I remember reading articles by serious photographers saying that they would never use digital cameras, because the quality was too low, and they lost the “soul” of photography, that the darkroom would never be equaled as a creative space.

I remember reading articles by serious musicians saying that they would never use digital music formats, because the quality was too low, and they lost the “soul” of music, chopping it up into small slices.

I remember when the creator of JavaScript apologized for creating JavaScript and serious developers said they would never use it, because the quality was too low, and prototypical object orientation would never have the precision of classical (i.e. Class-based) object orientation.

And here's the thing.

They Weren't Wrong...At the Time

But they are wrong now.

Digital photography has not removed the soul of photography. Photographers can now get into the art without spending thousands on film and darkroom chemicals that must be replaced frequently. The art is now available to so many people that never had a chance to get into it before.

Music is now available to everyone. “Lossless” codecs like .flac are sampled far more continuously than any human could ever understand, and even modern .mp3 files, encoded at high bitrates and with intelligent compression algorithms, are good enough to fool even “experienced” audiophiles.

JavaScript runs the world as we know it. Your browser is a computer for all intents and purposes, as evidenced by the proliferation of Browser-only or Browser-forward computers like Chromebooks.

Watch AI

People have legitimate complaints about AI. The models are trained on information that should have been protected by copyright. The models often hallucinate, making up answers that sound good but aren't. People who are saying that AI is a mess right now aren't wrong...right now.

But this has the earmarks of a technology that is going to stick around. This makes a lot of things easier for a lot of people so that the barrier to entry into many fields is lower. This is more like the internet: it's providing a way to reach farther than we can reach on our own.

Is it great right now? No. But nothing is this early on. Writing it off, saying “I will never use AI” is putting yourself into a very dangerous position, allowing yourself to be passed by and having to play catch up when it finally gets good.

I'm treating this as a descriptive rather than a proscriptive exercise. I think people should use the language in a way that fits what they are trying to say and to whom they are trying to say it. I don't hold that there is any one “right” way to speak English. If you disagree with me, great! I'm delighted to know that other people are thinking about this as well.

Anyway, here are the words and my opinions.

Torch vs. Flashlight: 🇬🇧

The British term has history and makes sense: a torch is a portable device used to see in the dark. I don't think the “fire” vs. “bulb” difference matters in this case. I like the term “torch” better. It's shorter, has history, and is fun to say.

Boot vs. Trunk: 🇺🇸

I'm not entirely clear on where “boot” came from, but I do understand the origin of “trunk”: older cars had a literal “trunk” lashed to the back. So the US version wins it for me.

Bonnet vs. Hood: 🟰

These are synonyms. I see no reason to favor one over the other.

Car Park vs. Parking Lot: 🟰

Again, these both make sense (and this is the last automotive pair, I promise.) “Car Park” as the place where you park cars is perfectly reasonable. “Parking Lot” as in a designated lot where you park also makes sense to me.

Maths vs. Math: 🇬🇧

Since the word is short for “mathematics” and you can't have a noun “mathematic” the UK version is more reasonable.

Sport vs. Sports: 🇺🇸

In this case I have to take the American side. The noun as a subject in school is an aggregate noun used to describe any class or activity that is practicing or competing in any or all of the various sports that the school offers. But I don't have a strong feeling on this one. It's pretty close and I honestly don't care.

Gray vs. Grey: ❓

I can never remember which one is supposed to be more British or more American, and I don't care. They are pronounced the same, mean the exact same thing, and I'm willing to bet that you could find references to both existing before America existed.

I feel like this is a false dichotomy, like people insisting that “Heracles” is Greek while “Hercules” is Roman. They are both Greek; “Hercules” was just the Western Greek version that was heard by Romans. You really think there was only one pronunciation of any word in the ancient, seafaring, it-takes-years-or-decades-to-cross-the-Mediterranean Greek days, when we have this many disparities in modern everyone-has-the-internet English?

Chips vs. French Fries: 🇬🇧

My understanding of the term “French Fries” is that the first ones in the states were potatoes that were “French cut” and then fried. “French Cut”, I think, is now what we call “Julienne cut”, and thus only describes one shape of fried potato, which ironically we now call “shoestring” fries. “Chips” is a much better name for the overall class of fried potato products.

Crisps vs. Chips: 🇬🇧

This feels un-American to me, but a chip is generally a thick slice of something, not a tiny little flat slice. Crisps is a better term.

Electric Fire vs Space Heater: 🇺🇸

In direct contradiction to my opinion on “torch” vs. “Flashlight” I have to give this one to the American version, simply because an “Electric Fire” is an emergency situation and I don't want there to be any confusion. Saying “there is an electric fire in the front room” should be an entirely unambiguous message. The American version is less poetic, I'll grant you, but it's also less worrisome.

But when the emotions are “stress” or “awkwardness” I don't want that emotion to take over. I've never been able to watch The Office (US or UK) because I've worked in offices my whole adult life and it's too real, man. I feel the stress, not the humor.

So I'm trying something: I'm seeking a willing retention of disbelief. I'm choosing to engage with all fiction the way I engage with Hamlet. I'm choosing to watch the actors and their choices in addition to watching the story they are portraying. This level of abstraction helps me. An example:

In the third season of Brooklyn 99 a new captain is brought into the precinct and is terrible to our cadre of detectives. Engaging with the story is, for me, not fun. He's a mean, abrasive, over-promoted idiot, and if I am identifying with Amy Santiago and Jake Peralta I'm uncomfortable watching this story. Amy and Jake are in a bad spot, and they are my “friends” in this universe, so I'm feeling empathy for them! I feel like I'm in a bad spot as well!

But if I choose to watch Bill Hader play a role alongside his SNL buddy Andy Samburg, the whole thing is funny. Now I'm watching Melissa, Bill, and Andy do this silly scene where “Jake” and “Amy” kissing is enough to literally kill “Captain Dozerman”. The scene is freed of the weight of believing that an actual death occurred. I can enjoy it as a farce.

So maybe this is just me. Maybe everyone else has always engaged with media this way. Maybe I'm a little weird in the brain (well, I know I'm a little weird in the brain) but it's just possible that someone else out there also has a hard time with cringe comedy because they feel the cringe more than the comedy. And maybe they too will find things funnier if they retain just a little bit of disbelief.

⤴️: Although in this specific case it's kinda fun to imagine that the Tenth Doctor and Captain Picard are doing a crossover episode where they put on Hamlet together for timey-wimey reasons.

After about half a mile the rain turned to snow. No big deal. Another few minutes and it was heavy snow. “Okay,” I thought, “I can cope.” by the time I was a mile from home, the wind picked up, driving the snow into my face and freezing my hands. “Now this is a big deal,” I thought. “I should probably turn back.”

But why? I was over halfway to my destination, and while there was nothing really driving me to reach my destination, I didn't really feel like turning back. So without fully understanding why, I kept going.

Pain and discomfort, these are signals that something needs to change, something has caused or is causing me harm. But once I have acknowledged that the discomfort is manageable, that I do not need to alter my behavior to avoid harm, the pain can be dismissed. It's not easy of course. But I think we are good at this on some level. People who have to give themselves frequent injections or blood tests get more calm about the procedure. Not that it doesn't still hurt sometimes, it does. But we know that the pain is “ignorable”, that it doesn't indicate something we need to change, it's something that we need to endure in the service of a desired goal, and our mood doesn't have to be influenced.

So what about social pains? Ostensibly they arise from the same basic source: something bad has happened, we need to take care of it before it causes lasting harm to ourselves or others. But are there social pains that can or should be ignored?

I'm not sure. Perhaps we can say there are social pains that we can bear, acknowledging that they come from a real source, but that we are bearing them in the service of a positive outcome, just like we can bear the discomfort of an immunization shot in the service of avoiding a life-threatening illness.

I did an experiment: as a woman, I watched to see how men acted when I was walking and they were on a course that would collide with me. I decided to see if they would just keep walking and run into me. And they did. Every. Single. Time.*

My first, shameful thought was the typical kneejerk reaction. “That's not true!” (I feel like there's a hashtag for this reaction, something about a condition applying to less than the totality of males?) But after a split second of reflection I had to admit that yeah, this woman's reaction was almost certainly true and honestly reported. Which led to:

Uncomfortable Question #1: Do I act like that? Do I expect others to make way for me by default? I'm a big guy. I'm 6'4”. I like to walk fast. Sometimes when I'm walking fast I have a hard time turning. I had no memory of making other people adjust their walking to let me though, but that's kinda the point, isn't it?

