Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Luddite’ Teens

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#241

Post by HWR_14 »

echelon wrote: post #164
HWR_14 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out after Endgame. First, it would be weird to say that was because Marvel was falling apart. It was the conclusion of a decade long movie franchise. Of course people might watch something else once the story they had been following was done. It doesn't mean they won't come back or didn't like the new movies, it means they wanted a break. But mainly, it's also n…

> it means they wanted a break My point exactly. We tire of the familiar. > 4 out of the top 10 movies were Marvel movies Disney operates at a scale none of their peers can match. They have the most well tuned pipeline of any production company. I'd expect this. Nevertheless, metrics point to declining interest. If I had time to write a longer comment, I'd be able to cite sources and offer more than just a suggestion…

Wanting something different is not the statement that you were originally making. Your original contention was that quality goes down, it "becomes grating and falls apart".

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#242

Post by rufus_foreman »

echelon wrote: post #125
LarryMullins wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got a theory that the TV show Firefly is appreciated today because it got cancelled before it was popular; they quit when they were ahead and before popularity ruined it. But most Firefly fans seem to hate my theory.

I think you're absolutely correct. The show was campy, and in time, would have become grating and fallen apart. Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are a few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead horse. The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out after Endgame. Game of Thrones was so near to perfection. It had an unusually large cast of a hundred characters and an expansive…

>> Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are a few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead horse

That's been true since 1983.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#243

Post by LarryMullins »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #124
LarryMullins wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did they wear? Sandals or something? I tried birkenstock sandals before but they only lasted about a year before they became too gross to wear. $150 doc martens seem like good value to me. They last about 5-8 years at the rate I wear through them, or about $20-30 per year. Certainly more efficient than any sneakers.

They make doc martens in China now. I imagine the 8-year old who made your shoes was a master craftsman, however...they start them young. The original factory still makes boots, they aren't quite as "cool" though. The people at your Communist reading group might not even heard of the brand.

Heh, I can't say I've ever been to a communist reading group. I've had some people tell me that my boots are for communists or for lesbians, but that doesn't bother me. Such associations are silly memes.

You're right that I don't care for the style of their UK made boots. I like their brown burnished leather "crazy horse" boots, or ones styled similar. Their UK made boots seem to all be black, red, white, or brown but suede (which I don't consider durable.) These are bolder / punkish designs which I don't care for.

If you can suggest an American brand that holds up to Doc Martens, maybe I'll buy those in a few years instead. But I think most boots are made in China or some other country with exploitative labor.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#244

Post by heavyset_go »

sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

To me, this feels like you're criticizing kids for being kids. You grew out of it, so will they.

It also might be you projecting. It's entirely possible they genuinely enjoy their choice of clothing and literature and it's not a performance.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#245

Post by rufus_foreman »

discardedrefuse wrote: post #113
kritiko wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brooklyn now, it's cheaper to use a car service than Uber/Lyft, so I think you could get by fine without those apps. Getting around without Google Maps would be pretty challenging, I think.

> Getting around without Google Maps would be pretty challenging, I think. I learned to drive before smartphones. I can assure you its very possible to find addresses without a phone. Heck, I still sometimes do it for fun! Nothing wrong with a little u-turn here or there.

Before smartphones I would use a street map, which were sold at every gas station. And if I was still having trouble, I would call for directions from a public pay phone, which were located on street corners every few blocks.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#246

Post by LarryMullins »

poopiokaka wrote: post #239
LarryMullins wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His death wasn't a freak accident, it was a predictable consequence of him going into Alaska unprepared. He shot a moose and let it rot because he didn't know better and didn't bother to learn first. This was hubris; Alaska is not the place to fake it until you make it. Anyway, my critique of McCandless is mild, talk to some Alaskans if you want to hear some proper vitriolic criticism of him. I barely scratched the s…

Nice. Nah I was talking about you generally roasting teens in comments on this thread. Just seems weird. Maybe you are a teen and it’s not? Idk who cares I guess

I really have no idea what you're on about. In this thread I have discussed: my suspicion that most teens are not as performative as those who get interviewed by the NYTimes, my preference for boots, my theory on TV shows outlasting their quality, my belief that children are better off without smartphones, and my criticism of McCandless.

Where is the roasting of teens? The closest I've come to roasting teens is saying that teens idolizing McCandless is 'odd'.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#247

Post by parker_mountain »

sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

> They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC),

It's not really, it's become a pretty fashionable brand in urban areas. Basically a combination of work wear and basic REI aesthetic.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#248

Post by thedorkknight »

Archipelagia wrote: post #40

It reminded me of one of pg's old essays – http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html . Highly recommended. On a personal note, it's also something that worries me for the day when I'll finally have my own children. I wouldn't want them exposed to modern cyber-addictions from young age, but at the same time, I'm not sure how to protect them, when I can expect that all their peers will be on whatever social app's gonna be p…

Depending on how long you wait to have kids, it may not be social media apps, but literal digital drugs, depending on how far along brain/computer IO has gotten by that point.

If you're interested, read the books "the pleasure shock" and "towards a psycho-civilized society"

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#249

Post by nickthegreek »

idrios wrote: post #232
nickthegreek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t jealous of the tech. They are jealous of not being included. They might not get invited to events or understand their friends jokes because they weren’t part of the group chats. This can make them resent their parents and give them social anxiety. Kids can be very cruel and lack the empathy skills to understand why their friend isn’t allowed a phone. Overdoing it either direction can be a serious mistake.

Kids can be naive and selfish, but even most kids aren't so unempathetic as to not understand that their friend doesn't have a phone because their parents won't buy them one. The addage "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" seems relevant here.

Oh I’m sure they aren’t consciously, but are they going to make the effort everyday to communicate with the person who makes it hard to be reached? It will be harder to maintain/build relationships. I’m not passing judgement either way, I’m just stating a reality and that reality can be dark.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#250

Post by verdenti »

jacquesm wrote: post #103
verdenti wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You protect them by not giving them a smart phone. My daughter is 2 and she hasn’t seen a screen yet.

Right up to the point where the only highschool in your region forces your child to have a smartphone.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN