The late & lamented Howard Johnson’s restaurant in Times Square, Manhattan. My photo circa 1989. I guess I wanted to get a good angle on the corner sign, necessitating this angle–who’d expect to have a problem with trees blocking their view in Time Square? They had great signage but I never went in the place, usually eating in Chinatown.
there was a great bar at the back.
I remember going to that bar and vaguely remember leaving it.
I vaguely remember a birthday party at that hojos – not mine – and definitely remember the bar, and proto-hipster themed karaoke.
A senior marketer at the drinks company Diageo, where Sharp’s book has been influential, put it to me bluntly. “After 10 or 15 years of f***ing around with digital we’ve realised that people don’t want to ‘engage’ with brands, because they don’t care about them.’
I mean, OK, but neither do I want to be ‘inspired’ by a brand’s ‘emotional’ ads. This article makes some great points about the cheapness of engagement-focused, hyper-targeted, blah blah blah digital presences, but also has some extremely rose colored glasses on about the quality and purpose of advertising overall.
Document the moments you feel most in love with yourself - what you’re wearing, who you’re around, what you’re doing. Recreate and repeat.
What I can tell you is that works of art are the only silver bullet we have against racism and sexism and hatred. Joe Biden happened to see Hamilton on the same day James Burrows was here. James Burrows directed every episode of Will & Grace, and remember when Biden went on Meet the Press and essentially said, “Yeah, gay people should get married”? He very openly credited Will & Grace with changing the temperature on how we discuss gays and lesbians in this country. It was great to see Jim Burrows and Joe Biden talk about that, and Jim thanked Biden and Biden thanked Jim because that was a piece of art changing the temperature of how we talked about a divisive issue. It sounds silly. It’s a sitcom, but that doesn’t make it not true. Art engenders empathy in a way that politics doesn’t, and in a way that nothing else really does. Art creates change in people’s hearts. But it happens slowly.
The opposite of depression is not happiness, but vitality. And these days, my life is vital, even on the days when I’m sad. I think that while I hated being depressed and would hate to be depressed again, I found a way to love my depression. I love it because it has forced me to find and cling to joy. I love it because each day, I decide, sometimes gamely and sometimes against the moment’s reason, to cleave to the reasons for living. And that, I think, is a highly privileged rapture.
Q: Feminist role models today are so heavily pop culture-related, like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, but then we hear criticism that maybe they're not great role models, that they're not really saying anything that's shaking things up.
A: Oh, we can have a Beyoncé discussion. I was there when Beyoncé did Chimes for Change — you know, it's the biggest concert I've ever seen in my life, for the Violence Against Women Project — she came out and said to this audience of thousands of mostly women, "I know life is hard, but we're together for the next hour or so, and you're safe." And I thought, OK, you had me at hello. We need to build bridges to those folks, not sit and nitpick what they have on. A feminist is just someone who believes men and women are equal beings
I had everything I ever wanted. Now I’m here and I see how contrived, fake and forced consistently proving to the world ‘how amazing my life/body/self is". I spent everyday looking at a screen, viewing and comparing myself to others. It’s easier to look at shiny and pretty things that appear happy than stopping and just getting real with yourself. Social media only became great for me because of the amount of effort I put in trying to portray this ‘perfect’ person, being born into the flesh I have and sharing emotional parts of my life. Being social media famous is a very unattainable thing for majority of people viewing this. I was attracted to the idea of being liked and of value. I put my value in numbers, not real life people, moments or my natural passions of art, writing… Posting on instagram consumed me. I can’t you how beautiful life is without a phone, without social media, without comparing, or likes or followers. We are not followers, we are beings of individuality and love. I have never felt so free. I will be making a lot more videos talking more about what happened 'behind’ the image for a lot of these 'perfect’ photos.
We need to remember friends, that we write deeply out of friendship, that we write to friends. We need to regain some of the energy, as writers and as readers, that people have on the Internet when for the first time they e-mail, when they discover that they can write anything, even to a stranger, even the most personal of matters. When they discover that strangers can communicate to each other.
Is it so bad to prefer talking with a long-distance partner using a smartphone than with someone who does not interest me but happens to be next to me? To prefer reading how the people you’ve followed by years on Twitter are doing instead of making smalltalk with that friend of a friend sitting across the subway car? Maybe you think that yes, it is bad, that people should always prioritize physical interaction to digital one. I disagree. Except for obvious occasions (a work meeting, an actual conversation that is taking place between you and someone, etc.), I think people should be able to interact with whomever they please without being judged by people for using a smartphone to do so.
We were talking about what other people think of you. You’ve done some really big things, At some point, surely you must have been going “what if all of this falls apart”. Oh yes, Oh yes, please don’t misunderstand, I’m certainly not in a super confident place all the time. And rarely do I finish something and say like “I nailed it”.
The Delft researchers were able to entangle two electrons separated by a distance of 1.3 kilometers, slightly less than a mile, and then share information between them. Physicists use the term “entanglement” to refer to pairs of particles that are generated in such a way that they cannot be described independently. The scientists placed two diamonds on opposite sides of the Delft University campus, 1.3 kilometers apart.
Each diamond contained a tiny trap for single electrons, which have a magnetic property called a “spin.” Pulses of microwave and laser energy are then used to entangle and measure the “spin” of the electrons.
The distance — with detectors set on opposite sides of the campus — ensured that information could not be exchanged by conventional means within the time it takes to do the measurement.
‘Spooky’, indeed. Not sure which is crazier here: that Einstein may have been wrong, that quantum entanglement is likely a real phenomenon, or that they’ve concocted a way to *test* all of this.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. When I meet Thomas Jefferson, Im a compel him to include women in the sequel!”
yeah good luck with that
“You see by the papers, and I suppose by your letters also, how much your native state has been agitated by the question on the new Constitution. But that need not agitate you. The tender breasts of ladies were not formed for political convulsion; and the French ladies miscalculate much their own happiness when they wander from the true field of their influence into that of politicks.“ Thomas Jefferson to Angelica Schuyler Church, 21 September 1788
“You will preserve, from temper and inclination, the happy privilege of the ladies to leave to the rougher sex and to the newspapers their party squabbles and reproaches.” Thomas Jefferson to Angelica Schuyler Church, 24 May 1797
In Greece, someone asked me, ‘Why take the chance?’ I said, ‘In Syria, there’s a hundred-per-cent chance that you’re going to die. If the chance of making it to Europe is even one per cent, then that means there is a one-per-cent chance of your leading an actual life.’
It’s not every day you can plop down two bucks and walk away with some “junk” that is worth a fortune. But that’s what happened when a collector purchased an old-timey photo from a Fresno, Calif., antiques shop.
It turns out, the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid is in the photo, apparently taking part in a leisurely game of croquet.
The image could be worth up to $5 million.
Kagin’s Inc., a numismatics firm, announced it had authenticated the photo earlier this month. The 4-inch-by-5-inch tintype shows Billy the Kid in the summer of 1878. It may have been taken at a wedding, and he is alongside several members of his gang, The Regulators, according to the firm.
There have long been rumors, leaks, and statements about the NSA “breaking” crypto that is widely believed to be unbreakable, and over the years, there’s been mounting evidence that in many cases, they can do just that. Now, Alex Halderman and Nadia Heninger, along with a dozen eminent cryptographers have presented a paper at the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (a paper that won the ACM’s prize for best paper at the conference) that advances a plausible theory as to what’s going on. In some ways, it’s very simple – but it’s also very, very dangerous, for all of us.
The paper describes how in Diffie-Hellman key exchange – a common means of exchanging cryptographic keys over untrusted channels – it’s possible to save a lot of computation and programmer time by using one of a few, widely agreed-upon large prime numbers. The theoreticians who first proposed this described it as secure against anyone who didn’t want to spend a nearly unimaginable amount of money attacking it.
Lost in transition between the theoreticians and practicioners was the distinction between “secure against anyone who doesn’t have a titanic amount of money to blow” and “secure against anyone,” and so many of our cryptographic tools use hard-coded and/or standardized large primes for Diffie-Hellman.
The paper’s authors posit that the NSA has undertaken a technological project on a scale “not seen since the Enigma cryptanalysis during World War II,” spending an appreciable fraction of the entire black budget to break the standard widely used primes.
It’s like the (spoiler alert) scene at the end of Real Genius when we learn that Lazlo has won the entire Frito Lay Sweepstakes by entering it 1.65 million times – attacking a problem that requires an unimaginable amount of resource with…an unimaginable amount of resource. See also: Penn and Teller painstakingly training live cockroaches to behave in a certain way to attain a magic effect, and the Penguin taping shredded documents back together.
The NSA has two missions, and they’re in tension with one another: first, to defend America’s electronic realm; second, to attack other countries’ electronic realms. If the NSA has broken these standard primes, then they have a serious advantage in the second mission, but they’re failing the first mission. The NSA isn’t the only agency with this kind of budget, and the breaks they attain will be attained by their competitors (assuming the important data doesn’t just leak first). That means that Americans who rely on hard-coded standard primes for Diffie-Hellman are in serious jeopardy, and the NSA isn’t doing anything to solve it.
Though that’s not quite true. The NSA has been advising people to stay away from Diffie-Hellman for a while, telling us to use elliptic curves instead. But since the NSA was caught sabotaging elliptic curve standards, many people have assumed that they were cynically trying to manipulate us into using weak crypto, not obliquely warning us about weaknesses in “strong” crypto.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about the best way to attain good security: nonstandard primes for Diffie-Hellman, elliptic curves, or something else. Though it’s a highly technical debate, it is also a critical one, which will determine the long-term security of everything from your car’s steering to your pacemaker to the seismic dampener in your apartment building. The NSA seems to have withheld this vital contribution to this long-term solution in order to realize an extremely short-term advantage, with lasting consequences.
I’m not afraid of teenagers building clocks. I’m not afraid of women having economic empowerment or sexual freedom. I’m not afraid of weddings with two grooms/brides, trans folks using bathrooms, Latinos making a living or Black people wearing hoodies and playing music.
I’m afraid of an angry white dude with a gun who’s been told repeatedly that HIS country is dying and HE needs to take it back.
This is as good an article as you’d expect from someone hitting on the single oldest and laziest metaphor for pop music - it’s a bit like junk food - and handling it like a precious insight. It’s not a very good metaphor. It’s never been a very good metaphor, partly because the enormous and highly complex issues around the industrialisation of food - public health, labour rights, environmental impact, globalisation, animal welfare - are simply not as salient in the music industry, even though they lurk by implication whenever someone uses the idea that mass popularity means the same thing in pop and food. Eating nothing but Big Macs is actually bad for your health. Listening to nothing but Taylor Swift is, ultimately, not actually bad for your health, even though pieces like this would kind of like to believe it is.
This isn’t to say the industrialised music biz is perfect, or a good thing, or that quality aligns with popularity, or anything like that. The music industry has its own issues and inequalities and bad consequences. But they are its own, and a cheap metaphor doesn’t serve them well.
Except maybe the artisanal food metaphor is actually better than it used to be, for reasons this article studiously ignores. Is a block of cheese from the farmer’s market nicer than a block of Velveeta? Yes, I’m pretty sure it would be. Is an artisanal burger in a pop-up restaurant a finer experience than a trip to McDonalds? No doubt. And that difference in quality is reflected in the price.
What the article leaves out is that the rise of artisanal food isn’t just a shift to quality over crap. It’s also about premiumisation - finding people willing to pay a premium for commodities, and charging that premium. Artisanal food isn’t about caviar and champagne or other times that were already expensive: it’s about expensive versions of historically cheap things like beer and burgers and coffee. Craft and skill and quality and ultimately ‘experience’ is what justifies the shift to premium prices.
(There’s an irony, in that part of what made this premiumisation possible was the huge shift of disposable income away from media. Twentysomethings spending money on artisanal food and craft beer now would not have been spending that money on it fifteen years ago. Because they were infants. But their equivalents wouldn’t either - the money that left the music industry isn’t all stuffed in millennial mattresses waiting for the right anti-piracy legislation to come along and coax it back.)
So, look around at the music industry. Where in it are we seeing premiumisation - a renewed interest in, and shift up the price ladder of, former commodities? That’s pretty easy - the vinyl revival, where repressed LPs are now going for more than CDs cost at their height. Where are we seeing people paying for experience, presentation and authenticity? The ongoing trend for full-album gigs may fit the bill. (Are these examples of premium product also higher quality? Your mileage may vary.)
These aren’t new trends, and the motives behind them are pretty much “marketing 101″ by now. But they are better answers to the question this piece claims to answer - “Is the music business about to imitate the food industry?”. It already has.
the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)
I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!
With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said.
“So I said to Aisha,” is certainly used, but if you remove the “so,” which implies casual tone (“and” can be used in the same way), you get
“I said to Aisha,” which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
“I told Aisha,” is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: “I told Aisha that James was too punk for her” works while, “I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’” crosses the line back into formalness of the “I said.”
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations.
“I was like, ‘Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?’” envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.
I’m a member of Generation Y, or the millennial generation. People like me were born in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. But I don’t like to broadcast that fact. Millennials tend to get a bad rap.
Journalists and commentators love ragging on us. They say we’re ill-prepared to deal with life’s challenges. And that, as a result, we have higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety.
These ideas have been coming up over and over again for almost a decade now. There’s psychologist Jean Twenge, for instance, who in 2006 published a book called Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before. “In past generations, suicide and depression were considered afflictions of middle age,” she writes. “But for Generation Me, these problems are a rite of passage through adolescence and young adulthood”
Then there’s the Slate article from a couple of years ago, titled “Why Millennials Can’t Grow Up.” The explanation, according to psychotherapist Brooke Donatone: “Their biggest challenge is conflict negotiation and they often are unable to think for themselves.” Last year, in Vanity Fair, Bret Easton Ellis called us “Generation Wuss.” Even NPR has asked: Are millennials too narcissistic? Do they stand a chance?
My friend Jay and I recently had a good laugh as we read through these articles together. “Harsh,” he said. “But also kind of ridiculous.”
Still, I wondered: Could it be true? Could it be that millennials really are more depressed and anxious than young people from generations past?
Sometimes being a friend means mastering the art of timing. There is a time for silence. A time to let go and allow people to hurl themselves into their own destiny. And a time to prepare to pick up the pieces when it’s all over.
Bake Off is not about the money, or even really about the winning. Bake Off is a magical world of bunting and scones and dapper lesbian comedians making ridiculous puns about buns and gentle, worried people getting in a flap about pastry. There are very few hysterics. Legend has it that if anybody has a real breakdown in the middle of a signature bake, presenters Mel Giedroyc and Sue Perkins stand next to them repeating brand names and swear-words so the cameramen can’t use the footage, and don’t you dare disabuse me of that fact, because I want it to be true.
You may think that this is about Patrick Kane, but it’s not. Not anymore. Whereas you can choose to believe that there is ambiguity surrounding the actions of Kane, what we can no longer deny is that the Chicago Blackhawks organization have made their own position explicit. The Chicago Blackhawks don’t care about rape.
A difficult, essential read for Blackhawks fans, or any sports fans, or all people who deal with rape culture, who is everyone.
I read this because when John says to read something, a thing he rarely does, I read it.
This is the note at the bottom of the article, a note that sums up a lot of being an American women:
“Managing Editor’s Note: Comments have been closed on this article in response to a history of abusive comments left on every single other piece we’ve ever posted on the subject of women and hockey. We will never provide a platform for that.”
Even if Kane is somehow exonerated tomorrow, the Blackhawks will still have taken the stance that rape is nothing more than an “off-ice issue.” A “distraction.”