Astroturf

Astroturf (pronounced as-truh-turf)

(1) A trademarked (as AstroTurf) brand of carpet-like covering made of vinyl and nylon to resemble turf, used for athletic fields, decks, patios and such (initial capital).

(2) The widely used generic term for artificial grass (no initial capital).

(3) To fake the appearance of popular support for something, such as a cause or product, the use based on the idea of faking “grassroots support” from the public the way AstroTurf is a “fake grass” (although some insist it’s really “faux grass” because usually there’s no attempt to claim the artificial product is natural).

1966: The construct was astro- + turf, the product name an allusion to the Astrodome, the baseball stadium in Houston, Texas, where first the product was laid at scale.  The astro- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἄστρον (ástron) (celestial body), from ἀστήρ (astḗr) (star).  It was used by the astronomers of Antiquity to refer to celestial bodies which they classified as (1) fixed stars & (2) wandering stars (planets) as well as of space generally.  Turf (in the sense of a layer of earth covered with grass was from the Middle English turf & torf, from the Old English turf (turf, sod, soil, piece of grass covered earth, greensward), from the Proto-West Germanic turb, from the Proto-Germanic turbz (turf, lawn), from the primitive Indo-European derbh (tuft, grass).  It was cognate with the Dutch turf (turf), the Middle Low German torf (peat, turf) (from which German gained Torf and German Low German Torf), the Swedish torv (turf), the Norwegian torv (turf), the Icelandic torf (turf), the Russian трава (trava) (grass) and the Sanskrit दर्भ (darbhá) (a kind of grass) & दूर्वा (dū́rvā) (bent grass).  Astroturf & astroturfing are nouns & verbs, astroturfer is a noun and astroturfed is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is astroturfs.  AstroTurf is a registered trademark.

AstroTurf being laid in preparation for the first baseball game to be played in Veterans Stadium, Philadelphia, 1971.  The AstroTurf was in 2001 replaced with NexTurf and the stadium was demolished in 2006.

The use of “Astrodome” as the name for the baseball stadium in Houston, Texas, was an allusion to city's association with the US space program, a link not wholly unrelated to Texan Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969), while vice-president, being appointed by John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) to assume nominal responsibility for the program; Houston became home to NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Manned Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center).  Built in the early 1960s, the Astrodome was the world’s first multi-purpose, domed sports and even before the new name was unveiled, Houston was already widely known as “Space City” and when the structure was completed in 1965, some had assume it would be called the “Space City Stadium” but most seemed to agree Astrodome was a better choice and the city’s baseball team was the same year renamed the Houston Astros.  Dating from the early sixteenth century, dome was from the Middle French domme & dome (a town-house; a dome, a cupola) (which persists in modern French as dôme), from the Provençal doma, from the Italian duomo (cathedral), from the Medieval Latin domus (ecclesiae; literally “house (of the church)”), a calque of the Ancient Greek οἶκος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (oîkos tês ekklēsías).

Cats are not fooled by AstroTurf but are pragmatic.

AstroTurf is a trademarked brand name for a type of artificial surface which emulates the appearance of grass and to various degrees, also the “feel and behavior”.  When referring to the commercial product, the two upper-case characters should be used but (like Hoover & hoover, Xerox & xerox etc) the word has come frequently to be used as a generic term for any artificial turf and in these instances no initial capital should be used and style guides anyway recommend that to avoid confusion, a term such as “artificial turf” is preferred.  When used of the practice of faking the appearance of popular support for something, no initial capital should appear.  Because Astroturf is “fake grass”, when used in slang, the inference is always negative, especially in relation to politics and unethical marketing.  AstroTurf has changed much in the sixty-odd years of its existence with the green color about the only constant, advances in chemistry and computing meaning the surface now is more durable, cheaper to produce and more “grass-like” in its behaviour.  When first patented in 1965 it was sold as “ChemGrass” which, in retrospect, sounds like a bad choice but in the mid-1960s, as a word-forming element. “chem-” didn’t carry quite the negative connotations which later became so associated.  It was rebranded as AstroTurf in 1966 to tie in with opening of the Houston Astrodome stadium.

The use of “astroturf” as a slang term meaning “to fake the appearance of popular support for something, such as a cause or product” emerged in the last days of the 1990s although the origin of the use of the word in this context has been traced to 1985 when then Senator (Democratic, Texas) Lloyd Bentsen (1921–2006; US Secretary of the Treasury 1993-1994) used the word to distinguish between “real mail from real people” and the “mountain of cards and letters” sent to his office in a campaign organized by the insurance industry: “…a fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grass roots and AstroTurf... this is generated mail.”  Lloyd Bentsen is remembered also for the most memorable retort (which may have been rehearsed) line from the 1988 presidential election in which he was the Democratic Party’s nominee for vice president.  In a debate with the Republican’s Dan Quayle (b 1947; vice president of the United States 1989-1993), he responded to Mr Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) by saying: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”  The other coincidental link between the two candidates was that in the 1970 mid-term congressional elections. Bentsen defeated George HW Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; US president 1989-1993) for a Texas senate seat and it was Dan Quayle Bush choose as a running mate in his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

One of the internet’s more inexplicable juxtapositions; even the poster admitted there was nothing to link Lindsay Lohan with Coca-Cola drink AstroTurf cozies.

The senator’s reference to the “mountain of cards and letters” as early as 1985 is an indication the technique predates the internet and historians have identified examples from Antiquity which suggest the practice is likely as old as politics itself but what the internet did was offer the possibility of scaling campaigns to a global scale at a lower (sometimes marginal or even zero) unit cost.  When done, it called astroturfing those coordinating such things are astroturfer.  Astroturfers are, like scammers in this calling, engaged in a constant arms race against those who detect and expose the tactic and the dramatic rise in the use of AI bots (artificial intelligence (ro)bots) has made the detection process simultaneously both easier (because at this stage it’s still a relatively simple matter for one algorithm to detect another and more challenging because of the extraordinary rise in volume.  It’s not clear how many social media accounts are fake (run by people or bots generally receiving a payment for each post not deleted by the gatekeepers) and certainly it’s not something the platforms seem anxious to discuss although they will sometimes disclose how many have been deleted if some form of astroturfing has been especially blatant or egregious.  More subtle are the “shadow organizations” set up by the usual suspects (fossil fuel companies, extractive miners, big polluters, political parties etc) which can even have bricks & mortar offices and paid staff.  The purpose of these outfits is to engage in controversial debates and attempt to both “nudge” things in the direction sought by those providing the funding and create the impression certain views enjoy wider support than may be the reality.

1996 Daihatsu Midget with custom AstroTurf carpets.

The Daihatsu Midget began life as a single-seater, three wheel mini-truck (1957-1972) powered by a 250cm³ (15 cubic inch) single cylinder, two-stroke engine although some were built also with a 305 cm³ (19 cubic inch) unit which may in the vernacular be thought of as the “big block”.  Produced under licence in several nations in the Far East, it’s still produced in Thailand where its compact dimensions, remarkable load capacity and economy of operation make it uniquely suited to confined urban environments.  Daihatsu revived the Midget name for a four-wheel version which was produced between 1996-2001, manufactured under the “Kei Car” (a clipping of kei-jidōsha (軽自動車 (light automobile)) rules which limit mass, external dimensions and restrict displacement to 660 cm³ (40 cubic inches).  In a sign of the times, these diminutive Midgets (surely an irresistible tautology in the Kei Car business) were available with options like four-wheel drive and air conditioning.

Algorithm

Algorithm (pronounced al-guh-rith-um)

(1) A set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

(2) In computing, a finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal, especially a mathematical rule or procedure used to compute a desired result.

(3) In mathematics and formal logic, a recursive procedure whereby an infinite sequence of terms can be generated.

1690s: From the Middle English algorisme & augrym, from the Anglo-Norman algorisme & augrimfrom, from the French algorithme, re-fashioned (under mistaken connection with Greek αριθμός (arithmos) (number)) from the Old French algorisme (the Arabic numeral system) from the Medieval Latin algorismus, a (not untypical) mangled transliteration of the Arabic ⁧الخَوَارِزْمِيّ⁩ (al-ḵawārizmiyy), the nisba (the part of an Arabic name consisting a derivational adjective) of the ninth century Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and a toponymic name meaning “person from Chorasmia” (native of Khwarazm (modern Khiva in Uzbekistan)).  It was Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī works which introduced to the West some sophisticated mathematics (including algebra). The earlier form in Middle English was the thirteenth century algorism from the Old French and in English, it was first used in about 1230 and then by the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer (circa 1344-1400) in 1391.  English adopted the French term, but it wasn't until the late nineteenth century that algorithm began to assume its modern sense.  Before that, by 1799, the adjective algorithmic (the construct being algorithm + -ic) was in use and the first use in reference to symbolic rules or language dates from 1881.  The suffix -ic was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  The noun algorism, from the Old French algorisme was an early alternative form of algorithm; algorismic was a related form.  The meaning broadened to any method of computation and from the mid twentieth century became especially associated with computer programming to the point where, in general use, this link is often thought exclusive.  The spelling algorism has been obsolete since the 1920s.  Algorithm, algorithmist, algorithmizability, algorithmocracy, algorithmization & algorithmics are nouns, algorithmize is a verb, algorithmic & algorithmizable are adjectives and algorithmically is an adverb; the noun plural is algorithms.

Babylonian and later algorithms

An early Babylonian algorithm in clay.

Although there is evidence multiplication algorithms existed in Egypt (circa 1700-2000 BC), a handful of Babylonian clay tablets dating from circa 1800-1600 BC are the oldest yet found and thus the world's first known algorithm.  The calculations described on the tablets are not solutions to specific individual problems but a collection of general procedures for solving whole classes of problems.  Translators consider them best understood as an early form of instruction manual.  When translated, one tablet was found to include the still familiar “This is the procedure”, a phrase the essence of every algorithm.  There must have been many such tablets but there's a low survival rate of stuff from 40 centuries ago not regarded as valuable.

So associated with computer code has the word "algorithm" become that it's likely a goodly number of those hearing it assume this was its origin and any instance of use happens in software.  The use in this context, while frequent, is not exclusive but the general perception might be it's just that.  It remains technically correct that almost any set of procedural instructions can be dubbed an algorithm but given the pattern of use from the mid-twentieth century, to do so would likely mislead or confuse confuse many who might assume they were being asked to write the source code for software.  Of course, the sudden arrival of mass-market generative AI (artificial intelligence) has meant anyone can, in conversational (though hopefully unambiguous) text, ask their tame AI bot to produce an algorithm in the syntax of the desired coding language.  That is passing an algorithm (using the structures of one language) to a machine which interprets the text and converts it to language in another structure, something programmers have for decades been doing for their clients.

A much-distributed general purpose algorithm (really more of a flow-chart) which seems so universal it can be used by mechanics, programmers, lawyers, physicians, plumbers, carpet layers, concreting contractors and just about anyone whose profession is object or task-oriented.   

The AI bots have proved especially adept at such tasks.  While a question such as: "What were the immediate implications for Spain of the formation of the Holy Alliance?" produces varied results from generative AI which seem to range from the workmanlike to the inventive, when asked to produce computer code the results seem usually to be in accord with a literal interpretation of the request.  That shouldn't be unexpected; a discussion of early nineteenth century politics in the Iberian Peninsular is by its nature going to to be discursive while the response to a request for code to locate instances of split infinitives in a text file is likely to vary little between AI models.  Computer languages of course impose a structure where syntax needs exactly to conform to defined parameters (even the most basic of the breed such as that PC/MS-DOS used for batch files was intolerant of a single missing or mis-placed character) whereas something like the instructions to make a cup of tea (which is an algorithm even if not commonly thought of as one) greatly can vary in form even though the steps and end results can be the same.

An example of a "how to make a cup of tea" algorithm.  This is written for a human and thus contains many assumptions of knowledge; one written for a humanoid robot would be much longer and include steps such as "turn cold tap clockwise" and "open refrigerator door".

The so-called “rise of the algorithm” is something that has attracted much comment since social media gained critical mass; prior to that algorithms had been used increasingly in all sorts of places but it was the particular intimacy social media engenders which meant awareness increased and perceptions changed.  The new popularity of the word encouraged the coining of derived forms, some of which were originally (at least to some degree) humorous but beneath the jocularity, many discovered the odd truth.  An algorithmocracy describes a “rule by algorithms”, a critique in political science which discusses the implications of political decisions are being made by algorithms, something which in theory would make representative and responsible government not so much obsolete as unnecessary.  Elements of this have been identified in the machinery of government such as the “Robodebt” scandal in Australia in which one or more algorithms were used to raise and pursue what were alleged to be debts incurred by recipients of government transfer payments.  Despite those in charge of the scheme and relevant cabinet ministers being informed the algorithm was flawed and there had been suicides among those wrongly accused, the politicians did nothing to intervene until forced by various legal actions.  While defending Robodebt, the politicians found it very handy essentially to disavow connection with the processes which were attributed to the algorithm.

The feeds generated by Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter) and such are also sometimes described as algorithmocracies in that it’s the algorithm which determines what content is directed to which user.  Activists have raised concerns about the way the social media algorithms operate, creating “feedback loops” whereby feeds become increasingly narrow and one-sided in focus, acting only to reinforce opinions rather than inform.  In fairness, that wasn’t the purpose of the design which was simply to keep the user engaged, thereby allowing the platform to harvest more the product (the user’s attention) they sell to consumers (the advertisers).  Everything else is an unintended consequence and an industry joke was the word “algorithm” was used by tech company CEOs when they didn’t wish to admit the truth.  A general awareness of that now exists but filter bubbles won’t be going away but what it did produce were the words algorithmophobe (someone unhappy or resentful about the impact of algorithms in their life) and algorithmophile (which technically should mean “a devotee or admirer of algorithms” but is usually applied in the sense of “someone indifferent to or uninterested in the operations of algorithms”, the latter represented by the great mass of consumers digitally bludgeoned into a state of acquiescent insensibility.

Some of the products are fighting back: The Algorithm: How AI Decides Who Gets Hired, Monitored, Promoted, and Fired and Why We Need to Fight Back Now (2024) by  by Hilke Schellmann, pp 336, Hachette Books (ISBN-13: 978-1805260981).

Among nerds, there are also fine distinctions.  There are subalgorithms (sub-algorithm seems not a thing) which is a (potentially stand-alone) algorithm within a larger one, a concept familiar in many programming languages as a “sub-routine” although distinct from a remote procedure call (RPC) which is a subroutine being executed in a different address space.  The polyalgorithm (again hyphens just not cool) is a set of two or more algorithms (or subalgorithms) with instructions for choosing which in some way integrated.  A very nerdy dispute does exist within mathematics and computer science around whether an algorithm, at the definitional level, really does need to be restricted to a finite number of steps.  The argument can eventually extend to the very possibility of infinity (or types of infinity according to some) so it really is the preserve of nerds.  In real-world application, a program is an algorithm only if (even eventually), it stops; it need not have a middle but must have a beginning and an end.

There is also the mysterious pseudoalgorithm, something les suspicious than it may first appear.  Pseudoalgorithms exist usually for didactic purposes and will usually interpolate (sometime large) fragments of a real algorithm bit it may be in a syntax which is not specific to a particular (or any) programming language, the purpose being illustrative and explanatory.  Intended to be read by humans rather than a machine, all a pseudoalgorithm has to achieve is clarity in imparting information, the algorithmic component there only to illustrate something conceptual rather than be literally executable.  The pseudoalgorithm model is common in universities and textbooks and can be simplified because millions of years of evolution mean humans can do their own error correction on the fly.

Of the algorithmic

The Netflix algorithm in action: Lindsay Lohan (with body-double) during filming of Irish Wish (2024).  The car is a Triumph TR4 (1961-1967), one of the early versions with a live rear axle, a detail probably of no significance in the plot-line.

The adjective algorithmic has also emerged as an encapsulated criticism, applied to everything from restaurant menus, coffee shop décor, choices of typefaces and background music.  An entire ecosystem (Instagram et al) has been suggested as the reason for this multi-culture standardization in which a certain “look, sound or feel” becomes “commoditised by acclamation” as the “standard model” of whatever is being discussed.  That critique has by some been dismissed as something reflective of the exclusivity of the pattern of consumption by those who form theories about what seem not very important matters; it’s just they only go to the best coffee shops in the nicest parts of town.  In popular culture though the effect of the algorithmic is widespread, entrenched and well-understood and already the AI bots are using algorithms to write music will be popular, needing (for now) only human performers.  Some algorithms have become well-known such as the “Netflix algorithm” which presumably doesn’t exist as a conventional algorithm might but is understood as the sets of conventions, plotlines, casts and themes which producers know will have the greatest appeal to the platform.  The idea is nothing new; for decades hopeful authors who sent manuscripts to Mills & Boon would receive one of the more gentle rejection slips, telling them their work was very good but “not a Mills & Boon book”.  To help, the letter would include a brochure which was essentially a “how to write a Mills & Boon book” guide and it included a summary of the acceptable plot lines of which there were at one point reputedly some two dozen.  The “Netflix algorithm” was referenced when Falling for Christmas, the first fruits of Lindsay Lohan’s three film deal with the platform was released in 2022.  It was an example of followed a blending of several genres (redemption, Christmas movie, happy ending etc) and the upcoming second film (Irish Wish)  is of the “…always a bridesmaid, never a bride — unless, of course, your best friend gets engaged to the love of your life, you make a spontaneous wish for true love, and then magically wake up as the bride-to-be.” school; plenty of familiar elements there so it’ll be interesting to see if the algorithm was well-tuned.

Math of the elliptic curve: the Cox–Zucker machine can help.

Some algorithms have become famous and others can be said even to have attained a degree of infamy, notably those used by the search engines, social media platforms and such, the Google and TikTok algorithms much debated by those concerned by their consequences.  There is though an algorithm remembered as a footnote in the history of linguistic oddities and that is the Cox–Zucker machine, published in 1979 by Dr David Cox (b 1948) and Dr Steven Zucker (1949–2019).  The Cox–Zucker machine (which may be called the CZM in polite company) is used in arithmetic geometry and provides a solution to one of the many arcane questions which only those in the field understand but the title of the paper in which it first appeared (Intersection numbers of sections of elliptic surfaces) gives something of a hint.  Apparently it wasn’t formerly dubbed the Cox–Zucker machine until 1984 but, impressed by the phonetic possibilities, the pair had been planning joint publication of something as long ago as 1970 and undergraduate humor can’t be blamed because they met as graduate students at Princeton University.  The convention in academic publishing is for authors’ surnames to appear in alphabetical order and the temptation proved irresistible.

Cameo

Cameo (pronounced kam-ee-oh)

(1) A technique of engraving upon a gem or other stone, as onyx, in such a way that an underlying stone of one color is exposed as a background for a low-relief design of another color.

(2) A gem or other stone so engraved; a medallion, as on a brooch or ring, with a profile head carved in relief

(3) A literary sketch, small dramatic scene, or the like, that effectively presents or depicts its subject.

(4) As "cameo, "cameo role" or "cameo appearance", a minor part played by a prominent performer in a single scene of a production, originally un-credited yet deliberately obvious (a la Alfred Hitchcock (1899–1980)).  In modern use, the sense has extended to any brief appearance, credited or not.

(5) In commercial use, a color of creamy neutral ivory, the name an allusion to the hue most associated with the jewelry.

(6) The industry slang for "cameo lighting", a technique used on stage or set usually by restricting the output of a spotlight to a narrower beam and the reverse effect of "silhouette lighting" (a complementary chiaroscuro technique).  

1375–1425: From the Italian cam(m)eo from the Old French camaieu, of uncertain origin; replacing late Middle English camew & cameu both direct borrowings from the Old French.  The ultimate root is held usually to be the Medieval Latin cammaeus (later camaeus), of unknown origin but both the Arabic qamaa'il (flower buds) and the Persian chumahan (agate) have been suggested as the source.  Cameo is a noun & verb and cameoed & cameoing are verbs; the noun plural is cameos or cameoes.

In the early fifteenth century, kaadmaheu, camew, chamehieux and many other spellings, all from the early thirteenth century in Anglo-Latin circulated, all meaning "engraving in relief upon a precious stone with two layers of colors" (such as onyx, agate, or shell and done so as to utilize the effect of the colors).  These fell soon from use as the words derived from the Medieval Latin cammaeus and the Old French camaieu prevailed.  By the nineteenth century, use extended to other raised, carved work on a miniature scale.  The transferred sense of "small character or part that stands out from other minor parts" in a plays etc is from 1928, a derivation from the earlier meaning "short literary sketch or portrait", first noted in 1851, a transferred sense from cameo silhouettes.  A cameotype was a small, vignette daguerreotype mounted in a jeweled setting, the first examples of which were produced in 1864.

Cameo & Silhouette

A classic, simple silhouette (left), a nineteenth century hardstone cameo in 18 karat yellow gold in the mid-nineteenth century Etruscan Revival style (centre) and a  silhouette with the detailing which became popular in the late 1700s (right).

As artistic representations, there's obviously some overlap between a silhouette and a cameo but they are different forms.  A silhouette is inherently a two dimensional rendering of a shape (typically a portrait but they can be of any scene or object) which classically were simple and of a solid colour (usually black) on a contrasting (usually white or cream) background.  Originally, there was no detailing of features but that soon became common.  Silhouette portraits were highly popular in the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries and the form was especially popular with untrained (indeed unskilled) amateurs because of the cheapness and simplicity of the form, a finished work requiring little more than two sheets of paper (black & white), a pair of scissors and a pot of glue.  A cameo differs in that it is three-dimensional, an embossed or raised piece, usually in relief.  The most prized antique cameos are those engraved on semi-precious gemstones, agate, forms of onyx, shells and lava but in modern use synthetic materials are not uncommon and, being small and able to be rendered in a single piece, can be 3D printed although the quality of these doesn’t (yet) match something hand-carved.

Cameo.com

Launched in March 2017, cameo.com is a US-based distribution & content-sharing website, its niche being a platform on which celebrities and others can sell personalized video messages to fans or anyone else prepared to pay, the site claiming more than thirty-thousand sources are available.  The price per clip is said to extend from US$5 to US$3000 and operates as a dynamic supply and demand curve, the price said to rise or fall in response to elasticity in demand, all determined by an AI algorithm which is predictive (able to anticipate a rise in demand and adjust prices accordingly).

For US$400 (or US$20 for a DM), one can receive a personalized video message from Lindsay Lohan.  The service limits the text to two-hundred and fifty (250) characters so economy of language is encouraged.  The client is able to request the theme and possible topics might include relationship counselling, fashion advice, career management & international relations.  In most cases, it seems not necessary to approach this with undue urgency, many of the celebrities available on Cameo.com "for a limited time!" have been listed for some years.

Lindsay Lohan at the Mean Girls (2024) premiere, New York, January 2024.

Lindsay Lohan’s cameo in the 2024 (musical) re-make of Mean Girls (2004) attracted comment for a number of reasons but what most impressed many was the fee, reported by entertainment industry magazine Variety as US$500,000.  While that sum is unverified, what has been confirmed is that her cameo (in the math competition scene) required four hours on set; given the simplicity of the math, Variety didn’t bother printing its calculation of the hourly rate but given the 2004 production was shot over three months for which Ms Lohan was paid a reputed US$1 million, it’s clear inflation alone doesn’t account for the differential.  Still, any commodity is worth only what a buyer is prepared to pay and it’s a specialized supply & demand curve because there’s only one Lindsay Lohan.

Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

(1) A kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.

(2) In law, release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor, monarch or viceroy.

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, a technical term for a papal indulgence (obsolete).

(5) To make a courteous allowance for or to excuse.

(6) When used with rising inflection, as an elliptical form, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood (non-U).

1250-1300: From the Middle English pardonen or pardoun (papal indulgence, forgiveness of sins or wrongdoing), from Old French pardon from pardoner (to grant; to forgive; remission, indulgence (which entered Modern French in the eleventh century as pardonner), from the Medieval Latin perdonum, from the Vulgar Latin perdōnāre (to remit, overlook (literally “to forgive”)), the construct being per- (for; through, thoroughly) + dōnāre (to give, donate) which emerged in Medieval Latin, though a translation from a Germanic source possibly a calque (if not vice-versa) of a Germanic word represented by the Frankish firgeban (to forgive, give up completely) which was akin to the Old High German fargeban & firgeban (to forgive) and the Old English forġiefan (to forgive).  The Latin per was from the primitive Indo-European root per- (forward (hence “through”)) and donare was from donum (gift), from the primitive Indo-European root donum (gift), from the root do- (to give).  The verb pardon was from pardounen, (to forgive for offense or sin).  The noun pardoner (a man licensed to sell papal pardons or indulgences) was a late fourteenth century form (it was noted earlier in the 1300s as a surname), the agent noun from the verb.  The adjective pardonable (forgivable, capable of being pardoned) was a mid-fifteenth century form from the twelfth century Old French pardonable, from pardoner.  Some sources insist pardonable was a back-formation from pardonable which is interesting.  The meaning “a passing over of an offense without punishment” was first noted around the turn of the fourteenth century (also in the strictly ecclesiastical sense) while as a “pardon for a civil or criminal offense; release from penalty or obligation”, use emerged in the late 1300s (mirroring the earlier Anglo-French).  The use in polite society to “request one be excused for some minor fault” was in use by at least the 1540s.

Pardon is one of those “cross-over words”, migrating from the technical use (an act by an official or a superior, remitting all or the remainder of the punishment that belongs to an offense (eg a sovereign or governor pardoning a convict before expiration of the sentence)) to become a synonym for “forgive” in the sense of feelings or social mores.  By convention, asking for another’s pardon re-establishes amicable relations between transgressor and the offended.  In idiomatic use, dating from the mid seventeenth century, the phrase “I beg your pardon” (the variations including “beg pardon”, “begging your pardon”, “pardon me” etc) is used (1) to apologise for something (typically a social faux pas), (2) to request clarification of something said if it is unexpected, odd or seen as rude without context and (3) to request something be repeated.  In the last case, Nancy Mitford (1904–1973) in Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry Into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) insisted “pardon” was a non-U (lower & middle class) word and the “U” (upper class) form was “what?”.  The phrase “pardon my French” was an exclamation of apology for obscene language, noted since the late nineteenth century.  Pardon is a noun, verb & interjection, pardoning is a verb & noun, pardoned is a verb & adjective, pardonableness & pardoner are nouns, pardonable & pardonless are adjectives and pardonably is an adverb; the noun plural is pardons.

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the office of the President.  One of the powers granted is that he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers.  A president cannot issue a pardon for future actions; he can't pardon someone in advance for something someone does next week.  The pardon power is reserved for past actions and the president can pardon an individual even if he or she has not yet been convicted or even charged.

An executive pardon can be invoked to help victims of injustice.

It's an interesting power and the only one in the US constitution not subject to "checks and balances", an inheritance of one of the entitlements enjoyed by absolute and later monarchs.  The power, in the form exercised by a US president, doesn't exist in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth where, when a pardon is granted, it’s a decision of the executive (the prime-minister (or premier) & cabinet) which is done in the name of the sovereign or their representative; in other words, by the state.  It’s different from vesting the power as a personal prerogative of an individual; US presidents have granted pardons which would have no chance of success were they subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The most interesting recent speculation about the presidential pardon is whether as president can pardon themselves.  This was something Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) probably pondered with especial interest during the diggings of special counsel Robert Mueller's (b 1944; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2001-2013) into certain matters relating to the 2016 presidential election.  Mr Trump did tweet suggesting he could pardon himself even though there's no precedent, no president has ever done so (though at least one was surely tempted) and all that is certain is that the chief magistrate has the power to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  That means he couldn't have pardoned himself from impeachment, nor anyone facing charges under state laws, and when asked, most constitutional law experts suggested he couldn't have pardoned himself for anything else either.  However, even if a presidential self-pardon were to be held to be constitutional, politically, it would be a challenge to manage so an extra-constitutional check on the power is political; the court of public opinion as it were.

When there was mush speculation about a possible prosecution of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) for matters associated with the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department did issue an opinion saying a president could not pardon himself because, under long-established legal principle, no person can be the judge in their own case.  So, the legal status of a self-pardon has never been tested because, at the federal level, it’s never been done and nothing is definitive until ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.  There are records of state governors self-pardoning but one instance appears to have been technical, one a clerical error and one so murky it not clear what happened.  The state of US politics is now both so poisonous and so fluid that a second term for Mr Trump is no longer unthinkable if the Democrat Party insists on nominating Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) it become more likely still.  Mr Biden may or may not be senile but he certainly seems senile.  In his first term, Mr Trump proved remarkably uninterested in pursuing any of the vendettas he'd mentioned during the 2016 campaign; when asked if he would be pursuing the threatened legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the question with a quick "...they're good people" and moved on.  In a second term, given the events of the last few years, he may not be so indulgent towards those who have slighted or pursued him so there's the intriguing prospect of an elected president attempting to pardon himself so he can move into the Oval Office and begin his revenge.  Interestingly, constitutional experts have all said that even if a self-pardon is declared unconstitutional, there is nothing to prevent a convicted felon being elected president from his jail cell, a place which would certainly focus one's mind on revenge.           

Pardons from God (via the pope)

In late medieval Christianity, the noun pardonmonger was a derogatory term directed at those who sold papal indulgences; the noun plural pardonmongers should also be noted because there were a lot of them about.  The indulgences had become big business in the medieval church and their abuse was one of the emblematic issues which triggered the Protestant Reformation.  The system worked by permitting a (sinful) individual to purchase from the church an indulgence which would reduce the length and severity of punishment that heaven would require as payment for their transgressions.  Indulgences were in a sense transferable because one could buy one for another and according to legend, those on their death bed would implore relations to buy them one so they would avoid an eternal damnation in Hell.

Historically, the indulgence system was able to evolve because the doctrine of the medieval western Christian church (the Eastern Orthodox would follow a different path) was: (1) Folk knew that after they died they were going to be punished for the sins they accumulated in life, something ameliorated only partially by good works (pilgrimage, prayers, charitable work etc) and earthly absolution; the more sin, the greater the punishment and (2) There was the concept of purgatory, a product of the theological imagination which meant that rather than being damned to hell, the sinful soul would be sent to purgatory where they would endure whatever punishment deemed appropriate, the suffering continuing until the stain was washed from them and they could be set free.  This was obviously not an attractive prospect and seeing a way to cement in society the world-view that church, God & sin were central, popes granted bishops the authority to reduce punishments while they were still alive.  It proved a highly useful tool in making unshakable the worldview in which the church, God and sin were central.

Quite when papal indulgences were first introduced isn’t known but the system was formalized by Pope Urban II (circa 1035–1099; pope 1088-1099) during the Council of Clermont in 1095.  The protocols reflected the diligent order which characterized church bureaucracy: Were one to perform sufficient good deeds to earn a full (Plenary) indulgence from the pope or a bishop, all sins would be expunged (and thus no punishment).  Partial indulgences would erase fewer evil deeds and an intricate system of layers came to be used; essentially an algorithm with which a cleric could calculate (to the day!) how much sin a person had wiped from their record.  Indulgences rapidly developed into a significant structural aspect of church administration and during the Crusades (Urban II’s other great contribution to history), many participated on the basis that in exchange for fighting to regain the Holy Land, they would be granted an indulgence, cancelling all sin.

This system of reducing sin and punishment worked well and having people perform good deeds (whatever the motivation) presumably made for a more harmonious society.  However, in something with a modern echo, rich people began to wonder why, instead of the time consuming, boring or sometimes distasteful business of actually doing good deeds, might it not be easier just to purchase an indulgence, the church thereby able to use the funds for good deeds.  The early example of outsourcing began in the thirteenth century and proved so popular (and profitable) for both governments and the church that it became an important revenue source, the catchment soon extended to allow the rich to buy indulgences for their ancestors, relatives, and friends already dead. 

The nature of this business soon became scandalous, notably during the reign of the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) and indulgences were among the issues the monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) listed in his 95 Theses (1517), a j’accuse directed at what he believed to be an institutionalized corruption and in saying that, Luther had a point, the pope having commissioned a Dominican friar to sell indulgences for the sole purpose of the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.  Luther’s attack led to fragmentation within the church, many new sects abandoning the idea of indulgences and while the papacy banned the sale of indulgences in 1567, they didn’t entirely vanish and this wasn’t enough to prevent the subsequent schism within Western Christianity.  So, in the modern Roman Catholic Church, indulgences still exist but they no longer work in the medieval way when they could be something like a presidential pardon.  According to the Vatican: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”.  The salient points of the system are:

(1) A person cannot buy their way out of hell with indulgences.  Because indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that and the only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive; after death, one’s eternal fate is set.

(2) One cannot buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.  Historically, the church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed although it’s clear some were sold on that basis prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The position now is that: “An indulgence is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”  Theologically that may sound dubious because presumably God could grant exactly that but, as any pope will tell you, God never would.

(3) An indulgence does not “buy forgiveness” because, by definition, the issue of an indulgence presupposes forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”  Indulgences therefore do not forgive sins and deal only with the punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

(4) It is not true an indulgence will shorten one’s time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.  While it’s true that prior to the Reformation such calculations did appear in documents, the church maintains these were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth and the Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less any specific.

(5) Indulgences may not be purchased.  The Council of Trent (1545-1563) instituted many reforms in the practice of granting indulgences and, because of prior abuses, “...in 1567 Pope Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”  To this day the Roman Catholic Church maintains indulgences were “never sold”, an interpretation of history still used by politicians and political parties when explain why donations (sometimes in the millions) are really “not buying anything”.

Granular

Granular (pronounced gran-yuh-ler)

(1) Of the nature of granules; grainy.

(2) Composed of or bearing granules or grains.

(3) Showing a granulated structure.

(4) In computing, an object existing as a singular form at the level of the file system but which exists at the application level in multiple parts.

(5) Relating to or containing particles having a strong affinity for nuclear stains, as in certain bacteria.

1762 (although use not widespread until 1794): From the Late Latin granulum (granule, a little grain), diminutive of the Latin granum (grain, seed) from the primitive Indo-European gre-no- (grain) + -ar (from the From Latin -āris (of, near, pertaining to), the suffix appended to various words, often nouns, to make the adjectival form; added most often, but not exclusively, to words of Latin origin).  The word seems rather suddenly to have replaced the late fourteenth century granulous.  Granular, granularity, granule & granulation are nouns, granulate is a verb & adjective and granulatory is an adjective.

Terminology describing degrees of granularity

As granular has become a more widely used word, fastidious types have noted the increasing frequency of things being described as "more granular" or "less granular" and this elicits disapproval because it’s imprecise.  Something granular is composed of (usually small), discrete entities as opposed to being continuous and that’s a binary distinction, not a matter of degree so it’s inherently unclear if "more granular" and "less granular" indicate finer or coarser granularity.  For clarity, one should speak only of finer or coarser granularity.

Lindsay Lohan represented in granular art, an artificial intelligence (AI) generated artwork created by Wout from AI Fountain as part of the Curated Community Art initiative (CCAI) and finished in Adobe Photoshop.  Each digital artwork created by this algorithm is unique and made from a set of parameters; process and output are thus both inherently granular.

In computing, the concept of granularity exists in many forks and layers.  Users deal frequently with granular data, most typically when handling what appears to exist in many parts but which is, to the system, at least one layer, a single object.  For system administrators, it’s an especially handy attribute when it’s necessary to recover one small piece of data which has been copied or backed-up as something really huge and there are big machine operators which now routinely handle data sets of a size which only a few years ago were unimaginably large.  For them, the ability to look at the whole and be able to extract pieces, drilling down if need be to individual bytes, makes easily possible what would otherwise require much time and hardware; hence the metaphor of granularity, a mechanism to find a particular grain in a silo of many trillions.

That’s useful but really is just brute-force, the massive up-scaling up of something which has existed since the earliest forms of digital storage.  More intriguing is the recent emergence of Granular computing (GrC), a fork in information processing, the focus of which is information granules, entities created from the processes of data abstraction and derivations from data.  The source and structure of this data is not the imperative; what matters are the relationships (of which there may be many) which can, for example, simultaneously be both the extent of difference and a dependence on indistinguishability.  GrC, as it now exists, is more of a conceptual direction than a coherent process or even a theoretical perspective.  Its most promising implication is perhaps the granules which might form as relationships between previously disparate data sets are explored.  This may allow previously unrealized correlates to be identified, perhaps enabling humanity to mine the accumulate data sets for what Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US Secretary of Defense 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) called the unknown knowns.  Rumsfeld may have been evil but his mind could sparkle and many unknown knowns may await.