It used to be that if they were going to reboot a movie franchise, they'd wait a few years. Like there was quite a gap between the Tim Burton Batman movie and the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. But now they think nothing of just restarting a franchise immediately. The Eric Bana Hulk movie didn't do well, so they just remade it a few years later. Even with a successful franchise like Spiderman just restarted once the trilogy was done.
And now we're seeing a new attempt at making Peter Pan grown up. And then there's the Steve Jobs franchise. The first movie was only modestly successful, so Hollywood just does what they always do: get a new actor and director, then redo the origin story, but make it a little grittier this time around.
As someone who was put off by the Jobs worship following his death, it's refreshing that this movie (or at least its marketing campaign) is willing to go warts-and-all. Obviously, we don’t yet know how the movie itself treats its subject, but someone at the studio thinks we’re Okay with a less-than-perfect Jobs.
So I wonder if this is a lesson to biographical filmmakers that sometimes it's necessary to wait. For instance, after Princess Diana died, there was some idle speculation about a biopic. That struck me as a really bad idea. Although her story was unique and intriguing enough for a movie treatment, it was much too early. If you think back to that time (if you were around then,) you'd have to agree the wild adoration wouldn't have allowed a balanced view of her life.
I'm still not sure we've had enough time to really look at Steve Jobs with 20/20 hindsight. Although we have a much better perspective now, there's still a great misconception of his part in the modern world. It would be like doing a biopic of Bill Gates in the 90's. Now that his career is mostly in the rear-view mirror, we could probably do well, but then we were still living in the world he built, so we couldn't see it realistically.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Actually, Performance Reviews Are Usually More Awkward Than That
Of course, the day after I write a post about election ads, I see a new one. And this appears to be the start of that NDP surge in advertising. But it was also notable because it was a spoof of the Conservatives' job application ads that I made fun of.
It was a nice comeuppance for a series of ads that - regardless of your political beliefs - you've go to be getting tired of by now. I can even forgive them for glossing over the fact that Mulcair's experience in "cabinet" is at the provincial level. And as I suspected, the NDP somehow attracted far better acting talent despite their more modest budget.
The one part that does bother me about it is the language describing Mulcair as "ready" and "up for the job." Although Trudeau isn't mentioned, it's clearly a shot at him. Further, it's attempting to build on the psychological work done by the Conservatives, emphasizing the concept that the election is all about experience, and that politicians must achieve some magic threshold of readiness. In that sense, this ad is hypocritical: it's making fun of the Conservative ad, while also using the same ideas.
So to summarize: the party on the right made an ad attacking the party in the centre, and ignoring the party on the left. The party in the centre only mentioned the ad in passing, but the party on the left rebutted the ad, with their own ad. It attacked the party on the right, while ignoring the party in the centre, though indirectly putting them down.
The one part that does bother me about it is the language describing Mulcair as "ready" and "up for the job." Although Trudeau isn't mentioned, it's clearly a shot at him. Further, it's attempting to build on the psychological work done by the Conservatives, emphasizing the concept that the election is all about experience, and that politicians must achieve some magic threshold of readiness. In that sense, this ad is hypocritical: it's making fun of the Conservative ad, while also using the same ideas.
So to summarize: the party on the right made an ad attacking the party in the centre, and ignoring the party on the left. The party in the centre only mentioned the ad in passing, but the party on the left rebutted the ad, with their own ad. It attacked the party on the right, while ignoring the party in the centre, though indirectly putting them down.
Monday, September 28, 2015
I Don't Approve This Message
Is it just me, or are there fewer campaign commercials in this year's federal election? I mean, they're on TV a lot, but there's only a few actual ads that they're repeating over and over. It could be that they've had to conserve money on this eight-month campaign. The NDP is really holding back; I fear they're just fattening the war chest so they can carpet-bomb the airwaves in the final days before the election.
The Liberals are just repeating one ad over and over. Like a lot of their recent material, the message seems to be that they're in favour of the middle class, so they've got policies that are great for the middle class, because they're the party of the middle class. That seems an odd strategy: their competitors are focused on target demographics, while they have the reputation as Canada's Natural Governing Party, so surely they would benefit from portrayal as the party that serves everyone.
Other than that, the ad is good, though I have the feeling that some spin doctor at Liberal Headquarters is panicking over the fact that Canada's picture of the Liberal leader is of a man going up the down escalator.
The Conservatives have, in recent years, been highly focused in their marketing. That is, they choose the people they are most likely to win over, and concentrate on them instead of wasting time on broad appeals to everyone. That leads to some strange-looking commercials, like that one where people are talking about why they're voting Conservative, and all the featured voters are either seniors or farmers.
But there hasn't been anything as surreal in this campaign, as their "job application" ads. The concept is actually kind of clever, but like a lot of political advertising, it suffers because a smart, slightly humourous premise gets played for viciousness rather than comedy.
It also suffers from limitations unique to the circumstance. For a while now, the Conservatives have been the best party at fundraising, and thus has more money to play with than the other parties (which is why they run ads even between elections.) But even with all the money in the world, you still have the problem of finding actors and other creative people willing to work for the Tories.
But that Conservative targeting also makes it weirder than it should be. It's a surreal idea to begin with, a small office HR committee hiring a Prime Minister. But worse, it has to take place in the parallel universe where Conservative wedge issues are people's main concerns. You know, a place where it's just assumed that you make your vote based primarily on the candidate's response to ISIS. So it may ring a false note to most of us, but it's all careful calculation by the Tory brain trust. At least I'm assuming: they've had to modify it to add a "Justin Trudeau: Just Not Ready" banner across the bottom of the screen, apparently concerned that spot is a little too subtle.
But the funny part is that in ridiculing Trudeau for being soft on terror, they mention his plan to send winter jackets to Syria. That probably sounded like a withering insult at the time the commercial first started airing (2007, if memory serves.) But now that the plight of Syrian refugees has become a global concern, sending winter coats to Syria actually sounds like a good idea. It will probably appeal to more people than sending troops over, so the Liberals should thank the Conservatives for publicizing the policy for them.
The Liberals are just repeating one ad over and over. Like a lot of their recent material, the message seems to be that they're in favour of the middle class, so they've got policies that are great for the middle class, because they're the party of the middle class. That seems an odd strategy: their competitors are focused on target demographics, while they have the reputation as Canada's Natural Governing Party, so surely they would benefit from portrayal as the party that serves everyone.
Other than that, the ad is good, though I have the feeling that some spin doctor at Liberal Headquarters is panicking over the fact that Canada's picture of the Liberal leader is of a man going up the down escalator.
The Conservatives have, in recent years, been highly focused in their marketing. That is, they choose the people they are most likely to win over, and concentrate on them instead of wasting time on broad appeals to everyone. That leads to some strange-looking commercials, like that one where people are talking about why they're voting Conservative, and all the featured voters are either seniors or farmers.
But there hasn't been anything as surreal in this campaign, as their "job application" ads. The concept is actually kind of clever, but like a lot of political advertising, it suffers because a smart, slightly humourous premise gets played for viciousness rather than comedy.
It also suffers from limitations unique to the circumstance. For a while now, the Conservatives have been the best party at fundraising, and thus has more money to play with than the other parties (which is why they run ads even between elections.) But even with all the money in the world, you still have the problem of finding actors and other creative people willing to work for the Tories.
But that Conservative targeting also makes it weirder than it should be. It's a surreal idea to begin with, a small office HR committee hiring a Prime Minister. But worse, it has to take place in the parallel universe where Conservative wedge issues are people's main concerns. You know, a place where it's just assumed that you make your vote based primarily on the candidate's response to ISIS. So it may ring a false note to most of us, but it's all careful calculation by the Tory brain trust. At least I'm assuming: they've had to modify it to add a "Justin Trudeau: Just Not Ready" banner across the bottom of the screen, apparently concerned that spot is a little too subtle.
But the funny part is that in ridiculing Trudeau for being soft on terror, they mention his plan to send winter jackets to Syria. That probably sounded like a withering insult at the time the commercial first started airing (2007, if memory serves.) But now that the plight of Syrian refugees has become a global concern, sending winter coats to Syria actually sounds like a good idea. It will probably appeal to more people than sending troops over, so the Liberals should thank the Conservatives for publicizing the policy for them.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Clinch-22
The Blue Jays have clinched a playoff spot. This will be the first time they've been in the post season since their last World Series win in 1993 How long ago was 1993?
Here’s what happened:
People born in 1993:
Not yet born:
Not yet built:
Here’s what happened:
- Czechoslovakia broke up
- Deep Space Nine debuted (Next Generation was in season six)
- Bill Clinton was inaugurated
- Brian Mulroney is succeeded by Kim Campbell, who later lost the election to Jean Chretien
- The first Pentium chips went on sale
- R.A. Dickey was drafted
- Magic: The Gathering first goes on sale
- The Maastricht Treaty establishes the European Union
- Doom is released
- LaTroy Hawkins completes his second season in the minors
- NAFTA passes
- The original Jurassic Park was released
- Trainspotting and The Virgin Suicides were released. The books, not the movies.
People born in 1993:
- Anthony Davis
- Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
- Miranda Cosgrove
- Ariana Grande
- Meghan Trainor
- 60% of One Direction's original line-up
Not yet born:
Not yet built:
- Two-thirds of current Major League ballparks, including Turner Field in Atlanta, whose replacement is already under construction.
Friday, September 25, 2015
What A Load Of Fahrvergnügen
Volkswagen - not to mention its subsidiaries like Audi - is on the hot seat for faking emissions tests on its diesel cars. It's quite a black-eye for Volkswagen: aside from the dishonesty, they've invested a lot on developing and marketing diesel. But that dishonesty is shocking: the (direct) death-toll here may not be like GM's ignition scandal, but somehow it seems worse because it was blatant and premeditated. We expect companies to panic and cover up their errors, but we don't expect them to make conscious decisions to deceive everyone over the course of years.
How bad is this going to be for VW? It's hard to say. With the ignition scandal, I predicted that it would be disastrous, because it fit the stereotypes of American car companies so well that it would just confirm customers' worst suspicions. But that didn't happen; it really had little impact on sales. Now that could be for one of a couple of reasons: It could be that most people simply didn't hear about the problem, or it could be that people just have highly negative opinions of American car companies already, so further bad news didn't change anything.
If it is because the public doesn't hear about these scandals, then Volkswagen won't be hurt, though we'll be entering a dark age of automotive quality that will have Ralph Nader feeling like he's wasted his life. If it's the latter reason, then VW is in trouble because this will puncture their reputation. Their cars always seem pricey, so if customers don't think the price is worth it, then they're in trouble.
Of course, that's assuming this is as far as the scandal goes. It says something about our perception of the car biz that people almost immediately started speculating that other car makers are just as guilty. If it does become larger, and other manufacturers are implicated, then Volkswagen might come out of it looking alright. People will get angry and swear that they'll try to live car-free: But as with politicians, even if our opinions of all the competitors are low, we still have to choose the least-bad. At least in voting, spoiling your ballot doesn't require using public transit.
How bad is this going to be for VW? It's hard to say. With the ignition scandal, I predicted that it would be disastrous, because it fit the stereotypes of American car companies so well that it would just confirm customers' worst suspicions. But that didn't happen; it really had little impact on sales. Now that could be for one of a couple of reasons: It could be that most people simply didn't hear about the problem, or it could be that people just have highly negative opinions of American car companies already, so further bad news didn't change anything.
If it is because the public doesn't hear about these scandals, then Volkswagen won't be hurt, though we'll be entering a dark age of automotive quality that will have Ralph Nader feeling like he's wasted his life. If it's the latter reason, then VW is in trouble because this will puncture their reputation. Their cars always seem pricey, so if customers don't think the price is worth it, then they're in trouble.
Of course, that's assuming this is as far as the scandal goes. It says something about our perception of the car biz that people almost immediately started speculating that other car makers are just as guilty. If it does become larger, and other manufacturers are implicated, then Volkswagen might come out of it looking alright. People will get angry and swear that they'll try to live car-free: But as with politicians, even if our opinions of all the competitors are low, we still have to choose the least-bad. At least in voting, spoiling your ballot doesn't require using public transit.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
!!!
It's National Punctuation Day! Can you believe that‽
My apologies if the punctuation at the end of that last sentence didn't come through: it's an interrobang: a combination of the exclamation mark and the question mark that can be used to express incredulity. Sure, you could just type both an exclamation mark and a question mark, but who has time for that⸮
And that sentence had an irony mark at the end. It was proposed in the 16th century, though I've seen many people suggest that we need irony punctuation now in the internet era when irony is often misunderstood.
⁂
These and other obscure punctuation marks are described at Mental Floss magazine.
⁂
There are a couple of punctuation-related notions I'd like to mention. One is the question of how many spaces are after the period. I was always told to add two spaces, but many people consider this to be a crime against humanity. I don't have strong feelings either way, and I am pretty inconsistent about it. So if you are offended by it, I'm sorry. But you should really blame my Grade 9 typing teacher.
⁂
The other is to point out just how often punctuation in computer text goes wrong in today's world. Just today I saw an item on the BBC World news scroll about the Pope’s trip to America.
