I'm not sure how we got to the point where two different Canadian companies are using penguins in their ads. But here we are watching CIBC and People's Jewellers alternately sending flightless avians to sell goods and services.
The CIBC penguin began with an ad that seemed like a one-off, using that flightlessness to sell its flight rewards program. That was cute, so they wrote in an entire family for him, and now the penguin is selling all kinds of banking services that don't seem to have any connection to his species.
Here's a fun fact: the female penguin has pink around her eyes, which you might assume is an outdated way of indicating her gender without stuffing her into a dress. But these are Magellanic Penguins, and they do have a pink spot around the eyes where there are no feathers. That's apparently not related to gender, but at least the ads are more accurate than you would think.
People's (or Kay in the states) is taking a different approach, showing penguins in a more natural habitat, and making reference to the fact that male penguins sometimes impress a mate by offering a pebble. This really shows how advertisers are quite different from other people. Most of us hear about that beautifully simple practice among a beloved animal, and find it heartwarming to feel a connection with a living thing so different and far away. Ad makers say, hey, let's make fun of those silly birds.
It doesn't help that it has a cheesy english accent narrator. You'd think they would have had a Morgan Freeman impersonator to reference March of the Penguins. Maybe they were trying for a David Attenborough sound; if so, it didn't really work. It just sounds like the generic slightly silly pompous english accent used to indicate stuffy authority.
Sadly - though not surprisingly - the pebble story is not really true. Male penguins do present pebbles to their mates, but it's not a proposal; it's just to help build the nest, which is made of pebbles. There's no attempt to impress the mate with a particularly nice pebble. And that leads to the ultimate irony of the ad: We're supposed to look down on these uncivilized animals for trying to get a mate with a particularly nice rock. And the ad is using this to sell diamonds, which themselves are just really shiny rocks. That's silly to begin with, but it turns out that unlike us, the penguins' rocks have a purpose, while we've created a huge global infrastructure just to get at the shiniest rocks on the planet.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Ghost Of The Machine
Apple is running a TV commercial showing a child doing all sorts of things with her iPad, ending with a neighbour asking what she's doing with her computer. The child responds by asking "What's a computer?" I suppose the message is that the iPad is so unlike a conventional computer as to be unrecognizable. But I'm thinking that it's still pretty inconceivable that a kid would not have encountered a computer at that age, so the message I'm getting from it is that if you give your kid an iPad, your kid will be an idiot. I can't be the only one thinking that the child-actor's line delivery is particularly wooden, presumably because it's so unbelievable. She's probably wondering to herself why these adults find it so important that they see a distinction between computers with keyboards and computers without.
I don't really get it either. But there seems that adults have a big fascination with kid's not knowing what obsolete technology is. Although the trend has subsided a bit, I can't count how many links I've seen passed around Facebook of videos of children perplexed by VCR's, Walkmans, phone dials, etc. First of all, I don't really know what the attraction is. I try to avoid seeing evidence of my age, but apparently some people can't get enough, like being unable to avoid picking at a scab or something.
But I also wonder about some of these kids. Just because you've never used something personally, you still get introduced to things a number of other ways. Usually that would be your parents and the media. I never had to place a call through an operator at a switchboard, but I saw them in movies. I never bought any records, but my parents had them. At some point it did occur to me to ask my parents why they had all these flat boxes with pictures of Elvis on them, as well as who this "Elvis" person was.
The fact is that we're all subjected to old-fashioned technology throughout society. Many people have noted the oddness that the 3.5" floppy is the universal symbol of saving a file, even though they haven't been used for years. And as I was thinking about this post, I came across this comic on that very idea. Old fashioned ideas often become symbols. I'm typing this entry on a web page that uses a picture of a bell to represent "notifications" even though bells have just been Christmas ornaments during my lifetime.
And also, you might be surprised how many things that are still in used in society that kids don't understand. I remember as a young child thinking that it was turning the steering wheel back and forth that made a car move. That wasn't because cars were obsolete, it was because this is a complicated world, and it takes a while to learn all about it. I was too distracted by learning grammatical structures and object permanence to learn the details of current technology. We all end up learning about a lot of the culture that came before us. You'll probably find that even kids have learned a lot about what came before them, eventually. Some kids are faster at picking it up, and some are slower. I've always assumed that they single out the latter for those "today's kids don't know what a flip-phone is" videos. Those kids are easy to find; they're the ones with iPads.
I don't really get it either. But there seems that adults have a big fascination with kid's not knowing what obsolete technology is. Although the trend has subsided a bit, I can't count how many links I've seen passed around Facebook of videos of children perplexed by VCR's, Walkmans, phone dials, etc. First of all, I don't really know what the attraction is. I try to avoid seeing evidence of my age, but apparently some people can't get enough, like being unable to avoid picking at a scab or something.
But I also wonder about some of these kids. Just because you've never used something personally, you still get introduced to things a number of other ways. Usually that would be your parents and the media. I never had to place a call through an operator at a switchboard, but I saw them in movies. I never bought any records, but my parents had them. At some point it did occur to me to ask my parents why they had all these flat boxes with pictures of Elvis on them, as well as who this "Elvis" person was.
The fact is that we're all subjected to old-fashioned technology throughout society. Many people have noted the oddness that the 3.5" floppy is the universal symbol of saving a file, even though they haven't been used for years. And as I was thinking about this post, I came across this comic on that very idea. Old fashioned ideas often become symbols. I'm typing this entry on a web page that uses a picture of a bell to represent "notifications" even though bells have just been Christmas ornaments during my lifetime.
And also, you might be surprised how many things that are still in used in society that kids don't understand. I remember as a young child thinking that it was turning the steering wheel back and forth that made a car move. That wasn't because cars were obsolete, it was because this is a complicated world, and it takes a while to learn all about it. I was too distracted by learning grammatical structures and object permanence to learn the details of current technology. We all end up learning about a lot of the culture that came before us. You'll probably find that even kids have learned a lot about what came before them, eventually. Some kids are faster at picking it up, and some are slower. I've always assumed that they single out the latter for those "today's kids don't know what a flip-phone is" videos. Those kids are easy to find; they're the ones with iPads.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
A Fast Car From China
In a previous post, I discussed my inability to find a car company that could be a lifestyle statement. Though one of the leading candidates was Volvo. Their combination of unapologetic dorkiness, and design appealed to me. But that discussion was limited to practical cars.
In the impractical car category, I've always appreciated Lotus. I know, their cars are cheaper and less powerful than most dream cars, since they go for small and light, rather than big and brawny. But small and clever overcoming strong and dumb is my fantasy, so Lotus embodies it better than some expensive behemoth that they crammed a huge engine into. And I figure that I might as well take advantage of being able to fit in tiny, lightweight cars.
Now here's the interesting part: Volvo and Lotus have one more thing in common besides quirkiness and my fandom. They're also owned by the same company: China's Geely, who have owned Volvo for a few years now, and recently bought Lotus.
Like many western car fans, to me, Chinese manufacturers are this unknown amorphous blob. We've heard various things about them ripping off foreign designs, building small but unexciting cars, and occasionally funding oddball companies. And there's a general assumption that they'll eventually burst forth, start exporting to Europe and the Americas, and destroy everything in their path. Or maybe they'll discover that the West's preference for cheapness over quality doesn't extend to automobiles.
Anyway, the point is that we don't really have any reason to have an opinion on the Chinese manufacturers. That may seem obvious, but car fandom is all about rivalries. You're expected to have opinions on Ford vs Chevy, Porsche vs Ferrari, Bentley vs Rolls Royce, VW Beetle vs Citroen 2CV, Delorean vs Bricklin, Subaru WRX vs Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution etc. It honestly feels weird to see cars and not have an opinion on them.
But now that's changing. I'd already noticed that Geely seemed to have done a good job with Volvo, a company that had been struggling to compete with the world's big luxury brands. Normally, when one car company buys another, it goes wrong in one of three ways: They integrate the small company into the big one lose what was special about it, they force cost-cutting on it and it makes crappy cars, or they just buy it and ignore it, and the smaller company is no better off.
But Geely had been clever with Volvo, giving it the money it needed to turn around, while not forcing it to be something it isn't. They're gradually integrating it into the rest of the company, with plans to build Volvos in China, but being patient. It's reminiscent of how India's Tata has turned around Jaguar Land Rover, so perhaps rising Asia will be good for western brands after all.
Lotus certainly needs that sort of treatment. They were owned and mismanaged by GM, who had them build a - I can barely say it - a front-drive sports car. Then they were owned by Malaysia's Proton, who didn't seem to know what to do with it. Then they had a CEO who announced an ambitious slate of new cars they couldn't afford to put into production. Since then they're been treading water, offering an endless stream of "new" special editions of their existing cars.
So stable and wise ownership is just what they need if they are going to stay in business long enough for me to earn enough money to buy one. I'm even okay with the fact that they'll probably end up building an SUV. But now, I'm just getting used to the fact that I apparently have an opinion on Chinese cars. Geely rules, Chery, BYD, um... Dongfeng drools.
In the impractical car category, I've always appreciated Lotus. I know, their cars are cheaper and less powerful than most dream cars, since they go for small and light, rather than big and brawny. But small and clever overcoming strong and dumb is my fantasy, so Lotus embodies it better than some expensive behemoth that they crammed a huge engine into. And I figure that I might as well take advantage of being able to fit in tiny, lightweight cars.
Now here's the interesting part: Volvo and Lotus have one more thing in common besides quirkiness and my fandom. They're also owned by the same company: China's Geely, who have owned Volvo for a few years now, and recently bought Lotus.
Like many western car fans, to me, Chinese manufacturers are this unknown amorphous blob. We've heard various things about them ripping off foreign designs, building small but unexciting cars, and occasionally funding oddball companies. And there's a general assumption that they'll eventually burst forth, start exporting to Europe and the Americas, and destroy everything in their path. Or maybe they'll discover that the West's preference for cheapness over quality doesn't extend to automobiles.
Anyway, the point is that we don't really have any reason to have an opinion on the Chinese manufacturers. That may seem obvious, but car fandom is all about rivalries. You're expected to have opinions on Ford vs Chevy, Porsche vs Ferrari, Bentley vs Rolls Royce, VW Beetle vs Citroen 2CV, Delorean vs Bricklin, Subaru WRX vs Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution etc. It honestly feels weird to see cars and not have an opinion on them.
But now that's changing. I'd already noticed that Geely seemed to have done a good job with Volvo, a company that had been struggling to compete with the world's big luxury brands. Normally, when one car company buys another, it goes wrong in one of three ways: They integrate the small company into the big one lose what was special about it, they force cost-cutting on it and it makes crappy cars, or they just buy it and ignore it, and the smaller company is no better off.
But Geely had been clever with Volvo, giving it the money it needed to turn around, while not forcing it to be something it isn't. They're gradually integrating it into the rest of the company, with plans to build Volvos in China, but being patient. It's reminiscent of how India's Tata has turned around Jaguar Land Rover, so perhaps rising Asia will be good for western brands after all.
Lotus certainly needs that sort of treatment. They were owned and mismanaged by GM, who had them build a - I can barely say it - a front-drive sports car. Then they were owned by Malaysia's Proton, who didn't seem to know what to do with it. Then they had a CEO who announced an ambitious slate of new cars they couldn't afford to put into production. Since then they're been treading water, offering an endless stream of "new" special editions of their existing cars.
So stable and wise ownership is just what they need if they are going to stay in business long enough for me to earn enough money to buy one. I'm even okay with the fact that they'll probably end up building an SUV. But now, I'm just getting used to the fact that I apparently have an opinion on Chinese cars. Geely rules, Chery, BYD, um... Dongfeng drools.
Friday, December 8, 2017
Tomorrow I'll Be Perfect
I once read one of the What Color Is Your Parachute books. In trying to explain how to find your ideal career, the author related an incident where he was advising a client. He asked the client to find three things he really enjoyed, and the three he chose were psychology, gardening and carpentry. A little research showed that there is a branch of psychology that deals with plant therapy, thus combining the client's top two interests. The author then points out the need for wooden shelves to hold the plants.
When I read that, I wasn't sure I'd that was the dumbest or most brilliant thing I'd ever seen. I mean, surely you could combine those interests in a less literal way. Like if you're interested in carpentry, it's probably not just exposure to wood that you're looking for; it's probably a more abstract working with spatial ideas, or honing a craft. Surely you could find those things in some other, less contrived career.
But at the same time, I secretly was jealous. I mean, wouldn't we all love to be working in a job that combined our favourite things? Doing something you love would be great, but this would be better, since you could never get bored, or come to resent that one activity. Curse you, modern economy, for not providing a job that combines political punditry, driving, and watching sports!
And strangely, it was watching sports that made me think of this passage from the book. During a baseball game, the commentators informed us that the Dodgers' Cody Belanger was the only player in the Major Leagues to hit a home run in every possible count this season. That is, there are twelve possible counts of balls and strikes, and he had hit at least one homer while in each of them.
At this point, I asked the question every modern sports fan asks from time to time: how the hell do they come up with these stats?
But between my knowledge of sports and computers, I can understand it. If a person has a strong knowledge of both sports statistics and databases I think it would be pretty believable that they could come up with oddball facts like that. You have an inkling about a possible statistical point of interest, compose it into a database query and check it out.
Of course, that means having a great interest and experties in two different areas. But if you do happen to fit the qualifications, then it's your perfect job. Those are some pretty specific requirements, but then, there won't be many openings for it either, so this occupational serendipity is pretty rare. That's unfortunate; wouldn't you love a world where everyone got to work in a job so perfectly tailored to them? I'm still looking, so I'll have to go back to the book.
