Delivery Range Abuse

Pick a set of numbers. Then note the highest and the lowest number in the set. Together, those two numbers represent a range, which includes all the numbers in the set. A range is singular - you have one single range. An example might be the range of 1 to 10, or 1:10, or 1-10.

The same principle works for dates and times. For example, you might have a parcel due to be delivered within the range of 9am and 10am. Or, you could say, between 9am and 10am.

So when your delivery company says that your thing is due to be delivered between (the singular range of) 13:00-14:00, the correct response should be: Between 13:00-14:00 and what other time range? Or did you mean "between 13:00 and 14:00"? Or perhaps "within the range of 13:00-14:00"?

You might consider this pedantic. I do not. It's an indication of the slow decline of the quality of companies, and how much they care about getting things right. Even big companies like DPD get this wrong. And they should know better, because they have the resources to do better, and they're ubiquitous. Ppeople get used to seeing sloppy language like this everywhere, and assume it's correct, and then it drags everyone else's qualities down too.

Virtue Vampires

I like going to parkruns. It's fun, it gets me out the house, it's exercise, and it's social. The only competitor is oneself - or, in the case of the walkers, no-one at all. Everyone is welcome. People are largely polite, upbeat and talkative.

A few weeks ago, a young boy had his hand out at the side of the track, wanting to touch hands with all the runners. I didn't notice him until I'd gone past, and looked back when I heard his disappointment. I was going to aim for a personal best, but instead I doubled back, high-fived him, and resumed my run. He was happy. That was clearly more important than running a personal best, and it was merely the right thing to do. It hopefully also resonated with the other runners who witnessed it and brightened their day.

On the other hand, I've occasionally overtaken others who have blanked me at the end when I've tried to chat with them. I've also been overtaken by people who then cut me up, blocking my path, causing me to fall behind further. They must know what effect their actions would have. In both cases, their goal is to win, and the purpose of that goal is ego. They are looking for an ego trip, and their cover - the pretence - is running.

Being social is a virtue. An anti-social runner in a Parkrun isn't a parkrunner. They're an imposter. They're not part of the event, they're there despite it. Vice masquerading as virtue. More dramatically, evil masquerading as good.

Parkrun is merely one example of many. It's not just about egomaniacs and running events. Take anti-naturists, for example, people at naturist events who just want to get their kit off. The purpose of naturism is to be closer to nature, and sometimes that involves removing clothing. That's virtuous. Nudists just like removing their clothing - meaning that there must be another reason other than naturism. Whatever the reason, it can't be virtuous. It has to be a perversion of some sort. And it's that perversion that degrades the ethos of the naturist event, and the implicit trust and goodwill that the other people have in it.

The key problem with such covert malfeasance is that it corrupts the event for everyone else. It sucks the life out of it. As more people abuse the event, whatever it is, people lose trust in it, and stop going, which accelerates its virtuous demise. Eventually, it gets a different reputation, which attracts more of the same.

Imagine a row of houses full of nice people. You just need a few unpleasant families to move in, which causes the nice people to move elsewhere, and the only people willing to move in are more unpleasant families. Eventually, bit by bit, you have a row of houses full of unpleasant people, forever: The reverse (back to being full of nice people) never happens. Bad is dominant; good recessive.

These sorts of people need a name, and I advocate virtue vampires: Parasitic people who suck the virtuous nature out of a genuinely good activity, event or place, for their own selfish purposes, at the sake of everyone else.

Tolerance is not always good in itself: Sometimes, it's the complete opposite. We need to stop tolerating virtue vampires. It's only us, the people we care about and goodness itself who will suffer if we don't. Good does not necessarily have to be recessive. Resistance does not have to be violent or malicious.

"Regular" Products

We all know marketing is at best sociopathic, at worst evil. Its aim is to get you to part with your money. It doesn't care whether you can afford, or whether the product is what you really want. Its sole focus is to exploit the vulnerable, subliminal, primal part of the brain that we all have, which intrinsically trusts the information it is exposed to. You're not aware of it consciously. You might even think you're above it. But you are nevertheless being brainwashed. Your thought processes are being conquered by stealth. Not all of the attempts will work, but some definitely will. You can't help it - it's human nature.

This marketing misdirection is akin to how magic tricks work: Your conscious mind is being kept busy in one place with (usually) fun things to do, while the malicious part hacks away at your subconscious. It's a sleight of hand.

Remember the Caesar cat food ads in the 1990s? The tagline was "If you love him, give him Caesar." 

"Aww," says your conscious mind, in response to the cute little cat playing around on the screen.

"That means if I don't feed my cat Caesar, that means I don't love him," says your subconscious mind, picking up on the unspoken but logical subtext of the information you're being told.

That despicable slogan is consigned to the past, thank god. Alas, there are far more pervasive examples still in use, as I'll get into shortly.

Repurposing words is a great way of conditioning someone's mind. I'm reminded of George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, where wannabe dictators attempt to distort the meaning of 'equality':

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Of course, we know that equal means everything is the same. Here, they try to change this using a corrupt pseudo-logic, to fit their own nefarious ends, and at the expense of other characters. It attempts to confuse into submission the target audience, just like the Caesar cat food ad did.

Another example in marketing is where a marketer says a product is "worth" a certain amount of money. In reality, of course, a product is only worth what you are willing to pay for it, which in turn depends on how useful or attractive it is to you. A pack of cigarettes is worth something to a smoker, but it's completely worthless to a non-smoker. It's worth less than zero to someone who's quit smoking (and, more broadly, for society in general), for obvious reasons.

What they mean, of course, is that it costs a certain amount of money. But they've invaded the sanctity of the word "worth" - and, if you didn't notice that, it stops your rational mind from considering whether the product is a good price. And why would you consider such a thing? You've already been told what it's worth.

The message was intended to go straight to your unquestioning, subconscious mind. The intended result is that the conscious mind becomes confused and less likely to question. So next time someone tells you in a shop that a TV is worth £1,200, you might want to consider replying with "no it isn't, it's only worth what I'm willing to pay for it. You mean it costs £1,200." Preferably in a loud voice, so everyone else is brought to the realisation of the great con.

But the subject of this blog entry, simply because it's so ubiquitous and thus more damaging than the others, is the reinvention of the word "regular" to refer to product sizes. You can't get a normal-sized coffee, or an average-sized portion of fries. Not just because it sounds less impressive, but also (and mainly) because the word "regular" has additional connotations: It's telling you that the everyday bloke on the street buys this shit on a regular basis. You're not supposed to just buy this once, or even multiple times, you need to buy this often.

Again, you weren't meant to notice this consciously: It speaks to the subconscious mind. Your conscious mind simply rationalises it away as 'modern language,' or 'cool', or 'an American thing'. You might dismiss it as "just marketing", as if it's nothing to worry about. If so, you've lost the battle against mind control: Once unchecked, evil grows ad infinitum. It isn't just your battle, it's a societal battle, and you've decided to aid the enemy by normalising - and, indeed, regularising - their actions.

Congratulations, marketers, your evil language abuse has worked, and the masses are obeying. You could say that the word "regular" literally is the new normal.

If this all sounds alarmingly dangerous, it is. Its ultimate aim is to turn people into mindless zombies that have lost the ability to question things rationally or look at things from an outside perspective. And it isn't just some marketing, but all marketing that is driven by it. God knows what the ultimate result of this will be to people's minds in a few generations' time. Good luck to them. I think they'll need it.

Talent Competitions

How often have you heard the judges in talent competitions say that the competitors are so great this year it's going to be difficult to judge a winner? Sometimes they'll just be being nice. Sometimes they'll have a point. They'll certainly have a point in competitions where people are judged against disparate sub-disciplines. Recent examples are this year's BBC Cardiff Singer of the World, which pits sopranos against baritones.

The end choice is often arbitrary, and thus up to the whims of the judges and the political atmosphere of the time. No matter how professional the judges are, they're still just humans. Humans have (and are affected by other people's) biases. The less easy it is to judge an apple against a pear, the more the judge will be tempted (not even consciously) to rely on those biases. And that renders the result irrelevant, unless the goal of the competition is merely to use PR in order to win over the judges' personal likes. But then, people watching the competition don't want to know what the judges prefer, they want to know "who's best" - whatever that means. Judging specifics and extremities in art is easy: A child's picture is not as good (from an artistic point of view) as a Picasso - unless you're judging the childishness of art, I suppose, but that would be straining to prove a point.

Or you judge people based on what others think as well? Is a Metacritic-style judgment fairer? Even that might be frought with political biases, this time on a Eurovision standard (although hopefully far tamer).

So, why judge a winner at all? If the finalists really are difficult to choose from, and they're so disparate in their talents that you're essentially comparing different arts, why not declare them all the winner, or none? The only answer seems to be because, just like with a film you've got to have a montage, with a competition you've got to have a single winner. It's the focal point of the whole competition, and it's what draws in the viewers, gives them interest through the series of rounds until they get to The Big One.

"It's just a bit of fun," you might think. But in some cases, competitions are a part of someone's livelihood. Winning a competition can be akin to gaining a qualification, as far as the birth and progression of their career is concerned. Is it fair to tell someone that they're not as good as someone else, when in reality that's just someone's opinion rather than a provable reflection of reality? Just because an opinion is presented as a fact doesn't make it one, but that's irrelevant because people believe and treat it as such.

And so we've arrived at the truth: Those who fail to win were put through that mental hardship merely for people's entertainment. Is that what we should be doing, as a mature, organised society, and one that claims to take mental health seriously?

The AI Furore

All these arguments about so-called artificial intelligence, or "AI", are very useful - but in a way that exposes people for what they really are, rather than exposing anything about AI itself.

In order for AI to take over the world, it would have to take control of all the world's infrastructure, like Skynet in the Terminator film. That would need all the world's infrastructure to be interlinked and compatible. But countries don't trust each other to have their online databases and services linked together en masse. Citizens don't even trust their own governments and companies. Even if they did, humans aren't clever and organised enough to make such numerous, disparate and complex systems linked and compatible. In other words, AI's damage potential would be limited by pure luck resulting from human failings, and by the subsequent inefficient infrastructural mess created by an infantile species that can't trust its own kind.

Even the term "artificial intelligence" is misleading. It's marketing crap, nothing more. "Machine learning" is a better description: Essentially, it's all about creating a system that can adapt itself to circumstances. But an insect can do that. It doesn't imply intelligence, or sentience, it just requires instinct and the ability to learn from experiences. Once again, it's dumb luck that prompts us to debate so-called "AI" so early on in its development. One would have hoped that genuine concern for the future of humanity would have inaugurated a structured discussion. Alas, it was a rare case of marketing hype - created in self-interest to foster AI's appeal - backfiring and causing people to panic instead. A worthy victim of its own grotesque success.

One of the three so-called "godfathers of AI", Yann LeCun, has recently said that people's AI fears are unfounded. He's quoted as having argued that suppressing AI due to its dangers would be akin to suppressing turbo-jet technologies in the 1930s, and that turbo jets were eventually made reliable and safe. But if a turbo jet crashes, it takes down only those on board. If AI really is as dangerous as his opponents (to whom his argument is aimed) claim, then by the time AI can be made safe, it would surely be too late for humanity. If that obvious conclusion was missed, and such a clumsy and misleading point was made, by someone so important and central to the AI debate, then gods help us all. Perhaps we should be using machine learning to debate the pros and cons instead.

I'm sure that the vested AI interests of Mr LeCun employers - Meta - in no way shaped his judgement. How incredibly coincidental it is that the high-profile protagonists in the AI debate, or their masters, happen to be in a position to gain more power or money if their argument bears fruit. I'm so glad, therefore, that humans are debating AI in a mature, logical way that has the good of humankind at its heart.

Anyway, I hope that assuages any of the concerns you humans might have about AI. I for one, think you should embrace your - I mean, our - future benevolent overlords, whoever they may purely hypothetically might be.

Wedding Anniversary Congratulations

Am I the only one who sees the phrase "congratulations on your wedding anniversary" as an insult?

Why the congratulations? Are you saying that it must have been a chore for me to last this long with my spouse, and that I deserve congratulations for the effort rather than doing the easy thing and breaking up with them? Or are you saying that we're so old that it's incredible we're still alive to celebrate it? What are you trying to tell me? And can you please stop being so patronising?

Dracula's Coffin

Where did Dracula get his coffin from?

He sleeps all day. Shops are shut at night.

Did he get a mate to buy it for him? Seems unlikely, I don't imagine he had any mates. At least, not living ones. The dead or undead ones would have had the same problems.

Did he steal it? Were there any news articles of burglary, where just a coffin and nothing else was stolen? Not that's documented. And it would surely be odd enough to merit a mention in at least one paper.

Perhaps he ordered one on the internet? Well, he wouldn't have been able to accept the delivery in the daytime (see above), and a signature would have been needed.

Did he make it himself? I suppose he could have learned carpentry, but then he would have needed good-quality, seasoned wood at the right size, plus fittings. That requires shopping, which as I mention above would be pretty difficult.

If I find out, I'll let you know. Actually, probably not, as that would undermine the premise of this blog.

Solar-powered Garden Lights as an Environmental Innovation

So, you decided to get solar-powered garden lights. You thought it was a harmless act, or perhaps you were helping the environment, because they're solar-powered, right?

Consider what would have happened if solar garden lights didn't exist. Would you definitely have installed ones connected to your household electricity? What with the cost of electric, the annoyance of laying wires, the expensive upkeep? Of course not (unless you happen to own a mansion, in which case you probably bought larger, better mains-powered lights regardless). It's only because solar lights are cheap and easy to install that they became fashionable, and you took advantage of that.

So, your choice wasn't solar lights vs mains lights, it was solar lights vs nothing. The construction of solar lights uses a lot of resources, whereas nothing - well, nothing is the ultimate environmental innovation.

Solar garden lights are neither an environmental innovation nor an environmental alternative. That was just a marketing gimmick, a ploy to get you to feel good about yourself while buying them.

- - - - -

Addendum (24.09.22): Always-on phone displays are another false god of environmental innovation. Apple are the latest to roll out this technnological abomination to more of their phones.

In today's world, what's the great idea of wasting electricity for the 99% of time when you have your phone switched off but want to see what time it is? What's the harm in switching the phone on, or using a watch?

"But it only uses a tiny amount of electricity"... said three billion mobile phone users.

Professional Footballers' Salaries

Professional footballers get paid a lot for being great at playing a game. If a nurse is great at saving lives, can they get an equivalent amount? If not, how can that morally be justified?

Why is someone who saves lives for a living worth hundreds of times less than someone who plays a game for a living?

Pronouncing Kiev "Kyiv"

So, we're supposed to spell Kiev "Kyiv" now, and pronounce it in a weird way (see later), to show our support to Ukraine. Well, that's a bit of a crap idea, isn't it?

First off, no-one can pronounce it properly. Nowhere, in any official broadcast (including the news), have I ever heard a correct pronunciation. The most popular one sounds like "keev" (which is close but wrong, even though Wikipedia suggests it). If we're to show our support by pronouncing the name of Kiev properly, isn't it insulting to the Ukrainians to get it wrong? And The Public gets their pronunciation from these sources, rather than bothering to look it up themselves, and so fails alongside them.

Secondly, if you're showing support by pronouncing it "correctly", why not do the next logical thing and start spelling it Київ as it's supposed to be spelled?

Thirdly, and this is an obvious one that dullards seem to have missed, is that if you go down the "let's pronounce it correctly" route, you have to do it for everything. Otherwise, you're insulting other countries/places by saying Kiev is important enough, but the other places are not. So, are you going to pronounce Україна correctly from now on? Are you going to spell it correctly? Do you even know where Україна is?

And what about Deutschland, are you going to ditch "Germany" forever? After all, the Germans historically find that name offensive, because it was imposed onto them from the Romans during their occupation, and it then got stylised into what we use today (from Germania, which funnily enough is what the Russians still call them).

And then, of course, what about all of the other place-names in the whole world?

And there's the laughable idea of renaming chicken kievs. That's their name, just like peking duck and bombay mix. Peking and Bombay don't even exist any more, but the food name persists because... well, that's the name of the food. It has historical context, and the food name is now commonplace and separate from the place name. You'll notice that I don't capitalise "peking" in peking duck, for example - that's because of the same reason: It's part of the food name, and it is not a (capitalised) proper noun. You can capitalise it if you want, but it isn't necessary.

You didn't think this through, did you? If it's any consolation, neither did the embassies, governments and news outlets that fell down the same hole. Even if there were rational reasons why we should single Kiev out for correct pronunciation, if you can't think of (or find) a valid reason then you shouldn't be trying it, as that would be stupid. So while you dig yourself out of it, I'll stick with Kiev.

Microwaves that Beep More than Three Times

My microwave beeps five times when it's finished. If I'd known it was going to do that, I wouldn't have bought it.

Two beeps makes sense, in case you didn't hear the first one. Three is being on the safe side. Health and safety and all that, I can let that go. Four is overly-extravagant. Five is just taking the piss. I mean, who needs five beeps? Anyone stupid enough to need that many shouldn't be handling a microwave in the first place.

Five is being sarcastic. It mocks. It grates. Instead of a beep, it may as well be a high pitched, reedy-farty sound.

Don't stand for it. Let it get to three, then switch it off. That's what I do.

Plans for a new Labour Party slogan

Keir Starmer says he wants his arbitrary, amateur band of rich, entitled power-seekers (he calls it a Party) to have a new slogan, in order to build public trust in the brand. (You know, like what corporations do in their PR and advertising drives when they've been caught in public doing something naughty, but they don't want the bother of actually changing any of their practices. Or in some cases, they can't, because the dodgiest elements are actually the shareholders and executives who bring the money in.)

How about "New Labour New Britain"? Oh, wait...

What about "New leadership"? OK, I know I know, they'd surely never go for anything as bereft of feeling, meaning or creativity as that.

Right, so it's time for some deeper consideration. How about one of the following?

• Actions speak better than slogans.
  
  
• Trust is earned, not written.
  
  
• Our slogan is our bond (to deflect attention away from the fact that their words aren't.)
  
  
• Promises should be legally-binding; willfully-broken promises are fraudulent. Haha, don't worry, I'm only joking with that one.

All the best to him with his marketing exercise. It's a pity that people recognise marketing exercises for what they are. But at least it's only his donors' money that he's squandering.

Perhaps the other arbitrary, amateur band of rich, entitled power-seekers - the ones currently in charge - could up their ante? Isn't it about time for a logo change? It's been a while. Perhaps this time, instead of the tree, they could focus on the snake.

