I recently read Fritz Leiber's "The Creature From Cleveland Depths" (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23164) and it gives off a very similar vibe.
“When we all have pocket telephones”
121–130 of 208 posts
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#122That blog post seems weirdly anachronistic: that cartoon might have predicted 2005 astonishingly well, but in 2022, how often do we really use our phones for two-way real-time audio? How often do you actually hear a ringtone begging for immediate attention?
Sales still exists.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#123Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody. Nothing stays funny for long, because soon enough it's true, and then banal. In a world where all things are absurd, ipso facto nothing is absurd. An interesting question becomes what remains? What are the solid relations that underpin our humanity? Having a boss that tells you what to do? No, long s…
A good comedian can split your sides with a bit about waiting in line even.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#124Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody. Nothing stays funny for long, because soon enough it's true, and then banal. In a world where all things are absurd, ipso facto nothing is absurd. An interesting question becomes what remains? What are the solid relations that underpin our humanity? Having a boss that tells you what to do? No, long s…
I think that you are just getting old.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#125Lately, stand-up comedians have been saying they're out of a job, because the absurdity of reality is escaping parody. Nothing stays funny for long, because soon enough it's true, and then banal. In a world where all things are absurd, ipso facto nothing is absurd. An interesting question becomes what remains? What are the solid relations that underpin our humanity? Having a boss that tells you what to do? No, long s…
I think that you are just getting old.
That is true. And the older I get, the funnier things are.
I just don't see many young people laughing these days.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 70% as recently as 1981. It was 92% in 1952. Today it's 37%. So it's really the other way around — taxes have never been as low as now in recent history.
That is US federal taxes. Now go grab your check and see how much you are paying in taxes that are not called that. Then remember you also pay taxes when you buy things too. Also remember your must carry insurance (3 of those). Also in some cases just for owning something. Plus state and local. My theory is We did not really lower taxes that much. We just itemized the bill to make it look smaller.
[flagged]
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They say it in interviews, on podcasts, etc. Most comedians refuse to play shows on college campuses now (once a highly lucrative venue for them) because of the audience
Gentle inquiry: Are you a comedian or work in comedy? Can you state a general region of comedy you're familiar with (USA Comedy? UK Comedy?) without doxing yourself? [I'm not, and therefore have no opinion on this, but I wanted to know where you're getting your repository of knowledge of "most comedians" from and how to contextualize your knowledge in this matter. I'm asking in good faith.]
Since you ask in good faith (hard to tell around these parts
sometimes);
I'm British, middle aged, and yes I have worked in entertainments during my career.
So far I have heard (via media interviews or similar) John Cleese, Mark Thomas, Eddie Izzard, Stewart Lee, Frankie Boyle, Charlie Brooker, Chris Morris, Steve Coogan, Ian Hislop, and Armando Iannucci all say approximately the same thing in a more-or-less serious context.
Of course the "nothing is funny any more" trope is timeless. It doesn't need saying. However, these comics are also serious cultural analysts and they're identifying a genuine sea-change.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They say it in interviews, on podcasts, etc. Most comedians refuse to play shows on college campuses now (once a highly lucrative venue for them) because of the audience
Gentle inquiry: Are you a comedian or work in comedy? Can you state a general region of comedy you're familiar with (USA Comedy? UK Comedy?) without doxing yourself? [I'm not, and therefore have no opinion on this, but I wanted to know where you're getting your repository of knowledge of "most comedians" from and how to contextualize your knowledge in this matter. I'm asking in good faith.]
I run a podcast that regularly has comics on as guests. These comics are typically on the level of filling theaters across the country. I’m sure the open-mic early-career comics would be happy to play a college
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already deployed to some extent medically. As for the dystopian applications, I would not be suprised if there are some dr Mengele wannabies in some dark corners of the world experimenting with how to control prison inmates or similar "disposable" people using such tech.
> It's already deployed to some extent medically. Can you say more about this? I wonder what's feasible in the near future. I recall excitedly watching a Gabe Newell interview on BCI. Having struggled with major depression and anxiety, his speculation on using BCI to control sleep/mood/etc seemed like a mental panacea. Of course, with that level of control over one's brain, my delight about potential emotional stabil…
> Can you say more about this?
Not much beyond the article I linked above. I've been aware of such research for a few decades. It appears that inducing happiness is super easy. But also way more addictive than the hardest drugs. There term Wirehead was a term from SciFi (and later Cyperpunk) to describe someone addicted to such stimulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehead_(science_fiction)
Early use was limited by how to control the mood. Manual control would be impossible, since anyone with access to their own happiness would turn it up to max pretty much at once, with no ability to turn it back down. With it at max setting, people would simply stop functioning, not even able to eat, have sex, etc, so unsupervised it would probably be leathal pretty soon.
So for early application, one would have to set it at some constant offset, which probably had some downsides. (Possibly poor reaction to normal stimuli, I don't remember.)
Later on, maybe about 10 years ago, brain research and computer tech started to allow more sophisticated control of the level, where it would regulate the happiness-level in a way similar to how normal/healthy brains do. (The patiens would be treatment resistent MDS)
Still, the potential downsides are obviously immense, potentially making fentanyl, crack and meth seem like child's play.
A self regulated version as this would be so deadly that I think very few knowing its risks would dare use it. But one _could_ imagine people setting up arrangements where they grant the power to regulate the level, according to some principles.
For instance, let's say you're bored at work, and procastinating by reading HN, at a level that reduces your performance. Let's say that, instead of getting hold of ritalin or microdosing shrooms, you go to a shady lab that installs one of these things, and controls it remotely by lowering happiness just a bit when you're not doing what you "should" and rewards you slightly when coding (by monitoring your laptop), with additional rewards when pull requests are approved.
Now, imagine your manager (or a CPP rep, if you're in China) finding out, and bribes the lab to add some more "features" to your profile, including loyalty to her personally as well as a more aggressive level of rewards for workplace performance.
Re: “When we all have pocket telephones”
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's supposed to remind you of Cunningham's Law: "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." As nonameiguess already pointed out, your answer disputes ekianjo's claim, as the peak in your graph was 1999.
As fun as tribal arguing is, I wasn't taking a side. Did you read my post at all? I was saying that the methodology for claiming taxes were lower was so stupid as to defy even any attempt to ascribe good faith. Let me quote my post for your convenience: "I don't know if taxes are higher now vs some point in history"
I don't know what "tribal arguing" means.
I did read your side. You believe I'm not arguing in good faith. I think that's a misinterpretation. I am not versed in the topic, and I don't pretend to be one. But the exchange was claim/counter-claim/counter-counter-claim without any citations, going nowhere.
While presenting wrong, or at least incomplete numbers, shifts it to one about presenting the actual numbers and what they mean, and if it's justified tax increases.
If that's that's bad faith tribalism, than so be it. But you'll notice the pointless exchange about "most taxes EVAR" has stopped.