"Meta on Wednesday reached a landmark settlement with 47 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, agreeing to pay up to $17.1 billion in penalties..."

"... and make major changes to its products over claims it endangered children with addictive social media platforms. In a dramatic capitulation, the owner of Facebook and Instagram agreed to the financial penalties for violating federal child privacy and states’ consumer protection laws, the states announced. Meta also agreed to limit how long teenagers can spend on its platforms and to bans on features that stoke mental health issues, striking at the heart of the company’s business of engagement for advertising.... Meta still faces numerous other lawsuits from school districts and individuals.... 'Meta wouldn’t settle unless it sees the writing on the wall and feels really exposed,' said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University."

I'm reading "Meta to Pay Up to $17.1 Billion in Landmark Settlement Over Social Media Addiction Claims/The social media giant settled with 47 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, and agreed to make major changes to its products over claims its platforms endangered children" (NYT gift link).

"Although people had been instructed to leave the animal alone, 'some members of the public continued to stop next to the power pole to film and take pictures of the bear, so the bear remained at the top of the pole'..."

"... the department said in a statement. If animals touch two wires simultaneously, they can be electrocuted, so small birds are usually unharmed, said James Dwyer, a wildlife biologist at EDM International, a consulting firm that works with electric companies. Larger animals like hawks and bears are at greater risk, he said."

From "'Heartbreaking' Video Shows Bear Before It Was Electrocuted Atop Utility Pole/The animal’s plight alarmed onlookers and highlighted the drought conditions that are forcing wild bears closer to where people live in search of food" (NYT gift link).

People need to stop rubbernecking. That link goes to Wikipedia where we learn:

H. L. Mencken said the word rubberneck is "almost a complete treatise on American psychology" and "one of the best words ever coined."

By 1909, rubbernecking was used to describe the wagons, automobiles and buses used in tours around American cities, and through their Chinatowns. The tours included a megaphone-wielding individual offering commentary on the urban landscape. Chinese Rubbernecks was the title of a 1903 film....

I looked for that old film, but didn't find it at YouTube, where I did find this: 

And, via Wikipedia, here's Čumil, a popular sculpture of a rubbernecker that you can pose with if you go to Bratislava:

What is it about us humans, stopping to stare? It's not just that one bear has died because of our rubbernecking. Many have died. And some of us have lived because others refrained from rubbernecking. I count myself in that group.

"Many of the writers, directors, producers or actors I’ve worked with wouldn’t even recognize or know how to make this stuff."

"Apparently, people will watch anything BUT the expensively produced content I write — unless it is in the form of unlicensed 15- to 30-second clips."

Writes Karl Taro Greenfeld, "a scriptwriter for television and a novelist," in "Short Videos Are Killing Hollywood. A Merger Won’t Save It" (NYT).

Why would a composer of symphonies know how to write a 2-minute pop song? People love the visual equivalent of a pop song and, as with pop songs, they'll listen to a lot of them in a row. It's not as though they don't want to spend the time with the material they like. They just like snazzy little works of art that begin and end quickly.

But Greenfeld takes the position that the "attention span is shattered," even if people are spending hours looking at short video.

"The process of note-writing helps me formulate my medical decision-making and then check whether it really holds up...."

"When that cognitive labor is offloaded to a machine, I’ve come to see, my job shifts. Even when I try to speak my reasoning aloud for the A.I. scribe, I am still doing something different from writing the note myself. I am no longer using the note, sentence by sentence, to think through the case in my own words, to decide what to emphasize, what to soften — or, as I’m writing, to identify when my reasoning strains. And unlike when I dictate a note, I can’t watch my own phrasing appear on the screen in real time. With the A.I.-generated note, I am instead auditing afterward. I am playing a version of 'Where’s Waldo?' — What’s missing? Has this note gone astray, and if so, where? — and it’s a search made all the more difficult because the A.I.’s draft arrives fluent, confident. It sounds so right."

Writes Helen Ouyang, in "How A.I. Might Change the Way Doctors Think/For generations, writing up a summary of a patient exam was a vital step for physicians trying to make an accurate diagnosis. What happens when A.I. does it for them?" (NYT).

"That cognitive shift does not happen the moment the A.I. scribe delivers a note. It begins in the exam room. Because I know A.I. is recording, I stop listening in the same way. Before A.I. scribes arrived, I would outline a story in my head as a patient talked, fitting the pieces together so I would know what to ask next. In the scribe’s presence, that work is deferred. Let the machine do it! The mind drifts."

"You walk into a restaurant and see a woman you used to know.... She looks amazing at a distance and way younger than she has any right to."

"Then, as you get closer, you realize something is wrong. Her face isn't moving naturally. It's part of it is frozen in place, and other parts are uncomfortably over-inflated. Then you look around and you realize, she's not the only one. It's like they all took the same picture to their plastic surgeon and said, I want that one.... It happens because they're optimizing for a screen instead of real life.... It's easy to fool yourself into thinking that videos and photos are somehow especially real because, after all, it's just a plain picture of what happened. But in fact, cameras can alter a perception of reality in dozens of ways.... You shouldn't chase screen beauty because even celebrities don't really look like that when they're walking around, and... you need to take away is how destructive it can be for people who attain it. I've had so many encounters with people who look amazing at first glance and uncanny once you've watched them talk a bit. Frankly, I don't want to be around those people because it's a little scary...."

Says Megan McArdle, who goes on to condemn open-floor plans, on "Everyone wants to live like an influencer now," the new episode of her podcast "Reasonably Optimistic" (WaPo).

When people are talking face-to-face, how much are they thinking about the genuineness of each other's face? I'd say it's close to 100% of what we are doing and what we were born to do. It's only less than that if we're having trouble making eye contact or we're distracted or disgusted. 

Swalwell says he's "deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past" and he "must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make"...

... but he's also determined to "fight the serious, false allegation made against me." He's fighting and it's false but he's sorry and he did make mistakes and he's got to take responsibility and he is resigning from Congress.

That's what it says here in "Eric Swalwell resigns from Congress after heinous sex assault accusations" (NY Post).

Does it seem incoherent? Not if you see it all in terms of "distraction": It's "wrong," he says, for him to be "distracted from my duties." The fighting will need to take place where we won't care about it anymore — on the outside of any campaign or political office. And now, presumably, we don't need to think about Swalwell for one more second. He has become nobody. Move on. That went by fast.

ADDED: Tony Gonzales, the Republican Congressman, is also resigning, also based on a sexual accusation (NYT link).

With AI — "First, people began taking on work that previously would have belonged to someone else or might not have been attempted at all."

"The scope of what counted as 'my job' widened. Second, because AI makes it easy to start and continue tasks, work seeped into moments that used to function as pauses. People would send prompts during lunch, before meetings, or in the evening when an idea came to mind. This dissolved some of the natural stopping points in the workday. Third, workers increasingly kept multiple threads alive at once. They would run AI processes in the background while reviewing code, drafting documents, or attending meetings. Some even ran multiple AI agents simultaneously. This created a rhythm where both the human and the machine were constantly in motion.... What surprised me most was the contrast between how people described their moment-to-moment engagement and how they described their overall experience. In micro moments of prompting, iterating, and experimenting, people talked about momentum and a sense of expanded capability. But when they stepped back and reflected on their broader work experience, a different tone sometimes emerged. They described feeling busier, more stretched, or less able to fully disconnect...."

From "AI promised to free up workers’ time. UC Berkeley Haas researchers found the opposite" (UC Berkeley Haas News).

Up until now, I had been distracted from the existence of Keith Olbermann.

"Operation Epic Fury" because
"Operation Epstein Diversion" didn't sound warfightery enough

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) February 28, 2026

I imagine there are people who think the main problem in the world today is to figure out what happened in the past that had to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Still, there are others who get off pretending they believe it is. Some of them pose as highly amused by this phony baloney belief of theirs. They use cutesy words like "warfightery" to nudge you in the ribs. Don't you get how funny they are?

"I fell into an oceanic unconsciousness — did a high dive into eternity, circled the solar system infinite times, breathed the breath of my ancestors, became everything and nothing...."

"Eons later, I was reborn. I opened my eyes onto a new world. I would not have been surprised to have discovered myself cradled in my mother’s arms, unable to speak, ready to start my whole life over. Or to find that I had grown a long white beard and that everyone I knew was dead, including the gastroenterologist and his staff, and to have been informed (by the A.I. robots monitoring me) that I was actually the last surviving human being. Instead, I opened my eyes to see a nurse wheeling me into a recovery room. My brain fumbled for a few seconds until it rediscovered a scrap of human language. 'How long was I out?' I asked...."

Writes Sam Anderson in "Want Nirvana? Try a Colonoscopy. It turns out that despite everything you’ve heard, getting a colonoscopy is wonderful" (NYT).

"Hi, I'm Jerry Lewis. Bob Dylan has always been a protester not only to the fashion of his times but the trends of the thing."

"And that's super, simply marvelous. So when Parimutuel Records came to me and said, 'Hey, Jerry, whoever you want to record would you just do? Manilow would be good. You want we should give Barry a call? And I said, 'Uh-uh, I want to do Dylan 'cause he makes me feel good a lot and that's why I chose his stuff to be on my album 'Lewis Sings Dylan.' Oh yeah!"

An obscure but great clip of SCTV in 1984 at YouTube.

Amazing how long Martin Short has been around....

And amazing how long people have been kicking Jerry Lewis around. Here he is, in a musical scene, in his prime, in the 1960 movie "The Bellboy":

I ran across that movie on The Criterion Channel the other day, and I've been watching it in bits. I like watching things that can be watched in bits, and "The Bellboy" is great for that. As the opening monologue explains, "There is no story and no plot. That's right, I said, no story and no plot. It is actually a series of silly sequences, or you might say it is a visual diary of a few weeks in the life of a real nut." Perfect for our times. It's almost TikTok. 

"During the Enlightenment, close attention emerged as a virtue essential to knowledge and disciplined investigation, as demonstrated in 1740, when the naturalist Charles Bonnet..."

"... conducted a vigil of 21 days, daybreak to nearly midnight, to study the life cycle of a single aphid. At the dawn of the 20th century, the American philosopher William James insisted that voluntary human attention was the linchpin of free will. By that time, some laboratory researchers had begun to turn their attention to attention as a subject of explicit scientific inquiry. One of the first to undertake such investigations was James McKeen Cattell, a German-trained American at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Cattell, the first professor of psychology in the United States, used a fast-snap shutter to flash a few letters for a tiny fraction of a second. The test subjects then repeated back to him as many letters as they could remember. Observing a range of results, Dr. Cattell concluded that they reflected a significant feature of cognitive ability: what he called the 'span' of attention. Subsequent researchers used the attention span metric to identify children’s mental 'deficiency.'"

Write D. Graham Burnett, Alyssa Loh, and Peter Schmidt, in "The Century-Old Lie at the Heart of the Attention Economy" (NYT).

Burnett, Loh, and Schmidt have a book, "Attensity!" (commission earned). The word "attensity" appears in the column like this:

"Defeating the forces that frack human beings in order to extract the financial value of their attention is going to require... attention activism... a new politics of 'attensity.'"

Time only seems to go faster when you’re older because of the way your memory works. Does that mean you should seek out novelty?

Interesting: Here is the reason that as you get older, entire years feel like a week: 🙇‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/V6spUNMrFT

— AlphaFox (@alphafox) January 4, 2026

Assuming he's right about that, I don't jump to agree that one ought to seek out novelty. I'm thinking:

1. There is no problem to be solved. You experience your life in the present in real time. It only looks compressed in your memory. You're not being deprived of time in which to live. You're just freed from detailed memory.

2. Even though novelties would cause your memory to seem to contain more time spent doing the things you have done, you can always find more detail within your familiar activities.

"People often ask her how, as a famous person, she still takes the Tube, but the reason why is simple — nobody is looking up from their phones."

"'It’s heartbreaking,' she says. 'Nobody’s looking into the f***ing world any more.'"

From "Kate Winslet: ‘Young women have no concept of what being beautiful is’/At 50, the actress doesn’t care what people think of her any more. She lets rip about social media, weight-loss drugs — and why it has taken her so long to become a director" (London Times).

I don't like the expression "let rip." It's too reminiscent of "rip one." But let's read this OED entry for "to let rip." which is defined as "to act or proceed without restraint; (also) to speak violently," which I don't for one minute believe that Kate Winslet did, even as she chided women for — whatever — lip injections and Ozempic. 

The first of the historical quotes comes from California in 1857 and gives some insight into the court system:

Things happen so fast with Trump. He's always dropping one distracting thing or another.

It's hard to keep track of the things you really ought to worry about.

Chomping a wall off the East Wing of the White House? That's so distracting that it must be intended as the distraction. Why do it this week and not next month? Because there's something else that's harder to see, and I'm certainly not seeing it.

"Demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him" — that's something "people familiar with the matter" fed to the New York Times but it's not at the top of the front page anymore.

It's below the story about how dogs are peeing: 

It's down there on a level with Springsteen's "Nebraska," which came out in 1982 and is the focus of a new biopic that already been in the news for weeks.

The dog piss is fresher. 

The top story on the Times front page seems like another throwback: "Trump Empowers Election Deniers, Still Fixated on 2020 Grievances."

They're still fixated. We're still fixated. It's all about paying attention. Are we dangerously attached to our fixations? Or are we distracted by the latest thing? There's something that's neither of those 2 things and it's what I'm afraid we're not doing.

CORRECTION: There are 2 headlines about the $230 million and I see now that one of them is higher than Bruce and at the level of the second half of the bit about dogs peeing. Sorry. I should have paid better attention. But my point remains and is, perhaps, underscored: We're caught up in a game of paying attention.

"Once people realized my glasses were full of tech, conversations often took a turn for the awkward — and they mostly unfolded the same way:"

"'Are you recording me?' (No, I’m not.) 'Where are the cameras?' (There aren’t any!) 'You’re really not recording me?' (No!)... Most of the time, people chose to take me at my word and the conversation continued (if a little icily.) Even in tech-heavy San Francisco, casual chats with people I have known for years sometimes turned tense after the glasses’ true nature were revealed. When asked, the most common reason people gave for why interactions took a turn for the awkward was a lingering concern that the glasses were listening anyway — even though they weren’t. The other big reason some people didn’t seem thrilled was a surprise: They thought I was ignoring them.... My wife still sometimes thinks I’m reading news headlines through the glasses even when I’m looking right at her.... [It's hard] to stay fully present with someone when a neon-green notification slides down in front of your eyes.... Some of these social issues may iron themselves out over time.... Until that happens, though, wearing smart glasses can make moving through the world feel a little socially graceless."

Writes Chris Velazco "I spent months living with smart glasses. People talk to me differently now. Eyeglasses are being augmented with screens, artificial intelligence and the power to unnerve people. We tested a pair to see how" (WaPo).

There's also this video. The most interesting part of that is Velazco's admission that his favorite use of the technology is to view inspirational messages that he has chosen for himself, such as: "You can do anything. You have what it takes. Just BELIEVE."

Imagine someone talking to you in person, looking in the direction of your eyes, but actually reading bullshit they've loaded into their glasses. May I suggest the inspirational message: Stay in the moment. Be spontaneous. The person in front of you might be a fully engaged HUMAN BEING!

"I don’t have the ability to watch the entire thing through, but I do my glance downs if I hear something funny. It’s passive a little bit."

Said Zoë McDermott, "a 31-year-old title insurance producer from Pennsylvania, who said she streams video of Theo Von’s show on her phone while she works."

Quoted in "Who Is Watching All These Podcasts? An audio-only medium spawned a giant industry that is now largely focused on video" (NYT).

McDermott's approach describes what might be 30% of those who play the video version of podcasts. That leaves 70% actually watching what offers very little visually. What's up with these people? We're talking about shows that can be 4 or 5 hours long and just 2 people sitting around talking.

McDermott explains using the video: "It feels a little more personal, like somebody is there with you. I live alone with my two cats and I’m kind of in a rural area in Pennsylvania, so it’s just a little bit of company almost." Presumably, she gets that psychic need met without actually looking most of the time, just know that she can, when so moved, do a little "glance down."

But to sit there staring at it the whole time — why? The article doesn't answer that question.

"How about a map-a-loopy? Get a real paper road map. Pick some place to start and another place to end, and..."

"... take the most tertiary, wayward, roundabout farm roads, or tiniest neighborhood street to get there. You will be pretty surprised to spend a memorable hour or two admiring unknown, undiscovered corners, big trees, obscure roads, streets, byways and dirt lanes."

Writes Rabble in the comments at the NYT article, "Land Snorkeling? Townsizing? A User’s Guide to the Latest Travel Lingo. Here are eight terms, some brand-new, others recently resurfaced, that match today’s travel trends."

As you will suspect from Rabble's comment and even without it, the 8 terms the NYT has found are pretty dumb. "Townsizing" is going to a town instead of a big city. "Land snorkeling" is walking about looking at various things. I approve of these practices, and if a cute word encourages anybody, fine.

"I know this might come as a shock, because my whole page used to be about loving my flat chest and being confident with it."

"I literally built my entire career around that. Was everything a lie? Was I secretly insecure this whole time, and just using body positivity to make money so I could finally afford a boob job? No."

Said Clara Dao, on TikTok, quoted in "When Beauty Standards and Body Positivity Collide/A new cultural ideal for women is ultrathin and cloaked in the language of inclusivity and self-acceptance" (NYT).

Dao got the implants for “fun,” she explained. After six years and more than 900 videos of “flat-chest content,” she “got bored.”... Dao’s followers are flooding her comments with anger and disappointment, but all the analytics show is that the engagement is through the roof....

I don't understand the choice of the word "but." The "flooding" of comments is engagement. It's a bad use of the human capacity for emotion to get angry at someone like this and to reward her with the attention she sought by doing the thing that made you angry. When will we ever learn?

"Late last year, Arthur Juliani, a 32-year-old research scientist at the Institute for Advanced Consciousness Studies, was decidedly not taking ibogaine..."

"... but was ingesting something similar. He had obtained tabernanthalog, a research molecule designed to mimic ibogaine’s chemical structure and potential effects on neuroplasticity, but not cause any hallucinations. About 45 minutes after he swallowed his dose, Juliani started to feel a kind of 'spacious attention,' he told me. On a walk outside, he found that anywhere he looked appeared like a 'perfectly framed photograph, distinct and standing on its own.' When he went home for lunch, he ate a bell pepper 'in the slowest and most intentional manner I had ever eaten a vegetable in my life.'... If novel psychedelics and 'pseudo-delics' tickle brain receptors in a way that changes people’s subjective experience... can one confidently say that the people who take them aren’t tripping? As the pursuit of non-hallucinogenic psychedelics advances, the definition of a trip as something induced by a discrete set of substances is set to evolve alongside them. These days, the hottest new psychedelic drugs might be the ones that feel as close to nothing as possible...."

From "Tripping on Nothing New, non-hallucinogenic versions of psychedelics are blurring the boundaries of the drug trip" (The Atlantic).

My first reaction: We're just talking about paying attention. Why can't you find a way to pay attention on your own, using the natural resources of your magnificent human body? Why add drugs? Americans and their pills. Just stop!

My second reaction: This is the diet drug we've been waiting for! It will make you eat a vegetable — one vegetable! — slowly and with pleasure. This too, one might do without drugs — recall Fletcherism — but these are people who are already resorting to worse drugs, and — who knows? — at some point maybe you could internalize the capacity to call any vegetable and respond with cosmic joy.

My third reaction: This is how "they" turn us into the bleak, insignificant half-humans of the future: You will do nothing and you will be happy. (See "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better")

"[I]f you’re a college graduate with a humanities degree and want to make a salary while still vaguely doing something that deals with reducing racism in America..."

"... D.E.I. is one of the few possible career paths. The problem, at a grand scale, is that D.E.I.’s malleability and its ability to survive in pretty much every setting, whether it’s a nearby public school or the C.I.A., means that it has to be generic and ultimately inoffensive, which means that, in the end, D.E.I. didn’t really satisfy anyone.... Both the inspired and the terrified built out a D.E.I. infrastructure in their workplaces.... Trump... is taking a relatively powerless program, vilifying it, and using its dissolution as proof that he has single-handedly ended the woke era.... [T]he war on D.E.I. is almost certainly a catchall scapegoat meant to distract from Trump’s larger plans to gut the federal government, but I also can’t imagine it will hold the public’s attention.... Trump is going to need a better distraction, but one thing we know about him is that he stubbornly sticks to a theme. He might not be able to credibly blame diversity for everything from plane crashes to children’s reading scores, but I imagine he will try."

Writes Jay Caspian Kang, in "What’s the Point of Trump’s War on D.E.I.? To distract from his larger plan to gut the federal government, the President has taken a relatively powerless program and turned it into an excuse for everything that goes wrong in the country" (The New Yorker).