Perhaps the quality I look for and admire the most in people I associate with now that I’m 39 years old is altruism, whether someone will take actions to help others which do not benefit him in any way, whether financially, relationship-wise (gift-power dynamics), or reputation-wise (the spotlighter or faux do-gooder). It’s one of the hardest personal traits to fake and it reveals a glimpse into someone’s true character. It gives pause, it shows self-reflection; it may show in its worst form a dishonest penitence, but more often than not it shows love. It separates those who truly want others to succeed, even if they’re in direct competition, from those who preach cooperation and teamwork but practice Machiavellianism.
A competing rubric for whom you might associate with is the Steve Jobs-ian method of alphas only wanting to be around other alphas. In my industry, software development, alphas-seeking-alphas (a4a?) is the prevailing one. Everyone’s just trading up to be an ex of a Silicon Valley powerhouse — ex-Googler, ex-Apple, ex-Uber, ex-Facebook.
In this light, you would seek only to be around people better than you, either to improve yourself faster relative to your experience, or to use those people to catapult your status. Monetary reward is typically the main driver, whether it’s near immediate (finance) or delayed (the executive or pseudo-executive golden umbrella/fat signing bonus/no accountability for performance track). In such a competitive industry, to not pursue advancement is akin to stagnation and eventual career suicide. In such a competitive industry, the only line too far is, apparently, sexual harassment or the holiest of holies, trade secret theft, and even those charges apparently are iffy.
In most competitive companies, it has almost always been their duty to hire specifically for alphas: people who will fight, tooth and nail, to advance their company’s “goals”.
Naturally companies began realizing at scale, whether startup or enterprise, that they didn’t need loyalty; they just needed the best hired guns they could afford in order to accomplish short-term goals, while minimizing the biggest cost-centers: human capital and health care. Enter lobbyists, contractors, hired guns, revolving doors, job-hopping.
During my public education in the creative 80’s and careless 90’s, there seemed unbeknownst to me to be the transition from loyal company men to this mercenary class. A common film and TV trope in the 90’s and 2000’s was the death of the company man.
Mercs were one of the most lasting results of Operation Iraqi Freedom as I witnessed it — hirsute ball-capped knuckle-draggers and pampered support contractors while we made a military salary signaled some sort of rot back home in America. Offshoring and outsourcing were political third rails, a crude outcome of the displacement of corporate ideals.
Still, I grew up believing the rules of the game were clearly defined, and immutable to those who valued their careers.
In government, politics were partisan but most normal state and federal representatives sought the same goals: sustainment for the middle class and the advancement of American ideals. In government, there was the separation of powers, the three branches of government, the general idea that those who went in to government sought to improve the public good instead of receive monetary reward (whether that legend truly ever existed or not).
In 2017, either the perceived or real threat of foreign influence is at least enabled by this deterioration of loyalty as an organizational goal. If you don’t have to worry about integrity, the betterment of others, and even punishment for being caught committing a crime, you’d be stupid not to try to get the most you can for yourself, right?
The thing is, qualities such as loyalty, integrity, and selfless service are only valuable in societies or communities which enforce those qualities. If winning, or lack of enforcement of norms, trump those qualities, then those qualities become liabilities in the game. Those who play fair fall prey to those who want to win.
The name of the game, even in American daily life now, is winning. It doesn’t matter how you win. It doesn’t matter who you’re beating, or what you’re even playing for. Winners hire winners. Don’t get caught in a loss, big or small. Only you can tell yourself that you lost. Never admit you were wrong. You will never be cast out from your line of work or your principles, at least not for long, as long as you never lose belief in the win as a cure-all.
I’m not up for winning at any cost. I refuse to play that game. Psychopaths play that game. If anything I should probably enjoy winning more. I always root for the underdog. I root for the home team. I prefer team cohesion to hired guns. I’m okay with losing. I root for the magic of the dream ending, and the longevity of the ancestors who allowed those opportunities to happen.
But it requires that I pick my spots. Daily life and one’s engagement in it is avoiding the places where assholes abound. You’ve got your swindlers, your “intellectual debates” which are typically just cock-jousting, you’ve got the ex-Division 1 athlete kickball team that destroys everyone else, you’ve got the bullies who push the rules wherever they are because they know others fear conflict. You see them every day.
Imagine politics and government: you pit hired guns whose expertise is in winning at any cost versus people who are not playing to win but instead are playing to keep what little they have, playing on free time they have very little of. Money politics will wear down community fabric every time. Monied attacks are more persistent. They can keep trying new strategies. They can adapt to splinter the core community interests, learning from failure after failure, waiting for that one time when they crack the shell.
This is roughly in line with, say, the Russian approach for countering America, wearing down American ideals into division, bickering, disillusionment, lack of will or unity in the face of hopelessness.
In theory, laws passed would protect community interests from the attrition onslaught of endless directed attack by defining time intervals between relevant legislative sessions, to protect community capital.
But it doesn’t feel much like there’s been much to protect the community’s interest, right? There’s been loss after loss, and if it isn’t a direct loss, it’s likely a loss at someone’s expense who could not afford it.
With Citizens United, shit leaders, and everyone else trying to get rich or die tryin’, the rest of us just relegate ourselves to hoping that this person or that person isn’t going to fleece us as bad as the other.
At some point either the community will fight back against enemies domestic and foreign, or it will create its own alternative community which explicitly disallows the perceived enemies from before.
A post shared by Ben Turner (@benghis_khan_turner) on
I don’t know what will happen but the worst thing good people can do is give up. That is pretty much what other interests would want them to do. Having recently moved from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I am least a little more relieved by the social fabric that exists in Brooklyn than by the mercenary lives of most Manhattanites.
As for me, I can’t stand alphas, save for the rare alpha that comes along very rarely and who works for everyone else — typically those types of alphas become historical legends. Fuck!, real alphas, ones I’ve gotten to work with in the past, both destroy poseur alphas while at the same time helping everyone else. All effortlessly, for that is where true benign power resides.
And I can deal with mercs — everyone knows where they stand on things, generally predictable in their monetary risk-reward calculations. But give me the misfits, give me the overlooked. Give me the people who do the right thing even when no one’s looking.
Give me the hard road. Though let me not walk it alone.
Give me the people who can’t be bought. Give me a life worth living, and a life with people worth living it with.
While I spent a week of my paternity leave watching my little daughter, I managed to finally watch the initial season of Westworld. I had pretty low expectations but everyone said to watch it.
I did enjoy the show, though like most movies and shows (Harry Potter, Avatar), I would have preferred to just experience the made-up world for a while, just watching some of the character interactions, before returning to the main storyline.
There’s a scene where you get to see the interface that lets the developers change the personality weightings of the characters — I was drawn to it.
This reddit thread pointed out that you can see in the UI a bunch of other characteristics that developers can edit behind the fore layer. So in theory you can get pretty fine-grained with the personality development. Though I’m not sure where the developers imprint a character’s backstory here, or if it can even be done via the UI.
