“Talk about technology is an addiction.”

We are most human when we play freely, imaginatively, pointlessly. Gamification risks atrophying that most precious capacity

In memory of Nevan Scott, 1985–2026

In memory of Nevan Scott, 1985–2026

One weird trick for hacking the space-time continuum.

A book series to think with

What do they do, the singers, tale-writers, dancers, painters, shapers, makers?

For many years, I’ve held a pet theory that cultural consumers can be grouped into two broad categories: Primary Source People and Secondary Source People. The former are the book lovers, cinephiles, archive perusers, and history buffs who grew to love their areas of study because of the specific objects that constitute the field: the…

or: public support for criminal activity is a primary driver of social change

The Convivial Society: Vol. 7, No. 9

Talk with your face.

To keep the word, we must keep our distance.

The AI industry is courting the humanities — but it is asking the wrong questions

You must read where you are, not in some hypothetical sanitized reading room, but in the dirt.

The right questions to arrive with—and the right structure for what comes out of the interviews—are not completely obvious. So I’ve been spending some time thinking about clouds.

Applications open now.

“The capacity to face an open universe. Physically open, psychically open. No doors shut.”

Anarchist calisthenics.

Anarchist calisthenics.

A creative gathering to imagine the future of work.

A working library is a project about work, reading & technology by mandy brown.

The Convivial Society: Vol. 7, No. 7

You cannot fill your belly with illusions.

“Every day or so break some trivial law that makes no sense, even if it’s only jaywalking.”

Recently??? I had an opportunity to check in on the state of American Catholicism. The occasion was a tradcath wedding...

Reading is the art of attention.

Reading is the art of attention.

It is right that the murder of many people be mourned and lamented.

What happens next? Well, you tell me.

“After all, who could be opposed to getting more done with less work?”

“After all, who could be opposed to getting more done with less work?”

Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking is absurd—and damning.

One of the most dehumanizing effects of AI is the short cuts it offers through the gaps and impasses intrinsic to the act of writing.