Re: rage against the machine

[Morlock Elloi]

This is the key. Designers do not understand impact of the complexity 
that emerges from combining relatively simple components. This is 
especially amplified in real-time processing of multiple inputs.


In a completely different field (packet switching from millions of end 
points) we had to design separate monitoring system because it was 
impossible to understand what our own system is doing in real time. The 
monitoring code was almost as complex as the switching code. We are 
talking less than 100K lines each.


Airline modules are in millions of code lines. My assessment is that 
human life should not depend on anything with more than 50K lines of 
code total, period. Anyone claiming that there are proper testing 
procedures for huge systems is either a liar on an idiot. Enterprise 
software contractors are often both. The general public has no slightest 
idea of the dismal state of the software development industry.




Sarter said, “We now have this systemic problem with complexity, and it
does not involve just one manufacturer.


#  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: rage against the machine

[Prem Chandavarkar]

> On 15-Mar-2019, at 2:28 AM, Brian Holmes  wrote:
> 
> There is much to critique in the operations of Boeing and of the FAA. But 
> it's not about AI taking full control. 

https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/13464-structural-design-and-thinking-in-approximations
 


This short essay by Robert Silman is about another field totally - structural 
engineering, but the point it makes about our relationship with computers and 
thinking in approximations is significant.  Humans can get a overall ‘feel’ for 
a system that is far more efficient than a computer in understanding the 
holistic character of the system - and to do this requires thinking in 
approximations.

The challenge with the computer is that:
Its capabilities are based in computing power rather than contextual 
understanding, and the learning and decision making in its intelligence comes 
from harnessing this computing power to discern sensible patterns within a host 
of randomly collected factors.  The system works well when it is inserted into 
a context that is within the predictable range of prior learning, but put the 
system into a complex non-linear context (like wind flow, climate, collective 
social choice) and every now and then it will hit a situation that lies outside 
this predictable range.  It then falls apart as its analysis is based on 
finding correlations rather than building empathy or understanding, and it has 
no way of assessing whether the error it finds is minor or major.
It is expected that the human will intervene in such situations.  But because 
these situations are so rare and random, the human gets habituated to the 
routine reality revealed by the computer.  And because the computer can reveal 
tremendous visual detail, the human thinks that he/she is getting a far better 
feel for reality.  The human stops thinking in approximations, loses the ‘feel’ 
for the overall system, and is therefore also ill equipped to deal with crises 
or errors thrown up by the machine.#  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:

Chelsea Manning re-imprisoned for refusing to testify against Assange

[WikiLeaks / Sunshine Press]

On Friday Chelsea Manning was re-imprisoned for refusing to testify against 
Julian Assange in a secret court hearing in order to coerce her into giving 
secret testimony. She will remain in jail until she testifies against Assange 
or until the grand jury against WikiLeaks is closed See: 
https://defend.wikileaks.org/2018/07/23/liveblog-julian-assange-in-jeopardy/ 

The Courage Foundation nominates Julian Assange for the 2019 Galizia Prize for 
Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information 
.

Julian Assange merits this award on the following grounds:

Based on need
Julian Assange is the only publisher and journalist in the EU formally found to 
be arbitrarily detained by the UN Human Rights System, which has repeatedly 
called for his release, most recently on 21 December 2018. He is in dire 
circumstances, faces imminent termination of his asylum, extradition and life 
in a US prison for publishing the truth about US wars, and has been gagged and 
isolated since March 28, 2018. He has been kept in the UK from his young family 
in France for eight years (where he lived before being arbitrarily detained in 
the UK), has not seen the sun for almost seven years, and has been found by the 
United Nations to be subjected to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.

If given to Julian Assange, this award will immediately act as a force to push 
against his gagging and isolation and help him to resist US determination to 
extradite him from the UK for publishing the truth.

As Daphne Caruana Galizia herself wrote:

“If America could burn Julian Assange at the stake, it would do so. That is the 
real sadness of what this situation has revealed: that when it comes down to 
shutting up those who inconvenience us, we’re all brothers and sisters under 
the skin. It is just a matter of degree. China jails Liu Xiaobo and the United 
States tries to do the same to Julian Assange.”

The political persecution of Julian Assange resulted in his formal recognition 
as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention in 2012, but he has been 
prevented from enjoying his asylum status because the UK has unlawfully kept 
him in a situation of arbitrary detention, according two formal findings by the 
United Nations.

Mounting US pressure and a new government in Ecuador mean that he is at 
imminent risk of losing his internationally protected status. The Trump 
administration has sharply intensified its efforts to silence WikiLeaks and 
Julian Assange.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have confirmed 
 that secret charges 
have been brought against Julian Assange over his publications on the US 
government. This week, Chelsea Manning announced she would refuse to cooperate 
with US authorities which have called her to testify before the WikiLeaks Grand 
Jury, and she is likely once again be imprisoned as a result. This development 
introduces a dangerous situation: it introduces the extraordinary precedent of 
a source being compelled to testify against a journalist for publishing true 
information about the government.

News broke in January that Ecuador colluded this year with the US government to 
have the US officials interrogate nearly a dozen Ecuadorian diplomats in London 
about Julian Assange. Meanwhile, all the diplomats at the Embassy have been 
replaced and his asylum has transformed into a highly surveilled form of 
imprisonment.

The New York Times has reported 

 that Ecuador’s new President proposed to the US immediately on taking office 
an exchange in which Ecuador would hand over Julian Assange to secure US debt 
relief. Ecuador secured $4.2 billion in US backed IMF debt relief on 21 
February. Medical practitioners who have seen Julian Assange during this time 
have denounced his deteriorating health situation and called for him to be able 
to access appropriate health facilities.

The increased intensity of the persecution against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange 
has prompted numerous members of the human rights community to denounce the 
actions being taken against him. Dinah PoKempner, Legal Counsel of Human Rights 
Watch, tweeted in April that

“Whether it agrees or not with what Julian Assange says, Ecuador’s denying him 
access to the Internet as well as to visitors is incompatible with its grant of 
asylum.  His refuge in the embassy looks more and more like solitary 
confinement.”

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire, who Ecuador prevented from visiting 
Assange, stated that

“I know of no other country where an asylee is held with no sunlight, no 
exercise, no visitors, no computer, no phone calls, yet all this is 

Re: rage against the machine

[Brian Holmes]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:43 AM Morlock Elloi 
wrote:

It looks like some cretin in Boeing that drank too much of AI Kool Aid
> (probably a middle manager) decided to install trained logic circuit
> that was supposed to make new aircraft behave (to pilots) like the older
> one. As its operation was far too complicated (ie. even Boeing didn't
> quite understand it) they decided not to inform pilots about it, as it
> could disturb the poor things with too much information.
>
> One part of the unknown operation appears to be the insistence of ML
> black box on crashing the airplane during ascent. As it had full control
> of the trim surfaces there was nothing pilots could do (I guess using
> fire axe to kill the circuit would work, if pilots knew where the damn
> thing was.)
>

I agree there is unwarranted trust in artificial intelligence. But is that
relevant here? Morlock's post neither identifies what systems are at stake,
nor correctly represents the usage situation. It's just inflammatory
rhetoric.

Any look at the press reveals that two complaints about the Max 8 aircraft
were logged anonymously on a NASA database. Pilots reported having to exit
from an automatic trim system in order to stop a nose dive after takeoff.
They did in fact complain that they had not been properly informed about
the operation of the trim system, which is not halted in the usual way (by
simply pulling on the control yoke). However, they were definitely able to
return to manual control, and they did not report using a fire axe to do
it. Instead there are dedicated cutoff switches.

The automatic function is called the Maneuvering Characteristics
Augmentation System (MCAS). Its sole purpose is to correct for an upward
pitching movement during takeoff, brought on by the decision to gain fuel
efficiency by using larger engines. At stake is a feedback loop triggered
by information from Angle of Attack sensors - nothing that could reasonably
be described as AI. The MCAS is a bad patch on a badly designed plane. In
addition to the failure to inform pilots about its operation, the sensors
themselves appear to have malfunctioned during the Lion Air crash in
Indonesia.

You can find real information on the situation here:
https://theaircurrent.com/tag/maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system

There is much to critique in the operations of Boeing and of the FAA. But
it's not about AI taking full control. Punditry based on mere imaginings is
just hot air.

Brian
#  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: rage against the machine

[Olia Lialina]

i was rereading today this 5 y. o. article about a decade old accident

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash/amp

 following are parts of  IV. Flying Robots and the article's final statement

It takes an airplane to bring out the worst in a pilot.
[... ] 
Wiener pointed out that the effect of automation is to reduce the cockpit 
workload when the workload is low and to increase it when the workload is high. 
Nadine Sarter, an industrial engineer at the University of Michigan, and one of 
the pre-eminent researchers in the field, made the same point to me in a 
different way: “Look, as automation level goes up, the help provided goes up, 
workload is lowered, and all the expected benefits are achieved. But then if 
the automation in some way fails, there is a significant price to pay. We need 
to think about whether there is a level where you get considerable benefits 
from the automation but if something goes wrong the pilot can still handle it.”


Sarter has been questioning this for years and recently participated in a major 
F.A.A. study of automation usage, released in the fall of 2013, that came to 
similar conclusions. The problem is that beneath the surface simplicity of 
glass cockpits, and the ease of fly-by-wire control, the designs are in fact 
bewilderingly baroque—all the more so because most functions lie beyond view. 
Pilots can get confused to an extent they never would have in more basic 
airplanes. When I mentioned the inherent complexity to Delmar Fadden, a former 
chief of cockpit technology at Boeing, he emphatically denied that it posed a 
problem, as did the engineers I spoke to at Airbus. Airplane manufacturers 
cannot admit to serious issues with their machines, because of the liability 
involved, but I did not doubt their sincerity. Fadden did say that once 
capabilities are added to an aircraft system, particularly to the 
flight-management computer, because of certification requirements they become 
impossibly expensive to remove. And yes, if neither removed nor used, they lurk 
in the depths unseen. But that was as far as he would go.


Sarter has written extensively about “automation surprises,” often related to 
control modes that the pilot does not fully understand or that the airplane may 
have switched into autonomously, perhaps with an annunciation but without the 
pilot’s awareness. Such surprises certainly added to the confusion aboard Air 
France 447. One of the more common questions asked in cockpits today is “What’s 
it doing now?” Robert’s “We don’t understand anything!” was an extreme version 
of the same. Sarter said, “We now have this systemic problem with complexity, 
and it does not involve just one manufacturer. I could easily list 10 or more 
incidents from either manufacturer where the problem was related to automation 
and confusion. Complexity means you have a large number of subcomponents and 
they interact in sometimes unexpected ways. Pilots don’t know, because they 
haven’t experienced the fringe conditions that are built into the system. 

[... ] 
 At a time when accidents are extremely rare, each one becomes a one-off event, 
unlikely to be repeated in detail. Next time it will be some other airline, 
some other culture, and some other failure—but it will almost certainly involve 
automation and will perplex us when it occurs. Over time the automation will 
expand to handle in-flight failures and emergencies, and as the safety record 
improves, pilots will gradually be squeezed from the cockpit altogether. The 
dynamic has become inevitable. There will still be accidents, but at some point 
we will have only the machines to blame.

 Morlock Elloi wrote 

>Handling of the recent B737 Max 8 disaster is somewhat revealing.
>
>What seems to have happened (for the 2nd time) is that computing machine 
>fought the pilot, and the machine won.
>
>It looks like some cretin in Boeing that drank too much of AI Kool Aid 
>(probably a middle manager) decided to install trained logic circuit 
>that was supposed to make new aircraft behave (to pilots) like the older 
>one. As its operation was far too complicated (ie. even Boeing didn't 
>quite understand it) they decided not to inform pilots about it, as it 
>could disturb the poor things with too much information.
>
>One part of the unknown operation appears to be the insistence of ML 
>black box on crashing the airplane during ascent. As it had full control 
>of the trim surfaces there was nothing pilots could do (I guess using 
>fire axe to kill the circuit would work, if pilots knew where the damn 
>thing was.)
>
>That's what the best available info right now is on what was the cause.
>
>What is interesting is how this was handled, particularly in the US:
>
>- There were documented complaints about this circuit for long time;
>- FAA ignored them;
>- After the second disaster most of the world grounded this type of 
>aircraft;
>- FAA said there is nothing wrong 

rage against the machine

[Morlock Elloi]

Handling of the recent B737 Max 8 disaster is somewhat revealing.

What seems to have happened (for the 2nd time) is that computing machine 
fought the pilot, and the machine won.


It looks like some cretin in Boeing that drank too much of AI Kool Aid 
(probably a middle manager) decided to install trained logic circuit 
that was supposed to make new aircraft behave (to pilots) like the older 
one. As its operation was far too complicated (ie. even Boeing didn't 
quite understand it) they decided not to inform pilots about it, as it 
could disturb the poor things with too much information.


One part of the unknown operation appears to be the insistence of ML 
black box on crashing the airplane during ascent. As it had full control 
of the trim surfaces there was nothing pilots could do (I guess using 
fire axe to kill the circuit would work, if pilots knew where the damn 
thing was.)


That's what the best available info right now is on what was the cause.

