The Desian Universe

Dropping Twitter

Sun, 12 Aug 2018 01:03:33 GMT

For a variety of reasons, I'm going to start moving away from Twitter in earnest over the next little bit. I don't quite know where I'll wind up next (other than on Dreamwidth, of course), but I'll leave a forwarding address before I go.

I've felt for a while that that Twitter is not structured to promote healthy discourse. Twitter management has made decision after decision after decision after decision focused only on maximizing revenue^Wuser engagement, to the detriment of those of us who prefer to see content that is high-quality, thoughtful and insightful (not inciteful).

I can deal with the noise—I've turned off Retweets entirely, and I use a third-party client, so I'm insulated from most of their poor UI decisions. But in recent months, I’ve heard one too many stories of inaction in the face of bigotry and hate, and as a result, I've lost confidence in Twitter's ability to manage the community effectively. That, for me, was the final straw.

As part of a larger thread, @Jack said [emphasis added]:

Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.

I agree Twitter needs to get better at explaining their decisions, and I agree it's important to be consistent in how you apply the rules. But the rules themselves need to reflect the reality that accounts with a larger audience and more influence have a correspondingly larger impact when they misbehave. Words and actions need to be judged not only by their intentions, but by the type, breadth and depth of their impact. Higher-profile accounts need to be held to a higher standard, and Twitter has consistently failed to do that.

When Twitter allows public-figure bigots like Alex Jones and Donald Trump—both of whom regularly engage in hateful and/or violent speech—to remain active on the platform while suspending relatively obscure accounts for comparatively minor infractions, it sends the message that Twitter supports racism and bigotry. When Twitter bans Richard Spencer—a man who publicly advocates for genocide—and then unbans him a month later (supposedly because he was "creating []multiple accounts with overlapping use"), while at the same time suspending anyone who tweets, "punch a Nazi" for advocating violence, bigots and hate-mongers know they will look the other way.

The end result: Twitter has created lots of opportunity for the followers of neo-Nazis and alt-right leaders to follow their example, and in doing so, has sent the implicit message that what they are saying and doing is okay.

It's not okay. In fact, it's not acceptable. And while I understand that Twitter needs to abide by their policies as written, they should have done a lot more, a lot quicker, to ensure their policies actually have the outcomes they claim to desire.

They've had months, if not years, to get this right. Based on what I've seen this week from Twitter HQ, I have no confidence they'll figure it out anytime soon, and I'm not willing to wait any longer.

— Des

comments

Why I'm Voting No on the Bay Area's RM3

Sun, 27 May 2018 06:35:41 GMT

Regional Measure 3 is the traffic-relief plan that's on the ballot for Bay Area voters this election. The Bay Area is one of the worst regions for traffic in the nation, and RM3 proposes some badly-needed improvements to freeway interchanges, as well as additional public transit infrastructure and services. There's a lot to like about RM3, and much of what it does is worth the cost. However, it has two significant flaws, and one of them, in my view, is fatal.

First, it pays for the required $4.5 billion in bonds with $3 of bridge toll increases over the next seven years (~8%/year on average). The problem with bridge-toll increases, even minor ones, is that they often disproportionately affect low-income people who tend to have longer distances to commute and may therefore need to cross a bridge to reach their job. For them, an extra $3/day can mean the difference between a healthy meal and going hungry.

It's true that the minimum wage in California is going up even more than that over the same period. However, California, and the Bay Area in particular, is already suffering from extreme income inequality, and regardless of what else we may be doing to fix it, increasing bridge tolls is a step in the wrong direction. I would rather see the MTC and BATA work together with the Legislature to pay for this through a regional income tax increase tilted toward higher-income earners. I would even be willing to settle for a property-tax increase, which spreads the burden out over many more people (including those who always take transit and thus rarely drive over a bridge).

The regressive nature of the toll increase is enough on its own for me to vote "no". However, there's another reason: express lanes.

At a emotional level, I don't like them—I think they are fundamentally unfair. I tend to pejoratively call them "capitalism lanes" because they put people who can't pay at a travel-time disadvantage. Even so, if express lanes can measurably improve traffic, I can swallow my sense of justice and accept them, since nobody is forced to pay to use them.

It turns out, however, the MTC's own modeling predicts they will do almost nothing for traffic flow. In their model, the total vehicle-hours traveled barely changes (0.1-0.4% faster during peak times, and 0.2-0.6% slower off-peak). So a 1-hour trip during the evening commute would be shorter by about 1.4 seconds on average. I would get more of my life back by drinking iced mochas instead of hot mochas in the morning (which would save me ~1-2min microwave time).

Any benefit conferred by making more-efficient use of the available HOV lanes seems to be negated by an increase in vehicle-miles traveled (1.7%-2.1% during peak times), meaning more cars on the same pavement. The report doesn't say why overall trips were predicted to increase—it could be because people are traveling who otherwise wouldn't have traveled, or because more people chose to drive solo.

I don't think giving people a way to carpool less or drive more is worth $300 million. I think we should be doing the opposite—providing better transit service to get more people off the road, and adding more lanes to accommodate more vehicles (rich or poor, HOV or no). Express lanes don't meet either of those goals.

The express lanes, by themselves, are not enough to kill RM3 for me. But when you combine them with the regressive impact of bridge tolls, it's a little too much to swallow. All those tiny sales-tax increases, fee increases, etc. cumulatively have a big impact on people who are already at a serious economic disadvantage. We badly need infrastructure improvements, but not at the expense of people who can't afford it.

So, dear legislators, I'd appreciate it if you would raise my taxes instead of my barista's, and maybe quit fiddling with the freeway network's QoS settings?

Thanks,
Des

comments

What's Up with My Eyes

Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:09:55 GMT

So I've been a little remiss in keeping y'all updated on what's happening with my eyes. For those that missed this earlier, my optometrist was thinking I had a condition called pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD). Further investigation revealed, however, that what I have is actually its somewhat-more-common cousin, keratoconus [LINK WARNING: pictures of strange-looking eyes]. Both PMD and keratoconus are conditions in which part of your cornea gradually loses thickness over time.

Like PMD, keratoconus is still very rare (maybe 1 in 2000), but not quite as rare. As far as science knows, it's genetic-ish (there's a roughly 10% chance of inheriting it), but it can be exacerbated by environmental factors—there's a strong correlation with allergies.

Also like PMD, it's degenerative, but there are recently-developed treatments which can stop or slow the progression. One such family of treatments is corneal collagen cross-linking [LINK WARNING: More weird pictures of eyes], or CXL. The FDA recently approved an "epi-off" version of the CXL procedure ("epi-off" meaning they remove a layer of cells, which will later grow back), but there are also experimental "epi-on" versions which are safer and have shorter recovery times.

After a lot of research and investigation over the last 5-6 months, I decided to go with one of the epi-on clinical trials. Science still isn't sure if the epi-on versions are as effective, or what the appropriate dosages/timings/etc. are—that's what this trial is trying to find out.

But if I consider the fact that my eyesight is still quite good with glasses alone, and weigh the safety risk of the FDA-approved epi-off version vs. the risk that the epi-on version won't work, the epi-on version seems like the better trade-off. Even if the epi-on version doesn't work, I can go back and do the epi-off version later, and my eyesight likely won't have deteriorated enough by then to cause me any additional problems. My uncorrected vision would get a little bit worse, but not significantly-so as long as I get tested regularly.

With that decision made, I had the experimental procedure done a few weeks ago, on March 6th (Tuesday). Everything went smoothly, and while the recovery process was painful, I was mostly back to normal (and working from home) by that same Friday.

It will be a while—probably a year—before we know if the cross-linking actually worked. In the meantime, I can expect my eyesight to gradually get worse for about a month or so, and then better again until about the 3-month mark, at which point it should be back to where it was before. Over the following 6 months to a year, it may even get a little bit better than it was, although that doesn't happen to everybody.

Longer term, I'll need to wear rigid contact lenses for the rest of my life. I have glasses now, and they help a lot, but they can't fix the starbursts/halos I see with bright lights at night. And for someone who likes to drive (especially at night), that's a big problem.

For now, though, I don't get to even consider contact lenses until my vision settles down (likely between June and September). And in the meantime, I'm going to have to be particularly careful at night. But at least I have a path forward, and a lot more certainty about what to do next, and what to do if it looks like the experimental treatment didn't work.

— Des

comments

Our Toxic Relationship with Guns

Sun, 11 Mar 2018 00:56:45 GMT

Every bullet that is fired at a human being signifies a failure.

It may be the shooter's failure—a failure to resolve their own inner conflict, or a conflict with someone else. It may be the target's failure—a failure to resolve their own conflict in a way that does not pose a danger to others, forcing the shooter's hand. It may even be both the shooter's AND the target's, in some combination or another.

It could be the failure of an abusive parent to manage their own inner conflict appropriately, and keep their child out of harm's way. It could be the failure of a teacher or principal to spot the seed of violence in one of their students. It could be the failure of a police officer to de-escalate and resolve a situation peacefully. It could be the failure of community leaders to provide for the health and welfare of their community, to keep people off the streets and out of gangs. It could be the failure of a world leader to chart a peaceful path forward for their nation.

But make no mistake—every bullet aimed at a person represents a failure somewhere along the line. Every. Single. One.

In the US, there are a lot of bullets being fired at a lot of people. We own more guns per capita, by far, than any other nation. We have more gun deaths per capita, by far, than any other high-income nation. The only countries with higher death rates are countries with active war zones or countries in South and Central America with serious drug-related violence problems. [CNN]

The NRA believes that, "to stop a bad guy with a gun, you need a good guy with a gun". By shooting back, the theory goes, the killer can be dispatched more quickly, and fewer lives will be lost. And they have a point—I think we all can agree that, in an active-shooter situation, having a good person with a gun is better than not.

But the NRA is solving the wrong problem.

The problem is, people are shooting at each other. The question before us is not: "How do we respond to an active shooter?", but: "How do we stop them before they ever start shooting?"

The NRA has no answer, because answering that question requires them to set aside everything they stand for. The answer cannot be more guns.

Why not? Guns are not an effective deterrent. Anyone willing to employ lethal force is either rational enough to know full well that they can expect the same in return, or irrational enough not to be thinking about the consequences. The irrational shooter will not stop to think about the fact that someone might shoot back, and the rational shooter might minimize the risk in their own head, or decide to plan for the consequences accordingly (to the detriment of any "good guy with a gun").

If someone is passionate or cold-blooded enough to say, "I am willing to use lethal force", it's a safe bet they are strongly-motivated enough to follow it through, no matter what.

Second, and more importantly, having more guns creates more opportunities for their misuse. It creates more opportunities for passionate and/or irrational actors to do something they may regret later. It creates more opportunities for premeditated murderers to get their hands on tools of destruction. And it opens the door to more "innocent" mistakes—accidents which, while free of malice, still have permanent consequences.

Now, I don't realistically think we will be able to eliminate gun violence entirely. But I do think we can make a big dent in the numbers, and the easiest way to do that is to make some systemic changes which reduce those opportunities for misuse. Focusing on individuals or specific situations isn't going to work, because we have no way to identify them before they become a problem. Sweeping, systemic changes are needed.

We made some of those changes before, temporarily, with mixed results. We should revisit some of these experiments on a more long-term, or even permanent basis—long enough and comprehensive enough to definitively prove or disprove they work.

And as always, we need to make smart trade-offs between personal freedom and public safety. I think it's reasonable to give up a small amount of individual freedom for a large gain in public safety, and I also think it's reasonable to give up a small amount of public safety for a large gain in personal freedom (either a large gain for a few individuals, or a small gain for many individuals). I also recognize that, within reason, there are many who feel guns are an important part of their lives and personal-safety strategies.

Keeping that balance in mind, there are some experiments we should try ASAP:

Permanently reinstate the assault-weapons ban, and require private owners of assault weapons to surrender them to law enforcement. IMO there is no legitimate reason (apart from "for funsies") for a private citizen to own a weapon of mass destruction, but there is a large increase in collective safety in removing access to these weapons.
Permanently fund voluntary weapon buy-back and surrender programs nationwide. There is no loss of individual freedom here, but it does create an incentive to get more weapons out of circulation, increasing collective safety.
Require comprehensive background checks for all weapons and ammunition purchases, and require all states to submit comprehensive data on convictions for violent crimes to the background-check database. This limits individual freedom only to the extent that it prevents people with a prior pattern of violent behavior from obtaining tools to carry out violence. There is a correspondingly obvious benefit to public safety—seems like a good trade-off to me.
Require a waiting period for all weapon and ammunition purchases. Eliminating that "spur of the moment" decision to buy a weapon can help to reduce accidents and crimes of passion, but doesn't actually prevent anyone from getting guns and ammo they couldn't get otherwise. In this case, forcing someone to plan ahead can literally save lives.
Limit the number of weapons and rounds of ammunition a person can buy over time, across all sellers. This is a stop-gap should all other mechanisms fail. If someone has a clean background, plans ahead, and is still hell-bent on causing destruction, this will help to limit the carnage. The limits would have to be tuned carefully to balance typical use cases for guns (target practice, hunting, etc.) against the potential for any one buyer to get enough guns and ammo to do a lot of damage. Not being a gun owner, I don't know what those limits might be, but there should be limits.

If we try these out, and find strong evidence that these experiments don't reduce gun violence? That's okay; we've learned something new, and we can try something else. But let's focus on solving the right problem.

Many lives are at stake—maybe even yours.

— Des

comments

280 Characters

Sat, 11 Nov 2017 23:42:21 GMT

I'm glad Twitter doubled their character limit.

I think it's a small improvement on a site that has a long way to go to arrive at anything resembling civil discourse. Moreover, I see no downside—to the extent that it "makes Twitter less Twitter", I think it's a good thing. It probably won't encourage me to stick around on Twitter much more than I already do, nor will it really change how I use the service, or (I expect) how anyone else uses it.

It doesn't solve any of the problems with violent extremism flourishing on the site, nor does it solve any of the other problems with misinformation spreading like wildfire (looking at you, Retweet button), or biased verification and moderation practices. It doesn't solve the problem that Twitter, as an organization, is too cowardly to kick off someone who makes violent threats (and has the capacity to carry them out). Nor does it come anywhere close to solving the tweetstorm problem.

But it does leave just a little more room for nuance. It gives people the opportunity to say more, and get closer to saying what they actually mean. And that can't be a bad thing.

— Des

comments

Some Life Updates

Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:25:18 GMT

I've fallen out of the habit of journaling, and I've also been bad at talking about what's going on in my life. So, in an attempt to kill two avians with one projectile, I present to you an easily-digestible post custom-tailored and purpose-built to answer the question: "What's new, Des?"

Work gave me a nice title bump (to "Senior Manager") as part of my performance review, and forgot to tell me.
A couple months after my performance review, work also gave me more responsibility for technical (fun) stuff on top of all the managerial stuff I'm already doing.
I have an extremely rare degenerative eye disease.
A squirrel moved into my garage.

I promise I didn't make any of this up.

So let's get the hardest thing out of the way first—my optometrist is pretty sure I have PMD, or pellucid marginal degeneration [LINK WARNING: Pictures of strange-looking eyes]. The bad news is it's both rare and degenerative; not much is known about what causes it, how it progresses, or how frequently it occurs. It may or may not cause progressively more severe vision distortion as I get older, to the point that my vision becomes largely uncorrectable. The good (ish) news is my eyes are still in the early stages, and it may be treatable/stoppable, but the treatment is still experimental.

Those of you who have known me IRL for a while probably also know that I started wearing glasses a few months ago. I've had perfect vision for my entire life up until maybe the last year, when I started to notice, for lack of a better term, "lens flare" around bright lights at night. (It is definitely not a halo; it's an extremely irregular, offset, and stretched ellipse-like shape.)

So I went to an optometrist (which I had put off doing since, like, college), and she gave me glasses, which helped to bring everything into clearer focus but didn't do much for the "lens flare". After giving myself a few months to adjust, I went back in last weekend and we did some more tests (modern optometry technology is really f*ckin' cool, BTW).

It turns out my corneas (corneae?) are sagging.

For the first few days after I found out, I went through alternating waves of panic and depression. How the hell am I going to continue as a functioning, independent adult if I can't see? How do I get to work? How do I continue to write code, drive, or do any of the other things I love to do if one of my primary senses severely degrades or fails?

Honestly, I've been struggling with how to process the news. I wasn't even sure I wanted to share it at all outside of my poly- and bio-families; I don't really want pity and it wouldn't help, anyway. More appropriate would be a well-aimed kick in the pants when necessary, to keep me functioning like a normal human being. I'd also take ophthalmologist referrals, too, in the (perhaps-unlikely) event that you know any good corneal specialists in the Bay Area.

Anyway, in an attempt to lessen the panic and depression, even a little, I decided to research the shit out of PMD—if I can't think about anything else, I might as well think about it productively, right? Suffice to say I think the experimental treatment would be a good (and relatively safe) choice that would actually halt the progression, and pending further discussions with an actual ophthalmologist familiar with the procedure, that's probably the route I'll take. But, until everything is done and I know the outcome, it isn't going to stop the occasional bits of panic and depression from peeking through.

One other thing worth noting: I've been through this kind of scare before, and I adapted. For probably a good year or more, I was terrified I would have to find a way to stop using keyboards because they were slowly destroying my hands. But, thru lots of physical therapy and an actually-correct diagnosis (I had several over the course of maybe two years, ranging from ligament damage to localized arthritis to the actual diagnosis: trigger finger), I recovered probably 90-95% of my ability to type, and losing my hand function isn't something I worry about much anymore.

Medically, it's totally different of course—my hands are not my eyes. Also, I only just found out about the PMD recently, and I still have a lot of work to do (talking to an ophthalmologist, etc.) to learn about my specific case and come up with a treatment plan. But the experience with my hands taught me how to keep my head, focus on taking constructive steps to cure what ails me, and not let a little thing like degenerative eye disease interfere with my day-to-day life.

Especially since—for now—my eyes are still quite functional.

So, let's take a breath for a minute and talk about something banal, shall we?

I'm now a Senior Engineering Manager at work as of a couple months ago, which… yay, I guess? Except in a classic case of corporate dysfunction, they forgot to tell me. I only found out because I happened to look myself up in Outlook one day (I can't remember my desk phone number, ever), saw my new title, and went, "hmmm, that's weird…"

My boss was appropriately apologetic, and at the time, it didn't actually matter much since my responsibilities didn't change. It was a nice little ego bump, though.

Then, last week—the same week I found out about my eye condition—I also found out that I'm getting more responsibility shoveled onto my plate. Ordinarily I would complain strenuously—I have two teams, and 8 people, and that's more than one manager should have to take on, especially if they're also contributing technically.

However, I'm just getting more technical responsibility, and I can use that as an excuse to push some of the day-to-day project management stuff down to my folks. I've been wanting to do that anyway; I have too much on my plate and I've only very recently started to feel like I'm getting back up to speed with where I need to be.

So, hopefully work will get more enjoyable and interesting over the next little bit, and hopefully I'll get more opportunity to play around in the gray area covering "business requirements", "architecture", and "design". Developing stronger business and technical-strategy skills is never a bad thing, and I'm looking forward to it.

Alright, I can't put this off any longer. I'm sorry, Dreamwidth, but there's one more shitty thing we need to talk about: squirrels.

They shit everywhere.

Not only do they shit everywhere, they also tear up drywall, insulation, and wiring. Sometimes they chew through wiring just for the hell of it. I know this because one of them seems to have taken up residence in my garage, by coming down from the attic and punching a hole through the drywall. Hopefully that residence was merely temporary; I haven't seen any fresh movement of building materials in the last few days. Pest control is coming out soon, just to make sure.

But honestly, a squirrel? It couldn't have been mice, or rats, or termites, or other normal things that happen to normal people who own normal homes?

I know I'm weird, and weird shit happens to me, but a motherf*cking squirrel?

Come on.

— Des

comments

Firefox UI Refresh

Sat, 23 Sep 2017 03:40:19 GMT

I'm definitely happy with the new UI changes coming in Firefox 57. They're unobtrusive, functional, and elegant -- for someone who picks a web browser based on (a) power-user features, and (b) what the top strip with the tab bar and tool bar looks like, Firefox has leapfrogged past Chrome in a lot of respects.

It's too bad they had to drop XUL plugins to refresh their UI, though. Many of the most useful plugins were XUL plugins that were able to modify the UI in interesting ways, and tab/session management, in particular, suffers for it. The Tab Groups extension was excellent, and has no parallel in Chrome or other WebExtension-based browsers.

At the same time, I hope the new UI will eventually reduce the need for such extensions in the first place. Vivaldi has taken a stab at this with their own tab groups and putting tabs on the side; both of these are super useful for dealing with lots of tabs (although a little awkward in various ways). I hope Firefox will follow suit, or at minimum, provide more APIs to allow extensions to better-manage browser tabs and experiment with different philosophies.

— Des

comments

Performance Reviews

Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:20:07 GMT

This weekend hasn't been a great one for my mental state. Going in, I was already feeling generally overwhelmed and inadequate in life. Then I had trouble sleeping, and Othercat is off visiting one of their other partners, so I'm home by myself for the entire four-day (for me) weekend.

It's been rough.

That said, today has been much better than I was expecting. It got off to a slow start (I woke up at 10 and finally rolled out of bed at like, 11?), but I went for a nice walk earlier, and I've been knocking some important things off my list. It's nice to feel for once like I'm doing a good job at something.

That "something" is performance reviews for all my folks at work. Yeah, working a whole bunch on the weekend sucks, but in this particular case, I feel like it's worth it. I'm hoping that if I get as many of them done as possible, it will significantly reduce my stress over the next couple weeks.

I rarely have time when I'm in the office to sit, focus, and relax/de-stress enough to get big things done. So even though I'm burning weekend time to do it (at least some of which I'll be able to get back later), it feels like a worthwhile trade-off for my emotional health. I can also feel good about the fact that I'm giving each of my folks the undivided attention necessary to give them proper feedback (rather than scrawling "Good Job!" across the top of all their forms with a purple whiteboard marker).

I'm still not good enough, and I probably need to get back into therapy for that. But today feels like a small victory, and I believe there will be more small victories to come.

I hope, if I string enough small victories together, they will gradually turn into a big one.

— Des

comments

Why I Turned Off Retweets

Sat, 17 Jun 2017 23:31:56 GMT

A while back, I took a close look at how I was interacting with Twitter, and set some ground rules to see if I could make Twitter work better for me. It's been a little over a month, and the rules haven't been super helpful—I still found myself getting frustrated or annoyed at my timeline most of the time.

The blanket rule of "don't retweet or engage with politics" has helped lower my frustration level a bit, and kept me out of potentially fraught conversations, so I'd count that as a small improvement. But it hasn't been enough; I've still seen a ton of things in my timeline which made me angry.

That's partially because I haven't been able to unfollow anyone that is primarily political. This hasn't worked out because most of the people I follow post a mix of politics and other stuff I care about (what's going on in their lives, etc.). I would be missing out on a ton of that stuff if I just unfollowed everyone that posted something political.

So I took a different approach: a couple days ago, I turned off retweets entirely. I no longer see anything that anyone retweets. The Twitter FAQ says it's not possible, but you can do it if you're willing to go through and turn retweets off for each and every account you follow.

The result, while not anywhere close to perfect, has been a much more pleasant experience overall. Since I only see original content, I now miss most of the viral outrage that's been going around, but I still get to hear what's going on in my friends' lives.

Moreover, I'm more likely to pay attention to those purely social tweets, since I'm not searching for them amidst the noise of retweets. And, if someone has an earnest, original political thought they want to share, I still get to hear that too (which is way more relevant to me than "U SHOULD BE MAD AT THIS ONE COP IN LOUISIANA").

I also feel generally more informed, because I've been getting most of my news from reliable RSS sources instead of Twitter. That means more fact-checking, and more in-depth analysis. Sometimes there is a delay (often of a day or more), but I think accuracy and depth are more important than timeliness—timely information is actually harmful if it isn't accurate, or is incomplete.

Yes, I miss out on cat pictures and some of, "I thought this thing was cool so I wanted to share it", but I think it's a reasonable tradeoff. I care more about keeping my timeline free of non-actionable outrage that will make me angry to no good end, than I do about missing out on cat pictures or dog ratings.

It's still only been a couple of days, but the results are encouraging—I've been finding Twitter to be a more friendly, engaging place. All of my earlier guidelines are still in effect, though slightly modified:

Don't make retweets. Make signal, not noise—if retweets are mostly noise, I shouldn't be making them.
Don't read retweets. Turn them off, by default, for everyone.
Start or move deeper conversations elsewhere. This rule has been working well so far; nothing to change here.
Continue consuming news mostly through RSS. Accuracy and depth are more important than timeliness, which means Twitter is not the place for news.

Let's see how this goes; I'm optimistic these changes will help.

— Des

comments

Cat Checkups

Sat, 13 May 2017 05:49:03 GMT

Had my routine checkup yesterday, and everything looks pretty good. Still need to do my STI tests and such, but in general I’m healthy. My blood pressure, in particular, is near optimal, which is a marked improvement over last year, and I think it's due to both eating healthier and the fact that I've started holding walking meetings at work.

I also learned something new about my migraines: some of those things that feel like tension-type headaches (where they start in my neck and move up/forward) are actually more likely migraines. We’ve changed my treatment plan to take the migraine pill first and the standard NSAID painkiller second, even if I'm not sure at first if it's a migraine. The migraine pill is actually probably safer, and it’s overall better for my brain to abort the migraine as soon as possible. (As long as I'm not taking more than 9 per month, which shouldn't be a concern for me.)

I have a newer migraine drug to try, which should hopefully have fewer side effects, and I'm hopeful that changing the strategy will help overall.

Mental health is a different story. My partner has been pushing me to go back into therapy again. I had a discussion with my doctor, and she agrees. I scored in the "moderate" range for both depression and anxiety, despite the previous year-plus of therapy I went through, which ended roughly a year ago.

That's somewhat disappointing, honestly, because it feels like I'm back to right about where I was two years ago. I know that life is a journey, and the road is twisty, narrow, and doubles back on itself a lot, but come on. :^)

I'm more grounded, certainly, but it's also true that I'm still not on solid emotional ground. My excuse so far for not getting back into therapy has been that I'm not sure what it would accomplish—I don't feel like I have a clear problem I can define that I can ask for help with. Plus, I have a lot of good tools for dealing with anxiety and depression, I just don't use them when I should.

But maybe that last bit is the problem. How do I consistently motivate myself over the long term to use the coping skills I have, and maintain the kind/amount of vigilance necessary to realize when and how I need to use them?

Anyway, I'm going to give it some more thought—I'm not entirely convinced it's going to be super helpful for me at this stage, but it can't hurt, either.

— Des

comments

Updated Journal Style

Sun, 07 May 2017 20:08:17 GMT

Apparently I like playing with CSS for fun, so I have a new journal style, again. (I knew I was a masochist, but... :p)

As before, S2 isn't really doing much; most of the styling is in custom CSS. I wrote my own S2 layout just so that I could be more mobile- and CSS-friendly, and give myself more flexible ways to group things in the underlying HTML. I also had to strip out a bunch of older HTML nonsense (things like using <br/> to add vertical space, explicit styling on individual DOM elements, etc.).

Hope you like it; the new style is simpler and much less "LOOK AT ME I CAN DO CSS 3!"

— Des

comments

Changing How I Engage with Twitter

Sat, 06 May 2017 19:43:39 GMT

I've never been particularly thrilled with Twitter, but I've been getting progressively less happy with it over time, and I think it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate whether it's really working for me.

Twitter as a Social Tool

I'm mainly interested in Twitter as a way to keep up with the goings-on in my friends' lives. In this case, it largely fills the role that LiveJournal, IRC, and AIM used to fill when I was in college; I would check in periodically to see what was happening, get caught up on discussion, and contribute my own responses as appropriate. For IRC and AIM, those might be one-off/casual bits of conversation; for LiveJournal, they would be more thought-out, detailed, (sometimes not-so-)nuanced discussions of whatever was on my mind at the time.

For both types of interaction, however, Twitter is worse than what it replaced.

For casual interactions, there's no sense of space or privacy like there is with an IRC channel or AIM conversation. That means there's much less shared context, and no opportunity for localized social norms to develop. A vague or otherwise intellectually-lazy statement intended for consumption only amongst friends might get picked up, re-interpreted, taken out of context, etc. Because Twitter is a public forum, one has to be thoughtful and precise in any statement, even something hidden in an @-reply.

Sure, you can sh!tpost, or retweet funny pictures of cats, but express an opinion on something, even in passing? You're opening the door for a more thoughtful, nuanced conversation, and those (literally) just don't fit on Twitter.

Why? The 140-character limit actively discourages any form of nuance. There's no space for prevarication, or qualifying/limiting statements, or further explanation of any kind. Yet those details can provide important context, clarifications, or factual support. They can take a black-and-white statement and turn it into one of those all-important shades of grey.

In my experience, trying to squeeze more deliberate discussion into the 140-character limit can be dangerous, in the sense that it's easy to miscommunicate and misinterpret. For example, Twitter has become something of a political hotbed lately; politics is already a fraught topic about which it's difficult to communicate, and the limit really doesn't help matters.

There are only three ways around the 140-character limit that I know of, all of which are horrible hacks: (1) write something in a text editor, take a screenshot, and post the screenshot; (2) write a really long chain of self-replies (and flood everyone's timeline); or (3) post on another site (like Dreamwidth ;) ) and link to it. There are also DMs, but the point here is to interact with a group of people.

In short: Twitter is designed around the public sound bite. Falling into a deeper conversation, even by accident, carries with it an increased risk of miscommunication compared to other platforms. I've gotten into trouble frequently enough that I now think very carefully before engaging, even with people I know well.

Twitter as a Broadcast Medium

Twitter works much better as a broadcast medium (or at least, a headline dissemination medium), but even there it falls short of what I'm looking for. Most of the "broadcast" type material (news, calls to action, and so forth) that ends up in my timeline is some combination of alarmist, poorly-sourced, or not especially relevant.

It's not hard to figure out why: The easiest way to interact with something on Twitter (short of scrolling past it) is to push the "Retweet" or "Like" button. "Like" is pretty harmless, but because "Retweet" is so easy, the gap between "I saw the thing," and "I retweeted the thing," is exceedingly small—small enough that there isn't much room for conscious thought.

Moreover, it's been my observation that people tend to engage more with things that provoke strong emotional reactions, especially negative reactions. My own posts are a good example of this; in the last week, I've retweeted more political anger than I've written in original content (including replies).

Combine the bias toward strong/negative content with the ease of retweeting, and it's little wonder my timeline is filled with things that make me angry (and may or may not be true).

So what now?

Twitter is failing pretty hard at what I want from it. But there's one criterion I haven't mentioned: all my friends are there. So, I'll probably keep using it for the foreseeable future, even though I'd really like to replace it with something better.

But I do think how I engage with the platform needs to change. I'm going to try out a few guidelines for myself, as follows:

No opinionated or political retweets. It's too easy to pass on things that are alarmist or don't reflect my actual thoughts on the subject at hand. Retweets are also a great way to spread unsubstantiated rumor. I may strengthen this to "no retweets at all", if it turns out that I'm still reflexively hitting the "Retweet" button too much.
Start or move most deeper conversations in/to another venue. That could be a DM, Telegram, Dreamwidth, or in person, but it can't be in a context with a 140-character limit. I have a hard enough time communicating without cutting down my responses to fit into a tweet, and spreading replies across a series of tweets is generally difficult to write and to read.
Move my news consumption entirely to RSS. I've been following political and high-profile figures from my public/semi-professional account for extra color on various news stories, with somewhat mixed results. I think it's more trouble than it's worth to try to parse meaning on complex topics from individual tweets.
Unfollow anyone that is primarily political, and find other venues to interact with them. It's fine if my friends want to be political on Twitter. But I know that I won't get a lot of value out of interacting with them in that venue, and chances are high that we'll end up in the communication quagmire discussed above.

Let's see how this goes over the next little bit.

— Des

comments

Twitter

Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:43:23 GMT

I need to come up with some better rules of engagement for Twitter, I think. I've noticed there's a huge variety of situations where it's extremely easy to fail to communicate, and there are some classes of communication the platform just doesn't work for.

Do you have any rules/guidelines for yourself, and if so, can you share them in the comments?

Thanks,
Des

comments

"Sick" Today

Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:39:37 GMT

I slept like ass, so I took a sick day today. I probably didn't need to—I could have gone to work and pretended I knew what I was doing—but it seemed like a better idea to stay home.

And, really, if you look at how little sleep I've gotten in the past week or so, and how disturbed my sleep has been, it's little wonder I've been feeling depressed recently. When I don't get enough sleep, I feel powerless and worthless.

I know I'm neither of those things, but when I'm sleep-deprived, my emotional reality doesn't match my rational reality. It becomes much easier to string together a consistent narrative of failure, of not doing enough. Things at work are way behind and it's all my fault; I don't spend enough time with my partner; I have a million house projects that I've not completed; I haven't seen any of my friends in too long; none of my creative projects are coming together; I can't sit and focus on one thing for more than two minutes.

I'm not smart enough, socially-aware or friendly enough, hard-working enough, politically active in the right ways, sufficiently creative ... just not good enough.

