The sound of iOS 7

I've been running iOS 7 on my iPhone for about a month now, largely for testing our iOS 7 compatible version of Flipboard, and just at noticeable as the visual and spatial navigation changes are the updated sounds and ringtones. It's like the iPhone got a new voice. 

Alan Hanson at The Awl reviews the top 5 new ringtones of iOS 7.  On Constellation:

It is twilight. You are living inside of a prism beam. You are slowly falling through a prism beam without worry and with a satiated stomach. All of your childhood pets are running toward you in slow motion and they are hungry for your love. Your favorite blanket is playing your favorite instrument on a bed of newly fallen autumn leaves. Insects do not exist and yet, the ecosystem remains beautifully balanced. Your boss who respects you very much enters your line of vision and unrolls a long scroll. She reads from the scroll. She reads all of your favorite words, slowly, then disintegrates and is carried off by a warm wind. You have never had a parking ticket. Your dentist is in awe of your brushing habits.

If you think that sounds overblown, go listen to Constellation . I've never switched from the default ringtone before iOS 7 came along, but now the default ringtone has even changed. RIP Marimba, you were the reigning rooster's crow of a digital generation.

I never browsed the list of ringtones in my iPhone in much detail before, but the Awl article raised my curiosity. Many of the new options, and there are many, strike me as more New Agey in nature. Uplift could be the start of an Enya song.  Many of the are more melodic and tune-like than alert-based in nature. For once, I may opt for one of the former.

Identifying a viral seed group

So a way of finding seed groups in a given social network would surely be a useful trick, not to mention a valuable one. Step forward Paulo Shakarian, Sean Eyre and Damon Paulo from the West Point Network Science Center at the US Military Academy in West Point.

These guys have found a way to identify a seed group that, when infected, can spread a message across an entire network. And they say it can be done quickly and easily, even on relatively large networks.

Their method is relatively straightforward. It is based on the idea that an individual will eventually receive a message if a certain proportion of his or her friends already have that message. This proportion is a critical threshold and is crucial in their approach.

Having determined the threshold, these guys examine the network and look for all those individuals who have more friends than this critical number. They then remove those who exceed the threshold by the largest amount.

In the next, step, they repeat this process, looking for all those with more friends than the critical threshold and pruning those with the greatest excess. And so on.

This process finishes when there is nobody left in the network who has more friends than the threshold. When this happens, whoever is left is the seed group. A message sent to each member of this group can and should spread to the entire network.

More here. The key breakthrough for the researchers was not trying to force themselves to find the smallest possible seed group. This feels like it will be the seed, pun intended, of a Malcolm Gladwell article. Maybe the sequel to The Tipping Point.

Pen of choice

The Wirecutter went deep, and I mean deep, reviewing the ultimate pen, and I couldn't be happier that they crowned the pen I've been using as my pen of choice for years now: the Uni-ball Jetstream. Revisiting the page for the black bold-point stick roller ball 4-pack, I saw the familiar Instant Order Update at the top of the Amazon product page, noting the last time I'd ordered this pen. 

I have nothing to add to the detailed endorsements: it writes smoothly, the ink dries quickly, it doesn't skip. I haven't tried the retractable versions of the fine point yet, perhaps I'll give those a whirl.

As to nib size, I've always preferred the 0.7mm fine point.

Dark horse National League MVP

Jared Cross had a great article over at ESPN (behind the ESPN Insider paywall, which I find a solid investment) about a dark horse National League MVP candidate who derives a ton of value from a skill most MVP voters don't consider: pitch framing.

No, it's not Yadier Molina, the oft-acknowledged best defensive catcher in baseball, though he is one of the leaders. No, it's actually Jonathan Lucroy of the Brewers (I would have kept that a secret but it's in the title of the article and the URL so I'm not giving away too much). 

According to Dan Turkenkopf , each extra strike a catcher gets for his pitcher is worth .133 runs, and since Lucroy ranks as the number one catcher in terms of getting extra strikes through pitch framing, with 293 extras strikes thus far this year, the 33 runs he saved his team gives him a higher Wins Above Replacement than even Andrew McCutchen!

Another reminder that a lot of properly valuing people is figuring out exactly how to measure contribution. In the business world, it's still amazing how fuzzy the contribution of people is measured across a vast majority of jobs. Ironically, the higher in an organization a person is, the harder it tends to be to measure their contribution with both accuracy and precision.

Why we sign our emails "Thank you"

...the need for those sorts of rituals remains important, particularly in electronic communication where tone is hard to read. We end our communiques with “talk later,” “talk 2 u tomorrow,” or even simply “bye.” “Thanks” and “Thank you” have worked their way into this portion of the formula particularly in emails. More traditional valedictions have been replaced with “Thank you” so subtly that it’s now a common sign-off in this medium. But what does it mean? And why is it more acceptable than “Sincerely” or “Yours truly”?

It is in part be a reflection of our times. Email offers a speedier means of contact than an actual letter (and in some cases, a telephone), but that speed also means we’re sending more messages through this medium both for personal and professional reasons, and reading and responding to these messages requires a commitment of time. So it’s more important that the sender recognize the burden that they’ve placed on the recipient. In a time when letters took time to write, send, and respond to, it was important for the sender to attest to her reliability. Responses and actions were not so easy to take back. “Sincerely” and “Yours truly” which were meant to build trust between communicants. Credibility was an important determinant of whether a response would be issues. Today, as the web enables stranger to contact each other with little effort, credibility is less of a factor in determining responses (SPAM mail aside) when weighed against time.

From Scientific American.

I disagree with the end of the article, though, in which the author argues that affectionate closings are "vital to the continuation of the relationship."

The line between email and messaging (SMS, Facebook, Twitter DM's, WhatsApp, etc.) has blurred. In professional settings, you're taught that shorter emails are better, and that has removed one thing that differentiates email from messages. Since no one puts valedictions or even greetings in messages, they're starting to disappear from emails as well. Most of the email I receive no longer begins with a greeting like "Eugene", and most of them don't even end with a signature since it's clear from the From: line who the email is from.