PX17: 2016-17

2016-17 by Mark Beyer (144x210mm)

Huh. Why do I have two copies of this? Oops.

This is published by Le Dernier Cri, and I’m assuming this is … sketchbook stuff from Beyer? The covers are screen-printed and the interiors are offset, I think.

This artwork is a lot rougher than Beyer’s usually meticulous style, at least.

Notice a theme? Yeah, there’s a lot of people dying here.

They still have copies for sale! Run and buy. It’s a nice little book.

Indeed:

Which brings us to the latest Beyer item to make its way into my hands, the Le Dernier Cri-published Mark Beyer : Sketchbook 2016-17, which eschews pretty much anything by way of titles or branding and just plunges you right in at the deep end, offering page after stupefying page of works the artist drew ostensibly for his own edification, but which were probably destined to be let loose into the wild at some point or other, that point being, as it turns out, not terribly long after it was created. Hey, when your stuff’s in demand, it’s in demand — and Beyer’s stuff will always be in demand.

This blog post is part of the Punk Comix series.

PX81: Raw #3: The Graphix Magazine That Lost Its Faith In Nihilism

Raw #3: The Graphix Magazine That Lost Its Faith In Nihilism edited by Françoise Mouly and Art Spiegelman (268x360mm)

Huh. “Half-Raw (issue 3.5), a tabloid issue”? I don’t think that ever happened…

Anyway, the first issue of Raw was stunning, and the second was a let-down (relatively speaking). One problem it had was just pacing — it was almost nothing but one and two page stories, and that feels unbalanced. The other problem was that it had some pieces that felt studentey (because they were pieces from the students at the School of Visual Arts).

So we start off this issue with a visually striking one-pager by Ever Meulen and Eddy Flippo, and I was going “uh-oh”, but then we get a brilliant (and wistful) five page Jimbo thing from Gary Panter.

And this issue is indeed very satisfying. We’ve got this somewhat unnerving (but funny) page by Cathy Millet, and then a twenty (!) page story by Jose Muñoz and Carlos Sampayo. (And it’s printed on a different, more grey paper.)

Since it’s on a different paper stock (and isn’t in the middle of the magazine), we get a “continued on” message after ten pages.

Using 20 pages of a 50 page magazine on a single feature is a risk, but the artwork is so sharp and fabulous. And the story seems really intriguing… until the final couple pages where it turns out to be an O. Henry kind of story. So that’s a let-down, but it’s still a satisfying trunk to hang the rest of the issue’s contents off of.

It’s not just comics, either — Mouly herself writes one of the text pieces.

I’m surprised to see a page of Rod Kierkegaard here — he would pop up in Heavy Metal a lot later, I think? But it’s a fun page.

And the reason that the grey paper stock wasn’t put in the middle becomes clear: Mariscal needed the centre to pages for this insane double spread.

The only insert this time around is Maus. So they’re cutting slightly back on the printing extravaganza stuff, I guess, except for the different paper stocks.

And we’re getting into Spiegelman’s parent’s pre-war history.

The first few external ads show up, like this ad by The Idle Hour.

This issue is so rich — every page a new delight. Patricia Caire and Charles Burns on these two pages.

So — after a wobbly second issue, the third issue is absolutely fabulous. There’s not a single dud here, and it’s such a delight to read this. There’s no “theme” here, but everything seems to fit together into a cohesive reading experience.

By the third issue, they were printing 10K copies. It’s a smash hit.

This blog post is part of the Punk Comix series.

Mysteries of Communication

Dear Web,

since the world is opening up again, I thought it might be a good idea to spruce up the Concerts in Oslo apps for IOS and Android. Nothing major — just fix some minor layout issues and stuff like that.

The Apple App Store submission was accepted within 12 hours (very nice), but two days after submitting the update to Google Play, the app was rejected:

So I’m asking you, Dear Web, to interpret this gnomic paragraph for me:

Reasons of violation

About the Metadata policy

We don’t allow apps with misleading, improperly formatted,
non-descriptive, irrelevant, excessive, or inappropriate
metadata, including but not limited to the app’s
description, developer name, title, icon, screenshots, and
promotional images. Developers must provide a clear and
well-written description of their app and avoid using
repetitive or unrelated keywords or references. We also
don’t allow unattributed or anonymous user testimonials in
the app’s description.

So… either the description is repetetive, or the description isn’t… long enough?

Here’s the description, in full:

The app lists most concerts in Oslo and allows you to select which venues to include or include, as well as mark concerts you’re going to.

You can also export the concerts to your calendar app and share them on various social media sites.

Now, that’s not the best prose in the world, but… er… it’s pretty descriptive? Is it repetetive? Should I cut it down to “This app lists Concerts in Oslo, Norway”? Should I expand it to explain the concept of “a concert”, or explain that “Oslo” is a city, or… what?

Or is the icon the problem?

The extra confusing thing here is that this has been the description of the app since 2016, but it’s being rejected now, when all I want is to publish an updated .apk.

*sigh*

Plz hlp.

PX86: Raw One-Shot #6: X

X by Sue Coe with Judith Moore and Art Spiegelman (158x236mm)

Sue Coe had previously illustrated How to Commit Suicide in South Africa, but this is also written by her.

From the title you may have guessed that this book is about Malcolm X… but most of Coe’s pages don’t touch directly upon him.

But we get a historical overview and contextualisation of Malcolm X’s life by Judith Moore — about a quarter of the pages in this book. It’s an interesting overview. Not much of this was news to me, but it’s a good read.

The final Coe pages do refer to X more directly.

I enjoy Coe’s artwork enormously.

And the ending certainly packs an emotional wallop.

The book was reprinted in 1992 — I’m not sure who the publisher was.

This blog post is part of the Punk Comix series.

The Only Evo Benchmark That Matters

I while back, I was rather impressed with the new M1 chip from Apple, so I wondered what Intel’s response to all that was going to be.

(My guess was “not much”.)

I mean… the Apple laptop was more than twice as fast as my Lenovo Carbon X1, and that was just pitiful.

(On the only thing that matters for people (I’m assuming), which is saying “make bootstrap” in the Emacs development tree.)

So today I got the 9th gen Carbon with the new “Evo” branding from Intel. I got the model with the fastest CPU, as I did with the previous laptop.

This new laptop has a “11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1185G7 @ 3.00GHz” (four cores, 8 threads, max turbo 4.8GHz). The old laptop has “Intel(R) Core(TM) i17-10610U @ 1.80GHz” (4 cores, 8 threads, max turbo 4.9GHz).

And… *drum roll*

Old Carbon Unplugged5m27s
Old Carbon Plugged6m10s
New Carbon Unplugged4m2s
New Carbon Plugged5m50s
M1 Apple Laptop2m44s

All runs are “the second consecutive run” to see whether thermal throttling happens — but benchmarking is hard, dude. When the Intel laptops are plugged in, they throttle the CPU a lot more, presumably because charging the battery makes stuff hotter, so the fan can’t keep up, and the CPUs throttle? So I included runs both plugged and unplugged for the Carbons. (It makes no difference at all for the M1 laptop.)

It’s very variable on the new laptop. From 3m41s to 5m20s, so it’s all about the throttling, I guess? The old Carbon wasn’t this variable, but I guess this means that they CPUs they’re using now are really kinda too power hungry for this laptop: If you have a long, steady load, it’ll thermally throttle the CPUs down to performance levels that are close to the previous generation. But if you’re just doing something that’s quick enough that throttling doesn’t kick in, it’s a lot faster. Everything does feel snappier when using the laptop interactively.

I hear you going: “Yeah, Lars, it’s totes amazeballs that a 3GHz CPU is actually faster than an 1.8GHz CPU… you’re so clever…” But the point isn’t that Intel hasn’t made faster CPUs before — but they haven’t made fast CPUs that you can fit into a 1.1kg laptop before: The 1.8GHz/4 core CPU was the best there was for this laptop last year.

So in the competition against M1, it looks like they’re starting to get there? I mean, this top-of-the-line ultraportable Intel laptop is now only two thirds slower than the beginner-entry Apple M1 laptop.

Sometimes! If you don’t load it for a long time!

Success!

Or to sum up: Intel’s still pretty depressing.