The Kernel magazine 3.0

The Kernel Magazine

The Kernel is now in its third incarnation, if you count from the very beginning. This time it is being conceptualized as a Sunday magazine with in-depth reporting that attacks a single subject each week. This format provides an opportunity for real insights and discussion on complex issues, rather than just “chasing headlines” like many daily publications do. In my personal opinion, this could allow the new Kernel to get back toward its original mission statement of “fixing journalism.”

But I will admit I’m excited about the re-launch for a much shallower, more personal reason. It means my author page and the archives of all of my older work for The Kernel from the last 3 years is back up.  As of today, my author page on The Kernel shows only my work going back to about November 2013; however all of the older material is still available through the original links.

So if you are interested, here is a list of some of my previous work on The Kernel that is still available online, but that is too old to get listed on my author page. These are articles that I’ve been asked about repeatedly, that have been cited by other sources or in other places, or that frankly I am just proud of for whatever reason. If you have a moment, check some of them out.

The Controversial stuff

You eat too much : where I explain that managing obesity is a lot more simple than some people would like to claim.

I posed as a white supremacist online : where I describe what I learned after joining and participating in a white supremacist discussion board.

Stop this privacy invasion whinging : where I explain that most of your “privacy” complaints are ridiculous

Trust me: You want to be spied on : where I explain that you’d be really unhappy if Facebook and Google suddenly respected your “privacy”.

Cultural Reviews

Why all the hate for Wikipedia? : where I explain the Wikipedia is working exactly the way that it should.

Philosophy is the root of great innovation : where I talk about the artificial life movement as an example of abstract thinking leading to practical results

A guide to Star Trek economics : where I talk about what would really happen if suddenly there were no such thing as “scarcity”.

Technical Reviews

REVEALED: the grubby world of comment spam : where I explain exactly how spammers do what they do

How I bought a better Klout score – and why : where I talk about how easy it is to manipulate Klout

AI is so over: this is artificial empathy : where I talk about a company that uses AI techniques to make you feel better.

Spreadsheets : where I review an iPhone app that records your sex and helps you improve your sex life


And for all of you have kept up with reading my work over the years, thank you so much and I very much appreciate all of the love that you’ve shown me!

2 views shared on this article. Join in...

  1. Meghan says:

    The article you wrote about redheads being “less attractive” was ignorant.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      Thank you for your comment! It’s been a while since I wrote it, so I went back now to re-read it, and see whether I felt differently now than I did when I wrote the article originally.

      Although there are places where my choice of language is a little snarky or insensitive, I still stand by the main thrust of the article. I don’t think it makes sense to make it socially prohibited to talk about things like evolved preferences in physical attraction.

      Saying that (for example) I would be, on average, seen as more attractive by more people if I were 6’2″ instead of 6′ shouldn’t be something to get offended at or depressed about. We should have plenty of education, however, so that people understand that even if that overall tendency is somewhat biologically mediated, it neither means that it is “morally right” nor that it is uniformly applicable across the board.

      But I’d much that promote the idea that we do the hard work of educating people about the implications and interpretation of biological preferences, than we say they CANNOT be talked about simply because some people will interpret the results wrongly.