We see the same stupid, greed-head, get my boat this quarter thinking, repeated in variations.

EARLY .COM

It’s the clicks, that’s where the money is. Count the clicks. We have more clicks. Charge more for ads. Run ads about clicks.

LATER…

It’s the links, that’s where the money is. More links to your links. We have more links. Charge more for ads. Run ads about links.

STILL LATER…

It’s the likes and the boosts, that’s where the money is. Count the likes and the boosts. We have more. Charge more for ads. Run ads about who likes who and who boosts who.

LATELY…

Maybe ai could click things, and link things, and like things, and boost things for us. Then people can vote on how good of a job the ai are doing, clicking and linking and liking and boosting. That’s where the money is. Charge more for ads. Ads about which are the best ais!

I think the reason so many of us in the language business are rightly worried about fAI (fake AI, aka Language Thingies) is because they can replace us. Not you, you’re special, but all those other talentless jokers—where’s that fork, cuz they’re done.

I do take some solace in the fact that this infatuation with fAI productivity will generate an information landscape with ever increasing amounts of bullshit. This will promote EVERYONE to the role of Quality Assurance Analyst in some sense, whether they want to be one or not. And with that promotion comes all the demands of resilience to tedium and arcane expertise that the role requires. Which will be discovered to be more difficult to fake than many had assumed. And so a new value proposition comes into view: “Can you tell me if that is worth the time?” rather than “Can you write something that is worth the time?”. Essentially, an editor, rather than a writer; oh, and a relevance ninja, and a fact ax, and…

If you must establish the contra-position, that you are in fact an invested sports buff, simply claim “If more of you understood the icing rule, we would all be better off!” with enough confidence to keep everyone nodding rather than asking what the hell you mean.

Nothing says 70’s movie like a P.E. teacher smoking, except everything else in Carrie. I forgot the opening titles are essentially soft-porn—but no surprise, considering the 70’s, even cinema, was pretty gritty. The real horror? Remove her telekinetic powers and now it’s a Dateline episode.

❡ One last thing on Carrie - thinking that telekinetic power is actually a manifestation of satan’s power is a common mistake, just read the papers! Which makes the smoking gym teacher the real culprit here in my book—perhaps apart from DePalma’s sweaty lens. ← snuck a zinger in!

Well…sure, you can take an umbrella into the shower with you, but…uh…maybe explain again what you mean by dry?

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot just to prove them wrong about the gun being loaded.

Tottenham’s doing a great job watching Liverpool play.
There’s a case of premature flippant dismissal, even when technically true in the end.

Oysters and champagne taste better than mac n’ cheese and flavor-aid, sure—unless one is actually hungry, and then it doesn’t matter, one eats. And if you think about it, if one actually isn’t hungry, well then, how can it really matter what one is eating, taste being what it is? ❡ As a sidenote I should point out that although I don’t care for flavor-aid, mac n’ cheese is quite delectable. Oysters and champagne, however, is like having someone’s expensive cold as an appetizer.

Here’s another questionable framework with a lot of cultural clout, although it does not yet have a catch phrase.

The rich have and enjoy what the middle class wants and works for while the poor envy and hate them.

It almost exceeds grammatical physics to fit that much bullshit into one sentence. Yet, look underneath so many messages for this meta message, and you will find it.