I’m a baseball fan. My team is the Colorado Rockies. Obviously baseball is not a very high priority considering all of the consequences of the pandemic; but it may be what I miss the most. It’s okay with me to stay at home (I would have mostly done that anyway) and to social or physical distance. But, no baseball; that is hard.
The latest proposal is to have games begin in Arizona spring training parks with no travel and no fans. Not sure about the issues that brings up about health, logistics and adequate lighting in those parks (can’t play many day games in Arizona in July unless your inside or have a death wish)—but if that can happen, that would be great. Baseball on TV would suddenly make the world seem more normal—even if it isn’t.
One of the Rockies’ blogs is running a simulation season. So far the Rockies are 6-4 while underperforming offensively. If this was the real Rockies, it would be a great start. Even knowing it is just computer magic, I’m following the results of the games. It can be watched on Youtube, although I have not done that yet. My guess is that I could be just as engrossed in the make-believe game as the real game. Why is that?
First it is because I’m already familiar with the players. Their strengths and weaknesses and their prospects. If this was just fictional players, would it be the same? Probably not. But, on the other hand, if I had enough background information and history, would I get to know fake players just as well as real players; the obvious answer is yes. I’ve never met a real player, and you might even say I don’t know if they really are “real” players. Maybe the sports people on TV or the sports writers for newspapers all made up these players and their histories. Okay, of course, that is not true—right?
If the future is that we never congregate again, would make-believe sports become a computer generated reality? Could be. Obviously car companies and beer makers need something to feature their ads. Why not simulated games? The graphics would keep getting better, and with more money tossed in that direction, they would no doubt improve to a new level of reality.
If sports can be simulated how about government? I know government does not have the huge database of statistics to support a computer simulation like the numbers crazy sports world, but couldn’t it be done? Rather than have real people deciding our fate let’s have computers make decisions based on some ideal objective. So elections would not be about politicians but we would vote for the simulation model. Running this year is the “profits at all costs” model verses “justice for all” model. So the election would be about picking the logical basis for the simulation—a team of programmers. They could still be labeled the Red and Blue teams, or we could pick different colors.
Of course, this would mean that on occasion we would have to unplug our government and plug it back in hoping that it would reboot. Or maybe if the computer died, the head IT guy would have the authority to run the government until the computer was fixed; but what if he liked the power and never turned the computer back on? Yeah, a few issues to resolve; sort of like baseball.
In the processes of having some of my books proof read, again. I know I should not tell you this since I would prefer that you believe my books are grammatically and in all other ways perfect. Well, if you believe that, I would like to talk to you about the magic beans I have for sale.
I’ve often defended some of my “typos” with the caveat that I’m a story teller and not the best proof reader. And that is the truth—but still a bad excuse. It’s not that I haven’t hired editors or proof readers, I have; it is just a difficult task to find every last misplaced comma or missing quotation mark or any of the other annoying mistakes.
This is about the third round of proofing for my books; and still we are finding a few oopses (don’t believe oopses is a word but what the hell it’s my blog). I say “we” in the royal sense of someone else doing it while I watch. How can this be with so many readings? It seems the human brain can self-correct as we read. Humans are smart in some things and dumb in others.
Computers once again help us by pointing out the most obvious mistakes. Word or other programs highlight our faults. Of course writers will do things Word does not like, and we ignore the highlighted problem because the “mistake” is intended for creative reasons. Writing is more than grammar or even spelling– it is art. I like that line and I’m sticking to it. Not sure I want computers replacing real baseball or sloppy government, but I’m damn sure I don’t want them replacing writers.
Couple of free downloads from Amazon today!