The @const indicates that the value is read-only (i.e. it cannot be assigned to or mutated in an expression such as an event handler), and communicates, through its similarity to const in JavaScript, that it only applies to the current scope (i.e. the current block or element).

That is, if I remove class={className} from the Child component, and/or remove the class/className prop entirely, then the class:active syntax doesn't have any effect since nothing is rendering the class prop anywhere.

I used to be a staunch defender of proper reply styles, even for casual emails. Insert your replies below the relevant paragraph and trim the exchange to be just about the matters of discussion.

Oracle didn’t seem very interested in OpenOffice.org, and the community of volunteers developing it formed The Document Foundation back in 2010. They called on Oracle to participate and donate the OpenOffice.org name and brand to the community. Oracle never did, and the resulting forked office suite has been named LibreOffice since then.

if British Army gunners are doing a countdown before making something go bang, they actually leave out Five in case anyone mishears it as “Fire”.

Any top-level statement (i.e. not inside a block or a function) can be made reactive by prefixing it with the $: JS label syntax.

which ssh-agent || (apt-get update -y && apt-get install openssh-client git -y)

Where I track capacity, appetite, & commitments. A place where I can stay organized while also allowing transparency for my teams & anyone else who is interested in what I’m currently focused on.

You should then also create a new View and apply the following filter so as to be able to tell apart which domain a particular pageview occurred onFilter Type: Custom filter > AdvancedField A --> Extract A: Hostname = (.*)Field B --> Extract B: Request URI = (.*)Output To --> Constructor: Request URI = $A1$B1

It would be best to offer an official way to allow installing local, unsigned extensions, and make the option configurable only by root, while also showing appropiate warnings about the potential risks of installing unsigned extensions.

One suggestion is to check user's passwords when they log in and you have the plain text password to hand. That way you can also take them through a reset password flow as they log in if their password has been pwned.

The word "passphrase" is used to convey the idea that a password, which is a single word, is far too short to protect you and that using a longer phrase is much better.

TheDesignProcessandPerceptionofanInstructionalDesigner

Structuring instructional processes

In distance education teaching is hardly ever an individual act, but a collaborative process joining together theexpertise of a number of specialists in design teams and delivery networks. The typical model is that of the courseteam of content experts, instructional designers and media specialists

Top 12 Small Business Ideas to Start a Business in Austin December 26, 2019 shivkumar Business Ideas Starting a business is the boldest move you can make. It is a very hardworking task as you have to invest your time, money and dedication into building a business. Starting a business is more than just a small business idea. As an entrepreneur, your highest priority is to find whether there is a business opportunity or not and to find what customers really want. This article will provide you with top 12 small business ideas to start your business in Austin. But, before that let’s find out why Austin should be on your list for starting business. Why Austin for your Small Business? Austin, Texas is home to many Corporate Headquarters and Regional Offices of big tech companies and the reasons are pretty obvious. The population of Austin is 865,000 making it the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest in the United States, making it prominent places for businesses to flourish, especially small businesses. In early 1990s, Austin experienced a big dot-com boom resulting in it being the home of many tech companies. Google, Facebook, Adobe, IBM, Apple Inc. etc. are some of the big names that have an establishment in Austin city hence, nicknamed Silicon Hills. Every Year Austin host an event called as “ACL Music Festival” due to which Austin is also called as the “Live music capital of the world”. It is a 10-day festival celebrates film, music and digital media. Many visitors from around the world visit here to participate and enjoy the 10-day festival. According to many publications like Forbes, Travel & Leisure magazine etc., Austin is a great place to live, making it best place to have a small business. “Keep Austin Weird” has been a local motto for years featured on stickers and t shirt designs. Austinites population is a mix of government employees, foreign and domestic college students, high-tech workers, blue-collar workers and business people.  Since, Austin is such a great place to start business due to its population, diversity and economics. These small business ideas will provide you with promising opportunities for your business to grow. Food & Beverage Business Wherever there are people there will be business opportunities especially when it comes to food & beverage. Eating is the primary motivation of human existence and when your business can provide people with this need fulfilled, along with an unmatchable service then your business is more likely to grow exponentially.  Recently, Food truck business in Austin has become more popular as the investment is low to start a food truck business.  Austin has the second largest number of food trucks in the United States. It is one of the best small business ideas that has the potential of becoming into a big and profitable business. All you need to start a business on wheels is a truck, equipment, business logo design and a plan. You are all set to start your business. Laundry Service Everyone likes to look good and presentable, especially business people. Wherever there is a need there is an opportunity. Now that being said, the problem that people experience is that they do not have time to wash their clothes. You can start a laundry business to meet their needs and save their time and money. To start a laundry business in Austin, all you need is a space, machines and business plan. You can bring in a lot of innovation in this business, like by providing a home delivery service, making it easier for people to get laundry service. Retail Store A retail store is a place where you can get everything in one place. It is a place where customer consumes like clothing, drug, grocery, and other convenience items. Austin’s population is big and a retail store is the place where they find their daily needs. Starting a business of retails store is very profitable small business and you can also provide online services making it available to bigger areas. Industries like pharmaceutical and tech industries are some of the primary industries in Austin. So, sourcing products related to these industries could be cost effective and you can get big margins in these products. Delivery Service Delivery services are the most profitable business opportunity that helps businesses to get their products reach to their customer. You can act as a mediator in providing these businesses with delivery services. You can partner with eCommerce websites like Amazon in becoming their delivery partner on contractual basics. The resources that you need for starting a delivery business are a vehicle and a delivery partner. You can sign up for Amazon delivery service partner, which is a very lucrative offer as you do not need to find customers, Amazon is your customer and when Amazon is your customer then you do not have to worry about your business. It is one of the best B2B2C businesses that will offer a lot of expansion in future. Fitness Studio Fitness Industry is a booming industry with a Global market of $87.23 Billion and in US alone the market size is worth $27.6 Billion. People want to look good, men or women they want to be fit as it makes them feel confident, attractive and desirable. One of the primary motivations of human beings is to procreate and being fit aids you with that. A person subconsciously finds a partner who is fit, healthy and attractive. The fitness industry thrives on this basic human nature. The average amount that you need to start a fitness club in United States is $10,000 to $50,000. You can get customers to take annual membership and along with that you can also sell fitness products. There is a whole new opportunity for fitness products like Protein powder, BCAAs other supplements. You can also sell these products online which will make you extra bucks. Online Marketing Service To get any business out there you need to market your business. Marketing helps a business to get customers. A brand is created using marketing and the efforts to provide great service. In this digital age, online factors have affected the entire globe. Many studies show that people prefer more and more to buy products online. Ecommerce industry is big and it is getting bigger. They all have one thing in common, they all need Digital Marketing. Google is one of the most used search engines in the world and ranking your website high on Google will not only drive more traffic to your website but also it helps you in selling more products or services. Selling products or services means more revenue. Anyone is willing to pay you a good amount of money, if you can bring your website high on ranking for them. It is the best B2B business, which offers you a scope for expansion. It is a constant process so the revenue will be reoccurring. Graphics plays a very important role in online marketing, so, if you are good at designing then you can also provide graphic design services along with Digital Marketing services. As a startup, you can provide services from your home or you can find a co-working space. You can get customers online either on your own website or other freelancing websites like UpWork, people per hour etc. Transport Service The transportation industry is a big industry, especially in Austin. People use vehicles, public transport, metro, etc. to get to their destination. There is a lot of opportunity in this industry and you can either provide service or a rental based business model. For service based business, you can partner with Uber or independently start your own travel agency or you can do both. Uber gives you freedom of doing the rides when you want and where you want. So, doing both will make more sense. For a rental business model, you have to find the vehicle category you want to invest in. It depends on lot of factors hence, it is necessary to do market research on how people will respond to your business idea. After that you can start planning your business plan, market it, and get funding. Wedding Planner Wedding planning is not only a profitable business but also a very joyful one. You can use creativity and management skills to create a beautiful experience for the couple entering into their new life. This business is the best because investment is very low and the profits are very high. Average wedding cost around $30,000 and people are willing to spend more. Your commission from this business can be $5,000-10,000 per wedding and when you add that number annually, you get a six figure business. You can pitch your customers different packages and ideas and get them to pay for additional benefits. This can be your unique selling point and help your business in creating market space for itself. All you need to start a Wedding Planner business is business card designs, a catalog and an office. You are all set to execute your plan for building your six-figure business.  Maintenance Service Whether it’s our home or office, we need to maintain the functionality of them. That’s where a maintenance services come into play. Providing maintenance service to household as well as corporations helps you in making this business profitable. Technically, every building is your customer meaning the opportunity is limitless. You can start this business from your home. The things that you need to start this business are knowledge and a professional certification. If you do not have the certification, then you need to hire people who can do these services. You can do that either on incentive based or have them on salary base. Your primary revenue will be the maintenance cost and the margins on the replaced product. Since you can start this business from home, the startup cost in as low as $2,000. So, if you are searching for a small business idea for business then this is it. Security Services Security is the primary concern for corporations and people. There are different types of security services that you can provide like cyber security, bodyguards, industrial security, security guard etc. Many corporations hire security service providers for maintaining and protecting the security.  Many corporations are more concerned about cyber security than their office security. They keep their servers and information very private. If you can bring a product or service that helps the business in keeping their data online safe, then you just have a business there. This is the best business, if you have experience in providing online security measures or software development. If you are more inclined towards providing one on one security then you can start your own security agency. Solar Panel Installation Business Ever since the invention of the engine and petroleum industry, people have been searching for alternative energy sources. The very first energy source used for producing electricity was coal, which was used to operate steam engines. It was replaced by petrol and diesel. There are very limited amount of energy sources that are extracted out of the earth. Fossil fuels are depleting on a large scale and we need to replace them with an alternative energy source. This is where energy sources like solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy etc. come into action. You can produce very high amounts of energy in the form of electricity using these energy sources. Solar panels are one such method that uses solar energy to produce electricity. People are more inclining towards installing these panels for a variety of reasons like saving environment, long term cost saving etc. Austin, Texas is blessed with a good amount of sunlight for using it as an energy source. Starting a solar panel installation business will earn you good profits as many Governments from around the world are actively participating in promoting the use of alternative energy. So, they provide special incentives for customers who want to install solar panels. In the United States, going solar gives you a tax credit dollar to dollar reduction. These benefits for customers can add value to your business and you can provide your customer with better and a quality service. Salon and Spa Business Salon and Spa business is also one of the small business ideas that require a very small to big amount of investment depending on the quality of service you want to offer. It is the best business idea, if you have skills for providing professional salon service. We all visit the salon once a month to get our hair done or to get a certain look. As mentioned earlier, this business also thrives on human need to look good and perceived attractive. A combo of salon and spa service will give you a great exposure to clients because you can recommend a salon customer with Spa service and vice versa. This way you can increase your business revenue and get more customers. The average investment cost for starting a salon business is $100,000 to $500,000 based on a variety of factors. However, the investment has good potential of getting a good ROI. You must include a plan for this business for getting profits.  Conclusion Starting a small business can be overwhelming but taking business step by step can make your job easier and it also help you in tracking your progress. The most important part of starting a business is planning. You must plan your business before executing any steps regarding your business. The other major part of starting a business is marketing. Many businesses spend the majority of their spending on marketing. It is the best way for businesses to get customers to know them.

