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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS