3 Terms I "Learned" From the Internet

One thing that seems to happen to me on the Internet more than is reasonable, is that I will think I know something, only to come across a whole community of seemingly intelligent people that insist that what I know is a false. And I'm not even talking about people I can't possibly take seriously, or topics about which I know nothing.

No, these are topics about which I felt about as knowledgeable as any layperson has a right to feel, only to discover I knew nothing. For example:

#1 Men's Rights

What I thought it meant

In the early 90s my mother started dating a man named Barry whom she would continue to date for the rest of that decade. At the time I met Barry he was on good terms with his ex-wife, but a short time later the two of them had a falling out, and she began denying him access to his children.

So Barry joined a men's rights group because they were able to advise and console him in his fight to get access to his children. However, his efforts were in vain, and the last I heard he hadn't seen his kids in over seven years, and the one that had reached adulthood refused to meet with him because the child had been told his father had abandon him.

Then last year I stumbled on to this youtube channel that features an Alberta woman who fights for men's rights (I have no idea if she is actually linked to the group Barry was a part of, but I suspect she is). She has a lot of interesting things to say, but she usually takes an absurdly long time to say it and makes some claims that really require more evidence than she provides. But the crux of what she is saying that there are some very important issues on which men don't get fairly treated.

But the Internet told me

That the men's rights movement is actually about douche bags, who feel women owe them sex whenever they want it, getting pissed off because they are socially obligated to be the one who pays for a date.

#2 Nice Guys

What I thought it meant

When I was young and single I used to refer to myself as a nice guy.  It seemed perfectly apt, I was nice and a guy. And it long been used to refer to shy guys who had trouble with women, of which I was definitely one.

I used to joke that I was irresistible to women my mom's age because pretty much any woman I knew that was more than a few years older me seemed to be in perpetual shock that I didn't have a girlfriend. Now, I wasn't in shock, I knew the source of the problem, but I didn't have a fix for it. So I remained lonely, and begrudgingly applied said label to myself.

Did I wish I had someone is my life? Absolutely. Did I feel it was somehow owed to me? Of course not. 

But the Internet told me

So apparently self described nice guys aren't actually nice at all. Nice guys actually just pretend to be nice because they think that by being nice women owe them sex. 

#3 Asperger's Syndrome

What I thought it meant

I know I had heard the term "Asperger's Syndrome" before two years ago, but it hadn't really registered with me what it was. Then one day in 2012 the therapist I was seeing told me she was going to do something different that session. She gave a test, at the end of which she informed me that I probably had Asperger's, but that she wasn't fully qualified to make that diagnosis.

This kicked off a series of appointments where I hopped from doctor to doctor looking for confirmation that this was actually what I had, but every appointment ended with my being told that while I probably did have Asperger's that doctor wasn't qualified to say definitively. Eventually I gave up looking for a true confirmation out of frustration, and just settled on the fact that I probably do have Asperger's.

Supposedly this is a very strong indicator of my having AS.

Asperger's, is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development.

But the Internet told me

Asperger's is not an actual condition, its just an excuse assholes use to cover their asinine behavior.

20 RPG Plots

I am expecting that I will be back behind the screen shortly after D&D Next comes out this summer. In preparation for this I have been doing some brain storming trying to come up with an idea for a campaign that both suits my style, yet is very different from anything I have done before.

In the course of this brain storming I thought of something that isn't really a campaign idea per se, but could be used to make a campaign more interesting. In his book 20 Master Plots, Ronald Tobias lists what he believes to be the only possible 20 plots in literature.

I thought it could be a fun idea to run a campaign where each adventure was a different plot on this list. The 20 plots are:

1. Quest 
2. Adventure 
3. Pursuit 
4. Rescue 
5. Escape 
6. Revenge 
7. The Riddle 
8. Rivalry 
9. Underdog 
10. Temptation 
11. Metamorphosis 
12. Transformation 
13. Maturation
14. Love 
15. Forbidden Love 
16. Sacrifice 
17. Discovery 
18. Wretched Excess 
19. Ascension 
20. Descension

My 5 Biggest Financial Blunders

There is a friend of mine who, of late, has been posting advice on Facebook for how to reduce one's expenses and wisely invest one's savings. While I have read a fair bit on such topics before, you wouldn't know it from looking at my financial history.

I've made more than my share of mistakes, and I don't just mean the obvious ones like buying stuff I couldn't afford, or eating at restaurants too often. No, I think I have made bigger financial blunders than anyone else I personally know. Here's five of my biggest ones:

Definitely not the five big ones I'm talking about.

#1 Stopped Being Home Owners

In early 2007 Margaret and I were both on medical leaves from our jobs. We were essentially living off our credit cards, and it was clear we were going to run out of credit before either of us was ready to return to work.

I had never missed paying a bill before in my life (other than the odd time one had got lost in the mail pile) and so I assumed that the moment you fall behind all hell breaks loose. I suggested we sell our house because I figured that our options were sell the house and keep the equity or have the bank seize it and we loose everything.

So at the end of June in 2007 we sold our house, and immediately transitioned from living off credit, to living off the proceeds of selling our house. In 2012, when those proceeds were just a distant memory, we bought a similar house in the same neighborhood for double the price. We flushed 5 years of rent down the drain, are now paying nearly double in mortgage payments, and will be done paying off this mortgage in 2037 instead of 2027.

What We Should Have Done

We should have talked to our bank about our situation, and hopefully have been let off for a few payments. We should have applied for more credit rather than assuming we would be denied. We should have looked for help from everyone who might have helped us. I should have looked for a job that was not as stressful. (of course, this is all very easy to say 7 years later when I am not in the midst of a massive depression)




#2 Payed Off Margaret's Loans

Part of the reason we were in so much trouble in 2007 was because in 2006 we were unexpectedly contacted about Margaret's student loans. Margaret had declared bankruptcy in the 1990s, just as the law was changing to not allow student loans to be included in a bankruptcy.

Margaret never heard another whisper about her loan for more than 7 years, so she logically assumed that all was well. But then in 2006 the bank let her know that they were expecting her to cough up $20,000 immediately.

I looked into their claim, and they seemed legit to me, so I suggested we get a line of credit to cover the money they wanted.

What We Should Have Done

Got a lawyer. Even at the time I kind of suspected that was a good idea, but because the reason I had for thinking we should get a lawyer turned out to be a non sequitur, we instead just ponied up the cash. In the years since I have read a number of things that have made me think that we may well have had the law on our side if we had told them we weren't going to pay.



#3 Lived Off My Inheritance

On my 18th birthday I received $65,000 that had been left for me by my father. Just about everyone I knew back then had some opinion on what I should do with the money, and pretty much every suggestion anyone ever made was better than what I actually did.

Two weeks after I graduated high school I got into an argument with my mother and stormed out of the house. I rented a motel room for a couple of weeks, then got myself an apartment. I never got a job, until the day my inheritance ran out, instead living off it like a lazy bum.

What I Should Have Done

I think moving out from home was the right choice, but what I should have done was buy a cheap condo and then gotten a job.



#4 Cashed in my RRSPs

There was a time when I actually was really on track for saving for my retirement. But when we bought our first home we weren't really prepared for some of the expenses that came with acquiring a home. I didn't like that our credit cards were almost maxed by the time everything was said and done, and so I cashed in my RRSPs to pay down our debt. I have never had any serious retirement savings since that day.

What I Should Done

Accepted that we would have to take on some debt in the short term and kept saving for retirement.



#5 Gotten a Second Car

In the fall of 2012 Margaret had a series of interviews for a good job in north Edmonton. While that is a long ways from our home, it was very close to where I was working at the time, Fuller Austin. Then just hours after she was told she got the job, I was laid off.

In the weeks immediately following my lay off the fact that we were a one car family wasn't an issue as Margaret took the car to work while I was home. But after I got a job in Nisku starting in mid-January, we knew that we would have to get a second car.

The car we had at that time was a 2012 Civic, which we were very happy with. After a lot of debate about what we would do, we decided to get another 2012 Civic as Honda was doing an end of year sell off of them.

