A Tiny Window On My World

Everybody agrees that mobile computing is big and important. Everyone and their sibling is using a tablet or a phone. Wait, a tablet? That's so yesterday: I browse the web on a phone now. Ooh, no, not a phone. Google glass...no, I mean a Microsoft Hololens that hasn't been released yet.

By the way, my tablet seems to agree with me on Hololens, since it tried to suggest "hollowness".

So why do so many web sites work so badly on mobile devices? There are so many ways they screw up:

• Tiny little links, particularly lists of words so that you can hardly squeeze your fingertip on one without hitting its neighbours.
• Menus that only appear if you hover your mouse over them, so you don't even know they're there.
• Loading dozens of animations and gratuitous special effects, so your phone is so overloaded you can feel it starting to melt.

But the worst is the pop-up. A window appears in the centre of the page, asking you to subscribe to something or other. But they've positioned the pop-up based on the assumption that you have a desktop screen. So a window that's supposed to be a little message in the middle ends up covering your entire phone. The true frustration sets in if they've programmed the window to stay in the same place even if you try scrolling down the page. Then you end up as a modern Sisyphus, forever scrolling down to get to a "close" button you'll never reach.

I don't understand why this is such a problem. Aside from everyone agreeing that the mobile Net is important, there is plenty of software to help you create web pages that react to the size of the screen. So there's no excuse. In the early days of the Web there was a rule not to bother with a page that needed a minute to load. Well now there should be a rule not to bother with a page that doesn't fit your device.

I Wanna Grok

There's a principle you may have heard of that if you truly understand something, you should be able to explain it to a six-year-old. If you can't, then you don't really understand it as well as you think you do.

Personally, I think that's a bit harsh. After all, if it were true, we'd have much more educated six-year-olds. It would be more accurate to say that you should be able to explain something to another adult. Of course, that doesn't reflect well on our university professors: Their job is essentially to understand things and explain them to others. Given their success at the latter, it doesn't give me confidence to the former.

That brings me to a sudden realization: I don't believe in String Theory. No, it’s not based on emperical evidence or esoteric mathematics. It's because I don't believe anyone really understands it, because no one seems to be able to explain it.

I know, it's complicated, is hard to wrap your head around. But there are lots of things that are hard to understand. The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics: those are also hard to explain. But it can be done; I've seen people do it. But not String Theory. I've seen and read dozens of explanations, and here's what I've learned:

• All the fundamental particles in the universe are actually strings.
• The strings vibrate.
• Somehow this means that there are lots of other dimensions, but they're really small.

That's it! That's not an explanation. If you were explaining it, you'd also tell us things like:

• How does this help us understand how particles behave?
• What do the vibrations do?
• Okay smartass, what are the strings made of?
• For that matter, why are you explaining something simple (particles that are just little points) with something more complicated (strings)?

Science is all about figuring out how the world works. So the joy of learning about science is to gain a greater understanding of our surroundings. I don't want to hear a few disjointed facts; I want to acquire a mental model of the processes of nature. For whatever reason, String Theory proponents haven't put much effort into this. It's probably just that there isn't much incentive for explaining bleeding-edge physics well. But until someone puts some effort into it, I'm going to assume that String Theory is a massive Emperor's New Clothes situation, where no one wants to admit that none of them get it.

Unfortunately, this kind of explanation-that-isn't seems all too common these days. There's an assumption that if you give the context of a thing, together with some ideas you can drop at parties, that's considered explaining it. But really you haven't learned anything useful: you just know enough to sound intellectual during a superficial discussion, assuming you're talking with other people who don't understand it either.It's really unfortunate that in a society where we can communicate information so easily, we're still not good at spreading understanding.

Droning On

We're only hours away from the drone-pocalypse, or Christmas as it's also known. Authorities are worried about the growing number of drones out there (or more precisely, about the growing number of idiots with access to drones) and  there'll likely be many more after they unwrap them Christmas morning.

As if to punctuate the fears, a drone fell out of the sky at a ski race and narrowly missed a skier. That was a big and presumably professional drone, so one has to worry what happens when they become widespread. People have enough trouble driving, and now we're giving them another dimension to deal with.

Of course, this is another symptom of our modern society, where inventions spread too fast for us to properly deal with them. Take cars for instance: people talk about the revolution brought on by the Model-T, but that was preceded by decades of cars as curiosities for the rich or whatever-they-called-nerds-then. That allowed society a bit of a heads-up. Imagine if Karl Benz had got his automobile patent, then a couple of years later, there are Chinese knock-offs everyone can afford.

