Search

How does visualizing allows us to set the parameters to make the future vision a reality?

I am interested in the Macro scale and the macro effects evident at a city-scale level. I remember visiting New Orleans in 2016 and vividly remember seeing several signs with a large 'No' symbol drawn and the text  "neighbors not tourists" printed on the sign. Recently, as part of my research into New Orleans, I stumbled on this piece by the Guardian on how short-term rentals through platforms such as Airbnb are leading to gentrification in New Orleans. Highlighted in the article is how several Airbnb hosts do not reside on the listed premises. I remember the place we stayed, as we were a large party, having a 617 prefix number.  The prefix stood out as I knew the code 617 represented Boston and was curious what someone with ties to Boston doing in New Orleans as a host. In a similar vein, the article also highlights the problem of absentee hosts, hosts who acquire property for the sole purpose of setting up the property as an Airbnb site.

To tackle the problem, one councilwoman passed a law that required any Airbnb hosts in residential zones to have a homestead exemption verifying they live on site. In this case, a city-wide measure was taken and passed into law affecting the micro. It is common to have one host having several properties in different residential areas in New Orleans. From a technical standpoint, it could be viewed that Airbnb as technology is developed and presented as a scalable product. With no limits to reproducibility. Meanwhile, real-life discontinuities exist in the form of such homestead laws. It is impossible to live in more than one homestead at the same time. In other words, the concept of the human is not scalable.
Likewise, neither is cultural heritage. The city of New Orleans positions its self as a city with great cultural heritage. It is through this heritage that they seek to draw more and more tourists. How do cities think of scaling up successful initiatives and how do they navigate the political, social, ecological, or economic entanglements. At what point is downscaling necessary? Is culture scalable?

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/13/new-orleans-airbnb-trem…

I am currently a Ph.D. student interested in exploring the entanglements of scale, especially in the context of environmental sensing.  My primary research seeks to engage in discourse around the value of scalability that is presented as inherent in computation. While the term scale-up is almost synonymous with computation, sustainability; on the other hand, is known as a problem of scale. Take for example, the discourse on climate change where the actions required to combat climate change requires interventions at different scales. In this context, demanding changes at individual scales while no corresponding changes happen at larger scales would not yield much.

In looking at New Orleans, I came across a video on IoT cameras developed by Cisco, the networking giant. What struck me other than the apparent rise of surveillance capitalism was the narrative of one of the police officers highlighted in the video. The officer mentions that it is not feasible for the city to place police officers on every corner. In the context of scale, the police officer is implying that cameras are useful as they extend the police officer's ability to surveil the city. In other words, cameras and the networks help scale up the police officer, making it possible for them to cover a larger scale than before.

One of the police officers, in the video, also mentions that New Orleans is a tourist and hospitable town. Which brings up the question at any given period, what scale of visitors can New Orleans support without stretching the city's resources? Several other cities in the world have made efforts to limit visitors, in order not stretch city resources. The recent crisis at Mount Everest is an excellent example of what happens when resources are stretched to accommodate the increasing number of local visitors. How could something of this nature similarly impact New Orleans?

At the communication center where the video feed is analyzed, the IT manager provides reasons as to why they chose Cisco as their vendor. One of the reasons he gives was that the system is easily expandable, allowing the ability to scale out/up the network.

The film is geared towards the general public, all medical terms are explained fairly well. No medical or first response background is necessary, and it is fairly educational for viewers.

Rikers is not safe for inmates due to a varitey of factors, for example, the CO2 emissions, the extreme heat, flooding, the emissions from the landfill, the narrow road that doesn't always allow ambulances to pass. The stench is also disgusting. There are arguments for the closing of the jail and improvemements to how money is spent within society, as well as "efforts" to improve the condition of the jails.

This policy applies to the U.S. healthcare system, all facilities that treat patients. It applies to the managers, staff, and patients at those locations, and those seeking treatment or evaluation, as it helps define the roles and expectations of a specific type of facility.

It is an international program with the following member states/countries and the year that they joined:

"1957: Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Socialist Federal Rep. of Yugoslavia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Viet Nam

• 1958: Belgium, Ecuador, Finland, Iran, Luxembourg, Mexico, Philippines, Sudan
• 1959: Iraq
• 1960: Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Senegal
• 1961: Lebanon, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo
• 1962: Liberia, Saudi Arabia
• 1963: Algeria, Bolivia, Côte d'Ivoire, Libya, Syria, Uruguay
• 1964: Cameroon, Gabon, Kuwait, Nigeria
• 1965: Costa Rica, Cyprus, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar
• 1966: Jordan, Panama
• 1967: Sierra Leone, Singapore, Uganda
• 1968: Liechtenstein
• 1969: Malaysia, Niger, Zambia
• 1970: Ireland
• 1972: Bangladesh
• 1973: Mongolia
• 1974: Mauritius
• 1976: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania
• 1977: Nicaragua
• 1983: Namibia
• 1984: China
• 1986: Zimbabwe
• 1992: Estonia, Slovenia
• 1993: Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia
• 1994: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan, Yemen
• 1995: Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 1996: Georgia
• 1997: Latvia, Malta, Moldova
• 1998: Burkina Faso
• 1999: Angola, Benin
• 2000: Tajikistan
• 2001: Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Serbia
• 2002: Eritrea, Botswana
• 2003: Honduras, Seychelles, Kyrgyzstan
• 2004: Mauritania
• 2005: Chad
• 2006: Belize, Malawi, Montenegro, Mozambique
• 2007: Cabo Verde*
• 2008: Nepal, Palau
• 2009: Bahrain, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Lesotho, Oman
• 2011: Lao People's Democratic Republic, Tonga*
• 2012: Dominica, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago
• 2013: San Marino, Swaziland
• 2014: Bahamas, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros*
• 2015: Djibouti, Guyana, Vanuatu, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados
• 2016: Saint Lucia*, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*, The Gambia*, Turkmenistan"

Events on the calendar are located in a number of different countries from the above list. The headquarters is in Vienna, Austria.

The Turkish culture associates "epillepsy" with mental retardation, so they usually refer to seizures as 'fainting". This can cause confusion when in a medical setting, as fainting and seizures are two different issues. The stories usually falled into one of five plot categories. The conditions were typically caused by a frightful experience, a childhood fever or injury, no apparent reason, chronic suffering, or an evil eye. These classifications help see trends and learn where improvements can be made.

Miriam Ticktin is an associate professor of anthropology at The New School for Social Research, as well as the Co-Director of Zolberg Institute for Migration and Mobility. This indicates that she writes this article from an anthropologic perspective rather than with a biological or political viewpoint.

Emergency response is the main idea in this article, but specifically that related to nuclear emergencies. An interesting point was made about the confidentiality of the plants and their "trade secrets" of sorts. While being transparent is helpful for safety reasons, it also reduced the profitability of the company, since other companies would be able to use their ideas. EMS knows a lot about respecting privacy through HIPPA, however it is also important to know the layout of important or potentially hazardous buildings within a response district. This would be a necessary compromise to make between the nuclear emergency response team and the nuclear leaders.