Gifting Curated Content

In a family of apathetic sleepers, suggesting a TV series or lengthy film they’re likely to enjoy is the best gift I can possibly give. Each might have their own unique consumptions—background fodder for laundry folding, afterwork darkroom escape, cozy universe and characters—but the intent remains the same: help them augment how they want to spend their free attention. Technology tends to have too many friction points to gift remotely.

For an aunt fond of true crime and dramas, putting on the TV adaptation of Hannibal while I was visiting amounted to a T-ball home run. I could’ve messaged her remotely to watch it sooner, but far too many inconveniences or uncertainties stood in the way. Would she launch the correct app on Apple TV? Would she search at the global level and be guided to an unnecessary purchase in iTunes? If she found it in Netflix, would she start from the pilot, or could someone else in the house have started viewing independently and left their progress at episode 4? Account for the probability of wine consumption and I’m left with weak confidence that remotely suggesting will get her watching it in the optimal free way, from the very beginning of the show.

Strong confidence only comes with in-person control and selection of content: There’s an immense opportunity to open the ‘Up Next’ interface in tvOS to remote authorized users. I’ve written on the potential for playlists in tvOS before, and this would be its natural expansion to enable sharing. I know I can curate movies, episodes, and web content for anyone that might naturally come up in Share Sheet on my iPhone. I want a streamlined interface that allows me to send suggested curated lists, for the local Apple TV consumer to confirm and start playing, and for them to pause and return to the playlists at their leisure. A more optimized sharing experience is just sitting there, waiting to be crafted using existing component pieces.

Having a universal ‘History’ view akin to the Music App would also be incredibly useful for people in a household that might want easy shortcuts to go back and share content again with other household guests.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Black Lives Matter Protest at Twitter Headquarters.

June 31, 2020

Starbucks at Market and 10th morning after looting.

June 31, 2020

Walgreens at Market and 9th morning after looting.

June 31, 2020

Westfield mall boarded up after a fire was set inside the previous night.

June 31, 2020

Zumies on Powell morning after looting.

June 31, 2020

Swarovski morning after looting at Union Square.

June 31, 2020

New artwork on long boarded up former Burger King.

June 31, 2020

Police moving in after protestors had set fire to a dumpster and flipped it over in the middle of Polk St. The police had been stationary around City Hall imposing curfew until the fire was set off.

June 31, 2020

Firefighters brought in to put out the dumpster fire from protestors defying curfew.

June 31, 2020

San Francisco has established a healthy immune response to significant disruptions of everyday life. The great fire of 1851 was overcome, as was the 1906 great earthquake and subsequent city inferno. We rebuilt. Assassinations of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978 brought civil unrest to new heights. LGBTQ representation and the causes both men championed are stronger today than Harvey Milk could have ever hoped for. The fight against the AIDS epidemic owes much to San Francisco for its early identification of a new pathogen impacting its residents in 1981 and subsequent steps towards fighting the disease. The Castro neighborhood retains the shadows of its residents lost in the battle, along with the hope and strength that came from overcoming it as a community. All things heal with time.

Not since the founding of San Francisco Mission de Asis in 1776 could you find a point of greater uncertainty for what the future holds. So many problems—from police brutality and Black Lives Matter to healthcare access and supporting the economy—present a moon shot opportunity for city government. Historically SFPD had a much higher percentage of cops living in the city they worked for. Could improved housing density bills reduce the pressures and frictions that come from situations where those being policed feel underrepresented (if at all) by the men and women in blue they see day to day? Or do we change the focus of police work and the type of relationship a police force has with its community? How might we want to change recruiting and training for better community outcomes? Having no easy path forward increases the opportunity for a politician to grab the zeitgeist and lead a massive systemic overhaul that leaves no part of city living or administration untouched.

BART and Caltrain are never going to recover financially: between the jobs lost already and a likely permanent shift in telecommuting job options, safe mass public transit must be viewed as a necessary service by the city, for the city. Collect necessary tax funds from the businesses that need the density of human employees and consumers. Could virtual reality and APIs redefine what constitutes acceptable access to goods and services? If you can shop virtually and have goods delivered to your door, would a business be able to open in an old historical building that previously could never have met necessary changes for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance? Are we more ok to tear down historical buildings if we can preserve them virtually or in augmented reality? Where are new compromises going to emerge that unlock new and different ways for cities to grow?

I have no idea what San Francisco will look like in 10 years, but I’m excited to help be a part that builds it.

Unreliable Magic Moments

Often windy. Always worth the trek.

From the top of Twin Peaks with wind strong enough to knock over a bicycle, the audio quality is fantastic. While no noise-cancelling technology is implemented, the snug fit of the Powerbeats Pro ear buds keeps most of the wind’s howls tamped down: no distortion when listening to music, but a quiet audiobook narrator should be saved for a lower elevation. After an hour of running, I still have hours of battery life and nothing but nice things to say about the ear buds: these magic moments never last long.

The buds naturally fall into the correct charging alignment every time. It even works well one handed.

I remember seeing the first wireless ear buds and thinking they’d be more convenient, but I failed to grasp how impactful a change it would be for me. I was content dropping my phone down my shirt collar and pocketing my phone so I could listen with minimal wire intrusion on my range of motions. Apple’s AirPods were my first wireless headphones I used. It became easier to fall into flow states with other activities: cleaning, walking, cooking).

As I felt liberated to expand my use cases and expand my enjoyment opportunities, I began running into AirPod limitations. Sweat over time on long runs would force constant adjustment of the slippery buds; if I ran faster than an eight minute mile they would fall out of my ears. These two faults blinded me from appreciating how much everything else disappeared from attention due to good design. The carrying case maintained what felt like more than fair charge for their size and weight. The buds could only fall into one position and always charged together with the lid closed shut.

