mm@C4logo2by @anarchyroll
9/23/2014

Every year that passes, it seems a larger and larger percentage of the population is looking to avoid talking on the phone as much as possible. The explosive popularity of text messages a decade ago was apparently just the beginning. Services like Grub Hub and Uber have become darlings of the sharing economy based on the ability of their service to purchase goods and services via a smart phone without having to speak or even type to any direct person.

Enter Tinder, which takes the zero direct communication paradigm of securing goods and services to the dating/romance aspect of the human experience for those affluent enough to afford a smart phone and data package. You know you’re talking to an old person if they don’t know what Tinder is and/or don’t understand how to use it. Is it real? Is it a game? Yes and kinda are the answers to those questions.

Some excellent pieces on Tinder have been written recently covering Tinder’s effects on marriages and on how the service reveals the hidden nature of mate selection in the modern world.

What is Tinder? It is truly the first online dating service made for the smart phone app era of technology users/consumers. Tinder technically has a website which is just an ad/reminder to download the application. If you have a smart phone and are single, there is no reason to not utilize Tinder, unless you don’t have a Facebook account. A Facebook account is necessary to set up a Tinder profile. This is where the service carved its niche. Tinder farms the aspects of matching out to Facebook. People are matched based on Facebook likes (music, movies, tv shows, fan pages, etc) and/or mutual friends. People can be matched without these commonalities, Facebook is used as a defacto identity verification service.

What is Tinder’s value?

The shallow joke is easy, instant access to a one night stand. Tinder has made its name on facilitating hook ups. The New York Times has written multiple articles on Tinder writing under the assumption the app is strictly or at least predominately THE hook up dating app. Naturally the college kids love them some Tinder.

But in all seriousness, Tinder provides great value to single people. How? It provides instant evidence you are not alone. Whether young or old, in a city or suburb, Tinder will pull up dozens of single people near you. Tinder is empirical proof that there are indeed plenty of fish in the sea.

Tinder is not just for young people who are considering classically or stereotypically attractive. The hook up only aspect of the app has already been faded for almost a full year. Asking if people hook up using Tinder is like asking if the one night stand still exists. Consenting adults will do whatever consenting adults want to do when they are single and attracted to someone they have recently met and have begun spending time with.

Tinder’s purpose is to show you have options. That even in far off suburbs there are lots of single people around you and in cities there are even more. People who don’t like the bar/club scene have a free option of meeting people at their fingertips. People who don’t use gyms, grocery stores, yoga studios, and college campuses at meet markets have a free option to meet people they know are single and have been independently verified to be interested in them. Tinder’s value is in removing the question in one’s head “I wonder if he/she is interested in me or not”. If they’re not, nothing happens, if they are, you’re matched up and you both receive notifications on your phones.

It seems more and more people are becoming increasingly afraid of direct communication and rejection. Tinder kills both of those birds with one app. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to try to pay off a zoo employee to let me take a selfie with a tiger.

 

 

 

by @anarchyroll
9/22/2014

Priorities can be hard to prioritize. In a world where there are multiple wars, Ebola outbreaks, wildfires, droughts, massive political corruption, famine, floods etc; celebrity gossip, cat videos, memes, and ironic gifs rule the media and our attention spans. More people vote for reality television talent competitions than in elections. So it is with the utmost pleasant surprise to find that America has tangibly and measurably decided that the future of net neutrality is more important than a female pop singer exposing her nipple at a football game.

Remember Nipplegate? If you don’t, you’re lucky or young or both. Well up until this month, that issue was the event that the FCC received the most complaints about in their history. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson decided that a Sunday evening musical performance during halftime at the most watched television event in history (at the time) was a good time to expose one of Jackson’s nipples covered in a silver pasty. Middle America freaked out and a wrath of censorship followed. One of the many side effects of this was Howard Stern moving to satellite radio.

Well move over ten-year old musical performance, because something that actually matters has taken your place at the top of the heap!  The future of net neutrality, which literally will affect every person in America who uses the internet, is now the most commented topic in the history of the Federal Communications Commission.

The people have spoken, the 99% wants the open internet to remain as is. It is positively refreshing to see so many people speak up and speak out about something of such grave importance. Remember just because many people use the internet to fuel procrastination, narcissism, and vices doesn’t mean those are the only uses for the internet. The open internet is vitally important to the present and future of our society and culture.

What will the FCC do now that the people of spoken? Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon are hoping to use lobbying based leverage to gain complete control over the world wide web. This issue is a true litmus test between who has more power in the world going forward; the 1% or the 99%. Whichever way the FCC ends up going, whether people know it or not, we all have a horse in this race.

frackishimalogo1

by @anarchyroll
9/21/2014

The #PeoplesClimate marches/rallies that occurred across the globe are a great representation of the good news/bad news holding pattern that pro environment supporters have been stuck in for decades. The good news is the #PeoplesClimate was so big, involving so many people, in so many of the world’s biggest cities that it literally could not be ignored by the press or anyone on the internet on 9/21/2014. The bad news is that tangible, global, legislative action is unlikely to occur for at least another full year.

This good news/bad news paradigm has most recently been demonstrated in regards to the two most talked about environment issues of the last quarter century; the ozone layer and the deforestation of the Amazon.

The good news is that scientists have discovered that the ozone layer is starting to heal. How awesome! Certainly no negative spin to put on this story. Since the 1970s attention has been brought to this issue in hopes of reversing the now notorious hole in the ozone layer that has been a direct contributor to global warming and rising skin cancer rates.

Ready for the bad news?

The Amazon rainforest is getting slashed and burned at a 30% increase. Deforestation is right there with industrial pollution as the greatest causes of global warming and climate change. We need rainforests to sustain the planet, but captains of industry seem to think we need grazing land for cattle and industrial logging more.

Good news, bad news unfortunately isn’t going to cut it, why? Because we are playing from behind. Pro environmentalists can’t keep scoring field goals while polluters and deforestrers are scoring touchdowns. It’s great that more people are aware of the negative effects of climate change, the fact that it’s man-made, and we must do something to reverse it. The problem is that this has happened because the negative effects of climate change are being felt more and more every single day. We have let so much wrong get done that the Earth is irreversibly changing all around us quicker, in real-time. It’s great to have good news to report but wildfires, droughts, and other natural disaster devastation is only going up. Is it too late? The good news is that in this fight, there is literally no reason to quit, because there is nothing else as worthy of fighting for as the future of the planet we inhabit.

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
9/4/2014

Transformers fans and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fans now have something in common.

No, a long anti Michael Bay rant is not forthcoming. When a person sees his name attached to a film and Megan Fox as the lead actress, one must know what they are getting before they buy their ticket. I grew up on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I was completely unaware of their comic book, alien origin story until a year ago. I knew only of the turtles in the cartoons and live action movies 80s/90s.

My favorite Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, is Casey Jones. I was very disappointed to not see him in the movie at all. The camera time and character focus that could have been given to a Casey Jones was instead given to Will Arnett, cast as a comic relief sidekick for April O’Neil. As a fan of Arrested Development, I’m only half complaining. Half complaining is really all I can really do with this movie. There is enough good to at the very least balance out the bad, if not outweigh the bad.

The Good

  • The spirit/personality of all four turtles was unchanged
  • The look of each turtles was modified to make each look unique rather than the same with different colored bandanas
  • The Foot Clan use guns instead of swords which makes more sense in 2014 NYC
  • The jokes are funny
  • The action scenes are good

The Bad

  • The origin of the turtles and overall plot is basically the same as the recent Amazing Spider Man films
  • Too much Megan Fox for the first hour of the film (was to be expected)
  • No Kraang, Bebop, Rocksteady, Rat King, Baxter Stockman, or any other villains/henchmen
  • Tatsu was cast as a woman who did nothing of importance or impact at any point in the movie

Those who saw the movie may be wondering why I’m not complaining about the Iron Man esque Shredder. If I didn’t have a Shredder action figure from the 90s that basically looked just like the movie’s incarnation, it would have been at the top of my list. Also, the case can be made they just skipped right to Super Shredder, also no complaints there. Even the obligatory, unnecessary Michael Bay explosion just before the closing credits made me chuckle rather than shake my head.

I am happy that the movie made enough money to already warrant a sequel getting an immediate green light. Hopefully we’ll get to see some of the characters listed above who were missing in action this time around. 

The bottom line is this; if you didn’t grow up watching the cartoons and/or playing the video games in the 90s or 00s, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie.

by @anarchyroll
9/3/2014

The war for the future of the internet is being waged now, in real-time by lobbyists of the big US Telcom companies.

If this were a court case, then apparently the people who don’t work for Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon would be represented by Netflix.

Now of course Netflix is publicly and privately battling the nation’s broadband providers for their own personal gain as well. There is no such thing as a free lunch after all, especially when millions, upon billions of dollars are involved.

However, Netflix has now officially earned some benefit of the doubt for reasons other than how good House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are. Netflix has taken three public steps that directly help the consumers:

  1. Opposing the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner
  2. Lobbying to maintain Net Neutrality
  3. Campaigning for Municipal Broadband

Netflix may be looking out for its own bottom line. But each stance that they have publicly come out in favor of or against directly benefits working class people who use the internet. Coming out against the proposed merger which would create a broadband monopoly, is a good thing for consumers. Drawing attention to net neutrality is good for consumers. Encouraging the development of municipal broadband is good for consumers.

In the fight against the billion dollar companies who want complete control of the internet, the common people need someone with deep pockets in our corner. Netflix has repeatedly stepped up to the plate publicly this year alone. They’re not a non-profit or NGO. But when billion dollar corporations are doing everything they can to reduce choice and increase cost to access the information superhighway, we the consumers will take help anywhere we can get it. I for one, will take the million dollar company that brought Arrested Development back, in my corner any day of the week.