I imagined how the conversation might go if I said that to the woman who made that post. “Hey sometimes I might run you down because I'm big and turning can be hard.” I didn't like any of the very reasonable responses to this pathetic excuse. So I made a decision:

Nate's Stupidly Obvious Decision: I will make way and change my course if I'm going to bump into a woman.

And then after a few minutes I simplified it:

Nate's Stupidly Obvious Decision, Simplified: I will change my course if I'm going to bump into a person.

And then, after a few days of congratulating myself for doing this I realized I could simplify it still more, and laughed at myself.

Nate's Stupidly Obvious Decision, Stripped Down: I will watch where I'm going.

And in that moment I realized something. I had been congratulating myself for doing the bare minimum required to be a somewhat decent member of society. Which means in the lived experience of the woman who wrote that post, many men are not doing the bare minimum required to be a somewhat decent member of society, up to and possibly including me.

Nate's Stupidly Obvious Decision, Revealed for How Stupid it Is: When walking, I will do the bare minimum to be a decent member of polite society.

This train of thought led to:

Uncomfortable Question #2: In what ways am I doing less than the bare minimum to be a decent member of polite society, simply because people let me get away with it?

And now we'll gloss over about 10 years of me asking that question, looking for ways in which I'm metaphorically bumping into other people while walking. 10 years of realizing more ways in which, without thinking, I'm letting all the defaults of 21st century American society silently work in my favor. Every time I think I've eliminated or at least controlled for biases in my thinking or perception I find another way in which the entire game of life is easier for me than people who aren't white middle-class middle-aged cis-gendered males. I keep making more little guidelines for myself, along the blindingly obvious lines of “don't run over people over while walking”. But there's always another way in which I'm bowling people over without noticing.

Finally I came up with a four word distillation of all of those rules, which isn't a “rule” in itself but hopefully is closer to a truth:

I Must Do More.

I can't just vote to represent my needs, my needs are likely to be met by any political outcome. I need to ensure that I'm helping people around me be aware of the ways in which others are being discouraged or outright prohibited from voting. I need to vote to represent the needs of those who are disenfranchised.

I can't just work to get ahead in my career, I need to ensure that I use any measure of “power” or “influence” I attain to in my career to assist those who don't have my privilege. There might come a time where the right thing to do will be to bow out of consideration for a position in favor of someone who isn't playing the game of life on easy mode. Statistically and realistically if I pass on an opportunity I'm likely to get another. That's not the case for everyone.

I Must Know More

Lastly, It's on me to seek out ways in which I must do more. If I hurt or trample someone and claim that I only did it because I didn't know I was hurting or trampling them, that doesn't make their lives better. People who are already living life on a higher difficulty level shouldn't be expected to teach me how they are being discriminated against. As much as I like to pretend that everyone can see I'm a good and reasonable person that's just not true. Traditionally telling a person of privilege that they are treating you poorly has gone poorly. So I can't expect people to tell me when I'm stepping on them. It's my job to learn that myself. I can only do more if I know more. I need to learn.

1. Volition
   1. Kindness
   2. Friendliness
   3. Benevolence
2. Caution
   1. Modesty
   2. Reverence
3. Joy
   1. Sense of Humor
   2. Cheerfulness

Okay, philosophy lesson over. But given this context, how do we view the lyrical output of Tyler Joseph?

Well, I see a lot of these themes in his lyrics.

On Moral Agency:

Fairly Local

I'm not evil to the core What I shouldn't do I will fight I know I'm emotional What I want to save I will try I know who I truly am I truly do have a chance Tomorrow I'll switch the beat To avoid yesterday's dance (Emphasis added)

Car Radio

There are things we can do But from the things that work there are only two And then from the two that we choose to do Peace will win and fear will lose And there's faith and there's sleep We need to pick one please

Because faith is to be awake And to be awake is for us to think And for us to think is to be alive And I will try with every rhyme To come across like I am dying To let you know you need to try to think (Emphasis Added)

On Volition

Tear in my Heart

This is somewhere between kindness and benevolence:

You fell asleep in my car, I drove the whole time But that's okay, I'll just avoid the holes so you sleep fine

On Caution

Heavydirtysoul

This is a very clear statement of humility:

Can you save Can you save my Can you save my heavydirtysoul?

