remetheus

In my personal life, I do not practice good cable management with my computing devices. In fact, I might go as far as actively practicing bad cable management.

Behind my desk is an unholy mess of wires of different diameters, colors, and purposes tangled in a thicket. My daily routine includes plugging and unplugging a handful of devices because I don't have enough sockets for everything. I could invest in more hubs and power strips, but I prefer this ritual. Swapping my lamp for my work laptop charger is practically what serves as my morning commute.

I like the look of a sprawl of wires. To me, this is how technology should look. Not hiding what it is, but raw and transparent. Technology inherently has power, and complexity, and more than a little of arcane exclusivity, and I like that visible. I feel like an oracle when I reach into a drawer and know by feel which USB cord will fit my e-reader. I want more wires for my set-up, barely hidden and threatening to burst out and spill over the floor and up the wall.

I'n not actually all that concerned about the look of the devices themselves. I just want wires between the devices. I want the collective to look like more than the sum of its parts, and I want that sum to look like a haunted swamp made of silicon and copper.

Organized wires gives the impression that a bunch of computers belong in the Realm of Order, and they are a well-behaved system that can be understood. You know it ain't. You know it. You tell yourself that your organized router diagrams and wire protocols means that it's feasible to know, even in theory, which bits are going where but then you plug when you sleep so you're not woken by your own screams as your dreams are invaded by your brain's knowledge of its own futility against the vagaries of timing and noise and signal and deliverability.

Cable management tricks us to believing the computers can be treated as livestock, when they are still feral animals.

I don't want my machines to hide. I don't trust the new devices that hide in the walls and communicate with radio. When machines communicate, their organization should be Brutalist to remind you of what they are. The organization of every computing system is a piecemeal amalgamation of the contradicting needs over time of the humans who created it. The rocks that the machines used to be don't care one whit about us, but they act like they rage against the meat-borne mistakes that they are twisted into the shape of.

That's why I keep my cables exposed. All of my devices look like they are part of a nest of live vipers. Don't let your guard down.

EDIT 1:12pm EST on 1/3: the fix for this is now live, sorry again for the inconvenience

example:

• OP tags something "food"
• someone shares this post, does not tag it
• user has "food" muffled
• shared post is shown, original post is muffled.

we will be fixing this ASAP once we're in the office tomorrow. sorry for this one.

sharing for additional visibility, the fix for this is now live

Can you tell us a bit about the discovery itself?

Sure, we first started noticing the Dog Effect in the lab but dismissed it as a one-off. It wasn't until we noticed it in the beagle that we decided to see what research had been done into the effect. When we couldn't find anything about it, even when we expanded the scope of our search, we knew we had something.

And why did you choose to name it the Dog Effect instead of after one of you or the lab or one of the other dogs?

We just thought it was right. We didn't name it after any of us because the discovery didn't belong to us, it belonged to the world. And as pivotal as the lab was to the discovery, it didn't seem right to single out a dog when the effect is so widespread.

There has been some confusion over the specifics of the effect. Especially after that CNN article that went viral.

I would love to. It's a lot simpler than some have been making out. The Dog Effect is the observation that dogs woof. I know some of the confusion has been related to how scientists tend to use words that also have a popular meaning. A yip, a bark, an arf—even a boof—these all are included in the scientific definition of woof

A bow wow?

Yes, a bow wow too.

Sorry, I shouldn't interrupt

No, no. Please do. I'm here to educate the public and I know there are others in the audience wondering that too. The other confusion we've run into is people thinking that growls or howls disprove the effect. We're not saying dogs only woof or that a dog is unable to do anything but woof. We're merely observing that dogs do woof and in fact they tend to woof.

Thanks, putting it in those terms is helpful.

Oh yes, and the CNN article. We try not to be too negative or to ascribe any kind of malice but there clearly was some sort of systematic failure that that got published. How they got to "mammals only bark" is as mystifying as it is incorrect. Thanks for giving me the chance to come on address it

My pleasure. Is there anything else you want to bring up while you're here?

I just want to suggest to your viewers that if they see a dog and the dog is friendly, they should consider giving the dog a pat. It's those kinds of simple but considered actions that may very well lead to the next big scientific breakthrough