Canada finally made its contribution to the international bad decision competition: Rather than supporting crazy politicians or damaging our economic future, we went with what we know well: bad hockey trades. The Montreal Canadiens stepped up and traded star defenceman PK Subban to Nashville for star defenceman Shea Weber.
That's quite a headscratcher. It's pretty unusual to have a trade of two players at the same position, unless there are other players or draft picks thrown in, or the players have vastly different contracts. But nope, it's a one-for-one swap of offensively-gifted defencemen, each with several years left on expensive contracts. The biggest difference between the players is age: Subban just turned 27, while Weber is about to turn 31. Weber is making less money, but by the arcane workings of the NHL salary cap, the money they save will make little difference in their ability to sign new players. And there's the big problem that Subban's contract is for another six years, but Weber's is ten more years, until he's 40. So this must be one of those situations where the trade only makes sense with those newfangled advanced statistics that geeks and Brad Pitt believe in. Nope, turns out they agree the Habs got hosed.
So it's hard to avoid the simplified view of the trade: Montreal just traded a player entering his prime for a similar player who's just exiting his prime. And that's why the explanations turn to personalities. Word is that the team was in a the-player-goes-or-the-coach-goes situation. But again, you have to have a pretty special coach to choose him over a star player. But coach Michel Therrien is coming off a disasterous season in which the Habs had their best ever start to a season and still managed to miss the playoffs. One would think that he'd be gone as soon as management has the slightest excuse.
Thus, I've done my due dilligence, and I can't come up with any sensible reason for this trade. So let's talk about race. No, I'm definitely not saying the Canadiens traded Subban because he's black. But this trade is only the latest aspect of Subban's career that just doesn't seem to add up. Last summer, the Canadiens were looking for a new captain, and it seemed odd that not only did Subban not get the title, but didn't even get discussed among the media. Usually captancies go to a player which is some combination of the best or most commanding player, which would seem to be him. Then, there's all this talk about "personality" and "attitude" being disliked or problematic, but which never seems to be linked to any examples. Or if he does get criticized for actual actions, it's for something that rates about a one-out-of-ten on the scale of objectionable hockey behaviour.
His treatment seems to be a good example of modern bigotry, where most people don't have a negative view of that person from a different group, but they look at them a little differently. Behaviour that would normally be accepted without a thought gets seen through a negative lens. And hockey is a fertile ground for such mischaracterization: it's a culture in which there are a lot of not-so-socially-acceptable behaviours that we've learned to look the other way on. When you drop somone into that world who is going to be closely analyzed and criticized for any bad behaviour, it's inevitable that person is going to be seen negatively, even if they're no worse than their peers.
Hopefully things will work out better in Nashville. It may be in the American south, but at least it doesn't have the media fishbowl a Canadian team has.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Vengeance Is Mine
I've seen several jokey references to Minesweeper recently, specifically jokes about how no one knows how to play it.
Um, well, I've played Minesweeper since it came out a quarter-century ago. And actually I do know what I'm doing. I see "1-2-1" and "1-2-2-1" combos in my sleep. I completed the expert level in 2:19. In that one game in the image that just started, I can already see where half the mines are without even thinking about it. It's all I can do to stop myself from instinctively clicking on the image.
I'm not bragging, nor am I making fun of anyone who isn't very good at the game; I'm sure you instead used your early adulthood to acquire social skills. I'm just kind of surprised at how these jokes are so confidently assuming that everyone is with them on this. Yeah, I know, they don't literally mean that "no one" knows how to play; it's like if you say no one understands their tax return, it doesn't mean that you are oblivious to the existence of tax accountants.
If someone were joking about frustrations at golf, they wouldn't imply that everyone is just randomly choosing clubs and hoping for the best. Sure, many people do struggle, but it's well known that some people are really good at golf. Minesweeper isn't televised (despite my letters to ESPN on the subject) but I thought it was well known that there are a fair number of people who are good at Minesweeper - I knew a guy who did the expert in 1:39. And the one time I did try to brag to a friend about a new personal best, he shot me down saying patiently, "yes, I am aware that some people have very fast times on Minesweeper." I wasn't offended - I was quite impressed at how efficiently defused my attempt at one-upmanship. I've used that technique many times since then when people attempt to brag about achievements at something I have chosen not to pursue, such as golf or social skills.
So if you try to reassure yourself about your Minesweeper skills by seeking company in that concern, realize that it's just not going to work. Just accept that for pretty much any challenge, someone out there is good at it or obsessed with it.
Um, well, I've played Minesweeper since it came out a quarter-century ago. And actually I do know what I'm doing. I see "1-2-1" and "1-2-2-1" combos in my sleep. I completed the expert level in 2:19. In that one game in the image that just started, I can already see where half the mines are without even thinking about it. It's all I can do to stop myself from instinctively clicking on the image.
I'm not bragging, nor am I making fun of anyone who isn't very good at the game; I'm sure you instead used your early adulthood to acquire social skills. I'm just kind of surprised at how these jokes are so confidently assuming that everyone is with them on this. Yeah, I know, they don't literally mean that "no one" knows how to play; it's like if you say no one understands their tax return, it doesn't mean that you are oblivious to the existence of tax accountants.
If someone were joking about frustrations at golf, they wouldn't imply that everyone is just randomly choosing clubs and hoping for the best. Sure, many people do struggle, but it's well known that some people are really good at golf. Minesweeper isn't televised (despite my letters to ESPN on the subject) but I thought it was well known that there are a fair number of people who are good at Minesweeper - I knew a guy who did the expert in 1:39. And the one time I did try to brag to a friend about a new personal best, he shot me down saying patiently, "yes, I am aware that some people have very fast times on Minesweeper." I wasn't offended - I was quite impressed at how efficiently defused my attempt at one-upmanship. I've used that technique many times since then when people attempt to brag about achievements at something I have chosen not to pursue, such as golf or social skills.
So if you try to reassure yourself about your Minesweeper skills by seeking company in that concern, realize that it's just not going to work. Just accept that for pretty much any challenge, someone out there is good at it or obsessed with it.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Did You Lie When You Spoke To Me?
The United Kingdom voted to Brexit rather than Bremain, and now there's a lot of Bregrets. Many people were horrified to find that the second most popular Google Query from Britain the day after was "what is the EU?" This comes as Nigel Farage admits that his claim about the amount of money going to the EU was wildly inaccurate and pro-leave campaigners are admitting that immigration levels won't really go down. I'm left wondering how much of this big decision was actually based on any real facts.
(As an aside, I was surprised that the New Yorker cover somehow linked Brexit to John Cleese. So it wasn't just me.)
Now there are several news reports coming in of "Leave" voters who regret their vote. I suppose it's understandable that a person will question a big decision, but some are coming right out and saying that they didn't actually want Britain to leave, even though they voted for it. So if, like me, you wish the referendum had gone the other way, you can at least console yourself with the knowledge that these morons will get exactly what they deserve.
By the way, I wish the media would be more responsible and not broacast things like that. There could be aliens listening in, studying us. If they hear humans say, "I wouldn't have voted for X if I'd known X was going to win," it not only reduces the chances the aliens will see us as worthy of communication, it greatly increases the chances that they'll finally decide we're too dangerous and just nuke us from orbit.
These voters with Brexiter's Remorse help to explain what happened in the vote. Many were confident that "Remain" would win, even though the polls kept showing it as a dead heat. So why did they think that? You might think it was just the arrogance of "The Elites" who are supposedly the only people in favour of European integration, and forcing it upon everyone. And that's the interpretation that some journalists have decided to accept. But the sudden market corrections that came after the vote show that people who had a financial stake in predicting the result got it wrong anyway. Again, you might say that even though they had incentive to get it right, they were still elites out of touch with the common person. Well, fine, but there was another group that had a financial interest in getting it right, and are not part of these devious elites: The bookies. They still had "Leave" as 4:1 underdogs right up to the end.
The reason for the over-confidence was that voters tend to shy away from more radical stances in the last days of a campaign. I once heard a Canadian pundit call it the "NDP Swerve." The voter tells pollsters that they're mad as hell, and going to vote for the NDP, then gets in to the voting booth, and says, "what am I thinking, I can't vote for the NDP!" And goes back to the same party they always vote for. Along similar lines, there was an assumption that the "Leave" campaign was going to lose a few percent at least from whatever the polls were showing.
But it didn't happen. There was no swerve. And judging from the comments of regretful voters, it's because those angry voters didn't have their big change of heart in the booth, because they didn't think it would matter. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us: There have been lots of times recently when voters seem to be voting to "send a message" that doesn't really correspond to what they're actually voting on. They may use a referendum to pass judgement on the current government, rather than the actual issue. And various Quebec elections and referendum votes have been based on messages to various governments or grabbing leverage, rather than the (seemingly important) issue of separation.
So that's why some people are serious about wanting a second, this-time-we-mean-it referendum. Personally, I don't like that idea, even if it would be a second chance at the outcome I prefered. Aside from, you know, principles and crap like that, there's the dangerous precident. This referendum has shown everyone on Earth what happens when you don't take your votes seriously. A do-over would give flaky voters the confidence to make more silly votes they don't mean with whatever imagined intentions behind them. Whatever else it is, the Brexit vote is a great teachable moment for democracies everywhere. It's unfortunate we had to sacrifice a large country to do so, but if it convinces Americans not to protest-vote for Trump, it will be worth it.
Having said that, here's a scenario that wouldn't surprise me: The British government now has to negotiate a departure from the European Union, while also negotiating new treaties with countries and trading blocs around the world to maintain the same access to markets they had in the EU. That's probably going to take longer than expected, especially when you consider than the EU is probably going to make the negotiations difficult to make an example of the UK for any other countries thinking about their own exits. And there's the problem that the next British government(s) are going to have to make a lot of painful changes to get ready for separation. Let's say this all takes five years instead of the two that the pro-Brexit crowd has planned on. After such a long time, and with negotiations probably taking place under a new government, there might actually be a reasonable case to have a second referendum on the completed deal.
Would there be a different result on that one? It's hard to say. They will have seen a preview of what the UK economy will be like outside of Europe, and the initial signs are that it won't be pretty. But the flip side is that a sinking economy could just increase the anger and fear that the far right thrives on. If any of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate, that will remove a whole lot of "Remain" voters (note that England voted to Leave by a fairly large margin.) But then there's the age demographic. A few more years will allow demographics to shift a little more towards the younger, pro-EU voters.
(As an aside, I was surprised that the New Yorker cover somehow linked Brexit to John Cleese. So it wasn't just me.)
Now there are several news reports coming in of "Leave" voters who regret their vote. I suppose it's understandable that a person will question a big decision, but some are coming right out and saying that they didn't actually want Britain to leave, even though they voted for it. So if, like me, you wish the referendum had gone the other way, you can at least console yourself with the knowledge that these morons will get exactly what they deserve.
By the way, I wish the media would be more responsible and not broacast things like that. There could be aliens listening in, studying us. If they hear humans say, "I wouldn't have voted for X if I'd known X was going to win," it not only reduces the chances the aliens will see us as worthy of communication, it greatly increases the chances that they'll finally decide we're too dangerous and just nuke us from orbit.
These voters with Brexiter's Remorse help to explain what happened in the vote. Many were confident that "Remain" would win, even though the polls kept showing it as a dead heat. So why did they think that? You might think it was just the arrogance of "The Elites" who are supposedly the only people in favour of European integration, and forcing it upon everyone. And that's the interpretation that some journalists have decided to accept. But the sudden market corrections that came after the vote show that people who had a financial stake in predicting the result got it wrong anyway. Again, you might say that even though they had incentive to get it right, they were still elites out of touch with the common person. Well, fine, but there was another group that had a financial interest in getting it right, and are not part of these devious elites: The bookies. They still had "Leave" as 4:1 underdogs right up to the end.
The reason for the over-confidence was that voters tend to shy away from more radical stances in the last days of a campaign. I once heard a Canadian pundit call it the "NDP Swerve." The voter tells pollsters that they're mad as hell, and going to vote for the NDP, then gets in to the voting booth, and says, "what am I thinking, I can't vote for the NDP!" And goes back to the same party they always vote for. Along similar lines, there was an assumption that the "Leave" campaign was going to lose a few percent at least from whatever the polls were showing.
But it didn't happen. There was no swerve. And judging from the comments of regretful voters, it's because those angry voters didn't have their big change of heart in the booth, because they didn't think it would matter. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us: There have been lots of times recently when voters seem to be voting to "send a message" that doesn't really correspond to what they're actually voting on. They may use a referendum to pass judgement on the current government, rather than the actual issue. And various Quebec elections and referendum votes have been based on messages to various governments or grabbing leverage, rather than the (seemingly important) issue of separation.
So that's why some people are serious about wanting a second, this-time-we-mean-it referendum. Personally, I don't like that idea, even if it would be a second chance at the outcome I prefered. Aside from, you know, principles and crap like that, there's the dangerous precident. This referendum has shown everyone on Earth what happens when you don't take your votes seriously. A do-over would give flaky voters the confidence to make more silly votes they don't mean with whatever imagined intentions behind them. Whatever else it is, the Brexit vote is a great teachable moment for democracies everywhere. It's unfortunate we had to sacrifice a large country to do so, but if it convinces Americans not to protest-vote for Trump, it will be worth it.
Having said that, here's a scenario that wouldn't surprise me: The British government now has to negotiate a departure from the European Union, while also negotiating new treaties with countries and trading blocs around the world to maintain the same access to markets they had in the EU. That's probably going to take longer than expected, especially when you consider than the EU is probably going to make the negotiations difficult to make an example of the UK for any other countries thinking about their own exits. And there's the problem that the next British government(s) are going to have to make a lot of painful changes to get ready for separation. Let's say this all takes five years instead of the two that the pro-Brexit crowd has planned on. After such a long time, and with negotiations probably taking place under a new government, there might actually be a reasonable case to have a second referendum on the completed deal.
Would there be a different result on that one? It's hard to say. They will have seen a preview of what the UK economy will be like outside of Europe, and the initial signs are that it won't be pretty. But the flip side is that a sinking economy could just increase the anger and fear that the far right thrives on. If any of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate, that will remove a whole lot of "Remain" voters (note that England voted to Leave by a fairly large margin.) But then there's the age demographic. A few more years will allow demographics to shift a little more towards the younger, pro-EU voters.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
So You Got To Go And Text It / Should I Remain Or Should I Brexit?
On Thursday, the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to stay in the European Union or to leave.
I haven't really followed it closely, and I don't have real strong opinions either way. I've kind of instinctively supported the "Remain" side because:
Of course, the latter is a silly reason to support something; just because the stupid, childish, and intellectually-lazy like something doesn't make it bad. I started to realize this when I saw that John Cleese is in favour of leaving. Sure, he's no political expert, and despite being a geek, I'm not a Monty Python fanboy who takes his word as gospel. But he does seem to be fairly thoughtful and intelligent. And in the same way that I don't trust the stupid, I do tend to trust the funny.
So I thought I'd look up what other famous Britons have said on the issue. I know, I may seem like the last person to make a serious decision based on the word of celebrities, but I'm treating this as an experiment to see if I can get a feel for the issue based just on the kind of people supporting it. Here's a small sample
Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the World Wide Web)
Billy Bragg (singer)
Simon Cowell
Jeremy Clarkson (former Top Gear host)
Bob Geldoff
Eric Idle
Ian McKellen
JK Rowling
Emma Thompson
Stephen Hawking
Richard Branson
Alex Kapranos (singer, Franz Ferdinand)
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Izzard
Helena Bonham Carter
John LeCarre
Jude Law
Keira Knightly
Philip Pullman (writer, His Dark Materials)
Richard Curtis (screenwriter, Mr. Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral)
John Hurt
Derek Jacobi
Patrick Stewart
Steve Coogan (comic actor, Philomena, 24 Hour Party People)
Peter Higgs (of the famous boson)
Arsene Wenger (longtime Arsenal manager)
Danny Boyle (director, Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire)
Daniel Craig
Daisy Ridley (Rey from The Force Awakens)
Idris Elba
Chiwetel Ejiofor (actor, 12 Years a Slave)
Lily Allen (singer)
John Major (former Prime Minister)
Gary Lineker (former soccer player)
Chris Martin (singer, Coldplay)
John Oliver (comedian, Last Week Tonight; here's his take on a Brexit)
Florence Welch (of, "and the Machine" fame)
Alt J (music group)
Peter Gabriel
Elton John
David and Victoria Beckham
Bernie Ecclestone (Formula 1 CEO)
Rupert Murdoch (media tycoon)
Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder)
Michael Caine
John Cleese
Joan Collins
Roger Daltrey (singer, The Who)
Bruce Dickinson (singer, Iron Maiden)
Peter Hitchens (journalist, brother of the late Christopher)
Elizabeth Hurley
Right Said Fred
Irvine Welsh (writer, Trainspotting)
Milo Yiannopoulos (controversial blogger)
Sol Campbell (soccer player)
James Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame)
Julian Fellows (Downtown Abbey creator)
Ian Botham (former cricket star)
And here is Wikipedia's even more comprehensive list. So here's my reaction to the lists:
In my still poorly-informed and ultimately irrelevant opinion, I'd still stick to the remain side.