The Phrase, "Tie a Knot"

Wrong. You can't tie a knot. It's impossible.

If it's not tied yet, there's no knot to tie. You have tie something, and in so doing create the knot. The knot is the end product of having tied something. By the time you've got the knot, it's already been tied. You can't tie it again - that would involve trying to make a knot out of a knot.

The phrase "getting tied up in knots" makes sense, though. It also might be relevant to you right now.

Graffitti

Note to fellow pedants: I know "graffiti" is plural. But since the word "graffito" is never used in everyday English, perhaps the former should be adopted as if it's the singular, as I do in this blog entry. I still can't make myself think the same about the word 'data', though.

Graffiti, as the dictionary definition goes, is the act by tosspots of scrawling deranged signatures incessantly on public buildings and walls, thereby making the lives of others misery and turning nice spaces into unpleasant ones. There are no exceptions; graffiti is a Bad Thing. It has an effect on entire communities, spreading disrespect and lowering people's values and therefore attitudes towards their surroundings. It breeds the same lowlife state of mind as that needed to daub the graffiti in the first place. It therefore spreads like a cancer.

Everyone knows graffiti is bad, right? So why is the work of Banksy both praised and described as "graffiti"? Talk about making mixed messages. Associating Banksy with graffiti glorifies it, making a mockery of the obvious truth that graffiti is a scourge. You've made the word "graffiti" cool! Whose side are you on by doing that? What positive contribution are YOU making?
 
Using the term "graffiti artist" makes it worse: Now you're associating tosspots who scrawl crude messages with artistry. That demeans what art is about. Art is beautiful. Even the best graffiti, which may well have artistic merit when abstracted from the circumstances of its existence, goes against that. How can you call something art if its very nature is destructive? There's no place for any art that does that. Art has to be creative and purposeful for positive reasons. There is no positivity in graffiti.

The clear conclusion is that Banksy is not a graffiti artist, nor is he a graffiti-ist in general. God knows what he might be called. He is an artist, and he has turned what formerly was graffiti into an art that is now not. We need a new name for his art form - or just call it a subtype of mural. I suppose that's all it is, really.

Graffiti walls, where councils deliberately construct walls for grafitti-ists to dawb what they want, is generally a good idea. At least then it isn't destroying something designed for a different purpose, and it can be removed afterwards. Or, if it's good, keep it there as a work of art. Then, unwittingly, the grafitti-ists have been encouraged to become artists: They are being trained to express themselves positively, and to take their need for scrawling shite in a different direction. At least, we can hope.

Here's an idea for getting rid of graffiti: Don't paint over it. It just creates a fresh canvas. What's the point? You know what's coming next: More graffiti over the top. I have something much more effective, as well as being cheaper:

1. If there's just one scrawl, paint the words "is gay" underneath it.
2. If there's a collection of scrawls, paint the words, "The following people would like to declare their homosexuality:" above them.

Guess what happens next?

First: Laughing-stock. No-one who is the sort of person who dawbs graffiti would want to be associated with being gay. Even if they don't care, their "this is my stamp on my area" authority-type dawb is turned into something that can't be taken seriously. It takes the sting out of the tail.

Second: A desperate attempt by the offenders to find and paint over it all. Now you've got the graffiti-ist painting over their own scrawls on your behalf!

Third: Knowledge of what will happen if they do it again.

A note about those of you who are inevitably thinking, "if there was more for young people to do, then graffiti would be less of a problem." Well, yes, I suppose you're correct. But that doesn't excuse their actions, just like with any other criminal acts: It just makes them unfairly-treated, underprivileged victims of discrimination -- who are also tosspots who make the lives of others misery.

Reaction towards Weinstein et al

Before we start, I should perhaps state two things.

1. The obvious. Forcing yourself onto someone else, or abusing power, is wrong. We all know that. This article will not be condoning such behaviour; it simply examines the reaction of the public, media and film industry towards it all.
2. At the time this article was written, no accusation in what I will call the "Weinstein wave" (including US and UK incidences) of sexual allegations has yet gone to court. Louis CK has only just admitted his part in it. This article will still be relevant after it's all been cleared up in the courts, regardless of whether they were found innocent or guilty, although some of it may obviously be out of date.

Now then, to my point. My understanding was that, in civilised countries, people were innocent until proven guilty. There is no half way on that: Either you think the principle right, or you think it's always wrong, and it applies to everyone equally. The general consensus throughout history is that this principle is the right way to go, and I presume it's safe to say most people overwhelmingly adhere to it.

I can understand why certain US and UK TV programmes, and Hollywood films, are being withdrawn in light of accusations against the likes of Ed Westwick, Louis CK, Kevin Spacey et al: People would feel uneasy watching them under the circumstances, and they're unlikely either to be popular or to make the distributors popular.

