What are we chasing, exactly?

Like I stated in a previous article, I'm continuing to wonder why we keep pursuing fancier/faster things when, in reality, we don't really need said thing as much as we think we do. We're in the midst of all large tech companies pushing toward our phones being gorilla-weeping (RE:#7) expenditures (or even two grand for the latest in folding tomfoolery).

And the same could be said for monitors. Where I had once stated that I welcomed the onset of PC Master Race-level resolutions, I may have jumped a little ahead of the gun in venerating the end of 'low-resolution' screens. And that is because I have settled for a monitor with only 2K of resolution (or 1080P or 1920x1080). Now before you think I'm some kind of flip-flopping hypocrite, it is running at a variable refresh-rate of up to 240Hz with 1ms response times which makes it all parts ninja - or even alien ... but I digress. I posit that it's not so much the resolution (or checklist items like HDR, OLED or localised dimming) which counts but the quality-of-life running at said resolution. My monitor is currently positioned approximately a metre away from me, and so, with my addled eyesight, I'm unable to tell whether it's running at 4K or 1440P or whatever. 1080P is enough.

To continue this point, I would think that a better (and variable) refresh rate is far more beneficial than a slideshow at a higher resolution. It would also have benefits for a moderately (or possibly even well) specced PC to continue to run AAA games for longer without being perceived as being under-powered when the frame-rate starts to chug at higher resolutions. If you take a step back, even a top-end graphics card has trouble running at 4K resolutions so why would you compromise your gaming experience for an Icarus-defining resolution which lasts about as long as milk takes to spoil? Perhaps the answer is because we can ... but perhaps it shouldn't be. 

It takes a shrewd eye to filter through what marketeers push you to want and what truly benefits you the most. For consumer TV's we're not even at parity with 4K (i.e. content is mostly still the default 2K - or even lower) and yet they're already pushing for 8K resolutions like they're going out of style. Even the super bowl was incapable of running in true 4K so this irrational push for 8K does not benefit anyone other than the manufacturers for pushing that goal post farther out in the pursuit of perpetual sales. In conclusion: never be afraid to take a step back before taking that step forward and your life will be that much simpler.

When is the right time?

Perhaps I'm in the minority. Well, actually, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority but, anyway, here goes ...

So, Kobe is dead and I'm a little indifferent to his passing. Now, before you think I have some kind of prejudice towards him, hold up - I'll explain. As an athlete he had achieved everything you can in his chosen profession. He had experienced everything he could as a celebrity. He had achieved everything that was required as a father. He has experienced more in his 41 years of life than many people would in their lifetime. If he had drawn up a bucket list I doubt there would be much that he hadn't already done. So, perhaps, this was the right time for him to go.

Death is never a fun thing to experience (or so I've been told) but sometimes it isn't necessarily a loss. I was happy when my grandmother died because she had lived a full life and managed to die with her dignity still intact. I am firmly of the belief that if you truly love that person you'll ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily. Till the end she still had her faculties, no hip on one side (!) but somehow had never complained while still managing to find the good in the day. For her, her life was her family, so it made sense for her to wring out every last day in the pursuit of family.

But back to Kobe: if I had to hazard a guess, his best days were behind him. He would no longer have the fame or the competition or the money getting trucked in that he did at his apex. All he had to look forward to was degrading health and perhaps watching his kids grow up. Maybe that's enough for him but I do know his family is set up for life (and probably even their kids). Although I personally think that his competitive nature would mean that he may start to resent his inability to compete. It isn't great that his daughter's life was cut short but we all know life isn't always fair. Other celebrities that I would say died at the right time were: Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Princess Diana, David Bowie, Prince ... to name a few. For those whose lives revolved solely around a certain skill-set (looks/acting/music) - and they were no longer revered in their medium of choice - is probably about the time their services on earth are no longer required. Perhaps I'm being harsh but I think there's a certain (demented?) logic to it.

Getting serial

You know what I'm getting really tired of? Modern TV series. Why, do you ask? Well, it's more because in the age of bingeable streaming TV, every TV series has now aligned themselves with having an overarching story-line which some would argue doesn't have a pay-off until the final episode. And herein lies the problem. In a not-so distant past, we had TV series which had self-contained episodes ... and, for those which were worth their salt, an overarching story and world-building. Notable examples were X-Files (For the first few seasons at least), Firefly, Star Trek (pre-Discovery).

What made them great was that you could watch an episode without having to know the backstory for the entire series. Each episode was a self-contained entity, with a beginning and an end. Perhaps not all plot devices were sorted out at the end (e.g. unrequited love) but you had your pay-off. Nowadays, you don't have that. Each episode plays out like merely a step towards the final resolution or, even more dastardly, season cliffhanger.

Which takes me elegantly onto the agenda of today's post: The Feed. This is another series brought to you by the Bezosian Amazon (um, wot? $35 billion pay-out - for a divorce?). It follows a halcyon/Orwellian future where most of the world have cerebral implants connecting them to basically the internet. I felt like it had smatterings of influence from Ghost in the Shell and Black Mirror, which is a good start, but in the end I couldn't finish the series. The first two-to-three episodes had a nice bit of world-building and a few (already covered by Black Mirror) technological/philosophical conundrums - but that was about the time the series ran out of steam.

In a nutshell the story revolves around The Feed which connects people and allows the sharing of experiences, social networking and making video/augmented reality calls. The system starts to fall apart when certain individuals are 'jacked' and forced to murder people. The rest of the series revolves around a baby with a non-invasive Feed integration (transferred through the blood supply, apparently), the philosophical implications of The Feed governing what you see, the moral privacy implications of being able to monitor feed users ... and that's about it. Most of this is covered in the first four episodes - but unfortunately the series still has six remaining episodes to fill. This meant that there was a whole lot of treading water required while the writers tried their best to wrap up a series about characters that we don't care about nor a story with a well-defined stance on whether The Feed is truly bad or not. Needless to say, there are a lot of slow pans, slow establishing shots, people staring off into the distance and swelling chords while absolutely nothing happens.

If we contrast this with the ill-fated Firefly series, it had distinct characters, very interesting world-building, distinct episodes (but an overarching story) and a relatively clearly-defined stance on good and bad - even if our heroes weren't nearly as black and white. Each episode could quite happily be watched out-of-order (as Fox did, for some reason) and you, as the viewer, would get their pay-off by the end of the episode. Having said that, not every episode was amazing (e.g. Jaynestown) but even that episode provided some nuance to what had initially been a one-note character.

And so, to summarise, I am not a fan of the current trend for series treating their episodes as merely stepping stones toward the final pay-off. I would argue that if a series only gets good in the final episode, is it actually a good series? Just like with life, you need to enjoy the journey - not just the final destination. At this stage I would much rather watch an episode of Murder, She Wrote than sit through another episode of The Feed.

When it is okay to YOLO

Even if the kids created the term, I don't think they're using it correctly. When I think YOLO, or You Only Live Once, my mind regales back to cheesy Bond Films or, quite possibly, that you do only live once. 

Whereas the kids would yell out 'YOLO' when they're about to do something horribly irresponsible like jumping off a cliff or hitting themselves in the nuts, I would instead mutter 'YOLO' (thankfully under my breath) while drinking a fine wine or experiencing something new. Although, I shouldn't denigrate the kids too much; they did have the right intention. You do truly only live once (unless you're a Buddhist) and as long as you treat your time on this planet as such it makes it easier to motivate yourself to experience what life can provide. Perhaps there is an after-life but, if there isn't, isn't it worth doing everything you can in your power to ensure your flitting existence is worth your time?

It is quite easy to be paralysed with the fears and doom conveyed on the news; such that you are unable to live any part of your life due to the looming decimation of everything we have become accustomed to having. Perhaps it was the YOLO's of yesteryear which resulted in us being in this current predicament - but I don't think that's going to change unless we all become mental cases like myself (joking!). We can remain mindful while still getting the most out of life - or at least that is my goal; that is my YOLO.

My spirit animal

I will preface that it's taken me a while to come to the realisation that Charlie Brooker is my spirit animal. He is pensive, introspective, industrious and, for the liberal lavishing of icing on top of this steadfast foundation, he also has a good command of the language. It is nice to find someone else who skewers cultural devolutions and hypocrisies with such a driven consistency.

He first entered my consciousness at the point where I was first discovering Doug Stanhope - and much to my chagrin, some of his best bits came as a result of this unholy tryst (although I don't really mind - I just wanted more gold to be mined from Doug). Charlie was able to give me Doug and I was happy. Initially I wrote Charlie off as merely a TV host with nothing more to say than the words he read from the teleprompter. But I was wrong. Interestingly his views on film almost always aligned with mine. It was nice that he thought in a similar way to me and had similar views to me. But similarities do not mean you are the same entity.

His next notable foray was when he created Black Mirror which (I came to realise) is a series of disconnected episodes which almost always had a strong commentary on societal disconnects or the superficial, vapid desires which make up our culture today. But it all started with the first episode. I didn't like it, which was a problem. I was under the misconception that the next episode would follow on chronologically from this - and unfortunately I didn't enjoy the setting. But then, months later, I gave it another go and, lo and behold, the next episode was completely different ... and it was actually good (well, to my taste). This was my in - my gateway into bingeing everything else. I also realised that this Brooker fella couldn't be pigeon-holed (outside of having intelligence and high production values). Each episode was a present, waiting to be unwrapped - and then immediately tossed away. Watching on Netflix makes even great content disposable but the good shows still resonate in your subconscious even if they have seemingly been forgotten. Which brings me to my review of the latest season of Black Mirror.

Would you believe that a season could be as short as three? Nor did I but I don't mind. It had notable stars and very high production value (I would estimate at least 20 million per episode) but overall I was a little disappointed. The first episode was a bit bubble gum and a little too on the nose, with the evil music producer commoditizing a burned out pop star - and a cutesy CG robot doll. It was too meandering and not as subversive compared to the earlier seasons. The second episode was good, following the story of two old friends connecting through an innocent VR fighting game. It posed some pertinent questions which still resonate in my subconscious - even if I wish they wouldn't. Then we have the paint-drying hostage negotiation story with some bludgeoned-in cues around the evils of social media which is a little annoying. All in all I think Brooker is running out of cool ideas to pose. Perhaps it was just that he was contractually obligated to deliver a season and was forced to throw out a few B-roll ideas. I can't blame him, though - it's just that I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get more scathing social commentary. For those of you who haven't, check out Black Mirror - and stick through the episodes you don't like because I can guarantee that at least a few episodes (and, dare I say it, seasons) will stick with you - even if you don't enjoy them directly.

The writing is on the wall

The movie industry is a strange beast. It's getting to a point where cinema, as we know it, is quickly devolving to merely be a showcase for blockbusters, horror and perhaps a few seasonal genre films (i.e. Valentines / Christmas). The other interesting trend I've noticed is that the Disney conglomerate is dipping into anti-ageing their stars or mo-capping their stars into live-action with varying levels of success. Which is good news for the stars of yester-year as they are now able to draw out their career - but  only as long as they can still draw an audience.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be too long till actors will no longer be needed for blockbusters. It seems pretty obvious that we're already at a stage where they're integrating significant fantasy characters using mo-cap e.g. Rocket Racoon / Kong and they've already 'mo-capped' de-aged stars numerous times e.g. Nicole Kidman / Michael Douglas / Kurt Russell / Bruce Willis. So, really, how long until we simply get a mo-cap to play the role of Michael Douglas instead? How long until an actor simply farms out a 3D scan and voice profile to movie producers? It sounds far-fetched but I truly doubt movie execs haven't already mapped out this unnatural progression. We're already at a stage where we have trained AI to (ironically) make us do the robot or generate fake faces or simulate Ellen DeGeneres' voice or even lip-sync former US presidents.

It certainly seems clear to me that it may be time to dust off your civvies and go back to carpentry, chicken suits and chilis.

 Update: Needless to say, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm a soothsayer. James Dean is in the process of making an impromptu comeback.

For technology's sake

Sometimes I wonder whether they thought things through. Or maybe I wonder if there's some other agenda in play. For privacy (as per Snowden) he recommends physically disabling the camera/mike in your phone and using a wired headphone instead - which may explain things. All I know is that wireless headphones don't work for games. I bought 'low-latency' Bluetooth headphones recently and I can say it's great at audio and great at battery life but terrible at latency. Perhaps it's Android but I get around a one-second lag between the sound and action in games.

Let's all let out a resounding 'ugh' in response.

That's not to say that they can't 'hack it' by artificially buffering the video inline with the audio lag in (e.g.) YouTube but, in the end, it's still a hack. The wired simply is superior and that just annoys me. It has taken LCD screens about 30 years to be on the cusp of breaking even with the visual fidelity of CRT technology which ain't great. It's the same story for WiFi - you get about 40% of the performance of wired - but only as long as you camp your butt on top of the router.

In conclusion, all this technology just proves to old codgers like me that we had it better in the good old days - and it ain't due to rose-coloured glasses tainting my view. As good old Joe Friday stated:

And that's what I live by.