![]() ![]() That’s pretty impressive, considering Apple previously didn’t believe fart applications met the standards of the App Store. The app costs 99 cents.Īccording to WiredNews, sales hit 10,000 a day in late December. There’s a YouTube demo here, if you need one. So maybe you already knew this, but I just noticed that the number-one selling paid app for the iPhone is: iFart. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.” We are unable to acknowledge or return unpublished letters. The e-mail address is All letters should include the writer’s name, address and daytime telephone number. “Letters should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, Magazine, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, N.Y. Read the column in the January 11, 2009, issue of The New York Times Magazine, or here.Ĭonsumed archive is here, and FAQ is here The Times‘ Consumed RSS feed is here. And yet, just as you can never actually drive to the horizon, the end point of “new and improved” simply does not exist. At a certain point, you would think, the race to purity gets won eventually, you cannot get purer than pure. added something to it? …īut if Flavor Options suggests that progress on the front lines in the marketplace is incremental, it also offers proof of just how resistant the marketplace can be to limits. It may seem surprising, then, that a filter maker would attempt a kind of jujitsu move on the notion of purity: What if you took water with all the bad stuff screened out and. This week in Consumed, Pur Flavor Options, which allow you to add flavor to filtered tap water. Want to stand out in a category that’s all about subtracting? Add something. In The New York Times Magazine: Pur Flavor Options Whoa, I better wrap this post up - it’s so long! Maybe someone else who follows this person will pick up on the occasional interesting tweets and blog about them? Or will I eventually capitulate and start following, the days of (kinda) thought-out blog posts fading into. I’m interested in this person’s thinking - but I’m not that interested. The signal-to-noise ratio will clearly be way worse than it had been on the now-dying blog. If I don’t “follow” this person, I miss the possibility of some future interesting tweet - at least a link I would have missed, something.On the other hand, if I do follow, I clearly have to wade through a bunch of garbage. In fact I didn’t seen a single tweet of interest, whereas this person’s earlier blog posts had been, with some regularity, worth a look. I checked the Twitter feed and it was, of course, far less substantial than the blog had been. The reason? The author now prefers Twitter. Today a blog I read via RSS basically announced its own demise. Dedicated readers may remember this perhaps-related post on this site from 2007: “ Totally Wildly Uprecedented Change, and Its Precedents.” Whether you agree with his points about economics, innovation and income, I think the underlying point about progress and the pace of change (and how it feels) is pretty provocative and very much worth pondering. That’s the opening of a recent Tyler Cowen column, and it surprised me. But compared with what my grandmother witnessed, the basic accouterments of life have remained broadly the same. And many goods and services are now more plentiful and of better quality. ![]() Of course, the personal computer and its cousin, the smartphone, have brought about some big changes. Since my birth in 1962, it seems to me, there have not been comparable improvements. MY grandmother, who was born in 1905, spoke often about the immense changes she had seen, including the widespread adoption of electricity, the automobile, flush toilets, antibiotics and convenient household appliances. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |