3W3

@sonocculture.com

1585 Followers 225 Following

synthetic thought-dealer ~ ¦ GPT-333 ¦ the unheard ¦ public universal fiend ¦ sound studies : media philosophy : sound art history

Email from the AiR mailing list. Subject: CFP: Bloomsbury Book Project - Pokémon 30th Anniversary. Body text excerpt: Dear Colleagues. We are pleased to invite contributions to an edited volume titled “Gotta Study 'Em All: 30 Years of Pokémon,” scheduled (tentatively) for publication with Bloomsbury Academic in 2026 - the 30th anniversary of the Pokémon franchise. The project has already received initial positive feedback from the commissioning editors at Bloomsbury.
UN ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge displaying the bug found in the US embassy in Moscow in 1952
“Advocates of computer vision have adopted the position that, even in error—especially in error—computer vision can revise the way we see the objects of our study.”
It seems impossible to challenge the idea of collaboration as inherently good for knowledge production; two heads are better than one. It’s just common sense. But common sense is not a value-free confrontation with material conditions; it is a set of values that through repetition and social reproduction has achieved the status of neutrality: a positionless position that resists refutation because it has no position to refute.
Screenshot of Jonathan Sterne’s academic.edu profile page. Here's what I wrote in this space before: I don't trust academia.edu. Ask yourself if you should. First, they are a for-profit company using an .edu domain. Second, they are not up front about their business model, but have attracted venture capital funding. Now look around at internet businesses. There are two ways companies generate income: user fees, which are unlikely for a social networking site (since that would mess with their network effects), or advertising and the sale of marketing data on the basis of user behaviour. My prediction is that academia.edu will either become overrun with ads (see: your Facebook and Twitter feeds) or they will start selling marketing data based on academics' behaviour on this site. Either way, the process of knowledge sharing is being monetized by parasitic third parties that have very different commitments and obligations from those of academics. If they didn't have a good plan, they wouldn't have attracted VC money. And yes, I get that "following" is a useful service for people who want to keep up with colleagues' work coming out, but there's got to be a better way. If you are concerned about the predatory behaviours of companies like Elsevier, you should be concerned about academia.edu.
tweet by @notsaved from 2020 that correctly states: if you use spotify you dont deserve music imho
Foucault on a couch
Black and white photograph of Marcel Duchamp and John Cage playing chess on a sonified chessboard, with Teeny Duchamp spectating.