Howling At the Moon

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My sublime, drop-dead gorgeous muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"You have to fight for your privacy or you lose it." -Eric Schmidt

Dear (eventual) Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,

According to Wikipedia: "The mass media is a diversified collection of media technologies that reach a large audience via mass communication. The technologies through which this communication takes place include a variety of outlets."

I'm old enough and historically literate enough (just) to confidently declare that the media has been massive, and growing, for quite some time. However, once the internet took over the world it was like last season's batboy batperson injecting massive amounts of steroids over the winter and returning as this season's home run king.

Everything changed, and quickly, and not always for the better.

[I insincerely apologize if I've inadvertently offended any of my readers, Sticky or gentleperson, who identifies with identity politics. When I composed the simile above I was thinking of Major League Baseball, pinky swear. And MLB, for now at least, only has home run kings. However, this does not preclude the fact that some of them may also be queens, at least on Saturday nights in the offseason.]

For example, Good Housekeeping or TV Guide, formerly banal examples of mass media, both have websites. Both subscribe to Dizzinformation Age orthodoxy, to wit, planting tiny little bits of code on your computer to keep an eye on you (cookies).

[Muted, POP! sound. And that's an invasion of privacy! ]

Oh, hello Dana. Well, yeah, but it's also good customer service. They keep track of your preferences so you don't have to start from scratch every time you visit their websites. And after all, you agreed to it, and you can opt out.

[But what about the ads that stalk us around the web offering up products based on bits (and bytes) of information about us stored here, there, over there, and who knows where the hell where?]

Well hey, all that advertising pays for an awful lot of "free" content (including my feeble scribbles actually, and I don't run ads -- thanks, Google!). And of course, you can always run an ad blocker. Amazingly, I've heard that the Goog will soon offer a chrome setting that will let you turn on an adblocker.

[Quick note: Although I can't prove it, 'cause I didn't click on it, and it was gone when I backed up to look for it, I saw an ad for -- an adblocker. I'm certain that if I went a-googling for ad blockers and clicked on a bunch of hits I'd see one again, repeatedly. But this is the only time it's ever happened at random, and I spend a lot of time web surfing. 

It served to remind me of the one and only time I saw a tow truck towing a tow truck. There's a certain cosmic, transcendent message in these two experiences but trying to express it in mere words could not possibly capture it. Sorry...as you were.]

Without targeted ads -- which are much more likely to be effective (and more relevant) than old fashion one size fits all advertising -- revenues will drop, the volume of free content will drop, and, no doubt, some employees will be dropped (look out below!).

[Whatever, hey, another thing that really...]

Wait,wait,wait -- I know,I know,I know. Just about everyone of a, um, certain age is concerned, to one degree or another, with the dramatic decline of privacy in the Dizzinformation Age. Most of the slightly younger people in my life, from meatspace to cyberspace, are also concerned.

However, their focus is on what sort of electronic trail/trash/record they're leaving behind and (hopefully) acting accordingly. They take for granted privacy ain't what it used to be.

They're right, it ain't isn't. The cliche holds, all you can do is all you can do. My version is all you can do is all you're prepared to do. While I occasionally long for a hermit's cave, I'm inordinately fond of indoor plumbing -- and climate control, and refrigerators, and microwaves, and...well, all sorts of energy consuming devices that the Cult of the Algore would see me burned at the (electric) stake for.

Perhaps my love fondness for my computer (the Algore really was important in the development of the internet by the way) will serve to mitigate my sentence after the Alt-Red Guard drags me off to a Re-education Center.


And we're back. Sorry, where I was headed, before Dana's interruption (see! it's not my fault for a change) was to posit a few thoughts on an aspect of the web that I don't much care for. To wit, it's turned the mass media into the Data Dragon.

Now, I'm a veritable web Silver Surfer (I am a "silver fox" --  from my distinguished widow's peak on up at least), and I stand by my comments above. But, being a somewhat introverted and privacy-loving old crank, I'm not crazy about the fact that there's no such thing as easily maintained privacy in the modern world -- ya' really got work at it.

As my conversation with Dana implies, I believe the Dizzinformation Age, and the web, generate numerous entries in both the pro and con columns. It's not the tool, it's how it's used. And unless you plan on doing something like taking up residence in a remote mountain monastery to seek enlightenment, you still have to share the playground with the other kids, even the often annoying mobile rectangle addicts (smartphone junkies).

BIG BUT

What I mean by the Data Dragon is that the mass media is everywhere and all the time and always keeping track and always tweaking the black boxed algorithms that determine the content of your highly individualized dizzinformation stream that is always coming at you at the velocity of water from a firehose.