What is interesting is how this was handled, particularly in the US:

- There were documented complaints about this circuit for long time;
- FAA ignored them;
- After the second disaster most of the world grounded this type of 
aircraft;

- FAA said there is nothing wrong with it;
- It seems that intervention from White House made FAA see the light and 
ground the planes.


Why? What was so special about this bug? FAA previously had no problem 
grounding planes on less evidence and fewer complaints.


It may have to do with the first critical application of the new deity 
in commercial jets. The deity is called "AI", and its main function is 
to deflect the rage against rulers towards machines (it's the 2nd 
generation of the concept, the first one was simply "computer says ...".)


FAA's hesitation may make sense. After several hundred people have been 
killed, someone will dig into the deity, and eventually the manager 
idiot and its minions will be declared (not publicly, of course) the 
guilty party. This could be a fatal blow to the main purpose of the deity.



(BTW, 'rage' is also a verb)




#  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: Tactics #7: CRITICAL ENGINEERING, Ljubljana, 26-27 March 2019

[Rachel O' Dwyer]

Thanks for sharing this. R

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:50 AM Marcela Okretič 
wrote:

> Aksioma – Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, is glad to announce:
>
>
>
> *Tactics #7*
>
> *CRITICAL ENGINEERING*
>
> *Radical Tools for Interventions in Infrastructure*
>
> https://aksioma.org/critical.engineering/index.html
>
>
>
> TALKS | WORKSHOP | EXHIBITION
>
> Ljubljana, 26–27 March 2019
>
>
>
>
>
> *THE TALKS:*
>
> *Kino Šiška*, Trg prekomorskih brigad 3, Ljubljana
>
> Tuesday, 26 March 2019
>
> 17:00 Julian Oliver & Danja Vasiliev: *Dark Internet Topologies*
>
> 17:45 Gordan Savičić & Bengt Sjölén: *Electromagnetic Situationism*
>
> 18:30 Joana Moll: *An Autopsy of Data Business*
>
> 19:15 Sarah Grant: *Radical Networks*
>
>
>
> Free admission. Please fill in the registration form
>  by 24 March 2019.
>
>
>
> *THE WORKSHOP:*
>
> *Kino Šiška*, Trg prekomorskih brigad 3, Ljubljana
>
> Wednesday, 27 March 2019
>
> 9:00–18:00 Sarah Grant & Joana Moll: *Surveillance Override*
>
>
>
> The workshop is free of charge. Limited to 12 participants. Follow this
> link  to apply.
>
>
>
> *THE EXHIBITION:*
>
> *Aksioma | Project Space*, Komenskega 18, Ljubljana
>
> Wednesday, 27 March 2019
>
> 19:00 *Critical Engineering* – opening (open through 26 April 2019)
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> In 2011, a group of artists and engineers published the “Critical
> Engineering Manifesto” , since
> translated into 18 languages. Around the manifesto, originally written by
> Julian Oliver, Gordan Savičić and Danja Vasiliev, gathered a larger group –
> the Critical Engineering Working Group – now including also Sarah Grant,
> Bengt Sjölén and Joana Moll.
>
> In true avant-garde fashion, the “Manifesto” launches by describing
> Engineering as “the most transformative language of our time, shaping the
> way we move, communicate and think”, thus, it is the work of the Critical
> Engineer “to study and exploit this language, exposing its influence”.
> Further, a Critical Engineer “recognises that each work of engineering
> engineers its user”, considering “any technology depended upon to be both a
> challenge and a threat”. And so the manifesto unfolds.
>
> Nearly ten years later, the relevance of the “Critical Engineering
> Manifesto” has only become more evident, as an ever-growing public becomes
> aware of the techno-political implications of using – and depending upon –
> integrated systems and complex, networked technologies. Today, one can find
> its 11 points listed on the walls of hacklabs, museums, engineering and
> media-art academies, and in a great many texts, the world over.
>
> The *Tactics * event
> entitled *Critical Engineering* comprises an exhibition, a seminar and a
> workshop, underlining the artistic, theoretical and educational work done
> by the Critical Engineering Working Group along the last decade. The
> seminar will host all the members of the group – all of them recognised
> artists with long individual artistic careers – using their statements and
> their projects as case studies to analyse the transformative potential of
> Critical Engineering in the context of a tactical and technical arts
> practice.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Production:* Aksioma – Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, 2019
>
> *Coproduction:* Kino Šiška Centre for Urban Culture, Ljubljana and Drugo
> more, Rijeka
>
>
>
> Supported by the Creative Europe programme of the European Union, the
> Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and the Municipality of
> Ljubljana.
>
>
>
> *Tactics* #7 is realised in the framework of *State Machines
> *, a joint project by Aksioma (SI), Drugo
> more (HR), Furtherfield (UK), Institute of Network Cultures (NL) and NeMe
> (CY).
>
>
>
> This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
> This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the
> Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
> information contained therein.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marcela Okretič
>
> Aksioma | Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana
>
> Jakopičeva 11, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
>
>
>
> Aksioma | Project Space
>
> Komenskega 18, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
>
> tel.: + 386 – (0)590 54360
>
> gsm: + 386 – (0)41 – 250830
>
> e-mail: marc...@aksioma.org
>
> www.aksioma.org
>
>
>
>
> #  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:



