Articles by jordan

You are currently browsing jordan’s articles.

music makes me fly.

song of the week: okkervil river – unless it’s kicks.

can’t wait to see these guys on friday at lee’s palace.

What gives this mess some grace unless it’s kicks, man –
Unless it’s fictions, unless it’s sweat or it’s songs?
What hits against this chest unless it’s a sick man’s hand,
From some midlevel band? He’s been driving too long,

On a dark windless night, with the stereo on,
With the towns flying by and the ground getting soft.
And a sound in the sky, coming down from above,
It surrounds you and sighs and is whispering of
What pulls your body down, and that is quicksand.
So climb out quick, hand over hand, Before your mouth’s all filled up.
What picks you up from down unless it’s tricks, man?
When I’ve been fixed I am convinced that I will not get so broke up again.

And on a seven day high, that heavenly song
Punches right through my mind
And just hums through my blood.
And I know it’s a lie, but I’ll still give my love.
Hey, my heart’s on the line,
For your hands to pluck off.

What gives this mess some grace unless it’s fiction — unless it’s licks, man,
Unless it’s lies or it’s love?
What breaks this heart the most is the ghost of some rock and roll fan,
Floating up from the stands, with her heart opened up.
And I want to tell her, “Your love isn’t lost,”
And say, “My heart is still crossed,”
I want to scream, “You’re so wonderful!
What a dream in the dark –
About working so hard, about glowing, so stoned,
Trying not to turn off, trying not to believe in that lie all on your own.”

what an enjoyable luxury to wake up this morning, make a cup of tea, and leisurely surf through the op-ed columns at nytimes.com without cursing the pay wall.

take note: that might be the last time i ever think of thomas friedman and “enjoyable” at the same time.

wondering what friedman has been up to since the last time you laid out $32.95 for a copy of his simplistic (and poorly written) drivel and decided you were too cheap to pay for times select for all these months? today’s friedman column highlights the economic growth in doha, qatar and dalian, china to support the assertion that, despite any changes that might be made in the US to try to lower emissions and combat global warming, that initiative will be permanently sidetracked by the emergence of “Americans” in the middle east and china – and, i assume, throughout the developing world. by “Americans”, friedman means

people who once lived low-energy lifestyles but by dint of oil wealth or hard work are now moving into U.S.-style apartments, cars and appliances

(and, by extension, watching nfl football, callously ignoring other cultures, putting their own individual interests far above anyone else’s, including their own countrymen, and, essentially, sacrificing all other interests and passions to engage in mass consumption).

friedman ends his piece by declaring

There is no green revolution, or, if there is, the counter-revolution is trumping it at every turn. Without a transformational technological breakthrough in the energy space, all of the incremental gains we’re making will be devoured by the exponential growth of all the new and old “Americans.”

for a second, put aside his deft and ultimately pointless maneuvering to position himself as the guy on the lifeboat declaring loudly that he always knew we’d never be able to win:

“I remain a climate skeptic — not a skeptic about climate change, but a skeptic that we’re going to be able to mitigate it — it’s partly because of Doha and Dalian. Can you imagine how much energy all these new skyscrapers in just two cities you’ve never heard of are going to consume and how much CO2 they are going to emit?”

friedman is incapable of seeing past his bias that the road to development parallels I-95. the deeper story here is that not everyone wants to be one of friedman’s “Americans”. that fundamental difference between the US and the rest of the world should present a ray of optimism into this problem.

as an example, the increase in global awareness in toronto this past summer has been incredible. the majority of people i know, across many age and income demographics, feel affected by the green issue and are doing something to change their behaviour. change is understandably difficult, even if one is aware of the severity of the issue and the likely effect on that individual’s lifestyle in the future, but, in toronto, it is happening, albeit slowly. by all accounts, the same awareness and apetite for change exists in some places in the US, europe, and other developed nations.

the issue that friedman should be investigating is whether the behavioural pattern beginning to be exhibited in the developed world is different in the middle east or in china. in these place, are there people who understand that the consumption choices they make will affect their environment and their future, but reject the long term environmental effect in favour of the short term pleasure of consumption nonetheless? is awareness being restricted by groups like government and big business who have a vested interest in continued consumption and maintaining elevated oil prices (which certainly wouldn’t be the case for governments like china or india, who are net importers)? is there really a drive to a world of guitar hero and mcmansions; is that the dream of a rural worker who emigrates to a big chinese city like dalian?

i’ve travelled all over the world, and in my experience friedman is right when he assumes that the aspiration for something better is a universal human trait. but he is wrong to assume that the chinese, indians, and “Americans” all aspire to the same better. in fact, it’s not even true that all “Americans”/westerners aspire to the same better; just the other day (in an article i read but can’t find), canadians said they’d forfeit a significant chunk of salary to solve the climate change problem. why are we assuming that the chinese wouldn’t feel the same?

the developing world deserves the same opportunities that the developed world has received. no one is trying to restrict their choices. but why assume that success – and happiness – are related to SUVs and increased carbon consumption? certainly the demand for oil has increased and will continue to do so in lock step with the development of countries like india and china. but the end state will not be america 2.0. simply put, mass consumerism is not the ultimate social structure. sure, the world is changing. it’s just not changing the way that friedman thinks it is.

friedman, there are solutions. but promoting a defeatist attitude and discouraging change by saying

Hey, I’m really glad you switched to long-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs in your house. But the growth in Doha and Dalian ate all your energy savings for breakfast. I’m glad you bought a hybrid car. But Doha and Dalian devoured that before noon. I am glad that the U.S. Congress is debating whether to bring U.S. auto mileage requirements up to European levels by 2020. Doha and Dalian will have those gains for lunch — maybe just the first course. I’m glad that solar and wind power are “soaring” toward 2 percent of U.S. energy generation, but Doha and Dalian will devour all those gains for dinner. I am thrilled that you are now doing the “20 green things” suggested by your favorite American magazine. Doha and Dalian will snack on them all, like popcorn before bedtime.

especially on a day when you were unveiled from your pay wall to receive several million new, impressionable readers makes it seem as if you’re more interested in slowing down the efforts of those people who are working optimistically towards change. on behalf of the six billion of us who dream of a brighter future, go find the keys to the nearest lifeboat. do us all a favour and make sure that it’s a hybrid, at least.

twittering

after months of denouncing the stupidity i perceived in the act of ‘twittering’, i finally decided to give it a shot.

the scary part … i like it. there’s no point to it, but i suppose that’s the point. what i find most interesting is that it helps rocket people up the power law of participation; once (if) people get past the ‘this is stupid’ thought, it is remarkably simple to contribute. and once people get in the habit of contributing – which is arguably possible if the incentive structure is correct – they’ll create a veritable goldmine of relevant information.

my first reaction in using twitter is to wonder how to frame the data in some sort of contextual search. i only have a handful of twitter ‘friends’, but in the past couple hours i’ve seen some relevant and actionable data come across my screen: restaurant recommendations, movie recommendations, products on sale, business opportunities, interesting links, jokes, etc. twitter’s strength is that users have a free-form field to submit any type of data; its corresponding weakness is that the data is formless and accordingly incredibly difficult to mechanically interpret. at some point i would be interested in acting on some of the data that i’ve received, but unless that point is now (or unless i make a mental note that the data exists for future retrieval), its usefulness will be forever lost to me.

some questions

1. will people contribute data to a niche twitter? i think the answer to this is it depends, on your level of engagement and, more importantly, on the incentive structure. some people are just loud mouths who like their opinion to be heard; web 2.0 gives the tech-savvy among them a great opportunity to do so. but others who have a vested interest in sharing relevant information – in the corporate, academic, social context – can benefit if and only if that benefit is tangible and immediately apparent to them.

2. is the value in the data or in the background of the person sharing it? again, the answer is both. sometimes i’m just searching for what people are saying about product X. in other cases, i’m searching for what a specific person is saying about product X or all of category Y. both are equally valuable, depending on context.

right now, twitter lets me do neither. and every other site that exists in a similar vein (at least in the recommendation space) makes it just too many clicks for me to contribute data.

is the solution parsing the twitter data? or is the solution twitter-type interfaces on recommendation focused sites? the more data, the better, right?

working hard.

some buzz today about a bbc article about a study that suggests that use of facebook costs u.k. firms 233 million usable hours per month, or £133 million per day. the study goes on to suggest that firms need to take, erm, firm action against use of facebook and other social networks during productive, working hours.

matthew ingram is right about half of the issue when he says

As Stowe Boyd notes, it wasn’t that long ago that other technologies were the culprit. I can remember (yes, I’m extremely old) the same kind of attitude when PCs and Internet access started to become commonplace in offices. Give someone a PC, let alone Internet access? God forbid — then they’ll just piss the day away playing Minesweeper or Solitaire, or checking their email every ten minutes.

The reality is that employees who don’t like their jobs or aren’t properly motivated will always find ways of avoiding work. If you remove Facebook, or the Internet, or Solitaire, or even their PC they will waste time and avoid work by smoking, or taking long bathroom breaks, or doing a crossword puzzle from the newspaper, or staring out the window for hours at a time.

there will always be time wasters for people who don’t really want to do work, because, for the vast majority of people who go to an office every day, work is not fun. now, facebook isn’t really fun either – not in a running around in the sunshine kind of way – but at least it’s more fun than whatever it is that most employees are expected to do in order to be productive.

the problem with fun is that it doesn’t pay well, and the problem with work is that it’s not supposed to be fun, because if it were fun, it probably wouldn’t be productive. but focusing exclusively on productivity by highlighting that the average u.k. employee spends two hours on facebook each day obscures the difference between ‘long’ work and ‘hard’ work.

read this about the difference between long work and hard work. if 233 million man hours are ‘lost’ to facebook each month, consider whether those hours can be classified as ‘long’ or ‘hard’. if they are long working hours, how much does the economy really suffer? less work may be getting done, but how much would that work have contributed to helping that business win in the long term?

if you’re an employer considering banning facebook to save productive hours, why aren’t you thinking about ways to incent your employees to work harder, not longer? if an employee can see real personal benefit to taking risks, he probably won’t be poking people on facebook.

the truth is that some employees just don’t care about working hard. they are content with status quo, content with where working long will get them, content with being comfortable. this attitude happens at minimum wage and at six figures. banning facebook won’t get them to start working hard. in fact, it won’t change anything. those 233 million hours aren’t lost to facebook. they’ve been lost all along.

a great weekend in toronto:

saturday and sunday was the playoff tournament for the toronto ultimate club‘s summer season. i was playing with the huckstables, my tuesday night team. we were seeded 12th of 17 teams, but we won all three games we played on saturday and played better than we’d played all season. today, we won handily against one of our (many) arch-rivals, a team that we had lost to by just one point earlier this week. we lost our last two, finishing the tournament with an impressive 4-2 record and tied for 7th. we had a great season, one filled with lots of personal and collective improvement, and i can’t wait until next season – or until fall league starts on wednesday.

right after the last game yesterday, i rushed home to change into a shirt and tie, grabbed my longboard, and took off to yonge and st clair to meet 250 other skateboarders for the toronto board meeting. the board meeting is an annual meetup of toronto/southern ontario’s longboarding community and a massive act of civil disobedience: the skateboarders started at yonge and st clair and bombed down yonge street, heading towards downtown. the trail of riders – at least five minutes long in some of the faster sections – was almost entirely decked out in white button downs and ties. the group stopped traffic (and wide-mouthed passerby) down yonge and through the gaybourhood before a brief pause at the man-on-a-horse statue in queen’s park. we continued on to nathan phillips square, lay on the ground to stop traffic in front of the citytv building at john and queen, and passed through chinatown before ending the ride in kensington market. i learned that i am exceptionally outside the demographic of the average longboard enthusiast, but somehow that didn’t stop me from “shredding the gnar”, which may be the only time in my life i ever write that; please allow me to relish this moment and file this away under the very short list of ‘times i wore a tie during the daytime in 2007′.

after a quick pitstop at home, i met up with two friends to visit the vegetarian food fair, at the harbourfront center by the lake. i am a recent convert to the vegetarian lifestyle – i was forced into it by india and found that i liked it, or rather that i liked that i wasn’t defaulting to street meat after the bar, although i crave street meat more than i miss steak, which says some really odd things about me and my food choices, but i digress – and it was great to get some good recipe ideas and enjoy delicious indian food. if you have any good veggie recipes that are available online, leave me some links in the comments!

« [ - ]