I could keep going. Indeed in my personal Obsidian notes I have. But for the purposes of this article I just wanted to state that the philosophical themes of Tyler's lyrics are very satisfying. That's all.

The only reason anyone reads (Insert title here) is to tell people they are reading (insert title here).

The titles in question are generally from this list:

• Infinite Jest (David Foster Wallace)
• War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy)
• Ulysses (James Joyce)
• The Iliad, Odyssey and/or Aeneid (Homer, Homer, Virgil)
• The Analects of Confucius
• The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

And it's funny for a moment, and then just a little bit sad that we feel the need to criticize people for trying to learn from the past. Snark is getting old.

The point I'm trying to make is that I've held off on writing this post for a long time, specifically because I kind of fear that kind of ridicule. Which is, itself, ridiculous. Anyway, about a year ago I read The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and they resonated with me strongly. Marcus was such a powerful figure externally. He led the Roman empire when it was still expanding, before it had started obviously crumbling under its own weight. But his Meditations are not finely crafted orations, a la Cicero. They are his notes to himself. And for some reason it was only when I started reading the Meditations for myself that I was made aware of that fact.

Which is crazy! Without this one fairly tiny piece of information the Meditations come off as judgmental and didactic. Marcus was writing notes to himself, reminding himself of the kind of person he wanted to be. So of course he wrote mostly in the imperative, and with a fairly stern tone.

But consider the things he was telling himself to do: (all quotes are from Robin Waterfield's translation)

Recall the notions that rational beings are on this earth to help one another, that tolerance is an aspect of justice, and that people don't deliberately do wrong. (Meditations Notebook 4§3, emphasis added)

The emperor of Rome is telling himself to be helpful and tolerant. Not two adjectives that are often applied to emperors or stoics in modern thought.

Indeed if we were to show Marcus what we call a 'stoic'—and here I'm thinking of “Stoic the Vast” in How to Train Your Dragon—he wouldn't recognize any of the qualities that he associates with stoicism:

Keep yourself simple, good, guileless, dignified, unpretentious, devoted to justice, pious, kind, affectionate to others, and resolute to carrying out your proper tasks. (ibid 6§30, emphasis added)

A Stoic in the vein of Marcus Aurelius is a person who cares deeply about others, who seeks to find the way they can best serve the world around them, focusing on the people who make up that world. They are not a vast uncaring and stony mountain of a person, without joy or kindness.

In my “Notes to Self” posts I'm being a bit more vain than Marcus. He wrote the books we call the Meditations for himself. There was never any plan to publish them. It was only after his death that they were gathered and disseminated. I'm actually publishing these thoughts that I have in the hope that someone else might get some utility out of them.

Lastly, I want to highlight some comments from the final book of Meditations. Marcus knew he was dying. His life had been hard, for all of him being an emperor. He had been on campaign far north of his Roman villa, he had been sick, the campaign was not his idea of a good time regardless.

In Notebook 12 it's clear he's aware of his coming demise. The following comment, again, made only to himself, highlights the pain he has, his imperfection and desire for something else:

How come the gods organized everything so well, and with the good of human beings in mind, and yet overlooked this one thing: that some men—perfectly good men...why is it that, when they die, they're not born again, but are completely and utterly extinguished? (ibid 12§5)

The ellipsis in that quote contain a list of good men that Marcus wished hadn't been “completely and utterly extinguished”. But to me it has always felt that he was, on some level, talking about himself.

Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? -Rumi

Lately I've found two more gates that are useful for times where I feel like I might want to offer someone advice. One of these is based on a quote I saw on Twitter back in the day:

Advice unasked-for is criticism. Period.

So...that took me a while to internalize, but I have to agree. And based on that I've added two “gates” for advice to pass through before I offer it:

1. Are they hurting anyone?
2. Did they ask?

The first one is a re-formulation of “is it necessary?” I suppose. I kind of don't like that one because necessary is such a slippery concept. At least a lot of people have a lower bar for necessity than I feel is appropriate. So this is a definition I am comfortable with. A comment is necessary if it is going to be made to prevent or reduce harm.

But the second one has been very helpful for me. Given that any advice is criticism if it is offered without being invited, this reminds me to re-frame my thoughts about what I'm about to say.

But What About Teaching?

In a number of my roles in life I am a “teacher” or “leader”. Which means I need to help people grow in ways that they haven't yet asked for. So how do I offer advice in these situations? As a parent, as a leader at work, do I ignore the last two gates? If someone still has room to grow in their career that doesn't mean they are hurting anyone, and they may well not ask for advice if they don't know there is room to grow. So how do I reconcile that?

I'm not perfect at this, of course. But here's what I'm trying to do:

First: The first three gates still apply. When I'm teaching I had darn well better be teaching Truth. I should understand the necessity of what I'm trying to teach, and there is no way on earth that it's allowable to teach without kindness.

Second: Teaching can be seen as an exercise in helping people come to a place where they are ready to ask certain questions, and then you can help them with the answers. This isn't the standard pedagogical model I grew up with. But in my master's degree classes this was close to what the teachers would do: they would provide a pre-test at the beginning of a module and then we students would have a desire (or “motivation” as they would say) to dig into parts of the material that we didn't yet understand. I had one professor who was amazing at this, and I think about his example whenever I'm trying to provide education and information.

#NoteToSelf

2008: I'm having a bad day. I'm at work and a friend of mine tells me that he just tried something new technologically. Since I'm having a bad day I vehemently explain why I think what he tried was a bad idea.

There are a few similarities between these two events.

1. I acted badly in both of them.
2. I insisted on my point of view being acknowledged as “right”,
3. Whenever I thought about either of these events I felt terrible. For years. Let's fast forward to roughly 2010. I find my friend from that first story, the high school one, on Facebook. I haven't seen her in person since 1998, but I have felt an almost physical twinge of shame every time I thought about what I said to her in that moment in English class. So I send her a little private note, apologizing for talking over her, telling her to shut up, and so forth. I ask her to forgive me, which she does. And she says that she doesn't even remember the event in question. And—being the kind person she is— she suggests that I have over-inflated the event in my mind and that it certainly wasn't as bad as I thought it was.

A year or two later I apologize to my other friend for making light of his technological activity. Similar story, he insists that he doesn't remember my comment but gladly forgives me.

The main lesson I learned from these two events is this: Since the time I apologized to my friends I can still remember the dumb way I acted toward both of them. I can still remember the pain I caused and the shame I felt. But now I can remember those events without the pain of that shame. I remember the lesson I learned from those bad things I did, and I have an extra little reminder that apologizing is an important activity in human life.

A “man am I stupid” corollary lesson is this: Why on earth did it take me years of pain and regret to apologize to my second friend? Unlike the first story, I was still in regular contact with him. I could have apologized at any time. I could have apologized in the moment when I caused harm instead of waiting until he had apparently forgotten.

It is Better to be Kind Than to be Right

In both of these events I was certain in the moment that I was right, that whatever I had to say was the truth and that my friend was in error. But as I write this I'm not clear on the details of either interaction. I don't know what timeless truth I was defending in either story. What I do remember is that I imposed my will on someone else, I put some supposed “truth” above the feelings of another. I wish I could say I have never done that again. I wish I could say that it only took me two mistakes to correct my behavior.

I guess I could lie and say that, but wow that would be an awfully transparent lie. I still make this mistake all the time. I still make every mistake all the time. I'm a deeply flawed person. But one thing that I try to remind myself of on the regular is the heading of this section: It is better to be kind than to be right. If you can, be both. But if you have to choose, my experience says that you will have fewer regrets if you choose to be kind. In fact, I have never regretted being kind. I have often regretted insisting that I am right.

Get Better at Apologizing.

Learn how to do it right. Practice apologizing, and learn how to cut all the nonsense out of apologies.

We all know the classic “non-apology” that goes something like

“I'm sorry you took offense at what I said or did”.

