Canada has entered a spat with the United States. Of course, it’s not a common thing for us to be in a spat with anyone. Yes, we've had plenty of disputes with the US, but they’re usually esoteric trade issues that get fought in a court. National leaders taking shots at each other? Not our style.
People sometimes bring up our territorial dispute with Denmark over Hans Island. The Canadian government says it should be ours because it is part of the Northern Archipelago which was claimed by Britain and inherited by Canada. The Danes say it should be theirs because it is closer to Greenland, which they own. This “dispute” amuses others because of the comically low-key way that it is fought. That is, it’s “fought” by each nation occasionally sending a ship to the island to take down the other country’s flag and put up their own.
It may surprise outsiders, but there are those in Canada who don't like our low key approach. I'm not talking politicians - those in government who want a more active role are still confined by the limited tax base of a country that won't put up with the military taking up half our budget. So their get-tough attitude comes out as a commitment to buy 7 destroyers instead of the 6 that those wimpy liberals would have bought.
No, I'm thinking of the talk of average people, in coffee shops, living rooms, and online. Most Canadians appreciate our civility, but you occasionally come across folks who think we need to be more forceful, that we should go in to Hans Island guns blazing and set up a Tim Hortons.
But here's what makes this week's American dispute interesting: the subsection of Canadians that longs for aggression overlaps with populist conservatives who generally love the United States and would like us to be closer to them. Of course, most of the time this correlation works out fine; The US is the poster child for aggressive foreign policy, and the easiest way for us Canadians to get more aggressive would be to tag along on their latest adventure.
So what are they supposed to do when we're having a tiff with their beloved American role models? I swear I could hear heads exploding all over the country as they tried to solve that puzzle . It's made worse by the fact that the attack on the Great White North was entirely the creation of Donald Trump, a great aggressive role model.
I was kind of worried what I might see online: so often these days, political sides trump all else, so I wondered how many conservative Canadians might take Trump's side in all this. In the past I've been disappointed that many politically naive Canadians have assumed that their mild distaste for a pretty-boy PM is the equal of the ideological diametric opposite in the White House. But to my surprise, people have been coming out in support of Trudeau. Even self-professed Trump admirer Doug Ford took Trudeau's side.
So maybe this is one of those cases where the political sides are going to start realigning. If a Republican president can be anti-trade, maybe Canadian conservatives will start being anti-American. It might be good for us if the urge to be nationally assertive could work with the desire to have a separate identity. Watch out, Denmark.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Blinded With Science
In the past, I’ve seen many discussions on the ethics of inventions and scientific breakthroughs. In our society, we’ve generally gone with the assumption that progress is good, and it’s just expected that new ideas are going to keep coming. But sometimes someone suggests that we’d be better off without certain inventions. In the past, that’s been big things, like nuclear weapons, say. But these days, we’re more likely to be questioning the value of social networks, or modern applications of AI.
I always thought there was an aspect of this discussion that was missed. When people rue the very existence of inventions, the anger is usually pointed at the inventor. It often isn’t explicitly stated, but the feeling is that the inventor should have thought twice about whether the world is really better off with the invention before telling anyone else about it. There’s an implicit assumption that this world-changing decision should be made by the inventor. I see a couple of big problems with this.
One is that this difficult ethical decision will be made by someone who probably doesn’t have a lot of knowledge of ethics. No, I don’t want to dredge up stereotypes of scientists being unfeeling or uncaring, I’m just saying that we should probably have people with more experience and representation to make such wide-reaching decisions.
The second — and I’d say bigger — problem is that the inventor of a technology is the least objective judge of the new technology that there can be. If it is up to them to decide the fate of their new invention, then we’re asking them to make a rational decision between two options without being swayed by the fact that one option gives them fame and fortune, while the other gives them nothing but the satisfaction that they did the right thing in a circumstance they can’t even tell anyone about. And in modem "publish or perish" academia, they may have to make a major career sacrifice to do the right thing.
So I'm thinking about this because we're starting to see the down side of many of our recent innovations. A lot of people were concerned by Google recently showing off its assistant making a call on your behalf to make an appointment.
That’s technically impressive, though it’s another example of us solving a problem with unnecessarily complex technology. The claim is that you could use this to set up appointments for you when you don’t have time. But a less difficult way to do that would be some sort of shared calendar, like what Google and Microsoft Outlook already offer. But making one that everyone can use would require different companies to agree on a universal standard so that you can use your iPhone to make an appointment with your dentist that uses Google. That won’t happen, so we’ll have a future where your computer calls the dentist’s computer, and they each use cutting-edge AI so that they can talk English to each other.
But the other complaint is that it's not hard to imagine how this tech could be harmful: A human-sounding computer could be great for scams, and it would put telemarketing within reach of any company, not just those that can afford a third-world call-centre.
And what further concerned many wasn’t just the technology, but the universally warm welcome it received from the tech-conference crowd. That was in sharp contrast with the discomfort that was most people’s reaction, and it seemed to show off the industry's disconnect. While much of the outside world is still sore from Facebook's many betrayals of our privacy, it's still business as usual in Silicon Valley.
So that's what reminded me of my concern with who polices innovation. In the modern case, you can replace my hypothetical inventor with a company, but the same principle applies: we expect an entity to fall on its sword for the good of society.
Traditionally, this is where government would step in and do what's right for society. But the other shocking thing from the Facebook scandals was how unprepared the U.S. government was at dealing with technology. The Facebook hearings often seemed like a parody. In "defence" of the politicians, I would point out that a lot of their apparent ignorance was really just playing to ignorant voters. From what I saw of the hearings, the interviewers ignored the actual problems to focus on points that were minor or irrelevant, but easier to understand. But still, we can’t realistically expect judgement of inventions from politicians who are either ignorant, bought-and-paid-for, or terrified of being seen as an over-regulating commie pinko.
I don't really have a solution to all this. I'm just pointing out that we're right back to where we started, assuming that innovation is going to keep coming.
I always thought there was an aspect of this discussion that was missed. When people rue the very existence of inventions, the anger is usually pointed at the inventor. It often isn’t explicitly stated, but the feeling is that the inventor should have thought twice about whether the world is really better off with the invention before telling anyone else about it. There’s an implicit assumption that this world-changing decision should be made by the inventor. I see a couple of big problems with this.
One is that this difficult ethical decision will be made by someone who probably doesn’t have a lot of knowledge of ethics. No, I don’t want to dredge up stereotypes of scientists being unfeeling or uncaring, I’m just saying that we should probably have people with more experience and representation to make such wide-reaching decisions.
The second — and I’d say bigger — problem is that the inventor of a technology is the least objective judge of the new technology that there can be. If it is up to them to decide the fate of their new invention, then we’re asking them to make a rational decision between two options without being swayed by the fact that one option gives them fame and fortune, while the other gives them nothing but the satisfaction that they did the right thing in a circumstance they can’t even tell anyone about. And in modem "publish or perish" academia, they may have to make a major career sacrifice to do the right thing.
So I'm thinking about this because we're starting to see the down side of many of our recent innovations. A lot of people were concerned by Google recently showing off its assistant making a call on your behalf to make an appointment.
That’s technically impressive, though it’s another example of us solving a problem with unnecessarily complex technology. The claim is that you could use this to set up appointments for you when you don’t have time. But a less difficult way to do that would be some sort of shared calendar, like what Google and Microsoft Outlook already offer. But making one that everyone can use would require different companies to agree on a universal standard so that you can use your iPhone to make an appointment with your dentist that uses Google. That won’t happen, so we’ll have a future where your computer calls the dentist’s computer, and they each use cutting-edge AI so that they can talk English to each other.
But the other complaint is that it's not hard to imagine how this tech could be harmful: A human-sounding computer could be great for scams, and it would put telemarketing within reach of any company, not just those that can afford a third-world call-centre.
And what further concerned many wasn’t just the technology, but the universally warm welcome it received from the tech-conference crowd. That was in sharp contrast with the discomfort that was most people’s reaction, and it seemed to show off the industry's disconnect. While much of the outside world is still sore from Facebook's many betrayals of our privacy, it's still business as usual in Silicon Valley.
So that's what reminded me of my concern with who polices innovation. In the modern case, you can replace my hypothetical inventor with a company, but the same principle applies: we expect an entity to fall on its sword for the good of society.
Traditionally, this is where government would step in and do what's right for society. But the other shocking thing from the Facebook scandals was how unprepared the U.S. government was at dealing with technology. The Facebook hearings often seemed like a parody. In "defence" of the politicians, I would point out that a lot of their apparent ignorance was really just playing to ignorant voters. From what I saw of the hearings, the interviewers ignored the actual problems to focus on points that were minor or irrelevant, but easier to understand. But still, we can’t realistically expect judgement of inventions from politicians who are either ignorant, bought-and-paid-for, or terrified of being seen as an over-regulating commie pinko.
I don't really have a solution to all this. I'm just pointing out that we're right back to where we started, assuming that innovation is going to keep coming.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Have You Invested In Ford Lately?
Ford is getting out of the car business. Okay, not completely: they're keeping the Mustang around. But for the most part, they're just gong to sell trucks and SUV's. Chrysler has essentially done the same thing; their only cars are some stagnant Dodge sedans and the Fiat 500.
Even if SUV's are big sellers, I'm still skeptical. As many have been pointing out, the SUV craze may only live as far as low oil prices, and that won't be forever.
This could lead to a bigger version of what happened with the recession in the 2000's, where Americans suddenly wanted fuel efficiency, but American manufacturers had let their small cars fall behind the competition. This time it could be worse, because they wouldn't even have those cars available.
And word is that the biggest reason for this is not Americans' preference for trucks and SUV's, but profitability. SUV's are more expensive, and fewer people base their purchases on price, so there isn't as much pressure to keep the prices down. Thus, manufacturers make a lot on each sale, and the corporate books look good, even if market share suffers.
That's unusual, because market share has traditionally been the big indicator of success in the American car biz. So this move is showing us how much influence Wall Street has on even the biggest companies. But investors don't always have concern for a company's long-term health.
That brings up my main concern when American manufacturers start ignoring the low end of the market: that strategy sets it up so that most people buy their first car from one of the imported brands. In an industry where brand loyalty is a big deal, that sounds like a disastrous strategy, at least in the long-term.
And it gets worse when you combine it with another big trend in the car business: really long loans. It used to be that car loans were in the four year range, but now car makers are happily pushing 84 month financing. If they're going to be relying on more expensive products now, you can expect the long loan trend to accelerate.
But the flip side to this SUV trend is that although they may be replacing cars, SUVs are also becoming more car-like. The Toyota C-HR (SUV) is 1,565 mm tall while the Mazda 3 (car) is 1,455mm tall. So the difference between a car and an SUV is a mere 11 cm (about 4"). Seeing them parked beside each other, they don't look that different. I guess this isn't really that surprising: Although people want SUV's, they still want things cars are better at providing, like efficiency and maneuverability, which is forcing SUV's to get more car-like. So I’m suspecting that a decade or so from now, We’ll be right back to where we’ve always been, driving cars, but we’ll be calling our vehicles "SUVs" instead of "cars."
Even if SUV's are big sellers, I'm still skeptical. As many have been pointing out, the SUV craze may only live as far as low oil prices, and that won't be forever.
This could lead to a bigger version of what happened with the recession in the 2000's, where Americans suddenly wanted fuel efficiency, but American manufacturers had let their small cars fall behind the competition. This time it could be worse, because they wouldn't even have those cars available.
And word is that the biggest reason for this is not Americans' preference for trucks and SUV's, but profitability. SUV's are more expensive, and fewer people base their purchases on price, so there isn't as much pressure to keep the prices down. Thus, manufacturers make a lot on each sale, and the corporate books look good, even if market share suffers.
That's unusual, because market share has traditionally been the big indicator of success in the American car biz. So this move is showing us how much influence Wall Street has on even the biggest companies. But investors don't always have concern for a company's long-term health.
That brings up my main concern when American manufacturers start ignoring the low end of the market: that strategy sets it up so that most people buy their first car from one of the imported brands. In an industry where brand loyalty is a big deal, that sounds like a disastrous strategy, at least in the long-term.
And it gets worse when you combine it with another big trend in the car business: really long loans. It used to be that car loans were in the four year range, but now car makers are happily pushing 84 month financing. If they're going to be relying on more expensive products now, you can expect the long loan trend to accelerate.
But the flip side to this SUV trend is that although they may be replacing cars, SUVs are also becoming more car-like. The Toyota C-HR (SUV) is 1,565 mm tall while the Mazda 3 (car) is 1,455mm tall. So the difference between a car and an SUV is a mere 11 cm (about 4"). Seeing them parked beside each other, they don't look that different. I guess this isn't really that surprising: Although people want SUV's, they still want things cars are better at providing, like efficiency and maneuverability, which is forcing SUV's to get more car-like. So I’m suspecting that a decade or so from now, We’ll be right back to where we’ve always been, driving cars, but we’ll be calling our vehicles "SUVs" instead of "cars."
