syn·site

sin.sīt
noun, verb

(1) an entangled situating, conjured in approximation

naughty-site–knotty-sight—cited-knot–sighted-naught—naughty-cited-sight–knotty-cited-site—sited-cited-naughty-knot–knotted-knighted-sited-naught—sighted-knot-cited–sited-not-naught

that approximation, translated and re-presented (2)

(1) an entangled situating, conjured in approximation

naughty-site–knotty-sight—cited-knot–sighted-naught—naughty-cited-sight–knotty-cited-site—sited-cited-naughty-knot–knotted-knighted-sited-naught—sighted-knot-cited–sited-not-naught

that approximation, translated and re-presented (2)

SYN (along with, at the same time | from Greek SYN, with | ~SYNTHETIC) + SITE (N: point of event, occupied space, internet address; V: to place in position | from Latin SITUS, location, idleness, forgetfulness | ~WEBSITE ¬cite ¬sight), cf. SITE/NON-SITE (from Robert Smithson, A PROVISIONAL THEORY OF NONSITES, 1968)

we need to think with a paradigm that centers on the implosion of the worlds of bits and atoms into the augmented reality that has seemingly become ascendant.

we need to think with a paradigm that centers on the implosion of the worlds of bits and atoms into the augmented reality that has seemingly become ascendant.

we need to think with a paradigm that centers on the implosion of the worlds of bits and atoms into the augmented reality that has seemingly become ascendant.

A single click of a mouse sets off a chain reaction and sends a signal to mining farms around the world, which go on to have a footprint of 35 kWh for an ‘average’ transaction, with emissions of close to 20 KgCO2 for that single mouse click [...] An ETH transaction is thousands times more costly than other internet activities that individuals typically engage in. [...] Transactions relating to NFTs however, have more complexities involved.
[...]
A single NFT can involve dozens of transactions, and potentially more. These include minting, bidding, cancelling, sales and transfer of ownership.
[...]
This single NFT’s footprint is equivalent to a EU resident’s total electric power consumption for more than a month, with emissions equivalent to driving for 1000Km, or flying for 2 hours.

A single click of a mouse sets off a chain reaction and sends a signal to mining farms around the world, which go on to have a footprint of 35 kWh for an ‘average’ transaction, with emissions of close to 20 KgCO2 for that single mouse click [...] An ETH transaction is thousands times more costly than other internet activities that individuals typically engage in. [...] Transactions relating to NFTs however, have more complexities involved.
[...]
A single NFT can involve dozens of transactions, and potentially more. These include minting, bidding, cancelling, sales and transfer of ownership.
[...]
This single NFT’s footprint is equivalent to a EU resident’s total electric power consumption for more than a month, with emissions equivalent to driving for 1000Km, or flying for 2 hours.

A single click of a mouse sets off a chain reaction and sends a signal to mining farms around the world, which go on to have a footprint of 35 kWh for an ‘average’ transaction, with emissions of close to 20 KgCO2 for that single mouse click [...] An ETH transaction is thousands times more costly than other internet activities that individuals typically engage in. [...] Transactions relating to NFTs however, have more complexities involved.
[...]
A single NFT can involve dozens of transactions, and potentially more. These include minting, bidding, cancelling, sales and transfer of ownership.
[...]
This single NFT’s footprint is equivalent to a EU resident’s total electric power consumption for more than a month, with emissions equivalent to driving for 1000Km, or flying for 2 hours.

The critique stems from the systematic bias to see the digital and physical as separate; often as a zero-sum tradeoff where time and energy spent on one subtracts from the other. This is digital dualism par excellence. And it is a fallacy.

The critique stems from the systematic bias to see the digital and physical as separate; often as a zero-sum tradeoff where time and energy spent on one subtracts from the other. This is digital dualism par excellence. And it is a fallacy.

The critique stems from the systematic bias to see the digital and physical as separate; often as a zero-sum tradeoff where time and energy spent on one subtracts from the other. This is digital dualism par excellence. And it is a fallacy.

It is not purely that physical space is honest, whereas the internet is a site of deceit. Fetishizing the digital versus the physical in this way does a disservice to the imaginative potential of what worlds we can build therein.

It is not purely that physical space is honest, whereas the internet is a site of deceit. Fetishizing the digital versus the physical in this way does a disservice to the imaginative potential of what worlds we can build therein.

It is not purely that physical space is honest, whereas the internet is a site of deceit. Fetishizing the digital versus the physical in this way does a disservice to the imaginative potential of what worlds we can build therein.

I am proposing an alternative view that states that our reality is both technological and organic, both digital and physical, all at once. We are not crossing in and out of separate digital and physical realities, ala The Matrix, but instead live in one reality, one that is augmented by atoms and bits. And our selves are not separated across these two spheres as some dualistic “first” and “second” self, but is instead an augmented self.

I am proposing an alternative view that states that our reality is both technological and organic, both digital and physical, all at once. We are not crossing in and out of separate digital and physical realities, ala The Matrix, but instead live in one reality, one that is augmented by atoms and bits. And our selves are not separated across these two spheres as some dualistic “first” and “second” self, but is instead an augmented self.

I am proposing an alternative view that states that our reality is both technological and organic, both digital and physical, all at once. We are not crossing in and out of separate digital and physical realities, ala The Matrix, but instead live in one reality, one that is augmented by atoms and bits. And our selves are not separated across these two spheres as some dualistic “first” and “second” self, but is instead an augmented self.

one continuous self, two sides of a vivacious equation looped together in a continual narrative of daily living and human existence. The glitch splits the difference; it is a plank that passes between the two.

one continuous self, two sides of a vivacious equation looped together in a continual narrative of daily living and human existence. The glitch splits the difference; it is a plank that passes between the two.

one continuous self, two sides of a vivacious equation looped together in a continual narrative of daily living and human existence. The glitch splits the difference; it is a plank that passes between the two.

...it is possible to assert that cyberspace is “just like” real space only if one ignores that cyberspace is peopled by real users who experience cyberspace and real space as different but connected, with acts taken in one having consequences in the other. In all cases, theories of cyberspace as separate space give short shrift to cyberspace as both extension and evolution of everyday spatial practice—as a space neither separate from real space nor simply a continuation of it. That is to say, they ignore both the embodied, situated experience of cyberspace users and the complex interplay between real and digital geographies.

...it is possible to assert that cyberspace is “just like” real space only if one ignores that cyberspace is peopled by real users who experience cyberspace and real space as different but connected, with acts taken in one having consequences in the other. In all cases, theories of cyberspace as separate space give short shrift to cyberspace as both extension and evolution of everyday spatial practice—as a space neither separate from real space nor simply a continuation of it. That is to say, they ignore both the embodied, situated experience of cyberspace users and the complex interplay between real and digital geographies.

...it is possible to assert that cyberspace is “just like” real space only if one ignores that cyberspace is peopled by real users who experience cyberspace and real space as different but connected, with acts taken in one having consequences in the other. In all cases, theories of cyberspace as separate space give short shrift to cyberspace as both extension and evolution of everyday spatial practice—as a space neither separate from real space nor simply a continuation of it. That is to say, they ignore both the embodied, situated experience of cyberspace users and the complex interplay between real and digital geographies.