Why Music Was Better When

When DJs picked the playlist, jazz clubs whispered magic, and discovery took time

When I was in high school, most of the kids were glued to the pop charts. And to be fair, that era—late ’50s through the ’70s—produced some of the best music ever recorded, much of which is still being played today. But thanks to a lucky break during my sophomore year in high school, I was given a free ticket to Jazz at the Philharmonic, a touring group of jazz performers. There I was introduced to something entirely different: Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, and a world of sound that wasn’t topping the charts but was quickly grabbing my attention. That one night launched a lifelong love of jazz, even as everyone else seemed to be surfing to the Beach Boys.

Don’t get me wrong, I still loved the pop and folk music of the time. During college, you listened to what the majority was listening to. But my collection of jazz albums was growing and I could get my fix in my room. Later, while living at the beach in Southern California, beach music wasn’t optional if you wanted to be socially acceptable. The Eagles, Bread, Mamas and Papas, Crosby, Stills & Nash—even the Carpenters had their place in the sun. But on weekends, after the sand cleared and the crowds thinned, I could head to places like The Lighthouse or The Manne-Hole in Hermosa Beach for something deeper, more textured. Real jazz.

While my friends were collecting 45s of “Surfer Girl” and following American Bandstand, I was subscribed to the Columbia Jazz Record Club (such a deal! Sign up and get 10 albums and only had to buy one a month for the next year. Do that for a couple of years, and your library would grow to 40 or 50 albums for not a lot of money). Every month, new albums arrived—sometimes Miles Davis, sometimes George Shearing, occasionally something delightfully obscure from artists I had not yet heard of. My tastes didn’t follow the charts; they followed the improvisations and inventiveness of musicians who never seemed to play the same way twice.

Back then, music came to you on someone else’s schedule. The DJs and record producers decided what played. You could change stations to shift the flavor a bit, but it was their show. Some of my friends had decent collections of 45s that we’d listen to at gatherings, but if you wanted jazz? That was on you. I was fortunate to live in the Bay Area and then later in Los Angeles where radio stations were plentiful, but few, if any, played jazz. That meant finding time and space to play my own music.

Truth is, I wasn’t much for standard two- or four-beat music. Either the rhythm moved me or it didn’t. Dave Brubeck proved that odd time signatures could still groove with “Take Five” in 1959—one of the few jazz tracks that cracked the pop charts. A lot of pop was just background to me, though folk and edge-country caught my attention. The Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul & Mary on one end; Ray Charles and the Rolling Stones on the other—they had something to say and played it well. But jazz… jazz said something without words—except for Ella, Diana, Sarah.

In the 1970s and ’80s, my musical world morphed again. Pop began to sound increasingly processed and shallow. I often refer to the ’80s and much of the ’90s as a wasteland of popular music. Can anyone make sense of why rap is popular?

I was fortunate living on the Peninsula in Northern California to discover KCSM, a radio station that played jazz all day and sponsored events throughout the Bay Area. This was pre-internet, pre-streaming, and it was a welcome and consistent source of both traditional and emerging jazz performers.

When I moved from California to Nevada in 2005, radio became a challenge. I drifted even further toward jazz—and to my surprise, toward country music. By then the internet offered multiple new sources. Country had better singers, stronger stories, and—most importantly—clarity. You could understand what they were saying. That was not always the case with the big hits of the time.

These days, I’ve ditched the turntable and tapes, but not the tunes. With Amazon, Spotify, and Pandora, I can summon Stan Getz or Grace Kelly with a voice command or build a playlist around the soulfulness of Sarah Vaughan. I still get my jazz fix, and sometimes I ask Siri or Alexa for something new in that same spirit. But the thrill of the hunt is gone. It’s all too easy—which, honestly, is fine with me. I’m too tired to chase. I just want the good stuff to show up.

In the next article, I’ll look at how streaming services have changed not just what we listen to, but how we listen—and what jazz means when you’re not trying to impress anyone, just trying to enjoy something real.

What Beach Music Sounded Like When It Was Cool to Get Sand in Your Toes Around the Volleyball Court

The Beach Boys: “California Girls,” “Surfer Girl,” “Good Vibrations”
The Eagles: “Take It Easy,” “Peaceful Easy Feeling,” “Desperado”
The Carpenters: “Rainy Days and Mondays,” “Close to You,” “We’ve Only Just Begun”
Bread: “Make It with You,” “It Don’t Matter to Me”
Crosby, Stills & Nash: “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes,” “Love the One You’re With,” “Southern Cross,” “Our House”

These were the soundtrack to bonfires, board shorts, and beach parties. But after sundown? The jazz came out.

Why Music Was Better When Read More »

Robots on the Job—But Who’s Really Doing the Work?

Support Systems, Ethics, & the Road to Real Help

Let’s say your robot vacuum bumps into a chair, backs up, spins, and navigates around it. Smooth, right? Maybe. But who taught it how to handle that chair? And what if the chair has a new leg design tomorrow? Will it still figure it out—or will it call for help?

That’s the crux of today’s domestic robot reality. The robots may be visible, but the infrastructure behind them—the people, the data, the design choices—is still mostly hidden. In this final part of the series, we pull back the curtain to look at the invisible scaffolding that keeps robots upright, working, and (mostly) useful.

Many of today’s robot devices are partly self-learning. A Roomba, for instance, remembers Many of today’s robot devices exhibit semi-autonomous learning. A Roomba, for instance, uses sensors and algorithms to build a map of your space, learning where obstacles are and how to navigate around them. If you move a chair, it doesn’t recognize the object per se, but it will update its map through trial and error over the course of future runs. Most of this learning happens locally, though the system can also receive improvements through cloud-based firmware updates and app-based user input. By contrast, robot lawn mowers have a simpler job—trees don’t move.

Robots Don’t Work Alone

For all the headlines about AI and autonomy, today’s robots rely heavily on human input and cloud-based support systems. Many robots are essentially elaborate remote-control systems with a fancy user interface. Even those with “autonomous” labels often depend on massive libraries of prior examples, plus real-time cloud data to handle unexpected events.

Teleoperation is common. For example, robots in pilot programs may be guided remotely by humans—sometimes just to collect training data, sometimes because the robot still doesn’t know what it’s doing. Even chatbots like Alexa or Replika often escalate to human-curated pathways when responses get too complicated.

In factories, robots have tightly defined jobs with predictable environments. In homes, things are much messier. That messiness still requires a lot of human cleanup—often by support teams halfway around the world.

The New Invisible Labor

Robots may never sleep, but the people behind them do a lot of overtime. Consider just a few roles:

Training Data Curators: People label images, tag voice samples, and classify commands to teach AI what to recognize.
Teleoperators: Remote workers who step in when a robot gets confused, often without the user knowing.
Maintenance Coders: Engineers who patch bugs, reroute routines, and troubleshoot on the fly.
Behavior Designers: Specialists who script interactions and tune emotional responses for digital assistants.

All this labor is mostly invisible to the end user. But it’s essential. And it raises a key ethical question: If your robot depends on unseen workers, shouldn’t they be protected, compensated, and acknowledged?

Privacy: The Price of Convenience?

A robot that learns from your habits needs access to your habits. Your daily routine. Your voice. Your emotional tone. That’s a lot of data—some of it quite personal. And while many companies tout their commitment to privacy, the reality is murky.

Smart assistants in particular blur the lines. When your voice-activated assistant reminds you to drink water or take meds, it’s helpful. But where is that data stored? Who owns it? And how will it be used tomorrow?

We need robust answers to:

Who gets access to personal robot data?
Can users delete what’s been collected?
Should companies profit from behavioral data without sharing the rewards?

Until these questions are settled, every domestic robot comes with fine print—and some tradeoffs you may not see.

Support Doesn’t Have to Look Like Rosie

Here’s the twist: the future of domestic robots might not be humanoid at all. Many of the most effective support systems are software-based or embedded in appliances and devices.

And they are already being deployed—not just in tech-forward households, but in elder care, chronic condition management, and home mental health support. These tools don’t clean the house, but they support people in ways that matter every day.

Consider:

Alexa and Google Home: Voice assistants that manage calendars, monitor household devices, and answer questions
Smart watches: Health monitors that detect falls, track sleep, monitor stress, and nudge users to stay active
Medication apps: Pill reminders that integrate with pharmacies and doctor appointments
Companion bots like ElliQ: Tools that help combat loneliness and offer conversational structure to those with cognitive decline
TV-integrated companions like Joy: AI-driven software designed for seniors that offers daily check-ins, memory games, and therapeutic interactions without requiring a new device

These systems don’t walk, talk, or cook—but they listen, prompt, and engage. And they do it with low cost, high consistency, and growing personalization. For many older adults—especially those living alone—this hybrid of cognitive support and companionship may be more useful than a humanoid robot still struggling to pour a glass of water.

Real-World AI Companions for Seniors

ElliQ – Developed by Intuition Robotics, ElliQ is a tabletop companion designed specifically for older adults. It engages users in conversation, offers health prompts, plays music, and even suggests activities. Designed to combat loneliness and cognitive decline, it uses context-aware dialogue to keep interactions fresh and meaningful.

Joy – A virtual caregiver built into the television, Joy provides reminders, memory games, and companionship without requiring a new device. It’s particularly promising for seniors with limited mobility or tech reluctance, using a familiar screen and simple interactions to help keep users mentally active and emotionally supported.

Both of these tools are part of a growing class of AI-powered social companions aimed at addressing isolation, supporting cognitive health, and providing a daily sense of connection—especially for those aging in place.

The Future of Help: Flexible, Ethical, Human-Aware

So what does “real help” look like in the next 5–10 years? Not a fully autonomous Rosie, but an expanding hybrid of smart devices, lightly-trained bots, and cloud-based assistants backed by support teams. The dream of the standalone domestic helper is alive—but it’s being rebuilt with a lot more nuance.

What we need next:

Transparent data practices that protect users
Fair compensation for the humans behind the curtain
Infrastructure investments to make support faster and more affordable
Flexibility in how robots and smart devices are deployed—form doesn’t matter if the function works

And we also need to ask the hard question: Who gets paid when AI makes money?

The training data used by smart systems comes from somewhere—often scraped from social media, digitized research libraries, hospitals, labs, and public records. But who owns that information? Who verifies its accuracy? Who ensures it’s updated? And who funds the digital highways that deliver it on demand?

As AI systems continue to create real economic value, we need new models that recognize the vast ecosystem behind them. From patient data in clinical trials to memory-care routines, from voice interactions to daily use feedback—someone created or contributed that knowledge. Should they share in the value if their work fuels AI-generated support?

That’s the reality check. The robots may not fold your socks next year. But they might notice you’ve been still too long, remind you to move, and gently ask if everything’s okay.

That’s help. Maybe not in the form we expected—but maybe in the form we need.

Robots on the Job—But Who’s Really Doing the Work? Read More »

Robots Can Dance

The Real Limits of Domestic Robots Today

Let’s start with a confession: we’ve all been impressed by videos of robots backflipping, breakdancing, or hauling crates like over-caffeinated warehouse workers. The humanoid revolution, it seems, is not just coming — it’s here! Or is it?

Despite the PR sizzle reels and billion-dollar funding rounds, domestic robots are still a long way from doing the one thing most of us actually want: being useful in our homes. Why? Because while it’s relatively easy to get a robot to move, it’s incredibly hard to get one to do something useful with its hands.

Moravec’s Paradox in Your Kitchen

Hans Moravec, one of the pioneers of robotics, pointed out something surprising decades ago: things that are hard for humans (like solving calculus) are often easy for robots, while things that are easy for us (like folding laundry or peeling an orange) are nightmares for machines. This idea, now known as Moravec’s Paradox, is more relevant than ever.

Humanoid robots can run, jump, and strike superhero poses. But can they make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, starting with unopened jars and a sealed loaf of bread? Not without weeks of training, high-end sensors, and some human help off camera.

The Hype vs. the Hardware

Startups and tech giants alike are racing to build humanoid robots. Tesla’s Optimus. Boston Dynamics’ Atlas. 1X’s Neo. These machines look great in videos, but real-world performance still leaves much to be desired.

Take Neo, for example. In recent demos, it struggled to grip a watering can, missed a power button on the first try, and had to use its other hand just to release its grip. It can hold an egg—but not without a jittery motion that made every viewer nervous. Most of these demos rely on teleoperation or carefully edited footage. In short, we’re seeing the best attempts—not the daily reliability.

Even in factory tests—where the environment is controlled and tasks are repetitive—humanoid robots often fumble with alignment or stall out over minor changes.

What Dexterity Really Means

Robot dexterity isn’t just about moving fingers. It’s about sensing, adapting, and reacting to chaotic environments in real time.

Humans do this effortlessly. Tying shoelaces. Opening a Ziplock bag. Fishing a quarter out of a pocket. These all require flexible hands, complex tactile feedback, and fast brain loops. Most robots, by contrast, are either slow or stiff — or both.

A dexterous robot would need:

Strong yet flexible hands
High-fidelity tactile sensors (our hands have around 17,000 touch receptors)
Real-time environmental feedback
Fast, adaptive software

Even the best robot hands today (the Shadow Hand or NASA’s Robonaut 2) cost over $100,000 and can’t come close to the strength or responsiveness of a human limb. Unitree’s affordable 3-fingered hands can lift only half a kilogram.

Dexterity vs. Precision

Industrial robots have excelled at doing a few repetitive things extremely well—like placing tires on a car moving along a track. Their precision is astounding. A FANUC robot arm, for instance, has a repeatability of ±0.03 millimeters. But these machines are programmed for very specific tasks in structured environments. Change the lighting, the shape of the part, or the timing—and the robot has to be retrained.

The Hidden Complexity of “Simple” Tasks

Let’s look at just a few common household tasks that robots would likely fail at:

Putting on a necklace with a clasp
Baiting a fishhook with a worm
Folding a T-shirt
Turning to a specific page in a book
Opening a Ziplock bag, removing one grain of rice, and resealing it

These aren’t moonshots — they’re Tuesday. And yet, they remain out of reach for even the best robots unless highly scripted and heavily supervised.

Demonstration ≠ Deployment

We’ve seen impressive robot videos before—OpenAI’s Rubik’s Cube hand, DeepMind’s origami-folding Gemini arms, or Figure’s humanoid stocking a kitchen. These demos are often breathtaking. But are they repeatable in a real kitchen with spilled coffee, variable lighting, and a curious dog underfoot?

Most of the time: no. Many demos involve either teleoperation, heavy editing, or extensive training on that specific task. Just like self-driving cars initially struggled when asked to go off-script, domestic robots have similar challenges.

The Software-Hardware Bottleneck

Dexterity is both a hardware and a software problem. Current robotic hands are weak compared to ours—NASA’s Robonaut 2 has a 20 pound grip, while the average man can lift 40 to 60 pounds in each hand. But even with better hands, robots need control systems that learn and adapt.

And that’s where things get sticky.

Modern machine learning systems depend on lots of training data. But gathering real-world tactile feedback, especially with current hardware, is painfully slow. Synthetic data can help, but it isn’t perfect. And every small change in a task (different milk carton, different lighting) can throw the whole system off.

This is why most robots are still limited to highly controlled environments. Reprogramming for variability is costly, and autonomy remains fragile. Rodney Brooks, one of the leading minds in robotics, predicts humanoid dexterity will be “pathetic” through at least 2036.

Why It Matters

If robots are going to be more than party tricks or warehouse mules, they need to get better at the boring stuff: laundry, medication, cooking even feeding the cat. The future of domestic robotics doesn’t hinge on speed or strength. It hinges on delicate pinches, smooth pours, and gentle grips.

The current trajectory suggests slow, steady improvement — not an overnight leap. And that’s okay. If your robot can carry laundry, remind you to take meds, and grab a bottle of water without smashing it, that’s still a win.

The humanoid dream might be decades off. But helpful robots that adapt, support, and make our lives easier in small, meaningful ways? That’s getting closer every day.

Robot, Android, Cyborg—What’s the Difference?

Robot:

A machine that performs tasks, typically programmed or directed externally. Increasingly, robots are powered by AI and draw on large datasets to “learn” from experience.

Android:
A robot designed to resemble and behave like a human, often with internal decision-making systems. Think C-3PO which even in Star Wars was limited or Data in StarTrek who was not.
Cyborg:
A being composed of both organic and biomechatronic parts. Real-world examples include people with pacemakers or advanced prosthetics. Originally a sci-fi term (think RoboCop), it’s increasingly part of our medica
l future. The Terminator is more of an Android even though it is referred to as a Cyborg.

Coming next: Who’s really doing the work behind the scenes, how AI robots learn, and what kind of support and ethics are needed for robots to truly help us at home.

Robots Can Dance Read More »

Beyond Roombas and Rosie

The Robot in Your Imagination vs. the One in Your Kitchen

Say the word “robot” and depending on your age you may get various images that come to mind. For us older folks it could be something that walks, talks, waves its arms, and maybe even flashes a few lights. Rosie from The Jetsons comes to mind—a robot maid with attitude and a full calendar of chores. For those a few decades younger, the image might be something sleeker and more self-aware, like C-3PO or even R2-D2 from Star Wars. And for some, the prevalent images might come straight out of The Terminator.

But here in the real world? The closest we’ve come to a household robot is more likely a puck-shaped vacuum or a smart speaker that gently reminds you of your next dentist’s appointment.

Domestic robots today don’t have legs or faces — they have sensors and Wi-Fi. We’ve traded humanoid dreams for practical, specialized devices. But that trade-off wasn’t a letdown — it was a strategy. By leaning into what machines can do well today, we’ve actually made a lot of quiet progress. That said, a new wave is forming. Smart appliances are becoming smarter. Assistants like Alexa are gaining personalities. And humanoid robots — real ones — are moving out of labs and into pilot programs.

Tesla’s Optimus project, for example, suggests that thousands of early humanoid robots could be in circulation within a few years, with mass-market versions expected in the next decade. Researchers like Jordan Giesige have pointed out the engineering complexity involved — especially when it comes to hips, hands, and handling unpredictable environments. But the work is underway. The engineering behind humanoid robots is progressing, but the devil is in the details. While we’ve seen robots that can walk and even dance, getting one to smoothly pour a cup of coffee or fold a towel is still a massive challenge.

And let’s not overlook your car. Self-driving vehicles, which combine autonomy, machine vision, and AI, are some of the most advanced domestic robots in development. They’re not in your kitchen, but they’re starting to reshape how we think about technology, mobility, and trust.

But between the fantasy of Rosie and the quiet helpfulness of Alexa lies a long road of technological trial and error — especially when it comes to what robots can actually do.

How We Got Here: From Sci-Fi to Smart Homes

Ever since Isaac Asimov introduced his Three Laws of Robotics in the 1940s, we’ve imagined robots as partners in daily life — helpers who could clean, cook, care, and even converse. Movies like I, Robot, The Terminator, and Wall-E all played with those expectations.

But reality has proven trickier. Why? Because walking, grasping, and navigating in messy, unpredictable home environments is incredibly hard.

It turns out the hardest part of building a home robot isn’t intelligence — it’s dexterity. This is known as Moravec’s Paradox: what’s easy for humans, like grabbing an egg or tying a knot, is often incredibly difficult for machines.

That’s why the robot revolution has happened in phases:

Stationary strength: First in factories, then in logistics — robots that don’t move far but work reliably in clean, structured environments.
Single-purpose helpers: Roombas, robotic litter boxes, and automated mops.
Intelligent interfaces: Smart speakers, home hubs, and voice assistants.

We’ve skipped humanoids for now and focused on function over form. And it’s working.

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Isaac Asimov introduced these laws in the 1940s as a fictional safeguard for a robot-enhanced future. Nearly a century later, we’re still grappling with how to embed real ethics into machines—only now the challenges are less about rebellion and more about privacy, control, and unintended consequences.

Part 2: The Robots Are Already Here — Just Not the Way You Imagined

Let’s get real about what robots are already doing in homes today:

Cleaning floors, windows, and pools
Making coffee and monitoring groceries
Locking doors, adjusting thermostats, and turning off lights
Tracking health through smartwatches and sleep monitors
Providing reminders and routine support for those with cognitive challenges

And now, they’re starting to talk back.

Robots like ElliQ and chatbots like Replika are designed to build relationships. They’re not therapists, but they do ask about your day. They learn your habits. They remember things you told them yesterday.

When paired with wearable tech — smartwatches that track your steps, sleep, and heart rate — these assistants become more than just helpful. They become aware. They start offering nudges, questions, and check-ins. Throw in your smartphone or tablet, and you’ve got a full digital support team.

Convenience, Companionship or Something New?

These tools have already:

Helped seniors live independently
Given caregivers new peace of mind
Offered companionship to those who live alone

They may not be Rosie, but they are delivering on some of the dreams. And the comfort they provide isn’t science fiction — it’s happening today.

Part 3: What’s Coming and What to Watch Out For

Looking ahead, the evolution of domestic robots will be shaped by two forces: increasing capability and increasing expectations.

Researchers and companies are actively working on systems that can:

Detect mood and stress through voice or expression
Offer personalized wellness and therapy prompts
Assist with mobility, medication, or memory challenges
Learn preferences and proactively help without being asked

These systems won’t just run scripts — they’ll adapt, learn, and respond. But this brings up important questions:

Who Gets the Data?

Today’s robots don’t just serve — they observe. They gather information. And without strict guardrails, that data can be used in ways that users never expected.

Your mood, health, routines, even your loneliness could be valuable — to marketers, insurers, or worse. That’s why we need serious conversations about privacy, transparency, and user control.

Who Gets Paid?

We also need to talk about the invisible humans behind the robots. Most AI training data comes from:

Books and therapy guides
Clinical research and case studies
User interactions with early chatbots

But none of the people who created that knowledge are getting paid when AI systems use it to generate billions in revenue. Musicians get royalties when their songs are streamed. Why not therapists or researchers when their methods are embedded in machines?

If we want AI that’s helpful, ethical, and sustainable, we need new models for compensation, licensing, and trust.

Domestic Robots in Context: What the Research Tells Us

We’re in what some call the “Fourth Robotic Revolution” a phase defined by emotional intelligence, ambient interaction, and proactive learning. Researchers like Boesl and Liepert have described today’s users as “robotic natives,” slowly acclimating through cleaning bots and smart devices before accepting more sophisticated forms.

Others, like de Graaf & Allouch, emphasize the importance of gradual exposure. Start with entertainment and task automation. Then, as trust builds, we can transition to more intimate roles—companions, caregivers, wellness monitors.

But adoption isn’t automatic. As scholars like Urquhart and Reedman-Flint have warned, users will resist if robots feel intrusive or cold. Emotional nuance, cultural sensitivity, and ethical transparency will be key.

So, What Can We Expect in the Next 5 to 10 Years?

Wider adoption of multifunctional robots that assist, monitor, and engage
Breakthroughs in humanoid robotics like Optimus
Closer integration between smartwatches (including rings), smartphones, and home devices
Growing public demand for privacy protections and data rights
New markets for knowledge licensing, contributor recognition, and ethical design

And no, we probably won’t have a robot folding our laundry in 2027. But we might have one that reminds us to put it in the dryer, plays our favorite playlist when we’re stressed, and lets us know if we’ve forgotten to eat lunch.

That’s not science fiction. That’s a better tomorrow — one helpful little robot at a time.

Still, there’s a gap between what robots can do in a lab and what they can reliably do in your kitchen. In Part 2, we’ll explore why robot hands; not robot brains; are holding us back.

Did You Know?

The world’s most advanced robotic hand, the Shadow Hand, costs over $100,000 and still can’t match the grip strength or sensitivity of a human hand. Unitree’s hands, more affordable but less capable, can only lift about half a kilogram. So don’t expect your home robot to open a Ziplock bag or thread a needle anytime soon.

Beyond Roombas and Rosie Read More »

Memorial Day Weekend

Leave a Comment / General / yogiwan

Memorial Day is this weekend which the de facto start of Summer and is also the start of grilling season. I have borrowed a couple of delicious burger recipes and since my daughter only eats chicken, there is a chicken burger to start. Also, there are a couple of salad suggestions in case you do not have a bunch of alternatives already. These are all pretty simple dishes to prepare. I will provide some more interesting items for you grill over the next few weeks – steaks, ribs and such — however with the price of beef going up over the last few weeks I may have to suggest some alternatives.

Homemade Chicken Burgers

Just because chicken burgers are lean, doesn’t mean they have to be bland! These delicious ground chicken burgers are packed with sour cream and chives for moisture and flavor. They’re ready in just 20 minutes, so they’re perfect for weeknight cooking, plus this healthy dinner idea is a great addition to your grilling menu as an alternative to beef burgers. Serve them with coleslaw, potato chips, or your favorite BBQ sides.

How do you keep chicken burgers from falling apart?

Chicken burgers might seem finicky, but they’re actually easy to make. Follow these tips to ensure your patties don’t fall apart:

Use your hands:Mixing the ingredients together with your hands is messy, but it also helps the mixture come together easier. Whatever you do, don’t over-mix (otherwise your burgers will be tough like hockey pucks!).
Use wax paper:Form your patties and place them on small squares of parchment or waxed paper. This makes for easy transfer to the grill and helps the patties stay together.
Oil the grill:Whether you use an outdoor grill or grill pan, be sure to oil the surface to prevent the burgers from sticking and falling apart.

Ingredients

2 lb. ground chicken
3 Tbsp. full-fat sour cream
1/4 cup panko or regular breadcrumbs
1/4 cup chopped chives
1 garlic clove, chopped
2 tsp. kosher salt
1/2 tsp. ground black pepper
1 Tbsp. mustard
1 tsp. hot sauce, optional
1 Tbsp. vegetable oil
6 toasted hamburger buns
Optional Toppings: buffalo sauce, blue cheese, lettuce, sliced red onion, mayonnaise

Directions

In a large bowl, combine the ground chicken, sour cream, breadcrumbs, chives, garlic, salt, black pepper, mustard, and hot sauce (if using). Mix gently to combine well. Divide the mixture into 6 even portions (about 6 ounces each). Pat together into a ball, then press into a patty, about ¾-inch thick. Place the patties on small squares of parchment or waxed paper to make it easier for transferring to the grill.
Alternatively, grill the burgers: Preheat the grill over medium-high heat (400 to 425˚) and oil the grill grates. Remove the patties from the wax paper and place on the grill over direct heat. Cook, with the grill covered, until the internal temperature of the burger reaches 165˚, about 4 to 5 minutes per side.
Serve immediately on toasted buns with whatever toppings that you like!

If you like cheese on your burgers, add it during the last minute of cooking, then cover to melt.

Juicy Lucy

What is a juicy Lucy?

Someone in the 1950s in Minneapolis gifted the world a cheeseburger with a melty core and for that we must be eternally grateful. Because the cheese acts as more of a sauce, the assembly of this burger is quite simple. First, caramelize some onions. A griddle burger staple, caramelized onions should be on everything. Then, stuff the simply seasoned raw meat with 1 ½ slices of American cheese. American cheese is very important here because of how well it melts. With vinegary dill pickle slices and a squishy potato bun, this burger is a real treat.

What is the warning on a juicy Lucy?

Because this burger is filled with a pool of hot, melted cheese, it is not recommended to eat it hot off the griddle. Wait 5 to 10 minutes before digging in or you might get burned, or worse—lose all the cheese! Use this time to reheat those caramelized onions in the beef fat. You’re welcome.

Ingredients

1/4 cup salted butter
3 lb. yellow onions, peeled and thinly sliced
2 Tbsp. balsamic vinegar
1 lb. ground beef (80/20)
1 lb. ground sirloin (90/10)
1 Tbsp. Worcestershire sauce
1 tsp. kosher salt
1 tsp. ground black pepper
9 slices American Cheese, cut into quarters
1 Tbsp. vegetable oil
6 potato buns
Dill pickle slices, to serve

Directions

1. Heat a 12-inch cast-iron skillet or heavy bottomed pan over medium heat; add the butter. Once the butter is melted and starts to bubble, add the onion. Cook over medium heat, stirring frequently, for 2 minutes. Reduce the heat to low and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are deep golden brown, 45 to 50 minutes. Add the balsamic vinegar and stir to combine; cook 2 more minutes. Transfer the onion mixture to a plate.
2. Combine the ground beef, ground sirloin, Worcestershire sauce, salt, and pepper in a large bowl. Gently mix the beef mixture to thoroughly combine with the seasoning. On a baking sheet, divide the mixture into 6 portions, then divide each of those portions in half, about 2 ½ ounces each. Pat each portion into a 4-inch disk. In the center of 6 patties, fan 6 cheese quarters in a circle, leaving a ½ -inch border. Top the cheese with the remaining 6 meat portions. Pinch the sides firmly to close, and pat into a 4-inch sealed disk.
3. Heat the same cast-iron skillet over high heat (this can be done on the grill as well as your stove). Add 1 tablespoon of vegetable oil and swirl to coat the pan. Place the patties in the skillet and let cook for 2 to 3 minutes until golden and crusty. Flip and cook the other side until seared. Remove to a cutting board or baking sheet to rest for at least 5 minutes.
4. Put the caramelized onions back in the pan over medium-low heat to warm.
5. To assemble: place pickles on the bottom bun, then the patty, then onions, and then the top bun.

Tip: The caramelized onions can be made and the burgers can be shaped a day in advance for super quick assembly!

Loaded Baked Potato Salad

The formula for a perfect cookout? Cheeseburgers, baked beans, and, of course, loaded baked potato salad! This potato salad is packed with tons of delicious mix-ins like bacon, cheese, and onion, and a tangy, creamy dressing that ties it all together. Let it hangout in the fridge overnight and the flavors will blend beautifully! Just don’t forget to sprinkle on even more bacon before serving.

What’s the best way to cook potatoes for potato salad?

In true baked potato fashion, the potatoes used in this salad are baked in the oven! There’s no need to deal with a massive pot of boiling water or soggy, waterlogged potatoes—roasting the spuds whole in the oven makes cooking them easy.

Ingredients

4 lb. Russet potatoes
2 Tbsp. finely chopped dill pickles, plus ¼ c. juice from the jar
1 1/4 cups sour cream
1/2 cup mayonnaise
1 Tbsp. ranch seasoning
2 tsp. yellow mustard
1 tsp. kosher salt
1 tsp. ground black pepper
8 slices cooked bacon, chopped, divided
1 1/2 cups shredded sharp cheddar
1/4 cup thinly sliced green onions, plus more for serving

Directions

1. Preheat the oven to 400˚F.
2. Place the potatoes on a baking sheet. Using a fork, prick the potatoes all over. Bake until fork tender, about 1 hour. Let cool for 15 to 20 minutes, or until able to handle comfortably.
3. Peel the potatoes, chop into 1-inch pieces, and transfer to a large bowl (It’s OK if they crumble a bit! Add all of the little pieces to the bowl.) Drizzle the chopped potatoes with the pickle juice and let them sit until the potatoes have cooled completely, about 1 hour.
4. In a small bowl, stir together the sour cream, mayonnaise, pickles, ranch seasoning, mustard, salt, and pepper until fully combined.
5. Pour the sour cream mixture over the cooled potatoes. Add the chopped bacon (reserving 2 tablespoons), cheese, and green onion and stir gently to combine. Refrigerate until ready to serve. Top with more green onion and the remaining 2 tablespoons of bacon just before serving.

Caprese Pasta Salad

Of all the delicious tomato recipes out there, this recipe is one of the easiest—just cook some pasta, then toss it with a bounty of tiny fresh tomatoes, creamy mozzarella, and plenty of basil. The best part? There’s no mayo in the dressing so it can sit out a little longer than other pasta salads.

Ingredients

1 lb. casarecce, penne, or any short pasta
2/3 cup plus 1 tbsp. olive oil, divided
1/3 cup white balsamic vinegar
2 garlic cloves, grated
1 tsp. kosher salt
1/4 tsp. ground black pepper
4 cups cherry tomatoes, halved
16 oz. small mozzarella balls or pearls
1 cup chopped fresh basil, plus more for garnish
Red pepper flakes, for garnish (optional)

Directions

1. Cook pasta according to package directions. Drain, and eeturn pasta to pot and toss with 1 tablespoon olive oil. Set aside.
2. Meanwhile, whisk together the remaining 2/3 cup oil, vinegar, grated garlic, salt, and pepper in a large bowl until combined. Add tomatoes and mozzarella to dressing and toss to coat. Let marinate while the pasta cools, about 15 minutes.
3. Add cooled pasta to tomato mixture and toss to coat. Stir in the basil. Garnish with more basil and red pepper flakes, if you like.

Tip: If making this pasta salad a day ahead, let it come to room temperature, and toss with an additional 2 tablespoons of olive oil just before serving.

Memorial Day Weekend Read More »

The Birth of a NEW Media System

From the temple to the garden

Participating in the birth of a new media system

Hamish McKenzie Apr 2

We are living through the most significant media disruption since the printing press, and it explains everything from why you can’t stand your neighbor to our current political tumult.

Until recently, the best way for political figures to gain influence in developed democracies was to look good on television, speak in measured tones, and develop relationships with the people who controlled the media. We are still only just coming out of that era. It is an era that gave us leaders such as Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, and Angela Merkel.

Today, we live in a more chaotic environment, where the narrative frenzy of social media has given rise to political movements that gain power through exploiting attention of any kind, positive or negative, from moral panics to fulminating podium-thumpers. We’ve gone from “Ask not what your country can do for you” to dunk tweets and death-by-emoji.

Our media systems don’t just convey information—they shape how we think and behave. Political culture responds accordingly. We’ve seen how this cultural interplay unfolded with the arrival of the printing press, which in the mid-1400s broke the literate elite’s monopoly on information and subverted the Catholic Church’s dominance. We saw it with the introduction of radio, which allowed political leaders, for the first time, to speak directly to citizens in their homes, placing new emphasis on emotional appeal. And we saw how television elevated image and personality above nuanced policy discussion.

None of these transitions was instant. Revolutions like this can take decades to fully unfold. What we’re experiencing today may be the most intense phase of a profound transformation that began years ago.

But, as we know from history, this is not a permanent state. The printing press’s arrival, for instance, caused massive economic and social turmoil, but it ultimately helped birth the Scientific Revolution. The internet may be on a similar path, with initial destruction followed by renewal. While this period of change is in many ways destabilizing, it can also ultimately help culture flourish.

Sacking the temple

For decades, we lived in a world dominated by traditional media, characterized by top-down control, centralized authority, and official opinion. It was a stable system, and, though it probably offered some false comforts, it communicated a sense of security in its predictability: the city newspaper over breakfast, radio news for the commute, the national TV broadcast before dinner. Cronkite, Rather, the New York Times, CNN, Oprah. This solidity, however, came with rigidity. Only a few perspectives were on offer, and it was hard for new voices to break in—they had to be let in by favor. The media’s institutional power went hand in hand with political institutional power. Collectively, this system amounted to something like a temple, with its own doctrines, rituals, and priesthood. (Good luck to the unbelievers.)

That system is falling apart now. It has been for a while, of course, but the entropy has reached an accelerated state. First, Craigslist laid waste to the classifieds business that had propped up many newspapers; then Google, Facebook, and YouTube won the ads business that almost all of the media depended on; and now the subscription streaming services—Netflix, Amazon Prime, Max—are taking out TV’s other knee. These are all irreversible trends. The temple will only crumble further; the priests will only get sicker. Their time is past.

Today, we live in the age of chaos media.

Traditional media’s rigid order has been replaced by mayhem. Conflict supersedes consideration. Speed overwhelms verification. This system is, in many senses, a marvel, with massive democratization potential. Anyone can have a voice, and your idea, if the winds blow just right, can reach billions of people in an instant. One of its great virtues is that it demands that everyone—even the powers that be—speak to each other directly, and others can talk back. Now the savviest politicians sit down for long interviews in nontraditional formats and show their thinking.

But just like in the old system, chaos media still concentrates economic power, with the majority of the rewards going to the platform owners. Of course, there are social effects too. We’re no longer tuning in for rituals and rites, but instead subjecting ourselves to a parade of loudmouths and lunatics, where common sense struggles to find a voice. We’ve gone from catechism to cacophony. Trump, Musk, Kardashian, Cuban, AOC, Hawk Tuah. We are now preeners, yellers, credulous fools, conspiracy theorists, and moralizers. Sometimes it’s fun!

Our political culture now mirrors chaos media culture. Opponents are not just to be argued against, but humiliated. Followers are asked not just to consider the benefits of a certain position, but to show fealty to a specific doctrine. Disfavored policies and institutions are recast as evil and immoral.

This media flux is more than just the swing of a pendulum. It’s the beginning of ecosystem change. We are moving away from the era of centralized institutions to a time of massively distributed voices. So far, it has been messy as hell. But not all chaos—presuming it doesn’t last forever—is bad. Indeed, chaos is often a necessary stage of evolution.

It is possible to view the current upheaval as a moment of transition. What we’re seeing now could well be the emergence of a new media organism that hasn’t yet found its order.

If you look closely enough, you can see some green shoots of hope emerging from the temple’s ruins.

Growth of a garden

The democratization of media is a revolution that the internet has so far only half realized. Yes, now everyone gets to have a voice, but the economic gains still accrue mostly to the powerful at the top. If you publish a perfect post on Instagram and it influences the thinking of millions of people, the financial benefits that it generates go disproportionately to Mark Zuckerberg. When you publish a groundbreaking video on YouTube, that platform ultimately determines who gets to see it and how much money it can bring you.

In this sense, the media today is like electricity in the early 20th century. Thomas Edison demonstrated the first practical incandescent light bulb in 1879, but it wasn’t until the 1920s that electricity started becoming common in people’s homes. It took the advent of the electric grid for the electric revolution to fully take hold. Today’s media equivalent of the electric grid is economic autonomy for independent voices. Until now, the power (ahem) has not been well distributed.

Economic autonomy gives independent voices freedom. It means they don’t have to be answerable to someone else’s agenda to pay their bills, and they can be less vulnerable to the inconstant winds of chaos media. It lets them focus on doing their best possible work and gives them more energy to serve their communities. It allows for a new order to emerge, separate from the interests of the central authorities, with wealth distributed among the many and not the few.

A distributed system that gives economic autonomy to independent voices resembles a garden more than a temple. Handled with the right care, it can bring order to social media’s bedlam.

In a media garden, where biodiversity flourishes, there can be more winners and better coverage of a vast multitude of niches. In such a system, everyone has a role in shaping the culture they live in. Creators can thrive on the support of their followers, who can simultaneously help the work spread.

While some worry that such a system will lead to more echo chambers, we believe the opposite could also be true. By networking diverse communities together, this garden-like system makes it easy to move freely and be exposed to new ways of thinking in a more moderate environment, removed from the quick-twitch subcultures of chaos media.

Unlike chaos media, this distributed system can be rooted in trust, since the rewards flow to those who respect relationships rather than gaming algorithms. This relationship-centric model is apparent in YouTube, where people show up for their favorite shows and creators (Don’t forget to like and subscribe). But even there, the relationships are mediated and controlled by advertisers and the platform itself. Direct subscriptions foster a deeper connection and stronger sense of trust. For publishers to thrive in this incentive structure, they must deeply serve their audiences.

This system gives rise to new media personalities such as Caroline Chambers, who turned a spurned book proposal into a thriving community, What To Cook When You Don’t Feel Like Cooking, which in turn scored her a deal for a new book that became a New York Times bestseller. And it gives more power to independent interviewers such as Dwarkesh Patel, who hosts deep discussions with prominent thinkers in science, tech, and culture, fueled by a mix of direct payments and ads. New gatekeepers will emerge under this model, but unlike in the old systems, audiences will choose for themselves which communities improve their online lives. It’s a more organic ecosystem, where trust forms the root system connecting diverse communities, allowing us to think together rather than shout each other down.

The chaos of our current media moment cannot last, but no one knows exactly what the new landscape will look like when it stabilizes. That’s precisely why your choices today matter so much. Every subscription, every share, every minute of your attention is a vote for the culture you want to see flourish. You can choose to invest in a system that values deep relationships over the flimsy validation that chaos media offers. You can reclaim your attention from the doomscroll feeds and pour it like water onto the seedlings of a better future. These actions aren’t just about getting better content or contributing to a healthier media economy—they cultivate a richer, more thoughtful culture capable of addressing the complex challenges of our time. It’s a culture worth subscribing to.

The Birth of a NEW Media System Read More »

How curiosity rewires your brain for change

“How curiosity rewires your brain for change”

by Anne-Laure Le Cunff:

In this insightful piece, Anne-Laure Le Cunff explores how curiosity is far more than a personality trait — it’s a powerful neurological tool for adapting to change. Drawing from both personal experience and neuroscience, the article explains how curiosity activates the brain’s dopaminergic system, enhancing reward anticipation, memory retention, and learning efficiency.

Most importantly, curiosity boosts neuroplasticity, allowing the brain to rewire itself in response to new experiences — an essential function during periods of uncertainty and transformation. By reframing change from a threat to an opportunity, curiosity increases tolerance for prediction error, synchronizes introspective and executive brain networks, and acts as a buffer against anxiety.

The article outlines five practical strategies to cultivate curiosity in uncertain times:

Reframe challenges with “What if?”
Take daily “field notes” like an anthropologist of your own life
Run small experiments instead of big leaps
Embrace not knowing
Treat failure as feedback, not defeat

Ultimately, Le Cunff encourages readers to see curiosity not just as an asset but as a practice — one that transforms how we engage with the unknown and builds mental resilience for the long haul.

How curiosity rewires your brain for change Read More »

Smart Home, Dumb Human

Leave a Comment / General / yogiwan

Or: Why My Light Switch Now Needs a Software Update

We used to joke that we’d never understand our kids. These days, I’m not sure I understand my house.

A while ago, I dipped a toe into the “smart home” world. It started innocently enough — a smart plug to control a lamp behind the TV. One command, and boom, the living room glowed like I actually knew what I was doing. I was a man in control. I even gave it a fancy name: TV Light.

Feeling confident, I added a second smart plug in my office. It turned on the desk lamp — until one day it didn’t. It blinked, sighed (digitally), and told me it needed to be reset. Just like that, my office light had become emotionally unavailable. Now I have a small collection of smart plugs sitting quietly on the credenza behind me, waiting for a firmware redemption arc.

The Alexa Situation

We do have Alexa in three rooms. And I’ll give credit where it’s due: she plays music on demand fairly consistently. She’s gotten better over time, even when I throw her a curveball like “Play Dave Brubeck… no, the live one… no, the other live one.” Occasionally she’ll launch into something wildly unrelated, but hey — who among us hasn’t confused Brubeck with Beyoncé?

Still, I have the nagging suspicion she’s listening a little too well. Like when I casually mention needing a new garden hose, and by dinner, my phone is showing me “Top 10 Ultra-Reliable Expandable Hose Deals.”

Coincidence? Alexa says yes. I say, hmm.

The Cautious Expansion Plan

We’ve talked about upgrading to smart appliances. You know, ovens that talk to your fridge, which talks to your phone, which probably talks to some cloud server in Iceland. Sounds neat in theory — until you realize the dishwasher and refrigerator might start conspiring about your sodium intake.

We’ve also looked at smart locks and cameras. But do we really need a door that texts me when someone knocks? Especially when that someone is the UPS driver who never rings the bell anyway.

There’s always the Ring doorbell, which seems like the gateway drug of smart home tech. But beyond that? You start eyeing real costs, and suddenly you’re in capital expenditure territory — where a door lock costs more than your first used car and the only ROI is a 3-second video of your neighbor’s cat.

- Smart Toaster
  Knows your bread preference, tracks usage trends, and suggests artisanal loaves on Instagram.
  → “I just want it to stop burning the English muffins.”

The Troubleshooting Olympics

Smart homes come with their own version of the decathlon — where each “event” involves resetting something. Smart plugs need resets. Apps stop syncing. The Wi-Fi goes out, and suddenly the lights don’t know whether they’re supposed to be on, off, or blinking like a nightclub.

But if you want the gold medal in household frustration, just try using a Smart TV.

We have two — both decent models — and we stream using YouTube TV, which works… most of the time. But navigating them means dealing with the so-called smart remotes, which seem convinced they know what I want.

I press “Guide,” and it gives me a random collection of recommendations I’ve never asked for — including shows in languages I don’t speak and sports I didn’t know existed. I hit “Back,” and it takes me to an entirely different app.

Sometimes the remote gets confused and switches inputs just to see if I’m paying attention.

And now, of course, the remote is on my phone — because what the phone really needed was another job. Apparently, I’m supposed to control the TV, my lights, the coffee pot, the front door, and check my heart rate — all from the same device I used to just make phone calls.

It’s not a smartphone anymore. It’s a nervous breakdown in my pocket.

Tech-Savvy… in Theory

I’m not opposed to technology. I’ve run technology based businesses, coded in more than one language, and survived a few operating systems that should’ve been taken out back and retired early. But smart homes are a different beast — they pretend to help, but they require you to learn their way of thinking.

And heaven help you if two devices try to talk at once. I once asked for the weather and got the jazz station. Then when I asked for music, it gave me a five-day forecast in Spanish.

Smart Oven
Can preheat from your phone. Also occasionally updates in the middle of dinner.
→ “Dinner will be delayed. The oven is installing security patches.”

The Value Question

Like a lot of our friends, we’ve hit the wall of “how smart is smart enough?” Sure, locking your doors from the car sounds cool. But when did we become too tired to use a key?

The equation isn’t just about convenience anymore — it’s about value. Does the refrigerator really need to tell me when I’m out of eggs? Can the oven just cook dinner without needing a Wi-Fi password? And do I really want a smart shower that refuses to warm up until I’ve completed a mindfulness check-in?

Final Thought

Smart homes are seductive. They promise convenience, safety, even savings. But more often than not, they deliver confusion, troubleshooting, and voice assistants that just need a nap.

Probably could add in something about Smart TVs (we have two but use YouTube TV rather than Roku or such) and add in the so call smart remotes that think they know what you want until you override them and getting the remote on the phone is just one more thing that a phone should not be doing.

I’m not giving up on the tech. But for now, Alexa plays the jazz, a couple of lights respond (most of the time), and I’m keeping the rest of the smart plugs in time-out until they prove they’re emotionally stable.

If my house is going to be smarter than me, the least it can do is help me find my Kindle.

Smart Oven
Can preheat from your phone. Also occasionally updates in the middle of dinner.
→ “Dinner will be delayed. The oven is installing security patches.”

Smart Home, Dumb Human Read More »

IS MY SMARTWATCH SMARTER

Leave a Comment / General / yogiwan

(Or: How Data Tries To Take Over Even In My Own House)

“My Smartwatch Thinks I’m in Trouble —
Even When I’m Just Napping”

Back in the day, if you were breathing, standing upright, and didn’t spill your coffee, that was enough proof you were alive. These days, my smartwatch needs confirmation every ten minutes — and apparently, I’m failing the test.

Let me back up.

I recently got one of those newfangled watches — you know, the ones that monitor your steps, heart rate, sleep quality, stress levels, hydration, and, I believe, your proximity to a panic attack. The incentive was an admonition from my primary care doctor who said that my oxygen level fluctuated too much and my blood pressure dropped every once in a while. So, the watch was supposed to help me watch those things. It tracked my steps along the way as well. So, it’s now strapped to my wrist like a tiny probation officer when it supposed to be more of a nurse practitioner.

And it’s judging me.

The first week, I was enthusiastic. I figured it would be like the watches we had growing up — tells the time, looks cool, maybe impresses someone at breakfast at the golf club. Instead, I’ve acquired a digital stoolpigeon.

At 10:42 a.m. last Tuesday, I was reading my Kindle (I’m still a geek at heart) when my wrist buzzed angrily:
“You’ve been inactive for too long. Time to move!”
Move where? I was halfway through a chapter and puzzling who done it. Did not see any reason to get back on the treadmill.

Step Count Shenanigans

Now, I’m pretty active and go to the gym at least three days a week. But I set a goal on the watch of 10,000 steps per day which I mostly do not achieve. But this watch is relentless.

Yesterday, it proudly congratulated me:
“You’ve taken 4,782 steps today!”
I was thrilled — until I realized 4,000 of them were me pacing between my planters and the hose bib for water while trying to get my planted seeds to germinate.

Today, it reported only 223 steps. I’m not sure how that’s possible — I vacuumed the living room, took out the trash, and chased a pigeon off the patio.
Maybe pigeon chasing cardio doesn’t count since I have to do this almost every day?

Heart Rate Hokum

Then there’s the heart monitor.
Sometimes, while I’m napping, it reports that my heart rate has plummeted to below the “resting” levels. And while my resting heart rate has been at the lower end most of my life, going below that is a bit unusual and probably not occurring regardless of what the watch says.
Other times, I’m just watching a Giants game and it spikes into the danger zone.
“Alert: Elevated heart rate.”
No kidding — it’s the 9th inning and they just walked in the tying run which seems to happen with too much regularity!

Now, let’s talk about sleep tracking — my personal favorite.

Every morning, it gives me a report card:

“Last night: 4h 50m sleep, 3h 55 m deep sleep, 0m REM, 0h 55m light sleep. It missed the five times I got up.”

All very interesting, except:

I went to bed at 11 and got up at 7:30 which is nine and a half hours not counting the four or five times I got up to pee.
I don’t recall tossing or turning. I usually get into one position and pretty much stay there
REM is a state that I seldom reach and when I do I should dream I was 25 again. Never happens!

One morning it said I had a Sleep Score of 58 — as if I failed a pop quiz. I got 58 once on a high school history test, and that teacher didn’t buzz me at 6 a.m. demanding more “deep sleep.”

Water Guilt and Stress Alerts

My smartwatch also wants me to drink more water. Every few hours:
“Hydration Reminder: Drink more water!”
I’m old enough to remember when people drank water because they were thirsty, not because their wrist ordered it.

And stress alerts?
The other day it told me I was “showing signs of elevated tension.”
I was on line to a help desk that was probably housed in Bangladesh.
Frankly, the fact that I didn’t throw my phone out the window should have earned me a bonus wellness badge.

Sharing the Pain

I brought this all up at coffee with a few friends.
Turns out, Bob’s smartwatch keeps telling him he’s not sleeping enough, even though his wife says he snores like a cement mixer.
Jan’s says she’s walking 6,000 steps a day, but she hasn’t left the couch since April.
We’re thinking of forming a support group — “Seniors Misunderstood by Their Devices.”

We’ll hold meetings at the park. You get a sticker if your watch logs it as “intentional movement.”

So, Am I Keeping It?

Sure.

Despite the nagging, the buzzes, the hydration guilt trips, and the occasional premature obituary from my heart monitor, I am still wearing it.

Because let’s face it:

It tells time pretty well.
It sort of watches my heart rate — though I still don’t know how to get a consistent blood pressure reading that doesn’t say 118/84 no matter what.
And it lets me pretend I’m tech-savvy, which around here gives me thermostat privileges (most of the time) as well as computer trouble requests from my wife.

Final Thought

The smartwatch may not fully understand me yet.

But then again, I haven’t fully figured out how to use it either.

So we’re even.

At least until next week — when I stretch out for a well-earned nap, and the watch freaks out. A “Low Movement Alert” pops up, followed by a red pulse symbol that practically screams, “This man is in distress!”

The irony? I was feeling great — just cooling down after a fierce bout with the garden hose. But sure, let’s flag that as a critical event.

Maybe next time I’ll wear it on my ankle. That way, at least it might not know I’m asleep.

IS MY SMARTWATCH SMARTER Read More »

The 0.01% Question

General / yogiwan

Will New Elites Rise or Will Power Concentrate Forever?

Every major leap in technology reshapes who holds power — and who doesn’t.

