“To produce less foam, beer should be poured into a container:
- upright, or
- at an angle”
This question was on the AFQT in 1973. Truly.
The correct answer was helpful off-duty. Whether the correct answer proved anything on duty, I never figured out during my Army term.
Must have had something to do with Vietnam.
Like everything else.
But, of course, I could be completely-wrong.
Or, maybe my best just wasn’t good-enough.
I dread Fathers Day.
I feel I no longer can afford hope.
Facebook’s current advert campaign is brilliant.
The campaign is in response to recent problems with user information. These problems unpleasantly-surprised, and repelled, a lot of (now-former) Facebook users.
So, Facebook responded. In these adverts, Facebook guarantees no user misinformation and no user disinformation. Perfect guarantee. Because– for just one thing– Facebook *wants* accurate user information. It’s all true, and persuasively-presented.
Facebook looks *good*.
And yet, there’s still an itch to be scratched. And that itch is nowhere-near the finger-nails of Facebook’s ad campaign.
The campaign simply ignores Facebook’s true user-information problem.
Facebook’s problem is not accuracy of user-information.
No, Facebook’s problem is
the extent of user information available to Facebook’s lucrative advertisers.
That extent is deep and wide. That extent invades Facebook users’ privacy.
And that invasion is mentioned nowhere in the ad campaign.
Indeed, the campaign ingeniously highlights one of Facebook’s goals: accuracy of user information. After all, Facebook’s generous advertisers don’t want user information that is inaccurate.
This is brilliant persuasiveness, whether advertising or political:
“change the topic”.
And, in that change, most of the audience is distracted from the real problem.
Of Facebook’s real problem, observers have found a perfect point of view, accurate and concise:
Facebook’s users actually are its product.
PS — a staple of higher-education in logic, and its adverse and bastard step-child, illogic.
Of the latter, “Change the Topic”, is one of the most-often found.
“Homicide: Life on the Street”, aka “HLOTS”:
My favorite police-procedural TV show. On NBC in the 1990’s. Back-stories, plots, character-development, dialogue, and, of course, action. The whole, real, deal. Speaking of dialogue, includes some of the favorite quotes of my life.
Season Seven, Episode 12
“The Same Coin”
Giardello: “So, the guy lives, what, maybe half-a-century without ever managing to get arrested, only to become the hood ornament on someone else’s four-wheeler? How fair is that?”
Bayliss: “When it comes to life, I think that a probability-curve is the only thing that we’re entitled to.”
Munch: “Life itself should come with a money-back guarantee: If not completely satisfied, return unused portion for a full refund.”
Giardello: “Put up a return-window on the department-store of life, you gotta figure the universe goes bust in four days.”
Bayliss: “Right. No satisfied customers at all”.
If you feel familiar with Detective John Munch but have not seen this show, there may be a reason: in an NBC series mash-up, the character Munch (ably-portrayed by Richard Belzer) appeared in both “HLOTS”, and, “Law and Order: SVU”.
Photo used by permission. No! Really! I bought the poster.
Well, as you can see, there are only new posts. My blog-program blew-up (my fault, of course). In addition to losing the program, I lost five years of posts.
Maybe I’ll just repeat that five years as best I can remember. That might, for awhile, give me a ready-source of posts!