Did most other folks here know what "Muse" is? I confess, I clicked hoping it would be something to do with the band (er, rock band not headband) and then read bits of the article without really being pulled in, and closed the tab after a skim.
Everything I have just described (including the name and band/band confusion) seems like really slick mindfuck marketing:
1. Get an interview out there with cool pictures, colours and the like, the whole thing of which is pretty much an advertising piece for your rather-sneakily-named product.
2. Submit the link to HN in a way that is kinda misleading but makes the reader (this dope) think he is just a misinformed outlier among a tech-savvier community.
3. BAM. Deep placement of your brand from like 5 different angles in said dope's brain.
Glibness aside, I'd sincerely remark on how effective this was on me. I'm even commenting here and about to go back and actually digest the article to check I haven't just said anything inaccurate, and to reflect on probably reading to much into all this. Also, I can't get that top image out of my head. The band makes her look like a 70s flower child, but with 21st century teeth.
One thing did stand out and that was the repeated use of the lone word "Olympics" to describe the 2010 Winter Olympics. Is that normal? The word "winter" doesn't even feature in the article! It rather feels like when people do that trick of knowing one thing is more prestigious so using a catch all term ("I went to Oxford [Brookes]"). Or, more likely (?) "The Olympics" in Canada MEANS "The Winter Olympics". I could understand that.
