stargeek
The importance of design symmetry in your Java typesThe importance of design symmetry in
|
Place, the place we call home, the place
we belong to, defines us. When we have lost our sense of place, we
have lost our soul. Last Christmas I wrote a piece about homelessness, and suggested that the homeless and the addicted are a perfect metaphor for all of us living in modern civilization. I wrote:
Civilization is our Pusher. It's The Man who keeps us hooked on
consumption and debt, The Man who holds the key to our prison and
gives
us our illusory rush of elation when we buy and use His addictive
product. The Man who seduces us back even when we have decided that
life in His prison is insane, self-abusive, worse than death. The
monkey is our addiction, without which we cannot live. And we wander
the streets of civilization's artificial world in a daze, never really
home, wondering what is missing, why we feel so lost. Civilization is
our ghetto, a whole world of six billion homeless people, setting
fires
on every corner for warmth, ganging up and stealing everything we can
get our hands on to pawn for our fixes, breeding babies already
drug-addicted at birth.
So the next time you see a homeless person, or an addict, don't be frightened, angry, or filled with pathos. You are looking in the mirror. It is we who are homeless, and addicted. What will it take before we break the habit, walk away from The Man, and find our way home? On another occasion I wrote: Know your place. We are all part
of a web, a mosaic, and we all travel, but ultimately we have our own
place, our 'home'. If you're not totally connected with everything and
every creature that is part of your place, then it isn't your place.
If
you don't have a place, then you don't yet really exist. A house is
not
a place, though if it's open it can be part of one. A mind is not a
place.
 The wonderful books of biologist Bernd Heinrich are about birds and animals, but most of all they are about the places that the creatures he studies call home, and about the importance of those places. In his latest book The Geese of Beaver Bog he talks about another biologist, David Ehrenfeld, who writes about animals and the importance of place to them. I've ordered Ehrenfeld's 1994 book Beginning Again, but I've already read the amazing first chapter from Amazon's 'search inside' page for the book. The chapter is called 'Places' and here is an extract that shook me to the core of my being: Because the turtles [I was
studying in Costa Rica] come out to nest after dark, much of my work
was done at night. There was a great deal of waiting between turtles,
plenty of time to sit on a driftwood log and think. In the first years
of my research I was often the only one on the beach for miles. After
ten or twenty minutes of sitting without using my flashlight, my eyes
adapted to the dark and I could make out forms against the brown-black
sand: the beach plum and coconut palm silhouettes in back, the flicker
of the surf in front, sometimes even the shadowy outline of a trailing
railroad vine or the scurry of a ghost crab at my feet. The air was
heavy and damp with a distinctive primal smell that I can remember but
not describe. The rhythmic roar of the surf a few feet away never
ceased -- my favourite sound. I hear it as I write in my landlocked
office in New Jersey. And then, with ponderous, dramatic slowness, a
giant turtle would emerge from the sea.
Usually I would see the track first, a vivid black line standing out against the lesser blackness, like the swath of a bulldozer. If I was closer, I could hear the animal's deep hiss of breath and the sounds of her undershell scraping over logs. If there was a moon, I might see the light glistening off the parabolic curve of the still wet shell. Size at night is hard to determine: even the sprightly 180-pounders, probably nesting for the first time, looked big when nearby, but the 400-pound ancients, with shells nearly four feet long, were colossal in the darkness. Then when the excavations of the body pit and egg cavity were done, if I slowly parted the hind flippers of the now-oblivious turtle, I could watch the perfect white spheres falling and falling into the flask-shaped pit scooped into the soft sand. Falling as they have fallen for a hundred million years, with the same slow cadence, always shielded from the rain or stars by the same massive bulk with the beaked head and the same large, myopic eyes rimmed with crusts of sand washed out by tears. Minutes and hours, days and months dissolve into eons. I am on an Oligocene beach, an Eocene beach, a Cretaceous beach -- the scene is the same. It is night. The turtles are coming back, always back; I hear a deep hiss of breath and catch a glint of wet shell as the continents slide and crash, the oceans form and grow. The turtles were coming here before here was here. At Tortuguero I learned the meaning of place, and began to understand how it is bound up with time. Ehrenfeld goes on to describe the cruel and careless treatment of the turtles by local fishermen, and how the witnessing of such atrocities by the President of Costa Rica so enraged him that he took steps to protect the green turtle's Tortuguero breeding ground in perpetuity. Often, at night, I sit out on the back hill behind our house, overlooking the 1100-acre Albion Hills Conservation Area, with Chelsea the dog, just paying attention to the sounds and the smells and the shadowy sights in the moonlight. I soon forget there is a house behind me, and behind it a community of 34 houses interspersed with wilderness wetlands, and beyond it a city of 6 million that is forecast to grow to as many as 40 million by the end of this century. To us for a few moments there is only the wilderness, the sounds of owls and wood frogs and wind through the trees that have been here for a hundred thousand millennia -- the dogwood and the balsam poplar and the maple and the trembling aspen and the white birch and white cedar and bur oak and ironwood and pussywillow, and the smells of rain and muskrat and decaying leaves. And I long to see and feel how this, my adopted home, this place that has welcomed me and allowed me to be a part of it and to share in its wonders, looked before man arrived to change it quickly and utterly. For even here, where nature is respected and where the actions of conservation authorities and lack (for now) of development stress has allowed some of this land to remain unaltered, and some more to start the slow path back to something like what it was like before we arrived, it still bears little resemblance, to the trained eye, to what it must have been, in the eons of silence and darkness before man arrived with his noise and artificial light and carelessness and altered it beyond recognition. If I am to believe the biologists, the area I call home once probably looked like these photos:  I can imagine living in a place like this, but only because I do live in a place vaguely like this. If I were to have spent my whole life living in a city, or even on a farm, I don't think I could imagine it. And even if I could, I don't think I could conceive of it as my place, the place to which I belonged. While this is my adopted home, it is only, naturally, the place of a rare and scattered minority of humans, the First Nations, who learned, in ways that we never have and which I cannot hope to comprehend, to live with the bears and wildcats and mosquitos and black flies and bitterly cold winters and lack of year-round food supplies. Without my protection from these dangers and discomforts, I could never call this place home. So in order to make places like this habitable to us, as we destroyed the places in the cradles of human civilization that were habitable to us naturally, we had to reform them with our cities and farms, until they became unrecognizable, nothing like the pictures above -- terraformed, civilized, converted to a dreadful sameness all over the planet. These cities and farms were as alien to us as they were to the creatures that retreated in their wake. When we try to imagine how bizarre it would be to live on a space station, or on the moon, we should consider that we have already made a much more profound and barren adaptation here on our suffering planet. But these cities and farms are not natural places for humans. They are not where we lived and thrived for three million years before their invention. Then we lived in the warm climates of Africa, of South Asia and of the Southern edge of Europe, when all those lands were heavily forested. We were and are, like all primates, creatures of the forest, and specifically of the tropical forest. And while three million years is but an instant compared to the hundred million years that the giant green turtles of Tortuguero have called that place home, that tropical forest is still the place our DNA tells us is our home, our place. Most of that tropical forest is now destroyed, cleared for cities and farms, and we have been gone from there so long that the thought of returning there even if there was room for us, which there is not, is too terrifying to countenance. So we moved from there to less hospitable and more dangerous lands and remade them into cities and farms as well: Since we could not live in these hostile environments we destroyed them and built ourselves artificial landscapes, vast alien prisons which protected us from the terrors of nature and weather but detached us completely from any sense of place. So now we are all homeless, six billion of us living in an artificial world of our own making. We have destroyed our own three-million year home and most of the homes and places of every other species on Earth, making them mostly homeless, too, those that we haven't yet made extinct. I bow my head to the turtles of Tortuguero. They are so much wiser, so much more alive than we shallow newcomers to this planet can ever hope to be. They know the importance of place. They know how to live as part of a world to which all life on this planet once belonged. They show respect for the grand design of our fragile, troubled world, and know their part in it. While we are merely astonishingly fierce, wondrously adaptable, utterly homeless, arrogant beyond reason, hopelessly lost and addicted to the perpetuation of our own folly. |
My Thursday night was one of the strangest ever. Suffice to say that I ended up alone, in an Irish pub in Reykjavik, listening to melancholic guitar music and downing a horribly expensive beer. I also had a fever (of which I was not aware of the time), which produced some of the most vivid and strangest dreams I've seen in a long while, when I finally clambered to the youth hostel.
