Chasing Cirrus
banner
drymeadow.bsky.social
Chasing Cirrus
@drymeadow.bsky.social
CA water/wastewater policy professional. Housing/finance/rural affairs. The ocean and sky call me (i.e. salt-water and weather nerd). Aspiring sci-fi writer. Sober. Personal Principles: Life, liberty, equity, dignity, good-faith, win-win, transparent.
Maybe I'm still a little loopy from sleeping in on a Saturday morning, but if you read it like it's a piece of AO3 fanfic it really takes the sting out of it.
November 22, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Captain, its only 6pm on Friday.

slumped-facepalm.mp4
November 22, 2025 at 2:03 AM
Ultimately, any time I see a "straightforward explanation," I just assume that there is a rabbit hole beneath into which I can jump if I want. And I always want to. But what I try to cap my sci comms explanations with is that simplified, straightforward explanations are not always the best.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
For $explanation of $thing, if I can define, describe, and demonstrate that thing, and draw lines between definition, description, and demonstration that allow the audience to connect their experiences, fixations, etc., then it is more likely that I am doing my job as a science communicator.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
A community college professor who I love and cherish posed a model for me that I use constantly: define, describe, demonstrate.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
The crowd also has experiences, agendas, grudges, tempers, hyperfixations, distractions, and myriad other things that impact how your original explanation is received. I try not to worry too hard about uncontrollable variables and think the best of people despite the internet, but I digress.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
The problem is trust: Once you have an audience's attention and curiosity they start asking questions. Questions spawn explanations & dig up nuance, exceptions, edge cases, etc. When detail starts to overwhelm the original explanation, you lose the crowd.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Ironically, it is this separation from reality that makes it more understandable to non-expert audiences. Losing detail and nuance may unmoor an explanation from the discipline from which it comes, but it also makes it free for other disciplines or people from other walks of life to grapple with.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
The problem is that there is an inherent tension in the task of simplifying complex reality to make it salient and relevant to non-expert audiences. As you simplify an explanation, the explanation becomes less nuanced and more separated from reality.
November 21, 2025 at 6:42 PM
I have a professor teaching grad-level environmental policy at UC Davis in 2025 pushing for us to learn how to use AI so we're not "left behind."

There is turbulence in the cadre because we are NOT having this shit.
November 21, 2025 at 5:03 PM
"unvoiced anal fricative" seems like a good choice too.
November 21, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Lobstrocity thy name is Faine
November 21, 2025 at 4:04 AM