What I love is the immediate feedback from editing a character’s personality (shades of Bret Victor’s talks about interactive code) and how the mixture of weighted traits form a baseline personality which guide, but not proscribe, all their behaviors.
This got me thinking about Galapag.us; I think I’m getting to a point where I’m ready to work on it some more. The main thing for me in the last year has been severe time limitations with family as well as a ton of stuff to learn and think about while coding at work. What that means is that in order for me to work on Galapag.us, I need to prioritize building a separate module for things so that I can work on them in isolation in a language and framework that requires the least complexity and time spent reasoning what the code should be doing. As a result, I’ve spun out the MUD/text-based aspect of Galapag.us from the web application code, and I’m going to do the same with the character creator.
I’d like to get to the point where I can create random characters for fun while on the subway to work. My previous strategy was to create essentially an MVP where everything is integrated. But now, since this is primarily a labor of love and my life’s project, then I want to just stay with the bare metal so I can work on the components that enable me to play more.
(9) The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory – John Seabrook (started out rough (failed Pitbull reference) but I learned a ton about song producers and some recent pop stars. book will definitely be dated in a decade though)
This list above is probably a less interesting list than past years to anyone outside of myself. Nevertheless, what impressed me about the books on the list was depth to which the authors had researched and experienced their own stories. The amount of time it took the authors to travel down the paths of scaling data pipelines, or to iterate upon Dwarf Fortress, or to establish a long history of ground-truth work for the people of Vermont as Bernie Sanders has, or to build up the best animation company in the world.
To think that these people started at the same place and traveled so far from each other is something that I consider every day that my newborn daughter gets older. Where will she go, and how far away from her starting point will she end up?
In 2017 I think a lot of my job’s architecture buildout will be done, but my daughter will be more of a handful once she goes mobile. So I’ll set my goal for 2017 to read a modest 15 books. The good side is that, having gone to our local SoHo bookstore recently, after having not looked for new books in a while, I was awash with new books I wish to read.
The curiosity is still there, but not the time. I do also plan on writing on my blog more, to cope with a post-truthiness American mainstream world.
During my brief lifetime, the US has enjoyed unchallenged dominance on the world stage. Indeed, the US and patriotism are used together so often that, at least to an American, it sounds weird to hear the word “patriotism” used to refer to any other country.
I’m a patriotic person as well as a veteran and I constantly internally explore the meaning of patriotism, and by extension, loyalty. Patriotism to me very rarely looks like patriotism does to, say, Trump, or to Obama even. It doesn’t look like Red State patriotism, and it doesn’t look like non-veteran patriotism. I’ll generally find more kinship with veterans, but even a lot of the time I’ll disagree with them on what patriotism should mean.
One thing I’m fascinated with is what peoples’ loyalties would look like if the US were not so dominant. In particular, what would loyalties look like if the US fell far from its leadership position? I think that most would say they would still love their country and defend it even if it fell in prominence. But would they?
I’ve been living in DC and NYC for the last 9 years. Most of my classmates, and probably coworkers, are fairly cosmopolitan. Most of the Georgetown set are well-off and enjoy gilded lives. They tend to focus on large-scale issues and organizations whereas a lot of folks in NYC I know have old money too, but they tend not to be as world-minded.
These DC and NYC people are the people on Instagram you always see traveling to exotic countries to help people, by way of fancy hotels and safaris and whatever else. They’re people who seamlessly transfer from one city-state to another because, if you’re well-off enough, every city provides safety and comfortable living. These people are politically interested, and activist where it makes sense, and so you might think they would be the most empowered to retain patriotism in the face of adversity.
But I wonder if these people would be the first to leave, the first to flee, the first to criticize how things are and take flight to other places, because they are sad to see how the state of things has deteriorated. How this place they were patriotic about no longer represents what they believed in. We didn’t leave the party, the party left us. Because they have such mobility and freedom, giving up allegiance comes with virtually no disadvantages. Ex-pat culture is a massive thing now. What does the Brexit event mean in light of all this, with the city-state of London desiring to stay, while the rest of England wanted to leave? Toned-down nationalism and the promise of pan-European unity did not reward around half of the population evidently.
Studies of Russian patriotism are perhaps instructive because they already lost a lot of their dominance on the world stage, and while, by geopolitical position, they will always be a significant force, a lot of Russia experts would say one of the defining traits of Russia is its wounded pride.
As a veteran I’m well aware of the fact that for the most part, US military strength overwhelms its opponents. Sure, we have recently settled with giving up our overwhelming advantages by engaging in costly urban and asymmetric warfare, but for the most part, every military unit has been turned into a force multiplier by nature of training and technology. What would it feel like to be part of a military that was not the biggest, baddest dog in the pound? What if your squad or unit literally faced annihilation every day by a superior force? Would you still be volunteering to serve? The current calculus of gilding your resume would shift.
Religious faith and fealty to family are also receding. For the most part I think this is a good thing, especially given the explosive investigations that people in power in the church and popular media exposure of abusive households during my lifetime has flipped the script.
Work for millennials and people my age does not encourage long-term stints with the same employer. Not only do you generally only enjoy raises and promotions only when you change jobs, employers are also less likely to internally promote unless it’s a specific policy decision they’ve made.
So in no way is one rewarded for being loyal or patriotic these days. It makes even less sense if you don’t live in the US. With the Olympics set to begin soon in Rio, it’s often the only time some countries display overt national pride other than, say, World Cup?
I don’t really watch The Walking Dead but my wife does. What interests me I guess is that communities of like-minded people in these post-apocalyptic worlds form and square off against each other. Racial ties probably are strongest. Bandwagoning towards the strongest leader would be the next strongest perhaps. Religion? Maybe nationality?
The Walking Dead hints at but doesn’t quite explain fully what its estimate is for how quickly we as a society would devolve from an orderly system to every person for himself. Would it take you a month before you gave up on any hope for a return of order, before you started to choose a faction? Just for your own safety until people started to figure out relative strengths between groups?
I know no one else enjoyed the film A.I., but Teddy is perhaps one of my favorite all-time film characters and the betrayal of humans towards the androids they created is just so compelling and painful a subject for what will likely happen to us when we begin co-existing with computers that it’s chilling to me to see the film.
David’s programming and state as a young child is in conflict with his role in his family and so his actions become suspicious and scary to the family, particularly when the real son manipulates David into doing things that alienate their parents.
I enjoyed Fallout’s storyline regarding androids and humans, with the rift generating two different factions, The Brotherhood (those who sought to remove technology from public availability and hoard it for themselves, for everyone’s good) and the Railroad, who sought to smuggle androids to safety.
It’s true that loyalty can lead to cruelty towards outsiders and xenophobia. But lack of loyalty, or lack of attachment to anything, leads to disengagement, a common complaint for American voting habits and politics at this point.
I’m definitely a hometown sports fan. I don’t like bandwagoners and I respect sports fans a lot more if they root for teams in cities that they live or lived in. I once knew a guy — Cowboys fan, Lakers fan, Yankees fan. Infuriating. It’s almost though you can’t trust someone who doesn’t even root for his hometown teams.
There was a problem connecting to Twitter.
Maybe the smell test here is if you’re not loyal to something, or have faith, or take a stand on something or have an opinion, then where can other people decide that you stand on anything. Seriously, if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for everything, right?
A common trope also is that for those who are loyal, they are seen as weak and predictable — the Joker loves to take advantage of Batman in this way, but where I see it happen the most in real life is in bias committed against veterans. It’s the idea that people shrug and give lip service to “supporting the troops”, but then if they don’t like a veteran, the person becomes a bona fide PTSD case: on the edge, ready to snap, probably suicidal, a lost cause. This is where what you’ve stood for and sacrificed for becomes weaponized against you. Your beliefs and your actions, generally done in service to others, becomes a negative upon you.
The other side is conformity, right? If you don’t swear fealty, then you must be removed. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. It’s such a thin line, loyalty.
All this stuff is interesting to me, and perhaps because it becomes so prominent during election campaigns, that’s why I tend to write about these things every 4 years.
I certainly get why Asian-Americans, of which I consider myself a member, have parents who immigrated to the US and kept a low profile and tried to work hard and stay out of trouble. If you’ve existed in a world where people turn on each other, question each others’ loyalties, and judge each other based on those sorts of qualities, it would be desirable to leave all that, try to raise your family, and not draw any undue attention to yourself. As a soon-to-be father I appreciate that more and more, particularly as I also think about my career and what actions I would take in the future.
I guess I don’t have a particular point to make about all this, but these emotions people have are latent, powerful forces. If a certain set of people no longer displays these emotions or ascribes them to common causes, where will that emotion and loyalty show itself in the future? Does it put us in danger to just assume that the dampening of nationalism necessarily means a general sense of acceptance to a global common cause?
Working on Galapag.us allows me to experiment with new frameworks and to try out new design patterns on mini-apps.
It’s pretty good! Components aren’t entirely isolated — you still have to find some clever way to inject style, or just settle on styling globally if you don’t want to do it inline (which React allows for).
Anyway, I built 2 mini-apps. They’re not quite ready for production yet, so I’m not really going to link to them, but…
I’d been looking around the web and found JSON Resume, a schema proposal that allows for saving one’s résumé details in a JSON format, so it’s easily portable and separated from style and presentation concerns. Perhaps an even more important goal of the project is to provide an alternative to the horrendous process of uploading your details via PDF or DOC to some job application site, only to have it either mangle the parsing of your file or, even worse, to force you to re-enter all the info into some shitty 5 page web form that looks like it was constructed a decade ago. And God forbid you should ever have to update your info when you come back to your profile years later.
I figured it would be nice to have this app built-in for free — perhaps entering in all the pertinent data would become a quest to complete.
So I mapped a lot of the pre-existing modeling I already had in Galapag.us into a call to the API server that serves up your résumé data in JSON format compatibile with JSON Resume 0.0.0.
This app didn’t have that much complication in terms of interaction or dynamic changes — a straight-forward app making an AJAX call to populate the front-end.
But it’s fairly clean and extensible — and it’s mobile-friendly.
The other mini-app I made is called Butterfly, as in a social butterfly. The goal of Butterfly is simply to provide an easy tool for you to jot down someone’s name whom you just met at your local deli, or at a party, or whatever, so you know how to find his/her name later once you’ve long forgotten.
After all, we remember close friends but often meet so many random people who are still remarkable in their own way in your life, that we can’t remember their names.
This app is mobile-friendly too, and should make it easy for you to load the app on your phone and add the details of someone you just met.
The Bigger Picture
The résumé data signifies that my data modeling is at least getting to an intermediate point where it’s beginning to provide value in having a large datastore but also diverse enough to support applications which need broad access to different datapoints.
And the butterfly data model helps to map the social graph. I’ve witnessed the torch and pitchfork brigades that attack services which attempt to allow people to post content about other people without their express permission. While I disagree with this as a supporter of radical transparency, I understand how it’s just not tenable in today’s society. But at least for those who opt-in and for certain datapoints, those who volunteer should reap all the benefits of a more interconnected virtual world. So I do plan on rewarding those who share more — with things like the genetic crossing mini-app.
Galapag.us still isn’t useable in the sense that it replaces my daily viewing habits, and it’s not my first choice for a datastore yet. I know when the site will be getting approachable for others when I start to dogfood it myself. I keep adding more and more over the years, and refining that which is already there. Eventually it will become useful, and, hopefully, necessary in terms of providing competitive reputation.
Near the beginning of the year I decided to focus more of my time on coding for my ongoing personal project, Galapag.us. That project is still in need of reaching a point of critical mass. It’s scaled up as I’ve learned more about how to develop an application from top to bottom, but it’s still in need of a lot of work, with an ever-increasing scope. In calculating the amount of time to push the ball forward for Galapag.us, I realized that time spent on the train, plane, subway, or waiting room could be spent figuring out the next crucial pieces for that project, instead of reading.
Anyway, the good part of this year was that I absolutely loved the books that I did read! My 1-10 scores tend to skew above 6, but that’s mainly because I’m not forced to read terrible books. I think I’ve only given a few 3s over the years.
I rated 13 books this year a perfect 10, which is absurd. I rate a book a 10 if not only do I think it’s well-written and authoritative in its research or access, but I also think it’s important that others read the book. A 9 is a book that I loved reading and that I think is important, but I took more personal satisfaction in it. An 8 is a solid book, a 7 is one that I probably felt like I had to read for my own education, and 6 and below is mostly just poorly-written fluff.
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ book: I really wanted to not like it, but it challenged me like few books I’ve read have. It pissed me off, made me uncomfortable, but also made me feel love, and loved. Definitely the most influential book I’ve read in a few years.
This year I do plan to continue putting more time into Galapag.us. I’m still trying to get it to a point where I love to use it, use it for everything, and even stop needing to use other sites. It’s getting closer. So let’s say my goal in 2016 is to read 20 books.
As always, I am in search of new books that cover subject matter that I don’t know much about so I can get a baseline sense of the insider baseball within. Subculture books are always fun. I prefer nonfiction and I generally enjoy reading journalists’ work since they can balance efficiency with fascination, discipline, and exploration.
I tried to read more fashion books this year to get a sense of that industry, but most are garbage or write of segments of time with designers who have long since been relegated to the dustbin of history despite their meteoric rises. What does longevity mean in that industry?
I felt like cyber and hacking storytelling has finally reached a point where the stories are amazing to read, but are also true. It’s been the stuff of cheesy plot lines in the past but now we regularly read highwire stories of law enforcement chasing unknown online criminal enterprises. That world has matured into reality, is basically what I’m saying.
