I did a lot of web consulting and project management for years, and that definitely became boring work. But I suppose when things become truly useful they also become boring - Bruce once gave a talk where he said that we'd know solar tech had arrived when it became really boring to consider.
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:30 PM carl guderian <ca...@vermilion-sands.com> wrote: > And speaking of flashbacks, doesn’t Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, a catalog of > online activities imagined long ago by others but now to be mediated by > not-Facebook, sound awfully like Bill Gates’ vision of the Internet as a > collection of 1970s- and 1980s-era electronic services channeled through > Microsoft, in “The Road Ahead”? > > But I can live with boring. I’ve had a 25-year run (probably wrapping up) > in “the cyber” working as the equivalant of an industrial plumber. The pay > was very good, the hours agreeable, and the hype minimal. In good times and > bad, toilets gotta flush. > > Carl > > > On 6 jan. 2022, at 18:46, Jon Lebkowsky <j...@weblogsky.com> wrote: > > What does it say about me that I find that boring? > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Bruce Sterling <bru...@well.com> wrote: > >> *It's a recent screed from the current editor of WIRED magazine. >> >> *If you're enough of a greybeard nettime OG to remember nettime's vague >> feud with WIRED and its techno-libertarian principles, this is likely to be >> one of the funniest things you've read in quite a while. >> >> *If you've never heard of the "California Ideology," that prescient work >> of distant 1995, well, I happened to archive it, because, as the guy who >> was on the cover of the first issue of WIRED, why wouldn't I. >> >> >> https://bruces.medium.com/the-californian-ideology-by-richard-barbrook-and-andy-cameron-1995-c50014fcdbce >> >> Bruce S >> >> >> **** >> >> In the next few decades, virtually every financial, social, and >> governmental institution in the world is going to be radically upended by >> one small but enormously powerful invention: the blockchain. >> >> Do you believe that? Or are you one of those people who think the >> blockchain and crypto boom is just a massive, decade-long fraud—the bastard >> child of the Dutch tulip bubble, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and the >> wackier reaches of the libertarian internet? More likely, you—like me—are >> at neither of these extremes. Rather, you’re longing for someone to just >> show you how to think about the issue intelligently and with nuance instead >> of always falling into the binary trap. >> >> Binaries have been on my mind a lot since I took over the editor’s chair >> at WIRED last March. That’s because we’re at what feels like an inflection >> point in the recent history of technology, when various binaries that have >> long been taken for granted are being called into question. >> >> When WIRED was founded in 1993, it was the bible of techno-utopianism. We >> chronicled and championed inventions that we thought would remake the >> world; all they needed was to be unleashed. Our covers featured the >> brilliant, renegade, visionary—and mostly wealthy, white, and male—geeks >> who were shaping the future, reshaping human nature, and making everyone’s >> life more efficient and fun. They were more daring, more creative, richer >> and cooler than you; in fact, they already lived in the future. By reading >> WIRED, we hinted, you could join them there! >> >> If that optimism was binary 0, since then the mood has switched to binary >> 1. Today, a great deal of media coverage focuses on the damage wrought by a >> tech industry run amok. It’s given us Tahrir Square, but also Xinjiang; the >> blogosphere, but also the manosphere; the boundless opportunities of the >> Long Tail, but also the unremitting precariousness of the gig economy; mRNA >> vaccines, but also Crispr babies. WIRED hasn’t shied away from covering >> these problems. But they’ve forced us—and me in particular, as an incoming >> editor—to ponder the question: What does it mean to be WIRED, a publication >> born to celebrate technology, in an age when tech is often demonized? >> >> To me, the answer begins with rejecting the binary. Both the optimist and >> pessimist views of tech miss the point. The lesson of the last 30-odd years >> is not that we were wrong to think tech could make the world a better >> place. Rather, it’s that we were wrong to think tech itself was the >> solution—and that we’d now be equally wrong to treat tech as the problem. >> It’s not only possible, but normal, for a technology to do both good and >> harm at the same time. A hype cycle that makes quick billionaires and >> leaves a trail of failed companies in its wake may also lay the groundwork >> for a lasting structural shift (exhibit A: the first dotcom bust). An >> online platform that creates community and has helped citizens oust >> dictators (Facebook) can also trap people in conformism and groupthink and >> become a tool for oppression. As F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, an >> intelligent person should be able to hold opposed ideas in their mind >> simultaneously and still function. >> >> Yet debates about tech, like those about politics or social issues, still >> seem to always collapse into either/or. Blockchain is either the most >> radical invention of the century or a worthless shell game. The metaverse >> is either the next incarnation of the internet or just an ingeniously vague >> label for a bunch of overhyped things that will mostly fail. Personalized >> medicine will revolutionize health care or just widen its inequalities. >> Facebook has either destroyed democracy or revolutionized society. Every >> issue is divisive and tribal. And it’s generally framed as a judgment on >> the tech itself—“this tech is bad” vs. “this tech is good”—instead of >> looking at the underlying economic, social, and personal forces that >> actually determine what that tech will do. >> >> There’s been even more of this kind of binary, tech-centered thinking as >> we claw our way out of the pandemic. Some optimists claim we’re on the cusp >> of a “Roaring 2020s” in which mRNA and Crispr will revolutionize disease >> treatment, AI and quantum computers will exponentially speed up materials >> science and drug discovery, and advances in battery chemistry will make >> electric vehicles and large-scale energy storage (and