Otoh, Botoh

Behavioral Psych Ops?

2009-07-02T19:39:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting read on the team of behavioral economists in Camp Obama. I've read "Predictably Irrational" (one of the books mentioned) and loved it. I've bought copies for all my friends. It's a fun read, not sure if it was intended to be a keystone to Big Government Policy, but hey that's not my call.

Here's the the money quote of the article. After going on and on re: behavioral influences, and quickly disclaiming how paternalism can easily slide into a nanny-state, the writer adjusts:

But face it: Obama is right. Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary. Our health expenditures are bankrupting the Treasury, and most of our visits to the doctor can be traced to unhealthy behavior. We do need to change, and we know it.

Ah, says who? Most reasonable people will admit that there is a "debate" on our "boiling emissions." Energy use, health expenditures...? As Mamet would say regarding a flimsy movie plot point, "We'll take your word for it."

My point -> "Nudging" people in the right direction sounds like a good idea. But in the end, it's a just a nudge, and last I checked it's a free country brotha. The beauty of America is that someone can sit at a bar with a cigarette and a beer eating a bacon cheeseburger knowing it's absolutely not the best thing for their health - and do it anyway. When the government starts paying for health care, then it's in everyone's interest to prevent this from happening. But it's also in our interest to live life the way we see fit.

A good buddy of mine - who didn't smoke, wasn't obese, didn't binge drink, ate healthy, and was pretty fit - died of cancer at age 23. Not sure how changing his behavior would have changed the outcome of his battle.

I'm not advocating defeatism, but just freedom. It's very possible the next generation will live the right life - and die from diseases we yet not know. As the great Coach Wooden said, "the worst thing you can do for those you love, is to do the things they can do for themselves." Everyone has it in their power to take care of themselves. To think otherwise, well, that's defeatist.

Behavioral economists have another bias they call the "overconfidence bias," which means we're a little too confident in our beliefs.

This one is conveniently left out of the article. Let's see if this team of psychologists guiding the nation's policies practice what they preach. Or in the case of overconfidence, don't.

Go see The Hangover...

2009-06-26T01:03:00.000-07:00

Then read my essay on bachelor parties. Still holds!

Free Business Idea Friday

2009-06-26T00:55:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer

Laundry coins by mail. For people living in apartment buildings with shared washer/dryers, who can't go to the bank because of work. Plus, who really wants to make a special trip to the bank just for coins?

Also applicable for work environments with vending machines.

Free Business Idea Friday Disclaimer

2009-06-26T00:44:00.000-07:00

All business ideas presented here on Fridays under the title "Free Business Idea Fridays" are free of charge. The idea behind presenting them free is that the effort in creating said idea does outweighs the benefits of creation, but that the benefits of said idea in the marketplace are sufficient that if said User out there in the world, heretofore known as You, produce referred product or service, then said poster of the linked-to post, known as Me, would think it rather awesome. If, on such rare occasions that I renege on pursuing such philanthropic (read: selfish) pursuits, and deem the idea profitable (read: more selfish), I will immediately remove the post from this site (Google cache and waybackmachine notwithstanding). However, if You were savvy enough to note such profitability in said idea before me, impossible though not improbable, then You are justly rewarded with a headstart by the laws of all that is right and true for infinity and beyond.

Food nostalgia...

2009-06-22T21:25:00.000-07:00

Feeling oddly nostalgic for childhood foods as of late ...

In related news, strawberry fluff? Wrong in so many ways...

What he did talk about…

2009-06-18T15:39:00.001-07:00

What Mr. Sudjic did talk about about was the line between art and design. The very thin line.

He referenced product designers who painstakingly detailed every curve and button of say – a microwave oven, or calculator, only to have technological advancements turn these products into junk. Of course once they become junk, aka useless, aka, no longer serving their functional requirement – heating food; they can often then, and only then, become art. The example he gave was MOMA, which waited for a particular helicopter to cease production, before hanging it as art.

Kinda like how now a Commodore 64 can be considered art. Or how a few years ago Atari T-shirts were chic.

What occurred to me at the event was that our modern gadgets are like candy. They give a burst of joy, then quickly turn meaningless. Like how a super sour Japanese candy turns into regular sweet boring candy after just 30 seconds.

And for the first time in my life I thought about buying a watch. The watch buyer is consciously looking forward in time. They are buying an object they plan to keep. Some may value this watch to such a degree, that if they were ever captured by the Viet Cong, they would hide it up their ass and give it to Christopher Walken to pass on to their son.

But really, for the longest time, people bought a watch knowing that there will be advancements in watch technology, but not to point of having to replace the watch – unlike our gadgets in which we are pretty much forced (with consent) into upgrading and replacing.