I can't [exercise the modicum of self-control required to] go to bed on time every night. Instead, I stay up and play video games. I don't [have the discipline required to] exercise regularly. I eat poorly because ~~it's expedient and I'm making a tradeoff~~[I make poor decisions], and then feel bad about it afterwards.

But I know that's bullshit. It's bullshit because:

I'm writing this blog entry. That's producing something and honing my writing skills, even on my "sick" day off. [Fuck you, depression. I'm doing something right now, as I type this, to make myself feel better.]
I spent a good chunk of this weekend learning Rust by trying to create a game, and I'm forming and writing down my opinions about Rust. I may not produce any shippable software, but I will have learned something new, and I can share what I learned with others.
I saw my parents this weekend, and laid the groundwork for a significant conversation later. My parents aren't my friends, exactly, but they definitely count as an important social interaction.
I played some Stellaris this weekend, and finished Frog Fractions 2, both of which were things I was looking forward to. Even if they weren't "productive" tasks in their own right, they're still a valid way to take care of myself.
I have an OmniFocus reminder to eat veggies and such regularly. I'm even pretty good at following it. I also mostly only drink water (and mochas, but again, tradeoffs ;) ).
For my 1:1s at work, I take my folks on walks when possible, rather than sitting in a conference room. That's an extra 2-3 hours of walking per week.
At work, I'm pushing myself to learn new social and leadership skills, both of which are areas where I feel I've been historically weak (Boy Scouts notwithstanding). I'm making a lot of progress, and my coworkers have noticed and commented on the difference.
At work, my team and I are tackling our most ambitious project ever. Yes, progress is slower than anyone would like, but we're learning a lot along the way, both technically and about project and self-management.
I've recently gotten more involved with my local community, since I'm helping our HOA with their newsletter.

So I'm not doing bad at all, not on the whole. I'm not on solid emotional ground, by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not doing bad. Everyone I know, at work or at home, or wherever, needs to take the occasional sick (or even "sick") day. Nobody can be on 100% of the time, and nobody can be expected to deliver creative output, consistently, over a long period of time. (A very few people can, and I envy them.)

There are plenty of things that are legitimate problems I need to work on, like getting enough sleep, or that occasional feeling of dread that crops up in response to various social situations. (That social anxiety-thing really fucks with me sometimes.) And a lot of those things are the seeds for the kind of runaway negative self-talk that leads to me feeling depressed. There's absolutely more that I could be doing.

But I need to take time to explicitly remind myself that even though I spend so much time focused on problems, there's a lot to be grateful for, and there's a lot I can be proud of.

Otherwise, I'll have more days like today.

— Des

comments

Perfection Is the Enemy of Creativity

Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:16:03 GMT

I've been feeling pretty creatively unfulfilled lately, and I think that's because my standards might be too high. I start a new coding project and think, "oh, this part would be better if I did it this way or had this other tool," then start building the tool, think, "oh this part would be better if ...", and repeat.

I won't say I'm a perfectionist, but I'm not far off. My standards are calibrated for industrial-strength enterprise software built by legions of engineers, not small projects built in my (rather limited) spare time. In those environments, handling every single corner case matters, as does testing the fuck out of everything. And so I never finish anything, because I need an entire team of engineers to write, "Hello, World!".

I know a lot of you fine folks are in the same boat. Whether it's art, or writing, or code, or music, I've lost count of how many times I've heard you say, "My work isn't good enough. There are so many ways this could be better." And maybe we're even right about that; striving to improve yourself and your work is a good thing.

But it's also really hard not to get sucked into the vortex of perfection, and lose sight of what you're trying to accomplish. So I often have to ask myself: "Is something shitty better than nothing?"

It's so much easier for me to make something when I don't care about the thing itself because either (a) I'm just fucking around, or (b) I need it for a specific purpose, so there is a clearly-defined goal and a desire to expend the minimum amount of effort. In fact, my most successful/complete projects almost entirely fall into category (b), even though those projects are probably the least rewarding.

I need to find a way through that dichotomy. How do I make any progress at all on something I really care about? How do I just write this blog post without worrying about where all the punctuation goes?

I need to make more cool shit, but I need to do it in a way that's actually rewarding and achievable. How do y'all do it?

— Des

comments

Calendars, Spoons, and Downtime (A Cat Story)

Sat, 04 Mar 2017 23:24:54 GMT

I'm continuing to struggle with feeling like I have enough spoons (and so are a lot of other people I know). I feel like I should be able to power through an 8-hour workday, then come home and have enough energy left over to do literally anything else. But, especially over the last few weeks, that definitely has not been the case.

I was talking to Othercat about it, and I think there might be a couple reasons why.

First, I don't leave enough space for downtime in my day. More often than not, my calendar is literally packed with meetings and other things I need to get done, to the point that I've started telling people, "If it doesn't show up on my calendar, it's not happening." On more than one occasion in the last couple weeks, I've walked into a meeting saying, "Sorry I'm late, I had to run to the restroom."

Because my calendar is so full, I start the day looking at it and going, "oh god, I don't have enough me-time in here, I'm going to be so overwhelmed". So I'm already starting off with the mindset that my day is going to be ridiculous, and it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The end result: by the time I get home from work, I'm basically ready to eat dinner and go to bed. I'll spend the next few hours listlessly staring at my computer, watching TV, and/or reading a bit (either news or some fiction or non-fiction book) before I pass out.

This isn't really how I want to spend my life.

I want to be able to come home after having put in a full 8-hour day and still have enough spoons to make some progress on my own projects. I have a whole list of stuff I want to do around the house; I want to see my friends more; I want to actually dig in to things that bring me joy. Or at the very least, I want to get enough chores out of the way that I have time to do those things on the weekends.

I don't know how people do 12 hours a day for weeks on end. I can't even do 8, not without very consciously pacing myself (and sometimes not even then).

Part of me wonders if this is some introvert/extravert dichotomy; does it cost me more spoons to sit in meetings and talk to other people than it would an extravert? Probably, but I also have to believe that exercising those collaborative muscles will stretch and grow them over time.

Anyway, the point of all of this is: I want to find better ways to pace myself and manage my mood during the day so I have energy left over at night. This is a thing I've worked on a lot in therapy, but I'm also realizing I'm just not aggressive enough when it comes to blocking out (down)time for myself.

If "it's not on my calendar, it doesn't get done," then "stop and drink tea and breathe for a bit" had better be a recurring meeting on my calendar.

What are your thoughts? How do y'all cope with having too much to do and not enough time to do it?

— Des

comments

Call Your Congresspeople: Fire Jeff Sessions

Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:59:25 GMT

To whom it may concern:

I'm writing to demand the immediate removal of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. Then-Sen. Sessions lied under oath to Congress concerning his communication with Russian officials. In my view, this raises serious questions about Mr. Sessions's personal integrity, at a time when this country needs strong leadership and non-partisan investigators more than ever.

I urge you to take all necessary steps to remove Mr. Sessions from office immediately.

Best Regards,
[Des]

comments

Keeping Up With The News

Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:40:10 GMT

I've been spending more and more time lately trying to keep up with the news. Quite frankly, it's overwhelming, and probably unhealthy—spending 2-3 hours a day reading about Donald Trump is enough to drive anyone crazy.

I think there are a few reasons for this: I just like reading, I'm afraid of missing something "important" (which my friends/coworkers/etc. will catch), and I'm afraid of missing something actionable. I don't want to find myself in a position where something Really Bad(tm) happened, and I didn't do everything I could to prevent it.

That said, I also need to make sure I take care of myself, and that means spending time on things that aren't politics. It means having my own hobbies and projects at home, spending time with friends, exercising, eating, sleeping, and generally relaxing.

So how do I balance my fear of missing out with taking care of myself?

The first and most important thing I need to do is limit my time in front of a news reader. I can make the choice that all of the aforementioned self-care tasks are more important than keeping abreast of everything that's going on.

I can also change how and when I check news. I can set guidelines like the following:

Always check my RSS reader before Twitter.
Sort articles newest-first so I'm starting with the most up-to-date information.
When I've spent "enough" time catching up, mark as read everything I didn't get to.

But I'm also thinking about how to best use the time I do spend on news, and the reality is, I'm spending a bunch of time just sifting through headlines looking for things that are relevant. I want to cast a wide net; I have probably 20 newsfeeds that I'm following (not counting "fun stuff" like xkcd), and that means a lot of headlines. Maybe 1 out of every 30-40 headlines actually holds my interest, which is a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio.

So how do I reduce the noise? Can I still cast a wide net and see only the things that are most relevant across all my chosen sources?

By now you're probably thinking, "No, Des! This isn't a software problem!" And you're right, I'm not super keen on letting software decide what I do and don't see at any given moment, at least not without a clearly-defined, easy-to-understand set of rules governing that decision. But I do have to wonder if there's some socially-responsible way to do algorithmic filtering.

What kind of tradeoffs would be necessary? Sources notwithstanding, could we even reach something that approximates "unbiased" and "fact-based" (or at least, not consistently biased in any particular direction)? Can we avoid the pitfall of, "this is popular, therefore it's right"?

I'm not sure much of this is possible without human intervention (and probably isn't possible even with human intervention). But it would be interesting to try.

— Des

comments

Interesting Tidbits from Today

Fri, 10 Feb 2017 06:05:26 GMT

First, the full text of the Ninth Circuit ruling on the government's motion to re-instate Trump's executive order on immigration. Predictably (and happily), the Court unanimously decided to leave the stay in place. But there were a few juicy tidbits:

The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens. [p.13, emphasis mine] ...

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. [p.14]

Damn right there's no precedent. This isn't a dictatorship.

The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge ... is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely. [p.21-22, emphasis mine]

It's interesting that the White House seems to think an opinion issued by one of their lawyers holds any kind of legal authority. I have to wonder how many other instances of this happened in previous administrations.

On a different note, here's a paper exploring public reaction to various kinds of protest in a lab setting. I think they're reaching a bit with their conclusions; real life is messy and this paper describes a series of tightly-controlled experiments. But I've also seen some of what they're describing, and I'm reasonably convinced they're right: protests need to be just disruptive enough to raise public awareness, but not so disruptive/extreme that the public becomes hostile to the cause.

Keith Ellison is one of the two top contenders to chair the Democratic National Committee. Mother Jones takes a look at his background. My takeaway is he's a fighter more than he's a negotiator, and he understands the importance of individual outreach. I think he'd be a better fit than Tom Perez, if for no other reason than he's willing to kick out the lobbyists and big corporate donors, which would give him room to re-focus the party on people.

Wholesale ethics violations continue, surprising nobody.

And finally, some interesting opposition research, also from The Guardian.

— Des

comments

Who is changing your mind, and how?

Sat, 04 Feb 2017 23:08:15 GMT

The Internet, large corporations (even brick-and-mortar stores), your credit card companies, etc. are all collecting and selling your personal information. Other companies are buying that information, aggregating it, and using it to build a detailed psychological profile of you. That profile, in turn, is being used to target you with fine-tuned, individually-tailored ads and political messages.

The Data That Turned the World Upside Down

Psychologist Michal Kosinski developed a method to analyze people in minute detail based on their Facebook activity. Did a similar tool help propel Donald Trump to victory? Two reporters from Zurich-based Das Magazin went data-gathering.

The end result, in at least one recent political race of consequence:

From July 2016, Trump's canvassers were provided with an app with which they could identify the political views and personality types of the inhabitants of a house. It was the same app provider used by Brexit campaigners. Trump's people only rang at the doors of houses that the app rated as receptive to his messages. The canvassers came prepared with guidelines for conversations tailored to the personality type of the resident.

Trump's data-driven approach meant that his people were able to focus on the people that mattered most—the bystanders most receptive to his message. (Compare this to Clinton's failed model-based approach to campaigning.)

Liberal organizations can learn from this—these are powerful tools, and they're available to anyone with the budget. How many receptive bystanders in swing states could we have recruited to vote for Clinton if we had been paying attention to the data?

Individuals can learn from this, too—when you use those loyalty cards, or when you "Like" that post, you're making it just a little bit easier for a stranger, armed with a bunch of data about you, to change your mind.

— Des

comments

On the UC Berkeley Protests

Fri, 03 Feb 2017 05:06:10 GMT

I was listening to the radio on my way home from work this evening, and they did a spot on the recent UC Berkeley protests. I couldn't help but notice that most of the airtime was devoted to discussion of the violence that had taken place, and relatively little time was spent on the actual reason for the protests. They even went out of their way to call attention to the fact that a couple Republicans were injured in the protest.

The two articles I could find on the topic from the same news station were titled, "Riot Forces Cancellation Of Yiannopoulos Talk At UC Berkeley", and "UC Berkeley Chancellor Blasts Violence Over Yiannopoulos Speech". Just as on the air, both articles lead with the violence and bury the reason for the protest in the middle of the article.

Looking at a few other (somewhat left-leaning, even) news agencies yields a selection of similar, mostly-negative headlines, with one or two neutrals or positives:

Alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at UC Berkeley (The Mercury News)
UC Berkeley cancels 'alt-right' speaker Milo Yiannopoulos as thousands protest (The Guardian)
All Hell Breaks Loose at Campus Event for Alt-Right Leader Milo Yiannopoulos (Mother Jones)
After night of violent protests, Berkeley cleans up damage (SFGate)
Anti-fascist activists take on Trump and the far right: 'Resistance is our only shot' (The Guardian)
UC Berkeley riot raises questions about free speech (The Mercury News)

Similarly, on Twitter, the local journalists I follow were tweeting mostly pictures of fire and looting. (I won't link to their posts since there are a lot of them.)

Frankly, this looks bad for anti-fascists. Whether or not you think violent protest is okay in principle, our message is getting lost behind fear and violence.

When people see fire, shattered windows, and smashed ATMs, that's what they're going to focus on. It doesn't matter why people are lighting fires and breaking windows, it just matters that they are. Everything else they see—our message, the downtrodden masses, the police brutality—is colored by the fact that "protestors" started it. (And no, it doesn't matter that the provocateurs weren't part of the "official" protest. [link is to a local journalist])

I have not participated in any of the recent protests (large crowds are increasingly hard for my introverted self to handle). But when I was (non-violently) protesting for marriage equality in college, I would for the most part see three general classes of reaction:

From bigots: Scowls and/or heckling
From other supporters: Enthusiastic waving, honking, shouting, etc.
From unconcerned bystanders: "Why are they blocking the street?"

Presumably we are protesting because we're trying to make a change. To do that, we need to convince everyone we can that our change is the right thing to do. We're not going to convince the bigots, fascists, and so on; they've already made up their minds. We're not going to convince other supporters; they don't need convincing. That leaves people who are on the fence, unconcerned, uninformed, or just plain haven't thought about it much. These bystanders are our target audience.

Protests are a great way to get their attention; a little disruption goes a long way in getting bystanders to sit up and take notice. But when they do, they're first going to wonder, "Why are those protesters blocking the street?" It's incumbent on us to have a crystal-clear answer, and make sure that nothing distracts from that message.

"Black Lives Matter!"

"Women's rights are human rights!"

"Immigrants are welcome here!"

If a bystander's first impression is of fire and broken windows, that is how they'll remember our cause. If people are injured or killed, even if it's not our fault, that will stick in their minds more than anything we might have to say. Our opponents will use this to their advantage—they'll label us "violent extremists", they'll accuse us of trampling on their rights, they'll counter with their own, "reasonable"(-sounding) arguments, and those arguments will resonate all the more for standing in opposition to violent extremists.

Violence distracts from the message, and then—just as it did at UC Berkeley—it becomes the story. The message is forgotten.

— Des

comments

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:53:17 GMT

Not going to make it to BLFC this year. The room block filled up way back in August while I wasn't looking, and the standard rate is way more than I'm willing to pay, given that they put us in a smoking room last year, and there does not seem to be a guaranteed way to get a non-smoking room.

comments

Con Panel Idea: Protecting Yourself Online

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:30:20 GMT

I'm thinking of putting together a panel for the next FC ~~or BLFC~~ [I'm not going to make it] on how to protect yourself online. Some potential topics for discussion include:

What is "security"? What is "privacy"? (threat modeling)
What to look for in a "secure" service. (Not all security/privacy protections are the same; how to tell the difference.)
Browsing the Web (HTTP and HTTPS, certificates, etc.)
Chatting online (Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, etc.)
File storage (Dropbox, SpiderOak, etc.)
Choosing secure passwords/passphrases
Protecting your phone and computer from attack

The EFF has a great resource that covers a lot of these topics. I would be leaning heavily on their material, and supplementing it with additional details that I've learned or researched (e.g. Telegram's over-hyped security).

If you're going to one of these conventions, would you be interested in such a panel? If so, what would you like to see/hear/learn about?

While I have a strong technical background, I'm not a career security expert. If you're an expert, or at least have a strong security background, would you be interested in reviewing my material and/or co-presenting?

Leave me your thoughts in the comments below.

— Des

comments

Letter to Sen. Feinstein Re. Confirmation of Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA Head

Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:13:50 GMT

Posting this here for posterity, and just in case any of you feel inclined to write similar letters. ;)

Dear Sen. Feinstein,

I’m a constituent from the Bay Area. I’m writing to let you know that I was, frankly, appalled by your vote to confirm Rep. Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA. A man who has a long track record of supporting both torture and mass surveillance has no place running an organization with a history of abusing and misusing its powers, even to the point of spying on you and your staff.

A man such as Rep. Pompeo has neither the willingness nor the capacity to bring this rogue agency in line, and I have no confidence in his desire or ability to follow the law and the Constitution when it comes to the privacy and due process rights of American citizens or citizens of other nations.

Furthermore, while I am well aware that you and I disagree on the issue of mass surveillance, you should know that a Pew Research survey conducted in 2015 showed that “65% of American adults believe there are not adequate limits on the telephone and internet data that the government collects.” While I don’t know (and Pew did not publish) the number for California specifically, you are clearly out of step with your constituents and the rest of the country on this issue. I hope you will take these views into consideration in your dealings with Director Pompeo and others in the intelligence community in the future.

Going forward, I expect you to thoroughly investigate all of Pres. Trump’s cabinet nominations, and vigorously oppose any nominees who have a history of (a) failing to recognize the serious threat to global security posed by climate change, (b) advocating for the imprisonment, deportation, or unequal treatment of any protected class (Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, LGBTs, etc.), (c) advocating for the repeal or dilution of the Voting Rights Act or similar provisions of law, or (d) disregarding established fact in favor of “alternative facts”, propaganda or similar fabrications. I expect you to oppose these nominations REGARDLESS of what might be said in their confirmation hearings.

In particular, I expect you to vigorously oppose the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, and Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Both of these individuals are unfit to serve for some, if not all, of the reasons listed above.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards,
[signature]

comments

Is this thing on?

Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:57:48 GMT

Spent the weekend dusting off my Dreamwidth account as a place to be both social AND long-form. (And by "dusting off", I mean I built a custom layout and theme. Hope you like it!)

While I have my website for long-form thinking, it's evolved to be something more formal than I want to use all the time, and it also doesn't really afford me the opportunity to interact with you folks, since there's no commenting system (and I don't want to go to the time and expense of maintaining one).

While I have Twitter, it's just not that useful for discussion of any kind. The tweet length is too short, and most nuance gets lost, leading lots of rage and little opportunity for substantial, thoughtful engagement. (And, to be clear, I'm just as guilty of this—I engage when I shouldn't, or when I should do so in another forum, and the discussion has a way of spiraling pretty quickly.)

LiveJournal used to fill that same social/thoughtful niche for me online, but they're no longer trustworthy as a company for a variety of reasons. So here we are. I like Dreamwidth's business model and if I find that I'm using them regularly, I intend to $upport their efforts.

It's funny to me that after all the "advances" in social media—Twitter, Google Plus, Medium, and so on—I still prefer to be on what is almost the same platform I was in the early 2000s. Sure, you can re-skin and update your UI, or improve/extend your back-end infrastructure, but there's just not much more to be done to improve a good ol' blogging service.

Hope to see y'all here soon.

— Des

comments