These posts are beginning to follow the pattern of ‘stream of consciousness’ – which is actually helping me generate content faster than usual. So, apologies if it doesn’t make much sense, but I am going to try to continue with this approach, because it is beneficial to me.
This week, we spent a lot of time deliberating about whether networks have set centres or not.
The question was:
“Does a network have a centre? Or do we all create centres for our own networks?”
Brian said networks are dynamic and open to change.
Adrian compared different types of networks. He spoke about this university. There is a limit on how many people we can have at this university. If we add too many people, the university will “burst”. Scale-free networks, on the other hand, are networks which are just that – scale-free. They have no limit. Think of the Internet. The Internet will keep growing. There is no limit to the Internet. And, says Adrian, there is no centre. But there are hubs. And hubs are centres. Hubs are defined by having a particularly large number of connections in and out – “weak and strong ties”. He uses the example of Facebook friends who have a ton of friends.
This made me think. That’s the interesting thing about Facebook – it explicitly shows you your ‘connections’ to a certain person, should you have any. It does this by ‘mutual friends’. So, we can have secondary connections to countless people. We can be separated from others by mere degrees. We can be separated from professionals we admire by mere degrees. The more we know about our network, the more convoluted it becomes, and the less boundaries exist. Walls between people are no more. We live in an age where people at least ‘know of’ each other. We are aware of each other’s presence and accessibility. This reminds me of something Adrian said a few lectures back. He spoke about getting into contact with an author (not sure if that’s correct!) he admired. He remarked upon the fact that – before this Internet age – getting into contact with someone like that would have been nearly impossible. Now, all it takes is an email. Everyone is reachable. Everyone is now on the same platform. Who do I admire? Danny Boyle. Baz Luhrmann. Two people I know are currently working on a short film with Baz Luhrmann. One is directing, and one is acting. They entered an online competition to get this. (As a side note, I am so happy for them and so envious of them!) I find this whole network concept incredible. And efficient. The way the world operates now must be so much stronger. We are literally being unified through the Internet.
A kid in the lecture theatre said a really good point that relates to this – the Internet is limited by the amount of people able to access it. This is exactly right, in my eyes.
Anyway, Adrian went on to talk about the non-virtuality of the Internet – arguing that Google uses more electricity than the city of Melbourne, that there is a scary amount of resources required to run this Internet world. There is nothing virtual about this. I have to admit, I had never appreciated the shocking enormity of presence that this ‘virtual’ world has in our ‘real’ world. It is a little terrifying. Adrian concluded by bluntly announcing that the Internet will collapse because we will run out of resources. (Time to panic.)
I apologise for the limited content that this post is about – I took notes during the lecture, but, alas, I cannot decipher the rest of my handwriting. This is sad.
Only a few things can I read.
I don’t remember why Adrian was talking about Melbourne Uni, but I appreciate that he shares the same viewpoint as me about the university. Melbourne Uni gives the impression of a private high-school. As Adrian says, they suggest that they’re “scarce ‘cause [they’re] special”. They “brand the shit” out of themselves. Yes, it’s a little harsh, but that is the general vibe I get from that university. I’m sure there are some fantastic teachers and students there, but… no. It’s all a little pretentious for me. That’s all I’m saying.
Also, during the lecture, Adrian mentioned that he came to university to watch films. I find this interesting for a number of reasons. 1. Because I didn’t know Adrian was interested in film (I thought he was largely interested in online media). 2. Because this demonstrates the scarcity of accessible content in those days.
Other bits of handwriting I can just make out…
I attempted to write something about Elliot’s response to one of the questions, but couldn’t gather much. This is because there were so, so many unnecessary words. A lot of ‘essentially’ and ‘in a sense’. Please, Elliot, less wishy-washy words. Less words = better communication = better learnding for us students. (Yes, learnding.) <3
I also wrote something about proteins, and appeared to have a moment of nostalgia for the days of studying biology. I did like biology.
Yeah, I’ll leave it here.