Growth
18 Aug 2017
Computers are simple. The people I help with their tech problems from time to time may not agree with me - heck, sometimes I don’t agree with myself - but compared to interpersonal relationships or biological organisms, computers are the simplest lever-and-pulley systems. One of the reasons they can cause so much frustration is that they function so differently from human systems. Humans have to identify important information and ignore everything else. Our brains erase the very evidence of our eyes. Computers have no such luxury. There can be no deviation or fudging, or it will not work. And so the systems collide, and our monitor will not turn on, even though we know it is plugged in. We call our friendly I.T. repairman, and lo, the monitor is not plugged in.
This means that 90% of I.T. work is thinking like a computer. You need to be methodical, ask even the stupid questions, and check everything twice, thrice. You must defeat your assumptive brain. The computer cannot be wrong, for it perfectly responds to all the information it is given exactly how it was told to respond. What is wrong is always in the interaction with the user, for the user assumes a universe of which the computer knows nothing, and then becomes puzzled when the computer is not operating in that universe.
However, it is the other 10%, the human 10%, that is the most important part of I.T. work. Solving the problem is only half the problem. You must be able to translate what the user wants so you can understand the problem in the first place. You must be able to translate the unbending error messages into softer words for the user to comprehend and learn. You must be able to fudge, to estimate, to deviate from your original thoughts and pursue new solutions when complications arise. In essence, I.T. work requires a duality of thought. You must be able to treat the human as a human, and the computer as a computer (NOT the other way around), and mediate between them.
Scythe psychosis coaster coatrack codependent pen depart
Leaving leaven heaven heaving ingot imp imprudent art
Make cacophony phonetic tickle titular largesse
Tintinnabulation torture torment interdict distress
Apple sin multisyllabic basal nay salvation vault
Valley alley allegation propaganda fulcrum fault
Injury judicious juicy cyborg organizer nice
Error romance road redemption empty entertainment ice
Water waiter terminator minotaur tornado name
Garner nearer gardener demerit ritually game
Xanadu adieu euphoria forgo ago forgot
Underneath undying earthy ornithopter terror rot
Jewelled gems gestating state intestate germophobia
Cleanly alkaline all calling tropical utopia
Zoo kazoo zucchini chin initializing zealotry
Pedant pendant dance incarnate ichor chord dichotomy
Damage image magic cage immaculate condition clue
Number brunt brunette untether thumb immeasurably brew
Query quarry alegory garish garnish sugar rag
Yellow lodestone laden lair hillariously scary sag
Bite inviting vitriolic frolic lichen generous
Kind respected specious specks examine specter fated fuss
Fusion shines enshrined supplying supple supper supplicant
Harmony stentorian toroidal roil embroil recant
Oppulent opponent potent temple tent tyrannosaur
Ripple rumble clip perambulate ensemble amble soar
I saw the word ‘intimate’ used in two different reveiws of Christopher Nolan’s new movie, Dunkirk. After going to see it, I’d have to disagree. The main feeling I get from the film is isolation. Constant wide shots show the vastness of the Channel and the sky, and the comparatively miniscule boats, fighter planes, and people. The soundtrack is a continual ticking drone, infrequently interrupted by moments of rest or resolution. Even the dialogue is sparse, sitting like islands in a sea of grim silence.
All of this combines to establish Dunkirk’s tone perfectly, a backdrop against which the three plot arcs of the film (soldiers on the beach, a civilian boat in the Channel, and Spitfire pilots in the air) stand out sharply. They are easy to keep track of, with the exception perhaps of some confusion over which black-haired soldier is which. Spotting points in which the different stories overlap is rewarding. Human moments, while again not intimate, are poignant, standing against the dual enemies of the water and the Germans (both elemental forces in this film).
+ Excellent tone
+ Easier to follow than some Nolan movies
- Another war movie
- Ends with Churchill speech voiceover; inspiring but cliche
Relient K has written a lot of music about romantic relationships - enough, in fact, to sketch a full-blown fling from start to finish. Given the intensity, I would estimate this happening over the span of at least two years.