Cinemorphosis

Category: culture

  • The Last Man in Orthopedic Loafers and Elastic-Waist Pants

    The Last Man in Orthopedic Loafers and Elastic-Waist Pants

    Aging doesn’t ask for your permission; it revises you anyway. Somewhere in your fifties and sixties, the body starts filing small grievances—slower recovery, dimmer recall, a half-step lost where you used to be crisp. The gap between who you were at your peak and who you are now widens just enough to notice. From that gap, a familiar assumption creeps in: that the later years should be quieter, safer, smaller—that the future is no longer a frontier but a managed environment. Call it Horizon Collapse: possibility shrinks to what’s nearby and controllable, and ambition is gently escorted out as an unruly guest.

    Prudence has its place. You don’t need to flirt with injury to prove you’re alive. But push prudence a notch too far and you build a Comfort Cage—a life engineered for ease that quietly imprisons curiosity, risk, and meaning. The edges are padded, the lighting is flattering, and nothing hurts. That’s the problem. When nothing hurts, nothing demands anything of you, and the day becomes a sequence of agreeable non-events. The soul, deprived of friction, goes slack.

    What’s more troubling is how this posture has escaped the retirement brochure and gone mainstream. Convenience has metastasized into a philosophy. With enough apps, prompts, and gentle automation, you can outsource not just your errands but your thinking. The result is Existential Downsizing: a voluntary reduction of one’s life to what is safe, efficient, and easily optimized. Big aims look wasteful; difficulty looks optional; meaning becomes a luxury item you can’t quite justify. We’ve confused the removal of obstacles with the arrival of purpose.

    This is the cultural air that breeds what Friedrich Nietzsche called the Last Man in Thus Spoke Zarathustra—a figure who has traded ambition for comfort and calls the bargain progress. He isn’t villainous; he’s deflating. He prefers safety to greatness, ease to excellence, consensus to conviction. Having minimized risk, he also minimizes transformation. He is content, and his contentment is the problem: a steady, blinking satisfaction in a life that no longer reaches beyond itself.

    Age can tempt you into this posture—“I’ve done enough; let me coast”—but so can technology. You don’t need bad knees to stop striving; you just need a system that makes striving feel unnecessary. In that sense, the Last Man is not a demographic. He’s a setting.

    I can’t pretend this isn’t a bleak picture. The best parts of my life have come from the opposite impulse: sitting at a piano until something stubborn yields; writing long, obsessive pieces that refuse to resolve themselves quickly; watching comedians build an hour of precision out of years of invisible labor. None of that is compatible with a life optimized for convenience. Achievement is allergic to ease. It requires time, friction, and a willingness to look foolish on the way to something that might matter.

    At sixty-four, with retirement approaching, the question isn’t whether decline exists—it does—but whether it gets to dictate the terms. The temptation is to let a slower body and a noisier mind argue for a smaller life. The counterargument is simple and hard: keep choosing projects that resist you. Keep placing demands on yourself that comfort would veto. Otherwise, you’ll end up perfectly safe, perfectly managed, and perfectly diminished—living proof that when you optimize for ease, you don’t just remove obstacles. You remove the reasons to move at all.

  • The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    If I had to pick my favorite word from the English language, it would be flabbergasted. It’s officially a word for a state of shock or astonishment, but as I’ve heard it used over the years, there are some important caveats. Usually people are not flabbergasted by a tragedy like an earthquake or a remarkable display of cruelty. The word is usually reserved to describe a human failing that goes beyond the realm of normal expectations. This failing could be surprising because of the specific skillset and character of the person who surprised us. Or the failing could simply be so large on scale that regardless of the person’s character, we are left flabbergasted. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when a person commits a moral inconsistency that contradicts their spoken beliefs so that the irony behind their hypocrisy is simply flabbergasting. It is somewhat flabbergasting to me, for example, that many of us love dogs and cats so much but we compartmentalize so that we eat cows and pigs, savoring these dishes, while being blissfully unaware of our inconsistency. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when we witness someone’s obtuseness that is so lame that it strains our credulity. For example, I called Kaiser to get an appointment to discuss switching a prescription because my current one had left me extremely exhausted for twelve hours. I told the member services rep my symptoms, but assured her I was fine. The incident was five days ago. I had been working out intensely every day since then and felt fine. As if not hearing a word I said, she seemed to be reading from a script: “Do you have shortness of breath? Can you stand on your own?” Flabbergasted, I interrupted her. “As I just told you, I am physically fine. I am exercising with great intensity, and I feel great.” I wanted to add, “Please put down your script and listen to what I actually have to say.” I was flabbergasted.

    One of the appeals of the word flabbergasted is that it seems made up of the words flab and blubber to create the hybrid “flabber,” which I love because “flabber” jiggles and vibrates like the elephantine upper arms of the cafeteria ladies of my youth. Such jiggling and vibration is part of the body’s paroxysms that occur when one is flabbergasted.

    If I had a rock band, I would call it Flabbergasted. If I were to have a nom de plume, it would be Flabber Gasted. 

    I suspect that to be in a flabbergasted state can be dangerously addictive. I’m thinking of Tom Colicchio, one of the principals of the reality show Top Chef. I have a theory as to the one reason above all others the show is successful. It’s Tom Colicchio’s flabbergasted face when he cannot believe how crappy the food is that was prepared for him by one of the world-class chefs. No other judge can make such a severe expression. I don’t know if Colicchio is authentically flabbergasted or if his facial contortions are performative for the ratings. What I do know is that his flabbergasted expression has begun to chafe at me. For many seasons, I took his expression for granted, but after he started taking GLP-1s and losing forty pounds, his flabbergasted TV face looks more extreme. He has eaten a dish that is so egregious that he is in a state of shock and strained credulity. He can’t believe anyone, let alone a successful chef, could make such an abomination. The implication is that surely he could never be so incompetent. And this is where I get annoyed. These chefs have been taken out of their environment, they are working in time constraints, and are working with remarkable pressure from the competition, the TV apparatus, and the judges. That they could stumble or let anxiety get the best of them is completely understandable and is not a situation that calls for being flabbergasted. Therefore, Colicchio’s is out of line. He is disrespecting good, talented people, and I take offense to it. I am flabbergasted.  

  • Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    Leanmaxxing and the New Fantasy of Frictionless Medicine

    As a boy watching Star Trek, I was transfixed by the Tricorder–that tidy slab of certainty doctors waved over a body the way a priest might wave incense over a mystery. No scalpels, no tubes, no anxious waiting rooms with their stale magazines and fluorescent despair. A quick scan, a soft chirp, and the problem surrendered. The body, usually so coy and uncooperative, became a readable document–its secrets itemized, its fate clarified. It was medicine without friction, diagnosis without drama. In that universe, ignorance lasted seconds.

    For decades, the Tricorder sat where all good fantasies sit: just out of reach, gleaming with impossible efficiency. But reality has a way of cheating. The future did not arrive as a handheld scanner; it arrived as chemistry–specifically, a class of drugs that seems to negotiate directly with the body’s most stubborn impulses. If the Tricorder promised instant knowledge, GLP-1 drugs promise something more unnerving: the quiet rewriting of appetite, metabolism, and behavior from the inside out.

    In her New York Times essay “The Great Ozempic Experiment,” Julia Belluz catalogs the early returns, and they read less like a drug profile than a wish list that forgot to edit itself. Yes, there’s weight loss–the headline act–but the understudies keep stealing the show: concussion recovery, addiction dampening, relief from menopause symptoms, long COVID, alopecia, inflammation, arthritis, IBS, anxiety, brain fog. The list grows with the confidence of a rumor that keeps being confirmed. By the time you finish reading, you suspect the drug might also fix your credit score.

    The catch, for now, is almost comically modest: nausea and paperwork. The body may revolt briefly; the insurance company may revolt permanently. Yet demand surges, fueled by users who report not just slimmer bodies but upgraded lives–better mood, sharper focus, revived social calendars, improved fertility. It’s less a medication than a lifestyle intervention with a prescription pad.

    Clinicians, watching this unfold, have begun to reach for a new framework–the “root-cause” theory–because the old boxes no longer hold. These drugs don’t respect the tidy borders between endocrine, cardiovascular, and neurological disease; they trespass, improve, and move on. Even more disorienting, benefits appear in patients who don’t lose weight at all: better heart, liver, and kidney function, as if the drug were quietly tuning systems we didn’t know were connected.

    And here is where the story turns from miracle to question mark. As GLP-1 use spreads–along with the culture’s sudden enthusiasm for “leanmaxxing”–we risk trading one distortion for another: the cartoon body, now achieved pharmacologically rather than cosmetically. It is far too early to crown these drugs the real-world Tricorder, and just as premature to condemn them as a Faustian bargain. Like AI, they are moving faster than our ability to narrate them. We are watching a technology outrun our categories, and the only honest response, for now, is attention without prophecy.

  • Anorexification: How Thinness Became a Prerequisite for Social Currency

    Anorexification: How Thinness Became a Prerequisite for Social Currency

    On the The Unspeakeasy Podcast, Meghan Daum and Hadley Freeman–whose book Good Girls: A Story and Study of Anorexia reads like a field report from the edge–describe a culture quietly training itself to prefer bones to bodies. GLP-1 drugs have not merely entered the conversation; they’ve re-scripted it. In certain corners of entertainment, especially for women, thinness is no longer a trait—it’s a prerequisite. Not healthy thinness, but the spectral kind, the look of a person who has edited herself down to the bare minimum required for visibility.

    Enter the “thought leaders,” a title now worn loosely by a cadre of Bro Influencers, many featured on the documentary Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere, who speak about female bodies with the confidence of men who have never had to inhabit one. They circulate images so detached from biological reality that the result is less aspiration than hallucination. At some point, distortion becomes epistemology. When the standard is a body no one can sustain, we are no longer debating beauty; we are misinforming ourselves about what a human being is.

    The culture, meanwhile, doesn’t drift—it polarizes. On one end, the affluent micro-dose themselves into disappearance, refining their silhouettes into something that looks engineered rather than lived in. On the other, those with fewer resources are funneled toward ultra-processed foods—cheap, engineered, irresistible—and then displayed as cautionary spectacle on shows like My 600-lb Life. The result is a grotesque symmetry: the privileged vanish; the poor are made hyper-visible. Both outcomes are profitable. Both are distortions. Call it cartoonification—the body flattened into extremes, rendered legible for screens but unrecognizable as life.

    This is not an accident. It’s a market. Social media influencers curate a simulated aesthetic—filters, angles, pharmacology—and the entertainment industry distributes it at scale. Between them, they have manufactured a reality that looks persuasive from a distance and collapses on contact. Commerce thrives on the gap between what people are and what they are told to want.

    I listened with a teacher’s ear. In my critical thinking class I teach two units: first, the mythology of “consequence culture,” which reduces body weight to a moral ledger and blames individuals while ignoring the machinery that shapes their options; second, the role of ultra-processed foods—villain, convenience, or something more complicated. The classroom becomes a courtroom where agency and structure argue their cases, and neither gets to plead simplicity.

    After this conversation, the syllabus needs a sharper blade. I’ll have to put the Bro Influencers on the screen and examine their claims as arguments rather than vibes. I’ll have to trace how the ultra-processed food economy finds its customers—often the ones with the fewest alternatives—and how that targeting is dressed up as choice. If there’s an epistemic crisis here, it isn’t abstract. It’s embodied. It walks into the room every day, filtered, curated, and quietly misinformed.

  • “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    I sat through the 2.5-hour sprawl of Marty Supreme with a mix of fascination and dread, the way you watch a man juggle lit matches in a room full of gasoline. It doesn’t take long to diagnose Marty Mauser: no self-awareness, no boundaries, no governor on his appetites. Once you see that, the plot stops being a mystery and becomes a countdown. He treats his life–and everyone else’s–as expendable material in the service of his ego. Chaos isn’t an accident; it’s the operating system. The film runs on a kind of psychological determinism: remove self-knowledge and restraint, and watch the dominoes fall. The difficulty, of course, is that Marty is repulsive in the precise way the movie needs him to be. Some viewers refuse the bargain—why spend hours with a moral vacancy? I’d argue that’s the point. Like Uncut Gems, where Howard Ratner detonates his own life in slow motion, or Boogie Nights, where Dirk Diggler mistakes appetite for identity, this film belongs to a category I’d call the Chaos Agent Antihero: a person so unmoored from self-scrutiny that he turns every room into a hazard zone.

    It’s easy to dismiss these films as nihilistic—two hours of bad decisions dressed up as entertainment, but that reading is too lazy by half. Beneath the wreckage is a stern, almost old-fashioned argument about limits: the necessity of boundaries, the discipline of saying no, the unglamorous virtue of constraint. In that sense, the Chaos Agent Antihero is a rebuttal to what Zygmunt Bauman called liquid modernity—the condition in which everything solid dissolves into options. Careers become gigs, relationships become arrangements, identities become costumes you change between scenes. The promise is freedom; the invoice is fragmentation. In that fluid world, a man like Marty isn’t liberated; he’s uncontained. Without structure, he doesn’t discover himself; he disperses.

    Follow that logic to its end and you get the customary finish for men like Howard Ratner and Dirk Diggler: ugly, terminal, and instructive precisely because it refuses redemption. Marty Supreme flirts with a different exit. Fatherhood appears like a last-ditch intervention, a chance to trade improvisation for obligation, appetite for responsibility. You sense the film asking whether a man can accept the humiliating truth of limits and, in doing so, become something sturdier than a bundle of impulses. The alternative–the radical individualist with no brakes–isn’t freedom. It’s a long fall with excellent lighting.

  • The Rise of Podcast Proxy Consumption

    The Rise of Podcast Proxy Consumption

    A few years ago, best-selling author Sam Harris delivered a blunt verdict on his own profession: writing books no longer makes sense. Not for lack of ability, but for lack of return. He can spend years drafting, revising, and shepherding a manuscript through the publishing machinery, only to reach tens of thousands of readers, many of whom will abandon the book somewhere between page 37 and a vague sense of obligation. Then comes the ritual humiliation of the book tour: airports, polite applause, the same answers to the same questions. The yield is modest; the labor is not.

    Meanwhile, his podcast–assembled in a fraction of the time–pulls in audiences that dwarf his readership. Hundreds of thousands. Sometimes millions. No printing press. No tour. No illusion that anyone needs to finish anything. Just attention, delivered efficiently.

    This wasn’t an isolated complaint. On a recent podcast, Andrew Sullivan and Derek Thompson circled the same conclusion: the book has lost its central function. The old model–write, publish, promote, be read–has been quietly replaced. Today, you don’t tour bookstores; you make podcast appearances. The book itself becomes a kind of ceremonial object, a credential you wave before entering the real arena: conversation.

    In this new arrangement, reading is optional. Talking is essential.

    Helen Lewis echoed the same skepticism in conversation with Katie Herzog. She doubts, with refreshing candor, that many people actually buy her books. What they do instead is spend time with her–listening, nodding along, absorbing the arguments in podcast form. The discussion becomes the experience. The book recedes into the background, a ghost text haunting the conversation that replaced it.

    What these writers are describing is not a decline but a substitution. We have entered an era in which books are no longer endpoints; they are pretexts. The real product is the dialogue orbiting them.

    Call it Podcast Proxy Consumption: a cultural sleight of hand in which audiences outsource the labor of reading to the author’s own commentary, then mistake that secondhand familiarity for mastery. The conversation becomes the consumption, and the book–once the main course–now sits on the table, largely untouched, like an expensive meal photographed but never eaten.

  • The Day the Gym Lost Its Soul–and I Took Mine Back

    The Day the Gym Lost Its Soul–and I Took Mine Back

    The gym in the 1970s was my holy temple. Not the antiseptic, glass-and-chrome shrines of today, but something closer to a workshop for men trying to hammer themselves into existence. The places I trained were rough, honest, and gloriously indifferent to appearances. No mood lighting. No eucalyptus towels. Just iron, sweat, and a shared work ethic.

    There were relics, of course, absurd contraptions left over from the Eisenhower years. Chief among them: the fat-jiggling machine. You strapped a belt around your waist or backside, flipped a switch, and the machine vibrated you like a malfunctioning appliance. The promise was surgical fat loss. The reality was public humiliation. No one touched it. To be seen using that thing was social suicide, a one-way ticket to pariah status. Even as teenagers, we understood that dignity had weight, and that machine stripped it from you ounce by ounce.

    Everything else, though, was perfect. The equipment did its job. The atmosphere did more. You could spend three hours there and feel cheated when you had to leave.

    Then came the 80s and 90s, and the gym got a facelift and a personality disorder. Out went grit; in came gloss. Chrome multiplied. Music was no longer background; it was an assault. Televisions blinked from every angle like slot machines. Smoothie bars appeared, as if protein needed to be accessorized. Personal trainers hovered, predatory, unctuous, and overfamiliar, radiating a kind of rehearsed enthusiasm that made you want to check your wallet.

    I tolerated the spectacle because I had no alternative. I didn’t have a garage full of equipment. The gym, vulgar as it had become, still held a monopoly on my routine. I assumed I’d be there until my dying breath.

    Then, in 2005, at an LA Fitness in Torrance, the illusion cracked. I noticed I was getting sick constantly—four, five colds a year. The common denominator wasn’t mysterious. It was the sauna, that damp Petri dish where strangers exhaled their pathogens in communal harmony. Add to that the blaring music, the social butterflies mistaking gossip for training, and the creeping sense that the place had become a theater of distraction rather than discipline—and I was done. The gym hadn’t betrayed me. It had simply revealed what it had become.

    So I left.

    In my early forties, I had no interest in bulking up. Call it instinct, call it desperation. Whatever it was, it pushed me toward power yoga DVDs. Bryan Kest and Rodney Yee became unlikely guides. I loved the sessions: the control, the focus, the quiet authority of breath over chaos. But yoga had a ceiling. Four to five hundred calories an hour wasn’t enough to outrun my appetite. If I lived on lentils, tofu, moong beans, and restraint, maybe. I didn’t.

    So by 2007, I pivoted to kettlebells.

    That wasn’t a compromise. It was a revelation.

    Kettlebells gave me intensity—eight hundred calories an hour—and something else the gym had quietly drained from me: engagement. Swings, squats, farmer’s carries were simple movements with endless variation. Enough complexity to keep boredom at bay, enough brutality to keep me honest. Nearly twenty years later, I’m still at it.

    And here’s the part no one advertises: I stopped getting sick. The revolving door of colds vanished. The gym, it turns out, had been taxing me in ways I hadn’t fully accounted for. Walking away from it wasn’t just a change in venue; it was a correction.

    Training at home became more than convenience. It became control. No membership fees. No commute. No background noise of other people’s trivialities. Just the work, stripped down to its essentials. I had removed friction where it didn’t belong and kept it where it mattered.

    That’s the difference between a real life hack and a counterfeit one.

    A real life hack replaces the original with something equal or superior. A counterfeit gives you convenience at the cost of substance, then flatters you into believing nothing was lost. My kettlebell training didn’t dilute the gym experience; it surpassed it. It demanded more precision, more coordination, more accountability. No machines to guide you. No rails to hide behind. Just you, the weight, and gravity’s indifference.

    This morning, I found myself studying kettlebell variations on YouTube—stop-start swings, double front squats—scribbling notes with the enthusiasm of a kid circling toys in a catalog. The same pulse I get when I spot a new Seiko Monster or Casio G-Shock release: anticipation, possibility, a little irrational excitement.

    Today is supposed to be an Airdyne day. An hour on the Schwinn, steady and predictable. But the kettlebells are calling. I know better than to give in. Experience has taught me the discipline of alternating days and sparing my joints, but the urge is there, insistent, almost childish.

    That’s how I know I’ve done something right.

    When your “discipline” starts to feel like anticipation, that’s not a workaround.

    That’s a life recalibrated.

  • The Weight of a Ringing Phone During the Landline Era

    The Weight of a Ringing Phone During the Landline Era

    I remember the Landline Era with a kind of reverence that borders on disbelief. Back then, I inhabited a different self. Those heavy rotary phones were not appliances; they were portals. You dialed into a world where connection had weight, where conversations stretched for hours until your ear burned raw against the receiver. When the phone rang, it didn’t interrupt life—it elevated it. The call carried you from ordinary time into something charged and consequential. Someone wanted you. Someone chose you. That alone conferred meaning.

    Even the timing of a call had its own grammar. A phone ringing before dawn meant dread. I was eleven on December 31, 1972, when my best friend Marc Warren called early to deliver news that felt too large for our age: Our beloved baseball hero Roberto Clemente had died in a plane crash while bringing aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. The call itself became part of the tragedy—a ritual of shared shock, proof that grief demanded a witness.

