Suchergebnisse

Placing Thomas Edison at the beginning of a history on electric power transmission hardly needs justification. Thomas Edison's abundant supply of pictures of himself as an inventive genius – and America's pressing demand for a myth of an ingenious inventor – combined to bestow a "Eureka" moment upon Edison's pioneering Pearl Street (New York) Station electric lighting network. But the history of the laborious computations that took place at Menlo Park and the division-of-computing labor of which Edison took advantage suggests a different view of inventive genius. The story of the computational pyramid formed by the labors of Francis R. Upton, Charles L. Clarke, and Samuel D. Mott (1879–1880) can be reconstructed from the existing literature. In his reminiscences from Menlo Park, Edison's employee, Francis Jehl, detailed how Edison thought of constructing a miniaturized network to be used as a computer of the actual network. Knowing that constructing, maintaining, and using the miniature network required a considerable amount of skilled labor, Edison decided to hire an employee for it, Dr Herman Claudius. Edison enthusiastically welcomed Claudius to perform a type of computing work "requiring nerve and super abundance of patience and knowledge". Jehl remembered that the labor of constructing a miniature network of conductors, "all in proportion, to show Mr Edison what he would have to install in New York City in connection with the Pearl Street Station" was "gigantic". Following the pattern of the Pearl Street Station electric lighting network, several similar networks were built in the early 1880s. In response, Edison's labor pyramid was enlarged by giving Claudius an assistant, Hermann Lemp, who performed the monotonous task of constructing the new miniature networks, which Edison needed for computation. Inconvenient as it might be for those who assume that technological change is the product of inventive genius, electrification was, from the beginning, laboriously computed; it was not, like Athena, a deity that leapt from a godly head.

This article considers media narratives that suggest that hiding in trucks, buses, and other vehicles to cross borders has, in fact, been a common practice in the context of migration to, and within, Europe. We aim to problematize how the tension between the materiality of bordering practices and human migrants generates a dis/abled subject. In this context, dis/ability may be a cause or consequence of migration, both in physical/material (the folding of bodies in the crypt) and cultural/semiotic terms, and may become a barrier to accessing protection, to entering and/or crossing a country, and to performing mobility in general. Dis/ability and migration have not been associated in the literature. We adopt an analytical symmetry between humans and non-humans, in this case between bodies and crypts. By suggesting an infected, ambivalent, and hybrid approach to the human subject, the body-crypt traveling border challenges the essentialist dichotomies between technology and biology, disability and impairment. The articles and reports upon which we rely were collected through extensive searches of databases/archives of online newspapers and news websites.

AbstractThe prospect of the use of Large Language Models, like ChatGPT, in work environments raises important questions regarding both the potential for a dramatic change in the quality of jobs and the risk of unemployment. The answers to these questions, but, also, the posing of questions to be answered, may involve the use of ChatGPT. This, in turn, may give rise to a series of ethical considerations. The article seeks to identify such considerations by presenting a research on a questionnaire that was developed by means of ChatGPT before it was answered, first, by a group of humans (H) and, then, through the use of a machine (M), ChatGPT. The language model was actually used to respond to the questionnaire twice. First, based on its data (M1), and, second, based on it being asked to imitate a human (M2). Based on the significant differences between the H and M answers, and, further, on the noticeable differences occurring within the M answers (the differences between the M1 and M2 answers), the article concludes by registering a cluster of three ethical considerations.