Daynotes: Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

I wonder whether one can use a Raspberry Pi 5 with a PiHAT & SSD connected to a CrowView? It looks like that should be possible.#

After reading Wired's article about Android 15, it looks to me like it mostly brings quality of life improvements and no real new features and this probably why Google didn't wait to include it on the new Pixels they just announced. I don't see many, if any, of the new Pixel features being dependent on Android 15. #

Reviewers and Influencers#

Because of the Google #TeamPixel kerfuffle this past week, I had great interest in reading the reviews of the Pixel 9 series posted by 9to5Google, The Verge, and Wired. The gist of the kerfuffle is, can one trust reviews when associated with a "#GiftFromGoogle" tag in light of leaked text of the latest agreement with influencers that sets an expectation that non-Google devices are not "preferred" over Google devices? Google's later clarification is, they don't consider #TeamPixel as a reviewers program, and I think implied in that statement is an expectation that participating influencers are influencing on behalf of the brand. I personally wonder why anyone thinks this is news, it should be obvious that brands, Google or any other, see influencers as extension of their marketing. What is an influencer anyway?#
Back to the original question about trust, I think a related question is about value. When I read official reviews I can't help but feel the writers feel obligated to write something, anything, negative about the product being reviewed, which makes some sense because what product is perfect. Except, is what one writer think a negative really a negative? I think what you see in "tech reviews" invariably amount to biases. What happens is that products are reviewed against a writers preferences and not against some form of industry, or even publication, standard. #
So, I think one needs to take tech reviews with a grain of salt. Tech reviewers of "recognized" publications are not necessarily any better or ethical than influencers. Many reviewers put high value in access to products and people of these companies. Like nearly every other piece of journalism, reviews are a mashup of facts and opinions otherwise the reviews would be nothing more than a print out of product specifications. At one time, publications like PC Magazine had labs to do performance testing and published the results against an established baseline and their reviews tended to provide explanation of what the deviations from the baseline mean. Of course opinions crept in to the explanations, they weren't nearly 100% opinions. Most tech reviews you read today are not a report of a product measured against a baseline, but rather a report of a person's experience about using the device and whether that experience met their expectations. (More like Chaos Manor and less like Byte Labs) The value of these reviews then depend on the degree to which the reader and the writer's expectations align.#

In Hindsight#

I am a lifelong fan of the Chicago Cubs and feel blessed to have lived long enough to see them win the 2016 World Series. The players on that 2016 Cubs team will always be special and so when it came time for those players to part ways from the team I, like many, were disappointed, but I now have to admit they were the right decisions.#
Last night Javier Baez, one of those on that 2016 who now plays for the Detroit Tigers, returned to Wrigley Field for the first time since he was traded to the New York Mets. Even when Baez played for the Cubs he was not considered a good hitter, he chased most pitches out of the strike zone, but some time had the good fortune of making a big hit. I always felt Baez's value was most defined by his fielding at shortstop, and in his prime I thought him the best shortstop in baseball. I am old enough to remember that the shortstop position was not usually fielded by the best hitters (remember Shawn Dunston?), but considered the most important in field position and Baez fit that mold. #
Even though I did not like the fact that the Cubs seemingly unceremoniously dumped those players from the 2016 roster, I have to admit that looking back now nearly all were the right decisions, except for one, the first one letting Kyle Schwarber go as he went on to win another Word Series with the Nationals and play in another with the Phillies. #
Kris Bryant has not played a full season since he was traded to San Francisco. Anthony Rizzo has been alright but often injured with the Yankeess. Baez has never figured out the plate. It's clear to me now that even if they had kept these players the Cubs would not be any better of a team than they are today. #
So, the front office was right in letting these players go for as many prospects they could get. Some, like Pete Crow-Armstrong, who they got in the trade to the Mets for Baez, has potential to be stars in their own right. My fear though is that the current Cubs front office has a profile for players that seem to be one hit wonders over long term producers. In short, the new guys they get are like the old guys they had and that seems to produce the same results of not being good, nor clutch, hitters. You combine this hitting profile with a tendency turn over the bullpen every single off season and you get the mediocrity that is the current adjective for the Chicago Cubs. #

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

I wonder whether one can use a Raspberry Pi 5 with a PiHAT & SSD connected to a CrowView? It looks like that should be possible.#

Reviewers and Influencers#

Because of the Google #TeamPixel kerfuffle this past week, I had great interest in reading the reviews of the Pixel 9 series posted by 9to5Google, The Verge, and Wired. The gist of the kerfuffle is, can one trust reviews when associated with a "#GiftFromGoogle" tag in light of leaked text of the latest agreement with influencers that sets an expectation that non-Google devices are not "preferred" over Google devices? Google's later clarification is, they don't consider #TeamPixel as a reviewers program, and I think implied in that statement is an expectation that participating influencers are influencing on behalf of the brand. I personally wonder why anyone thinks this is news, it should be obvious that brands, Google or any other, see influencers as extension of their marketing. What is an influencer anyway?#
Back to the original question about trust, I think a related question is about value. When I read official reviews I can't help but feel the writers feel obligated to write something, anything, negative about the product being reviewed, which makes some sense because what product is perfect. Except, is what one writer think a negative really a negative? I think what you see in "tech reviews" invariably amount to biases. What happens is that products are reviewed against a writers preferences and not against some form of industry, or even publication, standard. #
So, I think one needs to take tech reviews with a grain of salt. Tech reviewers of "recognized" publications are not necessarily any better or ethical than influencers. Many reviewers put high value in access to products and people of these companies. Like nearly every other piece of journalism, reviews are a mashup of facts and opinions otherwise the reviews would be nothing more than a print out of product specifications. At one time, publications like PC Magazine had labs to do performance testing and published the results against an established baseline and their reviews tended to provide explanation of what the deviations from the baseline mean. Of course opinions crept in to the explanations, they weren't nearly 100% opinions. Most tech reviews you read today are not a report of a product measured against a baseline, but rather a report of a person's experience about using the device and whether that experience met their expectations. (More like Chaos Manor and less like Byte Labs) The value of these reviews then depend on the degree to which the reader and the writer's expectations align.#

In Hindsight#

I am a lifelong fan of the Chicago Cubs and feel blessed to have lived long enough to see them win the 2016 World Series. The players on that 2016 Cubs team will always be special and so when it came time for those players to part ways from the team I, like many, were disappointed, but I now have to admit they were the right decisions.#
Last night Javier Baez, one of those on that 2016 who now plays for the Detroit Tigers, returned to Wrigley Field for the first time since he was traded to the New York Mets. Even when Baez played for the Cubs he was not considered a good hitter, he chased most pitches out of the strike zone, but some time had the good fortune of making a big hit. I always felt Baez's value was most defined by his fielding at shortstop, and in his prime I thought him the best shortstop in baseball. I am old enough to remember that the shortstop position was not usually fielded by the best hitters (remember Shawn Dunston?), but considered the most important in field position and Baez fit that mold. #
Even though I did not like the fact that the Cubs seemingly unceremoniously dumped those players from the 2016 roster, I have to admit that looking back now nearly all were the right decisions, except for one, the first one letting Kyle Schwarber go as he went on to win another Word Series with the Nationals and play in another with the Phillies. #
Kris Bryant has not played a full season since he was traded to San Francisco. Anthony Rizzo has been alright but often injured with the Yankeess. Baez has never figured out the plate. It's clear to me now that even if they had kept these players the Cubs would not be any better of a team than they are today. #
So, the front office was right in letting these players go for as many prospects they could get. Some, like Pete Crow-Armstrong, who they got in the trade to the Mets for Baez, has potential to be stars in their own right. My fear though is that the current Cubs front office has a profile for players that seem to be one hit wonders over long term producers. In short, the new guys they get are like the old guys they had and that seems to produce the same results of not being good, nor clutch, hitters. You combine this hitting profile with a tendency turn over the bullpen every single off season and you get the mediocrity that is the current adjective for the Chicago Cubs. #

Last update: Wednesday August 21, 2024; 2:48 PM EDT.