Zocalo – the language of things.

2009-06-18T15:15:00.000-07:00

Went to a Zocalo at the Getty last evening. The only thing better than visiting the Getty in the evening is visiting the Getty in the evening with free parking!

(Note: in an age of taxation, let’s not overlook the power of free parking.)

The lecture was with author, Deyan Sudjic, titled "Why Do We Lust For Objects?", based on his book.

I was actually pretty excited for this lecture because I was hoping to answer a question I’ve been thinking about for some time, namely – why do we lust for things?

Not exactly phrased like that of course, but I’ve always wonder when shiny objects became items of desire. Medievail stories are filled with lust for treasures and the Crown's jewels, and we can even trace currency back to Some Point in History, B.C.

For this, we know there was a transaction, say for 10 sheep.

Buyer: 10 sheep, please.

Seller: OK, that will be 25 sacks of those shiny things people in caves are always gabbering about.

Buyer: Ahhh, yeah, about those sacks.

Seller: Wha- what’s wrong?

Buyer: They’re heavy, man. It’s actually 27 sacks, as I gotta give 2 sacks away to the hunchbacks to help me carry them!

Seller: What can I say? Life sucks, man. Wheel ain’t invented yet.

Buyer: How about I give 25 sacks to the old Jew, and he gives me a parchment, and I give that to you? And you can get them whenever is convenient.

Seller: Are you havin' a laugh…?

Or something like that. So we know how currency started. But when did the lust for the shiny objects begin?

If only the evening titled as such at the Getty addressed it. Don't get me wrong, great time, but the question still remains...

The Optimizers (part I)

2009-06-15T17:15:00.000-07:00

Professor Cockrum pointed to our laptops and said, “these things… they’re making your brains go soft.”

Tough love from a man worth countless millions, who donates his teaching salary back to the school. “All this optimization you’ve been taught, for what...?” he went on, “don’t get lost in the numbers!” That was his mantra - don't get lost in the numbers. This at a school that prides itself on “the numbers,” aka stressing math in the business curriculum. Not more than six months ago all this would have sounded provocative.

With the recent bubble burst now noone trusts the numbers. Consider that for the past decade the world's top banks hired the smartest math wizards, from MIT, Harvard, all PhDs no less, to create their "models." These models were used to allocate the bank's assets. To summarize Taleb, the strength of the model rests not on the numbers within it, but on the assumptions it rests upon.

(This is all pulled from Taleb's "The Black Swan," who explains it much deeper than I. I only offer a sampling here so one can get a flavor for where we're headed.)

Sorta like the foundation to a house. The model could be made of stucco, but if it rests on stilts overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, it loses to a hurricane. Take one assumption - that real estate values will always - always... always, go up. Not stay firm or hold its value. Or track inflation which it's historically done - providing an excellent "invisible" retirement piggy bank for middle-class Americans. No, not this at all. The mood during the bubble was that it would go UP - like Google stock...

And when it didn't, the models failed. And when the models by the smartest math wizards in the country failed, some parts of the bank failed. And depending on how much of the bank relied on the models, that part and then anything related failed. It was a snowball.

A few survived of course. This isn't to claim this is the only reason for what was, and is, a historic collapse which we may, or may not, ever recover from. But it's one reason. And part of it goes back to this idea of optimization.

The idea of optimization says that if you find a good deal, then you can use the combination of a high IQ and computer to make it perfect. In other words, it says you CAN have too much of a good thing.

For instance, let's take a simple allocation of stocks, stocks A and B. Let's assume the goal is risk versus return. This says you want to minimize your risk and maximize your return. Very sensible. This follows on our natural intuition to "have something for nothing."

Now lets' say you studied the market and trends, various rates of return, etc, and you discovered $10 of stock A plus $5 of stock B gave you a nice return for a fair amount of risk. Well, you could be satisfied with this result and try it out. Or you can begin plugging numbers in Excel, run a tool called Solver, and let Excel find in the very best "optimized" allocation - let's say it's $9.88889 of Stock A and $5.11111 of Stock B.

Note you didn't change anything from the first go. You didn't change your "approach" to allocating stocks. You just perfected it. This works when there is one correct answer, like an exam. Or in a competition. If the rules are the same, and I go with the first allocation and you go with the second - you win.

This is why they often call professional sports a battle of inches. If you gain 3 yards a carry, you punt. 3.4 - you carry on.

Of course this is all super-simplistic, but the point here is not think about allocation - it's to consider the idea of optimization. Imagine you now work at bank, you're a math whiz, the new nerdy girl from Stanford just kicked-ass from company C across the street. And people are wondering what's wrong with your model? Do you throw it out the window and start over? Or do you try to squeeze just a little bit more? After all, that's probably what she's doing...

