Hmmm….as an American expat living in Norway, I can vouch for the fact that Americans are way fatter than Norwegians…both statistically and anecdotally. When I get off the plane in the US after having been in Norway for a while, I’m always flabbergasted, so to speak, about how fat Americans are. You just don’t see fat people in Norway. I’m 5′10″, size 24-26, and it’s incredibly rare that I see anyone my size. There are many people who have a bit of extra padding on them, people who would register as “overweight” statistically, but that few would consider actually fat.

My personal experience is corroborated by the statistics. Norway has excellent online access to national statistics, and I was able to look up the most recent statistics about weight very easily (SSB’s statistics about lifestyle habits). Also check out Salon’s article about “Healthcare, American style”. Norway has 10% “obese” people, whereas the US has over a third percentage-wise (44% of Norwegians have a BMI above 25, about two-thirds percentage-wise for Americans). The US has about equal numbers of “obese” and “overweight” people, whereas Norway has over three times as many “overweight” people as “obese” people. “Obese” people, IMO, are the people who are visibly fat, whereas “overweight” people look mostly normal, to my eyes. This is what accounts for people’s (correct) perception that Americans are fatter (than Norwegians, at least!).

It seems to me that you’re beating a straw man in most of the first paragraph of your post. I’ve never heard anyone claim that there are no fat Europeans, or that all Europeans are extreme health nuts (smoking and boozing it up are a lot worse here, I’m pretty sure). Making this straw man argument, particularly when statistics and people’s perceptions tell them otherwise, is dangerous because it makes us look less credible, and thus more likely to be dismissed when we want to debunk statistics about how fat affects health.

I react strongly to arguments that Americans aren’t fatter (or aren’t less fit) than people in European countries because it so totally is at odds with my experience of living in Norway (and statistics). I do feel like a freak here, and it’s not surprising given how few people living here are as fat as I am. And I’m guessing there are fewer fat people living in the city, where I live, than in the boonies. And don’t even get me started on the fitness and health of Americans vs. Norwegians…

I got the job. I think I was their 26th employee. I was 22, and I felt like my career was really getting off to a good start—this was just the kind of work I wanted to do, and Opera was really the place to be for someone interested in standards. It still is! It was a really fun, informal environment and I enjoyed working there.

Just a few months thereafter, however, my grandmother died, and I fell into a seriously disabling depression. I was on sick leave for a year, and tried to come back to work after that on “active sick leave”, but didn’t manage to make it work out, so I had to quit. That’s still upsetting to me to this day, almost 10 years later, as I see the direction they’re gone in and how it still mirrors my interests in usability and standards. It was such a missed opportunity. I’m trying to get back into the workforce now, but I don’t think I’ll ever have the chance to make a difference as I might have had working for Opera.

After Firefox, and after Chrome, people have been quick to predict Opera’s demise, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Opera’s rock-solid grounding in and commitment to usability and standards—both on desktop environments and other platforms—ensure it a place in the game for a long time to come. Their research in these areas and promotion of these values is still sorely needed. Here’s to another 15 years—I look forward to seeing what they do next.

I contacted Amazon via their web form:

I am extremely disappointed to read that you have labeled all literature with homosexual themes as “adult”, thereby making it unsearchable. I have been a customer of your company for 10 years and have spent many thousands of dollars at your store. If this is truly a corporate decision and not a glitch, and if it is not rectified, I will no longer be doing business with your company.

And today received the following response:

This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection.

It has been misreported that the issue was limited to Gay & Lesbian themed titles - in fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica. This problem impacted books not just in the United States but globally. It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing the books from Amazon’s main product search.

Many books have now been fixed and we’re in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.

Thanks for contacting us. We hope to see you again soon.

I hope they’re telling the truth. Thus far the search results look the same as they did last night.

I don’t consider myself a programmer, but given who my husband is, I’ve been steeped in agile philosophies for nearly a decade, and most definitely consider myself a proponent of such ideas. I can see how they can be applied to almost any aspect of life, but I was really looking forward to giving them a whirl when I took a contract earlier this year that I’d decided to solve using JavaScript. The script ended up being a lot more work than I’d expected, and while it worked perfectly, the amount of DOM interaction it required made it entirely too sluggish to be practically useful. In the end I had some ideas about how to speed it up, but since I’d been working on a fixed price (something Johannes had thoroughly castigated me for) I figured it was best just to deliver it how it was.

Why did the script end up being so much work? I’d been hired to do a specific job–to adapt tables in a web application to fit the size of the viewport, with the table header remaining fixed while the table contents scrolled if the table was too large to fit within the viewport. In order to do that, I’d set the scipt up to gather information about the original table, process it, then write the new, adapted table into the document.

The stupid decision on my part was the first part of that equation: gathering information about the original table from the document. Stupid because, in an earlier contract, I’d been the one who styled the original table in the first place! Without even having thought about it, I’d defined the problem too generally. My job had not been to create a solution to turn a standard table into a fluid one. My job had been to turn those specific tables into fluid tables. If I’d been clear-sighted enough to solve that problem in the first place, the script would have taken a lot less time and have (hopefully) been fast enough to be usable.

The problems we’re given are specified by the existential quantifier (∃), not the universal quantifier (∀). Theoretical and practical aspects of falsifiability are addressed in computer science classes and tied to real-world examples, right? From talking to Johannes I’ve learned that defining the problem too generally is frequently a problem for developers, however. I think people somehow feel it’s cheating to solve a problem only for specific circumstances. In reality, it’s the only thing that’s possible. We can save a lot of time, energy, frustration, and cash if we keep that in mind.

1. Those against allowing police to wear the hijab claim that the hijab is a tool for repression. If Norwegian society forbids the hijab in the police force, then it’s Norwegian society, rather than Muslim men, that is repressing Muslim women.
2. Those against allowing police to wear the hijab claim that this could lead to violence. This is analogous to the argument that women who wear provocative clothing are responsible for any sexual harassment or violence they experience. Based on this argumentation, the caricatures of Mohammed that caused such an uproar in 2006 should never have been printed for fear of how Muslims would react.
3. Society looks to examples from other countries only when those examples support its views, in this case ignoring the examples set by Swedish, British, Australian, and American society. Women have likewise had the right to wear the hijab in the military in Norway for two decades with no negative results.
4. Norwegian society ostensibly wants its police force to mirror its population, yet excludes a large demographic by forbidding the use of the hijab by its police force. This is especially ridiculous given that the police have long had problems with recruiting immigrants, and female immigrants in particular.

Another paradoxical argument I’d personally like to illuminate is that the hijab will prevent women from performing the duties required of a police officer, for example potentially making it difficult for them to enter mosques. While it’s possible that this is the case, I’d say that the potential negatives are far outweighed by the potential positives, not the least of which is that Muslim women would feel much more comfortable asking a hijab-clad police officer for help than they would any other officer. Given that this is a group particularly at risk for violence, that’s a benefit society should be loath to dismiss.

They both look friendly to me, but if you were a muslima who had need of a police officer, who would you feel most comfortable dealing with?

Saaliti concludes his editorial by stating that the signal Norwegian society sends to immigrants is that if we want to participate in Norwegian society, we have to look like Norwegians, think like Norwegians, and act like Norwegians–Norwegian society’s claim that it is pro-integration is in reality only lip service. Even though I primarily get a pass on these issues given that I don’t look so different from ethnic Norwegians and come from another Western country, I frequently experience the feeling that Norwegian society’s self-proclaimed goal of integration is merely dissemblance. I can’t imagine how infuriating it must be for hijabis, the very women who are informed by seemingly well-intentioned Norwegians that they are subjugated by Muslim men and Muslim society, to experience an analogous form of subjugation at the hands of their would-be liberators. I’m far from a moral relativist, but this kind of self-righteous paternalism perpetrated by Norwegian society towards groups they perceive to be less morally enlightened than themselves has got to stop.

I submitted some pics of Ada to the lol Builder on the Cheezburger network. Some of the results were really clever—this one actually got chosen to appear on their site. I’ll post more of the results here over time.

Fucking idiots! This really makes me mad. Norway is hardly the most equal land in the world if it refuses to allow women to wear a headscarf on the job. And this is so typical for what passes for equal rights in Norway–everyone must be the same in order to be allowed to have those equal rights. That attitude is, in fact, incredibly discriminatory. It’s discriminatory towards everyone who doesn’t easily fit into Norwegian society’s idea of what a person “should” be like–the very people who most need to have their right to equality protected by the law!

And I am so sick of people in one group (e.g. self-righteous ethnic Norwegians) telling the people of another group (e.g. Muslim women) what their actions and symbols mean (e.g. that the hijab is a symbol of subjugation). I am so sick of the unquestioned Norwegian attitude that their way is best, that assimilation is the only option for people who are different. If hijabis can do the damned job, then they should be allowed to do it!

This reminds me a lot of another issue that got my hackles up recently: some people want to git rid of homework because it supposedly reinforces differences among students (the comments there are particularly interesting). Some in Norwegian society are so afraid of the idea that people are different, and especially that some people can be better at something than others, that they want to prevent smart kids from excelling. (Of course, this attitude doesn’t apply to sports.) When will people learn that ideology removed from reality never leads to good things?

People are different, period. To deny that fact implies that you believe that people who are different are somehow less valuable as human beings. In reality, the fact that people are different is a wonderful, wonderful thing! We do everyone in a society a service if we celebrate those differences rather than suppress them.

I particularly like this picture of the building we live in:

You can even see the tram going by. This kind of photo gives a lot better sense of a place than your typical top-down satellite photo.