The typo is frustrating because, for one thing, I know what's going wrong. As I mentioned recently, text files are just numbers representing letters (and punctuation marks.) Unfortunately, there's more than one standard code for representing letters, and things go wrong when a program is expecting one way of representing characters, and it gets a different way. Here's a page that explains it in more depth.
But it's doubly frustrating because no one seems to care. The news scroll went by several times with the error, and I've seen similar problems several times before. Newspapers puke meaningless characters all the time, reminding us just how few proofreaders they can afford. You know, the ampersand (&) is a deformation of the handwritten Latin word et. Perhaps centuries from now, their apostrophe will be based on the ’ characters.
Who knows what Victor Borge would do with that.
My apologies if the punctuation at the end of that last sentence didn't come through: it's an interrobang: a combination of the exclamation mark and the question mark that can be used to express incredulity. Sure, you could just type both an exclamation mark and a question mark, but who has time for that⸮
And that sentence had an irony mark at the end. It was proposed in the 16th century, though I've seen many people suggest that we need irony punctuation now in the internet era when irony is often misunderstood.
⁂
These and other obscure punctuation marks are described at Mental Floss magazine.
⁂
There are a couple of punctuation-related notions I'd like to mention. One is the question of how many spaces are after the period. I was always told to add two spaces, but many people consider this to be a crime against humanity. I don't have strong feelings either way, and I am pretty inconsistent about it. So if you are offended by it, I'm sorry. But you should really blame my Grade 9 typing teacher.
⁂
The other is to point out just how often punctuation in computer text goes wrong in today's world. Just today I saw an item on the BBC World news scroll about the Pope’s trip to America.
The typo is frustrating because, for one thing, I know what's going wrong. As I mentioned recently, text files are just numbers representing letters (and punctuation marks.) Unfortunately, there's more than one standard code for representing letters, and things go wrong when a program is expecting one way of representing characters, and it gets a different way. Here's a page that explains it in more depth.
But it's doubly frustrating because no one seems to care. The news scroll went by several times with the error, and I've seen similar problems several times before. Newspapers puke meaningless characters all the time, reminding us just how few proofreaders they can afford. You know, the ampersand (&) is a deformation of the handwritten Latin word et. Perhaps centuries from now, their apostrophe will be based on the ’ characters.
Who knows what Victor Borge would do with that.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Leaving The Neutral Zone
Wayne Gretzky recently threw his support behind Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in Canada's election. The endorsement is purely symbolic, since Gretzky - a dual American/Canadian citizen - lives in the U.S., and that means he can't vote, due to recent law changes by...Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
It's a bit of a surprise, because hockey has its own political spectrum, in which Gretzky would be the Bernie Sanders to Don Cherry's Donald Trump. But I suppose you have to include demographics: men, whites, rich people and Eastern Europeans are more likely to be conservative, so one would assume that the hockey world in general would prefer Harper.
Not surprisingly, there's been sharply divergent reaction to this. When a public figure suddenly supports a politician, I wonder what motivates it. Obviously, it could be that the public figure is really passionate about the politician and the issues at stake in the election. But the other likely explanation is the complete opposite: they don't know or care much about politics, they're taking a stand without realizing how controversial it will be.
If it's a celebrity that has a history of taking a stand, you know it's the former. If it's someone new to the public eye, you'll also assume it's the former: it's probably someone with a passion for politics who will be making this a part of their persona for as long as they are famous. But in a case like Gretzky's, you have to wonder why a guy who's been famous for decades would only take a stand now. It's entirely possible that he didn't realize many people would turn on him.
I'm not saying you should feel sorry for him or anyone else who wades into politics and suddenly becomes controversial. While I appreciate people taking a stand, that's because political issues have real consequences. As such, it's irresponsible to get involved in an important discussion you don't understand. So always get informed before wading into politics. People will still hate you for it, but at least you'll be sure you're right and they're wrong.
It's a bit of a surprise, because hockey has its own political spectrum, in which Gretzky would be the Bernie Sanders to Don Cherry's Donald Trump. But I suppose you have to include demographics: men, whites, rich people and Eastern Europeans are more likely to be conservative, so one would assume that the hockey world in general would prefer Harper.
Not surprisingly, there's been sharply divergent reaction to this. When a public figure suddenly supports a politician, I wonder what motivates it. Obviously, it could be that the public figure is really passionate about the politician and the issues at stake in the election. But the other likely explanation is the complete opposite: they don't know or care much about politics, they're taking a stand without realizing how controversial it will be.
If it's a celebrity that has a history of taking a stand, you know it's the former. If it's someone new to the public eye, you'll also assume it's the former: it's probably someone with a passion for politics who will be making this a part of their persona for as long as they are famous. But in a case like Gretzky's, you have to wonder why a guy who's been famous for decades would only take a stand now. It's entirely possible that he didn't realize many people would turn on him.
I'm not saying you should feel sorry for him or anyone else who wades into politics and suddenly becomes controversial. While I appreciate people taking a stand, that's because political issues have real consequences. As such, it's irresponsible to get involved in an important discussion you don't understand. So always get informed before wading into politics. People will still hate you for it, but at least you'll be sure you're right and they're wrong.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Reasons To Cheer For The Blue Jays This Year
- Not the Yankees
- If they can win by battering their opponents with excessive offence, image the hilarious teams that will be assembled over the coming years.
- "Longest playoff drought in pro sports" title will get passed to the Buffalo Bills.
- Remember when Dan Quayle predicted the Braves would win in ‘92? Well there’s plenty of opportunity for that to happen again.
- Also, not the Red Sox.
- If Toronto FC can hold on too, the Leafs would be the only T.O. team that misses the playoffs this year.
- Definitely a non-zero chance that this will open a portal to the early nineties, allowing us to go back and correct the mistakes of the last twenty years.
- Expansion teams with long and interesting histories really annoy baseball traditionalists.
- As in 92/93, playoff run coincides with an election, resulting in lots of audience signs that Americans will never understand
- Marines have just about got that upside-down flag thing figured out.
- Fanatic support for Jays and Raptors may finally convince Canadian sports media that we care about more than one sport.
- If all their success comes with the traditional uniform/logo, you’ll never have to live with another cartoony rebranding
- The longer they play, the chance for Expedia to make more ads with Ace going through customs. They haven’t even shown him with the TSA agents yet. Think of potential for a "No Fly List" joke.
- There aren’t any Muslim baseball players, so a Canadian team winning the World Series is about the only way to piss-off Curt Schilling.
- Stuffed parrot sales haven't been this high since the heyday of Monty Python.
- If the Jays win the World Series this year, you won't have to listen to fans complain about the game unfair economics for at least another decade.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Colbert Is Still On The Right
Stephen Colbert has been hosting The Late Show for a couple of weeks now. It's been a little slow, but you to have patience. I had heard that he was trying to break with tradition by arranging his studio the opposite of Letterman's, with the band on the right, and the desk/sofa where the interviews take place on the left.
That brings up a question I've had for a while about talk shows: while he was willing to change much of the stage set-up, there was one thing he didn't mess with: keeping the guests on the left side of the screen, and the host on the right. Carson, Letterman, Leno, Conan, Stewart, Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Ellen, Latifah, O'Donnell, Hall: it's the same with all of them. Apparently even Steve Allen and Jack Paar sat on the right. Larry King's show on CNN was the other way around, but we all know he's immune to the rules that limit us mortals.
I looked it up on the Internet and people had detailed explanations, often revolving around the fact that we read from left to right. You'd think that would put it the other way round, with the person asking questions on the left and the answerer on the right, but whatever. Apparently this is the explanation for well-established theatre traditions, and the talk show set up is only the latest manifestation of it. I assume talk shows in the Arab world have the seating reversed. And in China, the host sits on stage and interviews celebrities in the balcony.
But there's a problem with this explanation: the one exception of today is James Corden, on after Colbert. He not only sits on the left, but he doesn't have a desk, and brings out all his guests at once instead of one at a time. None of this is because he's some sort of talk show maverick, but because he's British, and that's the way they do it over there. That punctures any ideas that it's about the way we think or the way we read. If anything, it could only be related to the way we drive. And now that I look it up, I find that Egyptian talk show host Bassem Youssef used the traditional American way too; and the Arab world drives on the right.
This apparently meaningless tradition also calls into question other psycho-lateral explanations for behaviour. There's a popular idea that you can tell a person is lying if they look to the right, even though that's provably false. There's also a lot of reasoning I've heard about how things are placed in stores to make them more appealing by making people approach them from more favourable sides. Like they'd prefer to have you walk past display so the merchandise is on your right, so a right-hander is more likely to pick it up, and this more likely to buy it. While subtle things can make a difference, I've always been sceptical of this ideas that people are like toddlers at the grabby stage, whom we can manipulate into zombie-like automatic purchases. I suspect all of it is pseudo-science driven by people's desperation for easy explanations to complex situations, combined with self-appointed experts using the Emperor's New Clothes to maintain their air of authority.
That brings up a question I've had for a while about talk shows: while he was willing to change much of the stage set-up, there was one thing he didn't mess with: keeping the guests on the left side of the screen, and the host on the right. Carson, Letterman, Leno, Conan, Stewart, Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Ellen, Latifah, O'Donnell, Hall: it's the same with all of them. Apparently even Steve Allen and Jack Paar sat on the right. Larry King's show on CNN was the other way around, but we all know he's immune to the rules that limit us mortals.
I looked it up on the Internet and people had detailed explanations, often revolving around the fact that we read from left to right. You'd think that would put it the other way round, with the person asking questions on the left and the answerer on the right, but whatever. Apparently this is the explanation for well-established theatre traditions, and the talk show set up is only the latest manifestation of it. I assume talk shows in the Arab world have the seating reversed. And in China, the host sits on stage and interviews celebrities in the balcony.
But there's a problem with this explanation: the one exception of today is James Corden, on after Colbert. He not only sits on the left, but he doesn't have a desk, and brings out all his guests at once instead of one at a time. None of this is because he's some sort of talk show maverick, but because he's British, and that's the way they do it over there. That punctures any ideas that it's about the way we think or the way we read. If anything, it could only be related to the way we drive. And now that I look it up, I find that Egyptian talk show host Bassem Youssef used the traditional American way too; and the Arab world drives on the right.
This apparently meaningless tradition also calls into question other psycho-lateral explanations for behaviour. There's a popular idea that you can tell a person is lying if they look to the right, even though that's provably false. There's also a lot of reasoning I've heard about how things are placed in stores to make them more appealing by making people approach them from more favourable sides. Like they'd prefer to have you walk past display so the merchandise is on your right, so a right-hander is more likely to pick it up, and this more likely to buy it. While subtle things can make a difference, I've always been sceptical of this ideas that people are like toddlers at the grabby stage, whom we can manipulate into zombie-like automatic purchases. I suspect all of it is pseudo-science driven by people's desperation for easy explanations to complex situations, combined with self-appointed experts using the Emperor's New Clothes to maintain their air of authority.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
First Among Equals
This is shaping up to be a really close election in Canada. The parties are within a few percent of each other, and the latest projections show that they'd each win roughly the same number of seats. That will lead to some interesting political horse trading after the election to determine who has the power. Did I really just say, "horse trading?" That's how close it is! I'm using century-old slang to describe it.
But that political showdown can wait. For now the point I want to make is: please stop talking about who is "winning" or "surging" or the most this or the least that. When everyone is within the margin of error, it's misleading to talk about that. We're told the NDP is winning at 31%, while the Conservatives are languishing in last, at 28%. A report said Stephen Harper is most trusted with the economy, then we're quickly told that it was by a 35-30-25 margin.
Let's just give up on the idea that anything definitive is going to come out of the polls, or the election itself. If someone starts getting close to majority levels (say, 40%) then you are invited to make a big deal over it. But for now admit that we've got nothing to talk about. The media may as well show the pollsters drawing lots to decide who's leading in the polls today. Drawing lots? Who says that any more?
But that political showdown can wait. For now the point I want to make is: please stop talking about who is "winning" or "surging" or the most this or the least that. When everyone is within the margin of error, it's misleading to talk about that. We're told the NDP is winning at 31%, while the Conservatives are languishing in last, at 28%. A report said Stephen Harper is most trusted with the economy, then we're quickly told that it was by a 35-30-25 margin.
Let's just give up on the idea that anything definitive is going to come out of the polls, or the election itself. If someone starts getting close to majority levels (say, 40%) then you are invited to make a big deal over it. But for now admit that we've got nothing to talk about. The media may as well show the pollsters drawing lots to decide who's leading in the polls today. Drawing lots? Who says that any more?
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Pictures Of "U"
What you're reading right now is a "text file." Essentially, it's a list of numbers, with each number representing a letter. That may seem like a lot of numbers, but keep in mind that computers can store an astounding quantity of numbers; a gigabyte is essentially a billion numbers. Looking at it that way, you realize that text files are downright insignificant for modern computers.
Now consider this picture of antique pig statuettes:
There are different ways of storing graphics, but most involve one or more numbers for each pixel, to describe the colour of that pixel. There's usually some sort of mathematical trick to shorten that big list of numbers, but even if that trick can reduce the list by 90%, that's still a big list of numbers. If you compare the number of letters in this post to the number of pixels in the picture, you'll realize that pictures take up far more space in a computer than text.
Go ahead, do your "picture is worth a thousand words" joke now. I'll resist the temptation to point out that it's far more than a thousand in this case. Why am I taking you through Computer Principles 101? Consider the possibility of a picture of words.
It may seem to you that this is no different than the words around it. But it's quite different for the computer. The text you're reading now was shipped across the Internet letter by letter, then drawn on your screen by your web browser. The picture of the words was drawn on my computer, then shipped to you, pixel by pixel. The amounts aren't large in the grand scheme of things, but I'm always amazed at how many people don't realize that one is orders of magnitude larger than the other.
I first noticed it in university, when a physics professor posted the answers to a quiz on the web in the form of a huge scan of a printed page. This was over twenty years ago, when such a large file choked the pitiful computers in the undergrad lab. I couldn't figure out how he typed up the answers on a word processor, printed them out, and ran them through a scanner without thinking there had to be an easier way.
This misunderstanding about computers has reappeared from time to time, and the latest instance is on Twitter. Of course, Twitter is weird in a lot of ways, but none more than the self-imposed and totally arbitrary 140 character limit. The concept of posting graphics with your tweets was added later on, despite the fact that the pictures are much bigger than tweets. And next thing you know, the graphics capability has become a way of overcoming the character limit; when people want to quote a larger amount of text, they can attach a picture of it to their tweet. Of course, for many people this inefficient way of communicating is not a problem. But when I'm stuck using a slower connection, it's hard to believe this is how we send text across the Net.
Now consider this picture of antique pig statuettes:
There are different ways of storing graphics, but most involve one or more numbers for each pixel, to describe the colour of that pixel. There's usually some sort of mathematical trick to shorten that big list of numbers, but even if that trick can reduce the list by 90%, that's still a big list of numbers. If you compare the number of letters in this post to the number of pixels in the picture, you'll realize that pictures take up far more space in a computer than text.
Go ahead, do your "picture is worth a thousand words" joke now. I'll resist the temptation to point out that it's far more than a thousand in this case. Why am I taking you through Computer Principles 101? Consider the possibility of a picture of words.
It may seem to you that this is no different than the words around it. But it's quite different for the computer. The text you're reading now was shipped across the Internet letter by letter, then drawn on your screen by your web browser. The picture of the words was drawn on my computer, then shipped to you, pixel by pixel. The amounts aren't large in the grand scheme of things, but I'm always amazed at how many people don't realize that one is orders of magnitude larger than the other.
I first noticed it in university, when a physics professor posted the answers to a quiz on the web in the form of a huge scan of a printed page. This was over twenty years ago, when such a large file choked the pitiful computers in the undergrad lab. I couldn't figure out how he typed up the answers on a word processor, printed them out, and ran them through a scanner without thinking there had to be an easier way.
This misunderstanding about computers has reappeared from time to time, and the latest instance is on Twitter. Of course, Twitter is weird in a lot of ways, but none more than the self-imposed and totally arbitrary 140 character limit. The concept of posting graphics with your tweets was added later on, despite the fact that the pictures are much bigger than tweets. And next thing you know, the graphics capability has become a way of overcoming the character limit; when people want to quote a larger amount of text, they can attach a picture of it to their tweet. Of course, for many people this inefficient way of communicating is not a problem. But when I'm stuck using a slower connection, it's hard to believe this is how we send text across the Net.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Bidding Goodbye
Tomorrow, Toronto is making a big announcement about bidding for the 2024 Olympics. There are conflicting reports of whether they will or won't be bidding. By the time you read this, you'll probably already know.
Toronto tried but failed when bidding for the games in 1996 and 2008. In more recent years, city politics took a turn for the conservative, and the Olympic dream went to the back-burner. But the success of the Pan-Am games has people talking about an Olympic bid again.
Personally, I don't think they should go for it. The fact people seem to be ignoring is that the Pan-Am games don't really change any circumstances. Since it used facilities that were either small or far-flung. (For instance, there's no way the Olympic Committee will accept a velodrome in Milton.) Toronto would still be looking at a tens-of-billions bill for the games.
The fact is, Toronto isn't really in the mood for this. Even if we assume that the Rob Ford episode was a temporary act of rebellion, the fact is that a big chunk of the city wants lower taxes more than they want grand gestures that will look World Class. That's kind of disappointing that the city went from being reserved to minimalist in about thirty years, with only a generation of outgoing assertiveness in between. We in the rest of Canada liked to make fun of Toronto and its quest to be World Class - I'm no exception - but it was always entertaining.
As for the Olympics, you have to wonder how long they are going to be able to keep conning cities into staging the games. I've always thought that they could make the games far more palatable to cities if we could get past the we-have-to-build-all-new-everything mentality. Lots of big cities around the world could stage the Olympics without building anything other than specialized venues like velodromes. They did that in Los Angeles in 1984, and it turned out fine. Well, I discovered that the only reason they did use pre-existing sites then was that they got special permission from the International Olympic Committee. They got that permission because they were the only city bidding. They were the only city bidding because the 1976 summer games in Montreal were such a financial disaster. But there are still cities willing to stage the games under the current circumstances, so they won't have trouble finding a host, even if it's too rich for Toronto's blood. And oh look, Los Angeles is bidding for 2024.
So it looks like the Olympics will continue to be a no-win situation for hosts, in which they build a bunch of facilities that are used for the games then sit unused forever. Although there are horror stories about such things (mostly from Athens in 2004) you can also point to Calgary, where the venues built have been used for years. Of course, that's because many of those facilities didn't exist in Canada prior to the games, so it was a case of nice timing. So if the Olympics is going to insist on building all new stuff for each games, they might get away with that if it keeps going to cities that need new facilities (say, Toronto 1984) or emergent economies (China is likely building lots of new stadiums, we may have to keep holding the Olympics there in one growing megalopolis after another.)
Toronto tried but failed when bidding for the games in 1996 and 2008. In more recent years, city politics took a turn for the conservative, and the Olympic dream went to the back-burner. But the success of the Pan-Am games has people talking about an Olympic bid again.
Personally, I don't think they should go for it. The fact people seem to be ignoring is that the Pan-Am games don't really change any circumstances. Since it used facilities that were either small or far-flung. (For instance, there's no way the Olympic Committee will accept a velodrome in Milton.) Toronto would still be looking at a tens-of-billions bill for the games.
The fact is, Toronto isn't really in the mood for this. Even if we assume that the Rob Ford episode was a temporary act of rebellion, the fact is that a big chunk of the city wants lower taxes more than they want grand gestures that will look World Class. That's kind of disappointing that the city went from being reserved to minimalist in about thirty years, with only a generation of outgoing assertiveness in between. We in the rest of Canada liked to make fun of Toronto and its quest to be World Class - I'm no exception - but it was always entertaining.
