“If It’s Not Baroque…”

I wonder who came up with serif fonts. I suppose they were inspired by the Baroque period. Baroque is a style in which an object — art, sculpture, music, rap, whatever — is adorned with many little doo-dads and hoo-haws to make it look… well… silly I guess. But it’s a thing.

 
So, somebody, somewhere, took a look at the perfectly good Latin character set, and decided it needed some doo-dads and hoo-haws added to it. I suppose they wanted credit for being creative, or artistic, or whatever.
 
The point is, it was entirely unnecessary. Serif’d fonts are hard to read. Harder than nice sans-serif fonts. Why do we use them, then? Because somebody, somewhere, decided on our behalf, that Times Roman was the font everyone should use. And thus, we all fell into line like little sheep bleating about how amazing the sun is, how green the grass is, and how glittery-special Times Roman is.
 
And they added it to computers. Computers don’t need doo-dads and hoo-haws. Computers need this:
 
01001001
 
They can do almost anything in terms of managing data, presenting media, or controlling external devices, using nothing but an amazing array of ones and zeroes (or if you want to be picky about it, circuits which are either on or off). Baroque is simply non-essential for function.
 
Form, however, is a different story. Computers were boring and dull and hard to use, until they suddenly aquired Times Roman. From that point forward, they were awesome productive engines fueling the creative class, and making the world spin.
 
All because the characters, translated from ones and zeroes, acquired doo-dads and hoo-haws, and became harder to read.
 
Why do so many people prefer Times Roman over functionality? I don’t know, but I suspect it lies behind the tendency of Liberty-minded people to vote, over and over again, for Authoritarian, Baroque politicians, who simply cannot leave a working system alone without adorning it with useless doo-dads and hoo-haws which look nice, but accomplish nothing.
Advertisements

Politically Incorrect take on Memorial Day

The hot dogs have been eaten, the hamburgers burnt.  Tents taken down and washed, paper plates returned to the cupboard.  Our nation has dutifully spent its one minute of silence honoring those who gave all for this nation, and we return to our regular lives.

This post isn’t going where you think it is.

Dia de muertos – Day of the Dead – is a holiday celebrated in Mexico (and spread across the world), with origins in Aztec civilization, so says the ever-believable (but I sarcast [which is totally a verb – I just made it one]) Wikipedia.  Of course, the idea of celebrating the departed is not an Aztecian original.  See this helpful list, or simply consider the ancestor worship practiced in the east, or even the practice of visiting the grave of a departed family member.  Or consider the most-recently-concluded holiday, conveniently named Memorial Day.

The point is, most cultures (all?) have some tradition of honoring or remembering their dearly departed.

The process of grieving for the departed is different – it is a response to what is (hopefully) a recent event, and it is the subject of a subset of psychology.  It is, perhaps, the immediate response to loss, whereas the memorial celebrations are the long-tail release of the reaction spike of grief.  They are two related, and common, reactions to loss.

Generally, we expect the grieving period to occur, last a short time, and give way to the memorial period.  We grieve briefly, then remember, and honor the memories — without the grieving part — for a long time thereafter.

That is how it is supposed to work.  Sometimes a person, for whatever reason, gets stuck in the grief.  That’s where the psychology comes into play.

Now, what does that have to do with the most recent holiday, and how is that politically incorrect?

Continue reading