Expect open rebellion in a lot of areas. Most of the world is clued into the idea of remote observers posing behind duck blinds with clip boards, it's just that we haven't experienced visceral provocation yet.
This takes the conceptual hazard to another level.
The way it goes down, in order to habituate a mob is to wait for a generation to grow up, having no memory of ever living another way.
Then the real exploitation begins.
So, as with environmental pollution, it's not really our problem, but 20 or 30 years from now? Forget it. Those lives are already ruined.
Sometimes I think about what kind of yak shaving it takes to put together some menial technical detail, and I just throw the idea out, if it doesn't feel like the implementation is clean enough.
If someone told me that in order to take a picture of some natural landscape, I'd have to throw 7 brand new 8TB hard drives in the garbage, in order to capture a 64 megapixel image, I'd say "not worth it."
It challenges one's natural disinclination towards waste. I think that's a pretty normal gut response. Gifted with an a priori awareness of certainty of return on investment, it makes sense dive in, get knee deep, ignore the intuition that wells up around thoughts of sunk cost fallacies, and push through the hard parts. But when you're not a fortune teller, that risk aversion tends to help, more than harm.
But, you know, maybe that's the kind of thing that separates people like me from true success.
In some way's, I'd be willing to entertain the idea that all of the people who voted Trump, all still use AOL.com email addresses, browse the internet on Gateway 2000 tower desktop computers, and click every email attachment and read every chain letter forwarded to them.
I'd like to believe that, because if it's not true, something weirder is afoot.
My thinking is really that the organic Trump voter wasn't hacked, and that, to them, the upset is only such that Pepsi won the election, and not Coca-cola. That if they weren't supposed to vote Trump, he wouldn't have been an official party candidate. That having a TV show made him as qualified as being a movie star qualified Reagan. That being a TV star, and a billionaire qualified him in ways that simply being married to a former president would not qualify his opponent. That his opponent would be less historic for having been a first lady (a presidency in her husband's shadow), and that, shockingly, the perceived charisma of one opponent represented the mirror reflection of how the other was perceived by their rival.
If Trump won organically, it means so many people really are "like that" and that many at-large voters are simple-minded, easily lead astray, and thus all democratic votes are suspect, and that putting the levers of control, and vesting democracy in them is a complete mistake.
That it's okay to override their choice, because their choice is dumb.
If you accept that narrative, other consequences become rational.
But, if it was a cheat, a hack, a derailment, sabotage. If removal is legal and based on rational facts. That the people you meet, who openly admit to voting for Trump are discredited for other reasons, then an override of this outcome is just a speed bump, a pot hole, an ordinary defect, a SNAFU and a tire change.
He is not an exclusionary person, and labeling him as such, based on an impulsive reaction to an abstract word, with multiple contextual interpretations, is a misguided interpretation of recent events.
His frustration at irrational demands for unnecessary effort is understandable.
So what's up with tangentially related associations like Parkinsons, Lewy Body dementia (see: Robin Williams) and also Chicken Pox and Shingles. Aren't these all a relatable set of problems, then?
There's this cross section of people who physically wretch and convulse at hearing that word, and can be whipped into an animalistic rage with the mention of it.
When I hear it used in a certain way, by certain media outlets, it's obvious that they're gunning for a pavlovian response.
It's incredibly manipulative, and the real problem I have with it, is that an astounding number of people eat it up, eager to froth at the mouth and start speaking in tongues, wailing and gnashing teeth.
It's funny, but maybe three quarters of all people are looking for a reason to just unload on someone, at any given moment. They really want the lid lifted, so they can vent some rage onto another person. People may differ on how they rationalize the way they find targets, but one common trait unites them, in that more than half of everyone is looking for a fight.
Ads drive less than 10% of all revenue. Ads make a difference in competitor market share, when saturated, tipping swing votes in a deadlock. In many other scenarios, ad exposure has no measurable effect of success or failure.
I came here to say that my success in life does not depend on anyone pushing a like button. Please connect the dots for me, and tell me why I am wrong about that.
Expect open rebellion in a lot of areas. Most of the world is clued into the idea of remote observers posing behind duck blinds with clip boards, it's just that we haven't experienced visceral provocation yet.
This takes the conceptual hazard to another level.
The way it goes down, in order to habituate a mob is to wait for a generation to grow up, having no memory of ever living another way.
Then the real exploitation begins.
So, as with environmental pollution, it's not really our problem, but 20 or 30 years from now? Forget it. Those lives are already ruined.