That is worse than not apologizing and will not grant you nor the other person any peace or ability to move on. So learn to resist that form of speech.

Learn to stop trying to forgive yourself in apologies. “I only did/said it because X” isn't part of an apology. Leave it out. If they ask, or when you are on better terms, maybe the two of you can talk about what happened and why. But when you are apologizing, just own your mistake.

Apologize in simple words.

“I am sorry that I did/said X. I was wrong. I know that I hurt you with my words(or actions) and I am sorry.”

Then stop talking.

Don't request forgiveness. If you are already on good terms with the person you might be okay to add something like “I hope you can forgive me” but in general, leave it out. It feels like you're placing a moral requirement on them, almost giving yourself a reason to be angry at them.

“I apologized and you didn't forgive me so now you are the bad guy.”

Don't do that. Let them decide if they are in a place where they can forgive you.

Practice. Keep working on apologies. We all have endless opportunities and need to apologize. Let's all get better at it.

Lastly, please remember that I'm writing this to myself and letting you all read it. I am in no position to judge anybody on earth. Nor do I want to. The only person I can judge is me.

If you find my comments to myself of any value, I am glad.

#NoteToSelf

Dallas asks:

What's your favorite mythological creature?

This is a fun question, for a couple of reasons. First off, I have been big into Greek and Roman mythology recently. And the vague nature of the question gives me a certain latitude, moreso even than the vague nature of Greek mythology as concerns what constitutes a “creature”. For example, Bellerophon, the great hero who rode Pegasus while fighting and defeating Chimera, is a child of Poseidon. What makes this interesting is that Pegasus is also a child of Poseidon. So...Bellerophon rode his half-brother into battle, I guess? The Ancient Greek myths all seem to be fine with this.

So there's a lot of latitude. I could choose a god, or a non-humanoid, or possibly even a nymph or chthonic being. I'm going to interpret “creature” to mean “not a mortal human”. And I could wander into Norse myths or other mythologies, but I'm not nearly as familiar with the other sets of mythological beings...other than the ones most frequently met in D&D. So I'm going to limit my choices to non-mortal, non-humanoid beings from Greco-Roman mythology...and maybe a little D&D. Pegasus is a contender, but not Bellerophon.

So I'll pick one Greco-Roman creature, and one from the modern mythos that is overseen by the fearsome wizards that live on the coast.

Ancient

Who loves me, also loves my dog.

The ancient Greeks didn't love Hades, in any sense that we would recognize the term, but they respected him. More or less banished by his brother Zeus to rule the underworld, Hades was just and honorable in his job, even if he was a bit morose. He wasn't a womanizer like Zeus and Poseidon, he was faithful to Persephone. (We'll leave a discussion of the way that Hades and Persephone became a couple for another time...) But since the ancients respected Hades, they respected his dog as well. Cerberus is treated well in the myths. He is occasionally fooled by a treat (which, let's be honest...) but he is never unfaithful to Hades or Persephone, he is never harmed by any hero.

Modern

The Silver Dragon. For people unfamiliar with the D&D dragons, there are some basic classifications:

• Dragons with colors in their names (i.e. “Green Dragons”, “Red Dragons” etc.) are generally evil.
• Dragons with the name of a metal in their name, like the Gold dragon and Silver Dragon, are generally good
• Dragons with a gemstone name, like the Sapphire Dragon, are chaotic, and frankly also very new to the pantheon.

So by this you know that the Silver Dragon is a good dragon, meaning friendly to people with good aims. But the Silver Dragon is interesting to me because of a lot of other characteristics:

• They genuinely like people, find them interesting, and generally seek to help them.
• They avoid violence
• They like to disguise themselves as people and walk around and interact without people knowing who they are.
• Their hoards are generally mementoes of people they love and places they have seen, not massive piles of wealth. The Book™ says this about Silver Dragons:

The friendliest and most social of the metallic dragons, silver dragons cheerfully assist good creatures in need.

In a campaign I run I have an ancient Silver Dragon who acts as a patron to my characters, and I love this character, I love playing her, I love having her design quests for the party.

So there you have it! Thank you, Dallas, for your request, and the tip you left in my tip jar. Until next time!