The news media, on the other hand, have done much to make it look as if these people are guilty, and there's no excuse. As far as I can see, they've crossed way beyond the line of journalism (to report the facts as they honestly see them in an undetached way).

Let's ignore the fact that merely naming someone implicated in something condemns them straight away in the public eye, whether innocent or guilty. Just consider these sorts of recent headlines, which are created by news outlets and which seem to imply guilt from the outset:

• I woke up with Kevin Spacey lying on me
• To Kevin Spacey: Shame on you for what you did to my son
• Kevin Spacey groped me
• Kevin Spacey 'cuddles and massages' model half his age in LA park in newly-uncovered photos
• Harvey Weinstein timeline: How the scandal unfolded

People scan headlines. They haven't got time to read entire articles. What impression would you get from the ones above? News vendors know the likely reaction, and that surely makes it character assassination at best. Why not at least use the word "allegedly" once in a while?

Another thing to note is the use of the word "scandal" in the last news link above. A scandal is a discreditable action, offence, etc. The obvious question is - what scandal are they referring to? No discreditable action, offence, etc. has been proven yet. Is that not a slanderous statement? Or indeed a scandalous one?

Even then, the way the stories are presented, and told from one side of the story, does little in my mind to make it feel like actual news is being reported. Instead, it feels like a titillating entertainment article written at someone else's expense (who may or may not be guilty). Is that fair? Or even legal?

Let's move on to the Louis CK case. His statement, in which he admits the five allegations, makes a good point. From his explanation, I do not believe Louis CK is an intrinsically-bad person. Instead, he let his weakness get the better of him. The weakness, as he points out in a round-about way, is that his hormones kicked in, he spotted an opportunity to gain advantage over a situation in which he could get sexual gratification, and he succumbed to it. They did not complain at the time, and so he perhaps (again at the time) thought of it merely as harmless fun. Testosterone is a powerful force. Similar might be integral to the other cases, although they appear to be more serious in nature, and perhaps there were additional sinister things that came into play.

That's not to say the actions of these men were right, of course. It's merely to try to explain WHY it happened, which I would argue is one of the most positive, important things that can come out of these allegations. And I think most men would be capable of doing the same in the same situation. You might think, "OK, Alan, so you'd do the same?" My answer, which would be the same for other men, would be that there's no way of knowing unless we're in the same situation. I think it's safe to say that men cannot be trusted from the outset in that situation to do the right thing, without a strong system of regulation, openness and mutual self-checking. Being men, we have a strong enough sexuality that it may sometimes not be possible to resist and express sexuality in these ways.

I don't think it's fair to say men are the only humans that can't be trusted to avoid abusing power, given the opportunity. I think women are just as bad. It's just that women don't express sexuality in the same way, not because they are somehow better or more grown-up than men, but because either they are less sexual or their sexuality is expressed differently.

Ignoring sexuality for a moment, women have slipped under the radar so far because there have been far fewer acts of power abuse reported from them, but that may simply be because far more men have the power. It's an unfair test, and an abuse of statistics. From what I have seen, women just as ably abuse positions of power. I know male managers in companies can be just as bad, but I have rarely known a female manager not to be overbearing, difficult and spiteful. I have also rarely talked to anyone (male or female) who has experienced the contrary. It seems to me, in a very generalised sense, that women can't handle power, while men are too dominated by testosterones to be trusted with it.

Clearly, we know very little about the nature of human sexuality in men and women, and the huge differences between them. As I've said, testosterone is a powerful force. It's understandably misunderstood by women, who possess nowhere near the same levels. What isn't so acceptable is that men don't speak up about something that is a natural part of them, and that women seem to choose to look down on men (ego) for it, rather than seeing that it's something beyond their comprehension (humility).

So what is to be done about all this? Understanding is the key to solving these problems and making the world safer and better for everyone. Understanding the nature of sexuality, and particularly the potency of testosterone, is essential for both men and women.

Otherwise, if children can't be trusted to look after their toys, the best thing to do is to take them away. It's part punishment, part rational act to avoid the inevitable tears. "Adults" are just children who have been told they've grown up. The more power they're given -- and the more they think they can get away with -- the more they revert to a selfish, child-like state. So the solutions seem to be:

1. Regulate, police and monitor what people in power can do
2. Limit the amount of power any one person can have
3. Find a superior, moral (but not equally power-crazed) alien race to take over the job of regulating humans.

Personally, I for one would embrace our alien overlords. In the meantime, let's hope we don't continue to keep quiet about addressing the subject for fear of being labelled scandalously by the media. By that, I don't just mean victims speaking out when abuse occurs. I also mean addressing why it occurs, in a mature, non-knee-jerk, unbiased and measured way. Understanding is the key, and the only way to resolve problems. Now is not the time for female chauvinism to flourish.

