Saved

Each level gives you completely different information, depending on what Google thinks the user might be interested in. Maps are a true masterclass for visualizing the same information in a variety of ways.

Viewing the same text at different levels of abstraction is powerful, but what, instead of switching between them, we could see multiple levels at the same time? How might that work?

A portrait lens brings a single subject into focus, isolating it from the background to draw all attention to its details. A wide-angle lens captures more of the scene, showing how the subject relates to its surroundings. And then there’s the fish eye lens—a tool that does both, pulling the center close while curving the edges to reveal the full context.

A fish eye lens doesn’t ask us to choose between focus and context—it lets us experience both simultaneously. It’s good inspiration for how to offer detailed answers while revealing the surrounding connections and structures.

Imagine you’re reading The Elves and the Shoemaker by The Brothers Grimm. You come across a single paragraph describing the shoemaker discovering the tiny, perfectly crafted shoes left by the elves. Without context, the paragraph is just an intriguing moment. Now, what if instead of reading the whole book, you could hover over this paragraph and instantly access a layered view of the story? The immediate layer might summarize the events leading up to this moment: the shoemaker, struggling in poverty, left his last bit of leather out overnight. Another layer could give you a broader view of the story so far: the shoemaker’s business is mysteriously revitalized thanks to these tiny benefactors. Beyond that, an even higher-level summary might preview how the tale concludes, with the shoemaker and his wife crafting clothes for the elves to thank them.

This approach allows you to orient yourself without having to piece everything together by reading linearly. You get the detail of the paragraph itself, but with the added richness of understanding how it fits into the larger story.

Chapters give structure, connecting each idea to the ones that came before and after. A good author sets the stage, immersing you with anecdotes, historical background, or thematic threads that help you make sense of the details. Even the act of flipping through a book—a glance at the cover, the table of contents, a few highlighted sections—anchors you in a broader narrative.

The context of who is telling you the information—their expertise, interests, or personal connection—colors how you understand it.

The exhibit places the fish in an ecosystem of knowledge, helping you understand it in a way that goes beyond just a name.

Let's reimagine a Wikipedia a bit. In the center of the page, you see a detailed article about fancy goldfish—their habitat, types, and role in the food chain. Surrounding this are broader topics like ornamental fish, similar topics like Koi fish, more specific topics like the Oranda goldfish, and related people like the designer who popularized them. Clicking on another topic shifts it to the center, expanding into full detail while its context adjusts around it. It’s dynamic, engaging, and most importantly, it keeps you connected to the web of knowledge

The beauty of a fish eye lens for text is how naturally it fits with the way we process the world. We’re wired to see the details of a single flower while still noticing the meadow it grows in, to focus on a conversation while staying aware of the room around us. Facts and ideas are never meaningful in isolation; they only gain depth and relevance when connected to the broader context.

A single number on its own might tell you something, but it’s the trends, comparisons, and relationships that truly reveal its story. Is 42 a high number? A low one? Without context, it’s impossible to say. Context is what turns raw data into understanding, and it’s what makes any fact—or paragraph, or answer—gain meaning.

The fish eye lens takes this same principle and applies it to how we explore knowledge. It’s not just about seeing the big picture or the fine print—it’s about navigating between them effortlessly. By mirroring the way we naturally process detail and context, it creates tools that help us think not only more clearly but also more humanly.

I got the sense that their entrepreneurial spirit had led them to the sort of scam that leads you to wear a shirt with a huge dollar sign on it alongside a number of similar young men willing to wear that same shirt, the type of scam that encourages you to work out with and find community among your new colleagues, the type of scam that answers the two dominant questions posed by the young American man in 2024: what will make this mean something, and how can I get rich as quick as possible?

I think young men have turned more conservative because “conservatism,” as it were, is the mode of politics that makes the most sense in Scam America, and these young men are the Scam Generation.

America has always been a nation of grifters, con men, and schemers; what’s different in Scam America is the scope and form. America in 2024 is not a fallen or crumbling empire; it is an enshittified product, a tired casino, a website losing ad revenue, a restaurant line full of private delivery drivers.

America is a casino now, and the young men voting for Trump are the sort of young men pounding free drinks at the blackjack table and toasting the pit boss. A vote for Trump is a vote for a cig inside, for another round, for the line to keep going up, up, up. Does that mean this configuration is permanent? Maybe, maybe not. Casinos are windowless so that you cannot tell the time; they pump in oxygen to keep you alert. They do this, of course, because their owners know that in time everybody loses. The young men of Scam America are not necessarily out of reach, but if the left wants any chance at swaying them, it should plan ahead to when party’s over and the hangovers kick in.

I didn’t keep my end of the agreement and I started a fight last night, off the cuff. I said, “Give me a policy. Give me one thing about the economy. Explain to me like I’m dumb how things are gonna get better.” He got mad at me, but then today we’re fine. He’s done it to me, too. Every once in a while, one of us will do a little jab. But I try to stay away, because I don’t wanna rock the boat, and I also appreciate him not rocking the boat. I can’t put up signs and neither can he. I have some Harris-Walz T-shirts that I wear when I’m not with him, to be respectful. We can’t talk about politics, but I think it’s for the best, because we are happily married.

He’s been a little quieter this race, especially after Biden dropped out. Before he would make fun of Biden a lot, send me little memes. I would just send back, “I’m still gonna vote for him. He didn’t try to overthrow the government. He didn’t try to grab me by a private part.” He’s also said, “Of course, I’m pro-choice, but that’s not what I’m voting on.” I don’t just vote for me; I think about my future daughter-in-law, my own daughter, my nieces. If you ask him, he’ll just say, “The economy.” I don’t think that makes him a cruel or bad person, just a person who is thinking about their small business, their bank account. Even though I don’t think he’s correct, he is coming from a place of what he thinks will affect him.

Netanyahu is the same leader who released Sinwar from prison. Netanyahu encouraged Qatar to fund Hamas, emboldening and sustaining the organization. Netanyahu trusted Sinwar, he helped Hamas become what it is today, and he helped it secure its power in the Gaza Strip. He apparently underestimated Sinwar so much (or was so distracted by his own legal troubles) that October 7 happened in the first place. Netanyahu has failed to get the hostages home. The IDF was only able to kill Sinwar after a year of devastating, blunt-force violence across the entire Gaza strip, and now it appears to be settling in for a long-term insurgency. The hostages are still hostages and the war rages on, having spread to seven fronts (as Netanyahu himself says).

no, I don't "give him credit" for killing a leader he supported in order to topple an organization that his policies helped embolden. I credit Netanyahu with a failed strategy to fund Hamas, a massive national security failure that allowed October 7, and the failures of war and diplomacy that have put Israel in the position it is in now.

DNA might contain health information, but unlike a doctor’s office, 23andMe is not bound by the health-privacy law HIPAA. And the company’s privacy policies make clear that in the event of a merger or an acquisition, customer information is a salable asset. 23andMe promises to ask its customers’ permission before using their data for research or targeted advertising, but that doesn’t mean the next boss will do the same. It says so right there in the fine print: The company reserves the right to update its policies at any time. A spokesperson acknowledged to me this week that the company can’t fully guarantee the sanctity of customer data, but said in a statement that “any scenario which impacts our customers’ data would need to be carefully considered. We take the privacy and trust of our customers very seriously, and would strive to maintain commitments outlined in our Privacy Statement.”

In recent years, there’s a tendency towards specialism and specialists, from the job market to identities to relationships to education and more. Conversations around university education, for example, tend to be focused on high-earning job prospects, rather than on developing multidisciplinary ways of thinking. The job market tends to favor people who have had a clear, laddered path to success.

Curiosity for curiosity’s sake is not discouraged, per se, but it’s not clearly monetizable either, and therefore can be deprioritized.

As of January, a third of Americans still believed the election was riddled with fraud, including nearly 75% of Republicans who say Joe Biden did not win the election legitimately. This is despite the fact the “evidence” has been little more than misleading social media videos and ridiculous affidavits signed by people who “observed vote counting” but clearly did not understand what they were witnessing.

Fox News and Newsmax notably issued on-air corrections and apologies for misleading their viewers — making it abundantly and explicitly clear that they had no information to support the egregious claims they had peddled for months on end. Fox News host Lou Dobbs, who aired and echoed Powell’s claims on his show, no longer has a job, reportedly for his role in spreading those lies.

Even One America News (OAN), our nation’s best attempt at a pro-Trump state media outlet, issued a comically long disclaimer before airing a two-hour documentary based on The Big Lie that the election was stolen. It also quietly removed stories about Dominion from its website without explanation or notification to its readers.

It feels daunting to sit down and say I’m going to write a book, a script, a story—who do I think I am? But under the umbrella of a project that isn’t for anyone but yourself, you can feel you finally have permission to take “creating” seriously as a verb, regardless of the product that comes from it.

“We are in a new phase of the war,” the military said in leaflets dropped over the area. “These areas are considered dangerous combat zones.” A later statement said three projectiles were identified crossing from northern Gaza into Israeli territory, with no injuries reported. Frantic residents fled again. “Since Oct. 7 to the present day, this is the 12th time that I and my children, eight individuals, have been homeless and thrown into the streets and do not know where to go,” said one, Samia Khader.

Religion prescribes, but even religion doesn’t give you the reasons for its prescriptions—that’s why it’s called faith. Like a child who doesn’t understand why she has to sleep before 9 P.M. (and has to take the unsatisfactory answer of “because you’re still growing!”), we can’t comprehend why our soul needs holy vitamins. And we don’t need to.

You can’t “think” your way to the soul. You also can’t “feel” your way to it. The soul is at the core of everything; when you neglect it, it doesn’t just go away, it turns to weird forms of obsession, addiction, and nihilism. It’s not something you grasp; it’s something that grasps you. It’s why our qualitative experiences are treated mechanistically, like how screen time-limiting apps temporarily block your social media addiction without addressing the real reason for your anxiety, loneliness, or envy.

Mr. Musk came to hate what he saw as Twitter’s two-tiered class system of the verified and unverified, and to him, selling off the check marks was the ultimate democratization of the site. Soon after completing his acquisition, he assigned Ms. Crawford to assemble a team and gave her a deadline of Nov. 7, 2022, for Blue’s relaunch. She had 10 days to deliver or risk being fired, three people with knowledge of the conversations said.

Many of the employees on the Blue team came to view the project as pointless at best and, at worst, something that could undermine trust. If everyone could be verified, then no one would truly be verified. As one Blue worker later wrote in a journal: “It was such an obvious train wreck, that the main job of everyone on the team was to make sure it was the safest train wreck possible.”

While many people saw the check mark as a designation of fame, it became an important part of Twitter’s utility. It marked the real accounts for brands like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, making the platform much more attractive to advertisers. And it signified authenticity for governments and emergency services, which provided information about train delays, elections and tornado warnings.

Mr. Sacks insisted that they should raise the price to $20 a month, from its current $4.99. Anything less felt cheap to him, and he wanted to present Blue as a luxury good. “Chanel could make a fortune selling a $99 bag, but it would be a one-time move,” he wrote. “A ‘promotional offer’ may not be the position we want. A luxury brand can always move down-market, but it’s very hard to move up-market once the brand is shot.” Jason Calacanis, a friend of Mr. Musk’s, disagreed. “It should be $99 a year,” he insisted. During one meeting, he launched into a spiel about how Twitter users were more likely to open their wallets for a $100-per-year subscription if it seemed slightly cheaper at the $99 price, as though he had just watched a YouTube video explaining the basics of consumer psychology.

To employees, the discussions were baffling. There was Mr. Musk, a man who had built multibillion-dollar companies, soliciting advice from a small inner circle of advisers who had little experience building social networks. Sure, they used Twitter, but these rich men were not representative of the hundreds of millions of people who logged in every day.

Ms. Crawford came up with her own tactics for dealing with Mr. Musk. She quickly learned that she could challenge him in one-on-one settings. Individually, Mr. Musk could be charming, willing to engage in discussion and listen to the expertise of his counterpart. Put him in a larger group setting with people outside his inner circle or those he didn’t trust, however, and Mr. Musk’s ego ran wild. He could never be seen as inferior or uninformed.

As the new Blue came into focus, so did the fears about how it would be exploited for impersonation. What would happen if an account pretending to be a local fire department declared an emergency? Or an account posing as a politician spread a lie about an upcoming vote? Image

The weekend before U.S. voters headed to the polls, Ms. Crawford made one last attempt in a private chat with her boss. “Do you want to be blamed for the outcome of this election?” she asked. “Well, when is it?” Mr. Musk replied. “It’s in two days,” Ms. Crawford said, stunned that he hadn’t clocked the date that she and her team had been warning him about since the start of the project. Mr. Musk paused, processing. “Oh, I didn’t realize,” he said after a moment. “OK, yeah, it’s fine. We can wait. Why don’t we wait?” The launch was moved to Nov. 9, the day after the election.

A software engineer calling in to the meeting posed a question to Mr. Musk: “What would you consider a serious incident that would require us to put back such a label or some other differentiation between accounts?” Mr. Musk intertwined his fingers and paused for a few seconds. “If there’s like death or serious injury or something like that, um, you know, uh,” he said, fidgeting. “Something beyond annoyance or mild confusion — that would be enough.”

Fun fact: The exit cycles of movies can be 2x shorter than those of tech startups.

all of these emerging movements start with major capital injections, therefore, novel fundraising systems, i.e., equity crowdfunding along with increasing institutional trust, could be useful catalyzers for this new era in Hollywood.

I think they make too many. [Laughs.] I think Hollywood has to learn to be missed. Hollywood used to be, at least, not too long ago, a place where you were begging for the movie; you were begging for them to give you a new Star Wars, a new this, a new that, you just couldn’t wait … Now it kind of feels the other way around. Hollywood is like, Do you want another one, do you want another one? I’ll give you two of these for the price of one! They’re just giving people too much that they’re not even asking for, and I think that’s never a good position. The whole system that controls [the] IPs should be more precious about them, and really pace themselves, and make sure the audience is dying for one, instead of just giving them five a year.

It gets to a point after 100 years of cinema that a lot of the big ideas that we came up with have a brand. If I told you, “I’m gonna write this original movie about a bunch of kids in a colony in space, and they go to the space station, and there’s a monster in there,” you’re gonna go, “It's Alien.” And I’ll go, “Oh no, it’s not Alien, it’s something else,” you’ll lose interest right away, go like, “Pfft, it’s a rip-off.”

After faithfully following his instructions in such a way that he nearly drowns Martin, he loses the trust of the Swintons and they decide to get rid of him, just as parents might get rid of a dangerous dog. Monica cannot bring herself to return David to Cybertronics. She pauses on the way and releases him into a forest, where he can join other free-range mechas. He will not die. He doesn't get cold, he doesn't get hungry, and apparently he has an indefinite supply of fuel. Monica's decision to release him instead of turning him in is based on her lingering identification with David; in activating him to love her, she activated herself to love him. His unconditional love must have been deeply appealing. We relate to pets in a similar way, especially to dogs, who seem to have been activated by evolution to love us.

an LLM by itself is not a product - it’s a technology that can enable a tool or a feature, and it needs to be unbundled or rebundled into new framings, UX and tools to be become useful. That takes even more time.

I gave my usual speech about how you can't take an interpretation to a movie. You have to find it there already. No consensus emerged about what we had found. It was a tribute to Lynch that the movie remained compulsively watchable while refusing to yield to interpretation. The most promising direction we tried was to delineate the boundaries of the dreams(s) and the identities of the dreamer(s).

As the film goes on and its tight mosaic of characters flitter around each other, July mines all sorts of poignant hilarity from how people struggle to ask for the love they need. Everyone is available to each other in a way that the internet was just starting to make obvious at the time, but digital tools are already beginning to collapse the various distancing mechanisms that people use to keep themselves from getting hurt by their own desires. With a sensitivity that would seem alien in less courageous hands, July traces a dawning present in which people can share the most intimate of experiences with a perfect stranger, and still not even be able to risk making direct contact with someone standing right in front of them.

These statistics point to the fact that some Americans may not support female candidates or candidates of color not because of overt sexism and racism or even implicit bias, but because of more complicated fears about whether candidates with these identities can win. This is a concept known as "strategic discrimination," which explains that women and people of color are underrepresented in U.S. politics because voters hesitate to support nonwhite, nonmale candidates based on concerns about whether other voters will support them.

When astronauts return from space, they are carried out of their capsule because the full effect of Earth’s gravity, felt instantaneously upon landing, is strong enough to break bones. After months of floating in zero-G, your muscles atrophy, bone density drops, fluids redistribute, and your balance and sense of spacial orientation recalibrate. It takes time for the body to readjust to what used to be normal. Heartbreak feels a lot like coming back down to Earth because falling in love is akin to taking flight: Known to many by his Latin name only, Cupid (desire), the Greeks called the god of love Eros and often portrayed him as a handsome young man with rosy skin and large, lovely wings. The Greeks visualized this feeling of love by adding “pt” to “eros”, forming “pteros”, meaning “wing”: We take flight when we surrender to romance, letting it take us from over here to over there. Longing for someone is an invitation for us to travel from the status quo to a new world; perhaps, the reason why eroticism can be thrilling, embarrassing, or repulsive to talk about is because it offers us adventure — one of novelty and danger.

All of these promises are very Trumpian: Big, bold ideas that are (in many cases) widely supported by the vast majority of Americans, but are also obviously vague, in some cases not realistic, and very "strongman" in their attitude (like promising to punish protesters and conduct mass deportations).

The fundamental question in Friday’s ruling boiled down to: ‘who decides,’ courts or agencies? The conservative majority’s answer — courts — affects everything from clean air to drug safety to student loans, the broad landscape of government regulation. And that power matters more than ever now that Trump, who had appointed 28 percent of federal judges by the time he left office, has the prospect of naming more in a second term.”

A library is like going to Ikea. You already have a home, but you need a bit of help with furniture. You don’t feel like making your own table from scratch. Ikea allows you to pick and choose different things to go in your home. You are in control. A framework, on the other hand, is like building a model home. You have a set of blueprints and a few limited choices when it comes to architecture and design. Ultimately, the contractor and blueprint are in control. And they will let you know when and where you can provide your input.

Dating apps don’t work, and meeting people in person seems foreign, even impossible. But it was dating apps that drove IRL connections nearly extinct. In other words, dating apps did work, for almost a decade, by promising to cut out all the things about in-person dating that made us feel vulnerable or uncomfortable. Rejection now happens with a swipe, out of sight, with neither party the wiser. If you match and then change your mind, you can just unmatch without explanation.

This arc plays out across all kinds of apps, and all kinds of human relationships, as tech companies seek to find and solve every type of “friction” and discomfort. But those efforts are rooted in the mistaken idea that being a person shouldn’t come with difficult emotions—that we aren’t often, in fact, served by hard conversations or uncomfortable feelings.

A diplomatic “no” is when you’re clear about your feelings but empathetic to how the person on the receiving end might interpret those feelings.

Girl mossing recognises a need to step away from the pressures of modern, urban life, promoting spending time in nature as a restorative practice. The fast pace and pressure of neoliberal capitalism take an enormous toll on wellbeing: not just personal, but social and planetary. These pressures are most acutely felt by women – whose labour remains, in large part, undervalued and underpaid – and by young people, who are often in precarious work, priced out of the housing market. Yet they’re still bombarded with images of unattainable success on social media. Not so the moss selfies.

Girl rotting is another subversive form of rest and retreat, focused on being intentionally “unproductive” at home.

In China, there’s a parallel rise in “tangping/lying flat” among Chinese young people who are “rejecting high-pressure jobs” in favour of a “low-pressure life”, and in “bai lan” (letting things rot), “a voluntary retreat” from pursuing goals that are now seen as “too difficult to achieve”.

We typically strive for material rewards through hard work and achieve success through doing. We celebrate the “wins”: the promotion, the new house, marriage, the birth of children. By contrast, we really struggle “when things fall apart”, as they inevitably do, particularly when we are confronted with old age, sickness, and death – basically, with human decomposition.

Make no mistake: this is a promotional exercise for Apple Music more than it is criticism. Sure, most lists of this type are also marketing for publications like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork and NME. Yet, for how tepid the opinions of each outlet often are, they have each given out bad reviews. We can therefore infer they have specific tastes and ideas about what separates great art from terrible art.

After Steve Jobs’ death came a river of articles questioning the internal culture he fostered, with several calling him an “asshole”. But that is mixing up a mean streak and a critical eye — Jobs, apparently, had both

It does not interrogate which albums are boring, expressionless, uncreative, derivative, inconsequential, inept, or artistically bankrupt. So why should we trust it to explain what is good? Apple’s ranking of albums lacks substance because it cannot say any of these things. Doing so would be a terrible idea for the company and for artists.

It is beyond my understanding why anyone seems to be under the impression this list is anything more than a business reminding you it operates a music streaming platform to which you can subscribe for eleven dollars per month.