The Steve Jobs Archive opened their second online exhibit recently, The Objects of Our Lives. It’s a beautiful retrospective of a talk Steve gave early in his time at Apple:

On a sunny June morning in 1983, Steve waits at the back of a giant tent, ready to take the stage at the International Design Conference in Aspen. This year’s theme is “The Future Isn’t What It Used to Be,” and he is here to talk about computers to an audience of several hundred designers and design-lovers.

For me, and perhaps for many of you reading this, Steve Jobs was a personal hero. My introduction to, love for, and eventual career in computers were all sparked in 1981 by an Apple ][, and Steve Jobs was the face of Apple for me. 

One of many things I enjoyed about Steve was watching him talk. I’ve been fortunate enough to see him present in person several times, and countless times on video. He has an ease to him, like he’s just sitting in my living room, shooting the breeze, telling a story. Unhurried, yet very deliberate. A showman, without being showy. And an unparalleled ability to explain complex ideas with compelling simplicity.

As former Apple design head Jony Ive writes in his introduction to The Objects of Our Life:

Steve remains one of the best educators I’ve ever met in my life. He had that ability to explain incredibly abstract, complex technologies in terms that were accessible, tangible and relevant. You hear him describe the computer as doing nothing more than completing fairly mundane tasks, but doing so very quickly. He gives the example of running out to grab a bunch of flowers and returning by the time you could snap your fingers – speed rendering the task magical.

What a treat, then, to watch Steve speak; already tremendously successful, but not yet at the peak of his success. This is the year before his iconic introduction of the Macintosh computer. Before he’s exiled, before he returns to Apple for his remarkable second act. The easy, deliberate storyteller is already on display—unpolished if only in comparison to his later appearances, but unmistakably there.

Ive, again:

I find it breathtaking how profound his understanding was of the dramatic changes that were about to happen as the computer became broadly accessible. Of course, beyond just being prophetic, he was fundamental in defining products that would change our culture and our lives forever. 

The written piece alone is wonderful. But to see and hear Steve speak, passionately, predictively, prepared but seemingly unrehearsed—that is a true treasure.

A few select gems (with timestamps):

On the amount of time we’ll use computers daily (8:35):

By ’86, ’87, pick a year, people are going to be spending more time interacting with these machines than they do interacting with their big automobile machines today. People are going to be spending two, three hours a day sometimes, interacting with these machines—longer than they spend in a car. 

I definitely spent way more than that on my computer during that time!

On shrinking computers (25:25):

What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you, that you can learn how to use in 20 minutes.… And we really want to do it with a radio link in it.…

Steve offers three options on how to do this: do nothing (“not a good option”); squeeze a “garbage computer” into a book (“our competitors are doing that, so we don’t need to”); or

design the computer that we want to put into the book eventually, even though we can’t put it into the book now. And right now, it fits in a breadbox and it’s $10,000 and it’s called Lisa.…

The next thing we will do is we will find a way to put it in a shoebox and sell it for like $2,500. And that’ll be the next step. And finally, we’ll find a way to get it in a book and sell it for under $1,000. And we will be there within five to seven years.

The “shoebox” for “$2,500” would be the Macintosh he’ll introduce just seven months later. The first “book … under a thousand dollars” may credibly be credited to the Newton MessagePad; it was $699 when it went on sale in 1993, only three years later than Steve’s prediction, though that project didn’t start until 1985, the year Steve left Apple. I’d suggest Apple’s first “real” sub-$1,000 “book” was the iPad in 2010, which started at $499.

On using computers with proportional fonts and graphics (29:04): 

we’re solving the problems of injecting some liberal arts into these computers. That’s what we’re trying to do right now. Let’s get proportionally spaced fonts in there. Let’s get multiple fonts in there. Let’s get graphics in there so that we can deal in pictures. And let’s get to the point where three years from now, when somebody…there is going to be no college student three or four years from now that’s ever going to think of writing a paper without one of these things, just like they will not think of going to a science class without a calculator today. 

By 1985-86 this was already true for me: Every one of my high school papers were typeset and printed using proportional fonts (though with an Apple //c and dot-matrix printer, not a Macintosh and laser printer).

