Originally posted on plerudulier:
In the unlikely case one wouldn’t recognize this guy this is George Clooney, advertising Nespresso. He didn’t need to say much for that, getting away with a mere “What else”. Probably the most expensive 2 words in the history of publicity. 2 words with a high return though, Nespresso never complained for all I know.
Dans le cas hautement improbable où on ne reconnaîtrait pas cet individu, c’est George Clooney, faisant la pub pour Nespresso. Il n’a pas dû parlé beaucoup pour cela, s’en tirant avec un simple “What else¹ ” Probablement les 2 mots les plus chers de l’histoire de la publicité, 2 mots avec un fort retour cependant. Nespresso ne s’est jamais plaint pour ce que j’en sais.
Relationship with topic du jour ? None except for the 2 words. It just crossed my mind the other day that Facebook, after Twitter, after whatever social platform were,these days, sequentially…
View original 381 more words
What does it mean to be a technology critic in today’s America? And what can technology criticism accomplish? The first question seems easy: to be a technology critic in America now is to oppose that bastion of vulgar disruption, Silicon Valley. By itself, however, this opposition says nothing about the critic’s politics—an omission that makes it all the more difficult to answer the second question.
Why all the political diffidence? A critical or oppositional attitude toward Silicon Valley is no guarantee of the critic’s progressive agenda; modern technology criticism, going back to its roots in Germany at the turn of the twentieth century, has often embraced conservative causes. It also doesn’t help that technology critics, for the most part, make a point of shunning political categories. Instead of the usual left/right distinction, they are more comfortable with the humanist/anti-humanist one. “What if the cost of machines that think is people who don’t?”—a clever rhetorical question posed by the technology author George Dyson a few years ago—nicely captures these sorts of concerns. The “machines” in question are typically reduced to mere embodiments of absurd, dehumanizing ideas that hijack the minds of poorly educated technologists; the “humans,” in turn, are treated as abstract, ahistorical émigrés to the global village, rather than citizen-subjects of the neoliberal empire.
Originally posted on Quartz:
The casual outfit that Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg sported in front of elegantly dressed bankers and investors just before his company went public generated much clamor in the media. While some observers judged the young entrepreneur’s choice to wear his typical hoodie and jeans on such an official occasion as a mark of immaturity, others defended it as a sign of boldness that helped spread publicity about the deal.
Why is the “CEO Casual” look sported by Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, and certain other business leaders interpreted as a sign of status, while other professionals in casual dress would be laughed out of a job interview? Our research explores the conditions under which nonconforming behaviors, such as wearing red sneakers in a professional setting or entering a luxury boutique wearing gym clothes, lead to attributions of enhanced status and competence rather than social disapproval.[pullquote]In certain cases…
View original 1,157 more words