Minimalistic choices

Internet is full of videos and articles on the theme of “if you had to take one camera and one lens and use it for the next ten years, what would it be”. Or it’s “if you had to have only one computer, watch, pocket knife, car, pen…, what would it be”.

It always implies some kind of a “less is more” situation – basically, when you’re forced to use limited tools, you compensate with creativity and the results tend to be better than if you subscribe to “more is better” paradigm. Sure, sometimes. However, for the most part that’s all nonsense.

When you actually have a limiting situation, it’s not a choice between three different macbooks, a desktop computer and a gaming Windows laptop, and deciding to keep just one. It’s a situation where you have the cheapest possible computer that has minimal functionality for your daily tasks, and when you have to do something harder, it all starts to crumble under your fingers. Ask me how I know.

I had minimalist setups because I was poor, not because I subscribed to some stupid post-modernist minimalist paradigm where you own nothing and are happy. I owned nothing because it was an actual situation, and not some bullshit for YouTubers. Extreme poverty introduces its own kind of minimalism, and trust me, it doesn’t make you happy. It doesn’t reduce mental clutter – on the contrary.

Having a Macbook Pro that connects to Apple Studio Display with a single cable, with clean wireless mouse and keyboard setups, isn’t a realistic minimalist situation. Not having a desk and instead putting the cheap bulky computer you got used on the flimsy kitchen desk you found in the apartment you’re renting cheaply, that’s realistic minimalism. Working with whatever camera and lens you could get for the least possible amount of money because you couldn’t afford anything better, that’s realistic minimalism. It’s not a choice between ten excellent lenses and artificially limiting yourself to one. It’s using the one you found for 25 EUR on ebay because you had 25 EUR plus shipping, that’s realistic minimalism.

Minimalism isn’t a choice of one watch; minimalism is when you only have one watch, and it’s cheap because cheap is all you could afford. And by cheap I mean 50 EUR. Any by 50 EUR I mean you had to save for several months to be able to afford a 50 EUR watch, and you think it’s unjustifiable luxury. Ask me how I know.

When you’re poor, minimalism means you can’t replace your jeans, which have holes on them, because you had to replace your shoes first, because they too have holes on them. True minimalism isn’t a clean desk setup because you are decluttering. It’s an empty flimsy desk with nothing on it because that’s what you have.

When I see how people justify their minimalist setups, I can’t believe the nonsense I’m hearing. Like, they are using single-task devices such as typewriters or dedicated computers with no networking and only minimal software, so that they aren’t interrupted by all sorts of notifications and social media while they write. Excuse me, but that’s a matter that requires mental training, and not different equipment choices. When I open a word processor and write something, I can have literally dozens of things open in the background and I don’t notice any of them. I actually don’t hear what my wife is saying to me in person, and I have to ask her to repeat it later, because when I’m concentrating on writing, nothing else exists. It goes to such extremes that I can freeze behind the computer and get sick later because it was cold and I didn’t register it, because what I was doing took literally 100% concentration, to the point that I don’t register pain, hunger, hot, cold, noise, earthquake or aerial bombardment when I’m working. I don’t care about minimalism because when I’m working, I don’t perceive anything on my desk, or on my computer besides the program I’m using for the work I’m doing. I don’t need to have a clean desk with the smallest possible number of items on it, because otherwise my mind would be cluttered. On the contrary – my mind works like a switch, because that’s how I trained myself. When I’m doing something, nothing else exists; not because it’s not there, but because selective concentration is not a matter of having less things. It’s about focusing on just one thing, despite being surrounded by the entire world of things.

There’s a word in Croatian, “izdrkavanje”, which would literally translate as a wank job, but which means performative actions, things you do so that the audience would perceive how awesome you are. That’s how I perceive the performative minimalism. Its purpose is convincing other people that you have an organized mind because you have a clean desk from Ikea, with just a laptop, monitor, a wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse on it, with a possible addition of fake grass in a pot from Ikea. People who have such setups usually have nothing better to do than waste time on such performative minimalism, where an actually focused person would have all sorts of stuff lying around, while they are focused on just that one thing they are doing, and they don’t have time and energy to waste on performative actions intended for impressing anyone.

