In a reflection on Whoopi Goldberg’s recent comments about the Holocaust on The View, a comment in support of her noted:
Yup it was inarticulate and she will make a retraction tomorrow. She is teachable and she will respond with grace.
It is an interesting turn of phrase — ‘is teachable’ — because it carries the implicit notion that if some people are teachable, then there are also people who are unteachable.
There has been quite a lot of reaction to Web 3.0 of late. For those who don't keep up with the tech that underpins the systems and services they use, Web 3.0 can loosely be described as a new iteration of the World Wide Web based on blockchain. If that seems as unintelligible as me simply saying Web 3.0, that is probably because it is. But allow me to try and unfold the scene a little by beginning at the beginning.
In a recent article on [ambiguiti.es](https://ambiguiti.es/sitting-with-ambiguity/), Doug Belshaw mused on Sitting with ambiguity for innovation projects (or life in general!). The article struck me, as most of Belshaw's work does, as being equal parts philosophical and deeply practical. As Burke (1957) would have it:
The End of learning is not knowledge but virtue; as the End of all speculation should be practice of one sort or another... [for] Knowledge is the Culture of the mind; and he who rested there, would be just as wise as he who should plough his field without any intention of sowing or reaping.
From time to time, I contemplate how I publish. This is in part because I am something of a platform junkie, but also because I like 'the elegance of a refined workflow'. A euphemism which should be read as: corporate IT is bloating applications and driving development in the direction of a subscription-based, privacy nightmare.
In a recent article in The Times, the political scientist Dr Brian Klass is spruiking his recent book: Corruptible: Who Gets the Power and How It Changes Us. A thought provoking author, Dr Klass offers a three stage thesis for why we end up with bad leaders:
In two relatively well known books, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), David Hume explored the grounds upon which we make statements about unobserved phenomena. There are many examples in the schools of philosophy about Hume's speculations, the colour of Swans or the life sustaining qualities of bread. But whatever the example, everything boils down to one question: can we make a truth bearing observation about something that we have not observed?
Everywhere I look at present, people seem to be waving the 'white flag in a temporary truce.' What is more, it is understandable. I have used Linux on and, mostly, off for many years. The main reason for my installation of Linux is privacy and open source. The main reason I switch back — usability.
In literary fiction, the notion of a 'conceit' refers to a solution which is imaginary, or rarely occurs, to ensure the plot can progress unimpeded by the realities of the real world. An example of this is warp speed in Star Trek.
In a recent ambling along the Fediverse road, I discovered a new professional networking initiative called Polywork. The premise of its creators is fairly simple:
We just thought it was high time a professional network existed that let you represent all the wonderful things you actually do as a professional…we want to build a network that empowers you and gives you control over your identity and your future opportunities.
Camille Flammarion's 1888 book, L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire [The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology], contains a striking wood engraving that depicts a missionary of the Middle Ages who tells that he had 'found the point where the sky and the Earth touch.' At this intersection, where heaven and earth meet, the missionary is able to pass his head through the sky and glimpse the realm which lies beyond the heavens. Flammarion makes clear the purpose of his imagery: