if anyone subscribes then feel free to webmail me the china/freud article kthx
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:14 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
t-pain?
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
that article was not about people it was abt the Composure Class (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Empty Factoids)
― Lamp, Friday, 14 January 2011 18:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
omg that brooks article guys
― horseshoe, Friday, 14 January 2011 22:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
unacceptable
i saw the name and sort of hoped it was a different david brooks and after about two sentences i was like DX
― max, Friday, 14 January 2011 23:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
Page 1 of 6?
forget it
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 January 2011 23:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
Reading Jon Lee Anderson's recent article about Sri Lanka. I'm so curious what his personality is like, as far as how he behaves in a room with dictators and drug lords and everyone else he commiserates with as a reporter. (His article on Rio gangs from last year is terrific, too.)
― like launch the globs and strands (Eazy), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:28 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'm sure he tries really hard not to say anything offensive.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
JL Anderson is great.
― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i love the way the author just kind of drops the superwoowoo lady into that piece
― discreet, Saturday, 18 May 2013 18:37 (Yesterday) Permalink
i stopped reading that a page or so in because i was like i'm not even sold on this being a thing yet, do i really need to know all about these guys' extended family history, but should i go back?
― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Saturday, 18 May 2013 20:34 (Yesterday) Permalink
try reading it backwards
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Saturday, 18 May 2013 20:46 (Yesterday) Permalink
I unno, I didn't mind the family history tbh! Anyway it kind of pays off quickly in that it explains the initial eureka moment, and maybe how they were able to get their startup off the ground (still reading it atm).
― llama del rey (Leee), Saturday, 18 May 2013 20:46 (Yesterday) Permalink
― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:34 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
very frequently feel this way about new yorker articles
― flopson, Saturday, 18 May 2013 21:25 (Yesterday) Permalink
yeah they could def stand to leave out the background info from time to time
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 May 2013 22:52 (Yesterday) Permalink
u mad that's what i read nyer for
― gr8080, Saturday, 18 May 2013 23:01 (Yesterday) Permalink
its sometimes illuminating but sometime not and like im just sayin feel free to switch up the format occasionally
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 May 2013 23:04 (Yesterday) Permalink
a nyer story: zoom in, zoom out, childhood, factoids, factoids, think abt it
― lag∞n, Saturday, 18 May 2013 23:05 (Yesterday) Permalink
ya that was def something that i really loved about it when i first got into the mag, all the character profiles & the way they'd humanize the most obscure or even evil ppl... but sometimes i find it tiresome, idk like it's stretching out to cover up for less thorough reporting, describing in minute detail what the person was wearing to cover up for the short & shallow interview they're using
― flopson, Sunday, 19 May 2013 00:53 (11 hours ago) Permalink
I wish I were a humanities grad student and could make a thesis out of analyzing all NYer writing, ever, and determine what percentage of pieces had a physical description of someone and/or his/her attire as the second sentence.
― quincie, Sunday, 19 May 2013 02:06 (10 hours ago) Permalink
they don't print many photos; physical discriptions are important
― gr8080, Sunday, 19 May 2013 02:45 (10 hours ago) Permalink
they famously didn't print any photos until somewhat recently. for some reason 'no photos' was a point of pride for a certain class of publication - nyer, new republic, wall st journal.
― balls, Sunday, 19 May 2013 03:08 (9 hours ago) Permalink
the whole thing of setting up a story and then about 1/5 of the way in going "klaus dingeldore was born in a placid rhineland village in 1972. his father was a monkey keeper" is 100% just part of the structure of its profile pieces but i didnt really think the mushroom thing was going to be a profile piece but more of a science/product thing i guess. i guess i was less interested in hearing about the family history of a 28-year-old cool dude who has an exciting new form of styrofoam.
― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Sunday, 19 May 2013 06:12 (6 hours ago) Permalink