[Dana: Woohoo! a point and a rant!
Ziggy: Whadayamean, Poppa?
Marie-Louise begins gently scratching]

Don't worry about it right now, Ziggy. You've never known a different way. Ooh, a little harder Marie-Louise, and to the left, ooooh! that's it!

Warning: Cultural Reference Ahead That May Indicate You're Even Older and More Out Of It Than You Thought You Were

The phrase customer service is often a euphemism for malevolent, constant customer surveillance by...

[Iggy, what are the bad guy Transformers called again? You mean Decepticons, Poppa?]

Cue voice of thunderous highly familiar voice over artist that you've repeatedly heard but have never heard of:

The Data Dragon, the incorporeal Decepticon that lives in the Cloud. Data Dragon, assembled by a loosely affiliated group of sexually frustrated heterosexual white males without girlfriends in the basements of their unsuspecting parents homes. Data Dragon, built at the behest of the evil ADICC, the Association of Data Interchange Control Companies. Data Dragon...


Look, there's a fine line between world-class customer service and constant customer surveillance by people prepared to use each and every freakin' technological/psychological/sociological/etceteralogical trick in the book to
close the deal/keep us watching/keep us reading/keep us etcetering.

"You gotta FIGHT - for your RIGHT -- to paaarty." -the Beastie Boys
"You have to fight for your privacy or you lose it." -Eric Schmidt
"...there has to be a trade-off between privacy concerns and functionality."
-Eric Schmidt

Eric Schmidt is Grand Imperial Poobah of the Goog, and according to Forbes, has a net worth of 11,200,000,000 bucks. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

• 
  

Global Warming, Settled Science?

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My sublime, drop-dead gorgeous muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

[Gentlereaders, please note: I tried to write about the recent slaughter of innocents in Las Vegas but all I could come up with was anger. First, anger directed at the asshole in the window(s). Honestly, I wish the cops had caught him before he shot himself and had thrown him out of one of those windows.

Second, anger at how quickly the usual suspects politicized this tragedy, as they politicize everything. But that's what sells, and that's how you get reelected.

Scott Adams logically and dispassionately analyzes both sides of the political debate and what can actually be done, in the real world. It's dry, and lengthy, and short on potential sound bytes, so you probably won't hear anything about it, but it's worth a read. Here's a taste:

"Both sides pretend they are arguing on principle, but neither side is. Both sides are arguing from their personal risk profiles, and those are simply different. Our risk profiles will never be the same across the entire population, so we will never agree on gun control."

What follows is sorta/kinda about climate change -- and a lot of other things. You know how I get. Nate, the hurricane of the week, is bearing down on us even as I write this last minute note. So, this letter is accidentally topical since certain members of the Algore cult have blamed this bad hurricane season on global warming even though the settled scientists say it's not true.

On with the show! You might want to warm up your coffee since this note has made an already long letter even longer. Lots of words and no pictures...I'm never gonna' go mainstream.]


"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."  -Carl Sagan

Dear (eventual) Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,

There's no such thing as settled science, and that's a good thing. There is such a thing as scientific consensus, and that's also a good thing.

Warning: Possibly Outdated Cultural Reference

I haven't talked to Martha Stewart lately (she got out, right?), but I'm sure she'd agree.

Resume Reading

If science were settled, that is, done, it wouldn't be science. It would be more like a religious sect with a very rigid dogma.

["All right, we're done here, everybody out of the lab. Looks like we finally know everything there is to know about everything. Make sure you sign up for occupational retraining on the way out. Remember, The Gummits paying for it and it's mandatory to qualify for extended benefits. What with robots and artificial intelligence and all, finding a decent job these days ain't gonna' be easy." 

"Oh, and don't forget to turn in your parking badge or your last check will be held till ya' do."]

Once upon a time and for a very long time, everyone -- smart, dumb, and in between -- knew the Earth was flat and the center of (comparatively speaking) a small, comprehensible universe. Nowadays, everyone (well, almost) -- smart, dumb, and in between -- knows the Earth is a round speck of dust (comparatively speaking) in an incomprehensibly large universe.

None of the former had an inkling that quantum mechanics would someday comprehensively describe how matter and energy behave at the incomprehensibly small atomic level. Most of the later (including me) find quantum mechanics incomprehensible although it is (they are?) the reason why I'm able to use a computer to write this.

Science is never settled because scientists know they can never possibly know all there is to know. The occasional major breakthrough opens up all sorts of new questions, and a good scientist always wants to know more.

There is scientific consensus. The scientists in a given field can (more or less) agree on something, particularly when experimental results can be independently verified and when these results are so reliable the engineers can turn them into useful products.

Consensus provides a reasonably stable platform for everyone, scientists and non-scientists, to stand on while we await the next mind-blowing breakthrough.


BIG BUT

Scientists, like everyone else, quibble over the who, what, when, where and why of a given consensus. Scientists, like everyone else, have egos and reputations and financial security to worry about. Some scientists, like some clergy -- and many politicians -- claim to be selfless public servants and often are anything but.

[Well thank you Mr. Obvious! declares Dana. Thanks for clearing that up! Why I...I had no idea! Marie-Louise gently places her hand on my shoulder, not scratching, and looks at me with concern. Iggy's performing at a neighboring high schools band night.]

Settle down, settle down. I'm just laying a solid foundation for the following.

In general, my dear Stickies, beware of experts, and, any and all H. sapiens whose first reaction to anyone questioning their position on this or that is to lash out emotionally and irrationally.

Experts are a good thing. People who have dedicated their lives to a particular field of knowledge, and are respected in their particular field of knowledge, are necessary and invaluable. They are also sometimes, as we all are, wrong about very important things.

The "good" ones, for lack of a better term, cheerfully (well...) admit it and move on.


There is a consensus among scientists who keep an eye on such things that the Earth is warming and that H. sapiens, to one degree or another (Pun, as usual, Intended and Relished -- PIR), are responsible. OK, I'll buy it. However, I'll entertain the arguments of reasonable people that disagree, scientist or not. More on that in a minute.

little but

In this subject, and all others, I tend to ignore the shrill infotainers of both the left and the right who make their living turning everything into a blood sport. I suggest that you do the same. I suspect that in most cases money, ego, and ratings are at the top of their list, truth at the bottom.

As to social media, of every sort, my default position is that every posting is complete bonkercockie until proven otherwise. I maintain that this is as commonsensical as, "Believe nothing  you hear, and only one half that you see." -Edgar Allen Poe

My advice is to cultivate a bucketful of usually reliable sources that includes an actual H. sapien or two that you speak to in real time and real space. It should be just large enough to assure you might have a clue as to what's going on. But, assume that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change, which is just another way of saying keep an open mind.


Which brings us back to global warming, or climate change, or whatever phrase is hot this week (PIR).

While Keeping In Mind (KIM) that experts often turn out to be wrong and while KIM that models that predict the future are often wrong and while KIM that I am, like most people, not a climate scientist and don't know how much I don't know (inhale) -- I'm still prepared to accept that man-made global warming is settled science the current consensus of those who study such things.

So, what should we do?

I decided to look into this and I decided that the Paris climate agreement would be the place to look. Since just about everyone, including America, signed on to this puppy, it must be a good thing, right?

What I learned, or rather, confirmed (since I already knew), was that Mr. Obama was so worried about global warming that he violated the Constitution of the United States and signed a treaty without getting the Senate to approve it. Although known in some circles as no drama Obama, he did what he thought needed to be done. This impressed me.

Then I learned that he channeled his inner lawyer (I didn't know this) and he said the reason he could do this was because the treaty was not really a treaty, it was a nonbinding agreement. Who needs courage when rationalization will do? This depressed me.

Geeze, if it's nonbinding, what's the point? Is that how we got away with what we did to the Native Americans? The treaties were nonbinding? See what happens when you don't sweat the fine print?

Next, I looked into why the Donald wants to back out of the deal, or not, it, um, depends. Anyway, he said the deal was stupid because it would disrupt the economy of the entire planet to reduce the average global temp by .02 degrees Celsius.

This looks like a job for factcheck.org!

Gentlereaders, read the FactCheck article, I dare you, I double dog dare you, all 1,704 scintillating words of it.

I did, two or three times. I'd really like you to read it because I must be wrong. I came away concluding that the bottom line is that while a gaggle of geeks from MIT agree with the Donald, that finding doesn't count. See, it doesn't take into consideration the fact that there will probably be additional nonbinding climate agreements on top of the current nonbinding one as time marches on.

I'm like, totally serious dude, check it out.

Of the 1,704 scintillating words, these are my favorite. "Other studies have shown greater reductions. Estimates differ because researchers make different assumptions at the onset of their calculations, such as whether countries will make more ambitious pledges to reduce carbon emissions in the future (my emphasis)."

The settled scientists and the politicians have determined that the best course of action is an international, nonbinding pinky swear that will make a significant dent in global warming -- if we all pinky swear to implement future nonbinding treaties that don't exist yet. Read this paragraph again for full effect.

That doesn't sound like a scientific solution to me, it sounds "...more like a religious sect with a very rigid dogma." -me But then, I'm not a scientist. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Multipotentialites of the World, Unite!

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My sublime, drop-dead gorgeous muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"A cat is a dilettante in fur." -Theophile Gautier

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

"I spend an inordinate amount of time online due to the fact that the Internet is ideal for a dilettante and current events junkie." -me

The slightly less than famous quote above is from my website. Specifically, it can be found by clicking on the Just Who Is This Guy Anyway tab and skipping to the seventh paragraph. I wrote it approximately 2.3 years ago and it's still true.

The word dilettante is often, no, usually used in a derogatory manner but I embrace this particular noun semi-proudly (see definition 2 below). More on that in just a sec'.

Merrian-Webster   1: an admirer or lover of the arts
                             2: a person having a superficial interest in an art or branch
                                  of knowledge
                              : DABBLER

Wait a minute. An admirer or lover of the arts? I've never heard anyone...wait a minute, I'll be right back.

[Insert insipid elevator music here]

OK. It's derived from an Italian word, dilettare, which means a person who loves the arts. There's even a Society of Dilettanti that dates to 1734 made up of "noblemen and scholars which sponsors the study of ancient Greek and Roman art...".

How the definition of the word (d)evolved to its current most common use (see definition 2 again) I've no idea. I'd pursue this further but I'm a dilettante and I've already lost interest.

[For the record, while I don't object to the use of the color red as it's the color of all the hyperlinks on the Merriam-Webster website, the fact they capitalized the word DABBLER for no apparent reason, leads me to believe that someone's disdain for dilettantes has colored their judgment.]


Now, looking up the word dilettante in my favorite (Merriam-Webster) online dictionary when I started this letter got me to thinking. It occurred to me that I had never gone in search of a word that meant essentially the same thing as dilettante but sounded way cooler. I found one.

Multipotentialite. For some reason (my discovery that the word dilettante originated in Italy?) I feel compelled to pronounce it with a cheesy Italian accent. Multah - potentia - LEE' - tah. Very cool.

[What was that? Marie-Louise (she's militantly French), did you just make that utterly disdainful sounding noise I'm not even gonna' try to spell? No answer. Looks like I won't be getting my back scratched today.]

According to a Wikipedia article I stumbled on to...

[I was web surfing and don't remember how I got there. This happens to me a lot. If it happens to you a lot you may also be a multipotentialite. Or, maybe one or both us suffers from attention deficit disorder.]

"Multipotentiality is an educational and psychological term referring to the ability and preference of a person, particularly one of strong intellectual or artistic curiosity, to excel in two or more different fields."

Uh oh, "...excel in two or more different fields." While I do have a strong intellectual and artistic curiosity I don't excel at one field much less two or more. I thought that was a Polymath (Merriam-Webster: a person of encyclopedic learning). Hmm. I better go back and reread the Wikipedia article carefully instead of skimming through it like a dilettante. I'll be right back.

[Insert insipid elevator music here]

Ah-Ha! Multipotentiality is the title of the article and it's apparently too new to have an official definition. But, according to the article, it's been used by various people in a way similar to the definition above.

However, Multipotentialite is credited to one Emilie Wapnick.

The Wikipedia article states specifically that "While the term 'multipotentialite' is often used interchangeably with 'polymath' or 'Renaissance Person', the terms are not identical. One need not be an expert in any particular field to be a mulitpotentialite".

Not only that, Ms. Wapnick runs a website for multipotentialites called Puttylike wherein I found the following. "My Definition -- A multipotentialite is someone with many interests and creative pursuits."

It's official, I'm not a just another middlebrow: "...aware of high culture, but is able to balance aesthetic claims with the claims of the everyday world." I'm a freakin' multipotentialite, baby! And yes, Virginia Stickies, middlebrow is not only an actual word it's the subject of a Wikipedia article. Poppa loves you.


Random Randomness: Charlie the Tuna

I wonder, my dear Stickies, if Charlie the Tuna will still be around and traumatizing your children after I've been deleted. I'd forgotten about Charlie but recently discovered, via a commercial on the prime rectangle, that he's still around and still consumed by his disturbing obsession.

In case you're unaware, Charlie's sick and twisted fantasy, since 1961, is to be captured by placing a hook in his mouth and subsequently killed and eaten. I can't help but wonder how much damage has been done over the years by societies favorite vorarephiliac.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.