
Hi, I’d Like to Add Myself to the New Yorker (2016) - bcongdon
https://frankchimero.com/blog/2016/new-yorker/
======
jackweirdy
> Many online publications have quotas for their writers, sometimes up to 10
> posts per day. What does this mean? There is very little time for original
> writing, so staff spend most of their day rewriting the interesting posts
> they find elsewhere. No rewrite is ever complete, though. Small elements of
> language stay intact, and they can act as tracer cells which track the
> lineage of content.

This chrome extension highlights lines of "churnalism" which result from the
copy-and-paste journalism writers have to use to hit these quotas:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/churnalism/igpjomm...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/churnalism/igpjommbbpdncpcnjkombboimdclgdhm?hl=en-
GB&utm_source=chrome-ntp-launcher)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fvADRst_YM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fvADRst_YM)

~~~
slama
Unfortunately, it seems the service the extension used has been retired.

------
joshu
Creativity is the art of putting two things together that didn’t obviously go
together.

This was an excellent example of such.

~~~
labster
That's such an insightful comment that I gotta ask: can I add you to my
professional network on LinkedIn?

~~~
phs318u
Here's my standard response (so much so, that I have a keyboard expansion for
it - 'lkno'):

"Hi YOURNAME. Thanks for the connection request but I usually have a policy of
only connecting with people I know, have worked with or otherwise have a pre-
existing relationship. If we have met and I don't remember it please accept my
apologies. If you have a particular reason for wanting to connect, such as a
role or opportunity, I am happy to hear what that might be. Otherwise, please
feel free to follow me on LinkedIn if you think my comments may be of
interest. All the best. Regards."

I usually give them 4-5 days to respond. 9 times out of 10, they don't respond
and I 'Ignore' the connection request. Of the remaining 10% that respond,
there's probably a 50/50 split between 'No problem. I'll just follow you' (to
which my response is 'Thanks for understanding') and 'Hey! Here's a great
offer!' (to which I invariably respond with 'Thanks but I'm not interested at
this time').

Very rarely, I will get an angry response from someone as if I've actively
impaired their career. I don't bother responding to them. Even more rarely,
the response is actually of interest and a conversation will ensue (and it may
even result in a new connection).

That last extremely rare occurrence is the reason I don't just blanket ignore
connection requests. Having been on Linked in since 2008, working as an
individual contractor for most of the years since, and using variations on the
above approach for most of that time, I've amassed over 1000 connections of
which maybe 25% are recruiters.

~~~
a_imho
I add them when looking for new oppotunities and report as spam when not.
Don't want to work with unlucky recruiters.

------
amvalo
It works because almost half the new yorker cartoons involve one cartoon
entity meeting or stumbling across another.

------
baking
Unfortunately, the author perpetuates the myth that those Linkedin requests
are coming from individuals. In fact most of them are auto-generated (and
address spoofed) by Linkedin from email addresses collected possibly many
years ago and without the knowledge of the purported sender.

~~~
didsomeonesay
Is there any evidence to back this claim?

So LinkedIn uses "dark patterns" to trick users into contact list import and
sending invitations, this is well-known.

But are they really sending e-mails in someone's name without their consent?
Or do they just make it very hard to understand what you're consenting to?

I don't want to defend LinkedIn, I'd just like to understand the extent of
their unethical behavior.

~~~
krageon
I think you also understand already that if you're not properly informed,
you're not really consenting. This is like putting super small text in a
contract and then saying "but you signed it!". On some level most people feel
that this isn't a genuine dealing and that it isn't fair. Let's not muddy
those waters by arguing about whether or not US law thinks it's OK to take
advantage of people in this way (the only reason I mention this at all is that
these discussions usually devolve into that and it's incredibly tiresome).

------
dexterdog
I just looked at the most recent 12 on
[https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons](https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons)

This barely works on maybe two of the twelve so I'm gonna call BS on all of
this.

~~~
Cenk
These cartoons aren’t part of the caption contest. The caption only works on
"caption contest" cartoons.

