I've been studying languages on Duolingo!

I joined Duolingo to learn Swedish 6 years ago but didn't continue because the lessons were silly. The sentences often featured animals doing weird things; they didn't make sense and weren't practical for traveling or trying to understand Swedish shows. It seemed like I had to get through a lot of nonsense to learn grammar and advance to useful content, but I didn't know how long it would take so I quit for a long time.

But in the summer my work situation changed, so I decided that since I'd neglected language-learning for so long, I got back on Duolingo to learn German, Japanese, French, and Spanish. At this point I need to learn German, and since it's sort of similar to Swedish, I'd get sort of confused, so I didn't resume Swedish (maybe the lessons have improved?).

I was able to skip a bunch of lessons in Japanese because I'd been studying it every day for a while on Twitter by following Japanese accounts, and via NHK and shows that have English subtitles. I hadn't realized my Japanese was ok until I got on Duolingo and found the lessons to be pretty easy, even after taking a placement test. So I just kept jumping ahead by taking mini-tests until I landed where I am now, which is more challenging, yet still enjoyable.

I started quite low with French and Spanish, even though I've studied them before, and started really low with German. For a while I was doing all four languages every day, but I realized I was diluting the experience, so I do a couple or languages a day, or maybe just German more deeply per day.

It's actually really fun! And I think I'm learning a lot. I'm almost at a 140-day streak, and I'm really motivated. I try to study the languages in other contexts and look at my old textbooks for more grammar, syntax, and other structural explanations, and I want to keep doing more. My head is definitely fatigued by trying to learn all those languages, and sometimes I'm too tired to try to advance, but that's part of the brain-expanding, language-learning process. Anyone who's trying to get better in a language is going to feel the pressure, and hopefully from all this pain will come gain :) 

What makes language-learning difficult is since I'm not surrounded by it, I have to motivate myself and find sources that will help me improve. In certain parts of the city I can hear Spanish and can practice speaking it, but the other languages are rare, so I have to go online or crack open a book. I'd rather hear humans speak it IRL because spending a lot of time in front of a screen is draining.

Anyway, I'm now back in the language-learning world, which was the original intention of this blog, though I'm not doing any translating. It seems like it's very hard to get decent pay for translating (I never made much before anyway) and machines are doing a lot of the work, so perhaps that door is closed.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

Sort of

I was going to write a long post about how I've noticed that people have been using "sort of" in their speech more often, such as hearing in a discussion or panel, "Tell us what you think of your experience and how it sort of affected your views." It's like people want to be polite and evasive instead of speaking in a straightforward manner. 

Then I found a thorough analysis which includes the declaration, "Using 'kind of/sort of' allows a speaker to moderate their statements and build in some vagueness and wiggle room. It’s a way to hedge one’s bets should someone take offense or question what’s been said."

That makes sense. It's a kind of softening statement. I also hear it in corporate meetings, organizational discussions, etc. I'm not saying it should never be used, because I've also been in meetings where someone was arguing and falsely accusing people, offending people while getting a pass for their vitriolic expressions. I'd rather hear "sort of" than scorched-earth yelling, where the speaker does not acknowledge or respect others' humanity. 

But it is a trend, and the blog post I discovered also exposed me to the Google Ngram Viewer, which I had no idea existed, and which I'll start using from now on to see patterns of language use.

And btw--I started saying "like" a lot in the past decade because I don't always want to appear blunt. So if I'm saying something, I might slow down and add "like" to cushion my words and make me seem less assertive. I really shouldn't do that and should just be who I am, but I deal with different kinds of people so I sometimes attempt to soften my delivery. Which probably doesn't work anyway because it doesn't sound too intelligent [n]or eloquent.

p.s. the e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

Message in a bottle

Posting online is like a message in a bottle. We write something or post something to connect with the outside world. It's easy to write something for ourselves in a diary, or take pictures and keep them in our camera, or write down observations in a notebook. But when we do something online, we're reaching out by turning ourselves outwards, throwing something out there to see if anyone is passing by who might notice.

