Slow Start
16:43 Thursday, 6 February 2014
Words: 86

Thinking Out Loud
17:24 Friday, 6 February 2015
Words: 82
Silence
17:53 Friday, 6 February 2015
Words: 258
Donna 2015
18:23 Friday, 6 February 2015
Words: 661
Bit of Blog
09:26 Thursday, 6 February 2020
Words: 1234
Ephemera
13:28 Monday, 6 February 2023
Current Wx: Temp: 46.27°F Pressure: 1028hPa Humidity: 74% Wind: 10.36mph
Words: 651
Certain eastern spiritual traditions adhere to the notion of "the transient nature of all phenomena." Things arise, and they pass, like feelings. Like us.
They also counsel against "attachment," some emotional connection to something that you value perhaps out of proportion to its actual worth.
I've been reminded of these things the past few days as I've struggled with what to do with my image library. I spent a couple of days and deleted over five thousand images. And I still have over 105K images.
One approach I'm considering is printing books of events or subjects, some to give away, others to hang onto. The question I'm trying to resolve is whether to then delete those images from the library, because they're reified into a physical artifact; or should I delete all the images not in the books because they weren't valuable enough to print? Hang onto the digital originals of the printed ones in case someone wants a copy?
The point is, I think I'm spending a little too much time thinking about what to do with this library. This is the snare we get trapped in.
When I was in BAINBRIDGE (CGN-25), we made a port visit to Alexandria, Egypt and I took a tour to Cairo and the pyramids. Took a bunch of 35mm pictures. When I got home, my daughter took them to school to show her friends and lost them.
It's harder to lose things today, which may not be a good thing. Nevertheless, we still lose some. I spent much of yesterday nursing a limping 1TB 7500rpm 2.5 in. disk drive, trying to recover the masters from an old Aperture library. Once upon a time, I had the brilliant idea of uploading only reduced images to iCloud, thinking I could always access the full resolution images locally. Somehow, I seem to have managed to lose most of 2012. But sometime in 2018, I just started letting iCloud have the "originals." I had been maintaining my system library on an external drive, so I wasn't worried about storage and I still had the "original-originals."
In 2019, when I got the iMac with a 1TB SSD, I started using the internal drive, allowing Mac OS to "optimize" storage, keeping only thumbnails locally, while the originals upload to iCloud.
Well, the first book I printed was a 2018 wedding, and I can't find any full resolution originals. Fortunately, it's a book, I'm not printing large. There was only one image I wanted in the book that the software objected to, but I included it anyway. We'll see how it turns out when the book arrives. It's supposedly on its way.
Part of yesterday's effort was to see if I could recover those 2018 images. Alas, no. But I think I've found most of 2012! I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
I've been printing some at home as well. I just received a large order from Red River Paper. I hope to be printing a lot of cards. I made a couple of large prints of panos I stitched together from drone shots. I think they turned out pretty nice. The question now is, what do I do with them?
My plan, itself a transient phenomenon, for now is to print books of significant events with people I care about. Perhaps one or two of images that pleased me in some way that aren't necessarily associated with an event or people.
If I can accomplish this in a year (and afford it), I think my intention is to simply archive the Photos library on an SSD, stick it in a drawer and forget about it. Get rid of my 2TB tier of cloud storage with Apple. Process every day's images, share them with whomever or however I would share them. And then delete them.
We'll see. I'm not optimistic, but it feels right.
✍️ Reply by emailSerendipity
18:18 Monday, 6 February 2023
Current Wx: Temp: 59.77°F Pressure: 1025hPa Humidity: 64% Wind: 17.27mph
Words: 859
The marmot is made with Tinderbox, the tool for notes. It's a remarkable application, very powerful. I've been using it for about 20 years now, and I've only ever really mastered maybe five percent of it's capabilities.
Partly to learn more about Tinderbox, partly to add some social interaction during the time of COVID, (I know, it's still "the time of COVID.") I started attending the virtual Zoom meetups held on alternating Saturdays and Sundays at noon Eastern US time. It's an eclectic group of really smart people, and it's usually hosted by the developer Mark Bernstein and coordinated or stage-managed by a Tinderbox virtuoso, Michael Becker. Always in attendance is Mark Anderson, perhaps the only other person who rivals Mark Bernstein or Michael Becker in his intimate knowledge of the application.
The user community is very helpful, and I always come away having learned something new about Tinderbox. It's not always something I can use, given my application is mainly the marmot, but I can appreciate the power and flexibility the tool affords.
One of the "big fucking deals" about PKM (personal knowledge management) is linking. I get it, mostly. "It's all about the graph, baby." (Insert Always Sunny in Philadelphia meme here.) But I don't do much linking within the marmot. I'll occasionally link to something I posted on the web, if it's still at the top of my mental stack, or not too many registers deep; but mostly if I link, it's to something someplace else on the web and never an interior link within the file.
There's a sophisticated facility for internal linking within Tinderbox, and it gets a fair amount of attention at the meet-ups. I've appreciated watching the demos, but never felt very excited about anything until today.
In the screenshot below is the view one is afforded of a note when you invoke CMD-7, which is listed only as Links in the Window menu. (I think this should go in the Note menu, but what do I know?) I've seen it demo'ed before, but I've never used it until today.
As the meet-up is going on, I'll often be "multi-tasking," doing something else while Becker is demo'ing a feature at Mach 5. He'd asked attendees to make notes in the chat about things they found interesting or useful, to help him when he wrote up the summary that will accompany the video when it's posted. Someone typed CMD-7 in the chat. I didn't know why that was interesting, so I popped over to the Marmot and hit CMD-7. This is the result:

Holy guacamole! I had never seen that before! Or never made the connection, because I never think about internal links. To be clear, I had seen this note view before, but I'd never seen "Suggested" populated with anything that "suggested" it would be relevant to me. Hah! "Little did he know..."
The Marmot, and it's antecedent, Groundhog Day, are basically a stream of consciousness, a "river of views." I seldom revisit a note or a post, with some exceptions. Not because I don't want to, just because what I do here is quick and dirty. Except when it's not, which isn't often. I have an itch to blog something, I scratch it and move on.
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
(Probably heard this someplace before.)
This "Suggested" column is interesting! Amazing! Wonderful! I was actually compelled to click on those posts. They open up in a little window of the notes text. If you click away from them, they disappear. If you move them, they open up in their entirety in their own little window! You can have as many of them open as there are in the list if you have the screen real estate.
This facility was something of a revelation to me, and it's possible I'm making too much of it. But I think it's tremendously useful in suggesting to me that some of the things I've blogged about before may be relevant to this post. And by clicking on those notes, I get a chance to "see what I thought."
The Marmot is just a blog, it's not a journal, not an intimate conversation with myself. Though, if it were, I could see where this feature might be even more useful as one develops a corpus of some size. The Marmot, as of a few paragraphs ago, was this size:

(The "links" are all web links. Nearly all of them outbound.)
377,000 words or thereabouts, it's possible I may have mentioned one or two topics more than once!
Anyway, just surprised and delighted this afternoon. Something that is rather unusual of late, so a happy occasion.
✍️ Reply by emailDeterministic
05:36 Thursday, 6 February 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 60.94°F Pressure: 1020hPa Humidity: 95% Wind: 0mph
Words: 543
I had to ask ChatGPT to help me remember the word "deterministic." Every time I can't recall a name or a word, I worry I'm beginning to show signs of dementia. Sucks getting old.
I'm disappointed that I didn't seem to learn about Dietrich Bonhoeffer until only recently. I do seem to recall passing mentions of him in books I'd read recently about Germany under the Nazis, and that he'd been executed in prison just before the end of the war.
Anyway, I have his bio in the queue, if I can muster the courage to read it, and I'm currently grazing on Letters and Papers From Prison. The opening essay is entitled After Ten Years, A Reckoning made at New Year 1943. If you can find that somewhere, probably worth reading, though it won't inspire much in the way of optimism.
Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity," is taken from a section of that essay, although it's called "folly" in the book I have. You can find a pdf of that section here. I'm inclined to prefer the word "folly" as it lacks the pejorative valence (As in "charge." Then why not use "charge"? Because I like "valence." You're not my supervisor, or my editor!) of "stupidity."
Quoting Agent K in the movie, Men In Black, which, disappointingly, doesn't seem to appear in the Quotes page at IMDB, "A person is smart. People are dumb." (Maybe "stupid.") This seems to suggest, as one should always think deeply on the dialogue in motion pictures, that "stupidity" or "folly" is an emergent property, whenever people interact in large numbers.
I think this is correct. It's what I was referring to when I wrote:
Shit happens. Shit is an emergent property of complex, non-linear social systems. It's inherently chaotic. You think you understand what the boundaries of the phase-space are, and the system teaches you otherwise.
Where by "shit," I mean the unwanted, negative, destructive actions and behaviors of individuals acting as agents within a complex, non-linear dynamic system. Basically, anyone working for Elon Musk these days.
Which is why there is little you can do about it. Bonhoeffer writes of "liberation," an external act that "frees" the "fools" from the spell they're under. That's usually a catastrophe. Sometimes referred to by the technical term, "fuck around and find out."
"Stupidity," or "folly" ("shit") is an emergent phenomenon in groups.
Foolish or stupid behavior by an individual is a contingent phenomenon.
Contingent on many things, culture, education, conditioning, trauma, fatigue, diet, anxiety, state of intoxication, many things. But the point is that we are not the "masters of our fate, the captain's of our souls" we flatter ourselves to be. Please see the Milgram experiment. Also the present behavior of all the government employees who are allowing Musk and his script-kiddies to do as they please.
Bonhoeffer has much to say about such people, but that's for another post.
All of which is to say, it's not deterministic. The word I was searching for this morning, and alarmed that I could not recall at my command, and mostly prompted this post.
Anyway... We are in a shit-storm. Seek shelter. Damage assessments can wait until after it passes. They will be heart-breaking.
✍️ Reply by emailFurther to the Foregoing...
07:42 Thursday, 6 February 2025
Current Wx: Temp: 60.8°F Pressure: 1021hPa Humidity: 94% Wind: 3.44mph
Words: 92
That's what I get for searching the interwebs and IMDB before being adequately caffeinated in the morning.
The movie I clicked on was MIB^3 (superscript 3), which I failed to notice. It explains why I didn't find the quote I was looking for. Since I was just using the in-page search function in Safari, I didn't actually read any of the quotes, or I'd have noticed something was amiss.
Anyway, the relevant quotation is: "A person is smart. People are dumb."
I guess a person can be dumb sometimes too.
✍️ Reply by email