Black T-Shirts: The Original Invisibility Cloaks
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
I learned this while presenting. If you wear clothing with a slogan, you are giving your audience a potential distraction, or something to read while they should be listening. Even a colored shirt can be a potential distraction, unless it is worn specifically for the purpose of brand association.
This is why you should not wear a clever slogan while presenting, even if it's your own brand.
As a light, Caucasian presenter, I prefer to wear a dark, featureless shirt because it highlights my facial features and directs the audience to my face and speech. Except for my hands, which I can use for pointing or demonstrating a process, in which case, I don't want a long sleeved-shirt to get in the way, and when there are plenty of lights, to stay cool.
I think I look best in the white shirts, but for a presentation I can see the value of going with a dark one.
It surprises me that people still talk and demand editors and proof-readers in an era where articles are paid 1/5 (or less) of what they were 10-20 years ago, and news outless are crumbling down tiny advertising revenues...
It's like going to a $10 buffet diner in the interstate, and expecting Morton's level steaks...
Seriously, in this day and age, it's like expecting some death-march software project, done with impossible deadlines and shortcutes by low paid programmers, to not have any bugs...
I know Louis is a bit overweight, but that just felt like a low blow there.
It's the least ugly color you can wear, on the most basic article of clothing you can wear besides jeans. And they're wearing jeans.
You can certainly wear better clothing! But all things being considered, it's the laziest possible option of clothing to wear that still looks "decent". They wanted to be comfortable and not have to think about how they look. And Jobs rolled up the sleeves because it would have awkward/ugly not to.
A spelling error in the second sentence made this very hard for me to read.
For one, that's not a spelling error (all the words are spelled correctly). It's a grammatical error. And not even one due to ignorance: it's merely a typo.
Second, you should expect it to happen much more in the days of low paid journalists, miniscule budgets, fewer (if any) copy editors, tiny advertising margins, and attempts to churn tons of articles as fast as possible to capture eyeballs. This isn't the 1970's Washington Post or New York Times. What we know about editors and proof-reading is almost obsolete in the web these days.
So we're better off appreciating the value (if there's any) of the content itself, instead of letting these kind of things distract us.