As for the Olympics, you have to wonder how long they are going to be able to keep conning cities into staging the games. I've always thought that they could make the games far more palatable to cities if we could get past the we-have-to-build-all-new-everything mentality. Lots of big cities around the world could stage the Olympics without building anything other than specialized venues like velodromes. They did that in Los Angeles in 1984, and it turned out fine. Well, I discovered that the only reason they did use pre-existing sites then was that they got special permission from the International Olympic Committee. They got that permission because they were the only city bidding. They were the only city bidding because the 1976 summer games in Montreal were such a financial disaster. But there are still cities willing to stage the games under the current circumstances, so they won't have trouble finding a host, even if it's too rich for Toronto's blood. And oh look, Los Angeles is bidding for 2024.
So it looks like the Olympics will continue to be a no-win situation for hosts, in which they build a bunch of facilities that are used for the games then sit unused forever. Although there are horror stories about such things (mostly from Athens in 2004) you can also point to Calgary, where the venues built have been used for years. Of course, that's because many of those facilities didn't exist in Canada prior to the games, so it was a case of nice timing. So if the Olympics is going to insist on building all new stuff for each games, they might get away with that if it keeps going to cities that need new facilities (say, Toronto 1984) or emergent economies (China is likely building lots of new stadiums, we may have to keep holding the Olympics there in one growing megalopolis after another.)
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Ich Bin Ein Ausländer
There's a lot of talk about the refugee crisis in Europe. The now famous photograph of a three-year-old child who drowned trying to get to Greece is being haled as a turning point in people's attitudes. I've mentioned before how pictures change people's perceptions in relation to violence against women, but in international aid, it makes an amazing difference. I've heard aid workers in the past despair that we can't be proactive about famine because of the power of pictures. Famines aren’t surprising; we can see the problem coming. But we can't do anything until it starts, because the West won’t give money until they’ve seen the pictures of the starving African kids. That makes me wonder how much effort there is going to be to get that photo at future crises. Never mind Doctors Without Borders, we need Photographers Without Borders.
Of course, in today’s polarized world, public opinion doesn’t completely change, it just alters the spin and moves the goalposts. We’re already seeing the adaptation by the nationalist politicians (which in Europe, is really big.) The talking point of choice seems to be to emphasize that there is a difference between refugees fleeing conflict, and economic migrants, who are looking for better opportunities. So remember, there is a difference between people whose fear of violence drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land, and people whose fear of starvation drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land.
I’m actually pleasantly surprised by Europe’s reaction. I’d started to think of even mainstream Europe as kind of racist, But now we’ve seen some public and widespread expressions of tolerance. I mean, who expected that when foreigners with a different religion needed help, it would be the Germans who were most enthusiastic about taking them in. But on the other hand: Hungary? Who knew they were Europe’s Arizona? Hungary’s hardline reaction seems out-of-proportion for something that’s mostly going to trouble the rich countries the refugees are trying to get to. Though the Czechs also get a dishonourable mention for writing identification numbers on migrants’ arms, up to the point someone pointed out that such practices have a really bad precedent in that part of the world.
I can understand why the Hungarians would feel at least a little hard done by. Countries that migrants pass through do incur costs and inconveniences. Whatever benefits these people will give, it will go to their destination, not countries en route. So it is unfair. Not quite dust-off-the-fascist-practises unfair, but a little unfair. The best example of this problem is how the Italian navy spends a lot of time rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean, even though the migrants are trying to get to Northern Europe. Journalist Gwynne Dyer pointed to a creative solution to this: Italy could just give all the migrants automatic citizenship. It would be no trouble to the Italians: thanks to the European Union’s laws, such citizens would then be free to travel and work in any part of Europe. So they’d just go to Germany or the UK, and Italy would never see them again, and it would no longer be their problem.
So if the Hungarians were smarter and less angry, that’s something they could try: give free citizenship to anyone who asks for it. Rich Europe would be flooded with Syrian-Hungarians, and thus be forced to do something about the problem. Something surely more effective and humane than just building a wall.
Of course, in today’s polarized world, public opinion doesn’t completely change, it just alters the spin and moves the goalposts. We’re already seeing the adaptation by the nationalist politicians (which in Europe, is really big.) The talking point of choice seems to be to emphasize that there is a difference between refugees fleeing conflict, and economic migrants, who are looking for better opportunities. So remember, there is a difference between people whose fear of violence drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land, and people whose fear of starvation drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land.
I’m actually pleasantly surprised by Europe’s reaction. I’d started to think of even mainstream Europe as kind of racist, But now we’ve seen some public and widespread expressions of tolerance. I mean, who expected that when foreigners with a different religion needed help, it would be the Germans who were most enthusiastic about taking them in. But on the other hand: Hungary? Who knew they were Europe’s Arizona? Hungary’s hardline reaction seems out-of-proportion for something that’s mostly going to trouble the rich countries the refugees are trying to get to. Though the Czechs also get a dishonourable mention for writing identification numbers on migrants’ arms, up to the point someone pointed out that such practices have a really bad precedent in that part of the world.
I can understand why the Hungarians would feel at least a little hard done by. Countries that migrants pass through do incur costs and inconveniences. Whatever benefits these people will give, it will go to their destination, not countries en route. So it is unfair. Not quite dust-off-the-fascist-practises unfair, but a little unfair. The best example of this problem is how the Italian navy spends a lot of time rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean, even though the migrants are trying to get to Northern Europe. Journalist Gwynne Dyer pointed to a creative solution to this: Italy could just give all the migrants automatic citizenship. It would be no trouble to the Italians: thanks to the European Union’s laws, such citizens would then be free to travel and work in any part of Europe. So they’d just go to Germany or the UK, and Italy would never see them again, and it would no longer be their problem.
So if the Hungarians were smarter and less angry, that’s something they could try: give free citizenship to anyone who asks for it. Rich Europe would be flooded with Syrian-Hungarians, and thus be forced to do something about the problem. Something surely more effective and humane than just building a wall.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Schrödinger's Quarterback
The NFL season started tonight. The game was preceded by a show was a strange cross between sports talk and mass-market entertainment. I realize it must be hard to book this concert: like the Superbowl halftime show, you have to entertain all of America, but unlike the Superbowl halftime show, you don't have the money or audience to lure A-list musicians. But still, I'd love to know what calculation led to booking Ellie Goulding and Train to perform in between football talking heads.
But it wasn't just the entertainment that was awkward, there was also the talk about the Patriots' deflated-ball scandal. In the same way their victory in the Superbowl made it impossible for the league to sweep the whole deal under the carpet, their presence in the opener (and another victory) keeps people talking about it. Here's the problem:
So all the usual ways our society deals with controversy won't work. It's too big to forget, there's too little evidence for us to jump to a conclusion, and there's no way for us to twist morals to make a wrong look like a right. We're just going to have to live with ambiguity hanging over this season and this team.
But it wasn't just the entertainment that was awkward, there was also the talk about the Patriots' deflated-ball scandal. In the same way their victory in the Superbowl made it impossible for the league to sweep the whole deal under the carpet, their presence in the opener (and another victory) keeps people talking about it. Here's the problem:
- Probably, they're guilty. But...
- It was a relatively inconsequential rule. But...
- It was a distinct, conscious effort to cheat. But...
- It probably didn't make any difference to the outcome. But...
- These are the Superbowl champions, so you can't really ignore it. But...
- We don't have a smoking gun, so we can't prove anything. But...
- We love to worship the victors, and now we can't, because there's questions hanging over them. But...
- We also kind of hint that cheating is okay. But...
- This isn't a player who's carved out a bad-boy reputation, this is the Golden Boy Tom Brady. But...
- There's always someone looking to knock down the super successful; it's easy to dismiss this as the claims of sore losers. But...
- The Patriots have a reputation for bending the rules, thus making the claims compelling.
So all the usual ways our society deals with controversy won't work. It's too big to forget, there's too little evidence for us to jump to a conclusion, and there's no way for us to twist morals to make a wrong look like a right. We're just going to have to live with ambiguity hanging over this season and this team.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Chief Administrative Officer Of Simpleton
I notice there's a local business called XTC. See, it sounds like "ecstasy" geddit? You occasionally see those letters used together, since:
Probably the most famous use of the alphabetic pun was the eighties new wave band XTC, though people unfamiliar with its previous use have been rediscovering and reusing the name ever since. For instance there used to be a record store in Kitchener called "X-Disc-C." (I assume it would be unrelated to the business I saw today.
But what's worth mentioning here is that on closer inspection of the sign, I saw that this was "XTC Logistics." So I'm left wondering what led them to think that "ecstasy" was the thing needed to sell business logistics. Even before you get to the drug connection, that seems weird. And Ecstasy isn't exactly the drug you would want associated with business logistics; it doesn't sound too efficient. Surely you'd prefer to hire Crack Logistics.
So I can only assume that this business was founded by someone who was a big fan of the group. Their best known song was "Making Plans for Nigel." That's sort of like logistics. But I'd still want to get a competing bid from Flock Of Seagulls before hiring them.
- It sounds clever
- The word implies positive, joyful feeling
- For the last twenty years or so, it also implies a dangerous, rebellious side, thanks to the drug Ecstasy
- No one can remember how to spell extacy
Probably the most famous use of the alphabetic pun was the eighties new wave band XTC, though people unfamiliar with its previous use have been rediscovering and reusing the name ever since. For instance there used to be a record store in Kitchener called "X-Disc-C." (I assume it would be unrelated to the business I saw today.
But what's worth mentioning here is that on closer inspection of the sign, I saw that this was "XTC Logistics." So I'm left wondering what led them to think that "ecstasy" was the thing needed to sell business logistics. Even before you get to the drug connection, that seems weird. And Ecstasy isn't exactly the drug you would want associated with business logistics; it doesn't sound too efficient. Surely you'd prefer to hire Crack Logistics.
So I can only assume that this business was founded by someone who was a big fan of the group. Their best known song was "Making Plans for Nigel." That's sort of like logistics. But I'd still want to get a competing bid from Flock Of Seagulls before hiring them.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Profiles In Verbage
The last time I walked into Chapters/Indigo/whatever, this was the display that greeted me just inside the entrance:
Yes, they have books from each of the party leaders. I'm sure the manager is currently trying to figure out why there are fewer people in the store suddenly. The Mulcair book is on the left, why didn't they put the Harper book on the right? And what can we deduce from the fact that it's the only one with a sale sticker?
Seriously though, I should point out that the Trudeau and Mulcair books are by them, while it is merely a book about Stephen Harper. Has Harper written a book yet? I mean a political book, not his book about hockey. I've tried searching for a book by him, but typing "Harper" into the search field just swamps me with offers on Go Set A Watchman.
I'm surprised Harper doesn't have his own book, because lots of politicians (ghost) write books. I guess you can see why, since it's a nice way to get your name out there and look like you're smart too. And I'm assuming someone is buying these books, since publishers are willing to print them. I'm guessing they're mostly writing to the converted though: I can't imagine anyone seeing this display and buying one of each, then going off to read them and use it as the basis for their decision. If you're that willing to read, you surely already have your mind made up.
Yes, they have books from each of the party leaders. I'm sure the manager is currently trying to figure out why there are fewer people in the store suddenly. The Mulcair book is on the left, why didn't they put the Harper book on the right? And what can we deduce from the fact that it's the only one with a sale sticker?
Seriously though, I should point out that the Trudeau and Mulcair books are by them, while it is merely a book about Stephen Harper. Has Harper written a book yet? I mean a political book, not his book about hockey. I've tried searching for a book by him, but typing "Harper" into the search field just swamps me with offers on Go Set A Watchman.
I'm surprised Harper doesn't have his own book, because lots of politicians (ghost) write books. I guess you can see why, since it's a nice way to get your name out there and look like you're smart too. And I'm assuming someone is buying these books, since publishers are willing to print them. I'm guessing they're mostly writing to the converted though: I can't imagine anyone seeing this display and buying one of each, then going off to read them and use it as the basis for their decision. If you're that willing to read, you surely already have your mind made up.
Friday, September 4, 2015
Bouchard And Separation
We in Canada all know the rules: when one of us does well on the world stage, the rest of us cheer for them. Individual, group, or company we all back out fellow Canadians. That's even if we end up feeling silly for backing Jim Carey or BlackBerry long after everyone else has given up on them. Okay, there are exceptions. You're allowed to abandon them if their behaviour is bad enough (Justin Bieber) or the connection to Canada is tenuous enough (Ted Cruz) or we're just stick of them (Celine Dion.)
This principle of mutual support is doubly strong if it's in a field where we are rarely successful. So everyone is really getting behind our sudden tennis stars, Milos Raonic, Eugenie Bouchard, and sometimes Vasek Pospisil. In Raonic's case, it's been pretty easy to cheer for him, because he fits the national stereotype so well. Like Mike Weir and Steve Nash, he's gotten where he is by quietly working hard and letting his play do the talking.
But Genie, you're making this difficult for us. No, is not because of your recent slump; after all, we stuck with Jacques Villeneuve long after he won anything. And we also aren't put off by "Genie's Army," your horde of largely-male fans that are just a bit creepy.
But when you're purposely not friends with your competitors to keep some sort of competitive edge, that seems a little worrisome. Yes, people used to complain that Kim Clijsters was too nice, but you may have noticed they stopped doing that after she won four Grand Slam titles.
We were willing to look the other way when you made that infamous quote about becoming a brand. True, it looks stupid now, seeing as it coincided with the start of your slump. But hey, lots of people say regrettable things at the onset of fame. But going through coaches faster than the Maple Leafs, arrogantly turning away criticism like a Spearsian pop star? That's starting to sound like someone who can't take responsibility.
But now she’s started a mixed-doubles partnership with Nick Kyrgios. Yes, the guy who just exceeded everyone’s definition of trash-talking by telling a competitor he knew who his girlfriend was sleeping with. Although Bouchard didn’t specifically defend that, she was full of praise for Kyrgios, saying his personality was good for the sport. Really? Defending bad behaviour as long as it’s entertaining? That’s… Okay, I’m going to say it: that’s so American.
So that’s it, my nationalism has been pushed too far. I’m invoking the Nickelback Rule and suspending my support for Eugenie Bouchard despite her being the most accomplished Canadian in her field.
This principle of mutual support is doubly strong if it's in a field where we are rarely successful. So everyone is really getting behind our sudden tennis stars, Milos Raonic, Eugenie Bouchard, and sometimes Vasek Pospisil. In Raonic's case, it's been pretty easy to cheer for him, because he fits the national stereotype so well. Like Mike Weir and Steve Nash, he's gotten where he is by quietly working hard and letting his play do the talking.
But Genie, you're making this difficult for us. No, is not because of your recent slump; after all, we stuck with Jacques Villeneuve long after he won anything. And we also aren't put off by "Genie's Army," your horde of largely-male fans that are just a bit creepy.
But when you're purposely not friends with your competitors to keep some sort of competitive edge, that seems a little worrisome. Yes, people used to complain that Kim Clijsters was too nice, but you may have noticed they stopped doing that after she won four Grand Slam titles.
We were willing to look the other way when you made that infamous quote about becoming a brand. True, it looks stupid now, seeing as it coincided with the start of your slump. But hey, lots of people say regrettable things at the onset of fame. But going through coaches faster than the Maple Leafs, arrogantly turning away criticism like a Spearsian pop star? That's starting to sound like someone who can't take responsibility.
But now she’s started a mixed-doubles partnership with Nick Kyrgios. Yes, the guy who just exceeded everyone’s definition of trash-talking by telling a competitor he knew who his girlfriend was sleeping with. Although Bouchard didn’t specifically defend that, she was full of praise for Kyrgios, saying his personality was good for the sport. Really? Defending bad behaviour as long as it’s entertaining? That’s… Okay, I’m going to say it: that’s so American.
So that’s it, my nationalism has been pushed too far. I’m invoking the Nickelback Rule and suspending my support for Eugenie Bouchard despite her being the most accomplished Canadian in her field.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
A Troll Sense Of Humour
Twitch is a web site that specializes in videos relating to video games. In particular, that means videos of people playing games. It's been quite successful, with Amazon buying it for almost a billion dollars. Of course, YouTube wanted a piece of that, so they started their own competing service, called YouTube Gaming. Jimmy Kimmel did a few jokes about that, and then a short skit parodying it. That video was posted on YouTube (the original YouTube) where it received a great deal of criticism. Yes, I know, everything on YouTube gets lots of criticism, but this seemed to be more than the usual trolls, and was actually an expression of the gaming community calling Kimmel on being out of touch.
When I heard about this, it connected with something I've been noticing. I'm amazed at how behind-the-times nightly talk show humour is. Being on late at night, they're supposed to appeal to a younger, more adventurous viewership, yet the basis for their gags is usually tired old ideas. So I was all set to write a post about this, much of which would be criticizing Seth Meyers for his almost obsessive need to turn any news story about gaming into a all-gamers-are-virgins joke. Of course, I don't think geeks or gamers are above ridicule, I just wish those jokes weren't so out of date. At a time when poll after poll shows that the gender breakdown is close to 50/50, the gamers-that-haven't-met-a-woman concept just makes you sound old.
But then I watched Kimmel's video, and I found that actually, it wasn't that bad. If you're not willing to watch it, I'll just tell you that it's about a new service in which you don't just watch other people playing games, you can watch people watching people playing games. And then there's another site where you can watch people watching people watching... etc. So it's mildly amusing, and a fairly reasonable thing to make fun of. Definitely not the most insightful satire of the Zeitgeist, but it's much better than a nerdy comic making desperate clichéd attacks in a thinly-veiled expression of latent self-hatred. (Seriously Seth, call me if you need to talk.)
So I gave up on the post idea, and forgot about it for a few days. But now I'm reminded of it again, because it turns out the anger the gaming community has for Kimmel has boiled over, to the point that he posted another video, in which he goes over some of the over-the-top insults he's received in the comment thread. And then another. And that brings us to the ultimate irony: Here I was ready to complain that talk shows were out of touch for stereotyping gamers, but instead it turns out that gamers went out of their way to confirm the stereotype of gamers as angry, immature boys. At least future talk show hosts now have some easy and authentic targets.
When I heard about this, it connected with something I've been noticing. I'm amazed at how behind-the-times nightly talk show humour is. Being on late at night, they're supposed to appeal to a younger, more adventurous viewership, yet the basis for their gags is usually tired old ideas. So I was all set to write a post about this, much of which would be criticizing Seth Meyers for his almost obsessive need to turn any news story about gaming into a all-gamers-are-virgins joke. Of course, I don't think geeks or gamers are above ridicule, I just wish those jokes weren't so out of date. At a time when poll after poll shows that the gender breakdown is close to 50/50, the gamers-that-haven't-met-a-woman concept just makes you sound old.
But then I watched Kimmel's video, and I found that actually, it wasn't that bad. If you're not willing to watch it, I'll just tell you that it's about a new service in which you don't just watch other people playing games, you can watch people watching people playing games. And then there's another site where you can watch people watching people watching... etc. So it's mildly amusing, and a fairly reasonable thing to make fun of. Definitely not the most insightful satire of the Zeitgeist, but it's much better than a nerdy comic making desperate clichéd attacks in a thinly-veiled expression of latent self-hatred. (Seriously Seth, call me if you need to talk.)
So I gave up on the post idea, and forgot about it for a few days. But now I'm reminded of it again, because it turns out the anger the gaming community has for Kimmel has boiled over, to the point that he posted another video, in which he goes over some of the over-the-top insults he's received in the comment thread. And then another. And that brings us to the ultimate irony: Here I was ready to complain that talk shows were out of touch for stereotyping gamers, but instead it turns out that gamers went out of their way to confirm the stereotype of gamers as angry, immature boys. At least future talk show hosts now have some easy and authentic targets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)