Apps Vs. Public Lands

Litter, according to Merriam–Webster, is: “an untidy accumulation of objects.” In its verb form, Wikipedia describes littering thusly: “To litter means to drop and leave objects, often man-made, […] on the ground and leave them there indefinitely […].”

The word “litter” makes no implicit value statement, it is simply a recognition of stuff being where it shouldn’t be. You know that scene in most natural disaster or end-of-the-world blockbusters wherein everyone abandons their vehicles to stare at the destruction or run for dear life? Cars are a wonderful and very useful invention, but that’s littering.

Have you ever come across a peculiar-looking branded bicycle in the middle of the sidewalk? Well that bike, just like those cars that could no longer help the drivers outrun the volcanic lava, was useful to someone but is now an inconvenience and an eyesore for the thousands who will come across it. It is litter, at least until some other bike share user claims it and subsequently abandons it somewhere else.

The idea of bike sharing is great: bikes (ecological, maneuverable, fast) plus sharing (I think we can all agree that sharing is great). But what these programs really offer their users is ease: hop on, ride wherever you want, and when you’re finished—hop off. Great for the user, great for the company, but what about the rest of us?

Just as ride hailing platforms like Uber and Lyft have worsened traffic and even emergency parking availability in major metropolises, bike sharing apps are littering public spaces and assuring the rest of us that users will get these bikes back on the road soon enough. Maybe, but—as with ride hailing companies—availability and ease are integral to their business model. So for these companies, more bikes in more places is integral, and then they’ll worry about pairing these stray bikes with paying customers.

Roadways, parks, and sidewalks are for public use, and biking seems like quality public use, right? While these programs are far from expensive, they still promote an exclusionary service. For one, these are applications, only available to smartphone owners; and payment is carried out via credit card. You may be thinking that these are two mainstays of modern life, but that poor soul sleeping on the bench in that same public park would disagree.

Perhaps this diet version of littering will become commonplace, an inescapable annoyance like light and sound pollution before it. Maybe the “analog” version of renting a bike in a local bike shop wasn’t so bad after all. Or maybe there’s a better alternative with a more inclusive business model and a more neighborhood-friendly approach.

Whether by way of smartphone apps or pop-up bike huts, the bike sharing phenomenon is likely here to stay. Now comes the hard work of making it beneficial for all who use public areas.

 

Dancing in the Streets

You can still find it. That old-world animal spirit synonymous with Pagan harvest festivities and ancient Aztec rituals. You can find it in Mardi Gras and Carnival: individuals opening up and becoming part of the masses, losing themselves in a new dimension only to, hours later, realize that they have been transported to the other side, now free of the weight of regret, the heaviness of solemnity, the piousness of church rules.

The stewards of Christianity promoted festivals such as Carnival and the Feast of Fools, confident in the benefits of allowing church followers a brief respite from the monotony of self-control. And then, just like that, the church disapproved of these same traditions, labeling dancing as the devil’s work.

But what is the church? On the one hand it is a physical house of worship, but it is deeper than that—church is an idea, an evolving idea tended to by a revolving cast of characters. The organized church is political, run by a set of officials with presumed power. But philosophers and laymen are just as prone to ideas as the robed and white-haired religious custodians.

Organized religion’s inability to define its own notions of good and bad shows the transiency of the church as an idea. The church as a building, however, is stagnant—it can be demolished or abandoned, but for the most part it is just a place in which people do what is deemed appropriate. And some still see the church as a place of dance worship, as Lauren Michele Jackson argues: “If, indeed, as Pink says, ‘God wants you to shake your ass,’ the dance floor must be the house of worship. God is a DJ, the church is a dance floor, that dance floor is life. Church is life.”

But there were spiritual places long before there were church houses. Places where, as Barbara Ehrenreich notes in her book, individuals gathered to forget their individuality, to lose themselves in the sway of the group, in the wild freedom of just letting go.

Ultimately, it comes down to whose opinions one values. What if a different group of people ran a different type of church? Take, for example, the Universal Life Church, or George Freeman’s purchase of a run-down church he subsequently transformed into the Monastery. Using the very same edifice built by Christianity, he connected to the church’s past acceptance of revelry, fusing dance with the ideals of refuge and equality. In this safe space, disconnected from organized religion, the misunderstood joined together in dance as an antidote to the troubles outside.

