Category: Q & A

Totally pragmatic analysis, based on locally-available data sources:

• Boys have more utilitarian, and typically shorter hair styles
• Boys have fewer clothing style and color-range options
• Because of the lack of diversity, boys' clothes tend to fairly universally "match", thus outfit creation as a skill is not learned until much later
• Boys are culturally directed to more active/aggressive play activities, which lose all cuteness as soon as one or more participants or bystanders are seriously injured
• Every so often, those cute girls you see, are really just well behaved boys giving fewer-than-normal gender cues to the observer[*].

Of course, a lot of these same things hold true straight into adulthood, but both men and women tend to become less "generally" cute to the average viewer, as individual tastes take hold.

[* As a young boy of the 70s who wore a comparatively wide range of colors (no pinks or anything "super girly"), and lots of overalls (which were pretty unisex and popular at the time), who had moderately long fro-hair, I was mistaken for a girl about 60-70% of the time in stores. While you may still think of specific boys and girls when comparing cuteness, I guarantee you've mistaken an unknown boy for a girl or vice versa out in public at some point – and I would argue that this is largely due to a perceived presence or lack of "cuteness" in the child. ]

Why are little girls cuter than little boys?

There's a reason Boston is the #2 (former?) startup hub – lots of colleges, lots of cheap office space (well, when you throw in the metro area/"Metrowest corridor" out to Worcester… Public transit options are decent, if not perfect, MUCH superior to say the Bay Area. Oh yeah, and whenever you need it, it's an hour flight to New York.

When you're just starting out, looking to keep costs down, and build a product, Boston will tend to be a bit friendlier to your wallet, without a real "downside".

Unless you're a fashion/financial startup, you can always just move to NYC later, if you find that appealing. Otherwise, it's a huge risk/change unless you're already New York-based/have an existing network there.

If you had to choose between New York City and Boston to start a company in, which would you choose and why?

The main change is in further enabling transactions to take place anywhere within, or even outside the bounds of the store itself. Bear with my explanation a bit, and it'll make sense:

Given the configuration of Apple Stores currently, there is usually a "front product" and "back community" zone.

You enter the store, and are presented immediately with all the line of products available – Macs, iPods, iPhones and iPads, and other Apple accessories (Cinema Displays, etc).

Further back, are the third party accessories, the Creative Training and Genius Bar areas, as well as any dedicated cash register/purchase queueing zones. For stores that have it, the "Family Room", and "Workshop Theater" are back here as well. For those familiar with the San Francisco (Frisco*) Flagship store, this roughly equates to the two floors – Product on the first floor, and Community on the second floor.

The main problem with this architecture is simple: the product area attracts lots of general interest – tire kickers, email checkers, people just wandering about waiting for their wife/girlfriend/mom/uncle to get done shopping at the Victoria's Secret next door, etc. This ties up a lot of Apple Specialists, who in the nicest way possible, must weave through these masses to help find people in need of purchasing assistance, who have Genius Bar appointments, or what have you.

Once you scoot past the front, life gets a bit more serious. Same amount of crowd, but now primarily composed of people trying to buy things, waiting for their name to be called for tech support or training appointments, or otherwise focused on an Apple Store-related task. And, at least in the stores I've visited, a significant percentage of these folks are a little touchy if they perceive someone as skipping the line, distracting "their" Apple Expert/Genius/Store Leader, etc.

To resolve all this, a greater push is on to turnaround transactions and appointments faster, without losing the high-touch, high-quality Apple experience. In order to do so, Apple is planning to address this in several ways:

• More stores. This is already underway, and isn't much of a change from the last few years.
• More hires. Apple is now hiring like crazy for its retail stores. The flagship in SF, for example, is already at ~300 employees, and they are looking to add significantly to that number in the coming weeks – both in front-of-house "Specialist" sales personnel, as well as back-of-the-house Geniuses and Experts to help handle support and "tier 2 customer service". Attack the flood of customers with a flood of assistance and support. Yay!
• More "turn power" for employees. Currently, a great many Apple Specialists carry devices that enable card swipe transactions, at least for some purchasable items… But in many stores, there are still third party products which need to be brought to a register with barcode scanner. Apple Store 2.0 changes that, by allowing almost everything purchased with credit cards to be handled directly by store employees – wherever they are in the store. Refunds as well should be covered in the system, along with setting and changing appointments, looking up customer histories, etc. This should allow for more customers to be served in the same amount of space and time than is currently possible.

The combination of the last two factors is aimed at allowing for continued growth in established locations (the SF flagship was originally designed for no more than 75 workers, for example), where it simply isn't practical to add additional space, or another full Apple Store.

What is Apple Store 2.0 like?

In entertainment circles, the current scandal barely merits consideration – there's an outside chance at an Oscars joke or two next year, if he handles himself really well (or really poorly).

Politically, it's a toss-up. Once he's been Governor of California, there aren't a lot of upsides to continued pursuit of office. Where would he go next? Congress? Being the Governator is actually, in many respects, a much more powerful/influential position that being one of 100 Senators. The presidency is right off the list due to his birth… Oh yeah, and Arnie finally figured out after being in politics, that politics sucks donkey balls.

I'm virtually certain that, beyond all other considerations, Mr. Schwarzenegger himself has no desire to remain in the political sphere directly (perhaps, someday, an ambassadorship or 'special envoy' role – where his face could open doors that sanctions and formal diplomacy cannot).

Will Arnie be back? Most definitely. But almost certainly via the Silver Screen.

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger finished as a public figure?

Additional question details:
What would happen if powerful women behaved the same way, lying about their sexual relationships and finding time to cheat on their spouses and families? Why does it appear that men, especially in politics, consistently exercise poor judgment, betray trust, and get others to cover up and hide their indiscretions? Maybe men are dogs – but is there a way to keep them from being slaves to their sex organs and turning into hypocrites, liars and cheats?

To answer only the last question – it's possible to keep men from being slaves to sex, and hypocritical in their actions, by seeing such actions as consistent, and changing societal expectations for behavior.

That these cases are seen primarily as happening to the rich and powerful have zero to do with the personalities involved, and much more to do with the needs of the newsmedia – it's simply not "news" when a random citizen known only to their own social graph commits adultery or sexually harasses a coworker.

Why are so many powerful men involved in sex scandals?