Facebook Apps

I'll start with a confession: I have a Facebook page.

I've even added some apps to it, but unless you look at the list of apps on the left-hand side of my profile you can't tell.

The reason is simple: I find huge lists of apps obnoxious and most of the apps people post to be at best a bit silly and at worst ridiculous. Okay, some of them make some sense, like the ones where you can track the performance of your favorite teams from your profile. Others, like the ones related to biorhythms and fortunes are just electronic versions of the same nonsense which has been peddled for hundreds of years. On the whole, however, most of them are large and dedicated to one thing: getting more people to use them. Vampires vesus Slayers is one of my personal favorites on the list of worthless (I don't subscribe).

I came to Facebook as a way to keep track of friends and aquantences without most of the usual hassle of regular phone or written contact. Most of the people I know at college use Facebook as their prefered method of indirect contact. When it comes to casual communication between friends, I hear "Just Facebook me" more often than "Just call" or even "Email me". All I have to do is add someone as a friend and so long as they update their profiles halfway regularly it's easy to keep in touch. With the focus shifting to apps and entertainment, I have to wonder if the powers that be have lost touch with the real value of their site: keeping in touch.

Google, Medicine, and The Expert

I was reading an interesting article this afternoon from the New York Times about patients Googling for health information. It's just more evidence that a little learning is a dangerous thing. I rather prefer Alexander Pope's verion: "People who know only a little do not understand how little they know and are therefore prone to error."

I really divide these people into two big camps. First, those well meaning, humble folks with an active curiosity and desire to learn. The second are the instant experts who think a few minutes on the Internet qualifies them to diagnose rare diseases or some such thing.

The former are really not a problem as with a little patience and preparation they can become useful allies once steered toward good sources of information. I'm one of them and usually apologize in advance for asking questions that are "probably obvious" out of my own curiosity and if I'm going to cite a source, I cite a source. None of this "I read it on the Internet" garbage.

The instant experts (read: instant idiots) are dangerous and annoying. Dangerous because they can now do something they couldn't before but don't have a good understanding of the consequences, much like the infamous blind axeman in a classroom, etc. Annoying because they can't resist butting into what should be the purview of the expert.

God save us from inquisitive idiots.

Minnesota's Special Prosecutor

A while back here in Minnesota we had a major bridge collapse. Recently the local Legislature decided the wise move was to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate what happened.

I'll start with the facts.

1. A bridge collapsed.
2. It collapsed in summer.
3. Through the grace of God the casualties were light (and far lighter than they would have been in winter in this state).
4. Everything fails eventually.
5. People have been screaming about the decay of American infrastructure for decades.
6. Honestly, does anyone honestly expect politicians to invest in needed preventative maintenance over pork when forced to chose?

As for the loss of life, it was of course tragic.

At the end of the day, the bridge collapsed as all old structures do and for the same reason: insufficient upkeep. I had hoped some elected officials would, in the aftermath of the collapse, learn about total cost of ownership and maintenance. I probably hope for too much.

Appropriate Greetings and Salutations

Since today's Christmas Eve, for those who celebrate it, Merry Christmas.

For those who don't, have a nice day.

My Objection to People Who Object to "Merry Christmas"

It's Christmas season again, and also time to hear from almost everyone: "Happy Holidays". I don't in principle object to having a standard, secular holiday greeting to be used in cases of unknown sentiment, religious or otherwise.

What I do object to is twofold. First, the presumption that Christmas will never be a secular holiday, and therefore wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" will always carry a certain degree of religious insensitivity. The second is that "Happy Holidays" is a suitable replacement to be used even when religious sentiments are known.

As to the first, regardless of the religious origins of Christmas, there have been winter solstice festivals in hundreds of cultures for thousands of years. Same with harvest festivals, ceremonies equivalent to marriage, burial rituals, etc. Sure, there are tens of thousands of Christians out there who would object that Christmas is not some pagan holiday to be lumped in with your run-of-the-mill solstice festival, but in the modern secular state outside of overtly religious contexts, the coming of Christ the savior, et al. is no longer mentioned or even hinted at except, perhaps, through some oblique deconstructionist analysis of the imagery used in assosiation with Christmas, and of course, the name of the holiday itself. We don't hear people objecting that Mardi Gras (which is literally "Fat Tuesday" in French) is a religious holiday and wishing one a happy Mardi Gras is insensitive. Truth be told, it originates as a celebration of the last day before Lent. Why? Because it has been secularized and institutionalized. I, as an agnostic (and ex-Roman Catholic) take "Merry Christmas" the way I imagine a foreign traveler might take "Happy 4th of July"--not something to be offended at, merely as indication that some people happen to think it's a great day to hold some spectacular parties.

As for the second, just as Christmas has been secularized, it is still a very religious holiday for lots of people around the world, and the entirety of the significance of the season is that it's Christmas, the day the arrival of the Christ is to be celebrated by all sufficiently reverent Christians around the globe (allowing for time zones, of course). But when we say "Happy Holidays", we are automatically automatically lumping Christmas into the big basket of every other holiday that happens to fall between 15 December and 5 January (roughly). We are saying, in effect, it doesn't matter which holiday you're going to celebrate, none of them are really special or worth recognizing as such. Whether it's Hanukkah, Christmas, or any other holiday the effect is the same. Is it really less offensive to say all holidays are equal (and to the devout they are not) than to say only holiday X matters?

My approach is simple: If I don't know what someone's preferences are, I'll say "Happy Holidays" and if it doesn't seem impolite, I'll ask. If I know, I use that holiday, especially if it's in season. Example: for my Christian friends, it's always Merry Christmas, for my Jewish ones, Happy Hanukkah. Simple.

Another one bites the dust

That would be another finals season.

This one was in fact surprisingly relaxing. I had plenty of time to do other things, and completely wasted it. But they're all done now, so there's no going back.

Prepping for a Math Final

It's taken seven semesters, but I think I've finally figured it out. While it's a great thing, I wish I knew a while ago what I know now.

The basic process is like this:

1. Find during the semester another textbook in the area. Classic books in the area are usually a good choice.
2. The prof (or experience) should indicate what the spread of material is for the test.
3. Go through the other book, identify each relevant section, and work as many problems as possible from that book, using its examples and exposition.

If done right, this should result in you having retaught yourself the entire course in a week or two from a different but similar perspective.

The remaining problem is textbook selection. This is tougher. For my compex analysis course, we used Saff and Snieder's book and I prepped out of Churchill. It turns out Churchill is so cannonical that Saff and Snieder is in some sense equivilent to it. This turned out really well since the prof followed the book very closely and specified the problem areas in a fairly granular fashion. Ergo, Churchill became a source of problems more than alternative viewpoint.

On the other hand, for a course where the prof is more prone to do somewhere a bit off the beaten path with tests, it would probably be better to find a book which approaches the area in a different way than the origional so as to be more or less orthogonal in both approach and problems. Then working the other book is very much like relearning the entire course and may expose one to an additional perspective that may come in handy come test time. Having worked out of Royden for my second semester or reals, I would probably use Baby Rudin as my "orthogonal" text.