The creator of Dilbert shares his plan on how he’s going to become emperor of the world. Strangely, he makes more sense than politicians and the pundits who follow them.





October 21st, 2006

This is weird, but intriguing. A photographer’s collection of portraits of people who look alike — but who are not related. Sort of an everyday people separated at birth project. It reminds me of this website that’s supposed to suggest what celebrity you look like. Earlier today, I pointed to an essay about a Washington Post article on “homophily” (”a somewhat grand word to describe the idea that birds of a feather flock together”). Technology makes it easier for us to find others like ourselves — even on a global scale. And while it should also help us discover those unlike ourselves, I guess it should come as no surprise that most people find it more compelling to discover and hang out with others who share their interests and points of view.

But I find it creepy that technology can also help you find other people who look like you. Frankly, I think a better use of such technology would be to help you find a a pet that looks like you.





Here are some items I would write about if it weren’t such a beautiful fall day in Nashville and my wife didn’t have a long list of things I’ve been putting off:

  • Is homophily in social software a bug or a feature?
  • the iRecord, a device that “turns your video iPod into a DVR. (Translation: DRM-free video)
  • Search Amazon.com for items Prime customers can have shipped “free.” (Translation: someone has come up with a clever way to drive traffic to their affiliate store.)
  • This NY Times article about recent latino immigrants finding long-time latino immigrants demanding employers. I find the article strange because the only statistics cited have nothing to do with the “trend” suggested in the story. It may be interesting that the reporter found some examples to lump together, but does that suggest a universal truth or even a trend?
  • Dave Winer’s MacBook sage. It reminds me why I never buy a new Apple product when it comes out. I usually wait several months and let them get the kinks worked out. I’m with Dave on his observation of the Apple commercials suggesting Macs are more reliable than PCs. As someone who has about 25 Macs of all types running in a business environment — and who spends 8-10 hours a day using a Mac — I know this for certain: they break. They require maintenance and upgrades and hard drives need replacing and really stupid glitches show up. We back-up data constantly because we know that Macs break. (We also have plenty of PCs — Dell and Sony — and they break also.) Point: Macs crash and burn just like PCs. To advertise they never do is crazy.