charlie's blog

Friday, April 17, 2009

new words

They've been a long time coming, but here's another batch of new words. These mostly came from The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Antarctica, and Anvil of Stars (the last is still in progress). "Boustrophedonic" came from the Five-Dollar Words series in Fabulous Adventures in Coding.

assignation - a secret rendezvous, as between lovers
mendacious - lying, untruthful, or dishonest
gracile - slender and graceful
oleaginous - oily or greasy
quisling - a traitor, one who collaborates with the enemy
gauleiter - an overbearing or unpleasant official
vermifuge - a medication used in the treatment of intestinal worms/parasites
louche - of questionable taste or morality
apotheosis - the ideal or perfect example of a kind
turgid - bombastic, lofty in style
iconoclast - one who attacks cherished ideas or institutions
pandiculate - to yawn and stretch
shibboleth - a word or pronunciation used to distinguish outsiders, or a manner of speaking particular to a specific group
marl - a loose mixture of clay
calumny - an attack or false charge meant to discredit
adenoidal - sounding as if the nose were pinched
thew - muscle or sinew
coffle - a chained line of prisoners or slaves
boustrophedonic - a writing system where successive lines alternate direction (L->R, then R->L, then L->R, etc)
avuncular - resembling an uncle in kindness
ailurophobe - someone who hates or fears cats
depauperate - to impoverish or stunt the growth of
chiaroscuro - the contrast of light and dark, for artistic effect
aleatory - dependent on chance or luck
fata morgana - a mirage caused by temperature inversion
birbyne - a Lithuanian wind instrument
inchoate - incomplete, or only partially in existence

There are some good ones in here, but I'm still attached to defenestrate.

New feature: The Vocabulary Hall of Shame. I make no guarantees to add an entry with every "new word" post, but here's the first inductee:

bromance - a love affair or complicated affection between two straight men

Now just to be clear, I have no gripe with men being close, sharing their feelings, or doing anything else for that matter. What I object to is this horrible, horrible word. May every man have as many close male relationships as his heart desires, and may none of those suffer the name "bromance".

Random side note: I can't get enough of Chrome's "recently closed" feature. Any time you open a new tab, a list of recently-closed tabs appears in the lower right. Click one of these, and you're dropped straight back where you were. Not only that, but your history comes back too, so you can hit the Back button in your restored tab and move back to the previous page(s). Brilliant!

Labels:

Monday, February 9, 2009

ten not equal to 10 (for some values of 10)

The title of this post was inspired by a classic geek joke, which has been lovingly immortalized on a t-shirt by ThinkGeek:
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The joke is that most people will read this as "there are ten types of people in the world", when in fact the correct reading is "there are two types of people in the world". That's because "10" is being used to represent the number two, as written in binary.

Taken at its most literal, this is a (hopefully friendly) poke at non-geek types, who likely have never been exposed to binary numbers. On a deeper level, though, I think it's a great introduction to a very interesting distinction: the difference between a number and its representation. As a programmer, I deal with this distinction regularly, and a recent conversation made me decide to write about it.

Huh?

At this point, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask what it even means to distinguish between a number and its representation. Is there really a difference?

In a word, yes. There's as much difference between a written "6" and the abstract number six as there is between the word "cow" and a smelly, cud-chewing quadruped. One is a name, a label, and the other is the thing that is named or labeled. In the case of numbers, the thing being labeled is a concept, rather than a mammal, so a more apt analogy might be the difference between the word "angry" and the feeling of anger. If you aren't convinced that there's a difference between the word "anger" and anger itself, consider the fact that the word "angry" would mean nothing to a non-English speaker, but that such a person almost certainly knows what it feels like to be angry. Thus, the name is clearly not the same thing as what's being named.

