I wonder why are such sayings NOT persecuted as libelous; then again I think they have bigger fish to fry now (i.e. bigger crimes to punish i.e. scihub)
but it makes sense that they should pursue such sayings because prestigious magazines are all about 'status' and 'signaling' and what people think; specially now that technology has made their former 'logistical' contributions redundant (referring to the printing of the stuff and getting it to where it's needed) and also how the actual peer reviews are essentially volunteer labor, again because they have their prestige.
what worries me is that it'll realtime correct what I say into what I mean so perfectly that I won't be able to learn to do it on my own.
Once our capacity to 'self-correct' (which is the essence of healing) becomes unused we will begin to lose it.
I guess in such a world we all talk to our personal 'computers' and they communicate us to other humans translating everything automatically. sounds like we will be so free that we won't have to learn to talk to others, 'our' computers will do that for us, and so on until we don't know whether we are ourselves or our computers are us; perfectly assimilating us into the borg.
we will have accomplished a more perfected state of "freedom": we will have become free from having to be alive!!
solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores.
I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the only way to really change what any computer device does/can do is through app stores. No more programming languages; specially not 'open ones' for your own computer hygiene (or safety).
heck, at this moment I'm worried about a future (I hope it stays a future plan forever) agendas against teaching people to read and write. Now that computers can engage in verbal (oral) communication is just a matter of time.
this is unnecessary, of course I know this. It's the reason Americans are now engaging in 'health tourism' a.k.a. going anywhere else in the world to get health care, specially when they know the specific procedure they need.
throwing a capitalistic-optimizing 'machine' into health services has been a huge mistake which is seemingly impossible to fix... this is how systems collapse; when the system is so resistant to fixing its 'problems' that only changing the entirety (or a significantly larger chunk) of the system fixes the problems; but the problems have to be 'life or death' (or 'do-or-die') level for this to kick in.
the biggest issue is that for a level of the system there is no problem, people die anyways. but for another level of the system (the human individual perspective) this IS a problem. if/when the system ignores a level of itself it becomes unstable like it's happening now.
For the human individual person, the interests (the goal) is to care for their health; but amazon is a corporation: for them the real goal is profit, not health.
I'm saying that for the human the incentives should be all about health. the money, the costs are the "obstacle".
On the other hand, for the corporation the incentives are the profit. The health is a cost (or "obstacle").
with this 'frame' in mind I'm saying the incentives are not aligned on their own because the priorities are in conflict.
What's truly the problem here, is how healthy patients aren't 'good' customers of health-services. Then again, this is not a problem unique to Amazon, but they're getting into this 'rodeo'.
call me old school, but it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated (recreated or reproduced by technology) while the 'creator'
in practice whomever owns the 'licenses' continues to collect payment for what the technology does (namely: machine-based repetition/reproduction)
I guess this is the way NFTs can make real sense: when whomever owns the NFT receives auto-blockchain royalty payments for the underlying asset (if/when the blockchain system gets political support)
but at some point you must think more deeply about what illusions are in a grander sense...
this is a jumping off point into considering your own mind as an illusion. your own self with its sense of personhood: i.e. yourself as the it-element in a I-it interaction.
But if we leave it at that, it's essentially a very nihilistic (deterministically reduced), so either turn back, or keep going:
the fact that your own personhood is itself very much an illusion is OK. such illusion, however illusory, has real and potentially useful effects
when you interact with your computer, do you do it terms of the logical gates you know are there? of course not, we use higher level constructs (essentially "illusory" conceptual constructions) like processes and things provided by the operating system; we use languages, functions, classes: farther and farther away from the 'real' hardware-made logic gates with more and more mathematical-grade illusions in between.
so the illusions have real effects, in MOST contexts, it's better to deal with the illusions than with the underlying implementations. dunno, what if we tried to think of a HTTP search request into some API in terms of the voltage levels in the ethernet wires so that we truly 'spoil the illusion'??
the future of interaction with computers is not programming languages but App stores. Want to print "hello world" in your terminal? gotta buy the app, or be 'subscribed' to your operating system.
Gotta get ready to have to pay a 'microtransaction fee' to edit one image one time in my own computer. While also paying a subscription for: the hardware, the electricity, the internet, the operating system/app store, and finally (coming soon) each click (or however the most profit is made) on the actual app/program for image editing.
not looking forward to getting triple (then quadruple, and so on until we revolt?) charged (hardware, electricity, internet) for doing things with "my own" computer. then again, it's just like taxes.
yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too.
but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
I suppose America is still chief imperial hegemon... imma go check myself in. bye