DavesWorld's recent activity

  1. Comment on Trap | Official trailer in ~movies

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I mean, I was there for all of that. Sixth Sense hit huge. Came out of nowhere, and absolutely blew people away. And everyone turned Shyamalan into "the twist guy." Not just studios, audiences...

    I mean, I was there for all of that. Sixth Sense hit huge. Came out of nowhere, and absolutely blew people away. And everyone turned Shyamalan into "the twist guy." Not just studios, audiences too.

    People started trying to figure out his films just from the trailer. They'd huddle together on forums (which were this thing that existed pre-social media, kind of like Tildes now in many respects) and hunt for clues, propose scenarios. Groups would go to the films and actively dissect them in the first act, figuring this and that out instead of watching the story.

    When your audience is demanding you twist them, but refuses to sit back and let the story play out so the twist can happen in the natural course of the story's flow, the whole thing fractures and falls apart. Which is what happened. Every Shyamalan story had to have a twist, and that twist was measured against the one nobody saw coming (Sixth Sense).

    Then, when it became common that the group hivemind was figuring twists out even before the movie released, much less in the first half hour, the group hivemind consensus was "Shyamalan sucks, bored now."

    My position is simple. Shyamalan is pretty good writer, and he's a pretty good director. The only problem he has is "the twist." You can't sell everything on "the twist." I mean, for fuck's sake, there's been TV shows and stuff where the braintrust behind them got pissed and began struggling to wholesale change entire unreleased episodes just because they saw hivemind posts about their show that had figured things out. That's what people do; they look for spoilers, and spread said spoilers.

    One person is not going to out-clever the entire Internet. No matter how hard you work to bury something, how hard you try to obscure it, someone somewhere will figure it out. And it'll spread. Or, worse (and almost more common these days), people will be pissed they didn't figure it out, be pissed they didn't recognize the clues, and complain that "none of it makes sense."

    So you're fucked either way as a storyteller. If you somehow manage to be subtle enough to have a twist play out, people accuse you of being lazy and of bad storytelling by not showing your work. But if you do make it obvious enough, they crow about how stupid you are for being lame enough that it's all really obvious.

    If people would just watch the stories, the movie or the show, and let shit happen ... I feel most people would have more fun. When the goal is to "figure it out", that doesn't leave much room for watching or fun. It certainly doesn't allow for an organic unforced experience.

    Kind of like what happened with Sixth Sense, when in that first two weeks (before the last gasp of monoculture mainstream media caught wind and blew the story up nationally) we all just bought a ticket and sat down to enjoy a movie. Only to gasp in shock as everything that'd been right in front of us the whole time suddenly snapped into clarity with the drop of a ring by someone we didn't realize had been a widow the entire time.

    That was a fantastic movie experience.

    I'm not sure where the story this trailer seems to tee up is going, but it's interesting. It's got Hartnett who I was just starting to like when he more or less disappeared. It's got Shyamalan, who I still like despite all the hell he's been put through. And the concept of a stadium concert as a sort of holding action for hundreds of cops to somehow find a serial killer in the crowd ... intriguing. I'd like to know more. And I will.

    When I watch the movie.

    3 votes
  2. Comment on How one author pushed the limits of AI copyright | US Copyright Office grants copyright for work made with AI, with caveat in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Dangerous territory they're treading into. Some of those individuals (asshats would be my preferred term) quoted later on in the article are the ones eager to drag the legal system into that...
    • Exemplary

    Dangerous territory they're treading into. Some of those individuals (asshats would be my preferred term) quoted later on in the article are the ones eager to drag the legal system into that dangerous ground.

    USCO gave her a copyright on the book as a product, not as a work of art. Meaning, no one else can just grab it, copy whole, and put back up for themselves. However, anyone can take the text of the book and do pretty much whatever they want with it, including derivative work of any kind, free and clear. They would have a much easier time getting a favorable summary judgement if the copyright holder took umbrage and initiated a suit against them, as one example of how narrow and weak this "copyright" is compared to a "normal" one.

    Sure it's nice that this specific person apparently put in genuine, honest effort and used an AI generator as an assistive tool. It basically served as her much less expensive ghost writer, and one that would never get upset at her when she (again) insisted on rewriting or revising what she was receiving.

    But she could have done all that with voice software; dictating to the computer. Except, you know, she'd actually have to write. She couldn't just say "I need some paragraphs about John and Marsha talking over X" and then pick through what the AI (ghost writer) comes up with to fiddle with. What she did is cute, and is a use for the technology, but what she did wasn't exactly writing.

    The problem with where this leads is lawyers, and greed. Lawyers are a problem because they're professional problem makers. That's what they do. They're paid to figure out how to get away with shit. Paid to pick through rules and find loopholes, exceptions, oversights, where there's room to push and succeed in pushing. On its face the profession serves a societal purpose, but in practice lawyers often stand ready to assist with problems other lawyers created in the first place.

    On greed, I specifically mean the greed people have for finding the lowest possible effort level in anything. Now when you're trying to figure out how to dig a ditch (or similar tasks), that kind of greed is actually useful. And has contributed to the rise of humanity.

    But the greed that a decision like this from the USCO is going to enable is the kind of greed demonstrated by Thaler and Abbott (highlighted in the article) who simply want to enable copyright for computer generated material (e.g, AI copyright).

    Abbott is a supporter of Shupe’s mission, although he’s not a member of her legal team. He isn’t happy that the copyright registration excludes the AI-generated work itself. “We all see it as a very big problem,” he says.

    Abbott is a lawyer with a legal group organized to push for AI copyright. From an article of his:

    Patent protection should be available for AI-generated works because it will incentivize innovation. The prospect of holding a patent will not directly motivate an AI, but it will encourage some of the people who develop, own, and use AI. Allowing patents on AI-generated works, therefore, will promote the development of inventive AI, which will ultimately result in more innovation for society.

    I categorically disagree with that intention. He says he's talking about patent protection, but he wants IP created by AI to enjoy the same protection human IP does, except it won't be AI that actually owns it.

    In a perfect world, it's nice to think that an AI researcher (like Thaler) could "benefit" from AI he or she develops, by securing copyright protection for works generated by the AI that computer scientist develops. But what'll actually happen in such cases is whoever controls the AI will receive the financial benefits of that copyright.

    Remember, copyright is not about creativity, but legality. Copyright is the legal system's framework for safeguarding (and encouraging) creators. Occasionally you see copyright cases pop up where an author (here, any artist, not just a writer) sues over creative differences of some sort; but copyright cases almost always hit the courts because of money.

    Society cannot afford to let computers generate copyrightable work. As James Cameron wrote so memorably in Terminator, "... and (it) absolutely will not stop. Ever!"

    What happens if AI material qualifies for copyright is easy. Everyone and their mother, and certainly every single company (along with a whole slew of newly incorporated ones) with even the vaguest connection to a creative industry sets up computers. Banks and banks of them. All doing nothing but churning out endless Creative Work. Looking for the payday.

    Sure 90, 95, even 99.9% of all those computer cycles might do nothing but crank out worthless trash, fluff never to be seen beyond the minimum wage employee who might glance over it while tying it up in a bow to send off to governmental copyright offices for certification, and those government officials who issue the copyright. That won't matter to the companies though, since if they only get one qualified homerun every year or so, that's free money.

    Even the energy is becoming free, since solar and other renewable energy sources are coming online and improving at a steadily increasing pace. But we digress.

    Everything and everyone will be swamped. Period. That's what corporations do; whatever it takes to profit right now. They don't give a shit about "societal harm" or "long term issues." Gotta get the money in the bank now, before this quarter closes. So The Market can see it and react favorably. So my bosses and corporate board can reward me.

    Copyright offices will be buried. There's already a long delay to review and act upon applications. What happens when the volume goes up tenfold (or much, much more) within the span of a year. Which is exactly what'll happen if the USCO is maneuvered, manipulated, or tricked into allowing computer (that does not stop, ever) created material to qualify for copyright.

    Because, again, it's not the computer that enjoys any income from all that work; it's the person who wants that income. Even if it's only pennies per work, they just crank out more work and get more pennies. A penny here, a penny there, soon enough you're talking real money.

    Scammers and conartists already flood ecosystems like Amazon with all sorts of tricks looking for those pennies, as one real-world example happening right now. Amazon's already started to struggle with, and respond to, those scammers turning to AI. Before, scammers would use random text generators, or outright theft, to pull together some sort of text that could be posted and start pulling in pennies. Now they're using AI to do it, and those are harder to catch with minimal effort. Amazon has responded by starting to enforce AI restrictions that are headed towards a ban, because the people turning to AI aren't disabled honest actors like Elisa Shupe, but asshats panning for pennies.

    Sure the US has the economic capability to scale up their copyright office to meet the demand of a world that drops a blizzard of "content" on it every single day. But why should they need to just to accommodate bad actors working in bad faith simply to generate revenue off vast volume?

    What about other countries though?

    And what about consumers? In books, something I've heard from people about indie publishing is they hate it because "it lets so many people just write. Who's vetting any of this?"

    In other words, there are readers who prefer the out-of-sight, out-of-mind gatekeeping traditional publishers do to keep most books from ever seeing a reader's eyes. That's another digression, but I mention it here as an example. Old school radio would be another example; the DJ curated the playlist, and you relied on the DJ to do it. Some music lovers don't like how Spotify makes "everything available" and long for curation to help guide them to find things to listen to.

    Now I see some validity in curation, but I feel that's a market problem. Or, rather, a market opportunity. People who can spin up to become recommenders. Except, of course, if that becomes a thing (recommenders) corporations will just do what they did to radio, and take over the recommending to push their only own shit.

    But who curates when it's not hundreds of books per day, but tens of thousands? Each and every day. Probably that many songs. Probably at least ten times that number of individual pictures of some sort. And rather than dozens and dozens of TV shows, and another dozens and dozens of movies per quarter, scale that up by at least a factor of ten too.

    Consumers are going to be buried just like the USCO will. You'll think "okay, I have a weekend coming up, I need a show to watch." But when you go looking, it'll be hundreds. How do you know which ones are to your tastes? That you'll like?

    And remember, you won't even have some of the indicators you have today. Like, for example, I knew I was interested in Shogun because I was familiar with Hiroyuki Sanada and always love to see him in anything aimed at the English market. I was familiar with the original Shogun mini series from the 80s.

    AI generated content won't have any of that. No actors you can use as a touchstone, knowing you can rely on reacting favorably to their charm or their style or anything. No lineage from the writer or director, where you can again decide you might like this new thing because you liked older things from that person.

    Nope, just an endless flood of material. All enjoying copyright protection, meaning they can just churn and churn and keep churning until they come up with something viral that becomes valuable. Something that goes nova straight to the top of the charts. And because they'll own it (since their computer created it), they'll have all the same protections someone who honestly creates something will.

    The legal system will collapse under that weight too. Copyright cases are bespoke because human creativity is bespoke. A human sits there arranging words or paint or whatever, and other humans have to examine it to decide how similar (or not) something is to something else. And people sue all the time, thinking "their" idea was "stolen", not understanding how creative frameworks function and mean that "okay, stories of this genre are going to have shared elements and just because both stories involve a father seeking revenge on a criminal who did his family wrong doesn't make the one a copy of the other." And so on.

    What happens when that flood of AI content starts coming out? On a daily basis, some company will look over their back catalog of forgotten crap that never took off, and find examples of things that "seem real similar" to something that goes viral. They'll reach out to that viral owner and demand money or else. And the or else is cranking up the lawyers.

    And Abbott wants to enable all of that shit. He's a copyright lawyer. Who gets hired to legally debate and litigate copyright cases? Could it be copyright lawyers?

    He's a bottom feeder looking for job security. But because he's a lawyer, he knows how to "work the system."

    I pray he fails spectacularly. Because only someone like him benefits in the world he wants to create.

    9 votes
  3. Comment on If we can't block users can we at least filter out topics posted by those users? in ~tildes

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I don't necessarily mind video posts. What I do dislike, greatly, is when they can't be bothered to describe and perhaps offer a summary of what the video is, why someone might click on it. No,...

    I don't necessarily mind video posts. What I do dislike, greatly, is when they can't be bothered to describe and perhaps offer a summary of what the video is, why someone might click on it. No, just a drive-by "here's a vid link" and nothing.

    I also don't like posts, vid or otherwise, that go to a paid link. Medium or Substack, for example. Especially when I suspect the person is posting their own link, or the link of someone they know. That's basically marketing, and they're doing it out of self-interest rather than any desire to foster some sort of discussion.

    5 votes
  4. Comment on With Vids, Google thinks it has the next big productivity tool for work in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Neurotypical people communicate a ton of information, both transmitting as well as receiving, via body language. They need those innumerable non-verbal cues, like tone of voice, expression, and on...

    Neurotypical people communicate a ton of information, both transmitting as well as receiving, via body language. They need those innumerable non-verbal cues, like tone of voice, expression, and on and on and on.

    This tool is something by NTs for NTs. They feel incomplete trying to communicate via text-only. When they can only transmit pure information, without all those extra channels they rely on in person, they feel like there are things missing.

    Meanwhile, I just finished reading The Big Short by Lewis and one of the guys who saw the mortgage collapse coming is autistic. (Actually, I think another was as well, Eisman along with Burry, but only Burry was explicitly mentioned as such). And while he didn't figure it out until he'd had a son who was diagnosed by the school or whoever, he had figured out pretty early in his life in-person didn't work so well for him. People constantly took him wrong, and nothing about the face-to-face experience benefited him in return; so he communicated mostly via email or forums.

    A tool like this, in regular use, would fuck him over. Especially if (when?) it becomes a regular thing, and people wonder "but why don't you vid chat me?" And they won't understand "because I don't want to" or "because face-to-face is distracting for me" or "because it's a negative in how I can try to interact" or anything similar as an answer.

    They'll just have one more tool to use to shuffle "the weirdos" off into a forgotten corner. Lovely.

    15 votes
  5. Comment on Slay the Spire 2 | Reveal trailer in ~games

    DavesWorld
    Link
    I won't lie, I've clocked some hours in Slay the Spire. But it would be a lot more fun if you could deck build. I get their angle is "roguelike", but the randomness is so fucking annoying. Not...

    I won't lie, I've clocked some hours in Slay the Spire.

    But it would be a lot more fun if you could deck build. I get their angle is "roguelike", but the randomness is so fucking annoying. Not just bad draws in a fight, lost so many runs to "oh, okay, so not a single one of the cards I need came up in the first two rounds while the multiple enemies were double-digit attacking" and similar situations.

    It's so irritating when bad draws come up with the rewards, with the relics, with all of that. And there are so many ways for those bad draws to pop. You might bypass two or three cards because you only like them in combination with a certain rare, but then that rare fucking shows up later and you're like "damnit." Or the opposite, you start taking cards that would work in a certain way, but then none of the keys that would unlock them ever show up so you have a bloated deck.

    I just don't understand why there's not a mode somewhere in there that lets you deckbuild. Even Fights in Tight Places offers a form of deck building. Not a great one, but one. And I find FiTP a little more replayable because of it.

    Maybe it's that I'm not a gambler. I went to Vegas once. I did gamble, just to say I had. I sat at penny video poker for a few hours, got up five bucks at one point, then lost it all. Gambling is just not a game to me, it's not fun. It's waiting to see how fucked you are by randomness. Which is what the roguelikes do. I've heard people talk about "but being fucked by the RNG is the fun" and I just don't see it.

    11 votes
  6. Comment on Tildes is changing the way I use and think about online engagement. How about you? in ~tildes

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    There might be a handful of people on the planet who can come up with profound, encompassing, insightful wisdom to share within the length of a tweet while staying on-topic with one of that day's...

    There might be a handful of people on the planet who can come up with profound, encompassing, insightful wisdom to share within the length of a tweet while staying on-topic with one of that day's discussion topics. And there are decidedly fewer topics that can be boiled down to that length in the first place, so those few legendary communicators will have few opportunities to share that wisdom with us.

    People I know told me I was being a curmudgeon and "didn't get it" when Twitter first launched and proudly bandied about their concept of communicating in short little bites, while I was wondering "how is that useful?"

    Anything pithy someone might come up with, almost anyone else can tear apart in ten different ways because pithy doesn't cover nuance. Something else that's started to become increasingly apparent as a flaw in social media communication in recent years. And most people aren't pithy, they're just trying to meme, hoping to amuse, or otherwise simply gunning for validation with not just their tweets, but most any social media post they make.

    Text messages came about because they were "free." Because in that era, the phone companies were charging you by the minute. Sometimes by pieces of a minute; ten (or some other number) second increments. Some phone engineers figured out the phones had to phone home to the nearest tower regularly, and that there was available space in those data packets. Which is why texts were initially billed as being these small little communications.

    Then phone companies jumped on the popularity of texts and began charging for them. Yay for capitalism! Twitter showed up somewhere in there and modeled themselves after texts.

    I like jokes and stuff as much as the next guy, but most of what passes for discourse online fits into the humor category. And most people aren't comedians. So a lot of it's cringe, or ill timed, inappropriate, off topic, and so on. Which doesn't make humor bad, but does lead to a contribution towards some other prominent social media problems. Like lack of nuance.

    Length doesn't equate quality, but there aren't that many issues the online mobs will seize upon that are well served by tweet length exchanges.

    I was first attracted to Reddit because links to posts kept popping up when I'd search something. After a while, I started just checking Reddit out regularly. Eventually I joined. And for a time it was kind of nice. Posts there had length. Which meant more of them tended to have actual information in there somewhere, rather than just something empty. And people could actually type, actually write somewhat. They had interesting things to say, to contribute.

    Then:

    U nvr saw tings lik dis: im redy for (insert movie), me n my bro's cant wait

    I mean, people fucking type like that. They post like that. One of the ideas on my idea shelf is a Falling Down style story where a 5th Grade English teacher sees a "message" from a former student that looks like that and she just fucking snaps. And goes on a rampage. With a shotgun.

    One of the scenes will be her dragging one of those former students out of a car, throwing them down on the pavement, standing over them with the gun in one hand pointed at their nose and the other hand thrusting a phone into their face with one of that clueless idiot's tweets on the screen while screaming "Capitals, contractions, punctuation ... GRAMMAR MOTHERFUCKER, DID YOU LEARN IT?"

    Ahem. Moving on.

    But the masses continued to swell the ranks, and post lengths dropped, and then I started occasionally finding people who'd post two sentences, and half of the second was something like "sorry for the long post" or "TLDR: rah rah rah" where rah was some meme line.

    When those are the majority, people who feel the need to apologize for having the temerity to post more than a single sentence (that would cause them to fail Elementary School), the downfall became inevitable. And what is it today? A cesspool of shouting and bandwagons.

    For as long as Tildes can stay curated, and somewhat under control, it's interesting and useful. When it starts attracting those "oh sorry for long post" types, among others who populate the core ranks of the online mob, that'll be the beginning of the end.

    Enjoying the ride while it's here.

    17 votes
  7. Comment on Many Americans who recently bought guns open to political violence, survey finds in ~misc

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Until American Police stop unilaterally assaulting and beating citizens, lying about it openly, and then never seeing even minimal consequences compared to what a citizen without a police badge...

    Until American Police stop unilaterally assaulting and beating citizens, lying about it openly, and then never seeing even minimal consequences compared to what a citizen without a police badge would receive for the same crimes, I will never be in favor of expanded restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Which doesn't even touch on the rest of the corruption cops enjoy without penalty.

    Violence is a crime. So is threatening violence. Two crimes cops are never charged with, incidentally. For a number of high profile examples, reference the George Floyd protests, and take your pick from any of dozens of cities where non-violent protests were assaulted by police formations.

    Those crimes should be charged not just against cops, but also against any protestors or counter-protestors who decide to use their Second Amendment rights to "convince" others to not exercise their First Amendment rights. Which, again, were violated by police around the nation with impunity.

    So if protestors are threatened by "people with guns", those are crimes. Theoretically the police will deal with that. After all, that's what the anti-gun people assume isn't it? That guns aren't needed since we have cops? Simply notify the cops your peaceful protest is being victimized by criminals.

    Anyone who decides that remedy doesn't make them feel safe should probably be on the side of police reform before they attempt to figure out a way to legally disarm the entire nation in contradiction of the Second Amendment.

    18 votes
  8. Comment on MaXXXine | Official trailer in ~movies

  9. Comment on MaXXXine | Official trailer in ~movies

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Well, based on the rather frequent complaints I heard from people over Ahsoka, if you haven't seen everything in the backstory or universe of a movie or show, you're going to hate it. The trailer...

    Well, based on the rather frequent complaints I heard from people over Ahsoka, if you haven't seen everything in the backstory or universe of a movie or show, you're going to hate it.

    The trailer has me a little intrigued. Even though it looks like a horror film. The wiki says it's a straight up slasher film. So I dunno (I'm not a horror fan). But that trailer looks pretty interesting.

  10. Comment on How do you feel about student loan forgiveness? in ~life

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Your title mentions one thing, then your post pivots to another. On the "another", yes college was originally designed to create a whole educated person. That is, someone who is rounded, who has...

    Your title mentions one thing, then your post pivots to another.

    On the "another", yes college was originally designed to create a whole educated person. That is, someone who is rounded, who has depth, who's been exposed to how to think and how to organize their thoughts. Someone who's been given a grounding in life context. That's why "those 'off-topic useless' courses" get included; just because you're going to be an engineer doesn't make English or History valueless. It would round you, ground you, expose you to concepts and viewpoints.

    A person who went through the college experience would come back someone much more prepared to think critically, logically, rationally, flexibly. Would be ready to apply learned intelligence in a variety of ways, would be ready to fit into a more rounded and capable niche within life thanks to this grounding.

    Modern education isn't viewed that way, not by the masses anyway. In The Sopranos at one point, Tony's son is having an existential crisis due to having gotten exposed to Nietzsche. His parents are upset at his questions and life view, all of which they find odd. Meadow then walks in and is blithely amused by the whole situation. Especially her parents.

    "What do you think education is, you just make more money? This (gestures at the morose AJ) is education.

    Meadow's right, of course, but few people agree with her. They feel education is, in fact, just a ticket to a better paycheck. Which, especially in certain industries (finance, law, business), really isn't the case since who you know is much more important than what your diploma says you know.

    Which is to say, sure you may have a degree, even a masters or doctorate, but the guy who met the "right" people at school, who got in good with the classmates whose parents and parents' friends have influence and big companies who can hire, that's the guy who'll benefit from "school." Not from his diploma, but from having had the opportunity to become "rich connected kid's classmate" so he has an in to a job that'll pay well and offer power and opportunity. The diploma and the actual education it may or may not represent is entirely incidental in many cases.

    So a lot of people over the past three or four decades have been eager to spend whatever it takes to get that diploma, because the prevailing wisdom was that piece of paper guaranteed a career that would pay well and get you through life. Which, many of us know, hasn't quite been the case. Sure diploma gives some advantages over no diploma, but not always, and it's definitely not a magic ticket that just instantly makes any job or career difficult vanish. Even though the prevailing wisdom was that's exactly what it is; a golden ticket.

    But that's a whole separate discussion, all of that. Cost is what you put in your title. Cost and the concept of the government just repaying it.

    First off, a lot of things should be free to a citizen in good standing. Healthcare is the primary one, but anyone who's willing to have a go should be able to attend college and see if they can complete the courses to pick up a four year degree. So I'm not anti-education or anti-college.

    I am anti-private sector education riding the gravy train, that I'm definitely against. Which is exactly what they've been doing the past half century or so. They realized everyone was drinking the Kool-aid that tasted like "life golden ticket" when it came to college, and all the rates started going up.

    Tuition, fees, new fees, even more new fees, books, on and on, until a college education starts to easily cost enough to require a graduate more than a decade to manage to pay off. And that's if they not only immediately get and keep a job in their career, but live frugally through their 20s and 30s diverting what would be spending money over to repayment.

    Few people are willing to live like monks. Especially through their young years.

    But the colleges kept raising the rates, and students kept showing up because they needed what they thought was a ticket. Their unwashed masses parents thought it was a ticket. Everyone pushed it as the ticket, and made sure to funnel kids in.

    Bankers and finance types, meanwhile, had the assurance that student loans were not dischargeable. The Holy Grail of finance; a debt that can't be written off by bankruptcy or anything similar. A debt that never drops off the report, only keeps building interest and fees. Money the borrower must pay back, eventually, sooner or later, period.

    So the source of the problem is Wall Street (as usual), and to a slightly lesser extent colleges themselves. Even community colleges are enjoying charging students super high costs for everything. Just setting foot on the shittiest campus for a quarter can cost thousands of dollars for a handful of classes by the time everything, including textbooks (their own ridiculous racket) get tabulated.

    Government stepping in to repay the loans is just one more Big Bailout. They're not bailing out students, though by accident and incident that does happen. They're bailing out Big Education and the Bank Loan Industry, since that's who receives (or received) all those billions. And what does that do?

    Encourages them to keep on doing exactly what they have been; jacking up rates, finding new fees, pushing young people too inexperienced to understand they're signing up for decades of payments to sign sign sign now!

    I get that there are a lot of younger people saddled with student loans. That's not my argument. What is focuses on the industry that's evolved to lock down generations of Americans into that debt. That's what needs to be fixed, even though clearly it won't.

    So if you push for a yes or no answer on the Federal Student Loan Forgiveness issue, ultimately I come down to no. We keep finding ways to kick cans further and further down the road. This is just one more kick and one more can, tumbling away without anything being done.

    Right now, with students and recent students and students-tenish-years-ago defaulting in higher numbers, the industry that locked them into those debts began whining about wanting some of their money. Sure they knew they could keep racking up interest and penalties, but that's only fun if the debtor eventually does come up with cash they give you. If that debtor just financially sulks and refuse to repay, that's when the finance types stop having quite as much fun as they otherwise would.

    That's when they start hitting up their college connections. That guy they were friendly with in the frat, he knows a guy who roomed Senator so-and-so, right? Or a Representative, a political staffer, the President, and so on. The idea of "government should pay what the students won't" starts to swell, and banks are in favor of that. Why wouldn't they be? They want the cash. Sure it'd be nice if they could milk all those students for a few decades, but a lump sum of billions right now sure is attractive.

    Wall Street bonuses get calculated on a quarterly or annual basis, after all.

    When the government repays all that, it's just a bailout. A handout. A gift to industry. They dress it up like they're helping students, like they care.

    They don't care. It's just one more example of that mysterious college network most students don't get dialed into.

    Because, you know, most unwashed masses who make it to college are busy going to class thinking that's the important part. What they should be doing is going to the parties, and making nice with the kids who are gonna coast through college and head back to the real world where their rich and influential parents will set them up the way the peons think college is supposed to.

    Repaying the loans just lets the people who caused the problem profit. Removes any possibility (however remote) they might learn from their greed and how they've pushed too far, gone too far. Instead, it teaches them they did a great job. After all, they got the money. Who wants a loan?

    12 votes
  11. Comment on What AI tools are you actually using? in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link
    I've had Stable Diffusion running for several months now. I love it. About to start using it to generate images I can incorporate into some actual projects, and that'll be interesting. Mostly I've...

    I've had Stable Diffusion running for several months now. I love it. About to start using it to generate images I can incorporate into some actual projects, and that'll be interesting. Mostly I've been playing with it, delighting in its ability to create images for me. Since I can't draw or paint or anything, it's super fun.

    LLMs don't seem to be consumer-level yet. Cloud still. So I'm kind of waiting on that; I have little interest in running all my usage through other computers. And I especially don't want to be paying by the word to use one.

    I'm looking around at AI audio, because ever since Adobe announced they were going to have a voice software, I've had it in the back of my head that I can actually get a computer voice (that doesn't sound like a computer) to read some stuff for me, and put that together in some other projects. But I think those are sort of still cloud, or cloud-ish right now. Or maybe I haven't looked properly yet. But I'm still keeping an eye on it when I remember.

    On the LLMs, especially just in this thread though you see it everywhere ... a lot of people don't seem to want to use it as an LLM. Meaning, to treat it like you would a secretary or something, where you call her in and say "draft a letter to X about Y, be polite, set a date of Z, and let me see it."

    No, most people seem to think LLMs exist to be the library computer from Star Trek. Where they open the session and say something like "I want you to pull all the mortgage data from 2021 in Metro Las Vegas, sort it by due dates and amount, and show me the ones closest to default." Or, "give me a summary on the history of X and Y with an emphasis on the last four years."

    I agree LLMs are headed there, and that's one of the most powerful functions they'll probably have. Right now though, LLMs aren't even remotely close to being at that point yet. But you still see people, all over online, talking about how they tried to treat a LLM like a smart search engine that could talk to them in plain English, and then smugly declaring "they suck, they don't work."

    Of course they don't work when you want them to be something they're not. And regardless, just because a tool that's still being developed and worked on isn't done yet doesn't mean the tool's shit. It just means the tool's not finalized.

    Sure the words "prototype" and "beta test" might have lost all meaning in today's software realm (beta particularly just means release now, basically in a lot of instances), but come on.

    13 votes
  12. Comment on Why do negative topics dominate social media sites, even here? in ~tech

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I agree there's a psychological factor that's not well researched or understood which trends human engagement toward the negative, rather than the positive. After, the news leads with the bleed,...

    I agree there's a psychological factor that's not well researched or understood which trends human engagement toward the negative, rather than the positive. After, the news leads with the bleed, as Boxer pointed out. No one's news looks like this:

    Today in our beautiful community, things are great! The sun is out, the wind is gentle, temps are projected to be even and pleasant, and tonight the stars are going to shine brilliantly. Just as they did last night. Here's some footage of last night's sky if you were too busy having a fantastic time inside. Don't worry, we know you had fun anyway, and it'll be there tonight too! And whatever you end up enjoying, congrats! Now let's go to Jane Janesim on the corner of Second and Crossington, where a group of content citizens are busy sitting down to coffee together as they enjoy everything. They have some wonderful things to say about how polite and lovely the traffic, street and sidewalk, has been today. Jane?

    So no, the news, life itself, doesn't appear to work that way.

    But my comment is on your mention of fandom. That's not a source of positivity either. Star Wars and Marvel, for example, bring haters and doubters and downplayers and outright assholes tumbling out of the woodwork to comment on it. And by comment I mean hate on. A new project, a new casting, a new script, a new series, a rerelease ... whatever it is, you can almost set your watch by how the thread will start to fill with "yeah, but it sucks" and "sigh who asked for this" and so on.

    So even in fandom, people aren't willing to leave it alone if it's not their cup of happy. They just have to crowd in and shit on it, and usually take the next obvious but obnoxious step of shitting on anyone who dares disagree with their shit and shitting. You never see Star Wars threads that look like this, for example:

    Star Wars isn't exactly my cup of happy, but I'm happy you Star Wars fans fucking love it! Go you, and I hope you enjoy the new series/movie/release. May the Force Be With You fans!

    No, no one ever posts that. Why would they, when they can be negative instead. And not just negative, dismissive and insulting towards those who aren't also those things.

    Is it attention seeking? Sometimes. Is it spreading their misery? Probably sometimes. Do they despise that someone else doesn't agree with their dislike? I think more often than not that's mixed in there somewhere.

    I said there's not a lot of research into negativity, but that's maybe not entirely accurate. Media, for example, has been running metrics and ratings for many decades now. And since the Information Age hit, all that data has gotten both more plentiful and far more granular. Any digital feed of any kind, for example, can give data down to the second or the individual click. Websites can track where your cursor is sometimes, how long before you clicked away, and more.

    They use all this to figure out that the negative stuff is more engaging. So they managed to validate their old maxims about shocking and enraging content being the most likely to grab and keep attention. Now it wasn't just "conventional wisdom" from the "old hands", but bespectacled data specialists spreading out reports and charts and graphs to prove it.

    So ultimately, there's a human nature thing at play here. People ignore things when they're not pissed off. No one stops and says "oh my God, I forgot to praise them, tell them good job, wow what a wonderful thing they're doing." But few people forget to chime in with "please fucking stop now, I hope you die, you're wrong and evil and should suffer." Plenty of people will rearrange their attention span to shovel out negativity in all sorts of forms, where they at best just kind of chuckle silently for a moment if things are positive.

    One thing I'm reasonably sure of. Human nature is ... unlikely to change. People get pissed off if they have to move, or find new shoes, or when their favorite restaurant closes and they have to take a chance on a new joint. Telling the entire planet "hey, quit being negative or we'll ... keep reminding you until you remember" doesn't seem likely to work out well.

    Probably there'd just be whole new movements of "fuck the knock it off assholes; let us rage."

    8 votes
  13. Comment on Hey, monthly mystery commenters, what's up with the hit-and-runs? in ~tildes

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I like that jokes are sorted down. It's pretty darn reliable over on Reddit to just flat out collapse the first, sometimes the first two or three, chains in a thread since they'll just be stupid...

    I like that jokes are sorted down. It's pretty darn reliable over on Reddit to just flat out collapse the first, sometimes the first two or three, chains in a thread since they'll just be stupid meme jokes.

    I'm not anti-humor. I just find that most of what gets upvoted as a "joke" is usually pretty obvious, and quite low effort. But that's what the masses like; lowest common denominator.

    If the only contribution in the comment is a joke, then it is a joke. As in, posted only for the "joke". By my definition (and possibly Tildes' as well), that's a joke contribution, rather than something posted to advance the thread.

    3 votes
  14. Comment on We need to talk about Trader Joe's in ~food

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Facts aren't copyrightable. Recipes are facts; you take flour and sugar and eggs and oil and water, mix, bake, and you have a cake. That's a set of facts, from the ingredients to the preparation....

    Facts aren't copyrightable. Recipes are facts; you take flour and sugar and eggs and oil and water, mix, bake, and you have a cake. That's a set of facts, from the ingredients to the preparation.

    How does a society, an economy, work where someone is allowed to own the concept of pizza, or cake, or bread, or hamburgers, or green tea Thai noodles with spicy peanut sauce over lightly breaded chicken? It wouldn't. People gotta eat.

    It's almost impossible to patent a recipe too. Some of the factors for a patent include how obvious it is, and how novel (new) it is. How likely it is some chef actually has figured out a never before considered or tried combination of ingredients? One that a search through hundreds of years of cookbooks will prove doesn't exist? Not very.

    You're a bit more likely to be able to patent a food process, such as a very specific (and, again, not-novel and not-obvious) method of preparation. You're still climbing uphill in the attempt though since every single human eats at least two or three times a day, which is a lot of food that's been turned out over the centuries.

    Any company that wants to compete in the market for food pretty much has to do it on something other than exclusivity. Unless they can maintain their secrecy. As I remember semi-recently, the guy who "invented" cronuts wouldn't share the recipe. For a reason. Recipes aren't copyrightable.

    Other chefs experimented, and came up with similar recipes. Eventually he wrote a cookbook and included the recipe (about two years later), once others had caught up with him and his only option was to try to cash in one more time as the "originator". But for a period he had a monopoly since he'd sort of "invented" something no one else was doing.

    He did trademark the name "cronut", which is allowed and was kind of smart, but I don't know how much value he got out being the only baker allowed to call a flaky pastry layer doughnut a cronut. Especially since I just Googled and saw "cronuts" available at local bakers (unless they've all licensed it from him, that I don't know about). But it was his money he spent trademarking it, so it was his call to make.

    If someone feels they have a "special" recipe, and are looking to go mass market, lawyers invented these things called NDAs. Of course, to enforce them, you have to pay lawyers (clever that; this gives you leverage, but you can only leverage your leverage if you keep paying us, the lawyers) or a broken NDA has no penalty.

    But honestly, they're recipes. Even the cronut wasn't really a "new" thing; it was just a doughnut with flaky layers, more or less. But barring very, very rare "exceptions", there's no original in food. As soon as your "secret recipe" hits the market, it'll be copied. That's what skilled chefs do; understand ingredients and cooking and how to get a taste or mouth sensation when they want to.

    So original isn't a thing in food. There's just "oh, no one's done that recently." Why else does one think chefs and youtubers and influencers and columnists keep mining old, old, old sources for "new" food?

    Bottom line, it's not stealing for anyone, company or individual, to begin using the same recipe. It just isn't. If someone cares that much about their recipe, and doesn't feel they can compete on price or quality or service leaving only exclusivity as their only edge, then they're in the wrong business.

    17 votes
  15. Comment on “The small press world is about to fall apart.” On the collapse of small press distribution. in ~books

    DavesWorld
    Link
    The one thing anyone in the ecosystem between authors and readers needs to be doing is providing discoverability. Promotion. Visibility. And most of them do not realize this. Do not make it their...
    • Exemplary

    The one thing anyone in the ecosystem between authors and readers needs to be doing is providing discoverability. Promotion. Visibility.

    And most of them do not realize this. Do not make it their focus. They've continued like publishing is still in the twentieth century, where access to a press that can roll off bound copies, and an apparatus that can warehouse and ship them, is the secret sauce a writer needs. That's what a lot of them think they're selling, access to a store shelf with a bound physical copy, when what authors need to be paying for is putting their name and story in front of readers for awareness.

    As the article noted, self distribution is still a huge uphill climb. What it didn't note is that's because the traditional side of publishing has spent the last twenty years pushing hard to keep indies out. They don't want any discoverability channels open to indie authors, and the usual routes such as industry magazines (which are used by librarians, and used to be the primary source for bookstore buyers though that channel is far less important these days) are kept closed because of this.

    There are a lot of great authors writing great books. But books are a drop in the entertainment flood of options available these days, and the books that readers might like they often never hear about. Marketing books is hard because the market is small.

    Brandon Sanderson, after having run a podcast for about fifteen years that made him aware of indie publishing while ignoring it to stick with his trad publisher, finally broke away. He opened his own company that does everything his trad was taking that cut for. And, surprise surprise, he's pocketing more money even after all the expenses. Even while carrying a payroll of people who operate the company for him so he can write and do stuff like press and teach and so forth.

    Sanderson is the trads' nightmare finally come true. The biggest names don't need the trads nearly as much as the trads need them, since the business model the trads operate on relies on milking those big names every year to bring in the bulk of the bottom line.

    The industry, traditional, small, or indie, needs to stop stalling and realign with a more twenty-first century model. What an author, any author, needs is to be visible. That's what anyone hoping to do business with an author can offer, and if they can do it well that's worth a fee. If they do it very well, they might deserve a cut of each copy, but they'd have to actually be moving copies (and most will not be actively looking for how to do that; key word active, rather than passive).

    Most of them don't do it at all, much less poorly. They're clinging to the old ways, and the old ways don't work anymore.

    The value of a radio station used to be in the DJ. You could get to know the DJ's taste, because the DJ was curating his or her playlists. They chose what went on, how often, and when it went away. The DJs would introduce you to new music, and you'd give it a listen because you trusted the DJ's musical recommendations.

    Then the corporations took over, and used national metrics to push the same twenty songs on a weekly basis. Don't need DJs when you can just pay a couple to record loops that get sent out across the entire country, and the computers handle the playlist part. Presto, most radio stations no longer have DJs.

    Funny how radio's no longer a touchstone for most people. I wonder why that could be?

    Someone, individual or entity, who can slide into a DJ role for books will have value to both authors and readers. Classic win-win. And the "big players" in the industry, on the traditional side, don't realize it, and aren't interested in becoming that. They just want to cling to their presses, keep sifting through submissions from people desperate to have that one month window where they can walk into their local store and see their book on the shelf, and that's it.

    Meanwhile, on the indie side, there are a lot of people only interested in being passive. They want to collect email addresses and charge authors to add a title to an email blast, and that's most of the marketing available on the non-traditional side.

    I love books, but they're harder and harder to find these days. A big part of that is how authors are treated. Everyone (who doesn't write) thinks you write a book, and you're then both rich and famous. That's not the case at all. Those handful of big names are rich and famous, but even most of them aren't really that rich. They have "level of fuck you" money, but they don't have fuck you money.

    Writing is hard. Writing well is very hard. Then, when you do the hard thing, you have two other hard things to figure out. One, get it in front of readers who might like it. Two, get some money for it since that's how our world operates (thing is liked, thing should have value, and things like food and roofs have value).

    Neither of those two other hard things are done by the industry for authors. Mostly, they just sucker newcomers in and graze off volume. Sure pubs ship thousands of books each month to the remaining bookstores, but many of those come back to make room for the next month's slate. They expect readers to trek in to those stores every week or two and pluck a book off the shelf to buy.

    And they hate Amazon for implementing not just shipping of physical copies, but also for enabling an independent distribution channel available to anyone.

    If someone or something makes you angry, and you don't harness that anger to a purpose, you're letting them win. They hate Amazon, but haven't harnessed their anger except to just sulk that the US or EU won't make Amazon to get out of books so the trads can go back to being in charge.

    So this whole article gives me mixed feelings. Sure it's about small presses, but so many of those are just as bad as trads. Only on a smaller scale since, you know, they're smaller. Most of them don't do anything to nurture or promote, they just skim through submissions, make arrangements to ship books, and expect money to roll in.

    Until it doesn't, and suddenly they're surprised at bankruptcies being announced.

    16 votes
  16. Comment on Scattered thoughts on the absurdity of existing in ~talk

    DavesWorld
    Link
    Life is what you make of it. If you believe in a higher power, in a specific morality, in a certain cause, in a particular goal ... then for you, life is tied to that. You might have decided you...

    Life is what you make of it.

    If you believe in a higher power, in a specific morality, in a certain cause, in a particular goal ... then for you, life is tied to that. You might have decided you want to spread the joy of 52-Card Pickup far and wide, and for you that would be a life affirming goal.

    I do feel far, far, far too many people get caught up in seeking validation. They want others to validate them, validate their choices. They want agreement, support, and backing. They want their decisions to be seen as correct in the view of others.

    That's chasing your tail. People are fickle, selfish, distracted, greedy, and indifferent. Love is defined by how it overrides these negative traits. If you love someone, you'll concern yourself with their concerns, you'll share, you'll open up, you'll make time for them. Meanwhile, that random guy who lives two doors down, not so much. One person you love, the other you don't.

    That's how we are to almost every single person on the planet. It's just how it is. Do you care about some random person in Hawaii, or Siberia, or sitting in traffic in Taiwan? No, of course you don't. You have your own problems, your own goals and concerns and dreams to be getting on with. And those random people don't care about yours either, so we're all more or less even.

    At the end of The Truman Show, Truman walks off stage, and the show ends. For all the audiences; us as well as the people in the film who were watching Truman. The answer they give there is just as honest and realistic as the one we gave at the end of the movie. It's the same one we give at any funeral, or really any time you're made aware of a death that isn't yours. What else is on now?

    So death is really only final for the dead person. For everyone else who isn't dead, life goes on. That's not callous, that's just life. Are we supposed to fracture and fall apart, become non-functional humans just because someone close to us dies?

    Some people do disintegrate, and sometimes follow their departed beloved into death themselves. Which is beautifully tragic on some levels, but on others is a waste. And how you view it tends to depend on how you view the people involved. If it's your parents, you're emotionally weighed by the death of the first; and probably moreso by the second. But you might find the second wasteful, or selfish, or poetic, or a lot of things. Who knows? It would depend on your relationships with your parents, how you look(ed) upon them, and so on.

    If a public figure dies, the public has equally varied reactions. I know I'll never get the end of the Song of Ice and Fire series, so when George R R Martin dies, to me it'll just be a confirmation of what I've already accepted. If Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr had died just before they began shooting Avengers Endgame ... I would have been quite upset. Not fatally so, but still it would have been a big hit.

    The thing about death is its finality. I find it kind of worthless to obsess over what follows your own death. After all, you won't be there for any of it, so why should you care? And if you do, you're engaging in something that by definition you'll never know, never influence, never be able to correct, and all of that more or less adds up to a waste of time.

    But others disagree. They feel they can influence what might follow their death. An easy example would be a family; the matriarch might look back at her place in the ancestry that led to her, and on to the descendants she'd be leaving, and find that to be a form of influence. That she's had chances to shape and teach and impart upon them various things she finds important, and can decide to whatever degree she likes to believe these things would continue on thanks to her efforts.

    Someone else might want to "change the world". Maybe they want to drive a movement of some sort (52-Card Pickup, it's the next big thing), or maybe they want to invent a technology, build some structure, something like that.

    Somewhere in history, somewhere, lost to us never to be found or known, is someone who first had the idea to build The Pyramids. After all, it's highly unlikely those structures just appeared out of nowhere, and equally unlikely the society in the area just kind of collectively showed up one day to begin building. Someone had the idea, which led to planning and decisions about how to do it, and then to the doing. Probably, after that first initial thought, lots of other people joined in to turn it eventually into The Pyramids, but someone still had the first notion of them.

    Maybe that person, if they have any awareness post-death, might be pleased to know The Pyramids still exist. There are bridges and highways and ports and cities and all sorts of "things" that've been created, and all of them started with one person. All of them eventually included many people to make happen, but someone at some point looked at a patch of desert and thought "yeah, but what if we put a big 3-d triangle, like, right there."

    Rich people often get increasingly charitable as they age. Other people often accuse them of "trying to buy legacy" at this point, as the rich person runs around looking for places that'll take money in exchange for plastering the Rich Name across whatever gets built or sponsored.

    Sometimes someone, maybe rich or maybe just well connected or highly influential, will start young and try to "build something". All the great companies, for example, at one point weren't companies. Great or otherwise. They got built because someone started building them. At least some of those, just like all the bridges and so forth, came into being because that first thinker thought it'd be cool to know it's their notion that's shaping reality.

    Anyone who figures out the secret of life will have it made. Because, even if The Secret doesn't put dinner on the table, all the talk shows and speaking engagements, the book and movie deals, the everything they'd be able to likely reap from the rest of us would.

    There is no perfect answer in life. To life. For life. There's just your answer. And that's a great answer. For you.

    Life isn't an algorithm. Or, at least, not one humanity will ever be in a position to solve. There's too much data, too many ever changing variables, for it to be conceivable we could ever create a perfect predictor that Knows All. Chasing The One Solution is therefore a vast waste of time in my view.

    Then again, Douglas Adams postulated a people who spent generations creating and programming such a machine. Only for it to give them an answer they didn't understand.

    Meanwhile, Adams had himself a nice old chuckle over the concept. And shared it with others, many of whom also had a bit of a laugh as well. Then they all moved on, because that's what you do. That's what happens.

    Life moves on.

    9 votes
  17. Comment on ‘Matrix 5’ in the works with Drew Goddard as director, Lana Wachowski as executive producer in ~movies

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    Goddard has a great track record. The advantage here of him directing is that he's also writing. More writers have started to notice that they don't count, and will definitely see their scripts...

    Goddard has a great track record. The advantage here of him directing is that he's also writing. More writers have started to notice that they don't count, and will definitely see their scripts butchered and rendered unrecognizable if they don't also take the director's chair. Because so, so, so many directors will read a project's script, sign on, and then immediately go "but I want to change ... everything."

    The beauty of how a film crew works is you don't need to know jack shit about cameras or angles or lighting or editing or any of that to be a solid director. You can hire people who are experts in those things who will be glad to take charge and offer up solutions to consider.

    The director being an expert at the visuals is actually a negative if they're not focused on a good story. And if their training has been mostly in lights and angles, that's not story. Or in how to bring relevant and/or meaningful performances out of actors. Two things I would argue are way more crucial to a great movie than simply being a technical superstar with the use of the camera.

    Good, bad, whatever happens here, it's Goddard's story and he'll only have himself to blame if it turns out poorly. Assuming, of course, the studio doesn't chime in with something akin to "... and in the third act, they need to fight a giant spider."

    I've never sat down and tried to piece together where I'd take another Matrix story. That's not really something I usually do, since it's basically a waste of time. They won't make anything cool I come up with, for example.

    So I'm not sure what angle he's got, but I have faith in his storytelling skills since (again) he's established a great resume of excellent stories.

    Some obvious ones that would be super easy to fuck up would be something like "Smith's backstory/prequel/origin" or something like that. Perhaps the same concept but with The Architect or The Oracle; just as trite, just as unnecessary, just as unlikely to be interesting. And the king of all stupid angles would be "here's the fall of humanity, the birth of The Matrix; watch as we show the last humans being hunted down and put in pods."

    A lot of modern audiences don't seem to understand how "filling in the blanks" is an almost certain guarantee they won't like the fill. When a story leaves "something" open, the audience can put whatever they like in that hole. And whatever they come up with, they'll probably like it; they came up with it. When someone else fills it in for them, they start picking it apart. Comparing it to their solution. Disliking the differences. So an "origin" story is trudging uphill trying to drag a lot of weight (expectations) along as well.

    Maybe Goddard will go meta with it. There's a group in The Matrix who are aware of the nature of reality, are aware that they're all just pod people plugged into a machine. But they don't want to "be free", to be unplugged. They're just some sort of third party who watches, tracks maybe, the goings on of the Zion Freedom Fighters and the Agents (along with the indie programs like Merovingian, etc).

    I'm not sure where you'd go with that story, but it's a place to start one for sure. Maybe it would be a "what price reality" or "what definition of reality do we believe in" or something like that. Some conspiracy theorist who struggles with whether or not to side with Zion, or the Agents, or what the morality of doing either, or doing neither would be.

    But I guess somewhere around 2028 we might find out what Goddard has in mind.

    5 votes
  18. Comment on Hey, monthly mystery commenters, what's up with the hit-and-runs? in ~tildes

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I'm getting the sense your entire position here is "why not moar conversate!!!" when it comes to threads/replies. Online isn't really super conducive to "conversations", despite the attempts of...

    I'm getting the sense your entire position here is "why not moar conversate!!!" when it comes to threads/replies.

    Online isn't really super conducive to "conversations", despite the attempts of social media at large, and individual sites insisting on naming things "threads" and "conversations" and "chat" and so on. People feel far more emboldened online to be confrontational, disruptive, and difficult. Rude even a lot of times (though, at Tildes so far, there's much less of that).

    I tend to think until I have complete thoughts. I don't often post until I feel I have a complete thought to share. I only share it here if I feel it's something not being said, or something that should be said. Lots of other places I'll just roll my eyes when the same "conversation" comes up again for them to flounder around in like a crowd carving with chainsaws.

    And I've learned that people don't want a complete thought if they think they're having a "conversation." For this reason, one of my rules is to not get into chains. Into back-and-forth. So I probably fit your hit-and-run definition, but I don't care because whenever I violate my in and out style, people accuse me of stuff.

    The last time I violated it, the person told me "this isn't a debate." Um ... thanks? For being an ass I guess? But I didn't say that because that would be confrontational, and I was already irritated enough by the debate comment.

    Fuck me for thinking, or at least posting, in complete thoughts I guess. I'm supposed to post fragments or something, that leaves other posters the opportunity to wander by, stop and stoop down, and proudly pick up a shiny find I left there for them. So other posters are my kids now I guess, and I'm to make sure they have a good time, rather than participating to the limit of my ability and interest.

    Neither is elevated or enhanced by being drawn into a chain of online "conversation."

    And while it might not be a super big problem here, elsewhere it's a surefire route to rudeness. People hate feeling like they've "lost" in a conversation. What's lost? Well that part I'm not entirely sure about, because the whole notion makes little sense to me. But for a lot of them, it seems to often involve "not knowing everything" or "they disagree with me." In either case, that's where the rudeness surfaces to either shift the ground (into an uninteresting argument) or as a way to drive you off (so they can own the ground in isolation).

    Chains, online "conversations" are where the rudeness surfaces. Pass.

    7 votes
  19. Comment on Hey, monthly mystery commenters, what's up with the hit-and-runs? in ~tildes

    DavesWorld
    Link Parent
    I agree that online people tend towards some really messed up behavior. Far more often than in-person people do. But I don't want to see people's faces online. I dislike face cams in streams, I...

    I agree that online people tend towards some really messed up behavior. Far more often than in-person people do. But I don't want to see people's faces online. I dislike face cams in streams, I dislike Youtubers that want to walk around holding the camera pointed at themselves ... seeing their face just doesn't add to my experience. Often the opposite.

    6 votes
  20. Comment on The rise and fall of the trad wife: Alena Kate Pettitt helped lead an online movement promoting domesticity. Now she says, “It’s become its own monster.” in ~life.women

    DavesWorld
    Link
    I note the article quickly turned into a generic influencer article. Running it all through the influencer filter, examining it all through the lens of "views" and "sponsors" and "marketing." Any...

    I note the article quickly turned into a generic influencer article. Running it all through the influencer filter, examining it all through the lens of "views" and "sponsors" and "marketing."

    Any movement, any anything, is fodder for marketing. That's what marketing is; co-opting (or enhancing) attention. For purposes of selling it, of cashing it in. Online people saw a movement coalescing around "tradwife" and some decided to make that "their thing." Their brand. Their identity.

    Some, the ones the article name checked, managed to do it successfully. What's successful? When they're able to cash in of course. They might be doing van life stuff, or clubbing stuff, or cosmetics stuff, any sort of attention grabbing stuff, but what they chose (and found success with) was trad wife stuff. Which brought them the sweet, sweet cash of selling out.

    Though, the question can be begged, are they selling out if they never really bought in? Because whoever they are, most, most, most, of the people in the niches and genres you see online haven't bought in to jack shit. They're just after cash, period. They wrap themselves up in the trappings of whatever it is that they think will bring it, and then follow the algorithm, study the statistics, and shape their image accordingly.

    On the trad wife thing, who is anyone to run around telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be doing with their life?

    My mother bounced around in jobs a bit throughout my life. Eventually she landed with state government and finished out a career working with the DMV. I will never forget that she cried at the little cake/coffee break ceremony her office threw for her (that a couple of her family members came in for). Because a work friend had asked her what she was going to do now that she was retiring.

    Mom said she was going to finally get to be a house wife, what she'd always wanted to be. And cried when she thought of it, and as she said it. And that's exactly what she's done in the years since. She vacuums and cleans the house every day. Usually humming the whole time. Straightens things up, fusses around in the kitchen. Mom's happy.

    Who is anyone to roll in and shame mom for wanting to do trad wife stuff? My mom who bemoans most of her life having been wasted chasing a paycheck? A paycheck, though I didn't know at the time, mostly spent on daycare for me and my siblings, on takeout or restaurant meals on crazy weeks when the hours were long but kids still get hungry?

    It was almost put in as an afterthought in the article, but the woman did consult with her partner. Because he asked. They communicated. She told him she wanted to be a housewife, and he said he'd like that too. That was the only mention, and it wasn't covered again, but years and years seem to have gone by since that moment in their relationship, and they appear to still be together. Presumably happy, or at least content.

    Who is anyone else to tell them they're adulting wrong? What they've decided upon works for them. If you don't think it would work for you .... don't do it. Do something else.

    But don't do something that involves you being the decider for someone else. Like, for example, someones who want to embrace a relationship where there's a homemaker and a breadwinner in separate roles. If they and their partner have come to that arrangement freely and of collective will, it's their decision. Not only is it not anyone else's decision, it's definitely not anyone else's business to harass them for it.

    And it's doubly definitely not anyone else's place to try and ascribe motivations or reasons that aren't in evidence. That aren't proclaimed by the target. Trying to shape those objections as fact, and use them to shame the target.

    Maybe they should knock it off and worry about themselves more? And leave people who have figured out their own lives well enough alone?

    8 votes