I haven't really followed it closely, and I don't have real strong opinions either way. I've kind of instinctively supported the "Remain" side because:
- I generally support people working together rather than walking away because they can't get along.
- All the stupid people are supporting "Leave"
Of course, the latter is a silly reason to support something; just because the stupid, childish, and intellectually-lazy like something doesn't make it bad. I started to realize this when I saw that John Cleese is in favour of leaving. Sure, he's no political expert, and despite being a geek, I'm not a Monty Python fanboy who takes his word as gospel. But he does seem to be fairly thoughtful and intelligent. And in the same way that I don't trust the stupid, I do tend to trust the funny.
So I thought I'd look up what other famous Britons have said on the issue. I know, I may seem like the last person to make a serious decision based on the word of celebrities, but I'm treating this as an experiment to see if I can get a feel for the issue based just on the kind of people supporting it. Here's a small sample
Stay
David Cameron (Prime Minister)Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the World Wide Web)
Billy Bragg (singer)
Simon Cowell
Jeremy Clarkson (former Top Gear host)
Bob Geldoff
Eric Idle
Ian McKellen
JK Rowling
Emma Thompson
Stephen Hawking
Richard Branson
Alex Kapranos (singer, Franz Ferdinand)
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Izzard
Helena Bonham Carter
John LeCarre
Jude Law
Keira Knightly
Philip Pullman (writer, His Dark Materials)
Richard Curtis (screenwriter, Mr. Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral)
John Hurt
Derek Jacobi
Patrick Stewart
Steve Coogan (comic actor, Philomena, 24 Hour Party People)
Peter Higgs (of the famous boson)
Arsene Wenger (longtime Arsenal manager)
Danny Boyle (director, Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire)
Daniel Craig
Daisy Ridley (Rey from The Force Awakens)
Idris Elba
Chiwetel Ejiofor (actor, 12 Years a Slave)
Lily Allen (singer)
John Major (former Prime Minister)
Gary Lineker (former soccer player)
Chris Martin (singer, Coldplay)
John Oliver (comedian, Last Week Tonight; here's his take on a Brexit)
Florence Welch (of, "and the Machine" fame)
Alt J (music group)
Peter Gabriel
Elton John
David and Victoria Beckham
Leave
Boris Johnson (former London mayor)Bernie Ecclestone (Formula 1 CEO)
Rupert Murdoch (media tycoon)
Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder)
Michael Caine
John Cleese
Joan Collins
Roger Daltrey (singer, The Who)
Bruce Dickinson (singer, Iron Maiden)
Peter Hitchens (journalist, brother of the late Christopher)
Elizabeth Hurley
Right Said Fred
Irvine Welsh (writer, Trainspotting)
Milo Yiannopoulos (controversial blogger)
Sol Campbell (soccer player)
James Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame)
Julian Fellows (Downtown Abbey creator)
Ian Botham (former cricket star)
And here is Wikipedia's even more comprehensive list. So here's my reaction to the lists:
- Really? Morrissey doesn't have an opinion on this?
- I wonder if Cleese and Idle have clashed on this, and will they sell tickets?
- There's a surprising mix on both sides. Both have their side of intellectuals, and both the lovable and hatable.
- Though there are old and young on both sides, the Leave side seems to be older on average.
In my still poorly-informed and ultimately irrelevant opinion, I'd still stick to the remain side.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Blog Features Giants
There's a new movie out called The BFG, based on the book by Roald Dahl. So apparently Dahl is going to be the kid's version of Philip K. Dick, with Hollywood grinding-out every one of his books eventually.
Of course, there's a problem here. The book came out in 1982, so for someone my age, it would have appealed to slightly younger people. So when I hear "BFG," I think of the weapon of that name from the Doom video game. It came out when I was in my second year of University, close to its target demographic, so I'm sure I'm not the only one. Just the association with a violent video game is an unfortunate thing, even before you consider what the word between, "Big" and "Gun" is.
The hilarious part is, you know someone at the studio did research on this, studying just what percentage of the population associated the three letters with each media property. I guess it makes sense: it's a fight between Generation X and the Millennials, and the latter wins on both numbers and likelihood to go to movies.
But here's something I never thought of before: I can understand wanting to put "friendly" in the title, since that's not how giants are usually portrayed. But "big" though? "Big giant" is redundant, since giants are, by definition, big. So it should just be "The FG," or, "The Friendly Giant." Well, Mr. British author and American director, that's a concept we in Canada pioneered, and we didn't even need any CGI to do it.
Of course, there's a problem here. The book came out in 1982, so for someone my age, it would have appealed to slightly younger people. So when I hear "BFG," I think of the weapon of that name from the Doom video game. It came out when I was in my second year of University, close to its target demographic, so I'm sure I'm not the only one. Just the association with a violent video game is an unfortunate thing, even before you consider what the word between, "Big" and "Gun" is.
The hilarious part is, you know someone at the studio did research on this, studying just what percentage of the population associated the three letters with each media property. I guess it makes sense: it's a fight between Generation X and the Millennials, and the latter wins on both numbers and likelihood to go to movies.
But here's something I never thought of before: I can understand wanting to put "friendly" in the title, since that's not how giants are usually portrayed. But "big" though? "Big giant" is redundant, since giants are, by definition, big. So it should just be "The FG," or, "The Friendly Giant." Well, Mr. British author and American director, that's a concept we in Canada pioneered, and we didn't even need any CGI to do it.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
End Me Your Sears
You may know that the Sears department store is officially "Sears-Roebuck." And since my name, Roe, is derived from Roebuck, I had always held out hope that I'd turn out to be an heir to the company fortune. But I later found out that Mr. Roebuck left the company and sold his share early on, so he hardly made any money off the business. So the only thing I might inherit is a poor sense of business timing.
But these days it's actually a relief that I'm not going to be stuck with shares in Sears-Roebuck, since the company isn't doing too well. I recently went to the Sears in Cambridge for the first time in a while, and found that it's going to close. At least, I assume it's closing; everything is on clearance and all sales are final, though I couldn't find any signs saying it was actually closing, and I was too embarrassed to ask such an obvious question.
I wondered if any other Sears stores were closing, so I googled "Sears closing." That wasn't very helpful, since I got links to newspaper and magazine articles announcing one round of store closures after another for the past ten years. One analyst compared it to a slow motion bankruptcy sell off.
So apparently I've ignored the decline of Sears during this time that I've trashed Target and made snide remarks about Wal-Mart. I remember hearing about the company's decline under their current CEO, that he's the sort of real-life Gordon Gekko who hands out copies of Atlas Shrugged to his underlings. But during my search through reports of store closures I got a better picture.
His strategy is to increase profits even it at the expense of sales. That is, to cut back on more flexible expenses like advertising and store decoration - that will inevitably reduce sales, but ideally you'll make more money due to the lowered expenses. I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess Sears stores haven't really changed much over the years. I mean, a time-traveler from the eighties would feel at home in a modern Sears, but they'd freak out when they see what today's McDonald's looks like.
Overall, the strategy doesn't seem to be working. There are a lot of complaints about the state of stores, sales are down, and even elderly demographics are turned off. But hey, as long as the company continues to collapse slowly, there'll be plenty of clearance sales for years to come. I was worried that the disappearance of Target would mean Wal-Mart is our only choice for discount department stores, but apparently we have another option: Your nearest closing Sears.
But these days it's actually a relief that I'm not going to be stuck with shares in Sears-Roebuck, since the company isn't doing too well. I recently went to the Sears in Cambridge for the first time in a while, and found that it's going to close. At least, I assume it's closing; everything is on clearance and all sales are final, though I couldn't find any signs saying it was actually closing, and I was too embarrassed to ask such an obvious question.
I wondered if any other Sears stores were closing, so I googled "Sears closing." That wasn't very helpful, since I got links to newspaper and magazine articles announcing one round of store closures after another for the past ten years. One analyst compared it to a slow motion bankruptcy sell off.
So apparently I've ignored the decline of Sears during this time that I've trashed Target and made snide remarks about Wal-Mart. I remember hearing about the company's decline under their current CEO, that he's the sort of real-life Gordon Gekko who hands out copies of Atlas Shrugged to his underlings. But during my search through reports of store closures I got a better picture.
His strategy is to increase profits even it at the expense of sales. That is, to cut back on more flexible expenses like advertising and store decoration - that will inevitably reduce sales, but ideally you'll make more money due to the lowered expenses. I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess Sears stores haven't really changed much over the years. I mean, a time-traveler from the eighties would feel at home in a modern Sears, but they'd freak out when they see what today's McDonald's looks like.
Overall, the strategy doesn't seem to be working. There are a lot of complaints about the state of stores, sales are down, and even elderly demographics are turned off. But hey, as long as the company continues to collapse slowly, there'll be plenty of clearance sales for years to come. I was worried that the disappearance of Target would mean Wal-Mart is our only choice for discount department stores, but apparently we have another option: Your nearest closing Sears.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Whistlin' Yankee
In politics, there's a concept called a "Dog Whistle." That's when a politician says something that most people will take little notice of, but one particular group will interpret positively. An example that I heard once was that when George W Bush talked about abortion, he liked to say that we need to encourage "a culture of life." To most people, this just sounds like flowery rhetoric. But staunch Catholics would recognize it as a phrase then-Pope John-Paul II used. Thus, Catholics felt like Bush was catering to them, but no one else realized it, so no one freaked out that he was following the Vatican's agenda.
And that's how Dog Whistles work: they allow a politician to lobby a particular group, even if it would normally be damaging to be seen appealing to that group. Like actual dog whistles, only the intended audience hears the message. If others hear the message, that can cause problems. In Canada's last federal election, the Conservatives pushed their religious abuse hotline, hoping racists would see it as anti-Islamic, while others would just interpret it as a civil-rights issue. Unfortunately for them, lots of people took the racial interpretation, with disastrous electoral consequences.
But we might be seeing the end of the concept. One of the defining characteristics of the Trump campaign is that he doesn't use Dog Whistles. If he wants to score points with voters who believe socially-unacceptable things, he just says them. This seems to work for him because it energizes enough voters to more than makes up for the ones he loses with the controversial remark. Plus there are a lot of voters who admire his boldness so much that they can forgive him for any unpopular quotes.
At least, that's what it seems. On closer inspection, he does use Dog Whistles, they just don't work the way you might expect. That's the thesis in a recent article from Trump's latest bogeyman, The Washington Post. They point out that Trump often seems to imply strange things going on that no one knows about, using phrases like "What's going on there?" Such questions seem out of character for him, since he usually portrays himself as the smart guy wth all the answers. But what that phrase does is allow supporters to insert whatever conspiracy they want. That's not to say that all Trump supporters are conspiracy buffs (though I dare say he has that market cornered too.) But he does appeal to people who feel powerless in a world that is fixed to favour the powerful.
That also helps to explain Trump's latest I-can't-believe-he-said-that moment. He implied that soldiers in Iraq profited off of America's rebuilding of the country. (To be fair, Trump claimed he was refering to Iraqi soldiers, rather than Americans.) Normally it would be unthinkable for a Republican to criticize the U.S. military. But in this case, he's appealing to people who feel like those with more power are pulling a fast one on them. That anger can be aimed at companies, government, and apparently even the military.
And that's how Dog Whistles work: they allow a politician to lobby a particular group, even if it would normally be damaging to be seen appealing to that group. Like actual dog whistles, only the intended audience hears the message. If others hear the message, that can cause problems. In Canada's last federal election, the Conservatives pushed their religious abuse hotline, hoping racists would see it as anti-Islamic, while others would just interpret it as a civil-rights issue. Unfortunately for them, lots of people took the racial interpretation, with disastrous electoral consequences.
But we might be seeing the end of the concept. One of the defining characteristics of the Trump campaign is that he doesn't use Dog Whistles. If he wants to score points with voters who believe socially-unacceptable things, he just says them. This seems to work for him because it energizes enough voters to more than makes up for the ones he loses with the controversial remark. Plus there are a lot of voters who admire his boldness so much that they can forgive him for any unpopular quotes.
At least, that's what it seems. On closer inspection, he does use Dog Whistles, they just don't work the way you might expect. That's the thesis in a recent article from Trump's latest bogeyman, The Washington Post. They point out that Trump often seems to imply strange things going on that no one knows about, using phrases like "What's going on there?" Such questions seem out of character for him, since he usually portrays himself as the smart guy wth all the answers. But what that phrase does is allow supporters to insert whatever conspiracy they want. That's not to say that all Trump supporters are conspiracy buffs (though I dare say he has that market cornered too.) But he does appeal to people who feel powerless in a world that is fixed to favour the powerful.
That also helps to explain Trump's latest I-can't-believe-he-said-that moment. He implied that soldiers in Iraq profited off of America's rebuilding of the country. (To be fair, Trump claimed he was refering to Iraqi soldiers, rather than Americans.) Normally it would be unthinkable for a Republican to criticize the U.S. military. But in this case, he's appealing to people who feel like those with more power are pulling a fast one on them. That anger can be aimed at companies, government, and apparently even the military.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Before Accessing This Blog, Please Read And Agree To The Following
Those user license agreements they make you agree to when you install software have become a bit of a joke. It's sort of assumed that you won't really read it, even though you usually have to click the button swearing you have read it. And the companies don't seem to care that you don't read them. They do urge you to carefully read it, but it's not like they give you a quiz to prove you've read it. A few times I've seen agreements where it won't let you click the "I Agree" button until you've scrolled to the bottom of the agreement. But that's a pretty half-hearted way of encouraging us to read it.
I don't read the agreements, but I do make a case of skimming over it. I do this for a couple of reasons:
And that's actually saved me from installing something I didn't want a few times.
Today I had one of those agreements: I scanned through the first few paragraphs, but then something came up, and I had to leave the computer for a bit. I didn't get back to it until about an hour later. Of course, even in our heavily-surveilled society, I doubt anyone was tracking my actions. But if they were, they would be left wondering why it took me over an hour to click the "I Agree" button. And the only two explanations would be:
I don't read the agreements, but I do make a case of skimming over it. I do this for a couple of reasons:
- It allows me to feel morally superior to people who don't read it at all
- I can at least ensure that they haven't snuck in something crazy like adware.
And that's actually saved me from installing something I didn't want a few times.
Today I had one of those agreements: I scanned through the first few paragraphs, but then something came up, and I had to leave the computer for a bit. I didn't get back to it until about an hour later. Of course, even in our heavily-surveilled society, I doubt anyone was tracking my actions. But if they were, they would be left wondering why it took me over an hour to click the "I Agree" button. And the only two explanations would be:
- I'm the first person ever to read the entire agreement, or
- The agreement is so boring, I actually fell asleep while reading it.
Monday, June 13, 2016
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Defence Is Offence
I've always thought that Canadians' attitude to hockey is sort of like a child's attitude to his favourite toy: He wants other kids to admire it, but God forbid any of them should try playing with it. I mean, we did create a world championship, then name it after ourselves. And we did offer a concession and call it the "World Cup," only to then host it every time.
Speaking of the World Cup of Hockey, did you know the trophy was designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry? He grew up in Toronto, and remained a hockey fan despite living much of his life in the US. So he was happy to take on this design challenge. I liked the design, though admittedly, my only criteria was that it be less cheesy than the original World Cup trophy, and less ugly than the soccer World Cup trophy. Check and check. So I was disappointed that most Hockey Guys were nonplussed by the design. It was the usual vague dislike that the hockey world always gives to new things, and it seemed to me to underline the sport's unwillingness to associate with anything intellectual. But having said all that, I've got to point out that the Cup's new logo makes it look like a weird Kleenex dispenser.
So I haven't been too enthusiastic about the World Cup. But then I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the start of the new ad for said Cup, which is built around the question, "who owns hockey?" and features fans from various countries making their case. It seems like a major breakthrough for us to admit that other countries might actually have an emotional connection to the sport.
Unfortunately, it ends by cranking the nationalism to eleven, with a badly CGI'ed scene of Johnathon Toews and Sidney Crosby reassuring a crowd that that we shouldn't be troubled by those nasty foreigners and their love of our game. The whole giant-face-addressing-the-crowd thing has a 1984 vibe to it, which is made worse by the line "Hockey invented Canada." Aside from not really making sense, that's a new level to the Canadian hockey rhetoric.
But the subtler problem with the final scene is that it creates a vision of Canadian hockey fans so enthusiastic that they've gathered in an urban square just to be part of the moment. Trouble is, it was Raptors fans that kind of invented that. That's not to say that other sports fans can't reuse the concept, but when you need to borrow another sport's expression of fandom, it does take away from the message that Canada-is-hockey-is-Canada.
Speaking of the World Cup of Hockey, did you know the trophy was designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry? He grew up in Toronto, and remained a hockey fan despite living much of his life in the US. So he was happy to take on this design challenge. I liked the design, though admittedly, my only criteria was that it be less cheesy than the original World Cup trophy, and less ugly than the soccer World Cup trophy. Check and check. So I was disappointed that most Hockey Guys were nonplussed by the design. It was the usual vague dislike that the hockey world always gives to new things, and it seemed to me to underline the sport's unwillingness to associate with anything intellectual. But having said all that, I've got to point out that the Cup's new logo makes it look like a weird Kleenex dispenser.
So I haven't been too enthusiastic about the World Cup. But then I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the start of the new ad for said Cup, which is built around the question, "who owns hockey?" and features fans from various countries making their case. It seems like a major breakthrough for us to admit that other countries might actually have an emotional connection to the sport.
Unfortunately, it ends by cranking the nationalism to eleven, with a badly CGI'ed scene of Johnathon Toews and Sidney Crosby reassuring a crowd that that we shouldn't be troubled by those nasty foreigners and their love of our game. The whole giant-face-addressing-the-crowd thing has a 1984 vibe to it, which is made worse by the line "Hockey invented Canada." Aside from not really making sense, that's a new level to the Canadian hockey rhetoric.
But the subtler problem with the final scene is that it creates a vision of Canadian hockey fans so enthusiastic that they've gathered in an urban square just to be part of the moment. Trouble is, it was Raptors fans that kind of invented that. That's not to say that other sports fans can't reuse the concept, but when you need to borrow another sport's expression of fandom, it does take away from the message that Canada-is-hockey-is-Canada.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Friday, June 10, 2016
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #32
Ultimately, Hulk Hogan's greatest impact on society will be as a pawn in a billionaire's plot to take down a media empire.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Who Needs Tickets?
Tickets to events are a situation where the rules of capitalism are fairly clear: You have an item - the ticket - of which there is a finite supply. So - in a completely free market - the demand for that item would determine the price. If everyone were okay with that arrangement, the tickets would be sold through some sort of auction system, this guaranteeing all the tickets get sold, and at the maximum price.
But people aren't okay with that. For whatever reason, we feel that tickets should be within reach of the average fan. I guess that's because sports is seen as being for the young and young-at-heart, and the arts are seen as being above base things like money. Of course, you don't have to look far to see inconsistencies in that. Sports cars are also for the young and young-at-heart, but no one feels a moral need for them to cost the same as normal cars, rather than what the market will bear. Also, we're okay with the original ticket price being high; well, we're not okay with it, but we don't regard it as the same level of immorality as scalping.
So we insist on fixed ticket pricing, and the determination of who gets one of the limited number of tickets is done randomly. Or it's determined by passion, as measured by camping in front of the box office or waiting by the computer for the second they go on sale. And this arrangement is what enables scalping in its many forms. That concept is stepping in and grabbing that extra money off the table that the original vendors aren't allowed to.
But it should be noted that the capitalist and emotional sides of this issue aren't necessarily at odds. After all, concerts and sports events have the problem that more people want to attend than will fit. Most people would agree that it seems fair if the most passionate fans attend. Capitalism is all about deciding who gets scarce resources, and in an ideal world, it would work here too. Those more passionate fans will be more willing to spend money on the tickets, and will out-bid those who are less passionate, and thus would rather spend some of their money elsewhere
But that assumes everyone has approximately the same amount of money. And as we all know, that's not the case. The huge difference in wealth distorts the market: an upper-middle-class but borderline fan will easily out-bid a dedicated fan on minimum wage, since the small slice of the wealthy person's entertainment budget will be greater than the entirety of the poor person's entertainment budget.
This week, we saw these principles taken to new extremes with the Tragically Hip farewell tour. On the capitalist side, the supply is extremely limited, since it's the final tour, and Gord Downie's health will limit the number of concerts. But on the human side, a final tour is the time when it feels more important than ever that attendees be determined by passion rather than wealth. Those expectations have come face-to-face with a ticket industry that has edged closer and closer to being an unrestrained market. Although it happens all the time, this particular time that our weird sorta-free-market ticket system let the rich out-pay the passionate, it seemed so much worse.
But people aren't okay with that. For whatever reason, we feel that tickets should be within reach of the average fan. I guess that's because sports is seen as being for the young and young-at-heart, and the arts are seen as being above base things like money. Of course, you don't have to look far to see inconsistencies in that. Sports cars are also for the young and young-at-heart, but no one feels a moral need for them to cost the same as normal cars, rather than what the market will bear. Also, we're okay with the original ticket price being high; well, we're not okay with it, but we don't regard it as the same level of immorality as scalping.
So we insist on fixed ticket pricing, and the determination of who gets one of the limited number of tickets is done randomly. Or it's determined by passion, as measured by camping in front of the box office or waiting by the computer for the second they go on sale. And this arrangement is what enables scalping in its many forms. That concept is stepping in and grabbing that extra money off the table that the original vendors aren't allowed to.
But it should be noted that the capitalist and emotional sides of this issue aren't necessarily at odds. After all, concerts and sports events have the problem that more people want to attend than will fit. Most people would agree that it seems fair if the most passionate fans attend. Capitalism is all about deciding who gets scarce resources, and in an ideal world, it would work here too. Those more passionate fans will be more willing to spend money on the tickets, and will out-bid those who are less passionate, and thus would rather spend some of their money elsewhere
But that assumes everyone has approximately the same amount of money. And as we all know, that's not the case. The huge difference in wealth distorts the market: an upper-middle-class but borderline fan will easily out-bid a dedicated fan on minimum wage, since the small slice of the wealthy person's entertainment budget will be greater than the entirety of the poor person's entertainment budget.
