The verdict is in

JUDGE KAPLAN: Madam Foreperson, I understand the jury has reached a verdict. Please hand it to Andy. Thank you. The clerk will publish the verdict. Please rise.

[murmuring, crowd noise]

JK: On the first count, “I’m a bad widdle boy,” how do you find?

FOREPERSON: Guilty, your honor.

JK: The second count, “Did I do that?”

FOREPERSON: Guilty.

JK: Third count, “It’s my first day.”

FOREPERSON: Guilty.

JK: Count four, “What’s that over there?”

FOREPERSON: Not guilty.

[indistinct chatter]

JK: I’ll have decorum in my courtroom! Thank you. Now, on count five, defrauding defenseless, naive, and well-intentioned cryptocurrency investors.

FOREPERSON: Guilty, but we also want to jail everyone who gave this guy money.

JK: I’ll allow it. What about count six, “Can’t you take a joke?”

FOREPERSON: Guilty.

JK: Finally, the seventh count, being a giant douchebag.

FOREPERSON: We find the defendant super-duper extra guilty.

JK: The defendant will be sentenced at a later date. I want to thank the ladies and gentlemen of the jury for your service in this matter. And now, we can all get back to the serious business of cryptocurrency investing.

[general laughter]

Tim Wakefield

I’m going from memory, but I swear this is what happened.

Game 7 of the 2003 American League Championship Series. The Red Sox are up on the Yankees in the eighth inning, but the starting pitcher, Pedro Martinez — Pedro Fucking Martinez — is out of gas. The Yankees are threatening. Grady Little is the Red Sox manager and as he walks out for a mound conference everyone is expecting Petey to hit the showers. The Boston bullpen had been the team’s one weakness all season, but they’d been lights out in the playoffs. Everyone knew it was time to make the change. Everyone except Grady Little.

The mound conference went on. And on. And Grady wasn’t taking the ball. And I swear to you this is not hindsight, this is not arranging the facts to suit the narrative, but we were screaming at our television to take Pedro out. Screaming. Grady left him in. The Yankees tied it, the Sox couldn’t retake the lead, and we went to extra innings.

The only pitcher available for Boston at a certain point was Tim Wakefield, the old knuckleballer. It wasn’t fair for him to be out there at all, let alone putting the hopes of a team that had absolutely blown it on his shoulders. Aaron Boone blasted a no-doubter game-winning home run to win the series for the Yankees, and as Wake trudged off the field, head down, surrounded by jubilant leaping figures in pinstripes, he looked like the loneliest man in the world.

By that point it seemed like Wake had been on the Red Sox forever. He’d been there since 1995, long enough to have played with Roger Clemens and Mike Greenwell. He played with the core of the good, not good enough Red Sox of the late 1990s. He saw the coming of Nomar Garciaparra and Pedro Martinez. And he just kept throwing that knuckleball.

Over Wakefield’s long career he netted out as roughly a league average pitcher. But those averages really obscure what was amazing about watching him throw. When the knuckleball was working — whether for a few innings, a few games, or a few months sometimes — it made major league hitters look like fools. It danced like Bugs Bunny’s screwball. When it wasn’t working — when the knuckleball wouldn’t knuckle — he may as well have been tossing batting practice. Then, of course, there was the stress the pitch’s unpredictability put on catchers. They missed it just as as often as hitters did.

In 2004, the Red Sox looked better than ever. They’d addressed their biggest flaws by signing a premium closer in Keith Foulke and a second ace in Curt Schilling. Pedro Martinez was no longer the God he had been at the turn of the century but still among the game’s best pitchers. Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz formed as fearsome a 3-4 punch as you could find in a major league lineup. This was a team built to win. As though destiny had drawn it up, once again the Boston Red Sox found themselves facing off against the New York Yankees in the ALCS.

And it all went as badly as possible. Schilling was hurt. Nobody in their Moneyball-inspired, OBP-heavy lineup could get on base. They dropped the first two games in the Bronx, and came back to Fenway to promptly get shelled in game three. After two hard-fought losses, they were getting humiliated on their home turf. The final score of that game was 19-8. Who was out there soaking up one thankless inning after another in hopes of preserving the bullpen for one last prayer of a game the next night? Tim Wakefield. Of course he was.

Some pitchers look terrifying up on the hill. Imagine your Nolan Ryans and your Randy Johnsons, scowling over their gloves with a fury that would make all but the most cocksure batters a little wobbly in the knees. Then there are guys who just know they’re better than you, smarter and more prepared, your Pedros and your Greg Madduxes. But Wakefield just went out there and loped one knuckleball after another with the easiest delivery you’ve ever seen.

He knew what he was throwing. The catcher knew what he was throwing. The batter knew what he was throwing. What none of them knew was what, exactly, the ball was going to do. Sometimes it skittered like a video game glitch. Sometimes it dropped off the shelf right in front of the plate. Sometimes it looked like a meatball and stayed looking that way right up until some lucky fan in the bleachers snagged himself a home run ball.

No matter what happened, Wake kept going out there and pitching. He’s the all-time Red Sox leader in innings pitched, and had a chance to go out as the leader in wins, too, but he retired before he could have eclipsed Roger Clemens and Cy Young. Somehow that feels right. He wouldn’t have wanted to seem bigger than the team.

In game 1 of the 2004 World Series, Tim Wakefield got the start. He didn’t exactly shut down the St. Louis Cardinals. It was a high-scoring game, but for once the team around him had enough talent to come out on top. That was a squad with an outrageous collection of ability and personality. The self-anointed “Idiots” had no shortage of characters, from David Ortiz, the clutch slugger with the 1,000-watt smile, to Curt Schilling, whose refreshing candor turned out to augur 20 years and counting of becoming ever more of an odious shithead. They had crazy hair and beards, multi-step handshakes, and a second baseman who looked in his official team portrait like he had just taken a monster bong rip. And Wake, well, he was like an elder statesman. Along with Jason Varitek, he was one of the leaders by example, one of the guys who was happy to play straight man when Kevin Millar was goofing off for the cameras again.

The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. It was their first championship in 86 years. Plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic. Legends were made. Big Papi, Pedro, Manny. The Comeback. The Bloody Sock. The Steal. For some players it was the last hurrah. For others it was the start of a new, 21st-century dynasty. Still others were short-term rentals with the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time.

They all played a part. But if I’m directing the movie about the team that broke the Curse of the Bambino, I’m starting with Tim Wakefield walking off the mound at Yankee Stadium on October 16, 2003, and I’m ending with Tim Wakefield holding up the World Series trophy on October 27, 2004.

Because Tim Wakefield was the Boston Red Sox. For 17 seasons, for 3,000 innings, for the lowest lows and the highest highs, Wake went out to the mound and threw that knuckleball. One after another. (Plus the very occasional 78-mph fastball that could lock up a hitter like any gas Randy Johnson ever threw.) He wasn’t the biggest star or the best soundbite. He was the guy who showed up to work every day and did what he could to help his team win. He became, in my estimation, one of the greatest to ever put on the Red Sox uniform — and we’ll never see his like again.

Like I said, I’m going from memory. But I swear that’s what happened.

The past and future of the World Wide Web in three acts

Jorge Luis Borges, “Of Exactitude in Science”:

…In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.

—From Travels of Praiseworthy Men (1658) by J. A. Suarez Miranda


Jean Baudrillard, Simulation and Simulacra:

Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.


James Vincent, “AI is killing the old web, and the new web struggles to be born”:

A writeup of Google’s AI search beta from Avram Piltch, editor-in-chief of tech site Tom’s Hardware, highlights some of the problems. Piltch says Google’s new system is essentially a “plagiarism engine.” Its AI-generated summaries often copy text from websites word-for-word but place this content above source links, starving them of traffic. It’s a change that Google has been pushing for a long time, but look at the screenshots in Piltch’s piece and you can see how the balance has shifted firmly in favor of excerpted content. If this new model of search becomes the norm, it could damage the entire web, writes Piltch. Revenue-strapped sites would likely be pushed out of business and Google itself would run out of human-generated content to repackage. 

Don Lope de Aguirre's job update

I’m happy to share that I’ve been promoted to God Emperor of The New World!

No doubt it’s been a rough few months for our expedition. We expanded into the Amazon a little too aggressively at first. Like a lot of colonizing powers, we didn’t foresee the downturn in edible foodstuffs, nor the unexpected rise of tropical pathogens. As the expedition leader, I take full responsibility for that.

Leadership means making hard choices. And while it wasn’t easy to part ways with so many talented colleagues, I believe that streamlining our forces and transitioning much of the work to wild monkeys will result in more sustainable, long-term exploration of this resource-rich region. As for those former colleagues, join me in wishing them the best in their new journeys. I’m confident they will soon find new ways to contribute, be it to schools of piranha or tribes of cannibals.

We look now to the future. Believe me when I say I have never been more optimistic about the future of Spanish conquest on this continent. With drive, determination, focus, and, of course, all of these wild monkeys, we cannot fail.

Onward!

Not a fan

I’m not even a Messi fan.

Alexi Lalas
December 13, 2022

I don’t know. The best ball-dribbling skills in history, heaps of goals, and passes that make a mockery of the laws of physics? That’s not for me. That’s not the kind of soccer I want to see.

I gather that a lot of people enjoy pizza. That’s fine for them. Me? I could take it or leave it. A hot slice of gooey cheese, vine-ripened tomato sauce, a chewy crust with just a little crispness around the edges… Never understood the appeal. I’ll pass.

Just finished watching It’s a Wonderful Life. I had a hard time believing that an angel could come to Earth and show a troubled man what life had been like if he’d never been born. Not very realistic. I couldn’t really get past that.

We went to Florida and my son insisted that we ride this new roller coaster called the Velocicoaster. It has two launches, numerous inversions, and a death-defying corkscrew right above the surface of the lagoon. The line was a little long, but was it worth it? Not really. I don’t see how this one was any better than thousands of other slower, less interesting coasters.

I’ll never forget when I was at Woodstock — the original Woodstock, mind you — and Hendrix was up on stage ripping through “The Star-Spangled Banner.” At the height of the Vietnam War, Jimi’s rendition was defiant but also, in its way, patriotic. All around me people were enthralled, practically weeping. I found it a little pedestrian.

According to Herodotus, it took 400,000 men 20 years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza. It has stood for well over 4,000 years, weathering the desert sun, civil unrest, and colonial looting. It inspires people’s imaginations and a sense of wonder, and to this day its mysteries have not all been revealed. I’m thinking, am I the only person who’s noticed that it’s just a big triangle?

That’s one small step for man, one — well, just one small step for a man. I’m looking around the lunar surface and I’m not seeing anything very interesting. Just a bunch of rocks and dust, and beyond it the infinite, unknowable reaches of deep space blooming with the colors of distant galaxies. Not a fan.

After the wave breaks

It’s getting harder and harder to isolate any single fume wafting from the dumpster fire that is Elon Twitter, but once in a while an especially noxious tendril reaches out and really tickles the nostrils. This weekend, apparently apropros of nothing, Musk tweeted “My pronouns are PROSECUTE/FAUCI.” This earned him praise from the usual gang of idiots, which is the coin of the realm for your terminally online billionaire. But it’s not the content of the tweet that set me off. It’s the lack of content — or maybe, more accurately, its post-content.

For some time now, I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe what I see as an erosion in the way people communicate. The Internet more broadly, social media more narrowly, and Twitter most particularly are demonstrating a fundamental change in our language (I can’t say whether they’re causing or hastening the change). I’m not talking about a coarser or meaner discourse. That may also be happening, but it’s not new. I’m talking about something else: I think the way humans use language is changing.

I’m no linguist, but I think I can roughly summarize the evolution of language like this: at first, cavemen realized they could convey ideas to one another by movement and gesture, and eventually by sound. A lot of animals communicate this way still. Dogs can’t speak but they can bark, growl, and whine, and most people intuitively understand what each of these sounds mean. Early humans went further. They were able to assign sounds to things. When I say “fire” and point at the fire, my cousin Ugg understands that the sound “fire” now symbolizes the hot burning thing.

That’s not the real advancement, though. The real advancement is that, having learned the word, Ugg and I can now use it even when there is no fire anywhere in sight, and it instantly summons for both of us a shared understanding. Fire is warmth, light, safety. That opens up many more avenues for communication. Because while there may be some use in talking about a fire that’s right in front of us, it’s even more useful to talk about a fire that isn’t there. Do we need to build one before nightfall? Is there a wildfire coming that we need to warn the tribe about? Knowing the word allows us to talk about things that have happened in the past, may happen in the future, and need to happen now.

Whether language drove cognition or cognition drove language isn’t something I can say, but it is obvious that they co-developed. Words for concrete observations — “Ugg is smiling” — lead to words for abstract ones — “Ugg is happy.” Not only does each word carry a payload of meaning in isolation, but its meaning may change and it may change the meaning of others when they are arranged in a particular order. This spins out pretty quickly into chains of thought and action with an elaborate logical underpinning. “Ugg is shivering because Ugg is cold, but if I build a fire then Ugg will be warm and then he will be happy.”

I’ve always sort of considered the development of language to be an onward-and-upward type of thing. Scholars, philosophers, essayists, and novelists have been in conversation with each other and with the entire history of the written and spoken word to create ever more thoughtful and intricate works. I think you can say without controversy that this has been a net positive for humanity.

That brings us to today, when we’re in an era of mass literacy. (I know what you’re thinking, and no, I’m not about to suggest that we’d be better off if fewer people could read.) If the development of language made an inevitability of mass communication, then in a way the evolution of language was like a wave approaching the beach. It built and built until it crashed, and the crash was not the creation of the Gutenberg press but the creation of Wordpress. Suddenly everyone is a publisher. And this, by itself, is neither a bad nor a good thing.

The problem is that the evolution of language is outpacing our ability to understand the changes. Not only do words no longer refer to concrete things, they no longer refer to anything. They are drained of meaning as they’re being learned by more people at a faster pace. Where once I could point at the thing and say “fire,” and Ugg could look at the thing and hear “fire,” now Ugg can’t see what I’m pointing at. But he’s already pointing at something else and saying “fire” to the next guy.

Increasingly, the goal of language isn’t to convey the content but to replicate the form. Something is a joke because it looks like a joke, not because it carries the cargo of humor. In the same way that Pacific Islanders supposedly mimicked the rituals of American servicemen in order to summon planes that would drop food and supplies — making coconut radios, for instance, or crude wooden “rifles” — we’ve become a society of people trying desperately to assemble the right combination of sounds and symbols that will conjure what we desire.

No one exemplifies this more than Elon Musk. A billionaire multiple times over, he’s hooked on the rush of likes and retweets and he’ll chase them however he needs to. Like his followers, he believes on a lizard-brain level that if he repeats what has earned attention for others, he might get it for himself. Lucky for him, in his case he’s right.

That’s how you end up with the richest man alive (probably not anymore), once hailed as a visionary inventor, tweeting “My pronouns are PROSECUTE/FAUCI” at 6 AM on a Sunday to the tune of over a million likes. The argument isn’t whether it’s a good or a bad joke. It’s not a joke at all. It just looks like one from the right angle. The familiar sounds are invoked as a signaling mechanism but any two words could have followed “My pronouns are” and the effect would have been exactly the same. His followers would applaud and his foes would gripe. And that, in a post-lingual age, is all that matters.

The definition of the word is no longer the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is derived only from its transmission. There are a handful of people broadcasting the word to millions of people, each of whom is rebroadcasting it and hoping to shine in the reflected light. Most of them never will, but it’s not for lack of trying. Like our friends in the South Pacific, they’ll refine their marching drills and soon enough that cargo plane will come buzzing over the horizon.

To be clear, this is not strictly a right versus left phenomenon. Many popular tweets I’d characterize as coming from the left do the same thing. “Checks notes,” “send tweet,” “y’all ain’t ready to have that conversation,” etc. Rarely does this mimetic language add anything to the intended meaning of the tweet, but it serves a decorative function in attracting the right audience. The major difference, of course, is that people tweeting “checks notes” are annoying, while people tweeting “my pronouns are” want to kill you.

The lack of concern for what things mean is not itself a new phenomenon, but like a lot of these trends it feels like it’s been supercharged lately. It’s how you get breathless “Twitter Files” exposes by self-styled independent journalists who seem to consider it immaterial whether a banned Twitter account was banned for, say, posting stolen nudes or, I don’t know, inciting violence. It’s how you get signs all over town that say “LET’S GO BRANDON” without the people who put up those signs immediately dying of shame. It’s how you get wealthy, powerful people bleating at each other across state-of-the-art technology while managing to exchange less useful information than me and Ugg managed to do by the campfire.

If the wave of language has broken on the shore of reason and is now receding into the post-lingual sea, where does that leave us? (Besides mounting a one-man campaign to torture a metaphor to death, that is?) Blaming everything on Twitter is too pat, and besides, it’s naive to think that everything would improve if Twitter disappeared tomorrow. Citing a fatal flaw in humanity is too pessimistic even for me. Mandatory poetry readings would be nice, but probably not workable. I just don’t know.

This is where I would ordinarily try to say something uplifting or at least not hopeless. But I don’t like to say things I don’t mean.

You said you wanted to live in a world without zinc, Jimmy

The impending demise of Twitter is breaking even the brains of those whose brains may not yet have been broken by [gestures futilely all around]. You and I may look at a toxic, deleterious social network swirling the drain and think “Good riddance.” For many, though, Twitter has grown to encompass all that they perceive and are capable of perceiving, and the prospect of a world without it suggests nothing more or less than a void terrifying in its totality.

A particularly deranged example of this phenomenon can be found in this article in Wired, which used to be a publication about technology and the Internet. I’m unfamiliar with the author and I hope that I will not spend the remainder of this article dunking on her personally, only on the substance of what she’s written. She seems to be a marginal freelance journalist whose professional existence is a struggle to pick up paying assignments and earn not just enough money to eat, but enough to clout to have her next pitch accepted. Believe me, I sympathize.

But the article itself is a swirl of solipsism and loss-averse thinking. The author correctly and painstakingly details many genuine problems with Twitter and what she dubs “reputational and social wealth,” but then somehow concludes that the danger is in not dismantling this system. It’s really weird.

For the most part, the specific issues have to do with the unequal distribution of attention on the platform. Getting a link to your work retweeted by a — barf — “influencer” like Yashar Ali or Molly Jong-Fast can be the difference between steering or even participating in the discourse versus sinking silently and invisibly out of sight. The quality of the work is, at best, peripheral. All that matters is the attention.

In other words, the problem with the reputational economy is the same as with the financial economy. It is built to accrue value ever upward, concentrating more and more of its capital in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The idea of someone like Yashar Ali “deserving” this level of influence is irrelevant to the mechanism that has provided it to him, and any narrative that tries to make sense of it on any other level is bound to be post-hoc. As we watch the world’s wealthiest man make a hash of the network he bought for no apparent reason other than to be proved fucking right about something nobody else cares about, i.e. whether the previous administration was “woke” or not, it’s hard not to consider how overdetermined all of this shit is.

Elon Musk doesn’t deserve any of the wealth he has. He hasn’t earned it. He’s not doing anything worthwhile with it. The pachinko ball bounced his way, that’s all. If the world’s richest man weren’t Elon Musk, it would be someone else. I don’t mean that in a tautological way. I mean that when the system is working as intended, it’s going to get harder and harder for your poor, low-income, and even professional classes to figure out how they’re going to find money to pay for the things they need, while for the ultra-rich it gets harder and harder to find anything worthwhile to do with their money, because there’s just too damn much of it. That’s probably why they end up building rocket ships and overpaying for social networks that they immediately destroy.

Money goes upward. That’s what it’s meant to do. The reason it stops concentrating at the top isn’t because the money runs out, it’s because there are no more people to enrich. If Elon Musk had never been born, some other dipshit would be wealthier than anyone else in human history because that’s how the parameters have been set up. You can’t set the oven to “cold.” And the only reason we’re still doing it this way is because everybody is terrified of the unknown system that might replace it.

On the internet in the year 2022, that’s how attention works, too. Greater and greater attention is paid to fewer and fewer people and to works of less and less merit. In some sense, this isn’t new. As long as there have been writers and artists, there have been patrons, and maybe the only real difference today is the scale of the patronage. Whereas in the past a wealthy family might have been able to bankroll some hand-chosen artists, or a studio executive could green-light a hit film, today all it takes is a retweet to bring the masses running (not that they stick around). Those older systems still exist, but new ones came along and stole the spotlight.

I actually take some comfort in that. When Twitter’s gone, there will still be gatekeepers. There will still be those whose recommendation counts for more. The people who actually make shit worth paying attention to will keep doing what they’ve always done, and hope the bottle eventually points at them when it stops spinning. It probably won’t. But that’s true whether or not the bottle has a blue bird on it.

Let's get to the important stuff and rank the streaming services

News that Netflix lost subscribers recently has the business world in a tizzy, but that’s mostly because the business world can’t abide a moment of tizzilessness. Honestly, why shouldn’t Netflix lose subscribers? It sucks! It sucks and it’s now the most expensive video streaming service. Its entire business model at this point must depend on people figuring it’s too much trouble to find the cancel link. If you weren’t already a Netflix customer, would you sign up for it today?

Like a lot of people, I subscribe to far more streaming channels than is necessary, and let’s just say that I also know of unlocked doors to a few others. For almost none of them do I get my money’s worth. Even some of the free ones. With that in mind, I must succumb to the urge to rank the ones I use with any regularity.

10. Paramount+ and Peacock

Are these real? Do these even exist? Paramount+ weirdly has the rights to some USMNT World Cup qualifiers, which is the only reason I’ve ever used it. I am not interested in Star Trek. Peacock, not sure what that is.

9. Apple TV

Is it Apple TV+? Apple+? Something else? Ted Lasso jumped the shark in season 2 and I don’t think I’ve watched anything else on this. I am mad at it for securing the rights to A Charlie Brown Christmas and for winning the best picture Oscar for some nonsense.

8. Hulu

Hulu occasionally has movies I want to watch on it, but it’s always the last place I look for them. It’s just not a destination. I have been reasonably enjoying Under the Banner of Heaven, which is presented, confusingly, as an “FX on Hulu” joint. For the most part this just seems like a dumping ground for hackish network dramas.

7. Netflix

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Netflix is just 98% filler at this point, and apparently the lesson they’ve learned is to stop spending on “vanity projects” by the likes of such charlatans as, uh, Martin Scorsese. I’m sure there’s plenty of money left in the budget for Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais specials. However, the ‘flix does have I Think You Should Leave, and I’m looking forward to their German-language version of All Quiet on the Western Front, so I’ll keep drinking that garbage.

6. Disney+

Lots of great stuff for the kids, plus every episode of the Simpsons ever. Can’t go wrong. If I weren’t sick to death of Marvel I’d probably rate this one higher. In general there’s a lot of cross-promotional nightmare content on here, but it’s easy enough to ignore.

5. Criterion Channel

I love the Criterion Channel and I subscribe to support the company as much as anything else. There are just a couple of issues. One is that a lot of the content is now shared with HBO Max, which diminishes the value somewhat. Movies also come and go constantly, which can be frustrating. Also my wife never wants to watch anything on it, so I don’t watch it as much as I want to.

4. HBO Max

Also beginning to fall prey to the Netflix effect of churning out mediocre originals at the expense of tightly curated content, but having pretty much the entirety of the HBO catalog, plus a huge selection of movies that are actually worth watching, make this one an easy thumbs up.

3. Shudder

Shudder is a specialty service so clearly it wouldn’t appeal to everyone, but as a horror fan I think it’s spectacular. The thing I always say about it is that it feels like I’m browsing the horror section of the video store as a 10-year-old, except now I’m allowed to watch the movies. I haven’t watched too many of the originals but it has a ton of movies I would formerly have considered obscure, and I like that.

2. PlutoTV

Nope, not joking. Pluto is ad-supported, so I’m not forking over money every month whether I watch it or not, and they’re also not taking a subscription fee and shoving ads in my face (looking at you, Hulu). What’s great about Pluto is how many niche channels it has that it heavily supports. 99% of the time I use this service, I’m watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 channel. It has made my life better knowing I can dial that up at any moment. There’s also a really good independent wrestling channel!

Number one: Spotify

Squarespace’s stupid WYSIWYG editor won’t let me just put a 1 in front of this for some reason. That’s extremely annoying. Anyway, I’m sure there’s a very good reason why every video streaming service in the world is a nightmare of transferring and expiring rights, whereas 99% of all the songs I’ve ever heard are instantly accessible on Spotify. This is the only streaming service I pay for that actually gives me my money’s worth. I wish they would direct more of that money toward artists and less toward Joe Rogan, but you know what they say about ethical consumption under capitalism.

An update from Uvalde Police

This has been a hard week for all of us in the Uvalde community. Perhaps for no one more than our hard-working law enforcement officers, who continue to investigate this tragedy night and day at the expense of their own wellbeing. I wasn’t even able to go home last night and hug my kids, tuck them into bed, and kiss them on the foreheads before they drifted off and dreamt the sweetest dreams.

These are the sacrifices we make. And do we ask for anything in return? No, sorry, I’m not taking any questions yet.

Some concerns have arisen about the conduct of our officers during the roughly one-hour period that the shooter was inside the school. I welcome your scrutiny and will hold the conduct and integrity of my men up to the highest standards. Just to answer some of what I’ve heard so far:

Our officers did not, in fact, congregate outside the school while wearing body armor and wielding military-grade firearms themselves while waiting for someone to tell them what to do. In fact, they were following strict protocol. They were surveilling the scene. Just surveilling the hell out of it. What looks to the untrained eye like a bunch of wieners standing around, shifting from foot to foot, and occasionally admiring their reflections in the windows of their squad cars was in fact highly advanced reconnaissance. I wouldn’t expect a civilian to understand.

I also want to emphasize that our officers did attempt an incursion and it was thwarted. While forming what we call a “tactical stack,” one of our officers accidentally touched the butt of the officer in front of him. Both officers were immediately concerned that they might have contracted the AIDS virus from this unintended contact, and one even suspected that it made him gay. Following protocol, the assault team withdrew to a protected location to regroup.

I mean, what do you want? You want our officers to charge willy-nilly at a madman wielding a gun? They could be shot! If they had been willing to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty, they would have become teachers.

I understand that there are stories going around that some parents attempted to enter the school themselves and were prevented from doing so by our officers. This is, in fact, true, and what’s more, I’m extremely proud that our officers prevented even more death by keeping these parents out of the danger zone. Some of these parents did not comply with instructions and were subdued by use of an officer’s Taser. So the next time you want to accuse my officers of standing around doing nothing while a mass shooter rampaged through an elementary school, I will remind you that we Tased several of the students’ parents. Checkmate.

One more thing I want to address: none of our officers pooped their pants. Not one. Even though it was scary, and they had been there for a while, and many of them had Arby’s Bacon Ranch Wagyu Steakhouse Burger for lunch, absolutely nobody loosed a torrent of hot doodoo butter into their shorts. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply false and borders on slander. So don’t put that in the newspaper.

One of our officers may have sat in mud. We’re checking on that.

I will, of course, let everyone in the media know when we have more information to share. At this time I would ask that you please stand back and let law enforcement do our jobs. At some point we’re sure to do it.

Transcript of Baron Rothschild's keynote speech from Bilderberg '22

(Applause)

Thank you. Thank you. You’re too kind. No — thank you. Thank you all. Please be seated.

It is with tremendous excitement and no small amount of pride that I welcome you all to the Bilderberg Group’s 2022 summit. I’m thrilled to be with so many of you in person again, and without having to wear those annoying masks. Of course, since everyone in this room got the real vaccine well before we even rolled out COVID-19, it’s not like any of us were ever in any danger. But it’s important to keep up appearances.

By the way, how was the matzo this year? Good? Of course it was.

The past year has seen us make great strides in establishing a new world order. I know it seems like I’ve been saying this forever, but I think we’re really on the cusp of something here. The next year or so is critical for us to topple every existing state and unify the entire world under the banner of our one-world government. But before we get to that, let’s just recap some of our accomplishments in the past 12 months.

The “cancel culture” project has really taken root. People are getting canceled left and right! Just look at all the standup comedians whose transphobic jokes have seen them suffer dire personal and professional consequences, for example having to wait a little bit before getting another Netflix special. By the way, if you haven’t seen Ricky Gervais’s latest, “Trigger Warning: The Snowflake Thought Criminal,” it’s hilarious. Just another successful canceling by our vast criminal conspiracy.

We’ve also confused many elderly white men who post on Facebook about what pronouns they are supposed to use. Boy, are they mad about pronouns! With each red-faced, creatively capitalized post, their grip on power and liberty slips inexorably away. Let’s keep up the pressure here. We’ve always said that the path to dictatorship starts by annoying incurious people, and those efforts are bearing fruit.

As we look ahead, there is one major problem preventing us from achieving our very real goal of world domination. That’s right: freedom-loving Americans and their damn firearms. As you know, despite our nearly infinite wealth, Bond villain-level treachery, and full control of the levers of culture and finance, these few holdouts in the USA are single-handedly preventing us from enslaving the entire human race. I say to you again, fellow evildoers: we will never solidify our grip on power until we take their guns!

To that end, I have a proposal for the upcoming year. You’ve heard of a “false flag operation?” It’s when a government or other entity impersonates an opposing faction in order to drum up popular support for their preferred policy. Our plan: a false flag operation aimed at engendering a groundswell of public pressure for gun control laws.

It can’t fail! All we have to do is give a lone crackpot an AR-15, set him loose on an undefended public place to kill a dozen people or so, and then watch the masses rise up and demand change.

I know what you’re saying: it didn’t work when we tried it at Columbine. Or Virginia Tech. Or Aurora. Or Sandy Hook. Or Fort Hood. Or Isla Vista. Or Charleston. Or San Bernardino. Or Pulse.

(Rothschild takes a sip of water.)

Or Las Vegas. Or Parkland. Or Santa Fe. Or Pittsburgh. Or El Paso. Or New York City. Or Buffalo. Or hundreds of others that, ok, didn’t pan out quite like we hoped. But I’ve got a really good feeling about this next one.

Picture it. One of our brainwashed minions attacks an elementary school and wipes out a classroom full of first-graders. Americans will be heartsick. They’ll be outraged. They’ll rise up in one voice and demand action. Their elected leaders will move swiftly to enact strict gun legislation, and the President will proudly sign it into law. A moment of unity and purpose for the American people such as they haven’t known in generations — and then, we strike!

Once all of the guns have been confiscated, our stormtroopers move in. With no one to resist them, they’ll establish martial law without a shot fired. The American people will be our slaves! But that won’t be the worst part. No, those foolish Americans will be met with the worst fate of all. They won’t be able to go anywhere without looking over their shoulders for our troops. They’ll never know when we might strike.

Imagine living that way! Imagine knowing that at any moment a heavily armed man could open fire on you just because he feels like it! This is your future, America. Just as soon as we pass these gun control laws.

Thanks for coming out this year, everybody. Don’t forget to take your gift bags. There’s some great swag in there.

How to settle the abortion debate once and for all

Well, it seems like the Supreme Court is looking to overturn Roe v Wade, and predictably the dames are all hysterical about it. As a 40-year-old man with a vasectomy, I think I am uniquely qualified to opine on this subject. After all, I alone proceed from a basis of pure rationality, without all those womanly passions getting inflamed.

It’s a contentious debate, of course, so let’s try to be fair to people on both sides. Those on the “pro-choice” side believe that every woman should have access to a safe abortion. Those on the “pro-life” side believe that life truly begins at conception, and that aborting a fetus even in the early stages is tantamount to murder. Each side has a point. And many people on both sides would also agree that their position isn’t necessarily absolute. Many of those who oppose abortion, for example, make allowances for cases of rape or incest.

So here’s my suggestion. I’ve thought this over long and hard, bringing all of my hard-won wisdom to bear, and I think I have the solution. There is one, and only one condition under which it should be acceptable for a woman to seek an abortion. That condition is:

If she wants one.

I know, I know. It sounds crazy. How would this work in practice? How can we truly know what is in the mind of a woman all hopped up on pregnancy hormones? Well, let’s imagine a woman who goes to her doctor and says she wants an abortion. Here we apply Occam’s Razor — one of our favorite philosophical devices, right fellas? — and conclude that, if this woman is trying to get an abortion, then she must want one. Q.E.D.

Sure, you’re thinking, maybe we can allow grown women to make this choice. What about minors? Do we really think that a 14-year-old girl is mature enough to decide on her own to terminate a pregnancy without the informed consent of the uncle who impregnated her? Personally, I think we baby kids too much these days. If you’re old enough to ride your bike to the abortion clinic, then in my opinion you’re old enough to go inside.

Restricting the right to terminate a pregnancy only to those women who want to do so would really simplify a lot of things. Finally, the government could get out of the business of policing our bodies and get back to what really matters: spraying chemtrails.


What's new in this iOS update

The new version of iOS is here! Update now to 15.4.1 for the following improvements:

  • Subtly repositioning all of your existing apps

  • Mandatory installation of apps you will never use and can’t delete

  • It’s even harder to make sure you closed the private tabs you were watching porno in

  • Functionality that we won’t explain and which you will accidentally trigger and be unable to figure out how to undo

  • Bug fixes

  • Apple Pay will pursue you from app to app. You cannot hide. Sign up for Apple Pay!

  • Changed the way to take screenshots just as a goof

  • Even worse keyboard predictions

  • Security improvements

  • Security breaches

In response to recent allegations about my leadership style at FaceMelter Games

As Chief Creative Officer and Head Visionarian here at FaceMelter Games, nothing is more important to me than the happiness and well-being of my team. I’ve always considered being a two-time “Auteur of the Year” winner at the Game Awards to be a group achievement.

Look, these awards and sales figures don’t just happen on their own. It takes a whole team to make a video game — to faithfully and unquestioningly execute the creative vision exactly as it’s laid out across scraps of notebook paper and late-night emails. That’s something I might have been taking for granted.

Like many of you, I was distressed and chastened when the recent allegations came out about our workplace dynamics. It does no good to point fingers. Let’s agree that we all share some of the blame for the high turnover, endemic burnout, and abusive management style that our company has allegedly been experiencing. After all, it takes two to tango.

I take my leadership role seriously. Do I have high standards? Absolutely. Do I sometimes push teammates a little hard? Sure, but only to help them reach their potential. Do I solicit sensitive information about my employees’ personal lives so that I can weaponize it at a time of my choosing in order to assert my dominance? If so, I assure you it was only and ever in service of making the very best games possible. Maybe I just cared too much.

I’ll say it again: making games is a team effort. And without a happy and high-functioning team, there’s no way I’d be able to book speaking engagements, highly-compensated consulting roles, and seats on so many industry boards that, frankly, I’ve lost count, and still ship games. (And we will ship another game eventually.) You think one person could do that all on their own? No sir. It takes a team — or, as I like to say about everyone here at FaceMelter Games, a family.

Yes, the game industry has been good to me. When our first Well-Regulated Militia game broke sales records, absolutely it paid off big for me personally and for all FaceMelter executives, Maybe not for the 80% or so of the staff who had been working as contractors, but that’s not my fault, that’s just how it works. Sue me if I want to pay that success forward. (Don’t actually sue me.)

