In the long history of Apple MacBooks, there is finally a touchscreen. That fact may or may not sit well with the ghost of Steve Jobs, Apple's founder and late CEO who once said it’s “ergonomically terrible” to touch a laptop screen.
The redesigned 13-inch MacBook Pro is, of course, not a traditional touchscreen device. The big, brilliant 2,560 x 1,600 Retina display is not gesture or touch-ready. Instead, there’s a strip of touchscreen technology below it, on the keyboard.

The OLED-based Touch Bar replaces the traditional row of function keys, a fact that may disturb some users, but only if they're somehow trying to convince themselves that they still use function keys. To be fair, there are other important features in that row that now share real estate with a smorgasbord of ever-changing Touch Bar options.




You see, that's the core benefit of trading in a row of fixed function keys for touch: The screen can be anything and, in the case of the Touch Bar, it pretty much is.
The Touch Bar on the new 13-inch MacBook Pro is more than just a sexy — if relatively tiny — new touch screen. It’s an important strategic shift in the future of Apple’s pro-level laptop line.

Design language

As I noted in my review of the "regular" 13-inch MacBook Pro (with no Touch Bar), this is a smaller (11.97 x 8.36 inch), lighter (3 pounds) and thinner (0.59 inch) MacBook Pro, and part of that trimming process involved shedding almost all legacy ports (save the 3.5mm audio jack). The decision to include only four USB-C ports (the entry-level model has just two) caused so much angst and controversy that Apple finally decided to offer pro users a life-saver: steep discounts on USB-C accessories and cables.



Both  the entry-level MacBook Pro and the Touch Bar Model have two USB-C ports on one side.




 But the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar adds another two USB-C ports on the other side.

Removing all those ports was certainly a risky move for Apple, but, in truth, the most you could fault them for is maybe leaping a little too far into the future. Apple is not the only company adopting USB-C. It's a standard, after all, and just like USB spelled the end of the line for parallel and serial ports, USB-C will eventually be the port to rule all ports, and those peripherals you're clinging to will someday, in the not too distant future, be deemed too slow or feature-poor to keep you competitive.

Is “Dongle Hell” a real thing? In the short term, yes. In the long term, a single multipurpose port will always be the winner.
As for how the ports function right now, they do just fine. As promised, I can charge the MacBook through any of the four ports, and I do appreciate the convenience of not having to shift around the laptop to find the one port that can charge the computer. Will i miss the MagSafe plug that can easily slip the bonds of its magnetic tether without dragging the computer with it? Sure. Is it cause to rise up? No.
I've also seen reports that the Thunderbolt 3 speeds promised on all four ports actually varies on one side or the other of the MacBook Pro. I did an anecdotal test, transferring the same 1.3GB video file from an external USB-3 external hard drive (yes, I used a USB-to-USB-C dongle) to the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The transfer took almost exactly 30 seconds every time.
Apple did provide me with a Thunderbolt 3 cable and a USB-C-to-Thunderbolt adapter. So I found the nearest 21-inch Thunderbolt display and hooked it up. My desktop expanded to the large screen almost immediately. As I type this, an HD video is currently playing in the background through iMovie. No issues on the performance front, I’d say.



The 13-inch MacBook Pro can easily drive another screen.



Of course, you will need a dongle.

To understand more about the design, giant trackpad (46% larger than the trackpad on the last MacBook pro) and Butterfly (second generation) keyboard, read my entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro review. The excellent keyboard and trackpad work exactly the same on both aluminum-clad devices. There is also a relatively small performance bump on the this 13-inch model thanks to a dual-core 2.9GHz Intel Core i5 CPU, as opposed to the 2.0GHz Core i5 on the entry-level model. I could see the improvment in the Geekbench scores, but didn't notice it much in day-to-day use. Interestingly, the MacBook Pro’s GeekBench scores did beat a 2.81GHz Core i7’s single and multi-core scores. 3,658 (single) and 7,240 (multi) versus 3,795 and 7,693.
Both laptops, by the way, got hot in almost the exact same way: along the rear edge of the base, nearest the hinge. This surprised me a bit since Apple said they had fully redesigned the thermals in all their MacBook Pros. I just think there’s no getting around all the heat these components will produce in a now even tinier space.



The MacBook Pro 15-inch has a much bigger track pad.



Of course, it is a much bigger system.

I did get to spend a little time with the larger, heavier (four-pound) and more powerful MacBook Pro 15-inch. The laptop has a larger Retina display, which accommodates more pixels (2,880 x 1,800). While its keyboard and Touch Bar are the exact same size as the 13-inch model, the trackpad is insanely big (7.25 inches measured diagonally vs. 6.25 inches on its 13-inch little brother). The speakers are a lot larger, too.
The 15-inch MacBook pro includes a 2.6GHz, quad-core Core i7 CPU and discrete graphics, the AMD Radeon Pro 450. The 41,620 Geekbench Computer Benchmark number is eye-popping (the MacBook Pro 13 with Intel Iris Graphics 550 scores 30,628). While it's a number that will be music to the ears of most Mac-devoted video, design and audio professionals, Microsoft's new Surface Book with Performance Base featuring Nvidia's  GeForce GTX 965M scored 63,964 on the same test.

The marvelous Touch Bar

The biggest difference between the two 13-inch systems I reviewed and what I want to focus on the most here (admit it, it’s what you care most about, too) is the Touch Bar, an excellent piece of engineering and design that is both intuitive and useful, but not as essential as Apple would like you believe.
The Touch Bar is multi-touch display with 2,170 x 60 resolution that runs almost the full width of the keyboard. It’s bright enough for virtually any light situation. I could easily read it indoors and out in bright sunlight. Covered in glass, the Touch Bar is a pleasure to, well, touch, and thanks to the matte finish, my fingers glide over it. The best way to understand the difference is to run your finger across your standard smartphone screen. The glossy surface will always cause a bit of drag. There’s virtually zero drag on the Touch Bar.



On the far right of the bar is a shiny black physical button (it’s covered in sapphire glass). It doubles as power, which you'll use rarely (you can now tun on the system simply by opening it up) and a Touch ID, which you'll likely use often. For symmetry, there’s a black square on the far left, but it serves no purpose.
In repose, the Touch Bar features the buttons most generally useful to the system: “Esc” on the far left, as it should be. The center is dark and on the right side is brightness, volume, mute and a colorful Siri button, which, just like the now ever-present Siri button in macOS, launches the voice assistant to let you speak a command. The 13-inch MacBook’s three microphones were able to hear me even when I spoke just above a whisper.



Yes, Siri is a part of the new Touch Bar



I did not have to shout for Siri to hear me.

Using the buttons on the right gives you a clear sense of how the Touch Bar will work in general. Instead of tapping a physical brightness button repeatedly to raise or lower screen brightness, you tap the brightness button once, which then transforms the whole bar: Everything disappears and in its place is a slider. As you slide the control on the Touch Bar, the screen brightness smoothly adjusts. Volume control works the same way. Owing to its flexibility, there's another Touch Bar option that does let you tap over and over again to make the screen brighter and system volume louder.
One of the nicest surprises of Touch Bar, even at this early stage, is how many core Apple apps work with it, and not in small useless ways, but in smart, essential ways, often surfacing the subset of features you use most often.
Of the 18 items on my dock, the Touch Bar works with 15 of them. Finder, for instance, lets you quickly view, share, tag a file or delete a file; each action represented with an icon, most match the options you see on screen (although the Touch Bar’s quick view “eye” is notably absent from the screen).



Email makes the most of the new Touch Bar with functions like reply and send, as well as word suggestions and access to emojis.



In Safari, open tabs appear as tiny thumbnails on the Touch Bar. You can also use the area to add another tab.

To manage the relatively limited amount of Touch Bar real estate, Apple chose to nest some features, So the file sorting options are hidden under a grid icon. Select that and you can access all the file organization options available on the big screen.
There are sexier app interactions than those you’ll encounter in, say, Contacts and System Preferences.
Final Cut, for instance, lets you scrub through a movie on the bar: the filmstrip appears on the tiny screen and you use your finger to quickly move back and forth through the footage. I had already tried out the filmstrip on one of Apple’s demo systems at the launch event, so I decided to instead download iMovie to see if it replicated some of that functionality. While it does not offer a similar scrubbing feature, I can splice my film by selecting — seriously — a razor blade icon on the Touch Bar.
Apple’s Photos app may do the best job of illustrating the fun, power and mutability of the Touch Bar.



Photos serves up a tiny thumbnail strip on the Touch Bar that you can scroll through with a swipe.



Want to to edit your photos through the Touch Bar? Not a problem.

