Search

In Silicon Valley, the world’s most famous site of technological innovation, technology professionals are rejecting their own inventions and disconnecting from the internet. According to reports, technologists believe their designs and algorithms “hijack” user’s brains (Lewis 2017) and executives are sending their children to technology-free schools (Jenkin 2015). These technologists are not disillusioned by digital technology per se, but rather by the ideological and socio-economic system underpinning digital technology. This system is the ‘attention economy’ where media companies, advertisers and technology platforms compete for end user attention (Crogan and Kinsley 2012), which in turn incentivises technologists to create compulsive experiences for users to maximise time spent on device (Lanier 2018). In response to concerns about the attention economy, some technologists have become ‘disconnectionists’―opponents to the culture of constant connection they helped create (Jurgenson 2013). Not only are they disconnecting from their own inventions but, in true Silicon Valley style, are also inventing new technology-based ways to disconnect from the internet (“technologies of disconnection”). In other words, these disconnectionists are manufacturing disconnection. This research investigates the manufacture of disconnection as a mode of resistance to the attention economy. I contend that the manufacture of disconnection does not separate the user from the internet, but rather deploys technical and social practices to reorganise user relations to themselves and the internet in order to resist the attention economy. I critically assess the new types of user/technology relations that are produced by the manufacture of disconnection and discuss what the implications are for resisting the attention economy. To do this, I analyse five technologies of disconnection utilising the walkthrough method (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016) and data from semi-structured interviews fro

Study Design: Broad narrative review. Objective: To review and summarize the current literature on guidelines, outcomes, techniques and indications surrounding multiple modalities of minimizing blood loss in spine surgery. Methods: A thorough review of peer-reviewed literature was performed on the guidelines, outcomes, techniques, and indications for multiple modalities of minimizing blood loss in spine surgery. Results: There is a large body of literature that provides a consensus on guidelines regarding the appropriate timing of discontinuation of anticoagulation, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and herbal supplements prior to surgery. Additionally, there is a more heterogenous discussion the utility of preoperative autologous blood donation facilitated by erythropoietin and iron supplementation for healthy patients slated for procedures with high anticipated blood loss and for whom allogeneic transfusion is likely. Intraoperative maneuvers available to minimize blood loss include positioning and maintaining normothermia. Tranexamic acid (TXA), bipolar sealer electrocautery, and topical hemostatic agents, and hypotensive anesthesia (mean arterial pressure (MAP)Hg) should be strongly considered in cases with larger exposures and higher anticipated blood loss. There is strong level 1 evidence for the use of TXA in spine surgery as it reduces the overall blood loss and transfusion requirements. Conclusion: As the volume and complexity of spinal procedures rise, intraoperative blood loss management has become a pivotal topic of research within the field. There are many tools for minimizing blood loss in patients undergoing spine surgery. The current literature supports combining techniques to use a cost- effective multimodal approach to minimize blood loss in the perioperative period.