Goodbye child restraint

Apr. 25th, 2017 22:05
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

Speaking of getting rid of things, V no longer rides in a booster seat, we ceremonially removed it from the car on his birthday:


He can also ride in the front seat on the rare occasions when he’s travelling with only one of us. Still new enough to be very exciting for all concerned!


Next step is A moving into a booster configuration rather than a five point harness, and being able to buckle herself in. We’ll be free like the wind.


Apr. 24th, 2017 21:53
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

Mid-summer fun at Greenwich Baths, where even our beach-skeptic parent friends had a good time:



As usual A took a while to get going, but it’s taking increasingly less time as she gets older.

Play day

Apr. 23rd, 2017 22:15
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

While V and Andrew were at the cricket, A and I did some drawing:

Video: Drawing

A: C’mon Mummy, c’mon. I’m gonna do that and you gonna do that one, OK? … Yes, I! … Now, blue, I use orange, you use lellow, oh, I dropped, [sings] now Mummy, up here [pointing at her chalkboard] you draw there see? You come? Mmm? I make a rainbow, mmm.

And had a tea party:

Tea party
Video: Tea party

A: Mummy? Here you go Mummy. Cup of tea?

[Drops cup.]

Mary: Oh no, my cup of tea! … Thank you Lexi.

A: My cup of tea! OK. I think… my cup of tea. [slurps]

A: [laughs] Mummy, I want I want I want to see it? Please?

All video of A ends with “I want to see it?” Nothing makes her happier than reviewing her footage.

January 2017

Apr. 22nd, 2017 21:35
[syndicated profile] lecta_feed

Posted by Mary

We finished January this year with a week away at Lake Macquarie. I realised last year that we hadn’t had a holiday as a family that didn’t involve winter sports for a couple of years. So we went away to a cabin in a little resort and mostly had a relaxed time.

Because of timezones, V’s birthday falls across US presidential inaugurations every fourth year (so, twice now). He celebrated his seventh birthday dubiously by reading the TRUMP skywriting that someone placed over Sydney above the protests as we drove out of Sydney. And so kicked off bad news year.

The holiday was a gentle thing, which we wanted. There was a heated pool next door. V learned to dive badly, and A took many flying leaps into my arms, way out of her depth. We managed to get to the actual beach every day. I celebrated the first day with a bluebottle sting at Blacksmiths Beach. We had not been to the area before, so we vaguely thought that Caves Beach was named for someone Caves, perhaps. No, it’s named for actual caves. Fortunately we learned this during our holiday and got there at low tide to see the caves several times. We ended the trip with a swim at Catherine Hill Bay, admiring the rundown wharf and the weatherboard shacks, and drove up over the headland into the middle of an eerie empty luxury estate; the roads laid down to build out beach views, but no ground broken on housing yet. There will be a north-south divide in Catherine Hill Bay soon, clearly.

I went back to work around the time of the attempted US refugee and immigration ban, and put together a fundraising campaign for several tens of thousands of dollars for Australia refugee organisations. Among other things, it was a strange flashback to my previous career. My main memory of that week is literally dark because the main gathering at work was around an internal staircase in a dimly lit area. I haven’t had the needed energy and will to stick at it constantly since, but I’m glad I started the year with some focus on Australian immigration politics and activism.

[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

V passed a developmental milestone at the beginning of the year: convincing Andrew that he could spend a day at the cricket. A week before his birthday, Andrew took him to see the Sydney Thunder v the Sydney Sixes T20 matches, both the women’s and the men’s. Which was lucky, as the men’s game was over fairly quickly.

V was very pleased, although he did point out wonderingly several times that it was interesting that his favourite sport is soccer, but he was being taken to a cricket match first.

He was apparently generally good company:

Day out

Although the hat he’s wearing cost more than the tickets did (!!):

Both teams

And it’s not a series of photographs of V without a strange choice of hand sign, is it?


More photos.

Book review: The Wife Drought

Apr. 17th, 2017 21:28
[syndicated profile] lecta_feed

Posted by Mary

My quest to be a paid book reviewer remains stalled for two reasons: first, I’ve never once asked anyone for money to do a book review, and second, this book review comes to you express, hot out of the oven, fresh from the year two thousand and fourteen.

Annabel Crabb’s The Wife Drought: Why women need wives, and men need lives is titled and marketed on the old “women need wives” joke, ie, an adult in their home to make meals and soothe fevers and type manuscripts for free.

Crabb is also a well-known Australian political journalist — the ABC’s chief online political writer — who is best-known for hosting a cooking with politicians TV show, and probably next best known for her comic writing style, eg:

Right then. The parliamentary consideration of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has concluded. The nation has experienced the special thrill of watching its elected representatives fight like ferrets in a bag over a legislative clause even John Howard couldn’t get excited about, and can now dully register the fact that all this fuss has produced exactly zero changes to the clause in question.

Annabel Crabb, There is nothing free about Mark Latham’s speech, April 1 2017.

One or the other of the title’s reliance on the hackneyed complaint about women needing wives, or Crabb’s journalist persona, caused a lot of people I know to write off this book unread. The marketing runs with this too:

Written in Annabel Crabb’s inimitable style, it’s full of candid and funny stories from the author’s work in and around politics and the media, historical nuggets about the role of ‘The Wife’ in Australia, and intriguing research about the attitudes that pulse beneath the surface of egalitarian Australia.
Penguin Books Australia

I suggest you don’t write it off, at least not for those reasons. It’s quite a serious book, and Penguin has buried the lede: intriguing research about the attitudes that pulse beneath the surface of egalitarian Australia. The research is central to the book: Crabb did a lot of one-on-one work with demographers to extract answers to questions that no one had answers to about gender, work, money, and career progressions in Australia. Some of the findings the book contains are in fact new findings prompted by Crabb’s questioning of demographic collaborators (who are acknowledged by name, although not as co-authors).

I found two discussions especially interesting: the way in which Australia makes part-time work fairly readily available to women with young children and the many limits of that as a solution to pay and career progression disparities between men and women; and the evidence suggesting that, contrary to the widespread perception that men are hailed as heroes by men and women alike for participating in the care of their young children, they are actually discriminated against by their workplaces when they do so.

After that Crabb’s writing style is just an added bonus to keep you going through the book. If you’re going to read a demographic exploration of gender and labour in Australia in the 2010s, it’s certainly a nice bonus that it happens to be written by Annabel Crabb of all people. Instead, the major caution I would give is that it’s very middle-class in both point of view and content, without much discussion of that limitation; and is largely focussed on women partnered with men. Assuming that the work lives of middle-class women partnered with men in Australia is of interest to you, recommended.


Apr. 15th, 2017 22:01
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

A: I skip downstairs. And [V] skipping with her rope. We both skipping!

I love the stage where children talk like learn-to-read primers.

One hundred

Apr. 14th, 2017 21:44
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

A was chatting to Andrew about exercise, and grown-up exercise.

A: OK Daddy. Now get on the floor and do one hundred.

Andrew: I’ll do three.

A: Yes.

[Andrew does three push-ups.]

A: And now, one hundred!

Andrew: OK, you first.

A: No! That’s not my game.

[syndicated profile] lecta_feed

Posted by Mary

In December 2016, LiveJournal moved their servers to Russia and in April 2017 they updated their terms of use in a way many users find unacceptable.

In January 2017, as people considered the implications of the server move to Russia, I saw a number of people hesitant to delete their accounts as they were hoping to overwrite their data on Livejournal before deleting, by, eg, replacing their entries with Shakespeare’s plays, or with random nonsense, so that Livejournal didn’t have the entry any more. This won’t work and you might as well just delete your Livejournal account.

Here’s a loose analogy for the way that data on a site like Livejournal may be stored:

There’s a journalling website. It stores its entries on vast reams of paper in a giant library and new entries are scribed onto paper and filed.

The “overwrite with nonsense” strategy assumes that any journal entry you make is at a fixed location on a fixed bit of paper for all time. When you update the entry, the scribe goes to the existing bits of paper and writes on top of them. While this is technically possible with hard drives and similar, in a way that it isn’t with literal paper, here’s what more likely actually happens:

You update the entry, replacing it a Shakespearean play. The new version is written on entirely random empty paper (maybe blank, maybe where someone else’s deleted entry once was), and an index in a different part of the library is also updated. It used to say that your entry of January 7 was on floor 6, shelf 216, and now it says that your entry of January 7 was on floor 12, shelf 16.

But the contents of floor 6, shelf 216 are likely not overwritten for some time. Perhaps they’re marked as available to be overwritten, to be reused whenever it seems sensible, but you won’t know when that is. On the other hand, perhaps they are deliberately marked in the index as “an old version of the January 7 entry” for the sake of users having an edit history, or to have an audit trail, or because a lawsuit demands it, or because a government demands it. This may or may not be visible to you.

Even if floor 6, shelf 216 is marked available to be overwritten, it may not be actively erased, and if it isn’t actively erased, it’s available to be searched by a sufficiently determined or empowered person. (And searching unindexed digital storage is a lot faster and cheaper than searching paper, so not one thousandth as determined or empowered as you need to be to search a library full of unindexed paper.)

And even if floor 6, shelf 216 is no longer marked as “an old version of the entry of January 7”, on any moderately well-run website, floor 6, shelf 216 was never the only copy of your entry anyway. What if there was an accident with fire or water or whiteout? There are backups of your entry, probably at least two in the same library and at least one in a different library. These backups are usually moments in time, ie, the state of the entire journalling website as of New Years. The state of the entire journalling website as of New Years the previous year.

These backups are almost certainly never wiped of entries that are simply edited, and without adding a system that searches back through backups and selectively deletes backups of deleted accounts, they most likely contain the complete contents of deleted accounts as well.

So what you’ve ended up with is a situation where floor 12, shelf 16 contains a Shakespearean play, floor 6, shelf 216 likely contains your original entry, and there are several backups around that almost certainly contain your original entry and are designed in such a way as to be found and restored relatively quickly. This is not a much more secure situation than before you replaced the entry with a Shakespearean play; probably not worth the work you did.

All that said, it’s important to know that there are trade-offs in adding secure, permanent deletion. People quite often edit or delete their data accidentally, or temporarily — for example it is quite common to disable social media accounts temporarily to enforce a social media break — and it’s also common to be hacked and have your data deleted by the hacker. Enthusiastic data scubbing will actively harm you in all these cases. On top of that, storage systems fail (in my analogy, the library burns down, except hard drives fail more often than paper does), and backups are especially important then. And any system that goes back in time and edit backups has risks; what if it has a bug (all software has bugs) and deletes things it shouldn’t? System design to balance securely deleting data that users want to permanently delete with rarely or never deleting data they expect to keep is not easy.

So Livejournal or another site has your personal data, what should you do? I suggest that when you no longer use an online service, or you no longer trust in its management, that you take a personal backup of the data if possible and if you want it, and then delete your account.

You cannot usefully take any additional steps like overwriting your account with nonsense to ensure that actual data scrubbing took place and you should assume that it wasn’t scrubbed unless you can find some written guarantee otherwise. However, over time, backups will get selectively pruned, outages will happen, the business may eventually fail and your data will most likely become slowly less available and complete. That’s the best you can do.

For online services you actively use and where you do trust the management enough to keep your account, ask for written descriptions of their data scrubbing practices to be developed for deleted data and deleted accounts, including deletion from backups and handling of disused hard drives.


Tim Chevalier, PSA: Switching to Dreamwidth? (January 2017).

Disclosure: I am an employee of Google. This post does not describe Google’s data deletion practices, in which I’m not an expert in any case; it’s a general description of easy, sometimes harmful, defaults that systems designers could fall into. For Google-specific information, you can view and Google Infrastructure Security Design Overview.

Creative Commons License
Don’t trust Livejournal? Delete your account. by Mary Gardiner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Hunting grounds

Apr. 13th, 2017 22:29
[syndicated profile] incrementum_feed

Posted by Mary

A was introduced to the idea of Easter egg hunts and Easter hat parades at daycare yesterday. This morning Andrew found her exploring the remanents of some Easter egg foil near our bed forlornly.

A: Daddy, I can’t find the eggy.

Andrew: Oh, are you doing an Easter egg hunt?

A: Yes. I can’t find the eggy.


A: We go to the shops and hunt for eggs there.


starlady: Raven on a MacBook (Default)

April 2017

23 242526272829

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios