Epigrammatic

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:40:00 GMT

Right on: Isadore (or, well, technically Isidore), one of my most beloved hard drives, turns out to be the patron saint of "computers, computer users, computer programmers, and the Internet."]]>

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:26:00 GMT

Whoa, when did this happen? Saint Louis Coworking exists. It even hosted #STLGeekNight this week.]]>
A.k.a. time to step up your game, Arch Reactor. (I mean, congrats on your shiny new website.)

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:32:00 GMT

Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story on Woot closing up shop:
]]>"Local high-tech incubators have seen a number of companies move to or expand on the West Coast in recent years to be closer to financing."

This may sound like a cheap shot, but in fact I'm genuinely curious:

We have "high-tech incubators"?

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:45:00 GMT

Huh. A former colleague of mine just got called out by Anil Dash (for this headline).]]>

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:04:00 GMT

Why I'm staying in St. Louis: ]]>
We may not have a tech industry to speak of, but one of our guys (RIP) coined the term blogosphere. Punching Kitty is like our very own Gawker. Part of Woot works here. The co-founder of Twitter started out here, too. The city's not exactly a hotbed of startups—but it could be.

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:11:00 GMT

Oh! The future of journalism, right in my own backyard!]]>
See also.

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Sat, 29 May 2010 21:48:00 GMT

The latest thing is apparently an organization called Hacks/Hackers, which brings together—you guessed it!—journalists and tech people.]]>
Says the founder:

It turned out I wasn’t the first to think of this name. Two leaders in the journalism technology community—Aron Pilhofer of The New York Times and Rich Gordon from Northwestern University’s Medill school of journalism—had also proposed this name for an online community. The coincidence was pointed out by other journalists on Twitter, so we eventually got in touch and decided to join efforts.

Sigh. See also. And also. I guess the lazyweb gave me what I asked for...

- - -

"Everybody seems to think I'm lazy. I don't mind; I think they're crazy, running everywhere at such a speed, 'til they find there's no need...there's no need. Please don't spoil my day; I'm miles away, and after all, I'm only sleeping... Keeping an eye on the world goin' by my window. Takin' my time, lyin' there and staring at the ceiling..."

—The Beatles, "I'm Only Sleeping"

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:15:00 GMT

Look, the "labyrinthine maze of nonlinked bylines and PR department messages and institutional contact forms" on many publications' sites is awful, it's true. But I don't know that the answer is this sort of "engagement." ]]>
If I had time to talk to people at work, I'd pick up the phone or answer their emails. (OK, maybe I wouldn't pick up the phone. But still.) I don't need an even easier instant communication channel for "PR professionals" to abuse.

'Cause let's be honest: In the majority of cases, that's who would use this to contact me right now. My email address and phone number are posted out in the clear on the websites of both mags I edit, for anyone to use—and maybe one out of every 100 outside emails I get on a daily basis is from a real, live human being without a PR agenda. I know: Increasingly, even sending an entire email is too formal for many ordinary humans. But if perceived formality or inconvenience are problems for readers wishing to connect with me, alternate means of communication are already at their disposal that are both less formal and more convenient.

As much as I personally dislike using Twitter as an instant-messaging app, and inasmuch as PR blasts and SEO/social-media con artistry abound on that service, too, it certainly serves the needs of anyone connected enough to have access to a realtime iPhone connectivity app. Not only that, with Twitter, you're allowed to silently separate the conversational wheat from the chaff. The idea of giving PR hacks another conduit to demand attention in realtime, especially in the name of "media accountability" or "customer service," raises my hackles.

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this just going to be yet another social-media message notification funneled into writers' already choked inboxes? If not, what sort of system will be in place to ensure that writers respond? (And do we really want to set up systems that mandate writers' response to nonsense?) Or is this just another glorified Web 2.0 comm widget?

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:04:00 GMT

Psh. I didn't get a writeup in Folio when I got promoted. Whatever.]]>

★★★

EPIGRAMMATIC — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:27:00 GMT

Three questions for Arch Reactor:]]>
1. Why is the signup page's security certificate invalid?
2. Is this in fact the Arch Reactor Twitter account? Why so quiet?
3. Why did you decide to hold meetings on Tuesday nights? Ever heard of LOST or V?