DJ Got Us Paralyzed With Decision-Fatigue

I’ve started learning to make electronic music. It’s kind of a crazy thing for me to take on because I don’t have a background in music. I was the one playing outside while you were taking piano lessons; it was fun at the time, but now I’m trying to learn music theory from scratch.

But I’m not going to whine about my lack of music fluency; I’m just pointing out something I’ve noticed about music software. I won't bore you with the details, but I'll just tell you that to be a bedroom producer, you'll need a piece of software called a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW.)

There's something weird about the DAW market. See, they can get pretty expensive, so the makers of DAWs usually let you try them for a limited time, or have a lesser, free version. So far, these are the ones I've tried out: 

• Garage Band
• Cakewalk
• Tracktion Waveform 
• Cubase 
• Studio One
• FL Studio 
• Ableton Live
• Reaper
• LMMS
• Bitwig
• Mixcraft
• Acid Pro
• QTractor

And there are many more I haven't tried. A few of the more famous ones: 

• Logic
• Pro Tools
• Ardour
• Reason
• Maschine

What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of options. And out of all those, only LMMS and QTractor are not-for-profit open source projects. The rest are by people trying to make money. 

This isn't modern capitalism! There should be only two options: the crappy one and the expensive one. Or maybe two nearly identical competitors, but people get really worked up arguing which is better. A bunch of these should have merged together. Some of them bought by big companies who lost interest and discontinued them. Statistically, if you have this large a group of tech companies, at least one would have been bought by Yahoo and mismanaged out of business. And either Google or Microsoft should have started their own competitor and run another half-dozen out of the industry. And what about changing focus? Every time there's a new buzzword in tech, one or two should have announced a pivot to the new paradigm, and now they're in cloud computing, cryptocurrencies, or A.I.

But no, somehow this is the one industry where there are dozens of options: synergies and economies of scale be damned. I'm not sure why. One explanation is that it's a labor of love. Music is a business that's very personal, and everyone wants to do it their way. 

Also, the market is at just the right size: there's a fair-sized market available when you consider both the pros and hobbyists. It's enough to keep each of the competitors going, but not enough to attract big companies that will wipe out the competition (save for Apple, which makes Garage Band and Logic, but being exclusive to the Mac, they won't push everyone else out of business.)

There's also a lot of nuances to the industry, where applications have grabbed their own little niche: Pro Tools has established itself as the standard for recording studios, while Ableton Live is the choice for Electronic Music. FL Studio has hip hop, and Logic is the choice of Apple worshippers. Reason is the best for people used to working with traditional electronic music equipment, and Reaper is beloved by the folks who think the best application is the one that can do anything, but in a really complicated way, and thus keep recommending Linux to your grandma.

It's also weird that visual art didn't work out this way. That industry is dominated by Adobe. And yet, you'd think that if any software customers would walk to the beat of their own drum, it would be visual artists. They'd be the ones to ignore the advantages of compatibility to get a product with the right intangibles, or one that's made by a little band of idealists. But no, they've given one giant company a near monopoly. The only ones walking to the beat of their own drum are the ones programming it on a drum machine. Okay, that was pretty corny, and I apologize; I wrote that thing about the artists walking to the beat of their own drum without even meaning to make a joke, and then felt like I had to do something with it, and it all went wrong.

So I don't entirely know why, but this is the one industry where things worked out the way I expected the future to look: Dozens of options, something for everyone.

Things The Teenage Me Would Have Found All Too Believable About Life In The Future

There’s a service where a small business can get a name and logo made for them by Artificial Intelligence. Such uses of A.I. in creative industries is quite controversial. And yet, a TV commercial for this service sidesteps the controversy, and instead shows a young proprietor of a small business explaining the concept to her older business partner. The partner exclaims, “A-I-Like-It!”

Get The Parity Started

It’s amazing how the colour of a product makes such a difference in price. In our world where there’s often not much differentiating one product from another, the colour can make all the difference. Of course, I’m going to use examples from cars and technology, but you can find examples everywhere.

That’s the reason why cars have taken a turn for the gray in recent decades. It’s affected by what car buyers desire in their own cars, but also their concern for resale value. So they’ll prefer an inoffensive gray car that they can easily flip a few years later, not the green one that might turn off other buyers. I suspect it’s also that car companies know people are very choosy, and colour won’t win them many sales unless it’s absolutely perfect, but an offensive colour will lose them many, so they stay neutral. Personally, I think that’s a shame; I like colours, but I’m not married to any in particular. So I’d like to have a nice colour for the sake of some colour in my life, even if it’s not my favourite. But I seem to be in the minority on that, so gray it is.

I’ve also seen the colours having an effect on prices in the technology business. I’ve been looking for an external hard drive, and Samsung makes their external drives in traditional black, but also in blue and red. I’ve noticed that one colour is sometimes on sale, but not the others. They’re identical other than the colours, so I’m assuming that when one falls behind in sales, some algorithm somewhere decides it’s time for a discount. It’s hard to believe that colour can have that kind of effect on the purchase of something few others are going to see, but apparently it does.

But then I went looking for a game controller. They’re traditionally gray or black, but often available in other colours. So after my experience with the hard drives, I wasn’t surprised to find that the red XBox controller was five dollars less than the original black. I was set to order it and congratulate myself on my colourful frugality, but then I saw it: A pink controller, for fifteen dollars less than the original.

That’s ironic, because of this concept called, the “Pink Tax.” That’s the phenomenon where products aimed at women are more expensive than similar products aimed at men, even though they hardly differ. Often, the only difference is that they’re pink, hence the name. They aren’t really more expensive because they’re pink. After all, pink paint and dye is not particularly expensive. Instead, it’s factors like how much consumers want and need products. I’m assuming that because women are under more pressure to look good, their hygiene products are more expensive because of higher demand.

So in other contexts, pink might cost more, but the roles have been reversed here. You might be surprised to see them even trying to sell something pink in the world of video games, but let me remind you: 

1. Surveys show female gamers are now close to 50% of the market.
2. We are just coming out of The Year Of Barbie. 

Having said that, it appears things weren’t working out the way Microsoft marketing wanted, and the pink controllers were deeply discounted. I don’t know, maybe the Barbie-gaming crossover wasn’t as much as they’d hoped. But I suspect the real reason is that female gamers may choose the black or the pink, while the males will only buy the black.

(And if you’re wondering, I only saw one colour that was more expensive than the original black controller: a dark purple. Purple seems to be having a moment right now.)

For me, even when I put aside traditional symbols of masculinity, pink is not one of my favourite colours. I don’t mind it, as long as it’s taken in reasonable quantities. You know, less than the Barbie-aisle-at-Toys-R-Us levels. And whatever need I have to reaffirm my masculinity is tiny compared to my desire not to over-spend on electronics, so: I ordered the pink controller.

It’s not much of a consolation for high-priced women’s products, but there are times when the Pink Tax turns into, let’s say, the Pink Subsidy. And I’m pleased to be gaming with both confidence in my masculinity, and an extra fifteen dollars in my pocket.

Wax To The Future

A few weeks ago, I was driving along when a car pulled out of a gas station in front of me. Normally, I wouldn't give such a thing a second thought, unless it pulled out right in front and was dangerous. This wasn't dangerous, but it was just annoying enough that I gave the car a second thought. In that second thought, I realized it was a Chevy Bolt, which is an electric car. Why would it have been in a gas station?

As I got closer, I could see the reason: it was covered in beads of water, despite this being a clear winter's day, and it was very clean, despite this being a Canadian winter. Evidently, it had been in the gas station's car wash.

I hadn't really thought of that before, but electric cars need washes too. Well, I'm sure Tesla is working on a system to remotely clean cars - maybe with a team of drones - but until then, it's car washes for everyone.

That must be really awkward:  To you, gas stations are fading monuments to carbon dominance, which you’re free to ignore. But now and then, you pull up at this archaic institution. No, you don't want to use this business's main purpose, you've moved beyond that. And while most customers silently use the pay-at-the-pump feature, you have to go inside and confront the employees. Tell them, no, I don't need gas; I'm one of the ones who will be the death of your industry. But before that, can you make my car shiny for me?

It's made odder by the way gas station car washes have a kind of retro-futuristic feel to them. With their many moving parts, these pseudo-robotic servants pamper your car while you wait. It's the Jetsons future Boomers imagined. Just like jetpacks and flying cars, but with way less casualties.

Drop one of your lithium-ion transit appliances in the middle of that fifties future, and it's a real anachronism. Like a Buck Rogers Subreddit, it's the future we imagined confronting the future we ended up with. And — don't tell the Boomers — but our future seems pretty dull in comparison. The inevitable jetpack accidents almost seem worth it.

Truck To The Future

Several years ago, when Tesla first publicly introduced their Cybertruck  to the world, I wrote a post about it, but never got around to, you know, posting it. At the time (2019) the Cybertruck was slated for production starting in 2021. But here we are in 2024, and they're only now, slowly, making it to the road. 

I'm writing this, not because they're on the road, but because I'm seeing people's pictures and videos of the one recently on display at the Auto Show in Toronto. Although I see lots of Tesla's other models here in KW, I'm yet to see a Cybertruck. Even my phone's autocomplete is unfamiliar with Cybertruck. It just suggested "Cybertronian" instead, which I assume is the name of someone from the Transformers' home planet of Cybertron. 

Anyway, since the post is still relevant five years later, I thought I'd show it to you:

Tesla introduced its new truck this week, and it’s controversial. I mean, Elon Musk bragged that the windows are indestructible, then shattered them demonstrating their indestructibility. And yet, no one is talking about that. Perhaps more amazingly, I haven’t even heard anyone point out what a dumb name “Cybertruck” is.

Instead, they are talking about the impossibly angular style of the truck. People are struggling for ways to describe it.

When I first saw a picture on line, I thought, “Cybertruck?” Wasn’t that what Tesla was threatening to call their new truck?” (Sees truck) “Nah, this must be some poorly-thought out GM publicity stunt to make the truck of the future.

It looks a bit like that Robosaurus that they took to monster truck rallies in the nineties. (Fun fact, I thought it was called “Truckasaurus,” but a little research shows that was the name of The Simpsons’ parody of Robosaurus.)

Oh wait, that really is the Tesla Truck?

My next reaction was the same as a lot of people: it looks like a futuristic vehicle from a second-rate science fiction movie. It’s like, we don’t have an art department, and there isn’t much money, so we’ll just bend some shiny metal then put it over the chassis from a used Taurus wagon, and that will be bad guy’s car in RoboCop 6.

Or another possibility is that this a car from a 90’s video game. “We need to make a car, but we can only spare six polygons.”

There's plenty of other jokey speculation about how it came about. But I think the explanation that is closest to reality is something like:

Designer: Here are some concept sketches for the new truck project.

Elon Musk, pointing: That one! I love it!

Designer: Good, well, I’d like to do some refinement of the...

Musk: No! Put it into production now!

To me it really does look like the first draft of a great design. Every time I look at it, it seems a little more normal. Though it started so far from normal that it still has a long way to go. The big stumbling point is the — I can’t believe I’m saying this about a vehicle — peak of the roof. You just can’t look away from it; not only is it so out of the ordinary, but the main lines of the shape point right at it.

I can think of a few ways to fix it, which we may see before it reaches production:

• Move it a little forward, so that it’s where the top of the windshield would be on a normal vehicle. That way it will look a little more normal. It may compromise rear-seat headroom, but you could cheat by making the roof slightly rounded.
• Move it backward so that it’s over the B-pillar (the rear edge of the front doors)
• Round it off. I know, that would mean compromising the design concept, but I figure that’s better than having something so distracting in the middle of the design.

I think you could save the design, because I see the logic behind it. Tesla’s previous offerings have all been sleek and distinctive without being too revolutionary. That attracts people who want a futuristic car, but without scaring off people who might be uneasy about moving to electric cars.

But with trucks, they have the problem that they’ll never really be accepted in conservative truck culture, so the solution is to avoid even trying to fit in. The Cybertruck looks like something else entirely, and as a bonus, it is even more hyper masculine than existing trucks.

Another comparison I saw online was to that car that Homer Simpson designed for his brother’s car company. That car didn’t look anything like the Cybertruck, but the way the introduction fell with a thud was so similar. However, a car that did have a lot in common with Homer’s car was the other big automotive debut of the week, Ford’s Mustang Mach-E.

It doesn’t look like “The Homer” either. But it is a similar mishmash of concepts and whims that has people saying, “Huh?” Specifically, it’s a high-performance SUV...but electric...that’s called a Mustang...that’s not based on the Mustang. Okay, there is a market for high-performance SUV’s since they sell BMW M and Mercedes AMG SUVs. But still, is there anyone out there who values the Mustang name, wants an SUV, and wants an electric vehicle?

It looks like Ford, in a desperate bid to make its new direction seem cool, combined everything in its future into one car. We only make trucks, SUV’s, and the Mustang now, so we’ll try to make a Mustang-branded SUV. And we’re behind on electric technology, so we’ll make it electric too.

Looking back, it was probably a bad sign that I had to invoke The Simpsons twice in describing it.

Of course, the funny part is that the Mustang Mach E has now been on the road for a few years, which underlines just how late the Cybertruck is. You might be inclined to cut Tesla some slack because of the pandemic, but the fact is that other manufacturers got products out the door much faster. The idea of an electric truck sounded shocking at the time of the Cybertruck’s introduction, but now you can buy them from Ford, GM, and Rivian. It's that lack of speed, rather than their wild designs, that worries me most about their future

As for my feelings on its design, I have a much higher opinion of it than most people, not that that's saying much. I at least think it’s redeemable with some refinement. And as I said in this post, it still looks more normal over time. Though I find that now that I’m seeing pictures of it from a wider variety of angles, I keep seeing weird aspects that didn’t show up before. Like, from some angles, the hood looks kind of stubby. So I’ll give it a bit more time to grow on me. After all, what’s a few more years?

The Stylus Counsel

I have an iPad, and I've been interested in buying a stylus for it. (That’s the pen-like thing you can draw on the screen with.) Of course, Apple will gladly sell you one, but like most of their accessories, it's shockingly overpriced. I realize it has a lot of impressive technology, and it works quite well, but still, it is a pen that costs $130. Well, it doesn't even have ink, it really is just something to touch the screen with. So even worse, it's a stick that costs $130.

But I'm not going to rant about Apple products being overpriced; everyone knows about that. What I'm finding frustrating is trying to find a reasonably-priced alternative. 

I'm amazed at how bad people are at giving advice. it sounds simple: I’m looking for a cheaper alternative. Yes, I know that means compromising on features. I’m looking for a balance of features and price. That shouldn't be so complicated; it's what people have been doing for years.

But every comparison article just tells you that the Apple pen is the best. Really? The most expensive option is the best? Next you're going to tell me that the Bugatti Chiron is superior to a Kia Rio. And yes, I do understand everything in car analogies; after all, it did make this easier to understand the basic point that in more mature industries, we understand these concepts. But for some reason, the tech industry approaches the situation with the simplistic attitude of a five-year-old. 

You’d think there would be at least some discussion of whether the superior features are worth the extra money compared to buying a Chinese knockoff from Amazon. And I did find a lot of discussions in which people ask the seemingly-obvious question: What's a cheaper alternative to the Apple pencil. And so often the advice from other people is to buy the Apple pencil anyway, because it's worth it.

I think there's a couple of problems here. One is that there's very little understanding of financial realities. A lot of people can afford to spend a hundred dollars on a luxury, so it's not a big deal to spend that to get the best available option. But there are also a lot of people that can't spare a hundred dollars. If you're in that boat then telling you that it's the best option is not a real justification for buying the hundred-dollar stick, even if it is the best.

Also, I've noticed for a while now that techy people are really not good at giving advice on which products are best for others. Specifically, the problem is that they're bad at understanding another person's requirements and adjusting their priorities accordingly. They'll always recommend  the most sophisticated, powerful, configurable option, because that's what they would want. That's why your nerdy cousin convinced your tech-phobic aunt that Linux would be just perfect for her. I've seen the same pattern repeated over and over through the years and across different market segments. Just be glad they don't recommend buying a Koenigsegg Gemera because of the cool valve technology. Oh, there I go again.

Anyway, I did buy a much cheaper stylus from a company I hadn't heard of, after I did find some reviews that said it wouldn't be that bad, I guess. And so far, it seems to be the reasonable compromise I was looking for. But no, this doesn't mean I'm buying my next car from an anonymous online company.

Electric Cars Infinity War

I recently asked what the future of SUV's is. Will be. Whatever. And it turned out to be intertwined with the future of electric cars. That's a bit of a complication, since our electric future isn't clear either.

It's been generally assumed that electric vehicles are the future. And car companies are preparing for it, investing huge sums in the technology and infrastructure. But at the same time, turning our back on internal combustion is the sort of huge revolution that doesn't happen without some turbulence. I figure there's still a few roadblocks to a complete electric takeover.

Range

Electric car costs have come down, and performance has been great, But range is still a problem. It’s improved, but not really enough to change anyone’s attitude. This problem isn’t new: for a long time now, we've been able to build electric cars that will easily have enough range for what the average person drives in a day. But, part of the reason for buying a car/truck/SUV is the freedom it gives you, so even if you rarely drive great distances (say, on vacation) you'll likely be reluctant to buy a vehicle that doesn't give you the option to drive greater distances when you want to.

So electric vehicles are fine, if you only ever drive within an hour of your home. But if you want to use your vehicle for anything more than a day trip, you’re out of luck. And don’t even ask about towing something while driving a long distance. Range has increased over the years, but the problem is that the vacation requirement is another order of magnitude farther than the daily-driving requirement. Even a big increase in range only takes a dent out of the vacation range problem. So we need either a huge range increase, or a huge charging-speed increase, to let people believe they can travel greater distances. Until that changes, there's a whole lot of people who won't consider an electric car.

Charging Infrastructure

The speed of charging has long been a stumbling block for electric vehicles. That's improved a lot too, but there's still the problem of where are we going to charge all these cars? If you live in a house, you can charge at home, but an increasing number of people live in apartments or condos, where charging isn't as easy. Yes, we can set up chargers in parking lots and garages of apartment and condo buildings, but that's a lot of infrastructure that still needs to be built, and it will be built by the landlords who won't (directly) make money off it.

And there has to be a solution for charging away from home. There are a fair number of public charging places, but they're mostly set up by either the car companies or public businesses like malls and stores . Those are both loss-leaders: the car company is swallowing the cost to make electric cars more appealing, or the business is swallowing the cost to attract customers. Either way, it's hard to imagine that scaling-up to being a solution for all of us charging our vehicles. I mean, I can't imagine GM — or Tesla, or whoever ends up on top — building a network of chargers big enough for all the cars in society.

The thing that makes me skeptical is that no one is making any significant money off of charging, and that’s usually what’s needed to get a big change like that happening in our society. Note that it doesn’t have to be switching our gas stations to charging stations. It’s entirely possible that the charging business of the future operates with small charging outlets here and there around a city. But they’ve got to make money off it or no one is going to go to all that trouble and expense to build the infrastructure.

Culture War

It's still relatively low-key, but a few people have targeted electric vehicles as a symbol of everything they hate. I don’t really see that going away. Some of the biggest hot-button issues for conservatives in recent years has been asking people to change behaviour. When you see the fury at being told to put on a mask or learn about slavery, it’s hard to imagine people just accepting that their cars are going to totally change whether they like it or not. 

Right now, that’s not an immediate issue: although buyers have ever-increasing choices for electric cars, there still aren’t any segments of the market where the internal-combustion options are disappearing. When we get to that point, there’ll be a lot more anger, and people taking “never electric” stances.

Big Oil

We're about at that point in the movie where it looks like the heroes will succeed, but you're watching, thinking it can’t be over yet, there's still a half hour left before the credits roll. And then the bad guy that you thought was dead reappears, and says, "You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?" Well, I’m still waiting for that from the oil industry.

Eventually, they've got to make a move against it. I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen much of a campaign against electric vehicles yet. Yes, they're only a small segment of the market so far, but car companies keep positioning themselves to be ready to move to mostly electric production. Surely Big Oil isn't just going to fold up and go home.

When I went looking for stories about the Oil Industry fighting electric vehicles, pretty much all I found was a lot of waffling about how they still make lots of money elsewhere, they'll invest in renewables to make money of the change, they'll sell more stuff at gas station convenience stores to compensate, etc.

Okay, fine, there are ways they can still stay in business and make tidy profits even after electric vehicles take over. But come on people, there's no way large corporations are just going to quietly give up a huge part of their customer base, or retool their entire business, when there's a chance that they can fight to keep things as they are.

They do fund the American Petroleum Institute, which publishes propaganda on their behalf, but most of its actions are just generic government lobbying; not the dirty tricks you'd expect from an industry fighting for trillions.

I've seen the odd story sowing suspicions about electric cars, like the recent one that the extra weight of electric cars will cause aging parking garages to collapse, but that just sounds like desperate casting about for anything that might gain traction. I probably did more damage earlier when I mentioned the problems using electric vehicles for towing.

But then, if they're trying to put together a major campaign to derail electric vehicles, it could be that they are going to get it stuck in the aforementioned culture war. If they can get a significant portion of the population committing to being personally against electric vehicles, adopting that as a part of their identity and world view, it will ensure that fossil fuels can have a foot in the door, preventing the electric domination tipping point for years to come. In that case, their campaigns would target the media of those most likely to buy into the anti-electric position. So it may just be something I haven't personally seen yet.

The McFlurry Is A Lie

I had a weird experience recently when I saw an ad on Facebook looking for McDonald's employees. That's odd to begin with: I'm a bit old for their employee demographic, and in general, Facebook is not a place to go looking for that demographic. But what was really surreal was that this ad came with a game. Click on the link, and you could play a game. What kind of game, you ask? Why, a game of working at McDonald's. It's a drive in Canada to hire 25,000 new employees with a game called Crush the Rush Crew.

In the game, you're looking down at a McDonald's kitchen, as new orders come in at the drive through. You then click/tap on the appropriate employees to have them make an item. And try to keep up. It was a bit dull, since you can only work on the next item in the order queue; you can't strategize by having the burger maker work on a Big Mac for the next order, while the drink maker works on the coffee for the next car in line instead of just twiddling thumbs.

But let's back up here. Depending on your experience with video games, this might seem like a bizarre game idea. But there's actually quite a history with these time management games. If you're my age, you may remember seeing Tapper in the 80's, and not believing that was a real game next to all its contemporaries. So let me shock you again: that genre has kept right on going, and there are now lots of people playing games based on seemingly stressful situations. So the idea of a McDonald's drive through management game is actually the least unexpected part of this scenario. But I would have thought McDonald's wouldn't like the idea of representing their work as a game.

So now I'm trying to wrap my head around this: we've created a genre of game about doing minimum-wage manual labor, and now a company is using one of those games to convince people to do those minimum-wage manual labor jobs. I don't know which surprises me more, that McDonald's embraced the concept to sell people on working for them, or that potential employees haven't just laughed at the concept. I looked at the comments under the Facebook ad expecting lots of vitriol, but there wasn't much. Some people complained about the difficulty of the game, and a few made jokes about how they already played the game in real life. But there was no how-dare-you-make-a-game-of-overworking-your-underpaid-employees. I didn't even see any comments about how unrealistic it was that the game's ice cream machine worked.

It all seems like something from a semi-humorous sci-fi dystopia like Ready Player One or Snow Crash. Though speaking of sci-fi, the idea of gamifying more serious things is not new. Perhaps McDonald's could specifically recruit those who do well in the game, like in The Last Starfighter. Of course, the next level would be if the game were the job; when you play it, your instructions are actually being sent out to some random McDonald’s somewhere in the world, like some kind of banal version of Ender's Game. Actually, that could be good: you do your part running a McDonald’s, and if you do a good enough job, you get a discount on your next purchase. Don’t have enough for a Big Mac Meal? Just take a few minutes to run up a new high score on the Decatur, Georgia drive-through.

Once again, it’s part of our weird future, where work is play, and play is work. I just wish they could find a way to make supermarket self-serve checkouts into a game.

Toe Beans Of The Apocalypse

Recently on Facebook, I saw a cutesy picture of a cartoon kitten carrying some flowers. It was one of those pictures that was so adorable that it transcended even its own cliched nature. So I'm sitting there thinking, aw cute widdle kitty, when something struck me as a little odd about it. The slightly soft-focus CGI looked eerily familiar...

Then I noticed it: the kitten had six toes on its paw!

What, that wasn’t a dramatic revelation for you? Oh, well, if you're not familiar with that implication, A.I.-generated art is becoming a big controversy, and - despite its leaps-and-bounds in recent years - it’s notorious for getting fingers wrong. So this picture was evidently created by one of the new graphics services that can create a picture for you based on a simple text description.

A few years ago, A.I. art programs just made weird nightmare images. But recently, they’ve been making great strides, and can now do convincing pictures of a wide variety of subjects using just about any style you can think of. But they still have their flaws, including their difficulties with hands and fingers.

That’s kind of a good thing; in the midst of the A.I.-pocalypse, this whole extra-fingers thing is kind of exciting, because it's exactly the kind of contrived plot-point they'd throw into a science-fiction story for convenience, which the fans would forever be complaining about. It's like on Star Trek, where Data couldn't use contractions. 

By the way, I used to think Data’s contractions thing was pretty unbelievable, but then I learned that the laws of contractions really are quite cryptic. They’re a lot more complex than people think they’re.

I've experimented with some of the A.I. art generators, and learned some things about them. There’s Midjourney which is quite powerful, but only free for a limited number of uses, and can only be accessed on the Discord social network. 

"Elephant playing basketball" by Midjourney

Then there’s Stable Diffusion, which is free to use, though limited in its functionality. For instance, you can’t refine pictures, you can only ask it to try again. Overall, I found its first attempts were a lot better.

"Elephant playing basketball" by Stable Diffusion

I’d seen some amazing A.I. art on social media, so I enthusiastically tried it out. But I found out that it doesn’t always work. Here’s some of my successes (done with Stable Diffusion.)

"Steampunk motorcycle"

"Chocolate hippo"

"Humanoid nerdy bunny"

"Cow playing hockey style of Pixar"

"George Clooney made of lego"

But a lot of times the results leave a lot to be desired. Here's some of what I've learned:

• They take refinement. Generally the programs work by producing several attempts. The (human) user can then choose one of those pictures to improve upon. And improving on the pictures, slowly getting closer to the desired outcome, is usually necessary. The impressive examples you see are never the first efforts. Those first attempt are usually half-formed nightmares that look like Scotty's first try working the transporter. 
• On the other hand, they're great at styles. I've seen them imitate everything from Monet to Rankin-Bass Christmas specials. Even in instances where the application flubbed the content, it usually got the style right.

"Business man driving convertible style of Roy Lichtenstein" by Midjourney. Nailed the style; content, not so much.

Anyway, the deformed kitten was an example of how A.I. art is making its way into the mainstream, and a lot of people are unhappy. For one thing, it’s taking work from artists; though many of the A.I. art programs require a subscription, it’s still pretty cheap, and it’s easy to imagine a small firm opting for that instead of paying an artist every time they need a picture. Then there's also the use of styles. No one is really upset if ol' Monet is getting ripped off, but it can also be used to copy the style of artists and cartoonists that are working for a living today.

"Elvis style of Gorillaz" by Stable Diffusion

The whole thing is reminiscent of NFT's. On the one hand, you have people who are enthusiastic either because it's an intriguing new technology, or because there's money to be made. So they jump on the new bandwagon. It was weird watching businesses make big announcements about getting into cryptocurrencies or NFT's, only to have howls of protest from customers. The business was then caught unprepared, because they’d spent decades working on the assumption that they had to get into new technologies as fast as possible or be left behind. 

And now it's happening again with A.I. art. Worse, some of the companies that are making the mistake are in the creative industries, and thus supposed to be allies of the artists who are most wary of the new tech. Companies like Adobe and book publisher Tor have had to go into quick damage-control mode.

But there is one way this might work out well: if Big Media starts to protect its intellectual property. For instance, one of the most impressive A.I. pictures I made was "Mickey Mouse in a cafe, painted by Monet." But I’m afraid to put it on this post for fear of getting sued out of existence. That’s one thing that could stop the art-pocalypse in its tracks: some decisive court case, or a strict new law, like how the DMCA was an overreaction to MP3’s. 

Interestingly, using A.I. art for memes, like that kitten, is probably the least controversial use of the technology. It’s not putting anyone out of work. And as I’ve pointed out before, Facebook memes are often hacked-together pop-culture references that completely contradict the creator’s intentions.

So for now, I find the whole thing interesting, but I'm much less enthusiastic, learning that has unpleasant imperfections and implications.

Boards Of Canada

There’s been a big change in hockey broadcasting this season: virtual board ads. That is, TV broadcasters can now superimpose fake ads over the real-life ads on the boards. This gives them a chance to do many previously impossible things, like animated ads, or changing ads during play.

Fans are pretty angry. I know, it’s something new in hockey, of course they don’t like it. But in this case, they’re crying wolf with justification. It is pretty annoying. Yes, the advertisers are on their best behaviour, keeping movement to a minimum, but we’ll see how long that lasts. We’ve seen some of the distracting sideline advertising in soccer, and that can’t be far away.

Though I have a couple more complaints: first, this suffers from the same problem as the virtual ads behind home plate in baseball; no concern for insulting our intelligence with geographically-unlikely ads. Like yes, I’m sure Tim Hortons really did pay for a stadium ad at this game in San Diego.

Also, the tech is apparently expensive enough that they can only apply it to the one camera. Switch to a close up, and we have to suffer the old analog boards. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it disorienting when I see a player pasted against the Hyundai sign, but then from the other angle, he gets a face full of Dunkin’ Donuts.

Having said all this, I have to admire how well it works: 

• They stay in place very accurately, unlike the on-field ads in the CFL, which — hate to say it — look pretty amateurish, sliding and spinning  around the field.
• They rarely bleed over top of player uniforms, even white ones, unlike the on-court ads I’ve seen in basketball.
• Unlike virtual ads in baseball, they don’t suffer from looking crystal-clear, on a field that we’re viewing through 400 feet of rain. Although they sometimes look unnaturally bright, almost like they’re lit up. 

It’s also strange how technology doesn’t work out the way we expect. Soccer and the CFL have had electronic ad boards on the sidelines for years, and I assumed it was only a matter of time until someone made a version of those screens that was durable and flexible enough to be used as hockey boards. But no, virtual technology swoops in for the win. Somewhere out there is an engineer with a half-finished flexible LED panel and a broken heart.

Towers With The Latest Trends

There's a common joke/completely-accurate-observation that when you see that a celebrity is trending on social media for the first time in a while, it gives an instant sense of dread. This is because there are only two likely reasons for the trending: the celebrity has died, or some despicable past behaviour has come to light. So you find yourself in the weird situation of being relieved to find that the beloved star is dead.

A large part of Canada went through a variation on this process earlier this week, when — without warning — the CN Tower was trending on Twitter.

(Shame on my phone's Amero-centric autocomplete for suggesting CNN but not CN, and then not suggesting "tower" as the next word after CN. At least it didn't change "Amero-centric" to "Amero-centeric".)

Assuming the tower doesn't have some skeletons in its closet, people jumped to the “death” possibility, which would be rather alarming, as the demise of the tower would take a number of people with it. Personality, I didn't worry, as there are a lot of less-scary reasons the tower could be tending. A change in ownership, a really great practical joke on the EdgeWalk, or the return of the Tour of the Universe ride (fingers crossed.)

But here's the weird thing: as far as anyone can tell, it was nothing. There was just a random swell of people mentioning the tower on Twitter, and that got it on to the list of tending topics on a slow news day. Toronto being Toronto, this was more than enough encouragement to get them Tweeting about their city. And the Rest of the World being the Rest of the World, people said, hey, I haven't thought about Toronto in years, let's post that picture from our visit eight years ago. Then add in Drake fans finally understanding the Views album cover. That pushed it further up the trending charts, which lead to all the people tweeting about how worried they were that it was trending, and it was trending even more. And Bam!: Twitter inception.

So it wasn't really anything important, but it was a good example of the fickleness of the automated systems that bring things to our attention in the modern world.

Plus And Minus

You may have seen that Google+ was recently shut down.  You may also have forgotten what Google+ was; it was Google's attempt to cash in on the social network gold rush. It wasn't too successful. Too bad, we could use some new blood in the Social Media field. Facebook is still making a fool of itself on the privacy issue, and Twitter is still dragging its feet on the should-we-allow-nazis issue.

And frankly, this is the sort of thing I wish Google would put more effort into. My complaint about them in recent years has been that they are choosing which business to enter on a whim, rather than the classic business basis of find-a-problem-and-fix-it. We needed a good search engine, and they built one. We needed a competitor for iOS and they built one (well, bought and nurtured one, but close enough.)

Then they started going off the rails with Chrome. If they'd released it a decade earlier to counter the dominance of Internet Explorer, that would have been great. But doing it after Firefox had managed to - improbably - break the monopoly, Google just looked like bullies. Now they're bringing out a game streaming service, despite the fact that the gaming world is already a crowded business, and that people are starting to get leery of the everything-is-a-subscription juggernaut. Oh, and rural folks keep trying to point out that they're not okay with streaming everything on their antiquated broadband. And hey, that's just the sort of problem Google could solve and win lots of kudos, instead of suspicion.

So if you're not too pleased about Google's game streaming plans, just remember that it might be another Google+ instead of a Chrome. After all, I wasn't even going to comment on the passing of Google+, except that they somehow set things up so that if you had a Google+ account when you signed up for Blogger, it lost the connection with your Google account, so I just had to have a panicked run through FAQ's and message boards to try to get signed back in. And this post is my combined test/scream-of-frustration

The Future Is Bunk

Ford has a new ad featuring Bryan Cranston in a variety of guises talking about innovation. The premise being that some unknown "other guys" are talking about doing futuristic things while Ford is and always has been actually building it.

The most dramatic part is the android Cranston, which is quite well done. It's like the ad grabs you and holds you out over the Uncanny Valley, and teases, "gonna drop you, gonna drop you!" Of course the fake TED talk is good too. But the president in the plane just looks so old-fashioned now. I mean, a president swamped with work? Weird. But I appreciated the concept the best, since I've always hated it when companies make vague claims about future technology. "Use Smith Brand soap. One day soon we'll bring you cyber soap."

The ultimate in future promises was a series of ads AT&T did in the early nineties. They made a lot of promises about future products like video phones and smart homes. That really ticked me off, because they were trying to sell us on things that they clearly were nowhere near delivering. Why not just promise us warp drive while you're at it?

At the risk of getting even further off track, someone uploaded the entire series to YouTube, and it's fascinating to see the view of today from a quarter-century ago. I'm pleasantly surprised at how much they got right. Well, they "got it right" in the sense that it would happen. In most of the cases, it wasn't AT&T that brought it to us. I wonder if there's grounds for a class-action suit here?

But back to Ford. Much as I like the idea of the ad, it all comes off pretty flat. For one thing, is "Paint it Black" really the best song to accompany the monologue? Let's talk about building the future with a song about depression. Okay, now that I think about it, I guess it was a reference to the Model T coming in black only, which was for the sake of standardization and efficiency, which was one of the innovations they're talking about. Just think, they've been sitting on that one since the song came out in the sixties.

The biggest problem, however, is that it's so out-of-step with reality. Ford is a company that just decided to dedicate itself primarily to Trucks and SUV's. Sure, those are popular, but in the public's imagination, they represent the Walmart parking lot more than the future. And they don't have a Prius or a Bolt in their line-up to point to as something they're pushing the limits with right now. So the climax of the ad is Cranston dissing other companies for not being futuristic enough while driving a bulky pickup that looks like it could have come from any time in the last couple of decades.

What's especially perplexing is that the ad and the campaign it's a part of is apparently supposed to be putting down tech companies. I had assumed that the vague "other guys" mentioned in the commercial were other car companies. But no, they're thinking of the tech companies that have been encroaching on the car biz. What? I know, I've been critical of such companies, but let's face it, it's quite an indictment of the American car business that Tesla has gotten as far as it has. Meanwhile, when I just went Googling for the latest on Ford electric vehicles, I just got promises that they have electric trucks coming soon. So this is the biggest self-own in advertising since Diet Coke's "Just For the Taste of it."

Are Friends Eclectic?

I saw this meme on Facebook a while back. That really stood out to me, since It’s become accepted wisdom among many that modern technology has left us more “connected” with people but emotionally distant. I’m sceptical of this concept, since I’d always noticed how superficial a lot of our interactions used to be even in the pre-social media world. I mean, you talk to far fewer people in the course of an average day now, but most of those lost moments of human contact were forgettable rote interactions. If you now buy things on Amazon instead of a store, you don’t really lose any emotional involvement, since the interaction with a store employee is usually just you playing a part based on expectations.

This meme takes that same concept to new heights: in the same way that you may play a part in your interactions with/as service workers, you also play a part as a high school student. In each case, you act as expected, and this prevents you from having a meaningful involvement. Yes, I know, lots of people develop really deep friendships in high school. But compared to the total number of people you go to school with, and the amount of time you spend with them, it’s amazing how little you know about them.

This comes back to a point I realized a few years ago. It’s not something that’s easy to say, and some people will be shocked by it, but The Breakfast Club lied to us. Its message was that teenagers can be pushed into different roles, but still have commonalities. There’s some truth to that, but it’s also true that high school forces a sameness on us. As I watch my friends and I age, I keep noticing personality come out that couldn’t be expressed before. In school there's so much pressure to play the roll of a teen that you suppress your unique features.

This might be a product of age: we just need a lot of time to explore the world and find ourselves. Our maybe it's due to the same modern technology that delivered that meme: The Internet has allowed us to connect with others with similar inclinations instead of having to fit in to a community of others that we have little in common with. Certainly that’s one thing I’ve envied today’s kids for: the Internet gives them a chance to pursue their interests regardless of how isolated their real-life situation.

But I suspect that my new understanding is because of the different perspective you have of your high school friends now. For adults, social media is more a respite from the world than a part of it. It's the people you choose to be around rather than those you must be around. Thus, it's safer to keep your guard down and be yourself. If people don't like what they see, you're an unfriending away from ending the problem. The irony is that the people you're now allowing to peek behind the mask are the people you used to show the mask to.

Are Trends Electric?

I remember seeing a headline on a magazine cover once that said, “Electric Cars are (Still) Around the Corner.” Of course, that sarcastically got across the idea that electric cars are constantly promised without becoming mainstream. It’s especially meaningful, since I saw that headline in the eighties.

But today that headline is more meaningful because it looks like electric cars finally really are around the corner. So it’s a lesson that just because it seems like some promised revolution is never going to happen, it might still happen one day. So maybe jet packs and space travel are going to happen eventually too.

This walk down Electric Memory Avenue is because I recently saw someone speculate that self-driving cars will become one of those things that will be five-years away for the next forty years. I could certainly believe that: I’ve been skeptical about them, and the over-optimistic predictions in the mainstream media certainly do sound like the predictions of the future that I’ve heard my whole life.

But even skeptics like me have to remember that just like electric cars, it will happen eventually. The irony is that another of those things that have been constantly promised without ever happening is Artificial Intelligence. It was once thought that it was inevitable that computers would be doing all the things humans are capable of in just a few years. But as we learned just how difficult things like language and vision are, the technology wasn’t able to deliver, and the most we ever saw in the real world was the occasional impressive chess computer. I simply got used to hearing an annual prediction that this time next year, we’d be talking to our computers like on Star Trek. Of course, we are now talking to our computers, even if it isn’t quite as smooth as we’d hoped.

What I find interesting is that there is a very different attitude towards self-driving cars. With electric cars, there wasn’t a lot of effort put in by the big companies, and the key innovations ended up coming from outside. Whereas with self-driving technology, there seems to be a rush to avoid being left behind. And that’s the one thing that makes me a little optimistic about the concept: it seems like all these companies are pouring so much time and money into research that they’re going to make it happen out of sheer willpower.

So I wonder why this is different: why didn’t fear of being left behind push car companies to make electric cars work? One reason is because this is less of a car problem and more of a tech problem. The big car companies know that the key innovation could come from some startup no one sees coming, instead of just being a competition of a few corporate behemoths. Also, it used to be that if a car company where caught behind a startup, they could always buy-out the smaller company. But now, between the financial problems of the car industry and the eager investment in technology, it might not be that easy to just buy tech from the innovators.

Also, it’s not just the car companies that want self-driving cars, there’s also the ride-sharing companies. Uber is still losing money, and it’s starting to look like self-driving cars are their only hope. And that’s another thing that isn’t following the previous pattern: Tech companies usually follow one of two trajectories: They lose buckets of money until they get to a scale or structure that makes money (like Amazon) or they discover that their plan was never going to work, however much size and technology they had (like Pets.com).

But Uber’s business plan is clearly in that futile second group, yet investors keep throwing money at it. I’m not sure how this is going to end: Uber has lasted long enough to become an indispensable part of the culture, yet it just can’t survive long-term. It’s like investors love the idea so much that they won’t let anything — not even the rules of economics themselves — prevent it from happening. They’d rather admit that capitalism doesn’t work than have to go back to taxis.

So it’s fitting that Uber’s fate is probably intertwined with self-driving cars: they’re both bad investments that we’re going to make happen, somehow. Part of me admires that tenacity. But mostly, I wish they had gone to the wall for jet packs instead.

Car And Browser

It's long been a feature of our Internet age that advertisers try to figure out what we are interested in and then advertise more of it to us. And it's a feature of our Internet age that it often fails, sometimes hilariously.

It seems like a simple enough programing concept: if customer X has shown an interest in product Y, show X some more Y's. Show all the Y's. Try Y₁, Y₂, Y₃. Maybe Z, that's close. Give Ω a shot, that's the same idea, really.

But there are times where this doesn't work. I remember one person complaining that after buying a toilet at Home Depot, it started suggesting other bargains on toilets. Their program apparently didn't consider that for some products, once you've bought one, it actually becomes less likely that you'll buy another.

And I realized this right from the first time I tried ordering things on line. Some of the first things I ever bought were gifts. That lead to months of misguided suggestions for products I, personally, had no interest in.

Now I'm having the same thing happen to me with car ads. I've looked through on-line used-car ads many times, but, well, I often use the car ads to dream, rather than find practical transportation. But the Autotrader ad program can't understand that if I'm looking at a Maseratti in Winnipeg, that doesn't mean that I am likely to buy a Maseratti, or that I'm in Winnipeg. I don't know, but I had kind of assumed that if you actually were in the market for expensive cars, you wouldn't be looking for them in Autotrader. But maybe they do things differently in Winnipeg.  Anyway, the point is that I look at car ads the same way I look at Wikipedia; I start with a nice, pragmatic search, then  I follow a few links out of interest, and next thing I know, I’m looking at a vintage Land Rover in Trois-Rivières.

The problem is, the misunderstanding doesn't end there. When I'm on Facebook, I'll often see ads placed by Autotrader. It will be something like, "Great deals on coupes in Winnipeg," followed by some of the cars on offer, hoping I'll go to the page. I'll snicker at it at first, but then I'll see that one is a third-generation RX-7 for $20 grand, I'll think, that's a great deal, and click on the link. And then I'll be off in automotive fantasy land again, looking at cars I couldn't afford.

And so the cycle repeats itself. The next day I'll see an ad for convertables in Kamloops, and I'll remember, okay, sure I guess I did look at one such car, and they extrapolated from... ooh, a low-milage Boxster in Kelowna.

Anyway, Autotrader's idea of what I'm looking for has long ago departed from any vehicle I'm ever likely to buy. And that's how I was today shown an ad for trucks in Edmonton, by Autotrader's french service, AutoHebdo.net.

Hey, You, Get On To My Cloud

I’ve noticed a problem creeping into technology: So often, we don’t know what to call things. It used to be simple: WordPerfect was a “program” or “application.” MySpace was a “website.” Angry Birds was an “app.”

But now those are blurred together. Facebook is a website that is a social network. But many people access it on an app. Instagram caught people’s attention as a photography app, but it also allows people to access a social network. And you can access that social network through a website.

Yes, I know, this isn’t exactly rocket science. But it starts to break down whenever you’re talking to people who don’t have the best knowledge of technology. People want to try to classify a thing, and that’s difficult when so much of today’s technology is really an abstract service that is available in a number of ways.

In their effort to try to understand things, a person with little acquaintance with technology will often hang on to a particular classification. Say, they first encountered Facebook on the web, so in their minds it is, and will always be, a web site. But they first use Twitter as an app, so it will always be an app. So this person thinks of these two things as apples and oranges, even though they do essentially the same thing. And this sometimes leads to people trying to make bizarre arguments, like that Facebook is less popular than Instagram because people prefer apps to websites.

That’s why the “cloud” analogy — annoying though it may be — is quite useful. The cloud concept may be poorly understood by much of the mainstream population, but in today’s world that may be helpful. A vaguely-defined amorphous concept is pretty useful for defining services that may manifest themselves in our lives in multiple ways.

Surface Tension

Microsoft has a new, cheaper version of its Surface tablet. The Surface Go is a 10” table for C$529, which puts it close to the cheapest iPads. That seems like a good move. I never understood Microsoft’s early attempts at a tablet. In general, I don’t understand why they feel the need to make tablets, but that’s another issue. The first Surfaces were very high-end, and I wondered how much market there is for tablets that are more expensive than nearly all laptops. On top of that, there’s the question of how many people want a super expensive tablet but haven’t bought them from Apple. It’s like when VW periodically tries making an expensive car; it may well be a nice car, but I’m not buying a luxury vehicle from Volkswagen.

But with the Surface Go, Microsoft is taking a sensible approach to deliver an inexpensive but still powerful tablet, so they apparently think there’s a good market there. That’s interesting, because it’s been about ten years now that computer makers have been fussing around trying to make a new computing format, something that’s portable, affordable, and convenient.

First we had the netbooks. They started off as microscopic laptops with flash memory and custom Linux-based operating systems — essentially they were small versions of today’s Chromebooks. That seemed like an intriguing idea, but people weren’t ready to make such a big break with the past, and soon netbooks had hard drives and Windows, which made them less cheap, portable and usable.

Then tablets took off, and while they’ve been popular, they haven’t been super-profitable for manufacturers. And as a personal observation, they’ve been kind of an awkward proposition: you can get a really cheap tablet which you can use for many things, but it will be far from a replacement for a laptop/desktop. You can use it for e-mail and some web surfing, but many web pages won’t work well on a small screen and underpowered processor. And slightly larger jobs like typing this blog entry won’t be easy.

But there seems to be a new format coalescing: you can get a 9.7” iPad with a keyboard case for about $500, and now Microsoft is aiming at a similar price-point. I find that tablets at this level are much more capable what with their screen and computing power, and an unobtrusive keyboard opens up many more uses, while still keeping the device more portable than a laptop. And sure enough, I’m typing this on one of those iPad/keyboard pseudo laptops.

So I think we’ve finally figured out the formula for a new computing format. I don’t see this replacing anything: there’s still things laptops are better at, smaller tablets are significantly cheaper, and phones are much more portable. But the 9-10” tablet/keyboard is a very useful setup. My apologies to that kid in the “what’s a computer” Apple commercial. You were on to something. But it’s still a computer.

Unready Player One

My very first post on this blog was a joke about Facebook games. I mostly stayed away from them, as they felt more like psychology experiments than recreation.

Since then, I've been playing a lot of mobile games. They have some of the same qualities, since free games need to make money somehow. But fortunately, they lack that hard sell you have to keep playing and paying to cheat. But they still have a structure that is built around at least the possibility of selling things. For instance, they’ll have some sort of power-up concept, because it will be easy to sell a power-up to the gamer when they get frustrated. And that’s becoming the accepted style for free mobile games.

It's weird how games can develop their own cultures. I first noticed this in university when some of us found out there was a 3d Tetris. Thing is, it was put out by Nintendo, and they had, well, Nintendified it. In contrast to the original Tetris, which was simple and minimal. When we tried playing it, it prompted the player to choose a character. That just seemed kind of childish. Sure, for a lot of folks this was natural, because they were Nintendo fans who were introduced to the original Tetris that way. But those of us who had loved the game as a work time-waster just felt stupid.

Now I sometimes find myself experiencing a similar clash of gaming cultures. For instance, I’ve wasted many an hour playing the Cell Connect game app. It's a simple abstract puzzle game. After playing it for a while, it was updated, and they've clearly decided to make it more in the style of app and social media games. The changes aren't too intrusive, but they are confusing.

Power up cards? Um, okay. Getting 5% bonus is nice, but it's not as exciting as invulnerability or something. The second card is a raccoon, what the hell does that mean? And now I've leveled up. This isn't an RPG, so I’m not even sure what that could mean.

In short, all these changes have made gaming rather complicated. Ironically, I just came across this article from Wired in which they examine the huge popularity of Fortnite, and argue that it is surprising since it is a fairly complex game,in contrast to lowest-common-denominator games like Angry Birds or Candy Crush. But it seems to me that even games aimed at the mass market have their own complexity, but it is within a culture of its own.

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #42

There will come a day when you no longer hear the traditional phone ring, as all phones — whether cell or cordless — are fully electronic. At first, they just use artificial beeps; then later they can use a recording of whatever sound the user wants to notify them of an incoming call.

And then there will come another day, about twenty years later, when you’ll hear that traditional phone ring all the time in all sorts of places, because lots of people thought it would be ironic to use a recording of the phone ring as their ringtone on their cell phones.