Category Archives: Language

Loading
loading...

1984

Nineteen eighty-four

George Orwell

PART ONE

Chapter 1

 

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the

vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions,

though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering

along with him.

The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a

coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall.

It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a

man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome

features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even

at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric

current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive

in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston,

who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went

slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the

lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was

one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about

when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.

Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had

something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an

oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface

of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank

somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument

(the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of

shutting it off completely. He moved over to the window: a smallish, frail

figure, the meagreness of his body merely emphasized by the blue overalls

which were the uniform of the party. His hair was very fair, his face

naturally sanguine, his skin roughened by coarse soap and blunt razor

blades and the cold of the winter that had just ended.

Outside, even through the shut window-pane, the world looked cold. Down in

the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper into

spirals, and though the sun was shining and the sky a harsh blue, there

seemed to be no colour in anything, except the posters that were plastered

everywhere. The black-moustachio’d face gazed down from every commanding

corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER

IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into

Winston’s own. Down at street level another poster, torn at one corner,

flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the

single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between

the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again

with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people’s

windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police

mattered.

Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away

about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The

telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston

made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it,

moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal

plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course

no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How

often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual

wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all

the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.

You had to live–did live, from habit that became instinct–in the

assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in

darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he

well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometre away the Ministry of

Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape.

This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste–this was London, chief

city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of

Oceania. He tried to squeeze out some childhood memory that should tell him

whether London had always been quite like this. Were there always these

vistas of rotting nineteenth-century houses, their sides shored up with

baulks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs

with corrugated iron, their crazy garden walls sagging in all directions?

And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air and the

willow-herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the places where the

bombs had cleared a larger patch and there had sprung up sordid colonies

of wooden dwellings like chicken-houses? But it was no use, he could not

remember: nothing remained of his childhood except a series of bright-lit

tableaux occurring against no background and mostly unintelligible.

The Ministry of Truth–Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official

language of Oceania. For an account of its structure and etymology see

Appendix.]–was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It

was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring

up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston

stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in

elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

  WAR IS PEACE

  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Lingua Franca

 

US academia has increasingly mirrored the dystopian control mechanisms in George Orwell’s 1984, particularly through the lens of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its extensions into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks.

In Orwell’s novel, the Party enforces ideological conformity via Newspeak (a restricted language that limits thought), doublethink (holding contradictory beliefs), thoughtcrime (punishing unapproved ideas), and the rewriting of history to serve power.

CRT posits that racism is embedded in the structure of Western institutions. It rejects colorblindness and meritocracy as tools of “white supremacy,” framing individuals primarily by racial identity — oppressors versus the oppressed. In universities, this has evolved into mandatory trainings, curricula, and loyalty tests that prioritize “equity” (equal outcomes by group) over equality of opportunity.

Key Orwellian parallels include:

  • Language control resembling Newspeak: terms like “systemic racism,” “white fragility,” “microaggressions,” and “anti-racism” redefine reality so that disagreement signals complicity in oppression.
  • Doublethink: universities champion “diversity” while enforcing ideological uniformity, claiming to fight oppression while stigmatizing dissent as violence.
  • Thoughtcrime via cancel culture: surveys show high rates of self-censorship, with dissenting scholars facing social ostracism, investigations, or professional consequences.

History is reframed — America’s founding reduced to perpetual racial hierarchy — echoing the Ministry of Truth. Standpoint epistemology elevates “lived experience” of favored groups over empirical evidence and universal reason.

This agenda undermines academia’s core purpose: the pursuit of truth through open debate and evidence. Instead of rigorous inquiry, power — framed as “punching up” — dictates acceptable thought, eroding liberal education’s commitment to individualism and free expression.

“American” as the Global Standard Language

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.

National Electrical Definitions

NFPA Glossary of Terms

International Building Code Chapter 2: Definitions

International Electrotechnical Commission: Electropedia

Because electrotechnology changes continually, definitions (vocabulary) in its best practice literature changes continually; not unlike any language on earth that adapts to the moment and place.

The changes reflect changes in technology or changes in how the technology works in practice; even how the manufacturers create adaptations to field conditions by combining functions.   Any smart electrical component has a digital language embedded in it, for example.

Consider the 2023 National Electrical Code.  Apart from many others the NEC will contain a major change to Article 100 (Definitions); the subject of elevated debate over the past three years.

When we refer “language” we must distinguish between formal language, informal language, colloquial language and dialect which may differ the language spoken, language written at the office and language used on the job site.  “Terms of art”

2026 National Electrical Code | CMP-1 Second Draft Report 

FREE ACCESS: 2020 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70)

2023 NEC Public Input Report CMP-1 (868 pages)

2023 NEC Second Draft Public Comment Report (914 pages)

Are these terms (or, “terms of art”) best understood in context (upstream articles in Chapters 4 through 8) — or should they be adjudicated by the 14 Principals of Code Making Panel 1?   The answer will arrive in the fullness of time.   Many changes to the National Electrical Code require more than one cycle to stabilize.

Code Making Panel 1 has always been the heaviest of all NEC panels.  As explained n our ABOUT, the University of Michigan held a vote in CMP-1 for 20+ years (11 revision cycles) before moving to the healthcare facilities committee for the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee.  Standards Michigan continues its involvement on behalf of the US education facility industry — the second largest building construction market.  There is no other pure user-interest voice on any technical committee; although in some cases consulting companies are retained for special purposes.

To serve the purpose of making NFPA 70 more “useable” we respect the Standards Council decision to make this change if it contributes to the viability of the NFPA business model.  We get to say this because no other trade association comes close to having as enduring and as strong a voice:  NFPA stands above all other US-based SDO’s in fairness and consideration of its constituency.  The electrical safety community in the United States is a mighty tough crowd.

If the change does not work, or work well enough, nothing should prohibit reversing the trend toward “re-centralizing” — or “de-centralizing” the definitions.

Public comment on the First Draft of the 2026 Edition will be received until August 28, 2024. 

Technical Committees meet during the last half of October to respond to public comment on the First Draft of the 2026 National Electrical Code. 

Electrical Contractor: Round 1 of the 2023 NEC: A summary of proposed changes (Mark Earley, July 15, 2021)

Electrical Contractor: 2023 Code Article and Definition Revisions: Accepting (NEC) change, part 2 (Mark Earley, March 15, 2022)

International Building Code Definitions: Chapter 2

“The Tower of Babel” 1563 | Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Widely accepted definitions (sometimes “terms of art”) are critical in building codes because they ensure clarity, consistency, and precision in communication among architects, engineers, contractors, and regulators.  Ambiguity or misinterpretation of terms like “load-bearing capacity,” “fire resistance,”  “egress” or “grounding and bonding”  could lead to design flaws, construction errors, or inadequate safety measures, risking lives and property.
“Standardized” definitions — by nature unstable — create a shared language that transcends local practices or jargon, enabling uniform application and enforcement across jurisdictions.  Today at the usual hour we explore the nature and the status of the operational language that supports our raison d’être of making educational settlements safer, simpler, lower-cost and longer-lasting.  

 

2021 IBC Chapter 2: Definitions

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Group B Documents

Complete Monograph (2650 pages) | Note our proposal on Page 754

Standards Curricula Program

NIST Standards Coordination Office Curricula Development Cooperative Agreement Program.

How to Apply | Awardees 2012-2025 | News Items

NIST Headquarters (Click on image)

 

NIST continues its Standards Curriculum program through the Standards Coordination Office Curricula Development Cooperative Agreement Program (SCO CD CAP), formerly known as the Standards Services Curricula Development Cooperative Agreement Program.  This ongoing initiative, started in 2012 (initially as Education Challenge Grants), funds U.S. colleges and universities to develop and integrate undergraduate and/or graduate-level curricula on documentary standards, standards development, and standardization into courses, modules, seminars, and learning resources.  The University of Michigan is a past recipient of a standards education award through this program.

The most recent funding round was for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25):

  • The Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was released on January 14, 2025.
  • Applications were due by April 14, 2025.
  • NIST anticipated awarding up to 8 grants, each up to $100,000, with project periods of up to 3 years (potentially extending into 2027–2028).

Projects funded under FY25 involve curriculum development and implementation that may continue into 2026 and beyond, including required workshops.

As of early 2026, no new Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity (NOFO) has been announced for FY2026. The program has historically issued funding rounds annually or near-annually, with recent awards in prior years (e.g., 2024 awards totaling over $1.1 million to 8 universities). However, due to proposed budget reductions for NIST in FY2026, future rounds may be impacted or delayed.


2024 Update: NIST Awards Funding to 8 Universities to Advance Standards Education


The Standards Coordination Office of the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts standards-related programs, and provides knowledge and services that strengthen the U.S. economy and improve the quality of life.  Its goal is to equip U.S. industry with the standards-related tools and information necessary to effectively compete in the global marketplace. 

Every year it awards grants to colleges and universities through its Standards Services Curricula Cooperative Agreement Program  to provide financial assistance to support curriculum development for the undergraduate and/or graduate level. These cooperative agreements support the integration of standards and standardization information and content into seminars, courses, and learning resources. The recipients will work with NIST to strengthen education and learning about standards and standardization. 

The 2019 grant cycle will require application submissions before April 30, 2019 (contingent upon normal operation of the Department of Commerce).  Specifics about the deadline will be posted on the NIST and ANSI websites.  We will pass on those specifics as soon as they are known.

The winners of the 2018 grant cycle are Bowling Green State University, Michigan State University,  Oklahoma State University, and Texas A&M University. (Click here)

The University of Michigan received an award during last year’s grant cycle (2017).   An overview of the curriculum — human factors in automotive standards  — is linked below:

NIST Standards Curricula INTRO Presentation _ University of Michigan Paul Green

Information about applying for the next grant cycle is available at this link (Click here) and also by communicating with Ms. Mary Jo DiBernardo (301-975-5503; maryjo.dibernardo@nist.gov)

LEARN MORE:

Click here for link to the previous year announcement.

Technical Requirements for Weighing & Measuring Devices

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

 

Conan O’Brian

HOME

 

Charlie Kirk (August 12, 2025): “Has U.S. President Donald Trump gone too far?”

Timon of Athens

Swing State Pronunciation

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.

Design Standard Readability

Fry readability formula

How Consistent Are the Best-Known Readability Equations in Estimating the Readability of Design Standards?

Shixiang Zhou & Heejin Jeong
Industrial and Operations Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Transportation Research Institute Driver Interface Group
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

 

Abstract.  Research problem: Readability equations are widely used to compute how well readers will be able to understand written materials. Those equations were usually developed for nontechnical materials, namely, textbooks for elementary, middle, and high schools. This study examines to what extent computerized readability predictions are consistent for highly technical material – selected Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization (ISO) Recommended Practices and Standards relating to driver interfaces. Literature review: A review of original sources of readability equations revealed a lack of specific criteria in counting various punctuation and text elements, leading to inconsistent readability scores. Few studies on the reliability of readability equations have identified this problem, and even fewer have systematically investigated the extent of the problem and the reasons why it occurs.  Research questions:

(1) Do the most commonly used equations give identical readability scores?
(2) How do the scores for each readability equation vary with readability tools?
(3) If there are differences between readability tools, why do they occur?
(4) How does the score vary with the length of passage examined?

Method: Passages of varying lengths from 12 selected SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards were examined using five readability equations (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index) implemented five ways (four online readability tools and Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows). In addition, short test passages of text were used to understand how different readability tools counted text elements, such as words and sentences. Results and conclusions: The mean readability scores of the passages from those 12 SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards ranged from the 10th grade reading level to about 15th. The mean grade reading levels computed across the websites were: Flesch-Kincaid 12.8, Gunning Fog 15.1 SMOG 12.6, Coleman-Liau 13.7, and Automated Readability Index 12.3. Readability score estimates became more consistent as the length of the passage examined increased, with no noteworthy improvements beyond 900 words. Among the five readability tools, scores typically differed by two grade levels, but the scores should have been the same. These differences were due to how compound and hyphenated words, slashes, numbers, abbreviations and acronyms, and URLs were counted, as well other punctuation and text elements. These differences occurred because the sources for these equations often did not specify how to score various punctuation and text elements. Of the tools examined, the authors recommend Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows if the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is required.

 

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Standards Michigan
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content