Like many others, I came at this cache from the wrong side of the ditch/fence and had to make my way East a little way to find a suitable crossing point. Cache was easy to find, but it’s definitely in bad condition and not watertight. TFTC.
Found the clue object immediately and the cache a couple of minutes later while out on my coronavirus-crisis-compatible daily exercise walk. TFTC.
I had a bit of a realisation, this week. I’ve long sometimes found it especially challenging to maintain a mental map of the preferred personal pronouns of people who don’t use “he”, “she”, or “they”. Further than that, it seemed to me that personal pronouns beyond these three ought to be mostly redundant in English. “Them” has been well-established for over six centuries as not just a plural but a singular pronoun, I thought: we don’t need to invent more words.
Over time – even within my lifetime – it’s become noticeably more-commonplace to hear the singular “they”/”them” in place of “he or she”/”him or her”, or single binary pronouns (e.g. when talking about professions which have long been dominated by a particular gender). So you might hear somebody say:
“I will make an appointment to see a doctor and ask them about my persistent cough.”
It seemed to me that “they” was a perfect general-purpose stand in for everybody who was well-served by neither “he” nor “she”.
I’ll stress, of course, that I’ve always been fully supportive of people’s preferred pronouns, tried to use them consistently, ensured they can be represented in software I’ve implemented (and pressured others over their implementations, although that’s as-often related to my individual identity), etc. I’ve just struggled to see the need for new singular third-person pronouns like ze, ey, sie, ve, or – heaven forbid – the linguistically-cumbersome thon, co, or peh.
I’d put it down to one of those things that I just don’t “get”, but about which I can still respect and support anyway. I don’t have to totally grok something in order to understand that it’s important to others.
But very recently, I was suddenly struck by a comprehension of one of the reported problems with the use of the singular “they” to refer to people for whom the traditional binary pronouns are not suitable. I’ve tried to capture in the illustration above the moment of understanding when I made the leap.
The essence of this particular problem is: the singular “they” already has a meaning that is necessarily incompatible with the singular “they” used of a nonbinary subject! By way of example, let’s revisit my earlier example sentence:
“I will make an appointment to see a doctor and ask them about my persistent cough.”
Here, I’m saying one of two things, and it’s fundamentally unclear which of the two I mean:
- I do not know which doctor I will see, so I do not know the pronoun of the doctor.
- I will see the same doctor I always see, and they prefer a nonbinary pronoun.
The more widespread the adoption of “they” as the third person singular for nonbinary people becomes, the more long-winded it is to clarify specifically which of the above interpretations is correct! The tendency to assume the former leads to nonbinary invisibility, and the (less-likely in most social circles) tendency to assume the latter leads to misgendering.
The difference is one of specificity. Because the singular “they” is routinely used non-specifically, where the subject’s preferred pronouns are unknown (as with the doctor, above), unknowable (“somebody wrote this anonymous message; they said…”), or a placeholder (“when I meet somebody, I shake their hand”), it quickly produces semantic ambiguities when it’s used to refer to specific nonbinary individuals. And that makes me think: we can do better.
That said: I don’t feel able to suggest which pronoun(s) ought to replace the question mark in the diagram above. But for the first time, I’m not convinced that it ought to be “they”.
Ultimately, this changes nothing. I regularly use a diversity of different singular pronouns (he”, “she”, and “they”, mostly) based on the individual subject and I’ll continue to acknowledge and respect their preferences. If you’ve you’ve told me that you like to be referred to by the singular “they”, I’ll continue to do so and you’re welcome and encouraged to correct me if I get it wrong!
But perhaps this new appreciation of the limitations of the singular “they” when referring to specific individuals will help me to empathise with those for whom it doesn’t feel right, and who might benefit from more-widespread understanding of other, newer personal pronouns.
(and on the off chance anybody’s found their way to this page looking for my pronouns: I’m not particularly fussy, so long as you’re consistent and don’t confuse your audience, but most people refer to me with traditional masculine pronouns he/him/his)
While there has been plenty of fiction written about pandemics, I think the biggest difference between those scenarios and our reality is how poorly our government has handled it. If your goal is to dramatize the threat posed by an unknown virus, there’s no advantage in depicting the officials responding as incompetent, because that minimizes the threat; it leads the reader to conclude that the virus wouldn’t be dangerous if competent people were on the job. A pandemic story like that would be similar to what’s known as an “idiot plot,” a plot that would be resolved very quickly if your protagonist weren’t an idiot. What we’re living through is only partly a disaster novel; it’s also—and perhaps mostly—a grotesque political satire.
What will “normal” look like after the coronavirus crisis has passed? Will it be the same normal as we’re used to? Or could we actually learn some lessons from this and progress towards something better?
