You literal 7 year old is not 5. Of those events you listed, the Troubles is the only one I was over 4 years to experience the end portion.
Okay so you were 7 during the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and you were 12 during the bombing of the USS Cole and you were 7 during the Oklahoma City Bombing. You were 9 during the US Embassy Bombings (linked to Osama Bin Laden: en.wikipedia.org/…/1998_United_States_embassy_bom…).
We all know children today, even literal 7 year olds, are more informed than we were back then. Like seriously, we couldn’t look up information back then. Its nothing against us as a generation, its everything to do with our technological level.
I’m also a millennial and all my friends are millennials.
Outside of my history-buff friends, most of my friends (despite being Engineers, Doctors, PH.Ds and other well-educated positions) are very ignorant of the 90s era of politics. All of us have had our awakening starting with 9/11 or so. In fact, the only reason why I know these things is because I explicitly went back and studied the politics of my childhood. Its not a thing I knew back then.
Most of my elders who were young adults and adults in the 90s don’t know what that song is about either.
Typical Gen Z will know “This is America” references the Charleston church shooting. As well as adults.
You know why? Because today, we have the internet, and everyone is far more knowledgable and can pick up on references. Back in the 90s, “Zombie is about The Troubles” was obscure, and hell… just knowing what “The Troubles” were was kind of obscure with a lot of people completely ignorant to the events.
Today, we have things called cellphones, Wikipedia and Google. The level of obscurity and references in our modern media landscape is far more subtle because everyone and everything is smarter. Have you ever use the Dewey Decimal System, card catalog, and microfiche to look up information? Shit was hard to do research back then.
I live in the suburbs, because I recognize that I get all the benefits of cities with almost none of the downsides. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. As long as I can afford the suburbia and as long as it leads to a better life, I’ll take advantage of it.
But in the vast majority of cases, its the cities that provide the value (IE: job creation, center of commerce and innovation, location of efficiency with public transit / steamworks / useful infrastructure)… while suburbs are basically trying to live as close to the city as possible without taking on the responsibilities (IE: taxes go to the suburb schools / suburb cops without paying into the city that makes the suburb livable)
Jury Duty is just one more thing that proves the pattern. People mostly don’t commit crimes in suburbia, because no one is doing commerce in suburbia (its more efficient to centralize commerce into the city). So when crimes are committed, they’re usually in the city (white-collar, suing, traffic crimes, etc. etc.). So the overworked city-justice system (already at a disadvantage due to higher crime due to being the center of commerce) is then overworked some more as they usually can’t recruit jurors.
Doubly-so for cities like New York City who are supporting the suburbs in New Jersey. New York City cannot cross state lines and grab jurors from New Jersey, even though we all damn well know that New Jersey residents constitute a huge portion of the traffic, commerce, crime, and other problems in NYC.
Less so for cities closer to the center of a state… especially if the State can better distribute jurors / taxes and have a more fair system.
The structure of USA’s society is that everyone travels to cities to work (where the office and/or restaurants / hangout spots are), but then travels to suburbia to sleep / pay taxes.
This means that the cityfolk are constantly doing jury duty for all the suburbanite visitors. Someone who lives in an urban area is pretty much going to get selected for jury duty as often as legally allowed.
In a letter sent to the service’s members Oct. 28, AOL Chairman Steve Case touted a new pricing plan that offers unlimited access to the service’s proprietary content as well as to the Internet for $19.95 a month.
[Snip]
Until the new unlimited plan was unveiled, all users paid $9.95 a month for 5 hours of usage and $2.95 for each additional hour.
This is what I remembered. My dad always told me to watch the Internet usage, because it cost money for each hour. These were 5-hours / month plans back then. That being said, 1996 is a year before Diablo, meaning the “unlimited” plans came in soon afterwards. But “unlimited” didn’t really work out in our favor because my mom and grandma who lived with us always wanted to use the phone.
And we were the only kids of the neighborhood who had internet. People came over to our house to surf the net.
Looks like 22% had internet at home, but over 54% had a computer.
How do you think the majority of computer users played Castle of the Winds, Jazz Jackrabbit, Doom, or other shareware games? Hint: it wasn’t the internet because most computer users didn’t have internet.
1993, the previous census figures are even worse as that’s before AOL
Btw, downloads weren’t a thing even for those who had internet. Back then, you paid per minute hour of internet usage.
My family connected to the internet to download (POP3) out email and then disconnected. Because my Mom would then want to use the phone to call her friends. Unless you had two phone lines like a rich person, extended multi-hour download sessions at 33kbps (or slower) was just not a thing.
That’s 14MB per hour, if you don’t remember how slow 90s internet was.
The college students with T1 connections were the source of shareware / disks by the later 90s (like 97, 98 etc. Etc). But home users weren’t doing online downloads yet, too expensive and too slow.