The age of Stitchers
This is something that has been identified in the tech field (namely computing machinery hardware and software.) I'm curious if the phenomenon is present in other fields, and if it was researched (pointers to papers appreciated.) The state of the art and practice of the mainstream software and hardware engineering has substantially changed over the last decade or so, and exhibits dramatic stratification. In general, re-use, standardization and such can be very useful for everyone. But something else is going on in the guise of these: practitioners in the field hardly do any 'engineering' any more. Whether it's hardware or software, there are 11, 17 or 31 (I like primes :) popular components. The names of these are widely known among 'experts', they are listed in resumes, and 'engineering' consists of stitching some combination of these into the product. Like building with Lego. The practitioners are generally unable to replicate any of these bricks; it's too complicated, and it is done by someone else, in India or Russia, for Cisco, Broadcom, Intel, etc. Practitioners are then given these bricks to make their toys. They don't need to understand how to make them, nor all that they do. And their education and wages are cheaper. The interesting part here is that OEM's that make these bricks establish firm grip on the infrastructure from which 'engineers' can never escape. This is considered normal. Case in point: AMZN is lately providing *everything* - hardware, firmware, software, apps, backends - needed to make "Internet of Things" devices. The nominal manufacturer can decide on the name and the color. There are many other examples. The landscape is ruled and directed by decisions of very few. Such division of labor - fundamental stuff done by megacorps, and cosmetics left to the field - creates tectonic shift in the knowledge distribution. RMS wrote a lot about this, but at that time engineers could do pretty much everything, so the case for FSF was strong. Todays engineers learn mostly stitching in schools. Is there an equivalent phenomenon in non-engineering fields? I would naively say yes, as original writings, for example, on philosophy, politics and such, are extremely rare. Stitchers rule the field. The brick OEMs in these fields as well rule the scene. Chto delat? ps. embedded signal processing engineer wanted, alive # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
. I don't post in to every > thread because a lot of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, > but I appreciate reading: most of the contributions on this list are really > insightful. > > The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to > me, I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If > nettime does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) > > John > > On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: >> >> Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? >> >> It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed >> interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that >> aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that >> social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of >> platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, >> so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. >> That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may >> variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've >> become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less >> what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even >> meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or >> that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. >> >> Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the >> last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, >> the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, >> media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its >> terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. >> Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus >> model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have >> gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 >> years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that >> attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and >> not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried >> under torrents of authority and theory. >> >> So, what can we do? >> >> In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, >> inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had >> limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping >> along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an >> environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that >> shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be >> best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't >> meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the >> list's increasingly parochial status. >> >> Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. >> >> It goes like this: >> >> If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 >> or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take >> a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 >> subscribers. >> >> If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like >> your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit >> with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. >> >> Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else >> might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, >> perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade >> into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list >> composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for >> nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For >> now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good >> manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. >> >> >> -- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) >> >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #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 : no commercial use without permission > #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: net
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Each medium of communication has a different quality and bandwidth about it, and we can use a multitude of media -- nettime doesn't have to be /just/ a mailing list. Some of us might be better able to contribute via IRC or other more real-time media. John On 2019-06-08 15:06, John Preston wrote: > Just forwarding this up. > > - > FROM: Karim Brohi > SENT: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST > TO: John Preston > SUBJECT: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change > it. > > Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion > groups on the Interwebs now. > I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - > which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for > most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. > Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure > intellectual pursuit. > > But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are too > brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". Blog > posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a specific > individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same precedence as > the original post. The post 'belongs' to the originator, not to the > community. > > Maybe usenet/google groups comes close, but nobody uses them - perhaps > because there's no (effective) 'app for that', and there has to be an active > process of logging in. (Email alerts end up in... email). > > In brief - I think it's the medium not the message. The whole Internet needs > a new medium that encourages long-form discourse and thereby deep community. > That was email, but now it isn't email. I don't know what is now. > > Karim > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:34, John Preston wrote: > Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) > > I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, I've > grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more conservative > or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying to develop as > an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting critically on the > net and its constituent parts. I don't post in to every thread because a lot > of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, but I appreciate > reading: most of the contributions on this list are really insightful. > > The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to me, > I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If nettime > does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) > > John > > On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: > > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. > That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may > variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've > become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less > what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even > meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or > that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. > > Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the > last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, > the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, > media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its > terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. > Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus > model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have > gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 > years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that > attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and > not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried > under torrents of authority and theory. > > So, what can we do? > > In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, > inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had > limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping > along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an > environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that > shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be > best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't > meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the > list's increasingly parochial
The Maker Movement is abandoned by its corporate sponsors; throws in the towel
*Well, so much for the O’Reilly Web 2.0 version of popular mechanics. Fifteen years is not too bad a run by the standards of an increasingly jittery California Ideology. Now what? — Bruce S Maker Media goes broke https://hackaday.com/2019/06/07/maker-media-ceases-operations/ Over the years we’ve had the dubious honor of bidding farewell to numerous companies that held a special place in the hearts of hackers and makers. We’ve borne witness to the demise of Radio Shack, TechShop, and PrintrBot, and even shed a tear or two when Toys “R” Us shut their doors. But as much as it hurt to see those companies go, nothing quite compares to this. Today we’ve learned that Maker Media has ceased operations. Between the first issue of Make magazine in 2005 and the inaugural Maker Faire a year later, Maker Media deftly cultured the public face of the “maker movement” for over a decade. They didn’t create maker culture, but there’s no question that they put a spotlight on this part of the larger tech world. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the shuttering of Maker Media could have far reaching consequences that we won’t fully understand for years. While this news will surely come as a crushing blow to many in the community, Maker Media founder and CEO Dale Dougherty says they’re still trying to put the pieces together. “I started the magazine and I’m committed to keeping that going because it means something to a lot of people and means something to me.” At this point, Dale tells us that Maker Media is officially in a state of insolvency. This is an important distinction, and means that the company still has a chance to right the ship before being forced to declare outright bankruptcy. In layman’s terms, the fate of Make magazine and Maker Faire is currently uncertain… *** https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/07/make-magazine-maker-media-layoffs/ Financial troubles have forced Maker Media, the company behind crafting publication MAKE: magazine as well as the science and art festival Maker Faire, to lay off its entire staff of 22 and pause all operations. TechCrunch was tipped off to Maker Media’s unfortunate situation which was then confirmed by the company’s founder and CEO Dale Dougherty. For 15 years, MAKE: guided adults and children through step-by-step do-it-yourself crafting and science projects, and it was central to the maker movement. Since 2006, Maker Faire’s 200 owned and licensed events per year in over 40 countries let attendees wander amidst giant, inspiring art and engineering installations…. “Maker Media Inc ceased operations this week and let go of all of its employees — about 22 employees” Dougherty tells TechCrunch. “I started this 15 years ago and it’s always been a struggle as a business to make this work. Print publishing is not a great business for anybody, but it works…barely. Events are hard … there was a drop off in corporate sponsorship.” Microsoft and Autodesk failed to sponsor this year’s flagship Bay Area Maker Faire…. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Just forwarding this up. Original Message From: Karim Brohi Sent: 8 June 2019 14:35:45 BST To: John Preston Subject: Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Nettime is in bad shape - as are most (all?) of the email based discussion groups on the Interwebs now. I run another mailing list, started in 1995 in a medical specialty area- - which finds itself in the same state. Back then email was cool. Now, for most, email tends to be a flood of work stuff and a pseudo todo list. Drafting an email is now work, and not associated with pleasure or pure intellectual pursuit. But there's no other suitable medium either. Social media platforms are too brief to develop ideas. Too easy to fire back "your idea is stupid". Blog posts and newsletters are too one-sided. Developed/owned by a specific individual/group of individuals, Comments never have the same precedence as the original post. The post 'belongs' to the originator, not to the community. Maybe usenet/google groups comes close, but nobody uses them - perhaps because there's no (effective) 'app for that', and there has to be an active process of logging in. (Email alerts end up in... email). In brief - I think it's the medium not the message. The whole Internet needs a new medium that encourages long-form discourse and thereby deep community. That was email, but now it isn't email. I don't know what is now. Karim On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 21:34, John Preston wrote: > Just adding my two cents, as per the call. :) > > I only discovered nettime in the last few months. I'm a computer-child, > I've grown up on the net, and one of the people who now take a more > conservative or critical approach to tech. I came here because I am trying > to develop as an artist, working with the net as a medium and reflecting > critically on the net and its constituent parts. I don't post in to every > thread because a lot of the time I don't have anything worthwhile to add, > but I appreciate reading: most of the contributions on this list are really > insightful. > > The fact that people are posting meta threads like this is a good sign to > me, I appreciate a community that can take a critical view of itself. If > nettime does rap up, let me know where you all go, I'd like to talk more. :) > > John > > On 7 June 2019 18:38:46 BST, nettime mod squad wrote: >> >> Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? >> >> It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed >> interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that >> aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that >> social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of >> platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, >> so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. >> That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may >> variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've >> become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less >> what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even >> meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or >> that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. >> >> Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the >> last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, >> the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, >> media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its >> terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. >> Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus >> model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have >> gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 >> years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that >> attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and >> not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried >> under torrents of authority and theory. >> >> So, what can we do? >> >> In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, >> inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had >> limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping >> along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an >> environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that >> shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be >> best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't >> meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the >> list's increasingly parochial status. >> >> Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. >> >> It goes like this: >> >> If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 >> or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take >> a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 >> subscribers. >> >> If you haven't posted to the list
Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Ted and Felix, firstly let me say that it's nice to read your email concerning the list. I guess lots of us lurkers think we are not eloquent enough to get into discussions. Perhaps some of us are not used to virtual exchange, or just cant bother to take sides that are so uniform. It might happen that we are killing the list if we don't let hyper active ones to act. At the end, lurkers are here to learn from drama of leftright hyper zigzag. Personally, I like some posts that some others don't and would hate to miss them. My daily amount of Morlock and Morlock-haters is something I love to hate. I would miss it. If that is what nettime is, so what? This said, I fully expect that other lurkers write and hopefully there is new wind in nettime sails, so am fully supporting your initiative. Kruno On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 16:42 nettime mod squad wrote: > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. > That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may > variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've > become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less > what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even > meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or > that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. > > Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the > last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, > the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, > media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its > terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. > Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus > model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have > gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 > years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that > attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and > not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried > under torrents of authority and theory. > > So, what can we do? > > In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, > inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had > limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping > along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an > environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that > shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be > best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't > meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the > list's increasingly parochial status. > > Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. > > It goes like this: > > If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 > or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take > a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 > subscribers. > > If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like > your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit > with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. > > Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else > might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, > perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade > into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list > composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for > nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to find out. For > now, rather than the 1% debating how narrowly to define good > manners, let's see if a different 'we' can change things. > > > -- the mod squad (Ted and Felix) > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #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: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 16:42 nettime mod squad wrote: > Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? > > It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed > interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that > aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that > social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of > platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, > so to speak -- who generate the vast
