Category Archives: world

Editorial vs. Catalog

Ha, maybe I do want to write.

To my occasional embarrassment, sometimes I get in the habit of watching a lot of tv while knitting. Especially shows like What Not to Wear and America’s Next Top Model, which send Lucas running. One recent Saturday, I saw an episode of ANTM where Janice Dickenson (former model and full time crazy person) was teaching the girls the difference between posing for editorial and catalog photos, and it clicked with something I’ve noticed about how people respond to fashion content.

Editorial photos are what Vogue does with those multi-page articles showing Keira Knightly on the savanna. Catalog is more obvious; it’s what you see in department store ads and mail-order catalogs and anywhere a retailer is trying to convince you that you, too, could be that woman in the turtleneck and boot-cut jeans. Models pose differently for these two kinds of pictures (check this yourself: where are they looking? are they smiling? what about posture?) but the way the clothing is styled is different too.

A catalog image needs to convince you that you can wear something. The people will look happy. They’re probably standing straight and looking at the camera. The clothing will be styled to reflect the buyer’s (presumed) lifestyle, without a lot of elements you’d have to be highly exhibitionistic to pull off. But editorial photos are meant to do something else. They’re more conceptual, less practical. The focus is on inspiring the reader and evoking a mood. Runway shows will do this too. They’re trying to sell you on an idea.

But people outside the fashion industry aren’t necessarily tuned in to this distinction, and are often more focused on ‘can I wear that?’ than ‘ooh, I want to be a Baroque German Princess too!’. So you get complaints that the models in Vogue Knitting are wearing tutus with their sweaters, or there’s no camisole under the sheer blouse, or something else along those lines. Our habits for evaluating clothing are more practical, less imaginative, and we don’t automatically analyze ‘how could I make that work for me?’. I don’t think that’s bad, but it’s an interesting tension to observe. It probably has applications elsewhere, too. Are we selling an idea, a mood? Or an item to plug into someone’s existing needs and lifestyle?

As a footnote, this is what’s interesting about ‘shopping’ magazines like Lucky. Their aim is to take these concepts and break them down into things the reader can directly buy or do, bridging the gap. They identify trends and break out the components, and then show multiple versions so the reader can find one they like. If you’re interested in staying fashionable without spending a lot of time on it or hiring a stylist, this is perfect.

My take on Harry Potter #7 (no spoilers)

I definitely enjoyed it, and it was worth reading straight through for eight hours to get to the end, but ultimately I’m disappointed that it never really transcended its fluffy children’s entertainment roots. Seven books is a lot of words to put on the page without significantly improving as a writer. There were so many hints of complexity in the background that were glossed over to keep the focus on Harry’s experience. So it was an appropriate ending for the story, and it’s a more mature tale in the levels of violence (and snogging), but the storytelling didn’t really mature with it.

Also–I can think of so many other things I would have liked to hear about in that epilogue, rather than the completely predictable direction it took.

Also also–I’ve seen people complain that HP is not nearly as awesome as various other YA works (and by implication, is overrated relative to the complainer’s favorite books), particularly Phillip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy, but I thought those suffered the same kind of disappointing hollowness at the end. Maybe more so, because the big important thing Pullman built up to seemed awfully cheesy and over-hyped once I got to it. Whereas the big important things discovered at the end of HP were about right.

Reading: Cryptonomicon, Virtual Light trilogy

I started re-reading Cryptonomicon before I left for San Francisco, and finished it a few days after returning. It’s really interesting to read a second time, after getting through the Baroque Cycle. You can see the beginnings of Stephenson’s interest in currency and economics. Also, the technology really ties the book to 1998/99, so in a lot of ways it feels like a book about a year that didn’t happen that way, but could have. (I just went and found his website, which is dated in design, but contains a very entertaining set of pages listed under “Author”.)

Next I read Virtual Light, Idoru, and All Tomorrow’s Parties in quick succession, because I’d been in San Francisco and wanted to see if the books were any different as a result. Interestingly, there was a bit of that, but more striking were the things that have or haven’t happened yet. The books are intended to take place in the early 00s, I think, but the pace of technology in real life has been somewhat slower, so we’re just now starting to see 3D VR communal spaces, and not particularly widespread. Plus SF and Tokyo have not been hit by massive earthquakes, so there’s no rebuilding and no chance of people who live on the bridge. And I think the one thing that everyone looking forward missed out on, which is how prevalent cell phone use is and how that’s really shaping everything.

But I recommend reading these three books one after the other without breaks, because I could see how they hooked together much more clearly with everything fresh in my mind. I really enjoyed the “average joe” nature of the characters, too, which hadn’t struck me before. It’s not a Star Trek universe, where all the main characters are exceptional and we never really see how most folks live. Rydell is just this guy, in the middle of strange events. I like that.

Something that’s been on my mind anyhow, but one of the characters in All Tomorrow’s Parties actually says, is the idea that geography is “dead” because of communications technology. Maybe if you spend all of your time in the suburbs, or traveling the tech conference circuit, it could look that way, but most of the time it’s more like we have a better pair of binoculars. Not “flat” or whatever metaphor you want to use.

One of the things I would like to see happen is a shift from different kinds of labor being sorted by where people are cheaper (which is a grossly insulting concept, yet pretty widely accepted) to a system that focuses on the particular strengths and weaknesses of different communities, and the various specializations and offerings that might come out of that. The Portland area isn’t your typical high-tech hub because we don’t have the university R&D outflow like the bay area or Seattle, and the area seems to attract young people with a relatively laid-back approach to earning money. But we do have a large open-source community here, maybe as a direct result. There are things about the environment that draw people with particular interests, and we’re starting to see communities forming and collaborating as people become aware of this. I think that pattern has the potential to be true anywhere, and it’s only in accepting that geography does matter that we’ll be able to see it.

I’ve been feeling a certain amount of ennui over the last several months, on and off. The good side-effect is that I’m reading more. The bad side effect is that I feel like I don’t really know what I want to be working on. I’m not sure if the recent focus on near-future technology-heavy sf is helping or not. I picked up some part time contract work. And there are cool things I’m working on, like the magazine and the food carts and etc. So I don’t know why I still feel unfocused. Maybe I need to find more collaborative things? Or take a long vacation at the coast? It’s frustrating.

Hierarchies and planning

A few thoughts on picking the right structure for the activity:

I’m not pro- or anti-hierarchy. I think there are times when hierarchical group structures make sense, and times when collaborative/flattened structures are better. I’ve been noticing that groups struggle a lot with this issue (particularly groups that want to keep an open structure, like RCC or BarCamp). So here are some things to consider:

  1. Smaller groups are more agile. Dilbert has covered that in detail (it’s funny because it’s true). The more people in on a decision, the longer it will take. Including more people does not guarantee that everyone’s views are considered appropriately, either, because not all people are assertive in large conversations.
  2. If something has to get done, then one or two people need to be responsible for monitoring it. I’ve been in too many situations where people assume that “the group” will be able to make sure that all the important details are covered. Sorry, but this doesn’t actually work. It’s like organizing a potluck: you’ll end up with three kinds of jello salad, brownies, and five bottles of cheap wine. This may or may not be the dinner anyone wanted to eat.
  3. Planning committees and other active sub-groups do not have to be permanent, unchanging structures. Maybe right now you need a couple of people to scout out locations or call sponsors and report back. Later you’ll need people to clean up, but it might be enough to announce that at the start of the event and post a sign-up sheet. Be flexible. Don’t turn it into some kind of clique or cabal.
  4. Also related: not everyone has to participate at the same level. Some people will want to be involved in every aspect of planning. Some people just want to show up. There are many levels in between. Keep this in mind as you sort out what work needs to be done.
  5. If the larger group involved can come to a consensus on the goals of the activity, you’ll be able to act in a much more focused way. Use the goals as a boundary line to ask “Is this inside or outside of the thing we want to do?”
  6. The more hierarchical and specialized the group structure, the clearer your guidelines for communication need to be. This is also true of urgent issues or those that have a strong impact on people’s lives. Maybe you have three people researching code management and bug tracking systems, and they can give a summary at the big group meeting next month. Maybe you’re involved in disaster planning, which has very strict guidelines for organization and communication. Ask: “Who needs this information? How frequently do they need updates in order to do their job (and to feel in the loop)? Who should be giving feedback?”
  7. Give people just walking in a handle on the activity. It needs to be easy to figure out what things can be done next, or who has the first aid kit, or who will be planning the marketing effort. If the newcomer can’t walk in, find something to do, and figure out who to ask more specific questions, they won’t stick around.

This is phrased in terms of a group planning a single event, but I think the same considerations are important to a lot of different activities. Think about how this affects your company or department at work. Or your user group. Or your parents’ 50th wedding anniversary party. The basic principles are the same any time you have a group of people and something you want to do.

Some things sound better in the synopsis

I woke up this morning lightly feverish, that feeling that says “you will be spending the day in your pajamas on the couch unable to do anything but read fiction”. So I opened up Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, by Cory Doctorow. The thing I had always heard mentioned about this book is that it’s an interesting take on the idea of a reputation economy, the idea that all commerce is done based on what people think of you, rather than cash and capitalism.

The thing no one mentioned (so far as I’ve seen) is that the effects of the reputation economy in this book are actually kind of horrific. This seems to be a common thing that happens when you read science fiction. Yes, that book you heard about does have lots of cool tech, but it’s actually not as fun as it sounds. Which leaves me wondering whether people who go on about the shiny tech (or social and economic environment) actually read the story, or just the description on the back.

Another take from a different line of work

I’ve been meaning to post about Elizabeth Bear’s novel Carnival for the last week or so, because it’s really interesting and both like and not like a lot of other sf I’ve been reading, in very cool way. It involves colony worlds and government oppression and gay men and matriarchy, and this is actually not cheesy in the ways that summary will make it sound. It’s in paperback now. If you like space adventure you should get a copy.

Anyhow, she also has an essay up at Subterranean Magazine right now, and I thought it fit well with what I wrote about last night.

Dear Patriarchy:

I don’t care what you think.

I’m not here to convert you. I’m not here to enlighten you. I’m not here to try to earn your respect. I don’t need it.

I am not scared of you.

You see, I can win without you. I can make a living without you. I can reach a broad readership of women–yes, and men too! lots of men! men who are enlightened, and emotionally secure!–without you. It’s really kind of awesome. After fifteen years working in corporate America, actually, where I usually had to do what a particular type of authoritarian men wanted if I wanted to keep my job, these days, I can pick the audience I care to appeal to.

nolove, Bear.

Go read.

The mountain will eat you

Oregon has been in the news a lot the last month as a place where you can die alone in the snow. In Portland you’re more likely to get a little chilly in the rain and then go inside for a drink, but we have Big Mountains in the middle of the state, and Little Mountains to the sides. Portland misses the worst weather by being in the wet valley in between.

Given the amount of finger pointing I saw when the Kim family went missing (over the highway maps, the unlocked gate on the road, signs that suggest the road they were on was a legitimate scenic route, etc), I can’t figure out why the news reports on the three lost climbers this last week haven’t bothered to mention that Mt. Hood can be dangerous year-round, and deciding to climb the most difficult route in December with minimal gear and no emergency locater beacon is the kind of stupid plan that just begs for something to go wrong.

Even experienced climbers get turned back due to weather, even in the summer. The forest service has radio beacons available for climbers because people get stuck and lost up there every single year. It makes me angry to hear that search and rescue teams are out there risking their own safety to look for people who should have known better.

Here’s what the national forest service site has to say about climbing Mt. Hood in fall or winter (and this info is for the south route, the safer/easier one).

It is not the wisest time of year to climb unless you have exceptional mountaineer and climbing skills. I want to emphasize this because the mountain has yet again witnessed another rescue incident that could of totally been avoided. Mt. Hood is a technical mountain not to be taken lightly. Proper equipment is necessary to ensure your safety for example like a HELMET, CRAMPONS and ICE AXE to name a few.

It is unfortunate that Mt. Hood continues to get dismissed as an easy climb. To be honest it can be considered easy but for someone with proficient mountain skills and has several years of experience. But to someone with out any idea what they are getting into could be a serious undertaking. So be cautious and exercise good judgment. The mountain is always changing so you still need to be aware of the rock fall, crevasses, avalanches, lighting, wind, ice ect.

That the climbers are from Texas and New York fuels my suspicion that people from other parts of the country have no idea what the environment is really like out here. Yes, it rains, but it also snows, freezes over, floods, etc, and the wilderness is beautiful but hazardous. I love it out here, and I wish everyone would show a little more respect.

I want to tell you a secret

Here it is: your spiffy new business idea, no matter how cool or interesting, is not so super-special that you need to keep it secret. Unless you’ve already signed some military contract that requires you to keep your mouth shut or you’ll be shot, the odds that you don’t sound completely silly when you say “we’re in stealth mode” or “I’m not allowed to disclose our business model” are pretty much zilch.

Why? It’s like the writers (especially screenwriters) who won’t give anyone a plot synopsis until the work has already been sold (and people who talk like this never seem to sell anything, in my experience). The chance that your idea is so amazingly unique that your whole project can be stolen away by a competitor who hears about it is very low. Look at Antz vs. A Bug’s Life, or Armageddon and Deep Impact. Two sets of competing projects by different movie studios, and I have no idea which one in each set was started first, because they’re all good or bad for different reasons. It’s the implementation that matters, not just the concept.

I’m bringing this up because I keep running into this sort of thinking in the course of talking to people about tech companies and when browsing job listings.

A sample:
For consideration, contact me and I’ll send you a non-disclosure agreement for you to sign and bring with you to discuss the project in detail.
CTO at Stealth Mode Travel Start up–To apply tell us about things you have seen and could hypothetically reverse engineer. Conf agreement required before details are given.

This is really silly. Most people who express interest in your project are not going to have the time or money to copy it, no matter how cool it is, and even if they did, their version will probably look completely different. A good idea is the smallest part of a good project or company. Look at Google, the last search engine to enter the market. How many stories or movies do you know of with essentially the same plot? How many songs about heartbreak? Travel booking companies? The details are more important.

There’s a difference between not giving away technical details (the “secret sauce”) and not being willing to share what kind of business you’re starting and how it plans to make money. Especially once you’re ready to hire on employees or get funding. Once you reach a certain point, obscurity is the bigger enemy.

Tags: , , ,

Some job posts are bad, and then there’s this one

I was reading through the job board on 37Signals earlier, when I spotted this:

Chief Geeky Dude at AKQA

Location: Washington DC
URL: www.akqa.com

Description
Join AKQA Washington DC’s senior staff. The Technical Director is responsible and accountable for the overall leadership, and direction of AKQA’’s flash and web development teams. Or as stated so eloquently by our Creative Director: CHIEF GEEKY DUDE THAT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE GREAT IDEAS AROUND HERE A REALITY DIRECTOR. We are looking for a highly talented, web focused flash/technology “’mad scientist’” who wants to be part of delivering amazing online experiences for some incredible brands.

Aside from the fact that it reads like the writer was drunk at the time, there’s one huge glaring problem with this. I can’t think of any way that one might reasonably read the job title and think that this company was equally interested in hiring a man or a woman, which means there’s a good chance that they’re violating the equal employment laws on non-discriminatory job ads. Dude means men, in every context I’ve encountered.

I can’t decide whether I should email 37Signals about it or not. Do they look at the job posts before they go up? At $250 a month, I’d expect actual human involvement, but who knows.

Anyhow, in Ruby programming news–I had the dumb realization that if I couldn’t get the Blogger API to work, I could always write a script to email the posts instead. So I did. Slightly more interesting automated content coming soon.

Tags: , , ,

From the NYT: Institutions Hinder Female Academics

This article from the NYT on the results of a study of women in science and engineering was one of the brighter spots in my day. Not because the news is good (far from it), but because the conclusions are so important and it feels good to see this relayed in a major newspaper. I am furious when I hear the assertion that women are less successful in certain fields because they are innately less capable, less motivated and interested, or just not qualified to do the work. It’s ridiculous and dehumanizing, and yet there’s been a rash of this line of thought on some of the tech blogs lately.

A couple of quotes that caught my eye:

The panel dismissed the idea, notably advanced last year by Lawrence H. Summers, then the president of Harvard, that the relative dearth of women in the upper ranks of science might be the result of “innate” intellectual deficiencies, particularly in mathematics.

If there are any cognitive differences, the report says, they are small and irrelevant.

The report also dismissed other commonly held beliefs — that women are uncompetitive or less productive, that they take too much time off for their families, and so on. Their real problems, it says, are unconscious but pervasive bias, “arbitrary and subjective” evaluation processes, and a work environment in which “anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage.”

Tags: , , ,