@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

agamemnonymous

@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The enV3 was either my last or one of them. Yeah, it was pretty great.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Never had a Sidekick but I always thought they looked satisfyingly functional

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Thing is, the Internet at its core is just a vastly interconnected network. That’s it. All the effects of the Internet are direct consequences of that fundamental property, and time.

The technological architecture that supports the complexity of modern civilization? The direct consequence of interconnectivity × time. QAnon? The direct consequence of interconnectivity × time.

You can’t restrain the bad without crippling the good.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

You can’t restrain the bad without crippling the good

That part. “People should…” is an impotent sentiment. How do you incentivize, or force, a regression to “sufficient” technology? How do you do so without affecting beneficial network technology?

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I think you might be misinterpreting my point.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Who does Tim’s father represent? What does him throwing the tin cans in the trash represent? How does this analogy represent the topic we’re discussing?

If the tin cans are old but sufficient technology, then the proper analogy would see Tim and Susie discarding the tin cans themselves voluntarily because the walkie talkies do what they do but better. Maybe there are drawbacks too, but Tim and Susie made their choice. Maybe Jack and Jill down the street like the intimacy of tin cans better and decide not to get walkie talkies, that is also their choice.

Maybe the window ritual is socially beneficial, but who enforces that, and how? Does Jack’s mom get walkie talkies banned? Now what about all the emergency responders who used walkie talkies to save lives? Just banned for children? Who decides who qualifies as a child, and what about the children in the country who’s houses are too far apart for tin cans?

I’m not saying there are no benefits to simpler options, and obviously every person has the freedom to use the simplest technologies they wish, but we’re having a conversation about society not individual choice . I’m saying that there’s no practical way to incentivize or force them at a societal scale. Unless you can think of one which isn’t just Big Brother censoring the Internet, in which case I’m all ears.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

If it’s not an analogy then… yes, the world continues spinning if kids talk with tin cans? I don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic of the societal effects of widespread use of algorithm-driven social media platforms. restraint with regards to the Internet?

Edit: got this conversation confused with a similar one. My bad

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

That’s on me, I’m also having an extremely similar conversation with someone else specifically about that

What you did say was:

I’m not saying there should be no internet. I am only saying maybe some restraint would be advantageous for everyone.

So what I meant to say In my last comment was:

What does any of that have to do with the restraint with regards to the Internet?

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Okay, sure? That was always allowed. Again, “People should behave differently than they do” without any proposed method of bringing about whatever “differently” is, is just impotent platitude. That’s why I keep reiterating “incentivize or force”. Without one of those two pressures, people will continue to make individual decisions about their behavior, including which things they choose to do on the Internet, like they have been doing the whole time. Some will choose to do things on the Internet which can be done sufficiently other ways, others will choose to use simpler technologies.

When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I feel like a broken record:

Yes, obviously, people are allowed to make their own choices. Not using the flashiest new toys and services is allowed. Acknowledging that fact is not useful. You telling people what they should and shouldn’t do is not going to have a societal effect.

If you would like to propose some regulatory or incentive policy to nudge people toward simpler technologies, then that is a useful conversation. But just stating your opinion? Old man yells at cloud.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m not saying that your opinion shouldn’t exist, but some restraint would be advantageous.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

Some opinions provide valuable hypotheses which can promote thoughtful discussion regardless of their validity, like “A value-added tax would benefit the working class”. Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious, like “Israelis and Palestinians should just get along”.

Endless promotion of the latter is probably one of the most unnecessary uses of the Internet, muttering to oneself alone at home is a sufficient technology for that purpose.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

The irony.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

So then you agree?

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I wouldn’t be surprised, especially for A-listers, especially on-set. Eye-contact promotes conversations which, even when they are more stimulating than “Oh wow! You’re _____!! I loved you in that thing”, eat up time in a very busy production schedule. It’s even worse if the star is genuinely nice and personable, and sincerely appreciates their fans. It adds up to hours gone every day in 3-6 minute increments.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

If they’re too young to fold their own, they’re small enough that their clothes should be able to just lay flat in the drawer.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Eyyy, I had a little Altin Gün phase this year too

ETA: also wtf, someone showed my My Analogy Journal this spring and I spent weeks trying to remember what it was called.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Apparently you’d love it in Santa Cruz

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Since fire rises(in atmosphere) anything on fire is technically under fire

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I am and I’m drawing a blank. I remember kchshchshchchchchch eeeeeedle eeedllllllllle, then some croaking and various phone sounds, no bwongs though.

agamemnonymous, (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

V.34 is the one burned into my memory. I hear plenty of BIPs but nothing I would consider a BWONG

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Bird names are usually either 1. a straightforward description 2. absolute nonsense

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Sounds like you need to take responsibility for your own time management.

agamemnonymous,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Couple of things:

  • Social justice influencers acridly piling blame for social problems onto cis white males without nuance. This makes a lot of cis white males feel targeted for factors outside their control, and so they flock to ideologies that venerate them.
  • General dissatisfaction with career and other life prospects, in the shadow of an idyllic bygone status-quo propped up by exploitative short term policies. They saw their parents and grandparents thrive in that trad-coded utopia, and they’re noticing the inadequacies of their own prospects.

So mostly those two things, exacerbated by fascist propagandists who have taken advantage of them to promote the facade of a return-to-roots. Also good old fashioned cult of personality.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #