You are here

Steven D. Brewer's blog

International Mother Language Day Activity

For International Mother Language Day, I propose the following activity: Construct a corsage or bouquet that conveys a secret message in floriography (the language of flowers) that honestly describes yourself, where the significances of the flowers have complementary meanings in both Victorian and Japanese traditions.

For extra credit, create similar arrangements for one or more of your acquaintances.

Salutations

Over the past few years, faculty have found something new to complain about. They used to complain bitterly about students who forgot to silence their cell phones in class. And faculty would rail about how unbelievably thoughtless it was for students to do this. Who could IMAGINE such rudeness!?! Then, one day, faculty just quit. The reason, of course, was that they themselves got a cell phone and discovered that it was incredibly easy to forget to silence your cell phone before class. Once it had happened to them — in church or at a movie or in their own f***ing class — they realized that maybe this wasn't the hill to die on.

Lately, it has been about email from students. Faculty love to get on their high horse about email communications from students, railing to one another about how rude students are. And some are now providing students a guide to email communications in their syllabus. Here's a nice one from a writing center: Effective email Communication.

OK. We've all gotten email that was thoughtless or poorly written. But c'mon. They tell students that they need to use a salutation and a closing, like a business letter. Stupid. Email is a memo, not a letter. It has a "To:" line. Now, it's true that if I send a letter to someone I don't know — or if I sent a letter to one person and copy others — a salutation to make clear to whom the letter is written might be helpful. But mostly, it's just ballast. The same with a closing. You should be using a properly structured signature block.

Now, it may be true that showing some additional care -- or stroking the ego of a fragile faculty member -- may score some points with some people. So I'm not saying it's necessarily bad advice to be aware of these expectations and tread carefully when you're not sure. But the tender snowflakes getting pissed off if someone doesn't conform to one is just pathetic. Get over yourselves.

Government Investment

This week, David Brooks describes how innovation may transform the economy over the next few decades.

[…] what if we gradually created a world with clean cheap energy, driverless cars and more energetic productive years in our lives?

He says, "Government investment has spurred a lot of this progress." But remember: the Republicans have crushed the ability of the government to invest in anything. The austerity imposed on government spending since Reagan has left Universities on their knees and a whole generation — maybe two — of promising young scientists have given up on academia, unable to make a living.

Basic research is fundamental to creating the opportunities for innovation. But that's precisely what's gotten choked off. I'm not saying that the reason you don't have a flying car is because of the Republicans, but we'll never know how many additional avenues for innovation have been missed because people weren't looking.

The Long National Nightmare Ends: Biden Inaugurated

Four years ago, like the majority of people, I was horror struck by the election of Donald Trump. But I was not surprised. I had recognized the strong anti-establishment fervor in the country and realized that, in spite of her eminent qualifications, Hillary Clinton was the wrong choice for the moment. In large part, the dissatisfaction was the Democrats' failure to successfully deliver on many of the needs of ordinary Americans. There were many reasons for this.

Barack Obama was extremely cautious as President. I believe he recognized the historic nature of the first Black presidency and wanted to make sure his administration was free of scandal and avoidable failures. But this resulted in choosing safer, less risky alternatives when choosing among options. For all the Republicans tried to find even a whiff of scandal in his administration, the greatest problem they ever found was that he wore a tan suit one time.

Obama expended a huge amount of his political capital trying to reach out to Republicans. He genuinely believed he could be a transformative figure in American politics and tried to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. They ruthlessly exploited his overtures and unified against him to minimize his accomplishments. But he wasted a lot of time and made a lot of concessions and got nothing in return.

There was a point where a lot of people were disappointed with Obama's lack of accomplishments and some joked, "Where are my rainbows and unicorns?" But this was always projection with Obama. He was always a center-right technocrat. He was never a populist or leftist. We got Obamacare which, for all its flaws, was a huge accomplishment and which the Republicans have spent 10 years fruitlessly trying to overturn. But we also got a huge increase in the drone wars and deportations. The post recession stimulus was nowhere near large enough and in his second term, he was paralyzed by Congress and limited to what he could accomplish by executive order. All of which could be quickly undone when Trump took over.

Now that the long national nightmare of Trump is over, I'm looking at Biden and trying to make sense of what he's likely to do. On the one hand, he's also presenting himself as the unity candidate, seeking to unify both parties. But, at the same time, he has several things Obama did not. For one thing, he has 36 years of experience in the Senate. This is undoubtedly going to give him a leg up. He's also been inside the White House before, which will help him hit the ground running. Finally — to be blunt — he's white. As we've all learned, this might make a significant difference — especially with the racist Republican scumbags he has to work with.

Launching Simultaneous Processes

A student in my course is looking for a way to launch processes simultaneously on multiple raspberry pi computers. It was not immediately apparent to me how to do this, but the first thing that came to mind was "at" which lets you schedule a process to launch "at" a particular time. To test, I set up two rasberry pis: mahiro and poneo.

I wrote a python script:

----now.py----
#! /usr/bin/python3
import time
ns = time.time_ns()
timestamp = time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S", time.localtime())
print(f'"{timestamp}",{ns}')
file = open("/home/pi/attest/time.txt","a")
file.write(f'"{timestamp}",{ns}\n')
file.close()

a shell script to invoke it:

----now.sh----
#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/python3 /home/pi/attest/now.py

I put that on two pis, made sure the timezone was set to eastern, then used a script on my laptop to invoke it:

----attest.sh----
#! /bin/bash
ssh pi@mahiro at -f /home/pi/attest/now.sh "$1 today"
ssh pi@poneo at -f /home/pi/attest/now.sh "$1 today"

So, this uses ssh to talk to the pis and runs the "at" command to run the bash script at a particular time today. Then I tell the script what time to run, e.g.
./attest.sh 10:30am

And then the script invokes the processes on the same second on both pis. Here are the results:
----poneo----
"2020-11-10 10:22:00",1605021720479176213
"2020-11-10 10:29:00",1605022140756637058
"2020-11-10 10:30:01",1605022201055563711
"2020-11-10 10:31:00",1605022260561006216
----mahiro----
"2020-11-10 10:22:00",1605021720479176213
"2020-11-10 10:29:00",1605022140295769154
"2020-11-10 10:30:00",1605022200649709852
"2020-11-10 10:31:00",1605022260111136737

The first time, it worked PERFECTLY -- the nanosecond time readings are identical. In the other ones, they're not even always within the same second. But pretty close.

So, now we need to decide whether this is close enough or if we need to find another approach.

Language of Flowers

Language of flowers in Dragon Maid

I've been aware of the Language of Flowers for a while. I probably became aware of it first through Japanese anime. I seem to recall that one of the first episodes of Naruto has a scene about the language of flowers. More recently, I loved the scene in Dragon Maid where Saikawa gives Kanna shepherd's purse, which has the meaning "I'll offer you everything" according to her book.

Recently, we watched the movie Enola in which the Language of Flowers plays a small but significant role. And it turns out that the Language of Flowers was also a thing in Victorian England. Who knew!

Wikipedia, reliably, has a good summary about the Language of Flowers and has a link to a beautifully illustrated book from circa 1900 entitled Language of Flowers. According to Wikipedia, the Japanese language of flowers is called Hanakotoba but it isn't clear whether they're completely independent or not.

I've been writing haiku for years about flowers but had never considered using the Language of Flowers as a source of inspiration. Just recently I wrote a haiku about ferns:

According to the Greenaway, ferns mean "Fascination".

I also recently wrote a haiku about Goldenrod:

Golden Rod (two words) means "Precaution."

I don't know that I'll want to use the English language of flowers or Hanakotoba for haiku. But it's something to think about. And potentially a source of inspiration.

unapologetic

you always stood up tall
the times I chanced to pass this way
your silent eloquence to all
a comfort every day

but now i stand alone
beside the place you used to be
a testament you still provide
to those with eyes to see

Catchphrases

During our morning chat, Phil referenced Johnny Dangerously's catchphrase, "Once!" and so I asked him what his catchphrase is. He didn't reply immediately, so I helpfully suggested a couple of possibilities like "Aclarity" and "We're not just stotting around, here!"

He replied, "Heels touch ground when Slavs squat around!"

I said that sounded like a pretty weird catchphrase to me, but it turns out to be a reference to some offensive video I hadn't seen before about squatting. This is part of Philip's never ending quest to trick me into watch weird movement videos.

In any case, I subsequently asked Lucy what her catchphrase was and, after a moment of reflection she said, "I dunno." Then she brightened and said, "Hey! Maybe *that's* my catchphrase!"

Five minutes later, she asked me, "Hey, hey! So what's your catchphrase?"

Upon a moment of reflection, having completely forgotten what we were talking about five minutes ago, I said, "I dunno." Then I brightened and said, "Hey! We have the *same* catchphrase!"

Animal Crossing Observations

I've always loved computer games. When I was young, I got to play arcade games as they first came out. I remember when Pong was first installed in our local pinball parlor. I spent a lot of time in video arcades in high school. When I became an adult professional, I found that many of my colleagues had basically never played such games. And I played relatively few as I worked to establish my career.

When my children were little, I would often identify a game they were playing and play it with them. In part, this was to have a an excuse to do things with them. I often felt like my dad would let me participate in his world (going for a hike, birdwatching, etc.) but was never willing to engage with me about things I was interested in. I wanted to find something they were doing that I could stand. So I played Pokémon with them (they got Red and Blue while I got Pokémon Yellow — with Pikachu!). And the Zelda games. And a variety of others, along the way.

At the same time, I try to set limits. I generally only play one game at a time: I played Ingress until I decided to try Pocket Camp and played that until I switched to Pokémon Go (at the suggestion of a son). My goal is that playing games remains just a small part of my day.

We got a Gamecube as our first video console game when it was relatively new. And one of the first games we got was Animal Crossing. I was immediately charmed by the game: You arrive in a a new town and buy a house with a gigantic loan that you need to pay off by collecting stuff (fruit, then insects, then fossils, then fish, then art) and selling it to earn "Bells" — the currency. The guy who loans you the money (a suave business-tanuki) also runs the store that you buy and sell stuff at. But the game had a variety of creative touches: in particular there was a museum that would accept donations of one of each of everything to put on display. And some fish and insects could only be found at certain times of day, or certain locations on the map. Or certain seasons.

One of the best features was that it appeared to be intentionally designed to have you to play every day, but to play for only a relatively short amount of time. It gave decreasing rewards the longer you played in a particular session. Although you could "grind", you could do most of the stuff that needed to be done for the day in a half hour. You could pick all the weeds, collect all the fruit, etc, and then there just wasn't much to do. But you might want to check back at various times of day to see if different fish or insects were out.

After the GameCube, the kids moved on, and I hadn't played Animal Crossing for years. I never played "New Leaf" which was released for the Nintendo DS (which I didn't have). Two years ago, Nintendo released a mobile game called "Pocket Camp" which I played for a while.

When they announced the newest version in the franchise, New Horizons, I figured I might try it to see what it was like. But I wasn't particularly excited about it. Then the Coronavirus happened.

Animal Crossing has gotten a huge amount of press worldwide as people cast about for something to do during the quarantine. The best article I've read so far is The Quiet Revolution of Animal Crossing which describes the game as a thought experiment about how life could be organized along a different set of values, that maximizes happiness and freedom over profit.

In my five-person household, four of us are playing Animal Crossing together. My younger son, who is the only one who has a switch, was gracious enough to let the rest of us create houses on "his" island. It's been fascinating to me to watch how each of use apprehends and constructs a completely different reality about how to organize their in-game activity.

He was actually pretty unhappy at having to share his island -- and even volunteered to purchase another switch to avoid this fate. But it was too late: there were no longer any available for love or money. As the primary player, he was the one that had to spend money early in the game for any infrastructure and for the animal residents. And for a while, this added to his passive-aggressive relationship with the rest of us. But when he hit it big in the "stalk market," he became a bit less concerned with money.

My older son has been more interested in large-scale engineering projects to facilitate resource extraction: reshaping the landscape to improve the quality of fish and creating separated spaces for large orchards to grow fruit, or constructing giant fields of flowers to generate crosses to get different colors.

My wife, who was an avid player of pocket-camp, is entirely driven by the gamification. There is a second form of currency (Nook Miles) which you earn by accomplishing tasks. She structures her game play to maximize earning Nook Miles, so she generally sells things or buys things, not due to need or interest, but only when the system offers you a reward for doing so.

I think I understand my own perspective best. I approach the game as play. I am not particularly goal oriented, but enjoy moving through the game with serendipity finding things (like fish and insects) and trying improve the aesthetics of myself, my house, and the island. That said, I'm not above using the gamification features to somewhat restructure what I want to do: sometimes I identify things I want to buy and then wait to purchase them until there is a reward.

A brief digression about gamification: as has been amply documented, rewards undermine the potential for developing intrinsic motivation. A good in-game example is photographs. The game sometimes offers a reward for taking a photograph. So you can get the reward for just randomly clicking the button. And that's what my wife's photographs tended to look like. But the game offers a vast array of resources for taking *interesting* photographs. In fact, its pretty clear that the game designers realized that by enabling people to take photographs and share them via social media, they could give the marketing additional reach.

Looking at the pictures posted online, I notice a further division in the kinds of images posted. Some people share the ordinary events of the game: "Ooh! I caught a coelacanth!" Whereas others show some creative project they undertook: a labyrinth of tarantulas or my archaeological site (see below). Those are the only interesting ones, to me. Everyone experiences the ordinary moments of game play. But seeing something uniquely creative, like these wanted posters where Jolly Redd moors his boat.

I created a little archaeological site that I'm rather pleased with.

Nintendo even set up a place ("Photopia") where you can dress up rooms and characters from your island with all of your furniture and clothes to stage scenes to photograph. I discovered early on that this includes the avatars for other players. There's something deeply unsettling about being able to take another player's character, strip them to their underwear, and then dress them and pose them however you want. I mean, it's not R rated. But it still felt like a violation. (You can find these pictures and more at my Animal Crossing Image Gallery.)

As a further aside, I wish it was easier to get the image files out without posting them to social media. As far as I can tell, the only way to get them out is by removing the MicroSD card and copying the files by hand. I don't really want to give the switch (and anyone who uses it in the household) permission to post as me to social media. That's just not going to happen.

Animal Crossing is like a Rorschach test that causes each player to see different aspects. Some people see Animal Crossing as representing consumerism gone mad: go into more and more debt to expand your house and stick useless stuff in it! At the same time, there's no obligation to do that. The animals live very simply. Players have to opt in to the consumer culture. Nobody makes you take out larger and larger loans -- or even pay off the loans you have. There's no interest. You don't even need to build a house: you can keep just living in a tent, if you want.

I'm also playing as "girl" character which has been interesting. I never took much interest in clothing in the previous games: Your avatar had to wear something, so I'd pick some generic clothes and then basically never change them. As a "girl" however, I have skirts and blouses and sweaters and tights and shoes and am taking great delight in mixing and matching them. I also annoy people by saying things like, "It's not lady-like to run with tools in your hands."

The most difficult aspect, for us, has been reconciling our different perspectives on managing the island. This particularly came to a head when we all got the ability to terraform the island -- to add or remove water features and high ground. Who gets to make those decisions? When should you consult with others? Governance is hard work -- even for a game. We're still struggling with this. We've had a couple of passionate arguments about this, but have been able to work through them so far.

The multiplayer aspects have been particularly interesting to me. One multi-player mechanism is to visit other people's islands or let them visit yours. In this way, you can get things that are rare or not available on your own island. Or, if you're participating in the "stalk market" you can buy or sell turnips at more favorable prices. But there is also a cooperative game-play mode.

While playing, you can "tag in" other players who can share the screen with you while you play. But this means there is the single, shared screen. The camera keeps the main player on screen, but moves to try to keep the second player on screen. If they go too far, they unceremoniously pop back on to the screen. But the loss of sole control of the camera can be pretty frustrating and makes certain activities difficult or impossible without the active collaboration of the second player. For example, you can't reliably see fish to catch them without the connivance of the second player. Having realized this, I've taken this as a challenge, to co-play effectively in a supporting role. It's a unique dimension to game play that I hadn't considered before.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Steven D. Brewer's blog