10 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2023
    1. David Basiji: You mentioned that you were pessimistic in the short term and optimistic in the long term. I would characterize myself as pessimistic in the short term, and, well, not optimistic in the long term. I was wondering if you could give me some hope, and maybe explain your thinking on longer-term optimism?SB: I'm 83 and counting, and I've seen so many end-of-the-world stories over time - some of which I bought into. I thought that my old teacher, Paul Ehrlich, was right about population, and I did public things in support of his views. He was almost completely upside down, in terms of what at the time was called the “demographic transition.” And then there was the energy crisis, there was peak oil. My environmentalist friends were saying, "The end of the world is coming, not just because of population, but because we're going to run out of oil, and then we'll go crazy." Everyone said that the end of the world was coming, and it didn't. So, I've seen so many ends of the world come and go. I don't believe in them anymore.The threats often are very clear and the solutions are not - that's understandable because the threat is clear and present! You can usually see a couple of solution paths being offered. Well, the ones that will work, you don't know yet, they're still being invented. This relates to the book Scale, by Geoffrey West, which looks at how cities do everything faster - they create problems faster than anything else in the world, but they create solutions to the problems faster than the problems. And so cities are these places where solutions just pour forth at civilization scale. In the pace layer diagram that I did for civilization, there's a rural version and a city version. The city version of it goes way, way faster - people pay attention to what fashion and commerce are proposing, they occasionally mess with how the governance works, and certainly, infrastructure gets cranked out more rapidly in cities.

      问:你提到,你在短期内是悲观的,在长期内是乐观的。我认为自己在短期内是悲观的,而在长期内则是不乐观的。我想知道你是否可以给我一些希望,也许可以解释一下你对长期乐观主义的看法?

      斯图尔特·布兰德:我已经83岁了,随着时间的推移,我已经看到了许多世界末日的故事——其中一些我相信了。我认为我的老师保罗·埃利希对人口的看法是正确的,我做了一些公开的事情来支持他的观点。就当时所谓的"人口转型"而言,他的观点几乎完全颠倒了。然后有了能源危机,有了石油峰值。我的环保主义者朋友们说,"世界末日即将到来,不仅仅是因为人口,还因为我们将耗尽石油,然后我们会疯掉。"每个人都说世界末日要来了,而它没有。所以,我已经看到了这么多的世界末日来了又走。我不再相信它们了。

      威胁往往是非常明确的,而解决方案并不明确--这是可以理解的,因为威胁是明确的,而且是存在的!你通常可以看到几个解决方案。你通常可以看到有几个解决方案的路径被提供。好吧,那些能行得通的,你还不知道,它们还在被发明中。这与杰弗里·韦斯特的《规模》一书有关,该书探讨了城市如何更快地做任何事情——它们创造问题的速度比世界上任何其他地方都快,但它们创造问题的解决方案比问题更快。因此,城市是这些地方,解决方案以文明的规模涌现出来。在我为文明做的步伐层图中,有一个农村版本和一个城市版本。城市版本的发展速度要快得多——人们关注时尚和商业的提议,他们偶尔会扰乱治理的运作,当然,基础设施在城市里的发展也更快。

    1. How do you ensure on Mastodon, given that it’s decentralized and you don’t have the power to ban users, that the space is welcoming and safe? Well, this is the kind of strange dichotomy of how it’s turned out. On the one hand, the technology itself is what allows basically anyone to host their own independent social media server, and to basically be able to do anything they want with it. There is no way for Mastodon, the company, or anyone really—except the normal law enforcement procedures—to really go after anyone specifically running a Mastodon server. The way that you would shut down a normal web site is how you would shut down a Mastodon server, there’s no difference there. So on that end, it kind of turns out to be the ultimate free speech platform. But obviously that’s basically just a side effect of creating a tool that can be used by anyone. It’s kind of like cars. Cars are used by everyone, even bad people, even for bad purposes, there’s nothing you can do about it, because the tool is out there. However, I think that the differentiating factor to something like Twitter or Facebook, is that on Mastodon, when you host your own server, you can also decide what rules you want to enforce on that server, which allows communities to create safer spaces than they could otherwise have on these large platforms that are interested in serving as many people as possible, perhaps driving engagement up on purpose to increase time people spend on the web. You can have communities that have much stricter rules than Twitter has. And in practice, a lot of them are [stricter]. And this is part of where, again, the technology intersects with guidance or leadership from Mastodon the company. I think that, through the way that we communicate publicly, we have avoided attracting a crowd of the kind of people who you would find on Parler or Gab, or whatever other internet hate forums. Instead we’ve attracted the kind of people who would moderate against hate speech when running their own servers. Additionally, we also act as a guide for anyone who wants to join. Because on our website, and our apps, we provide a default list of curated servers that people can make accounts on. And through that, we make sure that we curate the list in such a way that any server that wants to be promoted by us has to agree to a certain basic set of rules, one of which is that no hate speech is allowed, no sexism, no racism, no homophobia, or transphobia. And through that, we ensure that the association between Mastodon, the brand, and the experience that people want is that of a much safer space than something like Twitter.

      鉴于Mastodon是去中心化的,你没有权力禁止用户,你如何确保这个空间是受欢迎和安全的?

      Eugen Rochko:嗯,这是一种奇怪的二分法,它的结果是这样的。一方面,技术本身是允许任何人托管他们自己的独立社交媒体服务器,并且基本上能够用它做任何事情。除了正常的执法程序外,Mastodon公司或任何人都没有办法真正追捕运行Mastodon服务器的人。你关闭一个普通网站的方式就是关闭Mastodon服务器的方式,没有任何区别。所以在这一点上,它变成了最终的自由言论平台。但显然,这基本上只是创造一个任何人都可以使用的工具的副作用。这有点像汽车。汽车被每个人使用,即使是坏人,即使是出于坏目的,你也无能为力,因为工具就在那里。然而,我认为与Twitter或Facebook这样的东西不同的因素是,在Mastodon上,当你托管你自己的服务器时,你也可以决定你想在该服务器上执行什么规则,这允许社区创造比他们在这些大型平台上更安全的空间,这些平台有兴趣为尽可能多的人服务,也许故意推动参与,以增加人们在网上的时间。

      你可以拥有比Twitter更严格的规则的社区。而在实践中,很多都是[更严格]的。这也是技术与Mastodon公司的指导或领导相交的部分原因。我认为,通过我们公开交流的方式,我们已经避免了吸引那些你会在Parler或Gab或其他互联网仇恨论坛上找到的人群。相反,我们吸引了那些在经营自己的服务器时,会对仇恨言论进行调节的人。此外,我们还为任何想要加入的人充当向导。因为在我们的网站和应用程序中,我们提供了一个默认的服务器列表,人们可以在上面建立账户。通过这种方式,我们确保我们策划的列表中,任何想要被我们推广的服务器都必须同意一些基本的规则,其中之一是不允许有仇恨言论,不允许有性别歧视,不允许有种族主义,不允许有恐同症或变性恐惧症。通过这一点,我们确保Mastodon这个品牌和人们想要的体验之间的联系是一个比Twitter这样的东西更安全的空间。

    1. Part of the appeal of an art gallery or museum, where our traditional notions of curation come from, is that they have pieces of work that no one else does. This isn’t the case online – many people who attempt to aggregate the best content online are often sharing the same content as someone else. How do you differentiate yourself in a space full of re-hashed content? Brain Pickings is a highly curatorial endeavor. And the art of curation isn't about the individual pieces of content, but about how these pieces fit together, what story they tell by being placed next to each other, and what statement the context they create makes about culture and the world at large. Every piece of content on Brain Pickings is hand-picked for embodying the sort of cultural interestingness at the core of our curatorial vision – it's creative, compelling and makes a meaningful contribution to the world; it offers a justification to be curious and enriches you in the process of indulging that curiosity. Great curation is also about pattern-recognition – seeing various pieces of culture and spotting similarities across them that paint a cohesive picture of a larger trend. Brain Pickings addresses this with our signature "omnibus" posts that spotlight 3-10 examples of a larger creative or cultural trend – cross-disciplinary conferences, urban guerrilla interventions, vintage-inspired posters for modern movies, hand-cut book sculptures, you name it.

      问:艺术馆或博物馆的部分吸引力,也就是我们传统的策展概念的来源,是他们有别人没有的作品。但网上的情况并非如此——许多试图在网上汇集最佳内容的人往往在分享与别人相同的内容。你如何在一个充满重复内容的空间中脱颖而出?

      Maria Popova:Brain Pickings是一个高度策划的努力。策划的艺术不在于单个的内容,而在于这些内容是如何组合在一起的,它们彼此相邻讲述了什么故事,以及它们创造的背景对文化和整个世界有什么影响。Brain Pickings上的每个内容都是经过精心挑选的,因为它体现了我们策展愿景的核心——它是有创意的,引人注目的,对世界有意义的贡献;它提供了一个好奇的理由,并在放纵好奇心的过程中丰富了你。

      伟大的策划也是关于模式识别——看到不同的文化片段,发现它们之间的相似之处,从而描绘出一幅更大的趋势的凝聚力。Brain Pickings通过我们标志性的"综合"文章来解决这个问题,这些文章聚焦于一个更大的创意或文化趋势的3-10个例子——跨学科会议、城市游击队干预、现代电影的复古海报、手工切割的书籍雕塑,等等。

  2. Sep 2021
  3. Jun 2021
    1. 2014年接受《Tissue》采访时,Joerg曾送给独立杂志4条建议:

      1. Do-it-yourself
      2. Create your own identity
      3. Never downgrade
      4. Pay attention to economics
  4. Feb 2021
    1. "Documentarists of Japan, No. 12: Koreeda Hirokazu." Interviewed by Tanaka Junko and Aaron Gerow. Documentary Box 13 (1999): 1-10. access

      “纪录片盒子”(Documentary Box)杂志影评人亚伦·杰罗(Aaron Gerow)与田中纯子(Tanaka Junko)对是枝裕和所做的长篇访谈。

    1. Chamath Palihapitiya买了12.5万美元的GameStop看涨期权——当时这支股票的价格是115美元,上周他在单股350美元时平仓,翻了三倍。为了证明自己不是为了赚钱,查马斯把本金加上利润一共50万美元都捐给了扶持小企业的另一家基金。他说,这一次的投资的目的在于“学习”,而这场战役的确让他学到了很多。捐完钱的第二天,他接受CNBC连线采访,面对主持人来势汹汹的拷问“你为什么站在散户这边”,查马斯逻辑清晰、冷静辩驳,把对方陈腐而不自知的观点一一击破。也正是这场论战,让他被推上了散户“带头大哥”的位置。

    1. I look for a couple of threads. One is the combination of ego and humility. Let’s be honest, a lot of C.E.O.s are ego-driven people. But they also have to be humble in some very precise ways around ideas and decisions, and being able to change their mind. That’s an idiosyncratic combination.Another thread is intellectual curiosity. They ask a lot of “why” questions, and they’re comfortable with the ambiguous nature of things that are unknown.The last one is that you want somebody who’s ultra-resilient, because there are just so many trials and tribulations to building a business. One day it can feel like you’re on the top of the world, and the next day it’s all crumbling down. Can you compartmentalize it, put it in context and enjoy it?

      在接受纽约时报采访时,他解释过自己会把钱投给怎样的创业者。

      “首先他要够谦逊,能听得进不同意见;第二他的求知欲必须旺盛,会问许多‘为什么’。最后,他得是一个有着超强韧性的人,因为创业要经历许多磨难,前一天你还在世界之巅,第二天一切的一切却都崩溃了,你能享受这样的生活吗?”