Final Boss Form

I co-founded Know Your Meme with Jamie, Ellie, and Drew. I made Unmediated back when the web still seemed shiny.

Right now I'm getting my head around fan culture online.

Ask me stuff.

I post my favorite videos to Here's Some Awesome with Liz, Barrett, and Felicia.

Me elsewhere kenyattacheese.net.
twitter:kenyatta.
Contact me here.

Here's a link to all post about Know Your Meme.
Here's a link to all of my music posts.
Here's a link to all of the posts of my dog.

Recent Tweets @kenyatta
Posts I Like

Basilique Notre-Dame de Montréal - 11 (by Subjective Art)

A lesson I first learned reading Jane Jacobs’ The Economy of Cities:

Why does Apple manufacture abroad, and especially in China? As the article explained, it’s not just about low wages. China also derives big advantages from the fact that so much of the supply chain is already there. A former Apple executive explained: “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away.”

This is familiar territory to students of economic geography: the advantages of industrial clusters — in which producers, specialized suppliers, and workers huddle together to their mutual benefit — have been a running theme since the 19th century.

And Chinese manufacturing isn’t the only conspicuous example of these advantages in the modern world. Germany remains a highly successful exporter even with workers who cost, on average, $44 an hour — much more than the average cost of American workers. And this success has a lot to do with the support its small and medium-sized companies — the famed Mittelstand — provide to each other via shared suppliers and the maintenance of a skilled work force.

The point is that successful companies — or, at any rate, companies that make a large contribution to a nation’s economy — don’t exist in isolation. Prosperity depends on the synergy between companies, on the cluster, not the individual entrepreneur.

Also, have you seen the related NYT piece about Apple that’s really about Foxconn but doesn’t really acknowledge that ultimately it’s really about us? For a better take on it, read this TechCrunch piece <—this is a sentence I’ve never written before in my life.

Massive (by theodevil)

slavin:

ALEXIS MADRIGAL, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO.

Here’s his latest post for the Atlantic.

QR Codes Are the Roller-Skating Horses of Advertising”

This is a picture of a roller-skating horse named Jimmy. I think he is a great analogy to explain why QR codes, those little black-and-white squares in magazines that you’re supposed to use as a paper hyperlink, continue to proliferate. Let me explain.

[…]

For now … we’ve got QR codes. And it appears we’ll continue to have them. Don’t be fooled, though: this is a novelty more than anything else. I think print magazine ads work and I think digital campaigns work. But when I look at a QR code, I don’t see the future, I see a roller-skating horse. Advertisers deploying QR codes are like people in 1900 wanting transportation to be faster, saying to themselves, “Well, we’ve got horses and we’ve got roller skates — I think we’re on to something! It seems gimmicky, but we’re innovating.” Meanwhile, inventors in garages were building the first janky, bug-ridden automobiles, the Model T just a few years away. 

(Read the full article: QR Codes Are the Roller-Skating Horses of Advertising - Alexis Madrigal - Technology - The Atlantic)

In our world, we’d much rather have Community than Two and a Half Men, and I don’t mean that as a criticism of Two and a Half Men. It’s great for advertisers that want to use that show as a proxy to get to this big audience. But for us, we’re much more excited about Community because while it’s a smaller audience, it’s an audience that self-organizes online. They’ll not only tell their friends to go watch it, they’ll spend time convincing someone on a bus to watch it.

How Hulu’s Andy Forssell Will Spend $500 Million; Why ‘Community’ Trumps ‘Two and a Half Men’ (Q&A)

meganwest: And this is why I have a Hulu Plus subscription. 

And this is why I’ve spent the past year quietly experimenting with “social” tv projects at relatively small networks.

When the revolution comes, ‘Two and a Half Men’ will do just fine, but when the revolution comes, applying this stuff to fandoms I care about will be a lot more fun.

(via meganwest)

62 plays 62 plays [Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
Pet Shop Boys,
Popart the Hits

Pet Shop Boys (featuring Dusty Springfield) - What Have I Done To Deserve This?

taxi to brooklyn.

Welcoming @sheilacalla back to New York (temporarily) for her birthday (Taken with instagram)

Human kind cannot bear (by Hollis Johnson)

RFS 9: Kill Hollywood 

Hollywood appears to have peaked. If it were an ordinary industry (film cameras, say, or typewriters), it could look forward to a couple decades of peaceful decline. But this is not an ordinary industry. The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise.

That’s one reason we want to fund startups that will compete with movies and TV, but not the main reason. The main reason we want to fund such startups is not to protect the world from more SOPAs, but because SOPA brought it to our attention that Hollywood is dying. They must be dying if they’re resorting to such tactics. If movies and TV were growing rapidly, that growth would take up all their attention. When a striker is fouled in the penalty area, he doesn’t stop as long as he still has control of the ball; it’s only when he’s beaten that he turns to appeal to the ref. SOPA shows Hollywood is beaten. And yet the audiences to be captured from movies and TV are still huge. There is a lot of potential energy to be liberated there.

How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What’s going to kill movies and TV is what’s already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?

There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they’re serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo.

It would be great if what people did instead of watching shows was exercise more and spend more time with their friends and families. Maybe they will. All other things being equal, we’d prefer to hear about ideas like that. But all other things are decidedly not equal. Whatever people are going to do for fun in 20 years is probably predetermined. Winning is more a matter of discovering it than making it happen. In this respect at least, you can’t push history off its course. You can, however, accelerate it.

What’s the most entertaining thing you can build?

(via stevewoolf)

disneyprince:

The original trolls. Video here.

When the web started, I used to get really grumpy with people because they put my poems up. They put my stories up. They put my stuff up on the web. I had this belief, which was completely erroneous, that if people put your stuff up on the web and you didn’t tell them to take it down, you would lose your copyright, which actually, is simply not true.

And I also got very grumpy because I felt like they were pirating my stuff, that it was bad. And then I started to notice that two things seemed much more significant. One of which was… places where I was being pirated, particularly Russia where people were translating my stuff into Russian and spreading around into the world, I was selling more and more books. People were discovering me through being pirated. Then they were going out and buying the real books, and when a new book would come out in Russia, it would sell more and more copies. I thought this was fascinating, and I tried a few experiments. Some of them are quite hard, you know, persuading my publisher for example to take one of my books and put it out for free. We took “American Gods,” a book that was still selling and selling very well, and for a month they put it up completely free on their website. You could read it and you could download it. What happened was sales of my books, through independent bookstores, because that’s all we were measuring it through, went up the following month three hundred percent

I started to realize that actually, you’re not losing books. You’re not losing sales by having stuff out there. When I give a big talk now on these kinds of subjects and people say, “Well, what about the sales that I’m losing through having stuff copied, through having stuff floating out there?” I started asking audiences to just raise their hands for one question. Which is, I’d say, “Okay, do you have a favorite author?” They’d say, “Yes.” and I’d say, “Good. What I want is for everybody who discovered their favorite author by being lent a book, put up your hands.” And then, “Anybody who discovered your favorite author by walking into a bookstore and buying a book raise your hands.” And it’s probably about five, ten percent of the people who actually discovered an author who’s their favorite author, who is the person who they buy everything of. They buy the hardbacks and they treasure the fact that they got this author. Very few of them bought the book. They were lent it. They were given it. They did not pay for it, and that’s how they found their favorite author. And I thought, “You know, that’s really all this is. It’s people lending books. And you can’t look on that as a loss of sale. It’s not a lost sale, nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free.”

What you’re actually doing is advertising. You’re reaching more people, you’re raising awareness. Understanding that gave me a whole new idea of the shape of copyright and of what the web was doing. Because the biggest thing the web is doing is allowing people to hear things. Allowing people to read things. Allowing people to see things that they would never have otherwise seen. And I think, basically, that’s an incredibly good thing.

Neil Gaiman on Copyright, Piracy, and the Commercial Value of the Web (X)

What Future for Occupy Wall Street? by Michael Greenberg

As Occupy Wall Street enters its fifth month, dislodged from most of the public spaces it had staked out around the country last fall, the movement seems weakened, its future uncertain. It sometimes appears to be driven by a series of tactics designed to maintain its public presence with no discernible strategy or goal—a kind of muddled, loose-themed ubiquity. The movement has proven adept at provoking media attention, but one may wonder what it amounts to, apart from its ability to reaffirm its status as a kind of protest brand name…

If Occupy Wall Street is to become the embodiment of public conscience, it will have to pose similar questions that defy moral evasiveness and make people urgently ask, for example, what degree of inequality and what forms of corporate influence on government will be tolerated. The problem for protesters is that while severely limiting corporate power in government is a worthy goal, it’s morally abstract, with little visceral impact. And economic justice is a vague and sweeping term that invites both personal grievances and broad interpretation. 

Somewhere out there, there’s a company that repackages Equal and Sweet and Low for other companies that think repackaging this sort of thing is Very Important (Taken with instagram)

875 plays 875 plays [Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Wye Oak - Holy Holy

(via queen-of-limbs)