111–120 of 166 posts
Let's be clear. It is not the actual smartphones that do this; machines are designed and programmed by humans. Companies can choose to use technology to manipulate our emotions and trigger our reflexes, and many do choose just that, often for financial gain.
"Guns don't kill people..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk I've gotten high and just wasted whole nights going down Wikipedia rabbit holes. I think eventually turned to stronger time wasters though. The Wikipedia thing is real though.
That's infinitely preferable to scrolling your short form video platform of choice. At least you get some fun facts to use in conversation out of it.
We now know the causes are instagram/tiktok or may be even the new llms even though less likely. Why not just say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the Replicator was locked out from producing mass amounts of unhealthy food (unless you told it not to). Maybe the lesson we should learn is our hardware should come with built in limits on use to keep our brains intact? That sounds dystopian.
the freedom to be able to choose to engorge yourself on twinkies is maybe a good thing, the fact that some folks are willing and able to indulge that impulse is probably less good
In isolation, freedom is wonderful. In practice, maybe not? If a member of the star trek crew abused twinkies to the extent that they were lethargic or unhealthy, it would negatively impact the mission.
There is some compromise between freedoms and social resposibility
Let's be clear. It is not the actual smartphones that do this; machines are designed and programmed by humans. Companies can choose to use technology to manipulate our emotions and trigger our reflexes, and many do choose just that, often for financial gain.
Bo Burnham put it succinctly, although he was talking about children on apps: "When they go to sleep at night, they have to choose between all of the information ever published in the history of the world, or the back of their eyelids." The smartphone is a perverted implementation of the goal that people use to fantasize about back in the early days of the computer revolution: a personal terminal to the world of audi…
It isn't even a perverted implementation, we just overestimated ourselves. All our sci-fi futurism of the 70s/80s showed enlightened humans elevating themselves with technology. In real Star Trek the holo deck would be used for porn, the computer would be used to play shitty podcasts while they procrastinated work and the replicator would be churning out donuts and fried foods. It's philosophically a weird time, beca…
Surprise, it's harder for people to self-govern when they are surrounded by mechanisms designed deliberately to subvert their capacity to self-govern.
> also an issue of privacy
Welcome to the age of obsessive and relentless mass surveillance. Want privacy? Impossible unless you have discipline and patience to not give in to the digital overlords
But solutions? Here's my take, will gladly take input (Android): Two profiles: profile 1 has no notifications, reading apps (ebooks) and shouldn't have a browser (mine does and shouldn't); profile 2 has all apps, inclusively all of profile 1 apps. Idea: have an "offline" phone. Good for battery. Whenever I need IoT or something else, I shrug and change profile. Use desktop apps/desktop browser: should work. Doesn't m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you’re being coy or pushing the trope but you’re right guns don’t actually kill people. The bullets and blood loss tend to do that. That said, denying people access to guns does result in fewer gun related fatalities.
But note that this is deeply unethical and amounts to denying people the right to self-defense, and by extension, denying people the right to freedom. The only thing that happens when guns are denied is the rise of corrupt and totalitarian politicians, and that the common man is either oppressed by them or by criminal gangs. Enter guns, and the common man can defend himself against both, which is a blessing. Thankful…