Getting back to numbers, I can be clearer now: "6" and "six" are both labels for a concept: the quantity six. Of course, I used "six" in describing what "six" labels, so that's cheating, but here's an example of the quantity I'm referring to: @@@@@@ (six @ signs). The point is that quantity is a distinct concept, and two people from different countries or even different planets can still agree on whether they are looking at six widgets or seven, even if they use different words to count them. Likewise, the quantity two is the same whether you call it "two", "dos", or "dva". Since "quantity" probably has less association with written forms than "number", I'll use the former to refer to the pure concept of a number.

Representing quantities

Now that we're clear on the distinction between a quantity and its representation, I can get to the next interesting bit: the representations themselves. I'll bet that you know of at least three distinct ways to represent the number six. If you're a programmer, you probably know more.

First the most basic one, the one you've probably known since you were only a few years old. You may or may not have given it up since then, but I'm sure you still know how to do it: counting on your fingers. Go ahead and do it - hold up six fingers - and you'll see a very simple representation of the quantity six. This is the most basic and possibly the least often used (among educated adults), but in my opinion it's also one of the best. It doesn't get much clearer than holding up six fingers and saying "this many". I'm guessing that this is one of the first ways that kids learn to use numbers.

The next most obvious forms are the ones I've used throughout this discussion: the common spoken form "six", and the common numeral form "6". These are good once you start working with bigger quantities, since humans run short on fingers pretty quickly. These are also where the question of representation starts to gain more depth.

The spoken and numeral forms typically build up numbers by parts. Generally the biggest parts are named first, and then the smaller parts. So you might say "five thousand one hundred and two", indicating five groups of a thousand, one group of a hundred, and two more. Adding up the parts gives you the actual quantity of interest. "Thousand" and "hundred" are just handy names for certain quantities, ones that are used often enough to warrant their own names. The numeral forms are similar: "132" is understood by convention to indicate the one group of a hundred plus three groups of ten plus two more.

Numeric bases

An interesting thing to note with "132" is that there's nothing that really requires that the leftmost digit be counting groups of a hundred. It could be groups of seven, or groups of eighty-five; it's really just a matter of convention. Of course, using the digits to count powers of ten is one of the most common conventions, so that's how many people will read it. Since ten is in some sense the "base" of this series, we call this system "base ten". Most people have base ten so deeply ingrained that we don't even consider other possible ways to name quantities. Its popularity probably comes from the fact that most people have ten fingers for counting on.

Even so, many folks have heard of at least one or two other bases. For instance, you may not realize it, but you likely have also had some exposure to base twenty. The Gettysburg Address opens with "Four score and seven years ago", and while it may sound antiquated, it's still reasonably clear: it means four groups of twenty, and seven more. You could write this as "47", where the "7" represents ones and the "4" represents twenties.

You could use base twenty to represent larger quantities too. Since we're using powers of twenty, the third digit from the right represents four hundreds, so eight hundred and sixty five would be "235": two groups of four hundred, three groups of twenty, and five more. Actually, you probably wouldn't speak it the way I did, since "eight hundred" obviously still employs base ten. Maybe you'd have a name for four hundred, like "tav" in Hebrew, and you'd say something like "two tav three twent and seven". It probably feels weird to break things down into powers of twenty, but it's really not much different from base ten, and in fact base twenty has been used by a number of cultures throughout history.

Another common base, used heavily by programmers and other computer people, is base sixteen, or hexadecimal. Here the digits represent powers of sixteen, so "23" would correspond to the quantity thirty-five (two sixteens plus three). An interesting problem here (and with base twenty) is how to represent a quantity like twelve, since it has to fit in one digit. The most common solution for hexadecimal is to use the letters "A" through "F" to represent ten through fifteen, so twelve would be "C", and thirty would be "1E" (one sixteen plus fourteen).

As I mentioned earlier, we programmers also use base two, or binary. This means we're working with powers of two, so the rightmost digit counts ones, and moving to the left you count twos, fours, eights, sixteens, etc. So "1011" would be one eight, one two, and one one, for a total of eleven. And with that, we're finally back to the joke from the beginning: while the most common reading of "10" is ten, you can also read it as two, if you view it as a quantity represented in binary.

Speaking of numbers...

Another fun thing about this joke is that it doesn't play if you try to speak it verbally. That's because the spoken representation of a quantity is usually unambiguous, at least in English. If you read "10" as "ten", you've blown the joke, and if you read it as "one zero", it just sounds weird.

Thinking about how people verbalize numbers makes me think of something else too, something I've always found odd about spoken Spanish. I'm thinking of how telephone numbers are read: I often hear the first three digits read as "five hundred twenty three" (in Spanish, of course), rather than the English "five two three". The oddness here comes from the fact that telephone numbers are not actually descriptions of any quantity, but rather arbitrary sequences of digits used to uniquely identify a telephone. So it seems odd to use quantity words like "five hundred" when you're not actually talking about a quantity.

On the other hand, there are some things that make more sense in Spanish than they do in English, like the naming of years. In standard English, I was born in "nineteen seventy-nine", but years actually are quantities, specifically a number of years since some starting point. So it would make more sense to call it "one thousand nine hundred seventy-nine", which is exactly how it's spoken in Spanish (but again, in actual Spanish). English has switched back to using thousands for this decade, since saying "twenty nine" would be heard as 29 rather than 2009, but I'm sure many people will go back to "twenty ten" next year. Presumably we Americans prefer this form because it saves some syllables.

Wrap-up

So there you have it: a nerdy joke made even more nerdy by a bunch of blathering about quantities and bases. Nothing kills a joke like having to explain it, but I still think the whole thing is pretty interesting.

Labels: , ,

Monday, January 19, 2009

the view from the left

We live in a right-handed world. Most people don't notice it, particularly you righties, but it's the truth: our world favors the right side. And realistically, that's probably how things should be, since the majority of people are right-handed. Wikipedia puts the estimate at 90-93%, or only 7-10% lefties. Still, I was interested (and proud) to read that Barack Obama is a fellow southpaw, as were four of the last six presidents.

Today I thought it would be interesting to take stock of just how many things give preference to the right hand. This partial list was compiled over the last month, and while I don't claim that any of these were deliberately designed to favor righties, I also don't claim that they weren't.

Cameras: Almost all of the interesting controls are on the right.

Can openers: Hold 'em with the left, crank 'em with the right.

Cars: In the US, almost all of the controls are on the right side. Could you righties shift with your left hand? Brits, don't answer that.

Computer mice: Many can be used by either hand, but they're usually on the right side and (by default) expect to be clicked with the right index finger. Some can't even be used by the left hand without extreme awkwardness.

Corkscrews and screwdrivers: Usable by either hand, but you can get a lot more leverage in the tightening direction if you use them right-handed.

Iced tea makers: With mine, the pitcher goes on the right, to be picked up by the right hand. My left hand gets to hit the button, though, so maybe it's a wash.

Microwaves and toaster ovens: Controls are almost always on the right side.

Toilets: I can't speak for other countries, but in America, the majority of toilets have the flush handle on the left (as you're facing the thing). That's because the right hand is too good for such distasteful work. In fact, in some countries it's actually a horrible insult to offer your left hand to someone, because it's assumed that you use that hand for wiping.

Scissors: Try using a fancy pair of sewing scissors with your left hand. It doesn't work. Interestingly, I seem to have learned to cut right-handed very early on, and never ended up needing the left-handed scissors my parents always bought me.

Sewing machines: Speaking of sewing, all of the interesting sewing machine controls are on the right, too.

Watches: Wound by the right hand, unless you wear yours on the right wrist, in which case you probably have to take it off to wind it.

Wedding rings: In the US and some other countries, wedding rings are worn on the left hand. As a lefty, I find it frustrating to have a chunk of metal on my dominant hand - it's far too easy to accidentally scratch things.

The English language (and lots of others): Boy, there's a lot to say here. First of all, try writing an essay in pencil with your left hand. Don't spend all afternoon, just fill one page. Then take a look at the outside edge of your hand. Your skin should now have a nice silvery coating of graphite, and you're going to leave smudges until you wash your hands. It's gross. Also, if you happened to choose a spiral notebook for your experiment, did you notice how incredibly uncomfortable it was to have your hand mashed against the spirals? Yeah, elementary school sucked.

Now, there are some advantages to being a lefty, such as a higher chance of being ambidextrous. I have always assumed that this was because we lefties are more frequently required to use our non-dominant hand for things (as demonstrated by the previous list), but I have no proof of this. Lefties are also reputed to be more creative, and some evidence suggests that we're better at multitasking.

Overall, I'd have to say that I'm quite happy to be a lefty. I feel like a member of an exclusive club. It's still fun to imagine throwing you righties into a left-handed world, though.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 19, 2008

despair (the funny kind)

Motivational posters. We've all seen them; in offices, in schools, and anywhere else where people might need to be motivated. Some of them feature soaring eagles, other show lions standing proudly on the savannah, and yet others capture the end of a grueling but rewarding marathon. They are uniformly designed, uniformly deployed, and uniformly despised.

That's where Despair comes in. Rather than agonize over these posters, they figured out a way to fight back and make money at the same time: demotivators. These are posters that are designed to look just like the standard motivational posters, but the messages are cynical, ironic, and downright discouraging. And they've been pretty successful: it's getting to where some folks have only ever seen the demotivational variety, and when confronted with the "real" ones, don't understand why the posters aren't funny.

Just a few days ago I discovered that they've started a Do It Yourself project, where you can create your own demotivational posters and have them printed on Despair's high-quality printers. Of course I had to try it, and I was pretty pleased with the results. I hope you'll enjoy them as well.







Labels:

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

new words

It's taken longer than I hoped to get this one ready, but here's the latest list of new words.

Some of these came from Halting State by Charles Stross, which I recommend to anyone interested in geeky near-future science fiction. For this one, I had to use Urban Dictionary as much or more than my regular dictionaries, because the author used a lot of UK slang. I avoided putting a lot of these on the new words list, since I'm not very likely to use them, but I did include some of the most choice.

A smaller set of words came from I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter, which I can't recommend highly enough to anyone with an interest in cognitive science or personal identity. I plan to do an entire post about this one sometime soon.

Now for the words:

hokum -meaningless nonsense with the outward appearance of being impressive and legitimate
oppugn - to challenge or question the validity of a statement
obsequies - funeral rites
adduce - to cite or allege, to advance evidence for
proprioception - the ability to sense the position and movement of one's limbs
eminence grise - a secret or unofficial decision maker, "the power behind the throne"
teleological - showing evidence of design or purpose
zanana - the part of a house reserved for women, in some Asian countries such as India and Pakistan
sui generis - one of a kind, or in a class of one's own
recondite - incomprehensible or abstruse
bampot - an idiot or a foolish person (this is one of the Scottish words, but it's too good to leave out) 
emollient - a substance that softens or soothes the skin
wibble - to make meaningless comments; also a metasyntactic variable (see below)
gourmand - a connoisseur of fine food and drink
mustelid - a member of the weasel family (a good word for poking fun at someone without them understanding)
pants - rubbish (another another British-ism, see below)
caitiff - a cowardly and despicable person
mirabile dictu - wonderfully or amazingly, i.e. "it's a miracle!"
echt - genuine, not counterfeit
tonsorial - of or related to barbers or barbering
prevaricate - to evade the truth or be deliberately ambiguous
qiviut - the wool of the musk ox, great for Scrabble

This week's winner is 'wibble', a new (to me) metasyntactic variable from across the pond. I've already started to incorporate this into my lexicon of nonsense words for programming. The runner-up is 'pants', which featured in a recent news article from the BBC. I can't figure out exactly why, but this usage really tickles my funnybone. So, chalk up two wins for the Brits today.

Labels: