Cinemorphosis

Category: technology

  • Why I Can’t Let Go of G-Shock’s Chromatic Certainty

    Why I Can’t Let Go of G-Shock’s Chromatic Certainty

    Before the technical specifications, before the discussion of movements, and before the endless debates about quartz versus mechanical watches, something unexpected happened inside my head.

    Six months ago I underwent what now strikes me as a genuine conversion. I almost stopped wearing analog mechanical watches and entered the world of G-Shock Multiband-6 digital watches. To my surprise, a number of my YouTube subscribers later described the very same journey. They had once adored mechanical watches, only to discover that after living with atomically synchronized digital time, they could never comfortably return.

    At first glance, the conversion makes little sense.

    A quality mechanical watch running five seconds fast per day is an astonishing feat of engineering. For every practical purpose, it tells the correct time. It gets you to appointments. It catches flights. It reminds you when class begins. Its error is so small that it almost never matters.

    And yet it no longer feels right.

    That is the mystery.

    Objectively, nothing important has changed. Subjectively, everything has.

    What changes is not the watch but the standard by which the watch is judged.

    Before owning a Multiband-6 G-Shock, my standard was simple: close enough.

    After Multiband-6, my standard became: exactly right.

    Every night my watch quietly synchronizes with the atomic clock. Every morning I wake knowing—not hoping, not estimating, not approximating—that the time on my wrist is identical to the world’s official standard. Five seconds fast, once a badge of mechanical excellence, now feels oddly imprecise.

    I call this Chronometric Certainty: the psychological satisfaction that arises from knowing one’s timepiece is synchronized with an external objective standard, eliminating even trivial uncertainty about its accuracy.

    The difference is not practical.

    It is psychological.

    An analog watch always feels like an interpretation of time. The hands point. They suggest. They approximate.

    A digital display does something altogether different.

    It declares.

    When my G-Shock reads 12:37:42, there is no interpretation. It does not hint at the time. It announces it with unapologetic authority. One of my favorite G-Shocks, the enormous King, reinforces this feeling. Its giant television-shaped display gives me the uncanny impression that I am not wearing a watch at all. It feels like I have strapped a broadcast monitor to my wrist, one that receives the world’s official time directly from reality itself.

    The mechanical watch, by contrast, quietly asks for my participation.

    I know it gains a few seconds.

    I occasionally reset it.

    I mentally compensate.

    None of this requires much effort, but each act reminds me that the watch is only approximating reality.

    The G-Shock abolishes those tiny negotiations.

    It simply tells the truth.

    This realization has convinced me that my conversion was never really about watches.

    It was about certainty.

  • The Strange Beauty of Boring Things

    The Strange Beauty of Boring Things

    I’m almost sixty-five, yet some stubborn part of me remains a man-child, forever scanning the horizon for the next shiny object. There is always another watch to admire, another gadget to research, another purchase that whispers the ancient promise: This one will finally complete you.

    It never does.

    Still, I’m not without hope.

    Lurking beneath my acquisitive instincts is another impulse—one that longs for restraint, clean lines, quiet competence, and the elegant marriage of form and function. I have begun to suspect that growing up is not the abandonment of desire but its refinement.

    The first clue arrived six months ago when it came time to buy a personal desktop computer.

    The younger version of me might have ogled a hulking gaming tower glowing like a radioactive Christmas tree, festooned with RGB lights and fans loud enough to suggest an imminent liftoff. Instead, I bought a Mac Mini with Apple’s M4 chip and 32 gigabytes of RAM. It sits on my desk in near silence, doing exactly what I ask of it without begging for applause. It is the technological equivalent of a competent butler: always present, never theatrical.

    The pattern continued.

    When I think about replacing my car, I don’t fantasize about a German sports sedan or some aggressively sculpted SUV that looks eager to challenge strangers at stoplights. I picture a white or silver Honda Accord Hybrid EX-L.

    It’s boring.

    That is precisely the point.

    It is vanilla and Zen fused into one magnificent state of automotive enlightenment.

    Call it Zen-illa.

    The same instinct explains why I keep gravitating toward a ThinkPad T14 Gen 7. There is nothing glamorous about it. It resembles a laptop designed by accountants who moonlight as structural engineers. It doesn’t seduce you. It reassures you. It quietly announces, “I was built to work, not to pose.”

    Then there is the watch.

    If I buy another G-Shock, it will almost certainly be the GW-5000U—not because it is flashy, but because it isn’t. It is, in many ways, the highest expression of the original Square: understated, overengineered, supremely comfortable, and utterly indifferent to fashion. It doesn’t ask to be admired. It asks to be worn.

    These objects all embody what I call Instrumental Nobility: the quality of an object whose excellence derives from uncompromising function, durability, and thoughtful engineering rather than luxury, prestige, or visual spectacle.

    Increasingly, that is the beauty I find myself pursuing.

    Perhaps this is what maturity looks like.

    Not losing the desire to acquire, but acquiring things that quietly disappear into your life because they perform their task so faithfully that they free your attention for higher pursuits.

    I still have traces of the man-child in me. Every now and then he wakes up and points excitedly at some gleaming bauble, convinced that salvation is only one purchase away.

    The adult has learned to smile politely, pat him on the head, and say, “No. We have a manuscript to finish.”

    If all goes well, by the time I turn seventy, the adult may finally win.

  • The Rise and Fall of the Influencer

    The Rise and Fall of the Influencer

    In her essay “The Extras Are Tired,” Ellen Cushing traces the astonishing rise of the influencer. Less than a decade ago, the word itself barely registered in the public vocabulary. The profession was still flapping uncertain wings. By 2023, those wings had become a full-fledged migration. Twenty-seven million Americans were earning money by producing online content, and universities were rushing to legitimize the phenomenon. Arizona State University now offers a bachelor’s degree in Content Creation, as though aspiring to become a walking selfie stick had matured into a respectable academic discipline.

    Yet the influencer economy already feels less inevitable than it did only a few years ago.

    One reason is technological. Increasingly, people seek advice from artificial intelligence rather than from smiling strangers who begin every video by announcing, “Hey, guys!” with the synthetic warmth of a flight attendant welcoming passengers aboard a delayed flight. AI may have its flaws, but at least it doesn’t interrupt your day to remind you to smash the like button.

    Another problem is more fundamental. Influencers possess a surprisingly short shelf life because their relationship with followers is built upon counterfeit intimacy. They manufacture the illusion that they are your trusted friend while simultaneously converting every friendship into a monetized sales funnel. Eventually, the performance begins to squeak. The smiles appear rehearsed. The vulnerability feels focus-group tested. The authenticity arrives with affiliate links.

    The public has noticed.

    Some clothing stores have become so weary of influencers transforming shopping aisles into film studios that they now post NO INFLUENCERS signs. The signs possess a wonderfully deadpan wit. They function almost like restaurant health inspections proudly declaring the premises free of rodents. Customers may now browse in peace, reassured that no one will suddenly begin recording a “Get Ready With Me” video between the denim racks.

    The signs are also an overdue act of cultural pushback.

    Influencers do not merely occupy public space; they annex it. They assume that coffee shops, sidewalks, airports, grocery stores, and boutiques exist as interchangeable backdrops for the ongoing production of their personal brand. Everyone else becomes unpaid production staff.

    This is a distinctly twenty-first-century form of vanity, one I call Protagonist Inflation: the progressive belief that one’s own life constitutes the central narrative while strangers exist primarily as background characters, audience members, or supporting cast.

    Cushing captures the phenomenon with characteristic precision:

    “Influencers today are a bit like plastic surgeons, or plumbers: On a societal level, many people sure seem to like what they do—they just don’t necessarily want to be right next to them while they’re doing it.”

    Exactly.

    Society may consume influencer content by the billions of views, but that does not mean it wishes to sit beside someone filming six takes of a cappuccino before allowing the coffee to become cold enough to qualify as archaeology.

    Much has been written about the jobs artificial intelligence will eliminate. We are warned that AI will replace writers, teachers, programmers, accountants, lawyers, and artists. Perhaps it will replace many of them.

    When it comes to influencers, however, I find it difficult to summon much grief.

    If artificial intelligence succeeds in removing one profession built upon convincing the rest of us that we are merely extras wandering through someone else’s movie, then AI will have performed at least one genuine public service.

  • The Attention Vultures Descend

    The Attention Vultures Descend

    I watched Netflix’s three-part documentary Idaho Murders: College Nightmare, expecting another true-crime chronicle. Instead, I found a cautionary tale about the moral corrosion of the social media age.

    The murders shattered the illusion of an idyllic college town where doors, friendships, and assumptions of decency had long remained open. Into that atmosphere of trust stepped a doctoral teaching assistant in criminology whose crimes seemed almost grotesquely theatrical: an aspiring expert in criminal behavior who became the very monster he purported to study. The documentary is unsettling not merely because it chronicles an act of staggering brutality, but because it reveals how quickly evil can erupt into places that imagine themselves immune from it.

    Yet the documentary’s most instructive chapter unfolds after the killings, during the long months when investigators had no public suspect. That vacuum of knowledge became oxygen for the internet. Social media influencers rushed to fill the silence, speaking with the confidence of detectives while possessing none of the evidence. Their videos, podcasts, and livestreams transformed ignorance into certainty. Innocent college students—already traumatized by the murders—were publicly identified as suspects, dissected as if they were characters in a murder mystery rather than human beings whose lives could be permanently scarred by reckless speculation.

    These people were not engaged in an earnest search for truth. They were engaged in a hunt for attention. Every accusation, every dramatic thumbnail, every emphatic declaration became another bid for clicks, subscribers, and algorithmic favor. Tragedy had become raw material for personal branding.

    Years ago, Jaron Lanier warned that social media rewards the most primitive parts of our psychology. The platforms appeal less to our reflective minds than to our craving for recognition, outrage, and status. They encourage us to chase attention as if it were oxygen. Watching the documentary, I felt as though Lanier’s warning had escaped the pages of his book and materialized on the screen. The influencers were not simply exploiting a tragedy; they had become creatures shaped by an economy in which visibility matters more than truth and confidence is valued above evidence.

    The documentary left me thinking less about the murderer than about myself. Over the last fifteen years, I have spent enough time on social media to recognize the same impulse in miniature—the subtle desire to post, comment, and share simply because an audience is there. The temptation is rarely malicious, but it springs from the same psychological soil: the hope of being noticed.

    The film made me want to cultivate a new habit. Before posting, I want to pause and ask a simple question: Am I adding light, or am I merely asking strangers to look at me? That brief moment of hesitation may be the smallest possible act of resistance against an attention economy that profits from our worst instincts.

    The documentary’s greatest lesson, then, has little to do with criminology. It is about character. It asks whether we will become citizens who value truth enough to remain silent when we do not know—or whether we will join the growing flock of attention vultures circling every human tragedy, mistaking spectatorship for significance. I know which path I hope to avoid. If that requires changing my relationship with social media, it is a price well worth paying.

  • The Startup That Defeated Headquarters

    The Startup That Defeated Headquarters

    Religion has never existed without branding. Every enduring faith possesses a recognizable identity, a coherent vision, and, above all, a commanding personality capable of persuading others that his interpretation is the authentic one. 

    Early Christianity was no exception.

    James, the brother of Jesus, envisioned a movement rooted firmly in the Law of Moses. The Messiah had indeed come, but the covenant remained intact. Followers of Jesus still belonged within Judaism and still observed its commandments. It was a closed ecosystem. Think of James as Mac OS: elegant, coherent, tightly controlled, and suspicious of unauthorized modifications.

    Paul had a radically different vision. Christ’s death and resurrection had liberated believers from the Mosaic Law. Circumcision, dietary regulations, and ritual obligations no longer defined God’s people. The system was now open. Paul was Windows. He discarded the old operating restrictions and invited the entire Gentile world to install the software. Even more audaciously, he translated Jewish ideas into categories that Greeks could understand, blending Hebrew theology with Hellenistic thought. What struck James as scandalous improvisation appeared to Paul as inspired innovation.

    The dispute was not merely theological. It was a fight over ownership of the brand.

    James, Peter, and John operated from corporate headquarters in Jerusalem. Paul functioned like an ambitious regional manager who suddenly decided headquarters had become obsolete. In The Kingdom, Emmanuel Carrère imagines the conflict unfolding as a modern corporate dispute. Jerusalem’s leadership views Paul as a rogue executive who is “fraudulently usurping” the Christian name, misrepresenting the company’s message, and franchising unauthorized branches across the Mediterranean. Paul had never accompanied the historical Jesus. He knew only the Christ revealed through visions. To Jerusalem, this was not merely eccentric; it was grounds for termination.

    Carrère summarizes the problem with delicious corporate sarcasm:

    Paul has always presented himself as an independent master, preaching what he calls ‘my Gospel,’ and only evoking in a very vague way the existence of a parent enterprise whose representative he is.

    There lies the heart of the conflict. Paul repeatedly refers to “my gospel.” Imagine a vice president introducing himself by saying, “Welcome to my Apple” or “Let me tell you about my Coca-Cola.” Such language would send corporate attorneys into cardiac arrest. Yet Paul speaks with precisely that confidence. His authority does not derive from Jerusalem. It derives from God.

    Carrère pushes the metaphor further:

    And now there are these people from Jerusalem, who first of all introduce themselves as Paul’s superiors, and secondly say that he’s no longer part of the business. They had to let him go, they say, because this isn’t his first transgression. He’s already opened up shop here and there under their prestigious logo, even though they’ve forbidden him from using it. He’s been uncovered several times, but he always goes farther and finds new dupes.

    One can almost picture the cease-and-desist letters arriving by camel.

    The conflict became a theological arm wrestle. Paul would establish a congregation, depart for another city, and soon afterward representatives from Jerusalem would arrive to inform the new converts that Paul was a fraud. His gospel lacked authorization. The authentic Christianity remained the Jerusalem version.

    Paul answered with astonishing audacity, nowhere more vividly than in Galatians. He insists that his gospel was not taught to him by any human being but revealed directly by Jesus Christ. His opponents are not simply mistaken; they are preaching a counterfeit gospel. Even if an angel from heaven proclaims another message, Paul declares, let him be accursed. To establish his credentials, Paul presents his autobiography as evidence: his education in Jerusalem, his fierce persecution of the church, his dramatic encounter on the road to Damascus, and his continuing revelations from Christ. Possessing a direct line to heaven, he has little patience for organizational charts drafted in Jerusalem.

    History suggests that Paul won.

    Despite the Jerusalem apostles’ determination to preserve their prestigious logo, Paul effectively appropriated it, redesigned it, and launched it globally. The movement that conquered the Roman Empire bore Paul’s theological fingerprints far more than James’s. The Christianity that eventually reached Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas was not simply the faith of Jerusalem. It was Jerusalem translated, expanded, and fundamentally reimagined by Paul.

    Perhaps there is a broader lesson here. Closed systems often preserve purity, but open systems spread. James built a fortress. Paul built a network. One protected the brand. The other made it impossible to contain.

  • The Young and the Larval

    The Young and the Larval

    A year ago, I attended a family birthday party in Studio City. Hundreds of cheerful, talkative guests wandered around a lavish backyard pool shaded by thick stands of trees. The setting felt less like Los Angeles than a country estate in Provence. Beneath a canopy, guests feasted on fragrant Middle Eastern food while a white-haired band by the deep end of the pool played one boomer anthem after another. It was a celebration of long lives, old friendships, and accumulated memories.

    Most of the guests were in their seventies.

    While eating lunch, I spoke with my cousin’s husband, a retired ophthalmologist and former hospital administrator. A man who had once occupied positions of enormous responsibility, he told me the greatest surprise of old age wasn’t aching joints or declining stamina.

    It was invisibility.

    “People look right through you,” he said.

    His remark landed with the force of an unwelcome prophecy. Your accomplishments, reputation, expertise, and decades of experience quietly evaporate. Whatever authority once entered the room ahead of you no longer accompanies you through the door. You undergo what I call Aura Expiration: the quiet disappearance of the prestige, authority, and social recognition accumulated over a lifetime once age strips away the culture’s fascination with achievement and status.

    Yesterday’s distinguished physician becomes today’s anonymous old man standing patiently in line at Trader Joe’s.

    Aura Expiration ushers you into something even stranger. You enter what I think of as Social Hades: the peculiar stage of life in which a person remains physically present while gradually disappearing from society’s field of vision. You are neither fully among the living nor entirely absent. You become ghostlike—a witness rather than a participant—despite possessing more knowledge and experience than many of those who unconsciously dismiss you.

    Your very existence reminds younger people of the one truth they spend enormous energy avoiding: they, too, are running out of time.

    Naturally, there are ways to resist. You can dye your hair, chase fashion, cultivate the illusion of perpetual youth, or loudly insist that you are “still relevant.” But there is something tragic about watching a person wage war against chronology. The struggle itself often accelerates the indignity. Better to heed the biblical warning against kicking against the goads. Some losses are not defeats but transitions.

    Reading Emmanuel Carrère’s The Kingdom, I was struck by his observation that the Greeks imagined the afterlife as Hades, “an underworld where men’s shadows lead a sort of half-life: slow, comatose, larva-like, hardly aware.”

    I cannot help wondering whether this image grew partly from ordinary observation. Perhaps Hades resembled the fate awaiting the elderly in every civilization: still alive, yet treated as shadows; still capable of thought, yet gently ushered to the margins where they could cease interrupting youth’s fantasy of immortality.

    I have little interest in fighting that social reality. At best, younger people will treat me with courteous indifference. At worst, they will regard me as an inconvenient reminder that every fashionable face eventually wrinkles and every energetic stride slows.

    There is, however, one form of aging against which I intend to fight with all the stubbornness I possess.

    I refuse to let my mind become larval.

    I intend to keep reading difficult books, pursuing arguments, changing my mind when evidence demands it, writing essays, asking inconvenient questions, and remaining incurably curious. I would like to live forever, if only because I desperately want to know what happens next.

    Besides, history has a wicked sense of irony.

    Many young people imagine themselves to be in the thick of life merely because they inhabit the latest trends, wear the correct clothes, speak the approved vocabulary, and faithfully repeat the fashionable opinions of their tribe. Yet conformity has a way of anesthetizing curiosity. The mind quietly hardens while the body remains young.

    That is the true danger.

    Such people suffer from what I call The Larval Mind: a state of intellectual dormancy in which curiosity, skepticism, and independent judgment have withered away, leaving a person easily manipulated by fashion, ideology, algorithms, or tribal consensus. Their bodies pulse with youthful energy while their minds drift through life half-asleep.

    An eighty-year-old wrestling with Paul, Carrère, Darwin, artificial intelligence, and the future of civilization may be far younger than a twenty-five-year-old who has surrendered his thinking to TikTok, political orthodoxy, influencer culture, or whatever intellectual narcotic happens to dominate the moment.

    Perhaps youth has less to do with birthdays than with curiosity.

    Perhaps the opposite of old age is not youth at all.

    Perhaps the opposite of old age is refusing to become larval.

  • The Great Social Media Deconversion

    The Great Social Media Deconversion

    In 2008 I was doing power yoga in my office while listening to Leo Laporte, The Tech Guy, on KFI 640. In the middle of discussing routers, spyware, and the eternal misery of Windows Vista, he casually remarked, “This Facebook thing is a big deal.”

    I had no idea what he meant.

    I wasn’t the sort of person who chased the latest technological revolution. I listened to Leo for a different reason. I loved hearing retirees call in with computers so old they belonged in an archaeological dig. They would ask whether they should keep a desktop that required thirty minutes to boot, wheezed like an emphysema patient opening Microsoft Word, and treated email as an Olympic event, or whether it was finally time to buy “one of these new computers.”

    Facebook barely registered on my radar.

    Then, in the summer of 2009, my wife was pregnant with our twin daughters. It occurred to me that Facebook might be a convenient way to share photos and updates with family and friends. So I created an account.

    Within weeks my friend list exploded like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

    I was enchanted.

    Perhaps this was the medium I had been waiting for all my life.

    Unfortunately, Facebook did not merely connect me to other people. It connected me to the most embarrassing parts of myself. My ego, which until then had lived quietly in the basement, burst upstairs carrying champagne.

    People would discover me.

    I would become famous.

    How many friends could I accumulate?

    How many likes?

    How many followers?

    Would humanity finally recognize my genius now that history had invented the proper delivery system?

    The intoxication was exquisite.

    That was seventeen years ago.

    Looking back, my relationship with Facebook has all the emotional contours of a failed marriage. There was the honeymoon, the infatuation, the passionate commitment, the slow accumulation of grievances, the disappointment, the resentment, and now something even colder than resentment.

    Contempt.

    Or perhaps futility.

    The old expression comes to mind: You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.

    Another comes from the Book of Acts, where the risen Christ asks Saul, “Why are you kicking against the goads?” Stop exhausting yourself fighting reality.

    That is how social media feels now.

    Not tragic.

    Pointless.

    Because the marriage was built on lies.

    The lies sounded persuasive enough.

    Metrics measure significance.

    Engagement proves value.

    Visibility creates influence.

    Influence creates meaning.

    If enough strangers notice you, your life has somehow become larger.

    It took me years to realize that every one of those propositions was counterfeit.

    The pursuit of attention slowly teaches us to manipulate others.

    Eventually it teaches us to manipulate ourselves.

    The more desperately we chase attention, the more anxious we become.

    The anxiety metastasizes into resentment.

    Soon we are no longer expressing ourselves.

    We are auditioning for an algorithm.

    Attention capture is not meaning.

    Attention capture is not love.

    Attention capture is not flourishing.

    One can dominate the internet and still become another version of Gollum, clutching a glowing ring instead of a precious one.

    A few days ago I watched a fitness YouTuber whose work I normally admire upload one of those interchangeable “What I Eat in a Day” videos. He microwaved leftovers. He poured cereal into a bowl. He assembled a few perfectly ordinary meals to reassure viewers that he was just like them.

    The video felt less like communication than contractual obligation.

    He looked exhausted.

    Not physically.

    Spiritually.

    As though the algorithm had shown up at his front door demanding another sacrifice.

    I watched perhaps thirty seconds before closing the window.

    I did it for his dignity.

    And for mine.

    Now I don’t know what to do with Facebook, Instagram, or my fifteen-year-old YouTube channel.

    They feel less like hobbies than reminders of a marriage that should have ended years ago.

    I still write on my blog.

    Almost nobody reads it.

    Wonderful.

    Obscurity has become strangely liberating.

    I write what genuinely interests me instead of what might seduce an algorithm into distributing me like digital fertilizer across the internet. I no longer feel compelled to manufacture outrage, optimize thumbnails, or package my thoughts into bite-sized dopamine pellets.

    The work belongs to me again.

    People often wonder what comes after divorce.

    The honest answer is that nobody knows.

    You spend a long time discovering who you are after years spent becoming someone else.

    I suspect millions of us are undergoing that same process with social media.

    We experienced the honeymoon.

    We believed the promises.

    We invested our identities.

    We discovered the betrayal.

    Now we are wandering through the emotional wreckage trying to remember who we were before engagement statistics became a measure of our worth.

    We are all, in one way or another, losing our religion.

    R.E.M. accidentally wrote the soundtrack for the algorithmic age.

    I have become convinced that social media has diminished us personally, culturally, politically, and spiritually. It rewarded vanity, monetized outrage, industrialized narcissism, and trained us to confuse visibility with virtue.

    But I have also become convinced that this era is ending.

    People are tiring of the performance.

    The masks have grown heavy.

    The applause no longer sounds convincing.

    Something new is approaching.

    Whether it will be better or merely different, I cannot say.

    I only know that the old marriage is over.

    And, for the first time in years, that feels less like a loss than a beginning.

  • Good Enough or As Good as It Can Be?

    Good Enough or As Good as It Can Be?

    Left to my own devices, I would eat like a monk with low standards and no culinary imagination. If I were a bachelor living alone, my menu would consist of oatmeal, yogurt, bananas, protein shakes, and peanut butter, repeated with liturgical regularity until death or scurvy intervened. Meal preparation, in my ideal world, should require almost no preparation and even less cleanup. If I can eat standing over the kitchen sink and spare myself the burden of washing a plate, I consider that a small triumph of civilization.

    Marriage and children have prevented me from fully indulging this philosophy.

    Fortunately for my nutritional health—and unfortunately for my laziness—other people insist on actual meals.

    My instinct toward optimization, however, resurfaces elsewhere. When planning family outings, my ideal destination is always the closest one. The fewer miles on the odometer, the happier I become. Beach picnic? Wonderful—as long as the beach is practically in the backyard. Restaurant? Excellent—as long as I don’t have to cross two freeways to reach it.

    Vacation travel follows the same principle.

    Five hours on an airplane is my absolute ceiling. Beyond that, my claustrophobia stages a hostile takeover of my personality. I stop resembling a husband on holiday and begin resembling Cinderella’s forgotten stepbrother, slowly decomposing into a resentful pumpkin somewhere over the Pacific.

    Clearly, I possess a strong instinct toward efficiency.

    Yet I have gradually realized that some parts of life cannot survive this instinct.

    An essay should never be merely good enough. It should be rewritten until every sentence earns its place and every paragraph justifies its existence. Likewise, a composer may spend years reshaping a single piece until it finally matches the elusive musical vision that first appeared in the imagination. The original spark deserves nothing less.

    That realization has led me to think that human beings generally organize their lives around one of two competing philosophies.

    The first is Optimization Ethics.

    Optimization Ethics seeks to maximize efficiency, profit, and measurable return while eliminating effort that produces diminishing rewards. It asks a relentlessly practical question:

    How good does this need to be?

    The second is Maximalist Ethics.

    Maximalist Ethics begins from a completely different premise. It holds that excellence possesses intrinsic worth. The highest obligation is not to satisfy expectations but to produce the fullest, richest, and finest work one is capable of, even when no customer notices, no employer rewards it, and no spreadsheet can justify the additional effort.

    Its governing question is equally simple:

    How good can this become?

    I encountered perhaps the clearest illustration of these competing philosophies while watching Mike Holst’s YouTube channel, This Watch, That Watch. Discussing whether Grand Seiko deserves its reputation, Holst makes an observation that reaches far beyond horology:

    “The key difference between Rolex and Grand Seiko is that Rolex generally makes a watch that is as good as it needs to be for the price. Grand Seiko chooses to make a watch that is as good as it can be for the price.”

    That may be one of the most insightful business observations I’ve heard in years.

    Rolex asks, What level of excellence justifies a $15,000 watch?

    Grand Seiko asks, What is the finest watch we know how to build for $15,000?

    Those are not merely different manufacturing strategies.

    They are different moral imaginations.

    Rolex operates according to what I would call Adequacy Culture. Its goal is to satisfy expectations with extraordinary consistency while carefully managing costs, margins, and brand prestige. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. It has produced one of the most successful luxury companies in history.

    Grand Seiko, by contrast, embodies Abundance Culture.

    Its instinct is to give more than circumstances require—to lavish finishing on surfaces few owners will ever examine, to polish components hidden from casual view, to pursue refinements that accountants would probably classify as unnecessary and customers may never consciously notice.

    One philosophy asks, Have we done enough?

    The other asks, Have we done our best?

    That distinction extends far beyond watches.

    A teacher can prepare the lecture that fulfills contractual obligations or the lecture students will remember twenty years later.

    A physician can treat symptoms or relentlessly pursue the best possible outcome.

    A novelist can submit a manuscript that is publishable or continue revising until every page feels inevitable.

    A marriage can consist of meeting expectations or continually exceeding them.

    If you are about to spend ten or twenty thousand dollars on a watch, you must decide which philosophy you wish to reward. Would you rather buy from a company whose guiding question is, What do we have to do? Or from one whose guiding question is, What is the finest thing we know how to make?

    Rolex has built one of the greatest brands in the world.

    Grand Seiko has built one of the greatest arguments for excellence.

    Those are not the same achievement. In the long run, they may not even belong to the same philosophy of life.

  • The Trapdoor Effect

    The Trapdoor Effect

    Alfred North Whitehead argued that religion arises from the desire to discover permanence in a transient world. Schopenhauer believed religion exists because we fear death. Tolstoy reached a more demanding conclusion. Death, he argued, forces us to make a choice: either surrender to despair or reshape our lives so that death cannot rob them of meaning. For Tolstoy, that reckoning culminated in religious conversion.

    Most of us encounter this reckoning in waves. There are seasons when mortality remains an abstraction, politely waiting its turn. Then there are moments when it barges through the front door and makes itself at home.

    The first time that happened to me was in 2004 with the death of football legend Reggie White. He had been born only a month after I was. At forty-three, he died from a cardiac arrhythmia related to sleep apnea. His death shook me, but I eventually regained my footing.

    Then came Lance Reddick.

    His death in 2023 hit me with far greater force. Reddick was sixty—my age. On screen he projected effortless authority. He played towering, intimidating police officers, wore a Tag Heuer as Chief Irvin Irving in Bosch, and somehow combined physical power with artistic refinement as an accomplished jazz pianist. He seemed built to endure. Seeing a man who embodied such strength simply vanish was profoundly disorienting. Nearly every day for the past three years, his death has crossed my mind.

    As if that weren’t enough, Facebook has become an obituary page for my adolescence.

    High school classmates—people who were posting vacation photos, political opinions, and pictures of their grandchildren only weeks earlier—suddenly reappear as memorial tributes. Healthy faces become framed portraits. Birthday wishes become eulogies. A life that looked perfectly ordinary on Tuesday has become a remembrance by Friday.

    The algorithm has quietly become an undertaker.

    Against that backdrop, my own routines begin to feel faintly absurd.

    There I am on my exercise bike, obsessed with burning exactly seven hundred calories in under an hour. I calculate how many grams of omega-3 a can of salmon will contribute to lunch. I debate whether next week’s garage workout should include walking lunges with twenty-pound kettlebells. I fine-tune my health strategy with the seriousness of a NASA engineer.

    And yet another part of me whispers that I am merely organizing deck chairs above a collapsing floor.

    At times I feel consumed by what I call The Trapdoor Effect: the unsettling awareness that beneath the routines of ordinary life—planning meals, exercising, paying bills, booking vacations, arguing over cholesterol, buying retirement clothes—lies an invisible trapdoor that may open without warning. We behave as though the future belongs to us, when in fact we possess nothing more than a reasonable expectation that tomorrow will resemble today.

    That expectation is comforting.

    It is also, perhaps, life’s most necessary illusion.

  • The Death of Salience

    The Death of Salience

    One of the saddest discoveries on social media requires less than thirty seconds. You scroll past short videos posted by people you vaguely know, and a realization settles over you: nothing matters because everything is presented as if it matters equally. Salience disappears. In its place is detritus.

    The mind becomes a bulldozer, endlessly scooping up gravel, dust, broken fragments, and digital debris, then consuming it without reflection. In this endless procession, urgent news loses its urgency, genuine insight is buried beneath trivia, and the ability to distinguish the significant from the insignificant begins to erode.

    Social media’s final achievement is not simply distraction but entropy. It levels every hierarchy of importance until the spirit is flattened, meaning dissolves into noise, and chaos masquerades as reality.