Fast, private email that's just for you. Try Fastmail free for up to 30 days.
Robert Redford Dies at 89
Brooks Barnes, The New York Times (gift link):
Robert Redford, the big-screen charmer turned Oscar-winning director whose hit movies often helped America make sense of itself and who, offscreen, evangelized for environmental causes and fostered the Sundance-centered independent film movement, died early Tuesday morning at his home in Utah. He was 89.
Everyone has their own, but my two favorite Robert Redford movies are The Sting and The Natural. I love both unreservedly.
The Sting very well may be my first “heist”/“caper” movie, and thus the basis for my love of the entire genre.
The Natural competes with A League of Their Own and Field of Dreams for my favorite baseball movie, but nothing can compete with Redford’s iconic final swing. Gets me every time.
Beyond his unforgettable and illustrious acting career, I’m also grateful for Redford’s Sundance Film Festival, which brought to the world a new generation of filmmakers, several of whom—Quentin Tarantino, Jordan Peele, Rian Johnson, and Ryan Coogler, for example—have made some of my favorite movies.
RIP to “the best there ever was.”
Former Apple Intern Rebuilds 25-Year-Old Sample Code Using AI
Twenty-five years ago I was an intern at Apple, reviving hundreds of sample code projects and writing new ones to help illustrate how to write programs and use various APIs for Mac OS X developers. […] My favorite creation I called PThreadSorts, a demo that visualized sorting algorithms by scrambling and sorting image pixels. This weekend, with Claude as my AI assistant, I brought it back from the dead.
Karl was on his (I think) third internship at Apple when I started there in 2001—technically he was my first intern, though I hadn’t hired him.
I vividly recall his efforts to modernize sample code then, and I love that he’s doing it again, this time with the help of AI to do the “heavy lifting.” This was a fun read—slightly technical, but very approachable.
(One interesting tidbit: The sample project originally included several Apple marketing images to exercise the sorting algorithms. Today’s Apple includes images created especially for sample code usage—it does not allow the use of any of its copyrighted or trademarked imagery, out of concern for losing legal protection. Apple was a very different company back then.)
Washington Post Fires Karen Attiah After Social Media Posts About Charlie Kirk’s Killing
Last week, the Washington Post fired me.
The reason? Speaking out against political violence, racial double standards, and America’s apathy toward guns.
Attiah was with the Post for eleven years, where she was their Global Opinions editor and their “last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist.”
Her firing comes after several social media posts where she criticized the “ritualized responses” following Charlie Kirk’s killing:
“the hollow, cliched calls for “thoughts and prayers” and “this is not who we are” that normalize gun violence and absolve white perpetrators especially, while nothing is done to curb deaths.”
Her posts were restrained, and condemned “violence and murder without engaging in excessive, false mourning.”
And yet, the Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being “unacceptable”, “gross misconduct” and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false. They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.
“Democracy Dies in Darkness”—and the Post itself is dousing the light.
(You may recall that Columbia University cancelled Attiah’s course on Race, Media and International Affairs, leading her to launch Resistance Summer School to teach it anyway. The classes (which I attended) were terrific (and will be repeated and expanded—I’m again signed up, for 102). I’m hopeful she’ll now be able to expand further.)
Photos and Lightboxes
I’ve been meaning to add a “lightbox” to this site since it launched so images can be clicked or tapped on to view them at a larger size, but because I don’t post photos here very often, I haven’t had much of an incentive.
A few days ago, we were wandering through the Marina District, taking photos and enjoying one of San Francisco’s warm, early September afternoons. We strolled along Marina Green and Yacht Harbor, then past the Palace of Fine Arts.
After getting home, I was pleased enough with a handful of the shots that I wanted to share, but I felt they were best appreciated at larger sizes.
I finally had an excuse to solve my lightbox situation!
There were several options, but I landed on Fullscreen Lightbox (fslightbox.js), primarily because it was lightweight, had minimal configuration, and was self-contained: no jQuery or other dependencies needed.
Installing it on my self-hosted Ghost blog was easy enough. Here’s what I did:
- downloaded the script;
- copied it to my theme’s
assets/js/directory; - edited my
default.hbsto load the script (see below); - made a few minor styling changes to the CSS.
Here’s the code I added to default.hbs:
<script>
// Find all images on the page that match one of these selectors.
const images = document.querySelectorAll('.kg-image-card img, .kg-gallery-card img');
// Iterate over each image and wrap it in an `<a>` tag
// with a unique `data-fslightbox` attribute.
images.forEach((image, index) => {
const a = document.createElement('a');
a.setAttribute('data-fslightbox', 'img-' + index);
a.href = image.src;
image.parentNode.insertBefore(a, image);
a.appendChild(image);
});
</script>
<script defer src="{{asset 'js/fslightbox.js'}}"></script>
One note on this code. By default, fslightbox finds all images on the page and loads them into a single gallery. On a photography-focused site, that makes sense, but not so much here, where photos are specific to the articles they’re in.
Fortunately, it was an easy enough change. fslightbox groups together all elements with the same data-fslightbox attribute. If they all have a unique identifier, each is considered a single-image gallery. So, instead of this:
images.forEach((image) => {
…
a.setAttribute('data-fslightbox', '');
…
}I have this:
images.forEach((image, index) => {
…
a.setAttribute('data-fslightbox', 'img-' + index);
…
}Et voilà! Every image on the page now has a unique identifier (data-fslightbox="img-0", data-fslightbox="img-1", etc.) so each image opens individually.
Here are three photos from our San Francisco stroll; click or tap on each one to expand it for better viewing.
Encyclopædia Britannica and Merriam-Webster Sue Perplexity
The AI infringement hits keep coming, reports Blake Brittain of Reuters:
Perplexity AI is the latest artificial intelligence company to be hit with a lawsuit by copyright holders alleging infringement after Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster accused it of misusing their content in its “answer engine” for internet searches.
The reference companies alleged in New York federal court on Wednesday that Perplexity unlawfully copied their material and diminished their revenue by redirecting their web traffic to its AI-generated summaries.
Elissa Welle at The Verge:
In the lawsuit, the companies allege that Perplexity’s “answer engine” scrapes their websites, steals their internet traffic, and plagiarizes their copyrighted material. Britannica also alleges trademark infringement when Perplexity attaches the two companies’ names to hallucinated or incomplete content.
The 55-page filing (in which the company delightfully spells its name Encyclopædia) is filled with confusing, sometimes circular contentions. For example,
7. Perplexity’s so-called “answer engine” eliminates users’ clicks on Plaintiffs’ and other web publishers’ websites—and, in turn, starves web publishers of revenue […]
That ship has long sailed. People want answers, not just links. Is this much different than me reading an Encyclopedia Britannica article and then summarizing it in a post here? Am I stealing their content and revenue if my page ranks higher than Britannica’s?
That paragraph continues:
[…] To build its substitute product, Perplexity engages in massive copying of Plaintiffs’ and other web publishers’ protected content without authorization or remuneration.
Ah, there’s the rub! Wholesale copying of content is certainly not acceptable. If that’s the complete complaint, consider me convinced.
Welle’s Verge article also notes:
Perplexity plagiarized Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word plagiarize, the lawsuit alleges.
Plagiarizing “plagiarize” is funny. But after reading the actual allegation, I found it—to be kind—rather specious:
74. For example, when a user asked Perplexity, “How does Merriam Webster define plagiarize,” Perplexity spit back the exact definition of the term from Merriam Webster, which is identical to the definition in the print Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary.
What is it they expect to happen here? Should Perplexity not answer? Link to the Merriam-Webster site?
If you asked me this question, and I pulled out a copy of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and read the definition to you, am I in violation of copyright? Should I be expected to open the dictionary to the definition and slide the book across the table for you to read yourself?
At best it’s a leading question. At worst, it’s contrived—and the allegation contains several such examples.
What if Perplexity returned a different answer? Well, they’d then be accused of providing inaccurate information while attaching Merriam-Webster’s name:
93. […] Perplexity sometimes generates hallucinations in its outputs and attributes that text to Plaintiffs using Plaintiffs’ trademarks. Perplexity’s use of these marks alongside hallucinations is likely to cause dilution by blurring and/or tarnishing Plaintiffs’ famous marks. In addition, Perplexity’s use of these marks alongside hallucinations constitutes false designations of origin and confuses and deceives Perplexity users into believing (falsely) that the hallucinations are associated with, sponsored by, or approved by Plaintiffs.
In addition to complaining about exact reproductions, and “hallucinations” with their name on it, Britannica also complains that Perplexity’s answers aren’t exactly what Britannica wrote, actually:
94. It omits content from Britannica’s articles that it purports are exact reproductions of such articles.
So Perplexity is wrong for reproducing content exactly, inexactly, and inaccurately. In other words, for reproducing the content at all. Got it.
What’s unclear is whether Britannica would allow any of this behavior if Perplexity were to pay a licensing fee, because it seems Perplexity was happy to do so:
86. In May 2025, Perplexity reached out to Plaintiffs to discuss a potential partnership. The parties had an initial phone call on May 9, 2025 during which Perplexity did not provide any material information regarding the requested partnership, financial or otherwise. After the call, Perplexity requested multiple times that the parties negotiate a non-disclosure agreement before engaging in further substantive discussions. Neither Plaintiff ultimately executed a non-disclosure agreement or participated in any partnerships with Perplexity.
I’m all for Perplexity compensating Encyclopedia Britannica to gain access to its valuable content. And stealing content should be properly punished. Yet this lawsuit is filled with such scattershot arguments, it comes across as more a negotiation ploy than a legitimate complaint.
Robin Williams and John Ritter Improvise
Robin Williams calls John Ritter up on stage during his first HBO special in 1978. Hilarity ensues.
Charlie Kirk and Political Violence
I’ve been debating how to acknowledge the killing of a prominent political figure, especially one who stood opposed to my rights as a human being. One who suggested Black pilots are unqualified, called the passage of the Civil Rights Act “a huge mistake,” and said that Black women like Michelle Obama and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “do not have the brain processing power” to be taken seriously.
Yet I’m told I must mourn the death of a son, husband, and father of two. I’m reminded at every turn that “there is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”
Kirk is being hailed as a hero and martyr. The New York Yankees held a moment of silence for him. Ezra Klein wrote a truly awful piece claiming Kirk was “practicing politics the right way.” And Donald Trump ordered the flag of the United States of America to be flown at half-staff for Kirk—a courtesy he tried to deny John McCain and railed against for Jimmy Carter—and will award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Meanwhile, as I’m called on to denounce political violence, Trump also said “we just have to beat the hell” out of “radical left lunatics,” while the far right calls for retribution, so apparently political violence is acceptable, as long as it targets the left.
Erin Reed, in her Erin in the Morning newsletter, wrote this:
Quickly, political figures and pundits rushed to denounce the killing, as they should. But some went further, valorizing and lionizing a man who built his career on contempt of people he viewed as lesser. Political violence is corrosive and we must not excuse it—killing Charlie Kirk was horrific. But we also must not sanitize the memory of a man who wished harm on those he disagreed with, and who spread a message of hate to anyone willing to listen or pay him to do so. We can denounce the violent killing of Charlie Kirk without praising his abhorrent legacy.
And closes:
You can stand against political violence, as anyone with a conscience does. You can call for a politics rooted in kindness—something we desperately lack today, and something I know the absence of intimately as a transgender person who has lived under the weight of rhetoric like Kirk’s. You can and should condemn killing over speech. But to ask that people carry on Kirk’s “work” is a bridge too far. We must not valorize his life. We must not sanitize his hate. Not now. Not ever.
I wrote of Trump’s assassination attempt last July (“A Sad American Legacy Continues”):
This abhorrent act against a former president and current presidential candidate must serve as a reminder that political violence is never acceptable, no matter the target, and that violent rhetoric has real-world repercussions. Yet we must not mistake from where that rhetoric often comes.
I’ll reiterate that sentiment for Charlie Kirk—but I won’t mourn him.
First OS 26 Release Candidates Available, App Store Submissions Now Open
Release candidates for iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26, tvOS 26, visionOS 26, watchOS 26, and Xcode 26 now are available, and App Store submissions are now open. (Whew!)
They’ll be available to the public on September 15.
Apple’s ‘Can’t Decide Guide’
I absolutely love this guy, and I really want to believe he’s an actual Apple Store employee—please don’t shatter my illusions, ThankYouVeryMuch. But, is there anyone unsure about which new iPhone they’re going to buy? (I know, I know. Not the point. “A Guided Tour of the New iPhone Family” gives away the game.)
(I would normally embed the video here, but for reasons unknown, Apple has blocked that option for this video. You’ll have to click through to YouTube.)
I also love the video’s production style. The physical interactions with (seemingly) digital titles is clever, and the kinetic text for the product specs are captivating. Makes me want to try reproducing it in Apple Keynote.
Also, for a brief moment I thought they got Andy Samberg to do a cameo. The character breakdown definitely called for Samberg–esque.
A Few Thoughts on Apple’s September Event—iPhones, Headphones, and Watches (Oh My)
Apple’s annual September product fest was Tuesday, and the main thing that surprised me was how short it was: a fast-moving 71 minutes. (Don’t have time for even that? Here’s Apple’s two-and-a-half minute recap.)
While technically speaking eight new products were introduced, it really comes down to this: updates to AirPods Pro, the Apple Watch family, and the iPhone 17 family, plus a new iPhone Air.
(Yes, Apple stuck with its increment-by-one iPhone naming, thank goodness, choosing to avoid a jarring jump to “iPhone 26.” We can continue to excitedly anticipate an “iPhone 20” in a few years.)
iPhone 17
The iPhone 17 exists so Apple can advertise a “from $799” starting price. It’s the iPhone you buy when your five-year-old phone dies and you don’t want to spend a lot of money on that muffler its replacement—which is not to say it’s not a worthy phone. It’s the smallest iPhone (by a smidge), comes in the widest range of colors (five), and offers most of the features of its more expensive siblings. This year, that includes a 6.3-inch “Super Retina XDR ProMotion” screen that was previously reserved for Pro-level devices, two remarkable 48MP Fusion rear cameras (covering .5x, 1x, and 2x optical ranges), an A19 chip, and a new 18MP “Center Stage” front camera (more in a bit). For many people, iPhone 17 will satisfy all of their iPhone desires for years to come.
iPhone Air
The newest new phone is iPhone Air (not, as we might have assumed, the iPhone 17 Air). At an awe-dropping 5.6mm, I’m terribly tempted by its thinness—it’s beautiful to look at, and I’m guessing it feels equally fantastic in the hands. Carved from titanium, it also has a “Super Retina XDR display with ProMotion,” this one stretching to 6.5 inches. The front has the new Center Stage camera and the rear camera—yes, singular—is a 48MP Fusion Main camera (1x and 2x optical zoom; no macro or ultra-wide). It’s powered by an A19 Pro chip, along with a new cellular modem, the C1X (“the most power-efficient modem in an iPhone”) which no doubt contributes to its great/fantastic/remarkable “all-day battery life.” (Oh, Apple.)
As tempting as this beauty is, I buy a new iPhone for the cameras, and the best cameras Apple offers are always in the iPhone Pro and Pro Max. I’ll have to lust after the Air from afar.
About that name, iPhone Air: I suspect, like the iPhone X, this is a “technology transition” phone. iPhone X introduced a bezel-less design and eliminated the Home button, features which eventually became standard in all new iPhones. The successor to iPhone Air will likely be the next flagship iPhone, incorporating everything Apple learned in making a thin phone—certainly the much-rumored folding phone for sure, but considering the similar form factors, perhaps also a radically thinner iPad or iPad mini is a possibility.
iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max
Let’s get this out of the way: I plan to buy the iPhone 17 Pro in the stunning new “Cosmic Orange.” It looks gorgeous, almost Hermès-esque.
My wife, however, tells me I’m “not an orange phone person”—too loud for this grays-and-blacks esthete, apparently—but I think she’s angling to claim this color for herself. I may have to settle for Deep Blue to preserve marital harmony.
One design concern: these phones have a “Ceramic Shield” on the back to make them more scratch-resistant. It’s a different shade from the surrounding area, and looks like a cutout with a groove. I worry this groove will catch my fingers—and capture grunge. The iPhone Air, which also has a Ceramic Shield back, does not seem to have this issue: its back looks completely smooth. It’s a minor thing, sure, but the wonderful, smooth tactility of the iPhone is one reason I never add a case or other protection to it.
Beyond aesthetics, iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max both sport a new A19 Pro chip (“the most powerful and efficient chip” in an iPhone), an improved cooling system (which I can only hope prevents it from overheating after 20 minutes in the sun), and a significantly improved camera system, with three 48MP Fusion rear cameras:
- 24/48mm ƒ/1.78 Main camera
- 13mm (and .5x macro) ƒ/2.2 Ultra Wide
- 100/200mm ƒ/2.8 Telephoto
Optical zoom from .5x to 8x? Oh yeah, that’s the good stuff. And, now that all three lenses have the same resolution, video shooters can finally switch between them while recording without a loss in quality. Hurrah.
Shared iPhone features
As you’ve likely gathered, all of the new iPhones share very similar guts. The iPhone Air, for example, is basically an iPhone 17 Pro with a slightly bigger screen, one rear camera, and a daily gym routine. This shared DNA includes new Apple silicon, the Center Stage camera, faster charging, and better screen durability.
A19 (Pro) (Asterisk)
At the heart of all of the phones is the new 3-nanometer A19 (iPhone 17) and A19 Pro (everything else). However, while the Air and Pro phones both have an “A19 Pro” inside, they’re not the same “A19 Pro”—the one in the iPhone Air is a 5-core GPU, while the Pro phones have a 6-core GPU. Worth noting in case you desperately need that one extra GPU core.
N1 Wireless Networking
All the phones also have a new wireless networking chip Apple’s dubbed N1, which combines the latest standards (Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread) for improved performance. (One promised but detail-free feature of the N1: improvements to Personal Hotspot. I hope this means fewer dropped connections and faster reconnections, the biggest frustrations I have with using it, and the main reason I continue to hope for a cellular MacBook.)
Center Stage camera
The 18MP Center Stage front selfie camera that’s present on all of the phones is now a square sensor instead of the traditional 4:3 rectangle we’ve gotten used to. Now you can capture both portrait and landscape photos without needing to rotate the phone. (I love square photos; perhaps we’ll see a resurgence.) It also captures “ultra-stabilized” 4K HDR video, and enables Dual Capture video: recording both the rear- and front-facing camera together. Content creators rejoice.
Charging, Ceramic Shield
All of the phones come with super-fast charging (50 percent in 20 minutes with a high-wattage power adapter) and the screen is more scratch-resistant than before, thanks to an improved “Ceramic Shield.” iPhone Air and Pro models also have a Ceramic Shield on the back.
AirPods Pro 3
The new headphones bring improved Active Noise Cancellation, heart rate sensing during workouts, and better battery life, but for me, the headline feature is Live Translation:
When enabled, Live Translation helps users understand another language and communicate with others by speaking naturally with AirPods.
With both speakers using AirPods Pro 3 and Live Translation, it’s like having an early prototype universal translator—assuming both people speak one of the five (soon nine) supported languages. Next challenge: make them smaller, replicate the speakers’ voices, and handle every language in the universe.
Maybe next year?
Apple Watch Ultra 3, SE, Series 11
Two years ago I switched to an Apple Watch Ultra, mainly because of the larger screen and lighter weight. When the Ultra 2 in black came out last year, I was tempted but held off because there weren’t enough improvements to justify upgrading. Apple Watch Ultra 3 increases the screen size (without increasing the case), improves battery life, adds 5G cellular, super-fast charging (15 minutes gets you up to 12 hours), a new S10 chip, and—most importantly, as someone with a monthly Popeyes Tuesday appointment—hypertension notifications:
Apple Watch Ultra 3 introduces groundbreaking hypertension notifications, which can alert users if signs of chronic high blood pressure — or hypertension — are detected. […]
Hypertension notifications on Apple Watch use data from the optical heart sensor to analyze how a user’s blood vessels respond to the beats of the heart.
Hypertension “impacts approximately 1.3 billion adults globally,” notes Apple, and the notification feature “is expected to notify over 1 million people with undiagnosed hypertension within the first year.” That’s a lot of lives potentially saved.
The feature is also available on Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Apple Watch Series 9 and later—including the new Apple Watch Series 11. It’s not available on the new Apple Watch SE 3.
Apple Watch Series 11 gets 24-hour battery life and a thinner design, while Apple Watch SE 3 gains an always-on display and fast charging.
For all watches supporting an always-on display, watchOS 26 also adds one other very important feature:
[…] over 20 watch faces are updated so users can see a ticking seconds hand without raising their wrist.
Finally.
Federal Judge Postpones Approval of Anthropic’s $1.5 Billion Book-Stealing Settlement
Annelise Levy, reporting for Bloomberg Law:
The federal judge overseeing Anthropic PBC’s proposed $1.5 billion copyright settlement is concerned class lawyers are striking a deal behind the scenes that will be forced “down the throat of authors.”
Judge William Alsup at the hearing said the motion to approve the deal was denied without prejudice, but in a minute order after the hearing said approval is postponed pending submission of further clarifying information.
Several sites (including Bloomberg Law) originally reported this as Judge Alsup flat out denying the proposed settlement rather than postponing approval. Still, things aren’t looking great:
During the first hearing since the deal was announced on Sept. 5, Alsup said he felt “misled” and needs to see more information about the claim process for class members. “I have an uneasy feeling about hangers on with all this money on the table,” he said.
It’s never good when the judge overseeing your case feels “misled.” He also said he was “disappointed” and called the settlement “nowhere close to complete.”
There may also be some very disappointed lawyers:
Alsup admonished class counsel for enlisting an “army” of attorneys to work on the settlement disbursement, including some from the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers. “Add-on” attorneys won’t be paid from the settlement funds and attorneys fees will be based on how much is paid to class members, he said.
I also foresee this as being a sticking point for some authors:
Alsup instructed the parties to design a claim form that requires anyone with copyright ownership to opt-in to the settlement. If one owner opts out, the work won’t be covered by the settlement.
I doubt authors are willing to lose their rights to a settlement simply because one of their co-authors (or possibly their publisher?) opts out of (or perhaps never opts in to) the claim.
The ‘Department of Defense’ was never the ‘Department of War’
Journalist Nicholas Slayton (New Republic, The Prospect, Motherboard) took NPR to task for writing that a name change to the Department of Defense “will return the department to a name that it carried for much of its history”:
This isn’t correct. The Department of War, for nearly 150 years, was just the Army. There was no unified military cabinet level post overseeing both the Army and Navy until DOD. That umbrella was created in 1947. The Dept of war became the departments of the Army and Air Force.
Clarifying for those who were confused:
Did it carry that name for much of its history as NPR and other outlets are saying? No.
Yes this is pedantic but the body known as DOD was not widely known as the department of war for much of its history as NPR says.
NPR now has this correction at the bottom of its article:
Correction
Sept. 6, 2025
An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that prior to 1949 the military was overseen by the Department of War. The Army was overseen by the Department of War, but the Department of the Navy oversaw the U.S. Navy and the Marines.
(The Guardian, whose similar language I quoted this weekend—“a callback to the department’s original name used from 1789 to 1947”—has not yet offered a correction, nor have most news outlets reporting the name change as a “return” to a previous name.)
I appreciate both Slayton’s pedantry and NPR’s correction.
Davey Johnson, Winningest Manager in New York Mets History, Dies at 82
Heartbreaking news over the weekend for baseball fans—especially New York Mets fans. Bruce Weber at The New York Times (gift link):
Davey Johnson, one of baseball’s notable iconoclasts, who played in four World Series in six seasons as a second baseman for the Baltimore Orioles and who later managed the Mets to their remarkable Series victory in 1986, died on Friday in Sarasota, Fla. He was 82.
Joe Trezza, MLB:
The Mets turned into a perennial winner under Johnson’s leadership, with Johnson becoming the first National League manager to win at least 90 games in each of his first five seasons.
Davey Johnson was my manager just as I was starting to really pay attention to—and fall in love with—the game. He joined my beloved Mets in 1984, and in ’86 led them to a 108-win season, a heart-stopping NLCS, and what is unquestionably the most memorable World Series ever played.
Johnson was also a decade ahead of his time in his use of computers and statistics to manage. The Times, again:
He was among the first — if not the first — to recognize that computers could be utilized in marshaling baseball’s statistics to have an impact on team building, lineup construction and game strategy.
In an oft-reported story, Johnson took a computer class at Johns Hopkins University between the 1968 and 1969 seasons and, using his teammates’ batting statistics as his data, created a program entitled “Optimization of the Orioles Lineup.” The result suggested that if specific changes were made in the preferred lineup of the Orioles’ decidedly old-school manager, Earl Weaver, the offense would be stronger. This was precisely the kind of analysis that in the intervening years has made sabermetrics, as the study of baseball statistics has come to be known, a crucial element of administering a major league ball club.
His analytical approach gave him the most wins and highest win percentage of any Mets manager.
Alvin Garcia, Heavy.com:
Davey Johnson leaves behind more than numbers. He leaves behind the memory of a manager who embodied swagger, spoke his mind, and gave the Mets their ultimate championship. For fans in Queens, his death marks the end of an era, but also a reminder that his place in Mets lore will never be forgotten.
My friend, former colleague and fellow Mets fan Tom Clark:
He was the real deal. A real baseball guy.
If there’s an afterlife baseball team, Johnson’s my pick to manage it.
RIP.
The Atlantic’s ‘Pirated Books’ Search Tool
Alex Reisner at The Atlantic created a tool to search Library Genesis, or LibGen, which contains “[m]illions of books and scientific papers” obtained without permission or compensation. From March, but again relevant following Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement with book authors and publishers: LibGen was one of several repositories Anthropic used to train its AI, so there’s a good chance any authors in this database are part of the covered class.
I also recommend Reisner’s companion piece, “The Unbelievable Scale of AI’s Pirated-Books Problem” (paywalled; Apple News+ link), which details how Meta (and OpenAI, and likely many other AI companies) also trained using LibGen.
Obviously ‘You Can’t Fight in Here, This Is the Defense Room’ Never Sat Right with Trump
Joseph Gedeon, The Guardian:
Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War, a callback to the department’s original name used from 1789 to 1947.
I said “war”
Huh, good god, y’all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again.
Trump is quoted as saying of the old name:
[…] we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.
The name was changed in 1949 under notoriously woke President—checks notes—Harry S. Truman.
Rebecca Kheel at Military.com throws a bit of high heat:
The change aligns with the administration’s fixation on “lethality” and a “warrior ethos,” and exemplifies the more aggressive military posture it has been taking, such as its legally questionable military strike on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and deployment of troops to U.S. cities.
Erica L. Green at The New York Times (under one of its customarily wishy-washy headlines) writes:
Mr. Trump, who was granted five deferments from being drafted to fight in Vietnam, including for a diagnosis of bone spurs, said that the country had “never fought to win” a war after World War II, when Congress renamed the Department of War the Department of Defense.
(For the Times, this also counts as “high heat.”)
Continuing:
Critics say the rebranding exposed the hypocrisy behind Mr. Trump’s promises to bring peace.
“He ran as the supposed antiwar candidate, but has proved to be just the opposite,” said Matt Duss, executive vice president at the liberal Center for International Policy. “This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest-thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing and the safety of our armed services.”
The Times also notes, almost in passing:
Only Congress can change department names, so the title is ceremonial until it is codified into law.
In other words, it’s a meaningless and peacockish exercise that could cost billions of dollars. Political theater at its most absurd.
(Will any of those contracts go to Trump cronies? Of course they will.)
The Times ends with this:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already begun transitioning his office and department with new signs.
And here I thought Hegseth was against transitioning.
Anthropic Escapes with $1.5 Billion Payout to Authors in ‘Landmark’ AI Copyright Settlement
Matt O’Brien, AP News:
Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its chatbot.
The landmark settlement, if approved by a judge as soon as Monday, could mark a turning point in legal battles between AI companies and the writers, visual artists and other creative professionals who accuse them of copyright infringement.
The company has agreed to pay authors or publishers about $3,000 for each of an estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.
“As best as we can tell, it’s the largest copyright recovery ever,” said Justin Nelson, a lawyer for the authors. “It is the first of its kind in the AI era.”
$3,000 per book is substantial for most authors, but the total settlement is relatively insignificant for Anthropic, which, just days earlier, was newly valued at $183 billion. The company was facing fines of up to $150,000 for each of the 7 million books they were found to have pirated—an impossible trillion-dollar penalty. Even the statutory minimum for copyright infringement—$750 per book—would have cost them more than $5 billion. They’re undoubtedly thrilled to escape with “just” a $1.5 billion fine as a price of doing business.
Why are they paying out on 500,000 titles instead of seven million? According to the Authors Guild:
The class is limited to books that (1) have an ISBN or ASIN, (2) were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within five years of publication, and (3) were registered before Anthropic downloaded them (or within three months of publication). Duplicates of books were removed as well as foreign editions, which often lack ISBNs and/or copyright registration. Further, many books in dataset were never registered with the Copyright Office, or were registered too late to qualify, lacked ISBNs or ASINs.
The lesson for authors: protect your rights and register your books with the Copyright Office.
The lesson for companies: steal it all and pay a minuscule portion of your valuation later.
See Also: The 39-page settlement; The New York Times (gift link); M.G. Siegler’s “cynical” take.
‘IBM and the Holocaust’
Edwin Black, author of “IBM and the Holocaust,” writing at BESA Center in 2021:
The IBM alliance with the Third Reich was no rogue corporate operation run out of a basement. Day in and day out, it was Watson who personally micromanaged all aspects of the 12-year Nazi relationship. The relationship began just after January 30, 1933—the first moments of the Third Reich—and ended in the first week of May 1945, the last gasp of Hitler’s regime.
Thomas Watson Sr. was IBM’s CEO.
I don’t know what made me think of this today.
Tech Billionaires Praise Dear Leader At Rose Garden Dinner
Katherine Bunt, Meridith McGraw, and Meghan Bobrowsky, reporting for the Wall Street Journal on this vomitous display of fealty by several “tech titans” (Apple News+ link):
President Trump on Thursday led leaders of the world’s biggest technology companies in a version of his cabinet meetings, in which each participant takes a turn thanking and praising him, this time for his efforts to promote investments in chip manufacturing and artificial intelligence.
“A version of his cabinet meetings” may be as close to snark as WSJ gets.
Among those abasing themselves at the dinner were Mark Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Sundar Pichai (Alphabet/Google), Arvind Krishna (IBM), and Tim Cook (Apple). Cook fawned:
I want to thank you for setting the tone such that we can make a major investment in the United States and have some key manufacturing here. I think it says a lot about your leadership and focus on innovation.
Was Apple unable to make major investments in the U.S. before Trump?
Then there’s this exchange between Trump and Alphabet (Google) CEO Sundar Pichai:
“You had a very good day yesterday,” Trump said. “Do you want to talk about that big day you had yesterday?”
“I’m glad it’s over,” Pichai said.
“Biden was the one who prosecuted that lawsuit,” Trump said. “You know that, right?”
First, yeah, I think the CEO of the company sued by the Department of Justice is aware of which administration prosecuted the lawsuit.
Second, it’s amusing that even Trump recognizes that Google basically walked away unscathed.
But last, as I wrote in a footnote on Wednesday, the case was indeed prosecuted—and won—under the Biden administration. Trump is so desperate to deflect blame and so afraid of confrontation that he won’t even acknowledge that it was his administration that initiated the case during the waning days of his first administration, despite his own Assistant Attorney General taking a huge victory lap to celebrate the DOJ victory and crediting Trump’s leadership and directive to “Make America Competitive Again” for the win.
Hugh Wilson on the Music Issues With ‘WKRP in Cincinnati’
I mentioned in passing that Howard Hesseman and Tim Reid picked much of their own music for WKRP in Cincinnati. That tidbit came from this great, short interview with Hugh Wilson, the creator of WKRP:
[…] in fact, we actually broke some records on WKRP. It was the first time they were heard. By then, I was letting Howard pick the old kind of rock and roll, Pink Floyd stuff, and Tim was picking the Commodores and all the kind of Black rhythm and blues and all. […] But they were really picking it, and some records were heard first on WKRP.
I’d love to know which songs were first played on the show. Alas, Wilson doesn’t say.
The main thrust of the interview though is the cost of having all that great music on the show. Wilson insisted on real records, not “soundalikes,” and it cost him in syndication:
There was a meeting, a music meeting, and the idea was that when they played records at WKRP, they’d be what’s called “soundalikes.” It would sound like the Beatles, but it wouldn’t be the Beatles. And I said, then we really can’t do this show. We really must stop right here. That’s not good, we got to play real records. So, that’s going to cost money and— no, we got to do that. And so we looked into it, and actually, I could buy what was called a “needle down” where maybe, maybe I could get 17 seconds of Pink Floyd for $3,000. And if I use, like, two pops like that, that’s six grand. My cast wasn’t making a lot of money. I wasn’t either at the time, you know. […] but I was able to get these real records on. And I think it made the show.
[…] and this became a huge financial problem years later, because the show was just going great guns in syndication. […] And then, the rights to the music had to be renewed, and that $3,000 needle down now, they wanted $103,000 for it. So that was the end of WKRP syndication. But I can’t say I would have done it any other way.
This is probably the reason WKRP in Cincinnati is not available on any streaming services (except for purchase on Apple TV), and why the DVD landscape is so sparse (there’s a single boxed set on Amazon for $99 from a random (well-rated, at least) seller, or available directly from Shoutfactory—who Wilson credits in this interview for making the DVD available with most of original music intact—for $64.)
It’s a shame there’s little interest in a remastered—and musically complete—reissue of the show.
Dr. Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap Spin a Six Hour DJ Set
Jon Nelson had an idea:
What if you took EVERY DJ break Howard Hesseman ever made, as Dr. Johnny Fever (WKRP in Cincinnati), and just ...followed his lead?
Would it be possible to construct a 3 hour show, with Fever as host?
He followed it up with three more hours inspired by Tim Reid’s Venus Flytrap. The resulting “show” is a fantastic collection of classic cuts from (mostly) the 1970s.
I never paid attention to the music played on WKRP in Cincinnati when I watched it as a kid. It was mostly incidental—there to add verisimilitude to the fictional radio station or punctuate a joke—and was otherwise unremarkable to me. I wouldn’t have recognized most of the music back then, but virtually every one is a veritable classic today—and much of it was picked by Hesseman and Reid themselves in later seasons. (Imagine my shock at suddenly hearing what sounded like Daft Punk an hour into Venus’ set—it was actually Edwin Birdsong’s “Cola Bottle Baby,” which was sampled for “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger.”)
(Worth noting: not every song in this set is from WKRP. Nelson augments it—especially the Venus set—with his own selections (like “Cola Bottle Baby”) to match the spirit of the original music. I think he does a great job, but if you want to hear only the songs played on the show, there’s an Apple (and YouTube) playlist for that.)
(Via Dr. Fortyseven, by way of Dave Rahardja.)
Google Can Keep Chrome and Search Engine Payments, Judge Amit Mehta Rules In Antitrust Case
Leah Nylen, Josh Sisco, and Davey Alba reporting for Bloomberg Law:
Alphabet Inc.’s Google will be required to share online search data with rivals while avoiding harsher penalties, including the forced sale of its Chrome business, a judge ruled in the biggest US antitrust case in almost three decades.
Tuesday’s ruling represents a blow to the government, falling far short of the most severe remedies sought by antitrust enforcers after the court found Google illegally monopolized the search market. Judge Amit Mehta said he will bar Google from entering into exclusive contracts for distribution but would still allow the search giant to pay its partners — a key win for Apple Inc., which has received roughly $20 billion a year for making Google search the default on iPhones.
This is probably the best outcome Google could have hoped for, considering the much more severe consequences they were facing. While they “have concerns” about the imposed limits, I doubt they’ll appeal—why expose themselves to potentially stiffer penalties? With this ruling, they’re largely status quo ante—they can still make billions of dollars by paying billions of dollars to remain the default search engine[1] for Apple and others.
Despite that, I doubt the government will pursue this further. They got their antitrust ruling, if not all the remedies they sought. (Notably, Judge Mehta writes in his 230-page decision that the government “overreached in seeking forced divesture” of Chrome and Android.) Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater took a victory lap on X/Twitter, while writing that the DOJ is “weighing [their] options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough,”[2] but I can’t see them risking a rollback, even with this very Trump friendly Supreme Court.[3]
Apple is no doubt thrilled to maintain their $20 billion services revenue. I’ll bet the executives over at Mozilla are also popping champagne corks. The stock market was definitely pleased. Both Google and Apple were up substantially after the announcement—evidence of the insignificance of this ruling.
One nit: the Bloomberg report says Apple gives Google “the best placement in Safari search bar on computer and mobile devices.” It’s not “the best placement,” it’s the only placement: there’s one search bar, and it defaults to Google. Also, “Safari’s search bar,” possessive. OK, that’s two nits. ↩︎
Naturally, Slater credits the “leadership” of Trump for pursuing this case. While it was brought in the waning days of Trump’s first administration, it was prosecuted—and won—under the Biden administration. ↩︎
Of course, that can all change once the Mad King wakes up from his nap and starts blogging. ↩︎
Strong New York Times Headline Masks Terrible National Guard Frame
The headline for this New York Times piece by David W. Chen (“Crime Festers in Republican States While Their Troops Patrol Washington”) was sharper than I’ve come to expect from the newspaper. I anticipated a piece deeply critical of the administration’s obvious pretense that “high crime rates” in D.C. and other “blue cities” were a legitimate justification for deploying (or threatening to deploy) armed National Guard troops to them, when many “red cities” had equally high (or higher) crime rates. I contemplated a condemnation of the conspicuous fiction, and a call for the deployments to end.
But it’s the New York Times, so instead we got the same mealy-mouthed, what’s-good-for-the-goose bothsiderism they’ve been publishing for years:
When Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Lee, dispatched his National Guard troops to Washington to support President Trump’s crackdown on crime, Democrats and other critics wondered why he didn’t keep them within state lines.
Memphis, after all, has long been one of the most dangerous cities in the country, with a murder rate about twice as high as the nation’s capital, according to F.B.I. statistics. Nashville has a higher rate of violent crime than Washington as well.
The same questions could be asked of other Republican governors like Greg Abbott in Texas, Mike DeWine in Ohio and Mike Kehoe in Missouri, since cities under their purview all have higher rates of violent crime than the nation’s capital. Yet no Republican governor has asked for federal intervention.
In pretending to question the “high crimes” rationale for deploying the National Guard to blue cities, and suggesting they should be equally welcome in high-crime red cities, the Times is normalizing the idea of armed military—which Chen dismissively calls “supplementary forces”—patrolling American streets.
This will have the far right salivating: Yes, you’re right, they’ll nod thoughtfully. We should deploy troops to other cities, in a totally nonpartisan way. Even the liberal New York Times thinks it’s a great idea.
I’m used to headlines inaccurately reflecting the stories they top, but usually it’s the headlines that are terrible. Here we get a strong headline and an awful article.
Instead of fighting creeping fascism, this framing from the Times enables it.
Steve Hayden, Creative Behind Apple’s ‘1984’, Dies at 78
Tim Nudd, Ad Age:
Steve Hayden, the advertising copywriter who helped redefine the relationship between tech and culture through Apple’s legendary “1984” commercial and later rose to become vice chairman of Ogilvy, has died. He was 78. […]
Hayden, then a 36-year-old writer at Chiat/Day, conceived “1984” with art director Lee Clow. Directed by Ridley Scott, the Orwellian allegory introduced Apple’s Macintosh computer as a liberating force against conformity. The most famous ad ever made, “1984” aired just once nationally but became a cultural milestone, heralding both the age of the personal computer and a new era in brand storytelling.[…]
Hayden crafted the dictator’s speech based on quotes from Mussolini, Mao and Hitler […]
Hayden’s impact on Apple and the ad world is undeniable. RIP to an advertising legend.
(Via long-time Apple employee Chris Espinosa, who called Hayden “the best of the best.” He also shared Hayden’s 2019 Commencement speech at Interlochen Arts Academy, which Espinosa says “captures him, in all his love, humor, wit, and genius.”)
‘Photography as a Tool of Power and Subjugation’
This is a must-read visual essay (subtitle: “How the Camera Was Used to Justify Black Racial Inferiority”) in Sacred Footsteps (“an online publication dedicated to spiritual & alternative travel, history & culture from a Muslim perspective”); it was one of the readings from Week 6 of Karen Attiah’s Resistance Summer School:
The myth of the ‘dark continent’, already well established in Europe by this point, was further cemented through photography, allowing existing stereotypes to be represented visually. If we look at a broad spectrum of colonial photographs produced in Africa (and this also applies to the Middle East and elsewhere), a visual vocabulary emerges.
Photography was used to emphasise the contrast between ‘light’ (civilised) and ‘dark’ (uncivilised). This ‘light’ was shown by contrasting skin colour and by emphasising power dynamics through dress and pose. […]
Meanwhile, at a sewing class in the Mission of the Daughters of Charity in the Belgian Congo (1910), the position of the white women, again dressed in white, with their hands placed on shoulders of those seated, emphasises their dominant status over the young women. Their manner is parental, infantilising those seated; the ‘white saviour’ trope captured on camera.
(The photo essay also references “lynching postcards” from the United States during the early 20th century, which were printed “for distribution, collection or kept as souvenirs.” These images show smiling men, women, and children who showed up to witness the murder of Black people the way you and I might enjoy an outdoor concert.)
The images, and the context behind them, are deeply disturbing, yet immediately recognizable for what they are:
The purpose of these images was, quite simply, to dehumanise Black people and proclaim the superiority of the white race.
Even today, photographs continue to shape a narrative of Black inferiority and white superiority. The images in the essay call to mind the stark disparity between photographs of Black suspects and white ones, and the often inadequate portraits of Black celebrities from photographers like Annie Leibovitz, including her portraits of Viola Davis and Lupita Nyong’o—both depicted nude, both evoking slave.
I was especially struck by Leibovitz’s 2022 photo of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at the Lincoln Memorial, which completely de-centers Jackson while emphasizing Lincoln—she’s literally in the shadows, looking up at him. This was for a story about Jackson’s Supreme Court ascension, yet Lincoln hovered in the background.
See also: Contessa Kellogg-Winters’s article in The Grio (“What can be learned from America’s history of racist images and ads”), which references Leibovitz’s infamous LeBron James/Gisele Bündchen Vogue cover, and a deeply disturbing 2017 Dove ad showing a Black woman turning herself white.
L’appel du Vide/Call of the Void
I learned the term L’appel du Vide—or Call of the Void—this week while having lunch with my friend and former colleague, Matt, after describing a recent drive along the north Maui coast, where I steadfastly fixed my eyes on the center line to my left to avoid reflexively veering over the edge of the steep cliff on my right. It never occurred to me this was a well-known psychological phenomenon. NeuroLaunch explains it:
Have you ever found yourself teetering on the edge of a cliff, heart racing, palms sweaty, when suddenly a tiny voice in your head suggests, “What if I just… jumped?” Don’t worry; you’re not alone in this peculiar experience. In fact, you’ve just encountered one of the most fascinating quirks of the human mind, one that has puzzled psychologists and philosophers for generations.
The “Call of the Void,” or “L’appel du Vide” in French, is a term that describes those fleeting, often disturbing thoughts that pop into our heads in potentially dangerous situations. It’s not just about heights, either. Maybe you’ve had the sudden urge to swerve your car into oncoming traffic or to stick your hand into a whirring blender. These thoughts can be jarring, but they’re a normal part of the human experience.
The term was new to me even if the phenomenon wasn’t: I’ve experienced the “call” innumerable times. I’ve often found myself at the edge of a mountaintop or skyscraper, and the sensation that I might slip and fall—or catapult myself—into the unknown was overwhelming. My rubbery, tingling legs and suddenly racing heart would impel me to move away with alacrity. It’s one reason I thoroughly dislike roller coasters, and will never go skydiving or bungee jumping. As I always tell people, I’m not afraid of heights, I’m afraid of falling from them.
Jessica Seigel, in a 2017 Nautilus article on the phenomenon, wrote:
The seemingly irrational, but common urge to leap—half of respondents felt it in one survey—can be so disturbing that ruminators from Jean-Paul Sartre (in Being and Nothingness) to anonymous contributors in lengthy Reddit sub-threads have agonized about it. While the French philosopher saw a moment of Existentialist truth about the human freedom to choose to live or die, ramp_tram called it “F***king stupid” when he had to plaster himself to the far wall of a 14th-floor hotel atrium away from the balcony railing because “I was deathly afraid of somehow jumping off by accident.”
“Accidentally jumping” is a remarkably apt—if contradictory—description of how it feels.
That urge to jump, to swerve off a cliff, or to stick our hand in a blender is basically our brain—the amygdala, or “fear center,” and the prefrontal cortex, or decision-making center—gaming out dangers, firing off warning signals, and conjuring these scenarios in an effort to keep us safe. If we envision sticking our hand in the blender, we also imagine the consequences of doing so, making it more likely we will take extra care to avoid liquefying our extremities.
NeuroLaunch, again:
From an evolutionary psychology perspective, this phenomenon might actually be a survival mechanism. By briefly considering the worst-case scenario, we become more aware of the danger and more likely to take precautions. It’s like our brain’s way of saying, “Hey, pay attention! This situation could be dangerous!”
Unsurprisingly, I may have succumbed to one form of L’appel du Vide. While in a New York subway station, I removed my backpack and in doing so, knocked my glasses off my face and onto the tracks. The train, I’d noticed moments earlier, was nine minutes away. I judged the distance to the tracks (four to five feet) and decided I could get back up easily enough, so without further thought—and in some small state of panic, as I am virtually blind without my glasses—I leapt down, grabbed my glasses, and… struggled to get back onto the platform. To complicate matters, transit police were on the platform and had to pull me up. I was certain I would be arrested, but managed to avoid that particular ignominy. Only after I was safely back on the platform did the utter stupidity of my actions hit me: What if the train had arrived early? What if there was no one to help me back onto the platform? What if I’d forgotten which was the third rail?
I still shudder when I recall it. Perhaps, though, this wasn’t L’appel du Vide but another relevant French phrase: J’suis un putain d’idiot.
‘I Am An AI Hater’
But I am more than a critic: I am a hater. I am not here to make a careful comprehensive argument, because people have already done that. If you’re pushing slop or eating it, you wouldn’t read it anyway. You’d ask a bot for a summary and forget what it told you, then proceed with your day, unchanged by words you did not read and ideas you did not consider.
I am here to be rude, because this is a rude technology, and it deserves a rude response.
He concludes:
I became a hater by doing precisely those things AI cannot do: reading and understanding human language; thinking and reasoning about ideas; considering the meaning of my words and their context; loving people, making art, living in my body with its flaws and feelings and life. AI cannot be a hater, because AI does not feel, or know, or care. Only humans can be haters. I celebrate my humanity.
I agree with Moser’s premise, his conclusion, and I certainly can’t argue with his facts—yet I cannot bring myself to be an AI hater. You might as well ask me to hate on computers because they eliminate jobs, ease copyright infringement, enable surveillance, facilitate scams, exacerbate inequality, and destroy the environment. We’ve strived to reduce the harm of computers over time. We’ll see it happen with AI, too.
CDC Director Susan Monarez ‘Fired’
Erika Edwards and Berkeley Lovelace Jr., for NBC News:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leadership was in stunning disarray Wednesday evening after the Trump administration fired the agency’s director hours after she refused to resign under pressure.
The director, Susan Monarez, said she was resisting being ousted by the nation’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for political reasons after about a month in office.
In linking up the story last night on the FDA’s updated COVID vaccine eligibility rules, I completely missed that the administration was also in the midst of firing the head of the CDC. According to White House spokesperson Kush Desai, Monarez “is not aligned with the President’s agenda.”
Top CDC officials resigned in protest:
At least four top officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) submitted their resignations Wednesday, saying the recent changes and leadership at their agency are preventing them from fulfilling their duties as public health authorities.
RFK Jr. is an absolute disaster, and should himself be fired. But that won’t happen, because this entire regime is an absolute shit-show.
RFK Jr.’s FDA Issues New Limitations on COVID Vaccine Eligibility
Carly Severn, KQED, on Wednesday:
The FDA approved updated COVID-19 shots on Wednesday, but limited their use for many Americans, recommending them only for people 65 and older or those younger with a health condition that puts them at higher risk.
The FDA also removed one of the two vaccines available for young children.
Christina Jewett and Jacey Fortin, The New York Times, also on Wednesday:
People seeking the shots will soon face another hurdle. An influential advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must vote to recommend them.
Reuters, in June:
U.S. Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. named eight members to serve on a key panel of vaccine advisers on Wednesday, including several who have advocated against vaccines, after abruptly firing all 17 members of the independent committee of experts.
They will sit on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, which advises the agency on who should get the shots after they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The New York Times, again:
A decision by the C.D.C.’s panel is expected within a month, and it could greatly influence access to the shots at drugstore sites, which have become the most convenient places to get them. Laws in a number of states, including California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Massachusetts, require that pharmacy staff are only permitted to administer vaccines recommended by the C.D.C., said Richard Hughes IV, a lawyer who represents vaccine makers.
Tom Latchem at The Daily Beast on Monday (via Ken “PopeHat” White, who deadpanned “Government by drunk Thanksgiving uncle”):
The Trump administration will move to pull the COVID vaccine off the U.S. market “within months,” one of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s closest associates has told the Daily Beast.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist who has repeatedly claimed in the face of scientific consensus that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus, told the Daily Beast that Kennedy’s stance is shared by “influential” members of President Donald Trump’s family. Like Kennedy himself, no Trumps hold any scientific qualifications.
One way to “pull the COVID vaccine” would be to make it virtually impossible for the average American to get it.
Again from the Times:
This would mark the first fall/winter season that Covid shots were not widely recommended to most people and children, pitting federal health officials in the Trump administration against several national medical groups that oppose the restrictions.
How many people will see their lives destroyed—or will die—because they weren’t “eligible” for a COVID vaccine? Kennedy and Trump will have blood on their hands.
Ken White on the Flag Burning Executive Order
Ken White, AKA Popehat, in a Bluesky thread on Monday’s executive order:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects flag burning from prosecutions aimed at its offensiveness or its tendency to profane a national symbol. That’s a generation old.
Now the FedSoc mids in the Administration have a Bright Idea: what if we prosecuted flag burning not as flag burning but on theory that it falls under the “fighting words” or incitement exceptions?
Except this is not, in fact, a particularly good idea.The “fighting words” exception is defunct. It hasn’t been used by the Supreme Court to justify a speech restriction in living memory and it was specifically rejected as a basis to uphold flag burning laws.[…]
“Incitement” is dumb too. Incitement means speech INTENDED and LIKELY TO cause IMMINENT lawless action. That means “go beat up this guy.” It does NOT mean “hey I have an unpopular opinion.” Courts have not upheld “incitement” as a “heckler’s veto” […]
It’s easy to say why. Saying “you can prosecute flag burning as incitement because it makes people really mad” allows you to say “you can’t criticize Israel/denounce Trump/preach Islam/say reality TV suck because it makes people so mad.” It limits speech to what thug trash will tolerate.
He calls it a “performative decision, which is calculated to appeal to vapid totalitarian twats” and I couldn’t possibly improve on that description.
Cracker Barrel Un-Rebrands
Cracker Barrel, in a statement on X/Twitter (via Josh Marcus at The Independent):
We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our “Old Timer” will remain.
At Cracker Barrel, it’s always been – and always will be – about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind of country hospitality that feels like family. As a proud American institution, our 70,000 hardworking employees look forward to welcoming you to our table soon.
I’m not surprised Cracker Barrel retreated from its rebrand in the face of a right-wing MAGA backlash. Down-home Southern hospitality is their brand, and the “anti-woke” activists who executed this contrived “controversy” really hate losing their white-coded imagery that buttresses their sense of superiority, from Uncle Ben to Aunt Jemima, and now, Uncle Herschel. They have excitedly embraced cracker—a derogatory term for poor, rural, white Southerners—because they are desperate for a return to a world where whiteness was an explicit advantage (rather than the implicit one we’ve lived with for the past 60 years), even when poor.
This manufactured furor brought to mind the first time I can recall hearing “cracker” used to describe a person. It was from my boss at my first IT job in New York, in the early ’90s. He was probably in his late 30s or early 40s, white, and proudly declared to me one day that he was a cracker. I don’t recall how it came up, but it sounded vaguely racist, and immediately brought to mind visions of slave foremen on horseback whipping the backs of Black men in a field. That it turned out to be a self-deprecating slur somehow didn’t make it better.
That’s the image I’ve always associated with Cracker Barrel, and I’ve never felt comfortable visiting their restaurants. Imagine expressing nostalgia for a “Peckerwood” restaurant or “Golliwog” café.
I commend Cracker Barrel for even attempting to rewrite its past, doomed though it was.
Apple ‘Awe Dropping’ Event Scheduled for September 9
Apple announced the event on its website, on X/Twitter, and via invitations to the press—surprisingly, I didn’t get one: September 9 at 10 a.m. Pacific. Expect the iPhone 17 family, at least—including a rumored “thin” iPhone, which many have dubbed iPhone 17 Air—and likely the Apple Watch Series 11 and Ultra 3, Apple TV, and AirPods Pro 3.
A neat Easter egg: the glowing Apple logo on the site is interactive, with lava-like blobs trailing your cursor. The logo is described in the accessibility text thusly:
The Apple logo radiates with a blue gradient and is cast in thermal colors that merge from cool blue to yellow to hot red and from the top of the Apple stem all the way to the bottom of the Apple logo
Infrared camera on the next iPhone, anyone?
Penn & Teller on the First Amendment Rights of Flag Burning
A reminder from The West Wing. Seems apropos in light of today’s ludicrous executive order.
Trump Signs Blatantly Unconstitutional Executive Order on Flag Burning
Donald Trump signed an executive order today that purports to prosecute anyone who burns the American flag, except, of course, that burning the American flag is a constitutionally protected act of free speech—and has been for decades.
This executive order, like most Trump pronouncements, is meant to rouse his MAGA base while providing cover for harassment. The order doesn’t actually criminalize flag burning. Instead it directs the prosecution of anyone who is deemed to be “causing harm” by burning (or, more broadly, “desecrating”) the flag. The order specifically calls out “crimes against property and the peace” as well as those who are “aiding and abetting others to violate” the law. It also directs government agencies to “deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States.”
I expect “the flag” to be extended to mean any representations of the flag—on uniforms, plus pictures, lapel pins, hats, and T-shirts—and “desecration” to mean “was in any way sullied or dirtied.” A photo of a burning flag on your social media account will be considered a desecration.
Therefore, I expect this order to be used against protesters cheering on a flag burner, future sandwich slingers who splatter anyone wearing a flag pin, and demonstrators carrying the American flag who are careless enough to get tear gas sprayed on it.
In other words, it’s one more excuse for the Trump regime to go after their perceived enemies—especially anyone not born here or with Not Okay skin tones.
I anticipate the “Prosecuting Mean Words Said About Donald Trump” executive order to land any day now.