Bookmarking myself:

"Among many other topics, we discussed collections, loose tools (like Pinboard and Sagashitemiyo (something related to that, I think), or a simple tin box like the one that is featured in Amélie), pristineness (for lack of a better term), and clutter.

Dieter Rams' house came up (we only liked his workshop*), as did Scandinavian design, the desks of Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, and Mark Twain (with a semblance of a system with what appears to be a mess), and Path (as mentioned here and by Frank Chimero).

Eventually, we made the connection to a scene in Charles & Ray Eames: The Architect and the Painter, in which Ray's office is discussed. She essentially uses it as storage. No one else dares enter because it is overflowing with stuff. But, then, whenever something seems to be missing from a project that the office is working on, Ray mentions that she has just the right thing, disappears into her office, and returns with exactly the perfect object."

"a blog post by Tag Savage [http://sexpigeon.org/post/16729718345/path-puts-a-silly-amount-of-trust-in-its-avatars ] about Path’s user interface choices in their app. Central tennent: if a place is too pristine and planned, it can’t be colonized. Tag’s words:

"Path is pretty in the same designy way as our modern museums. […] These museums are very exciting when they open. You show up and marvel along with all of the other fans of architecture. Maybe you return for one of those nights where they stay open late and there is a band and drinking. “A great space,” you think. […] The art doesn’t get talked about so much at these museums."

Path is a monument to Path. It is no place to scribble in. I wish it longevity so that it might find shabbiness.

A tricky balance, to be sure, but one that must be navigated if a product is dependant on user’s content. Part of the product must be left undone to provide the opening for the user to contribute."

"Path believes that it can make performative, broadcast behavior intimate.

That is: by limiting the number of connections, but shaping their nature, by imbuing the entirety of their product with a substantiality and a quality that emphasizes real human engagement, they can create an intimate network.

But there can be no such thing; real intimacy can never, ever be broadcast. It must be either one-to-one or one-off."

"…rather than email our wedding invitations, we make use of ludicrously anachronistic methods in obedience not solely to tradition, but to this principle: efficiency is the enemy of intimacy.

Path is an incredibly easy way to efficiently share life’s moments with your closest friends and family in a centralized way, and for that reason it subverts its own premise, which always makes me sad; it’s beautiful work in service to a flawed idea. Any broadcast is inauthentic; a general audience kills intimacy; there is no such thing as a static social network of quality."

"I've been mentally collecting "lies of social software"…So far I've come up with these, mainly based on my experiences w/ blogging, Flickr, Twitter & Facebook:

"Your friends are equally important". Dunbar pointed out that we have concentric circles of friends: 5 close ones, 15 acquaintances, 50 rough friends, etc. Yet in my friends lists on Twitter & Facebook, everyone's equal (& usually alphabetical). I like what Path have done around limiting size of your network, & Flickr concept of Family, Friends & Contacts - but what about software for just you & those 5 of your closest? Or for you and your other half?

"Your friends are arranged into discrete groups", w/ a corollary that these groups rarely change…

"You can manage hundreds of friends"…

"Friendship is reciprocal & equal". Some people are more important to me than I am to them, & vice versa; we might not like to face up to this in every day life but it's true nonetheless, & our digital tools don't reflect this…"