-- 
http://www.rachelodwyer.com/

+353 (85) 7023779
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for 

Tactics #7: CRITICAL ENGINEERING, Ljubljana, 26-27 March 2019

[Marcela Okretič]

Aksioma - Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, is glad to announce:

 

Tactics #7

CRITICAL ENGINEERING

Radical Tools for Interventions in Infrastructure

https://aksioma.org/critical.engineering/index.html

 

TALKS | WORKSHOP | EXHIBITION

Ljubljana, 26-27 March 2019

 

 

THE TALKS:

Kino Šiška, Trg prekomorskih brigad 3, Ljubljana 

Tuesday, 26 March 2019

17:00 Julian Oliver & Danja Vasiliev: Dark Internet Topologies

17:45 Gordan Savičić & Bengt Sjölén: Electromagnetic Situationism

18:30 Joana Moll: An Autopsy of Data Business

19:15 Sarah Grant: Radical Networks

 

Free admission. Please fill in the registration form
  by 24 March 2019.

 

THE WORKSHOP:

Kino Šiška, Trg prekomorskih brigad 3, Ljubljana 

Wednesday, 27 March 2019

9:00-18:00 Sarah Grant & Joana Moll: Surveillance Override

 

The workshop is free of charge. Limited to 12 participants. Follow this link
  to apply.

 

THE EXHIBITION:

Aksioma | Project Space, Komenskega 18, Ljubljana

Wednesday, 27 March 2019 

19:00 Critical Engineering - opening (open through 26 April 2019)

 

---

 

In 2011, a group of artists and engineers published the
 "Critical Engineering Manifesto", since
translated into 18 languages. Around the manifesto, originally written by
Julian Oliver, Gordan Savičić and Danja Vasiliev, gathered a larger group -
the Critical Engineering Working Group - now including also Sarah Grant,
Bengt Sjölén and Joana Moll.

In true avant-garde fashion, the "Manifesto" launches by describing
Engineering as "the most transformative language of our time, shaping the
way we move, communicate and think", thus, it is the work of the Critical
Engineer "to study and exploit this language, exposing its influence".
Further, a Critical Engineer "recognises that each work of engineering
engineers its user", considering "any technology depended upon to be both a
challenge and a threat". And so the manifesto unfolds.

Nearly ten years later, the relevance of the "Critical Engineering
Manifesto" has only become more evident, as an ever-growing public becomes
aware of the techno-political implications of using - and depending upon -
integrated systems and complex, networked technologies. Today, one can find
its 11 points listed on the walls of hacklabs, museums, engineering and
media-art academies, and in a great many texts, the world over.

The Tactics   event entitled
Critical Engineering comprises an exhibition, a seminar and a workshop,
underlining the artistic, theoretical and educational work done by the
Critical Engineering Working Group along the last decade. The seminar will
host all the members of the group - all of them recognised artists with long
individual artistic careers - using their statements and their projects as
case studies to analyse the transformative potential of Critical Engineering
in the context of a tactical and technical arts practice.

 

 

Production: Aksioma - Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, 2019

Coproduction: Kino Šiška Centre for Urban Culture, Ljubljana and Drugo more,
Rijeka

 

Supported by the Creative Europe programme of the European Union, the
Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia and the Municipality of
Ljubljana.

 

Tactics #7 is realised in the framework of State Machines
 , a joint project by Aksioma (SI), Drugo more
(HR), Furtherfield (UK), Institute of Network Cultures (NL) and NeMe (CY).

 

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This
communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.

 

 

 

Marcela Okretič

Aksioma | Institute for Contemporary Art, Ljubljana

Jakopičeva 11, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

 

Aksioma | Project Space

Komenskega 18, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

tel.: + 386 - (0)590 54360

gsm: + 386 - (0)41 - 250830

e-mail: marc...@aksioma.org

www.aksioma.org

 

 

#  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: