Further Discussion and Elaboration of Press Release

The press release assignment has been the most enjoyable for me thus far.  In the creation of my press release, I choose to fabricate not only the subject, but also much of the surrounding information.  In creating the Ouevre (French for artwork), I was also able to design a three-dimensional model of the device and speculate on its specifications.  In doing so, I was able to incorporate some of the features that I have found most interesting in concept, as well as apply some recent advances in technology to a fictional future product.  For example, I incorporated an advanced parallel processing core, noting the work toward parallel processing made today and the part it may play in the future.  I especially enjoyed the fabrication of acronyms, such as MDEEPROM, for multidimensional flash memory, actually based on some recent advancements in stacking the microscopic cells where data is stored.  Little things like the name, the company headquarters in Johnstown, or a technology center named after my grandfather were pleasant personal additions.

I was initially at a loss for what direction to take on this assignment.  I typically don't highly value the contributions of mobile devices.  I have more of an interest in larger systems.  Considering their current popularity and relevance however, I wanted to explore their future presence further.  The irony is that devices like this may take a nearly unrecognizable form by the launch year of the Ouevre, 2026.  Theories range from wearable technology to embedded physical or neural components: a fusion of man and machine.  It seemed a bit overwhelming to try to determine success criteria for a venture like that, so I decided to stay reasonably close to the current format.

The press release is of surprising importance for someone in my field.  In particular, working with the press kit in its entirety has made me see how much an engineer could contribute, including detailed diagrams, specification sheets, and functional documentation.  It is the job of the marketing and communications team to build interest and capture media attention.  However, when dealing with a highly technical product, an engineer may very well provide the translation from incomprehensible technology acronyms to exciting, press-worthy features.  It is difficult to explain quantified benefits, how much of an upgrade something is, but once that big step is taken, it can become another lure to the public.

I wanted to add a bit more engineering flare to the press kit.  I had begun working on scale perspective drawings, dimensioning the unit and documenting ports.  Unfortunately, with other class obligations, the time I had to spend has been cut short.  I would have loved to delve deeper into future technologies like neural linking or holographic projection, but the amount of fabrication that would have been necessary would have made the press release even less accessible to a public audience.  To be honest, it is already a bit borderline in that regard.  It would have been interesting to further explain my ideas on the heuristic awareness engine or embedded transparent solar panels.  Given enough space, time, and incoherent jargon, I could have made it make sense.  Brevity is essential, though; something I am still learning.

Orwellian Concision and Memes

If someone asked me a month ago if I would consider George Orwell a revolutionary of diction, I would not have known how to respond.  The only knowledge I had of him was regarding works like Animal Farm and 1984.  His piece on “Politics and the English Language,” however, has greatly altered my perception of quality writing.  Though originating in 1946, its truths may be more relevant today than ever.  His words fit well with my reflection a few posts ago on keeping academic and technical forms of writing accessible.

In my field of study, there are several conflicts with Orwell’s rules against linguistic obscurity.  The biggest issue is the use of active voice.  As we discussed in class, engineering is one of many disciplines where active voice is to be avoided.  This keeps the first person, or any person, out of a scientific undertaking.  It is also difficult to avoid jargon in such a complex and technical discipline.  This could be remedied by spending more initial time explaining such concepts.  Ultimately, engineering values a forthright communication of accurate information without pretentious diction or meaningless fluff, a desire for clarity and concision shared with Mr. Orwell.

Use of language in this manner is often an attempt to sound more intelligent.  This could fit with more academic and scholarly writings; however, this course of action typically has the opposite effect.  By George’s admission, less can be much more.  The greatest communicators understand that what detracts from reader understanding can be detrimental to writing itself.  In an effort to incorporate lavish dialect, the true meaning of a piece can be lost in translation.

In application of Mr. Orwell’s ideas, I have created the following meme.  It reflects a passage of text from a scholarly article that I reviewed in research for our action plan assignment.  The quote: “While the use of this 50% value may not be exact for every other city and for the specific time of consideration (August 15), it has been used in this study as a baseline value which may in fact be conservative for a summer day and not an annual average value,” is a bit overwhelming.  This project involves researching the potential for energy conservation by liquid cooling servers.  This line is critical as it deals with their decision of a baseline temperature, the basis of validity for their entire experiment.  Unfortunately, this line appears to second-guess the decision made and does not necessarily reinforce the validity of its criteria.  This creates doubt in that validity for the reader, which is damaging to their case.  It may have been better to admit postulation, if that is indeed what it was, and discuss how the value was determined.  This line leaves ambiguity and adds little to the discussion.

Citation of Quote: Iyengar, M., et al. “Extreme Energy Efficiency Using W

ater Cooled Servers inside a Chiller-Less Data Center.”  Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (ITherm), 2012 13th IEEE Intersociety Conference. May 30 2012 - June 1 2012. Print. DOI: 10.1109/ITHERM.2012.6231424

Code <= Art != Professional Writing

//In this
void IFind(Myself, AllIHoldDear) {
    int ErFacing = 2; //Man and Machine
    float IngInACommonSpace = 3.1415926535897932384626433;
 
    for( int erference = 0; erference <= will; erference++) {
        printf("There is %s beyond this.", something);
        scanf("Meaning to be found: %s", &somethingWorthFinding);
        thereIs(Order);  thereIs(Chaos);

        theTruth = Order > Chaos;
        thereIs(B3@uty);  thereIs("p_u_r_p_o_s_e");
     
        if( thereIsNothing > This ) whatMoreCanISeek--;
        elseif( thereIsNoPurpose ) whyOrder = "at all?";
        else //I
        {
             return home;
         }
    }
}

I have written thousands of words in the last several weeks that do not exist in prose.  They cannot contribute to a technical report.  They do not communicate heartfelt messages.  Whether or not they qualify as professional writing is a dilemma.  However, there is something about them: something I have always appreciated, but have barely come close to fully understanding.

In my Digital Humanities class, several days ago, Doctor Jeremy Justus was discussing the notion of code as language.  Digital Humanities has been an eye-opening course in the exploration of an intersection between my disciple, sometimes a logically and mathematically constructed wasteland, and points of humanity and deeper meaning, constructed or not.  We have explored numerous instances of media created by and through code, experienced only as digital artifacts, ultimately ones and zeros, that are still remarkably capable of leaving profound impressions on the psyche.

Something Doctor Justus said resonated with me.  In the beginning, or so it is written, the world was spoken into existence.  Meaning was understood to be intrinsic to language.  Understanding has since shifted to an arguably more educated view that meaning is constructed from independent experience and is not necessarily universal.  In the digital realm, however, these languages of programming are clearly defined.  Code shapes the digital landscape, from human-readable high-level commands to binary and hex based machine code.  Within a digital space, code is the language of God.

Is code language?  It must be.  Does that code hold the same meaning as the encrypted messages it carries?  Only to those who dare to decipher it.  To them, to us, it is a sort of artistic medium, a condensed representation of meaning lost in transmission.  Proof of our existence beyond that of the machine.  In my pursuit of the knowledge of computer engineering, perhaps I seek to emulate my Creator.  At least I would like to think so.

/*
 *The ultimate irony is that the function declared above is void.  It can return nothing.  There can be    * no return home...  I'm gonna go nerd out in the corner for a bit.
 */

Accessibility by Design

One of the most complicated struggles, as I have previously discussed, is the integration of creativity, relatability, and accessibility into more technical writing.  Professional writing seems to require a stricter consideration and communication than informal writing.  However, the most effective pieces of writing, regardless of genre, are those that engage the reader.  Depending on the work, this could mean shifting opinion, guiding through new information, or just stimulating thought, conclusion, or response.  I would argue that it is much more effective to reach out by integrating creative ideas, examples, even humor.  It can be so easy to become lost in the facts and figures, somewhere I find myself often.

I am concerned as to how much this relates to the particular division or work environment of a field.  Integrating relatable humor into a new technology review for an informal media publication company is one thing.  A technical report regarding doctoral research filings is another matter entirely.  I fail to see, however, why it should be.  If the information is of value, I believe it should be presented in a manner that is accessible to the vast majority of the population.  How can something be revolutionary if only the most educated and dedicated individuals can stomach the bombardment of jargon?  How can big ideas be grown, adapted, and realized if the large groups of dedicated people cannot be moved to action by complex propositions?

From my perspective, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the research community and the dreaming makers.  I have read dozen-page research articles from groups of individuals with grant funding on ideas that can and should be changing the world.  I have read dozen-page guides and walkthroughs of projects and amateur led from concept to fruition with dedication and care.  I honestly cannot confirm which group is more brilliant.  Both groups have big ideas and ridiculous grammar mistakes.  Both groups are incredibly passionate but lack the resources, in terms of people or funding, to realize the fullest extent of their goals.  Both have dedicated themselves to pursuits that no single individual can or should fully conquer alone.

We need to meet.  We need to talk.  We need to build a better world together.  To do that, we must compose our thoughts and ideas in a manner that is accessible to everyone.