The proper alignment and placement of these is more abstract Mensa test than great human interaction design

When the Powerbeats Pro were first shown, I saw product fixes that addressed my nagging AirPod issues and assumed everything else would be handled with the typical Apple polish. While in use, I couldn’t be a stronger advocate for them. They sound great, have no issues with sweat and stay in place regardless of the activity or speed. Once I start recharging them or attempt to swap audio sources, significant problems consistently arise.

The case has enough capacity to recharge the ear buds 2-3 times before its drained and needs to be plugged in. It’s inconvenient enough to make the case kept at home (as opposed to traveling with the AirPod case in a pants pocket). Even with a denser battery, the case’s design has no regard for mobility. I can’t even close the lid and maintain charging on both ear buds. Whenever traveling with the case in a backpack, it’s a pretty safe bet that the jostling will have disconnected charging from at least one of the buds. I am never surprised when traveling to find the buds that were at 100% in the morning floating around zero after a traveling day spent in the backpack.

I shouldn’t need to check this every time I place them down to charge.

My lack of confidence in the Powerbeats Pro charging case has forced me to always consult my phone to double check that both ear buds are charging. It’s a pain that prevents the worse scenario of wanting to leave on an early morning run only to find that they died overnight while ‘charging’.

Another persistent Powerbeats issue stems from bluetooth connectivity. Often when they first connect to the phone, audio only registers from one ear. The iOS UI indicates a successful connection to both ear buds, yet sound fails to play out of one. Sometimes force quitting Libby or Music or Overcast and relaunching would fix the problem, but those fixes are unsuccessful enough that I now power cycle my phone every time I encounter one-ear audio issues. This happens on average once every four sessions of ear buds away from their charging case, or once every one to two days.

One way I can guarantee to trigger the one-ear audio bug is to try to swap audio sources. I would like to use my ear buds when listening from my phone, then while chatting in a video conference meeting on my laptop, and then to my watch for a run: that’s never going to happen. If I’m running a minute late to that meeting, I reach for my AirPods since they connect with audio in both ears every time I use them and every time I change the audio source. I don’t like feeling constrained by a product’s own shortcomings. Powerbeats Pro should float painlessly in use between audio sources.

I have such good occasional moments with my Powerbeats Pro. I wish I could have more of them. The damage in confidence to the brand makes me very unlikely to jump to the next Beats iteration of the product. My best bet for expectation management is hoping some of the sportier features end up incorporated into future AirPods iterations.

Dawns of the Dead

Originally published October 2007 at NYU.

During the late nineties, studio sharks began to smell green blood in the horror genre and pounced, releasing wave after wave of horror titles. Though new and cheap properties sometimes prove profitable, nothing prints money like a remake of a well-regarded movie during a boom in its genre. George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead—though by no means a commercial success—is regarded as a classic in the horror genre. The film paints a grim picture of America’s commercialization using a zombie infestation in a mall. Zack Snyder’s remake only uses the original as a point of plot origin to construct a frenetic, gore filled chase film. Looking at the differences and similarities in how each film constructs their ending’s escape from the mall reveals the different social climates in which they were created.

In the original Dawn of the Dead, a gang of bikers breaks through the protagonists’ barriers and allow the zombies to poor in. The mall itself—lit with soft lighting and a brown filter—is wide-open, two stories and has a floor of pure, clean, white tiles. Having a comfortable and inviting atmosphere, it feels more like a home than a mall. The gang breaks in, dragging with them a low string and piano accompaniment, heightening the tension and sense of foreboding. With their motorcycles—shot from low angles—they quickly lay waste to the mall’s clean interiors. Stephen hides and watches the intruders from the unfocused garden in the background as the camera stays on the bikers’ looting. Their actions infuriate Stephen. Shot-reverse-shots between Stephen and the gang ransacking the mall speed up, with each successive shot coming closer and closer to Stephen’s face until he is framed in an extreme close-up, signaling his decision to fight the intruders.

Stephen’s assault on the bikers forces Peter to take potshots from the second story, covering Stephen as he strides for cover. The low, melancholic music begins to overshadow some of the diagetic noises from the zombies and motorcycles. As the zombies begin to take the upper hand, Romero rapidly cuts from a long shot of a group zombies lurching towards their victim to a medium shot of the attack and kill to close shots of the wounds and zombies eating; he then pulls out in the same manner, only reversed. The editing and framing of the victim (usually only parts of the face, and never seeing them clearly) keeps the focus on the zombies: we get close when the zombies attack, we move back out when the zombies are done. The camera acts and focuses on actions like a zombie.

Cornered in an elevator, Stephen bleeds to death from bite wounds in a medium, high angle shot. He emerges from the elevator later in a close up revealing his undead status. Peter retreats to the safe room in the mall manager’s office as zombies decimate in note the remaining bikers who did not flee. The editing slows down and the orchestral music fades away as Peter and the other remaining survivor, Francine, plan to escape. We then cut back to the insides of the mall as the zombies lurch back into the stores, following their phantom habits. Romero films from high angles, unlike the many lows used during the gang fight, with deep space as the zombies slowly seep in from the edges of the screen to take over the entire composition, like water—especially given the bluish tint to the zombie makeup—flowing back in through a broken dam. In many of the stores, we see the zombies through mirrors on the walls or off of cosmetic counters to reflect a return to normalcy: thoughtless consumption persists. Accompanying the zombies shopping is a playful folksy melody, with lots of trumpets and xylophones. The music coming from the mall’s sound system is in stark contrast to the visuals onscreen, highlighting the true horror and deterioration of the situation.

Don’t let the poor makeup scare you away from watching

As Francine preps the helicopter on the roof for takeoff, Peter ponders whether he wants to continue fighting to live. We watch the zombies enter and fill the safe house with a long lens, making the danger to Peter seem that much closer and palpable. Once Peter decides to fight on, a swell of cheerful winds and percussion accompany the quick cuts of medium shots as he makes his way to the helicopter. The camera then tracks the helicopter as it leaves the roof right at dawn; Romero never leaves the mall and Peter and Francine’s fate remains ambiguous. As the credits roll, the folksy mall music returns as we cut between different high angle shots of the mall, showing the the status quo is back to normal.

Snyder’s update of Dawn of the Dead strips out the themes and lighthearted comedic moments of the original in favor of a lean and fast paced narrative with a bigger group of protagonists containing less character development. Whereas the original ending concerns waking up from the small isolated dream of normalcy they developed in the mall and accepting the world, the remake ends with a hastily rushed escape to water as the zombies flood the mall.

After a botched rescue plan of a survivor in a building across the street, the protagonists return to the mall a few members short with a herd of zombies tracking their path back into the mall. The most apparent difference between the remake and the original is the color saturation and contrasts. Where the original paints with a palette of muted browns, the remake leverages high contrast film stock to yield much brighter interiors and much darker shadows, yielding a hyper-real environment. There are also different color motifs for different areas, with the underground having a green tinge, the mall blue, and the outside natural. Lighting is also different, with the final moments in the mall using only source lighting from a few overhead fluorescent lights spotting the floor with areas of dim light, unlike the mall’s typical stark brightness. The mall is no longer an inviting place, and the many shadows covering the mall represent the inhering danger in staying.

A more sterile and ominous mall environment

Snyder implores lots of handheld cameras with deep focus to disorient the spectator into not knowing where to pay attention. With so many planes of action happening simultaneously that draw the survivors’ attention, the viewer in effect becomes the final survivor. Repeated quick cuts between different protagonists add to the frenzied pace, never allowing the spectator to sit and digest a shot for too long. An orchestral accompaniment also heightens the emotions in the remake, but unlike its use in the original, the remake’s soundtrack is much more bold and over the top. The music helps move the characters along and creates a rhythm for the cuts during the action fights with zombies. The zombies themselves also differ greatly from the original, with vastly superior natural looking makeup and the ability to run at full speed. The zombies’ range of motion allows Snyder to more clearly show the deluge of the virus; they quickly move to fill any empty space within a scene. The kills themselves also lack the nuance of Romero’s, with jarring extreme close cuts firing at a rapid pace.

The protagonists leave the mall in two heavily fortified shuttle busses. After a tracking shot of the vehicles speeding up int he parking garage, we cut to a shot from the outside as the vans break through the barrier: the camera is waiting for them to leave and the camera follow them—unlike the original—after they leave. From high angle crane shots, we follow the crew as they make their way through the sea of zombies in total darkness. As the vans crawl to a stop and rapid cuts show the growing zombie swarm, we see from a bird’s eye view one character throwing an explosive canister—in slow motion—and then detonating it with a gun shot, creating a blast that blows up and knocks down all of the zombies around the vans. The music, after a spike in tempo here, comes to a complete stop; it starts up again as a jazzy drum beat accompanies quick cuts of the vans racing through the empty city as they approach the docks. The final moments before they depart are filled with zombie battles filmed with an altered shutter speed to give a jumpy and super real feeling to the fights. Right before the credits role, the ship—their goal—takes off sailing towards dawn’s rising sun in the middle of the frame, with the music coming to a tempered and uplifting ending. The credits then roll as additional scenes reveal the actual fate of the characters as they reach their deserted island destination that is also filled with zombies. A diagetic digital camera lying on the hull of the ship records the gruesome and unambiguous true ending to the movie. The original and remake of Dawn of the Dead—while similar—are unique enough that the remake doesn’t attempt to replace the original so much as coexist with it. Though Romero conveys a critique of society’s direction through his film, it may be the remake’s existence that offers a stronger critique of society. The remake’s existence—as the stripped down attention deficit cousin to the original—and superior financial success is only possible in a society enamored with commercialization. Its place in modern times is as much a criticism of society today as the entire text of the original.

Selecting For Uniqueness

Imagine this exchange occurring at any social gathering:

What do you do for fun?

-I like to watch TV, read, go on hikes: the usual.

Happy hours can feel like parrots spouting checklists at each other on the hunt for overlap. A banal response like that paves over the unique preferences and consuming patterns each of us has that provide far more interesting conversation fodder than a single verb, show, or book. Sometimes it feels like the english language lacks the words to properly express the degrees of attention one may give during any activity.

Technically also ‘watching TV’

Streaming previously watched comedies with a sleep timer on the TV at bedtime and Sunday evening event television with lights and phones turned off are both ‘watching TV’: how much you do of each and how your consumption changes with time or your mood are the more interesting conversation topics. Each conversation with a stranger is a new opportunity to explore the ways we choose to navigate life and relax. A person’s consumption patterns is more accessible to making me feel I ‘know’ someone than any 4 letter curse word Myers-Briggs can conjure.

Of course, banal responses and questions have a chicken and egg relationship. Both parties in a conversation are equally responsible to make it as interesting or as brief a convo as it can possible be. Why miss out on any opportunity to optimize things. Far more interesting responses could come from

If you woke up one rainy Saturday morning with no plans, how would you spend your time?

What was the last TV show that made you feel the highest level of excitement and how were you introduced to to it?

How often do you reread books? Why?

versus

Game of Thrones?

-Game of Thrones. Stranger Things?

Stranger Things.

Playlist Potential

Playlists, please.

If the tvOS team talked with the iTunes and Apple Music teams more often, I think they'd see a missed opportunity for a commonly used and shared format: playlists. The Watchlist sometimes fetches all the latest new episodes, but I may still need to scroll horizontally for a while to cherry pick the first thing I want. Normally, my watching pattern is consistent enough to go on auto pilot mode. I wish I could pre-select and save certain groupings of media channels available through the Apple TV. One imagining could be a "Home DJ" app.

Or something of the like

I would be able to create a playlist, specifically selecting shows to populate with random episodes, sequentially, or only for new and unwatched content. Music breaks can be inserted, with duration set by number of songs or a specific period of time. Scrolling up while the TV is active on any current item would bring up the playlist and the ability to jump ahead to future items. 

When a playlist ends, the Apple TV returns to screensaver, letting me return to my life and decide what my activity will be. The number of clicks and necessary jumps between apps to watch a "normal" amount of content has too much friction. All the pieces are there for tvOS to be better. Playlists seems like a low hanging fix with oversized returns.  

A Digital Talking Stick

Media consumption could be so much more enjoyable than it is now. We're a household of laziness, and repeating patterns. The Apple TV remains the default media faucet for us, beating out the Roku, PS4, and Xbox One as having the least amount of friction. Dinner prep begins while putting something on in the background. If it were easier I'd probably just play music through the HomePod. Instead, CNN, Stephen Colbert's monologue, or an episode of the French Chef with Julia Child may stream out. 

While consuming the stream, I'll often run into a small item on my phone I want to share temporarily on the Apple TV: a new song, a video of the recipe we're making, an Overwatch League game. What I want to do is set a temporary exception to the current stream: play this media from my phone until it ends, then return to the original stream. Instead, I have to adjust my settings and turn AirPlay on for my phone, flipping all streaming content to come from my phone. Only when I'm done and I go back and disable AirPlay does the native content return to the Apple TV: even then it usually requires an additional 'menu' button press to get the original stream content to play once more. 

I wish the 'play' button could be used to temporarily stream to a device, then release. The 'AirPlay' button requires too many steps. 

Instead of providing a separate button to flick AirPlay routing on and off, why not provide long tap or 3D Touch options available when clicking the 'play' button on any given media? Bringing up a context sensitive drop down would allow you to project playback of only the content linked to the 'play' button to whichever device is selected. All of the component pieces to do this are there in Apple's hands already. They're so close to having something that would be so much less intrusive and annoying when it comes to consuming media on my terms. Especially in households with multiple people, give us a better way to share with each other and temporarily control the digital talking stick. 
 

A Fragile World Order

"War is a substitute for courts...because courts are the original substitutes for war." Months after I read The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, I'll find myself thinking back to that quote summarizing Hugo Grotius, a foundational force for today's international law. The book paints a case for the fragility of today's modern international order and provides interesting insight into how we got here. The paint on the borders of some eastern-europeans countries is so wet they seem to be moving. Trump is forcing America to break an international accord whose creation was spearheaded by none other than America. Even the head of a NATO member was nearly deposed in a coup attempt. Multilateral diplomacy and judicial arbitration seem to be on the decline. 

We were a lot more excited about the UN when we last tasted a world war

I can recall my history books from elementary school and the impression of "news", "war" and "turmoil" effectively ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It seemed like we went to war until we could all agree on a new way to fight: through the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. Yet these international institutions seem helpless in stemming the erosion of norms and respect for sovereignty. They're the best tools we have to prevent global bloodshed. Fatal flaws aside, I really wish both entities would increase their marketing budgets and social awareness. It can be pretty easy to directly target important figures as well. Maybe start with a few ads on Fox & Friends?

Banana Banana Banana

CNN received a lot of attention recently when they introduced their 'facts first' ad campaign. Presenting CNN as the bastion of truth telling, the ads are memorable, but misrepresentative of CNN in the same way Fox News gets lambasted for being 'fair' and 'balanced'. When CNN is reporting on facts, it can be fantastic; it's a shame it happens so rarely on their airtime.

It's a banana more often than CNN would care to admit

Anytime I sample the big three cable news entities, the same questions keep repeating in my head: how many people are part of the discussion, what is the main topic being discussed, and to what extent is the chyron being used. When cable news is at its very best, there is less than 3 people covering events that have already occurred where the chyron summarizes and reinforces the journalism. I can find this rare unicorn configuration consistently once on each channel: at the top of the hour with Jake Tapper and The Lead, and peppered throughout the hours under Shepard Smith and Chuck Todd's supervision. 

Conjecture about what Robert Mueller is thinking, who Trump might fire next or when Micheal Avenatti finds time to take his one blue suit to the dry cleaners isn't helpful to public discourse. If CNN was hellbent on making sure a more informed electorate never repeated the mistakes of 2016, they sure have a funny way of going about it. In the prime time hours, the CNN chyron exists solely to troll the president. When I try to engage with family that rarely turns the TV away from Fox News, the first line of defense is always the hypocrisy of CNN: that they, or MSNBC, commit the same sins as Fox News. It leaves me with the impression that they can see what's wrong with their offering, but are not willing to lose the culture war. I wish there was a strong neutral future-forward option for all of us.

This isn't helping

I want a news source that is constantly questioning their intent and strive to have clear and transparent goals. Trump mentions that the Iran deal is the worst deal the U.S. has ever signed. Rather than six talking heads screaming about what happens next, why not have a retrospective that analyzes the complicated deals we've done in the past. How do they compare to this one? CNN's projecting an image of self-righteousness that rings a little too close to Hillary Clinton's campaign image. We already know how this story ends. We need something new. 

My Apple TV Should Know Better

Every weekday morning follows a pattern. Get up, make coffee, grab the newspapers, and throw on a late-night episode from the night before. I turn on the TV, press 'menu' to wake up the Apple TV, and wait for it to load an outdated watchlist. Clicking on the 'TV' app brings a new view that loads with a few more new episodes of followed shows visible from the night before: still no Seth Meyers though. 

A long hold and jump to the Hulu app leads me to a loading screen while Hulu fetches my new content. Somehow their 'Lineup' panel and 'Keep Watching' still haven't caught on that I watch Late Night with Seth Meyers first thing in the morning. So I navigate up to 'My Stuff', down to 'TV Shows', click on the appropriate square for Seth Meyers, land on an individual page view for the episode, and hope that by this time NBC has properly uploaded the ad-free version of the show. Even at eight in the morning on the west coast, I sometimes have to fall back to the DVR recording of the show from NBC Bay Area with natural commercials as well as inserted Hulu-only commercials. All this and more for a low, low price of $40 a month.

The more time I spend with the Apple TV, the more convinced I am that Apple cannot provide the seamless experience I would expect from their product offerings. Even the facets of the Apple TV that fall in line with Apple's vertical integration, such as purchasing TV shows from iTunes, don't work the way I'd expect. We're a household that buys all episodes of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee ahead of time with season passes. And yet just yesterday we realized we were two episodes (weeks!) behind. Apple's bundling of episodes had completed for our previous purchase. In no way were we warned or presented with the offer to buy the next volume of episodes. In order for new ones to populate the watchlist, we had to search for 'Samantha Bee,' hunt around in the UI for the proper volume, purchase it and watch the first one. Problem solved until the next volume of episodes releases. 

Let's not mention this delightful app that somehow never remembers the only Apple TV it has ever connected to in the phone's lifetime. 

My Apple TV is connected to wired ethernet and power, yet it behaves as though it's operating from a very low battery and doing it's hardest to save me on my data plan: please don't. Ideally Apple would establish push-notification style connections for these content providers so that as they put up new material, my Apple TV is alerted and refreshes accordingly. If that's a bridge too far, then how about setting a refresh point early in the morning to fetch all relevant content from the night before? I'm tired of dancing with the watchlist, scrolling through and selecting something only for the watchlist to refresh mid-scroll and lead me to selecting unintended content. Why do I need to launch the Hulu app and then wait for content to refresh? I have seen and know there is some precedent for background refreshes of apps, but it seems like it only happens when the Apple TV is awake. This should be done before I begin engaging with the device for the day. Is it poor planning, poor coding, or both? Whatever the reasons, it leaves me stewing, waiting for a competitor that gets in the way less of how I want to watch things. 

Context Is Key

Every time I leave a restaurant, I wonder who else I think could share the experience and enjoy it. I've never ascribed to the notion that meals or restaurants can be statically analyzed and locked into a certain point on a good-bad sliding scale. The rush to summary judgment tends to color most Yelp reviews I read, rendering them unhelpful and unrelatable to me. Part of the problem may be word choice and messaging on these social media platforms.

Yelp users have to be proactive to understand how reviews can be more helpful.

When you click "Start your review" on a restaurant in Yelp, you'll be taken to the view above. Note the minimal guidelines displayed to the user. The first sentence's intention seems to be empowerment of the user and their words, while the second sentence implies a high worry or concentration of fake reviews. It's still not clear what makes a good "Yelp" review yet. The "Read our review guidelines" link fleshes things out a little, but it's only once you expand the "Review Guidelines" section that a person is given a picture of the "best" kind of reviews. I don't know why they bury these guidelines so deep. It seems clear most Yelpers haven't read the guidelines or actively ignore them. 

This is the kind of content that should be on the first view for reviewing.

Food critics like Michael Bauer usually visit a restaurant multiple times to get as many perspectives on a restaurant before rendering judgment. This review of Dumpling Time for instance, dings their soup dumplings for being a little too sticky across "visits", plural. A seasoned food critic reporting that detail means a lot more to me than this Yelp review calling out the gyoza dough with "It was very sticky and strange." I wish Yelp would adhere to their own guidelines and rename the section "Experiences" rather than "Reviews".

Not knowing the person, I look at every yelp review with a critical eye and zero assumptions about their justifications. Do you live in the area? Did you go out of your way to visit with inflated expectations because of another friend? Were you already starving before they took your name for the wait list? Was the parking experience so painful as to torpedo the visit? The only clarity I can get comes from clear communication about what the person was expecting, and what they experienced in the end. If a pizza place gets a 1-star review for not offering gluten free pizza, I can completely ignore that review in deciding to visit: I'm not gluten free and it wouldn't impact my enjoyment. 

There's a time and a place for everything. If I can't pull out the context of their assumptions and variables that informed their decision-making can I understand how I might enjoy the restaurant. Yelp users are not Caesar, rendering life and death punishments with a thumb. Tell me what it was like for you, and I'll try to guess how I'd enjoy it. 

Scale With Me

I love cooking, yet hate eating leftovers. In a game of rock-paper-scissors, cereal beats leftovers every time. This often leads to an annoying step of scaling a recipe down, usually to serve 2 people, before shopping, organizing, and cooking. I wish online recipes would be posted in a manner that best fits the known profile of a given user. 

A device's screen-size can be used to determine the best presentation for an app or website when launched from my phone. I want to see sites like Serious Eats take similar steps to best render their content aka recipes. With a login, I should be able to set the default number of servings I want to make with any given recipe. 

We need this kind of foresight in recipe distribution as well.

When I request a recipe, I want the page to see my session cookie, read my servings preference, and serve me the recipe instructions scaled to my liking. While ingredients by weight or volume should be easy to scale, things like eggs or vanilla beans will need to be handled more delicately. A recipe designed to serve 3 that requires 1 egg will need the egg's contents converted to weight, then proportioned. Different regions have different average chicken egg sizes, so knowing where the recipe came from and where you are currently browsing would also be helpful in a more accurate scaling-down. Buying a dozen eggs, whisking them together and storing in a jar in the fridge seems like the biggest friction point to liberate recipe sizes. 

Serious Eats allows you to alter how a recipe is presented with images, but not its yield.

With support for scaling, a recipe website should also support easy ways for users to provide feedback on their scaled recipe attempt and ways they felt it needed to be modified. Things like cooking-time for a pot roast can depend significantly on a minimum surface to volume ratio that just may not work in smaller portions. Frontier recipe testers could encounter this and report back with warning or appraisals for particular recipes at particular serving sizes. 

I may not have enough friends for this recipe as is

I have to make 12 cinnamon rolls in order to get the 2 I actually want to eat. Maybe we can fix that. 

Hey Siri, Help Me Help Myself

Since Apple's HomePod landed at home, there has been a noticeable increase in this household's music consumption. I find myself hunting for albums I think will sound great on the HomePod; showcase songs to flick on when friends are over to wow them. I've even adjusted weekend hangout patterns to play an album or two while I'm on the couch with the boyfriend, each silently lost in our own devices and screens. For something that triggered behavior change so quickly, it frustrates me to no end that I can't remotely recommend the thing to anyone.

Almost as useful as a mac's spinning beach ball.

I've always loved the notion of movie magic, and try whenever possible to make those sorts of magical moments with people I care about. Finding just the right song to put on while cooking together is just the kind of magic that HomePod doesn't want you to make. To get an isolated music experience, you must talk at Siri and awkwardly command this electric servant to fetch and hopefully play the right song. Alternatively, you can pick the song on your iOS device and choose to AirPlay sound to the speaker, locking the two apple products and making it really hard for you to try to then search recipes on sites with crappy ad banners that want to also project sound through the HomePod. I don't like phone calls and talking through a device at humans; I find talking solely to a device even more annoying. 

This speaker has incredible sound quality, but a non-existent UI and a really limited set of UX choices really handicap it from being a must-buy. I want an app that lets anyone on the shared wifi network with the HomePod to be able to queue up music that is sourced from the HomePod and not parasitically AirPlayed from a device and blocking some of its functionality.  When setting up AirPlay, you can at least see what was last being played on the speaker. Apple should give me a HomePod app or a new way to navigate the Music app wherein all music choices are saved and queued up on the speaker itself. 

Right now the HomePod is a DJ with great gear that I need to talk to every time I want music. Make it easier (and quieter) for me to curate music to play from it and I'd be singing its praises left and right. No one wants awkward back and forth with their DJ at home. 

Fragmented Public Consensus

     As we enter a period of peak TV and social media saturation, there is a growing amount of content being made and shared in an ever expanding number of ways. This content surge also applies to what would be classically known as the news industry, as well as a variety of budding blog spaces and internet sites that self identify as distributors of news. A common confirmation bias towards people's own beliefs leads many to very selective and isolated areas of exposure and perspective to the outside world. It can be all too easy to fall complacent in one's own bubble of reinforcing sources. 

     Confounding the problem is the way entertainment value, sensationalism and viral potential greatly influence the content going into people's streams of information. A sensationalist headline or cynical image is more likely to be shared and seen in front of more sets of eyeballs. The cover of TIME magazine this week asks "Is Truth Dead?" with a focus on President Trump and his penchant for deflection and obfuscation. While President Trump may be quantitatively leading the pack in cherry picking objective facts he likes and ignoring all others, he's following in well established foot prints of most politicians. What makes this period of time for American civil society more fraught and perilous than nearly any other in modern history is the personalization and fragmentation of the news market. Historically, newspapers served as the clearing house for what happened in the day and its possible significance for its readers. Select editors of well regarded newspapers played an enormous role in setting the public tone and expectations of its readers. Newspapers were an agreed upon platform between citizens and their polticians wherein ideological and political battles could be waged and public sentiment could be measured to dictate the direction our democracy grew. 

     With the advent of radio, news was more readily spread to people across all socio economic levels, but the new technology and limited number of companies powerful enough to amass empires of airwaves did not fragment the big tent public consensus achieved through print. Radio bought into the existing dynamic of newspapers and became additional guardians of content. The first Gulf War and CNN's 24/7 coverage was the first real disruption to the news industry status quo. Seeing the ratings success CNN garnered, others saw a financial vehicle to reap profits: that they were to operate in the news industry was often irrelevant in the drive to create new media empires. The spread of modern cable, cable channel options, and Internet availability lead to a significant number of entities competing against each other for eyeballs. The competition lead many companies to curate their worldview and the personalities they put on screen to spread them in the hopes of targeting particular demographics. This strategy worked a little too well.

