I figured you had, and posted it for others. Should have made that clearer.
FWIW I didn't find Zitron's framing of it misleading, having now read it (I'd read excerpts of that book before, and maybe even that chapter, but couldn't recall for sure, so re-read it just now)
Page 93 (as numbered on the pages, IDK which PDF "page" [edit: nb the table of contents gets it wrong, one supposes the pages were re-numbered in the digitization process, or something]) or just search "Capitalism and Discrimination" and it'll get you there fast, for anyone who's interested. The chapter is... well, I found a real howler, but then I have odd taste in entertainment, sometimes, and my enjoyment was almost certainly not by a route the author intended. I'd recommend it just on that basis, regardless of its role in this thread but, uh, only for my fellow weirdos.
Yes... there are a lot of expensive efforts of dubious actual value under way. Basically every company is trying to see if they can replace workers with AI, driving this demand. I've had insight into several of these, and from what I've seen, not a lot of people need to worry about their jobs in the next few years.
- History gets cleared sometimes. Bookmarks are (basically) forever.
- History includes tons of ephemeral shit, like search result pages (useless, will be different the next time you load it) and redirect pages, or things I've actively decided not to care about. If I looked at 20 shirts on a store-site but only had 3 still open, odds are good I already firmly rejected the other 17. Straight history loses the information of which ones I cared about the most.
I hit the 500 limit a couple times a year. Bookmark all, close all.
I use groups when I'm really deep in a topic, but the rest of the time I forget which groups I have and that I ought to use them, just end up putting it all on the default group until it hits 500.
I'm not consistent about going back and closing tabs. By the time I've browsed on a couple topics, I have enough tabs open I can't see the titles any more, and it's downhill from there. Some of them, I think "this is good, I'll come back to this when I get a chance" so I don't want to mass-close them. Eventually I'm opening new tabs of tabs I already have open, because it's faster than finding the original.
Every now and then, I declare tab bankruptcy, mass bookmark them (to get over the feeling that I'll be closing something important), and close them all.
I've never, ever, once, in 15ish years of operating this way, looked at any of the bookmarks.
[EDIT] I guess the main issue is that deciding to close tabs I'm not currently looking at takes time, because I have to evaluate each one, and when I'm down to just favicons on the tab itself, that means actually looking at each page. Just periodically mass-bookmarking and closing is less work. It's a UI issue. Plus, if I'm looking at my browser, it's because I'm doing something, and that something is basically never "playing tab-gardener". My very first action is gonna be "new tab" and go from there.
It's a relatively recent change, too. Transition from "the executives and managers mostly came up through 10-25 years of doing 'lower' jobs in the company, and very much know how the business actually works" to "we hire MBAs to those roles directly" was throughout the '70s-'90s.
Finance and business grads have really taken over the economy, not just through technocratic "here's how to do stuff" advice but by personally taking all the reigns of power. They're even hard at work taking over medicine and pushing doctors out of the work-social upper-middle-class. Already did it with professors. Lawyers seem safe, so far.
Talent and hard work at what is what's missing from these discussions, I think.
I literally don't even know what kind of work I should do if I wanted to make a billion dollars. I think it's mostly delegating, and convincing people to give me ownership of things that throw off money that I get, or to invest in things for which I have such ownership so my ownership becomes more valuable. But in concrete terms, I don't even know what to do to make that happen, like, step 1 of that process, I have no idea. Just being talented at programming and working hard at it (more talented than I am, and working harder than I do, even) doesn't seem to be a great way to get there. You have to focus on and have talent for activities that cause capital to end up owned by you, and I have zero idea where to even start with that kind of thing.
Meanwhile, I was socialized as a kid into a smear of multiple Fussellian "Prole" categories, plus his "Middle", so I have to hype myself up and still feel bad just to hire a plumber and not hover around them because I feel like I ought to be helping (and definitely feel like I've failed on some level any time I choose to do that instead of doing the work myself), and the notion of owning a business but not working at, or just being a kind of hype-man for it mostly for my personal benefit, weirds me the fuck out, it feels fragile and strange. Why would people let me do that and make so much money from it? It's so weird; I get that's how things work, but the idea of doing it feels scary and kinda gross, and I don't mean because of risk of failure.
I think I'd need a huge mindset shift and a totally different skillset to get actually-rich. I'd need to be a different person entirely. Meanwhile there's a long list of things I am or could become talented at, and could work hard at, and that produce real value, that might make me a living but will never get me past seven or maaaaybe with a ton of right-place-right-time luck ten digits of lifetime earnings, let alone net worth.
When watching stuff with friends, we pre-curate a list of perhaps 20, or fewer, titles so the "deciding which things we might watch" part is out of the way and, worst case, we can just easily select one at random and know it's something we wanted to watch.
We do this because of the very effect you mention: otherwise, we'll burn enough time to watch a good chunk of a movie, just scrolling.
> No More Coupon Scams: most people recognize rebates/coupons are scams, and the rise of discounters/warehouse stores/Internet shopping has largely obviated them
This one got much worse: now you have to install an app (fast food) and/or join a data-harvesting "loyalty program" (grocery stores, Target, others) to get what should be the normal menu prices instead of the batshit crazy list prices. This affects most of the same places that had coupons (plus, actually, there are still tons of coupons? I don't really understand this item)
> but on LinkedIn itself you have to confront the reality that these people, often colleagues / former colleagues etc. are being serious
I doubt many are being serious.
Business culture (at least in the US) is so steeped in lying and general fake-ness that in-group signaling as "real business person" involves public performances of bullshit.
It's what you're supposed to do in interviews: bullshit just the right way, to show you understand the game and are willing to debase yourself to play it. Otherwise you're "risky", either due to excessive commitment to ethical principles or to being too clueless or inept to play the game right. That's what's going on, on LinkedIn. "Humility" and "realness" even have to be faked just the right way.
Had a long-time friend group explode last year over this. Years of behind-their-backs shit-stirring lies by a couple members of the group finally got figured out and called out, publicly, which lit the fuse. Exact same behavior that was called out was immediately employed to try to spin that and get these people's "enemies" pushed out of the group, which was the bomb going off. About half the group survived with some scarring, the rest just shattered.
Toxic people gonna toxic.
> There’s always going to be a shot caller or instigator behind it and everyone else who is weak willed will get on board with it.
Yeah, a major factor was lots of people putting up with some real bullshit for years to try to keep the peace. That, and the ones who did try to do something about it approached the problem-people one-on-one, which just led to them being lied to ("oh no, there's no problem between us") and then smeared even harder to others, and marginalized, having no idea why any of it was happening.
Early Internet is before the Web was its main thing.
Early Web is before most netizens (remember that?) had ever heard or seen the term "blog", and much of the web was folks' "home pages" on whatever weird topic they were interested in (some were effectively "blogging", but that wasn't a term yet—"web log" might see limited use). This was the Nerd Web.
Mid-period is from the rise of "blog" to the rise of the smartphone, Google capitulating in the never-ending war on spammers and ruining itself instead, and Facebook coming about. Roughly '08 would be the end of this period. Call this the Macromedia Flash Web, perhaps.
Everything since that is the Late, or Hellscape, Web, an age dominated to an extreme degree by spam, scams, ads, astroturfing, and absolute insanity becoming normalized and spilling over into real life. This is the part that made it clear we'd have been better off never inventing any of this.
> In theory, that insurgent force could work against a tyrannical federal government. In practice, even if most of the people with the civilian firepower weren't supporting the tyranny I'm not sure it would work out. Conducting an insurgency against a foreign occupier is a lot different than conducting one against a domestic oppressor.
Yeah, precisely my personal take against the current "from utility" argument in the amendment's favor: it's very much not clear that they're especially useful for resisting oppressive governments, for one thing because those are often quite popular at first, and for another, because successful examples of that tend to involve a ton of foreign aid, making the role of private arms rather minor. Meanwhile, examples involving foreign invaders are extremely different (and also often involve lots of foreign aid).
Like, maybe the right deserves to stand anyway for other reasons (maybe it just ought to! Maybe it doesn't need a reason!) but I think that particular argument for it is really misguided, especially if one takes it seriously when forming one's opinions about the broader political landscape. IMO there is no meaningful safeguard against tyranny to be found in that amendment.
Not “always”. It wasn’t the reason that became an amendment, national defense was. People later emphasized that rather off-label justification when state militias were nationalized and the main purpose of the amendment became wholly obsolete.
There are also constant ongoing efforts at improving efficiency, which is why they keep going “ah ha! We found it!” then poor bureaucrats who are trying to do their fucking jobs while these idiots run around messing things up have to explain, “no, you’re seeing an artifact of record-keeping practices that exist because [very good reason], you’re wrong yet again, maybe try asking literally anyone who knows about these data sets”
They also love to throw around the word “fraud” while bringing no charges. Despite the DOJ being in Trump’s control. Same pattern as other lies (“rampant voter fraud! We have proof” ok so when you’re in change you’ll prosecute, right? You should! That’s bad if true! I mean I’ve looked at your proof and it doesn’t appear true, but maybe you have more proof you haven’t shown! “Uhhh… [smoke bomb]”)
Plus, we have the GAO and CBO. Trump won’t want to listen to them because they’ll say “our #1 problem is we keep cutting taxes”, and “there’s not much waste to be eliminated cutting government workers”, because that’s true at this point, but they exist. It’s not like nobody’s been looking at these kinds of things. That’s just bullshit.
The keffiyeh bit reads as really suspect (not saying the student was lying—mistakes are common in these situations) given all the other details of that incident I can find in other sources covering this. That claim appears to be the only connection to the pro-Palestine movement of the attack by a 52 year old white townie whose mugshot reads "homeless"—all of which paints a very different picture.