“Why don’t you assume you’ve written your book already — and all you have to do now is find it?”

“To measure the head, the height, etc., does not indeed mean that we are establishing a system of pedagogy, but it indicates the road which we may follow to arrive at such a system, since if we are to educate an individual, we must have a definite and direct knowledge of him.”

But in spite of all these tendencies, Scientific Pedagogy has never yet been definitely constructed nor defined. It is something vague of which we speak, but which does not,[Pg 2] in reality, exist. We might say that it has been, up to the present time, the mere intuition or suggestion of a science which, by the aid of the positive and experimental sciences that have renewed the thought of the nineteenth century, must emerge from the mist and clouds that have surrounded it.

offline society

joint teach-out will showcase a selection of individual voices and personal narratives of those from Puerto Rico affected by the crisis

At the moment we are experimenting alot with documentation - documentation is not just a 'how to' but it plays many roles, as text books, as proxy marketing material for software, as a process for developing communities of expertise, as self help guides, as a ladder to the next level of expertise in a specific subject, as sales material for developers, as support material for developers, as support material for workshops... there are a lot of corners documentation feeds into and we are trying out many of them.

So if you are figuring on hitting the jackpot and make a name for yourself through the traditional channels, and you are dampening efforts by others to write docs for the same project, do a quick ideological and reality check first. Then contribute to, and encourage as many people as possible to contribute to, free documentation about your project.

shall submit to the mayor and the speaker of the council a copy

One could argue that perhaps what we see in this history is not the creation ofobjects as an ontological element but rather the development of a language to such alevel of complexity that it is finally able to describe objects that already exist in theworld outside of language. Against this objection, it must be noted that what we witnessin this history, what drives it forward, is the difficulty of relating language to world,whether it is a simulated world or a new world of computer graphics. Moreover, theexamples presented here and in the textbooks and manuals for object-oriented pro-gramming demonstrate the often-difficult art of defining the objects that will constitutea given system

None of these objects, e.g., bits, functions, classes, and even the object thatSmalltalk invented, exist as objects outside of language. This is not to say that they areonly linguistic or that they do not really exist. The digital real exists and exerts itselfwithin its ossification into object form, but in the real, there are no objects, merely avast field of electric difference. Likewise, it is not to say that everything is language orthat everything is material. A discourse that does not affect the electronic system withinthe machine can never flip a bit. Conversely, for electric difference to mean anything, itmust be delimited as an object, process, or other data type within language. Program-ming is a process and system of representing and simultaneously hiding the real inlanguage.

Smalltalk also advanced this metaphor of computation as objects along anotherrelated track that turned computation into a self-referential system of interactingcomputers. Kay (1996) describes this understanding of objects in relation to computers.Smalltalk is a recursion on the notion of computer itself. Instead of dividingBcomputer stuff^into things each less strong than the whole—like data structures,procedures, and functions which are the usual paraphernalia of programminglanguages—each Smalltalk object is a recursion on the entire possibilities of thecomputer. Thus its semantics are a bit like having thousands and thousands ofcomputer all hooked together by a very fast network. Questions of concreterepresentation can thus be postponed almost indefinit

Math and computation are obviously related, but thequestion that simultaneously unites the two and inscribes their difference is whether mathexplains a fundamentally computational world or the other way arou

Math and computation are obviously related, but thequestion that simultaneously unites the two and inscribes their difference is whether mathexplains a fundamentally computational world or the other way arou

These developments were not only a change in metaphors but also produced changes inthe underlying code of the compiler

Ultimately, while the compilability of a program and its set of rules for translationinto binary code constrain the possibilities of computer programs and language, the useof programs to communicate between humans and the metaphors and abstractionspermitted by object-oriented languages produce languages that approximate the com-plexity and creativity ofBreal languages.^

ms. Thus, the point isnot to suggest that the object is somehow an inevitable and necessary outcome ofthis process of linguistic abstraction. Rather, this history demonstrates how thecomputational object, as one possible outcome for a process of abstraction, offersa number of critical insights into the relationship between objects, language, andthe real

What is claimed is:

It can be complex to sort out lithium ion batteries based on the battery chemistry and conventional methods cannot effectively recycle lithium ion batteries with mixed chemistries because different procedures are required to separate the respective compounds for reuse as active cath ode material.

While 97% of lead acid batteries are recycled, such that over 50 percent of the lead supply comes from recycled batteries, lithium ion batteries are not yet being recycled widely.

In short, recycling of lithium ion batteries not only protects the environment and saves energy, but also presents a lucrative outlet for battery manufacturers by providing an inexpensive Supply of active cathode material for new batteries.

Additionally, battery disposal would require that fresh metals be mined for cathode material, and mining has a much bigger environmental impact and cost than simple recycling would.

Recycling of the charge material in the lithium batteries both reduces waste volume and yields active charge material for new batteries

Moreover, the chemistry of recycling will become more important than ever and let’s hope that chemists can successively give a second life to wastes. Undoubtedly, sustainable batteries can be made and bring major advances in the protection of our environment, provided we realize such an effort is only worthwhile if we use CO2-free electricity.

Until an alter-native can be found, it will be necessary to design batteries with suf-ficient confinement in the event of cell malfunction

Although ‘recycling chemistry’ is not particularly fashionable today, it encompasses a discipline that is very important for the future of our planet.

The recycling process of e-waste should reduce scrap volume, separate battery components and enrich valuable metals, and eliminate or reduce the danger of waste release to the environment.

Several hundred thousand tons of batteries are sold annually; this constitutes an ‘urban mine’ for the recovery of thousands of tons of metal with cost advantages over direct mining.

These challenges call for a collaborative effort between inorganic, organic and biochemists to develop innovative and diversified syn-thetic approaches to optimize existing materials and design new materials for batteries.

A great advantage of the Li-ion battery, as opposed to Pb–acid, Ni–Cd and Ni–metal hydride batteries, is its versatility with respect to the wide range of positive and nega-tive electrodes that can be used, which offers possibilities in terms of designing new high-performance electrodes based on low-cost

the only viable path towards a ‘greener and more sustainable’ battery is rooted in our ability to design electroactive materials that have comparable performances to today’s electrodes, but cost less energy and release less CO2 during production.

It is essential to consider sustainability, renewability and ‘green chemistry’4 when selecting materials for storage devices (for example, electrodes, catalysts), especially when used in applications with large markets and volume (vehicles, grid).

It is therefore essential to incorporate material abun-dance, eco-efficient synthetic processes and life-cycle analysis into the design of new electrochemical storage systems.

In short, we require methods to establish the health record of the battery, analogous to personal health records for human beings.

New methods must be developed that will allow batteries to be controlled and traced so that they can be used for more than one application.

We need new analytical methods, optimized to probe specific battery chemistries, so that new technologies can be brought to the market more rapidly to meet societal demands.

n terms of sustainability, rechargeable aqueous Na-ion tech-nology is attractive. But cost expectations have yet to be realized, raising the question of whether aqueous systems can ever be made cheaper than non-aqueous systems

Future batteries could have, in addition to the positive/negative out-puts, an extra analyser output

an we draw inspiration from the medical field and all the tool-ing that is currently used during surgery or in implants, and from the increased use of sensors in advanced manufacturing?

Another burning question concerns the visualization of electron transfer and redox processes at even shorter length scales. The study of nucleation/growth kinetics of phases containing peroxide-like species by EPR imaging in the layered lithium-rich oxides is a first step, even though the resolution has been limited to micrometres.

The challenge is significant, but, given the critical role of these pro-cesses in battery cycle and calendar life, attempts to develop new tools to attack this issue must be worth the risk.

Although the use of a non-aqueous-based electrolyte pushes up the cost, this finding has opened new avenues for explora-tion83, including the use of inorganic86 or organic inks87 in aqueous systems, with potential cost and energy-density advantages for grid-scale storage.

New approaches are sorely needed. Cheaper separators must also be developed84, and concepts such as membrane-free separators must be pursued.

Replacing Li by more abundant metals Na, Mg and Ca.

Although some of these (with schematics shown in Fig. 2) are in the very early stages of commercialization, there is no clear-cut winner; several advances have, however, been made, and so optimism must prevail, motivating continued research and development of all of these technologies

But these advances do not address concerns about lim-ited Li reserves, which result from the predicted increased battery demands

These reserves are indeed limited, but Li can be recycled by hydrometallurgy, although the economics of such a process has yet to be worked out

The material fabrication step is by far the most problematic,

the electrification of transport requires much cheaper and longer-lasting batteries.

Sustainability and cost concerns require that we greatly increase the battery lifetime and consider second lives for batteries.

we must integrate sustainability of battery materials into our research endeavours, choosing chemistries that have a minimum footprint in nature and that are more readily recycled or integrated into a full circular economy.

The fact that not being able to discern exactly when the FPS began shows how the whole question of genre is about feel. It's about the point when a body of similar works has mapped out the boundaries of what they're interested in - what they are and what they aren't - and when there's no clear leader any more.

Most genres bubble up outside the mainstream industry, built by modders and tinkerers, amateurs and enthusiasts. In these 'folk games' it's sometimes hard to find a single originator or author, instead groups of people feeding from each other, freely copying, rearranging and rebuilding to develop and refine a core concept. The best ones find audiences and rapidly grow, even as they're still evolving

The point is that the general concept of the battle royale has grown almost naturally from wider culture, the evolving nature of online tech and modding scenes

That transformation, in which a new genre has originated, is a fascinating mirror of the wonderful way ideas merge and evolve, spread and multiply, skating through inspiration and invention, copying and stealing.

However, this assumption of an essentially “outsider” researcher, though true in many cases, deserves a degree of scrutiny and problematizing. In some cases, researchers come from the communities that they research (even if they are now part of an academic or other similar institution), in some cases researchers are not formally affiliated to a larger institution and may be performing work for local benefit at a local level (on behalf of a community group, for instance) and in some instances a researcher may be “between cultures” (for example, being originally from a Global South nation but having lived in a Global North one for a long period of time).

La pregunta sigue siendo, sin embargo, cómo hacer explícita la política onto-epistémica de la traducción que ocurre entren mundos bajo condiciones de conexión parcial que son, al mismo tiempo, relaciones asimétricas

’. Es esto quizás otra forma de pensar en lo que es el ‘diseño’ sin tener que invocar este concepto. Siguiendo esta idea, no hablaríamos de diseño sino de conversaciones para la coordinación del accionar y el emocionar (‘coordinaciones de coordinaciones conductuales’), y el espacio relacional generado por lo comunal sería el espacio por excelencia para ello, llamémoslo conversaciones para la acción (Winnograd y Flores), diseño, o simplemente conversaciones para el vivir y en el vivir comunal.

ay una gran necesidad de métodos que permitan el diseño colaborativo a lo largo de períodos más largos de lo habitual, que construyan a partir de los roles cambiantes de los diseñadores en esta temporalidad extendida (más allá de ser, digamos, iniciadores o facilitadores) y que tomen en serio la naturaleza distribuida de la agencia del diseño, incluyendo, hay que añadir, a los nohumanos. La articulación de prácticas de diseño-en-uso en el contexto de actividades colectivas de diseño de más larga duración es particularmente importante en este momento.

En todas estas experiencias la ‘comunidad’ es entendida en términos profundamente históricos, abiertos y no esencialistas. En todo caso, hay un énfasis en la creación de nuevos espacios para lo comunal. De ello se desprende que la realización de lo comunal es, siempre, un proceso histórico abierto. En el lenguaje de Maturana y Varela las comunidades, como sistemas sociales, son entidades autopoiéticas de tercer orden definidas por un sistema particular de relaciones entre los componentes que, a través de su dinámica recursiva, crean el sistema que es la comunidad. Esta ‘clausura operacional’ (a menudo codificada por los lugareños en términos de ‘la defensa de nuestra cultura’) se mantiene a lo largo de la relación de la comunidad con su entorno (el contexto sociopolítico y ecológico, en términos generales). En esta forma de relacionamiento siempre en marcha (acoplamiento estructural), las comunidades pueden sufrir cambios estructurales de distintos tipos (e.g., mediante la adopción de las TIC); sin embargo, el sistema básico de relaciones tiene que ser mantenido por la comunidad para preservar su autopoiesis, es decir, su capacidad de autocreación. La autonomía es el nombre dado a este proceso

‘caminar la palabra’, un concepto desarrollado por la minga social y comunitaria de los nasa para señalar la necesidad de hacerse visible, denunciar y tejer conocimientos, resistencias y estrategias de manera colectiva con otros movimientos. Las alianzas requieren la creación de inter-conocimiento y traducción entre movimientos y mundos para permitir la inteligibilidad y una medida de coordinación (

¿Es posible pensar en configuraciones no totalizantes que no se comporten como sistemas convencionales pero que, sin embargo, actúen como un todo? Dicho de otra manera, el pensamiento de sistemas se basa en la idea de que el todo surge de la interacción de las partes. Durante las últimas tres décadas las teorías de emergencia y auto-organización han puesto de relieve el hecho de que estos procesos dan lugar a sistemas complejos que no son fijos ni estáticos sino abiertos y adaptables y, a menudo, existen dentro de condiciones de inestabilidad y lejos del equilibrio

Para los posestructuralistas puede ser cuestionable el uso de este concepto que, como la estructura, la identidad o la esencia, ha sido fuertemente criticado y deconstruido por sus conexiones con la organicidad, la totalización y el comportamiento a la manera de una ley, sin siquiera mencionar las aplicaciones militares-industriales posibilitadas por el análisis de sistemas. Esta crítica es importante; sin embargo, es otro ejemplo de la manera como el posestructuralismo deconstruye demasiado y no reconstruye lo suficiente. Las nociones de redes y entramados (assemblages) han sido, por supuesto, importantes agendas reconstructivas (e.g., Latour 2007; de Landa 2006) pero es justo decir que la cuestión de las totalidades (wholes), la forma y la coherencia sigue sin resolverse en la teoría social. La teoría de la complejidad ofrece pistas útiles en este sentido. Como Mark Taylor (2001) señalara al discutir estos conceptos “después de considerar la lógica de las redes debe quedar claro que los sistemas y las estructuras —sean biológicas, sociales o culturales— son más diversas y complejas que lo que los críticos deconstructivos piensan. Los sistemas de auto-organización emergentes actúan como un todo pero no totalizan [...] En vez de reprimir las diferencias [como temen los deconstructivistas] la actividad global [i.e., sistémica] aumenta la diversidad de la que dependen la creatividad y la vida productiva” (

La generación de condiciones favorables para proyectos de vida colectivos exige la creación de entornos favorables mediante la “infraestructuración” apropiada. Las infraestructuras habilitantes —el resultado del co-diseño— tienen la intención de contrarrestar las infraestructuras desfuturizantes que están en la base de la mayoría de las actividades modernas —su subversión desde el interior (e.g., a través del reequipamiento, entendido en sentido amplio) o desde el exterior (nuevos diseños)—. Hacer el co-diseño posible y probable requiere que se establezca una multiplicidad de elementos, desde la investigación, la experimentación y la creación de prototipos hasta plataformas, redes locales y herramientas orientadas

. El diseño mismo se convierte en un proyecto en transición y se une a otros proyectos teórico-políticos que buscan enriquecer nuestro entendimiento de la vida y de lo humano.

Este espacio ya está siendo poblado por muchas diminutas islas de transición en las que la insostenibilidad y la desfuturización son mantenidas a raya. Pero todavía hay un largo camino por recorrer hasta que tales islas den lugar a los nuevos continentes donde la vida puede volver a florecer.

Una de las piedras angulares del enfoque es construir la resiliencia de la comunidad como “un proyecto de diseño colectivo” (Hopkins 2011: 45). Uno de los principales aportesde la iniciativa es repensar la resiliencia a través de prácticas de localización.

Esta metafísica es sustituida por una ontología en la que los humanos no ‘descubren’ el mundo sino que lo constituyen, ya sea a través de la enacción (Varela), el lenguaje (Winograd y Flores), las mallas y tejidos (Ingold) o la ineluctable proyección y articulación con las cosas (e.g., Fry, Willis, Tonkinwise). Las diversas lecturas representan diversos intentos por desarrollar enfoques no dualistas del conocimiento, la cognición y el diseño. De esta manera también van más allá de la crítica hacia formulaciones alternativas.

implica una concepción expandida del ser y podría fomentar un tipo de pensamiento de diseño y la creación de prototipos que encarnen lo nuevo que está emergiendo o quiere emerger. Este tipo de presenciación, como argumentan los autores, es propicio para un espacio de transición donde nuevos tipos de ‘practicantes de primera línea’, que operen desde posibilidades de futuro genuinas, aprovechen las configuraciones socio-naturales emergentes y donde la gente pueda crear nuevas conexiones comunales. Dichos profesionales de primera línea se darían cuenta de que «el verdadero poder surge de reconocer los patrones que se están formando y de ubicarse en ellos» (Scharmer 2009: 32). Abordarían, sin ambigüedad, el juicio de Varela de que la ciencia moderna no entiende la experiencia —ahondando en la experiencia (de forma no dualista) como una verdadera fuente para el diseño—. Su marco comprende una serie de etapas (desde descargar, ver y sentir lo nuevo hasta la presenciación, la cristalización, producción de prototipos y ejecución) que implican ‘dejar ir’, ‘dejar llegar’, enactuar y encarnar lo emergente. Estos cambios tienen lugar dentro de un espacio social de creación (presenciación) y destrucción (‘ausenciación’) colectivas que requiere una transformación personal significativa hacia modos de ser más relacionales.

La pregunta fundamental del diseño ontológico —“¿Cómo nuestras herramientas son parte del trasfondo en el que podemos preguntarnos qué es ser humano?” (Winograd y Flores 1986: 163)— se vuelve más complicada; debe ampliarse, al menos, considerando cómo cambia el entendimiento que tienen los diseñadores sobre lo ‘humano’ y sobre los ‘mundos’ cuando aparecen muchos tipos de no humanos y los entramados heterogéneos de vida que los no humanos contribuyen a traer a la existencia.

Las rupturas son momentos en los que se interrumpe el modo habitual de ser-en-el-mundo; cuando ocurre una descomposición de este tipo nuestras prácticas consuetudinarias y el papel de nuestras herramientas en su mantenimiento quedan expuestas y aparecen nuevas soluciones de diseño;

Como digo en broma, parafraseando, ‘denme una maloca y levantaré un mundo relacional’ (incluyendo las interrelaciones profundas entre los humanos y los no humanos); al contrario, denme una casa en los suburbios y levantaré un mundo de individuos descomunalizados, separados del mundo natural. Por eso el diseño genera, inevitablemente, las estructuras de posibilidad humanas (y de otros seres de la Tierra). El problema con el diseño moderno, sin embargo, es que ha estructurado la insostenibilidad como la forma dominante de ser

¿Por qué el diseño podría considerarse «ontológico»? La respuesta inicial a esta pregunta es sencilla: «encontramos la cuestión profunda del diseño cuando reconocemos que al diseñar herramientas estamos diseñando formas de ser» (Winograd y Flores 1986: xi). Si entendemos por diseño «la interacción entre el entendimiento y la creación» (Winograd y Flores 1986: 4), podemos decir que es ontológico porque es una conversación sobre posibilidades. Una forma más para llegar a la dimensión ontológica del diseño es abordando «la pregunta más amplia de cómo una sociedad engendra invenciones cuya existencia altera dicha sociedad» (Winograd y Flores 1986: 4-5). Las tecnologías digitales (como la imprenta, el automóvil o la televisión en el pasado) son, por supuesto, casos dramáticos de innovaciones radicales que abrieron ámbitos de posibilidades sin precedentes; transformaron todo un conjunto de prácticas cotidianas. Cada herramienta y tecnología es ontológica en el sentido de que, por muy humilde o insignificante que sea, inaugura una serie de rituales, formas de hacer y modos de ser (Escobar 1994). Las tecnologías son lo que Haraway llamó «actores materiales-semióticos” (1991) que contribuyen a dar forma a lo que es ser humano.Un segundo sentido en el que el diseño es ontológico, ya insinuado por Winograd y Flores, es que al diseñar herramientas los humanos diseñamos las condiciones de nuestra existencia y, a su vez, las condiciones de nuestro diseño. Diseñamos herramientas y estas herramientas nos diseñan. ‘El diseño diseña’ es la fórmula apta y corta dada a esta circularidad por Anne-Marie Willis:

Un principio general que me parece útil es que una ontología relacional es aquella dentro de la cual nada preexiste a las relaciones que la constituyen. En estas ontologías la vida es interrelación e interdependencia de principio a fin, siempre y en todo momento. El budismo tiene una de las nociones más sucintas y poderosas en este sentido: nada existe por sí mismo, todo interexiste; intersomos e interexistimos con todo en el planeta. Este principio de ‘interser’ ha sido ampliamente desarrollado en el pensamiento budista,23 pero, como he insistido, también caracteriza de facto muchas tradiciones culturales históricas. Una forma diferente de ver este asunto, desde la perspectiva de la biología fenomenológica, es la noción de la “coincidencia ininterrumpida de nuestro ser, nuestro hacer y nuestro conocer” (Maturana y Varela 1987: 35) que ya mencioné; en otras palabras, existe una profunda conexión entre la acción y la experiencia que, a su vez, infunde cierta circularidad en todo conocimiento y que Maturana y Varela resumen con la máxima “Todo lo que se hace es conocimiento y todo lo que se conoce es hacer [o diciendo que] cada acto de conocimiento origina un mundo” (1987: 26). Esta coincidencia de ser/hacer/conocer implica que estamos profundamente inmersos en el mundo junto con otros seres sensibles que son, igual e ineluctablemente, conocedores-hacedores como nosotros.

Es importante destacar que ninguno de los autores que estoy revisando está llamando a un rechazo total de la racionalidad cartesiana ni de la razón centrada en el sujeto, tan discutidas por los filósofos intramodernos de la modernidad (e.g., Habermas 1987); más bien, piden el debilitamiento de su posición dominante y el desplazamiento de su centralidad en el diseño del mundo y nuestras vidas. Est

A pesar de sus esfuerzos, ¿continúan las tendencias recientes sosteniendo, de alguna manera, un entendimiento intramoderno (fundamentalmente euroamericano) del mundo, como los teóricos decoloniales podrían argumentar? ¿Siguen estas tendencias críticas funcionando dentro de una episteme renovada pero todavía principalmente Occidental/moderna?

El primer punto es que el problema no es que los dualismos existan; después de todo muchas sociedades se han estructurado en torno a las dualidades, aunque en la mayoría de los casos estas dualidades son tratadas en términos de complementariedad de pares no jerárquicos (e.g., la dualidad yin/yang). El problema es la forma como son tratadas esas divisiones culturalmente, en particular las jerarquías establecidas entre los pares de cada binario y las consecuencias sociales, ecológicas y políticas de esas jerarquías. En el argot de la perspectiva decolonial latinoamericana esta característica se conoce como ‘colonialidad’ y es considerada central para el sistema mundo moderno/colonial que nació con la conquista de América y que erigió al mundo europeo en la cúspide de la civilización. Una característica central de esta colonialidad del poder es la clasificación jerárquica de las diferencias, lo cual conduce a la supresión, devaluación, subordinación o, incluso, destrucción de formas de conocimiento y ser que no se ajustan a los dictados de la forma dominante de la modernidad de origen europeo. En términos de género, la colonialidad cimentó la separación entre lo humano/civilizado (el mundo europeo), clasificado también en términos de género, y lo no-humano/no-civilizado (los mundos no-modernos de los pueblos racializados), los cuales solo podían ser descritos en términos de sexo biológico.

La pregunta que tendremos que hacernos de forma cada vez más refinada es si podemos imaginar y crear formas alternativas de ser, hacer, y conocer sin perder la capacidad de entender y maniobrar hábilmente en los meandros de la constelación moderna de ciencia, real, individuo, y economía. Se necesitaría una transformación ontológica relativamente profunda de nuestra parte para alcanzar esta meta.

Algunas de estas tendencias, además de mostrar cómo la hegemonía del conocimiento moderno trabaja para invisibilizar otros saberes y formas de ser o para convertirlos en alternativas no creíbles a lo que existe (Santos 2007), ponen de relieve los vínculos entre las prácticas hegemónicas de la ciencia y la violencia y la opresión en contextos no occidentales.

¿qué haría falta para que los diseñadores operaran sin una visión puramente objetivista y única de lo real?; ¿para que abrazaran la idea de que las prácticas del diseño también pueden contribuir a crear múltiples sentidos de ‘lo que existe’?; ¿para que tomaran en serio la idea de que la realidad es un flujo constante y continuo de formas e intensidades de todo tipo? V

Sólo tenemos el mundo que generamos con otros y sólo el amor nos ayuda a generarlo» (1987: 248).3 La noción budista de ‘co-surgimiento dependiente’, el concepto de ‘emergencia’ de la teoría de la complejidad y otras nociones afines concuerdan con esta opinión. Estos son principios de relacionalidad.

Tal vez el mejor punto de partida para mi propósito es la máxima de que enfrentamos problemas modernos para los cuales ya no hay soluciones modernas. Hablando ontológicamente uno puede decir que la crisis es la crisis de un mundo particular, o conjunto de prácticas de hacer mundo, que podemos llamar la forma dominante de la euro-modernidad (capitalista, racionalista, liberal, secular, patriarcal, blanca, o lo que sea) o, como ya he mencionado, el mundo de un solo mundo —el mundo que se ha arrogado para sí el derecho a ser ‘el’ mundo, sometiendo a todos los otros mundos a sus propios términos o, peor aún, a la no existencia. Si la crisis es causada, fundamentalmente, por esta ontología de un solo mundo se deduce que enfrentar la crisis implica transiciones hacia el pluriverso. Esto es, precisamente, lo que subraya otra de las principales premisas de las epistemologías del sur al afirmar que la diversidad del mundo es infinita; de manera sucinta, el mundo se compone de múltiples mundos, múltiples ontologías o ‘reales’ que están lejos de haber sido agotados por la experiencia eurocéntrica o de haber sido reducidos a sus términos.

el espacio vital que asegura la pervivencia como pueblo, como cultura en convivencia con la naturaleza y los espíritus. El territorio es nuestro verdadero libro histórico que mantiene viva la tradición de quienes habitamos en él. Representa y describe los principios y prácticas de nuestra cultura. Implica la posesión, control y dominio del espacio físico y espiritual. Como espacio colectivo de existencia, posibilita la convivencia armónica entre los pueblos. Fundamenta la cosmovisión indígena como razón de nuestra pervivencia”.

El diseño ha tenido una existencia cómoda y celebrada dentro de lo que usualmente llamamos, de una forma despreocupada, la ‘era moderna’. Esta era, sin embargo, es una compleja constelación de procesos que co-evolucionan, incluyendo una episteme particular, un conjunto de formas sociales (entre las que el capitalismo y la colonialidad ocupan un lugar preponderante) y una arquitectura ontológica estructurada en torno a los dualismos fundadores de naturaleza/cultura y Occidente/no-Occidente. Esta formación onto-epistémica y social está en la base del diseño. Liberar al ‘hombre diseñador’ de este complejo de fuerzas para que pueda volver a jugar un papel más constructivo en la praxis del estar vivo, está íntimamente ligado con la desaparición del Hombre como centro de todo conocimiento y como medida de la vida.

Pero la pregunta de la relación entre el diseño y la creación de órdenes sociales profundamente desiguales, insensibles y destructivos parece seguir siendo el ‘problema perverso’ del diseño.

Muchas personas consideran que la teoría de sistemas vivos es la base del diseño para la conservación, regeneración y cuidado de los sistemas naturales; estos objetivos involucran ‘sembrar’ todos los sistemas socionaturales con diversidad y crear resiliencia a través de redes inteligentes, aprovechando el potencial de autoorganización de los sistemas naturales y sociales. Algunos teóricos de la ecología van en contra de la dominancia del diseño experto y claman por [...] un proceso profundamente participativo en el que los lenguajes y las barreras técnico/disciplinarias se transformen hacia una comprensión compartida del problema del diseño. El diseño ecológico cambia las viejas reglas sobre qué importa al conocimiento y quién cuenta como conocedor. Sugiere que la sostenibilidad es un proceso cultural más que experto y que todos debemos adquirir una competencia básica en la formación de nuestro mundo [...] Durante demasiado tiempo hemos esperado que las profesiones del diseño transformen un mundo considerado como inerte de tal forma que funcione. La alternativa es tratar de catalizar, suavemente, las potencialidades de auto-diseño de la naturaleza (van der Ryn y Cowan 2007: 147, 130).

Este libro busca ser un aporte a la cultura crítica del diseño en momentos en que los diseñadores están redescubriendo las capacidades de la gente para dar forma a sus mundos a través de herramientas y soluciones colaborativas. Es, sin embargo, una contribución desde América Latina a la conversación transnacional sobre diseño, es decir, una contribución que se deriva de las experiencias y luchas epistémicas y políticas contemporáneas en América Latina.

La inspiración para esta propuesta viene de la idea de que la autonomía es la característica más fundamental de lo vivo; en la jerga de Maturana y Varela, que explico en los capítulos 3 y 6, la autonomía es la clave de la autopoiesis o auto-creación de los sistemas vivos. Esta idea servirá de ancla parcial para proponer una práctica particular y una forma de pensar sobre la relación entre el diseño, la política y la vida, que llamaré ‘diseño autónomo’.

El diseño ontológico surge de una observación aparentemente simple: que al diseñar herramientas (objetos, estructuras, políticas, sistemas expertos, discursos, incluso narrativas) estamos creando formas de ser. Una idea clave en este sentido es lo que Anne Marie Willis ha llamado “el doble movimiento de diseño ontológico” (2006), a saber, la toma de conciencia de que diseñamos nuestro mundo y que, al hacerlo, nuestro mundo nos diseña —en pocas palabras, que el diseño diseña—

mi principal preocupación es con la diferencia y cómo es invisibilizada, rearticulada en discursos que no le son propios, o normalizada. Este ha sido el ‘problema central’ que ha resonado en toda mi vida intelectual, en gran parte, de manera intuitiva. También tiene que ver con ‘vivir sin miedo con y dentro de la diferencia’, como señalan las feministas del Sur Global con frecuencia (e.g., Trinh 1989; Milczarek-Desai 2002; Lugones 2010a), es decir, con la práctica ética y política de la alteridad, que implica una profunda preocupación por la justicia social, la igualdad radical de todos los mundos y seres y la no jerarquía entre ellos.

. First, as has been underlined above, one needs to take into account both actors’ inward oriented and outward oriented communicative practices. In addition, it is understood that media representation today goes far beyond coverage by mainstream media as it relies on actors’ multi-layered media ensemble. Second, instead of arguing for a straightforward causal correlation between ‘media attention’ and social standing, this research reveals a more eclectic process: a spiral of legitimation that is based on the relation between the organization’s internal communicative figuration and the communicative figuration related to the public discourse around the political qualities of contemporary media technologies and infrastructures

The Club’s media ensemble and interactions with rel-evant actors perpetuate each other and co-determine the Club’s abil-ity to politicize media technologies and infrastructures. The dynamic at hand that best describes this process will be referred to as a spiral of legitimation.According to Mark Suchman, legitimacy is practically the basis of poli-tics as it addresses the forces ‘that constrain, construct, and empower organizational actors

Right from the start the Club had close affiliations with the then newly founded alternative tageszeitung (‘daily newspaper’), commonly referred to as taz, one of the Club’s co-founders (Wau Holland) being a column-ist during the mid-1980s. In addition, the hacker organization has pub-lished its own Datenschleuder magazine since 1984 (still ongoing) and was very active in enlarging bulletin boards systems (BBS) in Germany throughout the 1980s. Consequently, the Club’s media ensemble relied on practices related to analogue and digital media and comprised both coverage by and access to news outlets

Richard Ericson and his colleagues (1989) make a useful distinc-tion between media access and media coverage. By access, they mean the news space, time and context to reasonably represent one’s own perspec-tive, whereas coverage entails news space and time but not necessarily the context for favourable representations (Ericson etal. 1989: 5). This distinction is vital because it demonstrates that media access—as with access to all kinds of resources at institutional levels—remains a politi-cal question (Freedman 2014). While media coverage simply denotes the amount and prominence of attention and visibility a group receives, media access indicates that an actor has a particular standing and is treated as an actor with a serious voice in the media

a lower number of partici-pating members also meant a lower number of differing opinions; which, in turn, enabled the group to keep the frames of relevance more focused and to make decisions in a timely manner. Accordingly, performing direct digital action in the form of hacking was directly related to com-municative practices, as they later played an important role in relation to organizing, coordinating and executing the Club’s political project

In other words, with the increasing relevance of practices related to media technologies and infra-structures for social arrangements in general, and for political engage-ments in particular, media technologies and infrastructures increasingly become sites of political struggle in their own right (Kubitschko 2017). It is in this context that scholarly interest in ‘hacker cultures’—owing to the diversity of hacker collectives the plural is essential—has grown considerably in the past decade. While governmental institutions and mainstream media often use ‘hacking’ as an umbrella term for com-puter-related crime, these depictions are contrasted with insightful research that highlights hackers’ interaction with contemporary political landscapes.

Prescreening can also involve collecting data to identify and eliminate participants.

Makingrightsclaimsinorbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotfoundedinisolationorasifitsprangfromnowhere:citizensubjectsareoftenordinaryratherthanheroicsubjectswhohavestruggledtoarticulate,claim,andmaketheserightsthroughmultipleandoverlappinglegalorders.Thedisappearanceorabsenceofthefigureofacitizenthatwehaveinheritedandwhocanmakeclaimsto‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotsimplyapoliticsoftradition:itisalsoapoliticsofacitizentocome.

Rather,andthisisDerrida’sintervention,theactbringsthepeople,itspoliticalsubject,intobeingthroughtheact.Thepeopleadeclarationnamesdonotexist.Derridawrites,‘[People]donotexistasanentity,itdoesnotexist,beforethisdeclaration,notassuch.Ifitgivesbirthtoitself,asfreeandindependentsubject,aspossiblesigner,thiscanholdonlyintheactofthesignature.Thesignatureinventsthesigner.’

Weareconcernedthatthedividebetweentheenactmentandinscriptionofdigitalrightsremainsdangerouslyopen.Thosewhoseattempttoinscriberightsinlawworkwiththeassumptionthattheirenactmentwillfollowtheirinscription.Thosewhoseactsenactdigitalrightsworkwiththeconvictionthattheirinscriptionwillfollowtheirenactment.WithRancière,wecansaythattheirinscriptionisapreludetotheirenactmentwhiletheirenactmentinspirestheirinscription.Thosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsinsayingsomething(inscription)areonaseparatebutnecessarilyrelatedpathfromthosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsbysayingsomething(enactment).Letusconsidermorecloselymakingrightsclaimsinsayingsomethingandbysayingsomething.

Thissensibilityisalsoakeytounderstandinghowthesedeclarationsarecumulativelybringingapoliticalsubject,asyetunnamed,intobeing.

Rancièrecallsbringingthesetwoaspectsofrightstogetherasdissensus.Itisdissensusratherthanconsensusbecausepoliticsisalwaysacontestationoverwhoiscountedandwhatcounts.ForRancière,apoliticalsubjectinvolvesthecapacityforstagingsuchscenesofdissensus.Thus,‘politicalsubjectsarenotdefinitecollectivities.Theyaresurplusnames,namesthatsetoutaquestionoradisputeaboutwhoisincludedintheircount.’

Itisalsotemptingtointerpretthem

Wewanttoreadtheemergenceandtransformationsofthedigitalrightsmovementfromtheperspectiveofdigitalactsasoneofthenecessaryelementsformakingdigitalrightsclaims.Whethertheseactscumulativelyconstituteadigitalrightsmovementcomparabletoothersocialmovementswillconcernscholarsintheforeseeablefuture,andwecannotaddressthatquestionhere.Instead,wewanttogatherfromdisparateanddisperseddigitalactstherecognitionofadimlyemergingfigureasthesubjectofdigitalrights.Itistheemergenceofthisspecificpoliticalsubjectivityarounddigitalrightsandtheclaimsthroughwhichithasemerged—andtheopeningsandclosingsithasinstigated—thatformsthecentralquestionofthisbook.

Twodecadeslater,CAE’sviewon‘electroniccivildisobedience’seemsbothprescientandnaïve

Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.

Witnessing,hacking,andcommoningarethreedigitalactsthathavebecomepossibleoverthepastfewyearsandhavecreatedopeningsforbeingdigitalcitizensinorbymakingrightsclaims.Theresignificationofexistingortheintroductionofnewconventionsmadetheseactspossible:Bitcoin,copyleft,CreativeCommons,Digg,GitHub,GNN,GNU,WikiLeaks,andmanyothers.Nodoubtsomeoftheseconventionswillbereplacedordisplacedbyothers.Somewillbecomedefunct.Somewillperhapspersistasatestamenttothedigitalcommons.Therewillcertainlybenewconventions.Whatenduresistheperformativeforcethathasgoneintomakingtheseopeningspossible.IfweunderstandcyberspaceasaspaceofrelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,witnessing,hacking,andcommoningresignifyorinventconventionsandmakepossibletheemergenceofnewwaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspace.

Copyrightderivesitslegalforcefromlawsthatprotectexclusiverightstoandcontrolofintellectualproperty.EvenifitsoriginscanbetracedtoearlymodernEurope(sixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies),itismoderninthesensethattheformationofintellectualproperty—thatis,theconversionofcreativeproductssuchaswords,data,images,andsoundintopropertyforexchange—isaresultoftheaccumulationofcapitalinmodernsocieties.

Colemanarguesthatbymostlycircumventingcopyrightlawswiththeircommitmenttothefreecirculationofintellectualproperty,hackerscontradicttheexistingliberalconceptionofintellectualpropertyastherighttoexcludeandcontrol.Yetbyadvancingvaluesofcivillibertiesandpromotingindividualautonomyand,aboveall,acommitmenttofreespeech,hackersarethemostardentpromotersofliberalvalues.Thus,forColeman,hackersoccupybothacentralandmarginal—wemightsayaparadoxical—placewithintheliberaltradition.

Forus,probablythemostpertinentdistinctionisbetweenprogrammersandhackers.Inorbysayingsomethingincodeperformsbothillocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts.

Asweaffirminchapter2,wethinkthatthecitizensubjectisnottheexclusivepropertyofthenation-state.Onthecontrary,thenation-statemayhavebecomealiabilityforupholdingthesubjectofpowerwehaveinherited.AsAllanwrites,manyoftheissuesthatcitizenjournalismraisesare‘setagainstthebackdropofincidentsaroundtheglobewherethenation-state’sideologicalappropriationofcitizenship—fromoutrightattacksonitslegitimacytothesteadyerosionofitsprotections,typically(andironically)inthenameofnationalsecurity—hasmadejournalismasastruggleover“therighttobearwitness”.’[39]Citizenwitnessingisanongoingandcrucialaspectofdemocraticcitizenship.TheInternet,bycreatingopeningsfordigitalcitizens,hasmadecitizenwitnessinganindispensablepartofapoliticalimaginary.Thisisnotwithoutitsdangersandperils(co-optation,assimilation,infiltration,taming,blocking,filtering,andsoon),butthat’swhatalsomakesitasiteofpoliticalstruggles.

TheethicaldimensionbecomesevenclearerwhenAssangesays,‘Thosewhoarerepeatedlypassiveinthefaceofinjusticesoonfindtheircharactercorrodedintoservility.’[33]Toputitinourwords,citizensubjects,preciselybecauseoftheircapacitytojudge,arenotmerelyobedient(orservile)butalsosubversive.Thisisbecausesubmissiontoconventionsrequiresusingjudgementonthetermsofsubmission.Althoughthecitizensubjectsubmitstoconventions,becauseofthiscapacity,thecallofsubversiontoruptureaconventionalwaysretainsitsforce.Assangeclearlyappealsheretoanaspectofjournalisticethics—bearingwitness—butheresignifiesitpoliticallybyidentifyingitasacalltoact.ThedebateoverwhetherWikiLeaksisaplatformforjournalismorwhistle-blowingoverlooksthatitprimarilyenableswitnessing—thattheworldmayknow(differently).Itisoftenarguedthatsuchwhistle-blowingexposesclassifiedsecretsandendangerstheintelligenceworkofthestate.Butwhatwhistle-blowingexposesisthattherearethosewhofinditintolerabletowitnessabusesandmisusesofauthorityandnotsharethem.Ifbankersdeceive,soldiersmassacre,agenciessnoop,anddiplomatslie,citizenshavetherighttoknowthat.Citizenshavearighttoknowwhatstateandcorporateauthoritiesaredoingin,andoftenwith,theirname.WikiLeaksandwhistle-blowingingeneralareessentiallyclaimingthisrighttoknow.

‘takethecurrenttechnologicallandscapeasgiven.’[75]Instead,shecallsformechanismsthatpreserve‘roomfortheactsoftacticalevasionandsituatedcreativity’thatallowcitizensubjectsto‘tinker,repurpose,andadapt’andpush‘againstthosestructures,sometimesconformingtothemandsometimesfindingwaystoworkaroundthem.’[76]CitingJonathanZittrain,Cohennoteshisprincipleofthe‘generativity’oftechnologies,whichreferstothecapacityofatechnologytoallowitsuserstotinker,revise,andmakenewthingsthatwereneveranticipatedbytheirdesigners

Bynotonlyciting,repeating,anditeratingbutalsoresignifying,citizensubjectscan,andasweshallseeinchapter6indeeddo,breakconventionsandtakeresponsibility.Criticssuchasthosecitedaboveoftenslipintodeterministandstructuralistaccountsoftheworkingsofplatformsbyinferringthatusersaredeceivedandunwittinglysubmittotheresultsofsearchqueries,newsfeeds,ortrendsandthattheseareforces‘shaping’themandsocieties.

Thatthesedemandshaveemergedinthespanofonlyafewyearsatteststowhatwecallthe‘closings’ofcyberspace.ThesedemandsandtheirclosingsareeffectsofthewayinwhichactingthroughtheInternethasresignifiedquestionsofvelocity,extensity,anonymity,andtraceability.Velocitycallsforregularandongoingvigilanceaboutrapidlychangingtechnologies,protocols,practices,platforms,andrulesaboutbeingdigital;extensitycallsforawarenessofwhereandtowhomdigitalactionsreach;anonymitycallsforlimitingandprotectingexposureandbeingcautiousaboutthepresumedidentitiesofothers;andtraceabilitycallsformanaginghowactionsaretracked,analysed,manipulated,andsortedbyunknownothersandforunknowablepurposes.Allofthesedemandsspringnotfromparticipating,connecting,andsharingalonebuttherelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,whichismadeupofconventionsconfiguredbytheactionsofdispersedanddistributedauthorities.Itistotheseconfiguringactions,whichwecalltheclosingsofcyberspace,thatweturntointhenextchapter,withafocusonfiltering,tracking,andnormalizing.

Toputitbluntly,fromourperspective,popularcriticshavebecometooconcernedaboutcyberspacecreatingobedientsubjectstopowerratherthanunderstandingthatcyberspaceiscreatingsubmissivesubjectsofpowerwhoarepotentiallycapableofsubversion.

Howcanthecallingtoparticipatethatwehaveidentifiedproducedigitalcitizenswhoseactsexceedtheirintentions?Toputitdifferently,atensionexistsbetweenthewaysinwhichthefigureofthedigitalcitizenisconceivedinhegemonicimaginariesandlegaldiscoursesandhowsheisperformativelycomingintobeingthroughactionsthatequiphertobeacitizeninwaysthatarenotacknowledgedoralwaysintended.

Mossbergeretal.,forexample,understanddigitalcitizenshipastheabilitytofullyparticipateinsocietyonline,whichrequiresregularaccesstotheInternet,withadequatedevicesandspeeds,technologicalskillsandcompetence,andinformationliteracy.[21]Equippingthusincludesnotonlyhardware,suchasinstallingcomputersinclassroomsandlibrariesandexpandinghigh-speedbroadbandservices,butalsodevelopingskillsandcapabilitiesthroughtrainingcoursesincomputing,coding,andprogramming

ForHalfordandSavage,whetherliberatingordividing,cyberspace(orwhattheyrefertoasthe‘Web’)isalwaysconsideredasanalreadygivenspace,anditssubjectsareseparate,independent,andpreformedratherthanperformed.Ratherthanassumingthat‘pre-formedsocialgroups“use”(ordon’tuse)technologies’,theyidentifya‘morecomplexprocessofmutualinteractionandstabilisation’wheredigitaltechnologiesarenotseparatedfromsocialprocessesbutinsteadinvolvedinconstitutingsubjectsindiverseandpervasiveways.[16]Inotherwords,theyadvancethattheWebisnotindependentfromtheactionsofsubjects.

ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.

Thisindividualisautonomousnotbecauseitisseparateorindependentfromsocietybutasitsproductretainsthecapabilitytoquestionitsowninstitution.Castoriadissaysthatthisnewtypeofbeingiscapableofcallingintoquestiontheverylawsofitsexistenceandhascreatedthepossibilityofbothdeliberationandpoliticalaction.

Onthecontrary,citizensubjectsperformativelycomeintobeinginorbytheactofsayinganddoingsomething—whetherthroughwords,images,orotherthings—andthroughperformingthecontradictionsinherentinbecomingcitizens.

ThisistheprincipalreasonwhyweneedtoinvestigatenotonlythingsdoneinorbyspeakingthroughtheInternetbutalsothingssaidinorbydoingthingsthroughtheInternet.

‘Theforceoftheperformativeisthusnotinheritedfrompriorusage,butissuesforthpreciselyfromitsbreakwithanyandallpriorusage.Thatbreak,thatforceofrupture,istheforceoftheperformative,beyondallquestionoftruthormeaning.’[22]Forpoliticalsubjectivity,‘performativitycanworkinpreciselysuchcounter-hegemonicways.Thatmomentinwhichaspeechactwithoutpriorauthorizationneverthelessassumesauthorizationinthecourseofitsperformancemayanticipateandinstatealteredcontextsforitsfuturereception.’[23]Toconceiveruptureasasystemicortotalupheavalwouldbefutile.Rather,ruptureisamomentwherethefuturebreaksthroughintothepresent.[24]Itisthatmomentwhereitbecomespossibletodosomethingdifferentinorbysayingsomethingdifferent.

Moreover,ourconcernwiththeInternetisnotthespeakingsubjectassuchbuthowmakingrightsclaimsbringscitizensubjectsintobeing.Howdodigitalactsbringcitizensubjectsintobeing?DoestheInternetintroducearadicaldifferenceforunderstandingcitizensubjects?DoesthelanguageoftheInternet—code—worklikenaturallanguage?

Ifthecomputerizationofsocietyraisessuchquestions,theanalysisoftheproduction,dissemination,andlegitimationofknowledge,onwhichithasaprofoundeffect,cannotberestrictedtounderstandingcomputerizationascommunicationorcomputer-mediatedcommunication.Rather,theobjectofinvestigationoughttobelanguagegamesthatbecamepossiblethroughwhatLyotardsawasnetworkedcomputers

WhatwefindinLyotard—albeitinincipientform—isthatratherthanconceivingaseparateandindependentspace,thepointistorecognizethatpowerrelationsincontemporarysocietiesarebeingincreasinglymediatedandconstitutedthroughcomputernetworksthateventuallycametobeknownastheInternet.

TheanathemaforLessigisthelossofthisfreedomincyberspace.Inrealspace,governingpeoplerequiresinducingthemtoactincertainways,butinthelastinstance,peoplehadthechoicetoactthiswayorthatway.Bycontrast,incyberspaceconductisgovernedbycode,whichtakesawaythatchoice.Incyberspace,‘iftheregulatorwantstoinduceacertainbehavior,sheneednotthreaten,orcajole,toinspirethechange.Sheneedonlychangethecode—thesoftwarethatdefinesthetermsuponwhichtheindividualgainsaccesstothesystem,orusesassetsonthesystem.’[37]Thisisbecause‘codeisanefficientmeansofregulation.Butitsperfectionmakesitsomethingdifferent.Oneobeystheselawsascodenotbecauseoneshould;oneobeystheselawsascodebecauseonecandonothingelse.Thereisnochoiceaboutwhethertoyieldtothedemandforapassword;onecompliesifonewantstoenterthesystem.Inthewellimplementedsystem,thereisnocivildisobedience.’[38]WhatLessigsuggestsisthatcyberspaceisnotonlyseparateandindependentbutconstitutesanewmodeofpower.Youconstituteyourselfasasubjectofpowerbysubmittingtocode.

Wehaveidentifiedthisasthecontradictionbetweensubmissionandsubversionorconsentanddissent.JacquesRancièrecapturesthisasdissensus.[27]Wewillreturntodissensusinchapter7.Second,whilearticulatingaparticulardemand(forinclusion,recognition),performingcitizenshipenactsauniversalrighttoclaimrights.Thisisthecontradictionbetweentheuniversalismandparticularismofcitizenship.

Ifmakingrightsclaimsisperformative,itfollowsthattheserightsareneitherfixednorguaranteed:theyneedtoberepeatedlyperformed.Theircomingintobeingandremainingeffectiverequiresperformativity.Theperformativeforceofcitizenshipremindsusthatthefigureofthecitizenhastobebroughtintobeingrepeatedlythroughacts(repertoires,declarations,andproclamations)andconventions(rituals,customs,practices,traditions,laws,institutions,technologies,andprotocols).Withouttheperformanceofrights,thefigureofthecitizenwouldmerelyexistintheoryandwouldhavenomeaningindemocraticpolitics.

Therightsthatthecitizenholdsarenottherightsofanalready-existingsovereignsubjectbuttherightsofafigurewhosubmitstoauthorityinthenameofthoserightsandactstocallintoquestionitsterms.Thisistheinescapableandinheritedcontradictionbetweensubmissionandsubversionofthefigureofthecitizenthatcanbeexpressedinaparadoxicalphrase:submissionasfreedom.

IfwefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternet,itinvolvesinvestigatinghowpeopleuselanguagetodescribethemselvesandtheirrelationstoothersandhowlanguagesummonsthemasspeakingbeings.Toputitdifferently,itinvolvesinvestigatinghowpeopledothingswithwordsandwordswiththingstoenactthemselves.ItalsomeansaddressinghowpeopleunderstandthemselvesassubjectsofpowerwhenactingthroughtheInternet.

Givenitspervasivenessandomnipresence,avoidingorshunningcyberspaceisasdystopianasquittingsocialspace;itisalsocertainthatconductingourselvesincyberspacerequires,asmanyactivistsandscholarshavewarned,intensecriticalvigilance.Sincetherecannotbegenericoruniversalanswerstohowweconductourselves,moreorlesseveryincipientorexistingpoliticalsubjectneedstoaskinwhatwaysitisbeingcalleduponandsubjectifiedthroughcyberspace.Inotherwords,toreturnagaintotheconceptualapparatusofthisbook,thekindsofcitizensubjectscyberspacecultivatesarenothomogenousanduniversalbutfragmented,multiple,andagonistic.Atthesametime,thefigureofacitizenyettocomeisnotinevitable;whilecyberspaceisafragileandprecariousspace,italsoaffordsopenings,momentswhenthinking,speaking,andactingdifferentlybecomepossiblebychallengingandresignifyingitsconventions.Thesearethemomentsthatwehighlighttoarguethatdigitalrightsarenotonlyaprojectofinscriptionsbutalsoenactment.

digitalactsresignifyfourpoliticalquestionsabouttheInternet

Wearguethatmakingrightsclaimsinvolvesnotonlyperformativebutalsolegalandimaginaryforces.Wethenarguethatdigitalactsinvolveconventionsthatincludenotonlywordsbutalsoimagesandsoundsandvariousactionssuchasliking,coding,clicking,downloading,sorting,blocking,andquerying.

WedevelopourapproachtobeingdigitalcitizensbydrawingonMichelFoucaulttoarguethatsubjectsbecomecitizensthroughvariousprocessesofsubjectivationthatinvolverelationsbetweenbodiesandthingsthatconstitutethemassubjectsofpower.WefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternetandatthesametimebringcyberspaceintobeing.Wepositionthisunderstandingofsubjectivationagainstthatofinterpellation,whichassumesthatsubjectsarealwaysandalreadyformedandinhabitedbyexternalforces.Rather,wearguethatcitizensubjectsaresummonedandcalledupontoactthroughtheInternetand,assubjectsofpower,respondbyenactingthemselvesnotonlywithobedienceandsubmissionbutalsosubversion.

citizenshipasasiteofcontestationorsocialstruggleratherthanbundlesofgivenrightsandduties.[41]Itisanapproachthatunderstandsrightsasnotstaticoruniversalbuthistoricalandsituatedandarisingfromsocialstruggles.Thespaceofthisstruggleinvolvesthepoliticsofhowwebothshapeandareshapedbysociotechnicalarrangementsofwhichweareapart.Fromthisfollowsthatsubjectsembodyboththematerialandimmaterialaspectsofthesearrangementswheredistinctionsbetweenthetwobecomeuntenable.[42]Whowebecomeaspoliticalsubjects—orsubjectsofanykind,forthatmatter—isneithergivenordeterminedbutenactedbywhatwedoinrelationtoothersandthings.Ifso,beingdigitalandbeingcitizensaresimultaneouslytheobjectsandsubjectsofpoliticalstruggl

Butthefigureofcyberspaceisalsoabsentincitizenship

While much attention is reserved for whistleblowers and hactivists as the vanguards of Internet rights, there are many more anonymous political subjects of the Internet who are not only making rights claims by saying things but also by doing things through the Internet.

Like other social spaces that sociologists study, cyberspace is not designed and arranged and then experienced by passive subjects. Like the physical spaces of cities that geographers have long studied, it is a space that is bought into being by citizen subjects who act in ways that submit to but also at the same time go beyond and transgress the conventions of the Internet. In doing so they are not simply obedient and submissive but also subversive and participate in the making of and rights claims to cyberspace through their digital acts.

Such a conception moves us away from how we are being ‘liberated’ or ‘controlled’ to the complexities of ‘acting’ through the Internet where much of what makes it up is seemingly beyond the knowledge and consent of citizen subjects. To be sure, one cannot act in isolation but only in relation to the mediations, regulations and monitoring of the platforms, devices, and algorithms or more generally the conventions that format, organize and order what we do, how we relate, act, interact, and transact through the Internet. But it is here between and among these distributed relations that we can identify a space of possibility—a cyberspace perhaps—that is being brought into being by the acts of myriad subjects.

The benefit of these spaces is best summed up as flexibility. Members are supported as they join the space, become peripheral participants, and potentially, become longstanding members engaged in ongoing projects. Hacking, like art, becomes not the domain of the elite or reified objects but intimately tied with everyday experiences throughout one's life (Dewey, 1934). The pragmatic devotion of HMSs to recursive problem-solving attracts members who see HMSs bringing informal education and collaborative sociality to their city. In interviews GeekSpace members freely offered beliefs about why they saw HMSs as vital to reforming their city at large. Flexibility, exercised through the constant churn of hands-on work on projects, was coupled with optimism for making a better future. Kligler-Vilenchik et al. (2012) describe a similar desire in civically-minded youth organizations as a "wish to help" (para. 1.5), a form of engagement more familiar to volunteerism than hackers that exert their collective power through protest or software (Coleman, 2012; Sauters, 2013). Above all else, this optimism drives HMS members as they seek to reframe what hacking and making can accomplish.

Hacker and maker represented not so much discrete categories as fluid identities that emerged by on mode of work, personal history, and comfort with cultural alignment. This cozy relationship troubles easy stereotypes of hacking as related to scientific rationality and making to felt experience. For example, as Lingel and Regan (2014) observe, the experiences of software developers can be both highly rational and deeply embodied, resulting in their thinking about coding as process, embodiment, and community. The thrill or pleasure of hacking being linked simply to transgression or satisfaction of completing a difficult job seems lacking (Taylor, 1999; Turkle, 1984). From the side of craft, Daniella Rosner (2012) draws a historic connection to the humble bookbindery as a material-workspace collaboration and site of personalized routines and encounters with tools that lead to complex collaborations. These ethnographies take into account passions and relative definitions of technology that are often neglected in organizational studies. Thus, these inroads to informal learning could be mutually informed by Leonardi's (2011) notion of imbrication, where material and individual agencies are negotiated through routines over time.

X closer examination of these myths nil1 reveal several interesting paradoxes. On the one hand, it is clear that we are in the midst of a cultural shift on a par with the great paradigm shifts in the history of science-our understandings of basic philosophical issues are changing. Tl'e can track shifts in our thinking about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge and even the nature of the human being. On the other hand, there is e~idencc to suggest that not enough has changed in our thinking about certain philosophical issues, especially as these relate to the concept of 'information' and ideas about originality, privacy: citizen empowerment, democracy and community. I conclude with a list of questions that emerge from the transformation of one 'age' to another.

Civic hackathons are undeniably fraught. Our projections about civic futures are entangled with collective fantasies abouttechnology. This is a story at least as old as science fiction, yet never ultimately removed from our social realities. In some cases small tasks stimulated the civic imagination on larger public problems. In others, cultural reproduction led people to imagine technology that was already racialized, reflecting collective fears that rise to the top. Yet, I resist dismissing civic hackathons. Donna Haraway would certainly see the fallacy in demanding we return to the deliberation of Tocqueville’s town hall meetings. Plus, as anyone who has participated in local government can tell you, city council meetings are hardly a gold standard for civic participation. Mills reminds us that our rationalities are bounded and exist within a particular historic context. We might never get technology out of politics, or the politics out of technology. In a sense, civic technology may itself be a cyborg formed from our collective hopes and fears, one that we might better learn to live with.

Balsamo's notion of technocultural innovation is quite appropriate for negotiating between critical and design positions on hackathons. First, she defines technologies asmessy combinations of practices, materialities, and affordances. They were never fully captured in artifacts to begin with, and she would simply not regard civic hackathons as their sole point of emergence. Second, although designers hold a particular role in technocultural innovation, Balsamo makes it clear that everyday people can interact with, talk about, act out, and pitch ideas, thereby co-constructing technologies. Many of the examples she provides, such as interactive museum exhibitions, are very hackathon-esque spectacles that bring people into contact with technologies in the process of being designed. Third, Balsamo provides concepts and vocabulary for describing moments of collective design. Cultural models of technology might be reproduced or made anew through the technocultural imagination. Balsamo does not treat the influence of corporations or mythologies of technology (Balsamo, 1996)as necessarily spoiling innovation. Individuals all draw on specific models of technology — practices, affordances, materialities — from everyday life, which must include those created by large companies. Participants can get space of their own, as in the case of Xerox PARC’s RED group, that provide autonomy. Yet, they do not exactly get outside of technology, a point that McKenzie Wark has similarly driven home (Wark, 2004).

Civic hackathons are spaces where the technological imagination and civic imagination collide and jostle as people collectively envision future technologies. Finally, I suggest three lessons drawn from civic hackathons to demonstrate the contradictory and even treacherous ways civic innovation produces ideas. In the conclusion I consider how we might read civic hackathons alongside other modern political formations. After all, civic hackathons are just one part in a larger formation of “open government” that prioritizes direct participation and institutional collaboration as a pathway to reform.

Civic hackathons have been hotly debated in recent years. Critical studies scholars have lambasted civic hackathons for aligning with middle-class citizenship(Irani, 2015)and co-opting participant labor (Gregg, 2014a). Silicon Valley is often the fait accompliin these perspectives, bringing a flawed ideology that seduces organizers and participants into transposing technological language onto civic issues (Also see: Barbrook & Cameron, 1996; Morozov, 2013). In this paper I refer to this perspective as an “imposed civic ideology.” The second perspective comes from design scholars interested in material participation (Marres, 2012) as cohering publics to work on particular social issues. Lodato and DiSalvo (2016) suggested that civic hackathons served two purposes. First, they help people think through civic issues using props — “objects, services, and systems that engage with issues” (p. 16). Second, they cohere ephemeral proto-publics for short-term engagement on issues of public concern. As they summarized, "what is important is not the inventiveness of a particular prototype product or service, but rather, how the event fosters opportunities for collaborative or collective issue articulation" (p. 15). They drew attention to how outcomes of civic hackathons may more likely be social and cultural than functional material objects. I refer to this design perspective as an “emergent civic subjectivity.”

For these women, the values and practices of everyday life intertwine with technical labor. In the 1970s, theorists like Dick Hebdige, Henri LeFebvre, and Michel DeCertau took up everyday life as a site for radically re-imagining social life. The potency of domesticity and the social status of quotidian craftwork became a key precursor to contemporary Feminist thought. Today, it has reemerged in the work of modern-day hackers.By designing hackerspaces to serve domestic and familial needs, and by surfacing a new emotional style through failure, members of women-operated hackerspaces are

Upon closer examination of the appropriation phase, we distinguish three modes of tech-nology appropriation: baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism, by analogy with cul-tural appropriation. Baroquization is the filling-in of technological spaces that providers intentionally leave blank for users to personalize devices and applications; creolizationis bricolage, the recombination of the technology’s components to create something new; and cannibalism is creative destruction, an innovative act that requires breaking down the existing to invent something new.These three forms of appropriation correspond to increasingly confrontational stances users take vis-à-vis technology providers, within a context of asymmetric power. Baroquization is docile, where users follow an appropriation script laid out for them by the provider. Creolization is playful and unpredictable, where users re-mix the providers’ script with their own, in ways that may clash with providers’ interests. At the extreme, cannibalism is deliberately hostile to the providers’ interests. These various appropria-tion modes correspond to progressively deeper user involvement with technology, requir-ing increasingly sophisticated technical skills. All three modes represent creative ways for users to assert greater control over technology, mold it to fit their lives, and make it their own.

First, we view technology evolution as a three-stage cyclical process of adoption, appropriation, and repossession. Users drive adoption. Users and providers alternatively drive appropriation and repossession, as users lead appropriation, while providers react when reclaiming the resulting innova-tions. Second, we identify three appropriation modes—baroquize, creolize, and canni-balize—that represent increasing degrees of power contestation by users. And third, we identify three repossession modes—co-opt, combine, and block—that represent increas-ingly antagonistic reactions by providers and mirror users’ appropriation strategies.

Born in the Plantation, the Hacienda, the Latifundio, and the Mine, creolization is now “scattered in those sheet plates and concrete mazes where our common becoming is adventuring itself, in favellas and mega-cities” (Glissant, 1995: 87). Alive and well, cre-olization can be found where Latin Americans live, in the spaces where they are exposed to new technologies. Born of avoidance (like Internet Protocol (IP) packets that find a route around obstacles) and mixing (like mashups and re-mix), creolization fits the realm of ICTs.

Three strategies deserve particular attention for their symbolic value: cannibalism, baroque, and creolization. Cannibalism is appropriation trough dismembering, absorption, and chemical transformation. Baroque—an infiltration strategy—is the artistic appropria-tion of spaces through filling and layering. In-between, creolization is appropriatio

Throughout history, Latin American populations have had extensive experience with the appropriation of objects, people, and ideas from abroad, most often in unfavorably asymmetric situations. This tradition continues to pro-duce a culture of its own, born from multiple resistance and appropriation strategies.

This article frames appropriation as a political process.

Hacker and maker spaces are community workshops that promote notions of open-access and equal participation. Yet, they tend to embrace a contradiction. Their egalitar-ian goals paradoxically reflect a masculine geek identity anchored by an exclusionary “meritocracy.” Addressing democratization requires questioning how power and identity in hacker and maker spaces can be reconnected and re-programmed. Daniela K. Rosner and Sarah Fox illuminate just such a rich counter-narrative in the feminist hackerspace Mothership Hackermoms. Rosner and Fox argue feminist hackerspaces emerged from legacies of craft, engineering culture, and emotional style through failure. They argue that histories of craft and domesticity don’t just undergird engineering cultures—they provide concepts for women to re-imagine maker spaces in a feminist mold.

We have framed the theme of this issue as “The Democratization of Hacking and Making” to draw attention to the relationships between action, knowledge, and power. Particularly, hacking and making are about how practices of creation and transforma-tion generate knowledge and influence institutions. These acts concentrate and distrib-ute power through publics and counterpublics. Yet, the very mutability of hacker and maker relations makes them a challenge to identify and research. Hacking and making collectives have proven capable of constituting and reconstituting themselves in physi-cal and virtual spaces. They integrate across infrastructures, collaborative systems, socio-economic divides, and international boundaries.

The more pressing threat is that a fear of solution-ism and neoliberal connotations of “open data” together might dissuade political par-ticipation. Systemic social disparities are often intractable. The route to alleviate them has never been detachment or abandonment. Looking forward, we should pay attention to how data activism and advocacy might result in meaningful systematic change beyond the usual claims of “transparency.” To fulfill the possibilities for meaningful social change hinted at in their history, civic hackers might have to coordinate around specific mechanisms for change and articulate a deeper sense of democracy than the language of technology provides.

Might “utopian realist” be applicable to the practices of civic hackers, intertwined with particular repertoires, technologies, and affective publics? McKenzie Wark (2014) sug-gests that the relationship between utopian and realist might be mutually constitutive rather than dialectical. He re-frames utopia as a realizable fragment or diagram that re-imagines relations. From this perspective, civic hacking gets traction not because they were ever intended to be the sole “solution” to a problem, but they are ways of acting and creating that are immediately apprehensible. Prototypes capture the imagination because they are shards of a possible future and can be created, modified, and argued about (Coleman, 2009).

He proposes that “monitorial citizens” act as a watchdog for specific issues, ready to take action. From this perspective, civic hack-ers could be considered a monitorial elite, watching data streams and processes of algorithmic regulation for injustices and engaging directly with local politics. “The local” operates as a point of collaboration (Dunbar-Hester, 2013) and point of entry for geeks to engage with neighborhood issues

Two overall framings of hackers’ engagement with the political have dominated discussion: “hacktivists” or activists who leverage instrumental uses of online technologies for direct political action such as protest and disruption (Jordan and Taylor, 2004), and geographically distributed communities of practice where principles of openness enable forms of political action (Coleman, 2004). Gabriella Coleman (2012a) argues that pragmatism enables action on issues related to informational freedoms and reflects liberal democratic tenets such as freedom of speech. According to Coleman (2004), explicit involvement in “politics” in a formalized sense is distasteful to free and open-source hackers, as it is viewed as “buggy, mediated, and tainted action clouded by ideology” (p. 513). Civic hacking represents a third mode of participation among a group that often explicitly engages with political causes through designing, critiquing, and manipulating software and data to improve community life and infrastructures of governance. Civic hackers therefore have distinct histories, con-tours, and conflicts from other genres of hackers, even as they share a certain family resemblance (Wittgenstein, 1953).

Interactions through things, and perceptions about their potential, were ways to negotiate between seemingly conflicting imperatives of the individualism and communalism (A. L. Toombs, Bardzell, & Bardzell). Members would deliberately design activities that were incomplete to encourage a playful material improvisation. In these ways, the “material sensibilities” of members were particularly important. Similarly, reading a history of craft into software hacking, Lingel and Regan (2014) found that software hackers identified their work with craft as process, embodiment, and community. These sensitive readings of interactions with stuff seemed to more accurately capture the genre of hackerspaces, more so than action was guided by culture.

If you are lucky, you have the conditions and abilities to work all this through in a long, non-linear process also known as bootstrapping, where you go through many iterations of hacking apart and hacking together, all the while creating fundamentally different ideas about what technologies should do, and could do, matched by a succession of devices and practices that help shape these ideas, and “demo” to yourself and others that some utopias might not be out of reach. This is what radical engineers do.

Инвестиционная идея (investment idea) - предложение пользователям для инвестирования. Инвестиционная заявка (investment order) - пользовательская заявка по участию в инвестиционной идее. Пользовательская позиция (position) - акции или доли фонда принадлежащие пользователю в рамках реализации некоторой инвестиционной идеи.

Закупка (procurement) - результат инвестирования для группы заявок. Объединяет позиции.

ACCEPTED

даты и времени закрытия позиции, должна быть в будущем.

factor analysis,

Jessica Helfand in her essay The Dematerialism of Screen Space (2001) critiques the phenomenon of design practise being led by developments in software engineering. She argues that designers should take the initiative: “design must submit to a series of commands and regulations as rigourous as those that once defined Swiss typography. Aesthetic innovation, if it indeed exists at all, occurs within ridiculously preordained parameters: a new plug-in, a modified code, the capacity to make picture and words ‘flash’ with a mouse in a non-sensical little dance. We are all little filmmakers, directing on a pathetically small screen – yet broadcasting to a potentially infinite audience. This in itself is conflicting (not to mention corrupting), but more importantly, what are we making? What are we inventing? What are we saying that has not been said before?” Helfand here is referring to the web, but her argument applies equally well to designing tablet publications. Designers of book and magazine apps should be asking themselves those last three questions. Since tablet publishing conventions are in the process of being formed (like child invention), we have a unique opportunity right now to influence their direction.

Egocentric analysis shifts the analytical lens onto a sole ego actor and concentrates on the local pattern of relations in which that ego is embedded as well as the types of resources to which those relations provide access.