     These days, how each person relates to the world is greatly influenced by the sources and platforms through which they get their news. Fundamental objective descriptions of what is possible and not possible, or what has happened or not happened become warped and twisted to serve the marketing purposes of a given platform and their community. Nuance, grey, and uncertainty fade away in this highly competitive and highly polarized environment. It makes it hard to remain clear eyed when the news is coming in slow, let alone when it rains important information

     Take this past week. Just some of the important things that happened this week could be summarized as follows:

• FBI Director James Comey on Monday confirmed the existence of a criminal investigation into Trump associates that may have colluded with Russia.
• House of Representatives made their final push for AHCA, their ACA repeal and replace plan, only to pull the bill from the floor minutes before the vote was set to begin. 
• House Intelligence Chair David Nunes on Wednesday canceled a scheduled open hearing with former Directors of National Intelligence and CIA, as well as former deputy Attorney General
• California Air Resources Board on Friday voted on Friday to reconfirm existing emission standards for cars made in 2022-2025. This follows a decision last week by the EPA that signaled their intent to change existing regulations for 2022-2025, making them more lenient in a bow to car manufacturers.

     These sentences were written with the intention of only listing events that happened with no commentary. What do these events mean for the country? How do we best contextualize the choices made by the parties listed? Every person is going to form a unique viewpoint that is reinforced by the news media platform they consume and were most likely ideologically aligned with to begin with. While this diversity might be praised in another situation, it can be extremely destructive to baseline assumptions made in a functioning democracy. Public consensus, once shared by a handful of news and radio entities, has morphed into unique and distinct media company filters on reality. The spin a media company could apply to news stories may be applied for nefarious reasons to disinform citizens, or it may be applied in the proven track record of elevating rhetoric and polarization to increase ratings and profits. The media companies can operate with no responsibility to server a larger purpose of an informed citizenry, in effect crippling a fundamental, albeit assumed role the media plays in keeping a democracy transparent.

   Truth lay in the eye of the beholder. In the past, the esteem and limited number of outlets provided no where for politicians to hide from the facts as seen by all journalists. Today, if you don't like the set of "facts" being reported by an outlet, you can easily find a competitor who relays information in a way that lines up with your world view. The media companies contort themselves to feed the entertainment of select groups, sometimes by completely eschewing whole sections of the population. What President Trump does is not too different. There's no longer a group consensus as to what happened. Targeted "truths" to a targeted audience is the new norm. It is too easy for people to fall into a very narrow echo chamber. There has to be a better way to aggregate consensus and return a sense of universal accountability to our public officials. If it's to come anytime soon, it had better have a very profitable business model to encourage investment. Until then, platforms that strive for journalistic integrity should be lauded and supported. I'm looking at you, NewsHour.

With freedom from profit seeking comes great responsibility in journalism.

The Social Sharing Economic Meltdown

In 1960 the debate between Nixon and Kennedy was simulcast on radio and television, Americans had to choose how they consumed the debate and then decide which candidate came off the victor. The consensus held that television viewers favored Kennedy, while radio listeners leaned towards Nixon. Kennedy proved more adept and handsome enough to spread his campaign message to voters newly exposed to an audio-visual medium. Television became the primary battleground to reach the largest number of potential voters. The attention of voters shifts with time and technological advancements. The Internet, blogs, social media, and Citizens United have all done their part in changing the frontier of modern politics. The largest shift since 1960 has come from the fight for higher ratings by media companies hosting an ever increasing number of debates and town halls.

Distraction is in large supply today. Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and television all openly compete with each other for eyeballs and attention. More often than not, no true victor emerges and two screen viewing becomes the norm. The best chance for something resonating and sticking with someone is repeated and/or unique appearances in his or her social media stream. For candidates competing for the presidency, this status quo is unbreakable through conventional political means. To push their message forward and gain traction in the polls, candidates need to stand out. Many have chosen this election cycle to aim for spectacle and shock. The most likes, shares and follows come from the nastiest barrages or entertaining soundbites. It's hard to fault the candidates for playing to the house crowd. They are doing what they feel is necessary to convert attention into votes. The same cannot be said for the media companies who provide the brunt of the audio-visual content being repurposed on social media.

There was a time when media companies maintained a certain level of civility and respect toward men and women in public office. Journalists not only cared about job security and increasing viewership or circulation, but also about respecting decorum. Cynicism's growth in pop culture may be responsible for this erosion and disintegration of journalistic integrity. Media companies have leveraged this opportunity to act like unshackled genies, free to conjure any content to drive eyeballs and advertising revenue. In theory, more presidential debates would give more time to voice policy views and lead to a more informed populous voting at large. This holds only if the hosts of these debates feel compelled to be a part of the voting process, aiding in the process of getting voters to make the most informed decision. What we have seen this election cycle is that these companies are acting primarily (if not solely) to exploit and manipulate the candidates for their own ratings. It is in the best interest of a company holding a debate to make the stakes seem high and the race close. The lax enforcement of debate rules and lines of questioning by moderators can be seen as prodding candidates to come out slinging against each other or say something lurid. The heated moments will gain traction on social media, and hopefully better ratings and future ad buys on the network. The march for high ratings and viral social media content has poisoned the quality of the political conversation and skewed reality.

View fullsize

Voting With Incomplete Information

Informed voters are the only means in a democracy to make meaningful progress. We should try to ensure that candidates have reasonable and fair vetting in the public eye. It's easy to find an argument towards publicly sponsored debates that air simulcast across all network broadcasters and any other mediums who wish to participate. Questions could be vetted by journalists and experts in relevant fields to better yield an answer that would better help inform a voter about a candidate's position. The goal of debates and town halls should be to inform the voter and push the conversation forward on policy positions. Candidates shouldn't be coddled with pre-screened questions or gerrymandered audience members. Someone has to hold the line for civil political discourse. Ad-free debates simulcast across competing networks would be a good first step towards improving the political conversation. 

Kayla Webley, "How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World", Time, September 23, 2010

SCOTUS blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Christopher Zara, "Broadcast And Cable TV Ratings Keep Declining", International Business Times, June 16, 2015

Use My Cookies For Good

On a day to day basis, I spend most of my internet browsing time in incognito tabs. I reserve normal browser windows for the few services I use that require them: email access, Amazon ordering, Netflix and Hulu. Two primary motivations factor into this. For one, I like reading a lot of news paper sites. I don't feel the current paywall offerings justify maintaining separate logins and spreading my credit card's numbers all over town. Secondly, I have a strong derision for targeted ads. The opaqueness of the advertising companies is a little too creepy, and usually they target the version of myself in the past. If I search for a particular vacuum, perhaps the best that ever existed, I spend a modest and minimal amount of time deciding on a purchase and buying right then and there. Months after I've received and and beaten down said vacuum cleaner, ad networks sample my cookies, see an instance of a vacuum, and continue to fill my screens with a decision from the past.

For my cookies and data to be shared, I would only give my consent if I felt it selfishly benefited me. Only one scenario comes to mind: providing proof of new or on-the-bubble shows to networks that show my viewership via means outside the normal Nielson television ratings. I cut the cord two years ago, and rely solely on a disappointing Apple TV for access to media content. As slick as tvOS may look, I doubt it's doing any smart connecting of dots on the programs I watch. 

For brand new shows, they have to overcome so many hurdles to not only appear interesting or of interesting merit, but also fit into my (albeit self-inflicted) requirements for ease of consumption. Netflix, HBO Now and Hulu Plus are sunk costs to me that are just good enough for their ease and content. They are my default options to fetch new content

Say a show premieres. Can I watch it next-day on Hulu? That to me is free "sampling" of new content. I have to rely on promos, word of mouth, or reviews to get over my hesitance to jump into a new show. If I can't see it for free, I need to be absolutely convinced it is for me before I go and buy an episode or the full season. 

I want the producers of these shows to know of the success stories for some of their marketing and distribution plans. Two recent examples come to mind: Fargo and Man Seeking Woman, from FX and FXX respectively. With each show, I had heard good word of mouth. For whatever reason, my interest never rose to the point that I would pull the trigger and buy the season on iTunes, the only viewing option available to me given my restriction. Second seasons roles around for each show, and by this time Hulu now offers season one, "free" to me. A quick pace at knocking out season one episodes lead to an immediate purchase of the still-airing second seasons of both.

View fullsize

SHARING IS CARING

I like these shows. I want more of these types of shows. But their marketing campaigns didn't pique my interest initially. What sold me on it was the access to the content on platforms I subscribe to already. I want Apple to share everything about my viewership details from Hulu as well as the purchase and consumption from iTunes to the show's producers. There are eyeballs and dollars to be made from sources that may not report much data to producers currently. Please share my cookies for good. I want more good television. If my consumption and purchase history could help shows I like that are fighting cancelation, then give the data to them. 

Why Are You Watching?

Three people can be sitting inches from each other, ostensibly having a shared experience of watching television, yet have next to no overlap in their attention nor impression of the program. This is the status quo of modern media consumption. When network broadcasts launched in the 1940s, watching television was a group activity. Kids would return home from playing at dusk, everyone would sit down to a home cooked supper, and then retire to the den to watch Texaco Star Theatre or other family programming. TV was where people came together when there was nothing else to do: a meditative nightcap before bed. 

As television evolved with the rest of the world, more channels, programming, and alternative activities vied for attention. Upwards of 25% of the US residents who owned televisions would be watching the same program simultaneously, bridging socioeconomic, religious, and racial divides. All in the Family or I Love Lucy transmissions into households helped spread diversification and heightened awareness of how much fell under the banner of living in America. Without the internet or disposable income to travel, programs like these were some of the only ways for people living the American dream in small town America to broaden their understanding and acceptance of foreign experiences. People didn't watch solely for the laughs or the drama; they watched to educate themselves about the greater world around them and the language necessary to understand where we as a country were going. 

Television lost its position as cultural ambassador as soon as its vice grip on convenience and accessibility loosened. People came to afford multiple television sets. The number of channels available expanded tremendously. Programs were created to focus on particular audiences most appealing to the advertisers, never again aiming to be an all encompassing big tent for everyone.

If someone in a group suggests we watch something on TV, it's a choice that reflects a desired pause or full-stop in the current social activity. Mental batteries need to be recharged: second screens need attention to divert us from living in the moment. For me, I look at social media scrolling while watching TV as no different than mindless channel surfing. It's the modern evolution of aimless desire and intent, fancied up with hashtags and social media hooks. TV went from helping us better acclimate to a rapidly growing world, to a required input to better align our relevance to the memes and trending topics of the day. I watch TV to fall into a universe of characters, be surprised or impressed by the story telling devices chosen or invented, and to reflect on what these characters mean to me and what that says about myself: or to laugh at fart jokes. Why do you watch TV?

View fullsize

Must See TV

吃飯了嗎？

View fullsize

The tones of "Have you eaten?" (chifan le ma?) crack all of the tumblers protecting my coal black heart. From the moment I wake 'til the white flag of defeat is raised in bed, food is the driving force of my life. There's no better way to get acquainted with a person than having a moment of synchronized food gorging. Every detail, choice, hesitation, and autonomic facial response provide a wide window into a person's personality. Will their face melt into a puddle of smiles as they chomp down on a fresh baguette with Mt Tam cheese? Or does it take the earthy, velvety notes of roasted bone marrow that leaves a mouth's owner speechless and disarmed?

Food is the greatest equalizer of all. If I'm going to build any sort of relationship with somebody, it needs to be built on a solid foundation of trust and shared understanding. I care about what I eat; I care about what I feed those I care about even more. When someone greets me inquiring about my hunger levels, it gives me the language and direction to better get to know someone: we may even be drift compatible.