Is technology really helping people?

In "Automation Makes Ys Dumb", Nicholas Carr argues that automation is de-skilling people rather than strengthen people's skills and creativity. "But our growing reliance on computer automation may be exacting a high price. Worrisome evidence suggests that our own intelligence is withering as we become more dependent on the artificial variety. Rather than lifting us up, smart software seems to be dumbing us down." I totally agree with Carr's point. In such a technology age, technology is taking away people's skills potentially but substantially.

Let's talk about some really simple technological product--calculators. Calculators are so common in Universities that nearly every college student has one in hand. We use calculators to do all the mathematical calculations in class even in exams. Suddenly I found myself even rely on calculators to do very simple math for me. And I become gradually not good at doing all the sums in my head anymore. However, when I was in my country, China for school, I was required to do most of the calculations in my mind or on paper for homework and exams. This is a universal requirement for Chinese student. Only comes to Calculas problems would teachers allow us to use calculators for counting. So at that time, I was able to do all the simple math for most of my purchases. But now, when I'm ready to pay for my stuffs on the counter, I always wait till the cashier counts the total amount on his/her POS machine. In restaurants, I always use my smartphone app to count the tips for waiters/waitresses. Apparently, I become lazier and dumber compared to "me" in the past.

Smart technology definitely brings people much convenience but it also takes away our inner enthusiasm and learning initiative. People today are way over dependent on smart technology because we've tasted the sweetness of automation. However, the goal of automation is originally to boost the work efficiency of work like the boring and assembly work on production line. But nowadays, as Carr said, "The goal of modern software, by contrast, is to ease our way through challenges" that usually can up-skill us. Therefore, I think sometimes we should leave the pleasure of convenience behind, and go for the challenges. I believe the sense of accomplishment by overcoming challenges will taster much better!

A childhood experience

In speak of a scared and traumatized childhood experience, the first thing came to my mind would be the Detective Conan. Detective Conan is a Japanese detective manga series written and illustrated by Gosho Aoyama. It's a series of manga that opens to readers of all ages while there are so many murder scenes and murderous techniques clearly described in each episode. Those explicit murder scenes are the most direct and scariest elements that make Detective Conan the scar of my childhood.

Until today, I still remember the episode called Mountain Villa Bandaged Man Murder Case. As the title speaks itself, it's a tragic murder case happened in a mountain villa where a group of people stayed for vacation. Dead bodies and chopped heads wrapped with bandage are all depicted explicitly. From then, this episode has always been my scar. I would never watch it again though I am a grown-up now. My parents did nothing at that time since they felt that if the manga has already been approved to publish by relevant regulation department, it should be ok for children to read. However, I don't think that was a right way to handle the case. No matter it's a horror manga or a thriller movie, as long as it has inappropriate violent factors like dead bodies, it should be banned from children. And my parents should have taken actions like taking away those comic books, comforting me and explaining to me that those criminal scenes weren't true so that they wouldn't become my childhood scars. Also, I feel like there should be a rating system that is similar to the film rating system for these publications like comics and novels. By doing this, children would have a more healthy and parents would know more about how to protect their children from reading inappropriate content.

The Broad, Inclusive Canvas of Comics

So I spent 2 minutes finishing reading Ta-Nehisi Coates's article "The broad, inclusive canvas of comics". This duration of 2 minutes is relatively long compared to a normal 2 minutes in my daily life. By saying that I mean I do think a lot during the 2 minutes. Coates' article led me to think about the racial diversity and gender inequality in the comical world which I have never thought about before. 

Coates's central argument of this article is that he loves reading comic books more than watching comic books based movies because it's relatively more racial diverse and sexual equal. It's interesting but revealing to know that there is such a huge gap about the racial and sexual inequality between comics and movies. One example that Coates uses in his article is Pepper Potts and in Ironman. Potts's less power and her secretary position has been compared to Iron man, Tony Stark's powerful and dominant role. It again, reminds me of the Avengers that I mentioned in my last entry(I am not a fan of Marvels so the its produced movies I have seen are really limited). I haven't seen any comics books of Marvels so I'll just say what I see from the movie. The women roles in Avengers are, not surprisingly, again more like followers. The Black Widow has been shaped as a female character who always seduce other male characters. She was once with Hawkeye and later they broke up and then she started to play with Captain American. In Avengers 2, she somehow began a relationship with Hulk but at the end of movie, they still weren't together. In speaking of her power, the Black Widow is more easily to get hurt than any other male characters. As more of a assistant, she has never been the first to go against their enemies. To me, such a female role in a blockbuster would more or less influence audiences' perception of women. 

