technology – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

Blowing AI Smoke or Feeding The Fire

The pace is becoming impossible to track

This Artificial Intelligence moment we’re living through might seem like smoke and mirrors on some level, but it appears it’s going to be a trend that sticks. Even so, it sparks memories of a couple of recent crazes we’ve all lived through that are decidedly non-tech and some that are tech related.

Ruben bagues fe64iWwhoWs unsplash.

When vaping became a thing it seemed that every other person on the street was trailing a vapor cloud and quite a few were pushing the limits that had previously banned indoor smoking. When marijuana was legalized where I live it felt like we were all getting our buzz on whether we were lighting up or not. Driving down a street in Chicago, or even stuck in traffic on the expressways the tell-tale odor of “skunk” or whatever bud folks could get their hands on was everywhere.

The proliferation of gummies took care of most of the second-hand stench and dispensaries sprouted like wildflowers, leading one to wonder how long that trend will last before an inevitable consolidation occurs. But after all of the smoke the clouds of vapor eventually became as rare in public as the cigarette smoke they replaced.

I’ve seen a number of other trends in my life from pet rocks to tech gadgets. Remember netbooks? The rare ones stick. Most fade away, occasionally leaving enough residue to resurface again when nostalgia kicks in. Of course nostalgia on some meta level is a trend in and of itself.

But this AI trend we’re living through is taking on a life that depending on which Artificial Intelligence pioneer you talk to will make all our lives better or perhaps end them all.

If you ask me, on one level this AI trend feels no different than the smart home trend. With enough tinkering you can install smart home appliances, lighting fixtures, cameras, thermostats, etc… but the not-so-dirty little home wizard secret is that no one has been able to figure out any sort of standard, much less a way to keep things reliably working once the next set of software or firmware updates arrive. So the cruft accumulates. Tinkerers have a blast. Regular Janes and Joes just go back to flipping light switches.

And we seem to be at the tinkering phase with AI. Which when you think about it, sort of makes no real sense. Because if you have to dig into the innards of a terminal app in order to make your computer run your computer, where’s the tinkering fun in that once it’s done and your computer(s) running your computer(s) can run your life and do all the tinkering for you?

A couple of pieces caught my eye recently that, to my mind at least, point out some of the conflicted thinking. When you have a headline that reads The A.I. Disruption Is Here, and It’s Not Terrible, I’m not sure it bodes well. Then there’s We’re Not Just Receiving AI’s Hallucinations, We’re Hallucinating With It. Brings back whiffs of those early days of legalized pot.

But then I followed Steve Troughton-Smith’s thread on Mastodon where he used AI agents to port an iOS app to Android. There’s certainly utility there.

All kinds of issues from the ethical to the environmental remain and need to be sussed out, but I’m thinking this trend is accelerating faster than might be humanely possible to keep track of. Perhaps a series of AI agents could do that work. It’s funny to think that.

I certainly doubt anyone would be satisfied with that. But this rising trend has accelerated in an era where facts matter less than who has the louder narrative of the moment. I think it is telling though that Peter Steinberger, the developer who came up with the AI thing of the moment, OpenClaw, took the money and sought refugee under the OpenAI umbrella. I guess that’s one way to avoid any liability if his lobster bytes do some serious damage down the road.

Frankly, I’m disappointed that this has all morphed so quickly from a tinkerer’s technology trend into one that now seems to control too much of the world’s current and future economy, not to mention all of the other areas of life, business and government that everyone seems in such a rush to insert it into.

AI is certainly not vaporware. It may be on a fast rising trend, but it appears it’s one that will stick in some form or fashion. All trends are eventually defined by lines. They don’t spike up forever. Until some AI agent computes a way to avoid a dip in trend lines that no human has yet to figure out.

(Photo from Rubén Bagűés on Unsplash)

You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above.

Meta’s Not So Smart Approach To Smart Glasses With Facial Recognition

Leave the timing to comedians

If you’re a comedian, timing is everything. But not so much if you’re SOBs who don’t give a damn about anything other than feathering your own nest at the expense of everyone else’s safety and privacy. Or if you have employees who leak memos to the press.

The New York Times has a report on Meta’s second attempt at launching facial recognition, this time with smart glasses. The idea is sketchy enough, but according to a memo that the NYT obtained Meta thinks our political and social turmoil might just provide the right timing. Here’s the money quote:

We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns

I’m not so sure civil society groups will take their eye off of the ball now, no matter how much Meta helps the administration continue to stir things up.

There are already reports of people using smart glasses photography for what sounds very much like the reason Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook as Facemash in the first place as a “hot or not” game. It doesn’t take any leap of imagination to know what kind of mischief this will cause once facial recognition is added into the mix.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says, There are Seven Billion Reasons For Facebook To Abandon Its Face Recognition.

But as we continue to see, but never learn, some prepubescent boys with toys will never grow up, always remaining prebubescent boys, even if they accumulate wealth enough to do better things.

There might be money in smart glasses, but if you ask me there might be more money in creating some sort of gadget that we can all carry or wear that blurs our faces and interferes with this kind of photography.

(Photo by Alireza heidarpour on Unsplash

AI Agents Are Writing Blogs Now

A real human works here

At some point we won’t be able to tell what’s what or who’s who.

A graphic of Moltbook, the website for Ai Agents

You can argue we’ve reached that point in real life given the propensity to push lie upon lie for political and economic gain. You can also argue we were fast approaching that point with Artificial Intelligence and AI agents that can write poems, plays, papers, and who knows what else.

Perhaps even a blog post. (For the record, this one is written by a very real human, flaws and all.)

Mark Sullivan, writing for Fast Company, tells the tale of an AI agent that autonomously wrote a blog post attacking a human for not allowing it to release some code.

Matplotlib, a popular Python plotting library with roughly 130 million monthly downloads, doesn’t allow AI agents to submit code. So Scott Shambaugh, a volunteer maintainer (like a curator for a repository of computer code) for Matplotlib, rejected and closed a routine code submission from the AI agent, called MJ Rathbun.

Here’s where it gets weird(er). MJ Rathbun, an agent built using the buzzy agent platform OpenClaw, responded by researching Shambaugh’s coding history and personal information, then publishing a blog post accusing him of discrimination.

Here’s a link to the AI agent’s blog.

Here’s a link to Scott Shambaugh’s post about it called An AI Agent Published A Hit Piece On Me.

On the one hand, the situation is comical. On the other, it just continues to be a large slap upside all of our heads, begging us to wake up and asking us just what the hell we are doing?

More Thoughts On iOS 26’s iPhone App Changes

Still very much a work in progress

Back last fall I wrote about the changes Apple made to the iPhone’s Phone app in iOS 26. I thought they were both helpful and confusing. I followed that up a month or so later suggesting that smartphone makers needed to make delete and report spam buttons more of a priority.

New Shareshot.

I still maintain the points I made in both of those posts, but here are some more thoughts after having used the Phone app since.

Regarding the Hold Assist Detection feature what I said earlier very much still applies.

It makes me think that the designers of this feature have never used the Phone app to call a pharmacy or a doctor’s office where the person answering the phone is so busy that when they answer they speak so fast that you can’t understand what they’re saying. In my experiences attempting to use this feature in cases like those, the person on the other end just hangs up and I have to make the call again.

Recently I spoke with a receptionist at one of my medical providers about this feature and her response I sums that up well from the other end of the line. Simply put she said, “I have no time for such nonsense.”

She said essentially the same thing about the Screen Unknown Callers feature that allows the call recipient to see who is calling or leaving a voicemail. As I previously mentioned I have the Ask Reason for Calling option selected. Early on there were a few callers that actually left a voicemail, but that seems to have diminished over time. My speculation is that those doing the calling have caught on and just continue down their call lists. With this same medical provider I missed several calls because she was using a different number assigned by their phone system than I had placed in my contacts and the call logged as Unknown.

As to making spam reporting a more prominent UI feature not buried under a series of menus and taps, if Apple (and others) were really serious about making life easier for their users they’d add a Delete and/or a Delete and Report Spam option to the notification of a call. I mentioned in that earlier post that this Call Filtering feature would probably lead to a whack-a-mole game with spam callers. Based on the increasing frequency of spam calls I’m receiving I think the spammers are currently on a trajectory to win that game.

