I recently ran into a friend of mine I hadn’t seen in awhile. Among other things, I noticed she had a new tattoo. I honestly didn’t care for it much, and it made me want to say, “you do know that’s permanent, right?” But it also got me thinking what I would want, if anything, on my body.

So far, I don’t have anything, and don’t really have plans on putting anything there, either. But if I *had* to get something, it’d be the symbol for “double insulated“–used on electrical appliances and tools. It’s simple, technical, related to standards, and a pun of sorts. Hey man, it’s cool!

I finally figured out how the various bank/credit card company “point” systems work. Not the systems themselves, but how the companies economically justify continuing the programs. So most (all?) bank-branded point programs, such as National City’s “Points” system, are actually managed by a credit card company (e.g. Visa). That same company also handles the debiting of your bank account when you use your ATM card as a credit card. Pretty straight forward.

It’s also common knowledge that credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard charge merchants a percent of the amount of charged transactions they accept. Probably something around 3 or 4 percent; the number is irrelevant. It’s also pretty common knowledge that more and more retail outlets are accepting debit cards. Not only does this give the customer an opportunity to get “cash back” (a convenience, especially with ATM transaction fees), but then the customer doesn’t have to sign a receipt. Handy.

Also notice that credit card companies are in the process of changing their “signing policy” to only require a signature on purchases over $25 (or some set amount). Clearly, this is to put credit card use on-par usability-wise with debit cards. Easier in fact–there’s no PIN with a credit card, as there is with a debit card.

Okay, that’s all fine, but where am I going with this? Where does the point system come in? It’s a tool for the credit card companies to “incentivize” you to hit “credit” instead of “debit” (which is the default choice, mind you) when you swipe your combo debit/credit ATM card at a POS. Why? Because if you don’t, the credit card companies don’t get a processing fee. The credit card companies figure if you think you’re getting something for every dollar you spend, you’re more likely to “remember” to hit “credit”, as you are told when you enroll in the points program.

If you’ve actually looked at the “rewards” in these point systems, they can be pretty lame. Usually pretty cheap, too, given the amount you have to spend to get them. But remember they are giving these out to millions of cardholders, and that adds up quickly. That should prove to you how much money they really make from processing fees… the same fees they can keep raising with the explanation, “fraud is higher due to Internet transactions” or the like.

Credit cards: now there’s a racket–on so many levels, too.

While I was at Banff, I attended a workshop were we discussed “the ethics of collaboration”. I understood the terms at face value, of course, but didn’t really realize the concept’s implications and relevance to my own work until a recent event with some former collaborators. It was this event that caused me to re-examine what it means to work together, and what the ethics of collaboration/collectives are (at least to me).

Searching the Internet for “ethics of collaboration”(!), I found an *excellent* paper, which I want to highlight because of its relevance. The paper is called, “The The Tyranny of Structurelessness” by the relatively-famous scholar Jo Freeman.

In the paper, the author writes about formal/informal organizational structures and communication channels, and asserts explicit structure is the best way to avoid hegemony by an “elite”. It seems to almost touch upon parts of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory of social networks, particularly his idea of a “obligatory point of passage”, though she never uses those terms (they didn’t exist, I suppose–Latour wrote in the ’80s; she in 1970).

Not only does her description of outside-the-organization friends as an “elite” hit the nail right on the head, but so does her notion of looking at “whose approval is the stamp of acceptance” to understand who really has power in an organization. She also hits the mark when she says those who are on the “outside” often suffer from “paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware”. I might argue with her as to whether they are always delusions, but maybe that makes me delusional?!

Anyway, this should be required reading for all collaborators and collectives of any kind.

This past weekend, Alex and I walked around Braddock, initially for a project of mine, and then just for fun. I wanted to capture a set of pictures of a train going by. The theory was this: wait for a train to go by, hold down the shutter release with the camera in continuous-shooting mode to capture the entire train. Lastly, stitch the images together using one of the many available panorama stitching tools out there (one great one is Calico, by the way).

To finish off that thread of discussion, it doesn’t work too well–the change in perspective as the train goes by makes it hard to stitch the pictures by hand, and all the automatic stitchers I tried are confused by the peripheral objects (e.g. the railroad crossing or a building in the frame) being in all the frames, in exactly the same place. When you run the photos through the stitcher, you just get a perfect “pile” of 150+ images, one on top of the other!

Anyway, back to Braddock, Alex and I walked along the railroad for a mile or two towards the USS plant. We found some interesting stuff, including waste products from a spoon stamping plant, probably being brought to Braddock for recycling at one of the many metal recycling places nearby. We also stopped by UPMC Braddock for a drink; there isn’t much else open for food on Braddock Ave.

At one point in our walk along the tracks, a truck from the Union Railroad maintenance-of-way department approached us. I totally thought they were going to ask us to leave. We were technically trespassing, after all. Instead, they just waved at us, and drove right by(!).

I’m convinced it was because Alex and I were walking together. My theory is that people are less likely to balk at what they probably see as “a typical couple having a romantic walk down the tracks”, opposed to, for instance, just me there to document the urban infrastructure. Maybe not, though. Braddock has a reputation for being “artist friendly” (the mayor is trying to encourage artists to move to Braddock). We were actually there to take photos of the infrastructure (*and* have a romantic walk down the tracks–at the same time!)

…lies this tree! I love this tree and, at least what I’m ascribing to it in terms of how it got that way.

The first interesting aspect of this situation is the equal priority both have been given in access to the right-of-way along the road. In most modern cities or suburbs, I can say with near certainty that this tree would be cut down. Why would a city not do what they have done here? Because the tree’s trunk is growing directly below the wire. The tree will certainly converge back on the wire and ensnare it again, requiring perpetual pruning. Plus, if the tree were to fall either towards or away from the road, it could take the wire with it; the tree forms what is almost a ring around the wire. To a provider of infrastructure, both risks not worth sparing the tree.

Another interesting aspect of this situation is how the tree has adapted to its situation. The tree has grown more “bushy” on both sides of the wire, almost joining again at the top. How often it is pruned, I’m not sure, but this tree seems to have essentially become two trees.

Has the wire or the infrastructure adapted to the presence of the tree? Seemingly no, but maybe when installing this line, the pole to support the wire was put near this tree on purpose. Since the pole lifts the wire up to its highest point (it droops in-between poles), it helps the tree to have the wire higher above it; there’s less chance to have the wire end up resting on the tree.

The tree is also likely spared by the fact that this pole looks to only carry telecom cables. I can’t tell whether the thinner wire second from the top is electrical or not–if so, it would *really* surprise me that this tree was allowed to remain as it is; it’s an easy path to ground. My bet is that there is no electricity on this pole.

An interesting reflection of somebody’s values that you don’t see everyday!