^ totally recommend that
― markers, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:15 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah i read that one the other day, great stuff
― ciderpress, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:16 (five years ago) Permalink
it was interesting, lol scientists
― ice cr?m, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:20 (five years ago) Permalink
i liked this one, seemed like a great premise for movie: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_collins
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 20:43 (five years ago) Permalink
Haven't finished it yet, but I'm digging the Freud, psychiatry, and mental health in China article (subscription needed): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/10/110110fa_fact_osnos
― Mordy, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:20 (five years ago) Permalink
The Patel story was amazing.
― dan selzer, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah needs a good 3rd act tho.
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:34 (five years ago) Permalink
he only contributed a couple of articles this year but i always enjoy atul gawande's stuff: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande is probably his best piece this year
― they fund ph.d studies, don't they? (Lamp), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:11 (five years ago) Permalink
if anyone subscribes then feel free to webmail me the china/freud article kthx
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:14 (five years ago) Permalink
I would, but I can't figure out how to turn it into a pdf or another webmail suitable file.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:24 (five years ago) Permalink
just copy and paste the text? or is it a different viewer thing.....no worries if that's the case
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:27 (five years ago) Permalink
the lehrer article is indeed pretty good and supplies ~evidence~ for my distrust of falsificationism and the inability of some ppl to think of scienctific 'knowledge' subjunctively, tho it does show science self-correcting so i don't read it as a total excoriation of the method
The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.
The recent one on the Vatican Library was pretty sweet: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/03/110103fa_fact_mendelsohn
I really like Toobin's diptych on JP Stevens and... the other guy.
nakhchivan, FYI, digital subscription gives you access to this weird applet-y, un-C&P text.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:26 (five years ago) Permalink
Oh, and that review of the new biography on Sergei Diaghilev was A+++++++ and really wish it was available to all humans: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/09/20/100920crbo_books_acocella
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:37 (five years ago) Permalink
you can c+p articles from an library institutional subscription, but the evan osnos china thing is from the jan 10 issue which is not on the library wires yet. if you can't get it nakh, bump this thread in a week or two and i'm sure someone from what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff will help you out.
― caek, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:46 (five years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (five years ago) Permalink
ive been using a friends login for the subscriber stuff for a while and the interface is just so poor i dont usually bother to fuck w/it - seems theyd much rather you read the actual magazine - lol
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:09 (five years ago) Permalink
^agreed. kind of why i started this thread so i knew which actual magazine to pick up and start reading.
― gr8080, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:13 (five years ago) Permalink
p interesting follow-up of sorts on the recent duchenne muscular dystrophy activism article -- they just had a spot f/ clay matthews sponsored by cadillac during the orange bowl
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 03:13 (five years ago) Permalink
OK a TA I had in college had a poem published a few issues ago, woah.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 05:57 (five years ago) Permalink
the whole Jan. 11 issue is worth picking up, the aforementioned freud in china article is amazing and hilarious, and it also has decent articles about belgium and why stieg larsson is so fucking popular
― symsymsym, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (five years ago) Permalink
i know the concept of 'worth picking up' is still valid, even for subscribers, in translating to 'worth retrieving from the well-intentioned pile of unread NYers', BUT in general it's still worth remembering how insanely valuable subscribing to the magazine is when compared to buying a newsstand copy. like forty bucks, for a year, for it to be mailed to your house, which is the cost of like seven newsstand issues.
― schlump, Monday, 10 January 2011 11:53 (five years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this? - http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/01/17/110117ta_talk_surowiecki
surowiecki doesn't have a single interesting thing to say here
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 12:03 (five years ago) Permalink
He's just summarizing the various memes on this now that are being mentioned in newspapers and blogs without asking anyone where things could go from here--what is the future for unionized government employees, will there ever be more unionized private sector employees, how would this help in regards to the inequality differences that have grown since union membership has declined...)
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:08 (five years ago) Permalink
His column is like a monthly crib-sheet of conventional wisdom so you can sound like you know what you're talking about when you get invited to a garden party in Stonington
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:14 (five years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this?
to summarize and provide some context to a current event or idea its not really about 'saying interesting things' its just a primer? like i know being 1000x smarter than anyone else ever is your thing but i mean the section is called 'talk of the town' so yeah, it exists so the mag's readers can get a vague grip on an issue - the column (which john cassidy also writes some weeks) is supposed to be a gloss? & thats not really all that terrible???
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:19 (five years ago) Permalink
honestly tracer maybe u wld get more out of the articles u read if u didnt spend all ur energy snarkily coming up w/ reasons why u wld have done it better
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:21 (five years ago) Permalink
dude there are a zillion interesting things happening with unions at the moment (the biggest of which imo is the belated but hugely important efforts to hook up with undocumented immigrants). i'm not sorry for wanting more out of a column called "the financial page"! this article could have been written at any time in the last 15 years - there is zero content to it!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:37 (five years ago) Permalink
i'll also admit that i am rankled by his terminology - "cadillac health plans" etc - and his conclusion that ultimately the reason that lots of people "resent" unions now is because unions have been successful at negotiating good contracts
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:39 (five years ago) Permalink
like, if i want economist-lite i'll read newsweek
snark on that one for size
there is a cover story public sector unions in the economist this week. dunno why i'm bringing it up though because i haven't read it.
― caek, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:40 (five years ago) Permalink
i'll be interested in reading that, in an "oppo research" kind of way.
i should probably just recuse myself from talking about surowiecki - everything about his steez rankles me and i'm finding it hard to put into words - the "primer" aspect is part of it, but there are people who write primer-type stuff who i love. i dunno!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:44 (five years ago) Permalink
yah i can see finding the article glib and too-neat "The Great Depression invigorated the modern American labor movement. The Great Recession has crippled it" both oversimplifies and maybe misses the point - i was just sort of baffled that you didnt seem to understand why an article like this gets written
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:02 (five years ago) Permalink
i guess i still don't! the avg new yorker reader could have dictated this article in their sleep 15 years ago
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:08 (five years ago) Permalink
so did anyone else read the all of the "20 under 40" pieces? thought it was pretty disappointing. vaguely remember liking one about a guy working on a boat in florida that catches on fire, but not much else.
― Moreno, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:04 (five years ago) Permalink
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (five years ago) Permalink
The psychoanalysis in China article is kind of disappointing imo, mostly because it seems to say that it'll explain why a) psychoanalysis fell out of a favor in the US and most other Western nations, and b) why China then picked it up. The article gets at b) at a certain superficial level, but really doesn't go into a) (which I'm sure has been the subject of a lot of other articles, just would've liked discussion here). Anyway, one of my prof is mentioned in the article, easily the best part of it.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:21 (five years ago) Permalink
really tapping into the slang here
The teens were from a variety of backgrounds—public and private schools, Manhattan and the outer boroughs—and they wore jeans, collared shirts, and leather jackets. They seemed like normal teen-agers, although they all had the faintly glamorous, knowing aura of city kids. They were discussing slang expressions. “ ‘Calm your tits,’ ” Yasha, an eighteen-year-old from Crown Heights, said, citing an expression that means “Calm down.”
“ ‘Good looks,’ ” said Kyjah, a sixteen-year-old fencer from the Upper West Side, who was wearing lime-green nail polish.
“It means ‘Thanks for looking out,’ ” Alexandria, from Yonkers, said. “Somebody’s like, ‘Oh, you dropped money.’ ‘Oh, good looks.’ ”
“ ‘Gucci’ is the same as ‘Good money,’ ” Yasha said.
“You can say, ‘What’s Gucci?’ ” Kyjah said. “ ‘What’s up?’ ”
Matteo, a sixteen-year-old from Park Slope, said, “ ‘What’s poppin’?’ ”
The teens hesitated. “That’s, like, a retro saying.”
Yasha added, “It’s gang-related.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2011/01/10/110110ta_talk_widdicombe#ixzz1AgfxnnHS
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:53 (five years ago) Permalink
Does a print subscription also give access to the full digital edition + archives? Their website is suspiciously vague about that.
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:20 (five years ago) Permalink
Yes it does - my international one does anyway.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:31 (five years ago) Permalink
yes, you can look at literally every single page of every single issue going back to 1921 or something.
the applet viewer thing is kinda stupid, but functional
― gr8080, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:40 (five years ago) Permalink
the david brooks article is so terrible i cant remember the last time i read something that managed to be so offensive w/o actually saying or meaning anything
― Lamp, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (five years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (five years ago) Permalink
i am considering writing a disappointed email, is how disappointed i am, right now
I know right! I couldn't even get through it.
I did enjoy the unintentional irony of describing what would commonly be thought of as "people skills" or "intuition" or "emotional intelligence" in ridiculously labored and aspergerian terms.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:14 (five years ago) Permalink
― nomar little (Leee), Monday, January 10, 2011 7:21 PM Bookmark
Agree with this. Started to raise some interesting implications about what psychoanalysis could mean for China as well, but then wastes way too much ink on here-and-now descriptions of various conferences and meetings, which new yorker writers love to bore us with.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:17 (five years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (five years ago) Permalink
The David Brooks article was so poor that I kept double checking to see if it was in fact fiction and supposed to be ironic. Or, failing that, if it was nonfiction and supposed to be a parody.
― Virginia Plain, Friday, 14 January 2011 18:19 (five years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (five years ago) Permalink
I had trouble just imagining people named Harold and Erica being the same age.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:30 (five years ago) Permalink
It's like, he's doing an emperor's new clothes story about an emperor who really does have amazing fucking clothes
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 11 September 2016 19:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink
― On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Sunday, 11 September 2016 19:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink
The whole idea that pretending you're running a successful restaurant that thousands of people go to each year allows you to charge 'big city' prices, when you've already been named one of the best places in America, is odd. In terms of elite appeal, i'd have thought 'the Brigadoon of restaurants' would knock it out of the park.
― On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Sunday, 11 September 2016 19:59 (two weeks ago) Permalink
The writer goes on about how expensive the place is now but when I read what goes into the guy's ingredients, and how much work it all is - and how it very likely IS a series of one-off, never-to-be-repeated, performances - it's surprising how low the prices are. Surely the guy would be able to charge far more if he were totally up-front about all this. I mean his patrons are booking two-hour taxi rides to get to him, have opinions about which continent serves the best Kobe beef, etc. But he doesn't. He won't. It's somehow super croosh that he keep up this idea that he's keeping standard business hours.
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 11 September 2016 20:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink
'I walked past several shelves in his curing barn - Most were full of exactly the sort of ingredients he'd talked to me about. However, I noticed several empty ones. How long had they been that way? Brow furrowed, I ventured on'
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 11 September 2016 20:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i think the interesting aspect of the story is that the seeming pileup of fabrications and confabulations seems so at odds with the genial backyard-foraging luddite persona that he cultivates. Especially because it seems like the behavior of a total charlatan, even though everyone seems to agree that he is in fact an extremely talented and creative chef. Why is this guy who would probably be a famous chef anyway resorting to making up an employee, Trump-style, hiding his meat source, and boasting of easily-disproven celebrity guests and a level of reservations that is cartoonishly preposterous?
The aim of the story didn't seem to be to poke fun of or expose foodies. I think mentioning the stuff about food critics is just to establish a possible motive for why this guy would go to such bizarre lengths to build this cult of personality about himself when it seems like he could just have a regular restaurant and make far more money.
It def seemed weird for the reporter to return to the kitchen without taking someone who knew how food was made; the author seemed like he was confident that he could just figure out if it was bullshit or not using common sense and was unprepared for the level of detail he was presented with. Like he hoped he would be able to just dig out a takeout container from his garbage. And why not show the photographs?
― slam dunk, Sunday, 11 September 2016 21:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i liked the detail about the spotless kitchen
― 龜, Sunday, 11 September 2016 22:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink
i think if i ever ate there i'd flip the table right when he's explaining a dish to me then rush to the kitchen to see if i can catch his sous-chef in action
― 龜, Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:45 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
otm, basically mysterious as heck
― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Monday, 12 September 2016 00:10 (two weeks ago) Permalink
What have you heard about it being hard to keep up? I recently got a v cushy and enjoyable (albeit unpaid) gig reviewing bars and restaurants where I live. Wondering why your friends find it hard to sustain?
Because it's hard to go out to eat almost every night, again and again, eating giant meals. Some nights you just want to stay in and/or cook, right? And then there is the stress of potentially being the one responsible for a place going under, just because of your tastes, or a bad night or whatever. It's kind of a be careful what you wish for situation. Of course, that presupposes one is doing it for honest reasons with rigorous criteria. If someone took this kind of gig not as a capital J journalist and just did it for fun for a guide or mag, with a loose business/editorial mix and an "everything is awesome, please buy advertising in our publication!" vibe, I bet it's a lot of fun. Like, I know plenty of hacks who pull it off, but they don't take it very seriously and are clearly just on board for the free shit. But for the ones who do take it seriously, it seems kind of exhausting.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 12 September 2016 01:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink
the Rivka Galchen short story this week is good
― Immediate Follower (NA), Monday, 12 September 2016 19:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink
That fraudy chef piece was great. It's an interesting paradox: the New Yorker has a rigorous, infamous fact-checking standard, but if you don't allow the writer access to anything, there are virtually no facts to check. That is, you can't be called a liar if there's no way to verify what you are saying is a lie (very tree/forest). The parallel mystery, in essence, is why Paumgarten was given the OK to write about something that cannot really be verified, but that kind of makes it extra fascinating. He can't call him a liar, because he can't fact check anything, so he writes a piece basically about how this story was hermetically sealed from any standard of truth. Reminds me of the famous Paul Auster/Smoke conclusion, with the epic, perfect story Keitel tells.
Paul Benjamin: Bullshit is a real talent Auggie. To make up a good story you have to know how to push all the right buttons. I'd say you were up there with all the masters.Auggie Wren: What do you mean?Paul Benjamin: I mean um,(chuckles)Paul Benjamin: it's a good story.Auggie Wren: Shit, if you can't share your secrets with your friends, then what kind of friend are ya?Paul Benjamin: Exactly. Life just wouldn't be worth living, would it?
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 12 September 2016 21:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink
― Immediate Follower (NA), Monday, 12 September 2016 19:25 (five days ago) Permalink
― flopson, Saturday, 17 September 2016 23:35 (two weeks ago) Permalink
― calstars, Sunday, 18 September 2016 01:45 (one week ago) Permalink
that girl in the dark article this wk is also perfect nyer content
― johnny crunch, Monday, 19 September 2016 15:11 (one week ago) Permalink
I just read it and it's pretty fucked up! Fits well with the chef article in coming close to straight-up accusing someone of being a fraud but without actually doing so or presenting any real evidence that they are a fraud. Both articles would be so much better if someone did some real investigating and wrote a real conclusion instead of just "are they lying? we'll never knoooooooow"
― Immediate Follower (NA), Monday, 19 September 2016 19:11 (one week ago) Permalink
I liked the touch in the girl in the dark article that the reporter wanted to know her real name and use their own recording device and the publisher said no and the reporter was just like OK I'll do it anyways
― Immediate Follower (NA), Monday, 19 September 2016 19:14 (one week ago) Permalink
Well that was odd
― I hear from this arsehole again, he's going in the river (James Morrison), Monday, 19 September 2016 23:15 (one week ago) Permalink
why is andy borowitz taking over this magazine
― marcos, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 14:42 (four days ago) Permalink
election year, the infinite space offered by the online version of a print magazine, gets shared like crazy by morons who both understand it's parody and don't, god hates us all.
― a basset hound (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 16:37 (four days ago) Permalink