Simulation titles that follow Bogost’s line of understanding of what constitutes a videogame tend to have this problem: they believe in a utopia where systems and rules and mechanics can be full of meaning, forgetting that as humans, we are not Cartesian machines, for we also think with our senses and emotions and understand the world by touching, seeing and hearing it.

Videogame Utopia: Passage Denied, a “Papers Please” review | MetaGame

I am not entirely convinced systems are separate from emotions. But this is an interesting critique of Papers Please, regardless.

But if wearable is going to get anywhere it’ll need to embrace the pointless. It’s the domain of the pointless, the terrain of the trivial. If we were all being practical, we’d wear identical nylon boiler suits and £4 watches — but that’s not the species we’re in. We’re the species that evolved a fashion industry and Global Hypercolor T-shirts. Efficiency is not a priority for wearables. What are the cheap fashion applications? What accessories can Claire’s sell? What can you buy at the garden centre and down the market?

Awkward moments from the future of computing (Wired UK)

Recently I read some disappointing pieces in various popular tech outlets breathlessly heralding the arrival of wearables, espousing the virtues of ‘invisible’ and ‘natural’ interfaces, all the while limiting technology to only the current wave of computation. So I was relieved to see this counterpoint by Russell. People might be put off by his insistence on the insatiable human passion for the useless and garish, but it rings more true to me than most accounts of tech dissolving in the environment.

Although this scene happens in silence, I did actually write dialogue for it. The actors are actually speaking it and it might stand as an explanation for some. In any case, that dialogue will never be written in the published screenplay for the film and I told the actors never to reveal it to anyone. They are bound to silence forever and I hope they will have forgotten it by now, because they didn’t know when they were shooting it what the significance of the scene might be.

Michael Haneke: The director on his film Hidden | Film | The Observer

Watched Caché last night and was totally captivated by it. It’s about hidden information on so many levels, it’s amazing. From this quote it seems Haneke went even further and started hiding info beyond the film itself. Devious.

Forums and instant messages were the key mediums for speed running theory to spread through the mid-2000s, but it remained a niche hobby. Live video streaming, which took off at the beginning of this decade, has since made it a medium for mass consumption.

Making money as a Zelda speed runner | Polygon

It’s really interesting what streaming is doing to games… I love speed running because it turns products initially meant for consumption into instruments with which to perform.

What would a game look like if it were designed to encourage a process of reader engagement that consists of coming up with a narrative hypothesis and then testing it? If the discovery of layers of meaning and personhood were achieved through play?

Reading and Hypothesis | Emily Short’s Interactive Storytelling

I really like the idea of hypothetical reading as basis for interactive storytelling. It should matter what theories players come up with about the backstory that is gradually revealed. They should be able to act on it.

The guidelines would have strictly limited which foods could be marketed towards youth — excluding even peanut butter — but would also have been, yet again, entirely voluntary. Lobbyists for the food industry pushed back, arguing that the rules would “virtually end all advertising” towards those younger than 18. The regulations stalled in Congress, and were just last week “killed for good,” Harris says, with a single sentence in the 2014 omnibus spending bill.

How Gatorade turned water into ‘the enemy of performance’ | The Verge

It’s depressing to think that the end of advertising for junk food would be an argument against regulation. Isn’t that the whole point? (I know what the neoliberal argument would be, but I really don’t care.)

The essential point is that a particular configuration of buildings is neither “good” nor “bad” in absence of a serious examination of the social relations responsible for the construction of those buildings and the greater social processes that continue to shape the greater community in which those buildings exist. In other words, urbanism is not about an object, but about a set of overlapping, constitutive processes that produce a wide range of physical forms. The physical form is largely a reflection of these greater processes and forces.

The Inadequacy of “Good” Urbanism

Not much to add here—it’s always good to remember good urbanism can’t be reduced to recommendations that are “design-based or centered on modifying the urban form”.

Man’s first attempts at making his own decisions are called divination. Examples are the studying of omens, watching the stars, throwing and studying sticks and bones (sortilege), ‘reading’ animals’ intestines, etcetera. These are all methods that project the will of the gods, who were still thought to exist, into the external world. So decision making was in this phase a process that took place in the world, not in the mind.

Artikelen van Erik Weijers – Summary

I love this. Decision making in the world, not in the mind. And although as it is described here, this transitional phase in man’s cognition is behind us, in many other ways it of course isn’t.

The origin of consciousness described here also jibes in many ways with what I’ve been reading in Metaphors We Live By.