Ken's Blog

Apple Computer Incorporated turns 50 years old today. All things considered, the company has been doing pretty well for itself in its first half century of life.

In fact, I’m typing this on an Apple computer, and it has been many years since I’ve wanted to use any other kind of computer. That right there tells me something.

Sometimes research feels a little like rock climbing. You look up, and you see a daunting cliff looming high above. You tell yourself that you could never climb something like that.

But then you get a foothold, and you pull yourself up a bit. From a little higher, you spot new ways up that you couldn’t see before.

After a while you rest a bit, and think about strategy. Then you keep going.

Sometimes you found out that you’ve been navigating into a dead end for that last little stretch. When that happens you need to carefully ease your way down again and regroup.

But eventually, if you are patient and careful and persistent, you make it all the way to the top. Then you can celebrate with a little lunch.

And maybe publish.

I have been having a lot of discussions recently with colleagues about the nature of virtual reality. Different people have different definitions for which experiences, exactly, should be considered VR, and what experiences shouldn’t.

But one thing that we all agree on is that there is actually no such thing as pure virtual reality. In a sense, VR is a kind of willful collective fiction, albeit an often useful one.

The reason is pretty simple: No matter what technology you use to virtually “transport” you to another world, you still remain within your body. You may have the sensation of an out of body experience, but that is an illusion.

There is nothing new about this principle. For example, many people cry at movies, even though they know full well that they are looking at a recording of actors playing make-believe. The power of all media depends on our human ability to ignore literal reality when we wish to.

Similarly, when you are wearing that VR headset, even if you don’t perceive the wall or the couch or the coffee table, you know that they are still there, and that your physical body could still run into them.

And that’s really ok.

I’ve noticed in research that one of the most difficult things is establishing the right scope. There is a great temptation to take on everything at once.

When I start a project, I’m like a kid in a candy store. There are so many directions, and I want to go into all of them!

But eventually, as I keep working on the plan, I realize why less is more. If you go in every direction at once, you are not really able to go very far.

You don’t just need to find the right research questions. You also need to have the right research focus.

Today I am very proud of my fellow Americans. More than 10 million patriots (possibly a lot more) took to the streets across our nation to uphold the U.S. Constitution and fight fascism.

Many people showed up with great home-made signs about our bizarro president and his cruel and destructive actions. Some of the signs were very elegant, others were just plain funny.

My favorite sign? The one that said that if there’s any justice, “Big Beautiful Bill” will be the name of his cellmate.

Apparently newly minted dollar bills will now have something deeply offensive and anti-American scrawled on them. Of course any patriotic American will be tempted to stay as far away as possible from such an abomination.

But if you are American, I suggest that you hold your nose and put those bills to good use. For the sake of your country and your fellow Americans, gather them up and donate them to anti-fascist organizations.

Not only will you be ridding yourself of something disgusting and offensive, but you will be doing your country a great service.

These days, when I read about the ever more bizarre and destructive actions of the so-called leaders of the United States, I think of Tom Lehrer.

When Lehrer quit his long-time career as a satirist, he explained why. “Political satire,” he said, “became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Kissinger was a paragon of virtue compared with what we’re dealing with today. I wonder what Lehrer would have made of these clowns.

A jury ruled today that YouTube is a harmful social media platform. But YouTube is not a social media platform.

YouTube is a streaming service. People put up original content, and other people can comment on that content.

I am confused. If a streaming service can be categorized as a social media platform, then pretty much anything could be categorized as a social media platform.

The World Wide Web itself is a place where some people put up original content, and where other people can comment on that content. The New York Times is also a place where people put up original content, and other people can comment on that content.

Does this mean that the World Wide Web and the New York Times should be classified as social media platforms? And if so, should they be sued for damages?

Today is the 125th birthday of Ub Iwerks. Iwerks is arguably the most influential genius of the 20th century that almost nobody knows about.

Do you like the look of Mickey Mouse? And did you enjoy watching Dick Van Dyke dancing with penguins in Mary Poppins?

For those innovations, and for many more magical contributions in the nearly four decades between them, you have the same genius to thank. Although for some reason, his more famous boss often gets the credit.

Sudden fame is not always a good thing.

Before the cancellation of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot, I suspect that not many people knew who Craig Erwich was. And I suspect he was probably just fine with that.

But now he is suddenly famous. And he is hated by millions of people.

There is a lesson here somewhere.