Sunday, May 27, 2018
I Think It Would Be Fun To Ruin A Newspaper
Elon Musk made headlines recently when he suggested a website that would allow the public to rate journalists on their truthfulness. According to a poll of his twitter followers, this is a really popular idea. Among others, however, it’s not so popular, and has attracted a lot of ridicule.
Why Musk is going to war with the media is a bit of a mystery. After all, he’s benefited greatly from media hype. Generally, he’s had positive coverage, up until the recent questions about Tesla’s factory safety. You also have to wonder why other super-rich, super-famous people haven’t had similar reactions. Just think of all the opportunities for Bill Gates to snap when facing critical press. You might be inclined to think that this is just another example of the central malady of our age: powerful men realizing just how much they can get away with. But there are also contemporary examples of tycoons handling media critique less childishly. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has faced similar scrutiny over his company’s work conditions. And Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has faced an even larger media barrage; while he hasn’t exactly faced it like a great titan of industry, he also hasn’t gone looking for cheap revenge.
I’ve seen comparisons between Musk and Donald Trump. That’s easy to understand: although quite different in other areas, they seem to share a surprisingly thin skin. So many are heralding the end of Elon Musk, as he melts down into a nerdier Trump. Or perhaps he just becomes a Bond villain. Personally though, I think a more accurate comparison for Musk is Charles Foster Kane. He has the same playful entrepreneurialism, the sense of being a self-appointed public hero, and an ego that is incompatible with being the people’s hero. At least Musk’s girlfriend is actually musically talented.
But back to the journalist site idea. Some people have pointed out that similar sites have been tried before. Others have made the should-be-obvious point that it would be easy to rig the site to give ratings that fit someone’s vested interests. Musk tried to assuage these fears by saying it would have to be able to resist mass input from bot armies. But even if you could do that (good luck) there’s still the threat of coordinated efforts of many people working together. After all, similar things have already happened.
But the biggest problem with this idea is that it’s trying to fix the problem with more of the problem. Let’s assume that this website would work as intended without being manipulated or hacked, and thus displays an accurate picture of the general public’s opinion of the accuracy of journalists. I have to ask how that would be any different from how our current society works. We already run society based on the assumption that popularity is more important than correctness. Musk’s website would just formalize that process. He even suggested calling it “Pravda,” in reference to the Soviet newspaper whose name ironically meant, “truth.” But a more appropriate name for Musk’s journalist-rating site would be, “truthiness,” the word Stephen Colbert coined to describe something that feels true, whether or not it is.
Why Musk is going to war with the media is a bit of a mystery. After all, he’s benefited greatly from media hype. Generally, he’s had positive coverage, up until the recent questions about Tesla’s factory safety. You also have to wonder why other super-rich, super-famous people haven’t had similar reactions. Just think of all the opportunities for Bill Gates to snap when facing critical press. You might be inclined to think that this is just another example of the central malady of our age: powerful men realizing just how much they can get away with. But there are also contemporary examples of tycoons handling media critique less childishly. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has faced similar scrutiny over his company’s work conditions. And Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has faced an even larger media barrage; while he hasn’t exactly faced it like a great titan of industry, he also hasn’t gone looking for cheap revenge.
I’ve seen comparisons between Musk and Donald Trump. That’s easy to understand: although quite different in other areas, they seem to share a surprisingly thin skin. So many are heralding the end of Elon Musk, as he melts down into a nerdier Trump. Or perhaps he just becomes a Bond villain. Personally though, I think a more accurate comparison for Musk is Charles Foster Kane. He has the same playful entrepreneurialism, the sense of being a self-appointed public hero, and an ego that is incompatible with being the people’s hero. At least Musk’s girlfriend is actually musically talented.
But back to the journalist site idea. Some people have pointed out that similar sites have been tried before. Others have made the should-be-obvious point that it would be easy to rig the site to give ratings that fit someone’s vested interests. Musk tried to assuage these fears by saying it would have to be able to resist mass input from bot armies. But even if you could do that (good luck) there’s still the threat of coordinated efforts of many people working together. After all, similar things have already happened.
But the biggest problem with this idea is that it’s trying to fix the problem with more of the problem. Let’s assume that this website would work as intended without being manipulated or hacked, and thus displays an accurate picture of the general public’s opinion of the accuracy of journalists. I have to ask how that would be any different from how our current society works. We already run society based on the assumption that popularity is more important than correctness. Musk’s website would just formalize that process. He even suggested calling it “Pravda,” in reference to the Soviet newspaper whose name ironically meant, “truth.” But a more appropriate name for Musk’s journalist-rating site would be, “truthiness,” the word Stephen Colbert coined to describe something that feels true, whether or not it is.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #40 & 41
#40:
Superhero movies are more popular than ever. That's right, Batman made people forget about Superman IV, and it's been all success from there. Except Batman and Robin, you'll want to skip that one.Anyway, the point is that now it's not just the biggest names that are getting their own movie franchises, even the more niche characters get big budgets.
#41:
You know Bob Ross, the super laid-back artist with a show on PBS? Sadly, he dies in 1995. But he is still well remembered, and is as much a pop-cultural icon as ever.Anyway, put those two facts together, and, by 2018, this happens and it doesn't even seem weird:
Friday, May 11, 2018
The Revolution Is About Basketball
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver gave an interesting interview where he talked about how the league uses modern media. For instance, the NBA encourages people to post highlights to YouTube, unlike some other sports organizations. First of all, they have an agreement with YouTube that they still get ad revenue from these clips, even if the NBA itself didn't post the videos, and secondly, they understand that clips on the internet aren't really competing with the game itself.
That's a refreshing attitude, not just in pro sports but in all of business. Most corporations have a knee-jerk reaction to stop any-and-all unauthorized usage of their product. While I can understand why a company would want to guard their intellectual property, there often seems to be no thought of a greater strategy that goes into the decision to send out cease-and-desist orders.
But what I found really interesting is that they've used their streaming service to learn about fans' preferences. They can tell how much of the game people are watching, and when they're turning off the game. I guess that can lead to privacy concerns, but in the modern world, the NBA knowing when you stop watching is pretty small potatoes.
What I find interesting is that this data contributed to their decision to reduce the number of time-outs this season. On the one hand, I could have told them to do that and saved them a lot of trouble. But it also makes me wonder what other insights the NBA and other leagues could learn about what excites and annoys fans.
It's also notable that Silver mentions that they find it easier to increase viewership by encouraging existing fans to watch more, rather than winning over new people. I'd like to see this approach applied to hockey, where there doesn't seem to be much focus about whether the sport should appeal to hard-core fans or appeal to new audiences, and discussion of how to appeal to each usually involves a lot of guesswork and stereotypes. It would be good to see some more certainty, even though I fear that it might push the sport in directions that I, personally, wouldn't like.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go subscribe to the NBA streaming service. Next year I'm going to use it to watch every game, but I'm going to stop watching every time there's a bad call against the Raptors.
That's a refreshing attitude, not just in pro sports but in all of business. Most corporations have a knee-jerk reaction to stop any-and-all unauthorized usage of their product. While I can understand why a company would want to guard their intellectual property, there often seems to be no thought of a greater strategy that goes into the decision to send out cease-and-desist orders.
But what I found really interesting is that they've used their streaming service to learn about fans' preferences. They can tell how much of the game people are watching, and when they're turning off the game. I guess that can lead to privacy concerns, but in the modern world, the NBA knowing when you stop watching is pretty small potatoes.
What I find interesting is that this data contributed to their decision to reduce the number of time-outs this season. On the one hand, I could have told them to do that and saved them a lot of trouble. But it also makes me wonder what other insights the NBA and other leagues could learn about what excites and annoys fans.
It's also notable that Silver mentions that they find it easier to increase viewership by encouraging existing fans to watch more, rather than winning over new people. I'd like to see this approach applied to hockey, where there doesn't seem to be much focus about whether the sport should appeal to hard-core fans or appeal to new audiences, and discussion of how to appeal to each usually involves a lot of guesswork and stereotypes. It would be good to see some more certainty, even though I fear that it might push the sport in directions that I, personally, wouldn't like.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go subscribe to the NBA streaming service. Next year I'm going to use it to watch every game, but I'm going to stop watching every time there's a bad call against the Raptors.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Kanye, It Was Really Nothing
Recently, we've seen Kanye West, Shania Twain, and Morrissey surprise fans by jumping on board the right-hand side of the cultural divide.