For now, I’m going to take a step back and listen. Learn. Grow. For those of you out there who have been troubled by my leadership style, I want you to know that I hear you. I caused you to lose sleep, weight, and even your hair? I hear you. I broke up your marriage? I hear you. I drove you out of the industry entirely? I hear you. And I will do better.

Because at the end of the day, the most important thing about an unfortunate episode like this is that we all end up in a better place than we were when it started. We all got into this business because we love video games, and some of us also got into this business because we love being famous. If you can’t make a living doing what you love, what’s the point?

So to those of you whose self-worth may or may not have been driven into the ground during your time at FaceMelter Games, I hope you take heart in knowing that this has been a valuable learning experience for me. And the next time I co-found a studio, easily raise funding, and give a talk at GDC about the importance of diversity and inclusion, I hope you, too, can feel proud knowing you’ve helped me get to this point.

The costs we'll bear

As a suburban dad, you bet I have a favorite war. I’ve always been fascinated by World War I for many reasons, one of which was the numbing repetitiveness of it all. How could the people of so many nations sit there and absorb such casualties, week after week, month after month, year after year, for so little strategic change? It made no sense.

The human cost of World War II may have been much higher (and contrary to modern conception the American public, at least, was growing tired of the casualties well before the war’s conclusion), but at least when you look back at it you can see the ebb and flow. You can see the expansion and then contraction of the Axis powers. It was a war for territory. For many countries, such as Russia — which lost over 20 million people — it was a war of survival. In many ways, the losses were unavoidable.

But that really wasn’t the case in the first World War, not on the Western Front anyway. The first few months were indeed a war of movement, with the highest casualty rates of the entire campaign, and at many points each side could reasonably consider themselves on the cusp of victory. By late 1914, though, the digging in began, and for the next four years, despite one massive offensive after another, little was gained and much was lost.

The frontlines were so well defined that it was possible for civilians relatively near behind them to go about their lives — not “as usual,” of course, particularly as Allied dominance of the shipping lanes led to widespread hunger in Germany during the middle years of the war. But it was indeed possible for a citizen of Paris to go about their day without being overly concerned with what was happening at the front. They could go to work or school, eat at cafes, walk the dogs. Meanwhile, soldiers were dying by the thousands, month in and month out.

I believe it was the invisibility of the carnage that kept it tolerable for so many. Even many politicians likely did not have first-hand exposure to the horrors. The war remained an abstraction, the soldiers figures on a board to be pushed around at will. Sure, everyone knew somebody who got killed, or many somebodies, but it all happened off-screen. There was no mass media to bring it home. Brigades were sent off with parades but individual soldiers died in the dark. The people who could have stopped the devastation were preoccupied with other things, like avoiding the shame of defeat.

On and on it went, for years, the dead piling up by the thousands, then the hundreds of thousands, and then the millions. Life went on. Except for those for whom it didn’t.

Anyway. Not sure why that’s been on my mind lately.

A badly designed bathroom door and why it matters

As a UX professional, I’m used to hearing questions like “What does a UX professional do?” and “Can you get off my property?” The answer to the latter question is always a hard no, but the former is more of a challenge. I can explain what I do, the ins and outs of the daily grind, but that’s a lot less important than why it matters. Depending on who I’m talking to, I might focus on improved KPIs or I might emphasize better representing the brand.

But at root, the reason I’m in UX is because bad user experiences suck. They suck whether they’re online or IRL. They make me mad. And while I don’t recommend that people walk around steaming about these things all day like I do, I think it’s helpful to understand better the thoughts that go into the designs of everyday things (or don’t, as the case may be).

Recently I had a bad user experience in the one place no one ever should: the bathroom. I’ve certainly mentioned before the value of a pleasant work restroom. (I like to think that everyone cares about this as much as I do, but I’m the only one with the courage to say it out loud. ) It was my first day in a new office, and as I strolled into the men’s room to attend to some quick business, I felt like something was off. It took me a minute before I realized.

Where were the stalls?

For the most part it had seemed like a normal bathroom. Upon entering, there was a sink to the left, and the room opened to the right, where there were two urinals along the same wall as the entryway. But there didn’t seem to be stalls. Briefly I wondered if this was some kind of express bathroom for number-ones only. That didn’t seem likely though.

By process of elimination (no pun intended), I realized eventually that the two floor-to-ceiling panels on the wall adjacent to the urinals must be the stall doors. It was hard to tell. They looked identical to the material along the back wall except that each panel had a small, flat, circular piece of metal about waist high.

Let’s talk about affordances for a second. An affordance is something that both indicates what you can do with a particular object, and enables you to do it. Picture a door in a public building with a handle on it. The handle is an affordance. It indicates that you can pull the door open, and by its form allows you to do so. There may be a sign on the door reading “pull,” which is helpful additional information but is not itself an affordance. Without the handle, you may still be able to pull the door open but it will be more difficult and you may try pushing first. The handle affords pulling to open.

So the first thing these stall doors were missing were affordances. There was nothing to indicate that they were doors at all, and if so, whether one should push or pull them to open. They were also missing supplemental information that could have suggested their “doorness,” like visible hinges. They weren’t contrasted from the rest of the walls to indicate that they were different in any way. This was clearly a conscious design decision. And it was a bad one.

There was even more to it than that. A standard bathroom stall door has a fair amount of clearance between the floor and the bottom of the door. This is extremely helpful for knowing if someone is occupying a stall. By extending from floor to ceiling, these doors didn’t give that indication. The way to know that a stall was occupied was by looking at an even smaller cut-out circle inside the already small metal circles. When the door was locked from the inside, the color of this circle changed from green to red.

A couple of problems here. One is the small size. You need to lean in pretty close to see it. (Is that where you want to be if someone is blasting a dookie just inches away on the other side?) The other is the choice of color as the indicator. Red-green color blindness is the most common type of color blindness, which according to Wikipedia affects 8% of males. Now imagine you’re a color-blind worker feeling the call of nature, and you’re bent over squinting at a recessed image the size of an Advil whose color you can’t even discern, all to determine whether or not you can open a door that doesn’t even look like a door. Good times.

My theory is that whoever designed this bathroom thought it would be cool and minimalist to blend the stalls in with the walls, and nobody involved gave much thought to the user experience. This design violates a couple of core principles of good UX design. For instance: novelty by itself isn’t a virtue. Stick with the familiar unless you have a damn good reason. Or: make sure that whatever you gain from making a particular design decision is worth what you’re giving up. Everything is a trade-off, so be sure you know what you’re trading.

To answer the initial question, then, of what a UX professional does, ideally we make things like going to the bathroom a smooth experience. As to why I, personally, am one, it’s because I can’t even go pee without getting real angry.

Thoughts on the Astroworld disaster

Horrible news out of Houston this weekend as several people were killed in a crowd crush at a Travis Scott concert. While I have no special knowledge about this particular event, I do have more than a passing interest in the phenomenon of crowd crushes, so I’ve been following the coverage with interest.

In particular, as I noted on Twitter, there are an awful lot of things being reported that one should treat with an appropriate amount of skepticism. No two events like this are ever exactly the same, but they’ve been happening for as long as human beings have been congregating and there are certainly commonalities that you find again and again. I wanted to look at just a couple of the claims I’ve seen made and explain why I think we should wait for more information to come out before we accept them as true, and contribute to spreading misinformation ourselves.

Dubious claim: The stampede was caused by “panic”

This appears to have been revised out of the AP reports, which is good, but initially they included this language (emphasis mine):

At least eight people have died and 17 others, including a 10-year-old child, have been transported to the hospital after being trampled at a panic-fueled stampede Saturday night in Houston, Texas. The crush happened during the opening-night set of Astroworld Festival founder Travis Scott, whose livestream was halted as the panic ensued. More than 300 of the 50,000 people in attendance were reportedly treated at a field hospital on the grounds that day.

Police say at least 11 of those hospitalized suffered cardiac arrest after trying to escape a yet unknown source of panic during Scott’s set, which featured a special appearance from Drake.

Suffice it to say that this is rarely the cause of a crowd crush. It’s much more common for crushes to occur when a mass of people is all trying to move toward something, not away. Why? Because there is usually a smaller, central point that too many people are trying to get to — such as the front of a stage. People in the back, unaware of what’s happening ahead of them, add to the compressive force, which multiplies throughout the crowd. When people are trying to escape, they often have more options and can spread out.

Consider some historical examples. The wire stories have compared this disaster to the one that occurred at a concert by The Who at Riverfront Stadium in 1979. In that case, most of the entrance doors were closed and locked. The crowd believed, incorrectly, that the concert was starting, and began to surge toward those few doors which were open. The doors couldn’t handle the capacity, and the crush developed then. This was also the case at the Victoria Hall disaster, which I covered in an episode of Fatal Errors, and the famous Hillsborough disaster.

It’s also suspicious that the “source of panic” was not identified. When there is a “source of panic,” there is no doubt about what it is: for examples, a fire or gunshots. In a case like that of the Station nightclub fire, indeed the fire did cause a rush to the exits, and most of the dead were clustered around a few points of egress. But these people mostly died of smoke inhalation, not compressive asphyxiation. And in the case of the Las Vegas concert shooting, despite the obvious panic, all of the reported fatalities were caused by gunshot. There was no crush.

Dubious claim: Concertgoers were out of control

There was footage of some people rushing the gates beforehand, and I’ve seen one story making the rounds of a reporter saying she felt uneasy with the vibe there, which is fair enough. But there are a couple of points I’ll make here. One, out-of-control concertgoers do not a crowd crush make. How many crush deaths were there at Woodstock 99? Two, it’s straight out of the official playbook to try to blame the victims of this kind of an event for their own deaths.

The most infamous example of this is clearly the Hillsborough disaster, in which police and the media conspired to accuse the crowd of being drunk and out of control, publishing an entire front page that accused fans of picking the pockets of the dead, urinating on first responders, and other wild claims that ultimately were shown to be made up from whole cloth.

The physics of a crowd crush really do not mesh with the perception of wild, frothing fans. It is simply a function of density. When a certain threshold is passed, it becomes impossible for an individual to move against the crowd and that is when compressive asphyxiation begins to occur. It doesn’t matter what anyone in the crowd is “doing.” The only way to prevent a crowd crush is to prevent the numbers from reaching this density.

Dubious claim: One or more villains was injecting people with an unknown substance

This one would be laughable it weren’t coming from the chief of police, and if so many people weren’t receiving it credulously. It’s actually a combination of two common ass-covering gambits, that of the victim-blaming we’ve already seen and that of law enforcement fabricating ludicrous tales of threats to their safety. Suffice it to say that I would bet my house this is not true. Beyond the logistics of smuggling hypodermic needles in order to stealthily inject random people, you also have to wonder why someone would bother doing that to begin with, and why this would be the first time in history such a thing had happened.

Beyond which, it doesn’t work as a “source of panic” because even in the police chief’s telling, the person affected didn’t even realize what had happened. This is genuinely just somebody throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

What really happened?

We don’t know yet. But we know what has usually happened in cases like this. Most of the time the cause of a crowd crush is poor crowd management, which means too many people allowed in too small a space, too few available means of egress, and too few staff members given too little training and/or authority. Sometimes there is a genuine mistake on someone’s part, failing to unlock or open a passageway. More often there are a lot of careless cost-cutting measures that seem innocuous in isolation but which add up to disaster.

The one thing we can say with confidence is that the victims are not responsible for their own deaths and injuries, and that the people who are responsible will do everything in their considerable power to divert blame. That’s a tale as old as time.

Gamers, rejoice! A new video game is coming out

Video game enthusiasts around the world are buzzing with anticipation for the impending release of a brand-new game. The wait for this one has been even longer than usual. Historically a new game has come out, on average, about once every 18 months, but this will be the first since 2018’s Red Dead Redemption 2.

Reid Burton, 27, of Brighton, Massachusetts, was one of over 20 customers already lined up outside a local GameStop days before the new game is expected to go on sale. "I’m sure I could have pre-ordered it on Amazon, but how often do you get the chance to celebrate like this with your fellow gamers?” Burton said. “This is our Woodstock.”

Despite their rarity, video games are a big business. They drive billions of dollars in revenue for the few companies that do publish them, and leading retailers like GameStop capitalize both on new sales and the bustling secondary market. For GameStop, a publicly traded company, mere rumors of a new game are enough to send its stock price soaring. Shares spiked more than 150% earlier this year when a Reddit investor named “PepeLePewPew” revealed that he had purchased a six-figure stake in the chain in anticipation of the new game.

Not everyone is pleased with the seemingly random and unpredictable nature of video game releases. The CEO of Activision Blizzard, Bobby Kotick, acknowledged that many customers would prefer not to wait so long. “We’ve heard our players loud and clear, and they want more games,” Kotick said. “In an ideal world, we’d release a new game far more often, perhaps annually. We’re exploring some innovative new ideas, including the possibility of a sequel to an existing game.”

Kotick added, “Of course, we haven’t announced anything officially.”

A new game coming to market is a boon not just for the game’s publisher and retailers, but for a vast ecosystem of other businesses. Tina Amini is the editor-in-chief of IGN, a network of websites that publishes video game news, reviews, guides, and more. According to Amini, “We’ve been pretty successful at covering the several games that are already out there. But I’d be lying if I said a new game wouldn’t do wonders for our traffic. Publishing a review alone is like gold.”

With just days to wait until the new video game is finally released, all that remains to be seen is what kind of game it will be. Burton says he’ll be happy with anything, but he hopes it’s a Japanese role-playing game like the one he played as a kid. “Those games are really long and have great stories. You can play them over and over.”

At press time, Vegas oddsmakers were predicting that the new game would be a first-person shooter.

Andrew W.K. and the mystery of creation

0. The meaning of life

 If we’re going to discuss Andrew W.K., then obviously we need to start on 9/11.

On an individual level, the trauma of that day radiated outward like the concentric rings on a map of a nuclear blast. Near the center were those directly involved, killed or injured by the attacks. Further out were those who lost loved ones, or lived in the cities where they happened. Further out another ring or two were most people, those like me who got no closer than a TV screen but were still, understandably, shaken to the core. I lived in the center of a fairly major city at the time; it wasn’t implausible that we could be a target. We just didn’t know what might happen.

As with many catastrophic events, the attacks may have caused some people to doubt their entire worldview. For many more people, it served as confirmation. One of the things it did for me was re-affirm the poisonous role of religion in our civics. After all, the hijackers were Muslims who thought themselves engaged in a holy war. Language of the Crusades was invoked in America’s response. Religion was right at the center of all of it.

But what truly bugged me – what bugs me to this day, even though I’ve mellowed out quite a bit on the topic – were those people who credited divine intervention with their own near misses on September 11. For everyone whose train was late, or who overslept, or who changed their flight arrangements at the last minute, the survivor’s guilt must have been immense. And so a lot of people said that God must have saved them. God, in his infinite wisdom, decided that I must be spared on this day.

What does that say about God that he would choose to save you but let thousands of others perish in the most horrible of ways? How could you believe that about him? How could you possibly believe that about yourself? That you were worth saving, but not someone whose last moments on earth were spent in absolute pain and terror before their entire corporeal existence was annihilated?

So, no, I do not believe God was present on 9/11, nor do I believe he’s been present at any time before or since. In general I have no objection to other people believing otherwise. I’m certainly not going to argue the point. Why bother? Neither of us would change our minds.

I do want to clarify one thing, though. Lack of belief in a deity is not the same thing as belief in nothing, or, more accurately, it’s not the same as not seeking answers to some of the same questions that religion purports to address. Frankly I’m obsessed with these big questions, occasionally paralyzed by them. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Why am I here? Do my actions matter in any greater sense? I’m still wondering about all of these things. Sometimes, like a magic eye puzzle, the outlines of an answer might start to swim into view, and then they’re gone just as easily.

Questioning the nature of life, the universe, and everything springs from an assumption that, if flawed, could undermine the entire enterprise: that if an answer presented itself, we would recognize it for what it was. Maybe we wouldn’t. Maybe it would be completely inscrutable to us. Maybe the key to enlightenment is to change our definition of what the answer could be.

 

1. Getting wet

One of the reasons I think so many of us cling to our memories of September 11 is because our lives were otherwise so uneventful. I know mine was. Here’s proof: the next most significant thing I can remember about my junior year was learning about a new musical artist.

I got way into music in college. Indie rock, mostly, but music of all kinds. I was constantly going to shows, buying CDs on a whim, and of course downloading gigs and gigs of those sweet, sweet MP3s. Prior to college I had listened to a handful of favorite bands, all of whom were massively popular: Dave Matthews, Oasis, Radiohead, Metallica. But when I was introduced to a much wider world of largely independent music, I was addicted. I sought out everything I could, from stalwarts of the 1970s and 1980s to every up-and-comer the early 2000s had to offer. It was a fun time in my life.

With my newfound tastes, naturally I developed a little snobbiness as well. I probably argued that various things weren’t “real” music. I definitely kept pushing things onto my friends that they weren’t receptive to. Certainly the snobbiness was in effect the first time I saw, on my muted TV, a music video featuring a disheveled and intense-looking man headbanging in front of a giant sign that read PARTY HARD. I’m sure I snorted.

I had my TV tuned to MTV a lot in those days for some reason. I’d be on my computer listening to music of my choosing, and the TV would be muted and showing MTV. I’m not sure why. But they kept showing that weird video with the party hard guy. At some point I unmuted. And it was stupider than I could have imagined.

Lyrical nuggets like “When it’s time to party we will party hard” and “We do what we like and we like what we do.” A pounding guitar part that sounded like a jackhammer. What sounded like a single piano key being slammed over and over. A robotic voice that repeated “partyhardpartyhardpartyhardpartyhard.” I was into literate lyrics, unconventional time signatures, defiantly un-commercial stuff. I stood in line at midnight to buy Kid A on release date, for chrissake.

I found myself keeping an eye out for the video to come back on.

MTV played the “Party Hard” video a lot. Perhaps it was a Buzz Clip. Either way, at some point I abandoned the pretense of enjoying the song as a guilty pleasure. When my tax refund showed up that spring, I strolled into Newbury Comics with a couple hundred bucks to blow on CDs. This was 20 years ago and I can’t remember most of what I bought. I think Wilco’s Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was in the stack, and certainly characteristic of the rest. But in there, too, was I Get Wet by Andrew W.K.

Like Marty DiBergi said of Spinal Tap, I was first struck by the album’s unusual loudness. The opening track, “It’s Time to Party,” starts with a single, chugging guitar part that sounds filtered and distant, like you’re hearing it across a poor phone connection. You may be inclined to lean closer to the speaker. This is a feint. It’s a ju-jitsu move by Andrew W.K. to trick you into turning up the volume before the song explodes in a barrage of overdubbed guitars and sledgehammer-like percussion. It’s time to get loud. It’s time to party.

And when it’s time to party, what do we do? We segue directly into track two, “Party Hard.” The album doesn’t let up from there. A lot of the song titles and lyrics read as imperative statements. Take it off. Get ready to die. Party ‘til you puke. And despite a couple of detours into slightly gentler fare (“She Is Beautiful” being a standout here) for the most part every song follows the same formula.

Once, I was skipping through each track on the album for a reason I can no longer remember. At some point I started chuckling because almost every song started exactly the same way. Usually a keyboard part that was just a single loud, insistent note plinked over and over, like Schroeder’s sarcastic rendition of “Jingle Bells” fed through the Doof Warrior’s Marshall stacks. This was followed by that same explosion of guitars and a driving kick drum that matched the tempo of the keyboard part. Most songs develop into a maelstrom of overdubbed guitars and vocals. As I said, it’s very loud.

It’s also, thematically, all about partying. Sort of. Hosting a party or attending a party are a little too specific for what AWK is getting at. Now, for me at age 20, partying meant nothing more and nothing less than getting drunk and failing to get laid. And I don’t think any of that would be excluded from his definition of partying. After all, in an otherwise undistinguished academic career, partying until I puked was where I was a Viking. Yet Andrew W.K.’s definition of partying seems to be more expansive. It’s more than a lifestyle, it’s a state of being.

This leads to some weird places, lyrically. The song “Ready to Die” demands that “you better get ready to die,” which makes sense as a call to carpe diem. But it’s followed by the words “you better get ready to kill,” which, charitably, we could interpret to mean that you gotta sink your teeth into whatever endeavor you’re attempting, but honestly it reads as more literal than that. Consider that earlier that W.K. has pledged “This is your time to pay / This is your judgment day / We made a sacrifice / And now we get to take your life.” Definitely sounds like it’s about murder.

Then there’s the title track, “I Get Wet,” which is incomprehensible. With a female singer you’d think it could be about sexual arousal. The only other interpretation that I can think of is a reference to “wet work,” aka professional murder, which fits a little better with the rest of the lyrics. “I get wet whenever you’re crying / I get wet I know that you’re dying.”

My recommendation is not to listen too closely to the lyrics.

At any rate, 20 years on I think I could make a case that I Get Wet is my favorite album of the 2000s. It certainly has stuck with me far more than music that was more acclaimed at the time. (I couldn’t tell you the last time I gave Yankee Hotel Foxtrot a spin.) It’s exuberant, propulsive, and so much fun to listen to. But the quality of the music isn’t the only reason. It’s also because of the man himself.

Andrew W.K., against all odds, has stuck around. Although only sporadically releasing music, he’s emerged as some kind of guru, a zen master for the 21st century. He’s hosted TV shows, penned advice columns, maintained an enigmatic Twitter presence. He’s famous and even ubiquitous, but not in the usual manner of today’s TMI celebrities. He seems to stand not outside the mainstream but athwart it.

He’s still partying.

 

2. In the flesh

Have you met Andrew W.K.? If you have, I bet you remember it well. He makes an impression.

I met him in the fall of 2003. He was playing a show at the Roxy, which was on Tremont Street right next to campus. I attended the show and retain three clear memories of it:

  1. Getting punched in the face, knocking my glasses off

  2. Having a full beer dumped over my head, which was actually refreshing given the temperature in the room

  3. So many people going onstage for the encore of “Party Hard” that the equipment got knocked over and they had to stop playing

Great show.

Hanging out back on the dorm’s front stoop afterward – god, I hope I showered – a fellow AWK fan came out the door, breathless. “Andrew W.K. is at the Little Building!” he exclaimed. We headed right over.

The Little Building is a dorm on campus, the biggest at the time. When we arrived, AWK was holding court in an atrium area on the second floor with about a dozen students. Bear in mind that this was after midnight and he had played a show shortly before. How did Andrew W.K. come to be standing there, still wearing his dirty white t-shirt and jeans? I have no idea.

What I remember most about him was that he took his time to meet every person there individually. He could have issued a general greeting, signed some autographs, and taken off. God knows nobody expected more from him. But that’s not what he did. He went one by one, giving each person his full attention, asking our names and making actual conversation. And he didn’t just sign an autograph. He sat down and wrote you a goddamn letter.

I’m not kidding. In my haste to find something he could sign, I had grabbed a copy of a personal essay I’d recently had workshopped in class. The reviewer had written on it, in all caps, “YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!”

This will require a bit of an explanation.

As a writing major with no real life experience and an eye toward commercial success, I was cultivating a certain softboy persona at the time: self-deprecating, wry, a lovable loser. I wrote a lot about my romantic failures. For the most part it worked, as much as undergrad writing can be said to work, and most of the time my personal essays were warmly received by my professors and my classmates – with this notable exception.

In the absolutely true story, I had written about the time I woke up a girl I was wooing by tossing coins at her window in the middle of the night. In my mind it was a romantic gesture. Lloyd Dobler-esque. It met with mixed success on the battlefield but it made for a winning anecdote in personal essay class, for most of my readers anyway.

This one girl was incensed at the story. “You’re throwing money at her? Is she a stripper?” she demanded to know. I didn’t have a good answer except that it was non-fiction and therefore no symbolism was intended.

With the passage of time I think that this classmate probably had me dead to rights much more than I was willing to acknowledge at the time, alone among the class in perceiving that the version of myself I presented in my essays was, if not necessarily false, highly calculated. While I wasn’t nearly ambitious enough to define it in such terms, I think that I was undertaking a project to create a literary version of myself that could be marketed alongside other schlubby men of letters like Chuck Klosterman.

All that being said, it’s bad form in a writing workshop to call another writer an asshole.

So when my turn came to get some facetime with the man himself, I showed him the essay with the incendiary notes scribbled all over it. He seemed stunned. “Why would somebody do this?” he asked.

He took the essay and sat down at a table with a Sharpie. (I recall that it was his own.) He proceeded to handwrite a full-page letter on the back sheet in all capital letters. I’m not sure if I still have this somewhere, but as I recall it was full of exhortations to stay positive and not let the negativity get me down. The phrase I think I remember verbatim is that Andrew W.K. pledged that he and I would do “GOOD FUN STUFF AND NOT THE OPPOSITE!”

I treasured this letter. I showed it to everyone I could. For days afterward, I was glowing from the encounter. To think that this rock star, who I now realize is barely older than me, would take such time and give such attention to a random fan who shoved something in his face to autograph. He didn’t have to do that, but he did.

That was when I realized this guy wasn’t just some musician.

 

3. Never let down

Right on schedule, Andrew W.K.’s sophomore album dropped in 2003. I picked up The Wolf upon release in September 2003. A lot had changed in my life. I had graduated in May with $60,000 in debt, and gone straight into a customer service job making $8.25 an hour.

I can’t tell you how miserable I was that summer. Not in a fun, quirky, marketable way either. I was just depressed. I drank a lot and smoked too many cigarettes. I went for long walks in the middle of the night. The problem wasn’t just that I was broke as dirt and working a shitty job. I’d been broke before, and I’d worked plenty of shitty jobs.

The problem, as I saw it, was the vast future yawning before me, formless and terrible. My entire life to that point had been prescribed and I had not deviated. Even my acts of rebellion were safe and predictable – the first and only time I’ve ever dyed my hair was the week before my freshman year.  The next step was always laid out before me, and I had only to lift my foot to take it.

Post-collegiate life was not like that. I was, at long last, responsible for myself.  I had to decide what I would do next. I wasn’t ready. I considered grad school and I even considered the military. Any action seemed like too much for me to handle. I was barely hanging on.

By September, things were turning around a bit. I had a burgeoning relationship with a young woman I liked a whole heck of a lot, who would later become my wife. Plus I had lucked into a far better job, now working on the website of a weekly newspaper. This job paid a cool $11.25 an hour. Enough to buy a new CD!

Andrew W.K.’s The Wolf was not what I expected. It wasn’t I Get Wet Part 2. A lot of his signature elements were still there, particularly massive overdubs, and yeah, there was a song about partying. But it was, if not less heavy than its predecessor, then less harsh. It was smoothed out more, with a greater variety of instrumentation and climaxes that swelled rather than pummel you into submission.

Starting on track 5, “Never Let Down,” there was also what I can only characterize as a shift in focus. Gone were the bizarre and sometimes violent lyrics. In their place were soaring tributes to trying your best and connecting with others. AWK’s role as the singer changed too, from the party ringmaster (or maybe just the mascot) to almost a messianic figure. In “Never Let Down,” he declares: “I’m a friend by your side / You’re never gonna be alone.” (A sentiment that he’s repeated often, such as in the title of his 2018 album You’re Not Alone.)

Not all of it works. But some of it works better than it has any right to. On the ironically named “Totally Stupid” AWK reaches honest-to-god profundity. The song builds and builds until an absolutely cathartic climax that I have to quote in depth:

 When we look into the future
To the place we haven't gone
See what we haven't done
We have known it all along

If we wait until tomorrow
Will tomorrow ever come?
This is where we're coming from
And we're not the only ones

When we find ourselves in trouble
We can find ourselves a way
You can find a place to stay
And the place is always safe

 If you have a heart that's in pain
Don't be afraid, you're not to blame
There's a better world inside of us
Where we always thought it was

You don't need to hide
You can open up your eyes
And you'll discover
That there is another world

A bit of self-help mumbo-jumbo? I wouldn’t dispute that. But I don’t read it that way either. “If we wait until tomorrow, will tomorrow ever come?” reads like a koan to me. And those final lines hint at a form of transcendence. We’re not exactly partying until we puke anymore.

Partying was still on the docket, though, and when we threw my 22nd birthday party at my apartment, you bet The Wolf was on the playlist. At last, the future looked bright.

 

4. The lost years

The stage was set for tons of new Andrew W.K. music in the years to come. But one year passed, and then another, and then another, with no new releases. At one point he dropped an album called Close Calls with Brick Walls in Japan only. I downloaded it using nefarious means, and it was all right. Looking at the track list now, only a couple songs really stuck with me. “You Will Remember Tonight” was a banger and “I Want to See You Go Wild” recaptured some of the old magic. But overall it struck me as kind of a meandering piece that lacked the power of his previous two albums, and for a long time afterward it seemed like his musical output had evaporated.

It would be wrong to say that Andrew W.K. went away, though. On the contrary, he was everywhere. He hosted TV shows – Destroy Build Destroy and Your Friend, Andrew W.K., neither of which I’ve watched – and appeared occasionally in random places, doing a weather report in one place or going viral for a bizarre late-night spot on Fox News.

For quite a while, he wrote an advice column for the Village Voice. At times his columns could be breathtaking. When a letter writer asked for help in coping with the death of a friend, he wrote movingly about grief:

Also remember that you are your friend. The thoughts and ideas you had and still have about him are your creations and concepts as much as they were his. You are made of each other. The times you spent together helped shape your days and make you the person you are right now. Your friend is bound up in all of you, as much a part of you as your blood and bones.

Lastly, remember that all of our experiences in the world ultimately occur in our mind and soul. When your friend was alive, you looked at him with your eyes and heard him with your ears, and those senses formed impressions and thoughts in your mind. Now that your friend is dead, you are still using your mind to think about him and perceive him, just as you did when he was standing right in front of you. He really is still here.

I recommend reading the whole thing. It’s quite something. Gone are the shock-jock slogans of partying ‘til you puke and the self-help mantras of doing all right and doing ok. This is genuinely profound. It’s metaphysical. And it requires no suspension of disbelief, no forbearing of one’s critical faculties. I’m getting misty-eyed just reading it again.

I don’t see this as a departure from his earlier work as much as an evolution. He still is recommending a full embrace of existence with your eyes wide open. Feel it all, the good and the bad.  Even grieving can be partying.

Naturally, because nothing good can be allowed to exist, during this time rumors began to swirl. Was Andrew W.K. even a real person? Or was he a corporate creation, a fictional character inhabited by a paid actor or even multiple actors? Did he write his own music? Did he even write the words that came out of his own mouth?

For his part, AWK – or his social media team – seemed to enjoy stoking the fires. Every time another article gets published or another podcast gets posted, AWK makes sure to share it while loudly denying the claims in a case of protesting way, way too much. What’s the simpler explanation: that the claims are true and whoever is running the con short-circuits when someone gets too close, or that they’re false and AWK gets a kick out of playing along? I know which side my money’s on.

But let’s temporarily accept the premise and let it play out. Let’s say that Andrew W.K. is a character and not a real person, in so far as that can be defined. (Some days I don’t feel like a real person.) Does that make his message untrue? When you’re jumping up and down to “Party Hard” and feeling absolutely free, is that feeling a lie? If his words help you grieve the loss of a friend, does it matter if they were written by one man or by a committee?

To be clear, I don’t think any of that is true. I think Andrew W.K. is a musician and a provocateur, and I think to the extent that he is playing a role it’s not all that different from the way most people present a different side of themselves depending on their surroundings. The version of yourself at work and the version of yourself at home are not exactly the same. It stands to reason that the public-facing persona of a messianic rock god would not be exactly the same as the part of him that makes deals and signs contracts. We are all prismatic.

 

5. The second coming

The rock star Andrew W.K. came back a few years ago. He announced a full-band tour, his first in many years. I went to see him at the Brighton Music Hall. I drank too much and left early. (I’m not as young as I used to be.) But there was the same old Andrew W.K., bringing 110% energy to a less-than-capacity crowd at a small venue in a dodgier neighborhood in Boston. He played a solo on a pizza-shaped guitar.

Next came an album. A pretty good one! You’re Not Alone contained a couple of certified bangers, revisiting themes of partying and not giving up. The party seemed less visceral now and more spiritual. There are a couple of spoken-word tracks that feel like they may have been adapted from that advice column. Harkening back to a sentiment that had appeared on The Wolf, AWK says in “The Feeling of Being Alive”:

Life is very intense
But that doesn’t mean it’s bad
Understanding this
Is what partying’s all about

Now we’ve got a brand-new album. Its title, God Is Partying, can be taken in two ways. The simpler interpretation is as an answer to the question “What is God doing?” The interpretation that I prefer has “partying” as a noun. Partying is a state of being, and God = partying. Not a personal God, not a creator of all things, what we call God might be best understood as a very human state of transcendence that Andrew W.K. prefers to call partying.

God Is Partying is a heavy album. Not heavy in the jackhammer way of I Get Wet, or in the operatic way of The Wolf, but in a slow, confident way. The chunky riffs of “Everybody Sins” and “Babalon” carry more than a whiff of stoner metal. Not one, not two, but three songs exceed six minutes in length, which is highly unusual in his oeuvre. Only his album of piano improvisations, 2009’s ’55 Cadillac, had any other tracks that long. No songs on I Get Wet even make it to four minutes.

So yes, there are some curveballs. Chief among them the slow, crooning “Stay True to Your Heart.” Lyrically, it’s right in AWK’s wheelhouse:

They'll try to break you down
They'll make you mess with your mind
They'll leave your heart spellbound
You'll leave yourself behind
Whoa

But what’s interesting about “Stay True to Your Heart” from a musical perspective is how much it relies on anticipation. AWK songs of the past threw everything at you that they could, like a flurry of strikes from Bruce Lee. Here we find an Andrew W.K. who’s willing to withhold a bit and lure the listener along. It really works.

Other songs revisit that weird darkness that was lurking in his very earliest work. I’ve been using www.genius.com to look up lyrics for this post, and in seeking a choice excerpt from “Everybody Sins” to explain this point I was distracted by an explanation from the man himself about the meaning of the song. It’s kind of mindblowing.

Sin could be considered the world’s first cliché, and forgiveness from sin could be the world’s first platitude. Sometimes, dealing with these clichés and platitudes is like sucking on ice cubes—there’s something essential in there, but it’s sort of frozen. Nevertheless, if you take the time to roll those icy words around in your mouth and warm them up with your tongue, their essence can thaw, trickle down into your soul, and quench all those who suck on it.

This guy is brilliant.

So much of what happens on God Is Partying is about melting down these frozen concepts. There’s a coherent worldview in there, one grappling honestly and fully with the big questions of our existence. Individually the concepts are simple and easily grasped; together they construct an edifice that is most easily perceptible by the negative space around it. If were smarter I would explicate it. Instead I can only behold it, and beckon others to do the same.

If it’s not clear, I’m not suggesting here that Andrew W.K. is a deity, not even a demigod. But if my tone is hard to read, let me emphasize that I am earnestly suggesting that he is providing a spiritual pathway that is worth exploring. Human meaning is found in human experience. Embracing and allowing ourselves full contact with those experiences, those we would call positive and those we would call negative, is how we can begin to understand ourselves, our relationships to one another, even our place in the cosmos.

We might be alone in the universe. There might not be an afterlife (or a beforelife). Life may lack a definite meaning which we can divine from an outside source. But while we are here we can party, and everyone is invited. Maybe God did create Andrew W.K. in his own image. Because God is partying.