I love Ted Chiang’s writing; enough to reshare this interview even though I’m only lukewarm about it!
Earlier this week, I wrote about why you should still use vanilla JS when so many amazing third-party libraries exist.
A few folks wrote to me to mention something I missed: security.
When you use code you didn’t author, you’re taking a risk. You’re trusting that the third-party code does not have security issues, that the author has good intent.
Chris makes a very good point, especially for those developers of the
npm install every-damn-thing persuasion: getting an enormous framework that you don’t completely understand just because you need a small portion of its features is bad security practice. And the target is a juicy one: a bad actor who finds (or introduces) a vulnerability in a big and widely-used library has a whole lot of power. Security concerns are a major part of why I go vanilla/stdlib where possible.
But as always with security the answer isn’t so clear-cut and simple, and I’d argue that it’s dangerous to encourage people to write their own solutions as a matter of course, for security reasons. For a start, you should never roll your own cryptographic libraries because you’re almost certainly going to fuck it up: an undetectable and easy-to-make mistake in your crypto implementation can lead to a catastrophic cascade and completely undermine the value of your cryptography. If you’re smart enough about crypto to implement crypto properly, you should contribute towards one of the major libraries. And if you’re not smart enough about crypto (and if you’re not sure, then you’re not), you should use one of those libraries. And even then you should take care to integrate and use it properly: people have been tripped over before by badly initialised keys or the use of the wrong kind of cipher for their use-case. Crypto is hard enough that even experts fuck it up and important enough that you can’t afford to get it wrong.
The same rule applies to a much lesser extent to other parts of your application, and especially for beginner developers. Implementing an authentication/authorisation system isn’t hard, but it’s another thing where getting it wrong can have disastrous consequences. Beginner (and even intermediate) developers routinely make mistakes with this kind of feature: unhashed, reversibly-encrypted, or incorrectly-hashed (wrong algorithm, no salt, etc.) passwords, badly-thought-out password reset strategies, incompletely applied access controls, etc. I’m confident that Chris and I would be in agreement that the best approach is for a developer to learn to implement these things properly and then do so. But if having to learn to implement them properly is a barrier to getting started, I’d rather than a beginner developer instead use a tried-and-tested off-the-shelf like Devise/Warden.
Other examples of things that beginner/intermediate developers sometimes get wrong might be XSS protection and SQL parameter escaping. And again, for languages that don’t have safety features built in, a framework can fill the gap. Rolling your own DOM whitelisting code for a social application is possible, but using a solution like DOMPurify is almost-certainly going to be more-secure for most developers because, you guessed it, this is another area where it’s easy to make a mess of things.
My inclination is to adapt Chris’s advice on this issue, to instead say that for the best security:
- Ideally: understand what all your code does, for example because you wrote it yourself.
- However: if you’re not confident in your ability to implement something securely (and especially with cryptography), use an off-the-shelf library.
- If you use a library: use the usual rules (popularity, maintenance cycle, etc.) to filter the list, but be sure to use the library with the smallest possible footprint – the best library should (a) do only the one specific task you need done, and no more, and (b) be written in a way that lends itself to you learning from it, understanding it, and hopefully being able to maintain it yourself.
Just my tuppence worth.
StackOverflow‘s one of the most-popular and widely-used resources for software developers. It dominates the search results when you’re looking for answers to techy questions. If you know how to read it, it can be invaluable.
But… I’m not sure what it is about the platform or the culture surrounding it that creates a certain… pattern to the answers that you can expect to receive on StackOverflow. To illustrate, let’s suppose we have a question:
Here are the answers you might see:
The Golden Hammer
The top answer is often somebody answering not the question you asked, but the question they’d like to think you asked.
Far often than you might expect, a perfectly reasonable “how do I do this?” question is met with an aggressive response of “why would you want to do that?”
These are particularly infuriating to read when you come to a closed thread and you know that you do want to be doing the “forbidden” thing. You’ve considered the other options, you’ve assessed the situation… and now some arrogant bugger’s telling you that you’re wrong!
This kind of response is among the most annoying, second only to…
The Kindred Spirit
You’re getting a strange and inexplicable error message. You search for it and get exactly one result. Reading the thread, after hours of tearing your hair out, you suddenly feel a sense of relief: you’ve found another soul in this crazy world that’s suffering in precisely the same way as you are. Every word you read reconfirms for you that you and they have the same issue. At last, a solution is in reach!
Not only have you not got a solution, but the saviour you thought you’d found? They do have a solution, but they were thinking only about themselves when they got it, so they didn’t share it.
I get it: when you’re deep in focus on a problem you forget that the forum you’re on will receive search traffic indefinitely. But “NM, I’ve worked it out” is the most infuriating sentence on the Internet. When you solve a tough problem that you’d talked about online, for the love of God put the solution online too.
There’s always somebody who answers the question but in a way you’d need a PhD to comprehend.
StackOverflow is often used by beginners. Make your answer beginner-friendly if possible.
The Hero We Don’t Need
Like the Golden Hammer, the Hero We Don’t Need answers the question that they know the answer to rather than the question you actually asked. Unlike the Golden Hammer, the question they answer isn’t even remotely related to the question you asked.
Perhaps some future site visitor who chose their search terms badly might benefit from this out-of-the-box look at a completely different problem. But I wouldn’t count on it.
The Correct Answer
Eventually, if you’re lucky, somebody will provide the actual answer to the question. You’ll often have to scroll about this far down the page to find it.
Still, at least there’s an answer. And it only took four hours between posting the question and it appearing. Sometimes that’s what it takes, and at least the answer will be there for the next person, assuming that they, too, scroll down far enough.
Unfortunately hundreds of novice developers will have no way to tell that this alone is the correct answer amongst the endless stream of bullshit in which it resides.
And finally, there’s always some idiot who repeats one of the same (useless) answers from before. Just to keep the noise-to-signal ratio up, I guess.
StackOverflow’s given me so many useful answers to so many questions, over the years. But it’s also been a great source of frustration for me at the hands of six of these seven archetypes. Did I miss any?
There was every possibility of taking a walk that day, as long as we kept six feet between us and the others on the path.
Now Doom 3‘s playable in a browser, and my mind’s blown all over again. This follows almost the same curve – Doom 3’s 16 years old – but it still goes to show that there’s little limit to the power of client-side browser programming. They’ve done this magic with WebAssembly; while WebAssembly goes slightly against my ideas about the open-source nature of the Web, I still respect the power it commands to do heavyweight crunching tasks like this one.
How long until AAA developers start developing with the Web as an additional platform?
Some people feel helpless & anxious.
Some people are bored.
Some people are self-quarantined alone and are lonely.
Some people are realizing that After will be very different from Before.
Some people aren’t on this list.
Some people appear several times on this list.
Hang in there, everybody.
Checked in on this cache during my permitted one exercise walk a day. All is well.
There is something powerful about naming this as grief. It helps us feel what’s inside of us. So many have told me in the past week, “I’m telling my coworkers I’m having a hard time,” or “I cried last night.” When you name it, you feel it and it moves through you. Emotions need motion. It’s important we acknowledge what we go through.
Scott makes a good point; the experience of the coronavirus crisis and lockdowns is distinctly grief-like. Insofar as the Kübler-Ross model is applicable in general, it’s a good predictor of individuals’ reactions to their temporary “new normal”. But the lesson to take from this article, I think, isn’t about understanding the feelings and behaviour of your fellow humans but, as the author says, in giving a name to your own.
The realisation that what you’re experiencing is grief and that it’s okay to need an indefinite amount of time to process that is empowering and reassuring.
Oh my god it’s coming to get me! More images in the original article.
On the face of it, WebKit’s announcement yesterday titled Full Third-Party Cookie Blocking and More sounds like something I would wholeheartedly welcome. Unfortunately, I can’t because the “and more” bit effectively kills off Offline Web Apps and, with it, the chance to have privacy-respecting apps like the prototype I was exploring earlier in the year based on DAT.
Block all third-party cookies, yes, by all means1. But deleting all local storage (including Indexed DB, etc.) after 7 days effectively blocks any future decentralised apps using the browser (client side) as a trusted replication node in a peer-to-peer network. And that’s a huge blow to the future of privacy.
Like Aral and doubtless many others, I was initially delighted to see that Safari has beaten Chrome to the punch, blocking basically all third-party cookies through its Intelligent Tracking Protection. I don’t even routinely use Safari (although I do block virtually all third-party and many first-party cookies using uMatrix for Firefox), but I loved this announcement because I knew that this, coupled with Google’s promise to (eventually) do the same in their browser, would make a significant impact on the profitability of surveillance capitalism on the Web. Hurrah!
But as Aral goes on to point out, Apple’s latest changes also effectively undermines the capability of people to make Progressive Web Applications that run completely-offline, because their new privacy features delete the cache of all offline storage if it’s not accessed for 7 days.
I hope that Google doesn’t follow Apple’s lead on this particular “privacy” point, although I’m sure that it’s tempting for them to do so. Offline Web applications have the potential to provide an open, simple, and secure ecosystem for the “apps” of tomorrow, and after several good steps forwards… this week we took a big step back.