Facebook has been shoving a new ad at me. I am full of ambivalence about it, because I both want to praise the targetting of the ad and also ridicule it.
The ad was for a jaw exercising device. It looks like a donut shaped piece of silicone, and the idea is that you chew on it to give yourself a chiselled jawline. The actor in the ad talked about being 48 and how he used the device to get back his youthful jaw.
I am 41, and into fitness, so that much they got right.
Unfortunately for them, they also assumed that I am ignorant and desperate.
You can't fix saggy skin with muscle exercises. You also can't remove subcutaneous fat with targetted regimens. You *can* generally remove subcutaneous fat from your body with exercise, but you sure as hell can't pick a spot and nuke the fat right there. This jaw chiselling device is a ridiculous scam. It is no different from the Ab Blasters I saw advertised on TV when I was young. Exercise is good for you, sure, but you can't pick a spot and nuke it! You can pick a spot and make it strong, but the body removes fat where it wants to.
Facebook is hit and miss with these things. It does aim a lot of board game and video game ads at me, which is accurate, but it also really tries to sell me trucks, which is a total non starter.
But the truck ads are understandable. I am in a age and income bracket where buying a vehicle is plausible. The most outrageous miss I have ever seen is when FB started sending surrogate mother ads at me. Much as I might like to help infertile people to have children, I lack some key things that are required for that endeavour. Shouldn't FB have my sex sorted by now?
I can't quite sort out how much to respect algorithms. Sending a gym rat like me ads for adjustable home dumbbells during a time when I can't go to a gym? Great idea! (I am not buying, but it is a well targetted ad.) But singing lessons? Not so much.
The algorithms are getting better, and sometimes they do make great decisions, but we are a long way away from Skynet.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Monday, April 13, 2020
Learning from disaster
The ongoing crisis has taught me some things. While I hang out at home a lot, I apparently chafe at the requirement of staying home. I suppose that isn't unusual, but present circumstances certainly bring it into stark relief. I also discovered that while I support substantial restrictions on our collective behaviour to combat covid-19, some of them really grind on me.
Throughout my life a lot of things I try to do have been criticized by people under the umbrella of 'safety'. Going barefoot, you can't do that because safety! Polyamory, you can't do that, because safety! Marijuana, you can't use that, because safety!
My usual response to this is to bristle with indignation and then swing back, hard. I tend to go on about how those same people yelling about safety happily support all kinds of things that are drastically more dangerous, and argue that their real issue with my behaviour is simply that I am doing something different than they are used to, but they fall back on 'safety' when they have no real arguments.
Sometimes I don't have time for debating the topic and my response boils down to
FUCK YOU I DO WHAT I WANT.
It turns out the restrictions on behaviour because of Covid-19 push my buttons because of this. I agree that I should stay at home, and I agree that we must endure inconvenience to make grocery shopping less likely to transmit diseases, and I agree with most the things we are doing.
But damn when authorities tell me how to live because 'safety' my instinct is to snarl and tell them to get bent.
Even though those arguments from safety are well grounded these days I have gotten so used to safety being thrown around as a catch all for 'I have no actual reasons or data' that it really winds me up.
This came up in regards to grocery store population caps. Recently I was really grumpy after a grocery store visit where the security person enforcing store population sat on his phone ignoring everything and occasionally looked up and motioned a random bunch of people into the grocery store. The cashiers were standing around bored because the security guard wasn't keeping enough people in the store, and the people waiting in the enormous line were standing close together, often chatting with one another. Keeping us all in line was simply increasing the danger to all of us, not just wasting our time but also *increasing* our risk.
It bothers me to restrict people's behaviour for no gain, but it *really* burns my bridge when regulations in the name of safety actually make things worse. It is a tough thing to argue though, because I actually support greater safety measures that are effective, and if I argue against restrictions people will naturally assume I am in denial of some kind, or that I buy into the 'let all the old people die to save the stock market' thing.
While I don't think I will come out of this mess with new skills, I suspect I will end up at least learning a few things about myself.
Throughout my life a lot of things I try to do have been criticized by people under the umbrella of 'safety'. Going barefoot, you can't do that because safety! Polyamory, you can't do that, because safety! Marijuana, you can't use that, because safety!
My usual response to this is to bristle with indignation and then swing back, hard. I tend to go on about how those same people yelling about safety happily support all kinds of things that are drastically more dangerous, and argue that their real issue with my behaviour is simply that I am doing something different than they are used to, but they fall back on 'safety' when they have no real arguments.
Sometimes I don't have time for debating the topic and my response boils down to
FUCK YOU I DO WHAT I WANT.
It turns out the restrictions on behaviour because of Covid-19 push my buttons because of this. I agree that I should stay at home, and I agree that we must endure inconvenience to make grocery shopping less likely to transmit diseases, and I agree with most the things we are doing.
But damn when authorities tell me how to live because 'safety' my instinct is to snarl and tell them to get bent.
Even though those arguments from safety are well grounded these days I have gotten so used to safety being thrown around as a catch all for 'I have no actual reasons or data' that it really winds me up.
This came up in regards to grocery store population caps. Recently I was really grumpy after a grocery store visit where the security person enforcing store population sat on his phone ignoring everything and occasionally looked up and motioned a random bunch of people into the grocery store. The cashiers were standing around bored because the security guard wasn't keeping enough people in the store, and the people waiting in the enormous line were standing close together, often chatting with one another. Keeping us all in line was simply increasing the danger to all of us, not just wasting our time but also *increasing* our risk.
It bothers me to restrict people's behaviour for no gain, but it *really* burns my bridge when regulations in the name of safety actually make things worse. It is a tough thing to argue though, because I actually support greater safety measures that are effective, and if I argue against restrictions people will naturally assume I am in denial of some kind, or that I buy into the 'let all the old people die to save the stock market' thing.
While I don't think I will come out of this mess with new skills, I suspect I will end up at least learning a few things about myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)