Daniel Kuney

A few months ago, after realizing that my body needed time to recover from too many running injuries, I bought a road bike and decided that biking could be a great way to maintain my fitness and cardio.

As runners know, exercising outdoors can be one of life's great joys. And NYC has an incredibly supportive running culture. There are plenty of safe roads where runners don’t have to fear getting hit by cars and NYRR and NYC Runs host world classes races of all distances.

NYC is also slowly becoming a great place to commute by bike. CitiBike has inspired thousands to use bikes for commuting and running errands. And bike lanes are slowly popping up around the city. We sitll need many more bike lanes, especially fully protected bike lanes, but a network of these lanes is emerging in NYC.

However, I quickly learned that NYC is not a great place to bike for fitness. Before 6 AM every morning, cyclists can reliably use Central Park and Prospect Park to bike at a steady cardio pace. But anytime after that the parks become too congested. Pedestrians, especially tourists, dash through the bike lanes while crossing through the parks, and tourists and children on rented bikes zigzag in and out of the designated bike lanes. So even within the lanes designated for bikes, it is nearly impossible to safely bike for fitness.  

Further complicating the issue is the fact that most fitness riders are clipped into their bikes. This makes it difficult for bikers to come to a sudden stop without risk of crashing. Pedestrians tend not to realize this and often dash through bike lanes thinking that bikers can in fact stop suddenly for them. 

Last week I read with great sadness about the pedestrian who died after being hit by a speeding cyclist in Central Park. In the wake of this tragedy, the notion of urban biking seems to be facing a real backlash and there have been calls to curb speeding cyclists in the parks as a way to make the streets safer.

The problem with the word biking is that it means different things to different people. Tourists often rent bikes for leisurely rides through Central Park. Commuters use bikes to get to work and run errands. And fitness cyclists bike to improve their health and conditioning. And so trying to create one three foot lane for all of these people may be making the roads unsafe for everyone.

There are ways bikers can contribute to unsafe conditions on the roads, just like drivers and even pedestrians can put others at risk. And there are bikers who speed recklessly. But going fast on a bike for fitness does not necessarily mean that a biker is being reckless. Fast isn't the problem. The problem is that, as a city, we haven't found a way to accommodate this group of people on our roads.  

City Council Member Mark Levine is proposing legislation limiting the speed limit of bikers in city parks.  While I’m glad he is thinking constructively about how to make the parks safer for pedestrians, I think there are better solutions that can make the streets safer for everyone who wants to share the road, including cars, pedestrians, casual bikers and fitness cyclists.  

As a city, we have to first determine what constitutes a legitimate use of our roads. We have already decided that cars, runners, walkers and a certain kind of biker can share different parts of the road. But can we also open up a safe space for those who want to bike for fitness?

I think the answer is yes, but we'll have to look at other factors besides speed alone. Below are two ideas to make the roads safer for biking.

1.  Set designated times for fitness cycling in each park.  During these hours runners and walkers would still be able to use the pedestrian lanes, but recreational or tourist cycling would be discouraged and those wishing to cycle for fitness would have priority in the bike lanes.

2.  Station crossing guards at the major pedestrian crossings in Central Park during peak times. Crossing guards work better to enforce traffic than lights and ticketing alone. The guards would ensure that both cyclists and pedestirans looking to cross the street take their proper turns and fully stop when they are supposed to.  

WARNING: Don’t read further if you prefer not to read unsubstantiated and uneducated theories about fictional TV characters.

Having only just watched the first episode of How to Get Away With Murder and knowing absolutely nothing about anything, I have to confess that I’ve already worked up a pet theory.

I think Viola Davis’ character, Annalise Keating, is responsible for the murder of her husband. Only she isn’t the murderer. Instead she spends the majority of the season manipulating her four star students so that they carry out the murder without realizing they have been played. Keating is a woman who spends her career defending people accused of murder. But the best defense for murder is to not actually commit murder.

I have no evidence to support this and in fact I kind of hope I’m wrong. But the idea just popped into my head while mulling over the episode later in the evening. Oh, there is one small clue. Keating is away at the time of the murder. As a criminal defense lawyer she probably wants to have a rock solid alibi, or at least the appearance of a rock solid alibi.

