jason oke

If you’re not in awe, you’re not paying attention.

Back in black



I’m back from a self-enforced six month blogging vacation.

I ran out of steam for a bunch of reasons, some too boring to talk about, some too personal to talk about, and some that I don’t even understand yet. But I realized that I needed to focus on work and other areas of my life, and to make time for that a few things had to give. This was one of them.

But I’m back. I missed it. I missed you (no, seriously). Normal service will resume shortly.

And thanks for sticking around.

Filed under: solipsism


In meta-media news, my grammar of social media post from last week got picked up today by the Design Observer and then by Bruce Nussbaum in Business Week. All of which has led to a few thousand new visitors and being featured as one of WordPress’ fastest growing blogs.

So if you’re new here, hi. Thanks for coming. I hope you stick around.

The lesson here? At this particular cultural moment, writing about Obama, Clinton, and Twitter is a hot combination to get some press. Now if only I could figure out a way to get Lindsay Lohan, Angelina Jolie, sub-prime mortgages, and the Lost season finale in there…

Filed under: Media, Social networks, solipsism

In the press again

Well it turns out I didn’t alienate everyone at my little rant to the big MRIA research industry conference a few months back. I was invited to write a special feature this month in Vue, the official magazine of the MRIA. Coming so closely on the heels of last month’s article in the UK’s MRS Research magazine, I now worry that I’m in some danger of cornering the market on complaining about the state of research.

Anyway, it’s sadly not available online but for those of you who are into that sort of thing (and live in Canada), please do go forth and seek out a copy from your nearest purveyor of research-industry-related publications.

Filed under: research, solipsism

The pretty picture divide

I’ve always kind of hated looking at pictures of myself. I’m one of those people who is always surprised by how awful I look, and think “it must be the lighting” while simultaneously trying not to notice that every else in the picture looks exactly like they do all the time. I probably have some unconscious self-perception that I look like Robert Downey Jr, when in reality I look closer to a disheveled Philip Seymour Hoffman. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. (And as an aside, go see Charlie Wilson’s War – it’s quite good and PSH steals the film.)

Today I was chatting with Barry, our head of design, and he has a theory that helps rescue the tattered shreds of my self-esteem. He’s noticed an age-related gap on social networking sites like Facebook in personal photo quality – anyone under 25 looks really good in all of their pictures, while the rest of us look pudgy and a bit stunned. His theory is that it’s because those of us of a certain age grew up with pictures being taken mostly on special occasions like birthdays and holidays, and usually with some warning of “say cheese.” We never really learned how to have our picture properly taken. But with ubiquitous casual digital photography, the young ‘uns grew up being used to taking and seeing many more photos of themselves, and have learned to quickly throw a pose in any situation. They are photo-literate.

So that’s why I look so awful in pictures. It’s because of the digital photo divide. At least, that’s what I’ll keep telling myself.

Filed under: Pictures, Social networks, solipsism

RSS Follow me on Twitter.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Do Some Good


  • 43,110 visitors

Creative commons license


These are my views. Do I even need to explain that? They're not those of anyone generous enough to pay me money. They're just mine. Unless maybe they're yours too. That would be nice.