Category: post

This is a tool.

A tool should have rules. When to use the tool. Why to use the tool. Why this tool and not another tool. When to put it away. How to use the tool safely.

A tool should be used intentionally. To perform one or more specific tasks. Take the tool. Use the tool for the task. Put the tool away. It should be stored safely and out of the way when not in use.

A tool should be used only in specific cases and environments where it is required for the task. Using the tool outside of these cases and environments is detrimental, potentially hazardous depending on circumstance, and should be avoided.

If one approaches the tool with such intention, attention, and focus the tool should not have to be locked in a secure location or its usage otherwise impeded. One can and should be trusted to use the tool when and where appropriate.

If the tool is used in a time, place, or method that is inappropriate, this is not the fault of the tool. This means further training is required for the user in proper use of the tool. Removing or impeding the use of the tool provides no such training. Only further education and instruction in use of the tool will.

If there are add-ons or functions of the tool that are meant to modify the tool in such a way as to be a distraction from the goals in using it, remove those add-ons or functions. Those features are not serving the goal of making the tool more useful. They are making the tool less so. They should be removed without prejudice.

If one follows these guidelines in using this or any tool, the tool will add value to our work and, thus, our life.

These three posts representing an online conversation between Mandy Brown and Alan Jacobs about how and why and where we write and share work on the internet is the type of discussion I’m interested in seeing more of(ten). It has really caused me, as I believe it will many, to think about how I currently share what I write online with an audience that may not follow my work (either visiting the site directly or via RSS) otherwise and what changes I may or may not make to this in the future.

At the heart of the discussion are the pros and cons of Publishing to one’s own site and syndicating it, or not to various social networks as they exist currently.

These come at a perfect time for me as I’ve had many thoughts percolating around the very questions being raised. Wondering if my current approach is, in fact, one I’m happy with.

Part of the percolation I have going on in my mind about these two lines of thought is actually exemplified by these posts.

I like to think of a personal blog, well done, with links to interesting stuff and similar folks that is interactive with others on the web to be like drinking from a water fountain. You take a sip here and a sip there and, perhaps, you find another water fountain just as good, if not better, to regularly fill your water bottle.

The social networks are, of course, the firehose. Sure, you can get just a sip of water from it. Maybe even fill up your bottle. But, in short order you’ll be blasted by so much water other than the sip you hope to get that you’ll end up on your ass.

Before the “social web” the way readers discovered new writers was these sorts of post/response type pieces — these fountains — and the hyperlinks that flowed from and around them. For instance, writing my response here, I link to all three of the posts in question (each one of those words beginning this post is a separate link) for reference sake and having done so, perhaps, those that read this but have no idea who the other writers that I’m discussing are will now know, also fall in deep like with their work, and follow/subscribe/visit/read them regularly going forward. No social network required. Maybe you’ll dive deeper and fill your whole bottle (which you definitely should do with these particular two writers).

And I believe that is much more organic and authentic and makes for a better/friendlier/stronger readership. And, I believe, that is at least part of the point Alan Jacobs was making in his piece. That the quality of your readership matters and that best comes from only offering a fountain.

That said, I also agree with Mandy in that I believe this is rather easy thing to say for those of us who already have an engaged readership, are male, and are privileged in other ways. And, if you are new and or have social barriers to entry or glass ceilings to bust through or, or or… I can understand the need to, at least for a while, go play with the firehose by the hydrant and see if anyone is willing to try taking a sip.

As for me, I write and publish here and am VERY intentional and selective as to where it gets shared from there. Everything I post here gets shared to the Micro.blog timeline but/and that timeline also might include things I post exclusively for the Micro.blog audience (i.e. and not here on this site) for any number of reasons. I rarely share anything with any other social network type thing unless I specifically want to broaden a particular reach of a post or I believe the post/thought/item is particularly relevant to the audiences that frequent there (I’ll likely do so with this one). When I do so, I do so “manually” via copy and paste. Somehow, when I think of automating this in any way it makes it feel less intentional and I want to be very much so with any social network.

So, why the Micro.blog timeline? It feels more like a comment section to me — one I don’t have to host of fight spam on. One that does not basically appear as other people’s writing/thinking on my own site. One that is friendly and respectful and full of smart insightful people who want to be there.

So, this is mainly my way of saying… Yeah, I think I’ll keep doing what I’ve been doing. Trying to make this space a fountain, not a firehose. Being intentional about what I post and where and why. Not “syndicating” beyond RSS and the Micro.blog timeline. Being intentional when I share a link here to anywhere else. And, in general, continuing my mission of making the web and the world a better, friendlier, stronger place.

Beatrix had a sub in history today. The teacher decided to use the time to split the class into teams and have a debate. Topic: The Electoral College, for/against.

Beatrix was placed on the “against” side.

Her side won when she mic dropped the fact that The Electoral College was created so that Southern States could count their slaves as population despite denying their human rights and right to vote and, therefore, should have been abolished with Jim Crow laws (as it was, in function, the very first one).

Needless to say, I’m very proud.

In weight, that is. Also, feeling better than I have in a while health wise.This is a more detailed follow up to the short post I made earlier.

I wan’t to start by saying that this is what is currently working for me, it is relatively new, is based on my own health requirements tailored for me in consultation with my doctor, and is in response to where I am in my diabetes diagnosis over 18 months ago. YMMV…

About a month ago, I had my first physical in 18 months. About 6 months overdue. I had been officially diagnosed as Type 2 Diabetic at my last appointment. The diagnosis was no real surprise. I have a near 100% rate of Type 2 Diabetes on both my Mother’s and Father’s side. I knew it would come upon me one day and about this age. I was prepared.

I was prescribed metformin, met with a dietician to discuss how and in what ways to change in my eating habits, and sent on my way.

I was good for a couple of weeks about all of it and then… Well, I was somewhat good at remembering to take the medication. The diet/eating part was not nearly as good. I really didn’t change much at all.

So, it was no real surprise when at this most recent appointment my A1C and virtually everything else was exactly the same as it had been 18 months ago. Make no changes and you will see no changes. So, my doctor and I had to have a bit of a heart-to-heart about it all.

She urged me to do better. Said where I’m at right now is completely manageable and the changes I make right now will stave off an even more drastic plan later. She had me make an appointment to follow up in 6 months and said if no change by then we’d have to come up with said plan.

So, here’s what we came up with…

Basically, what she is having me doing is essentially not that different from The Tim Ferriss Slow Carb Diet. Minus the “Faturdays”.

For me, it’s mainly lean meats, beans, and green veggies. Typical meals have been grilled shawarma chicken with hummus and tabouli salad or marinated steak with raw spinach and cherry tomatoes.

The idea is as low carb and high protein as possible to really reset my system and reduce the sugar cravings. Strangely enough, when I cut out most if not all sugar after about a month or so I’ve stopped craving it all together. This makes it much easier when the occasional cookie is offered to me or there’s brownies on the counter.

Another part of the plan I’ve been very good about is taking a daily vitamin supplement to account for the things I might be missing from cutting out certain foods like dairy, most fruit, and starchy carbs.

Next, I’m also making sure to do the 30 grams of protein as early as I can in the morning. I often don’t manage to do so in the first 30 minutes after waking up but within the hour for sure. Usually that’s 3 eggs (6-10 grams protein each) with a side of bacon (3 slices is about 7 grams). This jump starts my metabolism for the day and staves off late morning snaky hunger.

Also, I’m drinking a lot of water. Often at least a couple of litters a day.

That said, I’m also in the middle of what I call “Circus Rigging Season” as we are in the middle of rehearsals and shows at Circus Juventas which means for the past three weeks I’ve been essentially doing cross-fit for 30+ hours every week and that will continue for a couple of more.

All of this has me feeling really healthy. Down in weight about 15 pounds and no real bad hunger or low blood sugar crashes I can remember (and I used to have several a week).

I think I’m on the right track and hoping I can keep it up so my doctor doesn’t have to punish me at my next check-up.

Current (and long ongoing) Thought Pattern: Generational wealth and inheritance thereof is not the money, property, etc. one receives. It is the values, morals, and stewardship principles built around these things and passed down through generations. As Seth Godin has written, it is the lesson of, “people like us do things like this.” This is not only the lesson that has the power to echo through the generations but the mindset that sustains whatever money, wealth, power, etc. that will be inherited.

I often think about the fact that if you really want to understand how this plays out in, say, the inhertance of someone like Donald Trump, one need look no further than his father, Fred Trump. All of what Donald inherited is right there in his father’s values, morals, beliefs, and stewardship principles. And, one could easily see the through line from there to Fred Trump’s parents as well. It is a perfect example of the generational wealth of “people like us do things like this.”

Thinking of generational wealth in this way, one can easily see that what has the most lasting inheritance value is the “people like us do things like this.” of how we live our lives and raise our children and this transcends money/property/power. We all have generational wealth to pass down no matter our station and such things can be as much (and sometimes more) a pre-determinant of future success as any money/property/power can on its own.

“I believe you can speak things into existence.”

— Jay-Z

Let me tell you when I knew George W. Bush had beaten Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election.

It wasn’t when The Supreme Court ruled in his favor demanding the recount in Florida to halt and the 61,000 or so votes that the vote tabulation machines had missed not be counted.

It was when, immediately following the election where the initial count gave Bush the win by 1,784 votes, Bush and his team started acting like winners. Bush and his team immediately formed a transition team, started floating the cabinet nominees, and – in general – despite the recounts and court challenges and uncertainty — acted with absolute certainty that they’d won.

Gore and his team did not do that. They wanted to take a wait-and-see approach — citing the sacred value of every citizen vote and the counting there of. They did not want to act in any way that would be perceived as presumptuous of the will of the people.

Bush and his team had no such grounding to stay them — like it or not, right or wrong. In the hardscrabble politics of the modern era, there is no time to wax and wane philosophically. They knew that. Gore did not. That’s when they won.

Today, there is one side that is acting as if their win is assured. They are speaking as if it’s already happened. They are figuring out who will fill the various vacant positions and how they will implement their plan.

The other side is having philosophical arguments over who their candidate should even be despite the primary voters having already decided that and delegates pledged to carry out their decision.

While we are still months away from election day, who do you think has won?

Hey, I get it. You know it’s a pie eating contest and you are stuck at a party you don’t belong to. As much as you’d like to be at the other party, doing your part, eating that pie, it’s just not where you are.

So, you are thinking it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to participate in the contest. You can eat any pie you want. And, as long as you don’t eat the pie at the party you’re stuck at, you’re not helping them with winning the contest so why does it matter. No harm, no foul.

You are likely correct. Because this contest is designed as a winner takes all game, one person deciding not to play does not really affect the ultimate outcome.

But, sometimes we do things for deeper reasons. For instance, because it “doesn’t matter” in the grand scheme of things you’re not forced to have the pie they serve you at either party. You can choose any pie you want. You can pick your own pie. One that you like best. Perhaps picking your own pie is a reason; it’s a message that you are opting out of the entire idea of pie eating contests or even the idea that the contest should be limited to only two parties. Yay you!

But here’s the thing… As nice as it might sound to flip the bird to both of them while eating your delicious pie, the truth is no one cares about it. While you feel satisfied, ultimately those calories are empty and meaningless and do nothing to make either party care what the hell you eat or even what you might want to eat in the future.

You know what the party you’re stuck at does care about? You know what sends a stronger message and lets them know you are there, in protest, flipping them the bird? You know what really gets under their skin? You know what makes the party you’d like to be a know you still give a care about helping them out and, in turn, makes them care about you?

Eat the same flavor of pie from the party you want to be at. Even if it doesn’t help win the contest. Eat the pie while looking at the people from the party you’re at in the eye, smiling at them, enjoying every delicious moment. Make them uncomfortable. Even offer to give some to a couple of people at that party when they pass by. Tell them where they can get more (at the other party in the contest) if they like it (they sure seem to love Infrastructure Pie, even if they don’t believe it when you tell them who made it) . Make that your reason for eating that pie instead.

Isn’t that more satisfying and delicious than living with the knowledge that no one cares what pie you eat?

Democracy, as it exists in America in the year 2024, is like a pie… Let me explain…

Despite no parties existing when it was founded, there are — for any practical purpose you can muster — two parties now. And those parties have to share a pie.

Due to the natural balance that eventually (inevitably?) occur in such circumstances, that pie has been sliced down the middle and each party gets to eat half. It’s a contest. Everyone must finish eating their pie. Whichever party eats the most pie wins.

Let’s say there are an equal number of people at each party. Let’s say that number is ten. Ten people to eat half of a pie. Not a lot to go around for sure. But, let’s make sure everyone gets a slice.

Let’s say that there are some people in your party who are not really into the pie they have. Maybe there are people that don’t like that flavor or the texture is a little bit off. Maybe they want to just check out what the other party has going on and they decide to go join them and take their pie… Now, one party eats more pie. That party wins.

Let’s say that 2 of the ten people at the party hate pie. They detest it. They decide they are not eating the pie… Then, the other party wins.

Let’s say one person in one party is able to convince two people in the other party that the pie is rotten and they shouldn’t eat it and get them to throw it out. Then, the one person’s party will eat more pie and will win.

See how this works?

I would love to live in a world where everyone can eat or not eat or give away or have more pie and walk away feeling that is the way it should work.

It doesn’t. It’s a pie eating contest and if you decide not to eat the pie your party host serves, you then are putting the potential of winning that pie eating contest in jeopardy for everyone at your party. No matter how fair that is, that’s the way it works.

So, I guess what I’m trying to do is to get everyone to understand that they should eat their pie.

I had a tabletop a that I wanted to use for extra work surface in our office loft but I needed some legs for it. I didn’t want anything permanent just yet, mainly something quick and dirty to try it on for size. I knew that sawhorses would be the best solution for that but , due to the size of the worktop, would leave no room in front to pull up my chair and have my legs under. Then, thanks to the YouTube algorithmic overlords, a solution presented itself to me…

Make sawhorses with three legs. With about $20 of construction grade 2x4s, a mitre saw, impact driver, course thread screws, and an hour and a half of time the problem was solved.

Beyond the advantage of leaving room for my chair and legs underneath, a three legged sawhorse (or stool, or any built thing really) is that it will always find its own center of gravity on uneven surfaces. Get the measurements slightly off on a four legged horse and it will be wobbly. A three legged horse does not have that issue (though, I did measure twice, cut once, and use a level throughout so that fact is irrelevant here).

Increasingly, as I see some popular meme spreading like wildfire through the social media forest I’m suspicious of its intent…

• Is that random person asking if women would rather be stranded in the woods with a man or a bear really interested in provoking a mass thought exercise in gender politics or is it the Chinese government using TikTok to fervent discord to further divide us into Team Man and Team Bear?

• Is that thread asking me to reply with a picture of myself at 18 (or 21, or from 1977, or…) really just for fun or am I training an AI for facial recognition to ultimately be used against me?

• Is the movement to write in “uncommitted” on the ballot really a progressive grassroots effort about sending a message regarding my country’s response to a war or is it an attempt to influence a major election?

My point being is that we should all be asking such questions in today’s day and age. We have copious examples from our last two (at least) major US elections that similar tactics were used and the results were impressive/devastating. We’ve obviously learned nothing about being suspicious of the things we see, especially on social media, and not immediately calling into question the source and the intent.

This is why I generally refuse to participate in such things online. Perhaps doing the same is worth your consideration. At the very least, think through the “what if” when you do.