This year I read 40 books. I’m almost done with a few more really long books but I’m saving them for next year. My goal was to read only 25 books — I think I figured that my reading would drop off with trying to work on creating practical blocks of code and learning algorithms, but I also did a bit of traveling up and down the coast, so that allowed for more reading time.
They are rated from 1 to 10. I rated 10 of the 40 books this year a 10. As always, the books I think are absolutely worth reading and which I think say something profound or new are rated at a 10. Rarely do I rate below a 6, just because I wouldn’t have chosen to read the book anyway if I knew it was that bad. 9’s and 8’s are usually solid books, but not must-reads. 7’s I appreciated the content and was satisfied with my choosing to read them.
This year I added very very brief comments giving my 2-second gut review.
This year, my emphasis has been on deepening my understanding of code quality, algorithmic efficiency, and runtime speed as I try to become a more seasoned programmer. My goal has been to practice more C and C++ to learn from a sound fundamental base. I also tried to become stronger in devops-related topics.
I think this has been my best year for reading books written by women. In the past I had read the Hunger Games, The Giver, and Harry Potter series, and those shouldn’t all count as uniques. But this year I was delighted to read some fascinating investigative journalism books (on chocolate, Chinese consumerism, and shipping) and a couple amazing memoirs (Julia Child and the woman with the brain on fire).
In the coming year I’m going to try to read 40 books. In particular, if you have suggestions for investigatory journalism books, I’d love to read them! I also love books with biographies on great persons or great projects.
Keanu’s understated demeanor and humility, combined with the Sad Keanu meme and reddit love (for having done things like giving part of his earnings to the rest of the crew on his movies), have won him at least a begrudging respect from even the most hardened and dismissive critics of Keanu. A common refrain now, after years of being the dumb Ted Logan or the wooden Neo, is that, well, Keanu seems like maybe he’s a great person, but that doesn’t mean he’s a good actor!
Let me attempt to convince you otherwise.
My exposure to Keanu at an early age took the form of watching Parenthood over and over because it was on TV all the time. That movie, an under-rated film (and, I must digress, was a significant influence in my life as it showed me the dysfunctionality of families well before I was able to see it in the families around me, due to my age and immaturity), came out in 1989 which was also the year the original Bill and Ted came out.
I don’t know which film influenced this doofus young dude character the most but Keanu as Tod in Parenthood was one of the first indications of Keanu as a sweet, innocent, misunderstood character, as he played what seemed to be a trouble-making, trouble-attracting boyfriend who actually ends up helping to bring a family together. He played Tod and Ted, I might add, after being a character in Dangerous Liaisons (with John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer, Glenn Close, et al).
Ted dominated the early 90’s (note that somehow he ended up a timeless film with George Carlin), and in my childhood I would watch Bill & Ted in their animated cartoon show. Yes, that’s Keanu, animated. How many actors were animated before digitization became a thing?
Strangely as a college kid I didn’t follow films that much but I did fall in love with Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which features some of Keanu’s most infamous acting work as a ridiculous Jonathan Harker. Point Break, My Own Private Idaho, and Little Buddha I didn’t experience until I was much older.
Speed took Keanu out of the Ted phase of his career and into an older, more wooden phase in which he wasn’t perceived as a goofy kid anymore, but just a bad actor. Some other classic films did little to change his reputation but he managed to accomplish a lot: a William Gibson novel (Johnny Mnemonic), a film with Charlize Theron and Al Pacino as a badass Satan (Devil’s Advocate), a scab quarterback in The Replacements (with Gene Hackman, Orlando Jones, and yes, a younger Jon Favreau!), and some poor attempts at blockbusters (Chain Reaction with Morgan Freeman) and Feeling Minnesota (with Cameron Diaz and the great Dan Akroyd).
I’m just covering the facts here, ma’am, but it’s to get us on the same page. You probably loosely know this history up to this point, since it’s the foundation for much of the criticism of Keanu’s acting chops. Even my argument that few actors have worked in such a wide range of roles with such a high caliber of fellow actors is not enough to convince many.
I bring it up because I think like most projects of creation, it is interesting to see which people tend to end up working with each other. I figure even the most assholish of assholes will get at least one big chance to work on a project with other talented types, but unless that person is just a pure genius and everyone knows it, it’s unlikely that others will want to pick that person again.
I tend to think of Kanye as that ridiculously creative, assholish genius, while I think of Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up as a person who had one chance to work with a group of friends but turned them off. I’ve read that the Knocked Up cast thought Heigl was a total stuck-up bitch and that reputation has followed her since — like, how could you not enjoy hanging out with the Apatow crew?
The fact that Keanu in his career has been able to work with so many different actors of high esteem is a pretty good indicator that he’s a pleasure to work with and, based on the stories revolving around him, an inspiration to be around. This guy is the definition of a force multiplier who makes those around him better, even if his own qualities can be somewhat indeterminate (and this is a common theme among my favorites: Tyson Chandler, Paul Walker, Kenneth Manimal Faried, and my best friends, as examples). Keanu reportedly took pay cuts in Devil’s Advocate and The Replacements to land Al Pacino and Gene Hackman.
But does that make him a great actor? No!, most detractors would say.
So, let me get to the meat of my argument. And I’m going to need to make a personal parallel here. Keanu is a halfie like I am. He’s mostly Canadian, but of mixed descent. Some British. Keanu is half-white, half-Hawai’ian/mutt. Born in Lebanon, raised by his mom with several stepdads around.
I am mostly American, some Brit (by my Brit parents). Half-Asian, half-white. Raised mostly American but with some tiger mom ideals. I was quickly outpaced by my advanced classmates (mostly Asian) in middle and high school, but I didn’t fit in with the rest of the student body, and while I enjoyed sports I was stuck in right field or last spot on the tennis team.
So with all that in mind, I began to notice I identified with Keanu in a key respect: he tends to play the role of the outsider come to help the community deal with and resolve its problems. And if you look at things this way, you’ll see a whole new side of acting and of Keanu open up.
Here we see Tod, healing his girlfriend’s small family by teaching the young son without a father that his entree into puberty is not abnormal. Shane Falco as the quarterback of a bunch of scrubs who get a chance at filling in where they don’t belong. Harker traveling to Transylvania to be a liaison between the modern world and the mystical world. Siddhartha himself, the man who sought to leave the gates of elite security and see how his people truly lived.
This helps to explain the interpretation of his acting as well, certainly. For him to be an outsider means that he did not grow up with the same cultural imprinting, ritual, and mannerisms as the rest of the community. He is going to be perceived as not acting “normally” or quite human enough. He is foreign, he is weird. This I identified with very strongly since the most common characterization of me is that I am non-emotive and stoic — but this never quite resonated with me because within myself is a complex torrent of insecurities, feelings, and understandings about the relationships occurring around me.
In Keanu’s more recent films, the outsider theme is even more prevalent. In 47 Ronin, Keanu is a half-Japanese, half-white subservient mystical nature outcast who is treated with contempt by the samurai around him. Says one of the characters, “I would rather have been killed by that beast than saved by a half-breed.”
Perhaps the perfect role for Keanu under this intepretation was as Klaatu, the stoic alien in The Day the Earth Stood Still who comes to Earth in human form to warn humans that we are on a path of self-destruction.
The Life-Weary Veteran
There’s a theme of Keanu as detective and beaten-down veteran, or as a technical expert. Detectives are, culturally, those who investigate the other side in order to unravel the truth that has been hidden away.
His efficient, calm demeanor actually suits him well as a head-shotting ex-hitman in John Wick:
As a detective in A Scanner Darkly, Keanu’s character breaks down as he loses his ability to maintain identity. and is rotoscoped (how many actors have been rotoscoped?) by Richard Linklater (a triumphant director of our time) based on a Philip K. Dick book. Keanu is enmeshed into the fabric of our age, are you getting the picture yet?
He plays an exhausted truth-seeker forced into his trade in Constantine, Johnny Mnemonic, John Wick (though this also fits his villainous Street Kings and Man of Tai Chi roles), and of course Point Break.
Now, Point Break is legendary (Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days and Point Break are spectacular — Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty seem very different and distant). It wasn’t always, but it’s quotable now. And, I’m very happy to say, it was playing the day of my wedding when I was with my groomsmen waiting for the ceremony to start. I AM AN FBI AGENT!, a line both praising and mocking our hero.
Arrogance is exhausting to deal with when I hear it in others. Look how Keanu phrases things. It’s refreshing. “I get to play Kai” (about 47 Ronin). On his most recent reddit AMA: ” Thank you everyone for spending some time with me. It was great to spend some time with you.” An older reddit AMA was entitled “Ask me, if you want, almost anything”. He is asking for your permission and is grateful for it.
The Blind Mystic
There is, obviously, the Neo phase of Keanu’s career, when the mocking progressed from Speed to WHOA. Thomas Anderson as the office drone. But let’s look at The Matrix within this context: Keanu’s girlfriend had miscarried their child shortly before, and then not too much longer afterwards, they had broken up and she had died in a car accident. Since then Keanu has not really had serious relationships at least that we know of, and he’s seemed to exist in a separate plane more than ever since.
With this in mind, consider the scene where Trinity dies:
Keanu, blinded, but omniscient of Agent Smith, the robots, his mortality, and his Jesus metaphor (“table for 12”). That’s a powerful scene and no one else fits it better than Keanu does, as a human and as an actor.
So now we can begin to see depth in Keanu’s acting and in his role choices. His most recent shift to gunkata, martial arts, and killing somewhat parallels Liam Neesonian films after Neeson’s wife died.
Next he will be in a TV mini-series John Rain, in which he’s an ex-Special Forces (near and dear to my own heart) ex-CIA assassin-for-hire, based on a book character of the same name who is half-Japanese, half-American. It’s like the perfect damn role for him.
The Fellow Sufferer
Keanu understands the human condition, such as this comparison to the trials of life being like quicksand:
As Siddhartha, he chose to see death instead of comfort:
Naturally he chose the red pill:
He’s been somewhat aloof about his alter-ego, Sad Keanu
but he’s aware of how others perceive him, such as in his picture book Ode to Happiness, which my brother thoughtfully got me for Christmas last year:
Do you see now, Neo? What you know you can’t explain, but you feel. It’s there, like a splinter in your mind. Keanu Reeves is Hollywood’s best outsider, the definition of the role, the person who crosses boundaries between realms, who fits in neither here nor there. He has traveled the world in search of truth, and he sets an example for us all to be better people through his roles and his personal deeds.
To me, any small sliver of all this puts him up there in terms of acting, but altogether, how could you argue differently? Perhaps I look up to what he represents more than most, and identify with his feelings of alienation and isolation but deep sympathy with the human condition, but I hope that others see him the same way.
And with that, what’s a better way for me to sign off than with this Johnny Utah/Ferris Bueller (one of my top 3 films of all time) mashup?
I’m not sure if the Rift or Project Morpheus are going to be huge but with the anticipation for their consumer releases, this is probably the first time VR has been really exciting for most geeks.
You can tell how big it’s going to be by the observation that people who try it get lost in it. They put on the Rift and they emerge from it half an hour or hours later, completely unaware of how long they were wearing it and playing with it. This is akin to when DOOM first came out (the id Software dudes Michael Abrash and John Carmack are involved in Oculus, so they anticipated that potential too), or Quake multiplayer, or the Civilization games, where you go play a short game and it ends up being 7 hours later and you don’t want to quit. People will get lost in the rift.
Look at what people have said:
But Iribe couldn’t take his headset off. “Again,” he said, scarcely able to believe what he was asking for. They ran through the entire series once more. Finally Iribe took off the prototype. His head felt strange—not dizzy, not displaced, but overwhelmed. “How long was I in there?” he asked Abrash and Binstock. It had been close to 45 minutes.
– from Peter Rubin’s Wired article which I’ve reread multiple times now
“Last time I was sick with the flu,” Carmack says, “I just lay in bed and watched VR movies on the ceiling.”
This is no gimmick. This isn’t like 3D, where the difference to the viewer is a minor one. At worst, VR will be a niche format adopted by a handful of stalwart gamers. At best, we’re witnessing the birth of a significant new medium. Having seen its first baby steps, I want this technology to take giant leaps. I want to get lost in virtual reality. I want real-life Reginald Barclays to emerge just for the science-fictional thrill of it. Holo-addiction? Try Oculust.
We took turns trying it out — people would watch for ages while the rest of us anxiously waited for them to be polite and finish. It’s immersive and you’re so curious you can’t stop looking around.
Just check out the Node Studios guys playing beer pong and goofing around in the rift with a virtual hand interface add-on:
Oculus has had high visibility at the E3 gaming conference in past years — this year was no exception. The Rift was adapted to the new Aliens game, where you have to stealthily avoid an Alien xenomorph. The Rift seems perfectly suited to that experience: suspense, surround sound, 1st person. Another game, Superhot, lets you dodge bullets by moving your head around them, similar to Neo in The Matrix.
When Facebook bought Oculus, I was pretty optimistic about it though I think the majority of people think it’s bad for Oculus’ future. What I think is most interesting about it all is that it literally took just a little time for Mark Zuckerberg to meet Palmer Luckey (who is pretty goofy himself…) and then want to buy Oculus, even if it’s A) mostly unproven and B) not exactly aligned with Facebook’s core product.
If Facebook and Oculus are going to sell the Rift close to at cost, then perhaps that signifies that Facebook sees Oculus as a potential play to keep its userbase lost in the rift. Facebook according to most stats is killing any other competitor in user time spent daily, and now it owns at least two of the other major players, WhatsApp and Instagram:
Even if you subtract from that a large portion of mainly mobile users, a rift that people are addicted to would be immensely addictive to people who spend a large part of their day socializing online.