Years ago before social media proliferated digital, people wrote confessional, personal blogs. I used to do searches for a phrase and stumble upon someone's thoughts and struggles, and know that I wasn't alone when I had a more isolating work situation. I also "met" people online who were blogging and met some offline, and even put together the Down the Block anthology to help expand independent creators' voices. 

I don't think all the writers in the anthology (published 15 years ago) are very active online anymore. Some have become busy with their own work and offline lives so they don't care about posting online, and others have migrated to LinkedIn and social media outlets. 

Social media is immediate, and I don't think people have the patience or interest to write something longer, hoping someone will read it. The ones who do commit to writing longer articles usually have a tangible goal, to become successful in monetizing their writing or integrating it into their profession; they want their blogs/online articles to serve a purpose, to get attention that will lead to something bigger. When we put something on social media, we can get quick feedback instead of waiting to see if anyone has noticed our blog post. If you're not famous or saying compelling things on sites such as Substack, regular blogging is just throwing something out there, hoping someone will find the bottle that you threw out into the digital ocean. And on social media, when people don't get likes or comments or re-shares, they wonder if they're being heard and worry if they're connecting with friends and a larger audience. So the bottle they're throwing into the ocean is just floating, which makes some people feel anxious or rejected.

I'm probably being nostalgic, but I miss content that doesn't try to boast. I'm not saying there is no authenticity online, but it seems like various people are trying to get attention in their online (and app) posts via pictures, tweets or updates, and there's a kind of competition going on ("look at how much fun I'm having" "here's my outrageous opinion" "here's how you can maximize your click-throughs"). I've achieved what I've wanted via my online content, but I'm hardly any more popular than I was several years ago. I don't want to post to get attention, though it would be fantastic if someone higher up in the food chain would notice me, and the novel that I'd put all of my energy into and tried to go as deep as I could within a character's thoughts and feelings took off.

Because I've seen the evolution of online content (and the Web just celebrated its 30-year anniversary), I've been able to compare how it used to be with how it is today. There are some feelings I have that people have disagreed with, especially young creatives who have grown up with digital. It's not that it's all bad, but it's sort of sad about how it's become transactional and a wall of highlights, as if people are shouting from a stage "look at me!". A recent column by college student Olivia Krupp effectively articulates what the current issues are with social media. 

But the bottom line is that we can all create content instead of getting someone's permission to share our creations. The gates are open and it's not like it was for centuries, where only the privileged, well-connected, or chosen could express themselves publicly.

p.s. e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

Down the Block by Margaret

If you're in a bad situation, quit!

Chapter 3 of one of the best advice books I've ever read, The Asshole Survival Guide, begins with Robert Sutton saying, "I believe in quitting" and that's what I did. I wasn't going to consider myself part of the Great Resignation because I quit last year, but Greg Iacurci at CNBC says 2022 was the "real year," so I'll take it.

After the above paragraph, I wrote more than 1000 words about a series of bad work experiences that led me to resigning, but it was too specific and seemed too ranty. No one had read the draft, but a wise person said I should not post it, so I'm not.

Instead, I want to reiterate what I said a while ago when I first read the book: know how to identify a toxic place and, I'll add now, Get Out!

My situation was a toxicity that I was tolerating, though I wasn't oblivious as I'd been in the past. Since I read that book, I've decided to never tolerate abuse and that approach has generally worked. But one way toxicity can be revealed is how an organization responds when a worker reports dysfunction. That's what Sutton's book explains. He says if people try to take action and nothing is achieved, then it's time to leave. Statements such as "that's how they are" or "they didn't mean it" or gaslighting the victim instead of taking action about the perpetrators are red flags. 

So here's my advice: if you feel horrible and have been treated badly, bullied, abused, anything less than respected, make a plan to get another job and leave. There are many examples of bad behavior at the Ask a Manager blog.

Here's another reason to leave: if you're not paid fairly. If a company pays other people well but comes up with excuses to pay you thousands of dollars less than your predecessor and inexperienced coworkers, find a job that pays better and quit. (And expert Allison Green says it is totally legal to find out what other people make.) If an organization does not require workers to show up nor do much work for much better pay, yet expects you to do more for much less money, then find better pay elsewhere and leave. Even just looking for other work will make you feel better. But it is not normal or fair for people to get paid well for not doing much, while you have to meet standards for thousands of dollars less. Don't rationalize it. It's not right. You are worth more. You are worth your experience. 

Which reminds me of another reason to leave: if a company chooses people based on their age or other superficial features, and you see them get ahead or better pay based on what they're perceived to be instead of what they can actually do, find a place that values human beings if you feel like you're being overlooked or not as appreciated as the favored ones. It doesn't matter what you say or do; if they reward someone based on looks, there is nothing wrong with perceiving that as unfair, and if you don't want to work in a place with such values, then find a better place. 

Kim Parker and Juliana Menasce Horowitz reported: research for the Pew Center revealed "low pay, a lack of opportunities for advancement and feeling disrespected at work are the top reasons why Americans quit their jobs" in 2021. Yup.

What really was the last straw for me was what The Asshole Survival Guide details. At that moment, I thought "I'm going to quit," but waited a while until I would not be quitting in anger and would be prepared with another plan. I kept thinking about Sutton's explanation of why quitting is better than staying in a toxic situation, and how in the past I had not quit and regretted it because enduring the situation had only harmed me. And I feel fantastic. 

Setting boundaries is powerful. Once I put in my notice, I felt like I'd built a concrete booth around me that no one could penetrate. I was asked to stay longer, then asked to be on call to answer questions for no pay, which just reinforced my correct decision. No regrets! I had a great experience but it was time to move on, and I immediately worked in much better situations with fair pay and no abusive/backstabbing treatment. One company I work for even has a system for dealing with abusive coworkers; there are specific people we can contact, and there is no tolerance for behavior that is detailed in The Asshole Survival Guide. 

So my advice to you is, again, to find a better situation and quit. The pandemic gave us the opportunity to reflect on what's important. Don't waste any more time suffering fools or giving your best to an organization that doesn't appreciate it. Go where you're wanted and don't look back!

p.s. e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.

Using Google Translate to report news

I was reading an article in the Miami Herald about an ancient wishing well in Germany. At the bottom of the article it said, "Google Translate was used to translate the news release from The Bavarian State Office for Monument Protection." I was surprised to see that because I hadn't seen such a description before. 

So I did a search and found another Miami Herald article about ruins in China, which states that "Google Translate and Baidu Translate were used to translate the news release." When I clicked on the journalist's name, it linked to The Kansas City Star and says that she works at McClatchy, which is a media company owned by a hedge fund. The ancient well story was there, but it was linked to The Star instead of the Miami Herald. From that bio page, I clicked on another story about an ancient pantry in Germany, and at the bottom it says, "Google Translate was used to translate the news release from the Würzburg District Office."

I've used Google Translate in my free time to understand online content, but I've never used it for paid work. I don't know if this is an issue for journalism. For instance, did someone need to verify the translations? What if the translations are not accurate or don't want to be? Not only do online, AI, and machine translations need to be edited in the target language, but if they're being reported in a news outlet and by journalists, the information should be accurate. 

At least the stories link to the original press release, so if anyone wants to look at the source, they can. I think this can speed up the reporting and content-creation process, but it should be done responsibly. I think it's really cool that we have such technology to connect with information around the world. When I started translating several years ago, it was time-consuming and there weren't a lot of online resources, so I had to buy some pretty hefty dictionaries. 

p.s. e-book version of my debut novel is still at Amazon, and the price for the print version has been reduced: buy at the Eckhartz Press site.