I seem to be coming down with a cold. That's right, in July. Normally I get two colds a year: at the start of winter and the end of winter. So I'll just hope I'm getting the first one out of the way early.
This seasonally-inappropriate illness shouldn't be a surprise; scientists maintain that low temperatures don't affect the human body's ability to fight viruses. They're unsure why we get more colds in winter, but suggest it's because we spend more time indoors, and thus closer to other people. If that's true, then I suggest that we could be susceptable to summer colds in times like this when we have long periods of heat and humidity. That probably forces people indoors just as much as winter does.
Personally, I've always been skeptical of that idea that colds are communicated by people being indoors more in the winter. In the modern world, the amount of time we spend inside doesn't really change that much with the weather. Probably a better explanation would be schooling. That's one of the few places where we do bring together people from all over society in one place. It's always seemed to me that the colds start going around when school starts, not when the cold weather starts.
Well we're still a month away from the start of school, so what could currently bring together people from all over society to pass germs around? It's got to be Pokemon Go. It's clearly a plot to bring disease to geeks in the western world. I thought it was suspicious that a Japanese franchise game gets released in the U.S. weeks before Japan. It wasn't to improve the Japanese servers, it was to develop an antidote.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
A Big Ball Of Wibbly-Wobbly, Timey-Wimey, Chickeny-Wickeny Stuff
If, like me, you enjoy trivia, you've probably seen a quiz or Internet listicle about which brand personnas were real people (Chef Boyardee, Duncan Hines) and which ones are made up (Betty Crocker, Mrs. Butterworth.) One that might surprise people is Colonel Sanders, of KFC fame, who was a real person. People older than me will remember seeing him in commercials, but people my age and under will only have seen him as a cartoon caricature, and probably assume he was made up just like Ronald McDonald.
I'm not old enough to remember him in ads, but his death in 1980 is one of the earliest news stories I can remember. That may not have been the biggest story back then, but for many kids, it was like being told that Santa was dead, so teachers had to patiently explain it to us. So that's why I cringe a little when I see the latest way that KFC has employed his image. Not that I have any connection to him - I can't even remember the last time I ate at KFC - but I do realize that it's an actual person that they're dealing with.
We've seen a few other people start the transition from human company founders and pitchmen to cartoon symbol: Orville Redenbacher and Wendy's Dave Thomas come to mind. I assume they wouldn't mind to much, since they were symbols of their brands in life, and creating a character to be a corporate figurehead. But even business leaders that seem more serious might be in a commercial down the road. A few years ago, Gottlieb Daimler showed up in a Mercedes ad, as a stilted way of introducing the new corporate slogan.
That ad had me imagining a future depiction of Bill Gates shown slaving over the original Edlin code, and saying the new slogan that will carry Microsoft into the 22nd century. Of course, that's ridiculous. Microsoft won't be in business that long. Though arguably Steve Jobs' public perception is about as exaggerated as any of these corpse corporate mascots, so maybe he's on his way to that fate.
But even if today's business superstars live on as corporate mascots, they'll still be playing catch-up to Colonel Sanders, who is now in his own comic book. Upon hearing about this, I assumed that it would be some cheesy corporate promotion that they would perhaps give out with whatever KFC calls it's Happy Meals. But no, it's an actual comic from DC, built around parallel Colonels from parallel universes. It's hard to tell what's going on from a quick glance, but they apparently have Russian Colonel, Stone Colonel, Sexy Colonel and Actual-Chicken Colonel.
I think it's safe to say this is a completely new level in the shift from person to symbol. On the one hand, it's nice to see a major brand having some fun with their mascot instead of taking themselves too seriously. But it's also weird to think that this cultural force was launched because some guy had a really good chicken recipe.
I'm not old enough to remember him in ads, but his death in 1980 is one of the earliest news stories I can remember. That may not have been the biggest story back then, but for many kids, it was like being told that Santa was dead, so teachers had to patiently explain it to us. So that's why I cringe a little when I see the latest way that KFC has employed his image. Not that I have any connection to him - I can't even remember the last time I ate at KFC - but I do realize that it's an actual person that they're dealing with.
We've seen a few other people start the transition from human company founders and pitchmen to cartoon symbol: Orville Redenbacher and Wendy's Dave Thomas come to mind. I assume they wouldn't mind to much, since they were symbols of their brands in life, and creating a character to be a corporate figurehead. But even business leaders that seem more serious might be in a commercial down the road. A few years ago, Gottlieb Daimler showed up in a Mercedes ad, as a stilted way of introducing the new corporate slogan.
That ad had me imagining a future depiction of Bill Gates shown slaving over the original Edlin code, and saying the new slogan that will carry Microsoft into the 22nd century. Of course, that's ridiculous. Microsoft won't be in business that long. Though arguably Steve Jobs' public perception is about as exaggerated as any of these corpse corporate mascots, so maybe he's on his way to that fate.
But even if today's business superstars live on as corporate mascots, they'll still be playing catch-up to Colonel Sanders, who is now in his own comic book. Upon hearing about this, I assumed that it would be some cheesy corporate promotion that they would perhaps give out with whatever KFC calls it's Happy Meals. But no, it's an actual comic from DC, built around parallel Colonels from parallel universes. It's hard to tell what's going on from a quick glance, but they apparently have Russian Colonel, Stone Colonel, Sexy Colonel and Actual-Chicken Colonel.
I think it's safe to say this is a completely new level in the shift from person to symbol. On the one hand, it's nice to see a major brand having some fun with their mascot instead of taking themselves too seriously. But it's also weird to think that this cultural force was launched because some guy had a really good chicken recipe.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Great Interest In All The Motorcrashes
Recently, there were some stories online about am Australian publicity stunt to promote car safety: they created a modified human body to survive car crashes. And they named him Graham. They described the project as the human body catching up to automobiles, since we really haven't had time to adapt to them. So in some hypothetical world where cars have been around for millions of years, we'd end up looking like Graham.
That's interesting, because I've always wondered how evolution would change modern humans. See, contrary to what you may have heard from your biology teacher or Marvel Comics, evolution doesn't make living things "better." It responds to their environment to make changes to make them more likely to survive. Or at least, to reproduce. For instance, a creature won't just suddenly become a faster runner unless there's some reason why running faster will make them more likely to live (say, by outrunning predators.)
So, for modern humans, it's hard to say which way evolution will take us. To use that running example, it's unlikely we'd evolve to be better runners, since we rarely have to outrun predators anymore. However, if you can run fast, you'll be successful at athletics, which will increase your likelihood to reproduce.
To be clear, I realize that this discussion is moot. It would take tens of thousands of years for any evolution to be noticeable, and it's increasingly clear that long before that we'll have either destroyed ourselves or transcended biology.
But it's interesting to contemplate, because there's all kinds of ways modern life might change us, and not necessarily in positive ways. For instance, it takes a certain maturity and forethought to make the decision to use birth-control. And people who have that maturity and forethought will be less likely to reproduce, thus breeding it out of the human race.
And Graham's creators have a point: since car crashes are one of the things most likely to kill a person before they can reproduce, surviving them would probably be a big influence on our evolutionary path. The only other factor that would have such an impact on our chances of reproducing would be impressing the opposite sex in high school. And I think the idea the idea that we would evolve to become a fifteen-year-old's ideal is even more horrifying than Graham. Suddenly the choice between apocalypse and uploading or consciousness to computers doesn't seem so bad.
That's interesting, because I've always wondered how evolution would change modern humans. See, contrary to what you may have heard from your biology teacher or Marvel Comics, evolution doesn't make living things "better." It responds to their environment to make changes to make them more likely to survive. Or at least, to reproduce. For instance, a creature won't just suddenly become a faster runner unless there's some reason why running faster will make them more likely to live (say, by outrunning predators.)
So, for modern humans, it's hard to say which way evolution will take us. To use that running example, it's unlikely we'd evolve to be better runners, since we rarely have to outrun predators anymore. However, if you can run fast, you'll be successful at athletics, which will increase your likelihood to reproduce.
To be clear, I realize that this discussion is moot. It would take tens of thousands of years for any evolution to be noticeable, and it's increasingly clear that long before that we'll have either destroyed ourselves or transcended biology.
But it's interesting to contemplate, because there's all kinds of ways modern life might change us, and not necessarily in positive ways. For instance, it takes a certain maturity and forethought to make the decision to use birth-control. And people who have that maturity and forethought will be less likely to reproduce, thus breeding it out of the human race.
And Graham's creators have a point: since car crashes are one of the things most likely to kill a person before they can reproduce, surviving them would probably be a big influence on our evolutionary path. The only other factor that would have such an impact on our chances of reproducing would be impressing the opposite sex in high school. And I think the idea the idea that we would evolve to become a fifteen-year-old's ideal is even more horrifying than Graham. Suddenly the choice between apocalypse and uploading or consciousness to computers doesn't seem so bad.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
A Sudden Sense Of Liberty
One mystery in the Donald Trump phenomena is his appeal to evangelical Christians. After all, Trump hasn't exactly led a pious life: even if you don't find his politics abhorrent to Christian principles, he is a casino magnate on marriage number three. And he runs a beauty pageant.
The cynical might argue that America's conservative Christians have become so focused on their few chosen issues (abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms) that they'll enthusiastically support anyone who can forcefully push those issues, whatever their other faults. But even that argument didn't add up. In that area, his religious bona fides turn out to be, well, not all that bona. In his acceptance speech, he spoke positively on gay rights, albeit as a pretense to demonize immigrants. He defended a trans woman's tight to be in a beauty pageant. And he's another in the long line of Republican politicians who had a pro-life revelation conveniently before a national run.
I'm not saying evangelicals wouldn't support him, I just thought they'd fall in love with a more hard-core social conservative like Ted Cruz first, then reluctantly back Trump a la Bernie to Hillary supporters. So why are they so enthusiastic?
It hit me recently that the appeal could be faith. Faith is, of course, kind of important in religion. But for many people today, their religious faith is somewhat amorphous and tinged with doubt. For instance, they won't think of the Bible as literally true. And that attitude is not unlike how most people look at politics: they have basic values, but acknowledge that the world is complicated and politics will always be an inexact science.
But if you're used to a religious belief based on absolutes, politics won't deliver the certainty you're used to. And that's where Trump comes in: The one thing he does have in common with American evangelicals is a lack of ambiguities. So that's my explanation, that Trump presents a message of certainty that youcan have faith in.
The cynical might argue that America's conservative Christians have become so focused on their few chosen issues (abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms) that they'll enthusiastically support anyone who can forcefully push those issues, whatever their other faults. But even that argument didn't add up. In that area, his religious bona fides turn out to be, well, not all that bona. In his acceptance speech, he spoke positively on gay rights, albeit as a pretense to demonize immigrants. He defended a trans woman's tight to be in a beauty pageant. And he's another in the long line of Republican politicians who had a pro-life revelation conveniently before a national run.
I'm not saying evangelicals wouldn't support him, I just thought they'd fall in love with a more hard-core social conservative like Ted Cruz first, then reluctantly back Trump a la Bernie to Hillary supporters. So why are they so enthusiastic?
It hit me recently that the appeal could be faith. Faith is, of course, kind of important in religion. But for many people today, their religious faith is somewhat amorphous and tinged with doubt. For instance, they won't think of the Bible as literally true. And that attitude is not unlike how most people look at politics: they have basic values, but acknowledge that the world is complicated and politics will always be an inexact science.
But if you're used to a religious belief based on absolutes, politics won't deliver the certainty you're used to. And that's where Trump comes in: The one thing he does have in common with American evangelicals is a lack of ambiguities. So that's my explanation, that Trump presents a message of certainty that youcan have faith in.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Judged By Dog
I'm getting kind of sick of dog owners on the Internet and their bragging about how much their dogs mean to them. Well, it's not that their dogs mean so much - I'm glad they get enjoyment from their pets. It's that they can't seem to testify to their dog love without putting people down. That seems like an odd thing to do on social media, since it's built around your friendships with people.
An example is this graphic. I have no idea if I have the rights to publish this here, but it's been around Facebook a few times so I figure no one will mind.
Et tu, Bill? Well, as is so often the case with quote images, it turns out this actually comes from a parody account, not Murray himself.
But real or not, I've seen that same sentiment from a lot of people, and I find it kind of threatening, since I'm definitely not a dog person. Of course, lots of people aren't dog people, since there are plenty of cat people out there. Sure, some people may claim to be in each camp, but how many actually have both animals? Dogs and cats, living together - mass hysteria.
I'm not a dog person, but that doesn't mean that I don't like dogs. I like dogs in the same way that I like tigers. I admire them, but I don't want to be confined to a closed space with them. Of course by that definition, almost everyone likes dogs, which is why I suspect that the non-Bill Murray person who said this meant you have to love being around dogs and living with dogs to qualify.
As for dogs being such reliable arbiters of trust, have you noticed how random dog behaviour is? They don't even have consistent opinions of their owners, never mind a reliable judgement of strangers. One of the reasons I'm so uneasy around dogs is that their reactions to me have always been unpredictable. I don't know if they're going to bark their head off (which must mean I'm not trustworthy) slobber all over me (meaning I've passed the test) or take no notice (I guess means I'm okay but boring.) And the fact that the enthusiastic welcome is about as sudden and violent as the complete rejection, further makes me wonder how reliable judges they are.
So please, dog owners, open yourself to the idea that your dogs are not psychic, and that non-dog people may have some merit. And celebrity quotes are nearly always fake, stop spreading them around.
An example is this graphic. I have no idea if I have the rights to publish this here, but it's been around Facebook a few times so I figure no one will mind.
Et tu, Bill? Well, as is so often the case with quote images, it turns out this actually comes from a parody account, not Murray himself.
But real or not, I've seen that same sentiment from a lot of people, and I find it kind of threatening, since I'm definitely not a dog person. Of course, lots of people aren't dog people, since there are plenty of cat people out there. Sure, some people may claim to be in each camp, but how many actually have both animals? Dogs and cats, living together - mass hysteria.
I'm not a dog person, but that doesn't mean that I don't like dogs. I like dogs in the same way that I like tigers. I admire them, but I don't want to be confined to a closed space with them. Of course by that definition, almost everyone likes dogs, which is why I suspect that the non-Bill Murray person who said this meant you have to love being around dogs and living with dogs to qualify.
As for dogs being such reliable arbiters of trust, have you noticed how random dog behaviour is? They don't even have consistent opinions of their owners, never mind a reliable judgement of strangers. One of the reasons I'm so uneasy around dogs is that their reactions to me have always been unpredictable. I don't know if they're going to bark their head off (which must mean I'm not trustworthy) slobber all over me (meaning I've passed the test) or take no notice (I guess means I'm okay but boring.) And the fact that the enthusiastic welcome is about as sudden and violent as the complete rejection, further makes me wonder how reliable judges they are.
So please, dog owners, open yourself to the idea that your dogs are not psychic, and that non-dog people may have some merit. And celebrity quotes are nearly always fake, stop spreading them around.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
State Of The Nation
Turkey's government survived a coup this week. It didn't seem to be a very well-organized coup, since they broke the number-one rule of coups: be successful or else. Having been unable to remove President Erdogan from power, he immediately started punishing anyone involved.
I'm not a big fan of the military seizing power, but that had me a little worried. Erdogan has shown that he has few scruples when there's a chance to get ahead. He angered western powers last year when the Turkish army used the fight against ISIS as a cover to attack Kurds, even though the Kurds are attacking ISIS. So when news came out that thousands were being arrested following the coup attempt, it was easy to be suspicious, especially when a lot of the first people arrested were judges, which seemed odd following a military action. And in the days since, the crackdown has gotten bigger and bigger, involving people in more and more disconnected occupations, like journalists and teachers.
People were already worrying that Erdogan was trying to become a dictator, now it looks like he's just made a huge leap towards that goal. It's hard to believe that Turkey was on the doorstep of joining the European Union only a few years ago, and were modernizing laws to fit in. One thing they did was eliminate the death penalty, a move they are now planing on reversing. That essentially sends the message that Erdogan and Turkey would rather have their strongman-cult-of-personality relationship than be in Europe. It's easy to see how that's going to start a vicious circle, in which Turkey's decent into dictatorship fuels the fear-mongering about Muslims in Europe, which will lead to resentment in Turkey, and give the government more license to do things that piss-off Europe.
So too bad for Turkey. They had a pretty good run for a hundred years there. The other country that seems to be imploding is Venezuela. Their economy has been in trouble for a while, but the crashing price of oil has caused an economic disaster. Not only are many people facing economic hardship, but basic structures of society are starting to fail: Electricity is being shut off periodically, and hospitals are running out of supplies.
Of course, Venezuela has already had its popular leader who fancied himself a dictator, Hugo Chavez. He never quite made it to absolute control. He also died three years ago, but his leadership is still being felt. While his policies were nice to the poor, they were often poorly thought out. The big hint that something was wrong came a few years ago when news came out that Venezuela was importing coffee. If you know your geography, you know that Venezuela is right next to Colombia, and thus should have no trouble growing lots of coffee. But when Chavez fixed the price of coffee, farmers couldn't make money off it, and looked for other crops.
This is a good example of the effect of a government's competence. We think of a dictator as damaging his country through abuse. That's a big problem, but they can also hurt through disorganization. Take Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and North Korea's Kims. They've done lots of harm to citizens branded political enemies. But they've arguably caused more human misery through their mismanagement of the economy. Zimbabwe suffered through hyperinflation, and North Korea is the only industrialized society to have a famine.
It's not clear how Venezuela is going to get out of this, either. The government is trying to fix things to help their citizens, but the nation itself is close to defaulting on their debt. As with many countries with oil, they've come to rely too much on the wealth that comes from the resource: the drop in price erases a large section of the economy overnight.
Both Turkey and Venezuela looked to be part of the wave of rapidly-industrializing economic success stories, but now they've lost their way severely. It illustrates just how fragile our societies can be. They rely on a lot of checks and balances, agreements, and collective will to keep them going. Though most countries have been quite resilient, pushing them too far can send them careening into disaster. It's something to think about at a time when so many people have decided that our circumstances are bad enough that we must make radical changes.
I'm not a big fan of the military seizing power, but that had me a little worried. Erdogan has shown that he has few scruples when there's a chance to get ahead. He angered western powers last year when the Turkish army used the fight against ISIS as a cover to attack Kurds, even though the Kurds are attacking ISIS. So when news came out that thousands were being arrested following the coup attempt, it was easy to be suspicious, especially when a lot of the first people arrested were judges, which seemed odd following a military action. And in the days since, the crackdown has gotten bigger and bigger, involving people in more and more disconnected occupations, like journalists and teachers.
People were already worrying that Erdogan was trying to become a dictator, now it looks like he's just made a huge leap towards that goal. It's hard to believe that Turkey was on the doorstep of joining the European Union only a few years ago, and were modernizing laws to fit in. One thing they did was eliminate the death penalty, a move they are now planing on reversing. That essentially sends the message that Erdogan and Turkey would rather have their strongman-cult-of-personality relationship than be in Europe. It's easy to see how that's going to start a vicious circle, in which Turkey's decent into dictatorship fuels the fear-mongering about Muslims in Europe, which will lead to resentment in Turkey, and give the government more license to do things that piss-off Europe.
So too bad for Turkey. They had a pretty good run for a hundred years there. The other country that seems to be imploding is Venezuela. Their economy has been in trouble for a while, but the crashing price of oil has caused an economic disaster. Not only are many people facing economic hardship, but basic structures of society are starting to fail: Electricity is being shut off periodically, and hospitals are running out of supplies.
Of course, Venezuela has already had its popular leader who fancied himself a dictator, Hugo Chavez. He never quite made it to absolute control. He also died three years ago, but his leadership is still being felt. While his policies were nice to the poor, they were often poorly thought out. The big hint that something was wrong came a few years ago when news came out that Venezuela was importing coffee. If you know your geography, you know that Venezuela is right next to Colombia, and thus should have no trouble growing lots of coffee. But when Chavez fixed the price of coffee, farmers couldn't make money off it, and looked for other crops.
This is a good example of the effect of a government's competence. We think of a dictator as damaging his country through abuse. That's a big problem, but they can also hurt through disorganization. Take Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and North Korea's Kims. They've done lots of harm to citizens branded political enemies. But they've arguably caused more human misery through their mismanagement of the economy. Zimbabwe suffered through hyperinflation, and North Korea is the only industrialized society to have a famine.
It's not clear how Venezuela is going to get out of this, either. The government is trying to fix things to help their citizens, but the nation itself is close to defaulting on their debt. As with many countries with oil, they've come to rely too much on the wealth that comes from the resource: the drop in price erases a large section of the economy overnight.
Both Turkey and Venezuela looked to be part of the wave of rapidly-industrializing economic success stories, but now they've lost their way severely. It illustrates just how fragile our societies can be. They rely on a lot of checks and balances, agreements, and collective will to keep them going. Though most countries have been quite resilient, pushing them too far can send them careening into disaster. It's something to think about at a time when so many people have decided that our circumstances are bad enough that we must make radical changes.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Let's Pretend I Looked Up A Pokémon Reference And Made It Into A Headline Pun
While I was in Kitchener's Victoria park today, I decided to count people playing Pokemon Go. No, I wasn't spying on people, I just looked for people walking along holding out their phone, glancing between it and their surroundings, looking slightly confused. I counted forty in less than an hour, and that's not counting everyone gathered around the Gazebo which must be the local PokeStop (didn't even have to look that word up - I'm actually learning the game by osmosis.)
I've never been into Pokemon, personally. I was a little too adult when it came out in the late nineties, so now I can't really be one of the adults who are currently playing it. It's unfortunate, because I'm intrigued about a new style of gameplay. But having said that, I signed up for Ingress, the previous agumented-reality game from the same company. I never really got into it, because it seemed like a lot of work to get into. Okay, I have to join a faction, mod my resonator, collect more items, and then maybe, just maybe, I can claim the local portal, that is the statue in the park down the street. So maybe it's not for me. I guess I like my reality either virtual or straight-up.
I find it amusing that people aren't really sure how to react to the game's success. It's a video game, and it's popular with Millennials, so everyone's gut reaction is to hate it. And yet there's a surprising amount of positivity coming out of it. From encouraging people to exercise, to helping them to meet people, It's forcing people to look at gaming in a new way. And anything that pushes Candy Crush off the top of the charts must be a good thing.
And I also I have to congratulate Nintendo. Yes, I usually resent them for overwriting my childhood gaming experience out of the pop-cultural collective memory. But I also have to respect how many times they can get up off the mat by embracing something new. We'll have to remember this ten years from now when their latest console has been a failure and we're still waiting for the latest Zelda game: Don't worry, they'll find a way out of it again, probably with MarioVR.
But Pokemon Go has got me thinking about what other classic games that could be turned into an augmented-reality game. How about:
I've never been into Pokemon, personally. I was a little too adult when it came out in the late nineties, so now I can't really be one of the adults who are currently playing it. It's unfortunate, because I'm intrigued about a new style of gameplay. But having said that, I signed up for Ingress, the previous agumented-reality game from the same company. I never really got into it, because it seemed like a lot of work to get into. Okay, I have to join a faction, mod my resonator, collect more items, and then maybe, just maybe, I can claim the local portal, that is the statue in the park down the street. So maybe it's not for me. I guess I like my reality either virtual or straight-up.
I find it amusing that people aren't really sure how to react to the game's success. It's a video game, and it's popular with Millennials, so everyone's gut reaction is to hate it. And yet there's a surprising amount of positivity coming out of it. From encouraging people to exercise, to helping them to meet people, It's forcing people to look at gaming in a new way. And anything that pushes Candy Crush off the top of the charts must be a good thing.
And I also I have to congratulate Nintendo. Yes, I usually resent them for overwriting my childhood gaming experience out of the pop-cultural collective memory. But I also have to respect how many times they can get up off the mat by embracing something new. We'll have to remember this ten years from now when their latest console has been a failure and we're still waiting for the latest Zelda game: Don't worry, they'll find a way out of it again, probably with MarioVR.
But Pokemon Go has got me thinking about what other classic games that could be turned into an augmented-reality game. How about:
Pac-man
- Streets make up the maze, and you - as Pac-man - go down the street, eating the dots, and avoiding ghosts. You have to get up early in the morning to get to the dots on your street before anyone else, then wander the back streets looking for power pellets. And just imagine the confusion for non-players when dozens of people suddenly turn and run away down a city street when they see a ghost coming.Mario Kart
- Your daily commute will be so much more entertaining when you can fire virtual turtle shells at people.Tetris
- Blocks fall from the sky, and you have to slot them between your city's buildings. The great thing about this game is that it will encourage people to go downtown because play will be pretty boring in the suburbs.Any MMORPG
- They involve a lot of wandering around exploring, so why not do it in the real world?Civilization
- You try to build a little civilization around your home or workplace, and try to conquer your neighbour.SimCity
- Instead of zoning a hypothetical city, why not fix the city you actually live in. You don't have to walk throuth your crappy neighbourhood anymore, just look in your phone and it will show you what the place would look like if you were in charge.Grand Theft Auto
- This would have to work with an Uber-style service. Getting a ride will be so much more exciting when you have to stage a virtual carjacking to get it.The Sims
- Create a Sim and then escort it through its virtual day. Take it to an actual workplace to do a job, then go to a restaurant to get it virtual food. Now, you hate your life, you can create a better one and actually live it.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Sunday Blogging Countdown
What's the deal with pregame shows? It's long been a part of the sports-viewing experience that there's a program before the event, which usually tells you nothing new about the event. But for weekend-afternoon programming it's probably better than angry anything else on. And it may even be less stupid.
And pregame shows seem to be big business. I'm sure they're cheap to produce, with one small set and a few over-the-hill athletes and coaches. You don't need writers. You just need some big TVs behind them, and a supply of suits you can pay for with a quick endorsement of a men's store in the closing credits. And speaking of advertising, you can fill the pregame with ads much more easily than the event itself.
So I guess I can understand why American networks run their hours of NFL pregame every Sunday morning. And why Sportsnet is bringing Ron McLean out of semi-retirement to host Hockey Night In Canada. As many have pointed out, no one is going to watch the show because of him, but they might be more likely to watch the pregame, which is when the host does much of his work.
Oh, and I suppose I should do a requiem for George Stroumboulopoulos's time as host. As a politically-aware fan of indie music and sports, I'm one of the few people who will take his side in this. He did a good job, and the only negative things anyone says about him seem to be vague talk about style. So it's just another example of how hockey is a very uninclusive culture.
Anyway, pregame shows have always been - for all their flaws - avoidable. You can make all the jokes you want about the Super Bowl pregame show starting the previous Tuesday, but the fact is that you don't have to watch it if you don't want to. But not so much anymore: today I tuned in to watch the Toronto IndyCar race at 2:30, having skipped the pregame (okay, "prerace") show that was on at 2:00. And what did I see? a half-hour of interviews and discussion. Yes, they deceptively put the race broadcast in the guide as staying half-an-hour earlier than it did, thus fooling us into watching some of the prerace show we thought we'd skipped.
That sort of thing seems to be happening more and more. So I'm assuming there's a bit of desperation to get us to watch their cheap, profitable programming. A few years from now, You'll look in your cable guide and see a baseball game listed as being 6 hours long, and you'll just have to guess when it actually starts.
And pregame shows seem to be big business. I'm sure they're cheap to produce, with one small set and a few over-the-hill athletes and coaches. You don't need writers. You just need some big TVs behind them, and a supply of suits you can pay for with a quick endorsement of a men's store in the closing credits. And speaking of advertising, you can fill the pregame with ads much more easily than the event itself.
So I guess I can understand why American networks run their hours of NFL pregame every Sunday morning. And why Sportsnet is bringing Ron McLean out of semi-retirement to host Hockey Night In Canada. As many have pointed out, no one is going to watch the show because of him, but they might be more likely to watch the pregame, which is when the host does much of his work.
Oh, and I suppose I should do a requiem for George Stroumboulopoulos's time as host. As a politically-aware fan of indie music and sports, I'm one of the few people who will take his side in this. He did a good job, and the only negative things anyone says about him seem to be vague talk about style. So it's just another example of how hockey is a very uninclusive culture.
Anyway, pregame shows have always been - for all their flaws - avoidable. You can make all the jokes you want about the Super Bowl pregame show starting the previous Tuesday, but the fact is that you don't have to watch it if you don't want to. But not so much anymore: today I tuned in to watch the Toronto IndyCar race at 2:30, having skipped the pregame (okay, "prerace") show that was on at 2:00. And what did I see? a half-hour of interviews and discussion. Yes, they deceptively put the race broadcast in the guide as staying half-an-hour earlier than it did, thus fooling us into watching some of the prerace show we thought we'd skipped.
That sort of thing seems to be happening more and more. So I'm assuming there's a bit of desperation to get us to watch their cheap, profitable programming. A few years from now, You'll look in your cable guide and see a baseball game listed as being 6 hours long, and you'll just have to guess when it actually starts.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Past The Tipping Point
Earls - a restaurant chain in western Canada - is experimenting with mandatory tipping. That is, the tip (16%) is just added to your bill automatically.
This seems like a weird half-way point. If you're going to get rid of tipping, why not just drop the concept altogether, pay a living wage, and wrap that in the prices? In other words, make it just like most goods and services. It's kind of odd how we have a selection of services for which we tip, and most that we don't. Generally we tip for services where we are in close proximity to the server (serving, hair styling, taxi drivers.) I guess it's important that we reward good service in such areas, though there are plenty of times we rely heavily on someone we don't work directly with, and thus don't tip (chefs, car mechanics, bus drivers.) And then there's the fact that some restaurants pool the tips and distribute among all staff, so any message you send with your tip will be lost on your server.
Because of that arbitrary distinction, I was surprised that most media folks discussing the manditory tip seemed incredulous that there was no incentive for servers to do a good job. Sure, you could say that tips provide a little more incentive, but everyday we rely on countless people who have no incentive to do a good job, other than a desire to keep their job. And of course, these media folk themselves fall into that category too.
So I'd just as soon get rid of tips altogether and pay proportionatly higher prices, assuming that the employees end up with the same amount of money under the new system. If you must send a message about your appreciation or disapproval, you'd have to do it by, you know, talking to the server.
This seems like a weird half-way point. If you're going to get rid of tipping, why not just drop the concept altogether, pay a living wage, and wrap that in the prices? In other words, make it just like most goods and services. It's kind of odd how we have a selection of services for which we tip, and most that we don't. Generally we tip for services where we are in close proximity to the server (serving, hair styling, taxi drivers.) I guess it's important that we reward good service in such areas, though there are plenty of times we rely heavily on someone we don't work directly with, and thus don't tip (chefs, car mechanics, bus drivers.) And then there's the fact that some restaurants pool the tips and distribute among all staff, so any message you send with your tip will be lost on your server.
Because of that arbitrary distinction, I was surprised that most media folks discussing the manditory tip seemed incredulous that there was no incentive for servers to do a good job. Sure, you could say that tips provide a little more incentive, but everyday we rely on countless people who have no incentive to do a good job, other than a desire to keep their job. And of course, these media folk themselves fall into that category too.
So I'd just as soon get rid of tips altogether and pay proportionatly higher prices, assuming that the employees end up with the same amount of money under the new system. If you must send a message about your appreciation or disapproval, you'd have to do it by, you know, talking to the server.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Diss and That
A few years ago, some sports shows tried to get involved in social media by scrolling viewers' tweets across the bottom of the screen. I assume that idea came about because some exec threw together some buzzwords, but it was also an idea with potential. You could get people discussing issues, feeling involved, giving feedback.
Instead, it was mostly fans of different teams trading insults, which I assume is why they don't have the audience participation scrolls anymore. Or maybe they realized that it makes no sense to have TV shows catering to people who have moved on to other media.
But what got me was how baseless and generic the insults were. You'd expect them to be based on actual events on the sports field, with team success giving an advantage to some fans. Say, the Leaf fans take a low profile, while the then-successful Habs remind everyone who's winning. But no, they just threw one unoriginal insult after another at the other side. It was the linguistic equivalent of the Calvin peeing truck window decals.
Speaking of which, I see the same phenomena around vehicles, with Ford and Chevy fans going after each other. Again. you'd think an entire car company would offer ample ammunition to anyone looking to insult the other side. How do you Chevy folk see out them little side windows on the new Camaro? It's bad enough our manufacturing jobs are going to Mexico, did you have to name a car "Fiesta" too?
Heck, even if they can't come up with material themselves, the Chevy commercials I've belaboured in the past give plenty of cues. And yet, the insults are just playground taunts so meaningless that you could reverse the names and they'd make just as much sense.
What’s really strange is that Ford vs. Chevy is far from their biggest battle. They’re in a fight for their lives against the imports, and they’re both fighting poor perception of American cars. If the auto industry were a superhero franchise, we’d be in the movie where the Good Guys and Bad Guys have to band together to fight some greater threat. In other words, these competitors have more similarities than differences.
But maybe it’s that sameness that causes the rivalry. They say that the businesses in which branding is most important are the ones where the competitors are essentially the same. So these insults are no different from ad campaigns selling you soap.
Instead, it was mostly fans of different teams trading insults, which I assume is why they don't have the audience participation scrolls anymore. Or maybe they realized that it makes no sense to have TV shows catering to people who have moved on to other media.
But what got me was how baseless and generic the insults were. You'd expect them to be based on actual events on the sports field, with team success giving an advantage to some fans. Say, the Leaf fans take a low profile, while the then-successful Habs remind everyone who's winning. But no, they just threw one unoriginal insult after another at the other side. It was the linguistic equivalent of the Calvin peeing truck window decals.
Speaking of which, I see the same phenomena around vehicles, with Ford and Chevy fans going after each other. Again. you'd think an entire car company would offer ample ammunition to anyone looking to insult the other side. How do you Chevy folk see out them little side windows on the new Camaro? It's bad enough our manufacturing jobs are going to Mexico, did you have to name a car "Fiesta" too?Heck, even if they can't come up with material themselves, the Chevy commercials I've belaboured in the past give plenty of cues. And yet, the insults are just playground taunts so meaningless that you could reverse the names and they'd make just as much sense.
What’s really strange is that Ford vs. Chevy is far from their biggest battle. They’re in a fight for their lives against the imports, and they’re both fighting poor perception of American cars. If the auto industry were a superhero franchise, we’d be in the movie where the Good Guys and Bad Guys have to band together to fight some greater threat. In other words, these competitors have more similarities than differences.
But maybe it’s that sameness that causes the rivalry. They say that the businesses in which branding is most important are the ones where the competitors are essentially the same. So these insults are no different from ad campaigns selling you soap.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Ally Advice
In the days following the killing of two more black men at the hands of police, I've seen several articles online that list things concerned white people can do. Since that seems to apply to me, I've been reading them. But I find they leave a lot to be desired.
The lists seem to fall into one of two categories: in the first, they're aiming at people new to the issue, and the list is just ten different ways of saying, "open your mind to the possibility that maybe perhaps there is still some racism in the world." That and, stop saying "All Lives Matter."
As for the second, this article from the Washington Post is a good example: There isn't a whole lot of practical advice, but there is denigration of people who aren't activists and suspicion of white progressives. This list, and others I've seen, hold the philosophy that caucasions have to change their behaviour, and shouldn't look to blacks to tell them what to do.
It may sound reasonable that black people don't have a responsibility to fix white people. But the problem that these activists are trying to change is the behaviour of whites. So if the activists are not working to change white people, then what exactly are they doing? I'm certainly not claiming that this is a fair situation: it obviously isn't. But that's what activism is: fighting an unfair situation.
So I've come away from this experience confused. I'd like to do something to help a huge problem, but it's not clear what to do. I make an effort to examine my own actions and reactions to be as fair as possible. I've also used the Internet to learn about the perspectives of people from different backgrounds. I guess I'm assuming that there must be a level of action that's beyond "don't be personally racist" and "march in the streets." I'm thinking that for major change to happen, there needs to be a wider movement, but of people doing more than just minding their own actions.
Anyway, Here's a much friendlier list. (Sorry it's a PDF.)
The lists seem to fall into one of two categories: in the first, they're aiming at people new to the issue, and the list is just ten different ways of saying, "open your mind to the possibility that maybe perhaps there is still some racism in the world." That and, stop saying "All Lives Matter."
As for the second, this article from the Washington Post is a good example: There isn't a whole lot of practical advice, but there is denigration of people who aren't activists and suspicion of white progressives. This list, and others I've seen, hold the philosophy that caucasions have to change their behaviour, and shouldn't look to blacks to tell them what to do.
It may sound reasonable that black people don't have a responsibility to fix white people. But the problem that these activists are trying to change is the behaviour of whites. So if the activists are not working to change white people, then what exactly are they doing? I'm certainly not claiming that this is a fair situation: it obviously isn't. But that's what activism is: fighting an unfair situation.
So I've come away from this experience confused. I'd like to do something to help a huge problem, but it's not clear what to do. I make an effort to examine my own actions and reactions to be as fair as possible. I've also used the Internet to learn about the perspectives of people from different backgrounds. I guess I'm assuming that there must be a level of action that's beyond "don't be personally racist" and "march in the streets." I'm thinking that for major change to happen, there needs to be a wider movement, but of people doing more than just minding their own actions.
Anyway, Here's a much friendlier list. (Sorry it's a PDF.)
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Come Together
There have been a lot of free agent signings in the NBA this week. Locally, we were glad to see DeMar DeRozan is resigning with the Raptors. That's good both because the team is retaining a talented and popular player, and because of all the American sports pundits who were absolutely sure he was signing with the Lakers. So now Stephen A. Smith and Colin Cowherd look like idiots. I mean, even more than usual.
But the biggest news is that the best player available, Kevin Durant, has signed with the almost-champions, Golden State Warriors. Yes, the team that went 73-9 just added one of the best players. Of course, this brings to mind the situation six years ago when LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined their contemporary Dwyane Wade in Miami. That created a superteam that went to the finals all four years it was together, winning twice.
So the big question is, how the hell does this keep happening? The NBA, like most North American sports leagues, has a salary cap (a maximum payroll each team must observe) so it shouldn't be possible for a team to assemble multiple superstars, even if they have both the desire and resources to pay them.
Over at SB Nation, they have a good explanation. The basic idea is that the NBA also has a maximum individual salary. I know other leagues have that rule as well, but in the NBA it's surprisingly low, especially considering how few players there are on a basketball team. So a team can sign one of the top players in the game, and still have money left over to sign another of the top players in the game. That little wrinkle in the rules also explains the other big story this week, which is the huge amount of money thrown at seemingly mediocre players. With a limit on how much can be spent on stars, there's lots left over to spend on not-so-famous players.
So it appears there will be a continuing phenomena of star players grouping together to go after a championship. What will the effect be? A lot of fans are unhappy - I find myself in the strange situation where I might have to cheer for Lebron next year. Though media seems a lot happier. Of course, that's the journalism philosophy that anything that generates news is good, even if the news is bad. So this is the sports equivalent of journalists who love reporting on Donald Trump. I'm not so sure this will be good for sports media. They're thinking a rematch of Warriors and Durant vs. LeBron et al will be a good story. That may be true, but the fact that we already know the teams in next year's finals is not a good story.
Further, there's the question of devaluing championships. It's hard to look at the achievement the same way when players come together specifically to win easy. It's already clear that LeBron's ring from Cleveland means far more than both his rings from Miami. Some players career's seem incomplete if they haven't won it all and only have individual accomplishments, but will that really be true now? If Durant and Bosh win their only titles by tagging along with stacked teams, is that really something they hold over, say, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, who never won. The Malones and Barkleys of the future may just be thought of as players who never bothered to join one of the superteams.
But the biggest news is that the best player available, Kevin Durant, has signed with the almost-champions, Golden State Warriors. Yes, the team that went 73-9 just added one of the best players. Of course, this brings to mind the situation six years ago when LeBron James and Chris Bosh joined their contemporary Dwyane Wade in Miami. That created a superteam that went to the finals all four years it was together, winning twice.
So the big question is, how the hell does this keep happening? The NBA, like most North American sports leagues, has a salary cap (a maximum payroll each team must observe) so it shouldn't be possible for a team to assemble multiple superstars, even if they have both the desire and resources to pay them.
Over at SB Nation, they have a good explanation. The basic idea is that the NBA also has a maximum individual salary. I know other leagues have that rule as well, but in the NBA it's surprisingly low, especially considering how few players there are on a basketball team. So a team can sign one of the top players in the game, and still have money left over to sign another of the top players in the game. That little wrinkle in the rules also explains the other big story this week, which is the huge amount of money thrown at seemingly mediocre players. With a limit on how much can be spent on stars, there's lots left over to spend on not-so-famous players.
So it appears there will be a continuing phenomena of star players grouping together to go after a championship. What will the effect be? A lot of fans are unhappy - I find myself in the strange situation where I might have to cheer for Lebron next year. Though media seems a lot happier. Of course, that's the journalism philosophy that anything that generates news is good, even if the news is bad. So this is the sports equivalent of journalists who love reporting on Donald Trump. I'm not so sure this will be good for sports media. They're thinking a rematch of Warriors and Durant vs. LeBron et al will be a good story. That may be true, but the fact that we already know the teams in next year's finals is not a good story.
Further, there's the question of devaluing championships. It's hard to look at the achievement the same way when players come together specifically to win easy. It's already clear that LeBron's ring from Cleveland means far more than both his rings from Miami. Some players career's seem incomplete if they haven't won it all and only have individual accomplishments, but will that really be true now? If Durant and Bosh win their only titles by tagging along with stacked teams, is that really something they hold over, say, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, who never won. The Malones and Barkleys of the future may just be thought of as players who never bothered to join one of the superteams.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Pride And Prejudice
Toronto's annual Pride parade was this weekend, and it made news for a few reasons. One was that it was the first one attended by a sitting Prime Minister. Which brings up:
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33.5
It's just assumed that police forces have floats in Pride parades.Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Please Sir, I Need Some More
This week, President Obama addressed Canada's parliament as part of the "Three Amigos" summit of the leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico. Or, as it was known this year, the "We Aren't So Bad Area We?" summit. As you would expect from a Democrat president in Canada, it was very positive and complimentary. And notably, it included the phrase, "the world needs more Canada." I guess that's a big compliment, since it implies that there may be good things in other countries, which is a pretty bold point for an American politician to make.
I don't know who came up with that phrase. The first time I remember hearing it was from Bono in the early 2000's. That was at the start of the Paul Martin years, when Canada seemed to be winning at everything important, while still losing at sports. It was like Clinton-Era America, but without the scandals.
Variations on "the world needs more Canada" got repeated in the next few years; I remember seeing it on sales stands at Chapters when they were featuring Canadian books. By then I was cringing every time I heard it. We were into the Harper vision of a harder-edged country, and references to that old, actively-nice Canada felt misplaced. Really, we were just coasting, quickly spending our reserves of goodwill.
Now the old nice Canada is back with what less-civilized people would call vengeance. So, we're getting praise again, but I have mixed emotions about it. Having seen the bitter apathy this country is capable of, I'm reluctant to hold us up as an example. In a literal sense, we use resources so fast, the truth is that the world can barely cope with the amount of Canada it already has.
On the other hand, with the rest of the western world in white-hot-anger mode, it's hard not to think we've got something unique here when it comes to tolerance. Sure, the world could use more of that. So my mixed emotions are perhaps very descriptive of Canada: We're better than most, but you can't help thinking we should be doing better.
I don't know who came up with that phrase. The first time I remember hearing it was from Bono in the early 2000's. That was at the start of the Paul Martin years, when Canada seemed to be winning at everything important, while still losing at sports. It was like Clinton-Era America, but without the scandals.
Variations on "the world needs more Canada" got repeated in the next few years; I remember seeing it on sales stands at Chapters when they were featuring Canadian books. By then I was cringing every time I heard it. We were into the Harper vision of a harder-edged country, and references to that old, actively-nice Canada felt misplaced. Really, we were just coasting, quickly spending our reserves of goodwill.
Now the old nice Canada is back with what less-civilized people would call vengeance. So, we're getting praise again, but I have mixed emotions about it. Having seen the bitter apathy this country is capable of, I'm reluctant to hold us up as an example. In a literal sense, we use resources so fast, the truth is that the world can barely cope with the amount of Canada it already has.
On the other hand, with the rest of the western world in white-hot-anger mode, it's hard not to think we've got something unique here when it comes to tolerance. Sure, the world could use more of that. So my mixed emotions are perhaps very descriptive of Canada: We're better than most, but you can't help thinking we should be doing better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)