On December 31st we gave our deposit. On January 1st Margaret was fired.

We stressed endlessly about what to do. We had already handed over $500 that we now couldn't afford, and with me working in Nisku there was the very real possibility that we would need a second car eventually anyways. Reluctantly we went in and signed the papers and took possession of the second car on January 3rd.

During the 10 months we owned two cars, the second car saw barely 1000 km use.


What We Should Have Done

What we really should have done was never given the deposit. The moment they told us that the reduced price meant we would not be getting the low interest rate they normally give we should have said, no thanks.

But even if we assume that we gave the deposit, we probably could have gotten it back, simply by telling them Margaret had lost her job and letting them reject us.

20 Things Back the the Future 2 Got Right

Lately I have been hearing a lot of people mentioning the things that Back to the Future 2 will soon have gotten wrong about the year 2015; things like hoverboards, flying cars and Mr. Fusion. But I would like to point out to everyone that BttF2 got a lot of things right. Things like:

#1 Digital Cameras

#2 The return of 3D movies

#3 Sequel proliferation

#4 Tablet computers

#5 Mobile Payment

#6 A baseball team in Florida

#7 Ubiquitous advertising

#8 80s nostalgia

#9 Voice controlled computers

#10 Controller-less gaming

#11 Gamers saying Nintendo products are "kiddie toys"

#12 Drones shooting videos

#13 Biometrics

#14 Computer controlled home

#15 Flat screens

#16 People seeking information overload

#17 Video chat

#18 Social networking (notice the likes/dislikes)

#19 Online money transfers

#20 People paying more attention to electronics than those around them

Of Pigeons and Creationists

I have a rule of thumb when I am on Facebook, that I don't pick fights with friends of friends. I will happily get into flame wars with friends or with strangers, but never with my friends' friends.

My reason for this is that the place I am most likely to be in contact with friends of friends is on the walls, posts and pictures of my friends, and I really don't think it fair to my friends to have two people (even though we are both friends of theirs) get into a virtual screaming match on their stuff.

Anyways, yesterday a friend of mine posted this meme:

Which hit a kind of uncanny valley with me, where it was both similar and different enough from the original quote to really irk me. So despite knowing it might ruffle some feathers, I responded with the original quote.


"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." 
 - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer


Although most respondents seemed to appreciate my posting the quote, one came back with this:


"Conversely debating evolutionists on the topic of creation yields the same result. Both think they are right but there is no evidence to support either point of view exclusively. Even Einstein, Darwin and Hawkings stated that it is difficult to believe the complexities of the universe happened by chance without the hand of a supreme influence. Life on earth lacks it's own proof. There is no fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution exclusively. My theory is, I would rather believe in God only to discover there isnt, than to not believe in God only to discover there is. You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em brother."
-Larry


I consider it an enormous act of will power on my part that I have not and will not be responding to this in the original discussion. I suppose the fact that I am responding here, where most likely everyone who reads my response will be in agreement with me, could be construed as proving one of his points, that "evolutionists" (his word) are as self congratulatory as creationists. But I am not looking for high fives here any more that I was looking for a fight earlier. I am looking to get a dirty feeling out of my system left from letting falsehoods go unchallenged.

So here are my problems with his statement, piece by piece.


"Conversely debating evolutionists on the topic of creation yields the same result."


This sentence is more important than it first appears because of what comes after it. Larry is going to try to paint himself as being a moderate who has respect for both sides, but I am going to guess that based on this sentence he is largely lying about that.  In addition to mentioning that he gets frustrated debating those who support evolution, he uses the term "evolutionist"; its not a word used by anyone who actually supports evolution, but rather one used by creationists to describe those who oppose them.


"Both think they are right but there is no evidence to support either point of view exclusively."


If you have access to the internet your only excuse for not understanding the just how enourmous the weight of evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution is willful ignorance.

• Berkeley
• Wikipedia
• Smithsonian
• Dawkins

"Even Einstein, Darwin and Hawkings stated that it is difficult to believe the complexities of the universe happened by chance without the hand of a supreme influence."


This sentence more than anything else is what had me burning up inside. While my interest in Darwin is casual, as a physics major in university I had more than just a passing interest in Einstein and Hawking; Larry is grossly misrepresenting all three of them.

First of all, Darwin was agnostic, Einstein was pantheistic, and Hawking is an atheist. If you have any familiarity with any of them you should know that none of them ever indicated they believed in the necessity of the hand of a supreme influence. (of course, in creationist circles they love quote mining famous scientists, and Einstein and Hawking both have several that are ripe to be taken out of context)


"Life on earth lacks it's own proof."


I keep wondering what he means by this.


"There is no fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution exclusively."


It really blows my mind that creationists don't realize that science has moved forward in the last 150 years. They don't get that we have found literally millions of fossils since early biologists worried about some of the holes in the fossil record. They don't get that we have sequenced the genomes of countless creatures and discovered that the DNA evidence confirms the fossil evidence. They don't get that we have literally watched evolution occurring.


"My theory is, I would rather believe in God only to discover there isnt, than to not believe in God only to discover there is.  You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em brother."


I have no desire to address the theological reasons I don't believe in god, mostly because its not really relevant to this discussion; many people have faith in god and yet are able to accept the findings of science.

But I have heard this argument before, that its better to believe in god to CYA, and I think its an absurd argument. First of all, it assumes that if god exists, that he can be tricked; sure he's the all knowing creator of the universe, but if you bluff him, he'll fall for it. Second of all, it fails to explain why that the best strategy to CYA is to pretend to believe in the Christian god, as opposed to that of any other religion.

Anyways, thanks for putting up with me while I got this out of my system. If you want a more thorough debunking of this sort of malarkey, I highly recommend the youtube series Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?

3 Suggestions to the Academy

Another year has gone by with my completely missing the Oscars. I used to care, I really did, but in recent years I just haven't been able to. Anyways, from my position of almost complete disinterest, here are three suggestions to make the whole event a little better.


1. Let the Winners Speak.

Yeah, I know they don't like the show going over time, and yeah, acceptance speeches can be really boring, but here's the thing. The academy is supposed to be honouring the people giving those speeches, maybe part of honouring them is giving them a little time to speak.

If the shows are running too long there is a lot of other superfluous, boring crap that could be cut out without showing any disrespect to anyone (for example, do we really need those absurd, condescending, bits where they explain what a given award is for?)



2. Pick a Host Whose Act You Like

I don't get it when the academy picks a host, that host does the exact schick he's known for and then after the show the academy is all "that was a big mistake; we're never asking that guy back." There have been a lot of these over the years, most recently with Seth McFarland. I can totally understand why the academy didn't like the "We saw your boobs" song, but I don't know how they couldn't have expected something like that from Seth.

This was absolutely the first thing that came to my mind
when I thought of "We Saw Your Boobs".

3. Let Outsiders Pick Some of the Nominees

After the general public was upset that The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated for best picture (I don't know why anyone was surprised or upset, but there was a lot of outrage over this), the academy added more nominees for best picture, thinking that this would make it more likely that a popular film would be nominated. Of course it hasn't because they still love to nominate the exact same kind of movie they always have, and so overlap between popular with the public and popular with the academy remains the exception.

The academy faces a huge dilemma over this. On the one hand they love being the uptight stuffy awards show that does things their own way. But on the other hand, they also love the attention that comes with a popular movie getting lots of nominations (and awards).

The fix for this is simple, set aside a portion of the nominees (say 1/3) for every major award as popular choices. These could either be selected by a formula (like the highest grossing movie which fits the bill get nominated) or by an outside agency with the mandate to nominate a popular movie. This would have no impact on who wins, as the academy would still be a bunch of prunes about voting, but at least they'd get their wish and people would be more interested.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

So yesterday I started a new job; my fourth in the last 13th months (fifth if you count the part time job I have had concurrently with different full time jobs). With each new job I have taken up the keyboard and tried to express some optimism, and so I find myself doing that again today.

There certainly are some easily quantifiable aspects of my job with Envacon that make it superior to what has come before it. My annual salary is higher, if only marginally, than what I made at Entrec. I have a private office just like a did at Armour Clad (and while the new office is half the size, my office at Armour Clad was right by the bathroom, and the acoustics from there carried too well.) And while FA gave me good hardware, and Metal Fab gave me top end software, Envacon is the first to give me a high end computer plus all the software I need to actually get my job done.

But the thing is, I've done the "look at why this job is better than my last" rig-a-more-roll before. I argued for each of my jobs in 2013 that they were the job I have been waiting for, that I would like to work and stay at for years to come. Everyone of those predictions failed, so why wouldn't this one? A big part of what made those predictions failures is that they were predictions in the face of negative perceptions; I wanted to love the jobs I got, and so when I saw things that bothered me I buried those feeling deep, then would write the praises of the new job.

The day I arrived at Entrec they didn't have a desk for me; that problem would never be resolved. I worked in a small room with two other guys, and but for my boss and the IT manager I never even got a hello from another person in the building. I had a leery feeling about the place from day one, and it never went away. Because I didn't have my own desk I had my trainer sitting next to me watching and critiquing my ever click, and that is in the end what led to my being fired.

I praised Entrec for the money, the shorter commute, and how interesting the work sounded. Though the positives were never enough to balance the negatives, and I was doomed to lose that job

The day I met Ken, the owner of Armour Clad I felt he was someone I would have trouble working for; he was both an egomaniac and a micro-manager. I didn't like that he wanted me to take a big pay cut for the first 90 days I worked there, with the understanding he would bring my pay up at the end of the 90 days.

I praised Armour Clad for the giant private office they gave me, and for giving me a chance to be an estimator. However, I would learn fairly quickly that what I liked so much about estimating in school, is just a small part of what the job involves in real life, and I despise what estimating is really about. Its just as well Ken fired me, because I probably wouldn't have lasted much longer.

While I perhaps ignored some strong warning signs at Entrec and Armour Clad, I can probably forgive myself for not paying attention to the signs of trouble at Metal Fab. Metal Fab are a bunch of cheapskates. Just walking in the building last summer it was easy to see that the furniture was old and the building was ancient and in need of repairs. All over the building were signs of just how cheap the company was. Most obvious to me was that as a drafter I didn't get a real cube,  my monitors were rather small, my computer was very slow, and for one crucial piece of software we didn't have enough licenses.

I praised Metal Fab because it seemed like a good fit for my skills and everyone there was genuinely a pleasure to work with. But on day one I was bothered by the the company's unwillingness to invest in vital equipment; I should have guessed that would also mean that they would rather lay off skilled workers than pay them during a down turn.

And so that brings me back to my new company Envacon.

As of yesterday, this is my life.

Before I say anything else about them, I should explain how I got the position. A friend put me in touch with them just after they received notice from their Mech Tech that he would be leaving. I was told it was too soon for them to do an interview, but that they would love to have a short cup of coffee with me. A short coffee turned into a long coffee, turned into a tour of the facility and meeting the other owner. By the end of two hours they had all but told me I was going to be hired, and the next day they made it official.

I have had to fight tooth and nail for pretty much every job I've ever gotten. Not being much of a people person, I am lousy at networking, and so I have never been hired like this before. I can't tell you how good getting this job in this way made me feel; for once I feel like a company truly wants me rather than is merely settling on me.

The only reservations or bad feelings I have ever had about this job are that I have worried a little bit that I am in over my head (which they have done a wonderful job of lessening by making it clear that I will not be expect to learn things fast nor truly replace the eight year veteran whose job I am getting) and it has occurred to me that with the owners of the company being in their late 50s that they might just sell the company off when they reach a certain age.

So to end things on a high note, here's a quick list of all the awesome things about my new job

• Very short commute
• Job has a lot of variety
• Pay is the highest annual salary I've ever received (though lack of benefits lessens this)
• A lot of my previous skills are relevant to the job (even help desk)
• I will be learning a lot of new skills that are very marketable
• Job will help me get my CET and other certifications
• Private office, 2nd floor with nice view
• Bosses seem like two of the nicest bosses I have ever met