Back to work, lazy emotions.

An interesting thought on the through-line that ties together all the great Pixar films of the last couple decades, from The Awl:

The basic Pixar story is that of an individual seeking to establish, refine, or preserve their function as an instrument within a system of labor. The only way Pixar is able to conceptualize a protagonist is to assign them a job (or a conspicuous lack of one) and arrange the mechanisms of plot to ensure that they fulfill that job. This is why Joy can only accept Sadness once she comes to understand what it is she does.

Pixar’s debut film organized a scenario involving sentient toys as a narrative about two men fighting for the same job. In not one but two sequels, it revisited those same characters in a narrative about how bad retirement is, and how awful it is to be made redundant. In Monsters, Inc., it developed a parallel universe populated by monsters and powered by childrens’ screams to tell a story about a workplace duo striving to be the most efficient employees. Up is ultimately a film about how unthinkable it is to retire; even elderly widowers must find a new vocation. In film after film, Pixar presents narratives chiefly concerned with characters trying to be the best at what they do, or otherwise prove their usefulness.

Does this change how you think of your favorite Pixar films?

Is there another, better unifying theme to the Pixar catalogue?

Is this a good, healthy thing for kids’ movies to be saying, or a strange and troubling thing to be teaching them?

Also rising: awkward mornings after.

A seemingly depressing statistic about young adults’ living situation comes from Fusion, who say:

The never-ending sleep-over continued in 2014: the share of 25-34 year-olds living with their parents increased again last year, new Census data show.

The overall ratio for this group climbed to 14.7% from 13.9%.

Here’s the chart, which is broken down by gender. Interestingly, the share of 18-24 year-olds who are living at home continued to decline, to 54.9% from 55.3%, which likely reflects extended schooling for this group.

As a non-homebound adult, my heart goes out to these souls whose growth has been stunted by lack of opportunity in the modern work force. But if the situation is this dire, considerations must be made.

If you have to live at home as an adult, what rules would you impose to stay sane while still living with your parents?

Are there unexpected benefits beyond saving on room and board? What are the biggest drawbacks?

How will living at home that much longer end up affecting this generation, for better or worse?

Bonus topic: people who sleep while cuddling are monsters. T/F?

The New Yorker just finished up a series on the science of sleep, suggesting that essentially, we’re all doing a terrible job of it.

According to the article, not getting enough quality sleep reduces our ability to do all kinds of things well — to the point where most people are never really operating at 100% — and even carries health risks long term.

So let’s say you have two solutions:

1) You can get an injection that permanently reduces the amount of sleep you need in a night by half. You’ll still sleep about as well as you do now, you can just get by with, say, 3.5 hours per night instead of 7.

2) You can take a pill once a week that allows you to fall asleep immediately whenever you decide to, and wake up feeling refreshed and alert. You can do this as many times per day as you prefer, so you could theoretically break up that sleep however is most efficient or practical for your schedule. But, you still need to get the same amount per day to keep from feeling tired, only now you can be sure that you’ll be fully recharged when you wake up.

Which way of sleeping would make your life easier, more productive or more satisfying?

If choosing less sleep, how would you use the extra time? What could you do that you couldn’t now?

If choosing better sleep, how would you schedule your day? How would it affect your daily life for the better?

Kids today think “basically, TV sucks”.

A bit of research from an AdAge article entitled “Televisions Are No Longer the Screen of Choice for Kids” suggests that interactivity is becoming a requirement for those brought up in the age of touchscreens.

According to a research report from Miner & Co. Studio, televisions are no longer the screen of choice for kids who have ready access to tablets and smartphones. More than half (57%) of parents surveyed said their children now prefer to watch video on a handheld device rather than on TV.

Mobile devices are so popular with kids that nearly half of the 800 parents quizzed by Miner & Co. reported that they confiscate their kids’ tablets when they act up and make them watch TV instead, thereby fostering a sort of Pavlovian response that equates TV with punishment. (That these parents simply don’t restrict their kids’ access to video altogether when they misbehave suggests that they’re raising a generation of spoiled content junkies, but that’s another story.)

Some kids are so obsessed with the small screen that they’ll even forego treats for another few minutes with their portable video device. When given the choice between spending quality time with the tablet or having dessert, 41% of the parents surveyed said their kids would pick the screen over the snack.

Is this unique to kids with low attention spans, and something they’ll grow out of, or a permanent generational shift?

What, if any, real benefits come from consuming video on a portable device vs a static television screen? Are there benefits to TV that are being lost?

What other side effects will come from kids growing up with touchscreen technology?

Also you can’t pick Canada.

The reason isn’t important, but say you had to leave the country right now and never come back.

You have to decide right now which country will be your home for the rest of your life. Pretend that upon arriving in that country, you would immediately understand the local language perfectly, so that’s not a barrier.

You wouldn’t have a job or friends in that country waiting for you (if you have friends all over the world, pretend you don’t), so you’d be starting fresh with whatever you currently have.

And once you choose, you can never leave that country for the rest of your life — so considerations like speaking a language lots of other countries speak or proximity to other places you want to travel to on vacation shouldn’t weigh in. Though you can still speak your native language, so watching American TV or calling your parents aren’t a problem.

But once you choose, that’s your home until you die.

Where would you decide to live out the rest of your life?

If you want to make it even more interesting, choose a place you’ve never been before.

*somewhat inspired by this week’s This American Life episode, Abdi and the Golden Ticket.