I still don’t know why all phone calls I receive, welcome or unwelcome, are listed as a Priority Notification. Since last autumn I’ve changed my lazy habits with contacts and been diligent about providing good contact metadata for doctors and others I do business or social interactions with. At that point that appeared to be the best way to try and take advantage of the newer features. But honestly I don’t think it matters much at this point based on what I’m seeing.

I support several elderly relatives who use their iPhones for basic needs, communication being the primary one. Having had a chance over the holidays to physically examine their devices, I noticed little usage of the delete function in the Unknown Call Callers section of the Missed Calls list. There were long lists of unknown callers. I imagine at some point we’ll see articles on how to clean up those lists.

In summary, I’d say the new Phone app features are still helpful and still confusing. Like everything else with Apple these days they should be categorized as a work in progress. Here’s hoping we won’t be on hold too long before we see progress happen.

Watching Others On The Digital Frontier

Lobsters, doctors, and spreadsheets

At one point space was the familiar final frontier. Even with talk of putting data centers in space, I dare say we’ve moved the concept of frontier closer to terra forma and set aside the “final.” Frontiers require explorers who are willing to accept risks, pushing beyond them to discover if there’s any there there. Maybe we’re in the moment of redefining “there.”

Shutterstock 2698519847.

I’ve been curiously watching recent developments on the frontiers of Artificial Intelligence around what was launched as Clawdbot, then became Moltbot, and molted into OpenClaw. At least I think that’s what it is still called as of this writing.

For those unfamiliar, essentially OpenClaw is an AI agent created by software engineer Peter Steinberger, that receives instructions from the user in a chat. Running locally on your computer it then connects to other AI sources and web based apps you give it permission to access. It performs those tasks and actions. Mike Elgan has a good rundown on the (brief) history and the ins and outs. I encourage you to read it.

Both fascinating and frightening, OpenClaw seems to have taken on a life of its own without any regard for guardrails. After Federico Viticci wrote an early post about what was Clawdbot at the time, interest shot through the roof, reminding me quite a bit of the furor over the still recent launch of ChatGPT and just about any other big computing innovation we’ve seen.

Quite a few jumped in with both feet to test the waters. Alongside of all of the splashing around came upfront real warnings that this thing was not secure. That proved to be even less effective than signs telling you not to run around the pool. Viticci mentioned that given security concerns the project was not really ready for everyday users, and recommended that those interested install it on a second computer, not their main one. Apparently there was even a run on Mac minis.

The promise seemed clear and the hype leapt into hyperspace. OpenClaw would become the user’s personal assistant doing whatever was required. That’s been the as yet unrealized promise so far in all of these AI adventures.

The moment continued to evolve to a point that there’s even a social network called Moltbook where these AI bots could talk with each other. (Sounds like Mark Zuckerberg’s dream.) Mathew Ingram writes about that here, linking to Simon Willison’s post Moltbook Is The Most Interesting Place On The Internet Right Now.

At the time of Mathew’s post there were 1.6 million agents participating. Not to spoil his article, which you should read, there is some doubt as to whether or not there are humans doing mischievous human things behind the scenes. (Again, sounds like Zuckerberg’s dream.)

Casey Newton gave it a try. Still Moltbot at the time of his writing, he fell in love and out again, eventually uninstalling the software saying that “maybe someday you’ll have a genie in your laptop working for you 24/7. Today is not that day.”

That reminded me of all of the users who said that ChatGPT would replace Google for all of their search needs in that first explosive week. It appears that though the excitement and hype is still boiling hot, not everyone is ready to be the chef that tosses the lobster in the pot.

On other fronts

Before all of the OpenClaw news became the main course of the moment there was another very interesting AI story that caught my attention.

Since January 7th, Apple Health users have been able to connect ChatGPT to Apple Health. Geoffrey Fowler gave it a try.

Like many people who strap on an Apple Watch every day, I’ve long wondered what a decade of that data might reveal about me. So I joined a brief wait list and gave ChatGPT access to the 29 million steps and 6 million heartbeat measurements stored in my Apple Health app. Then I asked the bot to grade my cardiac health.

It gave me an F.

I freaked out and went for a run. Then I sent ChatGPT’s report to my actual doctor.

The good news is Fowler was OK and his doctors told him to relax. The concerning news is that one of the promises of AI is that it would help with medical diagnosis and be a boon to patients and doctors alike.

Now, certainly Fowler’s experiment is different than what may happen under stricter supervision and stringent testing. And, as he points out, OpenAI and Anthropic say their digital doctor bots can’t replace the real thing and provide big bold disclaimers.

Fowler’s experiments didn’t stop short with his artificially intelligent failing grade. You should read the article to see how the adventures continued. Suffice it to say, the conclusions (not just the medical ones) currently leave much to be desired.

Then this morning I stumbled across this article from Om Malik called How AI Goes To Work. It’s a great story about how one user found a way to solve a problem he has with spreadsheets using AI. It also provides some great tech history context and leads to an opinion I share about where we are today:

My simpler explanation of “embedded intelligence” to myself makes me step away from the headlines and look at the present and the future in more realistic terms. My bet is that in five years, it will all be very different anyway. It always is. I am a believer in the power of silicon. When we have newer, more capable silicon, and more networks, we will end up with ever more capable computers in our hands. And the future will change.

For now, what I call embedded intelligence is a sensible on-ramp to the future. The hype may be about the frontier models. The disruption really is in the workflow.

As I said, I concur with that opinion and it colors all of my current observations of the AI landscape. Be curious and become informed. I go further and say I’m comfortable letting others take the first leap.

I don’t think there’s any denying that most of us would enjoy living in a world when we could sit down with our computing devices, talk to a pendant, or even the air around us, (anything without the name Siri preferably), wish the world a good morning, and have it spit out not only our tasks for the day but do many of those for us. Folks of my generation grew up on Star Trek and other science fiction where this seemed common place. So too, did the problems and catastrophes when circuits got crossed or corrupted.

So, it’s a new frontier. Maybe the final one. Maybe not. But at the moment, we’re still just humans crossing into it. Forget what the bots may eventually do to us. I think I’m more concerned about the humans.

(image from kentoh on Shutterstock)

The Power Users Have With Subscriptions

Unsubscribing is a vote

I was not a fan of app subscriptions initially. I long ago rethought my position. I continue to think it’s the best option for users. That belief is becoming more entrenched now that we’re entering into whatever the future will be with Artificial Intelligence and it takes constant cash to continue to burn the planet.

Apple Creator Studio hero_571x321.jpg.large.

Whether it’s this week’s flavor of AI chatbots, Apple’s new Creator Studio, or any other new app or service, most now require a subscription to take advantage of new features as they roll out. In most cases the offer is pay $XX a month or $XX a year, with the yearly price being discounted by the cost of a month or more. Even so, we’re already seeing premium subscriptions that add on costs for more features and I think that trend will only accelerate. Welcome to the land of upsell.

Although much less than I used to, I will subscribe to a new app or service that attracts my interest for a month to check it out. I’ll set a reminder a few days before the end of the month and then take a little inventory to see if it’s worth continuing. If not, I’ll unsubscribe.

If the app or service is truly worth my while I may subscribe for the yearly price after determining it’s something I value, but that’s becoming rarer. Frankly, there just aren’t many new apps and services that seem worth even a monthly try out these days, much less paying for a yearly subscription. There have been a few apps that, although they didn’t really fit my needs, I have paid for a yearly subscription to support the developer. But that’s even rarer.

In those cases with apps, newsletters and other services, I think of those more as tips or a donation than I do entering into an ongoing relationship. I’ve even subscribed on occasion and immediately canceled with just that thought in mind. I’m all for supporting good work by good people. I admit it’s a bit unfair to a good app that doesn’t fit my needs, but it’s still a signal that I think is worth sending.

Here’s the key. Large companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc…) and independent developers, writers, etc, notice when the turnstile rotates in reverse because someone unsubscribes. It’s a metric they pay attention to. They count on inertia and waning attention spans. You might think they don’t notice, but they do. As a user I look at unsubscribing as my vote up or down. Again, maybe unfair, but as I said, it’s a signal worth sending.

With the recent release of Apple’s Creator Studio suite of apps I found it remarkable that much of the commentary included mentions that users could try things out and turn off the subscription payments if they didn’t find things suitable for their purposes. Or, if they needed one of the apps for a short project that they could check in and out of the bundle for the duration of the project. I highly recommend that kind of thinking.

For what it’s worth I chose not to subscribe and try out the new Creator Studio. I thought about it, but have long since discovered other tools that fit what I might need from those apps.

In this hyper political age, we talk a lot about voting. That’s always a choice. Using the choice to subscribe and unsubscribe from apps and services can be one as well.

Matt Gemmell on “The Fallen Apple”

Dissatisfaction with the familiar breeds contempt

Matt Gemmell begins with an understatement. “It’s a troubling time to be a long-term Apple customer.” It doesn’t get any easier to read after that. Nor should it.

Shutterstock 1478322374.

Like many Apple users these days, including myself, Matt is expressing his dissatisfaction with Tim Cook’s Apple. Misery loves company. So does commiseration. The Fallen Apple is a powerful read, and I suggest you do so.

Yes, he points to Cook’s knee-bending and kowtowing that betrays much of the carefully cultivated culture Apple spent untold sums creating over the years, now tossed aside like a decaying FineWoven iPhone case. Perhaps with a sparing nod to rationality Gemmell calls it an act of “corporate sacrifice.”

But this paragraph is particularly damning:

I sometimes think about the full-page, black-background Steve Jobs memorial on the Apple site, with the list of tributes you could send submissions for. Then I try to imagine the same thing for Cook, and I find that it only cheapens the original. The Tim Cook of the Trump era is the erasure of a man who previously could do little wrong, but I think that ultimately it has also laid bare a person whose goals and even motives are as far from Apple’s erstwhile values as it’s possible to be. While Jobs gets to be remembered with artful aphorisms and elaborate hagiographies, surely Cook’s epitaph must be something along the lines of “another record quarter”.

Corporate rationality, like it or leave it, is often as distasteful as it is easy to comprehend. But in my view it requires the wrong kind of different thinking when you’ve built a company on creating an emotional connection with your users.

One thing leads to another. Gemmell points not just to the cultural upheaval and downward spiral, but also to a future that appears uncertain. As he puts it, “More perniciously, Apple is also hemorrhaging people and knowledge.” It makes one wonder if Apple University is still in existence. If so, what exactly are they teaching these days?

But, and to the larger point, he correctly states Apple isn’t hemorrhaging profit.

I hope very much to be wrong, but I fear that Apple’s skyrocketing revenue masks a steep institutional decline that is already well underway, propelled by the fact that success itself, improperly managed, is a poison.

It must be something for folks like Cook, Trump, Musk, etc… to sit atop such vast piles of money, knowing how much dislike and distaste they engender and how it undermines the thrones they cling to. Apples ripen and fall. Unless they are harvested. Either way, there’s an end.

Read the rest here.

(image from Johann Lensless on Shutterstock

Promises, Promises

Harold Hill never had such easy marks

Years ago when I ran professional theatres my principal responsibility was picking a season of plays and/or musicals, then pulling things together to actually produce that season. Planning was based on quite a few variables and data, but you never knew how things were actually going to play out in the end. Show business can be cruel.

The Music Man There were always surprises. Some good and some bad. Some shows would become surprise runaway hits, others that seemed like sure things would flop. Lose a weekend due to a snowstorm and the bottom line got hit hard.

Of course the choice of plays was always the key variable. I remember sitting in a particularly contentious board of directors meeting as we were nearing a season announcement and a board member was pushing back hard on our revenue and expense projections for what we had planned. He pounded the table and asked, “How can you know what will sell tickets a year from now?” I told him I could project, but I couldn’t know and that I always went into each season saying that if we succeeded as much as .300 hitters in baseball we’d be superstars.

Well, we weren’t baseball players, but we still usually came out ahead of the game with more hits some seasons than others. We held our own. The not-for-profit theatre version of the game I was playing relied on picking and announcing a season a year or so in advance. You’d promote and sell that season to subscribers to accumulate cash and support up front, and then once you were in the season proper you’d push hard for single ticket sales and then after they got a taste, try to convert them into subscribers, then donors.

It was always risky, just like many business propositions. I remember asking that same board member if his business would be comfortable announcing his plans and projecting sales a year in advance knowing all of the risks. It was a rhetorical question on my part because I knew his business couldn’t operate that way. Most can’t.

The entire thing was based initially on a promise, and each new season announcement was a new promise. Each time you delivered a promised season the theatre built or kept trust with that subscriber base. That loyal base would resubscribe based on that trust. Those customers knew there may be a play or two in the season they didn’t care for, but they came back season after season based on the quality of what we offered, and also that we delivered on what we initially sold and promoted.

As an artistic director (CEO) I was the one who was responsible for that trust and never took that responsibility lightly. Yes, there were times we had to change our plans, but the trust engendered along the way helped weather those moments as long as we were honest with our customers and donors.

The above is a long wind up to something I’ve been thinking about lately and spurred by an article I saw on Elon Musk’s latest promises about delivering robots “next year.”

No one thinks that’s real. For the life of me, I doubt he does. Given how many “promises” this guy has made and broken I don’t understand how reasonably intelligent (I assume they are reasonably intelligent) reporters and investors don’t just burst out laughing when the next one self-drives out of the empty garage that is his mouth. But then again, everyone is in on the con.

Musk isn’t alone these days when it comes to talking out of more orifices than human anatomy provides. Our politicians do it. Relentlessly. As do Tech and other corporate CEOs. The politicians you can almost understand because they are allowed to say whatever the hell they want under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, granting them immunity for anything they say while doing their legislative duties. Unfortunately that seems to have spread a bit outside of the original boundaries through various court rulings and a willingness to boldly and brazenly lie at the drop of a hat.

But CEOs are supposed to be under more scrutiny. From their shareholders. From various regulatory agencies. And yet, those like Musk and many of the Artificial Intelligence promoters seem to be able to promise the Moon (or Mars) without ever delivering.

As I said earlier, at some point you’d think intelligent folks would catch on and actually run these Harold Hills out of town, instead of allowing them to continue courting the librarians they want to take jobs away from. If the regulators aren’t regulating and the shareholders keep writing checks I guess those of us watching shouldn’t care if they all end up playing air trombones. (Bonus points for those who get The Music Man references.)

There’s a truism in my business that nobody ever starts out to do a bad show. Yet, some shows flop. I used to believe that no one ever started a business to be a bust. But the flimflammery we’re seeing these days makes me wonder. As long as you can continue to fleece the flock along the way, does it really matter if you ultimately succeed in producing what you promised as long as you score along the way?

Set aside for the moment that anything, well intentioned or not, can fail. But after delivering a string of broken promises you’d think there’d be enough erosion of trust that only fools would continue to pony up their money. Perhaps I’ve just underestimated the number of fools.

My business was disposable. Technology isn’t. Essential as the arts are to our collective humanity, the arts are always the first to feel financial hits in tough times, and generally the last to recover. Technology keeps playing an increasing role in all of our lives and is becoming dangerously essential. Lord help us if an EMP ever goes off. Watching this new rush into the a world of Artificial Intelligence it’s frightening to contemplate even a small portion of what the promises offer, even as some have already collapsed under their own weight. It’s even more challenging to contemplate what the remaining ones might actually turn into.

It’s one thing to run a smartphone on a beta OS. It’s another when it runs your life for you.

Frankly, I don’t buy all of the promises. The ones that I think offer possible benefits I’m skeptical about. And that’s because I don’t trust the folks offering the promises, the folks funding them, or those rushing to implement them. They’ve all had their chance to earn my trust. There are very few remaining that haven’t squandered it.

Tim Cook Captured, Trapped, and Caged

Tough to be a performing monkey in a cage

Om Malik has a great piece about Tim Cook and Apple’s current fail mode when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration called A CEO, Captured. M.G. Siegler sees Cook as trapped in his post Aside From That Mr. Cook, What Did You Think of the Movie?

Artem bryzgalov DaC_1AZEscY unsplash.

