What Good Can Come From "Black Friday"?

From an economic point of view "Black Friday"-- oh, and yes, it's going to be in quotes everytime because I can't take the name seriously; is a boon for business. Last year in the UK alone, 1 billion pounds was spent online. (For perspective £91 billion was spent online overall, in the UK) and statistically it is the biggest shopping event of the year... according to the BBC... whom you would expect to not be paid to say that.

However, economics and socio-economics are things I know very little about.

I wonder if "Black Friday" is beneficial to most businesses or if it's mostly an annual stride toward Amazon's monopolisation of every major market. I'd also like to know how sustainable a system, that encourages such ruthless consumerism, is on the other 364 days of the year. Alas, I don't have any answers or thoughts that would be considered meaningful to those who are in the know. Besides, I'm here to talk about the positives!

First of all I'd like to say that I work at a video game store in a shopping center in the UK. I didn't see any riots or old ladies being used as "queue shoes" with which to increase the savvy shopper's traction. It was horrendously busy but people were civil and, seemingly, aware of the ridiculousness of the situation they put themselves into. I asked everyone that came to talk to me in the store if saving however much money was worth the time they would spend in the queue. Maybe it is for some. Everyone I asked, however, left the store after our chat (with a smile on their face) and I didn't sell a damn thing.

Me Directing a Customer to the Deals

People buy stuff! I've tried drafting explanations for why this is the case, from the top down in an eloquent and and concise manner. I can't. The original sentence was "People like to buy stuff" but I'm not so sure how true that is either. It's a complicated sum.


It's Human Nature!
It could be that getting things is something that a human is wont to do. The economic system we live in and the overlap with an age of hefty disposable income certainly facilitates that behaviour.

However, if that were the case should we expect to see rationality in buying patterns? Sensible buying habits facilitate long term purchasing power but (with the aid of credit cards) we don't see that happen. The brain of some individuals sacrifices rationality for the purchasing of more stuff.

The reason that happens is because we aren't rational beings. A lot of people, given the chance, will eat until they are too fat to walk. Even more will ignore our most primal responsibilites if we were hooked up to a heroin machine.

The will to buy things can be somewhat equated to an addiction mechanism. But, wait! People eat all the time and stay healthy. Not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic. There must be something that "convinces" humans to go that extra mile beyond just buying groceries and quality, functionable clothes.

As well as my next big point it is worth mentioning that most people's disposable incomes are larger than they once were and credit cards allow us to go beyond the limits of our source-able money. This means that our brains have a greater chance to obtain momentum in the establishment of a behaviour. That is to say that the more we are able to buy the more we are able to reinforce the connections between synapses that represent that buying behaviour.


PAAAAVLOV!Is it a behaviour that is taught? We live in a world of increasingly complex advertising campaigns from companies whose profit margins rely solely on what you do with your money. Companies no longer advertise themselves on how good their wares are (if they ever really did) but instead try to hit you in the more primitive parts of your brain. Nostalgia, love, happiness.

"Three for two puppies!? What about your orphan children? Do they come with innocence?"

A product's aim is to become a part of your life; your identity. A picnic isn't a real picnic without coca-cola. You're not a person of status without a car. Define your particular status through scarcity i.e VW Polo to a Bentley Fancymobile.

Extrapolate the mechanism behind an individual's taught affinity with a particular brand, through an individual's association of "attainment"* (one example being a car) and it's not hard to see how the pursuit of things as an abstract concept can be ingrained and idealised by proxy- if not by intent.


It's Complicated.Whether it be through facilitation of buying power or increased pressure to buy, it is obvious that a consumerist culture can be damaging. People will work jobs they hate, to buy things that they believe will make them happy, because they feel they should. There is an expectation towards affluence and for the majority that is impossible by definition of the system. The economic culture we are born into creates different strata of wealth with the most populace being the poorest and then commands every strata to move up, beyond where they started.

The truth is that it's super complicated and blaming consumerism on the two highly simplified factors above isn't good enough. The answer(s) lie somewhere between the two as well as a bunch of other points that I'm not smart enough to know about. Unfortunately, my vast inability to provide a full and proper explanation on this topic is only barely surpassed by anyone's disinterest in a full and proper answer. So, I will continue.


A Conclusion
This is it! This is the section where I get to the main point that I alluded to in my click-bait title! What positive things can Black Friday teach us? Well...

A starkly horrible event can elucidate a certain artifact that was there all along, or validate the existence of a problem amongst the majority,

The sheer magnitude of death and pestilence in WWII (and to an extent, WWI) destroyed the notion of war being an honourable duty to your country. WWII arguably imbued a certain fearfulness in regards to nationalism in Western Europe. Though Britain is more culturally lenient on this matter, (I think having been deprived the true horrors of the war) I know people from other European countries that view their national flag at anywhere other than an embassy with a raised eyebrow.

War journalists and a free press showed an entire generation of Americans the ugly side of war by providing images from Vietnam. The ensuing, massive shift of public opinion was unprecedented, and much to the annoyance of some of the earliest critics of the war. Why couldn't people have exercised their empathy and come to feel that way before the proof of concept was available?

When Belgium and the Netherlands are underwater, Bangladesh needs somewhere else to live and there isn't enough space to grow food, more people will eventually come to extol the value of living more sustainably.

