2016 The Year of Oops… Redux

Back in the dark ages at the end of 2013 I wrote an article about how that year, mostly in tech but also in other aspects of life, was full of enough flubs that it should probably be forgotten. I lamented that the tech industry specifically and the mountain of humans in charge of things in general had lost touch with reality and were making decisions seemingly based on what they thought was a good idea without doing any testing. I made a few predictions for the future that these tone-deaf companies would roll back what they did and use the “frog in hot water” method to bring them back. I was slightly more accurate than I expected, but I still held out hope that the people in charge would take the hint from their customers (probably in the form of declining sales) and change their tune. Three years later and I couldn’t have been more wrong. So I’m back again to take a look as some of the “facepalm” (I guess) worthy instances of the last year.

Starting off strong where I left off: Yahoo! (a company I’m already not a fan of for reasons that could be a post on their own) disclosed that it got hacked (“hacked” always being a relative term) years ago and that a huge number of accounts’ information and passwords were stolen. As anyone who uses the system knows, they now advise you to change your password and personal information. Thank you for telling everyone a few years too late. Your security is so good that I, the “owner of the account” can’t log in, but some other random person who stole millions of accounts data can and I appreciate that. At least it’s good news for Verizon who could negotiate to pay a capitol “B” Billion dollars less in their acquisition that now seems even more questionable than that time they bought AOL. So with Verizon in a slap-fight with Sprint while cutting off customers’ unlimited data plans and Yahoo! (who I’m pretty sure still runs AT&T’s email) bleeding money like it’s done for the last decade it seems like Tumblr is still the most sane member of the family.

My segues didn’t get any better in the intervening years so I’m just going to move on to Apple, who seem to be determined to destroy everything I once liked about them. The Apple watch isn’t doing so hot, even with its second generation. I don’t know why they thought it would work well. I, and others, made fun of Samsung for doing it back in 2013. I guess they probably still made boatloads of cash, so success is relative. Their Macbook Pros finally followed their desktop brothers and restricted users to a single port-type, to which I respond “I get it, I get it, the future is coming, but could you please not shove it down my throat?”. But I guess I’m an outlier. I’m still kinda mad they got rid of optical drives. It seems like their innovation has become more desperate to put out a new model of at least 2 devices each year. Their last iPad had me bored, their touchbar had me snoring, and Bluetooth headphones had me enraged. At least the iPhone 7, while being bigger than a datapad from Star Trek and having the worst audio playback quality of any phone in recent memory, has enough internal storage now to replace my iPod classic that lets me have all the music I want anywhere I want it; thank you very much for not coming up with a suitable replacement. People might just say I’m behind the times with my clunky old devices, but as Apple’s OS’ bugs increase, their product lines diversify in the weirdest, most confusing possible way, and they start to become more locked down. I get the impression that Apple thinks I’m an idiot, and an idiot who can be counted on to buy their chained-down PC’s time and time again without question. They’ll still probably get one more generation of devices out of me, and hey, they’re one of the richest companies in the world, but I’m seeing a downward trend I hope they can pull up from.

But while Apple might be specifically annoying to me (and making some general duds) the whole message coming out of the tech industry this year is one to make them not be trusted. While there hasn’t been too much negative press at the announcements themselves, things like Uber’s new “fleet” of self-driving cars and Amazon’s grocery store show that the ideal future in the minds of emerging companies is one without you (and anti-trust laws). And this latest attempt to begin the demolition of these two huge employment sectors in the US comes after years of union gutting, tax evasion, and price slashing that competitors can’t keep up with, while offering no compensation and spitting in the face of one of the core tenets supposed to keep capitalism in check “if the people working for you don’t earn enough to buy the products, your sales will diminish”. Amazon has gone the pacification route by also introducing a way to donate to charities without changing much of your shopping routine (maybe someone’ll create a charity for helping Amazon’s warehouse workers in poor conditions) while Uber and Lyft decided to stamp their foot down and declare “We don’t need you, you need us!” and pulling out of Austin (and other cities) when a clunky but reasonable local law made it necessary to fingerprint their drivers. Their leaving sends the interesting message that the law, their customers, and their contractors can all go to hell, they’re playing for some imaginary future where they win. The future isn’t quite here yet: Teslas are smashing into trucks they think are the sky, Samsung’s phones are literally exploding (because seriously, maybe they should test their products a little better; they don’t have to release a new pocket-dinosaur every year), and a private company landing a rocket is still something to be impressed at, but as the most recent job-destroyers gain footholds on the coasts, it’s only a matter of time before they start moving inland.

And well… I mentioned politics last time so… Trump, am I right? or more the fact that he created a social-media campaign strategy that no one seems to really understand, even the facilitators like Facebook and Twitter. Presumably afraid that any human interference would be labeled as bias and hurt their image (which did happen) Facebook got rid of human news “editors” and replaced them with an algorithm that gave everyone a healthy dose of fake. I’m still not sure if I’d prefer a biased human serving me up news or a robot feeding me wrong information, because given two bad answers, why choose? (-Apparently Everyone in 2016). Twitter (or Reddit, or really anywhere,) didn’t fare much better, as every attempt at policing they did was interpreted as an infringement on peoples’ rights (which it might be?) and only served to bolster the things they were attempting to be rid of. But public confidence in their ability to be arbiters was only destroyed once they were all that was left after most of the “regular” media came out as crazy biased, as in “blatantly endorsing a political candidate when you’re supposed to be a neutral arbiter of truth” biased. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy with the fact that there was an election between, and I don’t have the exact numbers here, about 176,000 people all of whom I hated, but someone had to win, and if anyone stating an obvious political opinion when their job is supposedly based on facts and not opinion, is obviously shooting themselves in the foot. Even sites like Wikileaks that don’t really even have stories, just documents, appear to be extremely biased with the specific documents they release (but who was trusting information from potential traitors anyway?)

Without a segue, but with a bad taste in my mouth, I’ll just move back to less political industry topics. Time-Warner Cable was going to merge with Comcast in a deal that was shady enough they were going to give a significant chunk of their subscribers to Charter Communications and create a new company with other divested subscribers that would be controlled by both of them. But even still, it apparently wouldn’t make it through anti-trust regulations so they had to give up and Time-Warner merged with Charter instead creating the second-largest telecommunications company. Now they’re trying to re-brand, meaning people will get the same terrible service with a new uninteresting name: “Spectrum”. They’re even shooting themselves in the foot a bit by continually saying “Time-Warner Cable is now Spectrum”… way to get your name off of it. But at least they’re addressing their criticism, albeit by running away from it, unlike the Youtube/Google/Alphabet (who cares?) machine that long ago figured out it didn’t have to answer to anyone, especially customers. Even as Youtube sparks large controversies that alienate creators (3 in the last year if my (minimal) count is correct) there is no danger of any competitor catching up and thus a negligible number of creators will leave. Google (and Alphabet) like to keep their big mouths shut about how they can control your online lives for the most part (smart tactic I suppose), and Youtube mostly does as well, but its actions affect so many people that they are pretty uninterested in how to run the business so it benefits the creators and the consumers more than it does at the moment. And they’re big enough that they don’t have to answer to anyone, and even though they’re guilty of many of the things I’ve already talked about here nothing sticks. They just put their heads down and barrel forward with only their own internal monologue to hear.

So I guess the moral of the story is that everything is terrible and you shouldn’t trust anyone? I don’t want that to be the case, and while one should be watchful of that potential outcome we aren’t quite there yet. But as these newer companies get larger, they grow increasingly out of touch with regular people. In many cases they’re just sort of forgetting that people exist, and it seems like more often than not they’re being forgiven (or maybe just forgotten) for it. Hopefully, there are greater potential repercussions for these companies than just me and a few other people talking into the internet void, and hopefully that means more of a dialogue between the parties that will lead to more awesome things in the future. But now my internal pessimism disguised as realism begins to show through. I would feel equally confident in a prediction that the increasing complexity of electronic systems will lead to companies focusing even less on the end user and more on simply creating a product that they can put out, and still crashes, bugs, glitches, and hacks will become more prevalent and more disastrous. And even if things get better, I’ll probably be back in 3 years to talk about some other perplexing failure. But hopefully not sooner.

Man, I left the 2013 article on so much less of a downer… Maybe pessimism is just the curse of a thinking people… No that’s not funny! Um… At least we won’t hear “Do it for the Vine” anymore? Maybe… Samsung and Apple should be less conspicuous with their Hitman™ exploding phones… Sure, good enough.

 

Post-Script: Here is a link to a Verge article that, while not being the inspiration for this article, helped guide the direction it went.

Inspiring Lives

This is an article I’ve been thinking about writing for a long time. It’s just been sitting in my queue for a long time, as I continued to feel that I needed to do more research in order to convey my message properly. But I think I have changed my mind. I think the idea that I am trying to convey can be better understood if one applies it themselves and doesn’t just have me listing of the flaws of famous people. Perhaps I have to explain things a little better before that sentence makes sense.

People talk all the time about people that are inspiring to them and most of this is due to specific things a person did, either in the face of adversity, or driving innovation. Many times, though, it can be found that these people who are great in the eyes of history for having done something great were much less than great in their personal lives, or even other parts of their public lives we rarely hear about. I could easily spout off a set of names of famous people who weren’t that great on many occasions, but that might just be boring and feel like padding*.

But does this lack of being great people in aspects of their lives we don’t remember them for make them less inspiring? One could say that it’s more subjective than that (the answer is already subjective) or that the punishment (of your future lack of being inspired by a person) should fit the crime better. A person who was a petty thief at times would be more inspiring than someone who did a thing equally inspiring but was a mass murderer. But that argument doesn’t entirely convince me.

This gets brought up a lot nowadays, especially when talking about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla (for the record, both of them were crazy and didn’t treat other people very well). People having been brought up thinking Edison was a genius and being inspired by his story seem all to eager to jump on the Tesla bandwagon and talk about how much Edison sucked. But I’m not really convinced that makes Edison’s tale a less inspiring one. True, one shouldn’t strive to imitate the man exactly, but the story of a man with very little formal education becoming one of the world’s best-known inventors through almost sheer will is indeed inspiring.

I think that what “inspires” the newer generations shouldn’t be complete pictures of a person. While those should be disseminated and understood, it is almost necessary to look only at the good or great things that a person has done to motivate yourself. Telling myself the flaws of a “great” person is a de-motivator, and encourages my personal laziness. To say “Wow! If this person could accomplish that as 25 just think of what I could do?” is much more motivating than “Well, I’m 25 and I haven’t done that, but I haven’t gambled away my family fortune like him either, so I’m net even”. Almost every time.

 

 

*Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens, John Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, Helen Keller, anyone who is famous for being a general (e.g. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, George Patton, Bernard Montgomery, etc). And now I’m just tired of making a list, but basically any artist, writer, inventor, or politician seems to fit the bill.

Why I Collect

To outsiders, it might appear as if I collect everything under the sun. I might disagree, because though I would like to I hardly have the room. But I do collect a vast array of things of many different genres. I collect action figures, board games, video games, statues, books, knives, lighters, display ships, old computers and computer equipment, containers, notebooks, pens, tools, stamps (the rubber not the letter kind), and a host of other things that happen to interest me when I find them.

I don’t know what it is about me that makes me a collector.  Wanting to preserve history is one of the things. I’ve seen what other people do with items I would consider significant and it’s not pretty. However I do know that I am markedly less interested in preserving some things than others. That is all my preference, and I do hope that those items are being bought and saved by someone who cares, though as I often know with the things I miss, they are not. Still, I buy a lot of things new, and buying things new is not how one preserves history, at least generally, I also open things.  Some people would cringe at the Lego sets I’ve bought on EBay and opened a decade after their release. Or an Atari 2600 game I did something similar with. I don’t believe that things exist to be sealed in boxes and never touched (though some things I created I’ve done that for) but I do think things should be cared for and used appropriately. I have a huge collection of green plastic army men, not because I think my parents bought me more than others, but because I never blew mine up with fire crackers.  Even something as simple and cheap as those plastic men I couldn’t just destroy (side note: why are their tanks still M-60s and Centurions? Shouldn’t they update those to Abrams and Challengers or something?)

I don’t think those people are wrong.  While I might dislike the way the treat their things, they are theirs, and I’d never tell them to not do that unless it was hurting something else. I just have a different mind, a mind suited for collecting things. It’s not that I don’t use things either; I use all of my pens and play all of my games, and have a fun time doing so. And when something wears out I put it aside. I keep it to remind me to get another, to fix it, or to just have it around and maybe recycle. I hate throwing things away. Which makes collecting things so hard. I know of many people who can cycle through collections, either disposing of or selling things that they want less than the things they are about to get. I wish I could do that, but I find that picking up something I haven’t in a while and messing with it is almost as enjoyable as getting something new, and much more cost effective (I still spend way too much on stuff though). Nor can I be like my brother and live with almost no things. I like things too much.  Things are great; I love learning about things, how they work, their history and using them. And I believe that I could meet almost anyone and have something which we could discuss, that is to say my hobbies overlap with the hobbies of most other people in some way (I even go outside sometimes).

I like having a wide array of things to talk about, study, and collect. Part of it likely has to do with the expense, getting into many things is cheap, maintaining interest is sometimes expensive. And so I get into a lot of things. I also enjoy the smaller communities found from a wide variety of things. I don’t interact with them much, and wouldn’t really consider myself a part of them, but I do appreciate them. So I like collecting a lot of things, and just have a colleting-based mind I guess. It’s fun, and though I wish I was more focused at times, I would never have found some things I really love if I hadn’t branched out in my hobbies and collections so much. I hope I can find just as many interesting things in the future.

Inconsistency in Series Naming

This was going to be long, but I’m going to try to make it short and maybe touch on the subject again at a later date. Really, I just think it’s weird how inconsistently many movie series, web series, and product series are named.

I’ve talked before about how the Alien movies went from numbers to weird subtitles for no good reason, and it only take a little bit of movie knowledge to know that Rambo completely changed its title: First Blood, Rambo: First Blood Part 2, Rambo 3, and finally Rambo. Even more recently, the Fast and the Furious movies have been changing the name with every sequel. And I would make a joke about them being embarrassed they made so many, but I think that it’s true. At least they are putting numbers at the end of most of them.

Call of Duty got all kinds of screwed up because of “creative differences” in the direction they wanted to take the series, and adding more and more studios to the mix.
Product lines can also be weird. From fountain pens that are being re-issued, to different iterations of tools with improvements not being named differently, and finally to phones, where apparently naming things is just an exercise in making tech historians frustrated.

iPhone Series

Really, web series, whether in text, video, or audio form, are both the least impactful and the most annoying in this category, with many subtle changes to either the titles or formats being made without any explanation. Sure, that doesn’t really matter, but when I’m organizing them into a list or something (which I never do, so I’m not sure why it bothers me) it’s just kinda ugly to look at.

Granted, I’m sure I’ve made this mistake sometimes. But is a little more consistency really that hard? I can’t think that it is. Especially for the web shows and tech lines, who really have complete control over what the thing is being named. I understand that sometimes movies have different people making a name by committee, which is a bad way to do almost anything. But TV shows would have a similar problem, yet most of their names are consistent. I guess I just don’t understand how so many things, especially popular things, could just be so off in the naming consistency department.  Maybe someone should start a firm that’s in charge of that. No one would listen to them, though.

Why Do They Rename Content After Its Release?

Renaming videos and articles after their release seems a very recent phenomenon. I go to a website, or see a new video on youtube that’s news-related, read the headline, read the article or watch the video, then leave and do something else. And when I return to the website to check something else, I discover the title to the thing I’ve already seen has changed.

I’m never quite sure why the change has occurred, but I do know that it is quite inconvenient for me when I think I might be looking at something new when I definitely am not.

I guess I know why they’re doing it. In theory it would be because of a mistake, or improper wording. If they had a title that didn’t reflect what the article or video was about, I would understand the need to change it. And, of course, typos need to be corrected.

But in some cases, more recently, I’ve been seeing perfectly accurate titles being replaced with equally accurate ones, less accurate ones, and sometimes even irrelevant ones. Perfectly good titles are exchanged for ones that will get more views, or play in with some recent phenomenon (that will get more views). And this is something that really disappoints me. I want the places where I go for entertainment to at least keep their original titles (save for fixing typos) the vast majority of the time. When a much-more-appropriate title appears, I am absolutely fine with the previous one being replaced, but if one is replaced on a weekly basis I start to have problems.

Sometimes I don’t name things until I’m done working on them, but often times I have a finished title halfway through production, and not having one, or at least a good idea of one, by the end of the process seems like a large oversight. If you don’t like the title enough that you’d consider changing it later, think for a longer time about it now.

And when news sources do this I feel especially wronged (not in a severe sense, because this is just online, but you get my point, I hope). Many times it’s obviously changed to get more views. Now I’m fine with things being named to get views, but if I have to deal with two click-baity titles on the same piece of material in the same day, I start to not want to view that content. Sometimes there are even more title changes, which may speak to a strange attention disorder and want of more recognition that may be inside the mind of the poster.

In short, I don’t like it! It is passable sometimes, but I feel that it is wrong to an audience to rename multiple times what you have put up for viewing. In my opinion, it attempts to get more views dishonestly and corrects mistakes very rarely. Although I’m not a fan, it still isn’t nearly as bad as the Discovery Channel airing that mermaid “documentary”, though.