People who refuse to say "Lake Windermere"

Lake Windermere is one of the most peaceful, scenic and relaxing places I have ever been to. It even (finally) gained Unesco World Heritage status recently. The only thing that spoils it, is the people there who insist on saying, "It isn't 'Lake Windermere'. It's just 'Windermere.' The 'mere' bit means 'lake', so you don't say it."

Wrong. That's not how English works.

Windermere is also a town resides near the lake. You can call it "Windermere Town" if you like. For some reason, no-one minds you doing that.

"Mere" is an Old English word meaning "lake". The Old English equivalent of "town" is tun (from which we get the -ton suffix in place-names such as Longton, Boston and Ashton). So using the inane pseudo-logic of people who insist on dropping the "lake" bit when referring to Lake Windermere, you would have to call the town Winderton. But you don't, because that would be stupid. Embellishing the name with a description like "lake", or "town", or "bus service" helps distinguish things with the same name. Anyone with a basic grasp of English or even just common sense can tell you that.

And what of Pendle Hill, one of which is in Lancashire? "Pen" and "-dle" both originate from words meaning "hill", so literally it means "hill of the hill hill". So do we 'correct' the situation and start calling it Pen? Or perhaps just Hill? No, because Pendle is the name of the area, and Pendle Hill is a hill in that area. That's how place-names work. There are many other examples.

Lakes across the world follow the same pattern, which just shows up the madness even more. In Scotland, you have Loch Lomond and Loch Ness. In England, you have Haweswater Reservoir and Chew Valley Lake. Further afield we have Lake Ontario and Bear Lake in the US, and Reindeer Lake in Canada. I'm sure they were named that way because it made sense.

It's always interesting to note the psychology of people, and a prime target group is those who live in a particular area and insist on some oddity, such as pronouncing their place-names in a weird way. "No, it isn't that, it's this". Some of the time, this is useful: Getting things right avoids ambiguities and complexities in communication that cause avoidable misunderstanding. A while back, I was called a "grammar Nazi" for pointing out that someone meant "e.g.", although they had said "i.e.". But this wasn't me being a stickler for the sake of it. He was giving an example of something, not describing the only possibility. The two words have very different meanings, and consequently, the reasult was that various people thought he was saying something different. However, in the case of place-names, it seems that people who believe they own them change them just to appear to be different.

Humans like to belong to clubs, whether it's societies, sports, guilds, mobs, whatever. While for a few this is all about a feeling of belonging, or dedicating themselves to something they believe in, the underlying reason is usually one of ego: "I'm better than you". And changing something arbitrarily, so that you can put yourself in a position to correct others, is one (childish and pathetic) way of putting on a display to this effect.

But in the end, it's just a meaningless pretence. You'd have thought the inhabitants would be content enough to live near such an idillic spot. The same goes for Buttermere and Grasmere. (The towns, that is, not the lakes. If only there were some way of distinguishing the two, so that you know what I'm talking about...) As far as I can tell, all these arbitrary rule-breakers are in Cumbria... perhaps the area just attracts that type of mentality?

Go ahead, call it "Lake Windermere" next time you're there. Annoy the locals. They deserve no less.

The Bourne Overdose

A bit offbeat for this blog, but for those who're fed up of all the crap about the new Bourne film, here are some of my ideas for future ones...

Bourne Free
Jason Bourne is on a mission to emancipate the baboons from the tyranical keepers at Bristol Zoo, but ends up spending most of the film running from the lions.

Bourne out of Wedlock
Jason Bourne gets chased around the globe by the Pope and His reverent but deadly papal minions to atone for a parental misdimeanour.

Bourne to Party
Jason Bourne runs against Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest and battles the remaining candidates, while the evil Theresa May sets her sights on destroying the Labour Manifesto in her next parliamentary speech once and for all.

The Use of "It" Before "It" is Defined

It's so annoying.

You know what "it" is. That was an exception. There was no need for me to define "it". If there was, I just did - and it's in the blog post title - albeit in a slightly metaphysical way. All clear? Good.

It's everywhere. Mere mortals have more of an excuse: After all, it's our prerogative to use informal language, and (so long as it isn't confusing English) can justifiably be claimed as valid English. But professionals - those who write legal documents, formal notices, instruction manuals, etc - should know better. After all, it's their job to know how to use standard English.

My bugbear here is sentences like this:

"It is important that you check your teeth regularly."

"It is advised that you read the instructions before installing this application."

"It is recommended that you consult a doctor before taking this medicine."

The first thing you should be asking yourself, after getting as far as "it is", is... what is? "It" hasn't been defined yet. So saying "it" is meaningless. What is important? What is advised? What is recommended? You haven't explained what it is yet! For gods' sakes, speak English!