This week, we saw these principles taken to new extremes with the Tragically Hip farewell tour. On the capitalist side, the supply is extremely limited, since it's the final tour, and Gord Downie's health will limit the number of concerts. But on the human side, a final tour is the time when it feels more important than ever that attendees be determined by passion rather than wealth. Those expectations have come face-to-face with a ticket industry that has edged closer and closer to being an unrestrained market. Although it happens all the time, this particular time that our weird sorta-free-market ticket system let the rich out-pay the passionate, it seemed so much worse.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Retro Rocket
There's news out that India has test launched a mini space shuttle mounted on a rocket. This is just a prototype: the real one will be much bigger, similar to the American Space Shuttle. But building a shuttle isn't too trendy: the US is currently borrowing the (disposable) Russian Soyuz capsule, while working on building their own new spacecraft which is a throwback to the old Apollo design. And the relatively new Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft is a simple disposable similar to Soyuz.
So the Indians may be swimming against the tide. The Space Shuttle concept used to be popular: The Soviets built one (then quickly cancelled it.) And the Europeans and Japanese looked into building small shuttles. But the idea faded.
I guess it's because the American shuttle was disappointing, what with its accidents, expense, and overall failure to make space travel easy and routine. But I don't know that it's necessarily such an inherently bad idea. Whenever I've read anything about the shuttle's design, I've always been amazed at how the expectations where so out-of-line with the actual use. For instance, everyone involved had the assumption it would be going into space at least every week. But the reality was that it never got more frequent than once a month.
Also, the military was heavily involved in the design. You might think that would be because it's the U.S. and the military has to be involved in everything, but it was actually a political play to get congressional support for the Shuttle. The assumption was that shuttles would be constantly needed to launch new military satellites, so the Air Force specified minimum performance requirements. The reality was that there was little military use: disposable rockets were cheaper for launching satellites, and there was never much need for satellites to be launched on a quick ad hoc basis.
The point is that the Space Shuttle was designed for reasons that never came to pass, with abilities that were never used. Though it had to be built with those needs in mind, otherwise it never would have been approved. Confused? Welcome to the American government. So I wonder: if they had an accurate idea of what the Shuttle would be used for, and the political backing to build that, how would that have changed the design, and could they have come up with something far more efficient than what we actually ended up with?
I think it's possible that you could do a better job. The shuttle was always going to have difficulties because of the lack of flights that prevented economies of scale. But combine a nice simple shuttle with the SpaceX self-landing booster and you could have a new level of easy access to space.
So the Indians may be swimming against the tide. The Space Shuttle concept used to be popular: The Soviets built one (then quickly cancelled it.) And the Europeans and Japanese looked into building small shuttles. But the idea faded.
I guess it's because the American shuttle was disappointing, what with its accidents, expense, and overall failure to make space travel easy and routine. But I don't know that it's necessarily such an inherently bad idea. Whenever I've read anything about the shuttle's design, I've always been amazed at how the expectations where so out-of-line with the actual use. For instance, everyone involved had the assumption it would be going into space at least every week. But the reality was that it never got more frequent than once a month.
Also, the military was heavily involved in the design. You might think that would be because it's the U.S. and the military has to be involved in everything, but it was actually a political play to get congressional support for the Shuttle. The assumption was that shuttles would be constantly needed to launch new military satellites, so the Air Force specified minimum performance requirements. The reality was that there was little military use: disposable rockets were cheaper for launching satellites, and there was never much need for satellites to be launched on a quick ad hoc basis.
The point is that the Space Shuttle was designed for reasons that never came to pass, with abilities that were never used. Though it had to be built with those needs in mind, otherwise it never would have been approved. Confused? Welcome to the American government. So I wonder: if they had an accurate idea of what the Shuttle would be used for, and the political backing to build that, how would that have changed the design, and could they have come up with something far more efficient than what we actually ended up with?
I think it's possible that you could do a better job. The shuttle was always going to have difficulties because of the lack of flights that prevented economies of scale. But combine a nice simple shuttle with the SpaceX self-landing booster and you could have a new level of easy access to space.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
It'll Be Better Than Space Jam 2
Here's my pitch for a movie comedy: You've got a professional basketball team, and they're really good. But the problem is that they're good because of team play: they don't have any big superstars. So when they get into the playoffs they're at a disadvantage when referees favour big-name players. The team owner (Samuel L. Jackson) is furious, and threatens the league commissioner (Will Ferrell) with exposing their baissed officiating. So they make a deal: the team will be allowed to designate one player as their stand-in superstar. The refs will treat him as though he's one of the top players: he never gets called for anything, it's a foul everytime someone touches him, he can flop and no one acknowledges it.
The coach (Steve Harvey) decides he might as well put this designation on the team's worst player (Kevin Hart.) But because this deal is so secret, no one tells the player himself. He just thinks he's suddenly become the great player he always believed himself to be.
The whole scheme falls apart thanks to two journalists (Leslie Jones and Andy Samberg) from the struggling sports news website Doleground. They figure out what's happening, and threaten to expose it all, just as the team is about to win the championship. When they corner the player with the accusation, he's angry that he's been lied-to, but still wants to win the title. So he agrees to expose the scam by winning the game in the most extreme way possible: tripping players, giving them wedgies, sneaking over and lowering the basket, etc. Then we follow up that slapstick climax with a tacked-on moral about honesty.
The coach (Steve Harvey) decides he might as well put this designation on the team's worst player (Kevin Hart.) But because this deal is so secret, no one tells the player himself. He just thinks he's suddenly become the great player he always believed himself to be.
The whole scheme falls apart thanks to two journalists (Leslie Jones and Andy Samberg) from the struggling sports news website Doleground. They figure out what's happening, and threaten to expose it all, just as the team is about to win the championship. When they corner the player with the accusation, he's angry that he's been lied-to, but still wants to win the title. So he agrees to expose the scam by winning the game in the most extreme way possible: tripping players, giving them wedgies, sneaking over and lowering the basket, etc. Then we follow up that slapstick climax with a tacked-on moral about honesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)