On GM…

2009-06-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

Here’s a suggested solution to the problem of GM. They should grant the hard-working unions 100% ownership of the company. The unions, after all, are the victims in this. They always are, poor guys, always on the wrong-end of things. These poor dudes give 110% each day only to have evil Wall Street and Management run their company into the ground – not to mention the selfish average American dolts craving their gas-guzzling SUVs. What were the hard-working union members to do in the face of this?

They should grant the unions 100% ownership of the company. They deserve it. Let’s not get caught in the details regarding bond-holders, who invested in what they thought was a “safe” investment. People put their family’s wealth, their children’s trusts, retirement money, aka the boring stuff on the line for safe investments, but hey they didn’t make any cars.

With 100% ownership, then, each employee would have incentive to create cars that people want, or even, go out in the market and convince people to buy the cars they really should want to buy because it’s good for Mother Earth. Once done, we would need a to symbolize this ownership, a way for the employee to prove they have ownership. Since it’s not cool to print paper anymore, it could be a .pdf, called “SOHI” for Symbol of Ownership for Hard-working Individual.

GM’s future earnings, if they have any, can then be dispersed to the SOHIs.

Now here’s an interesting part of all this – maybe, MAYBE, sometime in the future a SOHI owner will want to sell their .pdf to a non-hard-working non-union member. Anything is possible, this is America. Imagine the incentive for the entire company.

Of course we could just call SOHIs – stocks, and run GM like every other f’n company in the country.

Podcast Picks of the Day - Futures in Biotech and The Story

2007-08-31T19:06:00.000-07:00

Futures in Biotech
Futures in Biotech 21: Science versus Cancer
Run Time: 1:06:11

Hosted by Marc Pelletier, Futures in Biotech is a podcast focusing on the latest breakthroughs in biotechnology. This episode featured Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a doctor at the University of Alberta, and his discovery of how the cheap, common drug DCA could potentially destroy cancer cells. DCA acts to switch the unique metabolism of cancer cells back to normal, which in turn triggers programmed cell death (apoptosis). There are multiple disclaimers at the end of the episode regarding DCA and its testing. Dr. Evangelos’ provided excellent insight on how cancer cells metabolize differently from normal cells.

The podcast can be found on iTunes and here.

The Story
Listening for Amelia
Run Time: 51:38

Hosted by Dick Gordon, The Story is a daily weekday podcast featuring engaging stories from all walks of life. Amelia Earhart lost communication during her flight around the world on July 2, 1937. On the same day, Betty Klenck Brown was a 15-year-old Californian girl listening to her short wave radio for songs, which she planned to transcribe so she could sing the lyrics without having to purchase the sheet music. After turning the dial, a voice came over the speaker “This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart.” Betty transcribed every word that came through the radio. The transcription became a three-hour, harrowing, one-way distress communication from Amelia and her navigator.

Despite efforts by her father for government involvement, Betty’s journal of the incident stayed dormant for decades until a member of TIGHAR (The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery) came across her journal after hearing a story from Betty’s neighbor. Ric, a disbeliever in the Betty’s story at first, now believes Betty’s radio did pick up the Earhart distress call from the crash site as shown in clues in the transcription, communication snippets that could only have come from Earhart.

The podcast can be found on iTunes and here.

Podcast Pick of the Day - This Week in Tech

2007-07-31T18:09:00.000-07:00

This Week in Tech
TWiT 107: We’re Going to Need a Bigger Flywheel
Run Time: 1:31:32

Hosted by Leo Laporte, This Week in Tech is a weekly podcast focusing on all things tech. This episode consisted of a sizeable cast: John C. Dvorak (Dvorak.org/blog), Patrick Norton, Robert Herron, Steve Gibson and Molly Wood. Amongst other topics, the large gang pontificated on Google bidding for the 700MHz spectrum, Dvorak’s insight into a possible Sprint-Google deal, the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray war, hybrid hard drives, Congressmen and tech, intern loses 800,000 Ohio social security numbers, Apple and Microsoft quarterly profits, smog testing and HDMI cable reviews.

The podcast can be found on iTunes and here.

Podcast Pick of the Day - This American Life

2007-07-30T19:21:00.000-07:00

This American Life
#337: Man vs. History
Run Time: 59:36

Hosted by Ira Glass, This American Life features intriguing stories from all walks of American life. Act One of the episode featured Dal LaMagna, an entrepeneur who made some of his small fortune selling high quality tweezers. During retirment, Dal set a new lofty goal for himself: end the violence in Iraq. Armed with some lobbying and Washington D.C.experience, Dal traveled to the Middle East and hooked up with an Iraqi Parliamentary member, Mohammed Al-Dynee, to broker a peace between warring factions and the U.S. troops. Dal recored his meetings and journeys, some 25 hours of audio. The podcast provides great insight into the behind scenes in Baghdad, including a meeting with the British high commander.

Act two featured espionage in the Czech Republic at the end of the Cold War. Spies playing one another, and emotional attachments that interfere with Operation: Brief Encounter.

The podcast can be found on iTunes and here.

Late to the game but who cares...

2007-07-16T23:33:00.000-07:00

I was chastised this weekend for not being aware of the "latest" Internet meme - the Dramatic Prairie Dog. Grant it, it was much easier back in the day actually working at Internet companies to hear of these things. Those were the days of Star Wars Kid, Numa Numa, "Boom Goes the Dynamite" and all such catalogued here.

So maybe you're all aware and I'm late to the game. If not, you're in.

Watch this:
The Dramatic Prairie Dog

Now here's the origin.

And here is the Austin Powers remix:

No go and do likewise, people, go and do likewise. Just watch who you're telling because IF they've heard of it before you, prepare for a snobby helping of, "I've already heard of that" aka you're not so cool.

Scam

2007-06-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

I've always been a big fan of ordering things online even at times when such things seemed awkward to order online, like a big-screen TV. The problem with ordering online is you get a list of 30 or so merchants who beat the Best Buys and Circuit Citys by a few hundred bucks, and the only way to know if they are the real deal or not is to slog through the hundreds of customer reviews on pricegrabber - which is exactly what my brohaus Jeff did for my (and his) HDTV purchases.

However, as more people order online with less research the door is widening for scammers.

Here's one such found before (thankfully) some co-workers ordered online:

A camera site like bestpricecameras advertises on Google for hundreds below the lowest price on pricegrabber (therefore halving Best Buy and Circuit City). The User orders the bare-boned version of the camera. The camera store calls the User the next day and adds-on accessories pushing the price back to retail. If the User does not agree to the accessories, they don't ship the camera.

Here's the forum review that broke it all down and saved my co-workers a sh*tload of toil.
Photography Review.

Pass it on.

Only in LA...

2007-06-23T00:44:00.000-07:00

"A trim please, number 3 on the sides, a bit off the top, and um... oh do you have that channel that shows 8 football games at once?"

Scattered thoughts from Vegas:

2007-06-20T20:11:00.000-07:00

Crowds of people unaware they are in a crowd of people. Hundreds walking in each direction, but yet people will stop on a dime as if they are the only one walking the boulevard - causing a people-jam behind. This is owed to Vegas' ability to make each person feel as if they are in their own world, by catering to each inidividual's vice (gambling, food, shows, clubs, shopping, etc...) The result is a populace of complete introverts, blissfully unaware of the fact they are one in a mass of millions. Also - Casinos have mastered the art of making each patron feel as if they are a high-roller. Not that there is anything wrong with any of this.
The $300 default ATM withdrawal limit was created by God at the beginning of time.
For the first time in five years there are lots of empty tables. Are they over-building? Or are people less interested in gambling as Indian casinos sprawl?
Breakfast no longer served all day.
The "cash advance from credit card without PIN" created by Devil recently.
The Deuce rocks.
Business idea - create casino around gaming. Think XBOX Live for real money and comps, with the atmosphere of Jillians or Dave & Busters.

Rant!

2007-06-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

One of the perks missing from a free blogger account is an audience, one of perks always available however, is a forum to vent righteous indignation. The two are probably in an inverse relationship, but what the hell:

Walk into any Coffee Bean and order a regular coffee. The clerk will ask three questions:

Would you like room? (for cream)
What's your name?
Is that for here or to go?

This last question is utterly ridiculous - for what's the difference between sipping coffee in the establishment or taking one step outside? It gets more absurd when one is ordering multiple drinks for co-workers back at the office. "For here please, I plan to drink a mild drip, an iced soy latte, a Japanese-cherry iced tea, and a hot chocolate right here, right now, then piss all over myself."

One time, a cashier conceded, "We have to ask that" she said. "Um, why?" "Because... if a mystery customer comes in and we don't ask that they fine us." Mystery customers, or auditors, are hired by corporate to make sure clerks and managers are following corporate code.

So here's my rant to The Coffee Bean V.P. of Customer Relations. Or since this is Corporate America, more likely the Senior V.P. of the Organic Experience and People-Centered Relations, or some other bullsh*t. Stop this nonsense. You're making your employees look like idiots by forcing them to ask a stupid question because your red-tape quality-control managers make an extra buck every time they write somebody up. The auditors have to work on commission, right? It's the only way this non-sense makes sense.

Let me put it this way, if the only reason your employees do something is because they have to, it's a waste of time. Your people should explain your practices clearly. They should, in essence, possess the ability to sell your company. And you should give them the ideas to do it. After all, they are face of your company. They are ones taking the cash.

I know this seems like I'm making a big thing out of nothing, but this is my rant god dammit! And what good is a rant if I don't take cheap shots at the establishment? I mean, what auditor hears this asinine question and thinks, "Good job there young lady, you're well-trained."

The only possible explanation regards the few who order pastries. "For here" would then require a plate. OK, fine if you order a pastry it would be nice if you were given a plate. But this shouldn't be a law requiring stiff enforcement. And further, people who go to coffee shops to eat baked goods should not define the rules for those who go to coffee shops to get coffee!*

*(These are most likely the same folk who like mayo.)

Why gossip?

2007-06-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about gossip lately, with Paris, Britney, Lindsay, Katie, whoever-ie incessantly blanketing flat-screens in every dentist's waiting room and grocery store. It seems to me that this celebrity gossip thing has gotten worse over the years. Of course the Internet and gossip sites have much to do with it. Or, to be honest, I'm thinking maybe Iraq plays a role as well. Here we are living our normal day-to-day lives while the courageous approach checkpoints thinking, "Is it my day to get limbs blown off?"

No matter one's position on the war, it's surreal.

Maybe people gravitate to the escapism of gossip because, unlike this war, it doesn't require much processing-power to make sense of it?

There's an old idea from The Long Tail that keeps dangling in my head. It's about the end of the watercooler era. To quote:

The usual test is the "watercooler effect", the buzz in the office around a shared cultural event, be it the finale of The Apprentice or the opening of the last Star Wars. The number of such events has been shrinking for years, driven mostly by the fragmentation of the television audience.

Anderson goes on to cite examples in various media where the "hits" of today wouldn't make the radar of the ratings years ago. With DVRs and DVDs it's almost impossible to share a television show with co-workers. Even if people are watching the same season of the same show, it's unlikely they're watching the same night.

All that said, here it goes: Just because we no longer share cultural events around TV, music, and movies; doesn't mean we don't naturally crave a sharing of cultural events. Anderson's "End of the Watercooler" has created a vacuum to be filled by - livable media, or media that has value only if experienced at a specific time.

Take the Superbowl, you could TiVo and watch it later but good luck avoiding the score. American Idol fits as well.

Gossip works in particular, I think, because it demands to be relayed in the moment. A person can bring up Britney's bald head tomorrow in work conversation, but that's old news. It's all Lindsay and Paris now.

Gossip also transcends the political polarization of our time. Political debates are difficult in the office, but it's so easy to gap. Paris going to jail? It's something we can all agree on.

Podcast Pick of the Day - Diggnation

2007-06-04T19:33:00.000-07:00

Diggnation
Diggnation – May 31, 2007 (the 100th episode)
RunTime: 1:02:35

Hosted by Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht, Diggnation is a weekly podcast covering some of the more popular stories featured on digg.com. This episode was the 100tth in the series and Kevin and Alex pontificated on the 100th episode cake, the new version of iTunes (7.2), Microsoft Surface, which yielded probably the best discussion/argument in diggnation history, Google Maps’ new feature Street View, the latest AACS key crack, CBS purchases LAST.FM for $280 million, a discussion of MySpace and Facebook, and highlights from the best moments of the previous 99 diggnations. Truly a classic episode. Enjoy.

The podcast can be found on iTunes and here.

A solid 8.7*

2007-06-02T12:32:00.000-07:00

Adam Carolla was at Zocalo last night, and it was by far the most entertaining Zocalo I've attended. Hearing this, however, you should consider my previous Zocalo events featured Francis Fukuyama, Dick Riordan, and Eli Broad - not exactly entertainers, so take the praise for what it's worth.

The question going in was: How would Howard Stern's replacement treat the literate audience of, as Zocalo puts it, LA's "non partisan and multi ethnic forum where participants can enjoy a rare opportunity for intellectual fellowship."

The answer: By putting on a show, or put another way, by being himself. Carolla had the crowd roaring for about an hour straight and applauding after one particular rant on an airline Skymall product, the Life Hammer.

One of the outbursts forced moderator Meghan Daum to warn (paraphrased), "don't encourage him or we'll never get thru this." Grant it many in attendance were fans, but I can't help but think the Zocalo regulars were joining in.

For my part, Carolla gets credit for delivering in an industry where too many celebrities get too much credit for just showing up. We pay good money for the mediocre trash Hollywood sells, Carolla brought his A-game for free. Go figure.

Daum, an LA Times columnist, tried earnestly to uncover what makes him tick. Her struggle for substance interrupted by Carolla's rants made her, as a friend observed, the perfect straight woman in a comedy team.

I'm not familiar with Daum's work, but she reminds me of Camille Paglia - a lifetime member of the literati who can't resist the temptation to deconstruct and find meaning in popular culture.

Smart popular culture was the more interesting theme of the night. How does one keep it on the air? As Corolla noted, many people want to see "jingly, shiny stuff" and these are the people with Arbitron books. Surely the Zocalo audience and readers of this blog crave a more intelligent streak in popular entertainment - but it's the silent majority that carries the ratings. Some have described this as the Lennon / McCartney complex - on the one hand let Lennon go and you have Revolution #9, let McCartney go and you get Obla-di, Obla-da. Together you get Hey Jude, the perfect pop culture mix. The problem arises when The Suits see sluggish ratings and prescribe too much McCartney, leaving us without I Am the Walrus.

Back to Carolla. Daum ultimately proves her thesis - that beneath Carolla's "girls-jumping-on-trampolines" reputation lies an acute eye for social critique and substantive commentary. Carolla's career arc from carpet-cleaner to hosting the flagship morning radio show in NY and LA deserves a spotlight. He's a self-made man, and therefore has earned the street-cred necessary to offer jewels of wisdom, and perhaps for some, inspiration.

Late in the hour they come out - "Find out what you're good at and be realistic." The "be realistic" addendum is especially interesting, try finding a Hollywood star who encourages people to "be realistic." One wonders if Carolla's rough upbringing in North Hollywood with a "hippy mother" forced him to be weary of unabashed idealism.

But here we go again, deconstructing and adding pretentious meaning when there probably is none. In her introduction, Daum focused on trying to convince the Zocalo regulars - who are used to hearing from former Mayors, Governors, and authors from all around the world - that Carolla is relevant. And at the end of the evening, I think most in attendance would agree with her.

* Listen to the Podcast. (link not live yet).

Beware: The Junk Drawer

2007-05-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

This weekend I arrived at a stunning realization. As with most moments when the world begins to make sense, I concurrently realized the realization was painfully obvious. So much so that the handful of smart readers of this blog may sigh in disbelief at their loyal blogger's naivete.

But here goes. I was cleaning out the junk drawer - much can be written about the junk drawer, we all have one or more, storing relics and receipts of concerts, napkins, business cards, and 9 volt batteries and such. Wherein I came across a book, "Women Don't Lie - Men Don't Listen" by the humble Mr. Doc Love, the self-proclaimed "first man in 6000 years to understand women."

(Disclaimer: Go ahead and snicker, but I did not buy this book. Unfortunately I'm forbidden to tell the story of how it arrived in my junk drawer, which only serves to further your suspicions of guilt, but...) Let's get to it.

Men will only go out when they are interested, women will go out just to go out.

On Monday morning someone asks a guy, "What did you do this weekend?" He can say, "went out, got hammered with friends," or "watched the playoffs and drank some beers." Surely not the most interesting of lives but acceptable nonetheless. If a girl walks into the same office and says, "I drank a bottle of Merlot and watched The Notebook," she's a loser in the world of women. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's that simple.

Therefore, a guy, with a seemingly endless list of things to do - not a productive list mind you - will only break from it and spend time & money with a girl he's interested in. Meanwhile, a girl, by the simple act of going out, can shun most social retributions - even if the date was a complete bomb (guys get blamed for lame dates).

Mass confusion arrives when the guy assumes a girl is interested because she's going out with him, and a girl assumes a guy is busy at work when he says he's busy at work.

According to the Doc, if a girl doesn't call back quickly she's not interested. If she calls back and goes out with you she's evaluating you, if she goes out about five times she's interested.

I'll add that if a guy doesn't call back he's not interested. If he does he's interested. If he goes out for five dates he may or may not be interested. For once a girl decides she's in - a rare event indeed, at this very moment of clarity for her the guy begins to evaluate. This is where things get really tricky. So I'll leave it to the pros, like Doc Love, and to the nameless but not forgotten caveman who understood women 6000 years ago.

My beautiful friend actually wants to marry you, seriously!

2007-05-29T22:17:00.000-07:00

Lately I've actually been fascinated by MySpace spam... seriously.

Here's a snippet from one of the more obvious:

I know this might seem somewhat strange, but it's 100% true.
My friend lives in another country and speaks pretty good English. She has been raised to believe that a woman should please and serve her man in every way possible, as this is their culture.
She wants to move to America and is looking for a man, a future husband, to bring her in and have a wonderful fulfilling life together. She's not extremely picky, but of course wants somebody she is compatible with. She is in her early to mid twenties. This is her picture.

The link to the picture was broken in the original email as well. Lucky for the spammer and her friend I'm way into cubism and find a square and two adjacent isosceles triangles terribly exciting.

Here's the thing about MySpace spam - it feeds off the weaker aspects of the male psyche. I'm sure one could say the same about any con, but MySpace is a unique offender in that the spammer is assumed to know something about the person they're spamming. The assumption is that the spammer has read the profile while the reality is some robot found the profile and sent the message.

Most MySpace spams feature a hot chick, scantily clad. The male is supposed to click her profile leading to her personal page, wherein she writes about the prudish policies of My Space, and offers links to more risque sites, and the aforementioned male, like a mouse following morsels of cheese, is supposed to follow along.

The particular cross-section of the male psyche at play here is the very modern notion of getting something for nothing. The secret fantasy is - "I could get the hot girl that all the athletes / rock stars get if she only knew me." The MySpace profile provides the backdrop to state all the attributes everyone else supposedly ignores. Once satisfied with his profile, he only has to sit back and wait for the girls to flood his inbox. Forget first dates and chivalry, this system is no different than doing anything online, which is mostly about instant gratification.

Not this all may seem a bit unbelievable - for obviously a man knows spam when he sees it. But ask any guy who has seen such spam, and ask if they clicked thru "just in case" at least once. If that does not suffice, consider the fact that the spammer is at war with MySpace trying to get their messages thru - not with the method itself.

If all that doesn't suffice, consider all of this is aimed mostly at those barely old enough to buy smokes. Now feel free to claim you had the self-esteem to know better at that age, and I will feel just as free to call you a liar.

It wasn't always this way.

2007-05-24T22:58:00.000-07:00

I'm reading a seminal book by Richard M. Weaver called "Ideas Have Consequences." The major theme will probably bubble-up in future posts. A minor topic Weaver touches on is an area I think the handful of smart readers of this blog are interested in - and that's work.

Weaver talks about work before the Industrial Revolution, and describes the daily routine as a continuation of prayer. The worker was driven by the desire to work perfectly, to constantly improve their craft under the eyes of God, as this was their significant contribution to the whole.

Take this out of a religious context and it still works. Consider the farmer, who was connected to the land. Let's assume this farmer was an atheist. Each morning the farmer wakes and is at the mercy of nature. Any abrupt change in climate could ruin his livelihood and starve his family. Part of his work is accepting the fact that there are variables out of his control. Each day in the field is therefore a communication with nature. He tends to the field and listens, perceives, touches nature's signals. The farmer has no choice but to accept the fact that his fate lies in a higher power - even if he chooses not to mythologize it.

Take the craftsmen. The craftsmen learns a trade and accepts it for the rest of his life. For the craftsmen the tool he creates is the ultimate reflection of himself. The emphasis is on quality, on creating a most magnificent tool, and then improving on it. For to improve on it is to improve upon himself.

Think about this - if you knew you were going to create horseshoes every single day for the rest of your life, would you create hunks of trash? Or would you begin to craft the most perfect horseshoe that ever existed? The craftsmen who chooses mediocrity has reason to drink, the craftsmen who chooses excellence has good reason to get up early in the morning, as his work has meaning.

Enter the Industrial Revolution, where the machine drives a wedge between the craftsmen and the tool, the farmer and the land. The machine cares not for quality but quantity, nor does it communicate with nature but rather fight it. If a machine could worship, it would worship consistency.

The worker is now a slave to the accountant, who cares only for numbers. This is the point where Marx jumped in and said the worker must revolt against the accountant, then equally disperse the profits. But this doesn't solve the problem does it? The workers can rid themselves of the accountant but they must keep the machine. They cannot revolt against the machine if they want to continue the profits.

Instead, according to Weaver, the worker in the capitalist country essentially plays the game and commoditizes work. Work is then negotiated like any other transaction. And the goal of the workday changes from striving toward perfection to maximizing efficiency. In other words, the worker ceases to create something he's proud of, and instead strives to give the least effort for the best price. Work is therefore severed from any spiritual or worthwhile meaning. The worker no longer worships nature, God, a higher power, but rather a new entity - the consumer. They create for the consumer in the day and become the consumer when not working.

This is where many people start preaching against the material world. Yelling at people to stop buying stuff. The idea is if people quench their desire to have things, they wouldn't need to work so hard to get them, and will therefore be content. I don't agree with this though, because even if one were to own only the bare necessities they would still not answer the problem of what gets them up in the morning and out the door.

I don't have the answer, but I'm leaning toward the idea that serving the consumer doesn't quite light a fire.

The War on Mayo

2007-05-21T23:12:00.000-07:00

There is no condiment as sinister as mayonnaise.

A mere spoonful spreads like the gunk from a backed-up toilet, soaking through the vast underbelly of the spongy bread. It's presence is omnipotent. It's taste dreadful. It's power derives from the act of instantly ruining a sandwich.

At what point did it become commonplace to put mayo on a sandwich? Further, at what point did the application of such spread become a requirement to the "yummy sandwich," so as not to be included on the menu listing all the requirements of certain said sandwich? Or even if specifically requested not to be present, the sandwich craftsman most often spreads it anyway. Obviously these folks feel not a hint of fear in doing so. "Who will argue against mayo?" they wonder, "And if they do, I have the world at my side."

And how did this happen? When did the pro-mayo lobby win-out against the anti-mayo contingent, a.k.a. the sandwich traditionalists?

Consider this: An alien lands on Earth in the United States fifty years from now. This particular alien loves to smoke cigarettes and hears Earth has a most interesting climate for producing tobacco. Now fifty years from now it is not unreasonable to believe smoking will be banned just about everywhere save for a few underground saloons. Now this alien, while walking about, learns that he cannot smoke in this section of Earth, but that

a. he's welcome to navigate to less-evolved parts of the world where people still have fun, or
b. he's welcome to purchase some tobacco to sell and eventually kill his fellow aliens.

Who knows.

My point is I know specifically the moment in time when a majority of the populace decided, "We're done with smoking." That time of course is now. Some civil libertarians are up in arms over the matter, but the lawmakers passed a law that people agreed with and so it is. And frankly, I don't mind the status quo, it's nice not having to bring a bottle of contact solution to the bars at night.

In other words, I get it. As much as I cringe when government starts dictating what people can and can't do, and where they can or can't do it. I can respect a law that everyone respects.

So when did the tide turn in the application of mayo as a standard to all sandwiches? If there wasn't a moment like the ban on smoking, then other forces must be at play. One might follow the thinking of conspiracy theorists, who surmise that perhaps a global corporation lobbied deli markets into embracing their product? Perhaps.

Of course the glaring alternative is that a majority of people actually like this stuff. This is a status quo I cannot live with.

Cuban needs help

2007-05-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

Mark Cuban is taking TV show pitches for HDNet at his blog, which is a really cool thing. I know people who've worked in the TV industry here in LA for six years and have not pitched a show. Now whether something of substance comes out of it is another story. Will it be a case where transparency pays off, as a recent cover of Wired preached? Or will it be another Project Greenlight, which led Affleck/Damon to conclude that, well, maybe all the talent in show business is in LA?

(Of course, the fact that Greenlight produced crap and that 90% of what Hollywood produces is crap, may prove that what Hollywood needs is a revolution from the top down, i.e. new decision-makers and A-lists movie stars, i.e. maybe producers of the Affleck/Damon-sort have as much an idea as to what makes a good story as average joe sixpack. Mamet might agree.)

But Cuban needs help, in more than just story ideas, because HDNet is beginning to lose its appeal. I think Cuban knows this, and it's one of the reasons he's using avante-garde development tactics (in addition to the fact that he believes in the power of blogdom.)

Why? The initial draw for HDNet was its HD programming of course, and now that more networks are supplying HD content, there's less room for HDNet to distinguish itself on that basis alone. In the beginning they probably said, "How do we showcase HD? Sports, nature shows, chicks in bikinis." Done.

Planet Earth is the show HDNet should have had, but Discovery beat them to it. I think Cuban knows this as well. So now what?

Here's my suggestion:

HDNet becomes the HBO for the tech-savvy, bloggin', myspace generation. By HBO I mean highly-literate original content that does not in any way talk down to its audience. In fact, it does the reverse - it educates and at times confuses and frustrates (ex. Sopranos after season 3).

Now you might say there's a channel for this audience, it's G4? But G4 is trying to be MTV - worse than that, it's trying to be old MTV for video games. Let MTV die. Instead, how about putting the camera back on the tripod and asking an intelligent question, or simply telling a story? The content does not have to revolve around Technology per se, though a show set in an IT department (something between The Office and Office Space) is long overdue. But how about a channel that, when choosing its programs, assumes the following of its audience:

They are well-educated, computer-savvy, web-savvy, blog-savvy.
They research the products they buy for hours in their spare time and therefore could care less about 30 second ads.
If they feel they're being preached to or talked-down to, they'll change the channel or turn on the laptop.

The days of wanting to see something "just because it's in HD" are waning - I believe Planet Earth is both the apex of this urge and the demarcation of its decline. I want more "smart popular culture", but in HD. I think there's a space for it, and I think Cuban can fill it.