“I’ve smoked well over a hundred thousand cigarettes in my life, and each one of those cigarettes meant something to me. I even enjoyed a few of them.”
Smokers will get this essay (an excerpt from an upcoming book: “Nicotine,” by Gregor Hens). Not sure the rest of will/can.
I never developed a taste for “spirits” but have a hard-to-explain fascination with the endless variety of hooch I see in supermarkets and convenience stores. If there’s no one in line behind me I will sometimes quiz the clerk.
Q: Do all of these sell?
A: Yes. This is primo, point-of-purchase shelf space so they wouldn’t stock it if it didn’t sell. (Even Fireball?!)
Q: Who buys those little “airplane” bottles? And why?
A: Lots of folks. For the drive home. One clerk said she’s seen customers drink on on the way out the door.
In my naive, never-been-a-drinker way, these suggest a “lower class” of drinker than the guy with a bottle of single malt in his wet bar in the den. Maybe there’s danger implicit in this photo that holds my gaze.
“My second objection concerns the idea that social media is harmless. Consider that the ability to concentrate without distraction on hard tasks is becoming increasingly valuable in an increasingly complicated economy. Social media weakens this skill because it’s engineered to be addictive. The more you use social media in the way it’s designed to be used — persistently throughout your waking hours — the more your brain learns to crave a quick hit of stimulus at the slightest hint of boredom.”
Quit Social Media. Your Career May Depend on It. (New York Times)
Watched my (the) first installment of Vice Nightly News last night. And loved it. But not sure I can describe it. But I’ll try.
The producers didn’t just take the ancient evening news format we’ve been watching for 60 years and tweak it. They started fresh. Your grandpa ain’t gonna like Vice Nightly News. But I ain’t your grandpa.
UPDATE: Music critic Bob Lefsetz says Vice News Tonight is “the real thing.”
“The hosts were a cornucopia of sexes and ethnicities. They looked like America. Where everybody is just not an old white man. […] The networks think it’s about slickness. The local stations are a joke, peopled by bimbos, both male and female, it’s a caricature of the news. […] They humanized Glenn Beck, a seeming impossibility.”
Not sure I can explain this but let’s give it a shot. Raise your hand if you’re old enough to remember “collecting websites.” This was back in the early days of the web and long before Google made it easy to find your way back to a favorite site. Bookmarks were an important part of your web browser. It wasn’t uncommon to have dozens (hundreds?) of bookmarks. So many you needed a folder structure to keep them all organized. I don’t know many who still maintain such lists. Modern browsers do a pretty good job of keeping up with your favorites sites based on your surfing habits.
I’m seeing a similar evolution in my music listening habits. I still have some playlists I created in iTunes. These are lists of songs I purchased and downloaded. Or, more recently, just downloaded from Apple Music. But I’m finding it increasingly cumbersome to navigate these lists when compared to the way Apple Music connects me to music. Where my playlists are static (the same songs), Apple Music playlists are updated with fresh songs. I don’t know if this is true of all playlists or just some. But the result is a fresher, more dynamic experience. In some ways this feels like listening to a good radio station where the music rotation is the best blend of favorites and new stuff like the favorites. I told you… difficult to explain.
There are some classics I’ll always want to keep close (Mad Dogs and Englishmen, Harvest, Tapestry, etc) but I’m feeling less need to organize and manage “my” (i.e. downloaded) songs. If I’m in the mood for some funk or a Janis Joplin song Apple Music will deliver the good far better than my collection. My downloaded library is finite where Apple Music is infinite but increasingly aware of what I like (or might like).
Excerpts from an article in New York Magazine by Andrew Sullivan:
“Then the apps descended, like the rain, to inundate what was left of our free time. It was ubiquitous now, this virtual living, this never-stopping, this always-updating. […] The engagement never ends. Not long ago, surfing the web, however addictive, was a stationary activity. At your desk at work, or at home on your laptop, you disappeared down a rabbit hole of links and resurfaced minutes (or hours) later to reencounter the world. But the smartphone then went and made the rabbit hole portable, inviting us to get lost in it anywhere, at any time, whatever else we might be doing. Information soon penetrated every waking moment of our lives.”
“A small but detailed 2015 study of young adults found that participants were using their phones five hours a day, at 85 separate times.”
“You are where your attention is. If you’re watching a football game with your son while also texting a friend, you’re not fully with your child — and he knows it. Truly being with another person means being experientially with them, picking up countless tiny signals from the eyes and voice and body language and context, and reacting, often unconsciously, to every nuance. These are our deepest social skills, which have been honed through the aeons. They are what make us distinctively human.”
“But 50 years down the line, a case can be made that 1966 may have been the single most creatively expansive year of all. That was the year that “rock ’n’ roll” morphed into “rock,” the year that the 45 rpm single yielded to the 33 1/3 rpm long-playing album as the dominant medium for the music and the year that social and political issues became a regular topic of exploration among musicians looking beyond the next hit and aiming to exert a real impact on the world around them.”
— 1966: Rock ‘n’ roll’s most revolutionary year (Los Angeles Times)
I have a hard time believing very many people continue living in these tiny houses for as long as a year (6 months?). The HGTV producers show the design, construction, a reveal and — maybe — a real short “now that they’ve been in for a month…” at the end of the segment.
What I want to see is two people actually living in one of these shoe boxes. You want some reality TV? Set it up like this: We’ll build your tiny home and give it to you on the condition you let us put cameras in and record continuously for three months. If you live in the house for one year, it’s yours, free and clear. If you can’t make it for 12 months, you have to pay back the cost of the house (let’s $50,000). This would work even better if it was a live stream on the net. We could tune in 24/7, just like The Truman Show.