Satnav

Amongst several other cool presents given and received, Mum bought me a Satnav for Christmas. It's almost exactly perfect for a present, as I'd just got to the point where one would obviously be nice, but not yet essential. The next Satnav I buy, if ever, may well be a utility item like a new computer or a new exhaust, but the first one is exciting to have, and relieves me of the chore of choosing one, rather than just trying it out.

Liv and I refer to her affectionately as "Kate" or "Bossy robot lady". Although I've seen Satnavs in other people's cars, it's interesting to experience driving with one for the first time. It planned both routes fine, which was roughly what I expected. It was not too intrusive: the voice is useful for a new journey, and would be too intrusive for a half-known journey, but if you turn it off, the screen would still be about perfect if you remember you have to turn left somewhere but not exactly where.

What was a very pleasant surprise was reports on heavy traffic. I knew in theory they did that, but hadn't realised until I tried it how much of a difference it would make to the journey. I assumed the reports would be like "heavy traffic on M6" and too vague to matter when you were already committed to the journey, but they made a big difference.

I only used the Satnav twice, from lancashire to Stoke and Stoke to Cambridge, but both times it gave an estimate of journey time plus N0 minutes traffic delay which was accurate to within ten minutes, and got more accurate as you went on, and on the first journey suggested a 20-minute-shorter diversion. Having an apparently reliable guide for that makes it so much easier to plan, and so much more relaxing, than not knowing how long the delays will be.

I can even imagine leaving the satnav on at home to see what times of day seem best for certain journeys. I assume it's only accurate for motorways, but it's still really nice.

Commenting on controversial issues

If I see a debate, particularly online, I'm often much more eager to jump in with a contribution if it's on something that I've just recently worked out in my mind. I'm fresh with an idea, and want to share (even if it seems silly and naive later).

If it's about something I'm confident of, I'll comment if it actually adds the specific information needed, or if I think I can actually explain it better than anyone else, but if I think the reply is obvious, I'm happy to let someone else make it.

I think this is natural. It's like, if someone says the sky is green, there's little to say, but if they argue badly about infinity, you instinctively want to correct them.

But it does mean that people are perpetually getting into arguments about things just on the cusp of their understanding, when they may learn useful things, but may also make an idiot of themselves.

A controversial post on infinity, or feminism, or the welfare state, is likely to draw 50 comments from people who feel the battle isn't fought yet, and one or two from people who are ready to learn from a blank slate, or feel the issue is settled in their mind.

In some ways this makes sense, but it means that while discussions may be interesting to participate in, they tend not normally to be very informative unless you're at that exact level of ignorance yourself.