    In my late twenties, after I moved from the Bay Area to the California desert for my first full-time teaching job, the phone remained a lifeline. Friends scattered across Denver, Eureka, and back home would call, or I would call them, and we would talk—really talk—for two hours or more. We told stories not just to report events but to interpret them, to make sense of who we were becoming. The underlying message was never spoken, yet it saturated everything: you matter enough for this kind of time. Your life deserves this level of attention. I never questioned my worth because it was constantly affirmed in the currency of sustained conversation.

    By the early 2000s, the erosion had begun. Calls shrank to thirty minutes, sometimes less. You could feel the shift before you could name it. Texting arrived first, then the slow takeover of online life—relationships diluted into fragments, attention splintered across endless digital surfaces. The word “engagement” was repurposed into something thin and transactional. It came to mean clicks, likes, metrics—fleeting signals that mimicked connection without ever achieving it. No surge of digital attention could rival the steady gravity of a two-hour conversation in which your existence was never in doubt.

    In what I think of as the Parasocial Era, self-worth became unstable, tied to numbers that refreshed by the second. Real relationships receded as people adapted to simulations of connection. You watched others contort themselves to stay visible—posting constantly, performing outrage, dispensing optimism like a drug, chasing relevance as if it were oxygen. It was easy to recognize the pathology in others and harder to admit its presence in yourself. That recognition, uncomfortable as it was, pushed me to step back from social media, though not entirely free of its pull.

    Around 2006, I started a blog about my obsession with radios. It wasn’t really about radios. It was about reaching out, about recreating some version of the connection I had lost. When I joined social media a few years later, I found myself tracking engagement numbers with a vigilance that bordered on compulsion. Each fluctuation felt like a verdict. For the first time, I didn’t take my self-worth for granted; I monitored it, measured it, doubted it.

    Meanwhile, the practical demands of life closed in. Raising twin daughters, managing time, keeping everything afloat—these became the organizing principles of my days. Friendships didn’t end so much as they withered. Meeting someone in person required planning, travel, coordination—all the friction that digital life had taught me to avoid. Plans were made and then canceled. Illness intervened. Weeks turned into years. Absence became normal.

    I understand now that these simulated connections cannot supply what they promise. They offer stimulation, not sustenance. They mimic affirmation but cannot anchor it. I wish I had protected a handful of friendships with more stubbornness, more intention. Not out of nostalgia, but out of necessity—for myself, and for the people closest to me. A man with real friendships is a steadier presence at home. Deprive him of those, and something essential erodes.

    I don’t pretend there’s a way back to the Landline Era. I don’t see myself as a casualty either. I made choices. I accepted the bargain of convenience and efficiency, believing I could preserve deep connection while embracing frictionless substitutes. I believed I could have my cake and eat it too. That belief was naïve. The system was designed to flatter that illusion.

    Still, I return to that Sunday morning in 1972. A tragedy had occurred, and my friend needed to tell me—not broadcast it, not post it, not signal it to a crowd, but tell me. Because I mattered. The call was the message.

  • The Rise of the Cyborg Student and the Collapse of Learning

    The Rise of the Cyborg Student and the Collapse of Learning

    In her Atlantic essay “Is Schoolwork Optional Now?”, Lila Shroff describes a classroom that has quietly slipped its friction. Students entering high school around 2024 have discovered that schoolwork—once a slog of half-formed ideas, crossed-out sentences, and mild despair—can now be outsourced with the elegance of a corporate merger. With tools like Claude Code, they recline while a digital understudy attends class on their behalf, taking quizzes, drafting lab reports, and assembling PowerPoints with the glossy finish of a mid-level consultant angling for a promotion.

    Teachers respond with variety, as if novelty could outpace automation. More assignments, different formats, new prompts. It doesn’t matter. The students simply retrain their AI to shapeshift into whatever species of learner is required: the earnest analyst, the reflective humanist, the data-savvy pragmatist. The submissions arrive immaculate—coherent, polished, and suspiciously free of the small humiliations that once marked actual thinking.

    The problem is not that the work gets done. It’s that no one is being worked on. The transformation has shifted from mind to method. Students aren’t learning the material; they’re learning how to manage a machine that can impersonate someone who did.

