• Technocriticism

    Can the internet ever be fun again?

    The internet isn’t fun anymore. That’s the claim made in a recent New Yorker article1. A claim with which I agree.

    So why isn’t the internet fun anymore? Let’s answer that by first looking at why the internet was fun in the first place.

    In the early days, people were on the internet because they wanted to be. These early adopters were curious and adventurous, at least in a digital sense, so they experimented to see what the internet was, what it could be, and how they could help shape it. No one yet knew what would work. For better and for worse, there were no best practices. So people took chances and made strange sites that appealed to certain niches, thereby creating digital communities. And if you stuck around, you’d accepted that everyone you knew wouldn’t be on the World Wide Web. More than that, you embraced this fact. The uncertainty that accompanied not knowing what you’d find was a feature, not a bug.

    Compare those early days to the current state of the internet. People aren’t on the internet because they want to be, but because they feel they need to be. For many of us, an internet presence is self promotional. We put the time in because we hope to get something tangible in return–something that shows our time ‘invested’ was worth it. (For the record, this applies at times to your author. Otherwise, I wouldn’t still have a LinkedIn profile.)

    On today’s internet, most people don’t want to spend time in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar faces. Most of us don’t want to start over with new social networks and new communities, in part because pursuing something new means taking time away from something you’ve built elsewhere. A couple decades ago, trying something new on the internet was a great example of having nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now, for many of us, the opposite is true.

    Also, digital communities are harder to come by. Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube–these aren’t communities. They’re instead mega aggregators. People don’t use these services because of a shared interest. They’re on these services simply because they are. Because they’re online. And now, thanks to the abundance of broadband Wi-Fi and smart phones, simply being online isn’t the gatekeeper it once was.

    Is it any wonder no one seems happy when the internet feels like a ubiquitous obligation? We’re no longer online to have fun. Instead, we’re like Marshawn Lynch–‘I’m just here so I won’t get fined’2.

    But Lynch, an NFL running back, was contractually obligated to attend interviews. So he made light of the obligation wherever he could. Most of us don’t have to be online. But we feel as if we must, so we don’t contribute to the community.

    And then there are the issues of the look and feel of the internet.

    Screenshot from Bluesky describing the state of the internet in 2023
    The state of the internet in 2023 according to Kyle Marquis on Bluesky - Link to original post

    The internet is now highly centralized, dominated by four of five major players. Any new platform that gains attention risks being acquired by one of the majors and maybe abandoned or shut down. And most sites sites not owned by the big players are plastered in ads and popups and autoplay videos, making the content you came for inaccessible, particularly on mobile.

    Screenshot of a recipe website with a video on top of a signup popup
    A video on top of a signup popup on a mobile site—This is the hell Kyle Marquis was warning us about.

    The modern internet has been optimized–not for users, but for corporations. And as the great poet Cyndi Lauper warned us four decades ago, money changes everything.3

    Anything that gains a major following online and sticks around will most likely be monetized at some point, as it deserves to be. Maintaining these sites and services isn’t free. So, is this just the fate of the internet for the most part? Was the era of fun a brief window in the late ’90s and early 2000s? Is it gone forever?

    Jake LaCaze wants the internet to be fun again.


    1. Why the Internet Isn’t Fun Anymore ↩︎

    2. Marshawn Lynch: ‘I’m just here so I won’t get fined’ (YouTube) ↩︎

    3. ‘Money Changes Everything’ by Cyndi Lauper (YouTube) ↩︎

    Wednesday December 6, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    Social media

    Is it time to let the Twitter dream die?

    Nietzsche shocked the world when he declared God is dead. (Kids in the Hall, not so much1)

    Now, digital philosophers hope to do the same when they declare the death of Twitter.

    On one hand, Twitter will live on through X, whatever the hell that becomes. On other other hand, the essence of Twitter was gone long before Elon Musk bought the platform.

    So what’s next? Most people are trying to answer this question by finding a comparable replacement. How can we fill that bird-shaped void in our souls? Mastodon is too confusing for normies. Bluesky isn’t open to the public and is still available only via an invite code. People seem to be over Threads, as usage has recently dropped over 80%.2.

    Why do we need a one-to-one trade? Why do we need to replace one platform with another? What if we instead replace Twitter with something else completely?

    Cal Newport recently quoted the author Neil Gaiman as admitting his own blogging, an activity he once enjoyed, had suffered due to microblogging via Twitter3. Gaiman doesn’t think any current platform will replace Twitter. If he’s right, then that means something unlike Twitter must replace it. What will that something be?

    So many of us keep waiting for something to recreate the early vibes of Twitter. But what if Twitter was little more than a moment on the internet? What if that moment is simply gone, lightning that won’t strike twice no matter the platform?

    The essence of Twitter was killed by the pressures of profit. Can any platform serve on the same scale while resisting those same pressures? Someone has to pay for these services, one way or the other. Servers and development ain’t free.

    Maybe Twitter should serve as a warning sign of what’s most likely ahead for most platforms like it. And maybe we shouldn’t seek to replace Twitter but to find better, more niche alternatives.

    Maybe Small is the New Big isn’t just the title of a marketing book by Seth Godin4. Maybe it’s also the future of the web.

    Jake LaCaze knows it's time to let the Twitter dream die. Yet he's still on Bluesky.


    1. ‘God is Dead’ skit from Kids in the Hall (YouTube) ↩︎

    2. Threads Has Lost More Than 80% of Its Daily Active Users by Gizmodo ↩︎

    3. Neil Gaiman’s Radical Vision for the Future of the Internet by Cal Newport ↩︎

    4. Small is the New Big by Seth Godin (Amazon) ↩︎

    Tuesday December 5, 2023
  • AI

    Parenting in the age of AI

    My son and I were walking the dogs recently when somehow the topic of AI came up.

    When you’re preparing to become a parent, so many fears enter your thoughts. How am I going to keep from screwing this little person up, and help him or her become a fully-functioning adult? How do I prepare this child for all the evils and threats of the world? How am I going to have THE TALK when the time comes?

    Parents don’t typically wonder how they’re going to teach their kids about AI. Yet I found myself needing an answer for this concern as my son and I were trying to figure out if our little pooch Rio was just peeing, or if I was going to be on poop cleanup duty. Life comes at you in strange ways.

    My first instinct told me to warn my son of the risks of blindly trusting generative AI, particularly large language models. So, I told him about the attorney who got caught referencing bogus court cases thanks to hallucinations from ChatGPT1.

    I also told him about my own experiences with ChatGPT’s hallucinations. I once asked ChatGPT some questions about a then current employer. ChatGPT claimed the company had two offices in Europe, neither of which existed. This misinformation isn’t the worst part. The more concerning fact is that ChatGPT went on to say that one office focused on marketing while the other focused on research and development. ChatGPT made up an elaborate story for something it knew nothing about.

    Perhaps inspired by iA’s approach to generative AI2, I knew I’d be doing my son a disservice if I simply told him not to use AI. Our children don’t grow up in a bubble. Unfortunately, the outside world determines the norms they must navigate through. So, to some degree, we must teach our children to assimilate. Whether I like it or not, AI will be a big part of my son’s future, so he must learn how to navigate the AI waters.

    For parents, there are many fears for our children growing up in the age of AI. But there are also opportunities. Time is on children’s side, as they can prepare for living in a world with AI and be ready to hit the ground running come time to enter the workforce.

    We parents must instead find our footing in the quicksand. The least we can do is make sure our children don’t have to do the same.

    Jake LaCaze thinks that being a parent may be the scariest thing one can do.


    1. Lawyer Used ChatGPT In Court—And Cited Fake Cases. A Judge Is Considering Sanctions on Forbes ↩︎

    2. Is iA’s approach to generative AI the right one? on jakelacaze.com ↩︎

    Saturday December 2, 2023
  • AI

    Is iA's approach to generative AI the right one?

    Like it or not, generative AI is here to stay. But writers don’t have to lose their voices to technology.


    iA writer has long been the writing app for writers. The company gets writers, as they’re constantly thinking of ways to remove distractions and make writing (and thinking) as simple as possible.

    As you’re likely well aware, generative AI has been all the rage since OpenAI released ChatGPT just over a year ago. Too many apps are looking at ways to integrate with tools like ChatGPT, ignoring the fact they’re making their apps indistinguishable from others while letting their future success hinge on the decisions of another company.

    As the company detailed recently on its blog1, iA put a lot of thought into how to integrate with generative AI. They didn’t want to just pipe in ChatGPT and make their customers’ words obsolete, while also undoing all they’ve worked for and accomplished over the last 15 years. But the company also accepted that putting its head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge generative AI wasn’t an option. Many writers will choose to use generative AI in the future. And some will feel the pressure to use generative AI to keep up with those churning out content at the speed of a ChatGPT prompt.

    iA chose to stand out from the crowd by making it easier for writers to distinguish their words from the words borrowed from generative AI tools such as ChatGPT.

    Basically, iA writer has made it easy to compare what you’ve pasted (which will be greyed out) vs. what you’ve written (which will still be shown in the normal font color).

    See the video below for a quick explanation of the major feature of iA’s latest release, writer 7.




    I’m sure the implementation of this solution was simple. No complex algorithms. It’s nothing academics will write papers about.

    But iA was able to find this solution only by doing the hard work of keeping their customers and their customers’ needs front of mind, while also remaining true to the brand they’ve worked so hard to build.

    This simple feature is a masterclass in great tech marketing. iA clearly knows its audience–people who identify as writers–and the company has taken a novel approach to serving the true needs of their customers, not what iA wants customers to need.

    Is iA’s approach to generative AI the right one? I hope and think so. But only time will tell. If nothing else, they deserve credit for the thought and effort they’ve put into dealing with the challenges presented by generative AI.

    Jake LaCaze is proud to call iA writer his writing app of choice.


    1. Writing with AI on iA’s blog ↩︎

    Friday December 1, 2023
  • Gadgets

    ,

    Reviewish

    MobiScribe Wave B&W - More perspective than review

    The MobiScribe Wave isn’t the best e-ink device out there. But it might be all you need.


    Over the last few weeks, I’ve fallen in love with the MobiScribe Wave. Because the device is an interesting mix of value and compromises, you should do your research before you buy.

    This post is less technical than you’ll find on most other reviews. I hope to instead give practical perspective to inform your buying decision. The MobiScribe Wave is not a premium device in the same class as the Remarkable 2, Kindle Scribe, or Ratta Supernote. But depending on your usage, the Wave may be all you need.

    While using the Wave as my main writing and reading device for the last month or so, I’ve become well-acquainted with its limitations. But I still love the device despite its flaws.

    Why I bought the MobiScribe Wave

    I’d had my eye on an e-ink writing tablet for a while now. But at times I couldn’t help feeling I wanted one only because I wanted a new toy, and that buying such a device would be a waste of money.

    Comparable e-ink writing tablets from MobiScribe’s competitors are significantly more expensive than the Wave–some over twice as much, depending on what specs and accessories you get.

    Later in this post you’ll find a brief comparisons of the Wave and its competitors; hopefully then you’ll understand why I was reluctant to splurge on a device I wasn’t sure was truly for me. I was tempted to stick with old fashioned pen and paper. But the old ways weren’t working out great on my morning and evening train commutes.

    With physical notebooks, I struggle with keeping different types of writing separate in their own notebooks. But it’s often more convenient to carry only one notebook. With the MobiScribe Wave, I can now have the best of both scenarios, at a great price.

    With an e-ink notebook, I can switch between reading and writing in a snap, within the same device. And reading my writing partner’s stories on my Wave is way easier than reading them on my tiny phone screen (iPhone SE). Also, on my phone, it’s too easy to find something else to do with so many apps at my fingertips. So, for a while, I was printing my writing partner’s stories out. Making notes on an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper is inconvenient at the best of times on the train, but even more so on those days where it’s standing room only.

    Having everything I need on one device cuts down on the number of items I carry in my laptop bag. Each book, notebook, pen, pencil, eraser, etc., adds weight and bulk. Maybe I’d feel differently if I got to call my own shots and could work when and where I wanted. But I instead sold my soul to The Man, so the MobiScribe Wave is a great device for me.

    I resisted the urge to buy an e-ink writing tablet for a while. But when Cal Newport kept singing the praises of his Remarkable 2 on the Deep Questions Podcast1, I could no longer resist. And a certain YouTube video from Voja of My Deep Guide2 convinced me the Wave was worth taking a chance on.

    What you get

    Below is what you receive when you buy the MobiScribe Wave:

    • The MobiScribe Wave e-ink notebook.
    • MobiScribe’s standard Stylus.
    • Cover for the device.
    • USB-C cable for charging and file transfer (wall plug not included).

    The primary device

    The primary device feels solid.

    The back has indentions on the side which make it easy to hold.

    I wasn’t sure I’d like having a recessed screen, especially because I’d gotten used to a flush screen on my Kindle Oasis (before my wife decided she wanted to start reading again and basically stole my Oasis, thereby justifying my purchase of the Wave). But I’m happy to report the recessed screen hasn’t been an issue. In fact, I’ve forgotten it’s even an aspect of the device.

    64GB of storage is very generous at this price point. More expensive devices come with much less storage.

    The front light is one of those features that most e-reader fans likely take for granted. But, when you consider that no versions of the Remarkable 2 include a front light, you realize what a luxury it is.

    Stylus

    The stylus is fine.

    From what I’ve read online, the stylus doesn’t give as much feedback as the Remarkable 2’s stylus, which may be an issue for some users. The good news is that the Wave is compatiable with most styluses that use Wacom EMR technology, so you can switch out for a better stylus if you like.

    Having an eraser on the end of the stylus is nice. But I can’t help wanting to rub when I erase–like you’d expect to do with a pencil eraser–and I’m pretty sure that’s how I scratched my screen. The scratches aren’t bad and I don’t find them distracting. But it’s disappointing that I’m already seeing cosmetic wear and tear after only a month of ownership.

    I replaced the nib after three weeks of usage. I haven’t had the device long enough to know if this will be the average lifespan for my nibs. Also, your mileage may vary.

    After owning the Wave for a month, I bought the Staedtler Noris Jumbo stylus3, which is much better at a great price (~$35). The stock stylus had stopped working as expected. For some reason, it would only erase, no matter what tool was selected. My research prior to buying the Wave did not lead me to believe it’s common for the stock stylus to crap out so quickly. So I can’t say you should factor the cost of another stylus into the budget/risk factor. I appear to have just run into a bit of bad luck.

    Case

    The case is simple, light, and functional.

    The front cover folds around with no hitches, making the device is easy to hold with one hand. The pen loop ensures you never lose your stylus. Cutouts along the top and bottom edges give access to the charging port and buttons for power and the front light.

    But how well does it protect the Wave? I haven’t dropped it yet, so I can’t really say. But the device isn’t as fragile as an iPad, which uses a glasses screen, so I imagine the case works just fine.

    The MobiScribe Wave vs. similar devices

    The complete package of the MobiScribe Wave can be tough to gauge. For $230, you get a complete bundle including the MobiScribe Wave, case, stylus, and USB-C cable.

    Now, let’s glance at how the MobiScribe Wave compares to its peers in terms of price and value:

    • $450 for the cheapest bundle (device, stylus, cover) from Remarkable
    • $275 for a refurbished Remarkable (device only); $299 for new (device only)
    • Nearly $400 for a comparable Kindle Scribe bundle (with only 16GB of storage)
    • ~$550 for a similar bundle for the Supernote Ratta A5X (a comparable device to the Remarkable 2 and Kindle Scribe)
    • ~$420 for a similar bundle for the Supernote Ratta A6X (comparable in size to the MobiScribe Wave

    Please note: The prices listed here are normal MSRP and do not account for potential sales. Also, you may save money if you don’t buy a full bundle.

    The Wave comes with 64GB of storage. The Kindle Scribe bundles start at 16GB. The Remarkable 2 has only 8GB of storage, with no expansion options.

    The Wave includes a front light, which is not available on any of the Remarkable 2 devices at any price point.

    None of the Wave’s competitors claim to offer waterproof devices. (Is the Wave really waterproof? No idea, as I don’t plan on testing that feature any time soon.)

    The Wave lets you download other apps via the Google Play Store. This feature helps to make the Wave a more nearly complete reading device by making it easier to check in on your RSS feeds and saved articles. As far as I know, the Remarkable 2 doesn’t let you download any extra apps. And Kindle wants to limit you to their store and ecosystem. With the Wave, you can read ebooks via apps including Kindle, Kobo, Libby, and Hoopla to name a few. If you care about other apps and doing things beyond reading and writing, then a full-fledged e-ink tablet from Onyx’s Boox line may be more up your alley. But keep in mind the Boox devices are much more expensive than the MobiScribe Wave (and most of the other devices mentioned in this post).

    Initial setup

    After connecting to WiFi, I downloaded the tolino app for ebooks and the Adobe PDF app. You can download these apps from the MobiStore app–no account required.

    Then I transferred my ebooks via USB-C and I was ready to go. (NOTE: If you’re using a Mac, you’ll have to download the Android File Transfer app. Sometimes I have to connect the device multiple times before the app works. I don’t know if this issue is unique to the Wave, or if it’s typical with most Android devices and Macs.

    UPDATE: Since the original post, I have since transferred books via USB-C on Fedora Onyx, which was a much smoother experience, so Linux users may have better luck.)

    I’ve also enabled the Google Play Store on the device and have downloaded apps including Firefox and wallabag.

    How I’ve been using the MobiScribe Wave

    As a writing device

    Since I got the Wave, I’ve used it for every version of writing I can think of:

    • Journal entries.
    • Short stories.
    • Blog posts.
    • Doodles.
    • Meeting notes.

    I’ve yet to find a reason to go back to physical notebooks and pens.

    E-reader

    When it comes to reading, the Wave feels like a Kindle on steroids.

    As you would expect, I can read ebooks on it. Most of the ebooks I read tend to be EPUB files. But I do read PDFs on the device as well. Being able to directly markup both EPUB and PDF files with my stylus makes it feel as if I’m reading an old fashioned printed work, but with the benefits of technology.

    As I’ve already mentioned, downloading a couple extra apps on the Wave lets me keep up with my favorite blogs. With Firefox, I can access miniflux (my RSS service provider) and with wallabag, I can catch up on my read-it-later articles.

    Who the MobiScribe Wave is for

    The Wave might be a great option for you if you’re:

    • Cost conscious, whether generally or because you’re not sure if you’ll like this type of device and so don’t want to spend too much.
    • Someone who’s never used a premium alternative such as the Remarkable 2 or Kindle Scribe. (I haven’t used any Remarkable or Scribe tablets aside from demoing them in the store, but in general, it’s hard to take a step down if you’ve had something perceived as being in a higher product class.)
    • Someone who commutes or travels and you’re tired of carrying multiple books, notebooks, pens, etc.

    Who the MobiScribe Wave is NOT for

    You may want to pass on the Wave if you’re:

    • Someone who expects a premium experience or has already gotten used to a premium device.
    • Someone who doesn’t understand the value of e-ink and may be better served by an iPad or similar full-feature tablet.

    Pros

    Below are some features that make the MobiScribe Wave a great value purchase:

    • Cost - For $230, you get a writing tablet, stylus, cover, 64 GB storage, and more.
    • Great writing experience.
    • Access to apps like Kindle and Libby that extend your reading options.
    • Unlimited paper (and the flexibility of deleting, copying, inserting, and rearranging pages however you want or need).

    I’ve already covered why I think the Wave is a great value at $230.

    I usually prefer more feedback when writing. The Wave doesn’t give as much feedback as I get from certain fountain pens, but the writing experience is much better than writing on an iPad without a paperlike screen protector, which feels far too slick.

    Being able to download extra apps extends the usefulness of the device, but I don’t think you have to worry about it becoming as distracting as a smart phone or backlit full-color tablet.

    And knowing you can rearrange your writing later gives lets you focus on getting your words down now.

    Cons

    • Battery life.
    • Laggy at times.
    • Pen doesn’t attach magentically, so the cover is pretty much required. (On the plus side, the cover is light and thin.)
    • Glitchy (sometimes opens previous notebook or PDF rather than the file I most recently chose).

    The battery is by far the device’s greatest disappointment. With heavy usage, the battery lasts over a day. But I’m not sure it can make two days. We’ve come to expect e-ink devices to last weeks between charges, so the shorter battery life feels like a major step back. If you plan on taking the MobiScribe Wave on a multiple-day trip in the wilderness, you might want to take a power bank with you–maybe one that can be recharged by the sun.

    The Wave does lag sometimes. This usually results in me pushing a certain button twice and messing up what I was trying to do. In a perfect world, a device would never lag. But such a device will cost you much more than $230.

    Sometimes I try to load a notebook or PDF, but a previously opened file pops up rather than the one I selected. Yes, it’s annoying when it happens. But it can be fixed by closing out the app and then opening the desired file again. I’ve never seen this bug repeat twice in a row. Hopefully the developers can fix it in the future.

    A note (concern) about customer service

    I mentioned earlier that the stock stylus stopped working as expected about a month after purchase.

    Before I bought the replacement stylus, I emailed MobiScribe support to see if they had any troubleshooting tips for me. As of the time of this post, I have not received a response after a day and a half. Now that I know the stock stylus is the root of the problem, I’ve followed up to see how I can make a warranty claim. I’ll try to update this post with a more complete picture of the customer service experience when/if this issue is resolved.

    UPDATE: MobiScribe customer service got in touch with me. After a little back-and-forth via email and sharing a video of the problem, MobiScribe sent me a replacement stylus free of charge. Thank you to MobiScribe for the handling of this issue.

    Jake LaCaze is constantly in search for the simple ways in which technology can improve our lives.


    1. Cal Newport’s Deep Questions Podcast ↩︎

    2. In-depth video review of the MobiScribe Wave from Voja of My Deep Guide on YouTube ↩︎

    3. Staedtler Noris Jumbo stylus on Amazon ↩︎

    Thursday November 30, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    AI

    At what point does AI rob us of our style?

    As we rely more on AI, aren’t we at risk of sounding just like everyone else?


    The prophets of AI continue to promise their favored tech will make our lives easier. Thanks to AI, more of the things we want are only a click or a prompt away. You can now inject AI wherever you want, as AI can help you with writing, creating music, and editing images, as just a few examples.

    I don’t fault anyone for using these offerings, especially because I have used them in my own way and will continue to do so at different points in my life. But I still have concerns. At what point does technology rob us of originality–and when is that scenario okay, and when is it not?

    Should we be concerned about the loss of originality in terms of cold hard facts? We likely don’t care about originality when it comes to complex math–think balance sheets and revenue forecasting. In those cases, the work to get those numbers isn’t the point–deciding what to do with information is the point.

    But what about fields we’ve traditionally considered more artistic? Fields like writing, music, and graphic design. In such fields, there’s not so much separation between the process and the end result. So, the process is more largely the point. What you choose to include or exclude may be subjective. These decisions are part of your style, one of the more crucial aspects of art. Number crunching doesn’t leave much room for style. But the arts are all about style.

    As we remove ourselves from the creative process and forfeit agency to AI and algorithms, at what point are we enabling the erosion of style?

    The prophets of AI will say that AI tools can unlock creativity previously unrealized. Maybe that’s true for a small segment of people. Call me cynical, but I imagine few will put in the time to learn how to improve results from prompts. Most will put in minimum effort and take whatever AI gives them, leading to an ever-more homogeneous internet. The future is more likely to be less original. The tools meant to empower us will instead make us all the same.

    People probably don’t expect numbers to have personality and quirks. But we expect these personal touches from artistic projects.

    Art goes beyond having the right answer. Art is also about the habits of the artist–AKA style. Style is the artist’s most-cherished asset. Style is what makes the audience relate to the art and the artist.

    As we further integrate AI into art, are we at risk of losing those stamps of authenticity we unknowingly put in our work? Those little hints that remind our audiences that we’re the authors of our own works? And if style is the most valuable thing we have, are we smart to risk losing it?

    Jake LaCaze has been been using images generated by DALL-E 2 as cover images on this blog as a joke, but he thinks this one is actually damn good.

    Wednesday November 29, 2023
  • How I made this site with Hugo and GitHub Pages

    Building your own website isn’t quite as easy as 1, 2, 3. But it ain’t that much harder.

    This post is now updated, as I've moved my site back to micro.blog. But I'm leaving the post up in case it can help someone else in the future.


    This weekend I got the itch to customize my personal website again.

    (Just FYI, if creating your own website sounds like a horrible idea, then check out mataroa.blog1. You get a simple, distration-free blog with email newsletters for $9 a year. But if you instead find yourself itching for more control, then keep on reading.)

    I’d made plenty short-lived personal websites with GitHub Pages and Jekyll in the past. This time I wanted to try something different, so I decided to give Hugo a shot. The only previous experience I’d had with Hugo came from my micro.blog2 days. Before this weekend, I’d never built a Hugo site from scratch.

    I mostly followed a tutorial I found on someone else’s blog, so this post won’t be a step-by-step repeat of that wonderful resource. In the hope of saving you time and sparing you some headache, I’ll instead focus on some issues left unmentioned in most tutorials for making your own site with Hugo and GitHub Pages.

    The theme

    I chose the PaperMod theme because I fell in love with a fork of the Paper theme3 on micro.blog. The theme is simple and elegant.

    A few things I love about the PaperMod theme:

    • Social icons
    • Dark/light theme toggle
    • Post navigation at the bottom of each post
    • Search page included
    • Tags pages automatically generated

    The tutorial

    I mostly relied on a tutorial by Chris J. Hart4.

    As I’ve already said, I won’t be repeating his great tutorial. But I had some problems not addressed in his tutorial, so I’ll cover those issues below in the addendums.

    Addendums

    Let’s take a look at some extra information I would include to any tutorial about building your own site with Hugo and GitHub Pages.

    Put a CNAME file in the static folder

    Updates caused my site to forget the custom domain (jakelacaze.com), so after an update, I had to re-enter my domain in the Settings panel of the repository for my site.

    Screenshot of custom domain settings on GitHub
    Re-entering your custom domain after every update isn't the hardest thing in the world. But it's among the most annoying things in the world.

    The fix ended up being to create a CNAME file (with my custom domain as its contents) inside the static folder.

    Screenshot of a CNAME file inside the static folder
    A screenshot of my CNAME file inside the static folder

    Putting a CNAME file in the root directory didn’t fix the issue. I can’t say why putting the CNAME in the static folder works; I can only report the facts as far as I understand them.

    Fork the theme for your submodule

    The tutorial–and most others like it–recommends using your desired theme as a submodule.

    I instead ended up forking the theme so that I could easily edit it.

    I ran into a problem when I tried to change the theme’s RSS feed to show full content rather than just a summary. I needed to change only one word, but to do so appeared to require a change from the original theme repository and developer. By forking the theme, you can make all the changes your heart desires, directly in your main branch5.

    Maybe there’s a workaround if you don’t fork the theme, but I couldn’t find one. So, unless you already know the solution, I’d recommend forking the theme in case you want to change something later.

    Confusion about the the config file name

    The tutorial references config.toml as your config file. The convention now appears to be to use hugo.toml instead6.

    You’ll have a basic hugo.toml file when you create your site. I changed mine to hugo.yaml because I was already familiar with the YAML syntax. Just something to keep in mind . . .

    See my repo for more

    Feel free to check out the repository for my personal site7 if you want to dig deeper into my customizations, or if you’re interested in something I forgot to mention here.

    Jake LaCaze loves the way Gary Marcus rewrites his bio at the end of each blog post, and he's considering stealing that idea for himself.


    1. mataroa.blog - Tell ‘em Jake LaCaze sent you. Just be ready for them to reply Who? ↩︎

    2. micro.blog - Personal blogging that makes it easy to be social ↩︎

    3. PaperMod theme - GitHub repo | Demo ↩︎

    4. Tutorial: How to Create a Simple, Free Blog with Hugo and GitHub Pages ↩︎

    5. Fork a repo on GitHub ↩︎

    6. hugo.toml vs config.toml on GoHugo ↩︎

    7. GitHub repo for jakel1828.github.io ↩︎

    Saturday November 25, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    AI

    Is AI just a solution looking for a problem?

    A quick video in which I question the approach of the prophets of AI, and what it means for us


    Back in June, I recorded this quick video I posted on LinkedIn, in which I asked if AI developers are putting the cart before the horse.

    So now I want to share that same video with you.


    Thanks for watching.

    Or, if you prefer to read–no worries, just check out the transcript below.

    Transcript

    (edited for clarity)

    Is AI the ultimate example of a solution looking for a problem? Or, to use another analogy: Is AI the ultimate hammer to which everything appears a nail?

    When you solve most problems, you usually start with the problem itself. You identify what’s wrong and you have an idea of how you want it to be better. You then work your way through the problem and escalate as needed.

    In so many situations with AI, it seems like we’re going backwards, as if we’re saying, Here’s a powerful tool–what are some major problems it can solve?

    It seems we’re having these great advancements in AI, but we’re not adopting or using the technology as quickly as the developers would like. It kinda feels like they’re forcing it, like they’re trying to squeeze it in wherever they can. In so many situations, there identifying real problems–and technology can likely help–but I’m not sure AI is needed in all these situations.

    So I’m worried that we’re going too extreme.

    I’m not afraid that AI is capable of replacing humans. I’m afraid that it’s incapable of replacing humans but that certain people will try to make it replace us anyway.

    Thursday November 23, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    AI

    Content quality over content source

    Either a work is inspiring or insightful, or it’s not. Stop qualifying the work by saying it was created by an LLM or another form of generative AI.


    I recently made a tongue-in-cheek post on LinkedIn, directed as a jab at how some people give large language models (LLMs) too much credit simply because they’re machines.

    Screenshot of my stupid post on LinkedIn criticizing LLMs
    Screenshot of my stupid post on LinkedIn criticizing LLMs

    This silly post got me thinking about content quality vs. content source.

    If you disagree with the point of my post, that’s fine. You’re free to criticize it, poke holes in it, and tear it apart. I ask only that you would do the same if this post were created by an LLM like ChatGPT. Please don’t be one of those people who would think the post were insightful if written by a machine trained for countless hours on terabytes and terabytes of data. In this situation, the result is far more important than the process.

    LLMs and other generative AI must be held to higher standards. We must stop pretending these models are smart just because they use so much data. Data alone is useless without critical thinking and insight. If the models and their algorithms are flawed, there’s only so much the models can do with more data.

    My own model, JakeGPT, is trained on nearly 40 years of experience as a real-world human being, including a marketing degree and 15 months in tech marketing. JakeGPT may not have been trained on the largest dataset, but at some point, data is no longer the limiting factor–so more data is not the answer.

    Until AI can replace humans everywhere, it will be necessary to relate to humans to influence them. Data and facts and figures–the strengths of AI–can go only so far. Humans still respond to story, and personal stories are more effective than the generalizations that LLMs churn out.

    Personal story and insights are the strengths of JakeGPT. Sure, the model is flawed and unintentionally biased in its own ways. But so are models like ChatGPT. And JakeGPT needs less data, less training, and less electricity. And perhaps best of all, JakeGPT is less likely to empower bad actors looking to deceive or harm others. (But if JakeGPT does ever go rogue, it can’t be used for nefarious purposes at the same scale as other models.)

    And the cherry on top: JakeGPT plays for Team Human.1


    1. Team Human Podcast ↩︎

    Thursday November 16, 2023
  • AI

    Will there be enough AI?

    The internet is full of people worrying about there being too much AI, too fast just around the corner. But what if there’s not enough in a timely manner?


    These days, people are worried about AI taking their jobs. And who can blame them, with all the stories circulating about AI’s great accomplishments. (P.S. If you’re looking for a counterweight to the hype, read Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis1. And subscribe to Gary Marcus’s Substack while you’re at it.2)

    It’s only natural that workers would worry about their jobs and livelihoods, when employers have a history of eliminating workers wherever they can. But employees are not the only ones who should be worried. Employers may find themselves wondering what they’ll do when AI can’t replace enough workers.

    The Baby Boomers, the largest generation of all time, are retiring. Generation X and Millennials are already entrenched in the workforce while Generation Z/The Zoomers are entering the workforce. So we can basically say Gen Z is tasked with replacing the Boomers.

    So what’s the big deal?

    As Peter Zeihan is constantly reminding us, Gen Z is tiny in comparison to the Boombers3. Gen Z simply doesn’t have enough bodies to replace the exiting Boomers. On top of that, Gen Z is highly educated and great with technology. Very few in Gen Z want–or have the skill–to replace the blue collar Boomers leaving the workforce. In the coming years, we can likely expect a shortage of workers in fields like plumbing, carpentry, and truck driving.

    Workers would be foolish not to exploit their leverage into better wages, benefits, and conditions for themselves. Despite what the prophets of AI may claim, AI is not ready to replace these missing workers.

    In America (and much of the West), we’ve built our economy around cheap labor. This strategy made sense when we had the population to support it. And if there wasn’t someone here willing to do the job, you could bet there was someone on just the other side of the border eager to take on the task. But what does our world look like when you can’t count on imported labor when other populations are experiencing a similar decline, but at a faster rate?

    The anti-immigration crowd really won’t have a leg to stand on. As David Frum has pointed out, the question isn’t whether we should allow immigration. The question is, How much?4 The follow-up question is, What kind of immigration should be allowed?

    If, for whatever reason we’re worried about not having enough workers in the future, it sure would be nice if AI could help out a bit.

    I’ll take this chance to echo a point I’ve made on other platforms: I’m not concerned that AI is ready to replace humans; I’m concerned that it isn’t ready but people will try to make it happen anyway. Some will try to make it happen because they’re excited by the hype. Some will make it happen because they don’t want to pay workers. And at some point, some will make it happen because they’re having trouble finding anyone with the proper skills to hire.

    It would actually help if AI were as capable as its prophets insist. AI could help fill the labor gap and save a lot of people a lot of pain. So maybe we’ve been looking at this AI issue all wrong.

    If only AI really were up for the tasks as has been promised, maybe then we’d be in for less headache in the years ahead.


    1. Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis on Bookshop.org (Affiliate link) ↩︎

    2. Marcus on AI, Gary Marcus’s Substack ↩︎

    3. Boomers at the End of the World - Peter Zeihan ↩︎

    4. If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will - Originally titled ‘How Much Immigration is Too Much?’ (Paywalled) ↩︎

    Sunday November 12, 2023
  • Energy

    ,

    Oil & gas

    Exxon and the prophecy of the Great Consolidation

    For the last few years, the oil and gas sector has been waiting to be reshaped through mergers and acquisitions. Is ExxonMobil’s latest move a sign of the prophecy?


    ExxonMobil recently shocked the energy industry with its nearly $60 billion bid to acquire Pioneer Natural Resources in an all-stock deal1. When the deal closes, one of the world’s supermajors will have the acreage and production runway of the Permian Basin’s top driller. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods justified the deal simply2:

    Their [Pioneer’s] capabilities, bringing in their Tier 1 acreage, our technology, our development approach, frankly, brings higher recovery at lower cost.

    You can find plenty articles discussing the financial sense of this deal–and by all appearances, the deal makes plenty financial sense. But, as a hopeless writer, I can’t help looking at the acquisition from a storyteller’s lens.

    Energy analysts have been predicting a wave of mergers of acquisitions (M&A) for a while now. The long-awaited prophecy appears to finally be coming true with the news of Exxon’s pending acquisition of Pioneer.

    The early 2000s saw American exploration and production (E&P) activity dominated by the independent producers, as the majors decided to take their money international3. When those overseas ventures failed, the majors struggled to establish a foothold in America’s onshore plays. I was lucky to have started my oil and gas career during this independent-dominated phase, when even a marginally capable and reliable warm body could quickly climb the ranks. (A note for the young: Scott Galloway is right when he says it’s better to be mediocre in a booming field than to be outstanding in a mediocre field. Unfortunately, I can’t find the article/video in which he said this, but trust me on this one–he totes did.)

    Many of the land professionals of my generation started their careers working with land services brokers in North Texas' Barnett Shale, most likely running title and leasing for Chesapeake Energy. Under CEO Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake sought to acquire as much acreage as possible, as fast as possible–costs and fiscal responsibility be damned. When natural gas prices fell from $14/MCF to sub-$3 and oil climbed to over $100 a barrel, the long-written off Permian Basin with its stacks and stacks of oil-producing formations became the industry darling4. The great land grab eventually led to chants of ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ as operators sought to prove up their assets. Mineral and royalty buyers sought to seize on this activity by buying in areas most likely to be drilled in the near future, ensuring they’d make their money back fast.

    In the age of the independents, opportunities abound for money. But what about now, as we’re heading into the age of the majors? What happens to the industry as the majors spend money to make haves of the have-nots, to ensure the big only get bigger?

    If Exxon really is kicking off the Great Consolidation, then we can expect to see less drilling in general. We haven’t seen significant sustained exploration of new fields for at least a decade. With reduced drilling, the mineral and royalty buyers will need to alter their business models.

    Oil and gas is likely entering a less exciting but more stable era–an era far different from the one that let me start and develop my career. So I lean into this new era with melancholy as I accept that I’m getting old and the world around me is changing. I’m wise enough to know this new era won’t last forever. But I’m not smart enough to know how or when it will change, or what will change it.

    In the late ’80s and the ’90s, conventional wisdom said the Permian Basin was dead. But conventional wisdom got bucked by unconventional drilling thanks to the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking)5. Technology may very well again transform the industry, but who knows what those technological innovations will look like, or when they’ll happen. Fracking was discovered out of desperation and experimentation, not because of scientific theory that suggested the process would increase production6. Maybe the next great innovation will happen because someone somewhere says Hell, what have I got to lose? and tries something stupid that ends up looking genius in the end.

    The industry may also change due to economics. If oil and gas prices go through the roof, fields once deemed uneconomic to drill will then make sense. The Permian Basin will still be the apple of the industry’s eye, but at least there will be more fields to play in and explore.

    Yes, Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer likely signals a shift in the industry. Since the news broke, word has leaked that Chesapeake is mulling acquiring Southwestern Energy7. And Devon Energy is also mulling acquiring Marathon Oil Corp. or CrownRock, the latter of which recently announced it was open to being acquired8.

    One thing is certain: This era too shall pass. But what it shall pass to, we do not know.


    1. ExxonMobil announces merger with Pioneer Natural Resources in an all-stock transaction ↩︎

    2. U.S. oil is back, and ExxonMobil’s $60 billion deal isn’t even the biggest signal on CNBC ↩︎

    3. The First Shale Revolution: Humble Beginnings by Peter Zeihan ↩︎

    4. Wolfcamp, Bone Spring, Delaware Shale Plays of the Delaware Basin - a report from the US Energy Information Administration ↩︎

    5. Drilling Methods 101: Conventional (Vertical) vs. Unconventional (Horizontal) by Venergy Momentum ↩︎

    6. Breakthrough: The Accidental Discovery That Revolutionized American Energy on The Atlantic ↩︎

    7. Natgas producer Chesapeake explores buying Southwestern Energy on Reuters ↩︎

    8. Devon Energy Mulls M&A Options With Marathon, CrownRock on Bloomberg; US oil and gas producer CrownRock to explore $10 billion-plus sale, sources say on Reuters ↩︎

    Thursday October 19, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    AI

    There is no invisible hand of technology

    Technology doesn’t progress on its own simply because we expect it to.


    On a recent episode of Andrew Yang’s Forward podcast1, Walter Isaacson shared an anecdote he picked up while shadowing Elon Musk for the entrepreneur’s recently-released eponymous biography2. In this anecdote, Musk made the point that people take for granted that technology progresses on its own, as if it’s an unwritten law of the universe. As if things just move forward with time.

    I haven’t been able to get Musk’s point out of my head after first hearing it. Why? What’s so significant about it? What does it really mean?

    To me, it means humans have agency in shaping their future. More importantly, humans have a responsibility in shaping that future.

    Too many of us accept that things will just work out. Or that they won’t. Whatever our outlook, we get complacent. We take whatever we can get. We accept the future and consequences we’re dealt. We blame the dealer even though we never acted on our chance to cut the deck.

    Technology is not some mysterious force. There is no invisible hand of technology moving it in one direction or the other. Technology is the byproduct of our creations and the norms we create around using those creations.

    At the time of this writing, AI is all the rage. I don’t think AI is worthy of being injected into every aspect of our lives, but unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it won’t be injected into every area and situation possible. But this strategy is unforgivably reckless, because, as John Oliver said in his bit about AI on Last Week Tonight3:

    The problem with AI isn’t that it’s smart–it’s that it’s stupid in ways we can’t always predict.

    On his Substack, Gary Marcus recently echoed this sentiment when he pointed out how DALL-E 34, the latest version of OpenAI’s image generator, had problems showing black doctors with white patients, or a watch showing the time of 1 o’clock.5 We still don’t know the ways in which AI has unintentional bias. And we do a disservice by presenting AI as being limitlessly intelligent, when in fact its capabilities very much depend on how it’s trained and what it’s trained on.

    At the risk of becoming a broken record, I’ll say it again: AI has potential. We should explore where and how it can help humanity. But we must do so in a responsible manner. We must be thoughtful and deliberate. Right now, we’re being anything but.

    Technology doesn’t simply advance just because. It moves along the path we create for it. And I hope more people will start chiming in on which path we set this risky technology on. Just because there are risks involved doesn’t mean there aren’t great benefits waiting. But again, those benefits won’t happen on their own. We must play our part in making those benefits reality.


    1. Walter Isaacson on Elon, X, and breaking the rules ↩︎

    2. Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson ↩︎

    3. Last Week Tonight on AI ↩︎

    4. DALL-E 3 ↩︎

    5. Race, statistics, and the persistent cognitive limitations of DALL-E ↩︎

    Sunday October 15, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    Mindfulness

    Be here now

    Can we be mindful in the 21st century?


    Introverts make up at least one-third of the population—maybe as high as one-half—yet in so many ways the world feels as if it’s made only for extroverts. How can it be that our social systems benefit one type of person while alienating the other?1

    Pop culture often presents the introvert as being inadequate and odd, a type of person to be fixed or merely tolerated when possible. Introverts are often described as antisocial, but it would be more accurate to say introverts have a different threshold for social interaction. I, as an introvert, recognized this distinction during the lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, I thought I’d be fine in isolation. But forced social distancing revealed that I craved interaction. Interaction itself wasn’t the issue—the quality and frequency of interaction were the real questions.

    And those questions of quality and frequency have led to my questioning online interactions, mostly via social media. This extroverted world expects us to be everywhere online at all times. Digital tools are available to help us scale, to be present at many places at once. But operating this way leads to the problems of the quality and the frequency of conversation. We’re told to keep the conversation going so that the algorithms favor us and push our content to more viewers in the name of promoting the conversation—conversation we may not even want to be part of.

    In her book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking2, Susan Cain argues that introverts need seclusion to recover after interactions. Introverts tend to perceive more than extroverts, Cain says, so introverts have more to sort through after social situations. This always ‘ON’ world of social media means introverts have an endless wave of interactions to process, all of this in addition to their offline interactions.

    But what about the physical world, the one we live in without the need for screens? Where’s the concern about making sure we’re present there, and that we can process all happening around us? How can any anyone hope to process anything when new events are constantly dinging for our attention? We’re constantly connected to the world at all times. But why? Do we want to be? Should we want to be?

    Questions like these are the ones that have been floating in my head since I started reading Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now3 by Douglas Rushkoff. What exactly does ‘present’ mean? What is the true present moment? The tangible present, or the virtual present?

    Are these questions as concerning for extroverts? Or, do they feel the more presents, the better? If you see an issue, you must then consider the costs, both the costs of being so present and also the cost of not being present. You must find your own balance and determine when and where you want to be present—or have the energy to do so. Some will try to convince you that you must be everywhere. But if you’re everywhere, are you really ever anywhere? This is the same question I ask of those hoping to scale their presence with the help of AI. Doesn’t being everywhere in such fashion cheapen the worth of your time and presence? Isn’t your scarce availability the true value of your presence? Is there any added value in our truly being present? Will anyone know the difference?

    The promise of ‘community’ is supposed to be part of the appeal of social media and the modern web. But so many digital platforms seek to be a one-size-fits-all solution for the masses. ‘Community’ and ‘masses’ are often conflicting terms. How often can we have community if we invite the masses? To be noticed on these platforms often requires appeasing to the masses while ignoring your potential true audience, meaning the masses then distract from the true community.

    Our presence is more than a simple commodity. Or is it?

    By embracing digital extroversion, not only are we giving away our attention and our presence—we’re also giving away data, which recently may have been used to train generative AI models we now fear may take our jobs4.

    Living as an extrovert introduces noise, both literal and figurative, into your life, which is fine if you’re up for it. But the extroverted web doesn’t want you to slip away to recover and rejoin when you’re ready. The extroverted web says you’re missing out on the endless firehouse of content that will be outdated and irrelevant by the time you learn about it. You’re also missing out on exposure, as the most crucial part of the online growth formula seems to be consistency, meaning you must constantly churn out content so that your audience doesn’t forget you.

    These days, there’s far too much content to stay current on. And what kind of audience do you have—and what’s your relationship with them—if the volume of your output is exponentially more valuable than the quality of your output?

    The tech giants have built their platforms on our content. They’ve simply given us a place to connect, but we do the hard work of creating content that keeps eyeballs on the page or on the app. No wonder the tech giants love the extroverted model.

    Eventually, digital extroversion turns into neediness, in the form the need to be liked and accepted, to increase the chances of being watched. A need to be interesting without offending, for fear of having your content demonetized or shadowbanned. This neediness risks becoming a need to fit in, to be like everyone else online—an NPC5 in a vast sea of unimaginative homogenization where imitation is often the safest path to success.

    For some, this formula may not be a problem, especially if the main goal is to be popular. But the rest of us likely find ourselves sucked into this way of thinking because it’s so prevalent—we don’t even realize we’re influenced by it. So we end up chasing a goal we may not even want. We no longer create only for the sake of it. We create for likes and views and follows, making the internet far less interesting and dynamic.

    Offline, introverts often get out of their shells to put themselves out there and meet the world halfway. But to have meaningful sustained discourse with introverts often requires pursuing them to some degree. Maybe this is how it should be online as well. Offline, we have the option to go to so many parties that we never attend. Maybe this is how it should be online too. We can try the parties every once in a while when we feel up to it, but the rest of the time you can find us at our websites and email addresses. Reaching us may take a little effort on your end, but hopefully it’s worth it.


    1. So Begins A Quiet Revolution Of The 50 Percent on Forbes ↩︎

    2. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain on Bookshop.org (Affiliate link) ↩︎

    3. Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now* by Douglas Ruskhoff on Bookshop.org (Affiliate link) ↩︎

    4. X may train AI with its users' posts. Are other social media sites doing the same? on ZDNet ↩︎

    5. What Does Is It Mean To Be Called An NPC? The Gen Z Insult and Slang Term Explained on Know Your Meme ↩︎

    Wednesday September 27, 2023
  • Technocriticism

    ,

    Mindfulness

    Calculating the costs of convenience

    What does convenience cost us in the long run?


    Listen on Anchor

    As long as there are people, there will be questions about the human condition. How are people doing? What are their greatest struggles and fears and joys? And what does it mean to be a real human being1 at any point in time?

    Odds are good I won’t make it out of the 21st century alive. So considering what it means to be human in the 21st century seems a good place to put my energy for the next version of my blog.

    In so many ways, life has never been better for those of us in the first world. We’ve spent most of our lives in unprecedented safety and convenience, thanks at least in part to technology. But, strange as it may sound, might that same convenience bring about our greatest challenges? The world is at our fingertips thanks to smart phones and other mobile devices. But having these remedies to boredom always at arm’s length makes it hard to be present in the real world beyond the screens. We must also fight the temptation to live always in a digital world when tech titans are always telling us what a great option it is. And don’t forget that these same titans have engineered their products and services to be addictive to keep us coming back. As they keep us addicted, they’re harvesting our data and doing who knows what with it. We now know they’re using that same data to train AI with the hope of replacing us. Many businesses will adopt these AI ‘solutions’ haphazardly, putting humans at risk in the name of efficiency.

    I grew up enamored with technology, believing it could make life better. I still believe it can, with some caveats. Inserting technology into a process or situation doesn’t guarantee success. And it’s hard to do the right way. Drumming up hype and excitement is easy, but those same elements make it hard to know if the technology is actually useful, or useful to the extent promised.

    We’ve reached a point where we need to put this convenience into perspective. Has it really been all that great? Has it served us as users? Even if everything was great in the past, that doesn’t mean we have to go along for the ride in the future. Maybe some people feel the past cost of convenience was fine, but they’re not so sure about the costs of what’s ahead. Or, maybe we don’t have a choice. Maybe certain things are set in motion, meaning the future is already determined and there’s nothing we can do about it. To be clear, I don’t hold this view, but if you do, I hope you’ll agree we should consider what lies ahead as we can best prepare ourselves.

    I don’t pretend to have a crystal ball that shows the future. While I ponder our future, I’m no futurist. I prefer to discuss how things can go rather than how they will go. So while I don’t have predictions of the future, I do have concerns and hopes. I’m concerned that certain advances in technology seek to make humans irrelevant2. But I hope we can find our way to maintain–and improve–our humanity.

    What does it mean to be human in the 21st century? What are our best parts that should be amplified? And which parts should be improved upon? These are fair questions, and there are so many similar questions deserving consideration. So I hope you’ll join me as I do my best to do them justice.

    You can follow along via RSS or email. And feel free to drop me a line from time to time. I like communication with a human touch.


    1. Video: ‘A Real Hero’ by Electric Youth ↩︎

    2. The Art World v. The Tech Bros: A Story of Arrogance, Hubris & Lies by uckiood ↩︎

    Sunday September 3, 2023
  • Energy

    An environmental apocalypse of our own making

    The more I learn about nuclear, the more I become convinced it’s the key to solving our energy woes. And Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never1 may have pushed me over the edge.

    Cover of Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never Cover of Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never Photo credit: Amazon

    Why are environmentalists so strongly opposed to nuclear energy? Nuclear is abundant, clean, and energy dense. Yet so-called environmentalists (or, perhaps more appropriately, environmental alarmists) keep pushing for solar and wind, which are proven to be inefficient and terrible for the environment in their own ways.

    The dangers of environmental alarmism

    Apocalypse Never is not a book about climate change denialism. Shellenberger believes in climate change and also believes humans play a role.

    But he argues climate change is not the same as climate catastrophe, and environmental alarmism does more harm than good.

    Shellenberger’s case has merit when you look into some details of environmental alarmism.

    For one, enviornmental alarmists don’t look at how we can adapt to climate change. They instead repeat the narrative that it’s too late and that climate change can’t be stopped. While climate change may unstoppable, it’s not necessarily catastrophic. And if it’s inevitable, then we should learn to live with the coming changes, which is far more productive than waving our hands in the air and declaring the end. Humans are adaptive and resilient. The sooner we start changing with the times, the better.

    Another aspect to consider is the hypocrisy of developed nations pushing developing nations to “leapfrog” straight to renewable energy while bypassing fossil fuels. Never mind the fact that sources of renewable energy such as solar and wind are expensive and not as efficient as fossil fuels.

    Rather than focus on holding back the developing nations, those already developed should consider how to responsibly help them progress. Developed nations should lean into alternative fuels where it makes sense, while helping developing nations improve their infrastructure with fossil fuels and then accelerate into alternative fuels. Restricting developing nations from improving their own infrastructure hurts the citizens of those nations. It’s easy for the developed nations to push this agenda when they themselves are not affected by the policies they promote.

    The public narrative suggests that fans of renewable energy see the agents of fossil fuels as their enemy. But Shellenberger raises the possibility that these two industries instead have a shared enemy in nuclear energy.

    Shellenberger shows example after example of environmental groups and individual advocates (such as Sierra Club and Al Gore) accepting money from fossil fuel companies, which feels like a stark contradiction to their ideology.

    But, when you look for the similarities between fossil fuel companies and renewable energy companies, you find a shared hatred of nuclear energy.

    Shellenberger then asks the logical question: “[H]ow long, exactly, have oil and gas interests been funding environmental groups to shut down nuclear plants?”

    If nuclear is as good as advertised, then how much need would there be for other forms of energy?

    Much of the opposition to nuclear energy is simply out of line.

    Some point to Chernobyl as a warning. But Chernobyl was more an issue of Soviet neglect than an issue of nuclear power2.

    But what about Fukushima? Turns out neglect was an issue there as well3:

    The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed and sited in the 1960s were considered acceptable in relation to the scientific knowledge then, with low recorded run-up heights for that particular coastline. But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7 metres at the Daiichi site. However, this had not yet led to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Discussion was ongoing, but action minimal.

    This negligence rhymes a bit with the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, which we now know was made worse by faulty levees neglected despite warnings they were inadequate for a major storm.

    In each of these cases, humans could have done more to lessen the damage of these disasters. But many choose to scapegoat the disasters themselves rather than look at what we could have done better. Such negligence will only be perpetuated by the narrative that it’s too late and that there’s nothing we can do about our impending doom.

    Shellnberger argues that ideology is to blame and calls environmental alarmism the new secular religion.

    Many have already accepted our climate apocalypse, so they look only for validation while rejecting the idea of improving our situation. Religious zealots often quote their religious tomes when referencing modern events as proof of the coming Armageddon. Environmental alarmists do much the same, except they quote choice books of science.

    When you’ve accepted an outcome, you default to validating it, rather than remaining open to the possibility you may be wrong. So the enviromental alarmists reject any data contradicting their gloomy predictions.

    How green is renewable energy really?

    When you scratch beneath the surface, you start to see issues with the renewable energy narrative:

    1. How green are electric vehicles (EVs) if they’re getting electricity from fossil fuels4?
    2. How are the materials used for EVs, solar panels, and windmills mined, manufactured, and installed? (Most likely with the aid of fossil fuels and at great damage to their enviornments5.)
    3. How can we say energy sources such as solar and wind are environmentally friendly when they’re far less energy dense than fossil fuels and require much more land surface area6? (Also, windmills are loud and disrupt bird habitats.)
    4. How can we call solar and wind green when recycling solar panels and windmills is an absolute nightmare? (We don’t have the ability or capacity to recycle these parts, so they create more waste when they’re retired7.)

    To be clear, these points do not suggest that fossil fuels are a net zero fuel source. But they do suggest that “green” energy may not be too much better in comparison when considering the whole picture.

    Why nuclear is the answer

    As the Office of Nuclear Energy points outs8, there are three reasons nuclear energy is the way to go:

    1. Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source.
    2. Nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source. (It’s energy dense.)
    3. Nuclear energy produces minimal waste.

    Other forms of renewable energy such as solar and wind likely have a place in the world’s future energy portfolio. But they don’t deserve to be the star of the show. That honor belongs to nuclear.

    But even if we universally agreed to adopt more nuclear energy, we can’t just flick a switch and make it happen.

    Bringing a new nuclear facility online takes years, sometimes nearly a decade9. So we can’t solve our energy woes in the 2020s.

    But you know the old saying: The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

    The delayed payoff is no reason to abandon building new nuclear plants. Investing in nuclear is an investment in our energy future.

    In the meantime, we should continue relying on fossil fuels to keep the world moving until we can hand the torch to nuclear.


    1. Apocalypse Never on Amazon ↩︎

    2. ‘Mismanagement at Chernobyl noted earlier’ from New York Times ↩︎

    3. ‘Fukishima Daiichi Accident’ from World Nuclear Association ↩︎

    4. ‘Why electric cars are only as clean as their power source’ from The Guardian ↩︎

    5. ‘Will mining the resources needed for clean energy cause problems for the environment?' on MIT’s Climate Portal ↩︎

    6. ‘Not so green: Renewable energy’s land use problem’ on Life: Powered ↩︎

    7. ‘Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash’ on Wired ↩︎

    8. ‘3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable’ on Office of Nuclear Energy ↩︎

    9. ‘How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?' by Hannah Ritchie ↩︎

    Thursday May 11, 2023
  • Writing

    Writing the puzzle

    “It’s like putting together a puzzle.” That’s how my buddy explained oil and gas abstracting. “Does that sound like something you’d be interested in?”

    Yeah, I told him. I’ll give it a shot. I still had no idea what “abstracting” and “chain of title” and “runsheet” and “mineral ownership report” meant, but it all sounded better than selling cars in the middle of the financial crisis.

    It didn’t take long to see what he meant by saying that my new job was like putting together a puzzle. And it didn’t take long to figure out that I liked the job. And now, all these years later, I’ve found myself asking why exactly title research resonated with me, because it wasn’t something I wanted to do before February 2008, when I first moved to Texas. Before then, title research wasn’t something I realized was even an option.

    With oil and gas abstracting, the desired scene of the completed puzzle is always the same: You’re trying to get to 1. No matter how many owners under one tract of land, no matter how fragmented the interest—the final report should be whole. Complete. Like a jigsaw puzzle.

    Through the lens of puzzle-making is another way to look at writing. Whatever we’re writing, we’re always checking to make sure that we have all the pieces. If we ever feel as if we do have all the pieces, then we have to worry about putting them in the right places. But when we do so, maybe we discover that we’ve put together a puzzle different from the one we had in mind when we started. Maybe the final picture doesn’t match the one on the box.

    Complex title and mineral ownership necessitates a flowchart. I think of flowcharts as roadmaps that show where ownership began—usually with a patent from a state agency to the original grantee of the land—and the path it took to get to its current state. Writing is a bit like a roadmap too, starting readers at one place and then leading them somewhere else at the end.

    Perhaps the biggest problem with this analogy is that our writing most likely never has all the pieces to make everything whole. Something is always missing. And if something’s not missing for one reader or audience, that doesn’t mean something’s not missing for another. Our projects will never be perfect. And we may reach the point of doing more harm than good if we keep cramming in more information at the expense of the flow or of our readers' attention spans and patience.

    But still, we have to try to get enough pieces. And we have to lay down the roadmap to show the proper order in which each piece needs to be experienced.

    We have to write the puzzle as best we can.

    Tuesday November 22, 2022
  • Writing

    Great writing is iterative

    So many of us have this habit of romanticizing great writing.

    We dream of the genius writers sitting alone at their desks, sipping on a cappuccino as the perfect words flow from their minds through their hands and onto the page.

    And so, when we sit down for our own writing, this is the image we’re seeking to emulate.

    Romanticizing great writing is harmful for a couple reasons:

    1. It makes us feel as if we can’t write great works because we’re not the same kind of genius.
    2. We’re set up for failure because we think great writing should come so easily.

    Great writing is hard. Great writing is work.

    And great writing is iterative. It comes in steps.

    Study the habits of great writers enough and you’ll probably read or hear the point that the secret to great writing is rewriting. That’s right: Your first draft is probably not going to be on par with the idea of the genius writer in your head.

    So you’re going to have to write and write and write again. AKA rewrite.

    Structuring for iterative writing

    I recently started a new job as a marketing specialist at an IT support firm. Our first order of business is to revamp our website.

    We’ve already established a basic framework for our new website. But now we need some copy.

    Time to put on the writer hat.

    I don’t want to let perfectionism get in the way of good ideas.

    So I’ve started with a scrap file.

    Originally I started writing in Notepad on Windows. Then I moved to using Markdown in Visual Studio Code.

    Then my boss said he wanted to see my ideas and collaborate, so I migrated the scrap file to Microsoft OneNote.

    All of that to say you can structure for iterative writing in a variety of apps. Doing so doesn’t require any technical ability. Instead, doing so requires the proper mindset.

    I have three main topics I’m juggling and trying to write copy for.

    So I’ve structured my scrap file as follows:

    • Unorganized
    • Topic 1
      • Subtopic 1.1
      • Subtopic 1.2
    • Topic 2
    • Subtopic 2.1
    • Subtopic 2.2
    • Topic 3
    • Subtopic 3.1
    • Subtopic 3.2

    As ideas pop into my head, I simply sort them underneath the appropriate topic or subtopic.

    “Unorganized” is just what it sounds like—that’s where I keep the ideas I can’t quite find a home for yet. Or maybe they pertain to parts I’m not writing for yet.

    This is not the time to focus on one thing and one thing only.

    This is the time to let ideas flow. I don’t want to reject what may be a good idea because it doesn’t fit at the moment.

    Don’t worry too much about structure and the final product. Save formatting for the end.

    Besides, finding the perfect font before you start is not going to help your writing.

    This is not the time to be precious about your writing.

    Why iterative writing works

    Iterative writing sets up more realistic expectations.

    By demystifying the writing process and seeing how it really works, I can acknowledge that anything I put into my scrap file will likely need a ton of polish to have any chance of making it onto the launched website.

    I now know that my writing needs to start with an ideation phase, where I’m free to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

    And from there, I’ll work through a series of rewrites until I feel I have something worthy of publishing.

    Monday October 31, 2022



Enter your email address below get new posts straight to your inbox!

Or subscribe via RSS.

Written by human, not AI badge