3,410 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a legal declaration that Google is a "common carrier," like phone, gas and electric companies, which must provide its services to anyone willing to pay its fee.

      I'm going to scream. For the love of god, (symmetrical!) Internet access first, please...

    1. Such a lens pans away from virtue and instead focuses on mere inner tranquility, created by the not becoming perturbed by other people’s thoughts, actions, and problems. In this respect, “indifferents” get wrongfully defined as things not worth being concerned or bothered about! 

      I would love to read more about how Taoism is interpreted re: this same distinction, because I have a feeling I'm getting indirect misreading, but I don't actually know.

    2. Agiatis, the Spartan Queen, is another powerful female who plays a significant role in Stoicism’s history. Yet, she is barely mentioned in Stoic circles, despite her role in standing up and succeeding against an oligarchical regime that murdered her first husband, Agis IV, and her in-laws (Agis IV’s grandmother Archidamia, and mother, Agesistrata) and added to their wealth and property by impoverishing and disenfranchising her people. It is rather telling that life-hackers who show such an appetite for Stoicism do not go further than highlighting how a “Spartan” flavored Stoicism can help them lift heavier weights in the gym or become more resilient in the rat race. What can be more Spartan or Stoic than taking the fight to the powerful and passing socioeconomic and land reforms in the name of justice at great personal cost?

      All right, this is sick. I'm gonna get the book, you sold me.

    1. The rules as I understand them: Protect your good habits at all cost. When you lose them, fight to regain them. Quit before the bad habit fully sinks its claws in or else you’ll spend years trying to get rid of it.Hard work rarely feels good.Choose emotionally healthy people who don't aggravate your attachment issuesIf you lie you’ll have to keep lying. Don’t lie if you can’t sustain it. Get over your fear of rejection. Fear of rejection is very expensive.Continually assert your boundaries.Then there are the more nebulous rules about how to be a good human in the world, which vary person by person (well, depending on how utilitarian you are). But they usually aren’t that complicated, either.In the end all we have to do is to stay faithful to the same basic guidelines. And yet we never learn, do we?

      This piece is very good even if these don't resonate with you (e.g.: I have moved mountains while maintaining a fear of rejection, thank you very much)

    1. Just America’s origins in theory, its intolerant dogma, and its coercive tactics remind me of 1930s left-wing ideology. Liberalism as white supremacy recalls the Communist Party’s attack on social democracy as “social fascism.” Just American aesthetics are the new socialist realism.

      WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE AMERICAN COMMUNISTS, GEORGE?

    2. The parameters of acceptable expression are a lot narrower than they used to be.

      Is this true? We used to have literal McCarthyism, didn't we? Sinead O'Connor blacklisted for a peaceful statement?

    3. The jobs their parents took for granted have become much harder to get, which makes the meritocratic rat race even more crushing.

      Wait, I thought the professional class was doing great and has ossified into aristocracy. You said that up in the Smart America section.

    4. Just America is a narrative of the young and well educated, which is why it continually misreads or ignores the Black and Latino working classes.

      I am still waiting for the America that includes them, if it isn't Free America, Real America, Smart America, or Just America... see, George, if you'd been willing to cross-examine your idea of America as white, maybe you could have actually written a piece that doesn't miss a huge portion of it!

    5. In the summer of 2020, the protesters in the American streets were disproportionately Millennials with advanced degrees making more than $100,000 a year.

      This is a really interesting datapoint and I would love to see its source.

    6. Just America can’t deal with the stubborn divide between Black and white students in academic assessments. The mild phrase achievement gap has been banished, not only because it implies that Black parents and children have some responsibility, but also because, according to anti-racist ideology, any disparity is by definition racist. Get rid of assessments, and you’ll end the racism along with the gap.

      This is bonkers to me because I'm very sure the standard line is that these are effects of poverty and oppression, not just of mismeasurement (though that is of course a real thing also)

    7. It can’t talk about the complex causes of poverty.

      Yes it can, and it does, and you just aren't satisfied with the result until it casts enough blame for you.

    8. The most radical version of the narrative lashes together the oppression of all groups in an encompassing hell of white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, transphobia, plutocracy, environmental destruction, and drones—America as a unitary malignant force beyond any other evil on Earth.

      In its intellectually lazy manifestations, the boogieman is not labeled "America" as frequently as "capitalism", actually.

    9. What had been considered, broadly speaking, American history (or literature, philosophy, classics, even math) is explicitly defined as white, and therefore supremacist. What was innocent by default suddenly finds itself on trial, every idea is cross-examined, and nothing else can get done until the case is heard.

      Wow. Wow, wow, wow. If your "American history" was the history that can be explicitly defined as white, you probably should be cross-examining that, yeah.

    10. Any talk of progress is false consciousness—even “hurtful.”

      What is being quoted here? Would its speaker agree that they were describing any talk of progress? Or is this just straw manning the hell out of this portion of the piece?

    11. But in identity politics, equality refers to groups, not individuals, and demands action to redress disparate outcomes among groups—in other words, equity, which often amounts to new forms of discrimination. In practice, identity politics inverts the old hierarchy of power into a new one: bottom rail on top. The fixed lens of power makes true equality, based on common humanity, impossible.

      Showing his hand, a bit, ain't he?

    12. The self is not a rational being that can persuade and be persuaded by other selves, because reason is another form of power.

      I'm not sure this would be claimed by the members of this chunk of America.

    13. Critical theorists argue that the Enlightenment, including the American founding, carried the seeds of modern racism and imperialism.

      I feel like you can't put this into a piece like this without... I don't know, it's not just that the seeds are in the ideas but that all of the ideas are inextricable from the projects of justification that birthed them.

    14. American university classrooms, where two generations of students were taught to think as critical theorists.

      This is overstated, of course. I wish these people could talk to average college students and not just the ones who interest themselves in participating in The Discourse

    15. In some versions of the narrative, the country has no positive value at all—it can never be made better.

      The strength of this piece is how it contains sentences like these that are very provocative while being entirely accurate.

    16. But racism alone couldn’t explain why white men were much more likely to vote for Trump than white women, or why the same was true of Black and Latino men and women. Or why the most reliable predictor for who was a Trump voter wasn’t race but the combination of race and education.

      Haven't progressives gone on and on about this?

    17. Early in the campaign, I spent time with a group of white and Black steelworkers in a town near Canton, Ohio. They had been locked out by the company over a contract dispute and were picketing outside the mill. They faced months without a paycheck, possibly the loss of their jobs, and they talked about the end of the middle class. The only candidates who interested them were Trump and Bernie Sanders.

      "You're being fucked over" is the only powerful message for people who really are being fucked over. Dilution disintegrates it.

    18. Self-government didn’t require any special learning, just the native wisdom of the people.

      I always wonder about what it means that we have decided "learning", even in this context, has to mean "taking time away from the labor market and paying lots of tuition".

    19. And because people still live their lives in an actual place, and the nation is the largest place with which they can identify—world citizenship is too abstract to be meaningful—patriotic feeling has to be tapped if you want to achieve anything big.

      I wonder to what extent state-level identity has changed. People are so mobile now that I'm quite unusual to have lived such a Washingtonian life, Pacific Northwestern in its totality.

    20. She meant that she no longer lived with any security.

      I suspect the increase in professional-class work hours is due to that class's perception of increased precarity, no matter how crystallized the boundaries are.

    21. Graduation from an exclusive school marks the entry into a successful life.

      I wonder what portion of "Smart America" really does have those bona fides. Less, I suspect, in its general "meritocratic" body than in its culture-defining niches.

    22. None of this brings them in contact with fellow citizens outside their way of life.

      This is invoking ideas I care a lot about, but I wonder if it's really true that "Smart America" has seen a decline in this more than, well, absolutely everyone has.

    23. The winners in Smart America have withdrawn from national life

      Wait, is it withdrawing from local life because of homogenizing nation-level institutions or withdrawing from national life?

    24. Their assumption was that all Americans could do what they did and be like them.

      How many Americans did? How many Americans' jobs started looking more more like those of Smart America even when they weren't paid more? How did this compare to the shifts in other countries?

    25. It was cosmopolitan, embracing multiculturalism at home and welcoming a globalized world.

      I feel very strongly that multiculturalism and globalization aren't nearly as intertwined as this piece keeps repeating.

    26. As for unions, they hardly exist in Smart America. They’re instruments of class solidarity, not individual advancement, and the individual is the unit of worth in Smart America as in Free America.

      aghhhghghghghhhhghgh

    27. They were early adopters of things that make the surface of contemporary life agreeable: HBO, Lipitor, MileagePlus Platinum, the MacBook Pro, grass-fed organic beef, cold-brewed coffee, Amazon Prime

      I think I'm being targeted here, but I still hate it? Thanks?

    28. You have a hard time telling what part of the country they come from, because their local identities are submerged in the homogenizing culture of top universities and elite professions.

      This is a fascinating claim. Who takes up the mantle of local identity? The popular culture of the working class isn't regional anymore, either, is it? Even when Smart America hears a twang in "country" and turns away, that twang is often uniform from California to Virginia, homogenized influences dominant.

    29. While the sunny narrative of Free America shone on, its policies eroded the way of life of many of its adherents. The disappearance of secure employment and small businesses destroyed communities. The civic associations that Tocqueville identified as the antidote to individualism died with the jobs. When towns lost their Main Street drugstores and restaurants to Walgreens and Wendy’s in the mall out on the highway, they also lost their Rotary Club and newspaper—the local institutions of self-government. This hollowing-out exposed them to an epidemic of aloneness, physical and psychological. Isolation bred distrust in the old sources of authority—school, church, union, bank, media.

      The decline of local associations seems like a much larger story than progressive people bother making it.

    30. After years of high inflation with high unemployment, gas shortages, chaos in liberal cities, and epic government corruption and incompetence, by 1980 a large audience of Americans was ready to listen

      I would love to learn more about the incidents of government corruption/incompetence referred to because I think it always seems bonkers to my generation that government is so little trusted to, you know, do stuff.

    31. Libertarianism speaks to the American myth of the self-made man and the lonely pioneer on the plains. (Glorification of men is a recurring feature.) Like Marxism, it is a complete explanatory system. It appeals to supersmart engineers and others who never really grow up.

      I am really, really sick of totalizing ideological systems.

    32. Republicans emphasized individual enterprise, and Democrats emphasized social solidarity, eventually including Black people and abandoning the party’s commitment to Jim Crow. But, unlike today, the two parties were arguing over the same recognizable country.

      My immediate suspicion: whose perspectives didn't make it into the arguments?

    1. The favorite era for the Swashbuckler, the 17th Century is the age in Europe when lusty musketeers dueled with each other and got sucked into intrigues involving dauphins, Corrupt Churchmen and vampish courtesans. Hats with large feathers and big bucket-topped boots were in fashion for men. Also The Golden Age of Piracy on the High Seas, when eyepatched and peg-legged buccaneers buried stolen gold, brandished cutlasses, and tied up buxom, bodice-wearing maidens and then forced them to watch as their hapless boyfriends walked the plank.

      TVTropes pages on historical eras are... great?

    1. WikiJousting is a competitive sport where 2 or more individuals race to reach a target page. Whomever reaches the target page in the fewest steps wins the joust.

      This is nutty and fun and I like it. I suppose it doesn't even have to be done synchronously!

    1. The company told the CPSC that it knew of 14 infant deaths in the sleeper as of February 2018, more than a year before it recalled the roughly 4.7 million units that had been sold. Fisher-Price earned at least $200 million in revenue from a decade's worth of sales of the sleeper, the report noted.

      This is the kind of thing that makes me think we need the death penalty for (and only for) corporations.

    2. She noted patients' health insurance plans sometime don't cover weight-loss treatments, putting expensive drugs out of reach.

      So long as the real issues of metabolic syndrome are a disease of the poor, don't believe that the solution will come looking like this.

    3. The Danish company hasn't disclosed Wegovy's price but said it will be similar to the price of Saxenda, an 11-year-old weight loss drug injected daily that now typically costs more than $1,300 per month without insurance.

      .....and then you get to this.

    4. In company-funded studies, participants taking Wegovy had average weight loss of 15%, about 34 pounds (15.3 kilograms). Participants lost weight steadily for 16 months before plateauing. In a comparison group getting dummy shots, the average weight loss was about 2.5%, or just under 6 pounds.

      This is significant! So you start reading this, and you think, huh, this might be good...

    1. was the algorithm itself designed to overblock third-party ads as potentially fraudulent while applying a more lax standard to the ads that Google sells – and makes more money from?

      Google is good enough at machine learning that they know that something like cross-validation for model selection is necessary to not juice the numbers. It doesn't even have to be a "more lax" standard to favor Google if it's shaped just right...

    2. Ron Wyden has proposed a capital gains tax on unrealized gains:

      I like Ron Wyden -- would this have the effect of increasing investment churn? Would that be bad? I guess it wouldn't really matter since rich people just want their money to keep going up, so that upness would still be taxed whether they moved it or left it...

    3. In 1920, Rep Cordell Hull ("the father of income tax") warned that the Supreme Court's ruling in Macomber would let rich people "live upon the value" of stock "without ever paying" tax.

      Well, huh.

    1. Someone recently made me a hot drink containing cinnamon, espresso, oat milk, and lion's mane mushroom powder, and it was delicious

      Look I want to respect this but the epitome of "coffee additives" is cardamom and the world needs to know.

    1. if you cut a perfectly human-shaped hole in an unlocked door do you think more people would open the door or try to squeeze through it

      this post is great. (but also I would never open the door, are you kidding, once in a lifetime opportunity to kool-aid-man with no consequences)

    1. In a July 16 policy speech, U.S. Attorney General William Barr took aim at studios, saying they have provided “a massive propaganda coup for the Chinese Communist Party.” Barr added that Paramount told producers of 2013’s World War Z to remove a scene in which characters speculate that a virus, which triggered a zombie apocalypse, may have originated in China. The film, which grossed $540 million globally, never received a release in China, likely because the government frowns upon themes of the undead, ghosts or time travel. (A knowledgeable source says China’s zombie film ban is the biggest reason that Paramount wouldn’t greenlight a $200 million David Fincher-Brad Pitt pairing for a sequel.)

      I want more movies with ghosts! I want more movies with skeletons! Are there non-Anglo countries making these?

    1. For platforms, there could hardly be a more powerful story about the significance of their amplification mechanics. By now, many of the platform executives I know are tired of the constant drumbeat of stories about how their networks spread misinformation, hate speech, conspiracy theories, and other harmful content. But the Trump story illustrates vividly why they matter. For the worst actors on their platforms, free reach is almost the entire appeal of using them.

      Considering a platform as a publisher simplifies this somewhat; we may consider "earned media" vs "paid media."

    2. The disconnect highlights the actual utility of social platforms for Trump — especially of Twitter, where he focused almost all of his efforts. The power was not that they offered him a place to speak. Rather, it was that they amplified it in crucial ways, for free, to a massive worldwide audience.

      There are, of course, cases where people's ability to even have a place to speak on the internet is threatened, but they're much less palatable examples.

    3. There are two primary questions we wind up asking about problematic users of social networks. The first is whether they should have the ability to post at all — platform-level freedom of speech. And the second is whether the platform should amplify their account or their posts to other users — what the technologist Aza Raskin has called “freedom of reach.”

      I am so grateful every time this is distinguished, and yet -- is "platform-level freedom of speech" a coherent concept?

      Has "publisher-level freedom of speech" been invoked before? "Printing-press-level freedom of speech"?

    1. You’re aimlessly scrolling through your feeds, minding your own business. An un-looked for stray data point catches your attention: a statistic, an anecdote, an image, a video clip, a chart, a meme … whatever. Maybe it’s not even from someone you follow. Perhaps it’s a tweet someone you follow has commented on, so it pops up for you. Or, out of curiosity, you click on a trending topic and inadvertently stumble upon it. But however it happens to cross your path, this stray bit of information sticks with you, like the after-feeling of a dream you can’t quite shake. The truthfulness or accuracy of the thing is not theoretically irrelevant, but may be practically so. Maybe it bugs you, discomfits you, troubles you, makes you anxious for a time, and then fades from memory. Or it lingers unexpectedly and becomes the first step toward a radical re-ordering of your worldview, for better or for worse.

      The horrifying part here, for me, isn't that this experience is newly possible, but that the whole industry optimizes for it: maximizing engagement can mean pointing me to squint at endless Facetuned selfies, to contemplate the pros and cons of lip filler I've never seen on a real person in real life. That I have the opportunity to come across these synthetic faces isn't the problem -- it's that Instagram nudges me back towards them. What about your eyelids, it says. Look at this woman who used to look like you, but she fixed her eyelids. It can measure my pause, and that pause says to them that they should dig in more, and they do.

    2. We are not as narrowly rational in our thinking as many would like to believe. Which is why conventional “solutions” to the problems associated with our information ecosystem prove inadequate and may be intractable. The human person, to say nothing of human communities, is not a cognitive machine susceptible to technical tweaks. 

      I wonder if this is exactly right. Conventional "solutions" to bad information environments seem like they have the right of it here; it's conventional "solutions" that focus on changing individuals' responses to those environments that get squiggly.

    1. The more seasoned and experienced a UX person is, the more likely they are to be asking whether realizing user-centered values is even possible under capitalism.

      Oof. This is one part I'm real, real, real glad to be on the backend for.

    2. Foundational UX is where the stuff that makes people really care about UX happens: the human insights, the collaborative exploration, the creative experimentation. For people joining the field, the disjunction between the dream and the reality can feel like a terrible bait and switch. Sold in school on UX as a noble and creative pursuit, they hit the job market to find roles where every chance for nobility and creativity has been carved out and cleaned away in the name of shipping product.

      To some level I'm skeptical that anyone should expect a noble and creative pursuit at the salaries UX designers (appropriately!) command.

    3. Research-driven persona development. Concept models. Cocreation sessions. Task flows. These things didn’t get cut out of UX processes because they were unnecessary. They simply didn’t fit a development process that demands clear accountability for every activity and has no space for foundational work that can’t be predictably packaged up into two-week units.

      I would love to get everyone to write down the three best things that would make their work better that capitalism has squeezed out of their workplace.

    1. Shein’s success is not built upon unfair government subsidies

      This is way too important a claim to get this wrong.

      Shipping, shipping, shipping, shipping, shipping. The subsidies were changed, but I'd love to know how comparable the rates are now: how much does it cost to get something from Guangzhou to Detroit relative to from Tampa to Detroit, and who is paying that difference.

    2. Before that sci-fi future, while consumers are still buying online and having things made and shipped to them, the logical interim conclusion is manufacturers going direct on a global scale, cutting out all of the middlemen, and replacing local know-how with algorithms. 

      Local managerial know-how of course; no one's here talking about being able to automate out the skill of garment manufacture

    3. Shein understands what clothes consumers want now better than anyone with the possible exception of Amazon. 

      This feels overly kind to Amazon (she says unofficially in her unofficial capacity as a young woman who's tried to clothes shop on Amazon)

    4. Everyone knows that China is good at manufacturing. That’s been true for decades. What’s changed is that over the past five years, Chinese companies have caught up, and in some cases surpassed, the rest of the world in its understanding of mobile ecommerce consumer experience. 

      And specifically how that consumer experience needs to look different for global customers!

    5. By 2015, the newly rebranded SheIn, moved to Panyu in Guangzhou. Panyu is to clothes manufacturing what Shenzhen is to electronics (i.e. ground zero, global best-in-class supply-chain ecosystem). All of Shein’s suppliers moved with it. It’s not hard to understand why.Shein had built a reputation for doing something completely revolutionary and unheard of in China’s apparel industry—they actually paid people on time.

      This is a fascinating detail.

    6. Believe it or not, wedding dresses were the first killer category for Chinese ecommerce firms exporting direct to markets like America.

      Again, please believe me that many women around wedding-dress shopping age knew this.

      Can you call it a mystery or surprise when consumers are aware and it's analysts who aren't?

    7. The company’s logo, branding and products are indistinguishable in their professionalism and quality from global industry peers. 

      Dubious. I get a different ambient impression; they're above "anonymous instagram dropshipper" but not by much

    8. Shein describes itself as an “international B2C fast fashion e-commerce platform” with business in more than 220 countries and regions around the world. Nothing Matthew could find on their official website, app or social media accounts references the company’s Chinese origins. In fact, the company is so serious about hiding its Chinese roots that it voluntarily claimed to be from New Jersey. Previously, the About page of Shein’s official website said the company began as “a small group of passionate fashion loving individuals in North Brunswick, New Jersey.” This has since been removed.

      nothing less suspicious than a mysterious company being based in Jersey!

    9. I am a professional tech newsletter writer. I’ve written almost 20,000 words about Chinese giants Tencent and Alibaba. I am an Internet people. And I’d never heard of Shein either.To be fair, though, no one really has.

      ...this seems gendered

    1. In terms of Fraser’s perspectival dualism, one of the main questions raised by contemporary politics is how and why many people who are both economically privileged and culturally included can end up feeling like they are neither of those things.

      This is a great sentence

    2. Arguments about censorship and ‘no-platforming’ of speakers are often driven by the quest for reputational advantage—on the part of institutions, individuals and social movements—and a need to avoid reputational damage.

      No, this is where investment in reputation is showing up: if you give Milo Yiannopoulis a speaking slot at a Named University, that's not just you getting to hear his ideas, that's an investment in his reputation that he capitalizes off. That choice can be immoral without reference to how people are going to judge you for making it.

    3. the task should be to provide a more accurate diagnosis of the decline of liberal norms, not to deny that anything has changed.

      Love how this sentence rescues the author from having to substantiate the idea of a decline of liberal norms

      (My personal sense is that liberal norms are about as strong as they've ever been, but material conditions have changed such that the old amount of norms produces a different result)

    4. Emotion, which behaviourists traditionally studied in wholly observable terms, becomes exclusively observable, a type of public performance that splits off from the part of the self which, for Honneth, needs to be recognized to be fulfilled as personhood.

      Wait, so, the part of the self that needs to be recognized to be fulfilled as personhood used to house emotion, which was always observable (since how else would you have recognition) but now... "Exclusively observable" is such a huge and ludicrous claim

    5. the most powerful man in the world, also a celebrity with 73 million Twitter followers, fixating constantly on how unfairly he was being treated, and how he deserved greater recognition—then extinguished

      Oh ffs. "Extinguished"? Really?

    6. Network effects famously produce power-law distributions, in which a few nodes receive an abundance of connectivity and engagement, while the vast majority receive very little.

      This is a result of the particular ways in which social media renders "content" fungible, I've always thought...

    7. processes of representation are replaced by those of curation: a piece of ‘content’ is extracted from the vast archive of data and shared, as a type of investment—or divestment—in a reputation.

      This isn't how it works! This isn't how it works!!

    8. Value becomes established not in exchange, but as a speculation on the future, calculated on the basis of data from the past—that is, in terms of reputation.

      This doesn't reflect my experience of social media. I'm not really interested in e.g. whether I expect an illustrator I follow to Get Big.

    9. The routinization and industrialization is all at the back-end, where data analytics takes place away from the user’s gaze.

      Recommendation algorithms, not hidden analytics!

    10. In order that the data they collect can be as rich and extensive as possible, platforms—especially social media—need to be spaces where people engage in something like a struggle for recognition.

      This seems like it makes sense around the concept of advertising, but I'm not sure how this is more true of Uber than of a taxicab company that might fire its worst drivers

    11. A novelty of the platform business model is that it allows for market and non-market forms of valuation to be conducted via a single infrastructure.

      Is that new?

    12. Third, they are cross-subsidized, offering ‘free’ services on the basis of revenue earned elsewhere. Finally, they take advantage of their data to constantly tweak their interfaces and rules to attract and retain as many users as possible.footnote9

      These last two criteria seem a bit like poisoning the well if you ask me

    13. Outside of the market—in education, the arts, the media, healthcare and civil society—metrics, league tables, financial accounting and neo-classical economics are pushed as the lingua franca of public justification. This serves to impose a market-like discipline on spheres of social and cultural exchange, establishing fixed indices of how inequalities of merit and achievement are to be judged. As the public sphere becomes increasingly organized around numerical standards of judgement and justification—surveys, ratings, scoring systems—so the potential reach of the market grows. The struggle for recognition is channelled into the terrain of the calculable.

      Incels have articulated this with their talk of "SMV" in a way that people find unsettling, but don't adequately understand enough to combat.

    14. The pessimistic reading of this was that modern critique was now finished, but the optimistic one was equally unsettling for the left: perhaps the quest for inclusion and respect in the market was just as authentic a struggle as any other.

      See: DEI in the workplace

    15. There was a precarious dimension to modern subjectivity, in that truth must emerge from within, yet its validation must be granted socially. ‘What has come about with the modern age’, Taylor argued, ‘is not the need for recognition but the conditions in which the attempt to be recognized can fail’.footnote5

      Woof. I wonder if this is really fair; certainly if you were judged inherently defective by earlier tradition you might feel such conditions had existed.

    1. In the meantime, remember, depression is real. It's among the worst things that can happen to you. But it is beatable.

      I remember snapping at a health professional who called depression not a "severe mental health problem". Anything that can kill people seems like it ought to qualify as severe. But at the same time, what she really meant was the difference between tractable and intractable mental health problems, and that's sort of what "beatable" means here.

    2. Turn it into a story of personal triumph, and repeat that story to yourself.

      For years there was a blank sheet of paper on a door in my parents' house with a title: ACCOMPLISHMENTS. I never filled it in because every time I saw it I'd think, "wait, that's blank, but I've actually done a lot since then" and mentally tally up what I'd managed. Framing my accomplishments as "actually a lot more than zero, hey" has been very helpful to me.

    3. But this is a very difficult thing to do, because a coherent, believable narrative is a rare thing, and you never quite know what will stick and what will be rejected.

      For me, I remember spending a lot of time/energy feeling like... if I wasn't constantly castigating myself for being dogshit, then that constituted self-delusion. Having someone I thought was probably doing okay in the sanity department squint at me and go "uh you seem like you're fine morally speaking?" was massively helpful even if that recalibration wasn't super persuasive to my gut instincts.

    4. Also, you should realize that just because your depressed friend or family member is unresponsive, that doesn't mean that you aren't doing him or her a lot of good.

      Some of the most helpful stuff never looked like it helped me at all.

    5. Coming out of depression, I've found, is like having your emotional system turned back on. But when it's turning back on, it sputters and backfires. You feel incredibly raw.

      Also, when you're trying really hard to make things Better, seeing any kind of backslide then triggers a lot more catastrophizing than a static shittiness.

    1. Even for many Jews passionately opposed to Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, supporting Palestinian refugee return remains taboo. But, morally, this distinction makes little sense. If it is wrong to hold Palestinians as non-citizens under military law, and wrong to impose a blockade that denies them the necessities of life, it is surely also wrong to expel them and prevent them from returning home. For decades, liberal Jews have parried this moral argument with a pragmatic one: Palestinian refugees should return only to the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether that is where they are from, as part of a two-state solution that gives both Palestinians and Jews a country of their own. But with every passing year, as Israel further entrenches its control over all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterannean Sea, this supposedly realistic alternative grows more detached from reality. There will be no viable, sovereign, Palestinian state to which refugees can go. What remains of the case against Palestinian refugee return is a series of historical and legal arguments, peddled by Israeli and American Jewish leaders, about why Palestinians deserved their expulsion and have no right to remedy it now. These arguments are not only unconvincing but deeply ironic, since they ask Palestinians to repudiate the very principles of intergenerational memory and historical restitution that Jews hold sacred. If Palestinians have no right to return to their homeland, neither do we.

      Look, I have always thought that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of those things that white Christian Americans should be a lot less loud about and a lot less confident about. And to some extent I still feel like it's stupid for me to say my opinion on the topic should matter. But since I've become more aware of how it's my government that's funding a lot of really awful stuff, I've come to think that this issue is necessarily part of any American's politics, even if through silence they endorse the status quo.

      This paragraph is controversial for historically contingent reasons but also seems really, really simple. Is it actually more complicated than that because of things I'd be ignorant of, or is invoking complexity a veil people want to throw over something they don't want to look at?

    1. Chipotle’s slogan might be “food with integrity,” but its business model is about dishonesty, disrespect, and downright endangerment of workers.

      This is a bummer. Anyone have any comparable chains they like that aren't, uh, bottom-of-the-barrel corporate-citizenship-wise? Doesn't even have to be Mexican-food-adjacent, but points for veg options.

    1. settlers should first look not to the science fiction that influenced the men trying to bring us to those worlds, but to our own world’s polar regions, and ask themselves if they should try that first, instead.

      This conclusion is backwards. It isn't that "we should use our space-colony motivation to push us to explore Antarctica". Understanding why "the frontier" was colonized and what the real motivations and costs were, and why that hasn't applied to Antarctica is the way to start understanding why space colonization is a really, really, really stupid thing to spend resources on.

    2. Robinson spoke at a conference a decade ago where he noted that the exploration of Antarctica is a more relevant analog for trying to accurately anticipate extraterrestrial exploration. A trip into the American west was something relatively easy for someone to take on: they could count on being able to find food and supplies on the way, and some sort of economic reward at the end. Expeditions to the South Pole are a far more costly endeavor, one that requires considerable planning, logistics, and supplies to survive in the harsh environment. The South Pole is the only place on Earth without an indigenous population, and is only home to people (anywhere from fifty to two hundred) in research facilities.

      You know, this is maybe a best counterargument to the "Planet B" mindset. Why would a Mars colony be a Thing when an Antarctic colony isn't?

    3. In his 2010 paper for the Journal of Cosmology, The Problem of Human Missions to Mars, Dr. Michael F. Robinson highlighted that historical analogies brought to the field of exploration, noting that “when we peel away the ancillary arguments for human spaceflight (e.g. benefits to spinoff technology, employment, or national soft power) we find that core arguments rely heavily upon the use of historical analogies,” and that those associations rely on certain assumptions—that humans have always been explorers, citing examples of how our ancestors have migrated across the world throughout history. But there’s little evidence to support that line of argument, Robinson argues. “The lesson from history appears to show the reverse: that humans have sought out an increasingly settled lifestyle based upon agriculture and industry, foregoing the risks of nomadic travel.” Furthermore, the explorations out of Europe and Asia throughout the global age of exploration weren’t undertaken in the name of romantic discovery: they were for the purpose of commerce, either by discovering new riches to exploit, or by marking out more efficient paths upon which trade could flow. Indeed, even our expeditions into orbit and to the Moon weren’t initially shouldered out of the goal of scientific knowledge: they were demonstrations of American (and Soviet) technological prowess in the midst of a long-term, global arms race.

      Demonstrations of technological prowess with intriguing political focus: not demonstrations to the rest of the world exactly, but also to the domestic populace who needed to have those aerospace expenditures romanticized to be justified...

    1. Feeling isolated, virtual study partners create a sense of fellowship. On Study Web, while stressed, students have accepted their lot—they’re not investigating the rightness or wrongness of the pressurized environment of the Gen Z student or asking whether college is worth it at all. 12-hour Study With Me videos are seen as something to aspire to rather than rebel from. Students accept the premise that school and studying are non-negotiables. Where they come from, where they live, their beliefs and value systems are not barriers to community-building; they suffer in common. 

      This seems a little half-baked only because -- well, "people should be pushing to find alternative paths, not just accepting the shitty one in front of them" is also a narrative that assumes "finding alternative paths" is sort of.... possible... in a way it isn't necessarily.

    2. there’s an inescapable undercurrent of materialism on #StudyTok, suggesting that if you buy the right notebook (Hamelin), pens (MUJI), or keyboard (Moffi), your study problems will be solved.

      I think it's interesting how explicitly studyblr bloggers will talk about using fetish objects to drag motivation out of themselves, rather than efficacy. Using a shiny new highlighter to get some dopamine out of a slog...

    3. Whether or not lo-fi music truly helps you study better is debatable, but the science is largely irrelevant to the tens of thousands of listeners who join live streams each day to hear hours-long mixes of different artists evoking a similar sound: a blend of bland, chill, premium mediocre. 

      I despise the lazy invocation of a messy concept dripping in vague generational disdain, "things used to be good and they're bad now." No one who doesn't understand the intentional use of music as a valuable tool should be writing on this topic.

    4. A key feature of these videos is aesthetics—from the right ruler to the perfect pen. Lighting is an important part of a study creator’s vibe: candles, string lights, salt lamps, and neon lights are all common fare.

      Aestheticization making the unbearable bearable

    1. And—again, this might be the main reason I’m writing this email?—the whole thing is astonishingly televisual. To the film and TV lurkers: GET ON IT.

      Fully agreed. It's heartbreaking that we will never see this because doing it right would require an amount of CGI that then expects to be able to get a return globally, and China would never let this in.

    2. It’s dark fantasy AND it’s sci-fi AND it’s puzzle fiction AND it’s an Adult Swim cartoon AND it’s wry and sarcastic, a profane Daria in space…! In short, it’s an offering from someone who knows what she likes and was not afraid to put ALL OF IT into a novel. It’s possible a friend or editor at some point cautioned her: Tamsyn, this might be a bit much. (If they didn’t, they probably should have.) And, honestly, if she had loaded the book with a hair less energy, spun the story with a touch less charisma, it WOULD have been too much. But these pages sizzle with energy and charisma; the alchemy succeeds; and what might have been a huge mess becomes a wild hybrid genre. Somber rituals, snarky interjections—it WORKS.

      One thing I find notable about the book is that not all these aspects work equally. I find myself cautious about recommending it only because, for instance, if you find unsatisfying puzzles particularly annoying, you may miss the beauty in the overall-successful synthesis.

  2. society.robinsloan.com society.robinsloan.com
    1. Lately I’ve under­stood the word “ambivalent” in a different way. I think its popular defin­i­tion shifted at some point toward “I don’t have an opinion” or “it really doesn’t matter to me”; a kind of cool, low-energy state. But that’s not what the word means at all. To feel ambiva­lent is to have many thoughts at once, some of them contradictory; to hold them, unresolved, in your head. I find this useful because I feel ambiva­lent about a lot of things!

      I am a holder of very strong opinions. There are also many things about which I don't have strong, resolved opinions. They tend to fall into two categories.

      1. I have more high-energy thoughts about the matter than I can convince to take any direction or form, or
      2. I am more aware of my ignorance than my knowledge, and whatever instincts I have about the matter, I know not to trust them.

      I'm not sure there's a good word for the second.

    1. Regarding Gideon the Ninth, James adds: It’s complex but the plot is tightly constructed and it’s FUNNY in a very sarcastic way. But the world? There’s so much to the world and I’m intimidated by how we’re only really given the edge of everything throughout most of the book.

      My horrifying read of where the third volume is going is that there's some significant eco-pessimism that is going to be revealed to underpin the world.

    1. But the drinking that increased was, almost definitionally, of the stuck-at-home, sad, too-anxious-to-sleep, can’t-bear-another-day-like-all-the-other-days variety—the kind that has a higher likelihood of setting us up for drinking problems down the line. The drinking that decreased was mostly the good, socially connecting kind.

      I am considering proposing a freeze on my household's ordering food delivery for the same reasons...

    2. (perhaps the loneliest-sounding drinks of all) premixed, single-serve cocktails

      Oh, I disagree with this -- this is what you pick up when you're trying to accommodate a group with varied tastes but you don't want the fuss of mixing individual drinks for everyone. My generation is somewhat bifurcated around the taste of hops, so it's not surprising to see people reaching for the non-beer equivalent of a beer variety pack.

    3. Even drinking in bars has become less social in recent years, or at least this was a common perception among about three dozen bartenders I surveyed while reporting this article. “I have a few regulars who play games on their phone,” one in San Francisco said, “and I have a standing order to just refill their beer when it’s empty. No eye contact or talking until they are ready to leave.” Striking up conversations with strangers has become almost taboo, many bartenders observed, especially among younger patrons. So why not just drink at home? Spending money to sit in a bar alone and not talk to anyone was, a bartender in Columbus, Ohio, said, an interesting case of “trying to avoid loneliness without actual togetherness.”

      I used to go out and drink a beer while reading a book or journaling to have an excuse to eavesdrop aggressively. This still felt like an amelioration of my loneliness even if it's obvious that lots of other things would have been better if I could have managed them.

    4. Almost all of the heavy-drinking women Glaser interviewed drank alone—the bottle of wine while cooking, the Baileys in the morning coffee, the Poland Spring bottle secretly filled with vodka. They did so not to feel good, but to take the edge off feeling bad.

      I would love to read a historical survey of "self-medication" -- the concept, the popular understanding, the manifestations...

    5. Having combed through decades’ worth of literature, Creswell reports that in the rare experiments that have compared social and solitary alcohol use, drinking with others tends to spark joy and even euphoria, while drinking alone elicits neither—if anything, solo drinkers get more depressed as they drink.

      I'm liking the self-help-y clarity of this piece. Don't drink high ABV drinks, don't drink alone...

    6. At a talk he later gave on wu-wei at Google, Slingerland made much the same point about intoxication. During the Q&A, someone in the audience told him about the Ballmer Peak—the notion, named after the former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, that alcohol can affect programming ability. Drink a certain amount, and it gets better. Drink too much, and it goes to hell. Some programmers have been rumored to hook themselves up to alcohol-filled IV drips in hopes of hovering at the curve’s apex for an extended time.

      Well this is a real embarrassment for everyone involved.

    7. The damage done by alcohol is profound: impaired cognition and motor skills, belligerence, injury, and vulnerability to all sorts of predation in the short run; damaged livers and brains, dysfunction, addiction, and early death as years of heavy drinking pile up. As the importance of alcohol as a caloric stopgap diminished, why didn’t evolution eventually lead us away from drinking—say, by favoring genotypes associated with hating alcohol’s taste? That it didn’t suggests that alcohol’s harms were, over the long haul, outweighed by some serious advantages.

      One of the most fun parts of this is that -- people who want to decrease their drinking often speak of how they wanted to change the social effects of alcohol in their life: that they were interacting with others dysfunctionally because of alcohol, that they were spending time and energy on things that didn't really matter to them, that they got into unsafe situations... There is a weird idea in this paragraph that maybe one should avoid the impaired cognition and organ damage but not miss out on socializing like people who drink.

  3. May 2021
    1. “There is not a safe level of benzene that can exist in sunscreen products,” stated Dr. Christopher Bunick, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Dermatology at Yale University. “Even benzene at 0.1 ppm in a sunscreen could expose people to excessively high nanogram amounts of benzene.”

      The list of products that had it is real Neutrogena heavy; Hawaiian Tropic didn't have any detected, but the much fancier Anthelios did! (There's a separate list you can check to see if your sunscreen was tested and had none.)

      I am really glad for all the safety testing that's done by the FDA... and I would be even gladder if they were the ones finding this.

    1. A December Bank of America Research report called "OK Zoomer" found that the pandemic will impact Gen Z's financial and professional future in the same way that the Great Recession did for millennials. 

      God, I hope this ends up a cause of solidarity. There is too much at stake.

    1. Surveys in many countries show that young people would like to be having more children, but face too many obstacles.

      Super weird that this whole article mentions a ton of one-time bonuses for parents but doesn't actually dig into care infrastructure.

      In the USA, we decided we were willing to spend on social eldercare and not on childcare. (Not enough on elder care, either, but that's neither here nor there) The result shouldn't be shocking.

    1. Marshall McLuhan once pointed out that the myth of Narcissus is frequently misinterpreted. It is not love that causes the youth to stare at his image, but profound alienation. The point of the myth is that “men at once become fascinated by any extension of themselves in any material other than themselves.” Stare too long at the objectivized self and you will become the dead matter you behold. The alienation will eventually subside, and you will begin to identify so fully with the daimon that the interior self disappears.

      Bleak! Interesting! Good! Definitely deserves more evaluation in the digital context!!!

    2. But what do they have to say about us? So little of it is revelatory. This product, the algorithms claim, was purchased by “people like you.” “Since you like dark indie comedies … ”

      I've always enjoyed the idea that the flattening aspects algorithms of consumption put the lie to the capitalist idea that consumption can meaningfully define the individual qua individual.

      (hmm, that sentence I've just written could be made more clear....)

    3. Writing is no longer considered a technology, but in its early days, it, too, was criticized for distorting a person’s image. The problem, Socrates complains in Plato’s Phaedrus, is that consciousness dies the moment it hits the page. Ask the written words a question, and they will not answer. “They go on telling just the same thing forever.”

      Cf. "early Kant" vs. "late Kant" or other such constructed figures.

    4. For the Greeks, character was fate. The command of the Delphic oracle—“Know thyself”—was not a mandate to plumb the soul but rather to accept the role that nature had assigned you, like an actor accepting a role in the theater. It’s not the kind of advice you hear very often in modern America, but fatalism, as my friend noted, has comforts of its own.

      My sense has always been that fate sets us each particular challenges we may rise to meet. These are not the challenges we would have chosen for ourselves; some aspirations are denied us, while other things are made easy that might otherwise have meant struggle. The actor's role still has an arc.

    5. Once you accepted that your character was immediately transparent, there was no pressure to keep up appearances. If I felt nervous about how I was coming off throughout the semester, she advised, I should remember that the students’ minds were already made up. They’d had me figured out before I’d placed my supplies on the desk the first day, and nothing I could do would change it.

      I remember the realization that, looking at the different people in my life, no amount of "flattering" or "unflattering" clothing meaningfully altered my ability to see the size of their body. This was hugely liberating. Who cares if stripes "make me look fat" if everyone can already see how fat I am (or am not)?

  4. Mar 2021
    1. But what seems like high technology to us now might seem like a law of nature to future generations. Having forgotten the origin of the computers that permeate their world, people might take them to be an innate feature of the universe.

      This author seems rather unfamiliar with the amount of labor that goes into conjuring the world-permeating computers.

    2. Other mammals possess these same brain areas and show analogous behavior.

      Once you're eliding behavior into your definition of consciousness, I'm no longer rooting for you.

    3. Neuroscientists have some evidence for the latter. Consciousness seems to be a specific cognitive function performed by identifiable brain mechanisms that not all species possess.

      I'm not sure if this is true from evidence or from definition.

    4. Modern hardware and software have gotten so complicated that they resemble the organic: messy, unpredictable, inscrutable. In machine learning, engineers forswear any detailed understanding of what goes on inside.

      Haven't technosocial scholars long told us all technological systems, when adequately contextualized, have these properties?

    5. A light might fail to turn on or might go out for lack of motion, or maybe for lack of any discernible reason. The house seems to have a mind of its own.

      I wonder if previous technologies felt less like this because people had greater understandings of them (rather than because they were essentially simpler)

    1. Another key factor is Gen Z’s rediscovery of PoliticalCompass.org, a Web 1.0 site that, via six sets of prompts with which a user is asked to dis/-identify, generates an approximate position on the Political Compass’s X/Y axis of Left to Right, Authoritarian to Libertarian.

      Oh Jesus, really? Poor Gen Z.

    2. an unwitting loyalty to the platform and, by extension, to the shareholders of Alphabet and Facebook, Inc

      This is ridiculous. Actual murder is actual transgression, regardless of subsequent participation in the attention economy.

    3. Actual power is controlling the means by which lesser power can be displayed—i.e., congrats on the 500K likes on your polling numbers, @jack still owns all your tweets.

      Not the means by which it can be displayed, but the means by which it chooses to display itself.

    4. it’s a swarm-led form of para-governance programmed to maximize engagement while obfuscating responsibility for the social and environmental damage it wreaks

      "programmed" -- term implies control and intent. This is nonsense.

    5. the internet, a massively lucrative space of capitalization, profits off the personal expression and political conflict of its users

      Bit of a hand-wave here -- is it "the internet" that profits? Why are we collapsing the Google profit model with the Apple profit model and the AWS profit model? Are they meaningfully the same? Doesn't that need to be asserted?

    1. Writing is a form of communication, without an audience it gets lost and meanders to and fro. Just like music, poetry, a conversation or a tree falling in the forest, without a witness writing doesn't exist. If you write a diary but never read it, you never wrote that diary. If you write an email but it isn't delivered, you never wrote that email. If you write a blog entry but even the Googlebot doesn't visit, then you never wrote that blog entry. Writing is predicated on consumption.

      This doesn't feel accurate to me. I remember furious journaling that was the only way to relieve pressure in my adolescent mind. Verbal trepanning.

      And writing for one's future self has meant so much to me -- no, I don't believe in this view.

    1. And while I do not want to officially dictate how my projects are used, I wish to make things a bit more low profile, and encourage listeners to experiement with other, more personally responsible, controlled, contextual and meaningful forms of distribution and support. In other words, I wished to quietly keep the music acting queerly. Sadly, my actions, which were in some way intended as a gesture of humility and smallness, were transformed into arrogant property claims.

      Again, there is tension here -- the "open hypocrisy". To make things more low profile she must officially dictate how her projects are used, and she does.

      Is this "acting queerly" in a digital context? (Not a rhetorical question meant to suggest the answer must be "no"; a real question to think about)

    2. I could only think of the night before, and how wonderful it would have been to meet someone that excited and curious because they couldn't find any sound examples online, and positioned that absence in relation to something being "underground."

      I knew a guy from his working as a barista in a cafe I visited a lot. His real Thing was his underground rock band. They toured internationally and were still underground. He talked about how they weren't really meant to get big. I have pondered how he spoke about that in my heart for years when I think about art and mass appeal.

    3. I call them assholes, because whenever I play a track they cannot identify they insist I tell them what it is - and get really angry when I refuse... which invariably means as soon as their app identifies another track they are back in my face, smugly, like, "How ya like me now, bitch? Thought you lost me there for a minute, didn't you?" There are no kudos for a DJ finding a special offline track to share with the dancers in that moment. Club goers have increasingly little desire to process the club experience in reality - only via online devices. It's social-media-online-app-smart-phone-always-online-fuck-you-I-own-this-world culture at its most annoying, and ultimately most meaningless.

      I have a lot to say about this chunk that I can't put into words mostly because the ease of finding things digitally that have been brought into my life through social means is very important to me. It's important because there is meaning in "this is a track I heard Terre Thaemlitz play in a DJ set" or "this is a band my ex-boyfriend was really into" that there isn't in "this is a track Spotify algorithmically selected and put on my Discover Weekly." In my life, being able to preserve the experience of the track played at the club is trying to maintain a social context in my general consumption of music. The expectation of ephemerality vs. the expectation of identifiability -- not sure there's a Good Side and a Bad Side to this one.

    4. Maybe because, as a result of the climate they have created, these days my website is to their social media what the 'mom and pop shop' is to the shopping mall.

      This is the quote that dogstar referenced that drew me here. It's a comparison that bears even more fruit when you consider the contemporary decay of the shopping mall and the peculiarly physical aspects that one would have understood to be the mall's advantage over the mom and pop shop.

    5. Rather, they are about an eradication of any specificity of context and audience that occurs when information is shared through populist models of making all information available to everyone.

      Specificity has decayed in digital culture. Can it be rebuilt? Is it inherently unreachable? (If someone mentions crypto-anything I'll find a way to punch you through the internet)

    6. I did not wish to act like an anti-piracy agent

      And yet that's exactly what the behavior is!

      The lack of an economic motive doesn't make what she's doing there magically different. (I would note that when she points to allowing a recording to stay up because she felt it qualified under fair use, she is acting differently than the anti-pirates do.)

    7. I presented them with all of the links on their website that I had followed when filing my removal request, proving that there was no mention anywhere about claimants being publicly named - which they duly ignored. I asked if they could at least remove my name from the copyright claim notices (ie., editing it down to just "no longer available" or "no longer available due to a copyright claim"), but they said they could not.

      This is also interesting. Deletion of material from the internet leaves scar tissue. What are the benefits and costs of allowing such a thing to be anonymous? It seems YouTube's rules are in this one small thing not aligned towards copyright holders, but toward site users... Rare, for them.

    8. replacing removed videos with a statement like, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Terre Thaemlitz." YouTube and the rest are such corporate zombies that they can't imagine there being any other basis for someone wanting content removed

      This is fascinating because it doesn't seem quite right. A copyright claim is the rationale by which she has the right to demand removal, not the basis for such a demand. Later on she speaks of "copyrighting recordings" in a way that also suggests an understanding of copyright that doesn't line up with what I think I understand.

    9. I strongly believe that, in the face of today's dominant internet strategies which emphasize populism, there is a real necessity to cultivate offline forms of digital culture. This means sharing information in more controlled and precise ways than generic upload-archiving, such as through hard formats or direct and encrypted file transfer between known persons. People become so indoctrinated in dominant cultural nonsense about information's value only being determined by the breadth of its distribution, that we have culturally lost skills for understanding secrets, and their protective power. This is even happening in queer and transgendered communities, which historically rely on strategies that step in and out of closets...

      This is something absolutely all of us should be thinking more about. Friction in acquisition of digital content can be constructive as well as destructive. The model of "control" we have is the user account and it's simply not good enough.

    10. What possible reason could there be for continuing to list pages of removed content months after the fact?

      Later in the piece she acknowledges she didn't quite understand how linking here-and-there works, so don't judge her for asking this question to which you might feel there is one obvious answer.

    11. their only real concern was that any content in Wikipedia must be usable for free throughout perpetuity... but in the realm of copyright, aren't 'perpetuity clauses' the first sign of a bad contract? Doesn't the very concept of perpetuity bely one party's desire to unfairly control, and an absence of trust?

      The rejoinder is naturally "well, maintaining all those relationships and permissions just won't scale." Scale is depersonalizing.

    12. Part of the blame also lays with copyleft, which uses near fundamentalist fervor to argue that "sharing" only exists outside of the realm of copyright

      This is dead on. A capitalist exchange is depersonalizing; "open source" often no less so.

    13. However, it was not for the usual reasons, such as a fear of lost royalties, or a legal reassertion of authorship rights.

      It absolutely was a reassertion of authorship rights, if not for the reason of protecting their legal status.

    14. you can't keep original or profound meanings intact

      Ignorance of context obviously creates its own profound meanings. I suppose this lament is one of the modern era moving into the post-modern -- am I meant to weep for originality qua originality? I can't, because I am a child of the latter.

    1. this ever-receding past or future in which I am good at talking to people, in which I can love the people I love skillfully and generously and in which I can be loved without condition, in which I have enough money to no longer be worried all the time, in which I am beautiful enough not to be angry at everyone anymore

      Ironically I think I have always felt like the kind of person I want to be is the kind of person who goes to the party, not even the kind of person who does the party well. This seems to be much less anxiety-inducing in this one way.

    2. Lately this is my attitude toward my own life as well, or the one I had before last March, which now appears to me only as a long list of things I took for granted. I feel guilty when I talk about how much I miss parties. I was often terrible at them, nervously failing to make conversation, cancelling plans or hoping someone else would cancel. I felt all the time like an overdue and unfinished assignment, I promise I’ll be done soon, just let me stay home until I am. Let me just wait until I look better, until I have more money, until I’m more successful, until nothing is wrong.

      It's interesting to think about my own awareness of how many ways I've reached my previous wait-untils. I am blessed and grateful and still probably inadequately aware of how free I am, free in ways I was not always free.

    3. Nothing looks like the past so much as the things that were supposed to look like the future. The 1970s thought it was the future; it is the last decade for which I was not alive at all. Perhaps this part of the past seems idyllic and permissive to people my age specifically because we were not part of it; it is a landscape free of ourselves, free of the limits and facts of our lives, our bodies, and our histories. If only we could get back to a place before ourselves, we could shake free of the things that obligate us, that make us petty and small and unkind.

      This is a lovely thought about nostalgia (which is a word Nathalie Lawhead is probably correct in criticizing for being applied one-size-fits-all to the past).

      The world before me was the world before AOL let people onto Usenet.

    1. That scenario has been part of every conversation we’ve had about how all of this is going to go; it’s hideous and very real and we do not pretend otherwise. But if we don’t imagine how it can be different, and how we can actively resist that capitalism’s natural inclination, then we surrender to that vision.

      I feel so bleak about this. How do we stop things from being like those awful gig economy customer service jobs, for everyone, forever?

    2. most people do still want to see their co-workers in some capacity

      I wonder if this can actually be worked out with free choice. Senior people around me tend to want more unbothered time. Junior people around me tend to want to learn from others. The interests don't align.

    3. When we’re no longer confined to our homes, just think of all the options that will open to you: you can work at a coffee shop, of course, but you can also work…..with your friends? A lot?

      I have been able to imagine more freely what real estate and people's choices about places to live will look like post-pandemic. I don't know why I'm finding the idea of working with friends so stunning.

      Did anyone ever have study parties with friends in high school? We did. Some were very unproductive and some were very productive.

      Intentionality of coming together can ground a window of time.

    1. the camera would cut back to Stewart, his face frozen in some emoji mask of shock: eyes wide, mouth agape.

      One interesting aspect is how much the form relied on pairing the feeling of "is anyone else seeing this??"/"DAE object to this injustice" with a single witty line. The line wouldn't be good enough to justify the joke if it hadn't been the punctuation on the viewer's relief, ah, yes, we are having the same emotional reaction to this together, I am not alone.

    2. TikTok enables, for video and audio, the type of combinatorial evolution that Brian Arthur describes as the underlying mechanism of the tech industry's innovation.

      Short-form, though! We can't underestimate how bound up TikTok's whole thing is with the fact the videos just aren't allowed to be that long. It's possible for everything to iterate at a very different pace; your audiences don't mind a bad recommendation when it takes seconds to get past it (something quite different than "you need to watch a couple of seasons of this show to get into it").

    3. Someone told me that if you watch TikTok for over an hour it posts a warning asking you to consider taking a break. I'm not sure if that's the case

      lmao it is not, ask me how I know

    4. I find some comfort sometimes when I find some TikTok that feels so catered to my tastes that it must be a micro-niche and then see it has millions of likes.

      Pretty hollow relative to actual social connection over such things, right? Striking up a conversation at the plant nursery or such.

    5. I still think Instagram is a more welcoming home for pure thirst trap content than TikTok, where, if you want to honeytrap the simps, you're going to have to dance for it.

      YMMV. See: POV content.

    6. it's staggering to ponder how many more videos TikTok would have if its video editor were more usable.

      Instagram makes it very hard to get a picture and timelapse from Procreate, a very popular digital painting app, into a single post. This is because it would deform the careful ephemerality of its more social interactions--remember how long it took before you could post any prerecorded anything to a story?

    7. TikTok is the modern MTV because (1) it increases consumption of music tracks that go viral on its platform as sounds and (2) any number of songs will forever summon the accompanying meme and visual choreography from my memory.

      The thing I find most interesting about this for TikTok is how it can bring back an old song with new visuals. The scene kid revival, Fleetwood Mac's Dreams, etc. Music of youth endlessly young.

    8. Until later in life, children think you should know exactly what they're feeling, and it takes a bit of coaxing to tease out their inner emotional state.

      I don't know exactly where this is going for him, but it's interesting to me that in order to identify what was going on in my own emotional life I consumed media (books, really) by/for adults, with greater depth than I had. Is there some degradation in how we are able to find media matching our inner states provided by people just like us, without any greater understanding? Connection without insight.

    9. What Ricky Desktop talks about above is a different process in which he scores to visuals that only exist in his imagination, generic dance tropes like "pretend to play the flute".

      How does it impact culture when mechanisms of collaboration are so indirect? Do the connections have to thus be very generic?

    10. TikTok's "OODA loop" is collective and distributed, and it spins thousands of times faster than that of big media.

      Uncomfortably connected to its sidelining of copyright: it spins uncompensated.

    11. TikTok's needs to improve its search ranking algorithm. Trying to find popular TikTok's I remembered seeing back in the day was much harder than it should have been using TikTok's native search. A couple that I wanted to use I just couldn't locate, and even Google and YouTube didn't turn them up (a thing you realize after trying to do it more than once is how hard it is to create a comprehensible search query for certain TikTok's).

      This you can be sure it has no reason to do. Remember, it's a company store -- why would they want you to take control over your discovery?

    12. Another feature I wish TikTok would add is the ability to sort by descending popularity on any grid of videos, like on sound or profile pages. Please.

      Why should it? It could rank them by how likely it thinks you are to like them. Objective popularity is not relevant in the little bubble world it creates for us.

      I don't think I mean that disparagingly. I like my TikTok bubble world. It has lots of houseplants and otters and lesbians. I don't like the TikTok dance videos, so I don't engage with them, so it doesn't matter how massively popular they are -- they don't have to exist for me.

    13. Of course, we're all just in our FYP feeds, which just scrolls up endlessly, so it isn't an actual space. But we trust the visible view counts as evidence FYP is doing its job getting many of us with the same tastes in front of the same videos, and so this evidence of common knowledge creates a liminal third place that exists [waves hands at the air in front of me] out there. I’ve tended to think of social networks as being built by people assembling a graph of people bottoms up, but perhaps I’ve been too narrow-minded. TikTok might not qualify by that definition, but it feels social, with FYP as village matchmaker.

      Terrifying, terrifying, terrifying! Why? Because the app points you to just let the algorithm make your choices -- there's no nudging-nudging-nudging to follow creators you like when it can detect you like them and serve them up to you anyway. Which then means the parasocial relationship you would have on a platform like YouTube now exists, but is entirely mediated by the discovery algorithm. If it's a village matchmaker, it's a matchmaker who has to come along on every date you ever have together. If it's a third place, it's a third place to which TikTok owns the title.

    14. That's why opening the comments and finding that one of the first few comments perfectly encapsulates your reaction, then seeing it already has tens or hundreds of thousands of likes, is so comforting. This confirmation of a shared response creates, asynchronously, a passing score on a form of the Voight-Kampff test. It's a checksum on your humanity.

      Again, really interesting because I have always hated this feeling when I've experienced it on Reddit or what-have-you.

    15. Reading the comments on TikTok serves a communal function. It's like hearing the laughter of the crowd at a comedy show.

      It's interesting to me how much he emphasizes this because I hate reading the comments. Swiping through TikTok emulates the quick dopamine bursts of Twitter content without making me feel like I'm in a Comments Section as do Twitter, Facebook, etc., providing the same "just the videos, ma'am" experience as seeing a film in a theatre. When a comment is picked out for a video response that I end up seeing, four times out of five it feels like it was a staged / fake comment to begin with, so it doesn't bother me.

    16. One measure of a platform's power is the number of things people make with it that you had never been made before. Every week, I find videos on TikTok that I can't imagine having been made on any other app.

      This is a really excellent insight, and inextricable from the power of the platform is the power of the cultural context that incentivizes this creation.

    17. TikTok comments are a form of distributed annotation.

      But terribly unsemantic, unlike the video combinations. This is probably for careful reasons mortals outside Bytedance have no ability to understand.

    18. a mix of a centrally planned economy and a free market

      Only if we are entirely disregarding the actual economics of what TikTok is, though, right? The economy isn't one of video game gold, but attention -- and the attention economy of the app is something in which the market's manager has an extreme interest.

    19. The Discover page acts as the Fed in the central economy of memes on TikTok, while the FYP algorithm is the interest rate on meme distribution.

      This doesn't feel like the right comparison to me. The Fed is an entity operating for the public interest and engaged in a careful balancing act. The TikTok discovery algorithms are the gatekeeper for most consumption on the app and have no counterbalancing interest beyond maximizing consumption.

      Also, if I'm wrong about its interests, no one has any way to know because it's entirely private.

      I think I'm saying something like: TikTok is a company town with a company store where all economic activity takes place.

    20. This is why TikTok's network effects of creativity matter. To clone TikTok, you can't just copy any single feature. It's all of that, and not just the features, but how users deploy them and how the resultant videos interact with each other on the FYP feed.

      I wonder if this is true. Don't users experience the internet on a meta level with topics popping up on Tumblr screenshots on their IG feed, tweets screenshotted for Facebook groups... Is the micro-zeitgeist of a moment limited to an app's walled garden? How do group chats fit into the answer to that question?

    21. a form of assisted evolution

      I know some people would argue they're essentially the same, but I'm more comfortable thinking of TikTok in terms of a market than in terms of evolution. For one, it makes it clearer which parts are agents and which aren't. For another, saying "assisted" glosses over some of the most interesting ways in which the design decisions of the app have their influence.

    22. at least on TikTok there is a chance, with time stamps and some of the literal links the app creates between videos, to trace the origin of memes more easily.

      This shouldn't be in a sidebar because I think it's one of the more interesting aspects of the whole piece. By making its remix functionality first-class within the app, no semantic relationships need to be lost. This is huge. Soundcloud can let me hear remixes and works built from samples, but doesn't let me navigate through those relationships. Photo editing apps can let you overlay one thing on top of another, but good fuckin' luck getting back to the original ingredients. Mixel, mentioned, has that semantic aspect within it -- but probably a better example would be browsing memes ("no you mean image macros") from a particular format within a meme making tool. Maybe the reason why Mixel and sampled music don't have the equivalent is that artists seeking out ingredients don't benefit from these semantic paths in the way that someone trying to follow a conversation through a path of responses does.

    23. Given we know innovation compounds as more ideas from more people collide, it's stunning how many tech firms, even ones that ostensibly tout the value of openness, have launched services that do a better job of letting their users exchange ideas than any internal tool does for their own employees’ ideas.

      There is a particular internal thing with which the author may be familiar that I desperately want to talk about but can't. Gah!

    24. Most of the best ideas in tech first appeared in science fiction books in the 1960s, and many of those are still waiting for their time to come

      This makes me queasy to read for reasons I think ought to be more or less obvious. Is it true that those are the best ideas?

    25. Gossip litigates and fleshes out the boundaries of acceptable behavior within groups. Whereas gossip used to be contained, social networks now give it global distribution.

      A historian should weigh in here. Scandals of the past fascinate me because of how they were important as opportunities to publicly litigate moral boundaries, the boundaries people more privately encountered (violated?) in their own lives.

    26. Yes, there's no reason you need to react to everything. But it's human nature. This is the social contract of the social media era. If you dare to shout your opinion or publish your work to the masses, the masses can choose to shout back.

      I don't think you can call this human nature when app creators spend so, so, so much thought / effort / time / money on training people to engage in this way.

    27. This is another of the nested feedback loops within the global feedback loop that is the FYP talent show. Once one example of this went viral, then the entire community adopted this as one of the norms of the community.

      (more or less obviously) thereby increasing one's inclination to engage in the comments if you believe you might be deigned with Interaction. Senpai, notice, etc. etc.

    28. Knowing that TikTok has a Stitch feature, you can also post a question in a video and expect that some number of people will use Stitch an answer to your question and distribute that as a new video.

      One interesting thing about the opacity of the attention algorithms is that you are always posting for no one and for everyone. On Tumblr it might have a tone of self-importance to survey a small group of followers in some vague way. On TikTok your vagueness can be justified: you might be talking to millions, after all.

    29. By network effects of creativity, I mean that every additional user on TikTok makes every other user more creative. This exists in a weak form on every social network and on the internet at large. The connected age means we are exposed to so much from so many more people than at any point in human history. That can't help but compound creativity.

      I am idly curious if it would be possible to measure how much the availability of content to consume detracts from one's inclination to create. "I wanted to write the kind of story I didn't get to read" -- a motivation to prompt new creation even if that "kind" had existed inaccessibly.

    30. This piece is long, but if you get bored in any one section, you can just scroll on the next one; they're separated by horizontal rules for easy visual scanning. You can also read them out of order. There are lots of cross-references, though, so if you skip some of the segments, others may not make complete sense. However, it’s ultimately not a big deal.

      One interesting thing about this is that experimentation with form is limited by reader habits. If years of university made me uncomfortable skimming I'm not going to engage in the intended way. I am remembering something apocryphal about Erik Satie's furniture music, the audience attending politely and having to be encouraged to treat it as the background sound it was intended to be. Apps and interfaces are scary when they cue us with dark patterns, but it's also possible to use that power to coax your audience into new forms.

  5. Feb 2021
    1. The notion that scientific theories vie with one another in open competition overlooks the fact that research ambitions and funding choices are shaped by both big-p and small-p politics. There is a reason why more scientific progress has been made in drugs for the treatment of diseases of wealth than of poverty.

      It is also interesting that when you try to explain why science matters (the positive motivation as above) you wouldn't make the case with purely disinterested facts floating apart from the world. It's only when your back's against the wall, epistemologically speaking, that these abstractions are deployed.

    2. science was a special example of the general liberal virtues that can be cultivated only in the absence of tyranny.

      I'll admit that this strain of historical interpretation has been pretty prominent in what I've read.

    3. if a scientist explains nuclear technology to a bellicose despot, but leaves the ethical choice of deployment to the despot, we wouldn’t say that the scientist had acted responsibly.

      I feel like there definitely are people who would defend this

    4. A darker way of rendering the Popper vs Strangelove story is to say that falsification offers moral non-accountability to its adherents. A scientist can never be accused of supporting the wrong cause if their work is not about confirmation. Popper himself declared that science is an essentially theoretical business. Yet it was a naïve scientist working during the Cold War who didn’t realise the significance of their funding source and the implications of their research.

      An essentially theoretical business! I wonder how this relates to the mushy public understanding of the division between science and engineering.

    5. Strangelove struck at the heart of Popperian ideals, an unreconstructed Nazi operating at the military-industrial nerve-centre of the ‘free world’. As such, he reflected the real-life stories of Nazi war criminals imported by Operation Paperclip to the US to assist in the Cold War effort – a whitewashing project uncovered as early as 1951 by The Boston Globe. Against such a backdrop, the epistemic modesty of Popperian science was appealing indeed. Real scientists, in the Popperian mode, abjured all politics, all truths. They didn’t attempt to know the atom, still less to win wars. They merely attempted to disprove things.

      The schism in the scientific self-image is, I suspect, that no one really derives their positive motivation from falsification. Drive originates from something grander.

    1. A fan favorite is when she soups up the classic vanilla custard filling with a torched crème brûlée ($4) on top of the doughnut, a smoky, sugary sheen to go with a creamy filling with flecks of vanilla beans.

      To be ordered exactly two days ahead! Compared to Blue Star, but I'm more hopeful

    2. Their less-sexy lineup is a better catch: apple-cinnamon pound cake with a dollop of brandy cream, the puck-sized apricot Stilton financier and the pâté à choux with Earl Grey cream for starters.

      SUSU in the international district...