One has wonder what's going to become of drones in society. I was - and still am - skeptical on their predicted use for deliveries. But if I'm wrong, there's going to have to be some organisation to stop the Amazon drones from hitting the FedEx drones. No, I'm not imagining Jetsons-style roads in the sky, with neat but fast streams of flying machines. Really, with some sort of computer air-traffic control, it will likely look more chaotic to us. But if this does come to pass, it will be the latest way modern civilization has changed the look of the world. At least it will be prettier than asphalt.

Badly-Cooked Food For Thought

There's a story going around the Internet about American university students who have been complaining that their cafeteria is guilty of cultural appropriation. It's easy to see how that would get people's attention: many sins are committed in university cafeterias, but cultural appropriation had got to be a new one. Now they'll just need mail-fraud to complete the set.

If you're not familiar with it, cultural appropriation is the idea of taking another culture's symbols and using them for your own purposes. That fashion house that used Inuit designs for their own clothing is a classic example.

The concept is controversial, since it's hard to pin down, and potentially widespread. It's easy to come up with obviously bad examples, but it's also easy to come up with innocent, or even obviously positive things, that an extremist would consider appropriation. If I try to make my own pad thai, it would be hard to claim that as unfair to the people of southeast Asia.

And in this case, it's also hard to accept the students' criticism. Look, I spent longer in university residence than anyone really should, so I definitely wouldn't deny them the right to complain about school food. But, well, that's just the problem: this food is just bad, not disrespectful. And I should point out that I discovered that dorm/residence food is bad not because of the skills of the cooks, but primarily because of the poor supplies they have to make do with. And that just further explains the substandard dishes the students found: the cooks appear to be attempting to diversify, but without access to proper ingredients.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the students know all this, and just came up with the cultural angle because it was the only way they could get the administration to do something about the food. I have to admit that while my first thought about this story was that the students were misguided, my second thought was that I wish I'd thought of that. One particularly memorable bad meal from the residence cafeteria was a curry that somehow came out as bland. That was one of those mind-bendingly bad meals that wasn't just really bad, it was bad in an entirely unexpected way, if not a completely impossible way. If I'd thought of complaining that it was insensitive to students of South-Asian extraction, I might have gained some traction with the bureaucracy.

So no, I don't think there's grounds to believe the university is guilty of cultural appropriation. Just ask the white kids what they think of the school's rubber steaks and you'll see that there are some circumstances where all cultures are equally abused.

Turning Over A New Leaf

The big talk around the Toronto Maple Leafs is the possibility that they can sign Steve Stamkos, because of course a star player entering his prime years would want to sign with a team that's been telling everyone they're just starting a multi-year rebuilding. That's unfortunate, since there was another story going on that might actually happen: the team is getting a new logo for its hundredth anniversary next year.

And I've got to say, it's about time. I've never liked this logo, so I'd welcome a new attempt. And so far the journalists I've read on the topic are surprisingly supportive. Normally, I assume that people will get angry when anyone mentions changing anything in hockey, especially with one of the original six teams. We'll see how fans react in the coming days.

The Leafs' logo is, well, symbolic of the strange nature of hockey fandom in general and the Leafs in particular. The Leafs have a tremendously strong following, one that's based on the team's long tradition as a successful institution. Yet all of that success was too long ago for most of today's fans to have seen it. And the team's current logo was introduced right around the time that success ended. But no one wants to change the logo. Why? Tradition!

The current logo was introduced just as Harald Ballard was starting to run the team into the ground, so you'd think it would have been dumped the day after his funeral. Yet, it's endured for another quarter-century.

But on top of its associations, I have to point out that it's never really looked right. For one thing, the shape and font look stuck in the sixties. But also, it looks off-centre. The lobe at the top tries to balance that little stem; it always looks top-heavy.

What should the new logo look like? There'll be lots of worry that they're going to do something crazy with it - the Toronto Star dredged up the horrors of the 90's Islanders' logo. That would qualify as fear mongering if we were talking about anything but sports logos. But really the Leafs' path is clear: take a page out of the Blue Jays' book and come up with a modernized version of a classic logo. Just pick out one of the old symbols - you know, with the big veiny leaf - and neaten it up and find a more modern font. Easy. It'll look great on an aging Steven Stamkos when they sign him in 2022 to compliment the team they've finally finished rebuilding.

Take The Star Wars Challenge

The world premiere of the new Star Wars movie us tonight, with wider opening this Friday. Are you reading this on your phone while you're in line? If not, then you won't be seeing it until a week from Wednesday.

But it's it any good? It seems like people just asked that question, since I suddenly noticed "Will this be a disappointment?" stories appearing today. That's pretty late in the game to be asking that question, especially given the disappointment with the last trilogy. Of course, that brings up the point that it may not matter; even if it is disappointing, movie-goers will probably keep watching the sequels anyway. People are already talking about how the franchise may outlive it's original fans; with large-scale timelines like that, it doesn't really matter if they need to pause the parade of new Star Wars movies for a decade to wash the bad taste out of viewers' mouths. It's sort of reminiscent of the aliens from Contact, where we don't understand its strategy because these beings are thinking much longer term. Ironically, sci-fi franchises have become like sci-fi beings.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that Star Wars may never end, spawning several movie series, TV shows, video games etc. But I would hope that if it's going to go that far that there would be some competition. The market is big, why not have a competing science fiction world to create a never-ending series of movies, TV and other media? In other words, this Coke needs a Pepsi. Star Trek would be an obvious possibility as the other big sci-fi franchise, that has always been the yin to Star Wars' yang. But I'm not really sure it can reach the same audience numbers. Well, not without making it more like Star Wars.

Perhaps some media conglomerate will try making a Star Wars competitor from scratch. I know that sounds like a recipe for disaster. Or at the very least, a recipe for Go-Bots.  But consider the amount of creation, art, world-building and promotion that goes into a Massively Multiplayer Online game. They're practically building a complete science fiction/fantasy franchise right there, and might be paying the cost of a movie or three to build it. If you're making that investment, and intend to stick with it for years to come, you might as well make some tie-in movies to further cash in.

It's something to think about if you're a media company out there that's not part of the Disney/Lucasfilm empire. And if you need any story ideas, call me, I've got plenty.

Eh B C

So Canada has its own font now. Well kind of; a font maker has created a font to commemorate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. What's so Canadian about it? For one thing, it - unlike many fonts - can be used for all languages used in Canada, including the syllabic symbols used with Cree and Inuktitut. And I'm glad to see that the overall look seems to be inspired by one of my all-time favorites: the Toronto subway font.

Wired complains that it has some problems, which is just the kind of pretentious perfectionism I always seem to see from font-o-philes. Have a look and you'll see it looks completely - oh my, that middle line in the "B" does look strange doesn't it? I guess it does need a bit of work, but it's a nice start.

But here's the funny/sad/bitterly symbolic part: although you don't have to pay to use it, you can't just download it. As with other symbols of the anniversary, you have to apply for permission. Even though the font was a gift, rather than a taxpayer-funded project, it still feels wrong not to just let anyone have it. Keeping tight control over branding on a national celebration seems downright Harperian.

So if I can't use our national font, I'll use an athlete's font. It turns out that's the latest thing for a transcendent athlete celebrity. A few years back, I wrote a post about athletes with their own logos, but apparently that's passe. Now, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Durant have fonts based on their logos. I guess that could be useful: if you've got your own logo for branding proposes, you might as well go for other things, like fonts, slogans, or colour schemes. Okay, color schemes could be bad for an athlete, since it would limit you to only signing with teams that don't clash with you.

As part of the aforementioned post on athlete logos, I created my own. So now I apparently have to make my own personal font. Well, I don't have time right now, so maybe tomorrow.

Kobe Beef

The Kobe Bryant retirement tour pulled into Toronto on Monday, as the retiring basketball star played his final game in Toronto (with the possible exception of the upcoming All-Star game.) Although the Toronto Raptors usually have good fan support, a big portion of the audience was there purely to see Kobe, cheering him, and the rest of the Lakers. The cheers for their baskets was nearly as loud as for the home team. That rubbed a few people the wrong way, including Raptors coach Dwayne Casey, who criticized the pro-visitors fans on the post-game interview.

It bothered me too. It's not just that this retirement tour is starting to resemble the ridiculous Derek Jeter tribute tour last year. And it's not just that Bryant isn't a real great person to look up to. But it also seems like it's missing the point of being a sports fan.

This is hard for me, since my sports fandom is permeated by that rare understanding that sports are ultimately meaningless. There really is no logical reason that the Toronto fans should cheer for the Americans (and Lithuanian) in Toronto uniforms rather than those based in Los Angeles. No, there is no moral need to cheer for the home team. But I have to question their motivation. Yes, I'm sure some of them have a deep appreciation of Bryant's athletic skill, but most are just attracted to his mixture of accomplishment and attitude that is oh so marketable to young people. You know there will be similar reactions a few years down the road when Lebron James retires, but there will be nothing of the sort when Tim Duncan calls it a career.

The Raptors are an interesting case for this kind of worship. You know that Boston fans won't be so fawning over Bryant, just as they weren't with Jeter. Of course, that's a team that has both success and history, things the Raptors have little of. But I also think there's a bit of good old Canadian self-deprecation, where we just have a natural assumption that American things are better and cooler, at least in matters pop-cultural. It will be interesting to see how the Minnesota Timberwolves react to the Kobe retirement tour - they too are a young and not-so-winning team, an American counterpart to the Raptors. And oh look, the Lakers are playing there on Wednesday. So we'll get a quick comparison on how to host a retiring superstar.

It's Everyone's Thing

You have to wonder what advertisers are thinking when they choose music for their commercials. Obviously they're trying to associate a catchy, usually energetic and positive, song with their product.Ford has decided to build their entire campaign around Rachel Platten's "Fight Song."  It's the kind of transparently defiant pop song that I honestly was surprised was not by Kelly Clarkson. Is that really the tone to sell cars? They're trying to convince me to buy a compact crossover, then close-out the pitch with a song of someone trying to overcome a personal crisis.

But what really surprises me is that advertisers don't consider the problems with reusing a song. They're trying to associate their product with the song, so you'd think they'd shut away from songs already associated with a different product. Yes, "Good Morning" seems like the ideal music for an orange juice ad, but don't they know we've been trained to associate that song with Viagra?

But the worst is "It's Your Thing." Already made annoying by Ramada, now both Phillips and SlimFast are using it. Strangely, the latter seem to be building their whole campaign around the song, using the title for their website and hashtag. With all the music in the world, why would anyone reuse psychologically-polluted songs like these? I can only assume it's because the folks who own the rights to these songs are much quicker to sell permission than most. Indeed, "It's Your Thing" was by The Isley Brothers, who also recorded "Shout," another song abused by commercials.  So, Messrs Isley, please have some self-respect and raise your rates

David Signs With Goliath

In investing, there's a concept called selling short, which allows you to make money on a stock that you think will go down in value. Sometimes I wish there were a way to make money off things in everyday life that decline in value.

Take, for instance, Blue Jays season tickets. Yes, I'm glad I didn't buy them during their playoff run, only to see the hype and hope come to a crashing halt this week when David Price signed with rival Boston. It's nice to know I didn't waste money on those tickets, but it's hard to feel smug given that I couldn't have afforded them anyway.
At the time the Jays traded for Price in the final year of his contact, sports pundits/killjoys warned everyone that it was unlikely they'd be able to sign him beyond this season. So I'm sure that those pundits are currently telling tut-tutting fans for being disappointed. But that misses the point.

In baseball - as in all non-salary-capped sports leagues - there's two ways to be successful, business-wise:

• Low-income, low-costs - don't spend much on players, meaning that your expenses are low, and you make money despite having less success, thus fewer fans, thus less income.
• High-income, high-costs - you spend big to build and maintain a winner. That costs a lot, but you make up for it by having more fans, this more income.

For some teams, the decision is made for them: a team in a smaller city can't pay big, because even a successful team won't bring in enough money to pay for high end salaries. You have to hope you can succeed by developing talent quickly (like this year's World Series winners, Kansas City.) But more likely you'll languish at the bottom (like Kansas City in the previous two decades.) On the other hand it's hard for a team in New York or Los Angeles to justify sitting on their big pile of cash while watching the team lose year after year.

But for cities in the middle, like Toronto, it's not clear which direction to go in. To make matters worse, the two strategies tend to be self-perpetuating: is hard to sell a low-budget loser to fans used to competing, and its hard to convince a cheap team to start spending on the hope that fans will open their wallets.
It's kind of forgotten now, but the Blue Jays we in that big budget category in their World Series years; although those teams were mostly built on drafts and trades, they also bought free agents to fill in weaknesses and departures, and had one of the highest payrolls in the Majors. Now, of course, they don't, and occasionally people ask, when did everyone decide Toronto was a small market?

The answer is probably sometime around when then-owners Labatts was bought by Interbrew, and became less interested in paying big for ballplayers. But however it happened, they've been caught in that small-market vicious circle for a while now, and its hard to get out of. That's why we Jays fans with an eye economics were overjoyed for this year's turn around: it wasn't just the fact that they were winning, and the positive vibes of a full SkyDome had returned. It also seemed like they had jump started the big-market set up. The team took chances to bring in big names, and the fans responded with attendance and ratings. Suddenly, there's no risk: the guys writing the checks know the fans will respond.

And that's why the Price deal stings. It's not just seeing a player leave. It's losing him after we just signed Happ, a good-but-not-great pitcher who has already had one stone with the team, and left without most of us noticing he was gone. And it's the fact that he's going to one of our two big-spending division rivals. The message could not possibly be clearer: last year was an aberration, and everything is back to the way it had been during our playoff drought, with the Yankees and Red Sox buying whatever they need, while we take mediocre players and hope for a miracle.

I realize there are plenty of reasons why this could be bad for the Red Sox, like the fact that they're going to be paying a 37-year-old pitcher $30 million in 2022. But for now I'm not optimistic. But hopefully this post will prove to be as accurate as last week's "Donald Trump has finally gone too far" article, in which case the Jays will probably sign Zach Grienke.