Book Review: The Distraction Addiction, Alex Soojung-Kim Pang

The Distraction Addiction

Recently I was having some exchanges with a guy with whom I’d been on a date and was working on setting up a second. He was inconsistent with messaging but whenever I heard a text message buzz, I found myself not breathing – anticipating something from him. I was literally holding my breath for him. Realizing how unhealthy that was, and that he wasn’t going to become magically responsive, I stopped the exchange and mentally moved on.  I started breathing again.

One of the first insights in this thoughtful book is that humans often experience “email apnea”: we hold our breath checking email. It makes sense, because you never really know what sort of thing may come in to your inbox. Having just been through the process of recognizing my own failure to breathe when waiting for texts from this guy, it was easy to see how I did it with work emails too.  Most of what I get in my inbox is low priority, but every time I get something from a court, I can feel my breath catch.  It usually doesn’t get better until I’ve downloaded the order and read it.  I was definitely primed for the opening insight of the book, and its suggestion that we focus on breathing when we hit refresh on our email, and continue breathing normally while it does so.  

Pang extends this advice to the many other beeps and sounds that fill our lives.  I started turning off notifications while I was reading and enjoyed the book all the more because I was able to focus on it.  It helped me realize that, even though I read a fair amount, I’m often subject to distractions when doing so, and get my best reading done in the cell deadzones on the subway or on airplanes.  I like the idea of intentionally cutting off when I read.

Pang is anything but a luddite. He likes and uses technology. And he makes a persuasive argument for changing our relationship with technology to one that is more intentional. Like the technology with which we are struggling, a sense that something is amiss with technology is almost ubiquitous.  While reading the book I had several conversations that touched on its topics.  People intuitively understand that there is a problem, but struggle with how to deal with it.  Pang has excellent suggestions for doing this.  Even understanding the problem – and that I’m not alone with having the problem – has helped me be more intentional with technology.

I was less impressed with Pang’s interest in Buddhism. While there is definitely much to learn from the wisdom traditions, the book seemed to like the sanitized Buddhism of college students’ rebellions against Westernism/Christianity. Buddhism has its dark sides (ask the Burmese Muslims). And the ultimate goal of Buddhism is detachment from the world, because it is those attachments that bring our souls back to the world through reincarnation rather than attaining Nirvana (to be “blown out” like a candle – or as written in Japanese, 入滅, to enter destruction) . It may be that I’m a single person living away from family, but I like and miss my family.  I find the idea that my attachment to them is something to be overcome deeply dehumanizing. The multiple times “sangha” is defined is unnecessary and further reminds you that Pang likes Buddhism. Religions of all sorts have a community of the faithful. So I prefer “community” or “faithful” as more universal than the repetitive use of foreign words.  

More important than my atheist quibbles with Buddhist doctrine, though, I disliked the repeated reference to Buddhism because it made the focus of the book seem disconnected from the world in which most of us live.  Having to remember that “sangha” means community is a subtle disconnection from the world in which I live.  Second, the relation of ascetics (monks, priests, other religious leaders) and the larger world is always attenuated.  Because a monk is intentionally set apart from the rest of humanity, the monk’s (or priests, or whatever’s) relationship with the world has a different directionality than the relationships I have with family, friends, and coworkers. That is, a monk can engage in online communications with the community of Buddhist faithful as a form of outreach or ministry.  If the monk fails to do so, though, it’s not like their daily life will necessarily be disrupted. I can’t do that.  Responding to email is an essential function of my job.  Living hundreds of miles from family means that I depend on technology to see my niece and nephews growing up.

So I preferred it when Pang talked about himself and his own family’s struggles to mediate the challenges of living in the technological world.  I share his ability to get great work done on an airplane.  There are times I will intentionally buy big books and save them for my next long flight.  So I appreciated his discussion of intentionally preparing for flights as times to get things done.

I appreciated his discussion about taking walks – I know that my tendency to eat lunch at my desk is bad, but this book gives me more reasons to step away from the desk and go for a walk, including breathing, allowing your mind to wander which will help it form connections, and allowing it to more easily enter a type of flow state.  The book includes other interesting discussions from people who work and how they interact with technology.  I liked those, because they seem like the people with whom I interact.

I also appreciate the idea of a digital sabbath.  I’ve retained my interest in having a day off of work from my religious upbringing.  I like the idea of extending it to the digital realm.  I’m not sure yet how to do it (one of the ways I stay connected with family is by playing online games with my parents, and I think I’d have to carve that out in the name of increasing connection).

In short, I like a lot about this book.  I’m already trying to do some things differently because of it. Focusing on my breathing has, already, been a very good. thing.  I would have appreciated more of a focus on those of us who have to live in the world and balance the benefits and downsides of digital ubiquity.

Note: this is one of the books implicated in the Hachette/Amazon fight.  Better to get it from your local bookstore, Barnes & Noble, or Google.

What Makes Nigel Richards The Best Scrabble Player On Earth

By Oliver Roeder

LeBron. Peyton. Tiger. Serena. Nigel.


When the 2014 National Scrabble Championship begins Saturday in Buffalo, New York, the odds-on favorite will be a 47-year-old New Zealander who resides in Malaysia named Nigel Richards. He is currently ranked first in North America. The difference between his official rating and the second-place player’s is about the same as the difference between second place and 20th. He has held the first or second ranking on the continent since 2002, the year of his first National Championship. He holds the record for the highest Scrabble rating ever achieved. He is such an overwhelming favorite this weekend that a popular fantasy Scrabble rotisserie competition places him on participants’ selected teams automatically.

Beyond all that is the sheer virtuosity of his gameplay, his uncanny gift for constructing impossible words by stringing his letters through tiles already on the board. The ultimate Richards word story: In a game in 1998, then-newcomer Richards had a rack of CDHLRN? (“?” denotes a blank tile). There was an E available on the board; Richards could have played CHILDREN for a bingo and a 50-point bonus. Instead, Richards played through two disconnected Os O’s and an E. The word? The 10-letter CHLORODYNE.

If you’re wondering what the word means — well, it means Richards is the greatest Scrabble player to ever live.1

Everybody knows Scrabble, that old chestnut of a board game, played on rainy afternoons at grandma’s kitchen table. You draw seven lettered tiles from a bag initially containing 100 — 42 vowels, 56 consonants, and two wild-card blanks, each with an associated point value — and you take turns making words on the board, a 15-by-15 grid. Bonus squares enhance the value of your plays. You replenish your rack after each turn until the bag is empty (or until your little brother flips the board in anger), and the player with the most points at the end wins.

Simple enough. But consider that there are more than 16 billion ways to draw seven tiles out of a bag of 100. And consider that there are just shy of 200,000 valid Scrabble words. A good competitive player will have memorized a sizeable chunk of the 83,667 words that are two letters to eight letters long. A great player will know a lot of the 29,150 nine-letter words as well. The longer words are especially useful because they can be used to bingo. In Scrabble parlance, “bingo” is both a verb and a noun, and a prized one at that.2 A bingo is using all of your tiles in a turn, usually making a seven- or eight-letter word, earning 50 bonus points. A good tournament player will bingo about twice a game. A solid strategy is “20-20-20-bingo”: Try to score about 20 points a turn while keeping some good letters on your rack that will yield a bingo down the road.

Competitive Scrabble tournament games are played one-on-one, with a clock. Each player gets 25 minutes to complete all of her turns, and a good player will average upwards of 400 points a game. To quantify a player’s skill, and to determine equitable divisions in tournaments, she is given a rating. A rating is based on the rating of her opponents and the outcomes of games. Win, and her rating ticks up. Lose, it goes down. Beat a much higher-rated player, and it goes up a lot. (These are akin to Elo ratings in chess, and are determined with fairly complex formulae.) The median rating of a tournament player is roughly 1200. To crack the top 100 in the country, it takes a rating of 1800. Top 10: about 2000.

Richards’s rating sits at 2180. His peak rating of 2298 is the highest anyone has ever achieved with a minimum of 200 games played. According to Scrabble data site, his peak rating is even higher than that of Quackle, a powerful artificial intelligence Scrabble player developed by human tournament players Jason Katz-Brown and John O’Laughlin.3 Richards has won an estimated $215,000 in his tournament career.4

The annual National Championship — a 31-game marathon — is the biggest and most prestigious tournament in the country. Currently, 468 players are registered, with 92 in the elite first division, competing for the title. Ninety-one of them will be chasing Nigel Richards.

Here are all of his results in major Scrabble championships. (The World Scrabble Championship is biennial.)


Richards, who was born in New Zealand and got his start in a Scrabble club in Christchurch, picked up the game from his mother, a secretary, at the incredibly late age of 28.5 The rest of his Scrabble story is well documented.

His personal story, though, is almost as obscure as the words he plays. He rarely gives interviews, and even in person lurks behind an enormous beard. Still, journalists and bloggers have uncovered a few facts. Richards is a serious bicyclist. He’s been reported to have worked for a water company in New Zealand, repairing pumps, and for a security company in Malaysia, monitoring CCTV. He moved to Kuala Lumpur, and represents Malaysia in international events. He’s reportedly an ascetic — doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, has no TV or radio. Chris Cree, the president of the North American Scrabble Players Association, recently related on NASPA’s Facebook page an exchange he had with Richards last month. After a tournament in Las Vegas, Richards told Cree that he’d stick around the city for a while. To do what? Cree asked.

Richards responded, “There is a very good library here.”

We can be sure there is at least one book Richards already knows well: the Scrabble dictionary. He is said to conjure up images of specific pages of the dictionary when recalling words. And, while he largely rejects the notion, Richards is widely said to have a photographic memory.

I am a competitive Scrabble player myself — I peaked at a ranking of 223rd in the country. In the one tournament I played in where Richards competed — the 2010 Nationals in Dallas, which he won — he had an undeniable presence. But the presence is paradoxical. For all the pre-tournament hype, the rumors, the legends, and, frankly, the fear of playing Richards, he exudes utter calm. He’s been quoted saying he does not care about the outcome of his games, and that he’s just there for a “bit of fun.” He can be seen doing little other than quietly focusing on his game in progress — usually at Table 1, the table reserved for the top competitors — or quietly milling about. Emphasis on quiet. With Richards, the unremarkable is remarkable. Many top players will kibitz around a board after a game, performing a so-called postmortem. After his games are over, Richards doesn’t much care about them.

A closer look at the data may explain his unmatched Scrabble success.

For living-room players, Scrabble is about language, a test of vocabularies. For world-class players, it’s about cold memorization and mathematical probabilities. Think of the dictionary not as a compendium of the beauty and complexity of the English language, but rather as a giant rulebook. Words exist merely as valid strings with which to score points.

A Scrabble board after two top players are finished playing on it might look, to the uninitiated, as though they had played in Martian. Here’s a taste: In a single game in last year’s Nationals, Richards played the following words: zarf (a metal holder for a coffee cup), waddy (to strike with a thick club), hulloed (to hallo, to shout), sajous (a capuchin, a monkey), qi (the vital force in Chinese thought), flyboats (a small, fast boat), trigo (wheat) and threaper (one that threaps, disputes).

Top players tend not to be novelists or poets, but more often computer programmers or mathematicians. Richards’s word knowledge is legendary — he knows the rules. As Richards told writer Stefan Fatsis, the author of the Scrabble book “Word Freak,” “I try to score points. The goal is to score more points than your opponent.” And Richards scores a lot of points.

Here is his lifetime scoring average — his points both for and against — compared to those of the other top 50 rated players in the country.6 (For comparison, my lifetime average is 394 points for and 388 points against.)


While Richards allows points on par with other elite players, he scores them by the bucketful. As a result, he averages — averages — about a 55-point win, a margin akin to the value of a bingo. This is especially incredible because, given how great Richards is, he often competes against other top players. One player, a math professor named David Gibson, wins by an average of 56 points, one point more than Richards, but scores 17 fewer points on average per game than Richards. (Gibson, as such, seems to be a more defensive player.) Only two other players, Eric Tran and Chuck Armstrong, average an more than 50-point spread. The average outcome, for the top 50 players, is a 30-point victory.

Because Scrabble tournaments cater to enthusiastic hobbyists in addition to the elite experts, almost every tournament has divisions, so that players of roughly equal skill level can compete against one another. (Only those playing in Division 1 are competing for the title of national champion, however.) The data suggests that Richards deserves a division unto himself. Here are the average scores of all the players in last year’s Nationals, both for and against.


The experts in the elite divisions score more points (naturally), but they also tend to give up more points (since they’re playing against the other elite players). Richards did exceedingly well in both categories. He scored more than nearly everyone in the tournament and gave up fewer points than nearly everyone in Division 1, the top division. His average game score last year, 443 to 381, represents improvement relative to his lifetime average. His average game was a 62-point victory.

So, really, how does he do it? As Richards said in an interview posted on YouTube, “I’m not sure there is a secret. It’s just a matter of learning the words.” All 178,691 of them.

My parents and I play Scrabble most weeks – we like the words. We’re not elite point scorers ;)

August 8, 2014 at 9:40AM
via FiveThirtyEight » Features | FiveThirtyEight

The Retailers Who Will Reward You for Abandoning Your Shopping Cart

By Kyle James on Two Cents, shared by Alan Henry to Lifehacker

The Retailers Who Will Reward You for Abandoning Your Shopping Cart

Have you ever been shopping online at your favorite store, added items to your cart, then decided to not make the purchase for one reason or another? Maybe it was just to expensive. Maybe the shipping costs were a deal breaker. Whatever your reasoning for abandoning your online shopping cart, some popular online stores are now sending a follow-up email to try and entice you back with a coupon or discount to complete your purchase.

Read more…

August 8, 2014 at 7:00AM
via Lifehacker

The Key To Better Work? Email Less, Flow More

By Andrea Ayres

The Key To Better Work? Email Less, Flow More

Have you ever felt like all you do is check your email? In fact, our incessant need to respond to emails at work can be a huge distraction from important tasks, but it doesn’t have to be that way. You have to reinvest in finding flow—a deep state of focus.

Read more…

August 8, 2014 at 8:00AM
via Lifehacker

Companies “looking for brave new ideas or significant critical thinking need to recognize that disconnection is… sometimes preferable to connection”

By Alex Soojung-Kim Pang

Michael Harris writes in the Harvard Business Review blog about the hidden productivity hit that comes from being always-on. Being constantly connected and multitasking, he argues, makes us feel like “dedicated, tireless workers,” but in reality, “we’re mostly just getting the small, easy things done.” In other words, “Being busy does not equate to being effective.”

And let’s not forget about ambient play, which often distracts us from accomplishing our most important tasks. Facebook and Twitter report that their sites are most active during office hours. After all, the employee who’s required to respond to her boss on Sunday morning will think nothing of responding to friends on Wednesday afternoon. And research shows that these digital derailments are costly: it’s not only the minutes lost responding to a tweet but also the time and energy required to “reenter” the original task. As Douglas Gentile, a professor at Iowa State University who studies the effects of media on attention spans, explains, “Everyone who thinks they’re good at multitasking is wrong. We’re actually multiswitching [and] giving ourselves extra work.”

Each shift of focus sets our brain back and creates a cumulative attention debt, resulting in a harried workforce incapable of producing sustained burst of creative energy. Constant connection means that we’re “always at work”, yes, but also that we’re “never at work” — fully.

People and organizations looking for brave new ideas or significant critical thinking need to recognize that disconnection is therefore sometimes preferable to connection.

It’s not just the cognitive hit that multitasking delivers that makes us less productive. To take but two examples, there’s decades of research about “ego depletion,” and how the ability to mentally get away from work makes us better able to do our jobs when we return; and some fascinating work on the importance of solitude to idea-generation (which makes brainstorming exercises less valuable than you’d expect).

August 2, 2014 at 8:11AM
via Contemplative Computing

Book Review: Water, Steven Solomon

​I grew up in Salt Lake City, a desert. Making the desert “bloom as a rose” was both a scriptural injunction (from Isaiah) and a hydrological challenge. I remember being perplexed by the amount of Kentucky bluegrass used for lawns, especially for corporate campuses, throughout Northern Utah, at the same time we heard about droughts. I now wonder how much of the water intensive bluegrass usage was attributable to ignorance and how much to hope that God would somehow make sure the desert bloomed.

Steven Solomon’s engaging and wide-ranging Water, the Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization, presents a fascinating lens on human history by focusing on the role of water as related to agricultural and military technology, trade, and frequently unpredictable catalyst of change. The book covers both history, and in the last chapter, current issues, with some predictions.

I liked the history the best. I really enjoyed the discussion of the role of good or bad Nile floods in the history of Egypt, Rome, and the Muslim world as contrasted with irrigation in the Fertile Crescent and early Europe. Solomon makes a compelling case that water use and technology was instrumental in the rise of human civilization. It also puts into perspective that old interest in having the desert bloom.

There is a thorough review of some of the defining economic, political, and military events in history and how water use played into those events, primarily related to navigation and trade, the rise of European sea power to protect those trade routes, and how success or failure on the seas shaped political history. I really enjoyed the discussion of water power in the American Revolution, including the luck of timing. Some reviews suggest that the discussions of navigation and naval power are unrelated to the overall discussion of water usage. Maybe. But the discussion is fascinating and fits with the effort to make a history of the world’s relationship with water. And it sets up the discussions of technology like the steam engine that are critical to the overall thesis about man’s relationship with water as related to technology.

There is a certain bias for market economies that may be justifiable, but is never justified. Rather, it is presented as the inevitable best choice. In the discussion of the United States, particularly the dry West, the book describes in detail the primary role of government in securing finance and overcoming market weaknesses to yoke the Colorado and other great western rivers. The Hoover Dam section is fascinating. The book argues that the government-lead approach is faltering based on modern market forces, but doesn’t present good proof of that. The only example is the Imperial Valley selling part of its Colorado River allotment to San Diego, but there was still a lot of government involvement in that.

There is considerable current evidence that federal and state government policies favoring particular types of agriculture distort market forces. While I love almonds, I’m concerned about their intense water footprint. But alfalfa is also super water intensive and is primarily used for livestock, and yet government policy does so much to support cattle ranching.

The last section on current water challenges is sobering. As California struggles with a massive drought, the discussion is timely and scary. I certainly hope that technology can help address our water shortages, especially given that current estimates have us in for a dry spell. As I was reading the book, this study was announced showing very serious loss of groundwater in the southwest. In light of the loss of groundwater (which Solomon addresses), we need something to maintain current populations.

One pecadillo that really annoyed me was one reference to global warming affecting China like a “potential environmental Hiroshima.” Having been to Hiroshima and the Peace Park makes me very sensitive to loose references to any disasters as Hiroshimas. It’s like sloppy use of “Holocaust.” There are so many less charged words that could have conveyed the sense that climate change, and its effect on worldwide weather systems (some places get hotter and drier, some places get wetter usually in unmanageable deluges), is a serious threat.

The last chapter, in which Solomon identifies some hopeful spots seems rushed compared with the more thorough approach taken in earlier chapters. It’s good to remember that there some reasons for hope.

Farmer family members say that there can’t be water in heaven or people will fight over it. This book shows that geopolitics is consistent with farmers. I hope that Solomon is right to hope. In the meantime, I’m taking a serious look at my water usage, including what foods I chose to eat.

Recommended for both history and current events folks.

The Truth About Food Stamps


Conservatives love to beat up on food stamps. It happened again last week, when Paul Ryan called overhauling the program and converting it into a “block grant.” How does the program actually work? Does it actually need reform? What would happen if conservatives got their way?

Good ovreview of the system

July 30, 2014 at 1:25PM
via Digg Top Stories

Among meats, beef has a beefy environmental footprint

By Scott K. Johnson

When people talk about reducing their “carbon footprint,” transportation and energy use in the home usually get all the attention. Diet deserves to be a part of that conversation, too, however. The global agricultural system is complex, and not all food choices are created equal in terms of their impact on climate and their use of resources.

Agriculture accounts for roughly 12 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Population growth obviously increases the demand for agricultural production, but there’s another important trend as well—the rising consumption of meat. People in many developing nations are eating more meat as they gain the means to afford it. This is significant, as meat is a sort of demand multiplier because of the crops needed to feed livestock. A field of corn, for example, may be able to feed x number of people, but it can feed far fewer if it’s used to raise cattle.

The animal part of our diet is a significant portion of the agricultural system. Animal feed requires the output of 40 percent of US cropland—and if you include pastureland for grazing, it accounts for 40 percent of all US land. Feed also uses 27 percent of total irrigation and half of the nitrogen fertilizer used, and it contributes about five percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the US.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

“In the simplest terms, we put almost four times as many calories into beef to get a calorie out as we do for chicken, pork, eggs, and dairy”

July 29, 2014 at 11:56AM
via Ars Technica

Is the clickthrough-driven Web economy about to burst?

By Alex Soojung-Kim Pang

Tony Haile, the CEO of Chartbeat, has animportant piece in Time magazine on the rise, and one hopes fall, of Web design and business efforts that focus on clickthroughs. As he explains, in 1994 (20 years ago!)

a former direct mail marketer called Ken McCarthy came up with the clickthrough as the measure of ad performance on the web. From that moment on, the click became the defining action of advertising on the web. The click’s natural dominance built huge companies like Google and promised a whole new world for advertising where ads could be directly tied to consumer action.

However, the click had some unfortunate side effects. It flooded the web with spam, linkbait, painful design and tricks that treated users like lab rats. Where TV asked for your undivided attention, the web didn’t care as long as you went click, click, click….

But something is happening to the click web. Spurred by new technology and plummeting click-through rates, what happens between the clicks is becoming increasingly important and the media world is scrambling to adapt…. At the core of the Attention Web are powerful new methods of capturing data that can give media sites and advertisers a second-by-second, pixel-by-pixel view of user behavior. If the click is the turnstile outside a stadium, these new methods are the TV control room with access to a thousand different angles. The data these methods capture provide a new window into behavior on the web and suggests that much of the facts we’ve taken for granted just ain’t true.

So what have they discovered? Haile calls out four myths:

Clicking = Reading. More than half of people who click on a page spend fewer than 15 seconds reading. And those listicles, articles about fashion and celebrities that editors have thrown onto sites to boost their numbers? They don’t work. Readers, it turns out, spend most of their time reading pages that are topical and content-rich, and move very quickly through junk.

Sharing = Reading. The assumption that things that are shared widely are read widely– and even that the people who share are doing so after reading– turns out to be weak. Chertbeat “looked at 10,000 socially-shared articles and found that there is no relationship whatsoever between the amount a piece of content is shared and the amount of attention an average reader will give that content,” Haile says. Apparently widely-shared content is like fruitcake or one of those baskets with unidentifiable sausages and cheeses: just because you give one as a present doesn’t mean you’d eat it yourself.

Native advertising is the Holy Grail. Turns out it’s not working very well on most sites, but on a few (like Gizmodo) reading rates for native advertising are closer to rates for regular conetnt.

Banner ads don’t work. They aren’t effective when they’re at the very top of the page (which is where most advertisers want them to be), partly because two-thirds of a reader’s attention is spent below the fold. So banner ads at the top of the page are actually located in an area where people are less likely to direct their attention. Oops.

So what does this mean for the future of online publishing and advertising? Haile is optimistic that these insights will burst the bubble for junk content, and provide a rationale for supporting content that’s actually better:

For quality publishers, valuing ads not simply on clicks but on the time and attention they accrue might just be the lifeline they’ve been looking for. Time is a rare scarce resource on the web and we spend more of our time with good content than with bad…. In the seeds of the Attention Web we might finally have found a sustainable business model for quality on the web.

I’ve been critical of efforts to capture and commoditize our attention online, but Haile’s piece makes me wonder if that criticism isn’t a little misdirected, or at least needs to be refined: that the problem isn’t attention per se, but rather the means by which social media companies, app designers, et al have tried to get our attention. The enemy is bad metrics, leading to poor design, and lowest-common-demoninator content.

The enemy isn’t efforts to grab and hold your attention: that’s not inherently a bad thing at all. I don’t complain when Terry Pratchett or Alan Furst write novels that grab me, or Ridley Scott make a movie that’s really compelling (or a brilliant mess, like Prometheus); I consider that a good thing. Providing me with something that seriously engages me creates real value. It’s not a bad thing at all.

The problem is with frivolously engaging stuff, the mental equivalent of junk food that’s designed to be merely addictive rather than seriously informative. To the degree that the metrics Haile describes can help raise the value of content worthy of our attention, they should be welcomed.

(Thanks to Sarah K. Moir for calling the article to my attention.)

click-through = “the mental equivalent of junk food”

April 26, 2014 at 11:20AM
via Contemplative Computing

Facebook’s News Feed Has Decided That I Like Gruesome Murders


I’m not exactly sure when the problem started, but I imagine it was around the time of one of the now too-common stories of mass shootings like Sandy Hook. Or at least, that’s what I like to tell myself.

This is an interesting article. Part of me misses the personal updates from friends on Facebook. Part of me also misses seeing articles from sources I don’t follow in my regular reading (with the awesome newsblur). And yet part of me is also very content with quitting Facebook because I’m not seeing their algorithmic analysis.

July 26, 2014 at 2:23PM
via Digg Top Stories


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.