Skip to content

Tunisia Revisited

Watching the dominoes of corrupt regimes topple in and around north Africa has been fun. Tunisians got their regime change; Egyptians got their regime change; Libyans got a murderous reaction, but one which promises to harden the opposition rather than destroy it; Saudis are now gathering to make their push.

It’s fun, upbeat news for the US populace! As long as events remain far away, it’s easy to glance over and decide it’s all a narrative of the unstoppable force of popular democracy. Popular democracy is a virtue we like to pretend this country still embraces, rather than leaving it ignored on a shelf of memorabilia, and it’s easy to pretend that the US is still the shining beacon of inspiration for democracy everywhere, so their victory is really our victory. As long as the violence and disruptions and very real fears that come with enacting revolution are far away, along with the frustrations of rebuilding a toppled government, it’s all happy news.

And that’s fine, as far as it goes. Populist democracy should be celebrated wherever it grows. That’s no excuse, however, for overlooking the far more important narrative of how the rebuilding goes. Tunisians got their regime change, yes. But did it work? Does it look likely to work, since it’s early yet for the whole governmental infrastructure to be reworked? And how will the democratic movements tackle the underlying economic problems that triggered revolution, presuming they get a working government in place? Those are issues every bit as important, interesting, and above all instructive as the initial question of whether the corrupt old tyrant gets swept out of office. Yet news concerning these matters is disappointingly difficult to come buy, here in America.

It’s symptomatic of a general public retreat from participation in our own government and our own social policy, and most especially of the shallowness of news coverage deriving from the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle and the monetizing of journalism, that we should hear delighted reports of good guys winning in north Africa, yet no reports of what they won. Watching good guys kick out the bad guys is fun; watching how to make democracy work isn’t fun. Or, if your of a cynical turn of mind, dangerous information, even here in America, for the rubes to have.

2011 03 01 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink

Actual People, Actual Play

When our weekly RPG session fell through yesterday, I turned to the web for solace, reports of actual gaming experience to confirm or contradict my developing expectations (read: concerns) for the FATE system. In the process, I came across Actual People, Actual Play a podcast devoted to playtesting RPGs and reviewing how specific mechanics affect play.

Since they’ve been doing a lot of FATE recently—mostly The Dresden Files, but also a one-off in the gonzo post-apocalyptic style of Thundarr and Gamma World, and comments that suggest an earlier stab at Spirit of th e Century—the site was just what I wanted. But more than that, it’s topic is something of perpetual interest to me, delivered by people who seek to stay even-handed and open-minded. An excellent podcast, well worth the time of any system geek.

Gamers who don’t particularly care about systems as such should nevertheless listen to episode 44, which is a hoot.

2011 02 28 mdlake Games Comments (0) Permalink

Keep the Envelope; Let Me Guess

I rarely pay much attention to the Academy Awards. I’m not enough of a movie fan to have strong opinions—hard to have opinions without seeing more than one film in a category—and there’s too much bullshit interfering with the stated purpose of the awards: sympathy votes for beloved actors nearing death, for example, or apology votes for actors unfairly overlooked the previous year.

But I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Inside Job will beat out Exit Through the Gift Shop for documentary, even though Eileene and all her friends are rooting for Exit. We watched the lattter, and I have to agree it was very good. We didn’t watch Inside Job, but that’s supposed to be excellent, too. (I dare not watch it because it will just work me into an impotent rage.)

So why is my money on Inside Job, a movie I haven’t even seen? Because I expect the basic message “bankers have been screwing America” to play better with the Academy’s sympathies than the basic message “the art community is full of frauds.” Just a hunch.

2011 02 25 mdlake Politics
Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Strapped Out

Along with my fobbie, my nylon briefcase gave up the ghost, the nylon parting and shredding where seams had formed, to the point where we simply had to get another.

And mostly I like it. It’s not perfect, but nothing would be; many things I want from a briefcase, like compactness and capacity, are contradictory. I’m still getting used to the squeeze through the opening slot when half-open, and the front pocket doesn’t hold an apple very well, but the grip is comfortable, the profile slim, and the case props upright easily. Mostly I got what I expected. Except.

The strap doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Adjustable straps are old technology. Everyone knows how to make one. Take the strap, add to one end a clip that can grip anywhere along the length of the strap, fold that end back and attach the clip to the strap, forming a sort of figure-9: the point where the clip grabs the strap is the point on the figure-9 where the loop meets the tail. Now fix the tail of the nine to one end of the bag and attach the loop to the other end of the bag, using a ring through which the strap can slide. If you want to adjust the strap, all you need to do is select where to fix the clip—closer to the tail, short strap; farther from the tail, long strap. Simple, right? Impossible to screw up.

Thinking the basic design of the adjustable strap to be idiot-proof, I didn’t examine my new bag’s strap closely. Only after a few uses did I go to use the strap rather than the handle, and had an unpleasant surprise: the point of intersection on the figure-9 is simply sewn in place. It isn’t adjustable. I was fooled because there is indeed a clip such as I’ve seen on other adjustable straps, but it isn’t attached to one end; it simply slides freely along the length of the strap.

Even this would be all right, had the permanently fixed length been permanently fixed to a reasonable spot. But it isn’t. Using the strap hitches my briefcase right up under one armpit. If I have a coat on, it cinches up so close that my arm can’t move freely. Slinging the strap over my head to distribute the weight across my torso is simply impossible.

I guess a buyer can’t take anything for granted, even when purchasing idiot-proof technology.

2011 02 24 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Death of a Fobbie

My fobbie died on me. Perhaps I should explain; I picked up the term “fobbie” from Eileene, and I’m not sure “fobbie” is a term in widespread use. It means one of those little portable USB memory chips about the size of a finger that contain more computing power than the entire eastern seaboard in 1978.

Or some of them do. Mine had a capacity of 1 GB, which is pretty modest by fobbie standards, but it served admirably well for my needs: the occasional transfer of a few text files or a .jpg between machines when our wireless was down, or when I didn’t want to connect directly to a strange computer, or when I couldn’t find a cable, or in one case when I wanted to wrap some .pdf files as a Christmas gift. We’re becoming more connected daily, but sometimes a little old-school data transfer is the way to go. Like books in an era of Kindles.

But alas, my fobbie died. I didn’t know they could wear out, except perhaps at the contact point that slides in and out of the USB port. Maybe that’s what happened here. And after years of good service, from a gizmo I got for free—inherited from Eileene, who picked it up as a freebie at some kind of tech expo—I need a replacement. More expensive, less physically esthetic, and almost certainly more powerful for no good reason than that they don’t make them in 1GB size anymore. It will be missed.

2011 02 23 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Unions and Education

Now here’s an interesting little factoid.

Among the arguments teabaggers like Wisconsin governor Scott Walker put forward for busting teachers’ unions is that teachers’ unions perpetuate bad teaching, as measured in depressed scores on standardized tests like the SAT.

Now, far be it from me to put forward standardized test scores as the measure of effective education. Liberals generally and teachers specifically who urge more comprehensive testing of a more comprehensive education. But let us meet conservatives on their own ground: let us consider mastery of the three R’s the best education, drilling in the three R’s to be the best way to achieve it, and standardized tests the best way to measure it. How do teachers’ unions affect standardized test scores?

Five states deny teachers the right to collective bargaining. These rank 44th, 47th, 48th, 49th, and 50th in the nation for standardized test scores. Wisconsin, where the teabagger governor, conservative legislature, and all the influence the Koch brothers’ money can buy seeks to outlaw the teachers’ union? Number two. Look those over again. No unions: dead last; Wisconsin, top of the list.

Correlation is not causation; these figures do not prove that outlawing unions lowers test scores, or that the presence of unions improves test scores. We may speculate that there is a causal link, that teachers’ unions are the de facto advocates for improving education (among their many concerns) and that teachers, with their education degrees are the best qualified to judge what may improve education, and that unions work against advocates for policies that will (knowingly or otherwise) harm education in the pursuit of other interests. But these figures do not prove such a link. They do, however, conclusively demonstrate that unions do not depress scores, that unions do not harm education, as measured by the preferred conservative metric. Any assertion to the contrary is at best an expression of ignorance, at worst a deliberate lie in the service of sabotaging public education.

2011 02 22 mdlake Politics
Teaching Comments (0) Permalink

FATE

Small press RPGs continue to be printed. Perhaps they’ll never vanish entirely. Happily, one has proven that they can still generate buzz.

Some roleplayers are drawn to games that offer ever more spectacular powers to paste onto the same old ass-kicking, some are drawn to intriguing settings, and some—the system geeks—are drawn to interesting rules. System geeks believe that rules have a significant impact on play, and constantly prowl for clever new mechanics, whether rules applicable to an intriguing scenario or rules that streamline the standard flow of play or, ideally, rules that frame gaming itself in a fruitful new perspective.

System geeks are flocking to Evil Hat’s FATE system, offered as an open game license in the spirit of the FUDGE system from which it derives. (And, incidentally, resuscitating the FUDGE system’s reputation, which was long praised by critics but rarely played by anyone.) My fellow system geek Dave is excited about its possibilities; he’s sent me a .pdf of a draft version of Spirit of the Century (two-fisted) and lent me his books for Diaspora (space opera) and The Dresden Files (licensed from the Harry Dresden novels, yet another secret supernatural war in the dirty city). That’s a lot to digest in one go, especially as I adjust to a sharp reduction in free time, but I’m making my way through all three in rough parallel, skipping from chapter to chapter and book to book to examine mechanics rather than reading any one cover-to-cover.

As you might expect from an OGL, none of the rules are quite compatible, but they’re close. The basic approach is a synthesis of a skill list system and a trait-based system, with fate points tacked on. Characters select from a list of thirty-or-so skills, being allowed a certain number of skills at various degrees of mastery. (So, for example, one character might be an amazing marksman and a competent survivalist and mechanic and possess other skills besides; another might be an amazing occultist and competent con artist and researcher; but nobody could be amazing at two skills and competent at none.) Skills are fairly broadly defined, and characters could end up looking too much alike without aspects.

Aspects, the choose-your-own traits, can provide both bonuses to actions and complications, and are FATE’s defining feature.
Characters select a number of aspects to describe qualities that lie outside the skill list. A character with the aspect “alabaster man” might get a hefty bonus to impress people, especially authorities, with his skill and nobility, but might also find himself compelled to live on the straight and narrow at inconvenient times. Aspects can apply to people, places, and things; the Dresden Files continually offer the example “On Fire!” for a burning warehouse; in the course of a play, a warehouse that acts as the scene of a fight is accidentally set ablaze, and that aspect can also be employed to the players’ advantage (I want to escape while falling timbers prevent pursuit!) or disadvantage (The smoke and flames block your vision!) As a rule of thumb, players use aspects for bonuses and the GM uses them to trigger complications, but it can work both ways: an insightful player can guess at an adversary’s weakness and tag his aspects. (I think these goons are Not Too Bright; can I spend this fate point to get them to fall automatically for this cock-and-bull story?) A player can also volunteer to suffer for his aspect. (Um… I think my Badass Image requires me to escalate this situation. Can I get my fate point?)

In general, when a player uses an aspect to his benefit, he must spend a fate token, and when an aspect makes life hard for him, he earns a fate token, so wise players will take a few negative or potentially negative aspects to fuel their good ones. And fate tokens, as in other games that employ them, can be used to alter reality in a variety of ways: not just granting a hefty +2 to do something, but also to place temporary tags on scenes and NPCs (Black Bart now has the aspect “Losing his temper.”), create a happy coincidence (I just happen to have a set of wrenches with me!), or otherwise inject tropes appropriate to the scene.

Taken all-in-all? Promising. I like the use of aspects, though skills seem redundant. Even for a rules-light system, FATE seems to have a lot of different kinds of modifiers flying about, especially SotC, which adds stunts to skills, aspects, and fate points. My group tested it out in a one-shot, and so far players (myself included) used their fate points without creativity, preferring the +2 bonus over setting the scene and tweaking the plot, which seems to me a waste. The power level feels a little high, but then I prefer more street-level games to epic games generally. FATE doesn’t do anything I can’t do with Over the Edge, and takes more effort to do it.

But it does have the signature quality of being relatively rules-light and trait-driven while leaving a lot of power in the players’ hands. I prefer a narrative style, which requires a lot of power to be in the GM’s hands, but not everyone shares that perspective. FATE’s aspect system may work very well indeed as a compromise within our group, giving me (when I’m GM) the freedom to describe things broadly and interpret descriptors for maximum dramatic impact while leaving my players feeling like they’re still in control of what happens. I”m exploring the possibilities now.

2011 02 21 mdlake Games Comments (0) Permalink

Determined

My kids are having trouble with determinants. I can sympathize; determinants involve fairly complicated and tedious calculation, and the motivation for handling determinants is not at all obvious. They get used later, of course! Not much point in teaching a technique that won’t be used. But, apart from some minor immediate applications that take more work than simply finding an answer by a combination of hand calculation and trial-and-error, determinants gain meaning only a month down the road, when you begin using diagonal matrices for Markov chains and Eigenvalues. And for teens with short attention spans and a shaky interest in the subject in the first place, a month may as well be a decade; by the time you get there, they’ve forgotten everything about determinants apart from hating them.

Just as bad, the need to push on to other topics before the term ends means there’s never enough time to demonstrate how much trouble determinants can save in the long run. They seem to be just another weary task, rather than a time-saver.

What determinants—well, the entirety of linear algebra, really—are for is computers. Many kinds of engineers do almost nothing but linear algebra in one guise or another, reducing complicated systems to “close enough” linear approximations, translating those into a huge matrix, and letting the mainframe crunch out the answer. Setting up the problem can take anywhere from hours to months; solving it can take microseconds (for answers that would take humans months to find) to days (for answers that humans couldn’t calculate accurately before the sun engulfs the earth). Problems get so big and complex that a whole branch of math exists simply to explore how to solve common linear programming problems more efficiently. But this, too, the students don’t get to see. There just isn’t time to show them, nor, for that matter, computers on which to demonstrate the principles in action.

Sharp students get an inkling of how these things may work, and how big the problems can get, on their own. (I recall getting excited about maximum and minimum values in calculus, and again in linear programming once I hit college. It seemed like this was the way the whole world worked, and we had been handed the key to perfecting the world: perform these calculations, and you can know how to make decisions for maximum effect, maximum return, minimum cost, minimum time, maximum anything you want.) But only inklings. And for the rest of the class, math quickly becomes a closed book.

I wish I could take one day a week, or even one day a month, simply to talk about what kind of things the techniques we study can really do, out beyond the timid and cartoonish world of exercises simple enough to do by hand. No, this won’t be on the test. No, there won’t even be any homework on it. Just sit back and listen. Give me your honest attention for fifty-five minutes, and I’ll try to explain why this seemingly pointless stuff is so cool. You don’t have to agree. You don’t have to care. You may never use this when you grow up. That’s okay. I just want you to grasp why other people will, and why this really is important, and why people with a passion for answers get excited about it. And I want you to realize that you can understand, loosely, how the answers are found and what the answers mean even if you can’t calculate them yourself today…or ever. You don’t need to master this right now. But you can “get” it, even if you can’t do it right now. And if you can get it, you will be a zillionty-billion times more likely to care when the subject affects your life, or when you need to vote on issues with a technical bent, or when you bump into a problem you can solve, with a little ingenuity.

But there’s never time. There just isn’t time. My kids need to pass their SATs, and my school needs them to pass its NCLB requirements and its Regents exams—even the kids who will never need to know this stuff in life or even in college. So I need to drill them in calculational methods, to make sure they can pass. And god, it’s so dreary. Even for the math geek standing in front of them, who knows what it’s all good for.

2011 02 18 mdlake Teaching Comments (0) Permalink

V-Day

Naturally, I got Eileene a card for Valentine’s Day. (No, not just a card.) It features a young girl with a dopey tongue-extended expression of concentration on her face and an electronic gadget in her hands. The caption reads something like “Hbppz Vcldmtimfs Cay!”—a joke about texting and the difficulty some people have with it.

People like me. Never particularly good with my fingers in the first place, my current efforts to type into a phone are compounded by a lack of practice and middle age. Eileene gets lots of practice; the term “junkie” comes to mind. Never particularly patient in the first place, she gets irritated at my slow and clumsy efforts to handle her phone, typically when I must type instructions into the GPS while she drives. So I thought she’d get a grin out of the card. (She did, but only a small, forced one. Swing and a miss. Should’ve got her the other card that caught my eye.)

Now, any store-bought card is almost by definition mass-produced and impersonal, not qualities that lend themselves to the message, “I love you.” Still, this kind of card can’t simply come from anyone, nor go to anyone; it is “personalized” in the sense that it applies only to a narrow—or apparently narrow—segment of the population. Clearly there is a demand, beyond me alone, for such cards. Yet they are a distinct minority. Trite messages that could be exchanged between any lovers or would-be lovers dominate the shelves by a margin of 2-to-1 or more.

I’m curious how much that dominance reflects a lack of demand, which suggests an awful lot of people have a lame attitude toward the holiday, and how much of it reflects economics of scale. Sure, Hallmark can write joke cards speaking to small, even vanishingly small, segments of the population…but can they stock limited shelves so as to reach enough slim segments to cover all their bases, and recover the increased printing costs of a thousand special interest cards in place of a single generic one as well? Probably not. I understand greeting cards operate on a pretty slim margin: yes, every card sold at $2.95 a pop gives a huge return, but the vast majority of cards never get sold, and there isn’t much you can do to forge ahead of the competition in a saturated and low-entry-cost market.

Hence cards as humor: anyone can print “I love you,” but not everyone can make a decent joke out of the occasion—not when all the obvious jokes have been made a kragillion times—and even a moment’s humor can make a product stand out. I’m all in favor of more unusual cards. One of my favorites in the past few years was one that read “I’m so glad you came into my mouth.” Zing! Getting more diverse cards on the shelves would almost certainly mean ditching the trite, generic ones to make space, but honestly—would that be any loss at all?

2011 02 17 mdlake Uncategorized Comments (0) Permalink

Promise Kept

Pundits wondered what the rise of the Tea Party, and especially the election of teabaggers to major offices, might mean. Now we know.

In Missouri, it means an effort to eliminate child labor laws, that we might return to the blessed age when children could work 16-hour shifts in any industry, with no minimum wage.

In Wisconsin, it means an effort to deny government workers the right to collective bargaining, a refusal to allow government workers to bargain for anything but a pure salary increase, and a refusal to allow that to exceed the cost-of-living increase. Police and the National Guard would be exempt. They’ve got the guns, after all—which will be trained on the teachers, at Governor Walker’s direction. A return to the blessed age when thugs could be used to bust unions and keep the workers in their place.

In South Dakota, it means a bill to legalize the killing of doctors who perform abortions. A return to the blessed age when—no, wait, there was no blessed age when murdering doctors was okay. Not in America. Maybe back in medieval Europe, when medicine was still suspect as a tool of the devil.

In short, it means a return to barbarism. Primarily the barbarism of the gilded age, when you worked for the man at the price he felt like paying you, or you starved. But what do you expect from a movement led by the likes of Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, who feels that renters shouldn’t be considered citizens. You know, like Russian serfs or something, virtual slaves to the property owners back before socialism made them all uppity.

2011 02 16 mdlake Politics Comments (0) Permalink