Picking Your Battles

Over the weekend I took a few hours off from a paper push to watch a couple episodes of the second season of Gotham. In one of them, Alfred Pennyworth has some words of wisdom for the young Bruce Wayne (who has just signed him up for a fist fight):

Pick your battles, don’t let your battles pick you.

Just prior to watching this, I was busy planning a trip I could have planned weeks ago. That probably explains why I thought about Alfred’s line in the context of planning and organization. I often put things off until the last moment, and then get them done in the nick of time, feeling like my back’s against the wall. As a result, I’m often just doing the bare minimum, and repeatedly losing the opportunity to do a better job, or as happened with planning this trip, get more out of an experience.

Being early and prepared lets you pick your battles. Procrastination and disorganization lets your battles pick you, and often lets them kick your ass.

A Kickstarted Reissue of Principia Mathematica

A small Spanish publisher, Kroeneck Wallis, has a Kickstarter for a new version of Isaac Newton’s Principia Maethematica. As you can see from their Instagram account, the finished product is going to be beautiful. The publishers are making some interesting design choices, including producing a separate book for each of three chapters of the original, using a visible binding that leaves the spine bare, the use of just two colors (petrol blue and coral orange) and a low contrast serif font.


As of this writing, the Kickstarter is already a third complete, with over three weeks left. There are a number of support options, starting with a single copy at just €45.

(Via Jason Kottke)

Star Trek Beyond

Was very enjoyable. Spoilers follow.

The movie was a lot of fun, and managed to hit a good mix of serious and light-hearted. I liked it much more than I did Into Darkness, and it might just be my favorite of the the Abrams Star Trek movies.

As my favorite Star Trek blog calls it: it was a romp. It was a lot of fun and struck most of the themes that make Star Trek what it is—interesting characters, healthy optimism, underlying themes of unity, courage and friendship, and struggles both personal and epic. Take out the destruction of the Enterprise and squeeze it down to under an hour and the movie would have made a great TOS episode.

The visuals are of course simply beautiful (something true of the Abrams movies in general). The outfits, locales and effects in general are well done. The sequences of scenes showing life aboard the Enterprise and Starbase Yorktown are smooth, informative and impressive without being overwhelming. In fact, I would say that the scenes aboard Starbase Yorktown does one of the best jobs of showing off life in the Federation in any iteration of Star Trek.

Finally, the movie also does a good job of addressing Nimoy’s death (and the loss of the one of the main characters of both this, and previous iterations of the franchise). It’s not overly dramatic, but it is respectful, elegant and helps drive the rest of the story forward. And I absolutely love that one of the final shots of the movie is this photo of the original cast:


The movie wasn’t perfect: the action seemed choppy, some of the humor was unnecessarily forced, and some of the science was suspect. But it was a damn good Star Trek movie and a good movie in general. Would watch again.

Work, Life, Balance, Choose Two

Yesterday a friend of mine asked me how I manage to get everything done, in the context of being a grad student. Truth be told, I don’t always manage to. I often get things done either just in time, or just after time, and some things are routinely put on hold (cooking, vacuuming) so that other things can get done on time (papers, code). The so-called “work-life balance” can be an often elusive goal for graduate students, and I suppose for academics in general. While some academics I know are better at it than others, I doubt there are few, if any, who have nailed it down.

With that in mind, yesterday I also stumbled across a poem (and recording) by the late Kenneth Koch that seems relevant. Entitled “You want a social life, with friends”, it is of course about the difficulty (and the compromises involved) in making its title a reality. I won’t support or deny its claims, but at least at first reading, there does seem to be an undertone of truth to it. Without further ado:

You want a social life, with friends,
A passionate love life and as well
To work hard every day. What’s true
Is of these three you may have two
And two can pay you dividends
But never may have three.

There isn’t time enough, my friends—
Though dawn begins, yet midnight ends—
To find the time to have love, work, and friends.
Michelangelo had feeling
For Vittoria and the Ceiling
But did he go to parties at day’s end?

Homer nightly went to banquets
Wrote all day but had no lockets
Bright with pictures of his Girl.
I know one who loves and parties
And has done so since his thirties
But writes hardly anything at all.

Investing in the Open Web

It seems like every few days there’s a new post lamenting the death of the Open Web, and the corresponding rise in ad-driven social media machines and clickbait. Recent examples include this lament on the Cult of the Attention Web (prompted by Instagram moving to an algorithm presentation, away from a chronological timeline), and Brendan Eich’s response to online news publishers strongly objecting to the ad-blocking browser, Brave.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, we seem to have collectively struck a number of Faustian bargains: free services in exchange for our personal information; free articles, audio and video in exchange for advertising, more personal information and ugly, slow sites; walled gardens, in whose operation we have little say, in exchange for ease-of-use. And while I would love to pit advertisers and social media giants against brave independent bloggers and developers in a black-and-white contest, the reality is never quite so simple.

If we really want an vibrant, independent, open web, we need to invest in it with our time, money, effort and technical know-how. But I don’t know if that investment exists, or if the people complaining about the state of the open web are ready to make it. Examples abound: the above piece about Instagram is posted on Medium, which might join said Cult of the Attention Web any day. WordPress, which powers a significant fraction of the open web (and on which this site is built), would rather pretend that it’s a feed-reader and encourage me to “follow” other blogs, than make it simple and quick to write or edit posts (it takes me four clicks from the WordPress.com page to start editing a draft). And I myself would rather rant about investing in the open web than build a CMS that I actually want to, and enjoy using.

If we seriously care about preserving an open web outside of walled gardens and free of ugly, privacy-destroying advertising, we need to be an active part of it. We need to publish to our own domains, backed by services that won’t turn into advertising machines tomorrow, maybe even pay for hosting. We need to vote with our wallets and actually subscribe to publications we want to read and support. We need to write code and build publication platforms that embody our ideals and values, and make it easier for others to do the same.

I do two of those three, though not as often as I would like to. I don’t exaggerate when I say I wouldn’t be where I am in my life without the open web. I would like to invest in it so that others can say the same in the future.

Karl Popper on Intolerance

Intolerance and discrimination seems to be all over the news lately. Two examples that readily come to mind are the LambdaConf fiasco and North Carolina’s LGBT discrimation law. One question that often comes up when talking about discrimination is: how much should we tolerate intolerance? For example, is it acceptable to ban people with known discriminatory views and actions from gatherings, irrespective of their other qualifications? Is it morally acceptable (or maybe even mandatory) to boycott gatherings and events and places that invite such people?

In that context, I wanted to share the following interesting excerpt from Karl Popper’s, “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, posted by one of my former coworkers. I wouldn’t say it answers once and for all questions of fighting intolerance, but it is a solid foundation from which to consider and answer such questions.

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different form, and with a different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression should be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

To Compete with Medium

Dave Winer is encouraging bloggers (or really anyone with something to say) to post anywhere but Medium. He says that Medium is becoming a “consensus platform” for posting longform writing on the web, especially for people who don’t have a regular place to post. In doing that, Medium becomes a single point of failure, much like Twitter is for real-time short posts, or that Google Reader was for RSS. That means that Medium becomes increasingly capable of unilaterally changing how writing on the web works, for whatever purposes it desires. Medium could decide what you write, how it looks, who sees it, and whether or not you can take it elsewhere. And if Medium shuts down, you could lose everything you wrote.

Winer says that the reason people don’t just set up their own blog (even if they won’t write regularly) is because it feels wasteful to set up something and then not use it. This holds people back, even though a pure text blog takes up negligible space and bandwidth compared to videos or images. While he’s right about the minuscule size requirements of plain text, I think there’s more to users’ reluctance of setting up their own blog. There is a cognitive cost and mental overhead to setting up your own blog that Medium side-steps. To set up an blog on WordPress or Tumblr, you need to create a user account by providing a username, email address and password. Then you need to create the actual blog, by picking a domain name and title (and optionally, a theme). And then you can start to write.

Medium, on the other hand, lets you sign in via Twitter, automatically selecting your username and other account details (which you can change). After that you can just start writing. To be  fair, you are asked to follow other users and tags, but you can just click a button and move on. That’s exactly what I did before writing this post. There are options to use Facebook and email to sign up as well, but I’m assuming they’re equally streamlined. To break free from Medium’s hold on casual writing on the web, a competing service would have to be just as streamlined and painless.

So how would one go about competing with Medium? First you need to reuse identity from some existing social network or identity provider. Second, writing and publishing a post would have to be super-simple. Finally, to address Winer’s concerns, the competing service should come from an entity whose main business isn’t written content, but somehow naturally falls out of (or can be built atop) the core service. Luckily, there is already a service that can do this: GitHub.

GitHub is a popular code-sharing and hosting service that is very popular with programmers (and increasingly, with non-programmers). By default, GitHub hosts repositories of code, but they have an adjacent service called GitHub Pages that hosts simple websites. As a GitHub user, you can create a specially named repository and any HTML pages in that repository are served as username.github.io. Anyone with a GitHub account (which these days, is pretty much anyone who writes code) can post writing to their own repository and have it be served as a webpage from GitHub. Now, this only completes one part of the puzzle, since there’s no Medium-like interface to actually write your posts. You would have to write your posts using a text editor and push them to your GitHub pages repo. However, such an interface could be created by anyone, not necessarily by GitHub. They would just need your GitHub credentials, temporarily, to post your writing from the editor to the repository.

In conclusion: part of Medium’s attractiveness comes from having a streamlined path to posting irregular writing on the Web, helping to make it a large and powerful platform for web publishing. GitHub Pages provides part of the puzzle to create a neutral competitor that offers many of the same benefits. All that is needed is a writing interface that uses GitHub pages as a backend.

I haven’t talked about the social media and promotional features of Medium. I’m not sure how to replicate them in the same fashion. My goal with this post was to propose an alternative to the publish-and-forget style that Medium allows, and I think GitHub Pages is a step in that direction. Since Winer published his post, Medium has posted a response that addresses many of his concerns. The takeaway from the response seems to be that if you’re afraid of Medium having too much control over your content, post to both your own blog and to Medium.