Why I Don’t Review With Scores or Numbers
All of my product, movie, concert, game and music reviews are written long-form, and never have any numerical rating associated with them.
They almost did. I had this clever idea to have a 5 star scale and have the rating system be glasses. Each pair of glasses would equal a star, and a monocle would equal half a star. However I sacked the idea.
It would have looked better than this.
Why did I change my mind?
Joe was one of my undergraduate professors, and learning from him was one of those rare life-changing teacher experiences. But I digress.
Why 1 – 5 Scales Suck
His classes were unconventional in a lot of ways, but the most significant example was his strong opposition to generic scale rating systems. This didn’t make him popular in the social sciences because 1 – 5 rating systems are pretty much the standard means for measuring any human experience in psychology, sociology, political science, and communication.
He illustrated this very simply in what turned out to be the most memorable five minutes I had in two decades of school.
Joe began a class by instructing us to take out a piece of paper, and create four 1 – 5 scales on it. Then he asked the following four questions and had us answer on those scales:
- How big is the Moon?
- How big is the Sun?
- How big is a penny?
- How big is a dime?
The answers were pretty much along these lines:
- How big is the Moon? – 5
- How big is the Sun? – 5
- How big is a penny? – 1
- How big is a dime? – 1
- How big is the Moon? – 4
- How big is the Sun? – 5
- How big is a penny? – 2
- How big is a dime? – 1
The problem was immediately apparent to everyone with a pulse. According to this research, students perceptions are that the Moon and Sun are the same size, while pennies and dimes are the same size. The kicker being that the Moon and the Sun are five times larger than pennies and dimes.
His point was that these methods of measurement are meaningless because the ratings have no context, and there’s no opportunity for logical mathematical comparison. So he (and a few others) created a system of measure that was based on comparison. It’s complex, and I’m not going to get into it here.
Why 1 – 100 Scales Suck
So you might be asking yourself, why not use a 1 – 100 scale?
It still has no comparison value, but mostly I don’t know the difference between an 83 and an 84 in terms of quality. Whenever I see ratings like 93, I find myself completely baffled by how someone came up with that number. Sometimes I reach the bottom of a review and see some strange number and I actually laugh as I imagine my eighth grade algebra teacher yelling, “Show your damn work!”
The bottom-line
I don’t know how to boil my complex thoughts about something into an arbitrary number. Plus, if I write a number it devalues all of the rest of the thought and nuance that went into the review.
Read a review, don’t read a review. Numerical rating systems distort reality. I won’t be using them.
The House Made CISPA Worse, Then Passed It (Goodbye 4th Amendment)
The House of Representatives added an amendment to their Cybersecurity bill CISPA, and then passed it 248-168. Those 248 people need to take a high school civics course are get a refresher on the Bill of Rights.
The bill will annihilate our 4th Amendment rights on the Internet by creating a loophole whereby the authorities can pretty much establish cause to search any files you’re sharing with another web service – Email, Google Docs, Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter, banking, medical databases, websites, Google Search, you name it, if it isn’t hosted on your own server, you’re screwed.
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.
Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.
CISPA is now a completely unsupportable bill that rewrites (and effectively eliminates) all privacy laws for any situation that involves a computer. Far from the defense against malevolent foreign entities that the bill was described as by its authors, it is now an explicit attack on the freedoms of every American.
I’m choosing to believe that 248 of our Representatives are just incredibly stupid, because otherwise they are evil. This is one of the most oppressive bills I’ve ever heard of. Bunch of savages.
Hopefully Obama comes through with a Veto, and it holds up.
(Via Techdirt)
Google Glasses – The Rise of Wearable Computers
A few weeks ago Google announced Project Glass, or Google Glasses.
A number of people I’ve spoken to are quick to mock these as another bluetooth headset. While I agree that walking around with a bluetooth headset hanging on your ear and no one on the phone is a generally stupid idea, I think that computerized glasses are something much bigger and far more important.
Humans Conforming to Machines
The typewriter was invented in 1868, and we have been conforming to its shape ever since. Our technology does incredible thing, but it still breaks our bodies. Our devices inflict all manner of pain on our backs’, necks’ and wrists’. Tablets and mobiles aren’t an improvement in this regard. They still make us crane our necks’, and strain our wrists’. This is because we must contort our bodies to work with the shape of our technology. It’s a massive design flaw and the only people who benefit are orthopedists, physical therapists, and ergonomics professionals (who make a staggering amount of money for assembling chairs and installing wrist wrests for large corporations).
Computers as Glasses
If Google Glasses are light enough, they will represent the first powerful consumer computer that conforms to human physiology, and this excites me as both a technologist and as a vertebrate.
The combination of a camera, microphone, accelerometer, GPS and small heads up display in an always-on computer could do unbelievable things (which may one day be another post).
Making These Things Magical
The trick will be giving users a ton of control over what notifications will be sent to the user’s glasses. If your eyes are pinging every time you receive an email, tweet, Facebook update, or text message you might go insane. Limiting the active functionality is how you make computerized glasses empower users instead of distracting them. Having geographically activated modes could be cool. What I mean is that the device automatically shifts it’s configuration based on where you are, and possibly who is around you.
They work differently if you’re:
- At work
- At home (and alone)
- At home (with people around)
- Walking in a place you’ve been before
- Walking in a place you’ve never been
- At a museum
- In a store
The opportunities are endless, especially if the devies can recognize who you’re with.
Prescription Glasses
On a personal note, I will be quite peeved if Google neglects us prescription glasses-wearers.
These can’t come fast enough for me. Bring on the future!
Turing Centennial Celebration at Princeton University
Princeton University is hosting a Turing Centennial Celebration on May 10 – 12, 2012. The event honors of Alan Turing, the “father of computer science” who earned his Ph.D from Princeton University in 1938.
Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt will be speaking on the 10th, and I’ll be in attendance along with the Princeton Tech Meetup (where I spoke this past Monday).
If you’re interested in attending the free event, register with Princeton.
If you’d like to join the Princeton Tech Meetup check out their page on Meetup.com. It’s free to join, and the group is wonderful.
Either way, let me know if you’ll be in Princeton on May 10th.
Go See “Cabin in the Woods” (2012)
Non-Spoilery
I’m not a fan of the horror genre. So when I say that Cabin in the Woods (2012) is a great movie, I don’t mean that it’s great, for a horror movie. I mean that it’s a genuinely an excellent movie.
Cabin is very upfront with the viewer about what it is. The very first frame of the opening credits tells you exactly what you’re there to watch, and then it’s humorously quirky characters and unusual plot take care of the rest.
My favorite thing about Cabin is that it really sticks it to the horror genre for its predictability and sameness.
Cabin in the Woods is smart, unusual, fast-paced, and very self-aware, but not in an obnoxious way. It’s also thrilling but not terrifying. Go see it.
Spoilery
Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon did something special here. The details in this film are just killer.
Making a distinction between “Zombies” & “Zombie Redneck Torture Family,” or “Witches” & “Sexy Witches” was not a necessary detail, but the kind of thing that sets this film apart from lots of other horror movies. Plus, a homicidal unicorn that actually makes sense within the story!?
Is "Kevin" a Sin City reference?
I also love the ending. Everyone gets punished for their transgressions. As I watched our two heroes sit on the steps in the last scenes I realized as they did that this was the only way to end the story. It was strangely refreshing to watch the world end, because someone always seems to save it; even when it doesn’t make sense.
(Image via Bleeding Cool)
Did Video Games Kill 77 People in Norway? And Bloomberg Businessweek Ethics
Correction: the piece was published by The Associated Press
Anders Behring Breivik, the evil bastard who murdered 77 people (69 of them kids) in Norway testified today that he played the video game, Modern Warfare to sharpen his aim. He also explained that he was inspired by al-Qaida to decapitate the Prime Minister of Norway; took steroids; meditated to “de-emotionalize” himself; and that he’s a “Knights Templar.”
Julia Gronnevet and Karl Ritter of Bloomberg Businessweek The Associated Press wrote a piece on the testimony titled, “Norway killer sharpened aim on computer games.” It’s 1,099 words long, and of those 1,099 words only 152 of them are even remotely about Breivik’s use of video games. And of those 152 words, 77 of them cast a ton of doubt on the claim that video games helped him at all. Here’s all 152 words:
In a chilling summary, the far-right fanatic claimed Thursday that he sharpened his aim by playing computer games for more than a year before Norway’s worst peacetime massacre.
Breivik said he played the computer game “Modern Warfare” for 16 months starting in January 2010, primarily to get a feel for how to use rifle sights. In 2006 he devoted a full year to playing “World of Warcraft,” for 16 hours a day, he said.
Christopher Ferguson, of Texas A&M International University, said there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior. Though some research suggests that action games can improve “visuospatial cognition,” he said it’s difficult to say whether Breivik could have improved his accuracy by playing “Modern Warfare.”
“Let us keep in mind too that he was shooting kids on an island from which they could not escape easily,” Ferguson said. “That does not require great accuracy.”
The rest of their story is filled with substantive and non-sensationalistic things like:
Breivik told an Oslo court he took steroids to build physical strength and meditated to “de-emotionalize” himself before the bombing and shooting rampage that left 77 people dead.
His lack of remorse and matter-of-fact description of weapons and tactics — he even considered using a flame thrower — was deeply disturbing to families of the victims, most of whom were teenagers.
The 33-year-old Norwegian was ice cold when he once again described his victims as “traitors” for their links to Norway’s governing Labor Party.
The government building he tried to blow up was “the most attractive political target in all of Norway,” he said.
Breivik said he had planned to capture and decapitate former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland while filming it, but she had left Utoya earlier that day.
The self-styled crusader said he was inspired by al-Qaida’s use of decapitation, but noted that “beheading is a traditional European death penalty.”
But no. Video games get top billing, because video games are clearly the villain in this horrific story.
Let’s take this apart.
Can Video Games Help You Shoot Better?
Absolutely not.
I’m saying this with a fair amount of authority. I’ve been shooting since I was a boy, and worked for three years as a shooting instructor. I’m great with guns, and even better with a bow and arrow. I’m also bad at Modern Warfare. Mastery of shooting skills in real life have no connection to shooting skills in first person shooters, and vice versa.
Similarly, Guitar Hero and playing a real guitar have nothing in common.
For the record, I’ve never even gone hunting, let alone shot at a human being.
World of Warcraft Player = Violent Maniac?
While the name may sound menacing (I guess), World of Warcraft is best described as the video game love child of Disney and Lord of the Rings. It’s got plenty of action, but it’s also pretty whimsical. Have a look at World of Warcraft’s upcoming expansion Mists Of Pandaria and I think you’ll understand what I mean.
Felicia Day is another World of Warcraft player. She’s actually famous because of World of Warcraft (Spoiler Alert – Blacksmithing is a lot harder in real life than it is in a video game):
Stop the Gamer Bullying
That’s what this is, in addition to being horrible journalism.
Every once in a while someone kills people and they played video games too. They also exercised, ate food, took showers and probably had sex, but video games are blamed. Every single time. You know what no one ever writes about? The millions of avid gamers who get up in the morning; go to work; spend time with loved ones; play video games; and don’t murder anyone.
Less than 10% of Bloomberg Businessweek’s The Associated Press article claims any correlation between this evil bastard’s killing spree and gaming. They subsequently cast doubt on the claim, and then give their article a title definitively stating that video games helped him kill. That’s wrong, and Julia Gronnevet and Karl Ritter know it. This is unproductive, and manipulative link bait, and I just won’t stand for it.
If Bloomberg Businessweek The Associated Press has any ethics they will rename that article with a title that actually reflects its content.
Will Hologram Performances Become Common?
Tupac’s alive! Dre & Snoop Dog’s incredibly effective Coachella publicity stunt worked big-time. People can’t seem to shut the hell up about it.
I’ll admit, it was kind of cool. It was also cheesy, shameless and tasteless, but kind of cool.
The big question that more than a few people have asked me is, “Will we see this become a new trend in ‘live’ music?” Will people actually pay money to sit in a theater and watch a projection of a dead performer?
My guess is to a certain extent, yes.
Lots of people are already willing to pay a great deal of money to watch Britney Spears lip-sink and dance without her pants on. This is just one more step in the same direction.
Nostalgia can be a powerful force, and I wouldn’t be shocked if there were a good number of people who would want to see Tupac, Elvis or Michael Jackson on a stage again… Even if it’s soulless.
Someone’s Going to Try
This is inevitable. It’s what big companies do.
Here’s how the meeting will go:
Director of BS: “This innovative Tupac Hologram idea worked really well for Dre. It had millions of views in no time. Let’s copy it…”
Vice President of BS: “We’re not copying Dre. We’re benchmarking against him. Our’s is going to be super innovative too. After all our brand is hip and with it.”
Director of BS: ”Great, I’ll ring up someone to throw money at to make this thing work.”
Vice President of BS: “It’s going to be great! Finally my kids will appreciate why I’m never home to tuck them in.”
What our intrepid business leaders won’t realize is that there will be dozens of these conversations happening, and this is going to get real old, real fast.
Also, “cool” is a diminishing asset. By that I mean, when a person looks at something and says, “Wow, that’s really cool,” it’s all downhill from there. The second time that person looks at the same thing, she’ll say, “Yeah, that thing’s still pretty cool.” The third time she looks at it, she’ll be bored. Cool never lasts.
So, what are we left with?
This just might work for a dead artist who is incredibly popular. I’m betting that one of these hologram shows becomes a fixture in Las Vegas, or Atlantic City. “Come to the Trump Blah Blah Blah Hotel Casino & Resort to see Michael Jackson.” You know it’s going to be a Trump establishment.
However there won’t be many successes; especially longterm.
This just won’t work for Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Pantera, The Doors, or Robert Johnson. Holograms don’t have soul. They can’t improvise, and they sure as hell can’t replicate the kind of raw emotional power that comes from being there at that fleeting beautiful moment, when a musician does something that changes you in a way you never thought possible. That moment won’t happen at the next show. They will have their own moment… Or maybe they won’t.
There’s something magical about seeing a passionate performance. Watching and hearing a musician pour their heart out through their instrument. Hologram Tupac can’t do that.
But I have no doubt that we’ll be seeing Hologram Dick Clark’s Rocking New Year’s Eve sometime in the near future. Hologram Dick can will have an almost life-like conversation with that Seacrest robot.
And for the record, holograms of famous people is ridiculously Futurama-esque.
(Image)
