NICOLE NGUYEN
nicolenguyen.com | blog- itsnicolenguyen | twitter
- nicolemnguyen | tumblr
- nnforthemasses | flickr
- writing clips | portfolio
- resume | linkedin
- Contact
-
Posts
- Feb 27, 13
Appeared in The California Aggie on June 4, 2012
In an effort to curb my serious case of senioritis, I am muting my social media accounts and minimizing my internet use until my undergraduate career has been put to rest. Only after the last answer is completed on the last scantron of my last final will I emerge. Starting today, I am (very begrudgingly) going offline.
The wide web is a dangerous world anyway and it might be an opportune time to stay away. That secret cyberwar program our president ordered? You know, the computer virus that intended to take down Iranian nuclear plants? Yeah, I wouldn’t want to get caught in the middle of that firefight.
Plus, there’s all that talk about the United Nations policing the internet and no one really wants that. Because that means China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have equal say in organizing and controlling the web. Given the tendency of these countries to quiet the voice of their people and silence political dissidents, international regulation seems like a pretty poor idea. My stomach churns at the thought. No need in being online when there’s all that nonsense going on.
After I got to thinking about this last column, I realized that in these last few weeks I will be going offline in more ways than one. You see, an unfortunate side effect of graduating is that my time at The Aggie has run its course. And that means no more tech talk from me. It’s time for the tech talk to come from you.
Scientist extraordinaire Carl Sagan once wrote, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” The internet has become so essential, so ubiquitous but, really, how much do we know about how it works or who is managing it? What about how it affects the way we communicate with each other or the way we share information?
Twenty-something weeks is too short a period to give due justice to these questions. But I encourage you to find out the answers for yourself –– especially you, students of the humanities and social sciences. No, I’m not telling you to drop your disciplines for hard science, but I do think that it’s up to the great thinkers of the world to answer the social, economic and philosophical problems that remain unaddressed in the virtual realm.
Sagan’s 1990 essay “Why We Need to Understand Science” is a good place to start. Twenty-one years later, his words still ring true. For a modern take, The Economist’s Ryan Avent will get you up to speed. Avent explains that the internet is a general-purpose technology, like electricity, whose power lies not in the medium itself but its ability to “transform existing industries, like media and retail.” So if you think you are somehow exempt from the reaches of the internet, you aren’t. You might as well join the party.
But, for now, I’m relieved that I am going offline. I’m at the CoHo watching two friends having intermittent bouts of conversation between browsing their phones and texting. It’s a painful sight to see and it hits a little too close to home. I can’t blame them because I, too, am guilty of this behavior. I too feel like my phone is constantly demanding something of me. That ping goes off and it’s like a bug bite waiting to be itched — the more you itch, the bigger the bite swells. I yield to the text (“Sorry, just one second”), hoping to quiet the stream of conversation, but I actually just enable it. It’s a vicious cycle, really.
So I need to escape the allure of the internet for a little while. I hope that in removing myself, I will better understand its meaning and value. I guess the same can be said of graduating from UC Davis. Congratulations, class of 2012.
NICOLE NGUYEN thinks that there are great offline alternatives in Davis, like Dr. Andy’s Monday night pub quiz (where there are no smartphones allowed, just smarts). Have a good summer and keep in touch at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- May 26, 12
Appeared in the California Aggie on May 14, 2012
Spotify users are on the wrong side of history. If only those poor souls knew of my dear Rdio (ar-dee-oh), then perhaps they would realize. Rdio can’t seem to pick up subscribers in the way its music subscription rival Spotify can, despite the fact that Rdio’s beauty and craftsmanship are far superior.
This column was initially intended as a rallying cry/desperate plea convincing music lovers to come to Rdio. But after I came to understand how subscription sites work, I realized that it wasn’t just the Spotified who may be on the wrong side of history. It may be us all.
It is we, the subscribers — both paying and un-paying — of sites like Spotify, Rdio, Grooveshark, etc., who may be most guilty of contributing to a vicious cycle that rewards mainstream artists at big labels to the detriment of up-and-coming musicians at smaller labels. But it all depends on which definition of success we’re looking at.
If survival in the industry means record sales then, yes, music streaming services does not look sustainable. Artists earn about 9 cents from a 99 cent iTunes download. This may not seem like much, but compared to the fraction of a penny they earn from streaming royalties, it’s a world of difference. On Spotify, that rate is .004 cents per stream. In other words, an artist only earns $4,000 after their song has been listened to one million times. That’s nothing. No wonder why the streaming model infuriates the music industry.
Pirated music, however, merits a musician even less. Music subscription services at least provide some income, however minimal. Per-unit sales are not as important, they claim, as listening exposure. Because more exposure builds a fan base who buys merchandise and tickets to shows, the proceeds of which go right into the artist’s pockets.
In this age of big-budget worldwide tours and music festivals, the significance of such alternative revenue is clear. Across the country, music lovers flock to Coachella, Electronic Daisy Carnival, Bonnaroo, Lollapalooza, Vans Warped Tour, Sasquatch, South by Southwest … and the list goes on. Money isn’t being spent on records, that’s for sure, but it is being spent on festivals. At several hundred dollars a ticket, it seems as though music fans will only spend serious amounts of cash for the one thing they can’t steal from the internet — live performance.
The question is, what kinds of artists are getting these gigs? I suspect mostly established artists with lots of representation — artists from major labels.
Artists from smaller labels rely on the power of music discovery to establish themselves, which is not at all about selling records. In the post-Napster era, independent artists have made it big by offering their music online, for free. MySpace may not work in the social space anymore, but its music network is responsible for the thriving careers of many bands (like the Arctic Monkeys). Self-reliant musicians can indeed make it by way of the web.
Online streaming services allow subscribers to access huge libraries of music — millions and millions of songs — for about the cost of one album per month. These services put listeners in touch with music at the fringes of their libraries by offering suggestions of related artists, or curating playlists for specific audiences. Subscription sites can increase exposure and music consumption overall — and that, I think, is a good thing for the music industry in general.
Sites like Rdio and Spotify are the best economic choice for people who listen to a lot of music, which is why it will define the role of the internet in the ever changing domain of digital music. Music subscription sites offer a happy medium between the instant gratification of music available online without the iTunes pricetag, and the unlimited access of torrents without the criminality. It is a gain for both consumer and industry.
If music executives embrace this technology, the industry, in the words of “Game of Thrones’” Tyrion Lannister, “may survive us yet.”
NICOLE NGUYEN also thinks anti-gay marriage proponents are on the wrong side of history. Reasons why at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Mar 18, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on March 19, 2012.
The cyber activists turned pranksters turned criminals who call themselves Anonymous tell a modern tale of Robin Hood and his merry men. Since 2003, these hackers have used their digital know-how for “good”, attacking only those who they deem to be wicked and corrupt. Well, until they were detained.
On March 5, the FBI plucked the last of a group of six hackers from his Chicago home late in the night. The hackers of LulzSec, AntiSec and Internet Feds, offshoot groups who align themselves closely with Anonymous, were charged with various crimes a day later. The group was ousted by their leader, Sabu, who was arrested in August. The full extent of this betrayal will surely unfold over the next couple months. It will be interesting to see if the indictment of this group will lead to other arrests and, ultimately, to the downfall of Anonymous.
This story of vigilante justice may not end well for these Anonymous members — but perhaps for good reason. The hackers set out to right the wrongs of corporate and governmental institutions, but their actions were hardly altruistic.
Part of Anonymous’ motto, “We are Legion,” comes from a story in the Bible. Jesus encounters a man possessed by an evil spirit, and asks his name. The spirit replies, “My name is Legion. For we are many.” Legion, to be clear, refers to a group of demons.
That’s what it takes nowadays, I suppose, to expose government corruption and abuses in human rights. But how many innocent individuals would these activist computer hackers be willing to sacrifice in their vendetta against the system?
As it turns out, quite a bit.
In 2010, the “hacktivists” of Anonymous released the names and credit card numbers of millions of Sony customers, costing the company over $170 million in repairs. The attack was of grave consequence to both the corporation and its customers. Anonymous seemed to believe that buying Sony products was being complicit in corporate malpractice.
Internet “hacktivism” is perhaps the most invasive and direct form of protest. During this time of intense political anger, I wonder if fighting from the digital front lines will earn even more notoriety. They pillage user databases for personal information and rummage through internal e-mail. Bank account numbers are used to make generous “donations” to various liberal causes (like their own) while confidential documents are plastered all over the web.
That’s why we take precautions to ensure our safety online. We create passwords, we answer security questions and we try to decrypt swirly letters to prove that, yes, we are human. But it’s important to note that these preventive measures are trumped — quite easily – by such skilled and driven cyberpunks as Anonymous. These virtual raids are a matter of outwitting the system and, oftentimes, it only takes one brain to do it.
And Anonymous has a lot more than just one brain. They have the skills, resources and political will to do what they want to do. Unless the FBI can quiet their presence.
The hackers fight against The Man on behalf of the commonwealth and for that, I suppose I owe them some appreciation. But what troubles me is the massive collateral damage that would result from a potential attack on, say, the banking industry — not an unlikely scenario, given their association with Occupy Wall Street.
Like Occupy, Anonymous aspires to a higher belief, one of complete government transparency, corporate responsibility and individual free will. But what is the price to pay for those ends?
The bottom line is that, if we really are in danger of anything, it is our insecure computer networks. As our world becomes increasingly digital, all our information is consolidated into one place, vulnerable to cyber attack. It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in Anonymous’ mission. When hackers are on a warpath, even one paved with good intentions, you, your information and your computer will not be spared.
You can serve the hand of justice to NICOLE NGUYEN at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Mar 12, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on March 12, 2012
My first computer was an iMac. It was purple, I was eight and it was love at first sight. I only used Macs then, and I still only use Macs now.
Although lately, it seems that a transformation is brewing within Apple, and my allegiance is not as strong as it once was. Both the company and the industry are moving in a new direction. Last Wednesday, at the new iPad unveiling, CEO Tim Cook declared that we now live in a “post-PC” world, a world of tablets, e-readers and smartphones. It has been less than 20 years since Steve Jobs returned to Apple and built the brand we know today. And yet, the world is already something entirely different.
