Furniture: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Furniture (view source)

Revision as of 07:46, 16 September 2023

1,167 bytes added , 16 September 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|design|}}{{Quote|
+{{a|design|{{image|Tech furniture|png|A Techno-sofa, yesterday. It’s ex-NASA.}}}}{{Quote|
 {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We must innovate! We have earmarked technology budget to innovate! <br>
-{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Great! How about some decent document comparison software? [[Microsoft]]’s comparison engine sucks. <br>
+{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Great! How about some decent document comparison software?<br>
 {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We can’t use our funds on that. <br>
 {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Why not? <br>
 {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: Because it isn’t very [[innovative]]? <br>
-{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: But we don’t have it, though, do we? So it kind of ''would'' be an innovation?
+{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: But we don’t have it, though, do we? So it kind of ''would'' be an innovation? <br>
 {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: Not [[innovative]]. <br>
 {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on [[blockchain]]? <br>
-{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: YES! Does it? <br>
+{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: YES! De-Fi-nitely! (''pause for guffaws'') Does it? <br>
 {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} (''pauses''): Um, ''yes''. Sure it does.<br>
 {{caps|'''Sofware Vendor'''}}: Wait, ''what''? No, it d —<br>
 {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} (''to SV, sotto voce''): Look: do you ''want'' this contract or not? <br>
 {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: What was that? <br>
-{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} and {{caps|'''Sofware Vendor'''}} ''(in unison)'': Nothing. <br>
+{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} and {{caps|'''Sofware Vendor'''}} ''(in unison)'': Nothing. <Br>
+{{caps|'''Sofware Vendor'''}}: Of course it runs on blockchain. In the cloud. Tokenised. Using neural networks —<br>
+{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} (''to SV, sotto voce''): All right, don’t get carried away. <br>
 }}
+{{d|Furniture|/ˈfɜːnɪʧə/|n|}}
+[[Technology]] that, you know, does what it is meant to, effortlessly and without breaking, stopping or unexpectedly ruining other parts of your life, with such aplomb that you forget it is technology at all.
+Part of the two-part [[paradox]]: ''good'' technology is — ''not technology''.
+===The Invisible present===
 {{Author|Stewart Brand}} has a great expression for the kind of technology that is so good, so effective, that you don’t really think of it as technology: the “invisible present”.
-Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t ''look'' like technology for very long: ''email''. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on. We are looking at [[Neural network|neural networks]], [[AI]], [[distributed ledger]]s, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges.
+Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t ''look'' like technology for very long: ''email''. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on.
+It no longer seems innovative. It feels like ''furniture''.
+Things that persistently ''look'' like [[technology]] —[[Neural network|neural networks]], [[AI]], [[distributed ledger]]s, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges — things that seem on the sharp ascent of Gartner’s ludicrous hype cycle — we call “''bad'' technology”.
-It looks like ''[[furniture]]''.
+Hence, there is no such thing as ''good'' technology. ''Good'' technology is ''furniture''. Only embryonic, still-being-hashed-out, haven’t-worked-out-a-use-case-yet or ''fundamentally disappointing'' technology — all of these categories being in some way ''defective'' — is considered “technology” at all.
-Things that persistently ''look'' like [[technology]], we call “''bad'' technology”.
+Hence a [[paradox]]:
-O Paradox.
+:If ''good'' technology ≠ technology
+:Then ''all'' “technology” ≡ ''bad'' technology.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Novelty fatigue]]
 *[[Why is legaltech so disappointing]]
+{{c|paradox}}