The Deletist

When I lived in NYC, punctuality was essential. Everything, and everybody, there was competitive. Somebody else might win your spot if you weren’t on time. Or you might be perceived as unreliable and not get a call back. Time is valuable to me. I assume it’s also valuable to others. Therefore I do my best to be on time.

With the introduction of the smart phone, I’ve noticed punctuality standards slipping. This applies to both my own standards and those of others. Before the smart phone, being late meant waiting, wondering, and worrying for the other person. Getting in touch could be challenging. Finding a pay phone (and the right change!) to call someone for an update or check messages remotely was difficult. Options were few.

Now that almost everyone has a smart phone, we have a way to get in touch. A quick message to explain you’re running late, but will be there. Map apps can give accurate ETAs. Maybe some of us feel assured that if we leave someone waiting they can entertain themselves with their phone, thereby absolving some of our own bad feelings about being late and making someone wait.

However, none of this is a substitute for learning the skill of being punctual. Though some people might not realize there’s a lot of planning involved to make it somewhere on time, or even a bit early. It teaches valuable skill building in time management while encouraging a healthy respect for one’s schedule, but also others.

In most social situations, I find I’ve adapted by planning buffers. Or making plans where it doesn’t matter if people are right on time or rolling in later. Although when there is a timed event, such as tickets to something, it can feel daunting to have everyone arrive on time. It also seems that another adaptation is for people to relax their standards about being on time. After all, the smart phone is there to message and save the day.

Is being on time an old-fashioned skill, soon to lose against instant, dynamic, right-now culture? Or is there still time for us to slow down, respect time commitments, and rely on ourselves to get there on time instead of messaging “running late”?

We use technology to improve our lives. Sometimes we experience situations where technology is more reliable and faster than humans. Yet, at a time when we rely on technology to make things easier, some US ballots are still being hand counted. To be honest, I don’t even know if that makes them more, or less, reliable than electronic ballots.

In some scenarios, using low-tech options can be safer and more reliable than technology. For example, passing paper notes. A single source of information passes from one person to another with no option to hack, steal, or spy on anything. It’s easy to destroy the note after reading it. Unless somebody photographed the note, it’s likely the only copy in existence. In the digital world the simple act of sending a message can create many copies. At a minimum, one is with the sender and one with the recipient.

When it comes to ballots, however, I don’t feel confident that the low-tech option is more reliable and tamper resistant than electronic ballots. In some ways, I feel that paper ballots, or ones cast in-person, are almost riskier. In the days following the election, I’ve heard numerous stories about funny things happening. Bomb threats at voting centers in Georgia. Fires started in ballot boxes in the Pacific Northwest. Bags of ballots disappearing. Miscounting, and inconsistent totals. Added to that is the time it takes for some areas to physically count and tally the votes. This is critically important when the race is close. Yet, I don’t trust the process anymore. Or the results.

One of the only times I voted in person, as most of my ballots are absentee, it was on an old-fashioned machine with levers. It was the same machine I remember watching my dad vote on when I was a kid going with him to the polls. Once inside the voting booth, pulling a giant lever closed the curtain and prepared the machine. Before me was a board with levers to select my candidates. Once selected, a switch of the giant lever recorded the votes and opened the curtain. Easy. And I felt confident about it. The machine was sturdy, robust, and hard to tamper with, though I’m sure it was possible.

Now, with so many voting options available, the process feels questionable. How could so many votes be lost and yet so many gained by the Republicans?