It is sometimes easy, when discussing openness, to get bogged down in the technical weeds. People often want detail and specifics: what open license should I use? Precisely how much revenue do I need to keep in reserve safely to wind-down an organization? When does advocacy become lobbying?
As noted previously, I am vacating my martineve.com domain. To do so has been a painful process that involves changing every account that uses martin@martineve.com to a new email address. This is painful because it turned out to be about 350 accounts. Different sites categorise the email differently.
This is a quick note to say that, in the near future, I will be abandoning the martineve.com domain name. For quite some time now, the primary address for this blog and site has been https://eve.gd. I know that cool URLs don’t change. But I guess I am not totally cool.
I have read, with some dismay, the draft of Ithaka S+R’s most recent report. I offer here some critical remarks that I hope will allow for revision of the work, which I believe offers an insular, digital-nationalist, exclusionary vision for the future of scholarly communications. The views herein are my personal take, not those of any organization for which I work.
En esta y las próximas entradas me dedicaré a repasar el proceso de edición del Lucidario –lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora, en los ocho meses de proyecto desde que comencé este blog, y lo que falta hacer–. El Lucidario , escrito entre 1292 y 1295, es decir, tras la toma de Tarifa y antes de la muerte de Sancho IV, es una obra malentendida.
Clark & Fischer propose that people see social robots as interactive depictions and that this explains some aspects of people’s behaviour towards them. We agree with C&F’s conclusion that we don’t need a novel ontological category for these social artefacts and that they can be seen as intersecting with a lineage of depictions from Michelangelo’s David to Mattel’s talking barbie doll. We have two constructive contributions to make.
En la entrada anterior hablé del testimonio F del Lucidario , la traducción latina de Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, realizada en base a un testimonio en pergamino de la biblioteca de Lorenzo Ramírez de Prado, η. La traducción latina no fue la última vez que Nieremberg o sus contemporáneos se refirieran al Lucidario . En su Obras y días.
Tras el feliz descubrimiento del testimonio I del Lucidario en la Biblioteca de la Fundación Bartolomé March, en esta entrada quiero dedicar mi atención a las copias perdidas del Lucidario , esto es, las que nos llegan como anotaciones de catálogos antiguos o modernos, referencias en los testimonios supervivientes o cuya existencia puede ser inferida por la transmisión manuscrita de los testimonios supervivientes.
En la habitual práctica de revisión de los catálogos de manuscritos, gracias a la que di con el testimonio H del Lucidario en Rouen hace dos años, la semana pasada he tenido una sorpresa mayor al dar con un noveno testimonio del Lucidario , al que le corresponde la sigla I (aquí su entrada estática, que iré actualizando en las próximas semanas). Llegué al manuscrito leyendo al catálogo de Antonio Paz y Meliá de la Biblioteca
I’m a regular watcher of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, so in February I was looking forward to his take on “AI“ and the large language models and image generators that many people have been getting excited about lately. I was not disappointed: Oliver heaped a lot of much-deserved criticism on these technologies, particularly for the ways they replicate prejudice and are overhyped by their developers.