When I first opened Photos, the Touch Bar didn't change at all. However, when I expanded the app to full-screen, the Touch Bar transformed. There are buttons for favorite, rotate or edit. The latter is actually an entry-point to a set of much deeper photo controls. Next to those controls is the colorful thumbnail slide. Your images are there on the Touch Bar, but are too small to see clearly. Even so, I found that using the thumbnails slider bar was a great way to quickly scan through and find photos. I just watched the large screen while sliding my finger on the bar below.

The Edit tools are a good example of how the Touch Bar may nest controls two or more levels deep. After selecting the Edit tool under Photos, you still have to choose which tool to use. Once you get to a tool like Light, you're presented with a slider. I found myself watching the big screen as my finger slid back and forth across the Touch Bar slider. There were some inconsistencies. I could not, for instance, find a "Reset" in the photo editing tools, though a few did offer an "Undo" option.
Some of the apps let you customize the Touch Bar by opening an options menu on the big screen and then dragging and dropping function icons from the desktop to the Touch Bar. Yes, it looks as cool as it sounds. Photos, unfortunately, is one of the relative few apps that does not let you edit the Touch Bar.



Maps is one of Touch Bar's more impressive integrations.



Touching the Touch Bar while watching the screen is not as odd as it seems.

I’m still not certain if, by surfacing some features, the Touch Bar is saving me time or, by forcing me to go a level or more deep, is actually costing me time.
Time gained or lost aside, this raises an important reality of the Touch Bar. There is, depending on application and circumstance, sometimes important or useful information on the Touch Bar (for example, the right word suggestion in a writing app, or a suggested contact for an email). The problem is that, quite often, I’m looking past the Touch Bar and at the screen. I can, in other words, ignore the Touch Bar without meaning to.
I've actually been writing this review in Pages on the 13-inch MacBook Pro, but I only occasionally glance at the Touch Bar (where’s it’s suggesting I write “time” and “table” instead of “touch”) and almost never tap for the word suggestions. I did do it a bit more often in Mail, perhaps because “Reply” and “Send” are right there on the Touch Bar (as icons, not words).



One app where the Touch Bar really shines is in Messages. It’s the place where you access the widest array of full-color emoji. They look amazing and are entertaining to scroll through. The list starts with Frequently Used, but to the left of that is the category selector where you can find Food, Sports, Animals and more. It’s probably the easiest way I've ever scanned to find the perfect emoji for my current emotional state.
Apple built the Touch Bar as an open platform, one that any third party can program to (but not for web apps since there’s no HTML or Web API). There’s also no guarantee that companies like Google will ever write to it. In my tests, Chrome, obviously, has no interaction with the Touch Bar. I somehow doubt that Chrome will ever work with it, but its also clear that many other third-party developers will be happy to tap into the visual touch panel with the ability to accept up to 10 fingers of input at a time. Adobe has already committed to a Touch Bar-ready Photoshop by the end of this year and Touch Bar abilities are also coming to Microsoft Office, Pixelmator, 1Password and Live Home 3D.
If you don't like the Touch Bar (really? why?) you can always go into Settings and force it into the "Expanded Control Strip" mode, which puts an expanded version of your key controls across the entire width of the bar and doesn't let any of your apps alter it. It's basically like bringing back the fixed Function Keys, just touch-ier.

Touch ID

While Touch Bar is showy, useful and fun, I have to say I was especially pleased that biometric technology finally made its way to the MacBook Pro. The Touch ID button on the right side works exactly the same as it does on the iPhone and iPad. To register a finger, you follow the on-screen instructions. It took me about as long as it does on the iPhone, which is to say not long at all.
I registered two fingers and had no trouble unlocking the laptop with one of them each time. The Touch Bar helpfully reminds me where to place my finger to unlock the computer with the words “Unlock with Touch ID” and an arrow pointing right next to the Touch ID sensor. Touch ID can also be used with Apple Pay.

Other 13-inch MacBook Pro features worth noting are the speakers, which are loud and crystal clear, and the battery life, which consistently gets me through an entire day of computing. 10 hours is a fair estimate.



The speakers on the new MacBook Pro can best be described as powerful (for their size).



Nope, that logo does not light up. Apple says you waste less screen light this way.

Apple will never wins awards for affordability. This 256GB of storage, 8GB of RAM, Core i5 system starts at $1,799 — $300 more than the entry-level, traditional function-key sporting MacBook Pro. There are cheaper Windows 10 systems out there that offer better specs and full touchscreens. A 13-inch Core i7 HP Spectre x360, for instance, lists for $1,149.99 (the Mac offers slightly better graphics, an Intel HD Graphics 550 as opposed to the 520). If, however, you are a Mac fan, this is an excellent upgrade with a fascinating and highly extensible new Touch Bar.
By building a touchscreen into the keyboard of its pro-level laptop, Apple has successfully dragged laptop line into the touch age, without violating one of Apple Founder Steve Job's core principles. It’s really quite a trick.

Apple 13-in MacBook Pro

 

THE GENERAL IDEA

Here’s the thing about movie comedies in recent years.  They’re not funny.  Well, a precious few are certainly.  But the vast majority are pandering, forced, uncreative lowest common denominator exercises in witless tripe.  Makes you long for the days when comedies actually featured…well…comedy.  Take 1985’s “Lost in America” for example.  Please.  Unless you’ve had your funny bone surgically extracted, you will laugh.  Damn hard.  And a lot.

THE GOOD

“Lost in America” is laugh-out-loud funny virtually from start to finish.  Director, Co-Writer and Co-Star Albert Brooks embraces a sense of humor that is right straight up my alley.  He plays a poor guy whose life circumstances have completely overwhelmed him, typically not an especially humorous situation, to absolutely hysterical perfection.  
Brooks and Julie Hagerty play ’80’s L.A. DINK Yuppie Couple David and Linda Howard.  The prosperous professional pair have amassed enough liquidity to “drop out of life” and live each day as it comes as they drive across the USA in a fully loaded RV.  It’s David’s idea of paying all-chips-in homage to the rebel bikers featured in his favorite film, “Easy Rider”.  
Things start off fine for the Howards on a celebratory detour to Vegas to renew their wedding vows.  But then a catastrophic event propels them on a series of misadventures throughout the American southwest, all of which render me debilitated with helpless laughter even now after repeated viewings.
As there are simply too many riotously silly scenes to recount, I’ll go with the one featuring former ad-man David desperately pitching a “fresh” promotional campaign to a Casino Manager (exquisitely played by Garry Marshall) as he pleads with him to refund the money his wife had lost in a euphoric gambling haze.  “The Nest Egg”, as David has come to refer to it, must be returned.  Needless to say, the guy is not real hip to the notion, particularly after David is less than flattering about one of his favorite entertainers, the inimitable Wayne Newton.  Turns out that, much to David’s dispiriting chagrin, not all that pumps up “Sin City” is golden.  Especially when the premise suggests that, hey, relax, nobody loses in Vegas.  You can always recoup the cash from which we separated you.  Just ask!   

THE BAD

It may be posited that “Lost in America” is a tad too long for this hour and 31 minute story.  Admittedly there is a stretch at the back end of the movie where we get to spend perhaps a little too much time in the charming hamlet of Sedona, Arizona.
And it could conceivably be that Brooks frenetic sensibility may wear out it’s welcome for some.  However, being as I am practically powerless to resist the frazzled fellow who is teetering on the precipice of losing it entirely at any given moment, I am not among such company.
But I quibble.  I heartily maintain that if you find this to be the case, one question if you will.  What the hell’s the matter with you??!!  Are ya flippin’ “lost” for crissakes??!! ;)

OVERALL

Granted, “Lost in America” may not be your cup of tea to the decided degree that it is mine.  But with such divergent classic lines ranging from “Oh, call security.” (David’s mocking echo of his boss’s threat mere moments after pointedly proclaiming to him, “Well, ahem, you!”) to “Brillo Pad Fathead!” (one amidst a hilarious hail of insults grade school kids hurl at David during a hapless stab at being a school crossing guard) you are bound to hit upon more than just a handful of moments to stimulate your own funny bone.
9.10

Synopsis: A young woman forms a bond with a paralyzed man that she takes care of.

“Me Before You” is the best romantic movie I’ve ever seen. I can’t think of more impactful and powerful romantic drama than this. It’s simply all you could want, not just in a romantic movie, but any movie in general. I’m IN LOVE with this film. I’m getting chills just thinking about it.
Based on the Jojo Moyes novel of the same name, the film depicts a unique relationship between a caregiver and her paralyzed patient. Emilia Clarke from “Game of Thrones” plays Louisa Clark (funny), a bubbly out-of-work girl who comes across a job to take care of paralyzed patient confined to a wheelchair. What she doesn’t realize is that the patient she will be taking care of is a handsome and wildly successful young man. What starts out as a rocky relationships blossoms into something special.
THE GOOD:
Yeah, I get it. Such a cliche plot, a girl meets a guy, they bicker at first and then they fall in love, right? Not really. The film actually goes against most romantic stereotypes and doesn’t fall into the obvious realms of meet, overcoming obstacles, and get a happy ending. Of course there will be elements that follow a romantic formula, it’s how these films are made. This isn’t as somber of a movie that it might seem to be, it’s actually quite funny and very charming.

The polar opposite personalities between Clark and Will Traynor (Sam Claflin) is what draws you in at first. She’s such a happy-go-lucky girl that you can’t help but root for her. She’s a girl with a positive and upbeat persona, that seems to have an angelic-like heart. Additionally, she has some snark and sarcasm in her that meshes well with her determined stubborn side. She looks like the pretty girl next door, but when she wears that red dress she turns into a complete knockout. Her bright and happy smile lights up the scenes she’s in. Clarke does great work with the character. She nails the essence of who Lou is. I can’t imagine anyone else playing the part of Louisa. A woman any man would love to have in their life.
Claflin is equally impressive as Traynor. At first he projects this aura of arrogance and smug wit. He’s fairly unlikeable, especially when you see all that Lou has to go through to be acknowledged by him. In a way it’s understandable, he’s in a wheelchair, can’t imagine what life is like, especially for someone that young. The thing about Will is that you see layers of his personality be peeled away as the movie progresses. There is a man that’s shielding away all the hurt and regret that he’s been living with since the accident, but this woman is showing him a side of her that gives him hope.

On a small scale that concept can be applied to dating. It’s difficult to date, even harder to find the right person. Lou is dating a guy named Patrick (Matthew Lewis) who is sort of a egocentric self-absorbed douche that constantly takes her for granted. The more time she spends with Will, the more she sees how her boyfriend is neglecting her. I can relate to Claflin’s character in the sense of our desires of finding and hoping to find someone that will unlock your heart and make you forget about all the previous disappointments. That special person that’s worth it all, that will be by your side no matter what, and cheer up when you’re down. That’s what we all hope to find at some point in our lives with a significant other. The story between these characters projects that exact feeling and message.
The on-screen chemistry between Claflin and Clarke is uncanny. The subtle glances, the smiles, the overall feeling they project when paired together is mesmerizing. It’s not because of the sexual chemistry between them, it’s more about the human bond they share. Treynor refers to Lou as “Clark” and while it may sound dismissive, but it turns into something really sweet and endearing. That’s exactly what makes this movie so spectacular.

In most romantic movies when the characters start falling for each other there is this insatiable physical passion consisting of a lot of kissing and eventually sex. What separates this film from all the others is that it doesn’t use physical intimacy as a crutch. They have two kissing scenes and don’t have sex, at least it’s not shown. Not that he can’t because he’s disabled. She actually stays faithful to her douchy boyfriend Patrick. Instead of going the easy physical and sexual route, the film focuses on the personal and emotional connection between Lou and Will. I appreciated that, it’s rare you see that in films these days. That tend to need to cram as much sex to a movie as possible.
The film looks so simple, yet spectacular. The scenic shots of the Pembroke Castle, and the picturesque Wales countryside makes it an immediate bucket list destination upon seeing the film. The dialogue is so well-written, probably due to the fact that Moyes not only wrote the novel, but the screenplay for the film also. Movies get a bad rep for not being honest to the book versions they are inspired by, but to have the actual writer of the novel write the screenplay was a fantastic choice. The collaboration with first time director Thea Sharrock lends the film a female perspective that’s both engaging and personal. The dialogue is clever and smart. The lines seem authentic and fitting to what the characters would say. The humor is one of the underrated parts of the film that might get overlooked in all the heavy emotional context. It’s as uplifting and hopeful of a movie as it is sad.
The soundtrack for the movie blends in with the storyline as well as a soundtrack could. X Ambassadors “Unsteady” is the theme song for the film. They couldn’t have picked a better choice for a song.



Other songs that appear in the film include: Ed Sheeran’s “Photograph”, Imagine Dragons “Not Today” and Jesse Ware’s “Till the End”. All fantastic musical choices to represent the film. I will in love with the soundtrack as well as the movie.
THE BAD:
Honestly, nothing. I can’t find anything negative about this film to write about. It’s as close to perfect of a film as you get.
OVERALL:
This is a guaranteed tearjerker, and in the best way possible. The story is so powerful, honest and emotional that makes it impossible not to cry, unless you aren’t human. It’s a beautiful film. Creating real tears and feelings is all you can ask and hope a movie can make you feel. Falling in love with the characters and immersing myself to the story wasn’t hard. I was draining tears for two hours and I loved every minute of the emotions this film made me feel. Not having read the book, I was fairly surprised with the non-cliche ending. I was taken back by it, but pleased with the honest nature of the film staying true to itself.

Undoubtedly this is my favorite film of the year and the best romantic film I’ve ever seen. “The Notebook” seems to be the romantic movie standard to many people, but this is just a much better and authentic story. Love has no boundaries or restrictions. The central message of the movie hits home. It’s about appreciating moments in life, big or small. Living your life to the fullest. The acts of kindness and selflessness are breathtaking. “Me Before You” is the most impactful and emotionally stimulating movie in years, also the best one in years. I’ll most definitely be seeing it again, but don’t have me to be the one, before you.

Thinking and problem solving.

Personal and professional growth.

Performance recognition.

 

"Maybe if you rotate it 180-degrees..." my girlfriend suggested in a helpful tone, as I punched the large, wheeled suitcase into the trunk of the 2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata.
Returning from a quick weekend trip to Portland, we landed at LAX to find the small, off-white sports car awaiting us. Unaware for the nanoscale size of the Miata, she packed a bag nearly the size the the all-new Japanese roadster's trunk

Eventually, thanks to her ingenious rotation suggestion, much swearing and a bit of elbow grease, we got her bag — and only her bag — in the trunk (my bag rode shotgun with her) and we headed home.
I'd like to report that this battle for space was not indicative of my time with the MX-5. Sadly, it was. At over six-foot-four-inches tall, I was never quite comfortable in the minuscule Mazda. But I won't let that cloud my judgement too much.

Mulholland drive

To juxtapose my discomfort and displeasure with the 2016 Miata, let's revisit the evening I took the car out to Mulholland in the Santa Monica mountains.
Rallying up the hills through dark and deserted switchbacks, the car showed its true colors. Though the engine — which the MX-5 shares with the all-new CX-3 — is an absolute lifeless dog when you’re not pushing it, it comes to life when you pass 3,000 rpm.
Keeping the revs high with the six-speed manual transmission in my righthand palm, I whipped the little convertible back and forth through the slaloming turns with the small steering wheel in my left.

I can tell you, this resulted in much joyous giggling.

I can tell you, this resulted in much joyous giggling. Unsurprisingly, the car felt light in the corners, as it only weighs 2,332 pounds. What did surprise me, however, was its ability to remain planted and on course — even when forced to make evasive maneuvers. You see, it's a lot harder to drive sportily in pitch darkness than in the light (go figure). So there were a couple moments when I had to mash the brake pedal and crank the wheel in order to remain on the road and right side up.
In these instances, where a heavier car might understeer (go straight instead of turn), the Miata reacted eagerly and made quick work of sudden steering inputs. To that end, the Brembo brakes were equally impressive. They absorbed many a hasty stomping without fading or fatigue.



With the wind whipping in my hair, the powerful Bose sound system thumping out a tune from "The Killers," and my right foot pressing the throttle into the carpet, I was a very happy man.
Like the suitcase-punching at LAX, this spirited night drive was not representative of my overall experience with the Miata. After all, I had to live with it for a week.

Live with it

When not forcing large luggage into the trunk or thrashing the car on a mountain highway, the Miata was ... fine.
That's not to say it's not without its fair share of creature comforts. For example, the soft-top was easy to open and close. The suspension was soft over bumps but very flat during cornering — something the Miata has always excelled at. And the infotainment system was easy to use. Heck, callers could even hear me clearly over Bluetooth — even with the top down driving at speed.
Those things said, however, behind the wheel of the 2016 Miata, I couldn't help but feel like

I had sacrificed too much to the driving gods.

I had sacrificed too much to the driving gods. The thing looks like a half-size Japanese Jaguar F-TYPE and drives like one, too. I wonder, though, if not having a trunk or much space inside is really worth the trade-off for inexpensive open-top motoring. And I can't believe I'm going to say this: But I don't think it is.
Let's think about it this way: The 2016 MX-5 Miata I drove was the Club model. Although the base unit starts at $24,915, my press demonstrator clocked in at $32,820, as it added an aerodynamics kit, 17-inch wheels, and the aforementioned Brembo brakes.


Granted, this is still very inexpensive for a rip-roaring sports car. Ignore a few of those descriptors, though, and the cost becomes questionable.
For the same money (or less), you can get a well-equipped Subaru WRX that has more horsepower, two more doors, seating for five, all-wheel drive, and a far, far larger trunk. And I dare say it handles as well — if not better — than the Miata.
Sure, the WRX might not be convertible, but all its windows come down, so you're not losing too much of the wind-in-the-hair allure.

Connected car

Despite it being less practical than a Subaru, there is one realm where I see the Miata standing out: As a connected car.
Now, I don't mean "connected" in the technological sense — quite the opposite, actually. As the digitalization of cars ramps up, the connection between driver and the road is eroded. For most, this isn't a bad thing because stripped-down driving is a pain (even for me, mostly).
Where a novice driver might be able to operate the 2016 Audi TTS very quickly on a track or country backroad, their handling prowess can be fully attributed not to their own hand-to-eye coordination but rather to the onboard computer systems (and German magic).
The same cannot be said of the Miata.

From behind the wheel, you're hardwired to the road

From behind the wheel, you're hardwired to the road. There are no supercomputers doing the driving for you. In order to get the best from it, you'll have to personally wring out every bit of performance. Essentially, you'll have to suffer for your artful driving. Arguably, fewer and fewer people desire this experience from their $30,000 car, as evidenced by the Miata being the only car in its class. I wonder, though, if the market for a stripped-down little two-seater will grow ever so slowly over the next decade, as autonomy takes over.
As new cars — and their drivers — become more and more removed from the driving process, the new Miata is a refreshing if flawed return to being one with the road.

2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata

The Good

Cushy but flat-handling suspension • Micro-Jaguar body lines • Virtually understeer-free

The Bad

Tiny, tiny, tiny

The Bottom Line

Mazda’s new Miata might not offer much occupants space, but it connects them to the road better than anything else for the money.

Design: More of the same

Tracking: better but not best

For the most part, steps taken, calories burned and other daily activities are logged just as they were with previous models. At the same time, I encountered some red flags with the accuracy of the data: I reached my 10,000 step daily goal on a day I barely did much at all. In fact, I was alerted to the feat while sitting down (not moving, like you’d expect), and a few minutes later my count had increased to 10,100 steps (I was still sitting down).

Before YouTube provided endless mixtapes of teenage basketball stars, before LeBron James changed amateur basketball forever to fuel a 24/7 appetite for online updates on hot prospects, Lenny Cooke was basketball's next big thing.
Cooke, a 6-foot-6-inch swingman out of Brooklyn, was the nation's top player, seemingly on the fast track to NBA fame and riches. But he never made it.


That disconnect is the subject of Lenny Cooke, a powerful documentary exploring the dark reality of prodigious promise gone unfulfilled.

Seeing a bloated Cooke rationalize his basketball demise is sobering

Seeing a bloated Cooke rationalize his basketball demise is sobering indeed after watching him confidently interact with future NBA stars including James and Carmelo Anthony as a teen. The film is aided tremendously by the fact that directors Ben and Joshua Safdie are able to use prime footage of Cooke as a high schooler that was shot by Adam Shopkorn in the early 2000s for a never-completed documentary about the young star. That old footage provides a fascinating, surreal and sometimes disturbing window into Cooke's life as a basketball prodigy. We see him treat future NBA stars as peers or younger brothers. (One of his old friends, Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls, produced Lenny Cooke.) We see the eye-popping skills that built his reputation. We see the tough neighborhood where he grew up and the white suburban mom with whom he lived in his late teens. But we also see him sullenly brush off coaches' advice and party like an adult while in Las Vegas for a tournament.
The trove of old content makes the film's final 25 minutes all the more powerful. Cooke throws himself a 30th birthday party, ending the night on the couch drunkenly scooping food into his mouth in front of the TV. He briefly reunites with Noah and other players on the Madison Square Garden floor after a recent New York Knicks game, an encounter that contrasts Cooke's current circumstance with what might have been. And an emotional argument with friends he rarely sees anymore is a painful reminder of how much has changed since they were all cocky teenagers.

The world of The Walking Dead is harsh and terrifying. It doesn't care who you are, and it doesn't hold back if you happen to be a terrified 11-year-old girl.

Clementine's World