Keeping Safe on Twitter, Blackstone’s Ratio, and Ways to Support Victims

A lot’s happened since my “Innocent until proven guilty in a court” isn’t the end of the story went viral on Twitter. New and credible allegations of abuse in the games industry have emerged, and the pushback from those who believe all the allegations are lies has been typically fierce.

And yes, there has been tragedy – but this isn’t the moment to lay low. The attacks on victim of abuse may get worse before they get better, so I hope to share some useful lessons from my recent experience of receiving hundreds of abusive tweets (which isn’t at all comparable to the far worse attacks others have endured), including:

  • Ways to keeps yourself safe on Twitter
  • Responses to common “gotcha” arguments
  • Ways to support victims

First, keep yourself safe

If you find yourself the subject of hundreds of abusive tweets but you want to keep using Twitter, your first step is to activate advanced mute filters:

In particular, checking Who don’t follow you will hide 99% of trolls. I didn’t check that one because I don’t follow many nice people whom I still want to hear from (yes, I’m a bad person) but you should.

In extreme cases, you may want to lock your account temporarily.

Don’t engage, just block. If you get an abusive or bad faith tweet, you shouldn’t hesitate to block the senders. That’ll clean up your notifications quickly.

Blocklists don’t work. Twitter allows you to block accounts en masse by importing blocklists. Unfortunately, all of the blocklists I found weren’t being actively updated, and they’re full of accounts that you might still want to hear from, e.g. @nytimes. I get why people might want to block @nytimes but that wasn’t what I was looking for, and it made me distrust the entire list. Other blocklists suffer from even worse selection biases. So I can’t recommend using them.

The truth is, even a well-resourced volunteer blocklist would struggle to keep up with the ever-changing number of abusive Twitter accounts. The only proper solution is via Twitter itself. Unfortunately, they seem to have little interest in cracking down on abuse or even developing tools for users to manage abusive tweets themselves. There is no way to easily bulk-block accounts; to turn off replies for a tweet; or to prevent a tweet from being quoted.

Why is quote-tweeting such a problem? See this example:

This quote hides the second line of my tweet, which said “Stop saying it. Here’s why👇” making it clear there was more to my argument. It goes without saying that plenty of people don’t read past the headline, but it’s also clear that truncated quote-tweets made that problem even worse in my case.

Interesting, Mastodon deliberately doesn’t allow quote-tooting:

…it inevitably adds toxicity to people’s behaviours. You are tempted to quote when you should be replying, and so you speak at your audience instead of with the person you are talking to. It becomes performative. Even when doing it for “good” like ridiculing awful comments, you are giving awful comments more eyeballs that way.

I only had a quick blast of this, other people get it far worse than me, and there is no doubt in my mind Twitter’s lack of action is contributing towards significant mental harm.

“Better 100 rapists go free than one man be falsely accused of rape”

Some people care more about theoretical justice than actual justice. They are essentially fantasists, and you can spot them quite easily, because they often say something like this:

Better that 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man goes to jail. That applies to rape, murder, and any other crime.

I imagine the author of that (real) tweet muttering “checkmate” as they typed their version of Blackstone’s Ratio (the exact ratio varies between 10-100 “guilty”, with Benjamin Franklin at the top end of the scale).

Now, before we get into it, let’s be clear: invoking “innocent until proven guilty in a court” is applying a legal standard to a social situation, like shouting “first amendment!” doesn’t and shouldn’t protect you from people getting angry about what you’re saying. It is quite normal for people to earn reputations as bullies or liars amongst groups without proving anything in a court of law. It is only when a severe sanction is to be applied, such as a fine or imprisonment, that this legal standard is relevant.

Putting that aside, the problem with Blackstone is that not everyone agrees with it. Just because it’s a long-standing principle doesn’t mean it’s a good principle for today. As Daniel Epps writes:

English jurors [in the 1700s] literally feared damnation if they erroneously sent an innocent defendant to death. Moreover, given that English judges and juries faced binary punishment options, the Blackstone principle was consistent with simple notions of deterrence. Where only one level of punishment for crime is available, and where that punishment is quite harsh, following something like the Blackstone ratio would make good sense, especially when relatively minor crimes are at issue.

Thankfully, we live in a very different world now. So while we can have a calm and productive conversation about the validity of Blackstone in countries with English-derived legal systems, it doesn’t come close to being a “checkmate” rhetorical move when it comes to talking about allegations of abuse. Even if you believe in Blackstone, even if you don’t care much about convicting guilty people, it’s clear that we absolutely don’t care about preventing certain types of innocent people from being convicted.

Anyway, if you’re interested in learning more about the problems with Blackstone, check out The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice: Why convicting one innocent person may be better than letting ten guilty people go free (PDF) in the Harvard Law Review by Daniel Epps, former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. Epps isn’t the first scholar to doubt the the validity of Blackstone, but he expresses its problems well. It’s 87 pages long, but it’s surprisingly readable!

tl,dr: Epps believes:

  • Blackstone doesn’t help the innocent as much as you might imagine, because if 10 or 100 guilty men are routinely going free, being declared “not guilty” in a court isn’t going to convince many people of your true innocence.
  • By letting 100 guilty go free, prosecutors and politicians can feel pressured to harshly punish the few who are actually convicted. This directly leads to overuse of plea bargains and false convictions.
  • Blackstone can lead to more crime and less confidence in the justice system as a whole, due to high-profile false negatives (i.e. celebrities who are wrongly declared not guilty).

So: I reject Blackstone’s Ratio, and you should feel comfortable doing so as well.

The truth is, I don’t think those quoting Blackstone at me have considered its implications for a single second – and if they have, they’re clearly more invested in abstract principles of justice than the lived experience of countless sexual abuse victims. This allows them to ignore the utter lack of justice I mentioned in my first post.

Some people think women aren’t people

Disturbing beliefs from those attacking me:

  • A false rape accusation is worse than being raped.
  • One false accusation of rape is one too many, but one rape is fine. Also, one rapist going free is fine. In fact, a hundred rapists going free is fine, even if presumably they go on to rape other people.
  • By implication, men are naturally truthful, whereas women should be distrusted.
  • All actual cases of rape always go to trial.
  • All actual rapists get convicted (and even if they don’t, better 100 guilty… etc.)
  • Most rape accusations are false.
  • …but even if (say) 5% are false, that’s enough to dismiss all rape accusations as false (because better 100 guilty… etc)
  • The reason many women wait years before talking about rape or abuse means they’re lying, because there’s no conceivable reason why anyone wouldn’t report instantly – it’s not true that police don’t believe women, rape kits don’t get tested, and rapists get light sentences if convicted, or that women wait because they’ve been threatened or are waiting for corroboration from other victims.
  • All evidence and statistics contradicting these beliefs are wrong, including those published by various governments.

Not all accusations are equal

Many attackers believe all accusations of abuse are essentially equal, which explains why so anonymous Twitter users made various accusations against me, also no doubt muttering “checkmate”. But the recent allegations made against videogame developers are notable for their detail:

  • Victims have given their real names, putting themselves at genuine risk.
  • The victims have documented connections to the abuser, often as an employee or contractor.
  • They provide details, dates, and locations.
  • They are often corroborated by people with documented connections to both parties.
  • They match allegations made by other victims.

Is this incontrovertible proof? No. But to me it constitutes a credible accusation, whereas simply tweeting “Adrian attacked me yesterday in London” is … not. I can’t believe I have to say this, but there you go.

We all need to do more – and yes, that means you

I am fortunate enough that I am not in fear of losing my livelihood at the hands of a Twitter mob. No-one can complain to my boss or demand for me to be fired. And yet, even from my unimaginably secure position compared to most, even I thought twice about speaking out in support of victims whom I know personally. Life absolutely would have been easier if I just kept my mouth shut.

But it’s the responsibility of people in positions of power and security to speak out, especially when it makes you scared. If you aren’t scared, then you aren’t really helping – you’re just making yourself feel better. But it’s OK to be scared. Because if you weren’t scared, you’re not being brave, you’re just an idiot.

So you need to speak up. Don’t just say “I believe her.” Say “I will never work with ABC again.” Say “I will only work for companies that have strictly enforced rules against harassment and abuse.” Say, “I will donate to RAINN and The Survivor’s Trust.”

And if you see someone being attacked on Twitter, help them, even with just a few kind words. You know who gave me the most messages of support amid the flood of abusive tweets? Women – not men. Talk about emotional labour…

“Innocent until proven guilty in a court” isn’t the end of the story

“Innocent until proven guilty in a court” is, at best, childishly naive and, at worst, dangerously obtuse when it comes to accusations of abuse (which I fully believe) against game devs like @alexiskennedy

Stop saying it.

Just 1.5% of rape cases lead to a charge or summons in the UK. The proportion will be even lower for other kinds of sexual abuse and harassment. And trials take years to complete.

So victims barely ever get to have their day in court. It’s cripplingly expensive and disruptive to your life and work. Unfortunately, this is a direct effect of the UK justice system being dismantled, largely by the Tories, as detailed in Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken by The Secret Barrister.

The real world isn’t like The Wire. People don’t wear bodycams and tape recorders 24/7, and they shouldn’t have to. So there’s often precious little evidence. Why even go to the police when the odds are so comprehensively stacked against you?

You think the goal of these accusations is to ruin someone’s life or put them behind bars? I can’t speak for the victims, but the fact that @Babylonian is still YouTubing suggests that’s not a realistic expectation. These people’s lives go on.

But the one assured outcome of public accusations is that other women can protect themselves in future. The fact that so many were surprised by the news yesterday means whisper networks can’t do it all.

I will help fund ongoing efforts to support and protect victims of sexual abuse and harassment in the games industry. If your group needs money, hit me up.

Apple Rules*, Flat vs. Threaded Discussions

Issue 11 of my newsletter – subscribe here

I spotted this ad on the tube recently, and it made me think about Apple’s unappreciated dominance over the lives of hundreds of millions of people:

600 free prints a year – what a deal! Clearly there must be a catch, and sure enough, there is a tiny asterisk next to “App!” I wasn’t able to see it from my side of the carriage, but there’s an even-tinier line of text right at the bottom of the ad that doubtless discloses just how much you’ll have to pay to get those 600 “free” prints.

This kind of chicanery is prohibited by Apple on its App Store. There are very strict rules about disclosure of payments, and in particular, of the auto-renewing subscriptions that so many developers (including my company) are so fond of, since it’s kind of the only way we can people to actually, you know, pay for a service these days.

How strict? Well, there is a very specific set of wording you must use to describe how subscriptions auto-renew. The text labels on the subscription buttons must be over a certain size. Prices must be the biggest element of text, so you can’t just say “FREE!*” as the tube ad does:

In the purchase flow, the amount that will be billed must be the most prominent pricing element in the layout. For example, an annual subscription should clearly display the total amount that will be billed upon purchase. While you may also present a breakdown price that the annual amount is equivalent to or a savings when compared to weekly or monthly subscriptions, these additional elements should be displayed in a subordinate position and size to the annual price. This ensures that users are not misled.

It’s all very consumer-friendly, so I honestly don’t have a big problem with the intent of Apple’s rules. But just consider what’s happening here – Apple dictates the precise way in which you design key parts of your app. That’s unusual, to say the least. It’d be like the London Underground dictating that you couldn’t design adverts with asterisks and tiny disclaimer text. Maybe they should? But maybe not.

If you don’t agree with Apple’s rules, well, you don’t need to be on their platform, right? It’s not like you have to make iOS apps, after all. Why, you can just… completely ignore the majority of the smartphone app revenue in the US and UK!

So that’s a big problem. Apple may not command the lion’s share of smartphone users as Google does, but in many markets, iOS users spend far more money on apps than Android users.

A bigger problem is that Apple breaks its own rules by not disclosing pricing and subscription terms; by using push notifications for marketing (third parties apps are prohibited from doing so); by immediately cutting off trial subscriptions rather than letting them run for their whole term; and so on. It matters because Apple is now competing directly against many of the companies whose apps it hosts and rules over, from Apple Music to Apple Arcade to Apple TV+ and Apple News.

Apple would claim it tries to be reasonable when reviewing third party apps, and I don’t doubt the motives of their review team. However, the mere chance that your app update could be rejected, or worse yet, removed, whether for good reasons or just out of a misunderstanding? It’s literally terrifying for people whose livelihoods depend on Apple’s whims – like me.

All of this has introduced a chilling effect on third party app developers. I’ve seen many otherwise outspoken developers genuinely scared of voicing even mild criticism of Apple on private forums and chat rooms, let alone on Twitter or podcasts. They really think they could be blacklisted for criticising Apple, and while I am 100% certain that isn’t the case – because I and others have been far more critical in public and have never experienced any blowback – I understand their fear.

Now, as far as benevolent dictators go, you could do much worse than Apple. I’ve always had pleasant dealings with them in person. But no company should have that kind of complete and terrible power over tens of thousands of companies and hundreds of millions of users. We don’t allow it in the “real” world and so we shouldn’t allow it in the digital world.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the merits of flat versus threaded discussions online. Flat discussions are like those on Metafilter and other old-school forums where each reply follows directly from the one above it, while threaded discussions are like what you see on Reddit where replies can be in response to other specific replies, creating multiple “threads” branches off from one another.

For a long time, I believed flat discussions were generally superior to threaded ones. They helped promote coherent debate rather than encouraging groups of users to spin off on wild tangents, never to be seen again. In other words, Metafilter good, Reddit bad.

But I’ll confess – I’m spending a lot more time on Reddit than Metafilter these days (although I’m making a concerted effort to change!) That imbalance is partly because Reddit, having far more users than Metafilter, can cater towards more specific interests. There’s just no way I can get all the latest news about Edinburgh or Apple on Metafilter, that’s not what the site was designed for.

There’s another reason, though: I don’t think that flat discussions, as typically implemented by forums like Discourse or Metafilter, are working well for communities where there is serious disagreement about how discussions should unfold.

I’m being really unspecific here because I don’t just mean “communities with political disagreements”, I mean “communities where some people like making jokey comments and others dislike them” and also “…where some like tangents and others hate them.”

Flat discussions makes problems stick out more because everyone is forced to read them. In flat discussions, it’s possible for one or two people to completely dominate a discussion, or for irrelevant, misinformed, or extreme opinions to derail a conversation because it’s just impossible to ignore them; you’re literally posting right underneath them. In threaded forums, these sidetracks would end up downvoted and quarantined in their own threads.

Metafilter and other “flat” forums are trying to preserve a unitary community where we hope that just by talking enough, people can come to an agreement about how to run a conversation. Reddit assumes that’s impossible.


🎞️ Dr. Strangeglove. Fantastically funny and tightly-written masterpiece.


📖 Ways of Seeing by John Berger. A classic, which means you’ve probably heard most of its arguments in other books by now, but still very much worth reading. It doesn’t waste your time.

📖 The Calculating Stars by Mary Robinette Kowal. Don’t be put off by the misleading “Lady Astronaut” tagline – it’s impeccably researched but packed with smart, interesting characters. A bit like Stephen Baxter crossed with someone who understand human emotions.


🏛️ Michael Rakowitz at the Whitechapel Gallery. Funny and political and smart, an artist for millennials.

🏛️ Manga at The British Museum. A workmanlike exhibition that’s nonetheless essential if you have any interest in Manga whatsoever.

🏛️ AI: More than Human at the Barbican. Very much for the layperson who doesn’t mind watching a bunch of Google and Deepmind marketing materials that are wholly unquestioned. There was one video, made and filmed by Deepmind, about the work they’re doing with Moorfield Eye Hospital – but nothing about the many controversies about their use of patient data.

It is an occupational hazard of curating an exhibition about AI that you quickly run out of good stuff to display. Sure enough, two thirds of the way through, the exhibition devolved into a grab bag of “future stuff” that had nothing to do with AI. Must try harder!

Actually, one more thing – there was a machine-generated poem installation at the Barbican. It wasn’t any good. I’m pretty tired of this AI fetishism and star-struck curators who pretend machine-generated stuff is worth exhibition.

The Once and Future Metafilter

Issue 10 of my newsletter – subscribe here

Metafilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.

I joined Metafilter shortly after it launched, snagging a coveted three-digit user number (482). This was in February 2000, almost twenty years ago – aeons in internet time. Not only have I been a member for most of my adult life, I’ve been there for most of my entire life there.

You know what they say about blogs and news sites, “don’t read the comments”? Metafilter’s unofficial motto is “Do Read The Comments”. Like Reddit, a relative stripling of only fourteen years, it’s the conversation and the community that keeps me coming back. Unlike Reddit, Metafilter is highly moderated and single-threaded, leading to more coherent and, frankly, less racist and sexist discussion.

(yes, not all subreddits)

In its first decade or so, Metafilter didn’t have to worry much about money. It was the early days of the internet, advertising dollars were sloshing around, we hadn’t had two recessions in a row, and there was less competition for eyeballs. The only thing it charged its users for was a $5 entry fee, and that was simply to keep the number of members low. Imagine that!

But times have changed and now Metafilter is suffering not only from precipitously declining advertising income, but also a continued gradual falling away of its active userbase. A few years ago, it moved towards a member-funded model, a little like public radio stations in the US, or more recently, like Patreon.

To be clear, there are still tens of thousands of monthly active members and likely many more non-members browsing around. But it’s a lot quieter than it used to be; newer forums and social networks have captured those who might otherwise have joined Metafilter.

I still read Metafilter multiple times a day. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been inspired by things I’ve read there. I would be a different, and worse, person were it not for the Metafilter community. So I was distressed to hear about its latest financial straits.

This is not a new development, so perhaps it shouldn’t be distressing, but the fact that it keeps getting worse is what hurts. And so while I have doubled my monthly donation, I’ve wondered what else can be done.

I’ve had to keep businesses afloat through tough times. I’ve had to make people redundant many times – and only after reducing my own salary (or cutting it entirely), often for several months in a row. And I’ve figured out how to move a business to one that is mostly subscription-funded.

So I think I know a thing or two about all of this, and so here are my recommendations for what Metafilter, or any other seasoned community-powered site facing similar dire straits, should do:

1. The overriding priority? Make more money.

Thanks to countless studies, we know that people make poor decisions when they’re stressed and anxious about running out of cash. I don’t mean Metafilter should pursue profit above all for the sake of champagne and yachts – I mean they should stop running at a loss. They can’t do this by cutting costs because their costs are already low, so they need to increase revenues.

How? Ask members for more money.

Not through a tiny, temporary bar on the website, but via an email sent to every registered member. All ~300,000 of them. Tell them about how the site needs their support, list some amazing posts and comments from recent months, and what their support will do in terms of new features.

I guarantee this will generate a shit-ton of money. Enough to stop worrying about money for several months, if not longer.

2. Sharing is caring

Make it easier for people to share excellent posts and comments from Metafilter. Amusingly, when someone suggested this their example was actually a tweet I made containing a screenshot of a lovely story about Stephen Hawking.

Apps like Instapaper let you create “text shots” from articles, by selecting some text and turning them into crisp images, complete with the article’s title and URL. This makes it easy to share them on Twitter and Instagram, where the articles can get a wider audience.

There’s so much good writing on Metafilter that deserves to be seen, and it’s the best advertisement the site could ever have.

3. Create a newsletter

OK, hear me out: The problem a lot of sites face is reminding people they still exist. It’s easy to fall out of the habit of visiting, especially now that RSS has died. That’s why so many sites rely on social media to share articles (hence point 2). It’s also why people like me are creating newsletters, so we can “push” things to your inbox.

Metafilter should do a biweekly roundup of the best posts and comments. Nothing too long, just the highlights. The good thing? It can politely ask people to consider subscribing.

Once upon a time I founded the Metafilter Wiki to help new users understand and navigate the odd traditions and in-jokes of the site’s community. I wrote the first few dozen pages myself, and paid for the hosting, and moderated it. It was a bunch of work and a real headache at times, but I did it because I cared.

If there’s a site or a service or community that you care about, whether online or offline, you’ve got to step up.

I know you’re tired. We’re all tired. But there’s probably something you can do, however small.


📺 Stranger Things Season 3 was delightful, and appears to have had all the money in the world dumped on it. Sure, it’s pure 80s nostalgia, but it’s good 80s nostalgia.


📖 The Rook by Daniel O’Malley. I don’t like abandoning books, but it was preventing me from reading anything else, so it had to be done. I can see why others might enjoy the worldbuilding, but I couldn’t face another 300 pages of exposition, not to mention the awful, unbelievable humour and dialogue.


📻 Talking Politics podcast on Hong Kong. An excellent primer to the recent mass protests – what they mean, why they’re happening, who’s protesting, how they affects China and Taiwan, and more.


🌳 The John Muir Way or at least the stretches near Edinburgh. Who knew there were so many woods and forests and beaches here?!?

The Beatles, Unanticipated Uses of AR

Issue 11 of my newsletter – subscribe here

Despite growing up near Liverpool, I never visited any Beatles attractions other than popping into the Cavern a couple of times. It’s like living in London and never visiting The Tower: there’s always something more exciting going on.

I broke the habit of a lifetime by finally going to The Beatles Story, a museum on the Albert Dock. It was just about fine given entry cost £17. The whole place felt worn down and cramped, as if it hadn’t been properly refurbished since opening in 1990.

Back then, it would’ve been much more impressive to the hundreds of thousands it attracted every year, but nowadays it comes across as dated and irrelevant, for fans only. Even so, it attracted 266,614 visitors in 2017 – numbers that most attractions would kill for.

The odd thing was just how little Beatles stuff it had; there were a few nice pieces like Lennon’s glasses and piano, but I gather that a lot of impressive objects have been sold off to richer collectors and US institutions.

Not that a Beatles museum needs a lot of objects to be successful; The Beatles Story clearly has the band’s blessing, along with a few band-adjacent voices on the pretty reasonable audio guide. If they found a new space that was quadruple the size and hired the V&A designers behind the visually stunning and immersive Bowie and McQueen exhibitions, they could easily make their money back. Throw in a better restaurant and bar, and they’d print money.

Then again, this is an obvious idea and I can only assume the rights holders just don’t care. Paul McCartney is a billionaire, getting a few million extra a year from a museum would hardly register on his bank balance. Maybe he isn’t interested in that kind of legacy.

I had yet another call this week with a major tech company about augmented reality and gamification. It’s pretty clear that all the big companies have AR glasses coming out in the next 1-3 years and so they’re thinking very hard about possible applications, because, well, they don’t have any.

So here’s a free idea, albeit one that won’t be feasible for a few years: selling used goods.

I’ve started selling a lot of stuff on Facebook Marketplace lately. I used to sell things on eBay but after being burned a couple of times by buyers who claimed their item didn’t arrive, I gave up; but with Facebook Marketplace, you can get people nearby to meet you at a location of your choice. The listing process is also free and extremely fast.

It’s mostly been games I’ve finished, along with tech that I’m replacing or not using – old TVs, Kindles, iPads, that sort of thing. It turns out you can get a really good price for solid brands, and I feel good about this stuff being used rather than gathering dust in a closet. And yeah, the money helps.

I am temperamentally suited to selling my stuff in this way because I like not owning many physical things. Other people are different, and that’s where I think AR could help. Imagine glasses that tracked your activity, and could say, “Hey Adrian, you haven’t used this exercise bike in six months! I can have someone pick it up tomorrow for £180, what do you say?”

Is this creepy? For sure – especially if it was operated by Facebook. But if it was under your control, I think it’d be helpful for a lot of people. Right now, there’s a huge amount of friction that prevents community tool lending libraries from being set up – few people enjoy keeping a database of items up to date – but if it was completely hands-free and your glasses could instantly identify the make and usage levels of a particular item, I think most would be much more willing to opt-in and share or sell their items.

In other words, AR glasses could introduce a true sharing economy – not Uber, not Airbnb, but a true non-profit version – by dramatically reducing the friction involved in data entry and maintenance.

Of course, this is the optimistic view. AR glasses will also be used to sell us all sorts of useless shit in ways we can’t possibly imagine now, like putting virtual products in your wardrobe and virtual burgers on your plate, and saying “this burger could be yours in only ten minutes for just £5!”


🎮 Valleys Between on iOS. Imagine if Monument Valley and Alto’s Adventure had a baby that wasn’t as fun as it’s parents. It’s a paid game (which I like!) so I wanted it to be good, but it was devoid of challenge, and frankly, of gameplay.


📺 Stranger Things Season 3 on Netflix. I’m only halfway through but it’s hitting the perfect 80s nostalgia family action adventure spot. This season, I feel like they’re relying on the old Mad Men trick of making fun of olden times a bit more heavily, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

📺 Legion Season 3 is a welcome improvement on the previous season, being a soft reboot and also the final season of the show. I have high hopes.

🎞️ Yesterday. I was hoping it’d be a 7/10, but instead it was a 6/10. The concept remains gold, but the romantic relationship was poorly written and unbelievable. Although now I think HBO should make a prestige series about The Beatles.

🎞️ Spider-Man: Far From Home wasn’t as good as Homecoming, which had Marvel’s best villain after Black Panther, but I enjoyed the lighthearted teen comedy bits. Can’t wait to see what they do with Spidey once they get over their Iron Man fixation.


📖 Dealers of Lightning by Michael Hiltzik. I knew the legend of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ‘stealing’ the idea of modern windowed interfaces from Xerox PARC, but this book documents the far more impressive and interesting truth behind Xerox’s research labs. It turns out PARC didn’t just invent the modern windows UI but also Ethernet, laser printers, VLSI, and (sort of) Postscript, SGI, and TCP/IP.

The lessons of PARC may not be widely known in detail but you can be sure they are familiar to Silicon Valley founders from the 90s and 2000s (e.g. Google) because they would have been advised by people who lived through it (e.g. Eric Schmidt, who worked at PARC from 1979-83). As such, you wonder if Google’s penchant for releasing every product they can think of is a response to Xerox’s releasing nothing due to internal politics. Of course, now we can see the problems with Google’s approach…

📖 The Shock of the Old by David Edgerton. Glowingly reviewed, the author is either wilfully obtuse or downright dim – you choose. I’m planning to write a longer review, but this book essentially boils down saying “Haha, technologists haven’t figured out a better way of killing whales than the harpoon – so much for iPhones, right?”


📻 Something For Your M.I.N.D. by Superorganism. Suitably weird.