So yeah that’s my little theory even though after one episode I really have no right to be speculating on these sorts of things. And I do hope I’m wrong and that the show does take me on an unexpected and surprising journey.

The great debate of 2014, at least for those looking to purchase a new iPhone, is whether to go with the big iPhone 6 or the even bigger iPhone 6 Plus. Even those of us who have already purchased one of the new iPhones remain conflicted if we've made the right choice.  

After the first 72 hours with the new jumbo sized iPhone 6 Plus I can say that the larger screen makes many iPhone tasks a more immersive and pleasurable experience.

Most notably, it is the best iPhone yet for reading. Whether I’m on my couch or commuting on the subway, being able to see almost a full page at once of perfectly crisp text is a much better simulation of reading a book or newspaper. 

It's also far easier to type on the 6 Plus. The larger tap targets on the keyboard means greater accuracy and far less moments of agony when you just can't quite seem to press the right letter.

The 6 Plus's jumbo screen also makes long form writing a much more manageable undertaking. I am typing this review (almost) entirely on the 6 Plus while commuting on the subway. Being able to see multiple paragraphs at once is allowing me to much better gauge the structure and feel of this piece.

I will say, the new onscreen keyboard that Apple introduced with iOS 8 has done some of the heavy lifting, but the benefits of the larger screen while typing cannot be understated. 

Sadly, there are some drawbacks to a device this big. Mainly, it's hard to transport from place to place without making some compromises.  The 6 Plus doesn’t fully fit into my jeans pockets and I can only just barely shove it into my coat pocket. I'm not sure how I'm going to carry this thing during the summer when I'm not wearing a coat with big pockets.

Further, the 6 Plus does present some etiquette problems. Personally, I don't like to leave my iPhone on the table while out to dinner. It seems to suggest that I have more important things to do or that I'm not fully present. However, I cannot manage to sit down with the 6 Plus still in my pocket. 

And finally, I can no longer bring my phone to some of the places I used to, namely the gym, while on a run or biking. It just won't fit into the smaller pockets of my workout clothes.

So 72 hours in, I'm both reveling in how much more useful the larger screen is and also deeply torn over the tradeoffs of carrying such a mammoth device with me.  And I'm as yet undecided on how this will all play out. I'd like to try to fit the larger phone into my life, but it will require accepting some compromises.  

From Matt Richtel and Brian X. Chen in the NYTimes:

Michael A. Cusumano, a professor in the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T., said he thought Apple no longer had the juice to create the world-beating product it needs. Professor Cusumano, who is working on a book about innovation, visited Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., last fall and has talked to a half-dozen current and former employees about the company culture. He concluded that Apple without Mr. Jobs lacks a visionary to synthesize disparate ideas into a magical whole.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult for them to come up with the next big thing,” he added. “They’ve lost their heart and soul.”

Some pundits seem to just not get Apple.  Every year when Apple releases a new iPhone I tend to read and hear the same criticism, “Yeah, but they just made it better.”

So Apple took the revolutionary device they created seven years ago that changed the way twenty percent of the planet gets through the day* and merely made it even more useful and necessary but somehow that’s not good enough?

*Yes, Apple did that.  Remember T9?  Remember tapping numeric keys three times to spell out words on your flip phone?  Remember trying to read the NYTimes on your Treo or Blackberry and using your stylus to scroll to the right to finish reading a sentence?  You probably don’t remember that.  That’s because of the iPhone.  And even if you don’t use an iPhone today, the principles of what mobile computing should be in the early twenty first century can all be traced back to this device that Apple created.

And yet for some pundits Apple can only succeed or, worse, only has a heart and soul, if they can produce innovative devices like this every year.  And for every year Apple doesn’t completely upend the world they are one step closer to becoming the next Kodak.  

Let’s reflect for a moment that the iPhone is now the most popular consumer camera in the world.  Or that the text on an iPhone is now nearly as sharp as print or that we can now unlock our iPhones with a tap of a finger.  These are just a few of the innovations Apple has brought to the iPhone since 2007.  No, Apple didn’t invent digital cameras, high resolution displays or finger reading technology.  But remember, they also didn’t invent the smartphone.  

Sometimes innovation is more than just a shiny new object.  Innovation can be seeing the potential in ideas that aren’t yet fully formed and morphing them into products that are so compelling we can’t imagine daily life without them.  

Sometimes innovation is also knowing how to edit, say no or wait until the moment is right.  Samsung introduced the Samsung Gear, their smart watch, last year.  And while pundits are proclaiming the death of Apple until they release their own smart watch, I haven’t seen a single Gear in the wild.  Show of hands, did you even know Samsung was already making a smart watch?

Apple will release magical new devices.  But there are only so many magical new devices the world needs at a time.  To hold Apple to the foolish standard of releasing life altering technology every two years that the world cannot “predict, fathom or yet describe” seems to be a fundamental misread of what Apple does best and just why they are now the world’s most valuable brand.

For a company that prizes secrecy, Apple is surprisingly not afraid to reveal their secret sauce.  Last year, before their 2013 WWDC developer’s conference, Apple released a short video (linked here) that sums up so much about what makes them unique.  You should watch the video but I’ll give you a preview: “there are a thousand no’s for every yes.”

Cusumano is just the latest in a long list of bright people with fancy degrees who spend most of their time misunderstanding Apple’s success as a byproduct of the revolutionary devices they release once or twice a decade.  

But Cusumano is just on my mind because Matt Richtel and Brian X. Chen oddly seem to think he's the guy to quote in their Sunday Business profile of Tim Cook and the reaction to Apple's recent developer conference.  Richtel and Chen seem skeptical that Tim Cook can produce innovative products as quickly as Steve Jobs, concluding that, “It’s an impossible comparison.  But it’s the one that Mr. Cook is being held to, at least until he makes enough magic of his own.”

If you want to read someone who, I think, truly understands the heart and soul of Apple, you may want to consider John Gruber, who seems to get Apple in a way few other technology writers do.  On Friday, Gruber wrote his own analysis of this year’s developer conference.  Instead of contemplating a grim future for Apple without Jobs, or the lack of products that Apple has released so far this year, he seems genuinely excited about where Apple is now and how their software and products will continue to evolve, writing:

Tim Cook has stated publicly that new products are in the pipeline, and he seems confident regarding them (as do other Apple executives). We can’t judge them yet, but consider this: Recall again that in 2007 Apple was forced to admit publicly that they had to pull engineering, design, and QA resources from the Mac in order to ship the iPhone. This year, new products are coming and but iOS and Mac development not only did not halt or slow, it sped up. In recent years, the company grew from being bad at walking and chewing gum to being OK at it, and most of us thought, “Finally”. But that wasn’t the end of the progression. Apple has proceeded from being OK at walking and chewing gum to being good at it. Thus the collective reaction to last week’s keynote: “Whoa.”

Punditry isn’t a bad thing.  For those of us looking to better understand the world around us well informed sources can provide needed context, history and explanation.  And it’s in the nature of punditry that these sources will disagree with one another.  Bigger government or smaller?  Boots on the ground or diplomacy?  Apple has lost its heart and soul or Apple has never been better positioned to delight and amaze us?

As consumers of punditry, it’s probably not a bad idea to understand where all sides are coming from.  But if I had to bet on Apple’s future I’d look past the guys who think Apple’s heart and soul has gone missing and listen instead to the ones who seem to be really psyched about what’s in store for Apple.  

On Monday June 2, Apple is expected to preview upcoming versions of their mobile and desktop operating systems.  By and large, I've been quite happy with the current releases (iOS 7 on mobile and 10.9 Mavericks on desktop) but there are a few refinements I'd like to see this year.  They are, in rough order of preference:

FaceTime group video: There's something to be said about a technology that just works and that even the technically challenged among us can use.  That's FaceTime, Apple's simple and elegant video chat software.  The catch is it only works for one on one video calls.  Skype and Google Chat both support group video calls.  Even Apple's now obsolete iChat software supported group video.  I'd love to see Apple reintroduce this functionality into FaceTime.

Default app selection in iOS: Over the years, Apple has really refined the built in apps it includes on the iPhone and iPad, but third party developers are creating some great alternatives to the stock email, web browsing, reminders, notes and weather apps that Apple provides.  On the desktop, Apple allows users to set third party apps as the default however they don't yet permit this on iOS.  So, for instance, someone using a third party mail client like Gmail.app or Mailbox.app on iOS would still have to use the native Mail.app to send links using the iOS share menu.  

Default app selection for Siri: Building on the above, Siri is great for setting reminders or sending email using stock iOS apps, but it currently has no ability to talk to third party apps.  I'd like to see Apple address this in iOS 8.  

Improved iCloud Keychain: Apple took a stab at helping users create, manage and use strong passwords in iOS 7 and Mavericks with the introduction of iCloud Keychain, their built-in password manager for Safari that syncs passwords between iOS and OS X devices.  However iCloud Keychain falls short in two key respects.  One, it doesn't require a master password after set periods of inactivity.  So anyone can call up password protected sites once they gain access to a device, even if the device isn't their own.  And two, it only works for those who use Safari across all of their devices.  I'd like to see Apple address both of these issues in iOS 8 and 10.10 by letting users set a master password for iCloud Keychain and providing extensions for popular web browsers.  For the record, I think the latter is not likely but the former should be a no brainer.  Apple could even tie iCloud Keychain to Touch ID on iOS making it easy to to use a finger scan as the master password on mobile.

iTunes Radio Subscription Service:  My hard drive is loaded with thousands of songs legally purchased on iTunes.  But as a paying user of Spotify, I haven't purchased a song on iTunes in the last two years.  Nor have I even opened iTunes in that time.  If Apple wants to earn back my music dollars they'll need to create a streaming subscription music service to better compete with Spotify.  

Advanced Safari settings: For a long while now, Apple has made it easy to sync Safari bookmarks across devices.  Two years ago they added live tab syncing as well so that a user could walk away from a series of open web pages on their computer and see the same open web pages on their iPhone or iPad.  This feature has been convenient for me on a small handful of occasions, but more often than not I find it kind of creepy. The problem is Apple has made tab syncing a part of bookmark syncing, so users who want their bookmarks to sync across their devices also have to sync their open web pages across their devices.  I'd love to see Apple decouple these features.  Additionally, I'd like to see an added checkbox in the "Reset Safari" window for "Log out of Safari Extensions".  I often want to clear my cached website data but I don't want to log out of my extensions.  Other browsers like Chrome provide this granularity and I'd like to to see this in Safari as well.

Many of us feel overwhelmed and burnt out by email.  We have too much, more keeps coming in and we just don't know how we'll ever get on top of it.  

While there have been some noteworthy attempts to fix email (I'm a big fan of an app called Mailbox) none of them have yet tacked the underlying problem: we can't manage our inboxes fast enough to keep up with the constant flood of new email.  To fix email we have to somehow slow it down.  

So this is my suggestion (more like a plea) to the courageous developers trying to fix email: please add a pause button to your email clients that lets users temporarily stop both incoming and outgoing email.  

Going into pause mode would allow users to do everything they normally do in their email client: read, respond, archive and search emails.  However,  users would be able to work without the distraction of new email coming in or generating replies more quickly than they can handle.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how to improve bicycle access in New York City.  And not merely the addition of protected bike lanes on all of our streets, but a wholesale reimagining of the function of streets and how people would move around in a near future Gotham.

A handful of New York City streets already have true protected bike lanes: lanes separated from vehicle traffic by a second sidewalk. And I fully support the expansion of these lanes throughout the city.

But these lanes merely carve out a separate space for bicycles on streets that are still predominately designed for cars. I’d like to fast forward to the next evolution of streets: streets that are designed from the ground up to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians. 

For example, Second Avenue in Manhattan is currently divided into three or four downtown lanes for motor vehicles and one southbound bike lane, sometimes protected and sometimes not, starting at 55th Street. To be fair, that one bike lane is more than you will find on most city streets. But there’s an opportunity to think bigger.

Imagine a Second Avenue with four lanes just for bicycles, two each for uptown and downtown traffic, a lane for Bus Rapid Transit and a final lane for cars and commercial vehicles. The lights would be timed to give priority to the cyclists and Bus Rapid Transit busses, allowing cyclists to cruise from the Upper East Side to the Bowery during rush hour faster than any other currently available mode of transportation.

The infrastructure needed to support such a street could be implemented practically overnight and for a tiny fraction of the amount that has already gone towards the Second Avenue Subway, which, after a jaw-dropping eight decades of development and political tug-a-war is only just now flickering into reality.  

Bus Rapid Transit could fill in the gaps for those unable to cycle or on the days when weather would keep most cyclists off the streets.  

Now imagine these changes implemented not just on Second Avenue, but Fifth Avenue, Eighth Avenue, 14th Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street and a couple dozen other major roadways in the five boroughs.

And the benefits of turning our streets into real roadways for cyclists and pedestrians are practically endless.  We’d have healthier citizens who are less stressed by their commutes, cleaner air and fewer traffic deaths and injuries.  And frankly that’s understating the case.  A recent report showed that retail businesses saw a significant spike in revenue when bicycle lanes were added to their streets.

But while I’ve been having contemplating this bicycle metropolis, and groups like Transportation Alternatives and StreetsPac have been fighting for just such a future, there’s another force at work pushing us in the exact opposite direction.  

As I watched Jeff Bezos unveil Amazon Prime Air, drones capable of delivering small packages to our doorsteps direct from the warehouse in under thirty minutes, I realized that there’s a counter effort underway that posits life would be better if we just sat back and let the world materialize around us without lifting a finger.  As the NYTimes analyzed of Bezos’ announcement, “He sketched a vision where no one would ever have to get off a hammock for a resupply of Pringles or Milk Duds.”

To me that’s a terrifying future.  And even though Amazon drones weren’t even concepts back in 2008, it’s a future that Pixar warned against in Wall-E, their grand parable that year that imagined a word in which human beings are all morbidly obese, never exercise, are carted about on levitating La-Z-Boy style recliners and every meal and every drink is super sized.  

To be fair, I don’t think Amazon’s drones are inherently awful or will make human beings morbidly obese overnight, but they represent a larger choice that will have consequences as we decide how our cities will evolve.  Do we continue to build massively expensive and disruptive infrastructure to cart human beings and our things from point to point, or do we hit pause, rethink, and find ways to innovate that will improve and save people’s lives while spending less and relying less on fossil fuels and toxic chemicals?

That may sound like a rhetorical question but it’s not.  That’s the very real choice we’re all faced with now.  Which future do you want?

I've (mostly) decided to run the NYC Marathon again this year. I sat 2013 out but I'm mentally ready to come back and give it another go.

The question is, will my body be ready?  I've been battling plantar fasciitis on my left heel for about seven months now.  I've tried everything to kick it, including taking the better part of November and December off and two cortisone shots last month.  But this is a stubborn case that I can't seem to shake.  

Since rest hasn't seemed to help, I've decided to gradually start running again.  Last week I laced up my sneakers and ran a total of about 9 miles.  And while that didn't help my plantar fasciitis it didn't seem to make it any worse.

My plan for the next couple of weeks is to do three to four very easy 3 mile runs throughout the week.  I need to remind my body what it's like to run without further injuring myself. 

After that, and provided my body is ready for it, my plan is just to focus on the miles this year.  In the past I've maxed out at about 16 miles a week leading up to a half and maybe 30 miles before a full.  I've been told by many great runners that this isn't nearly enough mileage.  

I'm not sure if my body or my schedule can handle it.  But I think if I can  work on getting my miles up this year, and not worry so much about speed when I'm training, I can turn a corner in my running.

Email might be the one thing most of us use on our iPhones/iPads more than anything else.  Apple has steadily improved the built in Mail app over the years but it can still be a little clunky.  Mailbox is an alternative to Mail that can make managing your email more enjoyable.  Or at least help make it less of a chore. 

The promise of Mailbox is that it can help clear the clutter out of your Inbox. To do this, the app’s designers have come up with some innovative shortcuts, using swipe gestures, and a process for temporarily hiding mail you're not ready to deal with that it refers to as snoozing.  

First lets talk about those swipes.  Tapping a message in your Inbox and swiping to the left or the right processes that email in one quick step.  If you see a message that you know can be Archived just quickly swipe it to the right and, poof, it’s gone from your Inbox.  

Using Apple’s built in Mail app requires an extra step to accomplish the same task.  On Mail you can swipe to the right to bring up an Archive button, but then you need to click on that button to complete the action.  While it may seem like a minor difference, it’s the kind of touch that can save you (and your fingers) a lot of time as you go through your Inbox.  Just think for a moment how many “Yup”, “Thanks” or “Great” emails you receive.  Now just imagine flinging those away with a simple swipe, rather than a swipe and a tap.

Above, Mailbox on the left and Apple's Mail on the right.

But swiping in Mailbox can actually accomplish much more than just Archiving your email.  Swiping to the left on an email allows you to snooze it for a later time.  When you snooze a particular message Mailbox temporarily removes it from your Inbox until a later specified time, presumably when you will be be better able to act on it.  For instance, a friend may send you directions to their home for dinner later in the week.  Why keep that in your Inbox all week? Just snooze it and have it reappear an hour before the dinner.  Or, an email arrives in the morning that requires a discussion with your team later in the day.  Snooze it for later.  

Because so many of us just let email accumulate in our Inboxes, leaving thousands of friend requests, shipping notifications and e-cards piling up along with truly important email, it becomes a chore determining how best to handle the triage.  With Mailbox, the goal is to quickly reduce your Inbox to what is immediately actionable.

While swipes and snoozes are the two signature features of Mailbox, the app has other small touches that really make a difference.  For instance, the search functionality seems far more robust on Mailbox than it does on Apple’s Mail app.  Since most of my emails are Archived, I have to first navigate to the Archive or All Mail folder on Mail before performing a search.  On Mailbox, it’s smart enough to know I want to search all of my folders, even if I’m currently looking at my Inbox, and it returns results almost as fast as I can type my query.

I do have a few minor quibbles about the app which I’ll address quickly:

Despite the app’s great looks and striking design, I find the compose window to be irritatingly small, leaving the clutter of the Inbox in the background.  Yes, the compose window does expand as you begin to type a message, but it’s a strange design decision.  I’d rather each new compose window fill the screen so that I can fully concentrate on my writing.

Notifications can only be turned on for all of your accounts or none at all.  For me that’s nearly a deal breaker as I have a few different email accounts, some more important than others.  I would like to be notified when I receive email at my primary account, but I don’t want to be notified each time an email arrives at the junk account I use to subscribe to newsletters and websites.  I’m hoping Mailbox adds more granular notification settings in a future update.

Finally, and this is a big one, Mailbox is only available on iOS devices.  Mailbox is essentially a rethink of  how you manage your email, and therefor requires a full buy-in on the part of its users. But if you work in an office or in front of a computer all day, it’s a bit strange to switch between your desktop email client and your phone just to process your Inbox.  Thankfully, Mailbox has publicly stated that it’s actively working on a desktop version.  Frankly, this can’t come soon enough.

Via the NYTimes, In Mass Attacks, New Advice Lets Medics Rush In:

The guidelines say that such [mass casualty] events, which have led to more than 250 deaths in the past decade, are “a reality in modern American life”...“We’re seeing these events in increasing frequency, and unfortunately we have to change how we approach them to keep death tolls down."

The solution:

The Obama administration has formally recommended that medical personnel be sent into “warm zones” before they are secured, when gunmen are still on the loose...

But there is another option.  We could just get rid of the guns.

Photo credit: firmology.com

While home for Thanksgiving, I learned about BuzzFeed's decision to ban negative book reviews through Bob Garfield's NYTimes opinion piece.  BuzzFeed's new books editor, Isaac Fitzgerald, decided that the negative review didn't really serve a useful purpose telling Poynter.org, "Why waste breath talking smack about something?  You see it in so many old media-type places, the scathing takedown rip."

Having spent the better part of the last decade managing Broadway shows, I'm familiar with the intense vitriol theater critics sometimes conjure up for shows they don't like.  But does that type of review really serve the art form or consumers?

I recently saw a Broadway show that I thought was a misfire.  I mentioned this to a couple of friends, but I intentionally chose not to tweet about it or make my feelings known publicly.  Why bother?  I know how hard people work to produce and stage a new work.  It’s a years long process, often tumultuous, rarely gratifying.  This show was already headed towards an early closing due to weak ticket sales.  Why did I need to add my voice to the chorus of disapproval for this show?  I also didn't feel the need to warn people against spending their money on tickets for this show.  Natural selection seems to work well enough for shows that don’t work.  The audiences just don’t come and they tend to weed themselves out, even without the New York Times, The New Yorker or Time Out warning audiences to stay away.

At best, positive reviews can steer readers to gems they might not have otherwise known about; Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812, Black Watch, and Peter and the Starcatcher are but a few smaller shows that benefited from critical praise to help find a larger audience.  These reviews pointed theater goers to bold visions, exposing them to new theater artists and companies worthy of their exploration.  That's a public service that advances both the usefulness of theater criticism and the art of creating theater.

Even as a financial progressive, I initially read Annie Lowrey's piece on the Swiss proposal for a minimum basic income with deep skepticism.  Wouldn't it send inflation skyrocketing?  And what then would be the incentive to work if the government was handing everyone a check each week?  No, I thought, a minimum basic income, or "mincome", is simply a wonkish liberal pipe dream that could never get past a general election today. Heck, forget the liberal dream of a single payer health care system, the democrats are even running from RomneyObamacare now.

But the article stuck with me and in the days since reading it I found myself fantasizing (yeah, financial reforms really do occupy a large chunk of my fantasy life) all the ways a mincome could be good for the country.  Here are three:

The first thing I started fantasizing about was how I would use this extra income.  And the answer was easy.  I would use it to pay other people to do all of the chores in my life that I don't want to do like laundry and cooking.  Catherine Rampell wrote about the benefits of outsourcing a couple of weeks ago and that has also been on my mind lately. But if other people chose to use their money in the same way it could create a whole new category of home workers - entrepreneurs, stay at home parents, veterans, students, etc., who lack the time or ability to maintain a full time job but who could easily spend a few hours a week doing household work for their neighbors.  

Some employees would leave the work force and that's a good thing.  Employers would have to work harder to maintain workers knowing that their employees aren't dependent on them to put food on their tables or pay their mortgages on time.   And as demand for workers increases, employers would need to improve salaries and benefits to make jobs more attractive.  

More people will enter the spending class.  Because of low job growth and stagnant earnings, a growing number of Americans are not putting money back into our economy - either because they have no income to spend, so little that they are just barely covering food and shelter or because they lack confidence in their future and are saving their money.  We need citizens to be spenders to keep the circular nature of our economy flowing properly.  

Annie Lowrey covers a few other pros, as well as some cons, of a minimum basic income, but one in particular bears repeating because of its appeal to both liberals and conservatives:

Such a system might work better and be fairer than the current patchwork of programs, including welfare, food stamps and housing vouchers.  A single father with two jobs and two children would no longer have to worry about the hassle of visiting a bunch of offices to receive benefits. And giving him a single lump sum might help him use his federal dollars better. Housing vouchers have to be spent on housing, food stamps on food. Those dollars would be more valuable — both to the recipient and the economy at large — if they were fungible.

As per This American Life and Sarah Koenig's mother:

your sleep

your period

your health

your dreams

money

your diet

route talk (as in, how you arrived at a particular location, including traffic and subway trouble)

The reason?  They're boring subjects.  

Before you open your mouth first ask yourself, is this interesting to anybody? 

I have to say, as much as I'm guilty of all seven*, I totally agree.

For those of us who follow these sorts of things, it didn't come as a huge surprise that Apple outfitted the 2013 iPad mini with a retina display.   Other tablets of similar stature have boasted retina like displays for about a year now and the mini would have faced heavy criticism had it not adopted the higher resolution display this year.

No, the biggest surprise about this year's iPad mini is that Apple built it with the A7 processor, Apple's newest high end chip that had been reserved for its other top of the line 2013 products: the iPhone 5s and the iPad Air.

Last year, when Apple introduced the mini, it included a processor that was then two years old.  The logic at the time seemed to suggest that Apple viewed the mini as entry level device, the one you purchased if you couldn't afford the greater horse power and larger screen of its bigger brother.

A couple of months ago, I wrote about this thinking here. At the time, I argued that Apple was forcing high end users to make a tough choice between a large iPad that was too heavy for one handed use, and an exceptionally lissom iPad that was too underpowered for higher end apps.

Instead, I suggested that the iPad mini could, if outfitted with Apple's best processor, be the high end iPad because of its smaller size, not despite it.  Take for instance Porche or Jaguar, cars that escalate in price as they get smaller.  Small and agile are what makes these cars high end.  So my hope at the time was for Apple to give power users the best of both worlds - a small, nimble iPad with cutting edge performance.  

But despite my hope, I didn't actually think Apple would, or even could, deliver such a compromise free iPad mini.  I was skeptical mainly because writers like John Gruber, who have solid track records and better instincts for analyzing Apple trends, were fairly certain the company would continue to use older processors in the mini line.

Daniel Duane's piece in this Sunday's Times, Is it O.K. to Kill Cyclists, elicited strong feedback in today's letters to the editor.  Readers wrote in to both defend and admonish cyclists.  As a new urban cyclist thanks to CitiBike I'd like to respond to a few of the letters published today.  

David Berman from New York wrote to say that a lack of enforcement of traffic laws is allowing drivers to get away with dangerous behavior while they put the lives of cyclists and pedestrians at risk:

Every time a light turns red, I can count on two or three cars going through it. Every time my light turns green, I can count on right-turners charging through my crosswalk. And through all these years and all these miles, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have seen anyone ticketed for this lawbreaking.

This is the sad state of affairs in New York City.  Just today, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance announced that his office would not be filing charges against the taxi driver who jumped his car over a curb and severed the leg of a British tourist this summer.  There's a lack of prosecutorial motivation to bring these cases to trial and an even greater lack of desire from the police department to investigate traffic accidents involving pedestrians. As CitiBike rolls out, and as more commuters opt for bicycles, we have to not only enforce our traffic laws, but stand by them in court.

Phil Corsello of Denver rightly suggests stiff penalties for drivers who collide with cyclists:

A driver whose car strikes a cyclist will suffer strict penalties and be responsible for medical costs, commensurate with the consequence of inattention.

Sounds good to me Phil!  He also makes a suggestion for bike lanes that I think doesn't go quite far enough:

All future bicycle lanes will be placed between the curb and the right side of parked cars.

As I mentioned above, I'm a relatively new urban cyclist and since the CitiBike rollout I've had a chance to ride on city streets with a variety of bike lanes or lack of bike lanes.  Frankly, the only truly safe bike lane is the fully "protected" lane.  This lane is painted green and separated from both moving traffic and parked cars by a second sidewalk or three feet of unusable street.  This is the kind of lane you would allow your child to cycle in and not worry about their safety.  Anything short of this is dangerous to everyone who shares the road.

Lois Leatherman from New York writes that cyclists can also be part of the problem:

Unless and until cyclists pay attention to the traffic laws, stop at lights, obey speed laws and have respect for pedestrians, they are going to be targets. 

I agree that a number of cyclists do engage in reckless behavior.  Riding down a street in the opposite direction or refusing to yield to pedestrians puts everyone on the street at risk.  And cyclists have a responsibility to ride safely and share the road.  However, traffic laws, as they currently exist, do not make much sense for those on two wheels and need to be modified as more commuters take to biking.

On many north/south streets, traffic lights are timed for cars cruising at twenty three miles per hour. During normal conditions, cars can go a fair distance between red lights.  A biker, however, is more likely to hit a red light every three blocks on these streets.  And forcing bikers to stop every minute or so doesn't seem like the best way to encourage more people to commute by bike.  

Further, while it makes sense for a 4,000 pound steel machine capable of going ninety miles per hour to come to a complete stop while traffic in the crossing direction takes their turn, it doesn't fully make sense to make cyclists wait at each red light, especially if they can clearly see that there is no crossing traffic.  A better solution would be to require that cyclists treat red lights like stop signs.  They must come to a complete stop, look both ways for crossing traffic and then be allowed to proceed if the way is clear.

Fourteen months later.  Same carnage but reduced to one column.  Has killing twelve people become so common that it hardly seems newsworthy?