On computer scientists:

They’re fun. They play in punk rock bands on the weekends and all sorts of stuff. Computer people aren’t…you read all this computer-nerd stuff. It’s not really true anymore. They’re really a lot closer to artists than they are to anything else. They come in to work at about, I don’t know, anytime they want, but usually about eleven in the morning, twelve in the morning, play a few rounds of Ping-Pong. They work really hard, but they’ll work…and generally about four, we’ll go out and maybe play a game of volleyball somewhere or something like that. And then in the evening we work. And then they’ll have dinner. And we’ll go out to a Japanese restaurant for dinner or something and come back. And they’ll work till about two or three in the morning. And they go home and wake up at eleven the next morning and come in to work.

Some things never really change.

(Via @Philip Schiller.)

I originally planned to post this over the weekend, as an example of the vice president’s ability to energize and engage a crowd. The audience loved her. They riffed together. Her energy, passion, and, yes, charisma shone through.

My headline was going to be More of Vice President Harris Speaking, Please.

That will no longer be an issue.

Dorothy Thompson, Harper’s Magazine:

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi.…

I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.…

Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war.… It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.”

This essay is shockingly relevant today, some 83 years after it was first published in 1941. Simply replace “Nazi” with “MAGA.” 

Actually, you might not even need to do that.

Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi…. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

We’re seeing this play out in real time, as crypto bros, venture capitalists, and social media tyrants rush to support Donald Trump (especially in light of his VP pick, J.D. Vance, who worked in VC and was a protégé of Peter Thiel).

Bobby Allyn, at NPR:

[Marc] Andreessen, who has historically supported Democrats, said the “final straw” with his shift away from Biden was the president’s policy aimed at the super rich: a 25% tax on unrealized gains on households that are worth more than $100 million.

These cosplaying “masters of the universe” will cheerfully sell out this country before they share even a minuscule fraction more of their unimaginable wealth, happy to usher in an autocratic regime which allows them still more unchecked power, as they become even more absurdly wealthy.

They would be pathetic if they weren’t such an existential threat.

Madiba K. Dennie, attorney, professor, and author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back.:

So Originalism is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed in time. Originalists say that we have to interpret the document today the same way it would have allegedly been interpreted 200 years ago. Now, this might sound really steeped in history, but it’s actually a relatively modern idea.

A fantastic and illuminating conversation, with three exceedingly erudite and engaging speakers. An important watch that highlights the inherent inconsistency of constitutional originalism.

Dennie, late in the discussion:

They just have to play their little game of telephone with dead slaveholders first, and then they’ll get right back to us.

That aside—on why SCOTUS takes so long to make (often awful) decisions—cracked me up. It also happens to succinctly summarize their perspective.

As a bit of background, this discussion is presented by The 92nd Street Y, New York, which regularly hosts wonderful conversations. This one explores

originalism’s controversial hold on constitutional interpretation, revealing its flaws and advocating for an inclusive constitutionalism that upholds equal rights for all.

In addition to Dennie (whose book is the catalyst for the conversation), the speakers include:

• Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at NYU, host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and author of The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary.
• Elie Mystal, attorney, Justice correspondent at The Nation, and author of Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network is the host.

Three moments (of many!) worth highlighting:

Dennie, explaining the origins of originalism:

We saw this first start to bubble up in the backlash to Brown v. Board, really ramp up, responding more to the Civil Rights movement, and then formalized and crystallized during Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, which basically became a sort of in-house originalist think tank for formalizing these ideas and getting them out there, as if this was a legitimate model of legal interpretation rather than cover up for conservative reactionary politics.

On why she decided to write The Originalism Trap:

Things are becoming exceedingly clear that the Court feels fully comfortable using the idea that women didn’t have rights then—at this point in time that I cherry-pick—so they can’t have rights now, or saying… the country didn’t regulate muskets in a particular way so they can’t regulate AR-15s. It’s just an intellectually bankrupt way of interpreting the Constitution that has been used to make our lives as Americans, as people who live here, a lot more dangerous.

Elie Mystal, on how he would decide cases:

14th Amendment, or GTFO.

It’s an extremely educational, fast-moving fifty minutes. (Watch at 1.25x speed if you’re short on time.)

Vice President Kamala Harris:

On behalf of the American people, I thank Joe Biden for his extraordinary leadership as President of the United States and for his decades of service to our country.

I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination.

And in a follow-up:

I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. If you’re with me, add a donation right now.

Harris has already garnered significant support for her candidacy from several prominent Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Gov. Josh Shapiro, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Adam Schiff, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sec. Pete Buttigieg, and Gov. Gavin Newsom, making it likely, perhaps even inevitable, that she becomes the nominee.  Update: The Washington Post has a running list of Harris endorsements from among the “263 congressional Democrats and 23 Democratic governors.”

In addition, the Biden for President organization is now officially Harris for President, following a name change filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Democrats with serious aspirations of becoming president are unlikely to challenge her, out of self-preservation if nothing else. Only a fringe candidate and former Democrat have so far suggested they would; those will not be serious challenges.

The next several weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention are going to be absolutely wild.

(One interesting logistical observation: When I checked around 3 p.m. (Pacific) today, ‌kamalaharris.com was not operational. About an hour later—perhaps in conjunction with the FEC filing?—it started redirecting to joebiden.com. I’m guessing a lot of IT and web folks are scrambling to stand up a full campaign site in record time. They’re already updating ‌unitedforharris.com with today’s news.

Update: kamalaharris.com now redirects to an Act Blue donation page.)

President Joe Biden, writing to the American people:

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

It’s an unprecedented move by a sitting president running for reelection.

And in a follow-up:

My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. 

I’ve been vocally against the push for President Biden to step down as the Democratic nominee. I’ve been equally vocal that if he did step aside, only one person should be seriously considered for the top of the ticket: Kamala Harris.

President Biden’s performance during The Debate (as it will now always be known) was painful, not because of what he said, but because of how he said it. As I wrote on Mastodon that night:

It frustrates me that this election will likely come down to bluster-filled lies vs. good policies delivered weakly.

From that moment, the entire Democratic establishment, the commentariat, and the media (especially the execrable New York Times) pushed the narrative that Biden was unfit to run. This exit became almost inevitable. In many ways, the pressure campaign felt like a slow-moving coup.

Despite the way this came about, it’s now imperative that the Democratic Party coalesce behind Vice President Harris. Early reports suggest this is happening, and I expect we’ll see many more over the next few hours and days.

Given the circumstances, VP Harris is not only the obvious choice to be the new nominee, I think she’s the best choice. Prosecutor vs. felon. Youth vs. age. Progressive vs. fascist. Many of the attacks Trump/Vance lodged against President Biden are blunted against VP Harris. It would be farcical, verging on negligent, to suggest VP Harris is somehow the “wrong” person to lead the ticket.

The wildcard, as always, is the American electorate. This country’s unexamined racism and misogyny will make this more challenging than it should be, but I’m sure of one thing: If a majority of today’s America is unwilling to vote for an intelligent, progressive, qualified candidate because she has brown skin and boobs, they alone own the autocracy that comes with the alternative. 

I said last week:

Some moments in our life we recognize immediately as capital-H Historic.

This election is now inescapably Historic.

Leigh McGowan, AKA PoliticsGirl:

Now there’s a point where we have to ask ourselves how competent and qualified a woman, especially a woman of color, has to be in this country to be taken seriously, because to say someone with all of those qualifications is incompetent or unready to lead just makes no sense.

Whether you support Kamala Harris, dislike her, or know nothing about her, take ten minutes and watch this video. It’s filled with gems I could quote at length, but really, just watch.

But allow me one more:

if we can just put aside our country’s sad history with racism and misogyny, and realize that we are in an incredibly powerful position with a kind, competent, forward thinking incrementalist running for reelection, and a powerful, passionate, brilliant progressive waiting in the wings, we will see that we have a winning ticket. And the sooner we realize that, the less powerful those who seek to undermine it will be.

I don’t know how I’ve not heard of PoliticsGirl before today. I instantly subscribed to her YouTube channel based on this one video, and the rest of what I’ve since watched are equally impressive.

She also has her first book coming out, which I’ve preordered.

Rebekah Valentine, writing for IGN:

Microsoft is reportedly shuttering a major diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) team, according to an internal email sent by the team’s leader to a significant number of Microsoft staff last week….

Color me surprised. In 2020, many companies—like Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Apple— implemented (or significantly expanded) DEI programs and racial equity initiatives under protest—literally.

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the subsequent protests against police brutality, corporations were feeling significant pressure from their Black employees (and customers) to demonstrate their commitment to racial justice. Few of these companies actually wanted change; they just didn’t want to appear callous and uncaring. Many of my friends and DEI colleagues had no doubt at the time that these shows of commitment would be temporary, and would go away as soon as the pressure eased, or they were given an out.

Well…

• June, 2023: The Supreme Court rules to end affirmative action in college admissions.
• July, 2023: Fortune 100 companies were warned (paywall; Apple News+) by thirteen Republican state attorneys general about “the legal consequences for using race as a factor in hiring and employment practices” and that “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs could be a form of discrimination.”
• August, 2023: The same people who successfully sued to end affirmative action in college admissions also sued an organization which awarded grants to Black women small-business owners for discriminating against non-Black women. (As of June, 2024 that program is now on hold following an appeals court ruling that says the program is “substantially likely to violate… equal rights under the law” clauses.)
• Also August 2023: A lawsuit accuses law firms of discriminating against white candidates (paywall; Apple News+).
• This week came another lawsuit, accusing Northwestern Law School of hiring discrimination against “a trio of unnamed professors tenured at unspecified law schools who say they are ‘able and ready to apply’ for a job… [b]ut they have not done so, allegedly because they are ‘unable to compete on an equal basis with faculty candidates who are women, racial minorities, homosexuals, or individuals who engage in gender-nonconforming behavior or identify with a gender that departs from their biological sex.’”

I’m sure all of these lawsuits are mere coincidence, not coordination.

The email from the former Microsoft employee, as quoted by IGN, said:

Unofficially in my opinion, not specific to Microsoft alone, but Project 2025 looms and true systems change work associated with DEI programs everywhere are no longer business critical or smart as they were in 2020. Hence the purposeful and strategic 3-5 year shelf life of many company’s inclusion commitments post the murder of George Floyd are being reevaluated. And the way I see it, the timing was impeccable so businesses everywhere could reevaluate the path forward should their U.S. federal contracts be at risk if the work continues on its face.

Of course Project 2025 is a part of this discussion; it’s effectively a polemic from and about “aggrieved white men”. Corporate America, in addition to their innate dislike of DEI programs, is still mostly run by white men, and is anticipating a far-right administration that’s deeply allergic to diversity and equity in general. As my good friend Ron Lue-Sang wrote to me,

My usual cynicism about corporate commitments to DEI led me to forget that these companies are planning for a Project 2025 future where DEI programs aren’t just labeled as unnecessary, they’d be totally seen as counterproductive with regards to currying favor with the federal government.

Is there any real surprise, then that Google and Meta started cutting programs throughout 2023? Now Microsoft. Will Apple be next?

Update: John Deere also “rolls back DEI policies.”

It was always just lip service. Companies never really bought into the progressive ideals. They just wanted to shut up Black folk.

Paresh Dave, reporting for Wired:

“This is the final straw,” Musk commented on a post about a new California law protecting the privacy of transgender children. “Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas.” 

So, Elon Musk is upset his bigotry is being curtailed in California, so he’s moving SpaceX to Texas, where, apparently, bigots are more welcome?

Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Imagine being an unbigoted Texan realizing that Texas is the place bigots want to be. Texans, ask yourselves: “Are we the baddies?

More seriously, SpaceX is the only way for the U.S. to get to the International Space Station (other than Russia—which is obviously a non-starter).

Being in business with a company run by a mercurial bigot who makes decisions on a whim is dangerous. The U.S. government needs to declare that access to SpaceX is a national security necessity—and Musk a national security risk—and nationalize SpaceX, removing Musk in the process.

While they’re at it, nationalize Starlink too.

Michael Scherer, Washington Post:

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.…

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

Long overdue. Several recent SCOTUS decisions are destabilizing our democracy. Expanding the Courts and introducing term limits is a good start.

Alison Durkee, writing for Forbes, expands on how term limits would work.

After their term is up, justices wouldn’t resign completely, but would only hear a smaller subset of cases: Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear most cases, while other justices would join in for cases that originate in the Supreme Court, which include disputes between states or foreign officials.

That’s a clever workaround to the constitutional “lifetime appointment” (which, as noted in the article, is stated as “judges… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”)

Apropos of my aforelinked piece is this, from Pew Research:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

Younger people are more in favor of it than older people. 82% of Democrats support it, while only 47% of Republicans do.

The ideological divide is unsurprising. Democrats wish to press their small numerical advantage. On the flip side, Republicans recognize the massive power imbalance the Electoral College gives them.

In fact, the more politically savvy Republicans are, the more they support keeping the status quo:

[72% of] [h]ighly politically engaged Republicans overwhelmingly favor keeping the Electoral College….

[51% of] Republicans with a moderate level of engagement [want] to keep the system as is….

[70%] of Republicans with lower levels of political engagement… back moving to a popular vote.

In summary, less-engaged Republicans may believe “one person, one vote” sounds fair. More-engaged Republicans realize this likely means losing most presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia…. It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes…. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.

When last I looked at this site (in 2016), there were 165 electoral votes. Back then I called it “a brilliant hack.”

Since 2016, seven more states have signed the bill into law. Each of those states voted for the Democratic candidate in 2016 (when the popular vote candidate lost the election) and again in 2020.

Eliminating the effect of the Electoral College may be the only way to ensure meaningful presidential elections, but securing those 61 electoral votes may prove Herculean: No solidly Republican state has yet to sign on.

Joe Lucia at Awful Announcing:

The dust has settled, the votes have been counted, and Awful Announcing’s readers have voted on their favorite (and least favorite) local MLB broadcast teams for the 2024 season.

Any ranking of “best baseball announcers” will necessarily be partisan, driven as much by fan interest as by any objective quality.

No surprise, then, that I disagree with the results. San Francisco should have taken this, as they did in four of the six previous contests—including last year's. Duane Kuiper, Mike Krukow, Dave Flemming, and Jon Miller are—individually and collectively—the best broadcasters in the game. The new guys—Shawn Estes, Javier Lopez, Hunter Pence—are solid up-and-comers. I enjoy them enough that I’ll turn on the radio and mute the TV if the game is nationally televised.

Of course, the last time I regularly listened to Mets baseball was the late ’90s, when their announcers were Bob Cohen, Gary Thorne, Ralph Kiner, and Tim McCarver. I have no idea if their current team of Gary Cohen, Ron Darling, and Keith Hernandez is actually good.

Like I said, partisan.

More important than any of that, though: the Giants and Mets beat out both the Dodgers (5) and the Yankees (22).

I do feel awful for Oakland (29), though. And someone had to be last, White Sox fans.

Apple PR:

Today, Apple introduced HomePod mini in midnight….

Why, though?

The best explanation I've heard so far is from the fellas over at ATP: Color matching. The old ‘space gray’ and the new ‘midnight’ may be superficially similar, but they're not the same. If you buy a second one to form a stereo pair, the old and the new won't match.

That would be a very Apple-y thing to consider, of course, but I wonder if it’s also Apple’s way of saying “no new HomePod minis on the horizon,” which is a bummer for those of us with a HomePod (or mini) in literally every room of our home, and who were hoping for new hardware that supports Apple Intelligence.

Staying with today’s theme of divisive topics, Robert Sietsema at Eater NY:

Which hot dog is better: Papaya King or Gray’s Papaya?

Can’t we all just get along?

Truthfully, I’ve eaten probably hundreds of hot dogs from both. They’re both tasty and I’m thrilled they’re still battling for supremacy.

I very much enjoy Papaya King, but I slightly prefer Gray’s—partly because I find their dogs more flavorful; partly because their (former) locations in Hell’s Kitchen and Greenwich Village were closer to where I hung out. Many a late-night bar crawl ended at Sixth and 8th.

Rivalries have helped define the New York City hot dog: a slender, all-beef frank with a natural skin, served with a choice of mustard, sauerkraut, and, later, stewed onions.

I’m a simple man. A dog with mustard, that’s all I need.

Over the years, Papaya King has added over a dozen variations to its basic hot dog featuring incongruous toppings like pastrami, pineapple, jalapenos, grated cheddar, onion rings, hot honey, and mushrooms, generally priced at $7 each. You should ignore these: They’re a diversion from the flavor that defines the New York City frank. 

Completely correct. Same for the abomination that is the Chicago dog. Woof.

Donald Trump, today:

After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a--hole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler.

J.D. Vance, 2016:

I’m not a Trump supporter, but I even feel a certain attachment, and I get a little bit cheery when he says certain things on the campaign trail, when he criticizes the elites.

Says the bestselling author, Yale Law School graduate, Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and protege to billionaire Peter Thiel (who donated $10 million to Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign).

Also:

Vance, whose full name is James David Vance, will turn 40 in August.

Not yet 40, with eighteen months of political experience, and he’s now the GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee. Sounds right.