These awful things hold up a mirror to our actions and appropriately shock us into belief with the intuitive clarity of the image. In the riots of "Black Friday" I see something horrible. Something sinister and far reaching of which the participants seem oblivious.

Nonetheless, I also see hope in the faces of the people that are shocked and fearful of those that would break a jaw for a cheap Xbox. Their negative experience and consequential PTSD might form the foyer of the rabbit hole and in the discussion of their thoughts certain aspects of the world they live in may become apparent when, had they spent their time comfortably, could very well have gone unnoticed.


Hmm.
Yeah. I haven't particularly convinced myself, either. The "Good" in the title refers to a partial liberation from the desire to buy stuff. People have written books about why that might be a good thing. Perhaps I'm a dusty principled product of an upbringing closer in some respects to a post war upbringing. However, for all of my inability to argue intellectually I feel assured making the statement of, "If people are fighting for things that won't sustain their lives, something is amiss."

I suppose, really, that just shows that I would do better as a beatnik humanities student than as a scientist or designer.

Ah, well. If you made it this far: Well Done! I really am appreciative that you would take the time to read my stuff. Now, the internet is calling you away! Begone.

Josh.



*It could be obvious status posturing or something more abstract e.g. a bigger TV that most people won't see, and if they do, would be unlikely to ascribe to status, and more to fiscal progression... which I suppose is a sort of status... but not an in your face sort. Jesus... I have to think this stuff through.

An Unexpected Mechanism of Language.

I have recently started a contractual transcription job for some guy. I'm not going to advertise him because it's self help of the slimiest kind and I don't want him getting undue exposure but during the time spent transcribing I had an interesting thought.

I can be a wordy sort of person- if you've ever read any of my crap you would know that. The reason I am so wordy is because I am seeking clarity and precision in what I say. Unfortunately the main formats with which we transfer information from brain to brain- especially when it comes to complex thought- are very lossy, meaning a lot of information can be lost in the transfer. Simply refer to your favourite forum of choice (I recommend vaguely anti/pro religious videos on youtube) to see this incredible phenomenon at work.

So, whilst watching this guy and noting down every last botched sentence he spouts I realised that he continuously said the same thing over and over again, in slightly different ways. Although I disagreed with what he was saying I realised that the reason he did that was as a kind of verbal brain massage. Self help, if the help offered is fine, is most likely to fail due to the person not really following through. That's obvious! Changing the structure of your brain, especially for deep-seated behaviour, is super tough and reading an inspirational quote or cool idea will not change that structure though it might flood your brain with good feels.

The snake oil salesman kept saying the same thing over and over again, not to instill a particular idea- like a formula or line of poetry- but in order to perpetuate the mode of thinkingthat he is trying to cultivate in his audience .

It's not quite the same as copying a behaviour because deeper thought is not so easily mimicked- I think it was a way of entertaining the audience's minds, keeping the ball rolling if you will, in order to stupefy disbelief.

Hold on, I suppose that's what a mantra is isn't it?  Urgh, this job is melting my brain.

Hungry-Man Review.

Here at Josh's Blog Enterprises we're focused on hard hitting journalism. We believe that a good review cannot be boiled down to a scaled rating at the end; however we know that if you're reading this you're probably too lazy to read allll those words and decide if the review is a reliable one. The Hungry-Man takes 8 minutes to prepare. You can read this review in less!

LET'S DO THIS!

So, I'm going to be in America soon. In advance I decided it might be prudent to prepare my colon for the inevitable blitzkrieg that will be wreaked upon my entry to the states. The Hungry Man is something that me and my girlfriend have laughed about each time we've seen it in the shop. Perhaps because we assumed it to be a symbol of corporate machismo. Well, Sara was away and I was indeed a Hungry-Man!

Already looks ravishing! 

The Hungry Man meal is different to many other ready meals (I guess- I've never really had any) in the way that it forces you to think. It both forces you to make hard decisions and to find ways around challenging circumstances. The first challenge was  whether or not I should use the oven or the microwave; instructions for both methods were provided! I opted for the microwave as I thought it was more in the spirit of things and was left wandering through the mists of wonder upon reflection of how oven preparation is supposed to take 26 minutes longer.

The second problem was how I was instructed to remove the film from the brownie only and poke holes only in the potato and peas. There is only one film and it is only stuck down along the circumference, not the partitions so I was unsure of :-

A) How to remove the film from the brownie only and
B) How only poking holes in the vegetables would make a difference to the steaks burgers when there is no separation between the components- especially seeing as I had to remove the film from the brownie.

I cut the film out around the brownie and just stabbed holes in everything.

Cook everything for 3.5 minutes then remove the brownie.

Chris' inferior healthy meal.

After cooking the meal for another 4.5 minutes after removal of the brownie I was ready to eat. I did a quick publicity shot for which Hungry Man agreed to pay me royalties for and got to eating.

Exactly like on the packaging!

Hungry-Man's final form.

Pffff.

Well, it was better than I had thought but not as good as I would have hoped. For the investment of a minuscule amount of time in comparison to the minutes each Hungry-Man bumps off of your life you can learn to cook cheaper and more delicious meals for yourself. You have only one life and plenty of time, you have the capacity to learn new skills, skills that can benefit yourself and others. Skills that can make you a source of inspiration or hope to your friends. It really is in your best interest to not buy this meal and instead make something more of yourself

5*'s! 10/10 WOULD BUY AGAIN!

NEXT TIME- KRAFT MACARONI AND CHEESE!

I wish I could say that it even tasted like anything.

4/20 in Vancouver 2014: A Review.

4.20PM- The Fog of War.

For those of you that don't already know 4/20 is a day of the year on which many people protest the illegalisation of weed. A quirk of the backward North American date system means that the month goes before the day and as such 4.20 PM is the time of the day when the crowd lights up for the peak of the festivities. 

Festivities!

A relatively small offering.

The event was quite incredible. The crowd was vibrant and consisted of many different kinds of people, at least in appearance. It was very interesting to see a small police presence in conjunction with street vendors trying to sell MAMMOTH bags of weed- the legality of weed seemed more like a clerical error than an ethical issue that had ever been thought about. Wandering around the stalls was good fun, there was a lot of energy, a lot of people and it was all a great novelty.

I spoke to a few people that were very nice and interesting people, at the same time there were many people that were evidently dead behind the eyes. I think, at least metaphorically, this observation is representative of the two pro-weed parties. I don't know what the relative size of each demograph might be but I think there is group that seeks legalisation more for ethical reasons and a group that seeks legalisation for eventual personal gratification.

The legal status of marijuana is an important one. It represents more than just getting high but I fear that concept is lost on most of the people attending the event.

"ROOT'IN FOR PUTIN" ?
Your guess is as good as mine. This wasn't the only mixed message at the event.

The musicians on stage were great. I was expecting boring, predictable reggae but in fact they were fun and exciting. There were volunteers on stage dressed as spliffs, dancing and smoking at the same time- they looked great. It was funny. But when anyone came on stage and started some simplistic diatribe on drug law I became quite embarrassed. I couldn't see the point in getting the crowd to shout brain dead slogans, and the whole shouting at Harper (the prime minister, who was not present) made the whole event seem like a child in its parents clothes. The very presence of the event and the public flaunting of the law is message enough.

All in all the event was fun however I think the message was well and truly swallowed up by an immature sense of rebellion. I am in favour of the legalisation of weed- there's no point making criminals where there logically wouldn't seem to be any- but I do find the sometimes moronic weed culture to be a huge turn off.

To me the injustice of the War on Drugs does not originate from the quashing of an individuals "rights" to get high. The injustice is the consistent placement of opinion over science by governments either because they are uninformed or because they know that voters are uninformed. In the arrangement of Vancouver's initial 1995 4/20 event a proposed whole day affair was shunned by one of the founders as "decadent"- that word is an excellent descriptor for what was essentially a protest.

If this had been a celebration of weed in itself then the tone would match the message but campaigning for a change of law in this way, bearing in mind the personalities of those that hold the law in their hands, is not a prudent way to effect change. I leave you with the musical culmination of the event, I think it explains the past two paragraphs better than I can in words. See below for lyrics.

Lyrics-

I like smoking pot 'cus it makes me feel good

My First 10km Race.

How Long does a 10k Take?
Well, it varies for everyone, of course. Compare yourself to the below paragraph to get an idea of where you lie.

I had a standard base level of fitness before I started training about 10 days before the race. I could already climb a flight of stairs at a quick pace without getting significantly out of breath and in the 10 days before the race I went for 4 runs, the longest being about 7 kilometers. Before those 10 days I didn't really run any long distances. Maybe the 500m or so from the bus stop to home.

I finished the race, which was mostly flat, in 59 minutes. Also, I ran in boots because I am poor and can't afford trainers.

Any kind of race is a test for the mind and body. You need to be able to manipulate your limbs into some sort of running motion and you need to be able to do that motion for longer than 10 minutes but beyond that I would say running is mainly a mental exercise. Here are some tips!

Eat Food! (Just Not Too Much)
When things get uncomfortable it is your brain that will get you to keep running, not your legs. It is important to remember that and take care of your mind before a race. That means eat something light- if you're like me you might get angry when you are hungry... hangry, if you will- this is something you would do well to avoid. If, like I did, you were to eat way too much before running, leading you to feel like throwing up for a lot of it, you could do with...

Getting More Sleep!
Another compounding factor is sleep. The amount of sleep you need is genetically determined and you cannot alter your normal sleeping time without sustaining losses to your concentration. Get enough sleep before you run! I did not get enough sleep before the race and as a consequence my focus waned severely throughout. I had a slight injury, felt sick and was VERY aware of it because I wasn't able to concentrate on running. Instead, for a lot of the race I had to put most of my attention towards keeping my amygdala in check in order to avoid giving up.

Though my case study is not an exact science the below actual scientific article (as presented by the mainstream media) is as close as you can get! Check it out and at the very least read the last paragraph. It is VERY important to understand that sleep is a limiting factor of ability perhaps as much as sunlight is a limiting factor for plant growth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.html?_r=0

Feel Da Rhthym, Feel Da Rhyme...
During the race me and my running partner were passed by many people that were listening to music. We eventually passed them breathing very heavily, heads down, slowing down. I hypothesise that they were running to a beat that was too fast for them to keep up with. If you don't listen to your body- your breath, your heart rate, your stride length and feet- you will be unable to adapt and optimise. It's like ignoring a "check engine" light in your car.

Sure, it might get you pumped but in the end if you aren't able to keep up with your "best of drum and bass" playlist you are only hurting your own efforts. I prefer to run without music as you are able to find your rhythm. Rhythms have to be able to change! If you're going up a hill you might not be able to keep up with your stride or you might have to break your one breath every two strides rule but that's good! It means you are doing the best that you can.

The bottom line is by all means push yourself but remember there is a difference between pushing yourself and being pushed. That goes for trying to keep up with that obviously better trained runner too. Set a goal and be ready to move beyond it if you can.

Get On Up, It's Bobsled Time!
I hope the above is useful to you, whoever you are. If you are thinking of running a race then my best advice is just give it a go. Make sure you don't box too far above your weight in case you hurt yourself. Be ambitious if you would like and just give it a go. If you are trying to be aware of what your body is doing then you are on an excellent track.

The best thing I have gained from doing this race is that the things that I learned carry over into many other areas of life. I hope your experience is as positive as mine.

Good luck.

Josh.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

I don't mean the title in the hippy kind of way where love makes the world go around but rather in a cold pragmatic kind of way.

It used to be my opinion that working in groups made everything harder. This thought was influenced in many different ways through my life in education. Team sports mostly resulted in competitiveness within the team and group class activities resulted in freeloading and arguments over tasks that could be accomplished by one person quite easily. Most importantly the standard of teamwork, or rather tribalism, was set by petty political leaders and teenage cliques.

HOWEVER, I now live in a house of 20 something's (and a 40 something landlord) and working together makes things easier for everyone. Just doing a favour for someone, like cleaning their dishes or giving them a beer results in equal, sometimes greater, payback. There is something to be said for that feeling of not having to do something because a friend did it for you. Actions can speak louder than words and in this case they most certainly do.

This favour economy only really works for people that like and respect each other. I can't see it really working with strangers or as some sort of grassroots revolution to change the world however I think it is still important to remember or even consider that kindness does pay- not in a karmic, bullshitty sort of way but if you are nice to those who know you or those you would like to know (hey, sometimes even strangers) you will probably get something back at some point and more importantly it's easily traceable- not hippy bullshit.

Most importantly with small favours and mutual respect you garner the efforts of your friends for those big moments and favours, when you really need another human being to help. You can buy that help with money or pleading but it really is awesome when someone helps you move out, or get to a job interview on time, or dispose of a body because they want to, not because it would be easier to do so than put up with your complaining. I think that kind of friendship is often put down to being cool or admirable enough to deserve it but I am coming to understand it as being deserved by the actions in-between the egos.

I dunno, if you think you're around people that respect you feel free to give. You might (hopefully(?)) be surprised.*

Josh.


*This prooooobably won't work if you are in high school. Most people are only just learning that people other than themselves even exist but it's really good practice and as long as you make sure that you're not taken advantage of it's pretty good practice for the future. Take it from someone that lives life with a healthy dose of misanthropy.

Part 2- How Music Works!

Still with me? Excellent! Let's crack on.

Keys and Scales
What is a key? A key in its simplest and perhaps least precise definition is a sequence of 7 notes. This sequence makes up the primary notes that a piece of music will be composed from. There are both major and minor keys- both having a formula to construct them with. As with animals all notes are created equal but once you put them together some are more equal than others- there is a sort of hierarchy between the notes of a scale- meaning that some notes will work "better" in different contexts than others. Hopefully this sounds interesting as I will be writing about it in a subsequent post.

The first thing you need to know is what a semitone (halfstep) is. If you remember from the last episode it is one fret on a guitar-like instrument, an adjacent key on a piano and more of a mystery on a viol family member. A tone (wholestep) is one more fret/key/mystery than a semitone. The difference is the Jaws theme and Frere Jaques.

I include the arrows to emphasise that the (semi)tone is the distance between the notes. These gaps are referred to as "intervals".

So, if you were to start on any note on your instrument and followed the formula above you would be playing a major scale and at the same time sketching out the notes of a key. Keys and scales are almost one and the same. You might want to think of a scale as a tool to make music and a key as a way of describing or describing music if the dualism first strikes you as confusing.

The above is the formula for a minor key.

So, what can you do with this information? Well, most pieces of music most of us are likely to encounter are written in one definite key that might change throughout the piece. If you know what notes make up a key and if you know where the notes of the key fit in on your instrument you are theoretically able to improvise, compose or at the least better understand the music that you are playing or listening to.

So how do you get to learn the keys and by extension their scales? I will elaborate in the next post!

Josh.

The Future Of Media: Part Deux!

How do you know if a film is old? The picture may be black and white. Everyone might speak with a received pronunciation. The oranges might be too orange, the CGI might be poor or non existent; maybe if you're a master of film you might notice that certain shots and compositions are used more often than others.


There will come a point in our not so distant future- in some of our lifetimes- when the quality of video will plateau. Then how will you know if the porn actress/actor you are entertaining on your screen is dead or not?


"But I like retro porn as it is!" Well good for you sir, but pray tell, if you found out that the girl next door that you harmlessly became aroused by, as you spied her from your bedroom window, naked, reclining on her bed had in fact just passed away in her sleep; would you feel weird about being aroused?

Maybe, maybe not and I can understand both arguments but I know one thing for certain: In the future there will totally be a specific fetish for pornstars that are no longer living and, if I may expound on my theory, I know that if ducks could use computers they would totally be in to that too. Do you want to occupy a future full of necrophillic ducks? Didn't think so.

