Sunday, September 7, 2014

Gawker Writer Slave To Consumerism, Hates Self

One of Gawker's latest slew of nondescript hires, Leah Finnegan, wrote an odd polemic taking Chloe Sevigny to task for using a "15-year-old Macbook." Her point being, well, at the end of her word salad I'm not sure what her point is. Something about Chloe being pretentious for using a fashionably unfashionable fashion. As usual, what's left unsaid is more interesting, that Finnegan can't stand to see someone opt out of the upgrade merry-go-round and so that person must be attacked.

The worst part of it, though, was Finnegan quoting Gizmodo's Editor-in-Chief Brian Barrett on whether it was possible a human could have such an ancient machine in today's world. Now, Finnegan doesn't have to know anything. She writes for Gawker. But Barrett's supposed to be an expert. This is his area. So what does he say?

"Honestly that thing is several factors shittier than a shitty phone," he typed in a Slack message. "I would say if she does have a 14-year-old MacBook I hope she does not need to use it very often."

Barrett continued: "Assuming she has a 2000 PowerBook, she has half the disk space you'd need to run Chrome and probably half the RAM, but I don't think she even has the hardware you'd need. Basically Chrome alone would destroy her computer."

For the record, Chrome never existed on PowerPC. And for the record, a 2000 Powerbook can run TenFourFox 31 (equivalent of Firefox 31) and, if RAM is limited, have even better luck with Iceweasel and Linux. As to Barrett's point that the Powerbook is worse than a "shitty phone" by several factors, I don't see too many people using three-year-old phones much less 15-year-old phones like people still use their Pismos.

So go to Brian Barrett for all of Apple's latest press releases, but don't expect him to know what he's talking about.


  1. Honestly... what else do you expect from a rumour blog? They're pathetic trend followers with no originality or real ability; basically sheep with brain damage.

    In their quest to make a statement or share an opinion, they're really just showing how ignorant and generally brainless they are.

    People like that are asking to be put in their place. I might even write about this on my blog.

    1. Gizmodo? A rumor blog? How dare you. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

    2. I was speaking more specifically about the Gawker part of Gizmodo, but it's all part of the same pathetic and unqualified group of individuals.

      I have mentioned it on my blog before; that people don't need to read articles about being a mindless slave to the industry, or any one companies products to be one, because all it requires is no thought.

      Just as racists and sexists are always so eager to show how primitive they are; the same goes for the ignorant in general. The only real difference is that they hate people for not being brainless, rather than the state they were born in. That isn't how they see it of course, but that is a direct side effect of pretension.

  2. Am reading this on my 2005 PowerBook, which should probably get at least one 'shitty' from them, but it isn't shitty at all. In fact, I have 15 tabs open on TenFourFox and 4 open on the WebKit update for Safari and it is actually pretty freakin' nice. The sad part of this post is that Stars are expected to lead us in what to 'Want' and if they actually have older items they like, and fail to impress us with decadency, then they are failing in their jobs of feeding our inadequacy, and thus driving new hardware sales. Well Good For You Chloe Sevigny. If you can be a star, rich and still not allowed to use and keep the things you actually like, then perhaps being a star is more of a drag then consumer culture would like us to believe.

    1. Your Powerbook has been misinformed. It's not capable of these things. Chloe Sevigny is a witch whispering sweet spells into its internal mic and you definitely need an exorcism. And to get Chloe Sevigny the hell out of your house.

  3. Gawker? Nothing good comes there from.