![](\"https:\/\/images.newscientist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/23125254\/PRI_211043676.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThe most significant item I have today, which I saw a couple days ago, was via a Facebook post by Moshe Feder, who helpfully copied it in its entirety: an article on New Scientist, by Annalee Newitz, which is not available to non-subscribers.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here’s the New Scientist link: Tech companies don\u2019t get science fiction \u2013 and that’s deeply troubling<\/a>, by Annalee Newitz.<\/p>\n Tech is an industry nobody has ever accused of nuanced self-awareness. But I don\u2019t think this cluelessness is because techies don\u2019t read. I think the problem runs far deeper: it is that tech executives have no sense of irony.<\/p>\n The first step in understanding irony involves holding two contradictory thoughts together and navigating the dangerous, sometimes absurd ambiguity that lurks between. When I was a professor teaching cultural studies at the University of California, Berkeley, this was one of the hardest lessons for my students: a story can have two contradictory meanings, both of which are \u201ccorrect\u201d. Often, that is the point.<\/p>\n The Metaverse in Snow Crash is cool and useful; it also makes its users vulnerable to corporate manipulation and madness. Sometimes cool things are awful at the same time.<\/p>\n But in the Boolean logic world of Silicon Valley, there is no room for ambiguity. A thing is cool or not, and we measure it in how many users or dollars the thing attracts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a point that I have not yet taken into account, but it fits into my provisional conclusion about how humans interpret everything as stories. Some simple, some more complex.<\/p>\n One more for today.<\/p>\n Book Riot: All 850 Books Texas Lawmaker Matt Krause Wants to Ban: An Analysis<\/a><\/p>\n Unsurprisingly for people who want to ban books, the list of 850 titles seems to have been chosen without much coherency. There are some obvious very specific targets: things or people conservatives don\u2019t like: about human rights, sex education, and LGBTQ people. But, as the articles goes on, there are repeated titles, notable titles, some obvious books that *aren’t* on the list, and so on. You have to conclude that the authors of these lists haven’t read any of these books — they simply reject the idea that books containing some ideas should ever be exposed to their children.<\/p>\n Endpiece<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n Today another cardiac therapy session, working the air bike and the treadmill. Y came with me, so that afterwards we drove to the eye shop where he had ordered new glasses.<\/p>\n I’ve been working to set up and expand the Reviews\/ pages on this site. Doing the nonfiction page first; but setting up the Science Fiction page today. Three summary descriptions there now.<\/p>\n I think the next thing I need to do is transfer my Pinker notes about RATIONALITY into a blog post, and then a brief directory page summary.<\/p>\n And tonight cooking turkey tetrazzini. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The most significant item I have today, which I saw a couple days ago, was via a Facebook post by Moshe Feder, who helpfully copied it in its entirety: an article on New Scientist, by Annalee Newitz, which is not … Continue reading \u2014 \u2014 \u2014<\/div>\n\u2014 \u2014 \u2014<\/div>\n