I got a new insight into the psyche of the super-rich recently, from an article about the planetary middle finger that is the private jet.
“A big selling point is the ability to minimize what are known as ‘touch points’: the individual microinteractions that take place as we move through the world, like saying hello to a gate agent or asking a fellow passenger to switch seats,” New York magazine wrote.
“When you fly commercial, there are more than 700 touch points,” Alexandra Price, a brand communications manager at the jet-charter company VistaJet, told the reporter. “When you fly private, it’s just 20.”
It makes being ridiculously rich sound like having very high-end noise canceling headphones, but for your whole life, so that you exist in a bubble of serenity insulated from the grubby taint of “microinteracting” with the public. It is babyish — a sort of bought helplessness — and regal, gliding through life behind a protective cordon that prevents scrofulous peasants from reaching for the hem of your Loro Piana leisurewear.
The idea that this is desirable is quite revealing of how the ultra-wealthy experience the world because all those touch points — being manspreaded upon or kettled in a customs line, trauma-bonding with your neighbors on delayed trains, getting barked at about carry-on fluids or negotiating to remove someone’s bag from your seat — are not necessarily pleasant, but they are salutary, reminding us we are not special. It goes far beyond travel: a “civilian” passage through the world is full of friction rubbing off our sharp edges. I suppose they never get that.
I wonder, too, if this worldview is shaping life for everyone else. Are tech billionaires “helpfully” trying to create a budget version of their human-contact-free existences for us? Because we are losing touch points by the bucketload, and it is awful.
Take banking: the UK lost 40 percent of its bank branches from 2012 to last year and the few we still have are a special kind of consumer purgatory, full of lamenting lost souls. There are people trying to ask questions that fall outside online banking’s perkily unhelpful parameters, people who cannot or do not want to “use the app” or are not online (which is true of 6 percent of UK households, according to Ofcom research from last year).
There are sweaty, confused people like me, maddened by walls of bleeping machines. Amid us stands a single employee clutching a tablet, who is not actually allowed to do anything useful.
Soon railway stations could go the same way, with nearly all of England’s 1,007 ticket offices threatened with closure or reduced staffing and opening times within three years. Many people who are neurodiverse, who have physical or learning disabilities, or are elderly or offline depend on ticket offices for information, cash transactions and safe assistance at a known place; without them travel might become impossible. As one blind rail user explained to the BBC, her guide dog knows how to find her local station kiosk, but not a roaming staff member, which is the proposed replacement.
Many more just prefer a face-to-face experience because we do not just need touch points (or “people”, as they are traditionally known); we want them. I work almost entirely from home — thanks, tech billionaires — and rapidly become weird without human interaction, however brief or annoying. Because if you are not in the world, how do you know anything about it?
That is how British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year ended up trying to buy a can of Coke by vaguely flapping a bank card, baffled by the reality of contactless payment.
When chatbots and helplines failed to resolve a bit of mobile phone absurdity last week, I went to a shop. We made not an iota of progress, but it was a vastly nicer experience to talk to Samantha and her colleagues — covering alternatives to hormone replacement therapy, Alzheimer’s disease, mindfulness and photosensitivity as well as sim issues — than the robots.
There is no way all our human problems can be satisfactorily resolved without other people, but how boring would life be if they could? That is why, although I would love never to change a duvet cover again in my life, I sort of pity the super-rich, with their frictionless passage through the world: it is colorless and flavorless, too.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS