#internet culture

“[Random AI] defines ...” has already started to replace “Webster’s defines ...” as the worst lede for stories and presentations.

I let the AI interview in the playbill slide because the play was about AI, but otherwise, no bueno.

Retweets = Endorsements: Curation in the attention economy

The story is whatever the story is. By printing a story in the newspaper, airing it on your broadcast network or pushing it to your audience via Facebook, your website, YouTube, etc., the publisher/creator is saying “This is a thing that is worthy of attention.” Especially if you’re not going to put any effort into context (which is what a retweet is), you’re explicitly stating to your audience that this is a thing they should know about. In an “attention economy,” with a surfeit of content and not enough eyeballs, getting someone to look at you goes a big way toward your winning (whatever it is you’re trying to win).

But you should definitely point your eyeballs at THIS content, it's OK, trust me

Haha, remember when we assumed Trump wasn't a white supremacist? Simpler times.

The Internet is eating the world: Pokemon Go and digital’s disrespect for the physical world

The clichéd technical model of “move fast and break things” should have some limits, and situations where people are dying need more foresight than “we’ll figure it out as we go along.” Otherwise, how do we determine the appropriate death toll for a new tech service before it needs to ask permission rather than forgiveness? And before you dismiss that question as overbearing/hysterical, remember that actual human beings have already died.

Tech continues to eat the entire world. Maybe we should try not that?

One of my pet peeves is when people/corporations speak as there's a legal right to a use a given business model. "Well, if it were illegal to train AIs on copyrighted material, we wouldn't be able to afford to do it!" Yes ... and?

Separating creator and creation

Historical figures and events are never as black and white as they’re presented in history classes. Shades of gray exist everywhere, just as they do in your everyday life. We present them simplistically for a variety of reasons, but nobody’s perfect.

So what do we do with Wilson? It’s never wrong to have a debate, to illuminate the issues of the past and the present. As to whether the name gets removed ... meh? Honestly, if the students are the ones who have to use it and they care so much, why not change it?

How many shades of gray can there possibly be? 35? 40? 45?

And this was before JK Rowling went full TERF!

A Mini-Sociology of Rocket Cars

For the first few games I played, it was interesting watching the different skill levels (from brand new or just-out-of-single-player to pretty skilled players) interact with one another fairly frictionlessly. There'd be some frustrating boneheaded moves that might cost you a match, but it generally appeared to just be accepted as part of playing on a randomized team. When I played yesterday, though, things seemed to be getting ugly.

The first two matches went fine — a win, a loss. Then I got a string where I was teamed up with what one can uncharitably describe as spoiled babies.

Find out who can out-petulant who!

a) It was definitely petulant, and b) imagine thinking anyone wants to read about you playing videogames poorly??

It's all about the cover letter

I preserved a cover letter I wrote for a job right as Web 2.0 as launching into the stratosphere. While I do think this was the beginning of an era where people were able to present themselves more as whole persons than drones, I am also fully aware that only a fraction of the population has any idea what these websites even were, much less why the cover letter isn't just full cringe.

I can't believe I wrote the whole thing

Who am I kidding, the letter is definitely full-cringe.