Lately I’ve been Googling some song lyrics, clicking on the YouTube video that I am pleasantly surprised is the first result, then returning to one of my 743980214 browser tabs. Whenever I do stick around, to me, in 2015, YouTubeVEVO feels like how 80′s kids describe MTV coming on air for the first time. All of my radio stars live in Rdio, Spotify, SoundCloud, Pandora, and Songza; so I almost never see an Official Music Video. When I do, I’m shocked or delighted or disgusted by what these artists have done with MY songs. I know that’s like George RR Martin wrote the script for HBO’s Game of Thrones and I can’t believe how much “they” missed the mark.

Anyway, to be honest I was searching for Cut Copy’s song with the same name, but once this started I couldn’t pull my eyes away. I don’t actually care for this song, but it’s one of the best videos I’ve seen in awhile. Alexis Taylor (lead vocalist and video’s protagonist) is smart and creative* and I couldn’t wait to see where he (all of them) was going. 

YouTube commenter(!!) Jee Charns describes it better than I could have.

Genius. His girlfriend leaves. First he grieves. Then he looks back on himself and and gets angry because he didn't do anything about it. Then he looks back on himself again and accepts what has happened and does whatever it takes to get his girl back. At each stage he's chasing his future self who is one step closer to solving the emotional problem. And once he sees the past version of himself who was upset or angry he avoids them.

I see it as about the learning process of heartbreak and how we get through it. There's no way to change the way you feel. Just have to run towards solving the problem.

On the New Yorker's "Out Loud" podcast, staff writer and author of the new book "The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America" George Packer and tech writer Ken Auletta discuss "Change the World," Packer's latest piece in which he asks tech leaders why the vast profits of the tech world have paralleled a growing disparity between rich and poor, and how they think about their social and political roles.

  Auletta: Take the question that you've been asking everybody else for the past couple of months, and let's hear your own answer: Why is it this technological revolution has coincided with this great change in the American economy leading us to a more unequal place?

Packer: Tech created immense wealth for a small number of people, and is still doing it, on a scale that just keeps defying belief. That alone is going to sharpen inequality greatly, regardless of what's going on at other income levels. But it's not an automatic transfer. I think people in Silicon Valley assume there is; that great innovations in technology in the virtual world are bound to transfer to economic growth and to rising of the standard of living across the board. But we just haven't seen it. And it may be that there is something about the virtual world that doesn't transfer to the world we actually live in as easily as the [manufacturing era] assembly line. I'm just trying to draw attention to the fact that changing lifestyle versus changing standard of living in this country is a different thing, and the latter has lagged far behind the former, which is something that people have not thought very much about."

Auletta: Technology allows what they call "more productivity," which means fewer jobs are required...

Packer: We used to think that productivity automatically led to economic growth. That was an article of faith, and in the last couple of decades we've seen great gains in productivity because of technology and it has not led to economic growth, in fact it's been a very sluggish period. . .Tech needs to think hard about how rapid innovation can bring the rest of the economy with it. The tech revolution has coincided with a period of real economic decline for a lot of parts of the country and wildly unequal incomes.

Auletta: Why are more people here not engaged with poverty?

In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one—and preferably only one—obvious way to do it.      Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never.      Although never is often better than *right* now. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea — let's do more of those!

Australia's Army chief, Lieutenant-General David Morrison, responds directly to revelations of "explicit and repugnant" emails and images demeaning women members of its military. 17 are under investigation.

"On all operations, female soldiers and officers have proven themselves worthy of the best traditions of the Australian Army. They are vital to us maintaining our capability, now and into the future. If that does not suit you, then get out.

You may find another employer where your attitude and behavior is acceptable, but I doubt it. The same goes for those who think that toughness is built on humiliating others. Every one of us is responsible for the culture and reputation of our Army and the environment in which we work.

What new a difference 8 years makes. St. Peter's Square in 2005 vs. 2013.