Over the weekend and into this morning, seemingly every entry in my newsfeed was about DeepSeek, a China-based AI lab which rolled out a highly capable AI model called R1. By far the best of the summaries I saw was from Ben Thompson at Stratechery.

The long and short of it: DeepSeek’s newly announced R1 model reportedly equaled the capabilities of OpenAI’s o1 model, which is considered the leader in the space, but uses vastly less powerful—and vastly less expensive—hardware to do so. This led to a meltdown of sorts in both the AI community at large, and the tech stock market. Nvidia, the world’s most valuable “AI” company, cratered nearly 17% on the news, and other AI-adjacent companies were also affected, both positively and negatively.

(Thompson’s podcast partner, John Gruber, helpfully distills the market impact over at Daring Fireball.)

Thompson delves into the backstory of DeepSeek, explains some of the technical underpinnings, and assesses the ramifications (real and imagined) on the future of AI computing.

He also highlights a tweet from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella suggesting one future we can certainly anticipate (and introducing me to Jevons paradox): 

Jevons paradox strikes again! As AI gets more efficient and accessible, we will see its use skyrocket, turning it into a commodity we just can't get enough of.

Cheaper and ubiquitous AI is coming. We’re edging ever closer to an intelligent agent future.

Clever design, powered by two AA batteries, and waterproof. I went from viewing to buying in under a minute. Usually that kind of purchasing abandon is reserved for Apple products.

We’re all in on AirTags—they’re in all of our suitcases, purses, and backpacks, on my bike, plus a spare one for rental cars. I’ve always worried about an AirTag battery dying just when it was needed^[1]—the very inspiration for this product.

Now, about the name TimeCapsule….

(Via Kottke.)

In an article for The Conversation, Dr. David Sterling Brown draws surprising parallels between Shakespeare’s Richard III and Donald Trump, while wielding his hyperlinks like a blade:

As Shakespeare depicts the king’s reign from June 1483 to August 1485, Richard III’s kingdom was wrought with chaos, confusion and corruption that fueled civil conflict in England. […]

Shakespeare’s play highlights the flawed character of a man who wanted to be, in modern terms, a dictator, someone who could do whatever he pleased without any consequences.

Dr. Brown is a scholar of Shakespeare and Associate Professor of English at Trinity College. In his piece, he lays out several more striking similarities between the two men:

Much like Trump during his first term, Shakespeare’s Richard did not lead with morals, ethics or integrity.

Richard lied compulsively to everyone, as his soliloquys (sic) that contain his innermost thoughts make clear.

Like Trump, Richard used empty rhetoric to persuade people with “sugared words” — he was not interested in speaking or promoting truth.

Moreover, Shakespeare’s Richard was a sexist and misogynist who verbally and physically disrespected women, including his wife and mother.

Each link is a swordsman’s cut, underscoring an already compelling case.

He wraps with this:

As a political leader, Richard III left a legacy in English history as one of England’s worst monarchs.

Thus hath history spoken, the comparison is complete.

Jared Newman at Fast Company rediscovers paper note-taking (because Field Notes):

I’ve never been much of a paper person. Although I did carry around a reporter’s notebook for a newspaper job in the pre-iPhone era, I prefer to file my thoughts away in digital form, where they can be categorized, backed up online, and accessed from any device.

By contrast, I love stationery and notebooks and have dallied, on and off for over twenty years, with ink-on-paper for my note-taking. But, for many of the same reasons Newman gives, it doesn’t tend to keep. Plus, I type infinitely faster than I write, and seldom struggle to decipher my own typing.

However—

Perhaps best of all—at least for me—is that you can’t delete what you’ve written in ink. I’ve tried using an iPad with an Apple Pencil for handwritten notes and have reviewed a few digital writing tablets, and they always feel counterproductive to me. As an obsessive self-editor, I can’t resist the erase and undo tools that digital notepads provide. The only option with paper is to forge ahead.

This resonated deeply. I, too, am an “obsessive self-editor”—for me, writing and editing are inextricably linked. (Or, as I first wrote, the act of editing is inextricably linked to the act of writing.) I’ll often spend more time editing a piece than I writing it, as I get bogged down on how to express this thought here rather than getting the broader ideas out.

When I use an iPad and Apple Pencil, I end up with the worst of both worlds: a slower, harder-to-decipher output that I still endlessly edit as I write—truly a hell-on-earth scenario.

I’m going to experiment with drafting a few future pieces on paper. Will I find it “relaxing” and “less stressful,” as Newman did, or be frustrated by my inability to refine as I go? It’s been years since I wrote more than a few sentences by hand. I’m as worried about cramps in my hand as I am in my writing style.

Paul Kafasis engages in some excellent, self-inflicted nerd-snipping on One Foot Tsunami:

I asked my iPhone who won Super Bowls 1 through 60 (that’s “I” through “LX” in Super Bowl styling) and captured a screenshot of each result.

