The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we imagine and experience our bodily boundaries. While previously we may have believed our body to be discrete and bounded by our skin, the latest medical advice has awakened us to the porous nature of our bodies. The virus, we have learnt, may enter our body through our mouths, nose and eyeballs via the surfaces that we touch and through the air that we breathe. In this article, I employ auto-ethnographic reflections and recent media coverage to argue that this new corporeal intimacy has both produced and revealed new and latent experiences of disgust and violence.

Interactions with intelligent systems have become common in domestic and professional life. However, little is known about how pilots, who already work in a highly automated environment, envisage using intelligent systems in their work environment. This preliminary analysis investigates pilots' needs and wants for digital flight assistants (DFAs) through an interview study. We show that the adoption of DFAs may be hindered by pre-existing concerns, such as inadequate automatic speech recognition, linked to past experiences with digital assistants. Furthermore, we identify important contextual and environmental factors that will need to be accounted for in the design of DFAs such as "cross cockpit" relationships, noisy environments, or pilot's cognitive workload. CCS CONCEPTS• Hardware → Emerging interfaces; • Human-centered computing → Natural language interfaces.

In recent years, anthropology has become a buzz word in the corporate world. Companies such as Google have hired anthropologists for research and product design while marketing consultancies such as Red Associates have built their brands around anthropological methods. Yet, corporate anthropologists such as myself occupy an uneasy space within anthropology. Despite the discipline's internal commitment to reflexivity of its complicity in broader hegemonies, on the ‘outside’ when communicating to the public, the pristine figure of a ‘noble anthropologist’—acting to make the world a better place, free from influence and self-interest—is often evoked. While some applied anthropologists conform to this image of the ‘noble anthropologist’, the corporate anthropologist often does not. In the context of decreasing student numbers and dissolving departments for anthropologists working in the academy, I consider how a pragmatic and entrepreneurial approach to securing corporate work, while not necessarily ‘noble’, might still be ‘good’.

No abstract