Friday, January 24, 2020
Remembering the remarkable Mr. Jones
Ripping Yarns was a fun little show from Jones and Palin. Definitely a must for fans.
Jones was a historian and (not surprisingly) a talented popularizer.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Rhetorical Orthogonality
I'm about to do one of those things that annoys the hell out of me when other people do it, namely taking a well-defined technical concept and trying to generalize it in order to make some big sweeping statements. So I start with apologies, but I think this goes to the heart of many of the problems we've been seeing with journalism and the public discourse (and also explains much of the difficulty that a lot of us run into when we tried to address those problems).
If we think of orthogonal data in the broad sense as something that brings in new information, it gives us a useful way of thinking about the discussion process. I'm thinking in a practical, not a theoretical sense here. Obviously a mathematical theorem does not technically bring any new information into a system, but in practical terms, it can certainly increase our knowledge. By the same token, a new argument may simply present generally known facts in a new light, but it can still increase our understanding. (You might argue at this point that I'm conflating knowledge and understanding. You'd probably be right, but, in this context, I think it's a distinction without a difference.)
My hypothesis here is that (putting aside literary considerations for the moment), good journalism should be judged mainly on the criteria of accuracy and orthogonality, with the second being, if anything, more important than the first. Instead, we often see indifference to accuracy and barely concealed hostility toward orthogonality. We do see a great deal of lip service toward diversity of opinion, but the majority of that "diversity" is distinctly non-orthogonal, falling on the same axes of the previous arguments, just going the opposite direction.
For example, imagine a disgruntled employee locked in an office with a gun. "He's willing to shoot."/"He's not willing to shoot" are nonorthogonal statements even though they contradict each other. By comparison, "he doesn't have any bullets" would be orthogonal. I'd put most of the discussion about liberal bias in the mainstream media squarely in the nonorthogonal category, along with every single column written by Bret Stephens for the New York Times.
Nonorthogonal debate has become the default mode for most journalists. What's more, they actually feel good about themselves for doing it. Whenever you have an expert say "is," you are absolutely required to find another who will say "is not." This practice has deservedly been mocked in cases where one of the arguments is far more convincing than the other (as with global warming), but even when there's some kind of rough symmetry between the positions, it is still a dangerously constrained and unproductive way of discussing a question.
If we think of orthogonal data in the broad sense as something that brings in new information, it gives us a useful way of thinking about the discussion process. I'm thinking in a practical, not a theoretical sense here. Obviously a mathematical theorem does not technically bring any new information into a system, but in practical terms, it can certainly increase our knowledge. By the same token, a new argument may simply present generally known facts in a new light, but it can still increase our understanding. (You might argue at this point that I'm conflating knowledge and understanding. You'd probably be right, but, in this context, I think it's a distinction without a difference.)
My hypothesis here is that (putting aside literary considerations for the moment), good journalism should be judged mainly on the criteria of accuracy and orthogonality, with the second being, if anything, more important than the first. Instead, we often see indifference to accuracy and barely concealed hostility toward orthogonality. We do see a great deal of lip service toward diversity of opinion, but the majority of that "diversity" is distinctly non-orthogonal, falling on the same axes of the previous arguments, just going the opposite direction.
For example, imagine a disgruntled employee locked in an office with a gun. "He's willing to shoot."/"He's not willing to shoot" are nonorthogonal statements even though they contradict each other. By comparison, "he doesn't have any bullets" would be orthogonal. I'd put most of the discussion about liberal bias in the mainstream media squarely in the nonorthogonal category, along with every single column written by Bret Stephens for the New York Times.
Nonorthogonal debate has become the default mode for most journalists. What's more, they actually feel good about themselves for doing it. Whenever you have an expert say "is," you are absolutely required to find another who will say "is not." This practice has deservedly been mocked in cases where one of the arguments is far more convincing than the other (as with global warming), but even when there's some kind of rough symmetry between the positions, it is still a dangerously constrained and unproductive way of discussing a question.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Return of the Space Libertarians -- Quest for the Philosopher's Stone
Wow. We've been at this for a long time.
If you set out to genetically engineer a program that libertarians ought to object to, you'd probably come up with something like the manned space program. A massive government initiative, tremendously expensive, with no real role for individual initiative. Compared to infrastructure projects the benefits to business are limited. You could even argue that the government's presence in the field crowds out private development.
(Much has been made of the rise of private space firms, but barring a really big and unexpected technological advance, their role is going to be limited to either unmanned missions or human flights in low earth orbit for the foreseeable future.)
There have been efforts in libertarian-leaning organs (The Wall Street Journal, Reason, John Tierney's NYT columns) trying to argue that interplanetary exploration can be done on the cheap. These usually rely heavily on the blatant low-balling of Robert Zubrin* (Tierney, a science writer who has no grasp of science, made a particularly ripe mark), but even if we were to accept these numbers, it's still difficult to reconcile this kind of government program with libertarian values.
Despite climate alarmist predictions, humans will likely survive for hundreds of millions of years into the future. In the meantime, we should begin creating atmospheres on suitable moons or planets. https://t.co/qsBtkbsNAY— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 19, 2020
Sen: physics, not magic, still applies on Titan. Atoms of O cannot be “made” by an organism, they come from sources around it (e.g. CO2, H2O). New types of atoms are made in nuclear, not chemical/biological reactions. This isn’t a genetics question, it’s middle-school physics.— Jeffrey S. Kieft (@JeffreyKieft) January 20, 2020
disrupting the alchemy industry— 🌎🌵the 🚀🌌cosmist 💣✊insurrection 🏴🚩 (@yungneocon) January 20, 2020
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Libertarians in Space
Herman Cain gave a speech to a group of Young Republicans and the subject of the space shuttle came up:In his speech, Cain praised President John F. Kennedy as a "great leader" for inspiring a national effort to put a man on the moon, a goal achieved when astronaut Neil Armstong stepped onto the moon's surface in 1969.I don't know what the reaction of the crowd was (the reporting wasn't that detailed) but I'd imagine it was friendly. You can usually get a warm response from a Republican crowd by coming out in favor of manned space exploration which is, when you think about, strange as hell.
"He didn't say, 'We might.' He didn't say, 'Let's take a poll,'" Cain said. "He said, 'We will.' And we did. Only for this president to move us back by canceling a major part of our space program."
Cain also criticized Obama for using Russian technology to ferry astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station.
"I can tell you that as president of the United States, we are not going to bum a ride to outer space with Russia," Cain said to loud applause. "We're going to regain our rightful place in terms of technology, space technology."
If you set out to genetically engineer a program that libertarians ought to object to, you'd probably come up with something like the manned space program. A massive government initiative, tremendously expensive, with no real role for individual initiative. Compared to infrastructure projects the benefits to business are limited. You could even argue that the government's presence in the field crowds out private development.
(Much has been made of the rise of private space firms, but barring a really big and unexpected technological advance, their role is going to be limited to either unmanned missions or human flights in low earth orbit for the foreseeable future.)
There have been efforts in libertarian-leaning organs (The Wall Street Journal, Reason, John Tierney's NYT columns) trying to argue that interplanetary exploration can be done on the cheap. These usually rely heavily on the blatant low-balling of Robert Zubrin* (Tierney, a science writer who has no grasp of science, made a particularly ripe mark), but even if we were to accept these numbers, it's still difficult to reconcile this kind of government program with libertarian values.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Tuesday Tweets
I know you're all tired of hearing this, but there's something strange about equating electability with white and male in 2020.
Remember when we would have assumed this was a joke?
I have a feeling that this is one of those issues we should be talking more about.
This one goes in the Wages of Strauss file.
You just knew there was a McKinsey connection.
Finally.
A frustration I heard from female Dems last week was that gender was getting singled out as an "electability" issue, but no other thing that voters say they're uncomfortable with. Lots of polling on gay nominee, nominee over age 70, socialist, etc. https://t.co/T2dHUKxN3E— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 19, 2020
What’s the German word for when you open twitter and you’re halfway through reading a tweet when the app refreshes and you can never find that tweet again?— Will Swanson (@willswanson) January 19, 2020
Remember when we would have assumed this was a joke?
Start-up idea: Collect uneaten pizza crusts, rebrand and resell as Sustainable Fun Bread https://t.co/EbMEbYh25A— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 19, 2020
I have a feeling that this is one of those issues we should be talking more about.
National labs and others are working hard on this, but disposal remains a big issue. https://t.co/OKplnStHAo— Russ Mitchell (@russ1mitchell) January 19, 2020
This one goes in the Wages of Strauss file.
Years ago, in a piece for an Australian magazine about the Murdoch empire in news, I wrote that denial is a constitutive feature of the company and its culture. https://t.co/BSRIXcmLwD "Denial, I think, is the key to understanding the company."— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) January 19, 2020
We have to check in with the unicorns."San Francisco-based DoorDash raised in the past two years nearly $2 billion, cash it used to grow to more than 4,000 markets this year from 600 markets in 2018, said a person familiar with the matter. About three-quarters of its markets aren’t profitable, the person said."— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) January 19, 2020
You just knew there was a McKinsey connection.
McKinsey & Company’s ties to Enron, Purdue Pharma, the Saudi Government and now...the Houston Astros! The Houston GM came from McKinsey. https://t.co/eQlNZ0AeNC— Diogenes (@WallStCynic) January 19, 2020
Finally.
The 26 richest people on Earth now own as much as the 3.8 billion who form the poorer *half* of the planet’s population.
Again, 26 people own as much as 3.8 billion people.
26 v. 3,800,000,000— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 19, 2020
Monday, January 20, 2020
Back to the 80K question – part 1: why it matters
A while back, we had a discussion on the closeness of the 2016 electoral college vote and how best to quantify it. I argued that the best approach was to look at the minimum number of votes that would have to change in order to get a different outcome. For the last election, that was around 80,000 votes which, I argued, constituted a close race. I got some pushback so I thought I’d fill oout some of the details, starting with why we should bother with the question at all.
Different kinds of wins have different implications, both strategic and psychological. If there’s a disconnect between the way people are reacting and the actual events, that is in and of itself a phenomena worth noting and studying, but if they are making decisions based on those misinterpretations and false narratives, the problem becomes both important and urgent.
The disconnect around the closeness of Donald Trump‘s victory has manifested itself in at least a couple of ways. First is the theory that Hillary Clinton didn’t just lose, but that it wasn’t’ even close. The argument goes on to say that, in order to win, the Democrats would need to add millions to their popular vote advantage to overcome the biases of the electoral college.
Second is the belief that the margin of defeat was so massive that the Democrats need to do everything differently this time. This has particularly centered on going back to what is traditionally considered a more electable candidate. Specifically a white male from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Since every woman who has been successful enough to compete at that level will have to deal with charges of unlikeability, this is basically saying the Democrats need to nominate a man,
Obviously, any conversations about the closeness of an electoral college win are going to be problematic. Every statement will rest on an edifice of challengeable assumptions and definitions, none of which can ever rise above the standard of merely reasonable.
Nonetheless, this is an absolutely necessary conversation. It matters whether or not Hillary Clinton lost by 80,000 votes, 2 million votes, or somewhere in between, both in terms of our analyses and our decisions.
Different kinds of wins have different implications, both strategic and psychological. If there’s a disconnect between the way people are reacting and the actual events, that is in and of itself a phenomena worth noting and studying, but if they are making decisions based on those misinterpretations and false narratives, the problem becomes both important and urgent.
The disconnect around the closeness of Donald Trump‘s victory has manifested itself in at least a couple of ways. First is the theory that Hillary Clinton didn’t just lose, but that it wasn’t’ even close. The argument goes on to say that, in order to win, the Democrats would need to add millions to their popular vote advantage to overcome the biases of the electoral college.
Second is the belief that the margin of defeat was so massive that the Democrats need to do everything differently this time. This has particularly centered on going back to what is traditionally considered a more electable candidate. Specifically a white male from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
"Unlikable" smacks of sexism but is a metric we must contend with in a close election. Warren is impressive & substantive. Yet a 69-year-old, impressive woman was a disaster in 2016, and (as is the definition of insanity) we should not expect a different outcome in 2020. https://t.co/7CfR5ESF9I— Scott Galloway (@profgalloway) November 10, 2019
Since every woman who has been successful enough to compete at that level will have to deal with charges of unlikeability, this is basically saying the Democrats need to nominate a man,
Obviously, any conversations about the closeness of an electoral college win are going to be problematic. Every statement will rest on an edifice of challengeable assumptions and definitions, none of which can ever rise above the standard of merely reasonable.
Nonetheless, this is an absolutely necessary conversation. It matters whether or not Hillary Clinton lost by 80,000 votes, 2 million votes, or somewhere in between, both in terms of our analyses and our decisions.
Friday, January 17, 2020
"Now, if we wanted to take the children to see a Komodo Dragon..."
The moderators of this week's Democratic debate have taken some well deserved heat for asking Sanders to respond to alleged comments about the electability of women, then asking Warren a question with a premise that contradicted the first answer.
Putting aside for the moment questions of bias against Sanders, this reminded me of the platonic ideal of inattentive interviewing.
Putting aside for the moment questions of bias against Sanders, this reminded me of the platonic ideal of inattentive interviewing.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Two reposts
One on the electability of women, the other on the lack of electability of a demographic that includes Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg... (apply all appropriate caveats)
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Any conversation about electability has got to start with the fact that a white male has not won the popular vote since 2004.
The electoral discussion among pundits and data journalists has been taking some especially silly turns of late and before the bullshit accumulates to the same dangerous level it did in 2016, we need to step back and address the bad definitions, absurd assumptions, and muddled thinking before it gets too deep.We should probably start with the idea electability. While we can argue about the exact definition, it should not mean likely to be elected and it absolutely cannot mean will be elected.
Any productive definition of electability has got to be based on the notion of having reasonable prospect of winning. With this in mind, it is ridiculous to argue that Hillary Clinton was not electable. Lots of things had to break Trump's way for him to win the election and, while we can never say for certain what repeated runs of the simulation would show, there is no way to claim that we would have gotten the same outcome the vast majority of the time.
This leads us to a related dangerous and embarrassing trend, the unmooring of votes and outcomes. This is part of a larger genre of bad data journalism that tries to argue that relationships which are strongly correlated and even causal are unrelated because they are not deterministic and/or linear. In this world, profit or even potential profit is not relevant when discussing a startup's success. Diet and exercise have no effect on weight loss. With a little digging you can undoubtedly come up with numerous other examples.
The person who wins the popular vote may not win the electoral college, but unless you have a remarkably strong argument to the contrary, that is the way that smart money should bet.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Fun with Political Trivia
This picks up on a recent thread (telling which one might be too much of a clue). The ones and zeros represent a trait of Democratic candidates from 1964 to 2004. Take a look and think about it for a moment. Here's a hint, the trait is something associated with each man well before he ran for president.Johnson 1
Humphrey 0
McGovern 0
Carter 1
Mondale 0
Dukakis 0
Clinton 1
Gore 1
Kerry 0
As you might have guessed, the relationship between this trait and the popular vote didn't hold in the previous or following elections. The trait is not at all obscure. It was well known at the time and figured prominently into their political personas, This is not a trick question.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
The Golden Globes are a perfect example of journalism's non-news addiction
[Sorry about sending out the draft form earlier]
Just to get this out of the way, all major entertainment awards are largely worthless. Poor as measures of talent, even worse as indicators of artistic quality, but even by this debased standard, the Golden Globes stand alone in their lack of merit. It has always been and remains a joke.
Winning something like an Oscar or an Emmy probably has less to do with the work and more to do with lobbying and popularity, but it does, at least, represent the approval of the industry. A Critics Choice Award is given by people who watch and write about films for a living. Even the People’s Choice award indicates a level of popular support. The Golden Globes is given out by a small group you've never heard of. >
The award started out as an excuse to party with movie stars but it quickly evolved into one of Hollywood’s most notorious scams. Here are a few highlights from Wikipedia:
Keep in mind that Zadora and The Tourist only got attention because they were already punchlines before the Globes. There’s no reason to assume the opaque process was any less corrupt the rest of the time.
Everyone who follows the industry knows the Globes are of no news value to the Golden Globes, but every year we get actual news organizations with actual reputations runs something like this:
Just to get this out of the way, all major entertainment awards are largely worthless. Poor as measures of talent, even worse as indicators of artistic quality, but even by this debased standard, the Golden Globes stand alone in their lack of merit. It has always been and remains a joke.
Winning something like an Oscar or an Emmy probably has less to do with the work and more to do with lobbying and popularity, but it does, at least, represent the approval of the industry. A Critics Choice Award is given by people who watch and write about films for a living. Even the People’s Choice award indicates a level of popular support. The Golden Globes is given out by a small group you've never heard of. >
The award started out as an excuse to party with movie stars but it quickly evolved into one of Hollywood’s most notorious scams. Here are a few highlights from Wikipedia:
1968–1974 NBC broadcast ban
The HFPA has had a lucrative contract with NBC for decades, which began broadcasting the award ceremony locally in Los Angeles in 1958, then nationally in 1964. However, in 1968, the Federal Communications Commission claimed the show "misled the public as to how the winners were determined" (allegations included that winners were determined by lobby; to motivate winners to show up to the awards ceremony winners were informed if they did not attend another winner would be named). The FCC admonished NBC for participating in the scandal. Subsequently, NBC refused to broadcast the ceremony from 1968 until after 1974.
Pia Zadora awarded "New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture" in 1982
In 1982, Pia Zadora won a Golden Globe in the category "New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture – Female" for her performance in Butterfly, over such competition as Elizabeth McGovern (Ragtime) and Kathleen Turner (Body Heat). Accusations were made that the Foreign Press Association members had been bought off. Zadora's husband, multimillionaire Meshulam Riklis, flew voting members to his casino, the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, which gave the appearance that they voted for Zadora to repay this. Riklis also invited voting members to his house for a lavish lunch and a showing of the film. He also spent a great deal on advertising. Furthermore, Zadora had made her film debut some 17 years earlier as a child performer in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
The Tourist for Best Musical/Comedy nominations in 2011
The nominations for the 2011 Golden Globes drew initial skepticism as the Hollywood Foreign Press Association nominated The Tourist in its Best Musical/Comedy category, although it was originally advertised as a spy thriller, and also as one of the most panned films of the season with host Ricky Gervais even jokingly asking the main star of the film, Johnny Depp, if he had seen it. Rumors then surfaced that Sony, the distributor of The Tourist, had influenced Globes voters with an all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas, culminating in a concert by Cher.
Keep in mind that Zadora and The Tourist only got attention because they were already punchlines before the Globes. There’s no reason to assume the opaque process was any less corrupt the rest of the time.
Everyone who follows the industry knows the Globes are of no news value to the Golden Globes, but every year we get actual news organizations with actual reputations runs something like this:
The Golden Globes are a perfect example of journalism's non-news addiction. Everyone knows they are absolutely meaningless, at best telling the viewers nothing more than who wrote the biggest check, but no one can seem to resist them.
ARI SHAPIRO: Was there anything among the winners last night that really raised your eyebrows and you think might hint at the future of TV?
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Tuesday Tweets
"Eventually, for a democracy, the information comes out," @JamesFallows says on @ReliableSources. "Democracies eventually learn the truth. It's better for the administration, better for the military, better for the public if we shorten the time that it takes to learn that truth."— Jim Maiella (@jimmaiella) January 12, 2020
The same disinfo formula I described in my CNN op-ed last month: Lie on Fox News, apologize on Twitter or CNN. GOP wants two realities so they can be Trump propagandists and respected representatives at the same time. https://t.co/i7G0FrdZot— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) January 10, 2020
—
Russ Mitchell (@russ1mitchell) January
11, 2020
Two past-weekend reads:
1) Michael Lind in WSJ arguing that response to left-behind America is revived labor movement. From book ‘New Class War’ https://t.co/udNs5GPp2D
2) @ChristopherIngraham in WaPo on oversimplifications / stereotypes re Rural America https://t.co/Hl1yBUQtRF pic.twitter.com/24mAR6xfXe— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) January 13, 2020
It's not Goop; it's the Goop Lab. That's way more sciencey.— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) January 8, 2020
Please enjoy this 1939(!) brochure introducing the new science of polling.
"Within the past few years a technique for measuring public opinion has been developed....In the past, estimates of the strength and trends of public opinion have been based on pure guesswork." https://t.co/JercykJ75x— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 10, 2020
And it takes a lot to make wasteland dwellers giddy.@Canadian_JACD— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) January 11, 2020
Upper income Republican-leaning Americans are REALLY dug in on the narrative of individual effort and making your own “good luck”. Lower income Republicans are not so sure! https://t.co/4hD7hCR7Z8 pic.twitter.com/1LEztQwPDh— Adam Tooze (@adam_tooze) January 11, 2020
41% of Republicans (61% of all Americans) say economic inequality is a major issue in US today. Of those Republicans, 2/3 agree with higher taxes on the wealthy. 84% of total population do. Isnt this an open goal? https://t.co/4hD7hCR7Z8 pic.twitter.com/KvdBEqN9z3— Adam Tooze (@adam_tooze) January 11, 2020
What, you didn’t see the little Skynet robot inside running on a hamster wheel?— Ben Uy (@BenAllenUy) January 12, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
Efficient infringement -- when it's your fiduciary responsibility to steal stuff
This is a decidedly unhappy sequel to our previous stories on patent trolls, a grim little good news bad news joke. The good news is that we have found a way to prevent trolls from holding companies hostage with illegitimate claims of intellectual property; the bad news is that we did it by taking away the rights of people with legitimate claims.
From Joe Nocera:
From Joe Nocera:
If you’re not a patent aficionado, you have probably never heard the phrase “efficient infringement.” Not to blow the punch line, but it’s yet another example of how big tech companies use dubious means to squeeze their smaller rivals. When critics complain that Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon are squashing innovation, this is the sort of tactic they’re talking about.
I first heard the phrase some years ago when I looked into a patent dispute between Apple Inc. and the University of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which owns the university’s patents, had sued Apple over its use of an innovation that university scientists had dreamed up and patented in the mid-2000s. Apple had installed it in iPhones and iPads without bothering to negotiate a license and had been using it with impunity for years before the case finally went to trial. A jury found for the foundation in 2015 and ordered Apple to pay $234 million.
That was actually a victory for Apple. Consider: Apple got free use of valuable technology that it took from a smaller, less powerful entity. Losing at trial was unfortunate, perhaps, but the $234 million was just another business expense. Pocket change, really, considering Apple’s size.
How common is this kind of move? Boris Teksler, Apple’s former patent chief, told the Economist recently that “efficient infringement, where the benefits outweigh the legal costs of defending against a suit, could almost be viewed as a ‘fiduciary responsibility,’ at least for cash-rich firms that can afford to litigate without end.” In other words, stealing patented technology is practically required if you’re focused on shareholder value. And who isn’t these days?
...
“What is the definition of a patent?” asked Brian Pomper, the executive director of the Innovation Alliance, which represents small and medium-size patent holders. “It means you have the right to exclude others from your invention.” He added, “How can a patent be meaningful if you don’t have the right to exclude others?” But that’s where we are. Companies like Sonos have virtually no leverage to stop bigger companies with deep pockets from infringing their patents.
Friday, January 10, 2020
A media post on Star Wars
This is Joseph.
So a few thoughts on the newest Star Wars movie.
Needless to say: SPOILERS ahoy!
One, the movie was beautiful. The special effects were stunning and the visuals were memorable.
Two, are there no proof-readers in Hollywood? Can we not decide what the antagonist's plan is?
But the part that was the most challenging to me as a viewer was that there was simply no continuity with previous plot points in the other movies. Some of this is forgivable, when you decide on an awesome twist it can be okay to have to patch over a rough spot. Think of Obi-Wan's retroactive deception about Darth Vader, once the writer puzzled out the family tree (or the even more awkward Leia is your sister moment).
But Kylo Ren is just confusing. The second movie seems to give him every chance to decide on his allegiance, even insofar as there was much doubt after the first movie. His history of misdeeds is . . . extreme. He was involved in a mass murder terror attack (Starkiller base). He murdered his fellow students at a school because he disliked the teacher (and focused so much on the other children that the teacher survived). He massacred a village in a terror attack. He murdered a family member as a part of a gang initiation. So his final arc is redemption?
It isn't that it couldn't have been plotted well. It is just that writers seemed to keep changing their minds, and that is only worth it if the overall outcome is exceptional. The movie was fine, but the plot had a lot of obvious holes (why where the ships buried and were the crews on them when they were)?
Finally, it detracts from the previous movies. What is the point of the middle part of the trilogy now? The heroes fail at pretty much everything and not in a way that teaches lessons or because of a character flaw. No, they fail because the Emperor can survive being blown up and the protagonist doesn't sense the deception.
So it was nice to watch and I am glad I saw it. But it will generate a month of people wondering exactly what happened.
So a few thoughts on the newest Star Wars movie.
Needless to say: SPOILERS ahoy!
One, the movie was beautiful. The special effects were stunning and the visuals were memorable.
Two, are there no proof-readers in Hollywood? Can we not decide what the antagonist's plan is?
But the part that was the most challenging to me as a viewer was that there was simply no continuity with previous plot points in the other movies. Some of this is forgivable, when you decide on an awesome twist it can be okay to have to patch over a rough spot. Think of Obi-Wan's retroactive deception about Darth Vader, once the writer puzzled out the family tree (or the even more awkward Leia is your sister moment).
But Kylo Ren is just confusing. The second movie seems to give him every chance to decide on his allegiance, even insofar as there was much doubt after the first movie. His history of misdeeds is . . . extreme. He was involved in a mass murder terror attack (Starkiller base). He murdered his fellow students at a school because he disliked the teacher (and focused so much on the other children that the teacher survived). He massacred a village in a terror attack. He murdered a family member as a part of a gang initiation. So his final arc is redemption?
It isn't that it couldn't have been plotted well. It is just that writers seemed to keep changing their minds, and that is only worth it if the overall outcome is exceptional. The movie was fine, but the plot had a lot of obvious holes (why where the ships buried and were the crews on them when they were)?
Finally, it detracts from the previous movies. What is the point of the middle part of the trilogy now? The heroes fail at pretty much everything and not in a way that teaches lessons or because of a character flaw. No, they fail because the Emperor can survive being blown up and the protagonist doesn't sense the deception.
So it was nice to watch and I am glad I saw it. But it will generate a month of people wondering exactly what happened.
Two more tech spots from CollegeHumor
This one remains sharp and on-target.
This parody of start-ups, on the other hand, can't hope to compete with the real thing in the age of unicorns.
This parody of start-ups, on the other hand, can't hope to compete with the real thing in the age of unicorns.
College Humor -- "If Internet Ads Were Salesmen " -- repost
I keep meaning to do a post about the terrible state of targeted marketing. When I get around to it, remind me to embed this. At least half of the points I want to hit are illustrated here.
Pre-update:
After I scheduled this in the form above, Josh Marshall posted a piece on internet advertising and the death of Gawker. It contains an informative primer on how this stuff works.
Pre-update:
After I scheduled this in the form above, Josh Marshall posted a piece on internet advertising and the death of Gawker. It contains an informative primer on how this stuff works.
Many people think that the more popular a publication gets the more ads it will sell. The bigger the audience, the more eyeballs, the more ads wanting contact with those eyeballs. That's not how it works.As a marketing statistician, I'd like to emphasize the point about "reasons, some good and evidence based, others silly." Most of the people buying these ads, including high-level executives at Fortune 500 companies, have a very weak grasp of how targeted advertising works.
There are a million dimensions to the advertising economy, just as many ways of describing it. But you can understand a whole lot about how the whole thing works by thinking in terms of three factors: 1) endemic sales proposition, 2) controversy and 3) influence.
Let's talk first about endemic sales proposition. Because I think it may have played some role in Gawker's demise (on-going legal liability may have played more of a factor or have been the entirety of the issue). A site about clothes has an endemic sales proposition: selling clothes. A site about books: books. You may say well, I only read sites about news and sports but I still buy a lot of clothes so ... Not how it works.
For a variety of reasons, some good and evidence based, others silly, advertisers want to sell you their product when you are thinking about it and in the mindset to buy. This doesn't just mean impulse purchases, but buying in general. In many cases that makes a lot of sense.
For instance, aside from people being really into tech, why do you think there are so many tech sites? Right, because there's a ton of money in video games, devices, computers, everything under the sun. People also tend to buy those things online. Again, we're not just talking about impulse buying. It can be more nuanced and less direct. But if you stand up a site about tech, gaming, computers, etc. and it does well, you have a ready made channel for ad sales. And in the case of tech an extremely lucrative one.
Sometimes it's a little more amorphous but no less ad driven. Why so many 'lifestyle' publications? Well, we all need a lifestyle, of course. And general interest magazines cover many interesting topics. But by and large that's because you're aiming for an audience of people who are affluent and want to read about cool things affluent people do: travel, toys, aspirational personal development. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they used to say on Seinfeld. But that's what it's about.
Next, controversy. This largely speaks for itself. Advertisers don't want to be around things that upset people or divide people. They want to be everyone's friend. They don't want negative ideas or stories to rub off on them. This isn't an absolute of course. Plenty of sites which court controversy sell tons of ads. Gawker's a prime example. But controversy is always a constraint on ad sales. You just may have other factors that overcome it.
Next, influence. This is an inherently small and nebulous part of the equation. But it's key for many publications. Many ads aren't trying to sell you anything directly. They're trying to tell you stories, shape your thinking, advocate positions. Political ads are like this. But they're mass market since obviously everyone can vote - at least in states without Republican governors and Secretaries of State. But where the money is is with people who are considered influential in various communities, so-called "opinion-leaders".
Here's an example. Go to the subways in New York you'll see ads for storage rentals, lawyers, grocery deliveries, breast augmentations, ESL courses. Go to Washington DC and you'll see ads for ... Kazakhstan or Northrup Grumman or PhRMA or well ... you get the idea. There are lots of people who care a lot about what people in the nation's capital think. And yes, TPM very much plays in that ad space. TPM and similar sites lose big on #1 and #2. But #3 is where there's a business that can drive ad sales.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
The people who brought us the greatest TED Talk ever
We'll have more on this later.
As of today, the venerable comedy concern CollegeHumor Media is mostly dead. In the words of Sam Reich, its chief commercial officer, IAC “has made the difficult decision to no longer finance us,” he wrote in a Twitter thread this afternoon. “Today, 100+ brilliant people lost their jobs, some of whom are my dear, dear friends.” That means the cuts hit every vertical: CollegeHumor, Dorkly, Drawfee, and Dropout — only five to 10 people are left, according to Bloomberg.Until then, here's CH taking on the sacred cows of technology.
The news, however, wasn’t all bad: IAC agreed to let Reich become the humor company’s majority owner. “Of course, I can’t keep it going like you’re used to,” Reich wrote further down in the thread. “While we were on the way to becoming profitable, we were nonetheless losing money — and I myself have no money to be able to lose.”
And, as promised, the greatest TED Talk ever.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
"Cosmic Crisp" is a stupid for a pretty tasty apple
Just had one of these the other day. It was good (though I'll probably stick with the Envy) and the story of the science and economics behind its development is really interestion.
What a 500 million dollar apple tastes like by Keith A. Spencer
Upon first glance, the Cosmic Crisp apple doesn't appear particularly unique nor inspiring. It is larger than the average apple, certainly, but its mottled exterior could be confused for many other reddish varietals. In other words, one would not know immediately that this humble fruit is the pinnacle of industrial agriculture — encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, two decades of planning, and hundreds of trees bred, tasted, and culled.
The phrase “apple farmer” inspires images of pastoral orchards, straw hats and wooden buckets full of fruit; yet modern agriculture practices fall far from that imagined tree. A Darwinian tasting process brought the Cosmic Crisp into being: in the late 1990s, Bruce Barrett, an apple researcher at Washington State University, picked the Cosmic Crisp out of 10,000 crossbreeds. The Cosmic Crisp, then known as WA 38, ticked all the boxes: its ability to survive in different Washington state climates, its taste and texture, and how long it lasted without decaying. (Supposedly the Cosmic Crisp can last around a year in cold storage.) A consulting firm tested the apple with focus groups, where one participant commented on the apple’s appearance as star-like, which led to the name. As with many modern seeds, Washington State owns the rights, and thus growers must pay royalties in exchange for growing the apple. The apple was so widely believed to be "the apple of the future" (as the New York Times put it) that 13 million trees were grown at a cost of $500 million. To extend the selling season, producers store the apple in a refrigerated, controlled atmosphere of 1% carbon dioxide and 2% oxygen after treating it with fungicides. Instagram influencers were hired to help hype its release, including a retired astronaut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)