Yeah but that convenience is very useful.
I think we're just talking past eachother. Remotes make watching tv way easier. The question is whether some of these internet enabled devices make things easier or not.
Yeah but in order to reach that conclusion you have to abstract too much. We can all agree that devices are and will change how we live. But now we're not talking about VR, Smart TVs, or the Internet of Things anymore. Because the truth is, we never know what form the next wave of technology will take. And that's why I'd rather experiment than prophesize.
I agree that the chips could be cheaper with the right killer app. It's a matter of time. Tech "thought leaders" think that time is now. I think it's still a few years off.
But what solves the issue of being useless? And what is that price-lowering killer app gonna be if IOT means shoving a wifi adapter in your blender?
Remember in the 90s when everyone said virtual reality and smart TVs were the next wave of high tech? And how all the big companies started putting money into R&D for said technologies? Remember how it never materialized? (Well, it's being realized now, 2 decades late.)
The "internet of things" is the same shit. Something people like to mention at TED conferences. But do we want it? Is the market ready for it? No one's asking that. If you ask me, we're not ready. At the moment, the tech is too expensive and too useless. A few things will win out with affluent customers (thermostats, audio systems). But putting chips in everything we own is a far off dream.
No, the point is, people without a password manager tend to use the same password for every account. So you steal the bank password, and it opens your email, facebook, and everything else. Hundreds of failure points. With a password manager, there is just one.
> I'm not going to lie, the social pressure is non-zero, and it is indeed another lever for micromanagers to pull, but I think you're being overly pessimistic here.
Anyone who's ever worked a job in the US and seen the toxic work culture can tell you, you can never be too pessimistic.
>More power to employers is coming whether we like it or not and eternal vigilance will be required to stave off the above said toxicity.
What we need are laws that forbid employers to use this.
Not saying our choices don't matter, but we often attribute too much of our own success to our choices, and not our circumstance. Gives off a distorted view of reality. Coming to terms with the truth would be easier.
I'm sick of everyone shaming the guy for having 4 kids. It's not like he can reverse time and stop them from being born. So saying he can't afford kids only serves the purpose of making the guy feel bad. Besides, you don't know enough about his situation to criticize his decision to have children.
Thinking out of the box is not mutually exclusive with having a social life. I know many artists and musicians who are doing truly groundbreaking stuff. They all violate the social norms, and have unusual lifestyles. But all of them are very well connected (in art, you have to be). Their social networks are very broad, and very strong.
He's not saying to obsess or be a workaholic. He's saying be creative. The way to be creative is to relax and let your thoughts drift.
Key word: Material quality of life. So we're saving money on plastic deck chairs and pringles cans. But the cost of health insurance, real estate, and higher education has gone up.
" I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett actually wanting to keep people from resources or excess wealth if they had no use for it."
1. Na, some wealthy people would totally do that. It's their hard earned money and they're entitled to spend it however they want, after all. Get a job and stop looking for handouts!
2. Who says they even have excess wealth to begin with? I may make a billion dollars a year, but I'm living in this cramped mansion, and I've still got payments on my super-yacht. Living this lavish lifestyle is expensive!
All the shitty things we do to websites is to make money. We stuff them full of ads because ads make money. We load 10 megabytes of JS trackers because it helps the ads make money. We paginate articles in order to show more ads, to make money. We add unnecessary columns of social media streams, related articles, and share widgets to trap people in an endless cycle of clicks (to see more ads. To make more money.)
I don't think we have to give up libraries and interpreted languages. Just stop writing shit code because your boss needs it done in 5 minutes. Of course, thats our bosses fault, not ours. And its a symptom of a larger cultural attitude that values short term profits over long term sustainability. I say, why bother!
> It's almost impossible to force cultural change on a country.
A few decades ago, a majority of Americans didn't support gay marriage. Now it has majority support, and is legal in every state. This didn't happen by accident either. A lot of groups were involved in promoting gay rights and funding legal battles across the country. This isn't the first time this happened either: women's rights, civil rights, etc. Even today, organized groups are winning hearts and minds in the fight for criminal justice reform and marijuana legalization. So it's very possible to instigate cultural change (perhaps force is a strong word). It just takes a long time.
"That's just not how it works" isn't a reasoned argument. Tell us the real reason why you insist on working yourself to exhaustion despite solid evidence that it makes you less productive.
I've noticed that some designers are really copyists. They can't create an original look for a website. They merely copy whatever style is popular. They moved from faux wood finishes to completely flat, and now they seem to think "material" is a design movement, and not a limited set of guidelines from Google. No doubt, they will get jobs making everything look material, until the next fad rolls along.
You shouldn't put an emphasis on gender. But the numbers and stories like these prove that most people do, even if unconsciously. All of us are subject to biases, and pretending like you're above this reeks of hubris.
That's why there are multiple stories. So someone reading can see the whole range of women's experience in technology. I'm sure there will be some good, some bad.
I HATE when people split up a long paragraph into tweets like this. It's absolutely the worst format for reading long text. You can only read one sentence at a time, and you have to read them backwards! If you can't fit an argument in a single tweet, link to a blog post!
The artists have no right to complain. They were the ones asking for money in the first place. They promised the public they would deliver on the "toy." They underestimated what it would take to make the game. The backers are not free of responsibility, but the artists also have to accept blame.