One of the benefits (curses?) of working 3rd shift and field service is that you get a lot of time to think.
Trust me there is only so many hours of music you can listen to before it starts grating on the ol’ nerves. The audio book industry started with a customer demographic of the blind – then truck drivers became a profitable market niche and suddenly “audio books” were mass market.
Yes, podcasting and the iPod deserve a mention. Apple, Inc did NOT INVENT the technology, maybe “perfected” and certainly “popularized” –
Not to get lost in the weeds – BUT Steve Jobs didn’t come down from the mountain with the first generation iPod and say “now ordinary people may listen to music free from restraint!”
I’m not bashing Apple, Inc or Steve Jobs. Mr Jobs was exceptional – BUT “how do we make this product better” is much different than CREATING something new. The history of “mobile audio” starts with “recorded sound” in general and then magnetic tape, and then … different subject
What has been will be again,
Ecclesiastes 1:9
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Information exchange
My pick for the biggest “leap forward” in the speed of “information exchange” is STILL the movable type printing press. But even there we needed a lot of “prior art” for there to be a demand for those Gutenberg Bibles and Shakespeare First Folios.
(… and if you happen to have a genuine “full and original” First Folio of Mr Shakespeare’s work – you probably get $10 million+ for it at auction … and we are moving on …).
The “revolutionary part” of movable type printing goes beyond just making printed books less expensive and more available. The “paper” industry as we think of it today came into existence because of the printing requirements.
With tongue in cheek you can make a dotted line connection between “paper” becoming affordable and the Renaissance. Seriously – we wouldn’t have all of Leonardo Davinci’s “notebooks” if paper hadn’t become inexpensive. “Books” being available on various scholarly subjects allowed for “Renaissance men” to be “Renaissance men”
Of course Leonardo regretted his lack of formal education mostly because he couldn’t read Ancient Greek and Latin. Which brings us to the point that “communication” == “information exchange” and for “information” to be exchanged both sides need to speak the same language.
I’ll wave at the Tower of Babel as I acknowledge that “interpreters” have been part of the “communication process” for a long time …
Secret communication
Of course the folks that need an interpreter are at the mercy of the interpreter’s skill and good faith.
Having a trusted 3rd party intermediate talks might be fine for “international diplomacy” – but not so much in intimate interpersonal “talks.”
Being able to guarantee the “cyber security triad” of confidentiality, integrity, and availability can become an advanced topic – but the point is STILL that “communication == information exchange.”
I’m five hundred word in and haven’t referenced a movie yet Roxanne (1987) is an updated re-telling of “Cyrano de Bergerac” – the classic 19th Century French play – and also easily one of Mr Martin’s most UNDERRATED movies.
The Jose Ferrer Oscar winning performance Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) is a much more “stage adaptation” version of the story – it is available on most of the “free streaming services” because it holds up very well as a piece of entertainment, and is also in the public domain.
Full disclosure – no the French play doesn’t have a happy ending, of course Steve Martin’s version does …
oh, and Cyrano’s problem in the “19 century tragic romantic play” is much different than Steve Martin’s story problem in the 1987 romantic comedy – if comedians got nominated for “best actor” Academy Awards, Steve Martin would have got nominated that year
Synchronize
That classic dial up internet sound was the sound modems made while synchronizing/negotiating communications parameters.
Basically the “answering modem” says “I’m a modem” -> then the “calling modem” responds “so am I” -> and then the high pitched squeal is the two sides “negotiating” the speed and standards to use for the call.
In the case of modems the analog telephone connection is probably going to be the limiting factor – and then if the “line” gets disrupted the entire connection process need to start over.
fwiw: I’m gonna guess that there are still a lot of dial-up connections in 2025 – just not being marketed to the general consumer. e.g. if security is the primary concern over speed then “”dial up” still has applications
SO it is fun to point out that people can be seen “synchronizing” with non-verbal communication signals. MY cliche example involves a little “people watching” – e.g. watch people meeting at “public place” and how they “synchronize” gives you a lot of information on their relationship.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that anyone violate other folks privacy. A group of young American women meeting always reminds me of that “modem connection noise” – they will talk faster and at a higher pitch if they like other. The young American boys might synchronize by wrestling or by “King of the Hill” style grunting – “yup”, “u huh”
… still information is exchanged and communication happens
Did I have a point?
Well, the problem with ANY attempt at communication is that the “message sent” won’t match the “message received.”
With data processing we have various forms of error checking to make sure “sent == received.”
With people it isn’t always easy to gauge if “sent == received.” At one level that uncertainty is why contract law exists.
BUT with humans there is always the chance that “sent == received” and one side is malicious. i.e Humans can intentionally distort the message for various reasons AND honest ‘miscommunication” can take place.
Lying is intentionally trying to deceive which is a much different animal than “mishearing/misunderstanding.”
This is where that old “interpersonal trust bank” becomes important – i.e. those long term relationships with a HEALTHY trust balance will naturally get treated differently than the long term relationship with a NEGATIVE balance or a brand new relationship.
Chemistry and “clicking”
“Would you believe in a love at first sight?”
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
“Yes, I’m certain that it happens all the time”
The “With a little help from my friends” quote came to mind – it jumps out at me today as a form of Greek chorus engaging with the hero/protagonist – great song, but something about nothing new under the song probably applies …
NO, I don’t believe in “love at first sight.’ Of course we have all experienced “instant attraction” or just “clicking” with someone.
THAT instant “clicking” is what I would describe at “high speed synchronization” – i.e. you meet someone and then you care able to talk to them like you have known them for “longer” – THAT is just an example of energy levels and subject matter “clicking”
Now, if that “clicking” gets reinforced with shared values and experiences THAT might look like a “love at first sight.”
Unfortunately the opposite is also possible – “NOT clicking” will feel like instant dislike.
The concept of arranged marriages in “western society” historically gave the potential couple a veto. Which plays out for humor in “Fiddler on the Roof” and “A Midsummer Nights Dream.”
Obviously if a couple is willing to accept an arranged marriage in the first place you would expect the divorce rate to be small – but that doesn’t automatically mean the marriages are happier.
ANYWAY – the point of “arranged marriages” would have been “strong marriages.” SO if the idea is that the parents of bride and groom “know better” and will pick a compatible couple THAT still requires some level of “non negative chemistry”
“Gut reactions” can be overcome – but most of the time going with your gut isn’t a bad choice – i.e. your “gut” is probably picking up on something and is just waiting on your brain to figure it out.
i.e. “instantly liking” someone is probably not as strong a positive indicator as “instantly DISLIKING” is a negative indicator – but I’m certainly not a matchmaker.
fwiw: one of my “sitting and thinking” visual aids “way back when” is based loosely on Paul’s epistles (Ephesians 5) – MY thought was a reaction to people saying they wanted someone to “meet them halfway in a relationship”
The problem with “meeting halfway” is that it can look like a head on collision if both sides approach the marriage/relationship as a contest of wills. Imagine two fists smashing into each other – THAT is “meet me halfway.”
Then if one side feels the need to compete/dominate then you open one hand and smash the fist into the open hand — in THAT case the “fist” might be getting what they want, but probably not the open hand.
With the ideal then being two open hands meeting and intertwining fingers – i.e. each side is 100% for the OTHER side. Which becomes an applied example of “loving your neighbor as yourself”
or as that great philosopher once said
“You can’t go too far wrong looking out for the other fella”
Leave a Reply