The Industrial Revolution created a new class of factory tycoons and financiers. The oil age crowned energy barons. The internet minted tech billionaires who’ve reshaped markets, media, and even the way we think. Each time, a new elite has risen, often concentrating power faster than the old one ever imagined.

Now, a new era is upon us: one fueled by artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, and autonomous systems. And once again, the gains look like they will go to the very top — not just the top 1%, but the top 0.01%. That’s one person in 10,000. And today, that group controls nearly half of the world’s wealth.

It’s a staggering figure. And unless something changes, the future may not look like a Star Trek utopia of shared abundance, but something closer to a techno-feudal society — where access to opportunity, health, and even longer life becomes a luxury good for the few.

The Trap of Permanent Elites

We’ve always believed, or at least hoped, that disruption eventually levels the field. That the mighty can fall and the unknown can rise. And we can cite many examples from the past. However, it seems as if the new generation of business owners continues to orient themselves to the ultra-empowered. So, the question is whether the next iteration of creators can unseat the current group — or if it is even possible to grow new capabilities powerful enough to challenge them.

What if today’s elites are building systems so robust — and so closed — that no new players can break in?

Think about it: AI models trained on massive proprietary data sets, controlled by just a handful of companies. Drug development pipelines funded by trillion-dollar portfolios. Robotics infrastructure, cloud computing, and space platforms — all increasingly privatized. Add to that the quiet rewriting of political influence via lobbyists, media ownership, and social platforms, and you start to see the architecture of something dangerously permanent.

We’ve stopped talking about the American Dream. We’ve started talking about manufactured dominance — influence that’s not passed down through family but constructed from code, capital, and control. We see influence being peddled by multi-billionaires and conflicts among them — George Soros and Elon Musk come to mind — and that influence is echoed and amplified by the press and social media, often to the point where it’s difficult to discern what’s real and what’s not.

One thing we are seeing with AI, though, is a notable exception: an open model where access to large datasets and emerging tools — like ChatGPT and others — is available to anyone with a network connection and a moderately capable computer. This open access may be the key to the future, as it allows almost anyone to build something innovative without a billion-dollar head start.

Could the Cycle Break?

History tells us that no elite lasts forever. The Roman aristocracy gave way to feudal lords, who were ultimately displaced by merchant capitalists. Industrialists eventually bowed to digital moguls. Disruption has a funny way of showing up just when everyone assumes the game is over.

So, could it happen again?

Possibly. But it would take more than just technology. It would take access:

Open-source AI that can be harnessed by anyone with a laptop, not just trillion-dollar computing budgets.
Decentralized finance that puts capital into the hands of small innovators instead of institutional gatekeepers.
Radical education models that teach critical thinking, not just test-taking — especially in places currently left behind. (This will probably take a multinational push to accomplish,)
Community-led innovation hubs, where ideas are grown locally rather than extracted by coastal VCs.

These aren’t guarantees. But they are signs of permeability — and maybe seeds for a new, more inclusive elite.

Why This Matters — Even If You’re Retired

At this point in life, I’m not looking to start the next unicorn company or to run for office. But I am still invested — emotionally, morally, and yes, financially — in the world we’re shaping.

The systems we endorse and the ideas we support now will shape the guardrails of the next generation’s economy. Our legacy isn’t just financial — it’s cultural, ethical, and intellectual. We’ve seen how quickly things can shift, and we know that unless change is deliberately encouraged, the default path is concentration, not diffusion.

Maybe we can’t write the next chapter ourselves — but we can underline the parts worth keeping and question the ones that need revision. Let’s be the conversation starters at family dinners, the ones who ask, “Who really benefits from this?” and “How could this work better for more people?” And encourage our kids and grandkids to question assumptions. Support policies that widen the playing field.

Even modest influence, multiplied over years and generations, has power.

Final Thought: Power Shifts — But Only If We Push

The 0.01% are not evil. Many are brilliant. Some are generous. But no system should depend on the benevolence of billionaires.

Real change requires friction. It requires competition, access, and the belief that anyone — not just someone already in the club — can change the world.

Much of the accumulation of wealth today stems from how stock is created and distributed. Founders keep controlling shares, and as valuations rise, those tightly held shares become extremely valuable due to scarcity. As a result, value accrues disproportionately — and a structural imbalance is locked in. We may need new models for ownership that rewards contribution and innovation more equitably, rather than just early placement.

And let’s not forget: consumer demand is the fuel for all this. No matter how innovative a product may be, it’s the wide-scale adoption — the buying, subscribing, engaging — that lifts companies into stratospheric value. If we can find ways for consumers to also be stakeholders — whether through cooperatives, decentralized networks, or local innovation — we might begin to redistribute not just wealth but ownership.

The giants of today didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Microsoft wasn’t the only operating system; Google wasn’t the only search engine; Amazon wasn’t the only online store. They won by doing it better, faster, more cleverly. That’s a fair game. But if the cost of entry becomes so high that new challengers can’t even get on the field, we’re in trouble. And with AI likely to be the next frontier, we risk repeating the pattern — unless we act.

I’ve lived long enough to see power rise, fall, and reassemble itself in new forms. The one thing that never changes is the idea that the future can still surprise us.

So here’s the final question I’ll leave you with: What kind of future are we willing to fight for — and what kind of power are we willing to challenge?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these four articles.

What do you think it will take to open up the future to more people?

The 0.01% Question Read More »

yogiwan

Support Systems, Ethics, & the Road to Real Help

Robots Don’t Work Alone

The New Invisible Labor

Privacy: The Price of Convenience?

Support Doesn’t Have to Look Like Rosie

Real-World AI Companions for Seniors

The Future of Help: Flexible, Ethical, Human-Aware

The Real Limits of Domestic Robots Today

Moravec’s Paradox in Your Kitchen

The Hype vs. the Hardware

What Dexterity Really Means

Dexterity vs. Precision

The Hidden Complexity of “Simple” Tasks

Demonstration ≠ Deployment

The Software-Hardware Bottleneck

Why It Matters

Robot, Android, Cyborg—What’s the Difference?

The Robot in Your Imagination vs. the One in Your Kitchen

How We Got Here: From Sci-Fi to Smart Homes

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics

Part 2: The Robots Are Already Here — Just Not the Way You Imagined

Part 3: What’s Coming and What to Watch Out For

Who Gets the Data?

Who Gets Paid?

So, What Can We Expect in the Next 5 to 10 Years?

Did You Know?

Homemade Chicken Burgers

How do you keep chicken burgers from falling apart?

Ingredients

Directions

Juicy Lucy

What is a juicy Lucy?

What is the warning on a juicy Lucy?

Ingredients

Directions

Loaded Baked Potato Salad

What’s the best way to cook potatoes for potato salad?

Ingredients

Directions

Caprese Pasta Salad

Ingredients

Directions

Participating in the birth of a new media system

Sacking the temple

Growth of a garden

“How curiosity rewires your brain for change”

by Anne-Laure Le Cunff:

The Alexa Situation

The Cautious Expansion Plan

The Troubleshooting Olympics

Tech-Savvy… in Theory

The Value Question

Final Thought

(Or: How Data Tries To Take Over Even In My Own House)

“My Smartwatch Thinks I’m in Trouble — Even When I’m Just Napping”

Step Count Shenanigans

Heart Rate Hokum

Now, let’s talk about sleep tracking — my personal favorite.

Water Guilt and Stress Alerts

Sharing the Pain

So, Am I Keeping It?

Final Thought

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these four articles.

What do you think it will take to open up the future to more people?

“My Smartwatch Thinks I’m in Trouble —
Even When I’m Just Napping”