We Have Awful Science

To start off, I'd like to say that we're not going to Mars any time soon. In part, because both NASA and SpaceX don't have plans to Mars until at least 2026, and some critics are saying that's too ambitious. Public sector space programs around the world aren't well funded or have no intention to go to Mars soon. And private sector companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Google's Lunar X Prize don't have anything to gain in the short term. They won't get any real money until they make it to space or Mars, which means they'll have to get the funding to get there in the first place from someplace else, which is really hard since this is literally rocket science. Aside from money, there's another reason why I don't think we'll be sending any dude's to Mars any year now: our science sucks. Don't get mad at me if you're a scientist, but we haven't seen much innovation lately. Apollo 11's mission was to look for life, get man on the moon, and play golf. There were no aliens, no one has been on the moon since the 70's, but golf is still a thing (yay?). We, as humans, are awful at science. Cancer, diabetes, and AIDS are still here, and now we've got Zika and Ebola. Hell, Apple can't event make a phone that won't die in a few hours. These are just a few examples, the vast majority of our science and technology is really bad.

The last paragraph was pretty depressing, so from now on, one should focus more on how can science get better and what is causing it to be so bad in the first place. We can start to improve by getting rid of planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence, for those of you who don't know, is the creation of a product that deliberately brakes or loses its quality in an attempt to have the consumer buy a newer version. In other words, whenever a company makes a product that stops working sooner than it should because they want you to buy the newest update. Ever noticed that your iPhone starts to run a lot slower right when a new iPhone is released and you start to think about buying it, that's planned obsolescence. I believe that the reason for this is the software update. Every time Apple releases a new iPhone, it comes with a new software (iOS). Apple must leave in some bugs in its softwares for older phones so that they'll run slower. What can we do to stop this? As a consumer, we can stop patronizing them. Before you buy a new product, ask a friend who's been using it for a long time if it's a product that won't stop working easily. If you take a survey, tell them that you chose your product because of how long it lasts. It's definitely worth your money in the medium term to do this. As a society, we need to rebuild a world where there's no incentive to make anything so that it'll break. Right now, companies want to get rich at mostly any cost. There are a lot of things we can do to stop this but I'm not going to go into them. Let's just say, we need to rethink the structure of our companies.

Another change we need to do is in education. There's lots that can be said about the way most countries handle their education. I'm not going to add to this discussion. What I would like to say is we need to make sure the focus is on education, not anything else. So many schools, of all age groups, don't have education as their primary goal. The focus is on indoctrination instead. That is to say, every time a student has to learn one sided history or sing an anthem, they're losing valuable learning time. And nothing productive comes from this. Furthermore, a lot of schools don't want you to learn too much. The students are supposed to practice things like handwriting or standing in line. Also, there's a necessity to go to school. Most jobs have a minimum level of education. They often don't care what you learned, as long as you went to the right schools. They also don't care if you learned on your own. This can be fixed by employers. If you are an employer, please higher who would be right for the job regardless of where they spent their youth. If we stop all of these shenanigans, the world's science will be much better.

This post is getting pretty long, so I better end it here. Remember that our science is really bad. We've been trying to go to Mars since the Kennedy administration and it'll be more than a decade until we ever set foot on it. To end this we need to, out of other things, get rid of planned obsolescence and fix our schools. I didn't mean for this post to be so bleak, so keep in mind that we make our science and tech better in the future!

Why Can we Recognize a Logo Anywhere

The other day, I was watching a show when something caught my eye. There was a mug in the corner of the frame. Even though only about half of it was visible, and I neither watch sports nor live in New York, I instantly recognized that it was the New York Islanders logo. That got me thinking, how is it that I recognized a logo that I've seen so few times and just for a few seconds on screen?

The answer is simple, yet so complicated. In short, the Islanders spent probably millions of dollars to design the perfect, identifiable, and memorable logo. The long answer is a bit more complicated (duh). It revolves around association. The puck and stick in the Islanders' logo lets us know it's a hockey team. But how does its logo separate the Islanders from any other hockey team? What stands out to me is its colours. I've searched "NHL team logos" on DuckDuckGo images. I've found that no other team uses orange, white, and blue (Edmonton uses a similar pattern, but with the emphasis on blue, not orange). In fact, not a single other logo comes to mind that uses orange, white, and blue. Because of that, I have to associate those colours with the Islanders. And that's the number one requirement for a logo: uniqueness.

Another big thing for logos is versatility. A logo is found everywhere: business cards, billboards, shirts, products, you name it. This means that a logo shouldn't have too much detail. Take the Apple logo, all it is is a white apple with a apple with a bite out of it. If you see it super small or super large, you'll still know what it is. Plus, it looks good in black and white. Logos use this thing called vector graphics. It's a way of making pictures that uses lines instead of pixels. It's used because if you blow up an image big enough to fit in a giant billboard it won't look pixelated. Because logos are so versatile, it their simple designs and vector graphics, it makes them appear everywhere, which adds so much to making them memorable.

There are other things that logo makers do to get us to remember logos so well. These are the cheating ones. One common logo cheat is connecting it with emotions. Psychologists say that emotions are the best way for memory to work. If you watch an ad to help a third world country, they all connect their logo with emotions. There are pictures of cute little children, sad music, and a narrator with a motherly voice. Then it'll cut to the organization's logo- making the viewer associate the logo with sorrow. It's not just "help Africa" type thing, though. Casinos use this same technique. The only difference is that they're using happiness. Their ads show people overjoyed people striking rich. Once that happiness rubs off on you, they'll show you their logo. It's that simple!

To return to our original example, the New York Islanders' logo uses its colours to make it more appealing, but also stand out from the other NHL team. It's versatile. It has to be when it can be found on shirts, hats, even hockey rinks. And it defiantly connects with our emotions. Whenever the team scores, the logo can be seen everywhere. I'm not into hockey, but it seems to be a moment of great joy when a team scores. There is a lot to a logo, but colour, versatility, and emotion are the three that I wanted to share because they helped answer why did I recognize the mug from my show. Here's the logo I use. I hope you can recognize it too.

Can we All Just Chill with the Trump Jokes?

I'm sure by now you've heard your fair share of Donald Trump jokes. From late night shows, to day time TV to your annoying co-worker, they're everywhere. Maybe you've laughed at some of them. But goddamn they're everywhere now. We need to stop.

In case you don't know who Donald Trump is, welcome to 2016, Marty McFly. Donald Trump is a dude who's running for president, and doing quite well, too. He's known for acting anything but presidential. He'll attack minorities as well as public figures. Ever since he announced his entry to the race to the White House, everyone's been making fun of him. But here's the thing, these jokes are cheep humor. Notice how the vast majority of them are on late night TV. These are shows that have to fill over 40 minutes of jokes five days a week. No one ever tells jokes about Trump that make you change the way you look at the world, or are even funny if you them twice. I get it, if you're desperate for a joke, then it's justifiable, but otherwise, be a bit more clever.

We're not talking about some guy clowning around, we're talking about professional comedians who get paid millions of dollars and have a team of writers, and all they can come up with is a quick laugh and a bad impression (it's not that hard to do his impression, he talks in a really simple way). Humor can bring light to dark situations, or unite us- Trump jokes are just plain stupid. To be fair, I'm guilty of the occasional Trump/Pink Floyd wall joke, but for the sake of all of us, let's try to keep them to a minimum.

Furthermore, there's a bigger reason to stop with the Trump word vomit: it's giving us a overly simple view of him, and by extension, US politics. Take his comments on Islam as an example. Back in December, Donald Trump said that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to enter the US. Comedians jumped at the opportunity and made every possible joke from Muslims banning him from the Middle East to "it's you-ge, it's very, very you-ge". Very few people hade meaningful discussions about immigration, Islam, and terror. But the truth is that Trump flip-flopped on this, and a lot of other issues. So maybe he wants to ban all Muslims, maybe he wants to let all Muslims in. The point is, the public thinks that he's a crazy Muslim hater. And his opponents use it to their advantage. They present themselves as an alternative to Trump. It's kind of like saying "forget about my policies, I'm better than he is". Which let's them get away with a bad platform and what they're doing is essentially fear mongering. So by making cheap jokes on Trump's behalf, all you're doing is simplifying everything.

Let me be clear, this isn't meant to be a political post. I just thought this needed to be said. I'm neither endorsing nor attacking him here. All I'm saying is that Trump jokes are usually easy humor that simplifies our political views. Alternatively, we could use comedy about social issues to change the way we think,bring us together- not apart, and open discussion about some topics.

By the way, I made a great (click here to watch it) where I walk, in part, about why so many late night shows talk about Donald Trump.

Art is Not Subjective

What separates art from science. Is it that it's subjective? By the title of this post, you've probably realized that I'm going to say that it's not. A dictionary might define art as "a subjective artifact meant to be appreciated for its beauty or to cause emotions". Science is objective. If you try to calculate force as something other than mass times acceleration you likely won't get the right answer. But when it comes to art, it could have one effect on me and a totally different one on you. Isn't that subjectivity? So I guess art is subjective after all. Um... guess I was wrong.

By now you've most likely realized that there's more to it. You see, the reason science is objective is that we can predict a result of an event before they happen. Going back to the original example, if we drop an ball on the ground and we know its mass and the acceleration at which it's going to fall, thanks to Isaac Newton, we can calculate the force at which it's going to fall. Then, if we drop the ball and measure the force, we should get the same result. Simple enough. What if I told you that we can do the same thing in art?

Let's imagine someone named Ana. When she was a baby, Ana's parents made her listen to upbeat happy music. As she was older, she started to go to Broadway plays regularly. In school, her friends would always tell jokes. She spent her free time watching romantic movies on Netflix. So if I made Ana watch Mama Mia, dear little Ana is virtually guaranteed to like it. It's a Broadway play with upbeat music, romance, and jokes. Furthermore, there are genetic traits that help predict what kind of art each of us is into. Women tend to prefer romance and music, whereas, men would rather see action and violence. So you can predict results in art just like in science.

Now, you're probably thinking "but just because you know someone might like an art work doesn't make it objective. I hate Broadway musical comedies, therefore, it must be subjective". Well dear commenter, you're right. Art is not objective either. If you don't like that genre, first, what is wrong with you? And second, there are reasons for why you wouldn't like Mama Mia. Maybe you grew up watching sports and thrillers (again, what is wrong with you?). I'm not saying that art is objective, I'm saying art is relative. That is to say, taste in art is predictable and logical.

Science can also be relative. Take psychology as an example. Much like art, psychology is based on our nature and nurture. A woman who was raised comfortably with parents who were always there for her is going to react very differently to a situation than a man who grew up with mostly absent parents. So some realms of science can be pretty similar to art. Yay!

To answer the question I asked at the beginning, "what separates art from science?", the answer is nothing. Art is a science. The relative science of creating emotions in the viewer, listener, etc. That's a much better definition than the one from the first paragraph. In your face, Meriam-Webster!

Why is Blogging Even a Thing?

Blogging is an older form of media. It's being shadowed more and more by the more "hip" and "fresh" media forms like Facebook and YouTube. Yet still, you- dear reader- came here; and you're reading this. Why is that?

Maybe you came here because of my YouTube channel (shameless plug to the White Xocolate channel). If you did, then I guess the first paragraph caught your attention enough for you to keep reading. So why is it? For me, the writer, I find it quite relaxing, therapeutic, almost. I'm sitting here, writing away my thoughts on whatever topic I feel like discussing. The making of blog posts could also have to do with an inherent need a lot of us have. We all want attention. We all want to be good at something, and we all want recognition for it. If you're at home writing away on your diary, journal, or hell, even on a napkin, nobody else will see it. If that's what you're in to, then have at it, less competition for me. But for most people, we want to do something that's public. Blogs provide that opportunity.

Now that we understand why are blogs made, we can ask the real question: why are they read? I mean, reading about some dude's life, pop culture, or about why are blogs written (kudos if you're reading the last one from that list) doesn't seem too exciting. So why is it? I think it's because some people just like reading better. And I'm talking about real reading- not some 20th century Tweet, post, or BuzzFeed article. I'm talking about actually sitting down in front of your computer, or printed paper, and reading a post. That's an experience that YouTube, Vine, or anything else just can't replace. Much like writing blogs, reading them can be very relaxing to some.

But if writers write for relaxation and publicity, and readers read to replace other forms of media, then why don't we all just use books? I'll tell you why not. For one, books take time. You have to write them, edit them, give them to an editor to re-edit them and nag you for your grammar. On the other hand, a blog just takes hours, minutes maybe... seconds if you're feeling spicy. It's a lot less time consuming. Speaking about time consumption, my other reason for blogging over books is that it's more timely. Blogs are often about something that doesn't last forever, a sports game, a new trend (duck face anyone?), whatever it is. You can't write a book about something like this. By the time your book is published, everyone's long forgotten your book's topic and moved on to something new. Then, there's also the politics surrounding books, but I don't want to get too into them (yet). In brief, mostly anyone can write a blog, all you need is a keyboard really; but a book, that requires a publisher, an editor, possibly time and money. Don't get me wrong, I'm not poo-pooing books, all I'm saying is blogs are better for those who don't have a whole bunch of time and want to write something current.

So there you have it, friends, a bit of a meta blog. five paragraphs of me talking about why blogs are written, read, and not replaced. I hope you enjoyed, and I hope you have a damn wonderful day.