Why would enjoying yourself be considered frivolous at all, other than by a badly understood protestant work ethic?
We're in life to make the best of ourselves and be happy, and playing games (especially social games, like networked Doom) is a powerful way to make yourself happy, thus a very transcendent activity. In the heath death of the universe, it won't matter if you spent your time having fun and enjoying life, or rather working yourself to death; but it will have made a deep difference to you.
Only if you pursue leisure to the point of becoming unhealthy would it become a frivolous approach; casual gameplay in a healthy environment has nothing frivolous IMHO.
The parallel is not with IBM, it's with 1984. Apple is well known for using the best tools that propaganda (aka advertising) has to offer to convince people that they're not merely buying a hardware product, but a lifestyle. Its former CEO who defined its commercial culture was known for his "reality distortion field", for gosh sakes.
The trick is not changing the mind of the nazis, it's reaching the people that may be on the brink of being convinced by them. You can't do that if the discourse of nazis is being delivered through hidden channels.
> the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Everyone with a technical mind here will think that "adding friction" is about inserting delays in transfer protocols, which is a stupid idea.
But the article is not about technical bandwidth, but about social conventions. It *is* a good idea to reduce the amount of exposure to bad actors, as every security specialist can tell you. Spam filters, white lists and ad blockers add friction to transmission, and we all consider those a good thing, even if sometimes you need to recover false positives from within the filters.
Similarly, closed group-based social networks like Whatsapp are less prone than Twitter to focusing noise onto a single spot. Twitter is known for destroying the life of people in a few hours, and it happens because of the speed with which information on a topic can propagate through the network and concentrate the discussion of the whole internet on the timeline of a single person or reduced group. If the topic needs to propagate slowly through several closed groups, it is less prone to produce the same burning effect.
Pursuing those objectives - isolating one from bad content, reducing speed of propagation, distributing replicated info through several smaller channels - is a good use for social friction in the net.
it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors
In fact, that's the reason why we need peer-reviewed science. If there were no errors, we could produce science by means oracles right off pronouncing perfectly accurate theorems.
Aaaaand that's the reason it works (sort of). Compare it to h2g2, the collaborative encyclopedia that predated it, to see what you get when anything goes.
The United States of America refers to a collection of states within the whole north-south continent as well. So, a subset of all states in the continent. Yet people in that collection of states use the name of the whole continent to refer to a part of it. Also Oxford:
Synecdoche: A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.
Oh, they didn't? They call themselves Americans? They say that they live in America? Do tell... Well yes, they do. Just like people in Europe call ourselves Europeans. Maybe it's you who don't know Spanish or Portuguese?
That may be because those other countries don't speak in English. "América" refers to the whole north-south continent in Spanish and Portuguese. The rest of the world didn't "cede the name", they simply weren't using it in your language, but theirs.
I don't know if it's inevitable, but it's an observed phenomenon that wealth distribution follows a poder law, and it makes sense that it might be so from how money flows towards those who already have it.
A power law distribution is a common mathematical outcome in dynamic systems where the one with a small initial advantage is in a better position to outperform the rest in next competitions, so the advantage is cumulative. This has entered common knowledge as the proverb "money begets money".
Sure there is. Raise the top marginal tax rates, and introduce Thomas Piketty's idea of a (net) wealth tax.
Sure, that reduces the inequality, and it's what I was referring to by " bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them". But it doesn't eliminate the existence of a ruling class with access to more resources. The human kind is simply not wired for that - as a society, we long for leaders and put anyone in that position when there's a vacuum of power.
I'm afraid the more we can achieve in terms of social justice is trying to keep a balance between the top and bottom, so that the rulers don't abuse their position too much and must face balances and a structured opposition. But having a power-law distribution of influence is a natural result of network effects, and our best chance is flattening the curve, not straighten it.
Apparently, human society has a tendency to concentrate resources and influence following a power law distribution, and there's not much that can be done about that.
What matters is how steep is the curve. There will always be some with way more resources than they can use; but there should be mechanisms to bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them.
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
Lucky you. I went to cancel a bank account (that I had from at a previous bank before a merger), and the system wouldn't even print the cancelation contract before I signed the pad. Sometimes it's not that the office won't show you the contract, it's that the software itself doesn't even consider it a possibility.
Yes, but that doesn't matter, because the core technology (the software ecosystem, platform, and room-scale tracking) belongs to Valve. HTC just provides some industrial assemblage and quality control, which Valve may replace anytime with a different vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would enjoying yourself be considered frivolous at all, other than by a badly understood protestant work ethic?
We're in life to make the best of ourselves and be happy, and playing games (especially social games, like networked Doom) is a powerful way to make yourself happy, thus a very transcendent activity. In the heath death of the universe, it won't matter if you spent your time having fun and enjoying life, or rather working yourself to death; but it will have made a deep difference to you.
Only if you pursue leisure to the point of becoming unhealthy would it become a frivolous approach; casual gameplay in a healthy environment has nothing frivolous IMHO.
The parallel is not with IBM, it's with 1984. Apple is well known for using the best tools that propaganda (aka advertising) has to offer to convince people that they're not merely buying a hardware product, but a lifestyle. Its former CEO who defined its commercial culture was known for his "reality distortion field", for gosh sakes.
You weren't around during IE6's dominance of the web, were you?
the ad was commenting on the "big brother"-ness of IBM and their mono-culture. Apple was the subversive liberator.
Hence, the irony.
The trick is not changing the mind of the nazis, it's reaching the people that may be on the brink of being convinced by them. You can't do that if the discourse of nazis is being delivered through hidden channels.
âoeWar is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.â
What, you thought only communism used propaganda?
This comes from the people who made the infamous 1984 ad.
> the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Everyone with a technical mind here will think that "adding friction" is about inserting delays in transfer protocols, which is a stupid idea.
But the article is not about technical bandwidth, but about social conventions. It *is* a good idea to reduce the amount of exposure to bad actors, as every security specialist can tell you. Spam filters, white lists and ad blockers add friction to transmission, and we all consider those a good thing, even if sometimes you need to recover false positives from within the filters.
Similarly, closed group-based social networks like Whatsapp are less prone than Twitter to focusing noise onto a single spot. Twitter is known for destroying the life of people in a few hours, and it happens because of the speed with which information on a topic can propagate through the network and concentrate the discussion of the whole internet on the timeline of a single person or reduced group. If the topic needs to propagate slowly through several closed groups, it is less prone to produce the same burning effect.
Pursuing those objectives - isolating one from bad content, reducing speed of propagation, distributing replicated info through several smaller channels - is a good use for social friction in the net.
it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors
In fact, that's the reason why we need peer-reviewed science. If there were no errors, we could produce science by means oracles right off pronouncing perfectly accurate theorems.
''Is there anything news worthy about the notion that our models might be incomplete?''
Yes, if it also provides the seed for an idea on how to make one particular model more complete and therefore more accurate.
The more people repeat it, the more people think it actually exists.
So, how is that any different from regular property?
Aaaaand that's the reason it works (sort of). Compare it to h2g2, the collaborative encyclopedia that predated it, to see what you get when anything goes.
That's what Wikia is for.
The United States of America refers to a collection of states within the whole north-south continent as well.
So, a subset of all states in the continent. Yet people in that collection of states use the name of the whole continent to refer to a part of it. Also Oxford:
Synecdoche:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.
Oh, they didn't? They call themselves Americans? They say that they live in America? Do tell...
Well yes, they do. Just like people in Europe call ourselves Europeans. Maybe it's you who don't know Spanish or Portuguese?
Don't worry too much. Unlike your old photos, the internet's got a copy of the trophies that you can check anytime.
That may be because those other countries don't speak in English. "América" refers to the whole north-south continent in Spanish and Portuguese. The rest of the world didn't "cede the name", they simply weren't using it in your language, but theirs.
Employees, not so much. Haven't you heard of their practices treating employees as automatons, with harsh working conditions for low pay?
The mathematical law that shows why wealth flows to the 1%
I don't know if it's inevitable, but it's an observed phenomenon that wealth distribution follows a poder law, and it makes sense that it might be so from how money flows towards those who already have it.
A power law distribution is a common mathematical outcome in dynamic systems where the one with a small initial advantage is in a better position to outperform the rest in next competitions, so the advantage is cumulative. This has entered common knowledge as the proverb "money begets money".
Sure there is. Raise the top marginal tax rates, and introduce Thomas Piketty's idea of a (net) wealth tax.
Sure, that reduces the inequality, and it's what I was referring to by " bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them". But it doesn't eliminate the existence of a ruling class with access to more resources. The human kind is simply not wired for that - as a society, we long for leaders and put anyone in that position when there's a vacuum of power.
I'm afraid the more we can achieve in terms of social justice is trying to keep a balance between the top and bottom, so that the rulers don't abuse their position too much and must face balances and a structured opposition. But having a power-law distribution of influence is a natural result of network effects, and our best chance is flattening the curve, not straighten it.
Apparently, human society has a tendency to concentrate resources and influence following a power law distribution, and there's not much that can be done about that.
What matters is how steep is the curve. There will always be some with way more resources than they can use; but there should be mechanisms to bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them.
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
This is the year of Linux on the desktop! :-P
Lucky you. I went to cancel a bank account (that I had from at a previous bank before a merger), and the system wouldn't even print the cancelation contract before I signed the pad. Sometimes it's not that the office won't show you the contract, it's that the software itself doesn't even consider it a possibility.
How many do you speak?
Yes, but that doesn't matter, because the core technology (the software ecosystem, platform, and room-scale tracking) belongs to Valve. HTC just provides some industrial assemblage and quality control, which Valve may replace anytime with a different vendor.
But, whatever, someone must want it
Of course someone wants it: the sellers and advertisers. That's why you're not given the option to disable it completely.