an interesting part of the Harvard graduate school application. (via Twitter / DeclanBowman: Hm, now this is an interesting …)

an interesting part of the Harvard graduate school application. (via Twitter / DeclanBowman: Hm, now this is an interesting …)

Last night before Skrillex at Coachella came on two guys were talking next to me. One said “I want to get away from the Google Glass guys.”

I turn around and there are two guys wearing Glass.

Google does have a problem here.

I haven’t worn mine at all this weekend.

What is going on here in a world where I am carrying around a camera and EVERYONE uses their phones or a GoPro but Glass feels freaky and weird?

Google has launched this product poorly, is what.

But wearable technology needs a different set of skills than Google has. What? Empathy.

I avoid looking forward or backward, and try to keep looking upward.
The reason I work with good writers is because I believe that all work is service, and that all service is communication.
I think this movement (once so radical!) has been “appreciated” to the point that it’s the realm of contemporary hack artists, basically the same thing that happened to Impressionism 40 years or so ago, where the style became a symbol of bland “good taste,” so commodified I associate Van Gogh with coffee mugs and mouse pads; not the museum but the museum store.
A lot of artists don’t know their skills. I think if you want to destroy something, you’ve got to know what it is you’ve got in your hand to destroy. To confront the world we live in, you’ve got to know a lot of the craft to turn it in on itself. The jazzers or the avant-gardists, they know how to do all the classical stuff, they know their instruments inside-out, that’s why they can make it turn all sorts of shapes and colours.
For instance, The Onion, which is notoriously unconcerned with offending sensitive readers, has barely any online articles using molestation or incest as a punchline—except one about a sex worker who “overcomes years of child abuse to achieve porn stardom.” It includes lots of mentions of how often she does gang bangs and ATM scenes, as well as how many step-fathers raped her and called her “Daddy’s little fuck toy.” But this article wouldn’t exist if the woman weren’t a porn star; it’s only funny (and titillating) because she’s a sex worker. That’s because once someone engages in commercial sex, the gloves are off. They become such a reviled non-person that their victimization, which would have otherwise been cause for lamentation and empathy, is now fair game for a laugh. It’s as though choosing sex work makes someone reverse-deserve their abuse.
These objections were quite correct - the comparison is unfair. But it’s also relevant. Mobile is now around half of all time spent online in developed markets and will be the dominant global consumer computing platform of the next decade or two. And the sheer scale of the smartphone businesses is driving a reshaping of all the dynamics of the technology industry, while its supply chain is enabling all sorts of new segments that would never have been possible before - drones, wearables, VR, micro-satellites, internet-of-things devices and lots of other things besides. […] In case it isn’t obvious by now, these charts are meant to be unfair - that’s the point. Unfair but relevant comparisons are the most interesting and important kinds. An unfair comparison generally means an unfair advantage, and this isn’t the Olympics - unfair is good. Customers don’t care if a company’s advantage is unfair. Investors don’t care. Unfair advantages are often the best kind. They are something that flows structurally from the reason why your business is going to change everything - they flow from a technology change you are building on or a change in market dynamics or consumer behaviour that you’re riding, and that your competitors cannot address. Disruption is unfair. Mobile’s disruption of PCs and the PC internet is entirely unfair - it’s the unfairness of differences like the replacement cycle and subsidy model (amongst many others) that makes it possible.
Rémy Cointreau says China corruption crack down is hurting “gift-giving” of premium liquor by 40%
When I first read Bartels’ piece, I kind of just wrote it off as just another piece in the extensive pundit-class discourse of Liberal Eye-Opening. But then I re-read it. The problem, I realized, isn’t simply that Bartels is telling me what I already know. The piece isn’t useless; indeed, it has multiple effects, precisely to the extent that it tells me what I assumed as given. In telling me something I already know, Bartels’ piece is actually telling me that I never really knew what I thought. At stake in the piece, in other words, is a redistribution of the epistemic in which the kinds of knowledge I possess turn out to be non-knowledges. The real thesis of this piece—which thinks it’s telling us that economic elites have corrupted democratic governance—is that the demos isn’t equipped to know democracy’s destruction. […] But that’s what liberalism is, really: the absorption of the immediacy of a political sense into the studied, slow time of useless intellection, the conflation of taking-time and having-a-(truer-)thought. The bourgeois public sphere, the Parliamentary Blue Book, the parliamentary labyrinth of US congressional procedure, the ballot box, and, sure, contemporary political-scientific methods—all of these liberal forms articulate a slowing of time to a production of thought in the name of optimizing a decision that will never come.
It’s much easier to say “That’ll never work” now you have a cheap pocket supercomputer connected instantly to all the world’s information
The history of civilization can be viewed as a progressive decoupling between survival and social status.
This distinction is crucially important when considering the fate of the poor — many of whom lack full-time jobs — since there is a large and obvious difference between cutting someone a larger welfare check and arranging for her to get a well-paid job. But when the question is the rich, the distinction largely breaks down. That’s because the tax code structures even the “pre tax” incomes of very high earning people. Very high taxation of inheritances would mean fewer big inheritances, not more tax revenue. Very high taxation of labor income would mean fewer huge compensation packages, not more revenue. Precisely as Laffer pointed out decades ago, imposing a 90 percent tax rate on something is not really a way to tax it at all — it’s a way to make sure it doesn’t happen. If you believe systematically lower CEO compensation packages would mean a mass withdrawal of talent from the business world and a collapse of American industry, then those smaller pay packages could be an economic disaster. But the more plausible theory is that systematically lower CEO compensation packages would mean systematically higher compensation spending elsewhere in the corporate structure. Either more frontline workers or better-paid ones. The new tax code would redistribute value inside the corporate structure without anyone actually paying the new sky-high taxes.
is now as much about looking good as hearing good music