On Thing­punk. Inter­est­ing read via Matt Pear­son about what the author dubs Thing­punk. Essentially:

Thing­punk is a deep bias in design think­ing that sees phys­i­cal prod­ucts and the built envi­ron­ment as the most impor­tant venues for design and inno­va­tion even as we enter a world that’s increas­ingly digital.

Not sure how to cap­ture it but it was an intrigu­ing read.

This tran­script of James Burke’s talk at dCon­struct 2012 is fan­tas­tic. In it he dis­cusses the net­work effect of small changes repeated at scale. There’s also this gem:

Insti­tu­tions man­age change above all so that they can make sure that inno­va­tion doesn’t mean dis­rup­tion. Estab­lished insti­tu­tions, even yours, are vul­ner­a­ble to dis­rup­tive technology.

Humanity’s deep future. Inter­est­ing sur­vey of future-oriented human think­ing. The bit on Kon­stan­tin Tsiolkovsky’s notion of a great fil­ter is new to me.

War­ren Ellis, How To See The Future:

The most basic mobile phone is in fact a com­mu­ni­ca­tions devices that shames all of sci­ence fic­tion, all the wrist radios and hand­held com­mu­ni­ca­tors. Cap­tain Kirk had to tune his fuck­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tor and it couldn’t text or take a photo that he could stick a nice Polaroid fil­ter on. Sci­ence fic­tion didn’t see the mobile phone com­ing. It cer­tainly didn’t see the glow­ing glass win­dows many of us carry now, where we make amaz­ing things hap­pen by point­ing at it with our fin­gers like god­damn wizards.

via Daniel.


Con­tin­u­ing in the style of last week I spent most of today read­ing my Instapa­per back­log and lis­ten­ing to pod­casts. Good day. Here are the highlights: