I only thought of this general thing recently, but really: why is realism ever a consideration? What on tv/film is actually realistic? Nothing, is what.

Well, I require some aspect (probably a set of aspects that must exceed some threshold number, really) to have plausible enough realism that I care what happens. That people really would behave like that, or talk like that, or those streets really intersect, or that's actually how physics works, something. But how much realism and in what aspects can vary a whole lot just for me, and I imagine other people have entirely different demands. So it isn't really a hittable target.

Ooh, Consuela, for your parents' new digs?

I'd probably go with silken tofu.

Speaking of which, Trader Joe's has silken tofu now, the shelf-stable kind like Mori-Nu (but with some Trader Joe's name). I'm thrilled because I need it to make a corn casserole dish for Thanksgiving.

That people really would behave like that, or talk like that, or those streets really intersect, or that's actually how physics works, something. But how much realism and in what aspects can vary a whole lot just for me, and I imagine other people have entirely different demands.

Sure -- because I know I've enjoyed stuff where none of those things were true, but probably not all at once.

Right - there needs to be something I can recognize, I think, but if there's nothing new, then why would I bother? So I like a mix.

Eta: although for me the "realism" doesn't have to reflect actual reality so much as be believable. So, for demographics, since most people overestimate minority populations, probably minorities should be over-represented in casting to increase plausibility.

Anne, you have a plan (why did I type dress? I guess that's my plans for today leaking out my fingers), and that's the important thing. Make sure everyone knows you have a plan--in a job that finally makes me feel like I am empowered and have a level of autonomy (although my boss wishes I did less¹). Take it from fuckup or possible fuckup to managed risk.

That's what I'm planning. I actually fired off an email to him today (went into work to check on something that was supposed to happen while I was out yesterday) and gave a brief précis of what I needed to go over with him (problem, solution). I sandwiched it in between two pieces of good news on the project. I do feel somewhat better.

Beverly, I've got a heavy workout scheduled for tomorrow morning, but I'm going to find something to do today. I do think that will help.

That was really smart, Anne.

That sounds like a good approach, Anne. I hope you can relax a little more.

Autocorrect, gah!

The problem with minorities in Hollywood goes way beyond demographics, though. Because yes, there are a LOT of white people even in big diverse cities who have only white people for friends, and their stories can easily be told with 100% accuracy without casting any minorities at all. The problem is that those kinds of stories are vastly overrepresented in the same way that men's stories are vs women - yes, there are many situations where a white guy might go through an experience in which the only other players are also white guys, but why are ALL OF THE MOVIES ABOUT THAT ONE DUDE??

I finally read an article that explains the sort of uses for technology that the presidential campaigns were trying to innovate. It is perhaps because it's primarily about Narwhal that they go into more details--since it worked, and stuff happened, and it wasn't crippled and pie in the sky: [link]

But bits of the article are weird. I can't tell who the audience is. There's a pretty condescending "let me explain nerds to you" section about the developer leading the charge:

Yet if you've spent a lot of time around tech people, around Burning Man devotees, around startups, around San Francisco, around BBSs, around Reddit, Harper Reed probably makes sense to you. He's a cool hacker. [...]. He supports open source. He likes Japan. He says fuck a lot. He goes to hipster bars that serve vegan Mexican food, and where a quarter of the staff and clientele have mustaches.

That doesn't strike me like it's actually about educating the reader. Most tech guys aren't like him, but that doesn't mean he's a weirdo that's hard to wrap your head around. He's alternative, he's cool, he's bright.

But it sounds like they're setting the tone of not really talking to people they expect to be familiar with his "sort", given the continuation of "ooh look at this!" adulatory description.

Anyroad--then the article quotes a description of Narwhal:

The second part is an API portion. You don't want a million consumers getting data via SQL." The API allowed people to access parts of the data without letting them get at the SQL database on the backend. It provided a safe way for Dashboard, the Call Tool (which helped people make calls), and the Twitter Blaster to pull data

How much sense does that make to people who aren't in IT or are IT adjacent? I don't have the perspective to tell. It did seem a bit opaque to me, but you don't really have to know what an API really is--it just feels acronym heavy and metaphor light.

Dunno.

Speaking of technology, it finally occurred to me that I can click that microphone on my phone's home screen and say "Find me the nearest supermarket" and lo and behold, my decision is pretty much made about which is the best route to take home with the best shopping options. If need be, it will speak back to me to get me there.

Why am I not doing basic stuff like that more?

Der.