They usually say that minimalism reduces the overhead of choice – for instance, you don’t have to think about which lens you’re going to use because you only have one. Oh, the agony of choice; you need to pick one for that day. How horrible. If choice is hard, I just take what’s already on the camera, because if it mattered, the choice would be simple. What pencil or pen to choose? The one that’s closest to the paper, usually. If it actually matters, then I go to the pencil cup and pick a more adequate one.

I’m not advocating for chaos and lack of organization and tidiness. I’m saying that a minimalist setup is performative nonsense that takes more time and energy to maintain than a reasonably cluttered setup, and shows that your energy goes into showing other people how minimalist, tidy and clean you are, rather than getting shit done as efficiently as possible.

The world of small

There’s a lens I bought about ten years ago, and it’s so good, I later ended up buying lots of other lenses with a demand that they be technically as good, because nothing is better.

It’s the FE 90mm f/2.8 G macro.

No, this is not [The Great Agarus – Lvl. 225]; it’s a hermit crab. 🙂 I love that lens. I kind of overused it, having it glued to the camera for years and using it for everything, so I lately used everything else more, but boy, is it good.

 

What if?

I was thinking more about that “Silurian Hypothesis” direction – how could we look for evidence? Also, what if we assume that at least some percentage of those “alien encounters” are genuine reports. It has to be caused by something. If it’s not the aliens, what is it?

So, we’re assuming an ancient, Saurian civilization that managed to survive the K-T event because they burrowed into the mountains – hiding from predators, growing some kind of mushrooms as food, or even mining for minerals. Let’s say this survival made them appreciate underground life even more and this became a thing for them. Let’s say they became very good at carving into rock.

Also, let’s say they had 65 million years to evolve biologically and develop technology. This is a huge period of time. If we assume literally any kind of advancement over such a long period, they would be extremely advanced. We are literally nothing to them.

Also, if we assume that the “alien abduction” stories are true, and also those stories about weird events and disappearances around Mt. Shasta and similar places are true, they treat humans the same way we treat cockroaches – as a pest that needs to be controlled, and with casual cruelty. This part is most concerning, because we seem to be dealing with the concept of a technologically very advanced civilization that has absolutely no empathy, or compassion, or soul of any kind. They are, in essence, a super-powerful nightmare, and this is the point where I started thinking that maybe we don’t actually want to be looking for evidence, because if we assume it’s true, the most likely way to make them react is to go actively looking for them and interfering with their business, because we wouldn’t like the way they would react. It would not be first contact, it would be pest control. It would be gardener pouring molten metal into an ant colony, where we are the ants.

Then it occurred to me that we might be accidentally doing things that would annoy them – mining, fracking, detonating nukes underground and so on. It might even be something completely innocent that we can’t even imagine being a problem; for instance, let’s say such a civilization uses some kind of biotechnology based on mycelia and fungi in general, and we do something that disrupts that. They would see this as someone cutting their undersea fibre-optic cables and disrupting their Internet. If our existence is contingent upon not annoying them enough for them to do something about it, and we don’t know what could possibly annoy them, we are essentially in an unmarked minefield. It’s not a pleasant thought.

But the assumption is that they are behind the UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena). They are inspecting our nuclear weapons and energy installations. If something is either interesting or threatening to them, they will simply go and take a look. One would think that nuclear energy would be threatening to them, and maybe it is, but maybe it’s just something that’s interesting because they hadn’t thought of it. Maybe they are using geothermal energy or something completely different, and they never thought of nuclear. Or maybe they find nuclear use interesting for some other reason we couldn’t even think of – some kind of religion based on U235 as a holy sacrament of the Earth. I’m making stuff up here. In any case, the idea that we’re going to accidentally fuck around and find out is unlikely if we assume there will be warnings in form of increased UFO activity and interference with that specific thing we’re doing.

The problem is, if we assume those beings exist, the only consistent way to interpret their nature and actions leads to terrifying conclusions. Those are not highly spiritually evolved beings. They seem to have all the empathy of a crocodile eating a zebra alive. There’s nothing we would identify as positive emotions, or a soul – just cold, casual cruelty. They are just things with technology, and they treat everything else as things. Essentially, they are the ultimate achievement of atheism and materialism – extreme technological and intellectual advancement, but no soul, no empathy, no deep emotions, no connection with God. Those are not beings you want to contact, be contacted by or stumble upon by accident. Ideally, you don’t want to know they exist. I started by thinking how one might look for evidence to prove such a theory, but very soon I realized that this is absolutely not something I would want to be involved with. It’s a terrible godless evil; an intelligence with great power but of a cold, terrifying and deadly nature. If any of those stories about “alien” abductions, experimentations etc. are true, literally everything about them is worse than death, and power-wise, they are to us what we are to the animals in a national park, or fish we catch and release for sport.

I regret even thinking about it, now that I explored the corollaries. That’s why I prefer thinking that all the “alien abduction” stories are not physically real. The corollaries are exceedingly unpleasant.

Silurian Hypothesis

Whenever I show doubt about the aliens, someone inevitably cites all kinds of anecdotes about abductions, sightings and so on, and asks “what else could it be?”

I hate that question. That’s how stupid ideas without any basis in reality held on for centuries. Milky way was made because someone spilled milk in the sky, because what else could it be? The planets are Gods moving in the sky, because what else could it be? The stars are the hearths of ancestors in heaven because what else could it be? The constellations are heavenly homes of the spirit totems, because what else could it be? The plague was caused by the Jews poisoning the wells, because what else could it be? So, now it’s the aliens, because what else could it be?

“What else could it be?” is a sentence that should be punished by public ridicule, because everyone who ever used it was an idiot. It’s like answering every single question in science with “Jesus did it”.

It’s obvious that stupid people hate having question marks in their worldview, and they prefer whatever answer to statement of ignorance, but I don’t. I have no problem with stating ignorance. I don’t know what caused all sorts of things and I’ll tell you I don’t know, but then a stupid idiot with lots of confidence will state he knows the answer, because what else could it be?

Let me cite something that has absolutely no basis in evidence or knowledge of any kind, and is purely a hypothesis, but it provides an alternative to aliens – and, also, to the alternative claim that it must be demons, or nonphysical entities of some kind. It’s called the Silurian Hypothesis.

It goes like this. The dinosaurs evolved into a sapient species at some particular part of the world. This species had a habit of burrowing into the ground, and had whole underground settlements. Whether it was for growing/storing food, or for mining some resource, or for protection against big predators, or all of the above, I can’t tell you, but let’s say they were technologically in an early bronze age, 65 MY ago when the asteroid struck. Since they were dug into rock like Dwarves into Moria, they managed to survive the impact and its aftermath, and if they grew mushrooms or something underground as a food source, they could have survived just fine. Let’s say that the aftermath of the disaster put evolutionary pressure on them, and they evolved both intelligence and technology, and 65 MY is a very long time, mind you. Humans stretch some 200-300 KY into the past. 70 KY ago the Neanderthals ruled Europe. Civilization goes back some 5 KY. 11 KY ago we were in an ice age. So, 65 MY is enough for continents to shift, let alone for a species to evolve intelligence and technology that’s so far ahead of ours that it looks like visitors from another star system, because “what else could it be?”. What else could it be, the Fairies could be fucking in the sky, you fucking idiots. But let’s keep with the Silurian hypothesis. The objections would be as following: a civilization would strip Earth for mineral resources, leaving nothing for the early humans, who on the contrary managed to find things like copper, gold, zinc and iron all over the place, without having to dig into the mountains. Well, as I said, 65 MY is a long time, long enough for the mountains to erode, for the strip-mined sections to be washed away and new, abundant mineral sources to be revealed. One would expect technological signatures of such a civilization to be obvious; not really. Our signature was very obvious when we were broadcasting TV and radio all over the place, but now that we’ve transitioned to watching YouTube over the Internet, and it’s all transferred via fibre-optics and focused microwave beams, it’s pretty much undetectable. Extend this for a thousand years, and it’s the difference between the age of an ox cart and the age of iPhone. Technology of a species that’s been working on it at some pace for a million years in continuity might be something we might not even recognize as technology. I don’t know, using mycelia of fungi as computational devices or communication. Something. Whatever I make up is probably much inferior to what they would think of. They could use either geothermal sources for energy, or they could use nuclear energy, or something even more sophisticated that we wouldn’t even recognize. Let’s say they really like living deep in the mountains because that’s how they were saved from the cataclysm and they worship the mountains on a genetic level and go out only to explore this recent infestation that’s been spreading on the surface. Let’s say they have all kinds of flying saucers and “alien” shit. Let’s say they look generally anthropomorphic, and they are dinosaur-descendants like the birds, only some different branch, so they look more reptilian, so there’s your reptilian “aliens”.

