Silverblatt is an amazing interviewer of authors, and a deep but totally unpretentious reader. He's been interviewing writers for almost 30 years and still does every week. I'd recommend the podcast version (or radio, if you live in the US) to anyone who wants to improve their experience of reading fiction.
Casey started monetizing his channel much, much later. In my view, the footage he has amassed and shared on Youtube over the years shares parallels with what Tryniski is doing, namely, he has provided people with a visual account of what it is like to live in New York City at a particular time in history. While obviously different than what Tryniski does in that it is more autobiographical, I definitely think it'll be significant if not now then in the future, especially as the city develops more and changes over time. There's been a lot of footage he has captured that only he has captured, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKOdMA97FGM
Do you have a source for him monetizing his channel much later? The way he describes it in this video[1], he says he made a series for HBO (around 2010), then a couple films, then shifted his focus to youtube. It sounds like he considered it at that time his main income source. The youtube partner program launched in 2007. Even if he wasn't monetized right away, the idea of monetization in the future was likely a motivation. In this video[2] he describes his dream as making money making videos.
The video you linked was uploaded in 2016, certainly long after he started monetizing his videos. The title doesn't seem to be aimed at sharing information with future generations. The title is vague and non-descriptive. It's in all caps and clickbaity. The title is nearly the same as this over video of his[3] which is about a completely different event. Many of his other videos have vague clickbaity titles and thumbnails, sometimes the titles are misleading.
IIRC Casey Neistat didn't start vlogging daily until 2014
I've watched a vast majority of his videos. Some of his videos date back in early 2000s as well, during times he did work for local political campaigns
His motivation is making a living doing what he enjoys doing, which is telling stories. He's said that many times over already. Youtube was his way of bridging his experiences from cinematic private production in hollywood and bringing it to the masses so everyone can enjoy it. 368 is just his next brainchild after the downfall of beme
For a laugh, I'd sure love to see the half-baked list of disabilities the author thinks solely merit a handicapped placard, which he has doubtless already compiled.
What sucks is that there tends to be a stigma that goes along with having a placard, because, among other reasons, it's sometimes the case that onlookers judge someone who puts up a placard on their mirror as if they are lying about their disability just to park closer. It's one of the reasons why people with legitimate disabilities tend not to use them when they have them, even at meters.
Author contributes to this by seemingly lumping people who have real, non-apparent disabilities with those who pretend to have a disability.
Thanks for sharing this. It's always great to reread DFW. He had such extraordinary prescience about so many things.
Another bit of gold from that excerpt:
> First there’s some sort of terrific, sci-fi-like advance in consumer tech — like from aural to video phoning — which advance always, however, has certain un- foreseen disadvantages for the consumer; and then but the market-niches created by those disadvantages — like people’s stressfully vain repulsion at their own videophonic appearance — are ingeniously filled via sheer entrepreneurial verve; and yet the very advantages of these ingenious disadvantage-compensations seem all too often to undercut the original high-tech advance, resulting in consumer-recidivism and curve-closure and massive shirt-loss for precipitant investors. In the present case, the stress- and-vanity-compensations’ own evolution saw video-callers rejecting first their own faces and then even their own heavily masked and enhanced physical likenesses and finally covering the video-cameras altogether and transmitting attractively stylized static Tableaux to one another’s TPs. And, behind these lens-cap dioramas and transmitted Tableaux, callers of course found that they were once again stresslessly invisible, unvainly makeup- and toupeeless and baggy-eyed behind their celebrity-dioramas, once again free — since once again unseen — to doodle, blemish-scan, manicure, crease-check — while on their screen, the attractive, intensely attentive face of the well-appointed celebrity on the other end’s Tableau reassured them that they were the objects of a concentrated attention they themselves didn’t have to exert.
At this point, I think Google Scholar should step in and just put a replications section beside every scientific publication. People should be able to quickly and easily know how many times a study has been attempted to replicate and, of those attempted, how many times it has actually successfully replicated.
It's unfortunate that replications aren't taken more seriously these days, but it also doesn't help that, when there are actual replications, you have to scour the internet for them rather than having them readily available to you.
I think that's a pretty great idea actually. If anyone here has the reach to get this on their table please do reach out. It would be even greater if they'd use some replication metric in their ranking algorithm for the papers.
The danger however is that this would just lead to only me-too studies being accepted and failed replications still being rejected.
I'd also love if they'd add (possibly Google hosted) repositories where the data/scripts etc. that belong to the paper can be uploaded and archived for all eternity.
I saw something like this a while ago... Codalab (http://codalab.org/). It's run by Percy Liang (https://cs.stanford.edu/~pliang/). It lets you create executable worksheets to go with your papers; and people can validate both the code and data used in your experiments.
Looks pretty cool indeed, bookmarked. However I believe it is focused on Computer Science. Nothing wrong with that but I think they key is convincing scientists that are not exposed to ideas like version control, open source (and I'd argue data sharing due to the rise of data mining) by default (or are less computer savvy in general).
https://www.kcrw.com/people/david-foster-wallace