So I dreamed. In one dream, I was crossing a street, and as the traffic lights went green, all of the cars turned to horses and had to be herded away so I could cross the street. In a second dream, I saw myself find an internet terminal, and buying tickets to Oulu for the day that I arrive in Helsinki.
I wake up - still feverish - and recount some of the dreams to my travel companion. She looks at me, with a slightly worrying look, as I start to ponder that the idea from the last dream is not really that bad.
In our hotel, on the last night, I find a free Internet terminal that looks just like the one in my dream. So I buy tickets to Oulu, wondering who the heck gave my subconscious a free reign over my credit card.
For the rest of the trip, I worry about whether I'm going to make the connection, or the inevitable gaping hole that will be left on my bank account, or whether this was such a good idea at all, since I have been doing nothing but travel, and I shall be doing some heavy travel in the near future as well. (Bleargh.)
But Outi meets me on the airport, and one hug removes all doubt and weariness.
Later in the evening, the air is charged with a magical feeling that cannot be described in my crude words. It's as if one touch could set the world on fire; as if the thunder outside came from your mind; as if one look made your heart explode; as if tears and laughter and pain and pleasure were all the same thing. No masks, no hiding behind them. No buts, no ifs. Just...
*sighs deeply* This belongs to poets and songwriters and philosophers; not simple engineers like me. Shutting up now.
At every WWDC, with each OS upgrade, Apple offers two new types of
features to developers.
I’ll use last year’s WWDC as an example (since I
can’t talk about this year’s WWDC).
One one hand there are features like SearchKit, which make it easy to
add searching to your application. This is an example of an
on-the-side feature. You can add it to your application, but it
doesn’t affect much of the main body of your code. It
doesn’t fundamentally change how you write Cocoa apps.
The best thing about features like this is that I can use them and
just have them not show up if you’re using an older OS
(Jaguar).
On the other hand there are new features that change how you write
apps. Cocoa bindings is an example. This technology allows you to do
delete a bunch of user interface code: it makes it easier to bind your
user interface to your data and preferences. But this technology goes
to the heart of your application. There’s no putting it on the
side (as with searching).
So at WWDC I found myself looking at each feature and figuring out if
it’s an on-the-side or in-the-heart-of-the-app feature. While
I’m grateful for all the cool on-the-side features I can use, I
look at the in-the-heart features and dream about them. Someday...
The common wisdom is that you support the current operating system
minus one. Right now that means Panther and Jaguar. When Tiger ships,
it will be Tiger and Panther.
But what that means is that two years after learning about
Cocoa bindings I’d finally be able to use the technology.
So what I wonder is, is the common wisdom wrong? Given all the major
new technologies in each OS release, would another rule—a
six-month rule, perhaps—make more sense? (Support the current OS
plus whatever was current six months ago.)
The obvious benefit is better software. The drawback is that
there are people still using operating systems more than six months
old.
I’m just thinking out loud here. Feedback is welcome.
Back when I used to compete in some bike events as a teen, I remember that the sport tended to favor shorter than average men, and even at the local level, the majority of top guys fell into a pretty small range of body size and type. At the state and national level, the distribution was even smaller, with almost every competitor being about 5' 6".
It's kind of fun to watch the olympics and notice that on a global stage, the distributions seem to fall the same way, with each sport favoring a certain body type and seemingly 90% or more of the contestants looking just about the same. The women's beach volleyball is where it seems most obvious. You see tall, thin, tan women that look as if they all just stepped off a beach in Southern California. Then you see that they're from China, or Japan, or Switzerland, as well as the US. Men's and Women's gymnastics, swimming, and diving all seem to favor a pretty narrow body type as well. Anyone that's ever watched college women's softball knows there's a body type for that sport as well, and it's also easy to see the teams around the world fall into it.
Every sport favors genetics to some extent, but I've always discounted them and held that anyone of any shape could rise towards the top if they trained hard enough. But at the absolute upper reaches of a sport, falling outside the norm becomes a liability and when the margin of error grows thin, you're going to fall behind the best.
I've always been an idealist that believed anyone could become president of the US, a pro baseball player, or the next Bill Gates, but when it comes to global competitve sports, it seems like winning the genetic lottery is almost always required if you really want to be the absolute best.
The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: