These systems should not scale. Giving everyone free broadcast capability is a sign of mentally bankruptcy.
Its like giving every neuron in your head broadcast capability. What happens when they all fire at the same time?
Or like giving everyone in the world a radio transmitter that can broadcast on any frequency. What happens when they all transmit on the same frequency at the same time?
These idiots are scaling things because its become possible technically. There is no other logic to whats going on. And its producing/enabling massive amounts of useless noise. The UN report on the Attention Economy says 0.5% of content on the net is actually consumed by anyone.
> These systems should not scale. Giving everyone free broadcast capability is a sign of mentally bankruptcy. ... These idiots are scaling things because its become possible technically. There is no other logic to whats going on.
I agree, but I don't think it's a sign of "mentally bankruptcy," but an indication of the flaws and limitations of contemporary ideology. They're not just doing it because it's technically possible, they wouldn't even try and no one would sign up if our ideology didn't say it was a good thing to do.
Its digital economy doesnt add up. Very few of that 1 billion online has cash. About 10% can afford things. The next 20-30% function on credit. The remaining either depend on govt funded services or ad supported services (why anyone even wants to pay for those ads targeting the cashless is an unsolved mystery but I guess subprime ads are similar to subprime mortgages). And its probably easier to get away pulling the plug on a sub prime digital economy than a real one.
Diversity does make a diff but it depends on the problem. Its sort of the Explore-Exploit trade off.
For Explore type problems diversity has a much bigger impact then Exploit type problems. To add to the drama/misunderstandings/confusion sometimes you assemble a team for explore and they do find the gold mine, but then they arent suited to exploit it cuz its in their nature to explore. And vice versa.
It only matters to the empire builders and scale bots. They are the ones who are desperate for common reality to simplify their mindless goals usually planted in their head by some other dumbass.
End of the day everyone has a 3 inch chimp brain. Its not designed for common reality.
2 brains growing in same environments, exposed to the same things through their live can turn out to have totally different beliefs. And thats just looking at my own family members.
Its like planting 2 seeds in the same soil, giving them the same sun and water dont produce the same exact number of leaves, flowers or fruits.
Humans are inherently social creatures. That is why solitary confinement is a particularly cruel and dreaded punishment. In order to have social order there needs to be some semblance of a shared reality.
You are splitting the cost though. Greater the time you spend on bread winning, and it always increases as work/fam responsibilities & fam size increase with time, less time you have on the home front. It makes a big diff(a real relief infact) if SO is full time manning that front.
This requires tremendous trust in the breadwinnner, though. Sexual competition is a reality, which is why infidelity happens. If the housewife/husband is deemed replaceable, then there is an implicit power differential between the breadwinner and house spouse, which opens the "lesser" half to abuse (physical, emotional, financial etc.). My recommendation to anyone considering house spousing is to have a contingency plan.
The most efficient solution for narcissism (i.e., abandonment of a non-breadwinning spouse) is not more narcissism (i.e., self-focused contingency planning). Unfortunately, in a highly individualistic (i.e., narcissistic) society, it may be the only one that is practical.
On a philosophical level I agree with you that it's not the answer. But I don't think contingency planning is narcissistic. Maybe I should define what a typical such plan looks like? To me it is simply having skills to become a breadwinner yourself should you need to. It doesn't need to be more than that. Ultimately however society needs more appreciation of how and why long-term monogamous relationships provide both individual and communal stability, and how the emotional/physical labor of house spousing provides value beyond immediate survival.
We largely agree. I think contingency planning is also needed for death of the breadwinner. Life insurance is always limited and sometimes not possible due to preexisting conditions. Thus, my objection is when distrust is the primary motivation for contingency planning.
Yup things can/will get complicated but avoidance of risk doesnt solve the og problem of burnout. And with age/time/screwing up both sides learn that. There is probably no other way to build that trust.
> My recommendation to anyone considering house spousing is to have a contingency plan.
Relationships are about trust and vulnerability. If you're making fucking contingency plans, you're cheating at being in a relationship and don't belong in one.
My own advice would be that if you catch your spouse making contingency plans, see to it that their plan is executed as quickly and efficiently as possible. People that know they have a way out of trouble tend to do very nasty things before justifying their execution (same reason not to trust anyone of a citizenship you don't share). Get out of that relationship immediately while terms are good. The contingency will be executed by them under the worst of terms otherwise (expect to be provoked into violence or accused of spousal rape or worse, seemingly out of nowhere).
Its like giving every neuron in your head broadcast capability. What happens when they all fire at the same time? Or like giving everyone in the world a radio transmitter that can broadcast on any frequency. What happens when they all transmit on the same frequency at the same time?
These idiots are scaling things because its become possible technically. There is no other logic to whats going on. And its producing/enabling massive amounts of useless noise. The UN report on the Attention Economy says 0.5% of content on the net is actually consumed by anyone.