When I read that, I wasn't sure I'd that was the dumbest or most brilliant thing I'd ever seen. I mean, surely you could combine those interests in a less literal way. Like if you're interested in carpentry, it's probably not just exposure to wood that you're looking for; it's probably a more abstract working with spatial ideas, or honing a craft. Surely you could find those things in some other, less contrived career.
But at the same time, I secretly was jealous. I mean, wouldn't we all love to be working in a job that combined our favourite things? Doing something you love would be great, but this would be better, since you could never get bored, or come to resent that one activity. Curse you, modern economy, for not providing a job that combines political punditry, driving, and watching sports!
And strangely, it was watching sports that made me think of this passage from the book. During a baseball game, the commentators informed us that the Dodgers' Cody Belanger was the only player in the Major Leagues to hit a home run in every possible count this season. That is, there are twelve possible counts of balls and strikes, and he had hit at least one homer while in each of them.
At this point, I asked the question every modern sports fan asks from time to time: how the hell do they come up with these stats?
But between my knowledge of sports and computers, I can understand it. If a person has a strong knowledge of both sports statistics and databases I think it would be pretty believable that they could come up with oddball facts like that. You have an inkling about a possible statistical point of interest, compose it into a database query and check it out.
Of course, that means having a great interest and experties in two different areas. But if you do happen to fit the qualifications, then it's your perfect job. Those are some pretty specific requirements, but then, there won't be many openings for it either, so this occupational serendipity is pretty rare. That's unfortunate; wouldn't you love a world where everyone got to work in a job so perfectly tailored to them? I'm still looking, so I'll have to go back to the book.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
The Royal Weed
I have to admit a little bit of Schadenfreude when I found out that the soon-to-be-legal pot in Ontario will be sold through a small number of government-owned stores. I mean, I've always supported legalization, so that's good. But the government-owned stores concept gives me mixed emotions.
Just to be clear, I think this is a dumb decision by the government. It's essentially replicating Ontario's traditional way of selling alcohol in government stores. That never made sense to me: Alcohol isn't really dangerous enough to require such oversight, the government-run stores did nothing to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, and for some reason, we're totally okay having private companies sell tobacco. And of course, we're now moving away from that approach in alcohol, selling it in grocery stores. That change, and the complete lack of a societal collapse resulting from it, would seem to show that the old approach was wrong, and we know it.
The decision to sell pot through government stores also makes little sense politically. Premier Wynne and government may be looking at this as a compromise between a ban and complete deregulation, so it will be a good way to sell the public on a change not everyone in comfortable with. But I think it's more likely to cancel-out support. Libertarians will hate the government control. Social conservatives won't be placated because they've been taught that pot is the creation of Satan, so careful distribution of the creation of Satan will seem no better. And even left-leaning people like me will see the move as paternalistic, rather than socialist.
Further, it looks like Wynne is developing a Hillary-Clinton-like anti-cult where a large segment of society has decided that they just don't like her or anything she does, not really sure why, but it couldn't possibly be sexism, really, I'm sure. As such, trying to reach a please-everyone compromise is impossible; people will just focus on what they didn't get, because the narrative is that everything Wynne does is bad. It doesn't really make sense for her to try to grab the centre; she'll find little traction there. She'd be better off trying to prove here bona fides to the left where more people will give here a chance.
But I am having a bit of Schadenfreude for Canada's prince of pot, Marc Emery. See, I've been waiting years for a chance to talk about him so that I could point out that I've actuality met him. After bragging about this to someone, that other person would then ask, "how did you meet him?" And I'd reply, "he spoke at my high school."
Okay, he technically spoke at our model U.N. assembly, invited by a school that was drifting towards the proto-alt-right. Back then, Emery wasn't concentrating on legalizing marijuana; he was just a general hard-core libertarian. For me, that was the beginning of a lifetime of finding extreme libertarianism both fascinating and scary. It's like how you might enjoy mob movies, but then you find out that people actually look up to their characters and suddenly it's not so much fun.
So I've taken note whenever Marc Emery's name has come up, as he's moved out west and taken marijuana as his life's cause. Living in Vancouver, he won't have to care about Ontario's nanny-state pot stores. But I'd like to think that his head did explode just a little bit when he heard about it.
Just to be clear, I think this is a dumb decision by the government. It's essentially replicating Ontario's traditional way of selling alcohol in government stores. That never made sense to me: Alcohol isn't really dangerous enough to require such oversight, the government-run stores did nothing to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, and for some reason, we're totally okay having private companies sell tobacco. And of course, we're now moving away from that approach in alcohol, selling it in grocery stores. That change, and the complete lack of a societal collapse resulting from it, would seem to show that the old approach was wrong, and we know it.
The decision to sell pot through government stores also makes little sense politically. Premier Wynne and government may be looking at this as a compromise between a ban and complete deregulation, so it will be a good way to sell the public on a change not everyone in comfortable with. But I think it's more likely to cancel-out support. Libertarians will hate the government control. Social conservatives won't be placated because they've been taught that pot is the creation of Satan, so careful distribution of the creation of Satan will seem no better. And even left-leaning people like me will see the move as paternalistic, rather than socialist.
Further, it looks like Wynne is developing a Hillary-Clinton-like anti-cult where a large segment of society has decided that they just don't like her or anything she does, not really sure why, but it couldn't possibly be sexism, really, I'm sure. As such, trying to reach a please-everyone compromise is impossible; people will just focus on what they didn't get, because the narrative is that everything Wynne does is bad. It doesn't really make sense for her to try to grab the centre; she'll find little traction there. She'd be better off trying to prove here bona fides to the left where more people will give here a chance.
But I am having a bit of Schadenfreude for Canada's prince of pot, Marc Emery. See, I've been waiting years for a chance to talk about him so that I could point out that I've actuality met him. After bragging about this to someone, that other person would then ask, "how did you meet him?" And I'd reply, "he spoke at my high school."
Okay, he technically spoke at our model U.N. assembly, invited by a school that was drifting towards the proto-alt-right. Back then, Emery wasn't concentrating on legalizing marijuana; he was just a general hard-core libertarian. For me, that was the beginning of a lifetime of finding extreme libertarianism both fascinating and scary. It's like how you might enjoy mob movies, but then you find out that people actually look up to their characters and suddenly it's not so much fun.
So I've taken note whenever Marc Emery's name has come up, as he's moved out west and taken marijuana as his life's cause. Living in Vancouver, he won't have to care about Ontario's nanny-state pot stores. But I'd like to think that his head did explode just a little bit when he heard about it.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Can't Get Enough Of That Overthinking Commercials
Today at the grocery store, I happened to see a box of Sugar Crisp cereal, with its cartoon bear mascot, Sugar Bear. That bear has been around forever; I remember him trying to sell my generation cereal, now he's back for our kids.
I found him a little confusing as a child. I remember he started off as a normal anthropomorphic bear. Then they introduced the idea that eating Sugar Crisp made him into some sort of super bear. Okay, fine, we have the transforming hero trope. Even we youngsters had been introduced to that through Popeye. In Popeye's case, it was based on eating nutritious food, while Sugar Bear just had some sort of epic sugar high.
But at some point they seemed to forgo the transformation concept, and just had Sugar Bear be super powerful all the time. That seemed like a cheat. Even back then, I could see that the trade-off of this trope is that the hero has powers to defeat his foes, but also had normal human (or ursine) weakness. You can't just discard that and have him be some sort of all-powerful ultrabear who, for some reason, only battles enemies that threaten our cereal supply.
I wasn't sure if I remembered all this correctly - it's not like I actually ate Sugar Crisp. I prefered Cheerios, which only had that bee in the ads. He didn't introduce challenges to story-construction theories; his only problem was being short a couple of limbs. But it hit me: this over-formalized analysis of pop culture that used to just exist in my head, but now I often see it in another place too: Wikipedia. So I looked it up there, and sure enough, it very earnestly explained that in the mid-to-late 1980's, the super bear concept was dropped for a bear that simply had a "vitamin-packed punch."
Also, it turns out that it's only here in Canada that it's still called Sugar Crisp. It's become "Golden Crisp" in the U.S. to avoid association with sugar. But apparantly we don't worry about that. I'm not sure what that says about our respective countries.
I found him a little confusing as a child. I remember he started off as a normal anthropomorphic bear. Then they introduced the idea that eating Sugar Crisp made him into some sort of super bear. Okay, fine, we have the transforming hero trope. Even we youngsters had been introduced to that through Popeye. In Popeye's case, it was based on eating nutritious food, while Sugar Bear just had some sort of epic sugar high.
But at some point they seemed to forgo the transformation concept, and just had Sugar Bear be super powerful all the time. That seemed like a cheat. Even back then, I could see that the trade-off of this trope is that the hero has powers to defeat his foes, but also had normal human (or ursine) weakness. You can't just discard that and have him be some sort of all-powerful ultrabear who, for some reason, only battles enemies that threaten our cereal supply.
I wasn't sure if I remembered all this correctly - it's not like I actually ate Sugar Crisp. I prefered Cheerios, which only had that bee in the ads. He didn't introduce challenges to story-construction theories; his only problem was being short a couple of limbs. But it hit me: this over-formalized analysis of pop culture that used to just exist in my head, but now I often see it in another place too: Wikipedia. So I looked it up there, and sure enough, it very earnestly explained that in the mid-to-late 1980's, the super bear concept was dropped for a bear that simply had a "vitamin-packed punch."
Also, it turns out that it's only here in Canada that it's still called Sugar Crisp. It's become "Golden Crisp" in the U.S. to avoid association with sugar. But apparantly we don't worry about that. I'm not sure what that says about our respective countries.
Friday, November 17, 2017
It's Beginning To Look A Nice Tasteful Amount Like Christmas
This week I was in a mall, and as is now expected in late November, Christmas is in full swing. Halloween is gone, and some people respectfully hold back until after Remembrance day. In the U.S. they still have Thanksgiving, and of course the second most important date on the capitalist calendar, Black Friday. But for us, there's no holding back on the Christmas decorations.
The Santa enclosure was up, though it wasn't inhabited yet. I guess the Santas have a strong union if they're not forced onto the job until later. Or perhaps it's the amount of exposure to screaming kids, there's probably some sort of health regulations about that. So for now, there's just a strange Christmas labyrinth ending at an empty chair.
Of course, I'm not a fan of starting Christmas as early as possible. I'm not against Christmas, I just find that a month is more than enough of it for me. So I was surprised when I found that I wasn't annoyed at all the early signs of the holiday season. For once, I wasn't feeling like I was trying to survive an unregulated psychological experiment. It was actually kind of enjoyable.
I realized why when I was looking at some felt snowmen and it suddenly hit me how unusual it was to be seeing Christmas decorations without the accompanying music. Yes, the mall was still playing its usual non-threatening oldish pop soundtrack. Some might find it culturally confusing to be walking among random sprigs of holly to the sound of lesser Rick Astley tracks, but it came across as much less pushy to me.
Like I say, I don't mind Christmas, I just find it difficult to take such a long, uninterrupted period of not being able to get away from it. But this weakened, partial Christmas allowed me to genuinely enjoy it. To me, this is how a sane society would celebrate its biggest holiday: lots of celebration, but without losing sight of everything else in existence.
So I'm going to try to enjoy Christmas during this brief, early period. All too soon it will strengthen into a category-5 holiday, and I'll have to retreat into my curmudgeonliness. But for now, Merry Mid-November.
The Santa enclosure was up, though it wasn't inhabited yet. I guess the Santas have a strong union if they're not forced onto the job until later. Or perhaps it's the amount of exposure to screaming kids, there's probably some sort of health regulations about that. So for now, there's just a strange Christmas labyrinth ending at an empty chair.
Of course, I'm not a fan of starting Christmas as early as possible. I'm not against Christmas, I just find that a month is more than enough of it for me. So I was surprised when I found that I wasn't annoyed at all the early signs of the holiday season. For once, I wasn't feeling like I was trying to survive an unregulated psychological experiment. It was actually kind of enjoyable.
I realized why when I was looking at some felt snowmen and it suddenly hit me how unusual it was to be seeing Christmas decorations without the accompanying music. Yes, the mall was still playing its usual non-threatening oldish pop soundtrack. Some might find it culturally confusing to be walking among random sprigs of holly to the sound of lesser Rick Astley tracks, but it came across as much less pushy to me.
Like I say, I don't mind Christmas, I just find it difficult to take such a long, uninterrupted period of not being able to get away from it. But this weakened, partial Christmas allowed me to genuinely enjoy it. To me, this is how a sane society would celebrate its biggest holiday: lots of celebration, but without losing sight of everything else in existence.
So I'm going to try to enjoy Christmas during this brief, early period. All too soon it will strengthen into a category-5 holiday, and I'll have to retreat into my curmudgeonliness. But for now, Merry Mid-November.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #38
There will be a World Cup where Iceland qualifies but not Italy.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Mass Romantic
You know how May 4th has become Star Wars day? Well fans of the epic sci-fi video game Mass Effect are trying to do the same thing with November 7th. See, the top level that a soldier can reach in the game's universe is N7, so that code appears on a lot of equipment and clothing in the game. Gettit? N7 : November 7th? Okay, it's even flimsier than the "May the fourth" pun, but it gives me the opportunity to tell you about my insights from playing the game. Now don't worry, non-geeks, this entry will be full of social commentary, not esoteric nerdery.
For non-geeks, it might be hard to explain the game's appeal. After all, you're playing a future soldier defending the galaxy from killer aliens, which is about the dorkiest premise you could imagine. But you know how there comes a point in every child's growth when they realize that "action figures" and "dolls" are really the same thing, and it's your choice how you play with them? Well that's where Mass Effect is, at the border between the two.
In between shooting aliens, you get to talk to, befriend, or argue with your fellow shipmates. And you can even sleep with them - oh, I'm sorry, "romance" them, in the parlance of the game. This human interaction seems to be a big draw for the franchise.
I've gone on Pinterest, where I've found a lot of creative work based on the game: humour, artwork, headcannons, and cartoons extending the series. I've discovered a few things: first, I can read Mass Effect comics all day, and second, that the interpersonal relations between the characters are what fascinates many fans.
And that leads to an interesting aspect: Your character in the game is a "Commander Shepard," but you can choose to make that "John" or "Jane" Shepard. According to research by the game's maker, Bioware, more than 80% of players choose the male version. Yet, a look through The cartoons on Pinterest shows most of them with a female lead. So that tells you something Pinterest's user base, as well as who the hard core fans are and what they like.
I've played the game through as both genders, which has lead me to an interesting perspective. As a male, I could choose romantic partners based on my real-life preferences. But as a woman, the romantic side of the game offers a challenge. I could have decided she's a lesbian and approach it the same way as I did as a male, but that just seemed like such a cheesy, dorky, guy-thing to do. So I decided to make her straight, and just choose a partner that fit the character, like some interstellar yenta.
This brings up a subtlety of video games: do you regard the character you portray as an embodiment of yourself, or as a separate person that you are guiding through the game, sort of like you do in The Sims? Essentially, I was doing the former as a male, but the latter as a female.
Anyway, in the second game, I was going to match her up with Jacob, the brave but slightly bland soldier. But then while talking with Garrus, the gruff sniper, the game offered me some flirtatious dialog options, and I thought, actually, he makes way more sense with her. So I "romanced" him instead. Matching them together is kind of surprising, since Shepard is human, while Garrus is from a vaguely bird/reptile/insectoid race. So I thought this relationship was a rather bold and open-minded choice.
Until I see the cartoons, and find out that this pairing is what pretty much everyone did. It seems women can't get enough of Garrus. Now that came as a surprise for me. No, not because Garrus is not human (I know enough geek lore to be aware of Kirk/Spock slash fiction.) The reason for my surprise is that usually when media creates a love interest for a female character, I find him unbelievable or transparent (yeah, I'm looking at you, Jess from Gilmore Girls! )
But in this case, I totally get it. There have been a few explanations for this character's popularity, but mine is that he is a new character archetype: the Principled Badass. Usually badass characters wind up being just that: bad and an ass. But Garrus manages to project the "dangerous" image without it seeming fake, or revealing a lack of morals.
In case you're thinking that this game has woken either latent homosexuality or a weird birdman kink, I want to be clear that this is nothing more than a bromance to me; If I were in the game's universe, I'd be happily playing the Archie to Liara and Tali's Betty and Veronica. But the game has given me insight and understanding of female attraction, and all it took was defeating a race of giant, unstoppable robots.
For non-geeks, it might be hard to explain the game's appeal. After all, you're playing a future soldier defending the galaxy from killer aliens, which is about the dorkiest premise you could imagine. But you know how there comes a point in every child's growth when they realize that "action figures" and "dolls" are really the same thing, and it's your choice how you play with them? Well that's where Mass Effect is, at the border between the two.
In between shooting aliens, you get to talk to, befriend, or argue with your fellow shipmates. And you can even sleep with them - oh, I'm sorry, "romance" them, in the parlance of the game. This human interaction seems to be a big draw for the franchise.
I've gone on Pinterest, where I've found a lot of creative work based on the game: humour, artwork, headcannons, and cartoons extending the series. I've discovered a few things: first, I can read Mass Effect comics all day, and second, that the interpersonal relations between the characters are what fascinates many fans.
And that leads to an interesting aspect: Your character in the game is a "Commander Shepard," but you can choose to make that "John" or "Jane" Shepard. According to research by the game's maker, Bioware, more than 80% of players choose the male version. Yet, a look through The cartoons on Pinterest shows most of them with a female lead. So that tells you something Pinterest's user base, as well as who the hard core fans are and what they like.
I've played the game through as both genders, which has lead me to an interesting perspective. As a male, I could choose romantic partners based on my real-life preferences. But as a woman, the romantic side of the game offers a challenge. I could have decided she's a lesbian and approach it the same way as I did as a male, but that just seemed like such a cheesy, dorky, guy-thing to do. So I decided to make her straight, and just choose a partner that fit the character, like some interstellar yenta.
This brings up a subtlety of video games: do you regard the character you portray as an embodiment of yourself, or as a separate person that you are guiding through the game, sort of like you do in The Sims? Essentially, I was doing the former as a male, but the latter as a female.
Anyway, in the second game, I was going to match her up with Jacob, the brave but slightly bland soldier. But then while talking with Garrus, the gruff sniper, the game offered me some flirtatious dialog options, and I thought, actually, he makes way more sense with her. So I "romanced" him instead. Matching them together is kind of surprising, since Shepard is human, while Garrus is from a vaguely bird/reptile/insectoid race. So I thought this relationship was a rather bold and open-minded choice.
Until I see the cartoons, and find out that this pairing is what pretty much everyone did. It seems women can't get enough of Garrus. Now that came as a surprise for me. No, not because Garrus is not human (I know enough geek lore to be aware of Kirk/Spock slash fiction.) The reason for my surprise is that usually when media creates a love interest for a female character, I find him unbelievable or transparent (yeah, I'm looking at you, Jess from Gilmore Girls! )
But in this case, I totally get it. There have been a few explanations for this character's popularity, but mine is that he is a new character archetype: the Principled Badass. Usually badass characters wind up being just that: bad and an ass. But Garrus manages to project the "dangerous" image without it seeming fake, or revealing a lack of morals.
In case you're thinking that this game has woken either latent homosexuality or a weird birdman kink, I want to be clear that this is nothing more than a bromance to me; If I were in the game's universe, I'd be happily playing the Archie to Liara and Tali's Betty and Veronica. But the game has given me insight and understanding of female attraction, and all it took was defeating a race of giant, unstoppable robots.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
I'll Gladly Text You Tuesday For A Cheeseburger Today
There's been a furor about the emojis representing cheeseburgers. Here are the Apple and Google versions, courtesy of Emojipedia
The Apple version shows the more traditional arrangement of cheese on the patty, while Google has the cheese under the patty. All other companies that provide emojis with their phones or apps also have the cheese on top.
So here's how it played out:
SOCIAL MEDIA: Can you believe the Google cheeseburger emoji has the cheese on the bottom? That's so weird!
MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Get a load of this controversy over the cheeseburger emojis online! That would make a great filler story if we're having trouble filling...What's that? Mueller's started filling charges? Drop the cheeseburgers, we finally have real news!
FOX NEWS: Get a load of this controversy over the cheeseburger emojis online! That would make a great filler story if we're having trouble filling...What's that? Mueller's started filling charges? Get those cheeseburgers on the air! We need distraction, stat!
THE DAILY SHOW, COLBERT, SETH MEYERS, JIM JEFFERIES, ETC.: Can you believe that while the rest of the media was reporting on the Trump Administration going down in flames, Fox news was reporting on controversy over cheeseburger emojis? Why would they think that's important. But seriously, Google's all wrong, everyone knows the cheese goes on top.
ME: That Google burger with the cheese on the bottom looks familiar. <Looks up pictures of the most popular burger at the most popular burger chain>
Just as I thought.
So here's how it played out:
SOCIAL MEDIA: Can you believe the Google cheeseburger emoji has the cheese on the bottom? That's so weird!
MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Get a load of this controversy over the cheeseburger emojis online! That would make a great filler story if we're having trouble filling...What's that? Mueller's started filling charges? Drop the cheeseburgers, we finally have real news!
FOX NEWS: Get a load of this controversy over the cheeseburger emojis online! That would make a great filler story if we're having trouble filling...What's that? Mueller's started filling charges? Get those cheeseburgers on the air! We need distraction, stat!
THE DAILY SHOW, COLBERT, SETH MEYERS, JIM JEFFERIES, ETC.: Can you believe that while the rest of the media was reporting on the Trump Administration going down in flames, Fox news was reporting on controversy over cheeseburger emojis? Why would they think that's important. But seriously, Google's all wrong, everyone knows the cheese goes on top.
ME: That Google burger with the cheese on the bottom looks familiar. <Looks up pictures of the most popular burger at the most popular burger chain>
Just as I thought.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
To Be Yourself Is All That You Can Do
The New York Times ran an op-ed piece saying that "be yourself" is actually bad advice. The reasoning is that if you are truly being yourself - rather than what others expect you to be - it will cause you to act on all sorts of impulses that will not be considered acceptable to others. Want to eat Cocoa Puffs in the bath right now, even though you’re hosting a dinner party? If you’re being yourself, you’ll do what you want to do.
The problem with this concept is that it considers your urges to be "you" while the judgement that stops you from acting on those urges is not you. To put it in Freudian terms, the id is your actual self, but not your ego or superego. Our to put it in Looney Tunes terms, the devil on your shoulder is you, but the angel on your other shoulder is not.
This seems to be a common way of looking at ourselves. We identify with our desires, while assuming our judgement is foreign. I’m not sure why we do that; after all, our judgement is something we have to work to craft out of our experience and values, while our desires just come from out of nowhere. But now that we can identify that “nowhere” as being genes bred for archaic tasks, you’d think that we’d start to cast a more skeptical eye on base urges, and see them as meaningless.
I guess the reason that we see self-constraint as foreign is that we generally get those principles from our families, teachers or spiritual leaders. So often, that voice at the back of our head sounds like someone else’s voice, rather than our own conscience.
I hope we can change this. I mean, I’m glad that the author of the article is against wildly inappropriate impulsiveness. But I think that we need to start taking ownership of our impulse control, and being proud of it. To put it another way, be yourself, as long as the “yourself” in question is not an unsupervised child.
The problem with this concept is that it considers your urges to be "you" while the judgement that stops you from acting on those urges is not you. To put it in Freudian terms, the id is your actual self, but not your ego or superego. Our to put it in Looney Tunes terms, the devil on your shoulder is you, but the angel on your other shoulder is not.
This seems to be a common way of looking at ourselves. We identify with our desires, while assuming our judgement is foreign. I’m not sure why we do that; after all, our judgement is something we have to work to craft out of our experience and values, while our desires just come from out of nowhere. But now that we can identify that “nowhere” as being genes bred for archaic tasks, you’d think that we’d start to cast a more skeptical eye on base urges, and see them as meaningless.
I guess the reason that we see self-constraint as foreign is that we generally get those principles from our families, teachers or spiritual leaders. So often, that voice at the back of our head sounds like someone else’s voice, rather than our own conscience.
I hope we can change this. I mean, I’m glad that the author of the article is against wildly inappropriate impulsiveness. But I think that we need to start taking ownership of our impulse control, and being proud of it. To put it another way, be yourself, as long as the “yourself” in question is not an unsupervised child.
Friday, October 20, 2017
What The Hell Are You Staring At (On TV)?
Recently we saw a bizarre news story in which fans of the animated series Rick and Morty went crazy over McDonald's Sichuan Sauce (Sichuan? Szechuan? Supposedly "Sichuan" is the new accepted spelling.) The whole thing reached ridiculous proportions when a woman in Michigan traded a packet of the sauce for a 2004 Volkswagen GTI. I mean, I could understand a Golf, but a GTI?
If you haven't seen the whole story, here's what I've pieced together:
I don't want to turn this into a kids-these-days rant, or more precisely, a young-adults-these-days rant. After all, Rick and Morty fits into a longish tradition of cartoons that drop into the sweet spot between children's programming that displays imagination and flexible reality, and the fertile subject matter of the adult world. And I’ve been through that too.
In the past I’ve mentioned Ren & Stimpy being popular in my early years of university. In my later years at school, Teletoon was starting up, and we wasted many hours watching Duckman. Unfortunately, it’s been largely forgotten, but if you've ever wished that Family Guy and South Park had ripped off The Simpsons’ cleverness along with its irreverence, then it was the show for you.
After leaving University and getting my Adulting Licence, I watched a few cartoons in the same vein, such as Undergrads and The Boondocks. But mostly I’ve drifted away from the genre. Recently, I've seen slightly childish adult geeks like myself making references to Archer and Adventure Time, getting that same enjoyment out of it. I do feel a little jealous.
So I actually watched a few episodes of Rick and Morty once it started getting big, and it was indeed a fun show. But it will take a while before I get to the obsessed level. I have no desire for collectable McNugget sauce, though I wouldn't mind a Mr. Meeseeks.
And that's where we get to the kids-these-days part: I can't imagine my generation going this crazy to try to get limited-edition Gritty Kitty brand kitty litter.
So I can't really explain the current obsession. It could be that adult-oriented animation has become a big enough pop-cultural force that it's now attracting a wider swath of society. Where it was once followed by a few bored students, it has now reached a critical mass where it even appeals to a number of extreme fans who will band together to do things others find strange, like swarming a fast-food outlet.
Or it could be that this is just another aspect of society's already crazy priorities. People have long paid ridiculous amounts of money for items of nostalgia. If you don't have money to spend on your obsessions - but you do have time on your hands - then spending a few hours waiting in line at McDonald's for your cultural touchstone makes more sense than spending thousands on a rare lunchbox. Fittingly, some of the more expensive items of pop-cultural nostalgia are old animation cels.
If you haven't seen the whole story, here's what I've pieced together:
- Back in the 90's, McDonald's briefly offered a Sichuan sauce for McNuggets (rumoured to be teriyaki mixed with ketchup) as a tie-in with the movie Mulan.
- Recently, there was an episode of Rick and Morty that focused on an obsession with Sichuan sauce
- McDonalds tried to get on board by offering limited-edition Sichuan sauce for one day
- Perhaps they were trying to set up a Tickle-Me-Elmo style craze, but more likely they just greatly underestimated the popularity of Rick and Morty, and they didn't have nearly enough for the throngs that showed up, some after driving for hours.
- Angry fans vented online.
I don't want to turn this into a kids-these-days rant, or more precisely, a young-adults-these-days rant. After all, Rick and Morty fits into a longish tradition of cartoons that drop into the sweet spot between children's programming that displays imagination and flexible reality, and the fertile subject matter of the adult world. And I’ve been through that too.
In the past I’ve mentioned Ren & Stimpy being popular in my early years of university. In my later years at school, Teletoon was starting up, and we wasted many hours watching Duckman. Unfortunately, it’s been largely forgotten, but if you've ever wished that Family Guy and South Park had ripped off The Simpsons’ cleverness along with its irreverence, then it was the show for you.
After leaving University and getting my Adulting Licence, I watched a few cartoons in the same vein, such as Undergrads and The Boondocks. But mostly I’ve drifted away from the genre. Recently, I've seen slightly childish adult geeks like myself making references to Archer and Adventure Time, getting that same enjoyment out of it. I do feel a little jealous.
So I actually watched a few episodes of Rick and Morty once it started getting big, and it was indeed a fun show. But it will take a while before I get to the obsessed level. I have no desire for collectable McNugget sauce, though I wouldn't mind a Mr. Meeseeks.
And that's where we get to the kids-these-days part: I can't imagine my generation going this crazy to try to get limited-edition Gritty Kitty brand kitty litter.
So I can't really explain the current obsession. It could be that adult-oriented animation has become a big enough pop-cultural force that it's now attracting a wider swath of society. Where it was once followed by a few bored students, it has now reached a critical mass where it even appeals to a number of extreme fans who will band together to do things others find strange, like swarming a fast-food outlet.
Or it could be that this is just another aspect of society's already crazy priorities. People have long paid ridiculous amounts of money for items of nostalgia. If you don't have money to spend on your obsessions - but you do have time on your hands - then spending a few hours waiting in line at McDonald's for your cultural touchstone makes more sense than spending thousands on a rare lunchbox. Fittingly, some of the more expensive items of pop-cultural nostalgia are old animation cels.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Kneel Before Sod
The situation in North Korea is still tense. And Puerto Rico's infrastructure was devestated by hurricane Maria. But here we are talking about football players kneeling. Well, that's what Donald Trump wants to talk about, and everyone else is following along. I'm guessing that's because unlike North Korea, Puerto Rico, and the Obamacare repeal, this is something where there's a chance to fight back.
Some have suggested that Trump made the condemnation of NFL players kneeling for the anthem as a distraction, so we won't notice the health care disaster, or because he knows that there's incriminating Russia evidence about to drop. But the world just doesn't seem to work that way any more. We're used to new megastories coming at us every few hours; we can easily drop one story for another whenever we need to. Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm writing this article late at night; there will probably be a new outrage by morning.
The real reason for Trump's attack is that it's a great issue for him to score points with his base. It's got everything he likes: nationalism, condemning dissent, and a racist subtext. The whole thing is not very surprising really. What is interesting, though, is that the way each sport has responded has illustrated the sport's personality.
Having said that, the guy who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is still without a job. So teams and owners' tentative support of their players comes with a big dose of hypocracy. Which is typical NFL too.
Having said that, I will forgive the NHL and become a Penguins fan if Yevgeny Malkin spends the entire visit acting like he's only there to pass on Putin's latest instructions to Trump.
But this is also typical of the paradox that hockey culture hates to rock the boat. It's a sport that takes bravery to play, yet never seems to generate bravery away from the rink among its players.
But going back to the hurricane: given Trump's lackluster reaction, you have to wonder how many Puerto Rican players don't feel like standing for the anthem right about now.
Of course, this is just the latest example of how Nascar is fine with being exactly what everyone expects it to be. It's like they want to make it really clear whether you are welcome in the sport or not. Certainly I'm feeling happier with my decision to walk away from it.
Some have suggested that Trump made the condemnation of NFL players kneeling for the anthem as a distraction, so we won't notice the health care disaster, or because he knows that there's incriminating Russia evidence about to drop. But the world just doesn't seem to work that way any more. We're used to new megastories coming at us every few hours; we can easily drop one story for another whenever we need to. Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm writing this article late at night; there will probably be a new outrage by morning.
The real reason for Trump's attack is that it's a great issue for him to score points with his base. It's got everything he likes: nationalism, condemning dissent, and a racist subtext. The whole thing is not very surprising really. What is interesting, though, is that the way each sport has responded has illustrated the sport's personality.
Football
I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction. A lot of players protested, there didn't seem to be much anger. There was even some official sanctioning, including the anthem singer himself kneeling in Detroit. No one seems to have been fired over this, or even much anger expressed by the owners (though give them a few days.) And there was thankfully little of the feel-good avoidance I complained about previously.Having said that, the guy who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is still without a job. So teams and owners' tentative support of their players comes with a big dose of hypocracy. Which is typical NFL too.
Basketball
The NBA and Basketball's culture clearly won the weekend. Trump looked desperate when he revoked Steph Curry's unaccepted invitation to the White House. And the Warriors' decision to "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion" in Washington in place of a White House visit was a bold response. And Lebron James's Twitter burn of Trump was something Kim Jong Un could only dream of. Come on, NBA stars, I'm trying to hate you. Stop acting like the only adults in the room.Hockey
The NHL isn't really involved, but somehow managed to turn the incident into a public relations loss by choosing now to announce that the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins will still be visiting the White House. It's just like them to find a way to lose a controversy they weren't involved in.Having said that, I will forgive the NHL and become a Penguins fan if Yevgeny Malkin spends the entire visit acting like he's only there to pass on Putin's latest instructions to Trump.
But this is also typical of the paradox that hockey culture hates to rock the boat. It's a sport that takes bravery to play, yet never seems to generate bravery away from the rink among its players.
Baseball
It seemed kind of separated from the rest of the sports world. After all, it is the most conservative, traditional, and increasingly the whitest sport. So it seemed almost like an afterthought when news came out that A's catcher Bruce Maxwell knelt for the anthem. We were like, oh, right, baseball players might be doing that too.But going back to the hurricane: given Trump's lackluster reaction, you have to wonder how many Puerto Rican players don't feel like standing for the anthem right about now.
Nascar
In sharp constrast with the other sports, Nascar was totally on board with Trump. Legendary car owners Richard Petty and Richard Childress both said they would fire any employees who didn't stand for the anthem - to my knowledge, the only owners in any sport to follow Trump's advice.Of course, this is just the latest example of how Nascar is fine with being exactly what everyone expects it to be. It's like they want to make it really clear whether you are welcome in the sport or not. Certainly I'm feeling happier with my decision to walk away from it.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
We Built This City On Reasonable Land Prices And Tax Incentives
Amazon.com is looking at adding a second headquarters. That's pretty impressive; so many companies haven't felt the need to leave their own main office. But then, I guess Amazon isn't like most tech companies in that they have a whole lot of world-wide logistics to take care of, and at some point you can't do all that from one campus in one place. So now they want a second headquarters; it didn't work so well for the Roman Empire, but they're going to try anyway.
What's amazing to me is watching various cities jockey for the position, and the tech/urbanist pundits try to handicap the race. All we know is that it will be in the U.S. or Canada. Presumably it will be some distance from their current HQ in Seattle. Good transportation is a must. There's also an assumption that high costs will take New York, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley out of the mix too. And since CEO Jeff Bezos is pretty hands-on, it will also have to be a place where he has or is willing to buy a home
It's an interesting question, and reminds us of how geography still has meaning in tech. The media talks about tech as though it all happens in Silicon Valley. And while it is remarkable how concentrated the industry is, the fact is that there are a number of smaller tech centres around the U.S. Amazon's current home in Seattle is one (also home to Microsoft) but there's also Austin, Washington D.C. and Boston, among others.
I've always been a little mystified by how tech companies choose to locate. The usual explanation is that they cluster together in these areas because they have to go where the talent is. But the counter-argument to that is that you're also going where other employers are. Whether you're in an area with lots of potential employees and lots of companies, or few potential employees and few companies hiring them, you'll probably end up with the same quality of employees. And the less-competitive job market has the advantage that less competition won't drive wages up.
But the truth is that there are many other reasons that tech companies huddle together. For instance, venture capitalists work closely with their investments, so they're much more likely to back a company that's local to them.
But we're not talking about a startup here, we're talking about a company that already has a reputation and a ton of money. So I figure they have a lot more freedom to go anywhere they want. They could probably go somewhere that doesn't normally have a big supply of tech employees, and just assume that their presence will draw applicants to the new place. Even the cultural accoutrements of tech employees will probably follow. That could be a boon for cities that are stuck in a rut, perhaps held back by a staid old populace unwilling to try new things. But add a bunch of young cosmopolitan folks with money to spend and you'll soon have all the ethnic restaurants and art installations you want. Having grown up in a culturally conservative city, I'd always fantasized that a tech company relocated there and disrupted the culture. Well that could be about to happen.
But that brings up the big disadvantage of winning the Amazon sweepstakes. You don't just get the good parts of Silicon Valley, like jobs and sushi. You'll get the bad parts too, like gentrification. Dropping a bunch of well-paid employees into a city will take supply and demand in unpleasant directions. As the San Francisco Bay Area found, just because you have a really advanced economy: 1. the people who already lived there aren't going anywhere, and 2. You're going to need people who do less glamorous jobs, who don't make a lot of money. So whoever wins the new headquarters won't fix all their problems, they'll just get lots of exciting new problems to work on.
What's amazing to me is watching various cities jockey for the position, and the tech/urbanist pundits try to handicap the race. All we know is that it will be in the U.S. or Canada. Presumably it will be some distance from their current HQ in Seattle. Good transportation is a must. There's also an assumption that high costs will take New York, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley out of the mix too. And since CEO Jeff Bezos is pretty hands-on, it will also have to be a place where he has or is willing to buy a home
It's an interesting question, and reminds us of how geography still has meaning in tech. The media talks about tech as though it all happens in Silicon Valley. And while it is remarkable how concentrated the industry is, the fact is that there are a number of smaller tech centres around the U.S. Amazon's current home in Seattle is one (also home to Microsoft) but there's also Austin, Washington D.C. and Boston, among others.
I've always been a little mystified by how tech companies choose to locate. The usual explanation is that they cluster together in these areas because they have to go where the talent is. But the counter-argument to that is that you're also going where other employers are. Whether you're in an area with lots of potential employees and lots of companies, or few potential employees and few companies hiring them, you'll probably end up with the same quality of employees. And the less-competitive job market has the advantage that less competition won't drive wages up.
But the truth is that there are many other reasons that tech companies huddle together. For instance, venture capitalists work closely with their investments, so they're much more likely to back a company that's local to them.
But we're not talking about a startup here, we're talking about a company that already has a reputation and a ton of money. So I figure they have a lot more freedom to go anywhere they want. They could probably go somewhere that doesn't normally have a big supply of tech employees, and just assume that their presence will draw applicants to the new place. Even the cultural accoutrements of tech employees will probably follow. That could be a boon for cities that are stuck in a rut, perhaps held back by a staid old populace unwilling to try new things. But add a bunch of young cosmopolitan folks with money to spend and you'll soon have all the ethnic restaurants and art installations you want. Having grown up in a culturally conservative city, I'd always fantasized that a tech company relocated there and disrupted the culture. Well that could be about to happen.
But that brings up the big disadvantage of winning the Amazon sweepstakes. You don't just get the good parts of Silicon Valley, like jobs and sushi. You'll get the bad parts too, like gentrification. Dropping a bunch of well-paid employees into a city will take supply and demand in unpleasant directions. As the San Francisco Bay Area found, just because you have a really advanced economy: 1. the people who already lived there aren't going anywhere, and 2. You're going to need people who do less glamorous jobs, who don't make a lot of money. So whoever wins the new headquarters won't fix all their problems, they'll just get lots of exciting new problems to work on.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
World Of Tanks
Apparently, the NBA is going to do something about tanking. That's the practice of intentionally losing so as to get a better draft pick next year. They're talking about not giving the last-place team the best chance of getting the first pick, and instead just giving the last three teams the same chances. That way, bad teams get a chance at rebuilding, but there's no incentive to be last.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone cares about this "problem." Well, I figure it's because the idea of losing intentionally is so abhorrent to sports culture. And also because North American Pro sports has had some historic problems with intentional losing. But I couldn't care less. If we were talking about teams intentionally missing playoff spots to go for a better draft pick, then I could understand fans being angry. But what actually happens is that a team that might at best finish 25th out of 30th will instead finish dead last. That isn't great behaviour, but I don't think it even cracks the top hundred Things Wrong With Professional Sports.
And part of the problem is that it isn’t even possible to define tanking. If you want to tank, you trade your best players, and let the youngsters and journeymen sink to the bottom. But if you’re not tanking, just rebuilding in earnest, you trade your current assets for draft picks and prospects, which causes your team to drop to the bottom of the league.
That’s the point that was put forward by the Buffalo Sabres recently, after a bad season that netted them a second-overall pick. They’ve been accused of tanking, which is frustrating because their geographic rivals in Toronto finished last the next year and got the number one pick. The Sabres have been painted as tankers, while the Leafs were portrayed as wise rebuilders, even though they essentially did the same thing.
Some of that double standard is surely due to the bias of a largely-Canadian pool of journalists. And a lot can be chalked up to that infamous night that the Sabres’ own fans started cheering against them in the hopes of a better draft pick. But it’s hardly fair blaming a team for having insightful fans. I think the real problem is that for some odd reason, people only get angry at tanking when it’s unsuccessful. Going back to the NBA, the most obvious tank jobs actually resulted in teams getting game-changing talents, yet people look back at those incidents with a smirk, while current tankers who are yet to see any benefit get all the ire.
And that gets back to another reason I can't get angry at tankers - and why I doubt this measure will actually work. It's really hard to get a winner in the NBA without a superstar. Yes, you can point to counterexamples, including my own Toronto Raptors, not to mention superstars drafted way down the table like Kobe Bryant. But for the most part, a high pick is needed to join the league's elite, and neither lowered odds nor journalists' scorn with change that.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone cares about this "problem." Well, I figure it's because the idea of losing intentionally is so abhorrent to sports culture. And also because North American Pro sports has had some historic problems with intentional losing. But I couldn't care less. If we were talking about teams intentionally missing playoff spots to go for a better draft pick, then I could understand fans being angry. But what actually happens is that a team that might at best finish 25th out of 30th will instead finish dead last. That isn't great behaviour, but I don't think it even cracks the top hundred Things Wrong With Professional Sports.
And part of the problem is that it isn’t even possible to define tanking. If you want to tank, you trade your best players, and let the youngsters and journeymen sink to the bottom. But if you’re not tanking, just rebuilding in earnest, you trade your current assets for draft picks and prospects, which causes your team to drop to the bottom of the league.
That’s the point that was put forward by the Buffalo Sabres recently, after a bad season that netted them a second-overall pick. They’ve been accused of tanking, which is frustrating because their geographic rivals in Toronto finished last the next year and got the number one pick. The Sabres have been painted as tankers, while the Leafs were portrayed as wise rebuilders, even though they essentially did the same thing.
Some of that double standard is surely due to the bias of a largely-Canadian pool of journalists. And a lot can be chalked up to that infamous night that the Sabres’ own fans started cheering against them in the hopes of a better draft pick. But it’s hardly fair blaming a team for having insightful fans. I think the real problem is that for some odd reason, people only get angry at tanking when it’s unsuccessful. Going back to the NBA, the most obvious tank jobs actually resulted in teams getting game-changing talents, yet people look back at those incidents with a smirk, while current tankers who are yet to see any benefit get all the ire.
And that gets back to another reason I can't get angry at tankers - and why I doubt this measure will actually work. It's really hard to get a winner in the NBA without a superstar. Yes, you can point to counterexamples, including my own Toronto Raptors, not to mention superstars drafted way down the table like Kobe Bryant. But for the most part, a high pick is needed to join the league's elite, and neither lowered odds nor journalists' scorn with change that.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Cleveland Crocks
In this weekend's NFL games, the TV coverage treated the National Anthem as a competition of its own. Even highlights noted who, if anyone, didn't stand for the anthem, or gave the black power sign. If you're not aware, this started with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem in protest of the treatment of African Americans. Kaepernick himself was suspicious by his absence, having still not been signed this season. Although his performance has gone downhill since nearly winning the Super Bowl in 2013, it's still hard to believe that he's not qualified for a league with about a hundred quarterback jobs. It will get even more suspicious as time goes on, and we see some of the has-beens and never-weres that aren't getting the job done.
But in Cleveland, they headed-off the anthem controversy by having a big video on the scoreboard urging peace and understanding.
This video gave me a new level of understanding of America. Suddenly I get it. I get why black people hate it when you say, "All Lives Matter." I mean sure, I'd heard lots of explanations. And I'd seen the recent meme that tries to address the flooding in Houston with "All Cities Matter." But it didn't really hit home until I saw this attempt to show concern for real - and rather specific - problems using a bunch of vague platitudes.
It's become apparent in recent years that America has problems that have been around for a while, but lurk beneath a friendly sheen of agreeable principles. The challenge of activists has been to call attention to those problems that are getting ignored by a big portion of Americans that should be sympathetic but are turning a blind eye. Making a feel-good video that doesn't acknowledge any problems is just adding to that facade.
Okay, you can make the point that in the current America where up is down and Nazis are normalized, actually promoting those positive principles is a radical step. And if you're going to promote those values, then the ideal place is the national Lowest Common Denominator, football. But I've moved beyond that. Yes, I'm apparently woke now.
But in Cleveland, they headed-off the anthem controversy by having a big video on the scoreboard urging peace and understanding.
A special message on unity and equality from members of the Cleveland Browns. pic.twitter.com/CvyTdgTaIS— Cleveland Browns (@Browns) September 10, 2017
This video gave me a new level of understanding of America. Suddenly I get it. I get why black people hate it when you say, "All Lives Matter." I mean sure, I'd heard lots of explanations. And I'd seen the recent meme that tries to address the flooding in Houston with "All Cities Matter." But it didn't really hit home until I saw this attempt to show concern for real - and rather specific - problems using a bunch of vague platitudes.
It's become apparent in recent years that America has problems that have been around for a while, but lurk beneath a friendly sheen of agreeable principles. The challenge of activists has been to call attention to those problems that are getting ignored by a big portion of Americans that should be sympathetic but are turning a blind eye. Making a feel-good video that doesn't acknowledge any problems is just adding to that facade.
Okay, you can make the point that in the current America where up is down and Nazis are normalized, actually promoting those positive principles is a radical step. And if you're going to promote those values, then the ideal place is the national Lowest Common Denominator, football. But I've moved beyond that. Yes, I'm apparently woke now.
Monday, September 11, 2017
In Your Eyes
You may have seen the story about a man in Britain who is planning on playing the piano in a public square until his ex girlfriend takes him back. A few people have congratulated him on his romanticism, though more are thinking he should really move on. This is an example of a phenomena I've seen many people point out: that the behaviour portrayed in romantic movies - particularly rom-coms - would be creepy if not abusive in real life.
What's interesting is that although most people agree that the man's behaviour is not healthy, there's a divergence in the explanation for it. Some have seen him as just another love-crazed guy, albeit one who's taken it too far (and too public.) And some people have gone straight for a paternalist explanation, saying that he is acting out of a feeling of entitlement. They would say that he is unable to cope with a woman rejecting him, since he - as a man - feels he has a right to a sexual relationship with his chosen woman.
I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen; there are a lot of men who look at the world that way, including many that you would think would know better. But that's hardly the only explanation. After all, our messed-up sex roles make people do crazy things, but love alone also makes people act plenty crazy. I'm not absolving him of blame - harassing behaviour is harassing no matter the reason. But that's also kind of my point; bad behaviour doesn't necessarily have a bad cause.
There are a couple of lessons here: One is that we have to be careful when we go from trends to individual cases. For instance, even if you know that many blacks are unfairly treated by the police, that doesn't mean that you can assume that any particular black person who gets arrested is being framed. Secondly, we as a society still have a long way to go in figuring out heterosexual men. There's an assumption out there coming from people of many backgrounds that all a man's actions are motivated by sex, and that sexuality is purely about ownership and dominance. I doubt it was ever that simple, and in today’s world, you just can’t jump to conclusions about a person’s motivations.
What's interesting is that although most people agree that the man's behaviour is not healthy, there's a divergence in the explanation for it. Some have seen him as just another love-crazed guy, albeit one who's taken it too far (and too public.) And some people have gone straight for a paternalist explanation, saying that he is acting out of a feeling of entitlement. They would say that he is unable to cope with a woman rejecting him, since he - as a man - feels he has a right to a sexual relationship with his chosen woman.
I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen; there are a lot of men who look at the world that way, including many that you would think would know better. But that's hardly the only explanation. After all, our messed-up sex roles make people do crazy things, but love alone also makes people act plenty crazy. I'm not absolving him of blame - harassing behaviour is harassing no matter the reason. But that's also kind of my point; bad behaviour doesn't necessarily have a bad cause.
There are a couple of lessons here: One is that we have to be careful when we go from trends to individual cases. For instance, even if you know that many blacks are unfairly treated by the police, that doesn't mean that you can assume that any particular black person who gets arrested is being framed. Secondly, we as a society still have a long way to go in figuring out heterosexual men. There's an assumption out there coming from people of many backgrounds that all a man's actions are motivated by sex, and that sexuality is purely about ownership and dominance. I doubt it was ever that simple, and in today’s world, you just can’t jump to conclusions about a person’s motivations.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
You (Practically) Da Man
Let's say you hear a story about someone facing prejudice. A person discriminated against at work, or treated unfairly by the judicial system. Assuming you're a reasonably compassionate person, you want to show that you care. But there's two general ways to do this:
You could portray yourself as a sort of comrade in arms, either by comparing it to your own situation ("I know what that's like") or by highlighting a common enemy ("You tell 'em! Stick it to The Man!")
The other way is to act as a representative of society as a whole ("We really need to change as a people.") Or even to take responsibility as part of the problem ("On behalf of all X, I'm really sorry.”)
Which attitude you take largely depends on who you are. If you're a member of the same oppressed group as the victim, you'll surely commiserate. And probably, if you're from a group that had suffered similarly, you'll probably also compare your struggles. On the other hand, If your life situation is quite different, you'll probably avoid comparison, and try to show sympathy from the outside.
As a straight, white, able-bodied cis-male, I'm generally restricted to that second approach. It's going to sound silly if I try to compare my experience to someone who has lived their life with systematic discrimination. ("I know what you mean, let me tell you about how long they're taking rebuilding the expressway interchange I use.") Or, to put it another way, I can't say "Stick it to The Man" if everyone knows I am The Man.
And in a society that is prominently white, many of the people I know are in the same boat. Generally, if I'm talking to someone who ticks any of the oppression boxes, it's a woman. That is, a straight, white, able-bodied cis-female. So how do they react when looking at someone else's struggle?
I've noticed that in these situations, they're pretty quick to go to that first reaction. They align themselves with the victim, and jump to a very negative view of society. This always makes me feel kind of awkward. Sure, I'm quick to acknowledge the unfairness of society, but in this case, I'm like, excuse me, The Man is right here, I can hear you.
But here's the interesting point: In recent years - thanks to social media - I've had the chance to see the perspectives of more people with many different backgrounds. And I've discovered that although white women may see themselves as part of The Oppressed, many others definitely don't see it that way. There's a widespread feeling that white women are hardly worse-off than white men, with a lot of pent-up anger aimed at them.
I don't know how fair that is. It often seems like a grass-is-greener situation, in which white women have taken on a mythical status among frustrated activists, envisioned as incredibly privileged, hardly different from folks like myself. That’s clearly inaccurate; domestic abuse and sexual assault are problems that are not easily dismissed.
But ultimately that just adds to my point: There’s a big divide there amongst progressives, and a lot of misunderstanding. So please realize that people don’t understand one another’s struggles as much as they think they do. You may not have the oppression-cred that you think, and it will look fake if you pretend you do. But conversely, you will look out-of-touch if you assume that another’s life is easy.
You could portray yourself as a sort of comrade in arms, either by comparing it to your own situation ("I know what that's like") or by highlighting a common enemy ("You tell 'em! Stick it to The Man!")
The other way is to act as a representative of society as a whole ("We really need to change as a people.") Or even to take responsibility as part of the problem ("On behalf of all X, I'm really sorry.”)
Which attitude you take largely depends on who you are. If you're a member of the same oppressed group as the victim, you'll surely commiserate. And probably, if you're from a group that had suffered similarly, you'll probably also compare your struggles. On the other hand, If your life situation is quite different, you'll probably avoid comparison, and try to show sympathy from the outside.
As a straight, white, able-bodied cis-male, I'm generally restricted to that second approach. It's going to sound silly if I try to compare my experience to someone who has lived their life with systematic discrimination. ("I know what you mean, let me tell you about how long they're taking rebuilding the expressway interchange I use.") Or, to put it another way, I can't say "Stick it to The Man" if everyone knows I am The Man.
And in a society that is prominently white, many of the people I know are in the same boat. Generally, if I'm talking to someone who ticks any of the oppression boxes, it's a woman. That is, a straight, white, able-bodied cis-female. So how do they react when looking at someone else's struggle?
I've noticed that in these situations, they're pretty quick to go to that first reaction. They align themselves with the victim, and jump to a very negative view of society. This always makes me feel kind of awkward. Sure, I'm quick to acknowledge the unfairness of society, but in this case, I'm like, excuse me, The Man is right here, I can hear you.
But here's the interesting point: In recent years - thanks to social media - I've had the chance to see the perspectives of more people with many different backgrounds. And I've discovered that although white women may see themselves as part of The Oppressed, many others definitely don't see it that way. There's a widespread feeling that white women are hardly worse-off than white men, with a lot of pent-up anger aimed at them.
I don't know how fair that is. It often seems like a grass-is-greener situation, in which white women have taken on a mythical status among frustrated activists, envisioned as incredibly privileged, hardly different from folks like myself. That’s clearly inaccurate; domestic abuse and sexual assault are problems that are not easily dismissed.
But ultimately that just adds to my point: There’s a big divide there amongst progressives, and a lot of misunderstanding. So please realize that people don’t understand one another’s struggles as much as they think they do. You may not have the oppression-cred that you think, and it will look fake if you pretend you do. But conversely, you will look out-of-touch if you assume that another’s life is easy.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
The Fall Of Television
We're seeing ads for this fall's new TV shows. That seems so quaint; it hearkens back to a simpler time when all the shows started at the same time, then half of them were canceled in the first month, like some sort of media Hunger Games. These days it's more complicated, with shows coming out at different times of the year, having breaks mid-year, coming back from the dead, etc.
But we still have some new shows debuting in September the way God intended. It's weird watching them publicized now, because these ads aren't the usual commercials for shows; they have to spell out the premise/catch/novelty of the show. And we watch them knowing that it might be an idea that becomes iconic and gets copied for years to come, or it might be quickly forgotten like some unprepared tribute from district eleven.
I'm thinking that the fact that it's only a TV show is kind of an admission that WikiSherlock wouldn't really work. Can you imagine if everyone on the Internet who considers themselves an expert were to try to solve crimes? You'd get false accusations all over the place. If the creators of this show are clever, they'll make that problem part of the show: Rather than your average whodunnit, you also have to wonder if the investigators can be trusted. That could be interesting, though I suspect that this is going to be like watching a CSI episode written by Malcolm Gladwell.
But seriously, I don't seen how Young Sheldon can possibly work. Watching a grown up intellectual misfit trying to navigate the world is funny, but watching a child do that is tragic. I know, they probably won't show Sheldon actually getting bullied - except during Very Special Episodes - but that will just be unrealistic even by sitcom standards.
But we still have some new shows debuting in September the way God intended. It's weird watching them publicized now, because these ads aren't the usual commercials for shows; they have to spell out the premise/catch/novelty of the show. And we watch them knowing that it might be an idea that becomes iconic and gets copied for years to come, or it might be quickly forgotten like some unprepared tribute from district eleven.
The Good Doctor
The ads stress this is the autistic doctor. That's potentially an interesting idea, but it's also derivative of the smart but socially difficult person trend. It was hardly surprising that it was from the makers of House. It could still work, though the ads make it out to be a heavy-handed feel good story, complete with the usual Hollywood intelligence clichés.Wisdom of the Crowd
Crime dramas are hot; crowdsourcing is hot; let's put them together! Here you have a crowdsourced crime-solving app, and that's the premise. It begs the question: if you have that idea, why would you write a show about it? I'm sure you're there in Los Angeles thinking that it could be a popular show and make you a millionaire, but if you had taken the idea a little ways up the California coast you could have created the thing in real life and become a billionaire.I'm thinking that the fact that it's only a TV show is kind of an admission that WikiSherlock wouldn't really work. Can you imagine if everyone on the Internet who considers themselves an expert were to try to solve crimes? You'd get false accusations all over the place. If the creators of this show are clever, they'll make that problem part of the show: Rather than your average whodunnit, you also have to wonder if the investigators can be trusted. That could be interesting, though I suspect that this is going to be like watching a CSI episode written by Malcolm Gladwell.
Me, Myself and I
This is a sitcom taking place at three different eras in one man's life. I'm sure I had the same reaction as a lot of people:- That could be an interesting concept depending on how they execute it, and
- Isn't John Larroquette about a foot taller than Bobby Moynihan? How can they be playing the same person?
Young Sheldon
Speaking of time shifting, there's this show about the childhood of Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper. I don't know that there is anything like that before. There could probably be a lot of characters in TV history that could have had the prequel treatment. Speaking of John Larroquette, I would have loved to have seen Night Court's Dan Fielding as a teenager coming of age in the sixties. It just writes itself.But seriously, I don't seen how Young Sheldon can possibly work. Watching a grown up intellectual misfit trying to navigate the world is funny, but watching a child do that is tragic. I know, they probably won't show Sheldon actually getting bullied - except during Very Special Episodes - but that will just be unrealistic even by sitcom standards.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Still Working On Automating My Blog
There was a news item recently about Dominos experimenting with driverless pizza delivery. That's interesting, as it's yet another of the common things in our society that will be revolutionized with automation. There are so many things like that, where it's obvious once you think about it that self-driving cars will totally change it, but we just haven't thought it through. I mean, automated ice cream trucks.
Science Fiction author John Scalzi pointed out how this ruins Snow Crash, the Sci-Fi classic who's main character is a pizza deliverer. It's yet another case where we didn't think through how technology would work, imagining this futuristic world with a guy driving his own car. No, he'd be unemployed. That is, unless you believe the Dominos president, who said that the company's 100,000 drivers would take on "different roles" within the company. To put that in perspective, GM employs a little over 200,000 people in total. There's no way they need that many people tossing pizza dough. That is, in the unlikely event that it doesn't also get automated. You have to wonder just how many people a company like Dominos will employ in a few years.
But the thing that stuck out to me was how the whole story was presented as some sort of cutting edge research. The TV version I saw made it sound like Dominos was trying to build their own driverless car so that they could deliver pizza with it. Of course, developing their own self-driving technology would make about as much sense as designing your own car specially for pizza delivery. I'm sure you could make a pizza-optimized car, but no one did that, since the cost would be astronomical compared to just buying a general perpose car. Really, Dominos and all other delivery-based businesses will just use mass-produced self-driving cars.
Sure, there's a bit of work before they perfect automated pizza delivery, since you'll have to have the customer access the pizza themselves. But that's not really on the same level of research. Nor is it particularly newsworthy. Really, this is just Ford doing the self-driving research and development they would be doing anyway, but letting Dominos piggy-back by providing a cute task for their prototype to do. And Dominos gets the publicity when it becomes a news story.
Science Fiction author John Scalzi pointed out how this ruins Snow Crash, the Sci-Fi classic who's main character is a pizza deliverer. It's yet another case where we didn't think through how technology would work, imagining this futuristic world with a guy driving his own car. No, he'd be unemployed. That is, unless you believe the Dominos president, who said that the company's 100,000 drivers would take on "different roles" within the company. To put that in perspective, GM employs a little over 200,000 people in total. There's no way they need that many people tossing pizza dough. That is, in the unlikely event that it doesn't also get automated. You have to wonder just how many people a company like Dominos will employ in a few years.
But the thing that stuck out to me was how the whole story was presented as some sort of cutting edge research. The TV version I saw made it sound like Dominos was trying to build their own driverless car so that they could deliver pizza with it. Of course, developing their own self-driving technology would make about as much sense as designing your own car specially for pizza delivery. I'm sure you could make a pizza-optimized car, but no one did that, since the cost would be astronomical compared to just buying a general perpose car. Really, Dominos and all other delivery-based businesses will just use mass-produced self-driving cars.
Sure, there's a bit of work before they perfect automated pizza delivery, since you'll have to have the customer access the pizza themselves. But that's not really on the same level of research. Nor is it particularly newsworthy. Really, this is just Ford doing the self-driving research and development they would be doing anyway, but letting Dominos piggy-back by providing a cute task for their prototype to do. And Dominos gets the publicity when it becomes a news story.
Friday, August 25, 2017
...Do Not Talk About Anything But Fight Club
The last time there was a big, transcendent boxing match, I commented on the weird place boxing has in modern sports. It's usually invisible to the mainstream, but in a big match, it suddenly jumps onto the stage, and everyone acts as though is always been there.
In this case, there's the added narrative of a face-off between the new and old fighting sports, the uncertainty of an unprecedented match-up, and an awkwardly-timely racial undercurrent.
But I'm still surprised by how it's being covered. Granted, sports news has a thankless task of trying to satisfy many people with different tastes. They take advantage of the fact that while different people like different things, most people they like at least one mainstream sports will have at least an abiding interest in other mainstream sports. But smaller sports like boxing present more of a problem. Usually, they just do quick coverage in between other sports. We're going to talk about horse racing for five minutes, but then it's three hours of football. That's why the coverage of this fight is perplexing. It's been Superbowl-style, can't-get-enough coverage. The unstated assumption is that virtually all sports fans are interested in this fight.
I was shocked to see sports channels break away from programming to show live coverage of the press conferences. In non-sports news, that sort of saturation reporting is reserved for massive stories, the kind where they report it non-stop because it would just seem wrong to go to another story. So you report on the same thing, even when all you can show is an interview with some guy who's not saying anything.
It's been more bizarre when you consider that,
In this case, there's the added narrative of a face-off between the new and old fighting sports, the uncertainty of an unprecedented match-up, and an awkwardly-timely racial undercurrent.
But I'm still surprised by how it's being covered. Granted, sports news has a thankless task of trying to satisfy many people with different tastes. They take advantage of the fact that while different people like different things, most people they like at least one mainstream sports will have at least an abiding interest in other mainstream sports. But smaller sports like boxing present more of a problem. Usually, they just do quick coverage in between other sports. We're going to talk about horse racing for five minutes, but then it's three hours of football. That's why the coverage of this fight is perplexing. It's been Superbowl-style, can't-get-enough coverage. The unstated assumption is that virtually all sports fans are interested in this fight.
I was shocked to see sports channels break away from programming to show live coverage of the press conferences. In non-sports news, that sort of saturation reporting is reserved for massive stories, the kind where they report it non-stop because it would just seem wrong to go to another story. So you report on the same thing, even when all you can show is an interview with some guy who's not saying anything.
It's been more bizarre when you consider that,
- The hype started so long ago. The world press tour was really early, seemingly a misjudgement.
- The match is a new level in boxing's metamorphosis into pro wrestling. The boxers' appearances have been chaotic and profane... wait, there's a word for that now, isn't there? Ah yes, "Trumpian." That's just added to the poor timing; a cascade of childish masculinity might have piqued interest for a week, but it can't really be sustained for a month.
- These contenders aren't really very marketable, outside their sports. Bad boys often sell well in the sports world, but there's a difference between controversial and unlikable.
Friday, August 18, 2017
The Men They Couldn't Hang, Stepped To The Mic And Sang
Both Sides Now
There's been a lot of work parsing Trump's unwillingness to single-out the white supremacist groups in Charlottesville. Most of the focus I've seen is on his administration's long history of playing footsie with the far-right. But I think that's misguided. Trump isn't trying to reach out to Neo-Nazis; he's trying to appeal to the people who don't really like the KKK and friends, but are also really uncomfortable with Black Lives Matter and many other activist groups. In short, they don't like people disrupting the status quo .In A Mirror, Darkly
Trump did his best to establish false-equivalence between heavily armed fascists and those protesting them. Some in the media fell for it, replaying his press conference antics without noting whether his claims were true. But I think journalists are slowly getting wise. Or at least, they've started running with the "Trump is nuts" narrative instead of the usual "one side against the other" narrative.But what really worries me is a relatively small part of the press conference. Trump didn't merely draw a parallel between the side, but he labeled the counter protesters, giving them the name that seemed the natural counterpart to the so-called "Alt Right." It's a name no one was actually using, and doesn't really make sense, since there isn't really any new force on the left, just the usual groups working harder when fighting the new efforts associated with the Alt Right.
You notice I'm not saying the new name? That's because I think it's going to be the most dangerous thing to come out of this whole event. A lot of people are laughing at the name; after all, it's defined as anyone who opposes Nazis, so that would seem to be most of humanity. But the problem is, it's an invitation for false-equivalence. It invites people to group those countering hate together as though it was one group with its own agenda, rather than what it is: people acting on what most of our society believes in. It makes it sound like they are as much a separate group outside the mainstream as the hat groups themselves are. In short, it invites the sort of world view I described Trump encouraging in the first section. So I cringe every time I here someone repeat it, even if it is to ridicule it. It's such a dangerous idea that you shouldn't be giving it any publicity.
Working For The Clampdown
One strange aspect of Charlottesville was the focus of the anger. Throughout most of my life, whenever bigotry has bubbled to the surface in America, it's generally been pointed at Hispanics, Blacks, or Muslims. Yes, I know, there's more to it than that, but those are the big targets that you hear about from race-baiting politicians and conservative media.And yet, when you wade through the ground-level coverage of the hate groups present, they frequently jumped straight to Jews as their hated group of choice. I really didn't see that coming, since the march was supposedly about a Civil War statue, and their hero in the White House has generally left them alone. During the campaign, I mentioned that Jews were staying away from Trump, and one explanation given was that they understood that they would inevitably be targeted by the movement. They sure called that right.
But why are the haters so angry at Jews, despite no coaching from the media or politicians? Recently, an explanation was proposed in the Washington Post: Because they have the privilege to fight back.
Say, remember when "haters" just meant people who were really negative? Taylor Swift used to sing about them? Innocent times.
This Used To Be My Playground
There's a dispute going on about how to see Charlottesville. On one side, you have (mostly white) people saying things like "everything has changed" or "this isn't America." On the other side, you have (mostly black) people saying, "this is nothing new."To some extent, this is a misunderstanding of nuance. If a person says, "this isn't my America," it's not clear whether they mean, "I refuse to believe this hatred exists here," or, "my vision of this country is a society that's better than this." The first interpretation is naive and ignorant, while the second is just very idealized rhetoric, and not really a problem.