Though this freedom used to be welcomed in the church, used as a safety valve to ease the pressures of religious piety, over time this joyous uninhibitedness has had to seek shelter outside the inflexible bounds of the Christian church, out in the street where the ideas of religion, including Christianity, were born and originally spread.

The Sound of Google Translate

Google Translate reminds me of Simon & Garfunkel’s classic opening words: “Hello darkness, my old friend…”

The blunt reading would be that I’m comparing Google Translate to darkness: It lacks context, life experience, a clear objective or target audience, source country or author, etc. As such, often you type in an interesting paragraph and it spits mush back at you.

But on a deeper level, what is The Sound of Silence really about?

Paul Simon treats darkness (and its running mate: silence) as a confidant, an ambience that allows him to indulge in a calmer, more pensive state of mind. Darkness is a place where he can work things out, a tool that surely helped him write many a hit single.

But darkness is an inward-facing tool. It is a place where thoughts are mulled over and lines are worked and reworked. Think of it as where you draft an article before publishing it for public consumption. Darkness is where Simon: a) tried to understand the confusing aspects of a busy day; or b) started to create the melodies of a future song.

And that is exactly how Google Translate works.

It is a useful tool for people trying to understand a foreign text. Trying to find more information on some obscure historical figure from another country? Copy and paste their foreign-language biography or obituary and have fun learning while trying to parse together the full meaning behind the words.

And it is a useful tool for translators in their brainstorming phase, as they hunt for the perfect word and then fit said word into a context and structure that is, quite frankly, too complex for Google Translate to recreate. It’s great when looking for synonyms, can be helpful for building full sentences, but is unable to capture the thesis of a text, to summarize the main ideas into an eloquent message in the target language.

Google Translate, like darkness, is an inward-facing tool, something that helps individuals to understand ideas written in a language foreign to them. But if you are creating content for the public to read, to find and trust in your brand, you need an outward-facing tool.

Just as companies employ writers to understand the company’s goals and target audience and create content in line with both, you must apply the same thought process when trying to reach customers in another language.

This requires translators who understand the company and the ideas that make up the backbone of the text, translators who understand the target audience in the target country and can convey those ideas in the manner that will best reach these new readers.

A Brief Evolutionary History of Translation

We have no way of knowing exactly when translation came into formal practice, but if we think of translation as the sharing of culture by way of language, it stands to reason that translation has existed as long as different cultures have encountered each other. The stronger the gravitas of a culture—or the greater the desire of a community to spread its culture—the greater the importance of translation.

As such, though translation was already a known practice, the rise of religion really made translation an important cultural factor on a broad scale. Translations exist for the Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh, originally written around 2000 BCE, and subsequent Indian, Chinese, Arabic, and Greek translations scatter the next couple millennia. But the convergence of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in predominantly Muslim Spain in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries paved the way for the first School of Translators in Toledo and a cultural revolution that would come to be known as The Renaissance.

Spain, a bonafide melting pot at the time, played host for many reasons, including its geography, as it is situated neatly between Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Northern Africa. Also, it was a relatively open and liberal country, not partaking in The Condemnations going on in nearby Paris. Latin-, Arabic-, and Hebrew-speaking philosophers, scientists, and theologians could intermingle and freely trade ideas, which required translation and even the creation of local pidgins and vernaculars.

This free flow of information between cultures and languages augmented the role of translation in society, as both the frequency and importance of translation grew by leaps and bounds.

This almost 1,000-year-old thirst for knowledge and cultural curiosity has only grown, and with it the ease of information transfer, thanks to constantly evolving technology.

First came the increasing ease of physical transportation, with people being able to cross oceans by boat, traverse on land via horse, carriage, then car, and finally the ability to fly. As people encountered new places, they also encountered new peoples and new cultures and sought to learn from and share with these new communities.

Then came information sharing, through people visiting foreign locations as discussed above, through letters and mail, and now through the internet via computers and smartphones. The information being shared varies, from cultural histories, scientific breakthroughs, and philosophic conundrums to fictional tales, anecdotes, and simple discussions.

From the mundane to the lifesaving, from attacks to budding friendships, communication connects the world—a world with diverse cultures, traditions, and languages.

3 Things to Look for when Hiring a Freelance Translator

Hiring is a delicate process—part art and part science—and one that usually requires more work on the hirer’s side of the equation: going through emails and resumes, comparing and contrasting prospects’ levels of education, experience, fit, potential, etc.

So how does one decide on the perfect translator for their company’s ongoing content or a one-off project? First of all, you have to know what you have and what you want.

What kind of content do you have, what is the content’s current purpose, and what will be the goal of the translated content?

All of these play a key role in choosing a translator. So the first factor is subject matter: choose an eloquent translator for artful or literary content; choose a translator with mechanical engineering experience or education for a technical manual on mechanical engineering; choose a translator versed in medical jargon for a medical translation. You get the point.

Keep in mind that an experienced translator will likely have resources (in-person contacts, online communities, reference books) to handle light technical subject matter that is new to them. But in general, if you haven’t worked with a translator previously, make sure they know the subject they’ll be translating.

Plenty of people know two languages, but that doesn’t make them translators. Just like many people are native English speakers but you wouldn’t want them editing your content. Does your prospective hire have training in the translation field? A degree, some courses, a certificate?

Not all translators study translation in college, and that isn’t necessarily a negative. Maybe they studied the field in which they now translate, or they studied literature or communication. But ongoing translation study is important, even if it consists of a couple webinars a year to stay up to date on current trends and technology.

And if someone seems like a good fit but can’t offer any relevant education? Have them send you some samples or ask that they translate a short sample of your content.

Lastly, you will want to know the translator’s relevant experience. Are they recent graduates? Have they worked only with agencies? In these cases they may not have samples available, as translators can’t share translations without the client’s permission. Do they work with direct clients? Can they provide references or point you to published works they have translated?

Know what you’re looking for regarding subject matter mastery, translation-specific training, and industry experience. And remember, education and experience are useful measures for judging quality and fit, but don’t always tell the whole story.

What if the Most Sensitive Are Those Who Go First? (Translation)

In general, people assume that individuals who commit suicide do so as a result of a kind of weakness of character or a lack of commitment to life, when in fact the opposite may be true. It takes a lot of character and courage to see the cruelty and misery that occur daily and, despite seeing what they  see, keep living as though everything is fine. More commonly, people tend to look the other way, run away from the painful, and, like Cypher in The Matrix, they (we) opt for the blessings of ignorance, indifference, frivolity, and selfishness.

Is this not the case of many people who can not or do not want to see or be aware of the world’s many ills? In antiquity, these evils came from outside, in particular diseases and the danger that the forces of nature represented for human life. Today, the evils of the “human world” stem from uniquely human origins: wars, inequality, discrimination… Hence Sartre’s phrase: “Hell is other people.” As Yuval Noah Harari points out, nowadays people are more likely to commit suicide than to be killed. “In 2012 about 56 million people died throughout the world; 620,000 of them died due to human violence (war killed 120,000 people, and crime killed another 500,000). In contrast, 800,000 committed suicide, and 1.5 million died of diabetes. Sugar is now more dangerous than gunpowder” (Harari, 2015, Homo Deus, p.26).

What we really have to ask ourselves is whether contemporary societies are able to create the conditions conducive to a life that is worth living. The high rates of suicide, mental illness and various addictions (whether to substances or to destructive behaviors such as consumerism) seem to cast doubt on our optimism and force us to break away from the reverie that all is well.

Is it really worth living? Great writers, musicians, singers, actors, have concluded that…no, it isn’t. I don’t think that their response is due to a matter of weakness, but rather to an excess of sensitivity and vulnerability. Hopefully their desperate cries of a refusal to fall into existential numbness will force us to wake up and become aware of the daily misery in which we live: frivolity, materialism, selfishness, injustice, violence, fear… All this seems to be an inherent aspect of our interactions as human beings.

But are we in time to change course and start thinking and living differently? Only time will tell. Today I want to dedicate these lines to those who simply could no longer tolerate this existential situation and preferred to leave it.

Bon voyage, Chester Bennington, and all those who preceded him: Chris Cornell, Jim Morrison, Virginia Woolf, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Williams…

Originally at: https://infic.mx/who-commit-suicide/