When you say that someone is moving like a robot, you are trying to insult them - but you're also insulting robots. If you've never had the chance to build & program a robot (& I'll assume that's most people), you probably think of a robot as a "simple" thing - a machine that you just switch on so that it will perform its task.
Let's get realistic here - a robot is not a simple thing. It's a complex machine. For that matter, when we think of "simple" machines, how much do you know about how they work, or how to work them? Let's look at a few old classics - a spinning wheel & a steam engine.
These are both "simple" in their concept. I could get you to draw them, but not to draw one well enough for a Martian to build one.
For a spinning wheel, you pump your foot up & down & hold some wool while the wheel pulls it out into yarn ... simple! Have you tried to do it? Could you build one yourself?
What about a steam engine - it's just a matter of heating up water to create steam to make a piston rise & fall, right? How hard is that? Really?
It's usually not even the design of the machine that makes for efficient outcomes - a good yarn spinner is like an artist, creating perfectly usable balls of wool at break-neck speed. A good engine driver knows exactly what pressures are needed to run their engine smoothly - what temperatures, type of fuel, etc.
Yet we take such simple machines for granted & say that we, sophisticated humans that we are. can do amazing things with machine. No, WE don't - we know people who can do such things.
Robots are the same - just with more complexity. They have more moving parts, more capability, possibly a wider range of application. If I give you a robot, it's an oversized paperweight, because you don't have a clue how to even get it switched on. Forget SciFi movies, because the people who write scripts know as much as you do.
So, if a robot actually takes a lot of effort to get to do something useful - & can only do something if you put in a lot of effort, then calling someone a robot means that they must be putting in a lot of effort to achieve a task. It must mean that they are doing things very precisely - following a plan that has been critically designed to achieve a very specific goal (which is measurable), most likely with feedback to ensure that environmanetal impacts on the plan are dealt with in real time, or at least recognised.
Anything less than this is not a robot - it's nothing more than letting a child loose with a spinning wheel & expecting that they won't simply put their kingdom to sleep for a hundred years.
I think that if people really moved like robots - thoughtfully following a plan, with feedback loops to cope with micro-variations on their projected path to a desired & measurable outcome - then the world would probably be a better place.
It may take all of the random fun out of life, but at least you wouldn't have to keep dodging people who are staring at their mobile phones apparently with no idea of where they are or where they're going.
12 December 2015
09 December 2015
Locate & Annoy
I was about to google something this morning when I noticed at the bottom of the page "<Nearby suburb> NSW - From your phone (Location History)" & it made me angry. Forget about the fact that I was using my desktop computer at home, but my phone history was being used to locate me. What really annoyed me was that <Nearby suburb> is not where I live - in fact, it's over the ridge in a much less salubrious part of town.
I have been demographically downgraded by google.
They're not the only ones - the weather app on my phone thinks I'm in <Other nearby suburb> & keeps giving me their weather.
For years, I have laughed at people in certain inner-city suburbs where boundaries divide streets & people "lie" about which side they're on. The post office has been dealing with these problems for years. Then there's the vanity suburbs, the ones that only exist in the minds of residents, that councils & governments just think of as pseudonyms for the "real" suburb.
But here I am, living in a real suburb with quite distinct boundaries - sure, we don't have a post office or church or school, but we're definitely not a part of <Nearby suburb>. In fact, it's an entirely different scenario - <My suburb> is obviously a better suburb if you look around the area. Everyone I know (not just the neighbours) agree that <My suburb> stands out as a distinctly better place. People pay good money to move to <My suburb>.
It's not just that they don't build houses like this in other suburbs in the area, & it's not that the block sizes are generous compared to the new estates. There is a distinct feel of better-ness throughout, with people putting in a genuine effort to differentiate themselves from those in <Nearby suburb>.
Don't get me wrong, we don't look down on them ... well, from the top of the ridge, we do. What I mean is, we accept that there is a place for people like us in <My suburb> & a place where people like them can live their lives in <Nearby suburb> & we get along peacefully. We mind our own business. We see each other at the shopping centre - admittedly from the distance of different shops. We watch the same New Year's Eve fireworks - although I can see them from upstairs. We all have barbecues, just with a different cut of meat.
We are a community across the area.
So, why can't Google understand this simple distinction? How can I be branded as living in <Nearby suburb> from the comfort of my own home? This is not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of publicity.
I have been demographically downgraded by google.
They're not the only ones - the weather app on my phone thinks I'm in <Other nearby suburb> & keeps giving me their weather.
For years, I have laughed at people in certain inner-city suburbs where boundaries divide streets & people "lie" about which side they're on. The post office has been dealing with these problems for years. Then there's the vanity suburbs, the ones that only exist in the minds of residents, that councils & governments just think of as pseudonyms for the "real" suburb.
But here I am, living in a real suburb with quite distinct boundaries - sure, we don't have a post office or church or school, but we're definitely not a part of <Nearby suburb>. In fact, it's an entirely different scenario - <My suburb> is obviously a better suburb if you look around the area. Everyone I know (not just the neighbours) agree that <My suburb> stands out as a distinctly better place. People pay good money to move to <My suburb>.
It's not just that they don't build houses like this in other suburbs in the area, & it's not that the block sizes are generous compared to the new estates. There is a distinct feel of better-ness throughout, with people putting in a genuine effort to differentiate themselves from those in <Nearby suburb>.
Don't get me wrong, we don't look down on them ... well, from the top of the ridge, we do. What I mean is, we accept that there is a place for people like us in <My suburb> & a place where people like them can live their lives in <Nearby suburb> & we get along peacefully. We mind our own business. We see each other at the shopping centre - admittedly from the distance of different shops. We watch the same New Year's Eve fireworks - although I can see them from upstairs. We all have barbecues, just with a different cut of meat.
We are a community across the area.
So, why can't Google understand this simple distinction? How can I be branded as living in <Nearby suburb> from the comfort of my own home? This is not an issue of privacy, it's an issue of publicity.