What don't you do?

Word is a mainstream, paid, closed-source program that allows typesetting of articles, letters, and various other printed documents. I prefer to create these kinds of documents using Emacs and LaTeX, which are open-source programs that exist for free since the 1970s. The Emacs text editor works well for me since it is customizable and I can change it to work exactly as I like. LaTeX is a typesetting program that is good with mathematical formulae, which is great for me since I type equations frequently in my work. Furthermore, most mathematicians use this, so I encounter few compatibility problems when working with colleagues. In summary, Emacs and LaTeX are 2 pieces of old but good open-source software that allow me to reject the mainstream, closed-source Word.

After using the mainstream, paid, closed-source Windows and Mac operating systems in my youth, I have managed to switch to using only the free, open-source Debian operating system. I find Debian to be very useful since I can download the software from the internet, burn it to CD, and install it on any computer in a matter of minutes, for free. However, it was quite difficult to learn all the technical tricks necessary to use Debian. Despite my initial difficulties, I found Debian to be a great system for writing new programs, and for automatically downloading and installing other free software programs. In summary, Debian is an operating system that works for me as a great free alternative to the mainstream Windows or Mac systems.

Excel and MATLAB are mainstream, paid, closed-source programs for performing calculations and visualizations on data. I used Excel in my youth and my colleagues use MATLAB on a daily basis. Since I am a statistician, I need to do calculations, and I do this using the free, open-source program called R. Its main advantage is its powerful and wide array of statistical and graphical functions. In my work as a statistical programmer, I found that a useful function was missing in R, and since R is open-source, I was able to add this functionality to the program. Like with Debian, I found that it was challenging to learn, but that the investment was worth it. In conclusion, R is a free, flexible, open-source program for statistical computation that allows me to reject mainstream, closed-source alternatives.

Many media of communication such as SMS, instant messaging, and email are quite inefficient substitutes for a face-to-face conversation. To make this concrete, I define a simple statistic that can quantify the goodness or efficiency of a medium of communication: the total amount of time spent composing a message divided by the amount of information conveyed in the message. I don't have any actual data, but I conjecture that using this criterion we could rank communications media in terms of their efficiency as follows:

I think the best type of interaction with other people is face-to-face, one-on-one communication, where I can observe with all my senses and immediately respond to what I sense from the other person. All other forms of communication are less efficient in some way, so I really try to get as much face-to-face communication with people as possible. Modern computers attempt to come close with video calls, but it is often buggy, low-quality video and audio, with no attempt to replicate the other senses. Likewise, cell phones have low-quality audio and cost a lot, whereas regular phone calls give me the audio quality and time with which I can better express myself. Other forms of media like SMS or instant messages can be useful for communicating precise times, places, or numbers, but in general I find that using these media takes too much time to communicate too little information. I find that communication using a one-to-many medium is inherently less focused and audience-specific than an equivalent 1-on-1 medium. These media are useful for other things, but are not well-adapted for encouraging understanding between 2 individuals. In summary, less technological communication media are in general more efficient for communicating real feelings to other people.

Perhaps the most egregious example of technology being a nuisance to communication is the cell phone. When having a face-to-face conversation with someone, the last thing I want is to be interrupted by a phone ringing. I find that it is very strange in general that people use phones to keep contact with people at a great distance, where there are so many interesting people all around me. Furthermore, it seems that people with cell phones frequently arrive late to meetings since they can always phone ahead, and this is quite inconvenient! Of course, one can construct scenarios where cell phones are advantageous, but I feel that the annoyances outweigh the conveniences.

Email is not personal! In fact, any computer that relays an unencypted email from my computer to its destintation can intercept and read it!

Facebook is not personal! In fact, developers of Facebook applications have access to all my personal data that I post on Facebook!

Skype is not personal! In fact, nobody but the few people at Skype in Luxembourg and Estonia know how it works! They claim that it is encrypted, but this claim is impossible to verify without access to the communications protocol or program source code.

The public telephone system is not guaranteed to be personal! I guess there are laws, depending on which country I live in, which protect me from people snooping on my phone calls. However, this is again practically impossible to verify!

Face-to-face communication without electronic devices is definitely the most personal and private means of communication available.

I have gotten quite accustomed to using computers, but I do not think I need a personal computer. In fact, I use a computer every day at work to communicate with colleagues and write new statistical software programs. This computer use at work is quite sufficient for me, but I still do have a personal computer at home! Why? Because when I was moving into my apartment, the previous tenant offered me his old but fully-functioning computer. If I didn't take it and do something with it, he would have thrown it away. So I took it and I use it at home once every few weeks when I need a home computer.

The major social norm that I don't quite understand in this situation is the fact that the previous tenant judged the old computer to be useless, even though it runs fine! Somehow, he was convinced that it is a good idea to buy a new computer every 2 or 3 years. If everyone buys a new computer so frequently, what happens? We end up with a bunch of old computers in landfills? I don't know what will happen, but to address this issue, I have promised myself to never buy a new computer, and instead limit my computer use to used computers and public computers.

In fact, I can make almost the same argument for any other consumer electronics device, such as a digital camera. I have decided not to buy digital cameras anymore since the marginal utility I derive from them is greatly offset by their short lifespan, impossibility of repair, and "planned obsolescence." I refuse to buy a new digital camera every 2 or 3 years. Instead, I wonder if using a regular camera would be a viable alternative? For now, I just don't do any personal photography.

I wonder if the Kindle electronic book reader will be sustainable? How many years will it survive before you have to buy another one? Would it be better to just buy a real book and read that? Or not? With this new generation of devices, nobody knows how long they will last. However, I conjecture that the people responsible for selling this device, too, will attempt to get people to buy new models every few years.