Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

551–560 of 566 posts

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

#551
post #331
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might add that Silicon Valley et al has not simply cleverly redefined the meaning of ’sharing’ to cover their rental practices, but even the meaning of community has been totally warped out of shape. A community used to be a group of geographically proximate people whose collective survival depended on getting over their sometimes conflicting mutual interests and opinions in order to survive; now we use the term ’c…

Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part o…

>Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part of, where I was always welcome and could always rely on finding people like me.

Apologies, but I don't agree that's nearly sufficient enough an "ontology", in the philosophical sense if you will, of community. You are involved in a community the moment you hear someone screaming out for help nearby; you are involved in a community when you're one of those scmucks stuck communicating to work in a packed trainer in the morning, you're involved in a community when you respond to the presence of minorities or certain of other races in a manner which may make them uncomfortable (100% not alleging a thing btw, most certainly not the point right now); you clearly join a community when you join the military, but you have, for better or for worse, shockingly few rights and freedoms therein.

My point is that, for human beings, we are by definition, as social animals, involved in a community some way, some how, because we inherently respond to one another's presence, even when that response is indifference (perhaps in the face of someone screaming out for help nearby). This is almost, for myself, the entire lesson of watching Mister Rogers (if you're an America, I don't know if you are).

Choosing a community for yourself, therefore, shouldn't be a reprieve, relief, or, worse case, a retreat from those other communities you're involved in, like your neighborhood or family. We all may have run into that person who appeared to us to be way too chatty and friendly in some public space that we were constrained to, say, the train; they're just answering to their involvement in a different way.

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

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the current fad of everything being offered 'as a service' has changed many people's minds. Can't find a link, but I've seen people on this website claim that electron apps that are just a web page (and thus don't work offline) are better for Linux on the desktop than actual native applications. Sure, they do mean that cross-platform is essentially free, but you have to rely on someone else's computer for the…

> the Github desktop app can't commit locally without an internet connection Wait, what? Why?

FWIW, BitBucket's app can.

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

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 conf…

I think you have a reasonable interpretation, though I disagree that the endpoint is increased radicalization. Certainly it’s far easier to find people that are on your side, but that doesn’t mean that the number of people that believe what you believe goes up naturally. I think everyone is jockeying around in a new space and trying to figure out what “community” means as conversations move online. There definitely is a radicalizinf element in an echo chamber, but there’s also a lot of wonderful communities being built that could not have. When things start to translate into the public sphere is where it is messiest right now.

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

#554
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regrettably I am evidently incapable of explaining this to you. Maybe someone else can manage.

Maybe your inability to clearly communicate stems from not having fully developed your ideas.

That's one explanation.

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

#555
post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why though? I'm definitely of the sort that doesn't buy into Stallman's philosophy at all. What's the practical negative impact that I ought to be feeling from engaging in commerce with the usual suspects: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.? Because to me, it just looks like the (mostly potential/future) downsides are massively outweighed by the (mostly actual/current) upsides.

> Because to me, it just looks like the (mostly potential/future) downsides are massively outweighed by the (mostly actual/current) upsides. Yes. That is true for most things. Eat fatty and sugar-rich food, have pleasure now pay it later. Drink a lot of alcohol, have fun now pay the consequences later. Burn fossil fuels have cheap energy now have catastrophic consequences later. Spend all money now, not have savings…

Your examples are completely different. Eating a crappy diet now has very well-known, basically deterministic consequences. Ditto for drinking too much or burning oil or blowing all your money. There's no question what will happen if you do these things.

Most of the complaints around big companies seem to be around things they might do (e.g. Amazon could gain monopoly power and raise prices to exorbitant levels) but haven't yet done, and could easily end up never doing.

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

#556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Thought experiment: There are two channels. One airs very compelling content (the king), but is low quality. The other has tepid content, but is excellent quality. Which do you use? Over time, I have asked this of a ton of people and have A/B tested it a few times in my home. Originally about legacy, broadcast media and choices I did not understand. Compelling is the majority answer people give. And yes, that va…

The vein I had in mind would better be reflected by; excellent content but generally unavailable, vs. mediocre content, but it's unavoidable. Sole-vendor contracts with major metro areas, piped into all public spaces, stores, restaurants, bars, coffeeshops. Incorporated in other entertainment (films, video games). That's control over channel.

I agree. I think we're sort of talking at this Dynamic from two different points of view.

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

#557
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would you pay $ per month to have access to music you like, when you can just have it in MP3/Ogg form, stored on multiple devices (PC, phone, backup HD) and be able to listen to it at any time you want for free?

From my point of view, why on Earth would you bother to have music in MP3/Ogg form where you have to manage it and plan what you want to listen to? Spotify is a paradigm shift for music consumption and I would never want to go back to collecting manually.

I guess if you have unlimited money and don't mind having an expensive unlimited-bandwidth cellular plan, that'll work for you.

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

#558
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would you pay $ per month to have access to music you like, when you can just have it in MP3/Ogg form, stored on multiple devices (PC, phone, backup HD) and be able to listen to it at any time you want for free?

Having made the jump, this mentality seems insane to me :) Spotify is $10 / month, the price of one album. For that, I get an essentially infinite [1] library of music that's basically always available to me whenever I want, curated playlists, discovery features, sharing features [2], etc, etc. It all just works, I never have to think about it, etc. By contrast, unless I'm pirating music, what does $10 get me? An alb…

You're forgetting the price of your cellular data plan. Bandwidth isn't free.

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

#559
post #98
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Machine doesn't fix the problem. Just some problems off the top of my head: 1) Some groups will just use the resources of the Machine, while others will work on improving The Machine. Over time, Machines in some areas will be vastly more capable than other areas. This will create haves and have-nots, urge migration and give rise to a system very similar to the current worlds (first-, second-, third-). 2) In your…

>there is a basic human psychological need that is not being acknowledged in this solution Then I guess we need to change human psychology :)

Yay, let's bring eugenics back. :D

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

#560
post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're applying the words "tyranny" and "coercion" very sloppily here, and seem rather dismissive of community as it's existed prior to "real community". I don't see anything you've stated as mutually exclusive to the previous comment. I point out what I perceive as dismissive because I think there are important aspects of human character that 'tyrannical' circumstances help to shape, enabling us to learn pat…

Thank you! You're very right. I've not communicated well. Please allow me to clarify. I should rephrase: this is the first experience I've had of what is commonly described as "community". I hope that clarifies matters. I am not describing a community encountered as an artifact. I am describing the experience of being a member of a community . I hope this helps! Do let me know if I can help clarify more. The comment…

And thank you for your reception and elaboration.

It seems as though we are illuminating more nuance of the varied interaction and outcome of communal constructs.

I find what you've elaborated to be true and insightful, and reminds me that our perspective can always miss significant factors that may determine our outlook to be optimistic or pessimistic.

I wonder if what the aforementioned comment suggested is still unresolved; would some or all of us lose incentive and/or mechanisms that temper and shape our proclivity to compromise and coexist despite still unaltered and conflicting values and behaviors?

If it's true that the range and resolution of possible human values and behavior has grown considerably, with new nuance blooming all the time, it would seem to follow that there are new lines along which to fracture as well. Though not necessarily in a unique way never overcome before.

Post reply on HN