March, 5, 2005 archives

one of the dumb things i did on the initial page about the blo.gs sale is just put the overall expense and income figures for the site, without listing the monthly net income (which is there now). i know better than to throw out numbers like that, and it has certainly influenced the numbers that people have thrown back at me. (one somewhat remarkable thing is how many people have picked the same number.)

i have a hard time writing and talking about this because the notion of not talking about money is so deeply ingrained in me. this came up in conversation with my parents last weekend, when my mom was talking about a neighbor who was very free with how much their kids made. i’m pretty sure my parents haven’t known how much i make since i graduated from college.

in any case, it should be pretty apparent that “losing” money is not a big deal for me. there are people in the world who put the accumulation of money at or near the center of their life’s agenda. i’m not one of those people. (and somehow i keep falling ass-backwards into it. go figure.)

doing a movie about the movie industry can be rough, especially a sequel to a movie about the industry. be cool makes the dangerous choice of making fun of sequels at its outset, and then proceeds to be a mediocre sequel. there are a few clever scenes, but the whole film is just not nearly as tight as great shorty.

the soundtrack is also pretty pathetic, which is disappointing considering the greatness of the get shorty soundtrack.

i always like when someone throws out a number that is apparently designed to impress, but really seems rather pathetic in comparison to something else. like this washington post ombudsman piece about the response to an article about declining circulation. over 75 emails, letters, and phone calls! here’s a /. posting about apple getting a favorable ruling in its case against mac daily news that has nearly 700 comments.