bad g**gle drawing of the day - the spectators


As noted previously, Eric Schmidt's company greenwashes its diversity problem with an endless parade of cultural "others" on its main search page.

Above is a drawing cropped from the same picture as yesterday's bad G**gle image of the day, celebrating women's soccer.
These are the spectators, a happy melting pot of women waving tiny American flags. (With one male, wearing a lei.)
They are all reacting with identical robotic smiles as lady liberty smacks the ball with her shin.
The artist combines Norman Rockwell feelgood-ism with a kind of desperate propaganda style, like old Chinese Communist posters of happy factory workers.

Bonus: If you like women with tiny heads and big thighs, there is a monopoly technology company that openly displays them:


This somewhat resembles the work of Matisse, except the poor figure drawing is unintentional. He also had a better color sense.

bad g**gle drawing of the day


The Incredible Hulk meets Pippi Longstocking?
Is it possible a human figure drawing could be more poorly proportioned?
How is it these artists always make the most dynamic moments seem utterly slack and lifeless?
Can this artist draw a round ball?
Would someone actually play soccer wearing a foam NYC tourist "lady liberty" hat?
Is that color supposed to be verdigris?
Is it better to kick with the toe or the shin?
Do soccer fields have small mountain ranges on them?

startpage ("The world's most private search engine") supposedly pays Google for its search results and recycles them for the privacy-minded, without ads, trackers, and other nonsense. Great, what's the catch?

uber and under

Hubert Horan, writing on the Naked Capitalism blog, has offered consistently skeptical analysis of Uber's claims of profitability and inevitability. His coverage of the lousy IPO (which should have surprised no one) is here. A couple of choice bits:

Few, if any of Uber’s narrative claims were objectively true. Hype about powerful, cutting edge technological innovations that could overwhelm incumbents in any market worldwide helped hide the fact that Uber was actually higher cost and less efficient than the operators it had driven out of business. Stories about customers freely choosing its superior products in competitive markets helped hide Uber’s use of massive subsidies to subvert market price signals and mislead investors about its growth economics. Misleading accounts about driver pay and working conditions helped hide the fact that most margin improvement was due to driving driver take-home pay down to minimum wage levels


Outside the mainstream one could find numerous articles critical of Uber/Lyft claims and their lack of business fundamentals. These included observers who thought that there was a huge, dangerous “tech bubble”, or who thought that years of private control had eliminated most future appreciation potential, or who thought Silicon Valley venture capital had become totally unhinged from reality, or who thought that years of artificially low interest rates had destroyed the market’s ability to evaluate business risk, or who had actually discovered how vacuous Uber and Lyft’s S-1 claims were. These minority views were available to investors doing very diligent research, but these observers were never quoted in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, much less CNN or CNBC.

Am always bummed out to discover a friend or family member using these services.

a dependable voice

New York Times writer William J. Broad in 2003:


New York Times writer William J. Broad this week:


hat tip rene abythe

Another "greatest hit" from Mr. Broad, an article co-written with a disgraced colleague (hat tip R.A. again):


Update 2:
Wireless "5G" is a new technology employing microwave towers to transmit greater amounts of data to smartphones than is currently available. To maintain full signal strength, 5G has a shorter "reach," so implementing it will require building networks of closely spaced transmitters in urban areas. Promoters tout it as "safe," but it's yet another large scale public health experiment (with Americans as lab rats). Everyone should be skeptical of this energy bombardment even if there is no presently known smoking raygun linking it to illness. We won't know if it's dangerous until the system is installed and by then it will be too costly to abandon.

Broad's hit piece attempts pre-emptively to discredit American critics of 5G by claiming that these health concerns are yet another Rachel Maddow-like Russian plot. (Paranoids in the '60s claimed Russia lay behind newfangled schemes such as fluoridating water; the nouveau-paranoids accuse them of "sowing" skepticism). But who is dispensing fake news here? Near the end of his article Broad lets drop that "In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab." Thus his employer has a financial interest in seeing 5G rolled out, and no one should take Broad any more seriously than when he was crying wolf over Iraqi WMDs.