Alternative für Deutschland (AfD, Alternative for Germany) the German far-right party won its first German election in the former East German state of Sachsen-Anhalt. With the region being only 150 kilometers to the West of the capital, Germany this result has widespread ramifications for the future of Germany, its holocaust memory culture and most importantly the future of its growing immigrant and refugee populations. With over 44% of votes the AfD came first in the elections, with the traditional Center-Right and Center-Left parties CDU and SPD getting a sound trashing from the electorate, a mandate that's probable to repeat in other state elections and set the tone for the federal election in 2029.

The CDU coalition which is in power at the federal level however would prefer to keep its head in the sand and whine about the Left party winning in the State elections in Berlin, a threat which it sees as being more existential than the one brewing at a much higher temperature in almost all the states in the country. The anti-immigrant platform on which the AfD campaigns on finds a perfect bogeyman for the German far-right to pin the ailing problems of the economy, the failure of reunification and the effect of austerity politics on anyone except themselves. Plus the Trumpian USA and their oligarchs pining for an alliance of far-right states across the world find a corrupt and worthy partner in the AfD, whose popularity is improving every election thanks to the support of the American political climate.

This iteration of the AfD might not build concentration camps like their families did in the past but are salivating at the ICE raids happening all over the US. They dream of remigration a bonkers racist idea that has been mainstreamed in the past decade. Germany without its immigrants, Germany as a white, blond, blue-eyed nation as it was intended to be. Germany with a second tier citizenship model with Whites above the others. A country where the hatred for the Jews is replaced with one for the Muslims. In all their fascination, they want Deutschland to be more like Dubai, where the workers who build the nation get to be there in forced labor conditions while the White Sheikhs get to enjoy their wealth. A world of inequality, dreams of colonialism and where justice happens only through oppression.

The might is about to get it right, it's time for all sane headed Germans and stomp this menace out with their votes at the ballot booth. But with economic uncertainity and the looming AI and Iran war fuelled recessions in the air, it looks like there's going to be a repeat of history after all.

#Germany #AfD #elections

On Friday I finished reading The Years by Annie Ernaux, translated from the French by Alison L. Strayer. It’s an autobiography of sorts in which Ernaux navigates the milestones of her own life and times, meanwhile speaking more broadly on behalf of her generation. The text is thick with references to sayings, songs, movies, TV, advertising & other cultural touchpoints. I imagined Ernaux’s ideal readers to her compatriots & contemporaries for whom the these would be most readily recognisable, and richest with personal associations. From my standpoint — one generation, one country, one language away — there were very many references in the earliest parts of the book I couldn’t connect with. Nevertheless, I felt the pungent potency of Ernaux’s youthful recollections more than made up for the disorientation of unfamiliarity. Her reflections on the May ‘68 student protests, for example, brought home their significance more forcefully than anything else I’ve read about them. I less often lost my bearings as the text moved through the ‘80s, ‘90s and beyond, but felt the text’s power faded as the mellowing of age and the progress of cultural homogenisation wore on. There were passages that felt like little more than lists rattled off à la ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire.’ Ultimately it was a book I liked rather than loved.

---

Also from Fitzcarraldo Editions, one of two slim volumes of poetry I picked up at Waterstone’s in Cardiff on Thursday (I had the week off work): Mer de Glace by Małgorzata Lebda, translated from the Polish by Mira Rosenthal. Buying poetry brand-new is a luxury I seldom indulge in — it can feel like too much of an extravagance to spend £12.99 on a fifty-page book where many of the pages have more white space than text. I have to remind myself that, over the longer term, a pinch of poetry can easily pay back as much in reading pleasure as a pound of prose. I scanned the shelves and picked out a couple of dozen slender titles, putting most of them back very quickly after glancing at a page or two. The other one that stayed in my hands was Volvelle by Rachael Boast. I’d given both books a quick initial reading on the half-hour train ride home: both had memorable moments to offer.

A third poetry book read this week was This Great Unknowing: Last Poems by Denise Levertov, this one a hardback ex-library copy obtained from an Oxfam shop. I’d read some of her work from the ‘60s and ‘70s just last year. It quite often happens that a poet’s swansongs can be among their least interesting offerings so I felt some apprehension as to whether I’d get along with these pieces or not. I was aware too that Levertov had embraced Catholicism in her later years, and wondered how that might feature in her work. As it happened I was impressed by the quality control throughout, and, while religion does find its way into several of these mostly plain-spoken pieces, it’s in a natural way as a part of their fabric. Here are the opening lines of the last poem Levertov completed, ‘Aware’:

When I opened the door
I found the vine leaves
speaking among themselves in abundant
whispers.
               My presence made them
hush their green breath,
embarrassed, the way
humans stand up, buttoning their jackets,
acting as if they were leaving anyway, as if
the conversation had ended
just before you arrived...

---

Upstairs at the ‘Linc’ Blood Cancer charity shop on Winchcombe St. in Cheltenham on Wednesday, on an unassuming couple of shelves of LPs, I found a trove of albums on the Supraphon label of works by the Czech composer Bohuslav Martinů (1890-1959). I bought six of them for £11 (Fig. 45). Three were devoted to Martinů’s string quartets. I’d tried listening some years ago to a couple of these works without gaining much appreciation of them, but this time around they did make more of an impact, with nos. 4 and 7 the most immediately pleasing. Of the symphonic pieces on the other three records, the tensely foreboding ‘Double Concerto for Two String Orchestras, Piano, and Timpani’ (1938), and the more lyrical ‘Violin Concerto No. 2’ (1943) struck me as the highlights. I already knew and loved a few of Martinů’s chamber works, so it was a delight to explore a little more of his extensive & idiosyncratic output.

---

Wine of the week: the bottle of Les Aumôniers Séguret Côtes du Rhône Villages AOP (2025, purchased at Lidl) I dipped into on Saturday evening. I was exactly in the mood for this straightforwardly delicious wine, and do hope the migraine aura that came on a couple of hours later had nothing to do with it.

It's called Splatterboard. Check it out here at splatterboard.app. It comes with dozens of coloring book pages. You can draw and color by yourself, or with your family and friends, without creating an account or giving any personal information.

This is the kind of article that's bad content marketing because it just explains why and how I made it, rather than trying to convince you it's something you personally need right now. That's the joy of giving things away for free; I just do the fun parts.

---

A few months ago, I took my kid on a four hour flight. To prepare, I loaded up the freshly minted travel iPad with PBS Kids and whatever else I could find that was harmless. But the one thing I could not find was a drawing or coloring app that wasn't laden with ads and in-app purchases, or tied to a brand. Does nobody make a decent Kid Pix clone these days? It made me mad, and it made me think about what I could accomplish.

I can do this

I have a long history with drawing apps. I wrote my first one when I was twelve years old.

A decade later, I had graduated college, and my skills had evolved enough to write the open source library Literally Canvas. It was a drawing widget that didn't have a ton of practical use for me, but was fun to work on and found its way into learning management systems. Someone even paid me to work on it once!

In 2020, I was suddenly forced to start interviewing engineers remotely, and as a result had a lot of contact with multiuser whiteboards. They all felt like crap to use. I knew I could do better, so I wrote Browserboard. It was a partial success, finding a niche with language and math tutors, and remote art classrooms. Despite its rough edges, I was able to sell it to a company making a learning management system. But after a couple years, the owners disappeared, and the site went offline.

What could Kid Pix look like in 2026?

In the 1990s, the best way to be a kid drawing on a computer was Kid Pix.

Kid Pix wants you to play. It doesn't want you to pay $19.99 for a monthly subscription or watch an ad. It wants you to use your creative brain: take chances, make mistakes, get messy!

And yet, simply cloning Kid Pix isn't enough. Besides, that's been done.

I came up with these criteria:

1. Simple enough for a toddler to have fun with.
2. Works on any modern computing device.
3. Fun for me to work on. (Critical for a hobby project.)

To fulfill #3, I also decided it would be multiplayer, as in more than one person can draw at a time, and that I would write a “drawing app framework” that I could use for other purposes in the future.

Overengineering a toy for children

A lot of my “drawing app experience” is in API design. Between Literally Canvas and Browserboard, I knew where it was hard to keep good encapsulation across the stack, and where simple abstractions would quickly leak. So the first few weeks of this project were spent just getting the data model and rendering strategies in reasonable shape. I was doing it with Claude Code in mid 2025, which means the output was bad enough to need line-by-line review and constant badgering to avoid a big mess. I had erasers, a couple different strategies for pen strokes with good support for opacity, and simple shapes. And unlike my past projects in this space, I had a comprehensive suite of automated tests for rendering.

Once I had a data-driven rendering model, I moved on to storage and sharing. My past project Browserboard had used a CRDT I designed based on event sourcing and versioned key-value pairs. It was reasonably correct and very resource-light, but it was complex to maintain. So rather than reusing or rebuilding it, I went with Automerge, a collaborative data structure designed by people who know what they're doing. It uses more RAM, but I appreciate having an abstraction layer for storage and sharing, and unlike Browserboard, it doesn't require a server at all.

With those hard problems solved, I could “draw the rest of the owl.” I built the in-app interface with RE:DOM to keep it as lightweight as possible, but I used Vue for the rest of the site since it's a good balance between size and convenience. I made sure the UI is zealously responsive. I sourced public domain coloring book pages from as many places I could find, and made sure the coloring book experience was intuitive. (For example, the pen and paint bucket draw behind the coloring book lines, but stamps go on top.) I chased down performance issues.

I made sure the essential tools were all there. Pen, eraser, fill, spray paint, and stamps from public domain images sourced from another half-started drawing app project of mine. (They're delightfully low-res.)

Losing steam and finding it again

Near the end of 2025, I felt like I was close to finishing. But since this was an app explicitly for kids, I wanted to make sure there were parental controls to lock down sharing with strangers. This is where I lost motivation and dropped the project for a few months. It's just not very interesting to implement and test a bunch of dialogs and restrictions!

It's a good thing I put it down, because when I got back to it, I was able to spot a bunch of UX issues around sharing that I had been too in the weeds to see before. With that new clarity, I was able to wrap things up pretty quickly and test with friends, family, and a sizeable group of coworkers.

What's next

At this point, I'd be happy to leave Splatterboard alone. It works well enough to entertain my kid on a flight, especially since I added the “toddler mode” which disables a lot of the interactive controls.

But it's not Kid Pix. It's not wacky enough. If I get inspired, I'll add more playfulness: new tools, maybe sound effects.

And since I spent all that time writing a data-driven multiplayer illustration framework, maybe it's time to rewrite Browserboard? Time will tell.

Interesting time for me because I’m driving over to work right now and I usually don’t journal this early in the morning, but I kind of wanted to just talk a little bit. I guess about something on my mind. Nothing too serious, it’s literally just on my mind while I’m thinking about things and so might as well write it down. In the book that I just finished, which I’m gonna leave unnamed to avoid potential spoilers, there is a central almost otherworldly entity that kind of hover over this town and an ex justice and is a big kind of mystery and scary source throughout the book, it includes things like a cult, rituals, or them being in trees and in the pitch black night, and also at some point completely butchering, a massive bull and hanging it, with its blood splattered everywhere as a sacrifice. That is all context, but in the end of the book they reveal that it is actually one of the characters mothers along with several other of the older women in the town, and they make a joke about it like a play on words by saying what is with all of those old birds. And I guess the thing that kind of bugs me a little bit with that is how it feels like it is cheaply shoehorning women into this role almost as a sign of see women can actually do this too. And my issue is not at all with the female empowerment, personally I’m a huge fan and I love when media does that but in this case, and with some other cases, it kind of just feels like it’s almost a bit of a token, like it is not necessarily focused on that, but rather that this is added in after as a brownie point kind of thing. And I will say I don’t wanna be too critical on this author because I don’t think that they are too guilty of this compared to some other cases, but I feel like with a lot of female empowerment stuff. It feels kind of like trying to force a specific role or archetype onto a woman character rather than playing a little bit more towards the characters themselves and highlighting their strengths. Like it feels so cheap that this housewife, mother character that has been incredibly quiet and subservient and essentially just a side plot point to be then described as this physically incredibly dominating, terrifying creature that also is routinely doing these things all without their family noticing? And I guess it isn’t the most unrealistic or the worst writing I’ve ever seen but at the same time I feel like it would’ve been so much more empowering to see this character embodying these things throughout the book, not as just a reflection by saying oh actually the full-time I’ve actually been a strong female character, instead of the entire book them being someone on the back foot. And again, I feel like I’m being incredibly critical and I don’t want it to come off that way because it wasn’t bad, per se. I guess I just more feel like this frustration sometimes whenever I see these cheap attempts of empowerment, and it’s not me saying that I would rather they don’t have it at all, but I just wish in a perfect world situations are not as much an afterthought.

Benjamin Button est l’un de mes films préférés. Je lirai bientôt le livre de Fitzgerald.

J’aime l’image. Le rythme. Le personnage de Benjamin. Le jazz. Mais le temps a une place importante dans ce film. Benjamin naît vieux et rajeunit tout au long du film.

Je n’ai jamais vraiment compris l’intérêt de ce choix scénaristique. Quelque part, je me disais que le film fonctionnerait malgré tout avec un Benjamin qui vieillissait comme tout le monde.

Mais le temps. Le temps est une notion toute relative pour Benjamin. Il défile, mais en sens inverse. Sa notion du temps lui est propre et unique. D’une certaine manière le temps n’a pas d’emprise sur lui puisque sa physionomie n’est pas en accord avec son âge.

Il est un homme. Et voit le temps comme un cadeau qui lui est offert chaque jour. Lui qui pensait qu’il allait bientôt mourir alors qu’il n’avait que 5 ou 6 ans.

Benjamin n’a jamais été jeune, vieux, ado ou quoi que ce soit. Il a toujours été Benjamin. Le même, d’ailleurs il a une constance dans son caractère que j’aime beaucoup. Un calme. Un détachement. Un amour pour les gens quels qu’ils soient. Surtout pour les vieilles personnes qui lui ont partagé tant de sagesse.

Benjamin est hors du temps. Il est hors de tout schéma. Il est fidèle à lui-même, en toutes circonstances.

C’est cette force tranquille que j’admire j’ai l’impression.

If technology is changing what we’re learning, why we’re learning it, and also how we’re learning it, then how do we make school relevant again?

What schools are doing in relation to technology varies considerably by location. Some schools and school divisions are embracing technology, while others, including some here in Manitoba, are shunning it in favor of traditional systems and approaches to learning. Even within those two extremes, there is considerable variation in how technology is being approached and implemented.

What stands out to me is the contrast between how schools are approaching technology and how the workforce is approaching technology. Computers are on most desks now. Many offices have some form of chat or messaging capability between employees. AI is increasingly being used to help automate tasks and simplify processes.

Then we go into a school.

The classroom may have few, if any, computers in it. The computer lab is still down the hall and treated the same as the library, an optional, extra activity that comes after schoolwork is complete. Or, if technology is in the classroom, it does nothing more than turn a paper-based activity into a computer-based one.

Computer skills are a necessary part of many jobs now. Without them, many employers won't even consider you, while some teachers in divisions where technology is not widely accepted or used still haven't learned how to turn on a laptop without help. That's a stark contrast.

There is a general belief that when students go home, they are using technology enough that they don't need more of it in school. But there's a problem with that logic. Texting your friends and playing video games does not teach you critical thinking, spreadsheets, workplace email etiquette, general computer use, typing with more than two thumbs, or responsible AI usage. It doesn't teach you how to work with a mouse, navigate Windows or Mac OS, have a video call, use Word to type a document, and so on.

Exposure to technology at home is not the same as learning to use technology effectively in the workplace.

If the purpose of education is to give students the knowledge and skills they need to determine how they want to live, then we are doing our students a disservice by not actually preparing them to use the technology that surrounds them in the outside world. Shunning technology at school or not adequately teaching it undermines that purpose, reducing education to little more than dispensing knowledge we hope will be useful someday.

There are digital literacy skills that can be taught from kindergarten to Grade 8. Early, age-appropriate introductions to technology help to set expectations, provide foundational skills that can be built upon in later grades, and offer additional teaching methods that aren't available using traditional pen-and-paper approaches.

I am not suggesting that we put laptops on every desk starting in kindergarten and move school exclusively to the digital world. I am suggesting that we need to prioritize teaching appropriate usage and critical thinking. To teach appropriate usage, access has to be available more of the time, not just when the teacher decides to take their class to the computer lab.

I understand that devices can be a distraction, forcing teachers to spend considerable time getting students to pay attention to their lessons. That's actually a two-fold problem. First, lessons need to be engaging to keep students' attention. Simply managing the environment by banning devices doesn't guarantee they'll pay attention. Second, learning to manage those distractions is part of appropriate usage, and it should be taught directly in the classroom.

If schools establish appropriate usage policies from kindergarten, and all teachers enforce and model those same policies themselves, over time the school can create a natural, technology-friendly environment.

How do policies around not running in the hall get established and enforced? It's because all teachers enforce the same rules. Those same strategies apply to technology.

Schools don't ban walking because students sometimes run. They teach students when and how to move appropriately. The same thing can be created with technology.

Technology has to change what we teach, which means age-appropriate, responsible usage and critical thinking need to be included in the curriculum, not just in theoretical discussions at the high school level, but starting in kindergarten.

Critical thinking needs to be taught as a transferable skill, practised across subjects, and applied to the kinds of information students actually encounter, including AI-generated responses.

Critical thinking is not just spotting incorrect information, although that's part of it. It includes examining evidence, reasoning, context, and whether conclusions are justified. It's also about learning to critically evaluate information by challenging the assumptions being made.

Students need to do this not just with printed articles in the classroom, but also online, in real time, while engaging with AI output or other material they come across.

In order for that to happen, teachers need to be trained as well. Teacher education does not generally prepare teachers to teach technology unless they specialize in the subject area. Teachers need to understand how to use technology effectively and appropriately themselves, which means they need opportunities to develop and practise the same competencies they're expected to teach. That will require substantial professional development throughout the profession.

Teaching students to use technology prepares them for the world as it exists. Rethinking what we teach prepares them for the world as it's changing.

We can't keep pretending that students are not surrounded by technology when they leave school every day, or that computers aren't an integral part of the modern workforce, or that AI isn't becoming increasingly prevalent in workplaces.

In some ways, this brings us back to a more fundamental question about what the role of education actually is.

Is job readiness still a foundational part of school?

High schools continue to prepare students for college or university by asking them to choose between university entrance courses and non-university entrance courses. We continue to ask teenagers to make critical life choices about their futures.

If job readiness is no longer part of the K–12 education system, then why are we asking teenagers to make educational pathway decisions that can affect their future opportunities? Perhaps there should be one academic track for everybody that focuses on foundational life skills and a more general education.

If job readiness is going to continue to play a role in high school education, then we need to make sure schools are teaching current technology with an eye towards what might come next.

We can't continue to pretend that the world hasn't changed.

We don't have 20 years to conduct research before writing new curricula, training teachers, and bringing education into the 21st century. Research is important, but it doesn't mean we have to postpone teaching the technology skills students already need while we investigate what comes next.

How many more students need to graduate without an appropriate technology education before we fix the problem?

Election Day

En español al final.

Today, millions of us will walk into polling places carrying more than identification and a list of names.

We will carry our fears.

Our frustrations.

Our hopes.

Our anger.

Our memories.

Our disappointments.

We will carry the things we believe have been taken from us and the things we are afraid may be taken next.

Some will vote because they want change.

Others because they fear it.

Some will vote for justice.

Some for security.

Some for their children.

Some for their wallets.

Some because they believe the country is moving in the right direction.

Others because they are convinced we have lost our way.

And for a few minutes, behind a curtain or standing before a machine, each of us will exercise one of the quiet powers entrusted to ordinary citizens.

We will choose.

But before we do, perhaps there is another question worth asking.

Not simply:

Who will receive my vote?

But:

What am I carrying with me when I cast it?

Because fear can vote.

Anger can vote.

Resentment can vote.

Revenge can vote.

So can compassion.

So can conscience.

So can hope.

So can love of neighbor.

The ballot will not tell us which one held the pen.

Only we will know.

There is nothing insignificant about elections.

Governments make decisions that affect real people.

Policies determine whether families eat, whether children are educated, whether the sick receive care, whether the accused receive justice, whether strangers are welcomed or turned away, whether soldiers are sent to war, and whether power is restrained when it becomes abusive.

These things matter.

Our votes matter.

But perhaps that is precisely why we should be careful about what politics is allowed to become inside us.

Jesus once warned His disciples:

“And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged…”

Among the things He warned could weigh down the human heart were simply:

“the cares of this life.”

There are few things today capable of occupying the heart quite like politics.

We watch.

We argue.

We scroll.

We predict.

We fear.

We become convinced that everything depends upon what happens next.

And slowly, almost without noticing, concern becomes anxiety.

Conviction becomes contempt.

Disagreement becomes hatred.

Our neighbor becomes our enemy.

And politicians become something they were never meant to be:

saviors.

Today we will choose people to hold power.

But before we do, we should ask what has been allowed to hold power over us.

If fear has convinced us that cruelty is acceptable, we should notice.

If anger has made another person's suffering satisfying, we should notice.

If loyalty to a party has caused us to excuse behavior we would condemn immediately from the other side, we should notice.

If winning has become more important than truth, we should notice.

And if we have begun believing that everyone who votes differently from us must be stupid, evil, hateful, ignorant, or beyond redemption—

perhaps we should notice that most of all.

Because tomorrow is coming.

The signs will eventually come down.

The advertisements will stop.

The texts asking for another five dollars will disappear.

Someone will win.

Someone will lose.

Some of us will celebrate.

Some of us will grieve.

And then we will walk outside.

The person who voted differently from us will still live across the street.

They will still teach our children.

Deliver our packages.

Repair our cars.

Work beside us.

Sit beside us in church.

Stand behind us at the grocery store.

Pull over when they see us stranded beside the road.

We will still need one another.

Democracy requires us to make choices about power.

Community requires us to remember that we belong to one another afterward.

Those are not competing responsibilities.

We can vote according to conscience without surrendering compassion.

We can oppose policies without despising people.

We can demand accountability without craving humiliation.

We can speak plainly about injustice without allowing injustice to teach us hatred.

A soft heart does not require a soft spine.

And conviction does not require cruelty.

So today, vote.

Take it seriously.

Study the choices before you.

Listen carefully.

Think deeply.

Pray, if you are inclined to.

And when you stand before that voting machine, ballot in hand, remember that you are doing more than deciding who should govern.

You are also deciding what you are willing to lend your name to.

Then cast your vote.

Walk outside.

And remember:

The election will eventually end.

Your neighbor will still be your neighbor.

Your conscience will still belong to you.

And long after the votes have been counted, there will remain another choice no machine can record:

whether fear will govern us,

whether hatred will define us,

whether power will consume us,

or whether, even now,

we will choose to love one another.

Today we will choose who holds power.

But we are still responsible for what holds power over us today.

---

Explore more writing from Silent Sentinel →

---

© SilentSentinel, 2026. All rights reserved. Excerpts may be shared with attribution.

---

Día de las Elecciones

Hoy, millones de nosotros entraremos en centros de votación llevando algo más que una identificación y una lista de nombres.

Llevaremos nuestros temores.

Nuestras frustraciones.

Nuestras esperanzas.

Nuestra ira.

Nuestros recuerdos.

Nuestras decepciones.

Llevaremos las cosas que creemos que nos han quitado y aquellas que tememos que puedan quitarnos después.

Algunos votarán porque quieren un cambio.

Otros porque le temen.

Algunos votarán por la justicia.

Otros por la seguridad.

Algunos por sus hijos.

Algunos por sus bolsillos.

Algunos porque creen que el país avanza en la dirección correcta.

Otros porque están convencidos de que hemos perdido el rumbo.

Y durante unos minutos, detrás de una cortina o frente a una máquina de votación, cada uno de nosotros ejercerá uno de los poderes silenciosos confiados a los ciudadanos comunes.

Elegiremos.

Pero antes de hacerlo, quizá haya otra pregunta que valga la pena hacernos.

No simplemente:

¿Quién recibirá mi voto?

Sino:

¿Qué llevo dentro de mí cuando lo emito?

Porque el miedo puede votar.

La ira puede votar.

El resentimiento puede votar.

La venganza puede votar.

También puede votar la compasión.

También la conciencia.

También la esperanza.

También el amor al prójimo.

La boleta no nos dirá cuál de ellos sostuvo el bolígrafo.

Solo nosotros lo sabremos.

No hay nada insignificante en unas elecciones.

Los gobiernos toman decisiones que afectan a personas reales.

Las políticas determinan si las familias tienen qué comer, si los niños reciben educación, si los enfermos reciben atención, si los acusados reciben justicia, si los extranjeros son recibidos o rechazados, si los soldados son enviados a la guerra y si el poder es limitado cuando se vuelve abusivo.

Estas cosas importan.

Nuestros votos importan.

Pero quizá sea precisamente por eso que debemos tener cuidado con aquello en lo que permitimos que la política se convierta dentro de nosotros.

Jesús advirtió una vez a sus discípulos:

«Mirad también por vosotros mismos, que vuestros corazones no se carguen…»

Entre las cosas que advirtió que podían cargar el corazón humano estaban simplemente:

«los afanes de esta vida».

Hay pocas cosas hoy capaces de ocupar el corazón como la política.

Observamos.

Discutimos.

Deslizamos la pantalla.

Hacemos predicciones.

Tememos.

Nos convencemos de que todo depende de lo que ocurra después.

Y lentamente, casi sin darnos cuenta, la preocupación se convierte en ansiedad.

La convicción se convierte en desprecio.

El desacuerdo se convierte en odio.

Nuestro prójimo se convierte en nuestro enemigo.

Y los políticos se convierten en algo que nunca debieron ser:

salvadores.

Hoy elegiremos a personas que ejercerán el poder.

Pero antes de hacerlo, debemos preguntarnos qué hemos permitido que ejerza poder sobre nosotros.

Si el miedo nos ha convencido de que la crueldad es aceptable, debemos prestarle atención.

Si la ira ha hecho que el sufrimiento de otra persona nos resulte satisfactorio, debemos prestarle atención.

Si la lealtad a un partido nos ha llevado a justificar conductas que condenaríamos inmediatamente si vinieran del otro lado, debemos prestarle atención.

Si ganar se ha vuelto más importante que la verdad, debemos prestarle atención.

Y si hemos comenzado a creer que todos los que votan de manera diferente a nosotros deben ser estúpidos, malvados, llenos de odio, ignorantes o estar más allá de toda redención—

quizá debamos prestar especial atención a eso.

Porque mañana llegará.

Los carteles finalmente desaparecerán.

Los anuncios terminarán.

Los mensajes de texto pidiendo otros cinco dólares dejarán de llegar.

Alguien ganará.

Alguien perderá.

Algunos celebraremos.

Algunos lamentaremos el resultado.

Y después saldremos.

La persona que votó de manera diferente a nosotros seguirá viviendo al otro lado de la calle.

Seguirá enseñando a nuestros hijos.

Entregando nuestros paquetes.

Reparando nuestros autos.

Trabajando a nuestro lado.

Sentándose junto a nosotros en la iglesia.

Esperando detrás de nosotros en el supermercado.

Deteniéndose para ayudarnos cuando nos vea varados al costado de la carretera.

Seguiremos necesitándonos unos a otros.

La democracia exige que tomemos decisiones sobre el poder.

La comunidad exige que recordemos que seguimos perteneciendo los unos a los otros después.

Esas responsabilidades no están en conflicto.

Podemos votar de acuerdo con nuestra conciencia sin renunciar a la compasión.

Podemos oponernos a ciertas políticas sin despreciar a las personas.

Podemos exigir rendición de cuentas sin desear la humillación.

Podemos hablar claramente sobre la injusticia sin permitir que la injusticia nos enseñe a odiar.

Un corazón sensible no requiere una columna vertebral débil.

Y tener convicciones no requiere crueldad.

Así que hoy, vota.

Tómalo en serio.

Estudia las opciones que tienes delante.

Escucha con atención.

Piensa profundamente.

Ora, si así lo deseas.

Y cuando estés frente a esa máquina de votación, con la boleta en la mano, recuerda que estás haciendo algo más que decidir quién debe gobernar.

También estás decidiendo a qué estás dispuesto a prestar tu nombre.

Entonces emite tu voto.

Sal de allí.

Y recuerda:

Las elecciones finalmente terminarán.

Tu prójimo seguirá siendo tu prójimo.

Tu conciencia seguirá perteneciéndote.

Y mucho después de que se hayan contado los votos, quedará otra elección que ninguna máquina puede registrar:

si el miedo nos gobernará,

si el odio nos definirá,

si el poder nos consumirá,

o si, incluso ahora,

elegiremos amarnos los unos a los otros.

Hoy elegiremos quién ejercerá el poder.

Pero seguimos siendo responsables de aquello a lo que permitimos ejercer poder sobre nosotros hoy.

Welkom bij het nieuws volgens en van de StaatsOmroep Smægmå, of andersom.

Er is oorlog, er is ziekte, er zijn ongelukken, onderzoeken, rapporten over het klimaat, er wordt handel gedreven, heel veel handel gedreven, er zijn wedstrijden, er is buiten en daar is ons weer, er staan rijen wagens op snelwegen en in parkeerstellages, de lichten branden, de lichten gaan uit, we slapen er nog een nachtje over, kortom alles is zoals het altijd is, er is bijna geen nieuw nieuws meer de moeite van het presenteren waard daarom, niet alleen hierom, hebben wij besloten als gehele Smægmåånse Omroep Stichting om een jaartje over te slaan, we nemen samen een sabbatical opdat we hopelijk na een jaar weer fris en volledig opgeladen herbeginnen aan de uizendingen over hier eerder genoemde onderwerpen, berichten waarvoor wij blijkbaar zijn opgericht of in ieder geval heel vaak naar buiten brengen via de ons beschikbare media, u kent ze inmiddels maar al te goed, de radio, televisie en het wereldse lokale en internationale internet.
We hebben er geen zin meer in om u iedere keer dezelfde berichten te vertellen over de wederwaardigheden van leiders hier en daar en hun eeuwige competitie en concurrentie beginselen, we gaan met zijn allen minstens een jaar in een grot in de woestijn zitten pim pam petten, ezeltje prik spelen, vingerverfen en contempleren over heden, verleden en toekomst van een omroep voor de hele Staat Smægmå, en misschien komen we tot de conclusie dat we nooit meer berichten omroepen voor u in naam van ons geweldig vaderland of dat we het helemaal anders doen of gewoon op oude voeten en zolen verder gaan. U zult de tussenstand der oorlogen, het algemeen ziekte verloop, de persoonlijke ongelukken met grotere gevolgen en de lengte als ook de locatie van stilstaand en langzaam rijdende u op de snelweg elders moeten volgen, de krant, op een weblog, een podcast of zo maar voorlopig gaan wij u niet tegemoet komen met voortgangsrapporten over alles wat erg is, dood gaat, elkaar kapot schiet en dergelijke. Wij wensen u veel media genot zonder ons en dergelijke, met vriendelijke groet van het hele team van SOS, namens de voorzitter, missie leider van SOS,

Hannibal Lectœr

I've always been skeptical of “Big Data”, not just because of the hype but some intuitive concerns that using more data would solve problems better. I could never put my finger on it, but over the years got confirmation a few times, e.g. when building or validating models and checking that using just one percent of the data would work just as well for model building. Actually, better, since reducing training time from half a day to minutes enables you to actually try out ideas.

So with joy I discovered a 2018 paper by Xiao-Li Meng: Statistical paradises and paradoxes in big data (I): Law of large populations, big data paradox, and the 2016 US presidential election that adds a statistical underpinning to the fact more data is not necessarily better. Now I can't say I've understood the paper in detail, but it is well written and I have a bunch of important takeaways I want to share!

If you poll voters before an election, or take a sample of your population for which you have manual labels, the central question is how well you represent the full population. In statistical terms, you are asking about the difference between sample average and population average. Deciding the sampling or selection process is the R-mechanism. It might be a random sample, but especially in “Big Data” it might be self-reported or recorded data.

The key insight is that the difference between sample and population average is a sum of three errors: Data quantity + Problem Difficulty + Data Quality.

The data quantity error is very familiar. It encapsulates the idea that with increasing sample, the difference between sample and population average shrinks. The problem difficulty is related to the variability of responses. The crucial and often neglected error though is the data quality, which is investigated in this paper. Data quality is measured by the so-called data defect correlation as the correlation between the selection mechanism R and the response variable. This means that the chance of a record being selected depends on the response itself. It is related to what is known as a “design effect”. If we sample at random, the data defect correlation will be zero. However, in a “Big Data” setting where we recorded, say, 80% of the population, it can become a dominant error as it grows with the square root of N, given a population of size N. The impact becomes apparent when translating the error into effective sample size. The effective sample size is inversely proportional to the square of the data defect correlation. The paper shows that even with an “extremely modest” data defect correlation of 0.05, the effective sample size of half the US population (e.g. the registered voters in the USA) becomes ... 400! The paper has an extensive example on why polling failed to predict Trump's win in 2016 that I won't discuss here, but that is enlightening to read.

And so Meng poses the Big Data Paradox:

The bigger the data, the surer we fool ourselves.

And as much as that was true in the Big Data hype ten years ago, with Internet-sized training sets for LLMs it has becomes extinction-level foolishness!

devant son pas hésitant elles s'écartent doucement

entre les doigts d'une enfant tant de fleurs restent à offrir qu'elle n'ose en cueillir aucune

elles s'inclinent doucement devant sa grâce dansante

---

Photo “Zoe Lilley-Verou in a field of flowers” by @kizu@pixey.org censed under CC BY-NC-ND

---

photo Allan Cummings @acsync@vivaldi.net

Mahy, Margaret. The Tin Can Band and Other Poems. Illustrated by Honey de Lacey. London: Jonathan Cape, 1989, 7.

“İşte dikkat çekmek istediğimiz ilk nokta: Tamamen insana özgü olanın dışında komedi yoktur. Bir manzara güzel, latif, muhteşem, değersiz yahut çirkin olabilir; ama asla gülünç olmayacaktır. Örneğin bir hayvana güleriz çünkü onda bir insan davranışı ya da ifadesi görmüşüzdür. Bir şapkaya güleriz gülmesine ama bizi güldüren bir keçe yahut hasır parçası değil, insanların ona verdiği şekil, şapkanın kalıbını aldığı insan hevesidir.” —Bergson, Gülme- Komiğin Anlamı Üzerine Bir Deneme

The Wayans family built a comedy empire (and made Jim Carrey a star) with In Living Color in the early 90’s. Now, at last, we can peek behind the curtain into the workings of this seminal show to witness the birth of brilliant comedy, as this transcript of an early pitch meeting shows.

Keenen Ivory Wayans: Okay, people, what have you got?

David Alan Grier: Get this—Damon and I are film critics. Like Siskel and Ebert?

KIW: I’m with you so far…

DAG:Only…gay!

KIW: Wait. That’s the joke? The film critics are gay?

DAG: Yeah, that’s the joke.

KIW: I LOVE it! Run with it! *laughs* Gay men—in the entertainment industry! Who ever heard of such a thing! Y’all are killing me! Jim, what do you got?

Jim Carrey: I play a fire marshal…with severe burns!

KIW: You want people to laugh at a burn victim.

JC: Yeah!

KIW: Well, I’m laughing already! Who’s next?

Jamie Foxx: Okay, so I’m gonna play a woman, right?

KIW: But wait a minute, Jamie! You’re a man!

JF: I know! But the woman is really ugly!

KIW: *laughs, wipes tears from eyes* oh, that’s good stuff. That’s real good stuff!

JC: Oh, boss, I’ve got another one!

KIW: Keep ‘em coming! This shit is GOLD!

JC: Okay, I play a fitness instructor, BUT..she’s a woman…AND she’s ugly!

KIW: Oh, you literally cannot go to that well too many times. It’s just a brilliant concept to hang a sketch on!

Damon Wayans: Alright, get this. I’m gonna play a superhero…who is handicapped! So like…how can he be a superhero, right? And I’ll do like a cerebral palsy voice!

KIW: That’s fucked up, D. You can’t make fun of disabled people like that.

DW: Oh, I—

KIW: I’m just playing! I love it! Go write it!

Stichting Kor Relatie

Goedemiddag daar ben ik weer dokter Kor, u heeft vast net iets gezien en gehoord en weet, het is tijd om te zoeken naar mijn stichting, Kor_relatie, u heeft behoefte aan relatievering via Kor. Nou mooi, ik regel al jaren het een en het ander zodra er iets meer aan de hand is dan een ring, muis of een vaatdoek. Ik weet dat u dan op zoek zal gaan naar de Stichting, er op vertrouwend dat u daar, hier, een luisterend oor zult vinden, ook al ben ik me bewust van dat u eigenlijk zocht naar iemand anders werkzaam voor een andere stichting, doch ik ben spontaan in het grote gat, zeg maar gerust de diepe kloof, gesprongen tussen de c en de k, Ik heb mijn naam en achternaam mee dus niemand kon me stoppen om u ook te begeleiden naar een hoopvollere toekomst met een totaal verwerkt verleden, wat zij zeggen te kunnen kan ik ook beweren, maar dan net iets anders. Mijn hulp is geboden door u overhaaste beslissing en het volle vertrouwen in Google, DuckDuckGo, Startpage en de rest maar hier is Kor Relatie, en ik heb meer hits, dus ik ben de beste. Bewezen door u eigen handleiding en de ware impulsen van de zoekmachine, sponsorkrachten.

Goed en wel, ik heb mijn eigen belteam voor u stem klaar zitten ergens in Azië, alles wat u zegt wordt live vertaald door een AI tolk programma en alles wat mijn team van experts van alles wat en soms wat meer zeggen ook weer. U zult langzaam maar zeker meningvol kunnen communiceren dankzij de impulsen van techniek en inventief werken. Het zou heel misschien kunnen dat u alleen een hele poos spreekt met een robot maar wel een hele slimme en empathisch geprogrammeerd, eentje die u aan de lijn houdt tot er een echt persoon terugkomt van de hele korte toiletbreak die de door mij betaalde managers hun toestaan, onder begeleiding van een meerdere, ingeklokt, allemaal omdat ik u zo graag wil helpen met alle ineens weer opgekomen problemen. Dit nummer kost u niet meer dan de gesprekskosten, geen extra onkosten voor ongemakkelijke stiltes en ademteugen door u of ons levendige personeel.

Wij kunnen, mocht dat nodig zijn, u ook doorschakelen naar onze tweede nog wijzere, zeer professionele belteam in de ruimte naast de andere van belteam 1 en de AI tolk robot, alwaar extreem uitmuntende experts in diep geworteld ongeluk en dergelijke pech u met woord als daad bijstaan. Zij weten op een zeker moment na ongeveer vijf minuten meteen wie u eigenlijk had moeten bellen en beter ook kunt bellen zodra wij klaar zijn met het bezorgen van ons complete pakket telefonische zorgverlening. Kor Relatie Experts voldoen aan de ISO norm voor belteam experts en we hebben al vijf jaar achtereen de Benny, meest prestigieuse prijs voor telefoon optredens, gewonnen, dus u weet dat wij onze hulp net zo serieus nemen als die andere met ons wedijverende stichting, een welke gebruik maakt van een merknaam terwijl ik, hier, met naam en toenaam hulp bied, me niet verberg achter deskundigheid of spreek over jarenlange ervaring.

Over ervaring in en over alles kunnen wij inmiddels als beste spreken, We hebben iedereen geholpen die hulp kon krijgen door met ons te spreken of door onze site te bezoeken en zo in contact te komen met onze zeer geneeskrachtige games. Dokter Cookie, Mens Erger Je Niet Online, Jack de Hacker en onze nieuwste net ontwikkelde game Ganzenmoederbord. ER geneest zo hier en daar altijd ergens wel iets bij onze Stichting Kor Relatie, de eerste Stichting met Winst Oogmerk, zekerheid voor kwaliteit. Ik dank u met alle liefde en eerbeid voor u gebrekkige vaardigheden met betrekking tot het intikken van toetsen, zelfs al liggen op het toetsenbordje de letters k en c mijlenver uiteen, dus het kan alleen maar meer dan toeval zijn dat u hier uit komt voor de oplossing van u probleem. Kijk gerust dieper in onze spiegel des oordeels en kies bewust van u zelfbeeld voor Kor Relatie, speel nu Ganzenmoederbord en win vijf extra Kor Relatie zorgpunten.

“Yaşam akıp gidiyor; gerçek, o... Asıl oyun, o, doğru yanlış, akıp giden uygun.” —Vedat Türkali, Yeşilçam Dedikleri Türkiye

Emil Nolde, Flower Garden-Kneeling Woman with Hat, NGA

“Why do our lot never admit failure? Never. It might be better for us if we did. And it’s not only love and men. Why can’t we say something like this -we are people, because of accident of how were situated in history, who were so powerfully part- but only in our imaginations, and that’s the point-of the great dream, that now we have to admit that the great dreams has faded and the truth is something else-that we’ll never be any use. After all, Molly, it’s not much loss is it, a few people, a few people of a certain type, saying that they’ve had it, they’re finished. Why not? It’s almost arrogant not be able to.” —Doris Lessing, Golden Notebook