The trouble is that in recent years, a lot of the most egregious incidents of racism in the U.S. have been disguised within government and corporate policies, hidden in societal norms, or covered over by the justice system. So activists have gotten used to pointing out that there have long been problems that most of the population just isn't seeing. That's become enough of an instinctive reaction that even after an incident that seems like a game changer, they're still telling everyone that it wasn't that big of a deal. I can understand why they would feel that way, but I don't think that's the best message to be putting out there right now. At a time when white America is finally ready to believe that racism is a problem, you don't want to be telling them that no, it's business as usual.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Many Sides
All week I've been working on a post about the negative reaction to the newly announced TV show Confederate. I was examining the use of dystopia in modern storytelling, and the historical struggles of African-Americans, trying to understand all arguments being made, and agonizing over the subtleties of each perspective. Then the Charlottesville protest happened, as if to say, "fuck subtlety." Fine then.
- Even by the usual standards of the media, it was amazing how long it took to state what actually happened. First it was "violence broke out at a protest, one person was killed." Then it was a car hitting protesters, no mention of intentionality or which side. Then it came out that it was the counter protesters who were hit. Then we find out the car accellerated at the protesters. And finally, we find out that it was Black Lives Matter protesters who were intentionality hit. A massive story that took all day for them to admit.
- The person killed was local paralegal Heather Heyer
- Her death kind of eclipsed the brutal beating of Deandre Harris, whose life was probably saved by fellow protesters.
- There was the bizarre situation in which a hate group from Detroit co-opted the Detroit Red Wings' logo, and the team was forced to issue a condemnation. As many pointed out, they acted quicker and more definitively than Trump.
- Another point not lost on people: This is a University town, and the protesters chose mid-August, the time when there would be the fewest people to confront them.
- Trump hit a new low with the vaguest possible condemnation, implying that the violence came from "many sides." America's Neo-nazis were overjoyed that they didn't get condemned. Dog whistle received.
- By the way, this all started because of talk about removing a statue of Robert E. Lee. It's in the middle of "Emancipation Park."
- It also got lost that two police officers were killed in a helicopter crash on the way there.
- There were plenty of complaints about police inaction, with a mere three arrests (compare that to 30 the first night of Ferguson protests. ) However, it's also hard to blame them given how outgunned the police was compared to some of the militias on hand.
- I didn't even realize that Tiki Torch is a brand, but apparently they didn't appreciate being associated with white nationalism either, and issued their own condemnation. And I'm sure the makers of bland men's clothing will be for ways to distance themselves, now that they're quickly becoming the new white hood. I know the next time I shop for clothes, I'll stop and ask myself, does this make me look like a Nazi?
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
...And Watch Out For The Cybernewts
If you see a Weeping Turtle, don't blink...oh, go ahead and blink, it's not getting very far anyway.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Where's The Over-Analyzing Emoji?
Since The Emoji Movie is out, I should probably say something about them. And if the reviews are anything to go by, I’d better be quick. I have to admit, I never really liked emojis.
I don't really hate them. A part of me is fascinated by the idea that we could be developing a new interlingual pictogram writing system. And I'm pleasantly surprised at the development of the eggplant emoji; that showed a subtlety I didn't think society was capable of.
But ultimately, I don’t like the inelegance of it. I appreciate things that have a few simple components that can be assembled in a variety of ways, as a challenge to creativity (say, Lego.) I also appreciate things that are so varied and complex that they give rise to virtually endless possibilities and ultimate personalization (say, the Web.) But emojis fall in the anti-sweet-spot between those two possibilities. They're varied enough that they don't really take creativity to use, but limited enough that they can't express individuality.
And before you reach for counter-examples, yes, I know that there are some epic examples of expression through emoji. I saw that tweet where Kyle McLachlan explained the entire plot of Dune in emojis.
But here's the biggest problem I have with emojis: I miss smileys. I loved their simplicity, the challenge of making punctuation look human. I also appreciated the subtlety: None of the overacting we get from emojis. It was just a humble little facial expression, conveyed with minimalist cuteness by the technological descendant of the "Have a Nice Day" face.
Remember how there was so much concern over not having black faces in emojis? No need to worry about that with smileys. They don’t have enough detail to tell what race/gender they are. The smiley is the only true post-race character. It smiles for all of us.
I don't really hate them. A part of me is fascinated by the idea that we could be developing a new interlingual pictogram writing system. And I'm pleasantly surprised at the development of the eggplant emoji; that showed a subtlety I didn't think society was capable of.
But ultimately, I don’t like the inelegance of it. I appreciate things that have a few simple components that can be assembled in a variety of ways, as a challenge to creativity (say, Lego.) I also appreciate things that are so varied and complex that they give rise to virtually endless possibilities and ultimate personalization (say, the Web.) But emojis fall in the anti-sweet-spot between those two possibilities. They're varied enough that they don't really take creativity to use, but limited enough that they can't express individuality.
And before you reach for counter-examples, yes, I know that there are some epic examples of expression through emoji. I saw that tweet where Kyle McLachlan explained the entire plot of Dune in emojis.
🌏💧✋🕋🗡🚀🏜☀️🌡🌶💯🚱⏳🌅🌑😡💉😱😈💀💥🌛🌙🐭💥🚶🏻〰🐛️⌛️👳🙏💥😴🛌😳💥🐛💥👊⚔👑 #dune https://t.co/bXwpdYC8jz— Kyle MacLachlan (@Kyle_MacLachlan) August 16, 2016
But here's the biggest problem I have with emojis: I miss smileys. I loved their simplicity, the challenge of making punctuation look human. I also appreciated the subtlety: None of the overacting we get from emojis. It was just a humble little facial expression, conveyed with minimalist cuteness by the technological descendant of the "Have a Nice Day" face.
Remember how there was so much concern over not having black faces in emojis? No need to worry about that with smileys. They don’t have enough detail to tell what race/gender they are. The smiley is the only true post-race character. It smiles for all of us.
Monday, July 31, 2017
The Dog Of Small Things
I've mentioned that I'm not a dog person. But I have learned some interesting things about dogs. I've always found it interesting that we created all the breeds, and wonder what that says about us. It's also interesting that in some cases the breeds have become so extreme that they're causing medical problems. Some kennel clubs have gone as far as changing what they look for as the ideal in breeds to try to discourage the creation of unhealthy animals, and avoiding a future where shar peis are just a big pile of folded skin.
But it's worse than that. The selective breeding that creates and maintains breeds is essentially inbreeding on a huge scale, and they cause all kinds of invisible health problems. Well now one dog owner has a controversial solution: genetic engineering. That may seem extreme, but preventing a dog's suceptability to disease could be a simple as flipping a few genes, and the new CRISPR process makes it much easier.
This stood out to me for a couple of reasons. One is that this could be the onset of a gene-hacking culture. I'd heard lots of predicitons that genetics would be the next area that would see a fast, semi-chaotic string of innovations the way computing has for the last couple of generations. I'd always been skeptical of that simply because computer and software innovation has been fuelled by the low cost of entry; you can start a company in your garage, while genetics can only move at the speed of Big Pharma. But if a guy is hacking his Dalmatian in his garage, then it's next stop mutantville.
The other aspect that caught my attention is the quote that I saw passed around social media. It's the dog-hacker's main arguement in favour of allowing genetic manipulation of dogs: “I think it will be easier to teach dog breeders CRISPR than it will be to teach dog breeders why pure breeding is a bad thing.” It may be extreme, but I'm sure he's correct. But more importantly, that seems to sum up our entire age: astounding technology is easy; convincing people to use it responsibly is not. So we just hope we can invent our way out of problems faster than they arise.
Of course, the statement isn't entirely true. Teaching dog breeders about the dangers of pure breeding isn't difficult. After all, I learned it, and I don't know anything about dogs. But really, in this case my lack of connection to dogs is, paradoxically, an advantage to understanding this. Not being a dog person, I don't have any vested interest either way. But if you have preconcieved ideas about dogs, you'll be reluctant to change your mind. Really, it's convincing owners that's the problem. Or, just convincing them that the health of the animals they claim to love is more important than their pursuit of arbitrary and often quite silly ideals. And again, that's a symbol of our times. Spreading information around is very easy, but conveying the importance of things is next to impossible.
But it's worse than that. The selective breeding that creates and maintains breeds is essentially inbreeding on a huge scale, and they cause all kinds of invisible health problems. Well now one dog owner has a controversial solution: genetic engineering. That may seem extreme, but preventing a dog's suceptability to disease could be a simple as flipping a few genes, and the new CRISPR process makes it much easier.
This stood out to me for a couple of reasons. One is that this could be the onset of a gene-hacking culture. I'd heard lots of predicitons that genetics would be the next area that would see a fast, semi-chaotic string of innovations the way computing has for the last couple of generations. I'd always been skeptical of that simply because computer and software innovation has been fuelled by the low cost of entry; you can start a company in your garage, while genetics can only move at the speed of Big Pharma. But if a guy is hacking his Dalmatian in his garage, then it's next stop mutantville.
The other aspect that caught my attention is the quote that I saw passed around social media. It's the dog-hacker's main arguement in favour of allowing genetic manipulation of dogs: “I think it will be easier to teach dog breeders CRISPR than it will be to teach dog breeders why pure breeding is a bad thing.” It may be extreme, but I'm sure he's correct. But more importantly, that seems to sum up our entire age: astounding technology is easy; convincing people to use it responsibly is not. So we just hope we can invent our way out of problems faster than they arise.
Of course, the statement isn't entirely true. Teaching dog breeders about the dangers of pure breeding isn't difficult. After all, I learned it, and I don't know anything about dogs. But really, in this case my lack of connection to dogs is, paradoxically, an advantage to understanding this. Not being a dog person, I don't have any vested interest either way. But if you have preconcieved ideas about dogs, you'll be reluctant to change your mind. Really, it's convincing owners that's the problem. Or, just convincing them that the health of the animals they claim to love is more important than their pursuit of arbitrary and often quite silly ideals. And again, that's a symbol of our times. Spreading information around is very easy, but conveying the importance of things is next to impossible.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Passing Quickly
Recently, there were reports of a man who bought a new Ferrari, then destroyed it in an accident just one hour later. I know I once wrote an article about how hard it is to write-off expensive, limited-edition sports cars, but I think this guy may have done it. I'm also amused by the description of the accident, "The vehicle left the road." To my knowledge, Ferraris do not have any sort of self-driving technology, so the car didn't leave the road without some guidance. "It suddenly burst into flames." I'm sure it happened "suddenly" in the sense that it wasn't on fire one moment, then the next moment it was. But "suddenly" implies a lack of obvious cause. In this case, it likely had something to do with a low-sitting car being driven through a farmer's field at high speed. So that would be like saying, I drove head-on into a brick wall, and suddenly the car was shorter than it used to be.
Fortunately, his injuries were limited to cuts and bruises. Well, that might not be so fortunate; his injuries are in the laugh-without-guilt range. It might have been worth it to him to break a wrist or something if it deterred people like me from writing about it.
But he didn't, so here we are, wondering what causes a person to destroy a car in the first hour of ownership. I figure there are two types of people in the world: given something expensive and powerful, there are the people who want to see its limits right away, and those who ease their way into it. I'm definitely in that second group. I'm not saying we would never drive the car fast, but we would want to work our way up to it over the course of a month or twenty.
That may seem like a waste: driving a fast, powerful car so conservatively. But I think there are other ways to get joy out of a high-end sports car. See, the other day, I was passed on the highway by a minivan going about 140, in the far right lane. Of course, I was hoping that he'd think about the oddness that the guy with the slowest car was going the fastest. But I'm sure that was too subtle. It occurred to me that this would be a good time to be driving an obviously fast car: someone speeds by you in an SUV. Then you honk, and flash him an incredulous look while gesturing at you car, with the unspoken message, "Really? You, a schmuck in a Hyundai Santa Fe feel the need to go faster than a showoff in a Ferrari? "
Fortunately, his injuries were limited to cuts and bruises. Well, that might not be so fortunate; his injuries are in the laugh-without-guilt range. It might have been worth it to him to break a wrist or something if it deterred people like me from writing about it.
But he didn't, so here we are, wondering what causes a person to destroy a car in the first hour of ownership. I figure there are two types of people in the world: given something expensive and powerful, there are the people who want to see its limits right away, and those who ease their way into it. I'm definitely in that second group. I'm not saying we would never drive the car fast, but we would want to work our way up to it over the course of a month or twenty.
That may seem like a waste: driving a fast, powerful car so conservatively. But I think there are other ways to get joy out of a high-end sports car. See, the other day, I was passed on the highway by a minivan going about 140, in the far right lane. Of course, I was hoping that he'd think about the oddness that the guy with the slowest car was going the fastest. But I'm sure that was too subtle. It occurred to me that this would be a good time to be driving an obviously fast car: someone speeds by you in an SUV. Then you honk, and flash him an incredulous look while gesturing at you car, with the unspoken message, "Really? You, a schmuck in a Hyundai Santa Fe feel the need to go faster than a showoff in a Ferrari? "
Friday, July 28, 2017
Negativeland
There have surely been many news stories lost in the United States in the midst of the Trump tumult. Different aspects of the main story are in danger of getting lost; what hope is there for other news?
One story that should be noted is the shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota. Of course, there have been many stories of innocent people killed by police in recent years. But this event is different.
Strangely, what sets it apart is not what happened, but what didn't. Police didn't defend their actions or deflect blame - the chief even resigned. The media didn't demonize the victim.
I'm sure you can see where this is going. In this case, the victim is white. Observing it is infuriating: it's provided confirmation of just how differently blacks and whites are treated by American police, media and politicians. So really, it's a big story, but only in the negative; the story here is that there is no story. Even if the media had both the inclination and space to report on it, it's hard to point to the absence of events.
And even if you are paying attention to it, it's hard to know how to take it. Seeing what's going on now might be anger-inducing, but it's important to remember that it's not the treatment this case is receiving that is the problem - after all, this is how it's supposed to be. Let's not forget that this woman's death is still a tragedy.
The situation is similar to that of Trayvon Martin. Defendant George Zimmerman was found not-guilty in large part because of lack of evidence. As I mentioned at the time, really that was the right verdict; the frustrating part was not that, but the knowledge that a black defendant would never have received the same allowance.
These inverted news stories are an obstacle for anyone trying to get the message out about poor treatment of African Americans. In order to really illustrate it, you need to call attention to these nothing-to-see-here-folks incidents. It takes some effort to try to demonstrate to a skeptical audience what is happening.
One story that should be noted is the shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota. Of course, there have been many stories of innocent people killed by police in recent years. But this event is different.
Strangely, what sets it apart is not what happened, but what didn't. Police didn't defend their actions or deflect blame - the chief even resigned. The media didn't demonize the victim.
I'm sure you can see where this is going. In this case, the victim is white. Observing it is infuriating: it's provided confirmation of just how differently blacks and whites are treated by American police, media and politicians. So really, it's a big story, but only in the negative; the story here is that there is no story. Even if the media had both the inclination and space to report on it, it's hard to point to the absence of events.
And even if you are paying attention to it, it's hard to know how to take it. Seeing what's going on now might be anger-inducing, but it's important to remember that it's not the treatment this case is receiving that is the problem - after all, this is how it's supposed to be. Let's not forget that this woman's death is still a tragedy.
The situation is similar to that of Trayvon Martin. Defendant George Zimmerman was found not-guilty in large part because of lack of evidence. As I mentioned at the time, really that was the right verdict; the frustrating part was not that, but the knowledge that a black defendant would never have received the same allowance.
These inverted news stories are an obstacle for anyone trying to get the message out about poor treatment of African Americans. In order to really illustrate it, you need to call attention to these nothing-to-see-here-folks incidents. It takes some effort to try to demonstrate to a skeptical audience what is happening.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
I Saw The Sign
One result of the LRT construction here in Kitchener-Waterloo is that it's forced people to take new routes, and see parts of the city they might not know about. For instance, I've had to drive miles out of the way to avoid closed roads every time I return to the city. And that's introduced me to a new pet peeve in the city's notoriously confusing roads. Take a look at the sign showing you how to leave the expressway to take Highway 7 to Guelph:
That looks nice and simple. The right two lanes just branch off and head to Guelph. Now here's what the roads actually look like:
You have to take one exit into the collector lanes (they have collector lanes for two exits, isn't that adorable?) Then take another exit from there. That doesn't turn into Highway 7, or even go to Highway 7. It just dumps you on a side street beside a nail salon, and you have to take a left and a right to get onto Highway 7.
That looks nice and simple. The right two lanes just branch off and head to Guelph. Now here's what the roads actually look like:
You have to take one exit into the collector lanes (they have collector lanes for two exits, isn't that adorable?) Then take another exit from there. That doesn't turn into Highway 7, or even go to Highway 7. It just dumps you on a side street beside a nail salon, and you have to take a left and a right to get onto Highway 7.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Self-Busting Ads
It seems that the in thing for TV ads is calling your own bluff. Old Spice is doing it with their latest ad which essentially uses a dog like some sort of latter-day Spuds Mckenzie, to personify their over-the-top ads, and hiking mothers to represent the overwhelmed viewer. I have to give them credit, I liked having the dog promise things like “free wi-fi” like some out-of-touch exec trying to sound cool. That cut a little closer to their own bones that I would have expected. So Old Spice has gone from ads aimed at your parents, to ads aimed at your kids, to ads making fun of themselves. I have no idea where they go from here.
I'm trying to imagine the thinking going into this.
And then there's the Charmin Bears. In their most recent ad, they finally acknowledge that their family-wide love of soft toilet paper is a little weird. It's the sort of ad that wins over the costumer by demonstrating that the advertiser knows what the audience is thinking, and understands where they're coming from. Or at least, it would if the ad had run five years ago, which was when the rest of us started getting creeped out by adorable bears that have a semi-sexual toilet paper fixation.
Okay, I just went to Wikipedia to double check that I had the correct brand, and discovered that:
But back to the point. Seeing ads crack jokes at their own expense just emphasizes how behind the times they are. You can’t really get on the audience’s side by being self-deprecating, because the audience has already torn them to shreds years earlier. Saying that the Charmin Bears are weird is like doing a joke on a trend that everyone’s forgotten about: it actually makes you seem more awkward than taking yourself seriously.
I'm trying to imagine the thinking going into this.
“It’ll be ironic. You know how those millennials love irony.”
“I think that was Generation X, actually.”
“Close enough.”
And then there's the Charmin Bears. In their most recent ad, they finally acknowledge that their family-wide love of soft toilet paper is a little weird. It's the sort of ad that wins over the costumer by demonstrating that the advertiser knows what the audience is thinking, and understands where they're coming from. Or at least, it would if the ad had run five years ago, which was when the rest of us started getting creeped out by adorable bears that have a semi-sexual toilet paper fixation.
Okay, I just went to Wikipedia to double check that I had the correct brand, and discovered that:
- the bears have names
- the bears are used in 70 countries
- they’re colour-coded based on whether they’re emphasizing softness or strength (never noticed)
- and most alarming of all, they replaced George “Don’t squeeze the Charmin” Whipple
But back to the point. Seeing ads crack jokes at their own expense just emphasizes how behind the times they are. You can’t really get on the audience’s side by being self-deprecating, because the audience has already torn them to shreds years earlier. Saying that the Charmin Bears are weird is like doing a joke on a trend that everyone’s forgotten about: it actually makes you seem more awkward than taking yourself seriously.
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Big Hands, I Know You're The One
For non-obvious reasons, baseball has seen an epidemic of blister problems for its pitchers. Having not spent much of my life throwing baseballs around, I could never wrap my head around the idea that you could throw them enough to cause blisters, but it's been an occupational hazard through the history of the sport. But this year, it's suddenly worse, and affecting pitchers who hadn't previously had such problems. You may not realize it if you're just following one team, but it's been widespread.
Why would this be? Is not clear, but people are putting it together with the other thing we've seen an explosion of this year: home runs. The increase in home runs is sudden and widespread, so a drug-based explanation seems unlikely. So if the players aren't juiced, the assumption is that the balls are. Officially, there has been no change to the design and manufacture of balls, but that would explain both phenomena.
Well, I hope someone figures out what is going on and fixes it. Partly, that is of course because the Blue Jays are particularly hurt by blisters, with young ace Aaron Sanchez just placed on the Disabled List for an incredible fourth time this season, all for blisters. But even worse than nuking my team's pitching rotation, I don't think I can take another description of blisters.
I'm used to hearing commentators and journalists giving dry, medical descriptions of injuries, using vague, bland terms. But now I'm hearing talk about skin and blood. Yes, I realize that most sports injuries are far more painful than a blister. But most viewers have never torn a ligament, so we can listen all day to talk of anterior this and medial-collateral that. But get into nails and pus and we're squirming.
So I guess we all owe hockey an apology. Many have ridiculed how hockey teams try to protect their players from exploitation by reporting injuries as vaguely as possible. Usually you get no more that "upper body injury" or "lower body injury." Now, I guess that's no so bad. I'd hate to imagine detailed reports of hockey injuries.
Also, medical science needs to get to work on better treatments for blisters. It's kind of weird that elbow problems can be fixed by now-routine Tommy John Surgery. Perhaps they can develop a procedure that makes you blister-proof. Just think, years from know you'll hear about pitchers needing Aaron Sanchez Surgery.
Why would this be? Is not clear, but people are putting it together with the other thing we've seen an explosion of this year: home runs. The increase in home runs is sudden and widespread, so a drug-based explanation seems unlikely. So if the players aren't juiced, the assumption is that the balls are. Officially, there has been no change to the design and manufacture of balls, but that would explain both phenomena.
Well, I hope someone figures out what is going on and fixes it. Partly, that is of course because the Blue Jays are particularly hurt by blisters, with young ace Aaron Sanchez just placed on the Disabled List for an incredible fourth time this season, all for blisters. But even worse than nuking my team's pitching rotation, I don't think I can take another description of blisters.
I'm used to hearing commentators and journalists giving dry, medical descriptions of injuries, using vague, bland terms. But now I'm hearing talk about skin and blood. Yes, I realize that most sports injuries are far more painful than a blister. But most viewers have never torn a ligament, so we can listen all day to talk of anterior this and medial-collateral that. But get into nails and pus and we're squirming.
So I guess we all owe hockey an apology. Many have ridiculed how hockey teams try to protect their players from exploitation by reporting injuries as vaguely as possible. Usually you get no more that "upper body injury" or "lower body injury." Now, I guess that's no so bad. I'd hate to imagine detailed reports of hockey injuries.
Also, medical science needs to get to work on better treatments for blisters. It's kind of weird that elbow problems can be fixed by now-routine Tommy John Surgery. Perhaps they can develop a procedure that makes you blister-proof. Just think, years from know you'll hear about pitchers needing Aaron Sanchez Surgery.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Ripley, Believe It Or Not
So far, here's the reaction I've seen to Doctor Who announcing the first female Doctor:
As you can see, I was pleasantly surprised by how little complaining there was. Of course, social media is not a representative sample of opinion on anything. But there are people who were perversely fascinated by especially sexist criticism, and they seemed to be having trouble coming up with particularly extreme examples. So I’m assuming they didn’t have much to choose from. Of course, that could be because they’ve been burnt by past campaigns against women in science fiction.
But on the other hand, I’ve been surprised by how many people are acting like this is completely unprecedented. Trekkies are off to the side, waving their arms to get our attention and point out that they did have a female captain for seven years. It’s like when Wonder Woman opened, and people were talking about how this was a new era with a female-led action franchise, there were a number of memes showing Buffy, Xena, and Katniss looking miffed at that. To be clear, I’m not denying that women have been tremendously under-represented as characters in these genres, I’m just curious as to why we keep forgetting the previous steps we’ve taken.
It reminds me of something from the music business. I remember years ago someone pointed out how, at the end of the year, when they’re writing their retrospect stories, they always seem to declare this the Year of the Woman, that this was the year women finally asserted themselves in the music industry because of the success of singer X, singer Y, and Madonna. And yet, things never seemed to change much, and popular music continued to be male-dominated.
I’d always assumed that was because the music business has women in visible positions, but not powerful positions. There are lots of women singing songs written by men, being produced and promoted by men, with most of the profits going to men. So we’re constantly overestimating how much real power women have in the industry.
But now I’m not so sure. Maybe we do have a problem with shifting our perspective in response to incremental progress. That’s not too surprising, really, since our ideas about the state of the world are deeply ingrained. And humans are notoriously bad at noticing slow, steady change. So I guess the lesson here is to revisit our assumptions more often.
- 25% people happy about the new casting
- 12% people saying “it’s about time”
- 5% dudebros complaining
- 30% people eagerly anticipating the dudebros complaining
- 20% progressives complaining she isn't also black, Muslim, gay, etc.
- 5% arguing whether she is now a “Time Lord” or “Time Lady”
- 3% fans trying to correct newcomers ("You call her 'The Doctor,' not 'Doctor Who.'" “Oh, I get it: it’s only the show that’s called 'Dr. Who’” "No! you have to spell out ‘Doctor!’”)
As you can see, I was pleasantly surprised by how little complaining there was. Of course, social media is not a representative sample of opinion on anything. But there are people who were perversely fascinated by especially sexist criticism, and they seemed to be having trouble coming up with particularly extreme examples. So I’m assuming they didn’t have much to choose from. Of course, that could be because they’ve been burnt by past campaigns against women in science fiction.
But on the other hand, I’ve been surprised by how many people are acting like this is completely unprecedented. Trekkies are off to the side, waving their arms to get our attention and point out that they did have a female captain for seven years. It’s like when Wonder Woman opened, and people were talking about how this was a new era with a female-led action franchise, there were a number of memes showing Buffy, Xena, and Katniss looking miffed at that. To be clear, I’m not denying that women have been tremendously under-represented as characters in these genres, I’m just curious as to why we keep forgetting the previous steps we’ve taken.
It reminds me of something from the music business. I remember years ago someone pointed out how, at the end of the year, when they’re writing their retrospect stories, they always seem to declare this the Year of the Woman, that this was the year women finally asserted themselves in the music industry because of the success of singer X, singer Y, and Madonna. And yet, things never seemed to change much, and popular music continued to be male-dominated.
I’d always assumed that was because the music business has women in visible positions, but not powerful positions. There are lots of women singing songs written by men, being produced and promoted by men, with most of the profits going to men. So we’re constantly overestimating how much real power women have in the industry.
But now I’m not so sure. Maybe we do have a problem with shifting our perspective in response to incremental progress. That’s not too surprising, really, since our ideas about the state of the world are deeply ingrained. And humans are notoriously bad at noticing slow, steady change. So I guess the lesson here is to revisit our assumptions more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)