Amounts vs. Numbers

This doesn't get me as annoyed as "lie" vs. "lay" but it does occasionally give me pause when I'm reading something. It's another rule which is fairly easy to follow.

Use "numbers" for discrete objects. In other words, marbles can be counted, so there are "large numbers of marbles" if you don't feel like specifying a number but would like to impress upon the audience the largeness of the number of marbles.

Use "amounts" for things which cannot be counted. Coffee, for instance, cannot be counted; there is simply more of it. So "large amounts of coffee," cannot be counted, it can simply be understood to be a large amount. If one were to say "large amounts of cups of coffee," one would be mistaken, because one can count cups of coffee. Thus, "large numbers of cups of coffee," or perhaps even better, "many cups of coffee."

If you're unsure, why not use "quantities" instead? You can use that terminology whatever you're describing. So "large quantities of marbles" is correct, as well as "large quantities of coffee."

Why does that work? Because the origin of "quantities" is in fact "quanta" or "atoms." We're accustomed to thinking of "atom" as referring to an object containing protons, neutrons, and electrons, but an atom is simply the smallest amount of a thing (see, I used amount because I can't count it) which still has that thing's properties. So obviously, 1 marble is the smallest amount of marble (not "amount of marbles," but rather the smallest amount of the thing which possesses, as a quality, marble-ness) which can be said to still be a marble. If you cut a marble in half, it is no longer a marble, but rather is glass, so it is a quantity of glass, but not of marbles. Similarly, there is some smallest amount of coffee which still possesses coffee-ness as a property, and though one doesn't really care how small that amount is, one can say that it is an atom, or quantum (the singular of quanta) of coffee, and thus having large numbers of quanta would constitute a large quantity of coffee.

Why do you think "Quantum of Solace" is called that? It's not because it's a silly title (which it is, but that's not the reason). It's because it actually means, "a very small amount of solace, the smallest amount there can be." Well, actually, the writer merely meant "a very small amount of solace," but still, one can speak of quantities of solace, and a quantum would be the smallest amount there could be while still being solace. Quantum mechanics is called that because it deals with the smallest things that are still things. So you can use "quanta" to speak of physical objects, or of mental states or emotions, and all it really means is "the smallest amount." Thus, quantities means a grouping of quanta, and therefore quantities is not burdened by the ability to count the thing being described because one can always count quanta.

That went far afield at the end, into metaphysics or something, but the bottom line is that amounts cannot be counted, they can be measured. So a kilogram is an amount, but you can't count the individual bits of a kilogram unless you divide it into smaller amounts, which themselves cannot be counted in bits unless you divide them into smaller amounts. You can count numbers of amounts, so I can say that there are large numbers of milligrams in a kilogram, but I can't say that there are large numbers of coffee in a liter, no matter how hard I try. It really makes sense if you see the exaggerated examples.

If you can count it, use "numbers" in place of the actual number that you're too lazy to count. There are large numbers of stars in the sky. If you can't count it, use "amounts" in place of the measurement that you're too lazy to take. There are large amounts of water in the Atlantic Ocean. If you're stuck and can't figure out which to use, or you think you could use either, then use "quantities" and be safe. There are both large quantities of stars in the sky and large quantities of water in the Atlantic Ocean, but it would be hard to compare the two numerically.

Simple.

Why Can't We Both Be Wrong?

This is a continuation of pots and kettles, except this has a different thrust. Basically, if you're not perfect, you can't criticize people, and if you criticize people, you must think you're perfect.

So why can't we both be imperfect? Why can't I say "Hey, those Israelis sure treat Palestinians poorly, and those Palestinians sure do bad things to Israelis." Why can't both of those things be wrong (in this case, I don't mean factually, I mean morally)? Why can't I decry both? Why do I have to approve of Israel's policy because some Palestinians are terrorists (and don't get me started on the fact that I have to approve of Israel's policy because of the Holocaust). Why must Israel be wiped off the map because it treats some people badly?

It's really just another case of there being no room for anything but extremes. In political parties, you're either with everything or agin' everything, and ne'er the twain shall meet. So obviously there's no way for you to be wrong at the same time as your opponent is wrong. There are only two things which can happen: I'm right, or you're right.