Shania showed herself to be in over her head from the start, saying that she would have voted for Trump, then backtracking wildly once she discovered how unpopular that was. It might seem unfair that she's getting heavily criticized for something she apparently knows little of, but I have no sympathy: after all, we're all incompetent on most matters, but the rest of us know enough to sit up on things we don't understand. She's shown a kind of political Dunning-Kruger.
Kanye West has come out in support of Donald Trump. Should we really be surprised? Stats show that at least one African-American voted for him, it might be Kanye. It seems to me that they have a lot in common. For one thing, they have the world's two largest free-standing egos.
Another similarity is that when people are discussing Trump often come back to that Maya Angelou quote that when people show you who they are, believe them. Like Trump, Kanye keeps showing us who he is, and we keep not believing him. I've seen some people kinda defend Kanye by claiming that he's such an innovator and unconventional thinker that he doesn't fit into any preconceived notions of political sides. But a better explanation for West's ideas being incoherent and all over the map is that he's a lot like Trump: lacking in understanding and concentration.
Likely, Kanye's subsequent description of slavery as a "choice" will be the end of his support, at least from African-Americans.
Morrissey is another star who keeps trying to show us who he is; he's had a string of increasingly offensive statements and actions. Because he's the only one of these musicians who I've ever been a fan of, it's a bit more disappointing for me, even if his devolution has been in slow-motion. I'd like to think that he - like many in our current culture - has just become addicted to the joy of pissing people off, and has lost sight of the fact that sometimes pissing people off is the hint that you should re-evaluate your life.
But whatever the reason, I don't care anymore. I've given up, and I see that many others have too. But I'm sure that each of these suddenly hated musicians will have many more second-chances from other fans in the years to come.
These experiences have made me realize another unrealistic thing about Star Wars: when someone turns to the dark side, everyone else just accepts it. They're like, okay, he's on the dark side now. No one makes excuses for him, no one forgets it happened just because he hasn't force-choked anyone in the past week. No one looks the other way because of his other skills.
Shania showed herself to be in over her head from the start, saying that she would have voted for Trump, then backtracking wildly once she discovered how unpopular that was. It might seem unfair that she's getting heavily criticized for something she apparently knows little of, but I have no sympathy: after all, we're all incompetent on most matters, but the rest of us know enough to sit up on things we don't understand. She's shown a kind of political Dunning-Kruger.
Kanye West has come out in support of Donald Trump. Should we really be surprised? Stats show that at least one African-American voted for him, it might be Kanye. It seems to me that they have a lot in common. For one thing, they have the world's two largest free-standing egos.
Another similarity is that when people are discussing Trump often come back to that Maya Angelou quote that when people show you who they are, believe them. Like Trump, Kanye keeps showing us who he is, and we keep not believing him. I've seen some people kinda defend Kanye by claiming that he's such an innovator and unconventional thinker that he doesn't fit into any preconceived notions of political sides. But a better explanation for West's ideas being incoherent and all over the map is that he's a lot like Trump: lacking in understanding and concentration.
Likely, Kanye's subsequent description of slavery as a "choice" will be the end of his support, at least from African-Americans.
Morrissey is another star who keeps trying to show us who he is; he's had a string of increasingly offensive statements and actions. Because he's the only one of these musicians who I've ever been a fan of, it's a bit more disappointing for me, even if his devolution has been in slow-motion. I'd like to think that he - like many in our current culture - has just become addicted to the joy of pissing people off, and has lost sight of the fact that sometimes pissing people off is the hint that you should re-evaluate your life.
But whatever the reason, I don't care anymore. I've given up, and I see that many others have too. But I'm sure that each of these suddenly hated musicians will have many more second-chances from other fans in the years to come.
These experiences have made me realize another unrealistic thing about Star Wars: when someone turns to the dark side, everyone else just accepts it. They're like, okay, he's on the dark side now. No one makes excuses for him, no one forgets it happened just because he hasn't force-choked anyone in the past week. No one looks the other way because of his other skills.
"I can't believe you hired Darth Farius to do your taxes."
"Well whatever you think of his politics, he's still a good accountant."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)