Ah, see, you didn’t recreate it just because of the interface; you recreated because it’s currently a high-trust social environment, because your friends and family are using it, because they know who you are. Old Facebook was high-trust because we all were naive and trusting.
Perhaps the question is how to continue to create high-trust environments from a social perspective, not an interface perspective.
Is it just me or is it a huge letdown that the text is all AI-generated? Or at least, in the same kind of saccharine style? Are people not able to detect this?
There’s a distinction between technical drawing in plan and section, vs perspective. When you draw at scale, the size of your pen and its marks become scaled to the size of human movement. That is, the end effector of your pen(cil) tip becomes a metonymic representation of the person. When you focus at that scale, then it allows one to think ‘into’ a space.
Perhaps what I’m talking about is drawing or sketching with an accurate scale. The benefits of working with scale drawings is that the paper (whether physical or digital) becomes a simulation environment that is able to prove or disprove hypotheses - like “will this space feel cramped” or “will this furniture fit in this room”, or “will this crowd be able to flow this way”. This happens because the drawing space, as a Cartesian space, holds information about dimensions, as a consistent mapping from the physical world into the drawing world.
I’m not sure what the analogue would be for technology. Imagine if UMD diagrams or drawings for microservices were somehow scaled based on the robustness of each server? In the physical world, constraints move pretty slowly - your foundation usually isn’t going to move 5’ to the east in the next 100 years, whereas compute capacity might change a great deal overnight. The need for a consistent mapping space seems less important, because technology changes rapidly.
But if anyone has any examples of the equivalent of a scale drawing in technology, let me know!
The truth is the truth, whether or not it might align with a narrative or stereotype.
For example: NSA wiretapping was a truth that happened to align with pre-existing conspiracy theory narratives. It was easy to dismiss it as a crackpot theory, but that didn’t make the truth any less (or more) true.
If someone says “if you believe this might be true, you’re [a bad person]”, I would consider this person fundamentally against truth, and someone more interested in shaping narratives than upholding accuracy and integrity.
“Israel, thank you for your cooperation, my gosh, we’re really going to get to the bottom of this” = ‘We know what you’re doing, fuck off’