Quantcast
Channel: Print Columnists – HiLite

Embrace Instagram’s shift to casual posts, but remember false nature of social media

0
0

Photo dumps, #nofilter, blurry pictures—the movement to make Instagram casual again is something that has permeated the platform. In an attempt to challenge the longstanding norm that Instagram is a place only for the most perfected and professional pictures of yourself, there has been a gradual shift to the more authentic, and I am in full support of it. 

Social media has always been an over-filtered, “fake” arena that has given users a feeling of obligation to hide all of their faults as human beings, constantly painting an impossibly perfect reality that many young people have unfairly compared to their own imperfect lives. It’s about time that this mentality has changed, and I’m happy to see users start to express themselves in a way that’s more true to life. It’s making social media more human. It’s letting our followers see more of the real us.

At the same time, my support is hypocritical—my own Instagram page is heavily curated to adhere to a pink, hazy pastel theme, and I spend a good amount of time doodling on or editing my photos before posting them. In my eyes, however, my Instagram is an extension of my personal identity as an artist. It’s a different way to romanticize my world, a different medium that weaves captions, comments and friends into the 1080px by 1080px grid that is my canvas. Instead of stressing to show only the most perfected aspects of my social life, I edit my feed for fun and the sole purpose of maintaining what I see as my personality put onto a screen. 

Pink theme or not, I’ll always continue to appreciate the casual posts on my feed and the glimpse it gives into its poster’s real life—the shots of friends caught in a moment of laughter, inside jokes I have no way of understanding, obscure memes, pictures of sunset views out bedroom windows—it’s so refreshing to see, and I think I’ll slowly start embracing myself. 

Of course, at the same time, we should remind ourselves that despite this shift to the more down-to-earth, Instagram and platforms like it are still not true to real life, so never compare yourself to whatever comes up on your feed. 

I still hesitate to post more personal content, but even as I embrace the casual, it’s okay. You’re never obligated to afford your followers the privilege of knowing the true you. Save for the people you meet in real life.


Students should prepare, embrace coming future

0
0

I dream of jetpacks as alternatives to buses and bicycles. I dream of escaping the solar system. I dream of flying without wings. I dream of teleportation, time travel and breathing underwater.

Realistically, all of these things (except maybe time travel) are possible to an extent given our current technologies, and we’ve done a great deal toward accomplishing many of them––I’ve worked on some possible models for artificial gravity and antimatter engines myself. But what’s our progress on actually making them tangible and available to the general public?

With “Back to the Future Day” on Oct. 21 and the Expo 2020 Dubai running from this October to next March, we’re getting a chance to reflect on the advancements we’ve made thus far as well as clear gaps in what we need to improve on––climate change especially comes to mind. 

We’ve made significant advancements on ingenious inventions in the lab setting, but many times we fail to pursue the next step: actually implementing them in modern society. For example, companies like Aeromobil are putting finishing touches on their flying car prototypes but estimate their cost to be upwards of $1 million. Making many of these advancements affordable and accessible, not to mention approved by governmental authorities for public use, will undoubtedly take time and investments.

So where do we come in? We as students definitely don’t have the luxuries of resource access and funds that superpowers like Tesla have, but we do have imaginations and brains. Anything we can think of that might help people live better lives is fair game; all we have to do is think, write and share it.

After working on some of my ideas and writing them out, I’ve begun to explore and contemplate the world around me much more often. Wherever I am, I look around and see what could be better, like the curvature of the road or the moisture of the soil. I firmly believe anything and everything around us can be improved, modified or reinvented using modern technology.

Although I don’t have a PhD in quantum mechanics or another fancy field, I think many of the ideas I have can be applied to tangible models and actually construct something that could change the world. All this has taught me a lesson that I consider to be paramount; anyone can exert change. You just need to be a big enough catalyst.

Contrary to popular belief, “everything that can be invented has been invented” is a blatantly false statement. In fact, Charles Duell, former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, reportedly said the same thing back in 1899, before televisions, transistors and rocket engines; look where we are now.

I urge you all to innovate. Think of anything and everything that could make today’s world a better place, and make it happen. Truly, we are the generation of change, and what we do will impact society for years to come.

To see more works by Archit, click here.

Students should reconsider priorities as they get busier

0
0

Last year, I was a virtual learning student. I would start my days at noon, sluggishly ignoring the sunlight that insisted into my room, even through the heavy-duty window curtains. I would eat “breakfast” at around 2 p.m., usually a large bowl of Shin ramen with poached eggs as runny as I could make them. I would have around nine hours of my own time, free to do whatever I liked: I practiced piano, played video games, biked with friends, worked on Science Olympiad, etc. 

Since all my classes were autonomous, my school day would start at around 11 p.m. Generally, I took about two hours to finish a day’s schoolwork, with first priority to assignments due at midnight. Sleep would come at around 2 a.m. on normal nights, even later if I had found an interesting book or manga to read before bed. Ironically enough, this backward routine worked. I could keep up with my classes, and I felt productive working on my own passions and projects. I felt like I could do what I wanted, whenever I wanted. I could live life at my own pace, taking any extra time that I needed.

When this school year started, I was thrust into junior year, believed to be the busiest year of high school.  The rigid, unchangeable 9:05 to 4:05 school day closed down on me, stealing away any free time I had before. I was ripped from the tranquil stream of virtual learning and forced to swim in a speeding river of in-person school.

It’s safe to say that the transition was jarring. I would get home at 5 p.m, and other activities filled my schedule past 7 P.M. nearly every day of the week, whether it was orchestra rehearsal, SAT prep, or church. Essentially, I went from nine hours of free time to about three. Feeling tired and burnt out, I was not doing great, and I knew I needed a change.

After a long conversation with a friend, I decided to re-evaluate my priorities. I asked myself, what do I really enjoy doing? In the long run, what would I regret about high school? With these questions answered, I sorted a list of how I spent my hours; it was eye-opening. I realized I had spent hours and hours on things I didn’t really care about, on goals that weren’t made by me to begin with. I began to prioritize working out, talking with friends and getting enough sleep. And what an enormous difference that made.

Ultimately, losing 7 hours of my day taught me to value my time. When you have 22 hours to yourself for a full year, you don’t have to think about priorities: there’s enough time for everything! As we all settle into a new, full-time school schedule, whether it’s coming from hybrid or coming from virtual learning, we’re all losing a lot of time. In moments like these, it becomes vital to establish priorities. I encourage you all to really consider for yourself: What do I want to spend my time on? What do I need to spend my time on?

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Daniel Tian at dtian@hilite.org. To read more works by Daniel, click here.

Streaming helps independent filmmakers reach larger audiences

0
0

After the rise of COVID-19, when movie theaters and a large part of the commercial movies were shut down, many of the people who were forced to spend more time at home, turned to their television screens. Already popular streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime were used increasingly, and not just for shows, but also for cinema. A large number of those movies released on streaming platforms were directed by independent filmmakers. 

Independent filmmakers who often lack backing from major production houses, have long struggled to produce or even distribute their content and pay back their investors, which means many projects often stay in post-production or never go past the initial script reading. 

Because of those challenges, audiences often do not get to hear fresh, diverse tales from new storytellers.

When independent filmmakers and smaller production houses are not accounted for, a large number of stories which are told by new storytellers, or those that have an eye for the best stories are forgotten. 

However, streaming services, which increased their line-up of independent films, gave these interesting stories a wide viewership. Previously, even the independent filmmakers who were able to produce their movies, found themselves stuck in battles of distribution. With streaming services, the stories of these filmmakers are distributed on a wide platform without the struggles that come with traditional forms of distribution.

The collaboration of independent filmmakers and streaming services is a sort of revival for the genre of art-house films, which are often critically acclaimed, but still stay in their niche and do not reach deserved audiences. Streaming services provide the exact platform these unique stories need for audiences to appreciate them.

Both Netflix and Amazon produced and aired higher numbers of art-house films, and both hosted films that dominated last year’s Sundance film festival.

Now, with the film awards season coming up, streaming services have an opportunity to prove their worth by continuing to distribute tasteful art-house films, the very films which often do so well during awards season.

Overall, streaming services have helped rejuvenate the declining area of art-house films by providing distribution, which is an aspect where these independent films most often struggle. In the future, this could motivate young filmmakers to believe in the success of their films.

Click here to read more of Sumedha’s works.

Streaming isn’t killing theaters, its improving them

0
0

Few expected “Trolls World Tour” to be a revolutionary or even historic film when it came out, but due to its release method, it  may be one of the most important films in recent memory. Rather than push the film back as so many studios did for films planned to release during the pandemic, Universal instead decided to release the film simultaneously in theaters and video on demand, allowing families to watch the film at home for an extra cost. Such a move was explosive, with AMC Theaters stating that they wouldn’t show films from Universal at that point, though negotiations and cash payments resolved this. Of course, with Disney putting movies on Disney+ for extra payments and Warner Brothers putting their big hits on HBOMax for no extra cost at all, this has become the norm. And if it’s the norm, then what now?

Many, including me, cried that this explosion of streaming would be the death of theaters. These big hits were the biggest reason many went to theaters, and now that theaters don’t even have a monopoly on that, what would be the point? Lines of thinking leading to the conclusion that theaters as a whole would die fail to disconnect our popular culture ideas of theaters from what they’re capable of. Theaters can be far more than what most of us imagine, which of course leads to the second most important film of the decade.

The surprise hit of last year for theaters was “Demon Slayer Mugen Train,” a special-event film continuation of the popular anime series, becoming the highest grossing film of that year by grossing half a billion dollars and the first non-Hollywood film to top annual domestic box offices. The series isn’t unknown by any means, but an R-rated, foreign, animated film continuation of a TV series climbing to the top is unheard of, and by the standards of mass market appeal, incredibly niche, yet that’s the key.

Small yet passionate target audiences are the future—just ask the vinyl and manga industries—and the best model for mainstream theaters could be found in art house theaters, movie theaters not dedicated to showing the biggest blockbusters, but that offer curated foreign, indie and old films to dedicated customers. We even saw theaters like Regal show older movies like “Lord of the Rings” and “Star Wars” for reduced prices to fill time slots during the pandemic. The big chains also play Miyazaki movies like “Spirited Away” every year as part of Ghibli Fest, curated foreign films playing in the big chain theaters, a far cry from what we typically expect, yet they succeed anyways.

Theaters aren’t dying any more than vinyl died years ago, their markets and products are simply changing and it’s time we let them change. COVID has changed a lot, but rather than focus on the halted traditions, we should look towards the traditions now possible. “Trolls” and “Demon Slayer” just may be the harbingers of a new era.

Administration should reform restrictive cybersecurity policies, allow students to research blocked topics

0
0

A couple of weeks ago, a group of students in AP Capstone Seminar encountered a concerning issue that has been plaguing our school all year. For their summative research paper, the students were investigating the controversy over abortion laws. In their preliminary research, I watched as time and time again they repeated the same distressing process.

They would scroll through Google’s results until they found what they believed to be the perfect source and click on it in hopes of discovering the precious information they had been scouring the internet for. Instead, they would be met by a futile screen that offered a disappointing block of text. In defeat, they would read the words that glared back at them… “Page Blocked.”

This message appeared for countless pages that could have provided useful, important information, robbing them of the time given to them during class to work on their paper. For example, some WebMD pages on contraceptives, such as birth control pills, were inaccessible to them. 

Is this really rational? What is the justification for censoring such important information?

These students, like countless others at this school, faced the school’s adverse WiFi restrictions. More so than in previous years, certain keywords and websites are barred on school computers and the school network. Topics ranging from video games to crime have been blocked. Such invasive behavior hinders students’ ability to productively utilize valuable time given at school to complete assignments.

Although I completely understand some restrictions that aim to prevent certain inappropriate activities at school, the current policies are overbearing, and they seem to have grown more restrictive compared to previous years.

I am not the only individual with concerns about school web filters. In fact, the American Association of School Librarians (AASC) even described filtering websites as a “disservice” to the next generation of digital citizens. They reasoned, “Students must develop skills to evaluate information from all types of sources in multiple formats, including the Internet. Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information.”

This is an issue that concerns the entire population of this school and impairs countless students every day. In an age where many adults don’t even know how to tell the difference between authentic information and fake news, we need the opportunity to practice the very skills the AASC advises in order to be good digital citizens down the road. Therefore, I urge administrators to consider easing their online overreach and the extreme control they wield over students’ digital lives.

Click here to read more works by Dariush Khurram.

Apple Music has many unique features that overrule Spotify’s

0
0

While Spotify and Apple music have many similar and super convenient features, Apple music still stands above. Apple music has about 72 million subscribers and I am glad to be one of them. With over 75 million songs and several unique features such as its 24/7 radio station, it clearly reigns supreme. The service is extremely easy to use and it is already built in or available on most Apple products such as Macbooks, iPhones, Apple Watches, Apple TVs and more. This makes it both convenient and reliable. 

Apple Music also has Advanced Audio Codec (AAC), which makes the sound quality sound like the original song at the studio. Apple Music is also easy to share with friends and family as there is a friend request option and you can share songs via iMessage. You also do not need to have an Apple product in order to use Apple Music. It is offered on other devices such as Android, Amazon Echo and even some gaming consoles. 

To get an Apple Music subscription, users pay $9.99 a month; however, it is worth it because there are no ads, and if you switch to a family plan the cost is $14.99 compared to Spotify’s $15.99 price. If you are still skeptical about Apple Music, you can try the first three months free. The simplicity of Apple Music’s set up and song search is what makes it a great product. It is customer friendly and even creates playlists based on songs you frequently listen to. 

While Spotify has many of these same features, it is not as easy to access and requires users to download the app instead of having it already installed on their Apple device. Spotify does allow more social options; however, some could argue it shares too much. Spotify allows friends to view exactly what you are listening to, which, to some, is an invasion of privacy. Apple Music still has social features, but they are not as extreme as Spotify’s. Apple’s sound quality allows for it to stand out even though it does not have the same social features Spotify does.

Despite the name, Apple Music does not just offer music; it has podcasts and radio shows, too. The variety Apple Music has to offer makes it even more user friendly as it reaches across all different types of audiences. Apple Music is another one of Apple’s well rounded products and the convenience of it makes it stand out from the rest.

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Maggie Meyer at mmeyer@hilite.org

To see more of Maggie’s works, click here.

 

Spotify’s extensive podcast selection, availability, budget and shareability give it an edge up on Apple Music

0
0

All around the world, music streaming services have become increasingly popular. With this growing popularity, a division between frequent music listeners arose. When considering all aspects of what makes a streaming service reliable, it is apparent that Spotify is the frontrunner when compared to Apple music.

When it comes to budget, while the Apple Music family program costs $1 per month less then Spotify, this does not paint the whole picture. Spotify is the only service that offers a completely free, ad-supported option, making it much more budget-friendly and accessible.

Spotify is also the better option when it comes to multimedia. It is the only streaming service that also offers podcasts, and the selection is extensive. It also makes it easy to discover new music with artificial intelligence. Spotify has countless playlists and mixes that give listeners easy access to new songs. “Discover Weekly” and “Release Radar” are popular playlists that do this and are specific to each listener, “Daily Drive” also offers a combination of listeners’ top songs and news podcasts.

Looking at the availability of both streaming services, Spotify also has the edge on Apple Music. Spotify’s streaming on every Xbox console since Xbox ONE, as well as both PS4 and PS5. Spotify also has The Car Thing, which is a small device that can be installed in any car for streaming, comparable to Apple Carplay. However, Apple Carplay is only available on certain newer model vehicles, and The Car Thing can be installed in any model. Additionally, Spotify can be streamed with Apple Carplay too.

Finally, while both streaming services have good sound quality and good app design, Spotify makes it easier to share music with friends through social media integration. It allows listeners to not only post songs, playlists and even album art to social media, but also provides QR-like Spotify codes with direct links to Spotify features. While Apple Music allows for sharing with other registered users, its social media integration is not as advanced or accessible to listeners.

Overall, the differences between Apple Music and Spotify may seem minor on the surface, but there are still key elements that make Spotify more reliable and user-friendly. Spotify’s incorporation of podcasts into the app gives listeners much more access to news and entertainment while listening to music all at once. It also offers a free version that isn’t comparable to Apple Music, along with a wider availability on more devices. Spotify also makes sharing music and playlists much easier and more personalized. At the end of the day, both streaming services have their pros and cons, but Spotify has an edge on almost all aspects.

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Addison Joyce at ajoyce@hilite.org

To see more of Addison’s work, click here.


Giving smaller, sentimental gifts should be normalized, more valuable than large, expensive gifts

0
0

As the holiday season is upon us, it’s easy to get bogged down in finding the perfect gift for our loved ones. Sometimes, I’ll spend as much as three hours endlessly clicking links to find a gift that will make them happy. This search often results in the complete loss of the money I earned from my last paycheck, a common phenomenon for most gift shoppers. In fact, shopping trends during the holiday season are extremely costly; according to the National Retail Federation, households spend approximately an average of $1,000 on holiday gifts alone. 

But is it worth it to spend so much on gifts that are likely to be used once? The answer is no. It’s time we save ourselves from the shopping spree and get rid of our money-driven, gift-giving culture to embrace another type of gift: homemade, sentimental ones.

In order to understand why we should reject our current gift-giving culture, it’s important to acknowledge its purpose. The point of giving gifts is to communicate our appreciation for one another. Judging the value of a gift by its monetary value completely diminishes that. However, when you make or pick a gift because of some underlying reason other than its price tag, you communicate your effort and sentiment to the receiver. More often than not, I’ve cherished the smaller, sentimental types of gifts much more than the expensive, showy ones; I feel significantly more loved and appreciated when I know the gift was given with my best interests in mind. There’s a reason why reading birthday cards are by far my favorite part of the gift: I get to see their true personality that I adore shine through.

But beyond that, our emphasis on the price of gifts unfairly favors those who are more financially able to purchase such gifts. We’ve completely undermined the value of homemade gifts by stereotyping it to be shoddy, last-minute gifts made by those who don’t care. As a result, we’ve created a stigma around giving such gifts, in turn stigmatizing those who are unable to afford splurging on so many gifts over the holiday season. Gift-giving is a love language, it should be accessible to everyone.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to act like all expensive gifts are bad—if someone gifted me tickets to the Bahamas I would happily take them. However, it’s important to make the distinction that a gift’s monetary value is not directly correlated to how good of a gift it is. We need to overcome the expectation of both receiving and giving such expensive gifts and instead appreciate the little things. After all, a little can go a long way.

See more of Leah Tan’s work by clicking here.

People should not be ashamed of what they like, should not give into “guilty pleasure” culture

0
0

For a long time, I’ve enjoyed making videos on the social media platform TikTok, where users can post 60-second videos. However, I have rarely posted the in fear of someone I know in real life seeing one and judging me. Additionally, whenever one of my family members has walked in on me filming one, they normally roll their eyes. At first, I would justify filming a video to have something to look back on later or because it was the “guilty pleasure” I allowed myself to have. However, now, I realize that I don’t have to justify what I enjoy doing in my free time to anyone, for any reason. 

In the past, whenever I liked something other people thought was embarrassing to enjoy, I felt guilty and internally shamed myself. In order to avoid feeling this way, I decided to stop for a while. I tried to pick up the piano instead. However, doing this activity that society thought was “better” didn’t make me feel any “better”. So I decided to stop and just do what made me happy to begin with, which was making TikToks. When I really thought about it, the only thing that made me stop in the first place was worry that other people would look down on me for filming them, and that really should not be reason enough to do so. 

So, while making TikTok videos may not be “productive” or be what society deems an acceptable activity to do in one’s free time, I think it’s fun. At the end of the day, we should not have to justify what we do just to be accepted by other people. Life becomes a lot more enjoyable when you simply allow yourself to like what you like instead of shaming yourself and feeling guilty when you indulge in something you enjoy. I hesitated for so long to start posting or even download TikTok because I didn’t want to be judged for it but now I realize that all I did was just miss out on it for longer. 

A lot of people look down on certain activities or pastimes because they do not hold a ton of value. However, I disagree because the value comes from the happiness that these activities can bring. As a teenager, I already have very limited free time and don’t really want to spend it doing something I don’t like just because it “holds value” and what I enjoy does not. 

And the same goes for liking items that are seen as “basic” or stereotypical. If you love Starbucks, you love Starbucks. If you like your hydroflask, you like your hydroflask. Don’t let someone calling you a “VSCO girl” stop you from enjoying your Carmel Frappuccino or Eno hammock. After all, sometimes things are considered “basic” because they’re great. Our lives are already so dictated by everyone else so we shouldn’t also have our free time be controlled by anyone else. At the end of the day, you like what you like. It’s that simple. Either way, you can catch me making TikTok videos and watching “The Bachelor” every Monday.

To see more work by Cady, click here.





Latest Images