Is this what you want?

Now go and google the sexual habits of ducks and dare to come back and tell me that homosexuality isn't "natural".

Stay sassy my non-existent readership.

Josh.

P.s. The filename of the picture is "ducks-make-history-450x162.jpg" and I didn't even change it!

P.p.s. Even Cane Toads are into it. Skip to 2:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqCQO_cRypg

The Future of Media!

If you could pick a point in time to live in, when would it be? Unfortunately you're probably wrong regardless of what you answered. Too far back and it's unlikely that you will be able to eat or drink anything with that feeble 21st century immune system that you're styling. Go even further back and you're just asking for trouble- you don't know how to hunt!

So, what about the future? Well, there is the chance that things will continue to get worse. Drug resistant pathogens may win out in the immunity arms race, global warming might make it hard to support our current population. North Korea might only pretend to be comedically hermetic because they are secretly technologically advanced; fearing that other countries would use their technology for war; but are unfortunately found out by a certain superpower that nukes the world back into the stone age. What was I on about? Oh yeah, well, assuming that doesn't happen and first world problems continue to exist here's one you haven't considered. There will be way too much media.

Think about it. Look at a list of 100 critically acclaimed films from the past 100ish years of commercial cinema. In the lifespan of one generation that list would double. Then consider how your favourite film, say, the first live-action "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" movie might not even be on that list. As a matter of point, how can you discount the incredible entertainment value of films that would be on the inverse list? Films such as "Carnasaur", "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Titanic"?

How large is your itunes library? Assuming you actually like all of that music and, unlike me, you don't have music that you only put on for comedic value (you know, Scatman John, Rick Astley etc.) that's probably a lot of music that you like. Multiply that by a bajillion- there's already thousands of bands that you would probably like but haven't heard of. Music's a lot easier to produce than films at this point in time, and thanks to the internet anyone can distribute it. Popular recorded music has been about since the early 1900's with wax cylinders but, like populations, recordings have exploded in number over the years. What's the big deal you think? Don't we have this situation when it comes to books?  To that I say: "I dunno, I don't think so.".

Yes, the written word has been around for a very long time. The Egyptians had one of the earliest written languages and they were around 5000 years ago (just think about that for a second). Even before the invention of the printing press when all documents were replicated using the now antiquated monk.0 software system there were a lot of very culturally significant things being written down. Haven't we already reached the point of too much literature based media and isn't the effect of this negligible?

I don't think it's the same. When it comes to literature we have many summations. Literature, though indispensable, is quite a bulky way of recording information- this is because it can be impeccably precise. It's the high resolution image of data storage, I suppose. Whether its a natural human pursuit or a modern development I do not know but the streamlining and want to make more efficient is a prevalent impulse. Literature is a very time consuming medium so I think humans continuously trim the ephemera from it. Like a bustling hive mind we store what is important and discard what is, well, ephemeral. This might be because the application of literature is so much more prominent in our consumption of the medium compared to film and music. Film is mostly in my opinion a feast for the eyes and is augmented through sound. Music is food for the ears. Literature is food for the brain. Everything is simulated; the onus is heavily placed on the consumer and if you decide that the "author is dead" it results in a book being highly ambiguous and therefore a highly intellectually stimulating task should you choose it to be.

Furthermore books are very well labelled. They tend to be about a certain subject or idea. Though the same could be said about films and music the director or producer or advertiser does not or cannot make that subject as clear as a front cover, title, authors note and blurb can. Language is precise like that.

Maybe I'm right, I personally think that I'm striking the nail with glancing blows. Perhaps my literature vs. other media argument is flawed but the point remains- in the future (depending on how far you go of course) there will be many many more hit films and musicians than there are now. How many films can you truly "see before you die" and will we lose anything when eventually films such as "Shawshank Redemption" or "The Deer Hunter" or "*that film you really like*" are left on the wayside of cinematic history? What about when the standard increases so much that Nirvana and The Beatles are comparatively close in impact and message?

Looking for more food for the brain? Tune in for Part Deux!

Part 2-  http://heywhateveridunno.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-future-of-media-part-deux.html

Josh.

Buildings: More Like People Than We Thought?

I don't have any formal knowledge of architecture or any delusion that I do so don't worry, this isn't one of those write-ups. I just learned something that I thought I would share. tl;dr? The points in paragraph 4!

So, one of my jobs is in construction. I core concrete. That is, I make really big holes in walls and floors with a really big drill. Why? Because people fuck up alllllll the time on building sites by filling in places where there should be holes. I really don't enjoy construction work. I could go into it but I would summarise it as unstimulating. Regardless I try to keep an ear and eye out for things that are interesting.

The other day we were working on a building in downtown Vancouver. The concrete that the building is made from is very poor. There are gaps of air in the concrete and It turns to sand with great ease. The building is both old and poorly built.

Whilst waiting on the floor below the hole to make sure nobody got brained by the core that was about to fall down the guy that usually works on the building and addressed something that I had thought about everytime we worked there. Surely if this building is poorly built already doing these kinds of renovations won't help anyone. Turns out, that's totally true! You can only renovate so many times before the building needs to be demolished and rebuilt. It's like how each time a cell replicates itself it's not as good as the cell that went before it.

On a more sombre note it is disconcerting seeing a building of such poor quality. Vancouver is supposedly due for a huge earthquake. I am dubious about the predictability of earthquakes and saying that Vancouver is 50 years overdue really doesn't mean much to me. Geological stats, man! How long is 50 years really? And how reliable are the movements of tectonic plates? Are they really so repetitive? Regardless, a building that is made from hard shelled bubbles is not a favourable place to work at in a quake danger zone.

Good luck Vancouver.

Josh.

A Thought for the Future.

Appeal to tradition is a pretty flaccid debating point. "It has been like this for a long time so it's probably a good idea for things to remain the same". When considering the general progression of humankind I think the validity and use of such an argument has eroded greatly. For example religion no longer has the once monolithic power that it once had- religion lacks strong logical arguments, its only bargaining chip for at least the past century has been the strength of its tradition.

Technology and science is still new and exciting. We barely have a century of modern scientific history. I wonder if eventually people will go "eh, my X is fast enough" and will fall back on an appeal to tradition to justify not improving things.

Yeah, I don't think so either. I bring this up because of condoms. Effective contraception since 1919! I mean, they've been good for that long, why bother using anything else?

Ha! I should get some sleep.

Sleep well my non-existent readership!

Josh.

American vs. British Sense of Humour.

The British* and American sense of humour are often compared. The Americans that I have met often say that they love the "British sense of humour" but as far as I can tell most people aren't sure what the "British sense of humour" even is. I did some pontificating on the subject.

*Okay, I'm going to get this out of the way right now, there's not enough time to wait until the bottom of the page. Britain is NOT a country. Britain is NOT England. Britain is composed of 4 countries- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Every time I type British I want to type English- it's the sense of humour I have the most experience with!

People, when I have pressed them to describe the British sense of humour, have cited Monty Python, sarcasm, and to a lesser sense deadpan delivery. The descriptions given to me by such people have confused me because Monty Python is a rather over-the-top silliness but the banter-based sarcasm of British humour is not as playful. This has been illustrated to me by Americans that have told me that they love Monty Python and really get the British sense of humour but have greeted sarcasm and joking with blank faces or goofy expressions, waiting for the punchline.

I think a better, deeper description of the British sense of humour is that the audience will make the joke funny for themselves. Details will be missed out by the comedian or sketch and not directly mentioned because the viewer or audience member are expected to work it out for themselves. The American sense of humour relies on mercilessly detailing the funny bits of the joke. To me it lacks nuance and at worst is obnoxious.

CASE STUDY!

Okay, bare with me. This example comes from "Our Robocop Remake", a scene by scene remake of the Robocop film with a comedic scope.

http://vimeo.com/85903713

Forward to 43.35 (beware of adult content if you are a bit too early). Robocop is an innocent, earnest (though mentally deficient) robocop trying his best in the big city after leaving home. This is a silly situation and is written quite nicely UNTIL 44.40. Throughout the scene we use our brain to work out that the narration and what we are shown do not line up. This is the precedent of the joke. 44.40 violates this unspoken precedent by lighting the joke up in neon and shouting "DO YOU GET THE JOKE NOW!?". If this scene had the "British" sense of humour the narration would say that it was the mayor's wife. The resolution of cognitive dissonance is the drive behind the joke, without it the fun silliness becomes dumb. In my opinion, of course!

CASE STUDY 2!

However, having said the above I think there are funny American comedians- some that are even popular! Louis C.K. is very funny. He doesn't say particularly shocking things like a British comedian such as Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr would say but he does challenge an audience. He steers clear of the cheap shots that make Bill Maher's audiences whoop with self-satisfaction and, from what I've seen, will not hit the audience over the head with what he thinks is the funny part.

Then there's the fringe with such examples as "Tim and Eric's" Cosmos sketch that, to me, are like the next evolution of the American sense of humour. I'm not saying it's incredible but I am saying that it's new and fun and different.

American's, I'm sorry to say that to the inhabitants of Britain, Belgium and Germany (nationalities that I have corroborated with), you generally have a very poor sense of humour. I'm also sorry to say that if you think you "get" sarcasm you probably don't. The British sense of humour and sense of sarcasm is deeply ingrained in our culture and has grown instep with our climate, you are already at a disadvantage I am afraid.

BUT, having said that you DO have things to be proud of and you are still finding your way as a nation. When you learn to not be so easily offended you can start to grow in all kinds of ways! Maybe one day you can look down on our sense of humour for its primitiveness :P

I'm so sorry everyone.

Josh.

Teaching- It Totally Needs Fixing, Man.

I think that the teaching of most subjects is exceedingly poor. Excluding the sciences and mathematics; that perhaps self-select students because the subject content and the way in which it can be taught are so close to one another; music, art, languages are taught in a particularly poor way.

The sciences are quite binary in their approach- beyond the playful philosophy of hypotheses you will eventually be proven right or wrong. Of course, it would be a tragic misstep to neglect the need for creativity in mathematics and the sciences. For example, DNA's structure was able to be hypothesised and eventually proven because of the associative leaps that were made by Francis Crick when under the influence of LSD. There are many other examples both real and hypothetical that describe the imagination's role in the sciences but the driving force behind such subjects is the search for objective truth... perhaps the role of human pettiness and jealousy should not be underestimated either. (Newton and Hooke and the entire world of topology. Nerds, what can you do huh?)

I think that humans, though we try in earnest, are not designed (poor choice of words, I know) to deal with the abstract. "But what about philosophy and the metaphysical?" I hear you say. It is almost a recursive argument of quality beneath "Gödel, Escher, Bach" but I think that such subjects are an example of our inabilty to understand the abstract and not an example of our ability to channel it. Again, to be recursive and perhaps mundane and redundant we have philosophy as a platonic shadow for what the abstract is.

My reasoning can be scoffed at, I would do the same, but still I think humans excel at dealing with reality, not the non-physical. Food, genetic propagation, noises, touches, smells etc. These are categorical things that our brain loves to sort out for us. So, when we reach the entire body of a subject whose mantra is one that encourages perspective and opinion our brains struggle to adapt, there has to be a right and wrong, duh!

So, we do what comes naturally. Dissect, arrange and categorise. We can see it happen with 16th century prescriptivists who took the unarranged idiomatic nature of developing language and shoe horned rules around it. We can see it in the way that musical theory (especially systems of tuning)* was developed and the way that art is institutionalised and wrought with elitism that values the ticking of boxes, perhaps not emotional impact of artwork. (PERHAPS!)

Music, language, art. These are the subjects that I would like to look at. The way they are taught is extremely lacking. With the advent of adventurous coding and the almost unlimited sharing of knowledge via the internet we have, I think, seen classical schools of teaching effectively challenged. I say effectively because, let's be honest, the liberation of music from standard harmony by Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Coltrane etc was a rather incredible failure. A failure as in it did not catch on. We could blame education perhaps but alas, this is not my PHD and I refuse to defend myself so thoroughly!

Music for me is a tough example for the development of teaching as I still think it is still taught inefficiently- general approaches do not make room for standard human interest and is too uncompromising in how it appeals to students. For example with most classical instruments a student will not be allowed to pass on learning scales. They are, of course, essential for the mastery of an instrument but the mindset of teaching does not make allowance for goals that differ from the ideal. Sometimes this is good, the elitist mindset forces those that are capable to strive for more but for the majority of people it builds a wall that they are too uninterested or discouraged to overcome. The reason I bring up music is to illustrate a failure in teaching. Let's look at a positive.

Languages. There are many different ways to learn. I don't think humans are so different from one another to proclaim that there are as many ways to learn as there are people- as some people might overzealously state- but there is indeed great variation amongst our species. Some people might beneficially learn from the classical way of learning a language. That is, slogging through grammar and then learning how to speak it. However with, as I mentioned before, the emergence of the internet, individuals without the class or credentials are able to proliferate their ideas. Sometimes this is TERRIBLE (see Deepak Chopra) but in the example of languages such an opportunity may be indispensable. Look to "Benny the Irish Polyglot" from www.fluentin3months.com/‎ who has perhaps pioneered a method of learning a language based around how we learn our first language. Without the ability to confront the hoi polloi many years ago this might have just resulted in an obscure school of language learning that would have been unable to overcome the accepted methods of the day and languished and died in the pools of privileged Bohemia that academia can sometimes be made from.

I think I might be straying off point. I don't know if I ever knew my point but I think my message is one of positivity. Get hyped! Humans are learning how to most efficiently impart knowledge, finally! I suppose if you consider the Matrix as point zero for the pursuit of instantaneous learning (psst, it's not) then we're making pretty okay headway. Look at Ed Cooke's memory centric learning program "Memrise" that capitilises on the brain in the same way our brains and bodies capitilise on simple limiting factors in order to optimally grow food and retain functioning enzymes. The cross pollination of disciplines such as coding, the social sciences, design and more to reach more efficient means of learning than the textbooks of even 10 years ago can only be positive. We are gradually moving beyond the idea of the future of learning being learning the curriculum from an ipad.

We're doing alright and though putting an overly large USB stick into the posterior of your brain will [still] result in death [for now] we're making the horrifically inefficient process of learning better all the time.

Rejoice.




*So yeah, tuning systems, also known as temperament, are screwed up. Over time we have split series' of notes in different ways. In Pythagorean times you would tune in 5ths. A problem with this would be you would tune your first fifth C-G your second one G-D your third one D-A until you got all the way around to F-C. The first C would be out of tune with the last one! It would be like walking up a staircase and finding yourself on a weird floor just beneath the floor that the staircase was supposed to lead too; Escher style! It would seem that the division of frequencies into the alphabet of music is unable to be perfect due to how we hear frequencies. This is a very deep subject; the embarrassing Uncle that really shouldn't be left alone with children of musicology; that is quite hard to understand. If you are interested look up "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care."

An Introduction to How Music Works.

Here is the first blog post in what will be a series on practical musical theory. The first post is going to be all about notes!

A  A#/Bb  B  C  C#/Db  D  D#/Eb  E  F  F#/Gb  G  G#/Ab  A  

Above are all the notes that exist in music.Well, that is western music. Chinese music tends to consist of five whereas Indian music consists of many many more as there are notes between the 12 that we see above. Alas, that is another story, for another time, from a storyteller that knows the plot.

So, I said there are 12 notes in Western music but as you can see there are 18 letters above. Firstly, let's learn why there is an A at the start and an A at the end. These two notes are what is known as an "octave" apart. A note that is an octave higher will have the same quality as its lower counterpart, it will just sound higher in pitch.

