extreme, perhaps, what if you could consider "reality" a dimension? Would someone who learns to perceive that dimension be able to see alternate universes?
Of course, simply perceiving a dimension or attribute doesn't necessarily mean you have power to change it. Just because we can perceive colors doesn't mean they change at our will, and just because we might learn to perceive four-dimensional space doesn't mean we could actually do anything in it. On the other hand, we don't have complete control over our standard dimensions either, but we get by alright. We can't change the location of a large building in space, but we can move our own bodies to a reasonable degree, and use them to move smaller objects. And if we have paint at our disposal, we can change the colors of things. So it's probably worth just figuring out what else we can perceive and then working from there.
Most of what they covered was pretty much what you'd get from reading Flatland, which is worth doing if you haven't already. In particular, think about a two-dimensional world where a two-dimensional being is looking at a square. Maybe the square is his safe, and he thinks his money is securely locked up there. But we, as three-dimensional beings, can simply reach inside the square and remove the money without the two-dimensional being seeing anything. The disappearance of his money would seem magical from his perspective. Similarly, a four-dimensional being could perform analogous feats that seem impossible from our three-dimensional perspective.
Now, something else mentioned in the lecture was that any attribute can technically be called a "dimension" (it's just fun and tricky to try to think about an extra dimension of space). For example, you could call color your fourth dimension, and then use x, y, and z coordinates plus a color to uniquely identify any point in that particular view of the universe. That mention of color reminded me of something I learned way back in one of my only two linguistics classes, and that is how people's perception of color isn't a fixed, physical thing. People from cultures with fewer words for color actually perceive fewer colors than people with more words for them. (This was tested by finding some obscure jungle tribes somewhere, with only three or so color words, and asking them to tell whether certain swatches of colors were the same or different. Many colors or shades that we would perceive as different actually looked the same to them.) I think this is interesting because it's a mental limitation (or enhanced ability if you take it the other way), and therefore something you can learn, as opposed to something physical, like color blindness.
So connecting these two ideas of perception and dimensions, makes me wonder if there are other dimensions we can't perceive now but can learn to. A fourth dimension of space would be a good start, but other unusual attributes would be intriguing as well. Taking it to an extreme, perhaps, what if you could consider "reality" a dimension? Would someone who learns to perceive that dimension be able to see alternate universes?
Of course, simply perceiving a dimension or attribute doesn't necessarily mean you have power to change it. Just because we can perceive colors doesn't mean they change at our will, and just because we might learn to perceive four-dimensional space doesn't mean we could actually do anything in it. On the other hand, we don't have complete control over our standard dimensions either, but we get by alright. We can't change the location of a large building in space, but we can move our own bodies to a reasonable degree, and use them to move smaller objects. And if we have paint at our disposal, we can change the colors of things. So it's probably worth just figuring out what else we can perceive and then working from there.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Meet Iris
Well, after a pretty stressful week (I hate car shopping) I am now the proud owner of a 2001 Ford Focus. It's the ZX3, which is the 2-door hatchback model, like Gloria though a bit larger. I named her Iris for the eye association with "Focus." She's blue, which can be a good eye color, and her interior is gray, which fits more with the color of the word "iris" itself. So I think it'll work. I kind of feel like she might need a last name too, but I haven't thought of one.She has very low mileage (about 68k) and is in pretty good shape with most of the things that matter. Fairly new tires and brakes, other maintenance up to date, etc. There are some dents and scratches on the side and bumpers, but that concerns me less as it's more just cosmetic. The interior was a bit dirty and dog-hairy, but I took it to a car wash and got it a thorough scrubbing, which took care of that. I'm pretty happy about the sound system, which is all wired up for an iPod -- no more extra cassette adapters or power cords! And with all that, the price came in about $1000 under what AAA gave me, and under what some of the other Focuses I had looked at were running for. Good deal.
Update: I had been lamenting the fact that Iris didn't have a theme song the way Gloria did, but then I realized she actually does. "Iris" by the Goo Goo Dolls is one of my favorite waltzes (with pivoty zweifacher bits in it, no less). Yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)