![new-aesthetic:
“Dewey-Hagborg […] extracts DNA from each piece of evidence she collects and enters this data into a computer program, which churns out a model of the face of the person who left the hair, fingernail, cigarette or gum behind. […] From those facial models, she then produces actual sculptures using a 3D printer.”
Creepy or Cool? Portraits Derived From the DNA in Hair and Gum Found in Public Places | Collage of Arts and Sciences
Reminds me a tiny bit of that weird moment in “Birth of a Nation” when the killer is revealed based on the image burned on the victim’s eyeball.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/58bbb0c8d1b9d18c21d846b988084cb5/tumblr_mmaavzBbfl1qjjis9o1_500.jpg)
“Dewey-Hagborg […] extracts DNA from each piece of evidence she collects and enters this data into a computer program, which churns out a model of the face of the person who left the hair, fingernail, cigarette or gum behind. […] From those facial models, she then produces actual sculptures using a 3D printer.”
Reminds me a tiny bit of that weird moment in “Birth of a Nation” when the killer is revealed based on the image burned on the victim’s eyeball.
“What, exactly, is ‘parts unknown’ about Los Angeles?”
It’s a fair question that cuts right to the heart of what we’re trying to do.
Of all the locations on earth, Los Angeles has probably appeared on film or tape or memory card more than any other. In fact, making Southern California look…
We took a really weird prop plane in Congo, because Congo has something like the worst commercial aviation safety record on the planet. Planes go down all the time, it’s really bad there. When we were trying to get from Kisangani back to Goma, we had three options: a commercial plane, a private plane, or drive. Driving was not going to work, because it takes four days through all kinds of rebel-controlled areas. And our fixer, Dan McCabe, who’s a documentary filmmaker working in the Congo, asked us: “Do you want to be in a Boeing going 500 miles an hour when you crash, or a bush plane going 75?” So we chose the bush plane.
-ZPZ / Parts Unknown Producer Tom Vitale on what it’s like following Tony Bourdain to some of the most precarious places around the world.
Read Tom’s full behind-the-scenes interview with Bon Apetit here.
(via zpzproduction)
<3 <3 <3 Tom <3 <3 <3
(via helencho)Only three days til Sunday. Get excited, people.
(via helencho)
I often appreciate what Longreads recommends, but this one I love especially because it’s well-deserved recognition for my colleague and friend John Sutter’s terrific first-person reporting. (And it always feels more special when it comes from someone you don’t work with.) Hooray John.
Part of the reason why many people (particularly geeks) dislike talking on the phone is that it forces both sides to be present at the same time, instead of allowing a user to consume or respond to the information at their own pace — or multi-task while they are doing so.
That’s Mathew Ingram in his piece on digital etiquette, which is a reaction to Nick Bilton’s piece on digital etiquette in yesterday’s NY Times.
Ingram is talking about synchronous vs. asynchronous communication (ie: phone vs. e-mail or text) and how the proliferation of different kinds of communication technology has allowed people to develop different affinities for communication etiquette (depending on age/industry/how connected you are).
Both are interesting reads. The bottom line is that people have different preferences and we need to keep that in mind when we communicate with each other. Bilton, for example, writes of his distaste for communication that wastes your time (ie: leaving a voicemail when you can just send a text). Ingram, in a similar-but-different example, writes of the patience we need to develop for those who might not be at the same technological level we are (ie: don’t expect your parents to text you if they are just getting used to e-mail).
Sort of Related: Our recent post on How to Tweet Like a Buddha. It’s essentially a list of tips on how to be mindful on Twitter. How to remember that behind the screen is human being with a particular set of values, habits, preferences, and a particular level of knowledge, tech literacy and access to communication. So, in the same way we are mindful of how the person in front of us is receiving the information we convey, it’s worth being mindful of the person behind the screen. It’s an important mindfulness, I believe, that is sorely lacking in our attempts to navigate the technological literacy divides of our time.—Jihii
(via futurejournalismproject)
> Ok, but isn’t there something particularly nauseating about phone conversation? I mean, you miss the multitasking part of asynchronous conversation, but you also miss the eye contact and body language and real human connection thing of in-person conversation. It’s like miss-miss. Also, PSA: please don’t call me to talk about this. I hate (HATE HATE) talking on the phone.
Alexis Madrigal, senior editor at the Atlantic, on the digital transition in journalism, creating a decent content strategy, and the economics of digital journalism.
Take a lot of shots and become a node. As plainly stated a truth as I can think of.
I think what we have here is a working definition of an asshole—a person who demands that all social interaction happen on their terms. Assholes fill our various worlds. But the banhammer only works in one of them.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, on dealing with assholes. (via theatlantic)
I like/get this for comment threads and quiet cars. What’s the equivalent for Twitter, ya think?
(via nsaidi)
Jean Patchett by Nina Leen
for LIFE Magazine, 194
Let’s bring short gloves back to the office, yes?
(via life)