maybe even flying >> taxis) go mainstream. If you want to see a gloomy future, on the other >> hand, there’s no shortage of causes: Digital surveillance is out of >> control, the carbon footprint of cryptocurrency mining and large AI models >> is expanding, the US–China tech arms race is accelerating, the gig-work >> precariat is swelling, and the internet itself is balkanizing. >> >> This tug-of-war between optimism and pessimism is the reason why I said >> this feels like an inflection point in the history of tech. But even that >> term, “inflection point,” falls into the binary trap, because it presumes >> that things will get either worse or better from here. It is, yet again, a >> false dichotomy. This kind of thinking helps nobody make sense of the >> future that’s coming. To do that—and to then push that future in the right >> direction—we need to reject this 0-or-1 logic. >> >> Which brings me to the question of what WIRED is for. >> >> Fundamentally, WIRED has always been about a question: What would it take >> to build a better future?* We exist to inspire people who want to build >> that future. We do it not by going into Pollyannaish raptures about how >> great the future is going to be, nor dire jeremiads about how bad things >> could get, but by taking an evenhanded, clear-eyed look at what it would >> take to tackle the severe challenges the world faces. Our subject matter >> isn’t technology, per se: It’s those challenges—like climate change, health >> care, global security, the future of democracy, the future of the economy, >> and the dizzying speed of cultural change as our offline and online worlds >> mingle and remix. Technology plays a starring role in all of these issues, >> but what’s clearer today than ever is that it’s people who create change, >> both good and bad. You cannot explain the impacts of technology on the >> world without deeply understanding the motives, incentives, and limitations >> of the people who build and use it. And you cannot hope to change the world >> for the better unless you can learn from the achievements and the mistakes >> other people have made. >> >> So I think WIRED’s job is to tell stories about the world’s biggest >> problems, the role tech plays in them—whether for good or bad—and the >> people who are trying to solve them. These aren’t all feel-good stories by >> any means: there are villains as well as heroes, failures as well as >> successes. Our stance is neither optimism nor pessimism, but rather the >> belief that it's worth persisting even when things seem hopeless. (I call >> it “Greta Thunberg optimism.”) But whatever the story, you should find >> something to learn from it—and, ideally, the inspiration to make a positive >> difference yourself. >> >> Of course, that’s not all we exist to do. WIRED has also always been a >> home for ambitious, farsighted ideas—sometimes prescient, sometimes wild, >> sometimes both at the same time. (Fitzgerald again!) We shouldn’t get >> carried away by hype; too many of our covers in the past promised that this >> or that invention would “change everything.” But we shouldn’t shy away from >> pushing the envelope either, stretching people’s minds and showing them >> possible futures that they might not otherwise dare to imagine. We’ll be >> critical but not cynical; skeptical but not defeatist. We won’t tell you >> what to think about the future, but how to think about it. >> >> Finally, we exist to do the basic hard work of journalism—following the >> important news, explaining how to think about it, and holding power, >> particularly tech power, accountable. >> >> Over the next few months, you should see our coverage starting to >> coalesce more clearly around those core global challenges—climate, health, >> and so on. Because these issues are indeed global, you should also start to >> see a more international range of stories: One of the less obvious but very >> big changes is that we are merging the US and UK editions of WIRED, >> previously two entirely separate publications, into a single site at >> WIRED.com <http://wired.com>. (If you’re a regular visitor to the site, >> you may have noticed that we recently launched a new homepage, designed to >> make it easier for us to showcase the work we’re most proud of and for you >> to find stories that interest you.) We’ll still publish two separate print >> editions, though they’ll share many stories. Our US and UK newsrooms are >> already working as one, and you’ll see all their journalism here on this >> site. With more writers making up a single team, we’ll be able to go deeper >> into some of these key areas. >> >> Above all, we’ll continue to do what WIRED is best at—bringing you >> delightful, fascinating, weird, brilliantly told stories from all around >> the world of people taking on extraordinary problems. Our founder Louis >> Rossetto wrote that WIRED was where you would discover “the soul of our new >> society in wild metamorphosis.” The wild metamorphosis continues, and while >> its mechanisms may be technological, the soul behind them is deeply and >> unavoidably human. Where the human and the technological meet: That’s where >> WIRED lives, and it’s where we aim to take you, every day. >> >> Gideon Lichfield | Global Director, WIRED >> >> Note: I owe a big debt of gratitude to Tom Coates, who was pivotal in >> helping me think about the history of WIRED and see the opportunity for the >> role it can play today. >> >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > -- > Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl) > Cofounder and Cohost, Plutopia News Network <https://plutopia.io/> > Website <https://weblogsky.com/> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/jonl> | > LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlebkowsky> | Facebook > <http://www.facebook.com/jonlebkowsky> | Tumblr > <http://weblogsky.tumblr.com/> | Wikipedia > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lebkowsky> > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl) Cofounder and Cohost, Plutopia News Network <https://plutopia.io> Website <https://weblogsky.com> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/jonl> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlebkowsky> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/jonlebkowsky> | Tumblr <http://weblogsky.tumblr.com/> | Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lebkowsky>
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
