Forwarded Friday // Volume 4.
Ooh a literary take on the Oscars! Sign. Me. Up. Once again, LitHub proves to be one of my favorite daily web stops.
“The only question is: what should the statues look like? Little golden Maya Angelous? Globular Hemingways? Teetering book towers? Our nominations for the imaginary 2018 Academy Awards for Books are below—and since, just like the real Academy Awards, all these categories are based on taste and leave off a lot of fine contenders, feel free to nominate any and all of your missing favorites in the comments.”
I still need to post my review of John Carreyrou’s incredible book Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup about Elizabeth Holmes. It’s absolutely W-I-L-D. The Theranos story manages to get weirder and weirder, which I really did not think was possible. But alas, Vanity Fair came through with their latest piece about what Elizabeth has been up to since the it all came to a proverbial head.
“Yet through all of this, former employees of the company have told me, Holmes had a bizarre way of acting like nothing was wrong. Even more peculiarly, she appeared happy. “The company is falling apart, there are countless indictments piling up, employees are leaving in droves, and Elizabeth is just weirdly chipper,” a former senior executive told me. One former board member also noted that Holmes would come to board meetings “chirpy” and acting as if everything was “great.” She would walk up to people in the office who could have just testified in front of the S.E.C., or been questioned by lawyers at the F.D.A., and she would give them a hug and ask how they were doing. She was so confident that the company would be fine, executives who worked with her said, that she enrolled Balto [her dog] in a search-and-rescue program. Holmes spent weekends training him to find people in an emergency. Unfortunately, huskies are not bred for rescue; they are long-distance runners, and Balto failed out.”
In college I remember learning about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and it really blew my mind — such a simple concept that rings so true. So it was rad when I came across the “Ladder of Needs” early this week. The “Ladder of Needs,” in a similar vein of Maslow’s pyramid, calls attention to Flourishing Needs. After Core and Comfort Needs, Flourishing Needs offer businesses new opportunity with consumers.
“The big prediction for the coming century is that enormous opportunities will open up for businesses that can skillfully address our Flourishing Needs. Technology, the wealth of nations and the shift in public taste will make this very likely. A great many of the multi-billion dollar companies of the future will be those focused on the fullfilment of flourishing needs: our need for self-knowledge around love, our desire for a satisfying social life, or our need for resilience. Bits of the tech sector are already nibbling at the borderline between Comfort and Flourishing needs, a trend aided by the forthcoming development of Artificial Emotional Intelligence. This, rather than the economies of developing nations, are what constitute the truly ‘emerging markets’ of the future.”
Coming from a family engineers, I always feel a bit like an outlier as I have more of an affinity for words than numbers. So happening upon this beautiful piece on the genius of Ada Lovelace and her “poetical science”, I was thrilled. When it comes to famous people I’d want to have dinner with (living or dead), Ada is at the top of my list.
“Ada Lovelace’s search for beauty in the rational and the logical is an approach from which we have a lot to learn. The fusion between two areas previously thought opposite such as the technical sciences and the humanities is what creates the most charming things — but I have already discussed this. Most of all, the search for poetry within the sciences is not a weird and unexpected fusion experiment as much as an exploration of the most human of traits: curiosity, desire for exploration, awe in front of ‘the great facts of the natural world’.”
There are zero directors nominated this year that are female. That sentence sounds wonky to a native ear, but I think it’s true that it’s strange a female who happens to be a director is almost always referred to as a “female director.” It’s a bit sexist. Much like the, often problematic, Academy Awards. Filmmaker Shaina Feinberg explains this issue poignantly in her illustrated article.
“And until the numbers even out, I will be staging my own protest by referring to all male filmmakers as male filmmakers.”