A reminder that Sarah Palin was older (44), and more experienced (a two-term mayor, and Governor of Alaska for eighteen months) when she was selected as John McCain’s VP pick. We remember how well that turned out.

So my only question is: Who plays J.D. Vance on SNL?

My pick is Seth Rogen.

Timothy Snyder at Thinking about...

If a radical-right politician such as Donald Trump is the victim of an assassination attempt, should we not presume that the perpetrator is on the radical left?

No, we should not.

That sort of presumption, based on us-and-them thinking, is dangerous. It begins a chain of thinking that can lead to more violence. We are the victims, and they are the aggressors. We have been hurt, so it must have been them. No one thinking this way ever asks about the violence on one’s own side.

Snyder offers an historical perspective from the 1920s and 1930s to Saturday’s shocking violence.

(via Dave Spector.)

John Gruber at Daring Fireball:

Do not accept, not even at this fraught moment, the claims of anyone blaming yesterday on Democrats describing Trump as a threat to democracy. Saying so is not even on the spectrum of hyperbole. We saw what we saw after the 2020 election, and especially on January 6.

Do not fret, either, that yesterday’s event somehow cedes the election to Trump, on the grounds that he survived and projected strength. The side that wants a strongman was already voting for him.

Spot on.

We also ended with similar calls to action:

So here is what the Democrats should do. Tomorrow morning Chuck Schumer should put on the floor of the Senate a law mandating strict background checks for all gun purchases….

Give it a name like the “Anti Political and School Violence Act”.

Way more professional than mine.

A follow-up on my aforelinked piece on Priscila Barbosa:

[Uber] detected a ring of people bypassing its background checks in Massachusetts and California, and tipped off the FBI in Boston. Investigators served a warrant to Apple; they wanted to see the iCloud account of a Brazilian guy named Wemerson Dutra Aguiar who, after getting hurt at his job in construction, started driving for apps and later dealing fake accounts. Barbosa didn’t know Aguiar, but a Mafia member had once asked her to email him a Connecticut driver’s license template. She did. By February 2021, law enforcement had circled in on her, and served Apple a search warrant for her iCloud too. In early April, the FBI had tracked Barbosa’s location via her T-Mobile cell number. Investigators staked out her apartment and watched her come and go.

A good reminder that while iCloud is encrypted, by default Apple holds the encryption keys (so they “can help you with data recovery”) and that “only certain data is end-to-end encrypted.” That means the FBI and other law enforcement organizations can get access to your account with a subpoena.

If this concerns you, consider enabling Advanced Data Protection for iCloud (available in iOS 16.2, iPadOS 16.2 and macOS 13.1)—though note that even then your iCloud Mail, Contacts, and Calendar remain accessible to Apple.

Lauren Smiley, writing in Wired about Priscila Barbosa:

Just three years after landing at JFK, she had risen to the top of a shadow Silicon Valley gig economy. She’d hacked her way to the American Dream.

An absolutely wild story. I was reluctant to use "defrauding" in the headline. Barbosa exploited holes in the identity verification systems for Uber, DoorDash, and other gig economy businesses, allowing her and other undocumented immigrants to work. But she did commit fraud.

Two things:

1. Barbosa is smart, entrepreneurial, and tech-savvy. While in Brazil, she

studied IT at a local college, taught computer skills at elementary schools, and digitized records at the city health department. She also became a gym rat […] and started cooking healthy recipes. In 2013, she spun this hobby into a part-time hustle, a delivery service for her ready-made meals. When orders exploded, Barbosa ramped up to full-time in 2015, calling her business Fit Express. She hired nine employees and was featured in the local press. She was making enough to travel to Walt Disney World, party at music festivals, and buy and trade bitcoin. She happily imagined opening franchises and gaining a solid footing in the upper-middle class.

And during her exploits:

Barbosa noticed that all of her axed accounts had, in fact, been created on her phone—iPhone de Priscila Barbosa. What if she made her computer look like a different device each time? She restarted her laptop, accessed the web through a VPN, changed her computer’s address, and set up a virtual machine, inside which she accessed another VPN. She opened a web browser to create an Uber account with a real Social Security number bought from the dark web. It worked.

Her skills should be admired—and used for good. In a different world, under a more welcoming set of immigration policies—or, let’s admit it, if she was European—Barbosa would be an expat not an immigrant, and hailed as a success story.

2. Uber prosecuted Barbosa, claiming financial losses.

During the legal wranglings, the company accused the ring of stealing money and tallied its losses: some $250,000 spent investigating the ring, around $93,000 to onboard the fraudulent drivers, plus safety risks and damage to its reputation.

Claiming losses from onboarding drivers who then went on to pick up and drop off riders? Ridiculous.

Defense attorneys shot back that no one lost money at all: The jobs were done. The food was delivered. People got their rides. The gig companies, in fact, profited off the undocumented drivers, taking their typical hefty cut—money that, once the fraud was discovered, there was no evidence they’d refunded to customers.

Far from losing money, Uber profited because of these drivers. Indeed, had Uber simply ignored these drivers, or better still, advocated for a way to legally support them, they would have only benefitted by having a large pool of eager and willing partners.

The real victims were those who had their identities appropriated. Except:

None of the three identity-theft victims who spoke to me—a Harvard professor and two tech workers—knew how or when their identity had been stolen. None had experienced financial harm. They felt unnerved because their information was exposed, but they were also curious about, and even showed a degree of empathy for, the thieves. One victim mused to me, “It’s kind of a sad crime in a way, isn’t it? Obviously, it’s a crime and they shouldn’t have done it, but sad that people have to do stuff like this to get by.”

Additionally, Barbosa and her partners could have done far, far worse with the data they had. Alessandro Da Fonseca was one such partner:

With all the personal information the ring had access to—enough to open bank accounts, credit cards—their only con was to… create Uber profiles? Fonseca shrugged it off. “We are not criminals, with a criminal mind,” he told me in a jail call. “We just want to work.”

Smiley writes about Barbosa:

she felt like an entrepreneur, supplying the demand. Undocumented immigrants wanted to drive in the gig economy, and with the system that existed, they legally could not. People like Barbosa—with no family in the States to sponsor them for green cards and their undocumented status precluding them from applying for many other types of visas—were short on options. “If the US gave more opportunities for immigrants to be able to work legally and honestly here,” she says, “nobody would look for something like this.”

Completely agree. Immigrants (documented or otherwise) are 56% of the gig economy in San Francisco. 78% are not white. I’m guessing the numbers are similar across the country. They may be “taking our jobs,” but only because they’re not jobs most (white) Americans seem to want. Without immigrants, much of the gig economy would crash.

They just want to work.

You’ve undoubtedly received text messages seeking political donations or exhorting you to vote a certain way. Most conclude with Stop to End, Stop2End, Stop to Quit, and similar stock phrases to request removal from their list.

I always reply Stop because I can’t abide unsolicited solicitations. I’ve wished I could automate it.

Brad Greenlee, in March:

It took three of us to figure out Shortcuts' arcane UX, but we managed to automate “STOP to end"

The method is only for iOS; it uses a Shortcuts Automation to respond to messages containing one of the magic phrases, and, as Brad notes,

Setting it up is completely non-obvious.

An understatement. In fact, the important UI is completely hidden—first behind a long press, and then behind a second tap. Kudos to the three of them for discovering how to do this.

Fortunately, their walkthrough is easy enough to follow. The biggest hassle is that you must repeat it for each phrase, and for every device: You can’t duplicate an Automation, you can’t share them, and they don’t sync across devices.

(The second biggest hassle is that Shortcuts is buggy, at least on my main device. I can’t delete an Automation (FB14246121), and icons blink for no reason (FB142246569). Things work fine on a duplicate device, and in the betas.)

(Via Kris Arnold.)

Yours truly, on the pattern-based bullshit of AI chatbots:

Our acceptance of this BS as truth is dictated both by our knowledge of the topic at hand and our personal level of skepticism.

My friend (and former colleague) Thaddeus Cooper, after spending multiple hours querying ChatGPT about the history of Skee-Ball:

So far, ChatGPT has:

• misidentified the inventor of Skee-Ball
• created references to a non-existant game called Newcomb’s Parlor Table
• incorrectly identified the authors of “Seeking Redemption: The Real Story of the Beautiful Game of Skee-Ball”
• stated that the book “Seeking Redemption: The Real Story of the Beautiful Game of Skee-Ball” contains a section talking about Newcomb’s Parlor Table, which it doesn’t
• invented two articles that never existed AND provided fake links to those articles
• and finally, it produced a third article and attributed the website to the American Skee-Ball League (which doesn’t exist) in supporting evidence of Newcomb’s Parlor Table.

Thad’s conclusion:

This lengthy interaction shows that it will make up information at will and present it as fact. And, when asked to produce a source it will fabricate one for the fake information. The AI researchers have a name for this. They call it hallucinating. Frankly I call it lying.

ChatGPT picked the worst person to lie to about Skee-Ball. Thad is the co-author of Seeking Redemption: The Real Story of the Beautiful Game of Skee-Ball, a “464 page tome” about the game. There may be no one on the planet more knowledgeable about its history.

I meant to post this yesterday, but it’s never a bad day to listen to this powerful speech, made more powerful still by the emotive baritone of James Earl Jones.

A wonderful annual tradition.

Politico:

Rudy Giuliani has been disbarred in New York for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

🎶 Disbarred! Oh boy, I’m so disbarred! 🎶

(To the tune of Betrayed.)

The decision is a remarkable rebuke of the former mayor of New York City who rose to prominence as a hard-nosed tough-on-crime prosecutor before gaining national fame for his leadership of the city after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A reminder that in the wake of that horrific attack, Giuliani sought to cancel the November, 2001 mayoral elections and stay on, despite being “termed out” and unable to run for, or legally serve, a third term. His anti-democratic behavior isn’t new or surprising to any New Yorkers who survived his terms. (Hi.)

As then-presidential candidate Biden remarked about him in 2008,

There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence—a noun and a verb and 9/11. There’s nothing else! There’s nothing else! And I mean this sincerely. He’s genuinely not qualified to be president.

Nor a lawyer.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court’s 6-3 majority:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

An absolutely stunning—yet completely expected—ruling from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court expands the scope of a president’s powers, and positions the Court itself as the arbiter of what is deemed an “official act” and therefore “legal”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the minority opinion:

Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a separate dissent:

Ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the President. Before accountability can be sought or rendered, the Judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the President at all.

Justice Sotomayor, concluding her dissent:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Read the entire opinion. The dissents are both blistering and illuminating.

Speaking of the Say Hey Kid, when he first moved with the Giants to San Francisco from New York, racist neighbors made it difficult for him to buy a house in the Sherwood Forest neighborhood. That’s just a mile from where I currently live, and a few minutes walk from a friends’ house.

One of the neighbors who pressured the seller to renege on the deal reportedly said

Certainly I objected. I happen to have quite a few pieces of property in that area and I stand to lose a lot if colored people move in.

Here’s a brief interview with Willie at the time where he seems quite calm about the whole matter.

While Willie eventually bought the home thanks to pressure from the mayor, he never felt welcome in the area. He later bought another home, this time in Forest Hill, the neighborhood I currently live in, where the neighbors seemed less racist.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran the story under the headline Willie Mays Is Denied S.F. House—Race Issue. In it, the same racist neighbor is also quoted as saying

Do you realize how much money you’ll lose?

I guess it was all about “economics” in 1957, too.

Dave Fleming:

Every single one of us who cares about the Giants, who’s part of this Giants family, is a friend of Willie Mays, and always will be.

Mike Krukow:

He won the hearts on the East coast, he won the hearts on the West coast, and everybody in between.

And:

We all loved him, he was our guy. He was the guy who taught us the basket catch, and who didn’t try to catch the basket catch?

Duane Kuiper:

Willie made sure his cap fell off.

Jon Miller, narrating a five minute tribute film:

The best there ever was.

You should also watch “The Catch” section of Ken Burns’ Baseball, which describes just how smart and athletic Willie was. Archived at The Internet Archive (jump to 1:14:16).

During the game, every Giants player wore Willie’s number 24. They won in a dramatic, bottom-of-the-ninth-inning comeback after being down 4-0 to win 5-4: Double to center, bunt to third, sacrifice fly to left, ground ball to center, walk, sacrifice fly to center, intentional walk, walk to end the game. Willie would be proud.

I never got a chance to see the Say Hey Kid play live, but he was always part of my baseball life growing up in New York, and later living in San Francisco. He was the soul of the Giants. He’ll be missed.

Absolutely mesmerizing. I was enthralled for its entirety. There’s an anthropomorphic otherworldliness in the growth that suggests sentience. Some seemed almost too alive as they reached and grasped their way, and I half-expected them to start singing, Audrey II-style.

Also: As a city boy who only sees fruit and vegetables in their picked state, this was fascinating, and a tad disconcerting. We eat these things?!

(Via kottke.org.)