I’m not sure that it’s the post-PC era yet, but fairly certain that in the near future it will be. Whatever the case, Tim Cook’s prophecy got me thinking: Could I still remain devoted to Apple under new management, in a new era? In a post-Jobs, post-PC world? Is brand allegiance like hereditary politics? Do we just buy into the products and ideas that we grew up with?
Apple, and all that it stood for, undoubtedly shaped my worldview on technology. I had already committed myself to the cult of Mac by the time I had reached reading age and was ready to use computers. It was the same year the “Think Different” campaign was launched, featuring portraits of Ghandi, Einstein and other “round pegs in square holes.”
I went to see if Apple’s company culture lived up to its campaign message for myself. At 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, California — the address of Apple’s main campus — there aren’t many suits, ties or polished leather shoes. In fact, when I visited, there were none. There was no corporate uniform to speak of. Apple, right down to its dress code, championed individuality above all else.
Apple and its products seemed so contrary to the status quo which, for me, was its main appeal. The company was the scrappy, under-appreciated underdog of the tech industry taking on Microsoft’s authoritarian rule of the PC market. And, honestly, who doesn’t love an underdog.
The tables have since turned, with Apple leading the pack in profits as the dominant force in smartphone and personal computer sales. The authoritarian rule now belongs to Apple. It’s a scary thought, seeing how some companies veer off course when drunk with power (see current financial crisis).
A couple months ago, NPR’s “This American Life” dedicated an entire episode on labor malpractice at Foxconn, Apple’s manufacturing site in China. The narrator Mike Daisey was also a self-proclaimed “worshipper in the cult of Mac.” What Daisey uncovered — the sweatshop conditions, the underage laborers — was disturbing. A week later, The New York Times ran a front page story on the allegations. Apple was in the spotlight, and it didn’t look pretty. It was the first time my devotion had wavered at all.
Marco Arment, creator of the site Instapaper, wrote a blog post on the derogatory term “fanboys” (well, in my case, fangirl) which he defined as someone who is “blindly and irrationally devoted to a product” and “whose opinions and arguments can therefore be completely disregarded”. This quote has been ringing in my ears ever since.
So, I’ve resolved to put an end to my fangirl tendencies and look at technology with some clarity. Two of my friends now have Windows phones which, upon closer inspection, I found to be one of the most beautiful user interfaces I’ve seen in a while. I always thought Apple had a leg up on the competition at the very least in terms of aesthetic. But the Windows phone was so graceful and animated — something I had never associated with Windows, ever. For a moment, I wondered if I had just found an iPhone alternative.
My stubborn commitment to Macs has everything to do with growing up Apple. The platform you started on is probably the platform you’ll return to time and time again.
But now that the platform is changing, and the industry is shifting its attentions to mobile and the web … I think allegiances will too. The post-PC era may just break this one infinite loop.
If the iPhone, iPad or iPod is the apple of your eye, let NICOLE NGUYEN know at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Mar 05, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on March 5, 2012
The fine arts and the digital age don’t exactly look to each other with doting eyes.
The arts allege that the new era moves much too fast, with no pause for deep reading and reflection. The digital age retorts that fine art is an ancient, outdated practice in a mechanical time. They fundamentally undermine each another — one champions tangibility and sensory experience, while the other is based completely in a virtual reality.
Modern artists, of course, have embraced cyberspace as a platform for self-promotion and a vehicle for a new kind of creativity. But these two disciplines – science and the humanities – are frequently at odds for funding. A recent development, however, convinced me that this is no longer the case.
Kickstarter is a website that helps artists and entrepreneurs fund not only the fine arts, but all kinds of creative projects by soliciting the largest collective of people in the world — internet users. Commoners like you and me can become venture capitalists with a few bucks and a click of a button.Carl Franzen of Talking Points Memo recently reported that Kickstarter is slated to contribute more funding to creative endeavors than the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) this year. It’s a huge revelation, considering that the NEA is the federal agency responsible for supporting artistic excellence, not to mention the most prominent funding source for arts organizations in the nation.
Our dire economic and political situation could be the reason why NEA’s budget is so limited. Cash-strapped Americans and small government advocates haven’t been kind to the humanities, which is why music and arts education have dwindled to a trickle. But the crux of the matter is that Kickstarter could serve to fill that void. Then, perhaps, the arts will see the digital age as friend, not foe.
The site has funded a number of projects right here on our campus. Studio 301’s production of RENT, for example, is just a few donations shy of $1,000. It has 42 days left to triple that amount and reach its goal.AggieTV’s LipDub music video met its target, then raised $56 beyond it. If you haven’t seen the video yet, YouTube it — now. The charming six-minute cover of Queen’s “Bicycle” and “Don’t Stop Me Now” was an impressive, collaborative effort between the university and the Davis community, produced by students, for students. And Kickstarter made it possible.
Rachel Agana, who graduated from UC Davis last year, was AggieTV’s online producer for the event.
“I chose Kickstarter for LipDub because it does two things at once. You get to market the project, and you can earn some money,” Agana said.The downside, she told me, is the risk. If you don’t reach your funding goal in time, no money changes hands. This policy encourages project coordinators to set their sights on the low end, lest they receive no funding at all. On top of that, Kickstarter takes 5 percent of the money raised, and Amazon takes an additional 3 to 5 percent for providing the infrastructure to donate. The company must, after all, sustain itself financially.Generally speaking, art is abused on the web — thrown around and copied with little respect to attribution or copyright — but it’s also cultivated by sites like Kickstarter and, before that, Etsy, and even before that, eBay. Etsy and eBay provided a marketplace for artists to sell their work. Kickstarter now provides a means to create it.It appears as though youth culture is beginning to value artisanship and ingenuity over mass-manufactured cheap goods made by cheap labor. In the Kickstarter network, the projects that people believe in are the projects that get funded. It’s a simple model, really, but a model that keeps up with changing times, one for a modern world that can hopefully save time-honored traditions.Support the arts at the UC Davis Downtown Store this Friday where NICOLE NGUYEN and fellow printmakers will be selling their work. More shameless promotion at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Feb 27, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on February 27, 2012
Hashtags are brilliant because they can be both funny and informative — like Jon Stewart, but less handsome.
What else can be used as a snide afterthought on the one hand, and a sweeping declaration of revolution on the other? No other markup in social media parlance is as versatile or as widely adopted. In fact, the hashtag has become so culturally embedded that it has shaped its own genre of rap. Yes, geekery and hip hop, together, at last.
Hashtags found their home on Twitter, which I think is no coincidence. Constraints force people to be creative and resourceful. Limiting messages to 140 characters is no exception.
These short messages are strewn about in the Twitterverse with little direction as to where or to which topic they belong. So the Twitterati devised shorthand to thread related tweets together, a pound symbol and a string of letters placed after the message. #likethis
And what to make of the ensuing phenomenon?
I think the rise of the hashtag has a lot to do with us — the millenials, those of us born between the late seventies and the early nineties. The idea of grouping conversations is born directly from our generation’s inclination to create community with strangers online.
A fateful July 13 blog post titled, “#OccupyWallStreet” moved the masses in New York and elsewhere. Overseas, #Jan25 organized the revolution that shook the Middle East. More recently, the #SuperBowl set the record for tweets per second, turning the most-watched TV special of the year into a two screen experience. These days, hashtags are a standard vehicle for commentary and assembly.
And while revolutions were being built, some of those same millenials — in the entrepreneurial spirit that most defines them — took the hashtag … and made it their own.
The kind I’m talking about has more entertainment value than it does function. It adds a touch of self-mockery and sarcasm, which comedian Aziz Ansari does masterfully. During the Superbowl, Ansari admitted that his only football knowledge was Friday Night Lights, and tweeted things like, “Touchdown!!! #FoodHitMyPlate” throughout the day.
A hashtag makes a statement that is quick and to the point, which makes it particularly clever when done successfully. This may be why so many rappers use it in their rhymes. They finish their lyrics with a one-word punchline, just like a hashtag. Thus, hashtag rap. Drake is infamous in the ‘genre’, most notably for this line: “Swimming in the money, come and find me #Nemo/If I was at the club, you know I ball’d #Chemo.”
But what do revolutions and football and rap have to do with the future of the internet?
A lot, actually. There are developments that are threatening the livelihood of hashtags and, well, creativity in general. Social media platforms are adding rigidity to the way users generate content, partnering up with this company or that company so that we can only share something one particular way. I fear this will make user content driven sites more generic than ever. These platforms already give us templates for our messages and filters for our photos, leaving us as little editorial judgement as possible.
Google+ is even rolling out hashtag autocomplete for their posts, which adds some element of organization, but also stunts originality. Disorder and spontaneity free users to think outside the box. Twitter is one part structure and two parts attention deficit disorder, which is exactly why creativity thrives there. Twitter is successful because it works just like the universe — as an organized chaos.
The prevalence of hashtags in media and in culture are just a testament to the imaginative spirit that brought us the internet in the first place. If only social media would, like Twitter, find a way to preserve and encourage this kind of ingenuity, instead of manufacturing it for us.
Tell NICOLE NGUYEN why you are #winning this week at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Feb 13, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on February 13, 2012
Tomorrow, hearts will be sent aflutter with flowers, chocolate, candle-lit dinners and the like. But not all hearts will be so delighted. For long-distance lovers and singletons, Valentine’s Day is just 24 inglorious hours of very public displays of affection. And on a campus teeming with primed 20-somethings, the parade of love paraphernalia will be unavoidable.
Sulking in moderation is acceptable, but it may be worthwhile to consider tomorrow a day of reflection. It’s likely that our notions of love are starry-eyed, thanks in equal part to romantic comedies and the canons of English literature. Relationship dynamics are changing. So, for the purposes of modernity, I think it appropriate to discuss the impetus of these shifting relations between us — the internet.
Communication is the key to a successful relationship, and the web is the key to modern communication. How do we reconcile technology with something as personal as our romantic affiliations?
There’s an ongoing debate on the matter. Do more closed or more open networks cultivate genuine connections between people? With something as large and vast as the web, if you’re looking for love, it’s there to be found. But what kind of love? Therein lies the distinction.
Intimate networks intended to nurture close relationships are growing simultaneously with large online communities that thrive on their users’ anonymity and the desire for quantity over quality.
I find those closed networks to work best for parties that already know each other well, particularly the LDR — the long-distance relationship. Having been away for months at a time from my own significant other, I understand all too well the monotony of incessant texting and calling. Maintaining an LDR requires subtlety, variation and surprise.
Path indulges all three of those things. It’s an application developed for iPhone and Android that is intended to be, “a limited, intimate, more personal network” which is, indeed, quite true. My network, for example, consists just of myself and one other. Path organizes — and elegantly so — messages, photos and locations in such a way that feels as natural as conversation in real life.
But maybe you don’t want real life. Maybe you don’t yet have a network of two, or maybe you don’t like to know too much. You like the mystery. I can’t continue without mentioning Craigslist personals here, the most primitive network that the web has to offer. The personals can be as innocent as “seeking hiking partner on weekends” or as salacious as “must be British and DTF tonight!” which is why, for most young people with their whole lives ahead of them, I think it best to avoid online classifieds altogether.
But there is an alternative that I was surprised to find frighteningly popular among 20-somethings.
I am new, apparently, to the world of Grindr, a location-based networking application for gay men that allows users to find each other within close proximity. The service has become so widespread (boasting millions of users worldwide) that its developer launched Blendr, an app for its lesbian and straight members, last spring. On the one hand, the app is freakishly calculative, refreshing its pages as you move about. But on the other hand, it offers the soothing affirmation that lone wolves are, as a matter of fact, not at all alone.
If the specificity of geosocial networking seems all too impersonal and the chumminess of closed networking comes across as too personal, look to the gray market vagueries of Missed Connections. They are available for nearly every city (yes, even Davis) and provide hope for those looking to reconnect a serendipitous encounter.
So, tomorrow, after ‘Linsanity’ takes on the Raptors and re-runs of Bridget Jones’ Diary stops playing, I encourage you to beat the blues. Open your laptops, and meet the many solutions of the internet.
Suga mamas switching it up and taking their men out tomorrow night need to contact NICOLE NGUYEN at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu for props.
- Feb 06, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on February 6, 2012
The internet is supposed to be a free and open enterprise. I’m sure it was at some point but, nowadays, it seems as though the internet is just enterprise. With such large profits to be made and to be lost, is it possible for companies like Google and Facebook to see past their corporate interest to protect the freedoms of speech and expression that the internet was supposed to foster and facilitate?
I got to thinking about censorship after Twitter made a small but significant change to their guidelines last week that I believe resolves a lot of issues facing sites with user-generated content.
Twitter announced that it would remove tweets only in specific countries where the content was considered unlawful, and leave the message online for the rest of the web. What caught my attention was that this move toward seemingly more censorship actually makes for less censorship overall.
If a country requests that Twitter remove a tweet, the tweet in question will be blocked only for users whose IP addresses are from that particular country. Previously, Twitter would have blocked the tweet for everyone, but can now do so on a case-by-case basis.
The policy is an interesting approach to a widespread problem — that not all freedoms of speech are created equal. In Twitter’s official blog post addressing the change, “Tweets Still Must Flow,” the company explained that countries outside the U.S. have particular restrictions for “historical or cultural reasons” such as France and Germany who, understandably, prohibit pro-Nazi content in all their media.
Complying to certain countries’ codes of online conduct does, however, raise another question. Is being complicit in censorship — no matter how minor or justified — simply perpetuating the problem instead of actively working against it? I can name a few countries wherein communications constraints aren’t so reasonable (ahem, China). After the announcement, mobile developer Terence Eden, tweeted, “I helped develop a Twitter client that Chinese pro-democracy activists used. Guess that’s dead now. Thanks, Twitter.”
I imagine that Twitter isn’t only concerned for the wellbeing of civil liberties. I’m sure profit margins are on their minds, too. If Twitter extends its dominance into the international market, then it MUST comply with countries’ policies in order to compete with other networking services — even if those policies are discriminatory. As with all advertising schemes, Twitter’s promotional services become more valuable when it makes itself available to more users, in more countries.
Despite this, I am hesitant to accuse Twitter of having too strong a corporate mentality. They trail far behind the aforementioned tech behemoths in profits and manage a much smaller operation.
The company has also famously stood up against government orders when others did not. When the feds requested that Twitter hand over information regarding users connected with Wikileaks, it successfully fought a gag order that would have prevented the company from publicizing the request and notifying those users (giving them time to defend themselves against such an investigation).
Twitter has continued in this same vein, publicizing all its cease-and-desist requests on ChillingEffects.org/twitter. Google also deserves accolades for posting to this site, as well as its own transparency report, which offers great country-by-country visualizations of content removal requests. Facebook, on the other hand, provides no such data.
By virtue of its role in protest organization around the world, Twitter will be subjected to close examination as it exercises its new policy. I remain optimistic, maybe naively, about the company’s intentions. It is, after all, a service that can even seem a little too free and too open. Let us not forget the unfortunate case of Mr. Anthony Weiner who, thanks to Twitter, left very little to the imagination.
NICOLE NGUYEN’s home tweet home is @itsnicolenguyen, but send your sweet nothings to niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
- Jan 30, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on January 30, 2012
“Will you marry me?” [Beep, beep, pause.] “Let’s just be friends, OK?”
‘Atta girl, Siri. In October, Apple debuted the latest in artificial intelligence, their sharp-witted Siri, as a headlining feature of the iPhone 4S. The voice-recognition software was released in beta, of course, because technology meant to mimic human behavior is bound to fall short of expectations. Siri is supposed to do everything a personal assistant would, like schedule lunch dates, set timers, jot down reminders, send a text or make calls. She’s certainly willing, but she isn’t very capable.
On Amtrak, I overheard this Siri conversation: “Will it rain?” “Do you mean ‘Will Rentay’?” “No. WILL. IT. RAIN.”
I find most people talk to their Siris this way, the same way most American tourists speak to non-English-speaking nationals — at snail pace and near-shouting volume. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of that kind of speech, you know that the “loud and slow” approach doesn’t actually improve your comprehension of an unfamiliar language. The same goes for Siri.
In my experience, Siri takes too long to respond to my commands and doesn’t get it right when I need her, rendering the feature useless. The product is rough around the edges, which is completely out of character for a company as detail-obsessed as Apple. You’d think Apple would keep this beta app behind the scenes, under wraps, or in development (where it belongs) until it has been perfected. Yet, Siri continues to appear at the forefront in the company’s national TV ad campaign, which airs at least twice during “Modern Family.” On Apple’s website, Siri stands alongside two substantial developments — a dual-core A5 chip and a high-def camera — that make the 4S “the most amazing iPhone yet.”
But I am so disappointed by Siri’s performance because she’s not polished in the way I have come to expect from Apple products. Apple continues to tout Siri as one of its most revolutionary features, even though she doesn’t seem to work. So, Apple, why so serious about Siri?
My first hunch is Apple’s eye on things to come. The future of computing, at least according to “The Jetsons,” Star Wars/Trek and Smart House (you know, the Disney Channel movie), involves more human sensory experience. We will engage with technology less through keyboards and mice, and more through touch, motion and speech. Apple has perfected the touchscreen and produced the best tablet in the industry, the iPad, so touch is already under the company’s belt. So, I suppose, on to something new: speech.
Apple’s foray into the realm of voice recognition is not surprising. Visions of the future suggest that we will be able to tell our ovens, “Pre-heat to 375 degrees” and tell our showers, “Heat up my water just the way I like it.” But this kind of technology, at least for now, only exists in galaxies far, far away. This may be why Apple has been pushing Siri on their most popular product, the iPhone (37 million units sold last quarter). When people use Siri, Apple collects data — people speaking in different languages, in different accents, with different jargon — so that the service will improve over time.
Every time you ask Siri a question, the program turns your speech into text and sends that text to Apple servers. Then Siri’s response is sent back to your phone. Even seemingly useless questions like, “What is the meaning of life?” have serious implications for the research and development of integration with future products. The more people use Siri, the more data goes into the servers, the better she gets.
And Apple certainly hopes to be the best, as it does with all its products. Siri is said to be the main attraction of the long-rumored Apple television set, which is expected to be the first TV that thinks the way you do. Say “ESPN” and you’re already there.
Siri, as she is now, is too slow for what we’ve come to expect from our phones. But maybe we’ll take her more Siri-ously once she’s in our ovens, showers and TVs.
This column nearly went unfinished because Siri forgot to e-mail NICOLE NGUYEN at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu, reminding her that it was due.
- Jan 23, 12
Appeared in The California Aggie on January 23, 2012
After the tents of Occupy Wall Street have been packed, the drum circles silenced and the signs of fury discarded, there is at least one thing that will carry on the movement’s legacy: a new crop of startups that are looking to capitalize on consumer anger against banks.
One such company is Simple, whose name was recently reduced from BankSimple; a good thing too, seeing as the finance company isn’t really a bank (nor is it really that simple, but more on this later).
Simple is waging a war against commercial banks by improving upon existing standards of technology, design and customer-friendliness that are, well, a bit lacking industry-wide. The company doesn’t charge any fees (not even for overdrafting or paying late), and runs exclusively on the web, with not a single teller or brick-and-mortar branch in sight.
To be clear, this isn’t a column about finance (that’s what my colleague Danny Brawer does on Tuesdays). This is a column about the virtual vs. the real.
The classic example of virtual triumph is Amazon, who offered consumers a large selection, built a reputation for excellent customer service and watched as their following amassed. Slowly but surely, they poached customers from brick-and-mortar shops, trumping independent booksellers and big box stores alike.
What Amazon did for retail is what Simple can do for banking.
Simple has shown signs of promise that it, too, could reinvent an industry online. The Portland-based company is creating just the kind of new-age product that 20- or 30-something young professionals won’t be able to resist.
Here’s how it works: Simple issues its customers a Visa debit card. Since Simple has no ATM network of their own, cash can be withdrawn at any ATM and the company will refund all incurred fees.
Depositing cash, on the other hand, is where the company deviates from its claim to simplicity. You can deposit your money at one of Simple’s “partner banks”, but will have to deliver special instructions to the teller in order to do so. You could also take the cash to a bank, turn it into a money order, then deposit it through Simple’s mobile app. It’s likely you’ll be charged either by the depositing bank or the agency providing the money order.
In actuality, Simple doesn’t deal with your money — its partner banks do. Simple just provides the technological infrastructure to manage your money, requiring you to own a camera-enabled smartphone to access it. This focus on technology is precisely why it will appeal to the young and the tech savvy.
Simple requires you to manage your personal finances through the mobile app that lies at the core of its services. The application allows its users to view a map of where they’ve purchased items and exactly how much money they spent there. It can even calculate a daily “Safe-to-Spend” number for you that takes into account what you earn, what you spend and what you need to save. Other features include an advanced search function wherein you can sort transaction history by time (lunch dates), type (coffee) or size ($20 and up).
It is Web 2.0’s answer to banking. On top of it all, the beautifully designed, minimalist user interface might make you (dare I say) like doing banking on your phone.
But the real question is, will it catch on with the banking population at large?
Since Simple will only accept smartphone owners, it restricts its membership to a fairly nichey crowd and excludes people who could really use the service but don’t spend a lot of time checking Twitter on their iPhones, like busy heads of households.
The service is still in Beta, and interested parties can request an invite at simple.com (epic domain grab, right?).
If Simple does what it sets out to do, it will change how people manage their personal finances — but it may for only a select few.
If you’re glad Congressperson Lamar Smith said NOPA to SOPA, let NICOLE NGUYEN know at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.
-
Tweets
- IT'S FRIDAY. Danse: http://t.co/jJI54dHuoJ
- "Why Tech Journalism Is Like Food Journalism" by @nealunger https://t.co/McWWVqVSei
- RT @POPSUGARTech: Larry Page on future projects: “We’re only at 1% of what is possible.” #GoogleIO
- @machikoyasuda I am! I will definitely be waiting for the nailbaiting changes at the future of Maps session.
- This week is off to SUCH a good start. | Full iTunes preview: Daft Punk - Random Access Memories - http://t.co/dP109ti6Z8
- RT @macon44: “Internet: Meet the reason we need more women in tech." http://t.co/ShQnlUQaI9
- May 06, 13 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- Alliteration names FTW. | "Why Do NPR Reporters Have Such Great Names?" http://t.co/rDIMZYhOH0 via @TheAtlantic
- Complicated philosophies as beautiful, simple abstractions by @gex00: http://t.co/I4hVCspTtp
- Just a reminder that this Twitter account is Sharks territory. 5-2 YEEHAW! http://t.co/jNehrmAIAC
- Tennis blazer, cold cream, small flask: world-traveling lady essentials, illustrated. http://t.co/7QAXvQ0T5u via @brainpicker
- BEIGNET SUNDAY (@ Devil's Teeth Baking Company w/ 5 others) http://t.co/jpD88IWqQt
- May it be in you, over you, in front of you, behind you, and beneath you. … http://t.co/PeQSEAmrgz
- Tomorrow: http://t.co/d9mgWPWjLp
- Tunes for your Tuesday: been workin' to these amazing beats by @jxnblk all day. Check it » http://t.co/n1ih6Mj2f8
- While women #LeanIn, the President leans back: http://t.co/vcw6G23awd
-
Posts
-
Photos
-
Posts
- Oct 09, 12
howto-kissdistinctly-american:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prime Minister of Australia kicking ass and taking names (mostly Tony Abbott’s). [x]
hot damn.
Honestly, Americans would watch the hell out of CSPAN if our Congress was an actual deliberative body…
The Telegraph has some excellent background on Julia Gillard’s epic righteous beatdown of the Conservative leader.
Tuesday morning takedown.
- "The unpaid internship was long seen as a right of passage. Very few Americans can afford such a..."Sep 06, 12
““The unpaid internship was long seen as a right of passage. Very few Americans can afford such a luxury, and fewer still African-Americans can afford it.” — The magazine industry, by the nature of its own economics, provides opportunities for only the most fortunate among us. As a result, the voice of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and, as a commenter pointed out, of non-Ivy graduates from state schools in the South and Midwest, is largely lacking in longform journalism.”
-Magazines, particularly those of a certain stripe, have exclusion in their DNA. Vanity Fair, Esquire, GQ are all, on some level, aspirational. They are all trying to project some high life that you really should be living.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, on the context of magazines and their struggle to diversify. (via emilyjaneferber)
- Aug 02, 12
- "Some part of all of us wants to be credited and enjoys the acclaim. And a big part of all of us..."Jul 31, 12
“Some part of all of us wants to be credited and enjoys the acclaim. And a big part of all of us likes getting answers. But we now live in a world where counter-intuitive bullshitting is valorized, where the pose of argument is more important than the actual pursuit of truth, where clever answers take precedence over profound questions. We have no patience for mystery. We want the deciphering of gods. We want oracles. And we want all of it right now.”
- Ta-Nehisi Coates on journalism, Jonah Lehrer, and the truth. (via theatlantic) - Jun 01, 12
- Apr 10, 12
“Just as Instagram makes bad photos look good and good photos look great, Facebook makes you look happy and loved if you’re not, and joyous and adored if you are. Self-brand and share. Filter, and share. Share the edited stuff, the varnished stuff, the stuff with the halo around it. Take a step away from truth for the sake of beauty.”
- Dan Zak, in a day-after essay on how Facebook and Instagram were meant for each other. (via washingtonpoststyle) - Mar 20, 12
Lost & Found: Salvaging Snapshots in Japan
Sunday marked the one-year anniversary of last year’s disasters in Japan, and last week on Photo Booth we posted a slide show of images of the aftermath. One of the most powerful visual representations of this recovery, though, came not from professional photographers but from ordinary citizens. The Lost & Found Project is an exhibition that grew out of the Salvage Memory Project, a volunteer effort from across the country which has recovered some three quarters of a million photographs that had been lost in the town of Yamamoto during the earthquake and tsunami. According to the artist Munemasa Takahashi, who leads the project, they’re “mostly snapshots of special family occasions and holidays that anyone would take.” Each photograph was washed, digitized, and numbered according to where it was found, and twenty thousand have been returned to their original owners.
- For more selection of photographs from the project: http://nyr.kr/GDwYyfBeautiful.
- Mar 07, 12
“When I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded of the decision that I have to make to send in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impact that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy…Those who are suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be. I’m not one of those people.”
- Barack Obama (via elbum)Word.
- Mar 01, 12
“I think it’s an ugly term when applied to information. When you talk about consuming information you are talking about information as a commodity, rather than information as the substance of our thoughts and our communications with other people. To talk about consuming it, I think you lose a deeper sense of information as a carrier of meaning and emotion – the matter of intimate intellectual and social exchange between human beings. It becomes more of a product, a good, a commodity.”
- W. W. Norton: Why do you think “consumed” is an ugly term? (via matthew) - Feb 27, 12
““…because the Academy Awards are like teen-age sex. It’s all about the fizzing buildup, and the self-persuading aftermath: the occurrence itself, nowadays, is nothing but fumble and flub, though, to hear the crowing tones of the participants, you’d swear that they were souls in bliss.””
- Anthony Lane, in “The Oscars: Man or Muppet?” - Feb 18, 12
Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of the U.S. edition of Vogue magazine, waited for the start of the Victoria Beckham show at the New York Public Library during Fashion Week Sunday.
- Jan 31, 12
I completely agree, almost a visceral feeling.
Wes Anderson from Above.
Had an oddly emotional reaction to this.
-
Info
- Editorial, POPSUGAR TechPublic Relations and Communications | San Francisco Bay Area, USSummary
Specialties
* Web journalism, copy editing, feature stories, media advisories, social media, graphic designExperience- Sept 2012 - PresentEditorial Assistant / POPSUGAR Tech
- Pitch, write, and edit original content about technology and geek culture for POPSUGAR Tech.
- Promote content through social media.
- http://www.popsugar.com/author/Nicole+Nguyen - Jan 2012 - Jun 2012Tech Columnist / The California Aggie
- Wrote a column about the web and the cultural implications of technology.
- Published weekly — online and in print. - Jan 2012 - Mar 2012Radio Production Intern / KQED Public Radio
- Produced comprehensive coverage of California government and politics for KQED and The California Report.
- Responsibilities included researching story ideas, acquiring source materials and writing news scripts.
- Assisted in technical production of "Capital Notes" podcast. - Sept 2011 - Dec 2011Editorial Web Intern / The New Republic
- Researched and composed articles and blog posts.
- Selected photos and wrote copy for multimedia content.
- Copyedited articles for the magazine's homepage, tnr.com - Jan 2010 - Aug 2011Editorial Intern / UC Davis University Communications
- Wrote features and briefs for official campus publications, both online and in print on behalf of University Communications.
- Designed infographics for the ucdavis.edu homepage spotlights and produced photos for Aggie Family Pack, a newsletter for parents.
- Served as an advisory panel member advancing the chancellor's social media presence.
Education-
2008 - 2012University of California, DavisBA in International Relations and Art Studio
Activities: UC Washington Program Fall 2011, Washington, D.C.; Art Studio Abroad Summer 2011 in French Riviera and Paris, France; Art Studio Abroad Summer 2010 in Umbria and Rome, Italy; Landscape Painting Intensive Summer 2010 in Bodega Bay, CA -
2004 - 2008Evergreen Valley High School
Additional Information-
Honors:CSPA Scholastic Gold Circle Awards: Yearbooks, Third Place, "Design Essentials: Cover Design"; CM, "Design Essentials: Title Page"; CM, "People spread with Mug Photos: Color", 2009 CSPA Scholastic Silver Crown: Yearbooks, "The Eye, Evergreen Valley High School", 2009