As for the racial problem, well, have you ever seen an Asian hero in a superhero movie? No. Asian characters have always been the minority in Hollywood, let alone being main characters like heroes. So I would say I believe comic book movies will be as diverse or inclusive as the books someday but it's still hard to just be like books for now. Also, I'd say children would be definitely influenced by superheroes always being white. Just like me, they could be potentially brain washed by these blockbusters and would admit the white supremacy one day without even noticing it. When I was little, the Marvels movies have already been universally popular in my home country. We had little our own superheroes movies at that time so the only superheroes I have seen are always white. However, I don't even realize it's unequal for other races until today. I feel like I am desensitized now because of the setting. So will the other children especially they are in an e-age. Though I say I'm kind of desensitized, my friends and I were still excited to see Cho Chang in Harry Potter when we were little because she's the only Asian character in that movie series. But now I think even the only Asian character has been misreiprensted by racial stereotypes. Just as expected, Cho Chang is a top student who is good at study and likes reading books. Not all Asians are "A-straighters". How would those audience who're not good at study reflect themselves on stereotypical image like this? Hope we will see the movie characters be more diverse and sexual equal one day. 

2 broke girls

So I watched the 22nd episode of 2 broke girls, called the disappointing unit of season 4. I think this episode definitely passed the Bechdel Test, event the whole series of this TV show have passed the Bechdel Test since the starring of 2 broke girls are two female actors.

Let's get back to talk about the 22nd episode of 2 broke girls, season 4. This episode talks about Max and Caroline, who are the main characters of the show, are going to attend their friends, Sophie and Oleg's wedding. So for the criteria of the Bechdel Test, this episode of 2 broke girls has met the first criteria---A show/movie must have two or more named characters. Max, Caroline and Sophie are all female characters who appear in this episode and have their names. Actually these three female characters are well-known for their names and personalities in the show. Also, Max and Caroline of course talks to each other in it because their settings in the show are best friends, sweet roommates and even business partners. And for the last criteria of the Bechdel test, I would say this episode almost did not pass it. Max and Caroline talks about man all the time during this episode, in fact throughout the whole series of the show. However, it finally has passed the test since there are still so many things other than man that Max and Caroline talk about in this episode. For instance, they discussed a lot about how could they make their cupcake business thrive. And max is always pessimistic about their business while Caroline tends to be more optimistic. But Max also inspires and encourages Caroline in a unintentional way. Like in 22nd episode, she said "We have our own business. The High isn't our failure. We already have our very own failure, called Max's Homemade Cupcakes. And if we stay here, we're building someone else's dreams, not ours." So I would say it does not only pass the Bechdel test, but also it is very inspirational for people, especially those women who start up their own business just like Max and Caroline.

Bechdel test criteria are important for understanding how women are represented in a show because the criteria require the respect, certain playing roles and intelligence(so they are not only talking about man all the time) of female characters in a show/movie. And as I said above, 22nd episode of 2 broke girls is a good representation of women since it shows the struggle, independence and ambition of women. Like I found it is quite inspirational since it proves that women still can do their own business successfully thought it's sometimes rather difficult.

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah

As an International student and a apolitical person, I have never watched any TV news program that talk about politics before. To be honest, I am really not a person who will sit down and watch news on TV or on my laptop. Instead, I usually see, or more precisely, skim the news articles on my phone, which is the quickest the way to update myself with all the new information. So this was my first time to watch a TV news program so seriously. However, The Daily Show was not as serious or boring as I expected. I watched the show of October 22nd which is about John Harwood. Personally, I am not interested in political issues at all but the way Trevor talked about them attracted me to watch more. He started the Daily Show in a really humorous tone. And he played a clip of Hilary Clinton hearing in congress, which was edited to be pretty funny. And he kept making fun of several politicians such as Hilary Clinton, Trey Gowdy, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson. Also, the talk between Trevor Noah and John Harwood was really interesting: John Harwood seemed that he had no stairs and graces at all during the whole talk. And Trevor kind of made joke of him but John was not angry at all and he even laughed while Trevor was playing joke on him. This is what I found that is really distinguishing from the politicians in China. The politicians in China are always so serious and make people feel like they never laugh like a normal person who has feelings. It is impossible for them to go to a comedy show like the Daily Show to be made fun of. Therefore, I think the Daily Show actually delivers a good impression on American politicians because of its informal but interesting form. I would definitely become more interested in politics after watch it. In addition, I think shows like the Daily Show are good for democracy since they let people speak out their inner overlapping sound and politicians don't really get angry at what they said because that's people's voice. Therefore they seem to be closer to the society. So from now on, I would binge-watch The Daily Show for sure just like how I watch 2 broke girls.

What does the front page say?

Most coverage of the front page of The New York Times on Wednesday, October 14, 2015(National Edition) talks about political related issues. 30% of the page reports the outbursts led by Palestinians in Jerusalem. Seven people died in this riot and many people got injured. What a tragedy! This coverage is at the top of the page and it is with a picture that visualizes this tragedy happened in Jerusalem. For me, It's not hard to understand the editor's intention to put this report of the outburst at the most eye-appealing place. I personally see this as a respect from the editor to those people who died in this outburst, hoping they can rest in peace while it is also a warning to people especially to those who are in Jerusalem that there is a danger that could potentially be spreading out now.

Another report on the front page is about Obama's rethinking of pullout the troops in Afghanistan, which is another political and military involved issue. In addition, coverages of questioning Obama's promise of the immigration plan, swelling afghan chaos and the changes of planned parenthood fetal tissue policy almost take up the rest of the page. It seems like the editor is aim to not only inform people of world news like riots in other countries, but also to increase people's attention towards political issues like policy change or troops evacuation, which is important to the country but people normally wouldn't search for.

Well, honestly, I don't find these political issues are posted in the front page of the New York Times surprising at all. Since political issues are indeed national concerns, they go up to the forefront without saying. However, what really surprises me is that the democratic presidential debate is not up there. However, I checked the other versions of the New York Times and I found the presidential debate is reported on those versions and it is above the fold. I found it interesting that how the newspaper reports differently but subtly according to the differential attention of concerned issues. On top of that, I do think coverages accompanying images are more appealing. I usually read those reports that have image with them because images are really direct and story-telling. Sometimes a picture says it all. A good captured picture can narratives better than a coverage that is full of words.

Social media is eating my life.

As a college student who was born in a technological age, I believe that 80% of other student spend most of their time on media. We check our smartphone consistently, browse our Facebook feeds, "like" our friends' status or pictures one by one and then half of the day has already passed. In this technology age, media has just been inevitably blended into our daily lives. I have never lived without media. When I was a child, watching television was my daily routine. After I grew up a bit, I became an online-game devotee. And now, I admit that I am totally addicted to social media. Nearly every waking hour of every single day, I use my phone or laptop to see what is going on in other people's lives and what events or incidents just happen in the world. 

Last Saturday was just another typical laid-back Saturday for me: I woke up at 9 o'clock in the morning. And the first thing I did after I opened my eyes was to look for my phone. I checked the time and then I just started diving into the news feeds until my friend called me out for lunch. During the lunch, every one was also checking her/his phone all the time. Even though while I talked to my friend, she was looking at her app message instead of looking at me. Only till that moment did I realize that how we are heavily addicted into social media.

Social media has indeed brought me some convenience: I don't have to go outside and look for like-minded people by joining a club or social so hard in order to know more cool people. Instead, I can just sit down and search for groups that I'm interested in on Facebook on my laptop. And after several clicks and words, I just make a new friend. However, this kind of "convenience" makes the relationship between me and others much shallower than before. Sometimes people like me just spend(waste) too much time looking for some new easy relationship rather than sit down and have a nice catch-up talk with our old friends. So let's put away our phones for a while, think about what has social media brought to us and what has it taken away from us. And ask ourselves: do we really want this kind of shallow relationships?