If you haven’t been paying attention, Cook has indeed seemingly been captured by his efforts to hang onto Apple’s success in the face of the Trump administration’s intent to drag everyone into his ever increasing cesspool view of the world. Attending the premiere of the Amazon produced film Melania on the night that Alex Pretti was murdered in Minneapolis is just the latest in a series of what can politely be called missteps by Cook, but in my view more appropriately called sucking up out of naked and unabashed fear.

Cook, hearing the large number of complaints about his latest knee bending issued a memo to Apple employees expressing his heartbreak over the events in Minneapolis and notes that he had a good conversation with the president about trying to deescalate the situation. From the reactions I’ve seen nobody is buying it. Issuing memos designed to be leaked is another cowardly PR move, certainly from a company once admired for its supposed civic conscience.

Sure, corporations are corporations and do what they need to do to protect their market share and shareholders. You can make that argument with assurance until the MBAs are all penned up in the same pasture. But when you’ve built much of your success by heavily marketing civic engagement, and I dare say a civic conscience, it becomes not just a dent in that hard earned reputation, but a tougher row to hoe going forward. But we are living in the age of melting myths and laughing at legends.

Malik posits:

When your company is worth more than most nations, you cannot afford principles that inconvenience presidents. The moral equation changes. What once seemed unthinkable becomes necessary. Cook learned this the hard way after he skipped a presidential photo op and was thrown back under the tariff bus. So now he shows up. He sits in the front row. He claps when expected. This is what happens when valuation becomes destiny.

Siegler says Cook should have pulled out of the event and “has lost his way,” and probably should wait out Trump or the GOPs defeats before passing on his dimmed torch.

I don’t disagree with Malik or Siegler. But if you carry the captured analogy further it makes one wonder if reaching the top doesn’t just turn you into just another zoo animal behind bars.

I wonder if they teach that in business school.Photo by Artem Bryzgalov on Unsplash

Sunday Morning Reading

Thoughts tumble down on a chilling weekend

I’m going to avoid the horrific news that continues out of Minneapolis (and the rest of the U.S.) for this week’s Sunday Morning Reading. But, then I guess I didn’t avoid it by saying that. Think of it as a wound too sore to touch rather than avoiding. Anyway, onto this week’s sharing.

Aga putra P_p4NGz5Cb4 unsplash 1.

I’m going to kick this off with a blog post from Mathew Ingram called Why Blogging Is Better Than Social Media. Title says a lot of what I believe. I wish more believed it also.

I love watching those younger than I live the same lives, fears, and joys I did. Nothing ever changes. But it’s always entertaining and worth reflection. Check out Alex Baia’s I Thought I Would Have Accomplished A Lot More Today And Also By The Time I was Thirty-Five.

Gray Miller suggests You Should Put A Codex In Your Pocket Instead Of Your Phone. If you don’t know what a Codex is, read the piece.

Cory Doctorow in The Guardian says AI Companies Will Fail. We Can Salvage Something From the Wreckage. Salvaging things from wreckage is what we do. Avoid wrecking things not so much.

Speaking of wreckage, AI-Powered Disinformation Swarms Are Coming For Democracy says David Gilbert.

Follow that up with Brynn Tannehill’s piece ‘Trump Has Already Rigged The 2028 Presidential Election’: Us Defense Insider. You didn’t need AI to tell you that. Or insiders. All you had to do was pay attention.

We do seem to like and be drawn to adversity like so many moths. Funny how we know what happens to moths that fly too close, yet can’t predict own fate when we do the same. But if we break that cycle, there wouldn’t be anything to salvage. David Toddy McCarty says We Like It Hard.

Aaron Vegh blogs A Canadian’s Call To Arms, Being Totally Pissed Off At The State Of Computing In The 21st Century. I don’t think the Canadians are alone in their feelings. I know a number of Americans are as well.

I said I would stay away from this weekend’s events. I lied. Sota. Kinda. I admire those like Dan Sinker who are finding ways to do what they feel can in the face of this adversity. Check out his piece We Are All We Have.

(Image from Aga Putra on Unsplash

If you’re interested in just what the heck Sunday Morning Reading is all about you can read more about the origins of Sunday Morning Reading here. If you’d like more click on the Sunday Morning Reading link in the category column to check out what’s been shared on Sunday’s past. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome.