firehose

Today, The Wall Street Journal relays information from insiders at Google who say "YouTube has been in a fire drill" trying to secure its most popular users and prevent them from fleeing to more generous rivals. That means bonuses for signing multiyear deals that secure YouTube limited-time exclusives on new content, or alternatively, bonuses tied to the traffic performance of videos.

Competing with YouTube is hard. It's the home of user-generated video on the web and has nurtured a number of hugely popular stars whose earnings now stretch into the millions of dollars each year. The value of those compelling personalities has grown even higher this year thanks to companies like Yahoo actively recruiting YouTube's stars for competing video services.

The chief threats to Google's hegemony are said to be Facebook and new video startup Vessel, the latter having been announced this summer by former Hulu CEO Jason Kilar. Vessel's plan is reportedly to lure away YouTube's biggest attractions with lucrative offers for 72-hour exclusives on new videos. The subscription-based service would then seek to establish itself as a premium alternative to YouTube, relying on the appeal of having the latest content first. It's expected to launch by the end of this year, which is apparently what's led to the "rare urgency" of Google's actions in trying to prevent an exodus of its most bankable users. A YouTube spokeswoman told the Journal that there's nothing unusual about the investment in video makers and that YouTube has "been increasing that support through a broad range of activities including marketing and content funding."

As the stars of YouTube begin to broaden their horizons — making money from product endorsements and other media like books — Google's grip on their marketability will inevitably slip. No one expects those who built their reputations on YouTube to abandon the service entirely, it's still too big and influential, but some of the biggest names might soon debut their latest stuff at other places on the web. That's the thing Google is now working to prevent, which may generate a whole new bidding war for the services of the web's most sought-after personalities.

Okay I confess! I am lying. This is all but one of the cocktails at Hapa Ramen in San Francisco, but they weren't serving the last one as they're waiting on the right glassware. 

I had the opportunity to sip my way through the menu of the newly-opened Hapa Ramen on Mission Street in San Francisco. The cocktail menu was mostly created by Ian Scalzo, with Justin Lew (both former Bourbon & Branch employees) and others adding input. 

The menu is Hawaiian-Asian-inspired, with lots of touches from both groups of cultures as you'll see. There is also a nice selection of Japanese whisky. Mmm.

Spiced Blossom: Lillet Blanc, Ginger Syrup, Lemon, Grapefruit, Angostura, Schichimi Togarashi Tincture, Soda water

This one is served tall over ice. The tincture is a spice blend with sesame, chili, and citrus peels. It was quite grapefruity and very refreshing. 

Stingray: Aperol, Lemon
, Wasabi Honey Syrup
, Star Anise tincture, Sparkling Wine

Really unusual flavor combo between anise and wasabi – challenging at first, then the heat and flavor die out, then you want more. It keeps you sipping.

Beefcake: Campari, Plum Wine, Dolin Rouge, Cinnamon Tincture, Soda water 

This is an Americano riff with a cinnamon finish and plum wine for soda water. Would drink again. 

Big Island Buck: Huli-Huli Pineapple infused Rye, Angostura, Top Ginger Beer

The drink is made with pineapple glazed with hui hui sauce infused into rye. The sauce is like soy sauce with wine ginger and honey, a marinade. 

Hilo Gimlet: Gin, Lime, Hawaiian Punch syrup, Hi-Chew Tincture 

Chick Drink! The Hawaiian punch srup is a blend of fruit juices including mango, orange, pineapple, and cherry. Hi-Chew is a candy found in Asian markets, and here it is infused into Everclear and used as a spritz for aromatics. It it light purple in color and has a candy-sweet finish (though the drink isn't very sweet; just gives you that impression). 

• 
• 

Greedy Bastard: Tequila, Plum Wine Syrup, Lime, Aromatic Bitters,  mint, ginger beer

This is built like a Mojito but it's far more interesting due to the plum syrup. I like it more than I want to like it. 

Skipper’s Sour: Zucca Amaro, Smith and Cross rum, Mango Black Tea Syrup, Egg White, Lime, Orange Bitters

Soft and creamy from both the egg white and the mango, yet slightly bitter from Zucca and astringent from the tea, this has lots of big flavors. Probably my favorite drink on the menu. Plus it's the color of a brown crayon.

Red Lotus: Hibiscus Infused Vodka, Blackberry Tea Syrup, Aromatic Bitters, Allspice Dram

Scalzo says that this drink is,  “Our vodka drink that we tried to turn into a gin drink.” It's full of berry flavors but finishes dry, as do most of the drinks on the menu. The allspice and bitters were much needed.

Tropic Thunder: Evan Williams, Banana Liqueur, Cacao infused Angostura, Black Sea Salt tincture

Here's that banana-whisky flavor combo that's taking America by storm. The salt and cacao are a really nice touch, giving it ice cream sundae flavor qualities. 

White Oak: Bank Note Scotch, Cynar, Cherry Heering, Ginger syrup

Full and rich with an emphasis on Cynar. Not fruity, and just a little smoky and spicy from the ginger. This is probably the drink I'd order after dinner. 

All in all, it's a menu with a lot of unusual ingredients incorporated into the drinks. None are so weird as to offend, and all of them offer something unique.  

A Nine-Page Feature on Trick Dog's Caitlin Laman

Four New Whiskies: Two Vintage Recreations, One Orphan, and One Rye

New Booze: 2 White, 1 Aged, and 9 Flavored Whiskies

A veteran salutes while watching the Albany, N.Y. Veterans Day parade.

2014 was an incredible year for discussions about consent and rape. Street harassment, sexism, and rape on campus came to the forefront of our shared conversation through social media, protests, and all forms of journalism. And it worked. People who otherwise would never have talked about rape culture engaged in the conversation. I've never heard so many men use the word "consent." It doesn't matter that the discussions were polarizing, or that many continue to debate rape culture's existence. The discussion happened, and it's largely because women used the power of the internet to make it so.

Rolling Stone's "note" blames the victim, not the reporting

That's why today's admission by Rolling Stone that a spine-chilling account of a rape at the University of Virginia may not have been entirely factual is so upsetting. Instead of owning up to in incredible number of unforgivable reporting mistakes, a magazine that I once respected professionally decided to blame the victim. Worse, Rolling Stone did it by explaining that their reporters and editors skipped some crucial reporting steps to try to prevent victim-blaming from happening in the first place:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account.

Rolling Stone's original story of Jackie's rape at the University of Virginia was terrifying. According to the article, she was gang raped at a frat party after her date took her up to a room full of fraternity members. But according to The Washington Post's investigation of Jackie's story, both the article's author Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone's fact-checkers failed to verify if a party had taken place on the day she said claimed the rape happened. Moreover, Jackie said that her date was a member of the fraternity throwing the party — a fact that The Washington Post says is false. (The Washington Post's own story originally contained a large error as well: it said that Jackie had never met the man in question. But that claim only came from the man himself, and it was later removed from the Post's article since it can't be verified.) Rolling Stone failed to check both these facts.

The Problem isn't Jackie — it's Rolling Stone

Finally, as Vox's Sarah Kliff points out, Jackie told The Washington Post that Erdely and Rolling Stone decided to go ahead and print the story even though she wanted to be taken out. If that's true, Rolling Stone made a grave mistake, because "a story where the main source tried to back out and the other participants were never interviewed is not a solid story," Kliff writes.

It's possible that Jackie's story is fabricated. It's also possible that some parts of her story are true while others aren't. But it's also possible that she was raped by multiple men. And her misrepresentation of certain parts of her story may or may not be her fault. Victims of rape experience a kind of trauma that's hard to imagine for anyone who's never experienced it; sometimes their minds act protectively by blocking memories out. Finally, as Gabriel Dante pointed out to me on Twitter, Jackie may also have altered some facts to ensure that she wasn't identified by readers once the story was published. But none of that matters. The problem here is not Jackie — it's Rolling Stone.

The credibility of rape victims will be put into question for years

From a journalistic standpoint, it would not have been a stretch to check if the party had actually taken place. It would not have been a stretch to check if the man Jackie said was egging her rapists on was a member of the fraternity. All of this could have taken place without actually talking to the perpetrators — interviews that Erdely insists were intentionally left out of her reporting because Jackie asked her not to speak to her alleged rapists, and because her story looked solid.

If Erdely had checked these plot points early on, it's possible that doing so would have halted her reporting altogether. But because those basic reporting steps didn't take place, the credibility of rape victims will be put into question for years to come. And all the incredibly difficult discussions that have taken place over the past year — discussions that gave me hope — are now at risk.

victim-blaming is America's favorite pastime

Erdely spoke eloquently about her Rolling Stone piece on Brian Lehrer's radio show in late November. During the show, Erdely responded to a caller who claimed that rape reports are often unfounded — she said "that's actually categorically not true," and she's right. On average, only 8 to 10 percent of rape reports are false, which means that something like "92 percent of them are actually true," as Erdely said. But because she published a sloppy story that is at least partially incorrect, Erdely and Rolling Stone will help perpetuate the dangerous and damaging myth that women lie about rape.

I'd like to think that Rolling Stone isn't powerful enough to walk back the strides we've made in talking about rape and consent this year. I'm hoping that the next few weeks will show that the American public knows who to blame in this fiasco. (Hint: it's Rolling Stone, by managing editor Will Dana's own admission). But the truth is that victim-blaming is America's favorite pastime. The families of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner know that all too well. And now, because Rolling Stone failed as a news organization and then made things worse with a terribly vague, accusatory, and hypocritical "note" of concern, Jackie and the thousands of women who suffer sexual assault each year will likely be put through hell.

Would you uproot your life for an internet connection? Google says people are doing exactly that; they're picking up and moving to Kansas City or Provo to gain access to Google Fiber, the company's ultra-fast gigabit broadband and TV service. As of this week, you can add Austin to the tiny list of cities where Fiber is being offered. On Wednesday, Google invited media outlets including The Verge and local press to the Fiber showroom in downtown Austin.

Open seven days a week to the Austin public, the Fiber space is filled with Google representatives who can explain the service's benefits to curious residents. Many of them flowed in and out during my time there. You can also hop on Fiber-powered Wi-Fi while visiting for a taste of what Google the ISP can do.

Internet worth moving for

For its Wednesday press event, Google showed off some improved hardware and provided an update on which Austin neighborhoods (or "Fiberhoods" as Google calls them) had rallied enough local support and signups to qualify for Fiber installations. Some have already cleared the bar, and other areas are working to get there. And you've only got one shot. Google's own website publicly says "we don't currently have plans to return to fiberhoods once their sign-up periods have ended." So if neighbors don't share your enthusiasm, your chance might be blown. (Google did ultimately give sections of Kansas City more than one opportunity to get in, so there can be exceptions.)

Fiber won't be available city-wide anytime soon; right now it's limited to Austin's south and southeast sections. More areas will open up in the coming months, but Adam Smith, who heads up product management for Fiber, hinted it could be multiple years before "the gig" is supercharging internet in most Austin homes. And it's not Google's fault. Building out the network isn't easy or fast. It requires complex planning, and often calls for a significant amount of groundwork and construction — even with Google doing its best to harness existing infrastructure. And everything's slow going, which is a brutal pace in a society that increasingly seeks instant gratification and same-day deliveries. You want Google Fiber right now, just like everyone wanted FiOS, but unless you're willing to book a flight, get used to waiting.

"I don't know how AT&T sees the world evolving."

Does any person really need that type of speed? It's been asked many times, and right now many Austin residents are likely wondering what Google Fiber and the gig can do for them that a top-level DOCSIS 3.0 cable connection can't. There's not a simple or compelling argument to be made aside from the obvious one: it's faster.

Smith likes to hammer on the point that Google Fiber offers a symmetric connection; you get the same blistering upload speeds that you pull down. But other providers like Verizon are starting to head in that direction. AT&T has its own gigabit internet network running in Austin; my Uber driver said he signed up because he couldn't endure the wait for Fiber. From Smith's perspective, Google welcomes the competition. "This is all so new, both for us and for them, in that when you really think about the power of the web, the web comes when there’s lots of people operating," he says. "I don’t know how AT&T sees the world evolving. But how we see it evolving, we want to make sure we’re building a product that dovetails with that nicely as we go."

To be clear, classifying Google as any kind of "competitor" to Comcast is absurd if you're looking at it with a level head. But Comcast loves to tell the FCC that Fiber poses some type of threat; the cable behemoth has frequently cited Fiber's existence as proof that there's healthy broadband competition in America. Don't be fooled: there may be "competition" in all of three cities where Google Fiber is now offered, but that's not moving the needle anywhere.

Toppling Comcast obviously isn't Google's goal, so what is? If you believe Smith, the thing that makes his company most excited is simply "getting lots of people on gigabit internet." It sounds noble, but remember that Google can count on reaping ad profits from every Fiber customer, in addition to their subscription fee. Not all of those people will be tech savvy or understand Fiber's full potential; a big and growing part of Google's mission is closing the digital divide and bringing internet to those who've never even had a web connection before. Google's working to make Fiber available to the 4,300 people living in Austin's public housing units, and it's pledged to make similar investments in other Fiberhoods. But as The Daily Dot recently reported, not everyone's convinced the company is taking the best approach.

"You're going to see creativity unleashed."

In Kansas City and Provo, there are already consumers and businesses placing their bet on Fiber. Smith says one obvious use case that's emerged is video work. Fiber's gigabit connection can make a world of difference for content businesses who constantly upload globs of data to the cloud every day. But who else might benefit? The app-makers of tomorrow. "As more people are on gigabit internet, you’re going to see creativity unleashed," says Smith. "You’re going to see more applications developed. You’re going to see applications that are gigabit-specific developed. Things we don’t know about yet."

The notion of an app requiring a fiber-grade connection might seem ludicrous now. But put Fiber and competing products in more cities (Google is eyeing a host of new markets) and someone may be willing to take the chance. Imagine backing up your entire PC in mere minutes or streaming the latest breakthrough video games without a hitch. It's all genuinely exciting, which probably explains why some people would even raise the idea of dropping everything and relocating to find Fiber. Smith insists that Google has regularly talked with people who've made the move. It sounds crazy to most, but maybe not so bizarre in the eyes of an entrepreneur trying to get a startup off the ground.

Does Google really care about TV?

But when I turn my focus to the TV side of Fiber, everything's a bit less wondrous and inspired. The sense of anticipation for what the future holds rapidly falls flat. Google is pushing the envelope with Fiber as an internet service, but as a cable provider, the company seems content with delivering an experience that's par for the course. Google Fiber's TV interface is simple, clean, and, for the most part, fluid, but it shares nothing in common with the modern software marvel that is Android Lollipop, nor does it borrow from Google's Material Design language. It doesn't look as refreshing as webOS running on an LG TV, and it doesn't have the dead simplicity of Roku's TV interface. It looks like a cable box UI.

To be fair, it checks off all the major things consumers expect from a cable box: tons of channels, DVR (with 2TB of storage space), video on-demand, and niceties like cast and plot details for whatever's on. And yes, it's got Netflix built in. But search is pretty stupid in places; type in "Liam" and you'll have to scroll down four or five pages to find Liam Neeson's name. I'd maybe expect that from Time Warner Cable. From Google, the world's leader in search, it's almost insulting. No offense, Andrew Liam Pringle; you're just not the revenge seeker I was looking for.

Use it for five minutes, and you'll immediately realize Fiber TV could be so much more. The immediate and pressing problem is a glaring lack of cohesion with Google's other products and services. Some of it's obvious stuff. You can't stream music from your Google Play library; media has to be uploaded directly to the Fiber Network Box in your home before it can be accessed on the TV. That probably takes no time at all with Fiber's connection speeds, but it's insane that such a thing should even be necessary. The same goes for movies and TV. Like other cable companies, Fiber's got its own video-on-demand platform, but don't expect to watch your Google Play Movies purchases on the Fiber box. Inexplicably, you'll need a Chromecast or Android TV to do that. Huh? These products are all under the Google umbrella, so why do they seem so far apart? It's a disconnect that needs repairing.

It doesn't feel like Google is trying with TV

It shouldn't be so hard to dream bigger or aim higher. There's a weather widget, but no Google Now integration to remind you of your appointments as you're readying for work each morning. Very little about watching Fiber feels interactive or connected. Want to know what other people in your Fiberhood are watching right now? No can do. Your TV can't yet notify you when a call's coming in to your Android phone; it also won't display incoming Hangouts messages. Video chat's totally absent, a surprising omission when dealing with broadband this fast. And for a company that's developed such a robust, quick, and accurate voice search, it's disappointing to see voice queries limited to the Google Fiber mobile app. There's no mic on Fiber's otherwise nice, backlit Bluetooth remote, nor on the TV box itself. As it turns out, some people don't mind talking to their Xbox. I'm sure they'd give calling out the "OK Google" command a try if it made for an easier way of finding the latest episode of Scandal.

Google has all the pieces to make cable TV amazing

Likewise, whereas some companies like TiVo are making progress in letting you take DVR recordings on the road, Google's not there yet. Fiber certainly has the speed to make it happen, but for now you still need to be on your home Wi-Fi network to watch DVR content on a smartphone or tablet. This one's understandable since Google is still new to this game and has relatively little power when dealing with TV networks, but the others show a lack of innovation and willingness to try new things in the living room. Fiber needs to be usable by a huge variety of consumers, yes, but that doesn't excuse Google from experimenting. None of it sounds impossible or impractical.

When I raise some of these points with Smith and Sarthak Ray, one of Google Fiber's product managers, they each nod and acknowledge that the possibilities are definitely there. "We're fortunate to be part of Google," says Smith. "It's natural that over time we're going to look for ways to integrate those experiences into the Fiber experience." Thankfully those improvements should progress faster than Fiber's journey into new cities. Smith and Ray say that nearly all of Google Fiber's hardware development now happens in-house, giving the company full control over its software roadmap and destiny as a cable company. There are some interesting things happening now; controlling a TV with your Android Wear watch feels pretty weird and cool. Give us more of that.

Huge industry forces like Comcast (with its X2 cloud platform) and Dish, rumored to be launching its own internet TV service, aren't the laggards they once were. Somehow we've entered a world where the TV business is starting to move at a brisker pace. Those companies have also been at it decades longer than Google, so it's not entirely fair to ding Mountain View too badly this early.

And remember that many people will likely subscribe to Google Fiber's $70 internet-only option, especially as more web TV services get off the ground. Maybe that's the long-term plan. Perhaps Google's doing the bare minimum to keep cable customers comfortable while ultimately counting on HBO, CBS, Sony, and others to obliterate the market as we know it 10 years down the line. Then it won't even have to worry about being cable company Google anymore. But think hard: do you honestly trust Dish or Verizon to build something that you love interacting with every day? You shouldn't. Android TV shows that Google's got some of the right ideas, but they're nowhere to be found in Fiber today.

If TVs are meant to be dumb, the boxes we attach to them need to start getting brilliant. With Apple still not prepared to lead that charge, why shouldn't it be Google? Google Fiber is still super small. It's very new, and most people can't have it, yet other ISPs are paying close attention to Google's every move. If Google sets its sights on improving the concept of what cable TV should be, we'd all be better off for it. Obviously the internet half of Fiber is the priority, and that's not going to change. Google makes its money from people using the internet every day. But it's also got every piece necessary to reinvent cable TV in a way that, when combined with those heavenly internet speeds, really could convince people to start packing for the nearest Fiberhood.