Mind you, I pulled the whole thing out of my arse, mildly inspired by a Dr. Who episode, and I can now say “what else could it be?”.

Fuck you, that’s what it could be.

De-inteling

Apple decided to remove Rosetta 2 support in the next version of Mac OS. I don’t understand how that’s a good idea, since native support for Intel legacy applications, however inferior to the native ones, is why acceptance of Apple Silicon was so widespread and devoid of issues.

I understand why Apple would want to force software developers to issue new versions if they haven’t done so by now, because stuff that’s this old is usually a nest of bugs and issues. Also, support for games on a Mac works mostly due to a combination of virtual Windows and Rosetta 2 support for Intel games. It’s a hack, and it’s a poor substitute for native support, but this hack is now going to stop working. Unless native support becomes widespread, this is going to be a step backwards.

The OS started issuing notifications for stuff that’s about to stop working, and in my case it’s the following:

  • X-Rite calibration software
  • CyberPower Power Panel UPS software
  • Emu48 emulator for HP48 calculator

Everything else seems to have been successfully ported to Apple Silicon by now, which is good. As for the remaining stuff, I replaced my old colorimeter with the modern version, since it was 10 years old and didn’t work properly on new monitors for a while now; either the dyes on the device have faded, or the monitors started using different technology of backlighting it can’t figure out properly. Since it’s a legacy device that forced me to use legacy software, I replaced it. The new Calibrite Display Plus HL just arrived, I tested it with the new Calibrite software and everything works. X-Rite problem solved.

The UPS software and the Emu48 calculator will stop working. The UPS software is not an issue with laptops, but until Apple Silicon version is released, I will postpone upgrading the Mac Studio. Electricity is a problem here and I don’t want disorderly shutdowns by the UPS to break my SSD drives. I expect the software to be updated eventually, because the updates are released with some regularity. As for the calculator, I’m afraid it’s abandonware and unless someone builds a new version, it’s toast.

I also decided to replace my 43″ LG 4k monitor with a LG 32″ 6K device. The 43″ monitor is more than 8 years old, and I was never completely happy with it. First of all, I expected the big surface area to be more useful than it turned out to be. For the most part, I use it the same way I used the previous 27″ monitor – browser and chat tiled, with the chat taking approximately a quarter of the horizontal space on the right side. Lightroom, of course, takes the whole screen when I run it. It’s not that the solution is bad, but I want to try a high resolution, condensed 6K option which scales better on a Mac, rendering crisper fonts and so on. My eyes’ ability to focus on near objects started degrading seriously about the time I bought this huge monitor, and although it’s unlikely to be connected, I’m not sure the thing helped, either. Also, I find the retina-type displays much more pleasant, so I’m trying this out now. Or, at least, when the thing arrives.

None of it is of great importance, of course, but it’s something that keeps me focused while I process stuff that’s better not to discuss at great length.