Editing The Pen Addict 616/transcript (section)

== Spotify Chapters ==


'''Myke Hurley:''' All right. We've got some follow-up. First comes in from Jed, who says, As Spotify now automatically generates chapters for podcasts. This was news to me, by the way. I didn't know you were doing this. Thanks to Jed for letting me know. I thought you might get a kick out of one in episode 615. At about 41 minutes in, the chapter is called What to Expect at a Pin Shown.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Pin, P-I-N.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Shown with an N.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Pin shown. Pin shown. Not Ian shown.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Or not pen show. So they're doing this by, because they do transcripts. Spotify does transcripts, like Apple Podcasts does. I think Apple Podcasts transcripts are of higher quality than the Spotify transcripts, I think, just from my own kind of like cursory glancing at these. And I will actually check now. I'm going to have a look at the Apple Podcasts ones to see if they do a better job of any of these words that I'm about to mention, because I went through today over the last couple of episodes and just picked out some chapters that I thought were pretty funny. So one was the DC NIP meeting. Okay.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Yes. That was in the last episode. There was one. Brad's first meeting with a Brad. Okay.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' I actually understand that one. I understand the concept behind that one. Yes. That's factually correct.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Yeah. My favorite. This is a little... See how long it takes you to get this one, right?

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Yeah. I'm still working on this one.

'''Myke Hurley:''' RCPA.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Ask TPA. Yes. I wouldn't have been able to do it if you didn't say it.

'''Myke Hurley:''' And I just took a look. Apple Podcasts also transcribes that as RCPA.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Yeah. I didn't. So we just have the RCPA text in the document. Until you said it, I didn't know it. Apparently, I'm also AI. Well, I guess it might sound like it.

'''Myke Hurley:''' RCPA? RCPA? I don't know why, but that's, I guess, how it sounds for me.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Yeah. This is great. So I wonder what's the philosophy, the AI philosophy on where the chapter markers go? I wonder what's that algorithm trying to decide. That's interesting, right? Yeah. Like, what's the decision to put that in there?

'''Myke Hurley:''' Yeah. I don't know. But I think that is interesting.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Tongue pauses, tone changes, you know.

'''Myke Hurley:''' What I will say is the Apple Podcast transcription does not have any pin show in here. So they accurately get pen show from your accent. Nice. I guess that one's good. But yeah, RCPA. RCPA. Okay. It's going to be the new segment title. Maybe I'll come up with that acronym for it.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Well, I think that leads right into the next question.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Really complicated pen answers. That's what the new segment is going to be called, which is also accurate. Yeah. I think we're about to get one. Yeah. So this actually is a really complicated pen answer. And the question is about the Lamy 2000. It comes in from an anonymous listener who, like Jed, also submitted their questions and feedback over at penaddictfeedback.com. This anonymous writer says, in episode 614, you called the Lamy 2000, quote, one of the best design pens ever, but immediately followed it up by saying, quote, it's not super functional or easy to use. That seems like an oxymoron to me. I have thought that if it doesn't reliably do what it's designed to do, it's not a great design or it's badly executed. Can you explain how both of these things can be true? Is it just par execution of a great design or am I missing something? So I will say I checked the transcript stack. I was like, no way did we say those things. Yes, we said those things. I 100% said those things. They weren't immediately next to each other. There was a little bit of information around it, but maybe you want to elaborate a little more on your stance at Lamy 2000 and maybe I'll throw some comments in because we both agree on this one.

'''Brad Dowdy:''' Yeah. This is an awesome question, by the way. I love this type of question because like a lot of this stuff, there's context and things. But this one starts with what does design mean to each individual person or how do you define design? And it's great design is very subjective. So when I say the Lamy 2000 is one of the best design pens ever, I'm talking about what my philosophy of good design is and how I apply my thoughts around design to the products I see out in the world and the ability to say, wow, that is just beautiful, amazing design. You know, for the Lamy 2000, the materials that are used with the fiberglass macrolon barrel combined in a seamless manner with a stainless steel front end section is just a beautiful piece of design in the way. The shape of the barrel is subtle and its curvature is beautiful. And that they had to design a nib specifically to fit this pen, the interior of this pen is really cool. And I dislike using it, right? Like all of those things can be true. So it doesn't mean it's not a great design if I don't use it or I don't think it's easy to use or I don't recommend it to people. Like this design concept happens in, you know, tons of areas, you know, like I love, like just one random example. Like I love the Land Rover Defender, right? Like it's this classic Jeep style or I love the classic ones, like the modern ones, you know, whatever. Like, but the Land Rover Defender is like just one of the coolest designs ever for like a Jeep or a car, however you want to describe it in an off-road vehicle. And like, I would never use one because it is absolutely horrible to maintain and to drive, right? Those two things can exist in the same world, right? Like, like that's the subjectivity of design. Like there's, there's probably not a lot of like objectively perfect designs. Like, I don't know if I could think of one, you know, like a post-it note is pretty, pretty, you know, a pretty decent, like objectively. Okay. Everyone understands how the post-it note works and it's just good and doing its job. And yeah, that's just it. But then you go to something like the Lama 2000, I can say like this belongs in a museum and also not recommend it just wholeheartedly to literally every fountain pen user ever, because I don't think it will work for a lot of people, right? So those two things can be very different in, in that, um, in when you're talking about design, right? So the, the part about not super functional or easy to use. So the beauty of how they executed the grip section makes it very slippery, slippery, hard word to say in your hands. Like when you're writing with the pen, it sometimes gets very slippery and it's not easy to grip. And sometimes your fingers slide down the nibs are also, uh, given the way that they're finished, they feel a little bit different on the page and not everyone likes that. Like they're almost a little bit sticky or tacky in the way that they write on the page. So like all of these things can exist together when you think about design. And when you think about functionality, those are two separate categories in my mind. And, and it's also, you know, given the subjectivity of it, like not everyone's going to agree, agree with those things. Some people don't like the design, right? Uh, or some people love using the, the fountain pen and all of those things are like valid answers and, um, you know, can be, can be true. And that's the, the great thing about design is that how subjective it can be. So that, that's, that's my thoughts on the 2000.

'''Myke Hurley:''' Yeah. I mean, I just think it's a beautiful design and the whole, not my whole thing about it is if you get one that is perfectly made, it's fantastic, but it's just for whatever reason, this pen struggles in a way that I think of a Lamy pens don't. Um, but if you get one that works well, I have one that works well, it's as good as any of the great pens that I own, but it's just unreliable.