Category: technology

  • The Carton of Milk Expiration Date on Your $3,000 Smart TV

    The Carton of Milk Expiration Date on Your $3,000 Smart TV

    Today to make room for a brand new LG OLED TV, we played a round of Musical TVs, the sad cousin of Musical Chairs, where everyone gets a screen but no one gets a perfect fit. The ten-year-old, 43-inch LG—now equipped with a trusty Roku brain—was dragged into the limbo-like office while my daughter debates whether it’s worth sacrificing square footage in her already modest quarters. The 50-inch Samsung, a QLED that once lorded over the living room, now teeters on another daughter’s dresser, swallowing what little space she had left for, say, books. I myself dragged the other Samsung—a year-old 50-incher—into the primary bedroom, wedging it precariously above the dresser like a luminous monolith threatening to tip over in the night.

    Here’s the irony: both Samsungs, with their decent QLED panels, are sluggish as elderly donkeys thanks to endless software updates. The new champ in the living room, a sleek 55-inch LG OLED with all the bells, whistles, and marketing superlatives, purrs along just fine and the interface moves at lightning speed. 

    The oldest and smallest of the TVs, the 43-inch LG, weighs more than both Samsungs combined. It radiates old-school build quality, but if I mounted it on the wall, the drywall would come crashing down in an avalanche that would obliterate my family mid–Netflix binge. 

    What important lesson have I learned? These so-called “smart TVs” are dumb as dirt. You spend $700 to $3,000, and in a few years the software updates strangle the hardware until it wheezes. The fix is cheap and almost comically obvious: don’t throw the TV out—give it a new brain. A Roku or Apple TV box, a mere $100 to $150, resurrects the panel for another decade. A carton of milk lasts longer than a smart TV OS, but a $99 box of plastic keeps the pixels glowing.

  • On Watches, Aging, and Invisibility

    On Watches, Aging, and Invisibility

    Today I strapped on my Seiko Tuna diver, a hulking slab of steel that announces itself the moment you walk into a room. I don’t exactly want the attention, but let’s be honest: the watch is a radar blip that keeps me from fading into the wallpaper, just another suburban relic limping through the final trimester of existence.

    This fear of invisibility gnawed at me after my cousin Pete’s 75th birthday party in Studio City. His brother-in-law Jim, a retired ophthalmologist at 77, leaned in and muttered, “The worst part of aging is people stop seeing you.” Those words have been rattling around in my skull ever since. Old age, it seems, is less about wisdom and more about turning into a frayed recliner everyone resents but no one wants to haul to the curb.

    I’ll be 64 soon, and I know the rules: Father Time has a master plan, and it doesn’t include my vanity. Sure, you can still play piano with arthritic fingers, hike with a knee brace and a back girdle, and keep a smartwatch ready to call in helicopter rescue if you tumble into a viper-filled canyon. But invisibility is baked into the contract. You can fight it with kale salads and kettlebells, but in the end, your processor slows, your refresh rate lags, and the world swipes past you at 5G speed.

    Take the Samsung QLED my wife bought at Sam’s Club in 2021. Four years later, the picture is fine, but the processor is a fossil. Menus freeze, apps take two minutes to load, and the whole thing wheezes like a Pentium II running Windows 11. Samsung cheaped out on the chip, and now I’m stuck with a dinosaur. My solution? Upgrade to an LG OLED, not because I need perfect pixels, but because I want a TV with an AI 4K processor that doesn’t choke when I click Netflix. The irony isn’t lost on me: I’m furious at Samsung for selling me a laggy processor, yet here I am, trudging through life as a laggy processor. My younger colleagues adapt to new tech in a snap; I freeze and buffer. I’m a Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED world.

    Nature is no kinder than tech. Watch the documentaries: Scar the lion rules the pride until Skip, the younger challenger, finally takes him down. Scar hobbles into the brush, invisible, forgotten, licking his wounds. That’s the arc. You don’t argue with it; you acknowledge it, maybe laugh about it, then go buy a $50 German Chocolate Cake at Torrance Bakery and eat the whole delicious thing. Because if invisibility is inevitable, you might as well go out with frosting on your face.

  • True Crime Shows Us the Demon That Hides Behind the Diagnosis

    True Crime Shows Us the Demon That Hides Behind the Diagnosis

    I still gag a little when I think of tabloid TV from the ’80s and ’90s—A Current Affair, Hard Copy, Inside Edition. The formula was simple: snarl into the camera, crank up the drama, and serve audiences their daily ration of moral panic wrapped in neon graphics. Having swallowed enough of that sludge in my twenties, I swore off the “true crime” genre, suspecting most modern entries were little more than tabloid reruns with higher production values.

    Then my wife and daughters talked me into it. In the last week I watched Love Con Revenge, a six-episode saga of con artists devouring their marks and detectives chasing them down like bloodhounds, and Unknown Number: The High School Catfish, the tale of a grotesque mother harassing her own daughter and boyfriend with a relentless barrage of obscene texts. Both were polished, chilling, and—for my sins—utterly absorbing.

    No shock, then, that Netflix, Hulu, and every other platform groan under the weight of hundreds of these fraudster chronicles. They mirror our times: technology weaponized into psychological napalm, the digital swamp rising up to engulf ordinary people. The stories console us by drawing a line between the “real world” of decent citizens and the fever swamp where predators feed—though that line, as these shows prove, is faint and fragile.

    What gnaws at me are the faces of these fraudsters: unrepentant, smug, cannibalizing innocence with the appetite of vultures while spinning narratives in which they—God help us—are the real victims. Watching Unknown Number, I thought of Scott Peck’s People of the Lie, a book that haunted my twenties. The book explores the unsettling terrain where mental illness and evil blur into one another, arguing that certain destructive patterns of thought and behavior cannot be neatly filed under psychiatric diagnosis alone. Peck suggests that some people hide behind the language of neurosis or dysfunction when what they are really exhibiting is a willful commitment to deceit, denial, and cruelty—a kind of “malignant self-righteousness” that psychiatry struggles to name. In his case studies, ordinary families cloak acts of profound betrayal and abuse in banality, showing how evil masquerades as normality. The book’s disturbing thesis is that evil is not always the exotic monster of horror stories but can manifest in the evasions, manipulations, and rationalizations of those who choose to deform their humanity, collapsing the categories of illness and moral corruption into one corrosive force.

    And here’s the ugly echo: the fraudster’s toolbox of deceit, self-victimization, and gaslighting isn’t confined to con men or deranged mothers. It has migrated, wholesale, into the attention economy. TikTok influencers now weaponize the same tactics, performing ailments and afflictions as if auditioning for sainthood, diagnosing themselves in real time while amassing legions of followers. This is fraud with a ring light: branding through pathology, monetized self-deception packaged as authenticity. It is the same theater of manipulation, dressed up in pastel filters instead of burner phones. And maybe that’s why these true-crime tales fascinate us: they remind us that manipulation, gaslighting, and deception have found their ultimate playground online. We watch to reassure ourselves that we’re still anchored to reality, but what we see instead is how terrifyingly porous the line is between mental illness and pure, corrosive evil.

    When we slap a psychiatric label on every grotesque act, we risk letting the guilty off the hook. To call fraud, cruelty, or sadism merely a “condition” is to dodge the darker truth—that people are capable of choosing evil. Peck was right to warn that deceit and malignant self-righteousness are not just quirks of the psyche but deliberate acts of corruption. If we keep misnaming evil as illness, we blind ourselves to the reality that a demon can take root inside ordinary people, feeding on their rationalizations until it grows strong enough to wreak chaos and devastation in the world around them.

  • How I Bribed My Students Into Talking on Canvas Discussion Boards

    How I Bribed My Students Into Talking on Canvas Discussion Boards

    Yesterday’s meeting featured the usual bureaucratic chestnut: making sure our online writing classes don’t devolve into glorified correspondence courses. The mandate was clear—students must get quick feedback from us, know how to contact us, have a tech-support lifeline, understand what materials to buy (not a $3,000 MacBook Pro?), and, above all, know the bare minimum of interaction they’ll have with their online peers.

    That interaction lives on the Canvas Discussion Board, which we’re told is the beating heart of digital education. From hard experience, I know this: if I don’t attach points, those boards become ghost towns. Students treat “attendance only” discussions like spam mail. The secret motivator is points—no matter how meager. Even the stingiest point values light up student survival instincts. They’d rather wrestle with a tedious prompt than lose three points.

    So here’s my new math for online classes:

    • Three 1,700-word essays: 220 points each.
    • Six building blocks (a.k.a. formative assignments): 50 points each.
    • Eight Discussion Board prompts: 5 points each.

    That’s the full enchilada: 1,000 points. Students stay engaged, the boards don’t wither, and I can claim my class is more than digital pen pals swapping files in the void.han digital pen pals swapping files in the void.

  • The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    I still tune in to Howard Stern now and then, but most of what I hear these days sounds like a half-hearted reprise of his old shtick—sophomoric gags, body-function chatter, and adolescent innuendo that once jolted the airwaves but now just sag. In his prime, Stern was combustible: he blended pranks, irreverence, and enough genuine insight to keep his circus from collapsing. He earned his Radio Hall of Fame status by kicking down doors no one else dared touch.

    Now, as rumors of his retirement bubble and I endure his weary, autopilot banter with Robin, three thoughts claw at me. First: they don’t sound like they’re having fun anymore. This is a zombie act, plodding through the motions. Second: filling three hours of airtime every single day is a Sisyphean curse—nobody has that much worth saying without stuffing the sausage with sawdust. Third: we all have a shelf life. Relevance expires, and dignity demands a graceful exit.

    Stern’s curse is worse than most. His career persona—edgy, raunchy, forever pandering to prurience—has gone stale, but he’s trapped in it. The irony is brutal: a man smart enough to evolve chose to calcify. A decade ago, he could have pivoted, shed the shock-jock skin, and re-emerged as the wise veteran with conversations that mattered. Instead, while podcasts multiplied like caffeinated rabbits, he let himself be left behind.

    But maybe it isn’t too late. Imagine Howard 2.0: no longer the carnival barker of Sirius, but the philosopher-in-residence of his own café, sipping coffee and musing about culture, mortality, and meaning. Not fifteen hours of filler a week, but four hours of distilled insight—an hour twice a week, sharp and substantive. Podcasting is radio’s heir, and radio is in his DNA. Reinvention is the only antidote to irrelevance, and if he can summon the nerve, Stern could still surprise us.

  • The Tabloid Mind Vs. The Thoughtful Mind

    The Tabloid Mind Vs. The Thoughtful Mind

    The verdict is in: after fifteen years of running their experiment on us, social media has mangled the human psyche. It has sandblasted away nuance, turned civility into snarling, and left us performing as shrill tribal mascots. The trouble begins with its essence: an Attention Machine. Every scroll is a sugar hit for the brain—quick spike, hard crash. We learn the trick ourselves, spitting out content like human Pez dispensers, packaging our thoughts as candy for the feed.

    Belonging is rationed out in likes and retweets, and the cost is subtlety. To win attention, you don’t weigh both sides—you crank the volume, you caricature, you inflame. What begins as a hook metastasizes into belief. We develop the Tabloid Mind: the reflex to turn every notion into a screaming headline. And once we inhabit the Tabloid Mind, we degrade, becoming not better humans but better performers for the algorithm.

    The Thoughtful Mind never stood a chance. A Tabloid platform attracts tens of millions; the Thoughtful Mind, if lucky, limps along with scraps. Yet the difference is stark. The Thoughtful Mind asks, listens, considers contradictions, and cools the room so clarity can thrive. The Tabloid Mind, by contrast, thrives on panic and rage, reducing discourse to a lizard-brain cage match where opponents are demons and the fire must never go out.

    A culture enthroned by the Tabloid Mind breeds paranoia, extremism, conspiracy, and violence. And violence doesn’t need to be shouted—it can be winked into existence by the constant drip of toxic adrenaline.

    I know the alternative exists because I live it daily in the classroom. When my students wrestle with bro culture, influencer fakery, or the cultural fallout of GLP-1 drugs, they do so with humor, nuance, and critical thought. The Thoughtful Mind lives there, in the room, face to face. No one is frothing at the dopamine mouth. No one is shitposting for clout. We disagree, we wrestle, we laugh—but we think.

    The Tabloid Mind is not sustainable. It’s a toxin, and unchecked, it will kill us. Our survival depends on choosing the Thoughtful Mind instead. The fight between them—clickbait versus clarity, heat versus light—is not just cultural noise. It’s the defining battle of our age.

  • I’m in a YouTube Video Slump and I Don’t Know Why

    I’m in a YouTube Video Slump and I Don’t Know Why

    My WordPress dashboard tells me I’ve posted on Cinemorphosis for 152 days in a row, as if it’s awarding me the Blogging Olympics medal for “Most Neurotic Streak.” I don’t post daily out of discipline so much as survival. Writing is my mental hygiene—my daily scrub against chaos. Free therapy without the billable hours.

    YouTube, however, is another story. I haven’t made a video essay in over two weeks, and the gap feels like a cyst growing on my confidence. The longer I wait, the heavier the silence becomes, like trying to deadlift after skipping the gym for a month. I want to post, but not just to feed the beast. I don’t want to churn out recycled monologues about my watch obsession or let YouTube’s algorithm turn me into a carnival barker with clickbait headlines and fake urgency.

    It’s not as if I lack material. College just started, and I’m teaching the entire athletic department. A room full of goal-driven athletes who actually follow instructions? For a writing professor, that’s better than tenure. And as a relic from the muscle era of the 70s—Olympic lifts, protein shakes, and the occasional posing oil—I feel a strange kinship with them. We’ve already launched into our first essay assignment: the crisis of masculinity and how Bro influencers like the Liver King peddle snake oil dressed in bison liver. These guys exploit the anxieties of young men the way payday lenders exploit the broke. Can’t buy a house? Don’t worry, kid, buy abs. Tongue-tied around women? No problem, creatine is your Cyrano de Bergerac. The students are eating it up, and for once, their feedback has been better than protein pancakes.

    So why can’t I translate this into a video essay? Maybe because my brain recently short-circuited over something ridiculous: watch straps. I fell down the rabbit hole of FKM rubber straps after reading a study claiming they leach chemicals into your skin. My beloved Divecore straps—once the apex of wrist comfort—suddenly looked like toxic bracelets. I agonized for days, debating whether to bin them, keep them, or wrap my wrists in cheesecloth. The obsession drained me like a bad relationship. In protest, my mind and body staged a walkout, shutting down further watch chatter. For now, I’m taking a mental break. I’m grateful for the watches I have, but I don’t want to rejoin the strap wars or churn out videos about my latest dive into consumer madness.

    So here I am, taking a mental breather, trying to avoid the treadmill of compulsive content. It’s humbling to admit that the blogging streak hides a creative stall. But I know the video essays will return. They always do. Once I shake off the chemical paranoia and algorithm anxiety and process my thoughts, I’ll be back in the groove—hopefully with something worth watching.

  • When the Radio Becomes God: Eavesdropping on Despair

    When the Radio Becomes God: Eavesdropping on Despair

    The word “satisfactory” can be a bit of an oxymoron. There’s not much that is satisfying about being satisfactory when the word is a proxy for mediocrity and ennui. To be in life’s sweet spot of income, career, and social status may feel like a prison. To keep your “satisfactory” status, you may be playing house, as they say. You go through the motions of what is considered respectable but feel empty inside. You may find yourself to be the unflattering subject of the famous Talking Heads song “Once in a Lifetime.” The song’s theme is the shock of waking up inside your own life and not recognizing how you got there. David Byrne delivers his lines like a dazed preacher, cataloging the trappings of middle-class success—“a beautiful house,” “a beautiful wife”—yet always undercutting them with the anxious refrain, “Well, how did I get here?” The song captures the disorientation of modern existence, where routines and consumer comforts can feel alien, as if someone else scripted your life while you were sleepwalking through it. Beneath its hypnotic bassline and tribal rhythm, the song is less celebration than existential panic: a reminder that time moves in one direction, that choices pile up invisibly, and that one day you might look around and realize the current has carried you somewhere you never meant to go. The song came out as a video in 1981 and remains one of the most famous videos ever made.

    Cut to 2014 and you’ll find a companion song–Father Misty’s “Bored in the USA.” The song skewers the hollowness of the American Dream by presenting a narrator who has all the trappings of comfort yet feels utterly vacant inside. Over a piano ballad that mimics Springsteen’s Born in the U.S.A. anthem but inverts its spirit, he lists his modern dissatisfactions—student debt, prescription meds, existential malaise—with a deadpan delivery that borders on satire. The song’s title itself is a punchline: in a land of abundance, the greatest affliction is ennui. Misty sharpens the critique by layering laugh-track chuckles over his lament, exposing the absurdity of personal despair as entertainment. The theme is clear: American prosperity doesn’t guarantee purpose, and in a culture that commodifies everything, even boredom becomes a spectacle.

    Perhaps the precursor to the above songs is Malvina Reynolds’ “Little Boxes” (1962).  All three songs wrestle with the discontent lurking beneath middle-class comfort. Reynolds’ folk satire ridicules postwar conformity: rows of identical houses, “ticky-tacky” lives, and the way education, careers, and family structures stamp people into cookie-cutter molds. Byrne picks up this theme two decades later, asking in “Once in a Lifetime” how one can inhabit that prefab life without ever choosing it, caught in the current of routine until bewilderment sets in. Misty, in turn, gives the 21st-century update: not only are the houses still there, but so is the crushing boredom, debt, and medicated detachment that follow from chasing that same ideal. Together, the songs form a lineage of American self-critique—“Little Boxes” mocking the architecture of conformity, “Once in a Lifetime” exposing the existential vertigo inside it, and “Bored in the USA” diagnosing its emptiness in an age of irony and overmedication.

    All three songs—“Little Boxes,” “Once in a Lifetime,” and “Bored in the USA”—resonate with Paula Fox’s masterpiece novella Desperate Characters in their shared critique of middle-class paralysis. Fox’s novel follows Sophie and Otto Bentwood, a couple trapped in a Brooklyn brownstone, surrounded by the comforts of professional success yet gnawed by alienation, decay, and a sense that life has slipped beyond their control. Reynolds’ “Little Boxes” mocks the social machinery that produces people like the Bentwoods—educated, well-off, but indistinguishable. Byrne’s “Once in a Lifetime” channels Sophie’s disorientation, the feeling of waking up one day to a “beautiful house” and a “beautiful wife” yet asking, “How did I get here?” Misty’s “Bored in the USA” pushes the critique further, mirroring the Bentwoods’ emptiness with a 21st-century inventory of malaise: debt, pharmaceuticals, and soul-crushing ennui. Taken together, the songs and Fox’s novella expose the fragility beneath affluence, suggesting that comfort without meaning curdles into desperation.

    John Cheever’s “The Enormous Radio” joins the chorus. Jim and Irene Westcott are respectable enough to be alumni-brochure fodder, yet their lives hum with nothingness. Then comes the radio, their supposed luxury upgrade—a hulking gumwood cabinet that looks less like a household appliance and more like a coffin standing on end. At first it malfunctions with grotesque noises, coughing and wheezing like a consumptive beast. But when it “works,” its real gift is supernatural: it picks up not Brahms or Mozart but the raw, unedited conversations of the neighbors. Suddenly Irene is granted an unwanted superpower, the ability to eavesdrop on lives stripped of pretense. Through the radio’s crackle, she overhears quarrels, confessions, betrayals, the bitter sediment of other people’s marriages. Respectable couples she once envied are exposed as small, petty, furious, and miserable. Irene becomes both priest and voyeur, holding court over the private sins of her building. The radio doesn’t merely broadcast sound; it rips open walls, tears down curtains, and forces Irene into an intimacy she never asked for but quickly can’t live without. Jim recoils in disgust, but Irene is entranced, feeding on the poison like it’s oxygen. The radio becomes their third eye, their unwelcome oracle, a device that transforms a bourgeois apartment into a haunted theater of human despair.

    The question Cheever poses—and which Reynolds, Byrne, and Misty circle—is whether too much knowledge of others, or of ourselves, is corrosive. The radio doesn’t merely reveal secrets; it corrupts. Irene begins with curiosity, but soon she’s chained to the cabinet, hypnotized by its stream of confessions and recriminations. What she hears doesn’t just stain her view of others; it infects her own marriage, her finances, even her sense of self. She grows convinced that her life is flimsy, precarious, and wasted, as though the radio is no longer a machine but a judgmental deity, casting its pitiless light on everything she’s tried to keep tidy and respectable. For Irene, the radio becomes both oracle and executioner, transforming her from passive listener into a woman undone by revelation. And that’s the horror Cheever leaves us with: the possibility that self-examination, when magnified by an unblinking device, doesn’t lead to wisdom at all, but to paralysis and despair. Respectability is not protection. The walls are paper-thin. The “satisfactory” life is a coffin with good upholstery.

  • Favorite Blast from the Past: Radio Legend Gerald Gives Us a Look at Some Vintage Field Radio Titans

    Favorite Blast from the Past: Radio Legend Gerald Gives Us a Look at Some Vintage Field Radio Titans

    P1000588

    1969 to around 1978. no doubt the pinnacle years of Japanese made portable radios. While Sony and Panasonic certainly lead the way, Toshiba, Sanyo and others were pushed by the excellence of the big two. This resulted in well built , compact super radios as all these manufacturere reached the pinnacle of this technology. Use of the finest materials and cutting edge diodal, transistor and integrated circuitry technology was the order of the day across all brands from japan. The caveat, one of these babys cost you the equivalent of one weeks pay in 1972! But what you got  lasted your lifertime!

     The examples shown here are in new condition and are noted for their quality, durability asnd excellence in true field conditions.  lets introduce them,, the IC77 from Toshiba 1974, the RF 858 wordlboy from panasonic, 1970ish, the rp-7220 trailmaster from sanyo, 1973 and the Toshiba RM201FA. 1969.  as you can see all radios came with protection cases, notably, the rf858 and the sanyo rp 7220 came with hard cases! Of course, all radios came equipped with dial lights, tuning meters and shortwave capabilty.

    I can only say that all perform nearly on an eqaul basis to each other. when i compare them to the new chinese fare,, well,, no contest. ALl pereform acutely on all bands with crisp, concsise analog tuning. These radios pop with life while spearing the unseen radio waves from the ether. 

     These radio compact size made them the perfect field radios. Ive included the rf 2200 for scale, as you can see, the 2200 would be a little cumbersome on the trail. These are oocaisionally offered on ebay, if you see one thats well preserved, get it.

    Just remeber, Sony and Panasonic pushed Sanyo Toshiba and others to excellence in this period, dont overlook them!

    P1000591
  • Blast from the Past: A Radio That Warns the Whole Neighborhood You’re Washing Your Car: The Panasonic RQ-548S

    IMG_3939

    The only radio I have that rivals my RQ-548S in sheer volume is my Panasonic RF-888. Both radios are from around 1974. The build quality on the RF-888 is superior. But the RQ-548S, which I purchased for $25 on eBay plus $15 shipping 3 years ago, is a winner with its 7-inch Dual Cone Speaker. 

    IMG_3940

    I used to see these things NIB for a while and a few used ones but apparently they’ve all been snatched up on eBay as I haven’t seen on for sale in well over two years.

    IMG_3941

    The FM and AM sensitivity is excellent. Mine had a stripped telescopic antenna and required a metric screw, which the local hardware store didn’t have, so one of the employees jerry-rigged the antenna for me (no one would have done this for me at a mega-store). The cassette actually works fine. I notice these 1970s boom radios sell for a lot now and evidence the hunger for a high quality type of boom box that is no longer made today. 

    IMG_3942