71–80 of 283 posts
What we've had so far was not "the internet" it was "the internet, gatekept by socioeconomic and educational criteria". The number of internet users appears to be flattening off at around 75% of the world population. So far people have been happy to jump right into that mass of 6 billion people. But I think that this plateauing will allow sub-ecosystems to flourish. HN is one of them.
This person is just, like many others, mistaking the death of public social media and the open web for the death of being online. All the interesting activity has retreated to Discord, Slack, Telegram, Mastodon, Signal, private and niche boards, game chats, etc. This stuff is all taking place in private rooms and small silos. If you aren't in them, you don't see it. Reddit still has a bit of a pulse but is probably o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day of The Internet of 1994 , HHGTTG was only 15 years old. But today, HHGTTG is very nearly 45 years old. For how many decades should references to novel fiction persist, do you suppose?
It's hard to believe that a 15-year-old book was a defining cultural touchstone. What do we have from 2009 that has the reach of HHGTTG in 1994? Twilight? Hunger Games?
In 2009, we already had pocket supercomputers.
The new generation doesn't know how boring a world without a phone in your pocket actually was. They can't comprehend it in the same way that we can't comprehend actually believing religion the way medieval people did. It's not coming back.
The internet is over , if you want it . All the doomerism is gone if you avoid it. You can take back your life if you just go for it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone is here I think this is the answer. Once upon a time we were way fewer people, and many interests were shared among those people (because we pretty much were all "geeks"). We've always had trolls, spammers, etc. but it still felt like we were part of a big community. Now everybody is here, and that feeling is no more. It's like moving from a small village or town (where everybody knows each other) to a hug…
And nobody makes Monty Python or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy references anymore. I had a boss 15 years ago who had watched all things Star Trek, just like me; Knew all the things. But at one point he mentioned he wasn't really a fan, it was just "required reading, part of the literature". This is an interesting one. There used to be certain things that all nerds knew, and could talk about, use as analogies a…
Why.
> People used to watch the same TV shows and talk about it the next day
That's the societal cost of having personalized experience. Nobody watches the content I watch because I pick content that's specifically relevant to just me. Even my closest friends watch different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100$ for a folder? Fellas, I'll give you a folder for 50$ over here!
For 10 years. $10 a year. The important thing is to find people committed to building great sites for the long run. If you're not willing to put in a little bit of money, then it's not for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For 10 years. $10 a year. The important thing is to find people committed to building great sites for the long run. If you're not willing to put in a little bit of money, then it's not for you.
To commit to something one has to understand what it actually is.
I wish I could tell you more than what's on the website there now.
Right now it's a ticket on a voyage into the unknown!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are still tons of great films being made, and new concepts spinning up - just in non-traditional places or ways Are there? People parrot this over and over but rarely provide any reliable evidence. Even if there is interesting stuff being done, if it has no impact past three people then it is by definition not "great". By most measures I can think of, there are NOT lots of "great" things being made.
Provide reliable evidence of your own, then. What objective measures are you using, other than your own personal taste? What quantifiable data can you provide to back up your claim that great films are no longer being made? And how does your definition of greatness apparently presuppose widespread impact, but somehow presumably exclude any modern films that have demonstrably widespread impact?
Innovation--its documented that everything is now IP sequels and the number of original things is way down.
Impact--which artists and decades were playing at the last wedding you went to? Yeah, thought so.
I'm reminded of the punk documentary where the original punks were horrified that the people who came after and idolized them missed the whole point.