Today, as you might have noticed, is Thursday.1 On Thursdays,2 I’ve kept meaning to go to a Baptist Church somewhere in London, but haven’t for a variety of reasons.
So, there’s a reason for me to be at the Baptist Church, and it isn’t that I’ve had a sudden change of faith. Instead, there’s an Irish Bagpiping group that meets there every Thursday night. They’re an Irish Bagpiping group in the sense that they play the Irish Bagpipes,3 not the “normal” Scottish Pipes.4 Uilleann Pipes are objectively better as an instrument in many regards. So, I’ve been excited to try them, but haven’t yet.
The first week I was here, they didn’t meet, as it was Summer vacation in London. The second was the same. Last week, I was locked out of my dorm, so needed to find a way back into it.5 And this week, some members of the group decided to do a movie night, so I attended that instead.6 Maybe next week?
Prereading note: while writing a different post,1 I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized2 that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my3 footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.4 Draft 4 remains as such.
Like many bad authors,5 I rely a lot on gimmicks.6 Also like bad authors,7 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.8 If it isn’t clear from the eight9 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,10 I can’t have nested footnotes.11 Instead, I12 use nested sets of punctuation.13 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals14 I use, I was happy.15 So, my list of nesting symbols16 now goes: footnotes,17 parentheses,18 square brackets,19 then angle brackets.20 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets21 that I can find,22 so23 I used short and long dashes,24 then two asterisks25 when I needed26 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.27 I don’t28 like the way that they look,29 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five30 layers deep.31 And, as I read through this draft,32 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I33 won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes34 of the piece contain a total35 of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.36 Whoops.
Like many bad authors,37 I rely a lot on gimmicks.38 Also like bad authors,39 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.40 If it isn’t clear from the six41 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,42 I can’t have nested footnotes.43 Instead, I44 use nested sets of punctuation.45 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals46 I use, I was happy.47 So, my list of nesting symbols48 now goes: footnotes,49 parentheses,50 square brackets,51 then angle brackets.52 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets53 that I can find,54 so55 I used two asterisks56 when I needed57 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.58,59 I don’t60 like the way that they look,61 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three62 layers deep.63 And, as I read through this draft,64 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.
Like many bad authors,65 I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,66 I copy my gimmick from someone else.67 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals68 I need, I was happy.69 So, my list of nesting70 now goes: footnotes,71 parentheses,72 square brackets,73 then angle brackets.74 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets75 that I can find,76 so77 I switched to using two asterisks.78 I don’t really like the way that they look,79 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three80 deep.
Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.81 It now goes: Footnote,82 parentheses,83 square brackets,84 then angle brackets.85 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.86
which will be posted (and rewritten) next time that the situation is valid↩
about ten minutes in↩
nested↩
and I already have far too many footnotes↩
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩
or at least one gimmick↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
nine including this (assuming no more drafts)↩
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩
as mentioned in the linked post↩
which before today was limited to ([])↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles -but that feels like needless pedantry –although I guess all pedantry is supposed to be needless **because of the word “excessive”**– that I don’t know enough math for->, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals -but not the convention of avoiding their usage->]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
I know one of them is an “em dash,” but I’m not sure which↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
read: wanted↩
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩
didn’t, and likely will not↩
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
wow five feels so much more freeing than three↩
hopefully↩
that number was changed at the very end of the (writing of the) piece to reflect reality, and does not include nestings↩
as above↩
ibid↩
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩
or at least one gimmick↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
seven including this (assuming no more drafts[which was wrong])↩
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩
as mentioned in the linked post↩
which before today was limited to ([])↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**>, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals **but not the convention of avoiding their usage**>]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
read: wanted↩
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩
and no, I will not use em dashes, since I still don’t know whether ems are the long or short dash (- or –), or how long and short dashes differ. If I ever learn, I may incorporate them (whoops, the draft above disproves this)↩
didn’t, and likely will not↩
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
or I can learn to use dashes and em dashes (ooh I could use both of those to get two more layers free [shoot I’m writing another draft])↩
and hopefully some good ones↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in order hard to read, but different shapes (like this [or this]) easier to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior footnotes (or the following [with some exceptions])↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
mostly because it feels less like a divider, and more of just two random characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩
like this! (ooh meta)↩
like the footnote above’s line “ooh meta,” (or like this [or any of the following explanatory footnotes])↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although, they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
Prereading note: this post was written as an assignment, so drafts 4-61 lack much of my snark and2 will read much more like an academic essay. In the final draft, I hope to have restored some of the charm3 that I tend to have in my writings.
Diaries today are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,4 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog5 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused.6 But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable.7 The fact that two different agencies,8 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response.9 And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.10 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,11 it is a fairly trivial process12 to transcribe a backup.13 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.14 The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: neither promises permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time.15 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially now, some 20 years after the first published arguments, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries are becoming a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.16
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog17 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable. The fact that two different agencies,18 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”19, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards. Additionally, blogs all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.20 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries today are becoming more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. However, this transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, examination of these objections tends to show that they are rooted in either classism or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.21
And, for those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor a blog22 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The fact that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine23 or Google’s own caching system both make constant backups is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”24, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards.. Additionally, digital diaries all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers all contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Thirdly, since these backups are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.25 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.
The Internet, however, backs up everything. Yes, we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. And, like the other forms becoming digital, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.26
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance, a blog27 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since nearly old computers are still functional, and old operating systems are constantly being ported to new machines, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive28 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”footnoteDiaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them.
However, the lack of searching capabilities is never seen as a flaw in traditional diaries. Unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. They can also search, since every modern web browser has search and find capabilities.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.29 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The most honest answer is that they don’t. Most likely nothing any given blogger has to say won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the Internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone. The Internet makes it more likely that the unimportant words will live on.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.30 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people31 are turning, not to their notebooks, but to their keyboards when they decide to put to paper32 what’s in their mind. And, like these other records, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.33
For those unfamiliar with the Internet,34 online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,35 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,36 a blog37 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage38 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable.39 The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive40 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”41 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files42 still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, however, we can access43 any blog from anywhere and anytime,44 which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria45 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.46 Had the files been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.47
That leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,48 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.49 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The fairest answer is that they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed.50,51 But, we have a much higher chance that any thought of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.52 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. To me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.53
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,54 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,55 the blog post may can hypothetically become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage56 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web57 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive58 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”59 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, we can access all of the blogs from anywhere with an internet connection, which frees the researcher from having to find the funds to go to a library where a diary comes from.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria60 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.61 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exact document,62 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.63 But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? The short and long answer is they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant.
Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment if it isn’t printed out.64 But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.65 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. Diary studiers point to the spread of the clock as a phenomenon leading to the rise of the diary and see this as a good change, and yet don’t feel the same way about the rise of digital media. To me, this is, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries One common complaint about digital diaries is their alleged fragility.66
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, they can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,67 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,68 the file may become unreadable if the software becomes obsolete or unused. However, almost any old file system has seen some sort of official use, and so interpreters exist. It’s unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web69 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive70 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. It is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria72 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.73 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been likely hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? Even if it isn’t, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment. But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.74 And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. We no longer can question which draft of a manuscript is older.
hopefully↩
ibid↩
read snark↩
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩
a neologism, short for “web log”↩
though MSDos(.? The old operating system emulator) existing does throw some doubt on that idea↩
not that diaries are ever burned or otherwise destroyed intentionally↩
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩
the fact that there is no similar analog equivalent remains unstated↩
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩
though more effort than printing or backing up a digital file↩
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it↩
all joking aside, I find it absolutely horrible that some languages are now completely gone from the collective human knowledge↩
barring the author deleting it↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩
a neologism, short for “web log”↩
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩
a neologism, short for “web log”↩
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩
a neologism, short for “web log”↩
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩
barring the author destroying it↩
especially in younger generations↩
that expression may not work as well here↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩
shoot, is this a capitalized thing?↩
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩
a neologism, “shortening web log”↩
to the best of my knowledge↩
a much more believable scenario↩
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩
and physical remnants↩
almost↩
assuming an internet connection↩
if we accept ancient history as real↩
/hrefhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/news-museu-nacional-fire-rio-de-janeiro-natural-history/Seen Here↩
given how cheap cloud storage is today↩
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it to the internet↩
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩
not to mention the fact that we also don’t have many of the works from that time period, which may have been even better than Beowulf↩
barring the author destroying it↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩
to the best of my knowledge↩
a much more believable scenario↩
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩
if we accept ancient history as real↩
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩
or, heaven forbid it, scan it and upload it to the internet↩
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩
barring the author destroying it↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and Blogging Bloggers Who Blog Them↩
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, or degradation of ink↩
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩
a much more believable scenario↩
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩
if we accept ancient history as real↩
barring the author destroying it↩
Tonight I had the pleasure of watching Othello at the Globe Theatre. In a wonderful turn of events, I was a groundling.1 I was right next to the stage, and even leaning on it for the piece of the play after intermission.
Sadly, the set and lighting didn’t blow me away. The lights were fixed and immobile, and the set more or less was as well. What I can comment on, however, was the music.
The show began with natural trumpets,2 which was nice. Come the scene where Cassio becomes drunk, they are replaced with valved trumpets. Before the first intermission, they bring out the cornetti,
In the second act, the cornetti play lamentations as the piece falls to its tragic fate. The ending dance, however, returns with the beautiful jazz trumpeting. Other instruments included a lute during the drunk scene, played masterfully by Iago, drums and other percussion played by instrumentalists, and whistles.
Finally, as is requested by Shakespeare, there is singing. The drunken songs sounded drunk and merry. The whole cast song at the end was sung brilliantly.3 But, the song that struck me hardest was Desdemona and Emilia’s duet of the Willow Tree. They flowed between two part harmony and unisons flawlessly and beautifully. I stood entranced for the first4 time in the show. Nothing existed for me except the two flowing voices and the story they told.
And truly, that’s all that I can ask of a show. There was a moment where time stood still, and I found myself drawn, not into the story or characters, but simply into a place where I feel what the characters feel. Even in professional theatre, those moments can be hard to come by, but the cast brought me nearly to that point time and time again, and to the point in the soulful duet. But, as all good things do,5 it too came to an end.
Today’s Gospel1 reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.2 Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”3
Peter, the man who4 Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan.5 To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not always meekly or gently, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. In fact, he doesn’t even do it kindly. In no uncertain words, he tells Peter that he is sinning.
Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.6 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions, and Peter tried to accept this change.
This reading particularly speaks to me in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.7 We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone who has spoken out of ignorance has to say. Today’s reading was a good reminder to me that I need to try harder to love, even when it’s hard.
Today’s Gospel8 reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.9 Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”10
Peter, the man who11 Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan, the great betrayer. To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not as we see convenient, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.12 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions.
Overall, this reading speaks to me, especially in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.13 We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone has to say.
Today’s Gospel reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels. Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”14
Peter, the man who15 loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan. This is truly the best example of Jesus saying that we are to love the sinner, even if we abhor the sin. Moreso, it points out to me that we have the responsibility to help those around us who make mistakes. 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.16 Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly there was some conversation during those 6 days where the misunderstanding was resolved.
24th Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year B↩︎
the other comes during the Easter season↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
the great betrayer↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
the “people we love” is important, because there’s no shortage of telling those we don’t know or care about that we disagree with them↩︎
24th Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year B↩︎
the other comes during Easter↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
the “people we love” is important, because there’s no shortage of telling those we don’t know or care about that we disagree with them↩︎
Mark 8:33↩︎
whom? I’m not wholly sure how whom is used in the modern English language↩︎
Mark 9:2↩︎
Some days you go to sleep, anxiously awaiting the coming morning and day. Other days you wake up, counting down the moments until you can go back to sleep.
There are many factors that can influence both of those, from what’s happening in your life at a macro scale,1 at a micro scale,2, and how much sleep you’ve gotten the night3 before.
Today I remembered that sleep you miss is at least as important as the other two. I didn’t sleep enough, and so today wasn’t as fully experienced as it could be. I’m hoping tomorrow will be better.
As you many have gathered from my prior post, I play the ukulele.1 There are two reasons I thought it important to bring with me on my trip to London. First, it’s the smallest instrument I know2 that can play chords and harmony, which is nice when I want to sing along with a backing.
The other reason is that I have minimal difficulty playing melodies on it. Whether I’m plucking out an old familiar melody to decide how to accompany it, playing along to my singing new melodies, or picking out new melodies, I can do them all with relative ease. Part of this is that the instrument is tuned to four of five pentatonic notes3 as its four strings. This also means when I want to play something with the dominant as the low note, it’s fairly easy to do, as the pentatonic scale a fourth below C still uses 4 of the 5 notes. The only difference is F instead of E.
All in all, the ukulele is a fun and easy instrument. I would highly recommend anyone to learn it.
As you may remember from my last mention of this topic, some songs are very difficult to arrange for bagpipe. Today, I was lucky enough to find a song that was easy.
I found myself today with the best problem an artist can have: a hyper focused muse. I could not focus on anything else until I had set the hymn “How Can I Keep From Singing” to bagpipes. Unlike the anthem that I previously discussed, this son was far easier. It’s pentatonic,1 and only occupies an octave, from the dominant to the dominant. As you may remember, the bagpipe has a range of an octave and a second starting from the subdominant. So, I put the song in the key of d, added a few grace notes, and was done. It’s nice when things go well.
5 notes to an octave↩︎
By now, I’m sure you’ve noticed that I’m currently studying in London.1 As a result, much of the typing I’m doing here is being done on keyboards with the UK’s key layout.2
Some of these changes make complete sense to me, like the fact that the pound symbol3 is much easier to type.4 Unfortunately, it’s Shift-3, not Shift-4.5
Other changes are slightly harder for me to deal with unconsciously. Next to the single quote key ’, they added in a key for pound and tilde. Instead of shift-single giving you double, it instead returns the @ sign. Thankfully, shift-2 therefore gives us ".6 Additionally, backslash is next to the left shift key, and the vertical line7 is shift backslash.8 Where the backslash should9 be, there is nothing. Those changes have messed me up more than once when typing a password.10
I’m also switching to using more Windows machines.11 Commands, especially in the browser I use, are sometimes very different, which is an adjustment. Overall though, those are the main changes I’ve really noticed.
The moral of the story is that I apparently don’t notice the big differences,12 but I do notice the small ones.13
Am I missing the forest for the trees? I prefer to think that I’m missing the branches for the leaves. I still see that I’m in society,14 and even the mutually intelligible15 part of the world,16 but not the differences between here and home,17 except where they’re a little different,18 as many are beginning to be in this lovely start of fall.19 Also, as much as I wish I could claim this whole article was a set up for that autumn20 metaphor, it was completely unplanned.
I’m currently studying in London. As a result, much of the typing I’m doing here is being done on keyboards with the UK’s key layout.21 Some of these changes make complete sense to me, like the fact that instead of a dollar symbol22 being Shift-number, it’s the pound symbol.23,24 Unfortunately, it’s Shift-3, not Shift-4.
Others are slightly harder for me to deal with. Next to the single quote key ’, they added in a key for pound and tilde. Instead of shift-single giving you double, it instead returns the @ sign. Thankfully, shift-2 therefore gives us ". Additionally, backslash is next to the left shift key. That’s messed me up more than once when typing a password.25
I’m also switching to using more Windows machines.26 Commands, especially in the browser I use, are sometimes very different, which is an adjustment. The moral of the story is that I apparently don’t notice the big differences,27 but I do notice the small ones. Am I missing the forest for the trees? I like to think I’m missing the branches for the leaves. I can still see that I’m in society,28 and even the mutually intelligible29 part of the world,30 but not the difference between here and home,31 except where they’re a little different.32 Also, as much as I wish I could claim this whole article was a set up for that autumn33 metaphor, it was completely unplanned.
for those of you on the other side of the pond, that’s why I haven’t been visible↩︎
I assume, given that it would make sense for each country to have their own keyboard layout.\sarcasm↩︎
£↩︎
fun fact: LaTeXdoesn’t recognize typing the pound mark, and instead requires the command of \pounds↩︎
the $ in USA keyboards↩︎
so the @ and " signs basically just traded position↩︎
which I have never once known the purpose of↩︎
like in the US↩︎
based on prior experience↩︎
hmmm does saying I use a shift key in multiple passwords give away some security? Especially since using capital letters is a recommendation, I doubt it.↩︎
which is sad↩︎
noise, people, the fact that a road was torn up, pipes underneath were fixed, and the road was operational again within 3 days of them beginning, the weather, the food, everything else I’m forgetting because it’s slipped my mind↩︎
keyboard layout, computer commands, ending statements in yeah instead of nothing↩︎
the forest↩︎
to me, a monolingual Midwestern American↩︎
the trees↩︎
the branches↩︎
the leaves↩︎
autumn↩︎
fall↩︎
at least I hope that I’m not just surrounded by psychopaths↩︎
$↩︎
£↩︎
fun fact: LaTeXdoesn’t recognize typing the pound mark, and instead requires the command of \pounds↩︎
hmmm does saying I use a shift key in multiple passwords give away some security? Especially since it’s a recommendation, I doubt it.↩︎
which is sad↩︎
the noise, people, the fact that a road was torn up, pipes underneath were fixed, and the road was operational again within 3 days of them beginning, the weather, the food, everything else I’m forgetting because it’s slipped my mind↩︎
the forest↩︎
to me, a monolingual Midwestern American↩︎
the trees↩︎
the branches↩︎
the leaves↩︎
fall↩︎
When people find out that I dive, a frequent question is why. There are a variety of reasons for that. The most common1 reason for this is that I don’t look like a diver. That is, many people seem to think2 that I am much larger than the average diver. The other reason people seem disbelieving is that I’m not too terribly flexible. I don’t disagree with either assessment, but they don’t affect my choice for one key reason: I dive because I enjoy it, not because I dream of being the best. If my size becomes a limit for how fast I can spin, that’s fine because I don’t need to be throwing 407B.3 Another reason I enjoy diving is that people really seem to appreciate watching the dives where I fail.4 If I’m being honest, I’m one of them.
When people find out that I dive, a frequent question is why. There are a variety of reasons for that. The most common5 reason for this is that I don’t look like a diver. That is, many people seem to think6 that I am much larger than the average diver. The other reason people seem disbelieving is that I’m not too terribly flexible. Both of these are valid reasons for me to not dive, but they don’t stop me. Instead, I dive because I enjoy it, and I never expect to be great at it. If my size becomes a limit for how fast I can spin, that’s fine because I don’t need to be throwing 407B.7 I dive because I enjoy it.