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

Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 566 posts

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#511

Post by ahje »

kennyadam wrote: post #500
SeanBoocock wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that a closeted person has any sort of obligation to come out to (potential) bigots so that said bigots can attain a more enlightened worldview? It is not incumbent on marginalized people to teach their oppressors the errors in their ways, often at great risk to themselves.

Who is it that teaches the oppressors the error of their ways? I'd suggest it is actually the marginalized people. Civil rights movement is a great example.

What you are suggesting is that school bullies would simply cease to be bullies when you show them the error of their ways. Alas, that's not how the World works.

The only way to get to people like that is to hurt them, either physically, mentally, economically or socially. That's what we're doing as a collective by changing norms so that it's no longer considered acceptable to beat people up for being .

Doing that will result in conflicts. Sometimes those conflicts will escalate into violent ones. As a single person it's often not viable to proceed into that territory alone, and so it's better to widthdraw from that society.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#512

Post by Someguywhatever »

dionidium wrote: post #407
Someguywhatever wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's pretty clearly something deeper here. IDK why there has to be something deeper. >public park's pristine full-courts I mean there's only so many courts maybe you don't want to play with other people you just want to take shots, and it's convenient. >Neither does it shed any light on the sad way in which suburban dads build rickety basement bars They do it to hang out with their friends. Same way you order a p…

Perhaps you think it’s a silly objection, but, yes, I think shoddy simulacrums in private basements miss the point of the “third place” entirely, and the desire to pull every aspect of the public sphere under one’s own roof betrays an impoverished worldview.

I don't think it's a silly objection, but I feel it's too abstract, ignoring certain practical realities that aren't really attempting to do what you say "pull the public sphere under one's own roof". This feels like some kind of "plato's world of forms" type analysis of something that's more simple and practical than anything else and is motivated more by convenience and thrift more than something like an "impoverished world-view". Your comments feel to me a bit like you are looking down on the parochial plebs for their simple pleasures.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#513

Post by dionidium »

Someguywhatever wrote: post #512
dionidium wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you think it’s a silly objection, but, yes, I think shoddy simulacrums in private basements miss the point of the “third place” entirely, and the desire to pull every aspect of the public sphere under one’s own roof betrays an impoverished worldview.

I don't think it's a silly objection, but I feel it's too abstract, ignoring certain practical realities that aren't really attempting to do what you say "pull the public sphere under one's own roof". This feels like some kind of "plato's world of forms" type analysis of something that's more simple and practical than anything else and is motivated more by convenience and thrift more than something like an "impoveris…

> Your comments feel to me a bit like you are looking down on the parochial plebs for their simple pleasures.

No, no, no! The plebs will live happier and more fulfilling lives if they meet their friends at the bar for a pint (and stop pursuing the illusory control of their very-own basement bar). [0] This is about looking up, not down!

[0] By the way, I'm just the kind of guy to want to build his own basement bar. These are message-board musings, not cultural edicts.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#514

Post by emodendroket »

imgabe wrote: post #506
emodendroket wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? How many people know that, and of the people who do, how many bother to do it? Even among those who do, the legality of what they're doing is unclear. I don't see how it changes anything the article says.

The point is you don't have to leave it up to Amazon whether or not you own something.

The author is talking about a societal shift whose consequences are difficult to foresee; one person electing to only use CDs, DVDs, flip-phones, and the like makes little difference to the broader trend.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#515

Post by swaggyBoatswain »

seibelj wrote: post #35
ilamont wrote: post #15

Amazon’s Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. The statements about books are not accurate. Ebook sales are still just a fraction of print sales in many genres - NPD data indicates ebooks are less than 20% of total unit sales for nonfiction, children, and young ad…

Anecdotal, but every reader I know (including me) flirted with ebooks and then switched back to paper. For me, it’s less strain on my eyes, it always works even without electricity, I can lend it out to friends easily, and I like to expand the aesthetic of my bookshelf. I’m also more likely to reread all or part of a physical book. Ebooks are simply inferior.

I read all my books on kindle normally, with the exception of textbooks and things that are more dense or books that require large paper sizes.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#516

Post by imgabe »

emodendroket wrote: post #514
imgabe wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is you don't have to leave it up to Amazon whether or not you own something.

The author is talking about a societal shift whose consequences are difficult to foresee; one person electing to only use CDs, DVDs, flip-phones, and the like makes little difference to the broader trend.

I didn't say anything about exclusively using CDs, DVDs, etc. I'm talking about removing DRM. Amazon et al do not get to unilaterally enforce their notions of ownership. Consumers can take control of the things they buy if they choose to.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#517

Post by jpindar »

jonknee wrote: post #209
Teknoman117 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was avoiding mentioning this, not just because of the questionable legality in some counties, but rather because it's more of a workaround. All Amazon has to do is sufficiently alter the encryption mechanisms for new books. Same thing goes with Spotify. Tools exist to strip the encryption from the offline cache (they are either encrypted mp3 or vorbis, don't remember), but it's a workaround. I suspect it's why they…

Well my point is you can make that backup now for any books you already purchased and if they change it in the future you can decide to not buy any more books. Spotify doesn't let you buy any music so I have never wanted to strip its DRM and haven't even looked into how to do it.

Removing DRM from any kind of audio you can play on a PC is trivial.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#518

Post by elicash »

User23 wrote: post #495
elicash wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub-optimal decisions FOR WHO? Clearly not sub-optimal decisions for the renters or they wouldn't favor the different policy.

For the community as a whole.

Are renters not part of the community, or are you saying they don't know what's in their self-interest?

You haven't said a ton, but it seems like you're using "community" as code for home values. However, that might not at all in the best interest for many in the community. It's particularly of importance to home-owners. It might be to the detriment of renters.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#519

Post by emodendroket »

imgabe wrote: post #516
emodendroket wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is talking about a societal shift whose consequences are difficult to foresee; one person electing to only use CDs, DVDs, flip-phones, and the like makes little difference to the broader trend.

I didn't say anything about exclusively using CDs, DVDs, etc. I'm talking about removing DRM. Amazon et al do not get to unilaterally enforce their notions of ownership. Consumers can take control of the things they buy if they choose to.

The author is talking about a societal shift whose consequences are difficult to foresee; one person electing to [strip DRM from media they purchase in violation of US law] makes little difference to the broader trend.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#520

Post by thousandautumns »

taurath wrote: post #448
bloaf wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the forced interactions via geographical proximity are a kind of moderating force. Communities built around what they love are usually good, but what if what you love is terrible? https://imgur.com/GripW3M

> Communities built around what they love are usually good, but what if what you love is terrible? We have the law to regulate what is acceptable or unacceptable - almost all laws are there to regulate person-to-person interactions. If what you love requires murdering someone, we already call that out. If what you love involves playing "I Will Survive" with a kazoo, we don't call you out unless you have a very loud k…

> Laws and social pressure are also a moderating force

Perhaps this was true in the days prior to the internet, but it certainly isn’t the case now. In fact, social pressures in the online sphere can be the opposite of a moderating force. In the analysis of the online culture wars, many authors have pointed out how the alt right bursting into the mainstream was in many ways a response to the societal pressure to conform to ever increasing (and at times, absurd) rules of a radical “PC culture”.

As a disclaimer, this isn’t to justify the alt right movement or to condemn political correctness wholesale. But the point is that societal pressure is not moderating anything. On the contrary, the internet has allowed people to simply retreat from the parts of society that previously may have pressured them into moderation, and instead to enclose themselves in the parts of society that not only accept their radical culture, but encourage it.

> If the lack of general empathy and over-demonization of the "other" is a problem, well, try being a person of color in the 50s or before.

And yet the rights of racial minorities still made massive strides in absence of the internet. Many of the commenters here have made arguments that along the lines of “a gay person would never have found acceptance without the geographical boundary breaking communities of the internet”, and frankly, I’m not sure that is true. The changing attitudes towards LGBT persons isn’t any more radical than many of the other social revolutions that have taken place without the internet.

Post reply on HN