Image source: amazon.com

Blog is back, still not exactly right, but at least, the layout isn’t the default.

I went to hear Ed Lin read his new novel “This is a Bust” at the Asia Society. I got stuck at work and came a little late, in the middle of the introduction, which means I missed the photo op. The novel is about a Chinese American cop who works a beat in Chinatown in the 70s. The book is pure pulp genre crime fiction.

I bought a copy, but wished there was an audio book read by Lin. He did a good job reading, giving different voices to the various characters, which was unusual and fun. When I was getting my book signed I thought about telling him, he sounded like the voice actors on Cowboy Bebop, but chickened out. I’m not a big genre reader, but the setting is of interesting to me, because I’ve been visiting Chinatown for a long time, even if as an outsider.

The Q&A was so-so, as they usually are. But I did learn that he likes pulp fiction and punk rock. Great to hear him mention Hüsker Dü and the Dead Kennedys. But the highlight of the Q&A was when he recognized a MySpace friend in the audience, whom he had presumably never met in person before last night, and said, “oh are you [insert some name that starts with D]?”

It’s been quiet here, because my word press account got hacked, so I’ve been archiving, researching and upgrading. Cross your fingers, folks. Update: It just hosed my theme. I’m super depressed…

While you are waiting, check out Facebook Lexicon, which lets you search the popularity of words that appear in Facebook Walls. Here is a graph of Clinton and Obama. Many of you will know how about my feelings towards the awesomeness of word frequencies.

Image source: lunchstudio

Where to begin, let’s just clarify, that I’m a hipster. Just look at the picture of me above the text (perhaps the first one of me on this blog.) Shaved head + cardigan sweater + having lunch with friends at their Soho architecture studio + said friends whose lunch blog I appear in and just got linked to from Andrew Sullivan and Kottke = hipster. Identifying with this label may or may not actually be the sort of thing a hipster would do, although I may be getting ahead myself.

So, in order to reinstill my hipster cred, I’ll state that I don’t actively identify myself as hipsters to others (particularly strangers) unless I’m trying to demonstrate a point, as I am here. It should come to no surprise then, to hear me say that I’ve been thinking a lot about hipsters recently, maybe too much. I’ve be delaying the writing of this post, because I want to get it just right. However, I realized that it would take too long, so I decided to write it up in chunks, give up on getting it just right, and fix and adjust any conceptual mistakes as I go, (the typos are a given.)

A few weeks ago, I attended the PFSK NY conference and the “Does New York Matter” got fascinating when it reached the topic of the Hipster. The room got a little fidgety because, well, the room was full of hipsters. The discomfort was palpable, which made the situation highly amusing. The concept of the hipster and the whole conversation around it was great, because it combined identity, culture and taste. All the subjects I am going to try to write about in more depth here. I’m not going to dedicate a whole new blog to the idea, like Stuff White People Like, but I will go a little Jeff Foxworthy on you.

Posit #1: “If you say ‘I am not a hipster,’ you probably are.” (See reference to “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”)

Basically, denying that you are a hipster outs yourself as being one. In its most basic definition, a hipster is someone who consciously curates his cultural identity, from the media he consumes to how he outwardly presents himself, with an crucial notion of being outside (read: above) the mainstream.

Hipster and being “hip” is a relative designation. There will always been someone more or less interested in trendy fashion. This “hipster continuum” allows for the never failing escape of self denial of the hipster label. Someone will always be more trendy, more obsessed with a certain length and cut of denim jeans, wears a peculiar hat, and lives in the current trendy neighborhood of Brooklyn. These people are the Hipsters. “Me? I just wear what I like,” which more often than not, align with what my friends like to wear.

The need to rationalize not being a hipster is rooted in the notion that being cool needs to be effortless (or at least appear that way.) Saying that you are a hipster is being earnest, and is not effortless nor cool. The hipster ratifies her belief of being outside the mainstream, in most likelihood is true. However she, all to often, fails to recognize that she is merely rejecting one set of social and cultural (and mainstream) norms with other set of hipster norms, wherever those norms may fall on the continuum.

For all you hipster deniers that don’t believe me, go to any suburb and visit an average shopping mall or big box retailer, and who will see how much of a hipster you really are.

On a rainy Friday, here are some follow up tidbits to some previous posts that have been collecting in my mental Inbox. I think it’s a good practice to follow up on posts. In both blogging, even more importantly traditional journalism, the story after the story is too often neglected.

1. A few kind readers have asked me about the other youtube famed video, D.A.N.C.E., by French techno duo Justice. While it is a great track and video, I still like DVNO better. Superimposing motion graphics on a shirts is a brilliant idea, however the visual effects prowess of the creators overtakes the visual imagery. The viewers spends a lot of time thinking, how did they do that? and what a cool effect. DVNO required a similar level of design skill (with albeit less rotoscoping.) As stated before, in the case of DVNO, the technology is invisible and the viewer can focus on the imagery.

2. The game designer who created Passages, which I alluded to as work of interactive fiction, has created a new work called, Gravitation.

3. From March 1 to March 31, Google blog search reveals: 16,526 results for awesomenessand 706,055 results for awesome, which is lower than the results from my original post:February-2008: Awesomeness: 17,182 ; Awesome: 736,783 ; Are: 61,531,049
January-2008: Awesomeness: 9,627 ; Awesome: 429,769; Are: 57,214,958

Is the use of “awesomeness” leveling of?
I’m not sure. The results that Google is now giving me is different results for previous months when I first collected data, which is a little troubling.

However, if I really want to understand how search engines work, I may have to try to read this suggestion from Wojciech, Introduction to Information Retrieval, by Standford profressors, Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan and Hinrich Schütze.

Image source: Barron’s Online

One more note on subscription content. Last week I had the fortune of hearing some editors at Barron’s magazine speak, including managing editor, Richard Rescigno.

He noted that Barron’s main selling point is that they provide evaluations of (mostly) equities which they feel are either overvalued or undervalued. Unlike, many of their competitors, their company profiles offer an opinion to respectively sell or buy these stocks. They also publish reports cards to show readers how they are doing. Not surprisingly, their circulation is stable, and at near high levels.

Like the Economist which has been covered here, Barron’s has a subscription based business model, which is supplemented by advertising. They means they they are not as beholden to the companies who advertise on their pages, or the shifts in the media buying landscape. Paying readers get this weekly paper on Saturday. On Monday noon, they also publish their articles on the web for free, as not to take away too much on paying readers who may want to buy or sell when the markets open on Monday morning.

As newspapers and news weeklies continues to see their revenue, stock prices and staffing levels drop, my conclusion would be to aim for in depth reporting that gives an clear opinion and point of view. People will pay you for them.

Image source: Talent imitates, genius steals

Faris at Talent imitates, genius steals wrote up a great post on the Fed Ex logo, which has been one of my all time favorites for years. I’m sure we’ll familiar with it, but if you have really looked at it, please read his post. You’ll never all at it the same way again.

I am loving the DVNO video from Justice, the French techno duo. Although the retro designs invoke my humorous Gen X sensibilities, what I really love is the look and feel. The color saturation of the logos against the black background hits a sweet spot that feel very fresh today. Even with the fairly high compression of flash video on youtube, DVNO is just beautiful to watch. Part of the reason of its success is that the technology behind the effects are invisible, the video is about the logos rather that digital visual effects (even if they are employed.) So much of digital imagery is still about showing off rendering capabilities. Although the cost of video is decreasing and becoming more democratic, you still can’t discount the power of good eye and the willingness to push back against the grain of the status quo.

Image source: Wikipedia

This is going to be slightly off topic, so you’ve been warned. Carly Simon seems to be bubbling up into pop culture consciousness, even without being included on a Quentin Tarantino/ Wes Anderson film soundtrack. Her controversial “He Hit Me” she wrote that is covered by Grizzly Bear on their Friend EP and in live shows.(Please read comment thread.) On an anecdotal level, a friend, Ray, randomly mentioned that he has been into the Simon track “Why.”

A little additional internet research is showing that she is also releasing her next record on the Starbucks label, and one of her songs was featured on American Idol. I’m waiting to see if she shows up anywhere else. How are these related, if at all? Can the fluctuations of the comeback popular culture be tracked, traced, understood and gasp predicted?

All this leads up to the big question I want to ask, which has to do with her ode (dare I almost say, pre-rap battle?) to Warren Betty (or Kris Kristofferson or Mick Jagger, depending on who you ask) “Your So Vain.”

The lyrics of the accusatory chorus “you’re so vain, you think this song is about you, don’t you?” have always confused me.

um… the song IS about him, isn’t it?

Image source: Economist.com

Coming from home last Thursday, I sorted through my mail to find my copy of the Economist, one day early from its usual Friday delivery. Of course, last week’s copy has barely been opened, and now the pressure it on. I don’t often read it cover to cover, but I try to skim each section. I am a firm believer in the ideas that is always a good idea to have a vague notion of what you don’t know. But each week around Wednesday or Thursday, I get a little nervous but I know the next issue is on the way.

The Economist, as a publication itself, got some press recently. Mostly because it is one of the few news publication that is pushing for more growth, rather than shrinking, trying to grow from 700,000+ US subscribers to one million in the next five years. Jon Friedman at MarketWatch wondered out loud if they push would dumb down the coverage. I certainly hope not, an doubt that they will, unless they want to alienate their constituency, which editor-in chief, John Micklethwait, describes as “people who want an intelligent read.”

Although the wit of cover headlines and artwork is amusing, that the fact that the magazine has a distinct point of view is one of the most important aspects of the magazine and why it is successful. It has a single value proposition: The weekly magazine in depth analysis of of global news from a pro-free market perspective. How would you describe Time or Newsweek in one sentence?

The Economist provides coverage on every region, each week. (You get a steady stream of articles on the developing world, that are go beyond natural disasters and civil wars.) They stay away from celebrities, popular culture coverage, scoop driven reporting, and thankfully “best of” lists. Their unified perspective is so rigorous that they don’t provide by-lines, even to their columnists.

Fox News’ success can be similarly linked to attracted audiences, because their viewers are looking for a specific point of view. However, the Economist is able to stay above the fray of partisanship, and the criticism that is linked to it. Because the position they have taken is not directly linked to a political party, they can be more critical of both sides. One article can be pro-privatization of state owned industries and another can be pro-stem cell research at the same.

Today, “mainstream” journalism thrives for “objective” coverage, which I’m starting to feel is impossible. Balanced reporting often becomes let’s try not to upset our sources, advertisers and readers. Articles in the Economist offer opinions (which I don’t always agree with) if a policy is good or bad, as well as recommendations, and solutions to problems. Readers rarely get that in other US news publications, outside of the Op-Ed pages. Traditional news organziation, such as Time, Newsweek, but also the New York Times and the Washington Post, need to be more polemic, not less. As stated in a previous post, people will want to pay for quality content, even in the (gasp) print media format, while competing with all that “free” information.

Frank pointed out some clever research at Microsoft Research. Eric Horvitz and Jure Leskovec parsed through one month of MSN messenger communication, or about 1 billion conversations a day. Among the 240 million users, they discovered an average of 6.6 degrees of separation between any two random users. 6.6 is obviously close to the famed six degrees of separation found in Milgram’s 1967 study. Although, some debate still continues on the validity of that finding. Horvitz made the full paper available, and has really in depth analysis of the spread of MSN Messenger and the communication it facilitates. The image above shows the density of users. The numbers of user shift from high to low according to the light spectrum, with red as high and blue as low (think ROYGBIV.) Since this finding, Horvitz wonders if there is some larger phenomenon at work, with six being some natural average of social interconnectedness. More thoughts to keep me up at night.

Via (Roland Piquepaille’s Technology Trends)

Figure 1. Frequency from 2/2004 to 2/2008

Figure 2. Frequency from 4/2005 to 2/2008

Every once in a while, I get the inclination to try to do a little math. It’s a dangerous endeavor, but sometimes I can’t help myself. But before I get ahead of myself, I should give a little back ground.

Sometimes you learn a word and all of the sudden you see it everywhere. The nagging question is, was is always being used and you just glossed over it, or is there a change in the frequency of its use? You discovered the word precisely because it was starting to be used for more often.

Not too long ago, I found the word “awesomeness” entering my general vocabulary to signify great approval. Awesomeness feels fresh, a slight tweak on the new vintage “awesome” from the 80s, a personally influential era. However, in the past week, I’ve seen the word Awesomeness appear in a lot of places, from friends and strangers alike. I started thinking if the word has gaining traction in the public at large, so last weekend I started the quest to figure out ways to capture the growing use of the word.

Word frequency counts is nothing new. Media studies have been doing this type of research in newspaper and magazines for decades. However, it is becoming much more democratic, mostly because of the decreasing cost of computing and the related increase span of the web, which has been collecting data much easier. I decided to use the blogosphere because it seems like a pretty good proxy for general language usage. As well, the Google blog search feature allows you do set the dates for your search. Of course there are drawbacks to uses the word count of Goggle, including that the blogosphere is a obviously a subset of general usage and also because I have no idea how Goggle tracking and tallying the blogs it is indexing. Nevertheless, I can live with the approximation, given that the only cost for retrieving the data is bandwidth and time.

I searched for “awesome,” “awesomeness,” and “are” for each month from February 2004 to February 2008.

The word “are” was used as a control of sorts. Because the blogosphere itself it constantly growing, the number of times a word appears in a given month is expected to increase. Using an often used word such as “are” can be a proxy of the overall growth of the blogosphere. One could not expect the rate of the word “are” to fluctuate greater from month to month. Any true increase of the word usage would have to outpace the growth rate of “are.”

I also tracked the usage of the root word “awesome” for a couple of reasons. Sometimes search engines clump different variations of the same root word together in its search results. I wanted to check to see that “awesomeness” wasn’t being put together with “awesome.” The two are also an interesting comparison. If both increased at similar rates, then maybe what I am seeing is just an overall revival of 80s idioms. However, if “awesomeness” is also increasing at a great rate than “awesome” my original suspicions would be validated.

In the short time I started on this little math adventure, the word kept on appearing, and in the write up of my findings, I came across the the ultimate reference, apparently a website which declared March 10 (last week) International Day of Awesomeness.

Just looking at the words appearance in the past two full months, this is what I found:

February-2008: Awesomeness: 17,182 ; Awesome: 736,783 ; Are: 61,531,049
January-2008: Awesomeness: 9,627 ; Awesome: 429,769; Are: 57,214,958

There is clear jump in the past two months, but what does that jump mean, if the total number of blog pages continues to grow? Both Awesomeness and Awesome almost doubled as compared to Are, but how do you measure the significance of that? Graphing all the frequency of these three words against each other is hard because are orders of magnitude higher then the others. My math coach Pam (yes, I actually call her that) suggested I take the log of my data to make it more comparable. If your recall high school math, log (1,000,000) = 6, log(100,000) = 5, and log(10,000) = 4. Now, if you take the log of all your data points, the curves can fit on a single graph of manageable size. It even gets better, because it translates an exponential curve into linear curve, which makes finding the growth rate (i.e. slope of the curves, which is the rise over run of the function) much easier.

If you look at the two figures, you’ll notice an upwardly trend. There is a peculiar elbow in the spring of 2005, which could be a big spurt of growth or some aberration of Goggle’s indexing. After looking at the first graph, I decided to draw another graph to focus in other growth of all three term’s use in the past year and focus the analysis on that because I wanted to fit a linear line to the curves and removing the bend would give me a closer fit. (Is that cheating?)

I fed the curves into excel to fit linear functions, and can see that Awesomeness has a slope of 0.0003 versus Awesome which has a slope of 0.0001. This is good, because it means Awesomeness is being used at rate that is 3 time more than Awesome. However, Are (our base line) has a slope of 0.001. This is sort of bad, because 80s slang doesn’t seem to be outpacing the general growth of blogs, which I was hoping to see.

I’m not sure what to make of it, in the end. However, it does have me thinking about blogs from a higher altitude and that math is pretty awesome. Many thanks to Pam and Wojciech who gave me some good nudges. Of course, I’ll take the blame for the conclusions. I’m curious to hear what my math friends say, especially if they find mistakes in my logic. Also, it has taken me much too long to post this, which is why I’m just throwing what I have up. I’ll post any corrections later including typos.