Likewise, why can't we both be right? Religions seem to take a dim view of that, historically, as do various other people and organizations, but why can't we both be right? And not in the partial sense; there are some things where both sides can be entirely right. They tend to be metaphysical, but still. I don't mean agreeing to disagree; I mean agreeing that we're equally right.

I'm hearing strains of "Why Can't We Be Friends" running through my head, and basically this was just one long question of that sort. And yet, I ask: why can't we both be wrong? Why can't I admit that I'm wrong without having to agree that you're right. Why can't I be right without you being wrong? What the Hell is wrong with us?

Sans Serif

"Come tatelleh, sit on Zaidah's lap. I'm going to tell you a story. It's a story about books. Do you remember books?"

"No."

"No? You little pischer, books are those square things with words written on them."

"Oh, you mean like iPhones?"

"It's the goyim in him talking, that's what it is. No, I'm talking about the things with pages and covers where you turn the pages and read the stories inside."

"Oh, you mean the Kindle?"

"Never mind, you little nudnik. Okay, so once upon a time, long, long ago, there were these things that people had called books, and in them were written all the stories of the world. This was back before video games, so no one had anything better to do than read."

"Wow, was that like back when the dinosaurs..."

"You better stifle, or I'll give you a zetz into next week. So there were these books, and there were a lot of good ones and a lot of bad ones, and pretty soon, the people who wrote the bad ones realized that no one wanted to buy them, because no one wanted to read them. So they all got together, and the next thing you know, they came out with an announcement. 'We know you thought our books were pure drek,' they said, 'but listen, we've come up with a great new idea, and we think you're gonna like it. We call it Sans Serif.'"

"What's Sans Serif?"

"I'm coming to that, stop varfing yourself. See, all books used to be written with letters that had little lines at the top and bottom of them, called serifs. Well, someone came up with the idea of taking away those little lines and calling it Sans Serif. So they published all these books with no little lines on the letters, and people were so worked up about the fact that Sans Serif was new and different that they didn't really pay attention to the fact that the books were still pure drek. Sure, there were some in Sans Serif that were okay, but mostly chazzerai. And the worst thing was, Sans Serif is harder to read."

"Why?"

"What do I look like, an expert? It's harder, you take my word for that."

The moral of the story is, just because we can do a thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that we must.

If that weren't so long, that would be the title of this blog. No, I do not genuinely believe that the preceding story, told me by my fictional Yiddish zaida, is true. I simply wished to point out that special effects in movies, and in particular shooting a movie in 3D, doesn't make the movie any better. You could invent a new font, print the Army Manual on Latrine-Digging from 1953 in that font, and it still wouldn't be a great American novel. Get over it, people.

Aaaagh!

Dear Hollywood,

I'm going to make this as simple as I can. I'm going to speak slowly and clearly.

Stop! Making! Sequels!

Aaaaaaagh!

I could list a whole crapload of sequels which are in the works which shouldn't be made. I could list a whole crapload of sequels which have been made which shouldn't have been. God, just stop! Stop!

Sincerely,

Aaaaagh!

Either It's Bad or It Ain't

I think I'd shoulder the ethical burden and kill Hitler.

Now that's a way to begin a topic. But seriously, if I had the opportunity, even if it meant I myself would suffer and die, even if it meant killing another human being, to which I'm morally opposed, I think I could be morally pragmatic enough to kill Hitler. The Holocaust was bad enough that, for just the chance of preventing it alone (leaving aside all the other bad stuff for which Hitler was directly or indirectly responsible), I would do a bad thing myself and murder Hitler. I don't think there are many people who would disagree. There are some who wouldn't actually go through with it, and there are some who cannot compromise their morals even that much (and I respect that, I truly do), but most people would probably view killing Hitler as, if not a good thing (and goodness knows many people would view it as a good thing) at least a forgivable thing.

So for most people, there are some things which are so bad that even doing bad things to stop them would be justifiable. It's not pretty, but it's true. It's a moral gray area, or rather a bunch of moral gray areas. And I think that a lot of people use the Holocaust as a benchmark for badness.

Therefore, if you think that something is worse than the Holocaust, you should be doing more than you probably are to stop it. It's just that simple. Either something's bad enough, or it's not.

The anti-abortion crowd uses rhetoric comparing abortions to the Holocaust frequently. If you truly believe that abortion is worse than the Holocaust, by God you should applaud the killing of doctors who perform abortions. If you don't, you either think that the Holocaust is small potatoes (which is crap) and therefore think that abortion is fairly small potatoes too (unlikely), or you're such a principled person that you don't believe there is any cause worthy of murder... in which case, you don't believe in the death penalty or war. There are undoubtedly a few people who believe the latter, and again, I have deep respect for those convictions. But the vocal people, the ones on Fox News and holding signs and being assholes in general, do not hold those convictions, so either they're hypocritical for saying that abortion is worse than the Holocaust, or they're hypocritical for getting worked up about something which, to them, is less important than they let on.

Similarly, anti-whaling organizations (I watched some Whale Wars on Animal Planet) have compared the killing of whales to the Holocaust. Yet they don't seem to take it seriously enough. They spend their time protesting by being annoying. If I genuinely thought that killing whales was worse than the Holocaust, or even close to the Holocaust, I would be blowing up whaling boats. It's just that simple. There are even ways one could be extreme without killing people, at least not intentionally. One could cripple the boats, take their crews hostage, do all kinds of crazy things. Instead, we get protest by annoyance. It speaks to their comparisons, and trivializes their own cause while trivializing the Holocaust as well (as I have when I said it was merely "bad." I should have said "evil" or something similar, and even then it's not enough. Not to mention the fact that bandying about the Holocaust is fairly trivializing in general).

Basically, either it's bad, or it's not, as I said in the title in frank patois. Either it's bad enough to do something about, or you're just paying lip service, and I can do without lip service. There are so many causes out there that people trumpet, but that's really all they do: trumpet. There are far fewer people actually doing something about various bad things.

One last bit: smoking. This cuts to the core of "bad or not." If smoking is bad, and no one should do it, then why do we keep paying lip service to that idea? Either it's bad, or it's not. The quote comes from this article on the BBC.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11% over the next decade, and adult smoking by 2%.

Okay, so either it's bad, in which case we should be aiming to reduce smoking by 100%, or it's not, in which case why are we worried about it? Supposedly, this is tough legislation. Why is smoking still legal? You know the answer, I know the answer. But it pays to look at the responses to smoking; they tell you all you really need to know about the government's real attitude toward smoking. I'm not saying that I think there's a solution, but if "tough" legislation aims to reduce smoking by 10% over a decade, that's just not that tough. That's like kicking Hitler in the shin in an effort to stop the Holocaust. Sure, every little bit helps, and if it's the best you can do, then do it. But if it's only the best you try to do...

Video Letter

Dear Internet,

I do not want to see that video. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't want to see that video. There are some things which are only accurately consumed via motion pictures (digital or otherwise) but guess what, that's not one of them. That would be more accurately consumed via text, because it is text-based.

Remember back when you used to do nothing but serve text? Remember how there were people who wanted you, Internet, to offer multimedia options, like sound. They said things like, "You can't read music, you have to hear it." I agree, Internet. You can read music, but it's not the best way of hearing it, certainly. Indeed, I venture a guess that reading music isn't a very good way of consuming music at all. You also can't really read art, nor can you read movies.

So you gave them pictures. Then sound. And then you gave them video. And now, you're offering video for everything. Programming tutorial? Video. Sure, you could just write the text and it would be easier and more useful, but by God you've got the technology and you're going to use it until we beg for mercy.

Is this in retaliation for all the people who complained about text back in the old days? Did we offend you? On behalf of all the jerks who maligned you back when you were just green, mono-spaced text on a black screen, I'm sorry Internet. We wanted you to be better than you were, we wanted nothing but better things for you. But obviously, we got out of hand.

So no, Internet, I don't want to see that video. I don't want to take 10 minutes to hear what I could have skimmed in 5 seconds. I want to be able to copy and paste text, which, unfortunately, you can't do from a video. I'm not saying that all videos are bad, but that one, in particular, is unnecessary and needs to be retooled into some nice, clean, mono-spaced text.

Can't we go back to the way it used to be, Internet? I promise, I'll never stray again. I'd never hit a loosely-bound network of computers. That Denial of Service attack wasn't me, I swear. Let's just go back inside and work things out calmly.

Love,

A Concerned Citizen

Looks

Hey people who buy things strictly for aesthetic value! Here's a list of helpful hints:

Computers should not be purchased because you "like the way they look." That's stupid.

It is, however, okay to buy art because you like the way it looks. If you're one of those people who would buy a computer because of its aesthetic, but feel that you need to have some deep artistic purpose behind purchasing a work of art, you are an idiot.

Cars have aspects of look to them, but if the car that looks better costs more, and you could be buying a nondescript but practical car, your idiocy is proportional to the amount of extra money you're willing to spend.

Clothing is mostly for looks. Thus, buying clothes because you like the way they look is mostly permissible. However, if you buy clothing that is uncomfortable but you think looks good, you are stupid.

Gosh, this is fun. It's amazing that this is all because of a commercial I saw.

Hey Microsoft and Apple. We're tired of the commercials. You're a PC, you're a Mac, we don't give a damn. You both lie, and you both say things the wrong way. Not that I'm exempting Linux from this; they just don't have the money to advertise. Poor bastards.

Anyway, back to looks. Sex is all about looks. Don't try to think differently. If you're having sex with people who don't attract you, well, I don't know how you do it.

Friendship, on the other hand, shouldn't have anything to do with looks. This isn't a moral issue, this is a practical issue. If you aren't friends with someone because of the way they look, then your criteria for friendship are screwed up.

Basically, there are things which are about looks, but if you think that some things are when they, in fact, are not, you're an idiot. I make these pronouncements. Do not argue with me. I may disagree with myself tomorrow. As I said, this is pretty much about a commercial I saw for Microsoft where someone was buying a computer based on its "aesthetic," and said they were "picky." No, you're an idiot. Go away.

Bing Bunk

Hey Microsoft? Ever considered that maybe, just maybe, we're not looking for what you're providing?

I speak of the news that Microsoft is going to overhaul its search engine. Going to call it "Bing." Because Microsoft wants its search engine to do comedy routines with Bob Hope? Because this new search engine will sing? Because Microsoft supports child abuse? Sorry, that last one wasn't fair.

Bing? Really?

Bing has a much softer, less clinical feel than previous Microsoft search engines and rivals, with a daily changing backdrop image.

Right. Okay, so when I go for search, I go for soft. And changing background images. Wake up, Microsoft. I don't care if your search engine offers me products for free, so I sure as hell don't care if it's softer and offers a changing background image. Frankly, you're not winning any awards in the background image department anyway. Who doesn't love the eye-candy that makes up the Microsoft Wallpaper package?

"Google haven't been able to innovate a lot of the UI (user interface) because they have to display their ads as that's how they make their revenue. We can try things a bit differently," said Mr Stoddart.

Or not. Because the Google UI may have its own issues, but it really has very little to do with the ads. Google has changed the way they display ads, but their UI hasn't changed. QED. That was too simple. Google's UI is deliberately the way it is, not based on ads. I can't prove it, but Google certainly goes out of its way to make its UI the way it does, and it doesn't mention ads much. I often forget they're there.

The bottom line: Microsoft is, in this quote, acknowledging that search is, to them, a loss leader. In other words, it's free candy they give out to get you into the store. Google, on the other hand, makes a business out of search, ads or no. On the one hand, we have a company that is eating what is no doubt a huge loss (remember those free products they were giving out to get people to use the search engine) just to try to capture a market (and one wonders why it wants to capture that market, since until recently it wasn't in that market). On the other, we have a company that's doing well because it does what it sells well.

I may be sounding like a sniveling Google fan boy, and rest assured, I'm not. I like Google, I use Google, but I don't love Google. Nor do I hate Microsoft. I just think that the idiocy level of changing backgrounds and names is pretty high. I'm sure it will work, because people are dumb on the Internet, but really, you're going to flock to Microsoft because of a pretty picture and a strange name?

I guess the real bottom line is that Microsoft apparently wants to be all things to all people, and sometimes I wonder if that's because it wants money, or control, or simply because it wants it. There may be no good reason. And that's not good. When all Microsoft did was make certain types of software, they weren't perfect, and they're spreading themselves ever thinner.