The results are utterly appalling:

So, how did Siri do? With the absolute most charitable interpretation, Siri correctly provided the winner of just 20 of the 58 Super Bowls that have been played. That’s an absolutely abysmal 34% completion percentage. If Siri were a quarterback, it would be drummed out of the NFL.

Some of the results are especially awful. For example, to the question “Who won Super Bowl XXIII?”, Siri responds with the number of times Bill Belichick has won or appeared in the Super Bowl—completely irrelevant.

John Gruber at Daring Fireball wrote a brutally (but fairly) titled follow-up, Siri Is Super Dumb and Getting Dumber, sharing the appalling results to his own query, “Who won the 2004 North Dakota high school boys’ state basketball championship?”

New Siri — powered by Apple Intelligence™ with ChatGPT integration enabled — gets the answer completely but plausibly wrong, which is the worst way to get it wrong. It’s also inconsistently wrong — I tried the same question four times, and got a different answer, all of them wrong, each time. It’s a complete failure.

We’ve all had the Siri experience of getting a clearly wrong or patently useless answer to our query. It’s gotten to the point where I merely roll my eyes and move on—I rarely even screenshot mistakes anymore.

But I do feel sorry for the Siri team. I have some good friends who work there, and I had occasion to work with the team on Siri responses a few years back. I know they cringe every time these failures hit the blogs. They know more than anyone just how much Siri needs to improve.

The latest scuttlebutt (from Mark Gurman at Bloomberg) is that longtime Apple exec Kim Vorrath is moving to Apple Intelligence in an effort to whip it into shape. I’ve watched Vorrath and her Program Office teams operate from the inside for many years. The biggest impact she and her team had across engineering was instilling discipline: every feature or bug fix had to be approved; tied to a specific release; and built, tested, and submitted on time. It was (is!) a time-intensive process—and engineering often complained about it, sometimes vocally—but the end result was a more defined, less kitchen-sink release each year. To a significant extent, her team is the reason why a feature may get announced at WWDC but not get released until the following spring. She provided engineering risk management.

I hope the Vorrath and the Siri team can make this work. I need them to make this work. The future promised by Apple Intelligence is too compelling for it to fail.

MacRumors:

Directed by Ridley Scott, the advertisement was designed to highlight the Macintosh as a groundbreaking computer that offers freedom and individuality in a market dominated by corporate conformity. It drew inspiration from George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, with Apple positioning itself as a liberator from the homogenized control represented by the fictional “Big Brother,” a veiled allegory for IBM.

A lot has changed since this ad first aired. Foremost is that IBM is no longer the tech behemoth to be feared; Apple has indisputable taken on that role, and is now seen by many as the company we need to be “liberated from.” Meanwhile, in the politics sphere, every day feels more and more like Nineteen Eighty-Four.

And of course, the Super Bowl, which used to air in mid-to-late January, has crept later and later, with this year’s game being held on February 9.

George Orwell would be dismayed.

Amanda Font, in a story from the Bay Curious podcast on KQED (article/transcript):

Can a place be defined by a beverage? If I mention champagne, you must think of France. If I say mint julep, you’re thinking of the South. If you hear Malört, and you know what that is, you know I’m talking about Chicago. So, what’s San Francisco’s defining drink? If you ask some people, especially bartenders, it’s Fernet-Branca.

It’s true. You won’t find many San Francisco bars without Fernet-Branca on the shelves. If you do, maybe walk out.

If there’s one thing people will tell you about Fernet-Branca, it’s that it’s very much an acquired taste. It is a dark, syrupy-looking liqueur with a strongly medicinal smell and taste, and unlike other similar herbal digestifs, it is not sweet at all. […]

[Antoinette Cattani, former sales and marketing rep for Fernet-Branca] said she’ll never forget the time she was at the legendary Key Club in Los Angeles and when she gave someone a shot of Fernet-Branca, “This guy literally wiped his tongue and said, ‘Why would you do that to me?’”

I’m a spirits enthusiast, and I appreciate a good Amaro, but even this long-time San Francisco resident can’t quite bring himself to enjoy Fernet-Branca.

(Via Tammy Tan.)

This episode of Last Week Tonight offers useful context for TikTok’s stunt shutdown on Sunday. John Oliver delves into the issues—including national security, privacy, and First Amendment concerns—with his trademark nuance and humor. It first aired in November but remains relevant.

(Also good: John Gruber’s piece from Sunday, which focuses on the immediate effect of the takedown, and Donald Trump’s “pinkie-swear promise” to indemnify companies like Oracle and Akamai that re-enabled TikTok in violation of the law. The fines are $5,000 per user, amounting to $850 billion for TikTok’s 170 million U.S. users. And that’s for each company in violation.)

Apple dedicates its homepage to Dr. King—as is their tradition on this day—with a selection of his quotes (video for posterity):

• “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.”
• “You must decide to speak for yourself; nobody else can speak for you.”
• “We cannot preserve self without being concerned about preserving other selves.”

It’s worth understanding the quotes in context.

The education quote comes from an article in the Morehouse campus newspaper:

Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.

The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.

Preserving other selves is from Where Do We Go From Here Chaos or Community? (Archive.org):

From time immemorial men have lived by the principle that “self-preservation is the first law of life.” But this is a false assumption. I would say that other-preservation is the first law of life. It is the first law of life precisely because we cannot preserve self without being concerned about preserving other selves. The universe is so structured that things go awry if men are not diligent in their cultivation of the other-regarding dimension. “I” cannot reach fulfillment without “thou.” The self cannot be self without other selves. Self-concern without other-concern is like a tributary that has no outward flow to the ocean. Stagnant, still and stale, it lacks both life and freshness. Nothing would be more disastrous and out of harmony with our self-interest than for the developed nations to travel a dead-end road of inordinate selfishness. We are in the fortunate position of having our deepest sense of morality coalesce with our self-interest.

The speak for yourself quote is from The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., but I’m unable to find the full context online. The relevant sentence reads:

I came to the conclusion that there is an existential moment in your life when you must decide to speak for yourself; nobody else can speak for you.

Education against propaganda, the importance of thinking critically, concern for others, the dangers of selfishness, and using your voice… I can’t definitively say Apple intended these quotes to speak to the challenges this country faces at this moment, but I’m confident they were chosen deliberately.

From “Bryan” at the Field Notes Dispatches blog:

The anniversary date of “Field Notes” varies a bit, depending on who you ask. Aaron Draplin first used the name (typeset, of course, in all-caps Futura Bold) on a customized one-off red hardcover notebook in 2002. Our “official line” sets the birth of the company in mid-2007, when Coudal Partners and Aaron first printed a batch of 3-Packs for the “Swap Meat,” followed shortly by the establishment of “Field Notes Brand” as an actual thing.

But a good case can be made that the very first Field Notes were made in “early January 2005,” making this, January 2025, an important 20th anniversary.

I’ve been using Field Notes since September 2007^[1], and a subscriber to their gorgeous quarterly Limited Editions since at least June 2016 (possibly 2014)—though I reluctantly admit that most of them have become collector’s items rather than daily carries.

Field Notes and a favored pen^[2] have long been my preferred capture tools. Even as I’ve shifted toward using my iPhone as my primary capture device^[3], I still gravitate toward Field Notes for capturing unstructured notes (like whiskey tastings) where I might need to scratch out, annotate, or revisit an entry, or for times when fumbling with a phone might seem boorish. (No one has ever raised an eyebrow as I scribbled in my notebook—except, perhaps, in appreciation on those occasions when it’s impeccably dressed in rich leather attire.)

Tapping on a phone feels weightless—ideas are recorded, then dismissed, permanent yet inconsequential. Scratching words onto paper feels momentous, at once discursive and considered, ephemeral yet archival.

Unsheathing my Field Notes is a declaration: This moment matters.

Fun promotion for Severance season 2, which debuted yesterday.

(Warning! The theme music is an insidious earworm. I had it running for ten minutes and when I stopped it I felt like a bit of my soul went away too.)

Apple’s home page is swarming with balloons too.

As part of the promotion, on Wednesday, Grand Central Terminal was transformed into the Lumon Industries office, with the main cast (in character) and director/producer Ben Stiller on hand.

One final note on the ERA, from Associate White House Counsel, Ainsley Hayes:

(Via Aaron Sorkin.)

A helpful explainer^[1] from Emily Amick on the history of the ERA, and the legal issues that suggest President Biden’s recent assertion is legally meaningless, in large part due to the amendment’s ratification deadline—plus an interesting take:

Legally, I think it’s pretty clear the congressional ratification deadline is law, and therefore needs to be extended in order to ratify the ERA. There is a political argument here to push for ratification, and even to steamroll Biden into doing this to force Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court to overturn it (under Trump’s watch). This could create a galvanizing moment for further political organizing.

The problem is that this isn’t who Joe Biden is. He isn’t someone who will do something contravening Supreme Court precedent, and I don’t think this is the issue he is going to evolve for.

She wrote this in December, 2024 and later added a postscript:

The more I’ve thought about this the more I’ve realized what a terrible strategic move this idea was. If Biden were to force the Archivist to publish the ERA, it would have gotten litigated and gone to the majority-conservative Supreme Court. They would undoubtedly overturn the decision, and in doing so would likely make arguments similar to those we saw in the 2020 Trump OLC memo. They would give us a binding decision that Congress can’t fix the ratification deadline. The actual result of this would be to make it nearly impossible to ever get the ERA as an actual part of the Constitution. This strategic mess is emblematic of the leadership we’ve seen from feminist organizations who oversaw the fall of Roe, legally, politically and optically flawed.

I don’t think President Biden was “steamrolled” into this, and clearly he’s “evolved” at least a little bit on the matter. While he hasn’t pushed the Archivist to ratify, I agree with Amick’s assessment that Biden’s decision was meant to create a “galvanizing moment,” but I don’t agree that it was a strategic blunder.

Time will tell, but I’m glad President Biden is doing something to nudge along a 50-plus-year amendment.

President Joe Biden, in a White House statement:

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

The New York Times, in a multi-bylined article notes:

Under the Constitution, however, the president has no direct role in approving amendments and his statement has no legal force by itself. The archivist of the United States, a Biden appointee, has refused to formally publish the amendment on the grounds that it has not met the requirements to become part of the Constitution.

President Biden did this knowing there’d be court and congressional battles, and is effectively daring them to argue that women aren’t equal under the law, rather than cowering behind “there’s no law that says they are, so who can tell?” Such battles could force many national and state leaders to go on the record and might prove quite distracting to the incoming regime.

To which I say: Fantastic! Do more! President Biden should throw more progressive-but-controversial acts behind him as he strides out of the Oval Office, like caltrops strewn in front of a speeding car.

Todd Rosiak, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Milwaukee Brewers radio broadcasts will, sadly, never sound the same.

Bob Uecker, the voice of the team on the airwaves for 54 years, a Baseball Hall of Famer and local, statewide and national icon, died Thursday, the Brewers announced.

He was 90 years old.

I didn’t listen to many Brewers games growing up in New York (they were in the American League then, and I was a National League fan), but I still knew Bob Uecker. Ueck was a part of my baseball adolescence. As the Brewers’ team statement notes:

He was so much more than a Milwaukee Brewers icon. He was a national treasure. Bob entertained us with his words and storytelling, so it is no surprise that his passing now leaves us at a loss for our own words.

Fifty-four years broadcasting the sport, Miller Lite commercials, and Major League movies will do that. I’d also forgotten he starred in Mr. Belvedere for six seasons.

His voice and humor will be missed. A huge loss for baseball fans everywhere.

Enjoy the front row, Ueck.

See also:

• MLB
• The Athletic/New York Times

Anna Betts, reporting for The Guardian:

American flags at the US Capitol will fly at full-staff for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington DC on Monday, despite a White House order for flags to remain at half-staff for 30 days after the death of former president Jimmy Carter last month.

The House speaker, Mike Johnson, first announced the change on Tuesday. In a post on social media he wrote: “On January 20th, the flags at the Capitol will fly at full-staff to celebrate our country coming together behind the inauguration of our 47th President, Donald Trump.” He added: “The flags will be lowered back to half-staff the following day to continue honoring President Jimmy Carter.”

How does the Speaker of the House get to decide what happens to flags on the Capitol? Isn’t that federal property, under the control of (still) President Joe Biden?

This, of course, follows Donald Trump’s childish griping about the flags being flown at half-staff during his inauguration, calling Democrats “giddy” about it. As I noted previously, no one is giddy, it’s the law. But apparently no one has to follow the law anymore if it makes them feel insecure.

It’s not just Trump and his Johnson worried about being at half-staff. Robert Jimison at the New York Times reports:

Republican governors in Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska and Florida also announced that flags in their states would be raised on Monday and returned to half-staff the next day.

Plus the Republican governors of Texas, North Dakota, Idaho, and Tennessee, according to Iris Seaton at the Asheville Citizen Times.

These “leaders” have no respect for the flag or the laws of this country. They’ve pledged fealty to one man, patriotism or common decency be damned.

In Trump’s social media whining, he also wrote:

[…] the Flag may, for the first time ever during an Inauguration of a future President, be at half mast.

He’s wrong, of course. From the January 21, 1973 edition of the New York Times, in which R. W. Apple Jr. wrote about the second inauguration of Richard Nixon:

The President spoke from temporary portico erected adjacent to the Capitol, with the United States Marine Band, in scarlet tunics, arrayed before him. All flags on the Capitol were still at half‐staff in memory of former President Harry S. Truman, who died last Dec. 26.

Even Nixon had more integrity and empathy.

Harry Litman disputes, in an article for The New Republic, the very common criticism (including my own) that Merrick Garland slow-walked the Trump investigation:

The charge of foot-dragging has become a meme. Elie Honig, writing in New York magazine, was particularly cocksure: "The debate about whether Garland took too long to charge the Trump cases—or to appoint a Special Counsel to get the job done—is over. Exhibit A: there's not going to be a federal trial before the 2024 election. End of story."

But the charge is a bum rap.

The record demonstrates that Garland made investigating Trump a top priority, even as he also focused on restoring integrity to the Justice Department. The investigation was extraordinarily complicated and slowed by unusual and unpredictable obstacles, including the Supreme Court's lawless immunity ruling. Moreover, events entirely outside of Garland's control ensured that Trump would not have been held accountable before the election. Finally, Garland's efforts, among others, made Trump's criminality more than clear to the voters, but they nevertheless were content to reelect a felon and serial sexual offender.

The storyline that Garland let moss grow on the investigation—some say until Jack Smith came aboard, others until the work of the January 6 committee embarrassed the department—doesn’t gibe with even the publicly available evidence, which likely will be supplemented over time with details that we still don’t know.

Litman outlines a compelling rebuttal, suggesting Garland may deserve more credit for pursuing this case than I (and others) have given him.

He concludes:

It’s understandable that some of the frustration over Trump’s escape from justice has been displaced onto Garland. We put our hope in him to bring Trump down, and it didn’t happen. It’s easy to make him a scapegoat. But once you factor in all the other reasons for delay, it never was in the cards to bring Trump to justice before Election Day. And that was notwithstanding an overall diligent focus on the prospect from Garland’s first days in office.

Perhaps instead we should focus our ire on those who allowed Trump to remain a politically viable candidate after January 6, 2021, like Mitch McConnell and the 42 other Senators who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.

David Smith, writing for The Guardian:

Donald Trump would have been convicted of crimes over his failed attempt to cling to power in 2020 but for his victory in last year’s US presidential election, according to the special counsel who investigated him.

Special Counsel Jack Smith concludes Volume 1 of his just-released 174-page Special Counsel Report thusly:

The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

While every prosecutor is expected to claim “we would have won,” the depth and scope of the report suggests an extremely solid case—unsurprising, considering we all watched the events it charges unfold live as they happened.

But Donald Trump did exactly what he set out to do: Delay, delay, delay, and hope to convince a plurality of Americans to grant him a get-out-of-jail-free card. And while I can’t say definitively, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that had Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special prosecutor a year earlier—or perhaps had President Biden nominated someone else for AG—Trump would have likely been convicted of his attacks on democracy, or at least found himself severely weakened politically, well before the election, and we would not be in the nightmare position we now find ourselves of having a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and clearly criminal politician as president.

The American people were denied justice, and democracy might be Donald Trump’s next victim.

Jamison Foser over at Finding Gravity brings the receipts in a great takedown of the aforelinked Washington Post’s all-but-useless capsule approvals of Trump’s nominees, highlighting their five worst endorsements. I only wish he'd done all of them.

The Washington Post Editorial Board weighed in over the weekend on Donald Trump’s cabinet picks:

We would not have picked any of his choices for our hypothetical Cabinet. But, as we have argued for decades, that is not the standard we — or U.S. senators — should apply when evaluating potential executive nominees for Senate confirmation. The president-elect won the election. He deserves deference in building his team, and the Americans who elected him deserve an operational government, absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.

By that standard, all but two of Trump’s planned Cabinet nominees seem confirmable — as well as all but two of his picks for Cabinet-rank jobs that require confirmation.

These are little more than thumbs-up or thumbs-down for each, with a sentence or two capsule review (at best; some have no commentary at all).

For example, for Doug Burgum, nominee for Secretary of the Interior:

The outgoing North Dakota governor and Stanford MBA built a successful software company that he sold to Microsoft.

I’m unclear how this is relevant experience for running the Department of the Interior—unless, perhaps, there’s a plan to sell federal land to Microsoft.

Or for Sean P. Duffy, nominee for Transportation:

The former reality TV star is also a former congressman from Wisconsin. He’ll still need to study.

That’s it. Remember, the Post Editorial Board’s criteria for approval is they’re “absent disqualifying deficiencies in competence, temperament or philosophy.” I guess “reality TV star” is the new mark of competence in the coming Trump regime.

This is especially deep brown-nosing following the Post’s cowardly refusal to endorse a presidential candidate this election cycle. The editorial board should be ashamed of itself.

I wasn’t expecting to link to a five-year-old video of a conversation about grief today, yet here we are. The topic has been on my mind a lot recently as close friends have lost their parents (and I start contemplating the inevitable loss of my mother, aunts, and uncle) and in the wake of the devastating, ongoing Los Angeles fires.

It’s a beautiful and touching conversation between two men who experienced heart-rending grief at an early age—both Cooper’s and Colbert’s dads died when they were 10 (about the age I lost my dad and grandfather)—and the difficult-yet-invaluable act of sharing our losses with others.

One thing that makes Apple products so distinctive is their iconic sounds, from the Mac start-up chime, to the distinctive iPhone ringtone, to the sad tones AirPods play when their batteries run low. Twenty Thousand Hertz explores these sonic landscapes in two beautifully produced episodes of their podcast. If you use Apple products, or just appreciate great sound design, you’ll enjoy these:

• The Sound of Apple 1.0
• The Sound of Apple 2.0

(These links have been sitting in my queue for months, but last week’s episode of Accidental Tech Podcast prodded me to finally link them. My thanks to The Boys™ for the reminder.)

Mike Allen and Sara Fischer for Axios:

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is terminating major DEI programs, effective immediately — including for hiring, training and picking suppliers, according to a new employee memo obtained by Axios. […]

From the memo itself (reportedly written by Janelle Gale, vice president of Human Resources):

The legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made decisions signaling a shift in how courts will approach DEI. It reaffirms longstanding principles that discrimination should not be tolerated or promoted on the basis of inherent characteristics. The term "DEI" has also become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others.

Every word of this is utter bullshit. It falsely equates “DEI” with “discrimination”, when DEI programs are about providing opportunity and ensuring equality. It uses a deeply conservative, far-right Supreme Court to buttress the company’s (and by that I mean Mark Zuckerberg’s) own believes about the value of these programs. You could win good money betting these folks also think Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson were decided correctly.

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, Meta Quest, Ray Ban Meta Glasses) is just the latest in a long list of companies which never really believed in these programs. As I wrote back in July when Microsoft announced their DEI dissolution,

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

Last month, Costco strongly defended its DEI practices. They’re the only large company I’ve seen take a (semi-) public stance in favor of inclusion and diversity. Even Apple, which I (still) believe takes DEI seriously, has been quiet (while they seem to be hiring for I&D roles, they’ve quietly ended Apple Entrepreneur Camp). Will Apple ever make a public statement about the importance of inclusion and diversity?

These companies are merely using the Supreme Court and “changing landscapes” as convenient cover. The programs are being rolled back because the class of people most affected by a push for equality are those who’ve benefited from a lack of it. Once again, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

In the middle of his fascinating piece ‘A Day in the Life of a Prolific Voice Phishing Crew’, Brian Krebs (Krebs On Security) writes about a victim getting scammed because the scammers successfully posed as Apple customer support:

In the first step of the attack, they peppered the target's Apple device with notifications from Apple by attempting to reset his password. Then a "Michael Keen" called him, spoofing Apple's phone number and saying they were with Apple's account recovery team.

The target told Michael that someone was trying to change his password, which Michael calmly explained they would investigate. Michael said he was going to send a prompt to the man's device, and proceeded to place a call to an automated line that answered as Apple support saying, "I'd like to send a consent notification to your Apple devices. Do I have permission to do that?"

The victim gives his permission. The scammers then call Apple’s customer support number while spoofing the victim’s phone number and use Apple’s automated system to trigger an alert on all the victim’s devices. The message that appears is legitimately “from Apple”:

In essence, the voice phishers are using an automated Apple phone support line to send notifications from Apple and to trick people into thinking they’re really talking with Apple.

I can understand why someone who is busy or distracted or just unaware of the potential for being scammed can fall for this. To be (somewhat) fair to Apple, the message says (emphasis added):

Would you like to confirm your Apple Account and allow Apple to access your device serial numbers to expedite your interaction? If you did not contact Apple, do not confirm this request.

with two buttons, “Confirm” and “Don’t Confirm”. A close reading suggests you should select Don’t Confirm, as you did not contact Apple (“Apple” contacted you), but most people will either misread—or not read—the full dialog, relying on the logical progression of:

1. I’m talking to someone who says they’re from Apple;
2. They say they’ll send me a confirmation;
3. Here’s a confirmation request on my devices.

As Krebs writes of this particular victim:

[…] this technique fooled the target, who felt completely at ease that he was talking to Apple after receiving the support prompt on his iPhone.

“Okay, so this really is Apple,” the man said after receiving the alert from Apple. “Yeah, that’s definitely not me trying to reset my password.”

So a few reminders:

• If you get a call from someone claiming to be from some company’s customer service, don’t provide them any information. End the call and call the company’s published customer service line directly. (A simple “I’m sorry, I’m in the middle of something and can’t talk right now. Let me call you back in 10 minutes” will get them off the line quickly.)
• Don’t approve notifications on your device without reading and understanding what you’re approving. If you did not do something that would trigger a notification, assume it’s an attempt at phishing.
• Never enter passwords or confirmation codes on a website you can’t verify is real. Using a password manager helps here because they only trigger on the sites they were saved for; “apple.com” or “support.apple.com” and not “p1234-apple[.]com,” for instance.

Specific to Apple, it’s worth reading their support document “What to expect when in contact with Apple Support.”

An aside: I was very amused to read the scammers using the classic customer support phrase “go ahead and” (as in “go ahead and click OK”). It’s a phrase I’ve tried to excise from my lexicon (and from that of the support teams I’ve led), but having used it for 30-something years, it sometimes slips in uninvited. It’s practically a customer support shibboleth: If you don’t use it, are you really in customer support?

Emma Roth, for The Verge:

More than a year after launching its smart TV platform in Europe, TiVo is now bringing it to the US. The company's putting its TiVo OS platform inside a new Sharp TV arriving as soon as February, rivaling the likes of Roku, Google TV, and Amazon's Fire TV.

TiVo first announced TiVo OS in 2022, but the platform didn't actually launch until last year. The company bills its operating system as a "neutral" platform, allowing TV manufacturers to put their own spin on the viewing experience. It says TiVo OS supports "a wide range" of streaming services and comes with a recommendation system that serves up "personalized suggestions." TiVo OS also offers voice controls for select TVs, but it doesn't say whether this Sharp one is included.

55" 4K OLED. Three HDMI ports. Dolby Atmos. No price yet.

I actually didn’t realize TiVo was even still a thing. I say this as someone who’s owned seven TiVos since 2001 (four still “active” with “lifetime subscriptions”). All are in storage. Streaming (and Plex) covers 99% of my needs today; OTA (antenna) covers the rest—usually live baseball.

I miss precisely three things about TiVo: A single view into all my channels. SkipMode. And of course, the “peanut” remote.

I’m struggling to understand who this product is for. I can’t imagine many people are clamoring for a TiVo-powered television today, but if it challenges Roku, and replaces the usually awful TV operating systems, more power to them.

In December I speculated about the eventual fate of Judge Erin Gall:

My unsupported-by-any-facts guess is that by avoiding a hearing she expects to lose, she preserves some standing with the Courts, and perhaps allows for a very lucrative pension she might otherwise be ineligible for if the appeal failed. There might even be a job offer that’s contingent on her being merely “a retired judge” rather than “a fired judge.”

(Is it too much to suggest such an offer would be with the incoming administration?)

I was wrong about the “incoming administration” part, but, per Mike Goodwin and Patrick Tine of the Times-Union:

Erin P. Gall, the state Supreme Court Justice who initially fought removal from the bench after a July 2022 incident in which she threatened to shoot a group of Black teenagers, has landed a job as an attorney working for Herkimer County.

The disclosure of her new position as an assistant county attorney is included in a filing from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which declined to sign onto Gall’s bid to end her appeal of the commission’s recommendation that she should be removed from her $232,600-a-year post.

The supposed new job pays $52,000 a year (for two days a week) and is state pension eligible.

Quite the step down, but it still gives her the ability to retire on New York State’s taxpayers’ dime, and she’s still involved in deciding people’s legal fates.

Though, “I’m a f___ing Assistant County Attorney! That’s how Assistant County Attorney Gall rolls!” doesn’t quite hit the same.

Brooke Nelson Alexander, writing for Reader’s Digest, in 2023:

Per federal law, all government buildings, public schools, offices and military bases must lower their flags to half-staff for 30 days when a U.S. president or former president dies.

It is not, in fact, something one gets “giddy” about. It’s the law.

An incredible, must-read story from Joshua Kaplan at Pro Publica about “John Williams,” who spent years infiltrating right-wing militias:

Posing as an ideological compatriot, Williams had penetrated the top ranks of two of the most prominent right-wing militias in the country. He’d slept in the home of the man who claims to be the new head of the Oath Keepers, rifling through his files in the middle of the night. He’d devised elaborate ruses to gather evidence of militias’ ties to high-ranking law enforcement officials. He’d uncovered secret operations like the surveillance of a young journalist, then improvised ways to sabotage the militants’ schemes. In one group, his ploys were so successful that he became the militia’s top commander in the state of Utah.

Now he was a fugitive. He drove south toward a desert four hours from the city, where he could disappear.

The entire piece is wild, but the parts I found most disturbing describe how close members of the militias are to the U.S. military and to law enforcement. For example:

[David] Coates was an elder statesman of sorts in the Oath Keepers, a 73-year-old Vietnam veteran with a Hulk Hogan mustache. There’d been a break-in at the Utah attorney general’s office, he reported to the group, and for some unspoken reason, the Oath Keepers seemed to think this was of direct relevance to them. Coates promised to find out more about the burglary: “The Sheriff should have some answers” to “my inquiries today or tomorrow.”

That last line would come to obsess Williams. He sent a long, made-up note about his own experiences collaborating with law enforcement officials. “I’m curious, how responsive is the Sheriff to your inquiries? Or do you have a source you work with?”

“The Sheriff has become a personal friend who hosted my FBI interview,” Coates responded. “He opens a lot of doors.” Coates had been in D.C. on Jan. 6, he’d told Williams. It’d make sense if that had piqued the FBI’s interest.

To Williams, it hinted at a more menacing scenario — at secret ties between those who threaten the rule of the law and those duty-bound to enforce it.

We are sixteen days away from a regime that supports—and is supported by—right-wing militias, members of which are either in law enforcement and the military, or are “personal friends” with those who are.

We are in dangerous times.

(Via @funnymonkey b/w/o @mmalc.)

George Lakoff and Gil Duran at FrameLab offer “Advice for defeating the authoritarian threat.” All are great; three stood out for me:

Avoid brain rot and lies. Social media is overrun with clickbait traps that profit from outrage and misdirection. Block these and seek out legitimate information sources grounded in truth and reality. Subscribe to trusted media outlets so journalism survives – we’ll need it more than ever. Always do a basic fact-check before sharing memes, texts, or stories. Never spread false stories or conspiracy theories, even if you wish they were true, even if you think they’re funny. Once we can no longer discern fact from falsehood (or we no longer care), the authoritarians win. Don’t be on the wrong side of the information war!

I’ve seen a lot of very compelling social media posts that I very much wanted to be true and to share. My natural skepticism would kick in and lead me to do some digging, only to find it was misleading, a conspiracy, or an outright hoax. I’m always happy I don’t accidentally spread misinformation, but it’s getting harder, and we all need to be more vigilant.

Don’t help Trump. Some of Trump's opponents are obsessed with focusing on him personally; thus, they unwittingly amplify and boost his propaganda. By focusing solely on Trump – his ridiculous statements, mannerisms, and antics – Trump's opponents make him a larger-than-life figure. They also reinforce his messages by constantly repeating them and thus marketing them. In short, they help Trump. We can’t completely ignore his quirks and lies, but the constant boosting of his every utterance appears to have worked in his favor so far. See: 2024 election results.

I’ve been guilty of dunking on The Other Side by sharing news or memes that make them look doltish or disorganized, but I recognized I was part of their propaganda machine. For the coming Mump Regime, I’m defaulting to a new policy: Media oxygen deprivation. I won’t ignore them, but I won’t blindly boost them either. Let their ideas suffocate in the right-wing echo chambers while the rest of us focus on democratic efforts to govern.

Demand accountability. Authoritarians thrive on impunity. It’s critical to hold leaders, corporations, and institutions accountable. Insist on accountability. Write letters, sign petitions, and participate in boycotts when necessary. Demand transparency and fairness at every level. Corruption and injustice wither under the light of scrutiny.

You’ll be forgiven for wondering if this could possibly still be true today. Trump, the GOP, the Supreme Court, state legislatures—all have repeatedly escaped accountability. Many simply ask themselves what the consequences of their actions will be, or, as Dave Rahardja succinctly put it, “Or Else What.” For most, the answer is “nothing.” This must change.

The rest of Lakoff and Duran’s advice is just as compelling, cogent, and actionable.

I especially enjoy slow mornings and time for fun and play. I plan to enjoy more long walks, home cooked meals, and good books.

I hope 2025 allows for more real luxuries for you and your loved ones.

Happy New Year.

(Original author unknown. @breadandcircuses via @gogoronzilla.)

Jay Kuo pens a thorough (and thoroughly entertaining) summary of last week’s in-fighting:

Right wing populism has always had an uneasy relationship with the tech bro billionaire class, which is often responsible for who gets good jobs and who doesn’t in the U.S.

Over Christmas, that uneasy tension erupted into an online bloodbath as the face-eating leopards pounced. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are the co-chairs of Trump’s newly designated Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), came out publicly in favor of H-1B visas for highly skilled, foreign workers.

Musk said the quiet part out loud, arguing that the number of "super talented engineers" who were also "super motivated" was far too low, implying that Americans lacked both talent and motivation.

Hmmm. Folks on the right didn’t like that so much.

I cackled throughout.

The Guardian:

Broadly unpopular then, Carter went on to become not just the longest-lived president but also to have one of the most distinguished post-presidential careers. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize for “decades of untiring effort” for human rights and peacemaking. His humanitarian work was conducted under the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which he founded in the early 1980s, with Rosalynn.

Jimmy Carter was the first president I was aware of, thanks to my grandmother, who thought him a kind man. I knew him best for his commitment to Habitat for Humanity. In the handful of instances I’ve seen him speak, he always seemed to have a twinkle in his eye. It certainly seemed to me like he enjoyed being a former president far more than being president. And it positively tickled me when he declared his intention to live long enough to vote for Kamala Harris—and then did so.

President Biden has ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff for the next 30 days and declared January 9, 2025 a National Day of Mourning. I’m grateful President Carter will be honored in a state funeral led by a president respectful of both the office and the man.

Elsewhere:

• The New York Times