    If that weren’t enough, the next escalation has arrived with a name designed to soothe your nerves: Einstein. This AI agent claims it can log into platforms like Canvas and complete an entire semester’s workload in a single day. It doesn’t just skim the surface. It watches lectures, digests readings, writes essays, posts discussion comments, submits assignments, and takes exams—leaving behind a digital paper trail so competent it borders on smug.

    Shroff decided to test the promise. She enrolled in an online statistics course and turned Einstein loose. Within an hour, it had completed the entire semester of work: eight modules and seven quizzes. She earned a perfect score. She also learned, by her own account, almost nothing. The grade was real. The education was imaginary.

    Einstein’s creator, Advait Paliwal, is a 22-year-old who speaks with the calm inevitability of someone announcing the weather. His argument is simple: this is a warning. Adapt or become decorative. Educators have responded with lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters, which he treats as polite acknowledgments that the problem is larger than any one person. If he hadn’t built it, someone else would have. And if you find Einstein alarming, he assures us, you should pace yourself—this is the beta version of the apocalypse. “There’s more to come.”

    Meanwhile, Silicon Valley is not retreating. It is accelerating, pouring resources into embedding AI deeper into the educational bloodstream. The irony is almost too clean: educators are losing control not only because the technology can’t be contained, but because they use it themselves. AI grades papers, drafts materials, streamlines feedback. It makes the job more efficient. It also quietly rewrites what the job is.

    The endgame is already visible. It has a name that sounds like a software feature but reads like a verdict: the Fully Automated Loop. AI generates the assignments. AI completes them. AI grades them. The student, once the point of the enterprise, becomes a spectator to a closed circuit of competence.

    We used to worry about students not doing the work. Now the work does itself.

    And when that loop closes, education doesn’t collapse in a dramatic heap. It hums. It functions. It produces results.

    It just stops producing people.

  • Purple Toothbrushes and Other Acts of Quiet Genius

    Purple Toothbrushes and Other Acts of Quiet Genius

    I have a student who makes the rest of the room recalibrate. Her essays arrive fully formed—sharp, unshowy, and quietly devastating—and in discussion she does what most people only pretend to do: she thinks out loud with precision. If airtime were currency, she’d hold a majority stake. And the remarkable part is that no one resents it. The other students lean in. They listen. At eighteen, she carries herself with a kind of early-onset professorial clarity, but without the usual symptoms—no grandstanding, no ornamental jargon, no whiff of performance. Just a mind doing its work in public.

    Yesterday she told the class she’s neurodivergent. It landed without ceremony. No one froze, no one fumbled for a response. She simply kept going, threading her way back into our discussion of cruelty as entertainment in The Biggest Loser, dissecting it with the same steady intelligence she brings to everything. The label didn’t explain her; it just named the angle of her vision.

    Later that day, I watched Sheng Wang: Purple on Netflix and had a familiar thought within five minutes: here is another mind that refuses to see the world the way the rest of us have agreed to see it. Sheng Wang doesn’t manufacture jokes so much as he exposes the wiring. He takes the banal—the humble toothbrush aisle—and turns it into a referendum on identity. Faced with a rainbow of options, he chooses purple, not because it cleans better, but because it confers a temporary aura of purpose, as if pigment could rescue a life drifting toward mediocrity. It’s ridiculous, which is why it’s true.

    Wang, born in Taiwan and raised in Houston, delivers all this with a soft Southern cadence that suggests a Baptist sermon delivered by a man who wandered in from a parallel universe. He glides across the stage in flowing purple clothes and white sneakers, looking like a kindly prophet of low-stakes revelation. The dissonance works. His demeanor—gentle, unhurried, almost disarmingly sincere—feels less like an act and more like a refusal to harden into one. You don’t watch him perform; you eavesdrop on how he thinks.

    That’s the throughline between my student and Wang. The best comedians aren’t joke machines; they’re cartographers of attention. They map the ordinary at strange angles and invite you to follow. Sometimes they surface thoughts you didn’t know you had—your private negotiations with a toothbrush color, your quiet horror as a friend’s child demolishes a bowl of expensive berries with the appetite of a small animal. Sometimes the thoughts are entirely their own, but the vantage point is so exact you recognize yourself anyway.

    A good comedian, like a good student, doesn’t just entertain or impress. He builds a small porch between minds. You sit there for a while, listening, and realize you’re not being dazzled—you’re being let in. That’s rarer, and far more valuable, than a punchline.