3,410 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2021
    1. When “Deliciously Deviant Deviant Art!” went live in August 2000, it focused on wallpapers and webskins

      Huh! I spent long enough on that website I ought to have known this.

    2. Broskoski, of are.na, who was involved in net art communities in the 1990s, remembered making a site called “Welcometohell.com,” which listed links to other websites—a common practice at the time. “You were sort of making or creating who you were by pointing at the other things that you liked,” he explained.

      This is one of the biggest motivations for me for how I approach the internet. "Blogging is pointing at things and falling in love."

    1. deliberately and carefully think about what is absent.

      Negative space is cited. "Who isn't in the room." What would a person never think about in this context?

    1. That's one of the consumer impacts of Amazon is that there's this narrowing of the products that we see, and thus a narrowing of that we might find.

      blinks in BBW-MMF-werewolf-romance trend (Really, though, does this not count KDP as Amazon, or....)

    2. There's some data that shows that if you're in a physical bookstore, you're in a local bookstore in particular, you're about three times as likely to discover some book that you didn't know about that you'd like to read than if you're shopping on Amazon.

      I would really like to see this data, and also how it weighs up against people's frequency of visiting a physical bookstore vs. Amazon

    1. “As enclosure by the lords increased national productivity by denying the individual peasant to keep a few sheep,” Illich continued, “so the encroachment of the loudspeaker has destroyed that silence which so far had given each man and woman his or her proper and equal voice. Unless you have access to a loudspeaker, you now are silenced.”

      Hmm. What is the mythical before here where people had equal voices?

    2. What if we saw attention in the same way that we saw air or water, as a valuable resource that we hold in common? Perhaps, if we could envision an ‘attentional commons,’ then we could figure out how to protect it.”

      The job we do at protecting air and water is shoddy enough that I don't find this vision inspiring.

    3. the drive to render our experience quantifiable and subject to computational analysis. Life conducted within the metaverse is already reduced to data. If we were running up against the limits of profitably data-mining human experience in the so called “real world,” then translating even more of our experience into a realm of virtual simulacrum would open up a new frontier. Alternatively, if you’ve run out of physical goods to sell and physical spaces in which to place ads, then a new persistent virtual realm solves those problems.

      This sounds like it lends too much credence to the sales pitches of digital ad people. Better to say that people are starting to catch on to the true value of all the ads-ads-ads, so to have a new bubble to hawk, you must tell people it's a New Paradigm.

    4. There is now no time during which it is not possible to engage in commercial activity, and I am hard pressed to think of instances where it is discouraged by the force of custom or principle.

      Hosting still has this: you can't charge guests you've invited into your home for any aspect of the experience.

    5. This is not to discount the fact that digital media has, in fact, has been a boon to many, helping, for example, to alleviate the loneliness of those who might remain isolated and alone without it, or supplying opportunities for many who would’ve languished otherwise. But one can acknowledge and celebrate such things without disparaging “reality” or implying that a good life for most people will depend on their immersion in ever more elaborate digital simulations.

      And also: what can we learn about how we should shape our non-digital practices and spaces from the good that's come of certain attributes of digital culture?

    6. The problem is recast as one of ontological deficiency rather than economic or political failure. It suggests that what is broken is reality itself rather than what we have made of it. Thus the solution is building a technologically mediated simulation that can improve on this broken reality rather than the work of building a more just society.

      Yes, yes, yes.

    7. To note one recent example, when Clubhouse, an audio-only social platform, was a big deal earlier this year, it was not uncommon to come across someone claiming that it marked the return of oral culture, culture characterized by the spoken word rather than writing. (There were, to be sure, more and less sophisticated versions of this claim.) But this was always impossible. Better to say, I think, that Clubhouse or Discord might retrieve certain aspects of orality, but there can be no return to orality because you cannot undo the effects of literacy.

      This doesn't seem right to me. Within one discipline you can't "go back", maybe, but individuals are incredibly plastic and absorb different norms in their different spheres of activity. Socializing online used to be more literate, and now it's more oral, and saying it's Not Really That seems wrong.

    1. There is, however, one Fuggerei rule that remains difficult to enforce. Original residents of the Fuggerei were asked to offer three prayers a day for Jakob Fugger and his family. Several residents currently living in the complex were coy about their adherence to the rule. Several said they interpret it more broadly, spending a few minutes a day reflecting on things they're grateful for. 

      I don't know why this irritates me so much. You are paying $1.30 a year for an apartment and you can't be bothered to send up a "good luck, Fugger" when you eat?

    1. Readers of the future are likely to want even more digital content, but it may not look the same as it does now. Audible, which is owned by Amazon, has already made listening to books more like streaming, with subscribers gaining access to a shifting catalogue of audiobooks that they do not need to buy separately. “We have moved away from owning, to accessing,” Mirela Roncevic, a longtime publishing and library consultant, told me.

      Yes, we've moved from owning to accessing, but that's what I was always using the library for! In some sense, I don't like the emphasis on "isn't it weird that these books aren't like physical ones" because it's so important not to miss what's really going on: control shifting further to the most powerful/wealthy entities in this whole ecosystem.

    2. Books, like music and movies and TV shows, are increasingly something that libraries and readers do not own but, rather, access temporarily, from corporations that do.

      I was fine not owning books and accessing them temporarily from a library that does, because my library is democratically governed by my community for the good of all.

    3. But, Inouye added, OverDrive’s influence is an important counterweight to the largest publishers and to Amazon, which dominates the consumer e-book market and operates as a publisher in its own right. (Amazon did not make its own e-books available to libraries until May, when it announced a deal with the Digital Public Library of America.) When I asked Potash about the concern that consolidation could also give OverDrive too much influence over the market, he called that “a far-fetched conspiracy theory.”

      I feel like "well, we layered a monopoly over our slice of the market, but the other slices are also super concentrated so really we're the good guys" is not a great argument.

    1. The process starts with concept art, and then the artists start building props and other elements of the diorama. Once completed, the set is photographed, turned into a 3D model, and transported into the game engine, where it can then be enhanced with effects like lighting or fog.

      I adore photogrammetry in the creation of virtual spaces. There's one post from back in the day I'm still trying to find, from the same folks who later did this, I think, where they show a mushroom being scanned in. The physical creation of assets gives a totally different feel, like being able to move around inside a Laika set.

    1. Normally people solve this by simply block quoting themselves, but this is a waste of an opportunity. The indented block quote is a print medium invention almost as old as typesetting. The block quote is plaintext, it is not actually linked to the original text or its context. I’ve been experimenting with one idea for a solution, and if you’ve read the last couple blog posts you’ll have seen it there. My stab at an answer is an iframe which shows the quote within its original context and gives a hint at its surroundings. Effectively, it’s a transclusion within my own blog.

      I believe very firmly that this is the Correct way of doing such a thing. All the hairs on my arms stand up -- in a good way -- at the iframe being returned to semantic use.

    2. To quote yourself, you’ll need to create an <a> anchor tag in the markdown file for the post you want to quote. If you wish to highlight a specific piece of text, instead create a <span></span> around the section you want to quote. Note that this can only be on your own website—it doesn’t work cross domain.

      Boy, we of the Markdown persuasion sure do have some catching up to do with the outliners where this kind of thing is concerned...

    3. “Hypertext books,” online books which are made up of an abundance of interlinked HTML pages, are mostly unpopular. The failure of this experiment is, in my opinion, very revealing.

      I just don't think you can say this is true in a world where Wikipedia exists. Sure, "[facts] are only rendered meaningful within narratives", and linear narratives are the digestible ones, but non-linear structures enable the reader to construct a narrative via the linear encounter they have with the text. (Naturally, my supporting citation here is going to be "Taft in a wet t-shirt contest".)

      If I want to be a different kind of insufferable about this, I could say a (linear) path is necessarily created in the traversal of a graph.

    1. I'll end with my original claim: If your personal website turns into an "app", you're doing it wrong.

      Do you like how the author never addresses the differences in functionality between the websites? If you want something that can't be done in a document paradigm, you are bad for wanting that, because documents are what the web is for, because everything that can be done in documents can be done in documents anyway.

    2. Like most websites, mckinley.cc doesn't need much more than basic formatting and hyperlinks, so why shouldn't it work well on NCSA Mosaic 2.7?

      This is putting the burden on an extremely weird side of the argument without justifying it. Why should one put any attention or effort into making it work on NCSA Mosaic 2.7? Do you have friends using that? How is this more reasonable than using a tech stack for fun?

    3. They are h2 tags, for some reason, and they require JavaScript to implement hyperlinking functionality. The user can't even see where the links go by hovering over them with his mouse. Why was it designed this way? I couldn't tell you

      Couldn't have anything to do with the fact the site was made by a college student, right? Who might still be learning? Let's just call it idiocy!

    4. Not only does it require over 200 kilobytes of JavaScript to put text on the screen, most of it is external JavaScript, served from a CDN.

      And why are all these restaurants serving foreign food? We're in America!

    5. You must also choose to allow the owner of that website to execute arbitrary code on your computer.

      I also prefer websites that work without js! But let's not pretend that Stallman constitutes the midpoint of the tech use spectrum...

    6. you must have a new or advanced enough Web browser capable of running a (probably poorly written) script to fetch the document and put it on the screen

      If we're complaining about term use, I would like to nominate "new" referring to 15+ year old stuff.

    7. Your serverless, headless, Micropub-powered personal website is unreliable precisely because you chose to introduce unnecessary complexity. Just use a static site generator like mkws and call it a day.

      What a nasty way to talk about someone's project linking to a post where they say

      It’s massively over-engineered! But that’s the point: learn, have fun and enjoy slowly hacking away after the kids go to bed.

      Yeah, screw fun and learning, amirite?

  2. Aug 2021
    1. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from conventions and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement should not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it. “I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s right to beautiful, radiant things.

      I'm not going to pretend I'm well-read enough to have Thoughts about Anarchism, but "freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things" is something I am tucking deep into my heart.

    1. A 2017 study found a correlation between high levels of PFAS in the air and in human blood serum, and the new study used modeling that found that kindergarteners were probably exposed to more PFAS by breathing them in than by ingesting the compounds.

      Poor kiddos.

    2. Also notable are the types of PFAS that the study detected. Among the most prevalent was 6:2 FTOH, a compound used in floor waxes, stain guards and food packaging.

      One thing I've been really curious about is how the pandemic has changed what we've all been exposed to. I live in a new-construction building, and the ventilation is terrible For The Sake Of The Environment. Being in here means that whatever I'm breathing in, I'm breathing in a lot of.

      But there are no industrial cleaners in my home, no "commercial-strength" anything. Certainly no floor wax. How does this differ from being in an office or a school?

    1. For years, Netflix has identified its competition as “leisure” at large:“As discussed in our Long-Term View, we compete with all the activities that consumers have at their disposal in their leisure time. This includes watching content on other streaming services, linear TV, DVD or TVOD but also reading a book, surfing YouTube, playing video games, socializing on Facebook, going out to dinner with friends or enjoying a glass of wine with their partner, just to name a few.” - Netflix IR

      The varying value of all these things to the individual / society is staggering.

    1. You know this is how it works, right? It has to be. You can infer it from how bad the ads are.

      I like the universalization of anecdote. Actually, my Instagram ads are really great, and they're really great in ways that involve sophisticated profiling, and none of that has anything to do with the fact that I, a person who has never gotten a driver's license or learner's permit or owned even a fragment of an automobile, see car insurance ads on YouTube pretty constantly.

    2. Let's be clear: the best targeted ads I will ever see are the ones I get from a search engine when it serves an ad for exactly the thing I was searching for. Everybody wins: I find what I wanted, the vendor helps me buy their thing, and the search engine gets paid for connecting us. I don't know anybody who complains about this sort of ad. It's a good ad.

      This is where I discover the author has not thought as much about ads as they think they have.

      Consider: why would someone pay for this ad? What result would the search engine be incentivized to offer organically if no ad were present?

    3. Someone who works on web search once told me that they already have an algorithm that guarantees the maximum click-through rate for any web search: just return a page full of porn links. (Someone else said you can reverse this to make a porn detector: any link which has a high click-through rate, regardless of which query it's answering, is probably porn.) Now, the thing is, legitimate-seeming businesses can't just give you porn links all the time, because that's Not Safe For Work, so the job of most modern recommendation algorithms is to return the closest thing to porn that is still Safe For Work. In other words, celebrities (ideally attractive ones, or at least controversial ones), or politics, or both. They walk that line as closely as they can, because that's the local maximum for their profitability. Sometimes they accidentally cross that line, and then have to apologize or pay a token fine, and then go back to what they were doing. This makes me sad, but okay, it's just math. And maybe human nature. And maybe capitalism. Whatever. I might not like it, but I understand it.

      This deserves an essay. Is it fundamental to human nature that this be true? Are there other attributes that guide us toward this?

    1. I can hardly remember the days before I became a man of tungsten. How distant those days seem now, how burdened by the apparent heaviness of everyday objects. I laugh at the philistines who still operate in a world devoid of tungsten, their shoulders thin and unempowered by the experience of bearing tungsten. Ha, what fools, blissful in their ignorance, anesthetized by their lack of meaningful struggle, devoid of passion.Nietzsche once said that a man who has a why can bear almost any how. But a man who has a tungsten cube can bear any object less dense, and all this talk of why and how becomes unnecessary.

      I didn't want one before reading this.

    1. To Jeremy’s point, the onus should not be on web developers to keep track of older APIs in danger of deprecation. substr is an API that’s been in browser since, well, as far back as caniuse.com tracks browser support. alert, confirm, and prompt are the same. Green boxes back to the year 2002.

      It is now necessary to include megabytes and megabytes of instruments in a page to play MIDI files that used to Just Work. I resent this deeply.

    1. On questions of the divine and the ineffable, do philosophers really have more access to truth than, say, clergy?

      This isn't what the concept of "being out of your lane" is about.

    1. Get someone to review it Get a lot of someones to review it

      While this is good process, I don't think it's good advice. A lot more people could be doing a lot more cool blogging if they didn't view each post as a mini-book. I know I'm the type to endlessly flog The Garden and the Stream, but... we're on the internet. You can go back and improve things after they're out. You don't need to plan publication like a Supreme drop.

      It can also be true that a blog post can usefully be "hey look at this." Kottke here has a sentence of context, a chunk excerpted, then a chunk of his own reaction. This is a totally fine way to blog. More people should do more of it because it adds more value than letting algorithms sort things with hearts and upvotes.

    2. What should the title look like? yes yes yes: I discovered bees can talk but unfortunately they are racist i’m begging you not to do this: It’s not just Barry from Bee Movie who might have a secret The title should represent the post as much as possible. It should prepare the reader emotionally for the clown carnival ride you are about to take them on. It should be the opposite of clickbait.

      I've had a lot of fun approaching titling with the approach of attracting the reader who will enjoy the piece. One reason why the latter example is bad is that if I'm imagining spicy interpersonal (interbee?) drama, click through to find a bee soap opera, and then find an indictment of bee racism, I will be disappointed. If you find the detail "those pavé eternity rings were created because they needed to sell smaller diamonds from the Soviet Union" interesting, you're probably going to enjoy the whole longread linked to, never mind its main thesis. Sometimes just summarizing e.g. that "a merriam-webster.com editor had some fun writing about the words supposably and supposedly" does the trick.

    1. As we begin to rely on ever more complex technological systems, the shadow work required to support them balloons, as does the need for increasingly stringent, technocratic regulation.

      I'm not convinced "regulation" is a villain here, but I bet I'm missing a lot through not having read the book.

      I would love to have a good reference to point to about how computers' productivity gains aren't really realized through, you know, offices becoming unnecessary, so much as typists becoming spreadsheet masters.

    2. The importance of limits is a key touchpoint in Illich’s thought. He identified the “vernacular” domain as fundamental to the flourishing of human autonomy. From the Latin vernaculum, meaning “homebred, homespun, homegrown, homemade,” Illich took it to comprise the broad spectrum of agricultural techniques, building styles, culinary traditions, and language patterns that emerge when non-economic, non-standard modes of being are allowed to thrive.

      Cf. Tim Bray and efficiency. Also, cf. my own thoughts about everything I love in this world being somehow an expression of inefficiency.

    3. Here, he draws on Karl Polanyi, author of the 1944 book The Great Transformation, who saw the transition to a market-based system as a historical turning point in human relations. Polanyi famously noted that as the market comes to dominate, “instead of economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system.”

      ...woof.

    4. He saw modern-day institutions as successors of the Church, which evolved into a homogenizing, bureaucratic apparatus that made individuals dependent on its authority to fulfill the Christian vision of the good. In other words, stripping people of the capacity for autonomous decision-making and action — whether via professionalization, technocratic governance, or otherwise — is not always worth the added safety that regulation provides. As Illich writes in Tools for Conviviality, “institutions are functional when they promote a delicate balance between what people can do for themselves and what tools at the service of anonymous institutions can do for them.”

      This is very strange, because nothing about the Church as she is meant to be can possibly be read as "anonymous." I wonder if this is mostly non-Catholic reading of the text.

    5. In a memorable quote from Deschooling Society, he refers to the “pedagogical hubris” that is “our belief that man can do what God cannot, namely, manipulate others for their own salvation.”

      This also points to the idea that it isn't that -- you know, it isn't that people should build their homes without any access to expert knowledge any more than it makes sense to seek salvation outside of relation with the God Illich is comparing to.

    6. Modern humans have created instruments of such immense power that hyperregulation has become necessary to circumvent catastrophic harm. Since we have cars, most people would prefer that those permitted to drive them pass a test demonstrating their ability to do so without causing damage or injury.

      This rings hollow to me because I was just reading about the percentage of men who died of cart accidents in the haying season in medieval England.

    7. Meanwhile, employment in the formal economy can only be sustained by “shadow work,” a term Illich coined for unpaid tasks like domestic labor, grocery shopping, and car maintenance that drain people of time and energy for other pursuits.

      Weird to segment this out as "draining" when of course all of the "doin' it for ourselves" aspect of the pre-professionalized labor that's being idealized here is the same

    8. Whereas people used to build their own homes according to their unique specifications, today such an undertaking is discouraged, or even illegal. Instead, plans are drawn up by a licensed architect, and construction carried out by a team of wage workers. “When dwelling by people is transformed into housing for people,” Illich writes, paraphrasing architect John Turner, “housing is changed from an activity into a commodity.”

      Reminds me strongly of that piece about 2000s beige.

    9. Arguably, as careers have become increasingly specialized, we have ceded too many spheres of activity to experts, institutions, and markets.

      I am less interested in the idea of our needing to do those things by ourselves for ourselves, and more in the idea that "experts" and "institutions" and "markets" mean not just that we're not doing it ourselves, but that it's not being done within the context of a social relationship with the other who might do it / help us.

    10. Illich connects the creation of scarcity and the loss of specificity to the rise of professional authority on which we have become overly reliant.

      I really like this aspect, and I think it needs a lot more exploration by people who aren't just saying "and therefore let's all whittle our own spoons." I like how zine culture embodied an idea of "it's not that this isn't too important to do ourselves, it's that it's too important to leave to others."

    11. By erasing specificity — which encapsulates the history of each thing, its kinship with other beings, and its participation in a community that defines it according to its own cultural and social norms — the world can be reconfigured in terms of resources amenable to any and every use, and which are always in limited supply.

      Contra animism, which demands we consider each Thing as an entity with identity.

    1. You know you’re at least supposed to try to establish a sense of unity and proportion for the overall composition of your memory palace, right? Do you think your enemies have been going in there when you’re not looking and making it worse? Because that’s honestly the only explanation I can think of that makes sense. You know why it’s called a primary organizing detail? Because there’s just one. You can’t just slap a bunch of bell towers and colonnades wherever and think it’s going to result in a memorably-arranged, discretely-distinct floor plan. It’s not. I mean, it is memorable, but not at the level of detail. I remember that your memory palace is a fucking mess, but I wouldn’t put, like, a premise in there fore safekeeping. Great job cultivating a genteel retreat for your most private self inside your fucking mind, dude. I wouldn’t even put a fucking inference in there. Have some self-respect.

      As far as I can remember, this is a new ironically adopted tone for Daniel (among his many successful adopted tones, he might as well run a sanctuary for Senior Adopted Tones) and I'm loving it. 10/10

    1. Before reading any farther on this site, This website is not made for poser vamps, close-minded people, or those who think that they are, or claim to be a vampire because they think the spirit of a vampire entered them at some time making them a vampire. We call these people posers, which they are; they are confused lost children. This site is not here for them in any way! It is for real vampires, curious people, and open-minded skeptics.

      You know, I used to find this kind of thing incredibly cringe-inducing, but I no longer do. Sure, guys! Be "real vampires." Life's rich tapestry. Think of the chutzpah it takes to publish this, all the way out on Al Gore's internet where anybody can run into it. Fabulous.

    1. Fashion and the public space upon which it depends are both participatory zones in which culture is created, and neither is meant to be consumed individualistically. Fashion can be understood as a collective experience of the zeitgeist in which everyone can participate, which is open to innovations from outsiders. The tech industry would like to reimagine it as a series of fully instrumentalized status signifiers that attest to our social rank and are always already integrated into branded “universes” of intellectual property.

      This is a bit too shiny a view on fashion, I think -- consider its long-tortured relations with luxury and exploitation.

    2. Like its disdain for fashion, tech’s myopically optimistic take on the metaverse exposes its contempt for public space.

      What could make a virtual space public? Material structure, protocols, cultural norms...?

    3. Fashion on platforms is simply an informational commodity that translates into algorithmic rankings, ad valuations, and cash transactions. Those platforms monetize what was previously more difficult to cash in on: the everyday value in looking and being looked at — the process that constitutes Arendt’s reality. In digitally mediated or augmented spaces, the benefits created by fashion can be more readily captured by the wearer: The views, likes, and followers that accrue to an influencer or a brand equate to potential advertising revenue or direct merchandise sales, with less spillover. The value of that data also accrues to the platform itself, which can synthesize the behavior of its aggregate user base into far more valuable information products, such as ad targeting, trend identification, and other marketing efforts. Social media platforms thus structure a reality in which all “shared appearances” are also implicit transactions that can and should be priced. As long as fashion is happening in public, from this perspective, it is essentially a waste.

      How can I target my energies to positive "waste" externalities?

    4. In other words, fashion conveys not just specific trends or an individual’s personal style but a sense of the public itself, of shared space. Fashion implies a desire to see and be seen while affirming the need for public spaces and occasions where that seeing can occur. The manner in which fashion circulates and evolves speaks to the kind of shared reality that we are constituting for one another. To the tech world, however, those positive externalities look suspiciously inefficient. These unpaid-for pleasures are externalities that could, with the right technological fixes, be reinternalized and made into someone’s property again.

      One might also go down the belligerent psychoanalysis route toward our tech industry figures: if I can't be celebrated in this shared reality, if I struggle in it, if I'm not the one with power in it, then down with the whole thing!

    1. And it gets worse: recommendation algorithms are also known to have an anchoring effect, in which their output reinforces users’ unconscious biases and can even change their preferences over time.

      And it's so high-effort to change!! Ask me how I know

    2. An algorithm that interprets your behavior inside such a filter bubble might assume that you dislike people with darker skin.

      Bad phrasing because of the agency/consciousness in "assume"

    3. “In China, the beauty standard is more homogeneous,” she says, adding that the filters “erase lots of differences to our faces” and reinforce one particular look. 

      As does the older technology of cosmetics, of course.

    4. Amy Niu researches selfie-editing behavior as part of her PhD in psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In 2019, she conducted a study to determine the effect of beauty filters on self-image for American and Chinese women. She took pictures of 325 college-aged women and, without telling them, applied a filter to some photos. She then surveyed the women to measure their emotions and self-esteem when they saw edited or unedited photos. Her results, which have not yet been published, found that Chinese women viewing edited photos felt better about themselves, while American women (87% of whom were white) felt about the same whether their photos were edited or not.

      This is fascinating! What does this have to do with the ways people see their social media as expressive vs. communicative?

    5. Historically, when African-Americans were enslaved, those with lighter skin were often given more domestic tasks where those with darker skin were more likely to work in the fields.

      This is a complicated thing for complicated reasons (sun exposure making causality work the other way, the rape of enslaved women) and I don't think it should have been included so summarily.

    1. I argue that these more feminized, pink-collar corners of the internet are also part of broader gig and piecework economies and help broaden the definition of “tech worker,” which is still often perceived in narrow, masculinist terms.

      I was interested in how these roles fit into "tech work" but that argument wasn't actually made in the piece. My instinct is that these piecework systems involve a vulture class (organizing capital), a tinkerer class (building the systems), and an exploited class (the gig workers, etc.). It isn't necessarily the tech skills necessary that define who's in the tinkerer vs. exploited class -- but analyzing "tech worker" maybe properly does involve limiting its scope to "builders of the system." And I do think that's a relevant category because... while interesting dynamics can arise contra system designers' intent, the kind of systems that make up modern "tech" industries have very unilateral control, especially where we start focusing in on following the money.

    1. AGAMEMNON How are women to master men? HECUBA Numbers are a fearful thing, and joined to craft a desperate foe. AGAMEMNON True; still I have a mean opinion of the female race.

      I'd like a different translation of Hecuba's line here to be sure I'm getting it right.

    1. I had always avoided writing about my sister’s death. At first, in my reticence, I offered GPT-3 only one brief, somewhat rote sentence about it. The AI matched my canned language; clichés abounded. But as I tried to write more honestly, the AI seemed to be doing the same. It made sense, given that GPT-3 generates its own text based on the language it has been fed: Candor, apparently, begat candor.

      Maybe this is why this is the first piece of art that deployed GPT-3 I've seen that actually feels real.

      It has something of the tone of someone echoing back what they think you said, trying to confirm.

    1. The Zohar comments on this verse that the word eleh, i.e., “these,” implies multiplicity, whereas the word mi, i.e., “who,” refers to the Creator. If we put these two words together and rearrange the order of the letters, it will read Elokim,[20] implying that Elokim is the source of multiplicity in the world. The name Elokim acts as an “interface” between the absolute oneness of the Creator and the multiplicity of the creation. If its modus operandi is from-one-to-many, it is the role of humanity to do the reverse—to sublimate the multiplicity of the creation into its source in the one Creator, from many-to-one. This is done by uncovering the underlying godly nature of the physical world and by revealing its hidden unity. The Tzemach Tzedek stresses that “even after multiplicity is created by the name Elokim, everything is included in the unity of Havayah just as before the creation of the world; and, in truth, there is no separate existence—all is one seamless unity.”

      I am not at all impressed by the segue into physics but there's something about the one-to-many, many-to-one here that's really valuable.

    1. By abstracting our interactions into a placeless world of symbolic interchange, which generates the conditions of what Jay Bolter has labelled digital plenitude, digital media appears to undermine rather than sustain our capacity to experience a common world, which in turn sustains a common sense.

      I'm not sure this is true. It seems clear there are ways in which it undermines it. Can't there also be ways in which it sustains it? "DAE", an initialism of the internet age...

    2. Illich believed that we need to rediscover modes of perception and a richness of sensory experience, which had been lost to us by our encasement in a human-built world.

      Cf. the "human-built" nature of the Mass, which is intensely sensory

  3. multiverse.plus multiverse.plus
    1. Humans are incapable of true multi-tasking, and as a species we have trouble keeping much at all in our active memories. Depending on the language you speak, there's somewhere between five and thirteen items you can keep in your head at once. The introduction of tabs into the toolbox of Web users single-handedly destroyed any hopes we may once have had of the Web being a source of infinite, global potential that could reach across borders and create a better, more meritocratic society.

      It's rare to come across a take so truly contrarian.

      I opened browser windows before I had a browser with tabs; in the days before whatever fun TCP multiplexing they have now, it helped maximize the juice I got out of our creaking dialup. I loved that when traversing Wikipedia, if your windows opened just to the right of the open window, you could go all the way down one depth-first rabbit hole and pop back up to the next path. Even if that non-linearity was less efficient somehow, I love it fiercely.

    1. Write on a post-it note affixed to a greeting card rather than on the greeting card itself, so the recipient can throw away the post-it and reuse your card Employ similar logic for any disposable/consumable item

      Hmm, I wonder how we could establish norms to make this work even as The Point is signaling you care enough to pick something out and spend a bit of money on it, write a nice note...

    2. Treat fines like payments E.g. park illegally and let yourself think of the (expected value of the) fine as a parking fee

      Wow, it's like someone wanted to boil down the asocial nature of wealth into four words!

    3. Engage a human productivity monitor I know two people who have hired people to sit next to them or frequently contact them to keep them on-task Examples: focusmate.com and coding-pal.com

      How do you do this if you work on confidential stuff? How embarrassing to reach out internally at your company.

    4. Travel to friends just to visit them Move close to friends

      What habits would I set up if I wanted to deploy my personal resources to getting to be closer to my herd?

    1. The choiceless mode of relating to meaningness has no “becauses.” In the systematic mode, when you ask “why,” a system answers “because…”. The “becauses” hang together in ways that make everything make sense. In the choiceless, or pre-systematic mode, that’s not necessary—or even conceivable.

      This is all unnecessarily condescending. Someone operating within a traditional context can say in answer to "why" "because it is traditional." When then asked "why is it good to do what's traditional" she can then point around her to everything she sees as good and explain how it comes from tradition. She can point to much suffering and explain how it comes from divergence from tradition. And if you then think, well, okay, but isn't that pretty circular, why did she decide those things are good if not through the same adherence to tradition, then I would point you off towards Foucault or Derrida or Nietzsche or whoever to ponder your own systems of justifications' circularity. Saying "ah yes we invented the systematic mode and this represents a fundamentally different approach" is giving too much credit to the modernizers' PR.

    1. Genuine traditions have no defense against modernity. Modernity asks “why would you believe that?” and tradition has no answer (besides, perhaps, “we always have”). Modernity’s innovation was to construct systems of justification that answer all questions of meaning. Fundamentalisms try to rebuild their traditions into systems—in imitation of modernity.

      This is sort of right and sort of wrong. One justification amenable to tradition is social proof, that the right sort believes it. This is a heuristic, but not just a heuristic; scratch many of your own beliefs and you'll find it.

    1. You probably already have at least a couple of femurs around the house. However, it is usually best to find one whose original owner no longer has any use for it. This can be something of a challenge.

      The drying time alone makes this approach more sensible.

    1. According to Greg Woolf, “One of the things Mary has taught is to look at the window, not through it, because there isn’t really anything behind it.”

      This is incredibly postmodern, and I love it.

    2. This is also how she teaches – with an unusually sincere attachment to the principle that the pedagogical process should be rooted in an encounter, a relationship and a dialogue.

      An encounter, a relationship, and a dialogue -- marvelous that she's managed to maintain this even in publication.

    3. It was an unlikely project for a young classics don, but was an example of Beard’s pedagogical instinct in action: reading it, you can sense she didn’t want to waste painfully acquired knowledge if it could be useful to others.

      What an impulse! I love this.

    4. The learned but approachable figure you see on TV translating Latin inscriptions, carving up a pizza to explain the division of the Roman empire, or arguing about public services on Question Time, is precisely the Beard you encounter in private, except that in real life, she swears magnificently and often. (“She’s always spoken fluent Anglo-Saxon,” said Woolf.)

      Dear God what #lifegoals.

    1. Interestingly, this watershed did not receive wastewater treatment plant effluent, so it’s likely these compounds are coming from leaky sewer pipes. Improvements to aging infrastructure could reduce this source of harmful compounds to urban streams and other waterways, the researchers say.

      How about we do some of that for economic stimulus next time? Instead of a Cheesecake Factory bailout or whatever??

    1. That would probably be this article, which incorrectly states that there is somehow a lack of available dogs for adoption in New York City (there are a lot)

      Sorry, what? I went and looked and there are precisely two dogs under the age of 7 and under 25 pounds. There are a lot of dogs if you are looking to adopt a senior or if you are looking to adopt a pit bull mix. If you want to be snippy about people not wanting that, go ahead, but don't pretend that the shelter situation is normal these days.

    1. When they’re around you, non-gifted friends never want to discern their own spirits. “Can you tell me whether this is good or evil?” “Uhh, sorry, is this the influence of God, Satan, or the flesh?” I know it will take you a bit longer than it would take me, but you should at least try to figure it out for yourself.

      I am probably going to refer to this piece completely incomprehensibly every time anyone ever mentions "gifted kids" again.

    1. When in Wilmington, he mostly stays at home, though he sometimes leaves to attend Catholic Mass or to play golf.

      What a weird phrasing. One is a Catholic, and one attends Mass. Or one is Orthodox, and one attends Mass.

    2. The Biden administration has approved a significant and permanent increase in the levels of food stamp assistance available to needy families — the largest single increase in the program's history.

      Food stamps are one of the best things the government can spend on, and anyone enthusiastic about UBI should also support them. They have sometimes-cumbersome eligibility processes, but they make a huge difference for individuals and families, and their infrastructure is already set up.

      And from the economic side, they're one of the most effective things government can spend on to boost the GDP:

      The model finds $1 billion in new SNAP benefits would raise GDP by $1.54 billion, implying a GDP multiplier of 1.5.

    1. Farmers in Arizona will be the first to feel the pain of the cuts. In one county, farmers will receive 65 percent less water next year. The desert state continues to grow water-intensive crops like cotton and alfalfa in part because of the Central Arizona Project, a 336-mile long series of canals, pumping stations, and reservoirs that was completed in 1993 and draws from the Colorado River. The aqueduct has encouraged farmers to stop pumping groundwater, though many will undoubtedly restart the unsustainable practice as their fields begin to run dry. Others will have to switch to lower-water crops or let their fields lie fallow. Dry, fallow fields contribute to dust storms that envelop the region.

      How in God's name was this allowed to happen? Why would you think Arizona is the place for cotton, or cotton the thing for Arizona?

    1. As we sat in traffic and drove through Manhattan, one thing stuck out: the people in front of me only consumed content created within the last 24 hours. No exceptions. The structure of our social media feeds place us in a Never-Ending Now. It sucks us into a temporal myopia

      It seems to me that the most meaningful engagement is always with both now-and-the-past; a Jane Austen fan club has a vibrant and social Now even as it joyfully plunges its hands into the waters of the Past.

    2. Soon, I will experiment with “atemporality.” For days or weeks at a time, I will escape the present moment and only consume content published in a different decade.

      This is a fun idea. I once did a small version of this, seeking out new-to-me music from 1971 to 1973, years that seemed to dominate in my dad's musical tastes.

    3. I’d love to hear your feedback. Send me your thoughts, criticisms, and ideas in a direct message on Twitter. When you do, please don’t nitpick. Constructive feedback will lead to a more productive dialogue that’ll be better for both of us.

      In my world, whether a criticism is "nitpicking" or not is orthogonal to whether it is "constructive feedback".

    1. which substance(s) are you using, to what end, and how much range is there in your spectrum?

      One thing I think about is that this requires brutal honesty about the potential gaps between your intent and the result's effect. Probably this isn't something that a person can figure out alone. It requires social modulation, probably among others who understand the practice, to maintain healthily.

    2. Clubs are currently designed for drug use and are terrible places to be in when they’re empty or when you’re sober.

      There's also a lot of collective action problems. I've gone to a lot of shows where I could have a good time sober, but I needed the crowd to have drunk enough to get a better vibe. That... doesn't feel like an optimal system.

    3. In the traditional Alcoholics Anonymous model, sobriety is seen as a type of chastity, with purity and cleanliness achieved through total abstinence.

      Framing things that don't work that way as virtue and sin: one of the biggest throughlines through otherwise inexplicable phenomena in "rational" "secular" society.

    4. There’s no idealised level of fun that you’re missing out on, and that you need to achieve through drinking or doing drugs. This feeling of not being »enough« presupposes deficiency as a starting point, which is a capitalist logic leading to a market-based solution: you need to exchange money for a drink or a drug to make yourself better.

      Also interesting are the communal practices inducing trance-like states. What can get you where you want to be that you can't pay for?

    1. For some reason, a lot of smart college students end up with the idea that “solving hard technical problems” is the best thing they can do with their life. It’s a common refrain in Hacker News comments, job ads and interview questions. Why does this happen? Probably because that’s the only thing they’ve been rewarded for over the past 15 years. School is a closed-world domain—you are solving crisply-defined puzzles (multiply these two numbers, implement this algorithm, write a book report by this rubric), your solution is evaluated on one dimension (letter grade), and the performance ceiling (an A+) is low. The only form of progression is to take harder courses. If you try to maximize your rewards under this reward function, you’ll end up looking for trickier and trickier puzzles that you can get an A+ on.

      You also don't learn the social dynamics around ambiguity.

    1. (6) Speak to the healthy part of the person. Maybe your audience has bought some propaganda, or maybe they are wounded and acting out a trauma. Don't talk to those parts.

      This isn't a phrase I'd known; I like it.

    2. You may feel alone, but that just means that you haven't found your community yet. Although you are surely unique in many ways, you are also human, and you are a product of places and times. Whatever you care about, no matter how personal it feels, lots of other people care about it too. Your job is to imagine that community of practice out there, its members all thinking together, however quietly, about the topic that most concerns you. Your community needs a language, it needs an association, it needs a clubhouse, and it needs a voice. Your voice. That's how it works. Your zine is your hook in the ocean, your magnet attracting all of the other people who share your values. As you hear from them, you will have the interlocutors you need to develop your voice. You'll never hear from most of them, but you can imagine them. Imagining your community also prevents burnout: your community's members are all out there doing great things, and so the whole weight of the world is not on your shoulders. Burnout helps no one.

      The internet community as half imagined, half real...

    3. Caring about something is a big deal, and it's hard for some people. It's not just being against something, and it's not just wanting to have a community. It means having values that make the world make sense. Once you know what you care about, then you can hunt for a community. Maybe that community already exists, or maybe you have to build it.

      What a wonderfully utopian place to begin with, thinking about the possibilities of the internet!

    4. When speaking in public, you do not have the same immediate feedback from your audience. The public audience is diverse, you only hear from a few of them, the ones you hear from are not representative, and you don't get their responses in real time. As a result, where the internalized interlocutor in your head should be, instead you have a vacuum. The natural mechanisms for internalizing an audience don't work, and the results can be painful. You may sit down to write an op-ed column for the newspaper, and find that nothing comes out, or what comes out sounds nothing like an op-ed column. You aim, but you shoot wide, and the result doesn't even sound like you. You *feel* that vacuum, and it sucks all kinds of paranoid fantasies into it. That is where stage fright comes from, or freezing up at the idea of contributing to an online forum.

      Since the internalized interlocutor is so often made up from only what one thinks about another person, not their real internal experience, it's easy for the imaginative sort to construct one out of people never met. Oscar Wilde always gave the impression that his funny bits were things he found funny, not jokes told for the amusement of the masses -- at least not on a first-order level, only on that higher-order Freudian etc. etc. level.

    5. To have a public voice, you must learn to combine two seemingly contradictory goals: being true to your own experience and values while also serving as a consciously designed intervention in an ongoing public debate.

      Does this characterize the way I feel about my website?

    6. Paper-based zines have been limited by the limitations of the medium. The Internet, however, promises a new world of popular cultural production -- webzines.

      One thing I wonder about in retrospect: the limitations of the medium made the whole thing seem approachable, understandable, doable. The realm of what you can fit on a copy machine's glass: knowable. Anyone can do anything on the internet, which means everything is judged against everything.

    7. This is a draft. Please do not quote from it.

      Sorry, Philip, but it's been more than twenty years so I'm gonna go ahead and assume this is fair game.

    1. In Lewisham, a 9-year-old girl had seizures for three years before dying as a result of a polluted road nearby. And I hear that and ask, would it be so bad to get rid of cars entirely. Which sounds like a huge loss of life and pleasure to people who are accustomed to a driving way of life, who like getting about; but had Lewisham council proposed we sacrifice a 9-year-old and scatter her blood on the site of the road ahead of building, it would have been shocking. But the child would be no less dead.

      ....the trolley problem indeed.

    2. But the reality is that, most of the innovations of modern living don't benefit me

      This is something I don't think a person can know without having lived without modern living.

    1. But buried in Internet Kraken’s analysis is an unconscious proposition that we’ll call the “Systemic Stability Principle”:If the change in the systems outputs can be explained by a change to the systems inputs, then the system itself didn’t change, only the inputs.The mistake Internet Kraken (and the rest of us, implicitly) made was assuming that because experience with Cheibriados characters could explain Brannock’s sudden improvement in winrate, then it must be the whole explanation; when, in fact, it was experience plus the double damage bug. The Systemic Stability Principle is clearly false. But why did we make this unspoken assumption? Answer: because believing in the Systemic Stability Principle makes you good at Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup, and many other things besides. In fact, it’s almost a prerequisite to improving in highly formal domains! If you die of more damage than you were expecting and tell yourself “that one must have been double damage”, then you can’t learn anything. All of that stuff I said earlier about rigor and self-improvement starts with you holding the system constant enough that you can evaluate your changes over time. In a well-designed roguelike, it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that the more you can internalize the Systemic Stability Principle, the better you’ll be.

      This is also an interesting reason that people want to play games like this in the first place. Reality can be full of ambiguity and shifting circumstances. Nice clean formal domains are like sugar to the mind (part of mind? kind of mind?) that does well at this stuff.

    1. A major survey in the UK six years ago found one in three young women considered garments “old” if they had been worn just twice. 

      What the fuck

    1. The first sees Americans as victims of past injustices in need of redress, which implies an inferior status by group.

      If I take away Mary's apple, then give her an apple, and I leave George and his apple alone, have I implied George inferior by not including him in the group of "people to whom I gave an apple"? Have I implied Mary inferior?

      There is a certain obdurate refusal to consider past injustices as part of current reality, and it ends up sounding a bit like this: a lack of social object permanence.

    2. In defining and calculating fairness by ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, disability, and other categories, equity divides Americans along exactly these lines.

      Wouldn't the argument be that equity begins its calculations in the world where Americans are already divided along those lines, and it doesn't pretend not to see those divisions? Packer seems to be doing the "if I close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears, that's fairness" laicity or whatever, and I'm not impressed by it.

    3. It would diminish the all-or-nothing stakes of obtaining a degree from the right college by, for example, raising the status and improving the conditions of jobs that don’t require one.

      No one wants to talk about how this is actually a bit more zero-sum than this lets on...

    4. “You can’t expect civic virtue from a disfranchised class,” Walter Lippmann wrote in 1914. And also: “The first item in the program of self-government is to drag the whole population well above the misery line.”

      I'm not convinced by Packer, but I sure do like this line.

    5. Equality also leads to the individualism that always threatens to tear apart our social bonds and make this country ungovernable. In a society of equals, people focus on their own affairs as if they owe nothing to others and expect nothing from them.

      Does it? Do they? How linked are these things really?

    6. His out-of-touchness has allowed him to avoid most of the traps that lie in wait for Democratic politicians. When it comes to the culture wars over issues like race and gender, crime and policing, and immigration, Biden comes down on the side of common decency and common sense, then he moves on.

      Ah, yes. Biden. Famous for not getting real involved in politics over... crime.

    7. Instead, Free America answers the ambitions of the business class and corporations; Smart America describes the utopia of educated professionals; Real America voices the resentments of the white Christian heartland; Just America believes in a metaphysics of group identity that divides the working class.

      Notice how he can't bring himself to say "Just America expresses the discontents of young and nonwhite Americans" in a construction parallel to the others, because that wouldn't adequately convey how much scorn he feels for this last.

    1. But I’m interested in this as a sort of lifecycle of information. An idea starts out with what it means to you, the “I” in this situation. Then it pings around a social network and is discussed (the “you” phase). And then in the final phase it sort of transcends that conversation, and becomes more expository, more timeless, less personal, more accessible to conversational outsiders.

      Hmm. Is this true?

      I often feel like the connections people make are exactly the most personal part, and necessarily must be sloughed off as one tries to explicate the essence of the thing in Wikipedia-like neutrality. My annotations often look nutty for that reason -- because an anecdote someone's telling about mushroom hunting isn't at its core an expression of a narrative that then inherently calls out to be categorized as such in a way that I can then say "this reminds me of the cozy web".

    1. Something similar has happened to the Internet. Transcending its original playful identity, it’s no longer a place for strolling — it’s a place for getting things done. Hardly anyone “surfs” the Web anymore.

      The growth of the internet means that more people surf the web than ever, even if a minority percentage

    2. While I quickly found other contemporaneous commentators who believed that flânerie would flourish online, the sad state of today’s Internet suggests that they couldn’t have been more wrong. Cyberflâneurs are few and far between, while the very practice of cyberflânerie seems at odds with the world of social media.

      Surely it could have flourished and yet maintained a number of adherents "few and far between"?

    1. By the early 1970s, habitat destruction and the pet trade had reduced the golden lion tamarin population to as few as 200 individuals. Captive breeding, overseen by 43 institutions in eight countries, increased their numbers to the point that conservationists were able to reintroduce the tamarins into the wild from 1984. But initially, the reintroduced tamarins had a low survival rate, with problems with adaptation to the new environment causing the majority of losses. High casualties are typical of such efforts, says Brakes.So the tamarin researchers developed an intensive post-release programme, including supplementary feeding and the provision of nest sites, giving the monkeys time to learn necessary survival skills for the jungle. This helping hand doubled survival rates, which was a good start. However, it was not until the next generation that the species began to thrive. “By giving them the opportunity to learn individually in the wild and share that knowledge, the next generation of tamarins had a survival rate of 70%, which is just amazing,” says Brakes. The intensive conservation efforts paid off, and in 2003 the golden lion tamarin was upgraded from critically endangered to endangered.

      Cultural knowledge among communities -> survival!

    1. All our animals are raised in a secure compound in Idaho and fed a diet enriched with epimedium, to boost sex drive; Soviet-developed molting insect hormone, to maximize growth; and bacon, to counteract the socialism. From birth, they’re schooled in stoicism and the art of self-restraint: we play Epictitus audiobooks on loop in the barn 24/7—at triple speed.

      Help me

    2. Stop wasting your time and money and start amplifying your beast potential. Get ready to see serious gains. Get ready to Biff. Biff-TEK’s signature line of meat-based protein powders will help you develop muscle, improve your cognitive function, and facilitate key personal development growth metrics. It’s made with real beef and a proprietary blend of neuro-enhancers.

      This whole piece is fantastic because I could hear it in my head being read in a strange hybrid of Podcast Ad Read Voice and that ad for Powerthirst.

    1. Persons of a reflective bent all too often underestimate the enormous strength that truly abysmal ignorance can bring. Knowledge is power, of course, but—measured by a purely Darwinian calculus—too much knowledge can be a dangerous weakness. At the level of the social phenotype (so to speak), the qualities often most conducive to survival are prejudice, simplemindedness, blind loyalty, and a militant want of curiosity. These are the virtues that fortify us against doubt or fatal hesitation in moments of crisis. Subtlety and imagination, by contrast, often enfeeble the will; ambiguities dull the instincts. So while it is true that American political thought in the main encompasses a ludicrously minuscule range of live options and consists principally in slogans rather than ideas, this is not necessarily a defect. In a nation’s struggle to endure and thrive, unthinking obduracy can be a precious advantage. Even so, I think we occasionally take it all a little too far.

      What a salvo!

    1. Salvation is not in our hands anyway. Ours is in the trying; the rest isn’t our business. That’s T. S. Eliot. He’s right about that.

      Neither salvation nor damnation

    2. I think the jump is not from sin to salvation. There’s a mediating stage of conversion and transformation. I’m with Augustine here, that we are forever in an endless battle of trying to become better Christians. Even as we convert, sin is still persisting. But we are making progress because the grace available to us is a gift that empowers us to try to make better choices.

      Grace is a gift that lets us try to make better choices.

    3. My hunch is that those younger brothers and sisters and comrades are deeply spiritual, but many of them have distanced themselves from the churches and the mosques and the synagogues.Green: Why is that?West: Because they failed. Mainstream Christianity is a colossal failure in terms of standing up for poor people. You get prophetic Christians, Catholic Workers, certain nuns. You get Black churches concerned about prisons. But for the most part, mainstream Christianity has been concerned with what American culture has been concerned with, which is success. And success has never been the same as spiritual greatness.

      This is interesting, because of course this isn't the problem I have with the Church, but...

    1. - Bleed-resistant and fountain-pen friendly

      While I found both of these things to be true (with both dye and pigment based fountain pen inks), the ink in a Pentel Pocket Brush Pen refused to disperse evenly on its surface. It took gouache nicely in the crinkly manner in which Midori paper might.

    1. free downloadable software called Live2D Cubism, originally created by Japanese programmer Tetsuya Nakajo, means that anyone with a decent avatar illustration can become a VTuber for less than $100.

      lol at both "free" and "less than $100" (hint: go check out the monthly rates...)

    2. The soft-sell sex appeal of both entertainment models is rooted in moe, a vague Japanese term that, in the pop culture idiom, refers to an attraction to physical beings that exist beyond the bounds of reality and often implies the allure of unsullied youth. That the objects of affection in manga and anime sometimes border on the childlike can make them uncomfortable viewing.

      I find them far less troubling than the egirl look that so clearly communicates "14-year-old with lip fillers", and that's the parallel phenomenon.

    3. He used to follow a handful of YouTubers and Twitch influencers and gamers, but sometime during the pandemic he switched to virtual entertainment, after he got sick of “thirst traps” and “e-thots” (electronic that ho over theres) — people who post photos or host video streams that lure viewers in with their bodies, only to take their money and rebuff them when they try to build a relationship. “Real women with hot bodies are always showing off, getting naked in a bathtub or little swimming pool, trying to get you to lust after them,” he explains. “They don’t really care about you. They just want your money. A lot of people have gotten their hearts broken by 3D women on streaming, but with a 2D character, she can’t really break your heart. You don’t really know what she looks like, you just see this cute anime girl with this really cute voice.”

      This is fascinating. The streamer performing a character without using an avatar is lying, but the layer of undeniable irreality of the avatar makes the performance more honest. It's genuinely troubling that the text presents this uncritically, but it's interesting.

    1. Things in this worldview don’t have moral standing, and so to objectify a thing is to deprive it of its moral standing and whatever rights might come from that. And I think it certainly is a lot easier to do that when the process itself has veiled the fullness of the reality of the animal, for example, from view. If we’ve isolated ourselves enough through the different layers of artificiality that we have built up around us, we lose sight of what those layers of artificiality depend upon, whether it’s the land or the non-human world. And so to become attentive to these again, I think, would be certainly, probably very important, morally significant.

      "Again" is wrongly assumptive, I think.

    2. part of what I think permits the kind of industrial-scale cruelty we now have — which is not just about the question of eating animals, which we’ve done for human history, but it’s about treating them simply as inputs to an industrial process, and having the technology to do that.

      I have thoughts I need to write down some time about farm animals as employees vs. CAFOed animals as machines.

    3. Somebody on a flight is sort of narrating on their Twitter feed the discussion a couple in front of them is having, and it goes viral. That’s just one example, but there are various aspects of what used to be considered private segments of our life, of our experience, that are increasingly made publicly available. And I wonder if some of those aspects of our own lives might not be better left private, that I have no business — I have to learn to avert my eyes, I think, sometimes from those kinds of examples.Not in a prudish sense, but just because there’s a kind of imposition in the autonomy of the people involved. When these aspects of their lives are captured, especially without their consent, and are made accessible to me, I need to learn to look away. It’s not good for me to know that, right?

      More productive analyzed as fiction or sermon, often.

    4. A Chinese philosopher, Yi-Fu Tuan, in the late ’70s has a book on place, and he has this interesting little observation about how place used to structure time.Because the longer it took for information to get to me, the farther away it was, and thus theoretically, the farther away from my own lived experience and what was important to me it might have been. And so once electronic media kind of collapsed that ordering function of distance, then now, we have to become active in deciding what is it important for me to give my attention to right now. I mean, that itself, just having to make that decision, can be very taxing.

      Ooh, this connects to what I was thinking about how there needs to be a real default of locality...

    5. But even in our homes, the ordering of this material space through these various artifacts can be more or less conducive to encouraging connection, human relationship, conversation.

      I read and love the Convivial Society but there's something really shallow about this presentation of technology as uniformly deadening of connection and conversation.

    6. I think about how in even just a directly embodied context, we have the capacity to be silent. And that silence becomes meaningful. But we can’t really do that online, which I think is often the source of a lot of our angst.

      Am I younger than this person? Is it so strange that my generation will be on silent voice calls together in Discord servers?

    7. Not that everything should necessarily bring joy or happiness in a sense, but I think I would oppose the conviviality of the table, the way it relates us and brings us together, to the table-less world of the internet, where we’re all thrown together.

      This sounds like a use of "the internet" and "Twitter" as interchangeable.

    8. And so with regards to the earth, the digital realm depends upon material resources that need to be collected. It depends on the energy grid. It leaves a footprint on the environment.

      The alternatives to our uses of the digital realm do also, however.

    9. So Facebook had a commercial a few years back, where a young girl was sitting at a table with her family. Maybe it was a holiday dinner or something. And all of the relatives are portrayed in kind of stereotypically negative ways, and this young lady is able to escape that world through all of what Facebook brings to her on her smartphone as she’s holding it underneath the table, beneath everybody’s view.And the world sometimes can’t quite compete, if looked at from a certain perspective, with the immediate satisfactions and pleasures and distractions that we can call forth immediately on our smartphones. But it has its own kind of richness that requires a kind of attentiveness. And sometimes it requires us to look very carefully and very patiently to listen, to engage our senses in a more genuine way.

      This is both true in one sense and a sort of dangerous idea as a broad call for people to change their behavior.

    10. And there’s a very, very funny anecdote in there of a woman who ended up on a date with a guy whose profile was all about how much he hated the rich, about how much he wanted to abolish billionaires, and so on.And then, when they met, after a couple times — and he just kept ranting about how he hated the rich — he’d be like, listen, I’m actually rich. And she was like, oh, well, I still like you. [LAUGHTER] Let’s keep dating.I think a lot of the way we display who we are in flattened profiles is wrong about who we are, what tradeoffs we really make.

      This is not at all what that story points to; the way we display who we are in profiles is deeply layered and conveys many things beyond surface-level indication.

    11. And if we come to know a person chiefly, initially, through a profile by looking them up, we’ll bring those preconceptions to the table when we meet them, and it will have the tendency, I would say, to reduce our understanding.

      Poppycock. Poppycock! If you've come to see people reductively through their profile-aspect, sure -- but when you come across a coworker's social presence, aren't you delighted to see aspects of them you wouldn't have come across at the office?

    12. It has displaced certain rituals or roles within a family, certain interactions within a family or within a network of friends, even, who might gather for a meal. That might be a felt loss.Again, not necessarily morally wrong or morally right, but consequential with regards to what is binding that family or that network of friends together. There was a kind of labor involved in putting that meal together, and that labor itself had an important role to play in the dynamics of the relationship that are outsourced when we change the practice by finding technological shortcuts around it to get to the same end, but through different means.

      I am very suspicious of this elegiac tone. Always: whose labor?

    13. How many times when my map of knowledge to fill something in would simply require, and did require when I was younger, just asking. Do you know? What do you think?Where should I go to dinner? Do you know this person’s phone number? Have you heard of? Do you remember that president? Do you know when this happened?And on the one hand, the information I got from those conversations was probably much less precise. And on the other hand, there was a lot of other information, and there was relationship building that happened in those conversations.

      I think I would be desperate to socialize with people who shared my intellectual interests if I didn't have the internet. That might be more, I dunno, ideologically productive or whatever -- but on the other time it lets me choose aspects of my social life based on other things I value highly. Continuity of relationships. Kindness.

    14. Because if we rely on the search engine, for example, to form our picture of the world, our idea of what others are like, when we try to understand those that are not immediately in our network of friends or colleagues, then it filters a picture of the world of others to us.How are those search results being determined? What is being included? What is being excluded? How is the algorithm calibrating the kind of information I’m going to receive?

      So this is the well-established idea of the filter bubble, which, you know, good, but I'm far more interested in the idea that this is presenting the view that one gets from the search engine as more mediated than the socially attained view. A search engine may allow me to access someone's self-presentation rather than the presentation my social contacts would make of them.

    15. An example of this resonates what you just described. I found myself reading a book a couple of days ago, and underlining some passages of note. And immediately, my first thought was, I’ve got to put this on Twitter.And I had to resist the urge, and I consciously thought of, how would I have done this if I didn’t have Twitter? How would my experience of reading have been a little bit different? And why do I feel compelled to share this? Do I feel compelled to share this because I think, oh, this will play really well within my networks?And I think that sense of approval, of — it’s sometimes described as a kind of dopamine hit that you get — and then, we begin to crave that, and then that bending of the self to the perceptions of the audience, that feedback loop, I think, can become really powerful.

      It's interesting how little I feel this is true on Mastodon, which is technologically very similar.

    16. And I think part of the point that I often try to make is that something can be morally significant without necessarily being good or bad by itself.

      I want this above everything I ever write just as a disclaimer.

    17. There’s a tendency to just become absorbed in what we’re doing and to forget the needs of the body, right? I’m thinking, for example, of this idea of email apnea, which was coined by Linda Stone, a researcher with Microsoft many years ago.You know, you essentially kind of catch your breath when you’re focusing on what you’re reading online. It’s one way in which it kind of upsets the ordinary rhythms of our bodily existence.

      What does it mean that I spend more of life apneic than not?

    1. The UK competition regulator has called for Facebook to sell online image platform Giphy, which it bought for $400 million last year, after provisionally finding competition concerns following an in-depth investigation.

      !!!

      This is great from the perspective of GIF culture, I think. I believe Giphy also stores things like Instagram stickers, so it's possible it could see less user content, but that's massively exploitative of artists' and designers' labor anyway.

    1. Somewhere around then, mothers stopped teaching their daughters how to sew or make clothes—I think less because of any feminism and more because it no longer seems like a particularly worthwhile skill to learn, especially given pressure from other uses of time like sports or homework.

      Casual confidence in inadequate paradigms of thought is a phenomenon more dangerous than simple ignorance. Why was it no longer a particularly "worthwhile" skill to learn? Partially because of increasing globalization consigning developing countries' labor to that toil -- but partially because the "worth" of a US woman's "while" could now be remuneratively applied to shit like non-domestic labor. I'm sure that doesn't sound like it has anything to do with "any feminism".

    2. the Shipping Cost of goods has plummeted the Shipping Speeds have dramatically improved, especially for low-cost tiers: consider Christmas shopping from a mail-order company or website in 1999 vs 2019—you used to have to order in early December to hope to get something by Christmas (25 December) without spending $53$301999 extra on fast shipping, but now you can get free shipping as late as 19 December! (“‘Same-day delivery’—what the hell is that?”)

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    3. it is now reasonably safe and feasible to live in (most) big cities like NYC, Chicago, or DC

      I am very irritated by the casual use of "feasible" here. Cities: they're not just for the minorities anymore!

    4. reducing environmental pollution thanks to de-industrialization & eliminating things like dye contaminant waste (see the environmental Kuznets curve & general improvement in US environmental quality)—eg the idea of, say, darning socks is completely alien14⁠, and clothing companies routinely discard millions of pounds of clothes because it’s cheaper than wasting scarce human labor reprocessing & selling them for a song, flooding Africa with discards.

      Sorry, what? This whole sentence is about environmental pollution having skyrocketed. Do you not count polyester discards as pollution?

    5. airplane flights no longer cost an appreciable fraction of your annual income12⁠, and people can afford multiple trips a year.

      Arguably a big negative for the planet

    1. the logical extension of this narrow way of defining language learning.

      I believe that this isn't adequate alone, but this piece isn't making the case that we should disapprove of it.

    2. In fact, CAPTCHA’s old site overtly names Duolingo as existing principally as a tool to help computer systems improve their natural language processing and machine learning, meaning that language “learners” on Duolingo are actually just performing the free labor—or even paying for the privilege—of helping the company improve its proprietary algorithms. In this sense, it is much like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, another model of exploitative human-assisted computer labor critiqued extensively in Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri’s Ghost Work (2019).

      The benefit to a Duolingo student shouldn't be completely elided here. I don't think it's fair to characterize it just as unpaid labor.

    1. “The Millionaire Next Door” elevated self-abnegation to an investment rule -- what Thomas Frank, another critic of their book, termed the authors’ “militantly Calvinist attitude toward consumption” in which “saving and investing are ends in themselves, evidence of moral virtue, while spending is empty dissipation.”

      I wonder if this would shift with a change in cultural attitudes toward inheritances. Dying with money feels like a pharaonic waste.

    1. The bottom line is that high-percentile latency is a bad way to measure efficiency, but a good (leading) indicator of pending overload. If you must use latency to measure efficiency, use mean (avg) latency. Yes, average latency

      I always learn unexpected stuff from this blog that feels like it ought to be taught in a college CS degree (blah blah software engineering blah blah)

    1. Some of Shein’s major rivals, including H&M, Zara-parent Inditex, ASOS (ASOS.L), Boohoo (BOOH.L) and Zalando (ZALG.DE), publish statements, as well as more detailed information on their supply chain such as factory lists and codes of conduct, on their websites.H&M’s website includes a downloadable spreadsheet with specific names and addresses of thousands of its factories and processing facilities. Inditex has an eight-page, downloadable code of conduct and a map showing the number of its factories and suppliers in each country.

      If you shop at Nordstrom it's all still opaquely "imported" anyway; that there are gradations of ethics within a consumer's options is good to know.

    1. A new constitutional amendment could bar state and local laws that have the effect of limiting interstate population mobility, freeing the national economy from protectionist and not-in-my-backyard state and local legislation. Such an amendment could be used to invalidate unreasonable land use regulations — such as excessive minimum lot size rules and unjustified density limits — and labor regulations that discriminate in their effects against out-of-state workers.

      I cannot express enough how much I think nutty zoning needs to die and yet how head-ass this is. "Mobility" can also be represented as the uprooting of communities. How the hell would this make regional inequality better and not worse?

    2. Some argue that these people benefit from gaining work experience. But those benefits do not require subminimum-wage forced labor.

      Yeah, this is... nuts. Are you trying to rehabilitate people or exploit them? (Rhetorical question, we know the answer)

    3. their data and the metadata created by their actions

      Does this make it illegal for the government to take pictures of a public place for some unrelated purpose because they would record who was there?

      What defines "my data"?

    4. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as conferring or protecting a right to abortion.

      You know you're doing a great job providing a theoretical basis for your position when you have to add a "I mean XYZ specifically" clause

    5. The absence of strong unions harms not only the workplace and the economy but also American democracy. Without countervailing organizations of workers, big corporations and the wealthy exercise vastly more influence in politics at every level of government.

      Do individualized conceptions of rights make a "corporation" (legal fiction of a person to organize shared effort) more palatable to US thinkers (and legal scholars, I guess) than an association as such? Where do co-ops fall?

    1. What does this process resemble? It actually sounds a lot like a legal proceeding, albeit one that’s entirely one-sided, devoid of any semblance of due process or legal protection under the law, and probably carried out by teams of purple-haired Millennials with nose hoops and personal pronoun mood-rings.

      Cry more, boomer.

      In reality, corporations coopting the role of government is a huge problem! But... this isn't.... this just isn't... it.

    2. Mail providers should care about two things and two things only: The list is clean (opt-in and confirmed)  The mailings aren’t infected with any kind of malware. That’s it. Beyond that it really isn’t their business and it’s the height of grandiosity and hubris to think that it is.

      Actually, I think it's quite hard to justify that they should care about the cleanliness of the list and malware in the world where you're saying they bear no moral responsibility for the mailings.

    3. Mailchimp, an email list provider, is known for doing this. You effectively pay Mailchimp to curate what you can or cannot say to your own email subscribers.  You’re using their mailservers, and in their mind that’s what gives them the right and the moral authority to monitor the content of your communications to your own audience.

      This isn't accurate. They are monitoring what they are sending to your email subscribers for you, what they're taking money for.

    1. So much of religious life remains physical, such as sacraments or the laying on of hands for healing prayer.

      I have a lot of thoughts about this. Catholic and pagan sacraments engage every sense. You are meant to exist consciously within your body in your spiritual life in a way you definitely don't have to online.

    2. They decided to try two Facebook tools: subscriptions where users pay, for example, $9.99 per month and receive exclusive content, like messages from the bishop; and another tool for worshipers watching services online to send donations in real time.

      I'll admit these feel pretty anodyne as features, and I'd be happy for a church putting this together outside of the nation-state of Facebook.

    3. A Facebook spokeswoman said the data it collected from religious communities would be handled the same way as that of other users

      Oh, that's comforting.

    4. Bishop Robert Barron, founder of an influential Catholic media company, said Facebook “gave people kind of an intimate experience of the Mass that they wouldn’t normally have.”

      You know, I'll bet this quote was cut off, because it is totally fair... in the context of a pandemic where Mass is closed off from the parish.

    5. “Faith organizations and social media are a natural fit because fundamentally both are about connection,” Ms. Sandberg said.

      Wow, I sure do love Sheryl Sandberg telling me what the fundamentals of faith are!

    6. “I just want people to know that Facebook is a place where, when they do feel discouraged or depressed or isolated, that they could go to Facebook and they could immediately connect with a group of people that care about them,” Nona Jones, the company’s director for global faith partnerships and a nondenominational minister, said in an interview.

      What are the terms of that care? What is the nature of that care?

    7. When it came time for Hillsong’s grand opening in June, the church issued a news release saying it was “partnering with Facebook” and began streaming its services exclusively on the platform.Beyond that, Mr. Collier could not share many specifics — he had signed a nondisclosure agreement.

      I don't think much good comes of nondisclosure agreements in any circumstances.

    1. What are these titles providing to the narrative, then; how does it impact the way we think about monarchy in real life, as well as ourselves when we identify ourselves with it, when we jump straight to prince or king for "a person who is very good at their specialism, and that others have recognised for their success, and consequently rewarded".

      This is the way that a meritocrat wants to think about what a monarch can be, but it isn't the essence of monarchy in my read. A king has divine right. The divine right of the king is what makes him king and it is also what makes him special. The medieval order of things just says, look, some shit is better than other shit; kings are better than normies, and god is the uberking, and this is the stuff that you have to marinate in for a long time to even start to glimpse where the ontological argument for the existence of god is coming from.

    1. to allegorize like Milton is “to shock the mind by ascribing effects to non-entity,” like labelling figures in a photo with aggressively absurd abstract nouns and posting it on Twitter. This subjection of sex to allegory, horrifically violent content begotten by a violently constrictive form, is one reason why Milton’s Hell is less like the liberatory queer space offered by “Montero” and more like our own hell, by which I mean “the hellsite,” by which I mean Twitter. Or rather, “this hellsite,” because when people are saying that Twitter is a hellsite, it is likely that they are doing so on Twitter, where everything, and especially Hell, can be made into a blunt allegory for Twitter.

      This chunk is very dense and very valuable.

    1. I have limited focus as it is. Social media operant conditioning has made it worse. Yet at the same time it is a pillar of modern civic participation, and with the pandemic it has become a vital communication flow for people that were once able to communicate in person easily.

      My feelings are just as ambivalent, but different in character. Sometimes I do wish that more people looked at my instagram, but the truth is that I've motivated a lot of artistic improvement by putting my drawings and paintings up in a way that my friends can send little heart reactions to. I've done a lot of writing just because a small number of people will read it on my website.

      There was one time in my life when I was living alone and didn't have the kind of social media use I do now, and it was miserable. Group chats with high school friends kept me alive during the pandemic.

      Even outside of social media, though, I can tell that my constant thirst for Content is unhealthy. I am the stereotypical information junkie who doesn't want to be alone with her own thoughts for a split second.

      One thing I think is interesting is that small social media leaves out some pernicious dynamics and maintains others. Matt Bluelander was talking about Mastodon being too dopaminey for him, even while I can tell that it's healthier for me than the constant spats of Twitter. RSS consumption of people's blogs is just as "refresh-consume-refresh-consume" for me as the big Internet, even when I think I'm getting a lot more value from the kinds of things it turns up.

    1. “There aren’t many unique key pieces and trends we can attribute to Gen Z/2020. It’s more so the fusion of trends from multiple eras that makes it Gen Z, you know?” she continues via email. “It’s coming to a point where we may no longer have names or genres in terms of style; style is so much more personalized, especially in the digital space I occupy.”

      Everyone has always said this about their own era until it receded far enough into the distance that you could squint at the whole thing at once.

    2. But middle-class people like myself have far less innocent motivations for choosing the things we like, namely, to gain social and cultural capital. Funnily enough, this contradicts developing a true sense of self and personality. Who we are is enough without commodities and other people, but in-group admission and approval — and the sense of safety and belonging that comes with it — feels like the estimable thing we need to gain in order to self-actualize.

      This seems silly to me. As if the "true self" is independent of one's social being and cultural context.

    1. He calls this “secular faith,” i.e. faith that is worldly or temporal, rooted in what we do and how we do it in the time that we have here. “Secular faith is the form of faith that we all sustain in caring for someone or something that is vulnerable to loss,” he says. Finitude, then, is a prerequisite for care.

      I don't believe in this at all. I didn't spend years trying to keep Heloise alive, I spent it trying to make her happy. That my care ended up degraded to that former aim felt crude and sad.

    2. What if Avi and I hadn’t spent the entire pandemic saying “look” every time Bug moved a paw, or fell asleep, or looked like he always looked, but in a way that hit different this time? We’re not just in love with this stupid little flat-faced cat, he’s the texture of our lives.

      "Come to the closet, she's curled up in the corner and it's cute" how many times?

    3. He’s just a cat, is what I tell myself when things feel particularly dark. It never feels particularly true.

      The thing that is so hard about losing Just A Pet is confronting for the first time all of what you have built up inside yourself around your relationship with that pet. It is humbling to pull back a defense mechanism of "just an animal" and to realize that part of why it hurts so much is how thoroughly you had integrated your routine with them into your own idea of self.

    1. Underneath the right-wing outrage against Big Tech is the angry recognition that America’s most dynamic and fastest-growing companies all recognize that, when they must choose, choosing the values of metropolitan America is just better business. The Pride flag is more lucrative than the Confederate flag, and nobody knows that better than the Confederate flag’s last standard-bearers.

      This is a very good paragraph. This in turn is due to a number of factors, some benign -- cities really are more productive -- and some malignant -- how much of NYC's tax base is owed to the extractive relationship between finance and the rest of the nation?

    1. there's something about standing in a room with someone, sharing a beer, knowing they're your community and you can't just put them on blast, and knowing that what you're doing together cannot really be sold that feels so reassuring

      Alternative religious movements suffer mightily from having their existence always be precarious, never quiet and assumed in the way a village church can imagine itself to have always been, always going to be.

    2. But scenes are crafts honed over time - listening to what your friends make, and then going one better. You know, that remix culture, that - I want to start with someone else's song, but build on it as well. Those kinds of knowledge and development that can only take place in temporal locations. Can they form on a twitter which is chopped up, competitive, and propelled by rage? Does twitter exist in linear time? When the format of where we exist requires me to produce content every day and rewards me for making confident hot takes and never forgets when I fuck up: we lose that gestation time and doubt and room to experiment.

      I think you can have this on the internet, but not on Twitter or Instagram. The remixes and social relations have to be able to be traversed through links, not presented in order of Engagement by an algorithm.

    3. Can't I just like watching films and collecting cheap ceramic? Why does it have to be a career choice. How do we resist capitalism in the world when we cannot even resist it in our souls?

      There's also the desire for a certain mode of relating to others, which can be distinct from that Making It A Career (though of course it isn't only). "Hey, let's get serious about this." Let's build this into something more. But then the form of "more" one can easily imagine is to make it money-making...

    4. The point at which something becomes commodifiable is the end of innovation; it becomes a tightening noose of fewer and fewer visual/social signifiers.

      Sometimes there is then a second ironic bloom of reappropriation, of course.

    5. In a magical context, this could be disagreeing with someone's theory of magic they're trying to sell - that can't be a conversation, because they can't ever approach you as an equal instead of a threat to their dominance.

      Plus there's no mindset of discovery there, because it degrades their ability to act as an authority.

    6. You're attempting to building an income on the blurring between shopping spaces and social spaces, but simultaneously quite angry when people try to treat it as social spaces.

      I recently signed up for an illustrator's Patreon largely because it had Discord benefits. I have no desire for the parasocial "hang out with creator X", but for the other people into her stuff. With this blurring, there's a potential for -- like a fan club is sad material to build your identity on, consumption-minded, but the relationships that can be built within one among the fans can be real and interesting and fruitful.

    7. doing the emotional labour of running an online business (which is degrading to everyone and everything involved).

      I don't know that I totally buy that it's essentially degrading -- it's more like it changes what you thought was the essence of their thing. A lot of this applies to the illustrators I follow. Are they doing Art? Are they exploring the vibes they can evoke, the connections to ideas and social forms? Or are they hawking tchotchkes?

      I like tchotchkes. I don't want to sound too down on them. But you feel taken in by the ambiguity when you hadn't realized that it's vinyl stickers at the center of it all.

    1. The children of well-off, well-educated meritocrats are thus perfectly situated to predominate at the elite colleges that produced their parents’ social standing in the first place.

      Eliding the distinctions among lawyers, journalists, and tech workers to make one category feels weird here. Engineers' kids are engineers far more often, but quite frequently not routing through fancy schools.

    2. More broadly, changing this sorting mechanism requires transforming our whole moral ecology, such that possession of a Stanford degree is no longer seen as signifying a higher level of being.

      JFC, Brooks -- only y'all fancy-ass people ever thought it signified that!

    3. Both embrace the symbolic class markers of the sociologically low—pickup trucks, guns, country music, Christian nationalism.

      Remember when those NYC political candidates thought a house cost 100K? I would love to have everyone invoking "pickup trucks" as a cultural signifier add a footnote with how much they think a pickup truck costs.

    1. Still, some worry that the pass will be a financial windfall for people from privileged backgrounds while doing little to help others expand their cultural horizons.“A kid from the projects will lean toward what he already knows,” said Pierre Ouzoulias, a senator for the French Communist Party who has pushed to scrap the pass. “I can’t for one moment imagine a kid using the pass to go listen to Baroque opera.”

      How is it not a windfall for "others"?