The Shaw Alphabet and Other Quixotic Solutions I Love
By: Michael Ham
Tags: Health, Artificial Intelligence, Games, Language

From Wikimedia Commons

Some, like me, have a Quixotic love for rational solutions. A rational love for rational solutions is a love for rational solutions that work, but some love a rational solution that would work if only people were not so damn stubborn and set in their ways.

Let’s call such people “Panzas.” Panzas are able to see that a solution, though fascinating, is not really accepted, but they love it anyway.

My name is Michael. I am a Panza. Here I tell of some of my loves, which I’ll list in groups:

Those that have not yet taken off (thinking positively here);

Those that have found a niche (some on the way down, some on the way up, some just holding steady, but all secure within the niche);

Those that are starting to achieve lift-off;

Those, still beloved by Panzas, that seem to be losing ground; and

A success story: from the outer edges, when it was known only to (and loved only by) Panzas, but now is mainstream

You will surely have your own nominees, but these are ones I’ve followed.

Have not yet taken off

Panzas live in hope (our namesake, you will recall, did indeed finally have his hopes realized and received his promised island to rule), but in some cases hope struggles for breath. Here are some of those for which hopes are somewhat dim.

The Shaw alphabet was created per a bequest in George Bernard Shaw’s will to develop a phonetic alphabet, distinct from the Roman alphabet, of at least 40 characters. A competition was held, overseen by Pittman (of Pittman shorthand), and the final result was developed based on the designs of the four contest winners. One book, The Shaw Alphabet Edition of Androcles and the Lion was written with parallel text, Roman alphabet and Shaw alphabet. The Shaw alphabet is more compact, taking up about 1/3 the room of the Roman transliteration of the same text. The book was published in 1962 and not since. I bought a handful of copies and sent them to friends, whom I then plagued with letters written using the Shaw alphabet. Of late, the title of the establishing book has been ignored in favor of the “Shavian” alphabet, presumably to parade one’s education.

It’s a lovely alphabet, but phonetic alphabets don’t work well when regional pronunciations vary so widely. Shaw did say that the text of Androcles and the Lion should be written using the British Received Pronunciation as spoken by King George VI. Since I come from a region where “pen” and “pin” are pronounced the same, I fear I sadly mangled the spelling. But I loved the idea (which some pronounce “idear”).

The HK G11 assault rifle is another lovely idea that unfortunately was not adopted. It is a robust weapon that uses caseless ammo, which means that a soldier can carry many more rounds of G11 ammo than regular ammo — because without brass shells, ammo weighs, round for round, much less. Moreover, with caseless ammo, no shells are ejected. Ammo is loaded from magazine into firing chamber with a rotating mechanism, which is fast: 3-round bursts fire at the rate of 2000 rounds per minute (thus a 3-round burst takes 90 milliseconds), with recoil felt after the burst is fired. A magazine holds 45 rounds, and the rifle carries one magazine in firing position and two alongside, ready for quick loading: 135 rounds ready to go, in effect.

The rifle initially had some problems with heat causing cook-off of the caseless ammo during sustained fire (brass shells on conventional cartridges provide some insulation), which was fixed, and a later problem of the propellant block being too fragile for field conditions. The big problem, I suspect, was that the rifle was unconventional. The military tends to be extremely conservative and resistant to change (cf. British tactics in the Great War: having troops run across open fields to charge machine-gun emplacements). [Update: another reason for the G11’s not being adopted: a change in the geopolitical situation.]

The Dvorak keyboard layout impressed me so much that for my children I ordered Smith-Corona portable typewriters that had the Dvorak layout — the true Dvorak layout, in which “?” does not require using the shift key. (The committee developing the ANSI-standard Dvorak layout were told that they had to stick with the existing keycaps, which have “?” as an up-shift of “/”.)The eldest did indeed learn and use her Dvorak typewriter and found it a great advantage in college because none of her fellow students tried to borrow her typewriter. But even she converted to QWERTY in time. So it goes. Still, people continue to work to improve the QWERTY layout, and one — the Workman keyboard layout — seems quite interesting (though the “?” requires using the shift key, for reasons unclear to me—possibly the existing-keycaps curse). The big benefit of the Dvorak keyboard is increased typing comfort, with less finger travel and a better balanced workload for the hands.

The Fitaly keyboard layout is optimized for one-finger typing (as on a touchscreen) or for typing using a stylus. I used the Fitaly layout for some years when I had a Palm Pilot. It worked extremely well. For a touchscreen keyboard in, say, a public library, that is used constantly by first-time users, the QWERTY layout is better because it’s familiar, but for a keyboard layout used repeatedly by the same person, the Fitaly is much better because, once it’s learned, it results in much faster and more accurate entry. I loved it. With practice, many people could type 50wpm with the Fitaly keyboard, with the best reaching 84wpm using the Fitaly layout on a Treo Thumboard. I so wish the Fitaly were available for the iPhone, and I really don’t see why it isn’t, except it has the usual curse: it’s different.

Esperanto, a language constructed to be easy to learn to serve as a common second language for all (with no political overtones from being a national language), is still active, but I think most will agree that it has not sustained the momentum it had until interrupted by the Great War. Still, it’s around (and easily learned on-line), and it has proven to work, both for communication among speakers whose only common language is Esperanto and as a first foreign language, since learning Esperanto as one’s first foreign great facilitates learning a subsequent foreign language.

For example, one study in Finland (where German is commonly taught in school) showed that students who studied a year of Esperanto followed by two years of German knew more German and were more fluent in German than students who studied German for three years. And it’s a fun language. This post about Ithkuil — another fascinating constructed language that looks considerably less fun, serving as a testbed for a philosophical test of language capabilities— begins by explaining the five reasons Esperanto works so well. So why is Esperanto not commonly taught in schools that teach students a foreign language? We Panzas want to know.

Esperanto as an introductory foreign language perhaps belongs in the next category, but its real goal was to be a universal second language.

Forth is a programming language that includes, among other commands in the language, compiler commands, so that within your program you can define new commands and use them like any other command in the language. Indeed, except for a core of hard-coded commands, most of Forth is written in Forth. You use your new commands along with existing commands to define additional commands, until finally you define a command that is the program — executing that command does the job.

Forth uses a push-down stack to hold data, and arithmetic operations use Reverse Polish Notation: (3+5)*4 in a Forth command is 3 5 + 4 *. A handful of commands allow you to manipulate the stack.

Forth is fast (since it works in a computer’s native language, which consists of addresses) and large Forth programs take less memory than assembly language equivalents, so its main use nowadays (insofar as it is used) is embedded programming for microprocessors. It is very easy to implement and often is the first high-level language brought up on a new microprocessor. And for an individual programmer using the language, it grows (through commands the programmer adds) to be very powerful in addressing the applications the programmer most frequently develops (because the added commands are tailored to those applications). Iterative development is natural: define a command, execute it on the spot, and revise as needed.

The drawback is the name explosion (since command definitions are typically brief, you end up with a lot of command names), which makes Forth not so good for team projects, now the norm. But back in the day, it was great even though (strangely) not widely accepted. Partly, I think, that is because Forth was developed in the field, by programmers, not within a supporting institutional/academic structure.

In a niche

Italic handwriting (aka chancery cursive) is much better than printing or traditional cursive (since italic letter shapes hold together when written at speed, and since italic handwriting is beautiful). When I was teaching at a private elementary day-school, I introduced italic handwriting into the curriculum, and it was a hit. When parents saw the beauty of their children’s handwriting, they felt that their tuition money was showing some results — plus the students loved it. Italic handwriting takes a little practice, but a fountain pen with an italic (or stub) nib does most of the work for you. Italic handwriting is still definitely around and is taught in some schools, but not like back in the day (say, in Elizabethan times — the earlier Elizabethan times).

Traditional shaving, using true lather (made from shaving soap with a shaving brush and water) and a razor that has only one blade (a double-edge safety razor or a straight razor), has fallen from popular favor but still has a cadre of adherents, who like it because their shaves are better than when using canned foam and a multiblade cartridge (or — shudder! — an electric razor) and better in two ways: a better result (smoother, easier on the skin) and a better experience (a shave that’s actually enjoyable) — well, three ways if you include that I spend less than $5 per year on blades.

Starting each day with a pleasurable ritual that improves your mood and appearance and makes you feel squared away and shipshape has a cumulative positive effect. Why don’t all men shave this way? I suspect the answer is “clever (and well-funded) marketing.” The marketing effort costs many millions of dollars, but that’s fine with Gillette and its cohorts since the men buying the products pay the marketing costs.

It is true that a traditional shave with true lather and a double-edge safety razor takes a little more time — at first, enough so that novices shave in the evening, when they don’t have to rush (rushing a shave is a Bad Idea). But with experience a complete shave (wetting brush under hot water, loading brush with soap (10 seconds so far), lathering one’s face, doing a three-pass shave (with the grain, across the grain, against the grain — except for in-grown-prone areas, where the third pass is across the grain in the other direction), lathering before each pass and rinsing after, drying the face and splashing on aftershave) takes a total of 5 minutes. That’s perhaps 2 minutes longer than a shave done with canned foam and a cartridge razor, but in return for the 2 minutes you begin the day doing something you enjoy that improves your mood and thus the character of the day.

Recumbent bikes are definitely around, but not so popular as one would expect. They make so much sense — the sight line is easier on your neck, for instance, and you can exert more force on the pedals than merely your body weight. [Full disclosure: Not only did I have a recumbent bike, I also had a Moulton bike.] Recumbent bikes did not fall into a niche; they started in a niche and in a niche they remain, but perhaps they will break out.

Crokinole solves a particular special problem: to find an active indoor game easily enjoyed by players of varying skill (such as one might find at a party), is fun to watch, and moves quickly so that many get a chance to play. Ping-pong (table tennis, if you’re a purist) takes too much room and doesn’t accommodate well players of different skill levels. Also, ping-pong games take too long to complete, so that waiting your turn is a drag.

Crokinole takes but a table-top — a card table is fine. Even a novice can enjoy playing and the mix of luck and skill makes novice/expert matches still fun. It seems to me ideal for parties, which gives you an idea of what sort of parties include me. Somehow the sliding of the crokinole pieces across that smooth maple board is so satisfying, with luck and skill nicely balanced. And it’s proved to have legs: it’s been played since 1876, when it was invented by Eckhardt Wettlaufer in Ontario, Canada. Crokinole is in fact popular (in parts of Canada), but any Panza can see that it should be more popular everywhere.

Beginning (perhaps) to burgeon

Go/Weichi/Baduk (Japanese/Chinese/Korean names), like Crokinole, solves the problem of having fun when the players differ in ability and experience, with Crokinole being a game of physical activity and Go a strategic board game like chess — but also not like chess. For players who differ in ability and experience, chess doesn’t work well at all, particularly if the difference is great, since in chess the handicap changes the character of the game.

In Go, the handicap is integral to the game and doesn’t alter the nature of play — and the handicap can be finely tuned. When two people play repeatedly with each other, very soon every game is tense and close-fought with a narrow victory (for one) or loss (for the other). Here’s how: if one player wins 3 games in a row, the opponent’s advantage is adjusted by one stone at the start, so winning over the opponent becomes slightly more difficult. If a player loses 3 in a row, the handicap is adjusted one stone in his favor, so winning becomes slightly easier. Very soon there are no more 3-game winning streaks for either player, and every game is a hard-fought toss-up.

A regular game on a 19x19 board might take 40 minutes to an hour, but the game play feels much the same if the board is reduced to 13x13 or even 9x9, with the game taking less time as the board shrinks. So if you want to play a game over lunch, the 13x13 board makes sense. If you want to play a quick game, 9x9 is the answer.

Add in the aesthetics of the game — the board and stones and sounds and tactile pleasure — and a Panza doesn’t understand why the game is not as popular in the West as it is in the East.

That may be changing. Go got a big boost with the publicity from Deep Mind’s AI AlphaGo Zero, which taught itself to play by starting with only the rules and then playing game after game against itself until, after 3 days of self-play, it was better than AlphaGo I, which had beat the human world champion Lee Sedol 4 times in a 5-game match. Always popular in Japan, Korea, and China—well, not always, but for 2500 years — the game now is increasingly popular in North America.

Watch the movie The Surrounding Game to get an idea why. After my first game as an undergraduate, I had no idea at all what went on, and I thought, “Never again. Why do people play this game?” Then I started playing in graduate school, saw why, and wanted to go to Japan to delve deeper into it. (I didn’t.)

The whole-food plant-based diet and time-restricted eating are both gaining popularity as people become more aware of studies that demonstrate the positive health effects, try them, and discover they work. Still many people still are reluctant. They conjure up imaginary difficulties (“What about protein?”), and they draw back from feeling awkward, ignorance, and confused (feelings that often arise from plunging into something totally new), not realizing those feelings can be enjoyed.

Two books by Michael Greger MD FACLM, How Not to Die and How Not to Diet have helped people see the benefits, and the documentary The Game Changers show elite athletes thriving on the diet. Evidence from nutritional studies sare also convincing — to take one example, from the New England Journal of Medicine, “Effects of Intermittent Fasting on Health, Aging, and Disease”:

Preclinical studies consistently show the robust disease-modifying efficacy of intermittent fasting in animal models on a wide range of chronic disorders, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers, and neurodegenerative brain diseases. Periodic flipping of the metabolic switch not only provides the ketones that are necessary to fuel cells during the fasting period but also elicits highly orchestrated systemic and cellular responses that carry over into the fed state to bolster mental and physical performance, as well as disease resistance.

Still, neither whole-food plant-based diets nor time-restricted eating have yet been widely adopted in (say) the U.S., as shown in obesity trends in men and in women. But at least more people are talking about it, and some will edge into it.

Losing ground

This is the unburgeoning category: skills and solutions that seem to be dwindling and withering.

Home cooking and kitchen skills seem to be fading due to over-scheduled lives, resulting in many losing the knowledge and practice of daily cooking — not fancy feasts, just getting good and tasty food on the table efficiently and enjoyably. The slack is being taken up by prepared meals, pizza, fast food, and other foods that are CRAP (calorie-rich and processed). (See charts at links above.)

Human interaction is falling victim to busyness and automation. David at Raptitude has a good column describing the descent in which he notes

Human interaction probably isn’t in danger of extinction, but it is quietly losing great swaths of its natural habitat. Technology is making real interaction less necessary at work, home, and everywhere in between, which must mean there’s simply less of it in the world than there was a decade ago.

Read the column for more. The trend is dire: humans are social animals and need human interaction for their health — mental, physical, and spiritual. On-line interactions do not deliver the benefits. The solution is clear: interacting in person with others. Note that Crokinole and Go do involve interacting with others (unless you play Go against an AI).

Popular now beyond Panzas

Science-fiction was once very very niche. It’s been around for centuries — Gulliver’s Travels, Jules Verne, and so on — because it’s a good solution to making pointed criticisms of one’s society even when strong social forces don’t want criticism. As Gulliver’s Travels demonstrates, science-fiction lets a satirist criticize politics and society at a safe remove, by presenting some distant and fantastical society that (coincidentally) reflects and puts in high relief the foibles of the writer’s own society. Nowadays science-fiction is taken for granted. Philip K. Dick and Kurt Vonnegut (both strong social critics) once were fringe; now they’re mainstream. Science-fiction movies are big box office. Panza can relax. They get it now.