181–190 of 368 posts
Rule of Thumb : General Predictions from experts/specialists are almost useless. For decent predictions of the ways of a world, find multi-disciplinary generalists. They would likely be right, at least directionally.
Do you have any pointers for some recent predictions you thought made sense?
I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?
> I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Wow, you just described like greater than 99% of the internet. Search engine results these days is like taking a metal detector to the city dump. We might as well use Taleb's idea of Lindy to find good information. Unfortunately, the internet hasn't been around long enough f…
Luckily internet gives us easy access to books that are a bit older :)
I don't read blogs. But I love the internet for being one heck of a library.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s really frustrating and inefficient. I only do it because she’s a really good friend. Yeesh. I'm glad my friends don't regard me this way. IMHO, your comment is a perfect example of why one should quit Facebook.
They said they are willing to put effort in for their friend. What is wrong with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have any love for Microsoft, but they at least have a handful of objectively useful products that probably make the world a little better. Pretty much all the research I've heard about social media indicates that it makes the world worse. So I think it is relevant.
That's interesting. I just don't think there has been any research into holistically evaluating social networks. AFAIK studies mostly focus on small parts often with the premise to find something negative (e.g. effect of seeing other feeds with success stories). Obviously a lot of people do in fact derive pleasure and some other benefits or they wouldn't keep using it.
Sure, but it could still be overall harmful. E.g. gambling, drugs, smoking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I just want my heads up life display because...why not? Maybe I won’t trust Facebook to give it to me, but if the tech becomes good enough, I’m definitely going to embrace it. Is it really a dystopian future? We’ve adjusted to the telegraph, camera, telephone, radio, TV, cell phone, smart phone and...why are AR glasses going to be the tech to bring society down?
We didn't adjust to these. They were valueable. Everything since 2010 comes with warnings, and a whole bouquet of side effects I used to want more, now I want less. Even if I can make my own HUD I wouldn't make it. For some jobs though I'd be happy to try: emergency, medicine
In the 90s all anyone could talk about was how terrible TV was, the ballooning amount of time people spent watching instead of being social or going outside, etc. And I certainly spent more time actually watching and focusing on ads (commercials) then than I do on the web, where I block them, ignore them, or pay for them to go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did have a hard time taking any of what he wrote seriously. It was not thought provoking for me and I felt it wasn’t deep or interesting. It’s interesting in the sense that it is useful to know where FB may be headed, but when I think of Facebook all I see is another advertising company looking for more ways to put ads in front of captive eyeballs.
One thing I can't understand is why Facebook is still around. But, at the same time, Twitter is still around, too. I guess people got tired switching platforms.
I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's about as practical for me as giving up my local water utility as an inner-city dweller. I mean I definitely could. I can get large bottles of potable water delivered quite cheaply, and I guess I could setup a system so that that's what came out of the taps. But what I really want is for the government to intervene so I don't need to give up my local water utility, by guaranteeing minimum levels of service, and…
Sorry, the comparison of Facebook to drinkable water is totally absurd. Social media is entertainment, you don't need it to survive, not even close.
Yes, I could find another way to contact my support network. I could also find another way to get drinkable water. I'd rather there was simply regulation though.
>"at some point in the 2020s, we will get breakthrough augmented reality glasses that will redefine our relationship with technology." Constant video surveillance, direct-to-eyes on-glass advertising, targeted advertising beamed on every approved spot, interests profiling via retina movements/focus and God knows what else will undoubtedly come about if AR glasses become "cool" and ubiquitous like mobile phones. Maybe…
Huh, I just want my heads up life display because...why not? Maybe I won’t trust Facebook to give it to me, but if the tech becomes good enough, I’m definitely going to embrace it. Is it really a dystopian future? We’ve adjusted to the telegraph, camera, telephone, radio, TV, cell phone, smart phone and...why are AR glasses going to be the tech to bring society down?
Assuming that your heads-up live display contains a public facing camera here's: Why not!
I don't like sitting in a bar (or a strip club, or in any other semi-public, or even public dodgy or non-dodgy place) and you hang there with your heads-up live display recording my image.
I don't like the fact that it's uploaded to some tech behemoth' server for further analysis (or even if not - by you later to your personal social media page, controlled by such a company).
I don't like an army of people like you recording every little nuance of my life, which then gets abused to feed even more AI algorithms by companies whom's major raison d'être is to violate all our privacy and infringing on my personal rights without permission or consent.
And no! Locking myself permanently into a room is really not a solution conductive to me or for us as a society.
Remember Google glass and why it failed? Not because the tech couldn't be useful. But it failed thanks to a company, which didn't give a shit about the impact of such tech and an army of glassholes (here's a nice example[1]) who cared even less.
I think the answer to your "why not" and to your personal gratification is that the price for us as a society is far too expensive.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+scoble+glass+hole