This is so true. I've had some inventive ideas during certain phases of being a hobbyist and very small business owner. Sometimes I'd share them prematurely. Just killed the momentum, and I'd look back and say, "what happened?"
Ever hear the very early Talking Heads song, "Artists Only" - David Byrne remarks,
"pretty soon now, I will be bitter, pretty soon now, I will be a quitter. You... can't... see... it... til it's finished"
My father knew this too, intuitively. He did some really nice, not-for-profit, practical projects on a very low budget. He'd like to comment during those fruitful years, "now, that's a pregnant idea" - the point being, perhaps, that you want to allow the idea to develop way past the fertilization stage, before releasing it into the world. The British have a term, "half-baked idea" that may run along the same lines.
What a nice essay. Thank you, author! It's hard to imagine these insights being hatched by interactions on social media, where everyone is a critic, and always so cock-sure that their biases are so correct.
Of course, our educational system is loaded the the dialectic-style interaction style, where there is a dogma that the truth can be arrived at by negation of opinions through a Socratic question-and-answer dialogue, but that often often goes nowhere. In my most productive R&D experiences, where I was often the only guy in the lab who had various consultants milking the billable hours, the best bosses would give plenty of space for diving into trying this or that, because they respected that intuition needs to run free. Then, the numbers and other results would validate the assumptions or instincts. But just point-blank instinctively shooting down every new idea... often goes nowhere - and happens so often. Too often.
Now that you bring up the British and bosses, I am reminded of the scene in the imitation game where Churchill just goes "give them whatever they want" to the general.
In most orgs nowadays, sometimes we are too tied down with pragmatism. Somehow we're asked for deadlines before even starting work. Somehow we need to define the end product and design before even starting. Only the most menial chores have their entire paths laid out. Anything great, by its virtue of being new, has unknowns that cannot be planned for beforehand.
The Socratic dialogue you bring up assumes that ideas can be interrogated to reveal itself to all members involved but frequently there's no way to put it into words until you do it. It morphs and changes as work is put into it. If Picasso described what he wanted to paint to some random artist would it have produced Picasso?
I worked for a very small company getting funding by the Medici Fund a while back. First I ever heard of the name.
So much intrigue in the past. Guys like Montaigne were said to have "food tasters" to sample the goods before they ate themselves.
As a career trace analytical chemist, I can tell you for sure, that weird poisonings are so much less likely to occur now, because of the probability of detection. That's a little comforting. The same goes for the food supply. Mechanisms are in place to rapidly detect deliberately placed poisons.
> Mechanisms are in place to rapidly detect deliberately placed poisons.
Sure, but as soon as you add wild-collected fungi [1] or greens [1] to the food mix... it gets easy enough to slip in the bad doppelgangers into a meal.
That's also why I never deal with collecting any food in the wild, I don't trust myself (and certainly I don't trust any of the vibecoded AI apps!) to reliably tell the difference between "this is edible", "this probably will give you a few days of diarrhea" and "even touch that thing and you'll die a horrible painful death".
Great analysis, but I would probably add that most (but not all) of those who end up with the six- and seven- figure salaries are smarter, more well-connected and socially adjusted, optimistic etc. Most _not_ all. And some are just really good bullshitters, of course.
Ever been to a third world country and seen happy people who make just a couple hundred bucks a month, yet are very healthy and happy? I have. It's very life changing.
Who are the historical figures that you revere the most? Did their positive influences upon your life originate from making and having money?
Having a couple of hundred bucks a month is fine when everybody around you has the same. It's hard to ignore when people around you have ten or a hundred times as much as you, especially when they start to shape society around themselves.
Small fusion reactors don't really solve any of the key challenges. You need reaction mass to accelerate, you run out of reaction mass way too quickly even with a magical energy source on board to throw it out the back of the ship really fast.
why, so they can watch corporate news from earth to get depressed? /s
Actually, it's a great question. Even if we have single photon sensitivity detectors, just what kind of power would a laser need? Or would it be some other area of the emf spectrum? Or some other kind of communication? Sci fi ventures into gravitational waves sometimes
Yup. Get outside. Screens are increasingly addictive by design. I am going outside now. Enjoy your days. Use the internet and your phone as tools, not separate realities.
I've been watching both the corporate media, and social media, rot completely over the past 30 years.
A large part of that was that early adopters tended to be more educated, played nicely, and were not involved in attention-seeking, sychophancy, and often, escapism.
Another factor is the bright colors, moving videos and other eye candy, and psychological hacks like the emojis for "liking" and gaining "followers" which produce addictive feedback loops.
Of course, this interview touches on valid points, but is not the whole picture. "Bad news travels fast" and gets more clicks. That helps explain the rot of the news media.
Maybe I am oversimplifying too, however. Factors like sophisticated persuasion campaigns by various organizations, for example, cannot be discarded. Likewise with the advertisers.
Agree strongly with your first factor. Early adopters often (though not always) self-select for higher-level interaction. This has been true of media dating back to cuneiform.
A third factor addressing 21st century media rot is the absolute dependence on advertising, and the demonitisation of earlier ad-supported formats (print newspapers, print magazines, radio, television, and increasingly non-social-media online platforms) as ads transferred first to "new media" (itself an old story, though dating somewhat more recently to the origins of mass-advertising in the mid-19th century), and ultimately to "adtech", with highly-personalised, highly-targeted advertising.
That latter both led advertisers to abandon non-targetable media (including generic online banner ads), and the increasing pandering of online media (especially Search and Social) to advertiser interests. This both killed ads-as-financial-foundation of other online media, and increasingly turned Search and Social into ad-delivery rather than information-delivery / community-connection platforms.
It's the odd standouts which have independent funding which are still relatively immune to this. HN is one of those, some sites such as Metafilter and the Metaverse are others online. Public media would be another notable exception, though of course it is being increasingly targeted as well, largely for political reasons, notably in the US (NPR, PBS, and the late CPB), and UK (BBC). It's healthier elsewhere, notably in my experience, Germany.
Sure, Germany has excellent journalism. I visit dw.com often. derspiegel has very in-depth quality journalism too. And many others surely exist, I just don't know about them.
100% agree about the personalization of news topics and stories. When I look at my spouse's newsfeed in the evening (she uses yahoo) I remark to her "that's clickbait" and get a relatively violent reaction. "Relatively" because normally she is very pleasant. But tailoring the media to past viewing history is potentially very dangerous. In the wrong hands, the news feed could be tweaked just a little bit, day by day, week by week, to enable or worsen certain biases. And surely, we see some of this daily already. Why else would billionaires purchase large US media companies?
The best guidance I've seen to have a well balanced view of world news, is to use several independent sources globally. Do not rely upon "newsfeeds" (doesn't it suggest that we are cattle in a way?), don't spend too much time in any one place, use a variety of search engines to confirm or disprove questionable conclusions, and try to read print books by reputable authors on topics that really fascinate us.
Nassim Talib offered some good advice in his books on the so-called "news" - if you really want to see the value in the news, try to go to the library for a print newspaper, and look at the news from a week ago. Is it really as important to you as the "news" today? Very often, it will seem completely meaningless, ancient history. If that is the case, we are getting something from the information other than the information itself. It's something that has to be tried to learn the lesson.
Advertising? I see very little, using linux with brave browser and various plug ins. When I use google chrome, the results are horrifying. I've used google for 30 years now, but have been de-googling for over a year now. It's been a healthy experience. I don't know what is happening with them. Maybe they abandoned the "don't be evil" prematurely?
One time I accidentally flicked onto German TV - I am not sure which channel - and they were talking about Berlin getting overrun by antisemitic mobs. I looked out my hotel window. No antisemitic mob.
I really don't think they're more reliable than UK or US media.
Well that kind of "news" is persistent and often completely false. Meanwhile churches and mosques and people get destroyed by the "best friend and ally" of the US. It's a coordinated disinformation campaign by the agency whose motto is "by deception we wage war"
Nothing to see here, move along move along.
I reconcile it by realizing that advertisers wield enormous power. Also, it's not called "good information" it's called "news" - nothing is promised in terms of guaranteed good factual content. And I remember that Palestinians are semites. So are Arabs. Immigrants from Eastern European flocking to the mideast are not semites at all.
The fact that most Palestinians are Semitic people and most modern Israelis are not Semitic is amusing, but we all know that when people say antisemitic they don't mean anti-Palestinian.
Because Reasons I found myself with ready access to cable television about a year ago and spent a few days sampling news from CNN, Bloomberg, and a few other sources. Mind that my understanding is that these are more substantive linear-programmed news sources. I found them all but unwatchable. Most of the airtime was spent either in speculation on what might occur, or (occasionally, for variety), largely uniformed commentary on something which just had, though and substantive specifics were virtually always lacking.
Another long-time preferred information source of mine has been On the Media, from WNYC, New York City. That's a one-hour weekly programme (with a shorter, usually 20--30 minute mid-week podcast episode), generally broken into 3--4 stories. These are typically interviews, pre-recorded and edited. The result is a considered take, usually on substantive stories of the previous week. The show's conceit is that it follows media rather than news, though the distinction is of course pretty blurry. Listening to that and checking headlines from a few sources through the week usually keeps me fairly informed on broad developments without wasting time and attention on irrelevancies.
I'll also subscribe to the individual-segments version of some national-level news programmes. A few times a month I might scan through those and listen to an in-depth segment (usually 3--9 minutes or so) on an item. Most segments, I find, are obviously either speculative or uninformed as with the 24/7 products by Bloomberg and CNN, despite being a once-a-day hourly show.
I've mentioned before on HN that NPR (US public radio network) has lost much quality in its drive to fully-live production starting after 9/11. Prior to that, most of the flagship news programme content (Morning Edition and All Things Considered (evening), as well as weekend programming) consisted of pre-recorded and edited segments, with a live news headlines cover at the top and bottom of the hour, and perhaps a live or at least recent-ish introduction from the programme hosts. With the switch to live production, all of the throat-clearing and jagged-edges of taking on live contributions, chasing guests off the end of their allotted time slots, and inability to edit for length, clarity, and relevance are apparent. I find the result generally both uninteresting and unlistenable.
A daily show which has retained pre-recorded, edited, production basis is The World, from WBUR/Boston. It has a fraction of the budget and staffing of NPR's flagships but produces a far more coherent product. The fact that it's also much less US-centric (despite being a US production) is also welcome respite from the insanity that comprises current US politics (and increasingly, other news-affine aspects).
As for personalisation: I was mostly referring to advertising. But you're quite right: for algorithmic- / AI-curated streams platforms, the specific content items presented to a reader/viewer are also selected by the platform, and generally not with the aim of informing that reader but in addicting them to that content. There's some interesting commentary from early days of the Internet on the hidden value of mass curation (as with large-scale print or broadcast media), or negative side-effects of "personalised" media. John Seeley Brown's The Social Life of Information (2000) addresses the first, Andrew J. Shapiro's The Control Revolution (1999) the second. More recently it's been noted that personalised targeting (of both advertising and "content") means that it's often difficult to assess what kinds of things others in your immediate community are being exposed to, both informally and for those researching media impacts.
NB: I'd meant to write Fediverse, not Metaverse. I'm referring to Mastodon and associated federated social networks, not the recent Facebook flop (well, one of several).
There's been spam, and some attempts at other forms of monetisation such as sex-work sites. The larger issue for advertising is that the protocol and hosting model are such that advertising isn't integral, or supported, is seen as counter to the person-centric focus of the platform, and hence is pretty readily shut down.
Contrast commercial social media which were envisioned from the start as ad-delivery mechanisms, with social interaction as a side effect.
That isn't to say that the Fediverse isn't susceptible to some forms of advertising, only that that tendency runs counter to the dynamics of the platform, rather than strongly aligning with them as is the case on Google Web Search, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter, etc., etc., etc.
Evidence is strong that people as a whole reject advertising. They may seek specific information or recommendations, but tend not to like getting spammed with irrelevant (and intrusive, invasive, and worse) messages. To that extent, so long as the Fediverse remains focused on its participants and not advertisers interests, it should remain fairly robustly resistant.
See similarly The Well and Metafilter, both of which though small had or have user cohorts which are fairly attractive to advertisers and marketers generally (affluent, educated, influential). But not being ad-dependent or ad-focused themselves, they've remained largely free of gratuitously promotional content.
By contrast, Google+, also quite small by modern standards[1], did find itself rather overrun by marketers and brands, at least for a time. Not ad-based, but Google pushed the marketing angle and branded content did become somewhat pervasive for a while.
a couple of decades ago there was viral advice going around about "the 1000 hour rule" saying that's how long it would take to master something new. Maybe it's time to refresh that?
Sure, and that's like asking an AIPAC bribed congress to stop the killing around you-know-who's neighbors. Money talks. But your idea is worth a try. Actually both of those ideas. Thanks. But I'll tell ya- over the past 15 years we just have waaaaay too much money here in America. The purists say "we don't print money" to which I reply "Bullshit" - we let banks print the money. And once you have all of these trillions floating around, they find pockets to fall into, influence to buy. But, your suggestion is good. If there are no voices heard, nobody has a voice. Gotta start somewhere. Thank you and stay safe.
OH JUST SAW that link.. thank you. So these forces are as strong as AIPAC. Good to know. FWIW, I try to be grassroots, just enlightening people one by one. Most don't want the truth. They want convenience, likes, thumbs up and worthless confirmation bias. But I'll try.
Anti AIPAC candidates have done very well over the last few months, and I expect this trend to continue. Elections have consequences. As long as young voters keep voting and old voters keep aging out, I expect progress to continue.
absolutely right. I am not antisemitic. All my career so many of my bosses and employees and coworkers were jewish. Because it was LA! And that is what really horrifies me. That they will all get impacted by all of this equating of zionism and judaism. What a huge lie. But the rampant destruction of innocent people repeatedly over long time spans is just severe mental illness. It's not genocidal. The real semites are the Palestinians! The diaspora jews are from Eastern europe. Our minds have been seriously fucked by this all. And tens of thousands of people get killed or displaced yearly. Can't they just stop?
oh jeez mossad operatives... that downvote. That is not rational behavior. It is either bots or some flunky following instructions. Infiltration of Silicon Valley is a foregone conclusion. Everyone I know that has cared for and loved the internet is completely disgusted with it at this point. Mission accomplished, Mossad? If you can't control it, destroy it? This is misanthropism. I don't trust any of you guys. Take your trillions and shove them up your ASSHOLE. Feel better now? I thought you would. It's all good.
Yes, and the fact that something like oral hygiene can influence AD would support your thesis. Often an infection in the gums/teeth can result in boils or worse in distant parts of the body. Add a dysfunctional blood brain barrier and you are screwed.
Ever hear the very early Talking Heads song, "Artists Only" - David Byrne remarks,
"pretty soon now, I will be bitter, pretty soon now, I will be a quitter. You... can't... see... it... til it's finished"
My father knew this too, intuitively. He did some really nice, not-for-profit, practical projects on a very low budget. He'd like to comment during those fruitful years, "now, that's a pregnant idea" - the point being, perhaps, that you want to allow the idea to develop way past the fertilization stage, before releasing it into the world. The British have a term, "half-baked idea" that may run along the same lines.
What a nice essay. Thank you, author! It's hard to imagine these insights being hatched by interactions on social media, where everyone is a critic, and always so cock-sure that their biases are so correct.
Of course, our educational system is loaded the the dialectic-style interaction style, where there is a dogma that the truth can be arrived at by negation of opinions through a Socratic question-and-answer dialogue, but that often often goes nowhere. In my most productive R&D experiences, where I was often the only guy in the lab who had various consultants milking the billable hours, the best bosses would give plenty of space for diving into trying this or that, because they respected that intuition needs to run free. Then, the numbers and other results would validate the assumptions or instincts. But just point-blank instinctively shooting down every new idea... often goes nowhere - and happens so often. Too often.
Thanks again.