^ totally recommend that
― markers, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:15 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah i read that one the other day, great stuff
― ciderpress, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
it was interesting, lol scientists
― ice cr?m, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:20 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
The Patel story was amazing.
― dan selzer, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah needs a good 3rd act tho.
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:34 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
I dunno I really like the idea of walking around DC with my emotional support alpaca.
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 28 October 2014 21:33 (3 days ago) Permalink
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 21:36 (3 days ago) Permalink
i didnt finished it either (yet) but agree that carrying a turkey around with you for emotional support is very funny
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 21:46 (3 days ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 21:47 (3 days ago) Permalink
do people do that dumb shit outside of major cities? can you get away with a support llama in topeka?
― Steve 'n' Seagulls and Flock of Van Dammes (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 28 October 2014 21:49 (3 days ago) Permalink
xxxpost - Captain Underpants books are funny, entertaining and better written and constructed than a lot of the garbage that adults read. Their author Dav Pilkey does a lot to get kids into reading, drawing and creating their own media. There are some truly appalling books out there for children though. Captain Underpants is a bad example to choose because they're actually pretty good.
― everything, Tuesday, 28 October 2014 22:10 (3 days ago) Permalink
That gluten article seems like it's trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand it displays a lot of skepticism to the idea that gluten-free diets help most people who go one them, but on the other hand it uses a lot of innuendo and loaded descriptions of adding gluten to bread to suggest it may have some nefarious effects.
― o. nate, Wednesday, 29 October 2014 01:55 (2 days ago) Permalink
I think it implied that there are lots of reasons to be wary of lots of things, gluten among them, but that the anti-gluten people were anti-gluten for many of the wrong reasons, or at least for totally unproven reasons. Like, it does acknowledge that there has been an increase in celiac, for example, but it stresses that nobody knows why, and that people (overwhelmingly not celiacs) self-diagnosing are going down a slippery slope of assumptions. A la anti-vax folks, or anti-GMO folks. Its OK to be suspicious, but acting with no basis other than gut (hah) instinct is an irresponsible reaction.
xpost I've been very lucky that both of my kids are advanced readers, so they pretty much skipped Captain Underpants, a series that I understood was written to appeal to a really broad (in every sense) strata of readers, from the non-reader or barely reader to early readers to (a common target) reluctant readers. What little I've seen of them seemed pretty LCD, the book equivalent of Twinkies (food for reluctant eaters?).
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 29 October 2014 02:07 (2 days ago) Permalink
Notes from the Underpants
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 29 October 2014 02:11 (2 days ago) Permalink
One thing I will definitely agree with that gluten article about is that "100% whole wheat" bread should never be soft and fluffy and if it is, that's a sign that something has gone horribly wrong. I buy whole wheat bread that doesn't have added gluten and the flavor is much better and the texture is like what whole wheat bread should be.
― o. nate, Thursday, 30 October 2014 00:55 (Yesterday) Permalink
Question about what I like about the New Yorker's restaurant reviews: I think it's that they are usually reviews of the atmosphere (other patrons, servers' remarks, decor) as much as, if not more so, than the food.
― jaymc, Thursday, 30 October 2014 05:02 (Yesterday) Permalink
due to brevity those restaurant reviews integrate the atmosphere into food description. most longer reviews insert a few paragraphs about the room and crowd before the food comes and i'm like "please bring the first course, what's taking so long, how bout a drink etc"
― Pontius Pilates (m coleman), Thursday, 30 October 2014 10:40 (Yesterday) Permalink
That gluten article seems like it's trying to have its cake and eat it too.
― Pontius Pilates (m coleman), Thursday, 30 October 2014 10:41 (Yesterday) Permalink
There are a couple of allusions to the dangers of going gluten-free for no reason in there, but iirc all that was mentioned was the concern of consuming too much bad for you stuff thinking it good for you or, more extreme, gradually excluding all food from your diet until I guess you die? Neither of which seem like dangers unique to going gluten-free. GF is of course largely bullshit, like most self-diagnosed dietary stuff, but the article does concede that something is going on, and some of the folks interviewed insist they feel better GF. So ultimately, what's the harm? It's not like people going GF reduced our herd immunity to gluten.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 30 October 2014 13:44 (Yesterday) Permalink
I think the point was that in lieu of gluten they are typically jacking up one of the three other "seller" components—salt, sugar, or refined carbs (which turns to sugar)—all of which in excess are more dangerous than gluten is to the average non-celiac, gluten-insensitive eater.
― Hadrian VIII, Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:41 (Yesterday) Permalink
So ultimately, what's the harm?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:44 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
um they will talk to you about it
― lag∞n, Thursday, 30 October 2014 15:00 (Yesterday) Permalink
― resulting post (rogermexico.), Thursday, 30 October 2014 16:49 (Yesterday) Permalink
― difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 30 October 2014 19:24 (Yesterday) Permalink
― ornamental cabbage (James Morrison), Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:39 (Yesterday) Permalink
other thing is that people who believe that garbage are also likely to be people who believe all sorts of other garbage
― I dunno. (amateurist), Friday, 31 October 2014 04:21 (14 hours ago) Permalink
i mean the people i know who have gone gluten free (and who don't actually have any particular sensitivity) are among the stupidest, most gullible people i know
― I dunno. (amateurist), Friday, 31 October 2014 04:22 (14 hours ago) Permalink
why do you know stupid people
― Spirit of Match Game '76 (silby), Friday, 31 October 2014 04:26 (14 hours ago) Permalink