Anna Koop

When my operating systems covered thrashing I felt an immediate affinity to the poor processor. Thrashing is when the processor spends more time switching between processes and shuffling memory than executing anything. I think the example used in class had to do with a queueing system and the set up of a new process using up all of the available processor allocation, requiring a switch, which used up all that processor. My memory is hazy, though, and most of the online examples have to do with paging.

The human analogue is being overwhelmed with all-the-things! and not being able to focus on any of them long enough to make progress. Sometimes it’s set off by a resource chain: “I want to write up this abstract, but I need to double-check this reference, which means I need to find this paper, and oh yeah I needed to look up this other term…” Sometimes it’s set off by an excess of ideas: “I have a day off! What shall I do? I could knit or clean up or read or start this large project or advance that project, and I’ll just check the internet and play Lux until I decide. . .”

In any case, the result is—as the Wiki link currently says—“large amounts of computer resources are used to do a minimal amount of work.” Oh yeah. That there is the root of my procrastination issues.

So, solution? Picking a focus for the day sometimes helps, but even within “concentrate on thesis” the multitude of possible tasks can be overwhelming. Lists are essential (writing to long-term storage to free RAM? How far should I carry this analogy?). Deadlines help, but artificial deadlines don’t always work (and the danger there is setting impossible deadlines, which just leads to discouragement).

I have a feeling mindfulness in general would be helpful, but I haven’t worked out how. Focus is not my strong point. I’ll keep practicing.

It probably comes down to something simple, really: Increase resources or decrease demands. Finding a good way of doing either is the problem.

I’m wondering if it goes something like: You can’t deny insult, only the intent to insult. So whether or not a statement is racist depends on the hearer, not the speaker.

Intent matters, of course. But it’s only part of the equation.

I moved the bulk of the tutorial over to my artfire blog. Need some content there, so this is going to be more for personal/research stuff.

Artfire link to tutorial

Highlight reel:

1. Start with a slipknot.
   
2. YO on the working needle (right).
   
3. Knit the slip knot.
   
4. Pass stitch back.
   
5. YO.
   
6. Knit.
   
7. Pass the new stitch back.
8. Repeat 5-7 for the until you have at least 2 extra stitches.
9. Cut and secure the yarn. This is pre-cast on.
   

10. Knit with your real yarn, this is the cast-on row that will stay.
    
11. To free up the provisional stitches, undo the last chain stitch and zip the waste yarn off.
    

There you go! Some extra details at the Artfire page, but that’s the essentials.

I have realized something about my writing process.

Progress on my proposal has been slow. Not discouragingly slow, but incredibly painstaking. Other than the usual battles with perfectionism and undue diligence and scope explosion/implosion, I haven’t quite known why. A possible (addition) explanation occurred to me just now.

One of the artifacts of working on writing with Rich, particularly if it’s a topic he cares about, is the constant scrapping of what’s-been-done. I bring something in (when I bring actual writing in and not just the latest point to discuss!), we look at it, we discuss what works and what doesn’t, and I go out to start over from scratch. It’s not just Rich’s critique that does it—I have a strong tendency towards restarting anyway. Restarting after discussing the whole pictures leads to an excellent narrative and very clear ideas about what the work is about. However.

It does not lead to a complete draft. Ever, really. Hence, right now, although I have written several hundred thousands of words over the last two years, my (incomplete) proposal draft contains 680. Subject to change. Always. That’s down from one of the earlier iterations, which did have a couple thousand, I believe (pardon my obsession with word counts—progress must be measured in some way, for sanity’s sake).

I don’t know if this is something I should embrace or resolve. Free-writing tends to lead to this sort of thing, and free-writing is the lowest-pressure way to get work done. The perfectionism and diligence and scope expansion all lead to paralysis, and free-writing knocks me out of that. But . . . I would like to have a draft. As Mike said, only five people are ever going to read this document. Perhaps I am perfecting just a little too much?

Remember 100k or bust?

I’m pretty happy with the progress I made on my thesis proposal, but I did not meet the 100k goal. Or the complete-draft goal. Or the 50k goal. Oops.

I do have a document that’s shaping up very nicely. Other things intervened and I didn’t push as hard as I could have to get the word-count up. So it goes.

It turns out that free-writing is very useful for clarifying ideas, so I think I will keep alternating that with work on the document itself. What I’m doing is easily delineated by which program I’m using—WriteRoom for free-writing, Scrivener for more careful but still rough writing, and TexShop for actual draft content.

It always sounds so rigid when I describe my various processes. It’s not, really. But I’m glad to go with what works for me, even if it sounds a little crazy to other people.