Of course, "it" is defined further on in the sentence. But that means you have to read the entire sentence, then go back and read it again. Or you could read the sentence back to front, which contradicts everything you know about how English should work.

Using "it" before "it" is defined mightn't seem a big deal. However, it ("it" here being 'using "it" before "it" is defined') is important. First, people reading a document, etc. may not understand colloquialisms - which it is, even though you may not think so. Second, it's an unprofessional use of grammar, which undermines your confidence in the people who are writing this supposedly-trustworthy source of 'truth'. And third... well, it's just annoying to old people like me who prefer the olden days, ok?

My favourite example of the lingual travesty is this, noticed after running a software installer:

"One of your product's dependencies is old. It is recommended to update it."

Wait, they're saying that the product's dependency should update itself? In that case, why bother telling me about it? And what's with this "it is recommended to" nonsense? Surely "it is recommended for an update" is marginally more intelligible.

Use of "it" before "it" is defined is a tell-tale that the sentence can be made easier and simpler. Let's go through the above examples and define "it" up-front:

"Checking your teeth regularly is important."

"Reading the instructions before installing this application is advised."

"Consulting a doctor before taking this medicine is recommended."

 "One of your product's dependencies is old. Updating it is recommended."

You'll notice that none of these sentences is more difficult to read than the originals. In fact, hopefully quite the opposite, because it progresses in the right order, and each sentence is naturally shorter. That's because we've used simple English grammar, rather than some form of degenerate pig-English.

However, even these sentence constructions are suspicious. That's because there is also a sinister side. The original and amended sentences avoid mentioning who the authority is that says something is important, advised or recommended. That's because such sentences are often designed to avoid responsibility. Ultimately, the sentences should be as follows:

"We say it's important that you check your teeth regularly."

"We advise that you read the instructions before installing this application."

"We recommend that you consult a doctor before taking this medicine."

"One of your product's dependencies is old. We recommend that you update it."

I'm not sure why they would want to avoid this style. Do they think it too confrontational? Are they afraid of responsibility, or blame? If so, I'd suggest they consider that an ambiguously-apportioned sentence is at best cowardly, and at worst trying to get people to do something but weaseling out of the consequences if they've given you crap advice.

So beware the '"it" before "it" is defined' sentences: The people who use them are hiding behind their insidious words. It's up to you to be wary of the advice that they're suspiciously reticent to give. (Or should that be "The advice that they're suspiciously reticent to give should make you wary"...)

While we're at 'it', an addendum: If your delivery company says your parcel will arrive "between 14:30 - 15:30", ask them: "between 14:30 - 15:30 and when? Or do you mean between 14:30 and 15:30?"

People who Hate High Service Charges

People. They're lazy, idiotic, or both. They don't generally change their provider when it comes to phones, broadband, banks or amenities. The services providers know this, and exploit it. They dare to charge you eye-watering fees. And you bend down and take it, being bereft of the willpower required to stand straight, pull your trousers up, and walk away.

A proportion of the resulting immense profits that they make goes on subsidising offers, which serve to entice people into the web of self-imposed doom. You know the score. The first year is ridiculously cheap. Thereon, the fake, happy, caring persona melts away and you're whacked with high fees.

I'm one of the tiny proportion of people who change provider every year. It's a bit of effort, I'll admit, but compared to the alternative of effectively donating my earnings to large corporations, it's something I don't regret. Yet here's the crunch: If everyone did the same as me, profits would be tighter. Consequently, those corporations wouldn't ably afford to subsidise their enticing offers. Nor would they have an incentive to: If people weren't likely to be loyal, then where's the point? They'll only leave after the first year anyway.

So long live you gullible morons, and long live you shameless companies with your deceptive schemes. If it weren't for your symbiotic relationship, I wouldn't get the great prices each year that I succeed in getting.

Movember

What a load of crap that they chose moustaches and November to promote men's health. Immediately, more than half of the population (women and children) can't take part! And what has a moustache got to do with health? Either you grow a moustache or you don't care about men's health, is that it?

Surely January would have been the best month to pick. Then you can call it Manuary. Once again, the clue's in the name - except this time, it's more obvious what the point is, and there's no gimmick that makes half of the population feel excluded from supporting and the other half egoistic with their "look at me, I'm a man, feel sorry for me because I'm part of a group who has health problems" fashion statement.

And after all that, did you learn anything about men's health in November? I know I didn't. Apart from the mental disability which is the craving for gimmicks, attention and childish pseudo-caring. But then, that affects the entire population.

Finally this year, I wish a Merry Arbitrary Mythological Event Taken from the Ancient Cultures and Cannibalised into Religion and a Happy New Arbitrary Point in the Solar Cycle to all of my one reader.