An intuitive explanation can be found by comparing sound to colours. Below is a colour spectrum.

Humans only see in one octave. If you were a bee you would be able to extend the colour spectrum past violet to ultra violet- into the next octave.

The other extra letters, as you can see have symbols next to them. # is a sharp symbol and b is a flat symbol. To sharpen a note one would move their hands closer together by one fret on a guitar like instrument or move one adjacent key to the right on a piano (sorry fretless instrumentalists, I don't have a way to describe it for you!). To flatten a note one moves one fret downwards on a guitar or one adjacent key to the left on a piano- thus making the note lower in pitch.

The distance between a note and its flattened or sharpened neighbour is referred to in traditional musical theory as a semitone and in the more descriptive Americanisation as a half-step. Both ways of description are fine no matter what others tell you.

SO, if you sharpen an A you move up one semitone in pitch and end up at an A#. If you flatten a B you move one semitone down to a Bb. If you look at the note timeline above you can see that A# and Bb are bunched together. Alternatively if you refer to your instrument of choice you can see that A# and Bb occupy the same fret/key (void? My apologies once more, fretless musicians.) A# and Bb are the same note- the same pitch- and are referred to as A# or Bb depending on the context you find them in. The term for these couples of notes is an "enharmonic equivalent". They exist for a reason, but that reason is for another time.

Finally if you see this symbol ♮ it is referred to as a "natural". If this symbol precedes a note it means it is not a sharp or a flat. Simple.

"Track pads and paint." The name of my next [first] novel I think.

PHYSICS!
For those of you that like physics an octave is when you take the vibrational frequency of a note and double it. for example, an A vibrates at 440Hz; if you were to program a computer to produce a sound of 880Hz it would be another A but an octave up. A quirk of how our brains interpret sounds means that a doubled frequency is interpreted as being the "same" note but higher in pitch. A very unwieldy analogy would be comparing flourescent green to normal green. They have the same quality, they are both green, but they are different to each other.

CULTURE!
In Germany the note B is referred to as H. Why? You know what, I'm not sure why but I know that this allowed a compositional quirk. Composers would sometimes open up a piece of music by spelling out their name. For example- B-A-C-H. Kind of like a musical autograph. Cool, huh!? The example in this paragraph also works because their Bb is a B. Craaazy!

UPDATE!
I now know why it is an "h". It apparently comes from a transliteration error where some dude wrote an h instead of a b. It just caught on. 

Kitchens: You Can Even Have Fun In Them!

Hello friends, Romans and/or countrymen. After a lengthy hiatus from writing I am back. I don't have anything particularly deep or interesting to say but I feel that I must write something. I enjoy it and it totes ensures that I remember things from the past if I should ever find myself in the future.

A wizz in the kitchen I am not, yet I found myself here- I must have gotten lost.

ANYWAY!

In the house that I live in (we're a motley bunch of travel-y types) in Vancouver we like to make our own bread. "How nice!" you coo. You would be cooing from the other side of your face; Daffy style; if you knew why. Food, and many things are impractically expensive over here. Bread is of poor quality, costs a lot more than it should and is gone in no time. We make our own for that reason.

After the adjustment period for which we spent many hours huddled around our freshly baked bread, scratching our heads as to why it didn't come out of the oven in slices, we got savvy to baking and started adding nutritious nuts and seeds. Today, I was feeling particularly fine so decided to try something out. The idea was to diffuse seed-ness into oil that I would then put into the bread. My choices were pumpkin, sesame, walnuts*, almonds and sunflower seeds. It is worth mentioning that I abstained from the poppy seeds- I wasn't sure if I would end up opiated. Below is the pictoral account (with captions!) of how that went down.

* Yup, walnuts are seeds. Don't worry, I'm embarrassed about your ignorance too.

Anyone up for a subtlety flavoured oil drink!? What? That sounds horrible? C'mon, be a sport!

Francois looking on with baited breath and a glimmer of hope in his eye.

...Fuck. Back to the drawing board! And by that I mean the numerous places the ingredients came from so that I can do the exact same thing again but with less carbon! ... Nevermind, it sounded better as a metaphor!

Try 2.0. Didn't even go to uni for photography. Believe it.

Dual cooling. Cold water is in the bowl and an ice cube is in the oil. Hot stuff makes lumps in flour, so says Francois.

Got there in the end. Now to let it prove, bake and be eaten. Updates to what I predict will be a fairly inconclusive culinary excursion will follow... SOON!

 UPDATE!

So, it was very very good bread. All the people in the house said that it was particularly tasty and it remained soft and fluffy for 3 days (this is day 3 and it's still around). Maybe it was the inclusion of oil or maybe the flour combo, I'm not sure.

Inexpensive bread with inexpensive fake burgers! Excellent!

Would you like to know how to make your own? Follow the below ingredients! My bread had about a ratio of 4:2 of brown to white flour (the below ingredients are for a small loaf) and I used more than 1 teaspoon yeast, but not much more. Add water slowly as you thoroughly knead the dough, leave it to prove for about 7-8 hours (Mine went for something like 15 hours because I fell asleep.) I bake the bread for more than an hour as the brown bits taste pretty great.

Don't forget the vengeance.

Stay sassy my non-existent readership!