I’ve read plenty of books digitally. And it’s fine and convenient. But there’s something fundamentally missing. Each time I’ve finished a digital book I’ve had the urge to buy a physical copy. To have it on my shelf as a constant reminder … something I can go back to with the ease of moving into a neighbouring room.

It’s the big elephant in the room with modern tech IMO … it’s big obvious failure … that it’s all stuck in little screens. Look at the desktop computer … replacing a whole desk with … a single screen (sure things have gotten bigger now, but still, desks and whiteboards and pin boards can be quite large too).

I’m in a new office and there isn’t a single piece of useful information on the walls. No whiteboards or posters or pinboards or anything. So much is hidden in the computer where mostly no one sees it but where we are all supposed to consult and update it like a shitty ritual that no one believes in. And don’t get me wrong, I’m “pro-computer” as a knowledge work tool. It’s just we’ve bought into lies and the dumb promise that having all of the Google or Microsoft things will just make us productive provided “we learn to use it properly” (where not enough ever do, and things change regularly enough that there probably isn’t a point anyway).

Welcome!

As someone who used to be kinda similar, it can get kinda addictive! Don’t get too stressed about needing to post or anything, I’d say, but don’t get self conscious either I’d also say. It can be fun to post! And we’ll all be better for it!

Came to say the same. It’s probably a step in the right direction, but for me at the moment, as much as it might be a slap in the face to all the creators who’ve infested their time into it, I’m inclined to say “not good enough” and learn to organise better if you want proper independence.

AFAICT, just providing some actual share ownership and decision making mechanisms would have made the difference.

Woah woah woah … this is awesome!!

Tech monopolies must be held to account, the outsized influence of some tech billionaires must be held in check, and competition must be allowed to thrive. We may also need to consider the protection of both consumers themselves and human-created works (including our history) as part of a conservation effort before extractive models permanently pollute our shared cultural resources.

Honestly feels like the main and perhaps only thing to do. Sure we can all do our own individualistic things, such as what we’re doing here on the Fedi.

But the whole AI thing reveals I think just how big of a problem this all is … big tech would rather consume and replace the whole internet with some fuzzy hype tech than empower its users in any way.

I’d say it’s a pretty general phenomenon. Expertise and entitled consumption of it as a service. Even in a professional setting, with a service/support dynamic, it can be abused through entitlement pretty often.

No worries at all!

Also, I didn’t know at all about the Barbary Wars (and was quite surprised to hear of such a far flung US military engagement so early)

Yes they seem like reasonable metrics to me. But like you I don’t really know how to answer the question. But relative economic strength and influence are likely factors. So the post civil war gilded age would also been a likely point, which was the origin of my 150 yrs estimate. For 100 years, I figured post WWI was a pretty clear moment of relative strength.

In recent times, boomers have had a notable hold on the presidency. Not just boomers, but those born in the summer of 1946. Clinton, Bush Jr and Trump were all born between June and August 1946, a window of 3 months, but spanning over 3 decades of the White House. And the same more or less holds for the losing candidates too, with Harris and Obama being the major exceptions IIRC. Indicates to me some real oligarchical forces beyond what’s normal in the rest of the west.

Ha yes, thanks … though, without knowing, I’d wonder how early you can push the global power part (thus the question mark). Post-war (your 70 years) is clearly a “the global power” status. But how early could you say the US was at least one of the major powers?

You’re the “Old World” now.

It’s basically been 350 250 (edit: correction) years now since US independence, and a decent while now at being a global power (~100-150 years?). These are timelines akin to that from the European Renaissance to the US Revolution (~1400-1800) and the UK emerging from the 1500s to being the “super power” in the war of independence.

Now, with the world’s oldest constitution, and probably, depending on who you talk to, an increasingly critical mass of antiquated ideals and systems, the Presidency is more like the Monarchs of past revolutions than what remains of those monarchies, and the US’s ideals and cultural influence something which most would rather move on and upgrade from.

Generally, I’d say it’s one of the weirder and subtler historical events happening right now: the dissolving of the old lines between the “old” and “new” worlds. For me personally, this was once made clear when visiting Hannover, Germany, and its tourist attraction, the “New Town Hall”, where someone who lives in British Columbia, Canada pointed out the similarities with their Parliament Building. The thing is though that the Canadian building is about 15 years older (both being just over 100 years old). Colonialism is long enough ago and Europe (and likely any other “old” culture, such as China) rebuilt enough and recently enough, that like X-genners and Millennials, the whole “young, hip, cool rebel” thing just doesn’t mean anything anymore.

I hear you.

Many will likely parse this as hidden depression or an unhappy marriage or a need to find a hobby or something.

I feel like it’s deeper. The whole urban grind lifestyle just doesn’t work for some. They feel the prison bars on their skin. They’re wired for movement and novelty and exploration. And I think that’s perfectly fine. To be celebrated even.

Moreover, I think we’re all like that a bit but find it hard to question modern life which for all of its material gains is, IMO, unnaturally keen to lock people into highly repetitive rhythms and constraining obligations.

The interesting dynamic is that it seems like they’re making things that could lay lots of foundations for a lot of independent decentralised stuff, but people and devs need to actually pick that up and make it happen, and many users just want something that works.

So somewhat like lemmy-world and mastodon-social, they get stuck holding a centralised service whose success is holding hostage the decentralised system/protocol they actually care about.

For me, the thing I’ve noticed and that bothers me is that much of the focus and excitement and interest from the independent devs working in the space don’t seem too interested in the purely decentralised and fail-safe-rebuilding aspects of the system. Instead, they’re quite happy to build on top of a centralised service.

Which is fine but ignores what to me is the greatest promise of their system: to combine centralised and decentralised components into a single network. EG, AFAICT, running ActivityPub or similar within ATProto is plausible. But the independent devs don’t seem to be on that wavelength.

Yea, it would seem the embrace from those “who should maybe know better” is based on it being the appropriate compromise to make progress in this field.

BlueSky is not just another centralised platform. It’s open source (or mostly), based on an open protocol and an architecture that’s hybrid-decentralised. The “billionaire” security, AFAICT, is that we can rebuild it with our own data should it go to shit.

This thread from Andre Staltz is indicative I think: https://bsky.app/profile/staltz.com/post/3lawesmv6ik2d

He worked on scuttlebut/manyverse for a long while before moving on a year or so ago. Along with Paul Frazee, a core dev with bsky who’d previously done decentralisation, I think there’s a hunger to just make it work for people and not fail on idealistic grounds.

There was an article by Google about the security of their code base, and one of their core findings was that old code is good, as it gets refined and more free of bugs over time. And of course conversely, new code is worse.

https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-safety-vulnerabilities-Android.html

Generally it seems like capitalism’s obsession with growth is at odds with complex software. It’s basis in property also.

it’s the sort of tool that is really just fundamental now and should be ubiquitous and promoted and taught and talked about every where there is knowledge work. Even more so as there’s a great open source version of the tool.

Oh yea I hear you.

Thanks!

Yea, the “cheaper than droids” line in Andor feels strangely prescient ATM.

Not a stock market person or anything at all … but NVIDIA’s stock has been oscillating since July and has been falling for about a 2 weeks (see Yahoo finance).

What are the chances that this is the investors getting cold feet about the AI hype? There were open reports from some major banks/investors about a month or so ago raising questions about the business models (right?). I’ve seen a business/analysis report on AI, despite trying to trumpet it, actually contain data on growing uncertainties about its capability from those actually trying to implement, deploy and us it.

I’d wager that the situation right now is full a lot of tension with plenty of conflicting opinions from different groups of people, almost none of which actually knowing much about generative-AI/LLMs and all having different and competing stakes and interests.