Also we’re not quite at a point where you could serve up a rift off a mobile or even a tablet, but perhaps eventually you could. I grew up romanticizing Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash and William Gibson’s Neuromancer but was always deathly afraid of the almost certain future of Hiro Protagonist going to his rented storage space to zone out in the rift for a day or two.
And that’s another aspect: the popular culture anticipating this kind of timesuck. Think of TRON:
The implementation I want to see most is from Daniel Suarez’s Daemon, which has a Darknet interfaced via glasses. The glasses show peoples’ reputations, green paths leading to your location, even a way to perform alchemy on real-world objects and imbue them with special properties in the digital world (a real-world object being a key to somewhere else, for example), or showing what level of a profession someone has reached (so someone might be a level 7 farmer or a level 3 trader). Those glasses were actually described as being subtle and hard to distinguish from actual glasses so I suppose Suarez saw them as more Glass than Rift (which was what Stephenson’s Metaverse equipment was more like).
The Rift vs. Glass
I see Google Glass as technology affecting culture, in the same way that adding a front-screen camera to the phone led to the phenomenon and official word creation of the selfie. Glass has challenged accepted normal behavior in public settings: can you be recording in movie theaters, in a locker room, even just in a restaurant? Are you a Glasshole just because you have the glasses on, even if you’re an experimenting artist or technologist? Is it even legal to wear Glass to record interactions with police? So far Glass has been rejected by social norms resoundingly, even amongst those who like the tech, just because it’s been associated with a “Glasshole” culture.
I think of anti-Glassholes as the new digital NIMBYs. Digital NIMBYs are not, say, old folks who don’t like any new technology or who don’t think there’s a use for it. Digital NIMBYs are actually fairly savvy with tech, having grown up with it, but they want to control their environment and the tech that exists within it to the extent that they believe they should dictate norms to others. People who are proud to not have a TV, people who object to any cellphone use at all among others, people who want you to leave your cellphone with the others at the door, people who aren’t web developers but still scoff at IE users, that sort of thing. Digitally savvy but not technically savvy. Digerati, nimbies, whatever you want to call them. They’re insufferable and they think they dictate tech culture.
But anyway Glass does bring about problems with cultural norms regarding eyesight. We are told not to even look at others: homeless, children, people whose business isn’t yours, etc. But Glass provides a possibility to record even a passing glance for future memory viewing. This changes the whole security through obfuscation dynamic — instead of briefly viewing something with your eyes that you’ll soon forget, now every glance can be permanent. That makes eyesight into a weapon in the same way that guys might ogle girls on the street.
Contrast with the Rift. So far, the Rift looks almost comical to people not using it. Someone has a Rift on and is cocking his head around and leaning about and looking behind himself, all with the headset on. Most importantly and humorously, his eyesight is blocked and he can’t see what is actually going on around him. Most importantly, he has become a complete non-threat to those around him, almost like a prisoner, without eyesight. There’s no Rift asshole phenomenon yet, and I guess it’s because no one perceives a Rift user as a threat.
I imagine Oculus wants to enable some awareness for the user:
Oculus is also working on a second, outward-facing camera that will be part of the headset itself. The Valve prototype used such a camera to read fiducial markers on the walls for tracking, but Oculus seems to intend it for very different applications. For one, Carmack says, it can function as a pass-through camera, allowing Rift-wearing users to see what’s happening in the real world—a kind of external heads-up display that would allow you to grab a soda, for instance.
– from the Wired article
But I do think it’s interesting how eyesight augmentation between Glass and the Rift is perceived so much differently. I’m anticipating consumer VR will lead to similar advancements in digital culture, and it seems like it will finally come soon.
P.S. As an aside, why is Keanu Reeves in two of these VR films? Well, as you may know, I think Keanu Reeves is awesome, and I recently watched two of his latest films, 47 Ronin and Man of Tai Chi — I think he tends to enjoy roles where he’s cast as the outsider to a foreign world, with himself as the bridge hybrid (him being like a halfie, like me) between two worlds. He’s played this role in at least: Dracula, 47 Ronin, The Matrix, Parenthood, Constantine, The Devil’s Advocate, The Replacements, and of course, Point Break. Anyway, just a theory.
At 36 years of age, as of March 7th, I have just become gloriously married.
You know those times at school when the teacher or a counselor would have you write down your 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year goals? For as long as I’ve been an adult, marriage has been one of my key goals, since I value stability and a strong base as extremely helpful building blocks towards a better, unique, independent, meaningful future. This has been a wondrous achievement, to become married to my wife!
It took me a while, and I was woefully ill-prepared for any form of marriage up until just recently despite wanting it, having incurred some hefty life experiences that forged my Ben-ness: training, war, official mistakes, transitions between cities and schools, finding a fulfilling career. Fortunately, I also hadn’t found the right woman yet. In retrospect I think I’ve dodged some bullets in life and I safely made it to this happy point; healthy and happy and intact to be able to recognize it in another and now I’m very lucky to have met but also deserving of my wife. My Best Man wanted it clear to me that I was fortunate to have met her, whereas I countered that I also put in my time and effort to earn that chance.
And now we’re here. I must confess; I’m a pretty even-keeled guy but our wedding was amazing. Even better than we could have expected, better than all the fantasies and cliches. Our friends and family, all holding court in their own ways, keeping the party on lock, the wedding vows themselves touching, the pacing and pre-wedding rituals, the smiles on family who have given us so much but we have not quite given much back to yet.
The honeymoon as well was what I would call a true honeymoon. While I am loathe to engage in goofy grinny sugar, the honeymoon in Costa Rica (a bit in a secluded rainforest resort where we could sleep and eat the best food, a bit in a beach resort full of sun and surf) was almost fairy-tale like. The best part was to share it all with a true equal, someone who is equally dedicated and invested in us — perhaps the most valuable thing one can find in life as well as one of the hardest and rarest things to find.
Prediction: Anniversary Weddings
As a side note, after having seen what the wedding culture is like, how the TV shows portray weddings, how our own planning went, I think if you wanted to create an extremely effective long-term marketing campaign, you would push for anniversary weddings as a major new event. Think about what couples go through: their first wedding is probably going to be at least somewhat on the cheap since they’re either on the hook for it and/or they have no disposable income. So a bride is not necessarily going to get her dream wedding when she’s so young, unless someone’s parents are loaded.
But imagine: after 5 years or so, the couple will probably have more money and will want to throw a more lavish wedding. Perfect opportunity to market a second wedding. Then the longevity wedding at 10 years or whatever, before a couple starts to get old and the glamour of the wedding’s superficialities fade away. This would create several more opportunities for wedding industry folks to cater to couples and to create narratives out of multiple weddings. It would also create more excuses for families to gather (which in the grand scheme of things is immensely important, overlooking the pettiness and jokes that surround having to deal with the in-laws and crazy uncles and whatnot).
This is one of those moments in life where I take a knee at the top of the hill, look back at the path I’ve come from, and sigh and reflect on all that’s happened.
And then look further up the ridges and ranges to see what’s coming next.
I can definitely feel the strong pull of crossing over from one stage of my life into another. For the first time, that journey is not alone, my decisions are not solely my own, and instead of destructive creation, there is now only creation, at least for the fortunate time being. The teens and 20s are pretty destructive years but they chip away at your character and you end up in your 30s and 40s as the type of person you have chosen to be.
We love our little place in the East Village, but we have our story to write and we wonder where we go next. For once it’s nice to share that decision, that conscious choice.
A developer’s job as a crash course in multilingualism for coding languages, organizational principles and methodologies for projects, and building applications rapidly — I feel this work has deepened my appreciation and respect for the creator and the builder and the artist, a continuation of my studies in art/tech school. Writing code has in some ways taken the place of writing for me; I no long blog so much unless some large sweeping societal issue has me particularly wound up to write.
I was writing finger .plans in high school and college because I saw John Carmack doing it. I wrote blog posts through the rest of most of my life thus far, even while in the Army. Nowadays I think my conversation with the internet, and therefore with you, the reader, has contracted into more private communities. In fact I think the most interesting communities will become smaller and more niche — it’s already happened on reddit where the subreddits are still positive, informative, and overly open to each other. I would love to see local intranets for residential buildings or mesh networks that require some form of test in order to gain entry. When I want to converse, I want to talk about what can be built, not why things shouldn’t, which has become the norm for discourse in most public forums.
If I had to say what I hate most, it’s probably negativity. I’m a pretty conservative person in my own assessments, probably a product of both my Chinese mother’s caution and my sergeant’s training to hope for the best but prepare for the worst, but this should not be confused with negativity. Negativity is debilitating, demotivating, draining. Those who find the inner strength to build and create and love need to be supported by the rest of us, not brought down. And when it comes to examining what is possible, I’m usually overly optimistic.
LOOK AT THIS SHIT. I PULLED THIS CLASSIC SLATE EXAMPLE UP ON THE FIRST TRY.
Cranks and haters have always been a part of online and intellectual discourse, but it’s run rampant now that we have what is somewhat of a critic’s internet buffet. The Twitter community I used to enjoy, journalists and reporters and analysts and policy folks, once encouraging of a naive eagerness for new information, has become TMZ-like (in that it loves gossip, the less true the better) and pompous in its derision for anything and anyone. No one is safe, in the end, from being torn apart for whatever reason: the idea won’t scale, this or that person is a fraud, etc. The Atlantic, Slate, these are publications that your liberal news junkie loves to read. And the writers they hire at those places are absolutely TERRIBLE in their negativity or insinuations of impending failure.
Facebook buying Oculus Rift, Amazon studying the use of drones for delivery, Google making a HUD interface in Google Glass. What I want to be a part of is a community where those achievements are exalted, not ripped to shreds, as they have been by people I might have respected at some point. I grew up in an idealistic proto-internet time of downloading MP3s and playing Quake online and Napster was a giant; anything was possible even if it was all insane. Unless you tune all the negativity stuff out, you wouldn’t know. You wouldn’t marvel at all the amazing work, such as the people who have contributed research and proofs of work towards, say, NP-Complete math problems. Louis CK would say “everything is great and no one is happy”; I mean the research and consideration going into those Facebook and Amazon drones and balloons is just a beautiful thing to behold.
As the internet has passed through most of its adolescence and begins its maturity, the rest of everyone who plugged in were stuck in a status quo where it seems none of those critics and cranks have really advanced or improved at their own crafts. To see the amazing achievements announced daily, and then see them shit on, well, it’s frankly infuriating.
Jason Collins coming out as a gay NBA player. The quickest response: “But he’s a horrible player.” Sports, one of the worst refuges of the shitbag critic. A dude makes the NBA and instead of people showing him respect, they’re quick to point out he’s not a perennial all-star. I’m sure even in Jackie Robinson’s day, people were slagging on him for something. Some petty something. As another sports example, what could be worse than this upvoted rant against watching sports?
The Snowden affair has made everything absolutely toxic. The government lurks behind every piece of electronics now, in the minds of Snowden’s supporters. It’s the same kind of paranoia I’m sure most of those people would make fun of the Republicans for in their loathing of Obama, or of conspiracy theorists for their suspicion of anti-gun, anti-religion, etc. liberals. When John Schindler is pointing out how Glenn Greenwald is one bad day away from appearing on Alex Jones’ show, everything seems absurd. My liberal peers now make blase jokes about the NSA but barely bat an eyelash at unprecedented expansion of corporate personhood.
SXSW just happened and I’ve never been, but I know people who seem to go regularly. How do they afford it? It’s expensive as fuck. Do their employers pay out for it? How much are people really getting out of SXSW? So many people who go aren’t even creatives or builders. I’m definitely not against a flashy party, but I do wonder when it seems like the B-players are being sent. E3, SXSW, and other conferences are now meetups for the elite and rich, those who can either afford to go or who are paid to go. And what are they contributing back as a result? This is why conferences lose their magic. This is why, most notably, TED tanked.
Wonder why communities stagnate? Because they have more cranks than dreamers and helpers.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to love watching the Grammy’s and Oscars more. For me it’s bewilderment at the complexity and sheer market size of their industries. The amount of resources, attention, and output generated by dresses, producers, talented artists and directors, the entertainment and happiness that they bring. I love the process. Studying how films are cast, the bonding the cast goes through for the film, the pushing of boundaries in the technical areas of the film, the representation of songs off an album into powerful videos, live tours, and performances for award shows, the biographies written up in Rolling Stone and whatnot.
But the pettiness of the crowd drags it all down. All the slagging on Macklemore even though him and Ryan Lewis were by far the most interesting artists of the year in terms of touching all aspects of the industry and affecting culture. I actually thought Lorde’s album was incredibly powerful for such a young person but I’m happy with all the results. The same goes with Oscars. I try to make a point of it to see as many nominees in as many categories as I can, because those picks represent a curation by the industry. Hence it drives me nuts to hear people completely destroy films in their critiques — the labor going into a project is admirable, even for lesser quality films.
Negativity. I can’t stand being around it.
One story I really hate seeing is the condescension towards Silicon Valley startups who seem to be creating fluff products when, you know, there are people dying in Africa and stuff! Why can’t those engineers work on actual important problems?
Of course, who’s writing those stories? Well in the case of the latest NYTimes story, it is written by none other than a Columbia computer science grad student who lives among the gilded engineer community being called out.
Man, where to start. The insanely awesome advances in open source software, particularly in the promiscuity of excellent language features being shared among the major coding languages such that they’re all beginning to share a lot of commonalities, these are created by developers and coders and hackers and engineers, people who actually do enjoy spending a whole weekend by themselves indoors in the dark pushing characters around on the screen.
You don’t have to wait around too long before you hear people say, “We must teach the kids how to code!” Chances are, the people saying it can’t code. And they won’t go learn how to code beyond tutorials. This is fine — I certainly don’t think everyone needs to code — but I am definitely a believer that if you tell others they should do something, you should have done it yourself first. Now, code as a gateway towards solving problems that kids might be interested in, this is a great addition to a school syllabus. (having them design a database to catalog what they own, or a double-booking ledger system to keep track of what little money they make, etc.)
Anyway, my point was that engineers are good at primarily one thing, which is writing very specific code that can test the limits of what was previously possible. Criticizing Facebook for focusing on creating end-of-year videos? That’s an immense computational task and it had to be done using tons of peoples’ disparate datapoints. But the knowledge of how to pull that off is now going to be passed along to successors, to schools and research facilities, and eventually to grad student theses and private products. As a former student of international development practices, that shit is hard enough as it is and most everyone in that world barely has the statistician’s background enough to be able to make informed decisions about whether this or that program or measurement is actually helping the people who need it.
So it’s the height of arrogance for people who don’t know how to build or measure things to tell others who can do one or the other that they should not only do that task but also design, fund, scale out, and deliver onto the ground solutions to improve society. Some mercenary blog-quality writer for The Atlantic decides that this or that project is worth slagging because he was clever enough to think of holes in the project’s design while he sips his morning coffee.
I saw this at ITP — while the community itself is immensely supportive and open towards nonsensical, wildly over ambitious ideas, when it comes to critiquing others’ work, the feedback often comes back to blowing huge holes through someone’s work just to sound smart about it.
Getting back to those life goal write-ups. I never really did them very seriously but when I think back to them now, they were immensely informative and helpful. When I was in college, I think my short-term goal was to be a full-time daytrader, since I was doing fairly well trading the dotcom boom. I didn’t have the perception and experience to realize that market volatility would dry up, that the system’s regulations would be gamed so that small-time daytraders (less than $25k in their account) would be locked out of the practice because of restrictions on the number of trades one can make. If you want to know how Wall Street has changed, beyond the infamous “quants”, then you should look at how daytrading restrictions have locked out regular folks from trading actively, and also look at how IPOs, buyouts, and other mostly stock market-related business deals are all about cashing out and not adding value. The stock market’s investment and negotiation deals handled by the big finance firms are not too far off from nobles trading title and land for reputation and power. Their employees get little. The only way normal folks can win in the market anymore is to just play for the long-term.
My Flaws and Strengths
not close with enough friends and family
no natural ability
top caliber friends
reverent of the process
That’s my list. I might also add that the part I probably think the most about is that I know that positivity and being enthusiastic and empowering others to be happy with things is the most fulfilling thing one can do day in and day out, but for me what I lament is that I am by my nature just not that person. Having met some powerful leaders, wonderful motivators, and just all-around badasses in my time (many of whom were at the wedding, if only for a few hours before they had to return home!), I have witnessed what they can do for others, and that’s just their natural state. In the world I’m more of a defensive-minded person, more of a guardian, more of a sheepdog. It’s just the way I am, and it’s what I’m best at. How will I integrate that into being successful and truly great?
“Good taste is a myth. A story our rider creates to serve the needs of the elephant. And the sooner you kill your good taste idol, the sooner you’re going to give yourself a chance to be a better designer. It frees you up to add taste as another tool in your designer’s toolbox. Consequently, instead of focusing on good taste, your focus becomes the right taste for the problem at hand. There’s a subtle but profound difference.”
The magic moments of online forums or of hobby-based communities are that in most of the growth stage, the conversation is dominated by doers and builders, people who are curious about the implications and who love to share positive aspects of it all.
And then I’m sorry to say but the “intellectuals” then bandwagon on, having read about it all in this or that magazine or on a prominent blog. This is around the time when communities start becoming caustic, full of cynical comments enforcing behavior of entrenched, mature communities elsewhere. The doers mostly get drowned out. I saw it happen on HackerNews, and to some degree on reddit. Those amazing comments you go to read when you first joined are replaced more and more by negative comments (and by memes, but I love memes).
These folks are full-time consumers: of culture (which they did not live in), of art (which they could not possibly create on their own), of popular culture (which they foster animosity towards but can’t help but indulge in). A community of fast-food binge watchers. I am an avid consumer of pop culture myself but I do feel a certain pressure to need to contribute something back: to try to find artistic outlets for my more pragmatic views, or to attempt things that are somewhat subversive.
The full-time consumers are up against the people who believe in doing, as referenced in this hackernews comment section on ageism in tech:
“I have a ton of cultural criticisms of the current tech industry, but the one thing that it is absolutely getting right is valuing creation. The damage that could have been caused by the Google/Apple cartel has been limited largely by the startup industry that, for all its faults, has as a crucial belief that the act of building things is valuable, and that people who make things are the ones who create the most value.”
Strengthening a Community
To me it seems like it would take very little actual effort to maintain the positive tone of a community and avoid the police that have made Wikipedia and StackOverflow so abhorrent to contribute to. Active enforcement of positive messages would be a given, but bigger than that, I’d prefer a whitelist system where your reputation precedes you. Do you have a good online history of being helpful, of encouraging others and of sharing lots of content? Then you’re in. Admittance is earned.
One major piece of Galapag.us that I hope to implement eventually goes along with the theme of different islands. The islands have their own cultures, wildlife, climates — and their populations should have culture and personality that reflects it. So each island would have its own rules for communication and culture. For example, a welcome island would have strict rules against hurting new players, whereas another island may be a free-for-all. But I think most islands would be somewhere in between, capped mostly by having formula requirements to gain admittance, based on a person’s stats. Perhaps an island requires a very high reputation with very low negativity and an innate nature for helping others, so one would need to have very useful posts as well as have an “angelic” alignment.
I like anonymity, pseudonymity, and verified identity all at once. I think they all have their place. But I also think that one’s reputation should be compatible with a community.
So here I am. Here we are. Starting a new family, a new chapter in life. I think I’ve definitely become more of a homebody as I’ve gotten older; saving money, disliking the quirks of others more, understanding which types of events are never that entertaining yet knowing which ones are really key. I’d like to think I’m stressing meeting up with friends more now. I definitely cherish that time.
And, to conclude, my goals:
get a substantial raise to pay off more school debt and begin having children
plan on where my wife and I might like to move to and live
crash-course on C/C++ and algorithms
2015 (37 years old):
fluency with computer science algorithms, data structures, searches, and sorts
west coast driving trip
scouting trips for places to live
5 Year (41 years old):
Galapag.us as a command-line/search box-driven game
10 Year (46 years old):
at the age when I should expect to create a life’s work or project that is “great” and “glorious”
Note: I’ll probably be adding to this, as I had trouble expressing what I wanted to say in a cohesive manner and worked on this over several nights. I know I’m leaving tons out, and need to think more about future plans.
But hell, it’s so good to be in a state of strengthening and building now.